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

871

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

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

CONTENTS:   Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 7

DATE:   July 10, 2002. Afternoon Session.

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

BEFORE:   Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

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

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

872

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

873

THE COURT: You may be seated.

All right. Mr. Weinberg, you may continue.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

That is what you said, right?

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: This is our next document.

THE CLERK: 229.

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

And this one would be 230, right?

THE CLERK: Yes.

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

874

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Okay. Is this stuff that I keep later?

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Is that this one right here?

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

A Yes.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you see you executed that document as a

875

director?

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

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

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

Q I think it is the second one.

A The second one is I think looks like Starkey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

876

A You know, I wouldn’t say so.

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

A Yes, I can.

Q What is the exhibit number on that?

A Mine doesn’t have an exhibit number.

THE COURT: 230.

MR. WEINBERG: 230?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

Q All right. If you go to —

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — Article 6, Section 1 —

A Where am I?

Q Article 6, Section 1.

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

Q Article 6, Section 1. Right here.

A All right.

Q See that?

A Yes.

877

Q And that is trustees. You see that?

A Uh-huh. Yes.

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

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

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

A Is that a question?

THE COURT: That was awfully —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Break that down.

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

878

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A That is correct.

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

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

THE COURT: Did you ever read this document?

THE WITNESS: I can’t say that I have.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you —

A My signature is not on any part of this.

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

879

that now, don’t you?

A No. No.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: The trustees.

THE COURT: The trustees.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can put that down.

A Okay.

Q Now —

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

880

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

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

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

A I would have to see that, if you —

Q Okay.

A — have it here.

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This whole package is 231, Mr. Prince.

A Okay, thank you.

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is 232.

A Okay.

881

Q Have you had a chance to look at 231?

A Yes.

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes, I do.

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

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

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

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

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

882

A Correct.

Q And that is Exhibit —

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

MR. DANDAR: 232.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

A No. Not at all.

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

883

A If that is what this says, yes.

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

A No, I never pursued it.

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

A No.

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

A Under extreme duress, yes.

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

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

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

Q Was it late at night that you signed it?

A No. But it was in the evening.

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

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

884

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

A Yes.

Q And were you under any duress?

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

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

A I was way past being threatened.

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

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

Q Do you remember being threatened?

A No, I do not.

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

A Well —

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All this long tenure. But if you

885

are specifically asking about right before he signed is —

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A What do you mean?

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

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

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

A Oh, they caught me on the road walking.

886

Q And they took you into town?

A Yeah.

Q So —

A In the back of a truck.

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

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

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

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

Q And they let her go, too?

A No. They had no choice.

Q What do you mean, they had no choice?

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

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

887

room?

A At my demand, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Q This is in 1987?

A Correct.

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

A No.

Q From the public?

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

888

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

Q One simple question. No one drug you back.

A Correct.

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q How do you recall it?

A Annoyed. Kind of surprised.

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

You were certified?

A Correct.

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

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

Q How long did you work as a private investigator?

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

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

889

A Okay.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: I might have it.

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this?

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

THE COURT: Oh.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: I thought you said about this hearing.

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

THE COURT: What number is that, Madam Clerk?

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

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

890

allegation in the affidavit.

THE COURT: The objection is on the record.

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

MR. DANDAR: It says what it says.

THE COURT: It says what it says.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: It is very possible.

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

THE CLERK: Defense 108 or —

THE COURT: Oh, I don’t know.

MR. FUGATE: It is not 108, Judge.

THE COURT: No, that is not it.

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you have one, Mr. Prince?

891

A No, I do not.

Q Okay, I have another one.

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: That is fine.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Frankly —

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: I don’t know that —

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

892

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I actually —

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

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently so.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

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

Yes, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

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

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

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

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

(A discussion was held off the record.)

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

THE COURT: Okay.

893

MR. WEINBERG: Then we won’t have —

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

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

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

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

THE COURT: 126?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: It is already in?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Mr. Weinberg, I would like a

894

copy, as well.

THE COURT: Here. Take mine, the extra.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A Okay.

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

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

895

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

Correct?

A Correct.

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

A Well, let me think about that.

Q As of the time you executed your affidavit?

A Oh, not that I recall.

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

A Yes.

THE COURT: Yes, that is true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, yet you opined in your affidavit —

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

896

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you go to Page 17.

A Okay.

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

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

That is what you said, correct?

A Correct.

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

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

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

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

897

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

You said that. Right?

A Correct.

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

Correct?

A This was my opinion, based on experience.

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

A I had no physical evidence, no.

THE COURT: Could I ask him a question here?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

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

MR. DANDAR: Spitz.

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

Do you know, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I do not recall, your Honor.

898

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Sure.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes.

899

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

900

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A I prepared this — this affidavit for this case.

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

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

901

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

902

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right. Exactly.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Okay?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

903

I know of.

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

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

A For a short period of time, yes.

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

A A couple months.

Q A couple of months?

A Yes.

Q And people were with Teresita around the clock?

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

904

and another girl would help.

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

Correct?

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

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

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

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

A No. I did not.

Q No one received an order to let Teresita die?

A No.

Q Teresita was a staff member —

A Correct.

Q — who had a psychotic break, apparently.

Correct?

A You know —

905

Q Can you just answer that question?

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

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

That is somebody that had a psychotic break.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

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

906

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

A Correct.

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

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

Q And you —

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 31.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A I’m sorry. What is it?

Q Page 13, Paragraph 31.

A Uh-huh.

Q Can you read that out loud?

907

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

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

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

Q Okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. I did.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

Q So did Stacy Brooks?

A For a short time.

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

A Yes.

Q And you got an award for it?

A No, I didn’t.

908

Q You got recognized for it?

A No, I didn’t.

Q You didn’t?

A Come on.

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

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I show you —

MR. WEINBERG: We’ll mark it —

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

909

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

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

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

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

A I have no information about that.

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

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

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

A After she was well?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q No?

A No.

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

A Yes.

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

910

A Right.

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

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

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

A Yes.

Q And you brought her back?

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

Q Then you brought her back?

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

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

THE WITNESS: She came back.

911

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A No, I cannot.

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

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

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

A No. That is not true.

Q Then what did you mean when you testified —

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

912

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

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

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

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

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

A What policies — policy are you referring to?

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

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

Q All right.

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

913

THE COURT: Are we done with this affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: You know what —

THE COURT: It is too massive.

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

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

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

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

914

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: What number is that?

THE CLERK: 233.

MR. WEINBERG: 233.

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: 233?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: So it will be received.

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

915

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, it is, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And it was done — who wrote this affidavit?

A I did.

Q Did you get any help writing this affidavit?

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

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

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

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

916

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

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

A Yes?

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

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

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

A Yes.

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

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

917

Q How would you characterize it?

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

I have children. My fiancee gets her children

918

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

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

A Yes. Then didn’t —

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

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

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

A No. Disrelated items.

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

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

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

919

Q So —

A That wasn’t good enough.

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

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

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

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

A Never.

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

A Yes, she did.

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

A No, she did not.

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

920

A Yes, she did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

921

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

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

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

A I don’t think so.

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

A No. Come on.

Q In the case?

A Uh-uh.

Q Never did that, did you?

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you see 235, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

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

922

A Okay. Okay.

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

A Apparently, I did.

Q And you say here —

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

923

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

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

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

THE COURT: I think I found it already.

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

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

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

It is not like that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

924

A Correct.

Q On September 20, 2001?

A Correct.

Q 9:41:07?

A Yes, I guess so.

Q Something like that?

A Yeah.

Q This is obviously an encrypted message. Correct?

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

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

A Yes.

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

A Correct.

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

A The what?

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

925

of the final draft.”

A Okay.

Q You did that, didn’t you?

A I did what now?

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. I sent it to somebody.

THE COURT: It could have been Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: It could have been Mr. Minton.

It could have been Mrs. Brooks. It could —

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

926

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

THE WITNESS: You show me where you are —

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

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right —

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

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

927

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: What number is it again?

THE CLERK: 235.

THE COURT: 234?

MR. DANDAR: 235.

THE COURT: 235. Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

928

is — yeah, where I talk about —

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

MR. WEINBERG: This is the motion.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, this is the motion.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

929

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

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

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

Q All right. Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

930

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

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

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

THE COURT: That is a question.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

931

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

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

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

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

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

Q Ms. Brooks then?

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

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Prince.

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

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

932

MR. WEINBERG: I have that in mind.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: It is best you not.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

THE WITNESS: Everybody knows but me.

THE COURT: This has already been introduced into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 49.

THE COURT: And they testified about it.

MR. WEINBERG: Defense 49.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

933

affidavit, which says:

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

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Now, you knew about this E-Mail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

934

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

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

A No. No, sir, I did not.

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

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

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

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

Like I said, I’m tired, grouchy.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

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

935

million.

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Yes, there is.

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

THE COURT: Good.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

936

jail?

A I don’t know that.

Q I’m just asking you —

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

Okay?

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

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

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

937

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

THE COURT: Good time for a stop?

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

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

938

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

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

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE WITNESS: I think we took care of that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right, Mr. Prince —

A Yes?

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes.

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

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

939

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

A Yes.

Q Then the other location in the desert is —

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Is the what?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

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

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

Q That is where you said the RPF was?

A Correct.

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

A Correct.

Q I want to show you some photos.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

940

MR. WEINBERG: Okay?

THE COURT: I can keep this?

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Do I get a copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes.

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

A Yes. I think so.

This looks like a view from —

THE COURT: Tell me what you are talking about.

Is it A1?

THE WITNESS: A1.

941

THE COURT: Okay.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What is A2?

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

Q Okay. A3, do you recognize that building?

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

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

A Okay. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

A Yes.

942

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

A Yes, I do, with the exercise trail.

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

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

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

A Yes. Yes, I do.

Q And A7, what is that?

A I have no earthly idea.

Q That is new, isn’t it?

A I —

Q Or do you know?

A It is outside of my knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

943

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

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

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

Q Oh?

A What you showed me here.

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

A Probably at least ten years.

Q Were the RTC offices there, as well?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let’s put those aside.

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

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

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

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

944

was your job there?

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

This looks like maybe they have new equipment.

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

Q You worked in the film mix room?

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

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

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

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

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

A Yes.

Q Whether you worked there or not?

A Yes.

945

Q And you recognize that from the photos. Correct?

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let me show you —

THE WITNESS: Very beautiful, though.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right?

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

946

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Sure.

Q Do you recognize these photos?

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

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

A Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is still Gilman Hot Springs?

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

MR. DANDAR: No. There is a ship.

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

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Correct.

947

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

A Correct.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Ask Mr. Prince.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A That is how I referred to it, yes.

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

MR. WEINBERG: This is just one photo here.

THE CLERK: 239.

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

948

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

Q Okay.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

Q Yes.

A No, I do not. I do not —

Q Let me go through those K1 through 3.

A I don’t recognize this at all.

949

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

A Okay.

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

A Not at all.

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

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

Q Well, what did it look like?

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

THE COURT: Do you recognize this?

THE WITNESS: No.

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

950

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

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

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

Q And a kitchen of some sort?

A Yes.

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: I have got those as 236.

MR. DANDAR: It is 236.

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

951

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: He recognized one of those.

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

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A (Nods head.)

MR. WEINBERG: Then we offer —

THE COURT: 238 he recognized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I will.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

952
you wanted me — no, I’m just kidding.

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Could we fire this up?

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: This will just take a second.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A All right.

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

A This — I think this is my third day.

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

You remember that testimony?

953

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A Not particularly, no.

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

A Not that I can recall specifically.

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

A Correct.

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

A No, I do not.

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

A Sure.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I love it when I’m on camera.

“Well, tell me what Nancy Miller said to you

954

concerning —

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

“Okay, your lawyers.

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

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

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

955

10 feet away from the building.

“I don’t. You know why? You know why?

“Especially for you.

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

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

“Which building?

“The Robelling (phonetic) one going that way.

“The building right next door?

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

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

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

“No, it doesn’t.

“Yes, it does.

“No. No. No.

“Yes.

“Listen, I’m telling you —

“Yes.

“– the injunction is against you and agents and

956

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

“That’s right.

“Anybody can walk down that sidewalk except you.

“That is correct.

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

“Yeah.

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

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying.

“I agree with you on that point.

“Yeah.

“However, if you organize a picket —

“Then they should stay on the other —

“– you have to stay 10 feet away.

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

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

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

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

957

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

“Right.

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

“Right. Right.

______________________________________

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

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

“He wasn’t here.

“He wasn’t here?

“Okay, he’s just —

“He’s back today.

“Okay, fine.

“He’s under Captain Jones.

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

958

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

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

“Sid Kline — let me just explain.

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

Don’t you, Ken?

“Well, in the meantime —

“Seek modification as soon as possible.

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

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

“Don’t talk like that.

“Ask –” (Inaudible.)

“What is this shit about?

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

959

to walk —

“It’s not legal.(Inaudible.)

“You are legally right.

“Legally what?

“You are legally what?

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

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

“Right.

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

“Okay, here he is. Hi.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

960

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that meeting with Mr. Dandar?

A I do not, but I see it now.

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

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

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

A No, I do not.

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

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

Q That was at the LMT, correct?

A What we just saw there?

961

Q Yes.

A Yes, it was.

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

A I would say we certainly were having a discussion.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Could you give him a date?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

962

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: After all this, sure.

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

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

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Excuse me?

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

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

963

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Was it?

THE COURT: The first time —

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

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

964

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. KEANE: Yes. Fine.

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

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

965

______________________________________

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

MR. FUGATE: McGowan.

THE COURT: As attorney-client privilege.

There is a different group.

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

MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.

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

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LIEBERMAN: One day just runs into another.

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

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

THE COURT: Yes.

966

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

THE COURT: Are these — are these the exhibits?

THE CLERK: No. Those are the transcripts.

THE COURT: Lee —

MR. FUGATE: Yes, ma’am?

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

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

THE COURT: Did I take them with me?

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

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

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

THE COURT: But you started Volume 1 with the

967

first day of the hearing?

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

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

MR. FUGATE: Let me just check.

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

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

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, you did.

Q And that is Exhibit Number 1 on the front?

A Exhibit Number 132.

Q Plaintiff’s 132?

A Yeah. Evidence 132.

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

A Correct.

968

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

A No, sir. That is incorrect.

Q Well, you — if you turn to Page 9 —

A Okay.

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

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

Q Do you remember that now?

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

969

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: But it says here the declaration.

THE COURT: Then it must be the declaration.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

MR. DANDAR: Which page is that on?

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 14 on Page 9.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

970

correct?

A Correct.

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

THE CLERK: 241.

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

THE COURT: What is the number?

THE CLERK: 241.

THE COURT: Thank you.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

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

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

A That is correct.

971

Q Okay. Now —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right, because this is —

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

THE COURT: Mr. Prince had a declaration?

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige —

MR. WEINBERG: Responded to it.

THE COURT: Then this is a supplemental?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. All right?

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

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. The one that —

THE COURT: 134, whatever you call it.

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

THE COURT: All right.

972

MR. WEINBERG: Okay? It is falling apart.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

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

This is part of — of 241.

THE COURT: What is that?

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

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

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

THE COURT: Oh.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE CLERK: Yes.

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

973

THE COURT: Okay.

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

That is “The Way To Happiness.”

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

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

No, this is a — well, this is a —

THE COURT: This must be a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is a better — this is what was filed. This is the — the bound copy of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll give a copy to Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: I object to the relevance.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s — it’s Mr. Prince’s affidavit that Mr. Dandar put in yesterday. It was in response, at least in part, to this. So,  therefore, we’re offering Mr. Miscavige’s affidavit, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’ll let it come in as to whatever part relates to this testimony. I’m sure there is stuff that doesn’t. But rather than try to pick and choose, we’ll just let it all in for now.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And this is, I’m sure, a deluxe

974

version of the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. I’m sure it is.

THE COURT: That was Number 241?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have in front of you your April 2002 affidavit.

A No, I do not.

Q Probably not. Mr. Dandar marked that yesterday.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we see if we can find that one? That is the one that was filed — the most recent affidavit.

THE COURT: Is that the May 2002? No?

MR. DANDAR: April. April.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it’s April, your Honor.

You marked it as an exhibit, right, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: I thought I did, yes.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, I’m looking here,”Notice of Filing Affidavit in Opposition of Defendant’s Omnibus Motion.” Is that the one?

MR. DANDAR: That is the one.

THE COURT: Okay. It is dated — “Jesse Prince, sworn the 1st day of May, 2002.” So I want to make sure we’re looking at the same one.

975

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure. The front says April 2002? The next page? Yes, that is it. I see the attachment.

THE COURT: It says April 2002. He signed it May 1. We can agree it’s the same?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy for Mr. Prince?

THE CLERK: What exhibit is that, Judge?

THE COURT: I don’t know. It was something that came in —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was filed in this case.

THE COURT: It is filed.

MR. DANDAR: I would like it to be part of the evidence.

THE COURT: Yes, let’s make this the next plaintiff’s exhibit, which would be what? We’ll make this Plaintiff’s 135.

So now it is Plaintiff’s 135.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you have that?

976

THE CLERK: No. I don’t.

THE COURT: Well, you’ll have to give the clerk one.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’ll make a copy of that as soon as we’re done.

THE COURT: Okay. Because I have one here but it is mine.

MR. DANDAR: It is yours.

THE COURT: And I guess what you want to be sure is the notes — I think they were attached to the original affidavit.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: — are part of the affidavit.

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

THE CLERK: Right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, this is an affidavit that was prepared by who?

A Which one now?

Q The one we’re looking at.

THE COURT: The one you have in front of you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

977

dated May 1, 2002.

A Okay. You know, you gave me three of them here.

Q I gave you what?

A Three declarations.

Q Oh, I’m sorry, the one that Mr. Dandar is entering as his next exhibit is your May 1, 2002 affidavit.

A Okay.

Q Who prepared that affidavit?

A I did.

Q And where did you prepare it?

A Mmm, in Mr. Dandar’s office; partially at my home.

Q When did you prepare it?

A Well, according to this document, it looks like I started it in April and executed it May 1.

Q But, now, this isn’t too long ago. So I’m asking you, when do you recall that you first started work on this affidavit?

A Mmm, let me see. Maybe the second week of April. I don’t know. The second, third week of April. No — yeah, maybe the third week of April.

Q The third week of April?

A Yeah.

Q And did you — at that point, did anybody make any suggestions, revisions, changes, to your affidavit?

A Mmm, no.

978

Q Who typed the affidavit?

A I did.

Q So it was produced off of your computer?

A Yes.

Q Or what?

A Yes.

Q Executed in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct. I used my laptop.

Q Now, did — what prompted you to do this affidavit?

A My friends were being blackmailed and coerced. There was nothing that I could do to get them to try another solution to whatever problem that they were trying to have — they wanted me to do it with them. I refused to do
it. I spoke to law enforcement about these things. And I put it in writing for the benefit of Judge Schaeffer and anyone else who would be interested in it.

Q The time that you started this affidavit, the Church had already filed its motion terminating sanctions and for disqualification in this case of Mr. Dandar?

A I don’t know. I don’t remember.

Q Well, did you have a copy of the motion when you prepared this affidavit?

A I did not.

Q Had you — did Mr. Dandar ever provide you with a

979

copy of the motion?

A As I sit here today, I can’t say that he did.

THE COURT: He may have. You are not saying he  didn’t, either, right?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t — terminating sanctions? No, I don’t think I have seen that thing.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how did you find out that there was — that there had been a motion filed to dismiss this lawsuit as a result of allegations of misconduct and to disqualify Mr. Dandar?

A When it came over to this courtroom, I think it was here the first day because I had been a sequestered witness from Judge Baird’s court, you know, where this thing started. Then when it came over here, I was able to appear
in court the first day. And I was here for it.

Q Mr. Dandar asked you to prepare an affidavit in response to the motion for sanctions?

A Mmm, no, Mr. Weinberg. This is something that I had to sit down and do. It’s not anything I could keep carrying on in my head. I knew that I would have to sit down and write about this.

Q Now, these notes that are at the back of this, that is April 14th, 2002. You see that, correct?

980

A Yes.

Q Had you already started writing your affidavit as of April 14, 2002?

A No. Because this is the day that I met with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Lirot, then later on that evening met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton.

Q So it was sometime —

A But, you know, this was just like in case anything happens to me where I don’t appear again, at least this would be written.

Q So the affidavit was written sometime between April 14 — written and completed, obviously, sometime between April 14 and May 1?

A Correct.

Q Now, you attended — I think you testified — the April 9, 2002 hearing before Judge Baird where Mr. Minton testified, purged himself, with regard to his contempt? In other words, purged himself of perjury?

A I —

Q Do you understand that concept?

A You know, I guess that is one way to look at it.But the way I describe it in my affidavit, he got up and lied to save his own skin.

Q And you were there?

A Yes, just for a very short amount of time. And

981

I — and I covered that really extensively here. The first lie I heard, I got up, I was out the door.

Q And that is when you got really angry at Mr. Minton for the first time?

A I wouldn’t say that. No. I was more upset by the situation. I — I didn’t have anger directed at Mr. Minton.

I mean, I was upset about what he did but, you know, this is my friend. We have been watching these videos. You see we had a close relationship. So it wasn’t like I want to do something to him. I was angry what he had done.

Q Now, it’s your testimony that weeks before that Mr. Minton had told you, before he ever met with Mike Rinder and Sandy Rosen at the end of March, he told you that he had been told that the Church already had his $500,000 check?

A No. I gave testimony about this. I’ll try to answer it as best I can. And I think it is covered here in the very beginning of this affidavit of when all of that talk had started.

Yes, Page 3 of the same affidavit, Paragraph 9, if you go to Line 28, it says: “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar. Somebody is going to die,” on and on.

Q All right. But there is nowhere in this affidavit where you say that Mr. Rinder or the Church of Scientology

982

had the $500,000 check prior to the meetings in New York, or even at the meetings in New York, correct? You don’t say that in the affidavit, do you?

A Correct.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you in this — at any point that his name didn’t appear on the $500,000 check?

A Yes.

Q And you first learned that when?

A That Mr. Minton’s name wasn’t on the check? I think I learned that — you know, I’m not going to speculate. I’m not sure when I learned that.

Q Well, did you learn it at or about the time that Mr. Minton gave the check to Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not. I wasn’t present when he gave the check to Dandar. You are talking about the $500,000 check?

Q That is the one I asked you about.

A Okay. Well, that particular check I — I think I’ve given testimony concerning the fact that, you know, he took us to the top of the parking garage and told us about this. I’d never seen anything physically with my eyes.

Q Now, where in the affidavit do you talk about the parking garage? Can you show us?

A Mmm, I meant my testimony. Not in here, in the —

Q But is it — didn’t you address it in your affidavit?

983

A I may have. Let me see.

Q Look at Page 11 at the top.

A Okay.

Q You see where you say, “I reminded them of an incident that happened in August 2001 –”

A Yes.

Q “– where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut costs. Part of the cost-cutting was to not pay Mr. Garko until the case was over. Bob invited me and Stacy Brooks to the top level of a parking structure
directly across the street from the LMT to make sure there was no illegal surveillance going on, and he said Ken is getting $500,000 and that was all he was going to get and it was a big secret and we were not to tell anyone about it.”

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So your most recent sworn affidavit, May 1 of 2002, you said that this alleged incident in the garage took place in August of 2001, not in May of 2000. That is what you say. Right?

A I’m completely confused.

Q Well, look at it again then.

A Okay. Oh, 2001. Yes, that is an error. It was 2000. That is an obvious error. This happened in August of 2000 when the check was issued. Right?

984

Q No.

A Okay.

Q That is not right. May 1, 2000.

A The $500,000 check?

Q Yes.

A Okay. Sorry. I didn’t remember it like that. I didn’t have the check at my convenience to have that date there. I did the best I could.

Q Well, do you think it is important to be accurate in your declarations, sworn testimony, sworn affidavits?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you are very specific in this reference I just read to you about the circumstances where this alleged conversation took place when Mr. Minton was pulling back in August when we all know that the LMT was about to shut down. That is what you said. Right?

A No.

Q You — we just read it, “Part of the cost-cutting,” that is what you’re talking about?

A What does that have to do with the Lisa McPherson — LMT? I mean —

Q It’s that you described this very vivid incident on the garage in the context of the August 2001 time period when Mr. Minton is cutting back. That is how you describe it. That is how you date it. Correct?

985

A Okay. That is an error. I thought this $500,000 check happened in 2000. Am I wrong about that?

THE COURT: No. You are not wrong.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: It was 2000. But what you said was August.

THE WITNESS: It was not my intention to commit perjury by making a typographical error, if that is what you want to ask me about this, and you pointed it out. No one else did. You know, I’m sorry.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, if you said May of 2001, maybe I would understand. But it says August of 2001. So where is the typographical error here?

A Because the check was given to Mr. Dandar when?

In 2000, is that right?

Q The testimony is May of 2000.

A Okay. Well, you know, beat me for making a typographical error. I may not have the exact date right. But the incident is correct.

Q So the incident when Mr. Dandar was given the $500,000 check was at the same time that Mr. Minton had decided not to fund the case anymore and to cut back? Because that is what this says.

A Mr. Minton had — well, you know, I stand by this

986

testimony, whatever it says, with the exception of this typographical error that you correctly point out.

And I think I explained this a little bit yesterday — or whatever day it was — when, you know, they were doing the accident reconstruction, jury surveys. I mean, the costs were mounting. And he was concerned.

Q Who was concerned?

A Mr. Minton.

Q He was concerned about the costs in the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A Correct.

Q And so what does that have to do with you dating the $500,000 check when he was concerned about the mounting costs of the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A You know, I’m just totally confused. I don’t know where we’re going with this.

Q Well, where we’re going —

A I made a mistake here. I said — I said 2001. I should have said 2000.

Q You said August and you should have said May. And then you should have said, instead of it was at the time that Mr. Minton was cutting back, it was actually the time when he was funding the lawsuit.

Other than that, you didn’t make any mistakes. Right?

987

A Well, beat me for making a mistake. But, Mmm —

THE COURT: Well, what page is this on, again?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s on Page 11.

THE WITNESS: 11.

MR. WEINBERG: At the top.

THE COURT: I have got it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, it’s not that I want to beat you for making a mistake. But is it important to you that your sworn testimony is accurate, or not?

A That is the second time you asked me that. And, yes, I have the same answer. Yes, it is. I made a mistake.

Q Well, do you think you might have made some other mistakes in your sworn testimony, whether it is in court here or in this affidavit or the August 20 affidavit or the other affidavits that you filed?

A Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m doing the best that I can to bring out this testimony into this hearing.

Q Now, after you got angry when you saw Mr. Minton for a short time testify on April 9, 2002, you, a few days later, met with him and Ms. Brooks at the Adam’s Mark Hotel?

A Yes.

Q And that was on or about April 12th?

A Approximately. Yes.

Q You had dinner?

988

A Yes.

Q And you-all talked about ending the fight against Scientology?

A We talked about committing perjury on behalf of Scientology.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you that he was relieved because he was finally — he was finally going to be telling the truth and not perjuring himself anymore? Did he tell you that?

A Absolutely not. He told me he didn’t feel good about it, he still wasn’t certain about it, that it was the right thing to do.

He felt horrible about what was going to happen — or the charges that were going to happen to Mr. Dandar.

Q Now —

A He had a conscience about it.

Q Now, when Mr. Minton told you, you say, in March of 2002, that the Church already had this $500,000 check, did you pick up — and it was going to cause — I guess you said it was going to cause him problems, right?

A Yes.

Q He said it was going to cause Mr. Dandar problems, right?

A Cause him problems. He didn’t say Mr. Dandar. He said it was going to cause him problems.

989

Q Because he was going to have to lie about it, is that what he said?

A No. Because he had already lied about it.

Q All right. Now, did you pick up the phone then, given your concern, and call up Mr. Dandar and say,

“Ken — Mr. Dandar, Bob Minton told me that the Church has this $500,000 check and he perjured himself in your lawsuit and it’s a problem”?

Did you do that?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Well, Mr. Rosen — why do I want to call you Mr. Rosen?

THE COURT: It is late in the day.

THE WITNESS: It is late in the day.

A Mr. Weinberg —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’re both Sandys but he’s a lot taller than I am.

A Yes, that is true.

Why didn’t I immediately call Mr. Dandar?

Q Why didn’t you call Mr. Dandar?

A Because I thought that there was actually something that I could do to — you know, to encourage Mr. Minton to not go down this road. I mean, they’re busy trying to drag me down this road. I’m busy trying to tell

990

them, “Don’t do it. Don’t go down there.”

Q Did it concern you Mr. Minton was telling you he had already perjured himself in this lawsuit? That is what you just said he told you. That was a problem. Right?

A The problem was that that check surfaced. There was some problem about where it came from. Mmm, I personally don’t know his deposition testimony or his — his testimony that he had given in the courts, what he had said
about that. I don’t know that today. I haven’t read any of that stuff.

But, you know, I described the situation where a man is on the phone, crying uncontrollably, very upset. You know, there was a lot about this that didn’t make sense.

And I’m sorry I couldn’t have been more rational about it to ask a question such as that.

Q After the meeting, dinner, whatever it was, on April 12 at the Adam’s Mark, the next time you met with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton was at the Radisson on Sand Key a couple of days later on April 14, is that right?

A I believe I met with them on a Saturday. If I’m right, I met with them at the Adam’s Mark. And the next day I met with them at the Radisson.

Q So whatever the Saturday is, the 12th, 13th, then the next day you went back to the Radisson?

A A Sunday.

991

Q And that is the last meeting you had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q That is the day you went to the Radisson is the day that you prepared these notes. Right?

A Earlier that day I prepared these notes.

Q All right. So when you actually went to meet at the Radisson with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, you had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot. And who else?

A You know, my girlfriend was there.

Q Was anybody else there?

A Mr. Haverty.

Q Anybody else there?

A Not that I specifically recall.

Q Was Miss Greenway there?

A I don’t know. I don’t think so.

Q You had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot and Mr. Haverty?

A No. That is incorrect. I only spoke to Mr. Dandar about this. I pulled him aside and spoke to him about that specifically.

Q So when you said you met with Mr. Lirot, you didn’t really meet with Mr. Lirot, you only met with Mr. Dandar?

A That was the first time I had ever met Mr. Lirot.

992

Q Can you just answer that question? You didn’t meet with Mr. Lirot, you just met with Mr. Dandar to tell him your concerns, right?

A Correct. And then at the end of that, toward the end of that meeting, I shared some things with Mr. Lirot about it.

Q All right. And is there a particular reason why you met Mr. Dandar at a mall, as opposed to his office?

A Yes. Because I have a continuing concern that my house is electronically bugged by Scientology for illegal surveillance purposes. And I wanted to be in a place where I felt secure in not having that concern.

Q Well, you didn’t have the meeting at your house.

A Correct.

Q My question was why didn’t you have the meeting at Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Because his air-conditioning doesn’t work on the weekend and it is very hot in there. You know, they turn it off. He’s in a building where they turn the air-conditioning off — you know, it’s like a 9-to-5 kind of place. At 5 o’clock, boom, it starts getting hot. On the weekend they don’t turn it on because there is no one in the office, unless you want to pay $25 an hour.

Q So it was his suggestion you meet in the mall?

A Yes.

993

Q Was there a particular place in the mall where you met?

A We were at the International Plaza at some lounge.

I don’t remember the name of it.

Q Just sitting at a table?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, please. Please. Move into something —

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I will.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Your testimony is, I think, that you didn’t call Mr. Dandar to set up this meeting.

A Correct.

Q You called Frank Oliver, one of the people that was connected with the Lisa McPherson Trust, to set up the meeting with Mr. Dandar. Right?

A Correct.

Q Now, Frank Oliver lives in Miami?

A Correct.

Q Frank Oliver, as far as I know, has never been a consultant or expert for Mr. Dandar. Is that right?

A You would have to ask him that. You know —

Q Do you know from your experience?

A No. I do not know.

Q And you called — you have had dozens of phone

994

conversations with Mr. Dandar over the years. Correct?

A Hundreds.

Q Right. And we have your phone records in evidence from the LMT.

A Right.

Q There are hundreds of phone calls. Is that right?

A Well —

Q In other words —

A Well —

Q You know his number?

A Yes.

Q Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call him?

A I’ll state it again. I was at home using my home phone. I didn’t want to call him because of those concerns.
I called somebody else.

THE COURT: Was there concern that Mr. Dandar’s phone was bugged, as well? Or not? You did not have that concern.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t have that concern.

THE COURT: So the concern you had was your phone was bugged at your house?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

A I trust him. He’s my friend.

995

Q So from your phone — which you had a concern was bugged — you called Mr. Oliver and said, “I really need you to call Mr. Dandar and set up a meeting with me”?

A No. “Ask him to call me because I want to help him.”

Q Asked who to call you?

A Mr. Dandar.

Q Call you where?

A I called Mr. Oliver and asked him to please have Mr. Dandar call me because I want to help him.

Q Okay. So doesn’t that still concern you, if your phones were bugged, if Mr. Dandar was going to call you?

A I didn’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with Mr. Dandar on my phone specifically about what I wanted to talk to him about.

Q Well, you could have just picked up the phone, called him and said, “I don’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with you over the phone, let’s have a meeting”?

A No, I could have done that. And if I was a wasp, I could have flown away. Where is this going?

Q But you didn’t do that?

A No.

THE COURT: Is there some relevance to that?

Because if there isn’t, I wish you would move on.

996

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on. Mr. Oliver is the next witness. And, you know, I —

THE COURT: Mr. Oliver may or may not be the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, Mr. Dandar told me he was the next witness.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And did you have any kind of conversation with Mr. Oliver, other than to ask him to tell Mr. Dandar to call you?

A No.

Q So you didn’t tell Mr. Oliver the details of what was going on?

A No.

Q You didn’t tell anybody else the details of what was going on other than Mr. Dandar?

A Incorrect. I told Denis deVlaming. Denis deVlaming’s brother.

THE COURT: Some agent — I mean, come on.

We’ve been through this testimony.

MR. WEINBERG: I know. Just names.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

997

THE COURT: That you can remember, Mr. Prince, at 4:40 in the afternoon —

A Correct.

THE COURT: — when you have been on the stand all day.

A Yes, that is correct, Mr. Weinberg.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified that you went to the FDLE — to FDLE Agent Strope. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, Agent Strope is the — one of the two law enforcement people that were the principal investigators of the criminal investigation of the Church of Scientology. Correct? You knew that?

A Yes.

Q And you had had meetings with Agent Strope over the years?

A I would say that is correct.

Q And what kind of meetings had you had with Agent Strope over the years in your role as either LMT’s VP or trial consultant for Ken Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. What is a trial VP?

MR. WEINBERG: I said VP of LMT or a trial consultant.

998

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q My question is —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s getting late.

THE COURT: It’s getting late. Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And I know the hour.

THE COURT: Well, if you come to a nice little stopping point, we’ll stop. But whatever this is all about, you met with Agent Strope. What is it you want to know about that?

MR. WEINBERG: He said he met with him over the years.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: What I want to know is, you know — you know, what was the — the —

THE COURT: I’m not going — you can ask him about the conversation that he had about whatever is going on in this hearing.

But as far as what he talked to Agent Strope about over the years, that is outside of the scope and I’m not going to let you go there.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then —

THE COURT: I’m not letting you go there.

Finish up.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you think maybe we can stop

999

now and just go to —

THE COURT: No. Finish with Agent Strope. I don’t care if it takes until six o’clock. Then we’re going to stop.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you met with Agent Strope where?

A In his office downtown Clearwater.

Q And you — was anybody else with you?

A No.

Q Was anybody else with him?

A No.

Q Did he record the conversation?

A He recorded it inasmuch as he took copious notes as I spoke.

THE COURT: Recording means did he put a tape recording on?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nothing electronic.

THE COURT: That is what he means when he says recording. If you don’t understand what somebody says, ask.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

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

1000

what you discussed with him?

A I do not.

Q Did he — did he ask to — did you have any — did you reach any agreements with him with regard to cooperation?

A I specifically asked him, “Based on the information — ” I said “– this looks like racketeering to me, it looks like RICO, criminal activity that starts in New York, continues in New Hampshire and carries on down here in Florida.”

And I briefed him on the fact that they’re calling me — you know, I wanted — when I went to deVlaming,

“Please give me a wire so that you can hear what these people are saying,” you know. You don’t — “I don’t even want you to hear it from me. Please give me a wire so you can hear what they’re saying.”

And he told me that —

Q “He” being DeVlaming? Or “he” being Strope?

A Mr. Strope — Mr. Lee Strope. He told me that he would see what he could do, but — Mmm — you know, he was — he was — he was pretty upset about what had happened himself, you know, when I told him this because, again, Mr. Strope and I do have a relationship.

But he — that is when he gave me that message to give to Mr. Minton.

1001

Q Well, let’s — one thing at a time.

A Okay.

Q Did he wire you up?

A No.

Q Did he — did he ask you to report back to him?

A No.

Q Did you have any further conversations with him?

A No — well, I take that back. I’m sorry. He came to Judge Baird’s hearing. I believe he was there for a short time. And we made casual conversation. It was obvious that this thing was going to be protracted and no decision was going to be made any time soon about any type of perjury so he said he would be in touch — we would be in touch.

Q But you haven’t been in touch with him since?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Dandar instruct you to go to Agent Strope?

A I’m not sure if it was Mr. Dandar or Mr. Emmons.

Q Mr. Dandar’s investigator?

A Correct.

Q Did you report to Mr. Dandar and/or Mr. Emmons your contact with Agent Strope?

A Yes, I did.

Q And the day that you went to Agent Strope, was what in relation to these notes of — of April 14?

1002

A I do not remember.

Q Well, you obviously went to Agent Strope before you met with — for the last time — Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

A That is incorrect. And that is my fault because I mixed it up, speaking about DeVlaming, when you were asking me specifically about Mr. Strope, because it was with Mr. DeVlaming that I asked him to give me a federal agent,
not a local person, that would be willing to put a wire on me, because, you know — but by the time I met with Mr. Strope, the opportunity was passed.

THE COURT: You met with Strope after. That is not the person you met with when Denis deVlaming or Doug DeVlaming or whenever somebody sent you to see somebody?

THE WITNESS: Douglas DeVlaming said he would do the contact himself. He contacted the agent, explained the situation to him, then he called me and told me what the federal agent told him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Right. Well, that was a federal agent. You never met with a federal agent, right?

A Personally, no.

Q So that is what Mr. DeVlaming was doing?

A Douglas DeVlaming.

1003

Q But at the suggestion of Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, you are the one that initiated the contact with Agent Strope of the FDLE. Correct?

A Well, you know, that is not the way you said it, Mr. Weinberg. You said who asked you to go. I said it was either Mr. Dandar or it was Mr. Emmons. Now you are saying I arranged it and somehow — you know, one of the two persons, Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, arranged or contacted Mr. Strope and arranged for me to meet with him.

Q The way we started was I was just trying to date it. It was sometime before the April 14 last meeting with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Correct?

A Incorrect.

Q So you went to Agent Strope after you had had your last meeting with Ms. Brooks and — and — and Mr. Minton?

A Correct.

Q You wanted Agent Strope to make you an informant?

A No. I wanted Agent Strope to do what he could to talk to someone on a federal level to deal with this problem, because in my mind it was a federal crime. I asked him about that.

And he — you know, he said, “If what you are saying is true, it is a federal crime.”

I didn’t want to fool around with the Florida folks. I wanted something federal, because it happened in

1004

New York, it happened in New Hampshire, and it happened here in Clearwater.

Q At the time that this was going on, you meeting with Agent Strope, did you know that Mr. Minton had a lawyer with regard to these matters?

A Oh, I think it was Mr. Howie, wasn’t it? Well, he had a couple lawyers. Mr. Howie. Mr. Jonas.

Q And it’s your testimony that Agent Strope told you, if not instructed you, to deliver a message to Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: He already testified to that.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

A Correct.

THE COURT: I believe I asked the question the second time. So we really don’t need it for the third time.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: The testimony is what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you delivered the message?

A Yes, I did — well, as I testified, my fiancee delivered the message. She read it to him. I wrote it down on a piece of paper. She read it to him over the phone.

MR. WEINBERG: That is a good stopping point.

1005

THE COURT: Okay. Then we’re done for the day.

And we will start tomorrow at —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll start tomorrow at nine.

We’ll be in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: I should tell Mr. Dandar, I don’t have very much more with Mr. Prince, so he needs to be ready for the next witness.

MR. DANDAR: How much more?

THE COURT: Have your witness here in the morning.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’m handing over to the defense my response to the request to produce.

THE COURT: I don’t have to get into that unless you-all don’t get together on it.

Requests to produce normally don’t require the Court.

MR. DANDAR: I just wanted to file it with the clerk.

THE COURT: We’re in recess until 9 o’clock.

Good night.

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)

______________________________________

1006

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA  )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS  )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 4) (July 9, 2002)

0467

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

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

vs.

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

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

Testimony of Jesse Prince.

VOLUME 4

DATE: July 9, 2002.

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

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

0468

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

MR. STEPHEN WEIN
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0469

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS
                                                       PAGE  LINE
Recess                                                    535   10
Recess                                                    580   3
Reporter’s Certificate                          581  1

0470

(The proceedings resumed at 10:05 a.m.)

[… Other court business.]

THE COURT: Okay. I’m ready for Mr. Prince.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: He’s still under oath. Same oath he’s taken. You only have to take it once.

You may continue, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Wein, you’re going to hear some unusual evidentiary rulings here, because we’re dealing with things like, perhaps, state of mind of your client. However, you don’t have — you’re  just — your client is nothing but a witness in this hearing. Therefore, as I told Mr. Battaglia yesterday —

MR. WEIN: I understand I can listen but I  shouldn’t be standing up and objecting.

THE COURT: That’s correct.

And you might think, “What in the world kind of

0499

rulings is she making? She doesn’t understand anything about the rules of evidence.” This is an unusual hearing with unusual rules, and we’ve got some objections that have been made and will be preserved, that have been made, First Amendment objections, expert objections, stuff like that, that are preserved. So you might hear triple hearsay come in in this hearing. It’s just an unusual hearing. So —

MR. WEINBERG: So it’s both the lawyers that aren’t objecting —

THE COURT: Yeah. When you hear that —

MR. WEINBERG: (Inaudible.)

THE COURT: When the lawyers don’t object —

MR. WEINBERG: (Inaudible, simultaneous speakers.)

THE COURT: — just understand that we’re involved in somewhat of an unusual hearing, and I’ve made some somewhat unusual evidentiary rulings already. So we’re —

MR. WEIN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — taking it from there.

Continue.
__________________________________________
25
0500

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, I’m not sure I asked you this question yesterday or not, but are you aware that Mr. Minton received from me any information concerning any of the mediations in this wrongful death case?

A  No, I am not.

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you and say, “Oh, Ken Dandar told me this about the mediation and what was said at the mediation”?

A  No, he did not.

Q  Now, before you left the Church of Scientology, how many years did you know — personally know David Miscavige?

A  I’d say about 12 years.

Q  And yesterday you said you were a friend of David Miscavige?

A  I said we’d been friends; we had been friends, close friends, at a point in time.

Q  Okay. When did that friendship end, if at all?

A  Well, it’s been quite a while since we’ve talked to each other. Probably — you know, if we talked to each other — I don’t know — maybe we could still find some friendship there. But we haven’t talked for quite a while.

Q  Well, give us a year. When did you last talk to him?

0501

A  ’92.

Q  And is ’92 the year that you were no longer a Sea Org member?

A  ’92 is the year that I left.

Q  Okay. And prior to leaving, did you still consider him to be your friend?

A  Yes, I did.

Q  Okay. And did he work with you in RTC when you were deputy inspector general?

A  Yes, he did. And as a matter of fact, more often than not I would report to him.

Q  Rather than Vicki Aznaran?

A  Together with Vicki Aznaran or without Vicki Aznaran.

Q  Can you describe to the court his management style?

A  Well, same management style that’s pretty much taught throughout the management series of Scientology, wherein an executive is expected to know about or be in control of all areas underneath the executive.

Normally when you have a person that’s high in the organizational chart in Scientology, you’ll have a seven-division org board. The person that is over that activity has to know the details of what’s going on in all of those seven divisions. Each division may be having three

0502

separate departments, as many as three separate departments, and different units within the department. So there could be a lot of people there. There is provisions for inspecting, getting information, and on and on and on, with that. But it’s very much expected to know everything.

But it certainly gets carried to an extreme, or certainly was carried on to an extreme during my tenure there, in that certain sections or areas would be micromanaged to the point where the staff in that area could only act on orders and comply with orders, comply with command intention, comply with programs. There was not a lot of original thought process going on in some areas by staff.

Q  How far down the org board did you personally observe Mr. Miscavige micromanaging during your tenure?

A  All the way down to the janitor.

Q Really.

A  Yeah.

Q  Would he manage that way with RTC or would he go outside of RTC?

A  Would go outside of RTC. There’s plenty of examples of that.

Q  Can you give us a few?

A  Well —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just date this? I was

0503

under the impression that when Mr. Prince was at RTC, Mr. Miscavige wasn’t. So can we put a date when he’s talking about?

THE WITNESS: I certainly will.

THE COURT: And what was that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I haven’t spoken of any instance yet, but the instance that I’m about to talk about right now happened in 1985 — and I do believe I’ve done a declaration about this before — whereby myself, David Miscavige, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Mark Ingber, Ray Mithoff, the usual crew, came to the FSO.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Flag?

A  Flag Service Organization.

Q  In Clearwater?

A  In Clearwater, Florida.

Went through the entire organization, started declaring suppressive persons of staff and public on the spot; people that we didn’t want or felt were inappropriate to be in the Flag Service Organization.

I’ve given a declaration about that before.

THE COURT: Have I seen that declaration?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t — I don’t think —

Was it — it wasn’t in this case, was it?

0504

THE WITNESS: No. I believe it was in another case.

I will certainly find it, when —

THE COURT: That’s all right. I just didn’t know — I didn’t remember —

MR. DANDAR: No, it wasn’t.

THE COURT: — reading it.

MR. WEINBERG: Does he know what cases?

Was it the Wollersheim case?

THE WITNESS: I believe it may have been.

A  There’s another instance that was produced and written about by KSW News or Scientology News, where again the usual crew — myself, Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock, Ray Mithoff, Mark Ingber, Mark Yeager, several Scientology attorneys — went to San Francisco to have a mission holders’ conference with the current mission holders.

THE COURT: Go to the mission —

THE WITNESS: Mission holders. Mission holders would be like franchise holders, organization — The Scientology organization is one thing.

Then you can have a franchise of that which is called a mission. And the mission holder would be the owner of the mission.

THE COURT: I see.

A  Anyway, we went up to San Francisco to have a

0505

mission holders’ conference. And prior to actually having the conference, we stopped in a local Scientology organization, the San Francisco organization, went through the entire organization, spoke to everyone in the
organization, and removed the executive from the organization, removed other people, and left.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  What gave you the power —

MR. WEINBERG: Could you please date that one too, please?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  What year was that?

A  That one was 1982 — late ’82 or very early ’83, as I recall.

Q  And what gave Mr. Miscavige and your group the power to go into a separate corporation, the San Francisco organization, and remove officers of the corporation?

A  This is the subject of something I’ve also given extensive testimony and declaration about, because it goes to alter-ego within Scientology.

But there’s a thing called mission tech, where Sea Org members can get together on orders based on Sea Org programs, and go into any organization and take it over completely and remove its executives, alter, change its policy, change its board of directors, change whatever it

0506

wants to. And once it deems that the activity is performing to the expected standard, then the mission will pull out.

Normally these missions last for two, three weeks.

Q  So it has to do —

THE COURT: Mission —

I’m sorry, Mr. Dandar. We must be driving you crazy.

The mission lasts for two or three weeks, meaning the mission church or the mission of these folks that are going in to take a look?

THE WITNESS: The mission of these folks going in to take a look —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  And the officers of the corporation are removed because they’re doing —

I mean, what’s the reason for that? Let’s talk about the San Francisco organization.

THE COURT: Why is that relevant?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the power of the Sea Org, which is one of the issues raised at this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: But it’s not an issue at this hearing. It may be an issue he’s trying to raise, but the issue at this hearing is whether or not, A,

0507

there was misconduct by Mr. Dandar and others; and B, whether or not there was a basis to allege that David Miscavige had ordered the killing, death of Lisa McPherson. Not Sea Org, none of that.

THE COURT: Well, part of the allegation was he was the head of the Sea Org, which was by — That is an issue.

MR. WEINBERG: But it’s — it — Mr. Miscavige, as we know, is not a party, because he didn’t pursue — that was the way they got him to be a party, by saying he was outside of the contract —

THE COURT: I —

MR. WEINBERG: — and —

THE COURT: — understand that, Counsel. But the allegation in the complaint that you are trying to get a summary judgment on and — and have dismissed as false is that David Miscavige did these certain things. And that still is part of the complaint, whether he’s a party or not.

MR. WEINBERG: There’s a lot of accusations in the complaint that I guess Mr. Dandar could have this hearing go for the next three months about, but that isn’t a central — I’ve said my piece.

THE COURT: Thank you.

0508

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So Mr. Prince, you and your party, which included Mr. Miscavige, ousting the corporate officers of the San Francisco corporation, what — what gave them the power to do that?

A  Again, it was just Sea Org — it’s called Sea Org mission tech, where a person in the Sea Org, called a mission op, or operator — mission ops, it’s called — will put together a set of, like, project order to get done in the organization.

They may call for removing the executives; it may call for investigating and then removing upon determination; it may call for training; it may call for correction.

Q  And back in late ’82, early ’83, when you and Miscavige and the others went to San Francisco, who was the head of the Sea Org?

A  David Miscavige.

Q  And when you left in ’92 —

THE COURT: Mr. Hubbard was still alive then?

THE WITNESS: In 1992, yes.

MR. DANDAR: No, ’82.

THE COURT: ’82.

THE WITNESS: Oh. ’82. Yes. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: And he was not the head of the Sea Org?

0509

THE WITNESS: Yes, he was. He was the commodore.

But you know, we were going through this whole song and dance to try to get tax-exempt status for the various organizations of Scientology, and the problem came up where I guess it was determined that L. Ron Hubbard — it was found that L. Ron Hubbard was the managing agent of Scientology and the Sea Org. And so Mr. Hubbard, by that time, had really separated himself for the purposes of allowing this church entity — these Scientology entities to get tax-exempt status. He had kind of separated himself totally from Scientology activity.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So when he separated himself, who took over as the head of the Sea Org?

A  Miscavige. David Miscavige.

Q  And when you left in ’92, who was the head of the Sea Org?

A  David Miscavige.

Q  Was there anyone in the Sea Org that had equal or greater rank than David Miscavige from ’82 to ’92 when you left?

A  At the time before I left, David Miscavige — this

0510

whole thing with brevet rank and being a captain and stuff — this is something that happened, I believe, later, after I was done there.

Mr. Miscavige derives his authority from being the chairman of the board of nearly every — all of the major corporations. He’s on the board of directors somehow, where he derives —

And then also, as far as Sea Org is concerned, Miscavige — I mean, basically, L. Ron Hubbard passed the torch to Miscavige. He didn’t pass it to Miscavige; he passed it on to Pat and Annie Broeker. Miscavige got rid of Pat and Annie Broeker, so effectively took control of Scientology.

Q  And did he take control of Scientology as the chairman of the board of some corporation or through the Sea Org?

A  He took control of Scientology through — by corporate means. And he was able to — You see — you see, this may be a little confusing, so I think this is worth — takes a moment to explain.

The Sea Org operates on not only these green policy letters and these red bulletins that we’ve seen, but the Sea Org has its own issues and issue types that it operates on. And they’re called Flag orders. Flag

0511

orders — you know, they supersede corporate boundaries; supersede posts or positions or whatever.

A  So Flag orders — L. Ron — the last Flag order that he wrote, he turned over Scientology to Pat and Annie Broeker. He called them loyal officers. Loyal officers is a term that comes up from reading Scientology’s, quote/unquote, advance materials. That was — loyal officers were supposed to be the highest rank in Scientology.

Miscavige — after L. Ron Hubbard passed, Miscavige cancelled that issue, did not let Pat and Annie —

THE COURT: We don’t really need to go there, do we?

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m leading up to one question.

THE COURT: Okay.

A  Anyway, he effectively took it over.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. Now, why is it that paragraph 34 — based on your affidavit, why is it that it alleges that David Miscavige, outside of anyone else, would be the person who would have given this order to end cycle?

A  Well, I think what my affidavit actually says is — is David Miscavige would have sat there with Ray Mithoff, with Marty Rathbun, the people that meet, to — to

0512

make sure that the flaps within Scientology that are a threat are dealt with. I think what I said there was that those three people would have gotten together and decided —

THE COURT: Ray Mithoff and who else?

THE WITNESS: Marty Rathbun.

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

THE WITNESS: Would have sat there with full knowledge and information of what was going on with Lisa McPherson. And instead of letting her be taken to a hospital, would have told these people to just let her stay there, and let’s see what happens here.

Let’s continue. See if we can, you know, finish the introspection rundown. Don’t put her on any line where she can tell a story about what’s happening to her.

In other words, let her die. If she dies, that’s what happens.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Now, what if the — based upon your tenure and your experience of working with Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Rathbun, Mr. — I’ve forgotten the third name.

A  Mithoff.

Q  Mithoff.

If Mr. Mithoff and Mr. Rathbun said, “No, no, no. We have these reports, that she needs to — she’s not

0513

doing — she’s getting worse. She needs to go to the hospital. Send her to the hospital,” and Mr. Miscavige says, “No. We’re not going to do that,” out of those three, who prevails?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. This is just rank speculation.

THE COURT: It would appear to be so, except I believe he indicated, back when he was at RTC, these same people were there?

MR. WEINBERG: No. Mr. Mithoff was in CSI.

Mr. Rathbun was not in RTC.

I — I mean, he —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince —

MR. WEINBERG: — at the time —

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it, because I know what the answer is. I mean —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, who was in RTC when you were in RTC, at these meetings?

MR. WEINBERG: No —

A  The only people that were in RTC were myself and Vicki Aznaran. David Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services, a for-profit corporation that was L. Ron Hubbard’s publishing company. However, that meant

0514

nothing in relationship to who were the principals of Scientology, who were directing — directing the actions of Scientology as a whole. And the people that were doing that were David Miscavige, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Mark Ingber, Lyman Spurlock.

THE COURT: Was there a majority vote taken?

THE WITNESS: There’s no such thing as a vote in the Sea Org, unless you’re deciding on a quality of food, in Scientology.

THE COURT: If you disagree on a decision, who made the final call?

THE WITNESS: If you disagreed on a decision — if you disagreed with someone that was above you, you would be sent for correction to straighten out your —

THE COURT: Look, if you folks are sitting around trying to decide something — you and all these people, you said, were kind of a — there — and you disagreed; you know, you said, “I think this should happen,” Ms. Aznaran said, “I think this should happen,” David Miscavige said, “I think this should happen,” who made the call?

THE WITNESS: Ultimately the person who would have the authority and everyone would have to follow would be Mr. Miscavige.

0515

THE COURT: So he — he made the final call.

THE WITNESS: Yes, he would say, “Okay. Yeah.

This is how you do it.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Would he get input from the others for —

A  Yes. I mean, that happened. But the purpose — I mean, you know — and I just want to clear this picture — make this picture a little bit more clearer as to how it actually works.

Mr. — Mr. Mithoff, based on how it worked when I was there — I’m just going to explain this. Mr. Mithoff would have brought this situation to the attention of Mr. Rathbun. Mr. Rathbun would have looked over this — okay. And again, in my mind, I’m not going with the theory that she was crazy when they took her to the hospital; I’m not going with the theory that she just lay there and wanted to be there; I’m going with the theory that, just like she said, she wanted to leave. She was trying to leave. They incarcerated her, falsely incarcerated her, wouldn’t let her leave.

So Mr. Mithoff would have brought it to Mr. Rathbun’s attention. Because you have a threat. You have a person that is now escalated. They want to get out. And now they’re sick. It’s going bad — worse to bad. Mr. Mithoff would have taken and put an exact

0516

instructions in her folder, went over it with Mr. Rathbun.

And at the meeting they would have sat down with Mr. Miscavige and said, “This is the situation. This is the flap. This is the handling.” If their handling included not taking her to the hospital and keeping her there  and doing Scientology on her, Mr. Miscavige would have said, “Fine.” If their handling would have been, “Look, I think we better take this risk even though she is antagonistic, and we got to send her to the hospital,” it is my opinion that his answer would have been, “No. You leave her right there.”

Q  And why is that? What do you base that opinion on?

A  I base that opinion on the fact that protecting Scientology is the ultimate goal of any Scientologist, irrespective of friend, family, business. Scientology comes first. Because the idea in Scientology is that Scientology’s going to save the world. And if you lose Scientology, you lose the world. So it’s the greatest good to protect Scientology than it would be to be concerned about an individual, or a group, for that matter.

Q  Now, are you familiar with the term and policy letter called “bypass”?

A  Yes, I am.

Q  All right. Can you tell the court what that is?

0517

A  Bypass is a situation — I guess I can just do a real example here using the court reporter. If this court reporter here were typing transcripts and she were making too many errors, someone else would have to come in here and take over her job and — while she goes and gets fixed or gets corrected, and takes over her actual job, and does the job until she’s able to perform it again.

Q  Do you have an opinion whether or not, in Lisa McPherson’s case, bypass would have come into play?

THE COURT: I don’t understand that. I’m sorry. Maybe I just didn’t understand the example.

Maybe —

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll try to do another example, your Honor.

THE COURT: Bypass, to me, means you jump over somebody or you go around someone.

THE WITNESS: Well, you actually displace that person and assume their position.

THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay.

THE WITNESS: Until they can do the job correctly.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Let me show you —

THE COURT: I don’t think he answered your

0518

question. I interrupted him. So if you want an answer, do you —

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m going —

THE COURT: In the Lisa McPherson case —

MR. DANDAR: No —

THE COURT: — did bypass occur?

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to ask a question first.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to interrupt myself.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Let me show you what I have marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 127, see if you can identify this.

A  Okay.

Q  Can you identify this?

A  Yes, I can. This is what’s commonly referred to as a CBO, central bureau order. It’s another issue type that Scientology puts out, you know, like a bulletin or a policy letter. And this particular issue talks about senior management bypassing into lower areas or lower units within the Scientology infrastructure.

Q  Under what circumstances would that happen?

A  This would happen at any point where the senior officer or senior body felt that there was a situation going on in a lower area that wasn’t being dealt with to par.

0519

Q  Now, do you have an opinion, based upon your experience in Scientology, whether or not, after your review of the Lisa McPherson matter, the policy bypass would have come into play?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to competence. I don’t even know what this is. I mean, this is not written by L. Ron Hubbard, apparently. It’s not in the green volumes or the red volumes. There’s been no — there’s been no —

And Mr. Prince said he knew what bypass was. Well — but — and now he’s going to apply it to some hypothetical situation that he doesn’t have any personal knowledge of?

THE WITNESS: I think the issue speaks for —

THE COURT: I —

THE WITNESS: — itself.

THE COURT: I think for this purpose of this hearing, I just want to hear everything he has to say.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I just —

THE COURT: So I’m going to allow it.

MR. WEINBERG: Every now and then, I just need to get up to renew —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — my —

0520

Just so Mr. Wein —

Is it Wein —

MR. WEIN: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. — I’m “wine,” and he’s “ween.”

THE COURT: I want to hear everything —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — because I want to find out all the things that Mr. Prince may have, as Mr. Dandar’s consultant —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — told him about, so that I can have some understanding of the complaint and the allegations you’ve made. And so I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Have you seen this document before today, Mr. Prince?

A  Yes, I have.

Q  And under what circumstances have you seen that?

A  I have seen this during messenger training.

I had to, myself — when I went to Gilman Hot Springs in 1982, I became what’s called a commodore messenger. And I’ve explained that endlessly too. It’s a person — it’s an emissary of L. Ron Hubbard who has the

0521

same authority as L. Ron Hubbard. When they come with an order to an area, it’s like L. Ron Hubbard giving an order to an area. So you know, this has the highest level of priority, as far as compliance’s concerned.

I became a commodore’s messenger. And as part of being a commodore’s messenger, this was the first time in my study pack on the duties of commodore’s messenger that I read this particular issue.

Q  Okay. And do you have an opinion whether or not this bypass would come into play in any part of the matter concerning Lisa McPherson?

A  I think it would have certainly come into play, given the fact that Mrs. McPherson was not being cooperative or — and actually intended to leave Scientology. And this was consistent in what she was saying. So that’s like a breach of technology. There’s no such thing as Scientology not working, as far as the written materials are concerned. If Scientology doesn’t work, then something is wrong with the individual. Somebody has done something wrong or somebody has misapplied it.

So if you have a person in the extreme situation like Lisa was, that continued, that would be reason for bypass; to come in and, you know, deal with it specifically.

Q  Who gets involved when bypass happens?

A  For the FSO?

0522

Q  Yes.

A  Normally Ray Mithoff.

Q  In what position?

A  He’s the senior technical person internationally for Scientology. The Flag Service Organization is the senior mecca of technical perfection as far as Scientology is concerned, so the — the Flag Service organization is certainly one of the major providences of the senior CS  international.

Q  Now, a while back, you know, in my office, you pulled out an OW of Lisa McPherson —

THE COURT: OW?

MR. DANDAR: Overt withhold, abbreviated OW.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  — that she wrote in the fall of ’95, concerning February of ’95, where she mentioned management had to get involved? Do you recall that?

A  Yes. This was a — right around the first time I believe that Lisa started experiencing severe difficulty with Scientology, as far as her relationship to it. And she mentioned that whatever was going on with her was — you know, technically it resulted in a bypass by senior management; a bypass of the Flag Service Organization, to specifically help her and deal with her situation.

Q  Now, we already have in evidence and marked as

0523

Exhibit 96 —

And this is an extra copy.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, I’ll show it to you if you need to see it again.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But it’s the Heide Negro (sic) isolation watch report. Did you see that before?

A  Yes, I did.

Q  And on the second page it talks about —

THE COURT: That’s in evidence?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. 96.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. It’s been a long time.

THE WITNESS: I think she needs —

MR. DANDAR: It is a long time.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  On the second page, first paragraph of the last sentence —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, hold on. Mr. — I object to his competence — he has no personal knowledge of any of this.

THE COURT: I don’t even know what the question is going to be, so —

MR. WEINBERG: He’s now going into

0524

somebody’s —

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know what he’s going to go into because you haven’t heard the question. So let’s hear it and I’ll —

MR. WEINBERG: If I could —

THE COURT: Go on ahead with your question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Okay. The first paragraph, it says that this data came originally from FSO CS, Alain Kartuzinski, who was in charge of John Taylor’s correction. Who —

THE COURT: See, I don’t even know where you’re reading from.

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. First paragraph on page 2.

THE COURT: Oh. Page 2.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  “This was later corrected by a telex from Mr. Ray Mithoff, who indicated that the RD –” I guess that’s rundown —

A  Right.

Q  “– in fact could be delivered, at which point delivery commenced.”

0525

Now, what does that mean in plain English?

A  There was a question of whether or not this person could be given the introspection rundown. Alain Kartuzinski apparently thought that no one was qualified at this particular location, which is their advanced organization in the United Kingdom. This person was — apparently had similar symptoms to what Lisa and other people were having that have that problem. And Mr. Mithoff — this, again — at management, was alerted.

And Mr. Mithoff indicated that the rundown could be given, because Mr. Mithoff is the senior-most technical person within the Scientology infrastructure. Senior FSO CS Alain Kartuzinski — any auditor or case supervisor located here in Clearwater, Florida, operating in the Ft. Harrison Hotel and the Sandcastle, are considered to be the cream of the crop as far as auditors and technically trained people are concerned.

Q  Okay. Well, are you aware of evidence that you’ve seen where David Miscavige has become personally involved in the matters concerning Lisa McPherson?

A  One thing that I saw where he actually comes out himself was a letter that was written to Mr. Bernie McCabe concerning dismissing the criminal case that was brought against Scientology for Lisa McPherson’s death.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar’s not

0526

taking the position that this justifies his accusation that David Miscavige murdered Lisa McPherson, whatever he’s got to show you, that happened in the criminal investigation.

THE COURT: No. I think what he’s about to show me, based on his question, is something that indicates that David Miscavige knew about the Lisa McPherson case. I don’t think —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think —

THE COURT: — that that —

MR. WEINBERG: — the whole world knew about the Lisa McPherson case once there were people — once the church was indicted and people were walking around with picket signs.

THE COURT: We have to read it, ’cause I don’t know what it is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Plaintiff’s 128. Is that the letter you’re referring to, Mr. Prince?

A  Yes, it is.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could I have a copy, please?

MR. DANDAR: Oh.

A  Yeah.

0527

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Based upon your experience as a Scientology executive in RTC, why would RTC have anything to do or be  involved with the Lisa McPherson matter?

A  I think if you just look at the second paragraph on page 7 of this letter, the last sentence, I think that pretty much says it all. It says, “Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved –”

THE COURT: Just a second. I can’t find out where you are. Page 7, what?

THE WITNESS: Second paragraph. Last sentence in the second paragraph.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Where it says, “Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved, you and I are the persons to do it.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  You, meaning Mr. McCabe, and I, meaning Mr. —

A  Miscavige.

Q  — Miscavige?

A  Correct.

Q  Why would — again, why would Mr. Miscavige then be personally involved in the Lisa McPherson matter?

0528

MR. WEINBERG: Again —

A  Again, bypass —

MR. WEINBERG: — isn’t this pure speculation on his part?

THE COURT: Well, I think that — that — I would read this that this was after the charge was brought.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: And that Mr. Miscavige, as the ecclesiastical head of the church against whom a charge was brought, was saying, “If this is going to be resolved, Mr. McCabe, as the state attorney, and I, as the head of this church, need to sit down and try to resolve it.”

MR. WEINBERG: And of course, he was not successful at that point, because the case continued for another year. And we all know how it —

THE COURT: However, we perhaps need to hear from Mr. Prince how he believes that statement shows that Mr. Miscavige was involved before Lisa McPherson died. Which is what your point of the question —

MR. DANDAR: That’s where I’m heading, yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0529

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  How does that — how can you explain that as reference to, as the judge just said —

A  I think the letter, you know, indicates Mr. Miscavige’s broad knowledge of every step of the criminal case, you know. And there’s no obvious evidence that he’s had involvement in this case, but it would certainly be my opinion that he has. Because again, this is a flap. It’s a bypass.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Prince, let me just ask you what would seemingly be a logical question to me:

You could certainly have a situation — I’m not saying this is true or not true. But you could have — certainly have a situation where somebody didn’t know about somebody being ill, but when criminal charges were filed, because that person died, if they’re the head, they’d become involved and take over from that point.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. That is a rational line of thinking for, you know, regular world activities. But in Scientology, these — you know, Scientology —

THE COURT: I’m not saying that —

THE WITNESS: — is extremely —

0530

THE COURT: — Mr. Miscavige didn’t know.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: I am saying that another explanation — I mean, this is about a criminal charge —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And so you could certainly have —

THE WITNESS: Against the Flag Service Organization.

THE COURT: Yeah. You could have a situation where the ecclesiastical head, after criminal charges are filed, says, “Let’s you and I sit down and see if we can resolve this criminal case.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know, where are the letters from the corporate heads of the Flag Service Organization, doing the same thing with Mr. McCabe?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Where are the what?

THE WITNESS: The corporate officers of the Flag Service Organization. Where’s Mr. Ben Shaw’s letter to Mr. McCabe to sort this out? Why does this necessitate Mr. Miscavige? This is against the

0531

Flag Service Organization.

THE COURT: Well, because as I understand it, Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the Church of Scientology.

THE WITNESS: Every one of them.

THE COURT: Every one of them.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Yeah. There’s no disagreement.

So as I said, I can — I’m not saying that Mr. Miscavige did or did not know about Lisa McPherson’s situation when she was at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Because quite frankly, that’s one of the issues.

But this letter just simply says that, “I as the head of this church, all of them, want to sit down with you and resolve this case.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So how do you jump from that —

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: In other words, there’s lots of people who have testified that David Miscavige, as chairman of the board of RTC, knew about Lisa McPherson. There’s just no question in their mind.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: He would have known. He would have

0532

known because that’s the way business is done.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Sort of.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. I’ve heard all that testimony. I presume you would testify the same.

But what does this letter add to this?

THE WITNESS: I — you know, your Honor, I think the only purpose of this letter is — is just to show what we were talking about earlier, when we were talking about the bypass and — and how, you know, it’s a pattern of conduct; how the organization does business. I think that’s the purpose of why this is in here.

THE COURT: Well, if this letter has relevance — if this letter has relevance, it has relevance to the, I suspect, agreed-to evidence in this case, which is that David Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the Church of Scientology, including — including Flag.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Including all of the organizations.

MR. WEINBERG: The letter isn’t relevant to this proceeding.

THE COURT: No. It is not relevant to this

0533

proceeding, as I said, except that it might be relevant to that issue, which I assume is an agreed-upon issue.

MR. WEINBERG: The first church in the United States within 200 years is indicted, it’s not surprising that Mr. Miscavige —

THE COURT: No, it’s not.

MR. WEINBERG: — would want to try to find a resolution to it.

THE COURT: That is true, and that’s what I said. I don’t think it has any relevance to this proceeding unless it is to establish that indeed Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the church, including — including Flag.

MR. WEINBERG: He’s the ecclesiastical — he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the churches of Scientology.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: The religious leader of the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, ecclesiastical leader and religious leader are the same thing.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Same thing. He happens to be the chairman of the board of an organization called RTC, but he’s the ecclesiastical or religious

0534

leader of Scientology.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, is Mr. Miscavige the leader of all of the Scientology churches as — because he’s the COB of RTC or because he’s the captain of the Sea Org?

A  Because he’s the captain of the Sea Org.

Q  When Mr. Miscavige was the captain of the Sea Org and the COB, of the for-profit corporation Office Services, Inc., ASI, was he the head of all of the churches of Scientology as well?

A  Well, again, as your Honor correctly pointed out, Mr. Hubbard was alive at that time.

Q  Oh, okay.

A  Shortly after Mr. Hubbard passed, that was certainly the situation for a moment.

But immediately upon the death of Mr. Hubbard and the ousting of Pat and Annie Broeker, Mr. Miscavige assumed control of Religious Technology Center.

Q  All right. And did he do that because he was the chairman of the board of ASI or the captain of the Sea Org?

A  Because he was the captain of the Sea Org. You know, everything is done in the Sea Org with missions.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer —

0535

THE COURT: Yes. He’s answered the question.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a document — actually, it’s a notice of filing. I’m going to have to have the clerk mark this notebook. And —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. We’ll go ahead and take our morning break since it’s very close to that time. We’ll be in recess till 11:30.

(A recess was taken at 11:17 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:37 a.m.)

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: What I had marked and what I was about to hand the witness and the court, and not have to make an extra copy for Mr. Weinberg — which I didn’t because, quite frankly, he has all this, but I understand what he’s saying. He should have the same thing I’m handing — and that’s fine.

We’ll get that done over the lunch break — is Exhibit 130. It’s a compilation of documents, statements and depositions of staff.

But I’m only going to ask this witness about J, which is the narrative investigation of Detective Carrasquillo, April 15th, 1997.

MR. WEINBERG: I object to the use of this

0536

document. It’s just — it’s a — it’s not a sworn statement; it’s not a sworn statement of a witness. It’s just her — it’s a hearsay account of what she claims — I guess summarizes what somebody would have told her. That’s not evidence.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not — certainly not for — I think where he’s going is that he’s offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And it’s pure hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, it would be true hearsay if he’s offering it for the truth of the matter asserted, but I don’t know what he’s going to ask this witness. So let’s hear it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince — of course, we obtained this document, you know, a year after your affidavit of August of ’99 —

A  Mm-hmm.

Q  — when this was made a public record —

But in paragraph 3, the interview summary of Mr. and Mrs. Ortner, O-r-t-n-e-r, indicates that Mr. Miscavige was staying at the Ft. Harrison Hotel —

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what I’m talking about,

0537

your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  — while they were there, around November 20th of 1995.

Do you — here’s my question: Do you know of circumstances or other occasions when Mr. Miscavige would stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel?

A  Yes, I do. Again, I’ll refer to the — to the video that was played the first day of my testimony where we were having a New Year’s Eve event. He would be there for that. He would be there for March 13th, which is  L. Ron Hubbard’s birthday. They normally have an event at the —

MR. WEINBERG: Are you talking about a specific year?

A  — and —

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

MR. WEINBERG: About a specific year?

THE WITNESS: No. I’m talking — he asked me a question of when normally he would be there. I’m talking about —

MR. WEINBERG: All right. My objection is the question was whether he stayed there, not whether he was there. Big difference. And in this case there is no — I mean, if this is being offered that Mr. Miscavige was in Clearwater in November or

0538

December of 1995, it’s pure hearsay. And he wasn’t. And if he was —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear —

MR. WEINBERG: — he would have obviously — the state attorney would have done some investigation on it if that were the case. And it’s not the case.

But the question was whether he — whether Mr. Miscavige ever stayed at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, and Mr. Prince is talking about whether Mr. Miscavige was ever at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, which is completely different.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  How did you understand the question, Mr. Prince?

A  I understood the question as to at what times would Mr. Miscavige likely be at the Ft. Harrison.

Q  Okay. All right. Well, let’s —

THE COURT: I think that has some relevance, if it was anytime around — in and around the time of Lisa McPherson’s stay at the Ft. Harrison.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So what events would he normally routinely come to in the Ft. Harrison?

A  There would be auditor’s date —

Q  Which is —

0539

A  — which is sometime in September; there would be IAS —

Q  What’s IAS?

A  Excuse me. International Association of Scientologists. They have an event in the summertime, I think, that’s around June or something like that, they have an IAS event. The New Year’s event. L. Ron Hubbard birthday event.

Q  Which is March?

A  March 13th.

Some of the more common times that I can think of that he would be there.

Q  What about non-Scientology holidays such as Thanksgiving?

A  Not likely —

Q  Okay.

A  — in my experience.

Q  Okay.

THE COURT: And the reason he would be at the Ft. Harrison Hotel as opposed to someplace else is because it’s the mecca of all —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

The Ft. Harrison is a very beautiful hotel.

THE COURT: Is that — mecca of all technology — mecca of all technology?

0540

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Was —

THE COURT: Now, on a New Year’s event, I thought he was out in California on the tape that I saw.

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. That was right in the Ft. Harrison.

THE COURT: Oh, it was?

MR. WEINBERG: You’re talking about two different tapes. The tape that you saw was California. The tape that Mr. Prince was in, was —

THE COURT: In Clearwater.

MR. WEINBERG: — in the Ft. Harrison.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: That was — Mr. Prince was 20 years ago; your — I don’t know when it was. 2000.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: It was less than 20 years ago.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But anyway, do you — do you have any recollection of Mr. Miscavige staying at the Ft. Harrison Hotel rather than just showing up for an event?

A  Well, when I testified earlier about Mr. Miscavige and myself, Vicki Aznaran, you know, the regular crew coming

0541

into the Flag Service Organization and rearranging and declaring some people, we stayed there at that time.

I mean, you know, whenever Mr. Miscavige would come to the Clearwater area, as well as myself, we always stayed at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: What were the dates that Lisa McPherson was at the Ft. Harrison?

MR. DANDAR: November the 18th of ’95 through December the 5th of ’95.

THE COURT: Do you have any information that would say that David Miscavige was or was not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel on those dates?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, beyond what Mr. Dandar is presenting here today, I do not.

THE COURT: So regardless, if it weren’t for that hearsay document, you have no firsthand knowledge or other way of knowing whether he was there or not.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, one thing I wanted to ask you about that’s out of sequence, and that is after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, did you have occasion after that time to consult with Scientology attorneys?

0542

A  Yes, I did. I was contacted by Mr. Mike Sutter, who worked in the Scientology — worked in the Religious Technology Center. He told me that he wanted me to meet with Mr. Earle Cooley concerning ongoing church litigation.

Q  And who is Mr. Cooley?

A  Mr. Earle Cooley was lead counsel for Scientology during the early ’80s.

Q  And what date or what month and year was this that Mr. Sutter asked you to meet with Mr. Cooley?

A  You know, to the best of my knowledge, I do believe it was 1994.

We met in Boston.

Q  What was the purpose of that meeting?

A  Well, I thought I was going to go there to speak about current legal cases, because that’s what they told me they wanted me to speak about. But in fact, when I got there, it became quite a different show. They wanted me to reaffirm for them the fact that — you know, the — under the — reaffirm the conditions under which I left Scientology, the documents and things that I was — felt obligated to sign to leave. They wanted to update all of that again.

So they recorded me and — And I — and I guess I also found out that they were having trouble in the Wollersheim 4 case, in that —

0543

and they wanted to know if persons such as Vicki Aznaran, Lawrence Wollersheim, any attorneys, had contacted me to give testimony concerning Scientology.

Q  And as of that time, had anyone contacted you?

A  No.

Q  And did they pay you for your time?

A  Yes.

Q  How much?

A  I think it was 28- — 27-, $2,800.

Q  Was that the last time you were consulted by any representative of the Church of Scientology on matters such as that?

A  I believe so.

Q  Okay. Now, Mr. Prince, you —

MR. DANDAR: And I am going to be jumping around here.

THE COURT: You said this was 1994?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 131. And I have highlighted certain portions of it. I’m going to direct your attention to certain areas.  First of all, can you identify this document?

A  Yes. This is another Scientology issue type.

It’s called an executive directive. And this is an

0544

executive directive concerning senior HCO Int. And it concerns security situations and threat handlings.

Q  Now at the top it has references, and it has a bunch of HCO policy documents. Is that what — am I reading that correctly?

A  Yes. There’s four HCO policy letters. The FO — there’s one Flag order; there’s one SPD, which is a Scientology policy directives; two more HCO PLs, another SOED, that’s a Sea Org executive directive; and a couple of more policy letters.

Q  Okay. And the references for like the Sea Org executive director 4234 international, it says, “Coordination on security and investigation matters, suppressive acts.” Do you see that?

A  Yes, I do.

Q  Did I read — maybe I didn’t read that right.

A  Well, suppressive acts is the HCO PO, 23 December, ’65.

THE COURT: What does HCO stand for?

THE WITNESS: Hubbard Communications Office.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  And the last HCO policy of October 27th, 1964 talks — or concerns physical healing, insanity and sources of trouble. Do you see that?

A  Yes, I do.

0545

Q  All right. What does this document, mentioning insanity and healing and sources of trouble, have to do with security?

A  Well, when you have a — an insane person or a source of trouble, potential trouble source within a Scientology organization, according to its policies, this is a source of great potential trouble for an organization, be it a Sea Organization or regular Scientology organization, and these gives — it gives the steps of prevention and handling.

Q  Is “handling” a word that is used in the policies?

A  Yes.

Q  And in this particular checklist, it talks about — the second paragraph, where I’ve highlighted, uses, “Make sure the situations are actually handled.”

A  Right.

Q  Now, turn to page 2, letter G.

A  Okay.

Q  First of all, this list is below a paragraph that says the types of security situations, am I reading this correctly, where it says, G,”Attempted suicide cases or PTS Type IIIs and any external or antagonistic connections to these –” are these security issues?

A  Absolutely.

Q  Do you have an opinion whether or not this

0546

particular checklist would come into play in reference to the Lisa McPherson matter, in November and December of ’95?

A  This — the date of this issue is the 11th of May, 1991, and it’s basically instructing the divisions within Scientology organizations to coordinate with OSA — Office of Special Affairs — to deal with the  situations listed A through O, Type III — PTS Type IIIs being one of them, PTS Type III being the Scientology term for a psychotic.

Q  Mr. Prince, this is, as you said, dated May, 1991.

Does it surprise you that it references policy letters that are written in 1959 and 1964 and 1968, et cetera?

A  No. The words of L. Ron Hubbard are eternal to Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 131 in evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No objection. I don’t know what the relevance is, in light of the fact that there isn’t anything about RTC in this document.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. And Mr. Prince, let me show you Exhibit 129. I don’t have an extra copy here, for some reason. Oh, I do. Okay.

0547

Remember yesterday we talked about in order to get the injectable Valium prescriptions and the chloral hydrate prescriptions from drugstores, you talk about staff — somebody filling out what’s called a CSW, completed staff  work?

A  Yes.

Q  All right. This document, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 129, do you know where this comes from?

A  Yes. This comes from the Hubbard Administrative Dictionary, which is a dictionary that defines administrative terms used in Scientology organization.

Q  Okay. And the definition of completed staff work, does that fit within your understanding of what you testified to yesterday?

A  Yes, it does.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move 129 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Also Mr. Prince, you mentioned several times today that — when I was asking you about bypass and Mr. Miscavige’s role, you mentioned you had prior declarations. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

First of all, what is 132?

A  This is a supplemental declaration that was submitted in the Los Angeles courtrooms on behalf of

0548

plaintiff Lawrence Wollersheim.

Q  And this is your declaration?

A  Yes, it is.

Q  It’s dated December 22nd, 1999?

A  Yes.

Q  Is this one of the declarations you were referring to when you said you — in your testimony today, that you had previously filed declarations on the matters that we talked about?

A  No.

Let me just scan it here real quick.

Q  All right.

A  Well, yeah. I think right — starting on page 2, under the subtitle Sea Organization, I talk about Scientology missions, meaning, you know, a group of people going into an organization, taking it over. I talk about that.

Q  And on page number 40, you talk about —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Why are we doing this? Mr. Dandar can ask him questions, but this is just a hearsay — I mean, this is an affidavit. He’s on the stand. I mean, if there’s something he wants

to ask him about, he can ask him, instead of saying, “On paragraph such and such it says such and such.”

0549

THE COURT: Well, I would normally tend to agree with you, except we have affidavits, prior declarations of so many people in this case, I don’t know why I would keep the prior declaration of Mr. Prince’s out.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But Mr. Prince, the command channels and structure of the hierarchy of the Church of Scientology in this declaration, Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 132, is it any different than your testimony than you’ve given in

this case today?

A  No, it is not.

Q  Is it any different than your — and the reason why you reached the opinions you reached in August of 1999 concerning David Miscavige’s role in Lisa McPherson’s death?

A  No, it is not.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move 132 into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive it over objection, just as a prior affidavit that —

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I mean, I — the objection would be, normally, just buttressing his testimony.

THE COURT: That is true. In other words, that would be exactly right. And that would be proper

0550

objection, not hearsay or —

However, I’m going to let it in.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  All right. Now, Mr. Prince, have you worked with Mr. Michael Rinder in your tenure in Scientology?

A  Yes, I have.

Q  And what did — how did — under what circumstances?

A  Mr. Rinder was a member of the watchdog committee during my tenure at RTC. He was a member of the watchdog committee, a commodore’s messenger, and he worked for the corporation the Church of Scientology International.

Q  What is the watchdog committee?

A  The watchdog committee are the principals of the Church of Scientology International. The principals of each sector and section of Scientology — if you look at a Scientology org board, you will — you will see it’s broken down into certain sections and sectors. One — one sector of Scientology is Scientology International. That means all of the organizations that are not Sea Org organizations and are not missions.

So you would have a WDC member, a watchdog committee member, for the Scientology organizations. Then you’d have a WDC member or a watchdog committee member for the Sea Organization. You would have a watchdog committee

0551

member for SMI, S-M-I, Scientology Missions International, et cetera, et cetera.

Q  And who is the head of that watchdog committee?

A  The chairman of the watchdog committee, during the time — my tenure in Religious Technology Center, was Mark Yeager.

Q  And did Mr. Miscavige serve on that board as well?

A  No, he did not.

Q  Okay.

A  That board reported to Mr. Miscavige.

Q  So Mr. Miscavige was above that board?

A  Correct.

Q  Now, Mr. Prince, based upon your experience and expertise in Scientology, do you have an opinion as to why Michael Rinder was meeting with Bob Minton to try to get the McPherson case dismissed, as early as 1998?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the — I mean, this is pure speculation. It is — it’s — I think it’s improper opinion testimony. He says that he has some expertise — which we have challenged, you know, for a number of
reasons — with regard to the religious technology.

Now he’s going to be speculating as to why someone would have been meeting with Mr. Minton? Mr. Minton’s testified regarding that; Ms. Brooks

0552

has testified in regard to that meeting at length.

THE COURT: I — I understand. We’ve had some opinions in — I don’t know why we wouldn’t listen to his, too. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: I — it’s more frustration than anything.

That’s my objection. I understand that you’re overruling it, and I just wanted to —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

A  Sorry. I don’t remember the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Why would Mr. Rinder —

First of all, is Mr. Rinder part of the Flag Service Organization?

A  To my knowledge, he is not.

Q  Do you have an opinion as to why Mr. Rinder would be meeting with Mr. Minton, as early as 1988, and of course in 2002, to get the Lisa McPherson case dismissed?

A  Certainly I have an opinion, based on experience. Because like the Wollersheim case that happened here, and the Mayo case, any major case that’s being litigated in the United States, irrespective of the corporation, the decisions, the planning and the execution of legal is done with OSA — Office of Special Affairs, David Miscavige,

0553

Marty Rathbun.

Q  All right.

A  Lyman Spurlock if it — if it involves corporate. Lyman Spurlock was an expert on corporate entities.

THE COURT: Who is Mr. Rathbun? What is his capacity?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Rathbun has had many capacities. Prior to coming into the Religious Technology Center, he was what was called a client affairs; legal client affairs. And he handled the legal affairs for the publishing aspect for Mr. Hubbard in Author Services. When he moved to Religious Technology Center, he became the inspector general for ethics. Ethics —

THE COURT: Is that what he is now?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure what he is now —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — your Honor.

But that position handles all legal PR and intelligence as part of its duties for Scientology organizations.

THE COURT: And do I recall correctly — I know we’ve had a vacation, and frankly some of this has escaped me —

Is Mr. Rinder the head of OSA?

0554

MR. DANDAR: Well, Mr. — at one time, Mr. Shaw, who is the head of OSA here, was — testified that he reported — his senior was Mr. Rinder. What his title was to be Mr. Shaw’s senior, I don’t know.

THE COURT: Well, OSA would have a —

Okay. I believe there’s testimony about that in this hearing that he is the head of the Office of Special Affairs. I think. Maybe not.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Which includes legal.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Now, Mr. Prince, let me show you what’s already in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 110, known as KSW News. And if you could, I’m going to —

THE COURT: I don’t know — I allowed the answer, but I don’t know what the answer was. I mean, the answer —

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Shaw can explain it to you.

THE COURT: No. What — what I think — he went off to tell us about Mr. Rathbun. I think the question was why would it have been — why would Mr. Rinder have been called to this meeting. And

0555

is — what is your answer?

THE WITNESS: Right. Because Mr. Rinder would have been in that position, the senior person within the OSA network. And OSA operates on a statistic, just like other departments and sections within the Scientology organization operate on. And a statistic for the OSA would be a threat handled; a threat being a lawsuit or a person that was perceived to be an adversary against Scientology or taken an adversarial position against Scientology.

So getting rid of a lawsuit would be something that would improve conditions, you know, a statistic going up. That would be a good thing for them.

So — and that’s what they focus and concentrate on, handling legal situations.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  OSA.

A  Yes.

Q  All right. The KSW News, if you open up to the little — I believe it should be in the middle — there is a list of matters that need to be reported up lines to RTC.

A  Yes.

Q  Do you see that?

A  Yes, I do.

Q  And there’s an arrow that I drew —

0556

THE COURT: You all are too loud back there. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  — next to PTS Type III?

A  “Any person who acts PTS Type III, potential trouble source.”

Q  Okay.

A  And that is of concern.

Q  Does PTS Type III include people who are psychotic as well as people who want to leave? A  Correct.

Q  Now, this publication, when was it published?

A  1994 —

Q  And —

— is when the copyright notice is on it, RTC copyright notice.

Q  All right. So it certainly wasn’t published after Lisa McPherson died in ’95.

A  No, it was not.

Q  Now, this reporting up lines of PTS Type III to RTC, was that in effect when you were an active Scientologist?

A  Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, excuse me. What does that mean, an active Scientologist? When he was —

0557

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Prior to ’92. Prior to you actually leaving —

MR. WEINBERG: When you were at the RTC?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it was.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Now, these meetings that you had with David Miscavige and Rathbun and Mithoff, Aznaran and others, you said there was a certain agenda?

A  Correct.

Q  And that the top of that agenda for each of these meetings was what?

A  Flaps.

Q All right. What was —

A  And what the handlings were.

Q  — the next —

How they were handling the flaps?

A  Yes.

Q  What was the — give us a list of — in priority of each meeting.

A  Flaps and handlings. Then statistics, go over the statistics of the departments, the divisions. Then you talk about — the next thing is talk about wins.

Q  Wins.

A  Wins. You know, successes. Scientology successes. Successes on the job, successes within the

0558

organization.

Q  And how often would these meetings occur?

A  Once a week.

Q  And this is just a meeting of people who were at RTC?

A  No. This is a pattern that is continued throughout the majority — all of Sea Org organizations.

Q  That includes Flag?

A  Yes.

Q  And back in —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I — the question was about Mr. Miscavige, and the answer obviously was way broader. You’re not — I don’t think Mr. Prince was saying Mr. Miscavige was having meetings on a weekly basis at all the Scientology organizations.

THE WITNESS: No, no. That’s not —

THE COURT: He’s saying, when he was a member and he would meet with these people, what was their agenda? That’s all —

MR. WEINBERG: Right. No — but then the next question was — then what he said was, “And this is done in all Scientology organizations,” which means — I think what he meant was there’s meetings every week in Scientology organizations with people

0559

in the org. That’s what —

THE WITNESS: The pattern of flaps and handlings, statistics and wins, is a pattern that every Sea Org organization has in their meetings, their weekly meetings. Miscavige isn’t at those meetings. I —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But at the meetings that you had and you participated in with Mr. Miscavige, were these meetings — when you say flaps, were they just — my question was, did they just concern RTC or was it flaps —

A  No.

Q  — of what —

A  When RTC has a meeting about flaps and handlings, it could include any aspect of the Scientology empire. It could include the FSO; it could include the organization in Australia if there was a threat in Australia of some org getting ready to be closed down, or if one of the Scientology organizations were raided in Greece or whatever.

You know, it could be anyplace.

Q  All right.

A  Because the problems were existing — in the lower organizations, their flaps —

THE COURT: You need to get to the point.

In your opinion, as somebody who was with — in

0560

RTC, at the time you were there, would the Lisa McPherson situation have been discussed at one of those meetings.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Is there any doubt about that?

A  No. And as I was getting ready to say is, the reason being is the lower organizations have to report to the higher organizations. The higher organizations have to approve the handlings for the flaps; have to verify the statistics. Then it goes to the next organization, who’ll do the same thing. And by the time it gets to RTC, it’s pretty much confirmed what the lower organization is saying.

And maybe the handlings may be modified, but you know, they’re pretty much all on the same page.

Q  Is there any doubt in your mind — as you sit here today, do you question your opinions that you reached in your August, ’99 declaration concerning the involvement of Mr. Miscavige in the Lisa McPherson as a PR flap?

A  No. I haven’t changed my opinion one bit.

Q  And is that opinion solely your opinion or are you being influenced by anyone to make that opinion?

A  I base my opinions on my personal experience, what I’ve observed, the written word of L. Ron Hubbard.

0561

Q  All right. Now, let’s jump now to 2002. The — we left off with your meeting — I believe you said you had this rather un- — not unpleasant, but bad — heated words were exchanged at that hotel, the Radisson on Clearwater Beach, when you met with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Do you recall that?

A  Yes, I do.

Q  And Ms. Brooks walked out to the parking lot with you?

A  Yes.

Q  All right. I want to pick up from there.

When is the next time you recall having further conversation with Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: What — do we have the date on that?

MR. DANDAR: April the 14th.

THE COURT: Okay.

A  The last —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think he said that —

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. April the 14th.

THE COURT: Well, he said the dates were as they were in his affidavit, ’cause he sat down with a calendar.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

A  The next time that I talked to them, I think, was

0562

maybe a week or some days later, when they were staying at another hotel — oh, wow. Windham, the Hyatt Windham Hotel. I called and spoke to Bob and asked if he wanted to come by to the — ’cause I was having a barbecue.

MR. DANDAR: All right. And Judge, just for the record, I am looking at his April, 2002 Jesse Prince affidavit.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: His handwritten note is April 14th, that’s attached, 2002.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Mr. Prince, the handwritten note, did you write that when you met with me and Mr. Lirot?

A  Yes, I did.

Q  Okay. And after that is when —

Maybe I’m confused. Let’s hold on.

After that is when you had the dinner with Mr. Minton?

A  After I wrote this handwritten note is the Sunday that I met with them at the Radisson.

Q  Is that when you had that heated conversation —

A  Yes.

Q  — at dinner?

A  Yes.

Q  Was that — were you supposed to meet Mr. Rinder

0563

that day?

A  Correct.

Q  And who told you that?

A  Mr. Minton, Mrs. Brooks.

Q  And did you meet with Mr. Rinder on April 14th, 2002?

A  No, I did not.

Q  Why not?

A  Because it was deemed by Mr. Minton that I was not ready, because I was not willing to perjure myself.

Q  And who told you that?

A  Mr. Minton.

Q  How did he want you to perjure yourself?

A  He wanted — he wanted me to come in and say that you influenced me to write the August, ’99 declaration that I did; that you put words in my mouth. And he wanted me to say that some meeting occurred where Mr.  Minton was at, where you talked about adding David Miscavige on as a party.

And he kept using this term of, like, “You have to walk with us on this because we’re going to show you what to do. You know, we’re the A team. We got to be together on this. There can’t be any breaks. This is what we’re doing. This is what I’m saying. This is what you need to do to back it up.”

Q  How did you respond?

0564

A  “I absolutely will not do it.”

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew that he was lying?

THE COURT: Could I ask —

Just one more minute.

What you’re saying — which affidavit is it that they — they, meaning Mr. Minton — wanted you to say Mr. Dandar influenced you to write?

THE WITNESS: The one where I wrote that Miscavige had knowledge and culpability in Lisa McPherson’s death.

THE COURT: The one that dealt with the change — or the amendment of the complaint. Is that the one he’s talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s the one he’s talking about.

THE COURT: That would have been the first affidavit he filed maybe in this case? Well, it doesn’t matter.

MR. DANDAR: No. The first one, I think, was the PC folders.

THE COURT: I know which one you’re talking about.

THE WITNESS: It was the second one.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the August, 1999 affidavit.

0565

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And he also wanted you to state —

THE WITNESS: That Mr. Dandar had had a meeting with myself, Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, Mr. Minton, to discuss adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: And apparently Bob was saying, you know, and we have to say that Mr. Dandar said that the meeting never happened, and you know, we were adding on Miscavige basically to try to force Scientology into a settlement position.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Was any of that true?

A  No.

THE COURT: Could we find out, since that does seem to be an issue here, what he remembers about whatever meeting there was to discuss adding Mr. Miscavige as a party? Or are you not ready for that, or are you not going to go there, or —

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m trying to not invade my work product as much as possible. But it is an issue, and so I didn’t — We can ask him that question.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I just don’t know how far I want

0566

to invade my work product.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  But Mr. Prince, do you recall having any meeting with me, Dr. Garko and Stacy Brooks about adding on David Miscavige —

THE COURT: I’m not going to let them get into the extent of the discussion necessarily, other than what we’ve done thus far in this hearing, which is who was there —

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: — and was there a discussion about adding Mr. Miscavige, and who was in favor of it and who wasn’t? That’s pretty much all that’s been discussed.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And it’s been discussed by a lot of witnesses —

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: — Stacy Brooks, Mr. Minton, Mr. Garko, you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. So — That’s fine.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So was there such a meeting?

A  There was a meeting between you, myself,

0567

Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, where we discussed — and I mean, my recollection is there’s been more than one time that we  discussed this — about adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.

Q  Was Mr. Minton ever at any of those meetings?

A  No, he was not.

Q  Do you have any idea why Mr. Minton would tell you, when you met with him in April, why he wanted to say he was at a meeting to add on David Miscavige?

A  Because the idea was —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. If it’s something Mr. Minton told him, fine. But otherwise it would just be pure conjecture.

THE COURT: That’s true. If it’s something Mr. Minton told him, then he can discuss it.

Go ahead.

A  Okay. The idea that Mr. Minton told me is Scientology had several things that they wanted Mr. Minton to do. These were in conjunction and coordination with things that could be done to get the case dismissed. Specifically, going after you. Specifically, you were to be made the target of whatever stack of papers that Scientology provided to Mr. Minton. There was five or six things that they wanted him to do in relationship to you only. And you were the obvious target —

0568

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Why?

A  — to —

Because they wanted to get you kicked off the case. Because they figured if they got you kicked off the case, then no other attorney would pick it up and the suit would simply go away.

Q  And Mr. Minton told you this.

A  Yes.

Q  And how many times did he tell you that?

A  Several.

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew that what he was saying about me was not true?

A  Mr. Minton was in — in the — in the very beginning, Mr. Minton was in anguish over the — the prospect of — of lying on behalf of Scientology for — against you. Mrs. Brooks was in a panic and desperate frame of mind to do whatever it took to extricate Mr. Minton from just the assault that Scientology was enacting upon Mr. Minton. And she thought that it would be a good idea for Mr. Minton to cooperate with Mr. Rinder, with Mr. Rosen,  whatever they wanted, to get him extricated from the Scientology assault.

Q  Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks tell you that —

Well, you said they — let me go back.

0569

You said something about Scientology gave Mr. Minton a stack of papers about what he needed to say against me?

A  Yes.

Q  What —

A  Or possible things to go into. And that’s the stuff that came from the Adams Mark Hotel, after we had the meeting, after I went to see him again, after he lied the first time on the stand.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, objection.

A  And —

MR. WEINBERG: If this is —

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: If this is the same stack that Mr. Prince testified yesterday that he never looked at —

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: — so how’s he going to answer questions about what was in the stack?

THE COURT: He’s not answering questions about what was in the stack. He’s talking about what  Mr. Minton told him. That’s all he’s supposed to  testify about.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what he’s doing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0570

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  You didn’t look at the stack of papers, right?

A  No, I did not.

Q  So how do you know what was in the stack of papers?

A  ‘Cause he told me. There were five to six things in there that Scientology wanted him to do against you, and you specifically, and you only.

Q  Okay.

A  And two of them were the check. You know, somehow saying that you caused him to perjure himself concerning the check. And then the meeting. These were two very important issues to —

You know, I can’t say that I fully understood it because I’m not a lawyer, but this was very important that they executed in that way.

Q  Okay. And let’s talk about the check, all right?

A  Okay.

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever tell you that — after he met with Scientology, did he ever tell you that the check was from him; that May, $2,000 (sic) check for $500,000?

A  At that time he did.

Q  All right. Did you have any conversation with him as to why he told you something different on the roof of the parking lot across from the Lisa McPherson Trust office?

0571

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Asked and answered. He talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: I think he did.

MR. DANDAR: Did he?

THE COURT: Yeah, I believe he did.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Okay.

THE COURT: Do you remember — sometimes one day bleeds into the next. I do know he talked about being on the roof of the parking lot, and I do know he talked about Mr. Minton telling him something different. Did he — Did you discuss yesterday with us why Mr. Minton said he was telling a different story now? I don’t remember.

THE WITNESS: Well, yes, your Honor. Your recall is actually quite correct. Because you yourself asked me, “Well, what did they say,” when I  brought up the fact that we had been on the roof. And he had told us this whole different story. And you asked me, “Well, what did they say,” and I said that, “They just looked at me stupidly.” But of course —

THE COURT: So is the answer then he really didn’t say anything about this difference —

THE WITNESS: Right.

0572

THE COURT: — that you’re telling that —

MR. WEINBERG: Changed the subject.

THE COURT: Changed the subject.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Did you ever talk to him again about the check, or was that the last time?

A  I think that is the last time I spoke to him about the check.

Q  Okay. Did you have any other conversations with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks about trying to get you to lie and go down the road with him, as you say?

A  Well, I had continuing conversations with them after negotiate — after they had the negotiations in New York and then began the negotiations — continued the negotiations in Clearwater.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, my objection, your Honor, is he went over all this yesterday.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, now we’re going back and we’re going to go repeat what happened yesterday.

THE COURT: That’s true. I think we really were, yesterday, up to the point of this forward meeting.

0573

MR. DANDAR: That’s right.

THE COURT: Although frankly, you never did discuss the meeting where there was a discussion to have Mr. Miscavige added. And I think he’s done that now.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, he has.

THE COURT: Right. And — and that was the second thing. And I — I think now you’ve explained that. So you can go — I shouldn’t say you — Mr. Prince can explain what.

THE WITNESS: There was something I left off about Mr. Miscavige — adding Miscavige as well, in the discussions that I had with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. —

THE COURT: Oh, yeah. I don’t believe he’s ever discussed with us what his discussions with Mr. Minton were about that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So you might want to.

MR. DANDAR: Oh.

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: As you well know, and certainly Mr. Weinberg well knows, we all sat before Judge Moody forever on this issue of adding David

0574

Miscavige as a party. We discussed this back and forth.

MR. WEINBERG: “We” being —

THE WITNESS: The judge said a key question to be asked was, is was that anything I wanted to have happen? The answer is no. I was not in favor of  adding David Miscavige. I thought it would drag  down the lawsuit and just be cumbersome.

THE COURT: That’s you. You were not in favor of adding him.

THE WITNESS: Right.

But in discussions about this, it was decided to do it anyway, and it was decided because this is  what Ms. Liebreich wanted to do. But we discussed this. And my — my thing with Mr. Minton as we were  talking about this when they were trying to get me to do this, is when the record is so obvious why and how that happened, why are you now trying to say it’s just all Ken’s fault, when Mrs. Brooks was the one that was really wanting this to happen; wanting to add Miscavige? So we talked about that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Okay.

0575

THE COURT: And what did he say?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Talked about it when, then?

So now it’s Ms. Brooks or Ms. Liebreich that wanted this to happen. I mean, I —

THE COURT: No. No. I understand this. Wait till you get the transcript.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: It’ll be very clear to you. Don’t  get all flustered.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not flustered.

THE COURT: Yes, you are.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m hungry.

THE COURT: I’m hungry too. We’re going to stop at 12:30. Did you say you were hungry?

MR. DANDAR: That’s what he said.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what I said.

MR. DANDAR: That’s a new objection.

THE COURT: Just so we see if the testimony’s consistent —

At this meeting, Jesse Prince was not in favor of adding Mr. Miscavige; Stacy Brooks really wanted to add David Miscavige. What about Dr. Garko?

THE WITNESS: Dr. Garko was hesitant about it.

And —

0576

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And Mr. Minton didn’t care one way or the other. I mean —

THE COURT: I thought Mr. Minton wasn’t there.

THE WITNESS: You know, later, when we discussed it, when, you know, Stacy — we went to the office. And Stacy says, “Well, I think, we’re  going to do this,” and he’s, like, “Yeah, okay. So what?” Because Mr. Minton always — you know, he was concerned about what he was doing. Mr. Minton  wasn’t concerned with what Mr. Dandar was doing  or — or what Mr. Prince was doing or Mr. Brooks  (sic). He had his own agenda. When he came down  to — here in Florida, he would be more concerned  about what he was doing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Well, was there a meeting with Mr. Minton?

A  No.

Q  Well, what are you talking about when you said Minton — Mr. Minton didn’t care?

A  I recall Stacy Brooks and myself having a conversation with Mr. Minton, mentioning the fact that we were doing this.

Q  Oh, okay. Was I there, or Dr. Garko?

A  No.

0577

Q  All right.

A  No. And he’s like, “Okay. Where do you guys want to eat,” type of thing. You know, he just didn’t care.

“Okay.” You know, that’s — “Ken –” “Whatever.”

Q  Did Mr. Minton ever tell you he had an agenda?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, could we date that meeting?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. Let’s date the meeting.

MR. WEINBERG: And where it was?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: When Stacy and I discussed it, I think it was probably — some — maybe a week or sometime prior to the fifth amended complaint actually being filed —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  Well —

A  — we discussed it.

Q  — there were several times that the fifth amended complaint —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor —

A  Well, okay. To answer the question, no, I don’t know when it was. I just know —

THE COURT: No. I think —

MR. WEINBERG: My objection was Mr. Dandar prompting him.

0578

THE COURT: No, he wasn’t prompting him.

There were several fifth amended complaints. I would like to know.

Was it the fifth amended complaint where Mashburn (sic) and — Rathbun — all those other people were added or was it the fifth amended  complaint that’s now the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor — I don’t —

THE COURT: Or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don’t have a clear recollection of which —

THE COURT: Was this a discussion where it was decided to add Mr. Miscavige as, I guess, chairman of the board of RTC — I don’t know how — I’ve never seen that complaint — or was it before the discussion to add Mr.

Miscavige as head of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: I think it was after the discussion to add — after it had been resolved that Mr. Miscavige could be added as head of the Sea Org.

You know —

THE COURT: After it was resolved by whom? By Judge Moody?

THE WITNESS: Yes. By Judge Moody.

THE COURT: Then you had a discussion with

0579

Mr. Minton about this?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. I believe he, Stacy and I were in the car, traveling, and we talked about it.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q  So it was after the hearing we had, you said took forever, with Judge Moody?

A  I know that it became a serious possibility after we exhausted, in front of Judge Moody, every way of whether or not it would be correct or appropriate or even allowed to do it; coming in as head of the Sea Org, when Judge Moody said that it could — that he could be added as head of the Sea Org, not as COB because of that agreement.

Q  Right.

A  Which, you know, I didn’t even know about until after the fact.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Okay. Probably a good time to break for lunch, unless you have a question, Judge.

THE COURT: I think it’s a good time to break for lunch. We’ll be in recess — you know, an hour just isn’t enough. I need to make some phone calls and sign some things. We’re going to break until quarter till 2.
Court’s in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: And the same instructions to

0580

Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Same instruction.

(A recess was taken at 12:29 p.m.)

0581

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA  )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 9th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

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

329

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

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

vs.

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

_______________________________________/

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

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 3

DATE: July 8, 2002. Afternoon Session.

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,  Circuit Judge.

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

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

330

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

331

APPEARANCES: (Continued)

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

332

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

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

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

THE COURT: What time?

MR. DANDAR: Nine o’clock.

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

MR. DANDAR: I have no idea.

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

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

THE COURT: So it’s legal —

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

333

THE COURT: You think an hour?

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

334

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

Now, it says here —

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

I think you’re looking in that one book?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

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

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

We can put it in again.

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

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it has.

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

MR. DANDAR: We’ll mark it.

THE COURT: All right.

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

So, in other words, it is the belief of

335

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

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

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

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

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

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

336

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

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Yes.

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

337

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

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

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What drugs?

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

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

338

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

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

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

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

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

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

339

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

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

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

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

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

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

340

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

Q With whom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

341

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

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

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

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

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

Q This public Scientologist saw Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes.

Q Was that in the police files of the Clearwater Police files?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

342

A So your largest income-making —

THE COURT: Where is that?

MR. DANDAR: I have it. I’ll introduce it, Judge. In fact, I have it on my computer. I’ll print it out on my next break.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: It is Detective Carrasquillo of  the Clearwater Police Department interviewed four, I  believe, public Scientologists staying in the  cabanas who heard nothing during this time period,  who saw Mr. Miscavige —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, is Mr. Dandar testifying? Or is he asking questions?

THE COURT: I just asked him a question. He’s responding to me. I was saying —

MR. DANDAR: It is a four-page document. It’s on my computer. I can print it out.

THE COURT: Okay.

A So, you know, from the limited time that I was  there in the Religious Technology Center myself, I know that, you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service Organization that I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure that the whole thing ran smoothly. And the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.

343

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A And I am saying here today — and the reason I came to that conclusion — is by their own written policies that they have written here, you start to see violations.

And the reason why is because there was a problem. There was a legal threat. Lisa was not cooperating with them. When I did the introspection rundown on the other girl, she was cooperating. She wasn’t trying to leave. She
was going along with it. She never mentioned that she wanted to leave at any other time. There is a big difference.

So now you have a person that wants to leave, has publicly stated they want to leave to their friends, to their family, to the auditor. That is a no-no.

Q How did you —

A Again, there is reference where a person wants to leave is psychotic. So now they have put this label on her. She’s locked in a room. She’s terrified. Instead of taking her to the hospital when she was sick and letting her get
treatment because of her state of mind and because of the way she felt about Scientology, they opted to just continue the process, and either it works or it doesn’t.

Q Well, Heather Hof, who was a 17-year-old ethics officer, or studying to be an ethics officer, inspection

344

reports, all her records, are missing. She testified in deposition that she hand-delivered her reports to Mr. Kartuzinski, saying as early as December 2, I believe, Lisa McPherson wasn’t eating or drinking enough to survive,
something had to change, Heather was frantic. The —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. He’s just testifying. This isn’t a question. This is just Mr. Dandar summarizing — and I would say missummarizing — what he thinks the testimony has been. It’s not a question. It’s a statement.

THE COURT: Well, I suspect that he’s saying,  “Mr. Prince, if this is her testimony.” That is what you do with an expert sometimes. So if that is what he’s doing, I’ll allow it, I guess, with the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So I’m assuming I’m accurate in my recollection of what Heather Hof testified to the police, as well as her deposition in this case, and the pathologist retained by the estate, that Lisa was in a coma that she could be shaken out of but she would go back into, five days — the last five days of her life. And in reading — in what you know and reading what you just told us you read, why is it your opinion that they would just simply let her die rather than take her to the hospital?

345

A Because she was not settled with her relationship with Scientology. And this would have caused tremendous problems for them. If they would have taken her — you know, even during the period of time when she was going in  and out of the coma and say she goes to the hospital now, she starts getting treatment, she’s getting better, you know, Scientologists come around, she now tells the doctors, “No, I don’t want to see them anymore, I have to get away  from this.”

Q Mr. Prince, I guess the crux of the matter is you — you put together an affidavit that is dated August of 1999. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Where you talk about the role of David Miscavige and Mr. Mithoff and Marty Rathbun and your prior history in RTC. Do you remember that?

A Yes. I do.

Q And in that affidavit you have come to the conclusion that the three of them just decided to sit around and not do anything about it and end cycle Lisa McPherson?

A Yes. If she dies, she dies. If she gets better, she gets better.

Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit?

A Not at all. This affidavit came about because — from studying all of the evidence. And I spent months

346

studying this to come to this conclusion. This conclusion I  came to was my personal opinion, I stated it as such, based on the experience I have within that organization.

And the thing that — that became alarming to me to even point me in this direction is the amount of information that is missing, the amount of things that — that isn’t there that would clearly show like what her state of mind was based on what she was saying. All of that is missing. Which means cover-up. Which means something is hidden. Why is something hidden?

In my mind, similar to what happened in Wollersheim. This is information, if gotten out, could be harmful or damaging to Scientology. And Scientology, the survival of Scientology, is first and foremost in the mind of any Scientologist, even beyond their own lives.

Q Did Stacy Brooks put you in the mood to write this affidavit? Did she kind of persuade you to write this affidavit?

A No. Put me in the mood? I guess I didn’t understand.

Q Okay. Did she influence you in any way whatsoever to get you to write this affidavit where you conclude that Mr. Miscavige and others had decided to issue the end cycle order?

A No. Matter of fact, Stacy disagreed with my

347

opinion about that. She disagreed with it. But — and we’ve had discussions about this.

I mean, you know, I did it outside of her. Stacy was nowhere around when I did my affidavit. And she asked me why I came to that conclusion. I mean, we’ve had in-depth conversations about that, because Stacy was not in the position I was in to be able to make that determination.

Q Did anybody — let’s even go to Bob Minton. Did Bob Minton suggest to you, order you, tell you in any way, shape or form what to put in that affidavit?

A No. Bob Minton was so disrelated from anything that I was doing in this case.

Q Really? How so? I mean, wasn’t involved at all?

A Bob Minton never cared about the particulars that was going on in this Lisa McPherson case. He never concerned himself with that.

His words to me were, “I have hired Ken. He’s got the money. He’s the best one that — the best lawyer I could think of to do it. It’s his job. It’s his responsibility.”

Q Did Bob Minton say he hired me, Ken Dandar?

A No. No. He just said you were the attorney of record. He trusted you. You could —

Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton say to you, or to me in your presence, that — ordering me to charge David

348

Miscavige with — in the civil case with murder?

A Absolutely not.

Q Did anyone — maybe I haven’t mentioned the right  name, I don’t know. Let’s just cover the whole waterfront.

Is there anyone that gave you direction or influenced you in any way on how to write that affidavit and what conclusions you reached in that affidavit?

A None at all. No one.

Q Now, the only other end cycle orders you have seen when you were in RTC, did they only have to do with people who had a terminal illness?

A That is correct.

Q Did you ever come across another circumstance like Lisa McPherson where an end cycle order was given and the person did not have a known, medically diagnosed by a licensed medical doctor, terminal illness?

A No. With the exception of what I told you about John Nelson, of course.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Judge, just in case it is not present, I just want to go ahead and I marked this affidavit that we’ve been talking about as Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 126. And I’m sure you have so many copies of this already.

THE COURT: Is this the one that is 108?

MR. DANDAR: No. That is the PC folder one,

349

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: This is the one that talks about end cycle.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: This is what Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint is dependent upon. I would like to move 126 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It is already in evidence, but —

THE COURT: Yes, it is in, but we’ll let it in again.

MR. DANDAR: Somewhere. I’m not sure where.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recall seeing, in the deposition testimony of Judy Goldsberry-Webber and Dr. Houghton and Kartuzinski, that liquid injectable Valium was picked up twice, two separate times, at two different places for Lisa McPherson?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: I object. This just isn’t proper. Do you recall seeing somebody else’s testimony? I mean, we should be asking Mr. Prince about his testimony, whatever it is, not what he recalls somebody else’s has testified to.

350

THE COURT: Well, if he read — just remember, Mr. Prince was his consultant. If he read some of these depositions in some fashion to assist him with his testimony, I mean, I already heard him talking about Valium which he thought —

MR. WEINBERG: Which was never given to Ms. Lisa McPherson.

THE COURT: Well, I know that. But we want to listen to what it is he says.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I know that. And I know Kartuzinski was the one who said, “No, we don’t use Valium.” So, I mean, I know this case a little differently from what Mr. Prince does. But I haven’t been to all of the depositions and I haven’t read all of the depositions. But I know what I know from this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And that is that Dr. whatever his name is prescribed the Valium.

MR. DANDAR: Minkoff.

THE COURT: And Kartuzinski said no. That is all I know.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you tell us how it is that the

351

organization works where if Dr. Minkoff, as he testified, ordered injectable Valium twice for Lisa McPherson, how would the org go about procuring that Valium from a public drug store?

A Well, you would have to use — you know, Scientology in itself is a closed system to that degree because it does disagree — seemingly disagrees with psychiatric medicines, the use of psychiatric medicines.

However, in — in the case of introspection and a person that is psychotic, there are references of using drugs to treat those people.

But Scientology would only go to another Scientologist who would have that same understanding that would provide what they needed because they are kind of like on the same track. I have never seen it work where a doctor outside of Scientology would do that.

Q Well, how does the organization work to go about getting the money approved to push the prescriptions?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’m sorry to interrupt.  But he’s asking how Flag would have gotten the money in 1995 or whenever it was. He wasn’t there. He wouldn’t know that.

THE COURT: Well, he can testify as to what he knew when he was there.

MR. WEINBERG: In 1982? I mean, it’s just —

352

okay.

THE COURT: I mean, he — this is what he based his opinion on. If it had to do with 1982 we just have to take that into consideration.

A Well, there is a simple answer to the question because it’s a Scientology policy, it’s called CSW, completed staff work. Whenever the organization is expected to — is expected to finance or pay for something, a document is submitted that — to the person senior and financial persons within Scientology that explains what the situation is, what the handling of it is.

If the situation is a person is psychotic and — you know, and in need of drugs, according to this reference, and handling is to buy the drugs, and then this is okay and they sign it and that gets passed along, the drugs are purchased.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So it gets passed along to who?

A If it was an emergency CSW, which would be accompanied with a purchase order, if it is an emergency CSW with an accompanying purchase order, it would normally go from the person who originated the CSW, to his immediate senior, to the commanding officer or whoever that person designated to be in authority to instantly approve moneys expended by the organization.

353

Q And have you seen a CSW for any of the prescription drugs purchased for Lisa McPherson?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: What was the CSW again?

THE WITNESS: Completed staff work.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q If — if the pathologist retained by the state who say that she’s in a coma, it was obvious for five days that she wasn’t getting any better, she was getting worse, if Heather Hof, in my recollection of what she said, is correct
that she was — Lisa was getting worse as early as December 2, if that is all true, is there any other explanation that you can think of that would explain why nothing was done sooner for Lisa McPherson?

MR. WEINBERG: I object to the form of the question, your Honor, as a completely improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A You know, again, I have studied for 16 years these issues, this stuff with red writing, this stuff with black writing, called staff writing; the only — this is the way I opine this way, the only reason she would have been treated
this way is because she was a threat to Scientology.

And Scientology has a principle called the

354

greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics. The dynamics being the different areas of life that L. Ron Hubbard codified or, you know, decided this is the way it was.

In Scientology, the overriding principle is to protect Scientology. That is the greatest good. For her to go in a bad condition to the hospital, complain of what Scientology did to her, to create bad publicity for them, possible lawsuits, possible investigation by law enforcement because she was incarcerated, held against her will, was not anything anyone wanted to deal with.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How could letting someone die be less of a PR flap than taking them to the hospital while they are alive?

A Well, I think it is an empirical fact, because it wasn’t — it was virtually unheard of until a year after her death. When you do enough cover-up — I mean, you know, not until a year after her death was it even known what happened to her. So it worked for a while.

Q Okay. Let’s go to —

THE COURT: I have just got to ask a question there. And I had so many but I didn’t want to interrupt Mr. Prince.

She went straight to the medical examiner.  Right? I mean, from the hospital to the medical

355

examiner?

THE WITNESS: Right, with meningitis.

THE COURT: Well, whatever. There is a medical examiner who is the one that determines cause of death in this city.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: If she had been stabbed, if she had been dehydrated, if she had been shot, whatever it is, you take a dead body to the medical examiner when they are not under a doctor’s care for the medical examiner to say what is the cause of death.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: I don’t know how long it took her to do her work. But the deal was as far as the Church would be concerned, she was delivered to the medical examiner to determine cause of death. Right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So any delay was occasioned apparently by some difficulty in determining what was the cause of death. And some disagreements in sending off lab tests and all that sort of stuff. Right?

356

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so as far as the Church is concerned, Dr. Wood or whoever was going to do the autopsy might have known what they saw in two days.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t believe —

THE COURT: I mean, they have no way of knowing that, that they couldn’t just cut her open, look, say, “Whoops, there is a blood clot, this was caused by dehydration.”

THE WITNESS: Well, wasn’t it after the criminal case got started that Mrs. Wood went on national TV and spoke about dehydration and all of these things? Wasn’t that —

THE COURT: It may have been. But the fact of the matter was, is within a matter of however soon they got to this body, depending on how many bodies they had —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — somebody did an autopsy, you know, did an autopsy.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Dictated findings, and eventually this was put into an autopsy report. And Dr. Wood apparently did go on nationwide TV at some point in

357

time later.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: But, I mean, it still goes without saying that there would be no way for the Church to know what was going to go on at the medical examiner’s office.

I mean, gosh, they could have said she was stabbed. They may have been wrong. But there is no way of knowing, when a body is taken under unusual circumstances, anybody not under a doctor’s care, where a doctor signs off, like in a — in a — and a medical examination is done, an autopsy is done, there would be no way for the Church to know what the ultimate result was going to be.

Why, look at all of the flap now about the different autopsy reports and what have you.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: I agree with you wholeheartedly.

THE COURT: So this has been my problem all along is that you talk about a bad public relations flap.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, a death, for heaven sakes, brings about a lot worse public relation than

358

somebody who goes to the hospital and says, “I was kept there, I didn’t want to stay and they brought me here but I want to go home and I don’t want to be here” and some charges are brought because of that.

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor —

THE COURT: Which they can defend on the way by saying this was a religious — she was a member of the Church, this was the way we handled this. That would have been the defense.

THE WITNESS: Right. And I — and I beg to differ with you on the fact that it was more convenient to take her to the hospital as opposed to take a dead body there.

THE COURT: I didn’t say convenient. I said it would be a — it was a worse public relations flap to have had Lisa McPherson die at the hotel under the care of the Church of Scientology than it would have been for Lisa McPherson to have gotten well in the hospital, having been taken there by the Church of Scientology and had her say, “They held me there and I wanted to leave and they wouldn’t let me leave.” That would have created less of a public relations flap.

THE WITNESS: I beg to differ, your Honor. And the reason I beg to differ is again, like I say,

359

this person has just attested to being almost superhuman. This person has been in the community here in Clearwater. She worked on public relations, on behalf of the Flag Service Organization, setting up the Christmas dealies. She was part of the OT committee whose responsibility is to interface Scientology with the community. Lisa was not a low-profile, no-nothing nobody-person.

THE COURT: I understand that. But here we are, we are in this hearing, it is the seventh week of this hearing. This case has been going on seven years. There has been no good publicity that has come out of it, presumably, for the Church of Scientology.

All this would have been avoided if they had taken her to a hospital if it had been something that they would have known, they took her to a hospital, and had she said, you know, “Those folks were holding me against my will,” and they just said, “No, she was there on introspection rundown,” that would have been litigated, long over.

Do you think, in the long run, it would have been less of a public relations flap?

THE WITNESS: Let’s take another perspective of it. If it had gone along as Scientology planned, if

360

my contention there was a cover-up and they were successfully able to cover up and this girl simply died of embolism, well, who cares? Okay, well, so, you know, another dead person.

But if this person came and said, “Hey, look, I have been in here, they have held me, these people have jumped on me, forced drugs down my throat, they shoot me up with needles,” you know, I know that — that they said they never used Valium. I’m sorry, I disagree. I have been through these introspection rundowns. The instant they give that stuff — they give it to the person because they can’t sleep.

Otherwise, they are up all night. What they call it is a free will or the person simply cannot sleep so they are giving her drugs to make them sleep. Why would you get the same drug two times and not use it?

THE COURT: A person that can’t sleep is the person that is psychotic in a very hyperactive state. Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So, consequently, you would concede that Lisa McPherson was, in fact, in a very psychotic state or she could have slept just fine.

THE WITNESS: Something caused her not to

361

sleep.

THE COURT: Right. Which, of course, if she was in a psychotic state — now we are back to that situation where it would have been fairly dangerous for them to let her walk out the door, which —

THE WITNESS: You know, as far as her being psychotic, your Honor, I feel we can only speculate about that, because she was never taken to a doctor and diagnosed as being psychotic when they say she was psychotic.

THE COURT: Then she wouldn’t have needed Valium to make her sleep, would she?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: I mean, you can’t have it both ways.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I’ll be quite honest with you. Before I came in here —

I’m tired now because I wasn’t able to sleep that well, and I’m sure this will go on until I’m finished. So I don’t know, six to one, half dozen of another to me.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever in your experience seen drugs like Valium or chloral hydrate given to a Scientologist so they

362

don’t leave?

MR. WEINBERG: Can we limit it to one or the other?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: So you have never seen Valium given to a Scientologist?

THE WITNESS: Because they want to leave?

THE COURT: Because they want to leave?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Because they were sick?

THE WITNESS: Because they were —

THE COURT: Psychotic?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: When was that?

THE WITNESS: Again, this girl, Terese —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Teresita?

A Teresita. Again, she, you know, literally fell off the chair and started doing her thing. And I think one day passed and she wasn’t sleeping, and immediately Dr. Dink was contacted. You could literally see her dying in front of your face. She was just burning up. It was one of the most amazing things to see, kind of like the person caves in on themselves, they just kind of fall in, you know.

And this started happening to her after she hadn’t

363

slept for two and a half, three days. And she came out and she was given an injection.

Q Did you —

THE COURT: Was it Valium? That is the question.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I couldn’t speak truthfully as to what the injection was because the doctor was there, he injected her, and I know that within an hour, hour and a half, she was asleep.

THE COURT: So in truth now, Mr. Prince, you can’t testify in this courtroom that you ever saw Valium given to someone because they either wanted to leave or because they were psychotic; you don’t know what the psychotic person was given?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, did you have to assist Teresita in eating and drinking?

A Yes, I did.

Q How did you do that?

A I would just gently talk to her and tell her that it is important for her to eat if she wants to get well. I would tell her the case supervisor has said you have to drink X amount a day. Would you please do it? Just trying

364

to get her cooperation.

Q Could she do it by herself?

A No.

Q So how did you do it?

A Oh, I thought you asked me would she do it by herself.

Q Right. Did she pick up the water and drink it by herself?

A Yes.

Q And the food, did she eat it by herself?

A Sometimes I had to take a spoon and put it to her mouth and watch her chew, you know, and, “Did you eat it all,” you know. That kind of thing.

Q All right. Your opinion that Lisa McPherson died because of an end cycle order, an order just not to do anything for her —

A Correct.

Q — is that opinion based upon because you hate Scientology? Or is it based upon something else?

A For one thing, I certainly do not hate Scientology. I don’t hate anyone or anything.

My opinion is based solely on personal observation, personal experience. I give it as an opinion. I say why. Maybe I haven’t said it as clearly as I need to, but it is so important for Scientology. And, you know,

365

especially Clearwater is considered a hostile environment.

I mean, I have been here when half the city of Clearwater were picketing around the Ft. Harrison with Michael Flynn.

I mean, I have seen and been involved in trying to make this a place where Scientology could comfortably be and the environment would be comfortable with Scientology.

So, no, I don’t hate Scientology. I was a Scientologist myself for sixteen years. You know, I had a firm belief in what I was doing. I have since become disillusioned with a lot of that. But my motive certainly isn’t hate.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, there came a time when the Lisa McPherson Trust was formed. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And after you finished working for me full-time, you went to work for them full-time. Correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: You know, on some of these things you really are going to have to stop leading him.

That is one of the issues that is an issue here. So don’t ask him a question and then say “Correct?”

MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, were you ever with Bob Minton when he talked about giving money to me for the case?

366

A I have been with Mr. Minton a couple of times, yes. Two or three. Yes.

Q I want to direct your attention to May of 2000.

A Okay.

Q All right?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall any incident where Mr. Minton talked to you about giving money to me?

A Around that exact time period, Mr. Minton made it known to me that you needed more money to bring this case to trial. He had thought in his mind that he had given enough money already and, you know, it could have went to trial or whatever.

But he was concerned about the repeated motion and — motions and on and on, just the cost of the case from the filings and things, that he asked me to go over there and look into, well, what is coming up now, I mean, what can we look forward to now?

I think at that time you were working on an accident reconstruction. And Mr. Garko was talking about doing a jury pool survey or something. And these were going to be additional expenses that would be needed, you know, as
well as whatever else came up to take the trial — take this case to trial.

And I remember going back and speaking to him about that. And he wasn’t very happy about that. And then

367

he — he — he went away — he came into town. Mrs. Brooks  and I were working at the LMT. And he came and he said, “Come here, you guys come out here,” because he had a fear that the building that we were in was electronically bugged.

And we got in Stacy’s car and we went into the city parking lot, which is directly across the street from the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see.

And he said, “Look, I’m going to tell you guys, you can’t tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he doesn’t know where it came from. It came from Europe. You know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I
hope this takes you to trial.”

That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he didn’t want the office to know, you know, Ken didn’t want everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this $500,000 came. And — and, you know, everything with the case would be okay, basically, was the one instance.

The second instance was very recently, I guess in March of 2002 —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before he gets to the second incident, that happened when, the first incident?

THE WITNESS: May of 2000.

MR. WEINBERG: May of 2000?

368

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from?

A Europe. People from Europe.

Q Did he say to you it was his money?

A No. He said he had arranged from some people from Europe who made this money available.

Q Did you ever see that check?

A No.

Q Okay.

A Then the second instance was recently in March of 2002. He told me that, “Ken needs more money to finish this case and get this case to trial. You know, I’m willing to arrange to get him some money, but I have a problem with some people on the Internet saying bad things about him.

Could you ask Ken if there is any way if he has influence over these people to tell them to stop. And if you do, I’ll see if we can arrange to get him some more money.”

Q So what did you do?

A So I went and had that meeting. I went over to your office and I met with you. And I said, “You know, Bob thinks that he can get more money for you but he’s concerned about this matter. And what are you doing with that? Are you connected with these people, or are you — you know, are you encouraging them to do this?” You know, we had a bit of a conversation.

369

And, Mmm, you said you knew nothing about it and had no control over those people whatsoever but, you know, you would do what you could to make it stop if that is what he was worried about, but it wasn’t anything you were  actively concerned in.

Q Do you know anything about the check I got after that?

A Mmm, I know at some point that you had gotten a check. And he called me and let me know that you had.

Q He did?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Did he say where that check came from?

A He did not.

Q Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And the date of that — the date of the conversation with Mr. Dandar was, you said, March?

THE WITNESS: Of 2002. Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was this before, or after, I flew to Mr. Minton’s house?

A Before.

Q Okay. If I flew to Mr. Minton’s house February 22 of 2002, when would this conversation be that you and I had?

A So I think maybe a week prior.

370

Q Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Minton —

THE COURT: So you are saying that was February of 2002?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Excuse me, your Honor, what was February of 2000?

THE COURT: 2002. This is when Mr. Dandar and this witness had a conversation.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Oh. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, I jumped — when you talked about that meeting, that kind of threw me off because that is two years after where I wanted to talk to you about. So let’s go back.

Do you know a fellow by the name of Patrick Jost?

A Yes. I do.

Q Okay. How do you know him?

A I know him because he was hired by Mrs. Brooks to specifically assist Mr. Minton to deal with allegations that were being stirred up by Scientology investigators in Nigeria and Switzerland.

Q What was he supposed to do?

A Mmm, Patrick Jost is multilingual. I think he speaks maybe four or five languages. Mmm, he’s also a person — ex-CIA, spent many years in Europe on behalf of

371

the United States defense.

So he knew a lot of people and had a lot of contacts.

And he was supposed to go and find out where the trouble was originating from and try to deal with it accordingly.

Q Do you know if he was successful in doing that?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This whole thing is hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you — can you describe for us the demeanor of Mr. Minton throughout the years — almost two years that the Lisa McPherson Trust concerning the — what he perceived to be actions taken against him by Scientology?

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’ll object to that as being far too broad, demeanor over a period of two years.

THE COURT: Mr. Battaglia, much as I would like to let you object, I don’t think you have any standing to object in this hearing. This is a hearing between these two people. Your client is simply a witness. So I’ll simply ignore that.

MR. WEINBERG: You beat me to my feet because I was about to say the same thing.

MR. FUGATE: Stereo.

MR. WEINBERG: That is like asking for — I

372

don’t know how you ask a question like that. His demeanor over two years?

THE COURT: I agree with that. It was a little broad.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you about what he felt concerning the Scientology investigation of him?

A Many times, to answer the question. And it wasn’t even the fact that investigations were happening. It’s the false information. The false information that was being provided to government officials in different countries,  unfounded allegations that were being provided, that disturbed him more.

And over time it became increasingly more evident that this was having more and more of an effect on him.

Q How did you pick that up?

A When I first met Mr. Minton, he was probably about 40 pounds lighter than he currently is. Just the nicest, gentlest, kindest person. I mean, I had never seen a person like him before. I mean, literally, who am I? Nobody.

But a person like that to come around in your life that just was — I don’t know — genuinely concerned about other people to the point of almost fault. And very — very kind. Very intelligent person.

I seen him go from that, to — to kind of being a

373

person that is annoyed — kind of annoyed by what is going on, kind of — Mmm — annoyed with, you know, what is happening with his kids, you know, what is happening with his house, his phone lines, on and on.

Then I seen him go to a person that actually became very doubtful about what he was involved in, what he was doing. He seemed to be less confident as time went on that he would be able to do anything to restrain Scientology from exercising some of its practices that are detrimental to the general public at large.

Q Have you — are you familiar with the doctrine of Scientology called fair game?

A For sure.

Q Has fair game been canceled?

A No. It’s alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s what? I couldn’t hear.

THE COURT: Alive and well.

THE WITNESS: Alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: And that is based on your —

THE COURT: Counsel, we’re going to let you ask that question later.

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I’ll withdraw it. I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on your expertise and experience in

374

Scientology, did you personally observe any fair game practiced on Mr. Minton?

A Yes. I have.

Q Can you give us some examples?

A Mmm, leaflets passed around in Boston where his wife and children live, saying that he’s an adulterous, robbed the Nigerian children — the Nigerian people of moneys, this is a starving country. And — and kind of — he’s kind of somehow aligned with the KKK because he was attacking Scientology. Mmm, his children being followed around. You know, the whole Nigeria/Switzerland thing.

They used to meet him at every airport he went to, irrespective of any city, they would just show up and meet him and picket him at the airport. I have been with him when the police literally have to stand in the airport and hold Scientologists back from attacking him.

I have been with him in Boston where somehow Scientology OSA people had gotten a hold of his — his — his records, his counseling records when he was seeing a psychiatrist. And they started saying things to him that he said to his therapist, I know, that upset him extremely that it could even happen.

And the fact of the matter is that therapist decided to no longer see Mr. Minton after Mr. Minton went

375

back and told him, “Hey, why are these guys saying this to me?”

Q This was a psychiatrist?

A Yes.

Q Of Mr. Minton’s?

A Yes.

Q So —

A And —

Q — he refused to see him after the records were made public?

A Correct. Or exposed. His position was exposed.

Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton, in your presence, was — had any dramatic change in his emotions compared to the years that you have known him?

A Again, you know, what I said earlier. For sure, he changed. He became more of a somber person. He wasn’t as cheerful anymore. He was more serious.

And at some point it even got into, “Well, you know, they did this to me  so I’m going to go picket them. They did this to me so I’m going to go picket.”

You know, this is — was kind of like his last line of defense, as I testified the first day I came here, that he could possibly do, you know. “I’m just going to go picket. When they fool with my wife, I’m going to picket.

376

When they fool with my children, I’m going to picket. What they are doing over in Nigeria, doing all this crap, I’m going to go picket.”

So he became increasingly despondent about that. And, you know, Mr. Minton takes medication. Not that there is anything wrong with medication, but sometimes he wouldn’t take it. You know, he seemed to just be extremely stressed.

And during the time periods when he didn’t take his medication, he would literally be in a state of collapse with just — crying uncontrollably and totally despondent.

I remember one time he told me he was going to kill himself. He was walking around in the woods with a gun, you know. 200 acres up there where he lives and it is nothing but beautiful woods in New England and he’s walking  around with a gun. He drove his car in the woods, got it caught on a tree stump and he’s out there in the middle of the night, with a gun, crying. You know, that has happened.

Q When did that happen, that particular incident?

A That was in the fall of 2001, I believe.

Q Okay. Do you have any knowledge concerning Stacy Brooks’ desire, in the summer of 2001, to go see Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case?

A Yes. I do.

Q What is your knowledge?

A Mmm, Scientology had very effectively convinced

377

the courts — and I’m not trying to cast any aspersions here — tried to convince the court that somehow the Lisa McPherson Trust had something to do with this Lisa McPherson case.

And this assertion, this stuff that had grew over the years, inextricably tied these two things together, which allowed a way to now do continuing discovery on Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks and other staff members that worked at the trust.

And this was something that he was very concerned about, because financially it was ruining the Lisa McPherson Trust to have a lawyer have to represent all of the staff members, you know, when they get deposed, and they’re away, and on and on and on. So —

Q Did there come a time when — well, let’s go back to the question.

Did there come a time when you had knowledge about Stacy Brooks wanting to go to Dell Liebreich?

A Yes. So because of that, you know, and there was more discovery by Scientology specifically on Mr. Minton’s finances, they were just narrowing down on that, which is pursuant to their policy here to cut off the funds, on and  on and on. They are on a systematic program.

One thing that can be said about Scientologists, they are extremely organized and they have resources to do

378

what they need to do.

So Stacy thought that, you know, a lot of stress was coming because of this. So she thought, well, the only reason this is happening is because of this wrongful death case. So she decided to go visit with Dell Liebreich and ask her to drop the case because of what was happening with Bob Minton. And she decided to do this without Mr. Minton knowing about it.

And she consulted me on it and asked me, “Do you think he will be extremely upset if I do this?”

And I told her that I thought he would be extremely upset, you know, without talking to you about it and just go down there because there was no relationship.

Stacy had no relationship with Dell Liebreich. So for her to now — now come out of the blue and ask her to drop the case, it would be like a woodpecker coming along, telling me to pay my house rent or something, something as bizarre as that. So, you know, Stacy decided she was going to do it anyway.

She finally asked Bob Minton. And he said, “No, you don’t do it. You don’t do that.” She decided to do it anyway. She attempted to have a phone conversation with Mrs. Liebreich. And I think at that point, after Mrs. Liebreich spoke with Stacy, she then spoke with you and refused to speak with Stacy anymore.

379

Q Are you aware of any instance where Bob Minton controlled the wrongful death case?

A Not at all. The wrongful death case was the last thing that Mr. Minton was interested in because he had turned it over to you, he felt you were a competent, honest attorney, and, you know, many arguments have happened  between Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton concerning the fact that she did not need to be involved in the case, or if there was a differing of opinion, to do what you say because you are the lawyer.

And, no, he — he — he never — Bob Minton was more concerned about what was going on at the Lisa McPherson Trust.There was a period of time, after we came into existence and actually established a phone number, that people just started calling like crazy. “Hey, can you help me with this? Can you help me with this? Can you tell me what is going on with my brother? He doesn’t speak to me anymore. Can you tell us what it means to be an SP? I need to get my money back from Scientology that I haven’t used because I have no life, I don’t have a place to live.” You know, all of these kind of phone calls. And we — we became extremely interested because after the trust was set up, it gave you a broad cross section of, well, what types of things do people need help

380

with in relationship to Scientology?

So our job became, well, there is nothing we can do about it. If there is a criminal activity concerned, if there is any fraud that is concerned or bad business practices, at that point we started referring people to the responsible governmental agencies.

If you have a problem with them returning your repayment money, you refer them to the Consumer Fraud Department — Department of Agriculture, Consumer Fraud. If it is bad business practices, the Better Business Bureau. If it has something to do with money — the IRS could possibly be a person to contact if they are not getting satisfaction with known policies on giving money back. This kind of thing.

And we had nothing whatsoever — and the whole reason I stopped working in your office is that we had gone through deposing the majority of the Scientologists and Scientology witnesses. And you were going on to your medical experts. So there was no reason for me — I mean, I didn’t need to sit and listen to a medical expert being deposed.

So I worked at the trust. And this is kind of what we were doing. It was kind of like when you went off doing your medical people, we just forgot about the case.

At least, I did.

381

Q So you actually did work at the trust in answering calls for people who needed counseling?

A Very much so.

Q You weren’t just waiting for the trial of the Lisa McPherson case to start?

A This trial — you know, as much as I’m willing to offer my services — help point out certain things, what happened with Mrs. McPherson was a very unfortunate thing but there are still a lot of people alive that needed help.

And that is where I went to — what I wanted to do.

Q What was my involvement with the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Occasionally stop by to have dinner.

Occasionally, like maybe I think I maybe seen you there two times during its entire existence, maybe three.

Q Did I give any orders to anyone at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Not that I ever saw. It would be highly unusual if that happened.

Q Did I direct any of the picketing?

A No.

Q Do you know if I ever participated in a picket?

A No. You know, I was sitting here listening to testimony about that, and I listened with a sharp ear as Judge Schaeffer here mentioned the fact that you shouldn’t

382

have been anywhere near picketing. And I think what may be kind of misunderstood here is the fact that the vigil is not — was not and never has been a picketing experience. The vigil is where the people come from all over, they light the candles, they — they do some Bible stuff, they sing hymns and they may place a wreath where she died at the cabana. That is not a picketing experience.

And that is where I have seen you with the vigils, along with the family. And you were there because the family was there.

Q Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection.

In light of Mr. Prince’s last statement, he said he understood you had said certain things during the hearing? How would he know that if he was to be  excluded?

THE COURT: I am sure he read transcripts.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, but it is —

THE COURT: It would have been what he read or somebody told him, which would be inappropriate, too.

A I think it came up on the first day when I sat here in the courtroom giving testimony where you admonished Ken and pointed that out. I heard that direction from this

383

seat.

THE COURT: I’m not excluding you from testifying if you read something or heard something.

THE WITNESS: Well, I’m just saying that is not the case. I heard it right here in this seat on the first day I was here.

THE COURT: You have to understand to the — to the rest of the world, if candles are being carried, signs are being carried, it is being done, the Church of Scientology — it may look and seem like a picket. A lot of folks have talked about it as being a picket.

THE WITNESS: Right. But at the vigil there are no signs, though.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, did you ever hear Mr. Minton talk about the money that he gave me as — giving it to me or giving it to the estate? Did you ever hear him talk about that?

A I have. And what Mr. Minton has always said to me is he is giving this money to Ken to use on the case at his discretion. He’s loaning the money to Ken. That is what I heard.

Q Did you ever hear Mr. Minton write or speak about the LMT or Mr. Minton getting the bulk of any of the money

384

that may be realized from the wrongful death case?

A The only time I heard that statement made was when Mr. Minton came back from a radio interview. And he was laughing. And he said, “Hey, you know what, I just went in there and said the bulk of the proceeds are going to go to an anti-cult group or whatever. And I know this is going to chap Scientology’s behind.” He was into that kind of tit for tat kind of thing.

Q Did you ever hear him talk about it in private or outside of the media’s presence?

A Well, you know, the particular time that I’m talking about was private, you know. And I — you know, I made the comment, “Really, you know, is that the way it’s going to go?”

He said, “Look, I’ll probably never see a dime from this stuff. I just said it.”

Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when  Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by Scientology of a UBS check?

A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the last one that I did, the April 2002.

He called me just in grief, crying. He’s like, “It’s over. They got me. You know, I’m going to jail.”

He’s just —

385

THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You want your last affidavit? I think it was in there.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th. So we’re talking like maybe March 21st or something like that. You know, the week prior to going to New York.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, here is the April 2002 affidavit.2

A Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy?

THE COURT: No. I know it is in evidence somewhere. If I need to see it, I’ll ask to see a copy of it.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks and —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s back up.

Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, “It is all over.” What else?

A He said that, Mmm, “I’m going to jail. I have been told I’m going to jail. They’re coming after Therese and the kids.”

And he was just completely despondent about that.

386

Q And this was before the New York City meetings?

A Yeah.

Q Okay.

A Yeah. So then —

Q But he didn’t go into detail as to why he thought he was going to jail?

A No, he wouldn’t tell me then. I wanted to know, what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new thing has happened? He wouldn’t tell me.

Q Okay.

A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional information. She didn’t know what the heck had happened. But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there that day.

Q To New Hampshire?

A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I had no idea that this was a significant incident.

But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to prosecute him on it.

Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy of this UBS check?

387

A No. He said he didn’t know how they got a copy because he can’t get a copy of it. He said, “I tried. I can’t get a copy of it.” Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him.

And he was just beside himself.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I ask, could we point out in this affidavit where this incident is that he’s just described?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Because I don’t think it’s in there. They are saying something about a $500,000 check prior to the New York meetings.

THE COURT: You have your affidavit there in front of you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I do.

THE COURT: See if it is in the affidavit, or if it is something not in your affidavit.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay, so here, if you turn to Page 3 of the affidavit, I started talking about what I’m explaining right now on the 20th of March, 2002.

THE COURT: What is this number?

MR. DANDAR: Paragraph 9.

THE WITNESS: Paragraph Number 9.

THE COURT: I don’t have it. Maybe I do need

388

it. What is the number of the exhibit and I’ll have the clerk get it?

MR. FUGATE: I believe it is attached to Mr. Dandar’s response to our memorandum of fact and law. I believe that is where it is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Can I give you a copy?

THE COURT: Yes, please. If you would, that would be great. I’ll give this back to you because I know it is in evidence or in the pleadings.

MR. FUGATE: It is in the pleadings, I believe, Judge.

MR. DANDAR: He’s reading from Paragraph 9 on Page 3.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Am I right?

A Yes. But, you know — yes, that was on Page 3, Number 9, during the time period, what I’m talking about
here.

And before I wrote this affidavit on the attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first page that — that Scientology had gathered enough information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

MR. DANDAR: He’s looking at his handwritten

389

attachment.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first paragraph.

THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?

MR. WEINBERG: I asked you — I asked you, does it say in the affidavit about this conversation you supposedly had with Mr. Minton prior to the New York meetings where he told you that the Church had a copy of a $500,000 check, and he didn’t —

THE WITNESS: I don’t —

MR. WEINBERG: — have a copy and didn’t know where they got it.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to cut you off.

I don’t mention the check specifically, but what I mention is, is the information that Scientology had gotten, information that said they were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail.

You know —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation — the first conversation where he’s crying?

A Yes. They discovered information about him that

390

threatened his wife and children’s future. You know, again,he’s suicidal. And then —

THE COURT: In your handwritten notes it appears that you are talking about this — this information before Paragraph 3 which deals with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks flew to New York.

So I presume you were discussing — or you — your notes indicated that occurred before the New York trip?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I don’t think it is very clear, certainly, in the affidavit, but he says that is what he’s talking about.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I really did try to do the best I could. This is a very disturbing time for me, too.

THE COURT: There is nothing that says that you have to speak to every word of your affidavit. You can expand on it. If that is your testimony, that is fine.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. And, you know, in the days between the New York meeting and the 20th of March that I noted here, which is where I came to find out, you know, what is this. Because Stacy flew there. And after she was there, I let her, you know, get settled.

391

And then he’s telling me, you know, they have got this check. And, you know, and he says — basically, it’s come down to me or Ken Dandar, somebody has to die here.

And I’m like, you know, this was such a complete turnaround. These are people I worked with now for years. We have all been on one accord, doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you have any further conversation in that phone call with Mr. Minton?

A Well, he informed me —

THE COURT: This is the phone call before –you are saying this is the phone call before the first time Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks went to New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: We’re going to finish that phone call, then we’ll take a break.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A Yes. He said he didn’t feel safe about discussing the information over the phone, he was too upset to talk about it.

392

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Did you say this was about a week before the trip to New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I said on or around the 20th of March. And the trip to New York was the 28th of March.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The 28th and 29th of March.

THE COURT: Let me just say this about affidavits. They wanted me to sign an affidavit of borrower to buy my house. And I refused to sign it without — I said, “I’m not going to sign this without this and this and this and this.”

And finally they just said, “Well, we’re going to throw it out. It is not that important.”

I said, “Well, good.”

All this, and affidavits. It makes me very nervous. You know, some things might not have made me so nervous.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Anything else on that phone call with Mr. Minton before we take our break?

A Mmm, you know, again, starting on March 20th until they actually went to New York, there were many conversations. You know, I don’t want to give the illusion

393

this just happened one phone call and suddenly they were in New York.

THE COURT: Let’s go ahead and break and then we’ll start with — if you want to go into the other phone calls before New York. All right?

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 3:15.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:55 to 3:15 p.m.)
______________________________________

THE COURT: All right. You may be seated.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, before we begin back again, on May 13, 2002 we had filed a request to produce to Mr. Dandar for all financial records of payments to Jesse Prince, including bank records and checks, all W2s, 1099s, and any other tax form issued from Dandar & Dandar for Jesse Prince for tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001. It was never responded to.

I think it is now relevant, based on the testimony elicited, that that be produced, or at least responded to that was filed May 13th of 2001 (sic).

MR. DANDAR: Didn’t we respond to that?

THE COURT: Had you responded to this?

MR. DANDAR: We produced at the time they took

394

Jesse Prince’s deposition — he’s no longer working for me — all of the W2s, 1099s, all of the checks we wrote. We did not respond to that one.

THE COURT: Is there anything additional?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll have to check. I’m sure — you know, since I brought him back on board as my expert, yes, I paid him since then. So there is something additional. But not back on May 13.

THE COURT: You don’t need him to regive you what he has already given you.

MR. FUGATE: No, I’ll go verify what we have and compare that to what he gives us. But — but he needs to respond. And he needs to give us —

THE COURT: I’m not going to require you to give him what he gave you already. So if he gave you stuff for the depositions —

MR. FUGATE: I’ll check that tonight.

THE COURT: Then you must give him whatever else there is.

MR. DANDAR: I will.

THE COURT: Try to have that to him by the morning. All right?

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: You may continue.

395

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay, Mr. Prince, following that telephone conversation, which you said was on or about March 20, 2002 with Mr. Minton, did you have any more conversations with him before he went to see Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen in New York City?

A Yes, I did. I may have had maybe three to four conversations with Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks concerning this. Yes.

Q Before the New York City meeting?

A Yes.

Q And what was your relationship with Mr. Minton at that time?

A Mr. Minton was a good friend of mine. A person that I trusted. You know, we worked together.

Q Okay. Did he confide in you?

A Yes. On some things, he certainly did.

Q And some things, he didn’t?

A I can’t say that he confided in me on everything. But I know some things he did.

Q All right. For instance, when he talked about somehow this check was going to make him and his wife go to jail, did he confide in you what it was that they got — this new thing in the year 2002 that caused him to think he was going to go to jail?

396

A You know, he said that they got a copy of that check, that — Mmm — that he — you know, had given different testimony, I think, in a deposition or something.

And this is what was going to — this is how they were going to put him in jail for perjury.

Q And did he — all right. Did he go into more detail how that was going to be perjury?

A Because he said that he had given testimony contrary to — you know, in other words, this check, this $500,000 check, came from him, apparently, not people from Europe. Scientology had discovered that. And they were going to use it to get him convicted for perjury.

Q Did you ask him why he lied to you and told you that check was from people in Europe?

A You know, that was a very good question that I should have asked. But at the time this was all new news to me.

He’s telling me, you know, “Oh, well, it came from me, it didn’t come from him. Now I’m in trouble and now they are getting ready to depose my wife Therese and bring her in on all of this stuff.”

And in the heat of the moment, the panic of the moment, I’m sure I didn’t ask, you know, all of the right questions. But no, I didn’t ask him that specific question.

Q During those three or four other telephone calls with Mr. Minton before the New York meeting he had with

397

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder, did Mr. Minton tell you how it was that Scientology can find out that this bank check from UBS that doesn’t have his name on it came from him?

A The only comment he said was he had no idea how they possibly got a copy of that check because he himself did not have a copy, nor did he know how to obtain a copy.

Q Did Mr. Minton ever mention to you anything about Swiss prosecutors during — before the New York meeting?

A Yes, he did. He told me that there was yet another action being contemplated by a prosecutor in Switzerland. And it was my understanding that this had something to do with Nigeria but I’m not sure. You know, I don’t know the details of it.

Q And he told you this in March before the New York meeting?

A Yes.

Q Now, isn’t it true that before Minton called —

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form to the question, “Isn’t it true.”

THE COURT: Yes, “isn’t it true” is suggesting that the answer to that is yes. I mean, I don’t know what the question is, but I know what the answer is. That is what the leading part is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What was your understanding, Mr. Prince, of the

398

status of the Swiss prosecution concerning Mr. Minton prior to Mr. Minton’s frantic calls to you in March of 2002?

MR. FUGATE: Objection, hearsay. Or at least the basis for this statement, “What was your understanding.”

THE COURT: If it came from Mr. Minton, he can answer. If it came from somebody else, then I am not sure you can answer.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q From Mr. Minton.

A Mr. Minton told me they were going to prosecute, going to file charges.

THE COURT: In Switzerland?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did he tell you that?

A Mmm, at one of the phone conversations between the 20th and 28th of March.

Q Well, my question is prior to that, had you ever heard from Mr. Minton about Swiss prosecutors?

A Oh, yes. I mentioned that before.

Q Right. And what was the status of the Swiss prosecution prior to you getting this call —

A These phone calls? Oh, I thought it was over.

Q What made you think that?

399

A Because Patrick Jost had went over there and talked with people.

There was one other thing that was pending which, when Scientology got the bank records for the Bank of America, somehow the Bank of — someone in the Bank of America in Europe, some executive or some banking official, had did something that was improper concerning either divulging or passing along information about Mr. Minton’s accounts. And Mr. Jost was over there to pursue that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay as to any conversations with Mr. Jost or anybody else. If he’s saying this is something Mr. Minton said, I would appreciate if he could date it.

THE COURT: Is this something you learned from Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Could you tell us about when that was?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, gosh. This — this would have to be in the fall of 2001. Maybe October, something like that.

THE COURT: As best you can remember?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall, yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was it the Bank of America

400

official in Europe did improperly, according to Mr. Minton, what he told you?

THE COURT: Does this have something to do with this Swiss prosecution?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t know.

A This has something to do with when the bank records were obtained by Scientology here, the Bank of America somehow simultaneously did something — something happened in Europe, as well. I think they used the fact they had these records to get information that they were not supposed to get, they made it appear like the Court sanctioned them having this information or it was proper for them to get the information, when it was not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did Mr. Minton react to them getting this information in Europe?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Your Honor, this is hearsay based on hearsay. It is speculation. Then the question is how did they react to the Church supposedly getting this information in Europe? What information in Europe? What is he talking about? This is just hearsay.

And, you know, Mr. Minton testified. Mr. Dandar had an opportunity to ask Mr. Minton about this. He didn’t say anything about this,

401

about this accusation or anything like this. He didn’t even ask him the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. This bears on Mr. Minton’s state of mind, anything Mr. Minton may have said about what he thought was going on, what the Church knew. Remember, we had a lot of this, as I tried to explain.

MR. WEINBERG: I object more to the form of the question. When he said the Church did such and such at such and such a time, it is just an improper form, I think.

MR. DANDAR: It is based on the witness’s answer.

THE COURT: Right.

A He was very distraught and upset that this had happened. You know, he felt like that there was no one that could be trusted or no one who was impervious to Scientology’s ability to penetrate and get information that they should necessarily have.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, so we are talking about now the fall of 2001 that he’s distraught?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Is this —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

402

THE COURT: The same October period of 2001?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And even — did you have any conversations with Mr. Minton in January or February of 2002 before you had this — what you described as this March 20 — the first call in 2002?

A Conversations concerning?

Q Mr. Minton’s well-being, his mental state?

A Well, Mr. Minton — back in the fall of 2001, we decided that we could no longer operate the Lisa McPherson Trust. He was quite despondent about that. He was despondent about what to do with the people that we were either in the process of servicing or starting some — something with new people that were calling. And plus the phones just never stopped ringing.

So he was distraught over the fact that it wouldn’t be there anymore. He was distraught over the fact he felt Scientology had successfully caused the Lisa McPherson Trust to no longer exist because of a misunderstanding, that misunderstanding being that it was somehow inextricably tied into the Lisa McPherson case.

Q Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks order you to quit being the expert for the estate?

A Ms. Brooks asked me to — and this, again, is in

403

the fall of 2001 — to not be an expert in this case on the theory that anything — we were trying to sever any real or imagined ideas that the Lisa McPherson Trust was connected with the ongoing litigation.

Q And did you listen to her?

A No. I — I — I consulted Bob about that. I had a conversation with him.

And he told me that Mrs. Brooks was very upset about the discovery that was going on, particularly the finances. And — Mmm — this is why she was doing it. And he understood why she was doing it.

And — Mmm — what he said, you know, “If Ken — you are Ken’s expert. If he’s going to need you, you know, I’m sure you’re going to go and do what you have to do.”

MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that, your Honor, when that conversation took place?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, I think we were speaking about late 2001/early 2002. Maybe January, around there. This is as close as I can place it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, prior to that, you filed or signed an affidavit dated September of 2001 withdrawing as the expert for the estate.

A Okay.

Q So was this conversation with Stacy Brooks before,

404

or after, that affidavit?

A Preceding that.

Q So it was before that?

A Correct.

Q All right. And in that affidavit — do you recall that affidavit when you withdrew as the expert?

A Not particularly.

Q No?

A I mean, I have a general idea.

Q What is your general idea of why you withdrew as the expert?

A Mmm, again, this was during the time period when the Lisa McPherson Trust was in the process of closing. The trust itself had literally been drained of operating funds for, you know, paying lawyers. This wasn’t anything that we ever anticipated or budgeted for. And it became the most expensive part of the operation, which was trying to step away from this case. And that is what I remember about it.

Q Let me show you your signed affidavit September 21, 2001 and see if you can identify that.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy of this?

THE COURT: No. No. This is the one I remember quite well.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

405

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, is he impeaching Mr. Prince with this affidavit now?

THE COURT: I don’t know if he’s trying to refresh his memory or what.

MR. DANDAR: Refresh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q First of all, is that your affidavit?

A Yes, it is.

Q Did you prepare that affidavit?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you sign it?

A Yes, I did.

Q Is that the affidavit that you signed concerning the reasons for your withdrawal as the estate’s expert?

A Yes, it is. And, you know, I remember because I was talking about now the trust was closing, there were no lawyers — I mean we just couldn’t afford to pay lawyers anymore.

I personally cannot afford to have a lawyer to come in here and do activities like you are involved in or represent me or — or be here on my behalf. I have a family. I have people that are totally innocent to this and could care less.

But my family was threatened with the Scientology operation that was wrought on me to plant drugs in my house

406

and get my house raided by the DEA, and try to get multiple charges put against me. And now I’m losing my job, too. There is no way that I could continue this activity without being able to see that my family would be safe and cared for.

Q Did you continue to receive income from Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks in the fall of 2001?

A Yes.

Q And the income you received in the fall of 2001, was that from Stacy Brooks individually, or from the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I think it was probably Ms. Brooks individually.

Q Okay. What about 2002? Did she continue to pay you?

THE COURT: When did — when did LMT close down again? I have been away from this awhile and some of the details are out of my mind.

MR. DANDAR: It closed in August.

THE COURT: Of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, you tell us, Mr. Prince, instead of me.

What was going on in the LMT in the fall of 2001?

A They were closing — wrapping up, closing down, terminating the operation. Mmm, there was an order to allow

407

a magistrate to come in and go through the personal files and records at the trust. So for a month or two it was kind of kept open for that reason alone, just to finish that. So that — you know, there was an extensive library that —
that library had to be shipped, cleaned — the building had to be cleaned up and prepared to be sold.

It became our responsibility to ensure that the building did get sold. I had a verbal agreement with Mr. Minton, because at that point I didn’t have a lot of money either, that if I sold the building, I would get  25 percent of whatever the building sold for so that I could move — I was in the process of leaving Clearwater. My house was on the market. We were finished — the trust was over. We were finished.

I mean, if that is what Scientology wanted, they had accomplished it. It was finished. We were all moving.

I put my house on the market, put the building on the market, we were trying to sell it. We’re — we’re done. But it is never done, I guess.

Q Back to 2002, do you believe — have we exhausted your conversations with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks prior to the New York City meetings?

A The only additional things —

THE COURT: I just dread the thought of asking this question, but are you suggesting there is some

408

agreement between you and Mr. Minton regarding the sale of real estate, as to your receiving proceeds from it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I see. Is there a lawyer in the room that wants to take that on a contingency? Probably not, Mr. Prince.

Okay. Continue on.

THE WITNESS: You know, I missed the point. I guess you’ll explain it to me later.

MR. DANDAR: That is all right.

THE WITNESS: I hate to miss the punch line.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So anything else about these phone calls, before we get to the New York City meeting?

A Well, the only other thing I think I covered in my affidavit that Mr. Minton said is, you know, after having conversations with Mr. Rinder, that it basically boiled down to who is going to die? Is it going to be Ken Dandar? Is
it going to be me. And I —

THE COURT: Is that the word he used, “die”?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. And for the life of me, you know, I couldn’t get a concept of what he was saying. I mean, he said it several times —

409

THE COURT: Is this — I’m sorry, my mind is off on agreements and it is kind of an insider joke that has nothing to do with you really, a lot of agreements we’re talking about in this particular hearing, and we teasingly asked about what lawyer would take what on a contingency fee.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. So nobody wants my opinion.

THE COURT: Well, it will be volunteered, Mr. Prince.

Was this before or after the New York meeting, this conversation?

THE WITNESS: This was before the New York meeting. This is after Ms. Brooks arrived.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: He was telling me that, you know, that somebody has to die.

And, you know, Bob has always come to me, when he wanted to interface or maybe know something from Ken, he’s asked me, you know.

So for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how is it now that suddenly we sit here today and we have to decide who dies. Why does anyone have to die? That was my question.

And — Mmm — he told me that for them — for

410

him not to go to jail and be prosecuted — and he had actions going in both cases in front of both judges, Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird — that he somehow had to make this case go away, the Lawrence Wollersheim case go away, and that is — he said, “That is all — that is what they said they want.

So we’re going to go talk about that.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In New York City?

A Yes.

Q All right. And — all right. Anything else, before we get to New York City?

A That — Mmm — Stacy was just adamant that she would be able to successfully settle with Scientology so that they would disengage Bob Minton, because he was literally being driven insane. He was terrorized into a state of mind that was beyond anything he was capable of dealing with.

THE COURT: Did you ever ask him what — when he used the word “die,” whether he was — I mean, we all say, “Oh, I’m just going to die if such and such happens.” But he was not using that word in a literal sense, that was a —

THE WITNESS: Well, I asked him later about this.

411

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: After they came back from New York and was in the hotel, what was he talking about.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: And what he was talking about was saying that Ken Dandar, as one thing, perjured — you know, blamed the perjury on Ken. I mean, these are all things to do to get rid of the case. Okay, so now we made Ken responsible for any perjury that Bob Minton did. Then, you know, he mentioned about what’s going to happen is Mr. Dandar is going to be disbarred.

And I took it a step further. I said, “Well, if Mr. Dandar gets disbarred, he’s going to lose his business. If Mr. Dandar loses his business, he’s going to lose his home and his family. Is this really what you want for Ken Dandar after you built him up all of this time, and now you get in trouble and now this is what we do?”

THE COURT: So, again, I think my question was is we all tend to use the word “die” and we don’t really mean it literally, drop dead, I mean, die.

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I don’t think —

THE COURT: He meant either business-wise or

412

something?

THE WITNESS: Professional decease, to cause decease, which is in accord with one of the Scientology policies we have gone over here.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is that known as fair game?

A No. It is called the Scientologist’s Manual of Dissemination, where it talks about, if possible, of course, ruin the person utterly.

Q Let’s get to New York City. Did you have any conversations with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks about the New York City meeting with Rosen, Rinder and Yingling?

A Yes, I did. When they were traveling to New York City, I was traveling to Memphis, Tennessee to drop my family off. It had just reached a peak for me. And I just wanted to have some safety in my life.

So they called me when they left home. They called me when they arrived. They called me when they met, had the first meetings. They seemed somewhat hopeful. Then, of course, the next day happened.

But when they got there, you know, Steve Jonas arrived. They were there. They met. They went over what they wanted. And Bob — you know, one of the things Bob did, which I didn’t know he was going to do until he got to New York, is he said he wanted my house to be able to be

413

sold, because I had had my house on the market for some time, zillions of people were coming there. And, you know, unfortunately, it just didn’t sell.

So he thought that that may have had some Scientology influence. And the reason why I think he thinks that, because the realtor for our building —

THE COURT: He? This is Mr. Minton again?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

A The realtor for the building in downtown called Mr. Minton while he was in New York and told him he had had a buyer for the LMT building, and this buyer was a person that sold furniture, sold used furniture.

And he mentioned this potential buyer — this potential buyer mentioned to his clients, current clients, that he was going to move his operations to this building, and would that be okay, would he still be able to service them.

And he came back and said he found out that 45 percent of his clients were, in fact, Scientologists.

And he was told in no uncertain terms that if he moved into that building, that they would no longer do business with him. So —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object.

A He couldn’t — he couldn’t —

414

MR. WEINBERG: This is hearsay on hearsay. This is supposedly what Mr. Minton said that somebody said.

THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Minton said to me that the realtor —

MR. WEINBERG: Said to him. Objection, double hearsay.

THE COURT: I do understand. But, remember, this has to do with Mr. Minton and whether Mr. Minton has lied or whether Mr. Dandar is lying.

Mr. Minton’s state of mind, therefore, becomes, to some extent, relevant.

I understand it is double hearsay. I understand what that means. But I’ll allow it. It is a very unusual hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when did you first hear back from Bob Minton concerning the first day of the New York City meeting on the 28th?

A The night of the 28th after they met. He said, “Well, we met.”

I spoke to Stacy. She said, “I think it is going to be okay. I think we’ll be able to work this out. Ken Dandar is not going to be happy.”

415

Mmm, you know, I said, “Okay,” whatever that meant, because, you know, I’m not really tracking. I just know something traumatic has happened, it has to do with some information that came up on Bob, and I know that now Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton are in negotiations to disengage this whole thing, and I am not there but they are calling me, telling me what is going on.

Q Did they tell you why I would not be happy?

A Whew. Because they were going to say that you caused Bob Minton to lie about the check — that you advised him to lie about the check. This was during that particular time.

THE COURT: Is this Ms. Brooks testifying — or Ms. Brooks telling you this? Or is this Mr. Minton telling you this?

THE WITNESS: You know, it is kind of a bit of both, your Honor.

THE COURT: Was this over the telephone?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: This was after the first New York meeting?

THE WITNESS: This was the night of the first day of the meeting on the 28th.

THE COURT: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

416

THE COURT: It was this night they were explaining to you — either Bob or Stacy, or both of them, on the phone, explaining why Ken wasn’t going to be happy?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I want to make sure you don’t have your dates mixed up. Could you look at your affidavit to refresh your memory and make sure you have your dates down when you first mentioned that Ken Dandar wasn’t going to be happy.

A Okey-doke. Okay, I’m looking at my affidavit —

Q By the way, who typed that affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: Just a second now.

MR. WEINBERG: I object to this process. He has done this a number of times. He elicits testimony. Mr. Prince testifies, he’s very specific, he had this conversation.

Then Mr. Dandar takes his affidavit and says, “Well, look at this and see if it is really your testimony.” He’s impeaching him.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it is proper.

417

THE COURT: I think that I’m — I have heard his testimony. I think he can look at his affidavit and see if it refreshes his memory. If it does, I’ll just have to remember his testimony was different before it was refreshed with this
affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

A Yes. Okay. I talk about the problem with the checks. We talked about that again. This was the next day on the 29th — now, wait a minute. “Bob told me he called –” now, see, this is before they went to New York, “Bob told me he made — ”

THE COURT: You are going way too fast.

A “Scientology was going to put him in jail.”

THE COURT: What page are you on, please?

THE WITNESS: I’m on Page 3. Bottom of Page 3, Line 27 —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — and 28. “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar.”

That was the —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That is before the New York trip?

A Yes. Okay, so they arrive in New York. “The next

418

day, on the 29th, the next day around noontime,” I’m on Page 4, Line 10, “Stacy called me. She was upset. Bob was going to jail for contempt in front of Judge Schaeffer, going to jail for perjury in front of Judge Baird. At this point they had only mentioned to me about the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim suit having to be dismissed for Bob not to go to jail. Mr. Rinder –”

THE COURT: You don’t have to read out loud.

You really are looking to see when it was that — if this — if this refreshes your memory as to when this statement about why it was that Mr. Dandar would not be happy.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did that first occur?

THE COURT: When it occurred.

A Either the 28th or the 29th, one of those two days.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. And then again I want you to look at your affidavit —

A And, you know, this information was sketchy because I didn’t get the full picture until they came here to Florida. I wasn’t able to divine the full picture until they actually came back from that meeting.

419

Q Okay.

A Now —

Q Do you recall — do you recall that Mr. Minton called you up, after the second day of the New York City meeting, to talk to you about a phone call he received from Mr. Rinder?

A Oh, after they got back from New York?

Q Right.

A Yes — well, no. Stacy is the one that I spoke to.

Q What did she say?

A She said, after they got back from New York, they were all upset and thought they wouldn’t be able to negotiate with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen.

Q Why? Why wouldn’t they be able to negotiate?

A Because they told Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder flat out that they had no influence to get either of these cases dismissed or made go away or whatever, they had no authority to do that; that Stacy Brooks had already made an attempt to contact Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case, so she wasn’t interested in hearing from Stacy; and Mr. Wollersheim certainly — and Mr. Leipold were certainly not interested in dismissing their case, either.

THE COURT: When — now, I’m so confused, and I haven’t read your affidavit in some time so I’m

420

listening basically to your testimony.

You indicated — what I think you just said is Ms. Brooks told you on the telephone that she had told Mr. Rinder that they didn’t have the proper influence to get the case dismissed?

THE WITNESS: See, I’m totally screwing this up if you think that, your Honor, because what I’m saying there is that happened in New York where they were face-to-face with Mr. Rinder, with — at least this is what was relayed to me by Stacy and by Bob on the phone conversation when they left the office, I think it was about noontime on the 29th where they tried to make it clear that they had no influence over these cases and they were asking them to do something they were not able to do.

THE COURT: What confuses me, if I did understand your testimony, after the New York meeting, perhaps the very night of the New York meeting, Stacy called and — Stacy and/or Bob called and said, “I think we’re going to be able to work this out.”

THE WITNESS: Yes, that was after they came back to New Hampshire, left New York, because they were back in New Hampshire that day.

THE COURT: Okay.

421

THE WITNESS: It was either that night or the next day I spoke to Stacy Brooks, and she said she had received a second conversation from Mr. Rinder, who mentioned that he thought that there may have been a misunderstanding, while he understood that they legally — or, you know, weren’t plaintiff or defendant, had no standing to effect these cases one way or another, that there were things that could be done to get the same result.

THE COURT: This was another conversation with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks, when they told you about that, that is when they said, “We think we can do something but it is not going to make Ken Dandar happy”?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Would that be on the 29th, your Honor?

THE COURT: I believe.

THE WITNESS: The 29th or the 30th or such a date of this.

MR. WEINBERG: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did you get the details about what that meant about Ken Dandar not being happy?

422

A When they traveled to Florida for the Judge Baird hearing that was, I think, occurring on April 5.

Q That is Judge Schaeffer.

A Hmmm?

Q Judge Schaeffer was April 5?

A That is right. Judge Schaeffer was April 5. But they had a Baird one right the next week or whatever.

Q Right.

A Anyway, when they came down for that activity, then we had a meeting at the Harbour Bay Hotel in Tampa, Florida where they made it clear to me what was happening here.

Because I asked them, “Did you find out what these things were that you can do to make these cases go away?”

I’ll start with Wollersheim because that will be quickly.

Q All right.

A She said what she had already done and told Scientology she would do and had done, that she called Dan Leipold and told him to withdraw her testimony — her affidavits in the Wollersheim case, and she had instructed him to do the same for my affidavits.

And there was only three, Vaughn Young, Stacy and me. Vaughn Young, because of his physical condition, how upset he would be to even do that, she told me she had not

423

promised Scientology anything in relationship to Vaughn, but she could promise the relationship to me and her.

Q How did you react to your affidavit being withdrawn?

A I was shocked. I was like, “I’m not withdrawing my affidavit.”

Q Why did she want to withdraw her affidavit?

A Because these are the things that she could do — you know, they want — they want what are the things you can do? What you can do is take your testimony out. Take Jesse’s testimony out of there. Because there was only three witnesses that they were using on the issue of alter ego to claim the judgment.

Q Did you ever —

MR. WEINBERG: Before — could we just date that? Is that at Harbour Island? Is that what you are saying? Could we just date it?

THE WITNESS: I think I dated it in the affidavit.

THE COURT: You want to look at your affidavit and see if you can find it then?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Yes, Page 5, Line 11.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the date?

424

A If you look at Line 22, he starts talking about things that could be done.

THE COURT: Line 22?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Where it starts talking about things that could be done.

THE COURT: And that is where you use the phrase, “Ken Dandar was not going to be happy”?

THE WITNESS: Right. So when we met at the hotel, you know — and I’m doing the best job I can here — I asked them — they mentioned about getting the affidavits out of the Wollersheim case, then specifically here in the wrongful death case — “Well, what are you going to do with that?”

“Well, Mmm, we’re going to –” they had a couple of things they were going over. One, the perjury of the check to make it seem like it was Ken Dandar’s fault. And then they were insistent about some meeting that had occurred which included myself, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Mr. Dandar, where we were discussing adding Mr. Miscavige as a party, and how Ken Dandar had instructed Mr. Minton to say the conversation never happened, something about it never happened.

Now, you know, for me, I’m not understanding

425

this because it is not making a whole lot of sense why it would matter one way or another. You know, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a criminal, I didn’t understand what they were talking about. But those were two things specifically that they mentioned bringing out about Mr. Dandar and connecting him with perjury.

THE COURT: One was the check? Is it the $500,000 check that you testified to previously?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Number two was some meeting that occurred dealing with adding Mr. Miscavige as a party?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was there anything else of how they were going to get Ken Dandar, besides these two items?

A Well, the only other thing that came up — I knew about those two things. But then they had the meeting with Judge Schaeffer where Bruce Howie did something, and the whole thing was moot. And they were happy about that.

I think maybe that same day he got served with the Armstrong suit. And he told me, “It’s not over, I still have got to go in front of Judge Baird.”
Now, I think at that same time the decisions came

426

down from the 2nd — from the appeals court concerning discovery issues with finances and this, that and the other thing, so it was kind of like things were turning around.

So I’m questioning them, “Do you really think you need to do this?”

And they are trying to elicit my cooperation, like we used to have this thing amongst us, me, Stacy and Bob, we called ourselves the A team. There was three of us, this is an A team activity. It is tough at the top, we have to make some hard decisions here, you know. So I’m part of that entity. So we’re discussing these matters. And, Mmm —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is this all one conversation? Does it mean it happened after your hearing on April 5?

THE COURT: I’m not real sure.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Was this all at the same conversation?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, your Honor, maybe not because, I mean, I was with them the whole time and, you know, Page 5, starting at Line 11 — 16, Number on the affidavit, I talked about the time periods we were there, the 2nd or 3rd of April through —

THE COURT: Did you try, in your affidavit, to date the time frames when these conversations took

427

place as you remembered them?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I sat there with a calendar and I did it as best I could.

THE COURT: Okay. So those are the dates as best you can recall?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall.

THE COURT: All right. So whatever it says in the affidavit is the best he can recall.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the way I sat and worked on it.

MR. WEINBERG: I was really more asking whether this was one conversation or he was — he talked about a conversation in the Harbour — I think he meant Harbour Island Hotel, but —

THE COURT: It depends what the affidavit says.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Is that right, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: The affidavit speaks of these things that you have been talking about in different conversations. That would be your testimony if you refreshed your memory?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

428

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So your memory was better when you wrote this in April than it is in July?

A For sure.

Q In your affidavit you say Harbor Bay Hotel. That is not Harbour Island Hotel. Do you know where the Harbor Bay Hotel is?

A No, I guess not if I am confused about it. It is the one that has the restaurant in there — well, that means nothing, they all have. Okay, I’m sorry, I spoke out of turn.

Q All right. But what I’m saying, when you took the time to sit down and write your affidavit of April 2002, of course you weren’t under pressure, being examined in front of a judge in a courtroom. You said you had a calendar in
front of you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, let’s jump back again to New York City. All right?

A Okay.

Q Well, no, I’m sorry. Let’s go to the conversations you had with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks about New York City.

Did they tell you what type of things Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Minton at the New York City meetings?

429

A That he was going to jail and actually spoke with him quite loudly about this. That he was going to jail. He was going to be prosecuted in front of Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird.

Mmm, by giving the affidavit, I wrote either Bob — Mr. Rinder — he told me — Bob Minton told me specifically Mr. Rinder said, you know, “Bob, you know I’m f-ing you but I’m doing it to your face. You have people around you that are doing it behind your back.”

And he mentioned the people that were doing it behind his back being yourself, Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander.

Q Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton showed you any documents that he received from the Church of Scientology?

A Yes. This was when they had — yeah, now this is after I actually attended the Judge Baird hearing, saw Bob get up on the stand and start lying, and left and went to —

Q All right, I probably jumped the gun. And I apologize. Let’s go back.

Before we get to the Judge Baird hearing, let’s make sure, as far as you can recall today, what transpired when Bob and Stacy came to Florida.

A The first time they came to Florida, they were concerned about the hearing in front of Judge Schaeffer.

430

They were meeting with Bruce Howie. They were continuing to meet with Scientology, working on the things that could be done to get these suits dismissed.

And I guess part of it was to elicit my cooperation to go along with this new plan to disengage Scientology from Bob Minton.

Q Okay. And did Mark Bunker come with them?

A Yes.

Q And Mark Bunker, did he stay at your house?

A Yes, he did.

Q Did anyone else stay at your house?

A No.

Q All right. So did you attend the deposition of Mr. Minton on April 8?

A No, I did not.

Q All right. So the first time you saw Mr. Minton testify was before Judge Baird?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you said that you sat in the audience?

A Yes, I did.

Q And what did you hear Mr. Minton say you thought was a lie?

A Mmm, something about Mr. Dandar making — telling Bob to perjure himself in relationship to the checks.

431

Q All right. How did you know that was a lie?

A Because if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened. You know —

Q Why is that?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I move to strike, “if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened.” How is that a response?

MR. DANDAR: I’m asking him to explain it right now.

THE COURT: Yes. Overruled.

A If there had been some agreement between Mr. Dandar and Bob Minton to hide the fact that — the check, I would have known about it when it happened.

THE COURT: Are you saying that Mr. Minton would have told you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is what I’m trying to say. He would have told me when it happened. Now, this coming up after all of this time, when I’m sitting there and he — you know, he’s taking us up to the garage when he gave the check, he’s saying this stuff is coming from Europe and you don’t know where it is coming from, on and on, now suddenly he changes his mind, I knew it was a lie.

Or he told me — one way or another, he’s lying now.

432

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was the next thing he lied about before Judge Baird?

A I just got up and just walked out. I couldn’t take it. I couldn’t believe what was happening. I was extremely distraught.

As I say in my affidavit, I actually wept because — you know, because once again we see the big Scientology machine, with all of its high-priced lawyers and endless resources, endless staff, to make this occur. “We can’t get the case dismissed or thrown out in any other way so now let’s go manufacture some information.”

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A Let’s create —

MR. WEINBERG: This is pure and utter speculation.

THE COURT: Not only that, but I think it is just kind of a discussion what he thinks. And, frankly, I need his testimony, not what he thinks. He can put that in someplace else.

That objection is sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar making a lie about the $500,000 check?

433

A No. I got up and left immediately.

Q All right. And when is the next time you were talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks?

A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just couldn’t even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw that that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn’t know what to do.

And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind something criminal was going on here, I need to do something to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming. And I —

THE COURT: When you say to help your friends, you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you went, on your own, to Denis’s office?

A Yes.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I should not put words in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other friend?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to Mr. deVlaming’s office and I explained to him that I had been privileged to know that this was going to

434

happen, that this was going to be created and done against you, and I explained the whole thing to him.

And his reaction was, “Oh, well, they got him this time.” But because he had represented me before, and he had also represented Mr. Minton, he told me that it was a conflict of interest, because I went there to see if I could somehow get law enforcement involved in what was going on here because I was confident that Bob was lying on behalf of Scientology.

And I asked him to put me in touch with someone on a federal level, because I believed that Scientology did have influence in the state prosecutor’s office. I believed that they were able to somehow enact, somehow, undue influence on prosecutors simply because they never get prosecuted for the things that they do. And I myself, you know, I could have one little small marijuana plant in my house, I’m raided by the DEA.

But, you know, a person — a dead body shows up, they can’t do anything.

I had no confidence in that. I asked a federal — asked for federal protection, a federal level, because I said in my mind what they have done is RICO; they have conspired to commit a crime that

435

started in New York, they continued it down here in Clearwater.

Bob told me clearly that he was not going to involve his lawyers in the negotiations proper to any degree where they’re really getting down to the meat and potatoes.

THE COURT: Did Bob tell you why?

THE WITNESS: Because they disagreed.

Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful that was going on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Minton’s lawyer?

A Yes. Mr. Jonas, up in Boston. And you notice he has been visibly gone. He didn’t want nothing to do with this.

So they decided to use Mr. Howie to enact this. And they didn’t tell him what was going on. They were happily meeting with these lawyers and without any representation.

Q Well, why —

THE COURT: Wait, you said they were happily meeting with these lawyers without representation.

What is it you mean?

THE WITNESS: The lawyers specifically that Bob and Stacy were meeting with was Sandy Rosen and

436

Monique Yingling.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you why he chose not to have Mr. Howie or Mr. Jonas go with him to meet with Mr. Rinder, Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling?

A Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful and thought it would be improper.

And he told Bob specifically — and Bob told me he told him — not to meet with Scientology without representation.

Mr. Minton — Mr. Minton mentioned that Mr. Howie could be used because he didn’t really understand what was going on in the first place with — I mean, and the reason why he didn’t understand, it is not because he’s a stupid or ignorant person — but because they weren’t giving him all of the information, Bob and Stacy were not telling Mr. Howie everything, they were negotiating with Scientology and telling Mr. Howie what they wanted him to hear.

Q But why — did Mr. Minton explain to you why he chose not to have his attorneys be present at the meetings?

THE COURT: I presume you’re talking about the meetings in Florida?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: And his lawyer down in Florida being Mr. Howie?

437

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Because Mr. Jonas was in New York?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Yes. Did he tell you why he didn’t want Mr. Howie at these meetings?

A Mr. Minton expressed to me that he had personally had enough of lawyers, period. And he thought that this is something he needed to do.

Q All right. By the way, did Mr. Minton ever appear at a meeting with you, me, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, to talk about adding on David Miscavige?

A No.

Q Ever?

A No. This was the second big point, you know, that — you know, that Stacy is going on and on, “Jesse, you have to remember, it happened like this.”

“I told you, you are imagining this. It never happened. I’m not going to sit and lie about this.”

But this was another point I was supposed to go along with at the meeting. This is where they were really trying to bring me in to find these points to get you, basically.

Q Well, what made you not join and continue to be part of the A team, as you call it?

A Well —

438

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I — can we explain what the A team is? Because maybe I missed something.

THE COURT: Yes, the A team is Jesse Prince, Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks. They laughingly referred to themselves as the A team.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was daydreaming. I didn’t hear that. Sorry.

THE COURT: I did. So I — I miss some, but I recall that.

MR. WEINBERG: You caught that but I missed the A team. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So why did you choose not to go along?

A Well, Mr. Dandar, for obvious reasons. Number one, I worked for years on this case. I have worked honestly, to the best of my ability, on this case. I assumed that Stacy was, as well.

Mmm, I understood that Bob Minton — Scientology discovered something about him that upset him greatly and had him horribly concerned. But I wasn’t going to lie to protect him to hurt someone else.

And, in fact, my exact words to Mr. Minton was — and Mrs. Brooks, that I will never, in my life, help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.

439

Q When did you tell them that?

A After — after I walked out of Judge Baird’s courtroom, and then now they’re all looking for me and they’re calling around to see if I’m in jail or see if I’m in the hospital. They thought I had a heart attack, because I was visibly upset. I mean, I was shaking when I walked out of that Judge Baird’s courtroom.

But the thing is I didn’t want to see them. I told my fiance, “You tell them to go home where they live because –” excuse this expression “– they have come and shit all over where I live, I don’t want to see them. You go back to where you live and then we’ll discuss this.”

And we discussed it. And when we discussed it, when I got on the phone with them after they got back, that is when I had the conversation and said that to them. “I can’t do it.”

Q Did you meet with them after Judge Baird’s hearing in Clearwater?

A Yes. I met with them a couple — not after the Judge Baird hearing. You know, at a later date after that, sure.

Q Do you recall meeting with them that following weekend?

A It could have been that weekend. Again, I have done the dates here to the best of my recollection, with

440

sitting down with the calendar. But it was after the Judge Baird — yeah, because Bob had been deposed — no, wait a minute, I’m confusing incidents now, because by the time they went back, they had already been through the Baird (sic) deposition and they were having the contempt hearing or whatever it was in front of Baird where he lied.

So, you know, they came back at a later date. And the discussion was — after they got back to New Hampshire, I told them how upset I was and how I couldn’t do it, and Stacy said to me in no uncertain terms that, “The reason you feel this way is because you don’t have all of the information. We’ve been leaving you out of the loop on some things that you need to know.”

She said that they had signed some agreement with Scientology, so — she couldn’t tell me everything, but the next step was to bring me back into the circle to make this go away for Bob.

And Stacy was just hell bent for leather to do whatever she had to do to disengage Bob from Scientology because she thought it was killing him.

Q Did you meet with them in Clearwater then?

A Yes, I did. We met at Adam’s Mark Hotel.

Q At the Adam’s Mark Hotel there are two things I want you to talk about. Number one, the conversation. And, number two, any documents you saw.

441

A Well, I hadn’t seen Bob. He knew I was furious with him. I hadn’t seen Stacy because I was furious with her. But we agreed to meet because we were friends.

Friends don’t get along every day. It would be nice if you did. But you don’t lose a friend because there is a disagreement.

So we met. And Bob told me, you know, he said, “Look, Jesse, you know, I’m not sure that this is gonna work, either. Stacy is more confident about doing this than I am. I don’t know.” We were kind of having that discussion.

Then the phone rang. Mr. Minton spoke with someone and he said, “Okay, leave it at the desk” and he hung up the phone.

And I asked him what that was.

And he said Scientology was delivering to him a packet of information that had to do with his prior deposition testimony — or prior testimony, that amounted to about 11 inches, for him to go through for the purpose of finding more things for him to — Mmm — quote/unquote, recant or do whatever he was going to do.

There was total — I asked him, “How many things besides Wollersheim and the Lisa McPherson case, what else do they want you to do? Do you know when your leash is over with, where they get done with you? Okay, you think if you

442

destroy Ken, that will make you safe. But what else are they going to have you do? Do you know?”

He said he didn’t know, but this package represented six to seven other things that they wanted him to change testimony about or — or say something different about.

Q Did you see this package?

A Mmm, no.

Q How do you know it was 11 inches high?

A He told me.

Q Okay.

A And he also told me at that time that his attorney, Steve Jonas, told him not to meet with Scientology concerning that package without representation, but he was going to do it anyway —

Q Okay.

A — because he’s taking control.

Q Did you ever see any lawsuits that Mr. Minton was given where Scientology was suing him or contemplating suing him?

A He had a rough draft of a RICO suit that he showed me. It was about this thick.

Q How many inches is that?

A It was about maybe an inch, inch and a quarter, something like that. And he —

443

Q All right.

A — flipped through it like this. And he would never physically give it to me.

He said — and we all predicted they were going to do some crazy RICO thing. He said, “They finally did it. Here is the RICO thing. We already have the Armstrong thing. They are suing me for 80 million which I’ll be liable for, here is the — another RICO, that is another 110 million. They are adding me as a defendant in the breach of contract.

And,” he said, “I’m the only person with money. I have got to get out of this.”

Q Okay. Now, did you at any time tell Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks that you were willing to meet with Scientology?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A Mmm, at the Adam’s Mark Hotel when they — you know, what they call bringing me into the circle.

And I’m looking at these people that I have worked with for years and I might as well have been looking at strangers, because Stacy has this whole thing lined up.

She — you know, she knows exactly what is going to happen, who is going to do what. And Bob is kind of like following along because he’s just at his wit’s end.

And Stacy figures that she knew Mike Rinder for a long time and they were good friends and she’s just going to make this as good for Bob as possible.

444

And, to me, she just delivered Bob into the hands of his enemies.

Q Did Stacy Brooks ever — in all of the years you have known her, did she ever say to you, “I filed a false declaration or affidavit”?

A Never in a million years. To the contrary, Stacy is fully aware that part of, you know, Scientology’s intelligence operations are to get rid of the lawsuit in any way possible. You know, whether you actually have real evidence, get rid of it, or you manufacture it or you bring up enough threat where the person just wants to be done with it.

She knows this because it happened to her.

Q When?

A December of 1999 she did an affidavit about it, about the same people, Mr. Rinder, Mr. Sutter, coming in, wanting them to change testimony, offering money.

THE COURT: We have had testimony about that.

THE WITNESS: Yes. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did she ever say — I just wanted to touch on that. Did she ever say that Mr. Rinder was actually telling her the truth about attacking Graham Berry and Graham Berry did something bad?

A No. But what she did mention to me, she said, “You know, after speaking with Mr. Rinder, you know, I

445

always thought in the Fishman case –” where she appeared as an expert, she said she always thought that because they tried to add Miscavige on as a party, that that made Scientology want to instantly settle because, you know,
hands off from Miscavige, he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the Church, Sea Org, on and on.

So she said that after speaking with Mr. Rinder, she came to realize that it wasn’t adding Miscavige that caused the suit to be settled in the way it was. After talking with Mr. Rinder she came to understand that it was because of the introduction of Scientology’s upper levels at which they commonly call it as being trade secrets that was the real issue at hand.

Q Okay. Did Stacy Brooks ever say that her affidavits that she filed about Mr. Rinder offering her and her husband over $200,000 to change their testimony — did she ever tell you that Mr. Rinder’s version of what her declaration should be was true versus what Mr. Berry had her sign?

A Mmm, no. We — I mean, I had read that information before that she had done this. And at this point in time at the Adam’s Mark Hotel, Stacy was not an obvious target. They were working on Bob Minton.

Q Okay.

A Stacy was incidental at that point.

446

Q All right.

A It wasn’t contemplated for her to change her testimony. It was Minton to do it.

Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton, for instance, let’s go to that night, the Adam’s Mark Hotel, where he’s talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he told you in the parking lot about it?

A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were saying, you know, “Ken is really going to get it. He told me to lie about this check.”

I said, “Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you –“he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all responsibility is gone. “Hee-hee. Guess what?”

“Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot. Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving this check to Ken, Ken didn’t know where it was coming from, told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken’s fault?”

Q What did they say?

A They just looked at me like, “Oh, yeah, we forgot about that part.” Mmm, they were telling me things like, “We really got him now.”

I said, “But don’t you remember what we did?

Don’t you remember this is what really happened as opposed

447

to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what actually happened?”

Q What was their response?

A “Hmmm.” You know, just “Hmmm.” Like, “He’s not cooperating.”

Q So —

A So I told him, you know, “Now, you know we were up in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?”

THE COURT: What did he say?

THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was crazy. And they looked at each other and they changed the subject. We started talking about — Mmm — what else did we start talking about?

They brought up something else that — the meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want — “they” being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at some meeting that  happened where we all said, “Yeah, add Miscavige and don’t talk to anybody about it.” I am like, “Are you crazy? That didn’t happen either.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when you told them it didn’t happen —

448

A Then they said, “Look, let’s stop talking about this. Let’s go to dinner. We’ve made some progress.”

But, on the other hand, I’m thinking, “I have to talk to somebody from Scientology about this,” because obviously I’m looking at Bob and Stacy, they are just convinced that I’m just going to to-to-to, go along with this. They are just convinced.

They are telling me — Stacy said, “Look, we’re going to do this, it is unpleasant, but we’ll put all this behind us. You won’t have worry — money problems anymore, you’ll have plenty of money, you’ll be taken care of, you know, and –”

THE COURT: Who was going to give you the money?

THE WITNESS: The same — your Honor, the same person that has been, Bob Minton. They have been taking care of everything.

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So this was — then you went out to dinner?

A Yes. We went out to dinner and we just kind of changed the subject because it was getting heated. You know, I’m trying to find a scintilla of logic of what is going on here. And I can’t — I can’t even imagine — I can’t even make myself imagine what they are talking about

449

here.

Then I told Bob, I said, “Bob, isn’t this strange –”

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So Bob Minton said —

A I keep losing my train of thought.

Q I know. Sorry. Maybe we should read it back.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

(Last answer read back by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: Repeat the last line again.

(Last answer reread by the reporter.)

A I got it. Because I started talking to them, I said, “Well, look, we had further discussions about Wollersheim, too.”

And I said, “Well, you have loaned Lawrence money to continue his case. Now you’re going after him. You have given all of this money against Ken Dandar. Now you are going after him. Don’t you think it is obvious what has happened here? Don’t you think it is going to be obvious to all concerned that something bad happened here?”

His response was, you know, “I’m not convinced.

Stacy is convinced this is going to work, Jesse. I’m not convinced about it. And I feel bad what is going on with Ken.”

450

My thing was, okay, I have to talk to somebody about Scientology about this because obviously these two things — I have a ring in my nose and they have a leash. I have to let Scientology know they’re not going to get away with this, this is not going to work.

THE COURT: Who was it — you are saying you had the ring through your nose and they had a leash?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this is an analogy of what seemingly was in their minds.

THE COURT: “Their” meaning Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Thought they had the leash and were leading you around.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You thought you had to tell Scientology that wasn’t accurate?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

A So I’m going along now with this whole thing. I said, “Look,” I told them, “Okay, I’ll do it. Okay, I’ll do it. Tell me –” because they said, “We have to bring you in. You have to meet with Mike Rinder now. You have to meet him face-to-face and go over this and you are going to be happy like us.”

451

“Okay. Okay.”

I tell you, I left that Adam’s Mark Hotel and I felt like, “Oh, my God.” You know, I would rather be doing anything. But ultimately I came home and I told my fiance, I said, “Look, it is over. I can’t do it anymore. I have to let Ken know. I have to call somebody.”

So I called Frank Oliver and told him the whole story of what had been going on the whole time and told him to please tell Ken, and I’m so sorry what happened to him.

I sat in Judge Baird’s courtroom and it upset me greatly, and asked him to arrange for you and I to meet, at which point you called me and we met the Sunday.

And I was supposed to meet with Bob and Stacy and Mike Rinder that time. And I told them, “Yes, I’m going to go along with your plan.”

And as I state here in my affidavit and I said to you to your face, I just want to see Mike Rinder’s face when he finds out that this isn’t going to work if he thinks he’s going to use me to do this thing.

So we have that meeting —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You and I had a meeting?

A You and I had the meeting. And Mr. Lirot was there.

Q Right. Right. And then you went to meet with Bob

452

and Stacy and, you thought, Mike Rinder?

A I thought Mike Rinder would be there. So what happens, now they moved hotels, they moved to the Radisson on Clearwater Beach. I guess they didn’t like the Adam’s Mark. So we are at the Radisson.

And he has this big sheaf of papers. And he said, “Jesse, you are unreal. Let me show you what Judge Schaeffer is saying about you.” And he read something that, to me, was totally uncomprehensible.

And he said, “See, she doesn’t trust you. You are not credible in her eyes. You are going to jail if you don’t do what we tell you to do.”

I said, “Bob, I think you’re the one going to jail. You’re the one lying. You’re the one that has already went in court and lied. And you want me to do it? I think you’re the one going to jail.”

Oh, my God, it gets hot. “Okay, let’s go down to dinner.”

Then I sit and I explained to them, I said, “Look, let me tell you specific experiences I have personally had making deals with Scientology. Let me tell you the results.”

I told them painstakingly some awful things if I even started to mention, I am sure Mr. Weinberg would be up in a flash.

453

MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor, I would like to hear exactly what he said he told Mr. Minton about all these awful experiences.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Go ahead.

A I told him about the time I was removed from that position you saw me on the video with the sailor clothes, on and on. I told them about the circumstances about me being removed from there.

THE COURT: I’m not sure I saw that.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it was the first day I was here, Miscavige introduces me, I’m telling him I’m from RTC and we are going to get the squirrels and what do the squirrels mean.

THE COURT: I remember.

MR. DANDAR: This is the New Year’s Eve speech.

THE COURT: Right. I remember now.

A Well, how I got removed from that position. I’m telling him the story where Miscavige wants to come in and get rid of Broeker because he thinks Broeker is crazy.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you were caught in between Broeker and Miscavige?

A Yes. And I told them, either one, “I don’t want anything to do with either one of you,” because when I got

454

involved myself in doing illegal activities, with listening to wiretapping and, you know, all of this crazy stuff I’m being shown how to do, I’m cutting my teeth, I am being broken into OSA, this is no Scientology that I ever knew
anything about.

You know, I don’t want nothing to do with this part of it. I didn’t even know it happened where they do this stuff to people.

Mmm, and then, you know, they — because I didn’t go along with that, I’m woken up at 5 o’clock in the morning, there is — there is Miscavige standing there, there is Lymon Sperlock, Ray Mithoff, Mike Sutter, Greg Wilheir (phonetic), his brother, security guards. There are about 12 people there.

I walk into Miscavige’s office, and there is Vicki Aznaran, the person that used to be inspector general of RTC, just crying in the corner, crumpled. They are all in their Sea Org uniforms just like, grrr. And I’m running around with something that looks like pajamas.

And he told me, “You didn’t go along with this, you wouldn’t follow me, now you are going to the RPF. You call me sir. You have been disrespectful.”

I stood up and told him to go to hell and went and tried to leave, at which point they tried to grab me. And me and Judge Moody has been through this story before so I’m

455

not telling a new story.

And I ran to my bedroom and I got a Mini 14 assault rifle I had been given for my birthday from L. Ron, and a .45, loaded in both, went back to that office, and I have them like this (indicating). And now they are standing there like — oh, Norman Starkey was there. And Norman says, “Jesse, you traitor. You can’t kill us all.”

And I said, “Well, I’ll tell you what, maybe not, but you will certainly be the first to go.”

And I’m standing there with these guns. Then Miscavige, because he and I used to be very good friends, too, he and I were very good friends at one point in time, he came over and he said, “Jesse, look, this is horrible, let’s stop this.”

He knew I wasn’t going to do anything. He walked right up to me. He told all those other jerks, “Get out of here, I have got to talk to Jesse.”

So we go down to the ship and we have a conversation. And he tells me, “Jesse, I know this all seems horrible now, but I need you to take this fall. I need you to be a head on a pike.” Head on a pike is a term in Scientology where somebody takes a fall for Scientology.

Put a head on the pike means if you are going through the gate, you end up like this, head on the pike.

“I want you to be the head on the pike.” He

456

wanted me to go to RPF. You know, Vicky and Rick really screwed things up with the Broekers and conspired about him, yik-yik and on and on. And he said, “Look, this will be over, you’ll be restored to your position,” on and on.

“Oh, okay, Dave, I do it.” We talked. I willingly once again go to the damn concentration camp.

Once again. Like eighteen months wasn’t long enough. Now I’m in there again.

What immediately happens? Miscavige starts issuing this horrible stuff about me, “He’s terrible, he’s a piece of crap.”

I stood up and walked out of that place, went to that base and said, “Look, if this is the way you want to play this, I’m going to the police, I’m going to go talk to them about what you do here.”

Oh, my God, all them issues are canceled. No, Jesse is good again. “Jesse, I’m sorry.” It is always someone’s fault, someone else acted in an unauthorized manner and put these things out.

Okay, he got rid of all of that stuff. I mean, I had to have something to show for being in Scientology 16 years. Every certificate I had — I had a wall from top to bottom, at least half of that, of everything I have ever done in Scientology used to be in my office.

And, Mmm, so I ended up going back to the RPF.

457

Oh, no, we straighten it all out again. That was one instance.

Just lying. Just can’t wait to get me in a position to where I am incapacitated to do something.

The second time I’m trying to leave Scientology, “Look, you guys can do this. Do whatever you want to do, you know. You want to do this activity? I don’t want to do it anymore. I just want to take me and my wife and leave, just be away.”

Well, of course that didn’t happen. I had to be degraded for four and a half months, locked up, sec-checked, told to divorce my wife. I have written about this, too. Finally, I leave.

THE COURT: What did you say, seg-checked?

THE WITNESS: Sec, security checked. Being interrogated on the E-meter.

A Well, what happens, as soon as I leave, they have someone that is a tail on me that works for this Scientology business who, because I won’t continue to do Scientology and their business, now I’m no good. You know, I have come in there and boomed that business. I was hired, I was on salary making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are you talking about the artwork business?

A Yes, the artwork business.

458

would call me once or twice a week. Mike Sutter, RTC, “Jesse, how are you doing?”

So now they want me to do Scientology work where they want me to do cramming, do correction, yik-yik, on and on.

I said, “Look, I have left that. I’m not doing that anymore. Let me just do a regular job. I’m just doing a regular job now, not using the Scientology mess, and everything is going fine. You know, don’t fix something when it is not broke.”

No, that is not good enough, that gets reported to RTC. Now I have to get removed and now I have to go through endless crap.

It finally culminated losing my job, having to start my own business, being followed around every place in Minneapolis, because I travel a lot. Then one day I found a bag right outside my hotel room, like this (indicating), Rock cocaine.

THE COURT: How big?

THE WITNESS: Huh?

THE COURT: You are showing it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Tell —

A Like this (indicating).

THE COURT: Say for the record, is that the

459

size of a baseball?

THE WITNESS: About the size of a softball.

THE COURT: About the size of a softball?

THE WITNESS: With individually little crack cocaines.

A And I’m like, uh-uh, this is it.

So, to me, I’d already been through enough betrayal with Scientology. And I explained this to them.

THE COURT: This is just — all that cocaine just sitting outside your hotel room?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. And the fact of the matter is, your Honor, it is known that I had, you know, smoked marijuana before or whatever, but if anyone in my family — because my brother tried it — does cocaine, he did it, had a double aneurysm. I sat in the hospital a month while they cut off his dreadlocks, peeled his skin back, cut his scalp, went through his brain, cauterized two microscopic veins because his head exploded from fooling around with crap, and put it all back together.

And the reason they said it happened to him, something genetically in our family that makes those veins do that. What do I want to do with cocaine

460

for? It is just —

THE COURT: I think we’re far afield.

MR. WEINBERG: Is this what — all these incidents you told Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I’m telling all this to Mr. Minton. I said, “In the end you may think –” and I told him, “As you sit here you can’t tell me when Scientology is going to be done with you. When are they going to be finished having you done whatever they want you to do? All you know, you have Wollersheim and you have McPherson.”

He said, “Jesse, you are being unreal.” He got mad. He cursed at me and said something. And his last words were, “Well, fuck it, you’re going to jail.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you use the same language back at him?

A I said, “Bob, I’m sorry, you’re going to jail.

Stacy, you’re going to jail. I’m not having anything to do with this.”

I got up — he asked me to leave. He said, “Get out.”

I said, “Fine.”

Stacy follows me in the parking lot. She said, “You know, after all of the things Bob has done for you,

461

this is how you treat him?”

I’m looking, “What in the hell has Bob done for me that I have to perjure myself, I have to become a criminal because he thinks this is what I got to do to save him?

Uh-uh. He’s not done anything for me. And there is only one person can sell my soul. That is me. I already sold my soul to this organization one time and I got it back. Bob Minton is in no position to offer my soul to them.”

And I told her that. And we really haven’t talked that much since.

Q Well, now, was there a point in time when Bob Minton was coming over to your house after that for barbecue?

A Well, again, we have been friends a long time. This was another bridge of disagreement, blowup, everybody cursing, but we have such history. Even as I sit here today, I can’t fathom not talking to him once or twice a week.

So, you know, we’re talking again.

“Look –” Stacy said, “Look, this is going to blow over with or without you. We’re going to make sure.”

So I said, “Okay, well, then if we’re not doing this, could we still be friends?”

They love to come over to the house. We barbecue and have little parties. “Sure.”

462

But then he called his lawyer and he was told not to come.

Q This is while the hearing is going on in this courtroom?

A Yes. They want to tell me what is going on. They want me to be a part of it because I have been since the beginning. But I can’t because of what they’re doing.

Q Did Bob Minton want to close down the LMT?

A No.

Q Whose idea was that?

A I don’t think it was any one person’s idea. Well, if it was anybody’s idea, I think it was Stacy’s, because the LMT was being used as a vehicle to get to Bob. And —

THE COURT: I think it sounds — this must be allowed to start at 4:30, but it is giving me a headache. Is this a good stopping point?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes — I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: This would be — this would be fine.

THE COURT: They probably are allowed to start up at 4:30.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought I was having a ringing in my ears, which I do have an ear issue.

THE COURT: So we’ll go ahead and quit. We’ll start up at 9 o’clock. Mr. Prince —

463

MR. WEINBERG: Remember you said ten?

THE COURT: Oh, I did. Ten o’clock tomorrow.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. I think I told you this before, but if I didn’t, let me remind you: While you are on the witness stand, I did give you permission to speak with Mr. Dandar because of the long break, but now, like overnight,  you and he can’t talk.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay? I mean, you can talk about something else, but you can’t talk anything about your testimony or about this case. Of course you can’t talk to the other side, you can’t talk to anybody while you are on the stand about this case or your testimony. Okay?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I understand that.

THE COURT: We shall be in recess.

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have one issue on the E-Mails. And I’ll be really quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: There are, to my understanding, about 3,000 E-Mails. And during the break —

THE COURT: Have you-all come up with any agreement as to a list?

464

MR. FUGATE: That is what I want to talk to you about. I went over to see, there is a list that prints out all of the ones that they were able to recover from the various hard drives. And I have found a series of — on that list of E-Mails that related to Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, and I have left a list of those with Mr. Keane.

And then I understand that Mr. Dandar indicated that those shouldn’t be produced because Ms. Greenway is a consultant. And, you know, in this hearing he said she wasn’t.

I don’t really care what she is today. But back during the time that she was at LMT prior to this hearing beginning, which is where all these E-Mails generate from, I don’t think they would be covered as a consultant —

THE COURT: Counsel, I can’t deal with something that won’t be agreed to with this noise. That is why I stopped this hearing. We’ll take this up first thing in the morning, and hopefully we won’t have any noise and we’ll get it done then.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. Bring it to my attention then.

MR. FUGATE: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all.

465

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 2) (July 8, 2002)

0159

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief

Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 2

DATE: July 8, 2002.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

160

APPEARANCES:

KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0161

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

   PAGE           LINE

Recess                                                      261             18
Recess                                                       327              1
Reporter’s Certificate                            328              1

0162

(The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)

[… Other court business]

0191

THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.

Mr. Prince —

Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the stand?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, you want to step forward?

Mr. Prince, you’re already under oath. So you understand that the oath that you took will be valid throughout your testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume the stand?

Let me make sure, before we start, that I’ve got the right book.

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh Brian?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ve got the right book. I’m ready.

Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee — I mean — coffee — see, I was thinking of coffee. That’d be nice. Maybe you’ll bring me some. Is this water fresh?

THE BAILIFF: I’m not sure, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

No telling how long that’s been sitting in there. You know what he’ll do? It’ll have mold on it. He’ll go — pour it out — Thank you very much.

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once we get to a trial —

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

But I’m going to get me a little cooler and keep it up here. Because I don’t trust them — I can’t ask every day. Just one of the tiny little things that needs to be done.

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — if I might just suggest, I did notice in that article that you were quoted. The truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It would be well for you not to be quoted in these articles.

MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I think — I think the reporter is quoting from in-court testimony.

THE COURT: If that’s the case, then we can’t help that.

But — but do not — and I’m not going to tell the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because you know, part of the — part of the canons say one

0194

ought not to be talking to the press about their case while it’s ongoing.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: That would be like you all having some comment for me. I don’t think you would be appreciative of that.

MR. DANDAR: I do —

That’s what happens to me — off the record?

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
___________________________________

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked about your position with the Religious Technology Center; you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing investigations involving litigation and other critics of Scientology.

And I’m showing you today Plaintiff’s Exhibit 113, entitled Intelligence Actions.

Can you identify that document?

A Yes.

0195

Q And what is it?

A This is a document — a document written by L. Ron Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives to be enemies or suppressive persons.

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of Scientology.

Q On the — it’s a one-page document. The third paragraph talks about a standard, is to — when you’re under attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with the prior document where you — where it mentioned, and you explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence if there’s no crimes found?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your Honor.

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

Secondly, I just want to let the record be clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince interpreting policy. He was booted out of the church — booted out of the position in 1987; left in disgrace from the church; has been — has been —

0196

has been, you know, paid to testify against the church. And now he’s coming in here trying to interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn’t say anything about creating or manufacturing evidence and saying that — trying to interpret it?

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Does this policy have anything to do with the prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and explained to the court about, if you can’t find the crimes of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?

A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of the intelligence department in different Scientology organizations.

Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from the bottom, attack loudly?

A You know, I think we must be looking at a different — I must be looking at a different document than you.

Q I hope not.

A Where did you see that –Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What he’s saying is what it means to him?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Within your experience and your position of the inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that understanding — what you’re understanding of that means.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants to sit up there and say what it means to him, that’s one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say, “This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy means to a Scientologist,” that’s nonsense. And that isn’t right.

And that’s what’s been going on for — for — you know, with Mr. Prince and Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the — in the church. It’s not right. They shouldn’t be up here trying to interpret for the — for the religion of Scientology, what policy is.

THE COURT: That’s not even your argument; that’s the argument of the First Amendment scholar.

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and it is preserved. And your objection therefore is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don’t agree with his position, this would be relevant to this, and it would be relevant probably to your counterclaim.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means I should be objecting to —

THE COURT: No. Because I’ve allowed you to preserve a continuing objection.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your Honor.

But the point is, from the First Amendment point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in creates an untenable position for the church. Because if we — if we merely preserve our position, then we’re put in the position of, do we have to counter it? To counter it, we would then have to engage in a process which we shouldn’t have to constitutionally, which would be incredibly burdensome on us and on the court.

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

policies, you can’t take one and look at it in isolation, and have somebody who was not — who was — who was basically removed from his position —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

THE COURT: But he was there. And he was there. And he presumably was high up in the scale. And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he was removed or not.

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

If you want to withdraw your motion, saying there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will agree with you.

You filed the motion in this hearing. I think it’s relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter what your First Amendment argument is going to be, I’m going to allow it in for this hearing. It’s your motion. That’s why I said I think you’re going to have some distinctions that I’m going to be willing to draw for different things. You do whatever you want to do for this motion. I’ve allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you

0200

may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as you have filed the motion you have filed.

You’ve made your argument. I’m ready to move on.

This is not somebody who was not in the church. This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody who was there, who says, “This is what we did.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he also was — was removed —

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — for not being a Scientology expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology expert by the authority that had the ability to determine who are — who is capable, who is proper to speak for Scientology.

THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you all about Jesse Prince, you must be really frightened of him.

You’ve made your point. We’re going to move on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

“Even if you don’t have enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason is, it is only those people that have crimes that will attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being found out when attacked back.”

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

A During — during my tenure in Scientology, this document was not considered to be any type of scripture. This was a training material to train a person in intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking about — answering the question about if this relates to the noisy investigation when this document, in the third paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word “loudly.”

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

A A noisy investigation — I believe we covered that the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted the document in the church. But it’s basically to go around and arouse the neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations about the person that may or may not be true. And according

0202

to Scientology’s Manual of Justice, which is a further document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorize.” I mean, that’s just —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear him say that. Did he say that?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who is attacking the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’m not thinking of that as terrorism; I’m thinking of that as just simply a word.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that’s fine. But I’m a little sensitive, after reading this article this morning, where — or yesterday morning, where Osama Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the same sentence.

MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete Times.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by Mr. Minton.

0203

MR. WEINBERG: Who — who — let’s make it clear — is not our witness, and is a person that has — that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar from — from the beginning of this lawsuit.

THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor, but he is your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, that’s where we disagree. But I’m not here to argue with that.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You called him as a witness. I did not declare him a hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he was able to respond to your questions without leading questions.

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Minton is — Well —

THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

MR. WEINBERG: — objection had to do with Mr. Prince saying “terrorize,” which is — which is —

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

He can use the word “terrorize” if that’s the word he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my opinion, with a terrorist attack. “Terrorize” is just a word. We use it all the time. Don’t be so sensitive.

Golly, we’ve got to get down into getting back into — stop being so sensitive.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in — in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?

A Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done —

THE COURT: And I’m sorry. When I indicated about the —

Excuse me.

When I indicated about the motion to dismiss, what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the

0205

allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think it’s admissible in this hearing.

Forget what I said about — I — I haven’t gotten my head back into this case.

MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. Prince. I interrupted you.

Madam Court Reporter, read back that question before I interrupted him.

THE REPORTER: The pending question is, “In your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?”

The witness began to answer, “Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done –”

A Yes.

As far as out-and-out manufacturing information — And again, I want to clarify that. During the time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls

0206

technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training of things.

Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from me until that point. So I — I actually had a very short amount of time there. But as what I’ve seen as far as manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person — Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John Nelson used to be a person that was the CO — the commanding officer of Sea Org —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How’s he know this?

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the parties.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

A Yes. The party was working in one of my divisions.

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

private investigator to investigate a fellow named John Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

THE COURT: At what?

THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the Commodores Messenger Organization.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually became Church of Scientology International. CSI.

Q All right.

A And he had started his own splinter organization with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that they would know when he was coming and going; and when he left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was to call the police when he came, to say he was a — a heroin dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

I found out about that because the private investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, “Look,

0208

this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence.”

I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither did the private investigator. He was coming back. I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away — not to do that particular operation.

This was an instance of manufacturing information that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had personal knowledge of. I’ve heard other things about that.

And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. —

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?

A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a — is — is what would correctly define — as opposed to critics.Because there was — you know, critics wasn’t a word that we used in Scientology when I was there. “Oh, this person’s a critic.” That’s not a word that we would use in Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.

0209

This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn’t — this whole critic thing didn’t come into being, I believe, until after I even left Scientology.

Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going on?

A The other partner of this fellow, his name was David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials, the NED for OTs. And he —

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is the — this is the —

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6 and 7.

THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front of that?

THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans. And it’s an acronym, NED.

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?

0210

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. I thought he was talking about the NOTS. I’ve seen that in some of the literature.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

THE COURT: I just simply asked what it — what it meant.

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

But what he said before that was — that prompted your question — was that David Mayo had actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT, whatever it is.

MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross examination, but it’s really interrupting the flow of the direct.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?

A Because it’s — the NOTS Materials, as I saw them in 1985 — each and every one of them had his signature or

0211

his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them. So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these materials. This is what I base that opinion on.

Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote them, correct?

A He was a senior CS international at the time he wrote that.

Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?

A He was Mr. Hubbard’s auditor, correct.

Q All right. So what happened — what was the operation against Mr. Mayo?

A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a business place, office complex. They were on the first floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int —

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

A — was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as well as Nancy Mainy.2

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced Abilities Center to provide information about financial accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent in there to not only glean information but to disrupt activities, covertly disrupt activities.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this, and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis — what his —

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer3 ultimately. And on March 15th — not March 15th, but somewhere around that time period. This all had to do with the Wollersheim case.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And when you testified in front of a judge on Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: You testified for the Religious Technology Center that the — that someone from the

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That’s not what I testified to.

What I testified to was the fact that the materials that were being used in the Advanced Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.

THE COURT: I see. So he — this Mr. David Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and was in a splinter group.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was — he was kicked out of Scientology.

As a matter of fact, I think I brought the document with me today that — that shows why he was kicked out of Scientology.

And when he left he started his own movement, basically.

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

THE COURT: Was he — was he with Mr. Nelson?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter group?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor — I’ll tell you what —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince say what the basis for his testimony was, whether it’s hearsay or did he give these alleged orders to — to —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the — the people that were doing the activities were in a division in RTC that I supervised.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And the — the people that were involved — I can tell you specifically the names of

0215

this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence officer in RTC.

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

THE COURT: So you were supervising the people who were doing this?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: There’s your foundation. I mean, that’s the foundation.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have — I haven’t copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We have the copier in the jury room so it doesn’t cause any noise. And then we’ll copy it. But this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 114.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

MR. DANDAR: Then we’ll have it copied.

A This is the first Religious Technology Center Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence, actually. And it lists — one, two, three, four, five, six, 24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 — has 16 individuals listed on this document, of people that are

0216

receiving a justice action. These are people that were once in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982. So David Mayo here was the senior CS international. He’s on this document. And this is the document that lists all of their supposed and alleged crimes.

And the people that constituted the committee that would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime composed of — one, two, three, four, five, six — seven people.

And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary was Shelly Miscavige. That’s David Miscavige’s wife. A member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve Marlowe’s wife, who — at the time, he was a commander of the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse Prince. Then there’s Gelda Mithoff, who’s the wife of Ray Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to David Miscavige.

And this committee was charged with finding — and this was basically what is constituted all of in management — to, you know, basically do another housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a time or two.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’d like to go ahead and

0217

have this copied, and I’ll distribute it. Is that all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to relevance. I haven’t looked at it yet. But what’s the relevance of a 1982 —

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part of Mr. Dandar’s case regarding his allegations of threats, extortions or whatever it is he’s alleging about.

MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn’t — didn’t — didn’t undergo any committee of evidence or Scientology justice action.

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg

0218

called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence, with the other top Int management people, on a committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And it just shows Mr. Prince’s involvement in the higher echelons of Scientology.

THE COURT: So this is — this is just to show that he’s got some — what, that is — that he — is — is capable of testifying as an expert here?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

THE COURT: Well, I’ve already accepted him as an expert.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he — which is the basis of this testimony before we reached that document.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may have some relevance. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

THE COURT: I don’t know. I mean, I have to believe some of the things the lawyers say.

MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.This is in a series of, like, three or four documents on this subject. And then we’ll get on to a different matter.

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you identify that?

A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind of gives the thought process, the — the basis of it. It comes from Klausewitz.

Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is directed against the enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q And then the third — actually, the fourth paragraph from the bottom it states — states, quote, One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. This policy letter goes to — applies to former Scientologists as well as someone who’s an — an enemy, who has never been a Scientologist?

A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a — as an enemy.

THE COURT: Is this again what you call a suppressive person?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and harasses. All on a thought plane —

THE COURT: Okay. You don’t have to read it to me, Mr. Prince. I —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph states, “Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close quote. What is PRO?

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or department or division of Scientology organizations. Intelligence having to do with the prediction. Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states that in the issue.

So intelligence would predict or would start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data collection, covert data collection, amass as much

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

Q That’s the — does that include the use of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

THE COURT: While you’re doing that, can you all tell me whether or not a document called Middle — well, it’s something filed by Middle District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy Brooks — is that an exhibit in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

MR. LIROT: It wasn’t one of our exhibits.

MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.

THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

A 116 is a document in the same vein of the documents we’ve been studying before. It’s the public investigation section. And this basically has to do with — “investigates attacking individual members and see the results of the investigation, get adequate legal and publicity.”

So this again is similar to what we’ve gone over here before.

Q So it’s in a series of the other exhibits on how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 117, entitled Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. “An attack on Scientology –” well, you know, the basic principle is, never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the attacker. That kind of thing.

Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late ’60s.

Were they still in effect when you were in your management position at RTC?

A Very much so. And they’re still in effect today.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how do you know they’re still in effect today?

A Because of that time track that was submitted into this courtroom of specific things that have — that have occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over specifically what has happened to me because of my involvement in this case and other cases.

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that inference, but I suspect he can’t testify that that is in fact what’s happening today. But he can infer that, I think.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Minton — Mr. Prince, have any of the — these policies come into play in the — Pinellas County in the past?

MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he was in the church? Is that what you’re asking?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into

0224

play in Pinellas County?

THE COURT: If he’s talking about what occurred to him? Is that what you’re —

MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated by the Church of Scientology in the past years. Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk  about them.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong exhibit, but — I withdraw the question. And I’m just going to go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in my hand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 118?

A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order Number 1, in that it’s an ethics order that declare — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 — 12 people to be suppressive persons.

0225

Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, “They are fair game.” What does this have to do with?

A Fair game?

Q Yeah. What’s this exhibit have to do with?

A This exhibit has to do with people that used some version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level materials and started some type of distribution of those materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.

Q All right. And —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. What does this have to do with this case? If the Church of Scientology, within its internal structure, just like the Catholic church, declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive, you know, because they did something against the church; like, you know, attempt to — to take the — the scripture and change it — what’s that got to do with this hearing?

THE COURT: I think —

MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this  hearing.

THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do with this hearing. And if you don’t understand it, then I’ll have to explain it to you.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these things, including finding out all of the crimes that he may have committed, and bring it to his attention. That is the allegation of extortion.

MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant — at the time, 1968 — being declared pursuant to the Scientology religious practices, under their justice system. Mr. Minton’s not a Scientologist.

THE COURT: There’s no question in my mind that, according to the matters that have been brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have been considered a suppressive person.

MR. WEINBERG: But he’s putting in a document that — that says pursuant to church policy, these Scientologists are — are getting a certain justice action. That’s what that is. I mean, he doesn’t have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he ever was in the church.

THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it was followed. And it wasn’t changed. And it would be a high crime to change the writings of

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

You know, we don’t change the Bible just because times change. I presume you don’t change the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about as clear as anything I know.

MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that — that there is only one interpretation —

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

MR. WEINBERG: — of 50 words that are written —

THE COURT: Nobody said there is one interpretation. This is something that —

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal justice action with regard to Scientologists, in 1968.

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

Apparently you don’t. I do. It’s this hearing. I think it’s relevant to this hearing. And it’s coming in. Take it up. Make your objection. It’s made, take —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly internal?

A This issue would have been published internally, but it would have gone out — but it’s something that would have been put in each organization so that they would know who these suppressive persons are.  The purpose of these ethics orders — one of the purposes of these ethics orders is, when they’re issued, for everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn’t then walk into an organization and pretend to be Scientologists in good  standing and — and wreak further havoc on the organization —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not — objection.

(Simultaneous speakers.)

MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this document. I believe this document, for whatever it’s worth, is a forgery. But he can’t authenticate

0229

it. He’s just guessing. He’s speculating. He wasn’t there when it was published. If it was published.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me by Vaughn Young.

THE COURT: So you did not receive this document or see this document when you were in the church.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained and it will not be admitted.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the — does this appear to be a genuine document?

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: That isn’t going to get it. He can’t — he can’t authenticate something that was given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not quite the same as some of these other things that I’ve seen — this is something called — I mean, I don’t know if this is authentic or not. Some of the

0230

other things that all look like the same, then I’m going to allow it in, necessarily, without his authenticating.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is out.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. Can you identify this, please?

A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those activities within the Scientology organization.

Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? A Because I think that it, again, just like these other issues that we’ve seen, goes along in the same vein, in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, including what it says it’ll do here: Create the greatest possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a government or whoever to protect Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I move 119 into evidence.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I know —

THE COURT: And I’m not going to hear from Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New York. I mean, there’s three lawyers at the table. It isn’t going to happen. So you sit down.

Mr. Weinberg’s making the objections. Or Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate? Which is it going to be?

MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg’s witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Occasionally I will hear from our First Amendment expert, occasionally.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

MR. LIEBERMAN: I’ll exercise restraint, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Please remember this is a most unusual hearing that we’re having.

A This is a document that explains — a confidential document written by someone in the Guardian’s Office, which was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, concerning — the mayor, Gabe Cazares.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn’t a Scientologist, right?

A Correct.

Q So these actions — do the actions we just previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor Cazares?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has no — he has no knowledge — he was never in the Guardian’s Office. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the Guardian’s Office, all of which is that Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of

0233

its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There’s no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he got this one and who gave it to him.

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe, on our Internet site — not ours — on the Lisa McPherson Trust Internet site.

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C. prosecution?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?

THE WITNESS: This was — I believe this was an exhibit in the D.C. case —

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the Guardian’s Office; people who broke into the FBI and other public government buildings and were prosecuted. Mr. Franks talked about this —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to throw allegations around. One that he did throw around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not addressed, and he needs to address it. But this Guardian’s Office stuff has nothing to do with this hearing. Nothing. They were — they were — whatever they did wasn’t authorized by Mr. Hubbard, wasn’t authorized by the Church of Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out  of the church and they were prosecuted. And that was all long before 1995. And what they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into Scientology. And he said he didn’t have anything to do with it.

THE COURT: This was — yeah. What is the relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad litem — guardian ad litem. I need to get back to thinking — The Guardian’s office was — but I think that there’s been testimony that the Guardian’s Office was simply supplanted by another office. And I’ve  forgotten the name of it.

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

THE COURT: And consequently — there is testimony that it was the same — and it was just — it was just something that was done to — I don’t know if this is true, because — I mean, this is — I think there’s sufficient information to allow this in.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not true. And Mr. Prince wasn’t in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn’t, and he doesn’t have any — he is not competent to testify about what went on in the Office of Special Affairs. He certainly can’t testify about what went on in the Guardian’s Office because he wasn’t even — he wasn’t there, and he wasn’t in the church at the time.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just — it’s just like we’re just going to throw all of the slime we can — excuse me, Ken — we’re going to throw all the slime we can out here? Well, why don’t we —

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

THE COURT: — it’s your motion. If you want to withdraw it, then you’re not going to have any slime.

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

THE COURT: — listen and make your objection and I’ll rule on it. And sit down. Now. I’m going to rule this is admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: You’re going to hear some slime when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but we’ve been hearing it for a long time.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to hear it for a lot longer. You’ve had your turn. This is his turn.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?

A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of conduct where —

THE COURT: I’m not sure that he needs to

0237

explain this to us.

What — was he in the office in 1976, in the church?

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

A But yes, I was in Scientology in ’76.

THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were with RTC or something like that?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the reason why we have this document in here is because it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing pattern of conduct, where if there’s a perceived enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a specific program to remove him from any position. That’s the first thing it says in this document, you know, to remove this person from his job so that he’s not a threat to Scientology. And — and it goes on where, you know, they had

0238

some college — the person pretend to be a college student and write a letter —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

THE COURT: — this is 2002. The allegation that this occurred is in the year 2002.

Do we have any thought that was — what was going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it’s farfetched.

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don’t need a whole bunch of —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s — we’ll quickly then look at 121, and then we’re finished with this part.

A Okay.

THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime. I should not have used that word. That was your word. Very poor choice of my words.

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t even know what it

0239

says. I haven’t read it. So I don’t know if it’s slime or not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 121?

A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy. This was a project that was executed when Scientology first arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence activity so that it would be informed of exactly —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No competence. There’s no way he can authenticate this document.

THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn’t look like any document that I have seen. How do you — where did you see this document?

THE WITNESS: There’s a — this — this document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit — an exhibit stamp on it, because this is one of the documents that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles. As — in this current form, it doesn’t have it. This was something that’s on — that was on the Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.

THE COURT: So you’ve never seen this document except on the Web site?

0240

THE WITNESS: No. I — I have seen the document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part 4 of the documents — stipulation of evidence that was turned in in D.C.

MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of evidence between the government prosecutor and the Church of Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your Honor, he — Mr. Dandar’s testifying about some case that went on 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because presumably he’s done some homework on it. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no exhibit —

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: I’m not allowing it in because there’s nothing that tells me it can be authenticated by this witness.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And we — I’m not going to let the Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which anything is authenticated.

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

THE COURT: How much of this are we going to have to go through?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

THE COURT: Your point’s been made, I think, the point you’re trying to make.

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

THE COURT: Well, you just said that about Number 121.

MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn’t let it in, so — I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked in the 1st Division of Scientology —

THE COURT: The what division?

THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 —

THE COURT: F-i-r-s-t?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The 1st Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1, HCO division. Hubbard Communications Office division.

0242

And this basically outlined again how to deal with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal with the press and public relations.

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

Only as to relevance. This has to do with internal justice actions —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

MR. WEINBERG: I didn’t object to the authentication.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for any relevance that it might have. May not have any. It’s just hard for me to — when documents are presented, to take the time out to read them. It may not have any relevance. And some of these — these things that I’m letting in may be absolutely irrelevant, but they’re long and they’re hard — and it’s hard to read them.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this church, like the Catholic church and a lot of

0243

churches, has internal — has an internal justice system where they deal internally with — with what —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — you know, what they call crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not necessarily crimes. And —

THE COURT: And you can make — and you can certainly make that point in your closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to similarities with the Catholic church.

THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: It’s been declared a religion. It is a religion. So is the Catholic church a religion.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court’s attention?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, “When we need somebody haunted, we investigate.”

This talks about not only people inside of Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of

0244

Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They don’t have to be a Scientologist. And it — and it — this is — this document itself explains the basis of intelligence, investigation, how it’s used, how you handle bad press. And it — it’s just kind of like a little handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to have that function within Scientology.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with families that would call, that had — members within the Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their family member. I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Nevada — Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.

0245

He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father, and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it. But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was a person hired — a Scientology-hired private investigator.

The person that posed as the victim’s father was a retired sheriff. And I guess the purpose — and you know, they paid me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything criminal that could be used to show that I’m forcefully deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that never happened, so — And then this — I’ve only recently learned that this even was so. The whole deal with having a black private investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house, putting the seeds on the back porch — you know, I’m  wondering, “Where is this,” you know, and I’m throwing it all — that whole stuff, as later come out, was an operation. I mean, they — they — My father lives in a retirement community. He’s 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his house and circled his house with signs.

0246

You know, those are just some of the things that have happened.

Q Okay. All right. Now, let’s go to Mr. Minton.

By the way, before we get to Minton, one question. You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you ever testify in any other case for the Church of Scientology?

THE COURT: What year was that, please, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was 1986.

THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of Scientology at the time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for the church?

THE WITNESS: I testified as to — an expert particularly in the NED for OTs material.

THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don’t know what that —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you’re saying nefrotease.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study those documents, so I did a comparison to what David Mayo had as opposed to what the church had copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.

THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you understand all this time he’s been saying that, it’s NED for OTs?

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. DANDAR: And it’s abbreviated as NOTS.

THE COURT: So you were called to say, what, that this NED for OTs material was —

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L. Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to  similar materials that they were using at what was

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, my — my understanding is that Mr. Prince was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.

THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there’s some complications as to who’s a fact witness and who’s an expert witness, and that’s something we’ll have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we’ll not go there. We’ll say he was either a fact or an expert witness.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And you were — you were always — when you — before you were told — you didn’t choose Mr. Miscavige as being a leader and you were booted out onto the rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?

A Very much so.

Q Okay. I don’t think your microphone’s on.

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you lawyers can hear him, okay.

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, is there a — how does Scientology consider a Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and talking about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What was the question?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does the Church of Scientology consider someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He’s now speaking for the entire Church of Scientology now?

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Pursuant to the — pursuant to written policy of the Church of Scientology.

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the church considers some Scientologist coming in and testifying.

THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his experience when he was in the church and as a

0250

witness, I will allow it. He is testifying, however, based on that and not — he really wouldn’t know how everybody else thinks.

MR. DANDAR: No. It’s based on the former.

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics book, in its management series and basic staff books, that it is a crime to come into a court and testify about Scientology without first going over the information with Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.

In other words, it’s a crime to just walk into a courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology, without first Scientology being privy to what that’s going to be —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we — could he tell us where this policy is?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It’s right there. I can pull it out and read it for you.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out —

MR. DANDAR: I’m handing the witness a hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

THE COURT: Did you say without first

0251

discussing it with an ethics officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Here’s one reference to that. It says, “Testifying hostilely before a state –”

THE COURT: Why don’t you give us a page number?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. This is page number 209.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: It’s listed under Suppressive Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, “Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it –”

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t really say –what you had just testified to is that it was a crime to testify without first discussing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Let’s just let him look for that either over the break, our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can’t find it, you can make your objection. And if he

0252

can, then he can cite it into the record at that time and we can just go ahead and move on.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you can —

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book — many of the policies in there are — we were probably going to — are completely contradictory to what Mr. Dandar’s witnesses have been saying.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: — put it in — this may be Mr. Dandar’s only copy. So if you want to put it in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term “acceptable truth”?

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you don’t have to tell the — tell the whole truth or to tell an accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be acceptable to the person that you’re speaking to.

0253

Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not telling the truth?

A Very much so. It’s a way to evade or avoid a question or to avoid — yeah — to — a direct question.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to identify the policy and show us where in the policy it says what he just said?

THE COURT: I think — I think there’s some stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.

MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn’t say what he just said, that it’s okay to lie.

THE COURT: Well, then it — I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you’re talking about, is the document that I think I’ve already seen —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of it based on your years in the church?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can’t — I can’t remember what number it is, but there is some number in evidence that deals with acceptable truth.

MR. DANDAR: It’s — it’s called a PR series,

0254

and it talks about PR, public relations, and the second page mentions acceptable truths. And I’ll find that for you during the break.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, Mr. — Mr. Prince. When is the first time you met Bob Minton?

A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the spring of 1998 or perhaps — no, perhaps it was the summer of 1998.

Q And how was it that you came to meet him?

A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me to him.

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

Q And what caused you to be at his home in New Hampshire?

A I was on vacation —

Well, this is kind of a long story. I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything about it, and I just typed in, “Hey, my name is Jesse Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them contact me. Here’s my number.” So I was vacationing in Connecticut.

Stacy called me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.

0255

Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the first time and asked for — have Stacy Vaughn — Stacy Young or Vaughn Young call you?

A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and people and things like that. I was — I didn’t know anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.

And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these people openly critical of Scientology.

Now, for me this was completely unheard of. Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would quickly be silenced. And I saw that — that Stacy and Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to them.

So I answered their message as best that I could, and say, “I need these people to contact me.”

Q When was the last time you considered yourself a Scientologist?

A You know, I know I’ve answered the question in different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it’s kind of hard to tell. I — for me, I think probably by 1996, maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with anything about it.

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

you — from RTC, then RPF, and — and you went to work for a Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then, when you were working for that company?

A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.

Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley, the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left, formally, your position in Scientology?

THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here, ’cause I don’t know — When you left, whatever that is, were you still a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

MR. WEINBERG: So — so when he left — the day he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org, is what he’s telling you, I think.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996, that you still — you were — You’re saying you were like a public member? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

When — how — what is the — what do the Sea Org people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they’re Scientologists?

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer of ’98, what did you do after that, in reference to Mr. Minton?

A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue

0258

with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet. And we started to —

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire? You stayed in touch? Is what you’re —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

A She said — she talked to me about that, and she put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking over some of the issues, and thought that I could help. So I started talking with Daniel Leipold, Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson4, letting me know that I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against Scientology, basically.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

A Based on — well, for me to leave the situation that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to — it was a kind of a give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.

0259

I was being held there against my will, as well as my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs and — for months. And we were told that if we signed these documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door. Again, this went on for months. And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted us to sign —

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed. So he made reference to the fact that I had signed a document saying I wouldn’t assist anyone in bringing any legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q FACTNet wasn’t bringing legal action; they were being sued by Scientology.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson. What did you do?

0260

A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against maybe Golden Era or whatever — I never actually saw the suit myself — and filed it in Riverside County. And then there was a whole press thing. I was interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. And how long did you stay there?

A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you looked over those folders with Stacy Brooks?

A Yes, I did.

Q And then after we received a copy of the PC folders under court order, you went and took your time and examined all —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: I’m just trying to speed it up.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of this — you’re right. But some of this is preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the — it’s the testimony.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I didn’t object to that part of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll take a break right now.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. 15, we’ll try for.

(A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’d like to announce to the court I’m going to be making an appearance in this matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will

0262

be submitting a formal notice. I just want the court to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Now, will that be for all purposes?

MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, for all purposes. But Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the case.

We will send in a formal notice. We were retained this past Thursday.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think, Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I frankly would like to hear. Because it is a motion, I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim. And if it’s not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it because it could have some bearing on the counterclaim.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I have to check that. I understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative defenses. I’d have to check that out.

THE COURT: If he did, I haven’t seen it.

MR. DANDAR: I’m Ken Dandar, by the way. Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the pending counterclaim. They never filed the new counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely filed a motion to dismiss. We never received a new

0263

counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as a defendant. We’re still waiting for that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that perhaps the reason why they didn’t file a new one is because I allowed him to be added orally, to be — to be amended, I guess. So perhaps they — I mean, Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments, because he did file a motion to dismiss or something.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, I did look. That was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there was no order in the file, and then there was a corrective counterclaim that was filed. And I didn’t understand the import of that, because the party was just added by a corrective counterclaim without an order of the court. I assumed you had granted that orally.

THE COURT: I had. And I had granted it orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order. Can you all go back and maybe look into that? Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And I granted it. And I know Mr. Howie was here, and I said, “It’s granted and he

0264

is now a party.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. And he was allowed to sit in as a party from then on, as opposed to being excluded under the rules.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Is there presently a motion to dismiss pending?

THE COURT: Yes. That Mr. Howie has filed.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

THE COURT: It’s more than a motion to dismiss.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It is. It’s a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I saw that. And we’ll get back to the court.

You got to understand we’re coming in very late. There’s thousands and thousands of exhibits. And we’re just trying to catch up here.

THE COURT: Yes. There are thousands and thousands of exhibits.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It’s going to take a bit —

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

(The reporter had technical problems and there was a pause in the proceedings.)

0265

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before the break, Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the section —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: In the ethics book that said you had to get the permission of an ethics officer to testify about Scientology. Could he —

THE COURT: Did you find that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I misspoke as to where the actual quote was. It’s not in the ethics book, but it is in another volume which unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it and I will submit it to the court.

THE COURT: All right. And the same — if you can’t, why, we’ll strike that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 123. Can you identify 123?

A Yes. This is a series that’s put out for the technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC Folder and the contents of the PC folder.

Q And is this something you were trained on as a technical person in Scientology?

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt you, and I feel really bad about it.

This was laying here. I don’t know whether this is something that was previously admitted. It doesn’t have a number on it.

MR. DANDAR: This was. This was 114, which was admitted.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 123 in evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: Is it one exhibit or two exhibits? You handed me —

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

MR. WEINBERG: You handed me The PC folder and Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs. One was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was after Mr. Hubbard died. But I don’t have an objection to it, if you want —

THE COURT: It does look like you have two different things here.

MR. DANDAR: I have two. And I meant to do that. It involves the —

THE COURT: Well, then, how about making them A and B?

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: 123-A will be The PC folder and Its Contents; 123-B, if you’re saying it’s related, will be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs —

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure I’m right about that.

MR. WEINBERG: When I say I’m not going to object, I do have an objection to all of this and Mr. Prince testifying, but I don’t object to the authenticity of these.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs — is that related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that something different?

A That’s something different.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Then I will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. So it’s just 123, The PC Folder and Its Content.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987 on what is supposed to be in a person’s PC folder?

A Not at all. The whole purpose of this issue is to clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder. It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail, and auditors — any person that audits in Scientology is trained on this as a basic for auditing.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point. Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. How can this policy letter dated November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on it?

A Well, turning to the last page, it says, “This is a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research Compilations.” There are other — there’s another issue type that isn’t a formal issue type within Scientology, which is called advices. And often, from advices, policy letters can be compiled and issued.

Q And that’s what this is? This is a compilation?

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move Exhibit 123 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, I’m going to show you Exhibit 124. It’s marked for identification.

MR. DANDAR: Hand one to the court and counsel.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

A Yes. This is a Scientology policy directive. And this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church policy. This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear folders and what’s expected to be in them.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’d like to move 124 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa McPherson’s 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you create an affidavit which — where you disclosed things that were missing?

A Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Are we now into that part of the testimony that deals with the complaint itself?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — and we’ve already had marked, and I believe it’s in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 108, which is your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC folders, and with a list of things that are missing. Do you
recall creating that affidavit?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

THE COURT: What was the number of Plaintiff’s Exhibit again? 108?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

Let’s make sure it’s in evidence. I’m pretty sure it is.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, if he’s going to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could get — let me use the official copy. And I’m sure you filed mine in its appropriate book.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, while she’s looking, I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what was or what was not in the PC folder.

What the hearing is about is whether or not Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince

0271

executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there’s been various misconduct from the plaintiff’s side regarding various testimony in the case.

What does what was in the PC folder or not have to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: This falls under the second category in Mr. Weinberg’s comments: Various misconduct. They have accused me of lying about the fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Scientology. Somehow I just made that all up and I got people to lie about it.

And that’s part of their terminating sanction motion and disqualification motion.

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

But what’s that got to do with what’s missing?

You going to ask him what was in the PC folders? Is that what you’re saying?

THE COURT: Well, there’s also an allegation as to his complaint and whether or not there’s any basis for it. And part of what I have read, maybe in Mr. Prince’s affidavit, that some of the missing data is data from the workers, which the testimony would be, from some witness — Mr. Prince, perhaps — should have been in the PC folders,

0272

and —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, I — they’ve made that allegation, although the workers all testified what they did, what they saw and all that.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed. Just —

THE COURT: Well, whether it was an intentional death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it does. So your objection’s overruled.

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

THE COURT: And besides that — I don’t know what his testimony’s going to be, but if this is, in some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion, then I think it’s got to be relevant for his opinion.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it was inquiring. I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: I think that probably for all those different things it has some relevance, so I’m going to let it in.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, 108’s previously been admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

Q And recently we showed you some routing forms that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of Scientology states they have reproduced to us. And did you review those?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?

A No, they do not.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel from November 18th of ’95 to December 5th of ’95?

A No, they do not.

Q Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson, stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. I mean, is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?

You have to have a routing form as opposed to registering as a guest? What basis? He never

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: He is telling us, based on his experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form is used for and what a routing form should have on it.

MR. WEINBERG: But Mr. Dandar asked him whether you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a program such as the introspection rundown, whether it’s the Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

And I’ll just say this: It’s incorrect that I never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. I worked at the Ft. Harrison from 1979 to 1982.

The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many departments, many sections that people come either for training or for auditing. They have different places where people would get auditing.

0275

And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their hotel room, they’re routed to pay for their hotel room, they get what their room is, any questions are answered. When
they’re ready for services, they go down, they’re put on another routing form.

And like, if they’re going to get a service — a training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and see the director of processing; maybe they would get an interview.

In other words, the routing form gives you the areas and the people that you need to see and the places you need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.

Q And is there any policy that permits a deviation from the requirement to have a routing form?

A No, there is not.

Q As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa McPherson?

A Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity. But when you take into consideration the fact — many other items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only opine that this was information that would have not been good to discover for Scientology’s behalf.

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. I’m going to allow it for this hearing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you been involved in the destruction — intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in addition to Mr. Wollersheim’s, that you previously testified about at this hearing —

A Well —

Q — which was ordered to be pulped by Mr. Miscavige?

A Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident happened, because there were threats from other people such as John Nelson and — well, I don’t know. You know, there was a list of people at the time. The only one that I specifically recall right now is John Nelson. But their folders were destroyed as well.

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I sit here today, I can’t say for certain —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — but I knew there were certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim’s folders, because there were a list of people. And I can’t sit here and recall today every name —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the significance to you — let’s start with the missing — what’s missing from her folder. In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski states she was under November 18th through December 5th of ’95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection rundown?

THE COURT: What dates, now? Are we talking about the 17-day dates?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

A Yes. There would have been, in the very front of the folder, what’s called a program. It would have been a repair program. It would have been something that’s on a pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
The color in the paper — the color within the preclear folder also has significance.

But in Lisa’s case, there would have been, if she was on — on the introspection rundown, it would have given a short statement of who she was, what she’s accomplished, what her last auditing activities were, and what the current problem was, what the symptoms were that she was experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to this whole line. I — I take it where he’s going is to suggest that she wasn’t on the introspection rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she was on the introspection rundown. It’s not an issue in this case. We answered the complaint. It’s not an issue.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. DANDAR: I subsequently discovered that this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski, under oath, said was in her PC folder. Now I’m not sure what she was going through and where she was.

0279

These things — these things are missing, and we would have to conform the pleadings to the evidence as we discover new things that are — go on.

THE COURT: So what are you saying? Are you saying that you — that she was not under the introspection rundown?

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

MR. DANDAR: I’m saying it’s not a confirmed fact that she was on the introspection rundown, because of what’s missing.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let this witness testify at this hearing, because we need to get to where it was that he comes up with his conclusions —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and I assume all this has something to do with it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not sure I have the same assumption, but I understand where you’re —

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in Scientology, were things that were beneficial — papers and documents that were

0280

beneficial to Scientology removed from a member’s PC folder?

A No. You know — and I’ve written a declaration about this before — well, this declaration may be in and of itself — you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the process of, “Okay, well, we’ll turn over something; we’ll go
through and we’ll — we’ll get rid of any kind of incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology.”

Then when the production of all the folders were called for, it — that became too massive of a task and it was decided to destroy them.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I say one more thing, so I don’t lose this train of thought?

I did object, and I understand your ruling, but he already had alleged that — that the introspection rundown happened, and his response to your question and my statement was, “I just recently discovered it.”

Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and whatever wasn’t there in December of 1998 certainly isn’t there now. So what’s he talking about?

THE COURT: I don’t know, but I think that this testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince concluded what he concluded, which is what Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint. It is relevant for this hearing.

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you — when did you actually sit down and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

A The date of this affidavit is April — the 4th of April, 2000.

Q Okay. And concerning this one issue, the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?

A Yes, it does. And I think I’ve covered that with as much detail as possible: That she wanted to leave. She actually made plans to leave. And she felt like she was starting to become damaged.

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

Q Now, within your experience of Scientology, have you used — have you — are you familiar with the term “end cycle”?

A Yes, I am.

Q And what is your understanding or familiarity with that term?

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

I’m sorry. I’m as bad at interrupting chain of thought as anybody.

This — this particular affidavit is the affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave that was part of the motion for summary judgment that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that was part of it, but there’s a lot more than just that in there. It talks about things that are missing from her PC folder.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now we’re past the missing items from the PC folder and to —

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are people who want to leave the Church of Scientology — how are they looked at, within your experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?

A Well, people who want to leave Scientology and publicly state such are considered criminals, because that’s a high crime in Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A I do have the instant reference on that right now.

0283

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what is that?

A That PT/SP 5package that was —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just establish, is he talking about staff members or public members or both?

THE WITNESS: Any member of Scientology, public member of Scientology, it’s a high crime.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’m handing the witness PT/SP course, a booklet that was previously talked about —

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. DANDAR: — by other witnesses.

THE COURT: I think it’s in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: It’s possible. I mean, I’m not sure.

THE COURT: Maybe it isn’t, but I’ve seen that book.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Search and Discovery is in evidence. That came out of here.

THE WITNESS: Says right here, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.” And this comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

0284

THE COURT: What page are you reading from, sir, in that book?

THE WITNESS: Where I read that quote from, I am reading from — I just read from 159.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ll have that entire policy marked.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, my objection to this is it talks about — Mr. Prince read it –publicly — a person publicly announces he’s going to depart Scientology. Well, that’s not what we have in this case. What’s that have to do with this case?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear him say “publicly.”

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he read. That was —

THE WITNESS: It says, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”

I think Lisa had done that, because she had told her mother and she had told a friend that she was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in the notes that I made here, that she intended to leave. She wasn’t happy with —

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

THE COURT: Well, look, you don’t need to object to that, because I know enough about —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — the evidence with the mother and the evidence with the friend and the fact that what would be in her PC folder would hardly be public, where I can determine the validity of that statement.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, within your experience with Scientology, what does that — what does it mean to publicly leave Scientology?

A You could publicly leave Scientology in several ways. You could submit a letter of resignation and make that letter available to other parties beyond a recant, which would — in a normal organization, would be the ethics officer.

I guess in these days and times you could go on the Internet or you could just simply announce to your friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the intention of leaving.

THE COURT: How about if I just don’t go back? I mean, if I’m a member of a church — which I was at one time when I was a child — and I just don’t

0286

go back? I mean, is that — is that leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a form of leaving. And — and in that instance, if you just simply left, you would be contacted and asked to come into the organization so that they could find out what happened. If you —

THE COURT: And what if you just don’t go in?

In other words, I’m a public member, which is what Lisa McPherson was — this is a hypothetical — and I — even — I don’t want to go back and I don’t want to get any more auditing and I don’t want to go to any more services and I just don’t go?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: They say, “Come in,” and I just decline and I don’t go.

THE WITNESS: Then they’ll show up on your door.

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A There’s a process of getting out of Scientology. There is a way to do it. And normally, it involves signing a release agreeing that you will never — that you’ll be ineligible for Scientology services in the future —

Q To —

0287

A — and you would also have to sign a statement saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or upset that you had — in other words, a general release for the different Scientology corporations that you’ve been involved in.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just make it clear that that’s only — that he’s talking about staff members and not public members having to sign a release?

THE WITNESS: I — it’s staff and public. I — that’s the second time I’ve said that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her friend from high school about wanting to leave. Where did you get that information from?

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

Q And when you said that Lisa called her mother and said she wanted to leave. Where did you get that from?

A I think — I read — I read it — I read it somewhere in the evidence. I can’t —

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

Q — Lisa’s mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker by the name Sandra Anderson?

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is he, like, prompting him now?

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

MR. DANDAR: It’s either — wanted to make sure it wasn’t from me. Because that’s the accusation.

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, end cycle. Can you tell us what — where and when you’ve heard that or seen that term?

A End cycle has a history in Scientology. And it has varied meanings.

One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and stop something. In other words, you start it — you start an activity, you carry through to its intended result or purpose, and then you end it. So ending the cycle, you know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle

0289

when the judge decides who’s right and who’s wrong or discovers the issues. That’s one form of end cycle. Another form of end cycle is to die. This — this — this idea of ending cycle to die came into prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior CS Ray Mithoff. Because I was curious. He sat on a deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.

And I asked him, you know, “When he died –” I asked him, you know, because this was — L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to. And I — and I was curious. You know, “Well, how did this man die? What were the exact circumstances? What happened there?”

And he said that he positively started shutting down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part of his systems.

And I asked, “Well, how does this happen? I mean, what are you — what are you doing?” And he told me the Scientology process is that you use — you know, you talk about what the — your attention may be stuck on; at what problems do you have with dying? I mean, there’s a whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so that you have no attention or problems with death and can die.

When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as

0290

far as to die.

THE COURT: Is this a little bit like a — what we might think of Hospice and how they prepare someone —

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: — with a terminal disease in your family and —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Hubbard didn’t have a terminal disease, though, did he?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q But he still went through that process of end cycle?

A Yes.

Q So where else did you see that term used in reference to dying?

A Terminally ill people. I’ve also read this up in affidavits.

A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had Hodgkin’s disease. It was apparently fatal. I saw in his folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you know, to die.

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And is there ever anything in writing about having an auditor go in and assist someone to die?

A Absolutely. There would be, as in Lisa’s case, a program. That program would —

MR. DANDAR: Can I — can I please have these people stop laughing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

And I object. “As in Lisa’s case, a program.” I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there was no program, and therefore —

THE COURT: He is trying to tell us what he believes to be missing —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

THE COURT: — which is what he’s talking about: Missing things in the PC folder, which is what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar, who filed the complaint.

MR. WEINBERG: But the question was, though, was generally about his understanding of end cycle, end of cycle.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

And I’m going to instruct you all back there to stop laughing.

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So it’s your belief that an auditor would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died? Is that what you’re suggesting, from this missing — missing documents, or what?

THE WITNESS: Well — well, you know, your Honor, for me that’s kind of mixing apples and oranges. Because the question he asked me was about a specific incident that happened with a fellow named Ted Cormack —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

THE WITNESS: The process is similar to what you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace; you know — you know, as far as they’re concerned everything’s taken care of and they can go.

THE COURT: Okay. And so that you saw that in his PC folder?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you jump from there to something that’s missing in Lisa McPherson’s folder and assume that there was an auditor with her with some end cycle directive?

THE WITNESS: Well, with — and we’ll get to that too.

But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is — it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a program; that that program most assuredly was in her file folder at some point, along with other reports that are detailed — that are missing; and those — you know, for whatever reason, those things weren’t turned over or made available.

THE COURT: Let’s assume that — for the sake

0294

of argument, that what she was on was the introspection rundown, and that something went wrong, and she wasn’t taken to the hospital as quickly as she should have been, and she died. And let’s assume further that somehow or another somebody removed part of that from her folder. That would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an auditor being there or anything of the sort. So I guess my main question is, what caused you to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the documents were missing?

And there’s no question of that. So two and a half days, I guess of documents are missing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — toward the end of this — I’ll call it an introspection rundown.

You know, how do you know that that just didn’t have something to do with the fact that either somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B, if they were destroyed it was because somebody was negligent and they didn’t want somebody to see that? How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her death and said, “End cycle,” or whatever it is that’s in the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

THE COURT: That’s what we need to get to.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s get — let’s get to it.

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

How did you conclude — how did you — I presume that you read the PC folders.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You answered Mr. Dandar’s questions. He asked you as his consultant, “Can you tell me what you think –”

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

THE COURT: This is what you told him, and he put it in the complaint.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So now you got to tell me how you came to the conclusion you came to and what it is you told Mr. Dandar —

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — how I did that, your Honor.

0296

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: From reading Lisa McPherson’s preclear folders, reading her ethics folders, seeing, kind of like, what’s missing — and it didn’t make sense for these things to be out of the preclear folder unless they were damaging to the church.

And again, I’ve been in a position where, you know, it was considered documents within a preclear folder were damaging to Scientology so they’re removed for Scientology’s sake.

But even a step back from that, your Honor, you get a person —

And it clearly states on the introspection rundown that once you are assigned to the introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave introspection rundown until the case supervisor tells you you can leave. You are literally incarcerated until you are told you can leave.

THE COURT: Well, you know, that may be your interpretation. If somebody is — is what I would consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally disturbed, you really wouldn’t want them leaving because they might be — you know —

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. I’ve done them.

THE COURT: And I’ve read what — what you and Ms. Brooks said about this woman. So apparently there was a time when she was in a situation where you wouldn’t have wanted her just stumbling around the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

But you know, be that as it may, again, the person is not allowed to leave until they have permission to leave.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So whether or not this person experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour and said, “Hey, look, I just want to do something else,” they still could not leave, okay? Now, what happens in that situation, from introspection rundowns that I’ve done — that I have done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and being incarcerated — what happens?

When you’re in a situation you don’t want to be, you say — you tell them, “Look, I don’t want to be here.” “Well, too bad. You have to be here.” “No. It’s not too bad. Now, really, guys, it’s over. I just want to go.” “No. You’re not going.”

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

says, “Hey, look, if you don’t let me out of here, I’m going to call the police. If you don’t call — let me out of here, I’m going to find a way to contact law enforcement. I’m going to find a way to get out of here. You better let me out of here.” And it escalates like that. And this has happened. And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa happened to Lisa — the reason why I gave that opinion is, number one, what is missing and what would have been there, which happens as a natural consequence, is, when you’re held against your will and people don’t want to let you go, then you complain. You threaten. She threatened. Oh, no.

Now it becomes a huge problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and she wants to leave, and she’s already made it clear, through what I’ve written here, that Scientology procedures are — is not making her spiritually more able; it’s not furthering her ideas of — of, kind of, what she had in mind.

So it is my opinion that Lisa started threatening Scientology at some point. She started threatening to go to the police. She may have threatened that, “I’m going to sue you if you don’t let me go. I’m going to do whatever.” You know,

0299

push the buttons in — in the hope to get out. They didn’t let her out.

I think that Lisa became very sick. I think Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were once she left. And when — and in that horrible situation, for Scientology, it would have been a nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital — to leave Scientology and go to the hospital.

Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I state it as such.

For them — for her to say, “Look, they locked me in there.” You know, “This happened, that happened.” And —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

THE COURT: — there was nothing that indicates she wanted to go to the hospital. She left — I mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to leave the hospital, so —

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: — if she’d left, presumably she was going to go home.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know — of course, we know that that didn’t happen.

0300

THE COURT: Well, I know. But you’re saying what a horrible nightmare it would have been. The truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had gone home to her mother and sister and what have you, there would have been no nightmare at all —

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

THE WITNESS: — right. That’s right. It would have been fine.

But now we’re in a different situation, you see, because now she’s being held against her will. You know, you see — you see in the reports how she becomes violent.

You know, again, in my experience, as a natural progression, when you are being held and you want to be in one place and somebody’s making you stay in one place, it starts to escalate.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Prince: Have you ever been in a mental hospital?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you know how, in a mental hospital, when somebody is really — I’m going to use the term “crazy,” okay? Very sick. Somebody who’s psychologically extremely disturbed.

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, they want to leave too, right? That’s why they have them behind locked doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is because they want to leave.

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: And they’re not fit to leave mentally. They would be a danger to themselves, perhaps others, to let them out in the street. So when somebody’s in a mental hospital, very sick, and they say they want to go, well, they’re not allowed to leave.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — you know — now, let’s take a look at this.

You’re talking about a person that’s sick, right?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

There is no medical diagnosis here. There is no authority that says this person was crazy. This is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of Scientology, that they gave her this label of being crazy, okay? That’s way different than being in a mental institution where you’ve been diagnosed, or

0302

you’ve committed some crime, or you’ve harmed somebody, or something has caused to you go to an institution —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

THE WITNESS: — is certainly not the case with Lisa.

THE COURT: I mean, you can be in a mental hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a danger — I mean, you’re talking about a Baker Act, where you’re — you’re kept against your will involuntarily.

But I mean, there are sick people in a hospital, just because they’re sick and they’re crazy and they — and they just aren’t fit to be on the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

There’s a difference between being in a hospital and being locked in a room with people who don’t understand really what’s going on and are just following orders.

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

But the truth of the matter is, that’s the belief of the Church of Scientology. You were a part of it and you participated in it, right?

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You participated in an introspection rundown with somebody who was in the same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in — at times, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Nobody ordered that this lady would end cycle that you were watching, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Well, then, how — you see, I’m just — I’m trying to help you, here, to see if there’s any basis for this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: How is it that you’ve come to this conclusion, other than just it’s — it’s one of many, many thoughts that you might have as to what might have happened?

THE WITNESS: Because based on Scientology’s own policy, the first thing you do when a person starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these symptoms are occurring aren’t based upon some medical reason, okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

Now, why would they not do that? Why would they not do that? If their documents say if a person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take them to the hospital.

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

THE WITNESS: The reason why you wouldn’t do it is because the person in — they were also telling you, “I’m going to sue you. I’m going to tell about this. I’m threatening you. You got to let me out of here.”

No, you’re not going to the hospital. Because once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.

THE COURT: Okay. But that —

THE WITNESS: They’re not going to go back to Scientology.

THE COURT: Let’s assume — Slow down.

Let’s assume, for the sake of your testimony and for the sake of your beliefs and what you told Mr. Dandar, that you are right. That Lisa was saying, “I want to leave,” and they were saying, “No, you can’t leave,” and she said, “I want to

0305

leave.” And therefore — and therefore, they didn’t take her to a medical doctor. Of course, she just came from a medical doctor where she had been seen and had been released. So that could have been one of the reasons.

However, how do you jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that somebody said, “Let her die,” or — not only, “Let her die,” but proceed to assist this along in some fashion; bring an auditor in and cause her to die?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll explain to you.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: By their own documents, people that get into this state of mind, all of them do not live. Search and Discovery, it says some don’t make it —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — okay?

You have a person here who, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, and even the missing evidence — because you know, if everything — again, like the one that I did, okay, well, this girl didn’t want to leave. This little girl didn’t
really know what was going on.

THE COURT: Which little girl we talking about

0306

now?

THE WITNESS: Terese, the one —

THE COURT: The one that you watched.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn’t know. She —

THE COURT: When you say that, you meant she was really out of it mentally.

THE WITNESS: Completely.

THE COURT: Crazy.

THE WITNESS: Crazy. Barking like a dog, you know, doing —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — wild things.

When she started to come out of it, she certainly wanted to leave. She was certainly demanding to leave. But she was not allowed to leave until she had signed releases that released the Church of Scientology and related  organizations with any liability concerning her condition.

So in other words, she signed away, you know, “what happened to me is an anomaly. It had nothing to do with my studies and training or experience in Scientology, and they have no liability for me getting into this.” This is something that’s

0307

demanded of a person who finishes that rundown, to release any liability.

Here you have a person that isn’t in that position. And it is my belief, because there’s so many —

THE COURT: What position is she in? Tell me how her position differs from —

She’s still crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well — hold on. Because when she was released, they didn’t say she was crazy, from the hospital. That was not a diagnosis that Lisa was given when she left Morton Plant Hospital.

THE COURT: But you have to admit, from the — from the — from the reports that were in there from some of the workers, she started staring at a lightbulb; she started talking about she was L. Ron Hubbard, and she started acting crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, that’s when they brought her in there.

THE COURT: Right. And that’s when she began the introspection rundown perhaps, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, come on, Judge. Let’s back up on this. Because you just said medically she was not diagnosed as being insane. The — the medical

0308

records didn’t say, “Hey, this is a person we got to Baker Act. This is a person that’s mentally ill.”  Didn’t say that, okay? So I think it’s wrong to assume that. And the reason why I think it’s wrong —

THE COURT: Well, what —

THE WITNESS: — to assume that —

THE COURT: — was — let me ask you, Mr. Prince, what’s the difference in the lady that you took care of and how she started barking like a dog — and you say she was crazy —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: — and what you read in the reports of Lisa McPherson, where she was crawling on the floor, humping the floor, carrying on like a crazy person?

THE WITNESS: After she had been in their — incarcerated. And I think by the fact of incarceration, it tipped her over the edge.

THE COURT: Well, you think that same thing happened with the lady you were watching?

THE WITNESS: Huh-uh. No. I mean, she was literally sitting in a chair, you know, fine, one moment, and then the next moment somebody went over to see what she was doing and she peed herself

0309

and — you know, it was a huge difference.

THE COURT: Could that have been like Lisa McPherson, who was all right, released from the hospital, went to the Ft. Harrison, and then just kind of went like this, and all of a sudden she was crazy?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, you could —

THE COURT: Could it be?

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And I’ll tell you why.

Because by the fact of incarceration, it already pushes a person further than, maybe, where they were. I mean, she’s locked in a little room.

No one’s talking to her. She’s feeling horrible. She’s already wanting to go home —

THE COURT: She’s a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: You were a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. See, that’s another myth, now. Because you’re a Scientologist it does not mean that one day you are going to know, when they lock you in a room, because you studied it, this is what they — what’s going to happen to

0310

people that do this. There is no place, no — absolutely no place that gives clear instructions on what happens to a person should they experience this and Scientology decides to take them in and put them through this routine.

You find that out after the fact, after the fact it’s been determined that you have a mental problem.

You see —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question: If the church doesn’t believe in psychiatrists and psychologists and they don’t believe in mental health treatment in the — in the traditional form —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Everybody knows that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That’s a very basic tenet of the church.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. It would be like a Christian Scientist. They would know that they don’t believe in medical treatment, at least in part. So if you’re a member of the Christian Scientists, you know that you believe that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

0311

THE COURT: Okay. Well, there has to be some folks that become mentally deranged, who are Scientologists, so they know that there’s some other treatment, just like you would know, if you were in the — in the Christian Scientists, if there’s a belief of laying on of hands and God will heal you — So they’ve got to be told there’s some substitute for somebody —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor —

THE COURT: — that has a mental lapse.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, they’re not. They are not told that. It’s just simply not true. You don’t find it out until after the fact. There’s no course —

Say I’m a public member of Scientology, wants to do auditor training up to class 4. They go and they train and they — they get their certificates and stuff like that. There is no class that says, “Okay. If this happens to you, this is the exact procedure.”

That was something that was developed during the time when the introspection first came out. But then this is something that moved totally off and away from anything that public people could see or

0312

even staff would know. They were isolated and hidden from view.

And then normally, the person doesn’t do any more Scientology after introspection rundown. And I know several cases after that — of that.

Because they make you sign waivers and releases which say, “The church did not cause your condition. The church did not contribute to your condition. The church is not liable or responsible for what happened to you.”

And you agree to that, and you sign it, and then you’re on your way.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, like the lady did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But she is a Scientologist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so — Okay. I understand what you’re saying; that — that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn’t know what was going to happen to her, is what you’re basically saying.

THE WITNESS: None of them do.

THE COURT: Okay. Now — okay. I’ll take your word for that for the sake of your testimony. How do you get from that — okay. Let’s assume

0313

there was some gross negligence going on here. She wanted to leave.

THE WITNESS: You —

THE COURT: Which there’s already been a judge that says there’s none of this. But let’s assume that she says, “I want to leave.” They say, “You’re not going to leave.” “I want to leave.” “You’re not going to leave.”

One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson, based on her doctors and her experts and the experts for the church: Either she became severely dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged in her lung in some fashion and she died.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So it’s one or the other. One or the other things happened to her, medically —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Now — so that’s a given, okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0314

THE COURT: So how do you leap from the fact, in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said, “No,” to the fact that she died from one of those causes, through anything other than either no negligence, slight negligence, or really gross, flagrant negligence? How do you jump from point A to point B by saying that David Miscavige said, “Kill this woman”?

THE WITNESS: Or, “Let her die.”

THE COURT: Or, “Let her die”?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, you got to listen.

I’m going to explain this to you, okay?

THE COURT: Okay. I’m listening.

THE WITNESS: Now, again by their own policy, this woman first should have been examined by a medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was coming as a result of some medical condition.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That was not determined when she went to the hospital because it was determined she was not insane.

So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft. Harrison, then the next thing that they should have done was to take her to get her medically examined to see if there was a medical reason for this

0315

behavior.

THE COURT: And you did that in your case? In the case where you handled the introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, yeah. They had a doctor come out. Sure. They had a doctor come out. Dr. Gene Dink came out to be with her. He examined her.

THE COURT: Was this a real doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean — by that I mean a licensed doctor? ‘Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson too, except they weren’t —

THE WITNESS: This was —

THE COURT: — licensed.

THE WITNESS: — L. Ron Hubbard’s doctor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, was this a licensed doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles, California.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Worked with the one that we have.

THE COURT: So — so as I recall, Ms. Arundo (sic) — and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall

0316

she was a doctor licensed somewhere else. There was another doctor, one — the head of the medical liaison, who had been a doctor.

MR. DANDAR: And lost her license.

THE COURT: And lost her license.

MR. DANDAR: Arrunada’s from Mexico and was never licensed.

THE COURT: Okay. But Ms. — but what’s Ms. — please give me the name.

MR. DANDAR: Johnson.

THE COURT: Ms. Johnson was a physician who had lost her license, who presumably was in charge. But — okay. You say they should have taken her to a doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. They —

THE COURT: Or had a doctor come in.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Like they did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Your case, meaning the case where you were directly involved.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: And they didn’t do that. Okay. What else?

THE WITNESS: Well, we have to wonder why they

0317

didn’t do that.

Now, I hate to be — your Honor, you know, irrespective of what the defendants believe in this case, it brings me no great joy to — to malign them or say horrible things about them.

But because I’ve been there and because I’ve seen what happens and because I’ve seen what they do, it is my belief because when they brought this girl back from the hospital, she was not insane. She wasn’t diagnosed as that. She went insane there. She wanted to leave. She said, “I want to go.” They said, “No, you can’t go. You got a problem. We’re diagnosing you. Forget what the doctor said. We’re going to do it.”

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She began to struggle. She began to fight. At that point, it becomes a OSA matter. It was already an OSA matter.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. A what matter?

THE WITNESS: O-S-A. OSA. Office of —

THE COURT: OSA.

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: For several reasons now: One, because she apparently left the hotel,

0318

drove around and had a minor accident, took her clothes off, told people that she needed help.

Okay. That in and of itself was something that drew attention to Scientology that was non-optimum. And in Scientology, that is called a flap. An unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology’s reputation somehow.

Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just two months earlier attested to the state of clear. She stood in front of every Scientologist at the mecca of technical perfection, their highest level, their highest office of — of tech, and told everyone that, “I no longer have a reactive mind. I no longer have,” you know, “have problems with the past that now come up. I’m totally free from the past and I’m ready to move on.”

In other words, she was what they call in Scientologist (sic) — not a Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis. Homo novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.

So now this person is literally a demigod two months ago. Now she’s screaming in a room, insane, crazy.

This is a problem. This is a problem that this woman took her clothes off, walking down the street, and — and OSA had to get involved and, you know, they rushed down there, “Oh, my God.” They bring

0319

her back. She’s not diagnosed as being crazy. They just give her — she wants to get some help. She’s got something on her mind. Okay. So she comes back.

It is my contention that she wanted to leave, just like she had been saying. And they said, “No.” And they put her on the introspection rundown and she went over the edge and she got crazy. Well, before that she made many threats.

Now, it is Scientology’s belief that once you start these processes — once you start any process  in Scientology, you take it to the end. It’s called processing. The way out is the way through. What turns it on or turn it off. Get the preclear through it. Whatever. In other words, keep that auditing going until the end result happens.

THE COURT: Or get the person in the introspection rundown fit for auditing. That is part of the preliminary process.

THE WITNESS: Well, the person is fit for auditing after they’ve had one eight-hour period of sleep. Okay? You got — you know, you got that step 0, step 00.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that normally

0320

happens with a person that gets into that state of mind, they don’t sleep for days, they can’t sleep, they’re up — a part of auditing in Scientology is, you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.

So —

And again, in the instance where I did introspection rundown with the person, the first time that woman — after she was given Valium or whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the first time she had an 8-hour period of time to sleep —

(The reporter interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: Slow down.

THE REPORTER: After they gave her —

THE WITNESS: — or chloral hydrate or whatever they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is there immediately to start.

THE COURT: I think they tried to bring an auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn’t capable.

THE WITNESS: Well, I heard —

THE COURT: I mean, I think I remember that.

THE WITNESS: — I heard the story that, you know, she licked the cans and — you know, that

0321

means nothing.

An auditor is trained — I don’t care if you take the cans and throw them across the room. An auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put them back in the person’s hands and get them to do what you want them to do. It’s called model session. You know, that’s part of the same —

THE REPORTER: Slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: — auditor series you have. Model session. Which talks about how to conduct a session.

THE COURT: That’s tough to do if the person is still in a psychological state, that’s crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — and you’re assuming that that’s the case. But the doctor didn’t assume that when she was let out.

THE COURT: Well, I’m assuming that’s the case because of the reports I read.

THE WITNESS: You know — well, you know, after —

THE COURT: Just like I’m assuming the lady that you watched after, when she barked like a dog and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said she was crazy and like I think you said she was crazy.

0322

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Crazy in the sense that I know — would think someone was crazy; not medically.

THE WITNESS: A danger to themselves or other people.

THE COURT: Not somebody you would want out on the street.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Okay. So again, she is in a situation now where she’s drawn into the local public attention. They’ve been promised by the doctors that she’ll be okay. Turn her over to Judy Fontana. They don’t turn her over to Judy. Because I think these things all mean in some way she was not agreeing with what was happening to her. And because she wasn’t agreeing and she wanted to leave, it got wild. It intensified.

Now, Scientology’s belief is, you know —

THE COURT: I think I can go along with you there. I mean, I think that there’s enough in that folder to realize she was not thinking clearly. She may have wanted to leave. You know, the lady you took care of may have wanted to leave. I mean, they — they act irrational, right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0323

THE COURT: And the idea is they can’t leave.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s say I accept that —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay? She wants to leave, they’re saying, “No, you’re not able to leave yet.”

She’s getting more and more upset.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: She wants to leave.

How do we know they’re still not trying the introspection rundown to make her well?

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: What —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: So —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it. But I think that she had decided she had had enough. You see — and the reason why I say that is because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps telling them, “I had enough. I don’t want any more auditing. This is aggravating my condition. It’s making me worse.”

This is what she’s saying in her

0324

own words, the only thing she was able to say before she died. And in which whole thing, if you read this line by line in the preclear folder, “This is making me worse. I’m not getting better.”

So what do they do? Give her more auditing. Well, she doesn’t want that.

THE COURT: I will say, for the sake of this hearing, that I — I can accept that.

THE WITNESS: So because she doesn’t want it, and because she has no way to leave, because she’s actually under guard — I mean, we have a statement by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of her and holds her down. You know, you have people not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room — I mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my Scientology experience, is something that would make a person, if they weren’t over the edge, would certainly push them over the edge.

THE COURT: But you did that when you took care of the lady you took care of.

THE WITNESS: No. I talked to her. I did not not talk to her.

THE COURT: Was that — were you breaking the rules?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was breaking the rules.

0325

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know that somebody else might not have broken the rules.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know that either.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s take — we really need to break for lunch.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. She wants to leave. They say, “No.” She wants to leave, they say, “No.” And let’s assume that they’re saying “no” because they believe that she’s not finished the introspection rundown, and they’re going to get her finished.

Just like —

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And they do believe that.

Right.

THE COURT: All right. So now, one of two things happens at some point in time: Either she’s not getting enough water, right; and so she’s not getting enough water or whatever, and they should have known better, and they should have given her more water, and she reaches this miserable state and dies.

Or she is getting enough water and a pulmonary — you know, an embolus in her leg breaks loose, goes to her lungs and kills her. One of those two things happened at the end of this. And it was — it was from the embolism, right?

0326

And you wouldn’t have known that. They wouldn’t have known that. There wasn’t a worker there that would have known that. Nobody. These are the silent — silent killers —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

So one of those two things happened, and that’s a fact.

How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere along the line it was, “We’re going to keep her here until the embolism we don’t even know about breaks loose”?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, that’s ridiculous, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course it is.

THE WITNESS: Let me — you got to let me finish —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — the whole thing.

THE COURT: I’m going to do that, but we’re going to take a lunch break first —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — all right?

All right. It’s 12:20. Let’s be in recess until 1:30.

0327

(A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)

0328

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

  1. Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-007-070802-Prince-V2.html
  2. Caroline Letkeman; Nancy Many.
  3. Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer
  4. Elliot J. Abelson
  5. Should be “PTS/SP.” Key documents: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/documents/key-documents-sp-doctrine

Affidavit of Jesse Prince (August 20, 1999)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI; and DAVID HOUGHTON

Case No. 97-01235

Defendants.
_________________________________/

STATE OF FLORIDA :
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH :

 

AFFIDAVIT OF JESSE PRINCE1

BEFORE ME, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am over 18 years of age and currently reside in the state of Illinois, Cook County. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to
testify thereto.

My History in Scientology

2.        I was in Scientology for 16 years (1976-92). In July of 1992, I escaped with my wife from Scientology headquarters at Gilman Hotsprings, Ca. Under duress, my wife and I were forced to return. After intense interrogation and isolation, my wife and I on October 31, 1992, were able to leave Scientology, but only after we were coerced to sign a release containing untrue statements protecting Scientology from legal liability. I remained silent about my experience in Scientology, since upon leaving I was subjected to routine monitoring by Mike Sutter of the Religious Technology Center, (RTC), and Earl Cooley, Scientology counsel. In July of 1998, I discovered that others had similar experiences and were courageous enough to speak out against Scientology. I therefore ended my silence so that others would know about the truth of what really happens within the inner circles of Scientology.

2. I am intimately familiar with the organization, movement, beliefs, practices and technologies of Scientology. I served in the highest ranks of Scientology, including second in command of the Religious Technology Center
(RTC), the most senior body of Scientology.

3. Beginning in March of 1983 and until the Spring of 1987, I held the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”. In this position, I was one of three members of the Board of Directors of RTC while David Miscavige was on its Board of Trustees.

4. In the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”, I was in charge of supervising all activities in every aspect of Scientology, i.e., supervising senior management structure of the “mother church”, Church of Scientology International, CSI. In the hierarchy of all of Scientology, I was only two steps removed from L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard gave his orders to David Miscavige who in turn gave them to me to supervise, delegate and enforce their execution. Corporately speaking, Vicki Aznaran, the President of RTC, and I were accountable and reported only to David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard. RTC gave CSI the license to use Dianetics and Scientology technologies.

5. Moreover, I was in charge of the Trademark Integrity Secretary, (TMI Sec), Jim Mooney, who had authority over the senior management of CSI called the Watchdog Committee. This Committee has complete authority over the different sectors of all of Scientology. The members of this committee are comprised of senior management officials who oversee and control the management of the following: FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION,(FSO); World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, (WISE); Scientology Missions International,(SMI); Reserves, the person responsible for the management and supervision of all bank accounts and revenues; Golden Era Productions, (GOLD);Flag Land Base,(FLB); Sea Org, (SO); Celebrity Center International, (CCInt); and Office of Special Affairs, (OSA), which handles all the legal and intelligence functions of Scientology.

7. Some of my specific duties as Deputy Inspector General, External, included supervising all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence and covert operations brought against perceived or imagined “enemies”, trademark registrations, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology corporations to create the false impression of “corporate integrity”. I was also in charge of the “Celeb Project,” which ran all auditing of Scientology celebrities, such as John Travolta, Priscilla Presley, Kirstie Alley, Anne Archer, and Chick Corea to name a few. I was also the auditor for David Miscavige and his wife, Shelly. I was the course instructor for all of the auditing courses for Alain Kartuzinski and his Cramming Officer for Class 10, 11, and 12, 12 being the highest level an auditor can reach.

6. I first became involved with Scientology in September, 1976, in San Francisco. In late 1976, I joined the elite Scientology paramilitary organization known as the Sea Organization, also known as the “Sea Org” or the acronym “SO”. Sea Organization personnel are authorized to take over and control Scientology organizations and to demote or promote personnel including chief executives, move bank accounts, and run the corporation as if SO personnel were employees or representatives of that corporation. The power of the SO is not only over the purported religious Scientology organizations but also prevails over the secular organizations such as WISE or Bridge Publications. The Sea Org’s pervasive authority is possible because the only personnel allowed into executive positions in these organizations are those who are in full agreement that the Sea Organization is the commanding organization.

7. Before I was recruited into the Religious Technology Center (RTC) in 1982, most of my experience was with Scientology technical material; the actual codified auditing and administrative techniques used within the  organization. This gave me considerable time to become familiar with these technical materials, most of which was written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. My knowlege and expertise of the technologies prompted my promotion to a technical position at RTC.

8. In the fall of 1982, L. Ron Hubbard issued an order to find the best Supervisor/Cramming Officer in all of Scientology and bring that person to Golden Era Productions (GOLD) to correct and train the senior executive management structure of the Scientology empire all around the world. A Supervisor in Scientology is analogous to a teacher in a class room. A Cramming Officer is responsible for the correction of individuals who have difficulty in executing the techniques of Dianetics and Scientology or otherwise following the dogma of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter. Mike Eldridge, a personal emissary of L. Ron Hubbard, in charge of conducting the search to
find the most qualified person to serve as Supervisor/Cramming Officer, recommended me to David Miscavige, who ultimately approved my appointment. I was transferred to, lived and worked at what is known as “Golden Era Studios,” near Hemet, California. It is also known as “Gold” or simply “The Base”, where senior management of Scientology is headquartered.

9. By Scientology standards, I was a very highly trained auditor and case supervisor. An auditor in Scientology is a trained practitioner of the pseudo scientific methodology of psychological counseling commonly referred to as “The Tech,” as dictated and written by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. A case supervisor is also a trained auditor who reads the “auditing” records of every counseling session performed by an auditor to ensure “The Tech” was applied exactly. In Scientology there are 12 levels of auditor and case supervisor classification, each level being “higher” than the next. In this system, I was certified as a Class 9 Auditor and a certified Class 9 Case Supervisor.

10. In my capacity as Deputy Inspector General, External, I traveled about the U.S. and outside of the U.S. on behalf of RTC. I traveled to Germany, Italy, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Mexico and Canada. These trips were designed to put together an infrastructure that would interface with RTC for the purpose of trademark enforcement. I was personally chosen by David Miscavige over Vicki Aznaran to speak on behalf of RTC to a worldwide audience via satellite to warn them that RTC holds the trademarks of Scientology and eradicates all those who violate “The Tech” or infringe on trademarks.

11. I became familiar with the trademark laws of the various countries in which I traveled. I interviewed and retained law firms, and put personnel in place that would report to RTC and be our site representatives. I testified as an expert witness on Scientology technology on behalf of RTC in federal court in Los Angeles in a RICO action with RTC as the plaintiff in 1985. In 1983, on orders from L. Ron Hubbard, I brought into existence within RTC a unit called “The Tech Unit”. The Tech Unit had the responsibility of inspecting PC files a/k/a Pre-Clear files, (counseling files), in all Scientology organizations to ensure “The Tech” was being applied 100% according to the standard tech.

12. When Hubbard died in 1986, there was a power struggle in Scientology for the next 18 or so months that resulted in Hubbard’s closest and most powerful aide (Pat Broeker) being removed from Scientology. Total power was taken over by David Miscavige who purged the organization of anyone who was friendly with Broeker. In mid 1987, because I did not want to participate in Miscavige’s power struggle to become the head of Scientology, I was forcefully removed from my position and put under armed guard at Happy Valley, located deep in the desert behind the Soboba Indian Reservation. It is my belief that my undated resignation, which I signed when appointed to the Board, was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned, when I had not.

Practices of Scientology

13. From time to time, based on orders that I received from David Miscavige, I would order others to engage in illegal activities against perceived enemies of Scientology. These activities included, but were not limited to, wire-tapping and document destruction. For example, on or about April,1983, I was present at a meeting which took place in Los Angeles, California, at a Scientology office called Author Services, Inc. (ASI), a for profit company
and the “literary agency” for Hubbard, run by David Miscavige. There is no real corporate structure among the many Scientology corporations. ASI was the meeting place where various Scientology corporations went to receive orders. Present at this meeting was David Miscavige, then the Chairman of the Board of ASI, Vicki Aznaran, Deputy Inspector General of RTC, Marc Yeager, Commanding officer of CSI, and Lyman Spurlock, who was “Director of Client Affairs” for ASI. Mr. Miscavige expressed concern at this meeting that there might possibly be a raid on Scientology by the IRS. At that time, none of the churches of Scientology had received tax exempt status. At this meeting, David Miscavige announced to the group that the destruction and alteration of documents to protect Scientology was in progress. One principal reason why tax exempt status had not been granted was the IRS’s position that Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH), was actually the managing agent of Scientology in complete disregard of the corporate structure of Scientology. We knew this to be a fact, but also knew that it violated IRS rules and thus had to be hidden. There was concern that the IRS would obtain the hundreds of daily, weekly and monthly LRH orders written by Hubbard and distributed throughout Scientology. These orders were commonly referred to in Scientology as “advices” to avoid the appearance that Hubbard was actually running Scientology. In fact, Hubbard was running Scientology. The principal concern expressed at this meeting was that the LRH orders or “advices” would be used to name Hubbard as the managing agent of Scientology. Because of an already existing fear that an LRH “advice” might fall into the wrong hands, these orders from him were written in a way that we could deny it was from him. His name was not on them. He was never cited in the dispatch except in the third person. There was no signature and a salutation in reply was never more than “Dear Sir.” The routing at the top referred to him merely as “###”, (three pound signs), while his closest aids, Pat and Annie Broeker, were referred to as “* “, (an asterisk). However, if a person (or agency) got enough of these, there would be little doubt that we were in touch with Hubbard (via ASI) and that he was telling us and each corporation what to do to make him more money.

14. David Miscavige specifically ordered destruction of any documents in ASI’s posession which would implicate Hubbard as managing agent of Scientology. He stated that under his directive the LRH orders, or “advices” were being collected and transferred by truck to a Riverside County recycling plant where the documents were to be “pulped.” This method of destruction was considered to be better than shredding. I was also put in charge of purging the remainder of the LRH orders, i.e. “Advices”. This was to include “advices” that were located in Church of Scientology of California (CSC); Church of Scientology International (CSI); and RTC.

15. Several weeks after the April, 1983 meeting, I attended another meeting at the ASI offices concerning the continuing destruction of Scientology corporate documentation. In attendance at this meeting were David Miscavige,
Lyman Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Norman Starkey, Marty Rathbun, and Scientology attorney, Earl Cooley. At this meeting, Miscavige, for the first time, stated that Scientology had been ordered by a court to produce various documents concerning a former Scientology member, Lawrence Wollersheim, who had a lawsuit pending in Los Angeles against the Church of Scientology of California. The court had ordered Scientology to produce  Wollersheim’s entire Pre-Clear file.

16. A “Pre-Clear” file is one of the several files kept on members. The Pre-Clear file is the file that includes all written records of all “confessionals’ done by the member. This means that it includes not only the most self-damaging material, but it also reflects every problem the person might have had with the organization, including complaints. This Pre-Clear file grows with the person’s tenure in Scientology.

17. Mr. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file was several thousand pages in length and stood as high as a six-foot tall man. Initially at this meeting, it was decided that Mr. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file would be redacted and culled of any evidence or documentation which might assist Wollersheim in his lawsuit against CSC. There was also concern that the materials known as Clear, OT I, OT II, OT III, and NED for OT’s (NOTS) would be open to public  inspection if Wollersheim’s files were produced as ordered. Scientologists are taught that a person could catch pneumonia and die if that person is prematurely exposed to these “upper level” materials without first having taken many hours of preparatory auditing.

18. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file was purged of any incriminating evidence against Scirentology based on a direct order from Miscavige in the presence of Scientology’s lead trial counsel, Earl Cooley of Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Cooley thereafter represented to the court that the purged file was indeed the entire PC File of Mr. Wollersheim. Ultimately, approximately 50 pages were produced pursuant to the court order.

21. Later, I was informed that a second court order was issued to produce Wollersheim’s entire file. Faced with the prospect of having to produce the entire file, Miscavige gave orders that the entire file simply be destroyed by being pulped.

22. Pursuant to Miscavige’s orders, I ordered Rick Aznaran to take Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear files to the recycling plant in Riverside to be pulped. Several hours after I gave the order to have Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear files destroyed, Rick Aznaran returned and confirmed that the records had been pulped and even showed me a small bottle of pulped material. “Here’s what’s left,” he said.

23. Members of Scientology are induced to confess to acts that, if not outright criminal, are embarrassing or possibly destructive to the person’s job, marriage or profession. For example, shoplifting, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, drug abuse, or any other potentially embarassing or illegal matters are recorded. Members are urged to write down these compromising facts in their own handwriting, under the guise that it is a “religious confessional” for the member’s good. The truth is that these “confessions” are kept to blackmail and extort members should they dare to speak out against Scientology. Members are also coerced to sign documents that are  self-damaging in order to protect Scientology in case they dare to leave its control and speak the damaging truth. I know all this to be true, because I watched this done to others; I did it to others; and it was done to me.

24. I have personally witnessed executive decisions directed to members instructing them to “end cycle”, i.e., die. I have personally read written instructions by Ray Mithoff concerning the following individuals: a) Diane Morrison, a personal friend of mine. She had cancer. Radiation treatment is forbidden by Scientology. She was instructed by Ray Mithoff to “end cycle.” Her husband, Shawn Morrison, was ordered by Ray Mithoff to transport her off of the Scientology property at Gilman Hotsprings, California, to her mother’s house so that she would not die on Scientology property. b) Ted Cormier, a personal friend of mine. He had Parkinson’s disease. He was ordered to leave Gilman Hotsprings and go directly to Flag for NOTS 34, auditing to cure his cancer. When this failed, Ray Mithoff sent him orders in his Pre-Clear folder for him to “end cycle.” He died.

25. I have personally reviewed a video of a television interview of Roxanne Friend, a former Scientologist. She had cancer which could have been successfully treated. She was kidnapped in California and taken across
country in a motorhome to FLAG in Clearwater where she was held against her will, which prevented her from getting cancer treatment. After she escaped she gave this interview that I observed on a television talk show. She
disclosed that she was beyond treatment because of this delay and subsequently died. Based on my experience in Scientology, her statements ring true.

My Experience with Isolation

26.  In 1973, Hubbard announced to the Scientology world that he had solved the problem of how to handle a person in a “psychotic break”. Hubbard stated that this was a “technical breakthrough” which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the twentieth century. He further said his discovery means the last reason to have psychiatry around is gone. He went on to say the key is what caused the person to introspect before the psychotic break. During my tenure in Scientology I have observed four instances of people having a psychotic break. In each case the person was sleep deprived; each had been told their job performance was inadequate; and each person was subjected to Scientology ethics.

27. I am familiar with the practice of “Isolation,” also known as “baby watch” as practiced by Scientology and I have participated in the “handling” of one Scientologist that was ordered to “Isolation”. No one volunteers to go into Isolation. I have seen with my own eyes how a person is driven to the point of having a “psychotic break” and the subsequent brutality of treatment the person then receives as a result of the handlers following strict Scientology methods.

28. In the four instances of Isolation I observed, the person was locked in a room with at least two other people guarding the exit door. The people that watch the person in a psychotic break are not allowed to talk to the person at all. They are only allowed to physically restrain the person. The reason there are people guarding the exit door is that the person wants to leave and attempts to leave time after time. By their own policy the person in a psychotic break is not allowed to leave until the Case Supervisor allows it. Here is a direct quote from Scientology technical “Introspection Rundown, Additional Step”: “Dear Joe. What can you guarantee me if you are let out of
Isolation?” If the persons’s reply shows continued irresponsibility toward other dynamics or fixation on one dynamic to the exclusion of others damaged, the C/S (Case Supervisor) must inform the person of his continued Isolation and why. Example: “Dear Joe. I’m sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet…”

29. In 1987, I was at a place called Happy Valley, located behind the Soboba Indian Reservation in California. Happy Valley is where the Scientology Rehabilitation Project Force, RPF, is located. It is a prison /slave labor camp for Scientologists who no longer ascribe totally to the doctrine of Scientology. I, along with six other Sea Org members, were ordered to do a “isolation watch” on another Sea Org member who was having a psychotic break. Prior to having the psychotic break the person was very normal. She had been deprived of sleep for many days due to a deadline she was ordered to meet on her job. She was sent to “Ethics” and was constantly humiliated and degraded for making errors and for falling asleep at her work station. When she was given to me to watch she was on her hands and knees and literally barking like a dog. She thought she was L. Ron Hubbard. It was at this time that I learned how forced feeding was done and the extent of restraint we all had to enforce on a young woman barely 5 feet tall. I was horrified at just how close she was to losing her life due to the “help” we were being ordered to give her. Even though she was now being allowed to sleep, she could not sleep and had been up for nearly four days. She was in a very agitated and violent state. She would scream for hours until she could scream no more. She fought to escape and mutilated herself in the process. Finally a doctor was called in and it took four people plus the doctor to hold her down to give her a shot to make her go to sleep.

30. A major part of the trauma a person experiences in Scientology’s “isolation” treatment is the person’s struggle to get away or to get out of the room they are being confined in. The young woman I had to “iso watch” had
numerous injuries as a result of her beating on the walls and the door trying to get away. She would drift in and out of her psychotic state. I was informed by the security guard watching over us all that her family was desperately trying to find her and during the times when she was “okay” I had to let her call her mother after I told her what to say. I held a separate phone while she talked to her family and when things started to get “weird” I would end the conversation. She would tell her mother that she was okay and would be home soon. During this time she became very upset with me because I made her see a doctor she did not know and who was not allowed to talk to her
while he was giving her shots. She physically attacked me on more than one occasion. This was a public relations nightmare for Scientology and this is why she was told to lie to her family about what was really going on with her. This went on for two months. After she seemed stable for a week and completed the “Introspection Rundown” she was made to sign a release form which in essence said Scientology was not responsible for what had happened to her and she was quickly sent home.

31. If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that based upon my own observations she would have died.

32. The people who are selected to watch a person in a psychotic break are trained to make a person physically comply with orders and demands. Controlling a person physically is taught in Scientology in its Training Routine Courses. As an example, in what is called “Training Routine 7, High School Indoc” the Scientology student is trained to never be stopped by a Pre-Clear. No matter what the person in “Isolation” does or says, they are not allowed to leave until the C/S says they can.

My Involvement in the case of Lisa McPherson

33.  I have been retained as an expert witness and trial consultant in the case of Lisa McPherson since Nov, 1998. In Dec, 1998, Scientology representative Glenn Stilo brought Lisa McPherson’s Pre Clear files to the
office of Ken Dandar by order of this court for inspection. Glenn Stilo and I knew each other when I was in Scientology. At that time, Glenn was fully aware that I was present at Mr. Dandar’s Office and that I was there inspecting Lisa McPherson’s auditing files. I have also reviewed the “caretaker logs” of Lisa McPherson at the Fort Harrison Hotel and her Ethics File.

34. It is obvious from these files that Lisa McPherson complained that auditing and Scientology were not working for her in 1995 and that she wanted to leave and return to Texas. Her “stats” were down, i.e., her production and income at AMC Publishing. As a result, she was placed in Ethics at her work where the records revealed that she was constantly doing “amends” and writing “O/W’s”, overts and write-ups, which resulted in less time to obtain adequate sleep which further, in my own observations, leads to psychotic breaks. This is confirmed by L. Ron Hubbard in his own writings, “Introspection Rundown Additional Steps.”

35. FLAG at the Ft. Harrison Hotel is “the mecca of technical perfection” according to Scientology. I can attest that it is a high crime in Scientology to alter or ignore the tech. It is also a high crime to lose or omit vital information from any PC folder, including “caretaker logs.” The Lisa McPherson “caretaker logs” are missing substantial day-to-day portions, in particular, the last three and one-half days of her Isolation. This is no accident. Records of this magnitude are not lost. Based on my experience, these missing records were intentionally destroyed to conceal material matters damaging to Scientology. Hubbard explicitly writes in CS SERIES 97 and CS SERIES 98 that “omissions from folders and complete loss of folders is a very serious matter….” If proven, expulsion from Scientology is mandatory.

36. I have been asked to address the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson would have consented to her own isolation prior to experiencing a psychotic break. Without question, no Scientologist, except a Class 4 auditor or above, would have prior knowledge of how someone would be treated who is declared to be PTS Type III: a “Potential Trouble Source” who is experiencing a psychotic break. Only those auditors would have the knowledge that “Isolation” is implemented or the details of “Isolation” for those who are PTS Type III. In reviewing the Scientology records of Lisa McPherson, she was not an auditor and would therefore never have acquired the knowledge prior to becoming PTS Type III to consent to being held against her will in isolation.

37. In Scientology technical bulletin “Search and Discovery” under the subtitle “Handling Type III”, L. Ron Hubbard wrote, “But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a
final defense, sometimes can’t be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught to ever become quiet, the extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as “catatonia” (withdrawn totally) and “manic” (too hectic).”

38. Following the dogma of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter is the highest priority for a person practicing Scientology. In a Scientology policy letter called “Keeping Scientology Working”, L. Ron Hubbard says “The proper
instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we are going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”

39. In terms of the report and control of RTC, it is required by any and all Scientology organizations to report directly to RTC any extreme deviations from “standard tech”. For example, it would be considered a deviation when a
Scientology Pre-Clear, (a person that has paid for auditing services from Scientology), has left Scientology and threatens to sue. Other examples would include a Pre-Clear who is not getting the expected results or one who has had a psychotic break (PTS Type III). Once the RTC Tech Unit completed a review of a Pre-Clear folder, it would be sent back via the Office of the Senior Case Supervisor International (located in Church of Scientology  International) to ensure compliance to orders and correction as deemed necessary by the RTC Tech Unit. CSI receives updated status reports and without question would have received updated status reports on the Isolation of Lisa McPherson and her deteriorating medical condition because RTC has an on site representative at FLAG. These reports would be composed and sent up line to Ray Mithoff at RTC by the Senior Case Supervisor, Alain Kartuzinski. Ray Mithoff would then take the report to RTC. The Office of Special Affairs, OSA, locally and internationally, would be informed of the Isolation as well. Marty Rathbun, Inspector General Ethics, is over all the legal affairs of every case and situation in Scientology and would also have knowledge of a PTS Type III in Isolation.

40. The above reporting procedure is still practiced in the Scientology conglomerate today. For example, in the attached “D/Inspector General Office,” published by Religious Technology Center and copyrighted in 1997, it
compels reporting directly to RTC any listed situation, such as “any person who acts PTS Type III.” This is all done in order to help RTC “locate and eradicate any suppression (i.e., a threat) and thereby make sure that Scientology keeps working.” Lisa McPherson was deemed PTS Type III and therefore was such a threat.

41. RTC receives all reports on situations involving Isolation for guidance from RTC to the Senior Case Supervisor, Sr. C/S. RTC then reports the matter to Sr. C/S INT, i.e., International, office for further investigation. Sr.
C/S INT then reports back to the RTC Reports Officer. Ray Mithoff is the Sr. C/S INT at CSI, the mother church. Ray Mithoff, Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige, as they have done on other occasions within my personal knowledge, meet and discuss various options available to Scientology on how to deal with a public relations flap. No one else has the authority to do so. Lisa McPherson was such a public relations flap to Scientology since she took her clothes off in public and was placed in Isolation.

42. In records I have reviewed provided by FLAG in this case concerning Lisa McPherson, she had previously complained that Scientology was not working for her and her stats were down. Based upon my own experience and Scientology procedures and protocol, these three individuals would have met and discussed on several occasions what to do with Lisa since she was not improving in Isolation. It is important to know that Scientology has no prohibition on members seeking emergency medical treatment as stated in HCOB Physically ILL PCs and Pre-OTs, 12-3-69, which mandates a medical cure before auditing, where Hubbard states “if we already know he is ill we should call in the doctor.” page 328 of Volume 8 of the Technical Bulletins

43. Yet, from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals: Mithoff, Rathbun, and Miscavige, had no option other than to permit her to die in Isolation rather than take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physicians, press, and authorities with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery. This is true because in
Scientology it is never an option to be held accountable. Contrary to their own policy that “THE CORRECT ACTION ON AN INSANE PATIENT IS A FULL SEARCHING CLINICAL EXAMINATION BY A COMPETENT MEDICAL DOCTOR.” Page 327, Volume 8 of the Technical Bulletins, Scientology decided in Lisa’s case, through these three individuals acting through FLAG, not to follow this particular policy and let her die. Scientology provides an option called “end cycle” which is permitting and ordering the person to die. It is obvious to me that the decision was to permit Lisa McPherson to die rather than face an extreme public relations flap by taking her to the local emergency room in her morbid condition as described in the “caretaker logs.”

44. Based on my personal experience and expertise in Scientology, I have formed the following opinion: Lisa McPherson was held against her will in Isolation and when she did not respond to Scientology technical handling, FLAG, on orders from David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff, and Marty Rathbun sat mute and watched her die after she no longer had the strength to fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was the chosen option to  minimize a public relations flap.

45. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct.

______________________________
JESSE PRINCE

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this ___ day of August, 1999.

___________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:

Personally Known ____
Produced ID ____
Type of ID Produced _____________________

Notes

Declaration of Jesse Prince

Harold J. McElhinny (Bar No. 66781)1
Rachel Krevans (Bar No. 116421)
Stephen P. Freccero (Bar No. 131093)
Ronald P. Flynn (Bar No. 184 186)
Jason A. Crotty (Bar No. 196036)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Jana G. Gold (Bar No. 154246)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 8 13-5600
Facsimile: (650) 494-0792

Attorneys for Defendant DENNIS ERLICH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation; and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DENNIS ERLICH, an individual,

Defendant


AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

No. C-95-20091 RMW (EAI)

DECLARATION OF JESSE PRINCE IN SUPPORT OF MR. ERLICH’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

Date: N/A
Tie: N/A
Ctm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte


I, Jesse Prince, declare as follows:

1. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to testify thereto.

2. I was in Scientology for 16 years (1976 – 92) and served in the highest ranks, including as the second in command of the Religious Technology Center (“RTC”). Because of this experience, I am intimately familiar with the Scientology organizations, the Scientology movement, and the beliefs of Scientology. At that time, my position was “Deputy Inspector General, External,” I was in charge of all activities inside and outside the Scientology organization. This included being in charge of all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence (e.g. spying and covert operations) against perceived “enemies” (ranging from critics to media to the courts), trademark registration, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology organizations.

3. I first became involved with Scientology in September 1976, in San Francisco. In late 1976, I joined the elite Scientology paramilitary organization known as the Sea Organization, also known as the “Sea Org” or “SO.” The Sea Organization is the organization that actually controls the Scientology empire. SO personnel are authorized to take over and control any Scientology organization. This is also true of the nominally secular organizations, such as Bridge Publications. The control by SO is possible because all the executives in these organizations are selected for their agreement that the SO is the commanding organization. This weeding out process guarantees there will be nobody to resist the SO’s management. In this manner SO can control the entire Scientology empire.

4. Before I was recruited into RTC in 1982, most of my Scientology experience was with technical material; the codified methods and techniques used within the Scientology organizations. During these years, I became intimately familiar with the technical material of Scientology, most of which was written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. It was that familiarity that prompted my promotion to a technical position at RTC.

5. When I moved to RTC, I was transferred to and lived and worked at what is known as “Golden Era Studios,” near Hemet, California. It is also known as “Gold” or simply “the base.” RTC’s presence at Gold was known to all at the base, but was kept hidden from others, to try to make it appear that Gold was merely a video production studio. In reality, the studio is a front for the top of Scientology’s actual power structure. (The security system at Gold is elaborate; it includes motion detectors, buried sensors, high-speed cameras, night cameras; motorcycles guards, and barbed wire fences). RTC was, at that time, the most powerful organization within Scientology. All RTC members were also Sea Org members, as were all at the base.

6. L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986. His widow was Mary Sue Hubbard, who was by then an elderly and fragile woman. David Miscavige, then, as now, the leader of Scientology, had Mary Sue Hubbard watched at her home and received daily reports as to her condition and activities. Mary Sue Hubbard was under constant surveillance by the Church of Scientology and Miscavige.

7. A number of weeks after L. Ron Hubbard’s death, I was present at a meeting where David Miscavige and a group of 12-17 other Scientologists coerced Mary Sue Hubbard into relinquishing her legal rights to the Scientology writings of the recently-deceased L. Ron Hubbard. I participated in that meeting in my capacity as a high-level member of RTC and Sea Org. The day before this meeting, David Miscavige told me and a group of other senior Scientology executives that he wanted a group, including me, to go over to Mary Sue Hubbard’s home in Los Angeles in order to get Mary Sue Hubbard to sign an agreement relinquishing her claims to L. Ron Hubbard’s estate. Miscavige said he wanted a group to go the house because he wanted, in his words, a “show of force” and that the group would stay at Mary Sue Hubbard’s house until the agreement was signed. The next day the meeting did take place at Mary Sue Hubbard’s home. The group that went to her house, including myself, went over with the intent to overwhelm Mary Sue Hubbard and get her to sign an agreement. That was something we had openly discussed and was the purpose and intention of our going over there. The meeting lasted about 3 hours, from about 12:30 to 3:30 in the afternoon. I was personally present at this meeting, along with a number of Scientology officers and officials, including David Miscavige, Norman Starkey, Lymon Spurlock, Marty Rathbun, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Ray Mithoff, and Mark Ingber. I believe that Warren McShane was also present, as well as a Scientology lawyer, Earl Cooley. At the end of the meeting Mary Sue Hubbard was forced to sign an agreement in which she transferred her rights to L. Ron Hubbard’s works to various Scientology entities. Those works included copyrights, trademarks, bank accounts, and other property – anything of value related to the Scientology fortune. In “exchange” Mary Sue was compensated with a monetary amount. I believe it was $100,000. Diana, Suzette, and Arthur Hubbard, the children of L. Ron also received a monetary amount. I believe those amounts to be $50,000 each. All of those amounts, individually and in total, were trivial in relation to the value of the L. Ron Hubbard fortune, which I understand was then valued at between $200 and $400 million, possibly more. David Miscavige also personally informed me that he obtained similar agreements from L. Ron Hubbard’s other children, outside the Hubbard family.

8. Based on my personal observations at this meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard did not make the transaction voluntarily. At the time of the meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard appeared elderly, in her late 60s or early 7Os, and seemed obviously sickly and was overdressed in that she was wrapped in clothes. She remained seated throughout the whole meeting. Based on my observations, including her appearance, mannerism and some of the things she said, she did not seem altogether coherent. At times she seemed to rant or speak non-sequitors. At the beginning of the meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard was introduced to everyone in the group and told their positions in Scientology, and things were cordial. When David Miscavige asked Mary Sue Hubbard to sign an agreement things changed. Mary Sue Hubbard stated that she would not sign the agreement proposed by Miscavige because she did not agree with it. She told everyone that she did not trust Miscavige and felt he was destructive to Scientology. She made reference to Miscavige as a “deceptive, power-hungry person” bent on taking over everything and said she was not going to go along with it. However, Mary Sue Hubbard was confronted by Miscavige and 12-17 others, including myself. Most of the others, including myself, were large men who wore the paramilitary uniforms of the Sea Org. David Miscavige screamed at her to sign the document and screamed that she would sign the document Miscavige also told her that: “Everything that L. Ron Hubbard did, he did for the church. We are the church, not you. Therefore everything is staying right here with us.” Miscavige also told her that the persons who were there would stay until she did sign the agreement. The combination of Miscavige screaming at her, sometimes very close to her face, and the rest of us browbeating her, was an intimidating and coercive environment, particularly for a frail and elderly woman. There was an implicit threat that she and her family would be subject to various Scientology sanctions such as “auditing,” “ethics,” or “sec checking” involving long interrogations if she did not comply with the demands to sign the documents. Mary Sue Hubbard was told that the group would stay there no matter how long it took, and it could either be done the easy way or the hard way. During the entire proceeding, Mary Sue Hubbard was never left alone; she was always in the presence of Scientology members bent on getting her to sign the legal documents that would strip her of her legal interest in L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology works.

9. A Scientology lawyer, I believe it was Earl Cooley, was at this meeting, but he did not advise Mary Sue Hubbard of her legal rights. At no time during the process was Mary Sue Hubbard advised of her legal rights, either community property rights or her inheritance rights. Mary Sue Hubbard had no personal counsel present at this meeting. The only directions given by the Scientology lawyer was that the agreement would make things better for Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard was told where to sign the documents.

10. I was informed by David Miscavige that although Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard had been separated and had not talked for a long time, she was saddened by the death of her husband. Miscavige told me he would use this to his advantage. Also, before the meeting took place, Ray Mithoff told me, in the presence of David Miscavige, that he couldn’t wait to tell Mary Sue Hubbard that L. Ron had not asked about her before his death. Mithoff seemed anxious for Mary Sue Hubbard to ask him about this and appeared gleeful at the opportunity to tell her this. Near the end of the meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard did in fact ask if L. Ron Hubbard had said anything about her or had asked about her before he died. Ray Mithoff then told her that Hubbard had not even mentioned her name. At that point, after the hours of browbeating, the screaming by Miscavige, which was sometimes done very close to her face, the implicit threats, the emotional turmoil, and the general coerciveness of the situation, Mary Sue Hubbard became silent, bowed her head and proceeded to sign anything Miscavige and his minions put before her. I saw her sign multiple documents and she did not seem to pay any attention to them she just signed them. She then said words to the effect that you got what you want, now you leave.

11. I do not believe that either Mary Sue Hubbard or her family knew tbat the L. Ron Hubbard estate was worth between $200 and $400 million. I base this on the fact that neither Mary Sue or any of L. Ron Hubbard’s children were on the Board of Directors of any of the umbrella corporations of Scientology, such as Author Services, Inc., RTC, CST or CSRT. Because of my position within the organization, I know that it was the policy of the corporations to keep the financial information secret. Under the coercive conditions she was put under and the information she was given, Mary Sue Hubbard did not knowingly or voluntarily relinquish her claims to the L. Ron Hubbard estate. I do not believe that Mary Sue Hubbard would have signed the agreement had she been advised or her legal rights and provided additional information, particularly information regarding the value of the L. Ron Hubbard Scientology fortune. It is also my belief, based on what I saw happen at this meeting, the Mary Sue Hubbard felt very threatened by David Miscavige and the rest of us. Mary Sue Hubbard was allowed to read the documents, but because of her actions and words that day, I do not believe she understood what she was reading. I regret that I had any part in this and am saddened because I realize now that this was destructive and wrong.

12. I left Scientology on October 31, 1992. From the time Mary Sue Hubbard got out of jail, which I believe was 1981, until the time that I left my post at RTC, Mary Sue Hubbard was cared for around the clock by two Scientologists, Neville and Leslie Potter. The Potter’s provided a detailed report to Norman Starkey, a Trustee of RTC, and David Miscavige, also a Trustee, every day on Mrs. Hubbard’s activities, even including trips to go shopping. Because Starkey and Miscavige were trustees for RTC, RTC was always acutely aware of Mrs. Hubbard’s whereabouts, and always would have been able to produce her if needed for a deposition. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 17th day of March, 1999 at Boulder, Colorado.


Notes

Declaration of Jesse Prince (March 17, 1999)

Harold J. McElhinny (Bar No. 66781)
Rachel Krevans (Bar No. 116421)
Stephen P. Freccero (Bar No. 131093)
Ronald P. Flynn (Bar No. 184 186)
Jason A. Crotty (Bar No. 196036)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Jana G. Gold (Bar No. 154246)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 8 13-5600
Facsimile: (650) 494-0792

Attorneys for Defendant
DENNIS ERLICH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation; and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs

v.

DENNIS ERLICH, an individual,
Defendant

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

No. C-95-20091 RMW (EAI)
Date: N/A
Time: N/A
Ctrm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

DECLARATION OF JESSE PRINCE
IN SUPPORT OF MR. ERLICH’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER
1

I, Jesse Prince, declare as follows:

1. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to testify thereto.

2. I was in Scientology for 16 years (1976 – 92) and served in the highest ranks, including as the second in command of the Religious Technology Center (“RTC”). Because of this experience, I am intimately familiar with the Scientology organizations, the Scientology movement, and the beliefs of Scientology. At that time, my position was “Deputy Inspector General, External,” I was in charge of all activities inside and outside the Scientology organization. This included being in charge of all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence (e.g. spying and covert operations) against perceived “enemies” (ranging from critics to media to the courts), trademark registration, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology organizations.

3. I first became involved with Scientology in September 1976, in San Francisco. In late 1976, I joined the elite Scientology paramilitary organization known as the Sea Organization, also known as the “Sea Org” or “SO.” The Sea Organization is the organization that actually controls the Scientology empire. SO personnel are authorized to take over and control any Scientology organization. This is also true of the nominally secular organizations, such as Bridge Publications. The control by SO is possible because all the executives in these organizations are selected for their agreement that the SO is the commanding organization. This weeding out process guarantees there will be nobody to resist the SO’s management. In this manner SO can control the entire Scientology empire.

4. Before I was recruited into RTC in 1982, most of my Scientology experience was with technical material; the codified methods and techniques used within the Scientology organizations. During these years, I became intimately familiar with the technical material of Scientology, most of which was written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. It was that familiarity that prompted my promotion to a technical position at RTC.

5. When I moved to RTC, I was transferred to and lived and worked at what is known as “Golden Era Studios,” near Hemet, California. It is also known as “Gold” or simply “the base.” RTC’s presence at Gold was known to all at the base, but was kept hidden from others, to try to make it appear that Gold was merely a video production studio. In reality, the studio is a front for the top of Scientology’s actual power structure. (The security system at Gold is elaborate; it includes motion detectors, buried sensors, high-speed cameras, night cameras; motorcycles guards, and barbed wire fences). RTC was, at that time, the most powerful organization within Scientology. All RTC members were also Sea Org members, as were all at the base.

6. L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986. His widow was Mary Sue Hubbard, who was by then an elderly and fragile woman. David Miscavige, then, as now, the leader of Scientology, had Mary Sue Hubbard watched at her home and received daily reports as to her condition and activities. Mary Sue Hubbard was under constant surveillance by the Church of Scientology and Miscavige.

7. A number of weeks after L. Ron Hubbard’s death, I was present at a meeting where David Miscavige and a group of 12-17 other Scientologists coerced Mary Sue Hubbard into relinquishing her legal rights to the Scientology writings of the recently-deceased L. Ron Hubbard. I participated in that meeting in my capacity as a high-level member of RTC and Sea Org. The day before this meeting, David Miscavige told me and a group of other senior Scientology executives that he wanted a group, including me, to go over to Mary Sue Hubbard’s home in Los Angeles in order to get Mary Sue Hubbard to sign an agreement relinquishing her claims to L. Ron Hubbard’s estate. Miscavige said he wanted a group to go the house because he wanted, in his words, a “show of force” and that the group would stay at Mary Sue Hubbard’s house until the agreement was signed. The next day the meeting did take place at Mary Sue Hubbard’s home. The group that went to her house, including myself, went over with the intent to overwhelm Mary Sue Hubbard and get her to sign an agreement. That was something we had openly discussed and was the purpose and intention of our going over there. The meeting lasted about 3 hours, from about 12:30 to 3:30 in the afternoon. I was personally present at this meeting, along with a number of Scientology officers and officials, including David Miscavige, Norman Starkey, Lymon Spurlock, Marty Rathbun, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Ray Mithoff, and Mark Ingber. I believe that Warren McShane was also present, as well as a Scientology lawyer, Earl Cooley. At the end of the meeting Mary Sue Hubbard was forced to sign an agreement in which she transferred her rights to L. Ron Hubbard’s works to various Scientology entities. Those works included copyrights, trademarks, bank accounts, and other property – anything of value related to the Scientology fortune. In “exchange” Mary Sue was compensated with a monetary amount. I believe it was $100,000. Diana, Suzette, and Arthur Hubbard, the children of L. Ron also received a monetary amount. I believe those amounts to be $50,000 each. All of those amounts, individually and in total, were trivial in relation to the value of the L. Ron Hubbard fortune, which I understand was then valued at between $200 and $400 million, possibly more. David Miscavige also personally informed me that he obtained similar agreements from L. Ron Hubbard’s other children, outside the Hubbard family.

8. Based on my personal observations at this meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard did not make the transaction voluntarily. At the time of the meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard appeared elderly, in her late 60s or early 70s, and seemed obviously sickly and was overdressed in that she was wrapped in clothes. She remained seated throughout the whole meeting. Based on my observations, including her appearance, mannerism and some of the things she said, she did not seem altogether coherent. At times she seemed to rant or speak non-sequitors. At the beginning of the meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard was introduced to everyone in the group and told their positions in Scientology, and things were cordial. When David Miscavige asked Mary Sue Hubbard to sign an agreement things changed. Mary Sue Hubbard stated that she would not sign the agreement proposed by Miscavige because she did not agree with it. She told everyone that she did not trust Miscavige and felt he was destructive to Scientology. She made reference to Miscavige as a “deceptive, power-hungry person” bent on taking over everything and said she was not going to go along with it. However, Mary Sue Hubbard was confronted by Miscavige and 12-17 others, including myself. Most of the others, including myself, were large men who wore the paramilitary uniforms of the Sea Org. David Miscavige screamed at her to sign the document and screamed that she would sign the document Miscavige also told her that: “Everything that L. Ron Hubbard did, he did for the church. We are the church, not you. Therefore everything is staying right here with us.” Miscavige also told her that the persons who were there would stay until she did sign the agreement. The combination of Miscavige screaming at her, sometimes very close to her face, and the rest of us browbeating her, was an intimidating and coercive environment, particularly for a frail and elderly woman. There was an implicit threat that she and her family would be subject to various Scientology sanctions such as “auditing,” “ethics,” or “sec checking” involving long interrogations if she did not comply with the demands to sign the documents. Mary Sue Hubbard was told that the group would stay there no matter how long it took, and it could either be done the easy way or the hard way. During the entire proceeding, Mary Sue Hubbard was never left alone; she was always in the presence of Scientology members bent on getting her to sign the legal documents that would strip her of her legal interest in L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology works.

9. A Scientology lawyer, I believe it was Earl Cooley, was at this meeting, but he did not advise Mary Sue Hubbard of her legal rights. At no time during the process was Mary Sue Hubbard advised of her legal rights, either community property rights or her inheritance rights. Mary Sue Hubbard had no personal counsel present at this meeting. The only directions given by the Scientology lawyer was that the agreement would make things better for Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard was told where to sign the documents.

10. I was informed by David Miscavige that although Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard had been separated and had not talked for a long time, she was saddened by the death of her husband. Miscavige told me he would use this to his advantage. Also, before the meeting took place, Ray Mithoff told me, in the presence of David Miscavige, that he couldn’t wait to tell Mary Sue Hubbard that L. Ron had not asked about her before his death. Mithoff seemed anxious for Mary Sue Hubbard to ask him about this and appeared gleeful at the opportunity to tell her this. Near the end of the meeting, Mary Sue Hubbard did in fact ask if L. Ron Hubbard had said anything about her or had asked about her before he died. Ray Mithoff then told her that Hubbard had not even mentioned her name. At that point, after the hours of browbeating, the screaming by Miscavige, which was sometimes done very close to her face, the implicit threats, the emotional turmoil, and the general coerciveness of the situation, Mary Sue Hubbard became silent, bowed her head and proceeded to sign anything Miscavige and his minions put before her. I saw her sign multiple documents and she did not seem to pay any attention to them she just signed them. She then said words to the effect that you got what you want, now you leave.

11. I do not believe that either Mary Sue Hubbard or her family knew that the L. Ron Hubbard estate was worth between $200 and $400 million. I base this on the fact that neither Mary Sue or any of L. Ron Hubbard’s children were on the Board of Directors of any of the umbrella corporations of Scientology, such as Author Services, Inc., RTC, CST or CSRT. Because of my position within the organization, I know that it was the policy of the corporations to keep the financial information secret. Under the coercive conditions she was put under and the information she was given, Mary Sue Hubbard did not knowingly or voluntarily relinquish her claims to the L. Ron Hubbard estate. I do not believe that Mary Sue Hubbard would have signed the agreement had she been advised or her legal rights and provided additional information, particularly information regarding the value of the L. Ron Hubbard Scientology fortune. It is also my belief, based on what I saw happen at this meeting, the Mary Sue Hubbard felt very threatened by David Miscavige and the rest of us. Mary Sue Hubbard was allowed to read the documents, but because of her actions and words that day, I do not believe she understood what she was reading. I regret that I had any part in this and am saddened because I realize now that this was destructive and wrong.

12. I left Scientology on October 31, 1992. From the time Mary Sue Hubbard got out of jail, which I believe was 1981, until the time that I left my post at RTC, Mary Sue Hubbard was cared for around the clock by two Scientologists, Neville and Leslie Potter. The Potter’s provided a detailed report to Norman Starkey, a Trustee of RTC, and David Miscavige, also a Trustee, every day on Mrs. Hubbard’s activities, even including trips to go shopping. Because Starkey and Miscavige were trustees for RTC, RTC was always acutely aware of Mrs. Hubbard’s whereabouts, and always would have been able to produce her if needed for a deposition.

I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this 17th day of March, 1999 at Boulder, Colorado.

Jesse Prince

Notes

Jesse Prince: No conscience, no church (September 29, 1998)

Title: No conscience, no church1
Author: jesse77@gte.net (Jesse Prince)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:15:12 GMT

During September, 1982, through the Spring of 1987, I attended  biweekly
meetings at Author Services, Inc. (ASI), which at the time was located in
the 6700 block of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA.

From late 1982 until the spring of 1983 I held an executive position in the
Religious Technology Center (RTC) titled Inspector General Cramming
Officer.  During the spring of 1983 I was promoted to Inspector General
External and Treasurer on the board of directors of  the Religious
Technology Center.  There were two other board members; Vicki Aznaran,
Inspector General and President, and Warren Mc Shane, executive over legal
matters concerning RTC, was a member.  David Micavage, Norman Starkey and
Lyman Spurlock were the trustees of RTC.  It was during this time that I
learned the true nature of Scientology management and how it ran its
affairs.

The meetings I attended at ASI were always called and run by David
Miscavige. It was here  that I learned that David Miscavige was a managing
agent of the various Scientology corporations, including but not limited to
ASI, RTC and Church of Scientology International (CSI).  Each senior
executive of RTC, CSI and ASI met once or twice a week to give a report
concerning each of the above corporations.  This in fact was the inner
circle of Scientology’s elite and as a result of my position I was involved
in and received communications concerning Scientology’s most secret
operations.

During my time as an executive and senior executive in RTC, David Miscavige
was the decision maker concerning all legal suits filed by any of
Scientology’s corporations. Miscavige had complete authority concerning all
litigation within Scientology, and he made the final decisions as to how
each case would be litigated as well as which lawyers would be used in each
and every case. Miscavige had two Scientology staff, Marty Rathbun and
Lyman Spurlock, who assisted in Scientology litigation matters, but
Miscavige always made the final decisions. CSI majorly operated on orders
from LRH, which were called advices to avoid legal problems for himself and
Scientology, since he supposedly had not managed any of the corporations of
Scientology since 1966, when he had officially resigned as Executive
Director.

ASI served as LRH’s literary agency, but it was really a clearing house for
his orders into the various Scientology corporations and organizations,
which included but was not limited to RTC, CSI, CSC, Flag Land Base, CST
and the Office of Special Affairs (formerly the Guardian’s Office).
Miscavige was the person responsible for ensuring the execution of LRH
orders in these various corporations, until LRH’s death in 1986. ASI and
some of its staff  members exercised complete financial authority over
other church entities. Fran Harris, a staff member of ASI, was responsible
for the gross income of the organization.

ASI received its operating expenses from commissions it received for
collection of royalties owed to LRH based on moneys collected from LRH book
outlets. Some time ago, LRH wrote a policy letter entitled “Minimum Book
Stocks” which in effect placed a minimum on the amount of books each
Scientology org had to have. Bridge Publications is the organization
responsible for enforcing the minimum book stocks policy.

More often than not, on orders from Miscavige to get the stats up, Fran
Harris would bypass Bridge Publications and go direct to org finance
personnel and demand that the orgs buy books from BPI so that ASI would get
its weekly commissions.  Fran enforced her demands by using lower
conditions, ethics hearings, comm evs and just plain intimidation to make
the nonprofit scientology orgs pay money to BPI, often before the org had
even had a chance to feed and clothe its staff. BPI never saw much of this
money itself, as it was considered that BPI owed a debt to ASI going back
to before ASI was ever incorporated.  This action, which went on every
week, was a known criminal act by all concerned, as not only did it violate
Scientology’s own policy of corporate integrity, it also violated the laws
of the land.

ASI is a for-profit corporation and paid its staff minimum wage plus a
bonus based on royalties collected. Every week ASI had to get more and more
money in order to keep its stats up to receive bonuses. ASI staff were in
fact Sea Org members that were paid very well when you consider the average
Sea Org member was paid $24.00 per week. It was considered a privilege to
be on staff at ASI and the staff were encouraged  not to diskuss with other
Sea Org members what they were paid weekly in order not to create a rift
among Sea Org members.

In 1984 David Miscavige received word there was an IRS criminal
investigation pending with the threat of a raid in Los Angeles. Fran Harris
was flown out of the country and sent to Copenhagen, Denmark, to avoid
possible interrogation by IRS officials. This was just the beginning of the
“clean up” most senior executives executed within various Scientology
corporations. One morning I awoke to find my senior, Vicki Aznaran, her
husband Rick Aznaran, who was head of all security for Scientology, and
Foster Tompkins, executive over INCOMM, removing evidence from hard disk
drives that proved LRH was in fact the managing agent of Scientology as
well as other sensitive information. Vicki and the others had been up most
of the night purging computer files and creating back-up disks to be stored
at confidential storage sights.

At this time I was ordered to verify that other corporations had purged
their files of LRH “advices.” The corporations concerned were RTC, CSI and
CSC. I did in fact verify that no evidence of LRH advices existed. This was
accomplished by gathering up all hard copy advices and getting them mulched
at a paper treatment plant located near Riverside, CA. Back-up copies of
these advices were placed in secret unknown storage facilities by head of
security, Rick Aznaran. The only people who knew these locations were Rick,
the security chief, whose name was Jackson, DM and Norman Starkey.

From 1982 through 1986, LRH would use a dictaphone to dictate his orders to
the various Scientology corporations. The tapes from the dictation would be
delivered by LRH’s top aides Pat or Annie Broeker to the Scientology
location at Gilman Hot Springs. At this location a special unit, headed by
a staff member named Susie Bennick, would transcribe the tapes and issue
hard copy dispatches to various executives and staff of ASI, RTC, CSI, CST
and CSC.  Often, these dispatches had certain time deadlines for compliance
as mandated by LRH. I’ve seen as many as 150 orders dictated by LRH in one
run. Often the staff who had orders issued to them were not allowed to
sleep until they complied to the LRH order issued to them. David Miscavige
oversaw the transcribing operation and enforced compliance to LRH orders by
staff in all Scientology corporations.

Scientology Legal Procedures

During my tenure as an executive and senior executive in RTC, I was taught
how to aggressively  go about destroying an enemy or critic of Scientology.
Enemies and critics of Scientology are considered to be suppressive persons
or groups. In Scientology the suppressive element is basically dealt with
in the same way: investigation, black operations, black propaganda and
frivolous litigation. Scientology believes anyone labeled a suppressive is
“fair game” and  can be cheated, tricked, lied to and even physically
harmed in order to “save” Scientology as mandated in policy by L Ron
Hubbard. The following are specific instances I have either been a party to
or observed being done to persons labeled “suppressive.”

David Mayo

David Mayo was once one of the top senior executives in Scientology. He
worked directly with LRH on technical policies, he was LRH’s auditor, and
even authored the “Ned for OTs” series when it was first issued. By the
time I arrived in September 1982 at the secret management base located in
Hemet, CA, David Mayo had fallen from grace. Upon my promotion to this
secret location, the first duty I had was to security check (interrogate)
Mayo endlessly.  LRH had the idea that Mayo had been bought off  by
Scientology mission holders and was either a dupe or a plant. At this time
Scientology was once again getting rid of its criminals. The executives of
all management organizations had been removed and brought to Hemet to
receive severe Scientology justice and ethics. Mayo was part of a group of
11 management executives being given a comm eve that went on for 3 months.
Nearly all 11were eventually labeled suppressive persons and left
Scientology.

Once David Mayo was off staff he decided to start his own church, the
Advanced Ability Center (AAC), that was an alternative to Scientology and
used many of the same techniques used by LRH. At this point David became
the target for “fair game.” DM became infuriated and ordered  Mayo’s new
group to be destroyed using all means possible. Bob Mithoff, brother of
Senior C/S Int Ray Mithoff, was placed by RTC in David Mayo’s new church as
a plant to obtain financial and critical legal information to forward a
planned attack on his group. Week after week Bob Mithoff provided financial
information to RTC concerning Mayo’s new group. The fact of the matter is
Mayo had drawn a good amount of people who were ex-Scientologists to his
new church and was making $20,000 to $30,000 gross income every week. This
was better than most Scientology Class 4 organizations. Mithoff stole a
copy of the AAC’s mailing list and provided it to RTC. Within four months
of its inception, AAC had a standard newsletter it mailed to its adherents.
With the stolen mailing list RTC operative Gary Klinger designed a similar
newsletter that contained disparaging information concerning AAC to the
same mailing list. This list was used by RTC to contact members of the AAC
for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.

Mithoff also stole a copy of the NOTs materials that David Mayo had
rewritten, and he provided it to RTC. At one point before her “suicide” Flo
Barnett,  David Miscavige’s mother-in-law, became a member of the AAC. More
black operatives were sent into the AAC by RTC. Black operations included
renting the office above Mayo’s AAC to electronically bug him. At one point
private investigator Gene Ingram was hired to pose as an investigative
reporter and Mayo was duped into believing he was participating in a TV
program to promote his new group. Through Mithoff, it was learned that
David Mayo planned to travel abroad to Europe. Through investigator Gene
Igram, it was arranged to have Mayo stopped at customs as a suspected drug
dealer, which did happen, and he was detained for hours based on false
information by European customs officials. Gene Ingram received his
instructions on these matters from Gary Klinger, an executive in RTC.
Ingram’s fee was paid by CSI through the office of John Peterson, who was
retained as in-house counsel by CSC. As a note, John Peterson was not fully
aware of why his office paid private investigator expenses to Bob Mithoff.

Prior to Mayo writing his own version of the NOTs materials it was learned
through Mithoff that several other ex-Scientologists had copied and were
planning to use Scientology HCO P/Ls and HCOBs. A former mission holder,
Sarge Gerbode, had an ongoing project  to copy via computer all HCOPLs and
HCOBs and sell  them to Mayo or trade them for  Scientology OT materials.
Through Mithoff we learned that Mayo and Gerbode had come to an agreement
and Mayo’s new group was in fact more computerized than most Scientology
facilities.

As part of the weekly ASI meetings, Vicki and I were confronted by David
Miscavige concerning what we planned to do to put an end to Mayo and the
AAC. The first option we suggested was to bring a copyright suit against
the AAC. David Miscavige called in LRH Personal Secretary Pat Brice to get
a briefing on the status of current church copyright filings. He was sorely
disappointed when he found out that no one in the entirety of Scientology
was responsible for copyright filings since the Guardian’s Office had been
reorganized by him. He decided at that time to give Pat a project to file
for copyright protection ofall Scientology bulletins and policies. This is
the reason most Scientology copyright filings have a date starting in 1983
forward. The best option for the church to sue Mayo was through trade
secrets and trademarks. Then-RTC lawyer Joe Yanny recommended a RICO
complaint be drawn up, as evidence existed that David Mayo had formed
agreements with other  Scientology dissidents to exchange Scientology
materials to strengthen the alternative movement which David Mayo was the
leader of.

While all of this was going on Mayo and the AAC were successful in getting
a Temporary Restraining Order against RTC and CSI because of the constant
harassment and plants sent in. The specific incident which resulted in the
TRO was in fact when Gary Klinger posed as a Jewish rabbi and went to a
barbecue the AAC had one weekend and created havoc at the party. There is
no difference between the black operations executed by the “Old GO” and the
then new RTC.  Because of  the very nature of Scientology it will never
change.  L Ron Hubbard himself issued the marching orders for Scientology
to become a criminal organization and people are trained to lie from the
moment they walk in the door and take a Scientology course.

Almost immediately a person is taught how to use “ethics” to control
another. Example: Hubbard Policy Letter  29 April, 1965 titled  “Ethics
Review” instructs a person how to effectively harass and attack another, a
few quotes from the above mentioned P/L:

“Levels of Ethics Actions”

“Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:

“1. Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning it but only
inspecting it silently.

“2. Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.

“3. Requesting information by ethics personnel.

“4. Requesting information and inferring there is a diskiplinary potential
in the situation.

“5. Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

“6. Talking to the person derogatorily.”

The list get worse and worse. L Ron Hubbard was mentally ill for at least 4
years before he died that I know of through direct experience and
association. When Gerry Armstrong, Omar Garrison, Vaughn Young and Stacy
Young  all at one time or another tried to write a  biography of  L Ron
Hubbard based on his own records the records clearly showed he was mentally
disturbed much earlier as well.  As can be seen from the above-quoted
HCOPL, a NAZI like dedication to the “group” is required which in fact turn
people against one another in a spy-like fashion.  In Scientology, people
are dehumanized and in fact become members of a human ant family — you are
only as good as you produce for the group. The concept of self is
surrendered to the false idea  that “Scientology” is much more important
than individual life.

In the case of the RICO suit filed by RTC and CSI against the AAC, another
type of Scientology “ethics” was applied. L Ron Hubbard believed certain
words and catch phrases used together in a writing could have a
psychological  effect on the reader. The words and phrases are part of  a
confidential course called “R6 End Words” or “R6EW.” Hubbard ordered  his
“magic words” to be sewn into each and every legal motion and complaint
submitted to any court. Hubbard said by doing this a judge would
subconsciously become antagonistic to anyone trying to fight Scientology
with the current justice system.

It is not necessary to be a brain surgeon to see this as pretty crazy, but
because its so stupid the point can be lost. Hubbard thought he was
superior to his culture and sought to make a mockery of the way everyday
people live. In late 1952 Hubbard thought he had discovered something so
powerful with Dianetics that he had to protect us all from his own
invention. He wrote a journal called “Black Dianetics.” Here is how it
starts: “Death,  insanity, aberration, or merely a slavish obedience can be
efficiently effected by the use of Black Dianetics. Further, adequate laws
do not exist at this time to bar the use of these techniques. The law
provides that only the individual so wronged can make complaint or swear
out a warrant for offenders using these techniques.”

Well,  now you know why there is an organization of people that have ruined
lives and are a slave to the idea they are “saving the world.” Of course,
the organization I am talking about is Scientology’s  “Sea Org.” Sorry for
digressing so about this — back to Mayo.

The RICO suit was filed against the AAC and black operations against it by
RTC were at an all time high. There was a preliminary  injunction hearing
in the RICO case. The day before the hearing I was drilled by Earle Cooley
and other church lawyers as to what I would say because I was an expert
witness in this case. The fact of the matter is that I was drilled all day,
all that night and up until the time I arrived in the court room as to what
I would say as a witness. It’s funny  how Sandy Rosen, Scientology’s
replacement for Earle Cooley, asked me in my deposition in the FACTNet case
in Denver several weeks ago if I had been coached at all by my lawyer
before the deposition. He knows he works for criminals and that they are
the ones who commit the
crimes of which they accuse others.

RTC won its injunction against AAC, and Mayo was effectively shut down at
that point.

It is shameful to have been a part of  Scientology. I am grateful to be
free of it physically and mentally. I promise to work just as hard exposing
Scientology for what it is.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jesse Prince

Notes

Robert Vaughn Young: RVY Update by RVY (September 2, 1998)

Title: repost: RVY Update by RVY (Robert Vaughn Young)
Author: writer@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
Date: 2 Sep 1998 20:53:21 GMT

INTRODUCTION: The length of this post is relevant to its subject. It does
include some Scientologese. If you find a word you don’t understand, call
your local Dianetics or Scientology organization and ask them to define
it. They like people to do this. Be sure to tell them you are reading
alt.religion.scientology.

Hi, guys. Long time no write, which is what this post is really about.

I’ve been posting to ARS for a few years now and then I disappeared,
although I was occasionally in touch with several of you via email. I
want to tell you what’s been going on. Plus it will give the criminal cult
something to whine, bitch, carp, natter, scream, cry, rant about which
might get someone’s stats up there so they can get a day off to do their
laundry. (Boy, do I remember that routine!)

For those who don’t know me, I was in the cult for nearly 21 years. (I
know that Martin Hunt has archived some of my posts at
<http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/rvy/rvy.htm>.) Because I spoke out,
they had to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last five
years trying to silence me and probably even think they finally did it.
Right. Read on.

If you can manage about 7,000 words, this post will tell you more than the
cult wants you to know.

TRAVELS WITH JESSE

You’ve heard about Jesse Prince. Well, I was with him having a great time
in Southern California back in July, when he was at Dan Leipold’s law
offices. Of course, we were being followed by the Church of Paranoia’s
criminal Dept. 20 and typical of their ineptness, we slipped in behind
them and followed them for awhile. It was hilarious they way they
panicked, zipping and dashing about through traffic while we kept on their
tails, sometimes bumper-to-bumper, reading license plates and laughing our
heads off in this darling red Mustang convertible, with the top down.
(Hey, do it in style!) If this was a paid PI, Rinder should ask for a
refund as they were a pathetic joke. Anyway, we did it for a while and
then tired and left them, wondering if they would tell the truth in their
report how they screwed it up. Again.

Later I went back to Minneapolis, where Jesse lived. We spent a few days
there while he wrapped up things and then we toodled on over to Chicago to
visit relatives and hung out in the Windy City for a few days, checking
out everything from the music clubs to Lake Michigan. I had my dog Mac
with me and we romped on the sands and down in the water, having a great
time. (Meanwhile someone told me the OSA sock puppets on ARS were saying
how I’ve disappeared. Yup. With Jesse in a red Mustang convertible. LOL!)

From there we went south to visit more relatives, caring less if the
paranoid criminal cult was tracking us. Let em spend Travolta’s money to
get nuttin’. After a few days here and there, we turned west and ambled
across Kansas  (spare me from EVER driving across Kansas again) and into
Colorado.

HELP! RVY IS MISSING!

So while the OSA sock puppets were claiming I was missing, they were lying
to you. (I’m shocked!) They knew I was with Jesse. (In fact, we enjoyed it
that they knew. It’s called “critical mass.”) They just hated it that two
very good friends were having such a good time!

I should have mentioned that earlier. Jesse and I go back many years, into
the cult. He and I are old buddies and it was great spending many weeks
with him. He is as outrageous as ever. Runt leader David Miscavige was
always afraid of him and as evidenced by the tantrums of his sock puppets,
he’s still afraid. (By the way, if you ever want to see a good portrayal
of the runt-punk, watch Al Pachino’s character in the movie “Scarface,”
who can’t complete a sentence without three forms of the word “fuck.” But
perhaps the best example of life with DM is truly Kevin Spacey’s abusive
character in the movie “Swimming With Sharks,” which takes place in
Hollywood. Small world. But then so is DM.)

ON BEING A WRITER

As to what I else I have been doing and will be doing, I am doing some
intense writing and in such an effort – for those of you who haven’t had
the experience – it requires considerable time and solitude. And in my
case, more than usual, as you will find out.

It was no accident that I chose the handle “writer” when I set up my
Eskimo.com account years ago. I’ve been writing all of my life. It is
not only a love of the Muse but it can be a curse, as many a writer will
tell you. Mine was both.

I did a lot of writing in the cult, but there is little there of any
pride. Since then, I won some awards but nothing else captivated me until
now. So sit back and let me tell you how it happened. I think some of you
will find some of this interesting.

THE HUBBARD ARCHIVES

Let’s start in late 1981, when I happened to acquire the archives that
contained Hubbard’s private papers. (These were the ones that Gerry
Armstrong started.) The truly essential material came down to perhaps 15
linear feet of paper. Over the months, with nothing else to do, I had a
chance to read private letters, papers and manuscripts (including the
three, yes, three, versions of the infamous Excalibur, which has to be the
most overblown piece of hype he EVER produced and, no, it has NOTHING to
do with OT3), which also gave me the full uncensored view of this man. I
read everything from love letters to (and from and about) his mistresses,
his girlfriends (such as Fern, who gave him the clap, forcing him to
secretly take sulfa), his private pornographic ramblings (he liked to draw
penises and vaginas around the margins in red ink, which gave the page a
grisly look), his black magic material, his letters to family, wives (in
the early 1950s, while having mistress Barbara on the side and at the same
time preaching about the dangers of illicit relationships), editors and
even to himself, as journals.

There was one problem with what I read. It didn’t match what we
(collectively then, meaning the organization) were saying about Hubbard
and what Hubbard, based on what he had say to say. When I tried to gently
point this out, the Shinola hit the fan. It didn’t matter that it was in
Hubbard’s own hand. It didn’t match the story he put out so – straight out
of “1984” – it didn’t exist. (These documents were later confiscated and
sealed away to make sure no staff see them but enough of us did –
including a few still on staff (hi, guys!) – so it can be verified
someday, if it comes to that. But that is another story.)

WRITING FOR HUBBARD

In the years that followed, Hubbard and I had a fascinating relationship
because I was intrigued with him as a writer and I found I could easily
mimick his style, which came in handy later.

But in 1982, drawing from the archival material, I proposed the idea of
the “Ron” magazines. Hubbard loved the idea and we cranked out the first
issue which is a serious collector’s item. (Because Stacy and I produced
it, it no longer officially exists. It is an Orwellian non-mag.)

BIOGRAPHIES AND GHOSTS

At one point I was tagged to be his biographer but the biography went the
way of all the other attempts, ranging from Omar Garrison to Fletcher
Prouty. (Meanwhile I was identified as such, from the San Luis Obispo
paper to the Washington Post in Scientology-produced stories that it is
difficult for the cult to rewrite.)

I also ghosted for Hubbard, meaning I wrote material for which he was
credited, which was not uncommon. I wrote everything from these short
little greetings that were sent to events (staff and public always thought
that Hubbard was writing to them, which always showed us how gullible they
were) to policy letters (I wrote the current disconnection policy with
some help at the end of it by Ray Mitoff, who ghosted a lot of the
technical material and issued it under Hubbard’s name) to ghosting
sections of his “Mission Earth” series, while I was editing it. (And boy,
is THAT another story! Whew!)

HUBBARD’S DEATH

When Hubbard died, everything changed. (duh) I went to the death site (his
ranch at Creston, near San Luis Obispo CA) that night along with David
Miscavige and some attorneys. Since none of us – including Miscavige – had
ever been there, we were met at a restaurant by Pat Broeker who took us to
the ranch. We arrived at perhaps 4 a.m. (Hubbard was found dead at about 8
p.m. I was told at 10. We left LA at perhaps 1 a.m. I wasn’t always
watching the clock, given the circumstances.)

What’s amusing in the cult’s attempt to DA me is their saying that I went
to the ranch along with some gardeners and cooks. Right. Gardeners and
cooks were the first to be rushed up that night, before the authorities
were called or the body taken away. ROFL! Don’t you just love these guys!

Creston was where the story was put together that he had moved on to the
next level of research, or however it was worded, when it was announced at
the Palladium and to the world. The event was so carefully constructed
that no one noticed that something essential was missing, but Ill get to
that in a moment. But during the event, I stayed at the ranch to deal with
any media who might show up or call. None did and less than 48 hours
later, the Challenger space shuttle blew up, bumping news of his death and
any serious questions from the media. I was monitoring the TV news via a
satellite dish and watched it happen and reported it. While the rest of
the world was in shock, DM was happy because we had been bumped from the
news. But that is how one comes to view the world at that echelon.

THE NEWBERRY RANCH

I later moved to another ranch Hubbard owned, at Newberry Springs, east
of Barstow CA and stayed there for a couple of months. Hubbard never
visited it (it was merely a fallback location for him) and I never did see
that anyone learned about this one, even the media. I guess they were all
hung up on the Creston property, near San Luis Obispo, where he died.

The most lasting benefit of my stay at Newberry was that that was where I
stopped smoking. One day DM, Mitoff, Pat Broeker, Mike Eldridge and I were
sitting around and we all agreed to stop smoking, although Broeker was the
only non-smoker. Mitoff had a horrible time of it. He ended up on Skoal
Bandits, spitting disgustingly into a bucket while driving back and forth
to LA, and also addicting me to the little cusses. In the end, I was the
only one who stopped, making me wish we had put some money in a pool.

In the months I spent between the Creston and Newberry ranches, Pat and I
became good friends. He had been Hubbard’s closest and most trusted aide
and confident for those final years. With what I already  knew about
Hubbard, Pat and I had the greatest talks. Sometimes Pat and I were the
only ones at the ranch, so we eould chat while moving horses or going to
town to shop. I began to learn about the life Hubbard had lead while in
hiding for those last years, moving between towns in the Bluebird bus and
finally settling down in Creston. (BTIAS)

THE STRUGGLE STARTS – WHO WILL REPLACE HUBBARD?

Meanwhile, a power struggle was brewing to see who would take control of
Scientology and Newberry was the place where many of the discussions
occurred while DM stayed either in LA or in Hemet. (Jesse will have
something to say about that someday because he was seriously involved in
the ensuing explosion.) It would result in a number of people fleeing
(such as Jesse) or going to the RPF (such as me).

A key element in the power struggle was Hubbard’s last message to the
rank-and-file. Those who were in the cult back in 1986-87 will remember
this incident. It was a message from Hubbard that was issued as a Sea Org
directive. It said goodbye, wishing them well and establishing a new
rank/position called Loyal Officer or LO. (The term is taken from OT3.)
Pat was to be the  LO1 and his wife Annie was to be LO2 and it basically
turned the management of the Sea Org over to them. And since the SO ran
Scientology, that meant they were at the top of the heap. DM was not
mentioned in the directive. It was later was issued to all staff –
with DM’s approval and authority – reduced in size and put in a small
fram with a photo of Hubbard for the desk of every staff member.

In the meantime, Pat began to slowly take control. I would often get phone
calls from him. He would never identify himself on the phone, going back
to his years of tight security, but merely would say, “Hi, it’s me.”

I won’t try to give the details of the ensuing power struggle because I
was in LA and it was happened at Creston, Newberry and Hemet. (I leave it
to Jesse, who was there.) But the outcome was that Miscavige won. And
typical of any political coup, there was a sudden purge as he consolidated
his power. Anyone DM thought might be a friend of Broeker’s who would pose
a threat were sent to Scientology’s equivalent of Lubayanka Prison or
Siberia: the RPF, so I went. For 16 months and three escape attempts.

Now here is where it gets interesting, folks.

MISCAVIGE CANCELS HUBBARD’S MESSAGE

While I was on the RPF, a directive came out from Miscavige saying the
supposed final message from Hubbard that named Broeker was a forgery by
Broeker and it was being canceled. That same day, Annie Broeker appeared
on the RPF. This was not the Annie I had come to know. What stumbled into
the RPF was a completely broken person. She was pale and hollow and her
eyes were empty. There was no mistaking it. She had been broken and only
now was she being thrown away into the trash heap called the RPF. Even
then, she was kept under guard, just to be sure.

TWO IMPORTANT OMITTEDS

With the cancellation of the message from Hubbard, there were now two
vital things missing that were 100% Hubbard and 100% standard tech and
yet no one seemed to notice or, if they did, no one dared to remark on it.
But then, as Hubbard correctly pointed out, the hardest thing to notice is
the thing that is omitted.

What was now missing was (1) something from Hubbard to all Scientologists
saying goodbye and what he was doing and (2) something that passed his
hat, which is one of the most basic tenets in the organization. They had
been missing at the event announcing his death but with the cancellation
by Miscavige, they were missing more than ever.

WHERE WAS HUBBARD’S MESSAGE?

One does not require much knowledge about L. Ron Hubbard to know that it
would be completely unlike him to simply leave – especially if the story
about his going off to do more research were true – and not leave a
message. So if he HAD left as Scientologists were told, where was the
message if the other was a forgery?

But perhaps more importantly, where was the hat turnover? I don’t mean the
volumes of policies and bulletins. I mean something that says, I hereby
appoint Joe Blow to take over as… Would Hubbard leave the planet and not
pass on the command? Hardly.

Or let’s put it in one of the most basic tenets from Hubbard: if it isn’t
written, it isn’t true.

(Note: Hubbard’s will was hardly a Scientology hat turnover and has not
been issued to the rank and file as policy.)

So the question became (to those of us who wondered), if the LO directive
was a forgery, where was the real one? Where were Hubbard’s wishes IN
WRITING?

MISCAVIGE HAD NOTHING FROM HUBBARD

Of course, DM never provided anything and no one was willing to ask and
risk being sent to the RPF with the rest of us. He said it was a forgery
and that was that. End of discussion.

For the rest of my stay in the cult, Pat Broeker was never mentioned
because, in the cult, you learn what to not talk about. Pat became what in
Orwell’s “1984” is a non-person. He had been written out of history, with
anyone who cared (such as me) being sent to the RPF or interrogated
(security checked) until they got the point, which meant (per the head on
a pike policy) that everyone else got the message.

So without a shred of WRITTEN evidence from Hubbard and by canceling what
even DM had first agreed was from Hubbard, Miscavige was now in control
while Broeker had disappeared.

Can you say, “coup”?

But hold on! It gets better.

READING THE MATERIAL ANEW

After Stacy and I fled the cult in 1989, I put it all behind me. I simply
wanted my life back and the last thing I needed was to think about the
cult. They had taken enough of my life without my adding more. But after a
couple of years of drying out, Stacy and I were invited to help with some
legal cases and this gave us a chance to handle the material that once
handled us. We could now read Hubbard and TALK about the material, which
is completely forbidden in the cult. It was like back-flushing a radiator
and watching what comes out.

I came across a copy of Miscavige’s cancellation of Hubbards final message
and I began to kick it around with Stacy. As we talked, I started to
comment on the various little oddities, starting with the cancellation
itself. I began to remember a few others that I had packed away at the
time. We were having a conversation that Sea Org staff could no more do
than a loyal Communists might question the a change of power in the
Kremlin, and for the same reasons.

AN “ACCEPTABLE TRUTH” IS FED SCIENTOLOGISTS

In the weeks and months that followed, I couldn’t shake the events
surrounding Hubbard’s death and DM’s takeover. Little oddities took on
forms like pieces of a jig saw puzzle. I felt like an amnesiac trying to
recover his memory yet what was there to recover? I was there at the
ranch. I was there when Hubbard’s body was taken out. I was there when the
execs were called up the ranch and told to get an event together, but not
being told why. I was there when the attorneys reported his death and then
scurried to get the body through the coroner. Etc, etc, etc. So what was
the problem? Yeah, the next higher level of research story was the sort of
pap we used to feed the rank-and-file all the time but it wasn’t as if we
LIED to them. (Sort of the way Clinton said he didn’t LEGALLY lie.) We
didn’t LEGALLY lie, did we?

Per Hubbard’s policy, they were given an “acceptable truth” because of
“the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” What that means
in plain speak was that there would be panic and disaffection in the ranks
if it was thought that Hubbard – the OT of all OTs, of course – was not at
cause over life and death. If the tech couldn’t help him, how could it
help others? That was the myth that had to be protected at all costs and
that was what the story did when his death was announced. It fed the myth
that everyone so wanted to believe. (And it kept the money coming in.)

WORKING WITH PUZZLE PIECES

While in the cult, I had done a lot of investigative reporting and some of
the best I did was working on some of the CIA’s mind control documents
created under the code name MK ULTRA. When the CIA released them, much was
blanked out and working with a team of people hand-selected by Stacy, we
went through documents that the media had skipped past because they were
so fragmentary and so heavily deleted. In one file, for example, there
were receipts for the installation of mufflers on a 1953 Mercury, a tiny
battery-powered motor, elevator tickets to the Empire State Building, nose
plugs, a receipt for someone to attend a Microscropy convention, etc.

Bit by bit, we struggled to give them meaning until one piece cracked
another, like breaking a code. We came up with the experiment and got
national news on Operation Big City where bacillus were released (through
the mufflers) to test for bacterial warfare. (The elevator tickets were so
agents could go up and measure the amount of released bacteria.) It is a
story the cult still likes to cite, along with several others I did for
them, under my byline in the Freedom rag. Since then, per Orwell, my name
has been deleted, of course.

Pouring over those heavily deleted CIA documents was how I felt like while
I chewed on the oddities around Hubbard’s death, such as nothing in
writing from him, Broeker missing, the fact that Denk (Hubbard’s physician
at the time of death) had also disappeared, Annie’s appearance and little
things that I had seen and learned at the ranch.

THE BLUE FLASH

And then it hit me. It was what Hubbard calls a blue flash, the sudden
insight.

Hubbard didn’t die.

He was killed.

I fell back in my chair, completely stunned. In all of the years since
1986, I had never once considered that possibility. Even with my being
long out of the cult and directing criticism at various practices and
policies, the thought had never crossed my mind that Hubbard might have
been killed.

I got a sheet of paper and began to take notes, my heart pounding and my
breathing hurried. That nagging feeling had turned into an adrenaline rush
that I couldn’t explain.

Who was there at the Creston ranch when Hubbard died?

* Pat Broeker – MIA.

* Annie Broeker – broken, under their control.

* Two Scientology ranch hands. While trusted to work on the ranch, I
came to see how much they were kept out of the loop.

* Gene Denk – Hubbard’s personal physician. (And mine. Small world.)
Denk had disappeared for a year after the death, which was one of those
oddities, before returning to his practice up the street from the main
Hollywood complex.

End of list, a too-short list so I started to add who went up that night
in the three-car caravan that included DM, some attorneys and a couple of
us “gardeners and cooks.” Nothing there.

I looked at the list. Pat Broeker was the only possibility, if he was out
and alive. For all I knew, he was dead or locked up somewhere and in a
mental state that approximated cold oatmeal. There was no middle ground.
He wouldn’t have been given a safe back-lines job or I would have heard
about it.

SEARCHING FOR BROEKER

So how would I find Pat Broeker, if he was alive. I racked my memory,
trying to dig out some clue he might have given me in the months that we
were together but I came up with nothing. My tendency to not inquire about
a person’s personallife had just sold me short. I didn’t even know what
state he was from. Who might? Who would know where he came from or where
he was born? I needed some clue to start the search and the problem was
the security that Pat used for his job. He had explained to me how any
trace of him had been wiped out, to ensure that no one could find Hubbard
by finding him. Plus if Pat had escaped or fled, he was skilled enough to
hide from any search as that was what he had been doing for years to hide
Hubbard from the authorities.

I finally remembered one location he told me about and sent a message
there saying that I was trying to reach him but no reply came. After a few
months I sent another and waited. The months turned into nearly a year and
I basically gave up until one day when the phone rang.

“Hello?” I said.

“Hi,” came a voice. “It’s me.”

I paused, saying nothing.

“Pat?” I finally said with some incredulity. “Is that you?”

“Yeah,” he said, with what I swear was a twinkle in his voice. “How are
you?”

What a question!

RINDER WAKES UP

Let’s jump ahead a few years when I was in a deposition in Denver, in the
FACTNet case. The usual goon squad was there, including Mike Rinder, who
proudly heads up the criminal Dept. 20 where Scientology’s felons are
produced. Rinder was struggling to stay awake in the corner while the cult
attorney was going through a list of names, wanting to know if I had
spoken with any of them. Rinder’s head was bobbing as the attorney asked
monotonously, “Pat Broeker?”

I glanced at Rinder. I had to enjoy this one.

“Yes,” I said.

I couldn’t have gotten a faster reaction with a bucket of water. Rinder
jumped awake and looked at me in shock, fear and hatred. I smiled.

The questions about my involvement with Broeker were routine, from a list
that they asked for each person I named but Broeker wasn’t routine. They
soon stopped to take a break. Like the good sock puppet that he is, Rinder
dashed out of the room, obviously to call DM. (I so wish I could have
watched DM’s face too.) About 15 minutes later, Rinder returned and shoved
some questions at the attorney and the depo continued. But little was
gained and not one question was asked about what Pat might have told me
about Hubbard’s death, if he had at all. They clearly didn’t want it
on the record, under oath. I found it amusing, this great powerful cult
was so terrified of the subject, not to mention Broeker.

So let me tell you a little bit about Pat: he’s doing fine and his sense of
humor has improved. End of a little bit.

THE CORONER’S REPORT

Now lets back up a tad, before Pat and I spent several days together,
going over old times. I went to San Luis Obispo, the county seat for where
Hubbard died. It was there that I got the full coroner’s report from a
very friendly deputy sheriff. I poured over the pages and noticed that
something called Vistaril was found in Hubbard’s blood. Since the cause of
death was a stroke, I assumed it was a stroke medication so I didn’t
bother further. Several days later, I called a physician friend and was
going over the documents and the medical language.

“By the way,? I asked casually, “what’s Vistaril?”

“A psychiatric tranquilizer,” he answered matter-of-factly.

I nearly dropped the phone.

“Excuse me,” I said in near-shock, “but what did you say?”

“Vistaril is a psychiatric tranquilizer, usually injected through the
buttocks.”

I flipped to the document where the Coroner had examined Hubbard’s body. I
read it to my friend, about the needle puncture wounds found on the left
buttock, under a band-aid. “Could that be the Vistaril shots,” I asked.

“Probably,” he said. “That’s where they are usually given.”

I looked at the Coroner’s report and the blood sample report.

Holy shit, I said to myself, in my best French. Holy fucking shit.

THE AUTOPSY IS PROHIBITED

I pulled out another document, signed by Hubbard. It prohibited any
autopsy of his body on religious grounds, which was legally binding on
officials. DM and attorney Earle Cooley had shoved it at the coroner to
stop him, leaving him to take only blood samples, which turned up the
Vistaril.

So, I thought, L. Ron Hubbard, the man who fought psychiatry since 1950
and who railed against the dangers of any psychiatric drugs had died with
them in his brain while signing a new last will.

Plus even the coroner was suspicious of the will as it had been signed by
Hubbard just before he died. Coincidences like that tend to make coroner’s
worry. (I wonder what the coroner would have thought had he known that
Denk was gambling at Lake Tahoe when Hubbard had his stroke, as several
people can attest. The impression the coroner had was that Denk was “in
attendence” with Hubbard not only at death but was there at the stroke,
having stayed at the ranch for months. Hmmm….)

I fell back in my chair, trying to catch my breath.

OUTPOINTS? WHAT OUTPOINTS?

Okay, I said to myself, lets see if we understand this. Hubbard signs a
will while on the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril and then dies. The
coroner cannot conduct an autopsy because Hubbard also signed a paper
(also while on Vistaril?) prohibiting an autopsy on religious grounds. The
Scientologist doctor who was in attendance (except when he went to Lake
Tahoe and Hubbard had the stroke) signs the death certificate as the
physician attending to Hubbard and then disappears for a year. Then even
though David Miscavige has nothing else in writing from Hubbard, he
cancels Hubbard’s last message and hat transfer to trusted aide Broeker
and ousts Broeker, who disappears while his wife is turned into a
compliant vegetable, leaving DM in charge.

Nope, nothing wrong here, I facetiously thought. No outpoints, borrowing
Hubbard’s word for oddities.

I had to take a walk.

STARTING WITH A TITLE

I don’t know when it was but I clearly remember a particular moment when I
sat down at my computer keyboard. I am one of those writers who needs
either the opening words of the article or a working title in order to
really start. I had a working title, not for an article, but a book, and I
typed it out. Then I leaned back in my chair, took a deep breath and read
it. It said, “Who Killed L. Ron Hubbard?”

I leaned back and my eyes roamed over each word and letter. I took in the
question and then the words and letters and back to the question. I even
digested the tiny pixels on the screen, as if I hoped the answer would
leap from the phosphorescence but nothing changed but the black cursor
blinking at me, almost mocking my effort. Yes, I thought, it is a
pretentious question but it was the one I had to try to answer, if there
was an answer.

Then I had the exact moment for the opening words. It was on the night
that Terri Gamboa – former Executive Director of Author Services, Inc.
and now out of Scientology – called me to DM’s office where I was told
that Hubbard had died and that I would be going to his ranch.

THE WRITING STARTS

I leaned towards the keyboard and began to write. To my amazement, the
words and the scene poured out effortlessly. I wasn’t striving for
literature. I merely had to capture the scene.

As the cursor flitted across the screen, I began to remember how it
happened that night and into the days that followed. There was more that I
needed to remember but for now, this would do. Let it roll, I told myself.
Let it roll. It was as if I was regaining myself.

Perhaps six or so hours later, I finally stopped, exhausted and
sufficiently satisfied for the moment. But even then, I found it difficult
to sleep as my mind kept returning to the ranch, Broeker, DM, the RPF, the
Challenger disaster, Newberry, the ambulance taking away his body. I was
searching for pieces of a puzzle that had no comprehension.

And how could I possibly answer the question?

HOOKED ON HUBBARD

What ensued over the next few years was more of a personal journey than a
professional quest, meaning – as I came to learn very recently – because
it was as much a search for closure on part of my life as it was a search
for the story. But then, that is so often the case with writers, as anyone
who has studied literature knows.

As I pursued it/him/me, it took me around the country and into subjects
that I never expected, such as meeting with police who were involved in
the investigation of the odd suicide of Flo Barnett, David Miscavige’s
mother-in law. She was found with several shots to the chest with the coup
de grace to the temple, all from a rifle. (At one point, the cult grilled
me in a deposition about her death, asking if I had any evidence of any
foul play. No, I said, which made them happy. They failed to ask me if
anyone else has any evidence. Scientology: Knowing how to know. Yup.)

I even came across people who claimed to know about Miscavige’s
in-the-cult-sex life, via accounts from his wife Shelly. (Scientology
confessional methods have an interesting rippling effect.) If true, I felt
sorry for her.

THE WRITING STALLS

But when I tried to continue my writing, it stalled and I struggled. At
one point I became so disillusioned that I killed the idea for nearly a
year as a ridiculous obsession but then like a weed taking root, it
sprouted again but only to wither and die in my inspirational drought. Was
it the subject or was it me? Had my disregard of the Muse prompted a like
response?

I had not written anything truly worthwhile since 1991, when my article
for San Diego Magazine won two journalism awards, from the Society of
Professional Journalist and the San Diego Press Club. The article was
about the dangers in the flight pattern of the San Diego airport, from the
perspective of the pilots who flew it.

When we fled the cult in 1989, we settled in Ocean Beach, on the Point
Loma Peninsula because of the nearby Dog Beach where a hundred canines
would romp on any given summer day. The downside was that Ocean Beach was
in the westerly flight path of Lindbergh Field and the roar of the jets
above us garnered enough attention to prompt my learning that the flight
path was the target of a citizens group. They in turn introduced me to
pilots who were concerned about the safety of the eastern approach and my
journalistic tendencies took over and the magazine accepted my query.

The article was woven around a hypothetical flight approaching Lindbergh
Field that I had constructed from interviews with a dozen experienced
commercial pilots, moving the reader from cockpit to the airport back to
cockpit to FAA regulations and back to cockpit and then to buildings that
loomed in the pilot’s eyes as he seemingly navigated them like the cars a
few hundred feet below. The pilot’s called it a “white knuckle landing.”

Braiding these elemtns was a thrill and a challenge and the article drew
more letters of praise than anything the magazine had published in years,
the editor told me, prompting them to publish letters for the next three
months. They received only one critical letter, from a Coast Guard pilot
who liked the approach. I guess he loved the thrill.

WRITING FOR THE REAL WORLD

When my name was announced as the best news magazine article at the awards
banquet for the San Diego Press Club, I was stunned for two reasons. Yes,
winning was a thrill. But there was a more important reason: I had
succeeded as a writer. I hadn’t written it according to “policy” or to
fulfill some program step or as an amends project or to attack some
imagined enemy. My editor didn’t require that I include certain buttons and
attack phrases and the article didn’t need i/a or issue authority to be
certain that it forwarded the most current Party Line. It was MY article
and I had chosen the style and techniques and my professional peers
applauded as I walked to the podium to accept the plaque.

THIS was what writing was about, I realized: the freedom to write without
propaganda or Party Line, without a Big Brother looking over my
shoulder, as if I am the old Soviet Union.

Suddenly there was a separation between what I had been doing for 20 years
in the cult and what writing truly was about. All one has to do is pick up
any Scientology publication, especially their rag called Freedom and watch
the propaganda drip off the page like the rotting garbage it is. What
astounded me was how I had come to believe that this was writing, not
unlike how writers for Pravda probably felt during the Communist regime.
But writing for Pravda or Freedom is to writing what prostitutes are to
love and for the same reason.

RETURNING TO THE MUSE

And so I began to long to return to my greatest and dearest love and I
realized that just as the cult had drained my creativity by demanding
propaganda instead of art, so had my post-cult days. A piece that I wrote
for Quill magazine about how Scientology manipulates the media
(http://www.scientology.no.net/archive/media/young-quill.html) was
informative but it was hardly satisfying to me as a writer. Another that I
wrote for Der Spiegel magazine about the top secret Snow White program
(http://cisar.org/g50925ae.htm) was as satisfying as eating cardboard
because it appeared in German. How can a writer see and judge the final
piece if he/she cant even read it? At least it hd some photos.

I began to ask myself, what am I doing? In the cult they wanted propaganda
pieces attacking imagined enemies that made the cult executives feel good
when they read them. (That is always the most important audience for such
propaganda. It makes the members feel as if this is reality and truth when
it is nothing but one’s own sock puppet show.) And outside of the cult, I
was writing stories and giving sound bites about Scientology, whether it
be for a newspaper, magazine or TV show. Where was I as a writer, other
than as an email address? So I turned more to cats than cults. At least
they purred.

HOW IT WENT OFF THE RAILS

With some help, I began to see what had happened to me. During my nearly
21 years in the cult, I had sold my creative soul as certainly as if I had
worked for a money-grubbing ad agency, and in that regard, the two aren’t
any different. My proudest achievement – the San Diego story – came after
the cult and before I started consulting on Scientology cases and writing
about the cult. As a writer, I had moved from one cult to another. It was
no wonder that I had spun my wheels for years on that book. I realized
that if I am to regain that joy of writing so the Muse can inspire me to
the completion of any effort, it had to recapture what I was free to do a
few years earlier. But to do that, to entice the Muse to return, I have to
step away from this arena for as long as it takes, whether it be a month
or a year. The Muse works not by deadlines.

How did I come to all of this? At a little retreat called Wellspring in
southern Ohio, where I was able to relax and write and walk with Mac and
talk with friends about any subject I pleased. I could arise in the middle
of the night, as I often did, to pound out something on my laptop until I
wanted to crash until my next inspiration, whatever the hour. Meanwhile,
the kitchen downstairs was stocked for any meal or snack, or prepared for
me if I wanted to devote my time to my own recovery rather than making
dinner. Or I could walk the rolling hills with Mac and a few others of his
species and enjoy the fading purple Ironwood flowers, indicating the end
of summer. Or if the silence was too much, I could watch TV or go into
nearby Athens (a college town, for Ohio University) and enjoy a coffee
house, movie or a good used bookstore, the kind found only in college
towns.

CULTS VS. CREATIVITY

Yes, I realized, this is definitely the type of place that Scientology
would hate for it allows freedom and creativity. They would have to hate
it and pump the propaganda just as Pravda attacked the institutions west
of the Berlin Wall that represented the antithesis of the official Kremlin
Party Line. Any true freedom challenges boundaries, especially those that
pretend to be otherwise, as Communism pretended to be the bastion of true
peace and freedom. One can even find and measure totalitarian systems by
their knee-jerk party lines and Scientology is among the best. I know
because I did it for so very long from inside, and then became their
target from this other side.

Wellspring was important because they know what it is like to try to be
free in an abusive environment, whether it be a marriage or a cult or a
job. (They work with a lot of abused women.) Abuse is abuse. Terror is
terror. It differs by degrees and it rips away individuality and
creativity and future for the individual.

But at Wellspring, I was free to write and to peel away the barriers to my
own creativity that included not only the cult but post-cult and pre-cult
experiences, even back to the days when I wrote for school papers or for
the anti-war movement in San Francisco or a political campaign, of which
there were several for me in the 1960s. It was no wonder I was so
qualified to produce propaganda for an abusive cult. I had been writing
propaganda for years!

This is what my two weeks at Wellspring gave me, amongst other insights.
(Results will vary, as label disclaimers remind us.)(laugh) But it was
what I needed to regain a personal integrity that any abusive system,
especially a cult, despises.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

So that is what I was doing, am doing and going to do and it will require
concentration and reflection and time which is why I’ve not been on ARS
and won’t be, for as long as I must.

My apologies to many friends who have left messages or sent me mail and
gotten no reply. It’s difficult to explain why one is so involved with an
idea or a project or any creative effort, so that virtually nothing else
exists. I usually don’t even like to talk about it or discuss it. Stacy is
an exception because she has followed this journey since it started. It
was when she told me how many were reaching her to ask about me that I
realized it would be rude to continue to say nothing, given the role I
have played in this endeavor. (I even shared this post with her before
sending it.)

So don’t take it personal if you get no reply. Consider it just the
eccentricity that some writers get into when they latch onto an idea and
lock themselves away or take long walks or won’t talk to anyone and get up
at all hours of the night (it is 4:30 a.m. as I type this), chewing on an
idea, a style, a voice, a scene, a thread and then throwing it all away
and starting again or merely prowling for more information or even
traveling with a friend or a dog to take a break.

My intention is merely to restore and rebuild the creative self I touched
earlier and then decide on my direction. It is not a matter of disdain for
hack writing. That is snobbery. There is a place and time for classic hack
writing just as there is a place for great B movies. Few of us can live on
pure diets of Shakespeare, Mozart and Kant.

KEYBOARDS AND FREEDOM

What does this have to do with the original idea that I was writing about?
The best answer I can give is, we’ll see. Besides, there is more to write
about, including fiction. Or I might find another airport.

Besides, with HTML and the Net, writing (not to mention publication) has
changed. One no longer needs a footnote or an appendix with documents when
HTML can link to a document, a map, a photograph or even a video. A writer
who knows HTML – which I have had the good fortune to learn – has greater
opportunities and options and freedoms.

It used to be said that freedom of the press belonged to those who owned
one. Well, with the Internet, that freedom can now belong to anyone with a
keyboard and THAT is what dries the mouth, puckers the hole and strikes
fear in the heart of every tyrant. What Tom Paine could have done today!

So there you are, a writer’s account of himself, past, present and future.
It is long because it is easier than ever to write. Never has a keyboard
felt so clean and comfortable. I hope each of you, especially those in a
cult or out of a cult, have a chance to find YOUR true talent and purpose.
It is what the world needs.

Keep the faith.

Robert Vaughn Young
with a keyboard as a writer@eskimo.com

P.S Wellspring has a web page at <wellspring.albany.oh.us>.

Notes

 

Aznaran v. Scientology: Brief for Appellees (August 22, 1990)

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.1

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Appellees VICKI J. AZNARAN and
RICHARD N. AZNARAN

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

NO. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE REQUIRED THE NINTH CIRCUIT _________COURT OF APPEALS RULE 28-2.1_________

 

The undersigned counsel of record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran certifies that other than parties to this appeal, the following parties have an interest in the outcome of this case.

– i –

Bent Corydon
Gerry Armstrong Martin Samuels
Marjorie Wakefield Nancy Dincalci
Gabriel Cazares Kima Douglas
Tonja Burden Robert Dardano
William Franks Laurel Sullivan
Homer Schomer Edward Walters
Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne

With the exception of Bent Cordon, the aforementioned parties, all former Scientologists, have executed settlement agreements with Scientology which include releases containing obstruction of justice provisions of the same type and nature Scientology will enforce against appellees Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran if it prevails in the herein appeal. Moreover, pursuant to such agreements, in each court case connected with each said party, with the exception of Bent Corydon, the court file has been sealed.

Attorney of Record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran

– ii –

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF CASES…………………… vii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ……. 1
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………… 3
A. Jurisdiction of the District Court …….. 3
B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have
Jurisdiction Over This Appeal ………..
3
1. The Motion For Summary Judgment ……. 4
2. The Motion For Reconsideration ….. 5
3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction … 5
4. The Notice Of Appeal…………. 6
5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final …… 6
6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject For Appellate Review …………… 8
7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation ……… 9
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………….. 13
A. Nature Of The Case…………… 13
B. Factual Background …………… 14
C. The Substance Of The Releases………. 23 23

– iii –

Page
III. THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS …………… 25
A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal………. 25
1. Introduction…………….. 26
2. Standard Of Review…………. 26
3. Preliminary Legal Principles …….. 27
B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void………… 29
C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void………… 32
D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal……………… 34
1. Scientology’s Contentions ……… 34
2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran’s Declarations ……………. 35
a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988……….. 35
b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988……….. 37
c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989……….. 38
d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989………. 40

– iv –

Page
3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989 41
4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation … 45
5. Conclusion…………….. 45
IV. SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED…………. 45
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . …….. 46
A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed …. 46
B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment…………. 48
C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case………….. 50
D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways………….. 51
E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction ………… 52

– v –

Page
VI. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION …………..
54
A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable………. 54
1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For
A Preliminary Injunction ……….
56
2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below
17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction ……..
57
3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm …. 60
B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability ………….. 61
C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit……………. 65
D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment…………. 69
E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits……………… 71
F. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans . . 77
G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest … 78
VII. THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS………….. 80
CONCLUSION 80

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page
Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525………………. 9
Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797……. 16, 44
Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31……. 30, 31
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521…………….. 50
Associated Press v. United States 326 US 1……… 79
Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110 ………….. 57
Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749……………… 7
Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 36 L.Ed.2d 420…………. 47
Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608……………. 30, 31
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 46 L.Ed.2d 659………… 57, 67
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1………………… *, *
C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 154 P.2d 710…………. 73
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 84 L.Ed. 1213……… 57, 62, 68
Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79………………… 51
Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97………… 75

– vii –

Cases Page
Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701…………….. 52
Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328……………. 49
Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) …………. 43
Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273…………….. 54
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402………………… 48
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541…………………. 3
Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401……….. 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41
Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252……………….. 57
Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529……… 74
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 45 L.Ed.2d 648…………. 47
Dymo Industries, Inc. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141…………….. 49
Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34…………… 29
Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 US 347………….. 78
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1……………….. 57, 58
F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426 ……………. 3, 12
Fabrege, Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426……………. 49

– viii –

Cases Page
First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388………………… 27
Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 233 P.2d 606……….. 29
Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212…………….. 70
Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448……………. 71
Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 97 L.Ed. 828………….. 62
Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076………….. 57, 59
Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 57 L.Ed.2d 364………….. 8
Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618 …………… 54
Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704…………. 69
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 99 L.Ed.2d 296………… 8, 13
Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983 …………… 57
Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122……………… 9
Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171……………. 57
In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451……………. 54
International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547…………….. 49
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430………….. 69, 70

– ix –

Cases Page
J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187…………….. 49
Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817…………….. 50
Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349 ….. 75
Kass v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037 ………….. 51
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 US 753…………………. 79
Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105…………….. 7
LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 102 CAl.Rptr. 588……… 27
Le Sportsac, Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602…………… 55
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602………………. 57, 58
Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 308 P.2d 713…………. 28
Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)……………….. 53
Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211……………. 56
Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7……………. 54, 55
Maness v. Meyes (1975) 419 U.S. 449………………… 57
Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270 ………….. 55
Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845…………….. 55

– x –

Cases Page
Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330…………. 46, 47
Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141…….. 79
Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670…………… 53, 76
Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871…… 32, 33
Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
71 Cal.App. 492…………………..
29
Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595…………….. 9
McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 55 L.Ed.2d 593…………. 69
Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268…………… 57
Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130……………. 50
Molko v. Holy Spirit Association (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092……………. 14, 61, 80
Morey v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727………… 30
Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160……………… 7
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 87 L.Ed. 1292…………. 62
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415………………. 57, 58
National Customs Brokers and Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511…………….. 55
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 US 539…………………. 78
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254……………… 57, 58, 79

– xi –

Cases Page
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 53 L.Ed.2d 867…………. 67
NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490………”………. 57, 58
Oakland Tribune Publishing Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374…………… 53, 56
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252……….. 28
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253………… 46
People V. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596 ….. 26
People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69………… 62
Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif .1984) 611 F.Supp. 990………….. 47
Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419 F.Supp. 1251 ………….. 55
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. (1969) 395 US 367…………………. 79
Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI…………. 34
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473……………. 52
Roth v. United States 354 US 476………….. 79
S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945…………….. 50
Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 261 P.2d 721…………. 29
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988…………… 10, 11

– xii –

Cases Page
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 10 L.Ed.2d 965…………. 62
Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22 …………… 46
Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415……………. 50
Sipple v. Chronical Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045…………… 57, 58
Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750…………… 48, 51
Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 US 557………… 79
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452……………… 8
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………….. 57
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………… 57, 58
Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 62 L.Ed.2d 454………. 47, 48
Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127…………….. 9
Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. 80 Cal. 570 …………………… 33
Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453 F.Supp. 25………….. 70
Tiedje v. Aluminium Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 296 P.2d 554…………. 29
Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374………………… 57
Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 6 L.Ed.2d 982…………. 62
United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 88 L.Ed. 1148………….. 62

– xiii –

Cases Page
United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64…………… 43
United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062……………. 42
United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439……………. 70
United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314…………….. 43
United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317…………….. 42
United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 13 L.Ed.2d 733…………. 69
United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9……………… 42
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364…………………… 50
Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823……………… 7
Van Cauwenberghe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 100 L.Ed.2d 517…………. 7
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125…………… 70
Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654…….. 42
Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664………………. 57, 58
Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178………………. 57, 68
Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101……………… 9
Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 93 P.2d 1028……….. 74
White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812……………… 7

– ivx –

Cases Page
Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031……………. 10
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 32 L.Ed.2d 15…………. 61
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872; 260 Cal.Rptr. 331…………. 15, 44, 62-65, 69, 80
Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748………………… 27
Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129……………. 51
Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414………………… 47
Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719…………… 49, 52
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) ………………. 44
§ 201(c) (2) ………………. 44
§ 1510……………….. 42,43
28 U.S.C. § 1291……………… 3, 6, 8, 11
§ 1292(a)(1) …………… 9-11, 13
§ 1332………………….. 3
§ 1927…………………. 80
F.R.A.P. Rule 4……………….. 10, 11
Rule 38………………… 80
F.R.C.P Rule 42(b)………………… 7
Rule 56……………….. 4,7
Civil Code § 1550…………………. 32
§ 1598…………………. 32
§ 1607…………………. 29
§ 1608…………………. 29
§ 1667…………………. 32
§ 1668…………………. 32
§ 3423…………………. 46

– xv –

Treatises Page
Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 …… 27
Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts,
§ 441……………… 27
§ 442……………… 27
§ 429……………… 29
§ 444……………… 27
§ 445……………… 28
§ 611……………… 32

– xvi –

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals question whether an appeal ostensibly taken from a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is, in fact, simply a pretext to obtain interlocutory review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment,

1

and would an exercise of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over such an appeal be proper?

2. Do contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct constitute an obstruction of justice, and, if so, are said releases illegal and void?

3. Can contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct be specifically enforced?

4. When an organization which ascribes religious status to itself is aware of what it alleges are threats to its First Amendment religious rights arising from and at the outset of tort litigation and waits for 17 months before seeking a preliminary injunction, can it assert such threats are irreparable injury?

5. Does the bare claim of religious status confer an immunity in tort from accountability from the consequences of conduct that is outrageous and coercive?

6. Is Scientology1 necessarily entitled on this appeal to prima facie status as a religion?

7. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary injunction constitute a prior restraint on the Aznarans’ First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech and Associational Privacy?

8. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary

__________
1Appellants herein are Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International, Church of Spiritual Technology and Author Services, Inc. They will be referred to collectively as “Scientology.”

2

injunction violate the Aznarans’ First Amendment right to Redress of Grievances.

9. Did the district court erroneously apply the law underlying the legal issues in denying Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and therefore abuse his discretion?

10. Is the herein appeal frivolous?

I.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction of the District Court

The District Court properly exercises jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter of this lawsuit pursuant its diversity jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Appeal

When the issue is one of appellate jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court of appeals to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associates. Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426, 429. Unless subject to a statutory or judicially created exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 states this Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that is not a “final decision” of the District Court. “The effect of the statute is to disallow appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete … So long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541, 546.

Although Scientology’s instant appeal is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the practical effect of this

3

appellate review is that Scientology now relitigates, for the fourth time, the District Court’s denial of its mc ion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the purported releases and waivers are valId. Below, after losing its summary judgment motion, Scientology first sought reconsideration. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, Scientology again relitigated the issue by a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thus, through the pretext of this interlocutory appeal, now Scientology will again relitigate the issue of whether the purported releases are valId.

1. The Motion For Summary Judgment

On December 12, 1988, pursuant to the Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Scientology filed its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a separate trial on the issue whether the alleged releases and waivers were valid. (Record No. 140.)

On May 25, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the Aznarans’ alleged release and waiver of their right to prosecute this lawsuit by its written Order filed on May 25, 1989. (Record No. 219.) In its decision the District Court specifically found there was a

“genuine issue of material fact [whether the release was an enforceable contract because] . . . plaintiffs were subjected to threats of being sentenced to defendants’ Rehabilitation Project Force, or declared ‘suppressive persons’ and subjected to the ‘fair game policy’ if they did not cooperate in signing the releases. Plaintiffs also provide testimony that they did not sign the releases with their free will and only signed them to get away in relative safety from defendants. Plaintiffs further provide testimony that they

4

were not given the opportunity to confer with legal counsel when they signed the releases and the releases they signed and the releases submitted to the Court are not the same because at the time they executed the releases, they were not given copies of them.” (Record No. 219 at 2:5-3:14.)

2. The Motion For Reconsideration

On June 6, 1989, Scientology filed its motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s Order denying summary judgment. (Record No. 228.) On July 24, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for reconsideration and specifically found as follows:

“In the instant action, the defendants’ motion for reconsideration merely repeats the arguments made in its original motion for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied. (Emphasis supplied)” (Record No. 238 at 2:10-13.)

3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

On November 9, 1989, not deterred by having suffered two adverse decisions on the issue of the legal effectiveness of the purported releases and waivers, Scientology filed its motion for a preliminary injunction wherein it sought to enforce the terms of the purported release and waiver against the Aznarans. Scientology’s motion also sought a separate evidentiary hearing on the issues raised by the release and waiver. (Record No. 261.)

On January 9, 1990, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing. In its Order denying injunctive relief the District Court specifically found as follows:

5

“In the instant action, defendants’ motion merely attempt[s] to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release. The Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration that the validity of the release is a jury question because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs consented to the release. The Court has also ruled that it would be an unnecessary expenditure of time to have a separate trial on the validity of the release.” (Emphasis added.) (Record No. 2 64 at 2:19-3:2.)

4. The Notice Of Appeal

On February 5, 1990, Scientology filed its notice of appeal (Record No. 267) of the District Court’s Order denying its motion (1) for a preliminary injunction to enforce the releases and (2) for a separate hearing on the validity thereof. Thus, Scientology asks this Court to relitigate the issue a fourth time. This appeal is a transparent ploy to both avoid the consequences of the final judgment rule as it applies to summary judgment orders and to relitigate an issue which thus far in the trial court has been conclusively determined as a proper question for trial.

5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 confer jurisdiction upon the courts of appeals to review appeals “from all final decisions of the district courts . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Generally, a party may not take an appeal under § 1291 “until there has been a decision by the District Court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ [Citation.]”

6

Van Cauwenberqhe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 521, 100 L.Ed.2d 517.

As a general rule, “the denial of a Rule 56 motion is an interlocutory order from which no appeal is available until the entry of judgment following trial on the merits.” Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105, 1107; White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812, 814.

“The denial of a motion for summary judgment because of the presence of genuine issues of fact is not normally appealable. For the moving party is not hereby foreclosed. When the facts are developed, he may still win. Plainly such an order is not final.”

Morqenstern Chemical Co. v. Scherinq Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160, 161. When a summary judgment is denied on the basis of”‘unresolved issues of fact,’ the order is only a pretrial one which does not touch on the merits of the case” Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749, 750 and is not
final. Thus, where “[o]nly [a] procedural aspect or incident was . . . involved, [n]o substantive right of appellant was affected. Without injury to rights, there could not be a basis for any interlocutory consideration.” Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823, 825.

The substance of the instant appeal is, in fact, taken from the denial of a FRCP Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and a Rule 42(b) motion for a separate trial on the issue of the releases. Contrary to the manner in which Scientology labelled its third motion on the issue of whether the releases were valid as one for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing,

7

the substance of the summary judgment motion, the reconsideration motion, the preliminary injunction motion and this appeal was, and is the same. The obvious thrust of each of the motions was to judicially validate the releases so as to defeat the Aznarans lawsuit before it could get to trial.

6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject Of Appellate Review

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provide that the denial of an interlocutory injunction in District Court is reviewable pursuant to an interlocutory appeal. “[T]he statute creates an exception from the long-established policy against piecemeal appeals …. The exception is a narrow one and is keyed to the ‘need to permit litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.’ [Citation.]” Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 480, 57 L.Ed.2d 364. Hence, “It must be construed strictly.” Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452, 457.

Thus, as when summary judgment is denied, “an order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 279, 99
L.Ed.2d 296. Such orders do not involve irreparable consequence.

This Court enjoys the discretion to determine whether the instant appeal falls within, or is beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. §

8

1292(a)(1) because “Courts examine the effect of an interlocutory order rather than its terminology in determining reviewability under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595; Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127, 1129. Therefore, “the meaning of injunction within § 1292(a)(1) would turn … on the substance . . . [not] on the form of the trial court order.” Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525, 528. “[A]n injunction is defined not by its title but by its effect on the litigants.” Id. at 529, Fn. 14.

“In considering the application of § 1292(a)(1) to borderline cases . . . [the Court] must be ever mindful that it was intended as a narrow exception to the policy of the basic final judgment rule, ‘a wisely sanctioned principle against piecemeal appeals governing litigation in federal courts.’ [Citation.] The great advantages of that policy in the administration of federal justice dictate against a reliance on the strict letter of § 1292(a)(1) which would cause the exception to encroach unduly on the rule.” (Emphasis added.)

Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101, 104.

The same common-sense rule applies to the Court’s evaluation of the nature of a motion for a preliminary injunction. “The label does not determine the nature of the motion. Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122, 128.

7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation

Simply because Scientology dubbed its motion as one for a”preliminary injunction” does not necessarily require this Court to

9

exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial thereof. Although under “normal circumstances” Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031, 1032, the denial of a preliminary injunction requires review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) , such is not required when a “motion for a preliminary injunction was not made under normal circumstances.” Ibid.

Thus, in Winfield, the court rejected jurisdiction of an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction. It found the appeal “was simply a refiling of a motion which had been denied two years earlier.” Ibid. The court recognized that it was confronted with “a device to extend the period for filing an appeal from thirty days to two years” and to “rule in favor of appellants on this issue would circumvent the policy behind Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Ibid. Therefore, “where the motion is simply a ploy” Ibid, designed to subvert a policy behind a rule or statute, an appeal from the denial thereof will not be heard because it is not properly before the reviewing court.

The Seventh Circuit reserves the right “to penetrate through form to substance” in order to dismiss an appeal of an injunctive order brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988, the trial court enjoined Suter from violating the Security Act and he did not file a timely appeal. Thereafter, Suter brought three successive, and unsuccessful, motions to vacate the injunction. He took an appeal from the last denial. The appellate court dismissed his appeal because his briefs in both the district court and the court

10

of appeals revealed “that his only ground for vacating the injunction is that it should never have been entered in the first place.” Id. at 990. The reviewing court found that the motions to vacate were “efforts to create appellate jurisdiction over the injunction after the deadline for an appeal had passed.” Ibid.

The strategy employed by Scientology in connection with the instant appeal is analogous to the conduct rejected by the courts in Winfield and Securities and Exchange Commission. Appellants in those cases employed devices, in the form of injunction related motions, intended to circumvent the policy implemented in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requiring timely appeals. In our case Scientology has employed the device of a preliminary injunction to circumvent the policy of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to avoid piecemeal appeals and consider only those trial court determinations that are final. Scientology could not properly appeal from either the denial of its summary judgment motion nor its motion for reconsideration. Thus, it cannot legitimately appeal from the denial of a “motion for a preliminary injunction” when the appeal seeks to do indirectly that which the law prohibits it from doing directly.

“Because the civil rules do not explicitly define the extent of the district judge’s discretion in allowing successive pretrial motions or motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order such as a preliminary injunction, early court decisions formulated a requirement that a successive motion state new facts warranting reconsideration of the prior decision. [Citations.] This logic also applies to the interpretation of § 1292(a)(1). . . . The issue here is appellate jurisdiction and the duty of the court of appeals to determine

11

sua sponte if necessary, whether jurisdiction is proper. Mischaracterization by the lower court or by the parties does not affect jurisdictional determinations.” F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc., supra . 815 F.2d at 428-429.

In Kerr three similar motions were brought, the last two of which were “virtually identical.” Id. at 429. The court stated:

“Parties should not be allowed to harass their adversaries and the courts with a barrage of successive motions for extraordinary, preliminary injunctive relief, secure in the knowledge that they can take an interlocutory appeal when it becomes apparent that they cannot win their war of attrition.” Ibid.

Likewise, in the instant case Scientology should not be allowed to successively relitigate the issue of the validity of the releases in the hope that if enough shots are taken, it will obtain a favorable ruling. Since the nature of the motion for preliminary injunction was, in fact, as found by the District Court, “merely [an] attempt to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release [which] [t]he Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for consideration”, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should dismiss the instant interlocutory appeal for lack of proper appellate jurisdiction.

The repeated rulings of the District Court consistently reveal that it was exercising its control over the progress of this litigation so as to preserve for the jury’s determination all claims between the adverse parties, to be heard together in the same proceeding. Similarly, the substance of the three motions

12

below, unsuccessfully brought by Scientology, which now culminate in the instant interlocutory appeal consistently reveal its determination to obtain a favorable pretrial ruling that the releases are valid. Therefore, as this Court’s scrutiny penetrates the terminological form Scientology dubs as a motion for a preliminary injunction, logic compels the conclusion that in substance Scientology is attempting to obtain an advantageous, and improper, pretrial ruling via appeal on the releases which in the trial court has thus far been three times elusive.

An analysis of Scientology’s motions and the District Court’s rulings below compels the conclusion that the District Court’s respective rulings on Scientology’s motions for summary judgment, for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction relate “only to the conduct or progress of litigation . . . [which] is not considered an injunction and appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream, supra, 485 U.S. at 279.

Therefore, the herein appeal should be dismissed because it is not properly before this Court. The Court should decline to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Nature Of The Case

On April 1, 1988, the Aznarans filed their Complaint below for false imprisonment, fraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, breach of contract, restitution, breach of statutory

13

duty to pay minimum wages and overtime and constructive fraud. The factual basis of the complaint is predicated upon the Aznarans’ fifteen years in Scientology.
After successfully disqualifying the Aznarans former counsel, the Scientology defendants answered and all except Author Services, Inc., counterclaimed against the Aznarans.

In the District Court, Scientology has consistently, but unsuccessfully, sought to silence and neutralize the Aznarans by acquiring a judicial finding that the “releases” Scientology alleges the Aznarans signed are valid and enforceable.

B. Factual Background

Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran are married. Formerly, they were among the highest ranking officials in Scientology. Vicki was the President of Religious Technology Center and Richard was the Chief of Security, Worldwide. For fifteen years they were subjected to fraud, coercive persuasion and exploitation at the hands of Scientology. The Aznarans were subjected to coercive persuasion 2 by Scientology without their knowledge or consent.

__________
2
As defined by the California Supreme Court in 1988, what has been called coercive persuasion, thought reform or “Brainwashing is ‘a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.’ [Citation.] The specific methods of indoctrination vary, but the basic theory is that brainwashing ‘is fostered through the creation of a controlled environment that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to suggestion and manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological depletion, cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, and a clear assertion of authority and dominion. The aftermath of indoctrination is a severe impairment of autonomy of the ability to think independently, which induces a subject’s unyielding compliance and rupture of past connections, affiliations, and associations.” Molko v. Holy Spirit Association [Footnote con’t.]

14

The imposition of such techniques forced them to abandon their identities and submit to Scientology’s authority. They were brainwashed by, among other techniques, being hooked up to a lie detector machine, called an “E-Meter,” whereby they were coercively indoctrinated with the Scientology’s peculiar definitions and meanings of words. This caused them to communicate in a language known only to Scientologists. The result of the indoctrination was blind acceptance of everything that Scientology promulgated, including the dissolution of their marriage. (Record No. 197 at 26, 32-34; Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶14.)

Both Aznarans were continuously subjected to techniques of coercive persuasion through which Scientology coercively inculcated them with its ideology and dominated them. Yielding to Scientology’s coercion, they were subject to Scientology’s domination and almost absolute control. The ideology included the premise that if they dis-affiliated with Scientology, each of them would be deemed a “suppressive person” against whom the “fair game policy” would be employed by Scientology.3

__________
[Footnote con’t.] (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1109. Coercive persuasion often results in “serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide.” Id. 46 Cal.3d at 1118.

3 “. . .'[F]air game’ was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on ‘suppressives,’ which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a ‘suppressive,’ all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to ‘neutralize’ that individual – economically, politically and psychologically.” Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 888. The “fair game policy”, to be enforced against “enemies” or “suppressive persons” states that such [Footnote con’t]

15

After 15 years of deception, coercion, exploitation and abuse, Vicki Aznaran found herself in a potentially life-threatening circumstance at the end of March 1987. Having been incarcerated for almost two months under constantly cruel conditions in Scientology’s forced-labor camp dubbed “Rehabilitation Project Force” in the California desert near Gilman Hot Springs, Vicki’s uterus had become infected. She had been forced to run, not walk, at all times. She was compelled for long hours to perform hard physical labor on a daily basis and sometimes with a jackhammer from 7:00 a.m. until after night fell. She was not allowed adequate sleep or provided adequate food. She was at almost all times guarded by one or two people who constantly watched her, even as she used the bathroom. Additionally, on motorcycles and in jeeps armed security guards patrolled the fenced-in area where Vicki was incarcerated. Letters from Richard Aznaran, her husband, were not delivered and he was prohibited from visiting her.

She was prohibited from reading newspapers or books. At night, she was locked up. Despite her daily requests to see a doctor for her infected uterus and consequential fever, Vicki was denied medical attention. She was in physical pain. (Record No. 197 at 22-25; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.)

Terrified, Vicki managed to escape from the forced labor camp in the desert and fled to Hemet, a nearby town.

__________
[Footnote con’t] person “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 443, fn. 1, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797.

16

Scientology leader David Miscavige and chief Security Checker, Ray Mithoff summoned Richard to Hemet where they interrogated him until 5:00 a.m. in an effort to get him to divorce Vicki because she was a “suppressive person.” Richard could not compromise his loyalty to his wife. He told Miscavige and Mithoff that he would try to salvage Vicki. They sent him to the hotel to talk her into returning to Scientology. (Record No. 197 at 25.)

From April 1, 1987 to April 9, 1987, with an exception of a trip to obtain medical attention for Vicki, Richard and Vicki were held at a hotel in Hemet. They had less than $50 between the two of them. They were surveilled 24 hours per day by plainclothes security guards from a local Scientology church. They were supposed to stay in the hotel room unless they specifically left to eat. Richard felt they were physically restrained from leaving the hotel. The Aznarans were told by Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff that they had to remain at the hotel until the Scientology leaders were finished with them and that if they failed to “cooperate” they would be declared to be suppressive persons and subject to the fair game policy. It was reiterated to the Aznarans that the only way to avoid being declared suppressive persons was to “cooperate.” (Record No. 197 at 26-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Vicki and Richard had a plan to leave the control of the Scientologists but only if they could accomplish it without being declared “fair game.” When Scientologists left without approval, they were declared “fair game.” Over the years, the Aznarans had seen what happened to people who were subjected to the fair game

17

policy after they had failed to cooperate with Scientology. The Aznarans knew that if they were not “fair game,” Scientology would “exercise some kind of restraint, whereas with fair game there would be no restraint.” (Record No. 197 at 2 6-29.)

The Scientology security guards held all their personal belongings, including a horse and two dogs, so as to further ensure the Aznarans’ cooperation. Vicki knew of others in the past whose belongings and pets were possessed by Scientology as they were leaving the organization. When such people had not “cooperated”, their pets were given away and belongings destroyed. (Record No. 197 at 26; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 5.)

While in the hotel room, Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff for hours at a time subjected both Richard and Vicki to “security checking” and “interviews.” Security checking is a form of interrogation employing the E-Meter lie detector. Security checking was a tool of thought reform and control employed by Scientology. Ray Mithoff was the highest trained and most senior security checker in all Scientology. During the time the Aznarans were confined to the hotel room, one of them would be getting security checked while the other was being interviewed by Mark Rathbun. (Record No. 197 at 28-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit B ¶¶ 3, 3A.)

During the course of the hours of security checking, Richard was reminded how powerful Scientology was and the type of command it could bring to bear upon him should he fail to cooperate fully. Much of the security checking interrogation was directed toward the reasons that the Aznarans wanted to leave Scientology. Specific

18

attention was paid to whether either of them harbored a secret motive for wanting to leave, whether they were going to go to the government with information concerning crimes being committed by Scientologists or their agents, give testimony or otherwise make information public that Scientology wanted kept secret. (Record No. 197 at 22-32; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 6; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.) Particular attention was also paid to interrogating the Aznarans on how much they knew about Scientology so the threat of their leaving could be analyzed. It was intimidating to be security checked by Ray Mithoff and the Aznarans “were in terrible fear that [they] would not be allowed to leave.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 3.)

The releases were not negotiated at all. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D ¶ 7.)

The Aznarans never requested any “loan” from Scientology. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.)

A few days before the Aznarans were allowed to leave the hotel, top Scientology leader, David Miscavige, came and spoke with them. In response to Miscavige’s inquiry as to their future plans, Richard told him that they had no specific plans, but intended to stay in Southern California and work something out. Miscavige was adamant that he wanted the Aznarans to “leave Southern California” and avoid contact with people they knew, but wanted them to go to Texas. Richard told him that as he had little money, he and Vicki would have to stay in California long enough to sell their horse and make some money to finance the trip. The following day, at

19

Miscavige’s request, Mark Rathbun suggested to Richard that Scientology purchase the horse from him as well as loan him some money so that he and Vicki could leave immediately for Texas. The Aznarans never requested any loan from Scientology. However, they were told that the reason for the loan was to keep them “out of enemy hands” and to ensure they would not be easy “prey” to those opposed to Scientology. Rathbun’s offer to purchase the horse was for the purpose of expediting our departure from California. Thus, the loan and the purchase of the horse had nothing to do with the releases. Rathbun’s statements to the contrary are false. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 7; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7; Record No. 197 at 32. Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.) The Scientologists wanted the Aznarans “out of California quickly so we would not be served with any subpoenas in the cases that were going on against them at that time.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at f 7.) Scientology did not pay $300 more for the horse than had Richard; it paid $300 less. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 13.)

That Scientology wanted to indemnify Vicki with respect to any lawsuit wherein she might be named was in order to maintain control over her and prevent her from testifying in a hostile manner in any litigation to which Scientology was a party or to any governmental agency. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.) With respect to the ongoing case entitled Stansfield. et al. v. Starkey, et al.. wherein Vicki was at that time named as a defendant, Mark Rathbun “specifically brought up the indemnification” and “warned us that we were to contact him should there be any contact concerning this

20

litigation or any other litigation in which Scientology was involved. The purpose was to protect Scientology’s interest however and certainly not ours.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4b.)

There had been a fire at one of the Scientology ranches where Richard had worked. It destroyed all his belongings concerning which a claim was being negotiated with the insurance company. Rather than wait in California, Richard was -given $1,040.90, the value of his belongings destroyed in the fire. His understanding is that the money would later be reimbursed by the insurance company. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 8; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Richard was also paid $387.37 in wages, according to Scientology’s rules, that was owed to him for the pay period immediately preceding his departure from Scientology. However, it did not include any compensation for the many hundreds of hours of work he had performed, but been forbidden to include on his time card during the previous 13 months that he had worked for Scientology leader, Norman Starkey. He was supposed to have received minimum wage. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at f 9; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Through earlier contacts as a staff member with Scientology’s dirty tricks unit known first as the Guardian’s Office and then as the Office of Special Affairs, Richard had seen various policies concerning releases. Releases were to executed by every public and staff Scientologist before and after every single service received. Guardian’s Office personnel and Scientology attorney John Peterson

21

told Richard that the releases were unenforceable and for purposes of deterrence only. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 5; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 4.)

In order to dis-affiliate with Scientology without being declared “suppressive” and thereby subject to “fair game,” the Aznarans did what they were told by the Scientologists. This included signing stacks of documents which they did not, with any care, read. Two of Scientology’s attorneys were also present when the Aznarans complied with Scientology’s orders and signed the papers whatever papers they were given. Richard said all the releases and other papers were “all handed to me at the same time. I just signed them.” (Record No. 197 at 29-30; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 3.) Vicki said “we were being watched by guards . . . and we were extremely afraid of being declared fair game if we did not cooperate. I was in a very bad physical and mental state and would have signed anything in order to get away.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Neither of the Aznarans “carefully” read the Mutual Releases and Settlement Agreements. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4a.) Any statements by Mark Rathbun to the contrary are false. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 2.)

At the time Vicki and Richard signed whatever releases where presented to them at the hotel, it was stressed that if they “spoke to government agents about any ‘confidential information’ [they] had concerning the cult that [they] would be in violation of [their] agreements and that [they] would be sued.” Additionally,

22

they were directed to “withhold information and avoid testimony in any civil litigation where the truth may be harmful to the cult or aid someone else seeking justice.” Richard concluded that “with the purpose of the releases including the withholding of information from lawful authorities, [he] certainly did not feel that they could possibly be legal or binding.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 6.)

The Aznarans did not have the benefit of legal counsel. In fact, it was made clear that they could not seek other counsel. Id. Despite their repeated requests for a copy of the releases over many months following the Aznarans’ move to Dallas, Texas, the Aznarans were not provided copies of the papers they had been forced to sign until shortly before the instant lawsuit was filed. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶¶ 2B, 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶¶ 2, 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 13.)

The Aznarans do not believe that the releases and waivers supplied by Scientology in support of itself in the instant lawsuit were the papers that they signed in the hotel room in Hemet. In fact, what Scientology now asserts as the releases include more pages that what Richard recalls having signed (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 11; Record No. 197 at 30-31.)

C. The Substance Of The Releases

The alleged releases in question provide, in part, that the Aznarans would be bound as follows:

To “release, acquit and forever discharge . . . the

23

CHURCH . . . from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions and causes of action of every kind and nature, known and unknown, from the beginning of time to and including the date hereof.” (¶ 3 of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Never to create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing, or to broadcast, or to assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape, any show, program or movie, concerning [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology, or personal or indirectly acquired knowledge or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any entities or individuals listed in Paragraph 1, above. [Plaintiff] further agrees that [he/she] will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information [he/she] may have concerning the Church of Scientology . . ..” (¶ 6.C. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

To “not voluntarily assist or cooperate with any person adverse to the religion of Scientology in any proceeding against any of the Scientology organizations, or cooperate with any person adverse to any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, in any proceeding against any of the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. [Plaintiffs] also [agree] [they] will not cooperate in any

24

manner with any organizations aligned against Scientology and any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, (¶ 6.E. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Will “not testify or otherwise participate in any other judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology or any of the organizations, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above unless compelled to do so by lawful subpoena or other awful process. Unless required to do so by such subpoena, [plaintiffs] [agree] not to discuss [his/her] experiences or personal or indirectly acquired information concerning the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1, with anyone other than members of [his/her] immediate family. [Plaintiffs] shall not make [themselves] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this agreement. . .” (f 6.F. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

III.

THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS
THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS

A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal

l. Introduction

Scientology’s indefatigable effort, now through this appeal, has been and is to silence the appellees Aznaran who by first-hand experience possess comprehensive knowledge of the nature and

25

conduct of Scientology. Such knowledge was gleaned first, from the ground up, and later, from the top down. Scientology would have this Court prohibit the Aznarans from providing aid and support to litigants adverse to Scientology, such as Bent Corydon, whom Scientology has harmed. To do this, Scientology would have this Court enforce agreements that are illegal.

Such illegality lies in the agreements’ would-be legal effect: the judicially enforced suppression of any information that would discredit Scientology or expose its criminal activities. Such a legal effect would corrupt and pervert the time-tested and result-approved objective of all judicial proceedings: the search for and ascertainment of truth. Were such to occur, litigation to which Scientology was a party would become a travesty of justice and, for the opposing party, a paradigm of fundamental unfairness.

2. Standard Of Review

With respect to a contract the validity of which is challenged on public policy grounds, “[t]he burden is on the defendant to show that its enforcement would be in violation of the settled public policy of this state, or injurious to the morals of its people.” People v. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596, 5597. As to the judiciary, before “labelling a contract as being contrary to public policy, courts must carefully inquire into the nature of the conduct, the extent of public harm which may be involved, and the moral quality of the conduct of the parties in light of the prevailing standards of the community.” Ibid.

26

3. Preliminary Legal Principles

In his work Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 at 738, Professor Pomeroy states:

“Whenever a party, who as an actor, sets the judicial machinery in motion to obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, where a contract is made either (1) to achieve an illegal purpose, or (2) by means of consideration that is not legal, the contract itself is void. Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts, § 441 at 396. (Hereinafter”Witkin, § ____ at ____.”) Since an illegal contract is void, it cannot be ratified by an subsequent act, and no person can be estopped to deny its validity. Witkin, § 442, at 396; First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388, 405-406; Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748, 759 [“A contract void because it stipulates for doing what the law prohibits is incapable of being ratified.”]

A party need not plead the illegality as a defense and the failure to do so constitutes no waiver. In fact, the point may be raised at any time, in the trial court or on appeal, by either the parties or on the court’s own motion. Witkin, § 444, at 397; LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 75, 102 Cal.Rptr. 588 [“When the court discovers a fact which indicates that the contract is illegal and ought not to be enforced, it will, of its own

27

motion, instigate an inquiry in relation thereto.”]; Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 147-148, 308 P.2d 713 [“[T]he court has both the power and the duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummation or encouragement of what public policy forbids [and] may do so on its own motion.”].

Thus, the court will look through provisions that may appear valid on their face, and with the aid of parol evidence, determine that the contract is actually illegal or is part of an illegal transaction. Id. 48 Cal.2d at 148 [“[A] court must be free to search out illegality lying behind the forms in which the parties have cast the transaction to conceal such illegality.”]; Witkin, § 445 at 398.

There are two reasons for the rule prohibiting judicial enforcement, by any court, of illegal contracts.

“[T]he courts will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act [because] Knowing that they will receive no help form the courts . . . the parties are less likely to enter into an illegal agreement in the first place.”

Lewis & Queen, supra , 48 Cal.2d at 149 [308 P.2d at 719].

“This rule is not generally applied to secure justice between parties who have made an illegal contract, but from regard for a higher interest – that of the public, whose welfare demands that certain transactions be discouraged.” (Emphasis added.)

Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252, 254.

Illegal contracts are matters which implicate public policy. Public policy has purposefully been a “vague expression .

28

[that] has been left loose and free of definition in the same manner as fraud.” Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 575, 261 P. 2d 721. Public policy means “anything which tends to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to feel is against public policy.” Ibid. Therefore,”[a] contract made contrary to public policy may not serve as the foundation of any action, either in law or in equity, [Citation] and the parties will be left where they are found when they come to court for relief. [Citation.]” Tiedie v. Aluminum Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 454, 296 P.2d 554.

“It is well settled that agreements against public policy and sound morals will not be enforced by the courts. It is a general rule that all agreements relating to proceedings in court which involve anything inconsistent with [the] full and impartial course of justice therein are void, though not open to the actual charge of corruption.”

Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34, 36; Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. 71 Cal.App. 492

B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void

The consideration for a promise must be lawful. Civil Code § 1607. Moreover, “[i]f any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.” Civil Code § 1608. Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 414, 233 P.2d 606. “In other words, where the illegal consideration goes to the whole of the promise, the entire contract is illegal.” Witkin, § 429 at 386;

29

Morev v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727, 738 [“The desire and intention of the parties [to violate public policy] entered so fundamentally into the inception and consideration of the transaction as to render the terms of the contract nonseverable, and it is wholly void.”].

In Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608, the California Court of Appeal adopted section 557 of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts prohibiting as illegal those agreements which sought to suppress the disclosure of discreditable facts. The court stated:

“A bargain that has for its consideration the nondisclosure of discreditable facts … is illegal. … In many cases falling within the rule stated in the section the bargain is illegal whether or not the threats go so far as to bring the case within the definition of duress. In some cases, moreover, disclosure may be proper or even a duty, and the offer to pay for nondisclosure may be voluntarily made. Nevertheless the bargain is illegal. Moreover, even though the offer to pay for nondisclosure is voluntarily made and though there is not duty to make disclosure or propriety in doing so, a bargain to pay for nondisclosure is illegal.” (Emphasis added.)

Brown 28 Cal.App.2d at 618.

In Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31, the court did not allow a breach of contract action to be litigated because it involved a contract that was void for illegality. In Allen, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract which he subsequently amended five times. Plaintiff, a union member, was entitled by his collective bargaining agreement to have a fair and impartial arbitration to determine the truth or

30

falsity of the allegations against him of theft and dishonesty. The allegations of the amended complaints stated that there had been an agreement between the parties whereby defendant laid off plaintiff, defendant’s employee, and allowed plaintiff to receive unemployment benefits and union benefits. “Defendants also agreed that they would not communicate to third persons, including prospective employers, that plaintiff was discharged or resigned for dishonesty, theft, a bad employment attitude and that defendants would not state they would not rehire plaintiff.” Id. at 163. Plaintiff alleged there had been a breach in that defendants had communicated to numerous persons, including potential employers and the Department of Human Resources and Development, that plaintiff was dishonest and guilty of theft and for that reason had resigned for fear of being discharged for those reasons, that plaintiff had a bad attitude and that defendants would not rehire him. Plaintiff alleged as a result of the breach he suffered a loss of unemployment benefits, union benefits and earnings. The court held that the plaintiff had bargained for an act that was illegal by definition, the withholding of information from the Department of Human Resources Development. It stated:

“The nondisclosure was not a minor or indirect part of the contract, but a major and substantial consideration of the agreement. A bargain which includes as part of its consideration nondisclosure of discreditable facts is illegal. (See Brown v. Freese, 28 Cal.App.2d 608, 618 [83 P.2d 82.].) It has long been hornbook law that consideration which is void for illegality is no consideration at all. [Citation.]” Id. 52 Cal.App.3d at 166.

31

C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void

The object of a contract must be lawful. Civil Code § 1550. If the contract has a single object, and that object is unlawful, the entire contract is void. Civil Code § 1598. Civil Code § 1667 defines unlawfulness as that which is either “[[c]ontrary to an express provision of the law,” or is “[c]ontrary to the policy of the express law, though not expressly prohibited” or is “[o]therwise contrary to good morals.”
Civil Code § 1668 states:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”

Further, an agreement to suppress evidence or to conceal a witness is illegal. Witkin, § 611 at 550. Penal Code §§ 136, 136.1, and 138. In Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871, a licensed physician was alleged to have repeatedly engaged in the sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. A civil lawsuit arising from the molestations had been settled and the file sealed. In the order dismissing the action by stipulation and sealing the court files, the trial court, at the request of the parties, ordered the parties, their agents and representatives never to discuss the case with anyone. The appellate court found such “confidentiality” was against public policy. That court stated:

32

”The stipulated order of confidentiality is contrary to public policy, contrary to the ideal that full and impartial justice shall be secured in every matter and designed to secrete evidence in the case from the very public agency charged with the responsibility of policing the medical profession. We believe it clearly improper, even on stipulation of the parties, for the court to issue an order designed not to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the administration of justice [Citation], but to subvert public policy by shielding the doctor from governmental investigation designed to protect the public from misconduct within the medical profession, and which may disclose a professional license of this state was used to establish a relationship which subjected a juvenile patient to criminal conduct. Such a stipulation is against public policy, similar to an agreement to conceal judicial proceedings and to obstruct justice. . . Accordingly, . . . such a contract made in violation of established public policy will not be enforced . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 316-317.

Similarly, in Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. (1889) 80 Cal. 570, 571-572, the court invalidated a settlement agreement provision. It stated:

“It was contended by the Respondent that this was nothing more than a payment of a sum of money by way of a compromise of litigation, and that such contracts have been upheld. We do not so construe the agreement. It was a promise to pay a consideration for the concealment of a fact from the court and the parties material to the rights of said parties, and which it was her duty to make known. Such a contract was against public policy.”

In the instant case, the releases are void because they violate the public policy prohibiting the obstruction of justice by suppressing evidence of illegal conduct that is criminal and

33

discreditable.

D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal

1. Scientology’s Contentions

Scientology contends that the Aznarans have “blatantly disregarded their promises not to divulge information about the Church and not to cooperate or appear voluntarily in other proceedings against the Church” (Brief for Appellants at 9-10) in the following ways:

(1) From March 18 to 30, 1988, the Aznarans met with Joseph A. Yanny, a former attorney for Scientology who at that time was not (but in the future would be) in litigation with Scientology.

(2) In June 1988, the Aznarans met with reporters for the Los Angeles Times newspaper.

(3) As recently as September 1989, the Aznarans met with and submitted declarations on behalf of Bent Corydon, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401.

(4) Vicki J. Aznaran met with an attorney in other Scientology litigation, currently before the Honorable James M. Ideman, entitled Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI and in October 1988 filed a declaration therein. 4

__________
4
For reasons that will become more apparent below, Scientology has not included in its litany of the “breaches” of the “release” it attributes to the Aznarans an interview with agents of the Internal Revenue Service that took place on [Footnote Con’t.]

34

Scientology claims such disclosures constitute irreparable injury because they disclose:

“confidential information about internal Church affairs, including subjects such as internal Church management, structure and activities, and information learned during attorney-client privileged discussions during the time when Vicki acted on behalf of one of the appellants [Religious Technology Center], information as to her own experiences with the Church, including her employment history, her claims in this lawsuit, and information allegedly imparted to her by senior officials of Scientology organizations when she was a fiduciary.”

(Brief for Appellants at 11.)

2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran1s Declarations

Vicki Aznaran submitted six declarations concerning which Scientology claims she has breached the “release.” However, as a quick perusal of the substance of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations will illustrate, Scientology’s “releases” are void. At best, the information imparted by Ms. Aznaran concerns facts which discredit Scientology. At worst, such information concerns criminal activity.

a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988

Vicki Aznaran’s October 27, 1988 declaration in the Corydon litigation was in support of a motion seeking service of a Summons

__________
[Footnote Con’t.] May 19, 1988. (Record No. 168 at p. 2 [Memorandum in Support of Motion for Production of Audio Tape [of I.R.S. interview].])

Similarly, among the complained of “breaches” Scientology has failed to mention an interview between Brett Pruitt, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Aznarans. (Record No. 252 at 3.)

35

and Complaint by publication of defendant David Miscavige. The facts of which Vicki Aznaran had first-hand knowledge which she set forth in her declaration include the following:

¶ 2. As one of the highest ranking members of Scientology and upon the basis of her position in upper management, Vicki was a member of the “Sea Organization” (“Sea Org”) and was familiar with Scientology’s methods of organization, authority and control. The Sea Org would send its members to individual Scientology organizations wherein such Sea Org personnel would exercise “unlimited power to handle ethics [discipline], tech and administration.” Sea Org personnel would be sent to Scientology organizations when said organization were making insufficient profits. Such personnel “can take any action they deem necessary . . . to accomplish their ends. They can control the funds of that organization and its personnel. They can remove personnel and post personnel. They can transfer funds to the Sea Org organizations or spend funds as they see fit.

¶ 3. The real management of all Scientology organizations is comprised of Sea Org members. Scientology management will designate persons to be the “figurehead” officers of its corporations, but they will possess little, if any actual power, over that particular organization. Officers of Scientology corporations are to be mere figure heads; the directors have more power and there are “trustees who are over the very top corporations who can remove directors. These trustees hold the power as regards Scientology’s money, assets, personnel, etc. The top trustees of Scientology when I was director of RTC were David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock and Norman Starkey.”

¶ 6. Spurlock controlled all tax matters for Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International/ Author Services/ Inc./ Church of Scientology of California and Church of Spiritual Technology. When Vicki was the president of Religious Technology Center, Spurlock would issue orders to her. Spurlock, Starkey and Miscavige chose the directors, trustees and officers for RTC, CSI and CST.

¶ 7. Starkey and Miscavige supervised and controlled all litigation matters for Scientology. In 1982 both Starkey and Miscavige ordered Vicki to obtain a private investigator to compromise Judge Krentzman of the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, because he “had been giving Scientology unfavorable rulings.” In 1986, they ordered certain

36

Scientology corporations to settle cases in which such corporations had been named defendants. The officers and directors of the corporations did not know the terms of the settlements.

¶ 9. Part of the strategy for the manner in which Scientology manages its enterprises is “to shield its management from legal process. Front men are designated to hold figurehead posts, while real management power is held by others outside the corporate structure. To this end, Scientology will go to extreme lengths to conceal upper management personnel from service of process, subpoenas and depositions. . . For example, in 1984 when the IRS was conducting a criminal investigation against various Scientology entities, the personnel who had knowledge of criminal behavior as regards Scientology’s funds were hidden or sent away. Fran Harris . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. Mark Ingber . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. . . . Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock took great precautions with their travels, offices and residences so that they could not be found or served.”

¶ 12 I have reason to believe that documents which would
normally reflect traditional criteria of the managing agent relationship between Scientology and Mssrs. Spurlock and Starkey have either been concealed or destroyed by Scientology. For example, at Mr. Starkey”s direction, I destroyed such information as it related to the involvement and control over Scientology By L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. Starkey and Mr. David Miscavige.”

(Exhibit A.l to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988

On November 30, 1988, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. As President of RTC and a member of the Sea Org in 1985 Vicki “attended a Scientology conference on splinter groups, i.e. groups of ex-Scientologists, often called “squirrels.”

¶ 3. This meeting was attended by Norman Starkey, Lyman Spurlock and David Miscavige. At the meeting Miscavige “ordered that Scientologists be organized and motivated to physically attack Squirrels and disrupt their operations. Bent Corydon . . . was included in this target group.”

37

¶ 4. “This order represented an on-going policy that started before 1985 and was still in effect when I left Scientology in 1987.”
(Exhibit A.2 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989

On February 8, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation.
Among other things, it stated:

¶ 1. When she was President of RTC, it “claimed to own the various Scientology trademarks and functioned as an enforcer of the ‘purity’ of Scientology as interpreted by its power hierarchy. This enforcement power extended, in diverse ways, over the functioning of supposedly independent Scientology corporations. . . “I also had access to many of the business and litigation secrets of Scientology, including its many dirty tricks projects.

¶ 2. “In 1985, I attended a meeting called by David Miscavige . . . present were Norman Starkey (President of ASI) and Lyman Spurlock. These three . . . were the managing agents of Scientology at that time. . . The meeting was called to discuss legal matters of all the Scientology entities. Most of the important decisions for Scientology corporations ASI (Author Services, Inc.), SMI (Scientology Missions International), RTC (Religious Technology Center), Bridge, CSI (Church of Scientology International), etc.) were handled at meetings like this without the presence or input from the officers of the separate corporations because the control of all Scientology was principally in the hands of Hubbard, Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock.

¶ 3. “Miscavige told the meeting that Scientology organizations had not been aggressive enough in combatting squirrels (individuals who had broken with the Church of Scientology but were still using ideas similar to Scientology).” Such persons are on “Scientology’s list of enemies and subject to Scientology’s ‘fair game’ policy. ‘Fair game’ is a policy (actually it is a part of Hubbard’s ‘scriptural’ writings) which mandates that the enemies of Scientology may be ‘deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.'”

38

“Miscavige told those at the meeting that they should take the lead from Hubbard’s suggestions of violence and personal attacks against squirrels both as written in the fair game policy and in Professional Auditor’s Bulletin No. 53 in which Hubbard said the way to treat a squirrel is to hurt him to hard that he ‘would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck” and, Hubbard continued, ‘I don’t mean thought-wise.”

¶ 4. Actions against squirrels were commenced and “I received reports of such completed actions. These actions included, but were not limited to burglaries, stealing records, and sending provocateurs to infiltrate squirrel events and to provoke fights. These activities were also directed against Bent Corydon, including break-ins at his office, physical attacks upon him, and the use of spies to infiltrate his group.”

¶ 5. Whenever Scientology discovers that a book critical of it or L. Ron Hubbard is going to be published, “a three pronged attack is set into motion. Scientology’s intelligence arm (now the Office of Special Affairs and previously the Guardian’s Office) commences data gathering including covert operations to obtain data on the author and get a copy of the manuscript, etc. Scientology’s legal staff is activated to determine how to prevent publication by legal means or threats of suit. The public relations staff are also activated … to design plans to attack the author’s credibility …”

¶ 6. In late 1985, “Scientology became aware that Bent Corydon was writing a book critical of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Therefore, the attacks of him became more important and plans were designed to meet the three objectives: legal, intelligence and public relations. This type of plan involved decision making, people and money from several of the ‘separate’ Scientology organizations under the direction of Miscavige.”

¶ 7. “When Scientology organizations undertake illegal operations, little in the way of written records are kept. However, as President of RTC I would regularly receive envelopes with unsigned papers detailing the specifics of operations targeted against enemies and announcing successful actions. I specifically recall seeing one such report outlining the attacks on Corydon on account of his book.”

(Exhibit A.4 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

39

d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989

On September 26, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. Vicki was the President of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) from 1983 to 1987. RTC is the most powerful corporation controlled by Scientology.

¶ 3. One of the “foremost enemies” of Scientology is a person labelled a “Squirrel”, someone who practices Scientology on his own and threatens Scientology’s profitability because Scientology does not get money from such practice. “Squirrels are despised and persecuted in Scientology.”

¶ 4. David Miscavige is the most powerful person in Scientology with whom and other “top officials of Scientology organizations” Vicki attended meetings “to review the status of all Scientology’s activities including its litigation and dirty tricks campaigns against Scientology’s enemies.”

¶ 6. At one meeting in 1984 or 1985 Miscavige instructed those present that “all of Scientology should be more aggressive in their fair game attacks upon and injuries inflicted on Scientology’s enemies, especially squirrels.” “Bent Corydon was a hated squirrel who vexed Scientology’s leadership by his refusal to give up his outspoken position.”

¶ 8. “Miscavige meant all types of attack be used, including physical attacks, defamation, and efforts to cause Corydon to go into bankruptcy” pursuant to Scientology’s “scripture” known as the “fair game” policy which dictates that enemies may be “Deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist, without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, lied to, sued or destroyed.”

¶ 9. Because Vicki was president of RTC she knew “that fair game actions against enemies were commonplace. In addition to the litigation tactics described below, fair game activities included burglaries, assaults, disruption of enemies1 businesses, spying, harrassive investigations, abuse of confidential information in parishioner files and so on.”

40

¶ 11 “Ultimate control of all Scientology corporations rested with Miscavige . . ..”

(Exhibit A.5 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989

In the same case in the Corydon litigation, appellee Richard N. Aznaran submitted a declaration dated October 31, 1989, on behalf of Bent Corydon, wherein among other things he stated the following:

¶ When he left Scientology in 1987 he “had been in security and intelligence operations for the most senior management of Scientology for five years.” He “reported to and was directed by David Miscavige” who “particularly detested Bent Corydon an ex-Scientology ‘squirrel’ who had defected in 1982.”

If “I was instructed by David Miscavige . . . specifically . . . “that if I could I was to hurt Corydon physically if I could arrange for it to appear justified.”

¶ “On the next occasion . . . security guards, under my direction, jostled Corydon and placed him under ‘citizens arrest1 for trespassing. In actual fact Corydon never set foot on our property not did he represent any harm or threat of harm.”

¶ “Later, Miscavige called me to his office . . . and was yelling at me and threatening me with loss of my position and with ethics conditions [discipline] for not having carried out Miscavige’s instructions.”

“The bottom line was that Miscavige wanted Corydon physically and mentally punished.

(Exhibit A.6 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

If this Court enforced the “releases,” Corydon would not have the benefit of the Aznarans’ voluntary cooperation in the form of sworn statements. Were Corydon deprived of such cooperation, the result would be “to subvert the truth and pervert justice through fraud, trickery and chicanery at the hands of unscrupulous

41

[persons].” Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654, 657, 658 [Agreement was void “as tending to obstruct and impair the administration of justice, and therefore as contrary to public policy.”].

4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation

On May 19, 1988, the Aznarans were interviewed by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for eight hours on the subject of their knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 168 at 3:12-4:27.) In addition to this, an F.B.I, agent named Brett Pruitt interviewed Vicki Aznaran for six hours in 1988 on the subject of her knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 246 at 3:3-9.)

Obstruction of criminal investigations is included within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1510 which “was designed to deter the coercion of potential witnesses by the subjects of federal criminal investigations prior to the initiation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317, 320; United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9, 20-21. Its purpose is to “extend protection . . . afforded witnesses, jurors and others in judicial, administrative and congressional proceedings to ‘potential informants or witnesses’ and to those who communicate information to Federal investigators prior to a case reaching court.” United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062, 1065.

Scientology has a history of implementing strategies to avoid accountability for its criminal conduct. Thus, in relation to

42

Scientology in United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64, 75, Judge Richey found a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510. He stated:

“When an organized group [Scientology] attempts to prevent one of its members from withdrawing from a conspiracy, surrendering to federal investigators, and detailing the criminal offenses committed by the other members of the group, plainly a violation of section 1510 is made out.”

The information possessed by both Vicki and Richard Aznaran pertains to both criminal conduct perpetrated by Scientology including the secreting of witnesses during I.R.S. investigations and the destruction of documents. Judicial enforcement of the”releases” would conflict with the intent and purpose of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1510. As was the case in Hubbard, Scientology’s attempts to judicially enforce the “releases” are further attempts to prevent witnesses or participants, including the Aznarans, from withdrawing from the conspiracies of Scientology by sealing their lips, from communicating with federal investigators and from detailing the
criminal activities of the enterprise. Moreover, where funds are provided to one with “the specific intent to buy his silence,” United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314, 318, both bribery has been perpetrated and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510.5

__________
5 Given Scientology’s tradition as set forth in various official reports and the former high rank of the Aznarans with their concomitant knowledge of Scientology’s activities, it would be consistent for Scientology to attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to silence the Aznarans. See Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, 443, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) [“[Scientology] has violated well-defined standards of public policy by conspiring to prevent the IRS from assessing and collecting [Footnote Con’t.]

43

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) bribery of a witness is defined, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person . . . with intent to influence such person to absent himself [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), in pertinent part, defines bribery of as witness as:

Whoever directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person . . . for or because of such person’s absence [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

The “releases” are intended to obstruct justice and suppress evidence. Only information compelled by subpoena can be disclosed and that can take place only after either one of the Aznarans”shall not make [himself/herself] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this
agreement.” Even if the federal obstruction statutes are not violated, the “release” comes so close to the line as to indisputably violate the public policy prohibiting the suppression

__________
[Footnote Con’t.] taxes due from [Scientology].”]; United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238 [Scientology criminal convictions in connection with the burglary of and conspiracy against the I.R.S.]; Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 [Former Scientologist falsely accused of grand theft and subjected arrest and imprisonment in consequence of application of “Fair Game Policy”]; Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra , 212 Cal.App.3d at 888 [Retributive conduct per the “Fair Game Policy” constitutes modern day parallel to the inquisition of the middle ages.]

44

of evidence of discreditable facts or criminal conduct.

5. Conclusion

It is indisputable that the violations of the releases, solely as they apply to Corydon. concern the disclosure of both discreditable facts and criminal activity orchestrated by Scientology’s leaders. It is clear that the object of the “releases” was to prevent such information from ever seeing the light of day. It is equally clear that the “consideration” for the “benefits” Scientology claims the Aznarans have received was the nondisclosure of facts which tend to both discredit Scientology and reveal that it is an organization that is, in substantial part, criminal in nature. Therefore, the “releases” which Scientology would have this Court compel enforcement by reversing Judge Ideman’s denial of preliminary injunction, are void. Similarly, the “releases” intended to prevent the Aznarans from cooperating with federal agencies investigating Scientology. Thus, the “releases” could in fact violate federal statutes prohibiting the obstruction of justice.

IV.

SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED

In essence, Scientology has sought judicial relief in order to compel the Aznarans’ specific performance of the alleged”releases.” Scientology would have the Court force the Aznarans to drop their lawsuit and to remain mute in relation to their knowledge of the wrongdoing of Scientology. Such would constitute specific performance of the “releases.”

45

Civil Code § 3423 provides that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specific

ally enforced. Scientology could never obtain specific performance of the releases at issue because, as shown above, those releases are voId.
In this regard, the California Court of Appeal stated:

“courts will not compel parties to perform contracts which have for their object the performance of acts against sound public policy either by decreeing specific performance or awarding damages for breach. [Citation.] Ordinarily, the parties to a contract, void because contrary to public policy will be left where they are, when they come to the court for relief.”

Stanley v. Robert S. Odell & Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 521, 218 P.2d 162, 169; Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253, 254.

Therefore, upon this ground as well, the denial, below, of preliminary injunction sought by Scientology is justified

V.

STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed

The grant of a preliminary injunction is a “drastic and unusual judicial measure,” Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330, 334, and “an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be granted as an exception rather than as the rule.” Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22, 28.

“The award of such relief is not a matter of right, even though the petitioner claims and may incur irreparable injury. The matter is

46

addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and absent a strong showing of need, it need not be granted. Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414, 440. Where an injunction may adversely affect a public interest, the Court, in its exercise of discretion, may withhold such relief even though such denial may prove burdensome and cause hardship to the petitioner.” Marine Transport, supra , at 335.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits. When mandatory, rather than prohibitive, relief is sought, those seeking relief must “clearly establish that a change in the status quo is warranted.” Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif.1984) 611 F.Supp. 990, 1001.

The purpose and scope of appellate review of a preliminary injunction is the propriety of its issuance:

“While the standard to be applied by the district court in deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction is stringent, the standard of appellate review is simply whether the issuance of the injunction, in light of the applicable standard constituted an abuse of discretion.” (Emphasis Added)

Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 457, 36 L.Ed.2d 420 See also Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 931-932, 45 L.Ed.2d 648.

The Supreme Court has affirmed this standard in a case in the face of a claim wherein First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were asserted to have been implicated as the basis for “different treatment.” Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 1308, 62 L.Ed.2d 454. The Supreme Court stated:

“[A] trial judge’s determination of a

47

preliminary injunction should be reversed by this Court or by other appellate courts in the federal system only when the judge’s ‘discretion was improvidently exercised.’ [Citations.]” Id. at 1307.

The Court specifically rejected arguments by the Synanon Church that review of a district court’s decision was subject to a different standard of review simply because a church contended an impact upon its Constitutional Rights.

“Applicants contend, however, that by reason of the fact that they are a church, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution they are somehow entitled to different treatment than that accorded to other charitable trusts. But we held only last Term that state courts might resolve property disputes in which hierarchical church organizations were involved in accordance with ‘neutral principles’ of state law. [Citations omitted.]” Id. at 1307-1308.

B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment

Generally speaking, for the court of appeal to determine whether the District Court has abused its discretion it must:

“Consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. . . the [reviewing] court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the [district court].”

(Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416; See, Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750, 752. Thus, a ruling on a preliminary injunction “will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had
applied the law to the facts of the case. [Citation.]”

48

International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547, 550.

Indeed, when deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court “is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.” Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141, 143.

The standard of review for an exercise of discretion in the denial of a preliminary injunction was clearly stated by this Circuit in Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328. In Chism, the district court, in an exercise of its discretion, entered an order of dismissal against the plaintiff for failure to comply with the court’s rules. The Ninth Circuit upheld the sanction of dismissal as being within the sound discretion of the trial court. It stated:

“The rule in this circuit, often reiterated, is that the trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless we have ‘a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors. [Citations omitted.] In applying the quoted standard of review, we must remember that the district court, not this court, exercises the discretion.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1331.

Furthermore, the trial court’s findings regarding disputed facts are to be upheld unless clearly erroneous. See, J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187; Fabrege Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426. Therefore, provided that the District Court has not based
its decision to deny a preliminary injunction “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact” Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th

49

Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719, 725, such that “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364, 395, the reviewing court is “bound by the district court’s resolution of conflicting evidence and other
findings of fact.” Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817, 818.

C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case

The Ninth Circuit has noted that review of a preliminary injunction is much more limited than review of a permanent injunction:

“Our review of the district court at this stage of the proceeding is very limited. . .. The district court’s grant of the injunction must be affirmed unless the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521, 523; Accord, S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945; Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130, 1133-1134, 1135 fn. 5.

A preliminary injunction is merely “an equitable tool for preserving rights pending final resolution of the dispute.” Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software. Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415, 1423. Thus, appellate review:

“of an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is therefore much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction where all conclusions of law are

50

freely reviewable.” (Emphasis added.)

Sports Form, supra , 686 F.2d at 752.

The Supreme Court has stated:

“Preliminary injunctions are appealable to protect litigants from the potential irreparable consequences of erroneously issued injunctions, not to give litigants a preliminary opportunity to appeal their cases on the merits.” (Emphasis added.)

Carson v. American Brands. Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79, 83-86, In fact, “where the granting of a preliminary injunction would give to a plaintiff all the actual advantage which he could obtain as a result of a final adjudication of the controversy in his favor, a motion for a preliminary injunction ordinarily should be
denied.” Kass v. Arden-Mayfair. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037, 1041.

Unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial judge made a clear error of judgment such as to render the discretionary denial of a preliminary injunction clearly unreasonable, the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction must be upheld.

D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways

The grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the District Court and will be reversed only if the District Court abused its discretion. Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129, 1132. A district judge may abuse his discretion in any of three ways:

51

“(1) he may apply incorrect substantive law or an incorrect preliminary injunction standard; (2) he may rest his decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction on a clearly erroneous finding of fact that is material to the decision to grant or deny the injunction; or (3) he may apply an acceptable preliminary injunction standard in a manner that results in an abuse of discretion.” Zepeda, supra . 753 F.2d at 724.

Thus, a district court’s order is reversible for legal error if the court failed to employ the appropriate legal standards which govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction or, if in applying the appropriate standards, the court failed to apply the proper law in connection with the underlying issues in the litigation.

Finally, where the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction is based upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, it is reversible. Id. at 724-725; Accord, Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701, 704. Legal issues underlying the preliminary injunction decision are reviewed de novo. Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473, 1478.

E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction

In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet one of two tests. Under the first test, the court may issue a preliminary injunction if it finds that:

“(1) the [moving party] will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted, (2) the [moving party] will probably prevail on the merits, (3) in balancing the equities, the [non-moving party] will not be harmed more than [the moving party] is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. [Citation omitted.]”

52

Alternatively under the second test:

“A court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates ‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. [Citation omitted.] Under this last part of the alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits. [Citation omitted.] There is one additional factor which we must weigh. In cases … in which a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction. [Citation omitted.]”

Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670, 674-675. The two formulations of the alternative test”represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases [Citation.] Under any formulation of the test, there must be a demonstration that there “exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Oakland Tribune, Inc., supra . 762 F.2d at 1376.

Also, in certain cases, “the public interest is an important factor.” Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, 1498, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).

53

VI.

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable

A preliminary injunction is an “an exceptional remedy [to be] granted only in exceptional circumstances where its compulsory quality is appropriate.” In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451, 454. It is sought upon the theory

“that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiff’s rights. By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need for speedy action and cannot complain of the delay involved pending any final relief to which it may be entitled after a trial of all the issues.”

Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618, 622; Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273, 276. Thus, party resisting a motion for a preliminary injunction may argue that the lapse of time between the filing of an action and moving therein for a preliminary injunction indicates an absence of any injury that is irreparable. In order to be effective, such delay need not rise to the level required to assert the equitable defense of laches.

“Although a particular period of delay may not rise to the level of laches and thereby bar a permanent injunction, it may still indicate an absence of the kind of irreparable injury required to support a preliminary injunction.”

Id. 756 F.2d at 275-276. In Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macv & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7, a case trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought to enjoin certain conduct of defendant concerning

54

which it had been aware at the time it filed its lawsuit. It waited seven months before moving for a preliminary injunction. Reversing the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the Second Circuit found even though there was not a defense of laches, plaintiff had not been entitled to a preliminary injunction. It
stated:

“Lack of diligence, standing alone, may, however, preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief, because it goes primarily to the issue of irreparable harm . . ..”

Id. 762 F.2d at 8.

In Le Sportsac. Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602, plaintiff delayed nearly one year before seeking relief by way of preliminary injunction. The trial court stated”[d]elay of this nature undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.” Id. 478 F.Supp. at 609. See, Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270, 1275 [Deprivation of constitutional rights failed to overcome unjustified delay in seeking preliminary injunction.]; Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419
F.Supp. 1251, 1255 [Ten week delay after commencement of action “evidences a lack of irreparable injury and constitutes a separate ground” for denial of preliminary injunction.]; Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845, 856 [Three month delay in bankruptcy proceeding before seeking preliminary injunction: “Such a delay negates the very purpose for which an injunction serves.”]; National Customs Brokers and

55

Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511, 1517 [While plaintiff’s exhaustion of alternative remedies “cannot be faulted the court is not convinced that each step towards a preliminary injunction has been pursued at a pace consistent with a necessity for immediate action to prevent further harm.”]

The Ninth Circuit applies the same rule. In Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211, this Circuit held that a “delay in seeking a preliminary injunction is a factor to be considered in weighing the propriety of relief. . . By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need
for speedy action. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 1213. Thus, a plaintiff’s “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374, 1377.

1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

Scientology, in its “Brief for Appellants”, asserts that it suffers irreparable injury for the following reasons:
The instant litigation implicates what Scientology describes as “complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendant’s religious practices and beliefs.” (Appellants’ Brief at 3 3.)

“Litigation of such issues as religiosity, the truth or falsity of religious doctrine, and the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices would constitute a highly intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters” in violation

56

of Scientology’s contention it is entitled to First Amendment protection; (Appellants Brief at 33.) 6
That the instant lawsuit constitutes “harassing litigation”, a deterrent to the exercise of First Amendment rights. 7

However, Scientology’s contentions that it suffers such harms, which have now become “irreparable,” in consequence of the pendency of this lawsuit, have been made from the outset. Each legal contention submitted by Scientology in this appeal as the basis for its claim to irreparable harm was submitted in written arguments during the initial stages of this lawsuit in June 1988.

2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below 17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction

On June 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Notice of Motion and

__________

6 In support of this claim, Scientology cites the following cases in pages 33-35 its brief herein: Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664, 675; Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 620, 624-35; NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490, 502; Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73; Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 460; Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64; Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296; Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 16.

7 In support of this claim in its appellants’ brief Scientology cites the following cases: Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076; Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 387-391; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 267-83; N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 431-433; Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252; Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045; Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171; Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983, 989; Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110, 1121; Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268, 1273.

57

Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Record No. 50) wherein it contended it was a religion whose “religiosity” could not be adjudicated and cited Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir. 1979) 604 F.2d 73, 78; Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. (Record No. 50 at 9) In its Motion to Dismiss, from pages 6 to 27 of that motion Scientology submitted a lengthy argument wherein, citing Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, Everson v. Board of Education, supra, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra,N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, supra, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, supra, New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, it contended that the Aznarans’ lawsuit was not justiciable on the following grounds:

  • Because it involved a dispute between a church and its members;
  • Because it impermissibly sought to impose tort liability of a religion;
  • Because tort liability could not be imposed on the basis of church discipline;
  • Because liability could not be imposed on the basis of brainwashing by church; 8

On August 15, 1988, Scientology filed a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions (Record No. 85) wherein at page 24 it stated:

“A quick perusal of plaintiffs’ complaint and the opposition to dismissal reveals outrageous and vilifying charges against the defendant religious organizations as well as the assertion of massive financial liability. . . Accordingly it was foreseeable that a vigorous

__________
8 On September 6, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. (Record No. 102.)

58

and costly defense would be and indeed has been aroused against plaintiffs’ admittedly false allegations.” (emphasis added.)

On September 19, 1988, Scientology filed its Reply in support of its Rule 11 Motion where at page 29 it stated:

“included … in plaintiffs’ complaint are outrageous and inflammatory allegations regarding the defendants which would which would trigger a vigorous and costly defense . . . [including] allegations that the sole purpose of the defendant organizations was to make money . . . The significance of such a charge goes to the very heart of defendants1 First Amendment defenses to this entire litigation, as the defendants are religious entities who perform myriad religious services for their members. . . . Defendants . . . [argue] that the complaint must be dismissed because, inter alia, its adjudication would violate the First Amendment by invariably entangling the Court into a forbidden determination of solely religious concerns.” (emphasis added.) (Document No. 113) 9

On December 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Defendants’ Opposition To Ex Parte Application For A Temporary Stay Of Proceedings” (Record No. 153) wherein, citing Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Joint Executive Board, supra . 542 F.2d at 1082, on page 8 it stated:

“In addition, defendants are prejudiced by plaintiffs’ continued delay in bringing this action to resolution. Moveover, the mere pendency of claims impacting heavily on defendants1 First Amendment rights cause prejudice to defendants. … In Franchise Realty, the court warned that where a case poses the threat of ‘the long drawn out process of discovery’ which can be ‘harassing and expensive,’ added to a large damage claim,

__________
9
On October 25, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (Record No. 133.)

59

the action becomes ‘a most potent weapon to deter the exercise of First Amendment rights.’
Id. at 1082.” (emphasis added.)

At the time Scientology first raised the foregoing arguments, the harm it then claimed to suffer was not such as to move it to seek injunctive relief.10 At the time Scientology’s answers and counterclaims were filed, it did not seek injunctive relief despite the fact it was on notice as to the harms it now claims are
irreparable. Appellees submit if the harm was not then irreparable, it is less so now.

3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm

Scientology first noticed the depositions of the Aznarans on June 1, 1988. Thereafter, it commenced its “vigorous defense” with a consistent barrage of motions attacking the both substance of the Aznarans7 complaint and the facts upon which it is based. As set forth above, from the outset, Scientology was aware of the nature of the harm relief for which it now claims the District Court improperly denied a preliminary injunction.

Scientology delayed seeking a preliminary injunction until November 9, 1989, almost one and one-half years after it commenced litigating its defense of the suit. In light of the fact, according

__________
10In fact, when Religious Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology and Church of Scientology International filed their answers and counterclaims they pleaded their first causes of action on the Aznarans’ alleged breach of the “releases”; their second causes of action are based on the Aznarans’ contacts with Joseph Yanny, reporters from the Los Angeles Times. Bent Corydon, Jerold Fagelbaum and agent of the I.R.S. (Document No. 110 at 20-22 [Religious Technology Center]); (Document No. Ill at 20-23 [Church of Scientology International]); (Document No. 112 at 19-21 [Church of Spiritual Technology])

60

to Scientology’s own arguments, it was aware of the “harm” it alleges to be manifest in the Aznaran lawsuit, and in light of the fact that it failed to seek injunctive relief for 17 months, Scientology’s delay was, and is, not reasonable. Scientology’s delay eviscerates the legitimacy of the irreparable harm it has now decided to claim.

Simply, Scientology resorted to the legal technique wherein it sought preliminary injunctive relief only after its resort to other legal techniques had failed. Failing to win may hurt, but it is not irreparable injury.

B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability

Scientology contends it suffers irreparable harm because the instant lawsuit allegedly implicates a number of asserted rights. However, in so doing, Scientology has overlooked the legal fact of life that, like everybody else in our civilized society, it is subject to State Control in relation to the Torts it commits.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The provision creates two very different protections. The “establishment clause” guarantees the government will not impose religion on us; the “free exercise” clause guarantees the government will not prevent us from freely pursuing any religion we choose. Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra . 46 Cal.3d at 1112.

The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 215, 32 L.Ed.2d 15.

61

The free exercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304, 84 L.Ed. 1213. While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88, 88 L.Ed. 1148. The government may neither compel affirmation of religious belief Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 495, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70, 97 L.Ed. 828, nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views. Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 116, 87 L.Ed. 1292.

However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403, 10 L.Ed.2d 965; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69. Such conduct “remains subject to a regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 3 04. Thus, “while the free exercise clause provides absolute protection for a person’s religious beliefs, it provides only limited protection for the expression of those beliefs and especially actions based upon those beliefs. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 884.

Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state’s interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed on religion. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 214. The greater the burden imposed on religion,

62

the more compelling must be the government interest at stake. Molko. 46 Cal.3d at 1113.

Unwitting exposure to coercive persuasion, even when occurring in a context claimed to be religious, justifies the imposition of tort liability. There is a substantial threat to public safety, peace and order posed by the fraudulent induction of unconsenting individuals into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion. Id. at 1118.

Many individuals exposed to coercive persuasion:

“develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide. [Citation.] The state clearly has a compelling interest in preventing its citizens from being deceived into submitting unknowingly to such a potentially dangerous process. [f] The state has an equally compelling interest in protecting the family institution [Citations] . . . [which] almost invariably suffers great stress and sometimes incurs significant financial loss when one of its members is unknowingly subjected to coercive persuasion….” Ibid.

The court in Wollersheim decided that even if the “retributive conduct” known as “fair game” was a core practice of Scientology, it did not merit constitutional protection. The Wollersheim court reasoned that “fair game” was to the core of Scientology religious practice in Scientology in a similar way that “centuries ago the
inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe.” Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888.

“[T]here are some parallels in purpose and effect. ‘Fair game’ like the ‘inquisition’ targeted ‘heretics’ who threatened the dogma and institutional security of the mother church. Once ‘proven’ to be a ‘heretic, ‘ an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant

63

incarceration, torture and death. [Citations.] As described by the evidence in this trial, the ‘fair game’ policy neutralized the ‘heretic’ by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. [Citation.]” Ibid.

The court stated that if such conduct were to, in fact, “qualify as ‘religious practices’ of Scientology … we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d 890-891

The Wollersheim court also held that the process of “auditing”11 was not constitutionally protected when conducted under threats of economic, psychological and political retribution. An atmosphere of coercion constructed on the threat of “fair game” if one were to “defect,” the threat of imposition of a “freeloader debt”12 and physical coercion stripped “auditing” of any constitutional protection that it might enjoy were it voluntarily practiced. Id. at 893-894.

Wollersheim, like Vicki Aznaran in this case, was assigned to “Rehabilitation Project Force.” While on Rehabilitation Project

__________
11“Auditing” is a one-on-one process between a Scientology “auditor” and a Scientology student. The student is connected to a crude lie-detector, called an “E-Meter.” The auditor asks probing questions and notes the student’s questions as registered on the E-Meter. Wollersheim. 212 Cal.App.3d at 891.

12 When a Scientology staff member received courses, training or auditing, it was at a reduced rate of payment. If the person later were to leave Scientology, he would be presented with a bill for the difference between the staff rate and the public rate. A five-year member of Scientology could easily accumulate a “freeloader debt” of between $10,000 and $50,000. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 894. “The threat of facing that amount of debt represented a powerful economic sanction acting to coerce continued participation in auditing …” Ibid.

64

Force, Wollersheim’s regime commenced at 6:00 a.m. and concluded at 1:00 a.m. It included menial and repetitive work in the morning, study in the afternoon and meetings in the evenings. When he slept, it was in a ship’s “hole.” Wollersheim subjected himself to

“auditing because of the coercive environment with which Scientology has surrounded him. To leave the church or to cease auditing he had to run the risk he would be become a target of ‘fair game’, face an enormous burden of ‘freeloader debt’, and even confront physical restraint.”

Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 895. When a religious practice takes place in the context of such coercion, it enjoys “less religious value” than were it engaged in voluntarily. More significantly, “it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.” Ibid.

The facts pertaining to the Aznarans in the instant case and the facts set forth in Wollersheim have more in common with one another than not. In Wollersheim. as well as in the instant case, Scientology raised a “fundamental constitutional challenge to this entire species of claims against Scientology.” Wollersheim, 212 Cal.App.3d at 880. In the instant case, as in Wollersheim, Scientology’s constitutional challenge must be rejected.

C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit

In essence, Scientology asserts certain constitutional claims as the basis for its assertion of irreparable injury. It contends that the district court “erred as a matter of law in finding no injury as a result of the pendency of this lawsuit and the attendant threat to First Amendment rights.” (Appellant’s Brief at

65

37.)

Scientology claims the Aznarans’ suit causes injury of an irreparable nature because it (1) will not be able to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of the practices and beliefs of Scientology; (2) the case involves complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendants’ religious beliefs and practices; (3) the case is an intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters such as the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices and the truth or falsity of religious doctrine; (4) the case is an invasion of privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists; (5) the case will have a chilling effect upon religious practice by Scientologists and an adverse effect on religious proselytizing; and (6) will constitute an unconstitutional breach of the “wall of separation” between church and state.

In light of Molko, Wollersheim and the principles of First Amendment jurisprudence upon which those cases are built, the cases upon which Scientology predicates its foregoing claims are not controlling and provide little, if any, guidance.

Scientology raises the concern that it will be impossible to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of its practices and beliefs. However, as discussed above in Section VI,B, above, Scientology is not immunized from accountability for the consequences of its coercive practices. Indeed, there is a compelling state interest in preventing citizens from being exposed to religious coercion which justifies the state’s restriction of

66

Scientology’s conduct. Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 42 L.Ed. 2d 574 does not support the creation of an immunity for Scientology. That case held that a lawyer may not be held in contempt for advising his client to refuse to produce documents in a civil proceeding that in good faith the lawyer believed would incriminate his client and the “bell” in that case that could not have been unrung would have been material protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For similar reasons, Scientology cannot take shelter behind the rubric wherefrom it asserts a claim of violation of “the privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists.” (Opening Brief at 34.) The Wollersheim court noted society has an interest in eliminating Scientology’s imposition of coercive religious practices on its citizens. Such a compelling interest overrides the above-mentioned ambiguous and broad claim to “privacy.” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 does not help. Buckley pertains to the principle that compelled disclosure of names of political contributors “can seriously infringe on the privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Id. 424 U.S. at 60. However, as here, “a compelling public need that cannot be met in a less restrictive way will override those interests.” Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 467, 53 L.Ed.2d 867. The Molko court held “[a]fter careful consideration, we perceive no less restrictive alternative [to suing] available.” Molko 46 Cal.3d at 1118-1119. At 212 Cal.App.3d at 879, the Wollersheim court held:

67

“the state has a compelling interest in allowing its citizens to recover for serious emotional injuries they suffer through religious practices they are coerced into accepting. Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts.”

When Scientology contends that this lawsuit imposes a chilling effect upon religious practice by members and its proselytizing, it cites Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 and Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra . Apparently, Scientology takes the position that any testimony about its practices will subject it to “public stigma.” Watkins 354 U.S. at 197. Simply because there may be a chance that Scientology will suffer stigmatization, due to its forcing its religion upon citizens such as the Aznarans, does not justify an abrogation of the victim’s right to seek redress by lawsuit. If Scientology wants to avoid the stigma attached to the public dissemination of its outrageous and coercive practices, it should stop them. The answer is not to cloak such practices in secrecy so that under the claim of religion Scientology can continue to abuse the rights of others.

Finally, Scientology appears to want to maintain a “wall of separation” between church and state that is absolute. Scientology’s wall would preclude the state from imposing any limitations whatsoever on the nature and extent of whatever conduct in which Scientology chose to engage. In two hypothetical questions the Wollersheim court succinctly disposed of a similar postulation:

“This religious practice [the inquisition] involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. [Citation.] Yet should any church

68

seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?”

Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888. The framing of the questions communicates their answer. In fact, the logical conclusion of Scientology’s postulation would be “a diminution of the state’s power . . . [such] that there would soon cease to be that separation of church and state underlying the concept of religious liberty.” Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704, 712.

D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment

“Initial characterizations of conduct are important, if not dispositive, within the First Amendment realm.” International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430, 438. The First Amendment does not immunize an organization from governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy simply because it ascribes religious status to itself. In fact, courts should be “cautious in expanding the scope of [religious] protection since to do so might leave the government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests.” McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, fn. 7, 55 L.Ed.2d 593.

In order to merit bona fide religious status, the religious beliefs in question must be held in a manner that is “sincere.”

69

United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 166, 13 L.Ed.2d 733. Under this “sincerity” standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are “religious.” See, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, supra; United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125. When embarking on an evaluation of the bona fides of an organization claiming it is religious, the court initially looks to the purpose of the underlying constitutional safeguard. “The free exercise of religion promotes the inviolability of individual conscience and voluntarism, recognizing that private choice, not . . . coercion, should form the basis for religious conduct and belief.” (Emphasis added.) Krishna Consciousness 650 F.2d at 438.

In Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212, the court noted that “[l]itigation of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred.” Id. at 1160. The Founding Church court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that”. . . the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion.”Id. at 1162. Moreover, in Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453

70

F.Supp. 25, the court indicated that criminal conduct by members of a purported religion may trigger “sharp and careful scrutiny of [their] activities, including [their] claim of religious sincerity.” Id. at 259.

The court in Wollersheim noted that the ”specific issue of whether Scientology is a religion . . . remains a very live and interesting question.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 887. See, Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448, 1451 [“whether Scientology is a religious organization, a for profit private enterprise, or something far more extraordinary [is] an intriguing question that this suit does not call upon us to examine. . ..”].

Thus, for the purposes of this appeal the Court ought not to automatically confer religious status upon Scientology simply because it asserts it is, prima facie, a religion. See, Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Complaint (Document No. 65. at 2-17) [“Scientology is essentially a profit-driven business enterprise” engaged in quackery and criminal activity]. Its lust for money and coercion of its members’ free choice caution against too readily expanding the scope of First Amendment protection to include such conduct.

E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits

Scientology’s conduct as to the Aznarans, as described above in Section II.B, is medieval and of the same nature as the conduct described in Wollersheim. Under the facts set forth in this case, Scientology developed deception, coercion, overreaching and unfair

71

conduct into a formula whose equation would be a phenomenal escape from accountability – both to the Aznarans and to other victims whom the Aznarans could assist if they are not silenced. The “releases” were the final end point of Scientology’s formula for coercion which for 15 years it imposed upon the Aznarans. Having abused and harmed the Aznarans, Scientology then sought to silence them for life. Scientology has not stopped trying.

The Aznarans were under a misapprehension as to the nature and scope of the releases in that they understood the releases as the only means by which they could escape Scientology’s inquisition. Such an understanding was induced by the misconduct of Scientology.

The Aznarans did not intend:

(1) To release Scientology from legal liability for the egregious torts Scientology has perpetrated against them;

(2) To allow Scientology to chill, if not silence, their First Amendment right to speak by a “gag order” [which Scientology would then ask the court to enforce];

(3) To allow Scientology to dictate with whom they choose to associate and speak;

(4) To allow Scientology to prevent them from giving aid, comfort, and support to other victims of Scientology, including those who are bitterly locked in Scientology-style litigation;

(5) To bargain with Scientology about anything other than the chance to escape without being declared suppressive persons and subjected to retribution and the fair game policy.

Scientology has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to

72

succeed to establish that the releases are either valid or enforceable. The releases that Scientology would enforce are not even the releases that the Aznarans signed. For months after they signed whatever it was that Scientology had them sign the Aznarans repeatedly requested copies of the agreements. Those requests fell
on dead ears. Since Richard Aznaran on many occasions requested Scientology provide him with a copy, the most likely explanation for its refusal is that the releases have been changed to suit Scientology’s claims. Moreover, such conduct “fits with their earlier modus operandi.” (Record No. 197 at 30-31.) This is an
example of fraud in the inducement. When fraud induces a person to believe that the act which he does is something other than it actually is,

the act of the defrauded person is void because he does not know [what] he is doing and does not intend to do this act. . . Where a person is fraudulently induced to sign or indorse a bill or note in the reasonable belief that he signing something else, he cannot really be said to have made or endorsed the bill or note.”

C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 548, 154 P.2d 710 In our case, Scientology brought intense pressure to bear on the Aznarans, who were essentially captives, for more than one week. Scientology used the threat of “fair game” to obtain from the Aznarans what it wanted. It had the Aznarans sign agreements, but wouldn’t provide any copies thereof. Subsequently, when repeatedly asked for a copy over a course of months, Scientology produced
nothing. This is a case where there is a question of fact whether there has been fraud in the inception. Under this set of facts, it

73

is a question of fact for the jury whether the releases Scientology claims the Aznarans signed are genuine or whether they signed something other than what Scientology says they did.

In Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 559, 93 P.2d 1028 the court applied the doctrine of fraud in the inception to avoid a release that the plaintiff had actually read and knew what she was signing. The trial court found that the adjuster who obtained plaintiff’s signature on the release had employed “high pressure” methods, including lengthy importunities over a period of several days, to take advantage of the plaintiff’s physical and mental condition. When the adjuster obtained the signature and left plaintiff’s house, he did not leave a copy of the release with plaintiff. The court held that the adjuster “prevented the plaintiff from becoming acquainted with the character, contents and legal effect of the instrument.” In such case, there was no assent to the agreement. Thus, it was “absolutely void.” In our case the facts are quite similar and the final determination shall be for the finder of fact.

Scientology’s conduct with reference to the “releases” is subject to an estoppel. Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 555, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529. It had brainwashed the Aznarans for 15 years. It knew they had no money. It held them captive at the hotel. It sequestered their belongings and pets. It security checked them for hours eight days in a row. It threatened them with “fair game.” It offered the Aznarans the loan because it wanted them to leave California immediately. It threatened “fair

74

game” if they failed to sign all the documents submitted to them. It concealed the relationship of consideration among the releases, insurance payment, wage payment and loan by withholding the releases on one hand and providing documentation of the loaned principal on the other. It was aware of both the releases’ substance and that the Aznarans were not so aware because it refused to give them a copy, even when they asked. Scientology intended that the Aznarans spend the loan money without being aware of either the potential obligations of the releases or, in the alternative, the potential necessity for restoration and rescission. It induced the Aznarans to act in reliance on the concealment of the relationship of consideration between the releases and the loan by directing the Aznarans to move from Southern California to Texas where the Aznarans would have to start their lives anew. Such is compulsion, not ratification.

Scientology has manipulated the Aznarans into the posture where after they spent the loan money and could not offer to restore it, Scientology gave them a copies of the purported “releases” and took the position that the loan was consideration for the release the terms of which would be effective if the loan money was not restored. They should be estopped from asserting such a claim because Scientology may not take advantage of its own misconduct.

Nonetheless, Under the circumstances extant here, it is irrelevant that the Aznarans never sought to rescind the releases. Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97, 103 [When releaser, not due

75

to his own neglect, suffers misapprehension induced by misconduct of the releasee as to nature and scope of the release, the release is binding only to the extent intended by the releaser unnecessary to effect recission of release]; Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349, 352 [Where releasee causes misconception whereby contract releases claims other than those understood by releasor to be included, the release is ineffective as to misconceived claims – rescission and tender unnecessary]; Walsh v. Majors (1935) 4 Cal.2d 384, 396 [Requirement of restoration what has been received may be excused by special circumstances when on general equitable principles it would be unfair to impose such a condition].

Since the circumstances of the inception of such “releases’7 were permeated with domination, undue influence, duress, menace, fraud and violence the escape from which was the Aznarans sole cognizant consideration, they never entered into any agreement whereby they intentionally contracted away precious constitutional rights. Rather, they submitted, one last time, to Scientology’s instructions, directives and demands. The Court properly denied the injunctive relief sought by Scientology because such relief would far exceed the status quo pendente lite. The Aznarans never acted in a manner which in any way has conferred any validity on the releases. They only sought to escape Scientology. In such a circumstance, “courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction.” Martin 740 F.2d at 675. Just as after the ordering of injunctive relief, a court must be vigilant to ensure

76

”that what it has been doing [is not] turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong” Toussaint v. McCarthy (9th Cir.1986) 801 F.2d 1080, 1090, it must be careful that a motion for a preliminary injunction does not constitute an instrument of wrong at its inception (at trial or on appeal). The trial court exercised such care when it denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

P. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans

Were the Court to reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction, Scientology would enjoy the following benefits and the Aznarans would suffer the following hardships:

1. Scientology would protect itself from adverse exposure in the marketplace of ideas by possessing the force of a court order by which the Aznarans would be compelled to remain mute and silent about the information pertaining to Scientology that, on the basis of their long-standing affiliation with Scientology, they possess. The Aznarans would suffer a prior restraint on their First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Association.

2. Scientology would protect itself from its adversaries in litigation and obtain an unfair advantage therein by controlling said adversaries access to the public dissemination of the Aznarans’ knowledge through an injunctive restraint on speech. Scientology would also control any assistance the Aznarans might be able and willing to provide to its adversaries by preventing a sharing of information intended to expose the malevolent nature and

77

practices of Scientology. Such an order would tend to suppress evidence and thus constitute an obstruction of justice and the truth-seeking function of the courts.

3. Scientology would sequester the Aznarans from participating in the core democratic functions pertaining to any judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding in a further strategic step designed to minimize liability for harm for which it is, and should be, responsible.

4. Scientology would enjoy the opportunity to avoid accountability to the Aznarans for the consequences of its conduct. Such conduct was clearly tortious, and not subject to constitutional protection. The Aznarans would be prevented from exercising their right to obtain redress for and to be made whole from their abusive treatment at the hands of Scientology.

The only hardship that Scientology would suffer from the denial of its appeal is that it would have to be responsible to its victims, including the Aznarans, for the wrongs it has committed. In contrast, reversal would result in impermissible violations of the Aznarans’ constitutional rights. The balance of hardships tips sharply away from, not toward, Scientology.

G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest

Through the relief it seeks, Scientology would silence two of its highest-ranking former members from disclosing to an interested public what they learned about the nature, beliefs and practices of this “religion.”

This would be constitutionally intolerable. “Prior restraints

78

on speech and publication are the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 U.S. 539, 559. The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, without doubt constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373-374.

It is axiomatic “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. at 269. The mark toward which the First Amendment aims is “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” Associated Press v. United
States
326 U.S. 1, 20. This constitutional safeguard “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476, 484. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to “preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.” (Emphasis added.) Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. 395 U.S. at 390. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 U.S. 753 the United States Supreme Court affirmed the public constitutional interest in being able to receive information.

“In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to ‘receive information and ideas: It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom [of speech and press] . . . necessarily protects the right to receive …. Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141, 143; Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557, 564″ Id. 408 U.S. at 762-763.

Were the Aznarans silenced by an injunction, not only would

79

their First Amendment rights be violated, but also so would the right of the public at large to receive first-hand, truthful and accurate information about Scientology.

VII.

THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

This appeal is frivolous. This is the fourth time that Scientology has litigated whether it can enforce the releases. The releases themselves, as well as Scientology’s conduct in connection with them, smack of corruption and illegality, dirty The dilatory motion for a preliminary injunction was brought 17 months after Scientology submitted identical arguments in support of other motions by means of which it hoped to eliminate the Aznaran lawsuit. Both Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra, and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, conclusively establish that Scientology is the constitutionally, and morally proper subject of a lawsuit prosecuted to redress the abuses of coercion and torture. Stripped of its rhetoric, Scientology’s position in this appeal is simply frivolous and taken with a reckless disregard for the law, if not in malicious bad faith.

This court may award just damages and as much as double costs. FRAP, Rule 38. Moreover, such costs can be, and in this case should be imposed personally on counsel for the four appellant Scientology entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. If the Court is inclined to give serious consideration to this request, appellees respectfully request further opportunity to comprehensively set forth the facts upon which this claim is predicated.

80

CONCLUSION

The Aznarans have been interlocutorily hauled into this Court to litigate the same issues on which they have prevailed three times below. They respectfully submit this appeal should be denied, if not dismissed.

DATED: August _____, 1990

HUB LAW OFFICES

By: (signed) Ford Greene
FORD GREENE
Attorney for Appellees
RICHARD N. AZNARAN and VICKI J. ANZARAN

81

Aznaran v. church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
PROOF OF SERVICE
NO. 90-55288

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following documents: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

[X] (By Mail) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the united States Mail at San Anselmo, California.

[ ] (Personal I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand Service) to the offices of the addressee.

[ ] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

DATED: August 22, 1990

LAURA PERRY

Legal Secretary

82

Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
SERVICE LIST No. 90-55288

HONORABLE JAMES M. IDEMAN
United States District Court
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard.
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

MICHAEL L. HERTZBERG
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

EARLE C. COOLEY
Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones, P.C.
21 Custom House Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

KENDRICK L. MOXON
Bowles & Moxon
6255 Sunset Boulevard, suite 2000
Hollywood, California 90028

* One (1) copy of Brief for Appellees

83

Notes