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

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

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

TESTIMONY OF JESSE PRINCE1

VOLUME 8

DATE: July 11, 2002. Morning Session

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer
Circuit Judge

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

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

Page 1008

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

Page 1009

[… Other Court business]

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

Okay. Mr. Prince.

(Mr. Prince took the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Of the trial?

THE COURT: 7/11.

MR. WEINBERG: 7/11.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE PRINCE (RESUMED)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1021

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Oh, no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A No.

Page 1022

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

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Or Ms. Greenway?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Okay.

A I followed the court instruction in that regard.

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

Q Okay. Because they’re friends?

A Correct.

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

A Last night.

Page 1023

Q What were you doing with him last night?

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

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

A Yes.

Q — after you?

A Yes.

Q And where was the barbecue?

A My house.

Q And who else was there?

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

THE COURT: That isn’t the question either.

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

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

Page 1024

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

Q And she is a public member of Scientology?

A To my knowledge at the time, yes.

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

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

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

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

Page 1025

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Incorrect. I was never fired from that company.

Q You left the company in the fall of 1995?

A Correct.

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

MR. DANDAR: Objection to relevancy.

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

Q And —

A It hadn’t been like that before.

Q And briefly, that means what?

Page 1026

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

Q And —

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

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

Q Okay.

A — that kind of thing.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1027

technology, correct?

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

THE COURT: What’s the point of this?

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

MR. DANDAR: Same objection.

THE COURT: I’ll allow that.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

You just —

Page 1028

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: This is just not relevant.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Correct?

Page 1029

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me show you —

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: May I approach the clerk?

THE COURT: You may.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes, they are.

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

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

Q Right. And this letter — you can tell that

Page 1030

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

They line up exactly on the three letters, right?

A Okay.

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

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside of his expertise.

THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that?

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Oh, can I have this?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure. She has it.

THE COURT: What is the number, please?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s 242.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1031

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

A Yes, I do.

Q And —

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

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

A Right.

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

A I do not believe that that was my conclusion.

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

A Sure.

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

A I am not.

Q Explain to the Court what a float is.

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

Page 1032

I —

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

THE WITNESS: I don’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you just said you did.

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

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

Could you mark this as 243, I believe.

This would be 243, your Honor (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, I do.

Q And do you understand what that means?

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

Page 1033

go through.

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

A Correct.

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

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

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

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

Page 1034

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A No, I have not.

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

MR. WEINBERG: That’s exactly —

Page 1035

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: You do now, right?

THE COURT: I do now.

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

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

THE CLERK: 244.

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

Page 1036

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, I do.

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

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

Page 1037

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

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

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

I think people were trying —

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

Page 1038

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

Page 1039

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Would that be fair?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back to the gun situation just for a moment.

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

THE COURT: What was a joke?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That you weren’t really threatening anybody.

THE COURT: What are you talking about?

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

Page 1040

he says he pulled the guns on David Miscavige.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So —

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

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

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

It wasn’t a joke to me at that point.

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

MR. DANDAR: Objection to form.

THE COURT: No, that’s all right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A I’m not sure.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Page 1041

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

A Okay.

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

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

THE COURT: In this case?

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

MR. DANDAR: Apparently need it brighter.

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

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

THE COURT: Sure. Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: Wait just one second.

Page 1042

(The witness left the stand,)

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The tape was played as follows.)

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JESSE PRINCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1998

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

BY MR. ROSEN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then here comes David Miscavige. He completely

Page 1043

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well, first —

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1044

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

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

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

Q Now, when you said a Mini 14 —

THE COURT: A what?

MR. WEINBERG: A Mini 14.

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

MR. WEINBERG: About —

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

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

Page 1045

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

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

This is just a replica.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

It’s not real.

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

I think this is an unbelievable game —

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

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

THE COURT: What is the point?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Something like that?

A Similar to, but not quite.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1046

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

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

Q All right.

A — in this hearing.

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A No. I eventually sold the Mini 14.

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

THE COURT: All right. Redirect?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1047

MR. DANDAR: Do you want me to wait?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

Q And did you or he laugh?

A Laugh?

Q Laugh.

A Like laugh?

Q Yes, like laugh.

A No.

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

A No.

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

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

Q Did you sit around the pool?

Page 1048

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

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

A Yes, and other people for sure.

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

A Correct.

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

A Absolutely not.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No.

Page 1049

Q How did you leave?

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

THE COURT: Wasn’t that release introduced yesterday?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So it said whatever it said.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A M’hum (affirmative).

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

MR. WEINBERG: It was asked and answered.

He explained —

THE WITNESS: No, I never answered this.

THE COURT: Just a second.

Page 1050

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, asked and answered

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

THE COURT: He did?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. He said —

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.

MR. DANDAR: Shhh.

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t think so.

THE COURT: That was more than a thousand.

THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did you receive anything of consideration

Page 1051

to sign those releases?

A I think I received $2,000.

Q Okay. From whom?

A Good question. Marty just handed me the money.

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

A I do not.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competency.

I mean, how is it that this woman —

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

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

Page 1052

I’ll go on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you were —

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So . . .

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A You know, there —

THE COURT: If you don’t know —

A I don’t know the reason.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Page 1053

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

And I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”

So that’s why these are signed this way.

Q So there exists other resignation letters that are undated?

A Yes, correct.

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

A Not today.

Q Have you ever seen them before this?

A Sure.

Q Where?

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

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

Page 1054

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A Absolutely.

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

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

Secondly, he’s misstating the testimony.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. But then —

MR. DANDAR: How do you know that?

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

Page 1055

speech.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Question —

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

Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Answer: “I got it from Alain Kartuzinski.”

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

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

Page 1056

money.”

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

A No.

Q What was he?

A He was the Senior CS —

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

MR. DANDAR: Sorry.

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

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

All right. That takes care of this part.

Let’s put this away.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1057

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

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

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

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

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

A Never.

Q Go to their homes and picket their homes?

A Never.

Q Pass out leaflets in their neighborhood?

A No.

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

Page 1058

A No, I have not, never.

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

Do you remember which way that was?

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

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Yes.

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

A No.

Q That deposition is dated September 11th of 1989.

Mr. Weinberg questioned you in your deposition in this case

Page 1059

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

Do you remember him questioning you about that deposition?

A Yes.

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

A No.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1060

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

Q Do you remember what year that was?

A ’84. ’83, ’84.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor —

A No, I was not aware of that.

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

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

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

Page 1061

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Cooley.

THE COURT: Is it Rathburn or Rathbun?

MR. WEINBERG: Bun.

THE COURT: Bun.

THE WITNESS: Rathbun.

THE COURT: B-u-n.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, it did not.

Q And why is that?

A Because it’s expected.

Q Why is that?

Page 1062

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

Q Is that a written policy?

A Probably.

Q And Mr. Yanny —

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

He said “probably.”

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Q All right. What is an acceptable truth?

Page 1063

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

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope.

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

MR. DANDAR: I did, I did.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, you said —

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did.

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

MR. DANDAR: You have, I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, I was not.

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

A Correct.

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

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

Page 1064

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

THE COURT: Who was? I’m sorry.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Yanny was an attorney?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: In fact, Judge —

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

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

THE COURT: Normally we don’t use as an

Page 1065

exhibit something that is just strictly used for impeachment purposes.

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

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

THE COURT: I got it.

MR. WEINBERG: RTC was the defendant.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1066

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

Q And is it for any particular case?

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

THE COURT: That would be relevant.

A I don’t know. I don’t remember it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You don’t?

Page 1067

A No.

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

A Yes, he did. The Wollersheim —

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

THE COURT: That would be true.

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

THE COURT: Oh, right.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

Page 1068

A He had no personal knowledge of it.

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

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

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

I mean, is he saying he did have?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. Explain it.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige was there?

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

THE COURT: Who else was there?

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

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

THE COURT: This is when you discussed

Page 1069

destruction of these records?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And whose idea was it to destroy the records?

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

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1070

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

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

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

Did I interrupt you?

A No, go ahead.

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINBERG: — other stuff.

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Well —

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

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

Page 1071

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: I mean, what are we using —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1072

to the paper mill and had it pulped?

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: And he’s answered that.

THE COURT: Yes, he has.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

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

Page 1073

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

A — that’s why I do that.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A I was promised a lot more than that.

Q What else were you promised to lie?

Page 1074

A Retirement.

Q Did they go into any specific details?

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

Q Any dollar figures discussed?

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

Q Would a quarter of a million be enough?

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

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

Page 1075

that point.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: One short point on that.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A Absolutely not.

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

A No, you did not.

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1076

consultant? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And expert?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, you have not.

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1077

Q Did you know that they got money from Clambake?

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: We need to get through this.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct, correct.

THE COURT: — is that right?

THE WITNESS: That’s right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No.

Page 1078

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

A Correct.

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

A No.

Q Did I go on the fishing trip?

A No, you did not.

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

A No.

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

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

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

Page 1079

you remember that?

A Yes.

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

A In my opinion, no.

Q Why not?

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

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

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

Page 1080

was — he knew about it.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or lack of progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to —

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or ASI?

THE WITNESS: Both.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

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

Page 1081

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wherever it was being conducted?

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

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

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s that?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q There’s no written policy in the Church of

Page 1082

Scientology to go and kill somebody.

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE WITNESS: — is a process —

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, objection.

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

MR. DANDAR: Phony —

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

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

Page 1083

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought it was.

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1084

spirit from the body.

Q Is that a lecture by — who?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

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

THE COURT: All right. It’s 25 after.

We’ll take 15 minutes.

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

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

THE WITNESS: I’m here, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may resume the stand.

You all may be seated.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Are we having a light show?

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

THE COURT: I see.

Page 1085

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Ken (motioning to move).

THE WITNESS: It has no audio.

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Isn’t that pleasant.

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

THE COURT: I understand.

Page 1086

MR. DANDAR: Now, Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

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

THE REPORTER: Thank you very much, your Honor.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Yes, it would.

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

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

Page 1087

THE COURT: All right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: It was 9/10?

THE COURT: 9/10/98.

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

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Office of Special Affairs, Boston.

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

A Correct.

Q And have you seen that?

A I have seen that.

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

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

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

Page 1088

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained.

MR. LIEBERMAN: The characterization of what actually was —

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

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

THE COURT: What number is it?

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

Page 1089

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: This is redirect.

MR. DANDAR: He brought this up on cross.

THE COURT: What did he bring up?

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

Page 1090

Overruled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1091

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes, I am.

Q How do you audit someone who is unconscious?

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

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

Page 1092

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

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

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

A I don’t think so.

Q What were the differences?

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

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

Page 1093

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

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

Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1094

A Yes.

Q And — during the entire introspection rundown?

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

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

A Yes.

Q How did they do it?

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

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

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

Page 1095

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

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

A Oh, sure.

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

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

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

A Yes, he did.

Q How many times?

A Once that I know of.

Q And he administered something to her?

A Yes, he did.

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

Page 1096

A Yes. There were some pills.

Q Do you know what they were?

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

Q All right.

A But I know they were to make her sleep.

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

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

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

A No, I do not.

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

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

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

Page 1097

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

A Not — no, not — I don’t think so.

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

Why did you prepare a handwritten note?

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

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

A Correct.

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

A No, you did not.

Q In fact, you purposely went away from me —

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

Page 1098

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A Correct.

THE COURT: Which affidavit are we talking about?

MR. DANDAR: The —

THE COURT: The last one?

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

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

MR. DANDAR: — May 1st.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was a Sunday.

THE COURT: The 14th.

MR. DANDAR: The 14th of April.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

Page 1099

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

A Correct.

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

A Everything that I’ve testified to.

Q When did it take place?

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

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

A After.

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

A No, I have no idea.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1100

you?

A Correct.

Q Why did you go through that circuitous route?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because he did —

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: It’s an exception.

Page 1101

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

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

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

Page 1102

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go out and visit Mr. Amos?

A Excuse me?

Q Did you actually meet with Mr. Amos?

A Yes, I did.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A After.

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

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

THE COURT: He’s already testified about

Page 1103

this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: You couldn’t identify it.

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

Page 1104

THE COURT: No.

MR. DANDAR: No.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

MR. DANDAR: Except for this.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview —

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

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

Page 1105

possibly be policy letter of the Church of Scientology.

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Well, we’ll see.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1106

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

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

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop this for a minute.

(Continuing with tape.)

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

(The tape was stopped.)

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

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

THE COURT: Okay. Go on ahead.

Page 1107

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

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

(The tape was played as follows.)

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

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

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

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

Page 1108

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

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

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

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

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop, stop.

(Continuing with tape.)

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

(The tape was stopped.)

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

Page 1109

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

Go to the beginning of this. All right.

Sorry I had it wrong. Sorry.

(The tape was played as follows.)

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

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

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

The —

THE NARRATOR: To me —

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

THE NARRATOR: — to me that doesn’t mean

Page 1110

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

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

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

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is beyond —

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: Let’s get that done.

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

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

THE COURT: It certainly was.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

Page 1111

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

You may cross-examine on the redirect.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

HE COURT: It was very brief.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Excuse me.

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

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

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

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

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Page 1112

said?

A Yes.

Q Now — and that typically —

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

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

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

A No. That was for the case.

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

A Yes.

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

Page 1113

A Well, I’m not sure.

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

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

Q Do you want to do that?

A Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A I don’t —

Q Something like that?

A Not quite, no.

Page 1114

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

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

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

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

Page 1115

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

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

A Correct.

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

The ones in your hand.

A Yes.

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

A I have no idea when they were typed.

Q Isn’t that what you said on direct?

A No, I didn’t say —

Q Isn’t that what you said on redirect?

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: No, that was his testimony.

THE WITNESS: No, it wasn’t.

Page 1116

THE COURT: He said that was what he executed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you executed had the date on it already?

A Correct.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach —

THE COURT: You may.

Page 1117

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A M’hum (affirmative).

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

A Okay.

Q Read it to yourself.

A Okay.

Q Have you seen that?

A Yes.

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

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

Page 1118

Correct?

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

Q ’87.

A ’87, sorry, January of ’87.

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

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

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

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 15B.

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

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

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

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was speaking louder

Page 1119

than I thought.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

Q And this is Teresa Summers’ letter?

A Yes, it is.

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

A Yes.

Q Paragraph 1.

A Where it says, “Please be advised”?

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

A Yes.

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

A Correct.

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

Page 1120

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

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

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

A No, that’s not what I was told.

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes.

Q Do you know what she’s talking about?

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

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

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

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter.

Page 1121

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Doesn’t matter.

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

THE WITNESS: Well . . .

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A Absolutely, yes.

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

A Correct.

Q Just you and Mr. Rathbun?

Page 1122

A No. There were other staff there.

Q Do you remember who else was there?

A I believe Mr. Sutter was there.

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

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

Q So you’re saying he was there?

A Correct.

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

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

Q But it was his origination, not yours?

A Correct.

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

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

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

Page 1123

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Where is Jesse Prince?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s at the front.

(Continuing with tape.)

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

(The playback was stopped.)

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

Page 1124

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

Q Did you know it was being recorded or not?

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

Q Is this you?

A Yes, it is. I think it is.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes, why don’t you see.

THE WITNESS: I can’t tell.

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

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

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

Page 1125

time.

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

THE COURT: He said no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

Page 1126

decide whether or not it’s legal or not.

(The playback continued.)

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

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

MR. RATHBUN: We’re here alone?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: Nobody else here?

MR. PRINCE: No coercion, nobody doing anything.

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

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

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

MR. PRINCE: Yes.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no threat?

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

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

Page 1127

which is our —

(The playback was interrupted.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: They left the room.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

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

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

Page 1128

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

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

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

You’ve heard you.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A What, the release?

Page 1129

Q Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions.

THE COURT: All right.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

Page 1130

starts shows them setting up electronic equipment.

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this comes from —

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Go on ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1131

back, who cared?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your —

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this now?

MR. DANDAR: The April 2002.

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Page 1132

Q When you — did the —

THE COURT: What paragraph was that?

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: No, it was at work.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So there was no public PR flap?

Page 1133

A Correct.

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

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: How about 1:30?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: Or 1 o’clock?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: 1:15, all right.

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

_______________________________

Page 1134

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PINELLAS

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

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

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

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 7) (July 10, 2002)

871

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

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

CONTENTS:   Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 7

DATE:   July 10, 2002. Afternoon Session.

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

BEFORE:   Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

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

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

872

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

873

THE COURT: You may be seated.

All right. Mr. Weinberg, you may continue.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you said earlier today — we got into this conversation — that you didn’t know until it was too late basically, in March of 1987, that RTC had trustees.

That is what you said, right?

A Or the role of the trustees, how that operated corporately. Yes, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And you didn’t know, until the day you were demoted, that David Miscavige was one of those trustees. You didn’t know that, either?

A Again, I didn’t know the role of a trustee, what they did. I didn’t have the — the idea of what they did. Correct, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Well, let me show you a couple of documents that we’ll have the reporter mark — reporter, the clerk.

MR. WEINBERG: This is our next document.

THE CLERK: 229.

MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 229.

And this one would be 230, right?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 230.

874

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, this is 229. The thick one is 230.

A Okay. Is this stuff that I keep later?

Q Yes, we can just keep it here for the moment, and then if there is any originals — there is one —

THE COURT: If there are any copies, you can keep them, or give them to Mr. Dandar, or —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll return these exhibits back to the clerk.

THE COURT: If they’re originals, you need to be sure they get back to the clerk.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Before I forget, let me return these exhibits for some reason I took.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right, now if you’ll look at 229, Mr. Prince —

A Is that this one right here?

Q That is the short run, Unanimous Written Consent of the Directors and Trustees of the Religion Technology Center.

A Yes.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you see you executed that document as a

875

director?

A Yes. Yes, sir, I see my signature on there.

Q You see the three trustees executed that document as trustees, Lyman Spurlock, David Miscavige, and can you read the last one?

A Mmm, David Miscavige is the last one, isn’t it?

Q I think it is the second one.

A The second one is I think looks like Starkey.

Q David Miscavige is the last one. Do you know who the second one is?

A Norman Starkey. And the first one is Lyman Spurlock, I believe.

Q So certainly at that point in time you must have been aware there were trustees?

A Mr. Weinberg, I’m going to say this and it may sound incredible, but as a director, at least in this corporation, Mr. McShane was actually the secretary. I would often sign things because it was required to be signed.

You know, this isn’t anything that we all signed simultaneously. This could have been given to me and Vicki signs it, Jesse signs it, Warren signs it, send it along to OSA, then they sign it.

Q You were familiar, as director, as you said, the number two guy in RTC, you were familiar with the bylaws of the Religious Technology Center, correct?

876

A You know, I wouldn’t say so.

Q Well, can you pick those bylaws up, please?

A Yes, I can.

Q What is the exhibit number on that?

A Mine doesn’t have an exhibit number.

THE COURT: 230.

MR. WEINBERG: 230?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And do you see that if you go to the last page, it is dated June 15, 1982?

A Yes.

Q All right. If you go to —

MR. WEINBERG: In fact, if I can approach the witness it will be easier.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — Article 6, Section 1 —

A Where am I?

Q Article 6, Section 1.

A That is Article 7, so this must be Article 6 right here. Section 7 — what section number?

Q Article 6, Section 1. Right here.

A All right.

Q See that?

A Yes.

877

Q And that is trustees. You see that?

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q And you see that the bylaws of the organization that you say you were number two in says, and I quote:

“The sole purpose of the board of trustees shall be to elect directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this purpose, the trustees may remove a director who fails to meet the qualifications of a director or who conducts himself in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of Article 1 through 4 of these bylaws and the survival of Scientology. In addition, the trustees shall have the power to change the trustees.”

Isn’t that exactly what happened in March of 1987, that you and Vicki Aznaran were removed by the trustees pursuant to the bylaws of the RTC because you-all had failed to meet the qualifications of a director because you conducted yourself in a manner that was contrary to these bylaws and the survival of Scientology because you had been part of an out-tech operation?

A Is that a question?

THE COURT: That was awfully —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Break that down.

A My signature isn’t on here, by the way, as a director on these bylaws.

878

But these bylaws are signed by Steven Marlowe, Laura Marlowe and someone else.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Right, because in 1982 you weren’t a director, you became a director after 1982.

A That is correct.

Q And I assume when you became director, you said you had all this responsibility, you must have — must have familiarized yourself with what the purpose, as set forth in the bylaws and articles of incorporation of the organization that you were part of, was.

A Well, that, in itself, would be an assumption that would have to be ratified by my testimony. And my testimony is, is that I have never been a person that was legal-minded and really understood corporate and bylaws and things like that. I just wasn’t.

THE COURT: Did you ever read this document?

THE WITNESS: I can’t say that I have.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you —

A My signature is not on any part of this.

Q You understand now, after having seen this document, seen Title 6, you understand that you were removed in March of 1987 pursuant to the bylaws of RTC by the trustees as a result of your misconduct? You understand

879

that now, don’t you?

A No. No.

THE COURT: He already testified why he believes he was removed. It would not be consistent with this.

Obviously, the directors, if they were here, would testify differently that it was pursuant to this.

MR. WEINBERG: The trustees.

THE COURT: The trustees.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can put that down.

A Okay.

Q Now —

THE COURT: I mean, I guess pursuant to your question as to wasn’t this true and wasn’t that true where he said no, that was coming from somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: So I assume — that would have been what somebody else might have said, but he disagrees with that.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified on direct that as soon as — as it became known that you were now going to work against

880

Scientology, that you were threatened by Elliot Abelson, the lawyer, is that what you said?

A I said I received a letter threatening to sue me from Mr. Elliot Abelson.

Q And — and you understood from receiving that letter that the problem was that you had signed a release upon your departure from Scientology — from the Sea Org in 1992, among other things promising not to — to work against the Church of Scientology, or something to that effect?

A I would have to see that, if you —

Q Okay.

A — have it here.

MR. WEINBERG: Let me have a couple of things marked, your Honor.

Your Honor, here is 231. It is one exhibit.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This whole package is 231, Mr. Prince.

A Okay, thank you.

Q Now, do you see Exhibit 231, Mr. Prince?

A I’m looking at it right now, Mr. Weinberg.

MR. WEINBERG: While he’s looking at it, your Honor, I’ll mark as 232 the following document.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is 232.

A Okay.

881

Q Have you had a chance to look at 231?

A Yes.

Q All right. And is that the correspondence that you remember getting from Mr. Abelson?

A Yes.

Q And that includes a letter that — which is the second page — sent by hand-delivery to you in Minneapolis on July 24, 1998 from Mr. Abelson, along with a copy of the release. And then the first page is a letter of that same date to you in care of Leipold, Donahue & Shipe, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And is this the full extent of the communications between you and the Church of Scientology, Mr. Abelson, at that time in July of 1998 with regard to whether or not you could or would be a witness?

A Mmm, no. As I worked — I mean — I mean, I had private investigators actually trying to stop me on the street to hand me this letter.

Q I’m just asking you about any other communications with Mr. Abelson.

A With Mr. Abelson? Not that I recall specifically.

Q Then am I correct that you got Mr. Leipold, who you were already working with, I guess, at the time, to file a lawsuit?

882

A Correct.

Q And that is Exhibit —

MR. WEINBERG: What did I say? The lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: 232.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And that is Exhibit 232 in front of you, correct?

A Yes.

Q And that was a lawsuit filed on your behalf in — that was filed — date filed August 6, 1998 in Superior Court in California seeking to declare the release, which is one which is attached to that first exhibit, not valid as it pertained to your testimony. Is that right?

A You know, I’m sorry, Mr. Weinberg, I’m a little tired. But, you know, the question gets long. Then I don’t know what I’m supposed to be answering.

Q The purpose of this was to try to allow you to work in cases against the Church of Scientology?

A No. Not at all.

THE COURT: A dec action normally just to  declare the rights of the parties.

MR. WEINBERG: That was my first question. And I tried to make it simpler.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, you were asking the Court to declare that the release did not prohibit you from testifying?

883

A If that is what this says, yes.

Q Okay. And this case never — it just lay — you never prosecuted this case. Is that right?

A No, I never pursued it.

Q And the Church of Scientology didn’t — didn’t file any lawsuit against you?

A No.

Q And that release that was attached is the release that you were talking about that you signed in 1992, is that right?

A Under extreme duress, yes.

Q The extreme — did you sign it on the day that you left?

A I signed it on the 31st of October. But for whatever reason, Mr. Rathbun thought it would be more appropriate to make it November. So he wrote “November 1st” here.

But the actual date that I left that I was taken to the airport by the Scientology security official was the 31st of October.

Q Was it late at night that you signed it?

A No. But it was in the evening.

Q All right. Does it make a difference whether it is November 1st or October 31st?

A It makes a difference as far as accuracy is concerned.

884

Q And on this same day, you were — you talked to Mr. Rathbun in — in a recorded conversation?

A Yes.

Q And were you under any duress?

A Extreme duress, as is laid out in this complaint.

Q Did he threaten you during the conversation on the 31st?

A I was way past being threatened.

Q That was a simple question. Did he threaten you during the conversation that was recorded on the 31st?

A I don’t know. I would have to listen to it again.

Q Do you remember being threatened?

A No, I do not.

Q When you say duress, what are you talking about?

A Well —

THE COURT: He already talked about it throughout his testimony as to the whole schmear.

MR. WEINBERG: This is the last day when he decided to walk out.

THE COURT: I understand that, Counselor. But he already testified as to how he felt threatened and how he felt coerced and all that and how it came about.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All this long tenure. But if you

885

are specifically asking about right before he signed is —

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m asking.

THE COURT: But don’t suggest that is all he’s talking about because he talked about —

MR. WEINBERG: No. No, I’m talking about on the 31st when this was recorded.

A I’ll give you a simple statement. Unless I signed this, I would have been — remained a captive. Unless I did this, I would have remained incarcerated by Scientology.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, the first time that you — in 1987 when you went into the RPF, you actually walked out on your own, didn’t you?

A What do you mean?

Q Well, you have testified about it. You actually left the RPF and went into town, checked into a hotel —

A Escaped. I escaped. It just wasn’t walking. No. I escaped. And some Indians from the Soboba Springs Reservation put me in a truck and drove me to bingo hall so I could call the police. No, I escaped. I ran away from that place.

Q So you didn’t see Mr. Rathbun or anybody like that who paid for a hotel?

A Oh, they caught me on the road walking.

886

Q And they took you into town?

A Yeah.

Q So —

A In the back of a truck.

Q They didn’t take you back to the RPF?

A I wasn’t going to go back to the RPF. I made that clear. I told them if they wanted to speak with me or continue any kind of dialogue with me, it would be on my terms and not on their terms and — no longer on their terms.

That if they wanted to talk to me, I would sit still in a place a while.

So they went and paid for a hotel. I went and got a car, drove straight back to the RPF and got Vicki Aznaran out of there. Vicki Aznaran didn’t want to be there, either.

Q And they let her go, too?

A No. They had no choice.

Q What do you mean, they had no choice?

A I came in there with a car, driving up their dirt road so fast. I knew exactly where she was. As soon as I went in there, I grabbed her, put her in that car and we zoomed out the gate.

Q But the first time when you left, Mr. Rathbun picked you up on the road, and instead of taking you back to the RPF, he took you to a hotel in town and paid for a hotel

887

room?

A At my demand, yes.

Q Well, if you are a prisoner, what right do you have to demand anything?

A Because I’m in the public now. You see, I’m in the open now. I’m not in Scientology’s closed system where they can do whatever they want to and people can’t see. Now I’m out on the public road with public cars passing

by. And that affords — afforded some protection because it was a PR flap.

For me to be out there, a disgruntled staff member, extremely disgruntled staff member, leaving for my life, my God, I’m walking through the desert, it is 110 degrees, that is the reason why.

I told them, “I’m going straight to the police, straight to the press. I’m sick of you people.”

Q This is in 1987?

A Correct.

Q Then after a week or two or three or whatever it was, you then voluntarily went back to the RPF?

A No.

Q From the public?

A Mmm, Mr. Weiner (sic), you know on direct we covered this quite well, and I explained the whole situation about my wife, you know, how they wanted to split my wife

888

and I, I didn’t want to be split with her, I stayed there an extra five years until she came to. You know, I have that same testimony today.

Q One simple question. No one drug you back.

A Correct.

Q Now, you testified that — I think that you were shocked about private investigators and how a private investigator has been running around. I mean, I think —

THE COURT: Shocked? I don’t recall him being shocked.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q How do you recall it?

A Annoyed. Kind of surprised.

Q Now, after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, you actually became trained and worked in Texas as a private investigator, didn’t you?

You were certified?

A Correct.

Q And the person that trained you was Rick Aznaran, who had years before left the Church of Scientology?

A In 1989, I think — no, it was five years prior to me leaving. So, yes.

Q How long did you work as a private investigator?

A Oh, probably maybe — maybe four months, five months.

Q Now, let’s go to your August 1999 affidavit.

889

A Okay.

Q You are familiar with that affidavit, obviously. Right?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, if we’re going to go through and do the word games with it, I certainly need to have it present in front of me.

MR. DANDAR: I might have it.

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this?

MR. WEINBERG: This is the one that the hearing is about, basically.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: I take that back. I thought I had it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy of it?

THE COURT: Did you say this was the one dated the 1st of May of —

MR. WEINBERG: No. No. When I said the hearing, this is the August 20, 1999 affidavit, the one where the murder allegation was made.

THE COURT: I thought you said about this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know, it is the —

THE COURT: What number is that, Madam Clerk?

Could I have that? I don’t have it up here.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. There was no murder

890

allegation in the affidavit.

THE COURT: The objection is on the record.

We’ll deal with — the affidavit says whatever it says.

MR. DANDAR: It says what it says.

THE COURT: It says what it says.

MR. DANDAR: I just can’t find my copy.

THE COURT: This one, is this 108 or something like that?

MR. DANDAR: It is very possible.

THE COURT: Madam Clerk, look for 108, see what that is.

THE CLERK: Defense 108 or —

THE COURT: Oh, I don’t know.

MR. FUGATE: It is not 108, Judge.

THE COURT: No, that is not it.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I have one that I don’t think have any highlights on it — well, one highlight, nothing much.

THE COURT: That is all right, I don’t mind the  highlights.

MR. WEINBERG: I can’t even find the one that did have highlights.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you have one, Mr. Prince?

891

A No, I do not.

Q Okay, I have another one.

THE COURT: This is in evidence or else it is attached to the response.

MR. DANDAR: And we would like it to be considered as evidence in this hearing.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, it needs to then be admitted — it hasn’t been admitted. Do you want to admit it as the defense next exhibit?

MR. DANDAR: That is fine.

MR. WEINBERG: How about plaintiff’s next exhibit?

MR. DANDAR: Or it could be a joint exhibit.

MR. WEINBERG: Frankly —

THE COURT: Make it your exhibit, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: As well as the April 2002 exhibit of Mr. Prince which is also filed.

MR. WEINBERG: I am not to that one yet. Why don’t we start with this one?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think — are these the exhibits to it?

THE COURT: I don’t know that —

MR. WEINBERG: Yours don’t have it but it is just —

892

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I actually —

THE COURT: I don’t know what that is. Was it attached to his affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently so.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. DANDAR: It is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

Yes, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

THE COURT: Do you remember, Mr. Dandar, whether there were any attachments to his? I honestly don’t remember attachments, at least I wasn’t given — in the copy I was given. It doesn’t mean there weren’t some.

MR. DANDAR: My copy with me today has nothing attached to it. But —

THE COURT: Well, let’s just look, because if there are no attachments to it, then you need not —

MR. WEINBERG: This wouldn’t be something we want in, anyway. These are not attachments. But I think we’ll probably find that he refers to some in  here somewhere.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, why don’t we do this. I marked one without the attachments. Why don’t we just mark it without the attachments?

THE COURT: Okay.

893

MR. WEINBERG: Then we won’t have —

THE COURT: That will be plaintiff’s next in order.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: There will be no attachments. If you later find out there are attachments with it —

MR. WEINBERG: He already put into evidence the — with the motions —

MR. DANDAR: It is already in as 126 of the plaintiff.

THE COURT: 126?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: It is already in?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Then we don’t need it in again, Counsel. Number 126.

MR. WEINBERG: But it doesn’t have attachments.

THE COURT: I’ll just use this one and give it back to you when we’re done. Whoops, now I have two of them.

MR. WEINBERG: I know, because I had given you one with attachments and one without.

THE COURT: I’ll use them. And when I’m done, I’ll give them both back to you.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Weinberg, I would like a

894

copy, as well.

THE COURT: Here. Take mine, the extra.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Prince, did I give you Pages 1 through 18?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q First of all, take a look at that affidavit. And go to the last page. And that is an affidavit that you executed on August 20, 1999, is that right?

A Correct.

Q And you executed it in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct.

Q Now, you can put the affidavit down. I have some questions first.

A Okay.

Q You had, as of August 20, 1999, no personal knowledge as to what occurred in 1995 with regard to Lisa McPherson at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Correct?

A Correct.

Q You had — at that time you’d been out of Scientology, out of a — sorry, by that time you’d been out  of an executive position at Scientology for — since 1987?

A Correct.

895

Q You were not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in 1995.

Correct?

A Correct.

Q You never spoke to anybody that was with Lisa McPherson while she was at the hotel in 1995. Correct?

A Well, let me think about that.

Q As of the time you executed your affidavit?

A Oh, not that I recall.

Q Okay. You had — at the time that you executed your affidavit in August of 1999, you had no knowledge — no personal knowledge as to what David Miscavige was doing or where he was from November 18, 1995 through December 5, 1995. Correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Yes, that is true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true.

THE COURT: Okay. Now we are in important areas so I want the record to be clear on things like that.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, yet you opined in your affidavit —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me one second. (Short pause.)

896

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you go to Page 17.

A Okay.

Q You opined in your affidavit, in Paragraph 44, that:

“Lisa McPherson was held against her will in isolation. And when she did not respond to Scientology technical handling, Flag, on orders from David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun, sat mute and watched her die after she no longer had the strength to fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was a chosen option to minimize a public relations flap.”

That is what you said, correct?

A Correct.

Q At the time you said that, you did not have a shred — you did not have a piece of evidence indicating — indicating that in November and December of 1995 that either Mr. Mithoff or Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige had done one thing with regard to Lisa McPherson. Correct?

A Mmm, correct. I — you labeled this as my opinion, I think. You said I opined about these and this is what I did.

Q Go to Paragraph 34 — I mean Paragraph 43. I’m sorry, Page 17, same page. Paragraph 43, you say:

“Yet from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals, Mithoff, Rathbun and Miscavige, had no

897

option other than to permit her to die in isolation, rather than to take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physician, press and authorities, with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery.”

You said that. Right?

A Correct.

Q And — but when you said that, you didn’t have a shred of evidence that indicated that Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige made a decision to let her die.

Correct?

A This was my opinion, based on experience.

Q You didn’t have any evidence, did you?

A I had no physical evidence, no.

THE COURT: Could I ask him a question here?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt. At that time, at the time you wrote this, had the doctors, more particularly, Dr. — I can’t even think of his name now.

MR. DANDAR: Spitz.

THE COURT: — Spitz, had he been deposed yet?

Do you know, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I do not recall, your Honor.

898

THE COURT: In other words, this was before you had the medical testimony?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, I wouldn’t say that, either, no. I — I’m not sure about that, either. I know I have read medical testimony from Mr. Dandar’s experts concerning what —

THE COURT: Do you know whether you had knowledge of what that testimony — I mean, I have to presume you and Mr. Dandar, as his consultant, discussed what he knew, what you knew.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: But do you know whether or not you knew about the medical doctors before you wrote your affidavit, or not?

THE WITNESS: I — as I sit here today, your Honor, I don’t know.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you did know that the Church of Scientology had been charged criminally at this point. Right?

A Yes.

Q You were aware of what the medical examiner had said, correct? The autopsy report, all of the controversy? I mean, you were aware of all of that?

A Yes.

899

Q Now, you knew that by making an allegation like you did in your affidavit in August of 1999, that David Miscavige, the leader of the Church of Scientology, was part of an intentional decision to allow a fellow Scientologist who was on a religious program, introspection rundown, to die. You knew that making an allegation like that would — would be — would bring very negative press and very negative reactions from the Church. Correct?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know which part of that diatribe to respond to.

THE COURT: It wasn’t a diatribe. He said did you know that this would bring very negative reactions from the Church?

THE WITNESS: I mean, that was not in my awareness. That was not part of my thought process when I executed this document here. My thought process, in executing this document, is after reviewing the preclear folders, reviewing the caretaker notes, reviewing what other information that was available, which I had studied for months — you see, you say she was on the introspection rundown, yet your client cannot produce one sheet of paper —

THE COURT: See, you are well, well past —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

900

THE COURT: This question is real simple. His question was did you know, when you executed this affidavit, that this would cause negative reaction — I can’t remember what word you used — negative reaction from the Church?

THE WITNESS: Right. That was not in my conscious — consciousness to create that, you know, or — or — I mean I don’t think this ever appeared in the newspaper or — or anything like that. I mean, as far as public relations is concerned, I think this is a document that is held within this courtroom.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q No. It just appeared in a lawsuit that that document was the basis for that accused the Church of Scientology, specifically its leader, David Miscavige, of murder. It appeared in that. Right?

A I prepared this — this affidavit for this case.

Q Right. And that affidavit was the — was the principal piece of evidence that was used to seek the fifth amended complaint that made it very clear that there was a murder allegation against David Miscavige, among others. Correct?

A You know, you’re asking me to do — or to comment upon work that was actually Mr. Dandar’s work. Mr. Dandar

901

simply asked me, “What do you think happened with Lisa McPherson? Based on everything that you have read, what do you think happened to her?”  Then we went, “Well, why do you think it happened to her? Well, can you show me? Can you tell me?”

And after we went through that process, I went over this many times because he was like, “Are you sure? Are you sure?”   I said, “Look, this is the way it works here. I was here. I know how it works. I have seen this in operation.” You know, I’m not —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you are going on and on. And the long and short of it is you testified on direct examination, in response to questions either from your lawyer — or I should not say your lawyer, either from the person to whom you consult with or from me, that you’d never seen an end cycle ordered by David Miscavige —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: — other than on a terminally ill person.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So the long and short of it is you really didn’t have any experience for these particular serious allegations, did you?

902

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, your Honor. And I think with the first part of my testimony, when you see the pattern of the conduct of this organization in that it is not below them to do something illegal, it is not below them to put themselves before an individual, it is —

THE COURT: Well, then it was just speculative on your part. This is one of a number of possibilities that could have happened?

THE WITNESS: Right. Exactly.

THE COURT: This just happened to be the only one you mentioned?

THE WITNESS: Well, this is the only one I believe did happen.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Okay?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You knew — at the time you executed this affidavit that was the basis for the fifth amended complaint, you knew that there was no policy, no written policy, in the Church of Scientology with regard to killing someone who was on an introspection rundown. You knew that, didn’t you?

A Basically — no, there is no policy to kill people. There is nothing in the policy to kill people that

903

I know of.

Q Okay. And you have said many, many times over the course of this litigation if it isn’t written, it isn’t so. Correct?

That it is — it is all in writing, it is all written down, as far as Scientology policy. Correct?

A As far as Scientology policy is concerned, that is something that they say.

Q All right. Now, you had been — you had one experience with the introspection rundown where you actually were on an introspection rundown watching someone. That is Teresita. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And Ms. Brooks was on that same introspection rundown. Right?

A For a short period of time, yes.

Q And in that — and that went over the course of a month or so?

A A couple months.

Q A couple of months?

A Yes.

Q And people were with Teresita around the clock?

A Primarily myself was with her around the clock. But, you know, her being a young woman, sometimes she would need help going to the bathroom or, you know, cleaning herself up. That is when the girls would come, like Stacy

904

and another girl would help.

Q And part of 0 and 00 of the introspection rundown is the isolation part, right, which is what this watch was, and also getting food and — and nutrition so you can start auditing, try to get out of the psychotic state.

Correct?

A Almost correct. But the auditing pretty much happens immediately after the person has had a period of time asleep, such as eight hours, the auditing is immediately started.

Q If someone is still psychotic, in other words, out of their mind, not — not in present time, they can’t get audited, can they?

A Well, you know — no. You can audit an unconscious person. There are auditing processes where you can actually audit an unconscious person.

Q You didn’t receive an order to let Teresita die, did you?

A No. I did not.

Q No one received an order to let Teresita die?

A No.

Q Teresita was a staff member —

A Correct.

Q — who had a psychotic break, apparently.

Correct?

A You know —

905

Q Can you just answer that question?

A Okay, I am going to answer. But, you know, you talk about psychotic break. And again, you know, what are we talking about here?

THE COURT: We’re talking about somebody that barks like a dog, which is what you said she did.

That is somebody that had a psychotic break.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. Am I qualified to do a medical diagnosis? I don’t think so.

THE COURT: No, but we are all qualified in this room to know that somebody that is barking like a dog had something go wrong. And it is usually psychotic. Fair enough?

THE WITNESS: Is it temporary? Does it go on for weeks? Does it just happen for an hour? I mean, what are we talking about?

THE COURT: Let him ask his question and let him answer and we’ll all make our assumptions when it is over.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. What I’m talking about, when you were with her most of the time, you saw to it that she ate and that she drank. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And you — I think you have said in testimony,

906

whether it is — I think it was your affidavit, this affidavit that we’re looking at, 126, that at one point you thought that she was — was going to die, I think you said. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Because you were concerned that she wasn’t getting enough to drink or enough to eat?

A No. That is not why I thought she was going to die. I thought she was going to die because she couldn’t sleep.

Q And you —

THE COURT: Maybe you can show me where you are, because this is a long affidavit. I don’t remember where this part of it was.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll show you. It is Page 13.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 31.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Read that out loud, Mr. Prince. It is one sentence.

A I’m sorry. What is it?

Q Page 13, Paragraph 31.

A Uh-huh.

Q Can you read that out loud?

907

A “If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that, based upon my own observation, she would have died.”

Q So you were concerned that she was going to die if you didn’t force her or make her drink water. That is what you said under oath in this August 1999 affidavit. Correct?

A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. But if you go to Number 29 of the same affidavit, I also mention the fact that I was afraid she was going to die because she could not sleep.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: He also said she had a — you also said she had a psychotic break, didn’t you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I did.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. But the point is, Mr. Prince, is that you took it upon yourself to help her get through this. Correct?

A Yes.

Q So did Stacy Brooks?

A For a short time.

Q So did a number of other people that were there. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And you got an award for it?

A No, I didn’t.

908

Q You got recognized for it?

A No, I didn’t.

Q You didn’t?

A Come on.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I just approach the witness, your Honor, while I get copies of this?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I show you —

MR. WEINBERG: We’ll mark it —

THE COURT: I think it has already been marked because when Stacy Brooks was on the stand —

MR. WEINBERG: You are right, it has been marked, and we’ll figure out what the exhibit number is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q “August 31, 1988. Commendable. The following people are acknowledged for their assistance on handling a cycle that was above and beyond their duties. Their actions helped in the standard application of Scientology technology on the introspection rundown that made a being sane. Highly commended: Jesse Prince.” Do you see that?

A Where? Suzie Watson? I had forgotten about her. The

909

rest of them people are security guards. Well, you know, this is possible. I hadn’t remembered it.

Q Well, you were pretty happy, were you not, that you were successful in your endeavors to help Teresita?

A You know, I was happy that she survived and made it home okay. I was happy about that. Yes.

Q And you’re aware that she’s alive today and is still a Scientologist?

A I have no information about that.

Q She went home? She was allowed to go home after the introspection rundown was concluded?

A Yes. She signed her release, similar to this thing I signed, and she —

Q No one told you to keep her there to avoid a public relations flap?

A After she was well?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q No?

A No.

Q And during this process, she hit you. Correct?

A Yes.

Q She ran out several times, ran out into the country?

910

A Right.

Q I mean, one could say, if they didn’t know, that she was crazy, that she was trying to escape, correct, when she ran out?

A You could surmise that. I don’t know. She was running in the wrong direction to escape because where we were at, we were on a — where this place is, where we had her, the mountains are behind there. And she ran up that way. Which, unless you are a skilled mountain climber, you are not going to go very far.

Q And what you did, you ran after her, didn’t you?

A Yes.

Q And you brought her back?

A No. Actually I couldn’t catch her because she ran so fast. Sometimes people have superhuman strength. And then she climbed so high. And she was a lightweight person. And when I tried to reach for her, I couldn’t reach where she was. So I had to literally sit and wait for her to decide to come down.

Q Then you brought her back?

A No. I walked behind her. She brought herself back.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you brought her back, she came back, you followed her back —

THE WITNESS: She came back.

911

THE COURT: The deal was you weren’t going to let her, in that state, go anywhere except stay there and continue to be handled. Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you cannot speak for what all Scientologists — other Scientologists would follow as far as policy, can you?

A No, I cannot.

Q Because — because of the concept in Scientology that what is true for you is true. Correct?

A Well, not — not wholly because also it depends on how much you have been trained, how much policy you know, you know. You can’t be expected to understand something you don’t know.

Q We’ve talked about this in your depositions before. The point is, is that it is a policy of Scientology that Scientologists can decide on their own what — whether to ignore policy or not — to ignore a particular policy or not?

A No. That is not true.

Q Then what did you mean when you testified —

A Not ignore a policy. You know, I mean, how could you ignore the policy to lock the door when all of the staff

912

walk out? You know, you’re going to get in trouble. That doesn’t make sense. You don’t ignore the policy. Either you understand it and you accept it, or you don’t.

Q So you don’t have to accept it if you don’t want to, that is a policy — that is what is true for you is true for you?

A No. No, no. Maybe with tech, you know, a belief — but policy that lays out the fundamental actions of the organization? No.

Q You don’t have any knowledge of what the staff members that were staying with Lisa McPherson — what policies

they were or were not following and what they believed about those policies? You are not in a position to opine about that, are you?

A What policies — policy are you referring to?

Q Whatever policies they were advised as to or practicing when they were staying with Lisa McPherson.

A You know, that is kind of ambiguous. If you have got a policy, I could tell you whether or not I think they’re aware of it.

Q All right.

Now, do you remember that in or about August or September — we’ll pull the exact affidavit now — in 2001 you executed an affidavit that was the basis of a motion for severe sanctions against the Church, and as a
result you withdrew as an expert in the case?

913

THE COURT: Are we done with this affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, yes.

THE COURT: All right, I’m going to let you have that back. Mr. Prince, if you want to, you can give that back.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I believe this is in evidence, too, isn’t it?

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. It is but — do we have copies of the affidavit? I think we have copies.

THE COURT: Okay. Good. I just went ahead — I’m just having the evidence filed as I read through it.

MR. WEINBERG: You know what —

THE COURT: It is too massive.

MR. WEINBERG: — this one I’m not positive about, whether it is in evidence or not.

THE COURT: I don’t know, either. Madam Clerk, how do you know what is in evidence?

MR. WEINBERG: I should know this and, frankly, I apologize.

THE COURT: Is there any way you can tell us whether an affidavit of Jesse Prince dated September of 2001 is in evidence?

914

THE CLERK: Yes, Judge, I can check. Is it plaintiff’s or defendant’s?

THE COURT: I can’t tell you if it is plaintiff’s or defendant’s. These come in under strange hands.

MR. DANDAR: I don’t believe the plaintiff used this at this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark it. We’ll mark as the next exhibit, the September of 2001 affidavit of Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: What number is that?

THE CLERK: 233.

MR. WEINBERG: 233.

THE COURT: And if you find it is in evidence, you’ll let us know and we’ll take that one out. We’ll have just a mound of evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It is obviously part of a court record.

THE COURT: Yes. And I believe it has been referred to several times. But I’m not sure it has ever been introduced.

MR. DANDAR: 233?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: So it will be received.

MR. WEINBERG: Then — where is the motion? Do

915

you have the motion? I might as well do the whole package here. 234 would be the motion for severe sanctions.

THE COURT: I don’t know why I would need the motion to be introduced. But —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think there was something I wanted to refer to and, frankly, I don’t know what it was. I’ll just mark it anyway. And that would be 234.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, is that an affidavit that you executed, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, it is, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And it was done — who wrote this affidavit?

A I did.

Q Did you get any help writing this affidavit?

A Mmm, maybe somebody, you know, did margins for me or, you know, word —

Q I mean, somebody drafted it for you? Nobody drafted it for you? You did all that?

A Again, I don’t want to be coy when answering the question. Sometimes Mr. Dandar or some attorney will suggest information based on conversations that we had and — quite normally.

And I think Mr. Dandar can attest to this, that I

916

normally start from the beginning and type my own, do my own work.

Q Now, if you go to Paragraph 22 and 23 of his affidavit, on Page 5 —

A Yes?

Q — you swore in the affidavit that — that — that:

“As a result of my arrest and criminal prosecution, I was extremely upset, embarrassed and humiliated and could see in here that my fiancee and her two minor children were traumatized by this experience.”

Then you went on in 23 to say that: “Further, I had advised Ken Dandar, counsel for the estate of Lisa McPherson, that I must withdraw as the estate’s expert in the above-captioned cause as a result of my arrest and prosecution and serious concern of further and more intense fair game by Scientology and its operatives.” Then you go on. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So the purpose of this affidavit was to say you were not going to be an expert anymore in this case because you were scared of Scientology. That is essentially what you said, right?

A No. I think that is a mis-characterization of what it says here.

917

Q How would you characterize it?

A I was concerned for my family. You see, I had no problem with weathering the storm with Scientology personally.

But this is beyond personal — I think I explained this in my testimony yesterday. Innocent people are involved here. It just wasn’t worth it to me. And I couldn’t hire an attorney. I just lost my job. You know, I don’t want to do that.

THE COURT: He said, “Not only to myself but my fiancee and her two children, who are all very dear to me.” That is all the same section.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did it concern you, for the previous four years when you were threatening the Church, picketing in front of their buildings, saying obscene things about David Miscavige, did it — did it — did it concern you then about Scientology?

A Mmm, what it — it concerned me the moment that I found out that this operation had been run on me and drugs put on my back porch. I mean, it just went to a whole new level at that point. This is at my home. This is where I
live. People coming in, putting seed around, you know, commiserating with police, telling them I’m a drug dealer, cocaine dealer.

I have children. My fiancee gets her children

918

taken away from her. It escalated to a new level, Mr. Weinberg.

Q But the affidavit is executed in September of 2001. You had been acquitted in the spring, hadn’t you?

A Yes. Then didn’t —

Q Not acquitted. There had been a hung jury and the prosecutor decided not to pursue it. That was in the spring, wasn’t it?

A Didn’t Mr. Rinder quote, in the St. Pete Times, “We’ll get him next time.” Okay? He was quoted, “We’ll get  him next time.” I don’t want any more next times.

Q You continued to be an expert and consultant for Mr. Dandar up until — after the hung jury in the spring, up until September of 2001 when Mr. Minton said he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore. Is that what happened?

A No. Disrelated items.

Q It just happened to be coincidentally at the same time?

A If you characterize it that way. Again, like I say, as we’ve gone over, my regular job at the trust of helping people and doing things was over. We were in the process of leaving town. Everything Scientology wanted to accomplish had been accomplished. The trust was ruined.

You know, we were done. It was over. People were going home.

919

Q So —

A That wasn’t good enough.

Q Actually, you wouldn’t need to work on the case anymore because the trust was over. Right?

A No, you know, I wouldn’t draw that conclusion, Mr. Weinberg. I’m saying my family, right where I live, were threatened. You know, even today you knock on the door, if we get an unexpected visitor, people in my house jump out of their skin. What the hell, because that is exactly how the DEA came in my house, running around with fully automatic weapons in front of my children, because a Scientology private investigator told him I’m selling marijuana, cocaine, selling stolen auto parts; lying, in other words.

And this happened. Okay? I think I had a reason to be concerned.

Q Didn’t Mr. Minton ask you to withdraw from being an expert in the case?

A Never.

Q Did Ms. Brooks ask you to withdraw from the case?

A Yes, she did.

Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you that was Mr. Minton’s desire that you not be an expert anymore?

A No, she did not.

Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you why it was her desire you not be an expert in the case anymore?

920

A Yes, she did.

Q She said that had to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust, the reason?

A No, she said that Scientology had successfully inextricably mixed the work we were doing at the trust with this case, and irrespective of the lawyers and the arguments that they made, you know, it was like they wanted that, too.

Because of this, all of that discovery goes on with Mr. Minton, the trust is virtually raided, you know. Those kinds of reasons.

She said, “Look, if this case didn’t exist, none of this would be happening. We could still be doing this work. But because this has happened, it’s putting everyone in a horrible position. It ruined the company.”

Q Is there a particular reason why you didn’t put in your affidavit what Ms. Brooks had asked you to do, to withdraw?

A Yes, because it is irrelevant. It is my decision.

I spoke on this yesterday, Mr. Weinberg. I said, you know, Stacy wanted this to be done.

I spoke to Bob. And it is like, “Jesse, Stacy is upset because of discovery and things that are going on,”  yik-yik-yik. And, “You know, if you have to work with Ken, it’s up to you if there is something that is needed to be done.” He didn’t care.

921

Q Did you tell Mr. Dandar that Ms. Brooks had told you — asked you to withdraw as an expert?

A I think Ms. Brooks may have called him herself because she was quite panicked.

Q Did you send a copy of the motion — a draft — a copy of the draft of the motion for severe sanctions to Mr. Minton before it was ever filed? You?

A I don’t think so.

Q Well, you did make it a practice to E-Mail or send or give to Mr. Minton copies of draft pleadings. You made that a practice, didn’t you?

A No. Come on.

Q In the case?

A Uh-uh.

Q Never did that, did you?

A No. And, you know, I don’t draft pleadings. Again, I’m not the lawyer.

MR. WEINBERG: The next exhibit. Your Honor, this is 235.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you see 235, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q This is a copy of an E-Mail which you sent to whom on 9/20/01?

922

A Okay. Okay.

Q You sent this to Mr. Minton, didn’t you?

A Apparently, I did.

Q And you say here —

MR. WEINBERG: We move this into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And this is an E-Mail where you say —

THE COURT: Can you show me how we know it went to Mr. Minton? I can’t read this stuff well enough to know.

MR. WEINBERG: I think maybe Mr. Prince can explain that better than me.

THE COURT: What is it at the top that shows this went to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: There is nothing that says this went to Mr. Minton on this document.

THE COURT: Well, you just remember sending it to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Well, I’m assuming. You know, I’m not here saying I have never sent anything to Mr. Minton about anything.

THE COURT: Here, maybe this is it, I don’t know, this is encrypted something at the back.

923

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE WITNESS: As far as I know, this was an encrypted message on my computer.

MR. WEINBERG: This is where you see it at the back.

THE COURT: I think I found it already.

MR. WEINBERG: Right here, “To: Bob Minton, From: Jesse Prince. Received.”

THE COURT: How do we know — how do we know this is — I mean, I don’t care, but how do we know that this is the same thing?

THE WITNESS: Exactly. Here we have a bunch of characters, and now attached to it with — you know, when you get on the Internet, it clearly says from who to who on the message. It doesn’t look like this. It is not in this format.

It is not like that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, look at — look at this page here.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I don’t know how to indicate it.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Look at that page. That is an E-Mail you sent to Mr. Minton. Correct?

924

A Correct.

Q On September 20, 2001?

A Correct.

Q 9:41:07?

A Yes, I guess so.

Q Something like that?

A Yeah.

Q This is obviously an encrypted message. Correct?

A Correct.

Q You each had that program so you could communicate with one another in an encrypted fashion?

A Correct.

Q Then you had — what do you call it — decrypted, what is it, a code or something?

A Yes.

Q Then you are able to, on the other end, decode it, right?

A Correct.

Q All right. Now, the decoding is what the first part of this exhibit is?

A The what?

Q The decrypting, decoding, whatever it is called where it says: “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or two. And this is not the final form as he is doing more work on it today. I’ll make sure you have a copy

925

of the final draft.”

A Okay.

Q You did that, didn’t you?

A I did what now?

Q You sent to Mr. Minton that message in encrypted form with a draft of this motion for severe sanctions?

A You know, I’m going to hold off on saying that happened because, you know, here is this message, it is encrypted —

THE COURT: Well, you sent this to somebody, you’ll agree?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I sent it to somebody.

THE COURT: It could have been Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: It could have been Mr. Minton.

It could have been Mrs. Brooks. It could —

THE COURT: You wouldn’t be apt to send it to anybody else, right?

THE WITNESS: Sometimes I would check things via Mr. Leipold just to get his opinion on it, another attorney I work with.

THE COURT: I think I know what Mr. Weinberg was saying. If you look over on this — this what we’ll call the encrypted one, the date — or the  time is 9:41:01 on September 20, 2001.

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

926

THE COURT: If you look at the one we can read, it says 9:40:22.

THE WITNESS: You show me where you are —

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Up here. See here? 9/20/01. 9:40:22. See that?

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: It looks like that is — that went out — now look over here. This encrypted, see, it says: “Date, September, 20, ’01, 9:41:01.” So it looks like it may have — it goes out once like this —

MR. DANDAR: That confirms it is not the same thing.

MR. WEINBERG: You know, I move this into evidence and we’ll get an authenticating affidavit from Mr. Minton saying that this is a document —

THE COURT: All right —

MR. WEINBERG: — that he received and he produced to us.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: And Mr. Prince didn’t — didn’t send it to Mr. Minton. What he basically is saying, he’s not sure. And I can’t tell, but it looks like there is some correlation between these two things. I don’t — I don’t think I’m smart enough or if you

927

are smart enough to prove it to me, but that will be enough — and you don’t deny that, right, it could have gone to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE COURT: And I’m going to receive it because it was clearly something from Mr. Prince. And you just don’t know for sure who it went to, is that it?

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: What number is it again?

THE CLERK: 235.

THE COURT: 234?

MR. DANDAR: 235.

THE COURT: 235. Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, why would you be — assuming that this did go to Mr. Minton, why would you be sending Mr. Minton a draft of a motion for severe sanctions that was going to be filed by Ken Dandar in a couple days, in September of 2001, when you say that you had withdrawn from the case?

A Well, I’ll give you the — the answer I could think of about this — Mmm — this affidavit that you showed me earlier, this one here from September of 2001, I think it

928

is — yeah, where I talk about —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I hate to do this. Is this the affidavit, or is this the motion?

MR. WEINBERG: This is the motion.

THE COURT: Okay. The affidavit isn’t here, unless that is what this is.

MR. WEINBERG: No. No. No. This — this — if you look at the note at the front, “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or so.”

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: The affidavit, you know, had already been done, apparently.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: This affidavit is dated the next day.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, this is the motion.

THE COURT: So your question was — I’m sorry — why would you send the motion —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What was the reason — assuming you sent this draft to Mr. Minton, what was the reason you would have been sending to Mr. Minton, in September of 2001, an advance draft of a motion that was being filed for severe sanctions in the Lisa McPherson case?

929

A Because as I recall, he was extremely upset with me. He was extremely upset with Ken Dandar because of this affidavit here. You know, we’re busy going along here —

Q The affidavit wasn’t done — Mr. Dandar just pointed it out — until after this E-Mail went out?

A I’m just trying to give you what I remember so you can take it apart in a minute, if you just let me get it out.

Q All right. Go ahead.

A What I recall about this is Mr. Minton was extremely upset about this affidavit because I had gone through a whole criminal trial where I had not taken the stand and — nor — and I had not admitted guilt or — you know, assumed innocence. In other words, I sat through the trial and they had to no prosecute — or whatever, a hung jury.

So from my mouth, I had never said that I had used drugs with the private investigator and, you know, running around with this detective and whatever and whatever.

Now, from my own mouth, he felt it defeated the purpose of having a trial if you are just going to run around and do that. Again, you know, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know. I want them to know and do it.

But I do know that Ken was extremely upset over the fact that I wasn’t going to be his expert anymore, that

930

I wouldn’t be able to sit there and help him, as I had done, on the case. I’d worked on it for years. So this was very upsetting to him on a personal level when I told him, “Look, Ken –” and this is before — I told him, “Look, I can’t do this anymore. I can’t protect myself. I can’t protect my family. It seems the Court is letting Scientology do whatever they want to, running roughshod in here. All this crap is going on. There is no relief. I’m ready to leave this town. It is not personal against you, Mr. Dandar, that I think you know the reason why I can’t support you, but I can’t support you and protect my family, as well.”

Q Mr. Minton had told you that he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore at this time. Correct? You knew that?

A You know, I don’t understand how I can be saying one thing and then you just say something else.

THE COURT: That is a question.

THE WITNESS: No, that — no, that is not true,  Mr. — Mr. Weiner — Weinberg.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So you didn’t know that Mr. Minton had told Mr. Dandar, as of August of 2001, that there wasn’t going to be any more funds? You didn’t know that?

A You know, the last time we talked about this — I mean, Ken got, what, $500,000 in 2000 that was supposed to

931

take him to the end of the case. I wasn’t thinking about Mr. Dandar’s money. Mr. Dandar’s money and how he was operating this case financially was never — never has been any of my concern. There’s nothing I can do about it one way or the other.

Q Now, did you talk to Mr. Merrett about withdrawing from the case?

A Mr. Merrett spoke to me on behalf of Stacy Brooks. She wanted him to explain to me why it would be beneficial for the Lisa McPherson Trust and the people that we are trying to help if I withdrew from the case.

Q So that didn’t have anything to do with threats to your family or anything like that? That has to do with Mr. Minton’s request that you get out of the case because of the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A You know, I testified twice that Mr. Minton never said that. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

Q Ms. Brooks then?

A Yes. Thank you. Get it right. That is why we’re here.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. I’m a little grouchy. I’m tired.

THE COURT: I understand. We all get grouchy.  If you wait for another hour, I’ll get grouchy.

932

MR. WEINBERG: I have that in mind.

THE COURT: I get grouchy a little after 12 and  4 o’clock just about every day.

THE WITNESS: I know that 4 o’clock is the  witching hour.

THE COURT: It’s a very bad hour for all of us.

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to say something but I won’t.

THE COURT: It is best you not.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Well, let me show you what has already been marked as an exhibit, Exhibit 49. I have got a copy, so — it is that E-Mail.

THE COURT: The E-Mail? Okay. I thought I might see this E-Mail about now.

THE WITNESS: Everybody knows but me.

THE COURT: This has already been introduced into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 49.

THE COURT: And they testified about it.

MR. WEINBERG: Defense 49.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, this is an E-Mail that has been identified by Mr. Merrett, among others, that he sent to Mr. Dandar on August 24, 2001, which is before you executed your

933

affidavit, which says:

“Ken, the short version of what’s going on is this. The well is dry as far as money goes. Jesse is going to withdraw as an expert witness. Bob feels that the case is way out of control and is focused 100 percent on him and specifically on trying to put him in jail. He wants Dell to settle the case or otherwise make it go away. Bob isn’t coming into Florida any time soon. Can you meet with me and Stacy this weekend to discuss that?”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Now, you knew about this E-Mail?

A No. Never. This is the first time I have ever seen it.

Q Well, how did Mr. Merrett know, as early as August 24, 2001, to tell Mr. Dandar that you were withdrawing as an expert witness?

A Well, you know, you would have to ask him that.

I’m not even a part of this. I mean, somebody is talking to me about it. If I said anything, it would just be hearsay, wouldn’t it?

Q So no one told you that the well was dry then?

A You know, I heard that several times. But as you and I both know, the well is not dry. Mr. Minton still has plenty of money to extricate himself out of trouble he gets into by seeing that new lawyers, having had three of them in

934

here since I have been testifying, for Christ’s sake, three different ones, Mr. Battaglia, another one yesterday, the one sitting here now.

Q You didn’t know as of August 24 Mr. Minton had sent the message to Mr. Dandar that there was going to be no more money? You didn’t know that?

A No. No, sir, I did not.

THE COURT: Please try to refrain from taking the Lord’s name in vain in this case.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, your Honor, I didn’t even know I — did I say the GD word?

THE COURT: No, you didn’t say that one. You’ll see it on a transcript.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry, your Honor.

Like I said, I’m tired, grouchy.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You did. But — he didn’t tell you that the well was dry, Mr. Minton, but he did tell you, you said, about having given Mr. Dandar a $500,000 check?

A Yeah, you know, and I’m talking about 2000, okay?

Then again, you know, just in February, he said, “Look, Ken needs more money. Go over and have this conversation with him.”

So how could the well be dry on this date, but a little while later, hey, here is another quarter of a

935

million.

You know, this was not anything I was privy to, anything I was dealing with.

You know, Stacy was in a complete panic, as I said. We were being raided. You know, motion after motion, deposed, on and on. You know, she was panicked. She got spooked. You know, she was just trying to put a band-aid on this any way she can.

Q It is true Mr. Minton told you — as indicated in this E-Mail, it is true he was concerned about going to jail at that point, correct, in August of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. There is no jail mentioned in this E-Mail.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Yes, there is.

MR. DANDAR: Then I’ll sit down and be corrected.

THE COURT: Good.

THE WITNESS: But you are asking the wrong person. I told you I have never seen this —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q No, I’m asking you, it is true that either Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton told you in this time period that Mr. Minton was concerned that he was going to end up in

936

jail?

A I don’t know that.

Q I’m just asking you —

THE COURT: He said he doesn’t know. He told you that twice. Now, go on to the next question.

Okay?

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton tell you, at or about that time, that they felt the case was out of control?

A I never — I never really heard those words that the case was out of control. I mean, you know —

THE COURT: But you were being told that they were very concerned that the Lisa McPherson case and Lisa McPherson Trust was all getting inextricably intertwined?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Courts were letting all these documents be acquired. This is what is out of control perhaps, right? So you were aware they were all disturbed about this?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Disturbed at the discovery, yes.

THE COURT: Well, disturbed with — that the Lisa McPherson Trust be shut down?

937

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You knew all that, did you? Or did you?

THE WITNESS: You know, I didn’t have an understanding — you know, in all honesty, you know, Judge, Mr. Minton was going through this thing with Judge Baird where he was to appear and he didn’t appear.

I understood none of that. I didn’t understand what was going on. I didn’t understand what the big problem was. If he was supposed to be deposed, you simply come in and you get deposed. You may not like it, you may not whatever.

But, you know, then we had these problems where he can’t come down, on and on. You know, a bad situation just got worse.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You knew that money didn’t have anything to do with Mr. Minton shutting down the Lisa McPherson Trust, right?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Good time for a stop?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so because I have another area to go to.

THE COURT: It is — I need to take a little

938

longer this afternoon. We’ll be in recess until ten after. Twenty minutes.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:50 to 3:15 p.m.)

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Ready? Let’s just make an exhibit search here for one second to make sure we don’t have any originals up here.

THE WITNESS: I think we took care of that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right, Mr. Prince —

A Yes?

Q — you have talked several times about being in the desert. Right?

A Yes.

Q There are two locations that are within a few miles of one another that you have been referring to. Right?

A Yes.

Q One is Hemet which is where the Golden Era Productions is where you worked after you left RTC. Correct?

A That is actually incorrect, Mr. Weinberg. It’s Gilman Hot Springs, near Hemet, but it is — it is like its own little separate town.

939

Q Golden Era Productions is in Gilman Hot Springs, and that is what you described as being in the desert? That is one of the locations in the desert?

A Yes.

Q Then the other location in the desert is —

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Is the what?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q And that is where you — that is where you had the introspection rundown with Teresita. Right?

A It was actually behind the reservation in a private-owned property, correct. Yes.

Q That is where you said the RPF was?

A Correct.

Q The incident that — that had to do with the day that you were relieved of your position at RTC and the guns, that was at Gilman Hot Springs?

A Correct.

Q I want to show you some photos.

MR. WEINBERG: These are for you. This can be marked — this Booklet A, 1 through 11, but we’ll mark it as Exhibit 236. But what I have done, your Honor, you have the same pictures, but they are in this book like this. So A1 would be the first one.

THE COURT: Okay.

940

MR. WEINBERG: Okay?

THE COURT: I can keep this?

MR. WEINBERG: You can give it back to us, unless you want to keep it.

THE COURT: No. I’ll give it back to you.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 236. I’m handing this to Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Do I get a copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, if you look at A1 through A11, you recognize that as being the location in Gilman Hot Springs that Golden Era Productions was at where you say is in the desert.Correct?

A Yes.

Q And if you would just flip through and just describe very briefly A1, A2, through 11. Could you do that?

A Yes. I think so.

This looks like a view from —

THE COURT: Tell me what you are talking about.

Is it A1?

THE WITNESS: A1.

941

THE COURT: Okay.

A This looks like a view from the dining area and the qualifications area and the studio, the studio from a perspective of the river bank, which is just further back here, the dry riverbed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What is A2?

A A2, there is a building here that, you know — wait a minute, yes, I do — this is the dining — this is apparently an aerial shot of the dining area.

Q Okay. A3, do you recognize that building?

A This — I think this may have been some new construction since I have been there. I can’t say. Do I recognize this building? I can’t rightfully say that I do.

THE COURT: Okay, that is an “I don’t know.” And that is enough.

A Okay. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was Building 36 the main administrative offices of Golden Era? That was on-site when you were there?

A Oh, is this where they do the E-meters and things in there?

Q Do you remember that is where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun when you left in 1992, that was the building?

A Yes.

942

Q If you go to A4, do you recognize that as the lake, with the administrative building in the background?

A Yes, I do, with the exercise trail.

Q And A5, do you recognize that as a sports field for the crew?

A In all honesty, I don’t recognize it, but I believe it is.

Q And A6, do you remember there were crew basketball courts?

A Yes. Yes, I do.

Q And A7, what is that?

A I have no earthly idea.

Q That is new, isn’t it?

A I —

Q Or do you know?

A It is outside of my knowledge.

Q Okay. A8, is that another building that is new?

A It’s something that is outside of my knowledge. I don’t know. I have never seen this on the property.

Q Now, you do recognize A9 as the set inside the film studio where you were working?

A No, sir. You know, matter of fact, I never worked in this area of cinematography. I worked in the audio department.

Q There is a film studio on campus, though, right?

943

A Yes. But this looks considerably larger than the film studio that was there when I was present.

Q And A10, was the golf course there while you were there?

A Mmm, I think they had started construction on it and — had hired a company to come out and do it. I think so, but I have never seen this before.

Q Oh?

A What you showed me here.

Q Now, how many years did you work in the desert at Gilman Springs, this location that you looked at, A1 through 11?

A Probably at least ten years.

Q Were the RTC offices there, as well?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let’s put those aside.

Now we’ll mark as our next exhibit — it will be Photos B1 through 5. It is Exhibit 237. I’ll give you these.

Now, you do recognize B1 through 5 as pictures of the studios where you did work when you were at Gilman Hot Springs after you — after March of 1987?

A Well, in actual fact, the only one that I recognize as the studio that I possibly worked in is B4.

Q And that would be a picture of doing what? What

944

was your job there?

A Well, I take that back, and I don’t want to — you know, I don’t know where this is, as a matter of fact. I haven’t seen this.

This looks like maybe they have new equipment.

You know, this is not anything I’m familiar with, in all honesty.

Q You worked in the film mix room?

A Mmm, I worked in the post-production — this is a building they have on top of the hill from the perspectives from the — the first photograph album that you showed me.

Where I worked at was close to a place that used to be called Bonnie View, which is L. Ron Hubbard’s home at Gilman Hot Springs.

Q And it was a studio something like what you were looking at there? I mean, there was film production or film mix going on. Correct?

A Mmm, I — I can’t say that, Mr. Weinberg, because everything here — all these pictures that you are showing me, with the exception of B4, seems to do with music.

Q Were there things like this at Gilman Hot Springs when you were there?

A Yes.

Q Whether you worked there or not?

A Yes.

945

Q And you recognize that from the photos. Correct?

A Well, again, I said again, B4 is something I recognize as being —

THE COURT: I think the long and short, you really can’t recognize it?

THE WITNESS: I can’t. This is all different from when I was there.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let me show you —

THE WITNESS: Very beautiful, though.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The whole location is beautiful, though, isn’t it?

A It looks like it is now. It wasn’t quite like that when I was there.

Q Well, the first set of photos of Gilman Hot Springs, it looked like that when you were there?

A Not exactly. There has been a lot of new construction there, from what I can see.

Q The building you described as buildings that were there looked like that when you were there. Right?

THE COURT: Whatever he said, he said, Counsel.

All right?

MR. WEINBERG: 238. These photos are marked I1  through 3.

946

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is Exhibit 238. Would you look at these, please.

A Sure.

Q Do you recognize these photos?

A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. This is the place where Mr. Miscavige and I came to, after the gun incident, to talk about things.

Q This is where you said you walked to the ship in the desert? This is where the ship in the desert is?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Is that the swimming pool (indicating)?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is still Gilman Hot Springs?

THE COURT: But the ship in the desert is the swimming pool?

MR. DANDAR: No. There is a ship.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, if you look at I3, you  see the ship.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And it is around a very nice pool area. Correct?

A Correct.

947

Q So when you indicated the ship in the desert where, after this gun incident, you went with Mr. Miscavige is I1 through 3?

A Correct.

THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or a mast on top of a building?

MR. WEINBERG: Ask Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or is that some masts on top of a building?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is a design that looks like a ship but it is actually a beautiful pool area. It is not a ship but it looks like a ship. There is a wheel there —

THE COURT: But that is what you-all call it, ship in the desert?

THE WITNESS: No. I forgot what we call this thing.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is what you called it on the stand, though?

A That is how I referred to it, yes.

Q Then we have one more set of photos to show you — two more, I guess.

MR. WEINBERG: This is just one photo here.

THE CLERK: 239.

MR. WEINBERG: 239. And it is marked J1.

948

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q 239, Mr. Prince, one photo. And I ask you if you recognize that to be a photo of the conference room in Gilman Hot Springs where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun in 1992, just before leaving the Church of Scientology?

A Unfortunately, Mr. Weinberg, none of this looks familiar to me at all.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, did you say it does not look familiar?

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. The last set are three photos.

THE COURT: You want to go ahead and take these?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. These are marked K1 through 3. And this is Exhibit 240.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you recognize Exhibit 240, don’t you?

A Which one is — is this the thing you just handed me?

Q Yes.

A No, I do not. I do not —

Q Let me go through those K1 through 3.

A I don’t recognize this at all.

949

Q Well, let me just see if I can refresh your recollection.

A Okay.

Q Do you recognize this being at Happy Valley, which is where this Indian reservation is?

A Not at all.

Q So you don’t recognize this as being one of the locations where you were with Teresita?

A No, I do not. It did not look like this at all.

Q Well, what did it look like?

A Mmm, well, the place where Teresita stayed in, it was a wooden house that was on wood planks that sat on the ground. And there was — Mmm — it was very old, kind of like something that had been left for a long time and then kind of started being used again kind of thing. There was none of this lush, beautiful greenery. It was just gravel roads and crap everywhere.

THE COURT: Do you recognize this?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: As long as he can’t recognize it, it can’t really be introduced.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back at the Teresita house — we don’t have to look at the photos. But the house, do you remember how many bedrooms the house was?

950

A To the best of my recollection, I believe there was one.

Q All right. And then there was, what, a living room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom? What else was in it? Do you remember?

A Mmm, there was a kitchen. There was a room — let me see. There was a kitchen, there was a front door, there was a small room, there was another room, and a bedroom and a bathroom, to the best of my recollection.

Q And a kitchen of some sort?

A Yes.

Q And you stayed — did you stay in the house, as well?

A No. A woman — you know, a woman would stay with her at night.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, let me sort through this, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, we offer at this time into evidence Exhibit 231, which are the A1 through 11 which are the pictures of Gilman Hot Springs.

THE COURT: I have got those as 236.

MR. DANDAR: It is 236.

MR. WEINBERG: That is because I can’t read very well. It is 236.

951

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: We offer 237, which are the —

THE COURT: He recognized one of those.

MR. WEINBERG: 237 B4, which is the one he identified, this one (indicating).

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A (Nods head.)

MR. WEINBERG: Then we offer —

THE COURT: 238 he recognized.

MR. WEINBERG: 238, which is the pictures of the pool and the ship.

THE COURT: 239 and 240, he didn’t recognize any of those.

MR. WEINBERG: Right, so I’ll not offer those at this time. And we’ll leave them marked.

THE COURT: So I’ll give you these back.

MR. WEINBERG: You accepted into evidence what we just offered?

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Dandar, once again, if you want to object, I’m assuming you’ll do so.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I will.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: But, then again, I didn’t know if

952
you wanted me — no, I’m just kidding.

THE COURT: No, I have done the same with Mr. Weinberg. A lot of times I say it is admitted because I know he will pop up if he wants to object.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not reluctant to pop up.

THE COURT: Right. But from time to time I want to remind you, you have the right to object.

And I assume if you don’t, you have none.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we fire this up?

MR. LIEBERMAN: That, of course, doesn’t cover our standing objections.

THE COURT: It does not. Standing objections are standing.

MR. WEINBERG: This will just take a second.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q While she’s doing that, let me ask you a couple of questions with regard to what I’m about to show you.

A All right.

Q You testified either yesterday or the day before — or the day before, or weeks before, I can’t remember when it is now when you actually started —

A This — I think this is my third day.

Q Okay. But you testified that you had not participated in any meetings with Mr. Dandar at the LMT.

You remember that testimony?

953

MR. DANDAR: I didn’t hear that. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: He asked if he remembered that he had stated he had not participated in any meetings with you at the LMT.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A Not particularly, no.

Q Well, let me ask you. Did you engage in any meetings — meetings where you discussed legal strategies with Mr. Dandar at the LMT in the presence of Mr. Minton?

A Not that I can recall specifically.

Q Okay. I mean, I think you said that Mr. Dandar was barely at the LMT. Didn’t you say that?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you remember a meeting with yourself, Dr. Garko, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks at the LMT to discuss picketing and the legalities of it?

A No, I do not.

Q Would you watch this, please. Then I have a few questions.

A Sure.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I love it when I’m on camera.

“Well, tell me what Nancy Miller said to you

954

concerning —

“Not to me. To Kim Rondolini and Denis deVlaming.

“Okay, your lawyers.

“They said that the police department would not be quick — or they would not arrest anyone within the 10-foot zone while they were picketing except for me. If I enter a 10-foot zone, I’ll get arrested period. That is the same as before. But nobody else would be arrested.

“No Scientologist would be arrested just in the ordinary course of things. A Scientologist who happens to be walking down the street getting 20 feet away from me, they wouldn’t be arrested. What Kim Rondolini suggested or
what Lieutenant Nancy Miller said — remember I said this shouldn’t be on camera the other night, but I don’t care, we’ll just leave it on there — is that while they have no right to tell us this, they would ask that we refrain from entering into that 10-foot zone while picketing because if — if something happens — which they felt reasonably confident that the Scientologists might try to provoke — it would in- — inevitably get blamed on us. And, therefore, somebody — somebody might get arrested and it would reflect badly upon me relative to the case that is sitting in front of Bernie McCabe now with respect to the assault — battery charge. Sorry.

“Well, I still think the best practice is to stay

955

10 feet away from the building.

“I don’t. You know why? You know why?

“Especially for you.

“For me, I have to because I would violate the injunction by being within 10 feet.

“It is impossible for him to do right now because I just found out what Stacy told me, within the last 36 hours they closed on the building next door.

“Which building?

“The Robelling (phonetic) one going that way.

“The building right next door?

“Yes, right where — wall-to-wall, they just closed in the last 36 hours, it is confidential, somebody came and told me that, literally.

“Well, they tried to get the one right beyond that —

“They got the whole building, the whole thing from Octavio’s to here belongs to them now.

“No, it doesn’t.

“Yes, it does.

“No. No. No.

“Yes.

“Listen, I’m telling you —

“Yes.

“– the injunction is against you and agents and

956

employees of yours. And that doesn’t include the Lisa McPherson Trust.

“That’s right.

“Anybody can walk down that sidewalk except you.

“That is correct.

“Anybody that — that is a volunteer from the trust can walk down that sidewalk without carrying a picket sign.

“Yeah.

“Because they are not in concert with you at the time they’re walking down there to go to a restaurant or get a Coke.

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying.

“I agree with you on that point.

“Yeah.

“However, if you organize a picket —

“Then they should stay on the other —

“– you have to stay 10 feet away.

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying here. All I’m saying —

“But the injunction applies to you whether or not you are in a picket or not.

“Well, it would — the police said it wouldn’t apply to them.

“I think I got it now. As soon as I can — sorry.

957

“Well, okay. Let me give you a perfect example of this today. We had somebody coming from Tampa, Counsel. We had two Germans come in who wanted to do a picket with me.And so we went at lunchtime and did a picket. I told them that as long as they’re with me and we’re picketing, I recommend highly we all stay 10 feet away from them —

“Right.

“– on the other side of the street while we’re picketing. And everybody abided by that.

“Right. Right.

______________________________________

“The policeman, he’s Lieutenant Hall, he’s a really, really nice guy. He’s in charge of this whole area.

“Well then, how come he didn’t know what Chief Kline said? I mean —

“He wasn’t here.

“He wasn’t here?

“Okay, he’s just —

“He’s back today.

“Okay, fine.

“He’s under Captain Jones.

“He was very courteous. He said, ‘I appreciate the fact that all of you have been trying very hard to cooperate with this whole thing. I’m sorry about the confusion that has been caused by this whole thing.’

958

“But, he said — he said, ‘You have every right to walk down a public sidewalk. The only person who has been named that has any kind of restriction is Bob Minton. There is no one else that has been named that has any restrictions.’

“Really, what I understood from what he was saying, it is not the police department’s job to do this. I mean, Sid Kline specifically for —

“Sid Kline — let me just explain.

“Specifically for that picket he said this is the way we’re going to do it. But I think it is putting him in an uncomfortable position to be asked to interpret the law. And so I think that Denis should go before the judge.

Don’t you, Ken?

“Well, in the meantime —

“Seek modification as soon as possible.

“But if we walk down the street, not picketing, I go buy a goddamn apple —

“Let them fucking call the police. Let them call the police, Stacy.

“Don’t talk like that.

“Ask –” (Inaudible.)

“What is this shit about?

“I’m saying it is unreasonable for them to ask us

959

to walk —

“It’s not legal.(Inaudible.)

“You are legally right.

“Legally what?

“You are legally what?

“You are legally right. Everybody can walk down a sidewalk except Bob Minton. (Inaudible.)

“You have the legal right to walk down the sidewalk. The police agree with that. Lieutenant D.J. Hall, who is in charge of this district, who tells his officers what to do and what not to do, said you can walk down the sidewalk except Bob Minton.

“Right.

“But he said, ‘Please, until this gets sorted out, can you walk on the other side of the street so we don’t get called down here a lot and just keep wasting our time driving down here? But if you want to — if you want to and they call, we’ll come down.’ (Inaudible.)

“Okay, here he is. Hi.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

960

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that meeting with Mr. Dandar?

A I do not, but I see it now.

Q And the reason that is part of the film library of the LMT is what?

A Personally, I have no knowledge of it being a part of a film library. This looks like a video of — a private video that was shot. And it was never published, that I know of. I don’t think this ever appeared on the Internet. It is not part of the videos that is offered by the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything else. It seemed just like a private video.

Q Do you know what the trial consultant, Dr. Garko, was doing at this meeting where there was — where the legalities of picketing were being discussed?

A No, I do not.

Q And was Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton or your lawyer or the LMT lawyer at that point giving advice about what you could, couldn’t do, as far as Judge Penick’s order?

A You know, I don’t — I’m sorry, I don’t know. I don’t have recall about that. I know our good friend, Mr. Penick, sorted this out for everyone wonderfully, though.

Q That was at the LMT, correct?

A What we just saw there?

961

Q Yes.

A Yes, it was.

Q You would call that a meeting, the one where you were all sitting in the room, with Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you —

A I would say we certainly were having a discussion.

Q That was one of the examples where you were having a meeting, Mr. Minton would sort of express — sort of taking over the meeting?

A You are mixing two things. He would express his opinion. That doesn’t mean he would take over the meeting. Mr. Dandar spoke. Stacy spoke. I spoke. It seems like everyone has been allowed to speak. There doesn’t necessarily seem to be a chairman of that meeting. We’re just having a discussion.

Q And that meeting took place while you were being paid by Mr. Dandar as a trial consultant?

A I don’t know those dates. I don’t know.

THE COURT: Could you give him a date?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Yes, what was the date? It is January of 2000?

A I’ll stipulate to the evidence. I’ll agree with that.

Q Now, did Mr. Dandar ever tell you, you know, when you were getting paid by Mr. Dandar, including then in

962

January of 2000, that you shouldn’t be — as his religion expert, you shouldn’t be picketing the Church?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to Mr. Weinberg raising his voice at the witness. It is uncalled for.

THE COURT: It was fairly modest. So I think Mr. Prince can handle that.

THE WITNESS: After all this, sure.

A You know, I think that — I forgot what the question was.

MR. WEINBERG: She can read it back to you.

THE COURT: I believe it was did Mr. Dandar ever suggest, as his consultant/expert on religion, that you should not be involved in picketing?

A Yes. He didn’t like that. Mr. Dandar didn’t like that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And he didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just looked at, did he?

A Excuse me?

Q He didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just viewed, did he?

A I didn’t hear it. I think we were talking about walking down the street, though. I think the subject of that video was walking down the street. It wasn’t so much

963

picketing. We talked about picketing, but what we’re talking about is the ability to be able to walk down the street without being arrested.

THE COURT: And the two videos were entirely different, different — it was different, everybody was all dressed up the second time.

MR. WEINBERG: Was it?

THE COURT: The first time —

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the same day, the same time, because Dr. Garko was there and Mr. Dandar was there. It’s from the same tape, at least.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, for the record, we’re going to supply, for the record, tapes of what we played and transcripts of what we played —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — because I doubt that the court reporter —

THE COURT: I’m sure they are able to get it because —

MR. WEINBERG: Some are tough. I mean, that one was probably easier, but all these videos we played —

THE COURT: If the court reporter was unable to get it and you supply a transcript, let the court

964

reporter take it down, because the district court, and I’m sure the Supreme Court, as well, now wants videos, wants tapes, transcribed in the record.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: So if the court reporter got it, that is grand. If the court reporter said she didn’t get it, perhaps you and Mr. Dandar can agree on the — what it was and she can put it in the transcript. Then we don’t need the transcripts in the record.

MR. WEINBERG: So what we’ll do is we’ll put the videos in the record and we’ll have transcripts available for the court reporter, if needed.

THE COURT: I saw Mr. Keane come in. I’ll bet he’s here to say something about this case.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll step down a second.

THE COURT: Mr. Keane, did you need me?

MR. KEANE: I just have things to deliver to you in camera.

THE COURT: Let’s go ahead, since he’s here, let’s take — will five minutes do it?

MR. KEANE: Yes. Fine.

THE COURT: We’ll just take a little break here. And I’ll be back as soon as I’m done.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

965

______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Keane brought me four packets of E-Mails that didn’t look too overwhelming. I’ll take them home tonight and look at them. Some are Mr. Dandar’s, some of Ms. Greenway’s, some are those identified by — who is Stacy Brooks’s lawyer, Mr. McGowan?

MR. FUGATE: McGowan.

THE COURT: As attorney-client privilege.

There is a different group.

So I’ll go through them and decide if any or all of them you can have and make them available.

MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: If I don’t get it done tonight, I’ll try to get it done by Friday. Is today Wednesday?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LIEBERMAN: One day just runs into another.

THE COURT: It sure does. I just tell everybody 9 to 5 all day every day.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, could I talk to Mr. Lieberman?

THE COURT: Yes.

966

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll check an exhibit number.

This is a supplemental affidavit of Jesse Prince that I put in yesterday.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: This is exhibit — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

THE COURT: Are these — are these the exhibits?

THE CLERK: No. Those are the transcripts.

THE COURT: Lee —

MR. FUGATE: Yes, ma’am?

THE COURT: — I thought I had five volumes here of transcripts. And then I see that this is Volume 1 of the time line, discovery, contempt and coercive sanctions. And this is Volume 2. This says Binder 3, 4, 5. I wonder if I have Volume 2.

MR. FUGATE: You, I think, took those with you.

THE COURT: Did I take them with me?

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: I’ll look and see if maybe I have them in my office.

MR. FUGATE: Because I think we were up to Binder 3. And 2 — I mean, 4 and 5 are just since we’ve been back.

THE COURT: But you started Volume 1 with the

967

first day of the hearing?

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: I’ll check it. Those are exhibits.

MR. FUGATE: Let me just check.

Yes, Judge, 1 and 2 beginning, and 3 and 4 and 5 continue on. So 5 is the latest which just went up there today.

THE COURT: I’ll have to look then, because I was thinking I better start taking these home. And I thought I would start with 1. And apparently maybe it is home or here. I’ll check. Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Okay, I just showed you your September — I’m sorry, your December 22, 1999 affidavit — or declaration, the supplemental declaration that you submitted in the Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology California case.

A Yes, you did.

Q And that is Exhibit Number 1 on the front?

A Exhibit Number 132.

Q Plaintiff’s 132?

A Yeah. Evidence 132.

Q Now, this was an affidavit — this was a declaration — but an under oath statement — that was filed by you at the request of Mr. Leipold?

A Correct.

968

Q Now, you did this declaration in response to a declaration that had been filed by Mr. Miscavige in this case a few months prior. Correct?

A No, sir. That is incorrect.

Q Well, you — if you turn to Page 9 —

A Okay.

Q — Paragraph 14, you say: “The missionaire in charge of the San Francisco mission holder’s vision was David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige is flat out attempting to deceive this court in his declaration when he characterizes his presence at the conference as that of an ‘invited’ master of ceremonies.”

A Okay, yes, you are right. I remember that.

Q Do you remember that now?

THE COURT: The whole affidavit may not have been filed in that response. I remember reading that last night. It was one of the things I took home. I just remember that as being part of the affidavit. I mean, I’m not saying it wasn’t.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: I don’t know why it was filed. But that is just one of a lot of stuff in there?

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

969

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But what I’m saying is when you — you had reviewed and were being asked, among other things, to comment on things that had been raised or discussed by Mr. Miscavige in his declaration. Correct?

A Well, not entirely. What I was asked to do specifically by Mr. Leipold was to do a declaration that would shed some light into how Scientology works, how the different corporations relate to each other, what are the names of them, what are the practices of them. I think —

THE COURT: Well, when you said — I didn’t mean to get off here. When you said whatever you said about Mr.Miscavige was misleading the Court,  was that in some testimony? Was this in a declaration? In a deposition? Or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don’t recall at this time.

MR. WEINBERG: But it says here the declaration.

THE COURT: Then it must be the declaration.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

MR. DANDAR: Which page is that on?

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 14 on Page 9.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And declaration is this thing that is used in the California court, as opposed to an affidavit in Florida,

970

correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, let me show you what we’ll have the reporter mark as the next exhibit.

THE CLERK: 241.

MR. WEINBERG: 241. Do we have a copy for the Judge?

THE COURT: What is the number?

THE CLERK: 241.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: 241. For this part I’ll just give you this.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at that declaration, you remember that Mr. Miscavige filed a long declaration with regard that was submitted in the Wollersheim case that you reviewed and at least commented on in this declaration that you filed a few months later. Correct?

A Yes, I did comment, in part, in my declaration about this one.

Q Right. And as this one indicates, it was filed on September 29, 1999, which would be a few months before your declaration was done. Correct? Yours is December.

A That is correct.

971

Q Okay. Now —

THE COURT: Out of curiosity, I just started leafing through here real quick, and I see if this is a declaration that came before Mr. Prince’s declaration, on Page 54, Paragraph 115, it says:

“Further, I do not know why Prince would allege he signed an undated letter of resignation.”

MR. WEINBERG: Right, because this is —

Mr. Prince’s, the one in front of you, is a supplemental declaration.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince had a declaration?

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige —

MR. WEINBERG: Responded to it.

THE COURT: Then this is a supplemental?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. All right?

THE COURT: Okay. And what I was given yesterday and what I read last night was a supplemental affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. The one that —

THE COURT: 134, whatever you call it.

MR. WEINBERG: Let me just — I should — I’m usually better at this than that. It is 132, it is Mr. Prince’s supplemental declaration.

THE COURT: All right.

972

MR. WEINBERG: Okay? It is falling apart.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. WEINBERG: Now, your Honor, what goes along with this declaration is there were exhibits, this and this. We will just put this in the record.

This is part of — of 241.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. WEINBERG: It would be exhibits that go with Mr. Miscavige’s declaration.

THE COURT: Other than what I have got attached to this —

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. Well, this is Exhibit Q.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. WEINBERG: — of the declaration, “The Way To Happiness,” which you have seen before.

And the tape is what? The tape is — I’m not sure what the tape is. What is the tape? Oh, I need the tape back. The tape was actually some of the videos we are going to put in from yesterday.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: So exhibit — what was it –241?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Exhibit 241 is what you have in front of you, plus Exhibit Q here.

973

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Which you may or may not want.

That is “The Way To Happiness.”

THE COURT: I thought “The Way To Happiness” was the little book, the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess I’ll open this up and find out. I have to look.

No, this is a — well, this is a —

THE COURT: This must be a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is a better — this is what was filed. This is the — the bound copy of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll give a copy to Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: I object to the relevance.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s — it’s Mr. Prince’s affidavit that Mr. Dandar put in yesterday. It was in response, at least in part, to this. So,  therefore, we’re offering Mr. Miscavige’s affidavit, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’ll let it come in as to whatever part relates to this testimony. I’m sure there is stuff that doesn’t. But rather than try to pick and choose, we’ll just let it all in for now.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And this is, I’m sure, a deluxe

974

version of the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. I’m sure it is.

THE COURT: That was Number 241?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have in front of you your April 2002 affidavit.

A No, I do not.

Q Probably not. Mr. Dandar marked that yesterday.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we see if we can find that one? That is the one that was filed — the most recent affidavit.

THE COURT: Is that the May 2002? No?

MR. DANDAR: April. April.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it’s April, your Honor.

You marked it as an exhibit, right, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: I thought I did, yes.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, I’m looking here,”Notice of Filing Affidavit in Opposition of Defendant’s Omnibus Motion.” Is that the one?

MR. DANDAR: That is the one.

THE COURT: Okay. It is dated — “Jesse Prince, sworn the 1st day of May, 2002.” So I want to make sure we’re looking at the same one.

975

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure. The front says April 2002? The next page? Yes, that is it. I see the attachment.

THE COURT: It says April 2002. He signed it May 1. We can agree it’s the same?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy for Mr. Prince?

THE CLERK: What exhibit is that, Judge?

THE COURT: I don’t know. It was something that came in —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was filed in this case.

THE COURT: It is filed.

MR. DANDAR: I would like it to be part of the evidence.

THE COURT: Yes, let’s make this the next plaintiff’s exhibit, which would be what? We’ll make this Plaintiff’s 135.

So now it is Plaintiff’s 135.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you have a copy of it?

A Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you have that?

976

THE CLERK: No. I don’t.

THE COURT: Well, you’ll have to give the clerk one.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’ll make a copy of that as soon as we’re done.

THE COURT: Okay. Because I have one here but it is mine.

MR. DANDAR: It is yours.

THE COURT: And I guess what you want to be sure is the notes — I think they were attached to the original affidavit.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: — are part of the affidavit.

So, Madam Clerk, you have an affidavit with some attachments, some handwritten notes?

THE CLERK: Right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, this is an affidavit that was prepared by who?

A Which one now?

Q The one we’re looking at.

THE COURT: The one you have in front of you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The one that says April 2002 but I guess it is

977

dated May 1, 2002.

A Okay. You know, you gave me three of them here.

Q I gave you what?

A Three declarations.

Q Oh, I’m sorry, the one that Mr. Dandar is entering as his next exhibit is your May 1, 2002 affidavit.

A Okay.

Q Who prepared that affidavit?

A I did.

Q And where did you prepare it?

A Mmm, in Mr. Dandar’s office; partially at my home.

Q When did you prepare it?

A Well, according to this document, it looks like I started it in April and executed it May 1.

Q But, now, this isn’t too long ago. So I’m asking you, when do you recall that you first started work on this affidavit?

A Mmm, let me see. Maybe the second week of April. I don’t know. The second, third week of April. No — yeah, maybe the third week of April.

Q The third week of April?

A Yeah.

Q And did you — at that point, did anybody make any suggestions, revisions, changes, to your affidavit?

A Mmm, no.

978

Q Who typed the affidavit?

A I did.

Q So it was produced off of your computer?

A Yes.

Q Or what?

A Yes.

Q Executed in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct. I used my laptop.

Q Now, did — what prompted you to do this affidavit?

A My friends were being blackmailed and coerced. There was nothing that I could do to get them to try another solution to whatever problem that they were trying to have — they wanted me to do it with them. I refused to do
it. I spoke to law enforcement about these things. And I put it in writing for the benefit of Judge Schaeffer and anyone else who would be interested in it.

Q The time that you started this affidavit, the Church had already filed its motion terminating sanctions and for disqualification in this case of Mr. Dandar?

A I don’t know. I don’t remember.

Q Well, did you have a copy of the motion when you prepared this affidavit?

A I did not.

Q Had you — did Mr. Dandar ever provide you with a

979

copy of the motion?

A As I sit here today, I can’t say that he did.

THE COURT: He may have. You are not saying he  didn’t, either, right?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t — terminating sanctions? No, I don’t think I have seen that thing.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how did you find out that there was — that there had been a motion filed to dismiss this lawsuit as a result of allegations of misconduct and to disqualify Mr. Dandar?

A When it came over to this courtroom, I think it was here the first day because I had been a sequestered witness from Judge Baird’s court, you know, where this thing started. Then when it came over here, I was able to appear
in court the first day. And I was here for it.

Q Mr. Dandar asked you to prepare an affidavit in response to the motion for sanctions?

A Mmm, no, Mr. Weinberg. This is something that I had to sit down and do. It’s not anything I could keep carrying on in my head. I knew that I would have to sit down and write about this.

Q Now, these notes that are at the back of this, that is April 14th, 2002. You see that, correct?

980

A Yes.

Q Had you already started writing your affidavit as of April 14, 2002?

A No. Because this is the day that I met with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Lirot, then later on that evening met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton.

Q So it was sometime —

A But, you know, this was just like in case anything happens to me where I don’t appear again, at least this would be written.

Q So the affidavit was written sometime between April 14 — written and completed, obviously, sometime between April 14 and May 1?

A Correct.

Q Now, you attended — I think you testified — the April 9, 2002 hearing before Judge Baird where Mr. Minton testified, purged himself, with regard to his contempt? In other words, purged himself of perjury?

A I —

Q Do you understand that concept?

A You know, I guess that is one way to look at it.But the way I describe it in my affidavit, he got up and lied to save his own skin.

Q And you were there?

A Yes, just for a very short amount of time. And

981

I — and I covered that really extensively here. The first lie I heard, I got up, I was out the door.

Q And that is when you got really angry at Mr. Minton for the first time?

A I wouldn’t say that. No. I was more upset by the situation. I — I didn’t have anger directed at Mr. Minton.

I mean, I was upset about what he did but, you know, this is my friend. We have been watching these videos. You see we had a close relationship. So it wasn’t like I want to do something to him. I was angry what he had done.

Q Now, it’s your testimony that weeks before that Mr. Minton had told you, before he ever met with Mike Rinder and Sandy Rosen at the end of March, he told you that he had been told that the Church already had his $500,000 check?

A No. I gave testimony about this. I’ll try to answer it as best I can. And I think it is covered here in the very beginning of this affidavit of when all of that talk had started.

Yes, Page 3 of the same affidavit, Paragraph 9, if you go to Line 28, it says: “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar. Somebody is going to die,” on and on.

Q All right. But there is nowhere in this affidavit where you say that Mr. Rinder or the Church of Scientology

982

had the $500,000 check prior to the meetings in New York, or even at the meetings in New York, correct? You don’t say that in the affidavit, do you?

A Correct.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you in this — at any point that his name didn’t appear on the $500,000 check?

A Yes.

Q And you first learned that when?

A That Mr. Minton’s name wasn’t on the check? I think I learned that — you know, I’m not going to speculate. I’m not sure when I learned that.

Q Well, did you learn it at or about the time that Mr. Minton gave the check to Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not. I wasn’t present when he gave the check to Dandar. You are talking about the $500,000 check?

Q That is the one I asked you about.

A Okay. Well, that particular check I — I think I’ve given testimony concerning the fact that, you know, he took us to the top of the parking garage and told us about this. I’d never seen anything physically with my eyes.

Q Now, where in the affidavit do you talk about the parking garage? Can you show us?

A Mmm, I meant my testimony. Not in here, in the —

Q But is it — didn’t you address it in your affidavit?

983

A I may have. Let me see.

Q Look at Page 11 at the top.

A Okay.

Q You see where you say, “I reminded them of an incident that happened in August 2001 –”

A Yes.

Q “– where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut costs. Part of the cost-cutting was to not pay Mr. Garko until the case was over. Bob invited me and Stacy Brooks to the top level of a parking structure
directly across the street from the LMT to make sure there was no illegal surveillance going on, and he said Ken is getting $500,000 and that was all he was going to get and it was a big secret and we were not to tell anyone about it.”

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So your most recent sworn affidavit, May 1 of 2002, you said that this alleged incident in the garage took place in August of 2001, not in May of 2000. That is what you say. Right?

A I’m completely confused.

Q Well, look at it again then.

A Okay. Oh, 2001. Yes, that is an error. It was 2000. That is an obvious error. This happened in August of 2000 when the check was issued. Right?

984

Q No.

A Okay.

Q That is not right. May 1, 2000.

A The $500,000 check?

Q Yes.

A Okay. Sorry. I didn’t remember it like that. I didn’t have the check at my convenience to have that date there. I did the best I could.

Q Well, do you think it is important to be accurate in your declarations, sworn testimony, sworn affidavits?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you are very specific in this reference I just read to you about the circumstances where this alleged conversation took place when Mr. Minton was pulling back in August when we all know that the LMT was about to shut down. That is what you said. Right?

A No.

Q You — we just read it, “Part of the cost-cutting,” that is what you’re talking about?

A What does that have to do with the Lisa McPherson — LMT? I mean —

Q It’s that you described this very vivid incident on the garage in the context of the August 2001 time period when Mr. Minton is cutting back. That is how you describe it. That is how you date it. Correct?

985

A Okay. That is an error. I thought this $500,000 check happened in 2000. Am I wrong about that?

THE COURT: No. You are not wrong.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: It was 2000. But what you said was August.

THE WITNESS: It was not my intention to commit perjury by making a typographical error, if that is what you want to ask me about this, and you pointed it out. No one else did. You know, I’m sorry.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, if you said May of 2001, maybe I would understand. But it says August of 2001. So where is the typographical error here?

A Because the check was given to Mr. Dandar when?

In 2000, is that right?

Q The testimony is May of 2000.

A Okay. Well, you know, beat me for making a typographical error. I may not have the exact date right. But the incident is correct.

Q So the incident when Mr. Dandar was given the $500,000 check was at the same time that Mr. Minton had decided not to fund the case anymore and to cut back? Because that is what this says.

A Mr. Minton had — well, you know, I stand by this

986

testimony, whatever it says, with the exception of this typographical error that you correctly point out.

And I think I explained this a little bit yesterday — or whatever day it was — when, you know, they were doing the accident reconstruction, jury surveys. I mean, the costs were mounting. And he was concerned.

Q Who was concerned?

A Mr. Minton.

Q He was concerned about the costs in the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A Correct.

Q And so what does that have to do with you dating the $500,000 check when he was concerned about the mounting costs of the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A You know, I’m just totally confused. I don’t know where we’re going with this.

Q Well, where we’re going —

A I made a mistake here. I said — I said 2001. I should have said 2000.

Q You said August and you should have said May. And then you should have said, instead of it was at the time that Mr. Minton was cutting back, it was actually the time when he was funding the lawsuit.

Other than that, you didn’t make any mistakes. Right?

987

A Well, beat me for making a mistake. But, Mmm —

THE COURT: Well, what page is this on, again?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s on Page 11.

THE WITNESS: 11.

MR. WEINBERG: At the top.

THE COURT: I have got it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, it’s not that I want to beat you for making a mistake. But is it important to you that your sworn testimony is accurate, or not?

A That is the second time you asked me that. And, yes, I have the same answer. Yes, it is. I made a mistake.

Q Well, do you think you might have made some other mistakes in your sworn testimony, whether it is in court here or in this affidavit or the August 20 affidavit or the other affidavits that you filed?

A Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m doing the best that I can to bring out this testimony into this hearing.

Q Now, after you got angry when you saw Mr. Minton for a short time testify on April 9, 2002, you, a few days later, met with him and Ms. Brooks at the Adam’s Mark Hotel?

A Yes.

Q And that was on or about April 12th?

A Approximately. Yes.

Q You had dinner?

988

A Yes.

Q And you-all talked about ending the fight against Scientology?

A We talked about committing perjury on behalf of Scientology.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you that he was relieved because he was finally — he was finally going to be telling the truth and not perjuring himself anymore? Did he tell you that?

A Absolutely not. He told me he didn’t feel good about it, he still wasn’t certain about it, that it was the right thing to do.

He felt horrible about what was going to happen — or the charges that were going to happen to Mr. Dandar.

Q Now —

A He had a conscience about it.

Q Now, when Mr. Minton told you, you say, in March of 2002, that the Church already had this $500,000 check, did you pick up — and it was going to cause — I guess you said it was going to cause him problems, right?

A Yes.

Q He said it was going to cause Mr. Dandar problems, right?

A Cause him problems. He didn’t say Mr. Dandar. He said it was going to cause him problems.

989

Q Because he was going to have to lie about it, is that what he said?

A No. Because he had already lied about it.

Q All right. Now, did you pick up the phone then, given your concern, and call up Mr. Dandar and say,

“Ken — Mr. Dandar, Bob Minton told me that the Church has this $500,000 check and he perjured himself in your lawsuit and it’s a problem”?

Did you do that?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Well, Mr. Rosen — why do I want to call you Mr. Rosen?

THE COURT: It is late in the day.

THE WITNESS: It is late in the day.

A Mr. Weinberg —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’re both Sandys but he’s a lot taller than I am.

A Yes, that is true.

Why didn’t I immediately call Mr. Dandar?

Q Why didn’t you call Mr. Dandar?

A Because I thought that there was actually something that I could do to — you know, to encourage Mr. Minton to not go down this road. I mean, they’re busy trying to drag me down this road. I’m busy trying to tell

990

them, “Don’t do it. Don’t go down there.”

Q Did it concern you Mr. Minton was telling you he had already perjured himself in this lawsuit? That is what you just said he told you. That was a problem. Right?

A The problem was that that check surfaced. There was some problem about where it came from. Mmm, I personally don’t know his deposition testimony or his — his testimony that he had given in the courts, what he had said
about that. I don’t know that today. I haven’t read any of that stuff.

But, you know, I described the situation where a man is on the phone, crying uncontrollably, very upset. You know, there was a lot about this that didn’t make sense.

And I’m sorry I couldn’t have been more rational about it to ask a question such as that.

Q After the meeting, dinner, whatever it was, on April 12 at the Adam’s Mark, the next time you met with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton was at the Radisson on Sand Key a couple of days later on April 14, is that right?

A I believe I met with them on a Saturday. If I’m right, I met with them at the Adam’s Mark. And the next day I met with them at the Radisson.

Q So whatever the Saturday is, the 12th, 13th, then the next day you went back to the Radisson?

A A Sunday.

991

Q And that is the last meeting you had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q That is the day you went to the Radisson is the day that you prepared these notes. Right?

A Earlier that day I prepared these notes.

Q All right. So when you actually went to meet at the Radisson with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, you had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot. And who else?

A You know, my girlfriend was there.

Q Was anybody else there?

A Mr. Haverty.

Q Anybody else there?

A Not that I specifically recall.

Q Was Miss Greenway there?

A I don’t know. I don’t think so.

Q You had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot and Mr. Haverty?

A No. That is incorrect. I only spoke to Mr. Dandar about this. I pulled him aside and spoke to him about that specifically.

Q So when you said you met with Mr. Lirot, you didn’t really meet with Mr. Lirot, you only met with Mr. Dandar?

A That was the first time I had ever met Mr. Lirot.

992

Q Can you just answer that question? You didn’t meet with Mr. Lirot, you just met with Mr. Dandar to tell him your concerns, right?

A Correct. And then at the end of that, toward the end of that meeting, I shared some things with Mr. Lirot about it.

Q All right. And is there a particular reason why you met Mr. Dandar at a mall, as opposed to his office?

A Yes. Because I have a continuing concern that my house is electronically bugged by Scientology for illegal surveillance purposes. And I wanted to be in a place where I felt secure in not having that concern.

Q Well, you didn’t have the meeting at your house.

A Correct.

Q My question was why didn’t you have the meeting at Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Because his air-conditioning doesn’t work on the weekend and it is very hot in there. You know, they turn it off. He’s in a building where they turn the air-conditioning off — you know, it’s like a 9-to-5 kind of place. At 5 o’clock, boom, it starts getting hot. On the weekend they don’t turn it on because there is no one in the office, unless you want to pay $25 an hour.

Q So it was his suggestion you meet in the mall?

A Yes.

993

Q Was there a particular place in the mall where you met?

A We were at the International Plaza at some lounge.

I don’t remember the name of it.

Q Just sitting at a table?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, please. Please. Move into something —

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I will.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Your testimony is, I think, that you didn’t call Mr. Dandar to set up this meeting.

A Correct.

Q You called Frank Oliver, one of the people that was connected with the Lisa McPherson Trust, to set up the meeting with Mr. Dandar. Right?

A Correct.

Q Now, Frank Oliver lives in Miami?

A Correct.

Q Frank Oliver, as far as I know, has never been a consultant or expert for Mr. Dandar. Is that right?

A You would have to ask him that. You know —

Q Do you know from your experience?

A No. I do not know.

Q And you called — you have had dozens of phone

994

conversations with Mr. Dandar over the years. Correct?

A Hundreds.

Q Right. And we have your phone records in evidence from the LMT.

A Right.

Q There are hundreds of phone calls. Is that right?

A Well —

Q In other words —

A Well —

Q You know his number?

A Yes.

Q Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call him?

A I’ll state it again. I was at home using my home phone. I didn’t want to call him because of those concerns.
I called somebody else.

THE COURT: Was there concern that Mr. Dandar’s phone was bugged, as well? Or not? You did not have that concern.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t have that concern.

THE COURT: So the concern you had was your phone was bugged at your house?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So — and you picked Mr. Oliver because? Why?

A I trust him. He’s my friend.

995

Q So from your phone — which you had a concern was bugged — you called Mr. Oliver and said, “I really need you to call Mr. Dandar and set up a meeting with me”?

A No. “Ask him to call me because I want to help him.”

Q Asked who to call you?

A Mr. Dandar.

Q Call you where?

A I called Mr. Oliver and asked him to please have Mr. Dandar call me because I want to help him.

Q Okay. So doesn’t that still concern you, if your phones were bugged, if Mr. Dandar was going to call you?

A I didn’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with Mr. Dandar on my phone specifically about what I wanted to talk to him about.

Q Well, you could have just picked up the phone, called him and said, “I don’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with you over the phone, let’s have a meeting”?

A No, I could have done that. And if I was a wasp, I could have flown away. Where is this going?

Q But you didn’t do that?

A No.

THE COURT: Is there some relevance to that?

Because if there isn’t, I wish you would move on.

996

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on. Mr. Oliver is the next witness. And, you know, I —

THE COURT: Mr. Oliver may or may not be the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, Mr. Dandar told me he was the next witness.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And did you have any kind of conversation with Mr. Oliver, other than to ask him to tell Mr. Dandar to call you?

A No.

Q So you didn’t tell Mr. Oliver the details of what was going on?

A No.

Q You didn’t tell anybody else the details of what was going on other than Mr. Dandar?

A Incorrect. I told Denis deVlaming. Denis deVlaming’s brother.

THE COURT: Some agent — I mean, come on.

We’ve been through this testimony.

MR. WEINBERG: I know. Just names.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, there was no nobody else other than what you testified to?

997

THE COURT: That you can remember, Mr. Prince, at 4:40 in the afternoon —

A Correct.

THE COURT: — when you have been on the stand all day.

A Yes, that is correct, Mr. Weinberg.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified that you went to the FDLE — to FDLE Agent Strope. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, Agent Strope is the — one of the two law enforcement people that were the principal investigators of the criminal investigation of the Church of Scientology. Correct? You knew that?

A Yes.

Q And you had had meetings with Agent Strope over the years?

A I would say that is correct.

Q And what kind of meetings had you had with Agent Strope over the years in your role as either LMT’s VP or trial consultant for Ken Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. What is a trial VP?

MR. WEINBERG: I said VP of LMT or a trial consultant.

998

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q My question is —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s getting late.

THE COURT: It’s getting late. Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And I know the hour.

THE COURT: Well, if you come to a nice little stopping point, we’ll stop. But whatever this is all about, you met with Agent Strope. What is it you want to know about that?

MR. WEINBERG: He said he met with him over the years.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: What I want to know is, you know — you know, what was the — the —

THE COURT: I’m not going — you can ask him about the conversation that he had about whatever is going on in this hearing.

But as far as what he talked to Agent Strope about over the years, that is outside of the scope and I’m not going to let you go there.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then —

THE COURT: I’m not letting you go there.

Finish up.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you think maybe we can stop

999

now and just go to —

THE COURT: No. Finish with Agent Strope. I don’t care if it takes until six o’clock. Then we’re going to stop.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you met with Agent Strope where?

A In his office downtown Clearwater.

Q And you — was anybody else with you?

A No.

Q Was anybody else with him?

A No.

Q Did he record the conversation?

A He recorded it inasmuch as he took copious notes as I spoke.

THE COURT: Recording means did he put a tape recording on?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nothing electronic.

THE COURT: That is what he means when he says recording. If you don’t understand what somebody says, ask.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you know if he filed a report with regard to

1000

what you discussed with him?

A I do not.

Q Did he — did he ask to — did you have any — did you reach any agreements with him with regard to cooperation?

A I specifically asked him, “Based on the information — ” I said “– this looks like racketeering to me, it looks like RICO, criminal activity that starts in New York, continues in New Hampshire and carries on down here in Florida.”

And I briefed him on the fact that they’re calling me — you know, I wanted — when I went to deVlaming,

“Please give me a wire so that you can hear what these people are saying,” you know. You don’t — “I don’t even want you to hear it from me. Please give me a wire so you can hear what they’re saying.”

And he told me that —

Q “He” being DeVlaming? Or “he” being Strope?

A Mr. Strope — Mr. Lee Strope. He told me that he would see what he could do, but — Mmm — you know, he was — he was — he was pretty upset about what had happened himself, you know, when I told him this because, again, Mr. Strope and I do have a relationship.

But he — that is when he gave me that message to give to Mr. Minton.

1001

Q Well, let’s — one thing at a time.

A Okay.

Q Did he wire you up?

A No.

Q Did he — did he ask you to report back to him?

A No.

Q Did you have any further conversations with him?

A No — well, I take that back. I’m sorry. He came to Judge Baird’s hearing. I believe he was there for a short time. And we made casual conversation. It was obvious that this thing was going to be protracted and no decision was going to be made any time soon about any type of perjury so he said he would be in touch — we would be in touch.

Q But you haven’t been in touch with him since?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Dandar instruct you to go to Agent Strope?

A I’m not sure if it was Mr. Dandar or Mr. Emmons.

Q Mr. Dandar’s investigator?

A Correct.

Q Did you report to Mr. Dandar and/or Mr. Emmons your contact with Agent Strope?

A Yes, I did.

Q And the day that you went to Agent Strope, was what in relation to these notes of — of April 14?

1002

A I do not remember.

Q Well, you obviously went to Agent Strope before you met with — for the last time — Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

A That is incorrect. And that is my fault because I mixed it up, speaking about DeVlaming, when you were asking me specifically about Mr. Strope, because it was with Mr. DeVlaming that I asked him to give me a federal agent,
not a local person, that would be willing to put a wire on me, because, you know — but by the time I met with Mr. Strope, the opportunity was passed.

THE COURT: You met with Strope after. That is not the person you met with when Denis deVlaming or Doug DeVlaming or whenever somebody sent you to see somebody?

THE WITNESS: Douglas DeVlaming said he would do the contact himself. He contacted the agent, explained the situation to him, then he called me and told me what the federal agent told him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Right. Well, that was a federal agent. You never met with a federal agent, right?

A Personally, no.

Q So that is what Mr. DeVlaming was doing?

A Douglas DeVlaming.

1003

Q But at the suggestion of Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, you are the one that initiated the contact with Agent Strope of the FDLE. Correct?

A Well, you know, that is not the way you said it, Mr. Weinberg. You said who asked you to go. I said it was either Mr. Dandar or it was Mr. Emmons. Now you are saying I arranged it and somehow — you know, one of the two persons, Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, arranged or contacted Mr. Strope and arranged for me to meet with him.

Q The way we started was I was just trying to date it. It was sometime before the April 14 last meeting with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Correct?

A Incorrect.

Q So you went to Agent Strope after you had had your last meeting with Ms. Brooks and — and — and Mr. Minton?

A Correct.

Q You wanted Agent Strope to make you an informant?

A No. I wanted Agent Strope to do what he could to talk to someone on a federal level to deal with this problem, because in my mind it was a federal crime. I asked him about that.

And he — you know, he said, “If what you are saying is true, it is a federal crime.”

I didn’t want to fool around with the Florida folks. I wanted something federal, because it happened in

1004

New York, it happened in New Hampshire, and it happened here in Clearwater.

Q At the time that this was going on, you meeting with Agent Strope, did you know that Mr. Minton had a lawyer with regard to these matters?

A Oh, I think it was Mr. Howie, wasn’t it? Well, he had a couple lawyers. Mr. Howie. Mr. Jonas.

Q And it’s your testimony that Agent Strope told you, if not instructed you, to deliver a message to Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: He already testified to that.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

A Correct.

THE COURT: I believe I asked the question the second time. So we really don’t need it for the third time.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: The testimony is what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you delivered the message?

A Yes, I did — well, as I testified, my fiancee delivered the message. She read it to him. I wrote it down on a piece of paper. She read it to him over the phone.

MR. WEINBERG: That is a good stopping point.

1005

THE COURT: Okay. Then we’re done for the day.

And we will start tomorrow at —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll start tomorrow at nine.

We’ll be in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: I should tell Mr. Dandar, I don’t have very much more with Mr. Prince, so he needs to be ready for the next witness.

MR. DANDAR: How much more?

THE COURT: Have your witness here in the morning.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’m handing over to the defense my response to the request to produce.

THE COURT: I don’t have to get into that unless you-all don’t get together on it.

Requests to produce normally don’t require the Court.

MR. DANDAR: I just wanted to file it with the clerk.

THE COURT: We’re in recess until 9 o’clock.

Good night.

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)

______________________________________

1006

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA  )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS  )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

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

721

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 6

DATE: July 10, 2002. Morning Session.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

722

APPEARANCES:

MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. HOWARD ROSS
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.

THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Prince. All right. Mr. Dandar, you are standing. You must want something.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we have a proposed order here. I have some responses here. I have declarations of Stacy Brooks and others I want to file. But let’s just go with Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: What day is today? The 10th? I was looking, what is — how many days of hearings is this?

THE BAILIFF: 30.

THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Bailiff says 30. Does anybody —

MR. WEINBERG: Add zero to that. That is where we are.

THE COURT: Is that where we are, 30?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Ross. Are you designated Mr. Minton’s attorney here today?

MR. ROSS: That is correct.

THE COURT: I think that probably you have been advised Mr. Minton needs a lawyer in this proceeding and, therefore, we welcome you. But you have no ability to object in this particular proceeding.

MR. ROSS: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand you may hear some very weird testimony as far as some strange evidentiary rulings. But this is a strange hearing and sort of the rules of evidence — we’re going to deal with that after the hearing.

MR. ROSS: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just give me a minute, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will. I will ask Mr. Dandar, while you are doing that, did you have a chance to E-Mail Mr. Henson?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I did. And he E-mailed me back and said, “Can you find me a lawyer, is it worth it?” I said no, both questions.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I notified Mr. Hill’s secretary that Mr. Rosen would not be called. And I should have an order here on the pro hac vice, if it is not by the morning break, by noontime.

THE COURT: All right. Fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I would just like to inquire, does that mean Mr. Henson is abandoning his motion?

725

THE COURT: No, I think what that means, he will not be represented. And I suspect you should — as I said, let me have time to read it. I may be able to rule on your motion without any argument.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Very good.

THE COURT: But, frankly, I want to still leave it scheduled for hearing, because he may get somebody to appear. And we’ll deal with it at the  scheduled time. I would not assume that is an  abandonment.

MR. LIEBERMAN: All right.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: All right? I’m ready.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you — I think you said on your direct testimony — but let me go over it again — you have testified previously as a witness under oath in either trial testimony or deposition testimony. Is that right?

A In this — in this case, yes, I have.

Q In other cases, as well. Correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q And — and is it your testimony that at all times

726

in those other cases when you were under oath, that you testified truthfully?

A Yes, it is.

Q Okay. Now, yesterday — or the day before, whenever it was — you testified that you had participated in the destruction of PC folders, particularly Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folder which he said was pulped, I believe, while you were at RTC?

A Correct.

Q Now, you remember testifying as a witness in 1989 in the lawsuit Religious Technology versus Joseph Yanny?

A I do not.

Q You don’t remember that?

A No, I do not.

THE COURT: I don’t even remember hearing about that case. That is a new one for me.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you testified, by the way, on your direct, that you had been a witness in that case, in fact, that while you were in Scientology, you were actually a witness in that case.

A No. While I was in Scientology I said I was a witness in the Wollersheim 4 case, specifically concerning the Advanced ability Center, David Mayo.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach the witness,

727

your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me show you a transcript of your deposition taken in Los Angeles, California on September 11, 1989 and ask you if you can identify that transcript and identify that as your testimony on that day under oath, and at the end you’ll see an errata sheet which I believe also has your signature on it.

A What is this on? On September ’89? Okay.

Then —

Q At the end is an errata sheet. Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And you see that you — do you recognize your signature on there dated —

A 12 December, ’89. Yes, I do.

Q Obviously — I’ll leave this here because I have a few questions on it. Obviously you testified as a witness in 1989 and were given the opportunity to review that  testimony and make corrections. Correct?

A I don’t — Mmm — recall that, Mr. Weinberg, but since I did sign the errata sheet, I’ll say okay.

MR. DANDAR: I would like to have a copy of that, Judge. If they’re going to start using it, pulling things out of context, I would like to be

728

able to review it.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s amazing I’m being accused of pulling something out of context.

MR. DANDAR: We all do, we pull something out and say, “Did you say this?”

THE COURT: If you are going to use a deposition and he doesn’t have a copy of it, he ought to have a copy of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do we have an extra copy of it?

Do we have copies of these?

THE COURT: I tell you what, go ahead and use it and then get him a copy before Mr. Dandar —

Mr. Dandar, please listen if you care, maybe you don’t care. If you care, I’ll have them provide you a copy of the deposition before your redirect.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: If anything was pulled out of context, you can correct it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, in addition —

THE COURT: You-all provide him a copy.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in addition to your testimony in this proceeding that you had participated in the destruction of

729

PC folders, you also, in your August 20, 1999 affidavit, that is the — the affidavit where you made the accusation about David Miscavige, in that affidavit, in Paragraph 22 you swore that you had participated in the destruction of Wollersheim’s PC folder. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, if you will turn, Mr. Prince — when I get the right folder here — to Page 153 of your Yanny deposition. You find Page 153?

A Mmm, just about. I have it here.

Q I want you to read Line 5, 6 and 7.

“Question: Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer. No.”

Okay. That was your sworn testimony then, correct?

A Yes, it was.

Q And when you go to that errata sheet, does it say  anything about you making any mistakes with regard to that sworn answer where you swore under oath in 1989 that you had not been involved in the destruction of PC folders?

A Mr. — you know, I don’t recall this errata sheet, to answer the question that quickly. I don’t even recall the errata sheet.

THE COURT: The real question is that was your

730

testimony on that date, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this was the testimony I had given on that date.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you previously testified that all your prior sworn testimony was true. Correct?

A Correct.

Q So you lied here in court when you said that you had participated in PC folders being destroyed?

A Well, you know, I have to at least look at a couple pages earlier here to kind of get an idea what was going on here to orient myself to 1989.

Q Look at a couple pages earlier.

THE COURT: Might I just ask, where he was reading, was he testifying for plaintiff, or defendant?

MR. WEINBERG: He was testifying for the Church. For RTC.

A Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was certainly — you wouldn’t have had a recollection problem back in 1989, would you, as to what had occurred a year or so or two or three before that, as  opposed to 2002, talking about things that supposedly happened?

731

A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, I — I don’t think I would have had a recollection problem, but maybe I would have had a problem with coercion.

Q Let’s see now —

A Or — or manipulation.

Q Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt.

A Or manipulation. This was a very bad time for me. This was shortly — well, let’s see, this was a couple years  after I had been away from any position of authority. I was still being asked to — Mmm — participate in the courts, for whatever reason, God only knows. And I was not in a very good state of mind.

Q Well, I thought you said you were relieved yesterday to leave your post at RTC and that you were in a better state of mind as a result of being relieved and not  having to do all those things that you swore yesterday and the day before that you had participated in.

A Certainly in that regard, Mr. Weinberg, I was relieved. But I didn’t have a lot of direction for my life.

I think I was pretty suicidal at that point. And I had written about that, as well.

Q All right. So you started saying these things about destroying PC folders after people started paying you,like Mr. Minton and Mr. Leipold and through Mr. Dandar, that

732

is when you started saying these things, not when you  weren’t being paid.

A No, Mr. Weinberg, quite the contrary. I — this came out because I decided that it was no longer an operating principle of mine that the greatest good is for  Scientology. I kind of — you know, just kind of got away from that.

Q So it’s a principle now the greatest good for Jesse Prince, whoever will put the money in your pocket, that is what you’ll say?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, the greatest good is the truth and justice and equity.

Q All right. So what you’re saying, just so I get this right, you lied back in 1989?

A Yes — yes. According to these documents, I lied on behalf of Scientology.

Q All right. And you lied in — I’ll just refresh your recollection about being asked about this before — do you remember giving a deposition in this case when — when I deposed you?

A I think you and I have been at it a time or two.

Q And do you remember that I asked you the questions on Page — I’ll refer now to Page 465 of your deposition of — of November 17, November 18, 1999.

“Question: Now, when you testified — how many

733

times have you testified in your entire career, life?

“Answer: In a courtroom or deposition setting?

“Question: Both.

“Answer: Possibly five.

“Question: All right, and each time you testified, whether in deposition or in court, you were under oath, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“You raised your hand and swore to tell the truth.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: Nothing but the truth, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“And you testified truthfully on those five occasions.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: You didn’t perjure yourself.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: So if you were asked the questions in a deposition that I asked and those were your answers then when you gave those answers, it is your testimony that they were truthful answers, correct?

“Answer: Well, you know, yeah, okay. I’ll say yeah, okay, yeah.”

Then later in the deposition — do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?

734

A No, I do not, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Do you remember being asked on Page 469 of your deposition two years ago, “You testified in the Yanny case we’ve already talked about, was that deposition and trial or just deposition?

“Answer: I believe it was just deposition. And again, I was never afforded the opportunity — well, no, I’m sorry, I’ll answer the direct question, I won’t tell  stories. Yes.”

Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. But if it’s there, then I believe it.

Q So apparently three years ago when we took your deposition you remembered the Yanny case testimony but today you don’t?

A I — Mr. Weinberg, I think that is a bit of mischaracterization to say I would have remembered the Yanny testimony. You know, this document here is a couple hundred pages long. I — I don’t think any of us are capable of remembering a couple hundred pages of something that happened ten years ago.

Q Is there a particular reason why, in all these accusations you made against Scientology, you didn’t say,

“And they told me to perjure myself in 1989 in the Yanny

735

deposition”? Why didn’t you do that?

A Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Weinberg, again, like I — I was damaged goods during that time. I had gone through a lot of stress, a lot of — Mmm —  decisions to change my life. Mmm, didn’t have certain — you know, a certainty on where I was going with my life. I felt pretty hopeless.

But let’s talk about the perjury here since this is the subject here. What I have testified to before concerning preclear folder destruction is the fact that  because these preclear folders of Mr. Wollersheim were being asked to be produced and ultimately the whole folders were turned over, the order to destroy the folders came from Mr. Miscavige with Mr. Rathbun present, myself, Vicki Aznaran. It became my responsibility to report when that fact was done.

I myself was not the person that destroyed the preclear folders or had — or pulped them. Rick Aznaran is the person, along with another current Office of Special  Affairs, Charlie Earl, rented a truck, took these folders; Vicki Aznaran — Lawrence Wollersheim, possibly Bill Franks, Gerry Armstrong and others took them to the recycling plant, and when Mr. Aznaran came back, he showed me a liquid bottle with paper on — with the pulp paper on the bottom.

So technically did I know about it? Yes.

736

Technically did I do it? No.

Q Oh, I see.

A But I sanctioned it and I went along with it.

Q So perjury — the question was: “Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer: No.”

That is not perjury because you have somehow justified in your mind that you really weren’t involved because you didn’t actually pull the switch? Is that what  you’re saying?

A No, I’m saying that I’m not the person that actually did it myself, but I knew about it. And reported about it.

Q Is that —

A I didn’t stop it. So, you know, the fact of the matter is I won’t beat around the bush with you, Mr. Weinberg. Right here I was not being truthful.

Q Now, did somebody tell you to perjure yourself?

Is this something that somebody told you to do? Or you just did this on your own?

A No, I was told to do it. Mr. Earle Cooley, who was lead counsel for the Church of Scientology at the time, wanted me to do it. Mr. Rathbun, who was — was again and always responsible for church legal, wanted me to do it.

Mmm, I was being a good Scientologist and protecting

737

Scientology.

Q That is amazing. So when this started out you didn’t have any recollection of the Yanny deposition, you don’t remember having even signed the errata sheet, and now you have this clear recollection that — that Mr. Cooley, a lawyer who is on the board of trustees of Boston College — or Boston University, and Mr. Rathbun told you to lie? Is that what you’re saying now?

A Mr. — Mr. Weinberg, I mean, because we are talking about this, because you have presented me with documentation, we’ve discussed it, I think I do have a mind and I can have some recollection about this. And I’m just telling you what happened here.

Mmm, there are other things that I have written specifically about my relationship with Earle Cooley, and because you have all of those E-Mails, I’m sure you have those in evidence, too. That is not the only thing that I thought was unethical that happened with Mr. Cooley, irrespective of where he sits.

Q So the way it works is, if we can catch you at it and if we can show you a video or show you some testimony where you perjured yourself, then it’s an indiscretion, essentially, you sort of caught me. Is that the way it works?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, argumentative.

738

THE COURT: Sustained.

A Mmm —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was sustained, Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: You don’t have to answer the question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said your life was hopeless?

A Correct.

Q When was this deposition, 1989?

A Correct.

Q But having been hopeless, you stayed another three years?

A I stayed another five years after my life was pretty much hopeless. You know, I fell into the hopelessness — you know, right in 1987 when that whole thing happened I was ready to leave Scientology at that point. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to escape to leave because I was in the RPF, walking through the desert, on and on, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear that story.

Q That story? Is that what you said? Do I want to hear the story?

A Let’s please maintain civility here, Mr. Weinberg.

Q All right, I asked you —

739

A I’m trying to explain this to you. I had escaped. I had helped Vicki Aznaran escape. We were being kept in the RPF in a — behind a — Soboba Indian Reservation in the most horrid conditions. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to threaten to go to the press, threaten to go to the police, the same thing I suspect Lisa had to do when she tried to leave, as well.

And ultimately because the woman that I was married to, who had no idea what I had been involved in, what my position really was in the Church of Scientology, what my participation was, it came down to Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Miscavige specifically talking to my wife and telling her what a horrible person I was and that I’m blowing and I’m psychotic and I’m crazy because I want to leave and this kind of thing.

So then I was faced with even a bigger problem. And my bigger problem was now am I just going to walk out of Scientology and leave this person that I love, that I’m married to, because she hasn’t woke even up, because she doesn’t understand, because I haven’t been with her and let her know what’s going on. And that is kind of a problem in Scientology in and of itself because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. You are not allowed to talk about your case, you’re not allowed to talk about secret this, secret that. So we had had a breach of

740

communication for many years.

But in my mind at that time I was thinking, you know, I’m not going to desert another person in my life, I’m not going to desert this woman for Scientology. I will sit here with her until she sees what I see. And I was actually, therefore, there for another five years.

And these are points I have written about as well.

I felt almost like an animal, I had no mind, no brain, no will, nothing. And this is what happened to me and I went and did this and it was wrong. And yeah, I did that and you have pointed it out and here we are.

Q Now, in 1989 when you perjured yourself —

A Uh-huh?

Q — according to your testimony now, or didn’t, depending upon whether you perjured yourself in this hearing, you weren’t on the RPF, were you, in 1989? You  were working in the Golden Era studio, correct?

A I think in 1989 I was on what is considered — what is called the DPF, the Deck Project Force. The reason I say that is because in 1987 when I was removed from my  position and I went to the RPF — Mmm — I think I was there for — until December of ’87.

In December of ’87 I got off the RPF, I started trying to practice auditing again. I did that for some time and really didn’t want to do it anymore.

741

Toward the end of ’88, I believe, a security guard at Golden Era Productions got kind of rough with my wife.

THE COURT: You know, this really doesn’t matter where he was. You weren’t in RPF.

A No, I was in DPF. I wasn’t in Golden Era Productions, I mean, working in the studios, as you suggested. I was actually on the DPF. And this is the same  period I did that watch with Mrs. Brooks, Terese or — or Teresita —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was in ’88?

A That was in ’88?

Q Yes. You say things were hopeless for you?

Things were hopeless for you in 1997 and 1998, as well, wasn’t it?

A I wouldn’t say that.

Q You filed for bankruptcy and went bankrupt in November of — filed in what, May of ’97, and it was finalized in November of ’97, correct?

A I believe there are documents to that effect that have the correct dates.

Q But — but you went bankrupt in 1997, correct?

A Mmm —

Q Yes, or no?

A Yes, I did. I believe that is correct.

742

Q So you were broke in 1997?

A I filed for bankruptcy in 1997, but I — I wasn’t able to pay my bills adequately in 1997.

Q And except for Mr. Minton coming like an angel from heaven in June of 1998, you didn’t know what you were going to do?

A Utterly and completely false.

Q After Mr. Minton appeared on the scene you then hooked up with Stacy Brooks, you hooked up with Dan Leipold, you hooked up with Ken Dandar, and since that time this is what you have been doing, getting paid to testify, write affidavits and work against Scientology, correct?

A No, that is absolutely incorrect and it is false.

Q Now, let’s go back to the deposition for a moment.

Now, you testified under oath a lot about the GO and OSA and all that. Do you remember that, here in this proceeding? You said you had all this knowledge about the kinds of activities that had gone on. Do you remember that?

A No, I think you are mischaracterizing my earlier testimony. I don’t think that the words Guardian’s Office exited my lips during these proceedings. I have spoke about OSA and I have — I have presented Mr. Hubbard’s eternal words on — on what intelligence is expected to do, what legal is expected to do and some of what public relations is supposed to do. I think that better characterizes —

743

Q Well, let me refresh your recollection, if you remember on June 18 saying, “Question, was there any carryover from the Guardian’s Office to OSA?

“Answer: Yes, there was, there was a carryover of some of the staff and some of the policies. Then you went on to say, “Question, was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s Office was?

You said, “Yes, OSA wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian Office was. One of the mistakes was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations.”

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Now, turn to Page 149, please, of the Yanny deposition.

A Okay.

Q I want you to read Line 5 through Line 16 — Line 5 through Line 13 — 16, I’m sorry.

A To 16?

Q Yes, just read it out loud.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you do it.

THE COURT: That is true.

A I have read it.

744

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ll read it. Did you give — were you asked these questions and give these answers?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you —

THE COURT: Yes, it is the way you do it.

Overruled.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q “You ever heard of the GO?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: What was the GO?

“It was Guardian’s Office.

“Question: And Mary Sue Hubbard was in charge of that for a period of time?

“Answer: I have no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office. I was never associated or affiliated with it in any way.

“Answer (sic): You do know that a number of Guardian’s Office people went to jail?

“Answer: I don’t –”

Then there was objection.

A Okay.

Q Were you asked those questions and give those answers?

A Yes, that is correct.

745

Q And that was true or was that perjury, as well, that you had no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office?

A Well, that was true then and it is true now.

Prior to my association with going to Gilman Hot Springs, I had — you know — you know, I had done protests at the behest of the Guardian’s Office where all Scientologists got together, and I think did a demonstration of the courthouse down there at a point in time on — Hebert would — what they do is they have a thing in Scientology called a call to arms —

Q Really, all I asked you, was that true or not and you said it was true that —

A Okay.

Q Using your words, you had no percipient knowledge —

A Well, I don’t want to play —

Q Can I ask my question first?

A I told you that there was — you know, was some association with the Guardian Office, and I tried to clarify that. So you know, I don’t want to get into word games here where you say, well, you said you never did it but suddenly now you have me picketing at the behest of Scientology. I mean, little activities like that, I mean, I popped out of a coffin across the park doing a skit based on something that —

746

Q I understand, but you waxed eloquent about the GO  and how it’s the same — OSA was the same, and under oath here you said you didn’t know, didn’t have information about the GO. You didn’t know anything about it.

A No, I think you are confused on that issue, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Now, do you remember testifying in this proceeding that — that you were — had responsibility for legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA? Do you remember  that?

A Yes.

Q Particularly intelligence activities of OSA, that was your testimony?

THE COURT: Could you define or tell him — I don’t remember, was it here in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. I was just reading from his testimony.

THE COURT: Here?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I’ll read — this is the dirty — when I say dirty, this is the —

THE COURT: Dirty copy, I know.

747

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The dirty copy, but on my Page 71 of the dirty copy, which is obviously not the actual transcript, what it says is, “As I mentioned –” this is your answer — “we used to do the technology side of Scientology. Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for.

And those were legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA which is a separate network in Scientology.”

That was your testimony, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Now, I want you to turn, if you will, Mr. Prince,to Page 77, first, of your Yanny depo. While you are looking for it, you were deputy inspector general of RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q And it was deputy inspector general external was your actual — DIG external, right?

A Right.

Q Did you — if you go to the bottom of the page, Line 22, were you asked this question and did you give this answer.

“Question: Back when you were the DIG external, did you have any responsibility for intelligence?

“Answer: Not particularly.

“Question: Is there a group or subgroup within

748

Scientology organization referred to as Intel?

“Answer: No, not that I know of.

“Question: Has Intel ever been part of your job description?

“Answer: No.

“Have you ever had any responsibility for Intel?

“Answer: No.”

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was that truthful testimony?

A Yes, it was. And you know, in — inasmuch as it — that it was deceptive testimony because we’ve sat here and we’ve gone over all of these Scientology issues, now  that says intelligence action, this, that and other thing, but when the GO was gotten rid of, the section that was called intelligence was no longer called intelligence; it was called the information bureau. And I think if you look at a current organization chart for the Office of Special Affairs, you will find that it says information bureau. It doesn’t say intelligence bureau. But if you look at the materials that the persons are trained on in the information bureau, it is intelligence.

Q It is sort of like your testimony yesterday where I asked you about the picket sign, you know, in front of

749

Mr. Minton’s house and you said you didn’t own a sign?

A You know, I don’t know about that, Mr. —

Q Was that truthful but deceptive testimony, or is that sort of like an example of what you’re talking about?

A I don’t know about that analogy, Mr. Weinberg. I think you are confused on that issue and you are mixing apples and oranges. But I pretty much answered your  question with this.

Q All right. So this is truthful but — and so what is — by the way, just so — it’s not perjury when you tell the truth but you are deceptive? In your mind, that is okay?

A Well, you know, I’m —

Q Just answer the question.

A I’m not going to draw a legal conclusions. You are the trained lawyer here. I’m the trained Scientologist.

Q You are the trained witness.

A I can tell you about that. I can’t tell you about the lawyering so much. I can’t explain the law to you. You can explain that to me.

Q Explain to me how you are being truthful when you are being deceptive?

A By the mere fact being deceptive, you are not being totally honest. But then again, as I understand the law, you are not obligated to answer but an exact question,

750

and the exact question here was about intelligence and — and again, I’ll tell you, when the GO was changed, the word “intelligence” was gotten rid of and the word “information” was put in there; information bureau, information department.

So if they would have said information department, I could have answered these questions a little differently.

But I didn’t say, oh, you know, well, they changed intelligence to information because no person wants a witness walking in just blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. Answer the question you are asked and that is it, okay.

THE COURT: Sort of like you are doing now?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So why did you use the word “intelligence” when you testified for Mr. Dandar? I just read you the testimony. “In those areas that I was responsible for,  legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA,” why did you use the word “intelligence”?

A Because I was able to take the eternal words of L. Ron Hubbard that had that on there and show it. I used it because that is what the issue says.

Q And by the way, that is acceptable to you to give truthful but deceptive testimony? That is acceptable to you as you sit here as a so-called expert in Scientology?

751

A It is acceptable to me to answer — answer the question that is asked.

Q So I have got to ask the absolutely right question or you can deceive me and there is no problem here? You can deceive me and the Court? And everybody else that is — that is in this room?

A Mmm, well, you know, you can call it deception or you can call it inadequate lawyering. I mean, I don’t know. What do you want to say about it?

Q Well, have you had any of those answers while you have been on the stand, those truthful but deceptive answers? Can you think of a couple where we just missed the question a little bit?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m making a valiant effort here to keep perspective and keep things in perspective. And I think I have gone overboard in explaining my rationale.

THE COURT: The question is, Mr. Prince, is there any time in this hearing you have not told the absolute whole truth, that is what the oath is, the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: No, there is not.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified, I think — correct me if I’m

752

wrong — a number of times that — that Mr. Miscavige was deeply involved in the activities of you and Ms. Aznaran at the RTC and that — and that you and her reported to Mr. Miscavige when you were there. Is that right?

A Mmm, partially right. I — I don’t — don’t remember saying Miscavige was deeply involved with me and Mrs. Aznaran in RTC. I don’t remember —

THE COURT: He did say he reported —

THE WITNESS: Yes, but the other part, I —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let’s make it clear because that is actually the question I wanted to ask you. You said — you testified under oath you reported to David Miscavige while you were  DIG external at RTC?

A I — ultimately, I did report to him, yes.

THE COURT: Frankly, I think he said he reported to Vicki Aznaran.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just asking him now — we’ll, I’ll read you what he said.

THE COURT: You have to read him what he says because I can’t even remember, myself.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is actually the real transcript, Page 342, lines 19 through 25. And this is in response to a question from Mr. Dandar. And you say: “Answer: So you know from

753

the –”

THE COURT: Read the question.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m trying to find.

There was a lot of interruptions.

MR. DANDAR: Well, that is surprising!

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince just starts talking. There was — there was dialogue about the Clearwater Police Department.

THE COURT: Well, let me hear what it is you are wanting to read to him, then we’ll see if he can remember this testimony.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Okay.

“Answer: So you know from the limited time that I was there in Religious Technology Center myself, I know that — you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service  Organization I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure the whole thing ran smoothly, and the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.”

That is what you said?

A Correct. That doesn’t mean to the exclusion of  Mrs. Aznaran who was my direct —

Q No, I didn’t — wasn’t suggesting that.

A Okay.

754

Q Now, if you’ll go to — by the way, did you also report to Marty Rathbun back then?

A Yes. Yes.

Q If you go to Page 52 of the Yanny deposition, please —

A Was that 52, Mr. Weinberg?

Q Yes, 52.

A Okay.

Q Look at Line 15 through 19.

“Question –” were you asked these questions and gave these answers under oath.

“Question: Back in this ’84, ’86 time period did you ever have an occasion to report to Marty Rathbun?

“Answer: No.

“Question: Did you ever report to David Miscavige?

“Answer: No.”

A Right.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q Were those truthful answers?

A No, they were not.

Q So you perjured yourself?

A Correct.

755

THE COURT: I honestly don’t want you to use the word “perjury.” Perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Lie would be fine.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I have had judges tell me not to use lie because it is inflammatory.

THE COURT: If that were in front of a jury, that may be true, but for me in this particular proceeding perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Fine.

THE COURT: If you say is that a lie, that would be fine.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was that a lie?

A Yes, it was.

Q And did somebody instruct you to lie?

A Yes. Again, Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun.

Again, I’m being a good Scientologist and I’m protecting Scientology.

Q And you’re not being a good anti-Scientologist as you sit on the stand in this proceeding and write affidavits and stuff like that, correct?

A I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Q Well, is there a code of ethics for people like you that are part of the anti-Scientology movement?

756

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to the phrase “Anti-Scientology movement.” I don’t know if that has been established anywhere.

THE COURT: I think you need to save that for another time.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is there a code of ethics, did you and members of the A team and those people that were carrying the signs for the Lisa McPherson Trust that we saw that video yesterday, was there some code of ethics as to what you guys were going to do when you were under oath?

A Mr. Weinberg, no one carried a sign for the Lisa McPherson Trust. You know, you make it impossible for me to answer these questions when you draw these conclusions and inferences that simply are just not true.

Q Well —

THE COURT: So the question is, was there a code of ethics that you and Mr. Minton and —

MR. WEINBERG: Ms. Brooks.

THE COURT: — Ms. Brooks developed when you were to testify?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: In this proceeding?

THE WITNESS: No. The answer to the question,

757

your Honor, is no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have testified again today about the RPF and I believe that on direct — and I’ll read you your testimony if you don’t remember it, but I believe that you have referred to the RPF as being a concentration camp or something like that, correct?

THE COURT: Prison camp.

A Prison camp.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, in this transcript it says concentration camp on Page 456.

THE COURT: I heard prison camp for sure.

Prison, concentration camp, I guess they’re all the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually —

THE COURT: They’re not.

MR. WEINBERG: In my mind a concentration camp brings images of Nazi Germany, and a prison camp, you know, we have them in Florida. But —

MR. DANDAR: Well, Japanese had concentration camps in the United States. We had —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not even going there.

MR. DANDAR: There must be a difference.

THE COURT: Maybe not to this particular witness. He may not — not make a distinction.

758

THE WITNESS: Well, actually, your Honor, I think there is a distinction in that I think the Rehabilitation Project Force is more akin to a concentration camp in that part of the program is to have not — not only to have a mind-altering experience, but to have a total revamping of the way you were before.

THE COURT: Okay. So you refer to it as a concentration camp?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, did you lose a lot of weight when you were in the RPF?

A Which time?

Q I mean, did you get meals?

A Which time?

Q You said you were in twice, I believe.

A Right. So you mean both times?

THE COURT: Either time.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Either time.

A The first time I lost weight dramatically. I think I got down to 144 pounds because we weren’t allowed to eat regular food, we had to eat fruit and — and protein supplement called Progest. Then we had to run around with

759

plastic suits on our body to, quote/unquote, get the impurities out. This is all we were allowed to eat is fruit and Progest.

Q That was in the ’70s?

A That was ’77.

Q So then in ’87 when, you know, everything came down on you and you got —

A I lost weight there, too, yes.

Q Were you running around drinking protein drinks and wearing sweat suits?

A No, not the second time.

Q Now, you testified that you were — let me quote — “forcibly,” quote/unquote, that is what you said here, “removed from the RTC.” That is what you said on the stand.

A Yes.

Q Do you remember that? Now, when you said forcibly, what — what were you referring to?

A Well, I was referring to a couple of things.

Prior to assuming any position as a board member in the Scientology conglomerate, the one thing that you’re asked to do in order to have this position is to sign an undated resignation.

After signing an undated resignation, then you are  allowed to be a corporate officer, on the board of directors

760

or — or some such like that, you know, having to do with corporate matters.

So I was a — on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. I was the treasurer. But when I was graced with that position I also at that time had to sign an undated resignation. Again, I was woken up at I guess 5 o’clock in the morning with 12 people in — security guards wearing uniforms like they’re on a mission, and I was told that I was removed, I was shown my undated resignation so that, you know — and this is a legal process. And apparently this is a problem that they had, but I won’t diverge, but this and this, and I was told, “You stand up, you call me sir.”

Miscavige wanted me to do that, and I didn’t want to do it.

So they grabbed me and they started jumping me.

Q All right. That is the gun thing?

A Right.

Q The gun thing?

A Right. We talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: Are you also talking about the fact your resignation was filled in, is that what you considered part of forcible removal? Or not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So when you mentioned that, that is also part of your forcibly removed because it was

761

filled in and, therefore, you were removed?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you understood when Scientology reorganized in the early ’80s and created RTC and CSI and a variety of other corporations, you understood that there was a corporate structure then that was very clear and defined in corporate documents, correct?

A Before —

Q You understood that?

A Before or after — I guess — there was a corporate structure before they created RTC, CSI, all these other corporations?

Q No, I said you understood in the early ’80s, the Church of Scientology reorganized with a new corporate structure —

A Right.

Q — including the RTC, CSI, which was the mother church, and all the churches under them. You understood that, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q And there was a very detailed corporate structure with — with articles of incorporation and various agreements that set forth clearly the corporate way in which various — Scientology would be run, correct?

762

A Correct.

Q And that was the wish and desire of L. Ron  Hubbard, who was still alive that that happened, that there be this reorganization of the church?

A You know, I can’t say that that is true. I can’t —

THE COURT: Who would care? The idea there was a corporate reorganization, surely this is going somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: It is going somewhere.

THE COURT: Get there.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The RTC was composed of a board of directors.

Correct?

A That was part of it, sure.

Q And there were trustees?

A Correct.

Q In fact, there were trustees in every Scientology corporation, correct?

A Well, I came to learn that in 1987. But you are correct.

Q Well, you learned when you joined RTC that there were trustees, there were three trustees?

A No. No. No.

Q Well, what you learned is that the trustees had

763

one function, correct, and that is to — that is to — to name or remove directors. You understood that, didn’t you?

A No, sir.

Q And you were removed in 1987, along with Ms. Aznaran, by the trustees of RTC, one of which was Mr. Miscavige, correct?

A Incorrect. I was removed by one person, only one person’s will, on one person’s authority, and that was Mr. Miscavige.

Q Was he one of the trustees of RTC?

A Yes. And this got explained to me as he was doing this. You know, he — you know, and I guess I was a bit naive, you know, I didn’t know. I wasn’t a corporate person. I’m not trained, you know.

And he explained it to me very well. He said, “Look, I am a trustee. Norman is a trustee.” I think Marty may have been a trustee or Steve Marlowe may have been a trustee. I’m not sure. And he explained to me how it worked.

And he said, “Here is your undated resignation and you have officially resigned and this is how it works and we have the authority to do that.” And at that point I was cognizant of how it worked.

Q Are you saying that for the five years that you were in RTC and for the three or so that you were a board

764

member and, you said, the number two person at RTC, you didn’t know that there were trustees that had the ability to — to remove you?

A Correct.

Q But you are an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology?

A I have never said I am an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology, Mr. Weinberg. I said that I am an expert in the — in the policies, bulletins and issues that are Scientology. That is Scientology.

Q If you go to Page 16 of your deposition —

THE COURT: Which deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, the Yanny deposition.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The —

A I’m not quite there.

Q Okay.

A Okay. I’m there.

Q Okay, Line 4, question — were you asked these questions and did you give these answers — and you will see there is one date that is wrong, but it is wrong in the transcript, and I think you — it didn’t affect the question.

“Question — Line 4 were you asked this question, “October of ’83 to March of ’87 you were deputy inspector

765

general for external affairs.

“Answer: That’s right.

“Question: Was Vicki Aznaran your senior during that entire course of time?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Were you out at Gilman Hot Springs?

“Answer: Gilman Hot Springs and Los Angeles.

“Question: What was your next position then in March of ’83.”

That would be obviously March of ’87, I think you understand that by your answer. And did you give this answer.

“Answer: Then I went to the RPF for three months, probably three and a half. Then I was an auditor. I was an auditor at Golden Era, the same place at Gilman Hot Springs, for a while.

“Question: For about three and a half months starting in March of ’83 –” but it is ’87 — “you were in the RPF again?

“Answer: Yes.”

Then I’ll skip to Page 17. Top of the page. Line 3 were you asked this question and gave this answer: “What were the circumstances of your transferring from RTC to Golden Era Productions?

“Answer: Well, when I was in RTC I wanted to go to the RPF because I needed more training. I needed — I

766

just needed more skill than I presently had. And that afforded me an opportunity to do that because I could go five hours a day, so I did that and also got auditing, co-audited and life audited, because I audited practically my whole career in Scientology. So I decided to audit for a while.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q So that was false testimony?

A This was coached testimony by Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun, for the purpose of deposition with Mr. Yanny.

Q So is that a definite category —

THE COURT: That was also false, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You were coached by who?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Earle Cooley and Mr. Marty Rathbun.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, that deposition — you were asked questions by whom in that deposition?

A You know, I don’t know. I — I don’t know.

THE COURT: Take a look at the front. It

767

should say who was representing Mr. Yanny. Did you give him the front page?

MR. WEINBERG: I gave him the whole deposition. If I could approach, I think I could show him.

THE COURT: Okay.

A Cummings & White. Is that who it was?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Barry Van Sickle. Do you remember Barry Van Sickle?

A Not really.

Q But do you remember this was a deposition, now that we refreshed your recollection, the questions were being asked by Mr. Yanny’s lawyer, not by Mr. Cooley, the ones we went over.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just one second, your Honor. I need to move some stuff and get some other stuff.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, going to a different subject now, Mr. Prince.

A Are we finished with this?

Q Yes, let me take that back.

THE COURT: Why don’t you go ahead and give that, then, to Mr. Dandar.

MR. WEINBERG: I will.

THE COURT: That will save you all from having to copy it.

768

MR. WEINBERG: Is this our only copy? No, we have other copies.

MR. DANDAR: You do have another copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently, somewhere back at the ranch.

THE COURT: But you can go ahead and make yourselves a copy and he can have that one?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let’s go back to the LMT now. And I think you said a minute ago that I had some misconception of the LMT and picketing. Did I hear you say that?

A Mmm, that is quite possible, yes.

THE COURT: What he said, Counselor, was that you were suggesting that they were picketing on behalf of LMT, and that wasn’t exactly correct.

THE WITNESS: That is right. That’s right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But the — part of the purpose — part of what the LMT did in 1999 and 2000 was to picket various buildings of the Church of Scientology?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I hear you saying that.

But with every video that you have shown here and you have related to the LMT, there are LMT staff that have never picketed, never wanted to, never would, and would not

769

participate —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, this is really simple.

Really the question is here, and I don’t think it is that difficult, one of the things that LMT did, those folks who were at LMT, was to picket when they thought it appropriate.

THE WITNESS: Yes, occasionally they would.

THE COURT: Exercising their rights, whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They would at times organize a picket and go picket the Church.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in January of 2000 you were the consultant, expert, working with Ken Dandar in this case, right?

A Correct.

Q And you were also working in the Wollersheim case, as well, at that time?

A Mmm, more than likely, yes.

Q And you were also vice-president at the LMT?

A Well, we already did LMT. You said I was at the LMT. And I was working with Mr. Dandar. There are two things.

Q I’m focusing on the time, January of —

770

A Okay.

Q — 2000, you were the expert for Mr. Dandar —

A Yes, I was the expert for Mr. Dandar, but I don’t think that I immediately assumed work at the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don’t think that is how it happened.

Q Now, I asked you yesterday about you being the big boss at the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And you said no.

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we play that video, please.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, do you remember a situation where Mr. Minton handed out parrots to various members at the LMT as Christmas gifts so that — indicating — rather, whether you are a big parrot or little parrot, squawking at Scientology, do you remember that happening?

A I think you are referring to a newspaper — a press that Mr. Minton had — had done and that came up —

THE COURT: Did he give you all parrots?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Little ones.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, could we play this?

771

This is from the film library, January 5, 2000.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I have a little presentation, a little sort of Christmas present for the people who are associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust who have made all this possible. Some of you may be aware that back in December a guy named Dave — no, Rick Barry wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune about — I think the headline was ‘Bob Minton, will he rouse the gorilla?’

“Yes. Yes.

“But the real headline is ‘Lisa McPherson Trust, will they rouse the gorilla.’ And in that article, he referred to — in terms of the gorilla, first of all, he was talking about how this gorilla came to Clearwater 25 years ago, 800-pound gorilla, set himself down in the middle of Clearwater, began buying influence, began buying property, and for the last 25 years they have basically made themselves a force in this community by buying people off one at a time.

“And the — the question that Mr. Barry raised in this article was whether, you know, this small band of parrots would be able to, you know, make a

772

difference here in terms of changing the way that this — that this organization is perceived in this community and in terms of the way this organization behaves in this community.

“Well, I remember a good friend of mine, Mark DeLarma, who you all know, said, ‘You thought that was a good article? He, like, called you guys parrots.’ I said, ‘I thought it was a great article.’

“So did I.

“Because it really expressed in a very vivid way how the Lisa McPherson Trust was going to change the way this community interacts and perceives Scientology. And how Scientology will have to — if they want to be healthful here, start acting like an organization that is a church if they want to be called a church.

“So I figured that the first thing that the Lisa McPherson Trust had to do is we had to set up a little — Mmm — mascot for this organization. And everybody who is part of it. So for the first — the first group of — of Christmas presents are for those people who will be based here as part of the organization day in and day out.

“And so the first of those goes — goes to —

773

this is my little parrot that we want to have, the staff members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the most famous staff member of all is — is Stacy Brooks.

“There you go.

“The president and chief operating — executive officer.

“The next one — the next one, the same parrot, you know, the same parrot, goes to Jesse Prince, the boss of the whole thing. Who we all love.

“Thank you, Bobby.

“And the — and the third — the third of the fifth parrots goes to Mark Bunker, the multimedia king of the world.

“Sweet.

“Who is doing everything he can to keep a straight face while this is going on.

“There is one for me. I want to keep that.

“And then when David gets here, this is for David Cecere. And I have another parrot which is not currently in waiting here, but that is for Kim Baker when she arrives.

“So we’ve got plenty of parrots.

“We’re not done.

“We’re not done. You know — you know, I mean,

774

so I would like to make a recommendation that we adopt this parrot as the mascot of the Lisa McPherson Trust so that everybody knows that we are going to make a lot of noise, we’re going to be squawking about what Scientology does in terms of harming people and their abusive and deceptive practices, and we’re going to, as little parrots, we’re going to make a lot of noise and drop a lot of stuff that parrots — come out the back end and help these guys learn the way to behave. Okay?

“So —

“Bravo.

“So now — now — now we have little parrots. We have little parrots for all of the big people who have made all this possible. And the first and most important little parrot goes to Patricia because — because what Patricia has done, to help everybody who is down here, get themselves down here and get them settled in and make them feel comfortable in this — in this whole environment, which is not an easy place for — for former Scientologists to come to. You know, they have been willing to stick their neck out and come down here and really make this organization happen. And so Patricia has really made everybody feel comfortable, she’s — she’s sort

775

of like —

“She chased PIs into the bathroom for me.

“Yes, and you — you know — so I — I want Patricia to have a parrot.

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Ray Emmons has been teaching us all for — and a lot of people didn’t listen for a long time, how this organization really operates. And he did this in Clearwater. He made himself known nationwide in terms of his opposition to Scientology. And the type of organization that they really are underneath the surface. And so I want Ray to know that he’s a parrot, as well. You have been a parrot for a long time.

“Okay.

“Let me have a kiss here, Patricia, because I didn’t do that. Thank you so much.

“The order of the parrot.

“The order of the parrot. This is like the highest award that the Lisa McPherson Trust can bestow upon somebody.

“Now, you know, Peter Alexander has been squawking about Scientology for a long time, even when he was in it, especially toward the end of the time he was in it, when he was — when he was —

776

when he was being squawked at by Patricia — you know, rather regularly. So — and Peter has allowed Patricia particularly to devote so much time and energy into helping this organization get off the ground.

“And I just want you to know, Peter, that we’re totally thankful for your help and support in this organization, your being on the board. And I really want all of us to know that this is an incredibly tight-knit little group, and got a lot of hard work to do here in Clearwater. But with people like all of us here and you, Peter, thank you so much for doing this. And I want to present you with a little parrot.

“Yes.

“Thank you, sir. Thank you.

“And I want to — I want to —

“The order of the parrots.

“The order of the parrots.

“I want to talk to you about a theme park.

“Yeah. Yeah.

“Now, the next parrot — the next parrot is for Duncan Pierce, you know, our national coordinator. Our national coordinator.

“Oh, my God.

777

“Duncan has been abused by Stacy so much in the last few months that he really deserves a big parrot. But because he’s not here on the staff in the office every day, he can’t get a big parrot, you know, it’s just not part —

“The big parrot —

“Look at Peter.

“It’s — you know, the problem is —

“Patricia? Look at Patricia.

“The problem is it is not in the tech. He can’t have a big parrot. But —

“The standard tech.

“Yeah. Yeah. But — but Duncan has done so much to get us off the ground, as well.

“I don’t know what I would do without him.

“It is amazing. The thing is there are so many people that have really pushed so hard to get this thing going. And, you know, there is no recognition for us. You know, we get abused a lot on the Internet. Our demise has already been scripted by, you know, anti-cult and Diane Richardson. Fine, let them squawk all they want. But the real squawking will be done here in Clearwater by a bunch of parrots. And Duncan is one of those parrots. (Inaudible.)

778

“Then for the — and the person who lives the furtherest from Clearwater, Grady Ward, who is standing right here, we have another parrot, because Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward is — is our security expert here. And already — and already during the course of this day he has learned a lot about security. (Inaudible.)

“Yeah, don’t tell me about it. But I can tell you some things about Grady personally because — (Inaudible.)

“Because one of the things that really got me involved in this thing was Grady Ward. And Grady’s stand against Scientology, you know, back in 1995 or — early ’96 when he started going after them directly after they sued him, he went after them as his own attorney, you know. You know what they say about guys who are their own attorney.

“It is perfectly true.

“And it is perfectly true. Grady will be the first to tell you he had no expertise, no competence whatsoever. But he — he studied the law. He studied what Scientology was doing. He — he learned so much about it. And has become a really good legal man in terms of fighting Scientology. And I — you know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine

779

somebody having the patience to understand and go through and traveling back and forth from Arcadia, California, eight hours to San Francisco in his car and memorizing the Rules of Civil Procedure. You know, while he’s going back and forth. And I mean memorizing so he knows every paragraph, every subparagraph, whatever. And — (Inaudible.)

“You know, if you talk about a parrot, then this guy is a parrot. And I want to give — I want to give this guy who is a shining example for many people on the Internet in terms of standing up to somebody who is trying to curtail free speech on the Internet, I want Grady to have this parrot as a symbol of our love for him and his contribution to this whole battle.

“Thank you very much. “Thank you, Grady. Thank you.

“And — and now. (Inaudible.)

“And now this other parrot, I forgot to tell you. I told you this was mine. And this parrot is mine because all of you gave me this parrot and I really appreciate it. So —

“Something about Rob and why he gets a parrot,

780

because if it weren’t for him, none of us would be here.

“Absolutely.

“None of us.

“For sure.

“There is nothing else to say.

“Bob is the big parrot.

“Definitely.

“Oh, but this is not all. Oh, some of the best stuff is — some of the best is saved for last. Well, what I would like everybody —

“He’s big with presents, you can see that.

“What I would like everybody to do, if you put the parrots around in a little circle here, if you put the parrots around in a little circle there. (Inaudible.)

“Right, don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget. But, you know what the parrots are supposed to do, don’t you? We’re going to get the gorilla. And I didn’t want you to think I forgot about that gorilla. So this gorilla is going to sit right there.

“Whew.

“Don’t dump on the gorilla. Come on. But — but that is what this is all about here.

781

little parrots and some of us big parrots here, we’re going to be here and we’re going to make sure this gorilla behaves.

“We’re going to educate this gorilla and —

“We’re going to put the — we’re going to put the gorilla in the cage or the jungle, wherever it belongs.

“We’re going to turn this gorilla into a parrot.

“Yeah, this gorilla is going to be cooperating with us.

“In any case, everybody can take their parrot back now. And I’ll keep the gorilla, so when we have it on the desk out there, it will be —

“Yes, a constant reminder.

“Yes, as a constant reminder of what we need to do.”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Very fond memories. I’m so sorry that that place doesn’t exist anymore.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object because we just went through that long video and with the — the question was — to Mr. Prince, “Mr. Prince, were you called or did you call yourself a big boss at the LMT,” and

782

that is not what that video showed. Mr. Minton called Mr. Prince a boss of the whole thing. So — so whatever Mr. Weinberg’s question was was not supported by the video.

THE COURT: Well, it certainly is a video that he could play at some other time so he played it now.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: But it is true, he was not called a big boss —

MR. WEINBERG: He was called the boss of the whole thing.

THE COURT: But I think Mr. Minton made it clear he was the big boss.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I asked you a lot of questions about what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about. That meeting there was initially the start-up meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn’t it? It is essentially right at the beginning?

A I think so. You know, I think you are right about that.

Q Right. And Mr. Minton made it very clear what it was about, squawking about Scientology. That is what the

783

Lisa McPherson Trust was about, wasn’t it?

A No, sir. It was about making Scientology behave.

I think that was also part of this video. Just to behave. Be decent.

Q Putting the gorilla in the cage? Was that what it was about?

A Or in the jungle, wherever it belonged.

Q What does that mean, “or in the jungle, wherever it belonged”?

A Well, it means everything has its place, Mr. Weinberg. And there is hardly anything sinister about what we just watched here.

Q “We’re going to make a lot of noise,” that means you are going to disrupt the activities of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, right?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. That means that we’re going to expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those who have been victimized by it. That is what we were talking about there.

Q And at that time when you got the second parrot for being the boss of the whole thing, you were supposedly the full-time expert for Ken Dandar, correct?

A I was working for Mr. Dandar as his expert. I wouldn’t go as far as to say full-time. I mean, even you brought up the fact I was working on the Wollersheim case,

784

as well, simultaneously.

Q We’ll get to the — we’ll get — I’ll ask you one question. From June of ’99 until May of 2000 you were getting $5,000 a month from Dandar & Dandar?

A I think the record reflects that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And this was in that period of time, wasn’t it, this parrot thing?

A I believe it was.

Q Now, you saw this meeting and you were at a number of meetings with Mr. Minton, correct, over the years? You have been with him a lot?

A Yes, I have been with him a lot.

Q And in this particular meeting and others that you were in, Mr. Minton was pretty outspoken, outgoing, he would take over, right? He would speak his piece? He was in control?

A No. Mr. Minton is not that way. That is the biggest myth. You know, Mr. Minton has exact things that he likes to do and he does them. I mean, I learned a lot from him myself. You know, I have never had millions upon millions of dollars myself. I have never been able to help people the way he has been able to help people. He has a different agenda, a different track. Unfortunately, in some instances he has a very short attention span.

And he never, in any instance, ever wants to be

785

the person that is the leader. I mean, he doesn’t — he doesn’t do that. You know, if you want to do it, great. If what you want to do makes sense, great, he’ll support you.

But he’s not going to tell you how to do it.

Q So this was just an aberration?

A No, this was — it was clear what this was.

Mr. Minton was showing his appreciation to persons like Patricia Greenway, myself, Peter Alexander, Duncan Pierce, for helping organize and make the people feel welcome at the Lisa McPherson Trust and helping us be a social — be a social reform group, if nothing else, in order to ultimately help Scientology.

Q By the way, did he look harassed? Did he look like a man that was under some wave of harassment unknown to mankind?

A Actually, he looked like a man giving a speech to a group of people.

Q It looked like he was — that was in the Lisa McPherson Trust building, correct?

A Correct.

Q It looked like all of you, Ms. Greenway, you, Mr. —

THE COURT: What difference does that make they were having fun at the LMT? When gifts were given out?

786

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll go on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you a question about Ray Emmons, the guy that put the parrot on his head.

A I know Ray Emmons well.

Q Now, Mr. Emmons had been a Clearwater police officer and had done an investigation of the Church of Scientology in the ’80s, is that right?

A Yes, I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Emmons has been and continues to be the investigator for Ken Dandar in this case, you know that?

A I know that Mr. Dandar has used him to do service of process or locate witnesses and things like that.

Q Now, what was Mr. Emmons’ position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t think he had a position. He may have been on the board of directors, which was huge and basically was a friends list. But as far as an official position or coming into that office on a daily basis to work or accomplish a specific task, that was never anything that he did.

MR. WEINBERG: I have a couple E-Mails — or postings I was going to put in, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I want to take a break here in five minutes, so if it will take more than

787

that, break now. If not, go ahead and do those and we’ll take a break.

MR. WEINBERG: I think we can do those in five minutes. I mean, it is just identifying them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: These are actually E-Mails, I’m told. I have trouble telling the difference.

THE COURT: Yes, I don’t know the difference, either. If they’re up there on the screen and people can read it, to me, it’s an E-Mail.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, your Honor, this is 223. I didn’t write the number on it.

THE COURT: Okay, I’ll do it.

MR. WEINBERG: And this is 224.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’m going to hand you the originals. We’ll put them back when we’re done.

A Okay.

Q All right. If you’ll look at first, Mr. Prince, 223.

A 223? Which one is 223?

Q That is the —

A Okay, I have it here.

Q That is the Jeff Jacobsen —

788

THE COURT: It is the long one.

THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m really only referring to —

I — we just received these from the Lisa McPherson Trust. I have attached the whole thing, your Honor, but the only page that — that — this is part of the E-Mails that were produced.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: But really what I’m focusing on is the first page.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can look at it all, but I don’t know if the rest — sometimes it comes off the computer and —

THE COURT: Who is this from?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at this, Mr. Prince, this is from Jeff Jacobsen to you and Mr. Bunker and Stacy Brooks. Who is Karen Case?

A She used to be a person hired specifically to work as public relations.

Q And this is dated August 2, 2000. Is that right?

A Well, you know, okay.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes. I do.

789

Q And this is — do you remember having meetings about things that needed to be done at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, I have to object.

This is not Mr. Prince’s E-Mail so I don’t know how he can question him about some hearsay document authored by somebody that is not here.

THE COURT: Well, I think he can state whether or not this is accurate or not.

MR. WEINBERG: It is to him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You received this, right, Mr. Prince?

A I have no memory of this.

MR. DANDAR: Which one are you on?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s copied on the E-Mail, it is addressed to him.

THE WITNESS: I don’t even know what this is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It is an E-Mail to you.

A Okay.

Q Among other people. All right?

A Okay.

Q What it says, “This is a list of things we talked about, elaborated on by me.”

Now, Mr. Jacobsen was also part of the Lisa

790

McPherson Trust, correct?

A Yes, he was.

Q In fact, in some of those videos yesterday you saw Mr. Jacobsen in it with a camera himself?

A No, I did not see that yesterday, but —

Q Oh. He did take — he took videos from time to time, didn’t I?

A Yes.

Q Do you know why those videos haven’t been turned over, by the way, his, Mr. Jacobsen’s?

A No, I do not. Were they asked for?

THE COURT: Don’t ask him what he knows or doesn’t know about something like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll ask it a different way.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you know where the videos that he took are?

A No, I do not.

Q Were they kept at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t know what he did with his personal videos.

Q But, anyway, this — this — this E-Mail talks about a list of things we talked about, 1, speeches, radio talk shows. 2, picket. 3, press releases. 4, press conferences. 5, help with investigations by EEOC, DEB. 6, the library open for public use. 7, concert November 11. 8, newsletter. 9, attend city council meetings,

791

participate. 10, put up a sign for the office outside. 11, ads in local newspaper. 12, support group. 13, radiofree Clearwater.”

Now, that is 13 things that the Lisa McPherson Trust, I assume, prioritized to do. Not one says anything about counseling, does it?

A You know, I think you are mischaracterizing this E-Mail to somehow reflect or — or be a staple for the activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and what this is is just simply an E-Mail of Jeff writing. I have no recollection of it whatsoever and I don’t even remember what it relates to at this point in time.

I mean, I literally have had thousands of E-Mails, Mr. Weinberg. I’m not trying to be uncooperative, I’m trying to cooperate in the spirit, but what you are asking  me has no perspective. You are tying this into the Lisa McPherson Trust and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Q Well, does it make sense to you one of the priorities of the Lisa McPherson Trust was pickets? Does that make sense to you?

A No, not at all.

THE COURT: This is really — in fairness, this is a statement from somebody about some meeting and, frankly, you don’t have to persuade me that the Lisa McPherson Trust picketed. I don’t know why you just

792

keep badgering that home. I know what he’s going to say, you know what he’s going to say. It is me that is in charge of this hearing, and I’m persuaded, but the point was not picketing, it was counseling, wasn’t on the list.

You know, that is unfair to suggest because somebody writes a letter with things they talked about on a given day of things that needed to be done, you can hardly assume putting a sign outside is a primary — is something that needs to be done.

It doesn’t say this is our purpose. I mean, fair is fair, Counselor. And that is not fair to suggest that those are the purposes of the LMT.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It will be received. It will be received, although it is only being received for the fact that — that we have a bunch of E-mails.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — that I have let in.

MR. WEINBERG: Then 224 quickly is an E-Mail that —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is this a posting or E-Mail, 224, Mr. Prince?

793

A I have no idea.

Q Well, this is something that you —

A There is no “to”.

THE COURT: It says it is from you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, is this a note to myself? I don’t know what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you recognize this as something that you did?

THE COURT: Who is Mark? I know there is a Mark.

THE WITNESS: You know, there are lots of Marks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think it is pretty clear, the message at the bottom is a Mark Bunker passage. Then —

A The message at the bottom? Oh, I see what you are saying.

Q Do you see?

A Okay.

Q And my question to you is, your advice was, “With regard to the Lisa McPherson Trust, contact Ken Dandar.”

That is what it says, correct?

A Absolutely not.

Q That is not what it says?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. It doesn’t say that,

794

either.

A No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Are you saying, “In the meantime, I recommend you contact U.S. attorney Kennan G. Dandar,” and give his E-Mail address?

THE COURT: What is the date on that?

MR. WEINBERG: It is November 10, 1999.

THE COURT: Before the trust was formed?

MR. WEINBERG: Right — well, the trust actually had already been formed, remember, it was incorporated and it was in the process of being set up.

A You know, this is a partial thing here from Mark. I can’t tell if somebody wrote in and had a legal question and I’m referring them to Ken Dandar, who is a lawyer that could maybe answer a legal question for them, or whether or not they need assistance or the service the trust has to offer. I can’t tell from this. I can’t draw the inference that somehow this means Ken Dandar is running the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

MR. DANDAR: I object. It is too partial to make sense.

795

THE COURT: I’m going to let it in for whatever value it has, which is little, as to a lot of the other E-Mails, because of the same problem.

MR. WEINBERG: So is this a good time to take a break?

THE COURT: It is a good time to take a break.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. I show it is 25 till. That will be about ten till.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 10:35 to 10:55 a.m.)

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay. I signed the order and I mailed out the copies. But those of you who are here, I’ll give you yours. Mr. Dandar. Here is Mr. Lirot’s, too. I didn’t realize he wasn’t here.

Mr. Moxon, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Fugate. Always trying to save you all some stamp money.

MR. WEINBERG: Everything counts.

THE COURT: Every little bit counts. That is right.

You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: I returned the envelopes to opposing counsel.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: So they can save their stamps.

796

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you first learned about Bob Minton after watching a television show Dateline in which he appeared and Ms. Brooks appeared in June of ’98?

A That is incorrect.

Q Did you watch a television show before you met Mr. Minton where you learned about him?

A No, I did not.

Q How did you learn about Mr. Minton?

A Through Mrs. Brooks.

Q So she just reached out for you, you didn’t reach out for her?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, I think I spoke on this before but I’ll speak on it again.

I was on vacation in Connecticut. I had been in the cyber coffee cafe. I had gone on the Internet. Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Weinberg?

THE COURT: It was rather elaborate.

A I left my phone number and she called me.

(Telephone interruption.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the Dateline —

THE COURT: Don’t be sorry to him. Be sorry to me. It is my word that says no phone.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I apologize for the

797

distraction.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the television show The Crusader, I think on NBC Dateline, where Mr. Minton was featured about his crusade against Scientology?

A Mmm, more than likely, many months to possibly a year after he had done that program, I’d seen it. But I didn’t see it when it ran on national television.

Q Well, you learned, shortly after your call from Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton was a very wealthy person who was handing out a lot of money to people that would work against Scientology, correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q Ms. Brooks didn’t tell you that Mr. Minton had given her and Vaughn a lot of money, including the purchase of a $250,000 home?

A At one point in time Mrs. Brooks did relay the information that Mr. Minton had given her and her husband some money and she explained the circumstances about that.

Q Did a relative tell you about the Dateline show featuring —

THE COURT: A relative of whom?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q A relative of yours tell you about — in or about this time period before you met Mr. Minton — did a relative

798

tell you about having seen this show where Mr. Minton was featured or some friend or some family member?

A A cousin of mine, when I lived in — I guess I must have been still living in Minneapolis and we were in a phone conversation. And she was telling me about a program where she had seen — she had seen concerning Scientology and there was a man that was helping people or somehow got involved in it. She didn’t remember his name. She just remembered — and, you know, as it is with my family, if they see something about Scientology on TV, they tell me about it when I speak to them.

Q Was that before you communicated with Ms. Brooks?

A I believe it was.

Q So when you learned about Ms. Brooks, you already knew about Mr. Minton?

A As I said, she didn’t know Mr. Minton’s name. All she related was, “I saw a story on TV about Scientology and the different things that they do. And there was a man that was helping people that had been in Scientology before.”

Q And did you research, prior to hearing from Ms. Brooks, did you research to learn who this guy was and what he was doing for people who had been in Scientology?

A No. I had not.

Q Now, when did you learn, after communicating with Ms. Brooks, how wealthy Mr. Minton was?

799

A When I spoke to him.

Q And how long after you talked to Ms. Brooks did you talk to Mr. Minton?

A Mmm, maybe a month. Maybe two months.

Q So I was under the impression that on this trip — I guess I’m wrong — this trip to Connecticut, that you went from Connecticut right up to Mr. Minton’s house after talking to Ms. Brooks?

A No, that is incorrect, Mr. Weinberg.

Q So you went home after that?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed in touch —

A Oh, no, no, I’m sorry, you know, because it is so important to make sure the record is correct. From Connecticut, I flew to Ohio and met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Haney.

Q And was it at that time that you were given a new car?

A No. No. It was not. And I was never given a new car by anyone.

Q Somebody purchased it? Mr. Minton purchased a new car for you or caused a new car to be purchased for you?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q Well, how did you get the $23,000 Rodeo vehicle?

A I never got a $23,000 Rodeo. I had use of a

800

$23,000 Rodeo but that $23,000 Rodeo belonged to FACTNet, and when I terminated my employment with them, that car stayed with FACTNet. You understand?

Q Now, that was purchased where, the car?

A In —

THE COURT: Where like what dealer? What city?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What city? What city?

A You know, I don’t remember the name of the city.

Q But it was in Ohio, that area, either Minneapolis or Ohio, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did —

A Well, wait a minute. Let me not do this thing because you accused me of this earlier. It was in Minneapolis specifically. I know the specific answer. I’m not going to play charades here with you. It was in a place near Minneapolis, a city that was near Minneapolis, and I don’t specifically recall the name of the city.

Q And it was purchased new, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to pick it up at the dealer?

A Mmm, a friend of mine — Mmm — took me — drove me to the dealership to pick it up.

Q And did you have a check with you? How was it

801

paid for?

A No. I didn’t have a check.

Q Ms. Brooks took care of paying for the car? Is that what happened?

A No. Ms. Brooks did not — well, you know, I don’t think so. But quite factually, I don’t know who — how that part of it happened.

Q There just happened to be a new car waiting for you at the dealership?

A No. They needed a vehicle for FACTNet. You know, let me — if you have patience with me, I’ll tell you the — what happened there.

They needed a car in Boulder —

Q Boulder, Colorado?

A Boulder, Colorado, which is where FACTNet was located. I was going to FACTNet to assist in that organization. The car was purchased. I moved everything that I had in Minneapolis and moved to Boulder, Colorado. I made that move to at least be safe or — or to be around some people that could offer some protection to me, because  after I’d contacted Mr. — Mr. Minton, the private investigators started, the threatening letters to sue me from Scientology started. And I was alone in Minneapolis, and it was like, “Okay, come here, we’ll help you, we’ll protect you, we have lawyers,” whatever.

802

Q You were alone and bankrupt in Minneapolis, right?

A I had filed bankruptcy in 1997. I think the year we’re talking about now is 1998.

Q June of 1998. Bankruptcy in November of 1997, right? Your next real job after bankruptcy was to be paid by FACTNet and Mr. Minton, correct?

A That is completely false.

Q Now —

A You want to know what my next job was or you just want to leave it like that.

Q Tell me what your next job was.

A I was self-employed. I had an art business called The Art Guy. I had a kiosk in the mall in downtown Minneapolis. I was making my own money and I was actually doing pretty good for myself.

Q But something encouraged you, prompted you, to pick up and leave Minneapolis and move to Boulder, Colorado, at which time you became associated with FACTNet and started being a paid witness in various Scientology cases, correct?

A I think you have added a little bit of baggage on that. But what actually occurred is I left Minneapolis with my business intact. I had employees in Wisconsin and employees in Minneapolis, and I left and went to Boulder, Colorado.

Q Driving this car?

803

A Correct.

Q And you drove this car for how long? How many months did you drive this new car that somebody paid for that you picked up new?

A Off and on, maybe about three months.

Q Now, after — but before you moved to Boulder, you went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A It was just myself.

Q And he flew you to New Hampshire?

A I — I believe the way the scenario worked is Mrs. Brooks arranged flight — airfare, the flight, for me to fly there, yes.

Q Much like she had arranged the car to be purchased?

A I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here because I think I stated earlier in the testimony I’m not quite sure who did that on behalf of FACTNet. That car was purchased in FACTNet’s name. It was never in Jesse Prince’s name, Bob Minton’s name, Stacy Brooks’s name. It was a corporate car. That is the way it was purchased and that is the way it was left.

Q And the person that was financing FACTNet at the

804

time was Bob Minton?

A Mmm, no.

Q Did Mr. — one last question about the car. Did Mr. Haney provide the funds for the car, Brian Haney?

A Not that I’m aware of. But then again, I don’t know the details of it. I know that — I think Mr. Haney did have some association with FACTNet at the time.

Q And what were you seeing Mr. Haney in Ohio about with Ms. Young?

A I mean, I had never known Mr. Haney. I didn’t know who he was. He just happened to be there. I was there to visit with Stacy.

The visit with Stacy — her and I have been associated — associated and friends through Scientology since 1976. She was one of the very first persons that I  met when I joined the Sea Org. And we were just happy to see each other. Her ex-husband, Vaughn Young, and I were very good friends. You know, he was an executive and we  were friends, and it was — and from leaving Scientology — because when you leave and you are ostracized, people disconnect from you; you are a suppressive person, degraded being, whatever, you don’t have any friends anymore. But to actually encounter someone from Scientology that you knew before that will talk to you because you are not a Scientology is a rare thing.

805

Q Now, the Youngs left in 1989, correct?

A Yes, I assume that, yes.

Q You left in 1992?

A Yes.

Q But you didn’t communicate with the Youngs until Mr. Minton came on the scene in 1998, after you left Scientology, correct?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of my earlier testimony, Mr. Weinberg. Because I think the way I testified, and again I’ll go through the whole thing —

Q No, just answer that question.

A But I wrote an E-mail from a cybercafe that said, “If you know Vaughn Young or Stacy Brooks, please give them my phone number.” Mr. Minton was not part of the equation.

Q My question was you didn’t have any communication with Vaughn or Stacy Young after you left Scientology in 1992 until this cybercafe thing in 1998?

A Correct.

Q As far as you know, they didn’t reach out for you prior to that time, either, is that correct, as far as you know?

A As far as I know.

Q Now, Stacy Young must have told you, when you were in Ohio with her and Brian Haney, she must have told you about the activities that she and Vaughn, her husband, had

806

been involved in for the past four years concerning cases involving Scientology. She told you about that, didn’t she?

A In our first meeting?

Q When you —

A Oh, when I went to Ohio? Are you talking about the Ohio trip?

Q Yes.

A There may have been a brief mention of that, what she was doing. But for sure the substance and the bulk of our conversation was the fact that we were together, we were alive, we actually made it out somewhat sane people and we were just happy to see each other.

Q Did she tell you she and her husband had been making a living off testifying and being experts in cases against Scientology for the past three or four years?

A No, she did not.

Q Did she tell you you had a good opportunity to — to get in on the gravy train, so to speak? Did she tell you that?

A I take offense to that characterization. But that statement is categorically false.

Q Did she tell you that you had the opportunity to make money by being — by working with lawyers in cases involving Scientology? Did she tell you that?

A No, she did not.

807

Q So you didn’t have any discussion about you getting involved in any of these cases?

A At that point in time in Ohio, no, we did not.

Q There came a point in time where you did talk to Stacy about that?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A Mmm, I’m not quite sure. It was maybe some months later or — I’m not quite sure. But I think while we were talking she was telling me about FACTNet. She was telling me about this organization which, in some respects, was similar to the Lisa McPherson Trust which had as its intention of providing information and doing what it can to assist people or persons who felt they had been victimized by Scientology. And —

THE COURT: Was FACTNet just Scientology or was it cults in general?

THE WITNESS: Cults in general, you know, the whole subject. Very broad.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was primarily Scientology, though, wasn’t it?

A No. If you go on their website, you know, Scientology has its place, but there are many other cults that they have provided information, ex-members speaking

808

about it, you know.

Q Well, the staff members of FACTNet tended to be people that were more interested in Scientology or had had some involvement with Scientology as opposed to other groups. Correct?

A No. That is actually false. There was one person that was a staff — that was a staff member in FACTNet, I think her name was Justine. She was a Christian woman that had never been in Scientology before.

Q You are telling me so you learned about how you could make some money involving Scientology from Ms. Brooks.

So when did that happen?

A You know, I —

THE COURT: Make some money involving Scientology? That doesn’t make sense.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Who was the first person that told you –suggested to you that you might be — you might be a witness and could be paid as a, quote, expert on Scientology? Who told you that?

A No one told me that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Who asked you to be involved in the first case that you got involved in?

A Mr. Leipold.

Q He just reached out for you?

809

A He was an associate of Mrs. Brooks. Mrs. Brooks was explaining to me about FACTNet. And the whole subject came about because we were talking about being in touch with people that we had lost contact with, old friends that were in Scientology. So she was introducing me, “Well, you know, another person, you know, people from Los Angeles, hey, do you know this one? He’s out.” And Andre Tabayoyon, I think I spoke with him. We were just talking about the people that we knew in Scientology that were no longer there that were out, you know, getting on with their lives, doing what they do.

Q What were you doing in Ohio with Mr. Haney and Ms. Brooks? I mean, why Ohio? You live in Minneapolis. She lived in Seattle. Why were you in Ohio?

A That is where she was when she called me. And I was in Connecticut and she was in Ohio.

Q Is there something special in Ohio?

A I think that is where Mr. Haney lives. She was in Columbus, Ohio. That is where Mr. Haney lives.

Q You went to New Hampshire. How did you get in touch with Mr. Minton? Did you call him? He call you?

A I think I answered this before. This happened through Mrs. Brooks. I met Mrs. Brooks, and then I had — you know, sometime after that I spoke to Mr. Minton on the phone and maybe a month or two later actually went to visit

810

with him.

Q He flew you to New Hampshire —

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know who paid for the ticket. We can assume it was Mr. Minton, directly or indirectly.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Somebody arranged for you to fly to New Hampshire, right?

A Stacy Brooks.

Q All right. But she wasn’t at this weekend — was it a weekend?

A Actually a couple weeks.

Q You were at Mr. Minton’s house for a couple weeks?

A Yes.

Q Who else was there other than you and Mr. Minton?

A His family would come occasionally. His wife. His children.

Q And anybody — I mean, other than his family, anybody else?

A No.

Q What did you-all — did you talk about Scientology in those two weeks?

A Yes, we did. We talked about Scientology. We talked about why — why he became involved. What this was

811

all about. He was very interested to know my involvement, my history, compared to other people that he had talked to.

And again, this is all in reference to, hey, you know, these ex-people, these people that used to be in and now they are not in and now they’re getting together and talking to each other and it is okay to do that.

Q And did he give you some money, some expense money at that point, either before the trip or during the visit or after the trip?

A No. No. I don’t think so.

Q Did he pay for your expenses to move from Minneapolis to Denver?

A Yes.

Q And —

MR. DANDAR: I object because we have got to establish a time frame here. It sounds like it all happened on the same day.

THE COURT: That is true. Whatever the time frame is, I don’t think it all happened on the same day.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A It didn’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It didn’t. I’m not suggesting that. Do you remember how much he gave you to move from Minneapolis to

812

Denver?

A Mmm, $10,000.

Q In a check? Cash? I mean, how did you get the money?

THE COURT: What difference does it make?

MR. WEINBERG: Probably not.

THE COURT: It doesn’t make any difference.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Where did you get the money? I mean, did this happen in New Hampshire? Or did it happen after the trip to New Hampshire that he gave you the $10,000?

A You know, I’m not sure because, you know, I made a couple of trips to New Hampshire. So I’m not really sure how that came about. But I’ll do the best I can to explain it to you, Mr. Weinberg.

I went there once, I stayed there for a couple of weeks, came back to Minneapolis. The threats started. I was starting to get letters from Elliot Abelson, Scientology attorney in Chicago, letting me know I would be sued. I had private investigators starting a noisy investigation in my neighborhood. And I think I alerted Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks, I said, “Look, I can’t believe this whole thing is starting all over again.” You know — you are right, I did do the bankruptcy thing. I cut ties with Scientology

813

completely. I was done with it. I didn’t want another thing to do with it. You know, it is kind of like every time you put your hand in the fire, you know you are going to get burned. I was done.

Q You were done but then you decided to get involved in cases against Scientology?

A Then I went to meet these people and my freedom of association was trying to be inhibited from Scientology — by Scientology. They didn’t want me to associate with these people. There were no — no criminal activity occurred, nothing happened. I’m simply talking to people that used to be in Scientology.

Q All I asked you, did you get the money from Mr. Minton during your trips to New Hampshire or after. That is all I asked, and if you don’t remember just —

A In one of the trips.

Q — just tell me you don’t know.

A In one of the trips, Mr. Weinberg, I did get the money from him to move.

Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you that he would, in essence, take care of you thereafter to support you with regard to your work involving Scientology?

A No, he did not.

Q But in reality, that is what happened for the next four years, didn’t it?

814

A No, it is not.

Q Well, you began to get money from Mr. Minton after this first $10,000, correct? I mean, from that point on for the next four years you received money, directly or indirectly, from Bob Minton on a monthly basis, didn’t you?

A Mr. Weinberg, I received money from FACTNet when I started working for FACTNet, when I moved from Minneapolis to Boulder, Colorado. I started to receive some — and very little from FACTNet. The fact of the matter is that I was able to live and do what I was doing because I had been — I had my own business, I had staff working for me in two states. I was receiving regular moneys from profits that I had made. And this was where the bulk of my money was coming from.

Q So you had all these profits that you had accumulated after the November bankruptcy between November and June of ’98?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, you got the $10,000 from Mr. Minton.

And how much money do you remember that you received from FACTNet?

A Maybe a couple of thousand. You know, one month.

A thousand another. You know, it was kind of back and forth.

Q And then you came — then, shortly after this, you

815

came to Florida in the fall of 1998 to begin work with regard to the PC folders in this case. Correct? You flew to Florida?

A Correct.

Q And you spent how many days with Ms. Brooks reviewing the PC folders of Lisa McPherson in the fall of ’98?

A You know, I’m not sure, but it was like many days, maybe even more than a week. And it was something I came back to, as well, and participated in getting the folders copied. So this whole thing with the folders started in December but it went through a period of time, a month’s period of time of going through those folders.

Q So at that point when you first came you were now officially on board as an expert for Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson matter, correct?

A I — I wouldn’t say that. The reason why Mr. Dandar wanted me to go through those folders is because of my expertise in Scientology, my prior technical experience, the many courses and certificates and internships I had finished.

THE COURT: Were you his consultant, as well?

THE WITNESS: Not at that time. I just came down to do the preclear folders. Mr. Dandar and I did not have a relationship because we didn’t know

816

each other. And through time — and he could see my competence in interpreting Scientology policies and bulletins — that I then became a consultant and worked more closely with him on the case.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, at the time — when you were reviewing these folders it was in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Yes.

Q And you had — you met with Mr. Dandar at that period of time?

A Yes.

Q I mean, you introduced yourself to him and all that?

THE COURT: Well, Counsel, come on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you bill him for your time?

A No.

Q You just did this for free?

A Yes. And I had done it for free many times. I mean, I have worked for Morrison & Foerster, and Feaster from — out of San Francisco in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Leipold in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Dandar. I mean, by that time I had been working with these different attorney firms or at least they had been calling me to see if I could assist them in these other legal cases.

817

Q Well, who was paying you to be in Tampa, St. Pete, wherever it was, that you were to work with Mr. Dandar and Ms. Brooks with regard to this case in the fall of 1998 and early 1999 when you were going through these PC folders?

A Again I’ll say that my expenses to fly down to Florida, I believe, was paid by Mr. Dandar. The money that I used to exist for that period of time, I think we’re talking about maybe six months, for the most part — for the greater majority of it were residuals from the business I operated in Minneapolis.

Q Well, didn’t Mr. Minton give you checks in early 1999, $5,000, $6,000 a month?

A No.

Q He didn’t do that?

A He may have did it a time or two but it wasn’t consistent. And FACTNet was a very small organization. It sometimes just didn’t have money. And my — you know, and this was kind of like a period of time like where how do you fit in? So, you know, I would occasionally tell Mr. Minton, “Hey, you know, these people don’t have money. I can’t live on air here. Can you help out?”

Q Well, why Mr. Minton? Why not Mr. Dandar who you were doing the work for?

A Because I was working on FACTNet now, you know.

We’re mixing apples and oranges here. FACTNet was a

818

corporation that Mr. Minton was on the board of directors of.

Q Well, I thought — correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I heard you say that starting in the fall of 1998, into 1999, you spent a number of days, weeks, whatever, working on this case, the Lisa McPherson case?

A Well, hold on, hold on, hold on. I never even met Mr. Dandar until 1999. So let’s leave 19 —

Q How can you say that? You just said you were in his office in the fall of 1998 looking at the PC folders?

A Wait — okay. Well, okay, I’m confused with the dates. So —

THE COURT: So what is the right date?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I mean, was it 1998?

THE COURT: That is fine. I told you and I’ll tell you again and it is really a wonderful answer, you know, 1997, ’98, ’99, there could be a lot of these dates you simply don’t know, and there is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m not sure what the date was. I don’t know for sure.”

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

A Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know. I don’t recall for sure.

819

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, when did you become the expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case?

A I believe that I got a letter from Mr. Dandar quite possibly in March of 1999 that memorialized the fact that he wanted to hire me to be his consultant. We had had a working relationship at that point because I helped him a lot and I — and —

THE COURT: You know, I haven’t heard a date yet. When is the question?

A March of ’99. I think that is when we formed an agreement and decided on terms.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Prior to March of ’99, in the months prior to March of ’99, you had done a lot of work assisting Mr. Dandar with, for example, PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q So whether that started in November or December of ’98, it was sometime several months before March of ’99 when you signed on as the expert. Right?

A Yes.

Q And —

A To the best of my recollection.

Q And prior to signing on as the expert, can you tell us how much time you had spent down here helping out

820

Mr. Dandar before you signed on as the expert?

A I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how much time it was.

Q Okay. Now, once you signed on with Mr. Dandar, then was it established that you were on a monthly salary?

A Mmm, I think the letter that memorializes that agreement, I was on a monthly retainer of $5,000 a month and my billable hours which I believe was either $100 or $150 an hour.

Q If you exceeded the $5,000? Or is it in addition to the $5,000?

A The $5,000 retainer, and the hours against that, plus any other hours if I put in more hours or whatever.

Q But you didn’t keep your hours, we established — remember we established that in front of Judge Moody that you didn’t keep your hours. Right?

A Well, no, in the beginning I didn’t. And again, Mr. Weinberg, there was nothing to keep prior to that because I had just literally done the work for free.

Q Well, we have asked for your hours as part of the various discovery, and it came up in the Judge Moody hearing when you testified in front of Judge Moody and your testimony was, I believe, that either you didn’t keep them or you didn’t have them.

A Right. I didn’t have accurate records. I didn’t have any notes to turn over or — no.

821

Q So what you got paid by Mr. Dandar was $5,000 a month because you didn’t keep the time in order to get anything in addition to that. Correct?

A Well, you see, we’re mixing apples and oranges here again now. Because I think, you know, you talk about that time period from 1998 to —

THE COURT: I’m — he’s talking about the time period from March of ’99 when you were placed on a $5,000-a-month retainer, was it $100 or $150 an hour again that — which was it?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure, I think it may have been $150, actually.

THE COURT: Let’s assume it was $150 an hour.

Basically how that works, if you go over, whatever $150 into $5,000 is, then you get more, but if you get less, you still keep the five.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Was that the deal?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you didn’t keep records, apparently?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You were paid $5,000 a month?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: For whatever — for however many

822

hours you worked?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’ll show you the checks, but that continued up until — your recollection is that continued to a particular point in time, I believe the records will show, May of 2000 when you left Mr. Dandar’s payroll and went on LMT’s payroll. Correct?

A My reference point for that, Mr. Weinberg, is that we had finished the depositions of all of the Scientology persons that needed to be deposed. And Mr. Dandar was going to go on to —

THE COURT: Well, is that correct? Is that the date? I mean, all he wants to know —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All I want to know —

A I don’t know if that is the right date. I’m saying my reference is this —

Q At some point, and we’ll show you the checks, I’m representing to you I think the last Dandar check is May of ’99 — or May of 2000. At some point in time you quit getting Dandar & Dandar checks and you started getting LMT checks?

A Correct.

Q And LMT continued to pay you at $5,000 a month?

823

A Correct.

Q The same $5,000 — the same amount. And you negotiated that rate with Mr. Minton?

A And Mrs. Brooks.

Q Now, and then the LMT at some point — you testified about either yesterday or the day before — closed down, correct?

A Correct.

Q And whenever that was, your recollection it was sometime in August or September of 2001. Right?

THE COURT: When was the date? When was the date?

MR. WEINBERG: That I don’t know exactly. I mean, it depends on — I mean, I’m really asking Mr. Prince.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I believe that you, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks said it was sometime in the August/September of 2001 time period, is that correct?

A Mr. Weinberg, my recollection is I think it ceased to exist as a corporation — I think there was something that Stacy wrote. But again as I testified to yesterday, there was that period of time when Judge Beach still had to come into the trust in order to go through all of the offices, the library, looking for discovery, so in effect it

824

was kind of forced to stay open longer after that.

Q Well, we’ll show you the checks. But the records from LMT —

THE COURT: If you have got the checks, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to show him, then I wouldn’t have to listen to this?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I will.

THE COURT: What you said yesterday was even after it closed down there was a period of time when you were working and you got paid for that, too, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Whatever the checks show, the checks show.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And then at some point you quit getting LMT checks, right?

A Correct.

Q And — but Mr. Minton continued to pay you. Right?

A No. That is incorrect. Mrs. Brooks did.

Q You knew that Mrs. Brooks was getting the money from Mr. Minton. Right?

A Well, you know — come on.

Q Come on yeah?

825

A Do I need to assume that for you to make a point?

The answer to the question is I was being paid by Mrs. Brooks. Her name is on the check. It is to me. That is it.

Q All right. And that was at $5,000 a month, as well?

A Correct.

Q And who did you negotiate that deal with?

A Mrs. Brooks.

Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about it?

A No. I specifically talked to Mrs. Brooks about it because she wanted everyone to take a cut in pay. And, again, this constant figure of $5,000 is something that we had discussed many years earlier.

Q “We” being?

A Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton. This is what I need to be able to live.

Q So —

A This is comparable to what I was making before I came and started doing this. I —

Q I’m sorry, before you ever signed on with Mr. Dandar, you had already discussed with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you needed $5,000 a month to live, correct?

A Correct.

Q And is that what you’re getting paid at FACTNet,

826

as well?

A No.

Q Now, when you started getting these checks — they were checks, right, from Ms. Brooks, you were still living in Clearwater. Right? Or — or Florida?

A I’m still living here. Yes.

Q And you’re living in a house that Mr. Minton gave you a $50,000 down payment on. Correct?

A That was part of the down payment that I had to make. My total down payment for that house was $70,000.

Q How much of that $70,000 did Mr. Minton give you?

A $50,000.

Q And when was that? When did he give you the $50,000?

A You know, I guess it was sometime in February.

And, you know —

THE COURT: If you have the check, show it to him.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t have the check, I don’t think.

A Well, you know, we’ve said —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, could you just tell me when you bought your house?

THE COURT: If he doesn’t know, he doesn’t

827

know. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.

A I know when I bought the house. I think the 21st or 22nd of February of 2000.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And at that point in February of 2000, you were getting Dandar & Dandar monthly checks as his consultant.

Right?

A Correct.

Q All right. And how did it come about Mr. Minton gave you $50,000 of the $70,000 that you needed for the downpayment?

A You want to hear this?

Q You asked him for it?

THE COURT: Go on ahead. You asked. He can tell it. Go on and rattle off however long this story is going to take.

A Prior to moving down to Clearwater, we had discussed — had many discussions about, well, where to put the Lisa McPherson Trust. We were kicking around this idea  of the LMT, where is it going to go? Should it be in D.C., should it be in Boston, in the Los Angeles area. Bob said Clearwater.

We discussed this, David Cecere, myself, I think Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton and there — there quite possibly could have been someone else there — I don’t remember — of

828

where to put this thing.

And Mr. Minton really wanted to put it in Clearwater. He felt that it was important that it happen in Clearwater. Which meant that everyone that was going to work there would be displaced from where they were currently living to move here.

Mr. Minton offered to pay the moving expenses for all concerned and to help all concerned establish residence in Clearwater.

Q So he paid your moving expenses which —

A Correct.

Q — included a $50,000 downpayment?

A No, sir. That is what was discussed in — in New Hampshire, you know, before we moved here. Ultimately, Mr. Minton gave me the $50,000 loan to purchase that house, but I paid for my own moving expenses and I paid — I mean, the whole deal cost about $80,000 for me to relocate.

Because I had a place in Memphis. And by this time I’m kind of living with — in Chicago. By this time I’m kind of living with my fiancee in Memphis, Tennessee, as well. So when I moved down to Clearwater I had to move from two cities; I had to move from Chicago, I had to move from Memphis, Tennessee, to Clearwater.

Q Mr. Minton paid some other things for you. He paid your attorney fees in the criminal case down here,

829

didn’t he?

A I believe the Lisa McPherson Trust paid those.

Q Well, did you — did you discuss with Mr. Minton that you needed funds to pay an attorney when you got charged down here?

A No.

Q So who did you discuss that with so that the Lisa McPherson Trust paid for your attorney fees?

A I wanted to hire a fellow named Rob Love to defend me in that action. Mrs. Brooks insisted that Mr. DeVlaming would handle my case and it would be taken care of by the Lisa McPherson Trust as a job hazard.

Q As a job hazard?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that was around $60,000 or $70,000?

A The bill that I saw — I think it was about $45,000 that I saw.

Q Do you think it was more than that or you don’t know?

A I think it could have been more.

Q Now, how long — so how would you get these checks from Ms. Brooks after the Lisa McPherson Trust closed down?

A She would mail them to me from Atlanta.

Q The last check you got was on or about April 4 of 2002?

830

A Correct.

Q And did you have a discussion — all these discussions that you had with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that you have testified about this year, in any of those discussions did you discuss with them your need for them to continue paying you?

A Mmm, no, I haven’t had a discussion about that. I mean, we — I think I brought up earlier, in September there was a renegotiation of — Stacy wanted people to take pay cuts or whatever. And —

Q But you didn’t take one?

A Correct.

Q I was talking about April. In that — do you remember you said you had all these conversations, that you referred to them in your affidavit, with Mr. Brooks — with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton —

A Oh, okay.

Q In those conversations did you raise the fact that you needed more money, you needed money, you wanted money?

A No.

Q Okay.

A I did not.

Q Now, you said that you began as the paid expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case in March of — of 1999. Correct?

831

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me have the reporter — the clerk —

A To the best of my recollection.

MR. WEINBERG: — mark as a 3-page exhibit, if we can do that, your Honor —

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WEINBERG: — some checks. This will be 225.

THE COURT: All right. Do I have the right order, the way you handed it to me?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It is possible, however, that I screwed that up, but —

THE COURT: It is all right.

MR. WEINBERG: But the order should be February, March and May. That is what I’m hoping.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 225, Mr. Prince.

A Okay.

Q And you recognize the first page of 225 to be a February 2nd of 1999 check from Bob Minton for $6,500 to you?

832

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you recognize the second page to be a March — appears to be March 18, 1999 check to you for $5,000, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q From Mr. Minton again?

A Yes.

Q And the third check to be a May 4, 1999 check for $5,000 from Mr. Minton?

A Correct. Q Now, this was — these checks had to do with the agreement that you had already worked out with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks about you getting at least $5,000 a month?

A Correct.

Q But you were getting this on top of what you were getting from Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Q Okay. You think you started getting from Mr. Dandar a little bit later?

A Yes.

Q Now, what was this $5,000 a month for? I mean, one was $6,500. Do you know why it was $6,500?

A Do you know, I don’t know. I was looking at that. That is an anomaly. That must have been money left over from another month. Because as I said, there was a

833

stretch — period of time after I met — certainly from 1998 until I guess this first check here that I was just simply not paid at all.

Q But this — you are not getting paid for FACTNet work, you are getting paid for Lisa McPherson work prior to signing on with —

A No.

Q — Ken Dandar?

A No.

Q Well, what is this work? What is this —

A I’m in FACTNet when this is happening.

Q Why was FACTNet paying you?

A Well, I think I mentioned earlier that sometimes FACTNet just didn’t have money and I would call Mr. Minton. I can’t just be down here.

Q Now, when —

THE COURT: Weren’t you making $3,500 a month at FACTNet? Or am I thinking of something else?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you may be right about that because we did have — have some agreement, I think I reached some agreement with them to do that. And, you know, at that time I still had my other business. I still had other employees. I would often make trips, you know. So that could have been the case.

834

But the fact of the matter is the organization didn’t have the money.

THE COURT: I’m trying to think of why — I have no idea why it was $6,500 either unless perhaps —

MR. WEINBERG: I think it might have been some expenses or something.

THE COURT: Or perhaps he was getting $3,500 from FACTNet. He was supposed to start getting $5,000 from whatever, and I didn’t get — the difference from $3,500 to $5,000 would be $6,500.

That would be rational but —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In any event, Mr. Minton knew you had been doing this work in Clearwater for Mr. Dandar with regard to the PC folders? He knew that?

A I assume he did.

Q I mean, you were in — once you had spent that however long you said it was, I forgot now, a couple weeks at his house, you communicated with him regularly after that, didn’t you?

A Up until this very occurrence, yes.

THE COURT: What is “this very occurrence”?

This —

THE WITNESS: That is occurring here.

835

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Now I’m going to mark as our next exhibit, your Honor —

THE CLERK: 226.

MR. WEINBERG: — 226, this is 226 —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, 226 is a response that was filed by Mr. Dandar on April 6, 2001. And attached — and the response shows that it has checks attached, but if you’ll look at the summary on Page 2, it identifies a 6/30/99 check, an 8/20/99 check, a 9/15/99 —

A Excuse me, I’m not following you at all.

MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach a second?

THE COURT: You don’t need to read them all into evidence. Just put it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: I just wanted him to look at it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You see those?

A Uh-huh.

Q Attached is those checks. So either look at the attachment or summary there.

Is it your recollection that is the sum and substance of what Dandar & Dandar paid you while you were on the — you know, being working as a consultant/expert?

836

A I believe this is correct with the possible exception of recent activity.

Q Right. No, I’m talking about prior to 2002.

A Okay.

Q And that the first check was on or about June 30, 1999. Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And the last check was on or about May 24, 2000.

A Yes.

Q And it’s your recollection that after you received the last check, that is when you started getting paid at the same rate by Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Correct.

Q You see for the most part these checks are $5,000 a month?

A Correct. I think I can explain what this other one is for, $1,772.

Q What?

A I mean all of $5,000 with the exception of the $1,772 —

Q Is that some expense check?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, the Lisa McPherson Trust actually withheld from your check. Right?

A Yes.

837

Q In other words, you — your salary was $5,000 a month but your take-home was whatever —

A About 35.

Q So I’m going to show you a series of those checks, as well.

A Okay.

Q You were on a 1099 for Mr. Dandar, in other words, he didn’t withhold from your checks, right?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You were considered an independent contractor when you worked for him, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

THE CLERK: 227.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 227, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 227.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark as 228 this document.

And all this is is the payroll records of Mr. Prince which show that the salary was $5,000, it shows what the withholding was.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: That is 228.

838

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: These were produced by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

THE COURT: These weren’t additional moneys.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it just shows what the salary was, 228, and they withheld —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at the checks, Mr. Prince, they are $3,552, starting in June of — of 2000, do you see that?

A Mmm, yes, I do.

Q And it is June, July, August, September, October, November, December —

THE COURT: Counselor — Counselor, just can you go from the beginning to the end?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It begins in June — end of June of 2000 and ends — one is out of place — ends —

THE COURT: June ’01.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q June/01, except if you look at the other exhibit, Mr. Prince — if I could just approach, your Honor — the payroll records indicate that you would have received — you would have received a — one last payment on August 1, 2001 of $5,000 salary with all of the withholding. Do you see that?

839

A I’m trying to follow.

Q It is the last page. Right there (indicating).

August 1 —

A Oh, yeah. Okay.

Q All right? So that was probably the close-out payment or something?

A That was the last check. Yeah.

THE COURT: Counselor, from LMT again?

MR. WEINBERG: These are the LMT records, this is what they produced.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So it appears you were paid a salary as an employee from June of 2000 until August of 2001 at $5,000 a month. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And after August 1 of 2001, you continued to get your $5,000 a month but it was from Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q Now, did Ms. Brooks withhold from — I mean —

THE COURT: What could she withhold from? I mean, she was not paying him out of a business; she was giving him money.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a good question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did — what were you considered at that point when

840

you were getting this $5,000 a month from Ms. Brooks?

A What was I considered? Stranded in Clearwater.

All of the other staff had moved.

THE COURT: Was this a friend giving — giving you living money until you could get some other job?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was there some understanding how long that was going on?

A No.

Q Was — had there been discussions it was going to end?

A No.

Q Now, you have a monthly mortgage, obviously, because you haven’t sold this house yet, right?

A Correct.

Q Who paid you in May of 2002?

A It’s not here?

Q May of 2002. The last check from Ms. Brooks you said was April 4, 2002.

A Correct.

Q You said for years you needed $5,000 a month to live.

A Correct.

Q So my question is who paid —

841

your money to live in May of 2002?

A I think from the State of Florida.

Q What do you mean?

A I filed for unemployment.

Q Well, how did you do that?

THE COURT: Because he was unemployed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you’d been unemployed since August of 2001.

A Yeah.

Q Or did you tell them that you had been employed since August of 2001 and just lost your job when you had this argument or disagreement with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Mr. Weinberg, it is actually quite a simple process. You go online, you tell them you are employed — unemployed, you put it in there, and they send you a check.  You check in. You have to look for employment. I mean, that is what I know about.

Q And who did you say your last employer was?

A Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what did you say the circumstances were that you had lost your job?

A Mmm, I — I think — I think maybe the place was bankrupt, went out of business, closed shop. Something like that, you know.

842

Q Is there some application you have to fill out?

A Online, yes.

Q And is there — so it is all online, it is with the State of Florida?

A Yes, it is with the State of Florida online, yes.

Q And so since May of 2002, you have been on unemployment?

A Since late May of — yeah. Late May of 2002.

Yes.

Q So you are still on unemployment?

A No.

Q Well, when did that end?

A Well, when I worked out a new agreement with Mr. Dandar and came to appear as an expert and give testimony here, he gave me a check which I think he said he  would send here, and at that point when you receive money — when you are employed and you are actually receiving money, whether it is self-employed or otherwise, that terminates unemployment.

So that check effectively terminated my unemployment.

Q And so you notified the authorities of that?

A Yes. And I haven’t received another check since.

Q How many checks did you get — where do you get it, from the State of Florida, is that where you get the

843

checks?

A Yes.

Q And how many checks did you get for unemployment?

A Mmm, well, they do it — I think I was getting like $293 a week or something like that. Then they would double them up so the checks were like $494, I would get two of those —

THE COURT: Were you getting weekly checks?

THE WITNESS: No, I had it every other week.

So I got $494 — I believe I received —

THE COURT: Do you know?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then why don’t you say that?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you get the first money from — when did you sign up with Mr. Dandar to be an expert again? What date?

A I don’t know.

Q Well, that can’t be long ago, so what is your best —

A Well, I don’t know the date. I don’t know.

Q What were the circumstances of you becoming an expert again?

A Mmm, you know, again, this whole thing was over.

844

People were going home. It was over. Your client took Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton as trophies and we are sitting here today and this brought me into this position here again today. So, you know, those are kinds of the circumstances.

THE COURT: Are you back as a consultant or expert or combination of the two?

THE WITNESS: I have been a combination of the two with him.

THE COURT: And what time did that start, about? Was it like —

THE WITNESS: Maybe a week ago, two weeks ago or however.

THE COURT: So between May of 2002 up until that time you were collecting unemployment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And is there some agreement you executed with Mr. Dandar a week or two weeks ago?

A Yeah, that I participate in the case, I would help —

Q No, is there some written agreement?

A Oh, no.

Q And the day that it started is when you got the check. Is that when you became the expert, when you got the check?

845

A You know, I’m not — I’m not sure because —

THE COURT: As opposed to they talked, then they got a check —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m trying to date it. It is not that long ago. I’m trying to date it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, when it happened, did you — I mean, did this essentially happen simultaneously that somehow it was  established that you were going to be the expert again and you negotiated what you needed?

A There was no — I’ll try to explain it as best as I can, Mr. Weinberg.

THE COURT: I don’t care. I don’t want to hear it, I’m not interested. I’m just not interested.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Could I ask the amount then? What is the agreement? Are you getting paid on monthly basis? Salary?

A We have no agreement like that. I just — you know, I will put in X amount of time, I’ll get through this hearing —

THE COURT: Are you going to bill him per hour, or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how much have you received from Mr. Dandar?

846

A $4,000.

Q Is that just a retainer?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Are you keeping records now?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

THE COURT: What is your hourly fee?

THE WITNESS: 150.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think this would be — I have a few other questions.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else, between the time that Ms. Brooks quit giving you money and the time that Mr. Dandar did give you money, did anybody else give you whatever you want to call it, expense money, living money, expert money, money?

A No.

THE COURT: Between the time Ms. Brooks —

MR. WEINBERG: — quit giving him the money in April of 2002 of this year and whenever it was Mr. Dandar gave this check.

THE COURT: Other than his unemployment?

MR. WEINBERG: Other than his unemployment.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else give you money?

A The answer is no.

847

MR. WEINBERG: I think that — you know, I’m sort of at the end of this section. If you want me to start another section I will, or we can —

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to go until about 12:15, if you don’t mind.

MR. WEINBERG: No.

THE COURT: Because we kind of got a late break.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I really don’t mind.

THE COURT: Gee, I thought you were about to say you were done.

MR. DANDAR: I thought so, too.

THE COURT: I was real excited.

MR. WEINBERG: Or I could put it a different way. Maybe I could have some time to collect my thoughts. No, I’m not done.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have been asked before about —

THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I’m sorry.

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: What is the number of the response from Mr. Dandar? Can somebody give me a number on that?

848

MR. DANDAR: 226.

THE COURT: Thank you. I forgot to mark it.

MR. WEINBERG: Which means that the — that the LMT —

THE COURT: I have everything else marked. I just didn’t have that marked.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You have been asked before and testified about going to Key West. Do you remember that?

A I don’t remember testifying about that.

Q Well, did you go to Key West?

A Yes. But I don’t remember testifying about it.

MR. DANDAR: It is outside of the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what he’s going to ask about it, but it is probably doubtful it is outside of the scope of direct but —

MR. WEINBERG: It is. It is.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you were in Key West for what purpose?

A Vacation.

Q For a fishing trip is what you previously testified to.

849

A Yes, okay. And, you know, I don’t want to do this — if I have testimony, could you please just show it to me and ask me about it?

THE COURT: That is a fair question. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask a few questions and then I will show it to you because we do have — actually we’ll show you the video.

THE COURT: If he wants to see it, you show it to him now.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is it. He can look at it.

THE COURT: Then put it up then.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I need to ask him one question before.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: One series.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In Key West, it didn’t have anything to do about Scientology or this case or cases against Scientology, is that right?

A Mmm, you know, we were there for a fishing trip.

I was there with Mr. Haverty, Mr. Haney, Mr. Ford Greene, Mr Dan Leipold, Mr. Dandar; Mr. Garko came out there. We all have a common interest, and it would be crazy for me to say that the subject of our work didn’t come up and was

850

discussed or whatever at some — you know, during the fishing trip.

So the — that is the best way I can answer that question.

THE COURT: So the answer is yes, you all discussed the case?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, let me play your testimony and then I’ll ask you about it.

THE COURT: What testimony? This is on direct?

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s in his deposition under oath in this case on November 17 —

THE COURT: See, you misled — I think Mr. Prince and I both thought you were talking about on direct examination which is what Mr. Dandar said was outside the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: No, in this case about Key West.

THE COURT: But it was in his deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. When you say testimony in this case, I’m going to assume you’re talking about direct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

851

THE COURT: So if it is something else, you need to identify it for him and for me.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: What page number is this going to be?

MR. WEINBERG: Right here. This is a transcript of where this comes from.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: May I have a transcript, too?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you go to Key West?

A Yes.

Q Who sent you to Key West?

A No one sent. I went.

Q Who paid for the trip?

A I paid for the majority of it while I was there, but it wasn’t — really not much to pay for. I paid to be on a boat to go out fishing. I paid —

Q Who — well, who gave you the money?

A I used my own money.

Q Well, where did that money come from?

852

A Money that I earned from working.

Q For FACTNet and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold?

A I think we’ve covered this earlier. You know, I have a — you know — different businesses, as well as  expert, and, you know, the money that I used for that particular trip came from money derived from income from work that I’ve done.

Q Including FACTNet, Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold, right?

A I’m not sure why you’re bringing up FACTNet. I thought we —

Q Is that right?

A No, that is wrong.

Q Well, when was the trip to Key West?

A Well, six weeks ago now.

Q And who was on the trip? What people were on the trip?

A Oh, you know, I really don’t want to discuss that because I was on a complete pleasure trip. It had nothing do with McPherson, or Wollersheim. Nothing. It had to do with fishing and having a good time. Okay?

Q Now —

A And I explained to you earlier that I am very reticent to bring up the names of people that I’m involved with that is activity outside of Scientology because of the

853

behavior of your client. How many times do we have to keep going over this?

Q Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar? Or are you embarrassed about bringing his name up? Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar?

A No, Mr. Dandar was not —

Q Answer yes or no?

A — on the trip. No.

Q Was Mr. Leipold on the trip?

A Mr. Leipold — Leipold was there, Mr. Weiner (sic). He was there.

Q Was Mr. Minton on the trip?

A No.

Q Ms. Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Vaughn Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Mr. Jacobsen on the trip?

A Who is Mr. Jacobsen?

Q You don’t know Mr. Jacobsen?

A No.

Q That is fine. Mr. Ward on the trip?

A No. No.

Q Did you talk about Lisa McPherson on the trip?

A Very little.

854

Q So Mr. Leipold went from California to Key West to just fish —

A Yes.

Q — with Jesse Prince?

A Yes. We went deep-sea fishing. We went 40 miles off the coast, caught fish like this. Had a ball.

Q And there was no planning session with regard to litigation. Is that correct?

A No.

Q Was Mr. Haney on the trip?

A Yes. And his son. And he learned to fish.

Excuse me. Now that we don’t have a question pending I would like to take a break. My leg is going to sleep.

Q We just broke ten minutes ago?

A Well, okay, I’m sorry, my leg is going to sleep.

I’ll take a two-minute break. Is that okay, Mr. Weiner (sic)?

Q Okay, take a break.

____________________________________

Q Now, I asked you if Mr. Dandar was in Key West with you. And you said no. You said no repeatedly. Is that correct?

A I don’t — if I did say no, I’m very sorry. He was not part of the trip. He came and appeared one day,

855

said, “Hi,” we had dinner and he left.

Q When you were outside did they — did they — Ms. Young remind you that you had made yet another mistake under oath? Did they tell you that?

A How could Ms. Young said — say that when I gave you testimony that she wasn’t there?

Q Well, who told you that then? Who told you — who corrected your — your false testimony that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there?

A I never gave false testimony. You asked me if Dandar was part of the trip that I went fishing. I said no.

Q And you were absolutely insistent that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there and yet he was in Key West?

A And came and had dinner and left. One time.

Q Flew down to Key West to have dinner and left.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, asked and answered and don’t answer it again.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did he stay in a hotel down there?

A I don’t know.

Q What do you mean, you don’t know?

A That means that I don’t have personal knowledge of it.

Q And you understand what personal knowledge is,

856

right?

A Oh, come on, please.

Q No, do you understand it, personal knowledge?

A I do not know if he was staying in a hotel there.

I was in a different place. I don’t know where he was.

Q How many — how long did you spend with him in Key West on that trip this summer?

A A dinner. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. Outside of dinner —

Q Dinner is usually at night, right?

A Correct.

Q Did you see him the next morning?

A No.

Q Now, was Mike Garko down there?

A Yes, he was. Dr. Garko was there.

Q Was Thom Haverty down there?

A Yes. He was.

Q So that is like the whole consulting team for the McPherson case?

A Mr. Garko was with Mr. Dandar.

Q So he just flew in for dinner?

A Came in and left.

Q Didn’t have anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case?

A No.

857

Q Who paid for your trip?

A As I gave testimony to earlier, I paid my own expenses to — Mmm — take the boat out. I went out on a boat several times. I paid about 50, 60 bucks a time. I bought beer, wine, food, cigarettes.

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

THE COURT: Counselor, is it — is it important that —

MR. WEINBERG: We are demonstrating —

THE COURT: Right now we have testimony coming out, I paid for my trip.

MR. WEINBERG: We are playing it in context.

THE COURT: No, it is not. I see about a jillion pages. You are on Page 259 and I see it going straight through to Page 267. That is a lot of pages. And I see that you’re — there is a lot of consistent testimony here.

MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, when we play this, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of inconsistent statements.

THE COURT: Yes, you already played it. I’m saying why do I have to listen to the consistent testimony from a deposition, it is improper.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, because — because —

858

there has been a lot of argument, accusations in here about taking things out of context so we left it in context is what we did.

THE COURT: All right.

If you have any more like this, you — you cut and paste. You can give it all to me, go to where you want to go, but I don’t want to hear it —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I have better things to do than listen to this man’s testimony two times when it is exactly the same both times. Now, there is differences and I’m interested in hearing the differences.

MR. WEINBERG: And it is different from the other sworn testimony before —

THE COURT: And I’m interested in hearing that.

I’m not interested in hearing that which is not inconsistent. Do I make myself clear?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: It is improper. All right.

MR. WEINBERG: We could play it on rebuttal case, and we thought it would be appropriate to play it here with Mr. Prince on the stand and get his explanation for the inconsistencies between this and —

859

THE COURT: I have no problem with your playing inconsistencies.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: That is called impeachment. I do have a problem with having to listen to Mr. Prince’s testimony on the stand and then listen to identical testimony in a deposition. Cut and paste it. You can give me the whole deposition, so if I want to read it in between, I can.

MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. Just play the rest — no, are we done?

That is fine.

THE COURT: I mean, there is more here and there may be more inconsistencies and I want you to play that —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, and we don’t have it set up and I’ll go back and look at it at the break.

THE COURT: Let me look and I can see what you have underlined and that is probably the important part. I see I have two pages here not underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: The only stuff being played is the underlined stuff.

THE COURT: That is not true, Counsel, it is not true.

860

MR. DANDAR: And I don’t have anything underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then — then I should have followed the transcript.

THE COURT: Page 259, this is about the time I interrupted you, “Who paid for your trip down there?

“As I gave testimony to you earlier, I paid my own expenses. I went out on a boat several times –”

MR. WEINBERG: Wait a minute. I thought — point made. I really thought when I was — that I had this — only the stuff that was yellowed.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: That is why it was yellowed.

THE COURT: If there is something else in here you want to impeach, that is perfectly fine, you can catch it during lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll catch it during lunch. I think I pretty much made my point.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in Mr. Dandar’s testimony in this proceeding on May 3, 2002 —

A Not this?

Q No, it is not this.

A Okay.

861

Q On Page 90 — this is in his direct testimony when it first started at the beginning — I could hand this up.

THE COURT: If you are going to try to impeach this witness from Mr. Dandar’s testimony —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I’m going to ask him a question about it.

THE COURT: You don’t need to show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony or ask him about it. You can’t do it. If their testimony differs, it differs. You can bring it up, inconsistencies in their testimony, but you can’t show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony and say, “Is that true?”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I take it that you did not spend hours and hours talking about Scientology strategy, the Lisa McPherson case and the other Scientology cases with Mr. Dandar or anyone else at the Key West meeting. Is that correct?

A That is correct. My recollection, I didn’t spend hours speaking to anyone about this. I mean, you know, there were a point in time when the attorneys were meeting, you know. And again, I don’t profess to be an attorney, I don’t try to be an attorney. I was there on a fishing trip, you know. Mr. Leipold has certain experience in dealing with Scientology. Mr. Ford Greene has certain experience with dealing with Scientology because of the cases he has

862

done. They had discussed with Mr. Dandar about that. This had nothing to do with me.

Q Well, you said Mr. Dandar in your testimony was only there for dinner one night for a few hours with Dr. Garko and flew back and there was no discussion about — about the case. That is what you said?

A You know —

Q Under oath. Correct?

A This is getting ridiculous, Mr. Weinberg. I mean, he flew in for dinner. He flew in. He brought in Mr. Garko. He had his own personal pilot. They were flying a little personal plane. They came, you know, while it was still light outside, you know, “Hi.” Thom Haverty’s wife is there and Captain Wayne’s wife is there, the boat. This is a social setting.

Q All right, so —

A There is nothing sinister about it.

Q So Mr. Dandar was not there for two or three or four days with Dr. Garko, was he?

A Not to my recollection. No.

Q Did you fly back to Tampa with Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not.

Q And did you talk, on the trip in Key West — which you remember it was in August of 1999?

A I’ll take your word for it.

863

Q And do you remember that on August 20th of 1999 is when you wrote that David Miscavige affidavit that was used  about him ordering the death of — letting — ordering or allowing her or causing her to die? Do you remember that?

A You got me all screwed up on the dates now. Could you just tell me again?

Q The testimony in this case is that the Key West trip was around August 8, 9, 10, 11 of 1999. Or 12th of 1999.

A Whose testimony is that now?

Q Mr. Dandar’s testimony, Dr. Garko’s testimony, Mr. Haney’s testimony. That is the testimony.

A Okay.

Q All right? You executed an affidavit — the affidavit in this case, part of what this hearing is about, on August 20 of 1998?

THE COURT: We are talking about that is the date he signed it?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is the date he signed it.

THE COURT: You are not going to suggest to this witness that whole affidavit was written on the date it was —

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t going to ask that.

864

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Just ten or fifteen days later you executed this affidavit, right?

A Correct.

Q Now, did you participate in any conversations in Key West with anyone, whether it is Ford Greene, lawyer on  Scientology cases, or Dandar Leipold, or Ken Dandar, or Dr. Garko or Thom Haverty, part of the — part of the Lisa McPherson team, did you have conversations with anybody down there about any of the assertions in this what became the August 20th affidavit?

A Not that I recall.

Q Did you have any discussions down there with anyone about adding David Miscavige as a strategy to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I recall.

Q As far as you know, was anybody down there talking about the strategy of adding David Miscavige to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I know of.

Q And was it —

A Or not that I recall or have memory of.

Q But you did leave Key West and go directly to Tampa, correct, after that trip that you call a fishing trip?

865

A I believe that — that that is correct.

Q And as soon as you got to Tampa, you started work — you must have started working on this affidavit. Right?

A I think that affidavit was a work in progress by the time I got to Tampa already. If you notice — I mean,  that thing is pretty detailed. I have references. I have studied. You know, it takes me time to do these affidavits.

I just don’t sit and imagine it. I have my calendar, I have my notes or whatever and I sit and I do these things.

Q But the first check you got from Mr. Dandar was June 30, 1999. Correct?

A If that is what you just showed me, I’ll take your word for it. Okay.

Q So as you look back, as you think back, do you recall whether you were working on this affidavit before you went to Key West?

A I’m pretty sure that was a work in progress.

Q So you had already had discussions with people about adding Mr. Miscavige to the case?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall it so I’m going to say I don’t know.

THE COURT: The only thing I’m going to allow you to inquire about — remember we had this little business about the work product — is the meeting

866

which is at issue in this case, the meeting, whether Minton was there and whether Minton influenced that. Whether this man, as a consultant, paid or otherwise, had a conversation about adding David Miscavige is what I would have expected him to add. Nothing sinister about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Nothing said it was sinister, except Mr. Dandar already asked Dr. Garko about meetings, Mr. Haney about meetings, Ms. Brooks about meetings, so —

THE COURT: Meetings? What meetings? The only person that I know of that was asked about the Key West meetings was you-all. Maybe he brought it up —

MR. WEINBERG: He brought it up on May 3rd.

You didn’t let me cross-examine him. Mr. Dandar is the one that brought up the Key West meeting, said that is where he —

THE COURT: Well, do you think I think all those people sat down there and didn’t talk about this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t.

THE COURT: I don’t care what they said.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just —

THE COURT: I mean, you know —

867

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: You are acting as if you have a jury here that — I’m a judge that has been involved in this case very deeply, and as I tried to suggest to you on several occasions, I’m not an idiot.

MR. WEINBERG: I know that.

THE COURT: I know what lawyers do.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that.

THE COURT: And I know if you get this many lawyers together, all of whom have Scientology cases, you put them on fishing trip or movie theater or whatever, the subject comes up and they talk about it.

MR. WEINBERG: And you couldn’t have said it better, and I’m making a record which I’m done with on this thing —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — indicating that this witness, that is what this — you know, this Paragraph 34 in the complaint is all about, his sworn affidavit, has told lies. You know, I’m using that —

THE COURT: I already told you and I told your team, save it for the jury. I don’t care if he told a bunch of lies or not. The law in Florida is if he qualifies as an expert, he can testify.

868

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand your ruling. I’m —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This is for credibility purposes.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. But I’m pretty much done with this area.

THE COURT: All right. Then let’s have lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: Good.

THE COURT: And as I said, you just have to forget — I hope you all don’t forget that I was a lawyer for a long time.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, believe me —

THE COURT: Please.

MR. WEINBERG: — I am well aware of that.

THE COURT: Frankly, my findings will go to the court this time with a presumption of correctness.

This is not a de novo hearing —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand that.

THE COURT: — by the Second District.

MR. WEINBERG: No, but it has also been a long proceeding.

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but it seems to me as if part of what you want to do is have

869

Mr. Prince up here just forever. I made statements before about Mr. Prince. I’m aware of Mr. Prince’s bias. I mean, Mr. Minton, according to Mr. Prince, shows where I said this before, this is not new.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, but I just started yesterday — I mean, yesterday late —

THE COURT: I understand. But you are spending an awful lot of time about pickets which I knew what they would say, with pickets that I knew would not be pretty, all as if you are trying to show me what I already know. You are wasting time here.

MR. WEINBERG: But —

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 1:30.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:35 p.m.)
______________________________________

870

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 4) (July 9, 2002)

0467

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 Prince.

VOLUME 4

DATE: July 9, 2002.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

0468

APPEARANCES:

MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. STEPHEN WEIN
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0469

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS
                                                       PAGE  LINE
Recess                                                    535   10
Recess                                                    580   3
Reporter’s Certificate                          581  1

0470

(The proceedings resumed at 10:05 a.m.)

[… Other court business.]

THE COURT: Okay. I’m ready for Mr. Prince.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: He’s still under oath. Same oath he’s taken. You only have to take it once.

You may continue, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Wein, you’re going to hear some unusual evidentiary rulings here, because we’re dealing with things like, perhaps, state of mind of your client. However, you don’t have — you’re  just — your client is nothing but a witness in this hearing. Therefore, as I told Mr. Battaglia yesterday —

MR. WEIN: I understand I can listen but I  shouldn’t be standing up and objecting.

THE COURT: That’s correct.

And you might think, “What in the world kind of

0499

rulings is she making? She doesn’t understand anything about the rules of evidence.” This is an unusual hearing with unusual rules, and we’ve got some objections that have been made and will be preserved, that have been made, First Amendment objections, expert objections, stuff like that, that are preserved. So you might hear triple hearsay come in in this hearing. It’s just an unusual hearing. So —

MR. WEINBERG: So it’s both the lawyers that aren’t objecting —

THE COURT: Yeah. When you hear that —

MR. WEINBERG: (Inaudible.)

THE COURT: When the lawyers don’t object —

MR. WEINBERG: (Inaudible, simultaneous speakers.)

THE COURT: — just understand that we’re involved in somewhat of an unusual hearing, and I’ve made some somewhat unusual evidentiary rulings already. So we’re —

MR. WEIN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — taking it from there.

Continue.
__________________________________________
25
0500

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, I’m not sure I asked you this question yesterday or not, but are you aware that Mr. Minton received from me any information concerning any of the mediations in this wrongful death case?

A  No, I am not.

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you and say, “Oh, Ken Dandar told me this about the mediation and what was said at the mediation”?

A  No, he did not.

Q  Now, before you left the Church of Scientology, how many years did you know — personally know David Miscavige?

A  I’d say about 12 years.

Q  And yesterday you said you were a friend of David Miscavige?

A  I said we’d been friends; we had been friends, close friends, at a point in time.

Q  Okay. When did that friendship end, if at all?

A  Well, it’s been quite a while since we’ve talked to each other. Probably — you know, if we talked to each other — I don’t know — maybe we could still find some friendship there. But we haven’t talked for quite a while.

Q  Well, give us a year. When did you last talk to him?

0501

A  ’92.

Q  And is ’92 the year that you were no longer a Sea Org member?

A  ’92 is the year that I left.

Q  Okay. And prior to leaving, did you still consider him to be your friend?

A  Yes, I did.

Q  Okay. And did he work with you in RTC when you were deputy inspector general?

A  Yes, he did. And as a matter of fact, more often than not I would report to him.

Q  Rather than Vicki Aznaran?

A  Together with Vicki Aznaran or without Vicki Aznaran.

Q  Can you describe to the court his management style?

A  Well, same management style that’s pretty much taught throughout the management series of Scientology, wherein an executive is expected to know about or be in control of all areas underneath the executive.

Normally when you have a person that’s high in the organizational chart in Scientology, you’ll have a seven-division org board. The person that is over that activity has to know the details of what’s going on in all of those seven divisions. Each division may be having three

0502

separate departments, as many as three separate departments, and different units within the department. So there could be a lot of people there. There is provisions for inspecting, getting information, and on and on and on, with that. But it’s very much expected to know everything.

But it certainly gets carried to an extreme, or certainly was carried on to an extreme during my tenure there, in that certain sections or areas would be micromanaged to the point where the staff in that area could only act on orders and comply with orders, comply with command intention, comply with programs. There was not a lot of original thought process going on in some areas by staff.

Q  How far down the org board did you personally observe Mr. Miscavige micromanaging during your tenure?

A  All the way down to the janitor.

Q Really.

A  Yeah.

Q  Would he manage that way with RTC or would he go outside of RTC?

A  Would go outside of RTC. There’s plenty of examples of that.

Q  Can you give us a few?

A  Well —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just date this? I was

0503

under the impression that when Mr. Prince was at RTC, Mr. Miscavige wasn’t. So can we put a date when he’s talking about?

THE WITNESS: I certainly will.

THE COURT: And what was that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I haven’t spoken of any instance yet, but the instance that I’m about to talk about right now happened in 1985 — and I do believe I’ve done a declaration about this before — whereby myself, David Miscavige, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Mark Ingber, Ray Mithoff, the usual crew, came to the FSO.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Flag?

A  Flag Service Organization.

Q  In Clearwater?

A  In Clearwater, Florida.

Went through the entire organization, started declaring suppressive persons of staff and public on the spot; people that we didn’t want or felt were inappropriate to be in the Flag Service Organization.

I’ve given a declaration about that before.

THE COURT: Have I seen that declaration?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t — I don’t think —

Was it — it wasn’t in this case, was it?

0504

THE WITNESS: No. I believe it was in another case.

I will certainly find it, when —

THE COURT: That’s all right. I just didn’t know — I didn’t remember —

MR. DANDAR: No, it wasn’t.

THE COURT: — reading it.

MR. WEINBERG: Does he know what cases?

Was it the Wollersheim case?

THE WITNESS: I believe it may have been.

A  There’s another instance that was produced and written about by KSW News or Scientology News, where again the usual crew — myself, Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock, Ray Mithoff, Mark Ingber, Mark Yeager, several Scientology attorneys — went to San Francisco to have a mission holders’ conference with the current mission holders.

THE COURT: Go to the mission —

THE WITNESS: Mission holders. Mission holders would be like franchise holders, organization — The Scientology organization is one thing.

Then you can have a franchise of that which is called a mission. And the mission holder would be the owner of the mission.

THE COURT: I see.

A  Anyway, we went up to San Francisco to have a

0505

mission holders’ conference. And prior to actually having the conference, we stopped in a local Scientology organization, the San Francisco organization, went through the entire organization, spoke to everyone in the
organization, and removed the executive from the organization, removed other people, and left.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  What gave you the power —

MR. WEINBERG: Could you please date that one too, please?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  What year was that?

A  That one was 1982 — late ’82 or very early ’83, as I recall.

Q  And what gave Mr. Miscavige and your group the power to go into a separate corporation, the San Francisco organization, and remove officers of the corporation?

A  This is the subject of something I’ve also given extensive testimony and declaration about, because it goes to alter-ego within Scientology.

But there’s a thing called mission tech, where Sea Org members can get together on orders based on Sea Org programs, and go into any organization and take it over completely and remove its executives, alter, change its policy, change its board of directors, change whatever it

0506

wants to. And once it deems that the activity is performing to the expected standard, then the mission will pull out.

Normally these missions last for two, three weeks.

Q  So it has to do —

THE COURT: Mission —

I’m sorry, Mr. Dandar. We must be driving you crazy.

The mission lasts for two or three weeks, meaning the mission church or the mission of these folks that are going in to take a look?

THE WITNESS: The mission of these folks going in to take a look —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  And the officers of the corporation are removed because they’re doing —

I mean, what’s the reason for that? Let’s talk about the San Francisco organization.

THE COURT: Why is that relevant?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the power of the Sea Org, which is one of the issues raised at this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: But it’s not an issue at this hearing. It may be an issue he’s trying to raise, but the issue at this hearing is whether or not, A,

0507

there was misconduct by Mr. Dandar and others; and B, whether or not there was a basis to allege that David Miscavige had ordered the killing, death of Lisa McPherson. Not Sea Org, none of that.

THE COURT: Well, part of the allegation was he was the head of the Sea Org, which was by — That is an issue.

MR. WEINBERG: But it’s — it — Mr. Miscavige, as we know, is not a party, because he didn’t pursue — that was the way they got him to be a party, by saying he was outside of the contract —

THE COURT: I —

MR. WEINBERG: — and —

THE COURT: — understand that, Counsel. But the allegation in the complaint that you are trying to get a summary judgment on and — and have dismissed as false is that David Miscavige did these certain things. And that still is part of the complaint, whether he’s a party or not.

MR. WEINBERG: There’s a lot of accusations in the complaint that I guess Mr. Dandar could have this hearing go for the next three months about, but that isn’t a central — I’ve said my piece.

THE COURT: Thank you.

0508

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So Mr. Prince, you and your party, which included Mr. Miscavige, ousting the corporate officers of the San Francisco corporation, what — what gave them the power to do that?

A  Again, it was just Sea Org — it’s called Sea Org mission tech, where a person in the Sea Org, called a mission op, or operator — mission ops, it’s called — will put together a set of, like, project order to get done in the organization.

They may call for removing the executives; it may call for investigating and then removing upon determination; it may call for training; it may call for correction.

Q  And back in late ’82, early ’83, when you and Miscavige and the others went to San Francisco, who was the head of the Sea Org?

A  David Miscavige.

Q  And when you left in ’92 —

THE COURT: Mr. Hubbard was still alive then?

THE WITNESS: In 1992, yes.

MR. DANDAR: No, ’82.

THE COURT: ’82.

THE WITNESS: Oh. ’82. Yes. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: And he was not the head of the Sea Org?

0509

THE WITNESS: Yes, he was. He was the commodore.

But you know, we were going through this whole song and dance to try to get tax-exempt status for the various organizations of Scientology, and the problem came up where I guess it was determined that L. Ron Hubbard — it was found that L. Ron Hubbard was the managing agent of Scientology and the Sea Org. And so Mr. Hubbard, by that time, had really separated himself for the purposes of allowing this church entity — these Scientology entities to get tax-exempt status. He had kind of separated himself totally from Scientology activity.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So when he separated himself, who took over as the head of the Sea Org?

A  Miscavige. David Miscavige.

Q  And when you left in ’92, who was the head of the Sea Org?

A  David Miscavige.

Q  Was there anyone in the Sea Org that had equal or greater rank than David Miscavige from ’82 to ’92 when you left?

A  At the time before I left, David Miscavige — this

0510

whole thing with brevet rank and being a captain and stuff — this is something that happened, I believe, later, after I was done there.

Mr. Miscavige derives his authority from being the chairman of the board of nearly every — all of the major corporations. He’s on the board of directors somehow, where he derives —

And then also, as far as Sea Org is concerned, Miscavige — I mean, basically, L. Ron Hubbard passed the torch to Miscavige. He didn’t pass it to Miscavige; he passed it on to Pat and Annie Broeker. Miscavige got rid of Pat and Annie Broeker, so effectively took control of Scientology.

Q  And did he take control of Scientology as the chairman of the board of some corporation or through the Sea Org?

A  He took control of Scientology through — by corporate means. And he was able to — You see — you see, this may be a little confusing, so I think this is worth — takes a moment to explain.

The Sea Org operates on not only these green policy letters and these red bulletins that we’ve seen, but the Sea Org has its own issues and issue types that it operates on. And they’re called Flag orders. Flag

0511

orders — you know, they supersede corporate boundaries; supersede posts or positions or whatever.

A  So Flag orders — L. Ron — the last Flag order that he wrote, he turned over Scientology to Pat and Annie Broeker. He called them loyal officers. Loyal officers is a term that comes up from reading Scientology’s, quote/unquote, advance materials. That was — loyal officers were supposed to be the highest rank in Scientology.

Miscavige — after L. Ron Hubbard passed, Miscavige cancelled that issue, did not let Pat and Annie —

THE COURT: We don’t really need to go there, do we?

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m leading up to one question.

THE COURT: Okay.

A  Anyway, he effectively took it over.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. Now, why is it that paragraph 34 — based on your affidavit, why is it that it alleges that David Miscavige, outside of anyone else, would be the person who would have given this order to end cycle?

A  Well, I think what my affidavit actually says is — is David Miscavige would have sat there with Ray Mithoff, with Marty Rathbun, the people that meet, to — to

0512

make sure that the flaps within Scientology that are a threat are dealt with. I think what I said there was that those three people would have gotten together and decided —

THE COURT: Ray Mithoff and who else?

THE WITNESS: Marty Rathbun.

MR. DANDAR: R-a-t-h-b-u-n.

THE WITNESS: Would have sat there with full knowledge and information of what was going on with Lisa McPherson. And instead of letting her be taken to a hospital, would have told these people to just let her stay there, and let’s see what happens here.

Let’s continue. See if we can, you know, finish the introspection rundown. Don’t put her on any line where she can tell a story about what’s happening to her.

In other words, let her die. If she dies, that’s what happens.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Now, what if the — based upon your tenure and your experience of working with Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Rathbun, Mr. — I’ve forgotten the third name.

A  Mithoff.

Q  Mithoff.

If Mr. Mithoff and Mr. Rathbun said, “No, no, no. We have these reports, that she needs to — she’s not

0513

doing — she’s getting worse. She needs to go to the hospital. Send her to the hospital,” and Mr. Miscavige says, “No. We’re not going to do that,” out of those three, who prevails?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. This is just rank speculation.

THE COURT: It would appear to be so, except I believe he indicated, back when he was at RTC, these same people were there?

MR. WEINBERG: No. Mr. Mithoff was in CSI.

Mr. Rathbun was not in RTC.

I — I mean, he —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince —

MR. WEINBERG: — at the time —

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it, because I know what the answer is. I mean —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, who was in RTC when you were in RTC, at these meetings?

MR. WEINBERG: No —

A  The only people that were in RTC were myself and Vicki Aznaran. David Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services, a for-profit corporation that was L. Ron Hubbard’s publishing company. However, that meant

0514

nothing in relationship to who were the principals of Scientology, who were directing — directing the actions of Scientology as a whole. And the people that were doing that were David Miscavige, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Mark Ingber, Lyman Spurlock.

THE COURT: Was there a majority vote taken?

THE WITNESS: There’s no such thing as a vote in the Sea Org, unless you’re deciding on a quality of food, in Scientology.

THE COURT: If you disagree on a decision, who made the final call?

THE WITNESS: If you disagreed on a decision — if you disagreed with someone that was above you, you would be sent for correction to straighten out your —

THE COURT: Look, if you folks are sitting around trying to decide something — you and all these people, you said, were kind of a — there — and you disagreed; you know, you said, “I think this should happen,” Ms. Aznaran said, “I think this should happen,” David Miscavige said, “I think this should happen,” who made the call?

THE WITNESS: Ultimately the person who would have the authority and everyone would have to follow would be Mr. Miscavige.

0515

THE COURT: So he — he made the final call.

THE WITNESS: Yes, he would say, “Okay. Yeah.

This is how you do it.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Would he get input from the others for —

A  Yes. I mean, that happened. But the purpose — I mean, you know — and I just want to clear this picture — make this picture a little bit more clearer as to how it actually works.

Mr. — Mr. Mithoff, based on how it worked when I was there — I’m just going to explain this. Mr. Mithoff would have brought this situation to the attention of Mr. Rathbun. Mr. Rathbun would have looked over this — okay. And again, in my mind, I’m not going with the theory that she was crazy when they took her to the hospital; I’m not going with the theory that she just lay there and wanted to be there; I’m going with the theory that, just like she said, she wanted to leave. She was trying to leave. They incarcerated her, falsely incarcerated her, wouldn’t let her leave.

So Mr. Mithoff would have brought it to Mr. Rathbun’s attention. Because you have a threat. You have a person that is now escalated. They want to get out. And now they’re sick. It’s going bad — worse to bad. Mr. Mithoff would have taken and put an exact

0516

instructions in her folder, went over it with Mr. Rathbun.

And at the meeting they would have sat down with Mr. Miscavige and said, “This is the situation. This is the flap. This is the handling.” If their handling included not taking her to the hospital and keeping her there  and doing Scientology on her, Mr. Miscavige would have said, “Fine.” If their handling would have been, “Look, I think we better take this risk even though she is antagonistic, and we got to send her to the hospital,” it is my opinion that his answer would have been, “No. You leave her right there.”

Q  And why is that? What do you base that opinion on?

A  I base that opinion on the fact that protecting Scientology is the ultimate goal of any Scientologist, irrespective of friend, family, business. Scientology comes first. Because the idea in Scientology is that Scientology’s going to save the world. And if you lose Scientology, you lose the world. So it’s the greatest good to protect Scientology than it would be to be concerned about an individual, or a group, for that matter.

Q  Now, are you familiar with the term and policy letter called “bypass”?

A  Yes, I am.

Q  All right. Can you tell the court what that is?

0517

A  Bypass is a situation — I guess I can just do a real example here using the court reporter. If this court reporter here were typing transcripts and she were making too many errors, someone else would have to come in here and take over her job and — while she goes and gets fixed or gets corrected, and takes over her actual job, and does the job until she’s able to perform it again.

Q  Do you have an opinion whether or not, in Lisa McPherson’s case, bypass would have come into play?

THE COURT: I don’t understand that. I’m sorry. Maybe I just didn’t understand the example.

Maybe —

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll try to do another example, your Honor.

THE COURT: Bypass, to me, means you jump over somebody or you go around someone.

THE WITNESS: Well, you actually displace that person and assume their position.

THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay.

THE WITNESS: Until they can do the job correctly.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Let me show you —

THE COURT: I don’t think he answered your

0518

question. I interrupted him. So if you want an answer, do you —

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m going —

THE COURT: In the Lisa McPherson case —

MR. DANDAR: No —

THE COURT: — did bypass occur?

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to ask a question first.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to interrupt myself.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Let me show you what I have marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 127, see if you can identify this.

A  Okay.

Q  Can you identify this?

A  Yes, I can. This is what’s commonly referred to as a CBO, central bureau order. It’s another issue type that Scientology puts out, you know, like a bulletin or a policy letter. And this particular issue talks about senior management bypassing into lower areas or lower units within the Scientology infrastructure.

Q  Under what circumstances would that happen?

A  This would happen at any point where the senior officer or senior body felt that there was a situation going on in a lower area that wasn’t being dealt with to par.

0519

Q  Now, do you have an opinion, based upon your experience in Scientology, whether or not, after your review of the Lisa McPherson matter, the policy bypass would have come into play?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to competence. I don’t even know what this is. I mean, this is not written by L. Ron Hubbard, apparently. It’s not in the green volumes or the red volumes. There’s been no — there’s been no —

And Mr. Prince said he knew what bypass was. Well — but — and now he’s going to apply it to some hypothetical situation that he doesn’t have any personal knowledge of?

THE WITNESS: I think the issue speaks for —

THE COURT: I —

THE WITNESS: — itself.

THE COURT: I think for this purpose of this hearing, I just want to hear everything he has to say.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I just —

THE COURT: So I’m going to allow it.

MR. WEINBERG: Every now and then, I just need to get up to renew —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — my —

0520

Just so Mr. Wein —

Is it Wein —

MR. WEIN: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. — I’m “wine,” and he’s “ween.”

THE COURT: I want to hear everything —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — because I want to find out all the things that Mr. Prince may have, as Mr. Dandar’s consultant —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — told him about, so that I can have some understanding of the complaint and the allegations you’ve made. And so I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Have you seen this document before today, Mr. Prince?

A  Yes, I have.

Q  And under what circumstances have you seen that?

A  I have seen this during messenger training.

I had to, myself — when I went to Gilman Hot Springs in 1982, I became what’s called a commodore messenger. And I’ve explained that endlessly too. It’s a person — it’s an emissary of L. Ron Hubbard who has the

0521

same authority as L. Ron Hubbard. When they come with an order to an area, it’s like L. Ron Hubbard giving an order to an area. So you know, this has the highest level of priority, as far as compliance’s concerned.

I became a commodore’s messenger. And as part of being a commodore’s messenger, this was the first time in my study pack on the duties of commodore’s messenger that I read this particular issue.

Q  Okay. And do you have an opinion whether or not this bypass would come into play in any part of the matter concerning Lisa McPherson?

A  I think it would have certainly come into play, given the fact that Mrs. McPherson was not being cooperative or — and actually intended to leave Scientology. And this was consistent in what she was saying. So that’s like a breach of technology. There’s no such thing as Scientology not working, as far as the written materials are concerned. If Scientology doesn’t work, then something is wrong with the individual. Somebody has done something wrong or somebody has misapplied it.

So if you have a person in the extreme situation like Lisa was, that continued, that would be reason for bypass; to come in and, you know, deal with it specifically.

Q  Who gets involved when bypass happens?

A  For the FSO?

0522

Q  Yes.

A  Normally Ray Mithoff.

Q  In what position?

A  He’s the senior technical person internationally for Scientology. The Flag Service Organization is the senior mecca of technical perfection as far as Scientology is concerned, so the — the Flag Service organization is certainly one of the major providences of the senior CS  international.

Q  Now, a while back, you know, in my office, you pulled out an OW of Lisa McPherson —

THE COURT: OW?

MR. DANDAR: Overt withhold, abbreviated OW.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  — that she wrote in the fall of ’95, concerning February of ’95, where she mentioned management had to get involved? Do you recall that?

A  Yes. This was a — right around the first time I believe that Lisa started experiencing severe difficulty with Scientology, as far as her relationship to it. And she mentioned that whatever was going on with her was — you know, technically it resulted in a bypass by senior management; a bypass of the Flag Service Organization, to specifically help her and deal with her situation.

Q  Now, we already have in evidence and marked as

0523

Exhibit 96 —

And this is an extra copy.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, I’ll show it to you if you need to see it again.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But it’s the Heide Negro (sic) isolation watch report. Did you see that before?

A  Yes, I did.

Q  And on the second page it talks about —

THE COURT: That’s in evidence?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. 96.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. It’s been a long time.

THE WITNESS: I think she needs —

MR. DANDAR: It is a long time.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  On the second page, first paragraph of the last sentence —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, hold on. Mr. — I object to his competence — he has no personal knowledge of any of this.

THE COURT: I don’t even know what the question is going to be, so —

MR. WEINBERG: He’s now going into

0524

somebody’s —

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know what he’s going to go into because you haven’t heard the question. So let’s hear it and I’ll —

MR. WEINBERG: If I could —

THE COURT: Go on ahead with your question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Okay. The first paragraph, it says that this data came originally from FSO CS, Alain Kartuzinski, who was in charge of John Taylor’s correction. Who —

THE COURT: See, I don’t even know where you’re reading from.

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. First paragraph on page 2.

THE COURT: Oh. Page 2.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  “This was later corrected by a telex from Mr. Ray Mithoff, who indicated that the RD –” I guess that’s rundown —

A  Right.

Q  “– in fact could be delivered, at which point delivery commenced.”

0525

Now, what does that mean in plain English?

A  There was a question of whether or not this person could be given the introspection rundown. Alain Kartuzinski apparently thought that no one was qualified at this particular location, which is their advanced organization in the United Kingdom. This person was — apparently had similar symptoms to what Lisa and other people were having that have that problem. And Mr. Mithoff — this, again — at management, was alerted.

And Mr. Mithoff indicated that the rundown could be given, because Mr. Mithoff is the senior-most technical person within the Scientology infrastructure. Senior FSO CS Alain Kartuzinski — any auditor or case supervisor located here in Clearwater, Florida, operating in the Ft. Harrison Hotel and the Sandcastle, are considered to be the cream of the crop as far as auditors and technically trained people are concerned.

Q  Okay. Well, are you aware of evidence that you’ve seen where David Miscavige has become personally involved in the matters concerning Lisa McPherson?

A  One thing that I saw where he actually comes out himself was a letter that was written to Mr. Bernie McCabe concerning dismissing the criminal case that was brought against Scientology for Lisa McPherson’s death.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar’s not

0526

taking the position that this justifies his accusation that David Miscavige murdered Lisa McPherson, whatever he’s got to show you, that happened in the criminal investigation.

THE COURT: No. I think what he’s about to show me, based on his question, is something that indicates that David Miscavige knew about the Lisa McPherson case. I don’t think —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think —

THE COURT: — that that —

MR. WEINBERG: — the whole world knew about the Lisa McPherson case once there were people — once the church was indicted and people were walking around with picket signs.

THE COURT: We have to read it, ’cause I don’t know what it is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Plaintiff’s 128. Is that the letter you’re referring to, Mr. Prince?

A  Yes, it is.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could I have a copy, please?

MR. DANDAR: Oh.

A  Yeah.

0527

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Based upon your experience as a Scientology executive in RTC, why would RTC have anything to do or be  involved with the Lisa McPherson matter?

A  I think if you just look at the second paragraph on page 7 of this letter, the last sentence, I think that pretty much says it all. It says, “Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved –”

THE COURT: Just a second. I can’t find out where you are. Page 7, what?

THE WITNESS: Second paragraph. Last sentence in the second paragraph.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Where it says, “Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved, you and I are the persons to do it.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  You, meaning Mr. McCabe, and I, meaning Mr. —

A  Miscavige.

Q  — Miscavige?

A  Correct.

Q  Why would — again, why would Mr. Miscavige then be personally involved in the Lisa McPherson matter?

0528

MR. WEINBERG: Again —

A  Again, bypass —

MR. WEINBERG: — isn’t this pure speculation on his part?

THE COURT: Well, I think that — that — I would read this that this was after the charge was brought.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: And that Mr. Miscavige, as the ecclesiastical head of the church against whom a charge was brought, was saying, “If this is going to be resolved, Mr. McCabe, as the state attorney, and I, as the head of this church, need to sit down and try to resolve it.”

MR. WEINBERG: And of course, he was not successful at that point, because the case continued for another year. And we all know how it —

THE COURT: However, we perhaps need to hear from Mr. Prince how he believes that statement shows that Mr. Miscavige was involved before Lisa McPherson died. Which is what your point of the question —

MR. DANDAR: That’s where I’m heading, yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0529

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  How does that — how can you explain that as reference to, as the judge just said —

A  I think the letter, you know, indicates Mr. Miscavige’s broad knowledge of every step of the criminal case, you know. And there’s no obvious evidence that he’s had involvement in this case, but it would certainly be my opinion that he has. Because again, this is a flap. It’s a bypass.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Prince, let me just ask you what would seemingly be a logical question to me:

You could certainly have a situation — I’m not saying this is true or not true. But you could have — certainly have a situation where somebody didn’t know about somebody being ill, but when criminal charges were filed, because that person died, if they’re the head, they’d become involved and take over from that point.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. That is a rational line of thinking for, you know, regular world activities. But in Scientology, these — you know, Scientology —

THE COURT: I’m not saying that —

THE WITNESS: — is extremely —

0530

THE COURT: — Mr. Miscavige didn’t know.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: I am saying that another explanation — I mean, this is about a criminal charge —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And so you could certainly have —

THE WITNESS: Against the Flag Service Organization.

THE COURT: Yeah. You could have a situation where the ecclesiastical head, after criminal charges are filed, says, “Let’s you and I sit down and see if we can resolve this criminal case.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know, where are the letters from the corporate heads of the Flag Service Organization, doing the same thing with Mr. McCabe?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Where are the what?

THE WITNESS: The corporate officers of the Flag Service Organization. Where’s Mr. Ben Shaw’s letter to Mr. McCabe to sort this out? Why does this necessitate Mr. Miscavige? This is against the

0531

Flag Service Organization.

THE COURT: Well, because as I understand it, Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the Church of Scientology.

THE WITNESS: Every one of them.

THE COURT: Every one of them.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Yeah. There’s no disagreement.

So as I said, I can — I’m not saying that Mr. Miscavige did or did not know about Lisa McPherson’s situation when she was at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Because quite frankly, that’s one of the issues.

But this letter just simply says that, “I as the head of this church, all of them, want to sit down with you and resolve this case.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So how do you jump from that —

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: In other words, there’s lots of people who have testified that David Miscavige, as chairman of the board of RTC, knew about Lisa McPherson. There’s just no question in their mind.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: He would have known. He would have

0532

known because that’s the way business is done.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Sort of.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. I’ve heard all that testimony. I presume you would testify the same.

But what does this letter add to this?

THE WITNESS: I — you know, your Honor, I think the only purpose of this letter is — is just to show what we were talking about earlier, when we were talking about the bypass and — and how, you know, it’s a pattern of conduct; how the organization does business. I think that’s the purpose of why this is in here.

THE COURT: Well, if this letter has relevance — if this letter has relevance, it has relevance to the, I suspect, agreed-to evidence in this case, which is that David Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the Church of Scientology, including — including Flag.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Including all of the organizations.

MR. WEINBERG: The letter isn’t relevant to this proceeding.

THE COURT: No. It is not relevant to this

0533

proceeding, as I said, except that it might be relevant to that issue, which I assume is an agreed-upon issue.

MR. WEINBERG: The first church in the United States within 200 years is indicted, it’s not surprising that Mr. Miscavige —

THE COURT: No, it’s not.

MR. WEINBERG: — would want to try to find a resolution to it.

THE COURT: That is true, and that’s what I said. I don’t think it has any relevance to this proceeding unless it is to establish that indeed Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the church, including — including Flag.

MR. WEINBERG: He’s the ecclesiastical — he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the churches of Scientology.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: The religious leader of the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, ecclesiastical leader and religious leader are the same thing.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Same thing. He happens to be the chairman of the board of an organization called RTC, but he’s the ecclesiastical or religious

0534

leader of Scientology.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, is Mr. Miscavige the leader of all of the Scientology churches as — because he’s the COB of RTC or because he’s the captain of the Sea Org?

A  Because he’s the captain of the Sea Org.

Q  When Mr. Miscavige was the captain of the Sea Org and the COB, of the for-profit corporation Office Services, Inc., ASI, was he the head of all of the churches of Scientology as well?

A  Well, again, as your Honor correctly pointed out, Mr. Hubbard was alive at that time.

Q  Oh, okay.

A  Shortly after Mr. Hubbard passed, that was certainly the situation for a moment.

But immediately upon the death of Mr. Hubbard and the ousting of Pat and Annie Broeker, Mr. Miscavige assumed control of Religious Technology Center.

Q  All right. And did he do that because he was the chairman of the board of ASI or the captain of the Sea Org?

A  Because he was the captain of the Sea Org. You know, everything is done in the Sea Org with missions.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer —

0535

THE COURT: Yes. He’s answered the question.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a document — actually, it’s a notice of filing. I’m going to have to have the clerk mark this notebook. And —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. We’ll go ahead and take our morning break since it’s very close to that time. We’ll be in recess till 11:30.

(A recess was taken at 11:17 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:37 a.m.)

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: What I had marked and what I was about to hand the witness and the court, and not have to make an extra copy for Mr. Weinberg — which I didn’t because, quite frankly, he has all this, but I understand what he’s saying. He should have the same thing I’m handing — and that’s fine.

We’ll get that done over the lunch break — is Exhibit 130. It’s a compilation of documents, statements and depositions of staff.

But I’m only going to ask this witness about J, which is the narrative investigation of Detective Carrasquillo, April 15th, 1997.

MR. WEINBERG: I object to the use of this

0536

document. It’s just — it’s a — it’s not a sworn statement; it’s not a sworn statement of a witness. It’s just her — it’s a hearsay account of what she claims — I guess summarizes what somebody would have told her. That’s not evidence.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not — certainly not for — I think where he’s going is that he’s offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And it’s pure hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, it would be true hearsay if he’s offering it for the truth of the matter asserted, but I don’t know what he’s going to ask this witness. So let’s hear it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince — of course, we obtained this document, you know, a year after your affidavit of August of ’99 —

A  Mm-hmm.

Q  — when this was made a public record —

But in paragraph 3, the interview summary of Mr. and Mrs. Ortner, O-r-t-n-e-r, indicates that Mr. Miscavige was staying at the Ft. Harrison Hotel —

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what I’m talking about,

0537

your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  — while they were there, around November 20th of 1995.

Do you — here’s my question: Do you know of circumstances or other occasions when Mr. Miscavige would stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel?

A  Yes, I do. Again, I’ll refer to the — to the video that was played the first day of my testimony where we were having a New Year’s Eve event. He would be there for that. He would be there for March 13th, which is  L. Ron Hubbard’s birthday. They normally have an event at the —

MR. WEINBERG: Are you talking about a specific year?

A  — and —

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

MR. WEINBERG: About a specific year?

THE WITNESS: No. I’m talking — he asked me a question of when normally he would be there. I’m talking about —

MR. WEINBERG: All right. My objection is the question was whether he stayed there, not whether he was there. Big difference. And in this case there is no — I mean, if this is being offered that Mr. Miscavige was in Clearwater in November or

0538

December of 1995, it’s pure hearsay. And he wasn’t. And if he was —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear —

MR. WEINBERG: — he would have obviously — the state attorney would have done some investigation on it if that were the case. And it’s not the case.

But the question was whether he — whether Mr. Miscavige ever stayed at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, and Mr. Prince is talking about whether Mr. Miscavige was ever at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, which is completely different.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  How did you understand the question, Mr. Prince?

A  I understood the question as to at what times would Mr. Miscavige likely be at the Ft. Harrison.

Q  Okay. All right. Well, let’s —

THE COURT: I think that has some relevance, if it was anytime around — in and around the time of Lisa McPherson’s stay at the Ft. Harrison.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So what events would he normally routinely come to in the Ft. Harrison?

A  There would be auditor’s date —

Q  Which is —

0539

A  — which is sometime in September; there would be IAS —

Q  What’s IAS?

A  Excuse me. International Association of Scientologists. They have an event in the summertime, I think, that’s around June or something like that, they have an IAS event. The New Year’s event. L. Ron Hubbard birthday event.

Q  Which is March?

A  March 13th.

Some of the more common times that I can think of that he would be there.

Q  What about non-Scientology holidays such as Thanksgiving?

A  Not likely —

Q  Okay.

A  — in my experience.

Q  Okay.

THE COURT: And the reason he would be at the Ft. Harrison Hotel as opposed to someplace else is because it’s the mecca of all —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

The Ft. Harrison is a very beautiful hotel.

THE COURT: Is that — mecca of all technology — mecca of all technology?

0540

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Was —

THE COURT: Now, on a New Year’s event, I thought he was out in California on the tape that I saw.

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. That was right in the Ft. Harrison.

THE COURT: Oh, it was?

MR. WEINBERG: You’re talking about two different tapes. The tape that you saw was California. The tape that Mr. Prince was in, was —

THE COURT: In Clearwater.

MR. WEINBERG: — in the Ft. Harrison.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: That was — Mr. Prince was 20 years ago; your — I don’t know when it was. 2000.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: It was less than 20 years ago.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But anyway, do you — do you have any recollection of Mr. Miscavige staying at the Ft. Harrison Hotel rather than just showing up for an event?

A  Well, when I testified earlier about Mr. Miscavige and myself, Vicki Aznaran, you know, the regular crew coming

0541

into the Flag Service Organization and rearranging and declaring some people, we stayed there at that time.

I mean, you know, whenever Mr. Miscavige would come to the Clearwater area, as well as myself, we always stayed at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: What were the dates that Lisa McPherson was at the Ft. Harrison?

MR. DANDAR: November the 18th of ’95 through December the 5th of ’95.

THE COURT: Do you have any information that would say that David Miscavige was or was not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel on those dates?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, beyond what Mr. Dandar is presenting here today, I do not.

THE COURT: So regardless, if it weren’t for that hearsay document, you have no firsthand knowledge or other way of knowing whether he was there or not.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, one thing I wanted to ask you about that’s out of sequence, and that is after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, did you have occasion after that time to consult with Scientology attorneys?

0542

A  Yes, I did. I was contacted by Mr. Mike Sutter, who worked in the Scientology — worked in the Religious Technology Center. He told me that he wanted me to meet with Mr. Earle Cooley concerning ongoing church litigation.

Q  And who is Mr. Cooley?

A  Mr. Earle Cooley was lead counsel for Scientology during the early ’80s.

Q  And what date or what month and year was this that Mr. Sutter asked you to meet with Mr. Cooley?

A  You know, to the best of my knowledge, I do believe it was 1994.

We met in Boston.

Q  What was the purpose of that meeting?

A  Well, I thought I was going to go there to speak about current legal cases, because that’s what they told me they wanted me to speak about. But in fact, when I got there, it became quite a different show. They wanted me to reaffirm for them the fact that — you know, the — under the — reaffirm the conditions under which I left Scientology, the documents and things that I was — felt obligated to sign to leave. They wanted to update all of that again.

So they recorded me and — And I — and I guess I also found out that they were having trouble in the Wollersheim 4 case, in that —

0543

and they wanted to know if persons such as Vicki Aznaran, Lawrence Wollersheim, any attorneys, had contacted me to give testimony concerning Scientology.

Q  And as of that time, had anyone contacted you?

A  No.

Q  And did they pay you for your time?

A  Yes.

Q  How much?

A  I think it was 28- — 27-, $2,800.

Q  Was that the last time you were consulted by any representative of the Church of Scientology on matters such as that?

A  I believe so.

Q  Okay. Now, Mr. Prince, you —

MR. DANDAR: And I am going to be jumping around here.

THE COURT: You said this was 1994?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 131. And I have highlighted certain portions of it. I’m going to direct your attention to certain areas.  First of all, can you identify this document?

A  Yes. This is another Scientology issue type.

It’s called an executive directive. And this is an

0544

executive directive concerning senior HCO Int. And it concerns security situations and threat handlings.

Q  Now at the top it has references, and it has a bunch of HCO policy documents. Is that what — am I reading that correctly?

A  Yes. There’s four HCO policy letters. The FO — there’s one Flag order; there’s one SPD, which is a Scientology policy directives; two more HCO PLs, another SOED, that’s a Sea Org executive directive; and a couple of more policy letters.

Q  Okay. And the references for like the Sea Org executive director 4234 international, it says, “Coordination on security and investigation matters, suppressive acts.” Do you see that?

A  Yes, I do.

Q  Did I read — maybe I didn’t read that right.

A  Well, suppressive acts is the HCO PO, 23 December, ’65.

THE COURT: What does HCO stand for?

THE WITNESS: Hubbard Communications Office.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  And the last HCO policy of October 27th, 1964 talks — or concerns physical healing, insanity and sources of trouble. Do you see that?

A  Yes, I do.

0545

Q  All right. What does this document, mentioning insanity and healing and sources of trouble, have to do with security?

A  Well, when you have a — an insane person or a source of trouble, potential trouble source within a Scientology organization, according to its policies, this is a source of great potential trouble for an organization, be it a Sea Organization or regular Scientology organization, and these gives — it gives the steps of prevention and handling.

Q  Is “handling” a word that is used in the policies?

A  Yes.

Q  And in this particular checklist, it talks about — the second paragraph, where I’ve highlighted, uses, “Make sure the situations are actually handled.”

A  Right.

Q  Now, turn to page 2, letter G.

A  Okay.

Q  First of all, this list is below a paragraph that says the types of security situations, am I reading this correctly, where it says, G,”Attempted suicide cases or PTS Type IIIs and any external or antagonistic connections to these –” are these security issues?

A  Absolutely.

Q  Do you have an opinion whether or not this

0546

particular checklist would come into play in reference to the Lisa McPherson matter, in November and December of ’95?

A  This — the date of this issue is the 11th of May, 1991, and it’s basically instructing the divisions within Scientology organizations to coordinate with OSA — Office of Special Affairs — to deal with the  situations listed A through O, Type III — PTS Type IIIs being one of them, PTS Type III being the Scientology term for a psychotic.

Q  Mr. Prince, this is, as you said, dated May, 1991.

Does it surprise you that it references policy letters that are written in 1959 and 1964 and 1968, et cetera?

A  No. The words of L. Ron Hubbard are eternal to Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 131 in evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No objection. I don’t know what the relevance is, in light of the fact that there isn’t anything about RTC in this document.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. And Mr. Prince, let me show you Exhibit 129. I don’t have an extra copy here, for some reason. Oh, I do. Okay.

0547

Remember yesterday we talked about in order to get the injectable Valium prescriptions and the chloral hydrate prescriptions from drugstores, you talk about staff — somebody filling out what’s called a CSW, completed staff  work?

A  Yes.

Q  All right. This document, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 129, do you know where this comes from?

A  Yes. This comes from the Hubbard Administrative Dictionary, which is a dictionary that defines administrative terms used in Scientology organization.

Q  Okay. And the definition of completed staff work, does that fit within your understanding of what you testified to yesterday?

A  Yes, it does.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move 129 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Also Mr. Prince, you mentioned several times today that — when I was asking you about bypass and Mr. Miscavige’s role, you mentioned you had prior declarations. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

First of all, what is 132?

A  This is a supplemental declaration that was submitted in the Los Angeles courtrooms on behalf of

0548

plaintiff Lawrence Wollersheim.

Q  And this is your declaration?

A  Yes, it is.

Q  It’s dated December 22nd, 1999?

A  Yes.

Q  Is this one of the declarations you were referring to when you said you — in your testimony today, that you had previously filed declarations on the matters that we talked about?

A  No.

Let me just scan it here real quick.

Q  All right.

A  Well, yeah. I think right — starting on page 2, under the subtitle Sea Organization, I talk about Scientology missions, meaning, you know, a group of people going into an organization, taking it over. I talk about that.

Q  And on page number 40, you talk about —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Why are we doing this? Mr. Dandar can ask him questions, but this is just a hearsay — I mean, this is an affidavit. He’s on the stand. I mean, if there’s something he wants

to ask him about, he can ask him, instead of saying, “On paragraph such and such it says such and such.”

0549

THE COURT: Well, I would normally tend to agree with you, except we have affidavits, prior declarations of so many people in this case, I don’t know why I would keep the prior declaration of Mr. Prince’s out.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But Mr. Prince, the command channels and structure of the hierarchy of the Church of Scientology in this declaration, Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 132, is it any different than your testimony than you’ve given in

this case today?

A  No, it is not.

Q  Is it any different than your — and the reason why you reached the opinions you reached in August of 1999 concerning David Miscavige’s role in Lisa McPherson’s death?

A  No, it is not.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move 132 into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive it over objection, just as a prior affidavit that —

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I mean, I — the objection would be, normally, just buttressing his testimony.

THE COURT: That is true. In other words, that would be exactly right. And that would be proper

0550

objection, not hearsay or —

However, I’m going to let it in.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. Now, Mr. Prince, have you worked with Mr. Michael Rinder in your tenure in Scientology?

A  Yes, I have.

Q  And what did — how did — under what circumstances?

A  Mr. Rinder was a member of the watchdog committee during my tenure at RTC. He was a member of the watchdog committee, a commodore’s messenger, and he worked for the corporation the Church of Scientology International.

Q  What is the watchdog committee?

A  The watchdog committee are the principals of the Church of Scientology International. The principals of each sector and section of Scientology — if you look at a Scientology org board, you will — you will see it’s broken down into certain sections and sectors. One — one sector of Scientology is Scientology International. That means all of the organizations that are not Sea Org organizations and are not missions.

So you would have a WDC member, a watchdog committee member, for the Scientology organizations. Then you’d have a WDC member or a watchdog committee member for the Sea Organization. You would have a watchdog committee

0551

member for SMI, S-M-I, Scientology Missions International, et cetera, et cetera.

Q  And who is the head of that watchdog committee?

A  The chairman of the watchdog committee, during the time — my tenure in Religious Technology Center, was Mark Yeager.

Q  And did Mr. Miscavige serve on that board as well?

A  No, he did not.

Q  Okay.

A  That board reported to Mr. Miscavige.

Q  So Mr. Miscavige was above that board?

A  Correct.

Q  Now, Mr. Prince, based upon your experience and expertise in Scientology, do you have an opinion as to why Michael Rinder was meeting with Bob Minton to try to get the McPherson case dismissed, as early as 1998?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the — I mean, this is pure speculation. It is — it’s — I think it’s improper opinion testimony. He says that he has some expertise — which we have challenged, you know, for a number of
reasons — with regard to the religious technology.

Now he’s going to be speculating as to why someone would have been meeting with Mr. Minton? Mr. Minton’s testified regarding that; Ms. Brooks

0552

has testified in regard to that meeting at length.

THE COURT: I — I understand. We’ve had some opinions in — I don’t know why we wouldn’t listen to his, too. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: I — it’s more frustration than anything.

That’s my objection. I understand that you’re overruling it, and I just wanted to —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

A  Sorry. I don’t remember the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Why would Mr. Rinder —

First of all, is Mr. Rinder part of the Flag Service Organization?

A  To my knowledge, he is not.

Q  Do you have an opinion as to why Mr. Rinder would be meeting with Mr. Minton, as early as 1988, and of course in 2002, to get the Lisa McPherson case dismissed?

A  Certainly I have an opinion, based on experience. Because like the Wollersheim case that happened here, and the Mayo case, any major case that’s being litigated in the United States, irrespective of the corporation, the decisions, the planning and the execution of legal is done with OSA — Office of Special Affairs, David Miscavige,

0553

Marty Rathbun.

Q  All right.

A  Lyman Spurlock if it — if it involves corporate. Lyman Spurlock was an expert on corporate entities.

THE COURT: Who is Mr. Rathbun? What is his capacity?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Rathbun has had many capacities. Prior to coming into the Religious Technology Center, he was what was called a client affairs; legal client affairs. And he handled the legal affairs for the publishing aspect for Mr. Hubbard in Author Services. When he moved to Religious Technology Center, he became the inspector general for ethics. Ethics —

THE COURT: Is that what he is now?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure what he is now —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — your Honor.

But that position handles all legal PR and intelligence as part of its duties for Scientology organizations.

THE COURT: And do I recall correctly — I know we’ve had a vacation, and frankly some of this has escaped me —

Is Mr. Rinder the head of OSA?

0554

MR. DANDAR: Well, Mr. — at one time, Mr. Shaw, who is the head of OSA here, was — testified that he reported — his senior was Mr. Rinder. What his title was to be Mr. Shaw’s senior, I don’t know.

THE COURT: Well, OSA would have a —

Okay. I believe there’s testimony about that in this hearing that he is the head of the Office of Special Affairs. I think. Maybe not.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Which includes legal.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Now, Mr. Prince, let me show you what’s already in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 110, known as KSW News. And if you could, I’m going to —

THE COURT: I don’t know — I allowed the answer, but I don’t know what the answer was. I mean, the answer —

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Shaw can explain it to you.

THE COURT: No. What — what I think — he went off to tell us about Mr. Rathbun. I think the question was why would it have been — why would Mr. Rinder have been called to this meeting. And

0555

is — what is your answer?

THE WITNESS: Right. Because Mr. Rinder would have been in that position, the senior person within the OSA network. And OSA operates on a statistic, just like other departments and sections within the Scientology organization operate on. And a statistic for the OSA would be a threat handled; a threat being a lawsuit or a person that was perceived to be an adversary against Scientology or taken an adversarial position against Scientology.

So getting rid of a lawsuit would be something that would improve conditions, you know, a statistic going up. That would be a good thing for them.

So — and that’s what they focus and concentrate on, handling legal situations.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  OSA.

A  Yes.

Q  All right. The KSW News, if you open up to the little — I believe it should be in the middle — there is a list of matters that need to be reported up lines to RTC.

A  Yes.

Q  Do you see that?

A  Yes, I do.

Q  And there’s an arrow that I drew —

0556

THE COURT: You all are too loud back there. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  — next to PTS Type III?

A  “Any person who acts PTS Type III, potential trouble source.”

Q  Okay.

A  And that is of concern.

Q  Does PTS Type III include people who are psychotic as well as people who want to leave? A  Correct.

Q  Now, this publication, when was it published?

A  1994 —

Q  And —

— is when the copyright notice is on it, RTC copyright notice.

Q  All right. So it certainly wasn’t published after Lisa McPherson died in ’95.

A  No, it was not.

Q  Now, this reporting up lines of PTS Type III to RTC, was that in effect when you were an active Scientologist?

A  Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, excuse me. What does that mean, an active Scientologist? When he was —

0557

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Prior to ’92. Prior to you actually leaving —

MR. WEINBERG: When you were at the RTC?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it was.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Now, these meetings that you had with David Miscavige and Rathbun and Mithoff, Aznaran and others, you said there was a certain agenda?

A  Correct.

Q  And that the top of that agenda for each of these meetings was what?

A  Flaps.

Q All right. What was —

A  And what the handlings were.

Q  — the next —

How they were handling the flaps?

A  Yes.

Q  What was the — give us a list of — in priority of each meeting.

A  Flaps and handlings. Then statistics, go over the statistics of the departments, the divisions. Then you talk about — the next thing is talk about wins.

Q  Wins.

A  Wins. You know, successes. Scientology successes. Successes on the job, successes within the

0558

organization.

Q  And how often would these meetings occur?

A  Once a week.

Q  And this is just a meeting of people who were at RTC?

A  No. This is a pattern that is continued throughout the majority — all of Sea Org organizations.

Q  That includes Flag?

A  Yes.

Q  And back in —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I — the question was about Mr. Miscavige, and the answer obviously was way broader. You’re not — I don’t think Mr. Prince was saying Mr. Miscavige was having meetings on a weekly basis at all the Scientology organizations.

THE WITNESS: No, no. That’s not —

THE COURT: He’s saying, when he was a member and he would meet with these people, what was their agenda? That’s all —

MR. WEINBERG: Right. No — but then the next question was — then what he said was, “And this is done in all Scientology organizations,” which means — I think what he meant was there’s meetings every week in Scientology organizations with people

0559

in the org. That’s what —

THE WITNESS: The pattern of flaps and handlings, statistics and wins, is a pattern that every Sea Org organization has in their meetings, their weekly meetings. Miscavige isn’t at those meetings. I —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But at the meetings that you had and you participated in with Mr. Miscavige, were these meetings — when you say flaps, were they just — my question was, did they just concern RTC or was it flaps —

A  No.

Q  — of what —

A  When RTC has a meeting about flaps and handlings, it could include any aspect of the Scientology empire. It could include the FSO; it could include the organization in Australia if there was a threat in Australia of some org getting ready to be closed down, or if one of the Scientology organizations were raided in Greece or whatever.

You know, it could be anyplace.

Q  All right.

A  Because the problems were existing — in the lower organizations, their flaps —

THE COURT: You need to get to the point.

In your opinion, as somebody who was with — in

0560

RTC, at the time you were there, would the Lisa McPherson situation have been discussed at one of those meetings.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Is there any doubt about that?

A  No. And as I was getting ready to say is, the reason being is the lower organizations have to report to the higher organizations. The higher organizations have to approve the handlings for the flaps; have to verify the statistics. Then it goes to the next organization, who’ll do the same thing. And by the time it gets to RTC, it’s pretty much confirmed what the lower organization is saying.

And maybe the handlings may be modified, but you know, they’re pretty much all on the same page.

Q  Is there any doubt in your mind — as you sit here today, do you question your opinions that you reached in your August, ’99 declaration concerning the involvement of Mr. Miscavige in the Lisa McPherson as a PR flap?

A  No. I haven’t changed my opinion one bit.

Q  And is that opinion solely your opinion or are you being influenced by anyone to make that opinion?

A  I base my opinions on my personal experience, what I’ve observed, the written word of L. Ron Hubbard.

0561

Q  All right. Now, let’s jump now to 2002. The — we left off with your meeting — I believe you said you had this rather un- — not unpleasant, but bad — heated words were exchanged at that hotel, the Radisson on Clearwater Beach, when you met with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Do you recall that?

A  Yes, I do.

Q  And Ms. Brooks walked out to the parking lot with you?

A  Yes.

Q  All right. I want to pick up from there.

When is the next time you recall having further conversation with Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: What — do we have the date on that?

MR. DANDAR: April the 14th.

THE COURT: Okay.

A  The last —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think he said that —

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. April the 14th.

THE COURT: Well, he said the dates were as they were in his affidavit, ’cause he sat down with a calendar.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

A  The next time that I talked to them, I think, was

0562

maybe a week or some days later, when they were staying at another hotel — oh, wow. Windham, the Hyatt Windham Hotel. I called and spoke to Bob and asked if he wanted to come by to the — ’cause I was having a barbecue.

MR. DANDAR: All right. And Judge, just for the record, I am looking at his April, 2002 Jesse Prince affidavit.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: His handwritten note is April 14th, that’s attached, 2002.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, the handwritten note, did you write that when you met with me and Mr. Lirot?

A  Yes, I did.

Q  Okay. And after that is when —

Maybe I’m confused. Let’s hold on.

After that is when you had the dinner with Mr. Minton?

A  After I wrote this handwritten note is the Sunday that I met with them at the Radisson.

Q  Is that when you had that heated conversation —

A  Yes.

Q  — at dinner?

A  Yes.

Q  Was that — were you supposed to meet Mr. Rinder

0563

that day?

A  Correct.

Q  And who told you that?

A  Mr. Minton, Mrs. Brooks.

Q  And did you meet with Mr. Rinder on April 14th, 2002?

A  No, I did not.

Q  Why not?

A  Because it was deemed by Mr. Minton that I was not ready, because I was not willing to perjure myself.

Q  And who told you that?

A  Mr. Minton.

Q  How did he want you to perjure yourself?

A  He wanted — he wanted me to come in and say that you influenced me to write the August, ’99 declaration that I did; that you put words in my mouth. And he wanted me to say that some meeting occurred where Mr.  Minton was at, where you talked about adding David Miscavige on as a party.

And he kept using this term of, like, “You have to walk with us on this because we’re going to show you what to do. You know, we’re the A team. We got to be together on this. There can’t be any breaks. This is what we’re doing. This is what I’m saying. This is what you need to do to back it up.”

Q  How did you respond?

0564

A  “I absolutely will not do it.”

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew that he was lying?

THE COURT: Could I ask —

Just one more minute.

What you’re saying — which affidavit is it that they — they, meaning Mr. Minton — wanted you to say Mr. Dandar influenced you to write?

THE WITNESS: The one where I wrote that Miscavige had knowledge and culpability in Lisa McPherson’s death.

THE COURT: The one that dealt with the change — or the amendment of the complaint. Is that the one he’s talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s the one he’s talking about.

THE COURT: That would have been the first affidavit he filed maybe in this case? Well, it doesn’t matter.

MR. DANDAR: No. The first one, I think, was the PC folders.

THE COURT: I know which one you’re talking about.

THE WITNESS: It was the second one.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the August, 1999 affidavit.

0565

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And he also wanted you to state —

THE WITNESS: That Mr. Dandar had had a meeting with myself, Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, Mr. Minton, to discuss adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: And apparently Bob was saying, you know, and we have to say that Mr. Dandar said that the meeting never happened, and you know, we were adding on Miscavige basically to try to force Scientology into a settlement position.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Was any of that true?

A  No.

THE COURT: Could we find out, since that does seem to be an issue here, what he remembers about whatever meeting there was to discuss adding Mr. Miscavige as a party? Or are you not ready for that, or are you not going to go there, or —

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m trying to not invade my work product as much as possible. But it is an issue, and so I didn’t — We can ask him that question.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I just don’t know how far I want

0566

to invade my work product.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But Mr. Prince, do you recall having any meeting with me, Dr. Garko and Stacy Brooks about adding on David Miscavige —

THE COURT: I’m not going to let them get into the extent of the discussion necessarily, other than what we’ve done thus far in this hearing, which is who was there —

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: — and was there a discussion about adding Mr. Miscavige, and who was in favor of it and who wasn’t? That’s pretty much all that’s been discussed.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And it’s been discussed by a lot of witnesses —

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: — Stacy Brooks, Mr. Minton, Mr. Garko, you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. So — That’s fine.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So was there such a meeting?

A  There was a meeting between you, myself,

0567

Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, where we discussed — and I mean, my recollection is there’s been more than one time that we  discussed this — about adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.

Q  Was Mr. Minton ever at any of those meetings?

A  No, he was not.

Q  Do you have any idea why Mr. Minton would tell you, when you met with him in April, why he wanted to say he was at a meeting to add on David Miscavige?

A  Because the idea was —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. If it’s something Mr. Minton told him, fine. But otherwise it would just be pure conjecture.

THE COURT: That’s true. If it’s something Mr. Minton told him, then he can discuss it.

Go ahead.

A  Okay. The idea that Mr. Minton told me is Scientology had several things that they wanted Mr. Minton to do. These were in conjunction and coordination with things that could be done to get the case dismissed. Specifically, going after you. Specifically, you were to be made the target of whatever stack of papers that Scientology provided to Mr. Minton. There was five or six things that they wanted him to do in relationship to you only. And you were the obvious target —

0568

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Why?

A  — to —

Because they wanted to get you kicked off the case. Because they figured if they got you kicked off the case, then no other attorney would pick it up and the suit would simply go away.

Q  And Mr. Minton told you this.

A  Yes.

Q  And how many times did he tell you that?

A  Several.

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew that what he was saying about me was not true?

A  Mr. Minton was in — in the — in the very beginning, Mr. Minton was in anguish over the — the prospect of — of lying on behalf of Scientology for — against you. Mrs. Brooks was in a panic and desperate frame of mind to do whatever it took to extricate Mr. Minton from just the assault that Scientology was enacting upon Mr. Minton. And she thought that it would be a good idea for Mr. Minton to cooperate with Mr. Rinder, with Mr. Rosen,  whatever they wanted, to get him extricated from the Scientology assault.

Q  Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks tell you that —

Well, you said they — let me go back.

0569

You said something about Scientology gave Mr. Minton a stack of papers about what he needed to say against me?

A  Yes.

Q  What —

A  Or possible things to go into. And that’s the stuff that came from the Adams Mark Hotel, after we had the meeting, after I went to see him again, after he lied the first time on the stand.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, objection.

A  And —

MR. WEINBERG: If this is —

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: If this is the same stack that Mr. Prince testified yesterday that he never looked at —

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: — so how’s he going to answer questions about what was in the stack?

THE COURT: He’s not answering questions about what was in the stack. He’s talking about what  Mr. Minton told him. That’s all he’s supposed to  testify about.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what he’s doing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0570

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  You didn’t look at the stack of papers, right?

A  No, I did not.

Q  So how do you know what was in the stack of papers?

A  ‘Cause he told me. There were five to six things in there that Scientology wanted him to do against you, and you specifically, and you only.

Q  Okay.

A  And two of them were the check. You know, somehow saying that you caused him to perjure himself concerning the check. And then the meeting. These were two very important issues to —

You know, I can’t say that I fully understood it because I’m not a lawyer, but this was very important that they executed in that way.

Q  Okay. And let’s talk about the check, all right?

A  Okay.

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever tell you that — after he met with Scientology, did he ever tell you that the check was from him; that May, $2,000 (sic) check for $500,000?

A  At that time he did.

Q  All right. Did you have any conversation with him as to why he told you something different on the roof of the parking lot across from the Lisa McPherson Trust office?

0571

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Asked and answered. He talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: I think he did.

MR. DANDAR: Did he?

THE COURT: Yeah, I believe he did.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Okay.

THE COURT: Do you remember — sometimes one day bleeds into the next. I do know he talked about being on the roof of the parking lot, and I do know he talked about Mr. Minton telling him something different. Did he — Did you discuss yesterday with us why Mr. Minton said he was telling a different story now? I don’t remember.

THE WITNESS: Well, yes, your Honor. Your recall is actually quite correct. Because you yourself asked me, “Well, what did they say,” when I  brought up the fact that we had been on the roof. And he had told us this whole different story. And you asked me, “Well, what did they say,” and I said that, “They just looked at me stupidly.” But of course —

THE COURT: So is the answer then he really didn’t say anything about this difference —

THE WITNESS: Right.

0572

THE COURT: — that you’re telling that —

MR. WEINBERG: Changed the subject.

THE COURT: Changed the subject.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Did you ever talk to him again about the check, or was that the last time?

A  I think that is the last time I spoke to him about the check.

Q  Okay. Did you have any other conversations with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks about trying to get you to lie and go down the road with him, as you say?

A  Well, I had continuing conversations with them after negotiate — after they had the negotiations in New York and then began the negotiations — continued the negotiations in Clearwater.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, my objection, your Honor, is he went over all this yesterday.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, now we’re going back and we’re going to go repeat what happened yesterday.

THE COURT: That’s true. I think we really were, yesterday, up to the point of this forward meeting.

0573

MR. DANDAR: That’s right.

THE COURT: Although frankly, you never did discuss the meeting where there was a discussion to have Mr. Miscavige added. And I think he’s done that now.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, he has.

THE COURT: Right. And — and that was the second thing. And I — I think now you’ve explained that. So you can go — I shouldn’t say you — Mr. Prince can explain what.

THE WITNESS: There was something I left off about Mr. Miscavige — adding Miscavige as well, in the discussions that I had with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. —

THE COURT: Oh, yeah. I don’t believe he’s ever discussed with us what his discussions with Mr. Minton were about that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So you might want to.

MR. DANDAR: Oh.

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: As you well know, and certainly Mr. Weinberg well knows, we all sat before Judge Moody forever on this issue of adding David

0574

Miscavige as a party. We discussed this back and forth.

MR. WEINBERG: “We” being —

THE WITNESS: The judge said a key question to be asked was, is was that anything I wanted to have happen? The answer is no. I was not in favor of  adding David Miscavige. I thought it would drag  down the lawsuit and just be cumbersome.

THE COURT: That’s you. You were not in favor of adding him.

THE WITNESS: Right.

But in discussions about this, it was decided to do it anyway, and it was decided because this is  what Ms. Liebreich wanted to do. But we discussed this. And my — my thing with Mr. Minton as we were  talking about this when they were trying to get me to do this, is when the record is so obvious why and how that happened, why are you now trying to say it’s just all Ken’s fault, when Mrs. Brooks was the one that was really wanting this to happen; wanting to add Miscavige? So we talked about that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Okay.

0575

THE COURT: And what did he say?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Talked about it when, then?

So now it’s Ms. Brooks or Ms. Liebreich that wanted this to happen. I mean, I —

THE COURT: No. No. I understand this. Wait till you get the transcript.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: It’ll be very clear to you. Don’t  get all flustered.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not flustered.

THE COURT: Yes, you are.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m hungry.

THE COURT: I’m hungry too. We’re going to stop at 12:30. Did you say you were hungry?

MR. DANDAR: That’s what he said.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what I said.

MR. DANDAR: That’s a new objection.

THE COURT: Just so we see if the testimony’s consistent —

At this meeting, Jesse Prince was not in favor of adding Mr. Miscavige; Stacy Brooks really wanted to add David Miscavige. What about Dr. Garko?

THE WITNESS: Dr. Garko was hesitant about it.

And —

0576

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And Mr. Minton didn’t care one way or the other. I mean —

THE COURT: I thought Mr. Minton wasn’t there.

THE WITNESS: You know, later, when we discussed it, when, you know, Stacy — we went to the office. And Stacy says, “Well, I think, we’re  going to do this,” and he’s, like, “Yeah, okay. So what?” Because Mr. Minton always — you know, he was concerned about what he was doing. Mr. Minton  wasn’t concerned with what Mr. Dandar was doing  or — or what Mr. Prince was doing or Mr. Brooks  (sic). He had his own agenda. When he came down  to — here in Florida, he would be more concerned  about what he was doing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Well, was there a meeting with Mr. Minton?

A  No.

Q  Well, what are you talking about when you said Minton — Mr. Minton didn’t care?

A  I recall Stacy Brooks and myself having a conversation with Mr. Minton, mentioning the fact that we were doing this.

Q  Oh, okay. Was I there, or Dr. Garko?

A  No.

0577

Q  All right.

A  No. And he’s like, “Okay. Where do you guys want to eat,” type of thing. You know, he just didn’t care.

“Okay.” You know, that’s — “Ken –” “Whatever.”

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever tell you he had an agenda?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, could we date that meeting?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. Let’s date the meeting.

MR. WEINBERG: And where it was?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: When Stacy and I discussed it, I think it was probably — some — maybe a week or sometime prior to the fifth amended complaint actually being filed —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Well —

A  — we discussed it.

Q  — there were several times that the fifth amended complaint —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor —

A  Well, okay. To answer the question, no, I don’t know when it was. I just know —

THE COURT: No. I think —

MR. WEINBERG: My objection was Mr. Dandar prompting him.

0578

THE COURT: No, he wasn’t prompting him.

There were several fifth amended complaints. I would like to know.

Was it the fifth amended complaint where Mashburn (sic) and — Rathbun — all those other people were added or was it the fifth amended  complaint that’s now the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor — I don’t —

THE COURT: Or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don’t have a clear recollection of which —

THE COURT: Was this a discussion where it was decided to add Mr. Miscavige as, I guess, chairman of the board of RTC — I don’t know how — I’ve never seen that complaint — or was it before the discussion to add Mr.

Miscavige as head of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: I think it was after the discussion to add — after it had been resolved that Mr. Miscavige could be added as head of the Sea Org.

You know —

THE COURT: After it was resolved by whom? By Judge Moody?

THE WITNESS: Yes. By Judge Moody.

THE COURT: Then you had a discussion with

0579

Mr. Minton about this?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. I believe he, Stacy and I were in the car, traveling, and we talked about it.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So it was after the hearing we had, you said took forever, with Judge Moody?

A  I know that it became a serious possibility after we exhausted, in front of Judge Moody, every way of whether or not it would be correct or appropriate or even allowed to do it; coming in as head of the Sea Org, when Judge Moody said that it could — that he could be added as head of the Sea Org, not as COB because of that agreement.

Q  Right.

A  Which, you know, I didn’t even know about until after the fact.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Okay. Probably a good time to break for lunch, unless you have a question, Judge.

THE COURT: I think it’s a good time to break for lunch. We’ll be in recess — you know, an hour just isn’t enough. I need to make some phone calls and sign some things. We’re going to break until quarter till 2.
Court’s in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: And the same instructions to

0580

Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Same instruction.

(A recess was taken at 12:29 p.m.)

0581

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA  )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 9th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 2) (July 8, 2002)

0159

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief

Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 2

DATE: July 8, 2002.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

160

APPEARANCES:

KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0161

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

   PAGE           LINE

Recess                                                      261             18
Recess                                                       327              1
Reporter’s Certificate                            328              1

0162

(The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)

[… Other court business]

0191

THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.

Mr. Prince —

Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the stand?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, you want to step forward?

Mr. Prince, you’re already under oath. So you understand that the oath that you took will be valid throughout your testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume the stand?

Let me make sure, before we start, that I’ve got the right book.

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh Brian?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ve got the right book. I’m ready.

Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee — I mean — coffee — see, I was thinking of coffee. That’d be nice. Maybe you’ll bring me some. Is this water fresh?

THE BAILIFF: I’m not sure, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

No telling how long that’s been sitting in there. You know what he’ll do? It’ll have mold on it. He’ll go — pour it out — Thank you very much.

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once we get to a trial —

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

But I’m going to get me a little cooler and keep it up here. Because I don’t trust them — I can’t ask every day. Just one of the tiny little things that needs to be done.

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — if I might just suggest, I did notice in that article that you were quoted. The truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It would be well for you not to be quoted in these articles.

MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I think — I think the reporter is quoting from in-court testimony.

THE COURT: If that’s the case, then we can’t help that.

But — but do not — and I’m not going to tell the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because you know, part of the — part of the canons say one

0194

ought not to be talking to the press about their case while it’s ongoing.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: That would be like you all having some comment for me. I don’t think you would be appreciative of that.

MR. DANDAR: I do —

That’s what happens to me — off the record?

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
___________________________________

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked about your position with the Religious Technology Center; you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing investigations involving litigation and other critics of Scientology.

And I’m showing you today Plaintiff’s Exhibit 113, entitled Intelligence Actions.

Can you identify that document?

A Yes.

0195

Q And what is it?

A This is a document — a document written by L. Ron Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives to be enemies or suppressive persons.

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of Scientology.

Q On the — it’s a one-page document. The third paragraph talks about a standard, is to — when you’re under attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with the prior document where you — where it mentioned, and you explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence if there’s no crimes found?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your Honor.

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

Secondly, I just want to let the record be clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince interpreting policy. He was booted out of the church — booted out of the position in 1987; left in disgrace from the church; has been — has been —

0196

has been, you know, paid to testify against the church. And now he’s coming in here trying to interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn’t say anything about creating or manufacturing evidence and saying that — trying to interpret it?

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Does this policy have anything to do with the prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and explained to the court about, if you can’t find the crimes of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?

A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of the intelligence department in different Scientology organizations.

Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from the bottom, attack loudly?

A You know, I think we must be looking at a different — I must be looking at a different document than you.

Q I hope not.

A Where did you see that –Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What he’s saying is what it means to him?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Within your experience and your position of the inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that understanding — what you’re understanding of that means.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants to sit up there and say what it means to him, that’s one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say, “This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy means to a Scientologist,” that’s nonsense. And that isn’t right.

And that’s what’s been going on for — for — you know, with Mr. Prince and Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the — in the church. It’s not right. They shouldn’t be up here trying to interpret for the — for the religion of Scientology, what policy is.

THE COURT: That’s not even your argument; that’s the argument of the First Amendment scholar.

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and it is preserved. And your objection therefore is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don’t agree with his position, this would be relevant to this, and it would be relevant probably to your counterclaim.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means I should be objecting to —

THE COURT: No. Because I’ve allowed you to preserve a continuing objection.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your Honor.

But the point is, from the First Amendment point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in creates an untenable position for the church. Because if we — if we merely preserve our position, then we’re put in the position of, do we have to counter it? To counter it, we would then have to engage in a process which we shouldn’t have to constitutionally, which would be incredibly burdensome on us and on the court.

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

policies, you can’t take one and look at it in isolation, and have somebody who was not — who was — who was basically removed from his position —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

THE COURT: But he was there. And he was there. And he presumably was high up in the scale. And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he was removed or not.

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

If you want to withdraw your motion, saying there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will agree with you.

You filed the motion in this hearing. I think it’s relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter what your First Amendment argument is going to be, I’m going to allow it in for this hearing. It’s your motion. That’s why I said I think you’re going to have some distinctions that I’m going to be willing to draw for different things. You do whatever you want to do for this motion. I’ve allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you

0200

may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as you have filed the motion you have filed.

You’ve made your argument. I’m ready to move on.

This is not somebody who was not in the church. This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody who was there, who says, “This is what we did.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he also was — was removed —

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — for not being a Scientology expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology expert by the authority that had the ability to determine who are — who is capable, who is proper to speak for Scientology.

THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you all about Jesse Prince, you must be really frightened of him.

You’ve made your point. We’re going to move on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

“Even if you don’t have enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason is, it is only those people that have crimes that will attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being found out when attacked back.”

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

A During — during my tenure in Scientology, this document was not considered to be any type of scripture. This was a training material to train a person in intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking about — answering the question about if this relates to the noisy investigation when this document, in the third paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word “loudly.”

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

A A noisy investigation — I believe we covered that the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted the document in the church. But it’s basically to go around and arouse the neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations about the person that may or may not be true. And according

0202

to Scientology’s Manual of Justice, which is a further document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorize.” I mean, that’s just —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear him say that. Did he say that?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who is attacking the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’m not thinking of that as terrorism; I’m thinking of that as just simply a word.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that’s fine. But I’m a little sensitive, after reading this article this morning, where — or yesterday morning, where Osama Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the same sentence.

MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete Times.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by Mr. Minton.

0203

MR. WEINBERG: Who — who — let’s make it clear — is not our witness, and is a person that has — that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar from — from the beginning of this lawsuit.

THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor, but he is your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, that’s where we disagree. But I’m not here to argue with that.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You called him as a witness. I did not declare him a hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he was able to respond to your questions without leading questions.

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Minton is — Well —

THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

MR. WEINBERG: — objection had to do with Mr. Prince saying “terrorize,” which is — which is —

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

He can use the word “terrorize” if that’s the word he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my opinion, with a terrorist attack. “Terrorize” is just a word. We use it all the time. Don’t be so sensitive.

Golly, we’ve got to get down into getting back into — stop being so sensitive.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in — in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?

A Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done —

THE COURT: And I’m sorry. When I indicated about the —

Excuse me.

When I indicated about the motion to dismiss, what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the

0205

allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think it’s admissible in this hearing.

Forget what I said about — I — I haven’t gotten my head back into this case.

MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. Prince. I interrupted you.

Madam Court Reporter, read back that question before I interrupted him.

THE REPORTER: The pending question is, “In your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?”

The witness began to answer, “Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done –”

A Yes.

As far as out-and-out manufacturing information — And again, I want to clarify that. During the time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls

0206

technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training of things.

Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from me until that point. So I — I actually had a very short amount of time there. But as what I’ve seen as far as manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person — Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John Nelson used to be a person that was the CO — the commanding officer of Sea Org —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How’s he know this?

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the parties.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

A Yes. The party was working in one of my divisions.

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

private investigator to investigate a fellow named John Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

THE COURT: At what?

THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the Commodores Messenger Organization.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually became Church of Scientology International. CSI.

Q All right.

A And he had started his own splinter organization with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that they would know when he was coming and going; and when he left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was to call the police when he came, to say he was a — a heroin dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

I found out about that because the private investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, “Look,

0208

this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence.”

I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither did the private investigator. He was coming back. I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away — not to do that particular operation.

This was an instance of manufacturing information that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had personal knowledge of. I’ve heard other things about that.

And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. —

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?

A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a — is — is what would correctly define — as opposed to critics.Because there was — you know, critics wasn’t a word that we used in Scientology when I was there. “Oh, this person’s a critic.” That’s not a word that we would use in Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.

0209

This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn’t — this whole critic thing didn’t come into being, I believe, until after I even left Scientology.

Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going on?

A The other partner of this fellow, his name was David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials, the NED for OTs. And he —

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is the — this is the —

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6 and 7.

THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front of that?

THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans. And it’s an acronym, NED.

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?

0210

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. I thought he was talking about the NOTS. I’ve seen that in some of the literature.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

THE COURT: I just simply asked what it — what it meant.

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

But what he said before that was — that prompted your question — was that David Mayo had actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT, whatever it is.

MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross examination, but it’s really interrupting the flow of the direct.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?

A Because it’s — the NOTS Materials, as I saw them in 1985 — each and every one of them had his signature or

0211

his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them. So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these materials. This is what I base that opinion on.

Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote them, correct?

A He was a senior CS international at the time he wrote that.

Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?

A He was Mr. Hubbard’s auditor, correct.

Q All right. So what happened — what was the operation against Mr. Mayo?

A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a business place, office complex. They were on the first floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int —

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

A — was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as well as Nancy Mainy.2

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced Abilities Center to provide information about financial accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent in there to not only glean information but to disrupt activities, covertly disrupt activities.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this, and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis — what his —

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer3 ultimately. And on March 15th — not March 15th, but somewhere around that time period. This all had to do with the Wollersheim case.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And when you testified in front of a judge on Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: You testified for the Religious Technology Center that the — that someone from the

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That’s not what I testified to.

What I testified to was the fact that the materials that were being used in the Advanced Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.

THE COURT: I see. So he — this Mr. David Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and was in a splinter group.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was — he was kicked out of Scientology.

As a matter of fact, I think I brought the document with me today that — that shows why he was kicked out of Scientology.

And when he left he started his own movement, basically.

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

THE COURT: Was he — was he with Mr. Nelson?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter group?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor — I’ll tell you what —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince say what the basis for his testimony was, whether it’s hearsay or did he give these alleged orders to — to —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the — the people that were doing the activities were in a division in RTC that I supervised.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And the — the people that were involved — I can tell you specifically the names of

0215

this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence officer in RTC.

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

THE COURT: So you were supervising the people who were doing this?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: There’s your foundation. I mean, that’s the foundation.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have — I haven’t copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We have the copier in the jury room so it doesn’t cause any noise. And then we’ll copy it. But this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 114.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

MR. DANDAR: Then we’ll have it copied.

A This is the first Religious Technology Center Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence, actually. And it lists — one, two, three, four, five, six, 24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 — has 16 individuals listed on this document, of people that are

0216

receiving a justice action. These are people that were once in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982. So David Mayo here was the senior CS international. He’s on this document. And this is the document that lists all of their supposed and alleged crimes.

And the people that constituted the committee that would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime composed of — one, two, three, four, five, six — seven people.

And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary was Shelly Miscavige. That’s David Miscavige’s wife. A member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve Marlowe’s wife, who — at the time, he was a commander of the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse Prince. Then there’s Gelda Mithoff, who’s the wife of Ray Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to David Miscavige.

And this committee was charged with finding — and this was basically what is constituted all of in management — to, you know, basically do another housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a time or two.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’d like to go ahead and

0217

have this copied, and I’ll distribute it. Is that all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to relevance. I haven’t looked at it yet. But what’s the relevance of a 1982 —

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part of Mr. Dandar’s case regarding his allegations of threats, extortions or whatever it is he’s alleging about.

MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn’t — didn’t — didn’t undergo any committee of evidence or Scientology justice action.

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg

0218

called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence, with the other top Int management people, on a committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And it just shows Mr. Prince’s involvement in the higher echelons of Scientology.

THE COURT: So this is — this is just to show that he’s got some — what, that is — that he — is — is capable of testifying as an expert here?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

THE COURT: Well, I’ve already accepted him as an expert.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he — which is the basis of this testimony before we reached that document.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may have some relevance. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

THE COURT: I don’t know. I mean, I have to believe some of the things the lawyers say.

MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.This is in a series of, like, three or four documents on this subject. And then we’ll get on to a different matter.

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you identify that?

A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind of gives the thought process, the — the basis of it. It comes from Klausewitz.

Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is directed against the enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q And then the third — actually, the fourth paragraph from the bottom it states — states, quote, One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. This policy letter goes to — applies to former Scientologists as well as someone who’s an — an enemy, who has never been a Scientologist?

A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a — as an enemy.

THE COURT: Is this again what you call a suppressive person?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and harasses. All on a thought plane —

THE COURT: Okay. You don’t have to read it to me, Mr. Prince. I —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph states, “Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close quote. What is PRO?

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or department or division of Scientology organizations. Intelligence having to do with the prediction. Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states that in the issue.

So intelligence would predict or would start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data collection, covert data collection, amass as much

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

Q That’s the — does that include the use of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

THE COURT: While you’re doing that, can you all tell me whether or not a document called Middle — well, it’s something filed by Middle District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy Brooks — is that an exhibit in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

MR. LIROT: It wasn’t one of our exhibits.

MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.

THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

A 116 is a document in the same vein of the documents we’ve been studying before. It’s the public investigation section. And this basically has to do with — “investigates attacking individual members and see the results of the investigation, get adequate legal and publicity.”

So this again is similar to what we’ve gone over here before.

Q So it’s in a series of the other exhibits on how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 117, entitled Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. “An attack on Scientology –” well, you know, the basic principle is, never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the attacker. That kind of thing.

Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late ’60s.

Were they still in effect when you were in your management position at RTC?

A Very much so. And they’re still in effect today.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how do you know they’re still in effect today?

A Because of that time track that was submitted into this courtroom of specific things that have — that have occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over specifically what has happened to me because of my involvement in this case and other cases.

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that inference, but I suspect he can’t testify that that is in fact what’s happening today. But he can infer that, I think.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Minton — Mr. Prince, have any of the — these policies come into play in the — Pinellas County in the past?

MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he was in the church? Is that what you’re asking?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into

0224

play in Pinellas County?

THE COURT: If he’s talking about what occurred to him? Is that what you’re —

MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated by the Church of Scientology in the past years. Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk  about them.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong exhibit, but — I withdraw the question. And I’m just going to go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in my hand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 118?

A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order Number 1, in that it’s an ethics order that declare — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 — 12 people to be suppressive persons.

0225

Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, “They are fair game.” What does this have to do with?

A Fair game?

Q Yeah. What’s this exhibit have to do with?

A This exhibit has to do with people that used some version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level materials and started some type of distribution of those materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.

Q All right. And —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. What does this have to do with this case? If the Church of Scientology, within its internal structure, just like the Catholic church, declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive, you know, because they did something against the church; like, you know, attempt to — to take the — the scripture and change it — what’s that got to do with this hearing?

THE COURT: I think —

MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this  hearing.

THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do with this hearing. And if you don’t understand it, then I’ll have to explain it to you.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these things, including finding out all of the crimes that he may have committed, and bring it to his attention. That is the allegation of extortion.

MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant — at the time, 1968 — being declared pursuant to the Scientology religious practices, under their justice system. Mr. Minton’s not a Scientologist.

THE COURT: There’s no question in my mind that, according to the matters that have been brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have been considered a suppressive person.

MR. WEINBERG: But he’s putting in a document that — that says pursuant to church policy, these Scientologists are — are getting a certain justice action. That’s what that is. I mean, he doesn’t have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he ever was in the church.

THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it was followed. And it wasn’t changed. And it would be a high crime to change the writings of

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

You know, we don’t change the Bible just because times change. I presume you don’t change the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about as clear as anything I know.

MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that — that there is only one interpretation —

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

MR. WEINBERG: — of 50 words that are written —

THE COURT: Nobody said there is one interpretation. This is something that —

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal justice action with regard to Scientologists, in 1968.

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

Apparently you don’t. I do. It’s this hearing. I think it’s relevant to this hearing. And it’s coming in. Take it up. Make your objection. It’s made, take —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly internal?

A This issue would have been published internally, but it would have gone out — but it’s something that would have been put in each organization so that they would know who these suppressive persons are.  The purpose of these ethics orders — one of the purposes of these ethics orders is, when they’re issued, for everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn’t then walk into an organization and pretend to be Scientologists in good  standing and — and wreak further havoc on the organization —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not — objection.

(Simultaneous speakers.)

MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this document. I believe this document, for whatever it’s worth, is a forgery. But he can’t authenticate

0229

it. He’s just guessing. He’s speculating. He wasn’t there when it was published. If it was published.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me by Vaughn Young.

THE COURT: So you did not receive this document or see this document when you were in the church.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained and it will not be admitted.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the — does this appear to be a genuine document?

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: That isn’t going to get it. He can’t — he can’t authenticate something that was given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not quite the same as some of these other things that I’ve seen — this is something called — I mean, I don’t know if this is authentic or not. Some of the

0230

other things that all look like the same, then I’m going to allow it in, necessarily, without his authenticating.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is out.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. Can you identify this, please?

A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those activities within the Scientology organization.

Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? A Because I think that it, again, just like these other issues that we’ve seen, goes along in the same vein, in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, including what it says it’ll do here: Create the greatest possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a government or whoever to protect Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I move 119 into evidence.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I know —

THE COURT: And I’m not going to hear from Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New York. I mean, there’s three lawyers at the table. It isn’t going to happen. So you sit down.

Mr. Weinberg’s making the objections. Or Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate? Which is it going to be?

MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg’s witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Occasionally I will hear from our First Amendment expert, occasionally.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

MR. LIEBERMAN: I’ll exercise restraint, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Please remember this is a most unusual hearing that we’re having.

A This is a document that explains — a confidential document written by someone in the Guardian’s Office, which was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, concerning — the mayor, Gabe Cazares.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn’t a Scientologist, right?

A Correct.

Q So these actions — do the actions we just previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor Cazares?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has no — he has no knowledge — he was never in the Guardian’s Office. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the Guardian’s Office, all of which is that Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of

0233

its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There’s no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he got this one and who gave it to him.

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe, on our Internet site — not ours — on the Lisa McPherson Trust Internet site.

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C. prosecution?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?

THE WITNESS: This was — I believe this was an exhibit in the D.C. case —

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the Guardian’s Office; people who broke into the FBI and other public government buildings and were prosecuted. Mr. Franks talked about this —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to throw allegations around. One that he did throw around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not addressed, and he needs to address it. But this Guardian’s Office stuff has nothing to do with this hearing. Nothing. They were — they were — whatever they did wasn’t authorized by Mr. Hubbard, wasn’t authorized by the Church of Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out  of the church and they were prosecuted. And that was all long before 1995. And what they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into Scientology. And he said he didn’t have anything to do with it.

THE COURT: This was — yeah. What is the relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad litem — guardian ad litem. I need to get back to thinking — The Guardian’s office was — but I think that there’s been testimony that the Guardian’s Office was simply supplanted by another office. And I’ve  forgotten the name of it.

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

THE COURT: And consequently — there is testimony that it was the same — and it was just — it was just something that was done to — I don’t know if this is true, because — I mean, this is — I think there’s sufficient information to allow this in.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not true. And Mr. Prince wasn’t in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn’t, and he doesn’t have any — he is not competent to testify about what went on in the Office of Special Affairs. He certainly can’t testify about what went on in the Guardian’s Office because he wasn’t even — he wasn’t there, and he wasn’t in the church at the time.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just — it’s just like we’re just going to throw all of the slime we can — excuse me, Ken — we’re going to throw all the slime we can out here? Well, why don’t we —

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

THE COURT: — it’s your motion. If you want to withdraw it, then you’re not going to have any slime.

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

THE COURT: — listen and make your objection and I’ll rule on it. And sit down. Now. I’m going to rule this is admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: You’re going to hear some slime when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but we’ve been hearing it for a long time.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to hear it for a lot longer. You’ve had your turn. This is his turn.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?

A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of conduct where —

THE COURT: I’m not sure that he needs to

0237

explain this to us.

What — was he in the office in 1976, in the church?

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

A But yes, I was in Scientology in ’76.

THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were with RTC or something like that?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the reason why we have this document in here is because it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing pattern of conduct, where if there’s a perceived enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a specific program to remove him from any position. That’s the first thing it says in this document, you know, to remove this person from his job so that he’s not a threat to Scientology. And — and it goes on where, you know, they had

0238

some college — the person pretend to be a college student and write a letter —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

THE COURT: — this is 2002. The allegation that this occurred is in the year 2002.

Do we have any thought that was — what was going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it’s farfetched.

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don’t need a whole bunch of —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s — we’ll quickly then look at 121, and then we’re finished with this part.

A Okay.

THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime. I should not have used that word. That was your word. Very poor choice of my words.

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t even know what it

0239

says. I haven’t read it. So I don’t know if it’s slime or not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 121?

A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy. This was a project that was executed when Scientology first arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence activity so that it would be informed of exactly —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No competence. There’s no way he can authenticate this document.

THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn’t look like any document that I have seen. How do you — where did you see this document?

THE WITNESS: There’s a — this — this document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit — an exhibit stamp on it, because this is one of the documents that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles. As — in this current form, it doesn’t have it. This was something that’s on — that was on the Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.

THE COURT: So you’ve never seen this document except on the Web site?

0240

THE WITNESS: No. I — I have seen the document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part 4 of the documents — stipulation of evidence that was turned in in D.C.

MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of evidence between the government prosecutor and the Church of Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your Honor, he — Mr. Dandar’s testifying about some case that went on 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because presumably he’s done some homework on it. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no exhibit —

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: I’m not allowing it in because there’s nothing that tells me it can be authenticated by this witness.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And we — I’m not going to let the Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which anything is authenticated.

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

THE COURT: How much of this are we going to have to go through?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

THE COURT: Your point’s been made, I think, the point you’re trying to make.

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

THE COURT: Well, you just said that about Number 121.

MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn’t let it in, so — I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked in the 1st Division of Scientology —

THE COURT: The what division?

THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 —

THE COURT: F-i-r-s-t?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The 1st Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1, HCO division. Hubbard Communications Office division.

0242

And this basically outlined again how to deal with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal with the press and public relations.

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

Only as to relevance. This has to do with internal justice actions —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

MR. WEINBERG: I didn’t object to the authentication.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for any relevance that it might have. May not have any. It’s just hard for me to — when documents are presented, to take the time out to read them. It may not have any relevance. And some of these — these things that I’m letting in may be absolutely irrelevant, but they’re long and they’re hard — and it’s hard to read them.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this church, like the Catholic church and a lot of

0243

churches, has internal — has an internal justice system where they deal internally with — with what —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — you know, what they call crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not necessarily crimes. And —

THE COURT: And you can make — and you can certainly make that point in your closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to similarities with the Catholic church.

THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: It’s been declared a religion. It is a religion. So is the Catholic church a religion.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court’s attention?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, “When we need somebody haunted, we investigate.”

This talks about not only people inside of Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of

0244

Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They don’t have to be a Scientologist. And it — and it — this is — this document itself explains the basis of intelligence, investigation, how it’s used, how you handle bad press. And it — it’s just kind of like a little handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to have that function within Scientology.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with families that would call, that had — members within the Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their family member. I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Nevada — Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.

0245

He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father, and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it. But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was a person hired — a Scientology-hired private investigator.

The person that posed as the victim’s father was a retired sheriff. And I guess the purpose — and you know, they paid me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything criminal that could be used to show that I’m forcefully deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that never happened, so — And then this — I’ve only recently learned that this even was so. The whole deal with having a black private investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house, putting the seeds on the back porch — you know, I’m  wondering, “Where is this,” you know, and I’m throwing it all — that whole stuff, as later come out, was an operation. I mean, they — they — My father lives in a retirement community. He’s 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his house and circled his house with signs.

0246

You know, those are just some of the things that have happened.

Q Okay. All right. Now, let’s go to Mr. Minton.

By the way, before we get to Minton, one question. You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you ever testify in any other case for the Church of Scientology?

THE COURT: What year was that, please, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was 1986.

THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of Scientology at the time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for the church?

THE WITNESS: I testified as to — an expert particularly in the NED for OTs material.

THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don’t know what that —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you’re saying nefrotease.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study those documents, so I did a comparison to what David Mayo had as opposed to what the church had copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.

THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you understand all this time he’s been saying that, it’s NED for OTs?

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. DANDAR: And it’s abbreviated as NOTS.

THE COURT: So you were called to say, what, that this NED for OTs material was —

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L. Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to  similar materials that they were using at what was

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, my — my understanding is that Mr. Prince was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.

THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there’s some complications as to who’s a fact witness and who’s an expert witness, and that’s something we’ll have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we’ll not go there. We’ll say he was either a fact or an expert witness.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And you were — you were always — when you — before you were told — you didn’t choose Mr. Miscavige as being a leader and you were booted out onto the rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?

A Very much so.

Q Okay. I don’t think your microphone’s on.

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you lawyers can hear him, okay.

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, is there a — how does Scientology consider a Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and talking about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What was the question?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does the Church of Scientology consider someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He’s now speaking for the entire Church of Scientology now?

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Pursuant to the — pursuant to written policy of the Church of Scientology.

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the church considers some Scientologist coming in and testifying.

THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his experience when he was in the church and as a

0250

witness, I will allow it. He is testifying, however, based on that and not — he really wouldn’t know how everybody else thinks.

MR. DANDAR: No. It’s based on the former.

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics book, in its management series and basic staff books, that it is a crime to come into a court and testify about Scientology without first going over the information with Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.

In other words, it’s a crime to just walk into a courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology, without first Scientology being privy to what that’s going to be —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we — could he tell us where this policy is?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It’s right there. I can pull it out and read it for you.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out —

MR. DANDAR: I’m handing the witness a hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

THE COURT: Did you say without first

0251

discussing it with an ethics officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Here’s one reference to that. It says, “Testifying hostilely before a state –”

THE COURT: Why don’t you give us a page number?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. This is page number 209.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: It’s listed under Suppressive Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, “Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it –”

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t really say –what you had just testified to is that it was a crime to testify without first discussing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Let’s just let him look for that either over the break, our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can’t find it, you can make your objection. And if he

0252

can, then he can cite it into the record at that time and we can just go ahead and move on.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you can —

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book — many of the policies in there are — we were probably going to — are completely contradictory to what Mr. Dandar’s witnesses have been saying.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: — put it in — this may be Mr. Dandar’s only copy. So if you want to put it in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term “acceptable truth”?

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you don’t have to tell the — tell the whole truth or to tell an accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be acceptable to the person that you’re speaking to.

0253

Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not telling the truth?

A Very much so. It’s a way to evade or avoid a question or to avoid — yeah — to — a direct question.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to identify the policy and show us where in the policy it says what he just said?

THE COURT: I think — I think there’s some stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.

MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn’t say what he just said, that it’s okay to lie.

THE COURT: Well, then it — I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you’re talking about, is the document that I think I’ve already seen —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of it based on your years in the church?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can’t — I can’t remember what number it is, but there is some number in evidence that deals with acceptable truth.

MR. DANDAR: It’s — it’s called a PR series,

0254

and it talks about PR, public relations, and the second page mentions acceptable truths. And I’ll find that for you during the break.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, Mr. — Mr. Prince. When is the first time you met Bob Minton?

A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the spring of 1998 or perhaps — no, perhaps it was the summer of 1998.

Q And how was it that you came to meet him?

A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me to him.

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

Q And what caused you to be at his home in New Hampshire?

A I was on vacation —

Well, this is kind of a long story. I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything about it, and I just typed in, “Hey, my name is Jesse Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them contact me. Here’s my number.” So I was vacationing in Connecticut.

Stacy called me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.

0255

Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the first time and asked for — have Stacy Vaughn — Stacy Young or Vaughn Young call you?

A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and people and things like that. I was — I didn’t know anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.

And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these people openly critical of Scientology.

Now, for me this was completely unheard of. Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would quickly be silenced. And I saw that — that Stacy and Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to them.

So I answered their message as best that I could, and say, “I need these people to contact me.”

Q When was the last time you considered yourself a Scientologist?

A You know, I know I’ve answered the question in different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it’s kind of hard to tell. I — for me, I think probably by 1996, maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with anything about it.

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

you — from RTC, then RPF, and — and you went to work for a Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then, when you were working for that company?

A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.

Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley, the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left, formally, your position in Scientology?

THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here, ’cause I don’t know — When you left, whatever that is, were you still a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

MR. WEINBERG: So — so when he left — the day he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org, is what he’s telling you, I think.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996, that you still — you were — You’re saying you were like a public member? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

When — how — what is the — what do the Sea Org people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they’re Scientologists?

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer of ’98, what did you do after that, in reference to Mr. Minton?

A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue

0258

with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet. And we started to —

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire? You stayed in touch? Is what you’re —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

A She said — she talked to me about that, and she put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking over some of the issues, and thought that I could help. So I started talking with Daniel Leipold, Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson4, letting me know that I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against Scientology, basically.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

A Based on — well, for me to leave the situation that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to — it was a kind of a give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.

0259

I was being held there against my will, as well as my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs and — for months. And we were told that if we signed these documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door. Again, this went on for months. And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted us to sign —

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed. So he made reference to the fact that I had signed a document saying I wouldn’t assist anyone in bringing any legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q FACTNet wasn’t bringing legal action; they were being sued by Scientology.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson. What did you do?

0260

A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against maybe Golden Era or whatever — I never actually saw the suit myself — and filed it in Riverside County. And then there was a whole press thing. I was interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. And how long did you stay there?

A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you looked over those folders with Stacy Brooks?

A Yes, I did.

Q And then after we received a copy of the PC folders under court order, you went and took your time and examined all —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: I’m just trying to speed it up.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of this — you’re right. But some of this is preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the — it’s the testimony.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I didn’t object to that part of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll take a break right now.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. 15, we’ll try for.

(A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’d like to announce to the court I’m going to be making an appearance in this matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will

0262

be submitting a formal notice. I just want the court to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Now, will that be for all purposes?

MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, for all purposes. But Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the case.

We will send in a formal notice. We were retained this past Thursday.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think, Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I frankly would like to hear. Because it is a motion, I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim. And if it’s not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it because it could have some bearing on the counterclaim.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I have to check that. I understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative defenses. I’d have to check that out.

THE COURT: If he did, I haven’t seen it.

MR. DANDAR: I’m Ken Dandar, by the way. Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the pending counterclaim. They never filed the new counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely filed a motion to dismiss. We never received a new

0263

counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as a defendant. We’re still waiting for that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that perhaps the reason why they didn’t file a new one is because I allowed him to be added orally, to be — to be amended, I guess. So perhaps they — I mean, Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments, because he did file a motion to dismiss or something.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, I did look. That was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there was no order in the file, and then there was a corrective counterclaim that was filed. And I didn’t understand the import of that, because the party was just added by a corrective counterclaim without an order of the court. I assumed you had granted that orally.

THE COURT: I had. And I had granted it orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order. Can you all go back and maybe look into that? Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And I granted it. And I know Mr. Howie was here, and I said, “It’s granted and he

0264

is now a party.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. And he was allowed to sit in as a party from then on, as opposed to being excluded under the rules.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Is there presently a motion to dismiss pending?

THE COURT: Yes. That Mr. Howie has filed.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

THE COURT: It’s more than a motion to dismiss.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It is. It’s a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I saw that. And we’ll get back to the court.

You got to understand we’re coming in very late. There’s thousands and thousands of exhibits. And we’re just trying to catch up here.

THE COURT: Yes. There are thousands and thousands of exhibits.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It’s going to take a bit —

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

(The reporter had technical problems and there was a pause in the proceedings.)

0265

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before the break, Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the section —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: In the ethics book that said you had to get the permission of an ethics officer to testify about Scientology. Could he —

THE COURT: Did you find that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I misspoke as to where the actual quote was. It’s not in the ethics book, but it is in another volume which unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it and I will submit it to the court.

THE COURT: All right. And the same — if you can’t, why, we’ll strike that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 123. Can you identify 123?

A Yes. This is a series that’s put out for the technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC Folder and the contents of the PC folder.

Q And is this something you were trained on as a technical person in Scientology?

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt you, and I feel really bad about it.

This was laying here. I don’t know whether this is something that was previously admitted. It doesn’t have a number on it.

MR. DANDAR: This was. This was 114, which was admitted.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 123 in evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: Is it one exhibit or two exhibits? You handed me —

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

MR. WEINBERG: You handed me The PC folder and Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs. One was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was after Mr. Hubbard died. But I don’t have an objection to it, if you want —

THE COURT: It does look like you have two different things here.

MR. DANDAR: I have two. And I meant to do that. It involves the —

THE COURT: Well, then, how about making them A and B?

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: 123-A will be The PC folder and Its Contents; 123-B, if you’re saying it’s related, will be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs —

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure I’m right about that.

MR. WEINBERG: When I say I’m not going to object, I do have an objection to all of this and Mr. Prince testifying, but I don’t object to the authenticity of these.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs — is that related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that something different?

A That’s something different.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Then I will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. So it’s just 123, The PC Folder and Its Content.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987 on what is supposed to be in a person’s PC folder?

A Not at all. The whole purpose of this issue is to clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder. It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail, and auditors — any person that audits in Scientology is trained on this as a basic for auditing.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point. Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. How can this policy letter dated November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on it?

A Well, turning to the last page, it says, “This is a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research Compilations.” There are other — there’s another issue type that isn’t a formal issue type within Scientology, which is called advices. And often, from advices, policy letters can be compiled and issued.

Q And that’s what this is? This is a compilation?

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move Exhibit 123 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, I’m going to show you Exhibit 124. It’s marked for identification.

MR. DANDAR: Hand one to the court and counsel.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

A Yes. This is a Scientology policy directive. And this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church policy. This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear folders and what’s expected to be in them.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’d like to move 124 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa McPherson’s 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you create an affidavit which — where you disclosed things that were missing?

A Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Are we now into that part of the testimony that deals with the complaint itself?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — and we’ve already had marked, and I believe it’s in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 108, which is your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC folders, and with a list of things that are missing. Do you
recall creating that affidavit?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

THE COURT: What was the number of Plaintiff’s Exhibit again? 108?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

Let’s make sure it’s in evidence. I’m pretty sure it is.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, if he’s going to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could get — let me use the official copy. And I’m sure you filed mine in its appropriate book.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, while she’s looking, I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what was or what was not in the PC folder.

What the hearing is about is whether or not Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince

0271

executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there’s been various misconduct from the plaintiff’s side regarding various testimony in the case.

What does what was in the PC folder or not have to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: This falls under the second category in Mr. Weinberg’s comments: Various misconduct. They have accused me of lying about the fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Scientology. Somehow I just made that all up and I got people to lie about it.

And that’s part of their terminating sanction motion and disqualification motion.

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

But what’s that got to do with what’s missing?

You going to ask him what was in the PC folders? Is that what you’re saying?

THE COURT: Well, there’s also an allegation as to his complaint and whether or not there’s any basis for it. And part of what I have read, maybe in Mr. Prince’s affidavit, that some of the missing data is data from the workers, which the testimony would be, from some witness — Mr. Prince, perhaps — should have been in the PC folders,

0272

and —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, I — they’ve made that allegation, although the workers all testified what they did, what they saw and all that.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed. Just —

THE COURT: Well, whether it was an intentional death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it does. So your objection’s overruled.

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

THE COURT: And besides that — I don’t know what his testimony’s going to be, but if this is, in some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion, then I think it’s got to be relevant for his opinion.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it was inquiring. I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: I think that probably for all those different things it has some relevance, so I’m going to let it in.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, 108’s previously been admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

Q And recently we showed you some routing forms that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of Scientology states they have reproduced to us. And did you review those?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?

A No, they do not.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel from November 18th of ’95 to December 5th of ’95?

A No, they do not.

Q Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson, stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. I mean, is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?

You have to have a routing form as opposed to registering as a guest? What basis? He never

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: He is telling us, based on his experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form is used for and what a routing form should have on it.

MR. WEINBERG: But Mr. Dandar asked him whether you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a program such as the introspection rundown, whether it’s the Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

And I’ll just say this: It’s incorrect that I never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. I worked at the Ft. Harrison from 1979 to 1982.

The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many departments, many sections that people come either for training or for auditing. They have different places where people would get auditing.

0275

And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their hotel room, they’re routed to pay for their hotel room, they get what their room is, any questions are answered. When
they’re ready for services, they go down, they’re put on another routing form.

And like, if they’re going to get a service — a training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and see the director of processing; maybe they would get an interview.

In other words, the routing form gives you the areas and the people that you need to see and the places you need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.

Q And is there any policy that permits a deviation from the requirement to have a routing form?

A No, there is not.

Q As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa McPherson?

A Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity. But when you take into consideration the fact — many other items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only opine that this was information that would have not been good to discover for Scientology’s behalf.

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. I’m going to allow it for this hearing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you been involved in the destruction — intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in addition to Mr. Wollersheim’s, that you previously testified about at this hearing —

A Well —

Q — which was ordered to be pulped by Mr. Miscavige?

A Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident happened, because there were threats from other people such as John Nelson and — well, I don’t know. You know, there was a list of people at the time. The only one that I specifically recall right now is John Nelson. But their folders were destroyed as well.

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I sit here today, I can’t say for certain —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — but I knew there were certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim’s folders, because there were a list of people. And I can’t sit here and recall today every name —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the significance to you — let’s start with the missing — what’s missing from her folder. In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski states she was under November 18th through December 5th of ’95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection rundown?

THE COURT: What dates, now? Are we talking about the 17-day dates?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

A Yes. There would have been, in the very front of the folder, what’s called a program. It would have been a repair program. It would have been something that’s on a pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
The color in the paper — the color within the preclear folder also has significance.

But in Lisa’s case, there would have been, if she was on — on the introspection rundown, it would have given a short statement of who she was, what she’s accomplished, what her last auditing activities were, and what the current problem was, what the symptoms were that she was experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to this whole line. I — I take it where he’s going is to suggest that she wasn’t on the introspection rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she was on the introspection rundown. It’s not an issue in this case. We answered the complaint. It’s not an issue.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. DANDAR: I subsequently discovered that this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski, under oath, said was in her PC folder. Now I’m not sure what she was going through and where she was.

0279

These things — these things are missing, and we would have to conform the pleadings to the evidence as we discover new things that are — go on.

THE COURT: So what are you saying? Are you saying that you — that she was not under the introspection rundown?

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

MR. DANDAR: I’m saying it’s not a confirmed fact that she was on the introspection rundown, because of what’s missing.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let this witness testify at this hearing, because we need to get to where it was that he comes up with his conclusions —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and I assume all this has something to do with it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not sure I have the same assumption, but I understand where you’re —

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in Scientology, were things that were beneficial — papers and documents that were

0280

beneficial to Scientology removed from a member’s PC folder?

A No. You know — and I’ve written a declaration about this before — well, this declaration may be in and of itself — you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the process of, “Okay, well, we’ll turn over something; we’ll go
through and we’ll — we’ll get rid of any kind of incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology.”

Then when the production of all the folders were called for, it — that became too massive of a task and it was decided to destroy them.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I say one more thing, so I don’t lose this train of thought?

I did object, and I understand your ruling, but he already had alleged that — that the introspection rundown happened, and his response to your question and my statement was, “I just recently discovered it.”

Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and whatever wasn’t there in December of 1998 certainly isn’t there now. So what’s he talking about?

THE COURT: I don’t know, but I think that this testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince concluded what he concluded, which is what Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint. It is relevant for this hearing.

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you — when did you actually sit down and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

A The date of this affidavit is April — the 4th of April, 2000.

Q Okay. And concerning this one issue, the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?

A Yes, it does. And I think I’ve covered that with as much detail as possible: That she wanted to leave. She actually made plans to leave. And she felt like she was starting to become damaged.

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

Q Now, within your experience of Scientology, have you used — have you — are you familiar with the term “end cycle”?

A Yes, I am.

Q And what is your understanding or familiarity with that term?

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

I’m sorry. I’m as bad at interrupting chain of thought as anybody.

This — this particular affidavit is the affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave that was part of the motion for summary judgment that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that was part of it, but there’s a lot more than just that in there. It talks about things that are missing from her PC folder.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now we’re past the missing items from the PC folder and to —

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are people who want to leave the Church of Scientology — how are they looked at, within your experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?

A Well, people who want to leave Scientology and publicly state such are considered criminals, because that’s a high crime in Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A I do have the instant reference on that right now.

0283

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what is that?

A That PT/SP 5package that was —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just establish, is he talking about staff members or public members or both?

THE WITNESS: Any member of Scientology, public member of Scientology, it’s a high crime.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’m handing the witness PT/SP course, a booklet that was previously talked about —

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. DANDAR: — by other witnesses.

THE COURT: I think it’s in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: It’s possible. I mean, I’m not sure.

THE COURT: Maybe it isn’t, but I’ve seen that book.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Search and Discovery is in evidence. That came out of here.

THE WITNESS: Says right here, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.” And this comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

0284

THE COURT: What page are you reading from, sir, in that book?

THE WITNESS: Where I read that quote from, I am reading from — I just read from 159.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ll have that entire policy marked.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, my objection to this is it talks about — Mr. Prince read it –publicly — a person publicly announces he’s going to depart Scientology. Well, that’s not what we have in this case. What’s that have to do with this case?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear him say “publicly.”

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he read. That was —

THE WITNESS: It says, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”

I think Lisa had done that, because she had told her mother and she had told a friend that she was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in the notes that I made here, that she intended to leave. She wasn’t happy with —

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

THE COURT: Well, look, you don’t need to object to that, because I know enough about —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — the evidence with the mother and the evidence with the friend and the fact that what would be in her PC folder would hardly be public, where I can determine the validity of that statement.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, within your experience with Scientology, what does that — what does it mean to publicly leave Scientology?

A You could publicly leave Scientology in several ways. You could submit a letter of resignation and make that letter available to other parties beyond a recant, which would — in a normal organization, would be the ethics officer.

I guess in these days and times you could go on the Internet or you could just simply announce to your friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the intention of leaving.

THE COURT: How about if I just don’t go back? I mean, if I’m a member of a church — which I was at one time when I was a child — and I just don’t

0286

go back? I mean, is that — is that leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a form of leaving. And — and in that instance, if you just simply left, you would be contacted and asked to come into the organization so that they could find out what happened. If you —

THE COURT: And what if you just don’t go in?

In other words, I’m a public member, which is what Lisa McPherson was — this is a hypothetical — and I — even — I don’t want to go back and I don’t want to get any more auditing and I don’t want to go to any more services and I just don’t go?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: They say, “Come in,” and I just decline and I don’t go.

THE WITNESS: Then they’ll show up on your door.

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A There’s a process of getting out of Scientology. There is a way to do it. And normally, it involves signing a release agreeing that you will never — that you’ll be ineligible for Scientology services in the future —

Q To —

0287

A — and you would also have to sign a statement saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or upset that you had — in other words, a general release for the different Scientology corporations that you’ve been involved in.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just make it clear that that’s only — that he’s talking about staff members and not public members having to sign a release?

THE WITNESS: I — it’s staff and public. I — that’s the second time I’ve said that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her friend from high school about wanting to leave. Where did you get that information from?

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

Q And when you said that Lisa called her mother and said she wanted to leave. Where did you get that from?

A I think — I read — I read it — I read it somewhere in the evidence. I can’t —

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

Q — Lisa’s mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker by the name Sandra Anderson?

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is he, like, prompting him now?

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

MR. DANDAR: It’s either — wanted to make sure it wasn’t from me. Because that’s the accusation.

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, end cycle. Can you tell us what — where and when you’ve heard that or seen that term?

A End cycle has a history in Scientology. And it has varied meanings.

One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and stop something. In other words, you start it — you start an activity, you carry through to its intended result or purpose, and then you end it. So ending the cycle, you know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle

0289

when the judge decides who’s right and who’s wrong or discovers the issues. That’s one form of end cycle. Another form of end cycle is to die. This — this — this idea of ending cycle to die came into prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior CS Ray Mithoff. Because I was curious. He sat on a deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.

And I asked him, you know, “When he died –” I asked him, you know, because this was — L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to. And I — and I was curious. You know, “Well, how did this man die? What were the exact circumstances? What happened there?”

And he said that he positively started shutting down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part of his systems.

And I asked, “Well, how does this happen? I mean, what are you — what are you doing?” And he told me the Scientology process is that you use — you know, you talk about what the — your attention may be stuck on; at what problems do you have with dying? I mean, there’s a whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so that you have no attention or problems with death and can die.

When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as

0290

far as to die.

THE COURT: Is this a little bit like a — what we might think of Hospice and how they prepare someone —

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: — with a terminal disease in your family and —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Hubbard didn’t have a terminal disease, though, did he?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q But he still went through that process of end cycle?

A Yes.

Q So where else did you see that term used in reference to dying?

A Terminally ill people. I’ve also read this up in affidavits.

A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had Hodgkin’s disease. It was apparently fatal. I saw in his folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you know, to die.

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And is there ever anything in writing about having an auditor go in and assist someone to die?

A Absolutely. There would be, as in Lisa’s case, a program. That program would —

MR. DANDAR: Can I — can I please have these people stop laughing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

And I object. “As in Lisa’s case, a program.” I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there was no program, and therefore —

THE COURT: He is trying to tell us what he believes to be missing —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

THE COURT: — which is what he’s talking about: Missing things in the PC folder, which is what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar, who filed the complaint.

MR. WEINBERG: But the question was, though, was generally about his understanding of end cycle, end of cycle.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

And I’m going to instruct you all back there to stop laughing.

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So it’s your belief that an auditor would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died? Is that what you’re suggesting, from this missing — missing documents, or what?

THE WITNESS: Well — well, you know, your Honor, for me that’s kind of mixing apples and oranges. Because the question he asked me was about a specific incident that happened with a fellow named Ted Cormack —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

THE WITNESS: The process is similar to what you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace; you know — you know, as far as they’re concerned everything’s taken care of and they can go.

THE COURT: Okay. And so that you saw that in his PC folder?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you jump from there to something that’s missing in Lisa McPherson’s folder and assume that there was an auditor with her with some end cycle directive?

THE WITNESS: Well, with — and we’ll get to that too.

But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is — it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a program; that that program most assuredly was in her file folder at some point, along with other reports that are detailed — that are missing; and those — you know, for whatever reason, those things weren’t turned over or made available.

THE COURT: Let’s assume that — for the sake

0294

of argument, that what she was on was the introspection rundown, and that something went wrong, and she wasn’t taken to the hospital as quickly as she should have been, and she died. And let’s assume further that somehow or another somebody removed part of that from her folder. That would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an auditor being there or anything of the sort. So I guess my main question is, what caused you to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the documents were missing?

And there’s no question of that. So two and a half days, I guess of documents are missing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — toward the end of this — I’ll call it an introspection rundown.

You know, how do you know that that just didn’t have something to do with the fact that either somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B, if they were destroyed it was because somebody was negligent and they didn’t want somebody to see that? How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her death and said, “End cycle,” or whatever it is that’s in the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

THE COURT: That’s what we need to get to.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s get — let’s get to it.

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

How did you conclude — how did you — I presume that you read the PC folders.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You answered Mr. Dandar’s questions. He asked you as his consultant, “Can you tell me what you think –”

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

THE COURT: This is what you told him, and he put it in the complaint.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So now you got to tell me how you came to the conclusion you came to and what it is you told Mr. Dandar —

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — how I did that, your Honor.

0296

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: From reading Lisa McPherson’s preclear folders, reading her ethics folders, seeing, kind of like, what’s missing — and it didn’t make sense for these things to be out of the preclear folder unless they were damaging to the church.

And again, I’ve been in a position where, you know, it was considered documents within a preclear folder were damaging to Scientology so they’re removed for Scientology’s sake.

But even a step back from that, your Honor, you get a person —

And it clearly states on the introspection rundown that once you are assigned to the introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave introspection rundown until the case supervisor tells you you can leave. You are literally incarcerated until you are told you can leave.

THE COURT: Well, you know, that may be your interpretation. If somebody is — is what I would consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally disturbed, you really wouldn’t want them leaving because they might be — you know —

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. I’ve done them.

THE COURT: And I’ve read what — what you and Ms. Brooks said about this woman. So apparently there was a time when she was in a situation where you wouldn’t have wanted her just stumbling around the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

But you know, be that as it may, again, the person is not allowed to leave until they have permission to leave.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So whether or not this person experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour and said, “Hey, look, I just want to do something else,” they still could not leave, okay? Now, what happens in that situation, from introspection rundowns that I’ve done — that I have done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and being incarcerated — what happens?

When you’re in a situation you don’t want to be, you say — you tell them, “Look, I don’t want to be here.” “Well, too bad. You have to be here.” “No. It’s not too bad. Now, really, guys, it’s over. I just want to go.” “No. You’re not going.”

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

says, “Hey, look, if you don’t let me out of here, I’m going to call the police. If you don’t call — let me out of here, I’m going to find a way to contact law enforcement. I’m going to find a way to get out of here. You better let me out of here.” And it escalates like that. And this has happened. And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa happened to Lisa — the reason why I gave that opinion is, number one, what is missing and what would have been there, which happens as a natural consequence, is, when you’re held against your will and people don’t want to let you go, then you complain. You threaten. She threatened. Oh, no.

Now it becomes a huge problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and she wants to leave, and she’s already made it clear, through what I’ve written here, that Scientology procedures are — is not making her spiritually more able; it’s not furthering her ideas of — of, kind of, what she had in mind.

So it is my opinion that Lisa started threatening Scientology at some point. She started threatening to go to the police. She may have threatened that, “I’m going to sue you if you don’t let me go. I’m going to do whatever.” You know,

0299

push the buttons in — in the hope to get out. They didn’t let her out.

I think that Lisa became very sick. I think Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were once she left. And when — and in that horrible situation, for Scientology, it would have been a nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital — to leave Scientology and go to the hospital.

Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I state it as such.

For them — for her to say, “Look, they locked me in there.” You know, “This happened, that happened.” And —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

THE COURT: — there was nothing that indicates she wanted to go to the hospital. She left — I mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to leave the hospital, so —

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: — if she’d left, presumably she was going to go home.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know — of course, we know that that didn’t happen.

0300

THE COURT: Well, I know. But you’re saying what a horrible nightmare it would have been. The truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had gone home to her mother and sister and what have you, there would have been no nightmare at all —

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

THE WITNESS: — right. That’s right. It would have been fine.

But now we’re in a different situation, you see, because now she’s being held against her will. You know, you see — you see in the reports how she becomes violent.

You know, again, in my experience, as a natural progression, when you are being held and you want to be in one place and somebody’s making you stay in one place, it starts to escalate.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Prince: Have you ever been in a mental hospital?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you know how, in a mental hospital, when somebody is really — I’m going to use the term “crazy,” okay? Very sick. Somebody who’s psychologically extremely disturbed.

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, they want to leave too, right? That’s why they have them behind locked doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is because they want to leave.

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: And they’re not fit to leave mentally. They would be a danger to themselves, perhaps others, to let them out in the street. So when somebody’s in a mental hospital, very sick, and they say they want to go, well, they’re not allowed to leave.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — you know — now, let’s take a look at this.

You’re talking about a person that’s sick, right?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

There is no medical diagnosis here. There is no authority that says this person was crazy. This is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of Scientology, that they gave her this label of being crazy, okay? That’s way different than being in a mental institution where you’ve been diagnosed, or

0302

you’ve committed some crime, or you’ve harmed somebody, or something has caused to you go to an institution —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

THE WITNESS: — is certainly not the case with Lisa.

THE COURT: I mean, you can be in a mental hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a danger — I mean, you’re talking about a Baker Act, where you’re — you’re kept against your will involuntarily.

But I mean, there are sick people in a hospital, just because they’re sick and they’re crazy and they — and they just aren’t fit to be on the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

There’s a difference between being in a hospital and being locked in a room with people who don’t understand really what’s going on and are just following orders.

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

But the truth of the matter is, that’s the belief of the Church of Scientology. You were a part of it and you participated in it, right?

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You participated in an introspection rundown with somebody who was in the same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in — at times, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Nobody ordered that this lady would end cycle that you were watching, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Well, then, how — you see, I’m just — I’m trying to help you, here, to see if there’s any basis for this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: How is it that you’ve come to this conclusion, other than just it’s — it’s one of many, many thoughts that you might have as to what might have happened?

THE WITNESS: Because based on Scientology’s own policy, the first thing you do when a person starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these symptoms are occurring aren’t based upon some medical reason, okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

Now, why would they not do that? Why would they not do that? If their documents say if a person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take them to the hospital.

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

THE WITNESS: The reason why you wouldn’t do it is because the person in — they were also telling you, “I’m going to sue you. I’m going to tell about this. I’m threatening you. You got to let me out of here.”

No, you’re not going to the hospital. Because once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.

THE COURT: Okay. But that —

THE WITNESS: They’re not going to go back to Scientology.

THE COURT: Let’s assume — Slow down.

Let’s assume, for the sake of your testimony and for the sake of your beliefs and what you told Mr. Dandar, that you are right. That Lisa was saying, “I want to leave,” and they were saying, “No, you can’t leave,” and she said, “I want to

0305

leave.” And therefore — and therefore, they didn’t take her to a medical doctor. Of course, she just came from a medical doctor where she had been seen and had been released. So that could have been one of the reasons.

However, how do you jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that somebody said, “Let her die,” or — not only, “Let her die,” but proceed to assist this along in some fashion; bring an auditor in and cause her to die?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll explain to you.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: By their own documents, people that get into this state of mind, all of them do not live. Search and Discovery, it says some don’t make it —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — okay?

You have a person here who, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, and even the missing evidence — because you know, if everything — again, like the one that I did, okay, well, this girl didn’t want to leave. This little girl didn’t
really know what was going on.

THE COURT: Which little girl we talking about

0306

now?

THE WITNESS: Terese, the one —

THE COURT: The one that you watched.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn’t know. She —

THE COURT: When you say that, you meant she was really out of it mentally.

THE WITNESS: Completely.

THE COURT: Crazy.

THE WITNESS: Crazy. Barking like a dog, you know, doing —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — wild things.

When she started to come out of it, she certainly wanted to leave. She was certainly demanding to leave. But she was not allowed to leave until she had signed releases that released the Church of Scientology and related  organizations with any liability concerning her condition.

So in other words, she signed away, you know, “what happened to me is an anomaly. It had nothing to do with my studies and training or experience in Scientology, and they have no liability for me getting into this.” This is something that’s

0307

demanded of a person who finishes that rundown, to release any liability.

Here you have a person that isn’t in that position. And it is my belief, because there’s so many —

THE COURT: What position is she in? Tell me how her position differs from —

She’s still crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well — hold on. Because when she was released, they didn’t say she was crazy, from the hospital. That was not a diagnosis that Lisa was given when she left Morton Plant Hospital.

THE COURT: But you have to admit, from the — from the — from the reports that were in there from some of the workers, she started staring at a lightbulb; she started talking about she was L. Ron Hubbard, and she started acting crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, that’s when they brought her in there.

THE COURT: Right. And that’s when she began the introspection rundown perhaps, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, come on, Judge. Let’s back up on this. Because you just said medically she was not diagnosed as being insane. The — the medical

0308

records didn’t say, “Hey, this is a person we got to Baker Act. This is a person that’s mentally ill.”  Didn’t say that, okay? So I think it’s wrong to assume that. And the reason why I think it’s wrong —

THE COURT: Well, what —

THE WITNESS: — to assume that —

THE COURT: — was — let me ask you, Mr. Prince, what’s the difference in the lady that you took care of and how she started barking like a dog — and you say she was crazy —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: — and what you read in the reports of Lisa McPherson, where she was crawling on the floor, humping the floor, carrying on like a crazy person?

THE WITNESS: After she had been in their — incarcerated. And I think by the fact of incarceration, it tipped her over the edge.

THE COURT: Well, you think that same thing happened with the lady you were watching?

THE WITNESS: Huh-uh. No. I mean, she was literally sitting in a chair, you know, fine, one moment, and then the next moment somebody went over to see what she was doing and she peed herself

0309

and — you know, it was a huge difference.

THE COURT: Could that have been like Lisa McPherson, who was all right, released from the hospital, went to the Ft. Harrison, and then just kind of went like this, and all of a sudden she was crazy?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, you could —

THE COURT: Could it be?

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And I’ll tell you why.

Because by the fact of incarceration, it already pushes a person further than, maybe, where they were. I mean, she’s locked in a little room.

No one’s talking to her. She’s feeling horrible. She’s already wanting to go home —

THE COURT: She’s a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: You were a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. See, that’s another myth, now. Because you’re a Scientologist it does not mean that one day you are going to know, when they lock you in a room, because you studied it, this is what they — what’s going to happen to

0310

people that do this. There is no place, no — absolutely no place that gives clear instructions on what happens to a person should they experience this and Scientology decides to take them in and put them through this routine.

You find that out after the fact, after the fact it’s been determined that you have a mental problem.

You see —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question: If the church doesn’t believe in psychiatrists and psychologists and they don’t believe in mental health treatment in the — in the traditional form —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Everybody knows that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That’s a very basic tenet of the church.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. It would be like a Christian Scientist. They would know that they don’t believe in medical treatment, at least in part. So if you’re a member of the Christian Scientists, you know that you believe that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

0311

THE COURT: Okay. Well, there has to be some folks that become mentally deranged, who are Scientologists, so they know that there’s some other treatment, just like you would know, if you were in the — in the Christian Scientists, if there’s a belief of laying on of hands and God will heal you — So they’ve got to be told there’s some substitute for somebody —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor —

THE COURT: — that has a mental lapse.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, they’re not. They are not told that. It’s just simply not true. You don’t find it out until after the fact. There’s no course —

Say I’m a public member of Scientology, wants to do auditor training up to class 4. They go and they train and they — they get their certificates and stuff like that. There is no class that says, “Okay. If this happens to you, this is the exact procedure.”

That was something that was developed during the time when the introspection first came out. But then this is something that moved totally off and away from anything that public people could see or

0312

even staff would know. They were isolated and hidden from view.

And then normally, the person doesn’t do any more Scientology after introspection rundown. And I know several cases after that — of that.

Because they make you sign waivers and releases which say, “The church did not cause your condition. The church did not contribute to your condition. The church is not liable or responsible for what happened to you.”

And you agree to that, and you sign it, and then you’re on your way.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, like the lady did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But she is a Scientologist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so — Okay. I understand what you’re saying; that — that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn’t know what was going to happen to her, is what you’re basically saying.

THE WITNESS: None of them do.

THE COURT: Okay. Now — okay. I’ll take your word for that for the sake of your testimony. How do you get from that — okay. Let’s assume

0313

there was some gross negligence going on here. She wanted to leave.

THE WITNESS: You —

THE COURT: Which there’s already been a judge that says there’s none of this. But let’s assume that she says, “I want to leave.” They say, “You’re not going to leave.” “I want to leave.” “You’re not going to leave.”

One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson, based on her doctors and her experts and the experts for the church: Either she became severely dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged in her lung in some fashion and she died.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So it’s one or the other. One or the other things happened to her, medically —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Now — so that’s a given, okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0314

THE COURT: So how do you leap from the fact, in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said, “No,” to the fact that she died from one of those causes, through anything other than either no negligence, slight negligence, or really gross, flagrant negligence? How do you jump from point A to point B by saying that David Miscavige said, “Kill this woman”?

THE WITNESS: Or, “Let her die.”

THE COURT: Or, “Let her die”?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, you got to listen.

I’m going to explain this to you, okay?

THE COURT: Okay. I’m listening.

THE WITNESS: Now, again by their own policy, this woman first should have been examined by a medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was coming as a result of some medical condition.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That was not determined when she went to the hospital because it was determined she was not insane.

So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft. Harrison, then the next thing that they should have done was to take her to get her medically examined to see if there was a medical reason for this

0315

behavior.

THE COURT: And you did that in your case? In the case where you handled the introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, yeah. They had a doctor come out. Sure. They had a doctor come out. Dr. Gene Dink came out to be with her. He examined her.

THE COURT: Was this a real doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean — by that I mean a licensed doctor? ‘Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson too, except they weren’t —

THE WITNESS: This was —

THE COURT: — licensed.

THE WITNESS: — L. Ron Hubbard’s doctor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, was this a licensed doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles, California.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Worked with the one that we have.

THE COURT: So — so as I recall, Ms. Arundo (sic) — and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall

0316

she was a doctor licensed somewhere else. There was another doctor, one — the head of the medical liaison, who had been a doctor.

MR. DANDAR: And lost her license.

THE COURT: And lost her license.

MR. DANDAR: Arrunada’s from Mexico and was never licensed.

THE COURT: Okay. But Ms. — but what’s Ms. — please give me the name.

MR. DANDAR: Johnson.

THE COURT: Ms. Johnson was a physician who had lost her license, who presumably was in charge. But — okay. You say they should have taken her to a doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. They —

THE COURT: Or had a doctor come in.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Like they did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Your case, meaning the case where you were directly involved.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: And they didn’t do that. Okay. What else?

THE WITNESS: Well, we have to wonder why they

0317

didn’t do that.

Now, I hate to be — your Honor, you know, irrespective of what the defendants believe in this case, it brings me no great joy to — to malign them or say horrible things about them.

But because I’ve been there and because I’ve seen what happens and because I’ve seen what they do, it is my belief because when they brought this girl back from the hospital, she was not insane. She wasn’t diagnosed as that. She went insane there. She wanted to leave. She said, “I want to go.” They said, “No, you can’t go. You got a problem. We’re diagnosing you. Forget what the doctor said. We’re going to do it.”

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She began to struggle. She began to fight. At that point, it becomes a OSA matter. It was already an OSA matter.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. A what matter?

THE WITNESS: O-S-A. OSA. Office of —

THE COURT: OSA.

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: For several reasons now: One, because she apparently left the hotel,

0318

drove around and had a minor accident, took her clothes off, told people that she needed help.

Okay. That in and of itself was something that drew attention to Scientology that was non-optimum. And in Scientology, that is called a flap. An unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology’s reputation somehow.

Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just two months earlier attested to the state of clear. She stood in front of every Scientologist at the mecca of technical perfection, their highest level, their highest office of — of tech, and told everyone that, “I no longer have a reactive mind. I no longer have,” you know, “have problems with the past that now come up. I’m totally free from the past and I’m ready to move on.”

In other words, she was what they call in Scientologist (sic) — not a Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis. Homo novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.

So now this person is literally a demigod two months ago. Now she’s screaming in a room, insane, crazy.

This is a problem. This is a problem that this woman took her clothes off, walking down the street, and — and OSA had to get involved and, you know, they rushed down there, “Oh, my God.” They bring

0319

her back. She’s not diagnosed as being crazy. They just give her — she wants to get some help. She’s got something on her mind. Okay. So she comes back.

It is my contention that she wanted to leave, just like she had been saying. And they said, “No.” And they put her on the introspection rundown and she went over the edge and she got crazy. Well, before that she made many threats.

Now, it is Scientology’s belief that once you start these processes — once you start any process  in Scientology, you take it to the end. It’s called processing. The way out is the way through. What turns it on or turn it off. Get the preclear through it. Whatever. In other words, keep that auditing going until the end result happens.

THE COURT: Or get the person in the introspection rundown fit for auditing. That is part of the preliminary process.

THE WITNESS: Well, the person is fit for auditing after they’ve had one eight-hour period of sleep. Okay? You got — you know, you got that step 0, step 00.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that normally

0320

happens with a person that gets into that state of mind, they don’t sleep for days, they can’t sleep, they’re up — a part of auditing in Scientology is, you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.

So —

And again, in the instance where I did introspection rundown with the person, the first time that woman — after she was given Valium or whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the first time she had an 8-hour period of time to sleep —

(The reporter interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: Slow down.

THE REPORTER: After they gave her —

THE WITNESS: — or chloral hydrate or whatever they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is there immediately to start.

THE COURT: I think they tried to bring an auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn’t capable.

THE WITNESS: Well, I heard —

THE COURT: I mean, I think I remember that.

THE WITNESS: — I heard the story that, you know, she licked the cans and — you know, that

0321

means nothing.

An auditor is trained — I don’t care if you take the cans and throw them across the room. An auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put them back in the person’s hands and get them to do what you want them to do. It’s called model session. You know, that’s part of the same —

THE REPORTER: Slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: — auditor series you have. Model session. Which talks about how to conduct a session.

THE COURT: That’s tough to do if the person is still in a psychological state, that’s crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — and you’re assuming that that’s the case. But the doctor didn’t assume that when she was let out.

THE COURT: Well, I’m assuming that’s the case because of the reports I read.

THE WITNESS: You know — well, you know, after —

THE COURT: Just like I’m assuming the lady that you watched after, when she barked like a dog and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said she was crazy and like I think you said she was crazy.

0322

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Crazy in the sense that I know — would think someone was crazy; not medically.

THE WITNESS: A danger to themselves or other people.

THE COURT: Not somebody you would want out on the street.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Okay. So again, she is in a situation now where she’s drawn into the local public attention. They’ve been promised by the doctors that she’ll be okay. Turn her over to Judy Fontana. They don’t turn her over to Judy. Because I think these things all mean in some way she was not agreeing with what was happening to her. And because she wasn’t agreeing and she wanted to leave, it got wild. It intensified.

Now, Scientology’s belief is, you know —

THE COURT: I think I can go along with you there. I mean, I think that there’s enough in that folder to realize she was not thinking clearly. She may have wanted to leave. You know, the lady you took care of may have wanted to leave. I mean, they — they act irrational, right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0323

THE COURT: And the idea is they can’t leave.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s say I accept that —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay? She wants to leave, they’re saying, “No, you’re not able to leave yet.”

She’s getting more and more upset.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: She wants to leave.

How do we know they’re still not trying the introspection rundown to make her well?

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: What —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: So —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it. But I think that she had decided she had had enough. You see — and the reason why I say that is because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps telling them, “I had enough. I don’t want any more auditing. This is aggravating my condition. It’s making me worse.”

This is what she’s saying in her

0324

own words, the only thing she was able to say before she died. And in which whole thing, if you read this line by line in the preclear folder, “This is making me worse. I’m not getting better.”

So what do they do? Give her more auditing. Well, she doesn’t want that.

THE COURT: I will say, for the sake of this hearing, that I — I can accept that.

THE WITNESS: So because she doesn’t want it, and because she has no way to leave, because she’s actually under guard — I mean, we have a statement by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of her and holds her down. You know, you have people not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room — I mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my Scientology experience, is something that would make a person, if they weren’t over the edge, would certainly push them over the edge.

THE COURT: But you did that when you took care of the lady you took care of.

THE WITNESS: No. I talked to her. I did not not talk to her.

THE COURT: Was that — were you breaking the rules?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was breaking the rules.

0325

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know that somebody else might not have broken the rules.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know that either.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s take — we really need to break for lunch.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. She wants to leave. They say, “No.” She wants to leave, they say, “No.” And let’s assume that they’re saying “no” because they believe that she’s not finished the introspection rundown, and they’re going to get her finished.

Just like —

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And they do believe that.

Right.

THE COURT: All right. So now, one of two things happens at some point in time: Either she’s not getting enough water, right; and so she’s not getting enough water or whatever, and they should have known better, and they should have given her more water, and she reaches this miserable state and dies.

Or she is getting enough water and a pulmonary — you know, an embolus in her leg breaks loose, goes to her lungs and kills her. One of those two things happened at the end of this. And it was — it was from the embolism, right?

0326

And you wouldn’t have known that. They wouldn’t have known that. There wasn’t a worker there that would have known that. Nobody. These are the silent — silent killers —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

So one of those two things happened, and that’s a fact.

How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere along the line it was, “We’re going to keep her here until the embolism we don’t even know about breaks loose”?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, that’s ridiculous, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course it is.

THE WITNESS: Let me — you got to let me finish —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — the whole thing.

THE COURT: I’m going to do that, but we’re going to take a lunch break first —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — all right?

All right. It’s 12:20. Let’s be in recess until 1:30.

0327

(A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)

0328

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

  1. Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-007-070802-Prince-V2.html
  2. Caroline Letkeman; Nancy Many.
  3. Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer
  4. Elliot J. Abelson
  5. Should be “PTS/SP.” Key documents: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/documents/key-documents-sp-doctrine

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 1) (June 18, 2002)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants.

_______________________________________/

 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 1

DATE: June 18, 2002, afternoon session.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR,
Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

2

APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
35340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
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
40 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN
MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP
150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
Attorney for LMT.

3

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

PAGE                                              LINE

JESSE PRINCE                                    5                                                       13

DIRECT Mr. Dandar                           6                                                         5

[…]

MR. DANDAR: All right. Plaintiff calls Mr. Prince.

JESSE PRINCE, the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. WEINBERG: For the record, your Honor, I want to preserve the same objection that we’ve made to Mr. Franks — is that his name — Mr. Franks and Mr. Young, which is, among other things, the 404, 406, the First Amendment, and overall, at least as it relates to the — paragraph 34 of the complaint, to competence, in light of the fact that he left the church years before and doesn’t have any personal knowledge of what if anything occurred in 1995.

THE COURT: All right.

6

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. I presume that it’s preserved? And I will limit my objections to things like hearsay and other —

THE COURT: It is preserved.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Please state your name, and spell your last name.
THE COURT: What witness is that? Do you all have the numbers by any chance? How many witnesses have you called, do you remember?

MR. DANDAR: Caught me off guard.

THE COURT: All right. I’m just trying to put a number with it.

Go ahead.

A Jesse Prince, J-e-s-s-e, P-r-i-n-c-e.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I think we’re number six.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll double-check. Mr. Lirot will be checking.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how long have you lived in Pinellas County?

A Oh, for a little over two and a half years.

Q Are you currently employed?

A No, I am not.

7

Q When is the last time you were employed?

A Last September.

Q And who were you employed by?

A The Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q What is the extent of your formal education?

A Went to Catholic school pretty much all of my elementary years. I was born and raised a Catholic. Went to Chicago Vocational High School; went to Job Corps; went to community college, college prep in Chicago. I had a scholarship for University of Louisiana which I never took. And that’s pretty much it.

Q Why didn’t you take the scholarship to Louisiana?

A ‘Cause I was afraid to go there.

Q All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we possibly — I don’t know if the microphone’s on or not, but I’m having a hard time hearing Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Check and see if the microphone’s on.

MR. WEINBERG: If you could get — not that close, but a little bit closer than he was.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Just try to talk into it.

A Okay.

Q So what did you do after finishing your formal

8

education?
A I had various jobs. I worked at the Norfolk and Western Railroad as a clerk. I’ve worked in binderies, a place in Chicago, Fidelity Bindery. And — well, wasn’t too much time after that before I became a Scientologist.

Q What year did you join the Church of Scientology?

A It was 1976.

Q Where at?

A San Francisco.

Q And when did you become a Sea Org member?

A I became a Sea Org member that same year. I believe I transferred to Los Angeles from San Francisco, maybe in November, September or — maybe September; sometime between September or October, November, I went to  the Sea Org.

Q Okay. And can you tell us — give us a capsule of your experience in the Church of Scientology after becoming a Sea Org member? What did you do?

A Well, I joined the Sea Org in ’76. And then at that time, when you joined the Sea Org, there was a program that was called the EPF that everyone who was becoming a Sea Org member did. EPF stood for estate’s project force.  This was located in a little house in — in Los Angeles. I guess it was an old Charlie Chaplin estate. It was a place where you had to do training to become a Sea Org member.

9

The training for the most part culminated to making you a missionaire. A missionaire in the Sea Org is a person that has studied certain levels up to at least what’s called staff status 2, which basically means you’re familiar with the basics of the organization, how it operates, how it’s staffed, how it’s organized, the statistics of the area and the rules and regulations. It trains — the mission school training involved something that I guess I never even thought before. It was very military, where you — you wear a uniform and you — you’re trained on orders to go to a Scientology organization and improve the statistics by either changing personnel or increasing production one way or the other.

Q And how long did you maintain that status?

A During the entire time, from — from that point, which would have been in 1977, to the time that I left in 1992.

Q And what organization — when you became a Sea Org member and became staff, what organization was paying you?

A Organization called the Advanced Organization Los Angeles.

Q And did you ever change from that to another?

A Yes, I did. I never made it through the EPF before I was put on the RPF. I was on the RPF for — RPF being the rehabilitation project force. I was on the RPF for 18 months. And I got out of the RPF and went to an organization called the PAC Co-Auditor Organization, P-A-C, Pacific Area Command, Co-Auditor Organization. This was a Scientology organization that basically supervised and trained staff members to audit themselves on Scientology’s bridge.

Q How long did you stay there?

A I probably stayed there for probably a little under a year. And I transferred from Los Angeles to here in Clearwater, Florida in 1979, and I worked in — at the Ft. Harrison —

Q What did you do —

A — and various other buildings.

I came there — I came to Florida here to be a supervisor; to actually train and supervise the training of auditors, which are members that partake in the — the technical aspect of delivery of Scientology services.

Q You were an auditor?

A Yes, I was.

Q And when did you —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. You came to Clearwater when, sir?

THE WITNESS: 1979.

THE COURT: To train supervisors.

THE WITNESS: To — to become a supervisor. I

11
came here actually as a supervisor, to train auditors.

At the time, NED for OTs had recently come out. This was a big advance.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q NED, N-E-D?

A Yes.

Q What does that mean?

A New era dynamics for operating thetans.

Q This had just come out?

A Yes. This was new technology that had came out. And it was urgent at that time in Scientology to be able to train auditors in this new rundown. This rundown is delivered only by certain organizations, Flag being one of them. There’s others in other countries. And this was a very specialized type of auditing. So I was to train the bulk of the auditors on this process so that they could then go back to their organizations and deliver this new rundown.

Q How did you did learn how to do it — how did you learn about it before you were able to train other auditors?

A Well, there were other auditor levels that one had to train on before being able to train on this NED for OT levels. I guess there was a requirement that a person had to at least do Scientology academy levels, which are levels 0 to 4, specific auditing techniques. And once you were in — trained and interned on that, you became eligible to also learn to do this new NED for OTs business. You also had to be of the same case level in order  to do that. So for a person to be trained as a NED for OTs auditor, they would have had to go through Scientology’s bridge all the way up to and through OT 3 expanded.

Q How far up the bridge had you gotten before you came to Clearwater?

A I had done — or I was mid what was called old OT 6.

Q Okay.

A And at the time, the levels only went to OT 7. So I was on the old OT 6. Now, those OT levels changed with he advent of NED for OTs to become something totally different. OT 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are something totally different than what the services that were earlier offered under those same names.

Q How long did you stay in Clearwater, from 1979, to supervise and train auditors?

A I was here from the summer of ’79 till the fall of 1982.

Q And did your scope of the work that you were doing at the Ft. Harrison and other Scientology buildings here in Clearwater from ’79 to ’82 change?

A Yes, it did. It changed several times. I went

13

from supervising auditors, to train them to get up to the level of NED 4 OTs, to being —

THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re saying. NED fro-teez (phonetic.)

THE WITNESS: New era dynamic for operating thetans. This is —

MR. DANDAR: NED is N-E-D.

THE COURT: For OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r. Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

A Anyway, I forgot what I was —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was NED for OTs —

A Yes.

Q — written by Mr. Hubbard?

A At the time that I studied them, I thought that it was that. I — subsequently I guess it was determined in the courtroom that the materials were actually written by David Mayo.

Q Okay. But anyway, you were — who were you working for when you were sent to Clearwater from ’79 to ’82?

A Well, when I first arrived in 1979, I worked for an organization that wasn’t at the Ft. Harrison but at the Clearwater Bank Building. It was called the International

14

Training Org, ITO for short. At the time the commanding officer for the international training organization was Bill Franks.

Q Okay. So you worked under him?

A Under his command as the commanding officer. I had — there were other people between myself and —

Q Okay.

A — Mr. Franks for sure.

Q Did you run into — in Clearwater, did you train Alain Kartuzinski?

A Yes. Alain Kartuzinski was a student that had come from Paris to train on NED for OTs. I do believe the original idea for him was to go to one of the European organizations such as Advanced Organization for Europe or — 15 yeah. I think he was supposed to go to AOSH EU —

Q Okay.

A — it’s called, which is located in Copenhagen, Denmark. Or he would go to the one located in Saint Hill, East Grinstead, Sussex.

Q Try to keep closer to the microphone.

A I’m sorry.

Q And what else did you do in Clearwater from ’79 to ’82, in addition to training auditors on this new rundown?

A Well, I became what’s known as the intern supervisor, which is the supervisor that takes the students

15

that have finished their courses and then puts them through a period of time where they have to demonstrate their skills by auditing other people. And they continue to do this until they can do it perfectly and flawlessly. The  intern supervisor is there to guide and direct and correct students on the materials that they may not have understood as deeply and as — as would later be required for them to apply. So I was the supervisor for a long time. And then there is another position — and all of these things are — kind of segue into one another — of what’s called a cramming officer. Now, a cramming officer will take a person who maybe is making errors in auditing and then correct them on their procedures or go over the exact bulletin or policy or whatever it may be that was not followed exactly, and to make the person understand and agree with that policy, and then apply it as written.

So I did that for a long time. And then I became the chief cramming officer at the Flag Service Organization. I did this correction type of activities for auditors from level 0 to level 12, which would be the highest level in what are called the Ls in Scientology. And I would do correction on all the auditors as well as the case supervisors.

Q Now, were you — did you have — in order to be a supervisor or cramming officer for auditors and supervisors,

16

if I’m saying this right, did you have more training than they had?

A Not necessarily. I certainly did not have more training than the majority of the case supervisors that I would do correction on. And I did not train on the Ls, which would be 10, 11 and 12, which are the highest levels of — of Scientology. But I was like a class 9 auditor.

Q At that time.

A Yes.

Q Did you ever get higher than that?

A Yes. I became a — I was interned as an auditor, certified as a class 9 auditor; certified as a corrections — a cramming officer, correction officer; certified as a case supervisor for a class 9 as well.

Q Okay. And how high on the bridge did you go?

A When I left, I had completed what’s known in Scientology as OT 7.

Q Okay. All right. So have we covered your years from ’79 to ’82 in Clearwater —

A Yes.

Q — as what you did?

A Yes.

Q Okay. What did you do after ’82?

A I was transferred — well, in 1982, in the fall of 1982, I was transferred to work at the Scientology

17

International headquarters. Of course I didn’t know it was that at the time. But I was transferred to work at Golden Era Productions, which is the movie production studio that Scientology has in the desert at Gilman Hot  Springs, California. I was transferred to work in the RTC as a corrections specialist.

Q And how long did you do that?

A I probably did that from ’82 — for about a year and a half. I did that job for about a year and a half. Maybe to 1985 and — or maybe even ’84. Because after that, I was promoted to a higher position; became the deputy inspector general for the Religious Technology Center.

Q And who appointed you to that position?

A Vicki Aznaran appointed me to that position. It was approved by those that — you know, the seniors above that area, which was David Miscavige.

Q Did Mr. Hubbard ever have any input in any of the selections — selecting you for any position?

A In — in as much as when I left here in Florida, there was a — a mission out to find the best supervisor, best cramming officer in Scientology, and to bring that person to international management, and correct international management on its application of Scientology policies. A search was done in the organizations internationally, and at the end of that — the weeding-out

18

process, I guess my name came up as the person to fill that job. So he was informed that I had that job, and he welcomed me to that job when I arrived in California.

Q How did he — Mr. Hubbard welcome you to that job?

A He sent me a dispatch, a letter —

Q Okay.

A — welcoming me.

Q And what is the duties of the deputy inspector general of RTC?

A Well, this may take a while. But as the deputy inspector general — there’s only one position higher than that in the Scientology ecclesiastical org board, which would have been inspector general. RTC licensed other Scientology corporations to use the trademarks, a licensing agreement. And RTC was responsible, I believe — maybe still is responsible — for ensuring the purity of application and delivery of Scientology technology, auditing technology as well as administrative policies.

And so because we licensed different corporations such as the Church of Scientology International — if you had organizing chart you would have RTC, which would be here; then you would have the mother church, which is the Church of Scientology International, which is here. The

19

mother church in turn then license other organizations, such as the Flag Service Organization, AOSH EU, AOSH UK, and the Los Angeles organization missions. Whatever entities were using the trademarks and copyrighted works of L. Ron Hubbard, they were given a licensing agreement.

So in that regard, ultimately — there’s a very strict policy in Scientology called Keeping Scientology Working, where it’s imperative that everything is done exactly according to the policies and technical bulletins written. I was ultimately responsible to ensure that not only the Church of Scientology International was making good on its licensing agreements, but it was also enforcing it down through other organizations to make sure that they were  adhering to their licensing agreement to apply Scientology technology 100 percent standard. You know, this is a — a term that they use. So I had that responsibility —

[Other court business transpires.]
[…]

THE COURT: — okay?

Okay. Go ahead and continue.

A I hadn’t quite finished answering the last question.

71
BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you remember what it was?

A Yes. The last question was what were my responsibilities as deputy inspector general —

Q Yes?

A — at RTC.

And I mentioned we used to do the technology side of Scientology.

Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for. And those were the legal intelligence and PR activities of OSA, which is a separate network in Scientology. And I had the responsibility of also registering, getting trademarks registered in the different countries of the world where Scientology was — had activity.

Q Okay. So what did you have to do with legal and intelligence departments of OSA?

A In the — in the beginning, not very much, because it was nothing that I really knew anything about. This was something that I learned as part of this — this job activity. So I would — I was privy to the activities of those areas as I learned the strategies for those areas.

Q Would you receive reports from OSA? A Yes. I would receive a report. Every executive — well, not every — I shouldn’t say every

2
executive, but the top executives in Scientology were kept abreast of the different operations in intelligence, legal and PR, by — at the end of the night — just before the end of the night, I would receive an envelope that said “Eyes only.” And inside the envelope there would be typewritten pages, maybe seven or eight typewritten pages, that gave a summary of the different operations that legal, PR and intelligence were involved in. And after reading that information, it was shred — something that had to be shredded instantly.

Q It wasn’t stored somewhere?

A No.

Q When you say legal operations, what are you talking about?

A Legal cases.

THE COURT: Did you get this every day, you say?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Every day we get —

THE COURT: How — in those days — I don’t know. There was no e-mail. How did you get it?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, this isn’t information that — in an envelope, typed on, obviously, a —

THE COURT: I mean, if you’re in Los Angeles, and Flag down here in Clearwater wants to send you

73

something at the end of the day, how did they get it from Clearwater to you?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, no one from Clearwater would have sent me anything, because there’s a chain of command. There are channels. In other words, executives in Scientology aren’t accessible to staff members of lower organizations or things like this. You have to go through a chain of command in order to have correspondence with an executive, or be asking for a specific privilege from that executive, after having gone through the  channels.

THE COURT: Okay. But somebody — if — you got seven or eight pages from somebody —

THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. This was brought — brought around from a person in the intelligence area, and they would simply come in, drop the envelope on the desk and leave.

THE COURT: Okay. Whoever it is that would bring that envelope to you, from wherever it is, how was it that they got the information, for example, from Flag on the day’s activities? This is really a very simple question. This is: Was it faxed? Was it gotten there by horseback? I mean, how did they get it from Flag in

74

Clearwater up the line to whoever it is that dropped it off on your desk? Just physically.

THE WITNESS: Well, there could have been several ways that the information could have been passed along. It could have been passed along from telephonic communications; it could have been passed along via the computer.  At that time, when — the time that I’m speaking about there was no, quote/unquote, real Internet, but Scientology had its own computer messaging systems where we could send messages to each other from Europe or from Florida to Los Angeles. So that was a way that information would come in as well.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And was OSA part of RTC?

A No. Not — not during the time that I was there, OSA was not part of the RTC. During my time period in OSA, OSA was in a very formative stage of being formed, being — departments figured out, purposes, duties, that kind of thing.

Q Was there any carryover from The Guardian’s office to OSA?

A Yes, there was. The staff — there were a

75

carryover of some of the staff and some of the — and the policies.

Q Now, let’s just go back — you said one of the things you would get daily is a report on legal operations. Is that just in the United States?

A Yes. Well, predominantly. But I don’t think we had any cases abroad of any real significance outside of the United States during my time period.

Q And when you were a deputy inspector general, who was your senior?

A The inspector general, which is Vicki Aznaran.

Q And who was her senior?

A David Miscavige.

Q And who was his senior?

A L. Ron Hubbard. Pat Broeker.

Q And when Mr. Hubbard died, who was Mr. Miscavige’s senior?

A He had none.

Q And when you were deputy inspector general, you were a member of the Sea Org, correct?

A Correct.

Q Who was the head of the Sea Org?

A The captain of the Sea Org was David Miscavige.

Q Did he have any equal to his rank?

A I’m sure he probably did.

76

Q He had other captains?

A Yes.

Q And would they have equal power as David Miscavige?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Well, again, I’ll refer to the organizational chart, the command charts, which is an exhibit in this case.

You have a — a kind of pyramid system of organizations as far as seniority, powers — broad powers and responsibility. And at the top of the chain is RTC, Religious Technology Center. Below that is CSI, Church of Scientology International, which is the mother church. And then from there you have like a — what’s called a FOLO, Flag Office Liaison Office, which is supposed to be a management center in the different sectors and countries where Scientology has activity.

An example of — of that would be here in Clearwater. You have the Ft. Harrison as one — the Ft. Harrison Building, or the Flag, which is one organization. And separate from Flag you have another organization called the FLB, the Flag Land Base organization, which, during my period of time, concerned itself with the buildings, the maintenance of the buildings, and then also did the missions, where they would pull Sea Org members to send to

77

other areas, train them on specific orders to go out and accomplish different things in the organizations.

Q While you were in Scientology, could a Sea Org mission go in and take over a completely independent org like the Boston org?

A Well, that — that was the entire purpose of a mission, to go in an area —

Well, that’s not entirely true. There’s different types of mission. You could have a mission that would simply go in there and observe —

THE COURT: His question was, could the Sea Org go in and take over?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what gave it the power to do that?

A The Sea Org is the organization that is responsible ultimately for the success of Scientology. The persons that are in the Sea Org have dedicated themselves to Scientology for one billion years, and their dedication is to ensure that Scientology carries on and prevails in the society we live in.

Q And you signed a billion-year contract as well, correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, the intelligence operations —

78

Well, let’s go back to legal operations. Would you receive a report daily of what was going on in each and every case that the Church of Scientology was involved in?

A Pretty much, yes. If there was activity, if there was courtroom activity that day, or a motion that was being put together or — or whatever, I’d receive the report about that.

Q So if there was a lawsuit that the Boston org —

I’m sorry. I’m picking on Boston — the Boston org was a party to and had a lawyer representing them in court, would you receive a daily report on the activity of that lawsuit?

A Yes. If there was daily activity on that lawsuit, I would certainly receive information about it.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we just date from when it started to when it ended, that he was getting this kind of info?

THE COURT: I think he was saying during the whole time that he was deputy inspector general.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And I think he hadn’t said when that ended.

THE COURT: Okay. What was the period of time that you were deputy inspector general?

THE WITNESS: I would say from early 1985 until January, 19, 1987. ’84. I’d say ’84. Early ’84.

THE COURT: ’85 — early ’84 to January of ’87.

79

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, when you were deputy inspector general of RTC, was Mr. Miscavige the chairman of the board?

A No. Mr. Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services.

Q Okay. Do you know who the chairman of the board of RTC was at the time you were deputy inspector general?

A I later came to find out the chairman of the board of RTC — it changed a couple of times, to my knowledge, but I think the person who was — the last person who I knew was actually chairman of the board was David Miscavige.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: Well, I thought — let me stop you just for a minute here. I thought you indicated that the chain of command was the deputy inspector general, who was you, reported to the inspector general, who was Vicki  Aznaran, who reported to David Miscavige. In what capacity?

THE WITNESS: David Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services. Author Services was a literary —

THE COURT: Believe me, I know about Author Services.

80

THE WITNESS: Okay. So —

THE COURT: So that — all I’m trying to find out is the capacity in which David Miscavige was, that Vicki Aznaran reported to, was as chairman of the board of ASI?

THE WITNESS: No. He was really captain of the Sea Org.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How could Vicki Aznaran and RTC, a religious organization, have a senior who’s a chairman of the board of a for-profit organization?

A Well, that’s exactly the point. Being-senior part and — and giving orders and things from Miscavige to Aznaran wasn’t anything that the general Scientology public would know about. This was kind of kept secret, in the same way that Scientology staff members or Scientology public members don’t realize that Gilman Hot Springs is the location of international management of Scientology; in that same regard they would not know that Miscavige ultimately would be the seniors of a person such as myself, Vicki Aznaran and that kind of thing.

Or we couldn’t have that — it couldn’t be clear that — that that was the case because that presented problems with the tax — we’re trying to get tax exempt status — to have a for-profit corporation running a

81

nonprofit corporation.

But Miscavige was the leader. Was and is the leader. I mean, at the even when L. Ron Hubbard was alive, he would do his communications through Miscavige, that would come to us.

Q Okay. And so was — was Miscavige, Vicki Aznaran senior — and I think you already answered — COB of ASI as captain of the Sea Org?

A As captain of the Sea Org.

Q Now, the intelligence reports that you would get daily, what kind of intelligence reports would you get?

A Ones that I remember specifically at this time had to do with different activities in the Wollersheim case, whether it be Wollersheim 3, 4 or whatever; you know, what was happening with the lawyers, what was overheard, what was planned, what kind of information was coming up during what’s called a ODC and CDC. ODC being overt data collection. They would collect information about the attorney, his — you know, his record. They would do an ODC. And then a CDC. And a CDC mainly entailed getting information that is not readily available or is public knowledge, such as personal phone records; a credit report, bank reports, an individual’s bank reports, this kind of thing.

Q How did OSA get an opposing counsel’s bank

82

reports?

A Hiring a private investigator.

Q And how did the private investigator get an attorney’s private bank records?

A This is something that they were hired to do. It was — it was very much shunned that we know specifically how that happened in case it ever went to court or the person was ever caught. So it was just, “Hey, we need this. We need a credit report on this person. We need his phone records. We need to know who he’s talking about, who he’s talking with,” and to do an analysis to find this person’s weakness. What is the Achilles’ Heel? What is going to get this person to stop giving grief to Scientology even if — in a professional capacity as an attorney. And then, you know, pursue those things that will intimidate, harass or discourage.

Q And why — what gave you, as a member of the Church of Scientology, the authority to do that, under the — under the rules and regulations or the policies of the Church of Scientology?

A I’ve seen many exhibits turned into this courtroom concerning policies on intelligence and attitude. And I guess the overriding factor is this: Scientology comes first. Scientology comes before the individual, comes before the individual’s family, comes before our current

83

justice system or whatever laws. Scientology — I mean, it’s even a high crime to speak at — in Scientology’s laws, it’s a high crime to come before a court and give testimony without first Scientology being — knowing completely what your testimony would be, even if it had nothing to do with Scientology.

So they have different rules and a different standard to operate on. I mean, you know, is it legal? Is it right? Those are different matters. But that’s —

Q Well —

A — the —

Q — when you were in this position, reading these intelligence reports, do you know that if you got a credit report of anyone that had not given you written permission to get their credit report, that that was a federal crime?

A You know, at the time I did not. I personally did not. Because again, this is an area where I was kind of cutting my teeth on, so I was being walked through it and shown how things worked.

Q Who was walking you through it?

A Several people. It started out with David Miscavige kind of bringing me in the loop on this kind of thing and showing me. And the person who would normally be involved in these kind of operations would be Marty Rathbun, so I spent time with him, learning about these things.

84

And — and Vicki Aznaran, who had previously had a lot of association in the Guardian’s office, which later became OSA. She was very familiar with the pattern and things that they do. And her husband, Rick Aznaran, who was my junior. He was a person that I used for the physical security of — to ensure the physical security of the Golden Era base of Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually spread to other organizations. But that’s another person who had experience.

Q Did you ever work with Mr. Moxon?

A No.

Q Were you gone before Mr. Moxon came on board?

A I met Mr. — no, I was not. I met Mr. Moxon when — again, I was there in OSA’s formative stages when I actually had the responsibility to put a person in command of it, fill personnel in the legal department, the PR department, the intelligence department, establish it as a organization which then would repeat itself in the other minor organizations within Scientology.

Q So you established the main OSA departments?

A Correct. The main OSA org board. We were there to work on what its organizing board should be, what personnel it should have, what policies it needs to operated on, who it needed to establish lines of communication with.

Q Was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s

85

office was?

A Yes.

Q Did it have the same org board as the Guardian’s office?

A You know, I couldn’t — in some respects they did, but I don’t think totally they did, because — and this is kind of how I learned it as we went along. The — the OSA wanted to make sure that they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian’s Office did. One of the main mistakes that the Guardian’s office made was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations that they did to some of the people that opposed them. An example that is, oh, Paulette Cooper, with, you know, having a person inside with her to affect her in certain ways, you know, and then the next thing you know —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competence. Because he’s talking about something that he wasn’t part of, that supposedly happened in the early ’70s and it can only be based on hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, what does it have to do with this hearing?

MR. DANDAR: It has to do with our defense of extortion against Mr. Minton and the fair game of Mr. Minton causing him to come to this court and lie.

86

THE COURT: Okay. And what — who is this woman?

MR. DANDAR: Paulette Cooper.

THE COURT: And how did you find out about Paulette Cooper, since Mr. Weinberg objected?

THE WITNESS: I was briefed about it, and I remember her specifically.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, hold on. That’s my objection. This is just pure unmitigated hearsay.

MR. DANDAR: Not when it comes from a corporate client.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, wait a minute. He was only in this position for — whatever he said — ’85 to early ’87. And if I understand this, he’s now going to recount some supposed incident that happened in the early ’70s before he was even part of —

THE COURT: Within — within the organization to which he was the higher echelon person.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, RTC didn’t even exist back in the early ’70s when this supposedly occurred.

MR. DANDAR: But Department 20 did.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: You can, but your objection’s going

87

to be overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I’m just making a record.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did you find out about Paulette Cooper?

A In 1977, when the FBI raided Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles, they broke into a department called B1, and they removed a lot of files.

Q Scientology department?

A A Scientology department. It was their intelligence branch.One of the problems on the files which led certain people to go to jail — I guess 11 people went to jail over this — was the fact that every operation, including the operation like the LSD in her toothpaste — put LSD in her  toothpaste to make it seem like she’s insane, or to lift her fingerprints off a glass and put it on a bomb threat, which she was eventually being prosecuted over — I mean, these things were written in detail of exactly how to do it. And it said on the top who it went to, who approved the program, who executed the program. In other words, details which later came back to bite them severely.

So in putting this new OSA, this new branch there, that had similar functions, but were supposed to operate a

88

little differently. These reports came. Again, it said, “Eyes only.” There was no routing as to who it was going to. There was no author. There were just paragraphs which were just summations of different operations that — that Scientology were enacted to discourage people who were in lawsuits against it or critical of it.

Q And then those — what you saw was then destroyed in some way?

A We were — we had to shred it immediately. Part of the new policy — and Vicki Aznaran is one of the people that told me this — everybody had to had a shred. There were only certain designated people these reports were going to. And we had to verify we shredded the reports. But the reports themselves only contained brief statements of the activities, not who were doing the activities or any details like that.

Q Would those activities include picketing, critics?

A No. These — these were different.

I — I’ll give you an example of an activity.There was an organization called CAN, called Awareness Network, that Scientology had apparently been fighting for years. I had no knowledge of it myself, but I would receive a report that there was a deep cover in CAN, listening in on the legal process CAN was involved in, lawsuits and spats with Scientology.

89

This person would get privileged information —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object —

A — report it to —

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. WEINBERG: I believe that CAN didn’t exist in 1985 through 1987. What’s Mr. Prince talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that’s good cross examination question.

MR. WEINBERG: Well — but then I object to whatever it is: Hearsay, competence. And he’s up here talking about some organization that, if I’m correct — and I think I am correct — didn’t even exist when he was there. How can he be talking about an intelligence operation with regard to it as if —

THE WITNESS: If you’ll let me finish —

THE COURT: Well, just a minute. NO, you don’t get to talk —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: — until I make a ruling. And we surely do not need help from you. At least, I don’t, in making my ruling.

Now, when did this occur, Mr. Prince?

90

THE WITNESS: The specific example that I’m telling you —

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: — are things that I’ve read with my own eyes concerning a group — it was either CAN or something like CAN — that Scientology wanted to get rid of.So a person was placed in there, deep cover —

THE COURT: You are so far ahead of me. Don’t  incur my ire, because it’s the afternoon and it’s getting close to 4:00, and that’s bad for you and everybody else.

When did this operation take place, whatever it is you’re talking about? When did it occur?

THE WITNESS: It was either 1984, 1985, 1986.

It would have been somewhere —

I’m giving an example of something that I read within those three years.

THE COURT: Okay. And that’s when it occurred?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you were in the organization?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you read it as part of the documents of the organization.

THE WITNESS: No. As part of the envelope that

91

would come by, like I explained earlier.

THE COURT: Oh, and you read it on — in what was reported to you.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. And I’ll cross examine him if it has to do with CAN.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So they put an undercover person into this organization?

A Correct.

Q And what was this person doing?

A The person was there as a volunteer to assist the executives of the organization, you know, carry out whatever they were doing. And this organization was an organization similar in some ways to the Leo J. Ryan Foundation, in that anyone from anyplace could call, “I think my kid is in a cult. My daughter’s in a cult. Can you give me information about it?” It was an organization similar to that.

And this person was put in there to divine and be able to turn over to Scientology’s legal team information that would give them an advantage in court.

Q Okay. Now, besides the reporting of intelligence and legal operations, did you have anything to do with the hiring of law firms?

92

A Yes. I hired — I can’t tell you how many different law firms abroad, simply for the purpose of filing trademarks. But in the United States, a law — well, an attorney that I hired by the name of Joseph Yanni for RTC —

THE COURT: I know this must be relevant, and I’m sure you can tell me, but what — what is who the law firms were or who was hired —

MR. DANDAR: No. I don’t care who the law firms were.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I just want to know if that was part of his duties.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. And to the extent that he’s going to ask Mr. Prince about his discussions with these law firms, that would be privileged.

THE COURT: As to those — those —

MR. WEINBERG: In particular —

THE COURT: — matters — that’s right. During the time that he was in the organization.

MR. WEINBERG: And I assume Mr. Dandar has not talked to Mr. Prince about if Mr. Prince talked to lawyers for the Church of Scientology about —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear it right now.

93

I mean, this is a question-and-answer period. You have an objection, make it.

MR. WEINBERG: That was my objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In addition to just hiring the law firms, would you also direct the litigation?

A Correct.

Q All right. And we’re not going to go into details about how you directed the litigation.

A Or even participated in the direction of it. You know, maybe not me, “Oh, this is my idea. Therefore we’re doing this,” but as a group. It was a group of people. It was, you know — and if there was ever a single decision to be made, it was certainly made by the highest person. But we operated as a group.

Q Who was in the group?

A It was Mr. David Miscavige, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Marty Rathbun, Lyman Spurlock, Mark —

THE COURT: It really — I don’t get it yet.

Why I do care how they hire a law firm?

MR. DANDAR: No. This is how they direct the litigation, Judge.

THE COURT: Oh, all right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And was the litigation —

94

THE COURT: Well, I hope they do. They hire the law firm, they’re supposed to be in charge of the litigation, right?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you leave it up to the lawyers to decide how to run the litigation?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Now we are getting into work product as to how it is that the church dealt with their lawyers back in the ’80s.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did the litigation involve RTC, that this group would meet and discuss, or did it involve any organization of Scientology?

A In one instance it did involve RTC. In other instances it involved CSE, such as the Wollersheim case. So you know, it would — depending on the case —

Q Okay. What I’m asking you is it didn’t — it didn’t concern crossing over corporate lines and involving litigation involving different corporations.

A The — the persons that I named that concerned themselves with litigation concerned themselves with all Scientology litigation, despite what corporation or whatever. These were the people that dealt with litigation

95

for Scientology.

Q And there — was there a head of that group?

A Yes.

Q Who?

A David Miscavige.

THE COURT: Are you trying to tell me that David Miscavige is running this lawsuit? Is that what you’re trying to tell me?

MR. DANDAR: Running everything.

THE COURT: Well, I mean in particular are you trying to tell me he’s running this lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, why would I care? I mean, why do I care who’s running the lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: All right. All right.

THE COURT: I mean, this is — this is a motion to determine whether your case should be dismissed.

MR. DANDAR: It’s leading up to this question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You mentioned the Wollersheim case. Can you tell us what activities you personally know about in the Wollersheim case that have anything to do with the destruction of evidence?

A Yes, there is. And I — I’ve done an affidavit about that, and I’m sure it’s filed in this case.

96

But there came a point in time where the judge —

as part of a discovery motion, it was ordered that Lawrence Wollersheim’s PC folders get turned over. I remember during one of these requests — and it looked like it was pretty serious that the judge was going to make them turn over these PC folders — that we had to organize — myself, Vicki Aznaran and other people had to go through the files and redact them by taking out incriminating information, what was considered to be incriminating information against Scientology or anything that could be misunderstood and could then become incriminating. We went through and we redacted files. And then when defense complained and — about the files being redacted and the judge ordered the files just simply turned over straight out, those files were destroyed. They were pulped.

Q What do you mean by pulped?

A They were taken to a paper factory. They were loaded into a — they were shredded, loaded into a solution and turned into a fiber.

THE COURT: Who ordered them destroyed?

THE WITNESS: At the time that I destroyed those documents, the order came to me from Vicki Aznaran, who received it from David Miscavige.

97

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were there — was this a — destruction of evidence — was it pursuant to policy established in the Church of Scientology?

A Well, the old overriding policy in Scientology is to protect Scientology; to make it — you know, protect it in any way and to cultivate it and — of course, something that would harm it —

THE COURT: Where is that written? I mean, everything here in policy is in a document written down somewhere. Where is it?

THE WITNESS: There’s a policy letter called Keeping Scientology Working.

THE COURT: Okay. And that’s in evidence and I have that, so that’s — you’re suggesting that is part of the Keeping Scientology Working —

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: — policy.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Any other policy besides that one?

A Of protecting Scientology, there’s Safeguarding Technology. I believe that’s a HCO policy letter and a bulletin. There’s policies concerning — Well, I — that’s what readily comes to mind. That’s what I mentioned.

98

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: The relevance of this testimony is because you’re going to ask me to believe that Mr. Miscavige directed that the PC folders of Lisa McPherson be destroyed.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Or at least in part be pulped.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are you familiar with —

THE COURT: Pulped. Destroyed in some fashion.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just so the record is clear, we turned over the PC folders.

THE COURT: Well, I understand. But he is testifying, and so did they in the Wollersheim case, that they turned over what they wanted to turn over after all the damaging stuff was taken out and pulped. I’m not saying that’s true; I’m saying that’s the testimony. Maybe it is true. I’m not saying it’s not either.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, in this particular case, Mr. Dandar has used the PC folders he believes affirmatively to indicate it supports his case. I

99

mean, we turned over volumes of PC folders of Lisa McPherson.

THE COURT: I can guarantee you did. If this testimony has any relevance at all, the only relevance it could possibly have is that this witness as an expert is going to tell us that Lisa McPherson’s PC folders are not intact. Is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That was my next question.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q I had you review Lisa McPherson’s PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q And you did that with Stacy Brooks, right?

A Correct. In part, yes.

Q And did you — did you find her 1995 —

Well, actually, you looked at — you did a general review of ’95, ’94 and ’93, correct?

A I believe that’s correct. I mean, I don’t remember. But I certainly did an affidavit that laid out exactly what years I covered and what —

THE COURT: Why don’t you let the man have his affidavit while he’s testifying?

100

BY MR. DANDAR: Q Let me show you the 12-page affidavit dated in this case — April 4th, 2000 —

A Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Next exhibit number.

THE COURT: I think this may be in evidence, but maybe not.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think so.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: 108.

MR. WEINBERG: Affidavit — it’s your new 108.

Is that what it is?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. I — what did I do —

Oh, Judge, let me give you the clerk’s copy. Well, I better give you your copy and I’ll give the witness the clerk’s copy. Then I’ll be left without a copy. Here. Take this one.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Oh, no. This isn’t — I’ve never  seen this before.

MR. WEINBERG: If I’m not mistaken, this is under seal.

THE COURT: Well, really, there isn’t much under seal —

101

Well, this is part of the PC folders.

MR. WEINBERG: I think because of the PC folders.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q First of all, Mr. Prince, you said you were a class 9 auditor in Scientology?

A Correct.

Q You audit people who are members of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, I have.

Q Both staff and public?

A Correct.

Q Of course, you’re not going to tell us what you did in the auditing. I’m not asking that. But who are some of the more famous people you audited?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that. He shouldn’t — I object to him talking about auditing famous — quote, famous people. I mean, the St. Pete Times is here. Has nothing to do with the proceeding. If Mr. Prince has audited  some famous person, what’s that got to do with this proceeding?

THE COURT: Well, you know, the truth of this matter is, I remember seeing something in this lawsuit that was filed that said he audited David Miscavige.

102

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I think that would have some bearing, that Mr. Miscavige would trust — or Mr. Miscavige would trust this man to audit the head of the church.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that’s where Mr. Dandar was going.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think what Mr. Dandar was trying to do was get some famous person’s name, who has been audited, much like a priest gave somebody confession, and just put it out there so that we can read about it tomorrow. And I don’t think that’s appropriate and I don’t think it’s relevant.

THE COURT: Well, you know what I think? That at issue in this particular case is whether Mr. Prince is qualified as an expert, his credentials and everything about it. If he was — I don’t know who picks an auditor, whether he decides who he wants to audit or whether someone hired him — and there weren’t too many when he was there — made that choice. And if they chose him to do a famous person, I would think that showed they had confidence —

MR. WEINBERG: But isn’t that the person’s — I

103

mean, talking about what Mr. Dandar talks about — privacy right, as to — as to who it was that — and when it was that he was talking to a minister of the Church of Scientology —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear anybody say when and I didn’t hear anybody say what they said. What I heard him ask was, who did he audit? I know of no privilege at all —

I mean, are these people not proud to be members of the Church of Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: I think they are, but I think they would prefer that there not be testimony from Mr. Prince, who they don’t have a high regard for, you know, at this point, given —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — given what Mr. Prince has done over the last — whenever it is — four or five or six years —

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s my objection.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

A The fact of the matter is — is as far as Scientology celebrities are concerned, I’ve never audited one. I’ve been a case supervisor for them. I’ve supervised their folders. I’ve reviewed and ordered corrections on

104

their files. But I’ve never audited any Scientology celebrity.

THE COURT: See? Wasn’t that a big bunch of hooey over nothing?

MR. WEINBERG: I guess my question is, why did he ask the question?

THE COURT: I have no idea. But I had to listen a lot longer to him and your objection than I had to listen to him saying no one.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s true.

THE COURT: Is this Number 108, by the way? I can’t read your writing.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: 105? 108. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Who are one of the celebrities you case supervised, Mr. Prince?

THE COURT: I must need a break because I can tell I’m getting cranky. So we’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. We’ll be in recess.

(A recess was taken at 3:30 p.m.)

(The proceedings reconvened at 3:46 p.m.)

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Dandar, continue.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So as a case supervisor, can you give us a couple

105

names of the famous celebrities you case supervised?

A I’ve done case supervision, training exercises, training with John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Karen Black. I don’t know. I mean, there isn’t a one of them that I haven’t, because I specifically ran a project to ensure that the auditing of the celebrities were going well.

Q When was this?

A This was again during the same time period I mentioned before, from I guess 1983 through ’87.

Q Did you audited (sic) Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes. I was his personal auditor for a while.

Q How long?

A Maybe a year, year and a half. Maybe a couple of years.

Q What couple of years was that?

A Oh, I’d say, you know, through ’84, ’85, I audited him; ’86 I audited him. So it’s a longer period of time, actually. Maybe three years.

Q Okay. Did he have other auditors?

A Yes.

Q And he selected you and the other auditors or somehow he gets assigned or rotated or anything like that?

A I was selected to be his auditor by the senior case supervisor international, Ray Mithoff.

Q And were you in RTC at the time?

106

A Yes.

THE COURT: Senior case supervisor, did you say?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am. Yes, your Honor.

Senior case supervisor international.

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay.

THE WITNESS: He would be the highest case supervisor within Scientology.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how was your relationship with Mr. Miscavige until you left in ’87 — I’m sorry — until you left — you changed your post of deputy inspector general?

A Well, shortly after that, there was a big power struggle. And I’ve also certainly written about that and spoke about that. But there was a power struggle in 1987 where I was forcibly removed. However I remained in the Sea Org for five years after that.

Q And of course, Mr. Miscavige was the captain of the Sea Org for those five years, correct?

A Sure.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, at this time I’d like to play a video clip. It’s nine minutes long.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Of Mr. Prince inside Scientology.

107

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a transcript?

MR. DANDAR: There’s no transcript.

This is a copy from a copy from a copy, so it’s not the best quality.

THE COURT: Do the best you can.

MR. DANDAR: Should we dim some lights?

MR. WEINBERG: Can we date this?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, do you know when this speech was given?

A Yes, I do.

Q When?

A It was December 31st, 1986.

Q Okay.

(The videotape, Jesse Prince at New Year’s, 1986, was played as follows:)

THE COURT: 1996?”– discuss expansion, legal victories and acknowledge top contributing members. “Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Next area we wanted to brief you on were the activities and wins from the Religious Technology Center in 1986. As I’m sure you’re all aware, the Religious Technology Center owns the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology, and their job is really

108

to see that Scientology is applied as LRH intended. Keeping Scientology Working. Along with that, they have started new activities, expansion activities at Scientology, opening up new fronts to Scientology, new countries to Scientology, and seeing that not only is the tech applied correctly, but in some instances seeing that it starts being applied for the first time.

“The speaker we have this evening has been in the Religious Technology Center for four years. In fact, he’s a deputy inspector general. Please welcome Commander Jesse Prince.

“Thank you.

“Thank you.

“Well, good evening. And it’s a pleasure to be with you tonight as we welcome in AD37.

“I want to brief you on some of the highlights of 1986 as we made some breakthroughs in the areas of terminating and handling squirreling and the expansion of Scientology and keeping Scientology working, which I think you’ll all find of interest.

“Squirrel groups are by themselves a rather simple thing to handle. As per HCO spec letter of 27 September, 1965, Internal dissension is what tears these splinter groups apart, formed by people

109

who’s overt acts against Scientology prevent case gain. They rapidly rip one another to pieces. So even if one took no action at all because of their own ability to keep ethics in on themselves, these squirrels always disappear.

“But the real key to it is to handle any squirrels and squirreling so that they are terminatedly handled. To do that takes a no-nonsense and a nonapologetic attitude about who and what we are, and an unstoppable dedication to the preservation of the technology.

“This year, the Religious Technology Center undertook several courses of action designed to shut the door forever on squirreling of any kind, whether it is on the upper-level materials of Scientology, the lower levels, against the copyrights, or even the right to license and control of the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology.

“First, as you may remember, in 1985 we won an order from a federal court in Los Angeles that prevented certain squirrels and psychs from using, copying or even having the noisy materials.

“Well, in 1986 we actually took this a step further. This year, the noisy materials were officially copyrighted, and we took this

110

breakthrough to the federal court in this lawsuit. We got a green light — of course, against the squirrels’ protest — to add yet another account to the lawsuit for the squirrels’ violations of our copyrights. Now legally this means the squirrels cannot have any unauthorized originals or copies of our upper-level materials at all without being prosecuted under copyright law. And I assure you that any squirrels committing that crime, abusing our materials, will be prosecuted.

“You see, we take a very hard line with those few ill-intentioned small thetans that would attempt to pervert our tech, as for them, to see others become, or better more able, threatens their tiny little beingness. It’s just that simple.

“The reason we take a very hard line in enforcing our trademarks, copyrights and the purity of the tech and its application was very succinctly stated by LRH in Keeping Scientology Working. And I quote, ‘The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.’

“This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting off the tread now, we may never again

111

have another chance.

“The next area to handle was the area of the lower-level materials, which are also protected by copyright. In both the United Kingdom and Europe we found instances of squirrels who thought that they could get away with copying and using various — various of our lower-level materials. In both cases, these squirrels were sued, and in both cases, the squirrel immediately asked for a settlement on our terms completely.

“Now, the final settlement papers contain some strong language that can be used from this point forward to show that the courts around the world will not put up with attempts to steal, use LRH tech in an unauthorized manner. There is however another side to this battle that is actually very fortunate for us. And that is, in HCO PL, 21 November, 1972, issue 1, LRH states, ‘The basic characteristic of extreme madness is perpetual attack. Attacks on anything. Attacks on persons or things which contain no menace. Extreme, not petty crime, is at the root of such an impulse.’

“You see —

“I’ll say it again: ‘Extreme, not petty crime, is at the root of such an impulse.’

112

“And we have a handling for that. Because this obviously works to our advantage. Many squirrels wound up inside a jail in 1986 and many others are being prosecuted. Their crimes range from robbery to drunken driving and resisting arrest to contempt of court to manufacturing drugs. As we move into the new year, it is important to understand why we will always walk away winners and why our enemies will ultimately end up the losers.

“In 1965, LRH explained this. He said, ‘The basic purpose of orgs is to implement Scientology. Scientology is prior to purposes. Explaining them and handling them, it is of course senior to all purposes and indeed the universe. It simply is life. And being life itself, it has a far greater power than any activity, depending upon purpose alone. That is why people are so happy with it and why groups founded on mere purposes are quite afraid of Scientology. For it is unconsciously realized that life itself, alone, can make and unmake purposes and rise superior to all formulas and actions.'”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, in that video you said something about having settlements with people, and they — they — they beg

113

or they want to settle. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q What did you mean by that?

A Well, I can really only relate that to specific examples.

There was a — a person named Robert Scott who put on a Navy uniform — who put on a Navy uniform similar to the Navy uniforms that were used by Scientology at the time, walked into its top organization in AOSEU — AOSHEU. I hate to keep saying that. But he walked in there, and he demanded a copy of NED 4 OTs so he could use that to review folders, and he took this material and he walked out the door. One thing that I did in my department was to arrange for someone in Denmark, who seemingly wanted to pay a high price for these materials — arranged for him to negotiate a price with that person, and then to fly over to Denmark with a copy of the materials to exchange for money, when in fact what had been set up was, the instant he got off the airplane, to be arrested. And years later, I went back to his house and threatened him even more on that particular issue after he was — got out of jail — I think he was in there for a month — and basically just let him know that we intended on taking everything that he had, and his only salvation was to

114

cooperate with us.

Q Did he cooperate with you?

A Eventually he did, yes.

Q And did you — in what manner did he cooperate with you?

A He — I think even in my own hand I may have gotten him to sign something, because I think he had a countersuit. And I’m just doing this from memory, of course. My former colleagues will be able to provide more information. But he had a counterclaim, I believe. I got him to agree to drop the counterclaim. I agreed with him to drop our lawsuit against him if he listed for us everyone that the materials went to, gave us all copies. And he had a castle called Kendegrade Castle in Scotland.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

A But we were in Scotland at the time, and he had this magnificent castle, and I told him he would certainly lose the castle as part of these negotiations, because there was some financial consideration as well in the settlement.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did he lose the castle?

A Yes.

Q Did the Church of Scientology take it?

115

A I think the castle was sold and they may have gotten money from it.

Q Have you ever been involved in any operation where the Church of Scientology went after attorneys?

A Yes. I’ve been in a couple of instances of that.

My first memory of it happening, again, was in the Wollersheim case. This is during the period of time where I’m kind of being broken in. I’m kind of cutting my teeth on these areas. While I was talking with Marty — I was in a room with Marty and Dave and Vicki, and we were just kind of laughing and talking. And Marty mentioned that Charles O’Reilly — they had followed him to some club after a hearing or something. And I guess they were having drinks and a meal. And a private investigator by the name Gene Ingram apparently had hired a thug or somebody to physically beat up the attorney there, Charles O’Reilly.

Gary Bright, who was an attorney, I think, on — on one of the Wollersheim cases — we had a deep cover in the Advance Ability Center, which was located in Santa Barbara. He would come there to have meetings with his client. And our deep cover was also a trusted person by the client, so that person would have privileged information. That person was the senior SCS international’s brother, Bob Mithoff, who was a deep cover. There were actually three deep covers that we had in there, Bob being the most effective and the most trusted. And privileged information would be taken, financial information would be taken, legal strategies would be known and, you know, used  against them.

Q You’re talking about Mr. Wollersheim, is that right?

A In this last instance, yes, that’s right, the Wollersheim.

Q Okay. Any other attorneys or any other cases that you personally have knowledge of while you were inside the  Church of Scientology?

A You know, I don’t remember anything specific, but I do know that part of it would be to always create complaints that could be submitted to the bar against opposing counsel.

Q Do you have personal knowledge about that?

A You know, I’m going to say, as I sit here today, that I don’t remember specifically who the attorney was or —

Q All right.

A I can’t say that.

THE COURT: In your video you kept referring to the term — which is — happens to be new to this hearing — which is squirrel group and squirreling.

What is that?

117

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, squirreling is a term created by L. Ron Hubbard to mean that anyone that is using Scientology in an unauthorized matter (sic) and is also not using it strictly as it is written.

THE COURT: It could be somebody within or without.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So someone using the tech, is that it; someone using the tech improperly?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Rather than mark all this as separate exhibits, your Honor, I’d like to mark the next document as a composite so it would speed things up.

What number would that be? 109?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Handing the witness the clerk’s copy, Plaintiff’s 109.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify the first page of 109, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I can. This is HCO executive letter written  in 1966. Apparently parts of it were written by a person named Kathy and the other author is L. Ron Hubbard.

118

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

AThis is an intelligence operation that is done to discourage; to harass and discourage. An example — they give a pretty clear example I  think right here.

But another example of that could be to go around to a person’s neighbors, past business associates, ex-girlfriends, anyone that would have a bone to pick, and make allegations about the person, and ask them, “Well, did you know that he stole the blue ball on the 17th of whatever, and he — he’s doing this, and he’s really a bad person; and do you know anything he’s done?” And an investigator will systematically go through persons associated with the target to create this air of alarm and hysteria, basically.

Q When you were the deputy inspector general, receiving reports from OSA intelligence, do you know — did you see reports on noisy investigations of people opposed by Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And — now, this is an HCO executive letter, 1966. Was that still being practiced when you were deputy inspector general?

A Everything that is written by L. Ron Hubbard and is actually in a published form. Like this is a timeless

119

piece to be followed for eternity. So it’s kind of like the Bible, you know? The Bible was written a couple of thousand years ago but people still stick to that.

In that regard and only in that regard is there a  similarity in that these things are held sacred and forever.

Q Did you observe any noisy investigation of Bob Minton?

A Yes.

Q What — give us some examples.

A Well, the most vivid one that comes to mind is an operation that was done on his best friend, Jeff Schmidt, who he had apparently started a company with. Scientology found out about Jeff Schmidt through its investigation of Bob Minton.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: How do you know about this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I was there and I spoke with Jeff Schmidt and Robert Minton. We were in the financial district in London. And he made it very clear to me what Scientology had done. And he was in the process of packing up his office to move out of the country.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. It — it is hearsay. You’re right. It’s hearsay. But for the purpose of this hearing, I’m going to allow —

120

there’s a lot of hearsay in this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: I know. I just — you know, you —

THE COURT: Right. And it is hearsay, and it’ll be taken as hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And Jeff Schmidt was Bob Minton’s business partner?

A Correct.

Q And what happened to him?

A He eventually disassociated himself from Bob Minton from fear of losing his business practice. He basically couldn’t stand a threat –What he told me specifically is that a Scientology investigator came to him and asked him to either provide or show them how to create information to get Bob Minton; in other words, to get him in legally, to get him involved in law enforcement, on the bad end of law enforcement. And Jeff Schmidt said that he was refusing to do it, and had had many negotiations with this private investigator. Finally his office was broken into and materials were taken out of the office, and at that point, that’s when Bob and I flew over there to discuss, “Well, okay. What was taken? What does this mean? What can be done?”

Q Do you know where that information ended up?

121

A I do not.

Q Did Jeff Schmidt — was he Mr. Minton’s partner in the Nigerian deal?

A Yes, he was, along with a person, I think, named Miselan (phonetic).

Q And do you know if they made a little bit of money on that deal, or a lot?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I mean, again, Mr. Prince is now being asked what Mr. Minton made on the Nigerian deal, based on a conversation, apparently, with Mr. Minton’s former partner. I  mean —

THE COURT: And Mr. Minton.

MR. WEINBERG: And/or Mr. Minton.

He had the opportunity to ask Mr. Minton this stuff if he wanted to.

MR. DANDAR: And I believe Mr. Minton — well —

MR. WEINBERG: No, he didn’t. He said he didn’t think he did anything wrong in Nigeria.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Just —

A Mr. Minton never disclosed to me the exact figure of how much money he made from doing the debt buyback for the government of Nigeria.

122

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did Mr. Minton go to Howard University and explain to the Nigerian professors and students about what his Nigerian buyback program was all about?

A Yes. This was again a private investigator working on behalf of Scientology in Nigeria, started spreading this idea that something illegal had happened in the debt buyback; that somehow Bob had absconded with maybe a billion dollars or some other thing, or some other crooked regime. And they used a soccer star, John Fashanu. Feds — the — the investigator said this to Fashanu. Fashanu then used his connections. And he was paid to go  around doing this noisy investigation stuff, by, number one, spreading false allegations, allegations that couldn’t be proven.

And this finally culminated — I met with a government official from Nigeria in Leipzig, Germany — I guess it was in 2001. I guess it was in 2001. And it was decided at that point that John Fashanu and his people would show up at Howard University in D.C. and we would debate this and Bob would explain to all concerned, Howard professional students and Howard professors who were familiar with the economic scene in Nigeria — I guess some people were upset about that because there is some

123

criminality over there.

But we set it up to be in a hall in Washington, D.C. And strangely enough, John Fashanu never showed up. But I sat in a meeting with those Nigerian people at that university for many hours as Bob went through a stack of paper like this, showing them exactly how the deal was done, who was involved, how much debt buyback they did; what was their percentage of the company; how that was split. I mean, he took the time to go through this very painstakingly —

THE COURT: This must be — this must have been videotaped by Mr. Bunker, is that true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: Because it’s all on videotape and it’s all going to be turned over pursuant to the court order. If you want a copy of it, you can get it. You can get it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q My question is, did the false allegations against Mr. Minton by Scientology on the Nigerian deal — how did Mr. Minton react to those allegations?

A He was very disturbed by it, greatly upset. He was upset over the fact that he had — was in the process of losing his best, best friend, who he had been in business with many years, Jeff Selman (sic), who was afraid of  Scientology’s power and influence.

Q Wait a minute. Jeff Selman?

A Jeff —

Q Schmidt.

A — Schmidt.

I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m talking too fast. He was very upset about that. He was very upset about them contacting his other partner in South Africa whose name was Selman. And Bob Minton was disturbed over the fact that he knew that there was corruption itself in Nigeria, and if you paid enough money around, you could kind of get any kind of trouble started you wanted.

Q Are you aware of any kind of trouble that was started with Nigeria in reference to the Swiss government?

A I know that certain allegations were brought in Nigeria. And the private investigator working on Scientology’s behalf did go to Switzerland, talked to prosecutors, talked to law enforcement, and to use whatever sway or ability that they had to try to get charges brought against Bob in —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just identify the source of your information?

THE WITNESS: Of which — which —

MR. WEINBERG: You just said that investigators and all this did this in Switzerland. And I just

125

would — I ask, your Honor, for the source of it.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. Bob Minton.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did Bob Minton —

THE COURT: It’s all in Stacy Brooks’ time line.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: I know.

THE COURT: I mean, it’s all in evidence already.

MR. DANDAR: But this man’s under oath.

THE COURT: Yeah. I know. And that’s why I’m allowing it. I mean, it’s all in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did Mr. Minton — how did he react to a private investigator making contact with the Swiss prosecutor?

A He was shocked. He — his — his — you know, I think Mr. Minton approached at least some of his dealings with Scientology in a bit of a naive way. He couldn’t conceptualize the fact that this could possibly happen to him. He couldn’t conceptualize that somehow he would be fighting for his credibility, his standing in the different countries and communities that he had done successful business with, to now have to go back and — and kind of

126

resolve things all over again.

Q What period of time was it when you or Mr. Minton first realized that there was a private investigator contacting the Swiss prosecutors?

A You know, from my recollection, I remember maybe late 2000, 2001, early 2001, there was an incident where the prosecutors in Switzerland had been contacted. Bob hired an attorney or whoever to represent himself. The situation was sorted out. But then it came up again.

Q When?

A I think this is after the Howard University — either shortly before or right after, to the best of my recollection.

Q Is that 2001?

A Yes.

Q And was there anything else besides the Nigerian and the Swiss prosecutors — was there anything else that came to your attention concerning Bob Minton being — having a noisy investigation done of him by Scientology?

A Yes. There’s another instances of it. Bob had a interest or stock or something in a car dealership. I believe it was in Boston. And Scientology investigators went around and spoke to the principals at the car dealership. And at the end of that, they no longer wanted to do business with Mr. Minton. They didn’t feel

127

like it was safe. It was putting the company in jeopardy to have investigators running around making these sorts of allegations. And so he lost that business venture.

Q That was a Lexus dealership, correct?

A Correct.

Q It wasn’t some old used car lot on the corner.

A No.

MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, is all this based on conversations with Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how did Mr. Minton feel about losing his partnership in a Lexus dealership in New England?

A He just broke down and cried. He was like, how is it possible to live in a country like America and not be able to stop this, to turn this off in some way?

Q What about any other noisy investigations?

A I guess they went to his mother’s house and basically told his mother that he’s crazy and needed to be incarcerated, and to somehow get the family together to try to get some kind of incarceration going, or at least get that idea going something was seriously wrong with Bob.

Q Did you know that Mr. Minton’s father had placed him, I think when he was 16, for a few days in a mental institution of some kind?

128

A Yes. He — he told me about that.

Q So how did Mr. Minton react to Scientology going to his mother and trying to get her and the family to put Mr. Minton incarcerated in a mental institution?

A He was very upset about that. He was — his viewpoint was, you know, “If they don’t like me, then talk to me, but don’t go to my family.” You know, I guess his mother’s in a rest home. She’s actually quite old and would probably never understand these things if you explained it to her for 10 years. And he didn’t see the — it was just pure harassment, intimidation.

Q Did he just get mad about it or did he get excited about it or did he get depressed about it?

A Well, Bob would consult attorneys. He would — I mean, I’ve met almost as many attorneys with Bob as I did with Scientology. I mean, it was always having — Helen Dorr (phonetic), when he would go up there, “This is what they’ve done now. They’ve gone to my mother. They’ve done this. They’ve done that. Is there anything else I can do? Can law enforcement somehow become involved? Will someone open up an investigation to –” and of course, nothing.

So Bob’s answer to do something was to picket.He’s like, “Okay. They keep doing this stuff, they want to do this stuff, I’m going to picket. I’m going to picket. I’m going to make a sign.” Because that was his last line

129

of defense. That was the last thing that he could legally do to say, “Hey, look, I don’t like what you’re doing and I’m showing it.”

Q Did Bob Minton — how long have you known Bob Minton?

A Since the summer of 1998.

Q Okay. Since the summer of 1998 until today, has Bob Minton ever picketed and told you or anyone in your hearing, “Let’s go picket so we can help Ken Dandar win the  Lisa McPherson death case”?

A No. Bob — no. When he — a lot of — often –more often than not when he would get on these things that he wanted to picket, it was in response to something that was specifically — that he perceived was being done against him by Scientology.

Q How did Bob Minton react when his daughters were followed back to or from school in boston?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form of the question. Mr. Dandar is testifying.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DANDAR: Sustained. I agree with that, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, good. I’m glad you do.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you ever hear about Bob Minton expressing any

130

statement concerning his daughters being followed?

A Yes. He told me that his — his daughters and his wife had gone out, I think, to the theater or something or — or some school event or something, and they were followed. And when they came home, their neighborhood was papered with fliers that were distributed about him having some —

THE COURT: You know, I’m wondering why we are hearing this hearsay. A lot of this just confirms what Mr. Minton has already testified to.

MR. DANDAR: Oh, Mr. Minton said he would just get angry; he wasn’t afraid; he wasn’t concerned; he wasn’t depressed.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, how he responded — we don’t need to have Mr. Prince relate what Mr. Minton has already related.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did Mr. Minton respond —

THE COURT: At least I don’t think. Now, obviously, you can bring in hearsay for impeachment if Mr. Minton told him something different from what he said in court.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what —

THE COURT: But I think much of what we’ve gone

131

over here is stuff that Mr. Minton has said the same thing.

MR. DANDAR: My intention is to see if there’s something different, what he told Mr. Prince compared to what he told you.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: And I’m trying to — I’ll do it quicker, though.

THE COURT: Well, I hope you know — and if, you know, you don’t really have to let me hear it all. Just let me hear what’s different if there is anything different.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Did Mr. Minton express to you that he was concerned when his one daughter was followed to a girlfriend’s house in Long Island?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the same objection.

A Yes, he did.

MR. WEINBERG: He’s testifying again. You know, “When — such — such and such happened.” I mean, that’s just testifying.

MR. DANDAR: I’m trying to make it a little faster.

THE COURT: Yeah. I’m going to —

MR. WEINBERG: He can ask him what his reaction

132

was to whatever it was that he told you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Well, then, I’ll ask more questions so this will go longer. But okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you about his daughter being followed to Long Island?

A Yes, he did.

Q And how did Mr. Minton — did he tell you how — what he thought about that?

A He — he called me on the phone and he said, “Jesse, you won’t believe what they’re doing now. They’re going after my daughters.” “Oh. What happened?” “Well, she was followed,” or, “They papered the neighborhood,” or, you know, “They’re passing leaflets out. They’re talking to their friends,” his daughter’s associates, parents, or different people, you know, and just kind of doing their noisy investigation. And this was apparently quite upsetting to his wife, Therese, who would always — Bob said she would ask, “Well, what are you going to do about it? Well, this can’t happen. How do you make this stop?”

Q So —

A So he had a lot of pressure.

Q Okay. Did he ever — after all of these noisy investigations, did Bob Minton ever appear to you to be a tough guy about it or not a tough guy?

133

A Well, in the beginning he seemed to be quite a tough guy. But as it — as it progressed — I mean, that — that time track that was submitted as an — as an exhibit, those were instances where we actually could find some type of documentation that proved what the time track said.

There are many instances where things happened where we couldn’t have or find the documentation. So for anyone to — to have that much done to them, I mean, even in my time I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy an individual.

Q That time line, did you help put it together?

A I — I have — yes, I did.

Q Okay. And have you read the entire time line?

A I’m sure I have at some point.

Q And when you read the time line, was it accurate?

A Yes, it was.

Q Now, go back to Exhibit 109 —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that. Accurate based on conversations with somebody? He just said this time line, which we all know was —

THE COURT: Very, very thick.

MR. WEINBERG: — exaggerated —

THE COURT: Yeah. Most of that would have been through hearsay information.

134

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was it — was it accurate through what Mr. Minton told you?

A Well — well, again, I will just state for the record that the information that was put in that time line was information that could be substantiated in other ways. So there is many things that couldn’t be substantiated. Therefore, it’s not there. But everything that was there, the intent was to be able to substantiate everything there with documentation.

Q So Mr. Minton told you there are more things that happened to him that are not in the time line?

A Sure. I mean, and I’ve witnessed it myself.

Q Like what?

A One time he invited me to New Hampshire — I think it was maybe the 4th of July. The 4th of July. We were up there; myself, Mr. Minton, his wife, Therese, his children. We were having a barbecue in the back. Scientologists came in their cars, started picketing and screaming from the road, “Where’s Stacy?” You know, this is one thing that they really liked to do; tell — make sure that Bob’s wife knew that he was having an affair with Stacy Brooks.

Q Well, she knew, didn’t she?

A Yes, she did.

Q So they’re yelling this in front of the children.

135

A Correct.

Q What else would they yell besides, “Where’s Stacy?”

A That he was crazy.

There came a point in time where somehow they were able to get some of his psychiatric information from his psychiatrists and speak to him about that. And I mean at first Mr. Minton was just amazed that these could even happen; that it was even possible for an organization or an  individual or any — for this to be able to happen to a citizen in America. But then again, as time went on, he wore down more and more and more, I guess. The threat became — I mean, he was just spending so much money defending himself in, you know, three or four countries at one time.

Q Now, let me — since you mentioned psychiatric records, let me jump — let me jump to August — well, June — August of 2001. Do you recall Mr. Minton being upset about records that were put on the Internet, with his wife, his children and himself?

A Yes.

Q What type of records?

A His counseling records from seeing a psychiatrist; I guess information about what kind of medication he had been taking and this kind of thing.

136

Q And did you talk to him about that?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was he scheduled to appear in a deposition in Clearwater the next day?

A I think we’re talking about two separate incidents.

Q Okay. Which one are you talking about?

A Something that preceded the hearing that had to happen in Clearwater.

Q Okay. I’m talking about a deposition —

A Okay.

Q — all right?

Are you aware that he was ordered to appear, in the breach case in Clearwater, for deposition taken by Mr. Rosen?

A Yes.

Q All right. Are you aware that he did — he failed to appear?

A Yes.

Q All right. Did he tell you why he failed to appear?

A Yes, he did.

Q And what did he say?

A Mr. Minton didn’t have a lot of confidence in the justice system as it was being administered in Florida here.

137

He felt that as far as discovery was concerned, that they were able to pretty much get away with murder. And he knew that Scientology was not going to stop until he was completely eliminated as an — as an individual. I mean, part of their policy is to, if possible, of course, ruin the person utterly.

THE COURT: Was he concerned —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor?

THE COURT: — about that or was he concerned about the fact that the discovery was going to uncover the fact that he had illegal — or he had bank accounts outside of this country and money that was coming into this country that he wasn’t paying taxes on?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, he may have had that as a consideration, but it wasn’t anything that I was personally aware of.

THE COURT: Well, what was it about the fact that the church was going to find this out or that the fact that the — that the courts were allowing the church to pursue discovery based on their allegations in the counterclaim that had Mr. Minton so upset?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Minton said that he felt that if he came to Florida, that he was going to go to

138

jail. He had been being told that he was going to jail. He — he —

THE COURT: It was because he was the one that was thumbing his nose at the justice system in the state of Florida, wasn’t it?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: It’s because he was the one coming down here and saying that — he was just acting like a jerk in his discovery depositions, flaunting himself at the justice system, taking the Fifth Amendment when he’d already published it on the Internet, and expecting, I suppose, that we were so stupid that we wouldn’t know enough that he’d waived it. And then, of course, when the judges said that he had indeed waived it and he could no longer hide behind the Fifth Amendment, that he started getting real worried, didn’t he?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: He became —

THE COURT: Because the church and therefore the courts were going to get pretty knowledgeable about what he had, moneywise —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: — overseas.

139

THE WITNESS: Correct. And here in the United States.

He was concerned that if Scientology was allowed to have access to his different bank accounts, that he would end up fighting another war with Scientology as he did with the John Fashanu  fiasco, and he was just tired of it.

THE COURT: Did he talk to you about — it wasn’t any — it wasn’t any secret, was it, that Mr. Minton was a multi-millionaire?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Everybody knew that.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: He doled out millions of dollars to fight Scientology.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Came into court pretty proud, throwing out over $10 million. And everybody knew that, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, I didn’t know that it had been that much, your Honor, myself.

THE COURT: Okay. But I mean, he had doled out —

THE WITNESS: Millions.

THE COURT: — millions.

140

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And everybody knew he had doled out millions.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So the fact that this Church of Scientology was getting ready to find out that he had doled out millions —

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there’s another aspect to this, your Honor. And the aspect is this: Bob Minton, in his mind, always tried to keep his family separate from his activities. He was ready to exhaust every personal resource that he had for himself to keep the fight going, but he was not willing to risk that for his wife and his children.

And so when the wife and children became a factor I guess something happened.

THE COURT: I don’t have any qualms about your talking about the fact that Mr. Minton was upset about his medical records being put on the Internet; I don’t have any qualms about your saying Mr. Minton was upset about his children being followed, about his business associates being contacted and what have you. I have no doubt that he was upset about that and what have you.

But as far as his being upset with the justice

141

system in the state of Florida, the reason I’m upset about that is because Mr. Minton himself is what caused many of his own problems, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: And then when it looked like they were going to find out some stuff that was really going to get him in a problem, then he had a problem with the justice system.

THE WITNESS: I assume that, yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he ever —

THE COURT: But before he had problems with the justice system, he was plenty happy to play with it,  jerk us around, come when he felt like it, answer what questions he felt like, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Until people in the justice system here in the state of Florida said, “Bob Minton, you’re not going to play with our justice system here. We’re in charge,” right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That caused him a great deal of concern.

THE WITNESS: And I guess that he was mainly concerned because he knew that he would not answer

142

specific questions. And he felt that if he came into court and he was asked those questions that he had made a conviction that he wasn’t going to answer, that he wasn’t going to answer them anyway, and he was just going to go to jail.

THE COURT: And he could rest assured on that; that if this court or any other court that I’m aware of in my circuit told him to answer a question and he said no, he would have gone to jail until he answered it. And there is no question about that. And I am sure that any inquiry that Mr. Minton asked, he was told that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: No wonder he was upset with the justice system here, the way — and the games that he was playing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he talk to you about trying to figure out a way not to come to court when he was ordered to appear for deposition?

A I think I may have had that conversation with Stacy Brooks.

Q Okay. What did she tell you? ‘Cause she’s also a

143

witness in this case.

A She told me that —

MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, I’m objecting to hearsay, but — I understand what the judge’s rulings have been, but at this —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: All this testimony is hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What did she tell you?

A She told me that Bob was extremely upset; that he was kind of in a — a state — a mental state like — I don’t know — having a breakdown of some sort, and she wanted him to go see a professional. I guess something had happened at that time where the — again, something happened with the children when he was supposed to come down. I think the neighborhood got leafletted again or something happened with the kids again. And the questions themselves, that he became very distraught. Stacy mentioned having him go see a professional, a psychologist or a psychiatrist or something, and he — he didn’t really want to do that. He didn’t want to do that. So — so that was Stacy’s angle of, like, “Okay, well, we need to get him to a professional and get him excused from coming to the deposition.”

144

Q And did Diane Palermo’s name come up in that conversation?

A Yes, it did.

Q And was Diane Palermo, as far as you know, a mental health therapist?

A No, she is not.

Q What is she?

A As far as I knew, a social worker.

Q And was she ever Mr. Minton’s social worker?

A Not that I’m aware of. I kind of doubt it.

Q And are you aware, from speaking with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks, what Stacy Brooks had tried to get Diane Palermo to do?

A Yes. Stacy Brooks tried to get Diane Palermo to do some kind of an analysis of Bob Minton’s mental state and — and give him advice that would preclude him from coming to the deposition.

Q And did Diane Palermo agree to do that?

A No. Not at all.

Q And so what did Stacy Brooks do next to try to get an excuse —

THE COURT: I know the answer to that and so does everybody in this courtroom. We don’t need to hear it again.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

145

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: This is in Stacy Brooks’ affidavit?

MR. DANDAR: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Is it in Stacy Brooks’ affidavit?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t think it’s in there. Not this way.

MR. WEINBERG: She testified about it and Mr. Minton testified about it. I think it’s all over the place.

MR. DANDAR: They’re calling her a mental health therapist who told him not to travel.

THE COURT: You already got that out. He said she’s not a mental health therapist.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But Stacy Brooks filed something before Judge Baird.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, she did. That affidavit.

THE COURT: That affidavit is what I’m talking about. God, I know this case good, don’t I?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, you do.

MR. WEINBERG: Better than —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you see that Stacy Brooks affidavit about trying to make an excuse for Mr. Minton?

146

A No, sir. I did not.

Q Okay. Do you know that Stacy Brooks called Steve Hassan?

A Steve Hassan? Yes.

Q And tried to get him to write an excuse letter?

A Yes.

Q Even though he’s never talked to Bob Minton about —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Again, this is all based on conversations with Stacy Brooks. I mean, we’re —

THE COURT: But this is kind of impeachment, so this is what you got to do. In other words, if Stacy Brooks comes in to court and says one thing in front of me and this — she’s told something different to this man —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think she told anything different —

THE COURT: Yes, she did, about that.

MR. WEINBERG: About —

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did she ask Steve Hassan to write a letter?

A She asked Steve Hassan to become involved, and he

147

declined, based on the fact that Bob was not a patient of his. Bob — they had no prior history or discussions about — you know, Bob hadn’t mentioned to him about anything. And of course I think it was kind of obvious that this was a last-ditch effort to — for Bob not to come down for the deposition.

Q But Bob Minton in truth was really, really emotionally upset about what he saw on the Internet.

A Yes. He was crying —

THE COURT: Bob Minton didn’t come down for the deposition, did he?

THE WITNESS: I don’t believe he did. No, he didn’t.

THE COURT: Then I guess —

THE WITNESS: No. He went to the hospital because he —

Okay. Now — okay. I’m remembering this.

THE COURT: Isn’t this what Judge Baird found him in contempt for?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Why Lord have mercy, why a judge, why, imagine that; this justice system, when Mr. Minton flaunted a demand and a command and an order from a court to come here and he didn’t come, I guess he had every right to be upset at our system

148

of justice because some judge took great offense and held him in contempt. Dear, dear.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Let me — let me go and look at Exhibit 109 —

A But you know, Bob ended up going to the hospital. He was — he started having chest pains or something, and he was in the hospital for a couple three days —

Q Okay.

A — under observation by a doctor. And I do believe that on the day that he was supposed to appear for contempt that he was in the hospital.

Q All right. Let me have you look back at 109 again.

A Okay.

Q You identified the first page. What about the second page entitled —

A — Intelligence Actions.

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with that?

A Yes, I am.

This is kind of a routine that happens in intelligence in Scientology on any — anything that’s a threat or — or an attack on Scientology. This policy kind

149

of comes into play, where you investigate, you do your ODC, overt data collection; CDC, covert data collection. You do your noisy investigation. You find some skeleton. And if you can’t find it, you manufacture something. And you use that to sue for peace.

Q Is there something in here that talks about manufacturing a skeleton if you can’t find it?

A Not in this particular one. But you were — I think the one that you’re referring to, as far as manufacturing information against an individual, would lie in the department of government affairs for which you just have one page of.

Q Yeah. I see we’ve got two pages of the same thing.

A Yeah. But if I turn one — two pages back and I go to what’s listed here —

THE WITNESS: And I think it’s very hard to see, your Honor. It goes from page 484 in this statement packet — two pages away from government affairs —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Government affairs —

Wait. Let me just correct it now.

A No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

150

Q All right.

THE COURT: Isn’t this something; they’re just fussing with each other?

MR. DANDAR: You can see we rehearsed all this.

THE WITNESS: See, I’ll show you. Okay. I’ll  find it for you.

THE COURT: You find it.

THE WITNESS: I’ll find it for you.

Here’s the department of government affairs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this is page 483. And then this is put in there and this is put in there. But then we get back to page 484, where it says right here,

“If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.”

THE COURT: Okay. This is page —

This is not in order, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to fix it. I’d like to fix it now.

THE COURT: Well, maybe you could fix it before you introduce it.

MR. DANDAR: I will.

THE COURT: If there is going to be Exhibit 409

151

(sic), you better have this 409-A, B —

MR. DANDAR: 109.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. 109.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what I’ll do. I’ll label them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I can see where the extra pages —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m lost.

THE COURT: It’s page 484, which is not after page 483. It’s about four pages back.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: It says, if you will look —

Well, where was that?

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit 4 is in there twice.

THE WITNESS: Let me see. It’s in the third paragraph.

THE COURT: Show me where you’re reading from.

MR. WEINBERG: I see it. It’s the third paragraph.

THE COURT: Okay.

“If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.”

What is this?

THE WITNESS: This is a policy letter, your

152

Honor. This is a church policy letter that is a policy letter for the department of government affairs, which is a department or a section or a unit within the Scientology organization, that basically talks about — you know, things having to do with tax matters, legal activities, whatever, for an organization.

THE COURT: What does the term “sue for peace” mean?

THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means basically that a person just wants to end what’s-ever happening and let’s just settle it and all walk away as happy as possible.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Like a disengagement?

A Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ve marked mine, and I’d like to mark the clerk’s copy with the letters.

THE WITNESS: And you see we — I think — I can help you put this in order here, because you got the pages —

MR. WEINBERG: What I did was I eliminated the — the Intelligence Action, second page, it looked like the same thing that was —

THE COURT: Yeah. The second Intelligence

153

Actions, right?

MR. WEINBERG: I threw that one out. They were the same as the first one. And then I reordered, what you did, 483, 484, 485. And I assume everything else is the same.

THE WITNESS: I’ve — so this is the whole document right there, these three pages.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Look at the next part, where it’s previously marked in another deposition, as Exhibit 6, about “make sure that’s all in order.”

A Okay.

Q First of all, do you identify that document?

A Yes. This is also a document that’s relevant to PR, legal intelligence.

Q And what is that called?

A Public Investigations Section.

Q Public investigation.

A Correct.

Q What’s that?

A This would be investigating individuals outside of Scientology using outside agencies. I have to take a moment to look at this.

Q All right.

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what. This looks

154

like something too long to read here to have any meaningful talk. Let’s quit for the day. I’m tired.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m tired.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: It’s quarter to 5. If you will read this over tonight, and we’ll continue on. In the meantime, have these marked by the clerk as 109-A, B, C, D, so we know what you’re referring to.

THE WITNESS: Okay. And I have — I have the clerk’s copies here.

THE COURT: Okay. If you’ll — do you have a copy for your witness to look at?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, while you are on the witness stand, you are in rather a unique position. You not only are under the rule, which means that you can’t talk to any other witness about your testimony —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — nor can they talk to you about theirs, but while you are on the witness stand, you are not permitted to speak to anyone about the case, including Mr. Dandar or counsel for the other side,

155

all right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Now, I may, if I’m gone and Mr. Prince isn’t done and I’m gone for two weeks, let him out from under that, just like I did other people when it was going to be, like, long weekends or what have you. But not for tonight.

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: And I really think, Mr. Dandar, that you ought to be able to get through this a little faster. We don’t need — you can go quickly through those things that your experts have already testified to. And I presume his testimony would be the same.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

I’m going to go through the PC folders and –which is I gave him that affidavit that you haven’t seen apparently before.

THE WITNESS: But this is the clerk’s. This has to go back to her.

MR. DANDAR: And I’ll show him that as well.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit 108.

And then we’re going to talk about Mr. Minton, the LMT, and what transpired in 2002.

156

THE COURT: You’re never going to finish tomorrow, I’ll bet you, but —

MR. WEINBERG: Plus he’s got Mr. Haney set in the morning.

MR. DANDAR: I have Mr. Haney in the morning.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: So we’re obviously not going to.

MR. DANDAR: And he should be short.

MR. WEINBERG: But I will not necessarily be brief with Mr. Prince, but I don’t know yet.

THE COURT: Well, it doesn’t really matter. I don’t think he’s going to be brief either.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Because we’ve got a lot of ground to cover with Mr. Prince. And frankly, we’re not to any of the issues.

MR. WEINBERG: No.

THE COURT: But thank you, sir. You may step down, remembering the rule I just gave you about while you’re a witness on the stand.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: If you will remind me Wednesday afternoon when we break for over two weeks,  Mr. Dandar, better yet — I shouldn’t have to rely on this witness — if you will remind me, since he

157

is an expert of yours or a consulting witness or whatever he is, I may allow you to have some discussions with him since we’re going to be in recess on this hearing for two weeks.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: But you’re going to have to remind me so I can decide that.

MR. WEINBERG: We would like to speak to that particular issue.

THE COURT: Okay.

(An overnight recess was taken at 4:50 p.m.)

158

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )

COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 19th day of June, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes