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

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
THE BATTLE OF PORTLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all replied that we had not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I sleep tonight…or don’t I?”

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

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

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

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

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 6) (July 10, 2002)

721

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 6

DATE: July 10, 2002. Morning 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

722

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.

THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Prince. All right. Mr. Dandar, you are standing. You must want something.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we have a proposed order here. I have some responses here. I have declarations of Stacy Brooks and others I want to file. But let’s just go with Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: What day is today? The 10th? I was looking, what is — how many days of hearings is this?

THE BAILIFF: 30.

THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Bailiff says 30. Does anybody —

MR. WEINBERG: Add zero to that. That is where we are.

THE COURT: Is that where we are, 30?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Ross. Are you designated Mr. Minton’s attorney here today?

MR. ROSS: That is correct.

THE COURT: I think that probably you have been advised Mr. Minton needs a lawyer in this proceeding and, therefore, we welcome you. But you have no ability to object in this particular proceeding.

MR. ROSS: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand you may hear some very weird testimony as far as some strange evidentiary rulings. But this is a strange hearing and sort of the rules of evidence — we’re going to deal with that after the hearing.

MR. ROSS: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just give me a minute, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will. I will ask Mr. Dandar, while you are doing that, did you have a chance to E-Mail Mr. Henson?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I did. And he E-mailed me back and said, “Can you find me a lawyer, is it worth it?” I said no, both questions.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I notified Mr. Hill’s secretary that Mr. Rosen would not be called. And I should have an order here on the pro hac vice, if it is not by the morning break, by noontime.

THE COURT: All right. Fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I would just like to inquire, does that mean Mr. Henson is abandoning his motion?

725

THE COURT: No, I think what that means, he will not be represented. And I suspect you should — as I said, let me have time to read it. I may be able to rule on your motion without any argument.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Very good.

THE COURT: But, frankly, I want to still leave it scheduled for hearing, because he may get somebody to appear. And we’ll deal with it at the  scheduled time. I would not assume that is an  abandonment.

MR. LIEBERMAN: All right.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: All right? I’m ready.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you — I think you said on your direct testimony — but let me go over it again — you have testified previously as a witness under oath in either trial testimony or deposition testimony. Is that right?

A In this — in this case, yes, I have.

Q In other cases, as well. Correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q And — and is it your testimony that at all times

726

in those other cases when you were under oath, that you testified truthfully?

A Yes, it is.

Q Okay. Now, yesterday — or the day before, whenever it was — you testified that you had participated in the destruction of PC folders, particularly Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folder which he said was pulped, I believe, while you were at RTC?

A Correct.

Q Now, you remember testifying as a witness in 1989 in the lawsuit Religious Technology versus Joseph Yanny?

A I do not.

Q You don’t remember that?

A No, I do not.

THE COURT: I don’t even remember hearing about that case. That is a new one for me.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you testified, by the way, on your direct, that you had been a witness in that case, in fact, that while you were in Scientology, you were actually a witness in that case.

A No. While I was in Scientology I said I was a witness in the Wollersheim 4 case, specifically concerning the Advanced ability Center, David Mayo.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach the witness,

727

your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me show you a transcript of your deposition taken in Los Angeles, California on September 11, 1989 and ask you if you can identify that transcript and identify that as your testimony on that day under oath, and at the end you’ll see an errata sheet which I believe also has your signature on it.

A What is this on? On September ’89? Okay.

Then —

Q At the end is an errata sheet. Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And you see that you — do you recognize your signature on there dated —

A 12 December, ’89. Yes, I do.

Q Obviously — I’ll leave this here because I have a few questions on it. Obviously you testified as a witness in 1989 and were given the opportunity to review that  testimony and make corrections. Correct?

A I don’t — Mmm — recall that, Mr. Weinberg, but since I did sign the errata sheet, I’ll say okay.

MR. DANDAR: I would like to have a copy of that, Judge. If they’re going to start using it, pulling things out of context, I would like to be

728

able to review it.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s amazing I’m being accused of pulling something out of context.

MR. DANDAR: We all do, we pull something out and say, “Did you say this?”

THE COURT: If you are going to use a deposition and he doesn’t have a copy of it, he ought to have a copy of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do we have an extra copy of it?

Do we have copies of these?

THE COURT: I tell you what, go ahead and use it and then get him a copy before Mr. Dandar —

Mr. Dandar, please listen if you care, maybe you don’t care. If you care, I’ll have them provide you a copy of the deposition before your redirect.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: If anything was pulled out of context, you can correct it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, in addition —

THE COURT: You-all provide him a copy.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in addition to your testimony in this proceeding that you had participated in the destruction of

729

PC folders, you also, in your August 20, 1999 affidavit, that is the — the affidavit where you made the accusation about David Miscavige, in that affidavit, in Paragraph 22 you swore that you had participated in the destruction of Wollersheim’s PC folder. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, if you will turn, Mr. Prince — when I get the right folder here — to Page 153 of your Yanny deposition. You find Page 153?

A Mmm, just about. I have it here.

Q I want you to read Line 5, 6 and 7.

“Question: Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer. No.”

Okay. That was your sworn testimony then, correct?

A Yes, it was.

Q And when you go to that errata sheet, does it say  anything about you making any mistakes with regard to that sworn answer where you swore under oath in 1989 that you had not been involved in the destruction of PC folders?

A Mr. — you know, I don’t recall this errata sheet, to answer the question that quickly. I don’t even recall the errata sheet.

THE COURT: The real question is that was your

730

testimony on that date, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this was the testimony I had given on that date.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you previously testified that all your prior sworn testimony was true. Correct?

A Correct.

Q So you lied here in court when you said that you had participated in PC folders being destroyed?

A Well, you know, I have to at least look at a couple pages earlier here to kind of get an idea what was going on here to orient myself to 1989.

Q Look at a couple pages earlier.

THE COURT: Might I just ask, where he was reading, was he testifying for plaintiff, or defendant?

MR. WEINBERG: He was testifying for the Church. For RTC.

A Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was certainly — you wouldn’t have had a recollection problem back in 1989, would you, as to what had occurred a year or so or two or three before that, as  opposed to 2002, talking about things that supposedly happened?

731

A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, I — I don’t think I would have had a recollection problem, but maybe I would have had a problem with coercion.

Q Let’s see now —

A Or — or manipulation.

Q Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt.

A Or manipulation. This was a very bad time for me. This was shortly — well, let’s see, this was a couple years  after I had been away from any position of authority. I was still being asked to — Mmm — participate in the courts, for whatever reason, God only knows. And I was not in a very good state of mind.

Q Well, I thought you said you were relieved yesterday to leave your post at RTC and that you were in a better state of mind as a result of being relieved and not  having to do all those things that you swore yesterday and the day before that you had participated in.

A Certainly in that regard, Mr. Weinberg, I was relieved. But I didn’t have a lot of direction for my life.

I think I was pretty suicidal at that point. And I had written about that, as well.

Q All right. So you started saying these things about destroying PC folders after people started paying you,like Mr. Minton and Mr. Leipold and through Mr. Dandar, that

732

is when you started saying these things, not when you  weren’t being paid.

A No, Mr. Weinberg, quite the contrary. I — this came out because I decided that it was no longer an operating principle of mine that the greatest good is for  Scientology. I kind of — you know, just kind of got away from that.

Q So it’s a principle now the greatest good for Jesse Prince, whoever will put the money in your pocket, that is what you’ll say?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, the greatest good is the truth and justice and equity.

Q All right. So what you’re saying, just so I get this right, you lied back in 1989?

A Yes — yes. According to these documents, I lied on behalf of Scientology.

Q All right. And you lied in — I’ll just refresh your recollection about being asked about this before — do you remember giving a deposition in this case when — when I deposed you?

A I think you and I have been at it a time or two.

Q And do you remember that I asked you the questions on Page — I’ll refer now to Page 465 of your deposition of — of November 17, November 18, 1999.

“Question: Now, when you testified — how many

733

times have you testified in your entire career, life?

“Answer: In a courtroom or deposition setting?

“Question: Both.

“Answer: Possibly five.

“Question: All right, and each time you testified, whether in deposition or in court, you were under oath, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“You raised your hand and swore to tell the truth.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: Nothing but the truth, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“And you testified truthfully on those five occasions.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: You didn’t perjure yourself.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: So if you were asked the questions in a deposition that I asked and those were your answers then when you gave those answers, it is your testimony that they were truthful answers, correct?

“Answer: Well, you know, yeah, okay. I’ll say yeah, okay, yeah.”

Then later in the deposition — do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?

734

A No, I do not, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Do you remember being asked on Page 469 of your deposition two years ago, “You testified in the Yanny case we’ve already talked about, was that deposition and trial or just deposition?

“Answer: I believe it was just deposition. And again, I was never afforded the opportunity — well, no, I’m sorry, I’ll answer the direct question, I won’t tell  stories. Yes.”

Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. But if it’s there, then I believe it.

Q So apparently three years ago when we took your deposition you remembered the Yanny case testimony but today you don’t?

A I — Mr. Weinberg, I think that is a bit of mischaracterization to say I would have remembered the Yanny testimony. You know, this document here is a couple hundred pages long. I — I don’t think any of us are capable of remembering a couple hundred pages of something that happened ten years ago.

Q Is there a particular reason why, in all these accusations you made against Scientology, you didn’t say,

“And they told me to perjure myself in 1989 in the Yanny

735

deposition”? Why didn’t you do that?

A Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Weinberg, again, like I — I was damaged goods during that time. I had gone through a lot of stress, a lot of — Mmm —  decisions to change my life. Mmm, didn’t have certain — you know, a certainty on where I was going with my life. I felt pretty hopeless.

But let’s talk about the perjury here since this is the subject here. What I have testified to before concerning preclear folder destruction is the fact that  because these preclear folders of Mr. Wollersheim were being asked to be produced and ultimately the whole folders were turned over, the order to destroy the folders came from Mr. Miscavige with Mr. Rathbun present, myself, Vicki Aznaran. It became my responsibility to report when that fact was done.

I myself was not the person that destroyed the preclear folders or had — or pulped them. Rick Aznaran is the person, along with another current Office of Special  Affairs, Charlie Earl, rented a truck, took these folders; Vicki Aznaran — Lawrence Wollersheim, possibly Bill Franks, Gerry Armstrong and others took them to the recycling plant, and when Mr. Aznaran came back, he showed me a liquid bottle with paper on — with the pulp paper on the bottom.

So technically did I know about it? Yes.

736

Technically did I do it? No.

Q Oh, I see.

A But I sanctioned it and I went along with it.

Q So perjury — the question was: “Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer: No.”

That is not perjury because you have somehow justified in your mind that you really weren’t involved because you didn’t actually pull the switch? Is that what  you’re saying?

A No, I’m saying that I’m not the person that actually did it myself, but I knew about it. And reported about it.

Q Is that —

A I didn’t stop it. So, you know, the fact of the matter is I won’t beat around the bush with you, Mr. Weinberg. Right here I was not being truthful.

Q Now, did somebody tell you to perjure yourself?

Is this something that somebody told you to do? Or you just did this on your own?

A No, I was told to do it. Mr. Earle Cooley, who was lead counsel for the Church of Scientology at the time, wanted me to do it. Mr. Rathbun, who was — was again and always responsible for church legal, wanted me to do it.

Mmm, I was being a good Scientologist and protecting

737

Scientology.

Q That is amazing. So when this started out you didn’t have any recollection of the Yanny deposition, you don’t remember having even signed the errata sheet, and now you have this clear recollection that — that Mr. Cooley, a lawyer who is on the board of trustees of Boston College — or Boston University, and Mr. Rathbun told you to lie? Is that what you’re saying now?

A Mr. — Mr. Weinberg, I mean, because we are talking about this, because you have presented me with documentation, we’ve discussed it, I think I do have a mind and I can have some recollection about this. And I’m just telling you what happened here.

Mmm, there are other things that I have written specifically about my relationship with Earle Cooley, and because you have all of those E-Mails, I’m sure you have those in evidence, too. That is not the only thing that I thought was unethical that happened with Mr. Cooley, irrespective of where he sits.

Q So the way it works is, if we can catch you at it and if we can show you a video or show you some testimony where you perjured yourself, then it’s an indiscretion, essentially, you sort of caught me. Is that the way it works?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, argumentative.

738

THE COURT: Sustained.

A Mmm —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was sustained, Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: You don’t have to answer the question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said your life was hopeless?

A Correct.

Q When was this deposition, 1989?

A Correct.

Q But having been hopeless, you stayed another three years?

A I stayed another five years after my life was pretty much hopeless. You know, I fell into the hopelessness — you know, right in 1987 when that whole thing happened I was ready to leave Scientology at that point. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to escape to leave because I was in the RPF, walking through the desert, on and on, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear that story.

Q That story? Is that what you said? Do I want to hear the story?

A Let’s please maintain civility here, Mr. Weinberg.

Q All right, I asked you —

739

A I’m trying to explain this to you. I had escaped. I had helped Vicki Aznaran escape. We were being kept in the RPF in a — behind a — Soboba Indian Reservation in the most horrid conditions. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to threaten to go to the press, threaten to go to the police, the same thing I suspect Lisa had to do when she tried to leave, as well.

And ultimately because the woman that I was married to, who had no idea what I had been involved in, what my position really was in the Church of Scientology, what my participation was, it came down to Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Miscavige specifically talking to my wife and telling her what a horrible person I was and that I’m blowing and I’m psychotic and I’m crazy because I want to leave and this kind of thing.

So then I was faced with even a bigger problem. And my bigger problem was now am I just going to walk out of Scientology and leave this person that I love, that I’m married to, because she hasn’t woke even up, because she doesn’t understand, because I haven’t been with her and let her know what’s going on. And that is kind of a problem in Scientology in and of itself because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. You are not allowed to talk about your case, you’re not allowed to talk about secret this, secret that. So we had had a breach of

740

communication for many years.

But in my mind at that time I was thinking, you know, I’m not going to desert another person in my life, I’m not going to desert this woman for Scientology. I will sit here with her until she sees what I see. And I was actually, therefore, there for another five years.

And these are points I have written about as well.

I felt almost like an animal, I had no mind, no brain, no will, nothing. And this is what happened to me and I went and did this and it was wrong. And yeah, I did that and you have pointed it out and here we are.

Q Now, in 1989 when you perjured yourself —

A Uh-huh?

Q — according to your testimony now, or didn’t, depending upon whether you perjured yourself in this hearing, you weren’t on the RPF, were you, in 1989? You  were working in the Golden Era studio, correct?

A I think in 1989 I was on what is considered — what is called the DPF, the Deck Project Force. The reason I say that is because in 1987 when I was removed from my  position and I went to the RPF — Mmm — I think I was there for — until December of ’87.

In December of ’87 I got off the RPF, I started trying to practice auditing again. I did that for some time and really didn’t want to do it anymore.

741

Toward the end of ’88, I believe, a security guard at Golden Era Productions got kind of rough with my wife.

THE COURT: You know, this really doesn’t matter where he was. You weren’t in RPF.

A No, I was in DPF. I wasn’t in Golden Era Productions, I mean, working in the studios, as you suggested. I was actually on the DPF. And this is the same  period I did that watch with Mrs. Brooks, Terese or — or Teresita —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was in ’88?

A That was in ’88?

Q Yes. You say things were hopeless for you?

Things were hopeless for you in 1997 and 1998, as well, wasn’t it?

A I wouldn’t say that.

Q You filed for bankruptcy and went bankrupt in November of — filed in what, May of ’97, and it was finalized in November of ’97, correct?

A I believe there are documents to that effect that have the correct dates.

Q But — but you went bankrupt in 1997, correct?

A Mmm —

Q Yes, or no?

A Yes, I did. I believe that is correct.

742

Q So you were broke in 1997?

A I filed for bankruptcy in 1997, but I — I wasn’t able to pay my bills adequately in 1997.

Q And except for Mr. Minton coming like an angel from heaven in June of 1998, you didn’t know what you were going to do?

A Utterly and completely false.

Q After Mr. Minton appeared on the scene you then hooked up with Stacy Brooks, you hooked up with Dan Leipold, you hooked up with Ken Dandar, and since that time this is what you have been doing, getting paid to testify, write affidavits and work against Scientology, correct?

A No, that is absolutely incorrect and it is false.

Q Now, let’s go back to the deposition for a moment.

Now, you testified under oath a lot about the GO and OSA and all that. Do you remember that, here in this proceeding? You said you had all this knowledge about the kinds of activities that had gone on. Do you remember that?

A No, I think you are mischaracterizing my earlier testimony. I don’t think that the words Guardian’s Office exited my lips during these proceedings. I have spoke about OSA and I have — I have presented Mr. Hubbard’s eternal words on — on what intelligence is expected to do, what legal is expected to do and some of what public relations is supposed to do. I think that better characterizes —

743

Q Well, let me refresh your recollection, if you remember on June 18 saying, “Question, was there any carryover from the Guardian’s Office to OSA?

“Answer: Yes, there was, there was a carryover of some of the staff and some of the policies. Then you went on to say, “Question, was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s Office was?

You said, “Yes, OSA wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian Office was. One of the mistakes was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations.”

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Now, turn to Page 149, please, of the Yanny deposition.

A Okay.

Q I want you to read Line 5 through Line 16 — Line 5 through Line 13 — 16, I’m sorry.

A To 16?

Q Yes, just read it out loud.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you do it.

THE COURT: That is true.

A I have read it.

744

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ll read it. Did you give — were you asked these questions and give these answers?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you —

THE COURT: Yes, it is the way you do it.

Overruled.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q “You ever heard of the GO?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: What was the GO?

“It was Guardian’s Office.

“Question: And Mary Sue Hubbard was in charge of that for a period of time?

“Answer: I have no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office. I was never associated or affiliated with it in any way.

“Answer (sic): You do know that a number of Guardian’s Office people went to jail?

“Answer: I don’t –”

Then there was objection.

A Okay.

Q Were you asked those questions and give those answers?

A Yes, that is correct.

745

Q And that was true or was that perjury, as well, that you had no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office?

A Well, that was true then and it is true now.

Prior to my association with going to Gilman Hot Springs, I had — you know — you know, I had done protests at the behest of the Guardian’s Office where all Scientologists got together, and I think did a demonstration of the courthouse down there at a point in time on — Hebert would — what they do is they have a thing in Scientology called a call to arms —

Q Really, all I asked you, was that true or not and you said it was true that —

A Okay.

Q Using your words, you had no percipient knowledge —

A Well, I don’t want to play —

Q Can I ask my question first?

A I told you that there was — you know, was some association with the Guardian Office, and I tried to clarify that. So you know, I don’t want to get into word games here where you say, well, you said you never did it but suddenly now you have me picketing at the behest of Scientology. I mean, little activities like that, I mean, I popped out of a coffin across the park doing a skit based on something that —

746

Q I understand, but you waxed eloquent about the GO  and how it’s the same — OSA was the same, and under oath here you said you didn’t know, didn’t have information about the GO. You didn’t know anything about it.

A No, I think you are confused on that issue, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Now, do you remember testifying in this proceeding that — that you were — had responsibility for legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA? Do you remember  that?

A Yes.

Q Particularly intelligence activities of OSA, that was your testimony?

THE COURT: Could you define or tell him — I don’t remember, was it here in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. I was just reading from his testimony.

THE COURT: Here?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I’ll read — this is the dirty — when I say dirty, this is the —

THE COURT: Dirty copy, I know.

747

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The dirty copy, but on my Page 71 of the dirty copy, which is obviously not the actual transcript, what it says is, “As I mentioned –” this is your answer — “we used to do the technology side of Scientology. Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for.

And those were legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA which is a separate network in Scientology.”

That was your testimony, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Now, I want you to turn, if you will, Mr. Prince,to Page 77, first, of your Yanny depo. While you are looking for it, you were deputy inspector general of RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q And it was deputy inspector general external was your actual — DIG external, right?

A Right.

Q Did you — if you go to the bottom of the page, Line 22, were you asked this question and did you give this answer.

“Question: Back when you were the DIG external, did you have any responsibility for intelligence?

“Answer: Not particularly.

“Question: Is there a group or subgroup within

748

Scientology organization referred to as Intel?

“Answer: No, not that I know of.

“Question: Has Intel ever been part of your job description?

“Answer: No.

“Have you ever had any responsibility for Intel?

“Answer: No.”

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was that truthful testimony?

A Yes, it was. And you know, in — inasmuch as it — that it was deceptive testimony because we’ve sat here and we’ve gone over all of these Scientology issues, now  that says intelligence action, this, that and other thing, but when the GO was gotten rid of, the section that was called intelligence was no longer called intelligence; it was called the information bureau. And I think if you look at a current organization chart for the Office of Special Affairs, you will find that it says information bureau. It doesn’t say intelligence bureau. But if you look at the materials that the persons are trained on in the information bureau, it is intelligence.

Q It is sort of like your testimony yesterday where I asked you about the picket sign, you know, in front of

749

Mr. Minton’s house and you said you didn’t own a sign?

A You know, I don’t know about that, Mr. —

Q Was that truthful but deceptive testimony, or is that sort of like an example of what you’re talking about?

A I don’t know about that analogy, Mr. Weinberg. I think you are confused on that issue and you are mixing apples and oranges. But I pretty much answered your  question with this.

Q All right. So this is truthful but — and so what is — by the way, just so — it’s not perjury when you tell the truth but you are deceptive? In your mind, that is okay?

A Well, you know, I’m —

Q Just answer the question.

A I’m not going to draw a legal conclusions. You are the trained lawyer here. I’m the trained Scientologist.

Q You are the trained witness.

A I can tell you about that. I can’t tell you about the lawyering so much. I can’t explain the law to you. You can explain that to me.

Q Explain to me how you are being truthful when you are being deceptive?

A By the mere fact being deceptive, you are not being totally honest. But then again, as I understand the law, you are not obligated to answer but an exact question,

750

and the exact question here was about intelligence and — and again, I’ll tell you, when the GO was changed, the word “intelligence” was gotten rid of and the word “information” was put in there; information bureau, information department.

So if they would have said information department, I could have answered these questions a little differently.

But I didn’t say, oh, you know, well, they changed intelligence to information because no person wants a witness walking in just blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. Answer the question you are asked and that is it, okay.

THE COURT: Sort of like you are doing now?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So why did you use the word “intelligence” when you testified for Mr. Dandar? I just read you the testimony. “In those areas that I was responsible for,  legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA,” why did you use the word “intelligence”?

A Because I was able to take the eternal words of L. Ron Hubbard that had that on there and show it. I used it because that is what the issue says.

Q And by the way, that is acceptable to you to give truthful but deceptive testimony? That is acceptable to you as you sit here as a so-called expert in Scientology?

751

A It is acceptable to me to answer — answer the question that is asked.

Q So I have got to ask the absolutely right question or you can deceive me and there is no problem here? You can deceive me and the Court? And everybody else that is — that is in this room?

A Mmm, well, you know, you can call it deception or you can call it inadequate lawyering. I mean, I don’t know. What do you want to say about it?

Q Well, have you had any of those answers while you have been on the stand, those truthful but deceptive answers? Can you think of a couple where we just missed the question a little bit?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m making a valiant effort here to keep perspective and keep things in perspective. And I think I have gone overboard in explaining my rationale.

THE COURT: The question is, Mr. Prince, is there any time in this hearing you have not told the absolute whole truth, that is what the oath is, the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: No, there is not.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified, I think — correct me if I’m

752

wrong — a number of times that — that Mr. Miscavige was deeply involved in the activities of you and Ms. Aznaran at the RTC and that — and that you and her reported to Mr. Miscavige when you were there. Is that right?

A Mmm, partially right. I — I don’t — don’t remember saying Miscavige was deeply involved with me and Mrs. Aznaran in RTC. I don’t remember —

THE COURT: He did say he reported —

THE WITNESS: Yes, but the other part, I —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let’s make it clear because that is actually the question I wanted to ask you. You said — you testified under oath you reported to David Miscavige while you were  DIG external at RTC?

A I — ultimately, I did report to him, yes.

THE COURT: Frankly, I think he said he reported to Vicki Aznaran.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just asking him now — we’ll, I’ll read you what he said.

THE COURT: You have to read him what he says because I can’t even remember, myself.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is actually the real transcript, Page 342, lines 19 through 25. And this is in response to a question from Mr. Dandar. And you say: “Answer: So you know from

753

the –”

THE COURT: Read the question.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m trying to find.

There was a lot of interruptions.

MR. DANDAR: Well, that is surprising!

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince just starts talking. There was — there was dialogue about the Clearwater Police Department.

THE COURT: Well, let me hear what it is you are wanting to read to him, then we’ll see if he can remember this testimony.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Okay.

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

That is what you said?

A Correct. That doesn’t mean to the exclusion of  Mrs. Aznaran who was my direct —

Q No, I didn’t — wasn’t suggesting that.

A Okay.

754

Q Now, if you’ll go to — by the way, did you also report to Marty Rathbun back then?

A Yes. Yes.

Q If you go to Page 52 of the Yanny deposition, please —

A Was that 52, Mr. Weinberg?

Q Yes, 52.

A Okay.

Q Look at Line 15 through 19.

“Question –” were you asked these questions and gave these answers under oath.

“Question: Back in this ’84, ’86 time period did you ever have an occasion to report to Marty Rathbun?

“Answer: No.

“Question: Did you ever report to David Miscavige?

“Answer: No.”

A Right.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q Were those truthful answers?

A No, they were not.

Q So you perjured yourself?

A Correct.

755

THE COURT: I honestly don’t want you to use the word “perjury.” Perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Lie would be fine.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I have had judges tell me not to use lie because it is inflammatory.

THE COURT: If that were in front of a jury, that may be true, but for me in this particular proceeding perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Fine.

THE COURT: If you say is that a lie, that would be fine.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was that a lie?

A Yes, it was.

Q And did somebody instruct you to lie?

A Yes. Again, Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun.

Again, I’m being a good Scientologist and I’m protecting Scientology.

Q And you’re not being a good anti-Scientologist as you sit on the stand in this proceeding and write affidavits and stuff like that, correct?

A I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Q Well, is there a code of ethics for people like you that are part of the anti-Scientology movement?

756

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to the phrase “Anti-Scientology movement.” I don’t know if that has been established anywhere.

THE COURT: I think you need to save that for another time.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is there a code of ethics, did you and members of the A team and those people that were carrying the signs for the Lisa McPherson Trust that we saw that video yesterday, was there some code of ethics as to what you guys were going to do when you were under oath?

A Mr. Weinberg, no one carried a sign for the Lisa McPherson Trust. You know, you make it impossible for me to answer these questions when you draw these conclusions and inferences that simply are just not true.

Q Well —

THE COURT: So the question is, was there a code of ethics that you and Mr. Minton and —

MR. WEINBERG: Ms. Brooks.

THE COURT: — Ms. Brooks developed when you were to testify?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: In this proceeding?

THE WITNESS: No. The answer to the question,

757

your Honor, is no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have testified again today about the RPF and I believe that on direct — and I’ll read you your testimony if you don’t remember it, but I believe that you have referred to the RPF as being a concentration camp or something like that, correct?

THE COURT: Prison camp.

A Prison camp.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, in this transcript it says concentration camp on Page 456.

THE COURT: I heard prison camp for sure.

Prison, concentration camp, I guess they’re all the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually —

THE COURT: They’re not.

MR. WEINBERG: In my mind a concentration camp brings images of Nazi Germany, and a prison camp, you know, we have them in Florida. But —

MR. DANDAR: Well, Japanese had concentration camps in the United States. We had —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not even going there.

MR. DANDAR: There must be a difference.

THE COURT: Maybe not to this particular witness. He may not — not make a distinction.

758

THE WITNESS: Well, actually, your Honor, I think there is a distinction in that I think the Rehabilitation Project Force is more akin to a concentration camp in that part of the program is to have not — not only to have a mind-altering experience, but to have a total revamping of the way you were before.

THE COURT: Okay. So you refer to it as a concentration camp?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, did you lose a lot of weight when you were in the RPF?

A Which time?

Q I mean, did you get meals?

A Which time?

Q You said you were in twice, I believe.

A Right. So you mean both times?

THE COURT: Either time.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Either time.

A The first time I lost weight dramatically. I think I got down to 144 pounds because we weren’t allowed to eat regular food, we had to eat fruit and — and protein supplement called Progest. Then we had to run around with

759

plastic suits on our body to, quote/unquote, get the impurities out. This is all we were allowed to eat is fruit and Progest.

Q That was in the ’70s?

A That was ’77.

Q So then in ’87 when, you know, everything came down on you and you got —

A I lost weight there, too, yes.

Q Were you running around drinking protein drinks and wearing sweat suits?

A No, not the second time.

Q Now, you testified that you were — let me quote — “forcibly,” quote/unquote, that is what you said here, “removed from the RTC.” That is what you said on the stand.

A Yes.

Q Do you remember that? Now, when you said forcibly, what — what were you referring to?

A Well, I was referring to a couple of things.

Prior to assuming any position as a board member in the Scientology conglomerate, the one thing that you’re asked to do in order to have this position is to sign an undated resignation.

After signing an undated resignation, then you are  allowed to be a corporate officer, on the board of directors

760

or — or some such like that, you know, having to do with corporate matters.

So I was a — on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. I was the treasurer. But when I was graced with that position I also at that time had to sign an undated resignation. Again, I was woken up at I guess 5 o’clock in the morning with 12 people in — security guards wearing uniforms like they’re on a mission, and I was told that I was removed, I was shown my undated resignation so that, you know — and this is a legal process. And apparently this is a problem that they had, but I won’t diverge, but this and this, and I was told, “You stand up, you call me sir.”

Miscavige wanted me to do that, and I didn’t want to do it.

So they grabbed me and they started jumping me.

Q All right. That is the gun thing?

A Right.

Q The gun thing?

A Right. We talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: Are you also talking about the fact your resignation was filled in, is that what you considered part of forcible removal? Or not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So when you mentioned that, that is also part of your forcibly removed because it was

761

filled in and, therefore, you were removed?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you understood when Scientology reorganized in the early ’80s and created RTC and CSI and a variety of other corporations, you understood that there was a corporate structure then that was very clear and defined in corporate documents, correct?

A Before —

Q You understood that?

A Before or after — I guess — there was a corporate structure before they created RTC, CSI, all these other corporations?

Q No, I said you understood in the early ’80s, the Church of Scientology reorganized with a new corporate structure —

A Right.

Q — including the RTC, CSI, which was the mother church, and all the churches under them. You understood that, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q And there was a very detailed corporate structure with — with articles of incorporation and various agreements that set forth clearly the corporate way in which various — Scientology would be run, correct?

762

A Correct.

Q And that was the wish and desire of L. Ron  Hubbard, who was still alive that that happened, that there be this reorganization of the church?

A You know, I can’t say that that is true. I can’t —

THE COURT: Who would care? The idea there was a corporate reorganization, surely this is going somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: It is going somewhere.

THE COURT: Get there.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The RTC was composed of a board of directors.

Correct?

A That was part of it, sure.

Q And there were trustees?

A Correct.

Q In fact, there were trustees in every Scientology corporation, correct?

A Well, I came to learn that in 1987. But you are correct.

Q Well, you learned when you joined RTC that there were trustees, there were three trustees?

A No. No. No.

Q Well, what you learned is that the trustees had

763

one function, correct, and that is to — that is to — to name or remove directors. You understood that, didn’t you?

A No, sir.

Q And you were removed in 1987, along with Ms. Aznaran, by the trustees of RTC, one of which was Mr. Miscavige, correct?

A Incorrect. I was removed by one person, only one person’s will, on one person’s authority, and that was Mr. Miscavige.

Q Was he one of the trustees of RTC?

A Yes. And this got explained to me as he was doing this. You know, he — you know, and I guess I was a bit naive, you know, I didn’t know. I wasn’t a corporate person. I’m not trained, you know.

And he explained it to me very well. He said, “Look, I am a trustee. Norman is a trustee.” I think Marty may have been a trustee or Steve Marlowe may have been a trustee. I’m not sure. And he explained to me how it worked.

And he said, “Here is your undated resignation and you have officially resigned and this is how it works and we have the authority to do that.” And at that point I was cognizant of how it worked.

Q Are you saying that for the five years that you were in RTC and for the three or so that you were a board

764

member and, you said, the number two person at RTC, you didn’t know that there were trustees that had the ability to — to remove you?

A Correct.

Q But you are an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology?

A I have never said I am an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology, Mr. Weinberg. I said that I am an expert in the — in the policies, bulletins and issues that are Scientology. That is Scientology.

Q If you go to Page 16 of your deposition —

THE COURT: Which deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, the Yanny deposition.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The —

A I’m not quite there.

Q Okay.

A Okay. I’m there.

Q Okay, Line 4, question — were you asked these questions and did you give these answers — and you will see there is one date that is wrong, but it is wrong in the transcript, and I think you — it didn’t affect the question.

“Question — Line 4 were you asked this question, “October of ’83 to March of ’87 you were deputy inspector

765

general for external affairs.

“Answer: That’s right.

“Question: Was Vicki Aznaran your senior during that entire course of time?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Were you out at Gilman Hot Springs?

“Answer: Gilman Hot Springs and Los Angeles.

“Question: What was your next position then in March of ’83.”

That would be obviously March of ’87, I think you understand that by your answer. And did you give this answer.

“Answer: Then I went to the RPF for three months, probably three and a half. Then I was an auditor. I was an auditor at Golden Era, the same place at Gilman Hot Springs, for a while.

“Question: For about three and a half months starting in March of ’83 –” but it is ’87 — “you were in the RPF again?

“Answer: Yes.”

Then I’ll skip to Page 17. Top of the page. Line 3 were you asked this question and gave this answer: “What were the circumstances of your transferring from RTC to Golden Era Productions?

“Answer: Well, when I was in RTC I wanted to go to the RPF because I needed more training. I needed — I

766

just needed more skill than I presently had. And that afforded me an opportunity to do that because I could go five hours a day, so I did that and also got auditing, co-audited and life audited, because I audited practically my whole career in Scientology. So I decided to audit for a while.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q So that was false testimony?

A This was coached testimony by Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun, for the purpose of deposition with Mr. Yanny.

Q So is that a definite category —

THE COURT: That was also false, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You were coached by who?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Earle Cooley and Mr. Marty Rathbun.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, that deposition — you were asked questions by whom in that deposition?

A You know, I don’t know. I — I don’t know.

THE COURT: Take a look at the front. It

767

should say who was representing Mr. Yanny. Did you give him the front page?

MR. WEINBERG: I gave him the whole deposition. If I could approach, I think I could show him.

THE COURT: Okay.

A Cummings & White. Is that who it was?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Barry Van Sickle. Do you remember Barry Van Sickle?

A Not really.

Q But do you remember this was a deposition, now that we refreshed your recollection, the questions were being asked by Mr. Yanny’s lawyer, not by Mr. Cooley, the ones we went over.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just one second, your Honor. I need to move some stuff and get some other stuff.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, going to a different subject now, Mr. Prince.

A Are we finished with this?

Q Yes, let me take that back.

THE COURT: Why don’t you go ahead and give that, then, to Mr. Dandar.

MR. WEINBERG: I will.

THE COURT: That will save you all from having to copy it.

768

MR. WEINBERG: Is this our only copy? No, we have other copies.

MR. DANDAR: You do have another copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently, somewhere back at the ranch.

THE COURT: But you can go ahead and make yourselves a copy and he can have that one?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let’s go back to the LMT now. And I think you said a minute ago that I had some misconception of the LMT and picketing. Did I hear you say that?

A Mmm, that is quite possible, yes.

THE COURT: What he said, Counselor, was that you were suggesting that they were picketing on behalf of LMT, and that wasn’t exactly correct.

THE WITNESS: That is right. That’s right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But the — part of the purpose — part of what the LMT did in 1999 and 2000 was to picket various buildings of the Church of Scientology?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I hear you saying that.

But with every video that you have shown here and you have related to the LMT, there are LMT staff that have never picketed, never wanted to, never would, and would not

769

participate —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, this is really simple.

Really the question is here, and I don’t think it is that difficult, one of the things that LMT did, those folks who were at LMT, was to picket when they thought it appropriate.

THE WITNESS: Yes, occasionally they would.

THE COURT: Exercising their rights, whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They would at times organize a picket and go picket the Church.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in January of 2000 you were the consultant, expert, working with Ken Dandar in this case, right?

A Correct.

Q And you were also working in the Wollersheim case, as well, at that time?

A Mmm, more than likely, yes.

Q And you were also vice-president at the LMT?

A Well, we already did LMT. You said I was at the LMT. And I was working with Mr. Dandar. There are two things.

Q I’m focusing on the time, January of —

770

A Okay.

Q — 2000, you were the expert for Mr. Dandar —

A Yes, I was the expert for Mr. Dandar, but I don’t think that I immediately assumed work at the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don’t think that is how it happened.

Q Now, I asked you yesterday about you being the big boss at the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And you said no.

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we play that video, please.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, do you remember a situation where Mr. Minton handed out parrots to various members at the LMT as Christmas gifts so that — indicating — rather, whether you are a big parrot or little parrot, squawking at Scientology, do you remember that happening?

A I think you are referring to a newspaper — a press that Mr. Minton had — had done and that came up —

THE COURT: Did he give you all parrots?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Little ones.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, could we play this?

771

This is from the film library, January 5, 2000.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I have a little presentation, a little sort of Christmas present for the people who are associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust who have made all this possible. Some of you may be aware that back in December a guy named Dave — no, Rick Barry wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune about — I think the headline was ‘Bob Minton, will he rouse the gorilla?’

“Yes. Yes.

“But the real headline is ‘Lisa McPherson Trust, will they rouse the gorilla.’ And in that article, he referred to — in terms of the gorilla, first of all, he was talking about how this gorilla came to Clearwater 25 years ago, 800-pound gorilla, set himself down in the middle of Clearwater, began buying influence, began buying property, and for the last 25 years they have basically made themselves a force in this community by buying people off one at a time.

“And the — the question that Mr. Barry raised in this article was whether, you know, this small band of parrots would be able to, you know, make a

772

difference here in terms of changing the way that this — that this organization is perceived in this community and in terms of the way this organization behaves in this community.

“Well, I remember a good friend of mine, Mark DeLarma, who you all know, said, ‘You thought that was a good article? He, like, called you guys parrots.’ I said, ‘I thought it was a great article.’

“So did I.

“Because it really expressed in a very vivid way how the Lisa McPherson Trust was going to change the way this community interacts and perceives Scientology. And how Scientology will have to — if they want to be healthful here, start acting like an organization that is a church if they want to be called a church.

“So I figured that the first thing that the Lisa McPherson Trust had to do is we had to set up a little — Mmm — mascot for this organization. And everybody who is part of it. So for the first — the first group of — of Christmas presents are for those people who will be based here as part of the organization day in and day out.

“And so the first of those goes — goes to —

773

this is my little parrot that we want to have, the staff members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the most famous staff member of all is — is Stacy Brooks.

“There you go.

“The president and chief operating — executive officer.

“The next one — the next one, the same parrot, you know, the same parrot, goes to Jesse Prince, the boss of the whole thing. Who we all love.

“Thank you, Bobby.

“And the — and the third — the third of the fifth parrots goes to Mark Bunker, the multimedia king of the world.

“Sweet.

“Who is doing everything he can to keep a straight face while this is going on.

“There is one for me. I want to keep that.

“And then when David gets here, this is for David Cecere. And I have another parrot which is not currently in waiting here, but that is for Kim Baker when she arrives.

“So we’ve got plenty of parrots.

“We’re not done.

“We’re not done. You know — you know, I mean,

774

so I would like to make a recommendation that we adopt this parrot as the mascot of the Lisa McPherson Trust so that everybody knows that we are going to make a lot of noise, we’re going to be squawking about what Scientology does in terms of harming people and their abusive and deceptive practices, and we’re going to, as little parrots, we’re going to make a lot of noise and drop a lot of stuff that parrots — come out the back end and help these guys learn the way to behave. Okay?

“So —

“Bravo.

“So now — now — now we have little parrots. We have little parrots for all of the big people who have made all this possible. And the first and most important little parrot goes to Patricia because — because what Patricia has done, to help everybody who is down here, get themselves down here and get them settled in and make them feel comfortable in this — in this whole environment, which is not an easy place for — for former Scientologists to come to. You know, they have been willing to stick their neck out and come down here and really make this organization happen. And so Patricia has really made everybody feel comfortable, she’s — she’s sort

775

of like —

“She chased PIs into the bathroom for me.

“Yes, and you — you know — so I — I want Patricia to have a parrot.

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Ray Emmons has been teaching us all for — and a lot of people didn’t listen for a long time, how this organization really operates. And he did this in Clearwater. He made himself known nationwide in terms of his opposition to Scientology. And the type of organization that they really are underneath the surface. And so I want Ray to know that he’s a parrot, as well. You have been a parrot for a long time.

“Okay.

“Let me have a kiss here, Patricia, because I didn’t do that. Thank you so much.

“The order of the parrot.

“The order of the parrot. This is like the highest award that the Lisa McPherson Trust can bestow upon somebody.

“Now, you know, Peter Alexander has been squawking about Scientology for a long time, even when he was in it, especially toward the end of the time he was in it, when he was — when he was —

776

when he was being squawked at by Patricia — you know, rather regularly. So — and Peter has allowed Patricia particularly to devote so much time and energy into helping this organization get off the ground.

“And I just want you to know, Peter, that we’re totally thankful for your help and support in this organization, your being on the board. And I really want all of us to know that this is an incredibly tight-knit little group, and got a lot of hard work to do here in Clearwater. But with people like all of us here and you, Peter, thank you so much for doing this. And I want to present you with a little parrot.

“Yes.

“Thank you, sir. Thank you.

“And I want to — I want to —

“The order of the parrots.

“The order of the parrots.

“I want to talk to you about a theme park.

“Yeah. Yeah.

“Now, the next parrot — the next parrot is for Duncan Pierce, you know, our national coordinator. Our national coordinator.

“Oh, my God.

777

“Duncan has been abused by Stacy so much in the last few months that he really deserves a big parrot. But because he’s not here on the staff in the office every day, he can’t get a big parrot, you know, it’s just not part —

“The big parrot —

“Look at Peter.

“It’s — you know, the problem is —

“Patricia? Look at Patricia.

“The problem is it is not in the tech. He can’t have a big parrot. But —

“The standard tech.

“Yeah. Yeah. But — but Duncan has done so much to get us off the ground, as well.

“I don’t know what I would do without him.

“It is amazing. The thing is there are so many people that have really pushed so hard to get this thing going. And, you know, there is no recognition for us. You know, we get abused a lot on the Internet. Our demise has already been scripted by, you know, anti-cult and Diane Richardson. Fine, let them squawk all they want. But the real squawking will be done here in Clearwater by a bunch of parrots. And Duncan is one of those parrots. (Inaudible.)

778

“Then for the — and the person who lives the furtherest from Clearwater, Grady Ward, who is standing right here, we have another parrot, because Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward is — is our security expert here. And already — and already during the course of this day he has learned a lot about security. (Inaudible.)

“Yeah, don’t tell me about it. But I can tell you some things about Grady personally because — (Inaudible.)

“Because one of the things that really got me involved in this thing was Grady Ward. And Grady’s stand against Scientology, you know, back in 1995 or — early ’96 when he started going after them directly after they sued him, he went after them as his own attorney, you know. You know what they say about guys who are their own attorney.

“It is perfectly true.

“And it is perfectly true. Grady will be the first to tell you he had no expertise, no competence whatsoever. But he — he studied the law. He studied what Scientology was doing. He — he learned so much about it. And has become a really good legal man in terms of fighting Scientology. And I — you know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine

779

somebody having the patience to understand and go through and traveling back and forth from Arcadia, California, eight hours to San Francisco in his car and memorizing the Rules of Civil Procedure. You know, while he’s going back and forth. And I mean memorizing so he knows every paragraph, every subparagraph, whatever. And — (Inaudible.)

“You know, if you talk about a parrot, then this guy is a parrot. And I want to give — I want to give this guy who is a shining example for many people on the Internet in terms of standing up to somebody who is trying to curtail free speech on the Internet, I want Grady to have this parrot as a symbol of our love for him and his contribution to this whole battle.

“Thank you very much. “Thank you, Grady. Thank you.

“And — and now. (Inaudible.)

“And now this other parrot, I forgot to tell you. I told you this was mine. And this parrot is mine because all of you gave me this parrot and I really appreciate it. So —

“Something about Rob and why he gets a parrot,

780

because if it weren’t for him, none of us would be here.

“Absolutely.

“None of us.

“For sure.

“There is nothing else to say.

“Bob is the big parrot.

“Definitely.

“Oh, but this is not all. Oh, some of the best stuff is — some of the best is saved for last. Well, what I would like everybody —

“He’s big with presents, you can see that.

“What I would like everybody to do, if you put the parrots around in a little circle here, if you put the parrots around in a little circle there. (Inaudible.)

“Right, don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget. But, you know what the parrots are supposed to do, don’t you? We’re going to get the gorilla. And I didn’t want you to think I forgot about that gorilla. So this gorilla is going to sit right there.

“Whew.

“Don’t dump on the gorilla. Come on. But — but that is what this is all about here.

781

little parrots and some of us big parrots here, we’re going to be here and we’re going to make sure this gorilla behaves.

“We’re going to educate this gorilla and —

“We’re going to put the — we’re going to put the gorilla in the cage or the jungle, wherever it belongs.

“We’re going to turn this gorilla into a parrot.

“Yeah, this gorilla is going to be cooperating with us.

“In any case, everybody can take their parrot back now. And I’ll keep the gorilla, so when we have it on the desk out there, it will be —

“Yes, a constant reminder.

“Yes, as a constant reminder of what we need to do.”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Very fond memories. I’m so sorry that that place doesn’t exist anymore.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object because we just went through that long video and with the — the question was — to Mr. Prince, “Mr. Prince, were you called or did you call yourself a big boss at the LMT,” and

782

that is not what that video showed. Mr. Minton called Mr. Prince a boss of the whole thing. So — so whatever Mr. Weinberg’s question was was not supported by the video.

THE COURT: Well, it certainly is a video that he could play at some other time so he played it now.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: But it is true, he was not called a big boss —

MR. WEINBERG: He was called the boss of the whole thing.

THE COURT: But I think Mr. Minton made it clear he was the big boss.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I asked you a lot of questions about what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about. That meeting there was initially the start-up meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn’t it? It is essentially right at the beginning?

A I think so. You know, I think you are right about that.

Q Right. And Mr. Minton made it very clear what it was about, squawking about Scientology. That is what the

783

Lisa McPherson Trust was about, wasn’t it?

A No, sir. It was about making Scientology behave.

I think that was also part of this video. Just to behave. Be decent.

Q Putting the gorilla in the cage? Was that what it was about?

A Or in the jungle, wherever it belonged.

Q What does that mean, “or in the jungle, wherever it belonged”?

A Well, it means everything has its place, Mr. Weinberg. And there is hardly anything sinister about what we just watched here.

Q “We’re going to make a lot of noise,” that means you are going to disrupt the activities of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, right?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. That means that we’re going to expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those who have been victimized by it. That is what we were talking about there.

Q And at that time when you got the second parrot for being the boss of the whole thing, you were supposedly the full-time expert for Ken Dandar, correct?

A I was working for Mr. Dandar as his expert. I wouldn’t go as far as to say full-time. I mean, even you brought up the fact I was working on the Wollersheim case,

784

as well, simultaneously.

Q We’ll get to the — we’ll get — I’ll ask you one question. From June of ’99 until May of 2000 you were getting $5,000 a month from Dandar & Dandar?

A I think the record reflects that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And this was in that period of time, wasn’t it, this parrot thing?

A I believe it was.

Q Now, you saw this meeting and you were at a number of meetings with Mr. Minton, correct, over the years? You have been with him a lot?

A Yes, I have been with him a lot.

Q And in this particular meeting and others that you were in, Mr. Minton was pretty outspoken, outgoing, he would take over, right? He would speak his piece? He was in control?

A No. Mr. Minton is not that way. That is the biggest myth. You know, Mr. Minton has exact things that he likes to do and he does them. I mean, I learned a lot from him myself. You know, I have never had millions upon millions of dollars myself. I have never been able to help people the way he has been able to help people. He has a different agenda, a different track. Unfortunately, in some instances he has a very short attention span.

And he never, in any instance, ever wants to be

785

the person that is the leader. I mean, he doesn’t — he doesn’t do that. You know, if you want to do it, great. If what you want to do makes sense, great, he’ll support you.

But he’s not going to tell you how to do it.

Q So this was just an aberration?

A No, this was — it was clear what this was.

Mr. Minton was showing his appreciation to persons like Patricia Greenway, myself, Peter Alexander, Duncan Pierce, for helping organize and make the people feel welcome at the Lisa McPherson Trust and helping us be a social — be a social reform group, if nothing else, in order to ultimately help Scientology.

Q By the way, did he look harassed? Did he look like a man that was under some wave of harassment unknown to mankind?

A Actually, he looked like a man giving a speech to a group of people.

Q It looked like he was — that was in the Lisa McPherson Trust building, correct?

A Correct.

Q It looked like all of you, Ms. Greenway, you, Mr. —

THE COURT: What difference does that make they were having fun at the LMT? When gifts were given out?

786

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll go on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you a question about Ray Emmons, the guy that put the parrot on his head.

A I know Ray Emmons well.

Q Now, Mr. Emmons had been a Clearwater police officer and had done an investigation of the Church of Scientology in the ’80s, is that right?

A Yes, I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Emmons has been and continues to be the investigator for Ken Dandar in this case, you know that?

A I know that Mr. Dandar has used him to do service of process or locate witnesses and things like that.

Q Now, what was Mr. Emmons’ position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t think he had a position. He may have been on the board of directors, which was huge and basically was a friends list. But as far as an official position or coming into that office on a daily basis to work or accomplish a specific task, that was never anything that he did.

MR. WEINBERG: I have a couple E-Mails — or postings I was going to put in, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I want to take a break here in five minutes, so if it will take more than

787

that, break now. If not, go ahead and do those and we’ll take a break.

MR. WEINBERG: I think we can do those in five minutes. I mean, it is just identifying them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: These are actually E-Mails, I’m told. I have trouble telling the difference.

THE COURT: Yes, I don’t know the difference, either. If they’re up there on the screen and people can read it, to me, it’s an E-Mail.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, your Honor, this is 223. I didn’t write the number on it.

THE COURT: Okay, I’ll do it.

MR. WEINBERG: And this is 224.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’m going to hand you the originals. We’ll put them back when we’re done.

A Okay.

Q All right. If you’ll look at first, Mr. Prince, 223.

A 223? Which one is 223?

Q That is the —

A Okay, I have it here.

Q That is the Jeff Jacobsen —

788

THE COURT: It is the long one.

THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m really only referring to —

I — we just received these from the Lisa McPherson Trust. I have attached the whole thing, your Honor, but the only page that — that — this is part of the E-Mails that were produced.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: But really what I’m focusing on is the first page.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can look at it all, but I don’t know if the rest — sometimes it comes off the computer and —

THE COURT: Who is this from?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at this, Mr. Prince, this is from Jeff Jacobsen to you and Mr. Bunker and Stacy Brooks. Who is Karen Case?

A She used to be a person hired specifically to work as public relations.

Q And this is dated August 2, 2000. Is that right?

A Well, you know, okay.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes. I do.

789

Q And this is — do you remember having meetings about things that needed to be done at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, I have to object.

This is not Mr. Prince’s E-Mail so I don’t know how he can question him about some hearsay document authored by somebody that is not here.

THE COURT: Well, I think he can state whether or not this is accurate or not.

MR. WEINBERG: It is to him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You received this, right, Mr. Prince?

A I have no memory of this.

MR. DANDAR: Which one are you on?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s copied on the E-Mail, it is addressed to him.

THE WITNESS: I don’t even know what this is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It is an E-Mail to you.

A Okay.

Q Among other people. All right?

A Okay.

Q What it says, “This is a list of things we talked about, elaborated on by me.”

Now, Mr. Jacobsen was also part of the Lisa

790

McPherson Trust, correct?

A Yes, he was.

Q In fact, in some of those videos yesterday you saw Mr. Jacobsen in it with a camera himself?

A No, I did not see that yesterday, but —

Q Oh. He did take — he took videos from time to time, didn’t I?

A Yes.

Q Do you know why those videos haven’t been turned over, by the way, his, Mr. Jacobsen’s?

A No, I do not. Were they asked for?

THE COURT: Don’t ask him what he knows or doesn’t know about something like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll ask it a different way.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you know where the videos that he took are?

A No, I do not.

Q Were they kept at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t know what he did with his personal videos.

Q But, anyway, this — this — this E-Mail talks about a list of things we talked about, 1, speeches, radio talk shows. 2, picket. 3, press releases. 4, press conferences. 5, help with investigations by EEOC, DEB. 6, the library open for public use. 7, concert November 11. 8, newsletter. 9, attend city council meetings,

791

participate. 10, put up a sign for the office outside. 11, ads in local newspaper. 12, support group. 13, radiofree Clearwater.”

Now, that is 13 things that the Lisa McPherson Trust, I assume, prioritized to do. Not one says anything about counseling, does it?

A You know, I think you are mischaracterizing this E-Mail to somehow reflect or — or be a staple for the activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and what this is is just simply an E-Mail of Jeff writing. I have no recollection of it whatsoever and I don’t even remember what it relates to at this point in time.

I mean, I literally have had thousands of E-Mails, Mr. Weinberg. I’m not trying to be uncooperative, I’m trying to cooperate in the spirit, but what you are asking  me has no perspective. You are tying this into the Lisa McPherson Trust and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Q Well, does it make sense to you one of the priorities of the Lisa McPherson Trust was pickets? Does that make sense to you?

A No, not at all.

THE COURT: This is really — in fairness, this is a statement from somebody about some meeting and, frankly, you don’t have to persuade me that the Lisa McPherson Trust picketed. I don’t know why you just

792

keep badgering that home. I know what he’s going to say, you know what he’s going to say. It is me that is in charge of this hearing, and I’m persuaded, but the point was not picketing, it was counseling, wasn’t on the list.

You know, that is unfair to suggest because somebody writes a letter with things they talked about on a given day of things that needed to be done, you can hardly assume putting a sign outside is a primary — is something that needs to be done.

It doesn’t say this is our purpose. I mean, fair is fair, Counselor. And that is not fair to suggest that those are the purposes of the LMT.

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

THE COURT: All right. It will be received. It will be received, although it is only being received for the fact that — that we have a bunch of E-mails.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — that I have let in.

MR. WEINBERG: Then 224 quickly is an E-Mail that —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is this a posting or E-Mail, 224, Mr. Prince?

793

A I have no idea.

Q Well, this is something that you —

A There is no “to”.

THE COURT: It says it is from you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, is this a note to myself? I don’t know what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you recognize this as something that you did?

THE COURT: Who is Mark? I know there is a Mark.

THE WITNESS: You know, there are lots of Marks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think it is pretty clear, the message at the bottom is a Mark Bunker passage. Then —

A The message at the bottom? Oh, I see what you are saying.

Q Do you see?

A Okay.

Q And my question to you is, your advice was, “With regard to the Lisa McPherson Trust, contact Ken Dandar.”

That is what it says, correct?

A Absolutely not.

Q That is not what it says?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. It doesn’t say that,

794

either.

A No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Are you saying, “In the meantime, I recommend you contact U.S. attorney Kennan G. Dandar,” and give his E-Mail address?

THE COURT: What is the date on that?

MR. WEINBERG: It is November 10, 1999.

THE COURT: Before the trust was formed?

MR. WEINBERG: Right — well, the trust actually had already been formed, remember, it was incorporated and it was in the process of being set up.

A You know, this is a partial thing here from Mark. I can’t tell if somebody wrote in and had a legal question and I’m referring them to Ken Dandar, who is a lawyer that could maybe answer a legal question for them, or whether or not they need assistance or the service the trust has to offer. I can’t tell from this. I can’t draw the inference that somehow this means Ken Dandar is running the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything like that.

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

MR. DANDAR: I object. It is too partial to make sense.

795

THE COURT: I’m going to let it in for whatever value it has, which is little, as to a lot of the other E-Mails, because of the same problem.

MR. WEINBERG: So is this a good time to take a break?

THE COURT: It is a good time to take a break.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. I show it is 25 till. That will be about ten till.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 10:35 to 10:55 a.m.)

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay. I signed the order and I mailed out the copies. But those of you who are here, I’ll give you yours. Mr. Dandar. Here is Mr. Lirot’s, too. I didn’t realize he wasn’t here.

Mr. Moxon, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Fugate. Always trying to save you all some stamp money.

MR. WEINBERG: Everything counts.

THE COURT: Every little bit counts. That is right.

You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: I returned the envelopes to opposing counsel.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: So they can save their stamps.

796

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you first learned about Bob Minton after watching a television show Dateline in which he appeared and Ms. Brooks appeared in June of ’98?

A That is incorrect.

Q Did you watch a television show before you met Mr. Minton where you learned about him?

A No, I did not.

Q How did you learn about Mr. Minton?

A Through Mrs. Brooks.

Q So she just reached out for you, you didn’t reach out for her?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, I think I spoke on this before but I’ll speak on it again.

I was on vacation in Connecticut. I had been in the cyber coffee cafe. I had gone on the Internet. Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Weinberg?

THE COURT: It was rather elaborate.

A I left my phone number and she called me.

(Telephone interruption.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the Dateline —

THE COURT: Don’t be sorry to him. Be sorry to me. It is my word that says no phone.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I apologize for the

797

distraction.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the television show The Crusader, I think on NBC Dateline, where Mr. Minton was featured about his crusade against Scientology?

A Mmm, more than likely, many months to possibly a year after he had done that program, I’d seen it. But I didn’t see it when it ran on national television.

Q Well, you learned, shortly after your call from Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton was a very wealthy person who was handing out a lot of money to people that would work against Scientology, correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q Ms. Brooks didn’t tell you that Mr. Minton had given her and Vaughn a lot of money, including the purchase of a $250,000 home?

A At one point in time Mrs. Brooks did relay the information that Mr. Minton had given her and her husband some money and she explained the circumstances about that.

Q Did a relative tell you about the Dateline show featuring —

THE COURT: A relative of whom?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q A relative of yours tell you about — in or about this time period before you met Mr. Minton — did a relative

798

tell you about having seen this show where Mr. Minton was featured or some friend or some family member?

A A cousin of mine, when I lived in — I guess I must have been still living in Minneapolis and we were in a phone conversation. And she was telling me about a program where she had seen — she had seen concerning Scientology and there was a man that was helping people or somehow got involved in it. She didn’t remember his name. She just remembered — and, you know, as it is with my family, if they see something about Scientology on TV, they tell me about it when I speak to them.

Q Was that before you communicated with Ms. Brooks?

A I believe it was.

Q So when you learned about Ms. Brooks, you already knew about Mr. Minton?

A As I said, she didn’t know Mr. Minton’s name. All she related was, “I saw a story on TV about Scientology and the different things that they do. And there was a man that was helping people that had been in Scientology before.”

Q And did you research, prior to hearing from Ms. Brooks, did you research to learn who this guy was and what he was doing for people who had been in Scientology?

A No. I had not.

Q Now, when did you learn, after communicating with Ms. Brooks, how wealthy Mr. Minton was?

799

A When I spoke to him.

Q And how long after you talked to Ms. Brooks did you talk to Mr. Minton?

A Mmm, maybe a month. Maybe two months.

Q So I was under the impression that on this trip — I guess I’m wrong — this trip to Connecticut, that you went from Connecticut right up to Mr. Minton’s house after talking to Ms. Brooks?

A No, that is incorrect, Mr. Weinberg.

Q So you went home after that?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed in touch —

A Oh, no, no, I’m sorry, you know, because it is so important to make sure the record is correct. From Connecticut, I flew to Ohio and met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Haney.

Q And was it at that time that you were given a new car?

A No. No. It was not. And I was never given a new car by anyone.

Q Somebody purchased it? Mr. Minton purchased a new car for you or caused a new car to be purchased for you?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q Well, how did you get the $23,000 Rodeo vehicle?

A I never got a $23,000 Rodeo. I had use of a

800

$23,000 Rodeo but that $23,000 Rodeo belonged to FACTNet, and when I terminated my employment with them, that car stayed with FACTNet. You understand?

Q Now, that was purchased where, the car?

A In —

THE COURT: Where like what dealer? What city?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What city? What city?

A You know, I don’t remember the name of the city.

Q But it was in Ohio, that area, either Minneapolis or Ohio, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did —

A Well, wait a minute. Let me not do this thing because you accused me of this earlier. It was in Minneapolis specifically. I know the specific answer. I’m not going to play charades here with you. It was in a place near Minneapolis, a city that was near Minneapolis, and I don’t specifically recall the name of the city.

Q And it was purchased new, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to pick it up at the dealer?

A Mmm, a friend of mine — Mmm — took me — drove me to the dealership to pick it up.

Q And did you have a check with you? How was it

801

paid for?

A No. I didn’t have a check.

Q Ms. Brooks took care of paying for the car? Is that what happened?

A No. Ms. Brooks did not — well, you know, I don’t think so. But quite factually, I don’t know who — how that part of it happened.

Q There just happened to be a new car waiting for you at the dealership?

A No. They needed a vehicle for FACTNet. You know, let me — if you have patience with me, I’ll tell you the — what happened there.

They needed a car in Boulder —

Q Boulder, Colorado?

A Boulder, Colorado, which is where FACTNet was located. I was going to FACTNet to assist in that organization. The car was purchased. I moved everything that I had in Minneapolis and moved to Boulder, Colorado. I made that move to at least be safe or — or to be around some people that could offer some protection to me, because  after I’d contacted Mr. — Mr. Minton, the private investigators started, the threatening letters to sue me from Scientology started. And I was alone in Minneapolis, and it was like, “Okay, come here, we’ll help you, we’ll protect you, we have lawyers,” whatever.

802

Q You were alone and bankrupt in Minneapolis, right?

A I had filed bankruptcy in 1997. I think the year we’re talking about now is 1998.

Q June of 1998. Bankruptcy in November of 1997, right? Your next real job after bankruptcy was to be paid by FACTNet and Mr. Minton, correct?

A That is completely false.

Q Now —

A You want to know what my next job was or you just want to leave it like that.

Q Tell me what your next job was.

A I was self-employed. I had an art business called The Art Guy. I had a kiosk in the mall in downtown Minneapolis. I was making my own money and I was actually doing pretty good for myself.

Q But something encouraged you, prompted you, to pick up and leave Minneapolis and move to Boulder, Colorado, at which time you became associated with FACTNet and started being a paid witness in various Scientology cases, correct?

A I think you have added a little bit of baggage on that. But what actually occurred is I left Minneapolis with my business intact. I had employees in Wisconsin and employees in Minneapolis, and I left and went to Boulder, Colorado.

Q Driving this car?

803

A Correct.

Q And you drove this car for how long? How many months did you drive this new car that somebody paid for that you picked up new?

A Off and on, maybe about three months.

Q Now, after — but before you moved to Boulder, you went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A It was just myself.

Q And he flew you to New Hampshire?

A I — I believe the way the scenario worked is Mrs. Brooks arranged flight — airfare, the flight, for me to fly there, yes.

Q Much like she had arranged the car to be purchased?

A I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here because I think I stated earlier in the testimony I’m not quite sure who did that on behalf of FACTNet. That car was purchased in FACTNet’s name. It was never in Jesse Prince’s name, Bob Minton’s name, Stacy Brooks’s name. It was a corporate car. That is the way it was purchased and that is the way it was left.

Q And the person that was financing FACTNet at the

804

time was Bob Minton?

A Mmm, no.

Q Did Mr. — one last question about the car. Did Mr. Haney provide the funds for the car, Brian Haney?

A Not that I’m aware of. But then again, I don’t know the details of it. I know that — I think Mr. Haney did have some association with FACTNet at the time.

Q And what were you seeing Mr. Haney in Ohio about with Ms. Young?

A I mean, I had never known Mr. Haney. I didn’t know who he was. He just happened to be there. I was there to visit with Stacy.

The visit with Stacy — her and I have been associated — associated and friends through Scientology since 1976. She was one of the very first persons that I  met when I joined the Sea Org. And we were just happy to see each other. Her ex-husband, Vaughn Young, and I were very good friends. You know, he was an executive and we  were friends, and it was — and from leaving Scientology — because when you leave and you are ostracized, people disconnect from you; you are a suppressive person, degraded being, whatever, you don’t have any friends anymore. But to actually encounter someone from Scientology that you knew before that will talk to you because you are not a Scientology is a rare thing.

805

Q Now, the Youngs left in 1989, correct?

A Yes, I assume that, yes.

Q You left in 1992?

A Yes.

Q But you didn’t communicate with the Youngs until Mr. Minton came on the scene in 1998, after you left Scientology, correct?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of my earlier testimony, Mr. Weinberg. Because I think the way I testified, and again I’ll go through the whole thing —

Q No, just answer that question.

A But I wrote an E-mail from a cybercafe that said, “If you know Vaughn Young or Stacy Brooks, please give them my phone number.” Mr. Minton was not part of the equation.

Q My question was you didn’t have any communication with Vaughn or Stacy Young after you left Scientology in 1992 until this cybercafe thing in 1998?

A Correct.

Q As far as you know, they didn’t reach out for you prior to that time, either, is that correct, as far as you know?

A As far as I know.

Q Now, Stacy Young must have told you, when you were in Ohio with her and Brian Haney, she must have told you about the activities that she and Vaughn, her husband, had

806

been involved in for the past four years concerning cases involving Scientology. She told you about that, didn’t she?

A In our first meeting?

Q When you —

A Oh, when I went to Ohio? Are you talking about the Ohio trip?

Q Yes.

A There may have been a brief mention of that, what she was doing. But for sure the substance and the bulk of our conversation was the fact that we were together, we were alive, we actually made it out somewhat sane people and we were just happy to see each other.

Q Did she tell you she and her husband had been making a living off testifying and being experts in cases against Scientology for the past three or four years?

A No, she did not.

Q Did she tell you you had a good opportunity to — to get in on the gravy train, so to speak? Did she tell you that?

A I take offense to that characterization. But that statement is categorically false.

Q Did she tell you that you had the opportunity to make money by being — by working with lawyers in cases involving Scientology? Did she tell you that?

A No, she did not.

807

Q So you didn’t have any discussion about you getting involved in any of these cases?

A At that point in time in Ohio, no, we did not.

Q There came a point in time where you did talk to Stacy about that?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A Mmm, I’m not quite sure. It was maybe some months later or — I’m not quite sure. But I think while we were talking she was telling me about FACTNet. She was telling me about this organization which, in some respects, was similar to the Lisa McPherson Trust which had as its intention of providing information and doing what it can to assist people or persons who felt they had been victimized by Scientology. And —

THE COURT: Was FACTNet just Scientology or was it cults in general?

THE WITNESS: Cults in general, you know, the whole subject. Very broad.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was primarily Scientology, though, wasn’t it?

A No. If you go on their website, you know, Scientology has its place, but there are many other cults that they have provided information, ex-members speaking

808

about it, you know.

Q Well, the staff members of FACTNet tended to be people that were more interested in Scientology or had had some involvement with Scientology as opposed to other groups. Correct?

A No. That is actually false. There was one person that was a staff — that was a staff member in FACTNet, I think her name was Justine. She was a Christian woman that had never been in Scientology before.

Q You are telling me so you learned about how you could make some money involving Scientology from Ms. Brooks.

So when did that happen?

A You know, I —

THE COURT: Make some money involving Scientology? That doesn’t make sense.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Who was the first person that told you –suggested to you that you might be — you might be a witness and could be paid as a, quote, expert on Scientology? Who told you that?

A No one told me that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Who asked you to be involved in the first case that you got involved in?

A Mr. Leipold.

Q He just reached out for you?

809

A He was an associate of Mrs. Brooks. Mrs. Brooks was explaining to me about FACTNet. And the whole subject came about because we were talking about being in touch with people that we had lost contact with, old friends that were in Scientology. So she was introducing me, “Well, you know, another person, you know, people from Los Angeles, hey, do you know this one? He’s out.” And Andre Tabayoyon, I think I spoke with him. We were just talking about the people that we knew in Scientology that were no longer there that were out, you know, getting on with their lives, doing what they do.

Q What were you doing in Ohio with Mr. Haney and Ms. Brooks? I mean, why Ohio? You live in Minneapolis. She lived in Seattle. Why were you in Ohio?

A That is where she was when she called me. And I was in Connecticut and she was in Ohio.

Q Is there something special in Ohio?

A I think that is where Mr. Haney lives. She was in Columbus, Ohio. That is where Mr. Haney lives.

Q You went to New Hampshire. How did you get in touch with Mr. Minton? Did you call him? He call you?

A I think I answered this before. This happened through Mrs. Brooks. I met Mrs. Brooks, and then I had — you know, sometime after that I spoke to Mr. Minton on the phone and maybe a month or two later actually went to visit

810

with him.

Q He flew you to New Hampshire —

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know who paid for the ticket. We can assume it was Mr. Minton, directly or indirectly.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Somebody arranged for you to fly to New Hampshire, right?

A Stacy Brooks.

Q All right. But she wasn’t at this weekend — was it a weekend?

A Actually a couple weeks.

Q You were at Mr. Minton’s house for a couple weeks?

A Yes.

Q Who else was there other than you and Mr. Minton?

A His family would come occasionally. His wife. His children.

Q And anybody — I mean, other than his family, anybody else?

A No.

Q What did you-all — did you talk about Scientology in those two weeks?

A Yes, we did. We talked about Scientology. We talked about why — why he became involved. What this was

811

all about. He was very interested to know my involvement, my history, compared to other people that he had talked to.

And again, this is all in reference to, hey, you know, these ex-people, these people that used to be in and now they are not in and now they’re getting together and talking to each other and it is okay to do that.

Q And did he give you some money, some expense money at that point, either before the trip or during the visit or after the trip?

A No. No. I don’t think so.

Q Did he pay for your expenses to move from Minneapolis to Denver?

A Yes.

Q And —

MR. DANDAR: I object because we have got to establish a time frame here. It sounds like it all happened on the same day.

THE COURT: That is true. Whatever the time frame is, I don’t think it all happened on the same day.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A It didn’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It didn’t. I’m not suggesting that. Do you remember how much he gave you to move from Minneapolis to

812

Denver?

A Mmm, $10,000.

Q In a check? Cash? I mean, how did you get the money?

THE COURT: What difference does it make?

MR. WEINBERG: Probably not.

THE COURT: It doesn’t make any difference.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Where did you get the money? I mean, did this happen in New Hampshire? Or did it happen after the trip to New Hampshire that he gave you the $10,000?

A You know, I’m not sure because, you know, I made a couple of trips to New Hampshire. So I’m not really sure how that came about. But I’ll do the best I can to explain it to you, Mr. Weinberg.

I went there once, I stayed there for a couple of weeks, came back to Minneapolis. The threats started. I was starting to get letters from Elliot Abelson, Scientology attorney in Chicago, letting me know I would be sued. I had private investigators starting a noisy investigation in my neighborhood. And I think I alerted Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks, I said, “Look, I can’t believe this whole thing is starting all over again.” You know — you are right, I did do the bankruptcy thing. I cut ties with Scientology

813

completely. I was done with it. I didn’t want another thing to do with it. You know, it is kind of like every time you put your hand in the fire, you know you are going to get burned. I was done.

Q You were done but then you decided to get involved in cases against Scientology?

A Then I went to meet these people and my freedom of association was trying to be inhibited from Scientology — by Scientology. They didn’t want me to associate with these people. There were no — no criminal activity occurred, nothing happened. I’m simply talking to people that used to be in Scientology.

Q All I asked you, did you get the money from Mr. Minton during your trips to New Hampshire or after. That is all I asked, and if you don’t remember just —

A In one of the trips.

Q — just tell me you don’t know.

A In one of the trips, Mr. Weinberg, I did get the money from him to move.

Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you that he would, in essence, take care of you thereafter to support you with regard to your work involving Scientology?

A No, he did not.

Q But in reality, that is what happened for the next four years, didn’t it?

814

A No, it is not.

Q Well, you began to get money from Mr. Minton after this first $10,000, correct? I mean, from that point on for the next four years you received money, directly or indirectly, from Bob Minton on a monthly basis, didn’t you?

A Mr. Weinberg, I received money from FACTNet when I started working for FACTNet, when I moved from Minneapolis to Boulder, Colorado. I started to receive some — and very little from FACTNet. The fact of the matter is that I was able to live and do what I was doing because I had been — I had my own business, I had staff working for me in two states. I was receiving regular moneys from profits that I had made. And this was where the bulk of my money was coming from.

Q So you had all these profits that you had accumulated after the November bankruptcy between November and June of ’98?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, you got the $10,000 from Mr. Minton.

And how much money do you remember that you received from FACTNet?

A Maybe a couple of thousand. You know, one month.

A thousand another. You know, it was kind of back and forth.

Q And then you came — then, shortly after this, you

815

came to Florida in the fall of 1998 to begin work with regard to the PC folders in this case. Correct? You flew to Florida?

A Correct.

Q And you spent how many days with Ms. Brooks reviewing the PC folders of Lisa McPherson in the fall of ’98?

A You know, I’m not sure, but it was like many days, maybe even more than a week. And it was something I came back to, as well, and participated in getting the folders copied. So this whole thing with the folders started in December but it went through a period of time, a month’s period of time of going through those folders.

Q So at that point when you first came you were now officially on board as an expert for Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson matter, correct?

A I — I wouldn’t say that. The reason why Mr. Dandar wanted me to go through those folders is because of my expertise in Scientology, my prior technical experience, the many courses and certificates and internships I had finished.

THE COURT: Were you his consultant, as well?

THE WITNESS: Not at that time. I just came down to do the preclear folders. Mr. Dandar and I did not have a relationship because we didn’t know

816

each other. And through time — and he could see my competence in interpreting Scientology policies and bulletins — that I then became a consultant and worked more closely with him on the case.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, at the time — when you were reviewing these folders it was in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Yes.

Q And you had — you met with Mr. Dandar at that period of time?

A Yes.

Q I mean, you introduced yourself to him and all that?

THE COURT: Well, Counsel, come on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you bill him for your time?

A No.

Q You just did this for free?

A Yes. And I had done it for free many times. I mean, I have worked for Morrison & Foerster, and Feaster from — out of San Francisco in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Leipold in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Dandar. I mean, by that time I had been working with these different attorney firms or at least they had been calling me to see if I could assist them in these other legal cases.

817

Q Well, who was paying you to be in Tampa, St. Pete, wherever it was, that you were to work with Mr. Dandar and Ms. Brooks with regard to this case in the fall of 1998 and early 1999 when you were going through these PC folders?

A Again I’ll say that my expenses to fly down to Florida, I believe, was paid by Mr. Dandar. The money that I used to exist for that period of time, I think we’re talking about maybe six months, for the most part — for the greater majority of it were residuals from the business I operated in Minneapolis.

Q Well, didn’t Mr. Minton give you checks in early 1999, $5,000, $6,000 a month?

A No.

Q He didn’t do that?

A He may have did it a time or two but it wasn’t consistent. And FACTNet was a very small organization. It sometimes just didn’t have money. And my — you know, and this was kind of like a period of time like where how do you fit in? So, you know, I would occasionally tell Mr. Minton, “Hey, you know, these people don’t have money. I can’t live on air here. Can you help out?”

Q Well, why Mr. Minton? Why not Mr. Dandar who you were doing the work for?

A Because I was working on FACTNet now, you know.

We’re mixing apples and oranges here. FACTNet was a

818

corporation that Mr. Minton was on the board of directors of.

Q Well, I thought — correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I heard you say that starting in the fall of 1998, into 1999, you spent a number of days, weeks, whatever, working on this case, the Lisa McPherson case?

A Well, hold on, hold on, hold on. I never even met Mr. Dandar until 1999. So let’s leave 19 —

Q How can you say that? You just said you were in his office in the fall of 1998 looking at the PC folders?

A Wait — okay. Well, okay, I’m confused with the dates. So —

THE COURT: So what is the right date?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I mean, was it 1998?

THE COURT: That is fine. I told you and I’ll tell you again and it is really a wonderful answer, you know, 1997, ’98, ’99, there could be a lot of these dates you simply don’t know, and there is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m not sure what the date was. I don’t know for sure.”

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

A Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know. I don’t recall for sure.

819

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, when did you become the expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case?

A I believe that I got a letter from Mr. Dandar quite possibly in March of 1999 that memorialized the fact that he wanted to hire me to be his consultant. We had had a working relationship at that point because I helped him a lot and I — and —

THE COURT: You know, I haven’t heard a date yet. When is the question?

A March of ’99. I think that is when we formed an agreement and decided on terms.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Prior to March of ’99, in the months prior to March of ’99, you had done a lot of work assisting Mr. Dandar with, for example, PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q So whether that started in November or December of ’98, it was sometime several months before March of ’99 when you signed on as the expert. Right?

A Yes.

Q And —

A To the best of my recollection.

Q And prior to signing on as the expert, can you tell us how much time you had spent down here helping out

820

Mr. Dandar before you signed on as the expert?

A I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how much time it was.

Q Okay. Now, once you signed on with Mr. Dandar, then was it established that you were on a monthly salary?

A Mmm, I think the letter that memorializes that agreement, I was on a monthly retainer of $5,000 a month and my billable hours which I believe was either $100 or $150 an hour.

Q If you exceeded the $5,000? Or is it in addition to the $5,000?

A The $5,000 retainer, and the hours against that, plus any other hours if I put in more hours or whatever.

Q But you didn’t keep your hours, we established — remember we established that in front of Judge Moody that you didn’t keep your hours. Right?

A Well, no, in the beginning I didn’t. And again, Mr. Weinberg, there was nothing to keep prior to that because I had just literally done the work for free.

Q Well, we have asked for your hours as part of the various discovery, and it came up in the Judge Moody hearing when you testified in front of Judge Moody and your testimony was, I believe, that either you didn’t keep them or you didn’t have them.

A Right. I didn’t have accurate records. I didn’t have any notes to turn over or — no.

821

Q So what you got paid by Mr. Dandar was $5,000 a month because you didn’t keep the time in order to get anything in addition to that. Correct?

A Well, you see, we’re mixing apples and oranges here again now. Because I think, you know, you talk about that time period from 1998 to —

THE COURT: I’m — he’s talking about the time period from March of ’99 when you were placed on a $5,000-a-month retainer, was it $100 or $150 an hour again that — which was it?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure, I think it may have been $150, actually.

THE COURT: Let’s assume it was $150 an hour.

Basically how that works, if you go over, whatever $150 into $5,000 is, then you get more, but if you get less, you still keep the five.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Was that the deal?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you didn’t keep records, apparently?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You were paid $5,000 a month?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: For whatever — for however many

822

hours you worked?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’ll show you the checks, but that continued up until — your recollection is that continued to a particular point in time, I believe the records will show, May of 2000 when you left Mr. Dandar’s payroll and went on LMT’s payroll. Correct?

A My reference point for that, Mr. Weinberg, is that we had finished the depositions of all of the Scientology persons that needed to be deposed. And Mr. Dandar was going to go on to —

THE COURT: Well, is that correct? Is that the date? I mean, all he wants to know —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All I want to know —

A I don’t know if that is the right date. I’m saying my reference is this —

Q At some point, and we’ll show you the checks, I’m representing to you I think the last Dandar check is May of ’99 — or May of 2000. At some point in time you quit getting Dandar & Dandar checks and you started getting LMT checks?

A Correct.

Q And LMT continued to pay you at $5,000 a month?

823

A Correct.

Q The same $5,000 — the same amount. And you negotiated that rate with Mr. Minton?

A And Mrs. Brooks.

Q Now, and then the LMT at some point — you testified about either yesterday or the day before — closed down, correct?

A Correct.

Q And whenever that was, your recollection it was sometime in August or September of 2001. Right?

THE COURT: When was the date? When was the date?

MR. WEINBERG: That I don’t know exactly. I mean, it depends on — I mean, I’m really asking Mr. Prince.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I believe that you, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks said it was sometime in the August/September of 2001 time period, is that correct?

A Mr. Weinberg, my recollection is I think it ceased to exist as a corporation — I think there was something that Stacy wrote. But again as I testified to yesterday, there was that period of time when Judge Beach still had to come into the trust in order to go through all of the offices, the library, looking for discovery, so in effect it

824

was kind of forced to stay open longer after that.

Q Well, we’ll show you the checks. But the records from LMT —

THE COURT: If you have got the checks, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to show him, then I wouldn’t have to listen to this?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I will.

THE COURT: What you said yesterday was even after it closed down there was a period of time when you were working and you got paid for that, too, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Whatever the checks show, the checks show.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And then at some point you quit getting LMT checks, right?

A Correct.

Q And — but Mr. Minton continued to pay you. Right?

A No. That is incorrect. Mrs. Brooks did.

Q You knew that Mrs. Brooks was getting the money from Mr. Minton. Right?

A Well, you know — come on.

Q Come on yeah?

825

A Do I need to assume that for you to make a point?

The answer to the question is I was being paid by Mrs. Brooks. Her name is on the check. It is to me. That is it.

Q All right. And that was at $5,000 a month, as well?

A Correct.

Q And who did you negotiate that deal with?

A Mrs. Brooks.

Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about it?

A No. I specifically talked to Mrs. Brooks about it because she wanted everyone to take a cut in pay. And, again, this constant figure of $5,000 is something that we had discussed many years earlier.

Q “We” being?

A Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton. This is what I need to be able to live.

Q So —

A This is comparable to what I was making before I came and started doing this. I —

Q I’m sorry, before you ever signed on with Mr. Dandar, you had already discussed with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you needed $5,000 a month to live, correct?

A Correct.

Q And is that what you’re getting paid at FACTNet,

826

as well?

A No.

Q Now, when you started getting these checks — they were checks, right, from Ms. Brooks, you were still living in Clearwater. Right? Or — or Florida?

A I’m still living here. Yes.

Q And you’re living in a house that Mr. Minton gave you a $50,000 down payment on. Correct?

A That was part of the down payment that I had to make. My total down payment for that house was $70,000.

Q How much of that $70,000 did Mr. Minton give you?

A $50,000.

Q And when was that? When did he give you the $50,000?

A You know, I guess it was sometime in February.

And, you know —

THE COURT: If you have the check, show it to him.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t have the check, I don’t think.

A Well, you know, we’ve said —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, could you just tell me when you bought your house?

THE COURT: If he doesn’t know, he doesn’t

827

know. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.

A I know when I bought the house. I think the 21st or 22nd of February of 2000.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And at that point in February of 2000, you were getting Dandar & Dandar monthly checks as his consultant.

Right?

A Correct.

Q All right. And how did it come about Mr. Minton gave you $50,000 of the $70,000 that you needed for the downpayment?

A You want to hear this?

Q You asked him for it?

THE COURT: Go on ahead. You asked. He can tell it. Go on and rattle off however long this story is going to take.

A Prior to moving down to Clearwater, we had discussed — had many discussions about, well, where to put the Lisa McPherson Trust. We were kicking around this idea  of the LMT, where is it going to go? Should it be in D.C., should it be in Boston, in the Los Angeles area. Bob said Clearwater.

We discussed this, David Cecere, myself, I think Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton and there — there quite possibly could have been someone else there — I don’t remember — of

828

where to put this thing.

And Mr. Minton really wanted to put it in Clearwater. He felt that it was important that it happen in Clearwater. Which meant that everyone that was going to work there would be displaced from where they were currently living to move here.

Mr. Minton offered to pay the moving expenses for all concerned and to help all concerned establish residence in Clearwater.

Q So he paid your moving expenses which —

A Correct.

Q — included a $50,000 downpayment?

A No, sir. That is what was discussed in — in New Hampshire, you know, before we moved here. Ultimately, Mr. Minton gave me the $50,000 loan to purchase that house, but I paid for my own moving expenses and I paid — I mean, the whole deal cost about $80,000 for me to relocate.

Because I had a place in Memphis. And by this time I’m kind of living with — in Chicago. By this time I’m kind of living with my fiancee in Memphis, Tennessee, as well. So when I moved down to Clearwater I had to move from two cities; I had to move from Chicago, I had to move from Memphis, Tennessee, to Clearwater.

Q Mr. Minton paid some other things for you. He paid your attorney fees in the criminal case down here,

829

didn’t he?

A I believe the Lisa McPherson Trust paid those.

Q Well, did you — did you discuss with Mr. Minton that you needed funds to pay an attorney when you got charged down here?

A No.

Q So who did you discuss that with so that the Lisa McPherson Trust paid for your attorney fees?

A I wanted to hire a fellow named Rob Love to defend me in that action. Mrs. Brooks insisted that Mr. DeVlaming would handle my case and it would be taken care of by the Lisa McPherson Trust as a job hazard.

Q As a job hazard?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that was around $60,000 or $70,000?

A The bill that I saw — I think it was about $45,000 that I saw.

Q Do you think it was more than that or you don’t know?

A I think it could have been more.

Q Now, how long — so how would you get these checks from Ms. Brooks after the Lisa McPherson Trust closed down?

A She would mail them to me from Atlanta.

Q The last check you got was on or about April 4 of 2002?

830

A Correct.

Q And did you have a discussion — all these discussions that you had with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that you have testified about this year, in any of those discussions did you discuss with them your need for them to continue paying you?

A Mmm, no, I haven’t had a discussion about that. I mean, we — I think I brought up earlier, in September there was a renegotiation of — Stacy wanted people to take pay cuts or whatever. And —

Q But you didn’t take one?

A Correct.

Q I was talking about April. In that — do you remember you said you had all these conversations, that you referred to them in your affidavit, with Mr. Brooks — with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton —

A Oh, okay.

Q In those conversations did you raise the fact that you needed more money, you needed money, you wanted money?

A No.

Q Okay.

A I did not.

Q Now, you said that you began as the paid expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case in March of — of 1999. Correct?

831

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me have the reporter — the clerk —

A To the best of my recollection.

MR. WEINBERG: — mark as a 3-page exhibit, if we can do that, your Honor —

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WEINBERG: — some checks. This will be 225.

THE COURT: All right. Do I have the right order, the way you handed it to me?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It is possible, however, that I screwed that up, but —

THE COURT: It is all right.

MR. WEINBERG: But the order should be February, March and May. That is what I’m hoping.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 225, Mr. Prince.

A Okay.

Q And you recognize the first page of 225 to be a February 2nd of 1999 check from Bob Minton for $6,500 to you?

832

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you recognize the second page to be a March — appears to be March 18, 1999 check to you for $5,000, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q From Mr. Minton again?

A Yes.

Q And the third check to be a May 4, 1999 check for $5,000 from Mr. Minton?

A Correct. Q Now, this was — these checks had to do with the agreement that you had already worked out with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks about you getting at least $5,000 a month?

A Correct.

Q But you were getting this on top of what you were getting from Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Q Okay. You think you started getting from Mr. Dandar a little bit later?

A Yes.

Q Now, what was this $5,000 a month for? I mean, one was $6,500. Do you know why it was $6,500?

A Do you know, I don’t know. I was looking at that. That is an anomaly. That must have been money left over from another month. Because as I said, there was a

833

stretch — period of time after I met — certainly from 1998 until I guess this first check here that I was just simply not paid at all.

Q But this — you are not getting paid for FACTNet work, you are getting paid for Lisa McPherson work prior to signing on with —

A No.

Q — Ken Dandar?

A No.

Q Well, what is this work? What is this —

A I’m in FACTNet when this is happening.

Q Why was FACTNet paying you?

A Well, I think I mentioned earlier that sometimes FACTNet just didn’t have money and I would call Mr. Minton. I can’t just be down here.

Q Now, when —

THE COURT: Weren’t you making $3,500 a month at FACTNet? Or am I thinking of something else?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you may be right about that because we did have — have some agreement, I think I reached some agreement with them to do that. And, you know, at that time I still had my other business. I still had other employees. I would often make trips, you know. So that could have been the case.

834

But the fact of the matter is the organization didn’t have the money.

THE COURT: I’m trying to think of why — I have no idea why it was $6,500 either unless perhaps —

MR. WEINBERG: I think it might have been some expenses or something.

THE COURT: Or perhaps he was getting $3,500 from FACTNet. He was supposed to start getting $5,000 from whatever, and I didn’t get — the difference from $3,500 to $5,000 would be $6,500.

That would be rational but —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In any event, Mr. Minton knew you had been doing this work in Clearwater for Mr. Dandar with regard to the PC folders? He knew that?

A I assume he did.

Q I mean, you were in — once you had spent that however long you said it was, I forgot now, a couple weeks at his house, you communicated with him regularly after that, didn’t you?

A Up until this very occurrence, yes.

THE COURT: What is “this very occurrence”?

This —

THE WITNESS: That is occurring here.

835

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Now I’m going to mark as our next exhibit, your Honor —

THE CLERK: 226.

MR. WEINBERG: — 226, this is 226 —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, 226 is a response that was filed by Mr. Dandar on April 6, 2001. And attached — and the response shows that it has checks attached, but if you’ll look at the summary on Page 2, it identifies a 6/30/99 check, an 8/20/99 check, a 9/15/99 —

A Excuse me, I’m not following you at all.

MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach a second?

THE COURT: You don’t need to read them all into evidence. Just put it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: I just wanted him to look at it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You see those?

A Uh-huh.

Q Attached is those checks. So either look at the attachment or summary there.

Is it your recollection that is the sum and substance of what Dandar & Dandar paid you while you were on the — you know, being working as a consultant/expert?

836

A I believe this is correct with the possible exception of recent activity.

Q Right. No, I’m talking about prior to 2002.

A Okay.

Q And that the first check was on or about June 30, 1999. Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And the last check was on or about May 24, 2000.

A Yes.

Q And it’s your recollection that after you received the last check, that is when you started getting paid at the same rate by Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Correct.

Q You see for the most part these checks are $5,000 a month?

A Correct. I think I can explain what this other one is for, $1,772.

Q What?

A I mean all of $5,000 with the exception of the $1,772 —

Q Is that some expense check?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, the Lisa McPherson Trust actually withheld from your check. Right?

A Yes.

837

Q In other words, you — your salary was $5,000 a month but your take-home was whatever —

A About 35.

Q So I’m going to show you a series of those checks, as well.

A Okay.

Q You were on a 1099 for Mr. Dandar, in other words, he didn’t withhold from your checks, right?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You were considered an independent contractor when you worked for him, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

THE CLERK: 227.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 227, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 227.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark as 228 this document.

And all this is is the payroll records of Mr. Prince which show that the salary was $5,000, it shows what the withholding was.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: That is 228.

838

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: These were produced by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

THE COURT: These weren’t additional moneys.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it just shows what the salary was, 228, and they withheld —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at the checks, Mr. Prince, they are $3,552, starting in June of — of 2000, do you see that?

A Mmm, yes, I do.

Q And it is June, July, August, September, October, November, December —

THE COURT: Counselor — Counselor, just can you go from the beginning to the end?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It begins in June — end of June of 2000 and ends — one is out of place — ends —

THE COURT: June ’01.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q June/01, except if you look at the other exhibit, Mr. Prince — if I could just approach, your Honor — the payroll records indicate that you would have received — you would have received a — one last payment on August 1, 2001 of $5,000 salary with all of the withholding. Do you see that?

839

A I’m trying to follow.

Q It is the last page. Right there (indicating).

August 1 —

A Oh, yeah. Okay.

Q All right? So that was probably the close-out payment or something?

A That was the last check. Yeah.

THE COURT: Counselor, from LMT again?

MR. WEINBERG: These are the LMT records, this is what they produced.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So it appears you were paid a salary as an employee from June of 2000 until August of 2001 at $5,000 a month. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And after August 1 of 2001, you continued to get your $5,000 a month but it was from Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q Now, did Ms. Brooks withhold from — I mean —

THE COURT: What could she withhold from? I mean, she was not paying him out of a business; she was giving him money.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a good question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did — what were you considered at that point when

840

you were getting this $5,000 a month from Ms. Brooks?

A What was I considered? Stranded in Clearwater.

All of the other staff had moved.

THE COURT: Was this a friend giving — giving you living money until you could get some other job?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was there some understanding how long that was going on?

A No.

Q Was — had there been discussions it was going to end?

A No.

Q Now, you have a monthly mortgage, obviously, because you haven’t sold this house yet, right?

A Correct.

Q Who paid you in May of 2002?

A It’s not here?

Q May of 2002. The last check from Ms. Brooks you said was April 4, 2002.

A Correct.

Q You said for years you needed $5,000 a month to live.

A Correct.

Q So my question is who paid —

841

your money to live in May of 2002?

A I think from the State of Florida.

Q What do you mean?

A I filed for unemployment.

Q Well, how did you do that?

THE COURT: Because he was unemployed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you’d been unemployed since August of 2001.

A Yeah.

Q Or did you tell them that you had been employed since August of 2001 and just lost your job when you had this argument or disagreement with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Mr. Weinberg, it is actually quite a simple process. You go online, you tell them you are employed — unemployed, you put it in there, and they send you a check.  You check in. You have to look for employment. I mean, that is what I know about.

Q And who did you say your last employer was?

A Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what did you say the circumstances were that you had lost your job?

A Mmm, I — I think — I think maybe the place was bankrupt, went out of business, closed shop. Something like that, you know.

842

Q Is there some application you have to fill out?

A Online, yes.

Q And is there — so it is all online, it is with the State of Florida?

A Yes, it is with the State of Florida online, yes.

Q And so since May of 2002, you have been on unemployment?

A Since late May of — yeah. Late May of 2002.

Yes.

Q So you are still on unemployment?

A No.

Q Well, when did that end?

A Well, when I worked out a new agreement with Mr. Dandar and came to appear as an expert and give testimony here, he gave me a check which I think he said he  would send here, and at that point when you receive money — when you are employed and you are actually receiving money, whether it is self-employed or otherwise, that terminates unemployment.

So that check effectively terminated my unemployment.

Q And so you notified the authorities of that?

A Yes. And I haven’t received another check since.

Q How many checks did you get — where do you get it, from the State of Florida, is that where you get the

843

checks?

A Yes.

Q And how many checks did you get for unemployment?

A Mmm, well, they do it — I think I was getting like $293 a week or something like that. Then they would double them up so the checks were like $494, I would get two of those —

THE COURT: Were you getting weekly checks?

THE WITNESS: No, I had it every other week.

So I got $494 — I believe I received —

THE COURT: Do you know?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then why don’t you say that?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you get the first money from — when did you sign up with Mr. Dandar to be an expert again? What date?

A I don’t know.

Q Well, that can’t be long ago, so what is your best —

A Well, I don’t know the date. I don’t know.

Q What were the circumstances of you becoming an expert again?

A Mmm, you know, again, this whole thing was over.

844

People were going home. It was over. Your client took Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton as trophies and we are sitting here today and this brought me into this position here again today. So, you know, those are kinds of the circumstances.

THE COURT: Are you back as a consultant or expert or combination of the two?

THE WITNESS: I have been a combination of the two with him.

THE COURT: And what time did that start, about? Was it like —

THE WITNESS: Maybe a week ago, two weeks ago or however.

THE COURT: So between May of 2002 up until that time you were collecting unemployment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And is there some agreement you executed with Mr. Dandar a week or two weeks ago?

A Yeah, that I participate in the case, I would help —

Q No, is there some written agreement?

A Oh, no.

Q And the day that it started is when you got the check. Is that when you became the expert, when you got the check?

845

A You know, I’m not — I’m not sure because —

THE COURT: As opposed to they talked, then they got a check —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m trying to date it. It is not that long ago. I’m trying to date it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, when it happened, did you — I mean, did this essentially happen simultaneously that somehow it was  established that you were going to be the expert again and you negotiated what you needed?

A There was no — I’ll try to explain it as best as I can, Mr. Weinberg.

THE COURT: I don’t care. I don’t want to hear it, I’m not interested. I’m just not interested.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Could I ask the amount then? What is the agreement? Are you getting paid on monthly basis? Salary?

A We have no agreement like that. I just — you know, I will put in X amount of time, I’ll get through this hearing —

THE COURT: Are you going to bill him per hour, or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how much have you received from Mr. Dandar?

846

A $4,000.

Q Is that just a retainer?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Are you keeping records now?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

THE COURT: What is your hourly fee?

THE WITNESS: 150.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think this would be — I have a few other questions.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else, between the time that Ms. Brooks quit giving you money and the time that Mr. Dandar did give you money, did anybody else give you whatever you want to call it, expense money, living money, expert money, money?

A No.

THE COURT: Between the time Ms. Brooks —

MR. WEINBERG: — quit giving him the money in April of 2002 of this year and whenever it was Mr. Dandar gave this check.

THE COURT: Other than his unemployment?

MR. WEINBERG: Other than his unemployment.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else give you money?

A The answer is no.

847

MR. WEINBERG: I think that — you know, I’m sort of at the end of this section. If you want me to start another section I will, or we can —

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to go until about 12:15, if you don’t mind.

MR. WEINBERG: No.

THE COURT: Because we kind of got a late break.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I really don’t mind.

THE COURT: Gee, I thought you were about to say you were done.

MR. DANDAR: I thought so, too.

THE COURT: I was real excited.

MR. WEINBERG: Or I could put it a different way. Maybe I could have some time to collect my thoughts. No, I’m not done.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have been asked before about —

THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I’m sorry.

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: What is the number of the response from Mr. Dandar? Can somebody give me a number on that?

848

MR. DANDAR: 226.

THE COURT: Thank you. I forgot to mark it.

MR. WEINBERG: Which means that the — that the LMT —

THE COURT: I have everything else marked. I just didn’t have that marked.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You have been asked before and testified about going to Key West. Do you remember that?

A I don’t remember testifying about that.

Q Well, did you go to Key West?

A Yes. But I don’t remember testifying about it.

MR. DANDAR: It is outside of the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what he’s going to ask about it, but it is probably doubtful it is outside of the scope of direct but —

MR. WEINBERG: It is. It is.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you were in Key West for what purpose?

A Vacation.

Q For a fishing trip is what you previously testified to.

849

A Yes, okay. And, you know, I don’t want to do this — if I have testimony, could you please just show it to me and ask me about it?

THE COURT: That is a fair question. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask a few questions and then I will show it to you because we do have — actually we’ll show you the video.

THE COURT: If he wants to see it, you show it to him now.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is it. He can look at it.

THE COURT: Then put it up then.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I need to ask him one question before.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: One series.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In Key West, it didn’t have anything to do about Scientology or this case or cases against Scientology, is that right?

A Mmm, you know, we were there for a fishing trip.

I was there with Mr. Haverty, Mr. Haney, Mr. Ford Greene, Mr Dan Leipold, Mr. Dandar; Mr. Garko came out there. We all have a common interest, and it would be crazy for me to say that the subject of our work didn’t come up and was

850

discussed or whatever at some — you know, during the fishing trip.

So the — that is the best way I can answer that question.

THE COURT: So the answer is yes, you all discussed the case?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, let me play your testimony and then I’ll ask you about it.

THE COURT: What testimony? This is on direct?

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s in his deposition under oath in this case on November 17 —

THE COURT: See, you misled — I think Mr. Prince and I both thought you were talking about on direct examination which is what Mr. Dandar said was outside the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: No, in this case about Key West.

THE COURT: But it was in his deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. When you say testimony in this case, I’m going to assume you’re talking about direct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

851

THE COURT: So if it is something else, you need to identify it for him and for me.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: What page number is this going to be?

MR. WEINBERG: Right here. This is a transcript of where this comes from.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: May I have a transcript, too?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you go to Key West?

A Yes.

Q Who sent you to Key West?

A No one sent. I went.

Q Who paid for the trip?

A I paid for the majority of it while I was there, but it wasn’t — really not much to pay for. I paid to be on a boat to go out fishing. I paid —

Q Who — well, who gave you the money?

A I used my own money.

Q Well, where did that money come from?

852

A Money that I earned from working.

Q For FACTNet and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold?

A I think we’ve covered this earlier. You know, I have a — you know — different businesses, as well as  expert, and, you know, the money that I used for that particular trip came from money derived from income from work that I’ve done.

Q Including FACTNet, Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold, right?

A I’m not sure why you’re bringing up FACTNet. I thought we —

Q Is that right?

A No, that is wrong.

Q Well, when was the trip to Key West?

A Well, six weeks ago now.

Q And who was on the trip? What people were on the trip?

A Oh, you know, I really don’t want to discuss that because I was on a complete pleasure trip. It had nothing do with McPherson, or Wollersheim. Nothing. It had to do with fishing and having a good time. Okay?

Q Now —

A And I explained to you earlier that I am very reticent to bring up the names of people that I’m involved with that is activity outside of Scientology because of the

853

behavior of your client. How many times do we have to keep going over this?

Q Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar? Or are you embarrassed about bringing his name up? Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar?

A No, Mr. Dandar was not —

Q Answer yes or no?

A — on the trip. No.

Q Was Mr. Leipold on the trip?

A Mr. Leipold — Leipold was there, Mr. Weiner (sic). He was there.

Q Was Mr. Minton on the trip?

A No.

Q Ms. Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Vaughn Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Mr. Jacobsen on the trip?

A Who is Mr. Jacobsen?

Q You don’t know Mr. Jacobsen?

A No.

Q That is fine. Mr. Ward on the trip?

A No. No.

Q Did you talk about Lisa McPherson on the trip?

A Very little.

854

Q So Mr. Leipold went from California to Key West to just fish —

A Yes.

Q — with Jesse Prince?

A Yes. We went deep-sea fishing. We went 40 miles off the coast, caught fish like this. Had a ball.

Q And there was no planning session with regard to litigation. Is that correct?

A No.

Q Was Mr. Haney on the trip?

A Yes. And his son. And he learned to fish.

Excuse me. Now that we don’t have a question pending I would like to take a break. My leg is going to sleep.

Q We just broke ten minutes ago?

A Well, okay, I’m sorry, my leg is going to sleep.

I’ll take a two-minute break. Is that okay, Mr. Weiner (sic)?

Q Okay, take a break.

____________________________________

Q Now, I asked you if Mr. Dandar was in Key West with you. And you said no. You said no repeatedly. Is that correct?

A I don’t — if I did say no, I’m very sorry. He was not part of the trip. He came and appeared one day,

855

said, “Hi,” we had dinner and he left.

Q When you were outside did they — did they — Ms. Young remind you that you had made yet another mistake under oath? Did they tell you that?

A How could Ms. Young said — say that when I gave you testimony that she wasn’t there?

Q Well, who told you that then? Who told you — who corrected your — your false testimony that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there?

A I never gave false testimony. You asked me if Dandar was part of the trip that I went fishing. I said no.

Q And you were absolutely insistent that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there and yet he was in Key West?

A And came and had dinner and left. One time.

Q Flew down to Key West to have dinner and left.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, asked and answered and don’t answer it again.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did he stay in a hotel down there?

A I don’t know.

Q What do you mean, you don’t know?

A That means that I don’t have personal knowledge of it.

Q And you understand what personal knowledge is,

856

right?

A Oh, come on, please.

Q No, do you understand it, personal knowledge?

A I do not know if he was staying in a hotel there.

I was in a different place. I don’t know where he was.

Q How many — how long did you spend with him in Key West on that trip this summer?

A A dinner. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. Outside of dinner —

Q Dinner is usually at night, right?

A Correct.

Q Did you see him the next morning?

A No.

Q Now, was Mike Garko down there?

A Yes, he was. Dr. Garko was there.

Q Was Thom Haverty down there?

A Yes. He was.

Q So that is like the whole consulting team for the McPherson case?

A Mr. Garko was with Mr. Dandar.

Q So he just flew in for dinner?

A Came in and left.

Q Didn’t have anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case?

A No.

857

Q Who paid for your trip?

A As I gave testimony to earlier, I paid my own expenses to — Mmm — take the boat out. I went out on a boat several times. I paid about 50, 60 bucks a time. I bought beer, wine, food, cigarettes.

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

THE COURT: Counselor, is it — is it important that —

MR. WEINBERG: We are demonstrating —

THE COURT: Right now we have testimony coming out, I paid for my trip.

MR. WEINBERG: We are playing it in context.

THE COURT: No, it is not. I see about a jillion pages. You are on Page 259 and I see it going straight through to Page 267. That is a lot of pages. And I see that you’re — there is a lot of consistent testimony here.

MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, when we play this, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of inconsistent statements.

THE COURT: Yes, you already played it. I’m saying why do I have to listen to the consistent testimony from a deposition, it is improper.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, because — because —

858

there has been a lot of argument, accusations in here about taking things out of context so we left it in context is what we did.

THE COURT: All right.

If you have any more like this, you — you cut and paste. You can give it all to me, go to where you want to go, but I don’t want to hear it —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I have better things to do than listen to this man’s testimony two times when it is exactly the same both times. Now, there is differences and I’m interested in hearing the differences.

MR. WEINBERG: And it is different from the other sworn testimony before —

THE COURT: And I’m interested in hearing that.

I’m not interested in hearing that which is not inconsistent. Do I make myself clear?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: It is improper. All right.

MR. WEINBERG: We could play it on rebuttal case, and we thought it would be appropriate to play it here with Mr. Prince on the stand and get his explanation for the inconsistencies between this and —

859

THE COURT: I have no problem with your playing inconsistencies.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: That is called impeachment. I do have a problem with having to listen to Mr. Prince’s testimony on the stand and then listen to identical testimony in a deposition. Cut and paste it. You can give me the whole deposition, so if I want to read it in between, I can.

MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. Just play the rest — no, are we done?

That is fine.

THE COURT: I mean, there is more here and there may be more inconsistencies and I want you to play that —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, and we don’t have it set up and I’ll go back and look at it at the break.

THE COURT: Let me look and I can see what you have underlined and that is probably the important part. I see I have two pages here not underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: The only stuff being played is the underlined stuff.

THE COURT: That is not true, Counsel, it is not true.

860

MR. DANDAR: And I don’t have anything underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then — then I should have followed the transcript.

THE COURT: Page 259, this is about the time I interrupted you, “Who paid for your trip down there?

“As I gave testimony to you earlier, I paid my own expenses. I went out on a boat several times –”

MR. WEINBERG: Wait a minute. I thought — point made. I really thought when I was — that I had this — only the stuff that was yellowed.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: That is why it was yellowed.

THE COURT: If there is something else in here you want to impeach, that is perfectly fine, you can catch it during lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll catch it during lunch. I think I pretty much made my point.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in Mr. Dandar’s testimony in this proceeding on May 3, 2002 —

A Not this?

Q No, it is not this.

A Okay.

861

Q On Page 90 — this is in his direct testimony when it first started at the beginning — I could hand this up.

THE COURT: If you are going to try to impeach this witness from Mr. Dandar’s testimony —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I’m going to ask him a question about it.

THE COURT: You don’t need to show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony or ask him about it. You can’t do it. If their testimony differs, it differs. You can bring it up, inconsistencies in their testimony, but you can’t show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony and say, “Is that true?”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I take it that you did not spend hours and hours talking about Scientology strategy, the Lisa McPherson case and the other Scientology cases with Mr. Dandar or anyone else at the Key West meeting. Is that correct?

A That is correct. My recollection, I didn’t spend hours speaking to anyone about this. I mean, you know, there were a point in time when the attorneys were meeting, you know. And again, I don’t profess to be an attorney, I don’t try to be an attorney. I was there on a fishing trip, you know. Mr. Leipold has certain experience in dealing with Scientology. Mr. Ford Greene has certain experience with dealing with Scientology because of the cases he has

862

done. They had discussed with Mr. Dandar about that. This had nothing to do with me.

Q Well, you said Mr. Dandar in your testimony was only there for dinner one night for a few hours with Dr. Garko and flew back and there was no discussion about — about the case. That is what you said?

A You know —

Q Under oath. Correct?

A This is getting ridiculous, Mr. Weinberg. I mean, he flew in for dinner. He flew in. He brought in Mr. Garko. He had his own personal pilot. They were flying a little personal plane. They came, you know, while it was still light outside, you know, “Hi.” Thom Haverty’s wife is there and Captain Wayne’s wife is there, the boat. This is a social setting.

Q All right, so —

A There is nothing sinister about it.

Q So Mr. Dandar was not there for two or three or four days with Dr. Garko, was he?

A Not to my recollection. No.

Q Did you fly back to Tampa with Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not.

Q And did you talk, on the trip in Key West — which you remember it was in August of 1999?

A I’ll take your word for it.

863

Q And do you remember that on August 20th of 1999 is when you wrote that David Miscavige affidavit that was used  about him ordering the death of — letting — ordering or allowing her or causing her to die? Do you remember that?

A You got me all screwed up on the dates now. Could you just tell me again?

Q The testimony in this case is that the Key West trip was around August 8, 9, 10, 11 of 1999. Or 12th of 1999.

A Whose testimony is that now?

Q Mr. Dandar’s testimony, Dr. Garko’s testimony, Mr. Haney’s testimony. That is the testimony.

A Okay.

Q All right? You executed an affidavit — the affidavit in this case, part of what this hearing is about, on August 20 of 1998?

THE COURT: We are talking about that is the date he signed it?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is the date he signed it.

THE COURT: You are not going to suggest to this witness that whole affidavit was written on the date it was —

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t going to ask that.

864

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Just ten or fifteen days later you executed this affidavit, right?

A Correct.

Q Now, did you participate in any conversations in Key West with anyone, whether it is Ford Greene, lawyer on  Scientology cases, or Dandar Leipold, or Ken Dandar, or Dr. Garko or Thom Haverty, part of the — part of the Lisa McPherson team, did you have conversations with anybody down there about any of the assertions in this what became the August 20th affidavit?

A Not that I recall.

Q Did you have any discussions down there with anyone about adding David Miscavige as a strategy to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I recall.

Q As far as you know, was anybody down there talking about the strategy of adding David Miscavige to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I know of.

Q And was it —

A Or not that I recall or have memory of.

Q But you did leave Key West and go directly to Tampa, correct, after that trip that you call a fishing trip?

865

A I believe that — that that is correct.

Q And as soon as you got to Tampa, you started work — you must have started working on this affidavit. Right?

A I think that affidavit was a work in progress by the time I got to Tampa already. If you notice — I mean,  that thing is pretty detailed. I have references. I have studied. You know, it takes me time to do these affidavits.

I just don’t sit and imagine it. I have my calendar, I have my notes or whatever and I sit and I do these things.

Q But the first check you got from Mr. Dandar was June 30, 1999. Correct?

A If that is what you just showed me, I’ll take your word for it. Okay.

Q So as you look back, as you think back, do you recall whether you were working on this affidavit before you went to Key West?

A I’m pretty sure that was a work in progress.

Q So you had already had discussions with people about adding Mr. Miscavige to the case?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall it so I’m going to say I don’t know.

THE COURT: The only thing I’m going to allow you to inquire about — remember we had this little business about the work product — is the meeting

866

which is at issue in this case, the meeting, whether Minton was there and whether Minton influenced that. Whether this man, as a consultant, paid or otherwise, had a conversation about adding David Miscavige is what I would have expected him to add. Nothing sinister about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Nothing said it was sinister, except Mr. Dandar already asked Dr. Garko about meetings, Mr. Haney about meetings, Ms. Brooks about meetings, so —

THE COURT: Meetings? What meetings? The only person that I know of that was asked about the Key West meetings was you-all. Maybe he brought it up —

MR. WEINBERG: He brought it up on May 3rd.

You didn’t let me cross-examine him. Mr. Dandar is the one that brought up the Key West meeting, said that is where he —

THE COURT: Well, do you think I think all those people sat down there and didn’t talk about this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t.

THE COURT: I don’t care what they said.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just —

THE COURT: I mean, you know —

867

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: You are acting as if you have a jury here that — I’m a judge that has been involved in this case very deeply, and as I tried to suggest to you on several occasions, I’m not an idiot.

MR. WEINBERG: I know that.

THE COURT: I know what lawyers do.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that.

THE COURT: And I know if you get this many lawyers together, all of whom have Scientology cases, you put them on fishing trip or movie theater or whatever, the subject comes up and they talk about it.

MR. WEINBERG: And you couldn’t have said it better, and I’m making a record which I’m done with on this thing —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — indicating that this witness, that is what this — you know, this Paragraph 34 in the complaint is all about, his sworn affidavit, has told lies. You know, I’m using that —

THE COURT: I already told you and I told your team, save it for the jury. I don’t care if he told a bunch of lies or not. The law in Florida is if he qualifies as an expert, he can testify.

868

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand your ruling. I’m —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This is for credibility purposes.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. But I’m pretty much done with this area.

THE COURT: All right. Then let’s have lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: Good.

THE COURT: And as I said, you just have to forget — I hope you all don’t forget that I was a lawyer for a long time.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, believe me —

THE COURT: Please.

MR. WEINBERG: — I am well aware of that.

THE COURT: Frankly, my findings will go to the court this time with a presumption of correctness.

This is not a de novo hearing —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand that.

THE COURT: — by the Second District.

MR. WEINBERG: No, but it has also been a long proceeding.

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but it seems to me as if part of what you want to do is have

869

Mr. Prince up here just forever. I made statements before about Mr. Prince. I’m aware of Mr. Prince’s bias. I mean, Mr. Minton, according to Mr. Prince, shows where I said this before, this is not new.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, but I just started yesterday — I mean, yesterday late —

THE COURT: I understand. But you are spending an awful lot of time about pickets which I knew what they would say, with pickets that I knew would not be pretty, all as if you are trying to show me what I already know. You are wasting time here.

MR. WEINBERG: But —

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 1:30.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:35 p.m.)
______________________________________

870

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 2) (July 8, 2002)

0159

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

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

vs.

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

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief

Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 2

DATE: July 8, 2002.

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

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

160

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0161

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

   PAGE           LINE

Recess                                                      261             18
Recess                                                       327              1
Reporter’s Certificate                            328              1

0162

(The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)

[… Other court business]

0191

THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.

Mr. Prince —

Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the stand?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, you want to step forward?

Mr. Prince, you’re already under oath. So you understand that the oath that you took will be valid throughout your testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume the stand?

Let me make sure, before we start, that I’ve got the right book.

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh Brian?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ve got the right book. I’m ready.

Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee — I mean — coffee — see, I was thinking of coffee. That’d be nice. Maybe you’ll bring me some. Is this water fresh?

THE BAILIFF: I’m not sure, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

No telling how long that’s been sitting in there. You know what he’ll do? It’ll have mold on it. He’ll go — pour it out — Thank you very much.

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once we get to a trial —

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

But I’m going to get me a little cooler and keep it up here. Because I don’t trust them — I can’t ask every day. Just one of the tiny little things that needs to be done.

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — if I might just suggest, I did notice in that article that you were quoted. The truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It would be well for you not to be quoted in these articles.

MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I think — I think the reporter is quoting from in-court testimony.

THE COURT: If that’s the case, then we can’t help that.

But — but do not — and I’m not going to tell the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because you know, part of the — part of the canons say one

0194

ought not to be talking to the press about their case while it’s ongoing.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: That would be like you all having some comment for me. I don’t think you would be appreciative of that.

MR. DANDAR: I do —

That’s what happens to me — off the record?

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
___________________________________

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked about your position with the Religious Technology Center; you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing investigations involving litigation and other critics of Scientology.

And I’m showing you today Plaintiff’s Exhibit 113, entitled Intelligence Actions.

Can you identify that document?

A Yes.

0195

Q And what is it?

A This is a document — a document written by L. Ron Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives to be enemies or suppressive persons.

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of Scientology.

Q On the — it’s a one-page document. The third paragraph talks about a standard, is to — when you’re under attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with the prior document where you — where it mentioned, and you explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence if there’s no crimes found?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your Honor.

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

Secondly, I just want to let the record be clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince interpreting policy. He was booted out of the church — booted out of the position in 1987; left in disgrace from the church; has been — has been —

0196

has been, you know, paid to testify against the church. And now he’s coming in here trying to interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn’t say anything about creating or manufacturing evidence and saying that — trying to interpret it?

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Does this policy have anything to do with the prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and explained to the court about, if you can’t find the crimes of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?

A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of the intelligence department in different Scientology organizations.

Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from the bottom, attack loudly?

A You know, I think we must be looking at a different — I must be looking at a different document than you.

Q I hope not.

A Where did you see that –Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What he’s saying is what it means to him?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Within your experience and your position of the inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that understanding — what you’re understanding of that means.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants to sit up there and say what it means to him, that’s one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say, “This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy means to a Scientologist,” that’s nonsense. And that isn’t right.

And that’s what’s been going on for — for — you know, with Mr. Prince and Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the — in the church. It’s not right. They shouldn’t be up here trying to interpret for the — for the religion of Scientology, what policy is.

THE COURT: That’s not even your argument; that’s the argument of the First Amendment scholar.

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and it is preserved. And your objection therefore is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don’t agree with his position, this would be relevant to this, and it would be relevant probably to your counterclaim.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means I should be objecting to —

THE COURT: No. Because I’ve allowed you to preserve a continuing objection.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your Honor.

But the point is, from the First Amendment point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in creates an untenable position for the church. Because if we — if we merely preserve our position, then we’re put in the position of, do we have to counter it? To counter it, we would then have to engage in a process which we shouldn’t have to constitutionally, which would be incredibly burdensome on us and on the court.

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

policies, you can’t take one and look at it in isolation, and have somebody who was not — who was — who was basically removed from his position —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

THE COURT: But he was there. And he was there. And he presumably was high up in the scale. And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he was removed or not.

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

If you want to withdraw your motion, saying there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will agree with you.

You filed the motion in this hearing. I think it’s relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter what your First Amendment argument is going to be, I’m going to allow it in for this hearing. It’s your motion. That’s why I said I think you’re going to have some distinctions that I’m going to be willing to draw for different things. You do whatever you want to do for this motion. I’ve allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you

0200

may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as you have filed the motion you have filed.

You’ve made your argument. I’m ready to move on.

This is not somebody who was not in the church. This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody who was there, who says, “This is what we did.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he also was — was removed —

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — for not being a Scientology expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology expert by the authority that had the ability to determine who are — who is capable, who is proper to speak for Scientology.

THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you all about Jesse Prince, you must be really frightened of him.

You’ve made your point. We’re going to move on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

“Even if you don’t have enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason is, it is only those people that have crimes that will attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being found out when attacked back.”

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

A During — during my tenure in Scientology, this document was not considered to be any type of scripture. This was a training material to train a person in intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking about — answering the question about if this relates to the noisy investigation when this document, in the third paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word “loudly.”

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

A A noisy investigation — I believe we covered that the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted the document in the church. But it’s basically to go around and arouse the neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations about the person that may or may not be true. And according

0202

to Scientology’s Manual of Justice, which is a further document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorize.” I mean, that’s just —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear him say that. Did he say that?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who is attacking the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’m not thinking of that as terrorism; I’m thinking of that as just simply a word.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that’s fine. But I’m a little sensitive, after reading this article this morning, where — or yesterday morning, where Osama Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the same sentence.

MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete Times.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by Mr. Minton.

0203

MR. WEINBERG: Who — who — let’s make it clear — is not our witness, and is a person that has — that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar from — from the beginning of this lawsuit.

THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor, but he is your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, that’s where we disagree. But I’m not here to argue with that.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You called him as a witness. I did not declare him a hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he was able to respond to your questions without leading questions.

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Minton is — Well —

THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

MR. WEINBERG: — objection had to do with Mr. Prince saying “terrorize,” which is — which is —

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

He can use the word “terrorize” if that’s the word he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my opinion, with a terrorist attack. “Terrorize” is just a word. We use it all the time. Don’t be so sensitive.

Golly, we’ve got to get down into getting back into — stop being so sensitive.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in — in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?

A Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done —

THE COURT: And I’m sorry. When I indicated about the —

Excuse me.

When I indicated about the motion to dismiss, what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the

0205

allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think it’s admissible in this hearing.

Forget what I said about — I — I haven’t gotten my head back into this case.

MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. Prince. I interrupted you.

Madam Court Reporter, read back that question before I interrupted him.

THE REPORTER: The pending question is, “In your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?”

The witness began to answer, “Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done –”

A Yes.

As far as out-and-out manufacturing information — And again, I want to clarify that. During the time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls

0206

technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training of things.

Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from me until that point. So I — I actually had a very short amount of time there. But as what I’ve seen as far as manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person — Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John Nelson used to be a person that was the CO — the commanding officer of Sea Org —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How’s he know this?

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the parties.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

A Yes. The party was working in one of my divisions.

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

private investigator to investigate a fellow named John Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

THE COURT: At what?

THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the Commodores Messenger Organization.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually became Church of Scientology International. CSI.

Q All right.

A And he had started his own splinter organization with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that they would know when he was coming and going; and when he left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was to call the police when he came, to say he was a — a heroin dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

I found out about that because the private investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, “Look,

0208

this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence.”

I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither did the private investigator. He was coming back. I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away — not to do that particular operation.

This was an instance of manufacturing information that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had personal knowledge of. I’ve heard other things about that.

And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. —

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?

A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a — is — is what would correctly define — as opposed to critics.Because there was — you know, critics wasn’t a word that we used in Scientology when I was there. “Oh, this person’s a critic.” That’s not a word that we would use in Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.

0209

This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn’t — this whole critic thing didn’t come into being, I believe, until after I even left Scientology.

Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going on?

A The other partner of this fellow, his name was David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials, the NED for OTs. And he —

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is the — this is the —

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6 and 7.

THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front of that?

THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans. And it’s an acronym, NED.

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?

0210

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. I thought he was talking about the NOTS. I’ve seen that in some of the literature.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

THE COURT: I just simply asked what it — what it meant.

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

But what he said before that was — that prompted your question — was that David Mayo had actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT, whatever it is.

MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross examination, but it’s really interrupting the flow of the direct.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?

A Because it’s — the NOTS Materials, as I saw them in 1985 — each and every one of them had his signature or

0211

his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them. So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these materials. This is what I base that opinion on.

Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote them, correct?

A He was a senior CS international at the time he wrote that.

Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?

A He was Mr. Hubbard’s auditor, correct.

Q All right. So what happened — what was the operation against Mr. Mayo?

A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a business place, office complex. They were on the first floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int —

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

A — was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as well as Nancy Mainy.2

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced Abilities Center to provide information about financial accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent in there to not only glean information but to disrupt activities, covertly disrupt activities.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this, and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis — what his —

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer3 ultimately. And on March 15th — not March 15th, but somewhere around that time period. This all had to do with the Wollersheim case.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And when you testified in front of a judge on Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: You testified for the Religious Technology Center that the — that someone from the

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That’s not what I testified to.

What I testified to was the fact that the materials that were being used in the Advanced Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.

THE COURT: I see. So he — this Mr. David Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and was in a splinter group.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was — he was kicked out of Scientology.

As a matter of fact, I think I brought the document with me today that — that shows why he was kicked out of Scientology.

And when he left he started his own movement, basically.

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

THE COURT: Was he — was he with Mr. Nelson?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter group?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor — I’ll tell you what —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince say what the basis for his testimony was, whether it’s hearsay or did he give these alleged orders to — to —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the — the people that were doing the activities were in a division in RTC that I supervised.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And the — the people that were involved — I can tell you specifically the names of

0215

this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence officer in RTC.

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

THE COURT: So you were supervising the people who were doing this?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: There’s your foundation. I mean, that’s the foundation.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have — I haven’t copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We have the copier in the jury room so it doesn’t cause any noise. And then we’ll copy it. But this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 114.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

MR. DANDAR: Then we’ll have it copied.

A This is the first Religious Technology Center Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence, actually. And it lists — one, two, three, four, five, six, 24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 — has 16 individuals listed on this document, of people that are

0216

receiving a justice action. These are people that were once in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982. So David Mayo here was the senior CS international. He’s on this document. And this is the document that lists all of their supposed and alleged crimes.

And the people that constituted the committee that would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime composed of — one, two, three, four, five, six — seven people.

And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary was Shelly Miscavige. That’s David Miscavige’s wife. A member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve Marlowe’s wife, who — at the time, he was a commander of the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse Prince. Then there’s Gelda Mithoff, who’s the wife of Ray Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to David Miscavige.

And this committee was charged with finding — and this was basically what is constituted all of in management — to, you know, basically do another housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a time or two.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’d like to go ahead and

0217

have this copied, and I’ll distribute it. Is that all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to relevance. I haven’t looked at it yet. But what’s the relevance of a 1982 —

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part of Mr. Dandar’s case regarding his allegations of threats, extortions or whatever it is he’s alleging about.

MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn’t — didn’t — didn’t undergo any committee of evidence or Scientology justice action.

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg

0218

called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence, with the other top Int management people, on a committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And it just shows Mr. Prince’s involvement in the higher echelons of Scientology.

THE COURT: So this is — this is just to show that he’s got some — what, that is — that he — is — is capable of testifying as an expert here?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

THE COURT: Well, I’ve already accepted him as an expert.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he — which is the basis of this testimony before we reached that document.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may have some relevance. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

THE COURT: I don’t know. I mean, I have to believe some of the things the lawyers say.

MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.This is in a series of, like, three or four documents on this subject. And then we’ll get on to a different matter.

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you identify that?

A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind of gives the thought process, the — the basis of it. It comes from Klausewitz.

Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is directed against the enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q And then the third — actually, the fourth paragraph from the bottom it states — states, quote, One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. This policy letter goes to — applies to former Scientologists as well as someone who’s an — an enemy, who has never been a Scientologist?

A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a — as an enemy.

THE COURT: Is this again what you call a suppressive person?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and harasses. All on a thought plane —

THE COURT: Okay. You don’t have to read it to me, Mr. Prince. I —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph states, “Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close quote. What is PRO?

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or department or division of Scientology organizations. Intelligence having to do with the prediction. Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states that in the issue.

So intelligence would predict or would start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data collection, covert data collection, amass as much

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

Q That’s the — does that include the use of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

THE COURT: While you’re doing that, can you all tell me whether or not a document called Middle — well, it’s something filed by Middle District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy Brooks — is that an exhibit in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

MR. LIROT: It wasn’t one of our exhibits.

MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.

THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

A 116 is a document in the same vein of the documents we’ve been studying before. It’s the public investigation section. And this basically has to do with — “investigates attacking individual members and see the results of the investigation, get adequate legal and publicity.”

So this again is similar to what we’ve gone over here before.

Q So it’s in a series of the other exhibits on how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 117, entitled Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. “An attack on Scientology –” well, you know, the basic principle is, never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the attacker. That kind of thing.

Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late ’60s.

Were they still in effect when you were in your management position at RTC?

A Very much so. And they’re still in effect today.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how do you know they’re still in effect today?

A Because of that time track that was submitted into this courtroom of specific things that have — that have occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over specifically what has happened to me because of my involvement in this case and other cases.

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that inference, but I suspect he can’t testify that that is in fact what’s happening today. But he can infer that, I think.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Minton — Mr. Prince, have any of the — these policies come into play in the — Pinellas County in the past?

MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he was in the church? Is that what you’re asking?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into

0224

play in Pinellas County?

THE COURT: If he’s talking about what occurred to him? Is that what you’re —

MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated by the Church of Scientology in the past years. Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk  about them.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong exhibit, but — I withdraw the question. And I’m just going to go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in my hand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 118?

A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order Number 1, in that it’s an ethics order that declare — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 — 12 people to be suppressive persons.

0225

Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, “They are fair game.” What does this have to do with?

A Fair game?

Q Yeah. What’s this exhibit have to do with?

A This exhibit has to do with people that used some version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level materials and started some type of distribution of those materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.

Q All right. And —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. What does this have to do with this case? If the Church of Scientology, within its internal structure, just like the Catholic church, declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive, you know, because they did something against the church; like, you know, attempt to — to take the — the scripture and change it — what’s that got to do with this hearing?

THE COURT: I think —

MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this  hearing.

THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do with this hearing. And if you don’t understand it, then I’ll have to explain it to you.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these things, including finding out all of the crimes that he may have committed, and bring it to his attention. That is the allegation of extortion.

MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant — at the time, 1968 — being declared pursuant to the Scientology religious practices, under their justice system. Mr. Minton’s not a Scientologist.

THE COURT: There’s no question in my mind that, according to the matters that have been brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have been considered a suppressive person.

MR. WEINBERG: But he’s putting in a document that — that says pursuant to church policy, these Scientologists are — are getting a certain justice action. That’s what that is. I mean, he doesn’t have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he ever was in the church.

THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it was followed. And it wasn’t changed. And it would be a high crime to change the writings of

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

You know, we don’t change the Bible just because times change. I presume you don’t change the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about as clear as anything I know.

MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that — that there is only one interpretation —

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

MR. WEINBERG: — of 50 words that are written —

THE COURT: Nobody said there is one interpretation. This is something that —

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal justice action with regard to Scientologists, in 1968.

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

Apparently you don’t. I do. It’s this hearing. I think it’s relevant to this hearing. And it’s coming in. Take it up. Make your objection. It’s made, take —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly internal?

A This issue would have been published internally, but it would have gone out — but it’s something that would have been put in each organization so that they would know who these suppressive persons are.  The purpose of these ethics orders — one of the purposes of these ethics orders is, when they’re issued, for everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn’t then walk into an organization and pretend to be Scientologists in good  standing and — and wreak further havoc on the organization —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not — objection.

(Simultaneous speakers.)

MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this document. I believe this document, for whatever it’s worth, is a forgery. But he can’t authenticate

0229

it. He’s just guessing. He’s speculating. He wasn’t there when it was published. If it was published.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me by Vaughn Young.

THE COURT: So you did not receive this document or see this document when you were in the church.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained and it will not be admitted.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the — does this appear to be a genuine document?

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: That isn’t going to get it. He can’t — he can’t authenticate something that was given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not quite the same as some of these other things that I’ve seen — this is something called — I mean, I don’t know if this is authentic or not. Some of the

0230

other things that all look like the same, then I’m going to allow it in, necessarily, without his authenticating.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is out.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. Can you identify this, please?

A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those activities within the Scientology organization.

Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? A Because I think that it, again, just like these other issues that we’ve seen, goes along in the same vein, in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, including what it says it’ll do here: Create the greatest possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a government or whoever to protect Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I move 119 into evidence.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I know —

THE COURT: And I’m not going to hear from Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New York. I mean, there’s three lawyers at the table. It isn’t going to happen. So you sit down.

Mr. Weinberg’s making the objections. Or Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate? Which is it going to be?

MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg’s witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Occasionally I will hear from our First Amendment expert, occasionally.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

MR. LIEBERMAN: I’ll exercise restraint, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Please remember this is a most unusual hearing that we’re having.

A This is a document that explains — a confidential document written by someone in the Guardian’s Office, which was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, concerning — the mayor, Gabe Cazares.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn’t a Scientologist, right?

A Correct.

Q So these actions — do the actions we just previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor Cazares?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has no — he has no knowledge — he was never in the Guardian’s Office. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the Guardian’s Office, all of which is that Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of

0233

its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There’s no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he got this one and who gave it to him.

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe, on our Internet site — not ours — on the Lisa McPherson Trust Internet site.

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C. prosecution?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?

THE WITNESS: This was — I believe this was an exhibit in the D.C. case —

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the Guardian’s Office; people who broke into the FBI and other public government buildings and were prosecuted. Mr. Franks talked about this —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to throw allegations around. One that he did throw around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not addressed, and he needs to address it. But this Guardian’s Office stuff has nothing to do with this hearing. Nothing. They were — they were — whatever they did wasn’t authorized by Mr. Hubbard, wasn’t authorized by the Church of Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out  of the church and they were prosecuted. And that was all long before 1995. And what they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into Scientology. And he said he didn’t have anything to do with it.

THE COURT: This was — yeah. What is the relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad litem — guardian ad litem. I need to get back to thinking — The Guardian’s office was — but I think that there’s been testimony that the Guardian’s Office was simply supplanted by another office. And I’ve  forgotten the name of it.

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

THE COURT: And consequently — there is testimony that it was the same — and it was just — it was just something that was done to — I don’t know if this is true, because — I mean, this is — I think there’s sufficient information to allow this in.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not true. And Mr. Prince wasn’t in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn’t, and he doesn’t have any — he is not competent to testify about what went on in the Office of Special Affairs. He certainly can’t testify about what went on in the Guardian’s Office because he wasn’t even — he wasn’t there, and he wasn’t in the church at the time.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just — it’s just like we’re just going to throw all of the slime we can — excuse me, Ken — we’re going to throw all the slime we can out here? Well, why don’t we —

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

THE COURT: — it’s your motion. If you want to withdraw it, then you’re not going to have any slime.

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

THE COURT: — listen and make your objection and I’ll rule on it. And sit down. Now. I’m going to rule this is admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: You’re going to hear some slime when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but we’ve been hearing it for a long time.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to hear it for a lot longer. You’ve had your turn. This is his turn.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?

A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of conduct where —

THE COURT: I’m not sure that he needs to

0237

explain this to us.

What — was he in the office in 1976, in the church?

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

A But yes, I was in Scientology in ’76.

THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were with RTC or something like that?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the reason why we have this document in here is because it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing pattern of conduct, where if there’s a perceived enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a specific program to remove him from any position. That’s the first thing it says in this document, you know, to remove this person from his job so that he’s not a threat to Scientology. And — and it goes on where, you know, they had

0238

some college — the person pretend to be a college student and write a letter —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

THE COURT: — this is 2002. The allegation that this occurred is in the year 2002.

Do we have any thought that was — what was going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it’s farfetched.

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don’t need a whole bunch of —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s — we’ll quickly then look at 121, and then we’re finished with this part.

A Okay.

THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime. I should not have used that word. That was your word. Very poor choice of my words.

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t even know what it

0239

says. I haven’t read it. So I don’t know if it’s slime or not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 121?

A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy. This was a project that was executed when Scientology first arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence activity so that it would be informed of exactly —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No competence. There’s no way he can authenticate this document.

THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn’t look like any document that I have seen. How do you — where did you see this document?

THE WITNESS: There’s a — this — this document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit — an exhibit stamp on it, because this is one of the documents that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles. As — in this current form, it doesn’t have it. This was something that’s on — that was on the Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.

THE COURT: So you’ve never seen this document except on the Web site?

0240

THE WITNESS: No. I — I have seen the document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part 4 of the documents — stipulation of evidence that was turned in in D.C.

MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of evidence between the government prosecutor and the Church of Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your Honor, he — Mr. Dandar’s testifying about some case that went on 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because presumably he’s done some homework on it. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no exhibit —

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: I’m not allowing it in because there’s nothing that tells me it can be authenticated by this witness.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And we — I’m not going to let the Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which anything is authenticated.

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

THE COURT: How much of this are we going to have to go through?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

THE COURT: Your point’s been made, I think, the point you’re trying to make.

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

THE COURT: Well, you just said that about Number 121.

MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn’t let it in, so — I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked in the 1st Division of Scientology —

THE COURT: The what division?

THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 —

THE COURT: F-i-r-s-t?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The 1st Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1, HCO division. Hubbard Communications Office division.

0242

And this basically outlined again how to deal with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal with the press and public relations.

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

Only as to relevance. This has to do with internal justice actions —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

MR. WEINBERG: I didn’t object to the authentication.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for any relevance that it might have. May not have any. It’s just hard for me to — when documents are presented, to take the time out to read them. It may not have any relevance. And some of these — these things that I’m letting in may be absolutely irrelevant, but they’re long and they’re hard — and it’s hard to read them.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this church, like the Catholic church and a lot of

0243

churches, has internal — has an internal justice system where they deal internally with — with what —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — you know, what they call crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not necessarily crimes. And —

THE COURT: And you can make — and you can certainly make that point in your closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to similarities with the Catholic church.

THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: It’s been declared a religion. It is a religion. So is the Catholic church a religion.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court’s attention?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, “When we need somebody haunted, we investigate.”

This talks about not only people inside of Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of

0244

Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They don’t have to be a Scientologist. And it — and it — this is — this document itself explains the basis of intelligence, investigation, how it’s used, how you handle bad press. And it — it’s just kind of like a little handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to have that function within Scientology.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with families that would call, that had — members within the Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their family member. I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Nevada — Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.

0245

He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father, and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it. But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was a person hired — a Scientology-hired private investigator.

The person that posed as the victim’s father was a retired sheriff. And I guess the purpose — and you know, they paid me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything criminal that could be used to show that I’m forcefully deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that never happened, so — And then this — I’ve only recently learned that this even was so. The whole deal with having a black private investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house, putting the seeds on the back porch — you know, I’m  wondering, “Where is this,” you know, and I’m throwing it all — that whole stuff, as later come out, was an operation. I mean, they — they — My father lives in a retirement community. He’s 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his house and circled his house with signs.

0246

You know, those are just some of the things that have happened.

Q Okay. All right. Now, let’s go to Mr. Minton.

By the way, before we get to Minton, one question. You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you ever testify in any other case for the Church of Scientology?

THE COURT: What year was that, please, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was 1986.

THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of Scientology at the time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for the church?

THE WITNESS: I testified as to — an expert particularly in the NED for OTs material.

THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don’t know what that —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you’re saying nefrotease.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study those documents, so I did a comparison to what David Mayo had as opposed to what the church had copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.

THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you understand all this time he’s been saying that, it’s NED for OTs?

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. DANDAR: And it’s abbreviated as NOTS.

THE COURT: So you were called to say, what, that this NED for OTs material was —

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L. Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to  similar materials that they were using at what was

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, my — my understanding is that Mr. Prince was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.

THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there’s some complications as to who’s a fact witness and who’s an expert witness, and that’s something we’ll have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we’ll not go there. We’ll say he was either a fact or an expert witness.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And you were — you were always — when you — before you were told — you didn’t choose Mr. Miscavige as being a leader and you were booted out onto the rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?

A Very much so.

Q Okay. I don’t think your microphone’s on.

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you lawyers can hear him, okay.

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, is there a — how does Scientology consider a Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and talking about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What was the question?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does the Church of Scientology consider someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He’s now speaking for the entire Church of Scientology now?

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Pursuant to the — pursuant to written policy of the Church of Scientology.

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the church considers some Scientologist coming in and testifying.

THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his experience when he was in the church and as a

0250

witness, I will allow it. He is testifying, however, based on that and not — he really wouldn’t know how everybody else thinks.

MR. DANDAR: No. It’s based on the former.

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics book, in its management series and basic staff books, that it is a crime to come into a court and testify about Scientology without first going over the information with Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.

In other words, it’s a crime to just walk into a courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology, without first Scientology being privy to what that’s going to be —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we — could he tell us where this policy is?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It’s right there. I can pull it out and read it for you.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out —

MR. DANDAR: I’m handing the witness a hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

THE COURT: Did you say without first

0251

discussing it with an ethics officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Here’s one reference to that. It says, “Testifying hostilely before a state –”

THE COURT: Why don’t you give us a page number?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. This is page number 209.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: It’s listed under Suppressive Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, “Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it –”

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t really say –what you had just testified to is that it was a crime to testify without first discussing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Let’s just let him look for that either over the break, our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can’t find it, you can make your objection. And if he

0252

can, then he can cite it into the record at that time and we can just go ahead and move on.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you can —

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book — many of the policies in there are — we were probably going to — are completely contradictory to what Mr. Dandar’s witnesses have been saying.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: — put it in — this may be Mr. Dandar’s only copy. So if you want to put it in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term “acceptable truth”?

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you don’t have to tell the — tell the whole truth or to tell an accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be acceptable to the person that you’re speaking to.

0253

Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not telling the truth?

A Very much so. It’s a way to evade or avoid a question or to avoid — yeah — to — a direct question.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to identify the policy and show us where in the policy it says what he just said?

THE COURT: I think — I think there’s some stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.

MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn’t say what he just said, that it’s okay to lie.

THE COURT: Well, then it — I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you’re talking about, is the document that I think I’ve already seen —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of it based on your years in the church?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can’t — I can’t remember what number it is, but there is some number in evidence that deals with acceptable truth.

MR. DANDAR: It’s — it’s called a PR series,

0254

and it talks about PR, public relations, and the second page mentions acceptable truths. And I’ll find that for you during the break.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, Mr. — Mr. Prince. When is the first time you met Bob Minton?

A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the spring of 1998 or perhaps — no, perhaps it was the summer of 1998.

Q And how was it that you came to meet him?

A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me to him.

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

Q And what caused you to be at his home in New Hampshire?

A I was on vacation —

Well, this is kind of a long story. I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything about it, and I just typed in, “Hey, my name is Jesse Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them contact me. Here’s my number.” So I was vacationing in Connecticut.

Stacy called me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.

0255

Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the first time and asked for — have Stacy Vaughn — Stacy Young or Vaughn Young call you?

A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and people and things like that. I was — I didn’t know anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.

And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these people openly critical of Scientology.

Now, for me this was completely unheard of. Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would quickly be silenced. And I saw that — that Stacy and Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to them.

So I answered their message as best that I could, and say, “I need these people to contact me.”

Q When was the last time you considered yourself a Scientologist?

A You know, I know I’ve answered the question in different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it’s kind of hard to tell. I — for me, I think probably by 1996, maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with anything about it.

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

you — from RTC, then RPF, and — and you went to work for a Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then, when you were working for that company?

A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.

Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley, the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left, formally, your position in Scientology?

THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here, ’cause I don’t know — When you left, whatever that is, were you still a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

MR. WEINBERG: So — so when he left — the day he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org, is what he’s telling you, I think.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996, that you still — you were — You’re saying you were like a public member? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

When — how — what is the — what do the Sea Org people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they’re Scientologists?

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer of ’98, what did you do after that, in reference to Mr. Minton?

A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue

0258

with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet. And we started to —

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire? You stayed in touch? Is what you’re —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

A She said — she talked to me about that, and she put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking over some of the issues, and thought that I could help. So I started talking with Daniel Leipold, Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson4, letting me know that I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against Scientology, basically.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

A Based on — well, for me to leave the situation that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to — it was a kind of a give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.

0259

I was being held there against my will, as well as my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs and — for months. And we were told that if we signed these documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door. Again, this went on for months. And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted us to sign —

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed. So he made reference to the fact that I had signed a document saying I wouldn’t assist anyone in bringing any legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q FACTNet wasn’t bringing legal action; they were being sued by Scientology.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson. What did you do?

0260

A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against maybe Golden Era or whatever — I never actually saw the suit myself — and filed it in Riverside County. And then there was a whole press thing. I was interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. And how long did you stay there?

A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you looked over those folders with Stacy Brooks?

A Yes, I did.

Q And then after we received a copy of the PC folders under court order, you went and took your time and examined all —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: I’m just trying to speed it up.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of this — you’re right. But some of this is preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the — it’s the testimony.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I didn’t object to that part of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll take a break right now.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. 15, we’ll try for.

(A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’d like to announce to the court I’m going to be making an appearance in this matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will

0262

be submitting a formal notice. I just want the court to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Now, will that be for all purposes?

MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, for all purposes. But Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the case.

We will send in a formal notice. We were retained this past Thursday.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think, Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I frankly would like to hear. Because it is a motion, I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim. And if it’s not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it because it could have some bearing on the counterclaim.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I have to check that. I understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative defenses. I’d have to check that out.

THE COURT: If he did, I haven’t seen it.

MR. DANDAR: I’m Ken Dandar, by the way. Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the pending counterclaim. They never filed the new counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely filed a motion to dismiss. We never received a new

0263

counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as a defendant. We’re still waiting for that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that perhaps the reason why they didn’t file a new one is because I allowed him to be added orally, to be — to be amended, I guess. So perhaps they — I mean, Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments, because he did file a motion to dismiss or something.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, I did look. That was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there was no order in the file, and then there was a corrective counterclaim that was filed. And I didn’t understand the import of that, because the party was just added by a corrective counterclaim without an order of the court. I assumed you had granted that orally.

THE COURT: I had. And I had granted it orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order. Can you all go back and maybe look into that? Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And I granted it. And I know Mr. Howie was here, and I said, “It’s granted and he

0264

is now a party.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. And he was allowed to sit in as a party from then on, as opposed to being excluded under the rules.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Is there presently a motion to dismiss pending?

THE COURT: Yes. That Mr. Howie has filed.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

THE COURT: It’s more than a motion to dismiss.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It is. It’s a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I saw that. And we’ll get back to the court.

You got to understand we’re coming in very late. There’s thousands and thousands of exhibits. And we’re just trying to catch up here.

THE COURT: Yes. There are thousands and thousands of exhibits.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It’s going to take a bit —

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

(The reporter had technical problems and there was a pause in the proceedings.)

0265

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before the break, Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the section —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: In the ethics book that said you had to get the permission of an ethics officer to testify about Scientology. Could he —

THE COURT: Did you find that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I misspoke as to where the actual quote was. It’s not in the ethics book, but it is in another volume which unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it and I will submit it to the court.

THE COURT: All right. And the same — if you can’t, why, we’ll strike that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 123. Can you identify 123?

A Yes. This is a series that’s put out for the technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC Folder and the contents of the PC folder.

Q And is this something you were trained on as a technical person in Scientology?

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt you, and I feel really bad about it.

This was laying here. I don’t know whether this is something that was previously admitted. It doesn’t have a number on it.

MR. DANDAR: This was. This was 114, which was admitted.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 123 in evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: Is it one exhibit or two exhibits? You handed me —

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

MR. WEINBERG: You handed me The PC folder and Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs. One was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was after Mr. Hubbard died. But I don’t have an objection to it, if you want —

THE COURT: It does look like you have two different things here.

MR. DANDAR: I have two. And I meant to do that. It involves the —

THE COURT: Well, then, how about making them A and B?

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: 123-A will be The PC folder and Its Contents; 123-B, if you’re saying it’s related, will be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs —

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure I’m right about that.

MR. WEINBERG: When I say I’m not going to object, I do have an objection to all of this and Mr. Prince testifying, but I don’t object to the authenticity of these.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs — is that related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that something different?

A That’s something different.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Then I will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. So it’s just 123, The PC Folder and Its Content.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987 on what is supposed to be in a person’s PC folder?

A Not at all. The whole purpose of this issue is to clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder. It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail, and auditors — any person that audits in Scientology is trained on this as a basic for auditing.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point. Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. How can this policy letter dated November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on it?

A Well, turning to the last page, it says, “This is a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research Compilations.” There are other — there’s another issue type that isn’t a formal issue type within Scientology, which is called advices. And often, from advices, policy letters can be compiled and issued.

Q And that’s what this is? This is a compilation?

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move Exhibit 123 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, I’m going to show you Exhibit 124. It’s marked for identification.

MR. DANDAR: Hand one to the court and counsel.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

A Yes. This is a Scientology policy directive. And this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church policy. This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear folders and what’s expected to be in them.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’d like to move 124 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa McPherson’s 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you create an affidavit which — where you disclosed things that were missing?

A Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Are we now into that part of the testimony that deals with the complaint itself?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — and we’ve already had marked, and I believe it’s in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 108, which is your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC folders, and with a list of things that are missing. Do you
recall creating that affidavit?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

THE COURT: What was the number of Plaintiff’s Exhibit again? 108?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

Let’s make sure it’s in evidence. I’m pretty sure it is.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, if he’s going to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could get — let me use the official copy. And I’m sure you filed mine in its appropriate book.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, while she’s looking, I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what was or what was not in the PC folder.

What the hearing is about is whether or not Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince

0271

executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there’s been various misconduct from the plaintiff’s side regarding various testimony in the case.

What does what was in the PC folder or not have to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: This falls under the second category in Mr. Weinberg’s comments: Various misconduct. They have accused me of lying about the fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Scientology. Somehow I just made that all up and I got people to lie about it.

And that’s part of their terminating sanction motion and disqualification motion.

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

But what’s that got to do with what’s missing?

You going to ask him what was in the PC folders? Is that what you’re saying?

THE COURT: Well, there’s also an allegation as to his complaint and whether or not there’s any basis for it. And part of what I have read, maybe in Mr. Prince’s affidavit, that some of the missing data is data from the workers, which the testimony would be, from some witness — Mr. Prince, perhaps — should have been in the PC folders,

0272

and —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, I — they’ve made that allegation, although the workers all testified what they did, what they saw and all that.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed. Just —

THE COURT: Well, whether it was an intentional death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it does. So your objection’s overruled.

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

THE COURT: And besides that — I don’t know what his testimony’s going to be, but if this is, in some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion, then I think it’s got to be relevant for his opinion.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it was inquiring. I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: I think that probably for all those different things it has some relevance, so I’m going to let it in.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, 108’s previously been admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

Q And recently we showed you some routing forms that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of Scientology states they have reproduced to us. And did you review those?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?

A No, they do not.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel from November 18th of ’95 to December 5th of ’95?

A No, they do not.

Q Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson, stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. I mean, is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?

You have to have a routing form as opposed to registering as a guest? What basis? He never

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: He is telling us, based on his experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form is used for and what a routing form should have on it.

MR. WEINBERG: But Mr. Dandar asked him whether you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a program such as the introspection rundown, whether it’s the Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

And I’ll just say this: It’s incorrect that I never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. I worked at the Ft. Harrison from 1979 to 1982.

The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many departments, many sections that people come either for training or for auditing. They have different places where people would get auditing.

0275

And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their hotel room, they’re routed to pay for their hotel room, they get what their room is, any questions are answered. When
they’re ready for services, they go down, they’re put on another routing form.

And like, if they’re going to get a service — a training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and see the director of processing; maybe they would get an interview.

In other words, the routing form gives you the areas and the people that you need to see and the places you need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.

Q And is there any policy that permits a deviation from the requirement to have a routing form?

A No, there is not.

Q As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa McPherson?

A Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity. But when you take into consideration the fact — many other items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only opine that this was information that would have not been good to discover for Scientology’s behalf.

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. I’m going to allow it for this hearing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you been involved in the destruction — intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in addition to Mr. Wollersheim’s, that you previously testified about at this hearing —

A Well —

Q — which was ordered to be pulped by Mr. Miscavige?

A Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident happened, because there were threats from other people such as John Nelson and — well, I don’t know. You know, there was a list of people at the time. The only one that I specifically recall right now is John Nelson. But their folders were destroyed as well.

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I sit here today, I can’t say for certain —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — but I knew there were certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim’s folders, because there were a list of people. And I can’t sit here and recall today every name —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the significance to you — let’s start with the missing — what’s missing from her folder. In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski states she was under November 18th through December 5th of ’95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection rundown?

THE COURT: What dates, now? Are we talking about the 17-day dates?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

A Yes. There would have been, in the very front of the folder, what’s called a program. It would have been a repair program. It would have been something that’s on a pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
The color in the paper — the color within the preclear folder also has significance.

But in Lisa’s case, there would have been, if she was on — on the introspection rundown, it would have given a short statement of who she was, what she’s accomplished, what her last auditing activities were, and what the current problem was, what the symptoms were that she was experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to this whole line. I — I take it where he’s going is to suggest that she wasn’t on the introspection rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she was on the introspection rundown. It’s not an issue in this case. We answered the complaint. It’s not an issue.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. DANDAR: I subsequently discovered that this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski, under oath, said was in her PC folder. Now I’m not sure what she was going through and where she was.

0279

These things — these things are missing, and we would have to conform the pleadings to the evidence as we discover new things that are — go on.

THE COURT: So what are you saying? Are you saying that you — that she was not under the introspection rundown?

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

MR. DANDAR: I’m saying it’s not a confirmed fact that she was on the introspection rundown, because of what’s missing.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let this witness testify at this hearing, because we need to get to where it was that he comes up with his conclusions —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and I assume all this has something to do with it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not sure I have the same assumption, but I understand where you’re —

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in Scientology, were things that were beneficial — papers and documents that were

0280

beneficial to Scientology removed from a member’s PC folder?

A No. You know — and I’ve written a declaration about this before — well, this declaration may be in and of itself — you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the process of, “Okay, well, we’ll turn over something; we’ll go
through and we’ll — we’ll get rid of any kind of incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology.”

Then when the production of all the folders were called for, it — that became too massive of a task and it was decided to destroy them.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I say one more thing, so I don’t lose this train of thought?

I did object, and I understand your ruling, but he already had alleged that — that the introspection rundown happened, and his response to your question and my statement was, “I just recently discovered it.”

Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and whatever wasn’t there in December of 1998 certainly isn’t there now. So what’s he talking about?

THE COURT: I don’t know, but I think that this testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince concluded what he concluded, which is what Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint. It is relevant for this hearing.

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you — when did you actually sit down and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

A The date of this affidavit is April — the 4th of April, 2000.

Q Okay. And concerning this one issue, the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?

A Yes, it does. And I think I’ve covered that with as much detail as possible: That she wanted to leave. She actually made plans to leave. And she felt like she was starting to become damaged.

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

Q Now, within your experience of Scientology, have you used — have you — are you familiar with the term “end cycle”?

A Yes, I am.

Q And what is your understanding or familiarity with that term?

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

I’m sorry. I’m as bad at interrupting chain of thought as anybody.

This — this particular affidavit is the affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave that was part of the motion for summary judgment that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that was part of it, but there’s a lot more than just that in there. It talks about things that are missing from her PC folder.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now we’re past the missing items from the PC folder and to —

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are people who want to leave the Church of Scientology — how are they looked at, within your experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?

A Well, people who want to leave Scientology and publicly state such are considered criminals, because that’s a high crime in Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A I do have the instant reference on that right now.

0283

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what is that?

A That PT/SP 5package that was —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just establish, is he talking about staff members or public members or both?

THE WITNESS: Any member of Scientology, public member of Scientology, it’s a high crime.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’m handing the witness PT/SP course, a booklet that was previously talked about —

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. DANDAR: — by other witnesses.

THE COURT: I think it’s in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: It’s possible. I mean, I’m not sure.

THE COURT: Maybe it isn’t, but I’ve seen that book.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Search and Discovery is in evidence. That came out of here.

THE WITNESS: Says right here, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.” And this comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

0284

THE COURT: What page are you reading from, sir, in that book?

THE WITNESS: Where I read that quote from, I am reading from — I just read from 159.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ll have that entire policy marked.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, my objection to this is it talks about — Mr. Prince read it –publicly — a person publicly announces he’s going to depart Scientology. Well, that’s not what we have in this case. What’s that have to do with this case?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear him say “publicly.”

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he read. That was —

THE WITNESS: It says, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”

I think Lisa had done that, because she had told her mother and she had told a friend that she was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in the notes that I made here, that she intended to leave. She wasn’t happy with —

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

THE COURT: Well, look, you don’t need to object to that, because I know enough about —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — the evidence with the mother and the evidence with the friend and the fact that what would be in her PC folder would hardly be public, where I can determine the validity of that statement.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, within your experience with Scientology, what does that — what does it mean to publicly leave Scientology?

A You could publicly leave Scientology in several ways. You could submit a letter of resignation and make that letter available to other parties beyond a recant, which would — in a normal organization, would be the ethics officer.

I guess in these days and times you could go on the Internet or you could just simply announce to your friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the intention of leaving.

THE COURT: How about if I just don’t go back? I mean, if I’m a member of a church — which I was at one time when I was a child — and I just don’t

0286

go back? I mean, is that — is that leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a form of leaving. And — and in that instance, if you just simply left, you would be contacted and asked to come into the organization so that they could find out what happened. If you —

THE COURT: And what if you just don’t go in?

In other words, I’m a public member, which is what Lisa McPherson was — this is a hypothetical — and I — even — I don’t want to go back and I don’t want to get any more auditing and I don’t want to go to any more services and I just don’t go?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: They say, “Come in,” and I just decline and I don’t go.

THE WITNESS: Then they’ll show up on your door.

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A There’s a process of getting out of Scientology. There is a way to do it. And normally, it involves signing a release agreeing that you will never — that you’ll be ineligible for Scientology services in the future —

Q To —

0287

A — and you would also have to sign a statement saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or upset that you had — in other words, a general release for the different Scientology corporations that you’ve been involved in.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just make it clear that that’s only — that he’s talking about staff members and not public members having to sign a release?

THE WITNESS: I — it’s staff and public. I — that’s the second time I’ve said that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her friend from high school about wanting to leave. Where did you get that information from?

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

Q And when you said that Lisa called her mother and said she wanted to leave. Where did you get that from?

A I think — I read — I read it — I read it somewhere in the evidence. I can’t —

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

Q — Lisa’s mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker by the name Sandra Anderson?

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is he, like, prompting him now?

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

MR. DANDAR: It’s either — wanted to make sure it wasn’t from me. Because that’s the accusation.

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, end cycle. Can you tell us what — where and when you’ve heard that or seen that term?

A End cycle has a history in Scientology. And it has varied meanings.

One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and stop something. In other words, you start it — you start an activity, you carry through to its intended result or purpose, and then you end it. So ending the cycle, you know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle

0289

when the judge decides who’s right and who’s wrong or discovers the issues. That’s one form of end cycle. Another form of end cycle is to die. This — this — this idea of ending cycle to die came into prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior CS Ray Mithoff. Because I was curious. He sat on a deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.

And I asked him, you know, “When he died –” I asked him, you know, because this was — L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to. And I — and I was curious. You know, “Well, how did this man die? What were the exact circumstances? What happened there?”

And he said that he positively started shutting down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part of his systems.

And I asked, “Well, how does this happen? I mean, what are you — what are you doing?” And he told me the Scientology process is that you use — you know, you talk about what the — your attention may be stuck on; at what problems do you have with dying? I mean, there’s a whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so that you have no attention or problems with death and can die.

When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as

0290

far as to die.

THE COURT: Is this a little bit like a — what we might think of Hospice and how they prepare someone —

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: — with a terminal disease in your family and —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Hubbard didn’t have a terminal disease, though, did he?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q But he still went through that process of end cycle?

A Yes.

Q So where else did you see that term used in reference to dying?

A Terminally ill people. I’ve also read this up in affidavits.

A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had Hodgkin’s disease. It was apparently fatal. I saw in his folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you know, to die.

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And is there ever anything in writing about having an auditor go in and assist someone to die?

A Absolutely. There would be, as in Lisa’s case, a program. That program would —

MR. DANDAR: Can I — can I please have these people stop laughing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

And I object. “As in Lisa’s case, a program.” I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there was no program, and therefore —

THE COURT: He is trying to tell us what he believes to be missing —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

THE COURT: — which is what he’s talking about: Missing things in the PC folder, which is what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar, who filed the complaint.

MR. WEINBERG: But the question was, though, was generally about his understanding of end cycle, end of cycle.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

And I’m going to instruct you all back there to stop laughing.

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So it’s your belief that an auditor would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died? Is that what you’re suggesting, from this missing — missing documents, or what?

THE WITNESS: Well — well, you know, your Honor, for me that’s kind of mixing apples and oranges. Because the question he asked me was about a specific incident that happened with a fellow named Ted Cormack —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

THE WITNESS: The process is similar to what you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace; you know — you know, as far as they’re concerned everything’s taken care of and they can go.

THE COURT: Okay. And so that you saw that in his PC folder?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you jump from there to something that’s missing in Lisa McPherson’s folder and assume that there was an auditor with her with some end cycle directive?

THE WITNESS: Well, with — and we’ll get to that too.

But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is — it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a program; that that program most assuredly was in her file folder at some point, along with other reports that are detailed — that are missing; and those — you know, for whatever reason, those things weren’t turned over or made available.

THE COURT: Let’s assume that — for the sake

0294

of argument, that what she was on was the introspection rundown, and that something went wrong, and she wasn’t taken to the hospital as quickly as she should have been, and she died. And let’s assume further that somehow or another somebody removed part of that from her folder. That would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an auditor being there or anything of the sort. So I guess my main question is, what caused you to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the documents were missing?

And there’s no question of that. So two and a half days, I guess of documents are missing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — toward the end of this — I’ll call it an introspection rundown.

You know, how do you know that that just didn’t have something to do with the fact that either somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B, if they were destroyed it was because somebody was negligent and they didn’t want somebody to see that? How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her death and said, “End cycle,” or whatever it is that’s in the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

THE COURT: That’s what we need to get to.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s get — let’s get to it.

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

How did you conclude — how did you — I presume that you read the PC folders.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You answered Mr. Dandar’s questions. He asked you as his consultant, “Can you tell me what you think –”

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

THE COURT: This is what you told him, and he put it in the complaint.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So now you got to tell me how you came to the conclusion you came to and what it is you told Mr. Dandar —

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — how I did that, your Honor.

0296

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: From reading Lisa McPherson’s preclear folders, reading her ethics folders, seeing, kind of like, what’s missing — and it didn’t make sense for these things to be out of the preclear folder unless they were damaging to the church.

And again, I’ve been in a position where, you know, it was considered documents within a preclear folder were damaging to Scientology so they’re removed for Scientology’s sake.

But even a step back from that, your Honor, you get a person —

And it clearly states on the introspection rundown that once you are assigned to the introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave introspection rundown until the case supervisor tells you you can leave. You are literally incarcerated until you are told you can leave.

THE COURT: Well, you know, that may be your interpretation. If somebody is — is what I would consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally disturbed, you really wouldn’t want them leaving because they might be — you know —

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. I’ve done them.

THE COURT: And I’ve read what — what you and Ms. Brooks said about this woman. So apparently there was a time when she was in a situation where you wouldn’t have wanted her just stumbling around the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

But you know, be that as it may, again, the person is not allowed to leave until they have permission to leave.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So whether or not this person experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour and said, “Hey, look, I just want to do something else,” they still could not leave, okay? Now, what happens in that situation, from introspection rundowns that I’ve done — that I have done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and being incarcerated — what happens?

When you’re in a situation you don’t want to be, you say — you tell them, “Look, I don’t want to be here.” “Well, too bad. You have to be here.” “No. It’s not too bad. Now, really, guys, it’s over. I just want to go.” “No. You’re not going.”

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

says, “Hey, look, if you don’t let me out of here, I’m going to call the police. If you don’t call — let me out of here, I’m going to find a way to contact law enforcement. I’m going to find a way to get out of here. You better let me out of here.” And it escalates like that. And this has happened. And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa happened to Lisa — the reason why I gave that opinion is, number one, what is missing and what would have been there, which happens as a natural consequence, is, when you’re held against your will and people don’t want to let you go, then you complain. You threaten. She threatened. Oh, no.

Now it becomes a huge problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and she wants to leave, and she’s already made it clear, through what I’ve written here, that Scientology procedures are — is not making her spiritually more able; it’s not furthering her ideas of — of, kind of, what she had in mind.

So it is my opinion that Lisa started threatening Scientology at some point. She started threatening to go to the police. She may have threatened that, “I’m going to sue you if you don’t let me go. I’m going to do whatever.” You know,

0299

push the buttons in — in the hope to get out. They didn’t let her out.

I think that Lisa became very sick. I think Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were once she left. And when — and in that horrible situation, for Scientology, it would have been a nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital — to leave Scientology and go to the hospital.

Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I state it as such.

For them — for her to say, “Look, they locked me in there.” You know, “This happened, that happened.” And —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

THE COURT: — there was nothing that indicates she wanted to go to the hospital. She left — I mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to leave the hospital, so —

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: — if she’d left, presumably she was going to go home.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know — of course, we know that that didn’t happen.

0300

THE COURT: Well, I know. But you’re saying what a horrible nightmare it would have been. The truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had gone home to her mother and sister and what have you, there would have been no nightmare at all —

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

THE WITNESS: — right. That’s right. It would have been fine.

But now we’re in a different situation, you see, because now she’s being held against her will. You know, you see — you see in the reports how she becomes violent.

You know, again, in my experience, as a natural progression, when you are being held and you want to be in one place and somebody’s making you stay in one place, it starts to escalate.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Prince: Have you ever been in a mental hospital?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you know how, in a mental hospital, when somebody is really — I’m going to use the term “crazy,” okay? Very sick. Somebody who’s psychologically extremely disturbed.

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, they want to leave too, right? That’s why they have them behind locked doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is because they want to leave.

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: And they’re not fit to leave mentally. They would be a danger to themselves, perhaps others, to let them out in the street. So when somebody’s in a mental hospital, very sick, and they say they want to go, well, they’re not allowed to leave.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — you know — now, let’s take a look at this.

You’re talking about a person that’s sick, right?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

There is no medical diagnosis here. There is no authority that says this person was crazy. This is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of Scientology, that they gave her this label of being crazy, okay? That’s way different than being in a mental institution where you’ve been diagnosed, or

0302

you’ve committed some crime, or you’ve harmed somebody, or something has caused to you go to an institution —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

THE WITNESS: — is certainly not the case with Lisa.

THE COURT: I mean, you can be in a mental hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a danger — I mean, you’re talking about a Baker Act, where you’re — you’re kept against your will involuntarily.

But I mean, there are sick people in a hospital, just because they’re sick and they’re crazy and they — and they just aren’t fit to be on the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

There’s a difference between being in a hospital and being locked in a room with people who don’t understand really what’s going on and are just following orders.

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

But the truth of the matter is, that’s the belief of the Church of Scientology. You were a part of it and you participated in it, right?

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You participated in an introspection rundown with somebody who was in the same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in — at times, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Nobody ordered that this lady would end cycle that you were watching, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Well, then, how — you see, I’m just — I’m trying to help you, here, to see if there’s any basis for this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: How is it that you’ve come to this conclusion, other than just it’s — it’s one of many, many thoughts that you might have as to what might have happened?

THE WITNESS: Because based on Scientology’s own policy, the first thing you do when a person starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these symptoms are occurring aren’t based upon some medical reason, okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

Now, why would they not do that? Why would they not do that? If their documents say if a person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take them to the hospital.

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

THE WITNESS: The reason why you wouldn’t do it is because the person in — they were also telling you, “I’m going to sue you. I’m going to tell about this. I’m threatening you. You got to let me out of here.”

No, you’re not going to the hospital. Because once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.

THE COURT: Okay. But that —

THE WITNESS: They’re not going to go back to Scientology.

THE COURT: Let’s assume — Slow down.

Let’s assume, for the sake of your testimony and for the sake of your beliefs and what you told Mr. Dandar, that you are right. That Lisa was saying, “I want to leave,” and they were saying, “No, you can’t leave,” and she said, “I want to

0305

leave.” And therefore — and therefore, they didn’t take her to a medical doctor. Of course, she just came from a medical doctor where she had been seen and had been released. So that could have been one of the reasons.

However, how do you jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that somebody said, “Let her die,” or — not only, “Let her die,” but proceed to assist this along in some fashion; bring an auditor in and cause her to die?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll explain to you.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: By their own documents, people that get into this state of mind, all of them do not live. Search and Discovery, it says some don’t make it —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — okay?

You have a person here who, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, and even the missing evidence — because you know, if everything — again, like the one that I did, okay, well, this girl didn’t want to leave. This little girl didn’t
really know what was going on.

THE COURT: Which little girl we talking about

0306

now?

THE WITNESS: Terese, the one —

THE COURT: The one that you watched.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn’t know. She —

THE COURT: When you say that, you meant she was really out of it mentally.

THE WITNESS: Completely.

THE COURT: Crazy.

THE WITNESS: Crazy. Barking like a dog, you know, doing —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — wild things.

When she started to come out of it, she certainly wanted to leave. She was certainly demanding to leave. But she was not allowed to leave until she had signed releases that released the Church of Scientology and related  organizations with any liability concerning her condition.

So in other words, she signed away, you know, “what happened to me is an anomaly. It had nothing to do with my studies and training or experience in Scientology, and they have no liability for me getting into this.” This is something that’s

0307

demanded of a person who finishes that rundown, to release any liability.

Here you have a person that isn’t in that position. And it is my belief, because there’s so many —

THE COURT: What position is she in? Tell me how her position differs from —

She’s still crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well — hold on. Because when she was released, they didn’t say she was crazy, from the hospital. That was not a diagnosis that Lisa was given when she left Morton Plant Hospital.

THE COURT: But you have to admit, from the — from the — from the reports that were in there from some of the workers, she started staring at a lightbulb; she started talking about she was L. Ron Hubbard, and she started acting crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, that’s when they brought her in there.

THE COURT: Right. And that’s when she began the introspection rundown perhaps, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, come on, Judge. Let’s back up on this. Because you just said medically she was not diagnosed as being insane. The — the medical

0308

records didn’t say, “Hey, this is a person we got to Baker Act. This is a person that’s mentally ill.”  Didn’t say that, okay? So I think it’s wrong to assume that. And the reason why I think it’s wrong —

THE COURT: Well, what —

THE WITNESS: — to assume that —

THE COURT: — was — let me ask you, Mr. Prince, what’s the difference in the lady that you took care of and how she started barking like a dog — and you say she was crazy —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: — and what you read in the reports of Lisa McPherson, where she was crawling on the floor, humping the floor, carrying on like a crazy person?

THE WITNESS: After she had been in their — incarcerated. And I think by the fact of incarceration, it tipped her over the edge.

THE COURT: Well, you think that same thing happened with the lady you were watching?

THE WITNESS: Huh-uh. No. I mean, she was literally sitting in a chair, you know, fine, one moment, and then the next moment somebody went over to see what she was doing and she peed herself

0309

and — you know, it was a huge difference.

THE COURT: Could that have been like Lisa McPherson, who was all right, released from the hospital, went to the Ft. Harrison, and then just kind of went like this, and all of a sudden she was crazy?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, you could —

THE COURT: Could it be?

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And I’ll tell you why.

Because by the fact of incarceration, it already pushes a person further than, maybe, where they were. I mean, she’s locked in a little room.

No one’s talking to her. She’s feeling horrible. She’s already wanting to go home —

THE COURT: She’s a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: You were a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. See, that’s another myth, now. Because you’re a Scientologist it does not mean that one day you are going to know, when they lock you in a room, because you studied it, this is what they — what’s going to happen to

0310

people that do this. There is no place, no — absolutely no place that gives clear instructions on what happens to a person should they experience this and Scientology decides to take them in and put them through this routine.

You find that out after the fact, after the fact it’s been determined that you have a mental problem.

You see —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question: If the church doesn’t believe in psychiatrists and psychologists and they don’t believe in mental health treatment in the — in the traditional form —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Everybody knows that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That’s a very basic tenet of the church.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. It would be like a Christian Scientist. They would know that they don’t believe in medical treatment, at least in part. So if you’re a member of the Christian Scientists, you know that you believe that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

0311

THE COURT: Okay. Well, there has to be some folks that become mentally deranged, who are Scientologists, so they know that there’s some other treatment, just like you would know, if you were in the — in the Christian Scientists, if there’s a belief of laying on of hands and God will heal you — So they’ve got to be told there’s some substitute for somebody —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor —

THE COURT: — that has a mental lapse.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, they’re not. They are not told that. It’s just simply not true. You don’t find it out until after the fact. There’s no course —

Say I’m a public member of Scientology, wants to do auditor training up to class 4. They go and they train and they — they get their certificates and stuff like that. There is no class that says, “Okay. If this happens to you, this is the exact procedure.”

That was something that was developed during the time when the introspection first came out. But then this is something that moved totally off and away from anything that public people could see or

0312

even staff would know. They were isolated and hidden from view.

And then normally, the person doesn’t do any more Scientology after introspection rundown. And I know several cases after that — of that.

Because they make you sign waivers and releases which say, “The church did not cause your condition. The church did not contribute to your condition. The church is not liable or responsible for what happened to you.”

And you agree to that, and you sign it, and then you’re on your way.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, like the lady did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But she is a Scientologist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so — Okay. I understand what you’re saying; that — that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn’t know what was going to happen to her, is what you’re basically saying.

THE WITNESS: None of them do.

THE COURT: Okay. Now — okay. I’ll take your word for that for the sake of your testimony. How do you get from that — okay. Let’s assume

0313

there was some gross negligence going on here. She wanted to leave.

THE WITNESS: You —

THE COURT: Which there’s already been a judge that says there’s none of this. But let’s assume that she says, “I want to leave.” They say, “You’re not going to leave.” “I want to leave.” “You’re not going to leave.”

One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson, based on her doctors and her experts and the experts for the church: Either she became severely dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged in her lung in some fashion and she died.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So it’s one or the other. One or the other things happened to her, medically —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Now — so that’s a given, okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0314

THE COURT: So how do you leap from the fact, in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said, “No,” to the fact that she died from one of those causes, through anything other than either no negligence, slight negligence, or really gross, flagrant negligence? How do you jump from point A to point B by saying that David Miscavige said, “Kill this woman”?

THE WITNESS: Or, “Let her die.”

THE COURT: Or, “Let her die”?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, you got to listen.

I’m going to explain this to you, okay?

THE COURT: Okay. I’m listening.

THE WITNESS: Now, again by their own policy, this woman first should have been examined by a medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was coming as a result of some medical condition.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That was not determined when she went to the hospital because it was determined she was not insane.

So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft. Harrison, then the next thing that they should have done was to take her to get her medically examined to see if there was a medical reason for this

0315

behavior.

THE COURT: And you did that in your case? In the case where you handled the introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, yeah. They had a doctor come out. Sure. They had a doctor come out. Dr. Gene Dink came out to be with her. He examined her.

THE COURT: Was this a real doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean — by that I mean a licensed doctor? ‘Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson too, except they weren’t —

THE WITNESS: This was —

THE COURT: — licensed.

THE WITNESS: — L. Ron Hubbard’s doctor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, was this a licensed doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles, California.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Worked with the one that we have.

THE COURT: So — so as I recall, Ms. Arundo (sic) — and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall

0316

she was a doctor licensed somewhere else. There was another doctor, one — the head of the medical liaison, who had been a doctor.

MR. DANDAR: And lost her license.

THE COURT: And lost her license.

MR. DANDAR: Arrunada’s from Mexico and was never licensed.

THE COURT: Okay. But Ms. — but what’s Ms. — please give me the name.

MR. DANDAR: Johnson.

THE COURT: Ms. Johnson was a physician who had lost her license, who presumably was in charge. But — okay. You say they should have taken her to a doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. They —

THE COURT: Or had a doctor come in.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Like they did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Your case, meaning the case where you were directly involved.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: And they didn’t do that. Okay. What else?

THE WITNESS: Well, we have to wonder why they

0317

didn’t do that.

Now, I hate to be — your Honor, you know, irrespective of what the defendants believe in this case, it brings me no great joy to — to malign them or say horrible things about them.

But because I’ve been there and because I’ve seen what happens and because I’ve seen what they do, it is my belief because when they brought this girl back from the hospital, she was not insane. She wasn’t diagnosed as that. She went insane there. She wanted to leave. She said, “I want to go.” They said, “No, you can’t go. You got a problem. We’re diagnosing you. Forget what the doctor said. We’re going to do it.”

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She began to struggle. She began to fight. At that point, it becomes a OSA matter. It was already an OSA matter.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. A what matter?

THE WITNESS: O-S-A. OSA. Office of —

THE COURT: OSA.

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: For several reasons now: One, because she apparently left the hotel,

0318

drove around and had a minor accident, took her clothes off, told people that she needed help.

Okay. That in and of itself was something that drew attention to Scientology that was non-optimum. And in Scientology, that is called a flap. An unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology’s reputation somehow.

Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just two months earlier attested to the state of clear. She stood in front of every Scientologist at the mecca of technical perfection, their highest level, their highest office of — of tech, and told everyone that, “I no longer have a reactive mind. I no longer have,” you know, “have problems with the past that now come up. I’m totally free from the past and I’m ready to move on.”

In other words, she was what they call in Scientologist (sic) — not a Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis. Homo novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.

So now this person is literally a demigod two months ago. Now she’s screaming in a room, insane, crazy.

This is a problem. This is a problem that this woman took her clothes off, walking down the street, and — and OSA had to get involved and, you know, they rushed down there, “Oh, my God.” They bring

0319

her back. She’s not diagnosed as being crazy. They just give her — she wants to get some help. She’s got something on her mind. Okay. So she comes back.

It is my contention that she wanted to leave, just like she had been saying. And they said, “No.” And they put her on the introspection rundown and she went over the edge and she got crazy. Well, before that she made many threats.

Now, it is Scientology’s belief that once you start these processes — once you start any process  in Scientology, you take it to the end. It’s called processing. The way out is the way through. What turns it on or turn it off. Get the preclear through it. Whatever. In other words, keep that auditing going until the end result happens.

THE COURT: Or get the person in the introspection rundown fit for auditing. That is part of the preliminary process.

THE WITNESS: Well, the person is fit for auditing after they’ve had one eight-hour period of sleep. Okay? You got — you know, you got that step 0, step 00.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that normally

0320

happens with a person that gets into that state of mind, they don’t sleep for days, they can’t sleep, they’re up — a part of auditing in Scientology is, you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.

So —

And again, in the instance where I did introspection rundown with the person, the first time that woman — after she was given Valium or whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the first time she had an 8-hour period of time to sleep —

(The reporter interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: Slow down.

THE REPORTER: After they gave her —

THE WITNESS: — or chloral hydrate or whatever they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is there immediately to start.

THE COURT: I think they tried to bring an auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn’t capable.

THE WITNESS: Well, I heard —

THE COURT: I mean, I think I remember that.

THE WITNESS: — I heard the story that, you know, she licked the cans and — you know, that

0321

means nothing.

An auditor is trained — I don’t care if you take the cans and throw them across the room. An auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put them back in the person’s hands and get them to do what you want them to do. It’s called model session. You know, that’s part of the same —

THE REPORTER: Slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: — auditor series you have. Model session. Which talks about how to conduct a session.

THE COURT: That’s tough to do if the person is still in a psychological state, that’s crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — and you’re assuming that that’s the case. But the doctor didn’t assume that when she was let out.

THE COURT: Well, I’m assuming that’s the case because of the reports I read.

THE WITNESS: You know — well, you know, after —

THE COURT: Just like I’m assuming the lady that you watched after, when she barked like a dog and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said she was crazy and like I think you said she was crazy.

0322

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Crazy in the sense that I know — would think someone was crazy; not medically.

THE WITNESS: A danger to themselves or other people.

THE COURT: Not somebody you would want out on the street.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Okay. So again, she is in a situation now where she’s drawn into the local public attention. They’ve been promised by the doctors that she’ll be okay. Turn her over to Judy Fontana. They don’t turn her over to Judy. Because I think these things all mean in some way she was not agreeing with what was happening to her. And because she wasn’t agreeing and she wanted to leave, it got wild. It intensified.

Now, Scientology’s belief is, you know —

THE COURT: I think I can go along with you there. I mean, I think that there’s enough in that folder to realize she was not thinking clearly. She may have wanted to leave. You know, the lady you took care of may have wanted to leave. I mean, they — they act irrational, right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0323

THE COURT: And the idea is they can’t leave.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s say I accept that —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay? She wants to leave, they’re saying, “No, you’re not able to leave yet.”

She’s getting more and more upset.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: She wants to leave.

How do we know they’re still not trying the introspection rundown to make her well?

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: What —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: So —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it. But I think that she had decided she had had enough. You see — and the reason why I say that is because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps telling them, “I had enough. I don’t want any more auditing. This is aggravating my condition. It’s making me worse.”

This is what she’s saying in her

0324

own words, the only thing she was able to say before she died. And in which whole thing, if you read this line by line in the preclear folder, “This is making me worse. I’m not getting better.”

So what do they do? Give her more auditing. Well, she doesn’t want that.

THE COURT: I will say, for the sake of this hearing, that I — I can accept that.

THE WITNESS: So because she doesn’t want it, and because she has no way to leave, because she’s actually under guard — I mean, we have a statement by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of her and holds her down. You know, you have people not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room — I mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my Scientology experience, is something that would make a person, if they weren’t over the edge, would certainly push them over the edge.

THE COURT: But you did that when you took care of the lady you took care of.

THE WITNESS: No. I talked to her. I did not not talk to her.

THE COURT: Was that — were you breaking the rules?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was breaking the rules.

0325

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know that somebody else might not have broken the rules.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know that either.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s take — we really need to break for lunch.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. She wants to leave. They say, “No.” She wants to leave, they say, “No.” And let’s assume that they’re saying “no” because they believe that she’s not finished the introspection rundown, and they’re going to get her finished.

Just like —

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And they do believe that.

Right.

THE COURT: All right. So now, one of two things happens at some point in time: Either she’s not getting enough water, right; and so she’s not getting enough water or whatever, and they should have known better, and they should have given her more water, and she reaches this miserable state and dies.

Or she is getting enough water and a pulmonary — you know, an embolus in her leg breaks loose, goes to her lungs and kills her. One of those two things happened at the end of this. And it was — it was from the embolism, right?

0326

And you wouldn’t have known that. They wouldn’t have known that. There wasn’t a worker there that would have known that. Nobody. These are the silent — silent killers —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

So one of those two things happened, and that’s a fact.

How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere along the line it was, “We’re going to keep her here until the embolism we don’t even know about breaks loose”?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, that’s ridiculous, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course it is.

THE WITNESS: Let me — you got to let me finish —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — the whole thing.

THE COURT: I’m going to do that, but we’re going to take a lunch break first —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — all right?

All right. It’s 12:20. Let’s be in recess until 1:30.

0327

(A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)

0328

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

  1. Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-007-070802-Prince-V2.html
  2. Caroline Letkeman; Nancy Many.
  3. Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer
  4. Elliot J. Abelson
  5. Should be “PTS/SP.” Key documents: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/documents/key-documents-sp-doctrine

Aznaran v. Scientology: Brief for Appellees (August 22, 1990)

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.1

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Appellees VICKI J. AZNARAN and
RICHARD N. AZNARAN

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

NO. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE REQUIRED THE NINTH CIRCUIT _________COURT OF APPEALS RULE 28-2.1_________

 

The undersigned counsel of record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran certifies that other than parties to this appeal, the following parties have an interest in the outcome of this case.

– i –

Bent Corydon
Gerry Armstrong Martin Samuels
Marjorie Wakefield Nancy Dincalci
Gabriel Cazares Kima Douglas
Tonja Burden Robert Dardano
William Franks Laurel Sullivan
Homer Schomer Edward Walters
Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne

With the exception of Bent Cordon, the aforementioned parties, all former Scientologists, have executed settlement agreements with Scientology which include releases containing obstruction of justice provisions of the same type and nature Scientology will enforce against appellees Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran if it prevails in the herein appeal. Moreover, pursuant to such agreements, in each court case connected with each said party, with the exception of Bent Corydon, the court file has been sealed.

Attorney of Record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran

– ii –

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF CASES…………………… vii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ……. 1
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………… 3
A. Jurisdiction of the District Court …….. 3
B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have
Jurisdiction Over This Appeal ………..
3
1. The Motion For Summary Judgment ……. 4
2. The Motion For Reconsideration ….. 5
3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction … 5
4. The Notice Of Appeal…………. 6
5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final …… 6
6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject For Appellate Review …………… 8
7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation ……… 9
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………….. 13
A. Nature Of The Case…………… 13
B. Factual Background …………… 14
C. The Substance Of The Releases………. 23 23

– iii –

Page
III. THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS …………… 25
A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal………. 25
1. Introduction…………….. 26
2. Standard Of Review…………. 26
3. Preliminary Legal Principles …….. 27
B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void………… 29
C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void………… 32
D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal……………… 34
1. Scientology’s Contentions ……… 34
2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran’s Declarations ……………. 35
a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988……….. 35
b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988……….. 37
c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989……….. 38
d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989………. 40

– iv –

Page
3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989 41
4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation … 45
5. Conclusion…………….. 45
IV. SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED…………. 45
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . …….. 46
A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed …. 46
B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment…………. 48
C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case………….. 50
D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways………….. 51
E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction ………… 52

– v –

Page
VI. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION …………..
54
A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable………. 54
1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For
A Preliminary Injunction ……….
56
2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below
17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction ……..
57
3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm …. 60
B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability ………….. 61
C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit……………. 65
D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment…………. 69
E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits……………… 71
F. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans . . 77
G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest … 78
VII. THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS………….. 80
CONCLUSION 80

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page
Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525………………. 9
Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797……. 16, 44
Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31……. 30, 31
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521…………….. 50
Associated Press v. United States 326 US 1……… 79
Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110 ………….. 57
Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749……………… 7
Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 36 L.Ed.2d 420…………. 47
Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608……………. 30, 31
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 46 L.Ed.2d 659………… 57, 67
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1………………… *, *
C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 154 P.2d 710…………. 73
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 84 L.Ed. 1213……… 57, 62, 68
Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79………………… 51
Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97………… 75

– vii –

Cases Page
Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701…………….. 52
Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328……………. 49
Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) …………. 43
Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273…………….. 54
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402………………… 48
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541…………………. 3
Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401……….. 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41
Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252……………….. 57
Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529……… 74
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 45 L.Ed.2d 648…………. 47
Dymo Industries, Inc. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141…………….. 49
Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34…………… 29
Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 US 347………….. 78
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1……………….. 57, 58
F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426 ……………. 3, 12
Fabrege, Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426……………. 49

– viii –

Cases Page
First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388………………… 27
Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 233 P.2d 606……….. 29
Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212…………….. 70
Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448……………. 71
Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 97 L.Ed. 828………….. 62
Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076………….. 57, 59
Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 57 L.Ed.2d 364………….. 8
Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618 …………… 54
Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704…………. 69
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 99 L.Ed.2d 296………… 8, 13
Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983 …………… 57
Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122……………… 9
Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171……………. 57
In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451……………. 54
International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547…………….. 49
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430………….. 69, 70

– ix –

Cases Page
J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187…………….. 49
Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817…………….. 50
Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349 ….. 75
Kass v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037 ………….. 51
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 US 753…………………. 79
Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105…………….. 7
LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 102 CAl.Rptr. 588……… 27
Le Sportsac, Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602…………… 55
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602………………. 57, 58
Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 308 P.2d 713…………. 28
Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)……………….. 53
Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211……………. 56
Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7……………. 54, 55
Maness v. Meyes (1975) 419 U.S. 449………………… 57
Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270 ………….. 55
Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845…………….. 55

– x –

Cases Page
Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330…………. 46, 47
Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141…….. 79
Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670…………… 53, 76
Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871…… 32, 33
Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
71 Cal.App. 492…………………..
29
Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595…………….. 9
McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 55 L.Ed.2d 593…………. 69
Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268…………… 57
Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130……………. 50
Molko v. Holy Spirit Association (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092……………. 14, 61, 80
Morey v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727………… 30
Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160……………… 7
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 87 L.Ed. 1292…………. 62
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415………………. 57, 58
National Customs Brokers and Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511…………….. 55
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 US 539…………………. 78
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254……………… 57, 58, 79

– xi –

Cases Page
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 53 L.Ed.2d 867…………. 67
NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490………”………. 57, 58
Oakland Tribune Publishing Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374…………… 53, 56
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252……….. 28
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253………… 46
People V. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596 ….. 26
People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69………… 62
Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif .1984) 611 F.Supp. 990………….. 47
Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419 F.Supp. 1251 ………….. 55
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. (1969) 395 US 367…………………. 79
Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI…………. 34
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473……………. 52
Roth v. United States 354 US 476………….. 79
S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945…………….. 50
Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 261 P.2d 721…………. 29
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988…………… 10, 11

– xii –

Cases Page
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 10 L.Ed.2d 965…………. 62
Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22 …………… 46
Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415……………. 50
Sipple v. Chronical Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045…………… 57, 58
Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750…………… 48, 51
Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 US 557………… 79
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452……………… 8
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………….. 57
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………… 57, 58
Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 62 L.Ed.2d 454………. 47, 48
Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127…………….. 9
Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. 80 Cal. 570 …………………… 33
Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453 F.Supp. 25………….. 70
Tiedje v. Aluminium Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 296 P.2d 554…………. 29
Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374………………… 57
Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 6 L.Ed.2d 982…………. 62
United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 88 L.Ed. 1148………….. 62

– xiii –

Cases Page
United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64…………… 43
United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062……………. 42
United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439……………. 70
United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314…………….. 43
United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317…………….. 42
United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 13 L.Ed.2d 733…………. 69
United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9……………… 42
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364…………………… 50
Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823……………… 7
Van Cauwenberghe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 100 L.Ed.2d 517…………. 7
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125…………… 70
Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654…….. 42
Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664………………. 57, 58
Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178………………. 57, 68
Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101……………… 9
Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 93 P.2d 1028……….. 74
White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812……………… 7

– ivx –

Cases Page
Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031……………. 10
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 32 L.Ed.2d 15…………. 61
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872; 260 Cal.Rptr. 331…………. 15, 44, 62-65, 69, 80
Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748………………… 27
Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129……………. 51
Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414………………… 47
Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719…………… 49, 52
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) ………………. 44
§ 201(c) (2) ………………. 44
§ 1510……………….. 42,43
28 U.S.C. § 1291……………… 3, 6, 8, 11
§ 1292(a)(1) …………… 9-11, 13
§ 1332………………….. 3
§ 1927…………………. 80
F.R.A.P. Rule 4……………….. 10, 11
Rule 38………………… 80
F.R.C.P Rule 42(b)………………… 7
Rule 56……………….. 4,7
Civil Code § 1550…………………. 32
§ 1598…………………. 32
§ 1607…………………. 29
§ 1608…………………. 29
§ 1667…………………. 32
§ 1668…………………. 32
§ 3423…………………. 46

– xv –

Treatises Page
Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 …… 27
Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts,
§ 441……………… 27
§ 442……………… 27
§ 429……………… 29
§ 444……………… 27
§ 445……………… 28
§ 611……………… 32

– xvi –

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals question whether an appeal ostensibly taken from a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is, in fact, simply a pretext to obtain interlocutory review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment,

1

and would an exercise of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over such an appeal be proper?

2. Do contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct constitute an obstruction of justice, and, if so, are said releases illegal and void?

3. Can contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct be specifically enforced?

4. When an organization which ascribes religious status to itself is aware of what it alleges are threats to its First Amendment religious rights arising from and at the outset of tort litigation and waits for 17 months before seeking a preliminary injunction, can it assert such threats are irreparable injury?

5. Does the bare claim of religious status confer an immunity in tort from accountability from the consequences of conduct that is outrageous and coercive?

6. Is Scientology1 necessarily entitled on this appeal to prima facie status as a religion?

7. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary injunction constitute a prior restraint on the Aznarans’ First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech and Associational Privacy?

8. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary

__________
1Appellants herein are Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International, Church of Spiritual Technology and Author Services, Inc. They will be referred to collectively as “Scientology.”

2

injunction violate the Aznarans’ First Amendment right to Redress of Grievances.

9. Did the district court erroneously apply the law underlying the legal issues in denying Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and therefore abuse his discretion?

10. Is the herein appeal frivolous?

I.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction of the District Court

The District Court properly exercises jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter of this lawsuit pursuant its diversity jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Appeal

When the issue is one of appellate jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court of appeals to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associates. Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426, 429. Unless subject to a statutory or judicially created exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 states this Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that is not a “final decision” of the District Court. “The effect of the statute is to disallow appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete … So long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541, 546.

Although Scientology’s instant appeal is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the practical effect of this

3

appellate review is that Scientology now relitigates, for the fourth time, the District Court’s denial of its mc ion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the purported releases and waivers are valId. Below, after losing its summary judgment motion, Scientology first sought reconsideration. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, Scientology again relitigated the issue by a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thus, through the pretext of this interlocutory appeal, now Scientology will again relitigate the issue of whether the purported releases are valId.

1. The Motion For Summary Judgment

On December 12, 1988, pursuant to the Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Scientology filed its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a separate trial on the issue whether the alleged releases and waivers were valid. (Record No. 140.)

On May 25, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the Aznarans’ alleged release and waiver of their right to prosecute this lawsuit by its written Order filed on May 25, 1989. (Record No. 219.) In its decision the District Court specifically found there was a

“genuine issue of material fact [whether the release was an enforceable contract because] . . . plaintiffs were subjected to threats of being sentenced to defendants’ Rehabilitation Project Force, or declared ‘suppressive persons’ and subjected to the ‘fair game policy’ if they did not cooperate in signing the releases. Plaintiffs also provide testimony that they did not sign the releases with their free will and only signed them to get away in relative safety from defendants. Plaintiffs further provide testimony that they

4

were not given the opportunity to confer with legal counsel when they signed the releases and the releases they signed and the releases submitted to the Court are not the same because at the time they executed the releases, they were not given copies of them.” (Record No. 219 at 2:5-3:14.)

2. The Motion For Reconsideration

On June 6, 1989, Scientology filed its motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s Order denying summary judgment. (Record No. 228.) On July 24, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for reconsideration and specifically found as follows:

“In the instant action, the defendants’ motion for reconsideration merely repeats the arguments made in its original motion for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied. (Emphasis supplied)” (Record No. 238 at 2:10-13.)

3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

On November 9, 1989, not deterred by having suffered two adverse decisions on the issue of the legal effectiveness of the purported releases and waivers, Scientology filed its motion for a preliminary injunction wherein it sought to enforce the terms of the purported release and waiver against the Aznarans. Scientology’s motion also sought a separate evidentiary hearing on the issues raised by the release and waiver. (Record No. 261.)

On January 9, 1990, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing. In its Order denying injunctive relief the District Court specifically found as follows:

5

“In the instant action, defendants’ motion merely attempt[s] to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release. The Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration that the validity of the release is a jury question because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs consented to the release. The Court has also ruled that it would be an unnecessary expenditure of time to have a separate trial on the validity of the release.” (Emphasis added.) (Record No. 2 64 at 2:19-3:2.)

4. The Notice Of Appeal

On February 5, 1990, Scientology filed its notice of appeal (Record No. 267) of the District Court’s Order denying its motion (1) for a preliminary injunction to enforce the releases and (2) for a separate hearing on the validity thereof. Thus, Scientology asks this Court to relitigate the issue a fourth time. This appeal is a transparent ploy to both avoid the consequences of the final judgment rule as it applies to summary judgment orders and to relitigate an issue which thus far in the trial court has been conclusively determined as a proper question for trial.

5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 confer jurisdiction upon the courts of appeals to review appeals “from all final decisions of the district courts . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Generally, a party may not take an appeal under § 1291 “until there has been a decision by the District Court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ [Citation.]”

6

Van Cauwenberqhe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 521, 100 L.Ed.2d 517.

As a general rule, “the denial of a Rule 56 motion is an interlocutory order from which no appeal is available until the entry of judgment following trial on the merits.” Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105, 1107; White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812, 814.

“The denial of a motion for summary judgment because of the presence of genuine issues of fact is not normally appealable. For the moving party is not hereby foreclosed. When the facts are developed, he may still win. Plainly such an order is not final.”

Morqenstern Chemical Co. v. Scherinq Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160, 161. When a summary judgment is denied on the basis of”‘unresolved issues of fact,’ the order is only a pretrial one which does not touch on the merits of the case” Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749, 750 and is not
final. Thus, where “[o]nly [a] procedural aspect or incident was . . . involved, [n]o substantive right of appellant was affected. Without injury to rights, there could not be a basis for any interlocutory consideration.” Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823, 825.

The substance of the instant appeal is, in fact, taken from the denial of a FRCP Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and a Rule 42(b) motion for a separate trial on the issue of the releases. Contrary to the manner in which Scientology labelled its third motion on the issue of whether the releases were valid as one for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing,

7

the substance of the summary judgment motion, the reconsideration motion, the preliminary injunction motion and this appeal was, and is the same. The obvious thrust of each of the motions was to judicially validate the releases so as to defeat the Aznarans lawsuit before it could get to trial.

6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject Of Appellate Review

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provide that the denial of an interlocutory injunction in District Court is reviewable pursuant to an interlocutory appeal. “[T]he statute creates an exception from the long-established policy against piecemeal appeals …. The exception is a narrow one and is keyed to the ‘need to permit litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.’ [Citation.]” Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 480, 57 L.Ed.2d 364. Hence, “It must be construed strictly.” Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452, 457.

Thus, as when summary judgment is denied, “an order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 279, 99
L.Ed.2d 296. Such orders do not involve irreparable consequence.

This Court enjoys the discretion to determine whether the instant appeal falls within, or is beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. §

8

1292(a)(1) because “Courts examine the effect of an interlocutory order rather than its terminology in determining reviewability under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595; Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127, 1129. Therefore, “the meaning of injunction within § 1292(a)(1) would turn … on the substance . . . [not] on the form of the trial court order.” Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525, 528. “[A]n injunction is defined not by its title but by its effect on the litigants.” Id. at 529, Fn. 14.

“In considering the application of § 1292(a)(1) to borderline cases . . . [the Court] must be ever mindful that it was intended as a narrow exception to the policy of the basic final judgment rule, ‘a wisely sanctioned principle against piecemeal appeals governing litigation in federal courts.’ [Citation.] The great advantages of that policy in the administration of federal justice dictate against a reliance on the strict letter of § 1292(a)(1) which would cause the exception to encroach unduly on the rule.” (Emphasis added.)

Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101, 104.

The same common-sense rule applies to the Court’s evaluation of the nature of a motion for a preliminary injunction. “The label does not determine the nature of the motion. Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122, 128.

7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation

Simply because Scientology dubbed its motion as one for a”preliminary injunction” does not necessarily require this Court to

9

exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial thereof. Although under “normal circumstances” Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031, 1032, the denial of a preliminary injunction requires review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) , such is not required when a “motion for a preliminary injunction was not made under normal circumstances.” Ibid.

Thus, in Winfield, the court rejected jurisdiction of an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction. It found the appeal “was simply a refiling of a motion which had been denied two years earlier.” Ibid. The court recognized that it was confronted with “a device to extend the period for filing an appeal from thirty days to two years” and to “rule in favor of appellants on this issue would circumvent the policy behind Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Ibid. Therefore, “where the motion is simply a ploy” Ibid, designed to subvert a policy behind a rule or statute, an appeal from the denial thereof will not be heard because it is not properly before the reviewing court.

The Seventh Circuit reserves the right “to penetrate through form to substance” in order to dismiss an appeal of an injunctive order brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988, the trial court enjoined Suter from violating the Security Act and he did not file a timely appeal. Thereafter, Suter brought three successive, and unsuccessful, motions to vacate the injunction. He took an appeal from the last denial. The appellate court dismissed his appeal because his briefs in both the district court and the court

10

of appeals revealed “that his only ground for vacating the injunction is that it should never have been entered in the first place.” Id. at 990. The reviewing court found that the motions to vacate were “efforts to create appellate jurisdiction over the injunction after the deadline for an appeal had passed.” Ibid.

The strategy employed by Scientology in connection with the instant appeal is analogous to the conduct rejected by the courts in Winfield and Securities and Exchange Commission. Appellants in those cases employed devices, in the form of injunction related motions, intended to circumvent the policy implemented in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requiring timely appeals. In our case Scientology has employed the device of a preliminary injunction to circumvent the policy of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to avoid piecemeal appeals and consider only those trial court determinations that are final. Scientology could not properly appeal from either the denial of its summary judgment motion nor its motion for reconsideration. Thus, it cannot legitimately appeal from the denial of a “motion for a preliminary injunction” when the appeal seeks to do indirectly that which the law prohibits it from doing directly.

“Because the civil rules do not explicitly define the extent of the district judge’s discretion in allowing successive pretrial motions or motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order such as a preliminary injunction, early court decisions formulated a requirement that a successive motion state new facts warranting reconsideration of the prior decision. [Citations.] This logic also applies to the interpretation of § 1292(a)(1). . . . The issue here is appellate jurisdiction and the duty of the court of appeals to determine

11

sua sponte if necessary, whether jurisdiction is proper. Mischaracterization by the lower court or by the parties does not affect jurisdictional determinations.” F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc., supra . 815 F.2d at 428-429.

In Kerr three similar motions were brought, the last two of which were “virtually identical.” Id. at 429. The court stated:

“Parties should not be allowed to harass their adversaries and the courts with a barrage of successive motions for extraordinary, preliminary injunctive relief, secure in the knowledge that they can take an interlocutory appeal when it becomes apparent that they cannot win their war of attrition.” Ibid.

Likewise, in the instant case Scientology should not be allowed to successively relitigate the issue of the validity of the releases in the hope that if enough shots are taken, it will obtain a favorable ruling. Since the nature of the motion for preliminary injunction was, in fact, as found by the District Court, “merely [an] attempt to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release [which] [t]he Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for consideration”, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should dismiss the instant interlocutory appeal for lack of proper appellate jurisdiction.

The repeated rulings of the District Court consistently reveal that it was exercising its control over the progress of this litigation so as to preserve for the jury’s determination all claims between the adverse parties, to be heard together in the same proceeding. Similarly, the substance of the three motions

12

below, unsuccessfully brought by Scientology, which now culminate in the instant interlocutory appeal consistently reveal its determination to obtain a favorable pretrial ruling that the releases are valid. Therefore, as this Court’s scrutiny penetrates the terminological form Scientology dubs as a motion for a preliminary injunction, logic compels the conclusion that in substance Scientology is attempting to obtain an advantageous, and improper, pretrial ruling via appeal on the releases which in the trial court has thus far been three times elusive.

An analysis of Scientology’s motions and the District Court’s rulings below compels the conclusion that the District Court’s respective rulings on Scientology’s motions for summary judgment, for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction relate “only to the conduct or progress of litigation . . . [which] is not considered an injunction and appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream, supra, 485 U.S. at 279.

Therefore, the herein appeal should be dismissed because it is not properly before this Court. The Court should decline to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Nature Of The Case

On April 1, 1988, the Aznarans filed their Complaint below for false imprisonment, fraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, breach of contract, restitution, breach of statutory

13

duty to pay minimum wages and overtime and constructive fraud. The factual basis of the complaint is predicated upon the Aznarans’ fifteen years in Scientology.
After successfully disqualifying the Aznarans former counsel, the Scientology defendants answered and all except Author Services, Inc., counterclaimed against the Aznarans.

In the District Court, Scientology has consistently, but unsuccessfully, sought to silence and neutralize the Aznarans by acquiring a judicial finding that the “releases” Scientology alleges the Aznarans signed are valid and enforceable.

B. Factual Background

Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran are married. Formerly, they were among the highest ranking officials in Scientology. Vicki was the President of Religious Technology Center and Richard was the Chief of Security, Worldwide. For fifteen years they were subjected to fraud, coercive persuasion and exploitation at the hands of Scientology. The Aznarans were subjected to coercive persuasion 2 by Scientology without their knowledge or consent.

__________
2
As defined by the California Supreme Court in 1988, what has been called coercive persuasion, thought reform or “Brainwashing is ‘a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.’ [Citation.] The specific methods of indoctrination vary, but the basic theory is that brainwashing ‘is fostered through the creation of a controlled environment that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to suggestion and manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological depletion, cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, and a clear assertion of authority and dominion. The aftermath of indoctrination is a severe impairment of autonomy of the ability to think independently, which induces a subject’s unyielding compliance and rupture of past connections, affiliations, and associations.” Molko v. Holy Spirit Association [Footnote con’t.]

14

The imposition of such techniques forced them to abandon their identities and submit to Scientology’s authority. They were brainwashed by, among other techniques, being hooked up to a lie detector machine, called an “E-Meter,” whereby they were coercively indoctrinated with the Scientology’s peculiar definitions and meanings of words. This caused them to communicate in a language known only to Scientologists. The result of the indoctrination was blind acceptance of everything that Scientology promulgated, including the dissolution of their marriage. (Record No. 197 at 26, 32-34; Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶14.)

Both Aznarans were continuously subjected to techniques of coercive persuasion through which Scientology coercively inculcated them with its ideology and dominated them. Yielding to Scientology’s coercion, they were subject to Scientology’s domination and almost absolute control. The ideology included the premise that if they dis-affiliated with Scientology, each of them would be deemed a “suppressive person” against whom the “fair game policy” would be employed by Scientology.3

__________
[Footnote con’t.] (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1109. Coercive persuasion often results in “serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide.” Id. 46 Cal.3d at 1118.

3 “. . .'[F]air game’ was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on ‘suppressives,’ which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a ‘suppressive,’ all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to ‘neutralize’ that individual – economically, politically and psychologically.” Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 888. The “fair game policy”, to be enforced against “enemies” or “suppressive persons” states that such [Footnote con’t]

15

After 15 years of deception, coercion, exploitation and abuse, Vicki Aznaran found herself in a potentially life-threatening circumstance at the end of March 1987. Having been incarcerated for almost two months under constantly cruel conditions in Scientology’s forced-labor camp dubbed “Rehabilitation Project Force” in the California desert near Gilman Hot Springs, Vicki’s uterus had become infected. She had been forced to run, not walk, at all times. She was compelled for long hours to perform hard physical labor on a daily basis and sometimes with a jackhammer from 7:00 a.m. until after night fell. She was not allowed adequate sleep or provided adequate food. She was at almost all times guarded by one or two people who constantly watched her, even as she used the bathroom. Additionally, on motorcycles and in jeeps armed security guards patrolled the fenced-in area where Vicki was incarcerated. Letters from Richard Aznaran, her husband, were not delivered and he was prohibited from visiting her.

She was prohibited from reading newspapers or books. At night, she was locked up. Despite her daily requests to see a doctor for her infected uterus and consequential fever, Vicki was denied medical attention. She was in physical pain. (Record No. 197 at 22-25; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.)

Terrified, Vicki managed to escape from the forced labor camp in the desert and fled to Hemet, a nearby town.

__________
[Footnote con’t] person “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 443, fn. 1, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797.

16

Scientology leader David Miscavige and chief Security Checker, Ray Mithoff summoned Richard to Hemet where they interrogated him until 5:00 a.m. in an effort to get him to divorce Vicki because she was a “suppressive person.” Richard could not compromise his loyalty to his wife. He told Miscavige and Mithoff that he would try to salvage Vicki. They sent him to the hotel to talk her into returning to Scientology. (Record No. 197 at 25.)

From April 1, 1987 to April 9, 1987, with an exception of a trip to obtain medical attention for Vicki, Richard and Vicki were held at a hotel in Hemet. They had less than $50 between the two of them. They were surveilled 24 hours per day by plainclothes security guards from a local Scientology church. They were supposed to stay in the hotel room unless they specifically left to eat. Richard felt they were physically restrained from leaving the hotel. The Aznarans were told by Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff that they had to remain at the hotel until the Scientology leaders were finished with them and that if they failed to “cooperate” they would be declared to be suppressive persons and subject to the fair game policy. It was reiterated to the Aznarans that the only way to avoid being declared suppressive persons was to “cooperate.” (Record No. 197 at 26-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Vicki and Richard had a plan to leave the control of the Scientologists but only if they could accomplish it without being declared “fair game.” When Scientologists left without approval, they were declared “fair game.” Over the years, the Aznarans had seen what happened to people who were subjected to the fair game

17

policy after they had failed to cooperate with Scientology. The Aznarans knew that if they were not “fair game,” Scientology would “exercise some kind of restraint, whereas with fair game there would be no restraint.” (Record No. 197 at 2 6-29.)

The Scientology security guards held all their personal belongings, including a horse and two dogs, so as to further ensure the Aznarans’ cooperation. Vicki knew of others in the past whose belongings and pets were possessed by Scientology as they were leaving the organization. When such people had not “cooperated”, their pets were given away and belongings destroyed. (Record No. 197 at 26; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 5.)

While in the hotel room, Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff for hours at a time subjected both Richard and Vicki to “security checking” and “interviews.” Security checking is a form of interrogation employing the E-Meter lie detector. Security checking was a tool of thought reform and control employed by Scientology. Ray Mithoff was the highest trained and most senior security checker in all Scientology. During the time the Aznarans were confined to the hotel room, one of them would be getting security checked while the other was being interviewed by Mark Rathbun. (Record No. 197 at 28-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit B ¶¶ 3, 3A.)

During the course of the hours of security checking, Richard was reminded how powerful Scientology was and the type of command it could bring to bear upon him should he fail to cooperate fully. Much of the security checking interrogation was directed toward the reasons that the Aznarans wanted to leave Scientology. Specific

18

attention was paid to whether either of them harbored a secret motive for wanting to leave, whether they were going to go to the government with information concerning crimes being committed by Scientologists or their agents, give testimony or otherwise make information public that Scientology wanted kept secret. (Record No. 197 at 22-32; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 6; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.) Particular attention was also paid to interrogating the Aznarans on how much they knew about Scientology so the threat of their leaving could be analyzed. It was intimidating to be security checked by Ray Mithoff and the Aznarans “were in terrible fear that [they] would not be allowed to leave.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 3.)

The releases were not negotiated at all. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D ¶ 7.)

The Aznarans never requested any “loan” from Scientology. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.)

A few days before the Aznarans were allowed to leave the hotel, top Scientology leader, David Miscavige, came and spoke with them. In response to Miscavige’s inquiry as to their future plans, Richard told him that they had no specific plans, but intended to stay in Southern California and work something out. Miscavige was adamant that he wanted the Aznarans to “leave Southern California” and avoid contact with people they knew, but wanted them to go to Texas. Richard told him that as he had little money, he and Vicki would have to stay in California long enough to sell their horse and make some money to finance the trip. The following day, at

19

Miscavige’s request, Mark Rathbun suggested to Richard that Scientology purchase the horse from him as well as loan him some money so that he and Vicki could leave immediately for Texas. The Aznarans never requested any loan from Scientology. However, they were told that the reason for the loan was to keep them “out of enemy hands” and to ensure they would not be easy “prey” to those opposed to Scientology. Rathbun’s offer to purchase the horse was for the purpose of expediting our departure from California. Thus, the loan and the purchase of the horse had nothing to do with the releases. Rathbun’s statements to the contrary are false. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 7; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7; Record No. 197 at 32. Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.) The Scientologists wanted the Aznarans “out of California quickly so we would not be served with any subpoenas in the cases that were going on against them at that time.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at f 7.) Scientology did not pay $300 more for the horse than had Richard; it paid $300 less. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 13.)

That Scientology wanted to indemnify Vicki with respect to any lawsuit wherein she might be named was in order to maintain control over her and prevent her from testifying in a hostile manner in any litigation to which Scientology was a party or to any governmental agency. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.) With respect to the ongoing case entitled Stansfield. et al. v. Starkey, et al.. wherein Vicki was at that time named as a defendant, Mark Rathbun “specifically brought up the indemnification” and “warned us that we were to contact him should there be any contact concerning this

20

litigation or any other litigation in which Scientology was involved. The purpose was to protect Scientology’s interest however and certainly not ours.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4b.)

There had been a fire at one of the Scientology ranches where Richard had worked. It destroyed all his belongings concerning which a claim was being negotiated with the insurance company. Rather than wait in California, Richard was -given $1,040.90, the value of his belongings destroyed in the fire. His understanding is that the money would later be reimbursed by the insurance company. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 8; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Richard was also paid $387.37 in wages, according to Scientology’s rules, that was owed to him for the pay period immediately preceding his departure from Scientology. However, it did not include any compensation for the many hundreds of hours of work he had performed, but been forbidden to include on his time card during the previous 13 months that he had worked for Scientology leader, Norman Starkey. He was supposed to have received minimum wage. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at f 9; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Through earlier contacts as a staff member with Scientology’s dirty tricks unit known first as the Guardian’s Office and then as the Office of Special Affairs, Richard had seen various policies concerning releases. Releases were to executed by every public and staff Scientologist before and after every single service received. Guardian’s Office personnel and Scientology attorney John Peterson

21

told Richard that the releases were unenforceable and for purposes of deterrence only. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 5; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 4.)

In order to dis-affiliate with Scientology without being declared “suppressive” and thereby subject to “fair game,” the Aznarans did what they were told by the Scientologists. This included signing stacks of documents which they did not, with any care, read. Two of Scientology’s attorneys were also present when the Aznarans complied with Scientology’s orders and signed the papers whatever papers they were given. Richard said all the releases and other papers were “all handed to me at the same time. I just signed them.” (Record No. 197 at 29-30; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 3.) Vicki said “we were being watched by guards . . . and we were extremely afraid of being declared fair game if we did not cooperate. I was in a very bad physical and mental state and would have signed anything in order to get away.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Neither of the Aznarans “carefully” read the Mutual Releases and Settlement Agreements. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4a.) Any statements by Mark Rathbun to the contrary are false. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 2.)

At the time Vicki and Richard signed whatever releases where presented to them at the hotel, it was stressed that if they “spoke to government agents about any ‘confidential information’ [they] had concerning the cult that [they] would be in violation of [their] agreements and that [they] would be sued.” Additionally,

22

they were directed to “withhold information and avoid testimony in any civil litigation where the truth may be harmful to the cult or aid someone else seeking justice.” Richard concluded that “with the purpose of the releases including the withholding of information from lawful authorities, [he] certainly did not feel that they could possibly be legal or binding.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 6.)

The Aznarans did not have the benefit of legal counsel. In fact, it was made clear that they could not seek other counsel. Id. Despite their repeated requests for a copy of the releases over many months following the Aznarans’ move to Dallas, Texas, the Aznarans were not provided copies of the papers they had been forced to sign until shortly before the instant lawsuit was filed. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶¶ 2B, 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶¶ 2, 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 13.)

The Aznarans do not believe that the releases and waivers supplied by Scientology in support of itself in the instant lawsuit were the papers that they signed in the hotel room in Hemet. In fact, what Scientology now asserts as the releases include more pages that what Richard recalls having signed (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 11; Record No. 197 at 30-31.)

C. The Substance Of The Releases

The alleged releases in question provide, in part, that the Aznarans would be bound as follows:

To “release, acquit and forever discharge . . . the

23

CHURCH . . . from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions and causes of action of every kind and nature, known and unknown, from the beginning of time to and including the date hereof.” (¶ 3 of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Never to create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing, or to broadcast, or to assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape, any show, program or movie, concerning [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology, or personal or indirectly acquired knowledge or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any entities or individuals listed in Paragraph 1, above. [Plaintiff] further agrees that [he/she] will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information [he/she] may have concerning the Church of Scientology . . ..” (¶ 6.C. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

To “not voluntarily assist or cooperate with any person adverse to the religion of Scientology in any proceeding against any of the Scientology organizations, or cooperate with any person adverse to any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, in any proceeding against any of the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. [Plaintiffs] also [agree] [they] will not cooperate in any

24

manner with any organizations aligned against Scientology and any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, (¶ 6.E. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Will “not testify or otherwise participate in any other judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology or any of the organizations, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above unless compelled to do so by lawful subpoena or other awful process. Unless required to do so by such subpoena, [plaintiffs] [agree] not to discuss [his/her] experiences or personal or indirectly acquired information concerning the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1, with anyone other than members of [his/her] immediate family. [Plaintiffs] shall not make [themselves] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this agreement. . .” (f 6.F. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

III.

THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS
THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS

A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal

l. Introduction

Scientology’s indefatigable effort, now through this appeal, has been and is to silence the appellees Aznaran who by first-hand experience possess comprehensive knowledge of the nature and

25

conduct of Scientology. Such knowledge was gleaned first, from the ground up, and later, from the top down. Scientology would have this Court prohibit the Aznarans from providing aid and support to litigants adverse to Scientology, such as Bent Corydon, whom Scientology has harmed. To do this, Scientology would have this Court enforce agreements that are illegal.

Such illegality lies in the agreements’ would-be legal effect: the judicially enforced suppression of any information that would discredit Scientology or expose its criminal activities. Such a legal effect would corrupt and pervert the time-tested and result-approved objective of all judicial proceedings: the search for and ascertainment of truth. Were such to occur, litigation to which Scientology was a party would become a travesty of justice and, for the opposing party, a paradigm of fundamental unfairness.

2. Standard Of Review

With respect to a contract the validity of which is challenged on public policy grounds, “[t]he burden is on the defendant to show that its enforcement would be in violation of the settled public policy of this state, or injurious to the morals of its people.” People v. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596, 5597. As to the judiciary, before “labelling a contract as being contrary to public policy, courts must carefully inquire into the nature of the conduct, the extent of public harm which may be involved, and the moral quality of the conduct of the parties in light of the prevailing standards of the community.” Ibid.

26

3. Preliminary Legal Principles

In his work Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 at 738, Professor Pomeroy states:

“Whenever a party, who as an actor, sets the judicial machinery in motion to obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, where a contract is made either (1) to achieve an illegal purpose, or (2) by means of consideration that is not legal, the contract itself is void. Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts, § 441 at 396. (Hereinafter”Witkin, § ____ at ____.”) Since an illegal contract is void, it cannot be ratified by an subsequent act, and no person can be estopped to deny its validity. Witkin, § 442, at 396; First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388, 405-406; Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748, 759 [“A contract void because it stipulates for doing what the law prohibits is incapable of being ratified.”]

A party need not plead the illegality as a defense and the failure to do so constitutes no waiver. In fact, the point may be raised at any time, in the trial court or on appeal, by either the parties or on the court’s own motion. Witkin, § 444, at 397; LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 75, 102 Cal.Rptr. 588 [“When the court discovers a fact which indicates that the contract is illegal and ought not to be enforced, it will, of its own

27

motion, instigate an inquiry in relation thereto.”]; Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 147-148, 308 P.2d 713 [“[T]he court has both the power and the duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummation or encouragement of what public policy forbids [and] may do so on its own motion.”].

Thus, the court will look through provisions that may appear valid on their face, and with the aid of parol evidence, determine that the contract is actually illegal or is part of an illegal transaction. Id. 48 Cal.2d at 148 [“[A] court must be free to search out illegality lying behind the forms in which the parties have cast the transaction to conceal such illegality.”]; Witkin, § 445 at 398.

There are two reasons for the rule prohibiting judicial enforcement, by any court, of illegal contracts.

“[T]he courts will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act [because] Knowing that they will receive no help form the courts . . . the parties are less likely to enter into an illegal agreement in the first place.”

Lewis & Queen, supra , 48 Cal.2d at 149 [308 P.2d at 719].

“This rule is not generally applied to secure justice between parties who have made an illegal contract, but from regard for a higher interest – that of the public, whose welfare demands that certain transactions be discouraged.” (Emphasis added.)

Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252, 254.

Illegal contracts are matters which implicate public policy. Public policy has purposefully been a “vague expression .

28

[that] has been left loose and free of definition in the same manner as fraud.” Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 575, 261 P. 2d 721. Public policy means “anything which tends to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to feel is against public policy.” Ibid. Therefore,”[a] contract made contrary to public policy may not serve as the foundation of any action, either in law or in equity, [Citation] and the parties will be left where they are found when they come to court for relief. [Citation.]” Tiedie v. Aluminum Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 454, 296 P.2d 554.

“It is well settled that agreements against public policy and sound morals will not be enforced by the courts. It is a general rule that all agreements relating to proceedings in court which involve anything inconsistent with [the] full and impartial course of justice therein are void, though not open to the actual charge of corruption.”

Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34, 36; Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. 71 Cal.App. 492

B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void

The consideration for a promise must be lawful. Civil Code § 1607. Moreover, “[i]f any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.” Civil Code § 1608. Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 414, 233 P.2d 606. “In other words, where the illegal consideration goes to the whole of the promise, the entire contract is illegal.” Witkin, § 429 at 386;

29

Morev v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727, 738 [“The desire and intention of the parties [to violate public policy] entered so fundamentally into the inception and consideration of the transaction as to render the terms of the contract nonseverable, and it is wholly void.”].

In Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608, the California Court of Appeal adopted section 557 of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts prohibiting as illegal those agreements which sought to suppress the disclosure of discreditable facts. The court stated:

“A bargain that has for its consideration the nondisclosure of discreditable facts … is illegal. … In many cases falling within the rule stated in the section the bargain is illegal whether or not the threats go so far as to bring the case within the definition of duress. In some cases, moreover, disclosure may be proper or even a duty, and the offer to pay for nondisclosure may be voluntarily made. Nevertheless the bargain is illegal. Moreover, even though the offer to pay for nondisclosure is voluntarily made and though there is not duty to make disclosure or propriety in doing so, a bargain to pay for nondisclosure is illegal.” (Emphasis added.)

Brown 28 Cal.App.2d at 618.

In Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31, the court did not allow a breach of contract action to be litigated because it involved a contract that was void for illegality. In Allen, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract which he subsequently amended five times. Plaintiff, a union member, was entitled by his collective bargaining agreement to have a fair and impartial arbitration to determine the truth or

30

falsity of the allegations against him of theft and dishonesty. The allegations of the amended complaints stated that there had been an agreement between the parties whereby defendant laid off plaintiff, defendant’s employee, and allowed plaintiff to receive unemployment benefits and union benefits. “Defendants also agreed that they would not communicate to third persons, including prospective employers, that plaintiff was discharged or resigned for dishonesty, theft, a bad employment attitude and that defendants would not state they would not rehire plaintiff.” Id. at 163. Plaintiff alleged there had been a breach in that defendants had communicated to numerous persons, including potential employers and the Department of Human Resources and Development, that plaintiff was dishonest and guilty of theft and for that reason had resigned for fear of being discharged for those reasons, that plaintiff had a bad attitude and that defendants would not rehire him. Plaintiff alleged as a result of the breach he suffered a loss of unemployment benefits, union benefits and earnings. The court held that the plaintiff had bargained for an act that was illegal by definition, the withholding of information from the Department of Human Resources Development. It stated:

“The nondisclosure was not a minor or indirect part of the contract, but a major and substantial consideration of the agreement. A bargain which includes as part of its consideration nondisclosure of discreditable facts is illegal. (See Brown v. Freese, 28 Cal.App.2d 608, 618 [83 P.2d 82.].) It has long been hornbook law that consideration which is void for illegality is no consideration at all. [Citation.]” Id. 52 Cal.App.3d at 166.

31

C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void

The object of a contract must be lawful. Civil Code § 1550. If the contract has a single object, and that object is unlawful, the entire contract is void. Civil Code § 1598. Civil Code § 1667 defines unlawfulness as that which is either “[[c]ontrary to an express provision of the law,” or is “[c]ontrary to the policy of the express law, though not expressly prohibited” or is “[o]therwise contrary to good morals.”
Civil Code § 1668 states:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”

Further, an agreement to suppress evidence or to conceal a witness is illegal. Witkin, § 611 at 550. Penal Code §§ 136, 136.1, and 138. In Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871, a licensed physician was alleged to have repeatedly engaged in the sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. A civil lawsuit arising from the molestations had been settled and the file sealed. In the order dismissing the action by stipulation and sealing the court files, the trial court, at the request of the parties, ordered the parties, their agents and representatives never to discuss the case with anyone. The appellate court found such “confidentiality” was against public policy. That court stated:

32

”The stipulated order of confidentiality is contrary to public policy, contrary to the ideal that full and impartial justice shall be secured in every matter and designed to secrete evidence in the case from the very public agency charged with the responsibility of policing the medical profession. We believe it clearly improper, even on stipulation of the parties, for the court to issue an order designed not to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the administration of justice [Citation], but to subvert public policy by shielding the doctor from governmental investigation designed to protect the public from misconduct within the medical profession, and which may disclose a professional license of this state was used to establish a relationship which subjected a juvenile patient to criminal conduct. Such a stipulation is against public policy, similar to an agreement to conceal judicial proceedings and to obstruct justice. . . Accordingly, . . . such a contract made in violation of established public policy will not be enforced . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 316-317.

Similarly, in Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. (1889) 80 Cal. 570, 571-572, the court invalidated a settlement agreement provision. It stated:

“It was contended by the Respondent that this was nothing more than a payment of a sum of money by way of a compromise of litigation, and that such contracts have been upheld. We do not so construe the agreement. It was a promise to pay a consideration for the concealment of a fact from the court and the parties material to the rights of said parties, and which it was her duty to make known. Such a contract was against public policy.”

In the instant case, the releases are void because they violate the public policy prohibiting the obstruction of justice by suppressing evidence of illegal conduct that is criminal and

33

discreditable.

D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal

1. Scientology’s Contentions

Scientology contends that the Aznarans have “blatantly disregarded their promises not to divulge information about the Church and not to cooperate or appear voluntarily in other proceedings against the Church” (Brief for Appellants at 9-10) in the following ways:

(1) From March 18 to 30, 1988, the Aznarans met with Joseph A. Yanny, a former attorney for Scientology who at that time was not (but in the future would be) in litigation with Scientology.

(2) In June 1988, the Aznarans met with reporters for the Los Angeles Times newspaper.

(3) As recently as September 1989, the Aznarans met with and submitted declarations on behalf of Bent Corydon, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401.

(4) Vicki J. Aznaran met with an attorney in other Scientology litigation, currently before the Honorable James M. Ideman, entitled Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI and in October 1988 filed a declaration therein. 4

__________
4
For reasons that will become more apparent below, Scientology has not included in its litany of the “breaches” of the “release” it attributes to the Aznarans an interview with agents of the Internal Revenue Service that took place on [Footnote Con’t.]

34

Scientology claims such disclosures constitute irreparable injury because they disclose:

“confidential information about internal Church affairs, including subjects such as internal Church management, structure and activities, and information learned during attorney-client privileged discussions during the time when Vicki acted on behalf of one of the appellants [Religious Technology Center], information as to her own experiences with the Church, including her employment history, her claims in this lawsuit, and information allegedly imparted to her by senior officials of Scientology organizations when she was a fiduciary.”

(Brief for Appellants at 11.)

2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran1s Declarations

Vicki Aznaran submitted six declarations concerning which Scientology claims she has breached the “release.” However, as a quick perusal of the substance of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations will illustrate, Scientology’s “releases” are void. At best, the information imparted by Ms. Aznaran concerns facts which discredit Scientology. At worst, such information concerns criminal activity.

a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988

Vicki Aznaran’s October 27, 1988 declaration in the Corydon litigation was in support of a motion seeking service of a Summons

__________
[Footnote Con’t.] May 19, 1988. (Record No. 168 at p. 2 [Memorandum in Support of Motion for Production of Audio Tape [of I.R.S. interview].])

Similarly, among the complained of “breaches” Scientology has failed to mention an interview between Brett Pruitt, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Aznarans. (Record No. 252 at 3.)

35

and Complaint by publication of defendant David Miscavige. The facts of which Vicki Aznaran had first-hand knowledge which she set forth in her declaration include the following:

¶ 2. As one of the highest ranking members of Scientology and upon the basis of her position in upper management, Vicki was a member of the “Sea Organization” (“Sea Org”) and was familiar with Scientology’s methods of organization, authority and control. The Sea Org would send its members to individual Scientology organizations wherein such Sea Org personnel would exercise “unlimited power to handle ethics [discipline], tech and administration.” Sea Org personnel would be sent to Scientology organizations when said organization were making insufficient profits. Such personnel “can take any action they deem necessary . . . to accomplish their ends. They can control the funds of that organization and its personnel. They can remove personnel and post personnel. They can transfer funds to the Sea Org organizations or spend funds as they see fit.

¶ 3. The real management of all Scientology organizations is comprised of Sea Org members. Scientology management will designate persons to be the “figurehead” officers of its corporations, but they will possess little, if any actual power, over that particular organization. Officers of Scientology corporations are to be mere figure heads; the directors have more power and there are “trustees who are over the very top corporations who can remove directors. These trustees hold the power as regards Scientology’s money, assets, personnel, etc. The top trustees of Scientology when I was director of RTC were David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock and Norman Starkey.”

¶ 6. Spurlock controlled all tax matters for Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International/ Author Services/ Inc./ Church of Scientology of California and Church of Spiritual Technology. When Vicki was the president of Religious Technology Center, Spurlock would issue orders to her. Spurlock, Starkey and Miscavige chose the directors, trustees and officers for RTC, CSI and CST.

¶ 7. Starkey and Miscavige supervised and controlled all litigation matters for Scientology. In 1982 both Starkey and Miscavige ordered Vicki to obtain a private investigator to compromise Judge Krentzman of the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, because he “had been giving Scientology unfavorable rulings.” In 1986, they ordered certain

36

Scientology corporations to settle cases in which such corporations had been named defendants. The officers and directors of the corporations did not know the terms of the settlements.

¶ 9. Part of the strategy for the manner in which Scientology manages its enterprises is “to shield its management from legal process. Front men are designated to hold figurehead posts, while real management power is held by others outside the corporate structure. To this end, Scientology will go to extreme lengths to conceal upper management personnel from service of process, subpoenas and depositions. . . For example, in 1984 when the IRS was conducting a criminal investigation against various Scientology entities, the personnel who had knowledge of criminal behavior as regards Scientology’s funds were hidden or sent away. Fran Harris . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. Mark Ingber . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. . . . Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock took great precautions with their travels, offices and residences so that they could not be found or served.”

¶ 12 I have reason to believe that documents which would
normally reflect traditional criteria of the managing agent relationship between Scientology and Mssrs. Spurlock and Starkey have either been concealed or destroyed by Scientology. For example, at Mr. Starkey”s direction, I destroyed such information as it related to the involvement and control over Scientology By L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. Starkey and Mr. David Miscavige.”

(Exhibit A.l to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988

On November 30, 1988, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. As President of RTC and a member of the Sea Org in 1985 Vicki “attended a Scientology conference on splinter groups, i.e. groups of ex-Scientologists, often called “squirrels.”

¶ 3. This meeting was attended by Norman Starkey, Lyman Spurlock and David Miscavige. At the meeting Miscavige “ordered that Scientologists be organized and motivated to physically attack Squirrels and disrupt their operations. Bent Corydon . . . was included in this target group.”

37

¶ 4. “This order represented an on-going policy that started before 1985 and was still in effect when I left Scientology in 1987.”
(Exhibit A.2 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989

On February 8, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation.
Among other things, it stated:

¶ 1. When she was President of RTC, it “claimed to own the various Scientology trademarks and functioned as an enforcer of the ‘purity’ of Scientology as interpreted by its power hierarchy. This enforcement power extended, in diverse ways, over the functioning of supposedly independent Scientology corporations. . . “I also had access to many of the business and litigation secrets of Scientology, including its many dirty tricks projects.

¶ 2. “In 1985, I attended a meeting called by David Miscavige . . . present were Norman Starkey (President of ASI) and Lyman Spurlock. These three . . . were the managing agents of Scientology at that time. . . The meeting was called to discuss legal matters of all the Scientology entities. Most of the important decisions for Scientology corporations ASI (Author Services, Inc.), SMI (Scientology Missions International), RTC (Religious Technology Center), Bridge, CSI (Church of Scientology International), etc.) were handled at meetings like this without the presence or input from the officers of the separate corporations because the control of all Scientology was principally in the hands of Hubbard, Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock.

¶ 3. “Miscavige told the meeting that Scientology organizations had not been aggressive enough in combatting squirrels (individuals who had broken with the Church of Scientology but were still using ideas similar to Scientology).” Such persons are on “Scientology’s list of enemies and subject to Scientology’s ‘fair game’ policy. ‘Fair game’ is a policy (actually it is a part of Hubbard’s ‘scriptural’ writings) which mandates that the enemies of Scientology may be ‘deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.'”

38

“Miscavige told those at the meeting that they should take the lead from Hubbard’s suggestions of violence and personal attacks against squirrels both as written in the fair game policy and in Professional Auditor’s Bulletin No. 53 in which Hubbard said the way to treat a squirrel is to hurt him to hard that he ‘would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck” and, Hubbard continued, ‘I don’t mean thought-wise.”

¶ 4. Actions against squirrels were commenced and “I received reports of such completed actions. These actions included, but were not limited to burglaries, stealing records, and sending provocateurs to infiltrate squirrel events and to provoke fights. These activities were also directed against Bent Corydon, including break-ins at his office, physical attacks upon him, and the use of spies to infiltrate his group.”

¶ 5. Whenever Scientology discovers that a book critical of it or L. Ron Hubbard is going to be published, “a three pronged attack is set into motion. Scientology’s intelligence arm (now the Office of Special Affairs and previously the Guardian’s Office) commences data gathering including covert operations to obtain data on the author and get a copy of the manuscript, etc. Scientology’s legal staff is activated to determine how to prevent publication by legal means or threats of suit. The public relations staff are also activated … to design plans to attack the author’s credibility …”

¶ 6. In late 1985, “Scientology became aware that Bent Corydon was writing a book critical of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Therefore, the attacks of him became more important and plans were designed to meet the three objectives: legal, intelligence and public relations. This type of plan involved decision making, people and money from several of the ‘separate’ Scientology organizations under the direction of Miscavige.”

¶ 7. “When Scientology organizations undertake illegal operations, little in the way of written records are kept. However, as President of RTC I would regularly receive envelopes with unsigned papers detailing the specifics of operations targeted against enemies and announcing successful actions. I specifically recall seeing one such report outlining the attacks on Corydon on account of his book.”

(Exhibit A.4 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

39

d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989

On September 26, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. Vicki was the President of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) from 1983 to 1987. RTC is the most powerful corporation controlled by Scientology.

¶ 3. One of the “foremost enemies” of Scientology is a person labelled a “Squirrel”, someone who practices Scientology on his own and threatens Scientology’s profitability because Scientology does not get money from such practice. “Squirrels are despised and persecuted in Scientology.”

¶ 4. David Miscavige is the most powerful person in Scientology with whom and other “top officials of Scientology organizations” Vicki attended meetings “to review the status of all Scientology’s activities including its litigation and dirty tricks campaigns against Scientology’s enemies.”

¶ 6. At one meeting in 1984 or 1985 Miscavige instructed those present that “all of Scientology should be more aggressive in their fair game attacks upon and injuries inflicted on Scientology’s enemies, especially squirrels.” “Bent Corydon was a hated squirrel who vexed Scientology’s leadership by his refusal to give up his outspoken position.”

¶ 8. “Miscavige meant all types of attack be used, including physical attacks, defamation, and efforts to cause Corydon to go into bankruptcy” pursuant to Scientology’s “scripture” known as the “fair game” policy which dictates that enemies may be “Deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist, without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, lied to, sued or destroyed.”

¶ 9. Because Vicki was president of RTC she knew “that fair game actions against enemies were commonplace. In addition to the litigation tactics described below, fair game activities included burglaries, assaults, disruption of enemies1 businesses, spying, harrassive investigations, abuse of confidential information in parishioner files and so on.”

40

¶ 11 “Ultimate control of all Scientology corporations rested with Miscavige . . ..”

(Exhibit A.5 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989

In the same case in the Corydon litigation, appellee Richard N. Aznaran submitted a declaration dated October 31, 1989, on behalf of Bent Corydon, wherein among other things he stated the following:

¶ When he left Scientology in 1987 he “had been in security and intelligence operations for the most senior management of Scientology for five years.” He “reported to and was directed by David Miscavige” who “particularly detested Bent Corydon an ex-Scientology ‘squirrel’ who had defected in 1982.”

If “I was instructed by David Miscavige . . . specifically . . . “that if I could I was to hurt Corydon physically if I could arrange for it to appear justified.”

¶ “On the next occasion . . . security guards, under my direction, jostled Corydon and placed him under ‘citizens arrest1 for trespassing. In actual fact Corydon never set foot on our property not did he represent any harm or threat of harm.”

¶ “Later, Miscavige called me to his office . . . and was yelling at me and threatening me with loss of my position and with ethics conditions [discipline] for not having carried out Miscavige’s instructions.”

“The bottom line was that Miscavige wanted Corydon physically and mentally punished.

(Exhibit A.6 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

If this Court enforced the “releases,” Corydon would not have the benefit of the Aznarans’ voluntary cooperation in the form of sworn statements. Were Corydon deprived of such cooperation, the result would be “to subvert the truth and pervert justice through fraud, trickery and chicanery at the hands of unscrupulous

41

[persons].” Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654, 657, 658 [Agreement was void “as tending to obstruct and impair the administration of justice, and therefore as contrary to public policy.”].

4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation

On May 19, 1988, the Aznarans were interviewed by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for eight hours on the subject of their knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 168 at 3:12-4:27.) In addition to this, an F.B.I, agent named Brett Pruitt interviewed Vicki Aznaran for six hours in 1988 on the subject of her knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 246 at 3:3-9.)

Obstruction of criminal investigations is included within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1510 which “was designed to deter the coercion of potential witnesses by the subjects of federal criminal investigations prior to the initiation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317, 320; United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9, 20-21. Its purpose is to “extend protection . . . afforded witnesses, jurors and others in judicial, administrative and congressional proceedings to ‘potential informants or witnesses’ and to those who communicate information to Federal investigators prior to a case reaching court.” United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062, 1065.

Scientology has a history of implementing strategies to avoid accountability for its criminal conduct. Thus, in relation to

42

Scientology in United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64, 75, Judge Richey found a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510. He stated:

“When an organized group [Scientology] attempts to prevent one of its members from withdrawing from a conspiracy, surrendering to federal investigators, and detailing the criminal offenses committed by the other members of the group, plainly a violation of section 1510 is made out.”

The information possessed by both Vicki and Richard Aznaran pertains to both criminal conduct perpetrated by Scientology including the secreting of witnesses during I.R.S. investigations and the destruction of documents. Judicial enforcement of the”releases” would conflict with the intent and purpose of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1510. As was the case in Hubbard, Scientology’s attempts to judicially enforce the “releases” are further attempts to prevent witnesses or participants, including the Aznarans, from withdrawing from the conspiracies of Scientology by sealing their lips, from communicating with federal investigators and from detailing the
criminal activities of the enterprise. Moreover, where funds are provided to one with “the specific intent to buy his silence,” United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314, 318, both bribery has been perpetrated and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510.5

__________
5 Given Scientology’s tradition as set forth in various official reports and the former high rank of the Aznarans with their concomitant knowledge of Scientology’s activities, it would be consistent for Scientology to attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to silence the Aznarans. See Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, 443, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) [“[Scientology] has violated well-defined standards of public policy by conspiring to prevent the IRS from assessing and collecting [Footnote Con’t.]

43

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) bribery of a witness is defined, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person . . . with intent to influence such person to absent himself [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), in pertinent part, defines bribery of as witness as:

Whoever directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person . . . for or because of such person’s absence [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

The “releases” are intended to obstruct justice and suppress evidence. Only information compelled by subpoena can be disclosed and that can take place only after either one of the Aznarans”shall not make [himself/herself] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this
agreement.” Even if the federal obstruction statutes are not violated, the “release” comes so close to the line as to indisputably violate the public policy prohibiting the suppression

__________
[Footnote Con’t.] taxes due from [Scientology].”]; United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238 [Scientology criminal convictions in connection with the burglary of and conspiracy against the I.R.S.]; Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 [Former Scientologist falsely accused of grand theft and subjected arrest and imprisonment in consequence of application of “Fair Game Policy”]; Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra , 212 Cal.App.3d at 888 [Retributive conduct per the “Fair Game Policy” constitutes modern day parallel to the inquisition of the middle ages.]

44

of evidence of discreditable facts or criminal conduct.

5. Conclusion

It is indisputable that the violations of the releases, solely as they apply to Corydon. concern the disclosure of both discreditable facts and criminal activity orchestrated by Scientology’s leaders. It is clear that the object of the “releases” was to prevent such information from ever seeing the light of day. It is equally clear that the “consideration” for the “benefits” Scientology claims the Aznarans have received was the nondisclosure of facts which tend to both discredit Scientology and reveal that it is an organization that is, in substantial part, criminal in nature. Therefore, the “releases” which Scientology would have this Court compel enforcement by reversing Judge Ideman’s denial of preliminary injunction, are void. Similarly, the “releases” intended to prevent the Aznarans from cooperating with federal agencies investigating Scientology. Thus, the “releases” could in fact violate federal statutes prohibiting the obstruction of justice.

IV.

SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED

In essence, Scientology has sought judicial relief in order to compel the Aznarans’ specific performance of the alleged”releases.” Scientology would have the Court force the Aznarans to drop their lawsuit and to remain mute in relation to their knowledge of the wrongdoing of Scientology. Such would constitute specific performance of the “releases.”

45

Civil Code § 3423 provides that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specific

ally enforced. Scientology could never obtain specific performance of the releases at issue because, as shown above, those releases are voId.
In this regard, the California Court of Appeal stated:

“courts will not compel parties to perform contracts which have for their object the performance of acts against sound public policy either by decreeing specific performance or awarding damages for breach. [Citation.] Ordinarily, the parties to a contract, void because contrary to public policy will be left where they are, when they come to the court for relief.”

Stanley v. Robert S. Odell & Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 521, 218 P.2d 162, 169; Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253, 254.

Therefore, upon this ground as well, the denial, below, of preliminary injunction sought by Scientology is justified

V.

STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed

The grant of a preliminary injunction is a “drastic and unusual judicial measure,” Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330, 334, and “an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be granted as an exception rather than as the rule.” Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22, 28.

“The award of such relief is not a matter of right, even though the petitioner claims and may incur irreparable injury. The matter is

46

addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and absent a strong showing of need, it need not be granted. Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414, 440. Where an injunction may adversely affect a public interest, the Court, in its exercise of discretion, may withhold such relief even though such denial may prove burdensome and cause hardship to the petitioner.” Marine Transport, supra , at 335.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits. When mandatory, rather than prohibitive, relief is sought, those seeking relief must “clearly establish that a change in the status quo is warranted.” Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif.1984) 611 F.Supp. 990, 1001.

The purpose and scope of appellate review of a preliminary injunction is the propriety of its issuance:

“While the standard to be applied by the district court in deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction is stringent, the standard of appellate review is simply whether the issuance of the injunction, in light of the applicable standard constituted an abuse of discretion.” (Emphasis Added)

Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 457, 36 L.Ed.2d 420 See also Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 931-932, 45 L.Ed.2d 648.

The Supreme Court has affirmed this standard in a case in the face of a claim wherein First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were asserted to have been implicated as the basis for “different treatment.” Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 1308, 62 L.Ed.2d 454. The Supreme Court stated:

“[A] trial judge’s determination of a

47

preliminary injunction should be reversed by this Court or by other appellate courts in the federal system only when the judge’s ‘discretion was improvidently exercised.’ [Citations.]” Id. at 1307.

The Court specifically rejected arguments by the Synanon Church that review of a district court’s decision was subject to a different standard of review simply because a church contended an impact upon its Constitutional Rights.

“Applicants contend, however, that by reason of the fact that they are a church, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution they are somehow entitled to different treatment than that accorded to other charitable trusts. But we held only last Term that state courts might resolve property disputes in which hierarchical church organizations were involved in accordance with ‘neutral principles’ of state law. [Citations omitted.]” Id. at 1307-1308.

B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment

Generally speaking, for the court of appeal to determine whether the District Court has abused its discretion it must:

“Consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. . . the [reviewing] court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the [district court].”

(Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416; See, Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750, 752. Thus, a ruling on a preliminary injunction “will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had
applied the law to the facts of the case. [Citation.]”

48

International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547, 550.

Indeed, when deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court “is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.” Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141, 143.

The standard of review for an exercise of discretion in the denial of a preliminary injunction was clearly stated by this Circuit in Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328. In Chism, the district court, in an exercise of its discretion, entered an order of dismissal against the plaintiff for failure to comply with the court’s rules. The Ninth Circuit upheld the sanction of dismissal as being within the sound discretion of the trial court. It stated:

“The rule in this circuit, often reiterated, is that the trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless we have ‘a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors. [Citations omitted.] In applying the quoted standard of review, we must remember that the district court, not this court, exercises the discretion.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1331.

Furthermore, the trial court’s findings regarding disputed facts are to be upheld unless clearly erroneous. See, J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187; Fabrege Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426. Therefore, provided that the District Court has not based
its decision to deny a preliminary injunction “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact” Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th

49

Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719, 725, such that “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364, 395, the reviewing court is “bound by the district court’s resolution of conflicting evidence and other
findings of fact.” Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817, 818.

C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case

The Ninth Circuit has noted that review of a preliminary injunction is much more limited than review of a permanent injunction:

“Our review of the district court at this stage of the proceeding is very limited. . .. The district court’s grant of the injunction must be affirmed unless the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521, 523; Accord, S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945; Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130, 1133-1134, 1135 fn. 5.

A preliminary injunction is merely “an equitable tool for preserving rights pending final resolution of the dispute.” Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software. Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415, 1423. Thus, appellate review:

“of an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is therefore much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction where all conclusions of law are

50

freely reviewable.” (Emphasis added.)

Sports Form, supra , 686 F.2d at 752.

The Supreme Court has stated:

“Preliminary injunctions are appealable to protect litigants from the potential irreparable consequences of erroneously issued injunctions, not to give litigants a preliminary opportunity to appeal their cases on the merits.” (Emphasis added.)

Carson v. American Brands. Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79, 83-86, In fact, “where the granting of a preliminary injunction would give to a plaintiff all the actual advantage which he could obtain as a result of a final adjudication of the controversy in his favor, a motion for a preliminary injunction ordinarily should be
denied.” Kass v. Arden-Mayfair. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037, 1041.

Unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial judge made a clear error of judgment such as to render the discretionary denial of a preliminary injunction clearly unreasonable, the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction must be upheld.

D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways

The grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the District Court and will be reversed only if the District Court abused its discretion. Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129, 1132. A district judge may abuse his discretion in any of three ways:

51

“(1) he may apply incorrect substantive law or an incorrect preliminary injunction standard; (2) he may rest his decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction on a clearly erroneous finding of fact that is material to the decision to grant or deny the injunction; or (3) he may apply an acceptable preliminary injunction standard in a manner that results in an abuse of discretion.” Zepeda, supra . 753 F.2d at 724.

Thus, a district court’s order is reversible for legal error if the court failed to employ the appropriate legal standards which govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction or, if in applying the appropriate standards, the court failed to apply the proper law in connection with the underlying issues in the litigation.

Finally, where the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction is based upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, it is reversible. Id. at 724-725; Accord, Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701, 704. Legal issues underlying the preliminary injunction decision are reviewed de novo. Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473, 1478.

E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction

In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet one of two tests. Under the first test, the court may issue a preliminary injunction if it finds that:

“(1) the [moving party] will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted, (2) the [moving party] will probably prevail on the merits, (3) in balancing the equities, the [non-moving party] will not be harmed more than [the moving party] is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. [Citation omitted.]”

52

Alternatively under the second test:

“A court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates ‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. [Citation omitted.] Under this last part of the alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits. [Citation omitted.] There is one additional factor which we must weigh. In cases … in which a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction. [Citation omitted.]”

Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670, 674-675. The two formulations of the alternative test”represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases [Citation.] Under any formulation of the test, there must be a demonstration that there “exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Oakland Tribune, Inc., supra . 762 F.2d at 1376.

Also, in certain cases, “the public interest is an important factor.” Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, 1498, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).

53

VI.

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable

A preliminary injunction is an “an exceptional remedy [to be] granted only in exceptional circumstances where its compulsory quality is appropriate.” In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451, 454. It is sought upon the theory

“that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiff’s rights. By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need for speedy action and cannot complain of the delay involved pending any final relief to which it may be entitled after a trial of all the issues.”

Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618, 622; Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273, 276. Thus, party resisting a motion for a preliminary injunction may argue that the lapse of time between the filing of an action and moving therein for a preliminary injunction indicates an absence of any injury that is irreparable. In order to be effective, such delay need not rise to the level required to assert the equitable defense of laches.

“Although a particular period of delay may not rise to the level of laches and thereby bar a permanent injunction, it may still indicate an absence of the kind of irreparable injury required to support a preliminary injunction.”

Id. 756 F.2d at 275-276. In Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macv & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7, a case trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought to enjoin certain conduct of defendant concerning

54

which it had been aware at the time it filed its lawsuit. It waited seven months before moving for a preliminary injunction. Reversing the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the Second Circuit found even though there was not a defense of laches, plaintiff had not been entitled to a preliminary injunction. It
stated:

“Lack of diligence, standing alone, may, however, preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief, because it goes primarily to the issue of irreparable harm . . ..”

Id. 762 F.2d at 8.

In Le Sportsac. Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602, plaintiff delayed nearly one year before seeking relief by way of preliminary injunction. The trial court stated”[d]elay of this nature undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.” Id. 478 F.Supp. at 609. See, Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270, 1275 [Deprivation of constitutional rights failed to overcome unjustified delay in seeking preliminary injunction.]; Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419
F.Supp. 1251, 1255 [Ten week delay after commencement of action “evidences a lack of irreparable injury and constitutes a separate ground” for denial of preliminary injunction.]; Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845, 856 [Three month delay in bankruptcy proceeding before seeking preliminary injunction: “Such a delay negates the very purpose for which an injunction serves.”]; National Customs Brokers and

55

Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511, 1517 [While plaintiff’s exhaustion of alternative remedies “cannot be faulted the court is not convinced that each step towards a preliminary injunction has been pursued at a pace consistent with a necessity for immediate action to prevent further harm.”]

The Ninth Circuit applies the same rule. In Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211, this Circuit held that a “delay in seeking a preliminary injunction is a factor to be considered in weighing the propriety of relief. . . By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need
for speedy action. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 1213. Thus, a plaintiff’s “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374, 1377.

1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

Scientology, in its “Brief for Appellants”, asserts that it suffers irreparable injury for the following reasons:
The instant litigation implicates what Scientology describes as “complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendant’s religious practices and beliefs.” (Appellants’ Brief at 3 3.)

“Litigation of such issues as religiosity, the truth or falsity of religious doctrine, and the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices would constitute a highly intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters” in violation

56

of Scientology’s contention it is entitled to First Amendment protection; (Appellants Brief at 33.) 6
That the instant lawsuit constitutes “harassing litigation”, a deterrent to the exercise of First Amendment rights. 7

However, Scientology’s contentions that it suffers such harms, which have now become “irreparable,” in consequence of the pendency of this lawsuit, have been made from the outset. Each legal contention submitted by Scientology in this appeal as the basis for its claim to irreparable harm was submitted in written arguments during the initial stages of this lawsuit in June 1988.

2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below 17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction

On June 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Notice of Motion and

__________

6 In support of this claim, Scientology cites the following cases in pages 33-35 its brief herein: Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664, 675; Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 620, 624-35; NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490, 502; Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73; Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 460; Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64; Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296; Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 16.

7 In support of this claim in its appellants’ brief Scientology cites the following cases: Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076; Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 387-391; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 267-83; N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 431-433; Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252; Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045; Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171; Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983, 989; Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110, 1121; Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268, 1273.

57

Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Record No. 50) wherein it contended it was a religion whose “religiosity” could not be adjudicated and cited Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir. 1979) 604 F.2d 73, 78; Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. (Record No. 50 at 9) In its Motion to Dismiss, from pages 6 to 27 of that motion Scientology submitted a lengthy argument wherein, citing Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, Everson v. Board of Education, supra, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra,N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, supra, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, supra, New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, it contended that the Aznarans’ lawsuit was not justiciable on the following grounds:

  • Because it involved a dispute between a church and its members;
  • Because it impermissibly sought to impose tort liability of a religion;
  • Because tort liability could not be imposed on the basis of church discipline;
  • Because liability could not be imposed on the basis of brainwashing by church; 8

On August 15, 1988, Scientology filed a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions (Record No. 85) wherein at page 24 it stated:

“A quick perusal of plaintiffs’ complaint and the opposition to dismissal reveals outrageous and vilifying charges against the defendant religious organizations as well as the assertion of massive financial liability. . . Accordingly it was foreseeable that a vigorous

__________
8 On September 6, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. (Record No. 102.)

58

and costly defense would be and indeed has been aroused against plaintiffs’ admittedly false allegations.” (emphasis added.)

On September 19, 1988, Scientology filed its Reply in support of its Rule 11 Motion where at page 29 it stated:

“included … in plaintiffs’ complaint are outrageous and inflammatory allegations regarding the defendants which would which would trigger a vigorous and costly defense . . . [including] allegations that the sole purpose of the defendant organizations was to make money . . . The significance of such a charge goes to the very heart of defendants1 First Amendment defenses to this entire litigation, as the defendants are religious entities who perform myriad religious services for their members. . . . Defendants . . . [argue] that the complaint must be dismissed because, inter alia, its adjudication would violate the First Amendment by invariably entangling the Court into a forbidden determination of solely religious concerns.” (emphasis added.) (Document No. 113) 9

On December 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Defendants’ Opposition To Ex Parte Application For A Temporary Stay Of Proceedings” (Record No. 153) wherein, citing Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Joint Executive Board, supra . 542 F.2d at 1082, on page 8 it stated:

“In addition, defendants are prejudiced by plaintiffs’ continued delay in bringing this action to resolution. Moveover, the mere pendency of claims impacting heavily on defendants1 First Amendment rights cause prejudice to defendants. … In Franchise Realty, the court warned that where a case poses the threat of ‘the long drawn out process of discovery’ which can be ‘harassing and expensive,’ added to a large damage claim,

__________
9
On October 25, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (Record No. 133.)

59

the action becomes ‘a most potent weapon to deter the exercise of First Amendment rights.’
Id. at 1082.” (emphasis added.)

At the time Scientology first raised the foregoing arguments, the harm it then claimed to suffer was not such as to move it to seek injunctive relief.10 At the time Scientology’s answers and counterclaims were filed, it did not seek injunctive relief despite the fact it was on notice as to the harms it now claims are
irreparable. Appellees submit if the harm was not then irreparable, it is less so now.

3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm

Scientology first noticed the depositions of the Aznarans on June 1, 1988. Thereafter, it commenced its “vigorous defense” with a consistent barrage of motions attacking the both substance of the Aznarans7 complaint and the facts upon which it is based. As set forth above, from the outset, Scientology was aware of the nature of the harm relief for which it now claims the District Court improperly denied a preliminary injunction.

Scientology delayed seeking a preliminary injunction until November 9, 1989, almost one and one-half years after it commenced litigating its defense of the suit. In light of the fact, according

__________
10In fact, when Religious Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology and Church of Scientology International filed their answers and counterclaims they pleaded their first causes of action on the Aznarans’ alleged breach of the “releases”; their second causes of action are based on the Aznarans’ contacts with Joseph Yanny, reporters from the Los Angeles Times. Bent Corydon, Jerold Fagelbaum and agent of the I.R.S. (Document No. 110 at 20-22 [Religious Technology Center]); (Document No. Ill at 20-23 [Church of Scientology International]); (Document No. 112 at 19-21 [Church of Spiritual Technology])

60

to Scientology’s own arguments, it was aware of the “harm” it alleges to be manifest in the Aznaran lawsuit, and in light of the fact that it failed to seek injunctive relief for 17 months, Scientology’s delay was, and is, not reasonable. Scientology’s delay eviscerates the legitimacy of the irreparable harm it has now decided to claim.

Simply, Scientology resorted to the legal technique wherein it sought preliminary injunctive relief only after its resort to other legal techniques had failed. Failing to win may hurt, but it is not irreparable injury.

B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability

Scientology contends it suffers irreparable harm because the instant lawsuit allegedly implicates a number of asserted rights. However, in so doing, Scientology has overlooked the legal fact of life that, like everybody else in our civilized society, it is subject to State Control in relation to the Torts it commits.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The provision creates two very different protections. The “establishment clause” guarantees the government will not impose religion on us; the “free exercise” clause guarantees the government will not prevent us from freely pursuing any religion we choose. Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra . 46 Cal.3d at 1112.

The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 215, 32 L.Ed.2d 15.

61

The free exercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304, 84 L.Ed. 1213. While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88, 88 L.Ed. 1148. The government may neither compel affirmation of religious belief Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 495, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70, 97 L.Ed. 828, nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views. Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 116, 87 L.Ed. 1292.

However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403, 10 L.Ed.2d 965; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69. Such conduct “remains subject to a regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 3 04. Thus, “while the free exercise clause provides absolute protection for a person’s religious beliefs, it provides only limited protection for the expression of those beliefs and especially actions based upon those beliefs. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 884.

Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state’s interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed on religion. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 214. The greater the burden imposed on religion,

62

the more compelling must be the government interest at stake. Molko. 46 Cal.3d at 1113.

Unwitting exposure to coercive persuasion, even when occurring in a context claimed to be religious, justifies the imposition of tort liability. There is a substantial threat to public safety, peace and order posed by the fraudulent induction of unconsenting individuals into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion. Id. at 1118.

Many individuals exposed to coercive persuasion:

“develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide. [Citation.] The state clearly has a compelling interest in preventing its citizens from being deceived into submitting unknowingly to such a potentially dangerous process. [f] The state has an equally compelling interest in protecting the family institution [Citations] . . . [which] almost invariably suffers great stress and sometimes incurs significant financial loss when one of its members is unknowingly subjected to coercive persuasion….” Ibid.

The court in Wollersheim decided that even if the “retributive conduct” known as “fair game” was a core practice of Scientology, it did not merit constitutional protection. The Wollersheim court reasoned that “fair game” was to the core of Scientology religious practice in Scientology in a similar way that “centuries ago the
inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe.” Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888.

“[T]here are some parallels in purpose and effect. ‘Fair game’ like the ‘inquisition’ targeted ‘heretics’ who threatened the dogma and institutional security of the mother church. Once ‘proven’ to be a ‘heretic, ‘ an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant

63

incarceration, torture and death. [Citations.] As described by the evidence in this trial, the ‘fair game’ policy neutralized the ‘heretic’ by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. [Citation.]” Ibid.

The court stated that if such conduct were to, in fact, “qualify as ‘religious practices’ of Scientology … we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d 890-891

The Wollersheim court also held that the process of “auditing”11 was not constitutionally protected when conducted under threats of economic, psychological and political retribution. An atmosphere of coercion constructed on the threat of “fair game” if one were to “defect,” the threat of imposition of a “freeloader debt”12 and physical coercion stripped “auditing” of any constitutional protection that it might enjoy were it voluntarily practiced. Id. at 893-894.

Wollersheim, like Vicki Aznaran in this case, was assigned to “Rehabilitation Project Force.” While on Rehabilitation Project

__________
11“Auditing” is a one-on-one process between a Scientology “auditor” and a Scientology student. The student is connected to a crude lie-detector, called an “E-Meter.” The auditor asks probing questions and notes the student’s questions as registered on the E-Meter. Wollersheim. 212 Cal.App.3d at 891.

12 When a Scientology staff member received courses, training or auditing, it was at a reduced rate of payment. If the person later were to leave Scientology, he would be presented with a bill for the difference between the staff rate and the public rate. A five-year member of Scientology could easily accumulate a “freeloader debt” of between $10,000 and $50,000. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 894. “The threat of facing that amount of debt represented a powerful economic sanction acting to coerce continued participation in auditing …” Ibid.

64

Force, Wollersheim’s regime commenced at 6:00 a.m. and concluded at 1:00 a.m. It included menial and repetitive work in the morning, study in the afternoon and meetings in the evenings. When he slept, it was in a ship’s “hole.” Wollersheim subjected himself to

“auditing because of the coercive environment with which Scientology has surrounded him. To leave the church or to cease auditing he had to run the risk he would be become a target of ‘fair game’, face an enormous burden of ‘freeloader debt’, and even confront physical restraint.”

Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 895. When a religious practice takes place in the context of such coercion, it enjoys “less religious value” than were it engaged in voluntarily. More significantly, “it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.” Ibid.

The facts pertaining to the Aznarans in the instant case and the facts set forth in Wollersheim have more in common with one another than not. In Wollersheim. as well as in the instant case, Scientology raised a “fundamental constitutional challenge to this entire species of claims against Scientology.” Wollersheim, 212 Cal.App.3d at 880. In the instant case, as in Wollersheim, Scientology’s constitutional challenge must be rejected.

C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit

In essence, Scientology asserts certain constitutional claims as the basis for its assertion of irreparable injury. It contends that the district court “erred as a matter of law in finding no injury as a result of the pendency of this lawsuit and the attendant threat to First Amendment rights.” (Appellant’s Brief at

65

37.)

Scientology claims the Aznarans’ suit causes injury of an irreparable nature because it (1) will not be able to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of the practices and beliefs of Scientology; (2) the case involves complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendants’ religious beliefs and practices; (3) the case is an intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters such as the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices and the truth or falsity of religious doctrine; (4) the case is an invasion of privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists; (5) the case will have a chilling effect upon religious practice by Scientologists and an adverse effect on religious proselytizing; and (6) will constitute an unconstitutional breach of the “wall of separation” between church and state.

In light of Molko, Wollersheim and the principles of First Amendment jurisprudence upon which those cases are built, the cases upon which Scientology predicates its foregoing claims are not controlling and provide little, if any, guidance.

Scientology raises the concern that it will be impossible to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of its practices and beliefs. However, as discussed above in Section VI,B, above, Scientology is not immunized from accountability for the consequences of its coercive practices. Indeed, there is a compelling state interest in preventing citizens from being exposed to religious coercion which justifies the state’s restriction of

66

Scientology’s conduct. Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 42 L.Ed. 2d 574 does not support the creation of an immunity for Scientology. That case held that a lawyer may not be held in contempt for advising his client to refuse to produce documents in a civil proceeding that in good faith the lawyer believed would incriminate his client and the “bell” in that case that could not have been unrung would have been material protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For similar reasons, Scientology cannot take shelter behind the rubric wherefrom it asserts a claim of violation of “the privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists.” (Opening Brief at 34.) The Wollersheim court noted society has an interest in eliminating Scientology’s imposition of coercive religious practices on its citizens. Such a compelling interest overrides the above-mentioned ambiguous and broad claim to “privacy.” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 does not help. Buckley pertains to the principle that compelled disclosure of names of political contributors “can seriously infringe on the privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Id. 424 U.S. at 60. However, as here, “a compelling public need that cannot be met in a less restrictive way will override those interests.” Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 467, 53 L.Ed.2d 867. The Molko court held “[a]fter careful consideration, we perceive no less restrictive alternative [to suing] available.” Molko 46 Cal.3d at 1118-1119. At 212 Cal.App.3d at 879, the Wollersheim court held:

67

“the state has a compelling interest in allowing its citizens to recover for serious emotional injuries they suffer through religious practices they are coerced into accepting. Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts.”

When Scientology contends that this lawsuit imposes a chilling effect upon religious practice by members and its proselytizing, it cites Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 and Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra . Apparently, Scientology takes the position that any testimony about its practices will subject it to “public stigma.” Watkins 354 U.S. at 197. Simply because there may be a chance that Scientology will suffer stigmatization, due to its forcing its religion upon citizens such as the Aznarans, does not justify an abrogation of the victim’s right to seek redress by lawsuit. If Scientology wants to avoid the stigma attached to the public dissemination of its outrageous and coercive practices, it should stop them. The answer is not to cloak such practices in secrecy so that under the claim of religion Scientology can continue to abuse the rights of others.

Finally, Scientology appears to want to maintain a “wall of separation” between church and state that is absolute. Scientology’s wall would preclude the state from imposing any limitations whatsoever on the nature and extent of whatever conduct in which Scientology chose to engage. In two hypothetical questions the Wollersheim court succinctly disposed of a similar postulation:

“This religious practice [the inquisition] involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. [Citation.] Yet should any church

68

seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?”

Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888. The framing of the questions communicates their answer. In fact, the logical conclusion of Scientology’s postulation would be “a diminution of the state’s power . . . [such] that there would soon cease to be that separation of church and state underlying the concept of religious liberty.” Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704, 712.

D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment

“Initial characterizations of conduct are important, if not dispositive, within the First Amendment realm.” International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430, 438. The First Amendment does not immunize an organization from governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy simply because it ascribes religious status to itself. In fact, courts should be “cautious in expanding the scope of [religious] protection since to do so might leave the government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests.” McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, fn. 7, 55 L.Ed.2d 593.

In order to merit bona fide religious status, the religious beliefs in question must be held in a manner that is “sincere.”

69

United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 166, 13 L.Ed.2d 733. Under this “sincerity” standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are “religious.” See, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, supra; United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125. When embarking on an evaluation of the bona fides of an organization claiming it is religious, the court initially looks to the purpose of the underlying constitutional safeguard. “The free exercise of religion promotes the inviolability of individual conscience and voluntarism, recognizing that private choice, not . . . coercion, should form the basis for religious conduct and belief.” (Emphasis added.) Krishna Consciousness 650 F.2d at 438.

In Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212, the court noted that “[l]itigation of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred.” Id. at 1160. The Founding Church court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that”. . . the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion.”Id. at 1162. Moreover, in Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453

70

F.Supp. 25, the court indicated that criminal conduct by members of a purported religion may trigger “sharp and careful scrutiny of [their] activities, including [their] claim of religious sincerity.” Id. at 259.

The court in Wollersheim noted that the ”specific issue of whether Scientology is a religion . . . remains a very live and interesting question.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 887. See, Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448, 1451 [“whether Scientology is a religious organization, a for profit private enterprise, or something far more extraordinary [is] an intriguing question that this suit does not call upon us to examine. . ..”].

Thus, for the purposes of this appeal the Court ought not to automatically confer religious status upon Scientology simply because it asserts it is, prima facie, a religion. See, Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Complaint (Document No. 65. at 2-17) [“Scientology is essentially a profit-driven business enterprise” engaged in quackery and criminal activity]. Its lust for money and coercion of its members’ free choice caution against too readily expanding the scope of First Amendment protection to include such conduct.

E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits

Scientology’s conduct as to the Aznarans, as described above in Section II.B, is medieval and of the same nature as the conduct described in Wollersheim. Under the facts set forth in this case, Scientology developed deception, coercion, overreaching and unfair

71

conduct into a formula whose equation would be a phenomenal escape from accountability – both to the Aznarans and to other victims whom the Aznarans could assist if they are not silenced. The “releases” were the final end point of Scientology’s formula for coercion which for 15 years it imposed upon the Aznarans. Having abused and harmed the Aznarans, Scientology then sought to silence them for life. Scientology has not stopped trying.

The Aznarans were under a misapprehension as to the nature and scope of the releases in that they understood the releases as the only means by which they could escape Scientology’s inquisition. Such an understanding was induced by the misconduct of Scientology.

The Aznarans did not intend:

(1) To release Scientology from legal liability for the egregious torts Scientology has perpetrated against them;

(2) To allow Scientology to chill, if not silence, their First Amendment right to speak by a “gag order” [which Scientology would then ask the court to enforce];

(3) To allow Scientology to dictate with whom they choose to associate and speak;

(4) To allow Scientology to prevent them from giving aid, comfort, and support to other victims of Scientology, including those who are bitterly locked in Scientology-style litigation;

(5) To bargain with Scientology about anything other than the chance to escape without being declared suppressive persons and subjected to retribution and the fair game policy.

Scientology has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to

72

succeed to establish that the releases are either valid or enforceable. The releases that Scientology would enforce are not even the releases that the Aznarans signed. For months after they signed whatever it was that Scientology had them sign the Aznarans repeatedly requested copies of the agreements. Those requests fell
on dead ears. Since Richard Aznaran on many occasions requested Scientology provide him with a copy, the most likely explanation for its refusal is that the releases have been changed to suit Scientology’s claims. Moreover, such conduct “fits with their earlier modus operandi.” (Record No. 197 at 30-31.) This is an
example of fraud in the inducement. When fraud induces a person to believe that the act which he does is something other than it actually is,

the act of the defrauded person is void because he does not know [what] he is doing and does not intend to do this act. . . Where a person is fraudulently induced to sign or indorse a bill or note in the reasonable belief that he signing something else, he cannot really be said to have made or endorsed the bill or note.”

C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 548, 154 P.2d 710 In our case, Scientology brought intense pressure to bear on the Aznarans, who were essentially captives, for more than one week. Scientology used the threat of “fair game” to obtain from the Aznarans what it wanted. It had the Aznarans sign agreements, but wouldn’t provide any copies thereof. Subsequently, when repeatedly asked for a copy over a course of months, Scientology produced
nothing. This is a case where there is a question of fact whether there has been fraud in the inception. Under this set of facts, it

73

is a question of fact for the jury whether the releases Scientology claims the Aznarans signed are genuine or whether they signed something other than what Scientology says they did.

In Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 559, 93 P.2d 1028 the court applied the doctrine of fraud in the inception to avoid a release that the plaintiff had actually read and knew what she was signing. The trial court found that the adjuster who obtained plaintiff’s signature on the release had employed “high pressure” methods, including lengthy importunities over a period of several days, to take advantage of the plaintiff’s physical and mental condition. When the adjuster obtained the signature and left plaintiff’s house, he did not leave a copy of the release with plaintiff. The court held that the adjuster “prevented the plaintiff from becoming acquainted with the character, contents and legal effect of the instrument.” In such case, there was no assent to the agreement. Thus, it was “absolutely void.” In our case the facts are quite similar and the final determination shall be for the finder of fact.

Scientology’s conduct with reference to the “releases” is subject to an estoppel. Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 555, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529. It had brainwashed the Aznarans for 15 years. It knew they had no money. It held them captive at the hotel. It sequestered their belongings and pets. It security checked them for hours eight days in a row. It threatened them with “fair game.” It offered the Aznarans the loan because it wanted them to leave California immediately. It threatened “fair

74

game” if they failed to sign all the documents submitted to them. It concealed the relationship of consideration among the releases, insurance payment, wage payment and loan by withholding the releases on one hand and providing documentation of the loaned principal on the other. It was aware of both the releases’ substance and that the Aznarans were not so aware because it refused to give them a copy, even when they asked. Scientology intended that the Aznarans spend the loan money without being aware of either the potential obligations of the releases or, in the alternative, the potential necessity for restoration and rescission. It induced the Aznarans to act in reliance on the concealment of the relationship of consideration between the releases and the loan by directing the Aznarans to move from Southern California to Texas where the Aznarans would have to start their lives anew. Such is compulsion, not ratification.

Scientology has manipulated the Aznarans into the posture where after they spent the loan money and could not offer to restore it, Scientology gave them a copies of the purported “releases” and took the position that the loan was consideration for the release the terms of which would be effective if the loan money was not restored. They should be estopped from asserting such a claim because Scientology may not take advantage of its own misconduct.

Nonetheless, Under the circumstances extant here, it is irrelevant that the Aznarans never sought to rescind the releases. Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97, 103 [When releaser, not due

75

to his own neglect, suffers misapprehension induced by misconduct of the releasee as to nature and scope of the release, the release is binding only to the extent intended by the releaser unnecessary to effect recission of release]; Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349, 352 [Where releasee causes misconception whereby contract releases claims other than those understood by releasor to be included, the release is ineffective as to misconceived claims – rescission and tender unnecessary]; Walsh v. Majors (1935) 4 Cal.2d 384, 396 [Requirement of restoration what has been received may be excused by special circumstances when on general equitable principles it would be unfair to impose such a condition].

Since the circumstances of the inception of such “releases’7 were permeated with domination, undue influence, duress, menace, fraud and violence the escape from which was the Aznarans sole cognizant consideration, they never entered into any agreement whereby they intentionally contracted away precious constitutional rights. Rather, they submitted, one last time, to Scientology’s instructions, directives and demands. The Court properly denied the injunctive relief sought by Scientology because such relief would far exceed the status quo pendente lite. The Aznarans never acted in a manner which in any way has conferred any validity on the releases. They only sought to escape Scientology. In such a circumstance, “courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction.” Martin 740 F.2d at 675. Just as after the ordering of injunctive relief, a court must be vigilant to ensure

76

”that what it has been doing [is not] turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong” Toussaint v. McCarthy (9th Cir.1986) 801 F.2d 1080, 1090, it must be careful that a motion for a preliminary injunction does not constitute an instrument of wrong at its inception (at trial or on appeal). The trial court exercised such care when it denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

P. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans

Were the Court to reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction, Scientology would enjoy the following benefits and the Aznarans would suffer the following hardships:

1. Scientology would protect itself from adverse exposure in the marketplace of ideas by possessing the force of a court order by which the Aznarans would be compelled to remain mute and silent about the information pertaining to Scientology that, on the basis of their long-standing affiliation with Scientology, they possess. The Aznarans would suffer a prior restraint on their First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Association.

2. Scientology would protect itself from its adversaries in litigation and obtain an unfair advantage therein by controlling said adversaries access to the public dissemination of the Aznarans’ knowledge through an injunctive restraint on speech. Scientology would also control any assistance the Aznarans might be able and willing to provide to its adversaries by preventing a sharing of information intended to expose the malevolent nature and

77

practices of Scientology. Such an order would tend to suppress evidence and thus constitute an obstruction of justice and the truth-seeking function of the courts.

3. Scientology would sequester the Aznarans from participating in the core democratic functions pertaining to any judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding in a further strategic step designed to minimize liability for harm for which it is, and should be, responsible.

4. Scientology would enjoy the opportunity to avoid accountability to the Aznarans for the consequences of its conduct. Such conduct was clearly tortious, and not subject to constitutional protection. The Aznarans would be prevented from exercising their right to obtain redress for and to be made whole from their abusive treatment at the hands of Scientology.

The only hardship that Scientology would suffer from the denial of its appeal is that it would have to be responsible to its victims, including the Aznarans, for the wrongs it has committed. In contrast, reversal would result in impermissible violations of the Aznarans’ constitutional rights. The balance of hardships tips sharply away from, not toward, Scientology.

G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest

Through the relief it seeks, Scientology would silence two of its highest-ranking former members from disclosing to an interested public what they learned about the nature, beliefs and practices of this “religion.”

This would be constitutionally intolerable. “Prior restraints

78

on speech and publication are the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 U.S. 539, 559. The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, without doubt constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373-374.

It is axiomatic “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. at 269. The mark toward which the First Amendment aims is “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” Associated Press v. United
States
326 U.S. 1, 20. This constitutional safeguard “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476, 484. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to “preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.” (Emphasis added.) Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. 395 U.S. at 390. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 U.S. 753 the United States Supreme Court affirmed the public constitutional interest in being able to receive information.

“In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to ‘receive information and ideas: It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom [of speech and press] . . . necessarily protects the right to receive …. Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141, 143; Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557, 564″ Id. 408 U.S. at 762-763.

Were the Aznarans silenced by an injunction, not only would

79

their First Amendment rights be violated, but also so would the right of the public at large to receive first-hand, truthful and accurate information about Scientology.

VII.

THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

This appeal is frivolous. This is the fourth time that Scientology has litigated whether it can enforce the releases. The releases themselves, as well as Scientology’s conduct in connection with them, smack of corruption and illegality, dirty The dilatory motion for a preliminary injunction was brought 17 months after Scientology submitted identical arguments in support of other motions by means of which it hoped to eliminate the Aznaran lawsuit. Both Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra, and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, conclusively establish that Scientology is the constitutionally, and morally proper subject of a lawsuit prosecuted to redress the abuses of coercion and torture. Stripped of its rhetoric, Scientology’s position in this appeal is simply frivolous and taken with a reckless disregard for the law, if not in malicious bad faith.

This court may award just damages and as much as double costs. FRAP, Rule 38. Moreover, such costs can be, and in this case should be imposed personally on counsel for the four appellant Scientology entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. If the Court is inclined to give serious consideration to this request, appellees respectfully request further opportunity to comprehensively set forth the facts upon which this claim is predicated.

80

CONCLUSION

The Aznarans have been interlocutorily hauled into this Court to litigate the same issues on which they have prevailed three times below. They respectfully submit this appeal should be denied, if not dismissed.

DATED: August _____, 1990

HUB LAW OFFICES

By: (signed) Ford Greene
FORD GREENE
Attorney for Appellees
RICHARD N. AZNARAN and VICKI J. ANZARAN

81

Aznaran v. church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
PROOF OF SERVICE
NO. 90-55288

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following documents: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

[X] (By Mail) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the united States Mail at San Anselmo, California.

[ ] (Personal I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand Service) to the offices of the addressee.

[ ] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

DATED: August 22, 1990

LAURA PERRY

Legal Secretary

82

Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
SERVICE LIST No. 90-55288

HONORABLE JAMES M. IDEMAN
United States District Court
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard.
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

MICHAEL L. HERTZBERG
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

EARLE C. COOLEY
Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones, P.C.
21 Custom House Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

KENDRICK L. MOXON
Bowles & Moxon
6255 Sunset Boulevard, suite 2000
Hollywood, California 90028

* One (1) copy of Brief for Appellees

83

Notes

Declaration of Michael Flynn (September 24, 1985)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. FLYNN1

I, MICHAEL J. FLYNN, swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that the following is true and correct.

1) I am the attorney for Gerald Armstrong. In April-June 1984, I appeared for Mr. Armstrong as trial counsel in the case of Church of Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court.

2) During the Armstrong trial, extensive evidence was introduced, both documentary and testimonial, relating to the fraudulent and criminal conduct of L. Ron Hubbard in connection with his relationship with the Church of Scientology. This conduct began in the 1950’s and continued at least up until November 1982 as established by the evidence in the trial.

3) There was also extensive evidence in the Armstrong trial relating to L. Ron Hubbard’s background, which for the most part, had been completely falsified by the Church and by L. Ron Hubbard with respect to Hubbard’s professional, educational, health, military career and marital background qualifications and credentials. Literally thousands of documents in the form of hundreds of exhibits supported an overwhelming testimonial record that Hubbard was in fact, a “pathological liar” as eventually ruled by the Trial Court, and that he had in fact, manipulated and absconded with Church funds.

4) During the trial, specific issues arose relating to the “MCCS Mission” which was a Scientology/Hubbard program to conceal Hubbard’s control of Scientology, shield him from liability, shield him from the fact that millions of dollars of Church funds had been funnelled to him, and to perpetuate this fraud in the future without Hubbard incurring liability for it. Although the Court actually sealed the “MCCS” tapes containing such evidence, there was evidence relating to Hubbard’s control of Church funds in the trial itself and in an affidavit of Gerald Armstrong that had previously been filed in the case of Burden v. Church of Scientology. This affidavit specifically relates to the MCCS Mission. The affidavit is not under seal and has never been under seal. This affidavit specifically quotes from the MCCS tapes which are under seal. In one of the tapes as set forth in the Armstrong affidavit, the highest legal official of the Church of Scientology is quoted as saying that Hubbard’s taking 2.1 million dollars of Church funds “was a classic case of inurement, if not fraud.” The tapes also reveal, as set forth in the Armstrong affidavit, that throughout the history of the Church, while it was holding itself out as an entirely legitimate, separate and distinct religious corporate entity,

-2-

5) As a result of the foregoing evidence and an abundance of additional extremely detailed evidence, for the most part supported by documents including cancelled checks, Swiss bank account numbers, correspondence and miscellaneous other documents, it became obvious that Hubbard had in fact, engaged in criminal and fraudulent conduct with respect to his control of the Church of Scientology. Much of this evidence and the conclusions about Hubbard’s conduct were reported extensively in the media in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Clearwater Sun and additional publications. It is my assumption that as a result of this extensive media coverage, at some time after the Armstrong trial, and after the Court had issued its findings of fact, the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS began an investigation. After the Armstrong trial, I was contacted by several investigators from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Los Angeles office of the Internal Revenue Service.
6) I was first contacted by Mr. Al Lipkin, Mr.Daniel Rocha, and Mr. Al Restuccia of the C.I.D. These gentlemen informed me that they were conducting an
-2-

investigation in connection with the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard and they sought my cooperation. I told them that I would give them my full cooperation and provide copies of any documents, affidavits, exhibits, etc. which were not under seal and which related to the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. I also told them that my clients, which included numerous former high level Scientologists, including Gerald Armstrong, William Franks, Laurel Sullivan, Howard Schomer, and others would give their full cooperation in connection with the investigation of the C.I.D. Mr. Lipkin and either Mr. Ristuccia or Mr. Rocha came to my office and spent several days examining documents relative to this subject. They thereafter contacted many of my clients.

-3-

 

7) At no time did Mr. Restuccia, Mr. Lipkin, Mr. Rocha or any other member of the C.I.D., or for that matter any other state or federal agency ever provide any information to me as to the course of their investigation, the evidence that they had collected, their conclusions, or anything else. In fact, Mr. Restuccia, Mr. Rocha and Mr. Lipkin conducted themselves with the utmost professional courtesy and discretion, and never disclosed any information to me of any nature or description during the course of their investigation.

8) Subsequently, pursuant to its written policies,

-4-

including the “Fair Game Doctrine,” “Attack the Attacker” and its “Black Propaganda” policies, the Church of Scientology engaged in a world-wide smear campaign, through press conferences, news releases, and publication of its Freedom magazine claiming that myself and several of my clients including Gerald Armstrong were in a massive conspiracy with the IRS, the FBI, the United States Government, the Canadian Government, the United States Attorney’s Office, and sundry others to destroy freedom of religion in America. These claims are absurd on their face. Among the more specific and ridiculous allegations of Hubbard and Scientology are that C.I.D. agents offered or promised various benefits to myself and my clients in exchange for manufacturing evidence and in effect framing L. Ron Hubbard and his Church. Suffice it to say that these allegations are completely unfounded, totally false and have no basis in fact or reality. Indeed, the allegations themselves reflect the paranoid condition of both Hubbard and the Church which was noted by the trial judge in the Armstrong. The judge specifically ruled that the  Church and Hubbard were “paranoid and schizophrenic,” were actually utilizing the “Fair Game Doctrine” right up to the time of the trial to “destroy” Hubbard’s perceived enemies, and that it had engaged in forms of blackmail and extortion.

9) Upon information and belief, the present campaign of the Church of Scientology alleging the conspiracy between

-5-

myself and various governmental agencies, is simply an effort to divert the ever-increasing compendium of legal decisions which have reached the same conclusions as the court in the Armstrong case with regard to the background and activities of Hubbard and his Church. In order to avoid civil and criminal sanctions for their past conduct, Hubbard is now engaging in his classic Black propaganda campaign to attack and discredit those who are engaged in litigation against him. In fact, there is no truth in the absurd claims of him and his agents.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 24th day of September, 1985 under the laws of California, Massachusetts, and Florida.

[signed Michael J. Flynn]

-6-

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

Declaration of Ronald L. Wade (April 18, 1985)

DECLARATION OF RONALD L. WADE1

I, RONALD L. WADE, hereby state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personal knowledge of the following:

1. I am one of the attorneys for plaintiff in the action currently being tried before the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon entitled Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Davis, Church of Scientology of California and L. Ron Hubbard, case number A7704-05184.

2. On April 18, 1985, I received a copy of the Declaration of Howard A. Gutfeld, dated April 14, 1985, wherein Mr. Gutfeld described the testimony of Mr. William Franks, who had been called as a witness by plaintiff in Christofferson action.

3. Mr. Gutfeld’s Declaration is misleading, contains testimony taken out of context and does not accurately portray the testimony of Mr. Franks.

4. At trial, Mr. Franks testified he was appointed to his former positions as Executive Director, International and Senior Management Executive International by L. Ron Hubbard.

5. On cross examination, defendants asked Mr. Franks if he had denied he was appointed by Mr. Hubbard to a group of mission holders in December of 1981. Mr. Franks candidly stated that he had and explained that the statement was made pursuant to the policy of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology that no public or written admissions be made that L. Ron Hubbard was or is in control of the Church of Scientology.

6. Other evidence at trial has established that Mr. Hubbard has caused the Church of Scientology to destroy documents evidencing Mr. Hubbard’s control of the organization. Actual documents with portions cut out concerning Mr. Hubbard are in evidence in the Christofferson action. Mr. Franks, as the Executive Director, International, was under orders to protect Mr. Hubbard and conceal his control of the organization and he did so by telling the mission holders that he was not appointed by Mr. Hubbard.

7. Other parts of Mr. Gutfeld’s Declaration are equally misleading. Mr. Franks testified he did not receive communications from L. Ron Hubbard after August of 1981, but did testify that a communication line existed between the organization and Mr. Hubbard. My recollection is that Mr. Franks testified that he saw documents and listened to tapes prepared by and for Mr. Hubbard after the above date.

8. With respect to paragraph 8 of Mr. Gutfeld’s Declaration, Mr. Franks was told that he would be replacing Mr. Hubbard as Executive Director International. He soon found out that Mr. Hubbard was continuing to control the organization through his Commodore’s Messenger Organization. Mr. Franks testified, and documentary evidenced established, that Mr. Franks was the highest “public” official of the organization under only Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Hubbard’s agents.

9. The contention that L. Ron Hubbard’s policy was to obey the law has been completely shattered in testimony by Mr. Franks and others in the Christofferson case. Mr. Hubbard’s confidential policies setting up intelligence units and urging the commission of despicable acts are part of the record in the case.

10. It is true that Mr. Franks stated that he told many lies while he was a member of the Church of Scientology. This is not, however, surprising. Testimony in the Christofferson trial has evidenced that the Church of Scientology is based upon falsehoods that are perpetuated until this very day. As stated by a current Scientologist in an illegally obtained videotape used against one of plaintiff’s witnesses in trial, Scientologists “lie for the cause” on a daily basis.

11. I would also like to respond to the Declaration of Earle C. Cooley regarding the cross-examination of Gerald Armstrong and the claims of Mr. Cooley that the illegally acquired videotapes reveal a plan by Mr. Armstrong and Michael Flynn to take over the Church of Scientology. In fact, the Court ruled initially that the first two videotapes disclosed entrapment of Mr. Armstrong, were illegally acquired, inadmissible into evidence and that they were “devastating to the church.”

12. After an order by the court, the church produced two additional videotapes which, taken together with the previous two, reveal that it was the church which was using means to entrap Mr. Armstrong, that Mr. Armstrong did not any time seek to plant false or forged documents or do any of the things alleged by Mr. Cooley. In fact, the videotapes, as stated by the court, were a devastating example of the church’s illegal means to cover up its own misconduct. We believe that the verdict in the Christofferson trial will reflect the credibility of Mr. Armstrong and other witnesses.

13. With regard to the allegedly “police-authorized investigation,” Mr. Cooley produced a document, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” authorizing Eugene M. Ingram, a private investigator in the employ of the church, to tap the telephones of Michael Flynn, Gerald Armstrong and others. Serious questions have been raised as to how a Los Angeles Police officer can authorize a wire-tap without approval of a state or federal magistrate or judge, particularly where the wiretap without approval has been allegedly obtained by a former Los Angeles Police Officer from a present officer. Upon information and belief, this entire illegal wiretap and videotaping of Gerald Armstrong is under investigation by the Internal Affairs Section of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office in Boston, Massachusetts.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the State of Massachusetts this 18th day of April, 1985 in Portland, Oregon.

[signed]

RONALD L. WADE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
to before me this 18th day of April, 1985.

Cynthia [ .] Chandler
Notary Pubic
for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 5/11/87

Notes

 

  1. This declaration in PDF format.

Affidavit of William Franks (April 3, 1985)

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM FRANKS1

I, WILLIAM FRANKS, hereby state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personal knowledge of the following:

1. I joined the Church of Scientology in 1968 and between 1970 and 1979 at various times, I have worked directly and personally with L. Ron Hubbard. In December 1979, I was appointed by Hubbard to be “Senior Management Executive International.” In this position, I was in charge of all of the administrative bureaus of the Church of Scientology throughout the world, and worked on a regular basis with all of the highest ranking officials of the Church of Scientology, including Mary Sue Hubbard, David Miscavige, John Nelson, Herbert Parkhouse, and many others.

2. In December 1980, I was appointed by L. Ron Hubbard to be “Executive Director International” of all Churches of Scientology throughout the world. I saw an order written by L. Ron Hubbard himself appointing me to this position. The last Executive Director International was L. Ron Hubbard himself, who allegedly resigned from that position in 1966. Therefore, by virtue of this appointment, which was a lifetime appointment, I was senior to every Scientology executive throughout the world. Theoretically, since I held the post of Executive Director International, no person, even L. Ron Hubbard, could countermand

-1-

my orders. However, as I learned shortly after my appointment,  this was not how Hubbard intended me to operate.

3. Within a period of weeks following my appointment, I learned that I was required to sign and file a written resignation as Executive Director International which was undated and which could be used at any time to remove me by Hubbard. This was in keeping with the policy of Hubbard that every Church of Scientology corporation officer or director must resign in advance of their appointment and sign undated  letters of resignation so that they could be removed by Hubbard at will.

4. Additionally, I learned that I was to receive all of my orders and directives through David Miscavige, who held the position of being the direct liaison to L. Ron Hubbard, who at that time, was in hiding. As the administrative head of the Church, I actually would receive my orders from Hubbard via Miscavige and implement the orders.

5. Throughout the period of time that I served as Executive Director International, I observed the highest leaders of the Church use documents and activities relating to illegal, criminal, and tortious conduct against many individuals who have been designated enemies of the Church. These individuals include Attorney Michael J. Flynn and many of his clients. At this time, Michael Flynn was one of the three top enemies of Scientology.

-2-

6. In 1980 and 1981, I have personal knowledge of many orders issued by L. Ron Hubbard concerning attacks against Michael Flynn. Hubbard considered Flynn to be a “whore” and Hubbard ordered him to be totally ruined. We were ordered to do a complete investigation of Flynn, find or “manufacture ” crimes he had committed, expose his “crimes” to his clients and to law enforcement officials, ruin his law practice, have him disbarred and file numerous law suits or bar complaints against him without regard to whether the complaints were meritorious or not. L. Ron Hubbard personally ordered all these activities and I saw many of the orders.

7. In 1980, L. Ron Hubbard personally ordered Michael Flynn’s trash to be picked up and gone through on a daily basis. This was part of a huge investigation of Flynn which Hubbard had ordered. According to Hubbard, and Scientology policy, any individual who attacked Scientology must be a criminal. Therefore, Hubbard ordered us to do as thorough an investigation of Flynn as possible, to uncover Flynn’s crimes. We were ordered to go all the way back to his days in law school.

8. When Hubbard ordered someone’s crimes to be found, his agents would “manufacture” crimes, if actual crimes could not be found or did not exist. In fact, Hubbard’s policy on this issue specifically stated as follows:

-3-

“In the face of danger from Govts or courts there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) Find out if we want to play the offered game or not, (2) If not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks, (3) Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail, (4) Don’t try to get any money out of it, (5) Make every attack by us also sell Scientology and (6) Win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Don’t ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy’s front ranks work best.”

Consequently, Hubbard’s agents routinely manufactured incidents and created incidents so that we would have “proof” of the crimes our enemy had committed. A copy of the policy is attached hereto.

-4-

9. Once we had found Flynn’s “crimes,” we were ordered to expose them. Consequently, the Guardian’s Office agents contacted Flynn’s clients, Scientology and non-Scientology, with the intent of separating Flynn from his clients in order to destroy his law practice. Those were Hubbard’s orders.

10. It was the policy of Hubbard and the Church of Scientology throughout this time, to use the law to ” attack” and “harass” its enemies by bringing frivolous lawsuits against them. Hubbard himself ordered lawsuits to be brought against Flynn and his clients. These lawsuits were brought without any concern as to whether they were meritorious or not, the whole purpose was to “bury” Flynn in these suits. The filing of these suits was to be very highly publicized by our public relations people so that Flynn’s reputation in the community would be further harmed.

11. Pursuant to Church policy, because Hubbard had ordered certain policies and operations to be taken against Flynn, he would be informed of all actions taken pursuant to his operations. Therefore, he was regularly briefed about attempts to find Flynn’s crimes, to expose Flynn as a criminal, to have Flynn disbarred, the lawsuits against him, and other operations. Hubbard would have also been informed of the numerous attempts made by the Guardian’s office to plant spies in Flynn’s office. These actions would have been taken pursuant to Hubbard’s orders to investigate Flynn as fully as possible.

-5-

12. In 1981, we obtained from the trash, a copy of a draft prospectus for a corporation named Flynn Associates Management Corporation (FAMCO). This prospectus made it look like Flynn was attempting to finance the Scientology litigation by selling shares in the litigation. From the trash documents and other investigations of Flynn’s finances, we already thought that he would not have enough money to finance the litigation.  In fact, Hubbard ordered us to find out who was paying Flynn. This prospectus seemed to provide the answer, and it was sent to Hubbard. In fact, we later received information that shares in FAMCO were never sold or even offered.

13. After seeing the FAMCO prospectus, Hubbard issued an order stating that this proved that Flynn was syndicating litigation. We were ordered to have him disbarred on the basis of the FAMCO documents. FAMCO was viewed as the best method of ruining Flynn’s reputation in the legal community because he had engaged in unethical conduct. Hubbard further ordered that Flynn’s clients be contacted and informed about FAMCO and that Flynn would be shortly disbarred and sent to jail. An attorney in Boston, Harvey Silverglate, was specially hired to make sure that Flynn was disbarred. He was instructed to file bar complaints and make sure that Flynn was unable to practice law. At that same time, we were filing bar complaints and trying to ruin Flynn’s reputation, we had received information that FAMCO shares had never been sold and nothing was ever done with this corporation. In other words, we knew

-6-

our allegations about Flynn and his involvement with FAMCO were false. Nonetheless, pursuant to Hubbard’s instructions to ruin Flynn, we still made the allegations and attempted to have Flynn disbarred.

14. After Hubbard ordered me to fire his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard as controller, I no longer saw copies of Hubbard’s orders to the Guardian’s Office. These went directly to Norman Starkey and Terry Gamboa. Nonetheless, Starkey and Gamboa frequently referred to orders they received from Hubbard including his instructions on how to follow up on the disbarment proceedings. Again, pursuant to Scientology policy,  because Hubbard had ordered certain actions to be taken, he would have been briefed and informed about all actions taken pursuant to his instructions.

15. In November 1981, I came into increasing conflict with David Miscavige, the man who relayed Hubbard’s orders to me and everyone else in Scientology. The reason for this conflict was because I attempted to block many of the criminal and illegal operations implemented by Miscavige and the Guardian’s Office on behalf of Hubbard. In December 1981, I was removed from my position, and then held against my will and locked up in Gilman Hot Springs, California for a period of weeks.

-7-

16. While I was Executive Director of the Church of Scientology, we continually attempted to shield L. Ron Hubbard from any legal liability as a result of Church of Scientology activities. To do this, we continually lied in sworn affidavits and depositions about our contacts with L. Ron Hubbard, his control of the Church of Scientology, and our knowledge of his whereabouts. These perjurious statements were intentionally and willfully made, with the knowledge of Hubbard himself. In fact, he ordered many of the statements to be made. The principal responsibility of attempting to shield Hubbard from legal liability was handled by Norman Starkey and Terry Gamboa. I had numerous discussions with Starkey and Gamboa about shielding Hubbard from legal liabilities, despite his total management control over all phases of the Church of Scientology operations.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 3rd day of April, 1985 in Boston, Massachusetts.

[signed William Franks]

Notes

 

 

  1. This document in PDF format.