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


CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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




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

CONTENTS:   Testimony of Jesse Prince.1


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



5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

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


THE COURT: You may be seated.

All right. Mr. Weinberg, you may continue.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, your Honor.


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.


MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 229.

And this one would be 230, right?


MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 230.



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.


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



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?


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.




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.


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.


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 —


THE COURT: Break that down.

A My signature isn’t on here, by the way, as a director on these bylaws.


But these bylaws are signed by Steven Marlowe, Laura Marlowe and someone else.


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.


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


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.



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.


THE COURT: So I assume — that would have been what somebody else might have said, but he disagrees with that.



Q Now, you testified on direct that as soon as — as it became known that you were now going to work against


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.


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.


Q That is 232.

A Okay.


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?


A Correct.

Q And that is Exhibit —

MR. WEINBERG: What did I say? The lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: 232.


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.


Q I mean, you were asking the Court to declare that the release did not prohibit you from testifying?


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.


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.


THE COURT: All this long tenure. But if you


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.


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.


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



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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


Q Do you have one, Mr. Prince?


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 —


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?



MR. WEINBERG: Then we won’t have —

THE COURT: That will be plaintiff’s next in order.


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: It is already in?


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


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.



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.


Q You were not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in 1995.


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.



Q Now, yet you opined in your affidavit —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me one second. (Short pause.)



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


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.


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?


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.


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 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.



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.


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 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.


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


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 COURT: — other than on a terminally ill person.


THE COURT: So the long and short of it is you really didn’t have any experience for these particular serious allegations, did you?


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.




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


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


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.


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.


A You know —


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.


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,


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.


MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 31.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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?


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.


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 COURT: All right.


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


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?


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 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?


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 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?


THE COURT: So it will be received.

MR. WEINBERG: Then — where is the motion? Do


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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?


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.



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.


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.


Q Look at that page. That is an E-Mail you sent to Mr. Minton. Correct?


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


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 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 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 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


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?


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?



MR. DANDAR: 235.

THE COURT: 235. Thank you.


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


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.”


MR. WEINBERG: The affidavit, you know, had already been done, apparently.


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 —


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?


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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



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 WITNESS: But you are asking the wrong person. I told you I have never seen this —


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



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.




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 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?



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.


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


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.)



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.


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.


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: 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.


MR. DANDAR: Do I get a copy?




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?




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.


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.


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.


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?


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


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.


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.


Q Now, let me show you —

THE WITNESS: Very beautiful, though.


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.



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)?



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.


Q And it is around a very nice pool area. Correct?

A Correct.


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.


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.


MR. WEINBERG: 239. And it is marked J1.



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.


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.


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 COURT: As long as he can’t recognize it, it can’t really be introduced.


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?


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.



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).



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.


MR. DANDAR: But, then again, I didn’t know if

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.


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?


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.


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


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


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.


“Listen, I’m telling you —


“– the injunction is against you and agents and


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.


“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.


“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.


“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 —


“– 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.’


“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


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.


“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.)




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?


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?


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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 —


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


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.


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.)



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: 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?



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.


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?


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


first day of the hearing?


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.


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.


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 COURT: I don’t know why it was filed. But that is just one of a lot of stuff in there?





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. DANDAR: Which page is that on?

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 14 on Page 9.


Q And declaration is this thing that is used in the California court, as opposed to an affidavit in Florida,



A Correct.

Q Now, let me show you what we’ll have the reporter mark as the next exhibit.


MR. WEINBERG: 241. Do we have a copy for the Judge?

THE COURT: What is the number?


THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: 241. For this part I’ll just give you this.



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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


MR. WEINBERG: So exhibit — what was it –241?


MR. WEINBERG: Exhibit 241 is what you have in front of you, plus Exhibit Q here.



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.


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


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.


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.


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.



Q Mr. Prince, you have a copy of it?

A Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you have that?


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.


THE COURT: — are part of the affidavit.

So, Madam Clerk, you have an affidavit with some attachments, some handwritten notes?


THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.


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.


Q The one that says April 2002 but I guess it is


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.


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


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.


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?


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


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


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?


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?


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?


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 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.


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


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?


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.


MR. WEINBERG: At the top.

THE COURT: I have got it.


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?


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.


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 —


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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?



Q So — and you picked Mr. Oliver because? Why?

A I trust him. He’s my friend.


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.


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.


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.


Q I mean, there was no nobody else other than what you testified to?


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.


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.




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.


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


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.



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.



Q Do you know if he filed a report with regard to


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.


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?


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.)





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.