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.



Affidavit of Jesse Prince (May, 2002)

From mirele@sonic.net Thu May 02 22:23:37 20021
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!feed.news.sonic.net!typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Jesse Prince Affidavit April 2002
From: Deana Holmes <mirele@sonic.net>>
Organization: Scientology Killed Lisa McPherson
Message-ID: <Xns9202C5DBFB324mirelesonicnet@>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.03.24
Lines: 536
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 02:23:37 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1020392617 (Thu, 02 May 2002 19:23:37 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 19:23:37 PDT
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1064781

This affidavit was provided to me by Dandar & Dandar and has been filed as part of the court record. I don’t know if it was signed May 1st or May 2nd. I added what I believe are the approximate page numbers in brackets.

Deana M. Holmes


ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, Plaintiff

Case No. 00-5682-C1
Section 11
APRIL 2002



BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, who after being duly sworn by me, deposes and says:

I, JESSE PRINCE,  provide the following information which is based on my personal knowledge:

1.    Affiant had been retained as the expert on the practices of Scientology by the ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON.

2.    From 1982-1987,  I served as a corporate officer, executive, and board member of Scientology’s Religious Technology Center (RTC). RTC owns the trademarks

[page 1]

of Scientology and licenses all Scientology organizations to use its trademarks.  RTC licenses all Scientology organizations to use Scientology trademark material.  RTC  is also the senior corporate entity of all Scientology or Scientology related organizations internationally.

3.    Affiant has been a friend and confidant of Bob Minton for many years, the trial expert on Scientology for Ken Dandar in the Lisa McPherson death case, and the Vice President of the Lisa McPherson Trust, an organization which was dedicated to exposing the deceptive and abusive of Scientology and helping those who have been victimized by Scientology.

4.    Affiant was picketing at the Boston Org of Scientology years ago with Bob Minton.  At this picket and in my presence, members of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs confronted Bob Minton and relayed detailed information of Bob’s recent visit to his psychiatrist.  This greatly concerned Bob because his psychiatrist’s information was strictly confidential.  Bob Minton acts irrational when not on his medication.  Bob’s psychiatrist then discharged Bob as his patient when Bob confronted the psychiatrist.

5.    Sometime after this picket, I observed that Scientology posted on the Internet Bob Minton’s confidential psychological records.

6.    Bob Minton also relayed to affiant that Scientology obtained his bank records and telephone records, which he said caused him great distress.

7.    Due to the continuous harassment of Bob Minton by Scientology and its operatives, I personally observed Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks begin a compilation of a timeline of Scientology attacks and noisy investigations
of Bob Minton per Scientology practices.

8.    At the request of Bob Minton, affiant traveled to the office of Ken Dandar in February 2002 to relay to Ken Dandar that if Ken could get the Internet critics of Bob Minton to stop posting criticism of Bob and if Ken would quit meeting with Patricia Greenway, Bob would try to arrange to have his friends loan additional funds to Ken Dandar.  Bob had told the affiant that he was still willing to help finance the case so that

[page 2]

it would go to trial.

9.     On or around March 20, 2002, affiant called Mr. Minton at his home in NH to see how he was doing. Affiant learned from Mr. Minton that Scientology operatives had discovered information about him that threatened his wife and children’s future and Mr. Minton was very sad and upset about this. Mr. Minton said he no longer felt like living. He just felt like killing himself and things were really bad. Mr. Minton was crying as he told me these things. I asked him if there was anything I could do to help him and what specifically was the new threat. Mr. Minton told me he did not feel safe discussing the information over the phone and he was too upset to even talk about it. He told me that Stacy Brooks was leaving Atlanta, GA and flying to NH to help him with this new attack. I told him if there was nothing I could do to help him I would at least pray for him. After talking with Mr. Minton I immediately called Stacy Brooks to see if she would give me more information. Stacy said Bob was in really bad shape.  Due to the harrassive discovery by Scientology of Mr. Minton, he was about to fall apart. Stacy said she had to get Bob out of harms way and end his participation in opposing Scientology. Stacy said that no one including the Florida courts or law enforcement had been willing to help stop Scientology’s relentless attack on Bob and she was putting an end to any and all liability for Bob. Stacy swore that she would protect Bob no matter what. She did in fact arrive in NH on the same day in question to help Bob. The next day after Stacy arrived in NH, I called to check and see how things were going. I talked to Bob and he told me he was going to contact Mike Rinder, who is the top executive of Scientology’s legal and intelligence activities to see if he could work out a deal. Mr. Minton said he felt like he had no other choice but to take this action of trying to negotiate with Mr. Rinder. Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks have in the past successfully ended a lawsuit with Scientology, that ended with both parties
being pleased with the results.  I asked Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks to be careful and to keep me informed of any progress. The next time I talked to Bob and Stacy was on or around 23 March 2002. Bob told me that he had made the call to Mike Rinder, and the bottom line was Scientology was going to put him in jail. Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to

[page 3]

Ken Dandar.   After his talk with Mike Rinder, Bob said it boiled down to who was going to live, him or Ken Dandar, but someone was going to die. He said he called Ken and begged him to drop the wrongful death lawsuit at the demand of Michael Rinder, but Ken refused saying he had an obligation to his client Dell Liebreich. I told Bob that while I did not understand how his life would end unless he chose for Ken to die, I advised him to choose life, and I reminded him of his own family and how they needed him. Bob told me he was going to NY with Stacy Brooks to meet with Mike Rinder the following Friday. Thursday of the following week, Stacy and Bob flew to NY and called me when they arrived. Bob’s attorney Steve Jonas was also flying in for the meeting set for the next day.  Bob and Stacy promised to call me after the meeting with Mr. Rinder. The next day at around noon time Stacy called me and she was very upset. She said that Mr. Rosen screamed at her and Bob that Bob was going to jail for contempt in front of judge Schaeffer and he was also going to jail for perjury in front of Judge Baird.   Mr. Rosen also said that unless the wrongful death lawsuit and the Wollershiem lawsuit were dismissed Bob was going to jail.  Bob told me  how Mr. Rinder coldly told Bob Minton that he knew was f__king him, but at least he was doing it to him to his face. Bob went on to tell me Mr. Rinder went on to say that other people who were suppose to be his friends were F__king him behind his back: Ken Dandar, Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander were mentioned specifically. Bob told me that Mr. Sandy Rosen or Mr. Rinder, I do not remember which one, told Bob that he is crazy if he thinks Ken Dandar will ever see any money even if he wins. The same person said to take the Wollersheim case as an example.   Mr. Rosen told Bob that the only way he would not go to jail is if he got the wrongful death case dismissed along with the Wollersheim case. Both Stacy and Bob said they tried to explain the fact that they had no power or authority to get these cases dismissed. They told Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen that they had earlier tried to get Ken to get Dell Liebreich to drop the case but they flat out refused. The response was “too bad, because Bob was going to jail.”  Stacy said that both Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen were being very nasty to them both and Bob and Stacy got up and walked out of the meeting because it was horrible. Bob and Stacy took the next plane
[page 4]

home and were back in NH by 7:00PM the same day. Both Stacy and Bob called me when they got back to NH and expressed to me how deeply disappointed they were about not being able to reconcile anything with Scientology and they were putting the whole idea of negotiations with them on the back burner for now.

10.     The next day, late in the afternoon I talked to Stacy on the phone and she told me that Mike Rinder called and said he really didn’t understand why Bob and Stacy walked out of the meeting. She went on to say that Mr. Rinder said that he understood that Bob and Stacy could not dismiss the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim case in CA, but there were things Stacy and Bob could do. I asked what were the things they could do, and Stacy said she did not know but they were going to meet with Mr. Rinder and company again in Clearwater a day or so before the contempt hearing on Bob Minton in front of judge Schaeffer on 5 April, 02. Stacy was happy about being able to negotiate with Scientology and reaffirmed to me that she was getting Bob out of the Scientology mess before it killed him. Bob was very nervous about coming back to Clearwater and he expressed that he felt like he was going to jail if he came back to Clearwater.

11.     Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton and Mark Bunker arrived in Clearwater FL, from NH on the 2nd or 3rd of April, 02. Bob and Stacy got a room at the Harbor Bay Hotel in Tampa, FL and Mark Bunker stayed at my house in Clearwater FL. The following day, Stacy and Bob went to meet with Mike Rinder, Sandy Rosen, and Monique Yingling  at a restaurant in the Belleview Biltmore Hotel. After the meeting was over, Stacy called me and I asked her how the meeting went. She said she thought they made progress and things were going to be okay. I asked her specifically what were the “things that could be done” that would make Scientology stop trying to put Bob in jail. She told me she would tell me when she saw me but Ken Dandar was not going to be happy. Bob got on the phone and said Stacy was a lot more optimistic about what was happening and he was still worried about going to jail. Bob and Stacy had a very busy schedule meeting with Mr. Bruce Howie and Mr. Steve Jonas preparing for the contempt hearing with judge Schaeffer. Stacy and Bob asked that I not come to the hearing and she would brief me on what happened when

[page 5]

it was over.

12.      After the hearing on 5 April, 02, Bob and Stacy called and they were satisfied with the results of the hearing.  Both said that Bruce Howie was brilliant and Bob got off on the contempt due to a technical error made by Mr. Kendrick Moxon. They were very happy about this and invited me, and 3 other staff members that worked at the LMT out to dinner at Jackson’s restaurant located in the hotel they were staying at.  Before dinner we met in the lounge/bar area at the hotel and talked about the hearing. Bob was still concerned and said Scientology had filed another suit where he was named as a defendant. He pulled the suit out and showed us what it was. It was a suit against Jerry Armstrong and Bob Minton. The suit alleged that Jerry Armstrong had broken his settlement agreement with Scientology multiple times and some how Bob had enabled and encouraged Jerry to do this. In the end, the suit asked for 80 million dollars in damages. Bob commented on the fact that Jerry had no money and he was sure Scientology would force him to defend himself in the suit and pay any judgments as a result.  He gave me a copy of the suit to look at and I pointed out that according to what I was reading, Scientology alleged Bob co-conspired with Jerry Armstrong to violate his settlement with Scientology before Bob ever knew or met Jerry Armstrong.  I told him the suit was crap. Bob’s retort was Scientology does a lot of crap and gets away with it and they would get away with this suit as well. Another person, Ingrid Wagner, read the suit and agreed with Bob that it was not crap and Bob should be concerned. We talked about the next hearing and deposition with judge Baird that was scheduled for 8 and 9 April, 02 and had a nice dinner. For the next few days, Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and company and both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to do. The bottom line was Scientology wanted Bob to say that Ken Dandar caused Bob Minton to perjure himself in the breach of contract case in front of Judge Baird. The plan was to get Ken removed from the wrongful death case and get disbarred as an attorney. I asked Bob what has Ken done to deserve that?  Stacy cut in and asked me if I remembered a meeting that supposedly happened in the early fall of 1999. Stacy said she and I were at a meeting along with Bob

[page 6]

Minton, Michael Garko and Ken Dandar when Ken announced that he was adding David Miscavige as a party in the wrongful death case. As Bob was not involved in the case, Ken told him if he were ever asked, the meeting never occurred. She asked me if I remembered that and I said I did not. Bob said “Jesse, we need you to walk with us on this”, I said I would stand behind him but the meeting never happened and I was not going to lie about it. I told both Stacy and Bob that there was no way the case was going to be thrown out by trying to get rid of Ken. I told them that they were working with criminals who are accusing others of doing criminal acts. Bob said he felt horrible about what he was asked to do against Ken and he was not sure it was the right thing to do because it felt so wrong.  At one point he read a letter that Ken had recently sent him which mentioned Ken having the blood of Bob’s wife and children on his hands if he did not get the wrongful death suit dismissed. I asked both Stacy and Bob what else Scientology wanted them to do to avoid going to jail.  Bob replied there was a lot more Scientology wanted him to do but he did not know when Scientology would be done with him.  Stacy and Bob had been working on a reply to Ken’s letter and Bob asked Stacy to read me the reply. I started to feel sick as she read the response but one point really caught my attention: the point was that Bob alleged in the letter that I had given false testimony because Ken Dandar had manipulated me to write that David Miscavige  knew about Lisa’s condition and instead of letting her be taken to a hospital he let her die because of the public relations flap it would cause. I told both Bob and Stacy there was no manipulation of me by Ken and my testimony is true so don’t say that in the letter. Detailed evidence by Scientology’s own policies commands its adherents to immediately report to RTC ANYONE who has gone psychotic as a result of Scientology’s psychological practices. David Miscavige was and still is the Senior executive in RTC and has full knowledge of information sent to his organization. Stacy said the letter was just a draft and they were letting me see it to get my input. The letter was being drafted with Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinders help. Bob laughed and said another thing he had offered Scientology as part of the settlement negotiations  was  to turn over my partnership in the film “The Profit” so Peter and Patricia would have to deal with Scientology on the

[page 7]

film. I changed the subject and asked what about the Wollersheim case? Stacy informed me that she had talked to Dan Liepold, the attorney, and asked him to remove her testimony from the case. Dan refused to do it but Stacy said she would deal with that after they finished doing what Scientology wanted them to do in the wrongful death case. She explained that there were three witnesses for the plaintiff  concerning alter ego. The witnesses are Stacy Brook, Vaughn Young and myself. I told her I had no intentions of asking for my testimony to be removed from the case for Scientology and we left it at that.  The following Monday arrived and Bob was to be deposed by Sandy Rosen. After the deposition Stacy called me and briefed me on what happened in the deposition. She told me Bob was being deposed and she heard him tell a lie. Stacy said she had Mr. Howie stop the deposition so that she could clear up what Bob had just said. Stacy said she told Bob not to lie again and to go in and correct the record. She said when Bob went back into deposition he just broke down and started to cry uncontrollably. At that point the deposition was stopped and Mr. Rosen assured Bob that the record would be corrected later. The next day was the hearing for contempt in front of Judge Baird. Bob and Stacy had been meeting with Mr. Howie and Mr. Rosen to prepare Bob for his testimony. Bob and Stacy asked me to be at the hearing. They told me Bob was going to testify against Ken. I told them I couldn’t believe things had degraded to this level. Bob said he still did not feel good about what he was about to do and felt it was wrong. Stacy said they had to stay on this road and get through this. Bob told me that Sandy Rosen assured him that if he implicated Ken with his testimony that Scientology would withdraw the contempt motion and ask that all fines be dropped. Stacy and Bob asked that I attend the hearing, I told them I would be there. Monday came, and I sat in Judge Baird’s court room waiting for the proceedings to start. Bob got up on the stand and when he started saying Ken made him lie I got up and walked out of the court room. I felt like I’d been struck by lightning, and I started to cry. For the life of me I could not believe what I had just seen. Bob lying about Ken Dandar?  Mr. Rosen now acting on Bob’s behalf? I knew I had to do something but I didn’t know what. I drove to the beach to think. I decided that I had to somehow get law enforcement involved

[page 8]

or I could lose my friends forever.  I left the beach and went to see attorney Denis DeVlaming.  I told him I just saw Bob Minton up on the stand lying about Ken Dandar because that’s what Scientology wanted him to do. I poured my heart out to him told him everything that had happened and asked him if there was any way he could put me in contact with a federal agent that could investigate this and take the matter to a federal court. I told him I have to do something to help my friends. Denis said that I had been his client as well Bob Minton and there could be a conflict of interest, as Bob may need his help later. He told me his brother Doug DeVlaming knew someone in the FBI that might be interested in investigating possible blackmail and coercion. I explained the situation to Doug and he said he would contact someone, and for me to call him later. I left Mr. DeVlaming’s office and went out and rented a hotel room. I did not want to see Bob or Stacy and I knew they would be looking for me. I called my girlfriend and told her what happened and that I did not want to talk with Bob or Stacy until they were back at home. Bob and Stacy looked for me everywhere calling hospitals and checking with the police. My girlfriend gave them the message that I was very upset and I would contact them after they arrived back to NH.   They calmed down and the next day Bob, Stacy and Mark left Clearwater, headed for NH.

13.    The next day I was in telephone communication with Bob and Stacy. They wanted to know why I walked out of the hearing and what was wrong. I told them I could not believe what I had seen Bob do and it upset me greatly. I told them Scientology was making a fool out of them in my opinion. Stacy said the reason I felt that way was because I did not have all of the information. She said I had been left in the dark about some things that both her and Bob were not able to talk about because they had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Scientology concerning the settlement talk and it was time they brought me into the picture. She said it was time for me to start meeting with Scientology and their attorneys. I told her I was ready to start understanding what was going on. Stacy told me that she and Bob would be back in Clearwater on 12 April, 02 and we would meet and they would bring me into the picture fully. They arrived late that Friday, we talked on

[page 9]

the phone, and agreed to meet the following Saturday at 8:00PM for dinner at the Adams Mark hotel on Clearwater Beach. Stacy told me that she and Bob were meeting with Michael Garko Saturday afternoon. She mentioned that Michael was upset with Ken because Ken had not paid Michael since September of 01. I arrived at the hotel on time, Stacy met me in the lobby and we went to a room on the 9th floor where Bob was. We made small talk and Bob told me he had something to show me. He pulled out a stack of paper at least 2 inches thick and gave it to me. What he had given me was a RICO suit Scientology had put together that named him as a defendant. At the end of the suit it asked for 110 million in damages. Bob said,  “So Jesse how much is that now? The recently filed Armstrong suit asked for 80 million, this new RICO suit wants 110 million in damages so that’s 190 million they want, plus they’re adding me as a defendant in the breach of contract cases. The only person that has money is me so it is me that will end up paying for all of this and I just can’t do it. I can’t fight them anymore”. He went on to say that he needed me to stand with him and Stacy on this to pull it off. I pretended like I agreed with him and asked when would I be able to meet with the Scientologist. Stacy said tomorrow but we have to go over some things first. Bob said what was needed from me was to change my testimony. As he was talking the phone rang. Someone was asking where a package should be delivered. Bob told the person where he was and he asked the person to leave the package a the front desk and he would pick it up later and he hung up the phone. I asked him what that was all about and he said Scientology had been talking with him and  wanted him to change more testimony so as to implicate Ken further. He said the package was approximately 11 inches of testimony he had given before and some of it needed to be changed. I told him I don’t know what I’m suppose to change in my testimony because I told the truth when I gave it the first time. I asked how the meeting went with Michael Garko and Stacy said really good. She said Michael Garko said he knew the how much the case had cost to put on to date and there was no way Ken had spent 2 million dollars. Bob said Mr. Garko said he thought Ken had put the money in an account in the Cayman Islands. Stacy and Bob told me how upset Dr. Garko was over not being paid and

[page 10]

he was going to help Bob and Stacy get Ken. I looked at both of them like they were insane. I reminded them of an incident that happened in August of 01 where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut cost. Part of the cost cutting was to not pay Mr. Garko until the case was over. Bob invited me and Stacy Brooks to the top level of a parking structure directly across the street from the LMT to make sure there was no illegal surveillance going on and he said Ken is getting $500.000 and that was all he was going to get and it was a big secret and we were not to tell anyone about it. I asked them why they were both acting like they didn’t know Dr. Garko had not been paid. They didn’t have anything to say.  We started talking about how they were going to get the Wollersheim case dismissed. Bob said that he had had a conversation with Dan Leipold about getting the case dismissed and Mr. Leipold stated that he could not do that because he had an obligation to this client.  Bob was upset that Daniel Leipold would not agree to getting the case dismissed because he had loaned him money before.  Bob then told me that he offered Lawrence Wollersheim, the Plaintiff in a California case against Church of Scientology, $200,000.00 of his own personal money to drop the case.   I asked Bob and Stacy, how is it if you are in settlement negotiations with Scientology where you are trying to settle cases where you are neither Plaintiff or Defendant?  I reminded them of a mandatory settlement conference that was scheduled to take place on the 19th of April.  Stacy commented that she did not think that settlement conference would occur because Bruce Howie and Lee Fugate had met with Judge Schaeffer and briefed her on the information that came up on Ken in front of Judge Baird and that Ken would be disqualified.  I asked if Ken Dandar was present when Judge Schaeffer was being briefed by Mr. Howie and Mr. Fugate and Stacy said no.  I told her at that point that they were on very dangerous grounds and reminded Stacy of an incident whereby I was interrogated by the FBI for five to six hours because I had been in a meeting with David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock and Marty Rathbun along with Earl Cooley where we discussed having a Scientology staff member take a motion to Judge Maryanne Fauscher to get a temporary injunction against David Mayo.  I told her that I learned that it was against the rules for

[page 11]

attorneys to make ex-parte contact with the Judge of record without having the attorney of record present.   Both Bob and Stacy looked at me dumbfounded and Stacy commented that she did not think that what they had done was a problem. On that note we went down and had dinner and made small talk the rest of the evening. Bob did repeat that he needed me to walk with them on this, I said I would.

14.     When I left Stacy and Bob that night I was shaking so badly I could hardly drive home and I had no idea what I was going to do to stop what was happening. I called a friend named Frank Oliver and asked him to have Ken Dandar call me as I had something to tell him. Ken called and I told him I knew that Bob was lying in court about Ken because this is what Scientology wanted him to do to stop the harassment and law suits. We agreed to meet at the International Mall in Tampa Florida for a meeting. He asked me if it was okay if Mr. Luke Lirot and Mr. Thom Haverty came, I told him yes. We all met in the mall and went to a lounge and I told only Ken everything that had been going on and I told him I could not live with what was going on. He thanked me for coming to him and told me how sad this whole thing was making him and how he could not believe it was happening. I hand wrote some of the details of what had been happening and signed it, see attached copy.   I told Ken I was willing to testify about what was really going on. Ken said he was going to talk to law enforcement to try and save Bob and get him away from Scientology. I told Ken I was having a meeting with Bob and Stacy again and this time I was to be fully brought in and I would get a chance to talk to the Scientologist myself. I told him the only reason I was going to the meeting was  to see the expression on Mike Rinder’s face when I tell them that I contacted law enforcement the day Bob lied and that other people knew what was really going on.

15.     Later that Sunday evening I met with Stacy and Bob at the Radisson hotel on Bellaire Beach. They were staying in room 502. When I got up there Bob had a stack of papers in is hand and said he had something he had to show me. He read something that was totally incomprehensible to me and said that what this means is judge Schaeffer did not trust me as a witness and there was nothing I could do to help Ken with the wrongful

[page 12]

death case. He said unless I change my testimony, Judge Schaeffer was going to put me in jail. Things got a bit heated between Bob and me because I told him I had no testimony that I needed to change. Stacy suggested that we all go downstairs for dinner and continue the conversation. When we got downstairs I mentioned that we had talked enough together and it was time I sat down and met with the Scientologist. Bob said no, I was not ready for that because I needed to walk with he and Stacy down this road first. At that point I realized I was not going to see a Scientologist that night so I had better try to say or do something to get my friends to stop lying for Scientology.  I told them of two specific instances of when I had agreed to negotiate with Scientology but they never ever held up their end of the bargain and each time my life was ruined by them anyway. I told them I thought they were negotiating with the devil. I reminded them about the secretary of a Scientology private investigator named John Porter calling me and I put her in touch with Ray Emmons because she said she was in meetings with Mr. Porter and Scientology people where they planned months before in great detail how they were going to get me busted for marijuana. She even told me how they planned on planting seeds in my back yard. This information had been given to Bob when I found out about it. I was not the person who discussed what the secretary said, Mr. Ray Emmons did. Bob Minton was the one who told me about them putting the seeds on my back porch. I told them they were making a big mistake. Bob told me that I was the one making a mistake but if I walked down this road with them they would hire an attorney for me and everything would be okay. Both he and Stacy Brooks told me of a new life where we would all live in happiness and prosperity. I exploded at that point and told them the truth. I told them from the very beginning when Bob started to lie I called law enforcement and told them the whole story. I told them they were the ones who were screwed. Bob told me I was going to jail and I should leave, and I did. My two best friends have been backed into a corner due to the unlawful discovery practices of Scientology which was allowed to go on and on by the lower courts. The fact that there has been plenty of illegal discovery allowed into Mr. Minton,  the LMT and Mr.  Dandar on financial matters has been acknowledged  by the

[page 13]

appeals courts only recently. In effect, if the law had been correctly interpreted and applied these matters would have never been an issue.  As a result, my friends are being blackmailed and coerced and are now lying for Scientology with the hope of getting Scientology out of their lives forever.  I invite the court to look at the introduction to the “harassment time track” authored by Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks and reconcile what was written then against what they are doing now and have mercy on them both.



BEFORE ME, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, to me well known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged having executed same for the uses and purposes therein set forth.

WITNESS my hand and official seal at ________________ Florida, this ____ day of May, 2002.

My commission expires:


[page 14]