A letter to Mike Rinder: Your victim speaks up (Part 4) (February 24, 2018)

At least by 1984, from what has been reported, you had made it into the Hubbard sect’s criminal conspiracy. Probably, because of the realities at that time, when you were appointed a director in the newly incorporated Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) in 1982, you were a coconspirator. As you know, your conspiracy is structured and operates as a techno-occult Mafia family. Many of your sect’s victims and critics called your operation a “crime cult” or “criminal cult,” and I don’t believe you ever challenged that label. I am sure I called your operation that myself, and explained why that designation is accurate, defensible and justified. Now, of course, with the solidification and persistence of other Scientologist sects, your operation is more properly called a “crime sect” or “criminal sect.”

For years, you were not only un direttore della società, you were your sect’s primo caporegime. According to reports, you were Commanding Officer OSA US in 1984 and CO OSA International by 1985, and you held that post for twenty or so years. As capo, OSA personnel internationally were your crew. You ran una rete di consiglieri for the boss.

Rathbun was twenty years the underboss, the sotto capo. Hubbard was the boss, the capo famiglia. In fact, once we Flag crew came ashore from the “Apollo” in 1975, we commonly referred to him as “the boss.” He knew we called him that, and he liked it. When Hubbard died in 1986, Don Miscavige succeeded him, and remains capo famiglia. Hubbard went off to Bersaglio Due and is a sort of capo galattico di tutti capi galattici. I had left the famiglia, la comunione at the end of 1981. By not telling the truth about your victimization of the SP class, you are still honoring or applying Scientology’s Omertà, its code of silence.

Zinberg, who is proudly appropriately Jewish, said in his interview, “My behavior as a Scientologist was the functional equivalent of a Nazi.” In that analogy, which, like the mob analogy, is also accurate, during Zinberg’s time doing covert GO ops, Hubbard was the Führer. His Scientology sect’s organization form, like the Nazi org form, was a police state dictatorship. Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue was the Stellvertreter des Führers, the Deputy Führer. Jane Kember, the Guardian Worldwide, would have been the ReichsführerSS, the head of the Schutzstaffel. In 1980 and 1981, I was Führer Hubbard’s Personal Biography Researcher and Archivist, der persönliche Biographie Forscher und Archivar.

After Hubbard’s death, Miscavige became the Führer. He seized Hubbard’s dictatorship reins, and even boasts publicly of controlling Scientology and Scientologists by “policing” them. Rathbun, already a high-ranking Scientolonazi, became demi-stooge Deputy Führer, der halbstichwortgeberende Stellvertreter des Führer. You became Scientology’s Reichsführer-SS, responsible on paper, as Heinrich Himmler had been, for security, surveillance and terror. Himmler oversaw the silencing and destruction of Jews and other persons and groups the Nazi hierarchy wanted silenced or destroyed. You oversaw the silencing or destruction of SPs, who are the functional equivalent of the Jews and other human victims of the Nazis. Like many high ranking Nazi officers or officials, you have used “die Nürnberger Verteidigung” for your criminal and antisocial actions, “Befehl ist Befehl,” the defense that you were following policy and obeying your Führers’ orders.

You and your coconspirators embraced what Jesse Prince called a “required protocol to hate.” You had to hate me, and a few other SPs like me. George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four had the “Two Minutes Hate.” Prince was a budding insider in the conspiracy between 1983 and 1986. Hubbard and Miscavige, in 1984, demanded that their “Protocol to Hate” be twenty-four-seven. You have hated me, in willing compliance your conspiracy’s protocol, policy, and command intention, day in and day out, for thirty-six years.

Admittedly, there could be other rationales you have latched onto for continuing to hate me and your other victims, since you claim to have freed yourself from your conspiracy’s dominion, which had required you, while officially on the sect’s payroll, to embrace hate as protocol. Regardless of what you might believe compels or justifies your hatred, however, what I believe underlies and anchors it, and has always underlain and anchored it, is cowardice. As terrible and embarrassing as this condition can seem, it can also be viewed as a blessing because it is so easy and pleasant to heal.

Prince wrote in 2014:

There were years of board room meeting at ASI [Author Services, Inc.] to figure out how to get rid of Gerry Armstrong, L Ron junior, David Mayo and a few other people who had devoted their lives in servitude to L Ron and his grand ideas. All of these devoted people turned out to be Suppressive Persons all along according to the instructions from L Ron via his publishing organization ASI. It was new management’s job to hunt them down and get them put in jail.

[…]

It was required protocol to hate and contribute to the destruction of men and women that I had never met or laid eyes on. We would be sitting in the board room at L Ron’s Author Services organization reading advices from L Ron calling for the heads of staff he felt offended him somehow. Listening to Miscavige and other staff figuring out ever clever ways to get rid of the people who were aggravating poor L Ron.

[…]

There were banker boxes full of “advices” [orders] from L Ron spewing hate filled vitriol about Gerry. The information that Gerry provided to Russell Miller and Jon Atack about L Ron’s actual history did in fact expose his underbelly and pulled back the curtains on his imaginary life he expected others to believe.1

That you have “done a lot,” as Sharone Stainforth says, meaning you have done a lot of good in this period when you’ve been presenting as doing good, can be irrelevant to an underlying condition of cowardice. The claim, in fact, can be a pretext, and pretexts are commonly expressions or effects of cowardice. Zinberg could not but have done all sorts of human good during those thirty-five years after conspiring against Paulette Cooper. Yet he remained in his own eyes a coward. He must have been a coward in others’ estimation as well; no one who heard his story, that I have seen, has said, “No, Len you weren’t a coward.” People have agreed with him that for thirty-five years he was a coward, and also obviously agreed that by telling what he had done he ended his long duration cowardice.

Clearly the same condition could exist for you, and, if so, something should be done about it. You have put yourself on public display, and have put your character in issue for analysis, and you have done so for financial gain. You have produced a television series with Leah Remini that propagandizes yourself as courageous and truth-telling. This is what you and Remini ask of the people you approached or selected for your episodes: “be courageous, and tell everyone about your experiences and knowledge.” But you have not done so yourself. You have not been courageous, you have never talked about what is serious, real and ongoing — your experiences and knowledge of your conspiracy’s persecution of SPs like me. By not telling the truth about this to in some way reverse the harmful effects of the wrong you did to us, you not only remain unrepentant but continue the persecution.

Notes

GA Letter to Jesse Prince (November 14, 2014)

Dear Jesse:

In my November 9 communication1, I mentioned that I would deal later with fact errors about me in your article,2 and I’m doing so now. I excerpted the section of the article that concerns me, and commented where I thought correction or clarification was needed.

JP: I began to recall being on the other side of the fence when Gerry Armstrong had to defend himself against Scientology style black ops for years.

What I had to defend against was war. It is understandable that the Scientologists waged Scientology style war; but because it is solely Scientologists, and their mercenaries, of course, who are waging it, and all in the cause of Scientology and in application of Scientology scriptural directives, it is proper to call what I had to defend against “war,” the Scientologists’ war on me.

Black ops are an essential option and channel in the Scientologists’ war machine. Again, because the Scientologists are the entities running the black ops, they’re properly Scientology black ops, rather than Scientology style black ops. If the Catholic Church has a war machine, and its black ops department got a writer’s finger prints on a sheet of paper and sent a threat letter to the Pope to get her falsely charged criminally, that would be a Scientology style black op. Or if the Catholic Church’s black ops department, with the Pope’s blessing and guidance, trained and drilled a priest to get close to some guy by pretending to be friendly, truthful and loving but really being an enemy, lying to the guy, covertly hostile to him and working for his destruction; then the priest and the Pope’s other agents covertly and unlawfully videotape their victim and pay a crooked cop for a license to do so; then the Pope and the whole Catholic Church hierarchy lie about their priest’s and their victim’s actions and words and even bear false witness against him in legal proceedings around the world; then the whole Catholic Church hierarchy conspires to frame the guy and have him criminally prosecuted; and then the whole Catholic Church hierarchy get their parishioners to join in the hate, the lies and the framing; that would be a Scientology style black op.

I am still the victim of the Scientologists’ black ops, which comprise an aspect of the war they wage on different fronts and channels. Certain aspects are very visible, so are not really black ops, even though the visible parts are targets on programs that contain black ops department targets as well. The Scientologists’ legal operations in their war on me are largely visible, even if their black and invisible ops might determine judicial outcomes; e.g., judge-, witness-, jury-, attorney-tampering. Much of what I had to defend against, and spent my time defending against during the years you were part of the Scientologists’ war effort, was their lawfare machine. Despite being in the throes of litigation, of course, someone doesn’t have to lose the awareness that Scientologists comprise an intelligence cult and always have black ops targeting people, certainly their adversaries in the legal arena.

In any case, you were in the Scientology hierarchy during some of the years when I defended against the actions of the Scientologists and their collaborators in their war on me. This would be the 1980’s into the early 1990’s.

JP: Scientology sued Jerry for absconding with 22 banker boxes of personal documents and artifacts of L Ron Hubbard.

No. I did not abscond as you describe it. I did abscond, in that I blew, I deserted –from post, from serving Hubbard, from the Sea Org, and from Scientology. To abscond is to depart in a sudden and secret manner, which I did. I absconded because, if I had not absconded but let my seniors know I was planning to leave, the Scientologists would have locked me up, and would have Lisa McPhersoned me. Although I absconded, I did not, however, abscond with 22 banker boxes of Hubbard materials. I did not abscond with any Hubbard materials, certainly not the materials that became central to the Scientologists’ initial lawsuit against me.

I absconded on December 12, 1981 with my wife Jocelyn. I obtained the documents that were the subject of the first Scientology v. Armstrong suit in late spring, early summer 1982. I obtained them from Omar Garrison, legally and with his permission, for the purpose of sending them to my attorneys for safety and for my defense in the war I knew the Scientologists were bringing to me. The Scientologists filed their suit on August 2, 1982.

The Scientologists did not sue me for absconding with 22 banker boxes of Hubbard materials. They sued me for the actions I took while on post in Hubbard’s Personal PR Bureau as his Archivist/Researcher and as the “research assistant” identified in the contract between AOSH Pubs DK and Omar Garrison for Garrison to write Hubbard’s biography. I provided materials from Hubbard’s personal archive and from other sources to Garrison in 1980 and 1981 pursuant to this contract, which had been negotiated and written by Hubbard’s personal attorney Alan Wertheimer. The Scientologists sued me for “conversion,” claiming that while working with Hubbard’s materials inside the cult, I converted them to my own use. The Scientologists even claimed that I converted to my own use the “xerographic and photographic paper and chemicals,” which I had purchased and consumed making copies of biographical materials for Garrison.

The Scientologists, using CSC as the plaintiff, also falsely claimed in their complaint that the documents in Hubbard’s archive were CSC’s personal property, not that they were Hubbard’s. On that false basis, the Scientologists could claim that CSC never gave me permission to provide anything to Garrison. I was able to show by Garrison’s contract, by my communications back and forth with Hubbard, and by other evidence, that I had the necessary permissions to provide Garrison Hubbard’s materials. And I was able to show that I had Garrison’s permission to provide some of these materials to my attorneys.

The Scientologists know all this, and know what the judge at my trial in LA Superior Court in 1984 specifically ruled about the chain of possession of the subject documents and my permissions to do with them what I did.

Judge Breckenridge: The court has found the facts essentially as set forth in defendant’s trial brief, which as modified, is attached as an appendix to this memorandum. In addition the court finds that while working for L.R. Hubbard (hereinafter referred to as LRH), the defendant also had an informal employer-employee relationship with plaintiff Church, but had permission and authority from plaintiffs and LRH to provide Omar Garrison with every document or object that was made available to Mr. Garrison, and further, had permission from Omar Garrison to take and deliver to his attorneys the documents and materials which were subsequently delivered to them and thenceforth into the custody of the County Clerk.3

That judgment was affirmed on appeal in 1991.4 The Scientologists and their collaborators continue to lie about my lawful possession of Hubbard’s materials, and get others to lie for them. Marty Rathbun, who, under cult head David Miscavige, ran the Scientology v. Armstrong litigation, and who knows the judgment in the case very well, continued this lie in his 2013 book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.

MR: Armstrong became increasingly paranoid under pressure and finally got spooked enough to go to Flynn for help. Armstrong also brought with him several boxes of biography archives he had lifted from the church; documents that demonstrated to him that Hubbard’s personal biography, promoted by the church, was full of holes. Memoirs (p. 193)

To “lift” as Rathbun is using the term here means to steal, or pilfer. If there had been 22 bankers boxes, or even one banker’s box, they all would have required lifting as in raising them to a higher position, even if I had lifted them from a shelf above my head. Lord knows, I have lifted many bankers boxes, including bankers boxes of what could be called “biography archives.” Rathbun knows, bemoaningly perhaps, but without a doubt, that I did not lift Hubbard’s documents as the Scientologists claimed. Rathbun also knows that the LA Superior Court adjudged that I did not lift, as in steal or pilfer, the subject documents. Rathbun knowingly serves Miscavige’s purposes by forwarding this lie he knows is a lie. You are serving Miscavige’s purposes by forwarding this lie; probably, I would hope, without knowing it is a lie.

Lawrence Wright did the same thing in his 2011 article in The New Yorker, stating as fact that while in the cult working on the Hubbard biography I had copied the subject documents “without permission” and that the Miller, Atack and Corydon books “all rely on stolen materials,” referring to the materials that had come out through my litigation. In The New Yorker, Wright repeated the Scientologists’ relentless black PR line despite my providing him and the fact checking crew the facts well before publication. I requested that the magazine correct these false statements, which are defamation per se, and I showed by showers of facts and docs that Wright was wrong. I had an enormously wondrous exchange with The New Yorker’s general counsel, and came away with one heck of a story, but the magazine, despite knowing they were wrong, and with no evidence, just kept on proclaiming they were right. It had to be I’d run into an agenda item.

You don’t have to go the way of The New Yorker, however. It is weird when you consider that this is such an important point in people’s psyches that some with no clue write about it, and so do writers who do have a clue. I correct the record when it’s possible, but the Scientologists and their knowing and unknowing collaborators just keep the black PR coming.

JP: I’m not trying to retell the story of Jerry Armstrong here but ultimately, Scientology paid Jerry a settlement of $800.000 in exchange for his promise not to copy or discloses the content of the banker boxes he’d taken.

But you are retelling my story here, and again, I had not taken banker boxes. As far as I am concerned, the Scientologists paid me to dismiss my legal claims, my causes of action, against them before trial of these claims, then set in March 1987. My causes of action were for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract. These arose from my 12 ½ years as a Scientologist victim of Hubbard and his cultists inside his Scientology cult, and from my 5 years as their wog victim of their fair game policy and actions after I left their cult. My dismissal of my claims was lawful for the Scientologists to settle with me.

The Scientologists and their collaborators claim in their attacks that what they paid me for was my agreement, on penalty of $50,000 per utterance, to maintain total silence about my experiences or knowledge relating to Scientology, Hubbard, orgs, groups, related entities, directors, officers, employees, volunteers, attorneys, etc., etc. Because Scientology is both a religion and a criminal conspiracy against rights, this is, clearly, to anyone with a clue, unlawful. It lawfully impermissibly violates the US Constitution, US laws, and international human rights charters. Therefore, these conditions cannot be what the Scientologists paid for.

The Scientologists could, probably lawfully, pay me whatever they wanted for any reason. The reason, however, could be unlawful, or unlawful in part. A litigation party could lawfully pay an opposing party to dismiss his legal claims; but that party could not, for example, pay another party, lawfully, to assassinate someone, a third party, as a condition of settlement. If such a contractual arrangement is lawful, the party who failed to execute the assassination contract could be punished for breach of contract. A very similar fact and legal situation exists in the Scientology v. Armstrong case.

JP: What the hell was in those boxes? It’s a fascinating, well documented cock up of what happened when author Omar Garrison and his research assistant Gerry Armstrong verified L Ron’s actual education and military record history among other subjects. In a nutshell, too much of the information they were able to factually verify of L Ron’s past was contemptuously contrary to the yarn L Ron spun for his devout adherents and any other ear that could hear. Gerry Armstrong went on to violate his agreement with Scientology hundreds of times and is still perused by Scientology’s attach dog legal machine.

Yes, I have violated the Scientologists’ condition that compels that I be completely silent about my now 45+ years of Scientology-related experiences and knowledge. I have violated that condition hundreds of thousands of times. I have even disclosed the content of the documents that were the subject of the Scientology v. Armstrong case, and I have copied documents that had once been in the case. But the key terms in the condition that I constantly violate are my experiences and knowledge, which cannot be but religious. And yes, I am still pursued and attacked by the Scientologists and their collaborators.

JP: I know something about this because I was present and informed about Jerry’s legal troubles with Scientology as they was happening. I recall being present when the conditions of the settlement agreement between Gerry Armstrong and Scientology (Which in effect included whatever was best for Author Services Inc, ASI) was negotiated.

As I wrote earlier, I was not present when the conditions of the Scientologists’ contract were negotiated. The existence and nature of negotiation is a factor in establishing a contract’s unconscionability. Mike Flynn presented the contract to me as a done deal. There was then no further negotiation regarding the conditions that I objected to and knew were impossible to comply with because Flynn stated that those conditions were “unenforceable,” “not worth the paper they’re printed on.” This was reasonable, and I am only more certain after all these years and throughout the Scientologists’ efforts to enforce their conditions that it is true.

JP: From 1983 until the settlement in 1986, I would receive on a daily basis, usually sometime between 6-8 pm, intelligence reports generated by staff of Special Project Operations (ASI), OSA and RTC concerning secret and illegal operations by Scientology against Jerry, his lawyer Michael Flynn, and other plaintiffs represented by Michael Flynn’s firm.

This is what I would like to interview you about.

In whatever communications I’ve had with you since you left the cult, this is the first time you’ve mentioned your involvement to that degree in the war on me. I’m surprised by that.

JP: The operations against Jerry’s lawyer included having knowledge of someone putting water in the gas tank of an airplane piloted by Michael Flynn with his son on board.

This became the subject of a case the Scientologists brought against Flynn in US District Court in LA. I believe it was dismissed as part of the December 1986 “global settlement.” I don’t recall Rathbun mentioning the airplane case in his Memoirs. Your knowledge could be helpful.

JP: There was instant access into the lives of people who were deemed enemy’s Scientology through well paid and placed private investigators. These professionals sold their services to their Scientology paymasters because they had the latest modern bugging technology that was confirmed US CIA grade technology. Scientology was able to buy the services of ex-police, ex-FBI and other agency. Phone records were a fruitful source of information. Through illegally obtaining phone records Scientology always seemed to be a step ahead of their perceived enemies. ASI lead attorney was Earle Cooley. A big part of his job as legal council was to made sure we rode a fine line to separate church principles from the illegal activities sanctioned by the same principles.

There were years of board room meeting at ASI to figure out how to get rid of Jerry Armstrong, L Ron junior, David Mayo and a few other people who had devoted their lives in servitude to L Ron and his grand ideas.

These ASI board room meetings are important, because the universal crime in Scientology is the conspiracy against rights. ASI, Hubbard’s personal for-profit company, was directing Scientology Church employees to get rid of people.

ASI board room meetings were, of course, after the “disbanding” of the Guardian’s Office. The Scientologists blamed all of their myriad public policy violations on the GO, in all sorts of legal filings, but most importantly in the submission to the IRS on which their 1993 tax exemption is based. You were doing at ASI exactly what the GO did in their war room meetings – figure out how to get rid of knowledgeable people who told the truth about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists.

JP: All of these devoted people turned out to be Suppressive Persons all along according to the instructions from L Ron via his publishing organization ASI. It was new management’s job to hunt them down and get them put in jail. Some may recall during the early to mid 1980’s L Ron got a bug up his ass and thought he had the power to have people criminally prosecuted for disobeying or being out of step with what he wanted. This is way past just having a stick up your ass, he really wanted this done and some people did get set up and went to jail. It was required protocol to hate and contribute to the destruction of men and women that I had never met or laid eyes on. We would be sitting in the board room at L Ron’s Author Services organization reading advice’s from L Ron calling for the heads of staff he felt offended him somehow. Listening to Miscavige and other staff figuring out ever clever ways to get rid of the people who were aggravating poor L Ron. As we sat there making up plans to attach the very same people who were at L Ron’s side doing everything in their power to do his will. L Ron never wavered when it came to annihilating the oldest and closest devote adherents he had. There is no retirement in the business of Scientology. Ron taught his prodigy to quickly and quietly get rid of the most loyal staff members without remorse.

There were banker boxes full of “advises” from L Ron spewing hate filled vitriol about Jerry. The information that Jerry provided to Russell Miller and Jon Attack about L Ron’s actual history did in fact exposed his underbelly and pulled back the curtains on his imaginary life he expected others to believe.

Now is a great time to make those bankers boxes known about, in as much detail as you can recall. There’s another volume: Ron the Vitriologist.

JP: During the negotiations to settle with Jerry Armstrong the settlement was intentionally construed to make it too easy for anyone to claim Jerry had violated his agreement with Scientology. Those who were present knew this settlement, that still plagues Jerry today was not done in good faith. The actual intent of the settlement was to cause Jerry to be incarcerated for violation of his settlement agreement and that is exactly what has happened. The other factor is this; Jerry didn’t want to take any of Scientology’s money and he didn’t want to settle. He was in effect forced to settle by his own lawyer Michael Flynn. Michael Flynn and his whole family had been hounded by Scientology hired thugs and they were tired of it. Flynn was also the attorney of record for other ex-Scientologist in a civil class action lawsuit….you get the idea.

That’s not really true. I was willing to settle with the Scientologists. I have no problem with taking their money. The Scientologists did not know what I would be receiving to dismiss my claims. They paid a lump sum to Flynn and he distributed it to his clients as agreed between him and us. I had no compulsion to not settle and instead to force a trial of my claims. I had already exposed Hubbard and the Scientologists. The amount that the Scientologists paid me to avoid a trial was reasonable, and I have never complained about that sum. I was not, however, willing to never discuss my experiences or knowledge, nor to be the Scientologists’ punching bag with no right to defend myself. I knew the Scientologists’ contract was unconscionably one-sided, and I considered it another act of fair game, not a sincere effort to end the conflict between us. I would urge you to listen to my discussion of the settlement in Berlin in 2011:

JP: We had them right where we wanted. Each person received a settlement but Jerry was the only hold out. We even knew about the deteriorating relationship between Jerry Armstrong and lawyer Michael Flynn because we were the ones causing the confusion. In the end Jerry was forced to settle or be attached by his own attorney who wanted out and had been working on contingency anyway. There are standard legal agreements a plaintiff makes with a lawyer who takes on a case on contingency. The rule and agreement that comes into play is the plaintiff will agree to settle the case if there a reasonable offer on the table. Jerry was obligated to accept the settlement.

No, this isn’t the way it was. You Scientologists didn’t really have me where you wanted me. You didn’t know which way I’d go. I was not bound by any rule of contingency fee agreements that obligated me to settle, and nothing relating to this concept came up in my discussions with Mike Flynn or anyone else at the time of the settlement. As I said, the reasonable monetary offer to settle the case I had known and accepted. The impossible, unconscionable, unconstitutional and unlawful, but severable, conditions that the Scientologists have been judicially enforcing against me I had not known about. There was no deteriorating relationship between Flynn and me that I was even slightly aware of. What you were doing, and knew others were doing, to cause what you believe was a deteriorating relationship between Flynn and me is very relevant in a number of contexts. The remaining Scientologists and their collaborators still do not have me right where they want. They all need to stop wanting to have me where I won’t be.

JP: Someone can say that better than me but you get the idea, Jerry was forced to settle, then he was set up to violate the settlement whereby Scientology would recover its money times three and if possible get him arrested and put in jail.

I was under mind-altering duress to sign the Scientologists’ settlement agreement, but not from the contingency nature of Flynn’s and my attorney-client relationship. Again, the video I think best explains the situation and the pressures at the time of the settlement.

JP: After years of acting like I hated people I’d never met or seen with my eyes like Jerry Armstrong took some getting use to. Getting Jerry had been en grained in my mind. Even after being out of the cult for some years. I remember the first time I talked with Jerry years after I had left the cult. On a physical level I felt uncomfortable being around him or even engaging in personal or meaningful conversation. On a certain level I was afraid of Jerry and this made no sense. None of that changed the facts of how all of this made me feel emotionally. In L Ron’s alternative reality, it was considered a flaw to openly show or express emotion or empathy. We were all just ever replaceable characters in L Ron’s movie. Suffice to say I didn’t foster or encourage a speaking relationship with Jerry because I didn’t want to. The problem is this is how Scientology technology is designed to protect itself in the minds of its own.

Long before I testified in a court of law as an expert witness, Jerry had already been there doing that, the same as I would do later. The real truth is when I met Jerry I had not entirely overcome the misconceptions and false information I’d learned about him through the years. I was dismissive of Jerry and didn’t fully appreciate, let alone realize the personal sacrifice and contribution he made when he exposed L Ron for being the lying ass clown he was.

That was the 1980’s. Now I’m dealing with what the Scientologists have done and are doing in retaliation for what I did then. This is where you can help.

JP: It was only after reading the Russell Miller book with fresh eyes that I finally better understanding and more fully appreciated the work Jerry did.

The work I’m doing now is what is important. The war did not end when Hubbard was exposed as a liar, and it is in the war, in which you participated, that your testimony of times, places, forms and events is wanted.

JP: Since I’ve read the books again with fresh eyes so much has changed. I know I was Jerry when I woke up from the spell and stopped lying for and protecting Scientology. That meant it was my turn to be persecuted by juvenile intelligence tactics, endlessly financed on behalf of dead L Ron. These days both Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder are Jerry too! No one owes or is obligated to me for anything and ultimately it may not matter what I think but I will say this. I don’t monitor Scientology activities anymore like I use to. That being said, It sure does make me smile when someone sends me something about Mike Rinder speaking out. He’s even been known to refer to Scientology as a cult. This is the guy who was the public face of Scientology for years! My heart goes out to him and his new family. These days Mike doesn’t mince words when tells people about Scientology, what a turnaround bless him. Marty Rathbun is probably the most knowledgeable person in existence when it comes to how Scientology plays ball in a law suit. From what I can tell he and his wife are progressing excellently with their lawsuit against Scientology, you have my blessing for that.

Rathbun and Rinder still support the Miscavige Scientologists in their war on me, and people connected to me. Rathbun and Rinder need to shift their misplaced allegiance from that most unjust cause to their victims.

Please correct the fact errors about me I’ve pointed out in your article. And I look forward to debriefing you about your Scientology v. Armstrong war stories, experiences and knowledge.

Thank you.

Notes

GA Letter to Jesse Prince (November 9, 2014)

Dear Jesse:

Great to read you’re feeling good.

There are a few fact errors in what you’ve written about the Scientology v. Armstrong litigation and war,1which I will deal with later.

Just now, I am writing to ask from you essentially what I have been asking from Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder for the past few years:

  1. Communicate to me;
  2. Debrief to me and my legal representatives;
  3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;
  4. Make themselves available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations they helped make.

You will recall telling me about Miscavige and Rathbun claiming that they possessed the materials stolen from the trunk of my car by their agents in 1984. There was a briefcase and about 300 pages of original writing and artwork.

I asked you a number of times for a declaration with the facts you knew concerning these materials and you always ignored my requests, and after some point more than a decade ago had treated me quite inimically.

I wrote to Rathbun about these stolen materials, and he too has ignored my communications. See, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/3304

You now write that you were present and informed about my legal troubles with Scientology as they were happening. I would like to obtain from you the details you recall from that period.

You write that you were present when the conditions of the Scientology v. Armstrong “settlement agreement” were negotiated. I was not present during that negotiation, and your information could be helpful in correcting the crime this “settlement agreement” and similar ones perpetuate.

To understand what happened prior to and during the “settlement” from my perspective, and its effect since 1986, please see the video of my discussion in Berlin in 2011:

You write that from 1983 through 1986, you would receive on a daily basis intelligence reports generated by ASI staff, OSA and RTC concerning secret and illegal operations by Scientology against me, my lawyer Michael Flynn, and other plaintiffs he represented.

This material is very relevant right now in the issue of the Scientologists’ tax exemption, and in US and international court proceedings. You perhaps were not aware that Rathbun and Rinder continue the frame-ups of Flynn and me in Rathbun’s 2013 book, which Rinder edited, and they continue their black propaganda against their fair game victims, and SPs generally. In that way, they are very much not me, as you say.

Your details about these daily intel reports about ops against Flynn and me, and related knowledge you have about the Scientologists’ war on us could be legally and historically helpful

You write:

The operations against Jerry’s lawyer included having knowledge of someone putting water in the gas tank of an airplane piloted by Michael Flynn with his son on board.

It is not clear exactly what you are saying about the Flynn plane incident being an operation. To my knowledge you have not testified regarding your knowledge of ops or fair game against Flynn or me, and this could be helpful.

I’d have thought I had been clear by now, but I go by Gerry. It’s Gerald, legally, but I’ve gone by Gerry-with-a-G since elementary school.

You write that you attended years of board room meetings at ASI to figure out how to get rid of me, and a few others. You mention that Hubbard sent communications (“advices”) ordering people such as me, and presumably including me, attacked, set up, jailed, annihilated, etc. Your details concerning both Hubbard and Miscavige’s participation in such fair game activities could be helpful.

You write that there were banker boxes full of Hubbard advices “spewing hate filled vitriol about” me. I have known that this must be the case, because I know how Hubbard worked and how his Scientologists still work. This is the first time, however, that someone who actually viewed some of the mass of material about me has described it, even in very general terms. I would like to get from you the details necessary to identify these materials for legal purposes.

Please let me know if you are willing to debrief to me about your experiences and knowledge relating to Mike Flynn and me that you acquired while inside the Scientology cult.

Thanks.

Gerry Armstrong

Notes

Jesse Prince: The Future is Here and I’m Feeling Good. (November 7, 2014)

[…]1

I began to recall being on the other side of the fence when Gerry Armstrong had to defend himself against Scientology style black ops for years.  Scientology sued Jerry for absconding with 22 banker boxes of personal documents and artifacts of L Ron Hubbard. I’m not trying to retell the story of Jerry Armstrong here but ultimately, Scientology paid Jerry a settlement of $800.000 in exchange for his promise not to copy or discloses the content of the banker boxes he’d taken. What the hell was in those boxes? It’s a fascinating, well documented cock up of what happened when author Omar Garrison and his research assistant  Gerry Armstrong verified L Ron’s actual education and military record history among other  subjects. In a nutshell, too much of the information they were able to factually verify of L Ron’s past was contemptuously contrary to the yarn L Ron spun for his devout adherents and any other ear that could hear. Gerry Armstrong went on to violate his agreement with Scientology hundreds of times and is still perused by Scientology’s attach dog legal machine. I know something about this because I was present and informed about Jerry’s legal troubles with Scientology as they was happening.  I recall being present when the conditions of the settlement agreement between Gerry Armstrong and Scientology (Which in effect included whatever was best for Author Services Inc, ASI) was negotiated.

From 1983 until the settlement in 1986, I would receive on a daily basis, usually sometime between 6-8 pm, intelligence reports  generated by staff of Special Project Operations (ASI), OSA and RTC concerning secret and illegal operations by Scientology against Jerry, his lawyer Michael Flynn, and other plaintiffs represented by Michael Flynn’s firm.  The operations against Jerry’s lawyer included having knowledge of someone putting water in the gas tank of an airplane piloted by Michael Flynn with his son on board. There was instant access into the lives of people who were deemed enemy’s Scientology through well paid and placed private investigators.  These professionals sold their services to their Scientology paymasters because they had the latest modern bugging technology that was confirmed US CIA grade technology. Scientology was able to buy the services of ex-police, ex-FBI and other agency. Phone records were a fruitful source of information. Through illegally obtaining phone records Scientology always seemed to be a step ahead of their perceived enemies.  ASI lead attorney was Earle Cooley. A big part of his job as legal council was to made sure we rode a fine line to separate church principles from the illegal activities sanctioned by the same principles.

There were years of board room meeting at ASI to figure out how to get rid of Jerry Armstrong, L Ron junior, David Mayo and a few other people who had devoted their lives in servitude to L Ron and his grand ideas. All of these devoted people turned out to be Suppressive Persons all along according to the instructions from L Ron via his publishing organization ASI. It was new management’s job to hunt them down and get them put in jail. Some may recall during the early to mid 1980’s L Ron got a bug up his ass and thought he had the power to have people criminally prosecuted for disobeying or being out of step with what he wanted. This is way past just having a stick up your ass, he really wanted this done and some people did get set up and went to jail.  It was required protocol to hate and contribute to the destruction of men and women that I had never met or laid eyes on. We would be sitting in the board room at L Ron’s Author Services organization reading advice’s from L Ron calling for the heads of staff he felt offended him somehow. Listening to Miscavige and other staff figuring out ever clever ways to get rid of the people who were aggravating poor L Ron. As we sat there making up plans to attach the very same people who were at L Ron’s side doing everything in their power to do his will. L Ron never wavered when it came to annihilating the oldest and closest devote adherents he had. There is no retirement in the business of Scientology. Ron taught his prodigy to quickly and quietly get rid of the most loyal staff members without remorse.

There were banker boxes full of “advises” from L Ron spewing hate filled vitriol about Jerry. The information that Jerry provided to Russell Miller and Jon Attack about L Ron’s actual history did in fact exposed his underbelly and pulled back the curtains on his imaginary life he expected others to believe.

During the negotiations to settle with Jerry Armstrong the settlement was intentionally construed to make it too easy for anyone to claim Jerry had violated his agreement with Scientology. Those who were present knew this settlement, that still plagues Jerry today was not done in good faith. The actual intent of the settlement was to cause Jerry to be incarcerated for violation of his settlement agreement2 and that is exactly what has happened. The other factor is this; Jerry didn’t want to take any of Scientology’s money and he didn’t want to settle. He was in effect forced to settle by his own lawyer Michael Flynn. Michael Flynn and his whole family had been hounded by Scientology hired thugs and they were tired of it. Flynn was also the attorney of record for other ex-Scientologist in a civil class action lawsuit….you get the idea. We had them right where we wanted. Each person received a settlement but Jerry was the only hold out. We even knew about the deteriorating relationship between Jerry Armstrong and lawyer Michael Flynn because we were the ones causing the confusion. In the end Jerry was forced to settle or be attached by his own attorney who wanted out and had been working on contingency anyway. There are standard legal agreements a plaintiff makes with a lawyer who takes on a case on contingency. The rule and agreement that comes into play is the plaintiff will agree to settle the case if there a reasonable offer on the table. Jerry was obligated to accept the settlement. Someone can say that better than me but you get the idea, Jerry was forced to settle, then he was set up to violate the settlement whereby Scientology would recover its money times three and if possible get him arrested and put in jail.

After years of acting like I hated people I’d never met or seen with my eyes like Jerry Armstrong took some getting use to. Getting Jerry had been en grained in my mind. Even after being out of the cult for some years. I remember the first time I talked with Jerry years after I had left the cult. On a physical level I felt uncomfortable being around him or even engaging in personal or meaningful conversation. On a certain level I was afraid of Jerry and this made no sense. None of that changed the facts of how all of this made me feel emotionally. In L Ron’s alternative reality, it was considered a flaw to openly show or express emotion or empathy. We were all just ever replaceable characters in L Ron’s movie. Suffice to say I didn’t foster or encourage a speaking relationship with Jerry because I didn’t want to. The problem is this is how Scientology technology is designed to protect itself in the minds of its own.

Long before I testified in a court of law as an expert witness, Jerry had already been there doing that, the same as I would do later. The real truth is when I met Jerry I had not entirely overcome the misconceptions and false information I’d learned about him through the years. I was dismissive of Jerry and didn’t fully appreciate, let alone realize the personal sacrifice and contribution he made when he exposed L Ron for being the lying ass clown he was.

It was only after reading the Russell Miller book with fresh eyes that I finally better understanding and more fully appreciated the work Jerry did.  Since I’ve read the books again with fresh eyes so much has changed. I know I was Jerry when I woke up from the spell and stopped lying for and protecting Scientology. That meant it was my turn to be persecuted by juvenile intelligence tactics, endlessly financed on behalf of dead L Ron. These days both Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder are Jerry too! No one owes or is obligated to me for anything and ultimately it may not matter what I think but I will say this. I don’t monitor Scientology activities anymore like I use to. That being said, It sure does make me smile when someone sends me something about Mike Rinder speaking out. He’s even been known to refer to Scientology as a cult. This is the guy who was the public face of Scientology for years!  My heart goes out to him and his new family. These days Mike doesn’t mince words when tells people about Scientology, what a turnaround bless him. Marty Rathbun is probably the most knowledgeable person in existence when it comes to how Scientology plays ball in a law suit. From what I can tell he and his wife are progressing excellently with their lawsuit against Scientology, you have my blessing for that.

Notes

Jesse Prince

Jesse Prince

Jesse Prince

GA Letter to Jesse Prince (May 3, 2011)

Dear Jesse:1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerry

Notes

Transcript of Jesse Prince’s Speech (March 26, 2010)

 

Jesse Prince’s Speech1
March 26, 2010
Hamburg, Germany

Part I
Hamburg Symposium – Jesse Prince Part I


Transcript of Part I

Hello, everyone. I guess I’ll start off with borrowing a lyric from The Grateful Dead: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.” My journey into Scientology started in 1976. I was in San Francisco and I was a young guy; I was twenty-one years old and full of piss and vinegar, trying to figure out what to do with my life. And I was walking down the street and this very attractive woman came up to me, and she asked me would I like to know more about myself. I thought for a moment and I said “No, but I’d certainly like to know more about you.”

The next thing you know I’m in the Organization. I don’t know how she did it but she got me in there, and the next thing you know I’m on staff. Well, a Mission from Los Angeles came to San Francisco [1:00] and this is the first time I saw these people in these Navy Uniforms running around and I’m like “What, are we getting raided? I mean, what’s going on here? — Oh, this is the Sea Org.” So I find out all about this. Now, I had done work; I could sell. I was always a persuasive seller. So I sold their books to psychiatrists and whoever else I could get my hands on, so they thought that I was a dynamic person. But the fact of the matter is I’m from Chicago and we know how to survive.

So, you know, they came in and they gave me the spiel, you know, and “It’s the greatest good for the greatest number” yick yick, on and on. I said “I’ll try it.” I went down to LA and we stayed at a house on La Brea; it was Charlie Chaplin’s old home that he had owned there; it was a beautiful chateau. The only problem was, it was sixteen of us [2:00] in one room. And, we used to stand naked to get in the shower, you know, and it was a bathtub so you had to step — and anyway, it was terrible. At a certain point when I started to realize, “You know, maybe this isn’t so good, you know?”

By this time, now I’m working and they have me doing renovations, building the complex of that blue building that they currently have in Los Angeles. I was one of the first persons to go in there to prepare the buildings to become organizations. Well, it started. I’m not allowed to sleep until certain things are completed. And I kind of, you know, “Okay, I’ll do it one time.” And then they want it again. And I said… they keep asking me, and it was obvious that this was never going to stop. So I told them, “I’m finished. I’m going to bed now.” And I got up and I went to bed.

I was probably asleep for fifteen minutes [3:00] before someone came. “You must come and see, you know, Wayne Marple,” he’s the … Dead L. Ron’s henchman or whatever he was, you know. He’s connected to Dead L. Ron and he has the power. So they woke me up and they sent me down, and his name was Wayne Marple and he said, “You know, you’ve been doing kind of a good job around here but you weren’t supposed to go to sleep. You sleep when the job is finished.” Well, I used some rather colorful language on him and told him, “You know what? And on top of that, I’m out of here. Go to hell.”

I turned to leave. He said, “Oh, you really think you’re gonna go somewhere, huh?” And as he’s speaking I’m being surrounded by these… people; I’d never seen them before but they were certainly larger than me. And he said “As a matter of fact, you’re going to the RPF.” [4:00] And I’m like, “What is that? Rehabilitation Project Force. I don’t want to rehabilitate anyone’s project. I’m outta here.”

No.

Literally, for the next three months, the people that grabbed me — physically, we were tussling — and they put me in a room, and locked the door and they had a guard on the other side. And for three months, somehow, I had become incarcerated. Not only incarcerated, now I’m in solitary confinement. And I’m just kicking the walls and I’m just going nuts and they’re coming in there, “You stop it, and you do this…” and this went on for almost three months. And finally, I’m like, “What do I have to do to get out of here?” And he said, “You must learn Dead L. Ron’s technology perfectly and apply it to yourself, and once you’ve done that and you still want to leave then you can go.” [5:00]

I didn’t think much of it; I said ok, I was up to the challenge. So I started cooperating with them; I started studying the material and applying it to myself. And at some point while that was happening, the old Jesse Prince checked out and the new one was here. I ended up helping to build practically every organization in that blue building; I was in the RPF for eighteen months.

I had no concept, really, about family or my prior life or what I was doing because I was so focused and studying so hard. I had forgotten why I was even studying in the first place. And you know, I learned it, apparently, too well. I learned their materials too well because somehow [6:00] I became the person that understood that idiotic chatter they call “technology” better than any of them did.

So, Dead L. Ron sent the Mission to all the orgs, and he wanted to find the person that understood the “technology” the best, to bring them to Golden Era Productions — INT Management, in Gilman Hot Springs — so that that person would help them correct the rest of the Scientology organization, so that it was performing to his standards. I didn’t really know much about Dead L. Ron and I really didn’t have any desire to be around him, you know, I’m… but, I came up as the person that knew it the most so they dragged me up there, under protest, and I started in.

One of the first persons that L. Ron wanted me to correct was David Miscavige’s wife, Shelly Miscavige. And I see this little girl, I mean she has to be [7:00] all of twenty years old, nineteen, and she’s caked with mud and she’s crying and on and on and on and it’s like everybody hates her, but “This is his wife, ooooh,” you know. So, her and I certainly became fast friends and I helped her out of her situation.

Then, you know, I’m getting the advices and the notices from L. Ron and I’m doing this, that and the other thing and I won’t belabor that, what had happened, because I really have to move forward. But one special thing that did happen: his granddaughter, Roanne — I guess that was his only granddaughter at the time, or may have ever been his only granddaughter — this little girl, he really loved this child; she was a princess to him. And whatever she wanted, he would do anything.

Well, her mother — his daughter, Diana Hubbard — left Scientology, left the Sea Org, bragging about having sex on airplanes. I mean, she’s experiencing [8:00] life for the first time and she is loving it. And L. Ron wanted custody of the child, Roanne, turned over to another person that was within Scientology that she was married to — his name’s John Horwich — anyway, he wanted custody turned over to her. He sent David Miscavige to do it and he failed. He sent another big person in Scientology at the time, a woman named Vicki Aznaran, and she failed. Marc Yeager, COC MO INT, he failed. All of them doing Lower Conditions now, when I get there.

So, after I took care of my first little duty with… I got Shelly going good, now you have to now go back to Flag where you came from and get Diana Hubbard to sign over custody of her only child to this man that’s still in the Sea Org. And I was informed about the prior failures, and I was informed that if one more [9:00] failure happened on this project, back to the Rehabilitation Project Force I’d go, you know. So I’m like, “This is a hell of an invitation and welcome to this new job.” My new job was Inspector General Cramming Officer. God knows what the hell that was supposed to mean.

So I went out there, followed their orders, got my little briefcase and, you know, and went there and she was expecting me; I arrived back in Clearwater and as soon as I walked in the door I’m like, “Hello, Diana, you know why I’m here.” — “Yes, I do. Where are the papers? I’ll sign ’em now” — I’m like “Oh, my God. This can’t be happening.” Because she told those people where to get off and where to go, and they got in so much trouble, and as soon as I walked in the door she’s like, “Okay, I’ll sign. I’m not fooling with this stuff. I don’t care.” She’s having so much fun in her life.

Part II
Hamburg Symposium – Jesse Prince Part II


Transcript of Part II

So now, you know, when you do these missions for Scientology you arrive, and there’s a certain sequence; you get yourself established and then you immediately go and do a couple steps on a program, and you call back to report. Well, I’m there like ten minutes and I’m done. So her and I actually sat and had lunch and lively conversation and talked about things ’cause I needed some time to pass before I could call in to them and explain that my mission was accomplished.

And I let an hour go by; we had a great lunch up in the penthouse, and I called in and I said, “Well, report on target one: arrived.” Yeah, well that’s happening; we’re on the phone. “Report on target two: your room,” on and on, and then I said, “Look, I’m done. I’ve done all the steps. She signed all the papers.” — “What? What?”– “Yes, she signed the papers.” –“Oh my god. Get on the first plane back, we wanna see these papers and boy, you better make sure she had ’em signed in the right place and yada yada yada.” Because [1:00] there was no such thing at that time in Scientology of using lawyers on the family members themselves; it had to be personal.

And sure enough, I go back and give them these papers, and they look at me like I literally walk on water. They’re like, “How did you do it?” And you know I lied: “Oh, she gave me so much trouble. Oh, she just put me through the wringer,” you know, and I was “I told her, and I threatened her and blah blah blah,” you know, whatever I could make up. “Oh, well. You got the job done.” And they forwarded this information to L. Ron Hubbard, that I had actually accomplished this when everyone else had failed. And he sent me a very nice gift that came in handy later. For doing that, I was given a Ruger Mini-14 Assault Rifle with a banana clip, .223. So now I’m a real soldier of fortune, right?

And [2:00] it started from there. So now, you know, I’m going through all of INT Management; I was the personal auditor of Miscavige, the personal auditor of anyone in power and I was the supervisor of these people. Now, they’re asking me to do things that I’ve never done, never trained for, never studied for; just do it. I guess I was the make-it-go-right guy. Well, some years passed and things… in all honestly, we had it pretty good; because now, for the first time in Scientology, I’m making money. I mean I’m — you know, I get a salary; I’ve got unlimited expenses; I have hot and cold running slaves attending to anything I could possibly want. I mean, if I sat a cup down someone would “Mmmm, pick it up!” and, you know, fix my room and a personal chef that cooked whatever the hell I wanted every day, and this went on and on [3:00] and it was kind of like the honeymoon phase.

And we built this organization; we built the Religious Technology Center into a big organization and we put extensions of it in Flag and the EU and we were here, we were there; we built up International – CSI. I don’t, I never say that “C” word when I refer to Scientology, you know that “Church,” but we expanded all of Scientology International and things were really on a roll. I mean, there was a lot of new people getting in and we were doing fantastic. And… Dead L. Ron had to mess it up.

He was upset; he was involved in a legal case where they wanted to bring him in for depositions. He was sued by all kind of people everywhere, and he saw his grip on Scientology slipping. [4:00] And he targeted Miscavige for that. So now they’re, Miscavige and Hubbard are like this [bumping fists together]. And I’m the person to sort it out. So I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had that, this person that I now hear goes and beats up people — he’s only this big, for one thing — but this person that now goes around, Slappy Dave, kicking and doing all of this, would be crying on the floor. Wheezing and blehbleh, you know. Anyway.

Hubbard was upset; he knew Scientology was slipping from him and he figured Miscavige was the one doing it, so he sicced me on him, and I sic ’em good. And what I found out, you know, through the Security Checking — Sec Checking, interrogation, whatever you want to call it — and what I found out was that Miscavige, you know [5:00], as Hubbard was making his exit from Scientology he wanted as much paper money as he could get, so suitcases of hundred-dollar bills, like millions of dollars, were being carried to him like, every other week or, you know, once a month or whatever.

Well, come to find out Little Davey was the one taking it to him, who would then give it to Pat Broeker, who would then give it to Dead L. Ron — who wasn’t dead at the time, not physically, but in his mind he’s been dead a long time. Come to find out, these two were taking the money, going to Vegas, gambling like hell, having a great time and then just bringing just part of the money back. And they go away with it because Dead L. Ron never opened up the suitcases. He was too busy screaming at these BTs and clusters to get off of him. He was too busy taking drugs prescribed by psychiatrists and psychologists. He was too busy trying to get electric shock to get these BTs off of him. [6:00]

Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. We all know Scientology doesn’t believe in health care. We all know that you can’t see a psychologist or a psychiatrist. This is what we found out when he died: I went to… he lived in a bus called The Bluebird, and I went in there and I opened up his medicine cabinet and out fell a zillion pills. I’m like, “What is this? How hypocritical is this?” That was 1986. Well, and the locals had told me he was buying Marijuana off of the people and all kinds of shit.

He dies. Pat Broeker was supposed to take over. Loyal Officer… LO one, LO two… you know, wherever these people come up with this stuff, I don’t know. But he’s insane, too. I mean, [7:00] this guy, you can’t have a rational conversation with him. I mean, you start talking to him about apples and the next thing you know we’re talking about growing pineapples, you know? It was very difficult to talk to this person. I mean, he was not lucid in his mind. And Miscavige had a valid problem: what would happen if this guy took over Scientology? He’s nuts; he’ll tear it all up. Miscavige saved Scientology from Dead L. Ron, and now he has this threat of Pat Broeker. Well, he made the decision: I’m getting rid of him.

So at that point Scientology divided. You had — especially in INT Management, RTC part — RTC was originally formed by the Broekers, so we were supposed to be loyal to them. CSI, Scientology International and all of that, were more things that Miscavige was doing. And he came to me and he [8:00] said, “Look, you need to make a decision; you’re either going to be on my team or you’re outta here, ’cause I’m getting ready to clean house.” And I was sitting there in my office and I’m like, “You know what? I should’ve left long ago. I should’ve just got myself outta here.”

My problem was, I started enjoying it too much because I had perqs, because I could do this that these idiots, apparently, couldn’t do. And that’s wrong. I never beat anybody, spit on anybody, or any of that crap. To me that’s an insult to a human, our human nature. So, I told him no. A couple of days later, six o’clock in the morning, there’s a knock on my door: “Come, you have to go up to the office.” I go up to the office and there’s a whole [9:00], you know, there’s Marty Rathbun; there’s Mike Rinder; Miscavige; Norman Starkey; Greg Wilhere, yick yick on and on, all of these people, in their full regalia with the ribbons and the this, that and the other thing.

And he sits me down, and the person who was my direct, who I was answerable to, Vicki Aznaran, sitting in the corner crying with dirt on her face already; she hadn’t even got to the RPF yet. I mean, I don’t know what the hell they did to her before they got her up there. And she’s just boohooing and boohooing, and he says “You’re stripped of all of your rank; you’re stripped of everything and you’re going to the RPF! Rawr!” and he’s screaming and he’s frothing at the mouth. And I said, “no, I’m not.” He said, “yes you are, and by the way, CALL ME SIR!”

More colorful language from Jesse Prince.

Part III
Hamburg Symposium – Jesse Prince Part III


Transcript of Part III

And I got up to leave. And again, just like happened when they did before, they all came on me. Difference this time is, is that I’ve studied Okinawan Goju Ryu Karate for two years and I was a black belt now, and I wore their asses out. And I walked out of his office, and I went to my room and I went and got that nice present that Dead L. Ron gave me: that Mini-14 Assault Rifle, and I had a .45, and I loaded ’em up. I had a banana clip; I could’ve killed them all five or six times each.

And I went up there with those guns, and they all had come out of Miscavige’s office at that point, trying to figure out what they’re going to do to me. And I walked up with those guns and I said, you know, “Who has the power now? Who wants to challenge me now? Who has anything to say to me now?” And the one [1:00] person spoke up, it was Norman Starkey, South African guy, and he says, “You traitor! You can’t kill us all.” And I said, “Maybe not, but your ass’ll be the first one to go.”

By this time Miscavige is shaking, everybody doesn’t know what to do because I have the rifle on my hip and the gun like this, waving it, like grrrr!, you know, and he’s like, “Please, Jesse. Please.” He told everybody, “Get away; we didn’t handle this right! Please, come on, Jesse.” You know, “Come on, let’s talk. Please put the guns away, please, please, please.” You know, and I, “Okay, okay,” and I take my guns and I unload them and I put ’em back in my room, and we go down to — I guess what’s known as the clipper ship now — and we have a conversation.

And the conversation was, “Jesse, you know that Scientology is fragmented right now. You know that it needs to come together; we’ve all worked too hard to build this organization. You know the struggle. [2:00] I need you to go to the RPF for me, just so I can bring the group back together. Then I’ll get you out and everything will be fine. Could you please just do that for me?”

“Mehhh, okay.”

Well, I go to the RPF — Happy Valley, you know, they used to call that the Happy Valley, the Institute for the Criminally Insane — and I went there, and they really did everything they could to make me feel as uncomfortable as possible, to bring as much pressure, I mean, I could use colorful words but I’m not going to do that because I’m going to wrap this up real quick. Anyway, I ended up leaving and I came back, because they had my wife.

Now, prior to getting in Scientology I already had two kids that I wasn’t raising, and now I wasn’t even around to see. I’d already forsaken my family, friends [3:00] , people, no one even knew who I was. I had decided: not one more person will I forsake for this organization. I’m not going to leave my wife there. So I came back and I stayed, but I didn’t audit anymore. I let them know. “Those days are done. I’m done being your little whipping boy to teach this ‘technology’ to people. I’d rather work on grounds shovelling dirt than to touch that meter one more time, than to crack those crazy books one more time and read this stuff.”

“Okay, okay,” you know, then they start the buttering up process again, and the next thing you know I’m doing e-meter drills with Tom Cruise, you know? But one day my wife came to me and she said, “You know what? I get it. Let’s go.” And we left. They got us back one more time after that, too, but we still got out of there. And I got out and I tried my best [4:00] to, they said, you know, you’re supposed to get a Freeloader Bill and this, that, and the other thing when you go and pay back all of this money.

I said, “Please do not waste your time trying to figure out how much money you think I owe you, because I am done with the subject. I don’t care what the hell you guys do. Just let me outta here.” And eventually I got out. Well, that wasn’t good enough for them. PIs following me; got me fired from my job, this, that, and the other thing, you know. There’s just no satisfying these people.

So, in 1999 I was sitting on the internet and I was reading, and I saw some stuff from Arnie Lerma and I saw something from a woman, Stacy Brooks, and we’re speaking out and that was unheard of. Prior to the advent of the internet the only way to really get a broad message out was either it had to be in a newspaper or on television, and Scientology had that fixed because if you said anything critical of Scientology, [5:00] the horde of lawyers that they’re able to afford, because of all of these people that I’ve helped them get into Scientology, because of all of these organizations that I helped them build; now they have the capacity to not only destroy me, but corporations. And put them into submission.

And I said, “You know what? I’m done with this now. I’m going after ’em and I’m going to get ’em. This is finished.” Got together with Arnie Lerma, Bob Minton. “Let’s start protesting. Let’s go to their organizations with signs and let’s give ’em the business.” I don’t know, you guys have probably seen my first picket in Boston, especially the Anonymous people here. Bob ended up going to jail, and I ended up telling one of the staff members who his real parents were. [points to himself] And it carried on from there. We picketed in Boston. We picketed in [6:00] Los Angeles. We picketed in Washington, D.C. We went out to the country and picketed.

And pretty soon a groundswell started; we had so many people helping us. Well, we became the prime target of Scientology and I’ll explain how. We had the Lisa McPherson Trust, we were doing our pickets, we were getting people out. We were on the same block that they were on. They were getting them in the door and we were getting them out the door. We became primary targets, and they took us out. And I could speak more about that, but that’s not the point that I’m going to make right now.

They took us out and I went through a lot of, you know, harassment, this, that and the other thing and I literally went away; I stopped everthing in 2002 and I just went away. I couldn’t take it anymore. I couldn’t take going to my car and seeing my car door kicked in anymore, or my tires slashed, or another job rejection [7:00] because Scientology’s giving them information about me. And I stopped.

And I was pretty despondent for a long time, I’ll tell you. I felt like all the work that I had done — like Mrs. Whitfield, I had done a lot of interventions, gotten people to see; I studied — I was just as good with convincing them to get out as I was getting them in, and we were doing very well. But it was a thankless job, because the people that I was trying to help hadn’t had enough time to get their sensibilities back, so I’d help them and they’d disappear. And I said, “You know what? I’m done. I’ve done what I’m gonna do.” And I stopped.

And I guess it was 19… 2008, 2009, I started looking on the internet again about the subject of Scientology. And the first thing I see is these people [8:00] with these masks on, [laughs] and they’re giving ’em complete hell! There’s a woman, Patricia Greenway — who is not an OSA plant, by the way — said, “Jesse, you will not believe what these kids are doing. You will not believe what they’re doing with these organizations now.”

And I started looking, and I just was so proud. Finally I felt like — I don’t need to be thanked or anything — but I felt like at least one thing, something that I was doing carried forward, somebody picked it up. And you guys did, and I want to thank you for that. I want to thank you guys from the bottom of my heart, because when you’re doing this you’re helping people like me, and these other people here, and even the fools downstairs that are still doing it, wake up.

Wake up.

Thank you.

Notes

 

GA letter to Mark Rathbun for help getting back stolen documents (July 7, 2009)

Dear Mark:

In my May 31 2009 letter to you, I brought up the incident of Scientology agents breaking into my car in 1984 and stealing a bunch of my things, and Miscavige’s having them after their theft. I asked for your help getting them back; in fact I wrote the whole letter essentially asking for your help in righting years of wrongs Sea Org personnel under Miscavige, including you, have committed, and continue to commit, against me – and yes, many, many others.

Oh, now that I’ve mentioned it in the above list of Fair Game attacks on me, I’ll also ask you about the theft of my original manuscript, artwork and other materials from my car. I know from both Vicki Aznaran and Jesse Prince that Miscavige actually claimed to them that he had these things in his possession after they were stolen my car, which was during the Armstrong videotape operation in the fall of 1984, so I trust you won’t pretend the theft didn’t happen. Just help me get my things back from Miscavige, okay? 1

After writing you, I remembered that Jesse Prince had told me that both Miscavige and you had told him about having my things after their theft. I also found this from a 1999 letter to Miscavige that I posted to a.r.s.:

You will recall that a cult operative broke into the trunk of my car in 1984 and stole my briefcase which contained about 300 original pages of my art, almost all handwritten or drawn. You will recall that my attorney Julia Dragojevic wrote to the org demanding return, and that your org attorney John Peterson answered, denying the theft and possession of my things.

Recently I had the happy opportunity to talk with Jesse Prince about all this. Jesse stated that while inside he too was told by both you and Mark Rathbun about your agent’s theft of my things from the trunk of my car and your having possession of them. Jesse recalled you describing my work as weird writing. You stole them, you know where they are and you can put your hands on them. Now get them back to me, and be known thereuntil as a thief.

I’m aware that you could be another Loyalist op, Mark, but I’m taking you for now at face value. So far, on its face, what you’ve said, and to me not said, indicates that in the Scientology v. Gerry Armstrong war, you are on the cult’s side.

Accepting what you’ve said about yourself, it isn’t easy for you to do what’s necessary to change that indication. I think, however, that if you start by debriefing about the 1984 theft of my things and what happened with them, and doing what is within your power to help me get them back from Miscavige, you’ll get the necessary courage.

It’s almost 25 years since my things were stolen. Following Vicki’s and Jesse’s debriefs to me about Miscavige possessing my things, I’ve written him and other Scientologists many times, requesting my things’ return. Doubtlessly you saw some of those requests in your years inside.

You knew John Peterson lied in his denial of Scientology’s knowledge of the theft. He was, of course, your organization’s front attorney just because he would willfully lie and would help Fair Game his clients’ victims.

I’d bet you knew about someone in the LAPD altering/losing my police report. These documents on the incident could refresh your memory: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/scientology-theft-manuscript.html

My manuscript and original artwork, and every other piece of paper, are very valuable to me, and Miscavige, you, and many other Scientologists have known of their great value to me. Consider the nature of a group that would willfully inflict that pain on an individual all these years. It’s cruelty, Mark. And it’s an ongoing crime that should be confronted, stopped and expiated.

Yours steadfastly,

Gerry Armstrong

Notes

Be Glad You Lost, Julie (November 9, 2003)

By Dan Garvin
9 November 2003

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/71f514f4e97f24231


In the summer of 1985, I had been in OSA Int for less than a year. I was in charge of external computerization for OSA, which meant I got to go all over the place setting up and taking care of anything that had a CPU and wasn’t inside OSA Int. Up in Portland, Oregon, the “Christo Trial” was getting going. There was already a Trial Unit of OSA Int, OSA US, local DSA and other staff and some volunteers. Some attorneys were also in Portland Earle Cooley was the main one I dealt with. Miscavige was there, as were Marty Rathbun, Mike Sutter, Lynn Farny, Ken Long, Karen Hollander, and many other names you’d recognize. Many famous SPs were there too. Somebody got a nice picture once of Gerry Armstrong flipping the bird at the camera as he was leaving the courtroom.

The Christo Trial was a damages suit by Julie Christofferson against the Church in Portland for, IIRC, fraud and emotional distress and a number of related torts. By that time she was Julie Titchbourne, but we still called the case Christo in OSA. After a while, I was called up from LA. There were two or three condominiums in the same building in downtown Portland, near the courthouse. One was Earle Cooley’s; one was the work and research area for the OSA Int execs and senior Legal personnel; I think there was a third one for the ASI/RTC personnel (at that time, Miscavige was still calling himself ED ASI, although he was just as much the boss of everything as he is now, at least as far as OSA was concerned). These condos were fairly luxurious. The lesser beings worked in the Trial Unit at the Celebrity Centre. I got to work in the OSA Int Condo, although I slept in a hotel some distance away.

The reason I was brought up is that they wanted transcripts of the proceedings loaded into computers on a daily basis so they could be searched by Cooley, Farny, Long, et al. At first, so I was told by one of the attorneys (probably Tim Bowles), we were not even supposed to have been given the transcripts. Only the attorneys were allowed to have them, for some reason. So our attorneys of course violated this order and gave the transcripts to me and to other personnel. But I got pretty crappy copies. I had miniature duplicates of the INCOMM computers set up in the condo. They were made by a company called WICAT, and they had a Unix-like proprietary operating system. We had one or two OCR – optical character recognition – machines set up. In those days, OCRing was pretty primitive (or prohibitively expensive), and these could only handle certain fonts, which had to be in very good condition. So the crappy and illicit copies we were getting had to be mostly typed in by hand, and for that there were about a half dozen personnel who had been doing that type of thing in LA.

Later they got permission to let us have copies of the transcripts, and the quality improved vastly. The other typists were sent home and I was pretty much running the whole computer show. I could OCR and correct everything by myself. We had huge rack-mount tape drives with twelve- or fourteen-inch reels, each holding 10 MB of data. I used these for backups and to transfer the data up to the computer in Earle Cooley’s condo. The information was loaded into a database that INCOMM called FAST, which was like SIR, or Source Information Retrieval, which is all the LRH issues (of all kinds, and advices too for those authorized) in a searchable database. FAST was the same system exactly, but for non-LRH material. OSA was inputting all the documents in all legal cases, and later added just about everything else as well. When a case was going on, everybody would rush to get it into FAST as soon as possible so the legal vultures could pick it over for anything they could use to win points the next day in court.

The Christofferson case is a fascinating story, but one I don’t know very well. What’s relevant to this post is, we lost. The jury awarded Julie Titchbourne something like $30 million. Nothing like this had ever happened before (so I was told and believed). The loss would set a precedent and all the other “frivolous” deep-pocket lawsuits against Scientology churches would fall like dominoes in favor of the enemy. We were crushed. I had not been in the courtroom once the whole time I was there, but I came down to hear the decision – and share in the victory. When I heard the award against us, I literally did not know what to do. I thought it was the end of the world, or pretty close. It was impossible and unthinkable. Our religion could be shut down by ambulance-chasing attorneys and professional victims. I wandered out of the courtroom in a daze. I went down to a park in town and just walked around. Everything seemed surreal. But I realized we would not just cave in. We would appeal. We would fight with every ounce of our strength, and when that was gone, we would still fight on. I started to feel a little better. All the same, it was unbelievable. After all, RTC and ASI were running things directly, and if anybody would make sure LRH legal tech was standardly applied, they would and still we lost. Man, there must be some heavy-duty corruption going on behind the scenes, to create such a miscarriage of justice! Well, we’d find that, too, and somehow we’d win. We had to. The survival of the world depended on it.

So I got tired of moping and headed back to the condo. The execs and OSA guys were there; I don’t remember which ones but probably most of the ones who normally worked or attended conferences there. Nobody was saying much; it looked like everybody else hadn’t finished moping yet. So I took a hint and resumed moping. Every once in a while somebody would wonder what the hell we were going to do, or what went wrong, and speculate about how bad it was going to be. After a while, the CO OSA Int, Mike Sutter, spoke up. He said  (paraphrasing), “I don’t care if she thinks she won. That bitch is never going to see one single cent. I’ll kill her first. I don’t care if I get the chair it’s worth it. It’s just one lifetime.

I froze. I wasn’t moving much to begin with, but I froze solid. I didn’t want to breathe. I forgot all about our immediate problems. My CO had just said he was going to murder Julie Titchbourne. He was absolutely serious. I was in shock. Sure, she deserved to die all SPs did. But you can’t actually do that that sort of thing. My thoughts raced. Please, I thought, please, somebody say something that will make this stop. I was trying to think what I could say. If I said the wrong thing, or said it the wrong way, I’d be out of there that night and getting sec checked the next day. But this was madness!

There was not a sound in the room. It seemed like ten minutes but was probably only one. Finally Miscavige spoke up. Here’s what he didn’t say: He didn’t say, “Sutter, you’re fucking crazy, we don’t kill people!” He didn’t say, “You’re joking, right?” He didn’t explain that Julie’s estate would still get the money or that killing a plaintiff would be a hundred times worse for the Church than paying her even the whole $30 million. He just said, “No, this is what we’re going to do.” And then launched what within a day or two became the Portland Crusade.

The Crusade, along with a lot of flanking actions and, according to Cooley, his own research in the database I’d put together for him, worked, and the Judge, Londer, eventually threw out the decision. Julie would have had to start from scratch, with much tighter restrictions on what was admissible as evidence. I guess they just gave up.

Julie deserved that money, or at least some compensation for being screwed over by Scientology. I’m sorry for my part in stopping her from getting paid. But, then again, if the Crusade and everything had failed and she had won in the end, I wonder if Sutter would ultimately have made good on his promise to murder her. Even if the estate still collected Julie’s money, it sure would have made other plaintiffs think twice about their own cases. It may be that Julie’s loss is the only reason she is alive today.

One thing I am absolutely certain of: When Mike Sutter said he would kill her, he meant it, absolutely and literally. He certainly was not reprimanded or corrected at the time by anyone for suggesting this, and if any action was taken against him later, it was nothing I ever heard about – nor did anybody ever pull me aside and say, “You know we would never actually do that, right?” or some such. In fact, a few months later he was promoted to RTC. He was still in RTC as late as 1995 or so. I don’t know if he has been seen in the last few years. That could mean a number of things. He could just have a post that never requires him to leave the Gold Base, or he could have gone to the RPF, or he could have been transferred somewhere else on some secret post or mission. Or, for all I know, he could have gone off to do the Hit Man Full Hat and Apprenticeship.

Hubbard’s Code of Honor says, near as I can recall, “Your honor and integrity are more important than your physical body.” Also, the third and fourth dynamics (the group Scientology, and all mankind) are more important than anyone’s first dynamic (self an SP’s life or the life of whatever hero murdered the SP). To the average Scientologist and perhaps the average SO member, this interpretation of those ideals may sound extreme, even beyond extreme. As one nears the top of the ladder, though, I think they’re pretty typical. What may not be typical is the willingness to actually go through with it, mainly because the repercussions on Scientology would be far worse than the consequences of not committing the murder.

Lurkers, those of you still in the COS this is a glimpse at a side of RTC that you don’t hear about at the International Events. Next time you’re watching David Miscavige spewing his glib, formulaic PR at you, try remembering that this is a man to whom murdering a plaintiff was apparently just another option, one that he ultimately rejected in favor of a better one, but one he seemed to have no fundamental objections to.

Dan Garvin

Notes

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

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

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

TESTIMONY OF JESSE PRINCE1

VOLUME 8

DATE: July 11, 2002. Morning Session

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer
Circuit Judge

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

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

Page 1008

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

Page 1009

[… Other Court business]

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

Okay. Mr. Prince.

(Mr. Prince took the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Of the trial?

THE COURT: 7/11.

MR. WEINBERG: 7/11.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE PRINCE (RESUMED)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1021

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Oh, no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A No.

Page 1022

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

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Or Ms. Greenway?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Okay.

A I followed the court instruction in that regard.

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

Q Okay. Because they’re friends?

A Correct.

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

A Last night.

Page 1023

Q What were you doing with him last night?

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

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

A Yes.

Q — after you?

A Yes.

Q And where was the barbecue?

A My house.

Q And who else was there?

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

THE COURT: That isn’t the question either.

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

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

Page 1024

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

Q And she is a public member of Scientology?

A To my knowledge at the time, yes.

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

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

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

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

Page 1025

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Incorrect. I was never fired from that company.

Q You left the company in the fall of 1995?

A Correct.

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

MR. DANDAR: Objection to relevancy.

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

Q And —

A It hadn’t been like that before.

Q And briefly, that means what?

Page 1026

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

Q And —

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

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

Q Okay.

A — that kind of thing.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1027

technology, correct?

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

THE COURT: What’s the point of this?

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

MR. DANDAR: Same objection.

THE COURT: I’ll allow that.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

You just —

Page 1028

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: This is just not relevant.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Correct?

Page 1029

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me show you —

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: May I approach the clerk?

THE COURT: You may.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes, they are.

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

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

Q Right. And this letter — you can tell that

Page 1030

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

They line up exactly on the three letters, right?

A Okay.

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

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside of his expertise.

THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that?

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Oh, can I have this?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure. She has it.

THE COURT: What is the number, please?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s 242.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1031

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

A Yes, I do.

Q And —

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

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

A Right.

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

A I do not believe that that was my conclusion.

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

A Sure.

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

A I am not.

Q Explain to the Court what a float is.

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

Page 1032

I —

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

THE WITNESS: I don’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you just said you did.

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

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

Could you mark this as 243, I believe.

This would be 243, your Honor (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, I do.

Q And do you understand what that means?

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

Page 1033

go through.

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

A Correct.

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

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

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

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

Page 1034

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A No, I have not.

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

MR. WEINBERG: That’s exactly —

Page 1035

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: You do now, right?

THE COURT: I do now.

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

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

THE CLERK: 244.

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

Page 1036

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, I do.

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

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

Page 1037

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

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

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

I think people were trying —

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

Page 1038

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

Page 1039

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Would that be fair?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back to the gun situation just for a moment.

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

THE COURT: What was a joke?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That you weren’t really threatening anybody.

THE COURT: What are you talking about?

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

Page 1040

he says he pulled the guns on David Miscavige.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So —

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

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

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

It wasn’t a joke to me at that point.

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

MR. DANDAR: Objection to form.

THE COURT: No, that’s all right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A I’m not sure.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Page 1041

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

A Okay.

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

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

THE COURT: In this case?

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

MR. DANDAR: Apparently need it brighter.

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

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

THE COURT: Sure. Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: Wait just one second.

Page 1042

(The witness left the stand,)

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The tape was played as follows.)

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JESSE PRINCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1998

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

BY MR. ROSEN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then here comes David Miscavige. He completely

Page 1043

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well, first —

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1044

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

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

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

Q Now, when you said a Mini 14 —

THE COURT: A what?

MR. WEINBERG: A Mini 14.

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

MR. WEINBERG: About —

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

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

Page 1045

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

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

This is just a replica.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

It’s not real.

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

I think this is an unbelievable game —

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

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

THE COURT: What is the point?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Something like that?

A Similar to, but not quite.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1046

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

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

Q All right.

A — in this hearing.

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A No. I eventually sold the Mini 14.

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

THE COURT: All right. Redirect?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1047

MR. DANDAR: Do you want me to wait?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

Q And did you or he laugh?

A Laugh?

Q Laugh.

A Like laugh?

Q Yes, like laugh.

A No.

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

A No.

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

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

Q Did you sit around the pool?

Page 1048

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

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

A Yes, and other people for sure.

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

A Correct.

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

A Absolutely not.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No.

Page 1049

Q How did you leave?

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

THE COURT: Wasn’t that release introduced yesterday?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So it said whatever it said.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A M’hum (affirmative).

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

MR. WEINBERG: It was asked and answered.

He explained —

THE WITNESS: No, I never answered this.

THE COURT: Just a second.

Page 1050

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, asked and answered

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

THE COURT: He did?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. He said —

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.

MR. DANDAR: Shhh.

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t think so.

THE COURT: That was more than a thousand.

THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did you receive anything of consideration

Page 1051

to sign those releases?

A I think I received $2,000.

Q Okay. From whom?

A Good question. Marty just handed me the money.

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

A I do not.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competency.

I mean, how is it that this woman —

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

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

Page 1052

I’ll go on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you were —

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So . . .

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A You know, there —

THE COURT: If you don’t know —

A I don’t know the reason.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Page 1053

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

And I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”

So that’s why these are signed this way.

Q So there exists other resignation letters that are undated?

A Yes, correct.

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

A Not today.

Q Have you ever seen them before this?

A Sure.

Q Where?

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

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

Page 1054

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A Absolutely.

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

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

Secondly, he’s misstating the testimony.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. But then —

MR. DANDAR: How do you know that?

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

Page 1055

speech.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Question —

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

Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Answer: “I got it from Alain Kartuzinski.”

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

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

Page 1056

money.”

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

A No.

Q What was he?

A He was the Senior CS —

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

MR. DANDAR: Sorry.

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

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

All right. That takes care of this part.

Let’s put this away.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1057

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

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

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

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

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

A Never.

Q Go to their homes and picket their homes?

A Never.

Q Pass out leaflets in their neighborhood?

A No.

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

Page 1058

A No, I have not, never.

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

Do you remember which way that was?

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

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Yes.

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

A No.

Q That deposition is dated September 11th of 1989.

Mr. Weinberg questioned you in your deposition in this case

Page 1059

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

Do you remember him questioning you about that deposition?

A Yes.

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

A No.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1060

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

Q Do you remember what year that was?

A ’84. ’83, ’84.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor —

A No, I was not aware of that.

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

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

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

Page 1061

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Cooley.

THE COURT: Is it Rathburn or Rathbun?

MR. WEINBERG: Bun.

THE COURT: Bun.

THE WITNESS: Rathbun.

THE COURT: B-u-n.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, it did not.

Q And why is that?

A Because it’s expected.

Q Why is that?

Page 1062

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

Q Is that a written policy?

A Probably.

Q And Mr. Yanny —

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

He said “probably.”

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Q All right. What is an acceptable truth?

Page 1063

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

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope.

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

MR. DANDAR: I did, I did.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, you said —

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did.

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

MR. DANDAR: You have, I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, I was not.

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

A Correct.

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

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

Page 1064

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

THE COURT: Who was? I’m sorry.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Yanny was an attorney?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: In fact, Judge —

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

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

THE COURT: Normally we don’t use as an

Page 1065

exhibit something that is just strictly used for impeachment purposes.

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

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

THE COURT: I got it.

MR. WEINBERG: RTC was the defendant.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1066

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

Q And is it for any particular case?

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

THE COURT: That would be relevant.

A I don’t know. I don’t remember it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You don’t?

Page 1067

A No.

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

A Yes, he did. The Wollersheim —

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

THE COURT: That would be true.

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

THE COURT: Oh, right.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

Page 1068

A He had no personal knowledge of it.

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

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

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

I mean, is he saying he did have?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. Explain it.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige was there?

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

THE COURT: Who else was there?

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

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

THE COURT: This is when you discussed

Page 1069

destruction of these records?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And whose idea was it to destroy the records?

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

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1070

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

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

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

Did I interrupt you?

A No, go ahead.

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINBERG: — other stuff.

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Well —

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

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

Page 1071

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: I mean, what are we using —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1072

to the paper mill and had it pulped?

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: And he’s answered that.

THE COURT: Yes, he has.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

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

Page 1073

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

A — that’s why I do that.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A I was promised a lot more than that.

Q What else were you promised to lie?

Page 1074

A Retirement.

Q Did they go into any specific details?

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

Q Any dollar figures discussed?

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

Q Would a quarter of a million be enough?

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

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

Page 1075

that point.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: One short point on that.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A Absolutely not.

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

A No, you did not.

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1076

consultant? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And expert?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, you have not.

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1077

Q Did you know that they got money from Clambake?

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: We need to get through this.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct, correct.

THE COURT: — is that right?

THE WITNESS: That’s right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No.

Page 1078

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

A Correct.

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

A No.

Q Did I go on the fishing trip?

A No, you did not.

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

A No.

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

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

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

Page 1079

you remember that?

A Yes.

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

A In my opinion, no.

Q Why not?

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

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

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

Page 1080

was — he knew about it.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or lack of progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to —

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or ASI?

THE WITNESS: Both.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

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

Page 1081

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wherever it was being conducted?

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

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

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s that?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q There’s no written policy in the Church of

Page 1082

Scientology to go and kill somebody.

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE WITNESS: — is a process —

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, objection.

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

MR. DANDAR: Phony —

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

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

Page 1083

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought it was.

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1084

spirit from the body.

Q Is that a lecture by — who?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

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

THE COURT: All right. It’s 25 after.

We’ll take 15 minutes.

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

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

THE WITNESS: I’m here, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may resume the stand.

You all may be seated.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Are we having a light show?

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

THE COURT: I see.

Page 1085

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Ken (motioning to move).

THE WITNESS: It has no audio.

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Isn’t that pleasant.

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

THE COURT: I understand.

Page 1086

MR. DANDAR: Now, Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

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

THE REPORTER: Thank you very much, your Honor.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Yes, it would.

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

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

Page 1087

THE COURT: All right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: It was 9/10?

THE COURT: 9/10/98.

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

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Office of Special Affairs, Boston.

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

A Correct.

Q And have you seen that?

A I have seen that.

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

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

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

Page 1088

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained.

MR. LIEBERMAN: The characterization of what actually was —

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

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

THE COURT: What number is it?

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

Page 1089

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: This is redirect.

MR. DANDAR: He brought this up on cross.

THE COURT: What did he bring up?

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

Page 1090

Overruled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1091

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes, I am.

Q How do you audit someone who is unconscious?

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

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

Page 1092

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

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

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

A I don’t think so.

Q What were the differences?

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

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

Page 1093

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

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

Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1094

A Yes.

Q And — during the entire introspection rundown?

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

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

A Yes.

Q How did they do it?

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

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

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

Page 1095

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

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

A Oh, sure.

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

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

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

A Yes, he did.

Q How many times?

A Once that I know of.

Q And he administered something to her?

A Yes, he did.

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

Page 1096

A Yes. There were some pills.

Q Do you know what they were?

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

Q All right.

A But I know they were to make her sleep.

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

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

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

A No, I do not.

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

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

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

Page 1097

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

A Not — no, not — I don’t think so.

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

Why did you prepare a handwritten note?

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

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

A Correct.

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

A No, you did not.

Q In fact, you purposely went away from me —

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

Page 1098

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A Correct.

THE COURT: Which affidavit are we talking about?

MR. DANDAR: The —

THE COURT: The last one?

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

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

MR. DANDAR: — May 1st.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was a Sunday.

THE COURT: The 14th.

MR. DANDAR: The 14th of April.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Page 1099

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

A Correct.

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

A Everything that I’ve testified to.

Q When did it take place?

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

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

A After.

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

A No, I have no idea.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1100

you?

A Correct.

Q Why did you go through that circuitous route?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because he did —

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: It’s an exception.

Page 1101

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

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

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

Page 1102

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go out and visit Mr. Amos?

A Excuse me?

Q Did you actually meet with Mr. Amos?

A Yes, I did.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A After.

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

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

THE COURT: He’s already testified about

Page 1103

this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: You couldn’t identify it.

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

Page 1104

THE COURT: No.

MR. DANDAR: No.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

MR. DANDAR: Except for this.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview —

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

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

Page 1105

possibly be policy letter of the Church of Scientology.

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Well, we’ll see.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1106

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

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

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop this for a minute.

(Continuing with tape.)

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

(The tape was stopped.)

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

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

THE COURT: Okay. Go on ahead.

Page 1107

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

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

(The tape was played as follows.)

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

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

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

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

Page 1108

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

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

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

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

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop, stop.

(Continuing with tape.)

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

(The tape was stopped.)

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

Page 1109

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

Go to the beginning of this. All right.

Sorry I had it wrong. Sorry.

(The tape was played as follows.)

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

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

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

The —

THE NARRATOR: To me —

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

THE NARRATOR: — to me that doesn’t mean

Page 1110

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

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

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

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is beyond —

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: Let’s get that done.

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

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

THE COURT: It certainly was.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

Page 1111

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

You may cross-examine on the redirect.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

HE COURT: It was very brief.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Excuse me.

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

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

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

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

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1112

said?

A Yes.

Q Now — and that typically —

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

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

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

A No. That was for the case.

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

A Yes.

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

Page 1113

A Well, I’m not sure.

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

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

Q Do you want to do that?

A Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A I don’t —

Q Something like that?

A Not quite, no.

Page 1114

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

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

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

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

Page 1115

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

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

A Correct.

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

The ones in your hand.

A Yes.

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

A I have no idea when they were typed.

Q Isn’t that what you said on direct?

A No, I didn’t say —

Q Isn’t that what you said on redirect?

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: No, that was his testimony.

THE WITNESS: No, it wasn’t.

Page 1116

THE COURT: He said that was what he executed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you executed had the date on it already?

A Correct.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach —

THE COURT: You may.

Page 1117

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A M’hum (affirmative).

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

A Okay.

Q Read it to yourself.

A Okay.

Q Have you seen that?

A Yes.

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

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

Page 1118

Correct?

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

Q ’87.

A ’87, sorry, January of ’87.

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

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

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

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 15B.

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

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

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

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was speaking louder

Page 1119

than I thought.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

Q And this is Teresa Summers’ letter?

A Yes, it is.

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

A Yes.

Q Paragraph 1.

A Where it says, “Please be advised”?

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

A Yes.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1120

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

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

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

A No, that’s not what I was told.

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes.

Q Do you know what she’s talking about?

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

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

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

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter.

Page 1121

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Doesn’t matter.

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

THE WITNESS: Well . . .

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Absolutely, yes.

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

A Correct.

Q Just you and Mr. Rathbun?

Page 1122

A No. There were other staff there.

Q Do you remember who else was there?

A I believe Mr. Sutter was there.

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

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

Q So you’re saying he was there?

A Correct.

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

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

Q But it was his origination, not yours?

A Correct.

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

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

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

Page 1123

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Where is Jesse Prince?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s at the front.

(Continuing with tape.)

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

(The playback was stopped.)

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

Page 1124

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Q Did you know it was being recorded or not?

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

Q Is this you?

A Yes, it is. I think it is.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes, why don’t you see.

THE WITNESS: I can’t tell.

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

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

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

Page 1125

time.

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

THE COURT: He said no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

Page 1126

decide whether or not it’s legal or not.

(The playback continued.)

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

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

MR. RATHBUN: We’re here alone?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: Nobody else here?

MR. PRINCE: No coercion, nobody doing anything.

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

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

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

MR. PRINCE: Yes.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no threat?

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

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

Page 1127

which is our —

(The playback was interrupted.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: They left the room.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

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

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

Page 1128

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

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

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

You’ve heard you.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A What, the release?

Page 1129

Q Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions.

THE COURT: All right.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

Page 1130

starts shows them setting up electronic equipment.

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this comes from —

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Go on ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1131

back, who cared?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your —

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this now?

MR. DANDAR: The April 2002.

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1132

Q When you — did the —

THE COURT: What paragraph was that?

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: No, it was at work.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So there was no public PR flap?

Page 1133

A Correct.

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

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Your testimony is finished. You may step down.

I don’t know about that videotape either. I have no idea what that is either. So you find whatever it is you want to find, show it to counsel in advance, see what it is, and see if we can make some context out of it and see if it has any relevance.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Now, it’s noontime.

It’s 12:05. We’ll be in recess until 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: How about 1:30?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: Or 1 o’clock?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: 1:15, all right.

(A lunch recess was taken at 12:08 p.m.)

_______________________________

Page 1134

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PINELLAS

I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered Diplomate Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record.

WITNESS MY HAND this 11th day of July, 2002, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.

_________________________________
Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, RDR
Court Reporter

Notes