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 7) (July 10, 2002)
871
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,
Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants._______________________________________/
PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1
VOLUME 7
DATE: July 10, 2002. Afternoon Session.
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500872
APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. LEE FUGATE
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. HOWARD ROSS
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.873
THE COURT: You may be seated.
All right. Mr. Weinberg, you may continue.
MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, you said earlier today — we got into this conversation — that you didn’t know until it was too late basically, in March of 1987, that RTC had trustees.
That is what you said, right?
A Or the role of the trustees, how that operated corporately. Yes, Mr. Weinberg.
Q And you didn’t know, until the day you were demoted, that David Miscavige was one of those trustees. You didn’t know that, either?
A Again, I didn’t know the role of a trustee, what they did. I didn’t have the — the idea of what they did. Correct, Mr. Weinberg.
Q Well, let me show you a couple of documents that we’ll have the reporter mark — reporter, the clerk.
MR. WEINBERG: This is our next document.
THE CLERK: 229.
MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 229.
And this one would be 230, right?
THE CLERK: Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 230.
874
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, this is 229. The thick one is 230.
A Okay. Is this stuff that I keep later?
Q Yes, we can just keep it here for the moment, and then if there is any originals — there is one —
THE COURT: If there are any copies, you can keep them, or give them to Mr. Dandar, or —
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll return these exhibits back to the clerk.
THE COURT: If they’re originals, you need to be sure they get back to the clerk.
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. WEINBERG: Before I forget, let me return these exhibits for some reason I took.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right, now if you’ll look at 229, Mr. Prince —
A Is that this one right here?
Q That is the short run, Unanimous Written Consent of the Directors and Trustees of the Religion Technology Center.
A Yes.
Q Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And you see you executed that document as a
875
director?
A Yes. Yes, sir, I see my signature on there.
Q You see the three trustees executed that document as trustees, Lyman Spurlock, David Miscavige, and can you read the last one?
A Mmm, David Miscavige is the last one, isn’t it?
Q I think it is the second one.
A The second one is I think looks like Starkey.
Q David Miscavige is the last one. Do you know who the second one is?
A Norman Starkey. And the first one is Lyman Spurlock, I believe.
Q So certainly at that point in time you must have been aware there were trustees?
A Mr. Weinberg, I’m going to say this and it may sound incredible, but as a director, at least in this corporation, Mr. McShane was actually the secretary. I would often sign things because it was required to be signed.
You know, this isn’t anything that we all signed simultaneously. This could have been given to me and Vicki signs it, Jesse signs it, Warren signs it, send it along to OSA, then they sign it.
Q You were familiar, as director, as you said, the number two guy in RTC, you were familiar with the bylaws of the Religious Technology Center, correct?
876
A You know, I wouldn’t say so.
Q Well, can you pick those bylaws up, please?
A Yes, I can.
Q What is the exhibit number on that?
A Mine doesn’t have an exhibit number.
THE COURT: 230.
MR. WEINBERG: 230?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And do you see that if you go to the last page, it is dated June 15, 1982?
A Yes.
Q All right. If you go to —
MR. WEINBERG: In fact, if I can approach the witness it will be easier.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q — Article 6, Section 1 —
A Where am I?
Q Article 6, Section 1.
A That is Article 7, so this must be Article 6 right here. Section 7 — what section number?
Q Article 6, Section 1. Right here.
A All right.
Q See that?
A Yes.
877
Q And that is trustees. You see that?
A Uh-huh. Yes.
Q And you see that the bylaws of the organization that you say you were number two in says, and I quote:
“The sole purpose of the board of trustees shall be to elect directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this purpose, the trustees may remove a director who fails to meet the qualifications of a director or who conducts himself in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of Article 1 through 4 of these bylaws and the survival of Scientology. In addition, the trustees shall have the power to change the trustees.”
Isn’t that exactly what happened in March of 1987, that you and Vicki Aznaran were removed by the trustees pursuant to the bylaws of the RTC because you-all had failed to meet the qualifications of a director because you conducted yourself in a manner that was contrary to these bylaws and the survival of Scientology because you had been part of an out-tech operation?
A Is that a question?
THE COURT: That was awfully —
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: Break that down.
A My signature isn’t on here, by the way, as a director on these bylaws.
878
But these bylaws are signed by Steven Marlowe, Laura Marlowe and someone else.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Right, because in 1982 you weren’t a director, you became a director after 1982.
A That is correct.
Q And I assume when you became director, you said you had all this responsibility, you must have — must have familiarized yourself with what the purpose, as set forth in the bylaws and articles of incorporation of the organization that you were part of, was.
A Well, that, in itself, would be an assumption that would have to be ratified by my testimony. And my testimony is, is that I have never been a person that was legal-minded and really understood corporate and bylaws and things like that. I just wasn’t.
THE COURT: Did you ever read this document?
THE WITNESS: I can’t say that I have.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q But you —
A My signature is not on any part of this.
Q You understand now, after having seen this document, seen Title 6, you understand that you were removed in March of 1987 pursuant to the bylaws of RTC by the trustees as a result of your misconduct? You understand
879
that now, don’t you?
A No. No.
THE COURT: He already testified why he believes he was removed. It would not be consistent with this.
Obviously, the directors, if they were here, would testify differently that it was pursuant to this.
MR. WEINBERG: The trustees.
THE COURT: The trustees.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, you can put that down.
A Okay.
Q Now —
THE COURT: I mean, I guess pursuant to your question as to wasn’t this true and wasn’t that true where he said no, that was coming from somewhere.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE COURT: So I assume — that would have been what somebody else might have said, but he disagrees with that.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you testified on direct that as soon as — as it became known that you were now going to work against
880
Scientology, that you were threatened by Elliot Abelson, the lawyer, is that what you said?
A I said I received a letter threatening to sue me from Mr. Elliot Abelson.
Q And — and you understood from receiving that letter that the problem was that you had signed a release upon your departure from Scientology — from the Sea Org in 1992, among other things promising not to — to work against the Church of Scientology, or something to that effect?
A I would have to see that, if you —
Q Okay.
A — have it here.
MR. WEINBERG: Let me have a couple of things marked, your Honor.
Your Honor, here is 231. It is one exhibit.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This whole package is 231, Mr. Prince.
A Okay, thank you.
Q Now, do you see Exhibit 231, Mr. Prince?
A I’m looking at it right now, Mr. Weinberg.
MR. WEINBERG: While he’s looking at it, your Honor, I’ll mark as 232 the following document.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That is 232.
A Okay.
881
Q Have you had a chance to look at 231?
A Yes.
Q All right. And is that the correspondence that you remember getting from Mr. Abelson?
A Yes.
Q And that includes a letter that — which is the second page — sent by hand-delivery to you in Minneapolis on July 24, 1998 from Mr. Abelson, along with a copy of the release. And then the first page is a letter of that same date to you in care of Leipold, Donahue & Shipe, do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And is this the full extent of the communications between you and the Church of Scientology, Mr. Abelson, at that time in July of 1998 with regard to whether or not you could or would be a witness?
A Mmm, no. As I worked — I mean — I mean, I had private investigators actually trying to stop me on the street to hand me this letter.
Q I’m just asking you about any other communications with Mr. Abelson.
A With Mr. Abelson? Not that I recall specifically.
Q Then am I correct that you got Mr. Leipold, who you were already working with, I guess, at the time, to file a lawsuit?
882
A Correct.
Q And that is Exhibit —
MR. WEINBERG: What did I say? The lawsuit?
MR. DANDAR: 232.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And that is Exhibit 232 in front of you, correct?
A Yes.
Q And that was a lawsuit filed on your behalf in — that was filed — date filed August 6, 1998 in Superior Court in California seeking to declare the release, which is one which is attached to that first exhibit, not valid as it pertained to your testimony. Is that right?
A You know, I’m sorry, Mr. Weinberg, I’m a little tired. But, you know, the question gets long. Then I don’t know what I’m supposed to be answering.
Q The purpose of this was to try to allow you to work in cases against the Church of Scientology?
A No. Not at all.
THE COURT: A dec action normally just to declare the rights of the parties.
MR. WEINBERG: That was my first question. And I tried to make it simpler.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I mean, you were asking the Court to declare that the release did not prohibit you from testifying?
883
A If that is what this says, yes.
Q Okay. And this case never — it just lay — you never prosecuted this case. Is that right?
A No, I never pursued it.
Q And the Church of Scientology didn’t — didn’t file any lawsuit against you?
A No.
Q And that release that was attached is the release that you were talking about that you signed in 1992, is that right?
A Under extreme duress, yes.
Q The extreme — did you sign it on the day that you left?
A I signed it on the 31st of October. But for whatever reason, Mr. Rathbun thought it would be more appropriate to make it November. So he wrote “November 1st” here.
But the actual date that I left that I was taken to the airport by the Scientology security official was the 31st of October.
Q Was it late at night that you signed it?
A No. But it was in the evening.
Q All right. Does it make a difference whether it is November 1st or October 31st?
A It makes a difference as far as accuracy is concerned.
884
Q And on this same day, you were — you talked to Mr. Rathbun in — in a recorded conversation?
A Yes.
Q And were you under any duress?
A Extreme duress, as is laid out in this complaint.
Q Did he threaten you during the conversation on the 31st?
A I was way past being threatened.
Q That was a simple question. Did he threaten you during the conversation that was recorded on the 31st?
A I don’t know. I would have to listen to it again.
Q Do you remember being threatened?
A No, I do not.
Q When you say duress, what are you talking about?
A Well —
THE COURT: He already talked about it throughout his testimony as to the whole schmear.
MR. WEINBERG: This is the last day when he decided to walk out.
THE COURT: I understand that, Counselor. But he already testified as to how he felt threatened and how he felt coerced and all that and how it came about.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: All this long tenure. But if you
885
are specifically asking about right before he signed is —
MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m asking.
THE COURT: But don’t suggest that is all he’s talking about because he talked about —
MR. WEINBERG: No. No, I’m talking about on the 31st when this was recorded.
A I’ll give you a simple statement. Unless I signed this, I would have been — remained a captive. Unless I did this, I would have remained incarcerated by Scientology.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, the first time that you — in 1987 when you went into the RPF, you actually walked out on your own, didn’t you?
A What do you mean?
Q Well, you have testified about it. You actually left the RPF and went into town, checked into a hotel —
A Escaped. I escaped. It just wasn’t walking. No. I escaped. And some Indians from the Soboba Springs Reservation put me in a truck and drove me to bingo hall so I could call the police. No, I escaped. I ran away from that place.
Q So you didn’t see Mr. Rathbun or anybody like that who paid for a hotel?
A Oh, they caught me on the road walking.
886
Q And they took you into town?
A Yeah.
Q So —
A In the back of a truck.
Q They didn’t take you back to the RPF?
A I wasn’t going to go back to the RPF. I made that clear. I told them if they wanted to speak with me or continue any kind of dialogue with me, it would be on my terms and not on their terms and — no longer on their terms.
That if they wanted to talk to me, I would sit still in a place a while.
So they went and paid for a hotel. I went and got a car, drove straight back to the RPF and got Vicki Aznaran out of there. Vicki Aznaran didn’t want to be there, either.
Q And they let her go, too?
A No. They had no choice.
Q What do you mean, they had no choice?
A I came in there with a car, driving up their dirt road so fast. I knew exactly where she was. As soon as I went in there, I grabbed her, put her in that car and we zoomed out the gate.
Q But the first time when you left, Mr. Rathbun picked you up on the road, and instead of taking you back to the RPF, he took you to a hotel in town and paid for a hotel
887
room?
A At my demand, yes.
Q Well, if you are a prisoner, what right do you have to demand anything?
A Because I’m in the public now. You see, I’m in the open now. I’m not in Scientology’s closed system where they can do whatever they want to and people can’t see. Now I’m out on the public road with public cars passing
by. And that affords — afforded some protection because it was a PR flap.
For me to be out there, a disgruntled staff member, extremely disgruntled staff member, leaving for my life, my God, I’m walking through the desert, it is 110 degrees, that is the reason why.
I told them, “I’m going straight to the police, straight to the press. I’m sick of you people.”
Q This is in 1987?
A Correct.
Q Then after a week or two or three or whatever it was, you then voluntarily went back to the RPF?
A No.
Q From the public?
A Mmm, Mr. Weiner (sic), you know on direct we covered this quite well, and I explained the whole situation about my wife, you know, how they wanted to split my wife
888
and I, I didn’t want to be split with her, I stayed there an extra five years until she came to. You know, I have that same testimony today.
Q One simple question. No one drug you back.
A Correct.
Q Now, you testified that — I think that you were shocked about private investigators and how a private investigator has been running around. I mean, I think —
THE COURT: Shocked? I don’t recall him being shocked.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q How do you recall it?
A Annoyed. Kind of surprised.
Q Now, after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, you actually became trained and worked in Texas as a private investigator, didn’t you?
You were certified?
A Correct.
Q And the person that trained you was Rick Aznaran, who had years before left the Church of Scientology?
A In 1989, I think — no, it was five years prior to me leaving. So, yes.
Q How long did you work as a private investigator?
A Oh, probably maybe — maybe four months, five months.
Q Now, let’s go to your August 1999 affidavit.
889
A Okay.
Q You are familiar with that affidavit, obviously. Right?
A Well, Mr. Weinberg, if we’re going to go through and do the word games with it, I certainly need to have it present in front of me.
MR. DANDAR: I might have it.
THE COURT: Which affidavit is this?
MR. WEINBERG: This is the one that the hearing is about, basically.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. DANDAR: I take that back. I thought I had it.
MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy of it?
THE COURT: Did you say this was the one dated the 1st of May of —
MR. WEINBERG: No. No. When I said the hearing, this is the August 20, 1999 affidavit, the one where the murder allegation was made.
THE COURT: I thought you said about this hearing.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know, it is the —
THE COURT: What number is that, Madam Clerk?
Could I have that? I don’t have it up here.
MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. There was no murder
890
allegation in the affidavit.
THE COURT: The objection is on the record.
We’ll deal with — the affidavit says whatever it says.
MR. DANDAR: It says what it says.
THE COURT: It says what it says.
MR. DANDAR: I just can’t find my copy.
THE COURT: This one, is this 108 or something like that?
MR. DANDAR: It is very possible.
THE COURT: Madam Clerk, look for 108, see what that is.
THE CLERK: Defense 108 or —
THE COURT: Oh, I don’t know.
MR. FUGATE: It is not 108, Judge.
THE COURT: No, that is not it.
MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I have one that I don’t think have any highlights on it — well, one highlight, nothing much.
THE COURT: That is all right, I don’t mind the highlights.
MR. WEINBERG: I can’t even find the one that did have highlights.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you have one, Mr. Prince?
891
A No, I do not.
Q Okay, I have another one.
THE COURT: This is in evidence or else it is attached to the response.
MR. DANDAR: And we would like it to be considered as evidence in this hearing.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, it needs to then be admitted — it hasn’t been admitted. Do you want to admit it as the defense next exhibit?
MR. DANDAR: That is fine.
MR. WEINBERG: How about plaintiff’s next exhibit?
MR. DANDAR: Or it could be a joint exhibit.
MR. WEINBERG: Frankly —
THE COURT: Make it your exhibit, Mr. Dandar.
MR. DANDAR: As well as the April 2002 exhibit of Mr. Prince which is also filed.
MR. WEINBERG: I am not to that one yet. Why don’t we start with this one?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: I think — are these the exhibits to it?
THE COURT: I don’t know that —
MR. WEINBERG: Yours don’t have it but it is just —
892
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I actually —
THE COURT: I don’t know what that is. Was it attached to his affidavit?
MR. WEINBERG: Apparently so.
THE COURT: Let me see it.
MR. DANDAR: It is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.
Yes, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.
THE COURT: Do you remember, Mr. Dandar, whether there were any attachments to his? I honestly don’t remember attachments, at least I wasn’t given — in the copy I was given. It doesn’t mean there weren’t some.
MR. DANDAR: My copy with me today has nothing attached to it. But —
THE COURT: Well, let’s just look, because if there are no attachments to it, then you need not —
MR. WEINBERG: This wouldn’t be something we want in, anyway. These are not attachments. But I think we’ll probably find that he refers to some in here somewhere.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MR. WEINBERG: Judge, why don’t we do this. I marked one without the attachments. Why don’t we just mark it without the attachments?
THE COURT: Okay.
893
MR. WEINBERG: Then we won’t have —
THE COURT: That will be plaintiff’s next in order.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE COURT: There will be no attachments. If you later find out there are attachments with it —
MR. WEINBERG: He already put into evidence the — with the motions —
MR. DANDAR: It is already in as 126 of the plaintiff.
THE COURT: 126?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE COURT: It is already in?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE COURT: Then we don’t need it in again, Counsel. Number 126.
MR. WEINBERG: But it doesn’t have attachments.
THE COURT: I’ll just use this one and give it back to you when we’re done. Whoops, now I have two of them.
MR. WEINBERG: I know, because I had given you one with attachments and one without.
THE COURT: I’ll use them. And when I’m done, I’ll give them both back to you.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Weinberg, I would like a
894
copy, as well.
THE COURT: Here. Take mine, the extra.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Prince, did I give you Pages 1 through 18?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q First of all, take a look at that affidavit. And go to the last page. And that is an affidavit that you executed on August 20, 1999, is that right?
A Correct.
Q And you executed it in Mr. Dandar’s office?
A Correct.
Q Now, you can put the affidavit down. I have some questions first.
A Okay.
Q You had, as of August 20, 1999, no personal knowledge as to what occurred in 1995 with regard to Lisa McPherson at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Correct?
A Correct.
Q You had — at that time you’d been out of Scientology, out of a — sorry, by that time you’d been out of an executive position at Scientology for — since 1987?
A Correct.
895
Q You were not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in 1995.
Correct?
A Correct.
Q You never spoke to anybody that was with Lisa McPherson while she was at the hotel in 1995. Correct?
A Well, let me think about that.
Q As of the time you executed your affidavit?
A Oh, not that I recall.
Q Okay. You had — at the time that you executed your affidavit in August of 1999, you had no knowledge — no personal knowledge as to what David Miscavige was doing or where he was from November 18, 1995 through December 5, 1995. Correct?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Yes, that is true?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true.
THE COURT: Okay. Now we are in important areas so I want the record to be clear on things like that.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, yet you opined in your affidavit —
MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me one second. (Short pause.)
896
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q If you go to Page 17.
A Okay.
Q You opined in your affidavit, in Paragraph 44, that:
“Lisa McPherson was held against her will in isolation. And when she did not respond to Scientology technical handling, Flag, on orders from David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun, sat mute and watched her die after she no longer had the strength to fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was a chosen option to minimize a public relations flap.”
That is what you said, correct?
A Correct.
Q At the time you said that, you did not have a shred — you did not have a piece of evidence indicating — indicating that in November and December of 1995 that either Mr. Mithoff or Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige had done one thing with regard to Lisa McPherson. Correct?
A Mmm, correct. I — you labeled this as my opinion, I think. You said I opined about these and this is what I did.
Q Go to Paragraph 34 — I mean Paragraph 43. I’m sorry, Page 17, same page. Paragraph 43, you say:
“Yet from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals, Mithoff, Rathbun and Miscavige, had no
897
option other than to permit her to die in isolation, rather than to take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physician, press and authorities, with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery.”
You said that. Right?
A Correct.
Q And — but when you said that, you didn’t have a shred of evidence that indicated that Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige made a decision to let her die.
Correct?
A This was my opinion, based on experience.
Q You didn’t have any evidence, did you?
A I had no physical evidence, no.
THE COURT: Could I ask him a question here?
MR. WEINBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: I hate to interrupt. At that time, at the time you wrote this, had the doctors, more particularly, Dr. — I can’t even think of his name now.
MR. DANDAR: Spitz.
THE COURT: — Spitz, had he been deposed yet?
Do you know, Mr. Prince?
THE WITNESS: I do not recall, your Honor.
898
THE COURT: In other words, this was before you had the medical testimony?
THE WITNESS: Mmm, I wouldn’t say that, either, no. I — I’m not sure about that, either. I know I have read medical testimony from Mr. Dandar’s experts concerning what —
THE COURT: Do you know whether you had knowledge of what that testimony — I mean, I have to presume you and Mr. Dandar, as his consultant, discussed what he knew, what you knew.
THE WITNESS: Sure.
THE COURT: But do you know whether or not you knew about the medical doctors before you wrote your affidavit, or not?
THE WITNESS: I — as I sit here today, your Honor, I don’t know.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q But you did know that the Church of Scientology had been charged criminally at this point. Right?
A Yes.
Q You were aware of what the medical examiner had said, correct? The autopsy report, all of the controversy? I mean, you were aware of all of that?
A Yes.
899
Q Now, you knew that by making an allegation like you did in your affidavit in August of 1999, that David Miscavige, the leader of the Church of Scientology, was part of an intentional decision to allow a fellow Scientologist who was on a religious program, introspection rundown, to die. You knew that making an allegation like that would — would be — would bring very negative press and very negative reactions from the Church. Correct?
A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know which part of that diatribe to respond to.
THE COURT: It wasn’t a diatribe. He said did you know that this would bring very negative reactions from the Church?
THE WITNESS: I mean, that was not in my awareness. That was not part of my thought process when I executed this document here. My thought process, in executing this document, is after reviewing the preclear folders, reviewing the caretaker notes, reviewing what other information that was available, which I had studied for months — you see, you say she was on the introspection rundown, yet your client cannot produce one sheet of paper —
THE COURT: See, you are well, well past —
THE WITNESS: Okay.
900
THE COURT: This question is real simple. His question was did you know, when you executed this affidavit, that this would cause negative reaction — I can’t remember what word you used — negative reaction from the Church?
THE WITNESS: Right. That was not in my conscious — consciousness to create that, you know, or — or — I mean I don’t think this ever appeared in the newspaper or — or anything like that. I mean, as far as public relations is concerned, I think this is a document that is held within this courtroom.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q No. It just appeared in a lawsuit that that document was the basis for that accused the Church of Scientology, specifically its leader, David Miscavige, of murder. It appeared in that. Right?
A I prepared this — this affidavit for this case.
Q Right. And that affidavit was the — was the principal piece of evidence that was used to seek the fifth amended complaint that made it very clear that there was a murder allegation against David Miscavige, among others. Correct?
A You know, you’re asking me to do — or to comment upon work that was actually Mr. Dandar’s work. Mr. Dandar
901
simply asked me, “What do you think happened with Lisa McPherson? Based on everything that you have read, what do you think happened to her?” Then we went, “Well, why do you think it happened to her? Well, can you show me? Can you tell me?”
And after we went through that process, I went over this many times because he was like, “Are you sure? Are you sure?” I said, “Look, this is the way it works here. I was here. I know how it works. I have seen this in operation.” You know, I’m not —
THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you are going on and on. And the long and short of it is you testified on direct examination, in response to questions either from your lawyer — or I should not say your lawyer, either from the person to whom you consult with or from me, that you’d never seen an end cycle ordered by David Miscavige —
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: — other than on a terminally ill person.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: So the long and short of it is you really didn’t have any experience for these particular serious allegations, did you?
902
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, your Honor. And I think with the first part of my testimony, when you see the pattern of the conduct of this organization in that it is not below them to do something illegal, it is not below them to put themselves before an individual, it is —
THE COURT: Well, then it was just speculative on your part. This is one of a number of possibilities that could have happened?
THE WITNESS: Right. Exactly.
THE COURT: This just happened to be the only one you mentioned?
THE WITNESS: Well, this is the only one I believe did happen.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Okay?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You knew — at the time you executed this affidavit that was the basis for the fifth amended complaint, you knew that there was no policy, no written policy, in the Church of Scientology with regard to killing someone who was on an introspection rundown. You knew that, didn’t you?
A Basically — no, there is no policy to kill people. There is nothing in the policy to kill people that
903
I know of.
Q Okay. And you have said many, many times over the course of this litigation if it isn’t written, it isn’t so. Correct?
That it is — it is all in writing, it is all written down, as far as Scientology policy. Correct?
A As far as Scientology policy is concerned, that is something that they say.
Q All right. Now, you had been — you had one experience with the introspection rundown where you actually were on an introspection rundown watching someone. That is Teresita. Correct?
A Correct.
Q And Ms. Brooks was on that same introspection rundown. Right?
A For a short period of time, yes.
Q And in that — and that went over the course of a month or so?
A A couple months.
Q A couple of months?
A Yes.
Q And people were with Teresita around the clock?
A Primarily myself was with her around the clock. But, you know, her being a young woman, sometimes she would need help going to the bathroom or, you know, cleaning herself up. That is when the girls would come, like Stacy
904
and another girl would help.
Q And part of 0 and 00 of the introspection rundown is the isolation part, right, which is what this watch was, and also getting food and — and nutrition so you can start auditing, try to get out of the psychotic state.
Correct?
A Almost correct. But the auditing pretty much happens immediately after the person has had a period of time asleep, such as eight hours, the auditing is immediately started.
Q If someone is still psychotic, in other words, out of their mind, not — not in present time, they can’t get audited, can they?
A Well, you know — no. You can audit an unconscious person. There are auditing processes where you can actually audit an unconscious person.
Q You didn’t receive an order to let Teresita die, did you?
A No. I did not.
Q No one received an order to let Teresita die?
A No.
Q Teresita was a staff member —
A Correct.
Q — who had a psychotic break, apparently.
Correct?
A You know —
905
Q Can you just answer that question?
A Okay, I am going to answer. But, you know, you talk about psychotic break. And again, you know, what are we talking about here?
THE COURT: We’re talking about somebody that barks like a dog, which is what you said she did.
That is somebody that had a psychotic break.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. Am I qualified to do a medical diagnosis? I don’t think so.
THE COURT: No, but we are all qualified in this room to know that somebody that is barking like a dog had something go wrong. And it is usually psychotic. Fair enough?
THE WITNESS: Is it temporary? Does it go on for weeks? Does it just happen for an hour? I mean, what are we talking about?
THE COURT: Let him ask his question and let him answer and we’ll all make our assumptions when it is over.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. What I’m talking about, when you were with her most of the time, you saw to it that she ate and that she drank. Correct?
A Correct.
Q And you — I think you have said in testimony,
906
whether it is — I think it was your affidavit, this affidavit that we’re looking at, 126, that at one point you thought that she was — was going to die, I think you said. Correct?
A Correct.
Q Because you were concerned that she wasn’t getting enough to drink or enough to eat?
A No. That is not why I thought she was going to die. I thought she was going to die because she couldn’t sleep.
Q And you —
THE COURT: Maybe you can show me where you are, because this is a long affidavit. I don’t remember where this part of it was.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll show you. It is Page 13.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 31.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Read that out loud, Mr. Prince. It is one sentence.
A I’m sorry. What is it?
Q Page 13, Paragraph 31.
A Uh-huh.
Q Can you read that out loud?
907
A “If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that, based upon my own observation, she would have died.”
Q So you were concerned that she was going to die if you didn’t force her or make her drink water. That is what you said under oath in this August 1999 affidavit. Correct?
A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. But if you go to Number 29 of the same affidavit, I also mention the fact that I was afraid she was going to die because she could not sleep.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: He also said she had a — you also said she had a psychotic break, didn’t you?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I did.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. But the point is, Mr. Prince, is that you took it upon yourself to help her get through this. Correct?
A Yes.
Q So did Stacy Brooks?
A For a short time.
Q So did a number of other people that were there. Correct?
A Yes.
Q And you got an award for it?
A No, I didn’t.
908
Q You got recognized for it?
A No, I didn’t.
Q You didn’t?
A Come on.
MR. WEINBERG: Could I just approach the witness, your Honor, while I get copies of this?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I show you —
MR. WEINBERG: We’ll mark it —
THE COURT: I think it has already been marked because when Stacy Brooks was on the stand —
MR. WEINBERG: You are right, it has been marked, and we’ll figure out what the exhibit number is.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q “August 31, 1988. Commendable. The following people are acknowledged for their assistance on handling a cycle that was above and beyond their duties. Their actions helped in the standard application of Scientology technology on the introspection rundown that made a being sane. Highly commended: Jesse Prince.” Do you see that?
A Where? Suzie Watson? I had forgotten about her. The
909
rest of them people are security guards. Well, you know, this is possible. I hadn’t remembered it.
Q Well, you were pretty happy, were you not, that you were successful in your endeavors to help Teresita?
A You know, I was happy that she survived and made it home okay. I was happy about that. Yes.
Q And you’re aware that she’s alive today and is still a Scientologist?
A I have no information about that.
Q She went home? She was allowed to go home after the introspection rundown was concluded?
A Yes. She signed her release, similar to this thing I signed, and she —
Q No one told you to keep her there to avoid a public relations flap?
A After she was well?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q No?
A No.
Q And during this process, she hit you. Correct?
A Yes.
Q She ran out several times, ran out into the country?
910
A Right.
Q I mean, one could say, if they didn’t know, that she was crazy, that she was trying to escape, correct, when she ran out?
A You could surmise that. I don’t know. She was running in the wrong direction to escape because where we were at, we were on a — where this place is, where we had her, the mountains are behind there. And she ran up that way. Which, unless you are a skilled mountain climber, you are not going to go very far.
Q And what you did, you ran after her, didn’t you?
A Yes.
Q And you brought her back?
A No. Actually I couldn’t catch her because she ran so fast. Sometimes people have superhuman strength. And then she climbed so high. And she was a lightweight person. And when I tried to reach for her, I couldn’t reach where she was. So I had to literally sit and wait for her to decide to come down.
Q Then you brought her back?
A No. I walked behind her. She brought herself back.
THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you brought her back, she came back, you followed her back —
THE WITNESS: She came back.
911
THE COURT: The deal was you weren’t going to let her, in that state, go anywhere except stay there and continue to be handled. Right?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you cannot speak for what all Scientologists — other Scientologists would follow as far as policy, can you?
A No, I cannot.
Q Because — because of the concept in Scientology that what is true for you is true. Correct?
A Well, not — not wholly because also it depends on how much you have been trained, how much policy you know, you know. You can’t be expected to understand something you don’t know.
Q We’ve talked about this in your depositions before. The point is, is that it is a policy of Scientology that Scientologists can decide on their own what — whether to ignore policy or not — to ignore a particular policy or not?
A No. That is not true.
Q Then what did you mean when you testified —
A Not ignore a policy. You know, I mean, how could you ignore the policy to lock the door when all of the staff
912
walk out? You know, you’re going to get in trouble. That doesn’t make sense. You don’t ignore the policy. Either you understand it and you accept it, or you don’t.
Q So you don’t have to accept it if you don’t want to, that is a policy — that is what is true for you is true for you?
A No. No, no. Maybe with tech, you know, a belief — but policy that lays out the fundamental actions of the organization? No.
Q You don’t have any knowledge of what the staff members that were staying with Lisa McPherson — what policies
they were or were not following and what they believed about those policies? You are not in a position to opine about that, are you?
A What policies — policy are you referring to?
Q Whatever policies they were advised as to or practicing when they were staying with Lisa McPherson.
A You know, that is kind of ambiguous. If you have got a policy, I could tell you whether or not I think they’re aware of it.
Q All right.
Now, do you remember that in or about August or September — we’ll pull the exact affidavit now — in 2001 you executed an affidavit that was the basis of a motion for severe sanctions against the Church, and as a
result you withdrew as an expert in the case?913
THE COURT: Are we done with this affidavit?
MR. WEINBERG: Oh, yes.
THE COURT: All right, I’m going to let you have that back. Mr. Prince, if you want to, you can give that back.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: I believe this is in evidence, too, isn’t it?
MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. It is but — do we have copies of the affidavit? I think we have copies.
THE COURT: Okay. Good. I just went ahead — I’m just having the evidence filed as I read through it.
MR. WEINBERG: You know what —
THE COURT: It is too massive.
MR. WEINBERG: — this one I’m not positive about, whether it is in evidence or not.
THE COURT: I don’t know, either. Madam Clerk, how do you know what is in evidence?
MR. WEINBERG: I should know this and, frankly, I apologize.
THE COURT: Is there any way you can tell us whether an affidavit of Jesse Prince dated September of 2001 is in evidence?
914
THE CLERK: Yes, Judge, I can check. Is it plaintiff’s or defendant’s?
THE COURT: I can’t tell you if it is plaintiff’s or defendant’s. These come in under strange hands.
MR. DANDAR: I don’t believe the plaintiff used this at this hearing.
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark it. We’ll mark as the next exhibit, the September of 2001 affidavit of Mr. Prince.
THE COURT: What number is that?
THE CLERK: 233.
MR. WEINBERG: 233.
THE COURT: And if you find it is in evidence, you’ll let us know and we’ll take that one out. We’ll have just a mound of evidence.
MR. WEINBERG: It is obviously part of a court record.
THE COURT: Yes. And I believe it has been referred to several times. But I’m not sure it has ever been introduced.
MR. DANDAR: 233?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: So it will be received.
MR. WEINBERG: Then — where is the motion? Do
915
you have the motion? I might as well do the whole package here. 234 would be the motion for severe sanctions.
THE COURT: I don’t know why I would need the motion to be introduced. But —
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think there was something I wanted to refer to and, frankly, I don’t know what it was. I’ll just mark it anyway. And that would be 234.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, is that an affidavit that you executed, Mr. Prince?
A Yes, it is, Mr. Weinberg.
Q And it was done — who wrote this affidavit?
A I did.
Q Did you get any help writing this affidavit?
A Mmm, maybe somebody, you know, did margins for me or, you know, word —
Q I mean, somebody drafted it for you? Nobody drafted it for you? You did all that?
A Again, I don’t want to be coy when answering the question. Sometimes Mr. Dandar or some attorney will suggest information based on conversations that we had and — quite normally.
And I think Mr. Dandar can attest to this, that I
916
normally start from the beginning and type my own, do my own work.
Q Now, if you go to Paragraph 22 and 23 of his affidavit, on Page 5 —
A Yes?
Q — you swore in the affidavit that — that — that:
“As a result of my arrest and criminal prosecution, I was extremely upset, embarrassed and humiliated and could see in here that my fiancee and her two minor children were traumatized by this experience.”
Then you went on in 23 to say that: “Further, I had advised Ken Dandar, counsel for the estate of Lisa McPherson, that I must withdraw as the estate’s expert in the above-captioned cause as a result of my arrest and prosecution and serious concern of further and more intense fair game by Scientology and its operatives.” Then you go on. Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q So the purpose of this affidavit was to say you were not going to be an expert anymore in this case because you were scared of Scientology. That is essentially what you said, right?
A No. I think that is a mis-characterization of what it says here.
917
Q How would you characterize it?
A I was concerned for my family. You see, I had no problem with weathering the storm with Scientology personally.
But this is beyond personal — I think I explained this in my testimony yesterday. Innocent people are involved here. It just wasn’t worth it to me. And I couldn’t hire an attorney. I just lost my job. You know, I don’t want to do that.
THE COURT: He said, “Not only to myself but my fiancee and her two children, who are all very dear to me.” That is all the same section.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did it concern you, for the previous four years when you were threatening the Church, picketing in front of their buildings, saying obscene things about David Miscavige, did it — did it — did it concern you then about Scientology?
A Mmm, what it — it concerned me the moment that I found out that this operation had been run on me and drugs put on my back porch. I mean, it just went to a whole new level at that point. This is at my home. This is where I
live. People coming in, putting seed around, you know, commiserating with police, telling them I’m a drug dealer, cocaine dealer.I have children. My fiancee gets her children
918
taken away from her. It escalated to a new level, Mr. Weinberg.
Q But the affidavit is executed in September of 2001. You had been acquitted in the spring, hadn’t you?
A Yes. Then didn’t —
Q Not acquitted. There had been a hung jury and the prosecutor decided not to pursue it. That was in the spring, wasn’t it?
A Didn’t Mr. Rinder quote, in the St. Pete Times, “We’ll get him next time.” Okay? He was quoted, “We’ll get him next time.” I don’t want any more next times.
Q You continued to be an expert and consultant for Mr. Dandar up until — after the hung jury in the spring, up until September of 2001 when Mr. Minton said he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore. Is that what happened?
A No. Disrelated items.
Q It just happened to be coincidentally at the same time?
A If you characterize it that way. Again, like I say, as we’ve gone over, my regular job at the trust of helping people and doing things was over. We were in the process of leaving town. Everything Scientology wanted to accomplish had been accomplished. The trust was ruined.
You know, we were done. It was over. People were going home.
919
Q So —
A That wasn’t good enough.
Q Actually, you wouldn’t need to work on the case anymore because the trust was over. Right?
A No, you know, I wouldn’t draw that conclusion, Mr. Weinberg. I’m saying my family, right where I live, were threatened. You know, even today you knock on the door, if we get an unexpected visitor, people in my house jump out of their skin. What the hell, because that is exactly how the DEA came in my house, running around with fully automatic weapons in front of my children, because a Scientology private investigator told him I’m selling marijuana, cocaine, selling stolen auto parts; lying, in other words.
And this happened. Okay? I think I had a reason to be concerned.
Q Didn’t Mr. Minton ask you to withdraw from being an expert in the case?
A Never.
Q Did Ms. Brooks ask you to withdraw from the case?
A Yes, she did.
Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you that was Mr. Minton’s desire that you not be an expert anymore?
A No, she did not.
Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you why it was her desire you not be an expert in the case anymore?
920
A Yes, she did.
Q She said that had to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust, the reason?
A No, she said that Scientology had successfully inextricably mixed the work we were doing at the trust with this case, and irrespective of the lawyers and the arguments that they made, you know, it was like they wanted that, too.
Because of this, all of that discovery goes on with Mr. Minton, the trust is virtually raided, you know. Those kinds of reasons.
She said, “Look, if this case didn’t exist, none of this would be happening. We could still be doing this work. But because this has happened, it’s putting everyone in a horrible position. It ruined the company.”
Q Is there a particular reason why you didn’t put in your affidavit what Ms. Brooks had asked you to do, to withdraw?
A Yes, because it is irrelevant. It is my decision.
I spoke on this yesterday, Mr. Weinberg. I said, you know, Stacy wanted this to be done.
I spoke to Bob. And it is like, “Jesse, Stacy is upset because of discovery and things that are going on,” yik-yik-yik. And, “You know, if you have to work with Ken, it’s up to you if there is something that is needed to be done.” He didn’t care.
921
Q Did you tell Mr. Dandar that Ms. Brooks had told you — asked you to withdraw as an expert?
A I think Ms. Brooks may have called him herself because she was quite panicked.
Q Did you send a copy of the motion — a draft — a copy of the draft of the motion for severe sanctions to Mr. Minton before it was ever filed? You?
A I don’t think so.
Q Well, you did make it a practice to E-Mail or send or give to Mr. Minton copies of draft pleadings. You made that a practice, didn’t you?
A No. Come on.
Q In the case?
A Uh-uh.
Q Never did that, did you?
A No. And, you know, I don’t draft pleadings. Again, I’m not the lawyer.
MR. WEINBERG: The next exhibit. Your Honor, this is 235.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you see 235, Mr. Prince?
A Yes, I do.
Q This is a copy of an E-Mail which you sent to whom on 9/20/01?
922
A Okay. Okay.
Q You sent this to Mr. Minton, didn’t you?
A Apparently, I did.
Q And you say here —
MR. WEINBERG: We move this into evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And this is an E-Mail where you say —
THE COURT: Can you show me how we know it went to Mr. Minton? I can’t read this stuff well enough to know.
MR. WEINBERG: I think maybe Mr. Prince can explain that better than me.
THE COURT: What is it at the top that shows this went to Mr. Minton?
THE WITNESS: There is nothing that says this went to Mr. Minton on this document.
THE COURT: Well, you just remember sending it to Mr. Minton?
THE WITNESS: Well, I’m assuming. You know, I’m not here saying I have never sent anything to Mr. Minton about anything.
THE COURT: Here, maybe this is it, I don’t know, this is encrypted something at the back.
923
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE WITNESS: As far as I know, this was an encrypted message on my computer.
MR. WEINBERG: This is where you see it at the back.
THE COURT: I think I found it already.
MR. WEINBERG: Right here, “To: Bob Minton, From: Jesse Prince. Received.”
THE COURT: How do we know — how do we know this is — I mean, I don’t care, but how do we know that this is the same thing?
THE WITNESS: Exactly. Here we have a bunch of characters, and now attached to it with — you know, when you get on the Internet, it clearly says from who to who on the message. It doesn’t look like this. It is not in this format.
It is not like that.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, look at — look at this page here.
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I don’t know how to indicate it.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Look at that page. That is an E-Mail you sent to Mr. Minton. Correct?
924
A Correct.
Q On September 20, 2001?
A Correct.
Q 9:41:07?
A Yes, I guess so.
Q Something like that?
A Yeah.
Q This is obviously an encrypted message. Correct?
A Correct.
Q You each had that program so you could communicate with one another in an encrypted fashion?
A Correct.
Q Then you had — what do you call it — decrypted, what is it, a code or something?
A Yes.
Q Then you are able to, on the other end, decode it, right?
A Correct.
Q All right. Now, the decoding is what the first part of this exhibit is?
A The what?
Q The decrypting, decoding, whatever it is called where it says: “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or two. And this is not the final form as he is doing more work on it today. I’ll make sure you have a copy
925
of the final draft.”
A Okay.
Q You did that, didn’t you?
A I did what now?
Q You sent to Mr. Minton that message in encrypted form with a draft of this motion for severe sanctions?
A You know, I’m going to hold off on saying that happened because, you know, here is this message, it is encrypted —
THE COURT: Well, you sent this to somebody, you’ll agree?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I sent it to somebody.
THE COURT: It could have been Mr. Minton?
THE WITNESS: It could have been Mr. Minton.
It could have been Mrs. Brooks. It could —
THE COURT: You wouldn’t be apt to send it to anybody else, right?
THE WITNESS: Sometimes I would check things via Mr. Leipold just to get his opinion on it, another attorney I work with.
THE COURT: I think I know what Mr. Weinberg was saying. If you look over on this — this what we’ll call the encrypted one, the date — or the time is 9:41:01 on September 20, 2001.
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
926
THE COURT: If you look at the one we can read, it says 9:40:22.
THE WITNESS: You show me where you are —
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Up here. See here? 9/20/01. 9:40:22. See that?
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: It looks like that is — that went out — now look over here. This encrypted, see, it says: “Date, September, 20, ’01, 9:41:01.” So it looks like it may have — it goes out once like this —
MR. DANDAR: That confirms it is not the same thing.
MR. WEINBERG: You know, I move this into evidence and we’ll get an authenticating affidavit from Mr. Minton saying that this is a document —
THE COURT: All right —
MR. WEINBERG: — that he received and he produced to us.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: And Mr. Prince didn’t — didn’t send it to Mr. Minton. What he basically is saying, he’s not sure. And I can’t tell, but it looks like there is some correlation between these two things. I don’t — I don’t think I’m smart enough or if you
927
are smart enough to prove it to me, but that will be enough — and you don’t deny that, right, it could have gone to Mr. Minton?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: And I’m going to receive it because it was clearly something from Mr. Prince. And you just don’t know for sure who it went to, is that it?
THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: What number is it again?
THE CLERK: 235.
THE COURT: 234?
MR. DANDAR: 235.
THE COURT: 235. Thank you.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, why would you be — assuming that this did go to Mr. Minton, why would you be sending Mr. Minton a draft of a motion for severe sanctions that was going to be filed by Ken Dandar in a couple days, in September of 2001, when you say that you had withdrawn from the case?
A Well, I’ll give you the — the answer I could think of about this — Mmm — this affidavit that you showed me earlier, this one here from September of 2001, I think it
928
is — yeah, where I talk about —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, I hate to do this. Is this the affidavit, or is this the motion?
MR. WEINBERG: This is the motion.
THE COURT: Okay. The affidavit isn’t here, unless that is what this is.
MR. WEINBERG: No. No. No. This — this — if you look at the note at the front, “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or so.”
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: The affidavit, you know, had already been done, apparently.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: This affidavit is dated the next day.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, this is the motion.
THE COURT: So your question was — I’m sorry — why would you send the motion —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What was the reason — assuming you sent this draft to Mr. Minton, what was the reason you would have been sending to Mr. Minton, in September of 2001, an advance draft of a motion that was being filed for severe sanctions in the Lisa McPherson case?
929
A Because as I recall, he was extremely upset with me. He was extremely upset with Ken Dandar because of this affidavit here. You know, we’re busy going along here —
Q The affidavit wasn’t done — Mr. Dandar just pointed it out — until after this E-Mail went out?
A I’m just trying to give you what I remember so you can take it apart in a minute, if you just let me get it out.
Q All right. Go ahead.
A What I recall about this is Mr. Minton was extremely upset about this affidavit because I had gone through a whole criminal trial where I had not taken the stand and — nor — and I had not admitted guilt or — you know, assumed innocence. In other words, I sat through the trial and they had to no prosecute — or whatever, a hung jury.
So from my mouth, I had never said that I had used drugs with the private investigator and, you know, running around with this detective and whatever and whatever.
Now, from my own mouth, he felt it defeated the purpose of having a trial if you are just going to run around and do that. Again, you know, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know. I want them to know and do it.
But I do know that Ken was extremely upset over the fact that I wasn’t going to be his expert anymore, that
930
I wouldn’t be able to sit there and help him, as I had done, on the case. I’d worked on it for years. So this was very upsetting to him on a personal level when I told him, “Look, Ken –” and this is before — I told him, “Look, I can’t do this anymore. I can’t protect myself. I can’t protect my family. It seems the Court is letting Scientology do whatever they want to, running roughshod in here. All this crap is going on. There is no relief. I’m ready to leave this town. It is not personal against you, Mr. Dandar, that I think you know the reason why I can’t support you, but I can’t support you and protect my family, as well.”
Q Mr. Minton had told you that he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore at this time. Correct? You knew that?
A You know, I don’t understand how I can be saying one thing and then you just say something else.
THE COURT: That is a question.
THE WITNESS: No, that — no, that is not true, Mr. — Mr. Weiner — Weinberg.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So you didn’t know that Mr. Minton had told Mr. Dandar, as of August of 2001, that there wasn’t going to be any more funds? You didn’t know that?
A You know, the last time we talked about this — I mean, Ken got, what, $500,000 in 2000 that was supposed to
931
take him to the end of the case. I wasn’t thinking about Mr. Dandar’s money. Mr. Dandar’s money and how he was operating this case financially was never — never has been any of my concern. There’s nothing I can do about it one way or the other.
Q Now, did you talk to Mr. Merrett about withdrawing from the case?
A Mr. Merrett spoke to me on behalf of Stacy Brooks. She wanted him to explain to me why it would be beneficial for the Lisa McPherson Trust and the people that we are trying to help if I withdrew from the case.
Q So that didn’t have anything to do with threats to your family or anything like that? That has to do with Mr. Minton’s request that you get out of the case because of the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A You know, I testified twice that Mr. Minton never said that. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
Q Ms. Brooks then?
A Yes. Thank you. Get it right. That is why we’re here.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Prince.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. I’m a little grouchy. I’m tired.
THE COURT: I understand. We all get grouchy. If you wait for another hour, I’ll get grouchy.
932
MR. WEINBERG: I have that in mind.
THE COURT: I get grouchy a little after 12 and 4 o’clock just about every day.
THE WITNESS: I know that 4 o’clock is the witching hour.
THE COURT: It’s a very bad hour for all of us.
MR. WEINBERG: I was going to say something but I won’t.
THE COURT: It is best you not.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right. Well, let me show you what has already been marked as an exhibit, Exhibit 49. I have got a copy, so — it is that E-Mail.
THE COURT: The E-Mail? Okay. I thought I might see this E-Mail about now.
THE WITNESS: Everybody knows but me.
THE COURT: This has already been introduced into evidence.
MR. WEINBERG: This is 49.
THE COURT: And they testified about it.
MR. WEINBERG: Defense 49.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, this is an E-Mail that has been identified by Mr. Merrett, among others, that he sent to Mr. Dandar on August 24, 2001, which is before you executed your
933
affidavit, which says:
“Ken, the short version of what’s going on is this. The well is dry as far as money goes. Jesse is going to withdraw as an expert witness. Bob feels that the case is way out of control and is focused 100 percent on him and specifically on trying to put him in jail. He wants Dell to settle the case or otherwise make it go away. Bob isn’t coming into Florida any time soon. Can you meet with me and Stacy this weekend to discuss that?”
Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Now, you knew about this E-Mail?
A No. Never. This is the first time I have ever seen it.
Q Well, how did Mr. Merrett know, as early as August 24, 2001, to tell Mr. Dandar that you were withdrawing as an expert witness?
A Well, you know, you would have to ask him that.
I’m not even a part of this. I mean, somebody is talking to me about it. If I said anything, it would just be hearsay, wouldn’t it?
Q So no one told you that the well was dry then?
A You know, I heard that several times. But as you and I both know, the well is not dry. Mr. Minton still has plenty of money to extricate himself out of trouble he gets into by seeing that new lawyers, having had three of them in
934
here since I have been testifying, for Christ’s sake, three different ones, Mr. Battaglia, another one yesterday, the one sitting here now.
Q You didn’t know as of August 24 Mr. Minton had sent the message to Mr. Dandar that there was going to be no more money? You didn’t know that?
A No. No, sir, I did not.
THE COURT: Please try to refrain from taking the Lord’s name in vain in this case.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, your Honor, I didn’t even know I — did I say the GD word?
THE COURT: No, you didn’t say that one. You’ll see it on a transcript.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry, your Honor.
Like I said, I’m tired, grouchy.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You did. But — he didn’t tell you that the well was dry, Mr. Minton, but he did tell you, you said, about having given Mr. Dandar a $500,000 check?
A Yeah, you know, and I’m talking about 2000, okay?
Then again, you know, just in February, he said, “Look, Ken needs more money. Go over and have this conversation with him.”
So how could the well be dry on this date, but a little while later, hey, here is another quarter of a
935
million.
You know, this was not anything I was privy to, anything I was dealing with.
You know, Stacy was in a complete panic, as I said. We were being raided. You know, motion after motion, deposed, on and on. You know, she was panicked. She got spooked. You know, she was just trying to put a band-aid on this any way she can.
Q It is true Mr. Minton told you — as indicated in this E-Mail, it is true he was concerned about going to jail at that point, correct, in August of 2001?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. There is no jail mentioned in this E-Mail.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Yes, there is.
MR. DANDAR: Then I’ll sit down and be corrected.
THE COURT: Good.
THE WITNESS: But you are asking the wrong person. I told you I have never seen this —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q No, I’m asking you, it is true that either Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton told you in this time period that Mr. Minton was concerned that he was going to end up in
936
jail?
A I don’t know that.
Q I’m just asking you —
THE COURT: He said he doesn’t know. He told you that twice. Now, go on to the next question.
Okay?
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Did Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton tell you, at or about that time, that they felt the case was out of control?
A I never — I never really heard those words that the case was out of control. I mean, you know —
THE COURT: But you were being told that they were very concerned that the Lisa McPherson case and Lisa McPherson Trust was all getting inextricably intertwined?
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: Courts were letting all these documents be acquired. This is what is out of control perhaps, right? So you were aware they were all disturbed about this?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Disturbed at the discovery, yes.
THE COURT: Well, disturbed with — that the Lisa McPherson Trust be shut down?
937
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: You knew all that, did you? Or did you?
THE WITNESS: You know, I didn’t have an understanding — you know, in all honesty, you know, Judge, Mr. Minton was going through this thing with Judge Baird where he was to appear and he didn’t appear.
I understood none of that. I didn’t understand what was going on. I didn’t understand what the big problem was. If he was supposed to be deposed, you simply come in and you get deposed. You may not like it, you may not whatever.
But, you know, then we had these problems where he can’t come down, on and on. You know, a bad situation just got worse.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q You knew that money didn’t have anything to do with Mr. Minton shutting down the Lisa McPherson Trust, right?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Good time for a stop?
MR. WEINBERG: I think so because I have another area to go to.
THE COURT: It is — I need to take a little
938
longer this afternoon. We’ll be in recess until ten after. Twenty minutes.
(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:50 to 3:15 p.m.)
_______________________________________
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Ready? Let’s just make an exhibit search here for one second to make sure we don’t have any originals up here.
THE WITNESS: I think we took care of that.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q All right, Mr. Prince —
A Yes?
Q — you have talked several times about being in the desert. Right?
A Yes.
Q There are two locations that are within a few miles of one another that you have been referring to. Right?
A Yes.
Q One is Hemet which is where the Golden Era Productions is where you worked after you left RTC. Correct?
A That is actually incorrect, Mr. Weinberg. It’s Gilman Hot Springs, near Hemet, but it is — it is like its own little separate town.
939
Q Golden Era Productions is in Gilman Hot Springs, and that is what you described as being in the desert? That is one of the locations in the desert?
A Yes.
Q Then the other location in the desert is —
A Soboba Indian Reservation.
Q Is the what?
A Soboba Indian Reservation.
Q And that is where you — that is where you had the introspection rundown with Teresita. Right?
A It was actually behind the reservation in a private-owned property, correct. Yes.
Q That is where you said the RPF was?
A Correct.
Q The incident that — that had to do with the day that you were relieved of your position at RTC and the guns, that was at Gilman Hot Springs?
A Correct.
Q I want to show you some photos.
MR. WEINBERG: These are for you. This can be marked — this Booklet A, 1 through 11, but we’ll mark it as Exhibit 236. But what I have done, your Honor, you have the same pictures, but they are in this book like this. So A1 would be the first one.
THE COURT: Okay.
940
MR. WEINBERG: Okay?
THE COURT: I can keep this?
MR. WEINBERG: You can give it back to us, unless you want to keep it.
THE COURT: No. I’ll give it back to you.
MR. WEINBERG: This is 236. I’m handing this to Mr. Prince.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: Do I get a copy?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
MR. DANDAR: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, if you look at A1 through A11, you recognize that as being the location in Gilman Hot Springs that Golden Era Productions was at where you say is in the desert.Correct?
A Yes.
Q And if you would just flip through and just describe very briefly A1, A2, through 11. Could you do that?
A Yes. I think so.
This looks like a view from —
THE COURT: Tell me what you are talking about.
Is it A1?
THE WITNESS: A1.
941
THE COURT: Okay.
A This looks like a view from the dining area and the qualifications area and the studio, the studio from a perspective of the river bank, which is just further back here, the dry riverbed.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q What is A2?
A A2, there is a building here that, you know — wait a minute, yes, I do — this is the dining — this is apparently an aerial shot of the dining area.
Q Okay. A3, do you recognize that building?
A This — I think this may have been some new construction since I have been there. I can’t say. Do I recognize this building? I can’t rightfully say that I do.
THE COURT: Okay, that is an “I don’t know.” And that is enough.
A Okay. I don’t know.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Was Building 36 the main administrative offices of Golden Era? That was on-site when you were there?
A Oh, is this where they do the E-meters and things in there?
Q Do you remember that is where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun when you left in 1992, that was the building?
A Yes.
942
Q If you go to A4, do you recognize that as the lake, with the administrative building in the background?
A Yes, I do, with the exercise trail.
Q And A5, do you recognize that as a sports field for the crew?
A In all honesty, I don’t recognize it, but I believe it is.
Q And A6, do you remember there were crew basketball courts?
A Yes. Yes, I do.
Q And A7, what is that?
A I have no earthly idea.
Q That is new, isn’t it?
A I —
Q Or do you know?
A It is outside of my knowledge.
Q Okay. A8, is that another building that is new?
A It’s something that is outside of my knowledge. I don’t know. I have never seen this on the property.
Q Now, you do recognize A9 as the set inside the film studio where you were working?
A No, sir. You know, matter of fact, I never worked in this area of cinematography. I worked in the audio department.
Q There is a film studio on campus, though, right?
943
A Yes. But this looks considerably larger than the film studio that was there when I was present.
Q And A10, was the golf course there while you were there?
A Mmm, I think they had started construction on it and — had hired a company to come out and do it. I think so, but I have never seen this before.
Q Oh?
A What you showed me here.
Q Now, how many years did you work in the desert at Gilman Springs, this location that you looked at, A1 through 11?
A Probably at least ten years.
Q Were the RTC offices there, as well?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Let’s put those aside.
Now we’ll mark as our next exhibit — it will be Photos B1 through 5. It is Exhibit 237. I’ll give you these.
Now, you do recognize B1 through 5 as pictures of the studios where you did work when you were at Gilman Hot Springs after you — after March of 1987?
A Well, in actual fact, the only one that I recognize as the studio that I possibly worked in is B4.
Q And that would be a picture of doing what? What
944
was your job there?
A Well, I take that back, and I don’t want to — you know, I don’t know where this is, as a matter of fact. I haven’t seen this.
This looks like maybe they have new equipment.
You know, this is not anything I’m familiar with, in all honesty.
Q You worked in the film mix room?
A Mmm, I worked in the post-production — this is a building they have on top of the hill from the perspectives from the — the first photograph album that you showed me.
Where I worked at was close to a place that used to be called Bonnie View, which is L. Ron Hubbard’s home at Gilman Hot Springs.
Q And it was a studio something like what you were looking at there? I mean, there was film production or film mix going on. Correct?
A Mmm, I — I can’t say that, Mr. Weinberg, because everything here — all these pictures that you are showing me, with the exception of B4, seems to do with music.
Q Were there things like this at Gilman Hot Springs when you were there?
A Yes.
Q Whether you worked there or not?
A Yes.
945
Q And you recognize that from the photos. Correct?
A Well, again, I said again, B4 is something I recognize as being —
THE COURT: I think the long and short, you really can’t recognize it?
THE WITNESS: I can’t. This is all different from when I was there.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, let me show you —
THE WITNESS: Very beautiful, though.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The whole location is beautiful, though, isn’t it?
A It looks like it is now. It wasn’t quite like that when I was there.
Q Well, the first set of photos of Gilman Hot Springs, it looked like that when you were there?
A Not exactly. There has been a lot of new construction there, from what I can see.
Q The building you described as buildings that were there looked like that when you were there. Right?
THE COURT: Whatever he said, he said, Counsel.
All right?
MR. WEINBERG: 238. These photos are marked I1 through 3.
946
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This is Exhibit 238. Would you look at these, please.
A Sure.
Q Do you recognize these photos?
A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. This is the place where Mr. Miscavige and I came to, after the gun incident, to talk about things.
Q This is where you said you walked to the ship in the desert? This is where the ship in the desert is?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Is that the swimming pool (indicating)?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q This is still Gilman Hot Springs?
THE COURT: But the ship in the desert is the swimming pool?
MR. DANDAR: No. There is a ship.
MR. WEINBERG: Actually, if you look at I3, you see the ship.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And it is around a very nice pool area. Correct?
A Correct.
947
Q So when you indicated the ship in the desert where, after this gun incident, you went with Mr. Miscavige is I1 through 3?
A Correct.
THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or a mast on top of a building?
MR. WEINBERG: Ask Mr. Prince.
THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or is that some masts on top of a building?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is a design that looks like a ship but it is actually a beautiful pool area. It is not a ship but it looks like a ship. There is a wheel there —
THE COURT: But that is what you-all call it, ship in the desert?
THE WITNESS: No. I forgot what we call this thing.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q That is what you called it on the stand, though?
A That is how I referred to it, yes.
Q Then we have one more set of photos to show you — two more, I guess.
MR. WEINBERG: This is just one photo here.
THE CLERK: 239.
MR. WEINBERG: 239. And it is marked J1.
948
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q 239, Mr. Prince, one photo. And I ask you if you recognize that to be a photo of the conference room in Gilman Hot Springs where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun in 1992, just before leaving the Church of Scientology?
A Unfortunately, Mr. Weinberg, none of this looks familiar to me at all.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, did you say it does not look familiar?
THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay. The last set are three photos.
THE COURT: You want to go ahead and take these?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes. These are marked K1 through 3. And this is Exhibit 240.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you recognize Exhibit 240, don’t you?
A Which one is — is this the thing you just handed me?
Q Yes.
A No, I do not. I do not —
Q Let me go through those K1 through 3.
A I don’t recognize this at all.
949
Q Well, let me just see if I can refresh your recollection.
A Okay.
Q Do you recognize this being at Happy Valley, which is where this Indian reservation is?
A Not at all.
Q So you don’t recognize this as being one of the locations where you were with Teresita?
A No, I do not. It did not look like this at all.
Q Well, what did it look like?
A Mmm, well, the place where Teresita stayed in, it was a wooden house that was on wood planks that sat on the ground. And there was — Mmm — it was very old, kind of like something that had been left for a long time and then kind of started being used again kind of thing. There was none of this lush, beautiful greenery. It was just gravel roads and crap everywhere.
THE COURT: Do you recognize this?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: As long as he can’t recognize it, it can’t really be introduced.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Back at the Teresita house — we don’t have to look at the photos. But the house, do you remember how many bedrooms the house was?
950
A To the best of my recollection, I believe there was one.
Q All right. And then there was, what, a living room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom? What else was in it? Do you remember?
A Mmm, there was a kitchen. There was a room — let me see. There was a kitchen, there was a front door, there was a small room, there was another room, and a bedroom and a bathroom, to the best of my recollection.
Q And a kitchen of some sort?
A Yes.
Q And you stayed — did you stay in the house, as well?
A No. A woman — you know, a woman would stay with her at night.
MR. WEINBERG: All right, let me sort through this, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay, we offer at this time into evidence Exhibit 231, which are the A1 through 11 which are the pictures of Gilman Hot Springs.
THE COURT: I have got those as 236.
MR. DANDAR: It is 236.
MR. WEINBERG: That is because I can’t read very well. It is 236.
951
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: We offer 237, which are the —
THE COURT: He recognized one of those.
MR. WEINBERG: 237 B4, which is the one he identified, this one (indicating).
THE COURT: Right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you remember that?
A (Nods head.)
MR. WEINBERG: Then we offer —
THE COURT: 238 he recognized.
MR. WEINBERG: 238, which is the pictures of the pool and the ship.
THE COURT: 239 and 240, he didn’t recognize any of those.
MR. WEINBERG: Right, so I’ll not offer those at this time. And we’ll leave them marked.
THE COURT: So I’ll give you these back.
MR. WEINBERG: You accepted into evidence what we just offered?
THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Dandar, once again, if you want to object, I’m assuming you’ll do so.
MR. DANDAR: Yes, I will.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: But, then again, I didn’t know if
952
you wanted me — no, I’m just kidding.THE COURT: No, I have done the same with Mr. Weinberg. A lot of times I say it is admitted because I know he will pop up if he wants to object.
MR. WEINBERG: I’m not reluctant to pop up.
THE COURT: Right. But from time to time I want to remind you, you have the right to object.
And I assume if you don’t, you have none.
MR. WEINBERG: Could we fire this up?
MR. LIEBERMAN: That, of course, doesn’t cover our standing objections.
THE COURT: It does not. Standing objections are standing.
MR. WEINBERG: This will just take a second.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q While she’s doing that, let me ask you a couple of questions with regard to what I’m about to show you.
A All right.
Q You testified either yesterday or the day before — or the day before, or weeks before, I can’t remember when it is now when you actually started —
A This — I think this is my third day.
Q Okay. But you testified that you had not participated in any meetings with Mr. Dandar at the LMT.
You remember that testimony?
953
MR. DANDAR: I didn’t hear that. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: He asked if he remembered that he had stated he had not participated in any meetings with you at the LMT.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you remember that?
A Not particularly, no.
Q Well, let me ask you. Did you engage in any meetings — meetings where you discussed legal strategies with Mr. Dandar at the LMT in the presence of Mr. Minton?
A Not that I can recall specifically.
Q Okay. I mean, I think you said that Mr. Dandar was barely at the LMT. Didn’t you say that?
A Correct.
Q Now, do you remember a meeting with yourself, Dr. Garko, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks at the LMT to discuss picketing and the legalities of it?
A No, I do not.
Q Would you watch this, please. Then I have a few questions.
A Sure.
______________________________________
(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)
“I love it when I’m on camera.
“Well, tell me what Nancy Miller said to you
954
concerning —
“Not to me. To Kim Rondolini and Denis deVlaming.
“Okay, your lawyers.
“They said that the police department would not be quick — or they would not arrest anyone within the 10-foot zone while they were picketing except for me. If I enter a 10-foot zone, I’ll get arrested period. That is the same as before. But nobody else would be arrested.
“No Scientologist would be arrested just in the ordinary course of things. A Scientologist who happens to be walking down the street getting 20 feet away from me, they wouldn’t be arrested. What Kim Rondolini suggested or
what Lieutenant Nancy Miller said — remember I said this shouldn’t be on camera the other night, but I don’t care, we’ll just leave it on there — is that while they have no right to tell us this, they would ask that we refrain from entering into that 10-foot zone while picketing because if — if something happens — which they felt reasonably confident that the Scientologists might try to provoke — it would in- — inevitably get blamed on us. And, therefore, somebody — somebody might get arrested and it would reflect badly upon me relative to the case that is sitting in front of Bernie McCabe now with respect to the assault — battery charge. Sorry.“Well, I still think the best practice is to stay
955
10 feet away from the building.
“I don’t. You know why? You know why?
“Especially for you.
“For me, I have to because I would violate the injunction by being within 10 feet.
“It is impossible for him to do right now because I just found out what Stacy told me, within the last 36 hours they closed on the building next door.
“Which building?
“The Robelling (phonetic) one going that way.
“The building right next door?
“Yes, right where — wall-to-wall, they just closed in the last 36 hours, it is confidential, somebody came and told me that, literally.
“Well, they tried to get the one right beyond that —
“They got the whole building, the whole thing from Octavio’s to here belongs to them now.
“No, it doesn’t.
“Yes, it does.
“No. No. No.
“Yes.
“Listen, I’m telling you —
“Yes.
“– the injunction is against you and agents and
956
employees of yours. And that doesn’t include the Lisa McPherson Trust.
“That’s right.
“Anybody can walk down that sidewalk except you.
“That is correct.
“Anybody that — that is a volunteer from the trust can walk down that sidewalk without carrying a picket sign.
“Yeah.
“Because they are not in concert with you at the time they’re walking down there to go to a restaurant or get a Coke.
“Exactly. That is what I’m saying.
“I agree with you on that point.
“Yeah.
“However, if you organize a picket —
“Then they should stay on the other —
“– you have to stay 10 feet away.
“Exactly. That is what I’m saying here. All I’m saying —
“But the injunction applies to you whether or not you are in a picket or not.
“Well, it would — the police said it wouldn’t apply to them.
“I think I got it now. As soon as I can — sorry.
957
“Well, okay. Let me give you a perfect example of this today. We had somebody coming from Tampa, Counsel. We had two Germans come in who wanted to do a picket with me.And so we went at lunchtime and did a picket. I told them that as long as they’re with me and we’re picketing, I recommend highly we all stay 10 feet away from them —
“Right.
“– on the other side of the street while we’re picketing. And everybody abided by that.
“Right. Right.
______________________________________
“The policeman, he’s Lieutenant Hall, he’s a really, really nice guy. He’s in charge of this whole area.
“Well then, how come he didn’t know what Chief Kline said? I mean —
“He wasn’t here.
“He wasn’t here?
“Okay, he’s just —
“He’s back today.
“Okay, fine.
“He’s under Captain Jones.
“He was very courteous. He said, ‘I appreciate the fact that all of you have been trying very hard to cooperate with this whole thing. I’m sorry about the confusion that has been caused by this whole thing.’
958
“But, he said — he said, ‘You have every right to walk down a public sidewalk. The only person who has been named that has any kind of restriction is Bob Minton. There is no one else that has been named that has any restrictions.’
“Really, what I understood from what he was saying, it is not the police department’s job to do this. I mean, Sid Kline specifically for —
“Sid Kline — let me just explain.
“Specifically for that picket he said this is the way we’re going to do it. But I think it is putting him in an uncomfortable position to be asked to interpret the law. And so I think that Denis should go before the judge.
Don’t you, Ken?
“Well, in the meantime —
“Seek modification as soon as possible.
“But if we walk down the street, not picketing, I go buy a goddamn apple —
“Let them fucking call the police. Let them call the police, Stacy.
“Don’t talk like that.
“Ask –” (Inaudible.)
“What is this shit about?
“I’m saying it is unreasonable for them to ask us
959
to walk —
“It’s not legal.(Inaudible.)
“You are legally right.
“Legally what?
“You are legally what?
“You are legally right. Everybody can walk down a sidewalk except Bob Minton. (Inaudible.)
“You have the legal right to walk down the sidewalk. The police agree with that. Lieutenant D.J. Hall, who is in charge of this district, who tells his officers what to do and what not to do, said you can walk down the sidewalk except Bob Minton.
“Right.
“But he said, ‘Please, until this gets sorted out, can you walk on the other side of the street so we don’t get called down here a lot and just keep wasting our time driving down here? But if you want to — if you want to and they call, we’ll come down.’ (Inaudible.)
“Okay, here he is. Hi.”
(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________
960
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you remember that meeting with Mr. Dandar?
A I do not, but I see it now.
Q And the reason that is part of the film library of the LMT is what?
A Personally, I have no knowledge of it being a part of a film library. This looks like a video of — a private video that was shot. And it was never published, that I know of. I don’t think this ever appeared on the Internet. It is not part of the videos that is offered by the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything else. It seemed just like a private video.
Q Do you know what the trial consultant, Dr. Garko, was doing at this meeting where there was — where the legalities of picketing were being discussed?
A No, I do not.
Q And was Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton or your lawyer or the LMT lawyer at that point giving advice about what you could, couldn’t do, as far as Judge Penick’s order?
A You know, I don’t — I’m sorry, I don’t know. I don’t have recall about that. I know our good friend, Mr. Penick, sorted this out for everyone wonderfully, though.
Q That was at the LMT, correct?
A What we just saw there?
961
Q Yes.
A Yes, it was.
Q You would call that a meeting, the one where you were all sitting in the room, with Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you —
A I would say we certainly were having a discussion.
Q That was one of the examples where you were having a meeting, Mr. Minton would sort of express — sort of taking over the meeting?
A You are mixing two things. He would express his opinion. That doesn’t mean he would take over the meeting. Mr. Dandar spoke. Stacy spoke. I spoke. It seems like everyone has been allowed to speak. There doesn’t necessarily seem to be a chairman of that meeting. We’re just having a discussion.
Q And that meeting took place while you were being paid by Mr. Dandar as a trial consultant?
A I don’t know those dates. I don’t know.
THE COURT: Could you give him a date?
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Yes, what was the date? It is January of 2000?
A I’ll stipulate to the evidence. I’ll agree with that.
Q Now, did Mr. Dandar ever tell you, you know, when you were getting paid by Mr. Dandar, including then in
962
January of 2000, that you shouldn’t be — as his religion expert, you shouldn’t be picketing the Church?
MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to Mr. Weinberg raising his voice at the witness. It is uncalled for.
THE COURT: It was fairly modest. So I think Mr. Prince can handle that.
THE WITNESS: After all this, sure.
A You know, I think that — I forgot what the question was.
MR. WEINBERG: She can read it back to you.
THE COURT: I believe it was did Mr. Dandar ever suggest, as his consultant/expert on religion, that you should not be involved in picketing?
A Yes. He didn’t like that. Mr. Dandar didn’t like that.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And he didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just looked at, did he?
A Excuse me?
Q He didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just viewed, did he?
A I didn’t hear it. I think we were talking about walking down the street, though. I think the subject of that video was walking down the street. It wasn’t so much
963
picketing. We talked about picketing, but what we’re talking about is the ability to be able to walk down the street without being arrested.
THE COURT: And the two videos were entirely different, different — it was different, everybody was all dressed up the second time.
MR. WEINBERG: Was it?
THE COURT: The first time —
MR. WEINBERG: It’s the same day, the same time, because Dr. Garko was there and Mr. Dandar was there. It’s from the same tape, at least.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, for the record, we’re going to supply, for the record, tapes of what we played and transcripts of what we played —
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: — because I doubt that the court reporter —
THE COURT: I’m sure they are able to get it because —
MR. WEINBERG: Some are tough. I mean, that one was probably easier, but all these videos we played —
THE COURT: If the court reporter was unable to get it and you supply a transcript, let the court
964
reporter take it down, because the district court, and I’m sure the Supreme Court, as well, now wants videos, wants tapes, transcribed in the record.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE COURT: So if the court reporter got it, that is grand. If the court reporter said she didn’t get it, perhaps you and Mr. Dandar can agree on the — what it was and she can put it in the transcript. Then we don’t need the transcripts in the record.
MR. WEINBERG: So what we’ll do is we’ll put the videos in the record and we’ll have transcripts available for the court reporter, if needed.
THE COURT: I saw Mr. Keane come in. I’ll bet he’s here to say something about this case.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll step down a second.
THE COURT: Mr. Keane, did you need me?
MR. KEANE: I just have things to deliver to you in camera.
THE COURT: Let’s go ahead, since he’s here, let’s take — will five minutes do it?
MR. KEANE: Yes. Fine.
THE COURT: We’ll just take a little break here. And I’ll be back as soon as I’m done.
(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)
965
______________________________________
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Keane brought me four packets of E-Mails that didn’t look too overwhelming. I’ll take them home tonight and look at them. Some are Mr. Dandar’s, some of Ms. Greenway’s, some are those identified by — who is Stacy Brooks’s lawyer, Mr. McGowan?
MR. FUGATE: McGowan.
THE COURT: As attorney-client privilege.
There is a different group.
So I’ll go through them and decide if any or all of them you can have and make them available.
MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: If I don’t get it done tonight, I’ll try to get it done by Friday. Is today Wednesday?
MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.
MR. FUGATE: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LIEBERMAN: One day just runs into another.
THE COURT: It sure does. I just tell everybody 9 to 5 all day every day.
MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, could I talk to Mr. Lieberman?
THE COURT: Yes.
966
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll check an exhibit number.
This is a supplemental affidavit of Jesse Prince that I put in yesterday.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: This is exhibit — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.
THE COURT: Are these — are these the exhibits?
THE CLERK: No. Those are the transcripts.
THE COURT: Lee —
MR. FUGATE: Yes, ma’am?
THE COURT: — I thought I had five volumes here of transcripts. And then I see that this is Volume 1 of the time line, discovery, contempt and coercive sanctions. And this is Volume 2. This says Binder 3, 4, 5. I wonder if I have Volume 2.
MR. FUGATE: You, I think, took those with you.
THE COURT: Did I take them with me?
MR. FUGATE: Yes.
THE COURT: I’ll look and see if maybe I have them in my office.
MR. FUGATE: Because I think we were up to Binder 3. And 2 — I mean, 4 and 5 are just since we’ve been back.
THE COURT: But you started Volume 1 with the
967
first day of the hearing?
MR. FUGATE: Yes.
THE COURT: I’ll check it. Those are exhibits.
MR. FUGATE: Let me just check.
Yes, Judge, 1 and 2 beginning, and 3 and 4 and 5 continue on. So 5 is the latest which just went up there today.
THE COURT: I’ll have to look then, because I was thinking I better start taking these home. And I thought I would start with 1. And apparently maybe it is home or here. I’ll check. Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Okay, I just showed you your September — I’m sorry, your December 22, 1999 affidavit — or declaration, the supplemental declaration that you submitted in the Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology California case.
A Yes, you did.
Q And that is Exhibit Number 1 on the front?
A Exhibit Number 132.
Q Plaintiff’s 132?
A Yeah. Evidence 132.
Q Now, this was an affidavit — this was a declaration — but an under oath statement — that was filed by you at the request of Mr. Leipold?
A Correct.
968
Q Now, you did this declaration in response to a declaration that had been filed by Mr. Miscavige in this case a few months prior. Correct?
A No, sir. That is incorrect.
Q Well, you — if you turn to Page 9 —
A Okay.
Q — Paragraph 14, you say: “The missionaire in charge of the San Francisco mission holder’s vision was David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige is flat out attempting to deceive this court in his declaration when he characterizes his presence at the conference as that of an ‘invited’ master of ceremonies.”
A Okay, yes, you are right. I remember that.
Q Do you remember that now?
THE COURT: The whole affidavit may not have been filed in that response. I remember reading that last night. It was one of the things I took home. I just remember that as being part of the affidavit. I mean, I’m not saying it wasn’t.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: I don’t know why it was filed. But that is just one of a lot of stuff in there?
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
969
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q But what I’m saying is when you — you had reviewed and were being asked, among other things, to comment on things that had been raised or discussed by Mr. Miscavige in his declaration. Correct?
A Well, not entirely. What I was asked to do specifically by Mr. Leipold was to do a declaration that would shed some light into how Scientology works, how the different corporations relate to each other, what are the names of them, what are the practices of them. I think —
THE COURT: Well, when you said — I didn’t mean to get off here. When you said whatever you said about Mr.Miscavige was misleading the Court, was that in some testimony? Was this in a declaration? In a deposition? Or do you know?
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall at this time.
MR. WEINBERG: But it says here the declaration.
THE COURT: Then it must be the declaration.
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
MR. DANDAR: Which page is that on?
MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 14 on Page 9.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And declaration is this thing that is used in the California court, as opposed to an affidavit in Florida,
970
correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, let me show you what we’ll have the reporter mark as the next exhibit.
THE CLERK: 241.
MR. WEINBERG: 241. Do we have a copy for the Judge?
THE COURT: What is the number?
THE CLERK: 241.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. WEINBERG: 241. For this part I’ll just give you this.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q If you look at that declaration, you remember that Mr. Miscavige filed a long declaration with regard that was submitted in the Wollersheim case that you reviewed and at least commented on in this declaration that you filed a few months later. Correct?
A Yes, I did comment, in part, in my declaration about this one.
Q Right. And as this one indicates, it was filed on September 29, 1999, which would be a few months before your declaration was done. Correct? Yours is December.
A That is correct.
971
Q Okay. Now —
THE COURT: Out of curiosity, I just started leafing through here real quick, and I see if this is a declaration that came before Mr. Prince’s declaration, on Page 54, Paragraph 115, it says:
“Further, I do not know why Prince would allege he signed an undated letter of resignation.”
MR. WEINBERG: Right, because this is —
Mr. Prince’s, the one in front of you, is a supplemental declaration.
THE COURT: Mr. Prince had a declaration?
MR. WEINBERG: Right.
THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige —
MR. WEINBERG: Responded to it.
THE COURT: Then this is a supplemental?
MR. WEINBERG: Right. All right?
THE COURT: Okay. And what I was given yesterday and what I read last night was a supplemental affidavit?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes. The one that —
THE COURT: 134, whatever you call it.
MR. WEINBERG: Let me just — I should — I’m usually better at this than that. It is 132, it is Mr. Prince’s supplemental declaration.
THE COURT: All right.
972
MR. WEINBERG: Okay? It is falling apart.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MR. WEINBERG: Now, your Honor, what goes along with this declaration is there were exhibits, this and this. We will just put this in the record.
This is part of — of 241.
THE COURT: What is that?
MR. WEINBERG: It would be exhibits that go with Mr. Miscavige’s declaration.
THE COURT: Other than what I have got attached to this —
MR. WEINBERG: Yes. Well, this is Exhibit Q.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. WEINBERG: — of the declaration, “The Way To Happiness,” which you have seen before.
And the tape is what? The tape is — I’m not sure what the tape is. What is the tape? Oh, I need the tape back. The tape was actually some of the videos we are going to put in from yesterday.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: So exhibit — what was it –241?
THE CLERK: Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Exhibit 241 is what you have in front of you, plus Exhibit Q here.
973
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Which you may or may not want.
That is “The Way To Happiness.”
THE COURT: I thought “The Way To Happiness” was the little book, the little brochure.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess I’ll open this up and find out. I have to look.
No, this is a — well, this is a —
THE COURT: This must be a —
MR. WEINBERG: This is a better — this is what was filed. This is the — the bound copy of it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll give a copy to Mr. Dandar.
MR. DANDAR: I object to the relevance.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s — it’s Mr. Prince’s affidavit that Mr. Dandar put in yesterday. It was in response, at least in part, to this. So, therefore, we’re offering Mr. Miscavige’s affidavit, your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll let it come in as to whatever part relates to this testimony. I’m sure there is stuff that doesn’t. But rather than try to pick and choose, we’ll just let it all in for now.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: And this is, I’m sure, a deluxe
974
version of the little brochure.
MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. I’m sure it is.
THE COURT: That was Number 241?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you have in front of you your April 2002 affidavit.
A No, I do not.
Q Probably not. Mr. Dandar marked that yesterday.
MR. WEINBERG: Could we see if we can find that one? That is the one that was filed — the most recent affidavit.
THE COURT: Is that the May 2002? No?
MR. DANDAR: April. April.
MR. WEINBERG: I think it’s April, your Honor.
You marked it as an exhibit, right, Mr. Dandar?
MR. DANDAR: I thought I did, yes.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, I’m looking here,”Notice of Filing Affidavit in Opposition of Defendant’s Omnibus Motion.” Is that the one?
MR. DANDAR: That is the one.
THE COURT: Okay. It is dated — “Jesse Prince, sworn the 1st day of May, 2002.” So I want to make sure we’re looking at the same one.
975
MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure. The front says April 2002? The next page? Yes, that is it. I see the attachment.
THE COURT: It says April 2002. He signed it May 1. We can agree it’s the same?
MR. DANDAR: It’s the same.
MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy for Mr. Prince?
THE CLERK: What exhibit is that, Judge?
THE COURT: I don’t know. It was something that came in —
MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was filed in this case.
THE COURT: It is filed.
MR. DANDAR: I would like it to be part of the evidence.
THE COURT: Yes, let’s make this the next plaintiff’s exhibit, which would be what? We’ll make this Plaintiff’s 135.
So now it is Plaintiff’s 135.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Mr. Prince, you have a copy of it?
A Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Do you have that?
976
THE CLERK: No. I don’t.
THE COURT: Well, you’ll have to give the clerk one.
MR. DANDAR: Well, I’ll make a copy of that as soon as we’re done.
THE COURT: Okay. Because I have one here but it is mine.
MR. DANDAR: It is yours.
THE COURT: And I guess what you want to be sure is the notes — I think they were attached to the original affidavit.
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE COURT: — are part of the affidavit.
So, Madam Clerk, you have an affidavit with some attachments, some handwritten notes?
THE CLERK: Right.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, this is an affidavit that was prepared by who?
A Which one now?
Q The one we’re looking at.
THE COURT: The one you have in front of you.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q The one that says April 2002 but I guess it is
977
dated May 1, 2002.
A Okay. You know, you gave me three of them here.
Q I gave you what?
A Three declarations.
Q Oh, I’m sorry, the one that Mr. Dandar is entering as his next exhibit is your May 1, 2002 affidavit.
A Okay.
Q Who prepared that affidavit?
A I did.
Q And where did you prepare it?
A Mmm, in Mr. Dandar’s office; partially at my home.
Q When did you prepare it?
A Well, according to this document, it looks like I started it in April and executed it May 1.
Q But, now, this isn’t too long ago. So I’m asking you, when do you recall that you first started work on this affidavit?
A Mmm, let me see. Maybe the second week of April. I don’t know. The second, third week of April. No — yeah, maybe the third week of April.
Q The third week of April?
A Yeah.
Q And did you — at that point, did anybody make any suggestions, revisions, changes, to your affidavit?
A Mmm, no.
978
Q Who typed the affidavit?
A I did.
Q So it was produced off of your computer?
A Yes.
Q Or what?
A Yes.
Q Executed in Mr. Dandar’s office?
A Correct. I used my laptop.
Q Now, did — what prompted you to do this affidavit?
A My friends were being blackmailed and coerced. There was nothing that I could do to get them to try another solution to whatever problem that they were trying to have — they wanted me to do it with them. I refused to do
it. I spoke to law enforcement about these things. And I put it in writing for the benefit of Judge Schaeffer and anyone else who would be interested in it.Q The time that you started this affidavit, the Church had already filed its motion terminating sanctions and for disqualification in this case of Mr. Dandar?
A I don’t know. I don’t remember.
Q Well, did you have a copy of the motion when you prepared this affidavit?
A I did not.
Q Had you — did Mr. Dandar ever provide you with a
979
copy of the motion?
A As I sit here today, I can’t say that he did.
THE COURT: He may have. You are not saying he didn’t, either, right?
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t — terminating sanctions? No, I don’t think I have seen that thing.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And how did you find out that there was — that there had been a motion filed to dismiss this lawsuit as a result of allegations of misconduct and to disqualify Mr. Dandar?
A When it came over to this courtroom, I think it was here the first day because I had been a sequestered witness from Judge Baird’s court, you know, where this thing started. Then when it came over here, I was able to appear
in court the first day. And I was here for it.Q Mr. Dandar asked you to prepare an affidavit in response to the motion for sanctions?
A Mmm, no, Mr. Weinberg. This is something that I had to sit down and do. It’s not anything I could keep carrying on in my head. I knew that I would have to sit down and write about this.
Q Now, these notes that are at the back of this, that is April 14th, 2002. You see that, correct?
980
A Yes.
Q Had you already started writing your affidavit as of April 14, 2002?
A No. Because this is the day that I met with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Lirot, then later on that evening met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton.
Q So it was sometime —
A But, you know, this was just like in case anything happens to me where I don’t appear again, at least this would be written.
Q So the affidavit was written sometime between April 14 — written and completed, obviously, sometime between April 14 and May 1?
A Correct.
Q Now, you attended — I think you testified — the April 9, 2002 hearing before Judge Baird where Mr. Minton testified, purged himself, with regard to his contempt? In other words, purged himself of perjury?
A I —
Q Do you understand that concept?
A You know, I guess that is one way to look at it.But the way I describe it in my affidavit, he got up and lied to save his own skin.
Q And you were there?
A Yes, just for a very short amount of time. And
981
I — and I covered that really extensively here. The first lie I heard, I got up, I was out the door.
Q And that is when you got really angry at Mr. Minton for the first time?
A I wouldn’t say that. No. I was more upset by the situation. I — I didn’t have anger directed at Mr. Minton.
I mean, I was upset about what he did but, you know, this is my friend. We have been watching these videos. You see we had a close relationship. So it wasn’t like I want to do something to him. I was angry what he had done.
Q Now, it’s your testimony that weeks before that Mr. Minton had told you, before he ever met with Mike Rinder and Sandy Rosen at the end of March, he told you that he had been told that the Church already had his $500,000 check?
A No. I gave testimony about this. I’ll try to answer it as best I can. And I think it is covered here in the very beginning of this affidavit of when all of that talk had started.
Yes, Page 3 of the same affidavit, Paragraph 9, if you go to Line 28, it says: “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar. Somebody is going to die,” on and on.
Q All right. But there is nowhere in this affidavit where you say that Mr. Rinder or the Church of Scientology
982
had the $500,000 check prior to the meetings in New York, or even at the meetings in New York, correct? You don’t say that in the affidavit, do you?
A Correct.
Q Did Mr. Minton tell you in this — at any point that his name didn’t appear on the $500,000 check?
A Yes.
Q And you first learned that when?
A That Mr. Minton’s name wasn’t on the check? I think I learned that — you know, I’m not going to speculate. I’m not sure when I learned that.
Q Well, did you learn it at or about the time that Mr. Minton gave the check to Mr. Dandar?
A No, I did not. I wasn’t present when he gave the check to Dandar. You are talking about the $500,000 check?
Q That is the one I asked you about.
A Okay. Well, that particular check I — I think I’ve given testimony concerning the fact that, you know, he took us to the top of the parking garage and told us about this. I’d never seen anything physically with my eyes.
Q Now, where in the affidavit do you talk about the parking garage? Can you show us?
A Mmm, I meant my testimony. Not in here, in the —
Q But is it — didn’t you address it in your affidavit?
983
A I may have. Let me see.
Q Look at Page 11 at the top.
A Okay.
Q You see where you say, “I reminded them of an incident that happened in August 2001 –”
A Yes.
Q “– where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut costs. Part of the cost-cutting was to not pay Mr. Garko until the case was over. Bob invited me and Stacy Brooks to the top level of a parking structure
directly across the street from the LMT to make sure there was no illegal surveillance going on, and he said Ken is getting $500,000 and that was all he was going to get and it was a big secret and we were not to tell anyone about it.”Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q So your most recent sworn affidavit, May 1 of 2002, you said that this alleged incident in the garage took place in August of 2001, not in May of 2000. That is what you say. Right?
A I’m completely confused.
Q Well, look at it again then.
A Okay. Oh, 2001. Yes, that is an error. It was 2000. That is an obvious error. This happened in August of 2000 when the check was issued. Right?
984
Q No.
A Okay.
Q That is not right. May 1, 2000.
A The $500,000 check?
Q Yes.
A Okay. Sorry. I didn’t remember it like that. I didn’t have the check at my convenience to have that date there. I did the best I could.
Q Well, do you think it is important to be accurate in your declarations, sworn testimony, sworn affidavits?
A Yes, I do.
Q And you are very specific in this reference I just read to you about the circumstances where this alleged conversation took place when Mr. Minton was pulling back in August when we all know that the LMT was about to shut down. That is what you said. Right?
A No.
Q You — we just read it, “Part of the cost-cutting,” that is what you’re talking about?
A What does that have to do with the Lisa McPherson — LMT? I mean —
Q It’s that you described this very vivid incident on the garage in the context of the August 2001 time period when Mr. Minton is cutting back. That is how you describe it. That is how you date it. Correct?
985
A Okay. That is an error. I thought this $500,000 check happened in 2000. Am I wrong about that?
THE COURT: No. You are not wrong.
THE WITNESS: Oh.
THE COURT: It was 2000. But what you said was August.
THE WITNESS: It was not my intention to commit perjury by making a typographical error, if that is what you want to ask me about this, and you pointed it out. No one else did. You know, I’m sorry.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, if you said May of 2001, maybe I would understand. But it says August of 2001. So where is the typographical error here?
A Because the check was given to Mr. Dandar when?
In 2000, is that right?
Q The testimony is May of 2000.
A Okay. Well, you know, beat me for making a typographical error. I may not have the exact date right. But the incident is correct.
Q So the incident when Mr. Dandar was given the $500,000 check was at the same time that Mr. Minton had decided not to fund the case anymore and to cut back? Because that is what this says.
A Mr. Minton had — well, you know, I stand by this
986
testimony, whatever it says, with the exception of this typographical error that you correctly point out.
And I think I explained this a little bit yesterday — or whatever day it was — when, you know, they were doing the accident reconstruction, jury surveys. I mean, the costs were mounting. And he was concerned.
Q Who was concerned?
A Mr. Minton.
Q He was concerned about the costs in the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?
A Correct.
Q And so what does that have to do with you dating the $500,000 check when he was concerned about the mounting costs of the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?
A You know, I’m just totally confused. I don’t know where we’re going with this.
Q Well, where we’re going —
A I made a mistake here. I said — I said 2001. I should have said 2000.
Q You said August and you should have said May. And then you should have said, instead of it was at the time that Mr. Minton was cutting back, it was actually the time when he was funding the lawsuit.
Other than that, you didn’t make any mistakes. Right?
987
A Well, beat me for making a mistake. But, Mmm —
THE COURT: Well, what page is this on, again?
MR. WEINBERG: It’s on Page 11.
THE WITNESS: 11.
MR. WEINBERG: At the top.
THE COURT: I have got it.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Well, it’s not that I want to beat you for making a mistake. But is it important to you that your sworn testimony is accurate, or not?
A That is the second time you asked me that. And, yes, I have the same answer. Yes, it is. I made a mistake.
Q Well, do you think you might have made some other mistakes in your sworn testimony, whether it is in court here or in this affidavit or the August 20 affidavit or the other affidavits that you filed?
A Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m doing the best that I can to bring out this testimony into this hearing.
Q Now, after you got angry when you saw Mr. Minton for a short time testify on April 9, 2002, you, a few days later, met with him and Ms. Brooks at the Adam’s Mark Hotel?
A Yes.
Q And that was on or about April 12th?
A Approximately. Yes.
Q You had dinner?
988
A Yes.
Q And you-all talked about ending the fight against Scientology?
A We talked about committing perjury on behalf of Scientology.
Q Did Mr. Minton tell you that he was relieved because he was finally — he was finally going to be telling the truth and not perjuring himself anymore? Did he tell you that?
A Absolutely not. He told me he didn’t feel good about it, he still wasn’t certain about it, that it was the right thing to do.
He felt horrible about what was going to happen — or the charges that were going to happen to Mr. Dandar.
Q Now —
A He had a conscience about it.
Q Now, when Mr. Minton told you, you say, in March of 2002, that the Church already had this $500,000 check, did you pick up — and it was going to cause — I guess you said it was going to cause him problems, right?
A Yes.
Q He said it was going to cause Mr. Dandar problems, right?
A Cause him problems. He didn’t say Mr. Dandar. He said it was going to cause him problems.
989
Q Because he was going to have to lie about it, is that what he said?
A No. Because he had already lied about it.
Q All right. Now, did you pick up the phone then, given your concern, and call up Mr. Dandar and say,
“Ken — Mr. Dandar, Bob Minton told me that the Church has this $500,000 check and he perjured himself in your lawsuit and it’s a problem”?
Did you do that?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Well, Mr. Rosen — why do I want to call you Mr. Rosen?
THE COURT: It is late in the day.
THE WITNESS: It is late in the day.
A Mr. Weinberg —
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q We’re both Sandys but he’s a lot taller than I am.
A Yes, that is true.
Why didn’t I immediately call Mr. Dandar?
Q Why didn’t you call Mr. Dandar?
A Because I thought that there was actually something that I could do to — you know, to encourage Mr. Minton to not go down this road. I mean, they’re busy trying to drag me down this road. I’m busy trying to tell
990
them, “Don’t do it. Don’t go down there.”
Q Did it concern you Mr. Minton was telling you he had already perjured himself in this lawsuit? That is what you just said he told you. That was a problem. Right?
A The problem was that that check surfaced. There was some problem about where it came from. Mmm, I personally don’t know his deposition testimony or his — his testimony that he had given in the courts, what he had said
about that. I don’t know that today. I haven’t read any of that stuff.But, you know, I described the situation where a man is on the phone, crying uncontrollably, very upset. You know, there was a lot about this that didn’t make sense.
And I’m sorry I couldn’t have been more rational about it to ask a question such as that.
Q After the meeting, dinner, whatever it was, on April 12 at the Adam’s Mark, the next time you met with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton was at the Radisson on Sand Key a couple of days later on April 14, is that right?
A I believe I met with them on a Saturday. If I’m right, I met with them at the Adam’s Mark. And the next day I met with them at the Radisson.
Q So whatever the Saturday is, the 12th, 13th, then the next day you went back to the Radisson?
A A Sunday.
991
Q And that is the last meeting you had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?
A Correct.
Q That is the day you went to the Radisson is the day that you prepared these notes. Right?
A Earlier that day I prepared these notes.
Q All right. So when you actually went to meet at the Radisson with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, you had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot. And who else?
A You know, my girlfriend was there.
Q Was anybody else there?
A Mr. Haverty.
Q Anybody else there?
A Not that I specifically recall.
Q Was Miss Greenway there?
A I don’t know. I don’t think so.
Q You had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot and Mr. Haverty?
A No. That is incorrect. I only spoke to Mr. Dandar about this. I pulled him aside and spoke to him about that specifically.
Q So when you said you met with Mr. Lirot, you didn’t really meet with Mr. Lirot, you only met with Mr. Dandar?
A That was the first time I had ever met Mr. Lirot.
992
Q Can you just answer that question? You didn’t meet with Mr. Lirot, you just met with Mr. Dandar to tell him your concerns, right?
A Correct. And then at the end of that, toward the end of that meeting, I shared some things with Mr. Lirot about it.
Q All right. And is there a particular reason why you met Mr. Dandar at a mall, as opposed to his office?
A Yes. Because I have a continuing concern that my house is electronically bugged by Scientology for illegal surveillance purposes. And I wanted to be in a place where I felt secure in not having that concern.
Q Well, you didn’t have the meeting at your house.
A Correct.
Q My question was why didn’t you have the meeting at Mr. Dandar’s office?
A Because his air-conditioning doesn’t work on the weekend and it is very hot in there. You know, they turn it off. He’s in a building where they turn the air-conditioning off — you know, it’s like a 9-to-5 kind of place. At 5 o’clock, boom, it starts getting hot. On the weekend they don’t turn it on because there is no one in the office, unless you want to pay $25 an hour.
Q So it was his suggestion you meet in the mall?
A Yes.
993
Q Was there a particular place in the mall where you met?
A We were at the International Plaza at some lounge.
I don’t remember the name of it.
Q Just sitting at a table?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Counsel, please. Please. Move into something —
MR. WEINBERG: I will. I will.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Your testimony is, I think, that you didn’t call Mr. Dandar to set up this meeting.
A Correct.
Q You called Frank Oliver, one of the people that was connected with the Lisa McPherson Trust, to set up the meeting with Mr. Dandar. Right?
A Correct.
Q Now, Frank Oliver lives in Miami?
A Correct.
Q Frank Oliver, as far as I know, has never been a consultant or expert for Mr. Dandar. Is that right?
A You would have to ask him that. You know —
Q Do you know from your experience?
A No. I do not know.
Q And you called — you have had dozens of phone
994
conversations with Mr. Dandar over the years. Correct?
A Hundreds.
Q Right. And we have your phone records in evidence from the LMT.
A Right.
Q There are hundreds of phone calls. Is that right?
A Well —
Q In other words —
A Well —
Q You know his number?
A Yes.
Q Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call him?
A I’ll state it again. I was at home using my home phone. I didn’t want to call him because of those concerns.
I called somebody else.THE COURT: Was there concern that Mr. Dandar’s phone was bugged, as well? Or not? You did not have that concern.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t have that concern.
THE COURT: So the concern you had was your phone was bugged at your house?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q So — and you picked Mr. Oliver because? Why?
A I trust him. He’s my friend.
995
Q So from your phone — which you had a concern was bugged — you called Mr. Oliver and said, “I really need you to call Mr. Dandar and set up a meeting with me”?
A No. “Ask him to call me because I want to help him.”
Q Asked who to call you?
A Mr. Dandar.
Q Call you where?
A I called Mr. Oliver and asked him to please have Mr. Dandar call me because I want to help him.
Q Okay. So doesn’t that still concern you, if your phones were bugged, if Mr. Dandar was going to call you?
A I didn’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with Mr. Dandar on my phone specifically about what I wanted to talk to him about.
Q Well, you could have just picked up the phone, called him and said, “I don’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with you over the phone, let’s have a meeting”?
A No, I could have done that. And if I was a wasp, I could have flown away. Where is this going?
Q But you didn’t do that?
A No.
THE COURT: Is there some relevance to that?
Because if there isn’t, I wish you would move on.
996
MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on. Mr. Oliver is the next witness. And, you know, I —
THE COURT: Mr. Oliver may or may not be the witness.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, Mr. Dandar told me he was the next witness.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And did you have any kind of conversation with Mr. Oliver, other than to ask him to tell Mr. Dandar to call you?
A No.
Q So you didn’t tell Mr. Oliver the details of what was going on?
A No.
Q You didn’t tell anybody else the details of what was going on other than Mr. Dandar?
A Incorrect. I told Denis deVlaming. Denis deVlaming’s brother.
THE COURT: Some agent — I mean, come on.
We’ve been through this testimony.
MR. WEINBERG: I know. Just names.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q I mean, there was no nobody else other than what you testified to?
997
THE COURT: That you can remember, Mr. Prince, at 4:40 in the afternoon —
A Correct.
THE COURT: — when you have been on the stand all day.
A Yes, that is correct, Mr. Weinberg.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you testified that you went to the FDLE — to FDLE Agent Strope. Correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, Agent Strope is the — one of the two law enforcement people that were the principal investigators of the criminal investigation of the Church of Scientology. Correct? You knew that?
A Yes.
Q And you had had meetings with Agent Strope over the years?
A I would say that is correct.
Q And what kind of meetings had you had with Agent Strope over the years in your role as either LMT’s VP or trial consultant for Ken Dandar?
MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled. What is a trial VP?
MR. WEINBERG: I said VP of LMT or a trial consultant.
998
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q My question is —
MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s getting late.
THE COURT: It’s getting late. Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: And I know the hour.
THE COURT: Well, if you come to a nice little stopping point, we’ll stop. But whatever this is all about, you met with Agent Strope. What is it you want to know about that?
MR. WEINBERG: He said he met with him over the years.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. WEINBERG: What I want to know is, you know — you know, what was the — the —
THE COURT: I’m not going — you can ask him about the conversation that he had about whatever is going on in this hearing.
But as far as what he talked to Agent Strope about over the years, that is outside of the scope and I’m not going to let you go there.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, then —
THE COURT: I’m not letting you go there.
Finish up.
MR. WEINBERG: Do you think maybe we can stop
999
now and just go to —
THE COURT: No. Finish with Agent Strope. I don’t care if it takes until six o’clock. Then we’re going to stop.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Now, you met with Agent Strope where?
A In his office downtown Clearwater.
Q And you — was anybody else with you?
A No.
Q Was anybody else with him?
A No.
Q Did he record the conversation?
A He recorded it inasmuch as he took copious notes as I spoke.
THE COURT: Recording means did he put a tape recording on?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nothing electronic.
THE COURT: That is what he means when he says recording. If you don’t understand what somebody says, ask.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Do you know if he filed a report with regard to
1000
what you discussed with him?
A I do not.
Q Did he — did he ask to — did you have any — did you reach any agreements with him with regard to cooperation?
A I specifically asked him, “Based on the information — ” I said “– this looks like racketeering to me, it looks like RICO, criminal activity that starts in New York, continues in New Hampshire and carries on down here in Florida.”
And I briefed him on the fact that they’re calling me — you know, I wanted — when I went to deVlaming,
“Please give me a wire so that you can hear what these people are saying,” you know. You don’t — “I don’t even want you to hear it from me. Please give me a wire so you can hear what they’re saying.”
And he told me that —
Q “He” being DeVlaming? Or “he” being Strope?
A Mr. Strope — Mr. Lee Strope. He told me that he would see what he could do, but — Mmm — you know, he was — he was — he was pretty upset about what had happened himself, you know, when I told him this because, again, Mr. Strope and I do have a relationship.
But he — that is when he gave me that message to give to Mr. Minton.
1001
Q Well, let’s — one thing at a time.
A Okay.
Q Did he wire you up?
A No.
Q Did he — did he ask you to report back to him?
A No.
Q Did you have any further conversations with him?
A No — well, I take that back. I’m sorry. He came to Judge Baird’s hearing. I believe he was there for a short time. And we made casual conversation. It was obvious that this thing was going to be protracted and no decision was going to be made any time soon about any type of perjury so he said he would be in touch — we would be in touch.
Q But you haven’t been in touch with him since?
A No.
Q Did Mr. Dandar instruct you to go to Agent Strope?
A I’m not sure if it was Mr. Dandar or Mr. Emmons.
Q Mr. Dandar’s investigator?
A Correct.
Q Did you report to Mr. Dandar and/or Mr. Emmons your contact with Agent Strope?
A Yes, I did.
Q And the day that you went to Agent Strope, was what in relation to these notes of — of April 14?
1002
A I do not remember.
Q Well, you obviously went to Agent Strope before you met with — for the last time — Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?
A That is incorrect. And that is my fault because I mixed it up, speaking about DeVlaming, when you were asking me specifically about Mr. Strope, because it was with Mr. DeVlaming that I asked him to give me a federal agent,
not a local person, that would be willing to put a wire on me, because, you know — but by the time I met with Mr. Strope, the opportunity was passed.THE COURT: You met with Strope after. That is not the person you met with when Denis deVlaming or Doug DeVlaming or whenever somebody sent you to see somebody?
THE WITNESS: Douglas DeVlaming said he would do the contact himself. He contacted the agent, explained the situation to him, then he called me and told me what the federal agent told him.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q Right. Well, that was a federal agent. You never met with a federal agent, right?
A Personally, no.
Q So that is what Mr. DeVlaming was doing?
A Douglas DeVlaming.
1003
Q But at the suggestion of Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, you are the one that initiated the contact with Agent Strope of the FDLE. Correct?
A Well, you know, that is not the way you said it, Mr. Weinberg. You said who asked you to go. I said it was either Mr. Dandar or it was Mr. Emmons. Now you are saying I arranged it and somehow — you know, one of the two persons, Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, arranged or contacted Mr. Strope and arranged for me to meet with him.
Q The way we started was I was just trying to date it. It was sometime before the April 14 last meeting with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Correct?
A Incorrect.
Q So you went to Agent Strope after you had had your last meeting with Ms. Brooks and — and — and Mr. Minton?
A Correct.
Q You wanted Agent Strope to make you an informant?
A No. I wanted Agent Strope to do what he could to talk to someone on a federal level to deal with this problem, because in my mind it was a federal crime. I asked him about that.
And he — you know, he said, “If what you are saying is true, it is a federal crime.”
I didn’t want to fool around with the Florida folks. I wanted something federal, because it happened in
1004
New York, it happened in New Hampshire, and it happened here in Clearwater.
Q At the time that this was going on, you meeting with Agent Strope, did you know that Mr. Minton had a lawyer with regard to these matters?
A Oh, I think it was Mr. Howie, wasn’t it? Well, he had a couple lawyers. Mr. Howie. Mr. Jonas.
Q And it’s your testimony that Agent Strope told you, if not instructed you, to deliver a message to Mr. Minton?
THE COURT: He already testified to that.
A Correct.
THE COURT: Asked and answered.
A Correct.
THE COURT: I believe I asked the question the second time. So we really don’t need it for the third time.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: The testimony is what it is.
BY MR. WEINBERG:
Q And you delivered the message?
A Yes, I did — well, as I testified, my fiancee delivered the message. She read it to him. I wrote it down on a piece of paper. She read it to him over the phone.
MR. WEINBERG: That is a good stopping point.
1005
THE COURT: Okay. Then we’re done for the day.
And we will start tomorrow at —
(A discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: We’ll start tomorrow at nine.
We’ll be in recess.
MR. WEINBERG: I should tell Mr. Dandar, I don’t have very much more with Mr. Prince, so he needs to be ready for the next witness.
MR. DANDAR: How much more?
THE COURT: Have your witness here in the morning.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’m handing over to the defense my response to the request to produce.
THE COURT: I don’t have to get into that unless you-all don’t get together on it.
Requests to produce normally don’t require the Court.
MR. DANDAR: I just wanted to file it with the clerk.
THE COURT: We’re in recess until 9 o’clock.
Good night.
(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)
______________________________________
1006
REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.
______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR