582
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11DELL 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 5
DATE: July 9, 2002. Afternoon Session.
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.583
APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
340 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 PlaintiffMR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
100 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.584
MR. STEPHEN J. WEIN
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.585
THE COURT: You may be seated. Okay, before we begin, two questions. Have you decided when you want the trial date, Mr. Dandar?
MR. DANDAR: September.
THE COURT: All right. Have you decided whether or not you need Mr. Rosen?
MR. DANDAR: No, I don’t need Mr. Rosen.
THE COURT: All right. Then I’m going to assume that — I will go ahead and enter an order pro hac vice admitting Mr. Rosen, just in case.
He’ll be admitted, just for this purpose. And I’ll let you have —
MR. FUGATE: Should I prepare an order, Judge?
THE COURT: Do you mind?
MR. FUGATE: No.
THE COURT: Tell him to prepare an order, whatever.
MR. FUGATE: I’ll do it.
MR. DANDAR: So, Judge, since we will start picking a jury for the trial in September, what specific date would that be?
THE COURT: The second week in September. Whatever that Monday is.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
586
MR. DANDAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: That, of course, assumes the motion to dismiss is not granted.
MR. DANDAR: I understand.
THE COURT: Mr. Lirot, are you still of the mind that if Mr. Dandar is removed as counsel, you are prepared on that date?
MR. LIROT: Hope springs eternal, Judge. But yes, Judge, I’ll be prepared on that date if need be.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, what I was trying to do before the lunch break was finish up on the meetings that you had with Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks.
A Okay.
Q I believe we left off with your meeting with them when things got a little testy at the hotel for dinner.
A At the Radisson.
Q At the Radisson. In my — your note attached to your affidavit, you said you met with me before you met with them that Sunday. So that was April 14th.
A Okay.
Q All right? So let’s go from then on. What happened after April 14th?
587
A Mmm —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, he met with you before he met with them?
MR. DANDAR: That same day. That is where this handwritten note —
THE COURT: Right. For some reason, I thought it was after. But it was before?
MR. DANDAR: On this particular day he met with me at the mall with Mr. Lirot. And that was April 14th.
THE COURT: In the afternoon? Then he went there in the evening?
MR. DANDAR: Then he went there.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q What happened after April 14th?
A Mmm, well, contact again — and I think I mentioned I had the one phone conversation with Mr. Minton where I invited him over to my house.
But they — they talked to me — or got messages to me via my fiancee. They would talk to her.
And if anything happened — we wouldn’t talk, we were not talking.
Q And what messages did you receive from Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that way?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Hearsay. That would have to be
588
hearsay. I mean, that would have nothing to do with Mr. Minton’s state of mind or anything in this proceeding, so you would have to, at the very least, bring in the other person.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So you never talked with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks since then directly, one-on-one?
A I talked with Mrs. Brooks. Mmm, she just told me that everything was going to be fine, regardless of whether or not I agreed to go with them or participate in activities with them with Scientology. She just told me things were
going to be okay.Q When did Ms. Brooks stop paying you your monthly income?
A Either March or April.
Q And you said before that you went to Denis deVlaming’s office and spoke with him, and he couldn’t help you because of the conflict of interest. Did you go to any law enforcement?
A Well, it’s not entirely true to say that Mr. DeVlaming couldn’t help me.
What Mr. DeVlaming did do is refer me to his brother because, again, I wanted to somehow get a federal law enforcement involved in this, since my perception was that the criminal activity — conspiracy and criminal activity happened at least in New
589
York, New Hampshire and Clearwater.
Mmm, he said that he would talk with a federal agent that he did know and get back with me. He — I guess maybe a day or so later, he had a conversation with the federal agent, Mr. Douglas DeVlaming.
And he told me, after speaking with an agent, they thought that it would make a difficult case because Mr. Minton was now on the stand lying, telling lies. If he changed his mind —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did you ever meet personally with law enforcement?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. Who did you meet with?
A I met with FDLE Agent Lee Strope.
Q Did you talk about Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?
A I pretty much gave Mr. Strope a complete rundown of the meetings, with the dates similar to how I laid it out there in the affidavit. And after —
THE COURT: Mr. Strope is with what agency?
THE WITNESS: FDLE.
THE COURT: FDLE?
A And after speaking with him, he asked me to give Bob Minton a message. And the message was that if it is determined that you have perjured yourself on the stand,
590
that he would see to it that charges would be brought.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q This is Mr. Strope telling you to talk to Mr. Minton?
A This is a message Mr. Strope asked me to give Mr. Minton specifically.
Q Did you give him that message?
A Mmm, I wrote — I hand-wrote what he said. I gave it to my fiancee and she read it to Mr. Minton over the phone.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Prince, is it your testimony here today under oath an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement asked you to deliver a message to someone?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Any other meetings with law enforcement?
A Not about this specific incident.
Q Okay. Now, what was your impression, after meeting with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, on the meetings you have just mentioned, all of these meetings —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form. What was his impression?
THE COURT: Yes. What does that mean?
591
MR. DANDAR: I didn’t finish my sentence.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q What was your impression as to who was the person who was creating the scenario that I told Mr. Minton to lie?
A Mr. Rinder.
Q And what is the basis of that? What is the basis of your impression it is Mr. Rinder?
A Because that is what they said.
Q Who said?
A Bob and Stacy.
Q All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we just — I mean, is that — your Honor, so his testimony is that at some point Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks said that Mike Rinder said for Mr. Minton to lie?
THE COURT: Yes. That is his testimony.
MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that testimony, please?
THE COURT: Mr. Prince, is that your testimony?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: If you could look at your affidavit and tell us which one of these conversations that that conversation took place.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me see if I see it
592
here. I don’t seem to have my affidavit up here.
THE COURT: You don’t? I think I have it right here, if it will help.
MR. DANDAR: Well, I have the affidavit right here. I’m sorry. I was looking at it instead of listening to the Court.
THE WITNESS: This would have had to have happened sometime after the date that I mentioned on Page 5, Line 16, Paragraph Number 11 of the 3rd of April or 2nd of April, sometime after that time period.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q After this — after the 2nd or 3rd of April?
A Correct.
Q All right. Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks tell you this on more than one occasion?
A Well, the subject of the meetings — after they returned to Clearwater with Mr. Bunker April 2nd, the many times that I met with them, the subject of the conversations concerned what they were asked — or what they were being asked to do, what they wanted me to do.
So that was a continuing theme until, you know, the point that it finally broke off, because I didn’t, I guess, qualify to meet with the Scientologists or speak with them about this myself. But it was a continuing theme of
593
conversations.
THE COURT: I believe that, in fairness, Mr. Prince may have testified to some of this yesterday, too.
MR. DANDAR: I think so maybe.
THE COURT: And may have dated some of this yesterday. I’m looking through his affidavit. I am remembering some of his testimony from yesterday.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, yesterday you talked about Volume 0 and 00. Do you recall that? You looked in the book Introduction To Ethics and you said —
A Yes.
Q — what you were looking for may be in Volume 0 and 00?
A Yes.
Q And there are a bunch of books over there. Are there any of the books you want to refer the Court to?
A Sure, if I could just walk over there.
MR. DANDAR: Is that all right, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes. By the way, Ms. Greenway asked if she could take my picture. You can’t take pictures when court is in session. So I gave her permission to come in and take pictures when court
594
wasn’t in session of whatever she wanted to take pictures for. But when court is in session you cannot take pictures unless you are connected with the media and you are a pool photographer. Then you can.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q No other books?
A No.
Q All right.
A This is — first off, I would like to say yesterday that I said that this was a crime for a person to give testimony about Scientology. I actually misspoke. It is a suppressive act to do that, according to this document here, suppressive acts, suppression of Scientology, Scientologists, the fair game law. And what it states specifically is —
THE COURT: Tell us, first of all, what are you reading from.
THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q The book?
A I’m reading from HCO Division 1 Policy Volume, Scientology Policy Volume.
THE COURT: Okay. Those are Scientology policies in a book?
595
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there a page number?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It is 553, what I’m going to make reference to.
MR. LIEBERMAN: Could we have the date on that book?
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Copyright on the front?
THE COURT: Would it matter with these policies —
MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, some, it may.
THE WITNESS: This is copyright 1970 through — what is it, 1950, it looks like. These are all of the copyright notices here.
THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let you-all take a look at it.
MR. WEINBERG: Now? Or —
THE COURT: No. Let him go ahead and have his testimony, and then before cross-examination you-all can look at the book.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So a suppressive act is someone saying they want to leave Scientology?
A Yes. And testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public is a suppressive act.
596
Q All right. That has to do with testifying?
A Correct.
Q What about leaving Scientology or saying you want to leave?
A Mmm, yesterday I showed the reference and we went through that. It’s a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.
Q This may be something I already marked. Let me show you what has been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 133. CS Series 22.
Can you identify that Exhibit 133?
A Yes. This is an HCO bulletin of 28 November, 1970, Mmm, subtitled “CS Series 22.” The “CS Series” means case supervisor series. It’s — it’s a series that is a staple or basic for persons that are supervising auditing in Scientology. And this document refers to the subject of psychosis.
Q And this document came from the PTS/SP course book you read yesterday. Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now —
THE COURT: Who is permitted to take that course? Maybe you asked it before, but, I mean, if I’m a new Scientologist, new public member, can I go register for that course?
597
THE WITNESS: You certainly could. Any Scientologist in good standing —
THE COURT: Could take that course?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q This course book also contains the search and discovery bulletin?
A I believe it does.
Q Okay. Now, this particular document, Exhibit 133, CS Series 22, does this have anything to do with people wanting to leave?
A Well, if you turn to the second page, it talks about the easiest ways for a case supervisor to detect the insane, and we go down here to Number 6, it says: “They often seek transfers or wish to leave.”
Q Now, does this apply to staff as well as public members?
A Absolutely.
THE COURT: I think this is already in evidence, isn’t it?
MR. DANDAR: I’m not sure. You told me to mark this yesterday as an exhibit.
THE COURT: Well, now that I’m looking at it, I’m thinking I read it before. But if you are not
598
sure, you want to introduce it again, why, that is all right.
MR. DANDAR: I’m really not sure.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DANDAR: I know we talked about this yesterday.
THE COURT: I’m not positive if this was the document, but I have read some of this before.
MR. DANDAR: Yes. It is quite possible.
MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem, but the next-to-last sentence says: “The insane can be helped, they are not hopeless.” We don’t have a problem with this. But the introspection rundown comes after this policy.
THE COURT: But you have no objection to this being introduced?
MR. WEINBERG: No.
MR. DANDAR: We move it into evidence.
MR. WEINBERG: It was referred to in the introspection rundown which was introduced three or four years later, this policy.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Speaking of the introspection rundown, Mr. Prince, speaking of your experience, expertise, is there any part of
599
the introspection rundown that is considered religious?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection to his competence to this because Mr. Prince previously testified he wasn’t trained on the introspection rundown and never — as an auditor never did any introspection rundown.
THE COURT: I thought he did.
THE WITNESS: That is correct. I did. I never was — I never stated that I was not trained on the introspection rundown.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, what?
THE WITNESS: I never stated I was not trained on the introspection rundown. That is false. I am very trained on the introspection rundown.
MR. WEINBERG: What he said was he participated in an isolation watch, not as the auditor, you know, but as one of the people staying with Teresita.
THE COURT: Is isolation watch and introspection rundown the same?
MR. WEINBERG: It is part, Step whatever it is, 0, 00.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DANDAR: This will kind of answer the question, I think.
600
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So, Mr. Prince, is there parts or all of the introspection rundown that is religious? A religious practice?
A Mmm, in the very first bulletin about the introspection rundown, L. Ron Hubbard describes it as a new technical breakthrough that marveled something else of the 20th century, I forget specifically what it says there. But it was hailed as a researched scientific discovery for handling insanity.
MR. WEINBERG: So, your Honor, is what Mr. Dandar is doing is challenging whether or not the introspection rundown is part of the religion of Scientology? Because if he is, I think that has already been decided in this case and it is not appropriate and we should not be wasting our time on it.
THE COURT: Haven’t we decided that — or — I don’t know because I don’t know — I saw a motion once that dealt with religiocity. I didn’t hear any of that.
MR. DANDAR: That was not the —
MR. LIEBERMAN: But you have stated several times, your Honor, that there is no question in this case as to the religious nature of Scientology or
601
religious nature of the introspection rundown.
THE COURT: Okay. I know I have stated that I have no question on the — that the Church of Scientology is a religion and it is a recognized religion in the Church. And I have no question in my mind that Lisa McPherson was undergoing some sort of introspection rundown. I didn’t know whether I said that introspection rundown is part of the religion of the Church. I don’t even know if that is a call for me to make, to tell you the truth. I would suspect the Church doctrine would tell us whether it is or isn’t.
MR. LIEBERMAN: That is correct. And the Church characterizes what is religious practice.
THE COURT: I don’t know if I have seen that or not. I know we have a Mr. Rice affidavit. I haven’t looked at it in some time.
MR. LIEBERMAN: And he quite clearly places it within the Scientology practice. In fact, every part of Scientology, by definition, is part of Scientology belief and practice and is not a matter for the Court to challenge what is characterized by the Church as this religion.
THE COURT: I am going to let him answer this. I think he already has answered it, but I don’t know
602
we’re going to go there. And certainly one answer isn’t going to get it there.
MR. DANDAR: Right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Hubbard called it scientific breakthrough?
A That is correct.
Q Did he ever call it religious practice?
A Never.
Q Did he call auditing a religious practice?
A No.
Q Oh.
A Not to my knowledge. I mean, this whole business of religion — I don’t know, you know, it is kind of — has kind of reared its head in Scientology every now and again. When I was here at the Flag Service Organization in 1979, there was a scare — a cold war scare of some nuclear threat and conscription in the Army and on and on. This is what we were told. So all of the staff had to do a two-week course called the minister’s course where you are instantly trained to be a minister. This was part of — a program which, in part, was to kind of improve or create a religious image for Scientology.
But if you will notice, in every document that Mr. Hubbard writes about Scientology, whether or not it is a
603
green —
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear this. The United States Government, State of Florida, on and on down, determined Scientology is a religion, the Church of Scientology is a church. I don’t care what they used to think, what they used to say. It doesn’t matter. That is it.
MR. DANDAR: What I’m — I was getting at is just the introspection rundown itself.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q The part of the introspection rundown talking about get some rest —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I —
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q — make sure you eat —
MR. WEINBERG: This is precisely why Mr. Prince should not be an expert, considered an expert in Scientology, because as he sits here today, he still is sitting there saying it is not even a religion or a church. He doesn’t recognize it —
THE COURT: He wasn’t. He was talking about some things that were said back in the 1970s when they were all sitting around talking —
MR. WEINBERG: He just said that — well, I
604
don’t want to argue with you. I mean, it — that is where he was going with this and that is what this — that is what this is about.
MR. DANDAR: It is not what this is about. I just asked him what I’m asking him now, the introspection rundown, the part that talks about resting and eating — resting and eating, something else —
THE COURT: 0, 00.
MR. DANDAR: Yes, those two steps.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q In your experience within the Church of Scientology, was that ever considered a spiritual or religious part of Scientology?
MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, again, this is unconstitutional inquiry. You can’t bifurcate a religious practice and say part is and part isn’t. To just even hear this testimony is an unconstitutional attack on the religion.
THE COURT: Mr. Lieberman, your objection on that is preserved.
MR. LIEBERMAN: Thank you.
A Well, you know, since — you know, people that are atheists or other ideas also rest and sleep. You know, it never came to me that this was a religious experience to
605
rest and eat.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, and in your knowledge of Scientology, if someone is injected with Valium or chloral hydrate, are they eligible to have auditing?
A According to — Mmm — the HCO bulletin entitled Model Session —
Q How do you spell that?
A Model, M-O-D-E-L, model session, a person who has had drugs or who has used drugs continuously is not eligible for auditing until six weeks after the period of taking the drugs.
Q Now, in your experience with Teresita, you said Dr. Dink, Hubbard’s doctor, came out and injected her with some kind of drug?
A Correct.
Q And she went to sleep?
A Correct.
Q How soon after that did she have auditing?
A Within hours after awaking.
Q Was that within the written policy?
A Is that what now? I’m sorry.
Q Is that per policy to have an auditing right after you have slept off the effects of the drug?
A Well, in the introspection rundown bulletin, it
606
states that each program is tailored specifically for the individual. So to that degree, if the person had to sleep first in order to get auditing, they would get the auditing, but then there is also later references in Scientology technology which state that in a period after the auditing that was delivered, while the person was on drugs, you could then go back and check those areas again to make sure that everything is fine.
Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 134. And do you recognize where this copy of this Page 258 comes from?
A Yes. This comes from the Hubbard Administrative Dictionary.
Q And what — how does it define the phrase “high crimes”?
A It says: “High crimes. 1. These consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing suppressive acts. Cancellation of certificates, classifications and awards and becoming fair game are amongst the penalties which can be leveled for this type of offense as well as those recommended by Committees of Evidence.”
MR. DANDAR: Okay. That is all of the questions I have.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may inquire.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.
607
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, David Miscavige busted you from your position of authority — your executive position of authority in the RTC — in March of 1987, didn’t he?
A Correct.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, you just got started.
Did you want to introduce this 134?
MR. DANDAR: Yes, sir. In fact —
MR. WEINBERG: We object to that. I would like to see the dictionary, see what the date of the dictionary was.
MR. DANDAR: Do you have it here? In fact, I just realized, unless you want to do this later, there are a bunch of things I marked and didn’t move them into evidence.
THE COURT: I’ll go ahead and let you do that —
MR. DANDAR: Later?
THE COURT: — later. But don’t forget.
MR. DANDAR: Right. Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Should I start over?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, David Miscavige busted you from your
608
position — your executive position of authority in the RTC in March of 1987, didn’t he?
A Correct.
Q And at that time you were removed from your post, the last executive post you ever held in the Church of Scientology. Correct?
A Correct.
Q And that post, you said, was deputy inspector general external. Right?
A Right.
Q Now, you were removed because you had supported Pat Broeker and Annie Broeker and Vicki Aznaran in their effort to change Scientology tech. Correct?
A That is categorically false.
Q That was precisely what occurred, that Pat Broeker, who had designated himself the loyal officer, was in the process of changing, among other things, the Scientology grade chart, right? That is what he was doing?
A That is categorically false.
Q So Mr. Broeker wasn’t doing that?
A Correct.
Q And you never acknowledged that Mr. Broeker did that?
A Correct.
Q So Mr. Broeker wasn’t off on his own, trying to
609
change the religion of Scientology, after Mr. Hubbard died?
A Well —
Q Yes? Or no?
A Excuse me. Let me answer the question.
THE COURT: Well, I’ll tell you how this works on cross-examination. Go ahead and answer the question, but if you feel you have to explain your answer, you are allowed to do that after you have answered it.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry.
A Ask me the question again.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Wasn’t Mr. Broeker caught in — in an attempt to change Scientology tech?
A I have no percipient knowledge of that.
Q You have no percipient knowledge of that?
A In other words, I was not there — let me — I was not there. I didn’t see him changing anything. And, again, I was going to say, I have heard some hearsay about it. Since you vehemently object about it, I won’t comment about it, but I — you know, I haven’t personally been with Mr. Broeker when he’s altering Scientology technology.
Q When you were in the RTC prior to March of 1987, in that year after Mr. Hubbard died, you became aware of the
610
fact that some point in time that Mr. Broeker was changing and altering Scientology tech, weren’t you?
A Incorrect.
Q You became aware of the fact that Vicki Aznaran was part of an effort to change Scientology tech, weren’t you?
A Absolutely incorrect.
Q And what happened in March of 1987 is that Mr. Broeker was removed from all authority. Correct?
A Mr. Broeker was removed from authority.
THE COURT: Wasn’t? Or was?
THE WITNESS: He was, your Honor.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Annie Broeker, his wife, was removed from all positions of authority. Correct?
A To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q Your boss, Vicki Aznaran, was removed from her position of authority. Correct?
A Correct.
Q And you were removed?
A Correct.
Q And you were at that time — at that point in time, you went from what you described as an executive position with some authority in the — in RTC. Right?
A Correct.
611
Q To no authority whatsoever?
A No. That is incorrect.
Q From — for the next five years after March of 1987, did you ever hold a position where someone was junior to you? You know what I mean by that?
A Yes, I do. And, yes, I have.
Q I mean, you were, what, a machine operator after that?
A Mmm, no. I worked on post-production, pre-production and post-production for films.
Q That was one of the things you did, and you were a Cinemix, was that your job?
A No.
Q What was your job?
A My job was like an assistant engineer, assistant sound mixer. Again, I state I worked for post-production and pre-production for films and videos.
Q During that period of time you were in the RPF a couple of times. Correct?
A Incorrect.
Q How many times were you in the RPF?
A I was in the RPF two times, but not that period of time.
Q You were in the RPF in March of 1987. Correct?
A Correct.
612
Q All right. Until what, the end of 1987?
A Mmm, I think it was — I wasn’t in there a very long time. I think maybe four months.
Q By the way, there is no higher crime in Scientology than changing the tech. Correct?
A That is incorrect.
Q Well, what would be a higher crime than changing Mr. Hubbard’s scriptures?
A Placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk.
Q One of the highest crimes in Scientology is to alter the tech. Correct?
A It is a high crime to do that. Yes.
Q Now, for the next — for those five years after you were busted — and that was the day you claimed, by the way, that you pulled these guns on David Miscavige and threatened to kill him?
A You didn’t mention a specific day. What day are you talking about?
Q Well, what day are you talking about when you were busted?
THE COURT: Without worrying too much about the date, the date you testified about when you were rousted from bed or got out of bed and went and got the guns, that is on the same day, right?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m sorry.
613
THE COURT: That is the day you were busted?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: That is what he was referring to.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry. I just didn’t understand the question.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That is the same day you claim you pulled these guns on David Miscavige and you threatened to kill him.
Correct?
A I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige. What — maybe you have a wrong idea about what happened there.
I came there to defend myself. Twelve people were attacking me, were trying to hold me. Because I do know karate and have a black belt in it, I was able to get them away from me until I went and got protection for myself.
Q So then these twelve people that were attacking you let you go back to your room, get these two loaded guns?
A They didn’t know where I was going.
Q That didn’t really happen, did it, Mr. Prince?
A Yes, it did.
Q You didn’t pull guns on David Miscavige.
A Yes, it did.
Q So this is the person you say you could still be friendly with?
A You know, Mmm — yes. And I need to explain
614
something here because, you know, Mr. Weinberg, you and I have been around and around on this in front of Judge Moody. So, you know, you are giving me the exact same questions and I’ll sit here and be patient with you, but I think the record reflects we have done this one or two times before.
THE COURT: See, I haven’t heard it. This is my hearing, so we’ll do it again.
MR. DANDAR: Explain yourself.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So you contend that you really did go back to your room, get two loaded weapons, and walk back and enter a room and point them directly at David Miscavige?
A No, I never walked back into a room. By that time —
Q You ran back into the room?
A Would you like me to explain it? I —
Q Explain it.
MR. DANDAR: Wait. Wait. Objection.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you —
MR. DANDAR: He needs to explain it.
Mr. Weinberg —
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll withdraw that question.
615
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you point two loaded guns —
MR. DANDAR: That is not fair.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q — at David Miscavige?
A No, I did not.
Q Who did you point them at?
A I had the one gun on my hip and the .45 in my hand. And they stood this way. The assault rifle never was pointed at anyone. It was just on my hip like this. And I had the .45.
And Mr. Miscavige, when he saw me, walked directly up to me with those guns in my hand and said, “Jesse, we are friends. Let’s talk.”
So I don’t think he felt that threatened. And I think that Judge Moody pointed that out to you the last time we were doing this.
Q I mean, no one would feel threatened when they had just busted somebody from position and the person got so mad to go back to the room and get two loaded guns and walk into a room. You can’t imagine anybody would be threatened by that, would they?
A I think that is a mischaracterization of what happened.
Q Well, my question is was there a particular reason
616
why you never told that story until — until you started getting paid to be a witness in the FACTNet case in 19 — whatever it is, 1998?
Why you waited all those years to tell that story?
A Mmm, I don’t know how to answer that question, Mr. Weinberg. You are associating things that don’t associate. You are associating with me being paid telling stories. And there is no association there.
Q Well, is there a particular reason, in the years after this alleged incident took place, that took you until 1998 to first tell this story about pulling guns on David Miscavige?
MR. DANDAR: Object to the form. It makes no sense. Telling stories where? Under oath? In a deposition? To his friends?
THE COURT: I don’t, either, because I don’t know whether you are talking about the first time he ever testified about that, and if that is the first case he was ever involved in, that is the first time he ever testified about that.
MR. WEINBERG: I —
THE COURT: I’ll tell you one thing —
MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to —
THE COURT: — don’t get ahead of me because you want to go at this witness.
617
MR. WEINBERG: You are right.
THE COURT: I won’t have it.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE COURT: I won’t have you really cutting this man off. I mean, I know you want to get where you want to go. But you’ll have to go slow.
And, Mr. Prince, whatever you told Judge Moody, I haven’t heard it, I haven’t seen too much of the transcript before Judge Moody, so I don’t want to hear what I — I already told Judge Moody this, I am not Judge Moody.
THE WITNESS: I understand.
THE COURT: If he asks you a question, unless I tell him, “You can’t ask that question,” just answer, even if you have already answered it before.
Okay?
THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s go.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You were interviewed by Earle Cooley while still in the Church in 1988, weren’t you, in relation to another lawsuit?
A I would have to see something about that. I’m not sure what you are talking about.
Q You didn’t say anything about the guns to him, did
618
you?
A Again, I would have to see what you’re talking about.
Q Well, you mention the 1994 interview with Mr. Cooley. You didn’t say anything about the guns to him in that interview, did you?
A I mean, you know, you are mixing apples and oranges. I mean, I don’t understand what you are asking me. I mean, I have told that story long before 1998 to my friends, my family, people that I know. I mean, you know, it isn’t like here is some money, let’s tell this story. I beg to differ with the way you are characterizing what happened here.
Q The reason you told the story to Mr. Minton in April of this year was to threaten him as to what you would do as to what kind of person you were? I mean, what did you tell him about it for?
A I told him that story, as I gave testimony yesterday, to show that Scientology, more than likely, will never keep or honor an agreement with anyone. It wasn’t to say I’m going to run and shoot you with guns. It was to give him an example to show him that Scientology will never honor an agreement.
Q Now, you would agree that the positions that you held after you were busted were extremely low positions in
619
the Church of Scientology?
A I would beg to differ on that, as well.
Q Now, you were — you were so humiliated, apparently, by Mr. — what you claim Mr. Miscavige did in March of 1987 that you pulled these guns on him. That is what it was about, wasn’t it?
A Absolutely not. And even as we have been sitting here, I think I made it clear to you why I went and got those guns. It wasn’t humiliation. It was being attacked.
Q You were —
A Physically attacked.
Q You resented the fact that you had been busted?
A I resented the fact I was being physically attacked by people that used to be my friends.
Q No. My question is did you resent the fact that you had been busted from your executive position in RTC?
A And I’ll answer the question it isn’t so much that I resented the fact that —
THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Prince, of course you must have been annoyed. I don’t know why we’re playing a semantics game. Anybody would be annoyed if they were busted from the position they thought —
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, that isn’t right.
I think that deserves clarification because I was
620
pretty much tired of that activity that I had been involved in, in Scientology. I was ready for a change. I was ready to be done with that position because that — that position responsibility entailed being involved in criminal activity.
This is something that I had not experienced in Scientology prior to going to Gilman, Hot Springs and working at that level. To me, Scientology was something different than what I was doing.
So, no, it wasn’t a big deal for me, you know. I was already wanting to be away from that responsibility.
But what was a big problem for me was twelve people grabbing me, because I had an earlier incident of that happening in Scientology where six people grabbed me and locked me in a room for three months, and I ended up staying 16 years. So that had precedent over that position I was being removed from.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So you were relieved by the fact you were busted from your position?
A Yes. I was somewhat relieved by it.
Q Now, you — you, Jesse Prince, dislike vehemently David Miscavige, don’t you?
621
A I would not say that that is true. I have no vehement dislike for him. I dislike the things that he does. But I don’t envy his position. He’s the leader of a religion. He has a lot of responsibility. That doesn’t give you license to be a criminal, though.
Q You spent the last four years, ever since you met apparently sometime in the summer of 1998, started getting paid by, ever since you met Mr. Minton, you spent the last four years trying to destroy David Miscavige, haven’t you?
A That is incorrect.
Q You have picketed where you have spoken vilely and obscenely about Mr. Miscavige, haven’t you?
A Yes, I have.
Q You have picketed various Churches of Scientology around the country and even in the world, correct?
A That is incorrect. I never picketed an organization outside of the United States.
Q Just in this country?
A Correct.
Q You have threatened David Miscavige in these pickets, haven’t you?
A I need you to clarify what you mean by threatened for me, please.
Q Threatened to do harm to him.
A I have jokingly alluded to it, yes, I have.
622
Q You thought it was funny?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you think it was funny when you were outside the various Churches of Scientology, including what you call the mecca of Scientology, holding signs and shouting obscenities about the leader? You thought that was funny, too?
A I — I think you would have to show me or present evidence that I was holding a sign, shouting obscenities.
Q Oh, we will, Mr. Prince.
A Okay. I would like to see that.
Q Did you think that was funny?
A I would like to see the evidence, please, sir.
Q Would you consider, sir — I mean, I think you said that Mr. Minton was the — something basically the most harassed person you’d ever seen, something to that order?
A Something along that order, correct.
Q Would you consider what you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Greenway and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Oliver and the other folks at the LMT — would you consider what you were doing harassing Scientology?
A Well, what were we doing that was supposed to be harassing?
Q I mean —
THE COURT: His question to you is whatever it
623
was you were doing, would that be, in your mind, harassing Scientology?
THE WITNESS: Well, I guess to clarify it, if it meant picketing, does that mean harassing Scientology? It has a broader meaning to me. It means I’m exercising my First Amendment rights as a citizen to protest.
Mmm, if you want to call that harassing Scientology, I call it exercising my freedom.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I’m asking you, because remember you talked about the harassment time line of Mr. Minton?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember talking about that?
A Yes.
Q And my question to you, if — if we put all of your pickets and all Mr. Minton’s pickets and all your postings and all Mr. Minton’s postings and all of the postings of these folks that have been in and out of the LMT and all the pickets of them on a time line, do you think that time line might be somewhat larger than this Minton harassment time line?
A I think it would be minuscule and it would pale by comparison.
Q By the way, are you part of an anti-Scientology
624
movement?
A I have never been part of an anti-Scientology movement.
Q Are you an anti-Scientologist?
A No, I am not.
Q What do you consider yourself?
A I consider myself in the instant case where I’m sitting right here today an expert witness concerning Scientology.
Prior to that, I worked in an establishment whereby I helped people who had been victimized by Scientology.
Q And would you consider Mr. Minton to be an anti-Scientologist during those four years that you were part of the A team, I think you said?
A I consider Mr. Minton to be an activist.
Q An activist?
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A You tell me what it is. Do you need to know what the word means? I mean, he was an —
Q What do you mean —
A — activist concerning —
Q What do you mean when you say he was an activist?
A He was an activist ensuring the rights, basic
625
human rights, that are accorded to us through our constitution.
I think Mr. Minton got started on his relationship with Scientology when he found out a Scientologist was trying to remove the name “Scientology” from a newsgroup — or at least this is the way he explained it to me. And how
lawyers and raids and things would come to even discuss Scientology, which is how I knew it from being in Scientology.I knew if you ever spoke about Scientology outside of Scientology, you would get clobbered. So to actually see people doing it openly on the Internet was —
THE COURT: That is well past the answer. You don’t have to — we have to try to get through this.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: He simply asked you to define what an activist was. And I think you have done that.
THE WITNESS: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, when did you begin — when did you begin your work against Scientology? What date or time?
A Mmm, I began to give testimony concerning Scientology, to the best of my recollection, in the FACTNet case.
Q Specifically, up until I — I think you said you
626
considered yourself a Scientologist until, I think you said, 1997. Correct? Isn’t that what you said in your testimony?
A I think maybe ’96, I said.
Q All right. So you considered yourself a Scientologist after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, after you say that you were — you said all those horrible things happened to you in the five-year period, you still considered yourself a Scientologist in ’93, ’94, ’95 and ’96. Correct?
A I think I should clarify that for you, if that is okay. I think that I still had Scientology values. I think that I still respected some of the tenets of Scientology, and I freely associated with Scientologists.
Q Well, you were working for a public member of Scientology for several years, right?
A Several years is incorrect.
Q How many years?
A Maybe one.
Q This is the job that the Church had helped you get after you left the Church where you were making $60,000 or $70,000 a year. Was that your testimony?
A I think you are mis-characterizing what happened. No, that is not my testimony. The Church didn’t help me do anything. It never has.
Q Well, just tell us one of those Scientology values
627
that you — that you continue to accept and feel close to after you left the Church of Scientology.
A That man — man is a spiritual entity. That — Mmm — man is capable of seemingly — seemingly more capable than is realized and those potentials can be cultivated and used and expanded on.
Q Any other ones?
A You know, some of the organical principles about the importance of organization, the importance of schedules. You know, these kind of things.
Q When you were a Scientologist, you believed, did you not, that psychiatric problems were spiritual in nature. Correct? That is what you believed? And could be dealt with spiritually through the religion of Scientology. You believed that when you were a Scientologist, didn’t you?
A Yes, I did.
Q And that is what Scientologists believe, don’t they?
A I can’t speak for all Scientologists. I know that, you know, as you are trained in Scientology, you accept more and more of what you read, and it’s a progression, it is a degradation of belief system, I guess.
But I couldn’t say that everyone believes that.
Q Well, you could say that Scientologists — no Scientologist would want to be committed to a mental
628
institution. You can say that, can’t you, from your years as a Scientologist?
A Mr. Weinberg, I can say that about Scientologists and anyone else. There is no one that I know that is aching to be committed to an institution.
Q But I’m asking you from when you were a Scientologist —
A Uh-huh?
Q — the last thing that you would have — you would have rather shot yourself than be committed to a mental institution?
A Absolutely not. I mean, that is unreasonable. It is irrational.
Q Well, can you think of anything worse, as a Scientologist, than to be committed to a mental institution?
Can you just answer that question?
A Rehabilitation Project Force, maybe.
Q One of the fundamental principles of the Church is — is the Church’s abhorrence with psychiatry and mental health treatment. Correct?
A Well, you know, Mr. Weinberg —
Q Can you just answer that question?
A I used to believe that is the answer. I used to believe that. But I found, from Mr. Hubbard’s autopsy report that I had a copy of, that he himself was taking
629
psychiatric medication —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Move to strike.
A — in his life. So maybe —
THE COURT: Stop. There is an objection. You have to stop.
MR. WEINBERG: It is not responsive to the question. It was a very simple question. Yes or no.
MR. DANDAR: I would say this is outside of the scope of direct and the issues.
THE COURT: It is not outside the scope of direct and not outside the scope of the issues but, quite frankly, this is not helping me any.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: It is an interesting banter between you and Mr. Prince and —
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on.
THE COURT: — this might be of interest to a jury, but it really isn’t of interest —
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: — to me.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Since you have met Bob Minton, all of the money that you have received since June, other than this apparently $4,000 that you just got from Mr. Dandar, that
630
you have received since June, July, of 1998, up until April of 2002, came directly or indirectly from Mr. Minton, didn’t it?
A That is incorrect.
Q And all of the money — all of the money that you have received in that period of time you received as a result of your work about or against or involving Scientology?
A That is incorrect.
Q Correct?
A That is incorrect.
Q What is incorrect about that statement?
A I think that — Mmm — that all of the money that I have had during those periods of time derived from those activities, that is — specifically is incorrect about it.
Q What, 99 percent of it? 95 percent of it?
A You know, I have turned over my financial records to you. I think they speak for themselves.
Q All right. Let me play you — because you asked me to — let me play you a video — some videos and maybe this will refresh your recollection. I’ll ask you some questions about it.
A All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Get the first one.
MR. DANDAR: We’re going to object. If he
631
plays the video that they would like to play from the Boston picket, I demand that they play the whole video so that you, Judge, can see what Mr. Prince was responding to in that very vile video that you may have already seen.
You only saw their version of it. There is like two, three, four minutes of extremely vile language coming from ministers of the Church of Scientology to bull bait Mr. Prince into responding the way he did on video. So if they are
going to do that, they need to play the whole thing.MR. WEINBERG: That is not the one I’m playing, first of all —
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: — to make it easy. Secondly, if he wants to do something later, he can.
THE COURT: There is a rule of completeness which we’ll get into when we get to trial. At a trial, if somebody will try to pick and choose, I’m probably going to insist on the rule of completeness in an appropriate case.
But in this hearing, if they play something and you think I need to see it all, make a little note, tell them to keep it there and play the whole thing on redirect.
632
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: Or ask them if they’ll play it all.
If they say no, then you play it.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Now, this is a video in front of the Ft. Harrison on November 30, 1998.
______________________________________
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“You want to see the other side of the sign, too? Just want to make sure you get all of the information, all of the data.
“Tell David I’m coming with a dick so big, I’m gonna knock his goddamn spine out cuz I’m black. I got a big dick. I’m black. I got a big dick.
“Hey. Hey. Didn’t that guy have curly hair? (Inaudible.)
“No. No. Jesse. Yo momma. I been fucking your momma a long time (inaudible). That’s why you got that curly hair.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you recognize yourself, Mr.~Prince?
A Yes, I do.
Q You recognize Mr. Minton?
633
A Yes, I do.
Q And you thought that was funny? Your statement about Mr. Miscavige?
A Yes, I did.
Q You don’t consider that a threat?
A No, I don’t.
Q You think it is appropriate for an expert, or anybody, for that matter, but particularly an expert on — supposedly on religion to be in front of the Ft. Harrison to be making obscene statements about David Miscavige like that to other — to Scientologists?
A You know, I think there was an indiscretion that happened there, certainly.
Q And you consider it harassment for you and Mr. Prince — and Mr. Minton and others to be holding signs like the one you were holding, “Lisa, blood on her hands,”and the one Mr. Minton was holding about the Third Reich, do you consider that harassment to be walking in front of the mecca of Scientology? Do you consider that to be harassment?
A I consider it to be exercising my constitutional right —
Q Okay.
A — as a citizen of America.
MR. WEINBERG: Want to play the next one,
634
please? Actually, let me — go ahead.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played. No audio available.)
MR. WEINBERG: This is on the same day in front of the Criminal Court Complex.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, do you remember this being the day of the arraignment in the criminal case and do you remember being in front of the complex with Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Ken Dandar, Dr. Garko and yourself? Do you remember that photo?
A I remember that photo.
Q And do you recognize that as the criminal complex in Clearwater?
A The one on 49th Street?
Q Yes.
A Yes, I do.
Q And who took that photo?
A You know, I’m not sure.
Q And do you think that is funny? “Scientology, Hubbard Third Reich,” do you think that is funny?
A You know, I think those people in that picture are exercising their constitutional rights.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for the trial team of Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you and Ms. Brooks, along with
635
Mr. Minton, to be standing in front of a public building holding signs like that?
MR. DANDAR: Objection.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you think that is appropriate?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. Mr. Minton is not part of any trial team.
THE COURT: He said “and Mr. Minton.” So I’m assuming he was excluding him.
MR. WEINBERG: That is what I did.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you consider that to be appropriate behavior?
A I consider that unless I’m committing a crime, I’m exercising my constitutional rights as an American citizen.
Q Do you believe that that constitutes harassment of the Church of Scientology?
A No, I don’t. I think if I was doing anything illegal, Scientology would have had me arrested on the spot.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: Harassment is not illegal. I guess what he’s trying to ask you is, in addition to exercising your First Amendment rights, did you consider that that might be considered harassment?
THE WITNESS: You know, and I — my answer again is no. My answer is I’m exercising my
636
constitutional rights as an American citizen.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You wouldn’t consider that picket —
MR. WEINBERG: Can you put that photo back up?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Somebody asked you — I think Mr. Dandar asked you whether or not he was ever on a picket.
THE COURT: Now, Counselor, in all fairness, that is a picture, that is not a picket. What we saw before —
MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I was asking to ask him. This is a picture.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q My question is what was going on with these signs in front of the Clearwater courthouse? What were you-all doing with these signs?
A I think we had been picketing earlier.
THE COURT: Was Mr. Dandar with you when you were picketing?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. Neither was Mr. Garko.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And whose idea was it to pose for this picture?
A I don’t know. I don’t recall. I don’t remember.
Q I mean, no one forced you-all to do this.
637
Correct?
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: Go to the next one, please.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“You work for a criminal organization. And they’re going to be found out. You take that and put it on the camera and run it to Miscavige, your leader, your guru. He’s going down.”
(End of playing of video tape.)
______________________________________
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, that was right outside the Clearwater Bank building where all the people go in to eat. Correct?
A Yes. It was.
Q And right down the street, as you look down the street, is where the LMT offices were?
A That is correct.
Q All right. And do you consider that to be a threat to Mr. Miscavige where you say he’s going down?
A No, I do not. And I think I have to — you know, because this is just a little snippet you are showing here, I think I should give the situation that was occurring.
On that very street that you saw me in front of where the Lisa McPherson Trust is around the corner, on that
638
particular day I had gone to a shop on Cleveland to buy a pack of cigarettes and go back to the office.
From the moment I walked out of my office, all of the way up to the door of the shop I went to and all of the way back, a Scientology OSA person had a camera on me like this (indicating).
I was annoyed. If that is a crime, find me guilty.
Q Now, was that your purpose when you say, “You’re going down,” was your purpose to get rid of Mr. Miscavige from being the chairman of the board or the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology?
A My purpose was to express my annoyance.
Q And “guru,” were you just being funny?
A Again, my purpose was to express my annoyance.
Q Now, was that your agenda? Strike that.
Was it Mr. Minton’s agenda — was part of his agenda to get rid of David Miscavige?
A You had Mr. Minton up here —
Q I’m just asking you.
A — Mr. Weinberg, forever, you know.
Q I’m asking you.
A He never said that to me. He never said that to me.
THE COURT: There is an answer in the
639
courtroom. It is called “I don’t know.” If it is —
A He never — no, he never said that to me.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you described you, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton as the A team, right?
A Correct.
Q And the A team got formed in the summer of 1998?
A I would say — Mmm — thereabouts.
Q Right. And the A team continued to be —
A Maybe — wait a minute. I misspoke about that because that A team business didn’t come up until after — after we’d worked together for a while and had done things.
And that concept came out — in the summer of ’98 is when I first met them, so I think it would be a misrepresentation to say that the A team was in the summer of ’98, at least to my best recollection as I sit here today.
Q So when was it?
A And I can’t be sure. It was sometime later.
Q When you said it became the A team after you had done things, what kind of things? Are you talking about like — do you mean like pickets and sending postings and things like that? Are those the things that you were doing?
A I think more like helping people directly.
Q Helping people?
640
A Yes.
Q How was Mr. Minton helping people, by standing and holding signs like that?
A Well, you know, I guess there is a myriad of answers for that. But what I meant to say, helping people, I meant helping people that had run into problems with Scientology and were not able to resolve them so that they can get on with their lives.
Q Now, where did the A team concept come from?
A You know, I think there used to be a television program.
Q Are you talking about the one with Mr. T?
A If you let me finish. You know, the reason why I can’t answer that question, because when those television series were going on, I was in the Sea Org and we weren’t allowed to watch TV. So I have a big missing section in my life with serial programs and things like that.
So again I’ll say there was some program that had the A team on it. And I think Mr. Minton brought it up and — but —
Q And —
A — but I have never seen a program called the A team or anything like that.
Q When you said the A team yesterday, what did you mean, A team? What was it that the A team was doing?
641
A The A team was myself, Bob and Stacy. And the A team were helping people that needed help to resolve issues with Scientology.
You know, just to — to show how far at the other end of the spectrums were, Mr. Minton actually thought he was helping Scientology by helping these people resolve issues with Scientology.
Q Do you remember speaking to the media about bringing Mr. Miscavige down?
A No. I do not.
MR. WEINBERG: Play that next one, please.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“It takes standing up and recognizing it for what it is, a dead, arcane idea. We’re dealing with people who are ignorant and we’re going to bring them down.”
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you remember that?
A I object to that very — I can’t object, but that was an obvious edit where you sliced two things together.
And I think you are mis-characterizing a speech that I gave for a vigil for Lisa McPherson where the press was there. I was not speaking for the press. I was speaking to former Scientologists.
642
Q Were you talking about bringing down Scientology?
Is that what you were talking about?
MR. DANDAR: We object and ask the whole thing be played.
THE COURT: I think that is fair.
MR. WEINBERG: It was a newscast, we didn’t — we can play the whole newscast. It takes a minute.
THE COURT: I don’t want the whole newscast.
Just whatever Mr. Prince said.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is what Mr. Prince said. That is all he said is what we just played.
THE COURT: Well, it did look like there was a definite splice.
MR. WEINBERG: There was. One of these newscasts where the reporter said something and Stacy Brooks said something and he said the first thing on there, Mr. Prince, then somebody else said something, then he said the last thing.
We took the two things Mr. Prince said and put it together. But we can play the whole section.
THE COURT: It makes it look like he said all that together, and it may not have been.
I think if what it is you are trying to do is every time he said we’re going to bring him down, what is it you mean when you say that?
643
THE WITNESS: Expose — expose what is actually going on.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: You know, expose the fact that private investigators are being used to terrorize citizens because they disagree with Scientology.
Expose the fact that someone gave $100,000, and it is Scientology’s policy, if you don’t use a service that you paid for, they will refund it to you.
THE COURT: Normally, when you want to say we’re going to expose somebody, you don’t say expose somebody, you say bring them down, that kind of means put them out of business. That is what I mean by that. What did you mean by it?
THE WITNESS: I mean ending the criminal activity. Ending the assault of citizens who have no way to protect themselves once they get on the bad side of Scientology.
THE COURT: When you say “We are going to bring you down,” this is your testimony, you did not mean put the Church of Scientology out of business, do away with the Church?
THE WITNESS: Right, in the illegal activities. I never had a — as I said, corrupt activities wasn’t even anything in my mind during the majority
644
of my stay in Scientology. These are things that I learned about after I got to Gilman, Hot Springs, and started working directly for Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Miscavige. I was an ignorant, blind person to it prior to that time.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q When you said in that newscast that I just played, quote, “It takes standing up and recognizing it for what it is, a dead, arcane idea,” that was how you — that — you were expressing your opinion about Scientology, that is what
you meant by that, isn’t it?A No. You have taken this out of context because I don’t know what “It is.” You showed me a little snippet. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
THE COURT: I don’t, either.
MR. WEINBERG: I have the transcript. We’ll play the whole tape because we are obviously not going to get done today.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q But — it was a response to a question, “Today they spoke out against the Church of Scientology,” and then they play what you said about it. But we’ll play the whole thing. It takes about a minute. All right.
You remember going on several trips to Europe with Mr. Minton, correct?
645
A I think I went on a couple of trips with Mr. Minton.
Q All right. He paid for the trips?
A Correct.
Q Who else went with you?
A You know, as a matter of fact, I only traveled to Europe with Mr. Minton one time.
Q And the purpose of that trip was?
A To visit with his business partner, Jeff Schmidt, to have a face-to-face with him to find out specifically what Scientology-hired private investigator David Lee was doing to try to get him to a — do a similar thing as Bob and Stacy, basically turn against Bob and provide criminal information so Scientology could use it to attack Bob Minton.
Q Now, do you remember being in Germany with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks in or about June of 2000?
A I think I was in Leipzig, Germany.
Q And Mr. Minton paid for that trip?
A I think that trip was paid by the Lisa McPherson Trust.
Q So in June of 2000 you were on the payroll of the Lisa McPherson Trust at that point?
A Correct.
Q You had just gone on the payroll?
646
A You know, I can’t remember.
Q And do you remember — you remember being in the DB lounge?
THE COURT: What is that?
A Yes.
THE COURT: What is a DB lounge?
MR. WEINBERG: It is a bar of some sort.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Correct?
A We were at a train station in Leipzig, and there was a bar called the DB Bar, which we thought was amusing because DB means something very specific in Scientology, it means degraded being.
Q And you were there with Ms. Caberta, we heard about, the German government official that works against Scientology, right?
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll play this clip here. This is something turned over to us by the Lisa McPherson Trust.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Okay, so — so, Stacy, you start. DM, this drink’s for you.
“DM, this is a special toast to you coming
647
straight from the DB Lounge in Leipzig, Germany.
“I’m not going to call this guy DM anymore. Remember what my new name for David Miscavige is, the former ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology.
“I know this is going on camera.
“I know, but what did I say — (inaudible).
“Yes — yes, this is — this is a toast to David Miscavige, also known as Pope David I, from the DB lounge in Leipzig, Germany. Up, up, up and away.
“Now, Ursula.
“Hi, Mr. Miscavige. We did a great work here in Germany. And we will finish Scientology soon.
“This is to you, Miscavige. We are so thankful that you give us reason to live. Salute.
“Pope David I. Cheers.
“Cheers.
“Just some DBs hanging out here.
“David I.
(Inaudible.)
“This is to David Miscavige in the DB Lounge in Leipzig, Germany at the train station.
“Pope David I.
“Cheers, Miscavige.
648
“Rear Admiral.
(Inaudible.)
“Listen, listen, just —
“No, just stop here now. Now listen.
“We all know in Grady’s deposition, when Grady was deposing David Miscavige, that he went ballistic over the thought of Graham —
“Now —
“– of Graham Berry spending time –”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Does that bring back memories, Mr. Prince?
A Yes.
Q And you think that is funny?
A Well, what I think you have is a home video of our trip in Europe that was never made public — Mmm — to anyone. And we were just having fun. Yes, I do think it was funny. We were just having fun at the train station.
Q Does that man, Mr. Minton, look like the most harassed person on the face of the earth?
A He does, to me.
Q And when Ms. Caberta, the German official who has — who flew over here and who is working against Scientology, when she said, “We’re going to finish
649
Scientology,” she was talking about getting rid of it, wasn’t she?
A No. I think she was specifically talking about Scientology isn’t viewed as a religion in Germany.
Scientology is viewed as a political group. The reason Scientology is viewed as a political group —
THE COURT: I don’t need to know that.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: I don’t need to know, care, what is going on in Germany.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q When you talk about the reason for living, when you-all were talking about, you know, David Miscavige gives us a reason to — a reason for living — reason to live for, talking about so that you can malign him, is that what
you-all are talking about?A No. Not at all.
Q And do you remember — it was cut off at the end.
Do you remember that — that at that point, Mr. — Mr. Minton said something very obscene about Mr. Miscavige?
A I do not remember that. But, again, I’ll state that this was a video that we made on our trip that was a private video, never made public, never put on the Internet, and it is being exploited here today.
650
Q Well, it sort of gives you a different impression about what you-all were about, doesn’t it?
A Who is you-all?
Q Excuse me?
A Who are you talking about, you-all? What you-all were about. What are you talking about?
Q You, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton?
A The —
Q The A team?
A I didn’t get that impression.
Q Now, who took that video, this home video that ended up in the LMT on this trip that was financed by the LMT?
A I think Mr. Bunker.
Q So he was there, too, obviously? Was anybody else on this trip? You have the A team, you have Mr. Bunker. Is there anybody else on it?
A Not that I specifically recall.
Q And you-all thought the DB was kind of funny because that is a Scientology term?
A Correct.
Q Now, after looking at your obscenities in front of the Ft. Harrison about Mr. Miscavige, watching this toast, you still think that he would be your friend? Wasn’t that your testimony this morning?
651
A You know, I’m talking to a camera there. The answer to your question is yes, I think that if he and I sat down and actually had a discussion, we would certainly find friendship, would be able to communicate.
I mean, isn’t Scientology all about helping people learn —
THE COURT: That didn’t really answer the question. You have that opinion and that is fine. Then that is the answer to the question.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You talk about counseling. The principal purpose of the LMT, when it moved into Clearwater, was for the A team and the people that were working for the A team to picket and harass Scientology, wasn’t it?
A That is incorrect beyond belief.
Q Okay. Now —
A I would like to explain that, if I could. I would like to explain why the LMT came here, since you brought it up, and if you would allow me to just fully answer the question.
Q So you were involved in the —
THE COURT: I’m going to let him answer the question. What was the purpose of the LMT that — what do you believe the purpose of the LMT was?
THE WITNESS: The purpose of the LMT —
THE COURT: Fifty words or less.
652
THE WITNESS: Okay, fifty words or less, and I won’t talk too fast for the court reporter.
THE COURT: That is 25.
THE WITNESS: When Lisa McPherson left that hotel, she had no place to go. She had a minor accident, stripped off her clothes, told people that she needed help. She ended up back in the Ft. Harrison. Seventeen days later, she was dead.
The reason that Lisa McPherson came to Clearwater and the reason it was there, in case there was another instance where someone needed a safe place to go where they could come and get help.
That is why we were there. And that is the only reason we were there.
And those were the dying wishes of Fannie McPherson, Lisa McPherson’s mother, when she was on her deathbed.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So all of this picketing which happened on a regular basis, correct —
A Incorrect.
Q Well, can you, like, give us an estimate of the number of times you participated in a picket against the Church of Scientology?
A Yes, I can. Let me think. Because I certainly
653
remember the first one well enough. I think I have probably been involved in maybe six or seven pickets.
Q So in the —
THE COURT: Over what periods of time, Mr. Prince?
THE WITNESS: From 1998 to the present.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So in a four-year picket —
THE COURT: Four-year period. Not picket.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Right, I have picket on the brain. In the four-year period, you say you only picketed six times?
A I roughly estimated six or seven times that I picketed, yes.
Q And do you have a sense of how many times Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton picketed in that four-year period?
A I do not.
Q A lot more than six?
A I believe so.
THE COURT: He said he didn’t know.
MR. WEINBERG: I believe he just said “I believe so.”
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, in Clearwater there were other people in the
654
LMT that participated in pickets, including Peter Alexander, correct?
A Yes.
Q Patricia Greenway?
A Yes.
Q Frank Oliver?
A I — I can’t say that I have ever seen Frank Oliver carrying a sign, picketing.
Q So you are not aware he picketed?
A Correct.
Q Of course Minton — of course, the A team, right?
A You know, I think Stacy herself maybe picketed maybe five or six times, as well. But then she didn’t do it anymore because it was not anything she agreed with, nor did she feel it was effective in handling the problem that we
were dealing with.Q Well, let me ask you this. Do you remember that on September 2, 1998 you and Mr. Minton participated in a picket in Boston at the Boston Airport?
A At the Boston Airport? We — I think you have that in complete reverse. Scientologists picketed us at the airport.
Q Do you have signs, “Scientology, The Third Reich”?
A Do I have signs?
Q Did you-all, you and/or Mr. Minton?
655
A Mmm, it’s a possibility. I don’t know.
Q In September of ’98 did you and Mr. Minton picket in front of the Church of Scientology in Boston?
A That is possible.
Q Well, that is when he was actually arrested for assault and battery. Right?
A Correct.
Q In October of 1998 did you picket with Mr. Minton in front of the Church of Scientology in Boston?
A It’s possible.
Q You remember several pickets in Boston in October of ’98 with one of Mr. — one with Mr. Minton and one with Ms. Brooks?
A I don’t remember that specifically, no.
THE COURT: Tell me why we have to spend so much times on these pickets.
MR. WEINBERG: Because, your Honor, it — it — it demonstrates — first of all, it puts the lie to what we’ve heard all of the way through —
THE COURT: But I know that this man has been involved in pickets.
MR. WEINBERG: It is way beyond that, your Honor. I mean, really —
THE COURT: Pardon?
MR. WEINBERG: It is way beyond that. You have
656
before you a harassment time line. And Mr. Dandar has spent literally 28 days suggesting that somehow Mr. Minton was harassed to the point where — where, for reasons that don’t make any sense to me, for that purpose he would come in and incriminate himself.
And the fact is — we’re not playing all of the pickets. But when you see these clips, most of which we got from the Lisa McPherson Trust in these videos that were just turned over, you will see what was really — what was happening here in Clearwater.
THE COURT: I have no doubt that at the LMT Trust they had very little use, if any, for the Church of Scientology. And they picketed them fairly regularly. Quite frankly, if they had fallen on their face, they wouldn’t have cared; that they were out, in essence, to undo what they perceived to be the bad things that they perceived the Church of Scientology did. I don’t have any doubt about that.
I think the record is clear. So I don’t know why we keep going over those things.
There are things that are really critical to this hearing. And I don’t think those are it.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean —
657
THE COURT: It might be important to the counterclaim, but not to this hearing.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, if you rely on, for example, what Peter Alexander said, he said he didn’t have anything — or essentially nothing to do with it. You’ll see essentially the opposite.
You have heard that somehow Mr. Minton was harassed. And you’re going to see what was really going on, that the Church was harassed beyond comprehension.
THE COURT: I have no doubt Mr. Minton harassed the Church, as well as the Church harassed Mr. Minton. It is just that simple.
MR. WEINBERG: But nothing is more — well, can I proceed with my cross-examination?
THE COURT: Yes. You may.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You went on the Internet, as well, didn’t you?
A I have been on the Internet. Yes, I have.
Q You made postings on the Internet?
A Yes, I have.
Q In that Leipzig toast you — instead of using the name “David Miscavige,” you actually said “Miss Cabbage,” didn’t you? That was a little joke, wasn’t it?
658
A Did I say that?
Q I’m asking you.
A I thought I said “Miscavige.”
MR. DANDAR: I think we need to hear the video, rather than someone’s transcript.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m going to show you a posting.
THE COURT: In a posting we have heard him called Rear Admiral. We know what that means. And we know they called him Miss Cabbage. And they don’t speak kindly of David Miscavige.
MR. WEINBERG: I understand that. And I’m going to show him, have him identify, his Internet postings.
A I will admit — I have said that before, Miss Cabbage. I just don’t know that — if that is what you are seeing there.
MR. WEINBERG: Could I stand up here with Mr. Prince?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. WEINBERG: I have no other copies.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea what this is.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This is your postings, isn’t it?
A Excuse me?
Q This is your postings?
659
A I don’t think so. I think it is a fictitious document created —
Q So you didn’t send a posting that said:
“Too bad, Little Miss Cabbage has a corncob up your ass, 724365. I know the feeling. That is why I have him reeling, spending money like a bitch kicked from a pimp. Roll on, ho, big daddy can see you. Jesse.”
A Yes, correct. But that is a fictitious document that was created for the purpose of — to malign me.
Q To malign you?
A Yes.
Q But you have used Miss Cabbage?
A Yes, I’ll admit it. Freely admit it.
MR. DANDAR: Objection. This does not have the normal E-Mail headers on it that you would find if it was an original document, instead of something that someone altered.
A I don’t even know who Robert is.
THE COURT: I don’t know. If he can’t authenticate that, I don’t know whether — I don’t know whether it is in or not. At the top it says
“Spread the word, bitch.”
Then it goes on to some other comments. And that is not the way an E-Mail normally —
MR. WEINBERG: It is not an E-Mail. It’s a
660
posting.
THE COURT: Well, the same thing. I don’t know. It would seem like this Jesse Prince, Jesse77@GTE.net would be Mr. Prince’s — that would be — is that what you go by?
THE WITNESS: I had that in 1998, I think, when I had a particular type of computer, I used to have that address. But as I sit here today, I don’t know what name — the name Robert.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, when you use the word “Miss Cabbage,” what do you mean?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. That is not his E-Mail.
THE COURT: No, he admitted that he has called David Miscavige Miss Cabbage.
A It’s an obvious derogatory use of Miscavige.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And derogatory in — I mean, in what context did you use it when you used it?
A I don’t remember. I just know that — you know —
I have said that before. I admit to it.
Q Now, let me show you — see if you recognize this posting. Or is this another fictitious one?
MR. WEINBERG: What will this be?
661
THE CLERK: 219.
MR. DANDAR: What exhibit number is that?
MR. WEINBERG: 219.
THE COURT: The one before that was 2-what?
MR. WEINBERG: 218.
THE COURT: That did not come in because —
MR. WEINBERG: He said he couldn’t authenticate it.
THE COURT: So that is not in evidence. That is Number 218. This one you just gave us is 219?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you make that posting?
A Yes, I did.
Q And do you consider that to be a — a posting that would indicate a derogatory view toward Mr. Miscavige and the religion of Scientology?
A Mmm, I think that this posting is a result of the Scientology operations being run on me.
While I’m trying to testify in a court in front of a judge in Denver, Scientology hired a prostitute, had a deep undercover agent, Laura Terepin, working on me, helping me with the deposition, saying there are people other than
662
who they are. You know, this is an annoyance response to what had been happening to me. You see I clearly speak about private investigators following me.
In Denver, very strange things happened.
Q What do you mean, they hired a prostitute?
A A prostitute.
You know, this guy from Denver — there was a private investigative agency in Denver that was watching me. He brought a woman who said it was his sister, who was a whore. She got a room directly across the street from my — not across the street, across the hall from my room in the hotel that I was staying in.
And when I came out — and she was a beautiful woman, you know. “Oh, can you help me get my key,” on and on and start this conversation.
This guy says, “This is my sister. We’re just in town.”
Suitable guise. Mr. Sharp will explain it to you. And they started this whole routine of, “Come on. Party with us tonight. We’ve got drugs, we have this. We’ve got whatever.”
I’m supposed to testify. I literally had to get rid of them.
The other person, Laura Terepin was — her real name wasn’t Laura Terepin.
Jolie Steckart, specifically paid by Scientology
663
to infiltrate Mr. Dan Leipold’s office as I sat there writing my declaration for his case.
It was these kind of things that annoyed me, and I would write these things.
Q So when this hooker came to your room, you told her to leave?
A Yes.
Q Or did you —
A We were at the bar. And then she wanted to come to the room. I’m like, “No, I have to testify.”
Q But I think you testified previously that she actually — you let her come to your room and you did something with her. Right?
A No. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I — I think that you are fabricating that.
Q Now, when you say in the first sentence: “It seems some people (Miscavige) just don’t have the guts to quit when it’s over,” what did you mean by that?
A What I meant specifically by that is that I came into the case — the FACTNet case — Scientology had brought an action against FACTNet for copyright — certain copyright violations.
And — Mmm — I — I remember vividly the whole issue of copyrights in Scientology. I have given a — a detailed affidavit about it.
But the fact of the matter is the copyrights — or
664
at least some of them — were completely bogus. And the filings of the copyrights were filed under false premises.
I did an affidavit against that concerning that — concerning that naming specifically the people that were involved. Another officer, staff member, Pat Brice, was involved, because after Mr. Miscavige dismantled the Guardian’s Office, there was always a section in Scientology, according to its own policy, to register trademarks and copyrights all of the time.
Q That is what you meant —
A Excuse me I’m still talking. And they let that lapse a period of time. So you had a large section of materials that they claim copyright protection for which, in fact, they did not have. And I was able to identify what that was.
Q So that is what you meant when you said, “When it’s over, they just don’t have the guts to know when it’s over”?
A Correct. They submit false documents to the Court. I point out to the Court that the documents are false and show them how, is specifically what I mean there.
Q The third paragraph, the last sentence, where you say: “Can’t you just –” talking about Miscavige now, “Can’t you just take it like a man? Soon you’ll be in a place where you’ll be taking it like a man regularly,” that
665
is sort of like the Miss Cabbage thing, you’re talking about him being in jail and sexually assaulted?
A I’m talking about him being incarcerated for being involved in criminal activity.
THE COURT: Was this a posting to David Miscavige, or somebody else?
THE WITNESS: No. It was that newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Let me show you another one. You did hundreds of these things?
A I don’t think so.
Q You just felt compelled, as an expert, to go on this alt.religion.scientology and say obscene things about David Miscavige?
A At the time of these writings, I was not operating — I don’t think I was — I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t think I was an expert in this — I think I came in here in December of ’99 when —
THE COURT: I mean, there are people that learn things from this case. Mr. Prince, if you are going to ever testify in another case, you ought to learn not to post things on an Internet, especially not to be involved in vulgar demonstrations. They’ll always come back to haunt you in a court proceeding.
666
Just like I hope Mr. Dandar learned, whether you call it picket or vigil, if you are a lawyer, you ought not to be there.
There are certain things you need to have learned. I hope you learned that.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that is a true statement. I have learned that from Judge Moody. He taught me quite a bit about how I needed to act in relationship to this.
And you are right, I have had some indiscretions. All right, if we need to talk about that, we will.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I showed you what I marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 220. Do you see that, Mr. Prince?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you remember writing that open letter to David Miscavige?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: That is a yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m sorry. Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And — and this is when you are definitely involved as an expert, you already worked on Wollersheim, you already reviewed the PC folders for Mr. Dandar.
667
Correct?
A Quite possibly I’ll agree with you there.
Q And so you say in the first paragraph: “How desperate you must feel. If you sit quietly and listen carefully, you will hear it.”
MR. DANDAR: Objection. I need to have the question asked of the witness to identify this document and make sure it is his.
MR. WEINBERG: He just did.
A This is my document. Yes.
MR. DANDAR: It doesn’t have headers on it. That is all.
THE COURT: Well, he has identified it, so —
MR. DANDAR: All right.
A Yes.
THE COURT: You are introducing this?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. WEINBERG: And I —
THE COURT: Honestly, I’ll tell you the same thing, I don’t need you to read it to me. If there is some part you want to point to —
MR. WEINBERG: Really, the first paragraph and last paragraph.
THE COURT: Okay.
668
A Yes, I wrote — I wrote the first paragraph, all of the paragraphs in the middle, all of the way to the end.
And I think if you read this whole thing, you’ll see that I’m upset, I’m very peeved over the fact on Page 2, second paragraph, that —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I didn’t ask about Page 2. I asked about the first paragraph. That is all I asked you.
A Oh, okay.
Q And the last paragraph. You wrote that, where you quote the Bible?
A Correct.
Q And the reason for quoting this passage from Revelations about “Avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth” was what?
A Well, you know, if you know this passage, these are the saints that died for righteousness but evil and corruption carries on. And when the fifth seal is opened, biblically speaking, the saints’ blood will be avenged.
This is specifically what I’m talking about. And how this relates to Miscavige and Scientology is the corruption — the agonizing activity that I had to go through to deal with my children, my father, old girlfriends, Scientology did their noisy investigation on me.
669
I wish I would have had this document when Mr. Dandar was asking me do you remember noisy investigations. They ran around to my entire family. I had to go to Chicago, I had to go to Minneapolis, to Memphis, Tennessee, to deal with friends and associates and family as a result of Scientology doing their, quote/unquote, noisy investigation, spreading lies and false information about me.
THE COURT: Are you done with Number 220? We need to take our break.
MR. WEINBERG: We offer 220. And I do also offer 219, the one before that.
THE COURT: That will be received, too. And we’ll go ahead and take our afternoon break. It is 25 after. A 20-minute break.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.
(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:25 to 3:50.)
______________________________________THE COURT: You may continue.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you. At the break I had one more of these things I was going to mark. I’ll go on. That is 221.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recognize Defense Exhibit 221 as a posting which you made on or about August 6 of
670
1998?
A If you’ll give me just one minute —
Q Sure.
A — to review this document, please, I’ll indicate it for you.Okay, yes. I do remember this document.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll offer this, your Honor. I have a couple questions to ask on it.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, this is one of the first postings you made after you had joined the ranks of working against Scientology, correct?
A I would hardly characterize it as that. But this is one of the first postings that I made on the Internet concerning Scientology. Yes.
Q All right. Now, in that first paragraph you say, second sentence: “You know, I just can’t refer to Scientology as a church in any way. It would be an insult to all religions.” Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And that is how you feel today, isn’t it?
A You know, it is not. And I can explain to you why.
Q You don’t need to.
671
A Okay. Then I have answered the question.
Q So you think it’s a church?
A Correct.
Q So you just sent this out of some hatred?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. He didn’t want him to explain it. Now he’s asking him. So let the man explain his answer.
THE COURT: Well, I think that was a different question. And I think that Mr. Prince is capable of answering that question, then I think he can explain it.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You sent this out of some hatred for Scientology?
A Mmm, no, sir.
Q Now, if you go to the fourth paragraph where it says, I quote:
“The bottom line is that the hierarchy of Scientology is composed of people who are very, very, very mentally ill, sick people of the worst sort. Why? Because they are sick and don’t know it. In all honesty, I hope to reach them so they can wake up and start getting well like I have and others have.”
You wrote that, right?
A Correct.
Q Wasn’t that what you have, in essence, been doing for the last four years, trying to get rid of the hierarchy
672
of Scientology, including David Miscavige?
A You know, that is not exactly what I say here, to get rid of those people. I said I hope that I could reach them so that they can wake up and start getting well themselves.
Q Now, you — the truth is, isn’t it, Mr. Prince, that you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, the A team, had a ball with regard to all this picketing you-all participate in over the last four years?
A I’m sorry, I hardly can agree to that, Mr. Weinberg. I wouldn’t call it a ball.
Q You had a lot of fun doing it, wouldn’t you say?
A I wouldn’t say that either, Mr. Weinberg.
Q You remember the first time that you went to New Hampshire and — and — and encountered picketing in New Hampshire?
A Yes, when Scientologists came in and picketed Mr. Minton’s home.
Q Right. And that was on Mr. Minton’s — that was on Ms. Brooks’ harassment time line. Right?
A It very well could have been. Sure.
Q And do you remember that you were there with Mr. Minton and that you-all were laughing and giggling and making fun of the Scientologists, the few that came by in the cars? You called it a drive-by —
673
A The picketers, yes, it was amusing because the Scientologists came by and stood in the road with their signs, and it is quite a narrow road up in New Hampshire, there aren’t sidewalks where Mr. Minton lives. So a state trooper came and asked them not to stand in the road because it was dangerous. It was actually kind of a blind curve by Mr. Minton’s house that makes it dangerous, being there are no sidewalks.
And what was particularly amusing about what the Scientologists resorted to at that point is that they — Mmm — went around and pulled their cars way back, then took their picket signs out the window, because they were too big to stick through the window, and they held them outside of the car and drove back and forth. I thought that was pretty pathetic.
Q And you and Mr. Minton had anti-Scientology signs, correct?
A Mr. Minton had signs.
Q You did, too?
A No. I never owned a picket sign myself.
Q You never held a picket sign?
A I never owned —
Q I didn’t ask you whether you owned it.
A I’m sorry.
Q You had a sign. There were signs there that you
674
and Mr. Minton had, correct? Anti-Scientology signs?
A That may or may not be correct. I don’t specifically recall.
Q All right. Do you remember doing a posting with regard to that incident that appears on the harassment time line?
A I do. But — but, Mr. Weinberg, I have to say this because, you know, you selectively are taking paragraphs out of these things and you are painting a picture here.
But really what this is about is — this last thing you handed me is about trying to help these people. I’m telling the story about something that happened to Marty Rathbun, something that might have had a psychological
impact on him that he would need help resolving.Q But that wasn’t my question. All my question was, you did another posting about this incident which appears on Mr. Minton’s harassment time line in front of his house in 1998. Correct?
A You know, I need that time line right here. I mean, I’m saying it’s possible. But if you want to pull it out, you want to show me what you’re talking about, I think I can answer the question better.
Thank you.
MR. WEINBERG: Marked as 222.
675
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You can identify this as your posting, can you not, Mr. Prince?
A Yes.
Q And in the second paragraph you say, “Bob and Jesse quickly helped with the pilot and started bullbaiting the protesters.”
When you say bullbaiting, that would suggest that you were, what, holding signs or doing something back?
A No. Bullbaiting is a term that is used in Scientology specifically to designate some of their training routines. The training routines are called TRs; TRs for short.
Part of the training routine is to be able to sit across from a person without flinching and without moving when the person makes gestures or tries to do something shocking; in other words, this is a routine to train you to keep your countenance during an adverse commission, I guess.
Q In here you said, “We had great fun”?
A Correct.
Q Now, do you know why this appeared on the harassment time line if it was so much fun?
A Well, you haven’t shown me that — and I have asked you, too, to show me on the time line. So I can’t answer these questions — you know, you are referring to
676
something that I don’t have in front of me. I can’t see it.Q I thought from the testimony yesterday that you had reviewed the time line pretty closely?
THE COURT: Well, believe me, he has. It’s a very long thing. I think it’s a fair request. If you want him to specifically note whether it is on the time line or not, show him the time line.
MR. WEINBERG: I will.
THE COURT: My recollection is that document was extremely long.
MR. DANDAR: It is. And, Judge, I object to 222 because there has definitely been editing done. Right after “barbecue” and before the word “soup,” something is taken out.
MR. WEINBERG: No, it is not. You knew exactly what it is.
THE WITNESS: Where is that at?
MR. DANDAR: Where it said, “You invited Minton for barbecue,” after “barbecue” there is a blank, then there is “soup.”
THE COURT: 222, you are talking about?
MR. DANDAR: Yes. Right here.
THE WITNESS: Second paragraph? Oh, yes, you are right. You are right. It has been edited.
Something has been deleted from there.
677
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What was there? Because we didn’t edit anything.
A Yes, maybe you didn’t, but your client did. And I know specifically why.
What it said, “We were having BT and cluster soup.” BT is part of the secret cosmology of the upper levels of Scientology. So this has been, in fact, edited.
MR. DANDAR: I object to it. It is an altered document.
MR. WEINBERG: Are you testifying, first of all?
MR. DANDAR: I’m objecting to it based on Mr. Prince’s testimony. It’s an altered document by the defendant.
MR. WEINBERG: He identified it before, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar just indicated that it had been altered. And so if it now — I’ll ask you, Mr. Prince, is that the original document, or has it been altered?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, this has been altered. This is not the original.
THE COURT: If you have one that has not been altered, then it will be admissible.
MR. WEINBERG: First of all, we didn’t alter
678
anything.
THE COURT: I didn’t say you did. But if — I mean, I’m happy to write in the original what was there if Mr. Prince remembers it and everybody agrees.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you remember what was there?
A I remember exactly what was there. It says we were having barbecue BTs and cluster soup. “BTs” and “clusters” are words Scientologists aren’t allowed to use outside of Scientology.
Q So it’s a derogatory thing?
A No, there is nothing derogatory about BTs and clusters. This is a reality – something they believe in.
Q Well, I —
A But they are sensitive to it, so they altered the document.
MR. DANDAR: And I would object. If there is any more altered documents, that they not attempt to use them, or tell you in advance.
THE COURT: You just heard counsel say he did not know or believe it had been altered. So be careful, though, when you look at your documents.
That does look like something is missing from there. But I do know on my own E-Mails sometimes they
679
all get askew and don’t seem to line up right. I was on the Florida Supreme Court website looking up stuff on the death penalty cases. And all of a sudden they go and they just stop. So you can’t tell by looking.
MR. DANDAR: But this one —
THE COURT: That one does appear to be where there is something clearly missing. So —
MR. WEINBERG: It obviously was not what I was focusing on, BT and cluster soup. But with the record indicating what Mr. Prince was saying was there, I offer the exhibit.
THE COURT: Take the original back and write it in.
MR. WEINBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: And ask Mr. Prince if that is what he recalls it said and, if so, then we can admit it with that —
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll let him write it because I don’t know — I assume how to spell it but I’m not sure how to spell it.
THE COURT: BT , is that like two initials.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Here. Do it like this.
680
THE COURT: Everybody make notations on your copies. Cluster is C-L-U-S-T-E-R.
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And the original has “BT” and that he wrote in.
THE COURT: Okay. That will be admitted.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you remember that at this —
A Excuse me.
Q I wanted to show you the harassment time line. Let me show you what has been previously marked as the harassment time line, the “Time Line of Scientology Harassment of Robert Minton and Colleagues.”
I show you the entry for September 7, 1998. It says: “Scientologists picketed Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire again but it was done in a car with picket signs held out of the car window.”
A Correct.
Q So that was the incident, right?
A Yes.
Q Now, I want to play this. This is that — you remember you-all videoed this?
A I don’t remember videoing the incident, but let’s see what you have got.
Here is your pen, by the way —
681
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Don’t block her sign now, Jesse. I’ve gotta get a picture of that good sign.
“Okay. Let me put mine up.
“Okay, yeah.
“Hey, Maureen, just out here having a little chat.
So did you see that last — “(Inaudible.) I don’t know. All I can say is when I was in your position, there was a lot of —
“That you’re a staunch Scientologist. And it’s dangerous for you to believe otherwise because you’d be wrong.”
______________________________________
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Those are Mr. Minton’s signs?
A Correct.
______________________________________“Drive-by pickets. That’s cool.”
______________________________________MR. DANDAR: Could we clarify the people in the car are Scientologists?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q They are, aren’t they, Mr. Prince?
A They are. OSA personnel.
682
______________________________________“Damn dumb asses. I got ’em. See, what they need, what they need is like a — what they need — what they need is a chain — I mean a long line of cars.
“They just don’t seem to be able to get more than two —
“Yeah.
“– for these little New Hampshire things.
“Hey, it’s an hour from Boston, man.
“Ain’t it pathetic. One person holding one sign out the window. And then when they go by this way, the driver can’t do it so the fucking sign’s over there. Oh, my God. How pathetic.
“They must think this is having some kind of terrible psychological impact.
“Yes, it’s just entertaining as all hell.
“Here they come.
“Okay.
(Inaudible.)
“Hey, you fucking idiot.
“They don’t have enough nerve to try to run over me.
“Me, either. I stood there, too. I just stood in the middle of the road and got ’em driving up.
“Look at this. This is a good one.
683
“Here they come again. That’s when they were coming earlier. That’s all I got of them so far, but the two of them are good.
“Yeah.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________MR. WEINBERG: That is it?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So you were having fun, you and Mr. Minton, in this thing on the harassment time line?
A Mmm, you know, Mr. Weinberg, I think even I said on that tape it was just an annoyance that they do it; though it was pathetic and though it was funny, it’s annoying. Now, you made a huge point about how harassed Scientology feels about being picketed. But when these people come by and picket, we’re supposed to be having fun. You can’t have it both ways.
Q Well, what do you call what they were doing, by the way? Do you call that harassment? Or do you call that the First Amendment?
A They were exercising their First Amendment rights.
But what happened that was harassing is that Bob and I didn’t have a clue they were even out there until they parked their cars, ran up to the door, knocked on the door
684
screaming, “Minton, Minton, Minton,” then ran back to their cars. This is the only way they let us know they were there.
We are upstairs fooling around on the computers. These guys are banging on the doors. We wonder, what the heck. We run down. And we got the drive-by pickets going on.
Q They didn’t shout obscenities?
A Absolutely. “Where is your whore, Minton?” This kind of thing. Absolutely.
Q You didn’t hear that on the tape, though, did you?
A Well, of course not. Because what I’m speaking about is when they knocked on the door, and we were way in the back of the house. They wanted to make themselves known. Now, what they’re doing, going up and down there,
okay.Q Now, after this, after September of 1998, was this your first encounter with picketing, having signs and stuff like that?
A It could have been.
Q Now, after this, for the next — for the next four years, or almost four years, Mr. Minton and you and Ms. Brooks and other people affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust did all kinds of pickets in front of Scientology buildings, shouting obscenities, making threats,
685
interfering with — with Scientologists going into their buildings and the like, didn’t you?
A That is categorically false.
MR. WEINBERG: Could you play the first tape, please. This is May 27 — this is again — this is the Lisa McPherson Trust.
______________________________________
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Stick this in the right place. Scientology is a scam. A white meter. Fucking criminal. David Miscavige is a white Jew. He will be a convicted criminal.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, do you consider that harassment of the Church of Scientology? That was out in front of the church in Boston, wasn’t it?
A Yes. Was I there?
Q I’m asking you, do you consider that harassment?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. He’s not there. He should not be asked to comment about —
THE COURT: I think he can comment on that.
Overruled.
A You know, what I see there, that little snippet that you showed me, I would say yes, that is a bit annoying
686
and harassing.
But I also suspect, because when Bob Minton would go out and picket, he would just be quiet, he wouldn’t say a word, he would just walk up and down the street.
But then the OSA people would come out, Maureen Garde, the person I was walking with in the previous video, they would come out and start talking to Mr. Minton about things from his therapy sessions.
This is where the therapy information started, in picketing the Boston org. And they would kind of whip him into a frenzy. And the whole idea was to bait Mr. Minton to make him look like an ass.
Well, you know, I agree everyone ended up looking like an ass on some of those things, but, you know, let’s put this in perspective, because these little snips aren’t going to work. These people were specifically targeting Mr. Minton to do psychological terrorism on him.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, is it a bit annoying that Mr. Minton said that L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige were wife beaters?
That is a bit annoying?
A And I’m sure he’s annoyed because Mrs. Maureen Garde started speaking to things about — from his confidential counseling sessions with Scientology.
How Scientology got that information, God only knows, because no one will ever speak on it, will they? But that is what was
687
happening there.
Q And Mr. Minton, according to your testimony, was quiet on his pickets?
A He would just be as quiet as hell. Then if he got antagonized, he would start in. And I think that was known.
And, you know, you talk about me hating Scientologists. When you saw me in that first —
THE COURT: We’re well past the answer to that question.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Play the next one, please.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Reform Scientology now. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard would not approve of what David Miscavige has done.
“It’s safe to look. It’s safe to talk. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy the Church of Scientology. Make it something you can be proud of. Dump David Miscavige. Dump David Miscavige. It’s safe to talk. It’s safe to look. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard would never approve of what Miscavige is doing. (Inaudible.)
“Reform Scientology now.
688
“Don’t let the introspection rundown kill you. You don’t have to die in introspection rundown. You don’t have to let Miscavige scare you to death.
“Don’t be afraid.
“Don’t let Miscavige scare you out.
“It’s okay to confront the fact that Miscavige cannot handle some pressure.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You recognize that as people including Mr. Minton from the Lisa McPherson Trust, right where the Scientologists in Clearwater go to eat, right? That is where that was, wasn’t it?
A Yes, it was.
Q And that sure sounded like a direct attack on David Miscavige, didn’t it?
A Mmm, it sounded like there was definitely some problems with Miscavige being voiced there.
Q You saw Miss Greenway there, didn’t you?
A Yes.
Q You saw David Cecere from the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A Yes. I didn’t see me, though.
Q You were the vice-president of PR at the Lisa
689
McPherson Trust, weren’t you?
A That is such a fabrication, it is laughable. I have never been — had anything to do with public relations, period. Can’t you tell?
Q So what was your position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A I was there specifically to help people who had been in — somehow had some gripe with Scientology that they wanted to make right.
And again I’ll say it. The work that we were doing at the Lisa McPherson Trust helped Scientology because you had a lot of garbage in the street, people that were hurt, people giving you a bad name.
When we finished with those people, they signed releases saying they wouldn’t speak disparagingly about you again, they got their money and they went on their way. Okay, that part needs to be told.
Q My only question was what was your title or position in the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A Vice-president.
Q Vice-president of what?
A The Lisa McPherson Trust.
Q And what was your responsibility there?
A I’ll say it again.
THE COURT: He just already said that.
690
MR. WEINBERG: That is just what he said?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, were you referred to as the big boss at the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A No.
MR. WEINBERG: Play the next one, please.
_____________________________________
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Make Scientology something to be proud of. Reform it now before David Miscavige ruins it. Find the new leaders within your organization whom you can be proud of.
“Stacy, why don’t you try to round some of them up?
“The Lisa McPherson Trust was established at 33 North Ft. Harrison Avenue in order to let the world know about the abusive practices which David Miscavige has caused Scientology to live by.
“The Lisa McPherson Trust will always be here to remind you that you have a responsibility to be good human beings. David Miscavige is ruining your organization.
“Telecommunications is one of the powerful things you have learned in Scientology. Use it.
691
Try to use it to make the world a better place and start with dumping David Miscavige.
“If you ever want any help from Scientology, you can run to 33 North Ft. Harrison Avenue to the Lisa McPherson Trust.
“If you remember, Lisa McPherson is the woman who was held by Scientology for 17 days.
“The whole episode in the Church of Scientology’s Ft. Harrison Hotel was totally out-tech. Even the state prosecutor said it was totally out-tech. The whole thing was run by David Miscavige. David Miscavige is responsible for that woman’s death.
“Remember, David Miscavige is the one who performed the out-tech on Lisa McPherson.
“Remember, David Miscavige was responsible for the out-tech, out-tech handling of Lisa McPherson. She died after 17 days in captivity here.
“It was totally out-tech and you know it. You can look and smile.
“David Miscavige pulled the plug on Lisa. He pulled the plug on Hubbard’s tech. It’s time to face reality. Reform Scientology or it will be destroyed by David Miscavige.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
692
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, what was the reason that the Lisa McPherson Trust documented all these pickets by taking videos like this?
A Mmm, I think the purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust always having the video when in close proximity to Scientology is the same reason that — for the same reason that happened to Mr. Minton when David Howe (phonetic) and another staff member — I think that was a staff member that attacked him. I personally took him to the hospital. He just raced him, no one is looking, boom.
So it became routine to take a video camera, in case something did happen that was truly criminal, that it could be documented. That was the purpose.
Q But it was for evidentiary purposes?
A Correct.
Q It wasn’t for posterity?
A Correct.
Q I mean, wasn’t this what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about — let me finish my question — to try to get rid of David Miscavige and to terrorize, using your word now, the Church of Scientology?
A I — I think Mr. Minton was very clear on what the Lisa McPherson Trust was for. And I’m glad you showed that
693
video, because he made it clear he wasn’t out to destroy Scientology, make Scientology go away, as you have, you know, suggested earlier. He wanted it to reform. He wanted the criminal activities to stop.
Why does he pick David Miscavige? I think we need to talk about it. Because you know why? He’s the man that has the private investigators do what they do. He’s the one that — that instigates these vicious attacks against individuals who have any disparaging thing to say about Scientology.
Why does Mr. Minton mention him? Because he knows he’s the person that can change it. Just like that letter that was turned into evidence concerning Bernie McCabe.
He’s the person that can do it. If anyone can do it, Mr. Miscavige can do it.
Q Right. And you accused Mr. Miscavige of murder in your affidavit, didn’t you?
A I accused of — Mr. Miscavige of letting her die?
Q Of intentionally letting her die?
A Letting her die.
Q Intentionally?
THE COURT: We’ll not get anywhere. The document speaks for itself.
MR. WEINBERG: You are right.
694
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You suggested, stated, in your affidavit, that a decision was made, an intentional premeditated decision, to let her die?
A Correct.
Q This is the same man that you shouted obscenities about, it’s the same man we are watching videos of Mr. Minton and others stand up, asking to be deposed or thrown out of position, right?
A It’s the same man I audited. It’s the same man I have been friends with many years. It’s the same man I have done training with. It’s the same man I helped myself establish and build Scientology for many years. So add that into the equation, too.
Q You think he would call you his friend?
A I think if David and I sat down and talked, he would —
THE COURT: I have heard this question and I have heard this answer at least twice.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, when Mr. Minton said the words “Out-tech” that is something that means something to a Scientologist, correct?
A Correct.
695
Q I mean, Mr. Minton, prior to getting involved with you —
THE COURT: Counselor, it is getting pretty bad to me because I understood it.
MR. WEINBERG: But — all right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q A Scientologist, or a judge that sat in a hearing for 28 days.
THE COURT: There you go.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That is not something Mr. Minton or any of us, having not been exposed to Scientology before, would understand, correct?
A Yes.
Q And to be out — out to accuse the ecclesiastical leader of being out-tech is about as — about as serious and severe an accusation as you could possibly make against David Miscavige, isn’t it?
A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, my answer is if the shoe fits, wear it.
Q Just answer that question.
A I did. If the shoe fits, wear it.
THE COURT: No, he wants to know if that is a serious accusation to make to other Scientologists about their ecclesiastical head. Is that a bad
696
thing to the head of Scientology to be out-tech.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: To another Scientologist, those folks seeing that demonstration, if they believed that, would not think very highly of their leader?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And would you not — from looking at that video or the other videos that you have seen so far, it doesn’t look like any of the Scientologists are having a lot of fun at your demonstrations, correct?
A You know, you have only shown me specifically Mr. Minton. You haven’t shown me what the Scientologists are doing or not doing, Mr. Weinberg.
Q Well, in that video we just showed, it was —
A It was going back and forth.
THE COURT: You know what, the deal is we are showing this for —
MR. WEINBERG: That is correct.
Could you play the next one, please.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Communicate to David Miscavige that he’s fired.
“Remember Lisa McPherson.
697
“When you’re eating, remember Lisa at her last meal in December of ’95, held captive by the Church of Scientology leader, David Miscavige.
(Inaudible.)
“What is not safe for you is to stand there and do nothing. Tell David Miscavige he’s wrong. Tell him that L. Ron Hubbard would never approve of what he is doing to destroy your church.
“PK, PK, don’t run away.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Does it look, in that video — I mean, and others that we’ve seen — that Mr. Minton is terrorized, harassed or anything like that?
A Mmm, it looks like Mr. Minton was picketing, to me.
Q Now —
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Okay, are we going to do the locks?
“But the — are we going to do the alarms or –” (Inaudible.)
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________698
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You were just having a big time, you and Ms. Greenway?
A You know, that is an edited video you have there. It is — there is obvious editing there, so I would be hard-pressed to draw that conclusion.
Q When it started, it started like all of the pickets started inside the offices of the LMT, correct?
A That is a mischaracterization of how pickets started because every picket did not start in the Lisa McPherson Trust. Other people picketed the Ft. Harrison that weren’t associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust or employees of the LMT — Lisa McPherson Trust.
Q That clip from the LMT film library, that one started in the LMT building, didn’t it?
A I don’t know if it started or finished there because you have shown me one tiny segment. So, you know, if I could have some perspective and see the whole thing, I would be able to comment more accurately.
Q Now, the LMT — literally at times these pickets were intended to literally shut down Clearwater around where you-all were picketing, right?
A No.
MR. WEINBERG: Play that one, please.
______________________________________699
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Last year, we were all over the place in a clump. We shut down here, we shut down here, we shut down there. We had Flag shut down for the whole day, anyway. This year we spread out in strategic spots and shut down the whole city.
“Frank Oliver came and caused the last breach. So far about two hours now they can’t hardly move anybody any way. They can pick up people from Flag but they can’t bring them in because they have to bring them in there, and they can’t do it.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
_______________________________________
BY MR. WEINBERG:Q That is somebody from the LMT?
A Absolutely not.
Q Who is that?
A Greg Hagglund. He lives in Canada.
Q And he was down here for the picket in December?
A Looking at that date of that, he was down for the picket and vigil. People come from all over the United States and even Europe for that. They were doing that long before the Lisa McPherson Trust ever existed or it was here in Clearwater. So, you know, it would be a real bad stretch to think that, you know, he’s working at the trust because
700
he’s picketing.
Q Well, is there a particular reason why the trust had that tape in its film library?
A Maybe someone videotaped it and gave it to the trust, Mr. Weinberg.
Q Well, who was the videotaper for the trust?
A Mark Bunker.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Remember Lisa McPherson. Okay, let’s go. (Inaudible.)
“– is one of our old friends.
“Yes. Some other friends from Germany, too.
“That is a good one, too.
“Where else would you like –”
(Inaudible.)
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Those are all people from the Lisa McPherson Trust, weren’t they?
A False.
Q Oh, Miss Caberta was from Germany, your guest over here?
A Ms. Caberta was here on vacation. Mrs. Caberta.
701
And if you will recall, you yourself earlier said she’s employed by the German government. So, you know, she’s not LMT. She’s just like you said, employed by the German government.
Q This was an LMT-sponsored picket in front of the Ft. Harrison Hotel?
A LMT has never, to my knowledge, sponsored a picket.
Q Is there a particular reason why Mr. Merrett was at that picket?
A I believe Mr. Merrett was at the picket to make sure that nothing happened, there were no altercations, no scuffles, no — you know, you’ll notice this, people, for the most part, are just silently walking up and down the street.
They are not screaming at Scientology itself or yelling at Scientologists; they are exercising their constitutional right to protest.
Q Do you think it might be somewhat harassing to the — on the doorstep of the mecca of Scientologists with signs saying “Blood of Lisa McPherson on your hands” and things like that?
A You know, I can see where someone could draw that inference or conclusion. But the inference and conclusion I draw is people were exercising their constitutional right.
If it was even a civil crime, they would have been sued out
702
of existence.
Q Do you remember that the Lisa McPherson Trust — people documented by Lisa McPherson Trust video picketed in front of the Ft. Harrison Hotel when a Hindu wedding was going on? A Hindu wedding?
A No, I was not there. I know nothing about it.
Q As your position as the VP of the Lisa McPherson Trust, you don’t remember that one?
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: Why don’t we show that.
THE WITNESS: Was I present here?
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Well, Jesus, that is one thing Scientology didn’t believe in or any other religion, isn’t that right, guys? Isn’t that right? Isn’t that right? That is all — let’s let all of the Nazis come out.
“People are trying to have a wedding, sir.
“What is that?
“Hey, this is fine.
“They’re just trying to have a wedding. They are not —
“Listen, it’s not my fault they got married here.
“Come on now.
“This is a public sidewalk, buddy, so don’t start
703
pushing.
“This is not — (inaudible).
“This is a public sidewalk. Let’s get out of the way. It is still a public sidewalk. Okay?
“When you get out of Scientology, your luck will — (Inaudible.)
“Let’s go. Let’s go.
“Let’s go.
“Come on.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Why did the LMT put that in its film library?
A I think that every — and I’m not sure if this is not Mr. Mark Bunker’s film library that you are referring to — but, you know, we’re — we’re looking at here your two star witnesses. You are showing me videos of your witnesses that you have used in this hearing to testify for you. What are we doing here?
Q I think you said that this is the most harassed person you have ever seen. Does it look like Mr. Minton is the most harassed person you have ever seen when he’s standing there with a sign with skulls on it in front of the Ft. Harrison —
704
THE COURT: Don’t —
MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: — raise your voice up to this witness and start approaching him.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I won’t have it. And I’m not going to remind you again.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q With a sign with skulls on it, interrupting a Hindu wedding?
A Mr. Weinberg, I agree with you what happened there — what happened was extremely inappropriate. And I don’t agree with it. And you didn’t see me there.
Q I’ll show you one you are at, Mr. Prince.
By the way, before you play that, that tape was done — the one we just played was done in — in September of 2000.
You were full-time at the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct?
A That is possible, yes.
Q Not possible. That is correct?
A I said it’s possible.
Q Why do you say it’s possible? I mean —
A Because I’m not sure when I made that transition from — I’ll explain it to you, I’m not trying to be coy
705
here, but there came a point in time when my work with Mr. Dandar involved doing a bunch of depositions of Scientology staff members or Scientologists or whatever and we worked together quite a bit then.
But then there came a period of time when it was time for the medical experts. Those people are the experts. He certainly didn’t need me there. So there came a point in time when I started working at the Lisa McPherson Trust.
Q In September of 2000 when that took place, you were on the payroll of the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct?
A It is possible, yes.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Jesse is — this is — Jesse, show him what you’re going to do if they come at you.
“Drop and fall. That is all. I’m going to fall down.
“Hey —
“You know what (inaudible).
“That is a good idea.
“Full resistance, that is our motto.
“How are you going to do it?
“Just carry the sign.
“Oh, my God.
“Kind of like the Three Stooges.
706
“The St. Pete Police.
“Yes, I told them I would be there by quarter to seven.
“Oh, God.
“Let’s do this.
“Guys, remember what we all agree with. We’re all staying together.
“Yes, boss.
(Inaudible.)
“Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay, well — Mmm, no.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, that is one of your six pickets?
A Rhetorical.
Q Excuse me?
A That is one of the six pickets I have probably been in.
Q And in that video we saw Patricia Greenway, correct, who is in the audience, right?
A Show it to me again. I missed that.
THE COURT: Yes, she was there.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll take your word.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Peter Alexander, who testified in this hearing?
707
THE COURT: I don’t know if he was there or not.
MR. WEINBERG: He was.
THE COURT: I didn’t recognize him, but —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The gentleman, sort of young guy in the pink or red shirt, that was Graham Berry, correct?
A Correct.
Q The lawyer from LA?
A Correct.
Q Now, your sign, “Mafia Cult”?
A Correct.
Q And that was —
A In relationship to the black operations that are run out of OSA.
Q And you were picketing, you walked from the LMT — this was an LMT operation, wasn’t it? That is where you-all left from, from the LMT?
A Yes.
Q And at that point, you were full-time at the LMT?
A I — I’ll stipulate to that, sure.
Q Except you were still working for Mr. Dandar, you were still doing stuff on the Lisa McPherson case, weren’t you?
A Well, you know, as I said, Mr. Weinberg, there
708came a time when Mr. Dandar was solely doing medical experts. There was certainly no need for me to sit there through that.
MR. WEINBERG: One second, your Honor.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you, Mr. Dandar and a number of other people from the LMT were at the closing when Mr. Minton closed on the purchase of the building either at the — at the beginning — January 5 of 2000, is that right?
A I believe that is correct.
Q And Mr. Dandar was — and you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were very enthusiastic about the LMT and how the LMT was going to — to operate. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And Ms. Liebreich was very enthusiastic about the LMT opening, correct?
A I don’t think Mrs. Liebreich was there.
Q But do you remember that the first phone call that was made was made to Ms. Liebreich, and you talked to her, among other people?
A I think I remember something about that, yes.
Q And she was very enthusiastic about that. Right?
A She was very happy and proud that the last wishes of Fannie McPherson were actually taking effect, which was to expose any deceptive and abusive processes by
709
Scientology, you know.
Mr. Minton is — just wants reform, tired of people calling, tired of people saying, “Can you please help.”
Q Your testimony, I believe, was — and correct me if I’m wrong — that you never met with Mr. Dandar for any purpose — for any meeting type purpose at the LMT. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q Now, do you remember at this opening that — at this closing where, in essence, the LMT was opening, that you described — or someone described what your position and responsibility was going to be at the LMT?
A I don’t recall it specifically, Mr. Weinberg.
Q And you deny it was in charge of PR, right?
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: If you could play that, please.
This is another video from the LMT.
______________________________________(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“Ken, I’m sorry there’s no more chairs.
“It is okay.
“Sign first — (inaudible).
“You want to sit down? Here is the — these are the — (inaudible).
710
“Did you bring the property insurance papers?
“Of course not.
“You didn’t?
(Inaudible.)
“You mean the balance, it’s everything you did fax me yesterday.
(Inaudible).
“The insurance papers are the closing paper for the mortgage.
“Yeah. Right. Right.
(Inaudible.)
“That is okay. That is okay.
“It’s just that we don’t have the check for him — or, we have the check but — (inaudible).
“How are we going to do it? How are you going to do it?
(Inaudible.)
“No, I’ll just tell you to send a check and how much it is. (Inaudible.) It’s a binder.
(Inaudible.)
“If Scott has a fax machine I can fax it to him.
“Hang on one second. Okay?
“Yes.
“Okay.”
711
______________________________________BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Is that Tom Tobin from the St. Pete Times?
A I believe it is.
______________________________________“This is Steve Mitchell. This is Jesse Prince.
“Nice to meet you, Jesse.
“Nice to meet you.
“He’s an expert on Scientology in the Lisa McPherson case. He’s going to be also working at the trust.
“Oh. Terrific.
(Inaudible.)
“So he has an idea of what we’re dealing with. Big time, right?
“Big time, Bobby. This is too cool.
“Jesse, what are you going to do with this organization?
“Make it as successful as possible.
“I mean, what’s your job or what — do you have functions or duties or —
“I’m on the board of directors. And I’m going to just, you know, be here with the organization, get it through its initial phase of establishing itself, and run around and do public relations.
“Oh, really.
712
“Yes.
“He’s also an expert on the Lisa McPherson case so he’s going to be spending a lot of time with Ken Dandar so he’ll be –”
(Inaudible.)
“He’s been working, you know, intimately with Ken on this case for a long time.
“Oh.
(Inaudible.)
“You mean, does he own the building now?
“Thank you very much. Thank you. Scott.
“Thank you.
“Thank you very much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate this.
“I wish you the best. I hope you do well with this.
“Thank you.
“Scott’s been under a lot of pressure, I’m sure.
“Congratulations.
“Thank you.
“Jesse.
“Hey, Ken?
“Hey, Ken?
“So anybody want to open that champagne?
(Inaudible.)
713
“Ken, your comments?
“Well, I think this is a good day for downtown Clearwater.
“Hi, Mike. How is it going?
“Happy New Year.
“We just closed on the building.
“Okay. Call me.
“I have a binder in my office.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________MR. DANDAR: Could we have a stipulation that was edited by the defense?
MR. WEINBERG: I mean —
THE COURT: I don’t know if it was or not.
MR. WEINBERG: I mean, Mr. Bunker edited a lot of these tapes before he ever gave them to us. I mean —
MR. DANDAR: Well, whatever.
MR. WEINBERG: I mean —
THE COURT: All I can say, Counselor, it is available for you to get a copy of, so —
MR. DANDAR: I know.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, what was the Lisa McPherson trial consultant and the Lisa McPherson case lawyer doing at the closing of
714
the LMT building?
A It looks like they were partaking in the festivities, to me.
Q It does to me, too, Mr. Prince.
A Yeah.
Q Now, when Ms. Brooks said that you were going to be doing public relations, was your first job to get Tom Tobin from the St. Pete Times there?
A You know, I think that is a leap in logic. And I think the person that actually said doing public relations stuff was me. I don’t think it was Ms. Brooks.
Q All right, I stand corrected. When you said you were doing public relations, what did you mean?
A I think that that was just an offhand comment. And I didn’t even know what I meant. Maybe I had some intention on doing something public relations-wise.
But what factually ended up happening is once the door opened, the phones started ringing. And as I mentioned, you know, getting through the initial establishment part, to find out exactly what our role is going to be, it simply turned into servicing current and ex-Scientology members.
Q The way you got your message out was to carry signs and picket in front of the Church of Scientology?
A That was the one thing that was done.
715
Q And — but at this time when this started in January 5 of 2000, you were in charge of public relations but you were being paid by Mr. Dandar to be a so-called expert in the Lisa McPherson case. Correct?
A That is totally incorrect. There was no public relations. I was not doing public relations, orchestrating public relations, media contact.
Mr. Weinberg, if you have shown anything with the indiscretion I have used, public relations is not anything that I would even pretend to be versed in, so, you know, let’s move on.
THE COURT: I’m going to tolerate about one more of these, then I can’t stand any more for the day. I still do not know why we’re playing all of these, but —
MR. WEINBERG: I can explain.
THE COURT: I’ll let you do that in closing argument, but I can only stand one more today, so play it and —
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll play one more and it will be this one.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: December 2, picket across from the Ft. Harrison.
I want you to look for Mr. Dandar here. All
716
right?
THE WITNESS: Okay. All right.
THE COURT: What is the date again, Counselor?
MR. WEINBERG: December 2, 2000.
THE WITNESS: Was I at this picket?
(WHEREUPON, the video was played. No audio available.)
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You recognize the person with the sign was Frank Oliver?
A Yes.
Q You recognize Teresa Summers? She testified in this case.
A Yes.
Q You recognize yourself?
A Yes.
Q You recognize Mr. Merrett?
A Yes.
Q You recognize Mr. Minton?
A Yes.
Q You recognize Mr. Dandar. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And that was in front of the Ft. Harrison during a picket, wasn’t it?
THE COURT: I didn’t see any signs except
717
one — I did not see what I would classify as a picket.
A There was no picket. And I remember this incident, if you’ll let me explain it to you.
Bob Minton had come into town and Ken needed to talk to him or see him for something. Mr. Dandar simply stopped by. Mr. Dandar was not a part of any picket or doing anything. He simply knew where Mr. Minton was going to be, he came there, spoke with him and left.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So what were you-all doing there?
THE COURT: I saw folks across the street, Counsel, that had signs, then somebody said hi, went across the street. That is where Mr. Dandar was.
The sign was down. The only one person that had it, they were talking, then somebody put a sign up and went off like there was something else going on someplace else.
I don’t think it would be fair to classify what Mr. Dandar was in was a picket. I could not tell they were in front of any hotel, either.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, you recognize that was across from the Ft. Harrison?
A No, I do not.
718
THE COURT: I don’t know where it was because I couldn’t tell. It looked like a street corner. It might have been. I don’t recognize that.
MR. DANDAR: I can tell you, Judge. It was catty-corner across the street from the Ft. Harrison. These people with signs who were across the street from me, across the street from the Ft. Harrison, were standing in front of the new Super Power building. But I wasn’t part of any picket.
That is right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, was Mr. Merrett part of the picket?
A No, he was not.
Q Were you?
A No, I was not.
Q So you had been — so all these LMT people were sort of off to the side, and there were other LMT people that were holding signs?
A You know, again, Counselor, I’m not trying to be difficult here. You are showing snippets and you are drawing conclusions. The conclusion that I see from this snippet is we are simply standing there having a conversation. No one but no one is picketing.
THE COURT: Looks like there was getting ready to be a picket. There were people with signs, but
719
when they saw Dandar, it looks like somebody waved, walked across the street, the guy that had the sign, whoever that was, the one, put his sign down. When he picked up the sign, he went walking off to where I would presume a picket was going on. But those other folks were across the street that must have been going for a picket, I’m guessing.
MR. WEINBERG: You said that was the last one you wanted to see.
THE COURT: That is absolutely the last one I want to see.
It is 5 o’clock. We’re done for the day.
We’ll see you at 9 o’clock tomorrow.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you. Have a good night.
(WHEREUPON, Court stands in recess at 5 o’clock.)
_____________________________________720
REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2002.
______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR
Letter from John G. Peterson to LA DA (October 24, 1985)
PETERSON & BRYNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
8530 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 407
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211
——
(213) 659-9965JOHN G. PETERSON
M. JEFFREY BRYNAN
October 24, 1985
Robert Jorgensen
Assistant Head Special Investigations
LA District Attorney’s Office
210 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012Re: Violations of California Criminal Statutes by Gerald Armstrong, Michael Flynn, Al Lipkin, Al Ristuccia, and Daryl Gates1
Dear Mr. Jorgensen,
I have not received a response from you to my letter of a month ago. Additionally, I have not received a call from you from last week, when I was attempting to ascertain the true facts behind the Police Department’s intention to call you as their witness in the Board of Rights on police officer Phillip Rodriguez.
Unfortunately, I am forming an impression that you have not taken our complaint seriously, as it was originally lodged with the District Attorney three months ago.
We have sent you more than adequate documentation of crimes conceived and perpetrated by Mr. Armstrong, and resultant cover-up actions done by IRS agents and the Chief of Police of Los Angeles. We are awaiting investigation of this matter by the District Attorney’s office as the crimes involved are serious and ongoing.
I am sending you with this letter an affidavit from a Boston Church of Scientology staff member who was interrupted and harassed by Gerald Armstrong on Sunday, October 13, 1985.2 Armstrong impersonated an FBI officer during this encounter. A complaint3 has been lodged with the Boston FBI office and is being followed up by that office right now.
You will recall from our complaint that Armstrong has sought the shelter of more than one government agency in the midst of his conspiracy to destroy a religion. He is a) continuing to do that; b) continuing his pattern of harassment against the Church of Scientology.
I really think that your office has had adequate time to review the original complaint and the subsequent materials I sent. The Church of Scientology has an admirable record in prevention of crime, combating drug abuse, and championing the cause of freedom. It fully deserves the support of all law enforcement agencies.
Let us now move forward without delay into the investigation of the charges the Church of Scientology has lodged with your office. And please be so kind as to respond to the complaint we lodged with your office a month ago and inform us of the actions you are taking in this matter.
Very truly yours,
PETERSON & BRYNAN[Signed] John Peterson
John Peterson
Attorney at Lawcc: Ira Reiner
District Attorneycc: Stephen Sowders
Special Investigations
Office of the District Attorney
Notes
- This document in PDF format. ↩
- See Affidavit of Mitra Hall ( October 17, 1985). ↩
- See FBI Complaint filed against GA by Scientologist Mitra Hall. ↩
Michael J. Flynn vs. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., Kevin Tighe, Robert Johnson, and David Aden (December 4, 1984)
MICHAEL J. FLYNN vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., & others. [Note 1]
19 Mass. App. Ct. 59
October 16, 1984 – December 4, 1984
Suffolk County
Present: GREANEY, C.J., DREBEN, & FINE, JJ.
Where the case against one of several defendants in a civil action had been terminated by the plaintiff’s timely filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1), 365 Mass. 803 (1974), it was error for a judge, in ruling on a subsequent motion to dismiss, to include that defendant in an order dismissing the action with prejudice. [64-65]
Where the plaintiff in a civil action had moved for voluntary dismissal under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974), it was error for the judge hearing the motion to order dismissal of the action with prejudice before first affording the plaintiff an opportunity to withdraw his motion to dismiss, when he sought to do so upon the judge’s announcement in open court of his ruling on the motion. [66-67]
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 9, 1982.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Hiller B. Zobel, J.
Harvey A. Silverglate for Church of Scientology of California, Inc., & others.
David M. Banash for the plaintiff.
Charles W. Rankin for Kevin Tighe.
FINE, J. On April 9, 1982, Michael J. Flynn, an attorney, brought an action against the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., The Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., and three individuals, each of whom is alleged to have been associated with the Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., either as a staff member or as an officer. Mr. Flynn claims that the defendants were responsible for the unlawful taking of documents
Page 60
from his law offices in Boston and from a dumpster located outside his office. He alleges that these acts occurred over a period from December of 1979 until the fall of 1981, and that, among the documents taken, were confidential client communications. He sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and an award of multiple damages and attorney’s fees under G. L. c. 93A.
On October 12, 1983, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice following a hearing on Mr. Flynn’s motion for voluntary dismissal under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974). [Note 2] The question posed by Mr. Flynn’s appeal in this case is whether that action was proper. In order to answer it, we must examine the history of the particular litigation, as well as other material which was before the judge when he acted on the plaintiff’s motion. Although a considerable amount of other material has been brought to our attention by the parties, we focus our attention exclusively on that material which was before the judge when he rendered his decision. Because the language of the sections of the rules with which we are concerned is almost identical to the equivalent sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we look for guidance to Federal law in interpreting those rules. Rollins Environmental Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 368 Mass. 174 , 179-180 (1975).
The following is a summary of the relevant events that occurred in the case after the complaint was filed and prior to the hearing. On April 13, 1982, a hearing was held on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, at which all parties except the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., were represented. There was a discussion of proceedings which had taken place in a case pending in the United States District Court in Boston, Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., No. 79-2491-G (D. Mass. filed Dec. 13,
Page 61
1979), and of certain orders which had been entered in that case relating to the documents allegedly taken from Mr. Flynn’s office or trash, which were the same documents as those referred to in the instant case. [Note 3] Perhaps because those orders provide some protection to Mr. Flynn as to the use that could be made of the documents, on the day it was heard the motion for preliminary injunction was denied. It was again denied after an interlocutory review by a single justice of this court (pursuant to G. L. c. 231, Section 118, first par.) a few days later. On May 10, 1982, all parties except the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., filed answers. On May 17, 1982, Mr. Flynn filed a demand for jury trial. On September 12, 1983, Mr. Flynn filed a notice, dated August 29, 1983, of voluntary dismissal as to the Church of Scientology of California, Inc. On September 19 and 22, 1983, respectively, the defendants gave notice that they would take the depositions of Mr. Flynn on September 29, 1983, and of four other individuals on various other dates. On September 29, 1983, Mr. Flynn filed his motion to dismiss and also a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The motion to stay discovery was allowed. The motion to dismiss was heard and allowed with prejudice on October 12, 1983, all parties having been represented at the hearing except the Church of Scientology of California, Inc.
Page 62
The judge at the dismissal hearing had before him three affidavits, one from Mr. Flynn, one from Eric D. Blumenson, an attorney representing the Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., and one from Harvey A. Silverglate, an attorney representing the Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., and some of the individual defendants. A considerable portion of all of the affidavits from both sides contained cross-charges of harassment and abuse of the judicial process. Mr. Flynn’s affidavit referred, in addition, to the orders which had been entered by the United States District Court in the Van Schaick litigation and to a complaint in a case filed in the United States District Court on his behalf on September 7, 1983. The complaint in that case (Flynn v. Hubbard, No. 83-2642-C [D. Mass.]), alleges that Hubbard [Note 4] and his agents are engaged in a broad conspiracy to “destroy” Mr. Flynn. Numerous wrongful acts are alleged to have been committed, including the same acts involving documents taken from Mr. Flynn’s office and trash which form the basis of the instant suit. The affidavit of Mr. Blumenson, on the other hand, relates the difficulties encountered in the attempt to schedule Mr. Flynn’s deposition and refers to the age and history of the case. In addition, Mr. Blumenson speculates as to Mr. Flynn’s “hit and run” strategy, characterized by the filing of numerous lawsuits for purposes, he says, other than the receipt of legal redress. He asserts further that Mr. Flynn has shown no reason why the allegations made in this lawsuit should be tried in a different forum, and he states that, if the motion to dismiss without prejudice is allowed, his client’s name will remain tarnished, Hubbard being the only named defendant in Mr. Flynn’s Federal District Court case. Mr. Silverglate’s affidavit refers to correspondence from Mr. Flynn seeking settlement of pending cases against the various church organizations and threatening to file numerous additional lawsuits if settlement is not reached. Mr. Silverglate refers to an
Page 63
alleged scheme on the part of Mr. Flynn for development of additional litigation against the various church entities and alleges that Mr. Flynn’s general litigation strategy is to file duplicative cases and dismiss them whenever faced with adverse rulings. The affidavit refers to the expense incurred in defending the litigation brought against the church. Mr. Silverglate also describes the proceedings in the Van Schaick litigation regarding the documents. And, finally, he speculates that in the Federal District Court litigation against Hubbard Mr. Flynn’s strategy is to obtain a default judgment against Hubbard, whom he expects not to appear, and then to collect damages from the parties who are the defendants in this litigation.
At the outset of the hearing, the judge outlined three possible resolutions of the motion to dismiss: “dismissal with prejudice; denial of the motion to dismiss; and denial of the motion to dismiss with a stay of the Federal court proceedings” against Hubbard. Mr. Flynn’s attorney declined to accept any of the three alternatives and proceeded to argue against them and in support of the motion to dismiss without prejudice. In the course of the argument, an offer was made on Mr. Flynn’s behalf that he bind himself by an agreement not to sue the defendants in this case on these claims and to pay just costs. Mr. Flynn’s attorney stated that a dismissal without prejudice was sought because of fear that a dismissal with prejudice would preclude him from litigating certain issues in the Federal case against Hubbard. He stated further that his client had no interest in pursuing the instant case at this time. Counsel for the defendants only reiterated their position that Mr. Flynn would seek to recover damages from the defendants in this case should the Federal case against Hubbard be won by default. Without hearing further from counsel for any of the defendants, the judge announced his decision from the bench to allow the motion with prejudice. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Flynn’s attorney sought to withdraw the motion to dismiss but was not permitted to do so. Further material was filed by the plaintiff with the court after the ruling, and a request for reconsideration was filed and denied.
Page 64
1. The position of the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., is different from that of the other defendants. The case against that party was effectively terminated on September 12, 1983, as a result of the filing by the plaintiff of a notice of dismissal under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), 365 Mass. 803 (1974), which allows dismissal “without order of court . . . by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs . . . .” No answer or motion for summary judgment had been served on the plaintiff by the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., on or before that date. In these circumstances, the plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss that party without prejudice. There was no occasion for the exercise of discretion, and no conditions could be placed on the exercise of that right. American Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 1963). D.C. Electronics, Inc. v. Nartron Corp., 511 F.2d 294 (6th Cir. 1975). This is so even if the party being dismissed is not the only defendant in the case and even if one or more of the other defendants had filed answers. Plains Growers, Inc. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F.2d 250, 254-255 (5th Cir. 1973). Terry v. Pearlman, 42 F.R.D. 335, 337 (D. Mass. 1967). Smith & Zobel, Rules Practice Section 41.3, at 48 (1977). [Note 5] The particular status of the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., with respect to the notice of dismissal was not addressed by the judge or by counsel at the hearing or in any of the documentation provided to the judge before the hearing. Whether the inclusion of the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., within the order dismissing the action with prejudice was intentional or the result of oversight, it was error. To the extent that a defendant needs to be protected against the abuse by a plaintiff of his right unilaterally
Page 65
to dismiss a party without prejudice, the “two-dismissal rule” of rule 41(a)(1) provides that protection. [Note 6]
2. The dismissal of the case against the remaining defendants, with prejudice, poses greater difficulty. Normally a judge is accorded wide discretion in setting “terms and conditions” when dismissing a case under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). GAF Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., $no$665 F.2d 364, 368 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The question presented here would be whether the attachment of the ultimate condition, prejudice, was called for in the somewhat unusual and confusing circumstances of this case. The test we would apply is whether to have done otherwise would have caused substantial prejudice to the defendants. Selas Corp. v. Wilshire Oil Co., 57 F.R.D. 3, 7 (D.C. Pa. 1972). See Wright & Miller, supra Section 2364, at 196.
In arguing that the action of the judge should be upheld, the defendants rely on a number of factors, no one of which by itself would be sufficient to justify the dismissal with prejudice. [Note 7]
Page 66
“[T]he sanction of dismissal is the most severe sanction that a court may apply, and its use must be tempered by a careful exercise of judicial discretion” (emphasis original). Durham v. Florida East Coast Ry., 385 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1967). The offer by the plaintiff to pay costs and to enter into a covenant not to sue would appear to satisfy many of the reasonable concerns of the defendants. See Goldlawr, Inc. v. Shubert, 32 F.R.D. 467 (S.D. N.Y. 1962). It may be, nevertheless, that, considering all of the circumstances together, in light of the complex background of the litigation between the parties, the numerous other cases filed in various courts by these and related parties, the heavy civil caseload of the Superior Court, and the broad discretion accorded to a judge, the determination that dismissal of the action ought to be with prejudice fell within the bounds of reasonableness. We would be reluctant to rule otherwise. For another reason, however, it is not necessary for us to make that determination.
3. Even if we were to regard the dismissal with prejudice to have been a proper exercise of discretion, we think the judge should have permitted Mr. Flynn to withdraw his motion to dismiss when he sought to do so immediately upon the announcement in open court of the ruling on the motion. The defendants argue that because the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was one of the three options offered by the judge to counsel at the outset of the hearing, and because counsel did not accept that offer, the plaintiff should have been foreclosed from withdrawing the motion. He had no notice, however, that a possible consequence of his failure to accept
Page 67
that option at the outset of the hearing might be waiver of that option, and it was reasonable for him to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard orally in support of the motion he had filed. It is generally recognized that a plaintiff, having moved to dismiss voluntarily, and being faced with conditions he finds too onerous, may, if he acts promptly, decline to have the action dismissed and go forward on its merits. Scam Instrument Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 458 F.2d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 1972). Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc., 580 F.2d 126, 131 n.13 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 915 (1979). GAF Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 665 F.2d at 367-368. Wright & Miller, supra Section 2366, at 183. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice Paragraph 41.06, at 41-80 (1984). We are aware that on occasion it has been stated that a plaintiff filing a motion voluntarily to dismiss an action should be prepared to take the consequences, including the possibility that the court might dismiss with prejudice. American Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d at 298. Considerations of fairness would seem to require, however, that, except in extraordinary situations, a party should not be penalized for having filed a motion to dismiss. The cases which recognize an option on the part of the moving party, when faced with conditions he finds unacceptable, to fall back to the position of litigating the merits of the controversy in the forum of his original choice appear to be based upon such a concept of fairness. Except to the extent that the defendants are called upon to oppose the motion to dismiss, a consideration which can be satisfied by the imposition of costs, the recognition of such an option leaves the defendants no worse off than they would have been had no such motion been filed. They may still have their day in court.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
So ordered.
FOOTNOTES
[Note 1] Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., Kevin Tighe, Robert Johnson, and David Aden.
[Note 2] The rule provides: “By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision (a) [voluntary dismissal by plaintiff by filing a timely notice of dismissal or by filing a stipulation of all parties], an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. . . .”
[Note 3] The complaint in the Van Schaick case involved, inter alia, allegations of fraud, unrelated to the alleged theft of documents. Mr. Flynn, on behalf of the plaintiff in that case, filed a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, for a Preliminary Injunction for Return of Stolen Property and for an Evidentiary Hearing.” After hearing, an order was entered on September 14, 1981, whereby copies of any documents taken were to be furnished to Mr. Flynn and, until further order of the court, the defendants in the case were enjoined from delivering, transferring, distributing, disseminating, or destroying the documents. Further motions were filed, and on April 5, 1982, after a hearing on “Defendants’ Request for Modification of Order,” during which hearing counsel for the defendants agreed to return certain documents to Mr. Flynn, a conditional order was entered vacating the order of September 14, 1981, effective ten days after (1) delivery to Mr. Flynn of all the subject documents in the possession of the defendants’ attorney and (2) the filing of certain representations by defendants’ counsel, including a representation that the defendants would not use the documents for harassment purposes. Also included was an order that the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., produce copies of the documents taken.
[Note 4] Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, also known as L. Ronald Hubbard, according to allegations in the complaint last resided in Hemet, California, and is the “founder, controller, principal and absolute authority over the Scientology organizations and individuals.”
[Note 5] Although there are cases to the contrary, see Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105, 107-108 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 964 (1953), according to “[t]he sounder view and the weight of authority” a defendant may be dismissed even if there are other defendants remaining in the case. 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2362, at 149-150 (1971).
[Note 6] Rule 41(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: “[A] notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of this or any other state an action based on or including the same claim.”
[Note 7] They refer first to the length of time during which the case was pending and the absence of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in bringing it forward. We do not view the delay as so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse, particularly in light of the absence of any effort by the defendants to move the case along. Next, the defendants point to Mr. Flynn’s unavailability for the deposition and the timing of the filing of the motion for a voluntary dismissal, on the very day of Mr. Flynn’s scheduled deposition. The effort to schedule Mr. Flynn’s deposition for that date, however, was the first effort by the defendants in this case to schedule the deposition or to conduct any discovery. Mr. Flynn may not have acted promptly or as courteously as one would have liked in an effort to work out a mutually convenient date but, in the absence of a determination that Mr. Flynn was in fact available for the deposition on September 29, 1983, and that he refused to appear, we do not view the deposition scheduling problem as a sufficient basis for the action taken. The defendants argue further that the action was justified because the allegations in the complaint lacked merit. Yet we note that they were sufficiently meritorious to form the basis for some relief afforded by the Federal District Court in the Van Schaick case and for some concessions to be made by counsel for the defendants. The defendants also refer to the expense of the litigation to date as a valid basis for the action taken. The imposition of costs, including counsel fees, as a condition of dismissal, however, ought to have satisfied these interests. Finally, the defendants urge that the action taken was proper because they ought to be allowed to defend themselves in this action and in the forum selected by the plaintiff and not be faced with the same claims at a later time. Mr. Flynn offered assurance that he would not sue these defendants on these claims, and, even if that assurance does not provide complete protection to the defendants, it is not altogether clear why, in fairness, they are entitled to more. (We express no view as to the effect a dismissal with prejudice would have on Flynn’s Federal District Court case.) Moreover, Mr. Flynn’s interest in suing another individual on a broader claim, of which the instant claim is a part, in a different forum is, on the surface at least, a plausible explanation of his desire to have this case dismissed.
Church of Scientology of California v. Flynn, 578 F. Supp. 266 (D. Mass. 1984)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts – 578 F. Supp. 266 (D. Mass. 1984)
January 16, 1984
578 F. Supp. 266 (1984) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. FLYNN, Defendant.Civ. A. No. 83-2386-MA. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 16, 1984.1 Roger Geller, Geller & Weinberg, Boston, Mass., Jonathan Lubell, Cohn, Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin, Lubell & Lubell, New York City, for plaintiff.Elizabeth Butler Heath, Morrison, Mahoney & Miller, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MAZZONE, District Judge.
This is a libel action. The plaintiff, the Church of Scientology of California (“CSC”), seeks damages from the defendant, Michael J. Flynn, for allegedly defamatory statements made by Flynn and subsequently *267 published in a Florida newspaper. The matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Flynn, a Boston attorney, made the statements in November, 1982, in a telephone interview with a reporter from the Clearwater (Florida) Times. The statements concern Flynn’s attempt to appeal a contempt order issued by a Florida court in litigation against the CSC. The complaint alleges that the following portions of the story are defamatory:
Michael Flynn, Clearwater’s consultant on the Church of Scientology, contended Friday that Scientologists have infiltrated the Volusia County court system and stolen two checks that he sent to appeal a court decision here.* * * * * *Speaking from his Boston office, lawyer Flynn said he mailed two checks, one for $50 and another for $10, to Volusia, and claimed that he even has the bank records to prove it.”Someone at that end infiltrated the courthouse and intercepted the mailed check,” he said. “Someone like a Scientologist.”The filing fee is very important, Flynn said, because it assures him the right to appeal the contempt order.”It’s ridiculous to think I wouldn’t pay a $60 filing fee,” the Boston lawyer continued, adding that he has several deposits at the First National Bank of Boston and plenty of money in them.”If you check into this in depth, you’ll find that something’s afoot in Volusia County,” Flynn went on. He has noted before the Durden and Scientology attorneys are “longtime friends.”The complaint further alleges that the story conveys “the false and defamatory meaning that plaintiff, through its members, had improperly and corruptly become involved with the judicial system, had wrongfully interfered with the U.S. mails and had stolen from the U.S. mails and the Courthouse.”
Flynn urges that the action must be dismissed chiefly because the allegedly libelous statements are, as a matter of law, incapable of being understood as referring to the plaintiff.[1]
As a preliminary matter, it is necessary to make a choice-of-law. I look to Massachusetts conflict rules to decide which state’s law should govern this action. Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). Whether I apply the doctrine of lex loci delecti, see Brogie v. Vogel, 348 Mass. 619, 621, 205 N.E.2d 234 (1965), or the interests analysis embodied in Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 1818 (1971), see Pevoski v. Pevoski, 371 Mass. 358, 360, 358 N.E.2d 416 (1976), the result is the same: Florida law applies. The publication of the libel occurred in Florida; thus, that state is the place where all the elements of the tort alleged were first present. See Strogoff v. Motor Sales Co., 302 Mass. 345, 347, 18 N.E.2d 1016 (1939). Florida contacts also predominate, as that state is the place of injury, the place of much of the relevant conduct, and the place where the relationship between Flynn and the CSC, at least as far as this action is concerned, is centered. See In Re Air Crash Disaster in Boston, Massachusetts on July 31, 1973, 399 F.Supp. 1106, 1111-1112 (D.Mass.1975). In any event, however, Florida law provides no precedent closely on point. Therefore, in deciding whether Flynn’s statements are reasonably capable of being understood as referring to the plaintiff, I look to general principles of libel law on the assumption that Florida’s law is in accord. Cf. Arcand v. Evening Call Publishing Co., 567 F.2d 1163, 1164 (1st Cir. 1977) (Where Massachusetts law provided no clear answer to “group libel” *268 question, Court of Appeals “proceed[ed] on the assumption that Massachusetts law would be in accord with the current state of the authorities, i.e., would not occupy an eccentric minority position.”). The parties have done the same.
There is no doubt, under those general principles, that a corporation can sue for libel. See, e.g., Diplomat Electric, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co., 378 F.2d 377 (5th Cir.1967) (Florida law). That right extends to not-for-profit corporations like the CSC. Finnish Temperance Society Sovittaja v. Finnish Socialist Publishing Co., 238 Mass. 345, 355, 130 N.E. 845 (1921); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 561(b) (1977).
But a corporation, like a private individual, cannot prevail in a libel action unless the allegedly defamatory statement was published “of and concerning” the corporation. Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Publishing Co., 112 F.Supp. 228, 229 (D.Mass. 1953); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 561, 564 (1977). Whether a corporation’s standing in the community was actually diminished is not relevant if the publication at issue did not falsely charge the corporation itself with some kind of impropriety: “One who is not himself libelled cannot recover even though he has been injured by the libel published concerning another.” Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Publishing Co., 112 F.Supp. at 229 (officer or stockholder of a corporation who is not personally libelled has no right to recover for a libel published of the corporation). Likewise, an allegation that a defendant made a statement, intending to reduce public respect for a person does not, in the absence of a libelous charge directed at that person, present a triable issue. Corrigan v. Bobbs-Merril Co., 228 N.Y. 58, 126 N.E. 260, 262 (1920) (“The question is not so much who was aimed at as who was hit.”).
With these general principles in mind, I turn to the central question presented by this motion: whether the defendant’s statements are reasonably capable of being understood as having been made “of and concerning” the plaintiff. In particular, I must consider whether the defendant’s accusation that “Scientologists” or “`some-one like a Scientologists'” stole his filing fee is capable of being viewed as a libel of the CSC.
For the purposes of this inquiry, I assume, as the plaintiff asserts, that the plaintiff would be able to prove at trial that the CSC is the official branch of the Scientology movement most active in Clear-water, Florida. Thus, I assume that a reference that is capable of being viewed as concerning any of the Scientology movement’s not-for-profit religious organizations would, given the facts and circumstances of this case, refer to the CSC.
Nevertheless, I conclude that the statements here at issue cannot support a libel action brought by the CSC. Flynn’s statements assert that an individual or, perhaps, a small group of individuals, infiltrated the Volusia County courthouse and stole his filing fee. The statement was directed at an individual or a few individuals, not a not-for-profit corporation. Had the defendant said, for example, that it was the practice of the CSC to train its members to infiltrate the courthouse, or reward them for doing so, a different question would be presented. But he did not. His statement was directed at the actions of one or a few individual Scientologists, not at the governing body of the Church of Scientology most active in the Clearwater area. Accusing members of any religious organization of criminal activity is hardly likely to reflect well on the religion’s official organs, but the fact that the CSC’s reputation in the community may have been diminished by virtue of Flynn’s charges against an anonymous individual or individuals does not vest in CSC a right to sue for libel. That conclusion follows naturally from the established principle, noted above, that one who is injured by the libel of another has no right of action. Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Publishing Co., 112 F.Supp. at 229.
The case law supports the view that this action should be dismissed. In Mullins v.*269Brando, 13 Cal.App.3d 409, 423, 91 Cal. Rptr. 796, 805 (1970), cert. denied sub nom. Brando v. Coffman, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2231, 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971), the actor Marlon Brando alleged that members of the Oakland Police Department, motivated by racial animus, shot and killed an unarmed member of the Black Panthers who was in the process of surrendering peacefully. The president of the Oakland Police Officers Association sued Brando for libel on behalf of his organization. The court treated the president’s suit as one brought directly by the association, but held that the organization had no right of action. The court said:
We recognize, of course, that an unincorporated association, such as the OPOA, can be defamed. The only trouble with OPOA’s ability to state a cause of action is simply that there is absolutely nothing in any innuendo or inducement pleaded which by any stretch of the imagination can be construed as defamatory of the organization.Id.
In Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. CBS News, 485 F.Supp. 893 (W.D.Mich. 1980), the named plaintiff and several individual hunters alleged that a television broadcast about hunters, part of which had been filmed in Michigan, defamed them. The court ruled that even if it were to assume that the broadcast had defamed some individual hunters, “… the indirect injury which [the organizational plaintiff] claim[s] to have suffered as a result of this would not be compensable.” Id. at 900.
In addition, in Mikilonski v. Burt Reynolds Production Co., 10 Mass.App. 895, 409 N.E.2d 1324 (1980) (rescript) the court held that the Polish-American Guardian Society had no right to sue the defendant on account of allegedly defamatory statements about Poles he made in a motion picture, because the society was not “the object of the alleged defamations.” Id. Like the Oakland Police association, the Michigan hunters group, and the Polish-American society, CSC fails to state a cause of action: Flynn’s statements refer to individual Scientologists, not to the organization they belong to. See also Novick v. Hearst Corporation, 278 F.Supp. 277, 281 (D.Md.1968); Cohn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 414 N.Y.S.2d 906, 909, 67 A.D.2d 140 (1979), aff’d, 430 N.Y. S.2d 265, 50 N.Y.2d 885, 408 N.E.2d 672 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1022, 101 S.Ct. 590, 66 L.Ed.2d 484.
The cases the plaintiff relies on do not alter this conclusion. In Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait, 107 F.Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y.1952), the court permitted the corporate plaintiff to sue for defamatory statements published about its employees. Id. at 101. The statements at issue there, however, suggested that the corporation had intentionally recruited persons of alleged immoral character, and the court noted that “… it cannot be said as a matter of law that a corporation cannot be damaged in a business way by a publication that it employs seriously undesirable personnel.” Id.
In DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. American Federation of Labor, 30 Cal.Rptr. 350, 355, 215 Cal.App.2d 560 (Dist.Ct.App.1963), the court permitted a corporation to sue, but the facts indicate clearly that the publication in question referred to the plaintiff, as a corporation (if not by precise name), and criticized it as such. Finally, in Sullivan v. Affiliated Publications, 8 Med.L.Rptr. 1654 (Mass.Super.Ct.1982), another case in which a corporate libel plaintiff was allowed to proceed, the article referred frequently to the names by which the corporate plaintiff is popularly known.[2]
*270 Although the plaintiff appears not to raise the matter specifically, I have also considered the question whether the CSC may bring a libel action derivatively on behalf of its members. It is settled that a not-for-profit organization may sometimes sue to vindicate its members’ rights. See, e.g., Church of Scientology of California v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272, 1279 (5th Cir.1981). But in order to do so in a libel action, those members must have rights which they could assert in an individual action. Id.; see also Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. CBS News, 485 F.Supp. at 900. Here, no individual Scientologists possess such rights. Arcand v. Evening Call Publishing Co., 567 F.2d at 1164-65. Therefore, the CSC may not sue derivatively.
Accordingly, because the defendant’s statements are not capable of being understood as having been made “of and concerning” the plaintiff, the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted.
SO ORDERED.
NOTES
[1] The defendant also argues that the statements are expressions of opinion and hence not actionable and asserts, in addition, that he was privileged to make the statements because they relate directly to a pending judicial proceeding. My resolution of the defendant’s first ground for dismissal makes it unnecessary to consider these arguments.
[2] I have also reviewed those cases which address the “of and concerning” question in the context of suits brought by the CSC or another official branch of the Scientology movement. In California Church of Scientology v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir.1981), the allegedly defamatory remarks were clearly addressed at the CSC itself. In Church of Scientology v. Adams, 584 F.2d 893 (9th Cir.1978), the court, despite its suggestion “… there is serious doubt that the articles refer to the [CSC],” did not reach the “of and concerning” question on the merits. And in Church of Scientology v. Siegelman, 481 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.N.Y.1979), the court did not quote the language which it concluded raised a factual question regarding whether the plaintiff official branches of the Scientology movement, including the CSC, has been defamed. Again, then, these cases do not in my judgment alter the analysis above.