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

329

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

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 3

DATE: July 8, 2002. Afternoon Session.

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,  Circuit Judge.

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

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

330

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

331

APPEARANCES: (Continued)

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

332

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

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

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

THE COURT: What time?

MR. DANDAR: Nine o’clock.

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

MR. DANDAR: I have no idea.

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

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

THE COURT: So it’s legal —

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

333

THE COURT: You think an hour?

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

334

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

Now, it says here —

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

I think you’re looking in that one book?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

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

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

We can put it in again.

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

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it has.

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

MR. DANDAR: We’ll mark it.

THE COURT: All right.

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

So, in other words, it is the belief of

335

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

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

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

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

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

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

336

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

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Yes.

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

337

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

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What drugs?

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

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

338

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

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

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

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

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

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

339

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

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

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

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

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

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

340

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

Q With whom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

341

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

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

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

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

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

Q This public Scientologist saw Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes.

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

A Yes.

Q Okay.

342

A So your largest income-making —

THE COURT: Where is that?

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

343

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

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

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

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

Q How did you —

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

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

344

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

345

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

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

A Yes, I do.

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

A Yes. I do.

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

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

Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit?

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

346

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

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

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

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

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

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

A No. Matter of fact, Stacy disagreed with my

347

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

348

Miscavige with — in the civil case with murder?

A Absolutely not.

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

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

A None at all. No one.

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

A That is correct.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Is this the one that is 108?

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

349

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

350

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

MR. DANDAR: Minkoff.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

351

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

352

okay.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So it gets passed along to who?

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

353

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

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: What was the CSW again?

THE WITNESS: Completed staff work.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

And Scientology has a principle called the

354

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Q Okay. Let’s go to —

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

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

355

examiner?

THE WITNESS: Right, with meningitis.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

356

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t believe —

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

357

time later.

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: I agree with you wholeheartedly.

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

358

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

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor —

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

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

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

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

359

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

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

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

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

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

360

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Something caused her not to

361

sleep.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: No.

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

362

don’t leave?

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

A No, I have not.

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

THE WITNESS: Because they want to leave?

THE COURT: Because they want to leave?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Because they were sick?

THE WITNESS: Because they were —

THE COURT: Psychotic?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: When was that?

THE WITNESS: Again, this girl, Terese —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Teresita?

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

And this started happening to her after she hadn’t

363

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

Q Did you —

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes, I did.

Q How did you do that?

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

364

to get her cooperation.

Q Could she do it by herself?

A No.

Q So how did you do it?

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

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

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

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

365

especially Clearwater is considered a hostile environment.

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

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

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

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

A Yes, I do.

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

A Yes.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

366

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

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

A Okay.

Q All right?

A Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

367

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: May of 2000.

MR. WEINBERG: May of 2000?

368

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Europe. People from Europe.

Q Did he say to you it was his money?

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

Q Did you ever see that check?

A No.

Q Okay.

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

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

Q So what did you do?

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

369

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

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

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

Q He did?

A Yes.

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

A He did not.

Q Okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Of 2002. Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Before.

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

A So I think maybe a week prior.

370

Q Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Minton —

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

MR. BATTAGLIA: Oh. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

A Yes. I do.

Q Okay. How do you know him?

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

Q What was he supposed to do?

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

371

the United States defense.

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This whole thing is hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

MR. FUGATE: Stereo.

MR. WEINBERG: That is like asking for — I

372

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

Q How did you pick that up?

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

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

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

373

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

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

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

A For sure.

Q Has fair game been canceled?

A No. It’s alive and well.

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

THE COURT: Alive and well.

THE WITNESS: Alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: And that is based on your —

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on your expertise and experience in

374

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

A Yes. I have.

Q Can you give us some examples?

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

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

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

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

375

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

Q This was a psychiatrist?

A Yes.

Q Of Mr. Minton’s?

A Yes.

Q So —

A And —

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

A Correct. Or exposed. His position was exposed.

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

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

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

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

376

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

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

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

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

Q When did that happen, that particular incident?

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

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

A Yes. I do.

Q What is your knowledge?

A Mmm, Scientology had very effectively convinced

377

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

378

what they need to do.

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

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

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

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

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

379

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

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

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

380

with in relationship to Scientology?

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

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

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

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

At least, I did.

381

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

A Very much so.

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

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

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

Q What was my involvement with the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Occasionally stop by to have dinner.

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

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

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

Q Did I direct any of the picketing?

A No.

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

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

382

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

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

Q Okay.

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

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

THE COURT: I am sure he read transcripts.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, but it is —

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

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

383

seat.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

384

that may be realized from the wrongful death case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He’s just —

385

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Okay.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s back up.

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

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

And he was just completely despondent about that.

386

Q And this was before the New York City meetings?

A Yeah.

Q Okay.

A Yeah. So then —

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

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

Q Okay.

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

Q To New Hampshire?

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

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

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

387

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

And he was just beside himself.

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

THE COURT: Yes.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. I do.

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

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

THE COURT: What is this number?

MR. DANDAR: Paragraph 9.

THE WITNESS: Paragraph Number 9.

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

388

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Can I give you a copy?

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Am I right?

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

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

MR. DANDAR: He’s looking at his handwritten

389

attachment.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?

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

THE WITNESS: I don’t —

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

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

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

You know —

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes. They discovered information about him that

390

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

391

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Well, he informed me —

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

392

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

I said, “Well, good.”

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

393

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

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

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

THE COURT: All right. You may be seated.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Had you responded to this?

MR. DANDAR: We produced at the time they took

394

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

THE COURT: Is there anything additional?

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

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

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

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

MR. FUGATE: I’ll check that tonight.

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

MR. DANDAR: I will.

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: You may continue.

395

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Q Before the New York City meeting?

A Yes.

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

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

Q Okay. Did he confide in you?

A Yes. On some things, he certainly did.

Q And some things, he didn’t?

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

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

396

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

397

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

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

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

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

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

398

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q From Mr. Minton.

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

THE COURT: In Switzerland?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did he tell you that?

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

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

A Oh, yes. I mentioned that before.

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

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

Q What made you think that?

399

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

THE COURT: As best you can remember?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall, yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was it the Bank of America

400

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

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

MR. DANDAR: I don’t know.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

401

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Right.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Is this —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

402

THE COURT: The same October period of 2001?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Conversations concerning?

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

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

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

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

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

403

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

Q And did you listen to her?

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

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Okay.

Q So was this conversation with Stacy Brooks before,

404

or after, that affidavit?

A Preceding that.

Q So it was before that?

A Correct.

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

A Not particularly.

Q No?

A I mean, I have a general idea.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

405

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Refresh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q First of all, is that your affidavit?

A Yes, it is.

Q Did you prepare that affidavit?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you sign it?

A Yes, I did.

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

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

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

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

406

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

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

A Yes.

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

A I think it was probably Ms. Brooks individually.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: It closed in August.

THE COURT: Of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

407

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

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

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

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

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

A The only additional things —

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

408

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

Okay. Continue on.

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

MR. DANDAR: That is all right.

THE WITNESS: I hate to miss the punch line.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

409

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

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

410

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In New York City?

A Yes.

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

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

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

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

411

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Right.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I don’t think —

THE COURT: He meant either business-wise or

412

something?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is that known as fair game?

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

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

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

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

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

413

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object.

A He couldn’t — he couldn’t —

414

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

415

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Was this over the telephone?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

THE COURT: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

416

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Q By the way, who typed that affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: Just a second now.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Well —

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

417

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

THE COURT: You are going way too fast.

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

THE COURT: What page are you on, please?

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

That was the —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That is before the New York trip?

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

418

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did that first occur?

THE COURT: When it occurred.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

419

Q Okay.

A Now —

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

A Oh, after they got back from New York?

Q Right.

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

Q What did she say?

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

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

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

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

420

listening basically to your testimony.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

421

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE COURT: I believe.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

422

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

Q That is Judge Schaeffer.

A Hmmm?

Q Judge Schaeffer was April 5?

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

Q Right.

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

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

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

Q All right.

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

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

423

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

Q How did you react to your affidavit being withdrawn?

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

Q Why did she want to withdraw her affidavit?

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

Q Did you ever —

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the date?

424

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

THE COURT: Line 22?

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

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

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

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

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

425

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

426

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: I’m not real sure.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Was this all at the same conversation?

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

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

427

place as you remembered them?

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

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

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall.

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

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

THE COURT: It depends what the affidavit says.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Is that right, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

428

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A For sure.

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

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

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

A Yes.

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

A Okay.

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

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

429

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

430

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

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

Q Okay. And did Mark Bunker come with them?

A Yes.

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

A Yes, he did.

Q Did anyone else stay at your house?

A No.

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

A No, I did not.

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

A Correct.

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

A Yes, I did.

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

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

431

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

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

Q Why is that?

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

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

THE COURT: Yes. Overruled.

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

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

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

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

432

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A Let’s create —

MR. WEINBERG: This is pure and utter speculation.

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

That objection is sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

433

A No. I got up and left immediately.

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

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

434

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

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

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

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

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

435

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

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

THE COURT: Did Bob tell you why?

THE WITNESS: Because they disagreed.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Minton’s lawyer?

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

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

Q Well, why —

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

What is it you mean?

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

436

Monique Yingling.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

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

437

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A No.

Q Ever?

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

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

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

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

A Well —

438

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

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So why did you choose not to go along?

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

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

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

439

Q When did you tell them that?

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

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

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

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

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

Q Do you recall meeting with them that following weekend?

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

440

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

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

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

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

Q Did you meet with them in Clearwater then?

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

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

441

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

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

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

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

And I asked him what that was.

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

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

442

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

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

Q Did you see this package?

A Mmm, no.

Q How do you know it was 11 inches high?

A He told me.

Q Okay.

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

Q Okay.

A — because he’s taking control.

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

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

Q How many inches is that?

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

443

Q All right.

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

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

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

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

A Yes.

Q When was that?

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

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

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

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

444

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

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

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

She knows this because it happened to her.

Q When?

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

THE COURT: We have had testimony about that.

THE WITNESS: Yes. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

445

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

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

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

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

Q Okay.

A Stacy was incidental at that point.

446

Q All right.

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

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

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

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

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

Q What did they say?

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

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

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

447

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

Q What was their response?

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

Q So —

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

THE COURT: What did he say?

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

448

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

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

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

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

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

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

449

here.

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

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So Bob Minton said —

A I keep losing my train of thought.

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

(A discussion was held off the record.)

(Last answer read back by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: Repeat the last line again.

(Last answer reread by the reporter.)

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

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

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

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

450

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

451

“Okay. Okay.”

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

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

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

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

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

So we have that meeting —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You and I had a meeting?

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

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

452

and Stacy and, you thought, Mike Rinder?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

453

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Go ahead.

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

THE COURT: I’m not sure I saw that.

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

THE COURT: I remember.

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

THE COURT: Right. I remember now.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you were caught in between Broeker and Miscavige?

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

454

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

You know, I don’t want nothing to do with this part of it. I didn’t even know it happened where they do this stuff to people.

Mmm, and then, you know, they — because I didn’t go along with that, I’m woken up at 5 o’clock in the morning, there is — there is Miscavige standing there, there is Lymon Sperlock, Ray Mithoff, Mike Sutter, Greg Wilheir (phonetic), his brother, security guards. There are about 12 people there.

I walk into Miscavige’s office, and there is Vicki Aznaran, the person that used to be inspector general of RTC, just crying in the corner, crumpled. They are all in their Sea Org uniforms just like, grrr. And I’m running around with something that looks like pajamas.

And he told me, “You didn’t go along with this, you wouldn’t follow me, now you are going to the RPF. You call me sir. You have been disrespectful.”

I stood up and told him to go to hell and went and tried to leave, at which point they tried to grab me. And me and Judge Moody has been through this story before so I’m

455

not telling a new story.

And I ran to my bedroom and I got a Mini 14 assault rifle I had been given for my birthday from L. Ron, and a .45, loaded in both, went back to that office, and I have them like this (indicating). And now they are standing there like — oh, Norman Starkey was there. And Norman says, “Jesse, you traitor. You can’t kill us all.”

And I said, “Well, I’ll tell you what, maybe not, but you will certainly be the first to go.”

And I’m standing there with these guns. Then Miscavige, because he and I used to be very good friends, too, he and I were very good friends at one point in time, he came over and he said, “Jesse, look, this is horrible, let’s stop this.”

He knew I wasn’t going to do anything. He walked right up to me. He told all those other jerks, “Get out of here, I have got to talk to Jesse.”

So we go down to the ship and we have a conversation. And he tells me, “Jesse, I know this all seems horrible now, but I need you to take this fall. I need you to be a head on a pike.” Head on a pike is a term in Scientology where somebody takes a fall for Scientology.

Put a head on the pike means if you are going through the gate, you end up like this, head on the pike.

“I want you to be the head on the pike.” He

456

wanted me to go to RPF. You know, Vicky and Rick really screwed things up with the Broekers and conspired about him, yik-yik and on and on. And he said, “Look, this will be over, you’ll be restored to your position,” on and on.

“Oh, okay, Dave, I do it.” We talked. I willingly once again go to the damn concentration camp.

Once again. Like eighteen months wasn’t long enough. Now I’m in there again.

What immediately happens? Miscavige starts issuing this horrible stuff about me, “He’s terrible, he’s a piece of crap.”

I stood up and walked out of that place, went to that base and said, “Look, if this is the way you want to play this, I’m going to the police, I’m going to go talk to them about what you do here.”

Oh, my God, all them issues are canceled. No, Jesse is good again. “Jesse, I’m sorry.” It is always someone’s fault, someone else acted in an unauthorized manner and put these things out.

Okay, he got rid of all of that stuff. I mean, I had to have something to show for being in Scientology 16 years. Every certificate I had — I had a wall from top to bottom, at least half of that, of everything I have ever done in Scientology used to be in my office.

And, Mmm, so I ended up going back to the RPF.

457

Oh, no, we straighten it all out again. That was one instance.

Just lying. Just can’t wait to get me in a position to where I am incapacitated to do something.

The second time I’m trying to leave Scientology, “Look, you guys can do this. Do whatever you want to do, you know. You want to do this activity? I don’t want to do it anymore. I just want to take me and my wife and leave, just be away.”

Well, of course that didn’t happen. I had to be degraded for four and a half months, locked up, sec-checked, told to divorce my wife. I have written about this, too. Finally, I leave.

THE COURT: What did you say, seg-checked?

THE WITNESS: Sec, security checked. Being interrogated on the E-meter.

A Well, what happens, as soon as I leave, they have someone that is a tail on me that works for this Scientology business who, because I won’t continue to do Scientology and their business, now I’m no good. You know, I have come in there and boomed that business. I was hired, I was on salary making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are you talking about the artwork business?

A Yes, the artwork business.

458

would call me once or twice a week. Mike Sutter, RTC, “Jesse, how are you doing?”

So now they want me to do Scientology work where they want me to do cramming, do correction, yik-yik, on and on.

I said, “Look, I have left that. I’m not doing that anymore. Let me just do a regular job. I’m just doing a regular job now, not using the Scientology mess, and everything is going fine. You know, don’t fix something when it is not broke.”

No, that is not good enough, that gets reported to RTC. Now I have to get removed and now I have to go through endless crap.

It finally culminated losing my job, having to start my own business, being followed around every place in Minneapolis, because I travel a lot. Then one day I found a bag right outside my hotel room, like this (indicating), Rock cocaine.

THE COURT: How big?

THE WITNESS: Huh?

THE COURT: You are showing it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Tell —

A Like this (indicating).

THE COURT: Say for the record, is that the

459

size of a baseball?

THE WITNESS: About the size of a softball.

THE COURT: About the size of a softball?

THE WITNESS: With individually little crack cocaines.

A And I’m like, uh-uh, this is it.

So, to me, I’d already been through enough betrayal with Scientology. And I explained this to them.

THE COURT: This is just — all that cocaine just sitting outside your hotel room?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. And the fact of the matter is, your Honor, it is known that I had, you know, smoked marijuana before or whatever, but if anyone in my family — because my brother tried it — does cocaine, he did it, had a double aneurysm. I sat in the hospital a month while they cut off his dreadlocks, peeled his skin back, cut his scalp, went through his brain, cauterized two microscopic veins because his head exploded from fooling around with crap, and put it all back together.

And the reason they said it happened to him, something genetically in our family that makes those veins do that. What do I want to do with cocaine

460

for? It is just —

THE COURT: I think we’re far afield.

MR. WEINBERG: Is this what — all these incidents you told Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I’m telling all this to Mr. Minton. I said, “In the end you may think –” and I told him, “As you sit here you can’t tell me when Scientology is going to be done with you. When are they going to be finished having you done whatever they want you to do? All you know, you have Wollersheim and you have McPherson.”

He said, “Jesse, you are being unreal.” He got mad. He cursed at me and said something. And his last words were, “Well, fuck it, you’re going to jail.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you use the same language back at him?

A I said, “Bob, I’m sorry, you’re going to jail.

Stacy, you’re going to jail. I’m not having anything to do with this.”

I got up — he asked me to leave. He said, “Get out.”

I said, “Fine.”

Stacy follows me in the parking lot. She said, “You know, after all of the things Bob has done for you,

461

this is how you treat him?”

I’m looking, “What in the hell has Bob done for me that I have to perjure myself, I have to become a criminal because he thinks this is what I got to do to save him?

Uh-uh. He’s not done anything for me. And there is only one person can sell my soul. That is me. I already sold my soul to this organization one time and I got it back. Bob Minton is in no position to offer my soul to them.”

And I told her that. And we really haven’t talked that much since.

Q Well, now, was there a point in time when Bob Minton was coming over to your house after that for barbecue?

A Well, again, we have been friends a long time. This was another bridge of disagreement, blowup, everybody cursing, but we have such history. Even as I sit here today, I can’t fathom not talking to him once or twice a week.

So, you know, we’re talking again.

“Look –” Stacy said, “Look, this is going to blow over with or without you. We’re going to make sure.”

So I said, “Okay, well, then if we’re not doing this, could we still be friends?”

They love to come over to the house. We barbecue and have little parties. “Sure.”

462

But then he called his lawyer and he was told not to come.

Q This is while the hearing is going on in this courtroom?

A Yes. They want to tell me what is going on. They want me to be a part of it because I have been since the beginning. But I can’t because of what they’re doing.

Q Did Bob Minton want to close down the LMT?

A No.

Q Whose idea was that?

A I don’t think it was any one person’s idea. Well, if it was anybody’s idea, I think it was Stacy’s, because the LMT was being used as a vehicle to get to Bob. And —

THE COURT: I think it sounds — this must be allowed to start at 4:30, but it is giving me a headache. Is this a good stopping point?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes — I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: This would be — this would be fine.

THE COURT: They probably are allowed to start up at 4:30.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought I was having a ringing in my ears, which I do have an ear issue.

THE COURT: So we’ll go ahead and quit. We’ll start up at 9 o’clock. Mr. Prince —

463

MR. WEINBERG: Remember you said ten?

THE COURT: Oh, I did. Ten o’clock tomorrow.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. I think I told you this before, but if I didn’t, let me remind you: While you are on the witness stand, I did give you permission to speak with Mr. Dandar because of the long break, but now, like overnight,  you and he can’t talk.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay? I mean, you can talk about something else, but you can’t talk anything about your testimony or about this case. Of course you can’t talk to the other side, you can’t talk to anybody while you are on the stand about this case or your testimony. Okay?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I understand that.

THE COURT: We shall be in recess.

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have one issue on the E-Mails. And I’ll be really quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: There are, to my understanding, about 3,000 E-Mails. And during the break —

THE COURT: Have you-all come up with any agreement as to a list?

464

MR. FUGATE: That is what I want to talk to you about. I went over to see, there is a list that prints out all of the ones that they were able to recover from the various hard drives. And I have found a series of — on that list of E-Mails that related to Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, and I have left a list of those with Mr. Keane.

And then I understand that Mr. Dandar indicated that those shouldn’t be produced because Ms. Greenway is a consultant. And, you know, in this hearing he said she wasn’t.

I don’t really care what she is today. But back during the time that she was at LMT prior to this hearing beginning, which is where all these E-Mails generate from, I don’t think they would be covered as a consultant —

THE COURT: Counsel, I can’t deal with something that won’t be agreed to with this noise. That is why I stopped this hearing. We’ll take this up first thing in the morning, and hopefully we won’t have any noise and we’ll get it done then.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. Bring it to my attention then.

MR. FUGATE: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all.

465

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

Affidavit of Jesse Prince (May, 2002)

From mirele@sonic.net Thu May 02 22:23:37 20021
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!207.217.77.43.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!feed.news.sonic.net!typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Jesse Prince Affidavit April 2002
From: Deana Holmes <mirele@sonic.net>>
Organization: Scientology Killed Lisa McPherson
Message-ID: <Xns9202C5DBFB324mirelesonicnet@208.201.224.154>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
Lines: 536
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 02:23:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.24.217.106
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1020392617 64.24.217.106 (Thu, 02 May 2002 19:23:37 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 19:23:37 PDT
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1064781

This affidavit was provided to me by Dandar & Dandar and has been filed as part of the court record. I don’t know if it was signed May 1st or May 2nd. I added what I believe are the approximate page numbers in brackets.

Deana M. Holmes
mirele@sonic.net

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, Plaintiff
vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI; and DAVID HOUGHTON, Defendants.
_________________________________/

Case No. 00-5682-C1
Section 11
APRIL 2002

AFFIDAVIT OF JESSE PRINCE

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, who after being duly sworn by me, deposes and says:

I, JESSE PRINCE,  provide the following information which is based on my personal knowledge:

1.    Affiant had been retained as the expert on the practices of Scientology by the ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON.

2.    From 1982-1987,  I served as a corporate officer, executive, and board member of Scientology’s Religious Technology Center (RTC). RTC owns the trademarks

[page 1]

of Scientology and licenses all Scientology organizations to use its trademarks.  RTC licenses all Scientology organizations to use Scientology trademark material.  RTC  is also the senior corporate entity of all Scientology or Scientology related organizations internationally.

3.    Affiant has been a friend and confidant of Bob Minton for many years, the trial expert on Scientology for Ken Dandar in the Lisa McPherson death case, and the Vice President of the Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization which was dedicated to exposing the deceptive and abusive of Scientology and helping those who have been victimized by Scientology.

4.    Affiant was picketing at the Boston Org of Scientology years ago with Bob Minton.  At this picket and in my presence, members of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs confronted Bob Minton and relayed detailed information of Bob’s recent visit to his psychiatrist.  This greatly concerned Bob because his psychiatrist’s information was strictly confidential.  Bob Minton acts irrational when not on his medication.  Bob’s psychiatrist then discharged Bob as his patient when Bob confronted the psychiatrist.

5.    Sometime after this picket, I observed that Scientology posted on the Internet Bob Minton’s confidential psychological records.

6.    Bob Minton also relayed to affiant that Scientology obtained his bank records and telephone records, which he said caused him great distress.

7.    Due to the continuous harassment of Bob Minton by Scientology and its operatives, I personally observed Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks begin a compilation of a timeline of Scientology attacks and noisy investigations
of Bob Minton per Scientology practices.

8.    At the request of Bob Minton, affiant traveled to the office of Ken Dandar in February 2002 to relay to Ken Dandar that if Ken could get the Internet critics of Bob Minton to stop posting criticism of Bob and if Ken would quit meeting with Patricia Greenway, Bob would try to arrange to have his friends loan additional funds to Ken Dandar.  Bob had told the affiant that he was still willing to help finance the case so that

[page 2]

it would go to trial.

9.     On or around March 20, 2002, affiant called Mr. Minton at his home in NH to see how he was doing. Affiant learned from Mr. Minton that Scientology operatives had discovered information about him that threatened his wife and children’s future and Mr. Minton was very sad and upset about this. Mr. Minton said he no longer felt like living. He just felt like killing himself and things were really bad. Mr. Minton was crying as he told me these things. I asked him if there was anything I could do to help him and what specifically was the new threat. Mr. Minton told me he did not feel safe discussing the information over the phone and he was too upset to even talk about it. He told me that Stacy Brooks was leaving Atlanta, GA and flying to NH to help him with this new attack. I told him if there was nothing I could do to help him I would at least pray for him. After talking with Mr. Minton I immediately called Stacy Brooks to see if she would give me more information. Stacy said Bob was in really bad shape.  Due to the harrassive discovery by Scientology of Mr. Minton, he was about to fall apart. Stacy said she had to get Bob out of harms way and end his participation in opposing Scientology. Stacy said that no one including the Florida courts or law enforcement had been willing to help stop Scientology’s relentless attack on Bob and she was putting an end to any and all liability for Bob. Stacy swore that she would protect Bob no matter what. She did in fact arrive in NH on the same day in question to help Bob. The next day after Stacy arrived in NH, I called to check and see how things were going. I talked to Bob and he told me he was going to contact Mike Rinder, who is the top executive of Scientology’s legal and intelligence activities to see if he could work out a deal. Mr. Minton said he felt like he had no other choice but to take this action of trying to negotiate with Mr. Rinder. Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks have in the past successfully ended a lawsuit with Scientology, that ended with both parties
being pleased with the results.  I asked Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks to be careful and to keep me informed of any progress. The next time I talked to Bob and Stacy was on or around 23 March 2002. Bob told me that he had made the call to Mike Rinder, and the bottom line was Scientology was going to put him in jail. Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to

[page 3]

Ken Dandar.   After his talk with Mike Rinder, Bob said it boiled down to who was going to live, him or Ken Dandar, but someone was going to die. He said he called Ken and begged him to drop the wrongful death lawsuit at the demand of Michael Rinder, but Ken refused saying he had an obligation to his client Dell Liebreich. I told Bob that while I did not understand how his life would end unless he chose for Ken to die, I advised him to choose life, and I reminded him of his own family and how they needed him. Bob told me he was going to NY with Stacy Brooks to meet with Mike Rinder the following Friday. Thursday of the following week, Stacy and Bob flew to NY and called me when they arrived. Bob’s attorney Steve Jonas was also flying in for the meeting set for the next day.  Bob and Stacy promised to call me after the meeting with Mr. Rinder. The next day at around noon time Stacy called me and she was very upset. She said that Mr. Rosen screamed at her and Bob that Bob was going to jail for contempt in front of judge Schaeffer and he was also going to jail for perjury in front of Judge Baird.   Mr. Rosen also said that unless the wrongful death lawsuit and the Wollershiem lawsuit were dismissed Bob was going to jail.  Bob told me  how Mr. Rinder coldly told Bob Minton that he knew was f__king him, but at least he was doing it to him to his face. Bob went on to tell me Mr. Rinder went on to say that other people who were suppose to be his friends were F__king him behind his back: Ken Dandar, Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander were mentioned specifically. Bob told me that Mr. Sandy Rosen or Mr. Rinder, I do not remember which one, told Bob that he is crazy if he thinks Ken Dandar will ever see any money even if he wins. The same person said to take the Wollersheim case as an example.   Mr. Rosen told Bob that the only way he would not go to jail is if he got the wrongful death case dismissed along with the Wollersheim case. Both Stacy and Bob said they tried to explain the fact that they had no power or authority to get these cases dismissed. They told Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen that they had earlier tried to get Ken to get Dell Liebreich to drop the case but they flat out refused. The response was “too bad, because Bob was going to jail.”  Stacy said that both Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen were being very nasty to them both and Bob and Stacy got up and walked out of the meeting because it was horrible. Bob and Stacy took the next plane
[page 4]

home and were back in NH by 7:00PM the same day. Both Stacy and Bob called me when they got back to NH and expressed to me how deeply disappointed they were about not being able to reconcile anything with Scientology and they were putting the whole idea of negotiations with them on the back burner for now.

10.     The next day, late in the afternoon I talked to Stacy on the phone and she told me that Mike Rinder called and said he really didn’t understand why Bob and Stacy walked out of the meeting. She went on to say that Mr. Rinder said that he understood that Bob and Stacy could not dismiss the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim case in CA, but there were things Stacy and Bob could do. I asked what were the things they could do, and Stacy said she did not know but they were going to meet with Mr. Rinder and company again in Clearwater a day or so before the contempt hearing on Bob Minton in front of judge Schaeffer on 5 April, 02. Stacy was happy about being able to negotiate with Scientology and reaffirmed to me that she was getting Bob out of the Scientology mess before it killed him. Bob was very nervous about coming back to Clearwater and he expressed that he felt like he was going to jail if he came back to Clearwater.

11.     Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton and Mark Bunker arrived in Clearwater FL, from NH on the 2nd or 3rd of April, 02. Bob and Stacy got a room at the Harbor Bay Hotel in Tampa, FL and Mark Bunker stayed at my house in Clearwater FL. The following day, Stacy and Bob went to meet with Mike Rinder, Sandy Rosen, and Monique Yingling  at a restaurant in the Belleview Biltmore Hotel. After the meeting was over, Stacy called me and I asked her how the meeting went. She said she thought they made progress and things were going to be okay. I asked her specifically what were the “things that could be done” that would make Scientology stop trying to put Bob in jail. She told me she would tell me when she saw me but Ken Dandar was not going to be happy. Bob got on the phone and said Stacy was a lot more optimistic about what was happening and he was still worried about going to jail. Bob and Stacy had a very busy schedule meeting with Mr. Bruce Howie and Mr. Steve Jonas preparing for the contempt hearing with judge Schaeffer. Stacy and Bob asked that I not come to the hearing and she would brief me on what happened when

[page 5]

it was over.

12.      After the hearing on 5 April, 02, Bob and Stacy called and they were satisfied with the results of the hearing.  Both said that Bruce Howie was brilliant and Bob got off on the contempt due to a technical error made by Mr. Kendrick Moxon. They were very happy about this and invited me, and 3 other staff members that worked at the LMT out to dinner at Jackson’s restaurant located in the hotel they were staying at.  Before dinner we met in the lounge/bar area at the hotel and talked about the hearing. Bob was still concerned and said Scientology had filed another suit where he was named as a defendant. He pulled the suit out and showed us what it was. It was a suit against Jerry Armstrong and Bob Minton. The suit alleged that Jerry Armstrong had broken his settlement agreement with Scientology multiple times and some how Bob had enabled and encouraged Jerry to do this. In the end, the suit asked for 80 million dollars in damages. Bob commented on the fact that Jerry had no money and he was sure Scientology would force him to defend himself in the suit and pay any judgments as a result.  He gave me a copy of the suit to look at and I pointed out that according to what I was reading, Scientology alleged Bob co-conspired with Jerry Armstrong to violate his settlement with Scientology before Bob ever knew or met Jerry Armstrong.  I told him the suit was crap. Bob’s retort was Scientology does a lot of crap and gets away with it and they would get away with this suit as well. Another person, Ingrid Wagner, read the suit and agreed with Bob that it was not crap and Bob should be concerned. We talked about the next hearing and deposition with judge Baird that was scheduled for 8 and 9 April, 02 and had a nice dinner. For the next few days, Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and company and both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to do. The bottom line was Scientology wanted Bob to say that Ken Dandar caused Bob Minton to perjure himself in the breach of contract case in front of Judge Baird. The plan was to get Ken removed from the wrongful death case and get disbarred as an attorney. I asked Bob what has Ken done to deserve that?  Stacy cut in and asked me if I remembered a meeting that supposedly happened in the early fall of 1999. Stacy said she and I were at a meeting along with Bob

[page 6]

Minton, Michael Garko and Ken Dandar when Ken announced that he was adding David Miscavige as a party in the wrongful death case. As Bob was not involved in the case, Ken told him if he were ever asked, the meeting never occurred. She asked me if I remembered that and I said I did not. Bob said “Jesse, we need you to walk with us on this”, I said I would stand behind him but the meeting never happened and I was not going to lie about it. I told both Stacy and Bob that there was no way the case was going to be thrown out by trying to get rid of Ken. I told them that they were working with criminals who are accusing others of doing criminal acts. Bob said he felt horrible about what he was asked to do against Ken and he was not sure it was the right thing to do because it felt so wrong.  At one point he read a letter that Ken had recently sent him which mentioned Ken having the blood of Bob’s wife and children on his hands if he did not get the wrongful death suit dismissed. I asked both Stacy and Bob what else Scientology wanted them to do to avoid going to jail.  Bob replied there was a lot more Scientology wanted him to do but he did not know when Scientology would be done with him.  Stacy and Bob had been working on a reply to Ken’s letter and Bob asked Stacy to read me the reply. I started to feel sick as she read the response but one point really caught my attention: the point was that Bob alleged in the letter that I had given false testimony because Ken Dandar had manipulated me to write that David Miscavige  knew about Lisa’s condition and instead of letting her be taken to a hospital he let her die because of the public relations flap it would cause. I told both Bob and Stacy there was no manipulation of me by Ken and my testimony is true so don’t say that in the letter. Detailed evidence by Scientology’s own policies commands its adherents to immediately report to RTC ANYONE who has gone psychotic as a result of Scientology’s psychological practices. David Miscavige was and still is the Senior executive in RTC and has full knowledge of information sent to his organization. Stacy said the letter was just a draft and they were letting me see it to get my input. The letter was being drafted with Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinders help. Bob laughed and said another thing he had offered Scientology as part of the settlement negotiations  was  to turn over my partnership in the film “The Profit” so Peter and Patricia would have to deal with Scientology on the

[page 7]

film. I changed the subject and asked what about the Wollersheim case? Stacy informed me that she had talked to Dan Liepold, the attorney, and asked him to remove her testimony from the case. Dan refused to do it but Stacy said she would deal with that after they finished doing what Scientology wanted them to do in the wrongful death case. She explained that there were three witnesses for the plaintiff  concerning alter ego. The witnesses are Stacy Brook, Vaughn Young and myself. I told her I had no intentions of asking for my testimony to be removed from the case for Scientology and we left it at that.  The following Monday arrived and Bob was to be deposed by Sandy Rosen. After the deposition Stacy called me and briefed me on what happened in the deposition. She told me Bob was being deposed and she heard him tell a lie. Stacy said she had Mr. Howie stop the deposition so that she could clear up what Bob had just said. Stacy said she told Bob not to lie again and to go in and correct the record. She said when Bob went back into deposition he just broke down and started to cry uncontrollably. At that point the deposition was stopped and Mr. Rosen assured Bob that the record would be corrected later. The next day was the hearing for contempt in front of Judge Baird. Bob and Stacy had been meeting with Mr. Howie and Mr. Rosen to prepare Bob for his testimony. Bob and Stacy asked me to be at the hearing. They told me Bob was going to testify against Ken. I told them I couldn’t believe things had degraded to this level. Bob said he still did not feel good about what he was about to do and felt it was wrong. Stacy said they had to stay on this road and get through this. Bob told me that Sandy Rosen assured him that if he implicated Ken with his testimony that Scientology would withdraw the contempt motion and ask that all fines be dropped. Stacy and Bob asked that I attend the hearing, I told them I would be there. Monday came, and I sat in Judge Baird’s court room waiting for the proceedings to start. Bob got up on the stand and when he started saying Ken made him lie I got up and walked out of the court room. I felt like I’d been struck by lightning, and I started to cry. For the life of me I could not believe what I had just seen. Bob lying about Ken Dandar?  Mr. Rosen now acting on Bob’s behalf? I knew I had to do something but I didn’t know what. I drove to the beach to think. I decided that I had to somehow get law enforcement involved

[page 8]

or I could lose my friends forever.  I left the beach and went to see attorney Denis DeVlaming.  I told him I just saw Bob Minton up on the stand lying about Ken Dandar because that’s what Scientology wanted him to do. I poured my heart out to him told him everything that had happened and asked him if there was any way he could put me in contact with a federal agent that could investigate this and take the matter to a federal court. I told him I have to do something to help my friends. Denis said that I had been his client as well Bob Minton and there could be a conflict of interest, as Bob may need his help later. He told me his brother Doug DeVlaming knew someone in the FBI that might be interested in investigating possible blackmail and coercion. I explained the situation to Doug and he said he would contact someone, and for me to call him later. I left Mr. DeVlaming’s office and went out and rented a hotel room. I did not want to see Bob or Stacy and I knew they would be looking for me. I called my girlfriend and told her what happened and that I did not want to talk with Bob or Stacy until they were back at home. Bob and Stacy looked for me everywhere calling hospitals and checking with the police. My girlfriend gave them the message that I was very upset and I would contact them after they arrived back to NH.   They calmed down and the next day Bob, Stacy and Mark left Clearwater, headed for NH.

13.    The next day I was in telephone communication with Bob and Stacy. They wanted to know why I walked out of the hearing and what was wrong. I told them I could not believe what I had seen Bob do and it upset me greatly. I told them Scientology was making a fool out of them in my opinion. Stacy said the reason I felt that way was because I did not have all of the information. She said I had been left in the dark about some things that both her and Bob were not able to talk about because they had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Scientology concerning the settlement talk and it was time they brought me into the picture. She said it was time for me to start meeting with Scientology and their attorneys. I told her I was ready to start understanding what was going on. Stacy told me that she and Bob would be back in Clearwater on 12 April, 02 and we would meet and they would bring me into the picture fully. They arrived late that Friday, we talked on

[page 9]

the phone, and agreed to meet the following Saturday at 8:00PM for dinner at the Adams Mark hotel on Clearwater Beach. Stacy told me that she and Bob were meeting with Michael Garko Saturday afternoon. She mentioned that Michael was upset with Ken because Ken had not paid Michael since September of 01. I arrived at the hotel on time, Stacy met me in the lobby and we went to a room on the 9th floor where Bob was. We made small talk and Bob told me he had something to show me. He pulled out a stack of paper at least 2 inches thick and gave it to me. What he had given me was a RICO suit Scientology had put together that named him as a defendant. At the end of the suit it asked for 110 million in damages. Bob said,  “So Jesse how much is that now? The recently filed Armstrong suit asked for 80 million, this new RICO suit wants 110 million in damages so that’s 190 million they want, plus they’re adding me as a defendant in the breach of contract cases. The only person that has money is me so it is me that will end up paying for all of this and I just can’t do it. I can’t fight them anymore”. He went on to say that he needed me to stand with him and Stacy on this to pull it off. I pretended like I agreed with him and asked when would I be able to meet with the Scientologist. Stacy said tomorrow but we have to go over some things first. Bob said what was needed from me was to change my testimony. As he was talking the phone rang. Someone was asking where a package should be delivered. Bob told the person where he was and he asked the person to leave the package a the front desk and he would pick it up later and he hung up the phone. I asked him what that was all about and he said Scientology had been talking with him and  wanted him to change more testimony so as to implicate Ken further. He said the package was approximately 11 inches of testimony he had given before and some of it needed to be changed. I told him I don’t know what I’m suppose to change in my testimony because I told the truth when I gave it the first time. I asked how the meeting went with Michael Garko and Stacy said really good. She said Michael Garko said he knew the how much the case had cost to put on to date and there was no way Ken had spent 2 million dollars. Bob said Mr. Garko said he thought Ken had put the money in an account in the Cayman Islands. Stacy and Bob told me how upset Dr. Garko was over not being paid and

[page 10]

he was going to help Bob and Stacy get Ken. I looked at both of them like they were insane. I reminded them of an incident that happened in August of 01 where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut cost. 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. I asked them why they were both acting like they didn’t know Dr. Garko had not been paid. They didn’t have anything to say.  We started talking about how they were going to get the Wollersheim case dismissed. Bob said that he had had a conversation with Dan Leipold about getting the case dismissed and Mr. Leipold stated that he could not do that because he had an obligation to this client.  Bob was upset that Daniel Leipold would not agree to getting the case dismissed because he had loaned him money before.  Bob then told me that he offered Lawrence Wollersheim, the Plaintiff in a California case against Church of Scientology, $200,000.00 of his own personal money to drop the case.   I asked Bob and Stacy, how is it if you are in settlement negotiations with Scientology where you are trying to settle cases where you are neither Plaintiff or Defendant?  I reminded them of a mandatory settlement conference that was scheduled to take place on the 19th of April.  Stacy commented that she did not think that settlement conference would occur because Bruce Howie and Lee Fugate had met with Judge Schaeffer and briefed her on the information that came up on Ken in front of Judge Baird and that Ken would be disqualified.  I asked if Ken Dandar was present when Judge Schaeffer was being briefed by Mr. Howie and Mr. Fugate and Stacy said no.  I told her at that point that they were on very dangerous grounds and reminded Stacy of an incident whereby I was interrogated by the FBI for five to six hours because I had been in a meeting with David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock and Marty Rathbun along with Earl Cooley where we discussed having a Scientology staff member take a motion to Judge Maryanne Fauscher to get a temporary injunction against David Mayo.  I told her that I learned that it was against the rules for

[page 11]

attorneys to make ex-parte contact with the Judge of record without having the attorney of record present.   Both Bob and Stacy looked at me dumbfounded and Stacy commented that she did not think that what they had done was a problem. On that note we went down and had dinner and made small talk the rest of the evening. Bob did repeat that he needed me to walk with them on this, I said I would.

14.     When I left Stacy and Bob that night I was shaking so badly I could hardly drive home and I had no idea what I was going to do to stop what was happening. I called a friend named Frank Oliver and asked him to have Ken Dandar call me as I had something to tell him. Ken called and I told him I knew that Bob was lying in court about Ken because this is what Scientology wanted him to do to stop the harassment and law suits. We agreed to meet at the International Mall in Tampa Florida for a meeting. He asked me if it was okay if Mr. Luke Lirot and Mr. Thom Haverty came, I told him yes. We all met in the mall and went to a lounge and I told only Ken everything that had been going on and I told him I could not live with what was going on. He thanked me for coming to him and told me how sad this whole thing was making him and how he could not believe it was happening. I hand wrote some of the details of what had been happening and signed it, see attached copy.   I told Ken I was willing to testify about what was really going on. Ken said he was going to talk to law enforcement to try and save Bob and get him away from Scientology. I told Ken I was having a meeting with Bob and Stacy again and this time I was to be fully brought in and I would get a chance to talk to the Scientologist myself. I told him the only reason I was going to the meeting was  to see the expression on Mike Rinder’s face when I tell them that I contacted law enforcement the day Bob lied and that other people knew what was really going on.

15.     Later that Sunday evening I met with Stacy and Bob at the Radisson hotel on Bellaire Beach. They were staying in room 502. When I got up there Bob had a stack of papers in is hand and said he had something he had to show me. He read something that was totally incomprehensible to me and said that what this means is judge Schaeffer did not trust me as a witness and there was nothing I could do to help Ken with the wrongful

[page 12]

death case. He said unless I change my testimony, Judge Schaeffer was going to put me in jail. Things got a bit heated between Bob and me because I told him I had no testimony that I needed to change. Stacy suggested that we all go downstairs for dinner and continue the conversation. When we got downstairs I mentioned that we had talked enough together and it was time I sat down and met with the Scientologist. Bob said no, I was not ready for that because I needed to walk with he and Stacy down this road first. At that point I realized I was not going to see a Scientologist that night so I had better try to say or do something to get my friends to stop lying for Scientology.  I told them of two specific instances of when I had agreed to negotiate with Scientology but they never ever held up their end of the bargain and each time my life was ruined by them anyway. I told them I thought they were negotiating with the devil. I reminded them about the secretary of a Scientology private investigator named John Porter calling me and I put her in touch with Ray Emmons because she said she was in meetings with Mr. Porter and Scientology people where they planned months before in great detail how they were going to get me busted for marijuana. She even told me how they planned on planting seeds in my back yard. This information had been given to Bob when I found out about it. I was not the person who discussed what the secretary said, Mr. Ray Emmons did. Bob Minton was the one who told me about them putting the seeds on my back porch. I told them they were making a big mistake. Bob told me that I was the one making a mistake but if I walked down this road with them they would hire an attorney for me and everything would be okay. Both he and Stacy Brooks told me of a new life where we would all live in happiness and prosperity. I exploded at that point and told them the truth. I told them from the very beginning when Bob started to lie I called law enforcement and told them the whole story. I told them they were the ones who were screwed. Bob told me I was going to jail and I should leave, and I did. My two best friends have been backed into a corner due to the unlawful discovery practices of Scientology which was allowed to go on and on by the lower courts. The fact that there has been plenty of illegal discovery allowed into Mr. Minton,  the LMT and Mr.  Dandar on financial matters has been acknowledged  by the

[page 13]

appeals courts only recently. In effect, if the law had been correctly interpreted and applied these matters would have never been an issue.  As a result, my friends are being blackmailed and coerced and are now lying for Scientology with the hope of getting Scientology out of their lives forever.  I invite the court to look at the introduction to the “harassment time track” authored by Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks and reconcile what was written then against what they are doing now and have mercy on them both.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

_______________________________
JESSE PRINCE

BEFORE ME, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, to me well known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged having executed same for the uses and purposes therein set forth.

WITNESS my hand and official seal at ________________ Florida, this ____ day of May, 2002.

___________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:

______
J.P.

[page 14]

Notes

Affidavit of Michael J. Rinder (May 9, 1999)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA
vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC
SPN: 01980179

Case No. CRC 98-20377CFANO-S

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND MICHAEL J. RINDER1

Reverend Michael J. Rinder, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this affidavit, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. I am a director of the Church of Scientology International (“CSI”). CSI is the “mother church” of the Scientology religion. CSI provides guidance and assistance to Scientology churches around the world, and is directly concerned with their stability and vitality, their ability to continue to propagate the religion, and the spiritual well-being of the parishioners they serve.

3. In my capacity as a CSI director and in furtherance of the purposes and functions of CSI as set forth in the preceding paragraph of this Affidavit, I became concerned about the impact that the charges brought in this case would have on the Scientology religion, on Scientology churches, including defendant Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization (“FSO”), and on individual Scientologists throughout the world. I have witnessed the results of media coverage which has persistently labeled these proceedings as the prosecution of the entire religion itself, and the disturbing reactions such characterizations have engendered.

4. In charging the Church, the impact was predictable and has now been demonstrated. That impact has stigmatized all Scientology churches and all Scientologists because of the widespread perception generated that the entire Scientology religion has been charged. Literally no Scientologist anywhere in the world is free from or immune to the public impression that those who practice the Scientology religion are suspect by association.

5. The statistics vividly illustrate my point. Articles characterizing the scope of these charges and labeling the accused as “Scientology,” “Scientologists,” or the generic “Church of Scientology” have appeared in over 255 newspapers in the United States, Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Spain. Analysis of the international media coverage reveals that 31 percent reported that “Scientology” was charged with the crime, 66 percent reported that the generalized “Church of Scientology” was charged, and only 3 percent accurately reported that FSO was the target of the charges. To illustrate just how broadly this has been disseminated, a list of the newspapers and wire services where such articles have been published is annexed to this Affidavit as Exhibit A, and a representative sampling of such coverage is annexed as Exhibit B.

6. Together, the newspapers and magazines identified in Exhibit A to this Affidavit have circulation of more than 48,650,000. The wire services identified in Exhibit A to this Affidavit supply news coverage to well over 500,000 subscribing media outlets, and even accounting for overlapping subscribers to such wire services, their reports reach millions of additional readers around the world.

7. Similarly, radio and television broadcasts generally stigmatizing “Scientology” or the “Church of Scientology” with suggestions of culpability in Ms. McPherson ‘ s death and the resulting criminal charges have reached well over 50,000,000 viewers and listeners. A list of the radio and television stations which have broadcast such stories is annexed to this Affidavit as Exhibit C.

8. Another tangible result of the entire church being charged is anti Scientologists have used the case as a springboard for more attacks on Scientology churches and their parishioners worldwide. Anti-Scientology hate groups have organized picketing that has occurred around the world. These “protests” are not orderly demonstrations. Instead, they are raucous and provocative assemblages, marked by taunts, insults, and even threats of violence. Since few, if any, of the “protestors” are disaffected former Scientologists, there is no other purported “cause” for their rallies, apart from the case of State of Florida v. Church of Scientology. Moreover, the vast majority of such “protests” have taken place at premises other than FSO, although some of the most provocative have been in Clearwater.

9. The following is a representative example to illustrate my point. The Information in this case was filed on November 13,1998. Widespread media coverage followed. On December 4, 1998, a group of “protestors” -none of whom even lived in Clearwater- began their demonstration in Clearwater by convening a press conference which they commenced by announcing, “Welcome to occupied Clearwater.” Then, having obtained a permit from the Chief M-Police of Clearwater in an extraordinarily abbreviated application/approval process -of approximately one business day’s duration -these “protestors” occupied the entire public sidewalk in front of FSO. During the course of that “protest,” they:

  • blocked the path of parishioners arriving for, and leaving after, religious services with, among other things, a coffin with “Scientology Kills” painted on it;
  • shouted anti-Scientology epithets through a bullhorn, disrupting religious services inside the building;
  • chased the vans which FSO was forced to provide for the safe transportation of its parishioners;
  • vilified those same parishioners with personal barbs, taunted them and waved hateful, demeaning placards about their religion, with slogans such as the following:
    • “Blood on $cientology Hands” with an autopsy photograph of Ms. McPherson’s hand “Scientology, The Church With A Body Count”
    • “Scientology: Doctors of Death!”
    • “Lisa Macpherson [sic]: Killed by her Church?”
    • “Thank God L. Ron Hubbard is Dead”
    • “Honk if you Hate Scientology!”
  • verbally taunted Church staff with personal insults regarding such things as their mother’s supposed sexual indiscretions; and made profane threats of physical violence against ecclesiastical leaders of the religion. (A representative sampling of photographs of the Clearwater demonstrations is annexed to this Affidavit as Exhibit D.)

10. In December of 1998, anti-Scientologists purchased advertising space on Pinellas County buses which they used for anonymous signs exhorting people, “Don’t Walk, RUN !
Quit $cientology,” and “Find Out Why So Many People Oppose Dianetics & Scientology.” (Exhibit E.) The bus ads were so offensive that one of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (“PSTA “) commissioners demanded they be taken down immediately. After they were removed, the anti- Scientologists appeared at several PSTA board meetings, threatening legal action against the PSI A for refusing to carry their anti-religious message.

11. During the last six weeks of 1998, following the filing of the Information in this case, nearly two dozen such “protests” took place in the United States (including Washington, D.C.; Atlanta, Georgia; Buffalo, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Tustin, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Francisco, California; San Jose, California; and Phoenix, Arizona) and in cities around the world (including Toronto, Canada; London, England; Copenhagen, Denmark; Stockholm, Sweden; and Brisbane, Australia). They bore signs imputing responsibility for Ms. McPherson ‘ s death to the Scientology religion such as the following:

“Scientology Indicted”
“Scientology Kills”
“Scientology killed Lisa McPherson”
“Scientology HURTS PEOPLE”
“Scientology Hurts People. Who will be next?”
“Scientology is a Scam”
“Scientology Charged [in] Lisa’s Death”
“Lisa McPherson is dead”
“Don’t forget Lisa McPherson, killed by Scientologists”
“Say No to Scientology -What on Earth do $cientologists Believe in Anyway?”

Annexed to this Affidavit as Exhibit F is a representative sampling of photographs of these protests.

12. In 1999, similar anti-Scientology demonstrations targeting the religion have been staged throughout the United States (including Atlanta, Georgia; San Jose, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; Los Gatos, California; Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah) and elsewhere in the world (including Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Sussex, England; and Toronto, Canada). The slogans printed on protestors’ signs in those demonstrations included:

“Scientology hurts people. Who will be next?”
“Stop hurting people”
“Scientology indicted in death of Lisa McPherson, December 5, 1995”
“Scientology is a Scam”
“Scientology is a cult”
“Scientology didn’t believe in God”
“Scientology. Criminal cult of Greed, Fraud, Hate and Abuse”
“Scientology proud to be evil”
“L. Ron Hubbard is dead but his fraud continues!”
“Scientology, threat to democracy!”
“Scientology should not be tax exempt”
“Lisa McPherson killed by her Church”
“Is Scientology practicing medicine without a license?”
“Scientology, Cult of Greed & Power”
“Scientology boasts of brainwashing”

13. The widespread, international demonstrations described above, which exploit allegations relating to Ms. McPherson’ s death to stigmatize an international religion and its adherents, establish that the charges in this case are being interpreted as directed against the entire Scientology religion rather than against the defendant. It is highly improbable there is a single Scientologist across the globe who has not been confronted with the allegation his or her religion killed one of its own members. Indeed, the false attributions of responsibility to the religion itself have become so widely publicized that even foreign governments have raised inquiries. In December of 1998, a member of the Danish parliament asked for an investigation into allegations regarding the Church’ s treatment of Ms. McPherson. The questions raised by the Danish parliamentarian were directed toward the beliefs and practices of the Scientology religion, and not the conduct of any corporation or individuals.

14. So pervasive is the perception that the religion or the entire “Church of Scientology” has been charged in connection with Ms. McPherson’ s death, that it even appears to have reached into the courthouse. Exhibit G to this Affidavit is a true and correct copy of a notice served upon defendant FSO by the Court in which the caption identifies the defendant as “Church of Scientology” without reference to “Flag Service Organization” or “FSO.”

15. Although I recognize that the State neither writes the stories nor the headlines, the fact of charging FSO has been interpreted publicly as a sound denunciation of the Scientology religion and all its parishioners as criminally complicit. A March 28, 1999 article in the St. Petersburg Times encapsulates the essence of this perception. At the conclusion of a two-and- one-half page front-page article, the Times reporter wrote: “Cranes over downtown Clearwater stand in testament to the church’ s continued growth as the church and its members change the face of that city. But standing in the way is Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe, the prosecutor and a fresh charge that strikes at the heart of Scientology’s claim that it helps its adherents.” (Emphasis added.)

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
[signed]
Reverend Michael J. Rinder

STATE OF FLORIDA
County of Pinellas

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of May, 1999, by Reverend Michael J. Rinder, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath.
[signed]
ASHER SAMUEL GHIORA
MY COMMISSION. CC69144S
EXPIRES October 26.2001

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format. Retrieved from http://lisatrust.freewinds.be/legal/lisa-criminal/rinder-affidavit-05-09-99.htm

Robert Vaughn Young: RVY Update by RVY (September 2, 1998)

Title: repost: RVY Update by RVY (Robert Vaughn Young)
Author: writer@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
Date: 2 Sep 1998 20:53:21 GMT

INTRODUCTION: The length of this post is relevant to its subject. It does
include some Scientologese. If you find a word you don’t understand, call
your local Dianetics or Scientology organization and ask them to define
it. They like people to do this. Be sure to tell them you are reading
alt.religion.scientology.

Hi, guys. Long time no write, which is what this post is really about.

I’ve been posting to ARS for a few years now and then I disappeared,
although I was occasionally in touch with several of you via email. I
want to tell you what’s been going on. Plus it will give the criminal cult
something to whine, bitch, carp, natter, scream, cry, rant about which
might get someone’s stats up there so they can get a day off to do their
laundry. (Boy, do I remember that routine!)

For those who don’t know me, I was in the cult for nearly 21 years. (I
know that Martin Hunt has archived some of my posts at
<http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/rvy/rvy.htm>.) Because I spoke out,
they had to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last five
years trying to silence me and probably even think they finally did it.
Right. Read on.

If you can manage about 7,000 words, this post will tell you more than the
cult wants you to know.

TRAVELS WITH JESSE

You’ve heard about Jesse Prince. Well, I was with him having a great time
in Southern California back in July, when he was at Dan Leipold’s law
offices. Of course, we were being followed by the Church of Paranoia’s
criminal Dept. 20 and typical of their ineptness, we slipped in behind
them and followed them for awhile. It was hilarious they way they
panicked, zipping and dashing about through traffic while we kept on their
tails, sometimes bumper-to-bumper, reading license plates and laughing our
heads off in this darling red Mustang convertible, with the top down.
(Hey, do it in style!) If this was a paid PI, Rinder should ask for a
refund as they were a pathetic joke. Anyway, we did it for a while and
then tired and left them, wondering if they would tell the truth in their
report how they screwed it up. Again.

Later I went back to Minneapolis, where Jesse lived. We spent a few days
there while he wrapped up things and then we toodled on over to Chicago to
visit relatives and hung out in the Windy City for a few days, checking
out everything from the music clubs to Lake Michigan. I had my dog Mac
with me and we romped on the sands and down in the water, having a great
time. (Meanwhile someone told me the OSA sock puppets on ARS were saying
how I’ve disappeared. Yup. With Jesse in a red Mustang convertible. LOL!)

From there we went south to visit more relatives, caring less if the
paranoid criminal cult was tracking us. Let em spend Travolta’s money to
get nuttin’. After a few days here and there, we turned west and ambled
across Kansas  (spare me from EVER driving across Kansas again) and into
Colorado.

HELP! RVY IS MISSING!

So while the OSA sock puppets were claiming I was missing, they were lying
to you. (I’m shocked!) They knew I was with Jesse. (In fact, we enjoyed it
that they knew. It’s called “critical mass.”) They just hated it that two
very good friends were having such a good time!

I should have mentioned that earlier. Jesse and I go back many years, into
the cult. He and I are old buddies and it was great spending many weeks
with him. He is as outrageous as ever. Runt leader David Miscavige was
always afraid of him and as evidenced by the tantrums of his sock puppets,
he’s still afraid. (By the way, if you ever want to see a good portrayal
of the runt-punk, watch Al Pachino’s character in the movie “Scarface,”
who can’t complete a sentence without three forms of the word “fuck.” But
perhaps the best example of life with DM is truly Kevin Spacey’s abusive
character in the movie “Swimming With Sharks,” which takes place in
Hollywood. Small world. But then so is DM.)

ON BEING A WRITER

As to what I else I have been doing and will be doing, I am doing some
intense writing and in such an effort – for those of you who haven’t had
the experience – it requires considerable time and solitude. And in my
case, more than usual, as you will find out.

It was no accident that I chose the handle “writer” when I set up my
Eskimo.com account years ago. I’ve been writing all of my life. It is
not only a love of the Muse but it can be a curse, as many a writer will
tell you. Mine was both.

I did a lot of writing in the cult, but there is little there of any
pride. Since then, I won some awards but nothing else captivated me until
now. So sit back and let me tell you how it happened. I think some of you
will find some of this interesting.

THE HUBBARD ARCHIVES

Let’s start in late 1981, when I happened to acquire the archives that
contained Hubbard’s private papers. (These were the ones that Gerry
Armstrong started.) The truly essential material came down to perhaps 15
linear feet of paper. Over the months, with nothing else to do, I had a
chance to read private letters, papers and manuscripts (including the
three, yes, three, versions of the infamous Excalibur, which has to be the
most overblown piece of hype he EVER produced and, no, it has NOTHING to
do with OT3), which also gave me the full uncensored view of this man. I
read everything from love letters to (and from and about) his mistresses,
his girlfriends (such as Fern, who gave him the clap, forcing him to
secretly take sulfa), his private pornographic ramblings (he liked to draw
penises and vaginas around the margins in red ink, which gave the page a
grisly look), his black magic material, his letters to family, wives (in
the early 1950s, while having mistress Barbara on the side and at the same
time preaching about the dangers of illicit relationships), editors and
even to himself, as journals.

There was one problem with what I read. It didn’t match what we
(collectively then, meaning the organization) were saying about Hubbard
and what Hubbard, based on what he had say to say. When I tried to gently
point this out, the Shinola hit the fan. It didn’t matter that it was in
Hubbard’s own hand. It didn’t match the story he put out so – straight out
of “1984” – it didn’t exist. (These documents were later confiscated and
sealed away to make sure no staff see them but enough of us did –
including a few still on staff (hi, guys!) – so it can be verified
someday, if it comes to that. But that is another story.)

WRITING FOR HUBBARD

In the years that followed, Hubbard and I had a fascinating relationship
because I was intrigued with him as a writer and I found I could easily
mimick his style, which came in handy later.

But in 1982, drawing from the archival material, I proposed the idea of
the “Ron” magazines. Hubbard loved the idea and we cranked out the first
issue which is a serious collector’s item. (Because Stacy and I produced
it, it no longer officially exists. It is an Orwellian non-mag.)

BIOGRAPHIES AND GHOSTS

At one point I was tagged to be his biographer but the biography went the
way of all the other attempts, ranging from Omar Garrison to Fletcher
Prouty. (Meanwhile I was identified as such, from the San Luis Obispo
paper to the Washington Post in Scientology-produced stories that it is
difficult for the cult to rewrite.)

I also ghosted for Hubbard, meaning I wrote material for which he was
credited, which was not uncommon. I wrote everything from these short
little greetings that were sent to events (staff and public always thought
that Hubbard was writing to them, which always showed us how gullible they
were) to policy letters (I wrote the current disconnection policy with
some help at the end of it by Ray Mitoff, who ghosted a lot of the
technical material and issued it under Hubbard’s name) to ghosting
sections of his “Mission Earth” series, while I was editing it. (And boy,
is THAT another story! Whew!)

HUBBARD’S DEATH

When Hubbard died, everything changed. (duh) I went to the death site (his
ranch at Creston, near San Luis Obispo CA) that night along with David
Miscavige and some attorneys. Since none of us – including Miscavige – had
ever been there, we were met at a restaurant by Pat Broeker who took us to
the ranch. We arrived at perhaps 4 a.m. (Hubbard was found dead at about 8
p.m. I was told at 10. We left LA at perhaps 1 a.m. I wasn’t always
watching the clock, given the circumstances.)

What’s amusing in the cult’s attempt to DA me is their saying that I went
to the ranch along with some gardeners and cooks. Right. Gardeners and
cooks were the first to be rushed up that night, before the authorities
were called or the body taken away. ROFL! Don’t you just love these guys!

Creston was where the story was put together that he had moved on to the
next level of research, or however it was worded, when it was announced at
the Palladium and to the world. The event was so carefully constructed
that no one noticed that something essential was missing, but Ill get to
that in a moment. But during the event, I stayed at the ranch to deal with
any media who might show up or call. None did and less than 48 hours
later, the Challenger space shuttle blew up, bumping news of his death and
any serious questions from the media. I was monitoring the TV news via a
satellite dish and watched it happen and reported it. While the rest of
the world was in shock, DM was happy because we had been bumped from the
news. But that is how one comes to view the world at that echelon.

THE NEWBERRY RANCH

I later moved to another ranch Hubbard owned, at Newberry Springs, east
of Barstow CA and stayed there for a couple of months. Hubbard never
visited it (it was merely a fallback location for him) and I never did see
that anyone learned about this one, even the media. I guess they were all
hung up on the Creston property, near San Luis Obispo, where he died.

The most lasting benefit of my stay at Newberry was that that was where I
stopped smoking. One day DM, Mitoff, Pat Broeker, Mike Eldridge and I were
sitting around and we all agreed to stop smoking, although Broeker was the
only non-smoker. Mitoff had a horrible time of it. He ended up on Skoal
Bandits, spitting disgustingly into a bucket while driving back and forth
to LA, and also addicting me to the little cusses. In the end, I was the
only one who stopped, making me wish we had put some money in a pool.

In the months I spent between the Creston and Newberry ranches, Pat and I
became good friends. He had been Hubbard’s closest and most trusted aide
and confident for those final years. With what I already  knew about
Hubbard, Pat and I had the greatest talks. Sometimes Pat and I were the
only ones at the ranch, so we eould chat while moving horses or going to
town to shop. I began to learn about the life Hubbard had lead while in
hiding for those last years, moving between towns in the Bluebird bus and
finally settling down in Creston. (BTIAS)

THE STRUGGLE STARTS – WHO WILL REPLACE HUBBARD?

Meanwhile, a power struggle was brewing to see who would take control of
Scientology and Newberry was the place where many of the discussions
occurred while DM stayed either in LA or in Hemet. (Jesse will have
something to say about that someday because he was seriously involved in
the ensuing explosion.) It would result in a number of people fleeing
(such as Jesse) or going to the RPF (such as me).

A key element in the power struggle was Hubbard’s last message to the
rank-and-file. Those who were in the cult back in 1986-87 will remember
this incident. It was a message from Hubbard that was issued as a Sea Org
directive. It said goodbye, wishing them well and establishing a new
rank/position called Loyal Officer or LO. (The term is taken from OT3.)
Pat was to be the  LO1 and his wife Annie was to be LO2 and it basically
turned the management of the Sea Org over to them. And since the SO ran
Scientology, that meant they were at the top of the heap. DM was not
mentioned in the directive. It was later was issued to all staff –
with DM’s approval and authority – reduced in size and put in a small
fram with a photo of Hubbard for the desk of every staff member.

In the meantime, Pat began to slowly take control. I would often get phone
calls from him. He would never identify himself on the phone, going back
to his years of tight security, but merely would say, “Hi, it’s me.”

I won’t try to give the details of the ensuing power struggle because I
was in LA and it was happened at Creston, Newberry and Hemet. (I leave it
to Jesse, who was there.) But the outcome was that Miscavige won. And
typical of any political coup, there was a sudden purge as he consolidated
his power. Anyone DM thought might be a friend of Broeker’s who would pose
a threat were sent to Scientology’s equivalent of Lubayanka Prison or
Siberia: the RPF, so I went. For 16 months and three escape attempts.

Now here is where it gets interesting, folks.

MISCAVIGE CANCELS HUBBARD’S MESSAGE

While I was on the RPF, a directive came out from Miscavige saying the
supposed final message from Hubbard that named Broeker was a forgery by
Broeker and it was being canceled. That same day, Annie Broeker appeared
on the RPF. This was not the Annie I had come to know. What stumbled into
the RPF was a completely broken person. She was pale and hollow and her
eyes were empty. There was no mistaking it. She had been broken and only
now was she being thrown away into the trash heap called the RPF. Even
then, she was kept under guard, just to be sure.

TWO IMPORTANT OMITTEDS

With the cancellation of the message from Hubbard, there were now two
vital things missing that were 100% Hubbard and 100% standard tech and
yet no one seemed to notice or, if they did, no one dared to remark on it.
But then, as Hubbard correctly pointed out, the hardest thing to notice is
the thing that is omitted.

What was now missing was (1) something from Hubbard to all Scientologists
saying goodbye and what he was doing and (2) something that passed his
hat, which is one of the most basic tenets in the organization. They had
been missing at the event announcing his death but with the cancellation
by Miscavige, they were missing more than ever.

WHERE WAS HUBBARD’S MESSAGE?

One does not require much knowledge about L. Ron Hubbard to know that it
would be completely unlike him to simply leave – especially if the story
about his going off to do more research were true – and not leave a
message. So if he HAD left as Scientologists were told, where was the
message if the other was a forgery?

But perhaps more importantly, where was the hat turnover? I don’t mean the
volumes of policies and bulletins. I mean something that says, I hereby
appoint Joe Blow to take over as… Would Hubbard leave the planet and not
pass on the command? Hardly.

Or let’s put it in one of the most basic tenets from Hubbard: if it isn’t
written, it isn’t true.

(Note: Hubbard’s will was hardly a Scientology hat turnover and has not
been issued to the rank and file as policy.)

So the question became (to those of us who wondered), if the LO directive
was a forgery, where was the real one? Where were Hubbard’s wishes IN
WRITING?

MISCAVIGE HAD NOTHING FROM HUBBARD

Of course, DM never provided anything and no one was willing to ask and
risk being sent to the RPF with the rest of us. He said it was a forgery
and that was that. End of discussion.

For the rest of my stay in the cult, Pat Broeker was never mentioned
because, in the cult, you learn what to not talk about. Pat became what in
Orwell’s “1984” is a non-person. He had been written out of history, with
anyone who cared (such as me) being sent to the RPF or interrogated
(security checked) until they got the point, which meant (per the head on
a pike policy) that everyone else got the message.

So without a shred of WRITTEN evidence from Hubbard and by canceling what
even DM had first agreed was from Hubbard, Miscavige was now in control
while Broeker had disappeared.

Can you say, “coup”?

But hold on! It gets better.

READING THE MATERIAL ANEW

After Stacy and I fled the cult in 1989, I put it all behind me. I simply
wanted my life back and the last thing I needed was to think about the
cult. They had taken enough of my life without my adding more. But after a
couple of years of drying out, Stacy and I were invited to help with some
legal cases and this gave us a chance to handle the material that once
handled us. We could now read Hubbard and TALK about the material, which
is completely forbidden in the cult. It was like back-flushing a radiator
and watching what comes out.

I came across a copy of Miscavige’s cancellation of Hubbards final message
and I began to kick it around with Stacy. As we talked, I started to
comment on the various little oddities, starting with the cancellation
itself. I began to remember a few others that I had packed away at the
time. We were having a conversation that Sea Org staff could no more do
than a loyal Communists might question the a change of power in the
Kremlin, and for the same reasons.

AN “ACCEPTABLE TRUTH” IS FED SCIENTOLOGISTS

In the weeks and months that followed, I couldn’t shake the events
surrounding Hubbard’s death and DM’s takeover. Little oddities took on
forms like pieces of a jig saw puzzle. I felt like an amnesiac trying to
recover his memory yet what was there to recover? I was there at the
ranch. I was there when Hubbard’s body was taken out. I was there when the
execs were called up the ranch and told to get an event together, but not
being told why. I was there when the attorneys reported his death and then
scurried to get the body through the coroner. Etc, etc, etc. So what was
the problem? Yeah, the next higher level of research story was the sort of
pap we used to feed the rank-and-file all the time but it wasn’t as if we
LIED to them. (Sort of the way Clinton said he didn’t LEGALLY lie.) We
didn’t LEGALLY lie, did we?

Per Hubbard’s policy, they were given an “acceptable truth” because of
“the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” What that means
in plain speak was that there would be panic and disaffection in the ranks
if it was thought that Hubbard – the OT of all OTs, of course – was not at
cause over life and death. If the tech couldn’t help him, how could it
help others? That was the myth that had to be protected at all costs and
that was what the story did when his death was announced. It fed the myth
that everyone so wanted to believe. (And it kept the money coming in.)

WORKING WITH PUZZLE PIECES

While in the cult, I had done a lot of investigative reporting and some of
the best I did was working on some of the CIA’s mind control documents
created under the code name MK ULTRA. When the CIA released them, much was
blanked out and working with a team of people hand-selected by Stacy, we
went through documents that the media had skipped past because they were
so fragmentary and so heavily deleted. In one file, for example, there
were receipts for the installation of mufflers on a 1953 Mercury, a tiny
battery-powered motor, elevator tickets to the Empire State Building, nose
plugs, a receipt for someone to attend a Microscropy convention, etc.

Bit by bit, we struggled to give them meaning until one piece cracked
another, like breaking a code. We came up with the experiment and got
national news on Operation Big City where bacillus were released (through
the mufflers) to test for bacterial warfare. (The elevator tickets were so
agents could go up and measure the amount of released bacteria.) It is a
story the cult still likes to cite, along with several others I did for
them, under my byline in the Freedom rag. Since then, per Orwell, my name
has been deleted, of course.

Pouring over those heavily deleted CIA documents was how I felt like while
I chewed on the oddities around Hubbard’s death, such as nothing in
writing from him, Broeker missing, the fact that Denk (Hubbard’s physician
at the time of death) had also disappeared, Annie’s appearance and little
things that I had seen and learned at the ranch.

THE BLUE FLASH

And then it hit me. It was what Hubbard calls a blue flash, the sudden
insight.

Hubbard didn’t die.

He was killed.

I fell back in my chair, completely stunned. In all of the years since
1986, I had never once considered that possibility. Even with my being
long out of the cult and directing criticism at various practices and
policies, the thought had never crossed my mind that Hubbard might have
been killed.

I got a sheet of paper and began to take notes, my heart pounding and my
breathing hurried. That nagging feeling had turned into an adrenaline rush
that I couldn’t explain.

Who was there at the Creston ranch when Hubbard died?

* Pat Broeker – MIA.

* Annie Broeker – broken, under their control.

* Two Scientology ranch hands. While trusted to work on the ranch, I
came to see how much they were kept out of the loop.

* Gene Denk – Hubbard’s personal physician. (And mine. Small world.)
Denk had disappeared for a year after the death, which was one of those
oddities, before returning to his practice up the street from the main
Hollywood complex.

End of list, a too-short list so I started to add who went up that night
in the three-car caravan that included DM, some attorneys and a couple of
us “gardeners and cooks.” Nothing there.

I looked at the list. Pat Broeker was the only possibility, if he was out
and alive. For all I knew, he was dead or locked up somewhere and in a
mental state that approximated cold oatmeal. There was no middle ground.
He wouldn’t have been given a safe back-lines job or I would have heard
about it.

SEARCHING FOR BROEKER

So how would I find Pat Broeker, if he was alive. I racked my memory,
trying to dig out some clue he might have given me in the months that we
were together but I came up with nothing. My tendency to not inquire about
a person’s personallife had just sold me short. I didn’t even know what
state he was from. Who might? Who would know where he came from or where
he was born? I needed some clue to start the search and the problem was
the security that Pat used for his job. He had explained to me how any
trace of him had been wiped out, to ensure that no one could find Hubbard
by finding him. Plus if Pat had escaped or fled, he was skilled enough to
hide from any search as that was what he had been doing for years to hide
Hubbard from the authorities.

I finally remembered one location he told me about and sent a message
there saying that I was trying to reach him but no reply came. After a few
months I sent another and waited. The months turned into nearly a year and
I basically gave up until one day when the phone rang.

“Hello?” I said.

“Hi,” came a voice. “It’s me.”

I paused, saying nothing.

“Pat?” I finally said with some incredulity. “Is that you?”

“Yeah,” he said, with what I swear was a twinkle in his voice. “How are
you?”

What a question!

RINDER WAKES UP

Let’s jump ahead a few years when I was in a deposition in Denver, in the
FACTNet case. The usual goon squad was there, including Mike Rinder, who
proudly heads up the criminal Dept. 20 where Scientology’s felons are
produced. Rinder was struggling to stay awake in the corner while the cult
attorney was going through a list of names, wanting to know if I had
spoken with any of them. Rinder’s head was bobbing as the attorney asked
monotonously, “Pat Broeker?”

I glanced at Rinder. I had to enjoy this one.

“Yes,” I said.

I couldn’t have gotten a faster reaction with a bucket of water. Rinder
jumped awake and looked at me in shock, fear and hatred. I smiled.

The questions about my involvement with Broeker were routine, from a list
that they asked for each person I named but Broeker wasn’t routine. They
soon stopped to take a break. Like the good sock puppet that he is, Rinder
dashed out of the room, obviously to call DM. (I so wish I could have
watched DM’s face too.) About 15 minutes later, Rinder returned and shoved
some questions at the attorney and the depo continued. But little was
gained and not one question was asked about what Pat might have told me
about Hubbard’s death, if he had at all. They clearly didn’t want it
on the record, under oath. I found it amusing, this great powerful cult
was so terrified of the subject, not to mention Broeker.

So let me tell you a little bit about Pat: he’s doing fine and his sense of
humor has improved. End of a little bit.

THE CORONER’S REPORT

Now lets back up a tad, before Pat and I spent several days together,
going over old times. I went to San Luis Obispo, the county seat for where
Hubbard died. It was there that I got the full coroner’s report from a
very friendly deputy sheriff. I poured over the pages and noticed that
something called Vistaril was found in Hubbard’s blood. Since the cause of
death was a stroke, I assumed it was a stroke medication so I didn’t
bother further. Several days later, I called a physician friend and was
going over the documents and the medical language.

“By the way,? I asked casually, “what’s Vistaril?”

“A psychiatric tranquilizer,” he answered matter-of-factly.

I nearly dropped the phone.

“Excuse me,” I said in near-shock, “but what did you say?”

“Vistaril is a psychiatric tranquilizer, usually injected through the
buttocks.”

I flipped to the document where the Coroner had examined Hubbard’s body. I
read it to my friend, about the needle puncture wounds found on the left
buttock, under a band-aid. “Could that be the Vistaril shots,” I asked.

“Probably,” he said. “That’s where they are usually given.”

I looked at the Coroner’s report and the blood sample report.

Holy shit, I said to myself, in my best French. Holy fucking shit.

THE AUTOPSY IS PROHIBITED

I pulled out another document, signed by Hubbard. It prohibited any
autopsy of his body on religious grounds, which was legally binding on
officials. DM and attorney Earle Cooley had shoved it at the coroner to
stop him, leaving him to take only blood samples, which turned up the
Vistaril.

So, I thought, L. Ron Hubbard, the man who fought psychiatry since 1950
and who railed against the dangers of any psychiatric drugs had died with
them in his brain while signing a new last will.

Plus even the coroner was suspicious of the will as it had been signed by
Hubbard just before he died. Coincidences like that tend to make coroner’s
worry. (I wonder what the coroner would have thought had he known that
Denk was gambling at Lake Tahoe when Hubbard had his stroke, as several
people can attest. The impression the coroner had was that Denk was “in
attendence” with Hubbard not only at death but was there at the stroke,
having stayed at the ranch for months. Hmmm….)

I fell back in my chair, trying to catch my breath.

OUTPOINTS? WHAT OUTPOINTS?

Okay, I said to myself, lets see if we understand this. Hubbard signs a
will while on the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril and then dies. The
coroner cannot conduct an autopsy because Hubbard also signed a paper
(also while on Vistaril?) prohibiting an autopsy on religious grounds. The
Scientologist doctor who was in attendance (except when he went to Lake
Tahoe and Hubbard had the stroke) signs the death certificate as the
physician attending to Hubbard and then disappears for a year. Then even
though David Miscavige has nothing else in writing from Hubbard, he
cancels Hubbard’s last message and hat transfer to trusted aide Broeker
and ousts Broeker, who disappears while his wife is turned into a
compliant vegetable, leaving DM in charge.

Nope, nothing wrong here, I facetiously thought. No outpoints, borrowing
Hubbard’s word for oddities.

I had to take a walk.

STARTING WITH A TITLE

I don’t know when it was but I clearly remember a particular moment when I
sat down at my computer keyboard. I am one of those writers who needs
either the opening words of the article or a working title in order to
really start. I had a working title, not for an article, but a book, and I
typed it out. Then I leaned back in my chair, took a deep breath and read
it. It said, “Who Killed L. Ron Hubbard?”

I leaned back and my eyes roamed over each word and letter. I took in the
question and then the words and letters and back to the question. I even
digested the tiny pixels on the screen, as if I hoped the answer would
leap from the phosphorescence but nothing changed but the black cursor
blinking at me, almost mocking my effort. Yes, I thought, it is a
pretentious question but it was the one I had to try to answer, if there
was an answer.

Then I had the exact moment for the opening words. It was on the night
that Terri Gamboa – former Executive Director of Author Services, Inc.
and now out of Scientology – called me to DM’s office where I was told
that Hubbard had died and that I would be going to his ranch.

THE WRITING STARTS

I leaned towards the keyboard and began to write. To my amazement, the
words and the scene poured out effortlessly. I wasn’t striving for
literature. I merely had to capture the scene.

As the cursor flitted across the screen, I began to remember how it
happened that night and into the days that followed. There was more that I
needed to remember but for now, this would do. Let it roll, I told myself.
Let it roll. It was as if I was regaining myself.

Perhaps six or so hours later, I finally stopped, exhausted and
sufficiently satisfied for the moment. But even then, I found it difficult
to sleep as my mind kept returning to the ranch, Broeker, DM, the RPF, the
Challenger disaster, Newberry, the ambulance taking away his body. I was
searching for pieces of a puzzle that had no comprehension.

And how could I possibly answer the question?

HOOKED ON HUBBARD

What ensued over the next few years was more of a personal journey than a
professional quest, meaning – as I came to learn very recently – because
it was as much a search for closure on part of my life as it was a search
for the story. But then, that is so often the case with writers, as anyone
who has studied literature knows.

As I pursued it/him/me, it took me around the country and into subjects
that I never expected, such as meeting with police who were involved in
the investigation of the odd suicide of Flo Barnett, David Miscavige’s
mother-in law. She was found with several shots to the chest with the coup
de grace to the temple, all from a rifle. (At one point, the cult grilled
me in a deposition about her death, asking if I had any evidence of any
foul play. No, I said, which made them happy. They failed to ask me if
anyone else has any evidence. Scientology: Knowing how to know. Yup.)

I even came across people who claimed to know about Miscavige’s
in-the-cult-sex life, via accounts from his wife Shelly. (Scientology
confessional methods have an interesting rippling effect.) If true, I felt
sorry for her.

THE WRITING STALLS

But when I tried to continue my writing, it stalled and I struggled. At
one point I became so disillusioned that I killed the idea for nearly a
year as a ridiculous obsession but then like a weed taking root, it
sprouted again but only to wither and die in my inspirational drought. Was
it the subject or was it me? Had my disregard of the Muse prompted a like
response?

I had not written anything truly worthwhile since 1991, when my article
for San Diego Magazine won two journalism awards, from the Society of
Professional Journalist and the San Diego Press Club. The article was
about the dangers in the flight pattern of the San Diego airport, from the
perspective of the pilots who flew it.

When we fled the cult in 1989, we settled in Ocean Beach, on the Point
Loma Peninsula because of the nearby Dog Beach where a hundred canines
would romp on any given summer day. The downside was that Ocean Beach was
in the westerly flight path of Lindbergh Field and the roar of the jets
above us garnered enough attention to prompt my learning that the flight
path was the target of a citizens group. They in turn introduced me to
pilots who were concerned about the safety of the eastern approach and my
journalistic tendencies took over and the magazine accepted my query.

The article was woven around a hypothetical flight approaching Lindbergh
Field that I had constructed from interviews with a dozen experienced
commercial pilots, moving the reader from cockpit to the airport back to
cockpit to FAA regulations and back to cockpit and then to buildings that
loomed in the pilot’s eyes as he seemingly navigated them like the cars a
few hundred feet below. The pilot’s called it a “white knuckle landing.”

Braiding these elemtns was a thrill and a challenge and the article drew
more letters of praise than anything the magazine had published in years,
the editor told me, prompting them to publish letters for the next three
months. They received only one critical letter, from a Coast Guard pilot
who liked the approach. I guess he loved the thrill.

WRITING FOR THE REAL WORLD

When my name was announced as the best news magazine article at the awards
banquet for the San Diego Press Club, I was stunned for two reasons. Yes,
winning was a thrill. But there was a more important reason: I had
succeeded as a writer. I hadn’t written it according to “policy” or to
fulfill some program step or as an amends project or to attack some
imagined enemy. My editor didn’t require that I include certain buttons and
attack phrases and the article didn’t need i/a or issue authority to be
certain that it forwarded the most current Party Line. It was MY article
and I had chosen the style and techniques and my professional peers
applauded as I walked to the podium to accept the plaque.

THIS was what writing was about, I realized: the freedom to write without
propaganda or Party Line, without a Big Brother looking over my
shoulder, as if I am the old Soviet Union.

Suddenly there was a separation between what I had been doing for 20 years
in the cult and what writing truly was about. All one has to do is pick up
any Scientology publication, especially their rag called Freedom and watch
the propaganda drip off the page like the rotting garbage it is. What
astounded me was how I had come to believe that this was writing, not
unlike how writers for Pravda probably felt during the Communist regime.
But writing for Pravda or Freedom is to writing what prostitutes are to
love and for the same reason.

RETURNING TO THE MUSE

And so I began to long to return to my greatest and dearest love and I
realized that just as the cult had drained my creativity by demanding
propaganda instead of art, so had my post-cult days. A piece that I wrote
for Quill magazine about how Scientology manipulates the media
(http://www.scientology.no.net/archive/media/young-quill.html) was
informative but it was hardly satisfying to me as a writer. Another that I
wrote for Der Spiegel magazine about the top secret Snow White program
(http://cisar.org/g50925ae.htm) was as satisfying as eating cardboard
because it appeared in German. How can a writer see and judge the final
piece if he/she cant even read it? At least it hd some photos.

I began to ask myself, what am I doing? In the cult they wanted propaganda
pieces attacking imagined enemies that made the cult executives feel good
when they read them. (That is always the most important audience for such
propaganda. It makes the members feel as if this is reality and truth when
it is nothing but one’s own sock puppet show.) And outside of the cult, I
was writing stories and giving sound bites about Scientology, whether it
be for a newspaper, magazine or TV show. Where was I as a writer, other
than as an email address? So I turned more to cats than cults. At least
they purred.

HOW IT WENT OFF THE RAILS

With some help, I began to see what had happened to me. During my nearly
21 years in the cult, I had sold my creative soul as certainly as if I had
worked for a money-grubbing ad agency, and in that regard, the two aren’t
any different. My proudest achievement – the San Diego story – came after
the cult and before I started consulting on Scientology cases and writing
about the cult. As a writer, I had moved from one cult to another. It was
no wonder that I had spun my wheels for years on that book. I realized
that if I am to regain that joy of writing so the Muse can inspire me to
the completion of any effort, it had to recapture what I was free to do a
few years earlier. But to do that, to entice the Muse to return, I have to
step away from this arena for as long as it takes, whether it be a month
or a year. The Muse works not by deadlines.

How did I come to all of this? At a little retreat called Wellspring in
southern Ohio, where I was able to relax and write and walk with Mac and
talk with friends about any subject I pleased. I could arise in the middle
of the night, as I often did, to pound out something on my laptop until I
wanted to crash until my next inspiration, whatever the hour. Meanwhile,
the kitchen downstairs was stocked for any meal or snack, or prepared for
me if I wanted to devote my time to my own recovery rather than making
dinner. Or I could walk the rolling hills with Mac and a few others of his
species and enjoy the fading purple Ironwood flowers, indicating the end
of summer. Or if the silence was too much, I could watch TV or go into
nearby Athens (a college town, for Ohio University) and enjoy a coffee
house, movie or a good used bookstore, the kind found only in college
towns.

CULTS VS. CREATIVITY

Yes, I realized, this is definitely the type of place that Scientology
would hate for it allows freedom and creativity. They would have to hate
it and pump the propaganda just as Pravda attacked the institutions west
of the Berlin Wall that represented the antithesis of the official Kremlin
Party Line. Any true freedom challenges boundaries, especially those that
pretend to be otherwise, as Communism pretended to be the bastion of true
peace and freedom. One can even find and measure totalitarian systems by
their knee-jerk party lines and Scientology is among the best. I know
because I did it for so very long from inside, and then became their
target from this other side.

Wellspring was important because they know what it is like to try to be
free in an abusive environment, whether it be a marriage or a cult or a
job. (They work with a lot of abused women.) Abuse is abuse. Terror is
terror. It differs by degrees and it rips away individuality and
creativity and future for the individual.

But at Wellspring, I was free to write and to peel away the barriers to my
own creativity that included not only the cult but post-cult and pre-cult
experiences, even back to the days when I wrote for school papers or for
the anti-war movement in San Francisco or a political campaign, of which
there were several for me in the 1960s. It was no wonder I was so
qualified to produce propaganda for an abusive cult. I had been writing
propaganda for years!

This is what my two weeks at Wellspring gave me, amongst other insights.
(Results will vary, as label disclaimers remind us.)(laugh) But it was
what I needed to regain a personal integrity that any abusive system,
especially a cult, despises.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

So that is what I was doing, am doing and going to do and it will require
concentration and reflection and time which is why I’ve not been on ARS
and won’t be, for as long as I must.

My apologies to many friends who have left messages or sent me mail and
gotten no reply. It’s difficult to explain why one is so involved with an
idea or a project or any creative effort, so that virtually nothing else
exists. I usually don’t even like to talk about it or discuss it. Stacy is
an exception because she has followed this journey since it started. It
was when she told me how many were reaching her to ask about me that I
realized it would be rude to continue to say nothing, given the role I
have played in this endeavor. (I even shared this post with her before
sending it.)

So don’t take it personal if you get no reply. Consider it just the
eccentricity that some writers get into when they latch onto an idea and
lock themselves away or take long walks or won’t talk to anyone and get up
at all hours of the night (it is 4:30 a.m. as I type this), chewing on an
idea, a style, a voice, a scene, a thread and then throwing it all away
and starting again or merely prowling for more information or even
traveling with a friend or a dog to take a break.

My intention is merely to restore and rebuild the creative self I touched
earlier and then decide on my direction. It is not a matter of disdain for
hack writing. That is snobbery. There is a place and time for classic hack
writing just as there is a place for great B movies. Few of us can live on
pure diets of Shakespeare, Mozart and Kant.

KEYBOARDS AND FREEDOM

What does this have to do with the original idea that I was writing about?
The best answer I can give is, we’ll see. Besides, there is more to write
about, including fiction. Or I might find another airport.

Besides, with HTML and the Net, writing (not to mention publication) has
changed. One no longer needs a footnote or an appendix with documents when
HTML can link to a document, a map, a photograph or even a video. A writer
who knows HTML – which I have had the good fortune to learn – has greater
opportunities and options and freedoms.

It used to be said that freedom of the press belonged to those who owned
one. Well, with the Internet, that freedom can now belong to anyone with a
keyboard and THAT is what dries the mouth, puckers the hole and strikes
fear in the heart of every tyrant. What Tom Paine could have done today!

So there you are, a writer’s account of himself, past, present and future.
It is long because it is easier than ever to write. Never has a keyboard
felt so clean and comfortable. I hope each of you, especially those in a
cult or out of a cult, have a chance to find YOUR true talent and purpose.
It is what the world needs.

Keep the faith.

Robert Vaughn Young
with a keyboard as a writer@eskimo.com

P.S Wellspring has a web page at <wellspring.albany.oh.us>.

Notes

 

The Jesse Prince Story, Part 1 (August 3, 1998)

Subject: Hello Critics of Scientology and Scientologists
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 20:03:22 GMT
From: jesse_prince@minton.org (Jesse Prince)
Reply-To: bob@minton.org
Organization: ARSCC
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

The Jesse Prince Story, Part I1

My name is Jesse Prince . I was part of the horrid organization known as the “Sea Organization” from 1976 – 1992. I was a Senior Executive in RTC for 5 years (1982-1987). This is not something that I am proud of—to the contrary I am still recovering from the experience. I have been disassociated from any form of Scientology for the last 6 years, since I escaped in 1992, I had been afraid to come out and was feeling hopeless, but that is all behind me now.

Three weeks ago I contacted Stacy Young. In talking with her I realized I could help in the struggle to expose the truth about Scn and get them to stop hurting people and ruining lives of decent and innocent people. The following Sunday after Stacy and I met, Mike Rinder called Bob Minton to ask if I was now on his payroll. It was obvious that they knew Stacy and I had met and were ready to attack all of us—which is what they have been doing ever since. Scn attorney Rick Moxon has already put me on notice that I am to be sued if I divulge any information about their criminal activities. However, I will not be silenced by these thugs.

I feel an obligation to do something to expose the criminal and psychotic nature of the upper echelon of the Sea Org (all corporations included) in an effort to get some relief from the attacks that come to anyone who opposes this godless so called church. Since I made the decision to expose the truth about the true nature of Scn I have had my life threatened by one of their hired thugs and they try to follow me around where ever I go. To say the least, I have personal knowledge of crimes and cover-ups that have them very worried if they want me killed before I could even fully come out of hiding!

Well, I want you to know I am alive and well and I have one hell of a story to tell. The Internet will be the forum I use to tell the truth and nothing but. If you liken the Internet to a basketball game, I plan to take Scn to the hoop like Michel Jordan.

Bob Minton, Stacy Young, FACTNet and others are making this possible.

I’m coming out for me and you.

Jesse

Notes

 

Declaration of Michael Walton (June 6, 1996)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.95-10911
Chapter 7
Adv. No 95-1164

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL WALTON IN SUPPORT OF GERALD ARMSTRONG’S OBJECTION TO TRUSTEE’S ABANDONMENT OF ESTATE

In re: GERALD ARMSTRONG, Debtor.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, INTERNATIONAL
Plaintiff.
v.
GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. WALTON1

I, Michael Walton, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the following recitation is true and correct and that I am an Attorney duly licensed to practice before all the Courts in the State of California.

1. On or about Summer 1994, Declarant was contacted by a man who identified himself as Michael Rinder, an agent for Scientology, who wished to discuss the ongoing litigation between  Scientology and Gerald Armstrong. Before speaking directly with Mr. Rinder, Declarant checked with Ms. Laurie Bartilson, Scientology’s attorney to obtain her permission to speak with Mr. Rinder. Ms. Bartilson encouraged the communication.

2. Declarant spoke with Mr. Rinder on at least two separate ocasions. Mr. Rinder discussed the California Superior Court case of Scientology vs. Gerald Armstrong and Michael Walton (Declarant herein)(hereinafter referred to as the “Fraudulent Transfer Action”). Mr. Rinder indicated that Scientology was not interested in money nor was it interested in trying to take away Declarant’s residence.

3. Mr. Rinder stated that what Scientology really wanted was to get out from under the decision in the case of Scientology vs. Armstrong (hereinafter Armstrong I) decided in 1984 and referred to as the Breckenridge decision. Mr. Rinder said that the decision was used to Scientology’s detriment every time Scientology was involved in litigation.

4. Mr. Rinder suggested that what Scientology really wanted was for Mr. Armstrong to sign a document recanting some of the testimony that was relied upon in the formulation of the Breckenridge decision. Mr. Rinder said that he was not requesting that Mr. Armstrong admit to perjury. He indicated that Scientology would provide Mr. Armstrong with certain information to which he did not have access when he testified in Armstrong I. Mr. Armstrong could then reach a different, more informed conclusion and sign a  document indicating his change of opinions.

5. Mr. Rinder said that since Declarant was a good friend of Mr. Armstrong, Declarant could use his influence to convince Mr. Armstrong to sign such a document. Mr. Rinder indicated that the “pressure” would continue to be put on Mr. Armstrong and upon Declarant and declarant’s family until such a document was signed.

6. Mr. Rinder stated that there was no way to make the Fraudulent Transfer Action go away absent Mr. Armstrong’s signing of the document.

7. On or about September 12, 194, in a telephone conversation with Ms. Bartilson some days after the final conversation with Mr. Rinder, Ms. Bartilson confirmed to Declarant Mr. Rinder’s articulation of Scientology’s position.

8. Specifically, Ms. Bartilson, in a hostile and threatening manner, told Declarant that Scientology would never allow the Fraudulent Transfer Action to settle with respect to Declarant and would only make things worse for him unless Declarant would agree to “put pressure on your friend” (Mr. Armstrong) to capitulate in a separate breach of contract case that was then being litigated between Scientology and Armstrong.

9. Declarant declined to attempt to put any kind of pressure on Mr. Armstrong. The next day Scientology named Declarant’s wife as a DOE defendant in the Fraudulent Transfer Action.

10. Appended hereto are true and correct copies of Declarant’s opposition and supporting declaration filed December 8, 1994 in the Fraudulent Conveyance case. These documents contain Declarant’s recitation of his conversation with Ms.Bartilson.

The facts hereinabove recited are personally known to me and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently do so.

Dated: June 6, 1996
Place: Larkspur, CA
Michael L. Walton

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

Declaration of Stacy Brooks Young (December 14, 1994)

CT 7437

I, Stacy Brooks Young, declare as follows:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of Seattle, Washington.

2. I was a Scientologist for nearly 15 years, from January 1975 until I escaped with my husband, Robert Vaughn Young, in July 1989. From October 1975 until I left I was a member of the elite inner circle of Scientology, an unincorporated organization known as the Sea Organization (“Sea Org”) which rules the Scientology empire. Unbeknownst to the outside world, even to lower level Scientologists, the head of the Sea Org and of Scientology, David Miscavige, subjects Sea Org members to extremely abusive and degrading treatment, sometimes carried out directly by him but often carried out by his key aides.

3. Such abuses include sleep deprivation, an enforced diet of nothing but rice and beans for weeks or even months at a time, incarceration in Scientology prison camps known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”) for months and sometimes years; sexual harassment and discrimination, requiring women to undergo abortions with the threat of losing their jobs if they refuse, enforced separation of parents and children, enforced separation of husbands and wives, and denial of proper medical care for people driven into psychotic episodes as a result of such abuse as described above.

4. A year and a half ago, in July 1993, my husband and I were asked by several attorneys to document the abuses we experienced and witnessed while in the inner circle of Scientology. These attorneys were defending people who were being sued by Scientology. Until that time we had kept totally quiet about our experiences because we were aware of how Scientology intimidates and harasses anyone who speaks out publicly about the abuses in this organization. We knew that if we began

1

CT 7438

to talk about what we knew our lives would no longer be our own, that Scientology would apply their “Fair Game” doctrine against us. The Fair Came doctrine directs Scientologists to lie, cheat and destroy anyone perceived as an “enemy.” They claim that Fair Game was canceled long ago, but they are lying. Because we had seen it done to others, we knew that they would send private investigators to talk to our family, friends and neighbors, that they would dredge up everything they could about our private lives, in short, that we would be subjected to a campaign of character assassination just as any other fascist political movement like Scientology would conduct against its critics. However, we made the decision that it was too important to make the truth known, no matter what the cost to our own privacy.

5. The Scientologists have lived up to our worst expectations and beyond. They have stolen our trash, kept us under constant surveillance, sent out libelous information, slandered us to friends and family, and done everything possible to make us “shudder into silence,” as Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard directed them to do with critics. Our home has also been burglarized twice, and while we cannot prove that Scientology was responsible, we pointed out to police investigators that only our in-home office computers and disks were stolen, while other valuables in the house were left untouched.

6. In July 1994, just this past summer, two high level Scientologists approached my husband and me and offered to pay us money if we would perjure ourselves by stating under oath that the information we have provided in sworn declarations is false, which it is not, and agree never to speak or write another critical word about Scientology again. These two Scientologists warned us that if we refused to agree to their terms they would increase the intimidation and harassment of us, break us financially, and ruin our reputations. We still refused to give in to their threats.

7. True to their promise, they have stepped up their campaign against us in the last several months. It is continuing as recently as Monday, December 12, when a

2

CT 7439

private investigator called my mother and, under the guise that he was doing an investigation of my husband, attempted to turn my mother against me with lurid tales about my sex life. His attempt backfired, however, when my mother made it clear to him that she does not care about my sex life and that his attempt at character assassination made her sick. She demanded to know his name and phone number, and when he refused to give it to her she hung up on him. What they don’t realize is that people outside of Scientology don’t adhere to their Draconian morality, which especially in the Sea Org is so intrusive that people are sent to the prison camp for their sexual practices (the only exception being Miscavige’s hand-picked aides, for whom these same laws do not apply). This same private investigator has already called one of my sisters and my other sisters are now expecting calls from him as well. Our family and friends are aware that this campaign is being waged against us and that it is being done because Scientology has not been able to silence us any other way.

8. I have been shown an extract of a motion made by Church of Scientology International in the case of Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz, No. 91-6426-HLH (Tx) (C.D.Cal.) in which CSI falsely alleges that my husband and I committed perjury in certain declarations we have submitted for this case. The extract is entitled Two Other Defense Witnesses Signed False Declarations. XXX[initial SBY] XXX[initial SBY] The phrase “two other defense witnesses” refers to my husband and me. It is false.

9. The extract is based on a certain “Rinder Declaration,” submitted October 27, 1994, which is a wildly distorted, false representation of a series of meetings which occurred over an eight-day period in July 1994.

10. In June 1994, two high-level Scientology operatives, Mike Rinder and Mike Sutter, began to call me and my husband begging us to meet with them to “settle our differences.” These two people called one or the other of us nearly every day for approximately a month, insisting that we meet with them and assuring us that they

3

CT 7440

would make it very worth our while to do so, clearly implying that they wanted to pay us money to stop doing the legal consulting work that we have done for Mr. Graham Berry and other attorneys whose clients have been sued by Scientology.

11. My husband Vaughn had no interest in meeting with them at all and told them so in no uncertain terms. Rinder and Sutter continued to call him and even arrived uninvited at our house in Corona del Mar, California, (where Vaughn was finishing up some work in preparation for moving to Seattle,) to try to get him to agree to a meeting. When it became obvious that Vaughn would not agree, they began calling me at our house in Seattle.

12. Mike Sutter called me every day, telling me how important it was that we meet with him and Rinder. Both Mike Sutter and Mike Rinder were superior to me and had a tremendous amount of power over me when I was a member of the cult. Sutter in particular had been assigned to “handle” me after Vaughn and I had tried to leave the cult and had been persuaded to return. Because of this past relationship which I now understand was based on mind control, I was still afraid of Sutter even five years after leaving Scientology. I allowed him to engage me in conversation, and by intimidating me he succeeded in convincing me that Vaughn and I should hear them out. I then talked Vaughn into meeting with them.

13. My state of mind at the time was that I did not want to have anything to do with Scientology any more. Although I did not realize it at the time, I was still under the influence of the cult to the degree that they could still intimidate me, frighten me, and “trigger” strong emotional reactions in me. Scientology was particularly upset about the work my husband and I had done for attorney Graham Berry, advising him about the destructive practices of the upper echelons of Scientology and submitting a number of declarations relevant to CSI v. Geertz. As I explained earlier in this declaration, because of our work for Mr. Berry and other attorneys, Scientology considered us “enemies” and we became the targets of Scientology’s

4

CT 7441

Fair Game doctrine, meaning that we had been harassed and intimidated relentlessly by Scientology operatives. Although they attacked my husband much more viciously than me, it upset me very deeply and frightened me. I did not want to have my private life exposed and I did not want to see my husband’s private life being distorted and exposed and held up to ridicule the way Scientology had been doing.

14. Because of their relentless harassment and intimidation, I had made a decision not to do any more work to expose the truth about the Scientology cult and, indeed, had not done so for several months prior to the meetings with Rinder and Sutter. I was also strongly pressuring my husband to stop so that we could regain our privacy and peace of mind. I wanted Scientotogy to leave us alone.

15. It was in this frightened state of mind that I began to receive the daily phone calls from Mike Sutter. Sutter assured me that the harassment would stop and made it clear that Scientology would pay us a large amount of money if we would settle with them. Sutter also made it clear that if we did not agree to settle with Scientology, we would be subjected to even greater harassment than we had already experienced, although he said that he was “sorry” and that “it doesn’t have to be that way,” if we would only agree to talk to them. I felt extremely intimidated by his phone calls and strongly pressured Vaughn to agree to talk to them. Although Vaughn did not feel that they were being above-board about their intentions, he agreed to it because he knew that I was very afraid of them and he did not feel he should force me to continue in a situation that was extremely frightening to me.

16. Mike Rinder and Mike Sutter arrived in Seattle on Friday, July 8, 1994. Vaughn also flew to Seattle on that day. Vaughn and I met with them nearly every day for the next eight days. I was extremely gracious and cordial to both of these Scientologists throughout the meetings, inviting them to our home and doing everything possible to create an atmosphere of trust and honor. After reading Rinder’s declaration I feel betrayed and outraged that he has now perverted and

5

CT 7441

twisted things that my husband and I talked to them about during those meetings. I do not fault these two individuals. I know that they are under the influence of Scientology mind control and that the vicious lies Rinder has sworn to in his declaration are part of the campaign of character assassination that he is under orders to conduct against my husband and me.

17. However, I wish to correct the many lies and perversions of the truth that he has told about us. I also want to make it clear that I went along with much of what Rinder and Sutter said to us because I knew it would do no good to argue with them about much of what they were saying. Someone under the influence of Scientology mind control cannot change his mind about certain attitudes and beliefs, and I was aware that because these two people were still under the control of Scientology it would do no good to try to argue with them. Therefore, Rinder seems to have come away from the meetings thinking that I agreed with what he said simply because I did not refute it. The fact is that I did not bother to refute many things he and Sutter said because I knew it would be a waste of time. Furthermore, my husband and I had agreed to go along with them so that we could find out whatever it was they had to say to us that was so important that they had begged us to meet with them for over a month. The reason the meetings went on for so many days was that we kept waiting for them to get to the point and weren’t able to find out what it was until the eighth day. (When we did finally get them to get to the point, we walked out.)

18. First and most importantly, at the very outset of these meetings we made it clear that we would not perjure ourselves by recanting any statements made in our previous declarations, that what we had stated was true and we would not now lie by saying that what we had written was not true. Much to their dismay, we also made it clear immediately that we would not in any way denigrate Mr. Graham Berry. They tried to change our minds about Mr. Berry by suggesting that he had put us up to writing our declarations, but we were emphatic in stating that he never did any such

6

CT 7443

thing and we would not say that he did. At the end of the series of meetings we discovered that, indeed, one of their main purposes was to get us to discredit Mr. Berry, who has been extremely successful in litigating against Scientology. A key theme in the declarations they drafted for us to sign was that Mr. Berry had orchestrated every aspect of our “attack” against Scientology. We refused to go along with their character assassination of Mr. Berry.

19. Throughout the meetings they repeatedly suggested that we write declarations but were vague about what they wanted the declarations to say. When they would bring up the subject of these declarations we would repeat that we could not write anything that would in any way suggest that we had lied, since we had not. At one point Sutter asked me what I felt I would be able to say, and I replied that I would be able to say I had written declarations as an expert witness for the defense of Uwe Geertz and Steven Fishman and that I had written them in a way that would be helpful to their defense. lt is utterly false that “when the Youngs — especially Stacy Young — spoke frankly about what occurred here, they revealed that their declarations, too, had been falsified.” We repeatedly emphasized to both Rinder and Sutter that nothing whatsoever in our declarations was false.

20. Many of the statements in the Rinder declaration are entirely false, while others are treacherously misleading in the way statements we made are misinterpreted and deliberately twisted to make me or my husband appear to be dishonorable or unscrupulous.

21. It is completely and utterly untrue that “At the beginning of our discussion, both of the Youngs stated that they did not enjoy manipulating the facts to attack and embarrass their former religion, but that economic hardship had compelled them to embark upon that course.” Neither my husband nor I have ever believed that Scientology is a religion and would never refer to it as such. Furthermore, neither of us feel that we have manipulated facts. On the contrary, we have told the truth about

7

CT 7444

many destructive practices that are part of the Scientology empire in the hopes that exposure of these conditions will lead to their being changed.

22. Rinder’s opinion that “it was apparent that the reason they were talking to us was because they found it emotionally distressing to be involved in an occupation that required them to figure out how to manipulate and distort facts for use in litigation” is contrived and utterly false. Moreover, I never said that I “could not stand living a lie and wanted out.” As I have explained in a previous paragraph, what I found emotionally distressing was the campaign of harassment, intimidation and character assassination Scientology has been waging against us ever since we began to speak out about the abuses inside the cult.

23. Rinder’s statement that I said we “tried to live off various family members while Vaughn attempted to establish himself as a writer” is utterly untrue and a fabrication out of thin air, as is the comment that “the family eventually balked at that, and the Youngs were on their own.” We never “tried to live off” any of our family members and have been “on our own” all along.

24. Vaughn and I did have financial difficulties when we first left Scientology, as do many long-term members of Scientology’s inner circle (and any other totalitarian cult, for that matter) if they are fortunate enough to free themselves from the cult’s psychological, emotional and physical subjugation. Vaughn had been a Scientology staff member for 20 years and I had been one for 15 years. We had no résumé that we felt would make any sense to the “outside” world, nor did we have any references. We were considered “enemies ” by Scientology, so we knew that people still inside the cult would not say anything favorable about us. Since we had had virtually no professional contact with anyone outside the cult for many years, we had no references. It was literally as if we had just landed from outer space.

25. I am sorry that I told these two Scientologists about the hardships Vaughn and I experienced as we were struggling to come out of the cult experience. I should have

8

have realized that they would utilize these details of our personal life in their campaign to discredit us. Rinder has now taken this information and twisted it to support his false argument that we are exposing the truth about Scientology to make money. The Court should know that there are many, many other ways we could make a living that would be much more enjoyable and more lucrative. But we feel a moral obligation to do what we can to expose the civil and human rights violations and serious abuses which this cult is perpetrating on its subjugated mind control victims.

26. Rinder falsely states that “At one point in our conversation, Stacy broke into tears and said that she and her husband only began consulting with and selling declarations to Graham Berry because she and Vaughn were so desperate for money. Stacy said she had been willing to say under oath whatever Berry wanted her to say if it would result in getting paid, as she could not face continuing to live under the financial pressure she and Vaughn were suffering. There was one point during the meetings with Rinder and Sutter when I did, indeed, break into tears. It was certainly not, however, for the reason Rinder states. I began to cry at one point as Mike Sutter was attempting to address my concerns about staff conditions and certain specific abuses I suffered while I was in the cult. Something he said triggered some extremely painful memories for me, memories of being forcibly separated from my husband, having our mail intercepted, being kept under guard to keep me from escaping to find my husband, being deprived of sleep for days on end, being locked in a room and interrogated for days at a time, being screamed at and terrorized by Miscavige and his top aides.

27. For many former cult members, certain things someone might say or do can trigger painful memories from their cult experience and they may find themselves becoming very emotional at unexpected times. I found that simply being in the same room with two members of Scientology’s inner circle, two people who used to have

9

CT 7446

enormous power over me, stirred deep-seated emotions that I had not felt since I escaped from the cult. Of course, I did not explain this to these two Scientologists because I knew they would not understand. But certainly I was not upset for the reason Rinder has stated. He is trying to paint my relationship with Graham Berry in a scurrilous light but his accusations are utterly groundless and false. Mr. Berry never told me what to say in my declarations and certainly never drafted a declaration for me to sign the way Rinder and Sutter did for my husband and me. In fact it is the Scientologists who will say whatever will further their own agenda, regardless of whether it is true or not, just as Rinder has done in his declaration. They assume that people outside of Scientology have the same contempt for the legal system as they do, and that others are guilty of the same illegalities, such as perjury, which they commit themselves as a matter of course.

28. Rinder states that “both Mike Sutter and I brought up how we could not understand how they could tell so many lies in the declarations they had filed, especially those in the Fishman case. Neither denied that this was what they had done…” and repeats his character assassination of us as liars in the next paragraph where he states, “We challenged them to explain how they could justify lying as a way of life…” As I have stated earlier in my declaration, in fact my husband and I both repeatedly told them that we had not lied in our declarations, although throughout the meetings Rinder and Sutter did continue to characterize our sworn testimony as “lying.” The truth is that if either of these people ever admitted to themselves that our testimony is true it would break the spell that Scientology has over them. But Scientology has a self-policing mechanism built into its mind control techniques which makes it almost impossible for someone under its influence to break through. Rinder and Sutter both know that our testimony is true. They are both acutely aware of the abuses we have described. But they are loyal Party Members and are sworn to protect the Party at all costs.

10

CT 7447

29. Clearly the main intent of Rinder’s declaration is to discredit the declarations my husband and I have filed in CSI v. Fishman and Geertz. He seems most concerned with a declaration submitted by me on January 3, 1994, in which I detail how Scientology’s fraudulent negligence in selling Steven Fishman nearly $200,000 of Scientology materials and devices could have driven him into a psychotic episode. Rinder goes on for several pages, carefully reconstructing our conversations to make it appear that I somehow admitted to him that what I wrote was untrue. The subject of my January 3 declaration is extremely sensitive for Scientology and this is why Rinder has spent so much time trying to discredit it. But what I wrote in the declaration is true, and I attached many Scientology documents to prove it.

30. In fact, many people have been driven into psychotic episodes by Hubbard’s techniques, as Rinder well knows. Far from being “pure nonsense,” what I wrote about is one of Scientology’s darkest secrets. I have personal knowledge of many people who have been driven into psychotic episodes by Scientology’s techniques. Hubbard wrote precise directions about how to “handle” these people, including the “Isolation Watch.” Rinder is well aware of these occurrences but cannot admit to it because it would violate Scientology policy for him to tell the truth about this subject publicly. It would threaten his good standing as a Scientologist and might get him sent to the prison camp, known as the Rehabilitation Project Force, where he would be separated from his wife and children, kept under guard and forced to do hard labor for 12 or more hours a day. Scientologists will do just about anything to avoid being sent to the RPF.

31. Rinder falsely states that I admitted to creating a false impression in the January 3 declaration about Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard’s use of mind control techniques. In fact, it is my firm conviction that Hubbard developed extremely sophisticated mind control techniques, that he did so quite deliberately, and that Scientology practices can be very psychologically damaging because of this. I

11

CT 7448

did not pull quotes out of context for the declaration as Rinder asserts. I would be happy to provide more quotes from Hubbard in which he goes into even more detail about how Scientology can be used destructively.

32. Rinder also distorted a conversation I had with him concerning Scientology’s “upper level” materials. I do know that Hubbard wanted these materials kept secret, but I do not agree that they should be. People have the right to know that Hubbard’s science fiction story about the cosmos is what they can expect after they have been sold many thousands of dollars of Scientology services. I do not consider a science fiction story to be a religious scripture, nor do I believe (as Scientologists claim) that there is any danger that anyone will get sick by reading these materials “before they are ready.” This story has been published in many, many publications over a period of many years, and I have yet to hear of one person who has gotten sick from reading it. I think the only reason the Scientologists are so worried about keeping these materials secret is that they are afraid of losing money if people learn the truth. Certainly it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

33. Rinder attempts to use me to further his own agenda in discrediting other former Scientologists. He falsely states that I think Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim are both psychotic. To set the record straight, I do not think either of these individuals is psychotic. Indeed, I think both are doing very well at recovering from their lengthy experience with Scientology mind control. However, I do know that Rinder and Sutter both think Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim are psychotic. I also know that they think my husband and I are psychotic, along with many other people who have come to their senses and left Scientology. This is because Hubbard said so. He repeatedly stated that anyone who leaves Scientology is psychotic. When I was still in Scientology and working for the Office of Special Affairs, it was accepted as a basic truth that anyone who left Scientology was crazy, especially anyone who left and then sued Scientology, which both Armstrong and Wollersheim

12

CT 7449

have done. The truth is that I consider Gerry Armstrong and Lawrence Wollersheim to be good friends and very courageous individuals.

34. Rinder also attempts to use me to discredit the testimony of another former Scientologist, Andre Tabayoyon. Rinder’s version of my relationship with Andre and his wife Mary is wildly distorted and is clearly an effort on his part to create bad feelings between us. This is a technique called “Third Party” in Scientology, in which someone deliberately tells lies about a person to turn friends against friends. I did discuss an incident involving Andre, but I did so in the context of voicing concern about a friend. I now regret ever having said a word and realize I should have known he would use it to try to destroy my friendship with Andre and his wife, Mary. The conversation was carried on at Rinder’s urging, of course, and I was naive not to see what he was doing. In fact, I value my friendship with Andre and Mary and think they are both extremely courageous to have testified about the outrageous abuses they were both subjected to while in Scientology. I hope they are progressing well in their recovery from Scientology.

35. My husband and I never agreed to “write declarations to set the record straight on points described above along with others.” In fact we never did write any declarations or even portions of declarations but rather waited until Rinder and Sutter presented us with their own declarations, drafted by Scientology, for us to sign. When we read them we discovered that they had drafted declarations which did exactly what we had told them repeatedly we would not do. The declarations they wanted us to sign were utterly perjurious, stating that we had lied about virtually everything we have ever stated in declarations submitted in CSI v. Fishman and other cases. Additionally they wanted us to sign a gag order which would have destroyed our freedom of speech as well as our freedom of association by forbidding us ever to speak about our experiences in Scientology or even to meet with anyone else who was speaking about their experiences in Scientology.

13

CT 7449.1

36. The motion which is based on Rinder’s declaration makes the wildly ridiculous claim that we were in “serious emotional turmoil over what [we] had done” and that we “agreed to execute new declarations undoing the false impressions they had created for Mr. Berry.” In fact, as I have already stated, we never did execute any declarations for them at all, and the declarations they drafted for us to sign were completely outrageous.

37. The truth is that when they showed us the declarations they wanted us to sign I told them they were completely wrong to think we regretted any aspect of the work we had done for Mr. Berry. Indeed, I told them in no uncertain terms that I am very proud of the work I have done for Mr. Berry, because I feel it is extremely important for the truth to come out about Scientology.

38. Finally, the motion claims that we “demanded” to be paid an outrageous sum of money but that “the Church was and is unwilling to pay the Youngs to tell the truth.” In fact, they offered to pay us nearly $200,000 to sign their false and perjurious declarations, but we refused. We told them that we would never sign their declarations no matter how much money they gave us, because we would never perjure ourselves nor would we become pawns in Scientology’s vendetta against Graham Berry.

39. Vaughn and I walked out of the meetings at that point, although they begged us to stay. They continued to call us repeatedly over the next several days, imploring us to meet with them again, assuring us that they would give us a “substantial financial settlement,” but I finally made it clear to them that there was no point in continuing the meetings. Vaughn and I have made our decision to continue to expose the truth about Scientology no matter the cost, and that is what we intend to do. Rinder’s blatantly false declaration is simply another part of their campaign to destroy our reputations and our credibility, which is what they warned us they would do if we did not give in to their demands.

14

CT 7450

40. During the course of our meetings Rinder commented that he couldn’t think of anything he wouldn’t do to silence an enemy of Scientology, that as far as he was concerned, the end would justify the means. Sutter and Rinder both made veiled threats during the course of the meetings, making it clear that if we did not settle with them Scientology would ruin our reputations, break us financially, and generally make our lives miserable. True to their threats, Scientology is now doing everything possible, including submitting perjured testimony to this court, to discredit me and my husband. But all of the testimony I have submitted to this court has been true, and it is extremely important that the information which has been submitted remain on the public record.

I swear under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Seattle, Washington, this 14th day of December, 1994.

[signed] Stacy Brooks Young
Stacy Brooks Young

Notes

Declaration of Michael Rinder (October 27, 1994)

[CT 7417]

I, MICHAEL RINDER, declare as follows:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of California. I am a director of the Church of Scientology International (‘CSI” or “the Church”), the mother church of the Scientology religion. By virtue of my position, I am familiar with the Church’s legal affairs, and I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. If I were called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. In July 1994, another Church staff member, Michael and I spent several days in Seattle, Washington, meeting with apostate Scientologists Stacy and Robert Vaughn Young. The Youngs left the Church in 1989, and approximately four years later, in 1993, they appeared as witnesses for hire in litigation against Churches of Scientology, Scientologists or businesses owned by Scientologists. Among the attorneys who hired and paid the Youngs for their testimony was Graham E. Berry of the Lewis, D’Amato firm, who used their purchased testimony many times in Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz, No. 91-6426-HLH (TX) (C.D.Cal.).

3. The Youngs’ activities had resulted in the Church spending considerable time and energy to correct the falsehoods they had injected into these lawsuits. So we travelled to Seattle to meet with the Youngs in the hope that direct communication with them might lead them to correct their false statements and cease their campaign against the Church. We explained this purpose for our visit when we met with the Youngs first on July 9, 1994. We told them that recently several other

1

[CT 7418]

litigation opponents of the Church had stated that they had wished we had been in direct communication earlier and it may have prevented years of litigation and disputes. We told the Youngs that we sought to avoid that same situation from occurring with them.

4. We were direct and forthright with explaining why we wanted to meet with them. At the beginning of our discussion, both of the Youngs stated that they did not enjoy manipulating the facts to attack and embarrass their former religion, but that economic hardship had compelled them to embark upon that course. At the end, however, it was clear that “economic hardship” was simply a euphemism for amoral greed. Their professed guilt about the dishonest quality of their sworn statements could not overpower their craving for money. Thus, we resolved nothing in those talks.

5. Stacy told us that she believed that it would be in everyone’s best interest for the conflict between the Youngs and the Church to end. It was apparent that the reason they were talking to us was because they found it emotionally distressing to be involved in an occupation that required them to figure out how to manipulate and distort facts for use in litigation. Stacy said she could not stand living a lie and wanted out, and that Vaughn also “hated” being involved in the litigation. We explained that we simply wanted to resolve matters, get the record set straight, and the Church and the Youngs could get on with their respective lives. They agreed that this was a desirable objective.

6. Stacy recounted the story of what had happened to them

2

[CT 7419]

and how they had come to get involved with writing declarations in the first place. She said that neither she nor Vaughn were good with money and that after leaving the Church in 1989, they had run up tens of thousands of dollars in debts. She said that they first tried to live off various family members while Vaughn attempted to establish himself as a writer. The family eventually balked at that, and the Youngs were on their own. She said they used up their savings and over-extended their credit cards in an unsuccessful attempt to create a computerized, desk-top publishing business. Stacy said that she and Vaughn both wanted to work as writers and eventually took a series of jobs in several small newspapers in the San Diego and Newport Beach areas. These jobs did not pay well, and they were heavily in debt when the last paper for which they worked went bankrupt. Their financial situation worsened as Vaughn was unemployed and refused to take on any employment other than as a writer. Stacy earned the only income, working for an insurance sales firm which she said she hated.

7. Stacy told us that their financial situation deteriorated to the point that she had threatened Vaughn with divorce if he did not get a job. Vaughn then got a job driving a taxi cab. He was unable to continue this however, when, after running out of gas, he attempted to push his vehicle, lost control of it, and injured his leg. Additionally, Stacy said she had suffered a tubal pregnancy, necessitating an operation. Between the medical bills and the lack of a steady income source, Stacy explained that they ended up more than $50,000 in debt, It was in those circumstances that the Youngs turned to trafficking in

3

[CT 7420]

anti-Scientology allegations as a means of making money.

8. Stacy said that in early 1993, at the depth of their financial crisis, a British anti-Scientologist, Jon Atack, introduced them to an active anti-religionist in the Los Angeles area named Priscilla Coates. It was through Coates and her attorney, Daniel Leipold, that the Youngs connected up with Graham Berry, for whom they eventually became paid “consultants.”

9. At one point in our conversations, Stacy broke into tears and said that she and her husband only began consulting with and selling declarations to Graham Berry because she and Vaughn were so desperate for money. Stacy said she had been willing to say under oath whatever Berry wanted her to say if it would result in getting paid, as she could not face continuing to live under the financial pressure she and Vaughn were suffering. Stacy said that she had made a vow, like Scarlet O’Hara in Gone With The Wind, that no matter what it took, she would never be poor again. Vaughn explained that it was “a great way to utilize twenty years that I was trying to avoid on my resume,” and that he could work one afternoon and make what would be a weekly salary in any other job.

10. In the course of the discussions, both Mike Sutter and I brought up how we could not understand how they could tell so many lies in the declarations they had filed, especially those in the Fishman case. Neither denied that this was what they had done, but explained that in order to be able to survive, they provided testimony requested by the attorneys, and that they had to write what was wanted or they would not get paid. Stacy said it was “obvious” they would not be paid to write things that

4

[CT 7421]

would be helpful to the Church.

11. We challenged them to explain how they could justify lying as a way of life, and they told us that what they had mostly done was twist facts and used “creative writing” and innuendo to paint a picture that was negative to the Church. They explained that they had tried to avoid explicitly lying about facts so they could not be accused of perjury. Vaughn especially seemed proud of this, and said that he was a writer by profession, which is why he was so good at preparing declarations and why he was paid so well. He claimed that unlike the Fishman case declarations of Andre Tabayoyon, Steve Fishman and Garry Scarff, where the lies and inconsistencies were obvious, his declarations were worded in such a way as to make them much more difficult to discredit. Nothing he said ever disavowed his explanation of how he manipulated facts to create false illusions.

12. Both of the Youngs readily agreed that they could easily set the record straight by writing new declarations which would “clarify” the statements they had made previously. Vaughn said that he did not want to write anything that would be a “direct contradiction” to what he had written earlier, but this was simply a matter of “interpreting” things differently. He said he intended to make his career as a writer and would need “credibility” in order to obtain future jobs, so wanted to do this “properly.”

13. Stacy said that by writing such declarations they would “burn their bridges” with the anti Scientology camp. She went on to say that this would not be difficult to do as they did not

5

[CT 7422]

want to be involved in anti-Scientology litigation matters any longer and in fact, they were “between jobs” at the time, so it was an opportune moment to bring this entire episode in their lives to an end.

14. Stacy and Vaughn spoke extensively about matters they had put in earlier declarations during the course of several days of meetings. They explained their true views and talked candidly about many matters. For example, in the Fishman case, Graham Berry wanted them to execute declarations to support the contention that Steven Fishman was an experienced Scientologist. Both Youngs said that this presented a problem as the very data which Berry had given them to orient them to the “facts” of the case proved that Fishman was a fraud. Upon reading Fishman’s unpublished manuscript, The Lonesome Squirrel, they told us they had the same reaction: That Fishman was psychotic and that his so-called experiences in Scientology described in his manuscript never occurred. Stacy specifically mentioned by way of example that the manuscript discusses meetings and activities allegedly done by a Church staff member, Lyman Spurlock. Stacy said that she knew that such incidents could not have occurred; that Lyman Spurlock would never have done the actions Fishman alleged and that Fishman’s description simply does not match Mr. Spurlock. Further, she knew that the meetings described between Fishman and Church officials simply could not conceivably have occurred. She said the whole manuscript was ridiculous, a fabrication. Vaughn said he could not even finish the manuscript, it was so bad.

15. Similarly, they both described watching a video of Fishman describing the operation of a Hubbard Electrometer

6

[CT 7423]

(E-meter). The video was supposed to demonstrate Fishman’s competence and knowledge in Scientology. The Youngs said Fishman explained that the meter’s “sensitivity knob” was used to keep the meter’s needle on its dial, and that this was such a ridiculous mistake that they burst out laughing and knew with certainty that Fishman was not an experienced, Scientology auditor.

16. Stacy also pointed out that they both knew that Fishman’s claims of having completed the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course — an advanced course in Scientology counseling — was a lie, that it was physically impossible for anyone to complete the course in the six weeks Fishman claimed. In fact, after recounting these facts, both Vaughn and Stacy stated that they knew that Fishman and his co-defendant, Uwe Geertz, were both crazy and that their allegations about Scientology were false.

17. Stacy said she had to come up with a way of supporting Fishman’s claims for Berry because she needed the money. She said she knew that she could not state in a declaration that Fishman was a long-term Scientologist as that would be, in her words, “completely untrue.” Instead, she said that she played with words and concepts so that she could, without directly lying, construct a picture that would create the impression that Fishman knew what he was saying about Scientology. She said she even knew that Fishman was ineligible for Church services due to an extensive history of psychological treatment, and to solve that she had created a way of explaining his “involvement” by alleging that “the Church had negligently allowed Fishman to read

7

[CT 7424]

church scripture,” and that this “resulted in Fishman’s mental state deteriorating.” She said that she knew his mental state was not good, and that he knew some Scientology words and terms (though he usually misused them) and therefore this was a “credible” scenario that suited the attorney.

18. Stacy said that her theory was used to support the contention that Fishman had been “exposed” to upper level Church scriptures, even though he had never attained that level in the Church and the materials are kept strictly confidential in the Church.

19. She went on to explain that her distortions had extended to allegations about brainwashing, and that here she had quoted completely out of context from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. She gave this as a classic example of how one can distort the facts. She said that it was ironic that while she was in the Church she had compiled a pack of materials written by L. Ron Hubbard where he had alerted people to the existence and dangers of mind control techniques through the use of pain, drugs and hypnosis. She had created the pack to rebut falsehoods presented by Bent Corydon in his case against the Church and that it showed that Mr. Hubbard was in the forefront of the condemnation of brainwashing techniques and had developed the first techniques to counteract it. For the Fishman case, however, she explained that she took this very same material and pulled selected quotes out of context to give her declaration a 180-degree reverse “spin.” Her Fishman declaration then gave the false impression that Scientology techniques were mind control when, in fact, they are just the opposite.

8

[CT 7425]

20. One of the falsehoods I brought up with Vaughn Young was his allegation that David Miscavige was involved in the death of his mother-in-law, and that Vaughn had stated that it was a murder.He said that “if you read my statements exactly (‘Mr. Miscavige’s behavior was overlooked in the investigation of the death of his mother-in-law… She died… from three shots to the chest and to the temple from a .22 rifle.’) you’ll see I didn’t say David Miscavige murdered his mother-in law.” I told him that this was the impression he created and he replied “Exactly.” He said that he could never have directly made the accusation as it wasn’t true but he crafted his declaration to create that impression.

21. Young said he had done the same thing when he attempted to create the impression that the Church was involved in the death of Steven Fishman’s wife, even though he knew this was simply incredible. However, he explained that they needed statements that would support the defense’s position, so he worked with the material he had.

22. This is what led to him supporting Fishman’s contention that he had been ordered to commit suicide or to “do an ‘end of cycle.'” Young explained that the three words did have a meaning in Scientology, and even though he knew that Fishman falsely claimed the term was Scientology slang for suicide or murder, and that this in fact was further evidence that Fishman was not a Scientologist, he had enough to go on to fashion a statement for a declaration that would be interpreted to support Fishman’s claims.

23. Vaughn also said that the Church could be poisoned by

9

[CT 7426]

throwing around numerous allegations about the Church ordering people to commit suicide or murder. This was especially difficult to respond to when the events were so old they could not be objectively verified, and where no allegation of wrongdoing had been made at the time, so it would be too time consuming to attempt to correct them all.

24. Vaughn had further expanded on this theory when he stated that one cannot simply leave Scientology — i.e., cease being a member of the Church — because a Church policy states that it is better that a person “be dead” than to not be a dedicated Scientologist. Vaughn said he knew the quote was not meant to be taken literally, but again, it was something that as written he could not be charged with perjury for, yet he created a completely wrong impression. Ironically, both of them acknowledged that except for assistance from the Church to help them retrieve their belongings after they abruptly left the Church without notice, they had had no contact with any Scientologists from shortly after they left the Church until they began to file declarations against the Church, a period of more than three years.

25. Stacy also talked about her assertions that the upper level scriptures of the Church were in the public domain. She was challenged on this and admitted that she knew that the Church took great care to maintain the confidentiality of these scriptures as a matter of religious faith and actively would seek to prevent the improper distribution and exposure of these materials. She said she was willing to withdraw her declaration on this matter, as she knew how important this was to

10

[CT 7427]

Scientologists.

26. After Vaughn and Stacy had opened up and talked a great deal about what they had been doing in their anti-Scientology litigation, they also discussed some of the other witnesses who had been hired by Graham Berry to attack the Church. Their descriptions match my personal knowledge and made it obvious that these are not credible witnesses. Stacy specifically mentioned Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim, both of whom were also paid witnesses for Berry. Stacy told me that Armstrong is psychotic and lives in a delusory world in which he holds conversations with God. She said that Wollersheim is as crazy as Armstrong is.

27. They also talked about Andre Tabayoyon. Stacy was especially upset about him, and described an incident in which she and others were at the offices of Berry’s law firm. Tabayoyon was upset that he had not been paid and began yelling in a wild and uncontrolled manner and threatening to kill people. When Stacy told him to stop shouting and to act more professionally, he began to make threatening remarks to her. His yelling drew the attention of employees of the law firm who came to see what was going on. When they arrived in the conference room where Stacy and Tabayoyon were located, Tabayoyon abruptly stormed out of the office. Stacy also told me that Tabayoyon continually mistreated his wife, Mary, and that he regarded her as a slave. Both Stacy and Vaughn found this conduct very disturbing, and they said they would find excuses not to have to socialize with the Tabayoyons because they were not good company and had nothing worthwhile to say.

11

[CT 7428]

28. The Youngs said they would write declarations to set the record straight on points described above along with others. However, they said that as they would no longer have a source of income they needed help in getting on their feet. They wanted to get into the environmental or animal rights fields. They wanted nothing to do with litigation any longer, and even said that once they got established they might be able to help forward the Church’s environmental campaigns and programs. We said we would try to help find them jobs and might be able to assist them with a small loan or possibly even purchase of the rights to future writings to help them while they embarked on a new career.

29. We suggested that while we made inquiries about possible jobs for them, they should put together declarations which would rectify the falsehoods and misimpressions thay had created. They agreed that this would be easy for them to do.

30. Mike Sutter and I returned to Los Angeles and contacted Church staff and professionals who had connections in the environmental and animal rights areas and lined up several possible jobs for Vaughn and Stacy.

31. We returned to Seattle some days later to give Vaughn and Stacy the good news about the jobs we had found. We thought they wanted to resolve their differences with the Church and settle down to an honest living and that this would come as welcome news. It became clear almost immediately that they were not interested.

32. They said they had not written draft declarations, and in fact, had been thinking about it and had decided that they wanted the Church to pay them $540,000 — enough money to live

12

[CT 7429]

without having to work for five years. They claimed that if they were to set the record straight it would end their careers as anti-Scientology consultants and that this was a lot of future income to give up. They made no mention of the morality of their position, and when challenged on it, merely responded that this was just a matter of money, not of right and wrong nor truth or fact. They would do and say whatever would make them money.

33. In an attempt to make their ridiculous demand sound reasonable, they stated that even for $540,000 they were not sure that they would write the declarations to correct the record as they had earlier agreed. They said that since we had left they had been in communication with some people they refused to identify, and had been given “legal advice’ that if they were to correct the declarations they had filed, the insurance company could sue them for “breach of contract.”

34. It should be made clear here that neither of the Youngs has any claim against the Church and both have stated such when asked this question directly in deposition. I brought this up to the Youngs to make clear to them that they couldn’t even have a reason for thinking we owed them money. I told them that if they wanted peace they had to voluntarily provide truthful declarations to correct their lies and that we would not accede to their extortionate demand. While admitting that we didn’t owe them anything for what they had done while in the Church, their answer was simple. It was not a moral question. They earned a good living distorting facts against Scientology, and for them to stop, we should pay up. Vaughn Young summed up their position by claiming that the more of an asshole one is the more one is

13

[CT 7430]

worth in this game.

35. I told Vaughn that I could not believe he was demanding that the Church pay him an enormous amount of money so he would not have to work at all. He became very indignant at this and threatened that he would “do more” and that we would wish that we had “paid him now rather than have to deal with what he would do to us in the future.”

36. Thus the Youngs ultimately refused to put down on paper what they had so willingly told us in person, because we would not pay them for the truth like they had been paid to lie.

37. The Youngs never retracted their admissions that their publicly filed declarations created false impressions and contained lies. In fact, they even said they would now have difficulty carrying on with their “profession” as witnesses due to what they had told us.

38. In summary, the facts are as follows: When we met with them alone, the Youngs candidly admitted what we have been telling the court all along, they have been lying and intentionally distorting facts. They do it knowingly and will readily admit to it outside the presence of an attorney or Court Reporter. They feel comfortable in making these allegations because they know that unfounded accusations against Scientology are given much greater deference in the Courts than are false and degrading accusations made about others. They saw this themselves when they were in the Church, and now they exploit it for cash.

39. No doubt they will now try to deny the facts laid out in this declaration, but when they do so, their motivation should be

14

[CT 7431]

remembered. They still have their jobs as anti-Scientology witnesses to protect.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 27th day of October 1994 at Los Angeles, California.

[signed]
Michael Rinder
MICHAEL RINDER

Notes

Declaration of Vicki J. Aznaran (Sell-out No. 2) (May 19, 1994)

I, VICKI J. AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.

2. From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church of Scientology (“Church”) entities. During that time I held a number of important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church. I was also a devout believer in the religion of Scientology. In March of 1987, my husband Richard Aznaran and I left our positions with the Church and returned home to Texas from California. At the time we left, Richard and I voluntarily executed certain releases and waivers in full settlement of any and all disputes we had with the Church. In April of 1988, notwithstanding our execution of those releases and waivers, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church entities and individuals in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

3. During the time I was a senior Church executive, I gained first hand knowledge of the manner in which some apostate former Church members had pursued civil claims against the Church, and obtained successful verdicts or judgments or favorable settlements notwithstanding the merits. The courts consistently allowed the Church’s adversaries leeway to introduce allegations without regard to the normal rules of procedure and evidence. At the time, this was a source of great concern to me, both as a Scientologist and a Church executive, particularly

1

since my staff duties included responsibilities regarding certain areas of litigation.

4. Thus, having participated in Scientology litigation both as a Church executive and as a litigant against the Church, I bring two distinct, but related, perspectives to this declaration from my personal knowledge and observation. First, at the time my husband and I brought our own suit I understood that the legal system could be used to pursue my position. Later, upon having sued various Scientology churches and having allied myself with other litigants and their counsel suing Scientology churches, I observed first hand the ways in which the legal system is successfully used by litigants and counsel opposing the Church.

5. The fundamental premise upon which the Church’s adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he stated that a lack of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the Church when the litigant can “just allege it.” The active pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish “corroboration” for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in

2

pleadings at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial testimony.

6. The process of “just alleging it” begins with the complaint. For example, in the complaint which was filed on our behalf against the Church, there were numerous allegations which were either false or which we could not substantiate. When I was initially deposed in our case, I conceded that numerous portions of the complaint should not have been drafted by counsel in the fashion they were. Thus, for example, in deposition in June, 1988, I testified that the allegation in paragraph 7 of our complaint, that the “[Church] organizations were created solely for the purpose of making money from the sale of copyrights of the book Dianetics…” was not true. I testified that I did not create corporate structures within the Church and that I do not know where this allegation in paragraph 16 of our complaint came from.

7. There were several other improper or incorrect allegations which should not have appeared in the complaint that I had to acknowledge in deposition. As another example, the complaint alleged in paragraph 16 that I worked for Author Services, Inc., in managing the sales of copyright of the book Dianetics. In deposition I testified that I never worked for Author Services, Inc. and was not aware of any such sale of copyrights.

8. Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation that I had been employed as a “missionaire” to remove assets of Defendant Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts where they could not be accessed. This allegation was false, and

3

it was not an allegation that either my husband or I requested be included in the complaint. I was definitely not employed for that reason, and I have never claimed that I was.

9. It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint that I was employed as a “missionaire” to “set up sham corporate structures to evade prosecution generally.” This allegation is also false. I was never employed for that purpose. I had never even heard of that allegation until I read it in the filed complaint. I did not make that allegation, and I do not know where it came from.

10. Paragraph 12 of the complaint contains the false allegation that my husband and I were forced to “involuntarily abandon [our] identities, spouses, and loyalties…” My depostion testimony established that this was not the case. For example, my husband used to engage in his hobby of target shooting during his years in the Church. We had pets, including a German shepherd which my husband trained in his spare time. I took riding lessons. I also trained in karate, because I was interested in learning that discipline. These were all ways in which my husband and I expressed our individuality while on staff and demonstrate no abandonment, forced or otherwise, of our individual interests.

11. My husband and I both testified to numerous separate, factual errors in the complaint. Our attorney firm, Cummins & White, and later our subsequent counsel, Ford Greene, were aware of these errors to which we testified. Even though we asked them to, no attempt to file a corrected or amended complaint was ever made, nor did any such correction ever occur.

4

12. The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.

13. The most common and probably the most devastating manifestation of this tactic is the use of allegations concerning the so-called “Fair Game” policy of the Church. The term “Fair Game” has been misrepresented and repeatedly used by the Church’s litigation adversaries as a means to create prejudice against the Church. To accomplish that end, counsel fashions a declaration in which the witness identifies an ugly event — real, imagined, or just plain invented — and then alleges that it was a deliberate act which was committed by the Church. The idea is to create the false impression that the Church is committing acts of retribution in pursuit of “Fair Game.”

14. A central element of exploiting the “Fair Game” tactic is to make certain that the allegations are crafted so they cannot be objectively disproved. In other words, the declarant

5

makes an allegation of a bad or harmful or harassing act that cannot be documented in a tangible form and then alleges that it was done by the Church pursuant to the Fair Game “policy”. By so doing, the declarant has put the Church in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative and trying to prove it without documentation. It becomes a matter of the declarant’s word against that of the Church, and by making the act alleged sufficiently despicable, the result is prejudice against the Church.

15. The Fair Game policy was a policy to forward Scientology’s belief that any attacks on Scientology by those seeking to destroy it were to be vigorously defended by legal means and never ignored. It was not a policy condoning or encouraging illegal or criminal activities. The policy was misinterpreted by others and was thus canceled. It has since been used by litigants over the years as a vehicle to give credibility to allegations to try to prejudice courts against Scientology. An event happens such as someone’s wife dies in a car accident, and the allegation is made that this is a murder committed by the Church pursuant to “Fair Game” policy. This technique is known to those who attack the Church and so they continue to use this term to try to prejudice the courts. These people feel comfortable making scandalous allegations, knowing that the Church does not have such a policy. I am unaware of any allegations of “Fair Game” being made by persons who have simply left the Church. Rather, the charges of Fair Game are invariably made by parties who have subsequently become involved in litigation with the Church and who have started working with

6

other anti-Scientology litigants familiar with this tactic.

16. It has been my experience that these litigants and lawyers become emboldened because the history of Scientology litigation demonstrates that virtually any charge leveled against the Church in litigation by an avowed enemy, no matter how outrageous or unfounded, will be accepted and believed. Based on my experience it is a matter of common knowledge that efforts by the Church to refute such prejudicial allegations have commonly not been believed in the courts.

17. Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term “Fair Game”. They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle.

18. The term “fair game” has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see

7

that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that “Fair Game” as they portray it is not Church policy. “Fair Game” exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church.

19. There are other things I have seen and experienced in anti-Scientology litigation that seem very unusual to me. There is a group or “team” of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being paid for their testimony, and based on my experience, this testimony is being altered and falsified, either by the witnesses themselves or the attorneys. For example, Graham Berry, counsel of record for a defendant in the case of CSI v. Fishman, filed numerous declarations from ex-Scientologists after the lawsuit was dismissed which had been purchased for many thousands of dollars. Mr. Berry told me that these payments were made possible because his client had insurance coverage.

20. In February of 1994, Mr. Berry called my husband and me and offered to hire us at the rate of $125 per hour for us to study materials in the Fishman case and to write declarations supporting issues Mr. Berry wished us to support in the Fishman case. Mr. Berry gave us an advance of $2,500, which we were expected to bill against services rendered. He told us that because his client in the Fishman case had insurance coverage, the insurance money enabled him to do this. He said he was able to get the insurance company to pay our salaries by naming us as “experts”, which also enabled the use our declarations without regard to whether we were actually witnesses to the events at issue in the Fishman case, which we were not.

8

21. Mr. Berry told us he had assembled a team of former Scientologists for use in litigation, all of whom were employed by him in the Fishman case as so-called experts. Although we were not eager to get involved in Fishman’s litigation, we agreed to do because the $2,500 advance by Mr. Berry was attractive. Mr. Berry sent us some documents from the court record in the Fishman case, which I read, since I was being paid $125 per hour to do so.

22. I know from subsequent conversations I have had that Andre Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy Young and others, each paid to create declarations for Mr. Berry when he needs them. On the basis of my knowledge of the Church and the declarants, I can state that these individuals are not “experts’ in any recognized sense of the word as I understand it. They are nothing more than witnesses who are being paid to make sworn statements against the Church. More than just being paid, they are actually employed by Mr. Berry as a source of signed declarations of testimony or as a “source” of allegations, the need for such is decided by him.

23. Later in February 1994, Mr. Berry called us again. He said that the Church had dismissed the Fishman case and he needed declarations from us on an immediate basis for use in his motion to recover attorneys fees and costs. I thought this was odd, since it seemed to me that one would support such a motion with receipts, bills, invoices, and such. Even though it seemed senseless to provide declarations after the case was dismissed, I told him I would provide a declaration because he had already paid and I would rather have done this than return the money he

9

had paid us. He then told us what areas of testimony he wanted us to cover in the declarations. Accordingly, I transmitted to Mr. Berry’s firm a eight-page declaration which I had prepared on my word processor and signed on the last page bearing the date of February 24, 1994.

24. I recently learned that Mr. Berry actually filed a nineteen-page declaration purportedly signed by me. Mr. Berry attached my signature to a declaration which I never saw or authorized.

25. Passages inserted without my knowledge or authorization in the version of my declaration filed by Mr. Berry include statements that are untrue and/or about which I have no personal knowledge. Not only did I not make these statements, I never heard of them before. The following are some examples of these falsities:

a) In my declaration there are statements concerning “Project Quaker” which are false. In fact I have never heard of “Project Quaker,” and the statement in the version of my declaration Mr. Berry filed (paragraph 7) was not in the declaration I sent to Mr. Berry. It could not have been as I have never heard of “Project Quaker”;

b) The statements in the filed declaration concerning the death of Michelle Miscavige’s mother were added to without authorization by me. This included mention of the death of Heber Jentzsch’s wife which is not something I had ever spoken to Mr. Berry about, and I have no knowledge and never heard anything

10

that indicated there was anything unusual about Mr. Jentzsch’s wife death. She died of natural causes. The statement concerning Flo Barnett’s death were not put in context and were not meant to imply that there was any wrongdoing surrounding her death. In approximately September 1985, when I was the Deputy Inspector General of Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), I learned that Mary Florence Barnett, Mrs. Miscavige’s mother, had committed suicide. She had been involved with a group of disaffected former Scientologists who practiced altered versions of Scientology. I only know that after hearing about her death both David and Shelly Miscavige were very upset over the fact that Flo Barnett had killed herself. I also wish to make known that I have seen mention in an affidavit by Vaughn Young that David Miscavige ordered the matter “hushed up.” This was stated in the context of indicating wrongdoing on Mr. Miscavige’s part and insinuating he had some participation in the matter. A careful and literal reading of the statment shows that Mr. Young never actually says he knows Mr. Miscavige was involved in this suicide, or that there was any evidence of such, but by innuendo his statement still leaves this impression. To my knowledge there was never any order by David Miscavige or anyone else to keep the matter quiet. If any such order existed it would most likely have been given to me. And since I took actions to make the matter quite well known and

11

never heard anybody, let alone David Miscavige, ask for the matter to be hushed up, I know this statement and the innuendo to be false;

c) the entirety of paragraph 16 on page 10 of the declaration filed by Mr. Berry concerning L. Ron Hubbard and the IRS was written by someone other than me and was inserted into my declaration without my knowledge or authorization. This entire paragraph makes unfounded and outrageous allegations intended to create the impression that David Miscavige or any other Scientologist would want Mr. Hubbard to die in order to avoid supposed IRS problems. This is unthinkable to any Scientologist, and I never heard this or any similar statement made by anyone in the Church.

d) Paragraph 15 of the declaration claims that “Earle Cooley Esq. and others convinced the San Luis Obispo coroner not to do any autopsy on Hubbard’s body” implying there was something hidden or covered up about Mr. Hubbard’s death. This is false. It was not written by me and I know of no such thing. I was in a position to have knowledge of this matter and I know that Mr. Hubbard died of natural causes and the statement attributed to me is a complete fabrication.

e) There is also a statement made in paragraph 18 that Mike Rinder’s child received “Hubbard’s baby care technology.” The implication is that the child’s death had something to do with Scientology which I never believed to be the case. I did not make this statement and have no

12

information that this was the case.

f) In fact, paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35A and 35B were not in the version of the declaration that I sent to Mr. Berry to be filed. He added them after the fact, and I never saw them before this declaration was filed and I never gave authorization for Mr. Berry to add any of these things to my declaration.

g) The statements concerning the Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and whether the Time article concerned CSI, and the corporate structure of the Church (paragraph 20) were also not in the version I signed and sent to Mr. Berry. And again, I know the statement to be entirely false.

h) One other point I wish to clarify concerning the use of “End of Cycle.” There is nothing in Scientology writings which relates the term “End of Cycle” to connote murder or suicide. To my knowledge, this characterization of the term “End of Cycle” was invented by Steven Fishman. I have never heard this term used by the Church to mean “suicide” or “murder” and even though I am a disaffected ex-Scientologist, I know it to be a false allegation. Its only use is to smear the Church for litigation purposes as detailed earlier. I earlier verbally told Mr. Berry this when he first contacted me for this exact information.

26. I gave no authorization for my declaration to be changed after I sent the signed copy of it to Mr. Berry and the changes made to my declaration were made without my knowledge or

13

consent. Mr. Berry never contacted me after he filed the manufactured 19 page version of my declaration. Had I not later obtained a copy of the declaration filed by Mr. Berry from another source, I never would have found out about any of these alterations.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and under the laws of each individual state thereof, including the laws of the states of California and Texas, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.

[signed]
VICKI J. AZNARAN

14

Notes

Declaration of Vicki J. Aznaran (Sell-out No. 1) (May 19, 1994)

I, VICKI AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.

2. From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church of Scientology (“Church”) entities. During that time I held a number of important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church, including President of Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) In March of 1987, my husband Richard Aznaran and I left our positions with the Church and returned home to Texas from California.

3. On April 1, 1988, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church entities and individuals in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. We have now settled this case through direct negotiations with Church representatives. This declaration details how we were driven to settlement by the failure of our counsel to adequately litigate our lawsuit and how we were forced to negotiate settlement directly with representatives of the defendants due to our counsels’ failure to properly represent our interests when defendants earlier had expressed interests in settlement.

4. Our lawsuit was filed on April 1, 1988 by the firm of Cummins & White. The suit was finalized and prepared in a rush in an attempt to get it filed before it was barred by the statute of limitations.

5. Additionally, despite the fact that I then testified in

1

deposition about the inaccuracies in the complaint, my counsel did not amend my complaint to correct them. These uncorrected falsehoods placed us at a serious disadvantage as they enabled the defendants to seize upon these points to give the impression that we were changing our testimony and deliberately stating falsehoods.

6. Another defect in the complaint was the amount of money requested, $70,000,000. Seventy million was a highly inflated figure and in fact impaired efforts to settle as the amount was so high. Shortly after the suit was filed, I pointed the high amount out to counsel and was told that it could be adjusted later. It never was.

7. Another liability to the successful prosecution of our lawsuit was the fact that Cummins & White was disqualified from representing us in our case on September 6, 1988.

8. Not being versed in the law, my husband and I relied upon the representations of Barry Van Sickle and Cummins & White that Cummins & White could properly serve as our counsel. This was wrong. Nevertheless Cummins & White expended considerable time and effort to defend their position in this regard, an action which I now understand to have been fought more for their own self-interest than for the advance of my lawsuit. In September 1988 the District Court Judge disqualified Cummins & White as our counsel, specifically finding that Cummins & White was an extension of Yanny’s continuing and improper involvement in our case.

9. Because Cummins & White was disqualified, we were without an attorney in our case for several months and our case

2

was threatened with dismissal. We were forced to expend considerable effort to find new counsel and get him up to speed while the Church continued to litigate our case. To our detriment, and due to the urgency of having to find counsel in an already ongoing case, we were forced to obtain counsel without the necessary resources to adequately litigate the case.

10. Barry Van Sickle’s attempts to settle were very weak and ineffective. In June 1991 Mr. Van Sickle reported to us that he had an offer of $1,000,000 to settle our case and one other. The offered amount for our case was $200,000 which we rejected as being too low. It was a starting point but despite our efforts to get Mr. Van Sickle to do so, he never succeeded in getting a counter offer to us. Further, Mr. Van Sickle told us that we would have to fire our existing attorney, Ford Greene, as the Church supposedly refused to deal with him in settling the case. As a result we did fire Mr. Greene. Then when Mr. Van Sickle from Cummins & White failed to complete the settlement we were again left without an attorney for a time as Cummins & White had been ordered not to represent us in the case as covered earlier in this declaration.

11. After being without counsel for several months, and finding ourselves at a serious disadvantage in complex litigation with the Church defendants, we re-hired Ford Greene to be our counsel, based on an order from the Court.

12. It has been our experience that Greene seriously neglected our lawsuit and systematically worsened its posture until it became virtually impossible to salvage.

13. From approximately February 1989 onward Ford Greene was

3

attorney of record in our lawsuit against the Church. During that time he did virtually no offensive work on the case, and did nothing of substance to advance our litigation position. Before our case was ordered transferred to Dallas, Texas in August of 1992, Greene had only sent out two interrogatories and had did not even take one deposition despite having obtained two extensions of the discovery cut-off. Following the transfer order, Mr. Greene did nothing whatsoever to actually get the case files sent to Dallas, Texas. Meanwhile, no activity has taken place in our case.

14. While representing us, Greene was consistently late in filing papers and in several instances placed our case in serious jeopardy by failing to file needed papers. For example, in December 1990 he neglected.to oppose a major summary judgment motion which the defendants had filed. He also failed to timely file several mandatory pre-trial papers which could have interfered with our ability to effectively put on our case at trial.

15. It was reported to me by Barry Van Sickle that Mr. Green smoked marijuana when he was picked up at the airport by Rick Wynne, a Cummins & White attorney and driven to the office of Cummins & White.

16. Furthermore, Greene did not communicate with us regarding activities in our lawsuit and often could not be contacted for extended periods of time. It is my belief that at least one of these periods of non-communication was due to the fact that he had entered a drug rehabilitation program without even informing us that he intended to do so. Ford Greene did

4

nothing effective to settle our case. In fact, he told me he was worried about settling our case as my husband and I would no longer be witnesses for Gerry Armstrong who is a client of Ford Greene and involved in Scientology related litigation. Additionally, he attempted to bill us for work which he did not do.

17. In fact, Ford Greene solicited us to pay a monthly stipend to him for Gerry Armstrong so he could work on our case. Armstrong was precluded by an earlier agreement from working on Church litigation.

18. Furthermore, like Cummins & White, Greene was aware of the errors in the complaint and never prepared an amended complaint. In fact, he “developed” the case so that the defendants were able to accuse my husband and myself of engineering several contradictory versions of the underlying facts of the complaint. Thus Greene’s “management” of the complaint set us up so that we would be faced at trial with seemingly contradictory positions which would undermine our credibility.

19. Greene’s inactivity, neglect, mismanagement, and failure to communicate with us endangered our lawsuit. In our view, Mr. Greene’s failure to prosecute this case is tantamount to malpractice. Based upon this history, we developed the conviction that Greene would be unable to handle the trial. While we would have preferred to get rid of Greene completely, we hesitated to do so because we knew that it would be extremely difficult for new counsel to rapidly learn the facts of the case on the eve of the trial.

5

20. In an attempt to resolve this dilemma, we hired John Elstead to be our attorney with Ford Greene. Elstead was recommended to us by Margaret Singer, a psychologist whom we intended to use at trial. Like Greene, Elstead has also neglected to prosecute or advance our case.

21. My husband and I have always been willing to settle our lawsuit and, in fact, considered it likely that the case would end through settlement rather than trial. In the summer of 1991 John Elstead contacted counsel for the defendants to see if there was an interest in settlement. Rather than presenting an acceptable demand, indicative of a serious interest in settlement, Elstead demanded $3,300,000. This was rejected immediately by defendants who did not consider it a serious opening demand and did not treat it as a basis for negotiations.

22. In the late summer of 1992, after the case had been ordered transferred to Dallas, Elstead met with the General Counsel for the Church of Scientology International to discuss settlement. He got nowhere.

23. Seeing that the viability of our lawsuit had been seriously endangered through the neglect and malfeasance of our attorneys, my husband and I felt compelled to take matters into our own hands to resolve this litigation in our best interests. In January of 1994 I spoke directly with Mike Rinder, a senior executive of the Church of Scientology International concerning settling the lawsuit. In the course of discussing settlement with him in this and subsequent conversations, I came to realize that my attorneys had blocked possible settlement for several years. Consistently they failed to convey our true interest in

6

negotiating a satisfactory end to the litigation. Shortly thereafter, Graham Berry approached us to see if he could negotiate a settlement on our behalf, by falsely claiming he had been contacted by the church making settlement overtures. Desperate to resolve this matter, I told him to go ahead. Instead of making a serious offers, on February 16, 1994 Berry demanded $3,600,000 for the settlement of our case along with various threats that he was not authorized make. Again this was not a serious attempt to settle.

24. Finally I communicated directly with a representative of one of the Church of Scientology defendant organizations. It was only when my attorneys were no longer need that both sides were able to discover that our positions were not that far apart and settlement talks were feasible.

25. In sum, it has been my observation that the counsel which my husband and I have employed have not only prolonged the litigation of our lawsuit, but have mishandled the development of the case for trial, and interfered with the process of settlement. By their actions described above, my counsel appear to have consistently put their own interests above those of myself and my husband and have failed to adequately carry out their responsibilities as members of the Bar. I am convinced we would not have been able to resolve our case had we not done so directly with the Church.

///

///

///

///

7

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and under the laws of each individual state thereof, including the laws of the states of California and Texas, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.

[signed]
VICKI J. AZNARAN