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
Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 6) (July 10, 2002)
721
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,
Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants._______________________________________/
PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1
VOLUME 6
DATE: July 10, 2002. Morning Session.
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500722
APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. LEE FUGATE
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. HOWARD ROSS
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Prince. All right. Mr. Dandar, you are standing. You must want something.
MR. DANDAR: Well, we have a proposed order here. I have some responses here. I have declarations of Stacy Brooks and others I want to file. But let’s just go with Mr. Prince.
THE COURT: Okay.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: What day is today? The 10th? I was looking, what is — how many days of hearings is this?
THE BAILIFF: 30.
THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Bailiff says 30. Does anybody —
MR. WEINBERG: Add zero to that. That is where we are.
THE COURT: Is that where we are, 30?
MR. WEINBERG: I think so.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Ross. Are you designated Mr. Minton’s attorney here today?
MR. ROSS: That is correct.
THE COURT: I think that probably you have been advised Mr. Minton needs a lawyer in this proceeding and, therefore, we welcome you. But you have no ability to object in this particular proceeding.
MR. ROSS: I understand, your Honor.
THE COURT: You understand you may hear some very weird testimony as far as some strange evidentiary rulings. But this is a strange hearing and sort of the rules of evidence — we’re going to deal with that after the hearing.
MR. ROSS: I understand.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Just give me a minute, your Honor.
THE COURT: I will. I will ask Mr. Dandar, while you are doing that, did you have a chance to E-Mail Mr. Henson?
MR. DANDAR: Yes, I did. And he E-mailed me back and said, “Can you find me a lawyer, is it worth it?” I said no, both questions.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I notified Mr. Hill’s secretary that Mr. Rosen would not be called. And I should have an order here on the pro hac vice, if it is not by the morning break, by noontime.
THE COURT: All right. Fine.
MR. LIEBERMAN: I would just like to inquire, does that mean Mr. Henson is abandoning his motion?
725
THE COURT: No, I think what that means, he will not be represented. And I suspect you should — as I said, let me have time to read it. I may be able to rule on your motion without any argument.
MR. LIEBERMAN: Very good.
THE COURT: But, frankly, I want to still leave it scheduled for hearing, because he may get somebody to appear. And we’ll deal with it at the scheduled time. I would not assume that is an abandonment.
MR. LIEBERMAN: All right.
MR. DANDAR: Right.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: All right? I’m ready.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, you — I think you said on your direct testimony — but let me go over it again — you have testified previously as a witness under oath in either trial testimony or deposition testimony. Is that right?
A In this — in this case, yes, I have.
Q In other cases, as well. Correct?
A Yes, I have.
Q And — and is it your testimony that at all times
726
in those other cases when you were under oath, that you testified truthfully?
A Yes, it is.
Q Okay. Now, yesterday — or the day before, whenever it was — you testified that you had participated in the destruction of PC folders, particularly Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folder which he said was pulped, I believe, while you were at RTC?
A Correct.
Q Now, you remember testifying as a witness in 1989 in the lawsuit Religious Technology versus Joseph Yanny?
A I do not.
Q You don’t remember that?
A No, I do not.
THE COURT: I don’t even remember hearing about that case. That is a new one for me.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I thought you testified, by the way, on your direct, that you had been a witness in that case, in fact, that while you were in Scientology, you were actually a witness in that case.
A No. While I was in Scientology I said I was a witness in the Wollersheim 4 case, specifically concerning the Advanced ability Center, David Mayo.
MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach the witness,
727
your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Let me show you a transcript of your deposition taken in Los Angeles, California on September 11, 1989 and ask you if you can identify that transcript and identify that as your testimony on that day under oath, and at the end you’ll see an errata sheet which I believe also has your signature on it.
A What is this on? On September ’89? Okay.
Then —
Q At the end is an errata sheet. Do you see that?
A Uh-huh.
Q And you see that you — do you recognize your signature on there dated —
A 12 December, ’89. Yes, I do.
Q Obviously — I’ll leave this here because I have a few questions on it. Obviously you testified as a witness in 1989 and were given the opportunity to review that testimony and make corrections. Correct?
A I don’t — Mmm — recall that, Mr. Weinberg, but since I did sign the errata sheet, I’ll say okay.
MR. DANDAR: I would like to have a copy of that, Judge. If they’re going to start using it, pulling things out of context, I would like to be
728
able to review it.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s amazing I’m being accused of pulling something out of context.
MR. DANDAR: We all do, we pull something out and say, “Did you say this?”
THE COURT: If you are going to use a deposition and he doesn’t have a copy of it, he ought to have a copy of it.
MR. WEINBERG: Do we have an extra copy of it?
Do we have copies of these?
THE COURT: I tell you what, go ahead and use it and then get him a copy before Mr. Dandar —
Mr. Dandar, please listen if you care, maybe you don’t care. If you care, I’ll have them provide you a copy of the deposition before your redirect.
MR. DANDAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: If anything was pulled out of context, you can correct it.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEINBERG: Now, in addition —
THE COURT: You-all provide him a copy.
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, in addition to your testimony in this proceeding that you had participated in the destruction of
729
PC folders, you also, in your August 20, 1999 affidavit, that is the — the affidavit where you made the accusation about David Miscavige, in that affidavit, in Paragraph 22 you swore that you had participated in the destruction of Wollersheim’s PC folder. Correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, if you will turn, Mr. Prince — when I get the right folder here — to Page 153 of your Yanny deposition. You find Page 153?
A Mmm, just about. I have it here.
Q I want you to read Line 5, 6 and 7.
“Question: Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?
“Answer. No.”
Okay. That was your sworn testimony then, correct?
A Yes, it was.
Q And when you go to that errata sheet, does it say anything about you making any mistakes with regard to that sworn answer where you swore under oath in 1989 that you had not been involved in the destruction of PC folders?
A Mr. — you know, I don’t recall this errata sheet, to answer the question that quickly. I don’t even recall the errata sheet.
THE COURT: The real question is that was your
730
testimony on that date, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, this was the testimony I had given on that date.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And you previously testified that all your prior sworn testimony was true. Correct?
A Correct.
Q So you lied here in court when you said that you had participated in PC folders being destroyed?
A Well, you know, I have to at least look at a couple pages earlier here to kind of get an idea what was going on here to orient myself to 1989.
Q Look at a couple pages earlier.
THE COURT: Might I just ask, where he was reading, was he testifying for plaintiff, or defendant?
MR. WEINBERG: He was testifying for the Church. For RTC.
A Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That was certainly — you wouldn’t have had a recollection problem back in 1989, would you, as to what had occurred a year or so or two or three before that, as opposed to 2002, talking about things that supposedly happened?
731
A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, I — I don’t think I would have had a recollection problem, but maybe I would have had a problem with coercion.
Q Let’s see now —
A Or — or manipulation.
Q Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt.
A Or manipulation. This was a very bad time for me. This was shortly — well, let’s see, this was a couple years after I had been away from any position of authority. I was still being asked to — Mmm — participate in the courts, for whatever reason, God only knows. And I was not in a very good state of mind.
Q Well, I thought you said you were relieved yesterday to leave your post at RTC and that you were in a better state of mind as a result of being relieved and not having to do all those things that you swore yesterday and the day before that you had participated in.
A Certainly in that regard, Mr. Weinberg, I was relieved. But I didn’t have a lot of direction for my life.
I think I was pretty suicidal at that point. And I had written about that, as well.
Q All right. So you started saying these things about destroying PC folders after people started paying you,like Mr. Minton and Mr. Leipold and through Mr. Dandar, that
732
is when you started saying these things, not when you weren’t being paid.
A No, Mr. Weinberg, quite the contrary. I — this came out because I decided that it was no longer an operating principle of mine that the greatest good is for Scientology. I kind of — you know, just kind of got away from that.
Q So it’s a principle now the greatest good for Jesse Prince, whoever will put the money in your pocket, that is what you’ll say?
A No, Mr. Weinberg, the greatest good is the truth and justice and equity.
Q All right. So what you’re saying, just so I get this right, you lied back in 1989?
A Yes — yes. According to these documents, I lied on behalf of Scientology.
Q All right. And you lied in — I’ll just refresh your recollection about being asked about this before — do you remember giving a deposition in this case when — when I deposed you?
A I think you and I have been at it a time or two.
Q And do you remember that I asked you the questions on Page — I’ll refer now to Page 465 of your deposition of — of November 17, November 18, 1999.
“Question: Now, when you testified — how many
733
times have you testified in your entire career, life?
“Answer: In a courtroom or deposition setting?
“Question: Both.
“Answer: Possibly five.
“Question: All right, and each time you testified, whether in deposition or in court, you were under oath, right?
“Answer: Correct.
“You raised your hand and swore to tell the truth.
“Answer: Correct.
“Question: Nothing but the truth, right?
“Answer: Correct.
“And you testified truthfully on those five occasions.
“Answer: Correct.
“Question: You didn’t perjure yourself.
“Answer: Correct.
“Question: So if you were asked the questions in a deposition that I asked and those were your answers then when you gave those answers, it is your testimony that they were truthful answers, correct?
“Answer: Well, you know, yeah, okay. I’ll say yeah, okay, yeah.”
Then later in the deposition — do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?
734
A No, I do not, Mr. Weinberg.
Q Do you remember being asked on Page 469 of your deposition two years ago, “You testified in the Yanny case we’ve already talked about, was that deposition and trial or just deposition?
“Answer: I believe it was just deposition. And again, I was never afforded the opportunity — well, no, I’m sorry, I’ll answer the direct question, I won’t tell stories. Yes.”
Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer?
A No, Mr. Weinberg. But if it’s there, then I believe it.
Q So apparently three years ago when we took your deposition you remembered the Yanny case testimony but today you don’t?
A I — Mr. Weinberg, I think that is a bit of mischaracterization to say I would have remembered the Yanny testimony. You know, this document here is a couple hundred pages long. I — I don’t think any of us are capable of remembering a couple hundred pages of something that happened ten years ago.
Q Is there a particular reason why, in all these accusations you made against Scientology, you didn’t say,
“And they told me to perjure myself in 1989 in the Yanny
735
deposition”? Why didn’t you do that?
A Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Weinberg, again, like I — I was damaged goods during that time. I had gone through a lot of stress, a lot of — Mmm — decisions to change my life. Mmm, didn’t have certain — you know, a certainty on where I was going with my life. I felt pretty hopeless.
But let’s talk about the perjury here since this is the subject here. What I have testified to before concerning preclear folder destruction is the fact that because these preclear folders of Mr. Wollersheim were being asked to be produced and ultimately the whole folders were turned over, the order to destroy the folders came from Mr. Miscavige with Mr. Rathbun present, myself, Vicki Aznaran. It became my responsibility to report when that fact was done.
I myself was not the person that destroyed the preclear folders or had — or pulped them. Rick Aznaran is the person, along with another current Office of Special Affairs, Charlie Earl, rented a truck, took these folders; Vicki Aznaran — Lawrence Wollersheim, possibly Bill Franks, Gerry Armstrong and others took them to the recycling plant, and when Mr. Aznaran came back, he showed me a liquid bottle with paper on — with the pulp paper on the bottom.
So technically did I know about it? Yes.
736
Technically did I do it? No.
Q Oh, I see.
A But I sanctioned it and I went along with it.
Q So perjury — the question was: “Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?
“Answer: No.”
That is not perjury because you have somehow justified in your mind that you really weren’t involved because you didn’t actually pull the switch? Is that what you’re saying?
A No, I’m saying that I’m not the person that actually did it myself, but I knew about it. And reported about it.
Q Is that —
A I didn’t stop it. So, you know, the fact of the matter is I won’t beat around the bush with you, Mr. Weinberg. Right here I was not being truthful.
Q Now, did somebody tell you to perjure yourself?
Is this something that somebody told you to do? Or you just did this on your own?
A No, I was told to do it. Mr. Earle Cooley, who was lead counsel for the Church of Scientology at the time, wanted me to do it. Mr. Rathbun, who was — was again and always responsible for church legal, wanted me to do it.
Mmm, I was being a good Scientologist and protecting
737
Scientology.
Q That is amazing. So when this started out you didn’t have any recollection of the Yanny deposition, you don’t remember having even signed the errata sheet, and now you have this clear recollection that — that Mr. Cooley, a lawyer who is on the board of trustees of Boston College — or Boston University, and Mr. Rathbun told you to lie? Is that what you’re saying now?
A Mr. — Mr. Weinberg, I mean, because we are talking about this, because you have presented me with documentation, we’ve discussed it, I think I do have a mind and I can have some recollection about this. And I’m just telling you what happened here.
Mmm, there are other things that I have written specifically about my relationship with Earle Cooley, and because you have all of those E-Mails, I’m sure you have those in evidence, too. That is not the only thing that I thought was unethical that happened with Mr. Cooley, irrespective of where he sits.
Q So the way it works is, if we can catch you at it and if we can show you a video or show you some testimony where you perjured yourself, then it’s an indiscretion, essentially, you sort of caught me. Is that the way it works?
MR. DANDAR: Objection, argumentative.
738
THE COURT: Sustained.
A Mmm —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q It was sustained, Mr. Prince.
THE COURT: You don’t have to answer the question.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you said your life was hopeless?
A Correct.
Q When was this deposition, 1989?
A Correct.
Q But having been hopeless, you stayed another three years?
A I stayed another five years after my life was pretty much hopeless. You know, I fell into the hopelessness — you know, right in 1987 when that whole thing happened I was ready to leave Scientology at that point. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to escape to leave because I was in the RPF, walking through the desert, on and on, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear that story.
Q That story? Is that what you said? Do I want to hear the story?
A Let’s please maintain civility here, Mr. Weinberg.
Q All right, I asked you —
739
A I’m trying to explain this to you. I had escaped. I had helped Vicki Aznaran escape. We were being kept in the RPF in a — behind a — Soboba Indian Reservation in the most horrid conditions. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to threaten to go to the press, threaten to go to the police, the same thing I suspect Lisa had to do when she tried to leave, as well.
And ultimately because the woman that I was married to, who had no idea what I had been involved in, what my position really was in the Church of Scientology, what my participation was, it came down to Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Miscavige specifically talking to my wife and telling her what a horrible person I was and that I’m blowing and I’m psychotic and I’m crazy because I want to leave and this kind of thing.
So then I was faced with even a bigger problem. And my bigger problem was now am I just going to walk out of Scientology and leave this person that I love, that I’m married to, because she hasn’t woke even up, because she doesn’t understand, because I haven’t been with her and let her know what’s going on. And that is kind of a problem in Scientology in and of itself because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. You are not allowed to talk about your case, you’re not allowed to talk about secret this, secret that. So we had had a breach of
740
communication for many years.
But in my mind at that time I was thinking, you know, I’m not going to desert another person in my life, I’m not going to desert this woman for Scientology. I will sit here with her until she sees what I see. And I was actually, therefore, there for another five years.
And these are points I have written about as well.
I felt almost like an animal, I had no mind, no brain, no will, nothing. And this is what happened to me and I went and did this and it was wrong. And yeah, I did that and you have pointed it out and here we are.
Q Now, in 1989 when you perjured yourself —
A Uh-huh?
Q — according to your testimony now, or didn’t, depending upon whether you perjured yourself in this hearing, you weren’t on the RPF, were you, in 1989? You were working in the Golden Era studio, correct?
A I think in 1989 I was on what is considered — what is called the DPF, the Deck Project Force. The reason I say that is because in 1987 when I was removed from my position and I went to the RPF — Mmm — I think I was there for — until December of ’87.
In December of ’87 I got off the RPF, I started trying to practice auditing again. I did that for some time and really didn’t want to do it anymore.
741
Toward the end of ’88, I believe, a security guard at Golden Era Productions got kind of rough with my wife.
THE COURT: You know, this really doesn’t matter where he was. You weren’t in RPF.
A No, I was in DPF. I wasn’t in Golden Era Productions, I mean, working in the studios, as you suggested. I was actually on the DPF. And this is the same period I did that watch with Mrs. Brooks, Terese or — or Teresita —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That was in ’88?
A That was in ’88?
Q Yes. You say things were hopeless for you?
Things were hopeless for you in 1997 and 1998, as well, wasn’t it?
A I wouldn’t say that.
Q You filed for bankruptcy and went bankrupt in November of — filed in what, May of ’97, and it was finalized in November of ’97, correct?
A I believe there are documents to that effect that have the correct dates.
Q But — but you went bankrupt in 1997, correct?
A Mmm —
Q Yes, or no?
A Yes, I did. I believe that is correct.
742
Q So you were broke in 1997?
A I filed for bankruptcy in 1997, but I — I wasn’t able to pay my bills adequately in 1997.
Q And except for Mr. Minton coming like an angel from heaven in June of 1998, you didn’t know what you were going to do?
A Utterly and completely false.
Q After Mr. Minton appeared on the scene you then hooked up with Stacy Brooks, you hooked up with Dan Leipold, you hooked up with Ken Dandar, and since that time this is what you have been doing, getting paid to testify, write affidavits and work against Scientology, correct?
A No, that is absolutely incorrect and it is false.
Q Now, let’s go back to the deposition for a moment.
Now, you testified under oath a lot about the GO and OSA and all that. Do you remember that, here in this proceeding? You said you had all this knowledge about the kinds of activities that had gone on. Do you remember that?
A No, I think you are mischaracterizing my earlier testimony. I don’t think that the words Guardian’s Office exited my lips during these proceedings. I have spoke about OSA and I have — I have presented Mr. Hubbard’s eternal words on — on what intelligence is expected to do, what legal is expected to do and some of what public relations is supposed to do. I think that better characterizes —
743
Q Well, let me refresh your recollection, if you remember on June 18 saying, “Question, was there any carryover from the Guardian’s Office to OSA?
“Answer: Yes, there was, there was a carryover of some of the staff and some of the policies. Then you went on to say, “Question, was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s Office was?
You said, “Yes, OSA wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian Office was. One of the mistakes was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations.”
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q Now, turn to Page 149, please, of the Yanny deposition.
A Okay.
Q I want you to read Line 5 through Line 16 — Line 5 through Line 13 — 16, I’m sorry.
A To 16?
Q Yes, just read it out loud.
MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you do it.
THE COURT: That is true.
A I have read it.
744
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I’ll read it. Did you give — were you asked these questions and give these answers?
MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you —
THE COURT: Yes, it is the way you do it.
Overruled.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q “You ever heard of the GO?
“Answer: Yes.
“Question: What was the GO?
“It was Guardian’s Office.
“Question: And Mary Sue Hubbard was in charge of that for a period of time?
“Answer: I have no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office. I was never associated or affiliated with it in any way.
“Answer (sic): You do know that a number of Guardian’s Office people went to jail?
“Answer: I don’t –”
Then there was objection.
A Okay.
Q Were you asked those questions and give those answers?
A Yes, that is correct.
745
Q And that was true or was that perjury, as well, that you had no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office?
A Well, that was true then and it is true now.
Prior to my association with going to Gilman Hot Springs, I had — you know — you know, I had done protests at the behest of the Guardian’s Office where all Scientologists got together, and I think did a demonstration of the courthouse down there at a point in time on — Hebert would — what they do is they have a thing in Scientology called a call to arms —
Q Really, all I asked you, was that true or not and you said it was true that —
A Okay.
Q Using your words, you had no percipient knowledge —
A Well, I don’t want to play —
Q Can I ask my question first?
A I told you that there was — you know, was some association with the Guardian Office, and I tried to clarify that. So you know, I don’t want to get into word games here where you say, well, you said you never did it but suddenly now you have me picketing at the behest of Scientology. I mean, little activities like that, I mean, I popped out of a coffin across the park doing a skit based on something that —
746
Q I understand, but you waxed eloquent about the GO and how it’s the same — OSA was the same, and under oath here you said you didn’t know, didn’t have information about the GO. You didn’t know anything about it.
A No, I think you are confused on that issue, Mr. Weinberg.
Q Now, do you remember testifying in this proceeding that — that you were — had responsibility for legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA? Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q Particularly intelligence activities of OSA, that was your testimony?
THE COURT: Could you define or tell him — I don’t remember, was it here in this hearing?
MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. I was just reading from his testimony.
THE COURT: Here?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I’ll read — this is the dirty — when I say dirty, this is the —
THE COURT: Dirty copy, I know.
747
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The dirty copy, but on my Page 71 of the dirty copy, which is obviously not the actual transcript, what it says is, “As I mentioned –” this is your answer — “we used to do the technology side of Scientology. Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for.
And those were legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA which is a separate network in Scientology.”
That was your testimony, right?
A Yes. Yes.
Q Now, I want you to turn, if you will, Mr. Prince,to Page 77, first, of your Yanny depo. While you are looking for it, you were deputy inspector general of RTC, correct?
A Correct.
Q And it was deputy inspector general external was your actual — DIG external, right?
A Right.
Q Did you — if you go to the bottom of the page, Line 22, were you asked this question and did you give this answer.
“Question: Back when you were the DIG external, did you have any responsibility for intelligence?
“Answer: Not particularly.
“Question: Is there a group or subgroup within
748
Scientology organization referred to as Intel?
“Answer: No, not that I know of.
“Question: Has Intel ever been part of your job description?
“Answer: No.
“Have you ever had any responsibility for Intel?
“Answer: No.”
Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
A Yes, I did.
Q And was that truthful testimony?
A Yes, it was. And you know, in — inasmuch as it — that it was deceptive testimony because we’ve sat here and we’ve gone over all of these Scientology issues, now that says intelligence action, this, that and other thing, but when the GO was gotten rid of, the section that was called intelligence was no longer called intelligence; it was called the information bureau. And I think if you look at a current organization chart for the Office of Special Affairs, you will find that it says information bureau. It doesn’t say intelligence bureau. But if you look at the materials that the persons are trained on in the information bureau, it is intelligence.
Q It is sort of like your testimony yesterday where I asked you about the picket sign, you know, in front of
749
Mr. Minton’s house and you said you didn’t own a sign?
A You know, I don’t know about that, Mr. —
Q Was that truthful but deceptive testimony, or is that sort of like an example of what you’re talking about?
A I don’t know about that analogy, Mr. Weinberg. I think you are confused on that issue and you are mixing apples and oranges. But I pretty much answered your question with this.
Q All right. So this is truthful but — and so what is — by the way, just so — it’s not perjury when you tell the truth but you are deceptive? In your mind, that is okay?
A Well, you know, I’m —
Q Just answer the question.
A I’m not going to draw a legal conclusions. You are the trained lawyer here. I’m the trained Scientologist.
Q You are the trained witness.
A I can tell you about that. I can’t tell you about the lawyering so much. I can’t explain the law to you. You can explain that to me.
Q Explain to me how you are being truthful when you are being deceptive?
A By the mere fact being deceptive, you are not being totally honest. But then again, as I understand the law, you are not obligated to answer but an exact question,
750
and the exact question here was about intelligence and — and again, I’ll tell you, when the GO was changed, the word “intelligence” was gotten rid of and the word “information” was put in there; information bureau, information department.
So if they would have said information department, I could have answered these questions a little differently.
But I didn’t say, oh, you know, well, they changed intelligence to information because no person wants a witness walking in just blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. Answer the question you are asked and that is it, okay.
THE COURT: Sort of like you are doing now?
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So why did you use the word “intelligence” when you testified for Mr. Dandar? I just read you the testimony. “In those areas that I was responsible for, legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA,” why did you use the word “intelligence”?
A Because I was able to take the eternal words of L. Ron Hubbard that had that on there and show it. I used it because that is what the issue says.
Q And by the way, that is acceptable to you to give truthful but deceptive testimony? That is acceptable to you as you sit here as a so-called expert in Scientology?
751
A It is acceptable to me to answer — answer the question that is asked.
Q So I have got to ask the absolutely right question or you can deceive me and there is no problem here? You can deceive me and the Court? And everybody else that is — that is in this room?
A Mmm, well, you know, you can call it deception or you can call it inadequate lawyering. I mean, I don’t know. What do you want to say about it?
Q Well, have you had any of those answers while you have been on the stand, those truthful but deceptive answers? Can you think of a couple where we just missed the question a little bit?
A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m making a valiant effort here to keep perspective and keep things in perspective. And I think I have gone overboard in explaining my rationale.
THE COURT: The question is, Mr. Prince, is there any time in this hearing you have not told the absolute whole truth, that is what the oath is, the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?
THE WITNESS: No, there is not.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you testified, I think — correct me if I’m
752
wrong — a number of times that — that Mr. Miscavige was deeply involved in the activities of you and Ms. Aznaran at the RTC and that — and that you and her reported to Mr. Miscavige when you were there. Is that right?
A Mmm, partially right. I — I don’t — don’t remember saying Miscavige was deeply involved with me and Mrs. Aznaran in RTC. I don’t remember —
THE COURT: He did say he reported —
THE WITNESS: Yes, but the other part, I —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Let’s make it clear because that is actually the question I wanted to ask you. You said — you testified under oath you reported to David Miscavige while you were DIG external at RTC?
A I — ultimately, I did report to him, yes.
THE COURT: Frankly, I think he said he reported to Vicki Aznaran.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m just asking him now — we’ll, I’ll read you what he said.
THE COURT: You have to read him what he says because I can’t even remember, myself.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This is actually the real transcript, Page 342, lines 19 through 25. And this is in response to a question from Mr. Dandar. And you say: “Answer: So you know from
753
the –”
THE COURT: Read the question.
MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m trying to find.
There was a lot of interruptions.
MR. DANDAR: Well, that is surprising!
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince just starts talking. There was — there was dialogue about the Clearwater Police Department.
THE COURT: Well, let me hear what it is you are wanting to read to him, then we’ll see if he can remember this testimony.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Okay.
“Answer: So you know from the limited time that I was there in Religious Technology Center myself, I know that — you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service Organization I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure the whole thing ran smoothly, and the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.”
That is what you said?
A Correct. That doesn’t mean to the exclusion of Mrs. Aznaran who was my direct —
Q No, I didn’t — wasn’t suggesting that.
A Okay.
754
Q Now, if you’ll go to — by the way, did you also report to Marty Rathbun back then?
A Yes. Yes.
Q If you go to Page 52 of the Yanny deposition, please —
A Was that 52, Mr. Weinberg?
Q Yes, 52.
A Okay.
Q Look at Line 15 through 19.
“Question –” were you asked these questions and gave these answers under oath.
“Question: Back in this ’84, ’86 time period did you ever have an occasion to report to Marty Rathbun?
“Answer: No.
“Question: Did you ever report to David Miscavige?
“Answer: No.”
A Right.
Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?
A Yes, I did.
Q Were those truthful answers?
A No, they were not.
Q So you perjured yourself?
A Correct.
755
THE COURT: I honestly don’t want you to use the word “perjury.” Perjury is a term of law.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: Lie would be fine.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I have had judges tell me not to use lie because it is inflammatory.
THE COURT: If that were in front of a jury, that may be true, but for me in this particular proceeding perjury is a term of law.
MR. WEINBERG: Fine.
THE COURT: If you say is that a lie, that would be fine.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Was that a lie?
A Yes, it was.
Q And did somebody instruct you to lie?
A Yes. Again, Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun.
Again, I’m being a good Scientologist and I’m protecting Scientology.
Q And you’re not being a good anti-Scientologist as you sit on the stand in this proceeding and write affidavits and stuff like that, correct?
A I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.
Q Well, is there a code of ethics for people like you that are part of the anti-Scientology movement?
756
MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to the phrase “Anti-Scientology movement.” I don’t know if that has been established anywhere.
THE COURT: I think you need to save that for another time.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Is there a code of ethics, did you and members of the A team and those people that were carrying the signs for the Lisa McPherson Trust that we saw that video yesterday, was there some code of ethics as to what you guys were going to do when you were under oath?
A Mr. Weinberg, no one carried a sign for the Lisa McPherson Trust. You know, you make it impossible for me to answer these questions when you draw these conclusions and inferences that simply are just not true.
Q Well —
THE COURT: So the question is, was there a code of ethics that you and Mr. Minton and —
MR. WEINBERG: Ms. Brooks.
THE COURT: — Ms. Brooks developed when you were to testify?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: In this proceeding?
THE WITNESS: No. The answer to the question,
757
your Honor, is no.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you have testified again today about the RPF and I believe that on direct — and I’ll read you your testimony if you don’t remember it, but I believe that you have referred to the RPF as being a concentration camp or something like that, correct?
THE COURT: Prison camp.
A Prison camp.
MR. WEINBERG: Actually, in this transcript it says concentration camp on Page 456.
THE COURT: I heard prison camp for sure.
Prison, concentration camp, I guess they’re all the same.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually —
THE COURT: They’re not.
MR. WEINBERG: In my mind a concentration camp brings images of Nazi Germany, and a prison camp, you know, we have them in Florida. But —
MR. DANDAR: Well, Japanese had concentration camps in the United States. We had —
MR. WEINBERG: I’m not even going there.
MR. DANDAR: There must be a difference.
THE COURT: Maybe not to this particular witness. He may not — not make a distinction.
758
THE WITNESS: Well, actually, your Honor, I think there is a distinction in that I think the Rehabilitation Project Force is more akin to a concentration camp in that part of the program is to have not — not only to have a mind-altering experience, but to have a total revamping of the way you were before.
THE COURT: Okay. So you refer to it as a concentration camp?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q By the way, did you lose a lot of weight when you were in the RPF?
A Which time?
Q I mean, did you get meals?
A Which time?
Q You said you were in twice, I believe.
A Right. So you mean both times?
THE COURT: Either time.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Either time.
A The first time I lost weight dramatically. I think I got down to 144 pounds because we weren’t allowed to eat regular food, we had to eat fruit and — and protein supplement called Progest. Then we had to run around with
759
plastic suits on our body to, quote/unquote, get the impurities out. This is all we were allowed to eat is fruit and Progest.
Q That was in the ’70s?
A That was ’77.
Q So then in ’87 when, you know, everything came down on you and you got —
A I lost weight there, too, yes.
Q Were you running around drinking protein drinks and wearing sweat suits?
A No, not the second time.
Q Now, you testified that you were — let me quote — “forcibly,” quote/unquote, that is what you said here, “removed from the RTC.” That is what you said on the stand.
A Yes.
Q Do you remember that? Now, when you said forcibly, what — what were you referring to?
A Well, I was referring to a couple of things.
Prior to assuming any position as a board member in the Scientology conglomerate, the one thing that you’re asked to do in order to have this position is to sign an undated resignation.
After signing an undated resignation, then you are allowed to be a corporate officer, on the board of directors
760
or — or some such like that, you know, having to do with corporate matters.
So I was a — on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. I was the treasurer. But when I was graced with that position I also at that time had to sign an undated resignation. Again, I was woken up at I guess 5 o’clock in the morning with 12 people in — security guards wearing uniforms like they’re on a mission, and I was told that I was removed, I was shown my undated resignation so that, you know — and this is a legal process. And apparently this is a problem that they had, but I won’t diverge, but this and this, and I was told, “You stand up, you call me sir.”
Miscavige wanted me to do that, and I didn’t want to do it.
So they grabbed me and they started jumping me.
Q All right. That is the gun thing?
A Right.
Q The gun thing?
A Right. We talked about that yesterday.
THE COURT: Are you also talking about the fact your resignation was filled in, is that what you considered part of forcible removal? Or not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So when you mentioned that, that is also part of your forcibly removed because it was
761
filled in and, therefore, you were removed?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you understood when Scientology reorganized in the early ’80s and created RTC and CSI and a variety of other corporations, you understood that there was a corporate structure then that was very clear and defined in corporate documents, correct?
A Before —
Q You understood that?
A Before or after — I guess — there was a corporate structure before they created RTC, CSI, all these other corporations?
Q No, I said you understood in the early ’80s, the Church of Scientology reorganized with a new corporate structure —
A Right.
Q — including the RTC, CSI, which was the mother church, and all the churches under them. You understood that, right?
A Yes. Yes.
Q And there was a very detailed corporate structure with — with articles of incorporation and various agreements that set forth clearly the corporate way in which various — Scientology would be run, correct?
762
A Correct.
Q And that was the wish and desire of L. Ron Hubbard, who was still alive that that happened, that there be this reorganization of the church?
A You know, I can’t say that that is true. I can’t —
THE COURT: Who would care? The idea there was a corporate reorganization, surely this is going somewhere.
MR. WEINBERG: It is going somewhere.
THE COURT: Get there.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The RTC was composed of a board of directors.
Correct?
A That was part of it, sure.
Q And there were trustees?
A Correct.
Q In fact, there were trustees in every Scientology corporation, correct?
A Well, I came to learn that in 1987. But you are correct.
Q Well, you learned when you joined RTC that there were trustees, there were three trustees?
A No. No. No.
Q Well, what you learned is that the trustees had
763
one function, correct, and that is to — that is to — to name or remove directors. You understood that, didn’t you?
A No, sir.
Q And you were removed in 1987, along with Ms. Aznaran, by the trustees of RTC, one of which was Mr. Miscavige, correct?
A Incorrect. I was removed by one person, only one person’s will, on one person’s authority, and that was Mr. Miscavige.
Q Was he one of the trustees of RTC?
A Yes. And this got explained to me as he was doing this. You know, he — you know, and I guess I was a bit naive, you know, I didn’t know. I wasn’t a corporate person. I’m not trained, you know.
And he explained it to me very well. He said, “Look, I am a trustee. Norman is a trustee.” I think Marty may have been a trustee or Steve Marlowe may have been a trustee. I’m not sure. And he explained to me how it worked.
And he said, “Here is your undated resignation and you have officially resigned and this is how it works and we have the authority to do that.” And at that point I was cognizant of how it worked.
Q Are you saying that for the five years that you were in RTC and for the three or so that you were a board
764
member and, you said, the number two person at RTC, you didn’t know that there were trustees that had the ability to — to remove you?
A Correct.
Q But you are an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology?
A I have never said I am an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology, Mr. Weinberg. I said that I am an expert in the — in the policies, bulletins and issues that are Scientology. That is Scientology.
Q If you go to Page 16 of your deposition —
THE COURT: Which deposition?
MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, the Yanny deposition.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The —
A I’m not quite there.
Q Okay.
A Okay. I’m there.
Q Okay, Line 4, question — were you asked these questions and did you give these answers — and you will see there is one date that is wrong, but it is wrong in the transcript, and I think you — it didn’t affect the question.
“Question — Line 4 were you asked this question, “October of ’83 to March of ’87 you were deputy inspector
765
general for external affairs.
“Answer: That’s right.
“Question: Was Vicki Aznaran your senior during that entire course of time?
“Answer: Yes.
“Question: Were you out at Gilman Hot Springs?
“Answer: Gilman Hot Springs and Los Angeles.
“Question: What was your next position then in March of ’83.”
That would be obviously March of ’87, I think you understand that by your answer. And did you give this answer.
“Answer: Then I went to the RPF for three months, probably three and a half. Then I was an auditor. I was an auditor at Golden Era, the same place at Gilman Hot Springs, for a while.
“Question: For about three and a half months starting in March of ’83 –” but it is ’87 — “you were in the RPF again?
“Answer: Yes.”
Then I’ll skip to Page 17. Top of the page. Line 3 were you asked this question and gave this answer: “What were the circumstances of your transferring from RTC to Golden Era Productions?
“Answer: Well, when I was in RTC I wanted to go to the RPF because I needed more training. I needed — I
766
just needed more skill than I presently had. And that afforded me an opportunity to do that because I could go five hours a day, so I did that and also got auditing, co-audited and life audited, because I audited practically my whole career in Scientology. So I decided to audit for a while.”
Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?
A Yes, I did.
Q So that was false testimony?
A This was coached testimony by Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun, for the purpose of deposition with Mr. Yanny.
Q So is that a definite category —
THE COURT: That was also false, correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You were coached by who?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Earle Cooley and Mr. Marty Rathbun.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, that deposition — you were asked questions by whom in that deposition?
A You know, I don’t know. I — I don’t know.
THE COURT: Take a look at the front. It
767
should say who was representing Mr. Yanny. Did you give him the front page?
MR. WEINBERG: I gave him the whole deposition. If I could approach, I think I could show him.
THE COURT: Okay.
A Cummings & White. Is that who it was?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Barry Van Sickle. Do you remember Barry Van Sickle?
A Not really.
Q But do you remember this was a deposition, now that we refreshed your recollection, the questions were being asked by Mr. Yanny’s lawyer, not by Mr. Cooley, the ones we went over.
A Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Just one second, your Honor. I need to move some stuff and get some other stuff.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, going to a different subject now, Mr. Prince.
A Are we finished with this?
Q Yes, let me take that back.
THE COURT: Why don’t you go ahead and give that, then, to Mr. Dandar.
MR. WEINBERG: I will.
THE COURT: That will save you all from having to copy it.
768
MR. WEINBERG: Is this our only copy? No, we have other copies.
MR. DANDAR: You do have another copy?
MR. WEINBERG: Apparently, somewhere back at the ranch.
THE COURT: But you can go ahead and make yourselves a copy and he can have that one?
MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, let’s go back to the LMT now. And I think you said a minute ago that I had some misconception of the LMT and picketing. Did I hear you say that?
A Mmm, that is quite possible, yes.
THE COURT: What he said, Counselor, was that you were suggesting that they were picketing on behalf of LMT, and that wasn’t exactly correct.
THE WITNESS: That is right. That’s right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q But the — part of the purpose — part of what the LMT did in 1999 and 2000 was to picket various buildings of the Church of Scientology?
A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I hear you saying that.
But with every video that you have shown here and you have related to the LMT, there are LMT staff that have never picketed, never wanted to, never would, and would not
769
participate —
THE COURT: Mr. Prince, this is really simple.
Really the question is here, and I don’t think it is that difficult, one of the things that LMT did, those folks who were at LMT, was to picket when they thought it appropriate.
THE WITNESS: Yes, occasionally they would.
THE COURT: Exercising their rights, whatever you want to call it.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: They would at times organize a picket and go picket the Church.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, in January of 2000 you were the consultant, expert, working with Ken Dandar in this case, right?
A Correct.
Q And you were also working in the Wollersheim case, as well, at that time?
A Mmm, more than likely, yes.
Q And you were also vice-president at the LMT?
A Well, we already did LMT. You said I was at the LMT. And I was working with Mr. Dandar. There are two things.
Q I’m focusing on the time, January of —
770
A Okay.
Q — 2000, you were the expert for Mr. Dandar —
A Yes, I was the expert for Mr. Dandar, but I don’t think that I immediately assumed work at the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don’t think that is how it happened.
Q Now, I asked you yesterday about you being the big boss at the LMT?
A Yes.
Q And you said no.
A Correct.
MR. WEINBERG: Could we play that video, please.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q By the way, do you remember a situation where Mr. Minton handed out parrots to various members at the LMT as Christmas gifts so that — indicating — rather, whether you are a big parrot or little parrot, squawking at Scientology, do you remember that happening?
A I think you are referring to a newspaper — a press that Mr. Minton had — had done and that came up —
THE COURT: Did he give you all parrots?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Little ones.
MR. WEINBERG: All right, could we play this?
771
This is from the film library, January 5, 2000.
______________________________________
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“I have a little presentation, a little sort of Christmas present for the people who are associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust who have made all this possible. Some of you may be aware that back in December a guy named Dave — no, Rick Barry wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune about — I think the headline was ‘Bob Minton, will he rouse the gorilla?’
“Yes. Yes.
“But the real headline is ‘Lisa McPherson Trust, will they rouse the gorilla.’ And in that article, he referred to — in terms of the gorilla, first of all, he was talking about how this gorilla came to Clearwater 25 years ago, 800-pound gorilla, set himself down in the middle of Clearwater, began buying influence, began buying property, and for the last 25 years they have basically made themselves a force in this community by buying people off one at a time.
“And the — the question that Mr. Barry raised in this article was whether, you know, this small band of parrots would be able to, you know, make a
772
difference here in terms of changing the way that this — that this organization is perceived in this community and in terms of the way this organization behaves in this community.
“Well, I remember a good friend of mine, Mark DeLarma, who you all know, said, ‘You thought that was a good article? He, like, called you guys parrots.’ I said, ‘I thought it was a great article.’
“So did I.
“Because it really expressed in a very vivid way how the Lisa McPherson Trust was going to change the way this community interacts and perceives Scientology. And how Scientology will have to — if they want to be healthful here, start acting like an organization that is a church if they want to be called a church.
“So I figured that the first thing that the Lisa McPherson Trust had to do is we had to set up a little — Mmm — mascot for this organization. And everybody who is part of it. So for the first — the first group of — of Christmas presents are for those people who will be based here as part of the organization day in and day out.
“And so the first of those goes — goes to —
773
this is my little parrot that we want to have, the staff members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the most famous staff member of all is — is Stacy Brooks.
“There you go.
“The president and chief operating — executive officer.
“The next one — the next one, the same parrot, you know, the same parrot, goes to Jesse Prince, the boss of the whole thing. Who we all love.
“Thank you, Bobby.
“And the — and the third — the third of the fifth parrots goes to Mark Bunker, the multimedia king of the world.
“Sweet.
“Who is doing everything he can to keep a straight face while this is going on.
“There is one for me. I want to keep that.
“And then when David gets here, this is for David Cecere. And I have another parrot which is not currently in waiting here, but that is for Kim Baker when she arrives.
“So we’ve got plenty of parrots.
“We’re not done.
“We’re not done. You know — you know, I mean,
774
so I would like to make a recommendation that we adopt this parrot as the mascot of the Lisa McPherson Trust so that everybody knows that we are going to make a lot of noise, we’re going to be squawking about what Scientology does in terms of harming people and their abusive and deceptive practices, and we’re going to, as little parrots, we’re going to make a lot of noise and drop a lot of stuff that parrots — come out the back end and help these guys learn the way to behave. Okay?
“So —
“Bravo.
“So now — now — now we have little parrots. We have little parrots for all of the big people who have made all this possible. And the first and most important little parrot goes to Patricia because — because what Patricia has done, to help everybody who is down here, get themselves down here and get them settled in and make them feel comfortable in this — in this whole environment, which is not an easy place for — for former Scientologists to come to. You know, they have been willing to stick their neck out and come down here and really make this organization happen. And so Patricia has really made everybody feel comfortable, she’s — she’s sort
775
of like —
“She chased PIs into the bathroom for me.
“Yes, and you — you know — so I — I want Patricia to have a parrot.
“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
“Ray Emmons has been teaching us all for — and a lot of people didn’t listen for a long time, how this organization really operates. And he did this in Clearwater. He made himself known nationwide in terms of his opposition to Scientology. And the type of organization that they really are underneath the surface. And so I want Ray to know that he’s a parrot, as well. You have been a parrot for a long time.
“Okay.
“Let me have a kiss here, Patricia, because I didn’t do that. Thank you so much.
“The order of the parrot.
“The order of the parrot. This is like the highest award that the Lisa McPherson Trust can bestow upon somebody.
“Now, you know, Peter Alexander has been squawking about Scientology for a long time, even when he was in it, especially toward the end of the time he was in it, when he was — when he was —
776
when he was being squawked at by Patricia — you know, rather regularly. So — and Peter has allowed Patricia particularly to devote so much time and energy into helping this organization get off the ground.
“And I just want you to know, Peter, that we’re totally thankful for your help and support in this organization, your being on the board. And I really want all of us to know that this is an incredibly tight-knit little group, and got a lot of hard work to do here in Clearwater. But with people like all of us here and you, Peter, thank you so much for doing this. And I want to present you with a little parrot.
“Yes.
“Thank you, sir. Thank you.
“And I want to — I want to —
“The order of the parrots.
“The order of the parrots.
“I want to talk to you about a theme park.
“Yeah. Yeah.
“Now, the next parrot — the next parrot is for Duncan Pierce, you know, our national coordinator. Our national coordinator.
“Oh, my God.
777
“Duncan has been abused by Stacy so much in the last few months that he really deserves a big parrot. But because he’s not here on the staff in the office every day, he can’t get a big parrot, you know, it’s just not part —
“The big parrot —
“Look at Peter.
“It’s — you know, the problem is —
“Patricia? Look at Patricia.
“The problem is it is not in the tech. He can’t have a big parrot. But —
“The standard tech.
“Yeah. Yeah. But — but Duncan has done so much to get us off the ground, as well.
“I don’t know what I would do without him.
“It is amazing. The thing is there are so many people that have really pushed so hard to get this thing going. And, you know, there is no recognition for us. You know, we get abused a lot on the Internet. Our demise has already been scripted by, you know, anti-cult and Diane Richardson. Fine, let them squawk all they want. But the real squawking will be done here in Clearwater by a bunch of parrots. And Duncan is one of those parrots. (Inaudible.)
778
“Then for the — and the person who lives the furtherest from Clearwater, Grady Ward, who is standing right here, we have another parrot, because Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward is — is our security expert here. And already — and already during the course of this day he has learned a lot about security. (Inaudible.)
“Yeah, don’t tell me about it. But I can tell you some things about Grady personally because — (Inaudible.)
“Because one of the things that really got me involved in this thing was Grady Ward. And Grady’s stand against Scientology, you know, back in 1995 or — early ’96 when he started going after them directly after they sued him, he went after them as his own attorney, you know. You know what they say about guys who are their own attorney.
“It is perfectly true.
“And it is perfectly true. Grady will be the first to tell you he had no expertise, no competence whatsoever. But he — he studied the law. He studied what Scientology was doing. He — he learned so much about it. And has become a really good legal man in terms of fighting Scientology. And I — you know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine
779
somebody having the patience to understand and go through and traveling back and forth from Arcadia, California, eight hours to San Francisco in his car and memorizing the Rules of Civil Procedure. You know, while he’s going back and forth. And I mean memorizing so he knows every paragraph, every subparagraph, whatever. And — (Inaudible.)
“You know, if you talk about a parrot, then this guy is a parrot. And I want to give — I want to give this guy who is a shining example for many people on the Internet in terms of standing up to somebody who is trying to curtail free speech on the Internet, I want Grady to have this parrot as a symbol of our love for him and his contribution to this whole battle.
“Thank you very much. “Thank you, Grady. Thank you.
“And — and now. (Inaudible.)
“And now this other parrot, I forgot to tell you. I told you this was mine. And this parrot is mine because all of you gave me this parrot and I really appreciate it. So —
“Something about Rob and why he gets a parrot,
780
because if it weren’t for him, none of us would be here.
“Absolutely.
“None of us.
“For sure.
“There is nothing else to say.
“Bob is the big parrot.
“Definitely.
“Oh, but this is not all. Oh, some of the best stuff is — some of the best is saved for last. Well, what I would like everybody —
“He’s big with presents, you can see that.
“What I would like everybody to do, if you put the parrots around in a little circle here, if you put the parrots around in a little circle there. (Inaudible.)
“Right, don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget. But, you know what the parrots are supposed to do, don’t you? We’re going to get the gorilla. And I didn’t want you to think I forgot about that gorilla. So this gorilla is going to sit right there.
“Whew.
“Don’t dump on the gorilla. Come on. But — but that is what this is all about here.
781
little parrots and some of us big parrots here, we’re going to be here and we’re going to make sure this gorilla behaves.
“We’re going to educate this gorilla and —
“We’re going to put the — we’re going to put the gorilla in the cage or the jungle, wherever it belongs.
“We’re going to turn this gorilla into a parrot.
“Yeah, this gorilla is going to be cooperating with us.
“In any case, everybody can take their parrot back now. And I’ll keep the gorilla, so when we have it on the desk out there, it will be —
“Yes, a constant reminder.
“Yes, as a constant reminder of what we need to do.”
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Bring back memories, Mr. Prince?
A Very fond memories. I’m so sorry that that place doesn’t exist anymore.
MR. DANDAR: I’ll object because we just went through that long video and with the — the question was — to Mr. Prince, “Mr. Prince, were you called or did you call yourself a big boss at the LMT,” and
782
that is not what that video showed. Mr. Minton called Mr. Prince a boss of the whole thing. So — so whatever Mr. Weinberg’s question was was not supported by the video.
THE COURT: Well, it certainly is a video that he could play at some other time so he played it now.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE COURT: But it is true, he was not called a big boss —
MR. WEINBERG: He was called the boss of the whole thing.
THE COURT: But I think Mr. Minton made it clear he was the big boss.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, I asked you a lot of questions about what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about. That meeting there was initially the start-up meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn’t it? It is essentially right at the beginning?
A I think so. You know, I think you are right about that.
Q Right. And Mr. Minton made it very clear what it was about, squawking about Scientology. That is what the
783
Lisa McPherson Trust was about, wasn’t it?
A No, sir. It was about making Scientology behave.
I think that was also part of this video. Just to behave. Be decent.
Q Putting the gorilla in the cage? Was that what it was about?
A Or in the jungle, wherever it belonged.
Q What does that mean, “or in the jungle, wherever it belonged”?
A Well, it means everything has its place, Mr. Weinberg. And there is hardly anything sinister about what we just watched here.
Q “We’re going to make a lot of noise,” that means you are going to disrupt the activities of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, right?
A No, Mr. Weinberg. That means that we’re going to expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those who have been victimized by it. That is what we were talking about there.
Q And at that time when you got the second parrot for being the boss of the whole thing, you were supposedly the full-time expert for Ken Dandar, correct?
A I was working for Mr. Dandar as his expert. I wouldn’t go as far as to say full-time. I mean, even you brought up the fact I was working on the Wollersheim case,
784
as well, simultaneously.
Q We’ll get to the — we’ll get — I’ll ask you one question. From June of ’99 until May of 2000 you were getting $5,000 a month from Dandar & Dandar?
A I think the record reflects that, Mr. Weinberg.
Q And this was in that period of time, wasn’t it, this parrot thing?
A I believe it was.
Q Now, you saw this meeting and you were at a number of meetings with Mr. Minton, correct, over the years? You have been with him a lot?
A Yes, I have been with him a lot.
Q And in this particular meeting and others that you were in, Mr. Minton was pretty outspoken, outgoing, he would take over, right? He would speak his piece? He was in control?
A No. Mr. Minton is not that way. That is the biggest myth. You know, Mr. Minton has exact things that he likes to do and he does them. I mean, I learned a lot from him myself. You know, I have never had millions upon millions of dollars myself. I have never been able to help people the way he has been able to help people. He has a different agenda, a different track. Unfortunately, in some instances he has a very short attention span.
And he never, in any instance, ever wants to be
785
the person that is the leader. I mean, he doesn’t — he doesn’t do that. You know, if you want to do it, great. If what you want to do makes sense, great, he’ll support you.
But he’s not going to tell you how to do it.
Q So this was just an aberration?
A No, this was — it was clear what this was.
Mr. Minton was showing his appreciation to persons like Patricia Greenway, myself, Peter Alexander, Duncan Pierce, for helping organize and make the people feel welcome at the Lisa McPherson Trust and helping us be a social — be a social reform group, if nothing else, in order to ultimately help Scientology.
Q By the way, did he look harassed? Did he look like a man that was under some wave of harassment unknown to mankind?
A Actually, he looked like a man giving a speech to a group of people.
Q It looked like he was — that was in the Lisa McPherson Trust building, correct?
A Correct.
Q It looked like all of you, Ms. Greenway, you, Mr. —
THE COURT: What difference does that make they were having fun at the LMT? When gifts were given out?
786
MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll go on.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Let me ask you a question about Ray Emmons, the guy that put the parrot on his head.
A I know Ray Emmons well.
Q Now, Mr. Emmons had been a Clearwater police officer and had done an investigation of the Church of Scientology in the ’80s, is that right?
A Yes, I believe that is correct.
Q And Mr. Emmons has been and continues to be the investigator for Ken Dandar in this case, you know that?
A I know that Mr. Dandar has used him to do service of process or locate witnesses and things like that.
Q Now, what was Mr. Emmons’ position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A I don’t think he had a position. He may have been on the board of directors, which was huge and basically was a friends list. But as far as an official position or coming into that office on a daily basis to work or accomplish a specific task, that was never anything that he did.
MR. WEINBERG: I have a couple E-Mails — or postings I was going to put in, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I want to take a break here in five minutes, so if it will take more than
787
that, break now. If not, go ahead and do those and we’ll take a break.
MR. WEINBERG: I think we can do those in five minutes. I mean, it is just identifying them.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: These are actually E-Mails, I’m told. I have trouble telling the difference.
THE COURT: Yes, I don’t know the difference, either. If they’re up there on the screen and people can read it, to me, it’s an E-Mail.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay, your Honor, this is 223. I didn’t write the number on it.
THE COURT: Okay, I’ll do it.
MR. WEINBERG: And this is 224.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I’m going to hand you the originals. We’ll put them back when we’re done.
A Okay.
Q All right. If you’ll look at first, Mr. Prince, 223.
A 223? Which one is 223?
Q That is the —
A Okay, I have it here.
Q That is the Jeff Jacobsen —
788
THE COURT: It is the long one.
THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m really only referring to —
I — we just received these from the Lisa McPherson Trust. I have attached the whole thing, your Honor, but the only page that — that — this is part of the E-Mails that were produced.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: But really what I’m focusing on is the first page.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, you can look at it all, but I don’t know if the rest — sometimes it comes off the computer and —
THE COURT: Who is this from?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q If you look at this, Mr. Prince, this is from Jeff Jacobsen to you and Mr. Bunker and Stacy Brooks. Who is Karen Case?
A She used to be a person hired specifically to work as public relations.
Q And this is dated August 2, 2000. Is that right?
A Well, you know, okay.
Q Do you see that?
A Yes. I do.
789
Q And this is — do you remember having meetings about things that needed to be done at the Lisa McPherson Trust?
MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, I have to object.
This is not Mr. Prince’s E-Mail so I don’t know how he can question him about some hearsay document authored by somebody that is not here.
THE COURT: Well, I think he can state whether or not this is accurate or not.
MR. WEINBERG: It is to him.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You received this, right, Mr. Prince?
A I have no memory of this.
MR. DANDAR: Which one are you on?
MR. WEINBERG: He’s copied on the E-Mail, it is addressed to him.
THE WITNESS: I don’t even know what this is.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q It is an E-Mail to you.
A Okay.
Q Among other people. All right?
A Okay.
Q What it says, “This is a list of things we talked about, elaborated on by me.”
Now, Mr. Jacobsen was also part of the Lisa
790
McPherson Trust, correct?
A Yes, he was.
Q In fact, in some of those videos yesterday you saw Mr. Jacobsen in it with a camera himself?
A No, I did not see that yesterday, but —
Q Oh. He did take — he took videos from time to time, didn’t I?
A Yes.
Q Do you know why those videos haven’t been turned over, by the way, his, Mr. Jacobsen’s?
A No, I do not. Were they asked for?
THE COURT: Don’t ask him what he knows or doesn’t know about something like that.
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll ask it a different way.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you know where the videos that he took are?
A No, I do not.
Q Were they kept at the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A I don’t know what he did with his personal videos.
Q But, anyway, this — this — this E-Mail talks about a list of things we talked about, 1, speeches, radio talk shows. 2, picket. 3, press releases. 4, press conferences. 5, help with investigations by EEOC, DEB. 6, the library open for public use. 7, concert November 11. 8, newsletter. 9, attend city council meetings,
791
participate. 10, put up a sign for the office outside. 11, ads in local newspaper. 12, support group. 13, radiofree Clearwater.”
Now, that is 13 things that the Lisa McPherson Trust, I assume, prioritized to do. Not one says anything about counseling, does it?
A You know, I think you are mischaracterizing this E-Mail to somehow reflect or — or be a staple for the activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and what this is is just simply an E-Mail of Jeff writing. I have no recollection of it whatsoever and I don’t even remember what it relates to at this point in time.
I mean, I literally have had thousands of E-Mails, Mr. Weinberg. I’m not trying to be uncooperative, I’m trying to cooperate in the spirit, but what you are asking me has no perspective. You are tying this into the Lisa McPherson Trust and it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Q Well, does it make sense to you one of the priorities of the Lisa McPherson Trust was pickets? Does that make sense to you?
A No, not at all.
THE COURT: This is really — in fairness, this is a statement from somebody about some meeting and, frankly, you don’t have to persuade me that the Lisa McPherson Trust picketed. I don’t know why you just
792
keep badgering that home. I know what he’s going to say, you know what he’s going to say. It is me that is in charge of this hearing, and I’m persuaded, but the point was not picketing, it was counseling, wasn’t on the list.
You know, that is unfair to suggest because somebody writes a letter with things they talked about on a given day of things that needed to be done, you can hardly assume putting a sign outside is a primary — is something that needs to be done.
It doesn’t say this is our purpose. I mean, fair is fair, Counselor. And that is not fair to suggest that those are the purposes of the LMT.
MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received. It will be received, although it is only being received for the fact that — that we have a bunch of E-mails.
MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
THE COURT: — that I have let in.
MR. WEINBERG: Then 224 quickly is an E-Mail that —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Is this a posting or E-Mail, 224, Mr. Prince?
793
A I have no idea.
Q Well, this is something that you —
A There is no “to”.
THE COURT: It says it is from you.
THE WITNESS: Yes, is this a note to myself? I don’t know what it is.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you recognize this as something that you did?
THE COURT: Who is Mark? I know there is a Mark.
THE WITNESS: You know, there are lots of Marks.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I think it is pretty clear, the message at the bottom is a Mark Bunker passage. Then —
A The message at the bottom? Oh, I see what you are saying.
Q Do you see?
A Okay.
Q And my question to you is, your advice was, “With regard to the Lisa McPherson Trust, contact Ken Dandar.”
That is what it says, correct?
A Absolutely not.
Q That is not what it says?
MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. It doesn’t say that,
794
either.
A No.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Are you saying, “In the meantime, I recommend you contact U.S. attorney Kennan G. Dandar,” and give his E-Mail address?
THE COURT: What is the date on that?
MR. WEINBERG: It is November 10, 1999.
THE COURT: Before the trust was formed?
MR. WEINBERG: Right — well, the trust actually had already been formed, remember, it was incorporated and it was in the process of being set up.
A You know, this is a partial thing here from Mark. I can’t tell if somebody wrote in and had a legal question and I’m referring them to Ken Dandar, who is a lawyer that could maybe answer a legal question for them, or whether or not they need assistance or the service the trust has to offer. I can’t tell from this. I can’t draw the inference that somehow this means Ken Dandar is running the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything like that.
MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.
MR. DANDAR: I object. It is too partial to make sense.
795
THE COURT: I’m going to let it in for whatever value it has, which is little, as to a lot of the other E-Mails, because of the same problem.
MR. WEINBERG: So is this a good time to take a break?
THE COURT: It is a good time to take a break.
We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. I show it is 25 till. That will be about ten till.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 10:35 to 10:55 a.m.)
_______________________________________
THE COURT: Okay. I signed the order and I mailed out the copies. But those of you who are here, I’ll give you yours. Mr. Dandar. Here is Mr. Lirot’s, too. I didn’t realize he wasn’t here.
Mr. Moxon, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Fugate. Always trying to save you all some stamp money.
MR. WEINBERG: Everything counts.
THE COURT: Every little bit counts. That is right.
You may continue.
MR. DANDAR: I returned the envelopes to opposing counsel.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. DANDAR: So they can save their stamps.
796
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, you first learned about Bob Minton after watching a television show Dateline in which he appeared and Ms. Brooks appeared in June of ’98?
A That is incorrect.
Q Did you watch a television show before you met Mr. Minton where you learned about him?
A No, I did not.
Q How did you learn about Mr. Minton?
A Through Mrs. Brooks.
Q So she just reached out for you, you didn’t reach out for her?
A Well, Mr. Weinberg, I think I spoke on this before but I’ll speak on it again.
I was on vacation in Connecticut. I had been in the cyber coffee cafe. I had gone on the Internet. Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Weinberg?
THE COURT: It was rather elaborate.
A I left my phone number and she called me.
(Telephone interruption.)
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you ever see the Dateline —
THE COURT: Don’t be sorry to him. Be sorry to me. It is my word that says no phone.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I apologize for the
797
distraction.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you ever see the television show The Crusader, I think on NBC Dateline, where Mr. Minton was featured about his crusade against Scientology?
A Mmm, more than likely, many months to possibly a year after he had done that program, I’d seen it. But I didn’t see it when it ran on national television.
Q Well, you learned, shortly after your call from Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton was a very wealthy person who was handing out a lot of money to people that would work against Scientology, correct?
A That is categorically false.
Q Ms. Brooks didn’t tell you that Mr. Minton had given her and Vaughn a lot of money, including the purchase of a $250,000 home?
A At one point in time Mrs. Brooks did relay the information that Mr. Minton had given her and her husband some money and she explained the circumstances about that.
Q Did a relative tell you about the Dateline show featuring —
THE COURT: A relative of whom?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q A relative of yours tell you about — in or about this time period before you met Mr. Minton — did a relative
798
tell you about having seen this show where Mr. Minton was featured or some friend or some family member?
A A cousin of mine, when I lived in — I guess I must have been still living in Minneapolis and we were in a phone conversation. And she was telling me about a program where she had seen — she had seen concerning Scientology and there was a man that was helping people or somehow got involved in it. She didn’t remember his name. She just remembered — and, you know, as it is with my family, if they see something about Scientology on TV, they tell me about it when I speak to them.
Q Was that before you communicated with Ms. Brooks?
A I believe it was.
Q So when you learned about Ms. Brooks, you already knew about Mr. Minton?
A As I said, she didn’t know Mr. Minton’s name. All she related was, “I saw a story on TV about Scientology and the different things that they do. And there was a man that was helping people that had been in Scientology before.”
Q And did you research, prior to hearing from Ms. Brooks, did you research to learn who this guy was and what he was doing for people who had been in Scientology?
A No. I had not.
Q Now, when did you learn, after communicating with Ms. Brooks, how wealthy Mr. Minton was?
799
A When I spoke to him.
Q And how long after you talked to Ms. Brooks did you talk to Mr. Minton?
A Mmm, maybe a month. Maybe two months.
Q So I was under the impression that on this trip — I guess I’m wrong — this trip to Connecticut, that you went from Connecticut right up to Mr. Minton’s house after talking to Ms. Brooks?
A No, that is incorrect, Mr. Weinberg.
Q So you went home after that?
A Correct.
Q And you stayed in touch —
A Oh, no, no, I’m sorry, you know, because it is so important to make sure the record is correct. From Connecticut, I flew to Ohio and met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Haney.
Q And was it at that time that you were given a new car?
A No. No. It was not. And I was never given a new car by anyone.
Q Somebody purchased it? Mr. Minton purchased a new car for you or caused a new car to be purchased for you?
A No. That is incorrect.
Q Well, how did you get the $23,000 Rodeo vehicle?
A I never got a $23,000 Rodeo. I had use of a
800
$23,000 Rodeo but that $23,000 Rodeo belonged to FACTNet, and when I terminated my employment with them, that car stayed with FACTNet. You understand?
Q Now, that was purchased where, the car?
A In —
THE COURT: Where like what dealer? What city?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What city? What city?
A You know, I don’t remember the name of the city.
Q But it was in Ohio, that area, either Minneapolis or Ohio, correct?
A Correct.
Q And did —
A Well, wait a minute. Let me not do this thing because you accused me of this earlier. It was in Minneapolis specifically. I know the specific answer. I’m not going to play charades here with you. It was in a place near Minneapolis, a city that was near Minneapolis, and I don’t specifically recall the name of the city.
Q And it was purchased new, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you and who went to pick it up at the dealer?
A Mmm, a friend of mine — Mmm — took me — drove me to the dealership to pick it up.
Q And did you have a check with you? How was it
801
paid for?
A No. I didn’t have a check.
Q Ms. Brooks took care of paying for the car? Is that what happened?
A No. Ms. Brooks did not — well, you know, I don’t think so. But quite factually, I don’t know who — how that part of it happened.
Q There just happened to be a new car waiting for you at the dealership?
A No. They needed a vehicle for FACTNet. You know, let me — if you have patience with me, I’ll tell you the — what happened there.
They needed a car in Boulder —
Q Boulder, Colorado?
A Boulder, Colorado, which is where FACTNet was located. I was going to FACTNet to assist in that organization. The car was purchased. I moved everything that I had in Minneapolis and moved to Boulder, Colorado. I made that move to at least be safe or — or to be around some people that could offer some protection to me, because after I’d contacted Mr. — Mr. Minton, the private investigators started, the threatening letters to sue me from Scientology started. And I was alone in Minneapolis, and it was like, “Okay, come here, we’ll help you, we’ll protect you, we have lawyers,” whatever.
802
Q You were alone and bankrupt in Minneapolis, right?
A I had filed bankruptcy in 1997. I think the year we’re talking about now is 1998.
Q June of 1998. Bankruptcy in November of 1997, right? Your next real job after bankruptcy was to be paid by FACTNet and Mr. Minton, correct?
A That is completely false.
Q Now —
A You want to know what my next job was or you just want to leave it like that.
Q Tell me what your next job was.
A I was self-employed. I had an art business called The Art Guy. I had a kiosk in the mall in downtown Minneapolis. I was making my own money and I was actually doing pretty good for myself.
Q But something encouraged you, prompted you, to pick up and leave Minneapolis and move to Boulder, Colorado, at which time you became associated with FACTNet and started being a paid witness in various Scientology cases, correct?
A I think you have added a little bit of baggage on that. But what actually occurred is I left Minneapolis with my business intact. I had employees in Wisconsin and employees in Minneapolis, and I left and went to Boulder, Colorado.
Q Driving this car?
803
A Correct.
Q And you drove this car for how long? How many months did you drive this new car that somebody paid for that you picked up new?
A Off and on, maybe about three months.
Q Now, after — but before you moved to Boulder, you went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?
A Yes.
Q And you and who went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?
A It was just myself.
Q And he flew you to New Hampshire?
A I — I believe the way the scenario worked is Mrs. Brooks arranged flight — airfare, the flight, for me to fly there, yes.
Q Much like she had arranged the car to be purchased?
A I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here because I think I stated earlier in the testimony I’m not quite sure who did that on behalf of FACTNet. That car was purchased in FACTNet’s name. It was never in Jesse Prince’s name, Bob Minton’s name, Stacy Brooks’s name. It was a corporate car. That is the way it was purchased and that is the way it was left.
Q And the person that was financing FACTNet at the
804
time was Bob Minton?
A Mmm, no.
Q Did Mr. — one last question about the car. Did Mr. Haney provide the funds for the car, Brian Haney?
A Not that I’m aware of. But then again, I don’t know the details of it. I know that — I think Mr. Haney did have some association with FACTNet at the time.
Q And what were you seeing Mr. Haney in Ohio about with Ms. Young?
A I mean, I had never known Mr. Haney. I didn’t know who he was. He just happened to be there. I was there to visit with Stacy.
The visit with Stacy — her and I have been associated — associated and friends through Scientology since 1976. She was one of the very first persons that I met when I joined the Sea Org. And we were just happy to see each other. Her ex-husband, Vaughn Young, and I were very good friends. You know, he was an executive and we were friends, and it was — and from leaving Scientology — because when you leave and you are ostracized, people disconnect from you; you are a suppressive person, degraded being, whatever, you don’t have any friends anymore. But to actually encounter someone from Scientology that you knew before that will talk to you because you are not a Scientology is a rare thing.
805
Q Now, the Youngs left in 1989, correct?
A Yes, I assume that, yes.
Q You left in 1992?
A Yes.
Q But you didn’t communicate with the Youngs until Mr. Minton came on the scene in 1998, after you left Scientology, correct?
A I think that is a mischaracterization of my earlier testimony, Mr. Weinberg. Because I think the way I testified, and again I’ll go through the whole thing —
Q No, just answer that question.
A But I wrote an E-mail from a cybercafe that said, “If you know Vaughn Young or Stacy Brooks, please give them my phone number.” Mr. Minton was not part of the equation.
Q My question was you didn’t have any communication with Vaughn or Stacy Young after you left Scientology in 1992 until this cybercafe thing in 1998?
A Correct.
Q As far as you know, they didn’t reach out for you prior to that time, either, is that correct, as far as you know?
A As far as I know.
Q Now, Stacy Young must have told you, when you were in Ohio with her and Brian Haney, she must have told you about the activities that she and Vaughn, her husband, had
806
been involved in for the past four years concerning cases involving Scientology. She told you about that, didn’t she?
A In our first meeting?
Q When you —
A Oh, when I went to Ohio? Are you talking about the Ohio trip?
Q Yes.
A There may have been a brief mention of that, what she was doing. But for sure the substance and the bulk of our conversation was the fact that we were together, we were alive, we actually made it out somewhat sane people and we were just happy to see each other.
Q Did she tell you she and her husband had been making a living off testifying and being experts in cases against Scientology for the past three or four years?
A No, she did not.
Q Did she tell you you had a good opportunity to — to get in on the gravy train, so to speak? Did she tell you that?
A I take offense to that characterization. But that statement is categorically false.
Q Did she tell you that you had the opportunity to make money by being — by working with lawyers in cases involving Scientology? Did she tell you that?
A No, she did not.
807
Q So you didn’t have any discussion about you getting involved in any of these cases?
A At that point in time in Ohio, no, we did not.
Q There came a point in time where you did talk to Stacy about that?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A Mmm, I’m not quite sure. It was maybe some months later or — I’m not quite sure. But I think while we were talking she was telling me about FACTNet. She was telling me about this organization which, in some respects, was similar to the Lisa McPherson Trust which had as its intention of providing information and doing what it can to assist people or persons who felt they had been victimized by Scientology. And —
THE COURT: Was FACTNet just Scientology or was it cults in general?
THE WITNESS: Cults in general, you know, the whole subject. Very broad.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q It was primarily Scientology, though, wasn’t it?
A No. If you go on their website, you know, Scientology has its place, but there are many other cults that they have provided information, ex-members speaking
808
about it, you know.
Q Well, the staff members of FACTNet tended to be people that were more interested in Scientology or had had some involvement with Scientology as opposed to other groups. Correct?
A No. That is actually false. There was one person that was a staff — that was a staff member in FACTNet, I think her name was Justine. She was a Christian woman that had never been in Scientology before.
Q You are telling me so you learned about how you could make some money involving Scientology from Ms. Brooks.
So when did that happen?
A You know, I —
THE COURT: Make some money involving Scientology? That doesn’t make sense.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Who was the first person that told you –suggested to you that you might be — you might be a witness and could be paid as a, quote, expert on Scientology? Who told you that?
A No one told me that, Mr. Weinberg.
Q Who asked you to be involved in the first case that you got involved in?
A Mr. Leipold.
Q He just reached out for you?
809
A He was an associate of Mrs. Brooks. Mrs. Brooks was explaining to me about FACTNet. And the whole subject came about because we were talking about being in touch with people that we had lost contact with, old friends that were in Scientology. So she was introducing me, “Well, you know, another person, you know, people from Los Angeles, hey, do you know this one? He’s out.” And Andre Tabayoyon, I think I spoke with him. We were just talking about the people that we knew in Scientology that were no longer there that were out, you know, getting on with their lives, doing what they do.
Q What were you doing in Ohio with Mr. Haney and Ms. Brooks? I mean, why Ohio? You live in Minneapolis. She lived in Seattle. Why were you in Ohio?
A That is where she was when she called me. And I was in Connecticut and she was in Ohio.
Q Is there something special in Ohio?
A I think that is where Mr. Haney lives. She was in Columbus, Ohio. That is where Mr. Haney lives.
Q You went to New Hampshire. How did you get in touch with Mr. Minton? Did you call him? He call you?
A I think I answered this before. This happened through Mrs. Brooks. I met Mrs. Brooks, and then I had — you know, sometime after that I spoke to Mr. Minton on the phone and maybe a month or two later actually went to visit
810
with him.
Q He flew you to New Hampshire —
THE COURT: He said he didn’t know who paid for the ticket. We can assume it was Mr. Minton, directly or indirectly.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Somebody arranged for you to fly to New Hampshire, right?
A Stacy Brooks.
Q All right. But she wasn’t at this weekend — was it a weekend?
A Actually a couple weeks.
Q You were at Mr. Minton’s house for a couple weeks?
A Yes.
Q Who else was there other than you and Mr. Minton?
A His family would come occasionally. His wife. His children.
Q And anybody — I mean, other than his family, anybody else?
A No.
Q What did you-all — did you talk about Scientology in those two weeks?
A Yes, we did. We talked about Scientology. We talked about why — why he became involved. What this was
811
all about. He was very interested to know my involvement, my history, compared to other people that he had talked to.
And again, this is all in reference to, hey, you know, these ex-people, these people that used to be in and now they are not in and now they’re getting together and talking to each other and it is okay to do that.
Q And did he give you some money, some expense money at that point, either before the trip or during the visit or after the trip?
A No. No. I don’t think so.
Q Did he pay for your expenses to move from Minneapolis to Denver?
A Yes.
Q And —
MR. DANDAR: I object because we have got to establish a time frame here. It sounds like it all happened on the same day.
THE COURT: That is true. Whatever the time frame is, I don’t think it all happened on the same day.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
A It didn’t.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q It didn’t. I’m not suggesting that. Do you remember how much he gave you to move from Minneapolis to
812
Denver?
A Mmm, $10,000.
Q In a check? Cash? I mean, how did you get the money?
THE COURT: What difference does it make?
MR. WEINBERG: Probably not.
THE COURT: It doesn’t make any difference.
MR. DANDAR: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Where did you get the money? I mean, did this happen in New Hampshire? Or did it happen after the trip to New Hampshire that he gave you the $10,000?
A You know, I’m not sure because, you know, I made a couple of trips to New Hampshire. So I’m not really sure how that came about. But I’ll do the best I can to explain it to you, Mr. Weinberg.
I went there once, I stayed there for a couple of weeks, came back to Minneapolis. The threats started. I was starting to get letters from Elliot Abelson, Scientology attorney in Chicago, letting me know I would be sued. I had private investigators starting a noisy investigation in my neighborhood. And I think I alerted Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks, I said, “Look, I can’t believe this whole thing is starting all over again.” You know — you are right, I did do the bankruptcy thing. I cut ties with Scientology
813
completely. I was done with it. I didn’t want another thing to do with it. You know, it is kind of like every time you put your hand in the fire, you know you are going to get burned. I was done.
Q You were done but then you decided to get involved in cases against Scientology?
A Then I went to meet these people and my freedom of association was trying to be inhibited from Scientology — by Scientology. They didn’t want me to associate with these people. There were no — no criminal activity occurred, nothing happened. I’m simply talking to people that used to be in Scientology.
Q All I asked you, did you get the money from Mr. Minton during your trips to New Hampshire or after. That is all I asked, and if you don’t remember just —
A In one of the trips.
Q — just tell me you don’t know.
A In one of the trips, Mr. Weinberg, I did get the money from him to move.
Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you that he would, in essence, take care of you thereafter to support you with regard to your work involving Scientology?
A No, he did not.
Q But in reality, that is what happened for the next four years, didn’t it?
814
A No, it is not.
Q Well, you began to get money from Mr. Minton after this first $10,000, correct? I mean, from that point on for the next four years you received money, directly or indirectly, from Bob Minton on a monthly basis, didn’t you?
A Mr. Weinberg, I received money from FACTNet when I started working for FACTNet, when I moved from Minneapolis to Boulder, Colorado. I started to receive some — and very little from FACTNet. The fact of the matter is that I was able to live and do what I was doing because I had been — I had my own business, I had staff working for me in two states. I was receiving regular moneys from profits that I had made. And this was where the bulk of my money was coming from.
Q So you had all these profits that you had accumulated after the November bankruptcy between November and June of ’98?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, you got the $10,000 from Mr. Minton.
And how much money do you remember that you received from FACTNet?
A Maybe a couple of thousand. You know, one month.
A thousand another. You know, it was kind of back and forth.
Q And then you came — then, shortly after this, you
815
came to Florida in the fall of 1998 to begin work with regard to the PC folders in this case. Correct? You flew to Florida?
A Correct.
Q And you spent how many days with Ms. Brooks reviewing the PC folders of Lisa McPherson in the fall of ’98?
A You know, I’m not sure, but it was like many days, maybe even more than a week. And it was something I came back to, as well, and participated in getting the folders copied. So this whole thing with the folders started in December but it went through a period of time, a month’s period of time of going through those folders.
Q So at that point when you first came you were now officially on board as an expert for Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson matter, correct?
A I — I wouldn’t say that. The reason why Mr. Dandar wanted me to go through those folders is because of my expertise in Scientology, my prior technical experience, the many courses and certificates and internships I had finished.
THE COURT: Were you his consultant, as well?
THE WITNESS: Not at that time. I just came down to do the preclear folders. Mr. Dandar and I did not have a relationship because we didn’t know
816
each other. And through time — and he could see my competence in interpreting Scientology policies and bulletins — that I then became a consultant and worked more closely with him on the case.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, at the time — when you were reviewing these folders it was in Mr. Dandar’s office?
A Yes.
Q And you had — you met with Mr. Dandar at that period of time?
A Yes.
Q I mean, you introduced yourself to him and all that?
THE COURT: Well, Counsel, come on.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you bill him for your time?
A No.
Q You just did this for free?
A Yes. And I had done it for free many times. I mean, I have worked for Morrison & Foerster, and Feaster from — out of San Francisco in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Leipold in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Dandar. I mean, by that time I had been working with these different attorney firms or at least they had been calling me to see if I could assist them in these other legal cases.
817
Q Well, who was paying you to be in Tampa, St. Pete, wherever it was, that you were to work with Mr. Dandar and Ms. Brooks with regard to this case in the fall of 1998 and early 1999 when you were going through these PC folders?
A Again I’ll say that my expenses to fly down to Florida, I believe, was paid by Mr. Dandar. The money that I used to exist for that period of time, I think we’re talking about maybe six months, for the most part — for the greater majority of it were residuals from the business I operated in Minneapolis.
Q Well, didn’t Mr. Minton give you checks in early 1999, $5,000, $6,000 a month?
A No.
Q He didn’t do that?
A He may have did it a time or two but it wasn’t consistent. And FACTNet was a very small organization. It sometimes just didn’t have money. And my — you know, and this was kind of like a period of time like where how do you fit in? So, you know, I would occasionally tell Mr. Minton, “Hey, you know, these people don’t have money. I can’t live on air here. Can you help out?”
Q Well, why Mr. Minton? Why not Mr. Dandar who you were doing the work for?
A Because I was working on FACTNet now, you know.
We’re mixing apples and oranges here. FACTNet was a
818
corporation that Mr. Minton was on the board of directors of.
Q Well, I thought — correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I heard you say that starting in the fall of 1998, into 1999, you spent a number of days, weeks, whatever, working on this case, the Lisa McPherson case?
A Well, hold on, hold on, hold on. I never even met Mr. Dandar until 1999. So let’s leave 19 —
Q How can you say that? You just said you were in his office in the fall of 1998 looking at the PC folders?
A Wait — okay. Well, okay, I’m confused with the dates. So —
THE COURT: So what is the right date?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I mean, was it 1998?
THE COURT: That is fine. I told you and I’ll tell you again and it is really a wonderful answer, you know, 1997, ’98, ’99, there could be a lot of these dates you simply don’t know, and there is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m not sure what the date was. I don’t know for sure.”
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
A Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know. I don’t recall for sure.
819
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, when did you become the expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case?
A I believe that I got a letter from Mr. Dandar quite possibly in March of 1999 that memorialized the fact that he wanted to hire me to be his consultant. We had had a working relationship at that point because I helped him a lot and I — and —
THE COURT: You know, I haven’t heard a date yet. When is the question?
A March of ’99. I think that is when we formed an agreement and decided on terms.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. Prior to March of ’99, in the months prior to March of ’99, you had done a lot of work assisting Mr. Dandar with, for example, PC folders, correct?
A Correct.
Q So whether that started in November or December of ’98, it was sometime several months before March of ’99 when you signed on as the expert. Right?
A Yes.
Q And —
A To the best of my recollection.
Q And prior to signing on as the expert, can you tell us how much time you had spent down here helping out
820
Mr. Dandar before you signed on as the expert?
A I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how much time it was.
Q Okay. Now, once you signed on with Mr. Dandar, then was it established that you were on a monthly salary?
A Mmm, I think the letter that memorializes that agreement, I was on a monthly retainer of $5,000 a month and my billable hours which I believe was either $100 or $150 an hour.
Q If you exceeded the $5,000? Or is it in addition to the $5,000?
A The $5,000 retainer, and the hours against that, plus any other hours if I put in more hours or whatever.
Q But you didn’t keep your hours, we established — remember we established that in front of Judge Moody that you didn’t keep your hours. Right?
A Well, no, in the beginning I didn’t. And again, Mr. Weinberg, there was nothing to keep prior to that because I had just literally done the work for free.
Q Well, we have asked for your hours as part of the various discovery, and it came up in the Judge Moody hearing when you testified in front of Judge Moody and your testimony was, I believe, that either you didn’t keep them or you didn’t have them.
A Right. I didn’t have accurate records. I didn’t have any notes to turn over or — no.
821
Q So what you got paid by Mr. Dandar was $5,000 a month because you didn’t keep the time in order to get anything in addition to that. Correct?
A Well, you see, we’re mixing apples and oranges here again now. Because I think, you know, you talk about that time period from 1998 to —
THE COURT: I’m — he’s talking about the time period from March of ’99 when you were placed on a $5,000-a-month retainer, was it $100 or $150 an hour again that — which was it?
THE WITNESS: I’m not sure, I think it may have been $150, actually.
THE COURT: Let’s assume it was $150 an hour.
Basically how that works, if you go over, whatever $150 into $5,000 is, then you get more, but if you get less, you still keep the five.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Was that the deal?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So you didn’t keep records, apparently?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: You were paid $5,000 a month?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: For whatever — for however many
822
hours you worked?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q We’ll show you the checks, but that continued up until — your recollection is that continued to a particular point in time, I believe the records will show, May of 2000 when you left Mr. Dandar’s payroll and went on LMT’s payroll. Correct?
A My reference point for that, Mr. Weinberg, is that we had finished the depositions of all of the Scientology persons that needed to be deposed. And Mr. Dandar was going to go on to —
THE COURT: Well, is that correct? Is that the date? I mean, all he wants to know —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All I want to know —
A I don’t know if that is the right date. I’m saying my reference is this —
Q At some point, and we’ll show you the checks, I’m representing to you I think the last Dandar check is May of ’99 — or May of 2000. At some point in time you quit getting Dandar & Dandar checks and you started getting LMT checks?
A Correct.
Q And LMT continued to pay you at $5,000 a month?
823
A Correct.
Q The same $5,000 — the same amount. And you negotiated that rate with Mr. Minton?
A And Mrs. Brooks.
Q Now, and then the LMT at some point — you testified about either yesterday or the day before — closed down, correct?
A Correct.
Q And whenever that was, your recollection it was sometime in August or September of 2001. Right?
THE COURT: When was the date? When was the date?
MR. WEINBERG: That I don’t know exactly. I mean, it depends on — I mean, I’m really asking Mr. Prince.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I believe that you, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks said it was sometime in the August/September of 2001 time period, is that correct?
A Mr. Weinberg, my recollection is I think it ceased to exist as a corporation — I think there was something that Stacy wrote. But again as I testified to yesterday, there was that period of time when Judge Beach still had to come into the trust in order to go through all of the offices, the library, looking for discovery, so in effect it
824
was kind of forced to stay open longer after that.
Q Well, we’ll show you the checks. But the records from LMT —
THE COURT: If you have got the checks, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to show him, then I wouldn’t have to listen to this?
MR. WEINBERG: Right. I will.
THE COURT: What you said yesterday was even after it closed down there was a period of time when you were working and you got paid for that, too, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Whatever the checks show, the checks show.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And then at some point you quit getting LMT checks, right?
A Correct.
Q And — but Mr. Minton continued to pay you. Right?
A No. That is incorrect. Mrs. Brooks did.
Q You knew that Mrs. Brooks was getting the money from Mr. Minton. Right?
A Well, you know — come on.
Q Come on yeah?
825
A Do I need to assume that for you to make a point?
The answer to the question is I was being paid by Mrs. Brooks. Her name is on the check. It is to me. That is it.
Q All right. And that was at $5,000 a month, as well?
A Correct.
Q And who did you negotiate that deal with?
A Mrs. Brooks.
Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about it?
A No. I specifically talked to Mrs. Brooks about it because she wanted everyone to take a cut in pay. And, again, this constant figure of $5,000 is something that we had discussed many years earlier.
Q “We” being?
A Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton. This is what I need to be able to live.
Q So —
A This is comparable to what I was making before I came and started doing this. I —
Q I’m sorry, before you ever signed on with Mr. Dandar, you had already discussed with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you needed $5,000 a month to live, correct?
A Correct.
Q And is that what you’re getting paid at FACTNet,
826
as well?
A No.
Q Now, when you started getting these checks — they were checks, right, from Ms. Brooks, you were still living in Clearwater. Right? Or — or Florida?
A I’m still living here. Yes.
Q And you’re living in a house that Mr. Minton gave you a $50,000 down payment on. Correct?
A That was part of the down payment that I had to make. My total down payment for that house was $70,000.
Q How much of that $70,000 did Mr. Minton give you?
A $50,000.
Q And when was that? When did he give you the $50,000?
A You know, I guess it was sometime in February.
And, you know —
THE COURT: If you have the check, show it to him.
MR. WEINBERG: I don’t have the check, I don’t think.
A Well, you know, we’ve said —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, could you just tell me when you bought your house?
THE COURT: If he doesn’t know, he doesn’t
827
know. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.
A I know when I bought the house. I think the 21st or 22nd of February of 2000.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And at that point in February of 2000, you were getting Dandar & Dandar monthly checks as his consultant.
Right?
A Correct.
Q All right. And how did it come about Mr. Minton gave you $50,000 of the $70,000 that you needed for the downpayment?
A You want to hear this?
Q You asked him for it?
THE COURT: Go on ahead. You asked. He can tell it. Go on and rattle off however long this story is going to take.
A Prior to moving down to Clearwater, we had discussed — had many discussions about, well, where to put the Lisa McPherson Trust. We were kicking around this idea of the LMT, where is it going to go? Should it be in D.C., should it be in Boston, in the Los Angeles area. Bob said Clearwater.
We discussed this, David Cecere, myself, I think Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton and there — there quite possibly could have been someone else there — I don’t remember — of
828
where to put this thing.
And Mr. Minton really wanted to put it in Clearwater. He felt that it was important that it happen in Clearwater. Which meant that everyone that was going to work there would be displaced from where they were currently living to move here.
Mr. Minton offered to pay the moving expenses for all concerned and to help all concerned establish residence in Clearwater.
Q So he paid your moving expenses which —
A Correct.
Q — included a $50,000 downpayment?
A No, sir. That is what was discussed in — in New Hampshire, you know, before we moved here. Ultimately, Mr. Minton gave me the $50,000 loan to purchase that house, but I paid for my own moving expenses and I paid — I mean, the whole deal cost about $80,000 for me to relocate.
Because I had a place in Memphis. And by this time I’m kind of living with — in Chicago. By this time I’m kind of living with my fiancee in Memphis, Tennessee, as well. So when I moved down to Clearwater I had to move from two cities; I had to move from Chicago, I had to move from Memphis, Tennessee, to Clearwater.
Q Mr. Minton paid some other things for you. He paid your attorney fees in the criminal case down here,
829
didn’t he?
A I believe the Lisa McPherson Trust paid those.
Q Well, did you — did you discuss with Mr. Minton that you needed funds to pay an attorney when you got charged down here?
A No.
Q So who did you discuss that with so that the Lisa McPherson Trust paid for your attorney fees?
A I wanted to hire a fellow named Rob Love to defend me in that action. Mrs. Brooks insisted that Mr. DeVlaming would handle my case and it would be taken care of by the Lisa McPherson Trust as a job hazard.
Q As a job hazard?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And that was around $60,000 or $70,000?
A The bill that I saw — I think it was about $45,000 that I saw.
Q Do you think it was more than that or you don’t know?
A I think it could have been more.
Q Now, how long — so how would you get these checks from Ms. Brooks after the Lisa McPherson Trust closed down?
A She would mail them to me from Atlanta.
Q The last check you got was on or about April 4 of 2002?
830
A Correct.
Q And did you have a discussion — all these discussions that you had with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that you have testified about this year, in any of those discussions did you discuss with them your need for them to continue paying you?
A Mmm, no, I haven’t had a discussion about that. I mean, we — I think I brought up earlier, in September there was a renegotiation of — Stacy wanted people to take pay cuts or whatever. And —
Q But you didn’t take one?
A Correct.
Q I was talking about April. In that — do you remember you said you had all these conversations, that you referred to them in your affidavit, with Mr. Brooks — with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton —
A Oh, okay.
Q In those conversations did you raise the fact that you needed more money, you needed money, you wanted money?
A No.
Q Okay.
A I did not.
Q Now, you said that you began as the paid expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case in March of — of 1999. Correct?
831
A Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me have the reporter — the clerk —
A To the best of my recollection.
MR. WEINBERG: — mark as a 3-page exhibit, if we can do that, your Honor —
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. WEINBERG: — some checks. This will be 225.
THE COURT: All right. Do I have the right order, the way you handed it to me?
MR. WEINBERG: I think so.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: It is possible, however, that I screwed that up, but —
THE COURT: It is all right.
MR. WEINBERG: But the order should be February, March and May. That is what I’m hoping.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This is 225, Mr. Prince.
A Okay.
Q And you recognize the first page of 225 to be a February 2nd of 1999 check from Bob Minton for $6,500 to you?
832
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you recognize the second page to be a March — appears to be March 18, 1999 check to you for $5,000, do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q From Mr. Minton again?
A Yes.
Q And the third check to be a May 4, 1999 check for $5,000 from Mr. Minton?
A Correct. Q Now, this was — these checks had to do with the agreement that you had already worked out with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks about you getting at least $5,000 a month?
A Correct.
Q But you were getting this on top of what you were getting from Mr. Dandar?
A No.
Q Okay. You think you started getting from Mr. Dandar a little bit later?
A Yes.
Q Now, what was this $5,000 a month for? I mean, one was $6,500. Do you know why it was $6,500?
A Do you know, I don’t know. I was looking at that. That is an anomaly. That must have been money left over from another month. Because as I said, there was a
833
stretch — period of time after I met — certainly from 1998 until I guess this first check here that I was just simply not paid at all.
Q But this — you are not getting paid for FACTNet work, you are getting paid for Lisa McPherson work prior to signing on with —
A No.
Q — Ken Dandar?
A No.
Q Well, what is this work? What is this —
A I’m in FACTNet when this is happening.
Q Why was FACTNet paying you?
A Well, I think I mentioned earlier that sometimes FACTNet just didn’t have money and I would call Mr. Minton. I can’t just be down here.
Q Now, when —
THE COURT: Weren’t you making $3,500 a month at FACTNet? Or am I thinking of something else?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you may be right about that because we did have — have some agreement, I think I reached some agreement with them to do that. And, you know, at that time I still had my other business. I still had other employees. I would often make trips, you know. So that could have been the case.
834
But the fact of the matter is the organization didn’t have the money.
THE COURT: I’m trying to think of why — I have no idea why it was $6,500 either unless perhaps —
MR. WEINBERG: I think it might have been some expenses or something.
THE COURT: Or perhaps he was getting $3,500 from FACTNet. He was supposed to start getting $5,000 from whatever, and I didn’t get — the difference from $3,500 to $5,000 would be $6,500.
That would be rational but —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q In any event, Mr. Minton knew you had been doing this work in Clearwater for Mr. Dandar with regard to the PC folders? He knew that?
A I assume he did.
Q I mean, you were in — once you had spent that however long you said it was, I forgot now, a couple weeks at his house, you communicated with him regularly after that, didn’t you?
A Up until this very occurrence, yes.
THE COURT: What is “this very occurrence”?
This —
THE WITNESS: That is occurring here.
835
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Now I’m going to mark as our next exhibit, your Honor —
THE CLERK: 226.
MR. WEINBERG: — 226, this is 226 —
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, 226 is a response that was filed by Mr. Dandar on April 6, 2001. And attached — and the response shows that it has checks attached, but if you’ll look at the summary on Page 2, it identifies a 6/30/99 check, an 8/20/99 check, a 9/15/99 —
A Excuse me, I’m not following you at all.
MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach a second?
THE COURT: You don’t need to read them all into evidence. Just put it into evidence.
MR. WEINBERG: I just wanted him to look at it.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You see those?
A Uh-huh.
Q Attached is those checks. So either look at the attachment or summary there.
Is it your recollection that is the sum and substance of what Dandar & Dandar paid you while you were on the — you know, being working as a consultant/expert?
836
A I believe this is correct with the possible exception of recent activity.
Q Right. No, I’m talking about prior to 2002.
A Okay.
Q And that the first check was on or about June 30, 1999. Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And the last check was on or about May 24, 2000.
A Yes.
Q And it’s your recollection that after you received the last check, that is when you started getting paid at the same rate by Lisa McPherson Trust?
A Correct.
Q You see for the most part these checks are $5,000 a month?
A Correct. I think I can explain what this other one is for, $1,772.
Q What?
A I mean all of $5,000 with the exception of the $1,772 —
Q Is that some expense check?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, the Lisa McPherson Trust actually withheld from your check. Right?
A Yes.
837
Q In other words, you — your salary was $5,000 a month but your take-home was whatever —
A About 35.
Q So I’m going to show you a series of those checks, as well.
A Okay.
Q You were on a 1099 for Mr. Dandar, in other words, he didn’t withhold from your checks, right?
A Correct.
THE COURT: You were considered an independent contractor when you worked for him, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE CLERK: 227.
MR. WEINBERG: This is 227, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This is 227.
A Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark as 228 this document.
And all this is is the payroll records of Mr. Prince which show that the salary was $5,000, it shows what the withholding was.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: That is 228.
838
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: These were produced by the Lisa McPherson Trust.
THE COURT: These weren’t additional moneys.
MR. WEINBERG: No, it just shows what the salary was, 228, and they withheld —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q If you look at the checks, Mr. Prince, they are $3,552, starting in June of — of 2000, do you see that?
A Mmm, yes, I do.
Q And it is June, July, August, September, October, November, December —
THE COURT: Counselor — Counselor, just can you go from the beginning to the end?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q It begins in June — end of June of 2000 and ends — one is out of place — ends —
THE COURT: June ’01.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q June/01, except if you look at the other exhibit, Mr. Prince — if I could just approach, your Honor — the payroll records indicate that you would have received — you would have received a — one last payment on August 1, 2001 of $5,000 salary with all of the withholding. Do you see that?
839
A I’m trying to follow.
Q It is the last page. Right there (indicating).
August 1 —
A Oh, yeah. Okay.
Q All right? So that was probably the close-out payment or something?
A That was the last check. Yeah.
THE COURT: Counselor, from LMT again?
MR. WEINBERG: These are the LMT records, this is what they produced.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So it appears you were paid a salary as an employee from June of 2000 until August of 2001 at $5,000 a month. Correct?
A Correct.
Q And after August 1 of 2001, you continued to get your $5,000 a month but it was from Ms. Brooks?
A Correct.
Q Now, did Ms. Brooks withhold from — I mean —
THE COURT: What could she withhold from? I mean, she was not paying him out of a business; she was giving him money.
MR. WEINBERG: It’s a good question.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did — what were you considered at that point when
840
you were getting this $5,000 a month from Ms. Brooks?
A What was I considered? Stranded in Clearwater.
All of the other staff had moved.
THE COURT: Was this a friend giving — giving you living money until you could get some other job?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Was there some understanding how long that was going on?
A No.
Q Was — had there been discussions it was going to end?
A No.
Q Now, you have a monthly mortgage, obviously, because you haven’t sold this house yet, right?
A Correct.
Q Who paid you in May of 2002?
A It’s not here?
Q May of 2002. The last check from Ms. Brooks you said was April 4, 2002.
A Correct.
Q You said for years you needed $5,000 a month to live.
A Correct.
Q So my question is who paid —
841
your money to live in May of 2002?
A I think from the State of Florida.
Q What do you mean?
A I filed for unemployment.
Q Well, how did you do that?
THE COURT: Because he was unemployed.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q But you’d been unemployed since August of 2001.
A Yeah.
Q Or did you tell them that you had been employed since August of 2001 and just lost your job when you had this argument or disagreement with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?
A Mr. Weinberg, it is actually quite a simple process. You go online, you tell them you are employed — unemployed, you put it in there, and they send you a check. You check in. You have to look for employment. I mean, that is what I know about.
Q And who did you say your last employer was?
A Lisa McPherson Trust.
Q And what did you say the circumstances were that you had lost your job?
A Mmm, I — I think — I think maybe the place was bankrupt, went out of business, closed shop. Something like that, you know.
842
Q Is there some application you have to fill out?
A Online, yes.
Q And is there — so it is all online, it is with the State of Florida?
A Yes, it is with the State of Florida online, yes.
Q And so since May of 2002, you have been on unemployment?
A Since late May of — yeah. Late May of 2002.
Yes.
Q So you are still on unemployment?
A No.
Q Well, when did that end?
A Well, when I worked out a new agreement with Mr. Dandar and came to appear as an expert and give testimony here, he gave me a check which I think he said he would send here, and at that point when you receive money — when you are employed and you are actually receiving money, whether it is self-employed or otherwise, that terminates unemployment.
So that check effectively terminated my unemployment.
Q And so you notified the authorities of that?
A Yes. And I haven’t received another check since.
Q How many checks did you get — where do you get it, from the State of Florida, is that where you get the
843
checks?
A Yes.
Q And how many checks did you get for unemployment?
A Mmm, well, they do it — I think I was getting like $293 a week or something like that. Then they would double them up so the checks were like $494, I would get two of those —
THE COURT: Were you getting weekly checks?
THE WITNESS: No, I had it every other week.
So I got $494 — I believe I received —
THE COURT: Do you know?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Then why don’t you say that?
THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don’t know.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q When did you get the first money from — when did you sign up with Mr. Dandar to be an expert again? What date?
A I don’t know.
Q Well, that can’t be long ago, so what is your best —
A Well, I don’t know the date. I don’t know.
Q What were the circumstances of you becoming an expert again?
A Mmm, you know, again, this whole thing was over.
844
People were going home. It was over. Your client took Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton as trophies and we are sitting here today and this brought me into this position here again today. So, you know, those are kinds of the circumstances.
THE COURT: Are you back as a consultant or expert or combination of the two?
THE WITNESS: I have been a combination of the two with him.
THE COURT: And what time did that start, about? Was it like —
THE WITNESS: Maybe a week ago, two weeks ago or however.
THE COURT: So between May of 2002 up until that time you were collecting unemployment?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And is there some agreement you executed with Mr. Dandar a week or two weeks ago?
A Yeah, that I participate in the case, I would help —
Q No, is there some written agreement?
A Oh, no.
Q And the day that it started is when you got the check. Is that when you became the expert, when you got the check?
845
A You know, I’m not — I’m not sure because —
THE COURT: As opposed to they talked, then they got a check —
MR. WEINBERG: I’m trying to date it. It is not that long ago. I’m trying to date it.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I mean, when it happened, did you — I mean, did this essentially happen simultaneously that somehow it was established that you were going to be the expert again and you negotiated what you needed?
A There was no — I’ll try to explain it as best as I can, Mr. Weinberg.
THE COURT: I don’t care. I don’t want to hear it, I’m not interested. I’m just not interested.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Could I ask the amount then? What is the agreement? Are you getting paid on monthly basis? Salary?
A We have no agreement like that. I just — you know, I will put in X amount of time, I’ll get through this hearing —
THE COURT: Are you going to bill him per hour, or what?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And how much have you received from Mr. Dandar?
846
A $4,000.
Q Is that just a retainer?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Are you keeping records now?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.
THE COURT: What is your hourly fee?
THE WITNESS: 150.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: I think this would be — I have a few other questions.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did anybody else, between the time that Ms. Brooks quit giving you money and the time that Mr. Dandar did give you money, did anybody else give you whatever you want to call it, expense money, living money, expert money, money?
A No.
THE COURT: Between the time Ms. Brooks —
MR. WEINBERG: — quit giving him the money in April of 2002 of this year and whenever it was Mr. Dandar gave this check.
THE COURT: Other than his unemployment?
MR. WEINBERG: Other than his unemployment.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did anybody else give you money?
A The answer is no.
847
MR. WEINBERG: I think that — you know, I’m sort of at the end of this section. If you want me to start another section I will, or we can —
THE COURT: Yes, I would like to go until about 12:15, if you don’t mind.
MR. WEINBERG: No.
THE COURT: Because we kind of got a late break.
MR. WEINBERG: No, I really don’t mind.
THE COURT: Gee, I thought you were about to say you were done.
MR. DANDAR: I thought so, too.
THE COURT: I was real excited.
MR. WEINBERG: Or I could put it a different way. Maybe I could have some time to collect my thoughts. No, I’m not done.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you have been asked before about —
THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I’m sorry.
MR. WEINBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: What is the number of the response from Mr. Dandar? Can somebody give me a number on that?
848
MR. DANDAR: 226.
THE COURT: Thank you. I forgot to mark it.
MR. WEINBERG: Which means that the — that the LMT —
THE COURT: I have everything else marked. I just didn’t have that marked.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You have been asked before and testified about going to Key West. Do you remember that?
A I don’t remember testifying about that.
Q Well, did you go to Key West?
A Yes. But I don’t remember testifying about it.
MR. DANDAR: It is outside of the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what he’s going to ask about it, but it is probably doubtful it is outside of the scope of direct but —
MR. WEINBERG: It is. It is.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And you were in Key West for what purpose?
A Vacation.
Q For a fishing trip is what you previously testified to.
849
A Yes, okay. And, you know, I don’t want to do this — if I have testimony, could you please just show it to me and ask me about it?
THE COURT: That is a fair question. I mean —
MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask a few questions and then I will show it to you because we do have — actually we’ll show you the video.
THE COURT: If he wants to see it, you show it to him now.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is it. He can look at it.
THE COURT: Then put it up then.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I need to ask him one question before.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: One series.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q In Key West, it didn’t have anything to do about Scientology or this case or cases against Scientology, is that right?
A Mmm, you know, we were there for a fishing trip.
I was there with Mr. Haverty, Mr. Haney, Mr. Ford Greene, Mr Dan Leipold, Mr. Dandar; Mr. Garko came out there. We all have a common interest, and it would be crazy for me to say that the subject of our work didn’t come up and was
850
discussed or whatever at some — you know, during the fishing trip.
So the — that is the best way I can answer that question.
THE COURT: So the answer is yes, you all discussed the case?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, let me play your testimony and then I’ll ask you about it.
THE COURT: What testimony? This is on direct?
MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s in his deposition under oath in this case on November 17 —
THE COURT: See, you misled — I think Mr. Prince and I both thought you were talking about on direct examination which is what Mr. Dandar said was outside the scope.
MR. WEINBERG: No, in this case about Key West.
THE COURT: But it was in his deposition?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. When you say testimony in this case, I’m going to assume you’re talking about direct.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.
851
THE COURT: So if it is something else, you need to identify it for him and for me.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: What page number is this going to be?
MR. WEINBERG: Right here. This is a transcript of where this comes from.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: May I have a transcript, too?
MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
______________________________________
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did you go to Key West?
A Yes.
Q Who sent you to Key West?
A No one sent. I went.
Q Who paid for the trip?
A I paid for the majority of it while I was there, but it wasn’t — really not much to pay for. I paid to be on a boat to go out fishing. I paid —
Q Who — well, who gave you the money?
A I used my own money.
Q Well, where did that money come from?
852
A Money that I earned from working.
Q For FACTNet and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold?
A I think we’ve covered this earlier. You know, I have a — you know — different businesses, as well as expert, and, you know, the money that I used for that particular trip came from money derived from income from work that I’ve done.
Q Including FACTNet, Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold, right?
A I’m not sure why you’re bringing up FACTNet. I thought we —
Q Is that right?
A No, that is wrong.
Q Well, when was the trip to Key West?
A Well, six weeks ago now.
Q And who was on the trip? What people were on the trip?
A Oh, you know, I really don’t want to discuss that because I was on a complete pleasure trip. It had nothing do with McPherson, or Wollersheim. Nothing. It had to do with fishing and having a good time. Okay?
Q Now —
A And I explained to you earlier that I am very reticent to bring up the names of people that I’m involved with that is activity outside of Scientology because of the
853
behavior of your client. How many times do we have to keep going over this?
Q Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar? Or are you embarrassed about bringing his name up? Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar?
A No, Mr. Dandar was not —
Q Answer yes or no?
A — on the trip. No.
Q Was Mr. Leipold on the trip?
A Mr. Leipold — Leipold was there, Mr. Weiner (sic). He was there.
Q Was Mr. Minton on the trip?
A No.
Q Ms. Young on the trip?
A No.
Q Vaughn Young on the trip?
A No.
Q Mr. Jacobsen on the trip?
A Who is Mr. Jacobsen?
Q You don’t know Mr. Jacobsen?
A No.
Q That is fine. Mr. Ward on the trip?
A No. No.
Q Did you talk about Lisa McPherson on the trip?
A Very little.
854
Q So Mr. Leipold went from California to Key West to just fish —
A Yes.
Q — with Jesse Prince?
A Yes. We went deep-sea fishing. We went 40 miles off the coast, caught fish like this. Had a ball.
Q And there was no planning session with regard to litigation. Is that correct?
A No.
Q Was Mr. Haney on the trip?
A Yes. And his son. And he learned to fish.
Excuse me. Now that we don’t have a question pending I would like to take a break. My leg is going to sleep.
Q We just broke ten minutes ago?
A Well, okay, I’m sorry, my leg is going to sleep.
I’ll take a two-minute break. Is that okay, Mr. Weiner (sic)?
Q Okay, take a break.
____________________________________
Q Now, I asked you if Mr. Dandar was in Key West with you. And you said no. You said no repeatedly. Is that correct?
A I don’t — if I did say no, I’m very sorry. He was not part of the trip. He came and appeared one day,
855
said, “Hi,” we had dinner and he left.
Q When you were outside did they — did they — Ms. Young remind you that you had made yet another mistake under oath? Did they tell you that?
A How could Ms. Young said — say that when I gave you testimony that she wasn’t there?
Q Well, who told you that then? Who told you — who corrected your — your false testimony that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there?
A I never gave false testimony. You asked me if Dandar was part of the trip that I went fishing. I said no.
Q And you were absolutely insistent that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there and yet he was in Key West?
A And came and had dinner and left. One time.
Q Flew down to Key West to have dinner and left.
MR. DANDAR: Objection, asked and answered and don’t answer it again.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did he stay in a hotel down there?
A I don’t know.
Q What do you mean, you don’t know?
A That means that I don’t have personal knowledge of it.
Q And you understand what personal knowledge is,
856
right?
A Oh, come on, please.
Q No, do you understand it, personal knowledge?
A I do not know if he was staying in a hotel there.
I was in a different place. I don’t know where he was.
Q How many — how long did you spend with him in Key West on that trip this summer?
A A dinner. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. Outside of dinner —
Q Dinner is usually at night, right?
A Correct.
Q Did you see him the next morning?
A No.
Q Now, was Mike Garko down there?
A Yes, he was. Dr. Garko was there.
Q Was Thom Haverty down there?
A Yes. He was.
Q So that is like the whole consulting team for the McPherson case?
A Mr. Garko was with Mr. Dandar.
Q So he just flew in for dinner?
A Came in and left.
Q Didn’t have anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case?
A No.
857
Q Who paid for your trip?
A As I gave testimony to earlier, I paid my own expenses to — Mmm — take the boat out. I went out on a boat several times. I paid about 50, 60 bucks a time. I bought beer, wine, food, cigarettes.
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________
THE COURT: Counselor, is it — is it important that —
MR. WEINBERG: We are demonstrating —
THE COURT: Right now we have testimony coming out, I paid for my trip.
MR. WEINBERG: We are playing it in context.
THE COURT: No, it is not. I see about a jillion pages. You are on Page 259 and I see it going straight through to Page 267. That is a lot of pages. And I see that you’re — there is a lot of consistent testimony here.
MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, when we play this, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of inconsistent statements.
THE COURT: Yes, you already played it. I’m saying why do I have to listen to the consistent testimony from a deposition, it is improper.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, because — because —
858
there has been a lot of argument, accusations in here about taking things out of context so we left it in context is what we did.
THE COURT: All right.
If you have any more like this, you — you cut and paste. You can give it all to me, go to where you want to go, but I don’t want to hear it —
MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
THE COURT: I have better things to do than listen to this man’s testimony two times when it is exactly the same both times. Now, there is differences and I’m interested in hearing the differences.
MR. WEINBERG: And it is different from the other sworn testimony before —
THE COURT: And I’m interested in hearing that.
I’m not interested in hearing that which is not inconsistent. Do I make myself clear?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: It is improper. All right.
MR. WEINBERG: We could play it on rebuttal case, and we thought it would be appropriate to play it here with Mr. Prince on the stand and get his explanation for the inconsistencies between this and —
859
THE COURT: I have no problem with your playing inconsistencies.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: That is called impeachment. I do have a problem with having to listen to Mr. Prince’s testimony on the stand and then listen to identical testimony in a deposition. Cut and paste it. You can give me the whole deposition, so if I want to read it in between, I can.
MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. Just play the rest — no, are we done?
That is fine.
THE COURT: I mean, there is more here and there may be more inconsistencies and I want you to play that —
MR. WEINBERG: I understand, and we don’t have it set up and I’ll go back and look at it at the break.
THE COURT: Let me look and I can see what you have underlined and that is probably the important part. I see I have two pages here not underlined.
MR. WEINBERG: The only stuff being played is the underlined stuff.
THE COURT: That is not true, Counsel, it is not true.
860
MR. DANDAR: And I don’t have anything underlined.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, then — then I should have followed the transcript.
THE COURT: Page 259, this is about the time I interrupted you, “Who paid for your trip down there?
“As I gave testimony to you earlier, I paid my own expenses. I went out on a boat several times –”
MR. WEINBERG: Wait a minute. I thought — point made. I really thought when I was — that I had this — only the stuff that was yellowed.
THE COURT: No.
MR. WEINBERG: That is why it was yellowed.
THE COURT: If there is something else in here you want to impeach, that is perfectly fine, you can catch it during lunch.
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll catch it during lunch. I think I pretty much made my point.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, in Mr. Dandar’s testimony in this proceeding on May 3, 2002 —
A Not this?
Q No, it is not this.
A Okay.
861
Q On Page 90 — this is in his direct testimony when it first started at the beginning — I could hand this up.
THE COURT: If you are going to try to impeach this witness from Mr. Dandar’s testimony —
MR. WEINBERG: No, I’m going to ask him a question about it.
THE COURT: You don’t need to show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony or ask him about it. You can’t do it. If their testimony differs, it differs. You can bring it up, inconsistencies in their testimony, but you can’t show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony and say, “Is that true?”
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I take it that you did not spend hours and hours talking about Scientology strategy, the Lisa McPherson case and the other Scientology cases with Mr. Dandar or anyone else at the Key West meeting. Is that correct?
A That is correct. My recollection, I didn’t spend hours speaking to anyone about this. I mean, you know, there were a point in time when the attorneys were meeting, you know. And again, I don’t profess to be an attorney, I don’t try to be an attorney. I was there on a fishing trip, you know. Mr. Leipold has certain experience in dealing with Scientology. Mr. Ford Greene has certain experience with dealing with Scientology because of the cases he has
862
done. They had discussed with Mr. Dandar about that. This had nothing to do with me.
Q Well, you said Mr. Dandar in your testimony was only there for dinner one night for a few hours with Dr. Garko and flew back and there was no discussion about — about the case. That is what you said?
A You know —
Q Under oath. Correct?
A This is getting ridiculous, Mr. Weinberg. I mean, he flew in for dinner. He flew in. He brought in Mr. Garko. He had his own personal pilot. They were flying a little personal plane. They came, you know, while it was still light outside, you know, “Hi.” Thom Haverty’s wife is there and Captain Wayne’s wife is there, the boat. This is a social setting.
Q All right, so —
A There is nothing sinister about it.
Q So Mr. Dandar was not there for two or three or four days with Dr. Garko, was he?
A Not to my recollection. No.
Q Did you fly back to Tampa with Mr. Dandar?
A No, I did not.
Q And did you talk, on the trip in Key West — which you remember it was in August of 1999?
A I’ll take your word for it.
863
Q And do you remember that on August 20th of 1999 is when you wrote that David Miscavige affidavit that was used about him ordering the death of — letting — ordering or allowing her or causing her to die? Do you remember that?
A You got me all screwed up on the dates now. Could you just tell me again?
Q The testimony in this case is that the Key West trip was around August 8, 9, 10, 11 of 1999. Or 12th of 1999.
A Whose testimony is that now?
Q Mr. Dandar’s testimony, Dr. Garko’s testimony, Mr. Haney’s testimony. That is the testimony.
A Okay.
Q All right? You executed an affidavit — the affidavit in this case, part of what this hearing is about, on August 20 of 1998?
THE COURT: We are talking about that is the date he signed it?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is the date he signed it.
THE COURT: You are not going to suggest to this witness that whole affidavit was written on the date it was —
MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t going to ask that.
864
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Just ten or fifteen days later you executed this affidavit, right?
A Correct.
Q Now, did you participate in any conversations in Key West with anyone, whether it is Ford Greene, lawyer on Scientology cases, or Dandar Leipold, or Ken Dandar, or Dr. Garko or Thom Haverty, part of the — part of the Lisa McPherson team, did you have conversations with anybody down there about any of the assertions in this what became the August 20th affidavit?
A Not that I recall.
Q Did you have any discussions down there with anyone about adding David Miscavige as a strategy to the Lisa McPherson case?
A Not that I recall.
Q As far as you know, was anybody down there talking about the strategy of adding David Miscavige to the Lisa McPherson case?
A Not that I know of.
Q And was it —
A Or not that I recall or have memory of.
Q But you did leave Key West and go directly to Tampa, correct, after that trip that you call a fishing trip?
865
A I believe that — that that is correct.
Q And as soon as you got to Tampa, you started work — you must have started working on this affidavit. Right?
A I think that affidavit was a work in progress by the time I got to Tampa already. If you notice — I mean, that thing is pretty detailed. I have references. I have studied. You know, it takes me time to do these affidavits.
I just don’t sit and imagine it. I have my calendar, I have my notes or whatever and I sit and I do these things.
Q But the first check you got from Mr. Dandar was June 30, 1999. Correct?
A If that is what you just showed me, I’ll take your word for it. Okay.
Q So as you look back, as you think back, do you recall whether you were working on this affidavit before you went to Key West?
A I’m pretty sure that was a work in progress.
Q So you had already had discussions with people about adding Mr. Miscavige to the case?
A I don’t know. I don’t recall it so I’m going to say I don’t know.
THE COURT: The only thing I’m going to allow you to inquire about — remember we had this little business about the work product — is the meeting
866
which is at issue in this case, the meeting, whether Minton was there and whether Minton influenced that. Whether this man, as a consultant, paid or otherwise, had a conversation about adding David Miscavige is what I would have expected him to add. Nothing sinister about that.
MR. WEINBERG: Nothing said it was sinister, except Mr. Dandar already asked Dr. Garko about meetings, Mr. Haney about meetings, Ms. Brooks about meetings, so —
THE COURT: Meetings? What meetings? The only person that I know of that was asked about the Key West meetings was you-all. Maybe he brought it up —
MR. WEINBERG: He brought it up on May 3rd.
You didn’t let me cross-examine him. Mr. Dandar is the one that brought up the Key West meeting, said that is where he —
THE COURT: Well, do you think I think all those people sat down there and didn’t talk about this case?
MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t.
THE COURT: I don’t care what they said.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m just —
THE COURT: I mean, you know —
867
MR. WEINBERG: I —
THE COURT: You are acting as if you have a jury here that — I’m a judge that has been involved in this case very deeply, and as I tried to suggest to you on several occasions, I’m not an idiot.
MR. WEINBERG: I know that.
THE COURT: I know what lawyers do.
MR. WEINBERG: I understand that.
THE COURT: And I know if you get this many lawyers together, all of whom have Scientology cases, you put them on fishing trip or movie theater or whatever, the subject comes up and they talk about it.
MR. WEINBERG: And you couldn’t have said it better, and I’m making a record which I’m done with on this thing —
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: — indicating that this witness, that is what this — you know, this Paragraph 34 in the complaint is all about, his sworn affidavit, has told lies. You know, I’m using that —
THE COURT: I already told you and I told your team, save it for the jury. I don’t care if he told a bunch of lies or not. The law in Florida is if he qualifies as an expert, he can testify.
868
MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand your ruling. I’m —
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: This is for credibility purposes.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. WEINBERG: All right. But I’m pretty much done with this area.
THE COURT: All right. Then let’s have lunch.
MR. WEINBERG: Good.
THE COURT: And as I said, you just have to forget — I hope you all don’t forget that I was a lawyer for a long time.
MR. WEINBERG: Judge, believe me —
THE COURT: Please.
MR. WEINBERG: — I am well aware of that.
THE COURT: Frankly, my findings will go to the court this time with a presumption of correctness.
This is not a de novo hearing —
MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand that.
THE COURT: — by the Second District.
MR. WEINBERG: No, but it has also been a long proceeding.
THE COURT: Well, I understand, but it seems to me as if part of what you want to do is have
869
Mr. Prince up here just forever. I made statements before about Mr. Prince. I’m aware of Mr. Prince’s bias. I mean, Mr. Minton, according to Mr. Prince, shows where I said this before, this is not new.
MR. WEINBERG: I understand, but I just started yesterday — I mean, yesterday late —
THE COURT: I understand. But you are spending an awful lot of time about pickets which I knew what they would say, with pickets that I knew would not be pretty, all as if you are trying to show me what I already know. You are wasting time here.
MR. WEINBERG: But —
THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 1:30.
(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:35 p.m.)
______________________________________870
REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.
______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR
Notes
Jesse Prince: No conscience, no church (September 29, 1998)
Title: No conscience, no church1
Author: jesse77@gte.net (Jesse Prince)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:15:12 GMTDuring September, 1982, through the Spring of 1987, I attended biweekly
meetings at Author Services, Inc. (ASI), which at the time was located in
the 6700 block of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA.From late 1982 until the spring of 1983 I held an executive position in the
Religious Technology Center (RTC) titled Inspector General Cramming
Officer. During the spring of 1983 I was promoted to Inspector General
External and Treasurer on the board of directors of the Religious
Technology Center. There were two other board members; Vicki Aznaran,
Inspector General and President, and Warren Mc Shane, executive over legal
matters concerning RTC, was a member. David Micavage, Norman Starkey and
Lyman Spurlock were the trustees of RTC. It was during this time that I
learned the true nature of Scientology management and how it ran its
affairs.The meetings I attended at ASI were always called and run by David
Miscavige. It was here that I learned that David Miscavige was a managing
agent of the various Scientology corporations, including but not limited to
ASI, RTC and Church of Scientology International (CSI). Each senior
executive of RTC, CSI and ASI met once or twice a week to give a report
concerning each of the above corporations. This in fact was the inner
circle of Scientology’s elite and as a result of my position I was involved
in and received communications concerning Scientology’s most secret
operations.During my time as an executive and senior executive in RTC, David Miscavige
was the decision maker concerning all legal suits filed by any of
Scientology’s corporations. Miscavige had complete authority concerning all
litigation within Scientology, and he made the final decisions as to how
each case would be litigated as well as which lawyers would be used in each
and every case. Miscavige had two Scientology staff, Marty Rathbun and
Lyman Spurlock, who assisted in Scientology litigation matters, but
Miscavige always made the final decisions. CSI majorly operated on orders
from LRH, which were called advices to avoid legal problems for himself and
Scientology, since he supposedly had not managed any of the corporations of
Scientology since 1966, when he had officially resigned as Executive
Director.ASI served as LRH’s literary agency, but it was really a clearing house for
his orders into the various Scientology corporations and organizations,
which included but was not limited to RTC, CSI, CSC, Flag Land Base, CST
and the Office of Special Affairs (formerly the Guardian’s Office).
Miscavige was the person responsible for ensuring the execution of LRH
orders in these various corporations, until LRH’s death in 1986. ASI and
some of its staff members exercised complete financial authority over
other church entities. Fran Harris, a staff member of ASI, was responsible
for the gross income of the organization.ASI received its operating expenses from commissions it received for
collection of royalties owed to LRH based on moneys collected from LRH book
outlets. Some time ago, LRH wrote a policy letter entitled “Minimum Book
Stocks” which in effect placed a minimum on the amount of books each
Scientology org had to have. Bridge Publications is the organization
responsible for enforcing the minimum book stocks policy.More often than not, on orders from Miscavige to get the stats up, Fran
Harris would bypass Bridge Publications and go direct to org finance
personnel and demand that the orgs buy books from BPI so that ASI would get
its weekly commissions. Fran enforced her demands by using lower
conditions, ethics hearings, comm evs and just plain intimidation to make
the nonprofit scientology orgs pay money to BPI, often before the org had
even had a chance to feed and clothe its staff. BPI never saw much of this
money itself, as it was considered that BPI owed a debt to ASI going back
to before ASI was ever incorporated. This action, which went on every
week, was a known criminal act by all concerned, as not only did it violate
Scientology’s own policy of corporate integrity, it also violated the laws
of the land.ASI is a for-profit corporation and paid its staff minimum wage plus a
bonus based on royalties collected. Every week ASI had to get more and more
money in order to keep its stats up to receive bonuses. ASI staff were in
fact Sea Org members that were paid very well when you consider the average
Sea Org member was paid $24.00 per week. It was considered a privilege to
be on staff at ASI and the staff were encouraged not to diskuss with other
Sea Org members what they were paid weekly in order not to create a rift
among Sea Org members.In 1984 David Miscavige received word there was an IRS criminal
investigation pending with the threat of a raid in Los Angeles. Fran Harris
was flown out of the country and sent to Copenhagen, Denmark, to avoid
possible interrogation by IRS officials. This was just the beginning of the
“clean up” most senior executives executed within various Scientology
corporations. One morning I awoke to find my senior, Vicki Aznaran, her
husband Rick Aznaran, who was head of all security for Scientology, and
Foster Tompkins, executive over INCOMM, removing evidence from hard disk
drives that proved LRH was in fact the managing agent of Scientology as
well as other sensitive information. Vicki and the others had been up most
of the night purging computer files and creating back-up disks to be stored
at confidential storage sights.At this time I was ordered to verify that other corporations had purged
their files of LRH “advices.” The corporations concerned were RTC, CSI and
CSC. I did in fact verify that no evidence of LRH advices existed. This was
accomplished by gathering up all hard copy advices and getting them mulched
at a paper treatment plant located near Riverside, CA. Back-up copies of
these advices were placed in secret unknown storage facilities by head of
security, Rick Aznaran. The only people who knew these locations were Rick,
the security chief, whose name was Jackson, DM and Norman Starkey.From 1982 through 1986, LRH would use a dictaphone to dictate his orders to
the various Scientology corporations. The tapes from the dictation would be
delivered by LRH’s top aides Pat or Annie Broeker to the Scientology
location at Gilman Hot Springs. At this location a special unit, headed by
a staff member named Susie Bennick, would transcribe the tapes and issue
hard copy dispatches to various executives and staff of ASI, RTC, CSI, CST
and CSC. Often, these dispatches had certain time deadlines for compliance
as mandated by LRH. I’ve seen as many as 150 orders dictated by LRH in one
run. Often the staff who had orders issued to them were not allowed to
sleep until they complied to the LRH order issued to them. David Miscavige
oversaw the transcribing operation and enforced compliance to LRH orders by
staff in all Scientology corporations.Scientology Legal Procedures
During my tenure as an executive and senior executive in RTC, I was taught
how to aggressively go about destroying an enemy or critic of Scientology.
Enemies and critics of Scientology are considered to be suppressive persons
or groups. In Scientology the suppressive element is basically dealt with
in the same way: investigation, black operations, black propaganda and
frivolous litigation. Scientology believes anyone labeled a suppressive is
“fair game” and can be cheated, tricked, lied to and even physically
harmed in order to “save” Scientology as mandated in policy by L Ron
Hubbard. The following are specific instances I have either been a party to
or observed being done to persons labeled “suppressive.”David Mayo
David Mayo was once one of the top senior executives in Scientology. He
worked directly with LRH on technical policies, he was LRH’s auditor, and
even authored the “Ned for OTs” series when it was first issued. By the
time I arrived in September 1982 at the secret management base located in
Hemet, CA, David Mayo had fallen from grace. Upon my promotion to this
secret location, the first duty I had was to security check (interrogate)
Mayo endlessly. LRH had the idea that Mayo had been bought off by
Scientology mission holders and was either a dupe or a plant. At this time
Scientology was once again getting rid of its criminals. The executives of
all management organizations had been removed and brought to Hemet to
receive severe Scientology justice and ethics. Mayo was part of a group of
11 management executives being given a comm eve that went on for 3 months.
Nearly all 11were eventually labeled suppressive persons and left
Scientology.Once David Mayo was off staff he decided to start his own church, the
Advanced Ability Center (AAC), that was an alternative to Scientology and
used many of the same techniques used by LRH. At this point David became
the target for “fair game.” DM became infuriated and ordered Mayo’s new
group to be destroyed using all means possible. Bob Mithoff, brother of
Senior C/S Int Ray Mithoff, was placed by RTC in David Mayo’s new church as
a plant to obtain financial and critical legal information to forward a
planned attack on his group. Week after week Bob Mithoff provided financial
information to RTC concerning Mayo’s new group. The fact of the matter is
Mayo had drawn a good amount of people who were ex-Scientologists to his
new church and was making $20,000 to $30,000 gross income every week. This
was better than most Scientology Class 4 organizations. Mithoff stole a
copy of the AAC’s mailing list and provided it to RTC. Within four months
of its inception, AAC had a standard newsletter it mailed to its adherents.
With the stolen mailing list RTC operative Gary Klinger designed a similar
newsletter that contained disparaging information concerning AAC to the
same mailing list. This list was used by RTC to contact members of the AAC
for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.Mithoff also stole a copy of the NOTs materials that David Mayo had
rewritten, and he provided it to RTC. At one point before her “suicide” Flo
Barnett, David Miscavige’s mother-in-law, became a member of the AAC. More
black operatives were sent into the AAC by RTC. Black operations included
renting the office above Mayo’s AAC to electronically bug him. At one point
private investigator Gene Ingram was hired to pose as an investigative
reporter and Mayo was duped into believing he was participating in a TV
program to promote his new group. Through Mithoff, it was learned that
David Mayo planned to travel abroad to Europe. Through investigator Gene
Igram, it was arranged to have Mayo stopped at customs as a suspected drug
dealer, which did happen, and he was detained for hours based on false
information by European customs officials. Gene Ingram received his
instructions on these matters from Gary Klinger, an executive in RTC.
Ingram’s fee was paid by CSI through the office of John Peterson, who was
retained as in-house counsel by CSC. As a note, John Peterson was not fully
aware of why his office paid private investigator expenses to Bob Mithoff.Prior to Mayo writing his own version of the NOTs materials it was learned
through Mithoff that several other ex-Scientologists had copied and were
planning to use Scientology HCO P/Ls and HCOBs. A former mission holder,
Sarge Gerbode, had an ongoing project to copy via computer all HCOPLs and
HCOBs and sell them to Mayo or trade them for Scientology OT materials.
Through Mithoff we learned that Mayo and Gerbode had come to an agreement
and Mayo’s new group was in fact more computerized than most Scientology
facilities.As part of the weekly ASI meetings, Vicki and I were confronted by David
Miscavige concerning what we planned to do to put an end to Mayo and the
AAC. The first option we suggested was to bring a copyright suit against
the AAC. David Miscavige called in LRH Personal Secretary Pat Brice to get
a briefing on the status of current church copyright filings. He was sorely
disappointed when he found out that no one in the entirety of Scientology
was responsible for copyright filings since the Guardian’s Office had been
reorganized by him. He decided at that time to give Pat a project to file
for copyright protection ofall Scientology bulletins and policies. This is
the reason most Scientology copyright filings have a date starting in 1983
forward. The best option for the church to sue Mayo was through trade
secrets and trademarks. Then-RTC lawyer Joe Yanny recommended a RICO
complaint be drawn up, as evidence existed that David Mayo had formed
agreements with other Scientology dissidents to exchange Scientology
materials to strengthen the alternative movement which David Mayo was the
leader of.While all of this was going on Mayo and the AAC were successful in getting
a Temporary Restraining Order against RTC and CSI because of the constant
harassment and plants sent in. The specific incident which resulted in the
TRO was in fact when Gary Klinger posed as a Jewish rabbi and went to a
barbecue the AAC had one weekend and created havoc at the party. There is
no difference between the black operations executed by the “Old GO” and the
then new RTC. Because of the very nature of Scientology it will never
change. L Ron Hubbard himself issued the marching orders for Scientology
to become a criminal organization and people are trained to lie from the
moment they walk in the door and take a Scientology course.Almost immediately a person is taught how to use “ethics” to control
another. Example: Hubbard Policy Letter 29 April, 1965 titled “Ethics
Review” instructs a person how to effectively harass and attack another, a
few quotes from the above mentioned P/L:“Levels of Ethics Actions”
“Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:
“1. Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning it but only
inspecting it silently.“2. Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.
“3. Requesting information by ethics personnel.
“4. Requesting information and inferring there is a diskiplinary potential
in the situation.“5. Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.
“6. Talking to the person derogatorily.”
The list get worse and worse. L Ron Hubbard was mentally ill for at least 4
years before he died that I know of through direct experience and
association. When Gerry Armstrong, Omar Garrison, Vaughn Young and Stacy
Young all at one time or another tried to write a biography of L Ron
Hubbard based on his own records the records clearly showed he was mentally
disturbed much earlier as well. As can be seen from the above-quoted
HCOPL, a NAZI like dedication to the “group” is required which in fact turn
people against one another in a spy-like fashion. In Scientology, people
are dehumanized and in fact become members of a human ant family — you are
only as good as you produce for the group. The concept of self is
surrendered to the false idea that “Scientology” is much more important
than individual life.In the case of the RICO suit filed by RTC and CSI against the AAC, another
type of Scientology “ethics” was applied. L Ron Hubbard believed certain
words and catch phrases used together in a writing could have a
psychological effect on the reader. The words and phrases are part of a
confidential course called “R6 End Words” or “R6EW.” Hubbard ordered his
“magic words” to be sewn into each and every legal motion and complaint
submitted to any court. Hubbard said by doing this a judge would
subconsciously become antagonistic to anyone trying to fight Scientology
with the current justice system.It is not necessary to be a brain surgeon to see this as pretty crazy, but
because its so stupid the point can be lost. Hubbard thought he was
superior to his culture and sought to make a mockery of the way everyday
people live. In late 1952 Hubbard thought he had discovered something so
powerful with Dianetics that he had to protect us all from his own
invention. He wrote a journal called “Black Dianetics.” Here is how it
starts: “Death, insanity, aberration, or merely a slavish obedience can be
efficiently effected by the use of Black Dianetics. Further, adequate laws
do not exist at this time to bar the use of these techniques. The law
provides that only the individual so wronged can make complaint or swear
out a warrant for offenders using these techniques.”Well, now you know why there is an organization of people that have ruined
lives and are a slave to the idea they are “saving the world.” Of course,
the organization I am talking about is Scientology’s “Sea Org.” Sorry for
digressing so about this — back to Mayo.The RICO suit was filed against the AAC and black operations against it by
RTC were at an all time high. There was a preliminary injunction hearing
in the RICO case. The day before the hearing I was drilled by Earle Cooley
and other church lawyers as to what I would say because I was an expert
witness in this case. The fact of the matter is that I was drilled all day,
all that night and up until the time I arrived in the court room as to what
I would say as a witness. It’s funny how Sandy Rosen, Scientology’s
replacement for Earle Cooley, asked me in my deposition in the FACTNet case
in Denver several weeks ago if I had been coached at all by my lawyer
before the deposition. He knows he works for criminals and that they are
the ones who commit the
crimes of which they accuse others.RTC won its injunction against AAC, and Mayo was effectively shut down at
that point.It is shameful to have been a part of Scientology. I am grateful to be
free of it physically and mentally. I promise to work just as hard exposing
Scientology for what it is.Respectfully Submitted,
Jesse Prince
Notes
- Document source: http://www.lermanet.com/jesseprince.htm ↩
Appellant’s Opening Brief (January 19, 1993)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOURCiv. No. B 069450
(Super. Ct. No. BC 052395)CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiff-Respondent
vs
GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.On Appeal From
Superior Court Of The State Of California
County of Los AngelesThe Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF1
Ford Greene
HUB LAW OFFICES
California State Bar No. 107601
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360PAUL MORANTZ, ESQ.
P.O. Box 511
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
(213) 459-4745Attorneys for Appellant GERALD ARMSTRONG
[…]
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 4; 1992, Scientology filed its verified complaint for damages and for preliminary and permanent injunction against defendant Gerald Armstrong in Marin County Superior Court Action No. 152229. On March 30, 1992 the Marin court granted Armstrong’s motion to transfer to the Los Angeles County Superior Court where it became Action No. BC 052395. During the pendency of Scientology’s motion for injunctive relief, and in order to maintain the status quo, but specifically stating there was no adjudication on the merits, the Marin Court granted a temporary restraining order (16) 1/ which was ultimately dissolved in Los Angeles.
On May 7, 1992, Scientology filed its Amended Memorandum of____
1 All citations designated (___) are to the particular sequential page number of the Appendix Filed In Lieu Of Clerk’s Transcript pursuant to California Rule of Court 5.1.Page 2. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Breach of Contract (1-29), and Armstrong filed his Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (30-50) Scientology replied on May 20, 1992. (51-63) The matter was heard on May 26 and 27, 1992 by the Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian (RT 5/26/92 and 1594-1713) who issued a preliminary injunction by his minute order dated May 28, 1992. (1714-17) Notice of ruling was given on June 5, 1992 in conjunction with the posting of a $70,000.00 bond.
Armstrong’s Notice of Appeal was timely filed on July 30, 1992. (1728-30)
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
Since this matter involves the granting of an injunction, it is the proper subject of an appeal. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 (f).
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Gerald Armstrong, The Scientologist
In consequence of being a member of the Scientology Organization for 12 years, Gerald Armstrong gained first-hand knowledge regarding both the nature of the organization and the methods of its day-to-day operations. Although Armstrong ultimately learned, that L. Ron Hubbard (“LRH”) was “virtually a pathological liar when it [came] to his history, background, and achievements” (474-75, 485-89, 1004, 1008-14), at the outset of his involvement it was Hubbard’s lies which induced his affiliation. (1004-08, 1067)
Armstrong learned that after inducing the affiliation of its members by various deceptions, Scientology continually “violat[ed] and abus[ed] its own members’ civil rights, . . . with its “Fair Game” doctrine [and] harass[ed] and abuse[ed] those persons not in the Church whom it perceive[d] as enemies.” (474) The “Fair Game Policy,” a part of Scientology’s system of discipline and punishment, states:
Page 3. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
“Enemy – SP (Suppressive Person) Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
(1036-1037)
Scientology also abused its members’ civil rights through breaching its promises that the personal information it extracted from adherents through “auditing” 2/ would be kept confidential. Instead, it used such information for the purposes of domination, extortion and blackmail. (734-74, 1039-41) Auditing was also employed to eliminate the members’ ability to critically reason, (1038, 1081), despite Scientology’s public claim that its purpose was to free individuals. (1086)
Armstrong possesses first-hand information regarding the visible structure of Scientology, and how the leadership ran Scientology through internal organizations, such as the Guardian’s Office, the Sea Organization and the Commodore’s Messenger Organization, which managed, operated and controlled all of Scientology regardless of any particular corporate designation. (475, 997, 1023-30, 1045-46). He knew that LRH’s representation to the general public and the Scientology membership that “the fees you pay for service do not go to me” was false and that LRH lived in splendor while the organization staff lived like slaves. (1032-34)
Armstrong participated in and drilled hundreds of people in
____
2 During the process of “auditing” in Scientology, a person being “audited,” a “penitent,” communicates to the clergyman, counselor, or therapist, the “auditor,” his innermost thoughts and relates incidents from his life which are emotionally charged, embarrassing or for which he could be blackmailed. The auditor writes down what the penitent says in “auditing reports.” The auditor demands and records details such as time and place when an incident occurred, who was present, who knew about the incident, their relationship to the penitent and their address or general location. These “auditing reports” form, along with the auditor’s notes and instructions made after the auditing sessions, the penitent’s auditing files. (1081)Page 4. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
institutionalized schemes of practiced deception called “shore stories” or “acceptable truths,” which LRH claimed were required to combat the “enemy.” (1051, 1016-19, 787-88)
Armstrong was assigned to the Intelligence Bureau of the Guardian’s Office 3/ headed by LRH and his wife and then posted as LRH’s communications aide. (996) During this time he coded and decoded Guardian’s Office telexes, and maintained LRH’s operations files including those which ordered infiltration of the federal, state and local government offices, and the theft of documents. Armstrong also handled LRH’s telexes and dispatches ordering corporate manipulations which showed an absence of corporate integrity among the Scientology organizations.(1045-46)
LRH ordered Armstrong and his wife into the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”), which was “a virtual prison Hubbard had created for any Sea Org members whom he considered to be in violation of or ‘counter-intention’ (“CI”) to his orders or policies.” (997; 738; 1048-49) The purpose of the RPF was to control members, who were physically held and not free to leave, break their will and obtain free labor. (740, 1050) Armstrong was imprisoned within the RPF for 17 months on one occasion and 8 months on a second. (739, 997, 999, 1048)
Armstrong personally participated in the massive destruction of evidence ordered in anticipation of a raid by the F.B.I. during which he came across LRH’s life archive. (480-81, 485-86, 1000-01) Throughout 1980 and 1981, Armstrong assembled an
____
3 “The Guardian’s Office is charged with the protection of Scientology. The Guardians handle intelligence matters including covert operations to acquire Government documents critical of Scientology, internal security within Scientology, and covert operations to discredit and remove from positions of power all persons whom Scientology considers to be its enemies.” United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238, 1247, cert. denied (1982) 102 S.Ct. 1971. The Guardian’s Office executed tremendous control throughout all of Scientology, and until 1981, was the most powerful of LRH’s two main control lines. (1023-28)Page 5. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
archive of 500,000 pages of documentation of LRH’s life, writings and accomplishments. (1003) In October 1980, LRH contracted with an independent author, Omar V. Garrison, to write his
biography. (1004) Armstrong became Garrison’s “research assistant.” (1004; 483-85)During his biographical research, Armstrong discovered that LRH and Scientology had continuously lied about LRH’s past, credentials and his accomplishments. (486, 1008-14) As the wide gap between LRH’s claims about himself and the reality evidenced by the documentation Armstrong had assembled became manifest, he attempted to convince Scientology executives to change the biographical materials being published and disseminated about LRH so that they would be truthful. (1004; 486-87)
In response to Armstrong’s requests that Scientology tell the truth about Hubbard, a leader ordered that Armstrong be “security checked. (487) Sec checking is a brutally accusative interrogation in which the E-Meter, the electrometer used in Scientology auditing, is employed as a lie detector and tool of intimidation. Upon learning that his sec checking had been ordered, Armstrong and Jocelyn, his wife, left Scientology. (1015)
Following Armstrong’s departure, Scientology sued him, and hired private investigators who assaulted him, ran into him bodily with a car, attempted to involve him in a freeway accident, and followed and harassed him day and night for over one month. Scientology made four attempts to bring false criminal charges against him, destroyed his marriage, used his best friend to set him up in an intelligence operation, and had its members, lawyers and private investigators make false statements against him. (1053, 492-93)
B. Scientology Sues Armstrong The First Time And Loses
On August 2, 1982, Scientology sued Armstrong in L.A.S.C. No C420153 (“Armstrong I“) for conversion of certain papers which he had archived as part of the Hubbard biography project. After a
Page 6. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
lengthy trial, Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., filed his Memorandum of Intended Decision in Armstrong’s favor on June 22f 1984. (467) Rejecting Scientology’s effort to silence Armstrong and his counsel, (see 1202-1226), he stated:
Defendant and his counsel are free to speak and communicate upon any of Defendant Armstrong’s recollections of his life as a Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit received in evidence or marked for identification and not specifically ordered sealed. . . . defendant and his counsel may discuss the contents of any documents under seal or of any matters as to which this court has found to be privileged as between the parties hereto, with any duly constituted Governmental Law Enforcement Agency or submit any exhibits or declarations thereto concerning such documents or materials, without violating any order of this court.
(469) Judge Breckenridge found the facts presented by Armstrong to be true and incorporated Armstrong’s trial brief as an appendix to its decision. (470) He characterized Scientology as malevolent, in part because the organization “or its minions is fully capable of intimidation [of witnesses, including Armstrong] or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends” (474), and provided the following factual findings:
In 1970 a police agency of the French Government conducted an investigation into Scientology and concluded “this sect, under the pretext of ‘freeing humans’ is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract a maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of) pseudo-scientific theories, by (use of) ‘auditions’ and ‘stage settings’ (lit. to create a theatrical scene’) pushed to extremes (a machine to detect lies, its own particular phraseology . . ), to estrange adepts from their families and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with this sect.” [footnote omitted] From the evidence presented to this court in 1984, at the very least, similar conclusions can be drawn.
In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its “Fair Game” doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization is clearly schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH [L.
Page 7. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.
(Emphasis added.) (474)
In contrast to his findings regarding Scientology, Judge Breckenridge found Armstrong and his witnesses to be credible and sympathetic. He wrote:
As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the testimony of Gerald and Jocelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan, Nancy Dincalcis, Edward Walters, Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Homer Schomer to be credible, extremely persuasive and the defense of privilege or justification established and corroborated by this evidence . . . In all critical and important matters, their testimony was precise, accurate, and rang true. The picture painted by these former dedicated Scientologists, all of whom were intimately involved [with the highest echelons of power in] the Scientology Organization, is on one hand pathetic, and on the other, outrageous. Each of these persons literally gave years of his or her respective life in support of a man, LRH [L. Ron. Hubbard], and his ideas. Each has manifested a waste and loss or frustration which is incapable of description.
(Emphasis added.) (473)
C. Scientology’s Attempt To Frame Michael Flynn 4/
Within four months of Judge Breckenridge’s decision, Scientology engaged in a massive “black PR” campaign against Michael Flynn which included the following operation:
The recent efforts of Hubbard and his Organization include procurement through the payment of $25,000 to an individual currently under indictment for perjury and fraud, of an affidavit claiming that I assisted in the forgery of a two million dollar check belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. The affidavit was procured by one Eugene Ingram who has been removed from the Los Angeles
____
4 This section is based upon the Declarations of Michael J. Flynn, Armstrong’s attorney. The Court should note that said declarations, however, were excluded from evidence. The trial court was incorrect however, because said declaration were based upon the personal knowledge of Flynn.Page 8. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Police Department for aiding narcotics dealers, pimping, and running a house of prostitution. Mr. Ingram procured the affidavit from a citizen of the United Arab Emirates after publicizing a $100,000 reward in full page advertisements in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and other newspapers.
(1183-84) The foregoing facts were found to be accurate in the reported decision, United States v. Kattar (5th Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 118, 119-22.
D. Scientology’s Attempt To Frame Armstrong
In 1984, after the Breckenridge decision, Scientology also attempted to set up and frame Armstrong, to “dead agent” him. As stated by Scientology in the Miller, Aznaran, and Xanthos litigation (discussed infra.)
Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology’s] files which would then be “found” by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity.
(1546-50; see also (1320). He had been
“plotting against … Scientology … and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing [Scientology] leadership. [Scientology] obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On November 30, 1984, Armstrong met with one Michael Rinder, an individual whom Armstrong thought to be one of his “agents” (but who in reality was loyal to [Scientology]). In the conversation, recorded with written permission from law enforcement, Armstrong stated the following in response to questions by Mr. Rinder as to whether they had to have actual evidence of wrongdoing to make allegations in Court against [Scientology’s] leadership:
Armstrong: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have — they can allege it.
RINDER: So they don’t even have to — like — they don’t have to have the documents sitting in front of them and then–
Armstrong: Fucking say the organization destroys documents. . . . Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. We don’t have to prove shit; we just have to allege it.
Page 9. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farney, ¶ 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.”
(1353-54)
The “written permission from law enforcement” was fraudulent and made without authority. The bogus document was dated November 7, 1984 on the letterhead of Eugene Ingram. (1572)
By public announcement, Los Angeles Chief of Police, Daryl F. Gates, repudiated the “written permission.” In part, Chief Gates stated:
I have directed an official letter to Ingram informing him that the letter signed by Officer Phillip Rodriguez dated November 7, 1984, and all other letters of purported authorizations directed to him, signed by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department, are invalid and unauthorized.
(1574)
Scientology’s allegations against Armstrong were thoroughly investigated by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and completely and soundly rejected. (1576-87)
E. The Settlement
In the Armstrong I litigation, on both the complaint and cross-complaint, Armstrong was represented by Boston attorney Michael J. Flynn, who also was Armstrong’s employer. (665) In early December 1986, an agreement was reached in Los Angeles by the Scientology Organization and Flynn to settle most of the cases in which Flynn was involved, either as counsel, or as a party. On December 5, 1986, Armstrong, along with nearly a score of other litigants adverse to Scientology – all of whom were represented by Flynn – was flown to Los Angeles to participate in a “global settlement.” (667) When Armstrong arrived in Los Angeles from Boston, he knew that settlement negotiations had been going on for months. (762) Upon Armstrong’s arrival, he was shown a copy of a document entitled “Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement” for the first time, as well as some other documents that he was expected to sign.
When Armstrong read the settlement agreement, he was shocked
Page 10. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
and heartsick. The agreement betrayed everything that Armstrong had stood for in his battle opposing Scientology. (760) He told Flynn that the condition, set forth in settlement agreement ¶ 7-D, of “strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the [Scientology organization]” was outrageous and not capable of compliance because it involved over 17 years of his life. Armstrong told Flynn that ¶ 7-D would require him to pay $50,000 if he told a doctor or a psychologist about his experiences over those 17 years, or if he put on a job resume the positions he had held while in Scientology. He told Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to service of process in ¶ 7-H and non-cooperation with persons or organizations adverse to the organization in ¶ ¶ 7-G and 10 were obstructive of justice. Armstrong told Flynn that agreeing in ¶ 4-B to allow Scientology’s appeal of Judge Breckenridge’s decision in Armstrong I to continue without opposition was unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the decision. Armstrong said to Flynn the affidavit that Scientology demanded he sign along with the settlement agreement was false. (668, 759)
Right after Armstrong first saw the document, he was told there were a number of other people with claims against Scientology who had already signed and others were being flown in to sign. (762) Flynn told Armstrong that he, and all the other lawyers, wanted to get out of the litigation because it had ruined his marriage and his wife’s health. Flynn told Armstrong that all the other witnesses upon whom later he would have to depend wanted to settle, too.
In Flynn’s presence, Eddie Walters, another litigant adverse to Scientology, yelled at Armstrong. Walters said everybody wanted out of the litigation, that Armstrong’s objections would kill the deal for all of the them, and that Armstrong’s objections didn’t matter because the settlement was bigger than he was. (762-63) Flynn did not stick up for Armstrong. (764)
Page 11. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Flynn told Armstrong if he did not sign all he had to look forward to would be more years of threats, harassment and misery from Scientology, and everybody else would be very upset. Flynn advised Armstrong that the conditions of the settlement which he found offensive “were not worth the paper they were printed on” and that Scientology’s lawyers were aware of Flynn’s legal opinion and, nonetheless, wanted such language included. (759) Flynn advised Armstrong that in the event that there was further litigation against Armstrong by Scientology, Flynn would still be there to defend him. (768) Armstrong felt “a great deal” of pressure to sign the agreement, and capitulated. (761, 765-66, 772; 670-71)
It was Armstrong’s understanding and intent at the time of the settlement that he would honor the silence and confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement, and that Scientology would do likewise. (672)
On December 11, 1986, Flynn and Scientology attorneys John G. Peterson, Michael Lee Hertzberg and Lawrence E. Heller appeared, ex parte, before Judge Breckenridge, announced that they had settled Armstrong’s Cross-Complaint in Armstrong I (458), and submitted a number of documents for filing. (1235-36, 1238, 1240-41, 1243-45, 1247-49, 1251.) Despite its promises, Scientology never did file the settlement agreement. (1258)
When Judge Breckenridge inquired whether the agreement impacted the appeal of his decision, the attorneys said that the agreement did not (458), despite Paragraphs 4-A and 4-B. (75-76) None of the attorneys advised Judge Breckenridge of their side stipulation that any retrial of Armstrong I ordered by the Court of Appeal would limit damages claimed by Scientology to $25,001, (1253) 5/ and they failed to advise him there was another side
____
5 Said stipulation, signed by Michael Flynn on Armstrong’s behalf and by John Peterson and Michael Hertzberg for Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard, states: “The Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and GeraldPage 12. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
agreement between Flynn and Scientology attorneys Cooley and Heller whereby they agreed to indemnify Flynn if the Court of Appeal reversed Armstrong I and they retried the case and won. (1255-56)
Moreover, prior to and at the time of the settlement Armstrong was not aware of the side agreements between his lawyers and the lawyers for the organization that considered Gerald Armstrong as their enemy! (712-13, 715; 771-72)
On December 18, 1986, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeal No. B005912 as premature because Armstrong’s cross-complaint remained to be tried. (1260-73) 6/
On January 30, 1987, Scientology filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Memorandum of Intended Decision in Armstrong I. (1279-83) which Judge Breckenridge denied. (1285) Scientology then filed its second appeal in Armstrong I. (1287) On July 29, 1991, the Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Breckenridge’s decision. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.
F. Scientology’s Post Settlement Breaches
1. The Corydon “Dead Agent” Pack
In 1987, less than one year after the agreement was signed,
____
Armstrong, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that in any retrial ordered by any appellate court in Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, LASC No. 420153, the total damages awarded to the Plaintiff Church of Scientology of California and Plaintiff in Intervention Mary Sue Hubbard, combined for any and all causes of action, shall not exceed twenty five thousand and one dollars ($25,001.00).”6 The Court of Appeal would not have been advised of the resolution of the underlying Cross-Complaint in Armstrong I – on the existence of which it based its order of dismissal of the appeal – because the fate of said appeal was the subject of Paragraphs 4-A and 4-B of the secret agreement.
Page 13. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Scientology distributed a “dead agent” 7/ pack which included an attack on Armstrong. It stated:
“Corydon has used a description of the RPF provided by Gerry Armstrong, among others. Armstrong’s description in this book, however, is completely contrary to his own previous sworn affidavit about the RPF. (Gerry Armstrong’s description of the RPF in Corydon’s book can also be viewed in light of Armstrong’s numerous false claims and lies on other subject matters.)”
(1504) (Emphasis added.)
2. Scientology’s Declarations In The Miller Litigation
In October, 1987, Scientology representative Kenneth Long executed five affidavits in Church of Scientology of California v. Miller, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, No. 1987 C. No. 6140, wherein Long solely discussed his characterizations of Armstrong’s activities that had been at issue in the Armstrong I litigation, and thus included within the scope of the settlement agreement. (See Appendix pp. 1506-23; 1525-44; 1546-50, 1555-62, 1564-70)
Long’s third affidavit falsely charged that:
Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology’s] files which would then be “found” by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity. (1549)
In another affidavit filed in the Miller case on October 5, 1987, Sheila M. Chaleff also falsely stated:
Mr. Armstrong is known to me to be a US government informant who has admitted on video tape that he intended to plant
____
7 “A ‘dead agent’ is a concept created by Hubbard in which an agent who is supposedly spreading stories about you, a lie, an untruth in his story is found. And that is documented. [¶] And then that documented fact is circulated to all of the people to whom the agent has communicated, and then he will become essentially dead, he will be killed by those people who have earlier trusted him. So you’ve destroyed his credibility and as an agent he is dead. [¶] And this pack of materials was a dead agent pack put out to dead agent Bent Corydon. Bent Corydon had written a book about Hubbard, and this is a pack of materials to discredit Bent Corydon.” (791)Page 14. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
forged documents within the Church of Scientology and then using the contents to get the Church raided where these forged documents would be found and used against the Church.
(1553)
3. Heller’s Declaration And Argument In The Corydon Litigation
On or about November 1, 1989, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc., et al., LASC No. C694401, Scientology attorney Lawrence E. Heller filed a Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Author Services, Inc. to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions by Plaintiff. (1294-1305) In his memorandum, Heller discussed the “block settlement” of which the Armstrong agreement was a part:
One of the key ingredients to completing these settlements, insisted upon by all parties involved, was strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology … staff member’s experiences within … Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members …; and (3) the terms and conditions of the settlements themselves. Peace has reigned since the time the interested parties entered into the settlements, all parties having exercised good faith in carrying out the terms of the settlement, including the obligations of confidentiality. [Original emphasis.]
(1297) In his sworn declaration, attorney Heller testified:
I was personally involved in the settlements which are referred to in these moving papers which transpired some two and one-half years ago. . . . a “universal settlement” was ultimately entered into between the numerous parties. The universal settlement provided for non-disclosure of all facts underlying the litigation as well as non-disclosure of the terms of the settlements themselves. The non-disclosure obligations were a key part of the settlement agreements insisted upon by all parties involved. [Original emphasis.]
(1301-02)
4. Scientology’s Complaint Against The IRS
On August 12, 1991, Scientology filed a complaint styled Church of Scientology International v. Xanthos, et al., in United States District Court, Central District of California, No. 91-4301-SVW(Tx). (1307-47) Therein, Scientology stated:
Page 15. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
The infiltration of [Scientology] was planned as an undercover operation by the LA CID along with former [Scientology] member Gerald Armstrong, who planned to seed [Scientology] files with forged documents which the IRS could then seize in a raid. The CID actually planned to assist Armstrong in taking over the [Scientology] hierarchy which would then turn over all [Scientology] documents to the IRS for their investigation.
(1320)
5. The Aznaran Litigation
On or about August 26, 1991, Scientology filed its Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. United States District Court, Central District of California, No. CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex). (1349¬59) Therein, a Scientology attorney stated that in 1984 Armstrong was
“plotting against … Scientology … and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing [Scientology] leadership. [Scientology] obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On November 30, 1984, Armstrong met with one Michael Rinder, an individual whom Armstrong thought to be one of his “agents” (but who in reality was loyal to [Scientology]). In the conversation, recorded with written permission from law enforcement, Armstrong stated the following in response to questions by Mr. Rinder as to whether they had to have actual evidence of wrongdoing to make allegations in Court against [Scientology’s] leadership
• • •(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farney, ¶ 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.”
(1353-54)Armstrong was cleared by the Los Angeles District Attorney after a thorough – and Scientology generated – investigation. (1576-87)
G. Armstrong’s Post Settlement Breaches
Scientology’s position at the hearing below was that Armstrong violated paragraphs 7-G and 7-H of the settlement
Page 16. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
agreement. (81-82) The violations were predicated upon the facts that Armstrong had worked for two days in the office of Joseph A. Yanny and had executed two declarations to be filed in the Aznaran case (122-23; 128; 136-38), had later executed a declaration on Yanny’s behalf that was filed in Religious Technology Center v. Yanny, LASC No. BC 033035, (124-34), and had worked as a paralegal for Ford Greene in the Aznaran case (143
45; 159-64; 169) in which Armstrong filed another declaration on the Aznarans’ behalf. (147-57; RT 5/27/92 at 47)[…]
Notes
- This document in PDF format. ↩
CSI 1023 Submission: Response to Question II-10 (a-d) [Re: Public Policy Violations] (June 2, 1992)
Question 10(a)1
10(a). The Service has expressed its concerns relating to violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations. What assurances can the Service be provided that these violations are not continuing as of December 31, 1989, and that those who were involved in the commission of the acts described in the CSC case are no longer affiliated in any capacity or employed by the Church of Scientology, including any Scientology-related organisation?
The Service’s ongoing concerns about “violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations” appear to be based on the Tax Court’s decision in CSC. The misconduct that gave rise to the Tax Court’s public policy findings in CSC was the criminal misconduct of individuals within the Guardian’s Office. As discussed in detail in response to question 3(a), the Guardian’s Office has been disbanded, the principal wrongdoers removed from staff permanently barred from ever serving on staff of any Scientology church in any capacity, and other former GO staff with lesser involvement removed and retrained. The procedures instituted that prevent recurrence of misconduct by Church staff in their official capacity apply equally here — the legitimate functions of that office now are carried out under full and direct ecclesiastical supervision, and there are no organizations or groups performing church functions in the practice and propagation of the religion of Scientology or its affiliated social welfare and public benefit activities which can operate independently of CSI and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.1/
1/ Church of Spiritual Technology is autonomous from the CSI hierarchy. CST has its own unique activities and purposes which require it to be autonomous. CST’s autonomy does not create a risk of a recurrence of the Guardian Office misconduct, because CST is not involved in any way with the ministry of religious services to the public, the proselytization of the Scientology religion, or the performance of its social welfare and public benefit functions.
10-1
Question 10(b)
b. The term “Snow White” referred in the 1970s to a covert operation carried out by the Guardian’s Office under which illegal acts were perpetrated, including burglarising the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Is any operation known as “Snow white” still in existence? If not, please describe and document the method by which it ceased operations. If an operation under the name still exists, please describe the operation and provide supporting documentation. In addition, please describe any operation of whatever name that may be designed to achieve goals similar to the “Snow White” operation that existed in the 1970s.
As discussed in our responses to Questions 3(d) and l0(a), during the 1970s the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) carried out a series of operations to infiltrate government offices, including the National Office of the IRS, to obtain copies of documents concerning the Church. While the GO used various names to refer to those operations, we do not believe it ever used the name “Snow White” to designate those operations. However, we understand that the term Show White may have been misused within a program involving infiltration of government agencies. This may be the source of the misconception about this program conveyed by the Service’s question. The term “Snow White” correctly refers to a program written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 for the purpose of correcting false governmental reports about the Church of Scientology through strictly legal means.
Mr. Hubbard wrote the Snow White Program because several countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea had denied entry to their ports to the ship Apollo, which at that time housed the Church’s senior ecclesiastical management bodies, as a result of false reports concerning the Church that were being distributed primarily by certain governmental officials in England and the United States. Mr. Hubbard wanted to correct the record and to seek redress for religious persecution. Accordingly, Mr. Hubbard wrote:
To engage in various litigation in all countries affected so as to expose to view all such derogatory and false reports, to engage in further litigation in the countries originating such reports, to exhaust recourse in these countries and then finally to take the matter to the United Nations (that now being possible for an individual and a group) and to the European Commission on Human Rights, meanwhile uprooting and cancelling all such files and reports wherever found.
10-2
This program did not contemplate anything illegal whatsoever, and in fact expressly stated its “Ideal Scene” to be “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged . . ..” (Emphasis added).
An example illustrating the use of the Snow White Program, why it was necessary and its results, concerns the country of Portugal. Between 1969 and the first half of 1974 the Apollo frequently docked at ports in Portugal with no problems and good relations with the people and local governments. In July 1973 a rumor was first heard in the port of Oporto that the Apollo was a “CIA ship.” This same rumor had first surfaced at ports in Spain in 1972 and as a result of this and other false reports the ship had been denied entry into some Spanish ports. Although the rumor continued to surface in 1973 and 1974 in Portugal, the Apollo nonetheless continued to be welcome in Portuguese ports without major incident.
On October 3, 1974, when the Apollo was docked at the port of Funchal on the island of Madeira, Portugal, it was attacked by a large crowd throwing rocks and shouting “CIA ship.” The local police and army stood by and watched, doing nothing to hold the crowd back. As a result some Church staff aboard the ship were injured and property was damaged or destroyed. Cars and motorcycles belonging to the Church and Church staff were thrown off the dock into the bay. The ship crew had to fight off the attackers with fire hoses while the ship made an emergency departure to escape the violence, without being able to take on food, fuel or water. The Apollo and her crew were forced to wait miles offshore for over a day while order was restored so she could return to load fuel, food and water and sail to a safe country.
Documents obtained from the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information act pursuant to the Snow White Program, trace the “CIA ship” rumor to a State Department telex in April of 1972 sent to various European countries that contained this and other false reports. Following the Snow White Program procedure of locating and expunging false reports and seeking redress for religious persecution, a suit was filed in Lisbon by the company that owned the Apgllg, Operation Transport Corporation (“OTC”), against the government of Portugal seeking damages as a result of this riot. In June of 1985 the Administrative Court of Lisbon awarded damages to OTC finding that the riot in October of 1974 had been sparked by the CIA ship rumor, and that this rumor was false. These damages were sustained by an appellate court in 1987.
Based on these decisions and clearing up of the false
10-3
information originally generated by the U.S. government, in April of 1988 the Minister of Justice in Portugal officially authorized the registration of the Church of Scientology in Portugal, accomplishing the Snow White Program’s objective for that country. The principal activities in the United States under the Snow White Program have consisted of filing Freedom of Information Act requests with all Federal governmental agencies and public record requests at the state and local level, pursuing litigation to compel disclosure of records being withheld, and the filing and prosecution of a large lawsuit in 1978 against a number of federal government agencies for the purpose of expunging all false reports on the Church and Mr. Hubbard contained in their files. Other activities under the aegis of Snow White, both in the UZS. and abroad, had to do with investigating and exposing Interpol as an autonomous police agency serving as a conduit for false reports on the Church and others.
The Osler Decision:
The Service need not simply rely on our representations about the Snow White Program as we are providing a copy of the original program with this write-up as Exhibit 10-A. Additionally, Justice Osler of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada, reviewed this program in 1985 to determine whether an Ontario Provincial Police officer should be cross-examined on an affidavit he had sworn in support of a search warrant against a Church of Scientology in Canada. The officer had characterized the Snow White Program as calling for illegal actions.
In an opinion dated January 23, 1985, after reviewing the Snow White Program document and other related evidence, Justice Osler noted that
“. . . it is not without significance that the affidavit of Fletcher Prouty, appearing in Volume 8A of the record at tab KK, makes it appear that he formed the conclusion, as a highly placed official of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States that since 1950 there has been a definite campaign of harrassment against this organization (Scientology) for nearly thirty years primarily by means of the dissemination of false and derogatory information around the world to create a climate in which adverse action would be taken.against the Church and its members. Defense against this type of activity was, of course, the stated objective of the SNOW WHITE program.
10-4
Decision of Supreme Court of Ontario, Osler, J., pp. 33-34.
Concluding that the document on its face called for actions to “legally” expunge files and that the word “legally” appeared to have been purposely left out of the officer’s affidavit, Justice Osler ordered that the cross-examination of the officer go forward. Following the cross-examination, on February 7, 1985, Justice Osler issued a second opinion stating that while he did not believe that the officer’s mischaracterization of the Snow White Program rose to the level of a fraudulent misrepresentation, he did find that the officer had made “errors in judgment” in characterizing the program as calling for illegal actions.
Current Snow White Activities:
The Snow White program is not being executed today. It was a very specific program tailored to a particular state of affairs at the time it was written. However, over the years the term Snow White became synonymous with the activity of legally locating and correcting false reports on the Church. So the term may be heard in connection with this activity from time to time. The Church’s legal bureau, working with Church counsel, utilize the Freedom. of Information Act and similar statutes around the world to locate false reports on Churches. When located they seek cooperation of the agencies involved in expunging and correcting such reports. These staff and attorneys carry out no activities that are in any way illegal, and neither does any other unit or function in the Church.
A copy of the Snow White Program as issued in 1973 is attached as Exhibit II-10-A.
10-5
Question 10 (c)
Please state whether, to the best of your knowledge and belief, there are any pending United States or state or local governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by a Scientology-related organization or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization. For purposes of this question, please include any information relating to any Class V Church or Mission without regard to whether such Church or Mission is required to be listed in your response to question 1. Please include any pending criminal charges (and/or any pending court action including relevant docket number(s) against such entity or individual. Include in the description the investigating agency and any knowledge and/or documents known by you, or in your possession, or known by a Scientology-related organization or in the possession of such an organization regarding the investigation (e.g., what the allegations are and the date the acts were allegedly committed). In addition, please list all positions held by the individual listed in response to this question in any Scientology-related organizations at the present time and at the time the activity in question allegedly occurred.
There are no known pending governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by any Scientology-related organizations or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization.
* * * * *
10-6
152077Question 10 (d)
d. Please provide a list of all civil or criminal litigation commenced on or after January 1, 1980 in which it is alleged that any Scientology-related organization (as that definition has been modified in c. above) or any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization, has violated any criminal law or has committed an intentional tort. The list should contain parties’ names, the docket number(s) of the litigation, the court in which the matter is or was pending, a short description of all claims (and any counterclaims) by the parties, including any additional facts you believe would be relevant to allow us to understand the bases of the suit, and the status of the action. The list need not contain litigation in which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a named party.
Background
Although only litigation that commenced on or after January 1, 1980 has been requested, background information is necessary to put those cases in context. In the 30 years prior to 1980 there were only a handful of alleged intentional tort cases in the United States. These were principally cases involving a disgruntled former member wishing a refund of his or her donations, and who included tort causes of action as a litigation tactic. Such cases were typically dismissed without a trial or settled for a refund of the donations made.
The response to Question 3 (d) describes in detail how during the 1970s the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) acted as an autonomous organization unchecked and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church. GO staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of government offices for which eleven members of the GO were prosecuted and convicted. There were also instances in which GO staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy.
Although these activities involved a very small number of Guardian’s Office staff members operating autonomously in violation of Church policy and the law, their actions provided ammunition for those who would attack the Church and damaged the Church’s credibility with courts and the government. The GO carried out several years of secretive, questionable and often illegal activities before they were exposed and stopped. Much of this was recorded in documents that were seized in FBI raids on GO offices and made publicly available during the criminal prosecutions of GO members. The Commodore’s Messenger Organization
10-7
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152078investigated and disbanded the GO in the early 1980s, dismissing a large number of GO members from Church staff along with a few GO sympathizers in Church management. The GO documents and the activities that they revealed, along with a small group of rabid apostates, came to the attention of Boston personal injury attorney Michael Flynn, who concluded that this combination made the Church an easy litigation target in cases which he hoped to position for large monetary settlements.
Michael Flynn
Flynn, whose practice had theretofore centered on medical malpractice, launched his litigation assault on the Church of Scientology in 1979. His formula, which he repeated in all of the cases he brought, was to: (1) locate someone who had left the Church, had been purged or who could be induced to leave the Church; (2) convince the person to file “cookie-cutter” fraud and emotional distress claims; and (3) commence an action through an inflammatory complaint, relying on documents from the Guardian’s Office to give an air of false credibility to the claims.
Flynn, however, did not sue the GO; instead, his targets were Churches of Scientology generally and L. Ron Hubbard. As part of his design, Flynn enlisted the aid of ousted GO sympathizers and former GO members as witnesses, thus enabling him to orchestrate a highly prejudicial portrayal of Scientology for judges and juries and for the media.
On a separate front, Flynn set out to create broader problems for the Church in the hope both of spreading Church resources thin and imparting a false air of credence to his civil claims. This he accomplished by instigating governmental investigations and attacks on the Church, often through IRS personnel who were more than willing to cooperate.
The Van Schaick Action
Flynn’s first step was to file a class action lawsuit on December 13, 1979, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.. No. 79-2491-G. In that action, Van Schaick, purporting to act as a supposed class representative, alleged an array of torts and sought $200 million in damages. However, no class certification was ever pursued by Flynn. Instead, he used the lurid allegations and huge prayer of the Van Schaick complaint as a tool for soliciting additional clients to sue the
10-8
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152079
Church. Ultimately, Flynn recruited 28 plaintiffs to file virtually identical actions in various jurisdictions.
Flynn Associates Management Corporation
In 1980, Flynn created a corporate entity to promote his burgeoning business of suing the Church. Flynn Associates Management Corporation (“FAMCO”) was formed, in the words of a FAMCO document, to promote four basic goals:
- Closing Scientology organizations (Churches)
- Adverse media
- Adverse public reaction
- Federal and state attacks (on religion)
FAMCO was merely a front designed to generate money to finance Flynn’s litigation against the Church. A “get rich quick” scheme outlined in one FAMCO document actually promised FAMCO “investors” between $2 and $4 for every $1 invested in FAMCO shares. FAMCO was essentially a franchising scheme through which Flynn solicited co-counsel in various other jurisdictions to join in the Church litigation through a fee-splitting system. Flynn’s plan was “. . . to position ourselves such that to fight us would be cost ineffective.” He forecast “One thousand lawsuits (against the Church of Scientology) . . . by the end of 1981.” Flynn provided attorneys with “turn-key” lawsuits. He promised other attorneys that, “We provide the clients, the damages, the pleadings, the memoranda, the documents, the witnesses and virtually everything required for an instantaneous trial with little or no necessity for discovery.”
Flynn’s Probate Gambit
A particularly outrageous tactic employed by Flynn was his attempt to steal Mr. Hubbard’s estate by inducing Mr. Hubbard’s estranged son, Ronald DeWolfe, to bring a probate action in November 1982, falsely alleging that Mr. Hubbard was missing and that DeWolfe should be appointed to control the estate. At the same time, of course, Flynn was representing a group of former Scientologists who had named Mr. Hubbard as a defendant in civil suits against the Church, alleging that Mr. Hubbard controlled the Church as its managing agent. Flynn thus achieved the unique distinction of going into one court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard controlled the day-to-day operations of the Church through a constant stream of orders to Mr. Miscavige, and then crossing the hall to another court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard was ill and dying and that he was being manipulated by his close advisors, especially Mr. Miscavige. By being willing to speak out of both sides of
10-9
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152080
his mouth, Flynn was seeking to get rich by trying to gain control of the very estate he was simultaneously seeking to plunder./1
After Flynn’s probate action was dismissed on summary judgment in June of 1983, Flynn shifted gears and announced that his “real” purpose in bringing the probate action had been to force Mr. Hubbard out of seclusion so he could be served in Flynn’s other cases.
One of Flynn’s clients, Paulette Cooper, graphically described in an affidavit how Flynn detailed to her his strategy to “quickly and easily win” cases by “conducting an attack against Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard” by naming him as a defendant in her pending lawsuits. Flynn specifically told Cooper that he believed that “Hubbard would never appear” in those suits because “by approximately 1979, Mr. Hubbard had severed his ties with the
Church.” Flynn boasted that such a ploy would result in quick money judgments because the litigation could be “quickly terminated, either by obtaining a default judgment against Mr. Hubbard,” or by forcing “settle[ment] in order to protect Mr. Hubbard.” Cooper further affirmed that Flynn filed sworn statements by Cooper in her cases alleging Mr. Hubbard’s control when Cooper lacked any evidence whatsoever of the claim, “solely for strategic reasons in pursuit of default judgment.”Government Support for the Flynn Campaign
As noted above, Flynn obtained government assistance to lend credence and momentum to his attacks and to bring additional pressure on the Church. Tactics, strategies and the goal of the destruction of the Scientology religion were shared and carried out by Flynn in coordination with some parts of the IRS and Department of Justice. The clearest examples of this collusion were in the fall and winter of 1984.
In August of 1984, in civil litigation between churches of Scientology and the IRS and other federal government agencies that had been in progress for some years, the government worked with Flynn in importing one of Flynn’s principal tactics into the Church’s government litigation, namely seeking the deposition of L. Ron Hubbard as managing agent of the Church and then seeking dismissal or default as
1/ It was during that same time period that Charles Rumph of the IRS National Office told Mr. Miscavige that he lacked credibility because he was an “automaton” who only did and said what L. Ron Hubbard told him to do and say.
10-10
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152081a sanction if Mr. Hubbard failed to appear. The evidence used to support the government’s motions to compel those depositions were declarations by individuals who were clients of or had been witnesses for Flynn. Simultaneously, the government launched an “unclean hands” defense in these same suits based on allegations and claims that mirrored those that Flynn had asserted in his redundant lawsuits nationwide.
Two of the government’s principal declarants were Flynn’s client Laurel Sullivan and Flynn witness Dede Reisdorf. Sullivan had been removed from her position and later left the Church because she conspired with the GO to place GO members who had committed crimes in positions of corporate authority within the Church. She was a loser in the purge. Flynn provided her to the IRS who used her as a government witness represented by DOJ attorneys in Flynn litigation. Dede Reisdorf was also a GO sympathizer who was removed from her post in 1981 when she tried to block the investigation in the GO.
In March of 1985, based on the declarations of Sullivan and Reisdorf, Judge Joyce Hens Greene ordered the Church to produce Mr. Hubbard for deposition or face dismissal of a civil suit against the government which was in the process of exposing 20 years of false reports and harassment against Scientology and Scientologists. Unable to comply with the order as Mr. Hubbard was not running the Church or even accessible to anyone in the Church, the Church’s suit was dismissed in April of 1985 as a discovery sanction.
A few courts saw through the charade and refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. One such Judge was District Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer, who, on January 24, 1986, just hours before Mr. Hubbard’s passing, refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. In her ruling, Judge Pfaelzer held that, while Mr. Hubbard was “accorded reverence and respect by Scientologists,” he was not the managing agent of the Church corporations.
IRS CID Support of Flynn
It was during this same period that the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Los Angeles commenced a criminal investigation of L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and various churches of Scientology and other Scientologists. According to the testimony of CID Branch Chief Phillip Xanthos, the impetus for the investigation was a newspaper article detailing allegations made by Flynn and a number of his witnesses and clients. In fact, the majority of the individuals who were interviewed and used as informants by the CID in their investigation were from Flynn’s stable of
10-11
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152082witnesses and clients, among them Gerry Armstrong. In a late 1984 police-authorized video tape surveillance, Armstrong — a Sullivan ally who had made several attempts to join the GO’s intelligence office — was recorded plotting a take-over of the Church. The plan included planting phony documents that would then be seized in a CID raid, the filing of a new lawsuit by Flynn which was designed to wrest control of the Church from its legitimate leaders and to set up the sexual compromise and blackmail of a senior Scientologist.
Just as Flynn expressed his goal of destroying the Church in his original planning papers, in the Special Agents report prepared at the end of the CID investigation, the agents expressed the same aim — “the final halt” and the “ultimate disintegration” of the Church of Scientology.
Resolution of Flynn Cases:
Between 1980 and 1986, Flynn was either counsel of record, of counsel or coordinating counsel on 40 virtually identical lawsuits against the Church. Flynn’s plan to incite 1,000 lawsuits never came to fruition, and his plan to break the Church financially, failed. By 1986, only one of Flynn’s cases had gone to trial. That case, Stifler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, involved an altercation between Stifler and a Church disseminator in which Stifler claimed injuries.2/ He found his way to Michael Flynn and filed suit, alleging various tortious conduct on the part of the Church and sought $4,250,000 in damages. Flynn took the case to trial and Stifler was awarded the amount of his medical bills ($979) in a judgment against the individual Church member. There was no judgment or damages against either of the Churches.
Realizing his plan had failed, Flynn approached the Church in 1986 offering a settlement. The Church decided to pay nuisance value to get rid of the distraction created by these cases, begin a new era of expansion for Scientology and to settle matters with the IRS. The first two of these objectives were achieved and all of the Flynn-related cases, as listed below, were settled if they had not been previously dismissed already. A new era of expansion did begin for Scientology.
2/ The only other “Flynn” case that went to trial was Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, a suit the Church brought against Armstrong, over Armstrong’s theft of Church archival materials. Armstrong brought a counter-suit with intentional tort claims which was never tried and was part of the Flynn settlement.
10-12
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152083It also appeared that a settlement with the IRS would be possible, but after years of good faith efforts and cooperation by the Church in its efforts to settle with the IRS, agents in the Los Angeles IRS Criminal Investigation Division and hardliners against Scientology in the National Office, such as Marcus Owens, sabotaged those efforts causing the negotiations to break down, as is covered in more detail later.
The following is the list of the Flynn-related suits that were either dismissed or settled: Gerald Armstrong v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., (cross-complaint), No. C 420 153, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Jose Baptista v. Church of Scientology Mission of Cambridge, No. Civ. 81010, Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Mark D. Barron v. Church of Scientology of Boston, No. 5110, Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Donald Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 81 Civ. 6864 (MJL), United States District Court Southern District of New York; Peggy Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York et al.; No. 81 Civ. 4688 (MJL) United States District Court Southern District of New York; Phillip Bride v. Church of Scientology of Portland, Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al.. No. A 8003-01189, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County; Eileen Brown for Kevin Brown v. Delphian Fdn., et al. No. 81-435 (FBL); United States District Court of New Jersey transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 28, 1982; Tonja C. Burden v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 80-501-Civ-T-K, U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology. No. 82-886-Civ-T-15 United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. 81- 3472-CA-OI, Circuit Court Seventh Judicial Circuit Volusia County; John G. Clark, Jr. v. L. Ron Hubbard No. 85-356-MCN, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Bent Corydon and Mary Corydon, Mark Lutovsky, Phil Black, Mark Chacon, Church of Sciologos v. Church of Scientology Mission of Riverside, et al., No. 154129, Superior Court of the State of California County of Riverside; Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al., No. 81 681 MC United States District Court, District of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn, Lucy Garritano, Steven Garritano, James Gervais and Peter Graves v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., (counter-claim), No. 40906 Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J.
10-13
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152084Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 54258, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology International, et al., CV 85-4853, United States District Court, Central District of California; Michael J. Flynn v. L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, Church of Scientology of California, No. 83-2642-C, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Carol A. and Paul Garrity v. Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and L. Ron Hubbard, CV 81-3260 RMT (JRX), United States District Court Central District of California; Hansen, Marjorie J. v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Church of Scientology of California, No. 47074, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Betsy Harper v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, No. 65262, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Ernest and Mary Adell Hartwell, v. Church of Scientology of California et al., No. 196800, Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for County of Clark; Thomas Jefferson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-3261, United States District Court Central District of California; Deborah Ann Keck v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., CV-81-6060 R, United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dana Lockwood v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-4109 CBM, United States District Court Central District of California; Nancy and John McLean, v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 81-174-Civ-T-K United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division; Steven R. Pacca v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 12076-81, Supreme Court New York County; Jane Lee and Richard Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, CV 81-3259 CBM (KX), United States District Court Central District of California; Patrick R. Rosenkjar v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, and Mary Sue Hubbard, No. 81-1350, United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Martin Samuels, v. L. Ron Hubbard, A8311-07227, In the Circuit of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah; Howard D. Schomer v. L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. CV 84-8335, U.S. District Court, Central District of California; Michael W. Smith v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47236, Superior Court for the State of Massachusetts; Manfred Stansfield, Valerie Stansfield, Franklin Freedman et al. v. Norman Starkey, et al., No. CA 001 012, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles; Lawrence Stiffler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Roger Sylvester, No. 44706, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Gabor Szabo v. Church of Scientology of California and Vanguard
10-14
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152085Artists International, No. C 312 329, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Janet Troy v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 41073, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Kim L. Vashel v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47237, Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Margery Wakefield v. Church of Scientology of California, No. 82-1313 Civ-T-10 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division. Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. C 694401, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Other Categories of Cases:
Although the cases generated by Michael Flynn comprised the majority of tort litigation against the Church of Scientology between 1980 and 1986, there were some other cases that arose during the same period of time that were not entirely “Flynn” cases although they were generally of the same ilk. Flynn shared information, witnesses, tactics and sometimes acted as coordinating counsel for other attorneys involved in similar litigation against the Church. In other instances, while there was no apparent direct link between Flynn and a particular plaintiff or attorney in a suit, the similarity of claims and tactics suggests that these individuals or attorneys were copying Flynn’s strategy. The following cases fall into this category: Alberto Montoya v. L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology, et al., No. 450094, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; Joan Edin v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al., No. 287191, Rita Engelhardt B. v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 312 692, Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles. Each of those cases was dismissed.
There are a few cases where Flynn’s influence was felt that deserve separate discussion as they are cases that actually went to trial and were adjudicated.
Christofferson:
The Christofferson case was actually originally filed in 1977, prior to the period covered by the Service’s question.
In 1977, after taking a few elementary courses at the Church of Scientology Mission of Portland and working for a short time at another organization, Julie Christofferson was kidnapped and, over a four day period, deprogrammed to give up her religion by convicted felon Ted Patrick. She was
10-15
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152086then turned over to attorneys by the anti-religion group involved so she could bring suit against the Church on a contingent fee basis.
At trial, Christofferson’s attorneys derided and distorted Scientology’s beliefs and practices to such an extent that the Oregon State Court of Appeals overturned the $2 million verdict, finding that Scientology is a religion and that the trial had been rife with First Amendment violations. Upon remand, Christofferson’s lawyers — by then FAMCO members — applied Flynn’s tactics and inflamed a jury into a $39 million verdict that led the trial court to declare a post-verdict mistrial in May of 1985. There never was another trial. The Christofferson case was part of the 1986 global settlement with Flynn.
Wollersheim
Larry Wollersheim had been in and out of churches of Scientology for over a decade before he finally left for good in 1979. While in the Church he was continually in trouble over his unethical business practices. He filed suit against the Church for a variety of claims, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, No. C-332-027, in State Court in Los Angeles in 1980, represented by attorney Charles O’Reilly, a participant in the original FAMCO planning meetings.
During the five month trial in 1986, O’Reilly applied the FAMCO tactics and relied upon Flynn’s stable of witnesses and obtained an absurd verdict of $30,000,000.
While the Wollersheim case is still going through the appeals process, the jury verdict has been reduced to $2,500,000 from its original $30,000,000, and further appeals are pending.
GO Criminal Activity Fallout Litigation:
Another category of cases involved Guardian’s Office members or stemmed from GO illegal activities. This included, for example, proceedings to compel testimony before a grand jury convened in Florida to investigate GO activities and an action by the State of Florida to disbar Merrell Vannier, an attorney who was also a GO operative and who violated the canons of ethics as an attorney. It was this kind of activity that was rooted out and condemned in the disbanding of the GO. Nonetheless a certain amount of fall-out litigation from the years of GO criminality had to be expected. Cases falling into this category — i.e., cases which were not against the Church but which present allegations about the GO — are as follows: The Florida
10-16
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152087Bar v. Merrell G. Vannier,. No. 61,691, Supreme Court of Florida (Vannier was disbarred); Merrell and Francine Vannier v. Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, No. 60 478, Supreme Court of California (Vannier lost an appeal against an extradition order); In re Charles Batdorf; United States v. Batdorf, No. 80 CV Misc (MM-188), United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Batdorf convicted); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Mitchell Hermann, Peggy Tyson, Richard Weigand, and Duke Snider), Nos. 80-5 Misc-T-H and 80-614 CIV-T-H, Municipal District State of Florida — Tampa Division (investigation dropped); United States v. Stephen E. Poludniak. Libby Wiegand, No. 80-00143 CR (1), United States District Court for the Second District of Missouri (defendants plead guilty).
The Mayo Cases:
Mayo was removed from a senior post in 1982 due to unethical conduct and the discovery that he had altered Scientology religious practice and Scriptures. Mayo then left the Church and along with a few other ex-Scientologists established the Church of the New Civilization, dba Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara, California, where he delivered his own version of Scientology religious services to ex-Scientologists. He also sought the defection of Church members in order to build his membership. Mayo then acquired copies of certain confidential advanced Scientology Scriptures which had been stolen by some of Mayo’s confederates from a Church facility in Denmark.
As a result, in 1985, Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology of International and Church of Scientology of California sued David Mayo and others in a suit alleging RICO causes of action based on the conspiracy to acquire the secret confidential materials of the Scientology religion and use them for the economic advantage of Mayo’s organization and other related splinter groups. This litigation consists of the consolidated cases, including counter-claims, of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Scott, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Dal. 1988), No. CV 85-711 JMI (Bx) and Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Wollersheim, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1985) No. CV 85-7197 JMI (Bx).
Although this litigation is still ongoing, Mayo’s Advanced Ability Center has long since ceased to operate and the various individuals who had been associated with it have for the most part scattered to different areas.
The IRS has been supportive of Mayo’s efforts. Mayo became an IRS informant during the CID investigation of the
10-17
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152088mid-80’s. Whereas Scientology organizations have been unable to obtain exempt status, the IRS granted exempt status to Church of the New Civilization – even though it had closed its operations and its sole remaining business was to contest this litigation. Further, much of this litigation is financed by wealthy psychiatrist Sarge Gerbode. In 1986, Gerbode formed a trust known as the “Friends of the First Amendment.” The IRS granted exempt status to this anti-Scientology fundraising entity, and Gerbode has funnelled in excess of $1.4 million dollars to fund Mayo’s litigation through that trust as charitable tax deductions for himself.
The Aznaran/Yanny Litigation:
Vicki Aznaran is the former President of Religious Technology Center and her husband, Richard, is a former Church staff member. Vicki was removed from her position by the Trustees of RTC in March 1987 as she had betrayed the trust of her position and was not acting in the best interests of the religion. By her own testimony, she first got in trouble when she sought to place an ex-GO criminal in RTC’s personnel department. Vicki and her husband then left the Church after Vicki’s removal.
Joseph Yanny served as an attorney for RTC and various churches from 1983 until November of 1987. His primary contact with the Church was with RTC and Vicki Aznaran, with whom he developed a close personal relationship.
After Vicki’s departure, the new officers of RTC examined Yanny’s performance, determined it to be sub-standard, and learned that he was a user of LSD. He was then discharged.
Upon his termination, a billing dispute erupted between Yanny and the Church, and Yanny enlisted the aid of the Aznarans in supporting him in his billing dispute and, in exchange, acted as de facto counsel for the Aznarans in helping them prepare and file a lawsuit against his former clients. The Aznaran suit, Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1988), No. CV 88-1786 JMI, was filed on April 1, 1988. Despite Vicki Aznaran’s high ecclesiastical position as the head of RTC for a number of years, her suit portrays her as a victim who didn’t know for all these years that she was really “brainwashed” and under “mind control” – plus the other stock inflammatory allegations that characterize this sort of litigation. It seeks $70,000,000 in damages and is still pending.
Shortly after the Aznaran complaint was filed, Yanny
10-18
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152089received from Vicki Aznaran a declaration by her as the former President of RTC supporting Yanny’s claim that a retainer he received in 1985 was “non-refundable.” Yanny used this declaration in his fee dispute over the retainer which is now in litigation along with claims against Yanny for his breach of his fiduciary duties.
Even before the Aznaran case was filed, Al Lipkin, one of the agents who conducted the IRS’s CID investigation in 1984 and 1985, was in contact with Yanny and the Aznarans. It was Lipkin who arranged for the Aznarans to be interviewed by Exempt Organizations agents from Los Angeles who were conducting an on-site review of Church records, ostensibly the final step in negotiations concerning tax exempt status for Scientology churches. The day after issuing summonses to the Aznarans to be interviewed and to produce documents relating to their lawsuit, the same agents issued document requests to Religious Technology Center asking RTC to produce Vicki Aznaran as a corporate officer of RTC.
While the allegations of the Aznaran complaint serves as the purported reason for the summonses and interview, in reality the taped interview was a contrived setting for an IRS/Aznaran diatribe against the Scientology religion and L. Ron Hubbard, with the IRS agents urging the Aznarans to press their litigation and the Aznarans urging that the tapes of the interview be furnished to Lipkin and LA IRS CID.
It was the Church’s discovery of this event which precipitated the breakdown of the earlier negotiations between the Church and the IRS.
Coincident with their interview with the IRS, the Aznaran’s personal tax problems evaporated and their private investigation business was retained by Guess? Jeans — the large jeans manufacturer that Al Lipkin befriended during an earlier IRS CID investigation (which also involved tampering with civil litigation and was the subject of a Congressional investigation).
The Aznaran suit is still pending at this time and has not yet gone to trial. Meanwhile Yanny has pursued an agenda to cause as much harm as possible to the Church by repeatedly betraying his fiduciary duties as former Church counsel by providing information concerning the Church to the Aznarans and a number of other litigants against the Church, as well as to the IRS and the FBI.
10-19
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152090Other Current Litigation:
Several other suits are pending against Churches of Scientology that allege some form of tort claim. Although there are variations in the claims and different attorneys representing the plaintiffs, there is one common denominator underlying most of these suits: the influence of the Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”).
CAN, which the IRS has recognized as exempt under section 50l (c) (3) as an educational organization, is in fact a bigoted hate group that targets and tries to destroy churches and religions. CAN’s principal activities are negative propaganda campaigns, covert dissemination of false information for purposes of subversion and acting as a referral service for deprogrammers on a fee sharing arrangement. Although complaints have been made to the IRS about CAN’s continued exempt status in light of its true activities, no action has been taken.
The Church of Scientology is presently CAN’S principal target for attack, and CAN’s favorite tactic is to spread false and defamatory information about the Church through all available means while holding itself out as an authority on the subject. When contacted by anyone with a complaint about the Church, CAN manipulates them to attack the Church either through the media or by referring them to an anti-Scientology attorney.
The majority of the suits against Churches of Scientology recently filed and presently pending, that have not been otherwise discussed above, fall into this category. None has gone to trial. The following are cases instigated or influenced by CAN either directly or as a result of one of CAN’s spread of false information: Terry Dixon v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Portland, et al., No. 9010-08200 Multnomah County – Circuit Court of Oregon (in arbitration); John Finucane, David Miller, Alexander Turbyne v. Emery Wilson Corporation, et al., No. C 045216, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (pending); Dorothy Fuller, an individual v. Applied Scholastics International, et al., No. 92K 11466, Municipal Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (just filed); Lisa Stuart Halverson v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al., No. 92K11186, Municipal Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (settled); Thomas and Carol Hutchinson v. Church of Scientology of Georgia, et al., No. D90315, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia (pending); Mark Lewandowski v. Church of Scientology of Michigan, et al., No.
10-20
CSI Prod 11-4-93
15209191-421716-LZ, State of Michigan in the Oakland Circuit Court (pending); Peter and Francis Miller v. Church of Scientology et al., No. 027140, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (case abated re the Church and in arbitration re Sterling); Ted Patrick, et al. v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., State Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah (dismissed); Dee and Glover Rowe v. Church of Scientology of Orange County, et al., No. BC 038955, Superior Court of California (pending); Frank and Joan Sanchez v. Sterling Management Systems, et al., No. 91-224-CV, 4th Judiciary District Court San Miguel County, State of New Mexico (pending); Thomas Spencer v. The Church of Scientology, et al., BC 026740, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (settled); Irene Zaferes v. Church of Scientology, Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles (dismissed); Jo Ann Scrivano v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 87-1277, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (in discovery stage); Marissa Alimata and Richard Wolfson v. Church of Scientology of California, etc., et al., No. C 650 988, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (judgment entered for the Church).
Personal Injury, Medical-Related Suits:
Another category of lawsuits involve claims by individuals who have been injured on Church premises or in some way attributed responsibility to the Church for an injury or death. For example, in the Rabel case listed below, a stereo speaker accidentally fell out of the window of a Scientology mission and hit someone on the street below. The case was settled. The Arbuckle case was brought by the parents of an individual who died while a parishioner of a church of Scientology. Although his death from kidney failure was traceable to his use of steroids, the case was settled to avoid expense of litigation. Each of this group of cases was either settled or dismissed. Mira Chaikin v. Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. 81 Civ 7525, United States District Court of the Southern District of New York; Gary and Susan Silcock v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Salt Lake, et al., No. C 86-7213, Third Judicial District Court for the Salt Lake County, Utah; Rimando, Pedro H. Irene Marshall v. The Church of Scientology of San Francisco, et al., No. C 669015, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Wendy and William Rabel v. Eric Rising, Jane Doe Rising, his wife; Church of Scientology Mission of University Way, et al., King County Superior Court, Washington State; Francine Necochea, a minor child, by her guardian Ad Litem
10-21
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152092Cecilia Garcia v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 165360, California Superior Court for the County of Riverside; Roxanne Friend v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. DC 018 003, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Bruce and Lynnel Arbuckle v. Skip Pagel M.D., Church of Scientology Celebrity Center Portland, et al., No. 8907-04119, Multnomah County, Oregon Circuit Court.
A final category of lawsuits includes cases that have arisen out of financial or property disputes or transactions involving individual Scientologists, their businesses or creditors or organizations or individuals that Churches of Scientology or related organizations have had financial dealings with. Often the Church is named in such cases simply as a perceived “deep pocket” or as a tactic to try to coerce a settlement. Such cases are typically dismissed or settled. These cases are as follows: In re Dynamic Publications Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Maryland (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. A Brilliant Film Company, et al., No. 164213, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. Marvin Price, et al., No. 165165, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Peter Siegel v. Religious Technology Center, et al., CV 89-5471, United States District Court, Central District of California (pending); Steve Dunning v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. 060613, California Superior Court County of Los Angeles (dismissed with prejudice); Jeff and Arlene Dubron v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. NCC 29267B, Superior Court of California Burbank Division (settled); Sherry Fortune v. Church of Scientology American Saint Hill Organization and Chuck Tingley, No. C 099061, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (dismissed as to the Church and settled as to Tingley); Vicki Adler v. American Sun, Inc., Church of Scientology of Los Angeles, SWC 81874, Torrance Superior Court of California (settled); Benham v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Dallas, No. 91-08216, 9th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (settled); Michael Burns v. The Recording Institute of Detroit, Inc., et al., No. 91-422334-CZ, Oakland County Circuit Court, State of Michigan (pending); Clay Eberle and Eberle & Jordan Law Firm v. Church of Scientology of California, No. NCC 166486, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles in the City of Glendale (dismissed in favor of the Church); Mario Metellus v. Church of Scientology of New York, Linda Barragan, No. 01133-89, Superior Court of the State of New York, County of New York (settled).
10-22
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152093CONCLUSION:
The civil litigation campaign against the Church in the 1980’s was unscrupulous in its creation and execution. Using the crimes of the GO and the GO’s documents, Flynn and others have manufactured meritless claims and secured the survival of those claims against the very people and organizations which uncovered the GO’s crimes and harrassment, put an end to GO misconduct, and rid Scientology of the criminals who were responsible for the GO’s terrible legacy. In that regard, the unsettling truth is that what can correctly be characterised as the GO’s last operation, was the litigation campaign the GO criminals, Flynn and his confederates and their IRS allies launched against the people and organizations which put an end to the GO.
* * * *
10-23
CSI Prod 11-4-93
152094
Notes
- This document in PDF format. Text sources: gerryarmstrong.org; xenu-directory.net; archive.org ↩