Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 8) (July 11, 2002)

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 PRINCE1

VOLUME 8

DATE: July 11, 2002. Morning Session

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer
Circuit Judge

REPORTED BY: Debra S. Turner
Deputy Official Court Reporter
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida
_________________________________________________

KANABAY COURT REPORTERS
TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL (813) 224-9500
ST. PETERSBURG – CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320

Page 1008

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 and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
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

Page 1009

[… Other Court business]

THE COURT: Both sides can ask the witnesses if they have been keeping up with this, and I’ll have to decide what I’m going to do about it.

Okay. Mr. Prince.

(Mr. Prince took the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Okay. Day 31. This is the 11th, right?

MR. WEINBERG: Of the trial?

THE COURT: 7/11.

MR. WEINBERG: 7/11.

THE COURT: All right. You may continue, Counselor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE PRINCE (RESUMED)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in the vein that we just talked, the Judge

Page 1021

and I, have — since you have been back on the stand this week, have you met with any of the witnesses or prospective witnesses in this case?

THE COURT: Do you know who the prospective — does he know who they are?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think — well, the next witness is Frank Oliver, and then there’s Mr. Dandar. There’s some secret person that Mr. Dandar hasn’t told us about — maybe he’s told you — and the prior witnesses were Peter Alexander, what, Teresa Summers, Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, Bob Minton, other people — Brian Haney. Have you met with any of those people?

A Not anything for the purposes of — that’s been in relationship to this trial. I mean, I was here the day that Mr. Haney was here, and we had lunch when he was testifying. I think I was waiting outside the courtroom or something.

THE COURT: The real question is, Have you discussed with them their testimony or yours?

THE WITNESS: Oh, no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Have you discussed, since you’ve been back on the stand, your testimony with Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Page 1022

Q Or Mr. Lirot? I’m sorry. I had trouble with his name?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Or Ms. Greenway?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Okay.

A I followed the court instruction in that regard.

Q And have you had an opportunity to visit the — the —

THE COURT: Unless Ms. Greenway is a witness, she could technically — technically I suppose have chatted with her. If people under the rule —

First of all, he’s testified he ought not to be discussing his testimony; the Court instructed him so.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you this. I mean, have you eaten — I mean, have you visited with, you know, Ms. Greenway or Mr. Oliver or anybody like that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Because they’re friends?

A Correct.

Q When’s the last time you saw Mr. Oliver?

A Last night.

Page 1023

Q What were you doing with him last night?

A We had dinner. I invited him to a barbecue.

Q Did you know that he was going to be testifying —

A Yes.

Q — after you?

A Yes.

Q And where was the barbecue?

A My house.

Q And who else was there?

11 A Mr. Lirot, Mrs. Greenway, my fiance.

THE COURT: It — really and truly, this is  not your business. What is your business is whether —

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to ask one last question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you all didn’t talk about the case?

THE COURT: That isn’t the question either.

It’s whether he discussed anything about his testimony. I mean, they can talk about the trial.

They can say — we’re all crazy to think that when most people get together, they don’t say, “What do you think? Is the case going to be ready for trial?” But the question is what’s going on here.

Page 1024

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you talk at all about your testimony or Mr. Oliver’s testimony?

A No. I followed the Court’s instruction in that regard.

Q Now, I touched on this a couple of days ago, but I want to go back for just a minute and see if we can focus more on the dates. After you left the Church of Scientology at the end of October, beginning of November of 1992, there came a time when, in Minneapolis, you became employed by a company called G & B. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q And that was a company — is a company that is run by a woman named Dana Hanson. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q And she is a public member of Scientology?

A To my knowledge at the time, yes.

Q All right. And you’d started working for her in March of 1994, thereabouts, correct?

A I’d say that’s a fair estimation of when I started working for her.

Q And at first your then-wife had been referred to her to work, right? Is that how it started?

A I believe, yes. I believe you’re correct in that.

Page 1025

Q And the reference came from a staff member in the  Minneapolis Org?

A I’m not sure where the reference came from.

Q In any event, you began to work for this company, right?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed at the company until the fall of 1995, when you were fired, right?

A Incorrect. I was never fired from that company.

Q You left the company in the fall of 1995?

A Correct.

Q Now, during this period of time, Ms. Hanson was kind enough, for part of the time, to let you stay in her house. Right?

MR. DANDAR: Objection to relevancy.

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, during the time that you were employed by Ms. Hanson — oh, by the way, this company was run pursuant to Hubbard technology, correct?

A Not per se, but she wanted it to. She wanted me to run it according to Hubbard technology.

Q And —

A It hadn’t been like that before.

Q And briefly, that means what?

Page 1026

A Getting people to disclose intimate details about themselves because this was, you know, a Scientology belief that, you know, if you tell intimate details about yourself or things that you wouldn’t necessarily want made public, then it’ll somehow make you feel better and increase your production.

Q And —

A That’s one thing. Another part was to sit people down and have them study the writings of Mrs. Hanson concerning how the company should operate and make sure that they understood all the words that she had written.

And also, she wanted me to do like a class, a classroom for doing the TRs, the training routines that I mentioned earlier in my testimony that’s part of Scientology training —

Q Okay.

A — that kind of thing.

Q And the idea was the company would run more efficiently, correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, during the course of your year and a half or so with the company, there came a time when you admitted to Ms. Hanson that you had engaged in extensive unethical behavior, in violation of moral codes that were adhered to by Scientologists pursuant to this Hubbard

Page 1027

technology, correct?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. This is nothing but to try to embarrass and denigrate Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: What’s the point of this?

MR. WEINBERG: The point is that Mr. Prince said on direct that he couldn’t work because of the Church of Scientology, that he lost his job as a result of the Church of Scientology. That’s what he said.

THE COURT: That has nothing to do with this hearing. The objection is sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What was the reason that you left in October of ’95?

MR. DANDAR: Same objection.

THE COURT: I’ll allow that.

A I left because I didn’t want to practice — I didn’t want to do that — do the things, the Scientology things, in the company. I just wanted to be normal, just do what a company does, instead of adding a Scientology slant to it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So the Church, no staff member, had anything to do with you being terminated from your job.

You just —

Page 1028

A I think I mentioned I was not terminated from my job, Mr. Weinberg.

Q When you terminated from your job, no staff member had anything to do with it.

A I couldn’t hear you. There was noise going on.

Q I said no staff member in any Church of Scientology had anything to do with you leaving your job. Is that right?

A No. That’s categorically false. Mr. Sutter from the Religious Technology Center, after I would not do the Scientological things in that company, together with Ms. Hanson —

THE COURT: This is just not relevant.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I mean, a lot of that answer —

THE COURT: It is not relevant to this proceeding, so you’re not going to go into why he left the job. It just doesn’t matter.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said yesterday that you had — you accused the Church yesterday of having made you sign undated resignations, resignation letters, which were then dated on the date that you were busted from the RTC.

Correct?

Page 1029

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me show you —

Do we have the resignation letters? Are they in evidence?

MR. DANDAR: While they’re looking for that, Judge, did you say this is Day 31?

THE COURT: If what Mr. Weinberg said yesterday, that that was Day 30, then this would be Day 31. I couldn’t keep up with it.

MR. WEINBERG: May I approach the clerk?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 242 (handing), your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ve showed you what we’ve marked as 242 —

A Yes.

Q — Defendant’s 242. Can you look at those and tell me if those are copies of the three resignation letters which you signed on March 3rd, 1987?

A Yes, they are.

Q Now, you are familiar, are you not, with a dot matrix printer? Do you know what that is? Do you remember the printers back 13 or 14 years ago?

A Yes, I believe I know what you’re talking about.

Q Right. And this letter — you can tell that

Page 1030

these letters were typed on dot matrix printers. They were printed out on dot matrix printers. You can even see on the side, the column, some of the holes? Do you see that?

They line up exactly on the three letters, right?

A Okay.

Q And it’s impossible to have typed up a letter on a dot matrix printer years before and then run it back through and put a date on it years later. That’s impossible, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside of his expertise.

THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that?

THE WITNESS: No. But I know the answer to why these documents have this date on here.

THE COURT: Okay. If he can’t answer that question, he can’t answer it.

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

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Oh, can I have this?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure. She has it.

THE COURT: What is the number, please?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s 242.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in your direct testimony, you made a big

Page 1031

point about the CSWs, the completed staff work, you know, like the purchase orders. Do you know what I’m talking about?

A Yes, I do.

Q And —

A I didn’t make a big deal out of it. I think I explained it.

Q Well, the point was, you said that in order to — for the medical liaison office to buy, you know, chloral hydrate, you would have to have a CSW or purchase order issued. Correct?

A Right.

Q And then you drew some conclusion. Because there wasn’t any purchase order, your conclusion was that that hadn’t happened? Was that what your conclusion was?

A I do not believe that that was my conclusion.

Q In any event, you’re familiar, are you not, with cash floats? Do you know what that is?

A Sure.

Q And are you familiar with the policy that provides for a float for the MLO? Are you familiar with that?

A I am not.

Q Explain to the Court what a float is.

A Well, I mean, if you have a policy there, I mean,

Page 1032

I —

THE COURT: He just wants you to tell me what a float is, if you know.

THE WITNESS: I don’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you just said you did.

A Well, not in the — I don’t think — maybe I misspoke, because I don’t understand the context you’re talking about float here.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll have it marked.

Could you mark this as 243, I believe.

This would be 243, your Honor (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, I’ve handed you a — Defendant’s 243, which is Flag Order 3082R, November 15th, 1971, with regard to medical finance. And do you see that this policy reinstates in every Sea Organization the use of a $1,000 medical float? Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And do you understand what that means?

A Yes, I do. But this does not negate someone else that has a medical emergency, as stated in that CSW exhibit that we put in for medical emergencies, of what it has to

Page 1033

go through.

Q Well, do you understand that what this is saying is that for every Sea Organization, including — which would include Flag Services, correct, Fort Harrison?

A Correct.

Q Right. That for every organization, the MLO, the medical liaison office, has a $1,000 float from which they don’t have to issue these CSWs and purchase orders and can go get what they need? Do you understand that?

A Well, hang on a second, because I’m looking at this second page here, and it says since the medical officer has the authority in the Org more than anyone else under need of these purchases, he does not need division reapproval. He does not have to have a CSW for his money. Division 3 just disburses the money each time. A simple red purchase order stating $1,000 for a medical float is sufficient to get the money.

Now, what this is specifically referring to is a medical officer having this float, but there’s another policy letter in Scientology that’s in Division 3 that has to do with accounting. Even though this medical officer would have this float, he would still have to account in detail where the last $1,000 went as well.

Q Well, look at under “essential data.” Do you see where it says this policy — this medical float policy is

Page 1034

established to prevent the medical officer from having to spend much time or worry on finance?

A Yes.

Q Do you understand that the whole concept of every time I had to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner that needed it, that I would have to fill out some CSW, that that might not be a very efficient way to help people and that that’s what this float policy is all about?

A Well, you know, I understand what you’re saying in theory and, you know, I don’t — I really don’t think it’s a common practice.

THE COURT: Are you saying that when you go back and get more — $1,000 float money that they’re going to want to see what you spent the money for?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And how are you going to account for that? With receipts or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, have you ever been a medical liaison officer?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: I mean, this sounds to me like a petty cash fund of sorts.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s exactly —

Page 1035

THE COURT: When you have a petty cash fund, you still — if it’s a $1,000 petty cash fund, you’re going to have to show somebody what it is you spent the money on.

MR. DANDAR: I also object. The last sentence on this document talks about it’s only for the crew. They hadn’t mentioned anything about public members.

THE COURT: Well, you can bring that up on cross-examination.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I was just raising this because of the testimony on direct, that you needed a CSW. This policy says you don’t need a CSW.

THE COURT: I frankly didn’t even remember it, so . . .

MR. WEINBERG: You do now, right?

THE COURT: I do now.

MR. WEINBERG: And then I’ll just show you —

Then I’ll mark, just so it’s in the record the — as the next exhibit.

THE CLERK: 244.

MR. WEINBERG: 244, take one second (handing to Court and witness).

Page 1036

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The Modern Management Technology Defined: Hubbard Dictionary of Administration and Management. You know about that dictionary, right, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q If you go to “medical float,” do you see on page 329, it says: “With this float, the medical officer buys doctor-dentist-medical-health specialist visits and treatment, laboratory analysis, X rays, medical equipment essential for a person’s health, medicines, prescriptions, and transportation.” Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So something like a prescription for chloral hydrate would be covered by the medical float, would it not?

A This references this same Flag order. I gave testimony that a Flag order has to do with Sea Org personnel. It has to do with people that are on staff in the Sea Org.

Q So — so the MLO officer has to get a purchase order to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner who is staying at the Fort Harrison, but if he or she doesn’t — if a Sea Org member is at the Fort Harrison? Is that your testimony?

A My testimony is the evidence that you’ve given me

Page 1037

here states specifically that this is how it is done for staff members. The public, being a paying public, certainly have different policies.

THE COURT: To be candid with you, I think it’s been conceded that — by somebody that Lisa McPherson should not have been to the hotel. Hasn’t that been conceded?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don’t think conceded.

I think people were trying —

THE COURT: To suggest that it really ought not to have been taken care of —

MR. WEINBERG: It would have been a smarter thing to be in a different environment.

THE COURT: Right. So you have to assume that the medical that they’re talking about in this — I’ll ask Mr. Prince this.

You have to assume that normally it’s going to be Sea Org members who are going to be taken care of because they’re the ones that would be living in a Scientology facility.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But at some place like Flag, where they have maybe — I guess you have to be a Sea Org member to come there and take the technology courses that they offered.

Page 1038

THE WITNESS: No, you don’t have to be —

THE COURT: Right. So if somebody is there — there, and they have to get a — I mean, I don’t know what — they get sick and somebody is called in and they need some minor medicine, I would assume that they would allow this policy to govern, rather than have to go through all the harangue of whatever it was you were talking about.

But I think that whatever it is, you’re going to still, nonetheless, account for whatever it is you bought out of your petty cash fund or your float fund or whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Sure. And the other thing, your Honor, is that in no way will a Scientology organization pay the medical expenses of a public paying staff member, a public person coming in, using services in Scientology.

You know, the money works the other way. The public gives the money to Scientology. Scientology doesn’t then —

THE COURT: Well, we know they were using Ms. McPherson’s money to pay for certain things because she eventually ran out.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So presumably everything was subject. I mean, if she was really in a bad

Page 1039

situation, a psychotic, where she couldn’t — you know, they apparently were free to use her funds, I guess.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you can’t really tell us, under the circumstances that we’re dealing with here, whether chloral hydrate was necessarily purchased out of the float money or whether it was purchased with this CSW.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Would that be fair?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Just a few more questions, one more area.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back to the gun situation just for a moment.

Yesterday when we talked about this or the day before — I’ve sort of lost count now — you sort of suggested that it was more of a — of a joke, that you really weren’t that serious.

THE COURT: What was a joke?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That you weren’t really threatening anybody.

THE COURT: What are you talking about?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I’m sorry, the gun, when

Page 1040

he says he pulled the guns on David Miscavige.

A I didn’t say anything about a joke. I said I did it out of self-protection.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So —

A That’s the testimony that I gave from this stand.

Q Well, I thought I heard you say that you didn’t really threaten anybody.

A I can’t help what you thought you heard, but I can tell you right now that when — after — what I testified to in this courtroom is that after those people grabbed me and I got away from them, I went to my room and got these weapons to protect myself.

It wasn’t a joke to me at that point.

Q And when you first told — do you remember when you first told this story about guns? That was in the FACTNet deposition, which was the first deposition I think — was that the first deposition you gave after you became a witness against Scientology?

MR. DANDAR: Objection to form.

THE COURT: No, that’s all right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A I’m not sure.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Page 1041

Q All right. Do you remember in that deposition that you said something to the effect that bodies were going to start dropping?

A If you have it, you know, I’d like to see it.

Q Okay.

A If you just have it, you show it to me, and I’ll tell you what I said.

Q We’ll play a short clip, you’ll have it, and then I’ll have a couple of questions.

A Okay.

HE COURT: A short clip from what? A deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Of his deposition. It’s his deposition.

THE COURT: In this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No. It’s his deposition in the FACTNet case. It will take just a minute, I think.

MR. DANDAR: Apparently need it brighter.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m amazed she can pull this stuff up.

THE WITNESS: Right in this room, I’m having a difficult time. I think I’d better go around.

THE COURT: Sure. Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: Wait just one second.

Page 1042

(The witness left the stand,)

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The tape was played as follows.)

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JESSE PRINCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1998

A And I went to my room, where I had a loaded .45 and a loaded Mini 14, and I came back to David Miscavige’s office with those guns. And I said, “Which one of you wants to fuck with me now?”

BY MR. ROSEN:

Q And what happened? I’m sitting here with bated breath thinking — to hear the end of the story.

A Well, do you want me to tell it or do you want —

Q No, I’m (unintelligible) the answer to that question that you raised.

A Well, I’m confused now. What question did I raise?

Q You posed a question to Mr. Miscavige that “which one of you wants to F with me now?”

A Right. So at this point Vicki comes running out:

“Jesse, no, no, no, it’s all been sanctioned by Annie Broker. She knows about everything. And Pat Broker. She knows about everything. Don’t do this.”

Then here comes David Miscavige. He completely

Page 1043

changes his tune now: “Oh, Jesse,” you know, “we’ve been friends and we’ve gone through so much. Let’s not go here.

It’s a mistake what we’ve done here. I know you’re upset. Please let’s talk about it.”

And I stood there looking at them with my guns in my hand, wondering. You know, like you can pat a snake on the head, but as soon as you pull your hand back, he going to bite. And I was wondering if that was going to happen to me as I’m sitting here with these guns.

And, you know, David is like pleading. Then it turns into a situation like, “Well,” you know, “we’ve got lots of guns too.”

And I said, “What the hell do you all want to do, have a shootout? Because I’ve got guns here, and bodies are going to start dropping.”

(End of tape. The witness returned to the stand)

MR. DANDAR: I object. It’s apples and oranges. It doesn’t even go to try to impeach the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, first —

THE COURT: I don’t know what the purpose was, so we’ll hear now.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Yesterday or the day before, July 9th, when I

Page 1044

asked you the question about whether you threatened to kill Mr. Miscavige, you said, quote, “I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige.”

Now, when you told that story to Mr. Rosen at that August 1998 deposition, you said in front of Mr. Miscavige, you know, “Bodies are going to start dropping,” or something like that. Right? I mean, you said that —

A The video speaks for itself, and I don’t contest it. I mean, that’s — what I said is what happened, is what I meant. So you can take it any way you want.

Q Now, when you said a Mini 14 —

THE COURT: A what?

MR. WEINBERG: A Mini 14.

THE COURT: What do we care about this, about these guns?

MR. WEINBERG: About —

THE COURT: About something that went on between him and — way back when.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s just the opposite, your Honor. We don’t believe this incident ever happened and that he just made this up for reasons that one can only imagine when he told this story for the first time in August of 1998. But, your Honor, I mean —

Page 1045

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you. A Mini 14 is an assault rifle, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Bailiff, could I possibly have our model there?

This is just a replica.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s plastic. It’s plastic.

It’s not real.

MR. DANDAR: I just wish — I just wish the St. Pete Times was here with their camera to see this.

I think this is an unbelievable game —

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

MR. DANDAR: — of showmanship. It’s irrelevant.

THE COURT: What is the point?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q (Showing) Is that what you’re talking about?

Something like that?

A Similar to, but not quite.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’m going to give you this back.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you still contend that that’s what you pulled

Page 1046

on Mr. Miscavige and the other twelve people that were there. Right?

A Mr. Weinberg, I stand behind the testimony that I’ve given about that incident in the past and anything I’ve said —

Q All right.

A — in this hearing.

Q And then they just let you go right back to your room and put the guns in your room?

A Correct.

Q And they didn’t take them away from you?

A Correct.

Q And they just stayed there for the next, what, five years?

A No. I eventually sold the Mini 14.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I don’t have any further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Redirect?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, we ought to pick it up right where Mr. Weinberg just left off.

(Mr. Weinberg spoke to Mr. Dandar off the record.)

Page 1047

MR. DANDAR: Do you want me to wait?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. I just don’t want to interrupt you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When you had these two real guns loaded as you described when you were being, quote, busted, unquote, Mr. Miscavige came right up to you while you held the two guns in your hands, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did you or he laugh?

A Laugh?

Q Laugh.

A Like laugh?

Q Yes, like laugh.

A No.

Q Did Mr. Miscavige say — indicate to you any fear whatsoever?

A No.

Q And then you turned around and walked back to your room?

A Correct. I believe he may have even followed me there. And we then proceeded to that area of the ship where we saw the pictures with the swimming pool, with the mast, and we had a conversation there.

Q Did you sit around the pool?

Page 1048

A Well, actually, there’s an area inside that’s air-conditioned, has a bar in there, and we actually sat in there and drank cold water and ate fruit.

Q And when Mr. Weinberg — or, you said that Vicki Aznaran, the president of the RTC, told you that this had all been sanctioned by Annie and Pat Broker, did she accompany you to the RPF after that?

A Yes, and other people for sure.

Q Because she took the Annie and Pat Broker side, rather than the David Miscavige power struggle side?

A Correct.

Q You’re going to the RPF, Mr. Prince. Did it have anything to do with any mistakes you made in applying the tech of Scientology?

A Absolutely not.

THE COURT: What does this all have to do with anything I’m hearing?

MR. DANDAR: Just trying to straighten out some misconceptions. My computer just went onto standby. That’s not what I wanted to happen. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, when you left Scientology, did you just walk out the door in ’92?

A No.

Page 1049

Q How did you leave?

A I had to basically sign a release saying that Scientology has never done anything wrong with me and has no liability for anything that I may be suffering then or could realize in the future and on and on and on —

THE COURT: Wasn’t that release introduced yesterday?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So it said whatever it said.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I wanted to ask him a question about it, and you can see my paralegal is not here, so I’m flying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That release says that you were releasing the Church of Scientology from any and all damages for valuable consideration. There’s two or three paragraphs that say that.

A M’hum (affirmative).

Q What valuable consideration did you receive from the Church of Scientology to sign that release?

MR. WEINBERG: It was asked and answered.

He explained —

THE WITNESS: No, I never answered this.

THE COURT: Just a second.

Page 1050

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, asked and answered

by Mr. Dandar. I didn’t go back into it. It’s beyond the scope. But he already — Mr. Prince already explained how much money he got in return for signing the release on direct.

THE COURT: He did?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. He said —

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.

MR. DANDAR: Shhh.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought he said a thousand plus dollars.

THE COURT: I don’t remember it, so I’m going to allow him to ask it. I don’t remember it.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I might have brain drain.

MR. DANDAR: I think you’re talking about some meeting in December of ’94.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t think so.

THE COURT: That was more than a thousand.

THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.

MR. WEINBERG: I really think he did, but it doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did you receive anything of consideration

Page 1051

to sign those releases?

A I think I received $2,000.

Q Okay. From whom?

A Good question. Marty just handed me the money.

Q Well, do you have any idea why it’s not mentioned in the release?

A I do not.

THE COURT: Most releases don’t tell you what. Most releases say “ten dollars and other valuable consideration,” don’t they?

MR. DANDAR: Not the ones that I’ve seen, Judge.

THE COURT: Most of the ones I’ve seen do, because I always wondered why they pick ten dollars.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how is it that Ms. Dana Hanson wanted to — picked you to come into her public business and set up her business to run the Hubbard tech?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competency.

I mean, how is it that this woman —

THE COURT: I’ll sustain that. Quite frankly, I suspect that he’s already testified he was one of the premier experts on the tech. So I mean, I think I can assume that.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. If you can assume that,

Page 1052

I’ll go on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you were —

THE COURT: I can’t assume that, but, I mean, that is the testimony that he has put forth.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So . . .

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there any other reason as far as you know — without telling us what other people said — is there any other reason as far as you know as to why Dana  Hanson hired you, other than your expertise on the tech?

A You know, there —

THE COURT: If you don’t know —

A I don’t know the reason.

THE COURT: Remember yesterday, that’s a perfectly valid answer in a court of law, “I don’t know.”

THE WITNESS: Yes. I don’t know of any other reason.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you wanted to tell Mr. Weinberg a little while ago why the date of March 3, 1987, appears on all three resignation letters which is Defendant’s Exhibit 242. Why does the date appear on there?

Page 1053

A Because after me and Mr. Miscavige had our little chat on the ship area after the gun incident, he said, you know: “We have your undated resignation, but just help us,” you know, “do everything right now.” You know: “We’re talking again. You’re going to take this fall; you’re going to do this. Would you please just do it again and sign these new ones?”

And I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”

So that’s why these are signed this way.

Q So there exists other resignation letters that are undated?

A Yes, correct.

Q Have you seen those? Have they been produced to you ever?

A Not today.

Q Have you ever seen them before this?

A Sure.

Q Where?

A In the Religious Technology Center in my office, where I signed it. I also saw it in David Miscavige’s office on the day that I was removed from the executive position of Religious Technology Center.

Q Okay. So on the resignation letters that are in evidence, those are the ones you actually signed on March 3rd of 1987?

Page 1054

A Correct.

Q Okay. And you did that because your friend David Miscavige asked you to do it?

A Correct.

Q You weren’t threatened and forced to do it?

A Correct.

Q Were you being a good Scientologist when you signed that?

A Absolutely.

Q All right. Now, Mr. Houghton, who is a defendant in this case, who is in the MLO office, who is the one that came up with the idea of using a syringe to get aspirin and Benadryl —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. First of all, to the form; he’s just testifying.

Secondly, he’s misstating the testimony.

And thirdly, it’s beyond the scope of my cross-examination. I didn’t ask anything about Mr. Houghton.

THE COURT: I suspect he’s going to go back to the CSW that you felt compelled to raise in some fashion.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. But then —

MR. DANDAR: How do you know that?

MR. WEINBERG: — I object to the form. Then I object to the form, as he’s just making a

Page 1055

speech.

THE COURT: Your objection to form is overruled because he’s not. He’s trying to provide some background to see if this witness can answer a question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Houghton stated on page 71 of his deposition, where the question begins on line 18, as follows.

Question —

THE COURT: You folks back there, I can hear you clear up here, so it must be disconcerting to Mr. Dandar. So keep your voices down. Or you may step out of the room at anytime you need to speak in a loud voice.

Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Question: “And where did you get the money to buy the prescription?”

Answer: “I got it from Alain Kartuzinski.”

Question: “And why did you go to him to get the money?”

Answer: “I didn’t have the personal funds to pay for it. I didn’t know. I don’t know exactly why I went to Alain. I don’t know what events led me up to getting the money from Alain, but I do know that’s where I got the

Page 1056

money.”

The question is, Is Mr. Kartuzinski, back in November and December of 1995, pursuant to his testimony in this case, part of the MLO?

A No.

Q What was he?

A He was the Senior CS —

THE COURT: I’ll tell counsel what you really don’t have to do is ask this witness that. I would know that.

MR. DANDAR: Sorry.

THE COURT: You can save a lot of this for closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: All right. There’s so much of that.

All right. That takes care of this part.

Let’s put this away.

THE COURT: Is this a witness, by chance, that has just come in?

A SPEAKER: (Shook head negatively.) No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome then. I didn’t want somebody to come in that was maybe going to testify.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1057

Q All right. Mr. Prince, in your tenure in Clearwater at the Lisa McPherson Trust, did you ever see the Church of Scientology picketing the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Absolutely. You know — yes. Yes, many times.

Q Would they do it in front of the building, the office?

A They would do it in front of the building. They would do it inside the building. There’s many police reports of Scientologists running and screaming, disrupting activities. Again, my friend — my good friend, Judge Penick, can speak about that. And we watched videos for days. He would be a great witness about that.

Q Okay. All right. Do you know if anyone from the Lisa McPherson Trust hired private investigators to follow Church members around?

A Never.

Q Go to their homes and picket their homes?

A Never.

Q Pass out leaflets in their neighborhood?

A No.

Q Now, even though you left the Church of Scientology, have you ever divulged the confidential PC folders of the people that you either audited or were a case supervisor over?

Page 1058

A No, I have not, never.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg went back and talked to you about your deposition that you gave on behalf of Religious Technology Center, where their former attorney, Joseph Yanny, was suing them or RTC was suing him. I’m not sure.

Do you remember which way that was?

A I don’t remember which way it was going.

Q Okay. But anyway, that was back in 1989, while you were still in your demoted status?

A You know, that had been some years past that, yes.

Q Okay. And when you met — you said you met with Mr. Earle Cooley, the attorney for RTC, before your deposition commenced?

A Correct.

Q Do you also recall meeting with a person by the name of Lynn Farney?

A Yes.

Q And the reason why I know this is it’s in your deposition copy that Mr. Weinberg gave me. Before today — in fact, as you sit here today, have you ever seen a copy of that deposition?

A No.

Q That deposition is dated September 11th of 1989.

Mr. Weinberg questioned you in your deposition in this case

Page 1059

that was taken in ’99, ten years after the RTC deposition.

Do you remember him questioning you about that deposition?

A Yes.

Q Did he give you a copy of that deposition back then?

A No.

Q Now, Mr. Farney, do you know — back at the time that he and Mr. Cooley, the attorney, met with you before the RTC deposition, do you know what position he had?

A Mr. Farney had been on a Rehabilitation Project Force with myself. Mr. Lynn Farney is a person that I used to create and establish the Office of Special Affairs at International. I had —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, he just asked him what position he was in at the time that he supposedly had this meeting with him. Now we’re getting the whole history. Can he just answer the question, please?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q At the time of his deposition, what was his position?

A Mr. Farney was working in OSA International. It was my belief that Mr. Farney was working in OSA International.

Page 1060

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I must have missed the beginning of this. What did you initially ask him? If Mr. Farney was —

MR. DANDAR: Part of the meeting preparing Mr. Prince for deposition in the RTC case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: RTC slash Yanny, Y-a-n-n-e-y.

THE WITNESS: Y-a-n-n-y.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Farney is someone that you worked with in establishing the Office of Special Affairs?

A Correct.

Q Do you remember what year that was?

A ’84. ’83, ’84.

Q Okay. And are you aware that Mr. Farney is also the person who met with all the staff members after Lisa McPherson’s death?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor —

A No, I was not aware of that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to form. He’s testifying.

THE COURT: True. Sustained. However, he wasn’t aware of it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. It’s just —

Page 1061

THE COURT: Remember, questions aren’t evidence, only the answers.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, in that meeting before your deposition, who instructed you to avoid telling the truth in your deposition?

A Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Cooley.

THE COURT: Is it Rathburn or Rathbun?

MR. WEINBERG: Bun.

THE COURT: Bun.

THE WITNESS: Rathbun.

THE COURT: B-u-n.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

MR. DANDAR: And it’s Ms. Brooks, not Mrs. Brooks. Never mind.

MR. WEINBERG: R-a-t-h-b-u-n.

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did it surprise you when Mr. Cooley and Mr. Rathbun were giving you instructions on not telling the truth?

A No, it did not.

Q And why is that?

A Because it’s expected.

Q Why is that?

Page 1062

A Because you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect — you know, it’s like placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk being a crime. You have — you are expected as a member of the Church of Scientology to do and say whatever you have to to preserve Scientology, to preserve its leaders.

Q Is that a written policy?

A Probably.

Q And Mr. Yanny —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, could we just identify that policy if that’s a written policy?

He said “probably.”

THE COURT: I assume probably he couldn’t tell us —

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: — or he would have given us a number.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you tell us — without giving a number, but can you tell us generally what policy you’re talking about?

A As I sit here today without the materials, I could not, but I could certainly submit a declaration on it at a later point.

Q All right. What is an acceptable truth?

Page 1063

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I didn’t ask him about —

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: I think he already — didn’t you already ask that on direct?

MR. DANDAR: I did, I did.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, you said —

THE COURT: Didn’t you also testify about the greatest good for the greatest number?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did.

THE COURT: So we’ve heard, I think, a lot of that.

MR. DANDAR: You have, I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you working for RTC at the time of that deposition in 1989?

A No, I was not.

Q Well, Mr. Yanny was the former president — or, attorney for RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q Why was he suing RTC? What was that litigation about?

A You know, what I recall about that is that when

Page 1064

Joseph Yanny was hired, he was hired by myself and Ms. Aznaran as the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center. When he was hired —

THE COURT: Who was? I’m sorry.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Joseph Yanny, the attorney that was hired.

THE COURT: Mr. Yanny was an attorney?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: In fact, Judge —

Did we mark that as an exhibit at deposition? I’d like to have that marked as an exhibit since it was used. But Mr. Yanny is the one that actually took over questioning of Mr. Prince on the pertinent pages that Mr. Weinberg pointed out, although Mr. Yanny had his own attorney there. He took it over because Mr. Yanny — like me and Mr. Lirot. I have all this stuff in my head and I know what’s going on.

So the transcript — and I’d like to make that — and I will make it an exhibit if it’s not — shows that Mr. Yanny took over the questioning of Mr. Prince in that 1989 deposition.

THE COURT: Normally we don’t use as an

Page 1065

exhibit something that is just strictly used for impeachment purposes.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s why I didn’t do it.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But if you want to make it an exhibit, why, that’s your — you can try to do that.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you stated to Mr. Weinberg —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, let me object. I mean, let me intercede for just a second. Just so it’s clear, Mr. Yanny was the party, was the plaintiff. And I think that was clear, but I’m not sure if it was.

THE COURT: I got it.

MR. WEINBERG: RTC was the defendant.

THE COURT: I didn’t realize Mr. Yanny was a lawyer. That’s why I —

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you hired Mr. Yanny to be the attorney for RTC?

A Mr. Yanny was — yes, I did, to be the lead counsel for RTC. RTC had other attorneys, but Mr. Yanny

Page 1066

was hired to be the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center at that time.

Q And is it for any particular case?

MR. WEINBERG: Object. Your Honor, I believe this is all beyond the scope. All I did was impeach him on his false testimony, which he admitted was false in that deposition. Now to get to the history of that lawsuit or Joseph Yanny I think is beyond the scope and not relevant to this proceeding either.

THE COURT: I would tend to agree with that, Counsel. You know, if you think it’s relevant and there’s something you can tell me about this, I’ll listen to you. But it’s just another one of these lawsuits, many, many lawsuits.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, do you know whether or not any of the allegations made between RTC and Joseph Yanny had anything to do with Mr. Yanny perjuring himself or suborning perjury?

THE COURT: That would be relevant.

A I don’t know. I don’t remember it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You don’t?

Page 1067

A No.

Q All right. Now, did Mr. Yanny have anything to do with any of the Wollersheim litigation?

A Yes, he did. The Wollersheim —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That was a yes or no question, and to — if we get into the details, I’m going to object because it’s beyond the scope and it’s not relevant.

THE COURT: That would be true.

MR. DANDAR: Except he brought up the question, Mr. Weinberg did, about Mr. Prince’s testimony of destruction of the PC folders.

THE COURT: Oh, right.

MR. WEINBERG: And I impeached him on it with the Yanny deposition. He admitted it. He said he lied in the deposition. That’s all I used it for.

THE COURT: Well, I think at this point we’ll see what his question is.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was Mr. Yanny involved in representing RTC against Mr. Wollersheim?

A Yes.

Q And was Mr. Yanny involved when Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folders were destroyed?

Page 1068

A He had no personal knowledge of it.

Q Was any attorney for Scientology involved in that in any degree?

A The only one that I know of that would have had information about that would have been Mr. Earle Cooley.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, “would have had.”

I mean, is he saying he did have?

THE WITNESS: I can explain if you would like me to.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. Explain it.

A The decision to do this was made in a conference room at Author Services with myself, Vicki Asnaran, Mr. Rathbun was there, Mr. Cooley was there, and this all has to do with —

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor. And this had —

THE COURT: Who else was there?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Lyman Spurlock I believe was there, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mr. Cooley, Marty Rathbun.

And we were sitting in the conference room discussing it. Mr. Starkey may have been there, Mr. Norman Starkey.

THE COURT: This is when you discussed

Page 1069

destruction of these records?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So Mr. Cooley would have heard this? Is that what you’re saying?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And whose idea was it to destroy the records?

A As best as I can recall, it was Ms. Aznaran that said, “We have to destroy the folders.” Mr. Miscavige and everyone else agreed, so that’s what was done.

Q And did the folders contain information that would hurt the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, it — apparently, you know, that’s what they felt.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: That’s what you felt too. Right? You were there.

THE WITNESS: Well, I had actually never seen Mr. Wollersheim’s Preclear folders. I had never audited him.

THE COURT: But you didn’t have a problem destroying it.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1070

Q And why didn’t you have a problem destroying his records?

A Because, like every good Scientologist, you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect the integrity of Scientology, its leadership, so that it would carry on because it’s the greatest good. Scientologists believe that Scientology is man’s only answer to freedom.

Q Now, did you have to understand — I’m sorry.

Did I interrupt you?

A No, go ahead.

Q Did you understand at any point in time there was actually a court order to produce the entire PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim after the Church only produced a little bit of it?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, relevancy. He’s already — and beyond the scope and all that —

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINBERG: — other stuff.

THE COURT: I’m sustaining it as beyond the scope.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Well —

THE COURT: I mean, frankly, I think we’ve already been over this.

MR. WEINBERG: I do too. That’s why I objected.

Page 1071

THE COURT: I don’t need to hear it several times.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince —

MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, our position is no PC folders were destroyed.

THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that too.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you understand that Mr. Wollersheim was — did allege that his PC folders were destroyed?

THE COURT: I mean, what are we using —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me ask you this question. This is what I’m leading up to. Mr. Prince, you said that you lied in your deposition in the Yanny vs. RTC case?

A Correct.

Q And you said you sat in this meeting where Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Cooley was at this meeting where a decision was made to destroy evidence of PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim?

A Correct.

Q And Mr. Aznaran is the one who actually went out

Page 1072

to the paper mill and had it pulped?

A Correct.

Q And you did that because you were being loyal to the Church of Scientology?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: It’s irrelevant. Besides that, you’re doing the testimony, and he’s just saying yes.

You need to ask him, Why did you do that?

MR. DANDAR: And he’s answered that.

THE COURT: Yes, he has.

MR. DANDAR: I want to skip — the question is this.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, are you testifying for the Estate of Lisa McPherson or for me because you’re loyal to the Estate, to the cause, or to Ken Dandar?

A No. I’m testifying because it’s the right thing to do. It’s very difficult to divine truth from — I’m not trying to be vicious here, but it’s very difficult to divine truth from Scientology. People that are currently working on this case, they’ll do anything they can to obstruct it. They’ll do anything they can to make sure —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A — that you can’t find out the truth, and —

Page 1073

MR. WEINBERG: He’s going on and on and on.

A — that’s why I do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He was asked a leading question, Are you testifying because you were loyal to the —

THE COURT: Actually, that wasn’t leading because his answer was no.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand he said no. Now he’s going off into some big explanation.

THE COURT: That’s true. If you want to ask him why are you testifying, then he can go on with his explanation.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Why are you testifying in this hearing?

A To give justice and equity a chance — a fair chance, to give all the information, to be able to give the full view of what’s going on. You know, I think it would be fair — it’s only fair that the whole picture is seen.

Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks offered to continue to pay you $5,000 a month if you, quote, went down the road with them, close quote, and lied. Isn’t that true?

A I was promised a lot more than that.

Q What else were you promised to lie?

Page 1074

A Retirement.

Q Did they go into any specific details?

A Financial security that will retire me for the rest of my life.

Q Any dollar figures discussed?

A A quarter of a million. That’s normally what Mr. Minton does when he gives people money.

Q Would a quarter of a million be enough?

A For me to retire for the rest of my life? No. I think I’m too young. I would need more. I would have to need more.

Q And is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks proposed this to you, to lie, that they knew that they wanted you to lie?

A Absolutely. They knew they were lying. They knew we all had to lie. I mean, this is the only thing that they felt they could do to end it, disengage, to be done with it. I mean, there’s only so long you can wrestle with this demon.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: And you don’t need, Mr. Weinberg, when it’s your turn, to get up and respond to that. It’s for money, he testified. So I understand where both of you all are coming from here.

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t even going to make

Page 1075

that point.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: One short point on that.

THE COURT: Well, I saw you getting — fuming, and I was thinking, “Oh, dear.”

MR. WEINBERG: I was thinking about all the calls I have to return.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, when you and I met at the mall with Mr. Lirot, Mr. Haverty, and your fiance and you wrote out what’s attached to your declaration, the handwritten note of April 14th, 2002, did I promise you money at all?

A None at all. Money wasn’t even discussed.

Q Did I pay you any money for writing that note?

A Absolutely not.

Q Did I promise to pay you money in the future if you wrote that note?

A No, you did not.

Q And isn’t it true or — what’s the reason why I gave you a retainer of 4,000?

A Because my time is as valuable as anyone else’s.

Q And you’ve been working on this — this hearing preparing documents for me?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You are back now as Mr. Dandar’s

Page 1076

consultant? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And expert?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q I certainly haven’t promised you any retirement money, have I?

A No, you have not.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we have a direct question instead of a leading question?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you were in LMT, did you know that the — and if I asked this, I’ll — I don’t remember asking this — do you know whether or not the LMT received an anonymous $300,000 from Clambake?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope. I didn’t ask about it.

THE COURT: It’s beyond the scope. The truth of the matter is, rather than recall, if this is an area that he thinks is important, I’m going to let him get into it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1077

Q Did you know that they got money from Clambake?

A The only — you know, I found out about that —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer the question?

THE WITNESS: I’m trying to answer the question.

THE COURT: Counsel, just let it go, would you?

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: We need to get through this.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

A I found out about that whole deal with money coming from wherever it came from when Teresa Summers wrote her resignation letter to Stacy Brooks and I read it, where that was mentioned.

THE COURT: So the truth — you did not know about the 300,000, who it came from. Mr. Minton never discussed this with you —

THE WITNESS: Correct, correct.

THE COURT: — is that right?

THE WITNESS: That’s right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you ever — while you were with LMT, did you ever hear the phrase “the fat man”?

A No.

Page 1078

Q Okay. Now, with this Key West fishing trip in the summer of 1999, as best I can phrase that, you had already been working for me for a few months, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, the other people that showed up down in Key West, like Mr. Ford Greene, is that someone that you had ever seen me with before that fishing trip?

A No.

Q Did I go on the fishing trip?

A No, you did not.

Q Did I stay with you and Mr. Leipold and Mr. Greene and Mr. Haverty?

A No.

Q Oh, in that release that’s in evidence, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 231, that release language says that you are conceding or admitting that you were not harmed by the Church of Scientology. Do you have any reason to know why that was put in your release?

A Yes. That was put in the release for the same reason that Scientologists are asked to lie. It’s to protect Scientology at all costs.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you on cross if you had any personal knowledge of whether or not David Miscavige was physically at the Fort Harrison Hotel while Lisa McPherson was there in November and December of ’95. Do

Page 1079

you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Prince, would it matter where David Miscavige was physically located as to whether or not he would have knowledge and was personally involved with the care and treatment of Lisa McPherson?

A In my opinion, no.

Q Why not?

A Well, with the state of technology today, it makes no difference whatsoever. But also, based on past experience that I have had with Mr. Miscavige during the Wollersheim case, we were really just a short distance away, and while the hearings were going on, people were calling and reporting all the time. There’s no problem of getting an on-the-ground report immediately in any place in Scientology for Mr. Miscavige.

THE COURT: It is your opinion — I’m sure you’ve probably testified to this, but I can’t remember. I’ve heard from several people. It is your opinion that Mr. Miscavige was kept advised at all times of Lisa McPherson and her situation.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is my opinion that once the situation where she got out of the car and was admitted to the hospital and it became a matter for Office of Special Affairs’ concern, then he

Page 1080

was — he knew about it.

THE COURT: Was it your opinion while she was admittedly PTS-III, undergoing introspection rundown, he would be kept advised of this and the progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or lack of progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to —

THE COURT: And that opinion comes from your having been around him when he was head of RTC?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or ASI?

THE WITNESS: Both.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: When Mr. Hubbard was alive and was the head ecclesiastical leader of the Church, would he have been kept advised of PTS Type III introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: He would have taken it over and dealt with it himself.

THE COURT: My question is, Would he have been kept advised?

Page 1081

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wherever it was being conducted?

THE WITNESS: Well, in all honesty, your Honor, I have to answer this and say that towards the end of Mr. Hubbard’s life —

THE COURT: Forget when folks say he was mad. I understood that.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: When he was in charge of the Church and head ecclesiastical leader, would he have been kept advised of that type of situation, with either a public or staff member of Scientology?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there any question in your mind whatsoever about that?

THE WITNESS: None whatsoever. He would have taken it over and did it himself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to admit that there’s no written policy in the Church of Scientology to go out and kill somebody, and you said that’s true. Do you recall that?

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s that?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q There’s no written policy in the Church of

Page 1082

Scientology to go and kill somebody.

A Well, there’s one thing that came into evidence here. It was the SP declare of — I think I read down the list. It was maybe eight people. And in that —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what came into evidence? The, what, SP?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It was an SP declare. It was a single sheet of a paper by L. Ron Hubbard declaring — I think it was eight people suppressive persons and declared them fair game. And then on one of the lines, L. Ron Hubbard gave instructions whereby he said any Sea Org member encountering any of the above persons is to use process R245 on them.
Process R245 —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE WITNESS: — is a process —

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, objection.

This was the document that was not admitted that Mr. Prince is now testifying about. It was the phony document.

MR. DANDAR: Phony —

MR. WEINBERG: And this is way beyond the scope of my cross-examination.

THE COURT: It’s not beyond the scope because you made it clear there’s absolutely no basis

Page 1083

upon which to make the assertions that he has. Now, if he has a basis, he would be permitted to testify. So it’s not beyond the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: This document that he’s talking about is not in evidence.

THE COURT: All right. If that’s true, then he can’t refer to that document.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought it was.

THE COURT: Well, go find it. Let’s take a break and we’ll see whether it is or not. I couldn’t begin to tell you what documents are in and what ones aren’t. But the clerk would have them, whether they were admitted or not.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Before we take a break, let me ask one more question.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your tenure at the Church of Scientology, did you ever see anything in writing called R245?

A Yes. It actually comes from a tape lecture. And I forget which tape lecture it was specifically, but it talks about R245 being an effective exteriorization process, whereby the person takes a .45, puts it to his head — a loaded .45, puts it to his head, pulls the trigger, and blows their brains out. That releases the

Page 1084

spirit from the body.

Q Is that a lecture by — who?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Let’s take our break and let me find that.

THE COURT: All right. It’s 25 after.

We’ll take 15 minutes.

(A break was taken at 10:25 a.m. until approximately 10:55 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Where is Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I’m here, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may resume the stand.

You all may be seated.

And, Mr. Dandar, did you find whether that was in or out of evidence?

MR. DANDAR: It was out. And for the clerk’s benefit, I still have it, so make sure I give it back to her. Somewhere. It’s on my table.

Here it is. I have this tendency of walking away with exhibits.

THE COURT: Are we having a light show?

MR. DANDAR: They had a TV or a signal that keeps coming in. We started to watch a soap opera there for a minute.

THE COURT: I see.

Page 1085

MR. DANDAR: But I have a videotape of a Boston picket. And the only reason I want to put this on is because Mr. Weinberg used Mr. Prince picketing in his cross-examination. But this shows what happened before the clip-it, the snippet, that Mr. Weinberg showed.

MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, this is a different day than the picket that I showed. But he can play it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Ken (motioning to move).

THE WITNESS: It has no audio.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s stop it. Because I did that too.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you know the date of this?

MR. DANDAR: It’s in the beginning of the tape. Just a minute, and I’ll get everything here.

(The tape of the picket was played, entitled “Boston, September 10th, 1998, unedited.”

As noted below, the tape was not reportable and is not transcribed herein.)

THE COURT: Isn’t that pleasant.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just put that on to show you it’s not a one-way street.

THE COURT: I understand.

Page 1086

MR. DANDAR: Now, Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: If you didn’t get all that, you can put in the record — because this tape can be put in — that it was just a lot of shouting and carrying on and that you did the best you could.

THE REPORTER: Thank you very much, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Are you marking that as an exhibit?

THE COURT: Make a copy of it for the record, because there’s no way the court reporter could be expected to get all that. Talk about your proverbial everybody talking at once.

MR. DANDAR: That would be impossible to write down.

THE COURT: Yes, it would.

So I’m sure you did the best you could, but as far as I’m concerned, it could be basically said you must see the tape because it’s everybody talking at once and loud and obnoxious.

MR. DANDAR: Since Mr. Lirot is bringing in our next witness, I’m going to mark it as 135A because he has all of his exhibits premarked —

Page 1087

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: — starting with 136. So the videotape of Boston, September 10th, ’98, is Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: It was 9/10?

THE COURT: 9/10/98.

MR. WEINBERG: And you received that into evidence, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, the people that were engaging you and Mr. Minton in that picket, where were they from?

A Office of Special Affairs, Boston.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you talked about the taped lecture series of Mr. Hubbard where he describes R245?

A Correct.

Q And have you seen that?

A I have seen that.

Q Or heard it, whatever it is. I don’t know what it is.

A Yes, I heard it before, read the transcript.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a TV — which I

Page 1088

believe is a TV interview of Mr. Hubbard where he talks about this policy that he wrote called R245.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Objection, your Honor. It’s not a policy. It’s a mischaracterization of it.

Again, it mischaracterizes the policy of the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, if this is a lecture of Mr. Hubbard, why, what could be objectionable with Mr. Hubbard —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s the characterization of it as a policy.

THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained.

MR. LIEBERMAN: The characterization of what actually was —

MR. DANDAR: I apparently misspoke, I’m sorry. I’ll have Mr. Prince talk about what it is.

As soon as we identify — this is, I believe, Mr. Hubbard speaking, so . . .

THE COURT: What number is it?

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit number? This will be 135B.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask the relevance of playing a 1950 speech of L. Ron Hubbard?

Page 1089

MR. DANDAR: If he’s objecting because of the age of the speech, I think it’s quite clear that the age of any document Mr. Hubbard wrote or spoke about has no significance —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

MR. DANDAR: — in the Church of Scientology. Everything remains the same.

THE COURT: What is it, though? I don’t understand. Is this a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is redirect.

MR. DANDAR: He brought this up on cross.

THE COURT: What did he bring up?

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Weinberg brought up on cross that there’s no written policy of the Church of Scientology about killing somebody.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: He objected to that Flag order because it wasn’t properly authenticated. That’s fine. It spoke of R245. There’s another publication we’re going to bring in that is current and published by the Church of Scientology that does mention R245.

MR. WEINBERG: What I had asked, just so it’s clear, was there any policy to kill somebody, and he said no. But secondly —

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it, Counsel.

Page 1090

Overruled.

I hope this isn’t terribly long. Is it?

MR. DANDAR: It is. I think it’s 35 minutes.

THE COURT: I’m not going to listen to 35 minutes.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Maybe — what I would like to do over lunch is go down right to the specific area.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, you see, that’s the problem. I understand your Honor doesn’t want to listen to 35 minutes. You shouldn’t have to listen to 35 minutes. But you cannot take a speech and say this is a religious policy and take two minutes out of an entire lecture about religious matters and then play it and pretend that that gives you any idea as to the context of what’s going on.

THE COURT: All right. I’ll listen to the whole thing.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I don’t want — I’m not urging you.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s do this after lunch. Is that all right?

THE COURT: All right. Let’s do it about 4 o’clock.

Page 1091

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. We’ll do it after lunch.

MR. DANDAR: I hope Mr. Prince is still not on the stand by 4 o’clock. In fact, I think he should be over quite soon.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, talking about policies of the Church of Scientology, Mr. Prince, are you familiar with the additional steps in evidence, the policy of additional steps of an introspection rundown, where Mr. Hubbard writes that the introspection rundown can be deadly?

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with search and discovery, the PSSSP course, where it states that some psychotics cannot be kept alive?

A Yes, I am.

Q How do you audit someone who is unconscious?

A Well, I can tell you a process. If a person is laying unconscious on a bed, you simply give them a command, “Give me that hand,” and then you actually execute that command by taking a person’s hand and putting it in your hand. And once you do that, you say, “Thank you.”

And then you put the hand back and say, “Give me that hand.” And you do that repeatedly, over and over.

Page 1092

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you about the Teresita introspection rundown that you participated in — is it Soboba?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Okay. Is that — was your experience in that introspection rundown similar to what Lisa McPherson experienced?

A I don’t think so.

Q What were the differences?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. “What were the differences,” I mean, he doesn’t have any personal knowledge —

THE COURT: No, but I assume as consultant he read all of the depositions of those who did. So I suspect he can testify about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Did you read the — did you read the depositions or the statements —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — from the persons who were attending Lisa McPherson?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and I read the notes as well.

MR. WEINBERG: On direct, he already did that. I didn’t ask him to — not — to do anything

Page 1093

different on cross, and now Mr. Dandar is asking him to do the same thing that he did on direct.

THE COURT: I don’t recall this on direct.

Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. What is the differences? What are the differences?

A The difference being number one that Teresita was a staff member. Mrs. McPherson was a paying Scientology public. Teresita had no intentions of leaving staff or departing from Scientology. Lisa McPherson did.

Beyond that — and, again, there’s so many records. I mean, it’s stated that she was on the introspection rundown. Yet there is no program, there is no evidence, there’s no invoice, there’s no running form, there’s none of those things in evidence that would be in evidence if a person was on an introspection rundown in fact.

And — but as far as the manifestations of wanting to get out of the room that she was locked in, there’s certainly similarities there. But those are some of the differences.

Q When — to your knowledge, your personal knowledge with Teresita, did people talk to Teresita?

Page 1094

A Yes.

Q And — during the entire introspection rundown?

A I mean, no one held long conversations with her. But just basic civility. You know, you walk in a room and you see a person, you say hi. The person says something to you. You either acknowledge or answer the questions. You know, simple things like that.

Q Did you have to assist in any way or did you see others assist in any way Teresita in drinking water?

A Yes.

Q How did they do it?

A Sit down next to her with a glass of water with ice and a straw and sometimes they put — the girls would do it, and I would do it, you know, put your arm around her. Teresita seemed to like that. She was very childlike at times. And hold the straw to her face, and she would drink through the straw. When she would stop, you know, you would tell her: “You just need to drink a little bit more water because it’s good for you. It’s hot out here; it’s the desert. Be a good girl. Drink a little bit more.” And she would drink it.

Q And did you ever see her do that, as time went on in her introspection rundown, where she wouldn’t drink water on her own?

A Yes. But I certainly wouldn’t have any way of

Page 1095

making her drink water if she didn’t want to drink it.

Q Okay. What I’m saying is, did you ever observe her just pick up, without being coached or coaxed, pick up a glass of water or bottled water and just drink it by herself?

A Oh, sure.

Q Was that in the beginning, the middle, or the end, or throughout?

A You know, with Teresita, I don’t think the water was so much an issue because it — at a point in time she wasn’t aware of it, but as she went through introspection and we sat with her and made her drink it, that she came to understand that it was part of the routine, that she had to drink X amount of water every day or, you know, during certain time periods.

Q You said Mr. Hubbard’s doctor, Dr. Denk, came to see her?

A Yes, he did.

Q How many times?

A Once that I know of.

Q And he administered something to her?

A Yes, he did.

Q All right. After he left, did he leave any medicine behind or something for others to administer to her?

Page 1096

A Yes. There were some pills.

Q Do you know what they were?

A I do not. I do not recall what they were.

Q All right.

A But I know they were to make her sleep.

Q Okay. Did he leave instructions with people how often to give that?

A Yes, he did. I think we were to break the tablets in half, to not give her a strong dose, or even lesser amounts and crush it up and mix it in with a protein drink.

Q Do you know of any licensed medical doctor who came in to see Lisa McPherson?

A No, I do not.

Q Do you know if Teresita received a medical examination by a licensed medical doctor before or during — outside of Dr. Denk? Well, let me start — that was a terrible question.

In addition to giving Teresita prescription drugs, did Dr. Denk examine her?

A Yes, he did. He looked in her eyes, looked in her ears, checked her mouth, you know, pressed certain areas of her body to see if it was sore or she would react, check their feet, check their arms, check their back, check their neck.

Page 1097

Q Okay. Was anything else done as far as the medical exam outside of what you just said?

A Not — no, not — I don’t think so.

Q Okay. Now, you mentioned on cross-examination meeting with me and preparing that handwritten note that’s dated April 14th, 2002, the past year, a typed affidavit.

Why did you prepare a handwritten note?

A I felt it was important to preserve in some fashion what I had discussed with you, what had been going on. And since I had plans to investigate it further, in case something happened to me when I went off to see those people that at least there would have been something left written by me that would have indicated something was going on.

Q Now, the day that you prepared that written statement, that was the night you were supposed to meet with Mr. Rinder?

A Correct.

Q Did I assist you at all in preparing that written statement?

A No, you did not.

Q In fact, you purposely went away from me —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Page 1098

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. How close were you to me when you wrote that document?

A I separated myself and went to a different table and did the document.

Q Okay. Now, in that affidavit that you prepared — you typed that all by yourself, correct?

A Correct.

THE COURT: Which affidavit are we talking about?

MR. DANDAR: The —

THE COURT: The last one?

MR. DANDAR: The last one, April 2002, that was actually executed —

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

MR. DANDAR: — May 1st.

THE COURT: What was the date of the last visit with Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks? What was the date?

MR. DANDAR: What was the date? Was it that Sunday?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was a Sunday.

THE COURT: The 14th.

MR. DANDAR: The 14th of April.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, in that affidavit, Mr. Weinberg pointed out

Page 1099

on cross that you put in the wrong date. You put in August of 2001, and Mr. Minton told you on the top of the garage about his last check to me of 500,000?

A Correct.

Q As you sit here today, what are you positive about in reference to that conversation with Mr. Minton?

A Everything that I’ve testified to.

Q When did it take place?

A It took place — you know, I can’t say the exact month, you know. I’m sorry, I wish I could do better with that. But I know it was very warm. I know that specifically it was a $500,000 check.

Q If I told you to assume that Mr. Minton only delivered to me one check for $500,000, was this conversation with Mr. Minton before or after he delivered the check?

A After.

Q And do you have any idea if it was before or after he gave a deposition in May of 2000?

A No, I have no idea.

Q Okay. Now, you mentioned that, when you met with Mr. Minton after he testified before Judge Baird on April 9th, you then telephoned Frank Oliver?

A Correct.

Q To ask Frank Oliver to call me to have me call

Page 1100

you?

A Correct.

Q Why did you go through that circuitous route?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because he did —

I asked him the same question, why did you do that, and he explained it.

THE COURT: I think it’s been asked and answered.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Why did you feel your home was bugged?

A Because a person that was hired by Scientology, a private investigator named David Amos, contacted me here in Clearwater, and I went to visit with him in Memphis, Tennessee, and he told me —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That’s hearsay, your Honor, whatever — he had some conversation with some guy David Amos.

THE COURT: It’s not introduced as to the truth of the matter asserted. It’s basically as to why he thought his house was bugged, not because it was bugged.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then he had a conversation. We shouldn’t get into the details of the conversation, should we? Isn’t that just hearsay?

MR. DANDAR: It’s an exception.

Page 1101

THE COURT: I think it’s an exception. One of the exceptions I don’t really understand. I’m going to allow it.

A Mr. David Amos informed me that he had been hired by the Church of Scientology to surveil me, do surveillance on me, and to — what he was looking for, he told me, was that he had been briefed by his Scientology handlers in Los Angeles that Mr. Minton and I were involved in child slavery and we were — had child slaves that we were running around different countries. And Mr. Amos had a street ministry. He’s a very Christian man, and he has a street ministry where he helps abused children.

THE COURT: I don’t need to hear about all that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I need to hear why you thought your house was bugged.

A Anyway, he told me that he was specifically hired to bug my house in Chicago, and when I moved from Chicago to Clearwater, that he was hired to do the same there. And he agreed to come out and show me how he did it and where he did it. And I sent him plane tickets and I sent him money to come out to do that. And at the last minute, he got cold feet and didn’t do it. But I did report it to the FBI, the entire incident.

Page 1102

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go out and visit Mr. Amos?

A Excuse me?

Q Did you actually meet with Mr. Amos?

A Yes, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we get a date of this alleged conversation?

THE COURT: You can when it’s your turn. I don’t care if it’s true. As far as I’m concerned, it’s only why he thought his house was bugged.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

THE COURT: Which is an explanation as to why he didn’t call from his house, which is all that’s relevant to this.

MR. WEINBERG: But the testimony, of course, is that he did call from the house. He got the call at the house anyway. That’s what he said.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go to see Agent Strope of the FDLE before or after you went to Dennis deVlaming’s office?

A After.

Q And did you go to Dennis deVlaming’s office before or after you met me at the mall on April 14th?

A Before. I did that the day of the testimony —

THE COURT: He’s already testified about

Page 1103

this.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I wasn’t clear. Okay. All right. And I believe . . .

Your Honor, that’s all the questions I have.

I just want to be able to ask Mr. Prince a question based upon this videotape that I want to play of Mr. Hubbard.

THE COURT: Well, go on ahead and play it now. It’s a good time to do it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. And I’m going to tell you in advance, Judge, I haven’t seen this tape before. So I’m going to play it. It’s represented to me as being Mr. Hubbard talking about this R245.

THE COURT: Well, Lord, let’s hope there’s something in there about it, something that’s relevant.

MR. DANDAR: That’s why I prefer not to do it right now. Let me —

MR. WEINBERG: Could he possibly hand it to us, see if we can identify it?

MR. DANDAR: This is a copy of a copy. This is not —

THE COURT: You couldn’t identify it.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it might be something he had purchased.

Page 1104

THE COURT: No.

MR. DANDAR: No.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I don’t want to leave here at 11:30 if you’ve got 35 minutes of tape you’re going to play. Are you done with Mr. Prince?

MR. DANDAR: Except for this.

THE COURT: All right. Well, put it in. Maybe Mr. Prince will let us know. I mean, I don’t know what Mr. Hubbard —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask — where did Mr. Minton — Dandar get this, is all I’m asking.

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview of Mr. Hubbard from a Granada TV station.

THE COURT: It really doesn’t matter how he got it. He doesn’t ask you how you got your stuff.

MR. WEINBERG: No, no. I thought that this was the original lecture, but this is just a — this is actually just an interview, not the lecture.

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview —

THE COURT: We’ll see what it is, Counselor. Sit down.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: At the expense of your Honor, I just want to point out that television can’t

Page 1105

possibly be policy letter of the Church of Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: We didn’t say it was a policy letter. It’s a lectured — of a tape lecture of Mr. Hubbard.

And I don’t know where this is taking me now.

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s not a lecture, you said. It was a television interview.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we’ll see.

THE COURT: Surely you don’t all care if we watch Mr. Hubbard here for 35 minutes, do you? Then I wish you would sit down and let us watch it.

(The tape from Granada television was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: Tonight, Well in Action has tracked down one of the most elusive men on earth.

This was the end of our search, an ex-(unintelligible) for Royal Scotland, docked at (unintelligible — Deserta?), a small port in North Africa.

On board about 250 people, may be some sort of a crew, and this mysterious man. (Unintelligible) screen man thought he was a great scientist when (unintelligible). Everybody seems to think he’s a millionaire.

Page 1106

These are no ordinary seamen. Their allegiance and devotion to the mysterious man is total. To them, he is My Commodore. The man is L. Ron Hubbard, charmer, science fiction writer, and showman, the creator of Scientology, and the man who is pushing it into its new, more militant phase. He now requires that his crew must have training in judo and weaponry and must be ethically beyond reproach, tough, formidable, and effective. To them he’s a soldier.

One of them wrote: “That which I have really found is the nearness to the greatness, which is Ron, our founder –”

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop this for a minute.

(Continuing with tape.)

THE NARRATOR: “– he, above all, My Commodore –”

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: I don’t know what this is, but this is not Mr. Hubbard talking.

MR. PRINCE: There’s a little preamble, if you will, like a little introductory — this is an interviewer talking, and then Mr. Hubbard comes on.

THE COURT: Okay. Go on ahead.

Page 1107

MR. WEINBERG: Well, just so the record is clear, we do object to this, to the comments going in the record of this obviously reporter that was doing — I don’t think he was intending to do a favorable piece back in the ’50s with regard to the Church of Scientology. We object to his comments going into evidence. It’s like Dateline, NBC, or something, it sounds like.

THE COURT: I haven’t heard anything offensive yet.

(The tape was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: After several weeks of hunting for him, with the help of almost every radio station along the Mediterranean and beyond, Well in Action at last tracked Hubbard down. Just before dawn on a recent Sunday morning, Hubbard, who finds sleeping difficult, decided at last to speak. He spoke for a long, long time, about his money, his beliefs, his critics, and the new authoritarian structure of Scientology.

But first he spoke about his troubles with the British government. He put on his hat, he smiled, and he began.

MR. HUBBARD: Well, that’s very interesting.

Let’s correct the impression first. You said “you

Page 1108

were in trouble.” Let’s get my relationship to this completely straight. I am the writer of the textbooks of Scientology. About two and a half years ago or so, I even ceased to be a director of organizations.

The government — in the first place, I am not in trouble with the British government, not even faintly. If I went in today or tomorrow through immigration, they would tip their hats and say, “How are you, Mr. Hubbard?” just as they have been doing for years.

THE NARRATOR: The immigration officials might well tip their hats, but they couldn’t let him in. The day we filmed Mr. Hubbard, the home office decided that Britain would be better off without him.

Saint Hill Manor, England, Hubbard’s British headquarters —

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop, stop.

(Continuing with tape.)

THE NARRATOR: — has made an income of something like one million pounds —

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is not whatever you all said it was. This is more this other person than it is Mr. Hubbard. You — find what it is you want

Page 1109

play for me sometime and play it. I don’t want to hear all this other stuff.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And your objection is sustained as far as this is not relevant. Whoever this is —

MR. DANDAR: That’s it right there? All right.

Go to the beginning of this. All right.

Sorry I had it wrong. Sorry.

(The tape was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: . . . simply to a layman what Scientology is.

MR. HUBBARD: I think that would be a relatively easy (unintelligible) because it’s factually a subject which is designed for the layman, and if you couldn’t explain it to a layman, you would have a very difficult time with it.

The subject name means “steel,” which means knowing how in the fullest sense of the word; “ology,” which is “study of.” So it’s actually study of knowingness. That is what the word itself means.

The —

THE NARRATOR: To me —

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

THE NARRATOR: — to me that doesn’t mean

Page 1110

very much. (Unintelligible.) What does it do for you in theory?

MR. HUBBARD: It increases one’s knowingness. But if a man were totally aware of what was going on around him, he would find it was relatively simple to handle any outnesses in that.

THE NARRATOR: Even after twelve hours of talking, we never got an explanation from him that we could understand. In fact, Scientology is a fake, a religion —

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is beyond —

MR. DANDAR: I apologize to the Court. Let me — let me find the spot that I’m trying to get to.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: And if Mr. Weinberg has recross —

THE COURT: Let’s get that done.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll try to get that done.

MR. WEINBERG: I take it the last comment was struck as well. Right?

THE COURT: It certainly was.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, none of this is admissible at this point. I don’t know that

Page 1111

whatever it is they’re trying to find would be admissible.

But you try to find it, Mr. Dandar, over lunch break and we’ll —

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: — listen to it, and then I’ll see.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

You may cross-examine on the redirect.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

HE COURT: It was very brief.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: You have to turn that thing off, because it keeps getting the radio station.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought you were yelling at me.

THE COURT: No. I thought you were yelling at me.

MR. WEINBERG: I looked up there to see if it was 4 o’clock.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you, the first time on redirect, said that Mr. Minton had offered you a lifetime pension to join him, whenever it was, April of 2002. Correct? That’s what you

Page 1112

said?

A Yes.

Q Now — and that typically —

THE COURT: He said “retirement.” I don’t know that if he used the word “pension.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you meant was you’re going to be taken care of the rest of your life?

A I meant what I said, which is I would be retired.

Q All right. And that from your experience it was — the people that fell in that category were the people that got the $250,000. Right?

A I gave examples of other people that have — when Mr. Minton has given money to people to last them, this is what it was.

Q Right, like Mr. Dandar in March got the $250,000.

A No. That was for the case.

Q Now — now, you didn’t — do you remember that affidavit, the May 1st affidavit, that you were asked again about?

A Yes.

Q Nowhere in that affidavit do you say that Mr. Pension — Mr. Minton offered you retirement, $250,000,or a lot of money?

Page 1113

A Well, I’m not sure.

Q You didn’t say that in there, yes or no?

A I’m not sure. I would have to look at the thing.

Q Do you want to do that?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Unfortunately, we had left the documents up there, and they keep getting moved.

THE COURT: This may be it right here. I think I have it still.

THE WITNESS: I could look at that real quick, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want to look at my copy?

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. If you would just give me a moment to scan it.

A No, I don’t see that here. No, I didn’t include that in the declaration.

THE WITNESS: Thank you (handing back to Court).

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The truth is, you complained to Stacy Brooks that Mr. Minton had treated you differently and had just nickeled and dimed you over the years. Correct?

A I don’t —

Q Something like that?

A Not quite, no.

Page 1114

Q Well, you were unhappy because you had never been one of the recipients of one of those big $250,000 checks, right?

A I think that — no, that’s incorrect, because the context that we were speaking about is me selling my soul, lying, perjuring myself, lying about Mr. Dandar and whoever else Scientology would want to lie for, because, I mean, you know, they had their shopping list of everything they wanted to be gone. The Wollersheim was one; this was one.

I was supposed to do that. And, you know, I told him: You can’t do that. At no price can you make me turn on people that I have worked with for years for Scientology’s behalf.

And as a matter of fact, I think my statement was I will not help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.

Q Now, this is a 16-page affidavit, chockful of all kinds of details. You even detailed that Mr. Minton had told you he offered Mr. Wollersheim $200,000 to try to settle that case, right?

A Correct.

Q You put that in there. But you didn’t think it was important to put in this affidavit that Mr. Minton had offered you a retire- — basically enough money so that you could retire? You didn’t think that was important?

A Well, I admit that that is something that’s

Page 1115

important here, but I did not put it there for whatever reason. I mean, you know, I put down what I put down. So if you want to give me a strike for that, okay.

Q All right. Now, you said today that — on redirect that those three resignation letters — remember the March 3rd, ’87, letters, the ones in your hand?

A Correct.

Q Right? You told Mr. Dandar on redirect that you actually executed those letters on March 3rd, 1987, right?

The ones in your hand.

A Yes.

Q And those letters were actually typed up on March 3rd of 1987, right?

A I have no idea when they were typed.

Q Isn’t that what you said on direct?

A No, I didn’t say —

Q Isn’t that what you said on redirect?

A No, I didn’t say who typed it, because I did not type this.

Q No, I didn’t say you typed them up. I said those were actually prepared, the whole letter —

THE COURT: He doesn’t know when they were typed.

MR. WEINBERG: No, that was his testimony.

THE WITNESS: No, it wasn’t.

Page 1116

THE COURT: He said that was what he executed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you executed had the date on it already?

A Correct.

Q All right. So — that’s all I’m saying. In other words, the — you didn’t — you aren’t testifying that the — that the resignation letters that you signed were actually — and that, you know, had the date on it were actually prepared a long time before. That’s not what you’re saying?

A No. I made a distinction between the undated resignation that I had signed when I first assumed the position and these ones right here. And I stated why these ones were done, used, instead of the undated ones.

Q Do you remember in your affidavit — and the affidavit we’re talking about is the — that I’m talking about now is the August 1999 affidavit, which is the — the August 20th one, which is the — I call it the murder allegation —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach —

THE COURT: You may.

Page 1117

MR. WEINBERG: — is probably the easiest way of doing this.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that in paragraph 14 of — this is the — just so you see it, is your August 20th, 1999.

A M’hum (affirmative).

Q You see, just read paragraph 14 down to — it’s short.

A Okay.

Q Read it to yourself.

A Okay.

Q Have you seen that?

A Yes.

Q Now, what you say in this affidavit in paragraph 14 on page 6 is: “I was forcefully removed,” which is, you’ve already testified, on March 3rd. Then you say, quote: “It is my belief that my undated resignation which I signed when I was appointed to the board was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned when I had not.”

So the testimony that you swore to in this affidavit that all that was — that all that happened was — that what happened was that a date was put on something that you had previously signed is absolutely contrary to what you just testified in this court.

Page 1118

Correct?

A What — what I wrote there, I wrote that as my belief. I didn’t recall this, but once it was shown to me and recalled to me, I testified about it. I’m not able to recall every little thing all the time. That was my belief at the time. But then when you showed me this, I remembered more about the incident that happened in 1986.

Q ’87.

A ’87, sorry, January of ’87.

Q So you were wrong in your August 20th, 1999, sworn affidavit?

A Right. In that — in that regard, in that particular regard.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, do you have — can I ask the clerk for a document, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 15B.

I’m going to show him 15B, which is Teresa Summers’ letter.

THE COURT: For the record, you probably ought to say what you said to me.

I don’t know, did you get that, Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was speaking louder

Page 1119

than I thought.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. I’m showing you the September 7th, 2001, Teresa Summers letter. And I believe you said on redirect that you had learned about the Clambake money and the issues with regard to the Clambake money in — for the first time — or issues with regard to LMT money for the first time in Teresa Summers’ letter, right?

A Correct.

Q And this is Teresa Summers’ letter?

A Yes, it is.

Q Now, can you look at page 1 of that letter.

A Yes.

Q Paragraph 1.

A Where it says, “Please be advised”?

Q I’m sorry, where it says –subparagraph 1. Do you see where the No. 1 —

A Yes.

Q Where it says, “The revelation –” This is a letter to Stacy Brooks from Teresa Summers, right?

A Correct.

Q “The revelation in your recent deposition that 800,000 was donated to the LMT from foreign sources and that every penny of that money was delivered to Bob Minton is very difficult to make sense of. For at least the last

Page 1120

six months, I have been told by you” all of the LMT funding — I’ve been told by you that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And that’s what you were told as well, correct, that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton?

A No, that’s not what I was told.

Q Now, let me — will you turn to the next-to-last page, please. The last paragraph of the next-to-last page, the one that says “in addition”?

A Yes.

Q Do you see that? Summers says: “In addition, Bob and Jesse were involved with bringing money into the country illegally, and you have never discussed this matter with me.”

A Yes.

Q Do you know what she’s talking about?

A No. And she doesn’t either. I never brought any money into the country illegally.

Q And Ms. Summers is someone that’s worked at the LMT?

A Correct. I can tell you what Ms. Summers is referring to, if you’d like to know.

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter.

Page 1121

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: I have no idea why he bothered to bring that out. Maybe he wanted you to look bad or something.

THE WITNESS: Well . . .

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Now, finally, you testified on redirect that the — you testified about the release that you executed with Mr. Rathbun at the end of October, the beginning of November, 1992. Do you remember that testimony?

A In November of 1992, I was not in the Sea Org. I was in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q What I’m asking you is, Do you recall on redirect you testified about the release that you executed at the time that you left the Church of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q All right. And your testimony is that you were under duress when you did that. Correct?

A Absolutely, yes.

Q And you executed it in a meeting — in a meeting with Mr. Rathbun, right?

A Correct.

Q Just you and Mr. Rathbun?

Page 1122

A No. There were other staff there.

Q Do you remember who else was there?

A I believe Mr. Sutter was there.

Q They were sitting — you were sitting in a meeting with him?

A If I say he’s there, that means that I can see him. That means we’re in the same room or something like that, you know?

Q So you’re saying he was there?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Well, let me show you two — and then it’s your testimony that, at the end, Mr. Rathbun made you put the wrong date on the release. Right? That was your testimony?

A It was convenient for them to have it as November, as opposed to October. I don’t know why. That’s what I —

Q But it was his origination, not yours?

A Correct.

Q Okay. I’m going to play you a short clip from the beginning of this meeting with Mr. Rathbun and then the end of the meeting with Mr. Rathbun.

A You know, I resent that unless you show the whole thing.

THE COURT: I think that’s fair. If you’re

Page 1123

going to show something and suggest whether he was or wasn’t under duress, you have to play the whole meeting.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a long meeting. When I have is the clip, and, you know, we can provide the whole thing if you want it. But what I intend to do on this redirect is to show him the beginning of the meeting, which would indicate he was in the meeting, and the end of the meeting where he signs the —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — release. (Jesse Prince interview with Marty Rathbun, November 1, ’92, was played as follows.)

MR. RATHBUN: Okay. This is Marty Rathbun with Jesse Prince. And Jesse is going out of the Sea Org, and he agreed to have a —

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Where is Jesse Prince?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s at the front.

(Continuing with tape.)

MR. RATHBUN: — knowledge that he might have about outstanding —

(The playback was stopped.)

MR. DANDAR: Does Mr. Prince know he’s being videotaped?

Page 1124

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, you knew the meeting was recorded. A Not videotaped. And this is the first time I’ve seen this, and this is really gross. This is from a hidden camera.

Q Did you know it was being recorded or not?

A On tape. A tape recording was running, not a video.

Q Is this you?

A Yes, it is. I think it is.

THE COURT: Doesn’t look — I’m sorry, it doesn’t look like him.

THE WITNESS: Let me see. They’re full of tricks.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, why don’t you see.

THE WITNESS: I can’t tell.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, when you hear your voice, I think you can tell.

THE COURT: It does not look like Mr. Prince to me.

THE WITNESS: You know, I really resent this. This is secret. Taping this is exactly what I’ve been saying here. This is exactly what they do, the illegal surveillance. It’s just sneaky all the

Page 1125

time.

MR. WEINBERG: I asked him the question, Did you know you were being recorded?

THE COURT: He said no.

MR. WEINBERG: The answer is yes. I think he said yes.

THE COURT: He knew there was a tape recorder playing. He did not know he was being videotaped.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess the question, your Honor, is once you know that —

THE COURT: Quite frankly, I would resent the tar out of it. I hope there’s none of that going on ever. If you’re going to ever take a picture of me, you’d better tell me, because I would resent the tar out of it, to say nothing of the fact that I’m not certain it’s legal.

So whatever it is, Mr. Prince, you didn’t know anything about this?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. They did not have my permission to do this.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: This is from a hidden, secret camera.

THE COURT: Go ahead and play it. We’ll

Page 1126

decide whether or not it’s legal or not.

(The playback continued.)

MR. RATHBUN: — cases going on or other matters that are involved, illegal or whatever.

MR. PRINCE: That’s right (unintelligible).

MR. RATHBUN: We’re here alone?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: Nobody else here?

MR. PRINCE: No coercion, nobody doing anything.

MR. RATHBUN: Okay. And you’re here of your own free will?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no — nobody is holding anything over your head?

MR. PRINCE: Yes.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no threat?

MR. PRINCE: No threat, no pressure. I know exactly what I’m doing. I’m not sitting here (unintelligible) worrying about legal counsel knowing what the hell is going on. I know exactly what I’m doing in a professional capacity.

MR. RATHBUN: Great. Okay. The first thing we’re going to do was you’ve reviewed a couple of outstanding complaints, which were the RICO case,

Page 1127

which is our —

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: You know, I can’t hardly stand this. I can hardly stand this.

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to play the end of it.

THE COURT: Well, how in the world can you play something that suggested somebody wasn’t under coercion and not play it? How do I know —

MR. WEINBERG: If we can — we can play the whole —

THE COURT: This is the RICO case? What is your purpose in playing it?

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Prince — Mr. Prince said that there were all kinds of people in the room, that he was being coerced, that it was forced. And there are no people.

THE WITNESS: They left the room.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: They had left the room. This was totally staged, to protect the Church, as I’ve given testimony before: Mr. Prince, this is what you need to do to leave our compound.

So I’m sitting here doing whatever they asked me to do to leave their compound. There’s been

Page 1128

articles in George magazine, press — Riverside Press, and my suit about the coercion. So, you know, and now you’re showing me a secret camera thing? I resent this highly. I really resent this.

MR. DANDAR: We object. And for the record, that sure doesn’t look like Mr. Prince.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know that’s you.

You’ve heard you.

THE WITNESS: Look, I resent this because it was done — not only did everybody leave the room —

THE COURT: You mean there were others there before this started?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Absolutely. They were all standing around in that room. And then it’s like, “Okay, now, let’s get this extra protection in.”

Signing a release for your client wasn’t enough. Signing a release saying that they didn’t harm me or damage me wasn’t enough for them. Now they’ve got to sit down and do this. You know? I really think anybody with common sense knows what’s going on here.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you sign it? The beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting?

A What, the release?

Page 1129

Q Yes.

A Probably at the end. I mean, they wanted me to — this is what I had to do to leave. I had been locked up —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I had to escape from Scientology. They didn’t even know where I went.

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear it anymore.

If he didn’t know about it, I don’t want to see it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s all my questions.

THE COURT: As far as I’m concerned, it can be stricken.

MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions.

THE COURT: All right.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, do you have that affidavit that’s —

THE COURT: And I might suggest in the future, if you’re going to videotape parishioners, that they be told about it. Quite frankly, that is not very churchly, to be candid.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, just to be clear, it is the Church’s position that Mr. Prince absolutely knew this was being taped and the videotape introductory section of this before the interview

Page 1130

starts shows them setting up electronic equipment.

And it’s his testimony here that he didn’t know about it. That is not — we do not go along with that. I want the record to reflect that.

THE COURT: It’s very odd that someone leaving a Church has to be videotaped.

The truth is, it’s very odd he would have to sign a release. I mean, it’s all very odd.

However, it’s just my suggestion to you so that you don’t ever have to listen to somebody again that you might just want to put it in your release, “I understand that I’m being videotaped as I sign this.”

Then you won’t have to worry about it. I won’t have to hear somebody saying that he resents you taking my picture, for whatever reason.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this comes from —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more about it.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Go on ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, I want to direct your attention to paragraph —

THE COURT: I didn’t have to sign a release when I left my church, quite frankly. I left, I went

Page 1131

back, who cared?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your —

THE COURT: Nobody ever sued me either. I never testified against them.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your April 2002 affidavit, paragraph 15 — I don’t have the page numbers on my copy for some strange reason. But the second page of paragraph 15, could you please read the highlighted portion on — beginning —

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this now?

MR. DANDAR: The April 2002.

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

THE COURT: Okay.

A “Bob told me that I was the one making a big mistake, that if I walked down this road with them, they would hire an attorney for me and everything would be okay. Both he and Stacy Brooks told me of a new life, where we would all live in happiness and prosperity.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What were the details of living a new life in happiness and prosperity?

A Retired, vacationing on the Islands regularly, running around the world, world travel.

Page 1132

Q When you — did the —

THE COURT: What paragraph was that?

MR. DANDAR: It was paragraph 15. If I had the exhibit, I could give you the page number.

THE COURT: It’s all right, paragraph 15.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the second page of paragraph 15. It’s a real long paragraph. It’s lines 19 through 22.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: And this wasn’t part of the recross of Mr. Weinberg, so if it’s objected to, I understand. But —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll object in advance.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, when Teresita went insane or psychotic, did she do it like Lisa did, in the middle of the street, in public, or somewhere else?

A She did it — she was at a work station — oh, god, we were in a big time crunch. We were making the first —

THE COURT: We really don’t care about that. Was it out in public or at work?

THE WITNESS: No, it was at work.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So there was no public PR flap?

Page 1133

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: And outside of wanting to play this videotape, that’s all the questions I have.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Your testimony is finished. You may step down.

I don’t know about that videotape either. I have no idea what that is either. So you find whatever it is you want to find, show it to counsel in advance, see what it is, and see if we can make some context out of it and see if it has any relevance.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Now, it’s noontime.

It’s 12:05. We’ll be in recess until 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: How about 1:30?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: Or 1 o’clock?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: 1:15, all right.

(A lunch recess was taken at 12:08 p.m.)

_______________________________

Page 1134

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PINELLAS

I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered Diplomate Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record.

WITNESS MY HAND this 11th day of July, 2002, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.

_________________________________
Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, RDR
Court Reporter

Notes

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 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