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
TESTIMONY OF JESSE PRINCE1
VOLUME 8
DATE: July 11, 2002. Morning Session
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, FloridaBEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer
Circuit JudgeREPORTED BY: Debra S. Turner
Deputy Official Court Reporter
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida
_________________________________________________KANABAY COURT REPORTERS
TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL (813) 224-9500
ST. PETERSBURG – CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320Page 1008
APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for PlaintiffMR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service OrganizationMR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service OrganizationMR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service OrganizationPage 1009
[… Other Court business]
THE COURT: Both sides can ask the witnesses if they have been keeping up with this, and I’ll have to decide what I’m going to do about it.
Okay. Mr. Prince.
(Mr. Prince took the witness stand.)
THE COURT: Good morning.
THE WITNESS: Good morning.
THE COURT: Okay. Day 31. This is the 11th, right?
MR. WEINBERG: Of the trial?
THE COURT: 7/11.
MR. WEINBERG: 7/11.
THE COURT: All right. You may continue, Counselor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE PRINCE (RESUMED)
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, in the vein that we just talked, the Judge
Page 1021
and I, have — since you have been back on the stand this week, have you met with any of the witnesses or prospective witnesses in this case?
THE COURT: Do you know who the prospective — does he know who they are?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I think — well, the next witness is Frank Oliver, and then there’s Mr. Dandar. There’s some secret person that Mr. Dandar hasn’t told us about — maybe he’s told you — and the prior witnesses were Peter Alexander, what, Teresa Summers, Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, Bob Minton, other people — Brian Haney. Have you met with any of those people?
A Not anything for the purposes of — that’s been in relationship to this trial. I mean, I was here the day that Mr. Haney was here, and we had lunch when he was testifying. I think I was waiting outside the courtroom or something.
THE COURT: The real question is, Have you discussed with them their testimony or yours?
THE WITNESS: Oh, no.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Have you discussed, since you’ve been back on the stand, your testimony with Mr. Dandar?
A No.
Page 1022
Q Or Mr. Lirot? I’m sorry. I had trouble with his name?
A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.
Q Or Ms. Greenway?
A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.
Q Okay.
A I followed the court instruction in that regard.
Q And have you had an opportunity to visit the — the —
THE COURT: Unless Ms. Greenway is a witness, she could technically — technically I suppose have chatted with her. If people under the rule —
First of all, he’s testified he ought not to be discussing his testimony; the Court instructed him so.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Let me ask you this. I mean, have you eaten — I mean, have you visited with, you know, Ms. Greenway or Mr. Oliver or anybody like that?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Because they’re friends?
A Correct.
Q When’s the last time you saw Mr. Oliver?
A Last night.
Page 1023
Q What were you doing with him last night?
A We had dinner. I invited him to a barbecue.
Q Did you know that he was going to be testifying —
A Yes.
Q — after you?
A Yes.
Q And where was the barbecue?
A My house.
Q And who else was there?
11 A Mr. Lirot, Mrs. Greenway, my fiance.
THE COURT: It — really and truly, this is not your business. What is your business is whether —
MR. WEINBERG: I was going to ask one last question.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And you all didn’t talk about the case?
THE COURT: That isn’t the question either.
It’s whether he discussed anything about his testimony. I mean, they can talk about the trial.
They can say — we’re all crazy to think that when most people get together, they don’t say, “What do you think? Is the case going to be ready for trial?” But the question is what’s going on here.
Page 1024
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you talk at all about your testimony or Mr. Oliver’s testimony?
A No. I followed the Court’s instruction in that regard.
Q Now, I touched on this a couple of days ago, but I want to go back for just a minute and see if we can focus more on the dates. After you left the Church of Scientology at the end of October, beginning of November of 1992, there came a time when, in Minneapolis, you became employed by a company called G & B. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And that was a company — is a company that is run by a woman named Dana Hanson. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And she is a public member of Scientology?
A To my knowledge at the time, yes.
Q All right. And you’d started working for her in March of 1994, thereabouts, correct?
A I’d say that’s a fair estimation of when I started working for her.
Q And at first your then-wife had been referred to her to work, right? Is that how it started?
A I believe, yes. I believe you’re correct in that.
Page 1025
Q And the reference came from a staff member in the Minneapolis Org?
A I’m not sure where the reference came from.
Q In any event, you began to work for this company, right?
A Correct.
Q And you stayed at the company until the fall of 1995, when you were fired, right?
A Incorrect. I was never fired from that company.
Q You left the company in the fall of 1995?
A Correct.
Q Now, during this period of time, Ms. Hanson was kind enough, for part of the time, to let you stay in her house. Right?
MR. DANDAR: Objection to relevancy.
THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, during the time that you were employed by Ms. Hanson — oh, by the way, this company was run pursuant to Hubbard technology, correct?
A Not per se, but she wanted it to. She wanted me to run it according to Hubbard technology.
Q And —
A It hadn’t been like that before.
Q And briefly, that means what?
Page 1026
A Getting people to disclose intimate details about themselves because this was, you know, a Scientology belief that, you know, if you tell intimate details about yourself or things that you wouldn’t necessarily want made public, then it’ll somehow make you feel better and increase your production.
Q And —
A That’s one thing. Another part was to sit people down and have them study the writings of Mrs. Hanson concerning how the company should operate and make sure that they understood all the words that she had written.
And also, she wanted me to do like a class, a classroom for doing the TRs, the training routines that I mentioned earlier in my testimony that’s part of Scientology training —
Q Okay.
A — that kind of thing.
Q And the idea was the company would run more efficiently, correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, during the course of your year and a half or so with the company, there came a time when you admitted to Ms. Hanson that you had engaged in extensive unethical behavior, in violation of moral codes that were adhered to by Scientologists pursuant to this Hubbard
Page 1027
technology, correct?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. This is nothing but to try to embarrass and denigrate Mr. Prince —
THE COURT: What’s the point of this?
MR. WEINBERG: The point is that Mr. Prince said on direct that he couldn’t work because of the Church of Scientology, that he lost his job as a result of the Church of Scientology. That’s what he said.
THE COURT: That has nothing to do with this hearing. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What was the reason that you left in October of ’95?
MR. DANDAR: Same objection.
THE COURT: I’ll allow that.
A I left because I didn’t want to practice — I didn’t want to do that — do the things, the Scientology things, in the company. I just wanted to be normal, just do what a company does, instead of adding a Scientology slant to it.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. So the Church, no staff member, had anything to do with you being terminated from your job.
You just —
Page 1028
A I think I mentioned I was not terminated from my job, Mr. Weinberg.
Q When you terminated from your job, no staff member had anything to do with it.
A I couldn’t hear you. There was noise going on.
Q I said no staff member in any Church of Scientology had anything to do with you leaving your job. Is that right?
A No. That’s categorically false. Mr. Sutter from the Religious Technology Center, after I would not do the Scientological things in that company, together with Ms. Hanson —
THE COURT: This is just not relevant.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I mean, a lot of that answer —
THE COURT: It is not relevant to this proceeding, so you’re not going to go into why he left the job. It just doesn’t matter.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you said yesterday that you had — you accused the Church yesterday of having made you sign undated resignations, resignation letters, which were then dated on the date that you were busted from the RTC.
Correct?
Page 1029
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me show you —
Do we have the resignation letters? Are they in evidence?
MR. DANDAR: While they’re looking for that, Judge, did you say this is Day 31?
THE COURT: If what Mr. Weinberg said yesterday, that that was Day 30, then this would be Day 31. I couldn’t keep up with it.
MR. WEINBERG: May I approach the clerk?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. WEINBERG: This is 242 (handing), your Honor.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I’ve showed you what we’ve marked as 242 —
A Yes.
Q — Defendant’s 242. Can you look at those and tell me if those are copies of the three resignation letters which you signed on March 3rd, 1987?
A Yes, they are.
Q Now, you are familiar, are you not, with a dot matrix printer? Do you know what that is? Do you remember the printers back 13 or 14 years ago?
A Yes, I believe I know what you’re talking about.
Q Right. And this letter — you can tell that
Page 1030
these letters were typed on dot matrix printers. They were printed out on dot matrix printers. You can even see on the side, the column, some of the holes? Do you see that?
They line up exactly on the three letters, right?
A Okay.
Q And it’s impossible to have typed up a letter on a dot matrix printer years before and then run it back through and put a date on it years later. That’s impossible, isn’t it?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside of his expertise.
THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that?
THE WITNESS: No. But I know the answer to why these documents have this date on here.
THE COURT: Okay. If he can’t answer that question, he can’t answer it.
MR. WEINBERG: I move these into evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Oh, can I have this?
MR. WEINBERG: Sure. She has it.
THE COURT: What is the number, please?
MR. WEINBERG: It’s 242.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, in your direct testimony, you made a big
Page 1031
point about the CSWs, the completed staff work, you know, like the purchase orders. Do you know what I’m talking about?
A Yes, I do.
Q And —
A I didn’t make a big deal out of it. I think I explained it.
Q Well, the point was, you said that in order to — for the medical liaison office to buy, you know, chloral hydrate, you would have to have a CSW or purchase order issued. Correct?
A Right.
Q And then you drew some conclusion. Because there wasn’t any purchase order, your conclusion was that that hadn’t happened? Was that what your conclusion was?
A I do not believe that that was my conclusion.
Q In any event, you’re familiar, are you not, with cash floats? Do you know what that is?
A Sure.
Q And are you familiar with the policy that provides for a float for the MLO? Are you familiar with that?
A I am not.
Q Explain to the Court what a float is.
A Well, I mean, if you have a policy there, I mean,
Page 1032
I —
THE COURT: He just wants you to tell me what a float is, if you know.
THE WITNESS: I don’t.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I thought you just said you did.
A Well, not in the — I don’t think — maybe I misspoke, because I don’t understand the context you’re talking about float here.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll have it marked.
Could you mark this as 243, I believe.
This would be 243, your Honor (handing).
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, I’ve handed you a — Defendant’s 243, which is Flag Order 3082R, November 15th, 1971, with regard to medical finance. And do you see that this policy reinstates in every Sea Organization the use of a $1,000 medical float? Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you understand what that means?
A Yes, I do. But this does not negate someone else that has a medical emergency, as stated in that CSW exhibit that we put in for medical emergencies, of what it has to
Page 1033
go through.
Q Well, do you understand that what this is saying is that for every Sea Organization, including — which would include Flag Services, correct, Fort Harrison?
A Correct.
Q Right. That for every organization, the MLO, the medical liaison office, has a $1,000 float from which they don’t have to issue these CSWs and purchase orders and can go get what they need? Do you understand that?
A Well, hang on a second, because I’m looking at this second page here, and it says since the medical officer has the authority in the Org more than anyone else under need of these purchases, he does not need division reapproval. He does not have to have a CSW for his money. Division 3 just disburses the money each time. A simple red purchase order stating $1,000 for a medical float is sufficient to get the money.
Now, what this is specifically referring to is a medical officer having this float, but there’s another policy letter in Scientology that’s in Division 3 that has to do with accounting. Even though this medical officer would have this float, he would still have to account in detail where the last $1,000 went as well.
Q Well, look at under “essential data.” Do you see where it says this policy — this medical float policy is
Page 1034
established to prevent the medical officer from having to spend much time or worry on finance?
A Yes.
Q Do you understand that the whole concept of every time I had to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner that needed it, that I would have to fill out some CSW, that that might not be a very efficient way to help people and that that’s what this float policy is all about?
A Well, you know, I understand what you’re saying in theory and, you know, I don’t — I really don’t think it’s a common practice.
THE COURT: Are you saying that when you go back and get more — $1,000 float money that they’re going to want to see what you spent the money for?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And how are you going to account for that? With receipts or what?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, have you ever been a medical liaison officer?
A No, I have not.
THE COURT: I mean, this sounds to me like a petty cash fund of sorts.
MR. WEINBERG: That’s exactly —
Page 1035
THE COURT: When you have a petty cash fund, you still — if it’s a $1,000 petty cash fund, you’re going to have to show somebody what it is you spent the money on.
MR. DANDAR: I also object. The last sentence on this document talks about it’s only for the crew. They hadn’t mentioned anything about public members.
THE COURT: Well, you can bring that up on cross-examination.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: I was just raising this because of the testimony on direct, that you needed a CSW. This policy says you don’t need a CSW.
THE COURT: I frankly didn’t even remember it, so . . .
MR. WEINBERG: You do now, right?
THE COURT: I do now.
MR. WEINBERG: And then I’ll just show you —
Then I’ll mark, just so it’s in the record the — as the next exhibit.
THE CLERK: 244.
MR. WEINBERG: 244, take one second (handing to Court and witness).
Page 1036
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The Modern Management Technology Defined: Hubbard Dictionary of Administration and Management. You know about that dictionary, right, Mr. Prince?
A Yes, I do.
Q If you go to “medical float,” do you see on page 329, it says: “With this float, the medical officer buys doctor-dentist-medical-health specialist visits and treatment, laboratory analysis, X rays, medical equipment essential for a person’s health, medicines, prescriptions, and transportation.” Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q So something like a prescription for chloral hydrate would be covered by the medical float, would it not?
A This references this same Flag order. I gave testimony that a Flag order has to do with Sea Org personnel. It has to do with people that are on staff in the Sea Org.
Q So — so the MLO officer has to get a purchase order to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner who is staying at the Fort Harrison, but if he or she doesn’t — if a Sea Org member is at the Fort Harrison? Is that your testimony?
A My testimony is the evidence that you’ve given me
Page 1037
here states specifically that this is how it is done for staff members. The public, being a paying public, certainly have different policies.
THE COURT: To be candid with you, I think it’s been conceded that — by somebody that Lisa McPherson should not have been to the hotel. Hasn’t that been conceded?
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don’t think conceded.
I think people were trying —
THE COURT: To suggest that it really ought not to have been taken care of —
MR. WEINBERG: It would have been a smarter thing to be in a different environment.
THE COURT: Right. So you have to assume that the medical that they’re talking about in this — I’ll ask Mr. Prince this.
You have to assume that normally it’s going to be Sea Org members who are going to be taken care of because they’re the ones that would be living in a Scientology facility.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: But at some place like Flag, where they have maybe — I guess you have to be a Sea Org member to come there and take the technology courses that they offered.
Page 1038
THE WITNESS: No, you don’t have to be —
THE COURT: Right. So if somebody is there — there, and they have to get a — I mean, I don’t know what — they get sick and somebody is called in and they need some minor medicine, I would assume that they would allow this policy to govern, rather than have to go through all the harangue of whatever it was you were talking about.
But I think that whatever it is, you’re going to still, nonetheless, account for whatever it is you bought out of your petty cash fund or your float fund or whatever you want to call it.
THE WITNESS: Sure. And the other thing, your Honor, is that in no way will a Scientology organization pay the medical expenses of a public paying staff member, a public person coming in, using services in Scientology.
You know, the money works the other way. The public gives the money to Scientology. Scientology doesn’t then —
THE COURT: Well, we know they were using Ms. McPherson’s money to pay for certain things because she eventually ran out.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: So presumably everything was subject. I mean, if she was really in a bad
Page 1039
situation, a psychotic, where she couldn’t — you know, they apparently were free to use her funds, I guess.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So you can’t really tell us, under the circumstances that we’re dealing with here, whether chloral hydrate was necessarily purchased out of the float money or whether it was purchased with this CSW.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Would that be fair?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. WEINBERG: Just a few more questions, one more area.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Back to the gun situation just for a moment.
Yesterday when we talked about this or the day before — I’ve sort of lost count now — you sort of suggested that it was more of a — of a joke, that you really weren’t that serious.
THE COURT: What was a joke?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That you weren’t really threatening anybody.
THE COURT: What are you talking about?
MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I’m sorry, the gun, when
Page 1040
he says he pulled the guns on David Miscavige.
A I didn’t say anything about a joke. I said I did it out of self-protection.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. So —
A That’s the testimony that I gave from this stand.
Q Well, I thought I heard you say that you didn’t really threaten anybody.
A I can’t help what you thought you heard, but I can tell you right now that when — after — what I testified to in this courtroom is that after those people grabbed me and I got away from them, I went to my room and got these weapons to protect myself.
It wasn’t a joke to me at that point.
Q And when you first told — do you remember when you first told this story about guns? That was in the FACTNet deposition, which was the first deposition I think — was that the first deposition you gave after you became a witness against Scientology?
MR. DANDAR: Objection to form.
THE COURT: No, that’s all right.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A I’m not sure.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Page 1041
Q All right. Do you remember in that deposition that you said something to the effect that bodies were going to start dropping?
A If you have it, you know, I’d like to see it.
Q Okay.
A If you just have it, you show it to me, and I’ll tell you what I said.
Q We’ll play a short clip, you’ll have it, and then I’ll have a couple of questions.
A Okay.
HE COURT: A short clip from what? A deposition?
MR. WEINBERG: Of his deposition. It’s his deposition.
THE COURT: In this case?
MR. WEINBERG: No. It’s his deposition in the FACTNet case. It will take just a minute, I think.
MR. DANDAR: Apparently need it brighter.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m amazed she can pull this stuff up.
THE WITNESS: Right in this room, I’m having a difficult time. I think I’d better go around.
THE COURT: Sure. Wait a minute.
MR. WEINBERG: Wait just one second.
Page 1042
(The witness left the stand,)
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The tape was played as follows.)
FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JESSE PRINCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1998
A And I went to my room, where I had a loaded .45 and a loaded Mini 14, and I came back to David Miscavige’s office with those guns. And I said, “Which one of you wants to fuck with me now?”
BY MR. ROSEN:
Q And what happened? I’m sitting here with bated breath thinking — to hear the end of the story.
A Well, do you want me to tell it or do you want —
Q No, I’m (unintelligible) the answer to that question that you raised.
A Well, I’m confused now. What question did I raise?
Q You posed a question to Mr. Miscavige that “which one of you wants to F with me now?”
A Right. So at this point Vicki comes running out:
“Jesse, no, no, no, it’s all been sanctioned by Annie Broker. She knows about everything. And Pat Broker. She knows about everything. Don’t do this.”
Then here comes David Miscavige. He completely
Page 1043
changes his tune now: “Oh, Jesse,” you know, “we’ve been friends and we’ve gone through so much. Let’s not go here.
It’s a mistake what we’ve done here. I know you’re upset. Please let’s talk about it.”
And I stood there looking at them with my guns in my hand, wondering. You know, like you can pat a snake on the head, but as soon as you pull your hand back, he going to bite. And I was wondering if that was going to happen to me as I’m sitting here with these guns.
And, you know, David is like pleading. Then it turns into a situation like, “Well,” you know, “we’ve got lots of guns too.”
And I said, “What the hell do you all want to do, have a shootout? Because I’ve got guns here, and bodies are going to start dropping.”
(End of tape. The witness returned to the stand)
MR. DANDAR: I object. It’s apples and oranges. It doesn’t even go to try to impeach the witness.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, first —
THE COURT: I don’t know what the purpose was, so we’ll hear now.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Yesterday or the day before, July 9th, when I
Page 1044
asked you the question about whether you threatened to kill Mr. Miscavige, you said, quote, “I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige.”
Now, when you told that story to Mr. Rosen at that August 1998 deposition, you said in front of Mr. Miscavige, you know, “Bodies are going to start dropping,” or something like that. Right? I mean, you said that —
A The video speaks for itself, and I don’t contest it. I mean, that’s — what I said is what happened, is what I meant. So you can take it any way you want.
Q Now, when you said a Mini 14 —
THE COURT: A what?
MR. WEINBERG: A Mini 14.
THE COURT: What do we care about this, about these guns?
MR. WEINBERG: About —
THE COURT: About something that went on between him and — way back when.
MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s just the opposite, your Honor. We don’t believe this incident ever happened and that he just made this up for reasons that one can only imagine when he told this story for the first time in August of 1998. But, your Honor, I mean —
Page 1045
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Let me ask you. A Mini 14 is an assault rifle, right?
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Bailiff, could I possibly have our model there?
This is just a replica.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: It’s plastic. It’s plastic.
It’s not real.
MR. DANDAR: I just wish — I just wish the St. Pete Times was here with their camera to see this.
I think this is an unbelievable game —
THE COURT: Is that an objection?
MR. DANDAR: — of showmanship. It’s irrelevant.
THE COURT: What is the point?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q (Showing) Is that what you’re talking about?
Something like that?
A Similar to, but not quite.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’m going to give you this back.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And you still contend that that’s what you pulled
Page 1046
on Mr. Miscavige and the other twelve people that were there. Right?
A Mr. Weinberg, I stand behind the testimony that I’ve given about that incident in the past and anything I’ve said —
Q All right.
A — in this hearing.
Q And then they just let you go right back to your room and put the guns in your room?
A Correct.
Q And they didn’t take them away from you?
A Correct.
Q And they just stayed there for the next, what, five years?
A No. I eventually sold the Mini 14.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I don’t have any further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Redirect?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, we ought to pick it up right where Mr. Weinberg just left off.
(Mr. Weinberg spoke to Mr. Dandar off the record.)
Page 1047
MR. DANDAR: Do you want me to wait?
MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. I just don’t want to interrupt you.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q When you had these two real guns loaded as you described when you were being, quote, busted, unquote, Mr. Miscavige came right up to you while you held the two guns in your hands, correct?
A Correct.
Q And did you or he laugh?
A Laugh?
Q Laugh.
A Like laugh?
Q Yes, like laugh.
A No.
Q Did Mr. Miscavige say — indicate to you any fear whatsoever?
A No.
Q And then you turned around and walked back to your room?
A Correct. I believe he may have even followed me there. And we then proceeded to that area of the ship where we saw the pictures with the swimming pool, with the mast, and we had a conversation there.
Q Did you sit around the pool?
Page 1048
A Well, actually, there’s an area inside that’s air-conditioned, has a bar in there, and we actually sat in there and drank cold water and ate fruit.
Q And when Mr. Weinberg — or, you said that Vicki Aznaran, the president of the RTC, told you that this had all been sanctioned by Annie and Pat Broker, did she accompany you to the RPF after that?
A Yes, and other people for sure.
Q Because she took the Annie and Pat Broker side, rather than the David Miscavige power struggle side?
A Correct.
Q You’re going to the RPF, Mr. Prince. Did it have anything to do with any mistakes you made in applying the tech of Scientology?
A Absolutely not.
THE COURT: What does this all have to do with anything I’m hearing?
MR. DANDAR: Just trying to straighten out some misconceptions. My computer just went onto standby. That’s not what I wanted to happen. All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, when you left Scientology, did you just walk out the door in ’92?
A No.
Page 1049
Q How did you leave?
A I had to basically sign a release saying that Scientology has never done anything wrong with me and has no liability for anything that I may be suffering then or could realize in the future and on and on and on —
THE COURT: Wasn’t that release introduced yesterday?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So it said whatever it said.
MR. DANDAR: Well, I wanted to ask him a question about it, and you can see my paralegal is not here, so I’m flying.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q That release says that you were releasing the Church of Scientology from any and all damages for valuable consideration. There’s two or three paragraphs that say that.
A M’hum (affirmative).
Q What valuable consideration did you receive from the Church of Scientology to sign that release?
MR. WEINBERG: It was asked and answered.
He explained —
THE WITNESS: No, I never answered this.
THE COURT: Just a second.
Page 1050
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, asked and answered
by Mr. Dandar. I didn’t go back into it. It’s beyond the scope. But he already — Mr. Prince already explained how much money he got in return for signing the release on direct.
THE COURT: He did?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes. He said —
THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.
MR. DANDAR: Shhh.
MR. WEINBERG: I thought he said a thousand plus dollars.
THE COURT: I don’t remember it, so I’m going to allow him to ask it. I don’t remember it.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I might have brain drain.
MR. DANDAR: I think you’re talking about some meeting in December of ’94.
MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t think so.
THE COURT: That was more than a thousand.
THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.
MR. WEINBERG: I really think he did, but it doesn’t matter.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, did you receive anything of consideration
Page 1051
to sign those releases?
A I think I received $2,000.
Q Okay. From whom?
A Good question. Marty just handed me the money.
Q Well, do you have any idea why it’s not mentioned in the release?
A I do not.
THE COURT: Most releases don’t tell you what. Most releases say “ten dollars and other valuable consideration,” don’t they?
MR. DANDAR: Not the ones that I’ve seen, Judge.
THE COURT: Most of the ones I’ve seen do, because I always wondered why they pick ten dollars.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, how is it that Ms. Dana Hanson wanted to — picked you to come into her public business and set up her business to run the Hubbard tech?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competency.
I mean, how is it that this woman —
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that. Quite frankly, I suspect that he’s already testified he was one of the premier experts on the tech. So I mean, I think I can assume that.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. If you can assume that,
Page 1052
I’ll go on.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, you were —
THE COURT: I can’t assume that, but, I mean, that is the testimony that he has put forth.
MR. DANDAR: Okay.
THE COURT: So . . .
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, is there any other reason as far as you know — without telling us what other people said — is there any other reason as far as you know as to why Dana Hanson hired you, other than your expertise on the tech?
A You know, there —
THE COURT: If you don’t know —
A I don’t know the reason.
THE COURT: Remember yesterday, that’s a perfectly valid answer in a court of law, “I don’t know.”
THE WITNESS: Yes. I don’t know of any other reason.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, you wanted to tell Mr. Weinberg a little while ago why the date of March 3, 1987, appears on all three resignation letters which is Defendant’s Exhibit 242. Why does the date appear on there?
Page 1053
A Because after me and Mr. Miscavige had our little chat on the ship area after the gun incident, he said, you know: “We have your undated resignation, but just help us,” you know, “do everything right now.” You know: “We’re talking again. You’re going to take this fall; you’re going to do this. Would you please just do it again and sign these new ones?”
And I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”
So that’s why these are signed this way.
Q So there exists other resignation letters that are undated?
A Yes, correct.
Q Have you seen those? Have they been produced to you ever?
A Not today.
Q Have you ever seen them before this?
A Sure.
Q Where?
A In the Religious Technology Center in my office, where I signed it. I also saw it in David Miscavige’s office on the day that I was removed from the executive position of Religious Technology Center.
Q Okay. So on the resignation letters that are in evidence, those are the ones you actually signed on March 3rd of 1987?
Page 1054
A Correct.
Q Okay. And you did that because your friend David Miscavige asked you to do it?
A Correct.
Q You weren’t threatened and forced to do it?
A Correct.
Q Were you being a good Scientologist when you signed that?
A Absolutely.
Q All right. Now, Mr. Houghton, who is a defendant in this case, who is in the MLO office, who is the one that came up with the idea of using a syringe to get aspirin and Benadryl —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. First of all, to the form; he’s just testifying.
Secondly, he’s misstating the testimony.
And thirdly, it’s beyond the scope of my cross-examination. I didn’t ask anything about Mr. Houghton.
THE COURT: I suspect he’s going to go back to the CSW that you felt compelled to raise in some fashion.
MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. But then —
MR. DANDAR: How do you know that?
MR. WEINBERG: — I object to the form. Then I object to the form, as he’s just making a
Page 1055
speech.
THE COURT: Your objection to form is overruled because he’s not. He’s trying to provide some background to see if this witness can answer a question.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Houghton stated on page 71 of his deposition, where the question begins on line 18, as follows.
Question —
THE COURT: You folks back there, I can hear you clear up here, so it must be disconcerting to Mr. Dandar. So keep your voices down. Or you may step out of the room at anytime you need to speak in a loud voice.
Go ahead.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Question: “And where did you get the money to buy the prescription?”
Answer: “I got it from Alain Kartuzinski.”
Question: “And why did you go to him to get the money?”
Answer: “I didn’t have the personal funds to pay for it. I didn’t know. I don’t know exactly why I went to Alain. I don’t know what events led me up to getting the money from Alain, but I do know that’s where I got the
Page 1056
money.”
The question is, Is Mr. Kartuzinski, back in November and December of 1995, pursuant to his testimony in this case, part of the MLO?
A No.
Q What was he?
A He was the Senior CS —
THE COURT: I’ll tell counsel what you really don’t have to do is ask this witness that. I would know that.
MR. DANDAR: Sorry.
THE COURT: You can save a lot of this for closing argument.
MR. DANDAR: All right. There’s so much of that.
All right. That takes care of this part.
Let’s put this away.
THE COURT: Is this a witness, by chance, that has just come in?
A SPEAKER: (Shook head negatively.) No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Welcome then. I didn’t want somebody to come in that was maybe going to testify.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Page 1057
Q All right. Mr. Prince, in your tenure in Clearwater at the Lisa McPherson Trust, did you ever see the Church of Scientology picketing the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A Absolutely. You know — yes. Yes, many times.
Q Would they do it in front of the building, the office?
A They would do it in front of the building. They would do it inside the building. There’s many police reports of Scientologists running and screaming, disrupting activities. Again, my friend — my good friend, Judge Penick, can speak about that. And we watched videos for days. He would be a great witness about that.
Q Okay. All right. Do you know if anyone from the Lisa McPherson Trust hired private investigators to follow Church members around?
A Never.
Q Go to their homes and picket their homes?
A Never.
Q Pass out leaflets in their neighborhood?
A No.
Q Now, even though you left the Church of Scientology, have you ever divulged the confidential PC folders of the people that you either audited or were a case supervisor over?
Page 1058
A No, I have not, never.
Q Now, Mr. Weinberg went back and talked to you about your deposition that you gave on behalf of Religious Technology Center, where their former attorney, Joseph Yanny, was suing them or RTC was suing him. I’m not sure.
Do you remember which way that was?
A I don’t remember which way it was going.
Q Okay. But anyway, that was back in 1989, while you were still in your demoted status?
A You know, that had been some years past that, yes.
Q Okay. And when you met — you said you met with Mr. Earle Cooley, the attorney for RTC, before your deposition commenced?
A Correct.
Q Do you also recall meeting with a person by the name of Lynn Farney?
A Yes.
Q And the reason why I know this is it’s in your deposition copy that Mr. Weinberg gave me. Before today — in fact, as you sit here today, have you ever seen a copy of that deposition?
A No.
Q That deposition is dated September 11th of 1989.
Mr. Weinberg questioned you in your deposition in this case
Page 1059
that was taken in ’99, ten years after the RTC deposition.
Do you remember him questioning you about that deposition?
A Yes.
Q Did he give you a copy of that deposition back then?
A No.
Q Now, Mr. Farney, do you know — back at the time that he and Mr. Cooley, the attorney, met with you before the RTC deposition, do you know what position he had?
A Mr. Farney had been on a Rehabilitation Project Force with myself. Mr. Lynn Farney is a person that I used to create and establish the Office of Special Affairs at International. I had —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, he just asked him what position he was in at the time that he supposedly had this meeting with him. Now we’re getting the whole history. Can he just answer the question, please?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q At the time of his deposition, what was his position?
A Mr. Farney was working in OSA International. It was my belief that Mr. Farney was working in OSA International.
Page 1060
THE COURT: I’m sorry, I must have missed the beginning of this. What did you initially ask him? If Mr. Farney was —
MR. DANDAR: Part of the meeting preparing Mr. Prince for deposition in the RTC case.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: RTC slash Yanny, Y-a-n-n-e-y.
THE WITNESS: Y-a-n-n-y.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Farney is someone that you worked with in establishing the Office of Special Affairs?
A Correct.
Q Do you remember what year that was?
A ’84. ’83, ’84.
Q Okay. And are you aware that Mr. Farney is also the person who met with all the staff members after Lisa McPherson’s death?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor —
A No, I was not aware of that.
MR. WEINBERG: Objection to form. He’s testifying.
THE COURT: True. Sustained. However, he wasn’t aware of it, so —
MR. WEINBERG: I understand. It’s just —
Page 1061
THE COURT: Remember, questions aren’t evidence, only the answers.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, in that meeting before your deposition, who instructed you to avoid telling the truth in your deposition?
A Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Cooley.
THE COURT: Is it Rathburn or Rathbun?
MR. WEINBERG: Bun.
THE COURT: Bun.
THE WITNESS: Rathbun.
THE COURT: B-u-n.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
MR. DANDAR: And it’s Ms. Brooks, not Mrs. Brooks. Never mind.
MR. WEINBERG: R-a-t-h-b-u-n.
MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did it surprise you when Mr. Cooley and Mr. Rathbun were giving you instructions on not telling the truth?
A No, it did not.
Q And why is that?
A Because it’s expected.
Q Why is that?
Page 1062
A Because you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect — you know, it’s like placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk being a crime. You have — you are expected as a member of the Church of Scientology to do and say whatever you have to to preserve Scientology, to preserve its leaders.
Q Is that a written policy?
A Probably.
Q And Mr. Yanny —
MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, could we just identify that policy if that’s a written policy?
He said “probably.”
THE COURT: I assume probably he couldn’t tell us —
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: — or he would have given us a number.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Can you tell us — without giving a number, but can you tell us generally what policy you’re talking about?
A As I sit here today without the materials, I could not, but I could certainly submit a declaration on it at a later point.
Q All right. What is an acceptable truth?
Page 1063
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I didn’t ask him about —
THE COURT: Right.
MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: I think he already — didn’t you already ask that on direct?
MR. DANDAR: I did, I did.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, you said —
THE COURT: Didn’t you also testify about the greatest good for the greatest number?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did.
THE COURT: So we’ve heard, I think, a lot of that.
MR. DANDAR: You have, I’m sorry.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Were you working for RTC at the time of that deposition in 1989?
A No, I was not.
Q Well, Mr. Yanny was the former president — or, attorney for RTC, correct?
A Correct.
Q Why was he suing RTC? What was that litigation about?
A You know, what I recall about that is that when
Page 1064
Joseph Yanny was hired, he was hired by myself and Ms. Aznaran as the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center. When he was hired —
THE COURT: Who was? I’m sorry.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Joseph Yanny, the attorney that was hired.
THE COURT: Mr. Yanny was an attorney?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. DANDAR: In fact, Judge —
Did we mark that as an exhibit at deposition? I’d like to have that marked as an exhibit since it was used. But Mr. Yanny is the one that actually took over questioning of Mr. Prince on the pertinent pages that Mr. Weinberg pointed out, although Mr. Yanny had his own attorney there. He took it over because Mr. Yanny — like me and Mr. Lirot. I have all this stuff in my head and I know what’s going on.
So the transcript — and I’d like to make that — and I will make it an exhibit if it’s not — shows that Mr. Yanny took over the questioning of Mr. Prince in that 1989 deposition.
THE COURT: Normally we don’t use as an
Page 1065
exhibit something that is just strictly used for impeachment purposes.
MR. WEINBERG: That’s why I didn’t do it.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: But if you want to make it an exhibit, why, that’s your — you can try to do that.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, you stated to Mr. Weinberg —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, let me object. I mean, let me intercede for just a second. Just so it’s clear, Mr. Yanny was the party, was the plaintiff. And I think that was clear, but I’m not sure if it was.
THE COURT: I got it.
MR. WEINBERG: RTC was the defendant.
THE COURT: I didn’t realize Mr. Yanny was a lawyer. That’s why I —
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So you hired Mr. Yanny to be the attorney for RTC?
A Mr. Yanny was — yes, I did, to be the lead counsel for RTC. RTC had other attorneys, but Mr. Yanny
Page 1066
was hired to be the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center at that time.
Q And is it for any particular case?
MR. WEINBERG: Object. Your Honor, I believe this is all beyond the scope. All I did was impeach him on his false testimony, which he admitted was false in that deposition. Now to get to the history of that lawsuit or Joseph Yanny I think is beyond the scope and not relevant to this proceeding either.
THE COURT: I would tend to agree with that, Counsel. You know, if you think it’s relevant and there’s something you can tell me about this, I’ll listen to you. But it’s just another one of these lawsuits, many, many lawsuits.
MR. DANDAR: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, do you know whether or not any of the allegations made between RTC and Joseph Yanny had anything to do with Mr. Yanny perjuring himself or suborning perjury?
THE COURT: That would be relevant.
A I don’t know. I don’t remember it.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q You don’t?
Page 1067
A No.
Q All right. Now, did Mr. Yanny have anything to do with any of the Wollersheim litigation?
A Yes, he did. The Wollersheim —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That was a yes or no question, and to — if we get into the details, I’m going to object because it’s beyond the scope and it’s not relevant.
THE COURT: That would be true.
MR. DANDAR: Except he brought up the question, Mr. Weinberg did, about Mr. Prince’s testimony of destruction of the PC folders.
THE COURT: Oh, right.
MR. WEINBERG: And I impeached him on it with the Yanny deposition. He admitted it. He said he lied in the deposition. That’s all I used it for.
THE COURT: Well, I think at this point we’ll see what his question is.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Was Mr. Yanny involved in representing RTC against Mr. Wollersheim?
A Yes.
Q And was Mr. Yanny involved when Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folders were destroyed?
Page 1068
A He had no personal knowledge of it.
Q Was any attorney for Scientology involved in that in any degree?
A The only one that I know of that would have had information about that would have been Mr. Earle Cooley.
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, “would have had.”
I mean, is he saying he did have?
THE WITNESS: I can explain if you would like me to.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Go ahead. Explain it.
A The decision to do this was made in a conference room at Author Services with myself, Vicki Asnaran, Mr. Rathbun was there, Mr. Cooley was there, and this all has to do with —
THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige was there?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor. And this had —
THE COURT: Who else was there?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Lyman Spurlock I believe was there, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mr. Cooley, Marty Rathbun.
And we were sitting in the conference room discussing it. Mr. Starkey may have been there, Mr. Norman Starkey.
THE COURT: This is when you discussed
Page 1069
destruction of these records?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: So Mr. Cooley would have heard this? Is that what you’re saying?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q And whose idea was it to destroy the records?
A As best as I can recall, it was Ms. Aznaran that said, “We have to destroy the folders.” Mr. Miscavige and everyone else agreed, so that’s what was done.
Q And did the folders contain information that would hurt the Church of Scientology?
A Yes, it — apparently, you know, that’s what they felt.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: That’s what you felt too. Right? You were there.
THE WITNESS: Well, I had actually never seen Mr. Wollersheim’s Preclear folders. I had never audited him.
THE COURT: But you didn’t have a problem destroying it.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Page 1070
Q And why didn’t you have a problem destroying his records?
A Because, like every good Scientologist, you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect the integrity of Scientology, its leadership, so that it would carry on because it’s the greatest good. Scientologists believe that Scientology is man’s only answer to freedom.
Q Now, did you have to understand — I’m sorry.
Did I interrupt you?
A No, go ahead.
Q Did you understand at any point in time there was actually a court order to produce the entire PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim after the Church only produced a little bit of it?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, relevancy. He’s already — and beyond the scope and all that —
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. WEINBERG: — other stuff.
THE COURT: I’m sustaining it as beyond the scope.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. Well —
THE COURT: I mean, frankly, I think we’ve already been over this.
MR. WEINBERG: I do too. That’s why I objected.
Page 1071
THE COURT: I don’t need to hear it several times.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, Mr. Prince —
MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, our position is no PC folders were destroyed.
THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that too.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did you understand that Mr. Wollersheim was — did allege that his PC folders were destroyed?
THE COURT: I mean, what are we using —
MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Let me ask you this question. This is what I’m leading up to. Mr. Prince, you said that you lied in your deposition in the Yanny vs. RTC case?
A Correct.
Q And you said you sat in this meeting where Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Cooley was at this meeting where a decision was made to destroy evidence of PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim?
A Correct.
Q And Mr. Aznaran is the one who actually went out
Page 1072
to the paper mill and had it pulped?
A Correct.
Q And you did that because you were being loyal to the Church of Scientology?
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: Objection.
THE COURT: It’s irrelevant. Besides that, you’re doing the testimony, and he’s just saying yes.
You need to ask him, Why did you do that?
MR. DANDAR: And he’s answered that.
THE COURT: Yes, he has.
MR. DANDAR: I want to skip — the question is this.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, are you testifying for the Estate of Lisa McPherson or for me because you’re loyal to the Estate, to the cause, or to Ken Dandar?
A No. I’m testifying because it’s the right thing to do. It’s very difficult to divine truth from — I’m not trying to be vicious here, but it’s very difficult to divine truth from Scientology. People that are currently working on this case, they’ll do anything they can to obstruct it. They’ll do anything they can to make sure —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.
A — that you can’t find out the truth, and —
Page 1073
MR. WEINBERG: He’s going on and on and on.
A — that’s why I do that.
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He was asked a leading question, Are you testifying because you were loyal to the —
THE COURT: Actually, that wasn’t leading because his answer was no.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand he said no. Now he’s going off into some big explanation.
THE COURT: That’s true. If you want to ask him why are you testifying, then he can go on with his explanation.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q All right. Why are you testifying in this hearing?
A To give justice and equity a chance — a fair chance, to give all the information, to be able to give the full view of what’s going on. You know, I think it would be fair — it’s only fair that the whole picture is seen.
Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks offered to continue to pay you $5,000 a month if you, quote, went down the road with them, close quote, and lied. Isn’t that true?
A I was promised a lot more than that.
Q What else were you promised to lie?
Page 1074
A Retirement.
Q Did they go into any specific details?
A Financial security that will retire me for the rest of my life.
Q Any dollar figures discussed?
A A quarter of a million. That’s normally what Mr. Minton does when he gives people money.
Q Would a quarter of a million be enough?
A For me to retire for the rest of my life? No. I think I’m too young. I would need more. I would have to need more.
Q And is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks proposed this to you, to lie, that they knew that they wanted you to lie?
A Absolutely. They knew they were lying. They knew we all had to lie. I mean, this is the only thing that they felt they could do to end it, disengage, to be done with it. I mean, there’s only so long you can wrestle with this demon.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: And you don’t need, Mr. Weinberg, when it’s your turn, to get up and respond to that. It’s for money, he testified. So I understand where both of you all are coming from here.
MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t even going to make
Page 1075
that point.
MR. DANDAR: Well —
MR. WEINBERG: One short point on that.
THE COURT: Well, I saw you getting — fuming, and I was thinking, “Oh, dear.”
MR. WEINBERG: I was thinking about all the calls I have to return.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, when you and I met at the mall with Mr. Lirot, Mr. Haverty, and your fiance and you wrote out what’s attached to your declaration, the handwritten note of April 14th, 2002, did I promise you money at all?
A None at all. Money wasn’t even discussed.
Q Did I pay you any money for writing that note?
A Absolutely not.
Q Did I promise to pay you money in the future if you wrote that note?
A No, you did not.
Q And isn’t it true or — what’s the reason why I gave you a retainer of 4,000?
A Because my time is as valuable as anyone else’s.
Q And you’ve been working on this — this hearing preparing documents for me?
A Correct.
THE COURT: You are back now as Mr. Dandar’s
Page 1076
consultant? Is that it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And expert?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q I certainly haven’t promised you any retirement money, have I?
A No, you have not.
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we have a direct question instead of a leading question?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you were in LMT, did you know that the — and if I asked this, I’ll — I don’t remember asking this — do you know whether or not the LMT received an anonymous $300,000 from Clambake?
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope. I didn’t ask about it.
THE COURT: It’s beyond the scope. The truth of the matter is, rather than recall, if this is an area that he thinks is important, I’m going to let him get into it.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Page 1077
Q Did you know that they got money from Clambake?
A The only — you know, I found out about that —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer the question?
THE WITNESS: I’m trying to answer the question.
THE COURT: Counsel, just let it go, would you?
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: We need to get through this.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
A I found out about that whole deal with money coming from wherever it came from when Teresa Summers wrote her resignation letter to Stacy Brooks and I read it, where that was mentioned.
THE COURT: So the truth — you did not know about the 300,000, who it came from. Mr. Minton never discussed this with you —
THE WITNESS: Correct, correct.
THE COURT: — is that right?
THE WITNESS: That’s right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q And did you ever — while you were with LMT, did you ever hear the phrase “the fat man”?
A No.
Page 1078
Q Okay. Now, with this Key West fishing trip in the summer of 1999, as best I can phrase that, you had already been working for me for a few months, correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, the other people that showed up down in Key West, like Mr. Ford Greene, is that someone that you had ever seen me with before that fishing trip?
A No.
Q Did I go on the fishing trip?
A No, you did not.
Q Did I stay with you and Mr. Leipold and Mr. Greene and Mr. Haverty?
A No.
Q Oh, in that release that’s in evidence, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 231, that release language says that you are conceding or admitting that you were not harmed by the Church of Scientology. Do you have any reason to know why that was put in your release?
A Yes. That was put in the release for the same reason that Scientologists are asked to lie. It’s to protect Scientology at all costs.
Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you on cross if you had any personal knowledge of whether or not David Miscavige was physically at the Fort Harrison Hotel while Lisa McPherson was there in November and December of ’95. Do
Page 1079
you remember that?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Prince, would it matter where David Miscavige was physically located as to whether or not he would have knowledge and was personally involved with the care and treatment of Lisa McPherson?
A In my opinion, no.
Q Why not?
A Well, with the state of technology today, it makes no difference whatsoever. But also, based on past experience that I have had with Mr. Miscavige during the Wollersheim case, we were really just a short distance away, and while the hearings were going on, people were calling and reporting all the time. There’s no problem of getting an on-the-ground report immediately in any place in Scientology for Mr. Miscavige.
THE COURT: It is your opinion — I’m sure you’ve probably testified to this, but I can’t remember. I’ve heard from several people. It is your opinion that Mr. Miscavige was kept advised at all times of Lisa McPherson and her situation.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is my opinion that once the situation where she got out of the car and was admitted to the hospital and it became a matter for Office of Special Affairs’ concern, then he
Page 1080
was — he knew about it.
THE COURT: Was it your opinion while she was admittedly PTS-III, undergoing introspection rundown, he would be kept advised of this and the progress?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Or lack of progress?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to —
THE COURT: And that opinion comes from your having been around him when he was head of RTC?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Or ASI?
THE WITNESS: Both.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: When Mr. Hubbard was alive and was the head ecclesiastical leader of the Church, would he have been kept advised of PTS Type III introspection rundown?
THE WITNESS: He would have taken it over and dealt with it himself.
THE COURT: My question is, Would he have been kept advised?
Page 1081
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Wherever it was being conducted?
THE WITNESS: Well, in all honesty, your Honor, I have to answer this and say that towards the end of Mr. Hubbard’s life —
THE COURT: Forget when folks say he was mad. I understood that.
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: When he was in charge of the Church and head ecclesiastical leader, would he have been kept advised of that type of situation, with either a public or staff member of Scientology?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there any question in your mind whatsoever about that?
THE WITNESS: None whatsoever. He would have taken it over and did it himself.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to admit that there’s no written policy in the Church of Scientology to go out and kill somebody, and you said that’s true. Do you recall that?
THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s that?
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q There’s no written policy in the Church of
Page 1082
Scientology to go and kill somebody.
A Well, there’s one thing that came into evidence here. It was the SP declare of — I think I read down the list. It was maybe eight people. And in that —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, what came into evidence? The, what, SP?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It was an SP declare. It was a single sheet of a paper by L. Ron Hubbard declaring — I think it was eight people suppressive persons and declared them fair game. And then on one of the lines, L. Ron Hubbard gave instructions whereby he said any Sea Org member encountering any of the above persons is to use process R245 on them.
Process R245 —MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —
THE WITNESS: — is a process —
MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, objection.
This was the document that was not admitted that Mr. Prince is now testifying about. It was the phony document.
MR. DANDAR: Phony —
MR. WEINBERG: And this is way beyond the scope of my cross-examination.
THE COURT: It’s not beyond the scope because you made it clear there’s absolutely no basis
Page 1083
upon which to make the assertions that he has. Now, if he has a basis, he would be permitted to testify. So it’s not beyond the scope.
MR. WEINBERG: This document that he’s talking about is not in evidence.
THE COURT: All right. If that’s true, then he can’t refer to that document.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought it was.
THE COURT: Well, go find it. Let’s take a break and we’ll see whether it is or not. I couldn’t begin to tell you what documents are in and what ones aren’t. But the clerk would have them, whether they were admitted or not.
MR. DANDAR: Right. Before we take a break, let me ask one more question.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q In your tenure at the Church of Scientology, did you ever see anything in writing called R245?
A Yes. It actually comes from a tape lecture. And I forget which tape lecture it was specifically, but it talks about R245 being an effective exteriorization process, whereby the person takes a .45, puts it to his head — a loaded .45, puts it to his head, pulls the trigger, and blows their brains out. That releases the
Page 1084
spirit from the body.
Q Is that a lecture by — who?
A L. Ron Hubbard.
MR. DANDAR: All right. Let’s take our break and let me find that.
THE COURT: All right. It’s 25 after.
We’ll take 15 minutes.
(A break was taken at 10:25 a.m. until approximately 10:55 a.m.)
THE COURT: All right. Where is Mr. Prince?
THE WITNESS: I’m here, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may resume the stand.
You all may be seated.
And, Mr. Dandar, did you find whether that was in or out of evidence?
MR. DANDAR: It was out. And for the clerk’s benefit, I still have it, so make sure I give it back to her. Somewhere. It’s on my table.
Here it is. I have this tendency of walking away with exhibits.
THE COURT: Are we having a light show?
MR. DANDAR: They had a TV or a signal that keeps coming in. We started to watch a soap opera there for a minute.
THE COURT: I see.
Page 1085
MR. DANDAR: But I have a videotape of a Boston picket. And the only reason I want to put this on is because Mr. Weinberg used Mr. Prince picketing in his cross-examination. But this shows what happened before the clip-it, the snippet, that Mr. Weinberg showed.
MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, this is a different day than the picket that I showed. But he can play it.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Ken (motioning to move).
THE WITNESS: It has no audio.
MR. DANDAR: Let’s stop it. Because I did that too.
MR. WEINBERG: Do you know the date of this?
MR. DANDAR: It’s in the beginning of the tape. Just a minute, and I’ll get everything here.
(The tape of the picket was played, entitled “Boston, September 10th, 1998, unedited.”
As noted below, the tape was not reportable and is not transcribed herein.)
THE COURT: Isn’t that pleasant.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just put that on to show you it’s not a one-way street.
THE COURT: I understand.
Page 1086
MR. DANDAR: Now, Mr. Prince —
THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter?
THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: If you didn’t get all that, you can put in the record — because this tape can be put in — that it was just a lot of shouting and carrying on and that you did the best you could.
THE REPORTER: Thank you very much, your Honor.
MR. WEINBERG: Are you marking that as an exhibit?
THE COURT: Make a copy of it for the record, because there’s no way the court reporter could be expected to get all that. Talk about your proverbial everybody talking at once.
MR. DANDAR: That would be impossible to write down.
THE COURT: Yes, it would.
So I’m sure you did the best you could, but as far as I’m concerned, it could be basically said you must see the tape because it’s everybody talking at once and loud and obnoxious.
MR. DANDAR: Since Mr. Lirot is bringing in our next witness, I’m going to mark it as 135A because he has all of his exhibits premarked —
Page 1087
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DANDAR: — starting with 136. So the videotape of Boston, September 10th, ’98, is Plaintiff’s 135A.
MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 135A.
MR. DANDAR: Right.
MR. WEINBERG: It was 9/10?
THE COURT: 9/10/98.
MR. WEINBERG: And you received that into evidence, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, the people that were engaging you and Mr. Minton in that picket, where were they from?
A Office of Special Affairs, Boston.
Q Now, Mr. Prince, you talked about the taped lecture series of Mr. Hubbard where he describes R245?
A Correct.
Q And have you seen that?
A I have seen that.
Q Or heard it, whatever it is. I don’t know what it is.
A Yes, I heard it before, read the transcript.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a TV — which I
Page 1088
believe is a TV interview of Mr. Hubbard where he talks about this policy that he wrote called R245.
MR. LIEBERMAN: Objection, your Honor. It’s not a policy. It’s a mischaracterization of it.
Again, it mischaracterizes the policy of the Church of Scientology.
THE COURT: Well, if this is a lecture of Mr. Hubbard, why, what could be objectionable with Mr. Hubbard —
MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s the characterization of it as a policy.
THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained.
MR. LIEBERMAN: The characterization of what actually was —
MR. DANDAR: I apparently misspoke, I’m sorry. I’ll have Mr. Prince talk about what it is.
As soon as we identify — this is, I believe, Mr. Hubbard speaking, so . . .
THE COURT: What number is it?
MR. DANDAR: Exhibit number? This will be 135B.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask the relevance of playing a 1950 speech of L. Ron Hubbard?
Page 1089
MR. DANDAR: If he’s objecting because of the age of the speech, I think it’s quite clear that the age of any document Mr. Hubbard wrote or spoke about has no significance —
MR. WEINBERG: Well —
MR. DANDAR: — in the Church of Scientology. Everything remains the same.
THE COURT: What is it, though? I don’t understand. Is this a —
MR. WEINBERG: This is redirect.
MR. DANDAR: He brought this up on cross.
THE COURT: What did he bring up?
MR. DANDAR: Mr. Weinberg brought up on cross that there’s no written policy of the Church of Scientology about killing somebody.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: He objected to that Flag order because it wasn’t properly authenticated. That’s fine. It spoke of R245. There’s another publication we’re going to bring in that is current and published by the Church of Scientology that does mention R245.
MR. WEINBERG: What I had asked, just so it’s clear, was there any policy to kill somebody, and he said no. But secondly —
THE COURT: I’m going to allow it, Counsel.
Page 1090
Overruled.
I hope this isn’t terribly long. Is it?
MR. DANDAR: It is. I think it’s 35 minutes.
THE COURT: I’m not going to listen to 35 minutes.
MR. DANDAR: All right. Maybe — what I would like to do over lunch is go down right to the specific area.
MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, you see, that’s the problem. I understand your Honor doesn’t want to listen to 35 minutes. You shouldn’t have to listen to 35 minutes. But you cannot take a speech and say this is a religious policy and take two minutes out of an entire lecture about religious matters and then play it and pretend that that gives you any idea as to the context of what’s going on.
THE COURT: All right. I’ll listen to the whole thing.
MR. LIEBERMAN: I don’t want — I’m not urging you.
MR. DANDAR: Let’s do this after lunch. Is that all right?
THE COURT: All right. Let’s do it about 4 o’clock.
Page 1091
MR. DANDAR: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. We’ll do it after lunch.
MR. DANDAR: I hope Mr. Prince is still not on the stand by 4 o’clock. In fact, I think he should be over quite soon.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, talking about policies of the Church of Scientology, Mr. Prince, are you familiar with the additional steps in evidence, the policy of additional steps of an introspection rundown, where Mr. Hubbard writes that the introspection rundown can be deadly?
A Yes.
Q Are you familiar with search and discovery, the PSSSP course, where it states that some psychotics cannot be kept alive?
A Yes, I am.
Q How do you audit someone who is unconscious?
A Well, I can tell you a process. If a person is laying unconscious on a bed, you simply give them a command, “Give me that hand,” and then you actually execute that command by taking a person’s hand and putting it in your hand. And once you do that, you say, “Thank you.”
And then you put the hand back and say, “Give me that hand.” And you do that repeatedly, over and over.
Page 1092
Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you about the Teresita introspection rundown that you participated in — is it Soboba?
A Soboba Indian Reservation.
Q Okay. Is that — was your experience in that introspection rundown similar to what Lisa McPherson experienced?
A I don’t think so.
Q What were the differences?
MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. “What were the differences,” I mean, he doesn’t have any personal knowledge —
THE COURT: No, but I assume as consultant he read all of the depositions of those who did. So I suspect he can testify about that.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: Did you read the — did you read the depositions or the statements —
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: — from the persons who were attending Lisa McPherson?
THE WITNESS: Yes, and I read the notes as well.
MR. WEINBERG: On direct, he already did that. I didn’t ask him to — not — to do anything
Page 1093
different on cross, and now Mr. Dandar is asking him to do the same thing that he did on direct.
THE COURT: I don’t recall this on direct.
Overruled.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Go ahead. What is the differences? What are the differences?
A The difference being number one that Teresita was a staff member. Mrs. McPherson was a paying Scientology public. Teresita had no intentions of leaving staff or departing from Scientology. Lisa McPherson did.
Beyond that — and, again, there’s so many records. I mean, it’s stated that she was on the introspection rundown. Yet there is no program, there is no evidence, there’s no invoice, there’s no running form, there’s none of those things in evidence that would be in evidence if a person was on an introspection rundown in fact.
And — but as far as the manifestations of wanting to get out of the room that she was locked in, there’s certainly similarities there. But those are some of the differences.
Q When — to your knowledge, your personal knowledge with Teresita, did people talk to Teresita?
Page 1094
A Yes.
Q And — during the entire introspection rundown?
A I mean, no one held long conversations with her. But just basic civility. You know, you walk in a room and you see a person, you say hi. The person says something to you. You either acknowledge or answer the questions. You know, simple things like that.
Q Did you have to assist in any way or did you see others assist in any way Teresita in drinking water?
A Yes.
Q How did they do it?
A Sit down next to her with a glass of water with ice and a straw and sometimes they put — the girls would do it, and I would do it, you know, put your arm around her. Teresita seemed to like that. She was very childlike at times. And hold the straw to her face, and she would drink through the straw. When she would stop, you know, you would tell her: “You just need to drink a little bit more water because it’s good for you. It’s hot out here; it’s the desert. Be a good girl. Drink a little bit more.” And she would drink it.
Q And did you ever see her do that, as time went on in her introspection rundown, where she wouldn’t drink water on her own?
A Yes. But I certainly wouldn’t have any way of
Page 1095
making her drink water if she didn’t want to drink it.
Q Okay. What I’m saying is, did you ever observe her just pick up, without being coached or coaxed, pick up a glass of water or bottled water and just drink it by herself?
A Oh, sure.
Q Was that in the beginning, the middle, or the end, or throughout?
A You know, with Teresita, I don’t think the water was so much an issue because it — at a point in time she wasn’t aware of it, but as she went through introspection and we sat with her and made her drink it, that she came to understand that it was part of the routine, that she had to drink X amount of water every day or, you know, during certain time periods.
Q You said Mr. Hubbard’s doctor, Dr. Denk, came to see her?
A Yes, he did.
Q How many times?
A Once that I know of.
Q And he administered something to her?
A Yes, he did.
Q All right. After he left, did he leave any medicine behind or something for others to administer to her?
Page 1096
A Yes. There were some pills.
Q Do you know what they were?
A I do not. I do not recall what they were.
Q All right.
A But I know they were to make her sleep.
Q Okay. Did he leave instructions with people how often to give that?
A Yes, he did. I think we were to break the tablets in half, to not give her a strong dose, or even lesser amounts and crush it up and mix it in with a protein drink.
Q Do you know of any licensed medical doctor who came in to see Lisa McPherson?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know if Teresita received a medical examination by a licensed medical doctor before or during — outside of Dr. Denk? Well, let me start — that was a terrible question.
In addition to giving Teresita prescription drugs, did Dr. Denk examine her?
A Yes, he did. He looked in her eyes, looked in her ears, checked her mouth, you know, pressed certain areas of her body to see if it was sore or she would react, check their feet, check their arms, check their back, check their neck.
Page 1097
Q Okay. Was anything else done as far as the medical exam outside of what you just said?
A Not — no, not — I don’t think so.
Q Okay. Now, you mentioned on cross-examination meeting with me and preparing that handwritten note that’s dated April 14th, 2002, the past year, a typed affidavit.
Why did you prepare a handwritten note?
A I felt it was important to preserve in some fashion what I had discussed with you, what had been going on. And since I had plans to investigate it further, in case something happened to me when I went off to see those people that at least there would have been something left written by me that would have indicated something was going on.
Q Now, the day that you prepared that written statement, that was the night you were supposed to meet with Mr. Rinder?
A Correct.
Q Did I assist you at all in preparing that written statement?
A No, you did not.
Q In fact, you purposely went away from me —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Page 1098
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q All right. How close were you to me when you wrote that document?
A I separated myself and went to a different table and did the document.
Q Okay. Now, in that affidavit that you prepared — you typed that all by yourself, correct?
A Correct.
THE COURT: Which affidavit are we talking about?
MR. DANDAR: The —
THE COURT: The last one?
MR. DANDAR: The last one, April 2002, that was actually executed —
THE WITNESS: May 1st.
MR. DANDAR: — May 1st.
THE COURT: What was the date of the last visit with Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks? What was the date?
MR. DANDAR: What was the date? Was it that Sunday?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it was a Sunday.
THE COURT: The 14th.
MR. DANDAR: The 14th of April.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, in that affidavit, Mr. Weinberg pointed out
Page 1099
on cross that you put in the wrong date. You put in August of 2001, and Mr. Minton told you on the top of the garage about his last check to me of 500,000?
A Correct.
Q As you sit here today, what are you positive about in reference to that conversation with Mr. Minton?
A Everything that I’ve testified to.
Q When did it take place?
A It took place — you know, I can’t say the exact month, you know. I’m sorry, I wish I could do better with that. But I know it was very warm. I know that specifically it was a $500,000 check.
Q If I told you to assume that Mr. Minton only delivered to me one check for $500,000, was this conversation with Mr. Minton before or after he delivered the check?
A After.
Q And do you have any idea if it was before or after he gave a deposition in May of 2000?
A No, I have no idea.
Q Okay. Now, you mentioned that, when you met with Mr. Minton after he testified before Judge Baird on April 9th, you then telephoned Frank Oliver?
A Correct.
Q To ask Frank Oliver to call me to have me call
Page 1100
you?
A Correct.
Q Why did you go through that circuitous route?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because he did —
I asked him the same question, why did you do that, and he explained it.
THE COURT: I think it’s been asked and answered.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Okay. Why did you feel your home was bugged?
A Because a person that was hired by Scientology, a private investigator named David Amos, contacted me here in Clearwater, and I went to visit with him in Memphis, Tennessee, and he told me —
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That’s hearsay, your Honor, whatever — he had some conversation with some guy David Amos.
THE COURT: It’s not introduced as to the truth of the matter asserted. It’s basically as to why he thought his house was bugged, not because it was bugged.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, then he had a conversation. We shouldn’t get into the details of the conversation, should we? Isn’t that just hearsay?
MR. DANDAR: It’s an exception.
Page 1101
THE COURT: I think it’s an exception. One of the exceptions I don’t really understand. I’m going to allow it.
A Mr. David Amos informed me that he had been hired by the Church of Scientology to surveil me, do surveillance on me, and to — what he was looking for, he told me, was that he had been briefed by his Scientology handlers in Los Angeles that Mr. Minton and I were involved in child slavery and we were — had child slaves that we were running around different countries. And Mr. Amos had a street ministry. He’s a very Christian man, and he has a street ministry where he helps abused children.
THE COURT: I don’t need to hear about all that.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: I need to hear why you thought your house was bugged.
A Anyway, he told me that he was specifically hired to bug my house in Chicago, and when I moved from Chicago to Clearwater, that he was hired to do the same there. And he agreed to come out and show me how he did it and where he did it. And I sent him plane tickets and I sent him money to come out to do that. And at the last minute, he got cold feet and didn’t do it. But I did report it to the FBI, the entire incident.
Page 1102
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did you go out and visit Mr. Amos?
A Excuse me?
Q Did you actually meet with Mr. Amos?
A Yes, I did.
MR. WEINBERG: Could we get a date of this alleged conversation?
THE COURT: You can when it’s your turn. I don’t care if it’s true. As far as I’m concerned, it’s only why he thought his house was bugged.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.
THE COURT: Which is an explanation as to why he didn’t call from his house, which is all that’s relevant to this.
MR. WEINBERG: But the testimony, of course, is that he did call from the house. He got the call at the house anyway. That’s what he said.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did you go to see Agent Strope of the FDLE before or after you went to Dennis deVlaming’s office?
A After.
Q And did you go to Dennis deVlaming’s office before or after you met me at the mall on April 14th?
A Before. I did that the day of the testimony —
THE COURT: He’s already testified about
Page 1103
this.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. I wasn’t clear. Okay. All right. And I believe . . .
Your Honor, that’s all the questions I have.
I just want to be able to ask Mr. Prince a question based upon this videotape that I want to play of Mr. Hubbard.
THE COURT: Well, go on ahead and play it now. It’s a good time to do it.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. And I’m going to tell you in advance, Judge, I haven’t seen this tape before. So I’m going to play it. It’s represented to me as being Mr. Hubbard talking about this R245.
THE COURT: Well, Lord, let’s hope there’s something in there about it, something that’s relevant.
MR. DANDAR: That’s why I prefer not to do it right now. Let me —
MR. WEINBERG: Could he possibly hand it to us, see if we can identify it?
MR. DANDAR: This is a copy of a copy. This is not —
THE COURT: You couldn’t identify it.
MR. WEINBERG: I thought it might be something he had purchased.
Page 1104
THE COURT: No.
MR. DANDAR: No.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: I don’t want to leave here at 11:30 if you’ve got 35 minutes of tape you’re going to play. Are you done with Mr. Prince?
MR. DANDAR: Except for this.
THE COURT: All right. Well, put it in. Maybe Mr. Prince will let us know. I mean, I don’t know what Mr. Hubbard —
MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask — where did Mr. Minton — Dandar get this, is all I’m asking.
MR. DANDAR: This is an interview of Mr. Hubbard from a Granada TV station.
THE COURT: It really doesn’t matter how he got it. He doesn’t ask you how you got your stuff.
MR. WEINBERG: No, no. I thought that this was the original lecture, but this is just a — this is actually just an interview, not the lecture.
MR. DANDAR: This is an interview —
THE COURT: We’ll see what it is, Counselor. Sit down.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.
MR. LIEBERMAN: At the expense of your Honor, I just want to point out that television can’t
Page 1105
possibly be policy letter of the Church of Scientology.
MR. DANDAR: We didn’t say it was a policy letter. It’s a lectured — of a tape lecture of Mr. Hubbard.
And I don’t know where this is taking me now.
MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s not a lecture, you said. It was a television interview.
MR. DANDAR: Well, we’ll see.
THE COURT: Surely you don’t all care if we watch Mr. Hubbard here for 35 minutes, do you? Then I wish you would sit down and let us watch it.
(The tape from Granada television was played as follows.)
THE NARRATOR: Tonight, Well in Action has tracked down one of the most elusive men on earth.
This was the end of our search, an ex-(unintelligible) for Royal Scotland, docked at (unintelligible — Deserta?), a small port in North Africa.
On board about 250 people, may be some sort of a crew, and this mysterious man. (Unintelligible) screen man thought he was a great scientist when (unintelligible). Everybody seems to think he’s a millionaire.
Page 1106
These are no ordinary seamen. Their allegiance and devotion to the mysterious man is total. To them, he is My Commodore. The man is L. Ron Hubbard, charmer, science fiction writer, and showman, the creator of Scientology, and the man who is pushing it into its new, more militant phase. He now requires that his crew must have training in judo and weaponry and must be ethically beyond reproach, tough, formidable, and effective. To them he’s a soldier.
One of them wrote: “That which I have really found is the nearness to the greatness, which is Ron, our founder –”
(The tape was interrupted.)
THE COURT: Stop this for a minute.
(Continuing with tape.)
THE NARRATOR: “– he, above all, My Commodore –”
(The tape was stopped.)
THE COURT: I don’t know what this is, but this is not Mr. Hubbard talking.
MR. PRINCE: There’s a little preamble, if you will, like a little introductory — this is an interviewer talking, and then Mr. Hubbard comes on.
THE COURT: Okay. Go on ahead.
Page 1107
MR. WEINBERG: Well, just so the record is clear, we do object to this, to the comments going in the record of this obviously reporter that was doing — I don’t think he was intending to do a favorable piece back in the ’50s with regard to the Church of Scientology. We object to his comments going into evidence. It’s like Dateline, NBC, or something, it sounds like.
THE COURT: I haven’t heard anything offensive yet.
(The tape was played as follows.)
THE NARRATOR: After several weeks of hunting for him, with the help of almost every radio station along the Mediterranean and beyond, Well in Action at last tracked Hubbard down. Just before dawn on a recent Sunday morning, Hubbard, who finds sleeping difficult, decided at last to speak. He spoke for a long, long time, about his money, his beliefs, his critics, and the new authoritarian structure of Scientology.
But first he spoke about his troubles with the British government. He put on his hat, he smiled, and he began.
MR. HUBBARD: Well, that’s very interesting.
Let’s correct the impression first. You said “you
Page 1108
were in trouble.” Let’s get my relationship to this completely straight. I am the writer of the textbooks of Scientology. About two and a half years ago or so, I even ceased to be a director of organizations.
The government — in the first place, I am not in trouble with the British government, not even faintly. If I went in today or tomorrow through immigration, they would tip their hats and say, “How are you, Mr. Hubbard?” just as they have been doing for years.
THE NARRATOR: The immigration officials might well tip their hats, but they couldn’t let him in. The day we filmed Mr. Hubbard, the home office decided that Britain would be better off without him.
Saint Hill Manor, England, Hubbard’s British headquarters —
(The tape was interrupted.)
THE COURT: Stop, stop.
(Continuing with tape.)
THE NARRATOR: — has made an income of something like one million pounds —
(The tape was stopped.)
THE COURT: This is not whatever you all said it was. This is more this other person than it is Mr. Hubbard. You — find what it is you want
Page 1109
play for me sometime and play it. I don’t want to hear all this other stuff.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: And your objection is sustained as far as this is not relevant. Whoever this is —
MR. DANDAR: That’s it right there? All right.
Go to the beginning of this. All right.
Sorry I had it wrong. Sorry.
(The tape was played as follows.)
THE NARRATOR: . . . simply to a layman what Scientology is.
MR. HUBBARD: I think that would be a relatively easy (unintelligible) because it’s factually a subject which is designed for the layman, and if you couldn’t explain it to a layman, you would have a very difficult time with it.
The subject name means “steel,” which means knowing how in the fullest sense of the word; “ology,” which is “study of.” So it’s actually study of knowingness. That is what the word itself means.
The —
THE NARRATOR: To me —
MR. HUBBARD: Yes.
THE NARRATOR: — to me that doesn’t mean
Page 1110
very much. (Unintelligible.) What does it do for you in theory?
MR. HUBBARD: It increases one’s knowingness. But if a man were totally aware of what was going on around him, he would find it was relatively simple to handle any outnesses in that.
THE NARRATOR: Even after twelve hours of talking, we never got an explanation from him that we could understand. In fact, Scientology is a fake, a religion —
(The tape was stopped.)
THE COURT: This is beyond —
MR. DANDAR: I apologize to the Court. Let me — let me find the spot that I’m trying to get to.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DANDAR: And if Mr. Weinberg has recross —
THE COURT: Let’s get that done.
MR. DANDAR: I’ll try to get that done.
MR. WEINBERG: I take it the last comment was struck as well. Right?
THE COURT: It certainly was.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: As a matter of fact, none of this is admissible at this point. I don’t know that
Page 1111
whatever it is they’re trying to find would be admissible.
But you try to find it, Mr. Dandar, over lunch break and we’ll —
MR. DANDAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: — listen to it, and then I’ll see.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
You may cross-examine on the redirect.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.
HE COURT: It was very brief.
MR. WEINBERG: Right. Excuse me.
THE WITNESS: You have to turn that thing off, because it keeps getting the radio station.
MR. WEINBERG: I thought you were yelling at me.
THE COURT: No. I thought you were yelling at me.
MR. WEINBERG: I looked up there to see if it was 4 o’clock.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you, the first time on redirect, said that Mr. Minton had offered you a lifetime pension to join him, whenever it was, April of 2002. Correct? That’s what you
Page 1112
said?
A Yes.
Q Now — and that typically —
THE COURT: He said “retirement.” I don’t know that if he used the word “pension.”
THE WITNESS: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What you meant was you’re going to be taken care of the rest of your life?
A I meant what I said, which is I would be retired.
Q All right. And that from your experience it was — the people that fell in that category were the people that got the $250,000. Right?
A I gave examples of other people that have — when Mr. Minton has given money to people to last them, this is what it was.
Q Right, like Mr. Dandar in March got the $250,000.
A No. That was for the case.
Q Now — now, you didn’t — do you remember that affidavit, the May 1st affidavit, that you were asked again about?
A Yes.
Q Nowhere in that affidavit do you say that Mr. Pension — Mr. Minton offered you retirement, $250,000,or a lot of money?
Page 1113
A Well, I’m not sure.
Q You didn’t say that in there, yes or no?
A I’m not sure. I would have to look at the thing.
Q Do you want to do that?
A Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Unfortunately, we had left the documents up there, and they keep getting moved.
THE COURT: This may be it right here. I think I have it still.
THE WITNESS: I could look at that real quick, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to look at my copy?
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. If you would just give me a moment to scan it.
A No, I don’t see that here. No, I didn’t include that in the declaration.
THE WITNESS: Thank you (handing back to Court).
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The truth is, you complained to Stacy Brooks that Mr. Minton had treated you differently and had just nickeled and dimed you over the years. Correct?
A I don’t —
Q Something like that?
A Not quite, no.
Page 1114
Q Well, you were unhappy because you had never been one of the recipients of one of those big $250,000 checks, right?
A I think that — no, that’s incorrect, because the context that we were speaking about is me selling my soul, lying, perjuring myself, lying about Mr. Dandar and whoever else Scientology would want to lie for, because, I mean, you know, they had their shopping list of everything they wanted to be gone. The Wollersheim was one; this was one.
I was supposed to do that. And, you know, I told him: You can’t do that. At no price can you make me turn on people that I have worked with for years for Scientology’s behalf.
And as a matter of fact, I think my statement was I will not help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.
Q Now, this is a 16-page affidavit, chockful of all kinds of details. You even detailed that Mr. Minton had told you he offered Mr. Wollersheim $200,000 to try to settle that case, right?
A Correct.
Q You put that in there. But you didn’t think it was important to put in this affidavit that Mr. Minton had offered you a retire- — basically enough money so that you could retire? You didn’t think that was important?
A Well, I admit that that is something that’s
Page 1115
important here, but I did not put it there for whatever reason. I mean, you know, I put down what I put down. So if you want to give me a strike for that, okay.
Q All right. Now, you said today that — on redirect that those three resignation letters — remember the March 3rd, ’87, letters, the ones in your hand?
A Correct.
Q Right? You told Mr. Dandar on redirect that you actually executed those letters on March 3rd, 1987, right?
The ones in your hand.
A Yes.
Q And those letters were actually typed up on March 3rd of 1987, right?
A I have no idea when they were typed.
Q Isn’t that what you said on direct?
A No, I didn’t say —
Q Isn’t that what you said on redirect?
A No, I didn’t say who typed it, because I did not type this.
Q No, I didn’t say you typed them up. I said those were actually prepared, the whole letter —
THE COURT: He doesn’t know when they were typed.
MR. WEINBERG: No, that was his testimony.
THE WITNESS: No, it wasn’t.
Page 1116
THE COURT: He said that was what he executed.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What you executed had the date on it already?
A Correct.
Q All right. So — that’s all I’m saying. In other words, the — you didn’t — you aren’t testifying that the — that the resignation letters that you signed were actually — and that, you know, had the date on it were actually prepared a long time before. That’s not what you’re saying?
A No. I made a distinction between the undated resignation that I had signed when I first assumed the position and these ones right here. And I stated why these ones were done, used, instead of the undated ones.
Q Do you remember in your affidavit — and the affidavit we’re talking about is the — that I’m talking about now is the August 1999 affidavit, which is the — the August 20th one, which is the — I call it the murder allegation —
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q — affidavit.
MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach —
THE COURT: You may.
Page 1117
MR. WEINBERG: — is probably the easiest way of doing this.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you remember that in paragraph 14 of — this is the — just so you see it, is your August 20th, 1999.
A M’hum (affirmative).
Q You see, just read paragraph 14 down to — it’s short.
A Okay.
Q Read it to yourself.
A Okay.
Q Have you seen that?
A Yes.
Q Now, what you say in this affidavit in paragraph 14 on page 6 is: “I was forcefully removed,” which is, you’ve already testified, on March 3rd. Then you say, quote: “It is my belief that my undated resignation which I signed when I was appointed to the board was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned when I had not.”
So the testimony that you swore to in this affidavit that all that was — that all that happened was — that what happened was that a date was put on something that you had previously signed is absolutely contrary to what you just testified in this court.
Page 1118
Correct?
A What — what I wrote there, I wrote that as my belief. I didn’t recall this, but once it was shown to me and recalled to me, I testified about it. I’m not able to recall every little thing all the time. That was my belief at the time. But then when you showed me this, I remembered more about the incident that happened in 1986.
Q ’87.
A ’87, sorry, January of ’87.
Q So you were wrong in your August 20th, 1999, sworn affidavit?
A Right. In that — in that regard, in that particular regard.
MR. WEINBERG: Now, do you have — can I ask the clerk for a document, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 15B.
I’m going to show him 15B, which is Teresa Summers’ letter.
THE COURT: For the record, you probably ought to say what you said to me.
I don’t know, did you get that, Madam Court Reporter?
THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am, I did.
MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was speaking louder
Page 1119
than I thought.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. I’m showing you the September 7th, 2001, Teresa Summers letter. And I believe you said on redirect that you had learned about the Clambake money and the issues with regard to the Clambake money in — for the first time — or issues with regard to LMT money for the first time in Teresa Summers’ letter, right?
A Correct.
Q And this is Teresa Summers’ letter?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, can you look at page 1 of that letter.
A Yes.
Q Paragraph 1.
A Where it says, “Please be advised”?
Q I’m sorry, where it says –subparagraph 1. Do you see where the No. 1 —
A Yes.
Q Where it says, “The revelation –” This is a letter to Stacy Brooks from Teresa Summers, right?
A Correct.
Q “The revelation in your recent deposition that 800,000 was donated to the LMT from foreign sources and that every penny of that money was delivered to Bob Minton is very difficult to make sense of. For at least the last
Page 1120
six months, I have been told by you” all of the LMT funding — I’ve been told by you that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton.”
Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And that’s what you were told as well, correct, that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton?
A No, that’s not what I was told.
Q Now, let me — will you turn to the next-to-last page, please. The last paragraph of the next-to-last page, the one that says “in addition”?
A Yes.
Q Do you see that? Summers says: “In addition, Bob and Jesse were involved with bringing money into the country illegally, and you have never discussed this matter with me.”
A Yes.
Q Do you know what she’s talking about?
A No. And she doesn’t either. I never brought any money into the country illegally.
Q And Ms. Summers is someone that’s worked at the LMT?
A Correct. I can tell you what Ms. Summers is referring to, if you’d like to know.
THE COURT: It doesn’t matter.
Page 1121
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Doesn’t matter.
THE COURT: I have no idea why he bothered to bring that out. Maybe he wanted you to look bad or something.
THE WITNESS: Well . . .
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. Now, finally, you testified on redirect that the — you testified about the release that you executed with Mr. Rathbun at the end of October, the beginning of November, 1992. Do you remember that testimony?
A In November of 1992, I was not in the Sea Org. I was in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Q What I’m asking you is, Do you recall on redirect you testified about the release that you executed at the time that you left the Church of Scientology?
A Correct.
Q All right. And your testimony is that you were under duress when you did that. Correct?
A Absolutely, yes.
Q And you executed it in a meeting — in a meeting with Mr. Rathbun, right?
A Correct.
Q Just you and Mr. Rathbun?
Page 1122
A No. There were other staff there.
Q Do you remember who else was there?
A I believe Mr. Sutter was there.
Q They were sitting — you were sitting in a meeting with him?
A If I say he’s there, that means that I can see him. That means we’re in the same room or something like that, you know?
Q So you’re saying he was there?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Well, let me show you two — and then it’s your testimony that, at the end, Mr. Rathbun made you put the wrong date on the release. Right? That was your testimony?
A It was convenient for them to have it as November, as opposed to October. I don’t know why. That’s what I —
Q But it was his origination, not yours?
A Correct.
Q Okay. I’m going to play you a short clip from the beginning of this meeting with Mr. Rathbun and then the end of the meeting with Mr. Rathbun.
A You know, I resent that unless you show the whole thing.
THE COURT: I think that’s fair. If you’re
Page 1123
going to show something and suggest whether he was or wasn’t under duress, you have to play the whole meeting.
MR. WEINBERG: It’s a long meeting. When I have is the clip, and, you know, we can provide the whole thing if you want it. But what I intend to do on this redirect is to show him the beginning of the meeting, which would indicate he was in the meeting, and the end of the meeting where he signs the —
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: — release. (Jesse Prince interview with Marty Rathbun, November 1, ’92, was played as follows.)
MR. RATHBUN: Okay. This is Marty Rathbun with Jesse Prince. And Jesse is going out of the Sea Org, and he agreed to have a —
(The playback was interrupted.)
THE COURT: Where is Jesse Prince?
MR. WEINBERG: He’s at the front.
(Continuing with tape.)
MR. RATHBUN: — knowledge that he might have about outstanding —
(The playback was stopped.)
MR. DANDAR: Does Mr. Prince know he’s being videotaped?
Page 1124
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, you knew the meeting was recorded. A Not videotaped. And this is the first time I’ve seen this, and this is really gross. This is from a hidden camera.
Q Did you know it was being recorded or not?
A On tape. A tape recording was running, not a video.
Q Is this you?
A Yes, it is. I think it is.
THE COURT: Doesn’t look — I’m sorry, it doesn’t look like him.
THE WITNESS: Let me see. They’re full of tricks.
MR. DANDAR: Yes, why don’t you see.
THE WITNESS: I can’t tell.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, when you hear your voice, I think you can tell.
THE COURT: It does not look like Mr. Prince to me.
THE WITNESS: You know, I really resent this. This is secret. Taping this is exactly what I’ve been saying here. This is exactly what they do, the illegal surveillance. It’s just sneaky all the
Page 1125
time.
MR. WEINBERG: I asked him the question, Did you know you were being recorded?
THE COURT: He said no.
MR. WEINBERG: The answer is yes. I think he said yes.
THE COURT: He knew there was a tape recorder playing. He did not know he was being videotaped.
MR. WEINBERG: I guess the question, your Honor, is once you know that —
THE COURT: Quite frankly, I would resent the tar out of it. I hope there’s none of that going on ever. If you’re going to ever take a picture of me, you’d better tell me, because I would resent the tar out of it, to say nothing of the fact that I’m not certain it’s legal.
So whatever it is, Mr. Prince, you didn’t know anything about this?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. They did not have my permission to do this.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: This is from a hidden, secret camera.
THE COURT: Go ahead and play it. We’ll
Page 1126
decide whether or not it’s legal or not.
(The playback continued.)
MR. RATHBUN: — cases going on or other matters that are involved, illegal or whatever.
MR. PRINCE: That’s right (unintelligible).
MR. RATHBUN: We’re here alone?
MR. PRINCE: That’s right.
MR. RATHBUN: Nobody else here?
MR. PRINCE: No coercion, nobody doing anything.
MR. RATHBUN: Okay. And you’re here of your own free will?
MR. PRINCE: That’s right.
MR. RATHBUN: There’s no — nobody is holding anything over your head?
MR. PRINCE: Yes.
MR. RATHBUN: There’s no threat?
MR. PRINCE: No threat, no pressure. I know exactly what I’m doing. I’m not sitting here (unintelligible) worrying about legal counsel knowing what the hell is going on. I know exactly what I’m doing in a professional capacity.
MR. RATHBUN: Great. Okay. The first thing we’re going to do was you’ve reviewed a couple of outstanding complaints, which were the RICO case,
Page 1127
which is our —
(The playback was interrupted.)
THE WITNESS: You know, I can’t hardly stand this. I can hardly stand this.
MR. WEINBERG: I was going to play the end of it.
THE COURT: Well, how in the world can you play something that suggested somebody wasn’t under coercion and not play it? How do I know —
MR. WEINBERG: If we can — we can play the whole —
THE COURT: This is the RICO case? What is your purpose in playing it?
MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Prince — Mr. Prince said that there were all kinds of people in the room, that he was being coerced, that it was forced. And there are no people.
THE WITNESS: They left the room.
MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.
THE WITNESS: They had left the room. This was totally staged, to protect the Church, as I’ve given testimony before: Mr. Prince, this is what you need to do to leave our compound.
So I’m sitting here doing whatever they asked me to do to leave their compound. There’s been
Page 1128
articles in George magazine, press — Riverside Press, and my suit about the coercion. So, you know, and now you’re showing me a secret camera thing? I resent this highly. I really resent this.
MR. DANDAR: We object. And for the record, that sure doesn’t look like Mr. Prince.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know that’s you.
You’ve heard you.
THE WITNESS: Look, I resent this because it was done — not only did everybody leave the room —
THE COURT: You mean there were others there before this started?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Absolutely. They were all standing around in that room. And then it’s like, “Okay, now, let’s get this extra protection in.”
Signing a release for your client wasn’t enough. Signing a release saying that they didn’t harm me or damage me wasn’t enough for them. Now they’ve got to sit down and do this. You know? I really think anybody with common sense knows what’s going on here.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q When did you sign it? The beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting?
A What, the release?
Page 1129
Q Yes.
A Probably at the end. I mean, they wanted me to — this is what I had to do to leave. I had been locked up —
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I had to escape from Scientology. They didn’t even know where I went.
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear it anymore.
If he didn’t know about it, I don’t want to see it.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s all my questions.
THE COURT: As far as I’m concerned, it can be stricken.
MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions.
THE COURT: All right.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, do you have that affidavit that’s —
THE COURT: And I might suggest in the future, if you’re going to videotape parishioners, that they be told about it. Quite frankly, that is not very churchly, to be candid.
MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, just to be clear, it is the Church’s position that Mr. Prince absolutely knew this was being taped and the videotape introductory section of this before the interview
Page 1130
starts shows them setting up electronic equipment.
And it’s his testimony here that he didn’t know about it. That is not — we do not go along with that. I want the record to reflect that.
THE COURT: It’s very odd that someone leaving a Church has to be videotaped.
The truth is, it’s very odd he would have to sign a release. I mean, it’s all very odd.
However, it’s just my suggestion to you so that you don’t ever have to listen to somebody again that you might just want to put it in your release, “I understand that I’m being videotaped as I sign this.”
Then you won’t have to worry about it. I won’t have to hear somebody saying that he resents you taking my picture, for whatever reason.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this comes from —
THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more about it.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Go on ahead.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, I want to direct your attention to paragraph —
THE COURT: I didn’t have to sign a release when I left my church, quite frankly. I left, I went
Page 1131
back, who cared?
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Paragraph 15 of your —
THE COURT: Nobody ever sued me either. I never testified against them.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Paragraph 15 of your April 2002 affidavit, paragraph 15 — I don’t have the page numbers on my copy for some strange reason. But the second page of paragraph 15, could you please read the highlighted portion on — beginning —
THE COURT: Which affidavit is this now?
MR. DANDAR: The April 2002.
THE WITNESS: May 1st.
THE COURT: Okay.
A “Bob told me that I was the one making a big mistake, that if I walked down this road with them, they would hire an attorney for me and everything would be okay. Both he and Stacy Brooks told me of a new life, where we would all live in happiness and prosperity.”
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q What were the details of living a new life in happiness and prosperity?
A Retired, vacationing on the Islands regularly, running around the world, world travel.
Page 1132
Q When you — did the —
THE COURT: What paragraph was that?
MR. DANDAR: It was paragraph 15. If I had the exhibit, I could give you the page number.
THE COURT: It’s all right, paragraph 15.
MR. DANDAR: It’s the second page of paragraph 15. It’s a real long paragraph. It’s lines 19 through 22.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DANDAR: And this wasn’t part of the recross of Mr. Weinberg, so if it’s objected to, I understand. But —
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll object in advance.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, when Teresita went insane or psychotic, did she do it like Lisa did, in the middle of the street, in public, or somewhere else?
A She did it — she was at a work station — oh, god, we were in a big time crunch. We were making the first —
THE COURT: We really don’t care about that. Was it out in public or at work?
THE WITNESS: No, it was at work.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So there was no public PR flap?
Page 1133
A Correct.
MR. DANDAR: And outside of wanting to play this videotape, that’s all the questions I have.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?
Thank you, sir.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Your testimony is finished. You may step down.
I don’t know about that videotape either. I have no idea what that is either. So you find whatever it is you want to find, show it to counsel in advance, see what it is, and see if we can make some context out of it and see if it has any relevance.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Now, it’s noontime.
It’s 12:05. We’ll be in recess until 1:15.
MR. WEINBERG: How about 1:30?
THE COURT: No, 1:15.
MR. WEINBERG: Or 1 o’clock?
THE COURT: No, 1:15.
MR. WEINBERG: 1:15, all right.
(A lunch recess was taken at 12:08 p.m.)
_______________________________
Page 1134
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered Diplomate Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record.
WITNESS MY HAND this 11th day of July, 2002, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.
_________________________________
Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, RDR
Court Reporter