Mark Rathbun: The Battle of Portland (May 28, 2013)


Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality. All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration. — Niccolo Machiavelli

Everything hung in the balance at the spring, 1985 trial of Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne vs Church of Scientology. This was the very case that my brother’s friend had tried to tell me about in 1977 in Portland, when he was making an effort to get me out of Scientology. Christofferson was a young woman who had taken a simple Communication Course. It was the very Communication Course that I had taken, at the same Portland mission I’d attended.

Christofferson had, however — according to her — an experience completely opposite to my own in taking the course. She and her Flynn-allied attorney Garry McMurry claimed that she was defrauded into taking the course in the first place, by false representations about L. Ron Hubbard’s credentials and Scientology’s scientific guarantees to bring her health, joy and happiness. According to the lawsuit, the course hypnotized Christofferson and the mission subsequently used that hypnotic state to turn her against her family. The case had originally gone to trial in 1977, and a Multnomah County jury had returned a verdict in her favor for more than two million dollars.

In 1982, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for new trial. The appeals court decision was one of our first major religious recognitions. While Miscavige took full credit for the victory with L. Ron Hubbard, in fact he had served as little more than a nuisance to its accomplishment. The case had already been argued and was pending decision when Miscavige’s Special Project came on the All Clear scene in 1981. His then-deputy Starkey had attempted to intervene in the matter, and wound up blowing off the attorney who would ultimately win the great precedent, Charles Merten.

Merten refused to re-try the case because of his disgust with the church’s new order. But he had already briefed and argued the appeal of the 1979 verdict, so there was no way for the Special Project to mess that up. Had it not been for the original Christofferson case appeals court decision, we likely would not have attained several of the more minor — but useful in their cumulative effect — religious recognition precedents we did wind up achieving through the perilous fight for an All Clear.

A new trial lawyer had been retained in Portland to try the case. Ted Runstein was a personable, seasoned and successful trial attorney. He was, however, demoted to ride shotgun to Earle Cooley and keep his mouth shut as local counsel after saying something for which Miscavige never forgave him. Runstein had suggested that “the jury needs to hear from some real Scientologists from the witness stand.” Miscavige replied that we have plenty of Scientologists on our witness list. Runstein countered, “Those are all Sea Org staff; I am talking about having them hear from Scientologist parishioners who live and work in the same community as the jurors — real Scientologists.” Miscavige snapped, “Sea Org members are real Scientologists, public Scientologists are dilettantes.” Miscavige ruminated on this affront by Runstein throughout the trial, calling him a “theetie-weetie, airy-fairy idiot” behind his back.

So when Earle Cooley rolled into town he had free rein.

David Miscavige, as the chairman of the board of Author Services, would spend the next several weeks in Portland supervising and dictating every last detail of the trial. He was going to show me, the dozens of other attorneys he categorized as “defensive losers,” and the entire OSA network how a trial was conducted, Scientology style. No more counter-intention from lawyers who knew best. He had a soul mate in Earle, so that in his view L. Ron Hubbard’s slash-and-burn policies with respect to detractors and attackers would run into no internal interference. David Miscavige would prove to Ron once again why he needed him to ramrod his intentions through. Hubbard himself was apparently incommunicado, as evidenced by little to no dispatch traffic arriving — which made Miscavige’s two-month, full-time battle of Portland stint possible.

We rented a number of units at a downtown condominium, walking distance from the courthouse. One unit was inhabited by Earle, his long-time mistress Jeannie and their fourteen-year-old son. Another one-bedroom unit was occupied by Miscavige and me. Another was reserved for a couple of Office of Special Affairs staff, and served as a document preparation area and repository. We had a dozen more staff working out of the offices of the mission, which were only a few blocks away. One more condo unit was occupied by Earle’s partner and protégé, Harry Manion.

Harry would prove pivotal to the case, though he did very little speaking in court. Harry was in his early thirties. A big, strapping man — if overweight, like Earle — with a boyish face and an infectious smile and personality. Harry was the archetypal hale fellow well met. He had a glib, friendly word for everyone he encountered, and a natural ability to make people feel comfortable and light. Harry had something else going for him. He was a former college and minor-league professional baseball player, and that really meant something to the judge.

Judge Don Londer was respected by many locally. But because he was Jewish, he was not really accepted into Portland’s traditionally WASP judicial circles. Londer consider himself an old jock, often reminiscing about his boxing career during his younger days in the Navy. He was also a decent, considerate man. However, he was not very bright. In the condo we used to joke that maybe he had his lights knocked out one too many times during his boxing career. But because Harry was a real professional athlete, in Londer’s eyes Harry could do no wrong. Harry struck up a relationship gradually by arriving a little early to court, and thus “bumping into” the judge regularly. The latter always wanted to hear jock war stories from Harry. Harry was the son Don Londer wished he had fathered.

In Miscavige’s view, the Christofferson case was the perfect test case. Christofferson had only ever had a few months engagement with Scientology. She had spent a total of $3,000 on auditing and courses. She had not been harassed by the Guardian’s Office. The court of appeals had already ruled that she could make no case for infliction of emotional distress/outrageous conduct.

Her only remaining cause of action was for fraud. The court of appeal had even narrowed the issue to whether the representations made to her were motivated by sincerely-held religious belief.

In retrospect, it was probably the stupidest move imaginable to not settle the case before trial, for those very reasons. Christofferson claimed fraud primarily based on alleged false representations about L. Ron Hubbard’s pre-Scientology credentials. These were the very issues aired in the Armstrong case, which had made an All Clear all but unattainable. By going to trial, we were affording a woman — who effectively had no damages to claim — a worldwide platform to replay the Armstrong inquisition all over again. Except this time Flynn’s stable of witnesses was bolstered by the former Executive Director of International Scientology, Bill Franks, and the former head of the organization Christofferson had interacted with — the Scientology Mission of Portland, Martin Samuels.

Samuels had been the owner of the Portland mission when both Christofferson and I were parishioners there. He was the owner of the Portland mission when the first Chistofferson trial played out. Samuels had joined the Flynn camp shortly after being expelled, during Miscavige’s mission holder purges of 1982. Samuels testified in the first Christofferson trial on behalf of the church. In the second trial we knew that he would testify that the mother church had not only run every single detail of the trial, but even forced Samuels to lie on the witness stand. And thus Christofferson II was rather a cinch for the Flynn camp to hit the mother church with a sizable judgment (something that had not occurred in the first trial).

But Miscavige — and thus we — looked at it in the simplistic, black-and-white, good-vs.-evil worldview of L. Ron Hubbard. This was our big opportunity to play it all over again. In our view, the 1979 Chistofferson verdict had been what motivated Flynn and FAMCO in the first place.

All of the testimony in the Armstrong trial (including that of Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan) came pouring into the record. More horror stories were added by Samuels and Franks, and by a host of other witnesses. Miscavige and I directed a couple dozen staff, frenetically working through each and every night to provide Earle with material to discredit each witness on cross examination. While direct examination was still in progress, I, Miscavige and several other staff would pore over the real-time transcripts being relayed from court, marking them up for every bit of discrediting documentation we had available in a massive file room at the mission. When the court day ended, we would huddle with Cooley and outline the preps required for the cross exam the next morning. The crews stayed up until 1 or 2 every night, putting the material together and getting final ok from me and Miscavige. Then we would sleep for two to three hours, wake up at 4 a.m. and prepare to meet Earle in his condo at 5 a.m. We would spend the next three hours briefing him on details about how each witness had lied, exaggerated, and twisted the truth or was somehow morally reprehensible. We liberally used material from the ethics records from their days in the church, even copying internal reports to use on cross. This went on for weeks. We continually engaged in echo-chamber, confidence-reinforcing sessions, reviewing how Earle had so thoroughly destroyed each witness’ credibility.

There were external indicia to support our overconfidence. Earle Cooley brutalized the plaintiff’s witnesses on cross examination. So dramatic were his cross exams, that each day Earle was up, the courtroom was packed with local lawyers. They had no interest in the case itself, but Earle’s cross examinations were so dramatic that word had spread through the legal community that Cooley was the best show in town. They were there only to watch a master of their own trade at work. What we were blind to was the cumulative impression that so much manhandling conveyed.

We received a wake-up call of sorts in the middle of the plaintiff’s case, but collectively chose not to heed it. We had planned to enter the covert Armstrong-Griffith-Park surveillance tapes into evidence during the cross examination of Armstrong. Earle set up Armstrong masterfully, leading him to deny that he had ever talked to anyone about taking over the church, orchestrating federal raids, and least of all manufacturing and planting documents in church files. Then Earle started quoting Armstrong from transcripts of the surveillance tapes, clearly demonstrating he was lying from the witness stand. The warning we did not heed came in the form of Judge Londer’s reaction to the courtroom spectacle. In chambers he loudly chastised the church’s behavior in being involved in such cloak-and-dagger activity to begin with. Londer, who clearly did not think much of Chistofferson’s case based on comments he had made up to that point in the trial, was more disgusted with the secret video-taping than the lies they revealed. Had we not been so thoroughly in the throes of a thought-stopping, alternate-reality creation, we might have given thought to how the jury felt about the aggressive, “gotcha” manner we were using with all the plaintiffs witnesses.

Even though it backfired in the case at hand, getting the Armstrong surveillance videos on the public record would serve as a major step in dealing with the more serious government threats of criminal indictments then still extant. The stakes were far higher than merely the Chistofferson case, and there was a great deal of tension in getting the tapes put on the record. We did not want to submit the producer, private eye Gene Ingram, to cross-examination, for fear that he would be forced to disclose anything about the increasing number of operations he was privy to. In the course of coordinating the transportation of the tapes to Portland and into the hands of church coordination attorney John Peterson, Miscavige insisted upon bypassing me and speaking directly to Ingram — something he had not done up to that point in time. I advised him that was a bad idea, should Ingram or he ever be subject to deposition.

I picked up the phone to make the call to Ingram, and Miscavige came flying at me — tackling me into a sofa and attempting to wrestle the phone from my hand. I would not relinquish my grip even though he was strangling me. I threw my chest out to buck Miscavige from me. He violently stabbed his fist into my chest and said menacingly, “Don’t you ever cross me,
motherfucker! I’ll have you declared [excommunicated] in a heartbeat if you ever fuck with me again.” I looked Miscavige in the eye for a moment and considered the weight of that statement. For four years no one on planet earth could communicate to L. Ron Hubbard but through Miscavige — not even his wife. Miscavige was the recipient of personal communications on a weekly basis from Hubbard — but for the extended periods the latter went incommunicado entirely. He was right, he could have me declared in a heartbeat, and all I’d fought for to date would have been for naught. I handed him the phone. He had established himself — much as he had done with Mary Sue Hubbard — as boss buffalo.

So dramatic were Earle Cooley’s cross examinations that we were all swept into the sweet oblivion of the drama of it all. We heard from Judge Londer, through Harry, and we heard from dozens of lawyers who attended as spectators and students: Earle Cooley was magnificent. Earle huddled us up in the condo one evening over beers.

“Have you guys ever heard of Percy Foreman?” Earle asked us.

We all replied that we had not.

“Foreman was one of the premier trial lawyers in American history. He once defended a woman who was up for a murder rap in Miami. The government brought a bunch of scumbag convicts in to bolster their case against her. Foreman demonstrated on cross examination that the testimony was obviously paid for. When he saw the jury understood that, he surprised everyone. After the case in chief, he rested the defense without calling a single witness. He wanted those cross examinations fresh on their minds when they went to deliberate.”

“Brilliant!” exclaimed Miscavige. “We don’t want to serve up our people to McMurry anyway.”

“Exactly,” Earle replied, “sending in Runstein and his ‘real Scientologists’ would be like sending sheep to slaughter.”

“You’re fucking-A right, Earle!” Miscavige proclaimed, as final authorization of the strategy.

And so Earle Cooley shocked the judge, the plaintiff’s team, and all who were watching when he announced the next morning in open court that the defense would call no witnesses, and rested. Judge Londer thought it was a great idea. He didn’t want to sit for another several weeks on this case. And he agreed with Earle that the plaintiff had never made a case worth a hill of beans. It was judge Londer’s nonchalant manner of dealing with jury instructions that helped set us up for the shock of our lives. Londer told Earle and Harry to relax on their stressed arguments to attempt strict control of the jury before their deliberations began. He said, “Hey, what has she got, three grand in damages? The jury isn’t stupid.” And so, with the judge’s assessment of the merits, we were optimistic — albeit nervous — as we awaited the verdict.

Nobody was prepared for the result. On a Friday afternoon the jury awarded Christofferson $39 million. That not only buried any idea of an All Clear, it put the church’s very future at risk. Earle Cooley wasn’t sure why he did it, but he asked the judge to hold off on recording the verdict for a few days. The judge wasn’t sure why either, but he granted Earle’s request.

Miscavige had flown back to Los Angeles after closing arguments. Cooley left that night for Las Vegas to blow off steam and to try to deaden the devastating loss with a weekend of amnesiainducing recreation. In a way, I was left alone holding the bag at the scene of the crime. Early Saturday morning I met with two associates of our local counsel in their Portland office. We frantically traded ideas for challenging the verdict before the case went up to the court of appeals for the two-to-three-year appellate process. One of the associates was a cheery, bright British woman. She came up with a wild idea. Since the verdict had not yet been recorded, we could still make a motion concerning the case before the lower court. That court retained jurisdiction until such time as the verdict was recorded.

We reckoned that since there were motions brought by our side continuously, against prejudicial matter being entered into evidence throughout the trial, and since those motions had been consistently denied, there was no way to challenge rulings already made along the way. However, what if we brought a motion for mistrial based on what was put before the jury during closing arguments? That was the one small window of trial history we had not already brought legal challenges to. With Cooley incommunicado, we got busy dissecting the transcript of the closing arguments to find something, anything we could hang our mistrial motion on. We noted some particularly prejudicial statements that plaintiff’s counsel had made, and drafted a motion for mistrial on the basis that the statements were so outrageous and prejudicial as to have potentially caused the jury to act on passion and prejudice, rather than on the evidence presented over several weeks of trial.

When Cooley returned at the end of the weekend, he thought the motion was brilliant. We filed it early the following week. Harry Manion artfully used his weeks of informal credibility-and-sympathy- building with judge Londer to obtain his agreement to set a hearing for a few weeks down the road, to consider the motion. Londer would not and did not ever record the jury’s verdict.

Miscavige returned to Portland and we had a conference in Cooley’s condo with a couple of legal staff. Miscavige was distraught and desperate. He talked of moving L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology management to a South American country in order to assure the church’s future survival. We discussed how with a 39-million-dollar judgment being publicized internationally, the three dozen similar FAMCO suits heading toward trial, and the DOJ and IRS champing at the bit to clean up anything remaining after the damage was done, the United States was about the least safe territory in the world for Scientology.

Miscavige railed about the stupidity of Judge Londer, how he continued to allow the trial to go out of control while reassuring us that the worst-case scenario was a few thousand dollars in damages. He ruminated how a mighty institution like Scientology could be brought to its knees by a group of degraded “wogs” (non-Scientologists) from a cow town. His own characterization prompted a lightning bolt from the blue.

“I got it!” he exclaimed. “We’ll take over this shit-hole town. I’ll bring in one hundred thousand Scientologists from around the world and we’ll surround that courthouse and make this town comply. We’ll overwhelm them. We’ll overwhelm not only the judge but every other criminal judge he talks to in his town.”

The battle of Portland had only just begun. We called in every Public Relations officer assigned to every church of Scientology in the world (several dozen) and gave them orders to call every person who had ever taken a service at each local church and order them to get to Portland for the biggest, most important event and contribution they would ever make to Scientology. Ken Hoden was pulled out of mothballs and put in charge of the “religious freedom crusade.” Hoden had been the Guardian’s Office person in charge of external affairs in Portland during the original Christofferson case appeal. Miscavige and Starkey had busted him and relegated him to backlines PR work in Los Angeles back in 1981, when they decided he had screwed up the appeal of the original case (the result of which was ultimately the vacating of the original two million-dollar judgment, and Scientology’s strongest religious recognition to date). But now Hoden was integral — he was the only one who knew the ropes in Portland, as well as all allies of the church and public officials in the Portland area. Hoden was instructed to wear a religious “dog collar” shirt and coat at all times in public. He would be the spokesman and he would position all utterances along the line that the Christofferson judgment was the worst assault on religious freedom in the United States in modern times.

Within days, several hundred Scientologists had shown up in Portland. Hoden organized them up, made signs and began regular marches around the courthouse. The trademark chant of the crusade echoed down the streets of Portland:

Hoden: “What do we want?”
The crowd: “Religious freedom!”
Hoden: “When do we want it?”
The crowd: “Now!”

Initially, the protesters came across as angry, in compliance with Miscavige’s orders to intimidate the city into compliance. As Miscavige was back in LA, and there was no allowance
for discussion of mitigation of his ideas, instead Hoden discussed with me the need to tone it down and create a far less threatening and far more dignified presentation. I told Ken he was right, and told him follow his instincts, just learn to report to Starkey and Miscavige in the language they liked to hear. That was to emphasize, in briefing them, how loud you were, how numerous you were, and how shocked and awed the public watching was — while taking a slightly different approach in conducting affairs on the ground. It was an art I had come to learn out of necessity, to avert many church catastrophes over the years.

Ken got the knack of how to play shock absorber to the brass — and did a masterful job in controlling the masses in a fashion that had maximum impact. Over the next week, thousands of Scientologists showed up and the regular protest marches easily surrounded the entire block the courthouse occupied, with parishioners marching in ranks of several abreast. Hoden took care to brief each arriving Scientologist on the importance of being polite and friendly, cleaning up after themselves and generally creating a good impression of “regular Scientologists.”

We wound up having two hearings before judge Londer, separated by several weeks. As much as the crusaders were creating the impression we wished they would, Londer could not wrap his wits around the constitutional arguments we were making. In one chambers meeting with counsel, he uttered something which, despite the public relations gains we were making with the “religious freedom campaign,” flagged our hopes of success. Earle Cooley had made a lengthy presentation, backed by citations to court case precedents. Londer had seized on one particular case that Cooley cited, buoying our attorneys’ hopes that he might understand and adopt our position. After a back-and-forth conversation about its parallels to the case at hand, Londer shocked them all by saying, “Wait a second. That was a court of appeals decision; this isn’t a court of appeals.” Of course, all legal precedent is created by opinions rendered by courts of appeal, and these are binding law for the lower courts to apply and follow. Londer’s statement belied a challenged cognitive capacity. As Earle Cooley put it, “Oh my God, we’re in the hands of the Philistines!”

We kept orchestrating Harry’s having “chance” encounters with Judge Londer, hoping to divine where he stood and hoping that he might begin to understand this case was not only important to the church and Earle, but to Harry’s future. Try as he might, Harry would come back from his meetings befuddled. His refrain was that Londer was as dumb as a sack of rocks, and he couldn’t tell whether anything we were presenting was getting through.

On the afternoon prior to the final hearing and the announcement of decision on the mistrial motion, Earle, Harry and I sat in Earle’s hotel room in Portland preparing our arguments. We had a last-minute brief to file, and had purposely waited until mid afternoon, when we knew Londer took a break. That way, when Harry was bringing the brief into the clerk, Londer might see him and invite him into his chambers for a chat. That went like clockwork. Earle and I beseeched Harry to call in any chips he might have with Londer. Earle told Harry to tell him outright that Londer needed to do this for Harry. Harry reported back that he had schmoozed with Londer, but that it wasn’t appropriate under the circumstances — open chambers doors — to make his ultimate personal pitch. However, Londer had invited Harry to come to his home that evening to meet his wife, since it might be the last time they would see one another. Harry had not committed, out of concern for doing something that would smell of impropriety and could come back to haunt us.

Earle and I discussed the matter in some detail. He explained the downsides of a visit — if it were ever found out it could raise the ugly specter of the decades of GO improprieties we were attempting to live down. “On balance,” Earle said, “this is up to the client. You need to brief the boss [Miscavige] and I’ll trust his instincts.” I called Miscavige and briefed him on all that had transpired. He said, “What is your hesitance? It’s a no brainer. Of course he sees Londer, and he does whatever he has to do to get the product.” I told Earle the verdict. Earle told me, “Okay, now it’s between me and Harry. I’m going to protect you and Dave. Leave it to me.”

Earle did report that Harry had gone to Londer’s home. He did not give particulars beyond saying that Londer was thrilled with the visit. He gave no guarantee of any particular outcome, “But,” Earle added, “tell Dave to relax.” And then Earle told me an anecdotal aphorism he would repeat several times to Dave and me over the next couple of years. He said, “Here is my only test of friendship. I know you are going to testify tomorrow in front a grand jury investigating me.

Do I sleep tonight…or don’t I?”

Even though Earle said he would sleep well that night, I did not. Of secondary importance was my own life. I was so thoroughly invested in the crusade to protect LRH and Scientology that the possible impact on them loomed larger than my own spiritual death — which would be a virtual certainty if we did not win. As I had learned by then on Hubbard’s lines of operation, there had to be a head on a pike after a catastrophe of this magnitude. And I had been around Miscavige long enough to know that regardless of his having micro-managed every move in the trial, down to strangling me the first time I attempted to counter him, it would not be Miscavige’s head on this particular pike.

The next morning, the Multnomah County Courthouse was surrounded by Scientologists. The hallways and wide stairways inside were packed with Scientologists, from the front door,
through the lobby, up to the third-floor courtroom of Judge Londer. Londer gave a touching soliloquy about how well the “real Scientologists” who had descended upon Portland had
conducted themselves. He said he might not have been so gracious and polite had his own religion been compared to botulism soup, as plaintiff’s counsel had done to the jury. He found
such conduct to be extremely prejudicial, and in violation of his own orders — having already determined that Scientology was a religion. The judge granted the mistrial motion, wiping out in one breath the $39,000,000 judgment.

After having survived a nuclear explosion by, among other things, successfully defrauding the court as to L. Ron Hubbard’s inaccessibility (Ron had been a named defendant, but we managed to get through the entire trial without the issue of his personal liability ever being adjudicated), Ron had two handwritten messages relayed to Miscavige. The first was a short note to the “real Scientologists,” the crusaders, commending them for having pulled off a feat of historical proportions by influencing the winning of the mistrial motion. The second consisted of two words and a single letter, sprawled across a full page in Ron’s signature style. It read, “Earle, congratulations! — R” The “R” stood for Ron, a signatory he had used for years on internal church dispatches.

Two months later, at our annual Sea Org Day celebration, Miscavige and I would be awarded special medals of honor, of a type never before issued by Ron. We had slipped on a banana peel and somehow managed to fall on a fur rug.


Mark Rathbun: on mounting the offensive against Flynn and FAMCO (May 28, 2013)

In early May, 1982 I was busily mounting the offensive against Flynn and his FAMCO scheme to bankrupt and destroy Scientology. Up to that point in time, several people had served as buffers between me and David Miscavige. All that changed one morning when Miscavige called me over to his offices at Hubbard’s newly-formed personal services corporation, Author Services Incorporated (ASI). Miscavige was the chairman of its board. As such he was recognized as the most senior and powerful person in the Scientology hierarchy. It was understood by then that all communication to or from L. Ron Hubbard went through Miscavige’s hands. I hopped into the small Japanese car that came with the job of Special Unit Litigation Director and sped over to see Miscavige. I brought Geoff Shervell with me. Geoff was my opposite number for the intelligence/ investigation function of the church. He was a short, portly fellow from New Zealand. He was handsome and friendly in looks and manner. Geoff had worked at the Guardian’s Office Worldwide in England for years. The Special Project had investigated him thoroughly and concluded that he had not engaged in any illegal acts while in the Guardian’s Office. His amiable demeanor and his training and understanding of intelligence had resulted in Miscavige tapping him to run all intelligence for the church. Up to that day Shervell had been reporting directly to Miscavige.


Miscavige seemed somberly unnerved, an attitude he rarely showed to anyone. He wore a dirty blonde mustache and glasses then. He stood about five feet, five inches, solidly built. He looked at me with piercing, intense blue eyes. “Marty, Geoff’s a nice guy, but he doesn’t have the confront for this job.” With that succinct statement, Miscavige put the intelligence function, and Geoff, under my supervision. “Does the GO have any PIs you can trust?” “I haven’t worked with any, sir.” “Well, you need to find a PI that has a pair of balls and won’t be compromised.” “Ok, I’ll get right on it.” “Look, somebody tried to pass a forged check on LRH’s account at Bank of New England. Some Arab guy named Aquil Abdul Amiar shows up at Middle East Bank in New York City with an LRH check with a forged signature. The check is from LRH’s account at BNE. BNE calls us and we tell them LRH never signed any check made out to any Arab, and no check for two million dollars to anybody . They stopped payment. We keep LRH’s check registers. There are no checks missing. We write all of LRH’s checks and submit them to him for signature. He signs them. We mail them and every one of them is accounted for. Norman can show you all that.” I looked at Norman. Norman gave a serious nod back. Miscavige continued, “We asked BNE for more particulars. BNE won’t give any. We have Sherman Lenske (LRH’s corporate and finance attorney ) call MEB and BNE and nobody will cooperate with him. BNE says they want to hear from LRH directly. We have all the proper powers of attorney on his accounts, but they won’t recognize them. They tell us the FBI is investigating. And the FBI won’t tell Sherman anything either. This whole thing smells . These fucking bankers are supposed to be working for LRH, and it looks like they are doing the work of Flynn and the FBI. You need to get a PI onto this and get to the bottom of it.” “Yes, sir.” “Okay, Norman , show him the documents we have, like the POA (power of attorney) and all. Marty, you report direct to me on this . Tell the finance people this is top priority if they give you any flack on the PIs.” “Yes, sir.” “Nobody in the GO or Special Unit or anywhere else needs to know about this, get it?” “Yes, sir.”  1


  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 216-218). Amazon Books. Kindle Edition.

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


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

Part I
Hamburg Symposium – Jesse Prince Part I

Transcript of Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part II
Hamburg Symposium – Jesse Prince Part II

Transcript of Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More colorful language from Jesse Prince.

Part III
Hamburg Symposium – Jesse Prince Part III

Transcript of Part III

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

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

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

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

“Mehhh, okay.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wake up.

Thank you.



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


CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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




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

CONTENTS:   Testimony of Jesse Prince.1


DATE:   July 10, 2002. Afternoon Session.

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

BEFORE:   Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


THE COURT: You may be seated.

All right. Mr. Weinberg, you may continue.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, your Honor.


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

That is what you said, right?

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

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

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

Q Well, let me show you a couple of documents that we’ll have the reporter mark — reporter, the clerk.

MR. WEINBERG: This is our next document.


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

And this one would be 230, right?


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



Q Mr. Prince, this is 229. The thick one is 230.

A Okay. Is this stuff that I keep later?

Q Yes, we can just keep it here for the moment, and then if there is any originals — there is one —

THE COURT: If there are any copies, you can keep them, or give them to Mr. Dandar, or —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll return these exhibits back to the clerk.

THE COURT: If they’re originals, you need to be sure they get back to the clerk.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Before I forget, let me return these exhibits for some reason I took.


Q All right, now if you’ll look at 229, Mr. Prince —

A Is that this one right here?

Q That is the short run, Unanimous Written Consent of the Directors and Trustees of the Religion Technology Center.

A Yes.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you see you executed that document as a



A Yes. Yes, sir, I see my signature on there.

Q You see the three trustees executed that document as trustees, Lyman Spurlock, David Miscavige, and can you read the last one?

A Mmm, David Miscavige is the last one, isn’t it?

Q I think it is the second one.

A The second one is I think looks like Starkey.

Q David Miscavige is the last one. Do you know who the second one is?

A Norman Starkey. And the first one is Lyman Spurlock, I believe.

Q So certainly at that point in time you must have been aware there were trustees?

A Mr. Weinberg, I’m going to say this and it may sound incredible, but as a director, at least in this corporation, Mr. McShane was actually the secretary. I would often sign things because it was required to be signed.

You know, this isn’t anything that we all signed simultaneously. This could have been given to me and Vicki signs it, Jesse signs it, Warren signs it, send it along to OSA, then they sign it.

Q You were familiar, as director, as you said, the number two guy in RTC, you were familiar with the bylaws of the Religious Technology Center, correct?


A You know, I wouldn’t say so.

Q Well, can you pick those bylaws up, please?

A Yes, I can.

Q What is the exhibit number on that?

A Mine doesn’t have an exhibit number.




Q And do you see that if you go to the last page, it is dated June 15, 1982?

A Yes.

Q All right. If you go to —

MR. WEINBERG: In fact, if I can approach the witness it will be easier.

THE COURT: All right.


Q — Article 6, Section 1 —

A Where am I?

Q Article 6, Section 1.

A That is Article 7, so this must be Article 6 right here. Section 7 — what section number?

Q Article 6, Section 1. Right here.

A All right.

Q See that?

A Yes.


Q And that is trustees. You see that?

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q And you see that the bylaws of the organization that you say you were number two in says, and I quote:

“The sole purpose of the board of trustees shall be to elect directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this purpose, the trustees may remove a director who fails to meet the qualifications of a director or who conducts himself in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of Article 1 through 4 of these bylaws and the survival of Scientology. In addition, the trustees shall have the power to change the trustees.”

Isn’t that exactly what happened in March of 1987, that you and Vicki Aznaran were removed by the trustees pursuant to the bylaws of the RTC because you-all had failed to meet the qualifications of a director because you conducted yourself in a manner that was contrary to these bylaws and the survival of Scientology because you had been part of an out-tech operation?

A Is that a question?

THE COURT: That was awfully —


THE COURT: Break that down.

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


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


Q Right, because in 1982 you weren’t a director, you became a director after 1982.

A That is correct.

Q And I assume when you became director, you said you had all this responsibility, you must have — must have familiarized yourself with what the purpose, as set forth in the bylaws and articles of incorporation of the organization that you were part of, was.

A Well, that, in itself, would be an assumption that would have to be ratified by my testimony. And my testimony is, is that I have never been a person that was legal-minded and really understood corporate and bylaws and things like that. I just wasn’t.

THE COURT: Did you ever read this document?

THE WITNESS: I can’t say that I have.


Q But you —

A My signature is not on any part of this.

Q You understand now, after having seen this document, seen Title 6, you understand that you were removed in March of 1987 pursuant to the bylaws of RTC by the trustees as a result of your misconduct? You understand


that now, don’t you?

A No. No.

THE COURT: He already testified why he believes he was removed. It would not be consistent with this.

Obviously, the directors, if they were here, would testify differently that it was pursuant to this.

MR. WEINBERG: The trustees.

THE COURT: The trustees.



Q Mr. Prince, you can put that down.

A Okay.

Q Now —

THE COURT: I mean, I guess pursuant to your question as to wasn’t this true and wasn’t that true where he said no, that was coming from somewhere.


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



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


Scientology, that you were threatened by Elliot Abelson, the lawyer, is that what you said?

A I said I received a letter threatening to sue me from Mr. Elliot Abelson.

Q And — and you understood from receiving that letter that the problem was that you had signed a release upon your departure from Scientology — from the Sea Org in 1992, among other things promising not to — to work against the Church of Scientology, or something to that effect?

A I would have to see that, if you —

Q Okay.

A — have it here.

MR. WEINBERG: Let me have a couple of things marked, your Honor.

Your Honor, here is 231. It is one exhibit.


Q This whole package is 231, Mr. Prince.

A Okay, thank you.

Q Now, do you see Exhibit 231, Mr. Prince?

A I’m looking at it right now, Mr. Weinberg.

MR. WEINBERG: While he’s looking at it, your Honor, I’ll mark as 232 the following document.


Q That is 232.

A Okay.


Q Have you had a chance to look at 231?

A Yes.

Q All right. And is that the correspondence that you remember getting from Mr. Abelson?

A Yes.

Q And that includes a letter that — which is the second page — sent by hand-delivery to you in Minneapolis on July 24, 1998 from Mr. Abelson, along with a copy of the release. And then the first page is a letter of that same date to you in care of Leipold, Donahue & Shipe, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And is this the full extent of the communications between you and the Church of Scientology, Mr. Abelson, at that time in July of 1998 with regard to whether or not you could or would be a witness?

A Mmm, no. As I worked — I mean — I mean, I had private investigators actually trying to stop me on the street to hand me this letter.

Q I’m just asking you about any other communications with Mr. Abelson.

A With Mr. Abelson? Not that I recall specifically.

Q Then am I correct that you got Mr. Leipold, who you were already working with, I guess, at the time, to file a lawsuit?


A Correct.

Q And that is Exhibit —

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

MR. DANDAR: 232.


Q And that is Exhibit 232 in front of you, correct?

A Yes.

Q And that was a lawsuit filed on your behalf in — that was filed — date filed August 6, 1998 in Superior Court in California seeking to declare the release, which is one which is attached to that first exhibit, not valid as it pertained to your testimony. Is that right?

A You know, I’m sorry, Mr. Weinberg, I’m a little tired. But, you know, the question gets long. Then I don’t know what I’m supposed to be answering.

Q The purpose of this was to try to allow you to work in cases against the Church of Scientology?

A No. Not at all.

THE COURT: A dec action normally just to  declare the rights of the parties.

MR. WEINBERG: That was my first question. And I tried to make it simpler.


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


A If that is what this says, yes.

Q Okay. And this case never — it just lay — you never prosecuted this case. Is that right?

A No, I never pursued it.

Q And the Church of Scientology didn’t — didn’t file any lawsuit against you?

A No.

Q And that release that was attached is the release that you were talking about that you signed in 1992, is that right?

A Under extreme duress, yes.

Q The extreme — did you sign it on the day that you left?

A I signed it on the 31st of October. But for whatever reason, Mr. Rathbun thought it would be more appropriate to make it November. So he wrote “November 1st” here.

But the actual date that I left that I was taken to the airport by the Scientology security official was the 31st of October.

Q Was it late at night that you signed it?

A No. But it was in the evening.

Q All right. Does it make a difference whether it is November 1st or October 31st?

A It makes a difference as far as accuracy is concerned.


Q And on this same day, you were — you talked to Mr. Rathbun in — in a recorded conversation?

A Yes.

Q And were you under any duress?

A Extreme duress, as is laid out in this complaint.

Q Did he threaten you during the conversation on the 31st?

A I was way past being threatened.

Q That was a simple question. Did he threaten you during the conversation that was recorded on the 31st?

A I don’t know. I would have to listen to it again.

Q Do you remember being threatened?

A No, I do not.

Q When you say duress, what are you talking about?

A Well —

THE COURT: He already talked about it throughout his testimony as to the whole schmear.

MR. WEINBERG: This is the last day when he decided to walk out.

THE COURT: I understand that, Counselor. But he already testified as to how he felt threatened and how he felt coerced and all that and how it came about.


THE COURT: All this long tenure. But if you


are specifically asking about right before he signed is —

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m asking.

THE COURT: But don’t suggest that is all he’s talking about because he talked about —

MR. WEINBERG: No. No, I’m talking about on the 31st when this was recorded.

A I’ll give you a simple statement. Unless I signed this, I would have been — remained a captive. Unless I did this, I would have remained incarcerated by Scientology.


Q Now, the first time that you — in 1987 when you went into the RPF, you actually walked out on your own, didn’t you?

A What do you mean?

Q Well, you have testified about it. You actually left the RPF and went into town, checked into a hotel —

A Escaped. I escaped. It just wasn’t walking. No. I escaped. And some Indians from the Soboba Springs Reservation put me in a truck and drove me to bingo hall so I could call the police. No, I escaped. I ran away from that place.

Q So you didn’t see Mr. Rathbun or anybody like that who paid for a hotel?

A Oh, they caught me on the road walking.


Q And they took you into town?

A Yeah.

Q So —

A In the back of a truck.

Q They didn’t take you back to the RPF?

A I wasn’t going to go back to the RPF. I made that clear. I told them if they wanted to speak with me or continue any kind of dialogue with me, it would be on my terms and not on their terms and — no longer on their terms.

That if they wanted to talk to me, I would sit still in a place a while.

So they went and paid for a hotel. I went and got a car, drove straight back to the RPF and got Vicki Aznaran out of there. Vicki Aznaran didn’t want to be there, either.

Q And they let her go, too?

A No. They had no choice.

Q What do you mean, they had no choice?

A I came in there with a car, driving up their dirt road so fast. I knew exactly where she was. As soon as I went in there, I grabbed her, put her in that car and we zoomed out the gate.

Q But the first time when you left, Mr. Rathbun picked you up on the road, and instead of taking you back to the RPF, he took you to a hotel in town and paid for a hotel



A At my demand, yes.

Q Well, if you are a prisoner, what right do you have to demand anything?

A Because I’m in the public now. You see, I’m in the open now. I’m not in Scientology’s closed system where they can do whatever they want to and people can’t see. Now I’m out on the public road with public cars passing

by. And that affords — afforded some protection because it was a PR flap.

For me to be out there, a disgruntled staff member, extremely disgruntled staff member, leaving for my life, my God, I’m walking through the desert, it is 110 degrees, that is the reason why.

I told them, “I’m going straight to the police, straight to the press. I’m sick of you people.”

Q This is in 1987?

A Correct.

Q Then after a week or two or three or whatever it was, you then voluntarily went back to the RPF?

A No.

Q From the public?

A Mmm, Mr. Weiner (sic), you know on direct we covered this quite well, and I explained the whole situation about my wife, you know, how they wanted to split my wife


and I, I didn’t want to be split with her, I stayed there an extra five years until she came to. You know, I have that same testimony today.

Q One simple question. No one drug you back.

A Correct.

Q Now, you testified that — I think that you were shocked about private investigators and how a private investigator has been running around. I mean, I think —

THE COURT: Shocked? I don’t recall him being shocked.


Q How do you recall it?

A Annoyed. Kind of surprised.

Q Now, after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, you actually became trained and worked in Texas as a private investigator, didn’t you?

You were certified?

A Correct.

Q And the person that trained you was Rick Aznaran, who had years before left the Church of Scientology?

A In 1989, I think — no, it was five years prior to me leaving. So, yes.

Q How long did you work as a private investigator?

A Oh, probably maybe — maybe four months, five months.

Q Now, let’s go to your August 1999 affidavit.


A Okay.

Q You are familiar with that affidavit, obviously. Right?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, if we’re going to go through and do the word games with it, I certainly need to have it present in front of me.

MR. DANDAR: I might have it.

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this?

MR. WEINBERG: This is the one that the hearing is about, basically.


MR. DANDAR: I take that back. I thought I had it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy of it?

THE COURT: Did you say this was the one dated the 1st of May of —

MR. WEINBERG: No. No. When I said the hearing, this is the August 20, 1999 affidavit, the one where the murder allegation was made.

THE COURT: I thought you said about this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know, it is the —

THE COURT: What number is that, Madam Clerk?

Could I have that? I don’t have it up here.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. There was no murder


allegation in the affidavit.

THE COURT: The objection is on the record.

We’ll deal with — the affidavit says whatever it says.

MR. DANDAR: It says what it says.

THE COURT: It says what it says.

MR. DANDAR: I just can’t find my copy.

THE COURT: This one, is this 108 or something like that?

MR. DANDAR: It is very possible.

THE COURT: Madam Clerk, look for 108, see what that is.

THE CLERK: Defense 108 or —

THE COURT: Oh, I don’t know.

MR. FUGATE: It is not 108, Judge.

THE COURT: No, that is not it.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I have one that I don’t think have any highlights on it — well, one highlight, nothing much.

THE COURT: That is all right, I don’t mind the  highlights.

MR. WEINBERG: I can’t even find the one that did have highlights.


Q Do you have one, Mr. Prince?


A No, I do not.

Q Okay, I have another one.

THE COURT: This is in evidence or else it is attached to the response.

MR. DANDAR: And we would like it to be considered as evidence in this hearing.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, it needs to then be admitted — it hasn’t been admitted. Do you want to admit it as the defense next exhibit?

MR. DANDAR: That is fine.

MR. WEINBERG: How about plaintiff’s next exhibit?

MR. DANDAR: Or it could be a joint exhibit.

MR. WEINBERG: Frankly —

THE COURT: Make it your exhibit, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: As well as the April 2002 exhibit of Mr. Prince which is also filed.

MR. WEINBERG: I am not to that one yet. Why don’t we start with this one?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think — are these the exhibits to it?

THE COURT: I don’t know that —

MR. WEINBERG: Yours don’t have it but it is just —


MR. DANDAR: Judge, I actually —

THE COURT: I don’t know what that is. Was it attached to his affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently so.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. DANDAR: It is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

Yes, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

THE COURT: Do you remember, Mr. Dandar, whether there were any attachments to his? I honestly don’t remember attachments, at least I wasn’t given — in the copy I was given. It doesn’t mean there weren’t some.

MR. DANDAR: My copy with me today has nothing attached to it. But —

THE COURT: Well, let’s just look, because if there are no attachments to it, then you need not —

MR. WEINBERG: This wouldn’t be something we want in, anyway. These are not attachments. But I think we’ll probably find that he refers to some in  here somewhere.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, why don’t we do this. I marked one without the attachments. Why don’t we just mark it without the attachments?



MR. WEINBERG: Then we won’t have —

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


THE COURT: There will be no attachments. If you later find out there are attachments with it —

MR. WEINBERG: He already put into evidence the — with the motions —

MR. DANDAR: It is already in as 126 of the plaintiff.



THE COURT: It is already in?


THE COURT: Then we don’t need it in again, Counsel. Number 126.

MR. WEINBERG: But it doesn’t have attachments.

THE COURT: I’ll just use this one and give it back to you when we’re done. Whoops, now I have two of them.

MR. WEINBERG: I know, because I had given you one with attachments and one without.

THE COURT: I’ll use them. And when I’m done, I’ll give them both back to you.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Weinberg, I would like a


copy, as well.

THE COURT: Here. Take mine, the extra.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Prince, did I give you Pages 1 through 18?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.



Q First of all, take a look at that affidavit. And go to the last page. And that is an affidavit that you executed on August 20, 1999, is that right?

A Correct.

Q And you executed it in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct.

Q Now, you can put the affidavit down. I have some questions first.

A Okay.

Q You had, as of August 20, 1999, no personal knowledge as to what occurred in 1995 with regard to Lisa McPherson at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Correct?

A Correct.

Q You had — at that time you’d been out of Scientology, out of a — sorry, by that time you’d been out  of an executive position at Scientology for — since 1987?

A Correct.


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


A Correct.

Q You never spoke to anybody that was with Lisa McPherson while she was at the hotel in 1995. Correct?

A Well, let me think about that.

Q As of the time you executed your affidavit?

A Oh, not that I recall.

Q Okay. You had — at the time that you executed your affidavit in August of 1999, you had no knowledge — no personal knowledge as to what David Miscavige was doing or where he was from November 18, 1995 through December 5, 1995. Correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Yes, that is true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true.

THE COURT: Okay. Now we are in important areas so I want the record to be clear on things like that.



Q Now, yet you opined in your affidavit —

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



Q If you go to Page 17.

A Okay.

Q You opined in your affidavit, in Paragraph 44, that:

“Lisa McPherson was held against her will in isolation. And when she did not respond to Scientology technical handling, Flag, on orders from David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun, sat mute and watched her die after she no longer had the strength to fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was a chosen option to minimize a public relations flap.”

That is what you said, correct?

A Correct.

Q At the time you said that, you did not have a shred — you did not have a piece of evidence indicating — indicating that in November and December of 1995 that either Mr. Mithoff or Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige had done one thing with regard to Lisa McPherson. Correct?

A Mmm, correct. I — you labeled this as my opinion, I think. You said I opined about these and this is what I did.

Q Go to Paragraph 34 — I mean Paragraph 43. I’m sorry, Page 17, same page. Paragraph 43, you say:

“Yet from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals, Mithoff, Rathbun and Miscavige, had no


option other than to permit her to die in isolation, rather than to take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physician, press and authorities, with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery.”

You said that. Right?

A Correct.

Q And — but when you said that, you didn’t have a shred of evidence that indicated that Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige made a decision to let her die.


A This was my opinion, based on experience.

Q You didn’t have any evidence, did you?

A I had no physical evidence, no.

THE COURT: Could I ask him a question here?


THE COURT: I hate to interrupt. At that time, at the time you wrote this, had the doctors, more particularly, Dr. — I can’t even think of his name now.

MR. DANDAR: Spitz.

THE COURT: — Spitz, had he been deposed yet?

Do you know, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I do not recall, your Honor.


THE COURT: In other words, this was before you had the medical testimony?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, I wouldn’t say that, either, no. I — I’m not sure about that, either. I know I have read medical testimony from Mr. Dandar’s experts concerning what —

THE COURT: Do you know whether you had knowledge of what that testimony — I mean, I have to presume you and Mr. Dandar, as his consultant, discussed what he knew, what you knew.


THE COURT: But do you know whether or not you knew about the medical doctors before you wrote your affidavit, or not?

THE WITNESS: I — as I sit here today, your Honor, I don’t know.



Q But you did know that the Church of Scientology had been charged criminally at this point. Right?

A Yes.

Q You were aware of what the medical examiner had said, correct? The autopsy report, all of the controversy? I mean, you were aware of all of that?

A Yes.


Q Now, you knew that by making an allegation like you did in your affidavit in August of 1999, that David Miscavige, the leader of the Church of Scientology, was part of an intentional decision to allow a fellow Scientologist who was on a religious program, introspection rundown, to die. You knew that making an allegation like that would — would be — would bring very negative press and very negative reactions from the Church. Correct?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know which part of that diatribe to respond to.

THE COURT: It wasn’t a diatribe. He said did you know that this would bring very negative reactions from the Church?

THE WITNESS: I mean, that was not in my awareness. That was not part of my thought process when I executed this document here. My thought process, in executing this document, is after reviewing the preclear folders, reviewing the caretaker notes, reviewing what other information that was available, which I had studied for months — you see, you say she was on the introspection rundown, yet your client cannot produce one sheet of paper —

THE COURT: See, you are well, well past —



THE COURT: This question is real simple. His question was did you know, when you executed this affidavit, that this would cause negative reaction — I can’t remember what word you used — negative reaction from the Church?

THE WITNESS: Right. That was not in my conscious — consciousness to create that, you know, or — or — I mean I don’t think this ever appeared in the newspaper or — or anything like that. I mean, as far as public relations is concerned, I think this is a document that is held within this courtroom.


Q No. It just appeared in a lawsuit that that document was the basis for that accused the Church of Scientology, specifically its leader, David Miscavige, of murder. It appeared in that. Right?

A I prepared this — this affidavit for this case.

Q Right. And that affidavit was the — was the principal piece of evidence that was used to seek the fifth amended complaint that made it very clear that there was a murder allegation against David Miscavige, among others. Correct?

A You know, you’re asking me to do — or to comment upon work that was actually Mr. Dandar’s work. Mr. Dandar


simply asked me, “What do you think happened with Lisa McPherson? Based on everything that you have read, what do you think happened to her?”  Then we went, “Well, why do you think it happened to her? Well, can you show me? Can you tell me?”

And after we went through that process, I went over this many times because he was like, “Are you sure? Are you sure?”   I said, “Look, this is the way it works here. I was here. I know how it works. I have seen this in operation.” You know, I’m not —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you are going on and on. And the long and short of it is you testified on direct examination, in response to questions either from your lawyer — or I should not say your lawyer, either from the person to whom you consult with or from me, that you’d never seen an end cycle ordered by David Miscavige —


THE COURT: — other than on a terminally ill person.


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


THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, your Honor. And I think with the first part of my testimony, when you see the pattern of the conduct of this organization in that it is not below them to do something illegal, it is not below them to put themselves before an individual, it is —

THE COURT: Well, then it was just speculative on your part. This is one of a number of possibilities that could have happened?

THE WITNESS: Right. Exactly.

THE COURT: This just happened to be the only one you mentioned?

THE WITNESS: Well, this is the only one I believe did happen.




Q You knew — at the time you executed this affidavit that was the basis for the fifth amended complaint, you knew that there was no policy, no written policy, in the Church of Scientology with regard to killing someone who was on an introspection rundown. You knew that, didn’t you?

A Basically — no, there is no policy to kill people. There is nothing in the policy to kill people that


I know of.

Q Okay. And you have said many, many times over the course of this litigation if it isn’t written, it isn’t so. Correct?

That it is — it is all in writing, it is all written down, as far as Scientology policy. Correct?

A As far as Scientology policy is concerned, that is something that they say.

Q All right. Now, you had been — you had one experience with the introspection rundown where you actually were on an introspection rundown watching someone. That is Teresita. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And Ms. Brooks was on that same introspection rundown. Right?

A For a short period of time, yes.

Q And in that — and that went over the course of a month or so?

A A couple months.

Q A couple of months?

A Yes.

Q And people were with Teresita around the clock?

A Primarily myself was with her around the clock. But, you know, her being a young woman, sometimes she would need help going to the bathroom or, you know, cleaning herself up. That is when the girls would come, like Stacy


and another girl would help.

Q And part of 0 and 00 of the introspection rundown is the isolation part, right, which is what this watch was, and also getting food and — and nutrition so you can start auditing, try to get out of the psychotic state.


A Almost correct. But the auditing pretty much happens immediately after the person has had a period of time asleep, such as eight hours, the auditing is immediately started.

Q If someone is still psychotic, in other words, out of their mind, not — not in present time, they can’t get audited, can they?

A Well, you know — no. You can audit an unconscious person. There are auditing processes where you can actually audit an unconscious person.

Q You didn’t receive an order to let Teresita die, did you?

A No. I did not.

Q No one received an order to let Teresita die?

A No.

Q Teresita was a staff member —

A Correct.

Q — who had a psychotic break, apparently.


A You know —


Q Can you just answer that question?

A Okay, I am going to answer. But, you know, you talk about psychotic break. And again, you know, what are we talking about here?

THE COURT: We’re talking about somebody that barks like a dog, which is what you said she did.

That is somebody that had a psychotic break.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. Am I qualified to do a medical diagnosis? I don’t think so.

THE COURT: No, but we are all qualified in this room to know that somebody that is barking like a dog had something go wrong. And it is usually psychotic. Fair enough?

THE WITNESS: Is it temporary? Does it go on for weeks? Does it just happen for an hour? I mean, what are we talking about?

THE COURT: Let him ask his question and let him answer and we’ll all make our assumptions when it is over.


Q All right. What I’m talking about, when you were with her most of the time, you saw to it that she ate and that she drank. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And you — I think you have said in testimony,


whether it is — I think it was your affidavit, this affidavit that we’re looking at, 126, that at one point you thought that she was — was going to die, I think you said. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Because you were concerned that she wasn’t getting enough to drink or enough to eat?

A No. That is not why I thought she was going to die. I thought she was going to die because she couldn’t sleep.

Q And you —

THE COURT: Maybe you can show me where you are, because this is a long affidavit. I don’t remember where this part of it was.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll show you. It is Page 13.


MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 31.


Q Read that out loud, Mr. Prince. It is one sentence.

A I’m sorry. What is it?

Q Page 13, Paragraph 31.

A Uh-huh.

Q Can you read that out loud?


A “If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that, based upon my own observation, she would have died.”

Q So you were concerned that she was going to die if you didn’t force her or make her drink water. That is what you said under oath in this August 1999 affidavit. Correct?

A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. But if you go to Number 29 of the same affidavit, I also mention the fact that I was afraid she was going to die because she could not sleep.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: He also said she had a — you also said she had a psychotic break, didn’t you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I did.


Q All right. But the point is, Mr. Prince, is that you took it upon yourself to help her get through this. Correct?

A Yes.

Q So did Stacy Brooks?

A For a short time.

Q So did a number of other people that were there. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And you got an award for it?

A No, I didn’t.


Q You got recognized for it?

A No, I didn’t.

Q You didn’t?

A Come on.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I just approach the witness, your Honor, while I get copies of this?

THE COURT: You may.


Q I show you —

MR. WEINBERG: We’ll mark it —

THE COURT: I think it has already been marked because when Stacy Brooks was on the stand —

MR. WEINBERG: You are right, it has been marked, and we’ll figure out what the exhibit number is.


Q “August 31, 1988. Commendable. The following people are acknowledged for their assistance on handling a cycle that was above and beyond their duties. Their actions helped in the standard application of Scientology technology on the introspection rundown that made a being sane. Highly commended: Jesse Prince.” Do you see that?

A Where? Suzie Watson? I had forgotten about her. The


rest of them people are security guards. Well, you know, this is possible. I hadn’t remembered it.

Q Well, you were pretty happy, were you not, that you were successful in your endeavors to help Teresita?

A You know, I was happy that she survived and made it home okay. I was happy about that. Yes.

Q And you’re aware that she’s alive today and is still a Scientologist?

A I have no information about that.

Q She went home? She was allowed to go home after the introspection rundown was concluded?

A Yes. She signed her release, similar to this thing I signed, and she —

Q No one told you to keep her there to avoid a public relations flap?

A After she was well?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q No?

A No.

Q And during this process, she hit you. Correct?

A Yes.

Q She ran out several times, ran out into the country?


A Right.

Q I mean, one could say, if they didn’t know, that she was crazy, that she was trying to escape, correct, when she ran out?

A You could surmise that. I don’t know. She was running in the wrong direction to escape because where we were at, we were on a — where this place is, where we had her, the mountains are behind there. And she ran up that way. Which, unless you are a skilled mountain climber, you are not going to go very far.

Q And what you did, you ran after her, didn’t you?

A Yes.

Q And you brought her back?

A No. Actually I couldn’t catch her because she ran so fast. Sometimes people have superhuman strength. And then she climbed so high. And she was a lightweight person. And when I tried to reach for her, I couldn’t reach where she was. So I had to literally sit and wait for her to decide to come down.

Q Then you brought her back?

A No. I walked behind her. She brought herself back.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you brought her back, she came back, you followed her back —

THE WITNESS: She came back.


THE COURT: The deal was you weren’t going to let her, in that state, go anywhere except stay there and continue to be handled. Right?


THE COURT: All right.


Q Now, you cannot speak for what all Scientologists — other Scientologists would follow as far as policy, can you?

A No, I cannot.

Q Because — because of the concept in Scientology that what is true for you is true. Correct?

A Well, not — not wholly because also it depends on how much you have been trained, how much policy you know, you know. You can’t be expected to understand something you don’t know.

Q We’ve talked about this in your depositions before. The point is, is that it is a policy of Scientology that Scientologists can decide on their own what — whether to ignore policy or not — to ignore a particular policy or not?

A No. That is not true.

Q Then what did you mean when you testified —

A Not ignore a policy. You know, I mean, how could you ignore the policy to lock the door when all of the staff


walk out? You know, you’re going to get in trouble. That doesn’t make sense. You don’t ignore the policy. Either you understand it and you accept it, or you don’t.

Q So you don’t have to accept it if you don’t want to, that is a policy — that is what is true for you is true for you?

A No. No, no. Maybe with tech, you know, a belief — but policy that lays out the fundamental actions of the organization? No.

Q You don’t have any knowledge of what the staff members that were staying with Lisa McPherson — what policies

they were or were not following and what they believed about those policies? You are not in a position to opine about that, are you?

A What policies — policy are you referring to?

Q Whatever policies they were advised as to or practicing when they were staying with Lisa McPherson.

A You know, that is kind of ambiguous. If you have got a policy, I could tell you whether or not I think they’re aware of it.

Q All right.

Now, do you remember that in or about August or September — we’ll pull the exact affidavit now — in 2001 you executed an affidavit that was the basis of a motion for severe sanctions against the Church, and as a
result you withdrew as an expert in the case?


THE COURT: Are we done with this affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, yes.

THE COURT: All right, I’m going to let you have that back. Mr. Prince, if you want to, you can give that back.


THE COURT: I believe this is in evidence, too, isn’t it?

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. It is but — do we have copies of the affidavit? I think we have copies.

THE COURT: Okay. Good. I just went ahead — I’m just having the evidence filed as I read through it.

MR. WEINBERG: You know what —

THE COURT: It is too massive.

MR. WEINBERG: — this one I’m not positive about, whether it is in evidence or not.

THE COURT: I don’t know, either. Madam Clerk, how do you know what is in evidence?

MR. WEINBERG: I should know this and, frankly, I apologize.

THE COURT: Is there any way you can tell us whether an affidavit of Jesse Prince dated September of 2001 is in evidence?


THE CLERK: Yes, Judge, I can check. Is it plaintiff’s or defendant’s?

THE COURT: I can’t tell you if it is plaintiff’s or defendant’s. These come in under strange hands.

MR. DANDAR: I don’t believe the plaintiff used this at this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark it. We’ll mark as the next exhibit, the September of 2001 affidavit of Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: What number is that?



THE COURT: And if you find it is in evidence, you’ll let us know and we’ll take that one out. We’ll have just a mound of evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It is obviously part of a court record.

THE COURT: Yes. And I believe it has been referred to several times. But I’m not sure it has ever been introduced.

MR. DANDAR: 233?


THE COURT: So it will be received.

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


you have the motion? I might as well do the whole package here. 234 would be the motion for severe sanctions.

THE COURT: I don’t know why I would need the motion to be introduced. But —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think there was something I wanted to refer to and, frankly, I don’t know what it was. I’ll just mark it anyway. And that would be 234.


Q Now, is that an affidavit that you executed, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, it is, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And it was done — who wrote this affidavit?

A I did.

Q Did you get any help writing this affidavit?

A Mmm, maybe somebody, you know, did margins for me or, you know, word —

Q I mean, somebody drafted it for you? Nobody drafted it for you? You did all that?

A Again, I don’t want to be coy when answering the question. Sometimes Mr. Dandar or some attorney will suggest information based on conversations that we had and — quite normally.

And I think Mr. Dandar can attest to this, that I


normally start from the beginning and type my own, do my own work.

Q Now, if you go to Paragraph 22 and 23 of his affidavit, on Page 5 —

A Yes?

Q — you swore in the affidavit that — that — that:

“As a result of my arrest and criminal prosecution, I was extremely upset, embarrassed and humiliated and could see in here that my fiancee and her two minor children were traumatized by this experience.”

Then you went on in 23 to say that: “Further, I had advised Ken Dandar, counsel for the estate of Lisa McPherson, that I must withdraw as the estate’s expert in the above-captioned cause as a result of my arrest and prosecution and serious concern of further and more intense fair game by Scientology and its operatives.” Then you go on. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So the purpose of this affidavit was to say you were not going to be an expert anymore in this case because you were scared of Scientology. That is essentially what you said, right?

A No. I think that is a mis-characterization of what it says here.


Q How would you characterize it?

A I was concerned for my family. You see, I had no problem with weathering the storm with Scientology personally.

But this is beyond personal — I think I explained this in my testimony yesterday. Innocent people are involved here. It just wasn’t worth it to me. And I couldn’t hire an attorney. I just lost my job. You know, I don’t want to do that.

THE COURT: He said, “Not only to myself but my fiancee and her two children, who are all very dear to me.” That is all the same section.


Q Did it concern you, for the previous four years when you were threatening the Church, picketing in front of their buildings, saying obscene things about David Miscavige, did it — did it — did it concern you then about Scientology?

A Mmm, what it — it concerned me the moment that I found out that this operation had been run on me and drugs put on my back porch. I mean, it just went to a whole new level at that point. This is at my home. This is where I
live. People coming in, putting seed around, you know, commiserating with police, telling them I’m a drug dealer, cocaine dealer.

I have children. My fiancee gets her children


taken away from her. It escalated to a new level, Mr. Weinberg.

Q But the affidavit is executed in September of 2001. You had been acquitted in the spring, hadn’t you?

A Yes. Then didn’t —

Q Not acquitted. There had been a hung jury and the prosecutor decided not to pursue it. That was in the spring, wasn’t it?

A Didn’t Mr. Rinder quote, in the St. Pete Times, “We’ll get him next time.” Okay? He was quoted, “We’ll get  him next time.” I don’t want any more next times.

Q You continued to be an expert and consultant for Mr. Dandar up until — after the hung jury in the spring, up until September of 2001 when Mr. Minton said he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore. Is that what happened?

A No. Disrelated items.

Q It just happened to be coincidentally at the same time?

A If you characterize it that way. Again, like I say, as we’ve gone over, my regular job at the trust of helping people and doing things was over. We were in the process of leaving town. Everything Scientology wanted to accomplish had been accomplished. The trust was ruined.

You know, we were done. It was over. People were going home.


Q So —

A That wasn’t good enough.

Q Actually, you wouldn’t need to work on the case anymore because the trust was over. Right?

A No, you know, I wouldn’t draw that conclusion, Mr. Weinberg. I’m saying my family, right where I live, were threatened. You know, even today you knock on the door, if we get an unexpected visitor, people in my house jump out of their skin. What the hell, because that is exactly how the DEA came in my house, running around with fully automatic weapons in front of my children, because a Scientology private investigator told him I’m selling marijuana, cocaine, selling stolen auto parts; lying, in other words.

And this happened. Okay? I think I had a reason to be concerned.

Q Didn’t Mr. Minton ask you to withdraw from being an expert in the case?

A Never.

Q Did Ms. Brooks ask you to withdraw from the case?

A Yes, she did.

Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you that was Mr. Minton’s desire that you not be an expert anymore?

A No, she did not.

Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you why it was her desire you not be an expert in the case anymore?


A Yes, she did.

Q She said that had to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust, the reason?

A No, she said that Scientology had successfully inextricably mixed the work we were doing at the trust with this case, and irrespective of the lawyers and the arguments that they made, you know, it was like they wanted that, too.

Because of this, all of that discovery goes on with Mr. Minton, the trust is virtually raided, you know. Those kinds of reasons.

She said, “Look, if this case didn’t exist, none of this would be happening. We could still be doing this work. But because this has happened, it’s putting everyone in a horrible position. It ruined the company.”

Q Is there a particular reason why you didn’t put in your affidavit what Ms. Brooks had asked you to do, to withdraw?

A Yes, because it is irrelevant. It is my decision.

I spoke on this yesterday, Mr. Weinberg. I said, you know, Stacy wanted this to be done.

I spoke to Bob. And it is like, “Jesse, Stacy is upset because of discovery and things that are going on,”  yik-yik-yik. And, “You know, if you have to work with Ken, it’s up to you if there is something that is needed to be done.” He didn’t care.


Q Did you tell Mr. Dandar that Ms. Brooks had told you — asked you to withdraw as an expert?

A I think Ms. Brooks may have called him herself because she was quite panicked.

Q Did you send a copy of the motion — a draft — a copy of the draft of the motion for severe sanctions to Mr. Minton before it was ever filed? You?

A I don’t think so.

Q Well, you did make it a practice to E-Mail or send or give to Mr. Minton copies of draft pleadings. You made that a practice, didn’t you?

A No. Come on.

Q In the case?

A Uh-uh.

Q Never did that, did you?

A No. And, you know, I don’t draft pleadings. Again, I’m not the lawyer.

MR. WEINBERG: The next exhibit. Your Honor, this is 235.

THE COURT: All right.


Q Do you see 235, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q This is a copy of an E-Mail which you sent to whom on 9/20/01?


A Okay. Okay.

Q You sent this to Mr. Minton, didn’t you?

A Apparently, I did.

Q And you say here —

MR. WEINBERG: We move this into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.


Q And this is an E-Mail where you say —

THE COURT: Can you show me how we know it went to Mr. Minton? I can’t read this stuff well enough to know.

MR. WEINBERG: I think maybe Mr. Prince can explain that better than me.

THE COURT: What is it at the top that shows this went to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: There is nothing that says this went to Mr. Minton on this document.

THE COURT: Well, you just remember sending it to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Well, I’m assuming. You know, I’m not here saying I have never sent anything to Mr. Minton about anything.

THE COURT: Here, maybe this is it, I don’t know, this is encrypted something at the back.



THE WITNESS: As far as I know, this was an encrypted message on my computer.

MR. WEINBERG: This is where you see it at the back.

THE COURT: I think I found it already.

MR. WEINBERG: Right here, “To: Bob Minton, From: Jesse Prince. Received.”

THE COURT: How do we know — how do we know this is — I mean, I don’t care, but how do we know that this is the same thing?

THE WITNESS: Exactly. Here we have a bunch of characters, and now attached to it with — you know, when you get on the Internet, it clearly says from who to who on the message. It doesn’t look like this. It is not in this format.

It is not like that.


Q Well, look at — look at this page here.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I don’t know how to indicate it.

THE COURT: All right.


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


A Correct.

Q On September 20, 2001?

A Correct.

Q 9:41:07?

A Yes, I guess so.

Q Something like that?

A Yeah.

Q This is obviously an encrypted message. Correct?

A Correct.

Q You each had that program so you could communicate with one another in an encrypted fashion?

A Correct.

Q Then you had — what do you call it — decrypted, what is it, a code or something?

A Yes.

Q Then you are able to, on the other end, decode it, right?

A Correct.

Q All right. Now, the decoding is what the first part of this exhibit is?

A The what?

Q The decrypting, decoding, whatever it is called where it says: “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or two. And this is not the final form as he is doing more work on it today. I’ll make sure you have a copy


of the final draft.”

A Okay.

Q You did that, didn’t you?

A I did what now?

Q You sent to Mr. Minton that message in encrypted form with a draft of this motion for severe sanctions?

A You know, I’m going to hold off on saying that happened because, you know, here is this message, it is encrypted —

THE COURT: Well, you sent this to somebody, you’ll agree?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I sent it to somebody.

THE COURT: It could have been Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: It could have been Mr. Minton.

It could have been Mrs. Brooks. It could —

THE COURT: You wouldn’t be apt to send it to anybody else, right?

THE WITNESS: Sometimes I would check things via Mr. Leipold just to get his opinion on it, another attorney I work with.

THE COURT: I think I know what Mr. Weinberg was saying. If you look over on this — this what we’ll call the encrypted one, the date — or the  time is 9:41:01 on September 20, 2001.



THE COURT: If you look at the one we can read, it says 9:40:22.

THE WITNESS: You show me where you are —

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Up here. See here? 9/20/01. 9:40:22. See that?


THE COURT: It looks like that is — that went out — now look over here. This encrypted, see, it says: “Date, September, 20, ’01, 9:41:01.” So it looks like it may have — it goes out once like this —

MR. DANDAR: That confirms it is not the same thing.

MR. WEINBERG: You know, I move this into evidence and we’ll get an authenticating affidavit from Mr. Minton saying that this is a document —

THE COURT: All right —

MR. WEINBERG: — that he received and he produced to us.


THE COURT: And Mr. Prince didn’t — didn’t send it to Mr. Minton. What he basically is saying, he’s not sure. And I can’t tell, but it looks like there is some correlation between these two things. I don’t — I don’t think I’m smart enough or if you


are smart enough to prove it to me, but that will be enough — and you don’t deny that, right, it could have gone to Mr. Minton?


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

THE COURT: And I’m going to receive it because it was clearly something from Mr. Prince. And you just don’t know for sure who it went to, is that it?

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: What number is it again?



MR. DANDAR: 235.

THE COURT: 235. Thank you.


Q Now, why would you be — assuming that this did go to Mr. Minton, why would you be sending Mr. Minton a draft of a motion for severe sanctions that was going to be filed by Ken Dandar in a couple days, in September of 2001, when you say that you had withdrawn from the case?

A Well, I’ll give you the — the answer I could think of about this — Mmm — this affidavit that you showed me earlier, this one here from September of 2001, I think it


is — yeah, where I talk about —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I hate to do this. Is this the affidavit, or is this the motion?

MR. WEINBERG: This is the motion.

THE COURT: Okay. The affidavit isn’t here, unless that is what this is.

MR. WEINBERG: No. No. No. This — this — if you look at the note at the front, “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or so.”


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


MR. DANDAR: This affidavit is dated the next day.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, this is the motion.

THE COURT: So your question was — I’m sorry — why would you send the motion —


Q What was the reason — assuming you sent this draft to Mr. Minton, what was the reason you would have been sending to Mr. Minton, in September of 2001, an advance draft of a motion that was being filed for severe sanctions in the Lisa McPherson case?


A Because as I recall, he was extremely upset with me. He was extremely upset with Ken Dandar because of this affidavit here. You know, we’re busy going along here —

Q The affidavit wasn’t done — Mr. Dandar just pointed it out — until after this E-Mail went out?

A I’m just trying to give you what I remember so you can take it apart in a minute, if you just let me get it out.

Q All right. Go ahead.

A What I recall about this is Mr. Minton was extremely upset about this affidavit because I had gone through a whole criminal trial where I had not taken the stand and — nor — and I had not admitted guilt or — you know, assumed innocence. In other words, I sat through the trial and they had to no prosecute — or whatever, a hung jury.

So from my mouth, I had never said that I had used drugs with the private investigator and, you know, running around with this detective and whatever and whatever.

Now, from my own mouth, he felt it defeated the purpose of having a trial if you are just going to run around and do that. Again, you know, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know. I want them to know and do it.

But I do know that Ken was extremely upset over the fact that I wasn’t going to be his expert anymore, that


I wouldn’t be able to sit there and help him, as I had done, on the case. I’d worked on it for years. So this was very upsetting to him on a personal level when I told him, “Look, Ken –” and this is before — I told him, “Look, I can’t do this anymore. I can’t protect myself. I can’t protect my family. It seems the Court is letting Scientology do whatever they want to, running roughshod in here. All this crap is going on. There is no relief. I’m ready to leave this town. It is not personal against you, Mr. Dandar, that I think you know the reason why I can’t support you, but I can’t support you and protect my family, as well.”

Q Mr. Minton had told you that he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore at this time. Correct? You knew that?

A You know, I don’t understand how I can be saying one thing and then you just say something else.

THE COURT: That is a question.

THE WITNESS: No, that — no, that is not true,  Mr. — Mr. Weiner — Weinberg.


Q So you didn’t know that Mr. Minton had told Mr. Dandar, as of August of 2001, that there wasn’t going to be any more funds? You didn’t know that?

A You know, the last time we talked about this — I mean, Ken got, what, $500,000 in 2000 that was supposed to


take him to the end of the case. I wasn’t thinking about Mr. Dandar’s money. Mr. Dandar’s money and how he was operating this case financially was never — never has been any of my concern. There’s nothing I can do about it one way or the other.

Q Now, did you talk to Mr. Merrett about withdrawing from the case?

A Mr. Merrett spoke to me on behalf of Stacy Brooks. She wanted him to explain to me why it would be beneficial for the Lisa McPherson Trust and the people that we are trying to help if I withdrew from the case.

Q So that didn’t have anything to do with threats to your family or anything like that? That has to do with Mr. Minton’s request that you get out of the case because of the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A You know, I testified twice that Mr. Minton never said that. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

Q Ms. Brooks then?

A Yes. Thank you. Get it right. That is why we’re here.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. I’m a little grouchy. I’m tired.

THE COURT: I understand. We all get grouchy.  If you wait for another hour, I’ll get grouchy.


MR. WEINBERG: I have that in mind.

THE COURT: I get grouchy a little after 12 and  4 o’clock just about every day.

THE WITNESS: I know that 4 o’clock is the  witching hour.

THE COURT: It’s a very bad hour for all of us.

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to say something but I won’t.

THE COURT: It is best you not.


Q All right. Well, let me show you what has already been marked as an exhibit, Exhibit 49. I have got a copy, so — it is that E-Mail.

THE COURT: The E-Mail? Okay. I thought I might see this E-Mail about now.

THE WITNESS: Everybody knows but me.

THE COURT: This has already been introduced into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 49.

THE COURT: And they testified about it.

MR. WEINBERG: Defense 49.


Q Now, this is an E-Mail that has been identified by Mr. Merrett, among others, that he sent to Mr. Dandar on August 24, 2001, which is before you executed your


affidavit, which says:

“Ken, the short version of what’s going on is this. The well is dry as far as money goes. Jesse is going to withdraw as an expert witness. Bob feels that the case is way out of control and is focused 100 percent on him and specifically on trying to put him in jail. He wants Dell to settle the case or otherwise make it go away. Bob isn’t coming into Florida any time soon. Can you meet with me and Stacy this weekend to discuss that?”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Now, you knew about this E-Mail?

A No. Never. This is the first time I have ever seen it.

Q Well, how did Mr. Merrett know, as early as August 24, 2001, to tell Mr. Dandar that you were withdrawing as an expert witness?

A Well, you know, you would have to ask him that.

I’m not even a part of this. I mean, somebody is talking to me about it. If I said anything, it would just be hearsay, wouldn’t it?

Q So no one told you that the well was dry then?

A You know, I heard that several times. But as you and I both know, the well is not dry. Mr. Minton still has plenty of money to extricate himself out of trouble he gets into by seeing that new lawyers, having had three of them in


here since I have been testifying, for Christ’s sake, three different ones, Mr. Battaglia, another one yesterday, the one sitting here now.

Q You didn’t know as of August 24 Mr. Minton had sent the message to Mr. Dandar that there was going to be no more money? You didn’t know that?

A No. No, sir, I did not.

THE COURT: Please try to refrain from taking the Lord’s name in vain in this case.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, your Honor, I didn’t even know I — did I say the GD word?

THE COURT: No, you didn’t say that one. You’ll see it on a transcript.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry, your Honor.

Like I said, I’m tired, grouchy.


Q You did. But — he didn’t tell you that the well was dry, Mr. Minton, but he did tell you, you said, about having given Mr. Dandar a $500,000 check?

A Yeah, you know, and I’m talking about 2000, okay?

Then again, you know, just in February, he said, “Look, Ken needs more money. Go over and have this conversation with him.”

So how could the well be dry on this date, but a little while later, hey, here is another quarter of a



You know, this was not anything I was privy to, anything I was dealing with.

You know, Stacy was in a complete panic, as I said. We were being raided. You know, motion after motion, deposed, on and on. You know, she was panicked. She got spooked. You know, she was just trying to put a band-aid on this any way she can.

Q It is true Mr. Minton told you — as indicated in this E-Mail, it is true he was concerned about going to jail at that point, correct, in August of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. There is no jail mentioned in this E-Mail.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Yes, there is.

MR. DANDAR: Then I’ll sit down and be corrected.


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


Q No, I’m asking you, it is true that either Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton told you in this time period that Mr. Minton was concerned that he was going to end up in



A I don’t know that.

Q I’m just asking you —

THE COURT: He said he doesn’t know. He told you that twice. Now, go on to the next question.




Q Did Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton tell you, at or about that time, that they felt the case was out of control?

A I never — I never really heard those words that the case was out of control. I mean, you know —

THE COURT: But you were being told that they were very concerned that the Lisa McPherson case and Lisa McPherson Trust was all getting inextricably intertwined?


THE COURT: Courts were letting all these documents be acquired. This is what is out of control perhaps, right? So you were aware they were all disturbed about this?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Disturbed at the discovery, yes.

THE COURT: Well, disturbed with — that the Lisa McPherson Trust be shut down?



THE COURT: You knew all that, did you? Or did you?

THE WITNESS: You know, I didn’t have an understanding — you know, in all honesty, you know, Judge, Mr. Minton was going through this thing with Judge Baird where he was to appear and he didn’t appear.

I understood none of that. I didn’t understand what was going on. I didn’t understand what the big problem was. If he was supposed to be deposed, you simply come in and you get deposed. You may not like it, you may not whatever.

But, you know, then we had these problems where he can’t come down, on and on. You know, a bad situation just got worse.


Q You knew that money didn’t have anything to do with Mr. Minton shutting down the Lisa McPherson Trust, right?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Good time for a stop?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so because I have another area to go to.

THE COURT: It is — I need to take a little


longer this afternoon. We’ll be in recess until ten after. Twenty minutes.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:50 to 3:15 p.m.)



MR. WEINBERG: Ready? Let’s just make an exhibit search here for one second to make sure we don’t have any originals up here.

THE WITNESS: I think we took care of that.


Q All right, Mr. Prince —

A Yes?

Q — you have talked several times about being in the desert. Right?

A Yes.

Q There are two locations that are within a few miles of one another that you have been referring to. Right?

A Yes.

Q One is Hemet which is where the Golden Era Productions is where you worked after you left RTC. Correct?

A That is actually incorrect, Mr. Weinberg. It’s Gilman Hot Springs, near Hemet, but it is — it is like its own little separate town.


Q Golden Era Productions is in Gilman Hot Springs, and that is what you described as being in the desert? That is one of the locations in the desert?

A Yes.

Q Then the other location in the desert is —

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Is the what?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q And that is where you — that is where you had the introspection rundown with Teresita. Right?

A It was actually behind the reservation in a private-owned property, correct. Yes.

Q That is where you said the RPF was?

A Correct.

Q The incident that — that had to do with the day that you were relieved of your position at RTC and the guns, that was at Gilman Hot Springs?

A Correct.

Q I want to show you some photos.

MR. WEINBERG: These are for you. This can be marked — this Booklet A, 1 through 11, but we’ll mark it as Exhibit 236. But what I have done, your Honor, you have the same pictures, but they are in this book like this. So A1 would be the first one.




THE COURT: I can keep this?

MR. WEINBERG: You can give it back to us, unless you want to keep it.

THE COURT: No. I’ll give it back to you.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 236. I’m handing this to Mr. Prince.


MR. DANDAR: Do I get a copy?




Q Now, if you look at A1 through A11, you recognize that as being the location in Gilman Hot Springs that Golden Era Productions was at where you say is in the desert.Correct?

A Yes.

Q And if you would just flip through and just describe very briefly A1, A2, through 11. Could you do that?

A Yes. I think so.

This looks like a view from —

THE COURT: Tell me what you are talking about.

Is it A1?




A This looks like a view from the dining area and the qualifications area and the studio, the studio from a perspective of the river bank, which is just further back here, the dry riverbed.


Q What is A2?

A A2, there is a building here that, you know — wait a minute, yes, I do — this is the dining — this is apparently an aerial shot of the dining area.

Q Okay. A3, do you recognize that building?

A This — I think this may have been some new construction since I have been there. I can’t say. Do I recognize this building? I can’t rightfully say that I do.

THE COURT: Okay, that is an “I don’t know.” And that is enough.

A Okay. I don’t know.


Q Was Building 36 the main administrative offices of Golden Era? That was on-site when you were there?

A Oh, is this where they do the E-meters and things in there?

Q Do you remember that is where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun when you left in 1992, that was the building?

A Yes.


Q If you go to A4, do you recognize that as the lake, with the administrative building in the background?

A Yes, I do, with the exercise trail.

Q And A5, do you recognize that as a sports field for the crew?

A In all honesty, I don’t recognize it, but I believe it is.

Q And A6, do you remember there were crew basketball courts?

A Yes. Yes, I do.

Q And A7, what is that?

A I have no earthly idea.

Q That is new, isn’t it?

A I —

Q Or do you know?

A It is outside of my knowledge.

Q Okay. A8, is that another building that is new?

A It’s something that is outside of my knowledge. I don’t know. I have never seen this on the property.

Q Now, you do recognize A9 as the set inside the film studio where you were working?

A No, sir. You know, matter of fact, I never worked in this area of cinematography. I worked in the audio department.

Q There is a film studio on campus, though, right?


A Yes. But this looks considerably larger than the film studio that was there when I was present.

Q And A10, was the golf course there while you were there?

A Mmm, I think they had started construction on it and — had hired a company to come out and do it. I think so, but I have never seen this before.

Q Oh?

A What you showed me here.

Q Now, how many years did you work in the desert at Gilman Springs, this location that you looked at, A1 through 11?

A Probably at least ten years.

Q Were the RTC offices there, as well?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let’s put those aside.

Now we’ll mark as our next exhibit — it will be Photos B1 through 5. It is Exhibit 237. I’ll give you these.

Now, you do recognize B1 through 5 as pictures of the studios where you did work when you were at Gilman Hot Springs after you — after March of 1987?

A Well, in actual fact, the only one that I recognize as the studio that I possibly worked in is B4.

Q And that would be a picture of doing what? What


was your job there?

A Well, I take that back, and I don’t want to — you know, I don’t know where this is, as a matter of fact. I haven’t seen this.

This looks like maybe they have new equipment.

You know, this is not anything I’m familiar with, in all honesty.

Q You worked in the film mix room?

A Mmm, I worked in the post-production — this is a building they have on top of the hill from the perspectives from the — the first photograph album that you showed me.

Where I worked at was close to a place that used to be called Bonnie View, which is L. Ron Hubbard’s home at Gilman Hot Springs.

Q And it was a studio something like what you were looking at there? I mean, there was film production or film mix going on. Correct?

A Mmm, I — I can’t say that, Mr. Weinberg, because everything here — all these pictures that you are showing me, with the exception of B4, seems to do with music.

Q Were there things like this at Gilman Hot Springs when you were there?

A Yes.

Q Whether you worked there or not?

A Yes.


Q And you recognize that from the photos. Correct?

A Well, again, I said again, B4 is something I recognize as being —

THE COURT: I think the long and short, you really can’t recognize it?

THE WITNESS: I can’t. This is all different from when I was there.


Q Now, let me show you —

THE WITNESS: Very beautiful, though.


Q The whole location is beautiful, though, isn’t it?

A It looks like it is now. It wasn’t quite like that when I was there.

Q Well, the first set of photos of Gilman Hot Springs, it looked like that when you were there?

A Not exactly. There has been a lot of new construction there, from what I can see.

Q The building you described as buildings that were there looked like that when you were there. Right?

THE COURT: Whatever he said, he said, Counsel.

All right?

MR. WEINBERG: 238. These photos are marked I1  through 3.



Q This is Exhibit 238. Would you look at these, please.

A Sure.

Q Do you recognize these photos?

A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. This is the place where Mr. Miscavige and I came to, after the gun incident, to talk about things.

Q This is where you said you walked to the ship in the desert? This is where the ship in the desert is?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Is that the swimming pool (indicating)?



Q This is still Gilman Hot Springs?

THE COURT: But the ship in the desert is the swimming pool?

MR. DANDAR: No. There is a ship.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, if you look at I3, you  see the ship.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.


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

A Correct.


Q So when you indicated the ship in the desert where, after this gun incident, you went with Mr. Miscavige is I1 through 3?

A Correct.

THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or a mast on top of a building?

MR. WEINBERG: Ask Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or is that some masts on top of a building?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is a design that looks like a ship but it is actually a beautiful pool area. It is not a ship but it looks like a ship. There is a wheel there —

THE COURT: But that is what you-all call it, ship in the desert?

THE WITNESS: No. I forgot what we call this thing.


Q That is what you called it on the stand, though?

A That is how I referred to it, yes.

Q Then we have one more set of photos to show you — two more, I guess.

MR. WEINBERG: This is just one photo here.


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



Q 239, Mr. Prince, one photo. And I ask you if you recognize that to be a photo of the conference room in Gilman Hot Springs where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun in 1992, just before leaving the Church of Scientology?

A Unfortunately, Mr. Weinberg, none of this looks familiar to me at all.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, did you say it does not look familiar?

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. The last set are three photos.

THE COURT: You want to go ahead and take these?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. These are marked K1 through 3. And this is Exhibit 240.


Q Now, you recognize Exhibit 240, don’t you?

A Which one is — is this the thing you just handed me?

Q Yes.

A No, I do not. I do not —

Q Let me go through those K1 through 3.

A I don’t recognize this at all.


Q Well, let me just see if I can refresh your recollection.

A Okay.

Q Do you recognize this being at Happy Valley, which is where this Indian reservation is?

A Not at all.

Q So you don’t recognize this as being one of the locations where you were with Teresita?

A No, I do not. It did not look like this at all.

Q Well, what did it look like?

A Mmm, well, the place where Teresita stayed in, it was a wooden house that was on wood planks that sat on the ground. And there was — Mmm — it was very old, kind of like something that had been left for a long time and then kind of started being used again kind of thing. There was none of this lush, beautiful greenery. It was just gravel roads and crap everywhere.

THE COURT: Do you recognize this?


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


Q Back at the Teresita house — we don’t have to look at the photos. But the house, do you remember how many bedrooms the house was?


A To the best of my recollection, I believe there was one.

Q All right. And then there was, what, a living room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom? What else was in it? Do you remember?

A Mmm, there was a kitchen. There was a room — let me see. There was a kitchen, there was a front door, there was a small room, there was another room, and a bedroom and a bathroom, to the best of my recollection.

Q And a kitchen of some sort?

A Yes.

Q And you stayed — did you stay in the house, as well?

A No. A woman — you know, a woman would stay with her at night.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, let me sort through this, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, we offer at this time into evidence Exhibit 231, which are the A1 through 11 which are the pictures of Gilman Hot Springs.

THE COURT: I have got those as 236.

MR. DANDAR: It is 236.

MR. WEINBERG: That is because I can’t read very well. It is 236.



MR. WEINBERG: We offer 237, which are the —

THE COURT: He recognized one of those.

MR. WEINBERG: 237 B4, which is the one he identified, this one (indicating).



Q Do you remember that?

A (Nods head.)

MR. WEINBERG: Then we offer —

THE COURT: 238 he recognized.

MR. WEINBERG: 238, which is the pictures of the pool and the ship.

THE COURT: 239 and 240, he didn’t recognize any of those.

MR. WEINBERG: Right, so I’ll not offer those at this time. And we’ll leave them marked.

THE COURT: So I’ll give you these back.

MR. WEINBERG: You accepted into evidence what we just offered?

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Dandar, once again, if you want to object, I’m assuming you’ll do so.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I will.


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

you wanted me — no, I’m just kidding.

THE COURT: No, I have done the same with Mr. Weinberg. A lot of times I say it is admitted because I know he will pop up if he wants to object.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not reluctant to pop up.

THE COURT: Right. But from time to time I want to remind you, you have the right to object.

And I assume if you don’t, you have none.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we fire this up?

MR. LIEBERMAN: That, of course, doesn’t cover our standing objections.

THE COURT: It does not. Standing objections are standing.

MR. WEINBERG: This will just take a second.


Q While she’s doing that, let me ask you a couple of questions with regard to what I’m about to show you.

A All right.

Q You testified either yesterday or the day before — or the day before, or weeks before, I can’t remember when it is now when you actually started —

A This — I think this is my third day.

Q Okay. But you testified that you had not participated in any meetings with Mr. Dandar at the LMT.

You remember that testimony?


MR. DANDAR: I didn’t hear that. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: He asked if he remembered that he had stated he had not participated in any meetings with you at the LMT.


Q Do you remember that?

A Not particularly, no.

Q Well, let me ask you. Did you engage in any meetings — meetings where you discussed legal strategies with Mr. Dandar at the LMT in the presence of Mr. Minton?

A Not that I can recall specifically.

Q Okay. I mean, I think you said that Mr. Dandar was barely at the LMT. Didn’t you say that?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you remember a meeting with yourself, Dr. Garko, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks at the LMT to discuss picketing and the legalities of it?

A No, I do not.

Q Would you watch this, please. Then I have a few questions.

A Sure.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I love it when I’m on camera.

“Well, tell me what Nancy Miller said to you


concerning —

“Not to me. To Kim Rondolini and Denis deVlaming.

“Okay, your lawyers.

“They said that the police department would not be quick — or they would not arrest anyone within the 10-foot zone while they were picketing except for me. If I enter a 10-foot zone, I’ll get arrested period. That is the same as before. But nobody else would be arrested.

“No Scientologist would be arrested just in the ordinary course of things. A Scientologist who happens to be walking down the street getting 20 feet away from me, they wouldn’t be arrested. What Kim Rondolini suggested or
what Lieutenant Nancy Miller said — remember I said this shouldn’t be on camera the other night, but I don’t care, we’ll just leave it on there — is that while they have no right to tell us this, they would ask that we refrain from entering into that 10-foot zone while picketing because if — if something happens — which they felt reasonably confident that the Scientologists might try to provoke — it would in- — inevitably get blamed on us. And, therefore, somebody — somebody might get arrested and it would reflect badly upon me relative to the case that is sitting in front of Bernie McCabe now with respect to the assault — battery charge. Sorry.

“Well, I still think the best practice is to stay


10 feet away from the building.

“I don’t. You know why? You know why?

“Especially for you.

“For me, I have to because I would violate the injunction by being within 10 feet.

“It is impossible for him to do right now because I just found out what Stacy told me, within the last 36 hours they closed on the building next door.

“Which building?

“The Robelling (phonetic) one going that way.

“The building right next door?

“Yes, right where — wall-to-wall, they just closed in the last 36 hours, it is confidential, somebody came and told me that, literally.

“Well, they tried to get the one right beyond that —

“They got the whole building, the whole thing from Octavio’s to here belongs to them now.

“No, it doesn’t.

“Yes, it does.

“No. No. No.


“Listen, I’m telling you —


“– the injunction is against you and agents and


employees of yours. And that doesn’t include the Lisa McPherson Trust.

“That’s right.

“Anybody can walk down that sidewalk except you.

“That is correct.

“Anybody that — that is a volunteer from the trust can walk down that sidewalk without carrying a picket sign.


“Because they are not in concert with you at the time they’re walking down there to go to a restaurant or get a Coke.

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying.

“I agree with you on that point.


“However, if you organize a picket —

“Then they should stay on the other —

“– you have to stay 10 feet away.

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying here. All I’m saying —

“But the injunction applies to you whether or not you are in a picket or not.

“Well, it would — the police said it wouldn’t apply to them.

“I think I got it now. As soon as I can — sorry.


“Well, okay. Let me give you a perfect example of this today. We had somebody coming from Tampa, Counsel. We had two Germans come in who wanted to do a picket with me.And so we went at lunchtime and did a picket. I told them that as long as they’re with me and we’re picketing, I recommend highly we all stay 10 feet away from them —


“– on the other side of the street while we’re picketing. And everybody abided by that.

“Right. Right.


“The policeman, he’s Lieutenant Hall, he’s a really, really nice guy. He’s in charge of this whole area.

“Well then, how come he didn’t know what Chief Kline said? I mean —

“He wasn’t here.

“He wasn’t here?

“Okay, he’s just —

“He’s back today.

“Okay, fine.

“He’s under Captain Jones.

“He was very courteous. He said, ‘I appreciate the fact that all of you have been trying very hard to cooperate with this whole thing. I’m sorry about the confusion that has been caused by this whole thing.’


“But, he said — he said, ‘You have every right to walk down a public sidewalk. The only person who has been named that has any kind of restriction is Bob Minton. There is no one else that has been named that has any restrictions.’

“Really, what I understood from what he was saying, it is not the police department’s job to do this. I mean, Sid Kline specifically for —

“Sid Kline — let me just explain.

“Specifically for that picket he said this is the way we’re going to do it. But I think it is putting him in an uncomfortable position to be asked to interpret the law. And so I think that Denis should go before the judge.

Don’t you, Ken?

“Well, in the meantime —

“Seek modification as soon as possible.

“But if we walk down the street, not picketing, I go buy a goddamn apple —

“Let them fucking call the police. Let them call the police, Stacy.

“Don’t talk like that.

“Ask –” (Inaudible.)

“What is this shit about?

“I’m saying it is unreasonable for them to ask us


to walk —

“It’s not legal.(Inaudible.)

“You are legally right.

“Legally what?

“You are legally what?

“You are legally right. Everybody can walk down a sidewalk except Bob Minton. (Inaudible.)

“You have the legal right to walk down the sidewalk. The police agree with that. Lieutenant D.J. Hall, who is in charge of this district, who tells his officers what to do and what not to do, said you can walk down the sidewalk except Bob Minton.


“But he said, ‘Please, until this gets sorted out, can you walk on the other side of the street so we don’t get called down here a lot and just keep wasting our time driving down here? But if you want to — if you want to and they call, we’ll come down.’ (Inaudible.)

“Okay, here he is. Hi.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)




Q Do you remember that meeting with Mr. Dandar?

A I do not, but I see it now.

Q And the reason that is part of the film library of the LMT is what?

A Personally, I have no knowledge of it being a part of a film library. This looks like a video of — a private video that was shot. And it was never published, that I know of. I don’t think this ever appeared on the Internet. It is not part of the videos that is offered by the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything else. It seemed just like a private video.

Q Do you know what the trial consultant, Dr. Garko, was doing at this meeting where there was — where the legalities of picketing were being discussed?

A No, I do not.

Q And was Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton or your lawyer or the LMT lawyer at that point giving advice about what you could, couldn’t do, as far as Judge Penick’s order?

A You know, I don’t — I’m sorry, I don’t know. I don’t have recall about that. I know our good friend, Mr. Penick, sorted this out for everyone wonderfully, though.

Q That was at the LMT, correct?

A What we just saw there?


Q Yes.

A Yes, it was.

Q You would call that a meeting, the one where you were all sitting in the room, with Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you —

A I would say we certainly were having a discussion.

Q That was one of the examples where you were having a meeting, Mr. Minton would sort of express — sort of taking over the meeting?

A You are mixing two things. He would express his opinion. That doesn’t mean he would take over the meeting. Mr. Dandar spoke. Stacy spoke. I spoke. It seems like everyone has been allowed to speak. There doesn’t necessarily seem to be a chairman of that meeting. We’re just having a discussion.

Q And that meeting took place while you were being paid by Mr. Dandar as a trial consultant?

A I don’t know those dates. I don’t know.

THE COURT: Could you give him a date?


Q Yes, what was the date? It is January of 2000?

A I’ll stipulate to the evidence. I’ll agree with that.

Q Now, did Mr. Dandar ever tell you, you know, when you were getting paid by Mr. Dandar, including then in


January of 2000, that you shouldn’t be — as his religion expert, you shouldn’t be picketing the Church?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to Mr. Weinberg raising his voice at the witness. It is uncalled for.

THE COURT: It was fairly modest. So I think Mr. Prince can handle that.

THE WITNESS: After all this, sure.

A You know, I think that — I forgot what the question was.

MR. WEINBERG: She can read it back to you.

THE COURT: I believe it was did Mr. Dandar ever suggest, as his consultant/expert on religion, that you should not be involved in picketing?

A Yes. He didn’t like that. Mr. Dandar didn’t like that.


Q And he didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just looked at, did he?

A Excuse me?

Q He didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just viewed, did he?

A I didn’t hear it. I think we were talking about walking down the street, though. I think the subject of that video was walking down the street. It wasn’t so much


picketing. We talked about picketing, but what we’re talking about is the ability to be able to walk down the street without being arrested.

THE COURT: And the two videos were entirely different, different — it was different, everybody was all dressed up the second time.


THE COURT: The first time —

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the same day, the same time, because Dr. Garko was there and Mr. Dandar was there. It’s from the same tape, at least.


MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, for the record, we’re going to supply, for the record, tapes of what we played and transcripts of what we played —


MR. WEINBERG: — because I doubt that the court reporter —

THE COURT: I’m sure they are able to get it because —

MR. WEINBERG: Some are tough. I mean, that one was probably easier, but all these videos we played —

THE COURT: If the court reporter was unable to get it and you supply a transcript, let the court


reporter take it down, because the district court, and I’m sure the Supreme Court, as well, now wants videos, wants tapes, transcribed in the record.


THE COURT: So if the court reporter got it, that is grand. If the court reporter said she didn’t get it, perhaps you and Mr. Dandar can agree on the — what it was and she can put it in the transcript. Then we don’t need the transcripts in the record.

MR. WEINBERG: So what we’ll do is we’ll put the videos in the record and we’ll have transcripts available for the court reporter, if needed.

THE COURT: I saw Mr. Keane come in. I’ll bet he’s here to say something about this case.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll step down a second.

THE COURT: Mr. Keane, did you need me?

MR. KEANE: I just have things to deliver to you in camera.

THE COURT: Let’s go ahead, since he’s here, let’s take — will five minutes do it?

MR. KEANE: Yes. Fine.

THE COURT: We’ll just take a little break here. And I’ll be back as soon as I’m done.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)



THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Keane brought me four packets of E-Mails that didn’t look too overwhelming. I’ll take them home tonight and look at them. Some are Mr. Dandar’s, some of Ms. Greenway’s, some are those identified by — who is Stacy Brooks’s lawyer, Mr. McGowan?

MR. FUGATE: McGowan.

THE COURT: As attorney-client privilege.

There is a different group.

So I’ll go through them and decide if any or all of them you can have and make them available.

MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: If I don’t get it done tonight, I’ll try to get it done by Friday. Is today Wednesday?




MR. LIEBERMAN: One day just runs into another.

THE COURT: It sure does. I just tell everybody 9 to 5 all day every day.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, could I talk to Mr. Lieberman?



MR. WEINBERG: I’ll check an exhibit number.

This is a supplemental affidavit of Jesse Prince that I put in yesterday.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: This is exhibit — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

THE COURT: Are these — are these the exhibits?

THE CLERK: No. Those are the transcripts.


MR. FUGATE: Yes, ma’am?

THE COURT: — I thought I had five volumes here of transcripts. And then I see that this is Volume 1 of the time line, discovery, contempt and coercive sanctions. And this is Volume 2. This says Binder 3, 4, 5. I wonder if I have Volume 2.

MR. FUGATE: You, I think, took those with you.

THE COURT: Did I take them with me?


THE COURT: I’ll look and see if maybe I have them in my office.

MR. FUGATE: Because I think we were up to Binder 3. And 2 — I mean, 4 and 5 are just since we’ve been back.

THE COURT: But you started Volume 1 with the


first day of the hearing?


THE COURT: I’ll check it. Those are exhibits.

MR. FUGATE: Let me just check.

Yes, Judge, 1 and 2 beginning, and 3 and 4 and 5 continue on. So 5 is the latest which just went up there today.

THE COURT: I’ll have to look then, because I was thinking I better start taking these home. And I thought I would start with 1. And apparently maybe it is home or here. I’ll check. Okay.


Q Okay, I just showed you your September — I’m sorry, your December 22, 1999 affidavit — or declaration, the supplemental declaration that you submitted in the Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology California case.

A Yes, you did.

Q And that is Exhibit Number 1 on the front?

A Exhibit Number 132.

Q Plaintiff’s 132?

A Yeah. Evidence 132.

Q Now, this was an affidavit — this was a declaration — but an under oath statement — that was filed by you at the request of Mr. Leipold?

A Correct.


Q Now, you did this declaration in response to a declaration that had been filed by Mr. Miscavige in this case a few months prior. Correct?

A No, sir. That is incorrect.

Q Well, you — if you turn to Page 9 —

A Okay.

Q — Paragraph 14, you say: “The missionaire in charge of the San Francisco mission holder’s vision was David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige is flat out attempting to deceive this court in his declaration when he characterizes his presence at the conference as that of an ‘invited’ master of ceremonies.”

A Okay, yes, you are right. I remember that.

Q Do you remember that now?

THE COURT: The whole affidavit may not have been filed in that response. I remember reading that last night. It was one of the things I took home. I just remember that as being part of the affidavit. I mean, I’m not saying it wasn’t.


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





Q But what I’m saying is when you — you had reviewed and were being asked, among other things, to comment on things that had been raised or discussed by Mr. Miscavige in his declaration. Correct?

A Well, not entirely. What I was asked to do specifically by Mr. Leipold was to do a declaration that would shed some light into how Scientology works, how the different corporations relate to each other, what are the names of them, what are the practices of them. I think —

THE COURT: Well, when you said — I didn’t mean to get off here. When you said whatever you said about Mr.Miscavige was misleading the Court,  was that in some testimony? Was this in a declaration? In a deposition? Or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don’t recall at this time.

MR. WEINBERG: But it says here the declaration.

THE COURT: Then it must be the declaration.


MR. DANDAR: Which page is that on?

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 14 on Page 9.


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



A Correct.

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


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

THE COURT: What is the number?


THE COURT: Thank you.

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



Q If you look at that declaration, you remember that Mr. Miscavige filed a long declaration with regard that was submitted in the Wollersheim case that you reviewed and at least commented on in this declaration that you filed a few months later. Correct?

A Yes, I did comment, in part, in my declaration about this one.

Q Right. And as this one indicates, it was filed on September 29, 1999, which would be a few months before your declaration was done. Correct? Yours is December.

A That is correct.


Q Okay. Now —

THE COURT: Out of curiosity, I just started leafing through here real quick, and I see if this is a declaration that came before Mr. Prince’s declaration, on Page 54, Paragraph 115, it says:

“Further, I do not know why Prince would allege he signed an undated letter of resignation.”

MR. WEINBERG: Right, because this is —

Mr. Prince’s, the one in front of you, is a supplemental declaration.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince had a declaration?


THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige —

MR. WEINBERG: Responded to it.

THE COURT: Then this is a supplemental?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. All right?

THE COURT: Okay. And what I was given yesterday and what I read last night was a supplemental affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. The one that —

THE COURT: 134, whatever you call it.

MR. WEINBERG: Let me just — I should — I’m usually better at this than that. It is 132, it is Mr. Prince’s supplemental declaration.

THE COURT: All right.


MR. WEINBERG: Okay? It is falling apart.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. WEINBERG: Now, your Honor, what goes along with this declaration is there were exhibits, this and this. We will just put this in the record.

This is part of — of 241.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. WEINBERG: It would be exhibits that go with Mr. Miscavige’s declaration.

THE COURT: Other than what I have got attached to this —

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. Well, this is Exhibit Q.


MR. WEINBERG: — of the declaration, “The Way To Happiness,” which you have seen before.

And the tape is what? The tape is — I’m not sure what the tape is. What is the tape? Oh, I need the tape back. The tape was actually some of the videos we are going to put in from yesterday.


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


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



MR. WEINBERG: Which you may or may not want.

That is “The Way To Happiness.”

THE COURT: I thought “The Way To Happiness” was the little book, the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess I’ll open this up and find out. I have to look.

No, this is a — well, this is a —

THE COURT: This must be a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is a better — this is what was filed. This is the — the bound copy of it.


MR. WEINBERG: I’ll give a copy to Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: I object to the relevance.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s — it’s Mr. Prince’s affidavit that Mr. Dandar put in yesterday. It was in response, at least in part, to this. So,  therefore, we’re offering Mr. Miscavige’s affidavit, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’ll let it come in as to whatever part relates to this testimony. I’m sure there is stuff that doesn’t. But rather than try to pick and choose, we’ll just let it all in for now.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And this is, I’m sure, a deluxe


version of the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. I’m sure it is.

THE COURT: That was Number 241?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.


Q Now, you have in front of you your April 2002 affidavit.

A No, I do not.

Q Probably not. Mr. Dandar marked that yesterday.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we see if we can find that one? That is the one that was filed — the most recent affidavit.

THE COURT: Is that the May 2002? No?

MR. DANDAR: April. April.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it’s April, your Honor.

You marked it as an exhibit, right, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: I thought I did, yes.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, I’m looking here,”Notice of Filing Affidavit in Opposition of Defendant’s Omnibus Motion.” Is that the one?

MR. DANDAR: That is the one.

THE COURT: Okay. It is dated — “Jesse Prince, sworn the 1st day of May, 2002.” So I want to make sure we’re looking at the same one.


MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure. The front says April 2002? The next page? Yes, that is it. I see the attachment.

THE COURT: It says April 2002. He signed it May 1. We can agree it’s the same?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy for Mr. Prince?

THE CLERK: What exhibit is that, Judge?

THE COURT: I don’t know. It was something that came in —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was filed in this case.

THE COURT: It is filed.

MR. DANDAR: I would like it to be part of the evidence.

THE COURT: Yes, let’s make this the next plaintiff’s exhibit, which would be what? We’ll make this Plaintiff’s 135.

So now it is Plaintiff’s 135.

MR. DANDAR: All right.



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

A Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you have that?


THE CLERK: No. I don’t.

THE COURT: Well, you’ll have to give the clerk one.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’ll make a copy of that as soon as we’re done.

THE COURT: Okay. Because I have one here but it is mine.

MR. DANDAR: It is yours.

THE COURT: And I guess what you want to be sure is the notes — I think they were attached to the original affidavit.


THE COURT: — are part of the affidavit.

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


THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.


Q Now, this is an affidavit that was prepared by who?

A Which one now?

Q The one we’re looking at.

THE COURT: The one you have in front of you.


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


dated May 1, 2002.

A Okay. You know, you gave me three of them here.

Q I gave you what?

A Three declarations.

Q Oh, I’m sorry, the one that Mr. Dandar is entering as his next exhibit is your May 1, 2002 affidavit.

A Okay.

Q Who prepared that affidavit?

A I did.

Q And where did you prepare it?

A Mmm, in Mr. Dandar’s office; partially at my home.

Q When did you prepare it?

A Well, according to this document, it looks like I started it in April and executed it May 1.

Q But, now, this isn’t too long ago. So I’m asking you, when do you recall that you first started work on this affidavit?

A Mmm, let me see. Maybe the second week of April. I don’t know. The second, third week of April. No — yeah, maybe the third week of April.

Q The third week of April?

A Yeah.

Q And did you — at that point, did anybody make any suggestions, revisions, changes, to your affidavit?

A Mmm, no.


Q Who typed the affidavit?

A I did.

Q So it was produced off of your computer?

A Yes.

Q Or what?

A Yes.

Q Executed in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct. I used my laptop.

Q Now, did — what prompted you to do this affidavit?

A My friends were being blackmailed and coerced. There was nothing that I could do to get them to try another solution to whatever problem that they were trying to have — they wanted me to do it with them. I refused to do
it. I spoke to law enforcement about these things. And I put it in writing for the benefit of Judge Schaeffer and anyone else who would be interested in it.

Q The time that you started this affidavit, the Church had already filed its motion terminating sanctions and for disqualification in this case of Mr. Dandar?

A I don’t know. I don’t remember.

Q Well, did you have a copy of the motion when you prepared this affidavit?

A I did not.

Q Had you — did Mr. Dandar ever provide you with a


copy of the motion?

A As I sit here today, I can’t say that he did.

THE COURT: He may have. You are not saying he  didn’t, either, right?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t — terminating sanctions? No, I don’t think I have seen that thing.


Q And how did you find out that there was — that there had been a motion filed to dismiss this lawsuit as a result of allegations of misconduct and to disqualify Mr. Dandar?

A When it came over to this courtroom, I think it was here the first day because I had been a sequestered witness from Judge Baird’s court, you know, where this thing started. Then when it came over here, I was able to appear
in court the first day. And I was here for it.

Q Mr. Dandar asked you to prepare an affidavit in response to the motion for sanctions?

A Mmm, no, Mr. Weinberg. This is something that I had to sit down and do. It’s not anything I could keep carrying on in my head. I knew that I would have to sit down and write about this.

Q Now, these notes that are at the back of this, that is April 14th, 2002. You see that, correct?


A Yes.

Q Had you already started writing your affidavit as of April 14, 2002?

A No. Because this is the day that I met with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Lirot, then later on that evening met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton.

Q So it was sometime —

A But, you know, this was just like in case anything happens to me where I don’t appear again, at least this would be written.

Q So the affidavit was written sometime between April 14 — written and completed, obviously, sometime between April 14 and May 1?

A Correct.

Q Now, you attended — I think you testified — the April 9, 2002 hearing before Judge Baird where Mr. Minton testified, purged himself, with regard to his contempt? In other words, purged himself of perjury?

A I —

Q Do you understand that concept?

A You know, I guess that is one way to look at it.But the way I describe it in my affidavit, he got up and lied to save his own skin.

Q And you were there?

A Yes, just for a very short amount of time. And


I — and I covered that really extensively here. The first lie I heard, I got up, I was out the door.

Q And that is when you got really angry at Mr. Minton for the first time?

A I wouldn’t say that. No. I was more upset by the situation. I — I didn’t have anger directed at Mr. Minton.

I mean, I was upset about what he did but, you know, this is my friend. We have been watching these videos. You see we had a close relationship. So it wasn’t like I want to do something to him. I was angry what he had done.

Q Now, it’s your testimony that weeks before that Mr. Minton had told you, before he ever met with Mike Rinder and Sandy Rosen at the end of March, he told you that he had been told that the Church already had his $500,000 check?

A No. I gave testimony about this. I’ll try to answer it as best I can. And I think it is covered here in the very beginning of this affidavit of when all of that talk had started.

Yes, Page 3 of the same affidavit, Paragraph 9, if you go to Line 28, it says: “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar. Somebody is going to die,” on and on.

Q All right. But there is nowhere in this affidavit where you say that Mr. Rinder or the Church of Scientology


had the $500,000 check prior to the meetings in New York, or even at the meetings in New York, correct? You don’t say that in the affidavit, do you?

A Correct.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you in this — at any point that his name didn’t appear on the $500,000 check?

A Yes.

Q And you first learned that when?

A That Mr. Minton’s name wasn’t on the check? I think I learned that — you know, I’m not going to speculate. I’m not sure when I learned that.

Q Well, did you learn it at or about the time that Mr. Minton gave the check to Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not. I wasn’t present when he gave the check to Dandar. You are talking about the $500,000 check?

Q That is the one I asked you about.

A Okay. Well, that particular check I — I think I’ve given testimony concerning the fact that, you know, he took us to the top of the parking garage and told us about this. I’d never seen anything physically with my eyes.

Q Now, where in the affidavit do you talk about the parking garage? Can you show us?

A Mmm, I meant my testimony. Not in here, in the —

Q But is it — didn’t you address it in your affidavit?


A I may have. Let me see.

Q Look at Page 11 at the top.

A Okay.

Q You see where you say, “I reminded them of an incident that happened in August 2001 –”

A Yes.

Q “– where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut costs. Part of the cost-cutting was to not pay Mr. Garko until the case was over. Bob invited me and Stacy Brooks to the top level of a parking structure
directly across the street from the LMT to make sure there was no illegal surveillance going on, and he said Ken is getting $500,000 and that was all he was going to get and it was a big secret and we were not to tell anyone about it.”

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So your most recent sworn affidavit, May 1 of 2002, you said that this alleged incident in the garage took place in August of 2001, not in May of 2000. That is what you say. Right?

A I’m completely confused.

Q Well, look at it again then.

A Okay. Oh, 2001. Yes, that is an error. It was 2000. That is an obvious error. This happened in August of 2000 when the check was issued. Right?


Q No.

A Okay.

Q That is not right. May 1, 2000.

A The $500,000 check?

Q Yes.

A Okay. Sorry. I didn’t remember it like that. I didn’t have the check at my convenience to have that date there. I did the best I could.

Q Well, do you think it is important to be accurate in your declarations, sworn testimony, sworn affidavits?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you are very specific in this reference I just read to you about the circumstances where this alleged conversation took place when Mr. Minton was pulling back in August when we all know that the LMT was about to shut down. That is what you said. Right?

A No.

Q You — we just read it, “Part of the cost-cutting,” that is what you’re talking about?

A What does that have to do with the Lisa McPherson — LMT? I mean —

Q It’s that you described this very vivid incident on the garage in the context of the August 2001 time period when Mr. Minton is cutting back. That is how you describe it. That is how you date it. Correct?


A Okay. That is an error. I thought this $500,000 check happened in 2000. Am I wrong about that?

THE COURT: No. You are not wrong.


THE COURT: It was 2000. But what you said was August.

THE WITNESS: It was not my intention to commit perjury by making a typographical error, if that is what you want to ask me about this, and you pointed it out. No one else did. You know, I’m sorry.


Q Well, if you said May of 2001, maybe I would understand. But it says August of 2001. So where is the typographical error here?

A Because the check was given to Mr. Dandar when?

In 2000, is that right?

Q The testimony is May of 2000.

A Okay. Well, you know, beat me for making a typographical error. I may not have the exact date right. But the incident is correct.

Q So the incident when Mr. Dandar was given the $500,000 check was at the same time that Mr. Minton had decided not to fund the case anymore and to cut back? Because that is what this says.

A Mr. Minton had — well, you know, I stand by this


testimony, whatever it says, with the exception of this typographical error that you correctly point out.

And I think I explained this a little bit yesterday — or whatever day it was — when, you know, they were doing the accident reconstruction, jury surveys. I mean, the costs were mounting. And he was concerned.

Q Who was concerned?

A Mr. Minton.

Q He was concerned about the costs in the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A Correct.

Q And so what does that have to do with you dating the $500,000 check when he was concerned about the mounting costs of the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A You know, I’m just totally confused. I don’t know where we’re going with this.

Q Well, where we’re going —

A I made a mistake here. I said — I said 2001. I should have said 2000.

Q You said August and you should have said May. And then you should have said, instead of it was at the time that Mr. Minton was cutting back, it was actually the time when he was funding the lawsuit.

Other than that, you didn’t make any mistakes. Right?


A Well, beat me for making a mistake. But, Mmm —

THE COURT: Well, what page is this on, again?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s on Page 11.


MR. WEINBERG: At the top.

THE COURT: I have got it.


Q Well, it’s not that I want to beat you for making a mistake. But is it important to you that your sworn testimony is accurate, or not?

A That is the second time you asked me that. And, yes, I have the same answer. Yes, it is. I made a mistake.

Q Well, do you think you might have made some other mistakes in your sworn testimony, whether it is in court here or in this affidavit or the August 20 affidavit or the other affidavits that you filed?

A Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m doing the best that I can to bring out this testimony into this hearing.

Q Now, after you got angry when you saw Mr. Minton for a short time testify on April 9, 2002, you, a few days later, met with him and Ms. Brooks at the Adam’s Mark Hotel?

A Yes.

Q And that was on or about April 12th?

A Approximately. Yes.

Q You had dinner?


A Yes.

Q And you-all talked about ending the fight against Scientology?

A We talked about committing perjury on behalf of Scientology.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you that he was relieved because he was finally — he was finally going to be telling the truth and not perjuring himself anymore? Did he tell you that?

A Absolutely not. He told me he didn’t feel good about it, he still wasn’t certain about it, that it was the right thing to do.

He felt horrible about what was going to happen — or the charges that were going to happen to Mr. Dandar.

Q Now —

A He had a conscience about it.

Q Now, when Mr. Minton told you, you say, in March of 2002, that the Church already had this $500,000 check, did you pick up — and it was going to cause — I guess you said it was going to cause him problems, right?

A Yes.

Q He said it was going to cause Mr. Dandar problems, right?

A Cause him problems. He didn’t say Mr. Dandar. He said it was going to cause him problems.


Q Because he was going to have to lie about it, is that what he said?

A No. Because he had already lied about it.

Q All right. Now, did you pick up the phone then, given your concern, and call up Mr. Dandar and say,

“Ken — Mr. Dandar, Bob Minton told me that the Church has this $500,000 check and he perjured himself in your lawsuit and it’s a problem”?

Did you do that?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Well, Mr. Rosen — why do I want to call you Mr. Rosen?

THE COURT: It is late in the day.

THE WITNESS: It is late in the day.

A Mr. Weinberg —


Q We’re both Sandys but he’s a lot taller than I am.

A Yes, that is true.

Why didn’t I immediately call Mr. Dandar?

Q Why didn’t you call Mr. Dandar?

A Because I thought that there was actually something that I could do to — you know, to encourage Mr. Minton to not go down this road. I mean, they’re busy trying to drag me down this road. I’m busy trying to tell


them, “Don’t do it. Don’t go down there.”

Q Did it concern you Mr. Minton was telling you he had already perjured himself in this lawsuit? That is what you just said he told you. That was a problem. Right?

A The problem was that that check surfaced. There was some problem about where it came from. Mmm, I personally don’t know his deposition testimony or his — his testimony that he had given in the courts, what he had said
about that. I don’t know that today. I haven’t read any of that stuff.

But, you know, I described the situation where a man is on the phone, crying uncontrollably, very upset. You know, there was a lot about this that didn’t make sense.

And I’m sorry I couldn’t have been more rational about it to ask a question such as that.

Q After the meeting, dinner, whatever it was, on April 12 at the Adam’s Mark, the next time you met with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton was at the Radisson on Sand Key a couple of days later on April 14, is that right?

A I believe I met with them on a Saturday. If I’m right, I met with them at the Adam’s Mark. And the next day I met with them at the Radisson.

Q So whatever the Saturday is, the 12th, 13th, then the next day you went back to the Radisson?

A A Sunday.


Q And that is the last meeting you had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q That is the day you went to the Radisson is the day that you prepared these notes. Right?

A Earlier that day I prepared these notes.

Q All right. So when you actually went to meet at the Radisson with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, you had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot. And who else?

A You know, my girlfriend was there.

Q Was anybody else there?

A Mr. Haverty.

Q Anybody else there?

A Not that I specifically recall.

Q Was Miss Greenway there?

A I don’t know. I don’t think so.

Q You had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot and Mr. Haverty?

A No. That is incorrect. I only spoke to Mr. Dandar about this. I pulled him aside and spoke to him about that specifically.

Q So when you said you met with Mr. Lirot, you didn’t really meet with Mr. Lirot, you only met with Mr. Dandar?

A That was the first time I had ever met Mr. Lirot.


Q Can you just answer that question? You didn’t meet with Mr. Lirot, you just met with Mr. Dandar to tell him your concerns, right?

A Correct. And then at the end of that, toward the end of that meeting, I shared some things with Mr. Lirot about it.

Q All right. And is there a particular reason why you met Mr. Dandar at a mall, as opposed to his office?

A Yes. Because I have a continuing concern that my house is electronically bugged by Scientology for illegal surveillance purposes. And I wanted to be in a place where I felt secure in not having that concern.

Q Well, you didn’t have the meeting at your house.

A Correct.

Q My question was why didn’t you have the meeting at Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Because his air-conditioning doesn’t work on the weekend and it is very hot in there. You know, they turn it off. He’s in a building where they turn the air-conditioning off — you know, it’s like a 9-to-5 kind of place. At 5 o’clock, boom, it starts getting hot. On the weekend they don’t turn it on because there is no one in the office, unless you want to pay $25 an hour.

Q So it was his suggestion you meet in the mall?

A Yes.


Q Was there a particular place in the mall where you met?

A We were at the International Plaza at some lounge.

I don’t remember the name of it.

Q Just sitting at a table?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, please. Please. Move into something —

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I will.


Q Your testimony is, I think, that you didn’t call Mr. Dandar to set up this meeting.

A Correct.

Q You called Frank Oliver, one of the people that was connected with the Lisa McPherson Trust, to set up the meeting with Mr. Dandar. Right?

A Correct.

Q Now, Frank Oliver lives in Miami?

A Correct.

Q Frank Oliver, as far as I know, has never been a consultant or expert for Mr. Dandar. Is that right?

A You would have to ask him that. You know —

Q Do you know from your experience?

A No. I do not know.

Q And you called — you have had dozens of phone


conversations with Mr. Dandar over the years. Correct?

A Hundreds.

Q Right. And we have your phone records in evidence from the LMT.

A Right.

Q There are hundreds of phone calls. Is that right?

A Well —

Q In other words —

A Well —

Q You know his number?

A Yes.

Q Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call him?

A I’ll state it again. I was at home using my home phone. I didn’t want to call him because of those concerns.
I called somebody else.

THE COURT: Was there concern that Mr. Dandar’s phone was bugged, as well? Or not? You did not have that concern.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t have that concern.

THE COURT: So the concern you had was your phone was bugged at your house?



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

A I trust him. He’s my friend.


Q So from your phone — which you had a concern was bugged — you called Mr. Oliver and said, “I really need you to call Mr. Dandar and set up a meeting with me”?

A No. “Ask him to call me because I want to help him.”

Q Asked who to call you?

A Mr. Dandar.

Q Call you where?

A I called Mr. Oliver and asked him to please have Mr. Dandar call me because I want to help him.

Q Okay. So doesn’t that still concern you, if your phones were bugged, if Mr. Dandar was going to call you?

A I didn’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with Mr. Dandar on my phone specifically about what I wanted to talk to him about.

Q Well, you could have just picked up the phone, called him and said, “I don’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with you over the phone, let’s have a meeting”?

A No, I could have done that. And if I was a wasp, I could have flown away. Where is this going?

Q But you didn’t do that?

A No.

THE COURT: Is there some relevance to that?

Because if there isn’t, I wish you would move on.


MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on. Mr. Oliver is the next witness. And, you know, I —

THE COURT: Mr. Oliver may or may not be the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, Mr. Dandar told me he was the next witness.

THE COURT: All right.


Q And did you have any kind of conversation with Mr. Oliver, other than to ask him to tell Mr. Dandar to call you?

A No.

Q So you didn’t tell Mr. Oliver the details of what was going on?

A No.

Q You didn’t tell anybody else the details of what was going on other than Mr. Dandar?

A Incorrect. I told Denis deVlaming. Denis deVlaming’s brother.

THE COURT: Some agent — I mean, come on.

We’ve been through this testimony.

MR. WEINBERG: I know. Just names.


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


THE COURT: That you can remember, Mr. Prince, at 4:40 in the afternoon —

A Correct.

THE COURT: — when you have been on the stand all day.

A Yes, that is correct, Mr. Weinberg.


Q Now, you testified that you went to the FDLE — to FDLE Agent Strope. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, Agent Strope is the — one of the two law enforcement people that were the principal investigators of the criminal investigation of the Church of Scientology. Correct? You knew that?

A Yes.

Q And you had had meetings with Agent Strope over the years?

A I would say that is correct.

Q And what kind of meetings had you had with Agent Strope over the years in your role as either LMT’s VP or trial consultant for Ken Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. What is a trial VP?

MR. WEINBERG: I said VP of LMT or a trial consultant.




Q My question is —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s getting late.

THE COURT: It’s getting late. Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And I know the hour.

THE COURT: Well, if you come to a nice little stopping point, we’ll stop. But whatever this is all about, you met with Agent Strope. What is it you want to know about that?

MR. WEINBERG: He said he met with him over the years.


MR. WEINBERG: What I want to know is, you know — you know, what was the — the —

THE COURT: I’m not going — you can ask him about the conversation that he had about whatever is going on in this hearing.

But as far as what he talked to Agent Strope about over the years, that is outside of the scope and I’m not going to let you go there.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then —

THE COURT: I’m not letting you go there.

Finish up.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you think maybe we can stop


now and just go to —

THE COURT: No. Finish with Agent Strope. I don’t care if it takes until six o’clock. Then we’re going to stop.



Q Now, you met with Agent Strope where?

A In his office downtown Clearwater.

Q And you — was anybody else with you?

A No.

Q Was anybody else with him?

A No.

Q Did he record the conversation?

A He recorded it inasmuch as he took copious notes as I spoke.

THE COURT: Recording means did he put a tape recording on?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nothing electronic.

THE COURT: That is what he means when he says recording. If you don’t understand what somebody says, ask.



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


what you discussed with him?

A I do not.

Q Did he — did he ask to — did you have any — did you reach any agreements with him with regard to cooperation?

A I specifically asked him, “Based on the information — ” I said “– this looks like racketeering to me, it looks like RICO, criminal activity that starts in New York, continues in New Hampshire and carries on down here in Florida.”

And I briefed him on the fact that they’re calling me — you know, I wanted — when I went to deVlaming,

“Please give me a wire so that you can hear what these people are saying,” you know. You don’t — “I don’t even want you to hear it from me. Please give me a wire so you can hear what they’re saying.”

And he told me that —

Q “He” being DeVlaming? Or “he” being Strope?

A Mr. Strope — Mr. Lee Strope. He told me that he would see what he could do, but — Mmm — you know, he was — he was — he was pretty upset about what had happened himself, you know, when I told him this because, again, Mr. Strope and I do have a relationship.

But he — that is when he gave me that message to give to Mr. Minton.


Q Well, let’s — one thing at a time.

A Okay.

Q Did he wire you up?

A No.

Q Did he — did he ask you to report back to him?

A No.

Q Did you have any further conversations with him?

A No — well, I take that back. I’m sorry. He came to Judge Baird’s hearing. I believe he was there for a short time. And we made casual conversation. It was obvious that this thing was going to be protracted and no decision was going to be made any time soon about any type of perjury so he said he would be in touch — we would be in touch.

Q But you haven’t been in touch with him since?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Dandar instruct you to go to Agent Strope?

A I’m not sure if it was Mr. Dandar or Mr. Emmons.

Q Mr. Dandar’s investigator?

A Correct.

Q Did you report to Mr. Dandar and/or Mr. Emmons your contact with Agent Strope?

A Yes, I did.

Q And the day that you went to Agent Strope, was what in relation to these notes of — of April 14?


A I do not remember.

Q Well, you obviously went to Agent Strope before you met with — for the last time — Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

A That is incorrect. And that is my fault because I mixed it up, speaking about DeVlaming, when you were asking me specifically about Mr. Strope, because it was with Mr. DeVlaming that I asked him to give me a federal agent,
not a local person, that would be willing to put a wire on me, because, you know — but by the time I met with Mr. Strope, the opportunity was passed.

THE COURT: You met with Strope after. That is not the person you met with when Denis deVlaming or Doug DeVlaming or whenever somebody sent you to see somebody?

THE WITNESS: Douglas DeVlaming said he would do the contact himself. He contacted the agent, explained the situation to him, then he called me and told me what the federal agent told him.


Q Right. Well, that was a federal agent. You never met with a federal agent, right?

A Personally, no.

Q So that is what Mr. DeVlaming was doing?

A Douglas DeVlaming.


Q But at the suggestion of Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, you are the one that initiated the contact with Agent Strope of the FDLE. Correct?

A Well, you know, that is not the way you said it, Mr. Weinberg. You said who asked you to go. I said it was either Mr. Dandar or it was Mr. Emmons. Now you are saying I arranged it and somehow — you know, one of the two persons, Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, arranged or contacted Mr. Strope and arranged for me to meet with him.

Q The way we started was I was just trying to date it. It was sometime before the April 14 last meeting with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Correct?

A Incorrect.

Q So you went to Agent Strope after you had had your last meeting with Ms. Brooks and — and — and Mr. Minton?

A Correct.

Q You wanted Agent Strope to make you an informant?

A No. I wanted Agent Strope to do what he could to talk to someone on a federal level to deal with this problem, because in my mind it was a federal crime. I asked him about that.

And he — you know, he said, “If what you are saying is true, it is a federal crime.”

I didn’t want to fool around with the Florida folks. I wanted something federal, because it happened in


New York, it happened in New Hampshire, and it happened here in Clearwater.

Q At the time that this was going on, you meeting with Agent Strope, did you know that Mr. Minton had a lawyer with regard to these matters?

A Oh, I think it was Mr. Howie, wasn’t it? Well, he had a couple lawyers. Mr. Howie. Mr. Jonas.

Q And it’s your testimony that Agent Strope told you, if not instructed you, to deliver a message to Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: He already testified to that.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

A Correct.

THE COURT: I believe I asked the question the second time. So we really don’t need it for the third time.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: The testimony is what it is.


Q And you delivered the message?

A Yes, I did — well, as I testified, my fiancee delivered the message. She read it to him. I wrote it down on a piece of paper. She read it to him over the phone.

MR. WEINBERG: That is a good stopping point.


THE COURT: Okay. Then we’re done for the day.

And we will start tomorrow at —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll start tomorrow at nine.

We’ll be in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: I should tell Mr. Dandar, I don’t have very much more with Mr. Prince, so he needs to be ready for the next witness.

MR. DANDAR: How much more?

THE COURT: Have your witness here in the morning.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’m handing over to the defense my response to the request to produce.

THE COURT: I don’t have to get into that unless you-all don’t get together on it.

Requests to produce normally don’t require the Court.

MR. DANDAR: I just wanted to file it with the clerk.

THE COURT: We’re in recess until 9 o’clock.

Good night.

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)





I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.



Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 6) (July 10, 2002)



CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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




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

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1


DATE: July 10, 2002. Morning Session.

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

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



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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Prince. All right. Mr. Dandar, you are standing. You must want something.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we have a proposed order here. I have some responses here. I have declarations of Stacy Brooks and others I want to file. But let’s just go with Mr. Prince.


(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: What day is today? The 10th? I was looking, what is — how many days of hearings is this?


THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Bailiff says 30. Does anybody —

MR. WEINBERG: Add zero to that. That is where we are.

THE COURT: Is that where we are, 30?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Ross. Are you designated Mr. Minton’s attorney here today?

MR. ROSS: That is correct.

THE COURT: I think that probably you have been advised Mr. Minton needs a lawyer in this proceeding and, therefore, we welcome you. But you have no ability to object in this particular proceeding.

MR. ROSS: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand you may hear some very weird testimony as far as some strange evidentiary rulings. But this is a strange hearing and sort of the rules of evidence — we’re going to deal with that after the hearing.

MR. ROSS: I understand.


MR. WEINBERG: Just give me a minute, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will. I will ask Mr. Dandar, while you are doing that, did you have a chance to E-Mail Mr. Henson?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I did. And he E-mailed me back and said, “Can you find me a lawyer, is it worth it?” I said no, both questions.


MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I notified Mr. Hill’s secretary that Mr. Rosen would not be called. And I should have an order here on the pro hac vice, if it is not by the morning break, by noontime.

THE COURT: All right. Fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I would just like to inquire, does that mean Mr. Henson is abandoning his motion?


THE COURT: No, I think what that means, he will not be represented. And I suspect you should — as I said, let me have time to read it. I may be able to rule on your motion without any argument.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Very good.

THE COURT: But, frankly, I want to still leave it scheduled for hearing, because he may get somebody to appear. And we’ll deal with it at the  scheduled time. I would not assume that is an  abandonment.

MR. LIEBERMAN: All right.

MR. DANDAR: Right.


MR. WEINBERG: All right? I’m ready.

THE COURT: You may proceed.


Q Mr. Prince, you — I think you said on your direct testimony — but let me go over it again — you have testified previously as a witness under oath in either trial testimony or deposition testimony. Is that right?

A In this — in this case, yes, I have.

Q In other cases, as well. Correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q And — and is it your testimony that at all times


in those other cases when you were under oath, that you testified truthfully?

A Yes, it is.

Q Okay. Now, yesterday — or the day before, whenever it was — you testified that you had participated in the destruction of PC folders, particularly Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folder which he said was pulped, I believe, while you were at RTC?

A Correct.

Q Now, you remember testifying as a witness in 1989 in the lawsuit Religious Technology versus Joseph Yanny?

A I do not.

Q You don’t remember that?

A No, I do not.

THE COURT: I don’t even remember hearing about that case. That is a new one for me.


Q I thought you testified, by the way, on your direct, that you had been a witness in that case, in fact, that while you were in Scientology, you were actually a witness in that case.

A No. While I was in Scientology I said I was a witness in the Wollersheim 4 case, specifically concerning the Advanced ability Center, David Mayo.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach the witness,


your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q Let me show you a transcript of your deposition taken in Los Angeles, California on September 11, 1989 and ask you if you can identify that transcript and identify that as your testimony on that day under oath, and at the end you’ll see an errata sheet which I believe also has your signature on it.

A What is this on? On September ’89? Okay.

Then —

Q At the end is an errata sheet. Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And you see that you — do you recognize your signature on there dated —

A 12 December, ’89. Yes, I do.

Q Obviously — I’ll leave this here because I have a few questions on it. Obviously you testified as a witness in 1989 and were given the opportunity to review that  testimony and make corrections. Correct?

A I don’t — Mmm — recall that, Mr. Weinberg, but since I did sign the errata sheet, I’ll say okay.

MR. DANDAR: I would like to have a copy of that, Judge. If they’re going to start using it, pulling things out of context, I would like to be


able to review it.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s amazing I’m being accused of pulling something out of context.

MR. DANDAR: We all do, we pull something out and say, “Did you say this?”

THE COURT: If you are going to use a deposition and he doesn’t have a copy of it, he ought to have a copy of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do we have an extra copy of it?

Do we have copies of these?

THE COURT: I tell you what, go ahead and use it and then get him a copy before Mr. Dandar —

Mr. Dandar, please listen if you care, maybe you don’t care. If you care, I’ll have them provide you a copy of the deposition before your redirect.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: If anything was pulled out of context, you can correct it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, in addition —

THE COURT: You-all provide him a copy.



Q Now, in addition to your testimony in this proceeding that you had participated in the destruction of


PC folders, you also, in your August 20, 1999 affidavit, that is the — the affidavit where you made the accusation about David Miscavige, in that affidavit, in Paragraph 22 you swore that you had participated in the destruction of Wollersheim’s PC folder. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, if you will turn, Mr. Prince — when I get the right folder here — to Page 153 of your Yanny deposition. You find Page 153?

A Mmm, just about. I have it here.

Q I want you to read Line 5, 6 and 7.

“Question: Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer. No.”

Okay. That was your sworn testimony then, correct?

A Yes, it was.

Q And when you go to that errata sheet, does it say  anything about you making any mistakes with regard to that sworn answer where you swore under oath in 1989 that you had not been involved in the destruction of PC folders?

A Mr. — you know, I don’t recall this errata sheet, to answer the question that quickly. I don’t even recall the errata sheet.

THE COURT: The real question is that was your


testimony on that date, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this was the testimony I had given on that date.


Q And you previously testified that all your prior sworn testimony was true. Correct?

A Correct.

Q So you lied here in court when you said that you had participated in PC folders being destroyed?

A Well, you know, I have to at least look at a couple pages earlier here to kind of get an idea what was going on here to orient myself to 1989.

Q Look at a couple pages earlier.

THE COURT: Might I just ask, where he was reading, was he testifying for plaintiff, or defendant?

MR. WEINBERG: He was testifying for the Church. For RTC.

A Okay.


Q That was certainly — you wouldn’t have had a recollection problem back in 1989, would you, as to what had occurred a year or so or two or three before that, as  opposed to 2002, talking about things that supposedly happened?


A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, I — I don’t think I would have had a recollection problem, but maybe I would have had a problem with coercion.

Q Let’s see now —

A Or — or manipulation.

Q Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt.

A Or manipulation. This was a very bad time for me. This was shortly — well, let’s see, this was a couple years  after I had been away from any position of authority. I was still being asked to — Mmm — participate in the courts, for whatever reason, God only knows. And I was not in a very good state of mind.

Q Well, I thought you said you were relieved yesterday to leave your post at RTC and that you were in a better state of mind as a result of being relieved and not  having to do all those things that you swore yesterday and the day before that you had participated in.

A Certainly in that regard, Mr. Weinberg, I was relieved. But I didn’t have a lot of direction for my life.

I think I was pretty suicidal at that point. And I had written about that, as well.

Q All right. So you started saying these things about destroying PC folders after people started paying you,like Mr. Minton and Mr. Leipold and through Mr. Dandar, that


is when you started saying these things, not when you  weren’t being paid.

A No, Mr. Weinberg, quite the contrary. I — this came out because I decided that it was no longer an operating principle of mine that the greatest good is for  Scientology. I kind of — you know, just kind of got away from that.

Q So it’s a principle now the greatest good for Jesse Prince, whoever will put the money in your pocket, that is what you’ll say?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, the greatest good is the truth and justice and equity.

Q All right. So what you’re saying, just so I get this right, you lied back in 1989?

A Yes — yes. According to these documents, I lied on behalf of Scientology.

Q All right. And you lied in — I’ll just refresh your recollection about being asked about this before — do you remember giving a deposition in this case when — when I deposed you?

A I think you and I have been at it a time or two.

Q And do you remember that I asked you the questions on Page — I’ll refer now to Page 465 of your deposition of — of November 17, November 18, 1999.

“Question: Now, when you testified — how many


times have you testified in your entire career, life?

“Answer: In a courtroom or deposition setting?

“Question: Both.

“Answer: Possibly five.

“Question: All right, and each time you testified, whether in deposition or in court, you were under oath, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“You raised your hand and swore to tell the truth.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: Nothing but the truth, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“And you testified truthfully on those five occasions.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: You didn’t perjure yourself.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: So if you were asked the questions in a deposition that I asked and those were your answers then when you gave those answers, it is your testimony that they were truthful answers, correct?

“Answer: Well, you know, yeah, okay. I’ll say yeah, okay, yeah.”

Then later in the deposition — do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?


A No, I do not, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Do you remember being asked on Page 469 of your deposition two years ago, “You testified in the Yanny case we’ve already talked about, was that deposition and trial or just deposition?

“Answer: I believe it was just deposition. And again, I was never afforded the opportunity — well, no, I’m sorry, I’ll answer the direct question, I won’t tell  stories. Yes.”

Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. But if it’s there, then I believe it.

Q So apparently three years ago when we took your deposition you remembered the Yanny case testimony but today you don’t?

A I — Mr. Weinberg, I think that is a bit of mischaracterization to say I would have remembered the Yanny testimony. You know, this document here is a couple hundred pages long. I — I don’t think any of us are capable of remembering a couple hundred pages of something that happened ten years ago.

Q Is there a particular reason why, in all these accusations you made against Scientology, you didn’t say,

“And they told me to perjure myself in 1989 in the Yanny


deposition”? Why didn’t you do that?

A Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Weinberg, again, like I — I was damaged goods during that time. I had gone through a lot of stress, a lot of — Mmm —  decisions to change my life. Mmm, didn’t have certain — you know, a certainty on where I was going with my life. I felt pretty hopeless.

But let’s talk about the perjury here since this is the subject here. What I have testified to before concerning preclear folder destruction is the fact that  because these preclear folders of Mr. Wollersheim were being asked to be produced and ultimately the whole folders were turned over, the order to destroy the folders came from Mr. Miscavige with Mr. Rathbun present, myself, Vicki Aznaran. It became my responsibility to report when that fact was done.

I myself was not the person that destroyed the preclear folders or had — or pulped them. Rick Aznaran is the person, along with another current Office of Special  Affairs, Charlie Earl, rented a truck, took these folders; Vicki Aznaran — Lawrence Wollersheim, possibly Bill Franks, Gerry Armstrong and others took them to the recycling plant, and when Mr. Aznaran came back, he showed me a liquid bottle with paper on — with the pulp paper on the bottom.

So technically did I know about it? Yes.


Technically did I do it? No.

Q Oh, I see.

A But I sanctioned it and I went along with it.

Q So perjury — the question was: “Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer: No.”

That is not perjury because you have somehow justified in your mind that you really weren’t involved because you didn’t actually pull the switch? Is that what  you’re saying?

A No, I’m saying that I’m not the person that actually did it myself, but I knew about it. And reported about it.

Q Is that —

A I didn’t stop it. So, you know, the fact of the matter is I won’t beat around the bush with you, Mr. Weinberg. Right here I was not being truthful.

Q Now, did somebody tell you to perjure yourself?

Is this something that somebody told you to do? Or you just did this on your own?

A No, I was told to do it. Mr. Earle Cooley, who was lead counsel for the Church of Scientology at the time, wanted me to do it. Mr. Rathbun, who was — was again and always responsible for church legal, wanted me to do it.

Mmm, I was being a good Scientologist and protecting



Q That is amazing. So when this started out you didn’t have any recollection of the Yanny deposition, you don’t remember having even signed the errata sheet, and now you have this clear recollection that — that Mr. Cooley, a lawyer who is on the board of trustees of Boston College — or Boston University, and Mr. Rathbun told you to lie? Is that what you’re saying now?

A Mr. — Mr. Weinberg, I mean, because we are talking about this, because you have presented me with documentation, we’ve discussed it, I think I do have a mind and I can have some recollection about this. And I’m just telling you what happened here.

Mmm, there are other things that I have written specifically about my relationship with Earle Cooley, and because you have all of those E-Mails, I’m sure you have those in evidence, too. That is not the only thing that I thought was unethical that happened with Mr. Cooley, irrespective of where he sits.

Q So the way it works is, if we can catch you at it and if we can show you a video or show you some testimony where you perjured yourself, then it’s an indiscretion, essentially, you sort of caught me. Is that the way it works?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, argumentative.


THE COURT: Sustained.

A Mmm —


Q It was sustained, Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: You don’t have to answer the question.


Q Now, you said your life was hopeless?

A Correct.

Q When was this deposition, 1989?

A Correct.

Q But having been hopeless, you stayed another three years?

A I stayed another five years after my life was pretty much hopeless. You know, I fell into the hopelessness — you know, right in 1987 when that whole thing happened I was ready to leave Scientology at that point. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to escape to leave because I was in the RPF, walking through the desert, on and on, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear that story.

Q That story? Is that what you said? Do I want to hear the story?

A Let’s please maintain civility here, Mr. Weinberg.

Q All right, I asked you —


A I’m trying to explain this to you. I had escaped. I had helped Vicki Aznaran escape. We were being kept in the RPF in a — behind a — Soboba Indian Reservation in the most horrid conditions. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to threaten to go to the press, threaten to go to the police, the same thing I suspect Lisa had to do when she tried to leave, as well.

And ultimately because the woman that I was married to, who had no idea what I had been involved in, what my position really was in the Church of Scientology, what my participation was, it came down to Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Miscavige specifically talking to my wife and telling her what a horrible person I was and that I’m blowing and I’m psychotic and I’m crazy because I want to leave and this kind of thing.

So then I was faced with even a bigger problem. And my bigger problem was now am I just going to walk out of Scientology and leave this person that I love, that I’m married to, because she hasn’t woke even up, because she doesn’t understand, because I haven’t been with her and let her know what’s going on. And that is kind of a problem in Scientology in and of itself because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. You are not allowed to talk about your case, you’re not allowed to talk about secret this, secret that. So we had had a breach of


communication for many years.

But in my mind at that time I was thinking, you know, I’m not going to desert another person in my life, I’m not going to desert this woman for Scientology. I will sit here with her until she sees what I see. And I was actually, therefore, there for another five years.

And these are points I have written about as well.

I felt almost like an animal, I had no mind, no brain, no will, nothing. And this is what happened to me and I went and did this and it was wrong. And yeah, I did that and you have pointed it out and here we are.

Q Now, in 1989 when you perjured yourself —

A Uh-huh?

Q — according to your testimony now, or didn’t, depending upon whether you perjured yourself in this hearing, you weren’t on the RPF, were you, in 1989? You  were working in the Golden Era studio, correct?

A I think in 1989 I was on what is considered — what is called the DPF, the Deck Project Force. The reason I say that is because in 1987 when I was removed from my  position and I went to the RPF — Mmm — I think I was there for — until December of ’87.

In December of ’87 I got off the RPF, I started trying to practice auditing again. I did that for some time and really didn’t want to do it anymore.


Toward the end of ’88, I believe, a security guard at Golden Era Productions got kind of rough with my wife.

THE COURT: You know, this really doesn’t matter where he was. You weren’t in RPF.

A No, I was in DPF. I wasn’t in Golden Era Productions, I mean, working in the studios, as you suggested. I was actually on the DPF. And this is the same  period I did that watch with Mrs. Brooks, Terese or — or Teresita —


Q That was in ’88?

A That was in ’88?

Q Yes. You say things were hopeless for you?

Things were hopeless for you in 1997 and 1998, as well, wasn’t it?

A I wouldn’t say that.

Q You filed for bankruptcy and went bankrupt in November of — filed in what, May of ’97, and it was finalized in November of ’97, correct?

A I believe there are documents to that effect that have the correct dates.

Q But — but you went bankrupt in 1997, correct?

A Mmm —

Q Yes, or no?

A Yes, I did. I believe that is correct.


Q So you were broke in 1997?

A I filed for bankruptcy in 1997, but I — I wasn’t able to pay my bills adequately in 1997.

Q And except for Mr. Minton coming like an angel from heaven in June of 1998, you didn’t know what you were going to do?

A Utterly and completely false.

Q After Mr. Minton appeared on the scene you then hooked up with Stacy Brooks, you hooked up with Dan Leipold, you hooked up with Ken Dandar, and since that time this is what you have been doing, getting paid to testify, write affidavits and work against Scientology, correct?

A No, that is absolutely incorrect and it is false.

Q Now, let’s go back to the deposition for a moment.

Now, you testified under oath a lot about the GO and OSA and all that. Do you remember that, here in this proceeding? You said you had all this knowledge about the kinds of activities that had gone on. Do you remember that?

A No, I think you are mischaracterizing my earlier testimony. I don’t think that the words Guardian’s Office exited my lips during these proceedings. I have spoke about OSA and I have — I have presented Mr. Hubbard’s eternal words on — on what intelligence is expected to do, what legal is expected to do and some of what public relations is supposed to do. I think that better characterizes —


Q Well, let me refresh your recollection, if you remember on June 18 saying, “Question, was there any carryover from the Guardian’s Office to OSA?

“Answer: Yes, there was, there was a carryover of some of the staff and some of the policies. Then you went on to say, “Question, was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s Office was?

You said, “Yes, OSA wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian Office was. One of the mistakes was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations.”

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Now, turn to Page 149, please, of the Yanny deposition.

A Okay.

Q I want you to read Line 5 through Line 16 — Line 5 through Line 13 — 16, I’m sorry.

A To 16?

Q Yes, just read it out loud.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you do it.

THE COURT: That is true.

A I have read it.



Q I’ll read it. Did you give — were you asked these questions and give these answers?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you —

THE COURT: Yes, it is the way you do it.



Q “You ever heard of the GO?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: What was the GO?

“It was Guardian’s Office.

“Question: And Mary Sue Hubbard was in charge of that for a period of time?

“Answer: I have no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office. I was never associated or affiliated with it in any way.

“Answer (sic): You do know that a number of Guardian’s Office people went to jail?

“Answer: I don’t –”

Then there was objection.

A Okay.

Q Were you asked those questions and give those answers?

A Yes, that is correct.


Q And that was true or was that perjury, as well, that you had no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office?

A Well, that was true then and it is true now.

Prior to my association with going to Gilman Hot Springs, I had — you know — you know, I had done protests at the behest of the Guardian’s Office where all Scientologists got together, and I think did a demonstration of the courthouse down there at a point in time on — Hebert would — what they do is they have a thing in Scientology called a call to arms —

Q Really, all I asked you, was that true or not and you said it was true that —

A Okay.

Q Using your words, you had no percipient knowledge —

A Well, I don’t want to play —

Q Can I ask my question first?

A I told you that there was — you know, was some association with the Guardian Office, and I tried to clarify that. So you know, I don’t want to get into word games here where you say, well, you said you never did it but suddenly now you have me picketing at the behest of Scientology. I mean, little activities like that, I mean, I popped out of a coffin across the park doing a skit based on something that —


Q I understand, but you waxed eloquent about the GO  and how it’s the same — OSA was the same, and under oath here you said you didn’t know, didn’t have information about the GO. You didn’t know anything about it.

A No, I think you are confused on that issue, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Now, do you remember testifying in this proceeding that — that you were — had responsibility for legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA? Do you remember  that?

A Yes.

Q Particularly intelligence activities of OSA, that was your testimony?

THE COURT: Could you define or tell him — I don’t remember, was it here in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. I was just reading from his testimony.




BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I’ll read — this is the dirty — when I say dirty, this is the —

THE COURT: Dirty copy, I know.



Q The dirty copy, but on my Page 71 of the dirty copy, which is obviously not the actual transcript, what it says is, “As I mentioned –” this is your answer — “we used to do the technology side of Scientology. Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for.

And those were legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA which is a separate network in Scientology.”

That was your testimony, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Now, I want you to turn, if you will, Mr. Prince,to Page 77, first, of your Yanny depo. While you are looking for it, you were deputy inspector general of RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q And it was deputy inspector general external was your actual — DIG external, right?

A Right.

Q Did you — if you go to the bottom of the page, Line 22, were you asked this question and did you give this answer.

“Question: Back when you were the DIG external, did you have any responsibility for intelligence?

“Answer: Not particularly.

“Question: Is there a group or subgroup within


Scientology organization referred to as Intel?

“Answer: No, not that I know of.

“Question: Has Intel ever been part of your job description?

“Answer: No.

“Have you ever had any responsibility for Intel?

“Answer: No.”

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was that truthful testimony?

A Yes, it was. And you know, in — inasmuch as it — that it was deceptive testimony because we’ve sat here and we’ve gone over all of these Scientology issues, now  that says intelligence action, this, that and other thing, but when the GO was gotten rid of, the section that was called intelligence was no longer called intelligence; it was called the information bureau. And I think if you look at a current organization chart for the Office of Special Affairs, you will find that it says information bureau. It doesn’t say intelligence bureau. But if you look at the materials that the persons are trained on in the information bureau, it is intelligence.

Q It is sort of like your testimony yesterday where I asked you about the picket sign, you know, in front of


Mr. Minton’s house and you said you didn’t own a sign?

A You know, I don’t know about that, Mr. —

Q Was that truthful but deceptive testimony, or is that sort of like an example of what you’re talking about?

A I don’t know about that analogy, Mr. Weinberg. I think you are confused on that issue and you are mixing apples and oranges. But I pretty much answered your  question with this.

Q All right. So this is truthful but — and so what is — by the way, just so — it’s not perjury when you tell the truth but you are deceptive? In your mind, that is okay?

A Well, you know, I’m —

Q Just answer the question.

A I’m not going to draw a legal conclusions. You are the trained lawyer here. I’m the trained Scientologist.

Q You are the trained witness.

A I can tell you about that. I can’t tell you about the lawyering so much. I can’t explain the law to you. You can explain that to me.

Q Explain to me how you are being truthful when you are being deceptive?

A By the mere fact being deceptive, you are not being totally honest. But then again, as I understand the law, you are not obligated to answer but an exact question,


and the exact question here was about intelligence and — and again, I’ll tell you, when the GO was changed, the word “intelligence” was gotten rid of and the word “information” was put in there; information bureau, information department.

So if they would have said information department, I could have answered these questions a little differently.

But I didn’t say, oh, you know, well, they changed intelligence to information because no person wants a witness walking in just blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. Answer the question you are asked and that is it, okay.

THE COURT: Sort of like you are doing now?



Q So why did you use the word “intelligence” when you testified for Mr. Dandar? I just read you the testimony. “In those areas that I was responsible for,  legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA,” why did you use the word “intelligence”?

A Because I was able to take the eternal words of L. Ron Hubbard that had that on there and show it. I used it because that is what the issue says.

Q And by the way, that is acceptable to you to give truthful but deceptive testimony? That is acceptable to you as you sit here as a so-called expert in Scientology?


A It is acceptable to me to answer — answer the question that is asked.

Q So I have got to ask the absolutely right question or you can deceive me and there is no problem here? You can deceive me and the Court? And everybody else that is — that is in this room?

A Mmm, well, you know, you can call it deception or you can call it inadequate lawyering. I mean, I don’t know. What do you want to say about it?

Q Well, have you had any of those answers while you have been on the stand, those truthful but deceptive answers? Can you think of a couple where we just missed the question a little bit?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m making a valiant effort here to keep perspective and keep things in perspective. And I think I have gone overboard in explaining my rationale.

THE COURT: The question is, Mr. Prince, is there any time in this hearing you have not told the absolute whole truth, that is what the oath is, the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: No, there is not.

THE COURT: All right.


Q Now, you testified, I think — correct me if I’m


wrong — a number of times that — that Mr. Miscavige was deeply involved in the activities of you and Ms. Aznaran at the RTC and that — and that you and her reported to Mr. Miscavige when you were there. Is that right?

A Mmm, partially right. I — I don’t — don’t remember saying Miscavige was deeply involved with me and Mrs. Aznaran in RTC. I don’t remember —

THE COURT: He did say he reported —

THE WITNESS: Yes, but the other part, I —


Q Let’s make it clear because that is actually the question I wanted to ask you. You said — you testified under oath you reported to David Miscavige while you were  DIG external at RTC?

A I — ultimately, I did report to him, yes.

THE COURT: Frankly, I think he said he reported to Vicki Aznaran.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just asking him now — we’ll, I’ll read you what he said.

THE COURT: You have to read him what he says because I can’t even remember, myself.


Q This is actually the real transcript, Page 342, lines 19 through 25. And this is in response to a question from Mr. Dandar. And you say: “Answer: So you know from


the –”

THE COURT: Read the question.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m trying to find.

There was a lot of interruptions.

MR. DANDAR: Well, that is surprising!


Q Mr. Prince just starts talking. There was — there was dialogue about the Clearwater Police Department.

THE COURT: Well, let me hear what it is you are wanting to read to him, then we’ll see if he can remember this testimony.


Q Okay.

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

That is what you said?

A Correct. That doesn’t mean to the exclusion of  Mrs. Aznaran who was my direct —

Q No, I didn’t — wasn’t suggesting that.

A Okay.


Q Now, if you’ll go to — by the way, did you also report to Marty Rathbun back then?

A Yes. Yes.

Q If you go to Page 52 of the Yanny deposition, please —

A Was that 52, Mr. Weinberg?

Q Yes, 52.

A Okay.

Q Look at Line 15 through 19.

“Question –” were you asked these questions and gave these answers under oath.

“Question: Back in this ’84, ’86 time period did you ever have an occasion to report to Marty Rathbun?

“Answer: No.

“Question: Did you ever report to David Miscavige?

“Answer: No.”

A Right.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q Were those truthful answers?

A No, they were not.

Q So you perjured yourself?

A Correct.


THE COURT: I honestly don’t want you to use the word “perjury.” Perjury is a term of law.


THE COURT: Lie would be fine.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I have had judges tell me not to use lie because it is inflammatory.

THE COURT: If that were in front of a jury, that may be true, but for me in this particular proceeding perjury is a term of law.


THE COURT: If you say is that a lie, that would be fine.


Q Was that a lie?

A Yes, it was.

Q And did somebody instruct you to lie?

A Yes. Again, Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun.

Again, I’m being a good Scientologist and I’m protecting Scientology.

Q And you’re not being a good anti-Scientologist as you sit on the stand in this proceeding and write affidavits and stuff like that, correct?

A I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Q Well, is there a code of ethics for people like you that are part of the anti-Scientology movement?


MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to the phrase “Anti-Scientology movement.” I don’t know if that has been established anywhere.

THE COURT: I think you need to save that for another time.



Q Is there a code of ethics, did you and members of the A team and those people that were carrying the signs for the Lisa McPherson Trust that we saw that video yesterday, was there some code of ethics as to what you guys were going to do when you were under oath?

A Mr. Weinberg, no one carried a sign for the Lisa McPherson Trust. You know, you make it impossible for me to answer these questions when you draw these conclusions and inferences that simply are just not true.

Q Well —

THE COURT: So the question is, was there a code of ethics that you and Mr. Minton and —

MR. WEINBERG: Ms. Brooks.

THE COURT: — Ms. Brooks developed when you were to testify?


THE COURT: In this proceeding?

THE WITNESS: No. The answer to the question,


your Honor, is no.


Q Now, you have testified again today about the RPF and I believe that on direct — and I’ll read you your testimony if you don’t remember it, but I believe that you have referred to the RPF as being a concentration camp or something like that, correct?

THE COURT: Prison camp.

A Prison camp.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, in this transcript it says concentration camp on Page 456.

THE COURT: I heard prison camp for sure.

Prison, concentration camp, I guess they’re all the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually —

THE COURT: They’re not.

MR. WEINBERG: In my mind a concentration camp brings images of Nazi Germany, and a prison camp, you know, we have them in Florida. But —

MR. DANDAR: Well, Japanese had concentration camps in the United States. We had —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not even going there.

MR. DANDAR: There must be a difference.

THE COURT: Maybe not to this particular witness. He may not — not make a distinction.


THE WITNESS: Well, actually, your Honor, I think there is a distinction in that I think the Rehabilitation Project Force is more akin to a concentration camp in that part of the program is to have not — not only to have a mind-altering experience, but to have a total revamping of the way you were before.

THE COURT: Okay. So you refer to it as a concentration camp?



Q By the way, did you lose a lot of weight when you were in the RPF?

A Which time?

Q I mean, did you get meals?

A Which time?

Q You said you were in twice, I believe.

A Right. So you mean both times?

THE COURT: Either time.


Q Either time.

A The first time I lost weight dramatically. I think I got down to 144 pounds because we weren’t allowed to eat regular food, we had to eat fruit and — and protein supplement called Progest. Then we had to run around with


plastic suits on our body to, quote/unquote, get the impurities out. This is all we were allowed to eat is fruit and Progest.

Q That was in the ’70s?

A That was ’77.

Q So then in ’87 when, you know, everything came down on you and you got —

A I lost weight there, too, yes.

Q Were you running around drinking protein drinks and wearing sweat suits?

A No, not the second time.

Q Now, you testified that you were — let me quote — “forcibly,” quote/unquote, that is what you said here, “removed from the RTC.” That is what you said on the stand.

A Yes.

Q Do you remember that? Now, when you said forcibly, what — what were you referring to?

A Well, I was referring to a couple of things.

Prior to assuming any position as a board member in the Scientology conglomerate, the one thing that you’re asked to do in order to have this position is to sign an undated resignation.

After signing an undated resignation, then you are  allowed to be a corporate officer, on the board of directors


or — or some such like that, you know, having to do with corporate matters.

So I was a — on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. I was the treasurer. But when I was graced with that position I also at that time had to sign an undated resignation. Again, I was woken up at I guess 5 o’clock in the morning with 12 people in — security guards wearing uniforms like they’re on a mission, and I was told that I was removed, I was shown my undated resignation so that, you know — and this is a legal process. And apparently this is a problem that they had, but I won’t diverge, but this and this, and I was told, “You stand up, you call me sir.”

Miscavige wanted me to do that, and I didn’t want to do it.

So they grabbed me and they started jumping me.

Q All right. That is the gun thing?

A Right.

Q The gun thing?

A Right. We talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: Are you also talking about the fact your resignation was filled in, is that what you considered part of forcible removal? Or not?


THE COURT: So when you mentioned that, that is also part of your forcibly removed because it was


filled in and, therefore, you were removed?



Q Now, you understood when Scientology reorganized in the early ’80s and created RTC and CSI and a variety of other corporations, you understood that there was a corporate structure then that was very clear and defined in corporate documents, correct?

A Before —

Q You understood that?

A Before or after — I guess — there was a corporate structure before they created RTC, CSI, all these other corporations?

Q No, I said you understood in the early ’80s, the Church of Scientology reorganized with a new corporate structure —

A Right.

Q — including the RTC, CSI, which was the mother church, and all the churches under them. You understood that, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q And there was a very detailed corporate structure with — with articles of incorporation and various agreements that set forth clearly the corporate way in which various — Scientology would be run, correct?


A Correct.

Q And that was the wish and desire of L. Ron  Hubbard, who was still alive that that happened, that there be this reorganization of the church?

A You know, I can’t say that that is true. I can’t —

THE COURT: Who would care? The idea there was a corporate reorganization, surely this is going somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: It is going somewhere.

THE COURT: Get there.


Q The RTC was composed of a board of directors.


A That was part of it, sure.

Q And there were trustees?

A Correct.

Q In fact, there were trustees in every Scientology corporation, correct?

A Well, I came to learn that in 1987. But you are correct.

Q Well, you learned when you joined RTC that there were trustees, there were three trustees?

A No. No. No.

Q Well, what you learned is that the trustees had


one function, correct, and that is to — that is to — to name or remove directors. You understood that, didn’t you?

A No, sir.

Q And you were removed in 1987, along with Ms. Aznaran, by the trustees of RTC, one of which was Mr. Miscavige, correct?

A Incorrect. I was removed by one person, only one person’s will, on one person’s authority, and that was Mr. Miscavige.

Q Was he one of the trustees of RTC?

A Yes. And this got explained to me as he was doing this. You know, he — you know, and I guess I was a bit naive, you know, I didn’t know. I wasn’t a corporate person. I’m not trained, you know.

And he explained it to me very well. He said, “Look, I am a trustee. Norman is a trustee.” I think Marty may have been a trustee or Steve Marlowe may have been a trustee. I’m not sure. And he explained to me how it worked.

And he said, “Here is your undated resignation and you have officially resigned and this is how it works and we have the authority to do that.” And at that point I was cognizant of how it worked.

Q Are you saying that for the five years that you were in RTC and for the three or so that you were a board


member and, you said, the number two person at RTC, you didn’t know that there were trustees that had the ability to — to remove you?

A Correct.

Q But you are an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology?

A I have never said I am an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology, Mr. Weinberg. I said that I am an expert in the — in the policies, bulletins and issues that are Scientology. That is Scientology.

Q If you go to Page 16 of your deposition —

THE COURT: Which deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, the Yanny deposition.


Q The —

A I’m not quite there.

Q Okay.

A Okay. I’m there.

Q Okay, Line 4, question — were you asked these questions and did you give these answers — and you will see there is one date that is wrong, but it is wrong in the transcript, and I think you — it didn’t affect the question.

“Question — Line 4 were you asked this question, “October of ’83 to March of ’87 you were deputy inspector


general for external affairs.

“Answer: That’s right.

“Question: Was Vicki Aznaran your senior during that entire course of time?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Were you out at Gilman Hot Springs?

“Answer: Gilman Hot Springs and Los Angeles.

“Question: What was your next position then in March of ’83.”

That would be obviously March of ’87, I think you understand that by your answer. And did you give this answer.

“Answer: Then I went to the RPF for three months, probably three and a half. Then I was an auditor. I was an auditor at Golden Era, the same place at Gilman Hot Springs, for a while.

“Question: For about three and a half months starting in March of ’83 –” but it is ’87 — “you were in the RPF again?

“Answer: Yes.”

Then I’ll skip to Page 17. Top of the page. Line 3 were you asked this question and gave this answer: “What were the circumstances of your transferring from RTC to Golden Era Productions?

“Answer: Well, when I was in RTC I wanted to go to the RPF because I needed more training. I needed — I


just needed more skill than I presently had. And that afforded me an opportunity to do that because I could go five hours a day, so I did that and also got auditing, co-audited and life audited, because I audited practically my whole career in Scientology. So I decided to audit for a while.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q So that was false testimony?

A This was coached testimony by Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun, for the purpose of deposition with Mr. Yanny.

Q So is that a definite category —

THE COURT: That was also false, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You were coached by who?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Earle Cooley and Mr. Marty Rathbun.


Q Now, that deposition — you were asked questions by whom in that deposition?

A You know, I don’t know. I — I don’t know.

THE COURT: Take a look at the front. It


should say who was representing Mr. Yanny. Did you give him the front page?

MR. WEINBERG: I gave him the whole deposition. If I could approach, I think I could show him.


A Cummings & White. Is that who it was?


Q Barry Van Sickle. Do you remember Barry Van Sickle?

A Not really.

Q But do you remember this was a deposition, now that we refreshed your recollection, the questions were being asked by Mr. Yanny’s lawyer, not by Mr. Cooley, the ones we went over.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just one second, your Honor. I need to move some stuff and get some other stuff.


Q Now, going to a different subject now, Mr. Prince.

A Are we finished with this?

Q Yes, let me take that back.

THE COURT: Why don’t you go ahead and give that, then, to Mr. Dandar.


THE COURT: That will save you all from having to copy it.


MR. WEINBERG: Is this our only copy? No, we have other copies.

MR. DANDAR: You do have another copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently, somewhere back at the ranch.

THE COURT: But you can go ahead and make yourselves a copy and he can have that one?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right.


Q Now, let’s go back to the LMT now. And I think you said a minute ago that I had some misconception of the LMT and picketing. Did I hear you say that?

A Mmm, that is quite possible, yes.

THE COURT: What he said, Counselor, was that you were suggesting that they were picketing on behalf of LMT, and that wasn’t exactly correct.

THE WITNESS: That is right. That’s right.


Q But the — part of the purpose — part of what the LMT did in 1999 and 2000 was to picket various buildings of the Church of Scientology?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I hear you saying that.

But with every video that you have shown here and you have related to the LMT, there are LMT staff that have never picketed, never wanted to, never would, and would not


participate —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, this is really simple.

Really the question is here, and I don’t think it is that difficult, one of the things that LMT did, those folks who were at LMT, was to picket when they thought it appropriate.

THE WITNESS: Yes, occasionally they would.

THE COURT: Exercising their rights, whatever you want to call it.


THE COURT: They would at times organize a picket and go picket the Church.



Q Now, in January of 2000 you were the consultant, expert, working with Ken Dandar in this case, right?

A Correct.

Q And you were also working in the Wollersheim case, as well, at that time?

A Mmm, more than likely, yes.

Q And you were also vice-president at the LMT?

A Well, we already did LMT. You said I was at the LMT. And I was working with Mr. Dandar. There are two things.

Q I’m focusing on the time, January of —


A Okay.

Q — 2000, you were the expert for Mr. Dandar —

A Yes, I was the expert for Mr. Dandar, but I don’t think that I immediately assumed work at the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don’t think that is how it happened.

Q Now, I asked you yesterday about you being the big boss at the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And you said no.

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we play that video, please.


Q By the way, do you remember a situation where Mr. Minton handed out parrots to various members at the LMT as Christmas gifts so that — indicating — rather, whether you are a big parrot or little parrot, squawking at Scientology, do you remember that happening?

A I think you are referring to a newspaper — a press that Mr. Minton had — had done and that came up —

THE COURT: Did he give you all parrots?



THE WITNESS: Little ones.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, could we play this?


This is from the film library, January 5, 2000.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I have a little presentation, a little sort of Christmas present for the people who are associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust who have made all this possible. Some of you may be aware that back in December a guy named Dave — no, Rick Barry wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune about — I think the headline was ‘Bob Minton, will he rouse the gorilla?’

“Yes. Yes.

“But the real headline is ‘Lisa McPherson Trust, will they rouse the gorilla.’ And in that article, he referred to — in terms of the gorilla, first of all, he was talking about how this gorilla came to Clearwater 25 years ago, 800-pound gorilla, set himself down in the middle of Clearwater, began buying influence, began buying property, and for the last 25 years they have basically made themselves a force in this community by buying people off one at a time.

“And the — the question that Mr. Barry raised in this article was whether, you know, this small band of parrots would be able to, you know, make a


difference here in terms of changing the way that this — that this organization is perceived in this community and in terms of the way this organization behaves in this community.

“Well, I remember a good friend of mine, Mark DeLarma, who you all know, said, ‘You thought that was a good article? He, like, called you guys parrots.’ I said, ‘I thought it was a great article.’

“So did I.

“Because it really expressed in a very vivid way how the Lisa McPherson Trust was going to change the way this community interacts and perceives Scientology. And how Scientology will have to — if they want to be healthful here, start acting like an organization that is a church if they want to be called a church.

“So I figured that the first thing that the Lisa McPherson Trust had to do is we had to set up a little — Mmm — mascot for this organization. And everybody who is part of it. So for the first — the first group of — of Christmas presents are for those people who will be based here as part of the organization day in and day out.

“And so the first of those goes — goes to —


this is my little parrot that we want to have, the staff members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the most famous staff member of all is — is Stacy Brooks.

“There you go.

“The president and chief operating — executive officer.

“The next one — the next one, the same parrot, you know, the same parrot, goes to Jesse Prince, the boss of the whole thing. Who we all love.

“Thank you, Bobby.

“And the — and the third — the third of the fifth parrots goes to Mark Bunker, the multimedia king of the world.


“Who is doing everything he can to keep a straight face while this is going on.

“There is one for me. I want to keep that.

“And then when David gets here, this is for David Cecere. And I have another parrot which is not currently in waiting here, but that is for Kim Baker when she arrives.

“So we’ve got plenty of parrots.

“We’re not done.

“We’re not done. You know — you know, I mean,


so I would like to make a recommendation that we adopt this parrot as the mascot of the Lisa McPherson Trust so that everybody knows that we are going to make a lot of noise, we’re going to be squawking about what Scientology does in terms of harming people and their abusive and deceptive practices, and we’re going to, as little parrots, we’re going to make a lot of noise and drop a lot of stuff that parrots — come out the back end and help these guys learn the way to behave. Okay?

“So —


“So now — now — now we have little parrots. We have little parrots for all of the big people who have made all this possible. And the first and most important little parrot goes to Patricia because — because what Patricia has done, to help everybody who is down here, get themselves down here and get them settled in and make them feel comfortable in this — in this whole environment, which is not an easy place for — for former Scientologists to come to. You know, they have been willing to stick their neck out and come down here and really make this organization happen. And so Patricia has really made everybody feel comfortable, she’s — she’s sort


of like —

“She chased PIs into the bathroom for me.

“Yes, and you — you know — so I — I want Patricia to have a parrot.

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Ray Emmons has been teaching us all for — and a lot of people didn’t listen for a long time, how this organization really operates. And he did this in Clearwater. He made himself known nationwide in terms of his opposition to Scientology. And the type of organization that they really are underneath the surface. And so I want Ray to know that he’s a parrot, as well. You have been a parrot for a long time.


“Let me have a kiss here, Patricia, because I didn’t do that. Thank you so much.

“The order of the parrot.

“The order of the parrot. This is like the highest award that the Lisa McPherson Trust can bestow upon somebody.

“Now, you know, Peter Alexander has been squawking about Scientology for a long time, even when he was in it, especially toward the end of the time he was in it, when he was — when he was —


when he was being squawked at by Patricia — you know, rather regularly. So — and Peter has allowed Patricia particularly to devote so much time and energy into helping this organization get off the ground.

“And I just want you to know, Peter, that we’re totally thankful for your help and support in this organization, your being on the board. And I really want all of us to know that this is an incredibly tight-knit little group, and got a lot of hard work to do here in Clearwater. But with people like all of us here and you, Peter, thank you so much for doing this. And I want to present you with a little parrot.


“Thank you, sir. Thank you.

“And I want to — I want to —

“The order of the parrots.

“The order of the parrots.

“I want to talk to you about a theme park.

“Yeah. Yeah.

“Now, the next parrot — the next parrot is for Duncan Pierce, you know, our national coordinator. Our national coordinator.

“Oh, my God.


“Duncan has been abused by Stacy so much in the last few months that he really deserves a big parrot. But because he’s not here on the staff in the office every day, he can’t get a big parrot, you know, it’s just not part —

“The big parrot —

“Look at Peter.

“It’s — you know, the problem is —

“Patricia? Look at Patricia.

“The problem is it is not in the tech. He can’t have a big parrot. But —

“The standard tech.

“Yeah. Yeah. But — but Duncan has done so much to get us off the ground, as well.

“I don’t know what I would do without him.

“It is amazing. The thing is there are so many people that have really pushed so hard to get this thing going. And, you know, there is no recognition for us. You know, we get abused a lot on the Internet. Our demise has already been scripted by, you know, anti-cult and Diane Richardson. Fine, let them squawk all they want. But the real squawking will be done here in Clearwater by a bunch of parrots. And Duncan is one of those parrots. (Inaudible.)


“Then for the — and the person who lives the furtherest from Clearwater, Grady Ward, who is standing right here, we have another parrot, because Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward is — is our security expert here. And already — and already during the course of this day he has learned a lot about security. (Inaudible.)

“Yeah, don’t tell me about it. But I can tell you some things about Grady personally because — (Inaudible.)

“Because one of the things that really got me involved in this thing was Grady Ward. And Grady’s stand against Scientology, you know, back in 1995 or — early ’96 when he started going after them directly after they sued him, he went after them as his own attorney, you know. You know what they say about guys who are their own attorney.

“It is perfectly true.

“And it is perfectly true. Grady will be the first to tell you he had no expertise, no competence whatsoever. But he — he studied the law. He studied what Scientology was doing. He — he learned so much about it. And has become a really good legal man in terms of fighting Scientology. And I — you know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine


somebody having the patience to understand and go through and traveling back and forth from Arcadia, California, eight hours to San Francisco in his car and memorizing the Rules of Civil Procedure. You know, while he’s going back and forth. And I mean memorizing so he knows every paragraph, every subparagraph, whatever. And — (Inaudible.)

“You know, if you talk about a parrot, then this guy is a parrot. And I want to give — I want to give this guy who is a shining example for many people on the Internet in terms of standing up to somebody who is trying to curtail free speech on the Internet, I want Grady to have this parrot as a symbol of our love for him and his contribution to this whole battle.

“Thank you very much. “Thank you, Grady. Thank you.

“And — and now. (Inaudible.)

“And now this other parrot, I forgot to tell you. I told you this was mine. And this parrot is mine because all of you gave me this parrot and I really appreciate it. So —

“Something about Rob and why he gets a parrot,


because if it weren’t for him, none of us would be here.


“None of us.

“For sure.

“There is nothing else to say.

“Bob is the big parrot.


“Oh, but this is not all. Oh, some of the best stuff is — some of the best is saved for last. Well, what I would like everybody —

“He’s big with presents, you can see that.

“What I would like everybody to do, if you put the parrots around in a little circle here, if you put the parrots around in a little circle there. (Inaudible.)

“Right, don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget. But, you know what the parrots are supposed to do, don’t you? We’re going to get the gorilla. And I didn’t want you to think I forgot about that gorilla. So this gorilla is going to sit right there.


“Don’t dump on the gorilla. Come on. But — but that is what this is all about here.


little parrots and some of us big parrots here, we’re going to be here and we’re going to make sure this gorilla behaves.

“We’re going to educate this gorilla and —

“We’re going to put the — we’re going to put the gorilla in the cage or the jungle, wherever it belongs.

“We’re going to turn this gorilla into a parrot.

“Yeah, this gorilla is going to be cooperating with us.

“In any case, everybody can take their parrot back now. And I’ll keep the gorilla, so when we have it on the desk out there, it will be —

“Yes, a constant reminder.

“Yes, as a constant reminder of what we need to do.”


Q Bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Very fond memories. I’m so sorry that that place doesn’t exist anymore.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object because we just went through that long video and with the — the question was — to Mr. Prince, “Mr. Prince, were you called or did you call yourself a big boss at the LMT,” and


that is not what that video showed. Mr. Minton called Mr. Prince a boss of the whole thing. So — so whatever Mr. Weinberg’s question was was not supported by the video.

THE COURT: Well, it certainly is a video that he could play at some other time so he played it now.


THE COURT: But it is true, he was not called a big boss —

MR. WEINBERG: He was called the boss of the whole thing.

THE COURT: But I think Mr. Minton made it clear he was the big boss.



Q Now, Mr. Prince, I asked you a lot of questions about what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about. That meeting there was initially the start-up meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn’t it? It is essentially right at the beginning?

A I think so. You know, I think you are right about that.

Q Right. And Mr. Minton made it very clear what it was about, squawking about Scientology. That is what the


Lisa McPherson Trust was about, wasn’t it?

A No, sir. It was about making Scientology behave.

I think that was also part of this video. Just to behave. Be decent.

Q Putting the gorilla in the cage? Was that what it was about?

A Or in the jungle, wherever it belonged.

Q What does that mean, “or in the jungle, wherever it belonged”?

A Well, it means everything has its place, Mr. Weinberg. And there is hardly anything sinister about what we just watched here.

Q “We’re going to make a lot of noise,” that means you are going to disrupt the activities of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, right?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. That means that we’re going to expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those who have been victimized by it. That is what we were talking about there.

Q And at that time when you got the second parrot for being the boss of the whole thing, you were supposedly the full-time expert for Ken Dandar, correct?

A I was working for Mr. Dandar as his expert. I wouldn’t go as far as to say full-time. I mean, even you brought up the fact I was working on the Wollersheim case,


as well, simultaneously.

Q We’ll get to the — we’ll get — I’ll ask you one question. From June of ’99 until May of 2000 you were getting $5,000 a month from Dandar & Dandar?

A I think the record reflects that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And this was in that period of time, wasn’t it, this parrot thing?

A I believe it was.

Q Now, you saw this meeting and you were at a number of meetings with Mr. Minton, correct, over the years? You have been with him a lot?

A Yes, I have been with him a lot.

Q And in this particular meeting and others that you were in, Mr. Minton was pretty outspoken, outgoing, he would take over, right? He would speak his piece? He was in control?

A No. Mr. Minton is not that way. That is the biggest myth. You know, Mr. Minton has exact things that he likes to do and he does them. I mean, I learned a lot from him myself. You know, I have never had millions upon millions of dollars myself. I have never been able to help people the way he has been able to help people. He has a different agenda, a different track. Unfortunately, in some instances he has a very short attention span.

And he never, in any instance, ever wants to be


the person that is the leader. I mean, he doesn’t — he doesn’t do that. You know, if you want to do it, great. If what you want to do makes sense, great, he’ll support you.

But he’s not going to tell you how to do it.

Q So this was just an aberration?

A No, this was — it was clear what this was.

Mr. Minton was showing his appreciation to persons like Patricia Greenway, myself, Peter Alexander, Duncan Pierce, for helping organize and make the people feel welcome at the Lisa McPherson Trust and helping us be a social — be a social reform group, if nothing else, in order to ultimately help Scientology.

Q By the way, did he look harassed? Did he look like a man that was under some wave of harassment unknown to mankind?

A Actually, he looked like a man giving a speech to a group of people.

Q It looked like he was — that was in the Lisa McPherson Trust building, correct?

A Correct.

Q It looked like all of you, Ms. Greenway, you, Mr. —

THE COURT: What difference does that make they were having fun at the LMT? When gifts were given out?


MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll go on.


Q Let me ask you a question about Ray Emmons, the guy that put the parrot on his head.

A I know Ray Emmons well.

Q Now, Mr. Emmons had been a Clearwater police officer and had done an investigation of the Church of Scientology in the ’80s, is that right?

A Yes, I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Emmons has been and continues to be the investigator for Ken Dandar in this case, you know that?

A I know that Mr. Dandar has used him to do service of process or locate witnesses and things like that.

Q Now, what was Mr. Emmons’ position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t think he had a position. He may have been on the board of directors, which was huge and basically was a friends list. But as far as an official position or coming into that office on a daily basis to work or accomplish a specific task, that was never anything that he did.

MR. WEINBERG: I have a couple E-Mails — or postings I was going to put in, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I want to take a break here in five minutes, so if it will take more than


that, break now. If not, go ahead and do those and we’ll take a break.

MR. WEINBERG: I think we can do those in five minutes. I mean, it is just identifying them.


MR. WEINBERG: These are actually E-Mails, I’m told. I have trouble telling the difference.

THE COURT: Yes, I don’t know the difference, either. If they’re up there on the screen and people can read it, to me, it’s an E-Mail.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, your Honor, this is 223. I didn’t write the number on it.

THE COURT: Okay, I’ll do it.

MR. WEINBERG: And this is 224.

THE COURT: All right.


Q I’m going to hand you the originals. We’ll put them back when we’re done.

A Okay.

Q All right. If you’ll look at first, Mr. Prince, 223.

A 223? Which one is 223?

Q That is the —

A Okay, I have it here.

Q That is the Jeff Jacobsen —


THE COURT: It is the long one.

THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m really only referring to —

I — we just received these from the Lisa McPherson Trust. I have attached the whole thing, your Honor, but the only page that — that — this is part of the E-Mails that were produced.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: But really what I’m focusing on is the first page.


Q Mr. Prince, you can look at it all, but I don’t know if the rest — sometimes it comes off the computer and —

THE COURT: Who is this from?


Q If you look at this, Mr. Prince, this is from Jeff Jacobsen to you and Mr. Bunker and Stacy Brooks. Who is Karen Case?

A She used to be a person hired specifically to work as public relations.

Q And this is dated August 2, 2000. Is that right?

A Well, you know, okay.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes. I do.


Q And this is — do you remember having meetings about things that needed to be done at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, I have to object.

This is not Mr. Prince’s E-Mail so I don’t know how he can question him about some hearsay document authored by somebody that is not here.

THE COURT: Well, I think he can state whether or not this is accurate or not.

MR. WEINBERG: It is to him.


Q You received this, right, Mr. Prince?

A I have no memory of this.

MR. DANDAR: Which one are you on?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s copied on the E-Mail, it is addressed to him.

THE WITNESS: I don’t even know what this is.


Q It is an E-Mail to you.

A Okay.

Q Among other people. All right?

A Okay.

Q What it says, “This is a list of things we talked about, elaborated on by me.”

Now, Mr. Jacobsen was also part of the Lisa


McPherson Trust, correct?

A Yes, he was.

Q In fact, in some of those videos yesterday you saw Mr. Jacobsen in it with a camera himself?

A No, I did not see that yesterday, but —

Q Oh. He did take — he took videos from time to time, didn’t I?

A Yes.

Q Do you know why those videos haven’t been turned over, by the way, his, Mr. Jacobsen’s?

A No, I do not. Were they asked for?

THE COURT: Don’t ask him what he knows or doesn’t know about something like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll ask it a different way.


Q Do you know where the videos that he took are?

A No, I do not.

Q Were they kept at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t know what he did with his personal videos.

Q But, anyway, this — this — this E-Mail talks about a list of things we talked about, 1, speeches, radio talk shows. 2, picket. 3, press releases. 4, press conferences. 5, help with investigations by EEOC, DEB. 6, the library open for public use. 7, concert November 11. 8, newsletter. 9, attend city council meetings,


participate. 10, put up a sign for the office outside. 11, ads in local newspaper. 12, support group. 13, radiofree Clearwater.”

Now, that is 13 things that the Lisa McPherson Trust, I assume, prioritized to do. Not one says anything about counseling, does it?

A You know, I think you are mischaracterizing this E-Mail to somehow reflect or — or be a staple for the activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and what this is is just simply an E-Mail of Jeff writing. I have no recollection of it whatsoever and I don’t even remember what it relates to at this point in time.

I mean, I literally have had thousands of E-Mails, Mr. Weinberg. I’m not trying to be uncooperative, I’m trying to cooperate in the spirit, but what you are asking  me has no perspective. You are tying this into the Lisa McPherson Trust and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Q Well, does it make sense to you one of the priorities of the Lisa McPherson Trust was pickets? Does that make sense to you?

A No, not at all.

THE COURT: This is really — in fairness, this is a statement from somebody about some meeting and, frankly, you don’t have to persuade me that the Lisa McPherson Trust picketed. I don’t know why you just


keep badgering that home. I know what he’s going to say, you know what he’s going to say. It is me that is in charge of this hearing, and I’m persuaded, but the point was not picketing, it was counseling, wasn’t on the list.

You know, that is unfair to suggest because somebody writes a letter with things they talked about on a given day of things that needed to be done, you can hardly assume putting a sign outside is a primary — is something that needs to be done.

It doesn’t say this is our purpose. I mean, fair is fair, Counselor. And that is not fair to suggest that those are the purposes of the LMT.

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

THE COURT: All right. It will be received. It will be received, although it is only being received for the fact that — that we have a bunch of E-mails.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — that I have let in.

MR. WEINBERG: Then 224 quickly is an E-Mail that —


Q Is this a posting or E-Mail, 224, Mr. Prince?


A I have no idea.

Q Well, this is something that you —

A There is no “to”.

THE COURT: It says it is from you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, is this a note to myself? I don’t know what it is.


Q Do you recognize this as something that you did?

THE COURT: Who is Mark? I know there is a Mark.

THE WITNESS: You know, there are lots of Marks.


Q I think it is pretty clear, the message at the bottom is a Mark Bunker passage. Then —

A The message at the bottom? Oh, I see what you are saying.

Q Do you see?

A Okay.

Q And my question to you is, your advice was, “With regard to the Lisa McPherson Trust, contact Ken Dandar.”

That is what it says, correct?

A Absolutely not.

Q That is not what it says?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. It doesn’t say that,



A No.


Q Are you saying, “In the meantime, I recommend you contact U.S. attorney Kennan G. Dandar,” and give his E-Mail address?

THE COURT: What is the date on that?

MR. WEINBERG: It is November 10, 1999.

THE COURT: Before the trust was formed?

MR. WEINBERG: Right — well, the trust actually had already been formed, remember, it was incorporated and it was in the process of being set up.

A You know, this is a partial thing here from Mark. I can’t tell if somebody wrote in and had a legal question and I’m referring them to Ken Dandar, who is a lawyer that could maybe answer a legal question for them, or whether or not they need assistance or the service the trust has to offer. I can’t tell from this. I can’t draw the inference that somehow this means Ken Dandar is running the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything like that.

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

MR. DANDAR: I object. It is too partial to make sense.


THE COURT: I’m going to let it in for whatever value it has, which is little, as to a lot of the other E-Mails, because of the same problem.

MR. WEINBERG: So is this a good time to take a break?

THE COURT: It is a good time to take a break.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. I show it is 25 till. That will be about ten till.


(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 10:35 to 10:55 a.m.)


THE COURT: Okay. I signed the order and I mailed out the copies. But those of you who are here, I’ll give you yours. Mr. Dandar. Here is Mr. Lirot’s, too. I didn’t realize he wasn’t here.

Mr. Moxon, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Fugate. Always trying to save you all some stamp money.

MR. WEINBERG: Everything counts.

THE COURT: Every little bit counts. That is right.

You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: I returned the envelopes to opposing counsel.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: So they can save their stamps.



Q Now, Mr. Prince, you first learned about Bob Minton after watching a television show Dateline in which he appeared and Ms. Brooks appeared in June of ’98?

A That is incorrect.

Q Did you watch a television show before you met Mr. Minton where you learned about him?

A No, I did not.

Q How did you learn about Mr. Minton?

A Through Mrs. Brooks.

Q So she just reached out for you, you didn’t reach out for her?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, I think I spoke on this before but I’ll speak on it again.

I was on vacation in Connecticut. I had been in the cyber coffee cafe. I had gone on the Internet. Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Weinberg?

THE COURT: It was rather elaborate.

A I left my phone number and she called me.

(Telephone interruption.)


Q Did you ever see the Dateline —

THE COURT: Don’t be sorry to him. Be sorry to me. It is my word that says no phone.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I apologize for the




Q Did you ever see the television show The Crusader, I think on NBC Dateline, where Mr. Minton was featured about his crusade against Scientology?

A Mmm, more than likely, many months to possibly a year after he had done that program, I’d seen it. But I didn’t see it when it ran on national television.

Q Well, you learned, shortly after your call from Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton was a very wealthy person who was handing out a lot of money to people that would work against Scientology, correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q Ms. Brooks didn’t tell you that Mr. Minton had given her and Vaughn a lot of money, including the purchase of a $250,000 home?

A At one point in time Mrs. Brooks did relay the information that Mr. Minton had given her and her husband some money and she explained the circumstances about that.

Q Did a relative tell you about the Dateline show featuring —

THE COURT: A relative of whom?


Q A relative of yours tell you about — in or about this time period before you met Mr. Minton — did a relative


tell you about having seen this show where Mr. Minton was featured or some friend or some family member?

A A cousin of mine, when I lived in — I guess I must have been still living in Minneapolis and we were in a phone conversation. And she was telling me about a program where she had seen — she had seen concerning Scientology and there was a man that was helping people or somehow got involved in it. She didn’t remember his name. She just remembered — and, you know, as it is with my family, if they see something about Scientology on TV, they tell me about it when I speak to them.

Q Was that before you communicated with Ms. Brooks?

A I believe it was.

Q So when you learned about Ms. Brooks, you already knew about Mr. Minton?

A As I said, she didn’t know Mr. Minton’s name. All she related was, “I saw a story on TV about Scientology and the different things that they do. And there was a man that was helping people that had been in Scientology before.”

Q And did you research, prior to hearing from Ms. Brooks, did you research to learn who this guy was and what he was doing for people who had been in Scientology?

A No. I had not.

Q Now, when did you learn, after communicating with Ms. Brooks, how wealthy Mr. Minton was?


A When I spoke to him.

Q And how long after you talked to Ms. Brooks did you talk to Mr. Minton?

A Mmm, maybe a month. Maybe two months.

Q So I was under the impression that on this trip — I guess I’m wrong — this trip to Connecticut, that you went from Connecticut right up to Mr. Minton’s house after talking to Ms. Brooks?

A No, that is incorrect, Mr. Weinberg.

Q So you went home after that?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed in touch —

A Oh, no, no, I’m sorry, you know, because it is so important to make sure the record is correct. From Connecticut, I flew to Ohio and met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Haney.

Q And was it at that time that you were given a new car?

A No. No. It was not. And I was never given a new car by anyone.

Q Somebody purchased it? Mr. Minton purchased a new car for you or caused a new car to be purchased for you?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q Well, how did you get the $23,000 Rodeo vehicle?

A I never got a $23,000 Rodeo. I had use of a


$23,000 Rodeo but that $23,000 Rodeo belonged to FACTNet, and when I terminated my employment with them, that car stayed with FACTNet. You understand?

Q Now, that was purchased where, the car?

A In —

THE COURT: Where like what dealer? What city?


Q What city? What city?

A You know, I don’t remember the name of the city.

Q But it was in Ohio, that area, either Minneapolis or Ohio, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did —

A Well, wait a minute. Let me not do this thing because you accused me of this earlier. It was in Minneapolis specifically. I know the specific answer. I’m not going to play charades here with you. It was in a place near Minneapolis, a city that was near Minneapolis, and I don’t specifically recall the name of the city.

Q And it was purchased new, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to pick it up at the dealer?

A Mmm, a friend of mine — Mmm — took me — drove me to the dealership to pick it up.

Q And did you have a check with you? How was it


paid for?

A No. I didn’t have a check.

Q Ms. Brooks took care of paying for the car? Is that what happened?

A No. Ms. Brooks did not — well, you know, I don’t think so. But quite factually, I don’t know who — how that part of it happened.

Q There just happened to be a new car waiting for you at the dealership?

A No. They needed a vehicle for FACTNet. You know, let me — if you have patience with me, I’ll tell you the — what happened there.

They needed a car in Boulder —

Q Boulder, Colorado?

A Boulder, Colorado, which is where FACTNet was located. I was going to FACTNet to assist in that organization. The car was purchased. I moved everything that I had in Minneapolis and moved to Boulder, Colorado. I made that move to at least be safe or — or to be around some people that could offer some protection to me, because  after I’d contacted Mr. — Mr. Minton, the private investigators started, the threatening letters to sue me from Scientology started. And I was alone in Minneapolis, and it was like, “Okay, come here, we’ll help you, we’ll protect you, we have lawyers,” whatever.


Q You were alone and bankrupt in Minneapolis, right?

A I had filed bankruptcy in 1997. I think the year we’re talking about now is 1998.

Q June of 1998. Bankruptcy in November of 1997, right? Your next real job after bankruptcy was to be paid by FACTNet and Mr. Minton, correct?

A That is completely false.

Q Now —

A You want to know what my next job was or you just want to leave it like that.

Q Tell me what your next job was.

A I was self-employed. I had an art business called The Art Guy. I had a kiosk in the mall in downtown Minneapolis. I was making my own money and I was actually doing pretty good for myself.

Q But something encouraged you, prompted you, to pick up and leave Minneapolis and move to Boulder, Colorado, at which time you became associated with FACTNet and started being a paid witness in various Scientology cases, correct?

A I think you have added a little bit of baggage on that. But what actually occurred is I left Minneapolis with my business intact. I had employees in Wisconsin and employees in Minneapolis, and I left and went to Boulder, Colorado.

Q Driving this car?


A Correct.

Q And you drove this car for how long? How many months did you drive this new car that somebody paid for that you picked up new?

A Off and on, maybe about three months.

Q Now, after — but before you moved to Boulder, you went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A It was just myself.

Q And he flew you to New Hampshire?

A I — I believe the way the scenario worked is Mrs. Brooks arranged flight — airfare, the flight, for me to fly there, yes.

Q Much like she had arranged the car to be purchased?

A I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here because I think I stated earlier in the testimony I’m not quite sure who did that on behalf of FACTNet. That car was purchased in FACTNet’s name. It was never in Jesse Prince’s name, Bob Minton’s name, Stacy Brooks’s name. It was a corporate car. That is the way it was purchased and that is the way it was left.

Q And the person that was financing FACTNet at the


time was Bob Minton?

A Mmm, no.

Q Did Mr. — one last question about the car. Did Mr. Haney provide the funds for the car, Brian Haney?

A Not that I’m aware of. But then again, I don’t know the details of it. I know that — I think Mr. Haney did have some association with FACTNet at the time.

Q And what were you seeing Mr. Haney in Ohio about with Ms. Young?

A I mean, I had never known Mr. Haney. I didn’t know who he was. He just happened to be there. I was there to visit with Stacy.

The visit with Stacy — her and I have been associated — associated and friends through Scientology since 1976. She was one of the very first persons that I  met when I joined the Sea Org. And we were just happy to see each other. Her ex-husband, Vaughn Young, and I were very good friends. You know, he was an executive and we  were friends, and it was — and from leaving Scientology — because when you leave and you are ostracized, people disconnect from you; you are a suppressive person, degraded being, whatever, you don’t have any friends anymore. But to actually encounter someone from Scientology that you knew before that will talk to you because you are not a Scientology is a rare thing.


Q Now, the Youngs left in 1989, correct?

A Yes, I assume that, yes.

Q You left in 1992?

A Yes.

Q But you didn’t communicate with the Youngs until Mr. Minton came on the scene in 1998, after you left Scientology, correct?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of my earlier testimony, Mr. Weinberg. Because I think the way I testified, and again I’ll go through the whole thing —

Q No, just answer that question.

A But I wrote an E-mail from a cybercafe that said, “If you know Vaughn Young or Stacy Brooks, please give them my phone number.” Mr. Minton was not part of the equation.

Q My question was you didn’t have any communication with Vaughn or Stacy Young after you left Scientology in 1992 until this cybercafe thing in 1998?

A Correct.

Q As far as you know, they didn’t reach out for you prior to that time, either, is that correct, as far as you know?

A As far as I know.

Q Now, Stacy Young must have told you, when you were in Ohio with her and Brian Haney, she must have told you about the activities that she and Vaughn, her husband, had


been involved in for the past four years concerning cases involving Scientology. She told you about that, didn’t she?

A In our first meeting?

Q When you —

A Oh, when I went to Ohio? Are you talking about the Ohio trip?

Q Yes.

A There may have been a brief mention of that, what she was doing. But for sure the substance and the bulk of our conversation was the fact that we were together, we were alive, we actually made it out somewhat sane people and we were just happy to see each other.

Q Did she tell you she and her husband had been making a living off testifying and being experts in cases against Scientology for the past three or four years?

A No, she did not.

Q Did she tell you you had a good opportunity to — to get in on the gravy train, so to speak? Did she tell you that?

A I take offense to that characterization. But that statement is categorically false.

Q Did she tell you that you had the opportunity to make money by being — by working with lawyers in cases involving Scientology? Did she tell you that?

A No, she did not.


Q So you didn’t have any discussion about you getting involved in any of these cases?

A At that point in time in Ohio, no, we did not.

Q There came a point in time where you did talk to Stacy about that?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A Mmm, I’m not quite sure. It was maybe some months later or — I’m not quite sure. But I think while we were talking she was telling me about FACTNet. She was telling me about this organization which, in some respects, was similar to the Lisa McPherson Trust which had as its intention of providing information and doing what it can to assist people or persons who felt they had been victimized by Scientology. And —

THE COURT: Was FACTNet just Scientology or was it cults in general?

THE WITNESS: Cults in general, you know, the whole subject. Very broad.


Q It was primarily Scientology, though, wasn’t it?

A No. If you go on their website, you know, Scientology has its place, but there are many other cults that they have provided information, ex-members speaking


about it, you know.

Q Well, the staff members of FACTNet tended to be people that were more interested in Scientology or had had some involvement with Scientology as opposed to other groups. Correct?

A No. That is actually false. There was one person that was a staff — that was a staff member in FACTNet, I think her name was Justine. She was a Christian woman that had never been in Scientology before.

Q You are telling me so you learned about how you could make some money involving Scientology from Ms. Brooks.

So when did that happen?

A You know, I —

THE COURT: Make some money involving Scientology? That doesn’t make sense.


Q Who was the first person that told you –suggested to you that you might be — you might be a witness and could be paid as a, quote, expert on Scientology? Who told you that?

A No one told me that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Who asked you to be involved in the first case that you got involved in?

A Mr. Leipold.

Q He just reached out for you?


A He was an associate of Mrs. Brooks. Mrs. Brooks was explaining to me about FACTNet. And the whole subject came about because we were talking about being in touch with people that we had lost contact with, old friends that were in Scientology. So she was introducing me, “Well, you know, another person, you know, people from Los Angeles, hey, do you know this one? He’s out.” And Andre Tabayoyon, I think I spoke with him. We were just talking about the people that we knew in Scientology that were no longer there that were out, you know, getting on with their lives, doing what they do.

Q What were you doing in Ohio with Mr. Haney and Ms. Brooks? I mean, why Ohio? You live in Minneapolis. She lived in Seattle. Why were you in Ohio?

A That is where she was when she called me. And I was in Connecticut and she was in Ohio.

Q Is there something special in Ohio?

A I think that is where Mr. Haney lives. She was in Columbus, Ohio. That is where Mr. Haney lives.

Q You went to New Hampshire. How did you get in touch with Mr. Minton? Did you call him? He call you?

A I think I answered this before. This happened through Mrs. Brooks. I met Mrs. Brooks, and then I had — you know, sometime after that I spoke to Mr. Minton on the phone and maybe a month or two later actually went to visit


with him.

Q He flew you to New Hampshire —

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know who paid for the ticket. We can assume it was Mr. Minton, directly or indirectly.



Q Somebody arranged for you to fly to New Hampshire, right?

A Stacy Brooks.

Q All right. But she wasn’t at this weekend — was it a weekend?

A Actually a couple weeks.

Q You were at Mr. Minton’s house for a couple weeks?

A Yes.

Q Who else was there other than you and Mr. Minton?

A His family would come occasionally. His wife. His children.

Q And anybody — I mean, other than his family, anybody else?

A No.

Q What did you-all — did you talk about Scientology in those two weeks?

A Yes, we did. We talked about Scientology. We talked about why — why he became involved. What this was


all about. He was very interested to know my involvement, my history, compared to other people that he had talked to.

And again, this is all in reference to, hey, you know, these ex-people, these people that used to be in and now they are not in and now they’re getting together and talking to each other and it is okay to do that.

Q And did he give you some money, some expense money at that point, either before the trip or during the visit or after the trip?

A No. No. I don’t think so.

Q Did he pay for your expenses to move from Minneapolis to Denver?

A Yes.

Q And —

MR. DANDAR: I object because we have got to establish a time frame here. It sounds like it all happened on the same day.

THE COURT: That is true. Whatever the time frame is, I don’t think it all happened on the same day.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A It didn’t.


Q It didn’t. I’m not suggesting that. Do you remember how much he gave you to move from Minneapolis to



A Mmm, $10,000.

Q In a check? Cash? I mean, how did you get the money?

THE COURT: What difference does it make?

MR. WEINBERG: Probably not.

THE COURT: It doesn’t make any difference.

MR. DANDAR: Right.


Q Where did you get the money? I mean, did this happen in New Hampshire? Or did it happen after the trip to New Hampshire that he gave you the $10,000?

A You know, I’m not sure because, you know, I made a couple of trips to New Hampshire. So I’m not really sure how that came about. But I’ll do the best I can to explain it to you, Mr. Weinberg.

I went there once, I stayed there for a couple of weeks, came back to Minneapolis. The threats started. I was starting to get letters from Elliot Abelson, Scientology attorney in Chicago, letting me know I would be sued. I had private investigators starting a noisy investigation in my neighborhood. And I think I alerted Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks, I said, “Look, I can’t believe this whole thing is starting all over again.” You know — you are right, I did do the bankruptcy thing. I cut ties with Scientology


completely. I was done with it. I didn’t want another thing to do with it. You know, it is kind of like every time you put your hand in the fire, you know you are going to get burned. I was done.

Q You were done but then you decided to get involved in cases against Scientology?

A Then I went to meet these people and my freedom of association was trying to be inhibited from Scientology — by Scientology. They didn’t want me to associate with these people. There were no — no criminal activity occurred, nothing happened. I’m simply talking to people that used to be in Scientology.

Q All I asked you, did you get the money from Mr. Minton during your trips to New Hampshire or after. That is all I asked, and if you don’t remember just —

A In one of the trips.

Q — just tell me you don’t know.

A In one of the trips, Mr. Weinberg, I did get the money from him to move.

Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you that he would, in essence, take care of you thereafter to support you with regard to your work involving Scientology?

A No, he did not.

Q But in reality, that is what happened for the next four years, didn’t it?


A No, it is not.

Q Well, you began to get money from Mr. Minton after this first $10,000, correct? I mean, from that point on for the next four years you received money, directly or indirectly, from Bob Minton on a monthly basis, didn’t you?

A Mr. Weinberg, I received money from FACTNet when I started working for FACTNet, when I moved from Minneapolis to Boulder, Colorado. I started to receive some — and very little from FACTNet. The fact of the matter is that I was able to live and do what I was doing because I had been — I had my own business, I had staff working for me in two states. I was receiving regular moneys from profits that I had made. And this was where the bulk of my money was coming from.

Q So you had all these profits that you had accumulated after the November bankruptcy between November and June of ’98?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, you got the $10,000 from Mr. Minton.

And how much money do you remember that you received from FACTNet?

A Maybe a couple of thousand. You know, one month.

A thousand another. You know, it was kind of back and forth.

Q And then you came — then, shortly after this, you


came to Florida in the fall of 1998 to begin work with regard to the PC folders in this case. Correct? You flew to Florida?

A Correct.

Q And you spent how many days with Ms. Brooks reviewing the PC folders of Lisa McPherson in the fall of ’98?

A You know, I’m not sure, but it was like many days, maybe even more than a week. And it was something I came back to, as well, and participated in getting the folders copied. So this whole thing with the folders started in December but it went through a period of time, a month’s period of time of going through those folders.

Q So at that point when you first came you were now officially on board as an expert for Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson matter, correct?

A I — I wouldn’t say that. The reason why Mr. Dandar wanted me to go through those folders is because of my expertise in Scientology, my prior technical experience, the many courses and certificates and internships I had finished.

THE COURT: Were you his consultant, as well?

THE WITNESS: Not at that time. I just came down to do the preclear folders. Mr. Dandar and I did not have a relationship because we didn’t know


each other. And through time — and he could see my competence in interpreting Scientology policies and bulletins — that I then became a consultant and worked more closely with him on the case.


Q Well, at the time — when you were reviewing these folders it was in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Yes.

Q And you had — you met with Mr. Dandar at that period of time?

A Yes.

Q I mean, you introduced yourself to him and all that?

THE COURT: Well, Counsel, come on.


Q Did you bill him for your time?

A No.

Q You just did this for free?

A Yes. And I had done it for free many times. I mean, I have worked for Morrison & Foerster, and Feaster from — out of San Francisco in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Leipold in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Dandar. I mean, by that time I had been working with these different attorney firms or at least they had been calling me to see if I could assist them in these other legal cases.


Q Well, who was paying you to be in Tampa, St. Pete, wherever it was, that you were to work with Mr. Dandar and Ms. Brooks with regard to this case in the fall of 1998 and early 1999 when you were going through these PC folders?

A Again I’ll say that my expenses to fly down to Florida, I believe, was paid by Mr. Dandar. The money that I used to exist for that period of time, I think we’re talking about maybe six months, for the most part — for the greater majority of it were residuals from the business I operated in Minneapolis.

Q Well, didn’t Mr. Minton give you checks in early 1999, $5,000, $6,000 a month?

A No.

Q He didn’t do that?

A He may have did it a time or two but it wasn’t consistent. And FACTNet was a very small organization. It sometimes just didn’t have money. And my — you know, and this was kind of like a period of time like where how do you fit in? So, you know, I would occasionally tell Mr. Minton, “Hey, you know, these people don’t have money. I can’t live on air here. Can you help out?”

Q Well, why Mr. Minton? Why not Mr. Dandar who you were doing the work for?

A Because I was working on FACTNet now, you know.

We’re mixing apples and oranges here. FACTNet was a


corporation that Mr. Minton was on the board of directors of.

Q Well, I thought — correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I heard you say that starting in the fall of 1998, into 1999, you spent a number of days, weeks, whatever, working on this case, the Lisa McPherson case?

A Well, hold on, hold on, hold on. I never even met Mr. Dandar until 1999. So let’s leave 19 —

Q How can you say that? You just said you were in his office in the fall of 1998 looking at the PC folders?

A Wait — okay. Well, okay, I’m confused with the dates. So —

THE COURT: So what is the right date?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I mean, was it 1998?

THE COURT: That is fine. I told you and I’ll tell you again and it is really a wonderful answer, you know, 1997, ’98, ’99, there could be a lot of these dates you simply don’t know, and there is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m not sure what the date was. I don’t know for sure.”

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

A Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know. I don’t recall for sure.



Q Now, when did you become the expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case?

A I believe that I got a letter from Mr. Dandar quite possibly in March of 1999 that memorialized the fact that he wanted to hire me to be his consultant. We had had a working relationship at that point because I helped him a lot and I — and —

THE COURT: You know, I haven’t heard a date yet. When is the question?

A March of ’99. I think that is when we formed an agreement and decided on terms.


Q All right. Prior to March of ’99, in the months prior to March of ’99, you had done a lot of work assisting Mr. Dandar with, for example, PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q So whether that started in November or December of ’98, it was sometime several months before March of ’99 when you signed on as the expert. Right?

A Yes.

Q And —

A To the best of my recollection.

Q And prior to signing on as the expert, can you tell us how much time you had spent down here helping out


Mr. Dandar before you signed on as the expert?

A I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how much time it was.

Q Okay. Now, once you signed on with Mr. Dandar, then was it established that you were on a monthly salary?

A Mmm, I think the letter that memorializes that agreement, I was on a monthly retainer of $5,000 a month and my billable hours which I believe was either $100 or $150 an hour.

Q If you exceeded the $5,000? Or is it in addition to the $5,000?

A The $5,000 retainer, and the hours against that, plus any other hours if I put in more hours or whatever.

Q But you didn’t keep your hours, we established — remember we established that in front of Judge Moody that you didn’t keep your hours. Right?

A Well, no, in the beginning I didn’t. And again, Mr. Weinberg, there was nothing to keep prior to that because I had just literally done the work for free.

Q Well, we have asked for your hours as part of the various discovery, and it came up in the Judge Moody hearing when you testified in front of Judge Moody and your testimony was, I believe, that either you didn’t keep them or you didn’t have them.

A Right. I didn’t have accurate records. I didn’t have any notes to turn over or — no.


Q So what you got paid by Mr. Dandar was $5,000 a month because you didn’t keep the time in order to get anything in addition to that. Correct?

A Well, you see, we’re mixing apples and oranges here again now. Because I think, you know, you talk about that time period from 1998 to —

THE COURT: I’m — he’s talking about the time period from March of ’99 when you were placed on a $5,000-a-month retainer, was it $100 or $150 an hour again that — which was it?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure, I think it may have been $150, actually.

THE COURT: Let’s assume it was $150 an hour.

Basically how that works, if you go over, whatever $150 into $5,000 is, then you get more, but if you get less, you still keep the five.


THE COURT: Was that the deal?


THE COURT: So you didn’t keep records, apparently?


THE COURT: You were paid $5,000 a month?


THE COURT: For whatever — for however many


hours you worked?



Q We’ll show you the checks, but that continued up until — your recollection is that continued to a particular point in time, I believe the records will show, May of 2000 when you left Mr. Dandar’s payroll and went on LMT’s payroll. Correct?

A My reference point for that, Mr. Weinberg, is that we had finished the depositions of all of the Scientology persons that needed to be deposed. And Mr. Dandar was going to go on to —

THE COURT: Well, is that correct? Is that the date? I mean, all he wants to know —


Q All I want to know —

A I don’t know if that is the right date. I’m saying my reference is this —

Q At some point, and we’ll show you the checks, I’m representing to you I think the last Dandar check is May of ’99 — or May of 2000. At some point in time you quit getting Dandar & Dandar checks and you started getting LMT checks?

A Correct.

Q And LMT continued to pay you at $5,000 a month?


A Correct.

Q The same $5,000 — the same amount. And you negotiated that rate with Mr. Minton?

A And Mrs. Brooks.

Q Now, and then the LMT at some point — you testified about either yesterday or the day before — closed down, correct?

A Correct.

Q And whenever that was, your recollection it was sometime in August or September of 2001. Right?

THE COURT: When was the date? When was the date?

MR. WEINBERG: That I don’t know exactly. I mean, it depends on — I mean, I’m really asking Mr. Prince.


Q I believe that you, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks said it was sometime in the August/September of 2001 time period, is that correct?

A Mr. Weinberg, my recollection is I think it ceased to exist as a corporation — I think there was something that Stacy wrote. But again as I testified to yesterday, there was that period of time when Judge Beach still had to come into the trust in order to go through all of the offices, the library, looking for discovery, so in effect it


was kind of forced to stay open longer after that.

Q Well, we’ll show you the checks. But the records from LMT —

THE COURT: If you have got the checks, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to show him, then I wouldn’t have to listen to this?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I will.

THE COURT: What you said yesterday was even after it closed down there was a period of time when you were working and you got paid for that, too, is that right?


THE COURT: Whatever the checks show, the checks show.


Q And then at some point you quit getting LMT checks, right?

A Correct.

Q And — but Mr. Minton continued to pay you. Right?

A No. That is incorrect. Mrs. Brooks did.

Q You knew that Mrs. Brooks was getting the money from Mr. Minton. Right?

A Well, you know — come on.

Q Come on yeah?


A Do I need to assume that for you to make a point?

The answer to the question is I was being paid by Mrs. Brooks. Her name is on the check. It is to me. That is it.

Q All right. And that was at $5,000 a month, as well?

A Correct.

Q And who did you negotiate that deal with?

A Mrs. Brooks.

Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about it?

A No. I specifically talked to Mrs. Brooks about it because she wanted everyone to take a cut in pay. And, again, this constant figure of $5,000 is something that we had discussed many years earlier.

Q “We” being?

A Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton. This is what I need to be able to live.

Q So —

A This is comparable to what I was making before I came and started doing this. I —

Q I’m sorry, before you ever signed on with Mr. Dandar, you had already discussed with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you needed $5,000 a month to live, correct?

A Correct.

Q And is that what you’re getting paid at FACTNet,


as well?

A No.

Q Now, when you started getting these checks — they were checks, right, from Ms. Brooks, you were still living in Clearwater. Right? Or — or Florida?

A I’m still living here. Yes.

Q And you’re living in a house that Mr. Minton gave you a $50,000 down payment on. Correct?

A That was part of the down payment that I had to make. My total down payment for that house was $70,000.

Q How much of that $70,000 did Mr. Minton give you?

A $50,000.

Q And when was that? When did he give you the $50,000?

A You know, I guess it was sometime in February.

And, you know —

THE COURT: If you have the check, show it to him.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t have the check, I don’t think.

A Well, you know, we’ve said —


Q Well, could you just tell me when you bought your house?

THE COURT: If he doesn’t know, he doesn’t


know. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.

A I know when I bought the house. I think the 21st or 22nd of February of 2000.


Q And at that point in February of 2000, you were getting Dandar & Dandar monthly checks as his consultant.


A Correct.

Q All right. And how did it come about Mr. Minton gave you $50,000 of the $70,000 that you needed for the downpayment?

A You want to hear this?

Q You asked him for it?

THE COURT: Go on ahead. You asked. He can tell it. Go on and rattle off however long this story is going to take.

A Prior to moving down to Clearwater, we had discussed — had many discussions about, well, where to put the Lisa McPherson Trust. We were kicking around this idea  of the LMT, where is it going to go? Should it be in D.C., should it be in Boston, in the Los Angeles area. Bob said Clearwater.

We discussed this, David Cecere, myself, I think Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton and there — there quite possibly could have been someone else there — I don’t remember — of


where to put this thing.

And Mr. Minton really wanted to put it in Clearwater. He felt that it was important that it happen in Clearwater. Which meant that everyone that was going to work there would be displaced from where they were currently living to move here.

Mr. Minton offered to pay the moving expenses for all concerned and to help all concerned establish residence in Clearwater.

Q So he paid your moving expenses which —

A Correct.

Q — included a $50,000 downpayment?

A No, sir. That is what was discussed in — in New Hampshire, you know, before we moved here. Ultimately, Mr. Minton gave me the $50,000 loan to purchase that house, but I paid for my own moving expenses and I paid — I mean, the whole deal cost about $80,000 for me to relocate.

Because I had a place in Memphis. And by this time I’m kind of living with — in Chicago. By this time I’m kind of living with my fiancee in Memphis, Tennessee, as well. So when I moved down to Clearwater I had to move from two cities; I had to move from Chicago, I had to move from Memphis, Tennessee, to Clearwater.

Q Mr. Minton paid some other things for you. He paid your attorney fees in the criminal case down here,


didn’t he?

A I believe the Lisa McPherson Trust paid those.

Q Well, did you — did you discuss with Mr. Minton that you needed funds to pay an attorney when you got charged down here?

A No.

Q So who did you discuss that with so that the Lisa McPherson Trust paid for your attorney fees?

A I wanted to hire a fellow named Rob Love to defend me in that action. Mrs. Brooks insisted that Mr. DeVlaming would handle my case and it would be taken care of by the Lisa McPherson Trust as a job hazard.

Q As a job hazard?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that was around $60,000 or $70,000?

A The bill that I saw — I think it was about $45,000 that I saw.

Q Do you think it was more than that or you don’t know?

A I think it could have been more.

Q Now, how long — so how would you get these checks from Ms. Brooks after the Lisa McPherson Trust closed down?

A She would mail them to me from Atlanta.

Q The last check you got was on or about April 4 of 2002?


A Correct.

Q And did you have a discussion — all these discussions that you had with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that you have testified about this year, in any of those discussions did you discuss with them your need for them to continue paying you?

A Mmm, no, I haven’t had a discussion about that. I mean, we — I think I brought up earlier, in September there was a renegotiation of — Stacy wanted people to take pay cuts or whatever. And —

Q But you didn’t take one?

A Correct.

Q I was talking about April. In that — do you remember you said you had all these conversations, that you referred to them in your affidavit, with Mr. Brooks — with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton —

A Oh, okay.

Q In those conversations did you raise the fact that you needed more money, you needed money, you wanted money?

A No.

Q Okay.

A I did not.

Q Now, you said that you began as the paid expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case in March of — of 1999. Correct?


A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me have the reporter — the clerk —

A To the best of my recollection.

MR. WEINBERG: — mark as a 3-page exhibit, if we can do that, your Honor —


MR. WEINBERG: — some checks. This will be 225.

THE COURT: All right. Do I have the right order, the way you handed it to me?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.


MR. WEINBERG: It is possible, however, that I screwed that up, but —

THE COURT: It is all right.

MR. WEINBERG: But the order should be February, March and May. That is what I’m hoping.



Q This is 225, Mr. Prince.

A Okay.

Q And you recognize the first page of 225 to be a February 2nd of 1999 check from Bob Minton for $6,500 to you?


A Yes, I do.

Q Do you recognize the second page to be a March — appears to be March 18, 1999 check to you for $5,000, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q From Mr. Minton again?

A Yes.

Q And the third check to be a May 4, 1999 check for $5,000 from Mr. Minton?

A Correct. Q Now, this was — these checks had to do with the agreement that you had already worked out with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks about you getting at least $5,000 a month?

A Correct.

Q But you were getting this on top of what you were getting from Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Q Okay. You think you started getting from Mr. Dandar a little bit later?

A Yes.

Q Now, what was this $5,000 a month for? I mean, one was $6,500. Do you know why it was $6,500?

A Do you know, I don’t know. I was looking at that. That is an anomaly. That must have been money left over from another month. Because as I said, there was a


stretch — period of time after I met — certainly from 1998 until I guess this first check here that I was just simply not paid at all.

Q But this — you are not getting paid for FACTNet work, you are getting paid for Lisa McPherson work prior to signing on with —

A No.

Q — Ken Dandar?

A No.

Q Well, what is this work? What is this —

A I’m in FACTNet when this is happening.

Q Why was FACTNet paying you?

A Well, I think I mentioned earlier that sometimes FACTNet just didn’t have money and I would call Mr. Minton. I can’t just be down here.

Q Now, when —

THE COURT: Weren’t you making $3,500 a month at FACTNet? Or am I thinking of something else?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you may be right about that because we did have — have some agreement, I think I reached some agreement with them to do that. And, you know, at that time I still had my other business. I still had other employees. I would often make trips, you know. So that could have been the case.


But the fact of the matter is the organization didn’t have the money.

THE COURT: I’m trying to think of why — I have no idea why it was $6,500 either unless perhaps —

MR. WEINBERG: I think it might have been some expenses or something.

THE COURT: Or perhaps he was getting $3,500 from FACTNet. He was supposed to start getting $5,000 from whatever, and I didn’t get — the difference from $3,500 to $5,000 would be $6,500.

That would be rational but —


Q In any event, Mr. Minton knew you had been doing this work in Clearwater for Mr. Dandar with regard to the PC folders? He knew that?

A I assume he did.

Q I mean, you were in — once you had spent that however long you said it was, I forgot now, a couple weeks at his house, you communicated with him regularly after that, didn’t you?

A Up until this very occurrence, yes.

THE COURT: What is “this very occurrence”?

This —

THE WITNESS: That is occurring here.



MR. WEINBERG: Now I’m going to mark as our next exhibit, your Honor —


MR. WEINBERG: — 226, this is 226 —



Q Now, Mr. Prince, 226 is a response that was filed by Mr. Dandar on April 6, 2001. And attached — and the response shows that it has checks attached, but if you’ll look at the summary on Page 2, it identifies a 6/30/99 check, an 8/20/99 check, a 9/15/99 —

A Excuse me, I’m not following you at all.

MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach a second?

THE COURT: You don’t need to read them all into evidence. Just put it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: I just wanted him to look at it.


Q You see those?

A Uh-huh.

Q Attached is those checks. So either look at the attachment or summary there.

Is it your recollection that is the sum and substance of what Dandar & Dandar paid you while you were on the — you know, being working as a consultant/expert?


A I believe this is correct with the possible exception of recent activity.

Q Right. No, I’m talking about prior to 2002.

A Okay.

Q And that the first check was on or about June 30, 1999. Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And the last check was on or about May 24, 2000.

A Yes.

Q And it’s your recollection that after you received the last check, that is when you started getting paid at the same rate by Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Correct.

Q You see for the most part these checks are $5,000 a month?

A Correct. I think I can explain what this other one is for, $1,772.

Q What?

A I mean all of $5,000 with the exception of the $1,772 —

Q Is that some expense check?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, the Lisa McPherson Trust actually withheld from your check. Right?

A Yes.


Q In other words, you — your salary was $5,000 a month but your take-home was whatever —

A About 35.

Q So I’m going to show you a series of those checks, as well.

A Okay.

Q You were on a 1099 for Mr. Dandar, in other words, he didn’t withhold from your checks, right?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You were considered an independent contractor when you worked for him, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.


MR. WEINBERG: This is 227, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.


Q This is 227.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark as 228 this document.

And all this is is the payroll records of Mr. Prince which show that the salary was $5,000, it shows what the withholding was.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: That is 228.


THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: These were produced by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

THE COURT: These weren’t additional moneys.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it just shows what the salary was, 228, and they withheld —


Q If you look at the checks, Mr. Prince, they are $3,552, starting in June of — of 2000, do you see that?

A Mmm, yes, I do.

Q And it is June, July, August, September, October, November, December —

THE COURT: Counselor — Counselor, just can you go from the beginning to the end?


Q It begins in June — end of June of 2000 and ends — one is out of place — ends —

THE COURT: June ’01.


Q June/01, except if you look at the other exhibit, Mr. Prince — if I could just approach, your Honor — the payroll records indicate that you would have received — you would have received a — one last payment on August 1, 2001 of $5,000 salary with all of the withholding. Do you see that?


A I’m trying to follow.

Q It is the last page. Right there (indicating).

August 1 —

A Oh, yeah. Okay.

Q All right? So that was probably the close-out payment or something?

A That was the last check. Yeah.

THE COURT: Counselor, from LMT again?

MR. WEINBERG: These are the LMT records, this is what they produced.


Q So it appears you were paid a salary as an employee from June of 2000 until August of 2001 at $5,000 a month. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And after August 1 of 2001, you continued to get your $5,000 a month but it was from Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q Now, did Ms. Brooks withhold from — I mean —

THE COURT: What could she withhold from? I mean, she was not paying him out of a business; she was giving him money.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a good question.


Q Did — what were you considered at that point when


you were getting this $5,000 a month from Ms. Brooks?

A What was I considered? Stranded in Clearwater.

All of the other staff had moved.

THE COURT: Was this a friend giving — giving you living money until you could get some other job?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.


Q Was there some understanding how long that was going on?

A No.

Q Was — had there been discussions it was going to end?

A No.

Q Now, you have a monthly mortgage, obviously, because you haven’t sold this house yet, right?

A Correct.

Q Who paid you in May of 2002?

A It’s not here?

Q May of 2002. The last check from Ms. Brooks you said was April 4, 2002.

A Correct.

Q You said for years you needed $5,000 a month to live.

A Correct.

Q So my question is who paid —


your money to live in May of 2002?

A I think from the State of Florida.

Q What do you mean?

A I filed for unemployment.

Q Well, how did you do that?

THE COURT: Because he was unemployed.


Q But you’d been unemployed since August of 2001.

A Yeah.

Q Or did you tell them that you had been employed since August of 2001 and just lost your job when you had this argument or disagreement with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Mr. Weinberg, it is actually quite a simple process. You go online, you tell them you are employed — unemployed, you put it in there, and they send you a check.  You check in. You have to look for employment. I mean, that is what I know about.

Q And who did you say your last employer was?

A Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what did you say the circumstances were that you had lost your job?

A Mmm, I — I think — I think maybe the place was bankrupt, went out of business, closed shop. Something like that, you know.


Q Is there some application you have to fill out?

A Online, yes.

Q And is there — so it is all online, it is with the State of Florida?

A Yes, it is with the State of Florida online, yes.

Q And so since May of 2002, you have been on unemployment?

A Since late May of — yeah. Late May of 2002.


Q So you are still on unemployment?

A No.

Q Well, when did that end?

A Well, when I worked out a new agreement with Mr. Dandar and came to appear as an expert and give testimony here, he gave me a check which I think he said he  would send here, and at that point when you receive money — when you are employed and you are actually receiving money, whether it is self-employed or otherwise, that terminates unemployment.

So that check effectively terminated my unemployment.

Q And so you notified the authorities of that?

A Yes. And I haven’t received another check since.

Q How many checks did you get — where do you get it, from the State of Florida, is that where you get the



A Yes.

Q And how many checks did you get for unemployment?

A Mmm, well, they do it — I think I was getting like $293 a week or something like that. Then they would double them up so the checks were like $494, I would get two of those —

THE COURT: Were you getting weekly checks?

THE WITNESS: No, I had it every other week.

So I got $494 — I believe I received —

THE COURT: Do you know?


THE COURT: Then why don’t you say that?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don’t know.


Q When did you get the first money from — when did you sign up with Mr. Dandar to be an expert again? What date?

A I don’t know.

Q Well, that can’t be long ago, so what is your best —

A Well, I don’t know the date. I don’t know.

Q What were the circumstances of you becoming an expert again?

A Mmm, you know, again, this whole thing was over.


People were going home. It was over. Your client took Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton as trophies and we are sitting here today and this brought me into this position here again today. So, you know, those are kinds of the circumstances.

THE COURT: Are you back as a consultant or expert or combination of the two?

THE WITNESS: I have been a combination of the two with him.

THE COURT: And what time did that start, about? Was it like —

THE WITNESS: Maybe a week ago, two weeks ago or however.

THE COURT: So between May of 2002 up until that time you were collecting unemployment?



Q And is there some agreement you executed with Mr. Dandar a week or two weeks ago?

A Yeah, that I participate in the case, I would help —

Q No, is there some written agreement?

A Oh, no.

Q And the day that it started is when you got the check. Is that when you became the expert, when you got the check?


A You know, I’m not — I’m not sure because —

THE COURT: As opposed to they talked, then they got a check —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m trying to date it. It is not that long ago. I’m trying to date it.


Q I mean, when it happened, did you — I mean, did this essentially happen simultaneously that somehow it was  established that you were going to be the expert again and you negotiated what you needed?

A There was no — I’ll try to explain it as best as I can, Mr. Weinberg.

THE COURT: I don’t care. I don’t want to hear it, I’m not interested. I’m just not interested.


Q Could I ask the amount then? What is the agreement? Are you getting paid on monthly basis? Salary?

A We have no agreement like that. I just — you know, I will put in X amount of time, I’ll get through this hearing —

THE COURT: Are you going to bill him per hour, or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.


Q And how much have you received from Mr. Dandar?


A $4,000.

Q Is that just a retainer?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Are you keeping records now?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

THE COURT: What is your hourly fee?


THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think this would be — I have a few other questions.


Q Did anybody else, between the time that Ms. Brooks quit giving you money and the time that Mr. Dandar did give you money, did anybody else give you whatever you want to call it, expense money, living money, expert money, money?

A No.

THE COURT: Between the time Ms. Brooks —

MR. WEINBERG: — quit giving him the money in April of 2002 of this year and whenever it was Mr. Dandar gave this check.

THE COURT: Other than his unemployment?

MR. WEINBERG: Other than his unemployment.


Q Did anybody else give you money?

A The answer is no.


MR. WEINBERG: I think that — you know, I’m sort of at the end of this section. If you want me to start another section I will, or we can —

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to go until about 12:15, if you don’t mind.


THE COURT: Because we kind of got a late break.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I really don’t mind.

THE COURT: Gee, I thought you were about to say you were done.

MR. DANDAR: I thought so, too.

THE COURT: I was real excited.

MR. WEINBERG: Or I could put it a different way. Maybe I could have some time to collect my thoughts. No, I’m not done.

THE COURT: All right.


Q Now, you have been asked before about —

THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I’m sorry.


THE COURT: What is the number of the response from Mr. Dandar? Can somebody give me a number on that?


MR. DANDAR: 226.

THE COURT: Thank you. I forgot to mark it.

MR. WEINBERG: Which means that the — that the LMT —

THE COURT: I have everything else marked. I just didn’t have that marked.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.


Q You have been asked before and testified about going to Key West. Do you remember that?

A I don’t remember testifying about that.

Q Well, did you go to Key West?

A Yes. But I don’t remember testifying about it.

MR. DANDAR: It is outside of the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what he’s going to ask about it, but it is probably doubtful it is outside of the scope of direct but —

MR. WEINBERG: It is. It is.

THE COURT: Go ahead.


Q And you were in Key West for what purpose?

A Vacation.

Q For a fishing trip is what you previously testified to.


A Yes, okay. And, you know, I don’t want to do this — if I have testimony, could you please just show it to me and ask me about it?

THE COURT: That is a fair question. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask a few questions and then I will show it to you because we do have — actually we’ll show you the video.

THE COURT: If he wants to see it, you show it to him now.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is it. He can look at it.

THE COURT: Then put it up then.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I need to ask him one question before.


MR. WEINBERG: One series.


Q In Key West, it didn’t have anything to do about Scientology or this case or cases against Scientology, is that right?

A Mmm, you know, we were there for a fishing trip.

I was there with Mr. Haverty, Mr. Haney, Mr. Ford Greene, Mr Dan Leipold, Mr. Dandar; Mr. Garko came out there. We all have a common interest, and it would be crazy for me to say that the subject of our work didn’t come up and was


discussed or whatever at some — you know, during the fishing trip.

So the — that is the best way I can answer that question.

THE COURT: So the answer is yes, you all discussed the case?


THE COURT: All right.


Q Well, let me play your testimony and then I’ll ask you about it.

THE COURT: What testimony? This is on direct?

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s in his deposition under oath in this case on November 17 —

THE COURT: See, you misled — I think Mr. Prince and I both thought you were talking about on direct examination which is what Mr. Dandar said was outside the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: No, in this case about Key West.

THE COURT: But it was in his deposition?


THE COURT: Okay. When you say testimony in this case, I’m going to assume you’re talking about direct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.


THE COURT: So if it is something else, you need to identify it for him and for me.


MR. DANDAR: What page number is this going to be?

MR. WEINBERG: Right here. This is a transcript of where this comes from.


THE WITNESS: May I have a transcript, too?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.


(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)


Q Did you go to Key West?

A Yes.

Q Who sent you to Key West?

A No one sent. I went.

Q Who paid for the trip?

A I paid for the majority of it while I was there, but it wasn’t — really not much to pay for. I paid to be on a boat to go out fishing. I paid —

Q Who — well, who gave you the money?

A I used my own money.

Q Well, where did that money come from?


A Money that I earned from working.

Q For FACTNet and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold?

A I think we’ve covered this earlier. You know, I have a — you know — different businesses, as well as  expert, and, you know, the money that I used for that particular trip came from money derived from income from work that I’ve done.

Q Including FACTNet, Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold, right?

A I’m not sure why you’re bringing up FACTNet. I thought we —

Q Is that right?

A No, that is wrong.

Q Well, when was the trip to Key West?

A Well, six weeks ago now.

Q And who was on the trip? What people were on the trip?

A Oh, you know, I really don’t want to discuss that because I was on a complete pleasure trip. It had nothing do with McPherson, or Wollersheim. Nothing. It had to do with fishing and having a good time. Okay?

Q Now —

A And I explained to you earlier that I am very reticent to bring up the names of people that I’m involved with that is activity outside of Scientology because of the


behavior of your client. How many times do we have to keep going over this?

Q Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar? Or are you embarrassed about bringing his name up? Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar?

A No, Mr. Dandar was not —

Q Answer yes or no?

A — on the trip. No.

Q Was Mr. Leipold on the trip?

A Mr. Leipold — Leipold was there, Mr. Weiner (sic). He was there.

Q Was Mr. Minton on the trip?

A No.

Q Ms. Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Vaughn Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Mr. Jacobsen on the trip?

A Who is Mr. Jacobsen?

Q You don’t know Mr. Jacobsen?

A No.

Q That is fine. Mr. Ward on the trip?

A No. No.

Q Did you talk about Lisa McPherson on the trip?

A Very little.


Q So Mr. Leipold went from California to Key West to just fish —

A Yes.

Q — with Jesse Prince?

A Yes. We went deep-sea fishing. We went 40 miles off the coast, caught fish like this. Had a ball.

Q And there was no planning session with regard to litigation. Is that correct?

A No.

Q Was Mr. Haney on the trip?

A Yes. And his son. And he learned to fish.

Excuse me. Now that we don’t have a question pending I would like to take a break. My leg is going to sleep.

Q We just broke ten minutes ago?

A Well, okay, I’m sorry, my leg is going to sleep.

I’ll take a two-minute break. Is that okay, Mr. Weiner (sic)?

Q Okay, take a break.


Q Now, I asked you if Mr. Dandar was in Key West with you. And you said no. You said no repeatedly. Is that correct?

A I don’t — if I did say no, I’m very sorry. He was not part of the trip. He came and appeared one day,


said, “Hi,” we had dinner and he left.

Q When you were outside did they — did they — Ms. Young remind you that you had made yet another mistake under oath? Did they tell you that?

A How could Ms. Young said — say that when I gave you testimony that she wasn’t there?

Q Well, who told you that then? Who told you — who corrected your — your false testimony that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there?

A I never gave false testimony. You asked me if Dandar was part of the trip that I went fishing. I said no.

Q And you were absolutely insistent that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there and yet he was in Key West?

A And came and had dinner and left. One time.

Q Flew down to Key West to have dinner and left.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, asked and answered and don’t answer it again.



Q Did he stay in a hotel down there?

A I don’t know.

Q What do you mean, you don’t know?

A That means that I don’t have personal knowledge of it.

Q And you understand what personal knowledge is,



A Oh, come on, please.

Q No, do you understand it, personal knowledge?

A I do not know if he was staying in a hotel there.

I was in a different place. I don’t know where he was.

Q How many — how long did you spend with him in Key West on that trip this summer?

A A dinner. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. Outside of dinner —

Q Dinner is usually at night, right?

A Correct.

Q Did you see him the next morning?

A No.

Q Now, was Mike Garko down there?

A Yes, he was. Dr. Garko was there.

Q Was Thom Haverty down there?

A Yes. He was.

Q So that is like the whole consulting team for the McPherson case?

A Mr. Garko was with Mr. Dandar.

Q So he just flew in for dinner?

A Came in and left.

Q Didn’t have anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case?

A No.


Q Who paid for your trip?

A As I gave testimony to earlier, I paid my own expenses to — Mmm — take the boat out. I went out on a boat several times. I paid about 50, 60 bucks a time. I bought beer, wine, food, cigarettes.

(End of playing of the video tape.)


THE COURT: Counselor, is it — is it important that —

MR. WEINBERG: We are demonstrating —

THE COURT: Right now we have testimony coming out, I paid for my trip.

MR. WEINBERG: We are playing it in context.

THE COURT: No, it is not. I see about a jillion pages. You are on Page 259 and I see it going straight through to Page 267. That is a lot of pages. And I see that you’re — there is a lot of consistent testimony here.

MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, when we play this, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of inconsistent statements.

THE COURT: Yes, you already played it. I’m saying why do I have to listen to the consistent testimony from a deposition, it is improper.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, because — because —


there has been a lot of argument, accusations in here about taking things out of context so we left it in context is what we did.

THE COURT: All right.

If you have any more like this, you — you cut and paste. You can give it all to me, go to where you want to go, but I don’t want to hear it —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I have better things to do than listen to this man’s testimony two times when it is exactly the same both times. Now, there is differences and I’m interested in hearing the differences.

MR. WEINBERG: And it is different from the other sworn testimony before —

THE COURT: And I’m interested in hearing that.

I’m not interested in hearing that which is not inconsistent. Do I make myself clear?


THE COURT: It is improper. All right.

MR. WEINBERG: We could play it on rebuttal case, and we thought it would be appropriate to play it here with Mr. Prince on the stand and get his explanation for the inconsistencies between this and —


THE COURT: I have no problem with your playing inconsistencies.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: That is called impeachment. I do have a problem with having to listen to Mr. Prince’s testimony on the stand and then listen to identical testimony in a deposition. Cut and paste it. You can give me the whole deposition, so if I want to read it in between, I can.

MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. Just play the rest — no, are we done?

That is fine.

THE COURT: I mean, there is more here and there may be more inconsistencies and I want you to play that —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, and we don’t have it set up and I’ll go back and look at it at the break.

THE COURT: Let me look and I can see what you have underlined and that is probably the important part. I see I have two pages here not underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: The only stuff being played is the underlined stuff.

THE COURT: That is not true, Counsel, it is not true.


MR. DANDAR: And I don’t have anything underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then — then I should have followed the transcript.

THE COURT: Page 259, this is about the time I interrupted you, “Who paid for your trip down there?

“As I gave testimony to you earlier, I paid my own expenses. I went out on a boat several times –”

MR. WEINBERG: Wait a minute. I thought — point made. I really thought when I was — that I had this — only the stuff that was yellowed.


MR. WEINBERG: That is why it was yellowed.

THE COURT: If there is something else in here you want to impeach, that is perfectly fine, you can catch it during lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll catch it during lunch. I think I pretty much made my point.


Q Now, in Mr. Dandar’s testimony in this proceeding on May 3, 2002 —

A Not this?

Q No, it is not this.

A Okay.


Q On Page 90 — this is in his direct testimony when it first started at the beginning — I could hand this up.

THE COURT: If you are going to try to impeach this witness from Mr. Dandar’s testimony —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I’m going to ask him a question about it.

THE COURT: You don’t need to show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony or ask him about it. You can’t do it. If their testimony differs, it differs. You can bring it up, inconsistencies in their testimony, but you can’t show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony and say, “Is that true?”


Q I take it that you did not spend hours and hours talking about Scientology strategy, the Lisa McPherson case and the other Scientology cases with Mr. Dandar or anyone else at the Key West meeting. Is that correct?

A That is correct. My recollection, I didn’t spend hours speaking to anyone about this. I mean, you know, there were a point in time when the attorneys were meeting, you know. And again, I don’t profess to be an attorney, I don’t try to be an attorney. I was there on a fishing trip, you know. Mr. Leipold has certain experience in dealing with Scientology. Mr. Ford Greene has certain experience with dealing with Scientology because of the cases he has


done. They had discussed with Mr. Dandar about that. This had nothing to do with me.

Q Well, you said Mr. Dandar in your testimony was only there for dinner one night for a few hours with Dr. Garko and flew back and there was no discussion about — about the case. That is what you said?

A You know —

Q Under oath. Correct?

A This is getting ridiculous, Mr. Weinberg. I mean, he flew in for dinner. He flew in. He brought in Mr. Garko. He had his own personal pilot. They were flying a little personal plane. They came, you know, while it was still light outside, you know, “Hi.” Thom Haverty’s wife is there and Captain Wayne’s wife is there, the boat. This is a social setting.

Q All right, so —

A There is nothing sinister about it.

Q So Mr. Dandar was not there for two or three or four days with Dr. Garko, was he?

A Not to my recollection. No.

Q Did you fly back to Tampa with Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not.

Q And did you talk, on the trip in Key West — which you remember it was in August of 1999?

A I’ll take your word for it.


Q And do you remember that on August 20th of 1999 is when you wrote that David Miscavige affidavit that was used  about him ordering the death of — letting — ordering or allowing her or causing her to die? Do you remember that?

A You got me all screwed up on the dates now. Could you just tell me again?

Q The testimony in this case is that the Key West trip was around August 8, 9, 10, 11 of 1999. Or 12th of 1999.

A Whose testimony is that now?

Q Mr. Dandar’s testimony, Dr. Garko’s testimony, Mr. Haney’s testimony. That is the testimony.

A Okay.

Q All right? You executed an affidavit — the affidavit in this case, part of what this hearing is about, on August 20 of 1998?

THE COURT: We are talking about that is the date he signed it?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is the date he signed it.

THE COURT: You are not going to suggest to this witness that whole affidavit was written on the date it was —

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t going to ask that.



Q Just ten or fifteen days later you executed this affidavit, right?

A Correct.

Q Now, did you participate in any conversations in Key West with anyone, whether it is Ford Greene, lawyer on  Scientology cases, or Dandar Leipold, or Ken Dandar, or Dr. Garko or Thom Haverty, part of the — part of the Lisa McPherson team, did you have conversations with anybody down there about any of the assertions in this what became the August 20th affidavit?

A Not that I recall.

Q Did you have any discussions down there with anyone about adding David Miscavige as a strategy to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I recall.

Q As far as you know, was anybody down there talking about the strategy of adding David Miscavige to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I know of.

Q And was it —

A Or not that I recall or have memory of.

Q But you did leave Key West and go directly to Tampa, correct, after that trip that you call a fishing trip?


A I believe that — that that is correct.

Q And as soon as you got to Tampa, you started work — you must have started working on this affidavit. Right?

A I think that affidavit was a work in progress by the time I got to Tampa already. If you notice — I mean,  that thing is pretty detailed. I have references. I have studied. You know, it takes me time to do these affidavits.

I just don’t sit and imagine it. I have my calendar, I have my notes or whatever and I sit and I do these things.

Q But the first check you got from Mr. Dandar was June 30, 1999. Correct?

A If that is what you just showed me, I’ll take your word for it. Okay.

Q So as you look back, as you think back, do you recall whether you were working on this affidavit before you went to Key West?

A I’m pretty sure that was a work in progress.

Q So you had already had discussions with people about adding Mr. Miscavige to the case?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall it so I’m going to say I don’t know.

THE COURT: The only thing I’m going to allow you to inquire about — remember we had this little business about the work product — is the meeting


which is at issue in this case, the meeting, whether Minton was there and whether Minton influenced that. Whether this man, as a consultant, paid or otherwise, had a conversation about adding David Miscavige is what I would have expected him to add. Nothing sinister about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Nothing said it was sinister, except Mr. Dandar already asked Dr. Garko about meetings, Mr. Haney about meetings, Ms. Brooks about meetings, so —

THE COURT: Meetings? What meetings? The only person that I know of that was asked about the Key West meetings was you-all. Maybe he brought it up —

MR. WEINBERG: He brought it up on May 3rd.

You didn’t let me cross-examine him. Mr. Dandar is the one that brought up the Key West meeting, said that is where he —

THE COURT: Well, do you think I think all those people sat down there and didn’t talk about this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t.

THE COURT: I don’t care what they said.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just —

THE COURT: I mean, you know —



THE COURT: You are acting as if you have a jury here that — I’m a judge that has been involved in this case very deeply, and as I tried to suggest to you on several occasions, I’m not an idiot.

MR. WEINBERG: I know that.

THE COURT: I know what lawyers do.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that.

THE COURT: And I know if you get this many lawyers together, all of whom have Scientology cases, you put them on fishing trip or movie theater or whatever, the subject comes up and they talk about it.

MR. WEINBERG: And you couldn’t have said it better, and I’m making a record which I’m done with on this thing —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — indicating that this witness, that is what this — you know, this Paragraph 34 in the complaint is all about, his sworn affidavit, has told lies. You know, I’m using that —

THE COURT: I already told you and I told your team, save it for the jury. I don’t care if he told a bunch of lies or not. The law in Florida is if he qualifies as an expert, he can testify.


MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand your ruling. I’m —


MR. WEINBERG: This is for credibility purposes.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. But I’m pretty much done with this area.

THE COURT: All right. Then let’s have lunch.


THE COURT: And as I said, you just have to forget — I hope you all don’t forget that I was a lawyer for a long time.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, believe me —

THE COURT: Please.

MR. WEINBERG: — I am well aware of that.

THE COURT: Frankly, my findings will go to the court this time with a presumption of correctness.

This is not a de novo hearing —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand that.

THE COURT: — by the Second District.

MR. WEINBERG: No, but it has also been a long proceeding.

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but it seems to me as if part of what you want to do is have


Mr. Prince up here just forever. I made statements before about Mr. Prince. I’m aware of Mr. Prince’s bias. I mean, Mr. Minton, according to Mr. Prince, shows where I said this before, this is not new.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, but I just started yesterday — I mean, yesterday late —

THE COURT: I understand. But you are spending an awful lot of time about pickets which I knew what they would say, with pickets that I knew would not be pretty, all as if you are trying to show me what I already know. You are wasting time here.


THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 1:30.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:35 p.m.)




I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.



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


CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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




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

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1


DATE: July 8, 2002. Afternoon Session.

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,  Circuit Judge.

Deputy Official Court Reporter,  Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

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



5340 West Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 201
Tampa, Florida 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

112 N. East Street
Suite B
Tampa, Florida 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff

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

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

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


APPEARANCES: (Continued)

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


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.


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?


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


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


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?


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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?


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


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


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


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,


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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 —



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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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



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 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 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 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?



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


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


time later.


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


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,


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


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 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



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 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.


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


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 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 —


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


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?




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


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,


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.


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


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


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?



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.


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.


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.


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.



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


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.


MR. WEINBERG: This whole thing is hearsay.


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


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.


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


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.


Q Based on your expertise and experience in


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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



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.



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


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 —


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.


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 —


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.


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?


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?


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 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


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.


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.


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

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



THE COURT: Oh, okay.


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 —


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

A Yes. They discovered information about him that


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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


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


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.



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?


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


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.


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


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.


Q From Mr. Minton.

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

THE COURT: In Switzerland?



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?


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 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.


Q All right. What was it the Bank of America


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.


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,


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.


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?


THE COURT: Is this —



THE COURT: The same October period of 2001?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.


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


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.


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,


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.


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.


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


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?



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


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


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.


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 —


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 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


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.”


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.



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


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



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


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


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?



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 —


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.



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.”


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 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 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 COURT: Okay. Go ahead.


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.


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


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 —


Q That is before the New York trip?

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


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.


Q When did that first occur?

THE COURT: When it occurred.

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


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.


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


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 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”?


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.




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


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


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.


Q What is the date?


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


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.


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


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


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.



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?


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.


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.


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.



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.


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?


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.


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


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


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.


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


Monique Yingling.

THE COURT: All right.


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?


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



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


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 —


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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 —


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.”


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


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.)


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



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

(Discussion had off the record.)


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.”


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


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



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.”


“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 —


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


Q Are you talking about the artwork business?

A Yes, the artwork business.


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 COURT: You are showing it.


Q Tell —

A Like this (indicating).

THE COURT: Say for the record, is that the


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


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.”


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,


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.”


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 —


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 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.


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?


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.


(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)



I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2002.



Declaration of Michael Lee Hertzberg (September 20, 1999)

Gerald L. Chaleff, SBN 39552
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017-5832
Telephone: (213) 629-2020

William. T. Drescher, SBN 93737
PMB 338
23679 Calabasas Road
Calabasas, California 93102-1502
Telephone: (818) 349-8100
Attorneys for Non-Party

Samuel D. Rosen, pro hac vice
399 Park Avenue, 3 1 st Floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
Telephone: (212) 318-6000

Alan K. Steinbrecher, SBN 79201
555 South Flower Street, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-2371
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Attorneys for Non-Party








Case No. C 332 027


DATE: October 15, 1999
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT: 24
Judge Charles W. McCoy, Jr.

I, Michael Lee Hertzberg, hereby declare and state:

1. I am an attorney, admitted to practice before the courts of New York State, the District of Columbia Bar, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I make the following statement of my own personal knowledge, and if called to testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.

2. I was counsel of record in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. I was present in May of 1994 in Dallas, Texas when Vicki Aznaran settled her then pending litigation against several churches of Scientology and related organizations. I was present to provide legal advice to the representatives of the defendants who were negotiating directly with Ms. Aznaran. She was represented by her attorney, Karen MacRae of Dallas.

3. On May 19, 1994 when Ms. Aznaran settled her litigation, she executed several declarations. Annexed hereto as Exhibits A – E are true and correct copies of the declarations executed by Ms. Aznaran. Her declarations cover a wide range of subjects. The most comprehensive declaration is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. This declaration provides an overview of her experience as a litigant against churches of Scientology, tactics used by individuals litigating against churches of Scientology, specific allegations from her complaint that she formally repudiated and ordered her attorneys to withdraw, the payment of thousands of dollars to witnesses for sworn statements against the churches of Scientology, and the addition of eleven pages of one of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations by an attorney representing opponents of Scientology, Graham Berry.

4. The remaining declarations (Exhibits B – E), cover specific topics related to Ms. Aznaran’s experiences as a litigant against churches of Scientology. Specifically, these declarations cover the following topics:

– Litigation tactics by Lawrence Wollersheim and Gerry Armstrong (Exhibit B);

– A specific refutation of claims that her testimony supports the contention that Church officials have destroyed documents in litigation (Exhibit C;

– Ms. Aznaran’s knowledge regarding Stacy Young (one of Mr. Wollersheim’s witnesses) (Exhibit D);

– In this declaration Ms. Aznaran also repudiates allegations of corporate irregularities similar to those being made in the instant case (Exhibit A);

– A declaration in which Ms. Aznaran explains why she executed the other declarations and her response to what she anticipates other apostates will say about her for having revealed their tactics (Exhibit E).

5. I invite the Court’s attention to particular passages relevant to the claims at issue here. Ms. Aznaran signed her declarations in May 1994, a year after her most recent statement cited by Wollersheim in support of his motion. In one declaration Ms. Aznaran explains how witnesses have been conditioned to sign affidavits to support whatever arguments opponents of churches of Scientology wish to “prove”:

The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.

Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. There is a group or “team” of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being paid for their testimony, and based on my experience, this testimony is being altered and falsified, either by the witnesses themselves or the attorneys. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 12, 17, 19.)

6. Ms. Aznaran even predicted that the attached declarations would be attacked by adverse litigants whose litigation tactics she has exposed:

On May 19, 1994, my husband and I each executed a series of declarations under penalty of perjury addressing a variety of issues. Among those declarations are one of mine that demonstrates that perhaps the most common litigation ploy that is used against Churches of Scientology is for opponents to submit false, inflammatory and accusatory declarations which make wild accusations irrespective of their falsity, lack of relevance, or lack of first hand knowledge.

I am executing this declaration on May 19, 1994 because I am certain that litigation opponents of the Church will react to one or more of my other contemporaneously dated declarations in precisely the fashion I describe in the preceding paragraph.

(Ex. E, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 2, 3.)

7. Ms. Aznaran identifies Stacy Young as employed by Graham Berry, Mr. Leipold’s former co-counsel in Wollersheim, to create inaccurate affidavits:

I know from subsequent conversations I have had that Andre Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy Young and others, each paid to create declarations for Mr. Berry when he needs them. On the basis of my knowledge of the Church and the declarants, I can state that these individuals are not “experts” ‘in any recognized sense of the word as I understand it. They are nothing more than witnesses who are being paid to make sworn statements against the Church. More than just being paid, they are actually employed by Mr. Berry as a source of signed declarations of testimony or as a ” source” of allegations, the need for such is decided by him. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 22.)

That Vaughn and Stacy Young are experts is not true. They are being called experts not due to expertise in Scientology but in order to collect insurance money for their testimony.

What this creates, and what the Youngs are part of, is a stable of people who, for pay, write declarations. (Ex. D, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 7, 8.)

8. Ms. Aznaran also swore to Ms. Young’s lack of knowledge of inside workings of churches of Scientology, both corporately and ecclesiastically:

In my staff capacities in the early 1980s, and later in my executive positions in the Religious Technology Center, I was directly or closely involved in meetings with senior staff members of various Church corporations. These senior staff made significant or major decisions which affected the future of the Church. I know that neither Vaughn nor Stacy Young were included in such senior decision-making processes. They were never senior or key Church executives. They were not consulted regarding, nor were they privy to, the meetings where major issues were discussed an decisions made.

I am informed that the Youngs have made claims to specialized knowledge about the corporate status and structure of the Church. Such claims are false. Neither of the Youngs were in a position to have detailed knowledge of the corporate and fiscal structures and operations of any Church of Scientology. In fact, Vaughn Young worked in the area of Public Relations for the entire time that I was acquainted with him. Stacy was primarily a writer in the Church public relations department. (Ex. D, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 4, 5.)

9. Ms. Aznaran repudiated allegations of corporate irregularities that were contained in her complaint against the Church of Scientology of California. These allegations are very similar to those being made by Wollersheim in the instant case:

Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation that I had been employed as a “missionaire” to remove assets of Defendant Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts where they could not be accessed. This allegation was false, and it was not an allegation that either my husband or I requested be included in the complaint….

It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint that I was employed as a”missionaire” to “set up sham corporate structures to evade prosecution generally.” This allegation is also false. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 8, 9.)

10. In another sworn declaration Ms. Aznaran identifies Wollersheim witness Gerald Armstrong as the source of a litigation technique utilized by this small group of witnesses:

The fundamental premise upon which the Church’s adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he state that a lack of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the Church when the litigant can “just allege it.” The active pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish ” corroboration” for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in pleadings, at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial testimony. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 5.)

11. Ms. Aznaran even addressed Larry Wollersheim’s allegations:

While I was in the Church I witnessed the “Fair Game” allegations made by Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim in their litigation against the Church. My position in the church at the time gave me broad access to what was occurring and I would have known were the allegations made by Armstrong and Wollersheim true. Wollersheim, for example, made the allegation that a pipe bomb was found on his parent’s lawn and, without any corroboration, blamed the Church. I know from my own personal knowledge that this outrageous allegation of Church involvement is absolutely false. During the Wollersheim trial, rumors began to spread throughout the trial courtroom that Judge Ronald Swearinger had been followed, his tires had been slashed, and his pet dog drowned, and that the Church was responsible for that supposed activity. All of those allegations of Church complicity were false, as I now personally attest. Armstrong alleged the Church was trying to kill him and this allegation was just made up. I know of its falsity of my own personal knowledge. Both Armstrong and Wollersheim, continue to make the same type of outrageous allegations of Fair Game to forward their litigation to this day, due ‘in no small measure to the fact that they practiced Fair Game so effectively in their earlier, victorious litigation against the Church.” (Ex. B, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 12.)

12. An allegation relied upon by Wollersheim is that David Miscavige ordered Vicki Aznaran and Jesse Prince to destroy documents, including documents compelled to be produced in this case. However, Ms. Aznaran states in another declaration:

During the time I was President of RTC, we fully complied to all discovery requests, I have never received an order from David Miscavige, Norman Starkey or Lyman Spurlock to destro any documents related to litigation and I have no reason to believe that the Church would destroy any documents related to the consolidated cases… (Ex. C, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 8.)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 20th day of September, 1999 at ______________.



  1. Document source:

Affidavit of Jesse Prince (August 20, 1999)


ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH



Case No. 97-01235





BEFORE ME, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am over 18 years of age and currently reside in the state of Illinois, Cook County. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to
testify thereto.

My History in Scientology

2.        I was in Scientology for 16 years (1976-92). In July of 1992, I escaped with my wife from Scientology headquarters at Gilman Hotsprings, Ca. Under duress, my wife and I were forced to return. After intense interrogation and isolation, my wife and I on October 31, 1992, were able to leave Scientology, but only after we were coerced to sign a release containing untrue statements protecting Scientology from legal liability. I remained silent about my experience in Scientology, since upon leaving I was subjected to routine monitoring by Mike Sutter of the Religious Technology Center, (RTC), and Earl Cooley, Scientology counsel. In July of 1998, I discovered that others had similar experiences and were courageous enough to speak out against Scientology. I therefore ended my silence so that others would know about the truth of what really happens within the inner circles of Scientology.

2. I am intimately familiar with the organization, movement, beliefs, practices and technologies of Scientology. I served in the highest ranks of Scientology, including second in command of the Religious Technology Center
(RTC), the most senior body of Scientology.

3. Beginning in March of 1983 and until the Spring of 1987, I held the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”. In this position, I was one of three members of the Board of Directors of RTC while David Miscavige was on its Board of Trustees.

4. In the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”, I was in charge of supervising all activities in every aspect of Scientology, i.e., supervising senior management structure of the “mother church”, Church of Scientology International, CSI. In the hierarchy of all of Scientology, I was only two steps removed from L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard gave his orders to David Miscavige who in turn gave them to me to supervise, delegate and enforce their execution. Corporately speaking, Vicki Aznaran, the President of RTC, and I were accountable and reported only to David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard. RTC gave CSI the license to use Dianetics and Scientology technologies.

5. Moreover, I was in charge of the Trademark Integrity Secretary, (TMI Sec), Jim Mooney, who had authority over the senior management of CSI called the Watchdog Committee. This Committee has complete authority over the different sectors of all of Scientology. The members of this committee are comprised of senior management officials who oversee and control the management of the following: FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION,(FSO); World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, (WISE); Scientology Missions International,(SMI); Reserves, the person responsible for the management and supervision of all bank accounts and revenues; Golden Era Productions, (GOLD);Flag Land Base,(FLB); Sea Org, (SO); Celebrity Center International, (CCInt); and Office of Special Affairs, (OSA), which handles all the legal and intelligence functions of Scientology.

7. Some of my specific duties as Deputy Inspector General, External, included supervising all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence and covert operations brought against perceived or imagined “enemies”, trademark registrations, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology corporations to create the false impression of “corporate integrity”. I was also in charge of the “Celeb Project,” which ran all auditing of Scientology celebrities, such as John Travolta, Priscilla Presley, Kirstie Alley, Anne Archer, and Chick Corea to name a few. I was also the auditor for David Miscavige and his wife, Shelly. I was the course instructor for all of the auditing courses for Alain Kartuzinski and his Cramming Officer for Class 10, 11, and 12, 12 being the highest level an auditor can reach.

6. I first became involved with Scientology in September, 1976, in San Francisco. In late 1976, I joined the elite Scientology paramilitary organization known as the Sea Organization, also known as the “Sea Org” or the acronym “SO”. Sea Organization personnel are authorized to take over and control Scientology organizations and to demote or promote personnel including chief executives, move bank accounts, and run the corporation as if SO personnel were employees or representatives of that corporation. The power of the SO is not only over the purported religious Scientology organizations but also prevails over the secular organizations such as WISE or Bridge Publications. The Sea Org’s pervasive authority is possible because the only personnel allowed into executive positions in these organizations are those who are in full agreement that the Sea Organization is the commanding organization.

7. Before I was recruited into the Religious Technology Center (RTC) in 1982, most of my experience was with Scientology technical material; the actual codified auditing and administrative techniques used within the  organization. This gave me considerable time to become familiar with these technical materials, most of which was written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. My knowlege and expertise of the technologies prompted my promotion to a technical position at RTC.

8. In the fall of 1982, L. Ron Hubbard issued an order to find the best Supervisor/Cramming Officer in all of Scientology and bring that person to Golden Era Productions (GOLD) to correct and train the senior executive management structure of the Scientology empire all around the world. A Supervisor in Scientology is analogous to a teacher in a class room. A Cramming Officer is responsible for the correction of individuals who have difficulty in executing the techniques of Dianetics and Scientology or otherwise following the dogma of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter. Mike Eldridge, a personal emissary of L. Ron Hubbard, in charge of conducting the search to
find the most qualified person to serve as Supervisor/Cramming Officer, recommended me to David Miscavige, who ultimately approved my appointment. I was transferred to, lived and worked at what is known as “Golden Era Studios,” near Hemet, California. It is also known as “Gold” or simply “The Base”, where senior management of Scientology is headquartered.

9. By Scientology standards, I was a very highly trained auditor and case supervisor. An auditor in Scientology is a trained practitioner of the pseudo scientific methodology of psychological counseling commonly referred to as “The Tech,” as dictated and written by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. A case supervisor is also a trained auditor who reads the “auditing” records of every counseling session performed by an auditor to ensure “The Tech” was applied exactly. In Scientology there are 12 levels of auditor and case supervisor classification, each level being “higher” than the next. In this system, I was certified as a Class 9 Auditor and a certified Class 9 Case Supervisor.

10. In my capacity as Deputy Inspector General, External, I traveled about the U.S. and outside of the U.S. on behalf of RTC. I traveled to Germany, Italy, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Mexico and Canada. These trips were designed to put together an infrastructure that would interface with RTC for the purpose of trademark enforcement. I was personally chosen by David Miscavige over Vicki Aznaran to speak on behalf of RTC to a worldwide audience via satellite to warn them that RTC holds the trademarks of Scientology and eradicates all those who violate “The Tech” or infringe on trademarks.

11. I became familiar with the trademark laws of the various countries in which I traveled. I interviewed and retained law firms, and put personnel in place that would report to RTC and be our site representatives. I testified as an expert witness on Scientology technology on behalf of RTC in federal court in Los Angeles in a RICO action with RTC as the plaintiff in 1985. In 1983, on orders from L. Ron Hubbard, I brought into existence within RTC a unit called “The Tech Unit”. The Tech Unit had the responsibility of inspecting PC files a/k/a Pre-Clear files, (counseling files), in all Scientology organizations to ensure “The Tech” was being applied 100% according to the standard tech.

12. When Hubbard died in 1986, there was a power struggle in Scientology for the next 18 or so months that resulted in Hubbard’s closest and most powerful aide (Pat Broeker) being removed from Scientology. Total power was taken over by David Miscavige who purged the organization of anyone who was friendly with Broeker. In mid 1987, because I did not want to participate in Miscavige’s power struggle to become the head of Scientology, I was forcefully removed from my position and put under armed guard at Happy Valley, located deep in the desert behind the Soboba Indian Reservation. It is my belief that my undated resignation, which I signed when appointed to the Board, was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned, when I had not.

Practices of Scientology

13. From time to time, based on orders that I received from David Miscavige, I would order others to engage in illegal activities against perceived enemies of Scientology. These activities included, but were not limited to, wire-tapping and document destruction. For example, on or about April,1983, I was present at a meeting which took place in Los Angeles, California, at a Scientology office called Author Services, Inc. (ASI), a for profit company
and the “literary agency” for Hubbard, run by David Miscavige. There is no real corporate structure among the many Scientology corporations. ASI was the meeting place where various Scientology corporations went to receive orders. Present at this meeting was David Miscavige, then the Chairman of the Board of ASI, Vicki Aznaran, Deputy Inspector General of RTC, Marc Yeager, Commanding officer of CSI, and Lyman Spurlock, who was “Director of Client Affairs” for ASI. Mr. Miscavige expressed concern at this meeting that there might possibly be a raid on Scientology by the IRS. At that time, none of the churches of Scientology had received tax exempt status. At this meeting, David Miscavige announced to the group that the destruction and alteration of documents to protect Scientology was in progress. One principal reason why tax exempt status had not been granted was the IRS’s position that Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH), was actually the managing agent of Scientology in complete disregard of the corporate structure of Scientology. We knew this to be a fact, but also knew that it violated IRS rules and thus had to be hidden. There was concern that the IRS would obtain the hundreds of daily, weekly and monthly LRH orders written by Hubbard and distributed throughout Scientology. These orders were commonly referred to in Scientology as “advices” to avoid the appearance that Hubbard was actually running Scientology. In fact, Hubbard was running Scientology. The principal concern expressed at this meeting was that the LRH orders or “advices” would be used to name Hubbard as the managing agent of Scientology. Because of an already existing fear that an LRH “advice” might fall into the wrong hands, these orders from him were written in a way that we could deny it was from him. His name was not on them. He was never cited in the dispatch except in the third person. There was no signature and a salutation in reply was never more than “Dear Sir.” The routing at the top referred to him merely as “###”, (three pound signs), while his closest aids, Pat and Annie Broeker, were referred to as “* “, (an asterisk). However, if a person (or agency) got enough of these, there would be little doubt that we were in touch with Hubbard (via ASI) and that he was telling us and each corporation what to do to make him more money.

14. David Miscavige specifically ordered destruction of any documents in ASI’s posession which would implicate Hubbard as managing agent of Scientology. He stated that under his directive the LRH orders, or “advices” were being collected and transferred by truck to a Riverside County recycling plant where the documents were to be “pulped.” This method of destruction was considered to be better than shredding. I was also put in charge of purging the remainder of the LRH orders, i.e. “Advices”. This was to include “advices” that were located in Church of Scientology of California (CSC); Church of Scientology International (CSI); and RTC.

15. Several weeks after the April, 1983 meeting, I attended another meeting at the ASI offices concerning the continuing destruction of Scientology corporate documentation. In attendance at this meeting were David Miscavige,
Lyman Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Norman Starkey, Marty Rathbun, and Scientology attorney, Earl Cooley. At this meeting, Miscavige, for the first time, stated that Scientology had been ordered by a court to produce various documents concerning a former Scientology member, Lawrence Wollersheim, who had a lawsuit pending in Los Angeles against the Church of Scientology of California. The court had ordered Scientology to produce  Wollersheim’s entire Pre-Clear file.

16. A “Pre-Clear” file is one of the several files kept on members. The Pre-Clear file is the file that includes all written records of all “confessionals’ done by the member. This means that it includes not only the most self-damaging material, but it also reflects every problem the person might have had with the organization, including complaints. This Pre-Clear file grows with the person’s tenure in Scientology.

17. Mr. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file was several thousand pages in length and stood as high as a six-foot tall man. Initially at this meeting, it was decided that Mr. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file would be redacted and culled of any evidence or documentation which might assist Wollersheim in his lawsuit against CSC. There was also concern that the materials known as Clear, OT I, OT II, OT III, and NED for OT’s (NOTS) would be open to public  inspection if Wollersheim’s files were produced as ordered. Scientologists are taught that a person could catch pneumonia and die if that person is prematurely exposed to these “upper level” materials without first having taken many hours of preparatory auditing.

18. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file was purged of any incriminating evidence against Scirentology based on a direct order from Miscavige in the presence of Scientology’s lead trial counsel, Earl Cooley of Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Cooley thereafter represented to the court that the purged file was indeed the entire PC File of Mr. Wollersheim. Ultimately, approximately 50 pages were produced pursuant to the court order.

21. Later, I was informed that a second court order was issued to produce Wollersheim’s entire file. Faced with the prospect of having to produce the entire file, Miscavige gave orders that the entire file simply be destroyed by being pulped.

22. Pursuant to Miscavige’s orders, I ordered Rick Aznaran to take Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear files to the recycling plant in Riverside to be pulped. Several hours after I gave the order to have Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear files destroyed, Rick Aznaran returned and confirmed that the records had been pulped and even showed me a small bottle of pulped material. “Here’s what’s left,” he said.

23. Members of Scientology are induced to confess to acts that, if not outright criminal, are embarrassing or possibly destructive to the person’s job, marriage or profession. For example, shoplifting, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, drug abuse, or any other potentially embarassing or illegal matters are recorded. Members are urged to write down these compromising facts in their own handwriting, under the guise that it is a “religious confessional” for the member’s good. The truth is that these “confessions” are kept to blackmail and extort members should they dare to speak out against Scientology. Members are also coerced to sign documents that are  self-damaging in order to protect Scientology in case they dare to leave its control and speak the damaging truth. I know all this to be true, because I watched this done to others; I did it to others; and it was done to me.

24. I have personally witnessed executive decisions directed to members instructing them to “end cycle”, i.e., die. I have personally read written instructions by Ray Mithoff concerning the following individuals: a) Diane Morrison, a personal friend of mine. She had cancer. Radiation treatment is forbidden by Scientology. She was instructed by Ray Mithoff to “end cycle.” Her husband, Shawn Morrison, was ordered by Ray Mithoff to transport her off of the Scientology property at Gilman Hotsprings, California, to her mother’s house so that she would not die on Scientology property. b) Ted Cormier, a personal friend of mine. He had Parkinson’s disease. He was ordered to leave Gilman Hotsprings and go directly to Flag for NOTS 34, auditing to cure his cancer. When this failed, Ray Mithoff sent him orders in his Pre-Clear folder for him to “end cycle.” He died.

25. I have personally reviewed a video of a television interview of Roxanne Friend, a former Scientologist. She had cancer which could have been successfully treated. She was kidnapped in California and taken across
country in a motorhome to FLAG in Clearwater where she was held against her will, which prevented her from getting cancer treatment. After she escaped she gave this interview that I observed on a television talk show. She
disclosed that she was beyond treatment because of this delay and subsequently died. Based on my experience in Scientology, her statements ring true.

My Experience with Isolation

26.  In 1973, Hubbard announced to the Scientology world that he had solved the problem of how to handle a person in a “psychotic break”. Hubbard stated that this was a “technical breakthrough” which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the twentieth century. He further said his discovery means the last reason to have psychiatry around is gone. He went on to say the key is what caused the person to introspect before the psychotic break. During my tenure in Scientology I have observed four instances of people having a psychotic break. In each case the person was sleep deprived; each had been told their job performance was inadequate; and each person was subjected to Scientology ethics.

27. I am familiar with the practice of “Isolation,” also known as “baby watch” as practiced by Scientology and I have participated in the “handling” of one Scientologist that was ordered to “Isolation”. No one volunteers to go into Isolation. I have seen with my own eyes how a person is driven to the point of having a “psychotic break” and the subsequent brutality of treatment the person then receives as a result of the handlers following strict Scientology methods.

28. In the four instances of Isolation I observed, the person was locked in a room with at least two other people guarding the exit door. The people that watch the person in a psychotic break are not allowed to talk to the person at all. They are only allowed to physically restrain the person. The reason there are people guarding the exit door is that the person wants to leave and attempts to leave time after time. By their own policy the person in a psychotic break is not allowed to leave until the Case Supervisor allows it. Here is a direct quote from Scientology technical “Introspection Rundown, Additional Step”: “Dear Joe. What can you guarantee me if you are let out of
Isolation?” If the persons’s reply shows continued irresponsibility toward other dynamics or fixation on one dynamic to the exclusion of others damaged, the C/S (Case Supervisor) must inform the person of his continued Isolation and why. Example: “Dear Joe. I’m sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet…”

29. In 1987, I was at a place called Happy Valley, located behind the Soboba Indian Reservation in California. Happy Valley is where the Scientology Rehabilitation Project Force, RPF, is located. It is a prison /slave labor camp for Scientologists who no longer ascribe totally to the doctrine of Scientology. I, along with six other Sea Org members, were ordered to do a “isolation watch” on another Sea Org member who was having a psychotic break. Prior to having the psychotic break the person was very normal. She had been deprived of sleep for many days due to a deadline she was ordered to meet on her job. She was sent to “Ethics” and was constantly humiliated and degraded for making errors and for falling asleep at her work station. When she was given to me to watch she was on her hands and knees and literally barking like a dog. She thought she was L. Ron Hubbard. It was at this time that I learned how forced feeding was done and the extent of restraint we all had to enforce on a young woman barely 5 feet tall. I was horrified at just how close she was to losing her life due to the “help” we were being ordered to give her. Even though she was now being allowed to sleep, she could not sleep and had been up for nearly four days. She was in a very agitated and violent state. She would scream for hours until she could scream no more. She fought to escape and mutilated herself in the process. Finally a doctor was called in and it took four people plus the doctor to hold her down to give her a shot to make her go to sleep.

30. A major part of the trauma a person experiences in Scientology’s “isolation” treatment is the person’s struggle to get away or to get out of the room they are being confined in. The young woman I had to “iso watch” had
numerous injuries as a result of her beating on the walls and the door trying to get away. She would drift in and out of her psychotic state. I was informed by the security guard watching over us all that her family was desperately trying to find her and during the times when she was “okay” I had to let her call her mother after I told her what to say. I held a separate phone while she talked to her family and when things started to get “weird” I would end the conversation. She would tell her mother that she was okay and would be home soon. During this time she became very upset with me because I made her see a doctor she did not know and who was not allowed to talk to her
while he was giving her shots. She physically attacked me on more than one occasion. This was a public relations nightmare for Scientology and this is why she was told to lie to her family about what was really going on with her. This went on for two months. After she seemed stable for a week and completed the “Introspection Rundown” she was made to sign a release form which in essence said Scientology was not responsible for what had happened to her and she was quickly sent home.

31. If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that based upon my own observations she would have died.

32. The people who are selected to watch a person in a psychotic break are trained to make a person physically comply with orders and demands. Controlling a person physically is taught in Scientology in its Training Routine Courses. As an example, in what is called “Training Routine 7, High School Indoc” the Scientology student is trained to never be stopped by a Pre-Clear. No matter what the person in “Isolation” does or says, they are not allowed to leave until the C/S says they can.

My Involvement in the case of Lisa McPherson

33.  I have been retained as an expert witness and trial consultant in the case of Lisa McPherson since Nov, 1998. In Dec, 1998, Scientology representative Glenn Stilo brought Lisa McPherson’s Pre Clear files to the
office of Ken Dandar by order of this court for inspection. Glenn Stilo and I knew each other when I was in Scientology. At that time, Glenn was fully aware that I was present at Mr. Dandar’s Office and that I was there inspecting Lisa McPherson’s auditing files. I have also reviewed the “caretaker logs” of Lisa McPherson at the Fort Harrison Hotel and her Ethics File.

34. It is obvious from these files that Lisa McPherson complained that auditing and Scientology were not working for her in 1995 and that she wanted to leave and return to Texas. Her “stats” were down, i.e., her production and income at AMC Publishing. As a result, she was placed in Ethics at her work where the records revealed that she was constantly doing “amends” and writing “O/W’s”, overts and write-ups, which resulted in less time to obtain adequate sleep which further, in my own observations, leads to psychotic breaks. This is confirmed by L. Ron Hubbard in his own writings, “Introspection Rundown Additional Steps.”

35. FLAG at the Ft. Harrison Hotel is “the mecca of technical perfection” according to Scientology. I can attest that it is a high crime in Scientology to alter or ignore the tech. It is also a high crime to lose or omit vital information from any PC folder, including “caretaker logs.” The Lisa McPherson “caretaker logs” are missing substantial day-to-day portions, in particular, the last three and one-half days of her Isolation. This is no accident. Records of this magnitude are not lost. Based on my experience, these missing records were intentionally destroyed to conceal material matters damaging to Scientology. Hubbard explicitly writes in CS SERIES 97 and CS SERIES 98 that “omissions from folders and complete loss of folders is a very serious matter….” If proven, expulsion from Scientology is mandatory.

36. I have been asked to address the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson would have consented to her own isolation prior to experiencing a psychotic break. Without question, no Scientologist, except a Class 4 auditor or above, would have prior knowledge of how someone would be treated who is declared to be PTS Type III: a “Potential Trouble Source” who is experiencing a psychotic break. Only those auditors would have the knowledge that “Isolation” is implemented or the details of “Isolation” for those who are PTS Type III. In reviewing the Scientology records of Lisa McPherson, she was not an auditor and would therefore never have acquired the knowledge prior to becoming PTS Type III to consent to being held against her will in isolation.

37. In Scientology technical bulletin “Search and Discovery” under the subtitle “Handling Type III”, L. Ron Hubbard wrote, “But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a
final defense, sometimes can’t be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught to ever become quiet, the extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as “catatonia” (withdrawn totally) and “manic” (too hectic).”

38. Following the dogma of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter is the highest priority for a person practicing Scientology. In a Scientology policy letter called “Keeping Scientology Working”, L. Ron Hubbard says “The proper
instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we are going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”

39. In terms of the report and control of RTC, it is required by any and all Scientology organizations to report directly to RTC any extreme deviations from “standard tech”. For example, it would be considered a deviation when a
Scientology Pre-Clear, (a person that has paid for auditing services from Scientology), has left Scientology and threatens to sue. Other examples would include a Pre-Clear who is not getting the expected results or one who has had a psychotic break (PTS Type III). Once the RTC Tech Unit completed a review of a Pre-Clear folder, it would be sent back via the Office of the Senior Case Supervisor International (located in Church of Scientology  International) to ensure compliance to orders and correction as deemed necessary by the RTC Tech Unit. CSI receives updated status reports and without question would have received updated status reports on the Isolation of Lisa McPherson and her deteriorating medical condition because RTC has an on site representative at FLAG. These reports would be composed and sent up line to Ray Mithoff at RTC by the Senior Case Supervisor, Alain Kartuzinski. Ray Mithoff would then take the report to RTC. The Office of Special Affairs, OSA, locally and internationally, would be informed of the Isolation as well. Marty Rathbun, Inspector General Ethics, is over all the legal affairs of every case and situation in Scientology and would also have knowledge of a PTS Type III in Isolation.

40. The above reporting procedure is still practiced in the Scientology conglomerate today. For example, in the attached “D/Inspector General Office,” published by Religious Technology Center and copyrighted in 1997, it
compels reporting directly to RTC any listed situation, such as “any person who acts PTS Type III.” This is all done in order to help RTC “locate and eradicate any suppression (i.e., a threat) and thereby make sure that Scientology keeps working.” Lisa McPherson was deemed PTS Type III and therefore was such a threat.

41. RTC receives all reports on situations involving Isolation for guidance from RTC to the Senior Case Supervisor, Sr. C/S. RTC then reports the matter to Sr. C/S INT, i.e., International, office for further investigation. Sr.
C/S INT then reports back to the RTC Reports Officer. Ray Mithoff is the Sr. C/S INT at CSI, the mother church. Ray Mithoff, Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige, as they have done on other occasions within my personal knowledge, meet and discuss various options available to Scientology on how to deal with a public relations flap. No one else has the authority to do so. Lisa McPherson was such a public relations flap to Scientology since she took her clothes off in public and was placed in Isolation.

42. In records I have reviewed provided by FLAG in this case concerning Lisa McPherson, she had previously complained that Scientology was not working for her and her stats were down. Based upon my own experience and Scientology procedures and protocol, these three individuals would have met and discussed on several occasions what to do with Lisa since she was not improving in Isolation. It is important to know that Scientology has no prohibition on members seeking emergency medical treatment as stated in HCOB Physically ILL PCs and Pre-OTs, 12-3-69, which mandates a medical cure before auditing, where Hubbard states “if we already know he is ill we should call in the doctor.” page 328 of Volume 8 of the Technical Bulletins

43. Yet, from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals: Mithoff, Rathbun, and Miscavige, had no option other than to permit her to die in Isolation rather than take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physicians, press, and authorities with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery. This is true because in
Scientology it is never an option to be held accountable. Contrary to their own policy that “THE CORRECT ACTION ON AN INSANE PATIENT IS A FULL SEARCHING CLINICAL EXAMINATION BY A COMPETENT MEDICAL DOCTOR.” Page 327, Volume 8 of the Technical Bulletins, Scientology decided in Lisa’s case, through these three individuals acting through FLAG, not to follow this particular policy and let her die. Scientology provides an option called “end cycle” which is permitting and ordering the person to die. It is obvious to me that the decision was to permit Lisa McPherson to die rather than face an extreme public relations flap by taking her to the local emergency room in her morbid condition as described in the “caretaker logs.”

44. Based on my personal experience and expertise in Scientology, I have formed the following opinion: Lisa McPherson was held against her will in Isolation and when she did not respond to Scientology technical handling, FLAG, on orders from David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff, and Marty Rathbun sat mute and watched her die after she no longer had the strength to fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was the chosen option to  minimize a public relations flap.

45. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct.


SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this ___ day of August, 1999.

My commission expires:

Personally Known ____
Produced ID ____
Type of ID Produced _____________________


Declaration of Jesse Prince (June 21, 1999)

Daniel A. Leipold – SB #77159
Cathy L. Shipe – SB #156453
160-A West Seventeenth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone: (714) 796-1555

Ford Greene
711 Sir Francis Drake Bivd.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-0360

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
PAUL LOPEZ, by and through his Guardian ad Litem


RAUL LOPEZ, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, ALICIA LOPEZ,

vs .


CASE NO.: BC200852



I, Jesse Prince declare as follows;

1 . I am over 18 years of age and currently reside in the State of Colorado, County of Boulder. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to testify thereto.

2 . I am intimately familiar with the Scientology organization, movement and beliefs because I was in scientology for 16 years (1976-92) and served in the lighest ranks, including as the second in command of the Religious Technology Center (RTC). At that time, my position was “Deputy Inspector General, External” which meant being in charge of all activities outside the body of Scientology. This included being in charge of all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence (spying, covert operations) brought against perceived or imagined “enemies” (which ranged from critics to media to the courts), trademark registrations, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology organizations, which was how we tightly controlled all Scientology corporations while creating the false impression of “corporate integrity.”

3 . From the time RTC was created in the early 80’s until the time I left RTC which was located at Gillman Hot Springs (hereinafter referred to as the “base”), was at that time the most senior, most powerful and most influential organization in all of Scientology. All at RTC were Sea Org members, as are all at the base. But because of RTC’s position, we were the elite at the base.

4. In March 1983, I became the Deputy Inspector General, External, and a member of the Board of Directors or RTC, as Treasurer. (The only other board members were Warren McShane as Secretary and Vicki Aznaran as President, during this time.) At the time I was appointed a member of the Board of Directors of RTC I was forced to sign an undated letter of resignation. This is standard practice with all Scientology board members and is another means by which the Scientology corporations are controlled while giving the appearance of corporate integrity.

5 . I have been privy to the destruction and alteration of documents to protect the group. On or about April of 1983 I was present at a meeting, which took place in Los Angeles, California at a Scientology office called Author Services, Inc. (ASI). ASI presented itself as the “literary agency” for Hubbard but it was actually the top of the Scientology empire at that time. All of Scientology was being directed from ASI in 1982. ASI was where various Scientology corporations went to receive orders.

6. Present at the meeting was David Miscavige, then the chairman of the board of ASI, Vicki Aznaran then the Deputy Inspector General of Religious Technology Center, (RTC) and Lymon Spurlock, who was “Director of Client Affairs” for ASI. Mr. Miscavige expressed concern at this meeting that there might possibly be a raid on Scientology by the IRS. At this time, none of the churches of Scientology had received tax exempt staturs. One principle reason why tax exempt status had not been granted was the IRS’s position that Scientology’s founder L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) was actually the managing agent of Scientology in complete disregard of the corporate structure of Scientology. We knew this to be a fact but also knew that it violated IRS rules and thus had to be hidden.

7 . There was concern that the IRS would obtain the hundreds of daily, weekly and monthly LRH orders written by Mr. Hubbard and distributed throughout Scientology. These orders were commonly referred to in Scientology as “advices” to avoid the appearance that LRH was actually running Scientology. In fact, LRH was running Scientology. The principle concern expressed at this meeting was that the LRH orders or “advices” would be used to name L. Ron Hubbard as a managing agent of Scientology.

8. Because of an already existing fear that an LRH “advice” might fall in the wrong hands, these orders from him were written in a way that we could deny it was from him. His name was not on them. He was never cited in the dispatch except in the third person. There was no signature and a salutation in reply was never more than “Dear Sir.” The routing at the top referred to him merely as “*.” An asterisk. However if a person (or an agency) got enough of these, there was there would be little doubt that we were in touch with Hubbard (via ASI) and he was telling us and each corporation what to do to make him more money.

9. David Miscavige specifically stated that ASI was “already dealing with the problem”, ridding ASI of any documents that would implicate L. Ron Hubbard as managing agent of Scientology. He stated that under his directive the LRH orders, or “advices”, were being collected and transferred by truck to a Riverside County recycling plant where the documents were “pulped”. This method of destruction was considered to be better then shredding. I was also given instructions that I was in charge of purging the remainder of the Scientology organizations of LRH orders. This was to include Church of Scientology of California (CSC); Church of Scientology International (CSI); and RTC.

10. Several weeks after this first meeting I attended a second meeting at the ASI offices concerning the continuing destruction of Scientology corporate documentation. In attendance at the second meeting were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Norman Starkey and Marty Rathburn. At this meeting, David Miscavige for the first time stated that Scientology had been ordered by a court to produce various documents concerning a former Scientology member named Lawrence Wollersheim who had a lawsuit pending in Los Angeles against the Church of Scientology of California. The court had ordered Scientology to produce Mr. Wollersheim’s entire “preclear” (PC) file.

11 . A ” PC” file is one of several files kept on members. The PC file is the file that includes all written records of all “confessionals” done by the member. This means that it includes not only the most self-damaging material but it also reflects every problem the person might have had with the organization, including complaints. This PC file grows with the person’s tenure in Scientology.

12. Mr. Wollersheim’s PC file was several thousand pages in length.and stood as high as a six-foot tall man. Initially at this meeting it was decided that Mr. Wollersheim’s PC file would be redacted and culled of any evidence or documentation which might assist Mr. Wollersheim in his lawsuit against CSC. There was also concern that the materials known as Clear, OT I, OT II, OT III and NED for OT’s (NOTS) would be open to public inspection if Mr. Wollersheim’s files were produced as ordered. Scientologists are taught that a person could catch pneumonia and die if that person is prematurely exposed to these “upper level” materials without first having taken many hours of preparatory auditing. Ultimately, approximately 50 pages were produced pursuant to the court order. Mr. Wollersheim’s PC file was culled based on a direct order from David Miscavige.

13. Later, I was informed that a second court order was issued to produce Mr. Wollersheim’s entire file. Faced with the prospect of having to produce the entire file, David Miscavige gave orders that the entire file simply be destroyed by being puiped.

14. Pursuant to Mr. Miscavige’s orders I ordered Rick Aznaran to take Mr. Wollersheim’s PC files to the recycling plant in Riverside to be pulped. Several hours after I gave the order to have Mr. Wollersheim’s PC files destroyed, Mr. Aznaran returned and confirmed that the records had been pulped and even showed me a small bottle of pulped material, saying “Here’s what’s left.”

15. The material that David Miscavige ordered destroyed and which Rick Aznaran had pulped was the same material that the court had ordered produced in Mr. Wollersheim’s Los Angeles court case against CSC.

16. It is incumbent on this and every court, as well as the authorities, to realize the amount of deception, chicanery, lying, manipulation and outright criminality that Scientology will employ to hide the truth about their criminal activities. They will spend any amount of money to do this. I know because I was part of it for years. I received orders to break the law. I issued orders to break the law. I got others to break the law, and then I helped to hide these criminal activities just as they are hiding them now.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 21st day of June, 1999, at Boulder Colorado


Jesse Prince


Declaration of Jesse Prince (June, 1999)

Daniel A. Leipold, State Bar No. 77159
960-A West Seventeenth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone: (714) 796-1555
Facsimile: (714) 796-1550






Case No.: C 332 027


I, Jesse Prince declare as follows:

1. I am over 18 years of age and currently reside in the State of Colorado, County of Boulder. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to testify thereto.


2. I am intimately familiar with the Scientology organization, movement and beliefs because I was in Scientology for 16 years (1976-92) and served in the highest ranks, including as the second in command of the Religious Technology Center (RTC). At that time, my position was “Deputy Inspector General, External” which meant being in charge of all activities outside the body of Scientology. This included being in charge of all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence (spying, covert operations) brought against perceived or imagined “enemies” (which ranged from critics to media to the courts), trademark registrations, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology organizations, which was how we tightly controlled all Scientology corporations while creating the false impression of “corporate integrity.”

3. From the time RTC was created in the early 80’s until the time I left RTC, RTC was the most senior, most powerful and most influential organization in all of Scientology. All RTC employees were Sea Org members.

4. In March 1983, I became the Deputy Inspector General, External, and a member of the Board of Directors RTC, as its Treasurer. (The only other board members were Warren McShane as Secretary and Vicki Aznaran as President, during this time.) At the time I was appointed a member of the Board of Directors of RTC I was forced to sign an undated letter of resignation. This is standard practice with all Scientology board members and is another means by which the Scientology corporations are controlled while giving the appearance of corporate integrity.


5 . During my tenure with RTC, I have been privy to the destruction and alteration of documents to protect the group. For example, on or about April of 1983 I was present at a meeting, which took place in Los Angeles, California at a Scientology office called Author Services, Inc. (ASI). ASI presented itself as the “literary agency” for Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. In reality it was actually where the Scientology empire was being run from at that time. All of Scientology was being directed from ASI in 1983. ASI was where various Scientology corporations went to receive orders.

6 . Present at this particular meeting was David Miscavige, then acting under the title of chairman of the board of ASI, Vicki Aznaran then the Deputy Inspector General of Religious Technology Center, (RTC) and Lymon Spurlock, who was “Director of Client Affairs” for ASI. Mr. Miscavige expressed concern at this meeting that there might possibly be a raid on Scientology by the IRS. At that time, none of the churches of Scientology had received tax exempt status.

7 . One principle reason why tax exempt status had not been granted was the IRS’s position that Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) was actually the managing agent of Scientology in complete disregard of the corporate structure of Scientology. We knew this to be a fact but also knew that it violated IRS rules and thus had to be hidden.

8 . There was concern that the IRS would obtain the hundreds of daily, weekly and monthly LRH orders written by Mr. Hubbard and distributed throughout Scientology. These orders were commonly referred to in Scientology as “advices” to avoid the appearance that LRH was actually running Scientology. In fact, LRH was running Scientology. The principle concern expressed at this meeting was that the LRH orders or “advices” would be used to name L. Ron Hubbard as the managing agent of Scientology.

9 . Because of an already existing fear that an LRH “advice” might fall into the wrong hands, these orders from him were written in a way that we could deny it was from him. His name was not on them. He was never cited in the dispatch except in the third person. There was no signature and a salutation in reply was never more than “Dear Sir.” The routing at the top referred to him merely as “*,” an asterisk. However if a person (or an agency) got enough of these, there would be little doubt that we were in touch with Hubbard (via ASI) and he was telling us and each corporation what to do to make him more money.

10. David Miscavige specifically stated that ASI was “already dealing with the problem”, ridding ASI of any documents that would implicate L. Ron Hubbard as managing agent of Scientology. He stated that under his directive the LRH orders, or “advices”, were being collected and transferred by truck to a Riverside County recycling plant where the documents were to be “pulped”. This method of destruction was considered to be better than shredding. I was also given instructions that I was in charge of purging the remainder of the Scientology organization of LRH orders. This was to include Church of Scientology of California (CSC); Church of Scientology International (CSI); and, RTC.


11. Several weeks after this first meeting, I attended second meeting at the ASI offices concerning the continuing destruction of Scientology corporate documentation. In attendance at the second meeting were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Norman Starkey of ASI and Marty Rathburn of ASI. At this meeting, David Miscavige for the first time, stated that Scientology had been ordered by a court to produce various documents concerning a former Scientology member named Lawrence Wollersheim who had a lawsuit pending in Los Angeles against the Church of Scientology of California. The court had ordered Scientology to produce Mr. Wollersheim’s entire ‘preclear” (PC) file.

12. A “PC” file is one of several files kept on members. The PC file is the file that includes all written records of all “confessionals” done by the member. This means that it includes not only the most self-damaging material, but it also reflects every problem the person might have had with the organization, including complaints. This PC file grows with the person’s tenure in Scientology.

13. Mr. Wollersheim’s PC file was several thousand pages in length and stood as high as a six-foot tall man. Initially at this meeting, it was decided that Mr. Wollersheim’s PC file would be redacted and culled of any evidence or documentation which might assist Mr. Wollersheim in his lawsuit against CSC. There was also concern that the materials known as Clear, OT I, OT II, OT III and NED for OTS (NOTS) would be open to public inspection if Mr.Wollersheim’s files were produced as ordered. Scientologists are taught that a person could catch pneumonia and die if that person is prematurely exposed to these ‘upper level” materials without first having taken many hours of preparatory auditing.

14. Ultimately, approximately 50 pages were produced pursuant to the court order. Mr. Wollersheim’s PC file was culled based on a direct order from David Miscavige.

15. Later, I was informed that a second court order was issued to produce Mr. Wollersheim’s entire file. Faced with the prospect of having to produce the entire file David Miscavige gave orders that the entire file simply be destroyed by being pulped.

16. Pursuant to Mr. Miscavige’s orders, I ordered Rick Aznaran to take Mr. Wollersheim’s PC files to the recycling plant in Riverside to be pulped. Several hours after I gave the order to have Mr. Wollersheim’s PC files destroyed, Mr. Aznaran returned and confirmed that the records had been pulped and even showed me a small bottle of pulped material, saying ‘Here’s what’s left.”

17. The material that David Miscavige ordered destroyed and which Rick Aznaran had pulped was the same material that the court had ordered produced in Mr. Wollersheim’s Los Angeles court case against CSC.


18. During the time I was on the Board of Directors of RTC, (1983 to 1987) I attended numerous legal strategy sessions that dealt with the Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology case. Most of these legal strategy sessions took place in the boardroom at Author’s Services, Inc. The general legal strategy of Scientology both before and after the Wollersheim judgment was rendered against the Church of Scientology of California was to make the case so complex and expensive that it would go on forever and Mr. Wollersheim would never be able to collect “One Thin Dime”.

19. This general legal strategy as pursued in the Wollersheim case is consistent with Scientology’s overall legal strategy as set forth by L. Ron Hubbard, the “source” of all of Scientology’s policies as follows:

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win… the law can be used very easily to harass, and… will generally be sufficient to cause [the enemy’s] professional decease. If possible, of course ruin him utterly.

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in… NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING and you will WIN.

L. Ron Hubbard, Magazine articles on Level 0 Checksheet

20. During the same period of time, I was also present at legal strategy sessions that dealt with the Christofferson case in Oregon and the David Mayo case in the USDC for the Central District of California also known as RTC, et al. v. Robin Scott 85-711-JMI (Bx). The identical legal strategy was employed in those actions.

21. The various legal strategy sessions involving the Wollersheim case were attended by the following Scientology representatives:
Lyman Spurlock of Author’s Services, Inc. (ASI);
Norman Starkey of ASI;
Marty Rathburn of ASI;
David Miscavige of AS1
Vicki Aznaran of RTC;
Warren McShane of RTC;
Marc Yeager of CSI; and,
Myself of RTC.


22. It is incumbent on this and every court, as well as the authorities, to realize the amount of deception, chicanery, lying, manipulation and outright criminality that Scientology will employ to hide the truth about their criminal activities. They will spend any amount of money to do this. I know because I was part of it for years. I received orders to break the law, and then I helped to hide these criminal activities just as they are hiding them now.

23. Scientology developed a daunting corporate structure. This structure was designed to confuse those outside of the organization. In reality, corporate names and boundaries were meaningless. Control was centralized in one person. During his lifetime until his death in 1986 that person was L. Ron Hubbard. After his death, all control of Scientology vested and remains in David Miscavige.

24. The one thing that all of us had in common is that we were all members of the Sea Organization. The Sea Organization, or ‘Sea Org” is a paramilitary type organization that virtually governs all of Scientology under guidance of David Miscavige.

25. Our corporate positions were so much window dressing. It was our Scientology positions and our membership in the Sea Organization that gave us the power to control things within Scientology, including setting legal strategy for a corporation that we were not officers or directors of, such as defendant Church of Scientology of California.


26. The attorneys present when the legal strategy for the Wollersheim case was discussed included:
Sherman Lenske;
Earl Cooley;
Chris Cobb;
John Peterson;
Lawrence Heller; and,
Joe Yanny

27. Not everyone listed above was present for every meeting. However, I am positive that at sessions at which the legal strategy to be employed in the Wollersheim case was discussed, the lawyers involved in the Wollersheim case freely discussed that case and took directions from persons who were not officers, directors or employees of the defendant Church of Scientology of California, including me.


28. David Miscavige routinely gave orders to attorneys representing Scientology corporations, regardless of which Scientology Corporation the attorneys ostensibly represented. This was true in every legal strategy session and in every legal case including Wollersheim.

29. I recall one legal strategy session after the judgment was rendered specifically. The attorneys representing CSC in the Wollersheim case were present. Marty Rathburn gave a general briefing on the case mentioning that the judge hated Scientology and that Scientology was not going to pay. David Miscavige said that Scientology was not going to pay even if it cost Scientology more than the thirty nillion-dollar judgment because we don’t want to open the doors to others doing this.


30. I have read the Declaration of Warren McShane dated June 11, 1999. Mr. McShane’s Declaration is false.

31. For example, Mr. McShane states that: RTC never purchased, acquired, assumed, or otherwise obtained any assets of defendant Church of Scientology of California (‘CSP) as part of any corporate reorganization of the Church of Scientology or otherwise.

In fact, RTC obtained trademarks that were registered in the name of CSC.

32. Mr. McShane’s statement that: “RTC played no role of any kind in the trial of this action” is also a fiction. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Warren McShane, Vickie Aznaran and I constituted all of the officers and members of the board of directors of RTC from 1983 through the end of 1986. Further, Lyman D. Spurlock and David Miscavige were trustees of RTC from 1983 to 1986. All of us were present during legal strategy sessions with the attorneys representing CSC during and after the trial and at those meetings we formulated the strategy that the lawyers were to employ at trial and to frustrate collection of the judgment after it was rendered.


33. For example, at these legal strategy sessions it was determined to organize a unit within CSI known as the Wolly Unit. The Wolly Unit was to supervise and coordinate various aspects of the Wollersheim case such as intelligence gathering; public relations, including the “Not One Thin Dime For Wollersheim” Campaign; explaining to Church members Scientology’s version of the case and day to day supervision of the outside attorneys handling the CSC case.

34. Another unit was also organized within CSI. This unit was called MFTC for Mission Find The Crimes. The MFTC’s unit was literally what the title implies. MFTC members worked full time investigating any judge sitting on the Wollersheim case, the judges’ family and friends; the lawyers for Wollersheim; their family and friends; any witnesses that the Wollersheim attorneys might call at trial; and their families and friends. The job of MFTC unit was to find any crimes, unethical behavior or embarrassing information that might be used to Scientology’s advantage. Mr. Wollersheim’s attorneys, Charlie O’Rielly and Lita Schlosser were followed on an almost constant basis.

35. It was irrelevant to us if a legal strategy was pointless or had no ultimate chance for success. As long as we could argue that the legal strategy had a scintilla of colorable basis, we would demand that it be pursued with the utmost vigor. We ordered the attorneys to tie up Mr. Wollersheim’s attorneys; tie up the court; delay the case; make the pursuit of Mr. Wollersheim’s claim as difficult as conceivably possible; force the plaintiff to spend as much money as possible and make an example of Mr. Wollersheim to show that no one can ever prevail against Scientology.


36. In 1981, in response to the Wollersheim case, and the IRS, Scientology created “Mission Corporate Category Sort Out” (“MCCS”). On its face, to the outside world, MCCS was designed to appear to separate corporate business functions from ecclesiastic functions. Prior to this, all of Scientology was under a hierarchy where defendant CSC was designated as the “Mother Church” and all functions of Scientology came under the umbrella of the “Mother Church.”

37. The Mission Corporate Category Sort Out was a sham. It was a smoke screen designed to put a phony corporate front on the Scientology management structure to fool the IRS and to frustrate litigants so that they would never be able to collect a judgment.

38. Scientology has no respect for the “Wog” or non-Scientology legal system. It is merely a tool we could manipulate to destroy our enemies. During the time I was an officer and director of RTC, we often destroyed evidence. I have personal knowledge that this occurred in the Wollersheim case because I participated in it. As far as Scientology was concerned, we were above the law and we were perfectly free to use any means legal or illegal, to manipulate and frustrate the legal system to our purposes.

39. Scientology always enjoyed a number of great advantages in any litigation we were involved in including the Wollersheim case. These advantages included:

a . Scientology’s opponents generally took their legal duties seriously, Scientology did not. For example, Scientology never felt obligated to produce documents it had in its possession even if a court ordered it to do so. The only way Scientology would produce documents was if the documents were worthless or damaging to Scientology’s opponent.

b. Scientology set up a maze of phony corporate structures that Scientology opponents had to negotiate. Scientology did not take these corporate structures seriously, but demanded that it’s opponents do so.

c. Scientology had virtually unlimited funds to spend on litigation and was willing to spend the money to drive any opponent into bankruptcy.

d . Scientology would “play the religious card” as often as possible screaming at the top of its lungs that any lawsuit represented a threat to all religions and was based on religious discrimination against Scientology as a misunderstood and maligned new religion.

e . If Scientology did not like what was going on in a particular court, we would just order the lawyer to file a lawsuit in another court to tie up the plaintiff and his lawyers on trumped up charges. This policy carried out L. Ron Hubbard’s admonition: “NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING and you will WIN.” Further, these new lawsuits could be used as intelligence gathering operations to conduct discovery that the court that we did not like, would never let us conduct.

40. Both before and after the Wollersheim judgment, Scientology’s Mission Corporate Sort Out was designed to drain all the assets out of CSC and place them in other corporations where they could not be touched by anyone who had a judgment against CSC.

41. When the judgment was rendered in the Wollersheim case, I remember that a shock wave went through the Scientology organization. Although many of the assets had been drained off from CSC, there were still some attachable assets that remained within CSC and were thus reachable by Wollersheim’s lawyers. CSC was quickly reduced to one room. Even furniture was removed to other Scientology organizations. FREEDOM MAGAZINE, which had always been housed in CSC, was transferred to CSI.

42. The Essential Strategy to make it impossible for the Wollersheim judgment to be collected was formulated by CSC’s attorney Earl Cooley and CSI attorney Chris Cobb. David Miscavige and Lyman Spurlock then implanted a specific plan to carry out the lawyers’ scheme to make it impossible for Wollersheim to collect his judgment.

43. CSC was stripped of all revenue streams, which were given to other Scientology corporations and entities, including CSI. Any cash that was left in CSC was used to pay bills, debts and settlements for all the other Scientology corporations and entities. I specifically remember one meeting at which we discussed the fact that despite our efforts to strip CSC of attachable assets there was still 2.5 million dollars in cash left that might be seized. It was determined that we had to find bills or debts in other corporations that needed to be paid in order to relieve CSC of this cash. This was done. Mark Ingber of WDC (Watch Dog Committee) reserves in CSI was in charge of stripping CSC of its assets.


44. I have been informed that RTC and CSI have recently moved to dismiss the Wollersheim case against them on the basis of lathes. My understanding is that lathes is the legal doctrine that is applied to bar someone’s claim when they waited too long to pursue the claim. A huge part of Scientology’s legal strategy in the Wollersheim case was to hide the fact that RTC and CSI were intimately involved in the day-by-day direction of CSC’s defense and to make the case so complex, obtuse and expensive that no one would conceivably be able to get past all the phony legal issues that Scientology was raising to peal away the corporate layers and actually collect on the judgment.

45. If this case is dismissed on the basis of lathes, this cynical strategy will indeed have defeated both Mr. Wollersheim and the entire non-Scientology legal system.

46. I have not received any compensation in any form for giving this declaration. I recognize that by giving this declaration, I make myself a target for further attack by Scientology, however, I am giving this declaration because it is the truth and the right thing to do.

47. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” is a true and correct copy of a “Release” I entered into in 1992. The “Release” gags me from ever speaking out regarding my knowledge of the activities of Scientology. I signed Exhibit “A” under duress. I knew that neither I nor my wife would ever be allowed to leave Scientology if I did not sign this “Release.” The contents of the “Release” are simply false.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this day of June, 1999, at Boulder, Colorado