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 3) (July 8, 2002)
329
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 3
DATE: July 8, 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)224-9500330
APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 201
Tampa, Florida 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N. East Street
Suite B
Tampa, Florida 33602-4108
Attorney for PlaintiffMR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street
Suite 900
Clearwater, Florida 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, Florida 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, New York 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.331
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.332
THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you all may be seated.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just was advised by my office that Judge Baird wants us to be at a hearing tomorrow by telephone. And I’m going to be here and my brother is covering another hearing for me in Tampa. But Judge Baird wants to go forward with the hearing by telephone.
So I would ask that you let me attend that hearing by phone.
THE COURT: What time?
MR. DANDAR: Nine o’clock.
THE COURT: Okay. How long is the hearing expected —
MR. DANDAR: I have no idea.
THE COURT: Well, that is no good. What kind of motion is it?
MR. DANDAR: It was the Flag’s — or RTC’s — actually, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Pope’s motion to strike our pleading challenging the domestication of the Texas judgment against the estate.
THE COURT: So it’s legal —
MR. DANDAR: Right. We had a hearing on that Tuesday at about 5 o’clock before July 4 and we filed a supplemental memorandum of law and they filed a response over the holiday, so I guess we’ll discuss that.
333
THE COURT: You think an hour?
MR. DANDAR: I hope not. I don’t think so. But —
MR. WEINBERG: I’m told not that long. About thirty minutes.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s plan on starting at ten o’clock anyway.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead, Mr. Dandar.
Mr. Prince indicated he didn’t give us his full explanation, so you can go ahead with that.
MR. DANDAR: Okay, before he does that, could I give him a document that I had the clerk just mark?
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, Mr. Prince, go ahead, give us the full explanation of why you have the opinion that Lisa McPherson was dead because of an end cycle order?
A Okay. Lisa McPherson went to the hospital. From — from the records that I can see from the doctor, they didn’t indicate that she was psychotic and needed to be Baker Acted.
Now, we’re talking about terms here that mean different things to different people. In the hospital they define psychosis the way they define it and, thus, Baker Act people. In Scientology, they have a different definition
334
for a person, a psychotic or suffering from psychosis. One of the definitions, reasoning of what psychosis is in Scientology, is in their Case Supervisor Series 22, which has been entered in on the record, I’m sure, many times. And this is concerning psychosis.
Now, it says here —
THE COURT: I don’t know if it has been or not.
I think you’re looking in that one book?
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: I’m not sure if that whole book was introduced.
THE WITNESS: No. No. Not the whole book. But this issue here, psychosis, has been an exhibit.
We can put it in again.
THE COURT: I don’t know if it has or not.
MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it has.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, when I finish explaining it, I’ll hand it over.
MR. DANDAR: We’ll mark it.
THE COURT: All right.
A It says — down here at the beginning of this issue here on psychosis, it says, “All characteristics classified as those of a suppressive person are, in fact, those of an insane person.”
So, in other words, it is the belief of
335
Scientology that a person who they consider to be suppressive and has those characteristics are also insane people, you see. So we’re working with two different definitions here.
Now, if this person — if Lisa was taken to the hospital and they said okay, she’s not insane, she’s just having problems, she can work it out, she gets to Scientology, she’s insane. They are the ones that classify her as being insane.
Why do they classify her as — well, one of the reasons they classify her as being insane is because she wants to leave. And again that is mentioned here in this book here of people wanting to leave as also being psychotic.
So my thing is this. Lisa McPherson was taken to the Ft. Harrison. Prior to being — to this whole incident with going to the hospital and everything, she made her intentions to the Church known, to her friends, to her family, she wants to leave. In their minds, she’s psychotic. Medically, not necessarily so, she simply doesn’t want to do it anymore.
It has become a matter of PR concern because she had the accident with the boat, you know. She’s left, she’s —
THE COURT: I’m sorry, she had the what?
336
THE WITNESS: The accident with the boat, where she ran into the back of the boat and took off her clothes.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
A Okay? This is something a person now who again, two months earlier, just testified to being more than human, more than a homo sapiens, this person is a homo novis. This person is almost like a demigod. Now, this person is brought to the Ft. Harrison.
In my mind, my opinion, she came in there, she said, “I want to leave.” She didn’t change her mind. She’s delegated to be psychotic. They want to put her on introspection rundown. She’s incarcerated.
In that book “What Is Scientology,” it gives a definition of introspection rundown and gives a brief summary of introspection rundown that the public people can read.
MR. DANDAR: Let me hand this to the witness, Judge. It is Exhibit 125, just marked by the clerk from “What Is Scientology,” which I believe you have the entire book.
THE COURT: Yes.
A It says “Introspection Rundown. This is a service that helps to preclear, locate and correct things which cause him to have his attention inwardly fixated. He then
337
becomes capable of looking outward so he can see his environment, handle and control it.”
Nothing in here, one, if Scientology labels you psychotic, you are going to be incarcerated until a case supervisor tells you you can leave. There is nothing in here that warns anyone of that.
So Lisa was taken to the Ft. Harrison, deemed to be psychotic, put on the introspection rundown.
Well, when did that come up that we even found out that Lisa was on introspection rundown? After Alain Kartuzinski and other people were given use immunity when they were first saying she’s a hotel guest, now the
investigators want to hear the story, “Oh, she was on introspection rundown.” Okay. So she’s on introspection rundown the second day.And to me — again, she told them, “I want to leave.” They wouldn’t let her leave. She gets violent. The next day they order the drugs to put her down.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q What drugs?
A I think it is chloral hydrate or Valium. Alain Kartuzinski gave some money for Valium. And if you look and see what Scientology says about drugs, psychiatric drugs, all of these things, these things are expressly prohibited.
Now, so far what we’ve seen, we see Scientology’s
338
policy if a person is sick, when you take them to the hospital, make sure — but now we see things happening that — that are outside of that. By their own policy we see things they are not following that. That is a huge no-no.
We are at the place where policy and tech is applied 100 percent correctly standardly in every case, but somehow in this instance we have so many instances where this person — they are not doing it, they are not doing it.
And the reason why, you have to look behind that. And the reason, my contention is, is that she expressly wanted to leave, it escalated to her actually threatening, probably threatening with legal, threatening with law enforcement or whatever. This became a problem.
OSA was there from the very beginning, reporting about this, the very beginning, because this is a legal threat, this is a problem in Scientology.
So maybe they did try an introspection rundown on her. You know, they say they did. Maybe they did. But I think she never agreed to it. I think that she decided she was done with Scientology, no matter what they said to her,
she would no longer agree to it, because by her own word, it was making her sicker.So instead, because of what happened, when they saw Lisa’s deteriorating condition, in their minds Lisa is
339
on the process. She’s on introspection rundown. Scientology has further policy, the way out is the way through, get the PC through it. What turns it on or turns it off. In their minds, whatever she’s going through is part of the process.
Plus, you have the added fear that if this person isn’t reconciled with Scientology, it’s going to be a big problem.
So instead of taking this girl to the hospital where she should have belonged, where their own policy says to do, and get her medical treatment, when it was obvious, by the reports that I have seen that she was ill, instead of
doing that, no, we’re going to keep doing Scientology because that is what it means by Keeping Scientology Working and, you know, what happens happens. Some of them don’t make it. Too bad.But the biggest fear for Scientology was to let this girl go, in the state of mind where she was refusing to cooperate with them, caused them more problems than her actual death.
Q How do you get to your conclusion that her death was a result of an end cycle, let her die order from Mr. Miscavige?
A During my tenure in — in RTC, we would have staff meetings that had a pattern to the staff meetings. And the
340
patterns were this. What are the flaps? What are the handling for those flaps? Those are the first things that are discussed and chewed around and taken care of.
Q With whom?
A Amongst the executives and the staff in any particular organization. Any particular Sea Org organization, I should say.
Q At RTC, who were the meetings with that you had?
A Flaps and handling? They would entail myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yaeger, David Miscavige, Lymon Sperlock, Norman Starkey (phonetic), in some instances the executive director in the national if it had to do with stats. But
those were the people that ultimately had to know what was going on.Now, why is Flag Service Organization so important? Because the Flag Service Organization, when I left here in 1982, made an income of over 2 million a week. So you have an organization here that makes $8 million in a
month. This is — it is the highest income-producing organization within Scientology.It’s a major concern that everything is perfect at the Flag Service Organization. There is not going to be an instance where no one knows what is going on. So in the staff meetings you talk about flaps and handling.
Well, Lisa is a flap. It’s reported up the lines.
341
OSA is there from the very beginning because she is a legal threat because it is a flap. And they are busy reporting, you know, on the legal side of it and what is going on and the repercussions.
They are also coordinating and in liaison with the technical area that has the technical program that they are trying to get her through, which in their minds is going to cure her.
Everyone knows — I believe there is also testimony on the — during the time period that Lisa was going through this trouble, Mr. Miscavige was there. We would often go to the Flag Service Organization, to inspect it, to make sure it is running properly, to make sure this technology is being applied 100 percent standard.
Q What are you relying on when you say Mr. Miscavige was at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in this time period?
A I believe some — a public person who — I don’t recall the name right now — something that I read mentioned the fact that he was there. And — he was at post.
Q This public Scientologist saw Mr. Miscavige?
A Yes.
Q Was that in the police files of the Clearwater Police files?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
342
A So your largest income-making —
THE COURT: Where is that?
MR. DANDAR: I have it. I’ll introduce it, Judge. In fact, I have it on my computer. I’ll print it out on my next break.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: It is Detective Carrasquillo of the Clearwater Police Department interviewed four, I believe, public Scientologists staying in the cabanas who heard nothing during this time period, who saw Mr. Miscavige —
MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, is Mr. Dandar testifying? Or is he asking questions?
THE COURT: I just asked him a question. He’s responding to me. I was saying —
MR. DANDAR: It is a four-page document. It’s on my computer. I can print it out.
THE COURT: Okay.
A So, you know, from the limited time that I was there in the Religious Technology Center myself, I know that, you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service Organization that I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure that the whole thing ran smoothly. And the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.
343
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Okay.
A And I am saying here today — and the reason I came to that conclusion — is by their own written policies that they have written here, you start to see violations.
And the reason why is because there was a problem. There was a legal threat. Lisa was not cooperating with them. When I did the introspection rundown on the other girl, she was cooperating. She wasn’t trying to leave. She
was going along with it. She never mentioned that she wanted to leave at any other time. There is a big difference.So now you have a person that wants to leave, has publicly stated they want to leave to their friends, to their family, to the auditor. That is a no-no.
Q How did you —
A Again, there is reference where a person wants to leave is psychotic. So now they have put this label on her. She’s locked in a room. She’s terrified. Instead of taking her to the hospital when she was sick and letting her get
treatment because of her state of mind and because of the way she felt about Scientology, they opted to just continue the process, and either it works or it doesn’t.Q Well, Heather Hof, who was a 17-year-old ethics officer, or studying to be an ethics officer, inspection
344
reports, all her records, are missing. She testified in deposition that she hand-delivered her reports to Mr. Kartuzinski, saying as early as December 2, I believe, Lisa McPherson wasn’t eating or drinking enough to survive,
something had to change, Heather was frantic. The —MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. He’s just testifying. This isn’t a question. This is just Mr. Dandar summarizing — and I would say missummarizing — what he thinks the testimony has been. It’s not a question. It’s a statement.
THE COURT: Well, I suspect that he’s saying, “Mr. Prince, if this is her testimony.” That is what you do with an expert sometimes. So if that is what he’s doing, I’ll allow it, I guess, with the question.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So I’m assuming I’m accurate in my recollection of what Heather Hof testified to the police, as well as her deposition in this case, and the pathologist retained by the estate, that Lisa was in a coma that she could be shaken out of but she would go back into, five days — the last five days of her life. And in reading — in what you know and reading what you just told us you read, why is it your opinion that they would just simply let her die rather than take her to the hospital?
345
A Because she was not settled with her relationship with Scientology. And this would have caused tremendous problems for them. If they would have taken her — you know, even during the period of time when she was going in and out of the coma and say she goes to the hospital now, she starts getting treatment, she’s getting better, you know, Scientologists come around, she now tells the doctors, “No, I don’t want to see them anymore, I have to get away from this.”
Q Mr. Prince, I guess the crux of the matter is you — you put together an affidavit that is dated August of 1999. Do you recall that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Where you talk about the role of David Miscavige and Mr. Mithoff and Marty Rathbun and your prior history in RTC. Do you remember that?
A Yes. I do.
Q And in that affidavit you have come to the conclusion that the three of them just decided to sit around and not do anything about it and end cycle Lisa McPherson?
A Yes. If she dies, she dies. If she gets better, she gets better.
Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit?
A Not at all. This affidavit came about because — from studying all of the evidence. And I spent months
346
studying this to come to this conclusion. This conclusion I came to was my personal opinion, I stated it as such, based on the experience I have within that organization.
And the thing that — that became alarming to me to even point me in this direction is the amount of information that is missing, the amount of things that — that isn’t there that would clearly show like what her state of mind was based on what she was saying. All of that is missing. Which means cover-up. Which means something is hidden. Why is something hidden?
In my mind, similar to what happened in Wollersheim. This is information, if gotten out, could be harmful or damaging to Scientology. And Scientology, the survival of Scientology, is first and foremost in the mind of any Scientologist, even beyond their own lives.
Q Did Stacy Brooks put you in the mood to write this affidavit? Did she kind of persuade you to write this affidavit?
A No. Put me in the mood? I guess I didn’t understand.
Q Okay. Did she influence you in any way whatsoever to get you to write this affidavit where you conclude that Mr. Miscavige and others had decided to issue the end cycle order?
A No. Matter of fact, Stacy disagreed with my
347
opinion about that. She disagreed with it. But — and we’ve had discussions about this.
I mean, you know, I did it outside of her. Stacy was nowhere around when I did my affidavit. And she asked me why I came to that conclusion. I mean, we’ve had in-depth conversations about that, because Stacy was not in the position I was in to be able to make that determination.
Q Did anybody — let’s even go to Bob Minton. Did Bob Minton suggest to you, order you, tell you in any way, shape or form what to put in that affidavit?
A No. Bob Minton was so disrelated from anything that I was doing in this case.
Q Really? How so? I mean, wasn’t involved at all?
A Bob Minton never cared about the particulars that was going on in this Lisa McPherson case. He never concerned himself with that.
His words to me were, “I have hired Ken. He’s got the money. He’s the best one that — the best lawyer I could think of to do it. It’s his job. It’s his responsibility.”
Q Did Bob Minton say he hired me, Ken Dandar?
A No. No. He just said you were the attorney of record. He trusted you. You could —
Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton say to you, or to me in your presence, that — ordering me to charge David
348
Miscavige with — in the civil case with murder?
A Absolutely not.
Q Did anyone — maybe I haven’t mentioned the right name, I don’t know. Let’s just cover the whole waterfront.
Is there anyone that gave you direction or influenced you in any way on how to write that affidavit and what conclusions you reached in that affidavit?
A None at all. No one.
Q Now, the only other end cycle orders you have seen when you were in RTC, did they only have to do with people who had a terminal illness?
A That is correct.
Q Did you ever come across another circumstance like Lisa McPherson where an end cycle order was given and the person did not have a known, medically diagnosed by a licensed medical doctor, terminal illness?
A No. With the exception of what I told you about John Nelson, of course.
MR. DANDAR: All right. Judge, just in case it is not present, I just want to go ahead and I marked this affidavit that we’ve been talking about as Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 126. And I’m sure you have so many copies of this already.
THE COURT: Is this the one that is 108?
MR. DANDAR: No. That is the PC folder one,
349
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. DANDAR: This is the one that talks about end cycle.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DANDAR: This is what Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint is dependent upon. I would like to move 126 into evidence.
MR. WEINBERG: It is already in evidence, but —
THE COURT: Yes, it is in, but we’ll let it in again.
MR. DANDAR: Somewhere. I’m not sure where.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recall seeing, in the deposition testimony of Judy Goldsberry-Webber and Dr. Houghton and Kartuzinski, that liquid injectable Valium was picked up twice, two separate times, at two different places for Lisa McPherson?
A Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: I object. This just isn’t proper. Do you recall seeing somebody else’s testimony? I mean, we should be asking Mr. Prince about his testimony, whatever it is, not what he recalls somebody else’s has testified to.
350
THE COURT: Well, if he read — just remember, Mr. Prince was his consultant. If he read some of these depositions in some fashion to assist him with his testimony, I mean, I already heard him talking about Valium which he thought —
MR. WEINBERG: Which was never given to Ms. Lisa McPherson.
THE COURT: Well, I know that. But we want to listen to what it is he says.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: I know that. And I know Kartuzinski was the one who said, “No, we don’t use Valium.” So, I mean, I know this case a little differently from what Mr. Prince does. But I haven’t been to all of the depositions and I haven’t read all of the depositions. But I know what I know from this hearing.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: And that is that Dr. whatever his name is prescribed the Valium.
MR. DANDAR: Minkoff.
THE COURT: And Kartuzinski said no. That is all I know.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, can you tell us how it is that the
351
organization works where if Dr. Minkoff, as he testified, ordered injectable Valium twice for Lisa McPherson, how would the org go about procuring that Valium from a public drug store?
A Well, you would have to use — you know, Scientology in itself is a closed system to that degree because it does disagree — seemingly disagrees with psychiatric medicines, the use of psychiatric medicines.
However, in — in the case of introspection and a person that is psychotic, there are references of using drugs to treat those people.
But Scientology would only go to another Scientologist who would have that same understanding that would provide what they needed because they are kind of like on the same track. I have never seen it work where a doctor outside of Scientology would do that.
Q Well, how does the organization work to go about getting the money approved to push the prescriptions?
MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’m sorry to interrupt. But he’s asking how Flag would have gotten the money in 1995 or whenever it was. He wasn’t there. He wouldn’t know that.
THE COURT: Well, he can testify as to what he knew when he was there.
MR. WEINBERG: In 1982? I mean, it’s just —
352
okay.
THE COURT: I mean, he — this is what he based his opinion on. If it had to do with 1982 we just have to take that into consideration.
A Well, there is a simple answer to the question because it’s a Scientology policy, it’s called CSW, completed staff work. Whenever the organization is expected to — is expected to finance or pay for something, a document is submitted that — to the person senior and financial persons within Scientology that explains what the situation is, what the handling of it is.
If the situation is a person is psychotic and — you know, and in need of drugs, according to this reference, and handling is to buy the drugs, and then this is okay and they sign it and that gets passed along, the drugs are purchased.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So it gets passed along to who?
A If it was an emergency CSW, which would be accompanied with a purchase order, if it is an emergency CSW with an accompanying purchase order, it would normally go from the person who originated the CSW, to his immediate senior, to the commanding officer or whoever that person designated to be in authority to instantly approve moneys expended by the organization.
353
Q And have you seen a CSW for any of the prescription drugs purchased for Lisa McPherson?
A No, I have not.
THE COURT: What was the CSW again?
THE WITNESS: Completed staff work.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q If — if the pathologist retained by the state who say that she’s in a coma, it was obvious for five days that she wasn’t getting any better, she was getting worse, if Heather Hof, in my recollection of what she said, is correct
that she was — Lisa was getting worse as early as December 2, if that is all true, is there any other explanation that you can think of that would explain why nothing was done sooner for Lisa McPherson?MR. WEINBERG: I object to the form of the question, your Honor, as a completely improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A You know, again, I have studied for 16 years these issues, this stuff with red writing, this stuff with black writing, called staff writing; the only — this is the way I opine this way, the only reason she would have been treated
this way is because she was a threat to Scientology.And Scientology has a principle called the
354
greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics. The dynamics being the different areas of life that L. Ron Hubbard codified or, you know, decided this is the way it was.
In Scientology, the overriding principle is to protect Scientology. That is the greatest good. For her to go in a bad condition to the hospital, complain of what Scientology did to her, to create bad publicity for them, possible lawsuits, possible investigation by law enforcement because she was incarcerated, held against her will, was not anything anyone wanted to deal with.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q How could letting someone die be less of a PR flap than taking them to the hospital while they are alive?
A Well, I think it is an empirical fact, because it wasn’t — it was virtually unheard of until a year after her death. When you do enough cover-up — I mean, you know, not until a year after her death was it even known what happened to her. So it worked for a while.
Q Okay. Let’s go to —
THE COURT: I have just got to ask a question there. And I had so many but I didn’t want to interrupt Mr. Prince.
She went straight to the medical examiner. Right? I mean, from the hospital to the medical
355
examiner?
THE WITNESS: Right, with meningitis.
THE COURT: Well, whatever. There is a medical examiner who is the one that determines cause of death in this city.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: If she had been stabbed, if she had been dehydrated, if she had been shot, whatever it is, you take a dead body to the medical examiner when they are not under a doctor’s care for the medical examiner to say what is the cause of death.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Right?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: I don’t know how long it took her to do her work. But the deal was as far as the Church would be concerned, she was delivered to the medical examiner to determine cause of death. Right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So any delay was occasioned apparently by some difficulty in determining what was the cause of death. And some disagreements in sending off lab tests and all that sort of stuff. Right?
356
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So — so as far as the Church is concerned, Dr. Wood or whoever was going to do the autopsy might have known what they saw in two days.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t believe —
THE COURT: I mean, they have no way of knowing that, that they couldn’t just cut her open, look, say, “Whoops, there is a blood clot, this was caused by dehydration.”
THE WITNESS: Well, wasn’t it after the criminal case got started that Mrs. Wood went on national TV and spoke about dehydration and all of these things? Wasn’t that —
THE COURT: It may have been. But the fact of the matter was, is within a matter of however soon they got to this body, depending on how many bodies they had —
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: — somebody did an autopsy, you know, did an autopsy.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Dictated findings, and eventually this was put into an autopsy report. And Dr. Wood apparently did go on nationwide TV at some point in
357
time later.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: But, I mean, it still goes without saying that there would be no way for the Church to know what was going to go on at the medical examiner’s office.
I mean, gosh, they could have said she was stabbed. They may have been wrong. But there is no way of knowing, when a body is taken under unusual circumstances, anybody not under a doctor’s care, where a doctor signs off, like in a — in a — and a medical examination is done, an autopsy is done, there would be no way for the Church to know what the ultimate result was going to be.
Why, look at all of the flap now about the different autopsy reports and what have you.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: Right?
THE WITNESS: I agree with you wholeheartedly.
THE COURT: So this has been my problem all along is that you talk about a bad public relations flap.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: Well, a death, for heaven sakes, brings about a lot worse public relation than
358
somebody who goes to the hospital and says, “I was kept there, I didn’t want to stay and they brought me here but I want to go home and I don’t want to be here” and some charges are brought because of that.
THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor —
THE COURT: Which they can defend on the way by saying this was a religious — she was a member of the Church, this was the way we handled this. That would have been the defense.
THE WITNESS: Right. And I — and I beg to differ with you on the fact that it was more convenient to take her to the hospital as opposed to take a dead body there.
THE COURT: I didn’t say convenient. I said it would be a — it was a worse public relations flap to have had Lisa McPherson die at the hotel under the care of the Church of Scientology than it would have been for Lisa McPherson to have gotten well in the hospital, having been taken there by the Church of Scientology and had her say, “They held me there and I wanted to leave and they wouldn’t let me leave.” That would have created less of a public relations flap.
THE WITNESS: I beg to differ, your Honor. And the reason I beg to differ is again, like I say,
359
this person has just attested to being almost superhuman. This person has been in the community here in Clearwater. She worked on public relations, on behalf of the Flag Service Organization, setting up the Christmas dealies. She was part of the OT committee whose responsibility is to interface Scientology with the community. Lisa was not a low-profile, no-nothing nobody-person.
THE COURT: I understand that. But here we are, we are in this hearing, it is the seventh week of this hearing. This case has been going on seven years. There has been no good publicity that has come out of it, presumably, for the Church of Scientology.
All this would have been avoided if they had taken her to a hospital if it had been something that they would have known, they took her to a hospital, and had she said, you know, “Those folks were holding me against my will,” and they just said, “No, she was there on introspection rundown,” that would have been litigated, long over.
Do you think, in the long run, it would have been less of a public relations flap?
THE WITNESS: Let’s take another perspective of it. If it had gone along as Scientology planned, if
360
my contention there was a cover-up and they were successfully able to cover up and this girl simply died of embolism, well, who cares? Okay, well, so, you know, another dead person.
But if this person came and said, “Hey, look, I have been in here, they have held me, these people have jumped on me, forced drugs down my throat, they shoot me up with needles,” you know, I know that — that they said they never used Valium. I’m sorry, I disagree. I have been through these introspection rundowns. The instant they give that stuff — they give it to the person because they can’t sleep.
Otherwise, they are up all night. What they call it is a free will or the person simply cannot sleep so they are giving her drugs to make them sleep. Why would you get the same drug two times and not use it?
THE COURT: A person that can’t sleep is the person that is psychotic in a very hyperactive state. Right?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: So, consequently, you would concede that Lisa McPherson was, in fact, in a very psychotic state or she could have slept just fine.
THE WITNESS: Something caused her not to
361
sleep.
THE COURT: Right. Which, of course, if she was in a psychotic state — now we are back to that situation where it would have been fairly dangerous for them to let her walk out the door, which —
THE WITNESS: You know, as far as her being psychotic, your Honor, I feel we can only speculate about that, because she was never taken to a doctor and diagnosed as being psychotic when they say she was psychotic.
THE COURT: Then she wouldn’t have needed Valium to make her sleep, would she?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: I mean, you can’t have it both ways.
THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I’ll be quite honest with you. Before I came in here —
I’m tired now because I wasn’t able to sleep that well, and I’m sure this will go on until I’m finished. So I don’t know, six to one, half dozen of another to me.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Have you ever in your experience seen drugs like Valium or chloral hydrate given to a Scientologist so they
362
don’t leave?
MR. WEINBERG: Can we limit it to one or the other?
A No, I have not.
THE COURT: So you have never seen Valium given to a Scientologist?
THE WITNESS: Because they want to leave?
THE COURT: Because they want to leave?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Because they were sick?
THE WITNESS: Because they were —
THE COURT: Psychotic?
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: When was that?
THE WITNESS: Again, this girl, Terese —
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Teresita?
A Teresita. Again, she, you know, literally fell off the chair and started doing her thing. And I think one day passed and she wasn’t sleeping, and immediately Dr. Dink was contacted. You could literally see her dying in front of your face. She was just burning up. It was one of the most amazing things to see, kind of like the person caves in on themselves, they just kind of fall in, you know.
And this started happening to her after she hadn’t
363
slept for two and a half, three days. And she came out and she was given an injection.
Q Did you —
THE COURT: Was it Valium? That is the question.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I couldn’t speak truthfully as to what the injection was because the doctor was there, he injected her, and I know that within an hour, hour and a half, she was asleep.
THE COURT: So in truth now, Mr. Prince, you can’t testify in this courtroom that you ever saw Valium given to someone because they either wanted to leave or because they were psychotic; you don’t know what the psychotic person was given?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, did you have to assist Teresita in eating and drinking?
A Yes, I did.
Q How did you do that?
A I would just gently talk to her and tell her that it is important for her to eat if she wants to get well. I would tell her the case supervisor has said you have to drink X amount a day. Would you please do it? Just trying
364
to get her cooperation.
Q Could she do it by herself?
A No.
Q So how did you do it?
A Oh, I thought you asked me would she do it by herself.
Q Right. Did she pick up the water and drink it by herself?
A Yes.
Q And the food, did she eat it by herself?
A Sometimes I had to take a spoon and put it to her mouth and watch her chew, you know, and, “Did you eat it all,” you know. That kind of thing.
Q All right. Your opinion that Lisa McPherson died because of an end cycle order, an order just not to do anything for her —
A Correct.
Q — is that opinion based upon because you hate Scientology? Or is it based upon something else?
A For one thing, I certainly do not hate Scientology. I don’t hate anyone or anything.
My opinion is based solely on personal observation, personal experience. I give it as an opinion. I say why. Maybe I haven’t said it as clearly as I need to, but it is so important for Scientology. And, you know,
365
especially Clearwater is considered a hostile environment.
I mean, I have been here when half the city of Clearwater were picketing around the Ft. Harrison with Michael Flynn.
I mean, I have seen and been involved in trying to make this a place where Scientology could comfortably be and the environment would be comfortable with Scientology.
So, no, I don’t hate Scientology. I was a Scientologist myself for sixteen years. You know, I had a firm belief in what I was doing. I have since become disillusioned with a lot of that. But my motive certainly isn’t hate.
Q Now, Mr. Prince, there came a time when the Lisa McPherson Trust was formed. Do you recall that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And after you finished working for me full-time, you went to work for them full-time. Correct?
A Yes.
THE COURT: You know, on some of these things you really are going to have to stop leading him.
That is one of the issues that is an issue here. So don’t ask him a question and then say “Correct?”
MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Prince, were you ever with Bob Minton when he talked about giving money to me for the case?
366
A I have been with Mr. Minton a couple of times, yes. Two or three. Yes.
Q I want to direct your attention to May of 2000.
A Okay.
Q All right?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall any incident where Mr. Minton talked to you about giving money to me?
A Around that exact time period, Mr. Minton made it known to me that you needed more money to bring this case to trial. He had thought in his mind that he had given enough money already and, you know, it could have went to trial or whatever.
But he was concerned about the repeated motion and — motions and on and on, just the cost of the case from the filings and things, that he asked me to go over there and look into, well, what is coming up now, I mean, what can we look forward to now?
I think at that time you were working on an accident reconstruction. And Mr. Garko was talking about doing a jury pool survey or something. And these were going to be additional expenses that would be needed, you know, as
well as whatever else came up to take the trial — take this case to trial.And I remember going back and speaking to him about that. And he wasn’t very happy about that. And then
367
he — he — he went away — he came into town. Mrs. Brooks and I were working at the LMT. And he came and he said, “Come here, you guys come out here,” because he had a fear that the building that we were in was electronically bugged.
And we got in Stacy’s car and we went into the city parking lot, which is directly across the street from the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see.
And he said, “Look, I’m going to tell you guys, you can’t tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he doesn’t know where it came from. It came from Europe. You know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I
hope this takes you to trial.”That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he didn’t want the office to know, you know, Ken didn’t want everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this $500,000 came. And — and, you know, everything with the case would be okay, basically, was the one instance.
The second instance was very recently, I guess in March of 2002 —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before he gets to the second incident, that happened when, the first incident?
THE WITNESS: May of 2000.
MR. WEINBERG: May of 2000?
368
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from?
A Europe. People from Europe.
Q Did he say to you it was his money?
A No. He said he had arranged from some people from Europe who made this money available.
Q Did you ever see that check?
A No.
Q Okay.
A Then the second instance was recently in March of 2002. He told me that, “Ken needs more money to finish this case and get this case to trial. You know, I’m willing to arrange to get him some money, but I have a problem with some people on the Internet saying bad things about him.
Could you ask Ken if there is any way if he has influence over these people to tell them to stop. And if you do, I’ll see if we can arrange to get him some more money.”
Q So what did you do?
A So I went and had that meeting. I went over to your office and I met with you. And I said, “You know, Bob thinks that he can get more money for you but he’s concerned about this matter. And what are you doing with that? Are you connected with these people, or are you — you know, are you encouraging them to do this?” You know, we had a bit of a conversation.
369
And, Mmm, you said you knew nothing about it and had no control over those people whatsoever but, you know, you would do what you could to make it stop if that is what he was worried about, but it wasn’t anything you were actively concerned in.
Q Do you know anything about the check I got after that?
A Mmm, I know at some point that you had gotten a check. And he called me and let me know that you had.
Q He did?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Did he say where that check came from?
A He did not.
Q Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: And the date of that — the date of the conversation with Mr. Dandar was, you said, March?
THE WITNESS: Of 2002. Yes.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Was this before, or after, I flew to Mr. Minton’s house?
A Before.
Q Okay. If I flew to Mr. Minton’s house February 22 of 2002, when would this conversation be that you and I had?
A So I think maybe a week prior.
370
Q Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Minton —
THE COURT: So you are saying that was February of 2002?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Excuse me, your Honor, what was February of 2000?
THE COURT: 2002. This is when Mr. Dandar and this witness had a conversation.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Oh. Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, I jumped — when you talked about that meeting, that kind of threw me off because that is two years after where I wanted to talk to you about. So let’s go back.
Do you know a fellow by the name of Patrick Jost?
A Yes. I do.
Q Okay. How do you know him?
A I know him because he was hired by Mrs. Brooks to specifically assist Mr. Minton to deal with allegations that were being stirred up by Scientology investigators in Nigeria and Switzerland.
Q What was he supposed to do?
A Mmm, Patrick Jost is multilingual. I think he speaks maybe four or five languages. Mmm, he’s also a person — ex-CIA, spent many years in Europe on behalf of
371
the United States defense.
So he knew a lot of people and had a lot of contacts.
And he was supposed to go and find out where the trouble was originating from and try to deal with it accordingly.
Q Do you know if he was successful in doing that?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: This whole thing is hearsay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did you — can you describe for us the demeanor of Mr. Minton throughout the years — almost two years that the Lisa McPherson Trust concerning the — what he perceived to be actions taken against him by Scientology?
MR. BATTAGLIA: I’ll object to that as being far too broad, demeanor over a period of two years.
THE COURT: Mr. Battaglia, much as I would like to let you object, I don’t think you have any standing to object in this hearing. This is a hearing between these two people. Your client is simply a witness. So I’ll simply ignore that.
MR. WEINBERG: You beat me to my feet because I was about to say the same thing.
MR. FUGATE: Stereo.
MR. WEINBERG: That is like asking for — I
372
don’t know how you ask a question like that. His demeanor over two years?
THE COURT: I agree with that. It was a little broad.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you about what he felt concerning the Scientology investigation of him?
A Many times, to answer the question. And it wasn’t even the fact that investigations were happening. It’s the false information. The false information that was being provided to government officials in different countries, unfounded allegations that were being provided, that disturbed him more.
And over time it became increasingly more evident that this was having more and more of an effect on him.
Q How did you pick that up?
A When I first met Mr. Minton, he was probably about 40 pounds lighter than he currently is. Just the nicest, gentlest, kindest person. I mean, I had never seen a person like him before. I mean, literally, who am I? Nobody.
But a person like that to come around in your life that just was — I don’t know — genuinely concerned about other people to the point of almost fault. And very — very kind. Very intelligent person.
I seen him go from that, to — to kind of being a
373
person that is annoyed — kind of annoyed by what is going on, kind of — Mmm — annoyed with, you know, what is happening with his kids, you know, what is happening with his house, his phone lines, on and on.
Then I seen him go to a person that actually became very doubtful about what he was involved in, what he was doing. He seemed to be less confident as time went on that he would be able to do anything to restrain Scientology from exercising some of its practices that are detrimental to the general public at large.
Q Have you — are you familiar with the doctrine of Scientology called fair game?
A For sure.
Q Has fair game been canceled?
A No. It’s alive and well.
MR. WEINBERG: It’s what? I couldn’t hear.
THE COURT: Alive and well.
THE WITNESS: Alive and well.
MR. WEINBERG: And that is based on your —
THE COURT: Counsel, we’re going to let you ask that question later.
MR. WEINBERG: I will. I’ll withdraw it. I’m sorry.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Based on your expertise and experience in
374
Scientology, did you personally observe any fair game practiced on Mr. Minton?
A Yes. I have.
Q Can you give us some examples?
A Mmm, leaflets passed around in Boston where his wife and children live, saying that he’s an adulterous, robbed the Nigerian children — the Nigerian people of moneys, this is a starving country. And — and kind of — he’s kind of somehow aligned with the KKK because he was attacking Scientology. Mmm, his children being followed around. You know, the whole Nigeria/Switzerland thing.
They used to meet him at every airport he went to, irrespective of any city, they would just show up and meet him and picket him at the airport. I have been with him when the police literally have to stand in the airport and hold Scientologists back from attacking him.
I have been with him in Boston where somehow Scientology OSA people had gotten a hold of his — his — his records, his counseling records when he was seeing a psychiatrist. And they started saying things to him that he said to his therapist, I know, that upset him extremely that it could even happen.
And the fact of the matter is that therapist decided to no longer see Mr. Minton after Mr. Minton went
375
back and told him, “Hey, why are these guys saying this to me?”
Q This was a psychiatrist?
A Yes.
Q Of Mr. Minton’s?
A Yes.
Q So —
A And —
Q — he refused to see him after the records were made public?
A Correct. Or exposed. His position was exposed.
Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton, in your presence, was — had any dramatic change in his emotions compared to the years that you have known him?
A Again, you know, what I said earlier. For sure, he changed. He became more of a somber person. He wasn’t as cheerful anymore. He was more serious.
And at some point it even got into, “Well, you know, they did this to me so I’m going to go picket them. They did this to me so I’m going to go picket.”
You know, this is — was kind of like his last line of defense, as I testified the first day I came here, that he could possibly do, you know. “I’m just going to go picket. When they fool with my wife, I’m going to picket.
376
When they fool with my children, I’m going to picket. What they are doing over in Nigeria, doing all this crap, I’m going to go picket.”
So he became increasingly despondent about that. And, you know, Mr. Minton takes medication. Not that there is anything wrong with medication, but sometimes he wouldn’t take it. You know, he seemed to just be extremely stressed.
And during the time periods when he didn’t take his medication, he would literally be in a state of collapse with just — crying uncontrollably and totally despondent.
I remember one time he told me he was going to kill himself. He was walking around in the woods with a gun, you know. 200 acres up there where he lives and it is nothing but beautiful woods in New England and he’s walking around with a gun. He drove his car in the woods, got it caught on a tree stump and he’s out there in the middle of the night, with a gun, crying. You know, that has happened.
Q When did that happen, that particular incident?
A That was in the fall of 2001, I believe.
Q Okay. Do you have any knowledge concerning Stacy Brooks’ desire, in the summer of 2001, to go see Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case?
A Yes. I do.
Q What is your knowledge?
A Mmm, Scientology had very effectively convinced
377
the courts — and I’m not trying to cast any aspersions here — tried to convince the court that somehow the Lisa McPherson Trust had something to do with this Lisa McPherson case.
And this assertion, this stuff that had grew over the years, inextricably tied these two things together, which allowed a way to now do continuing discovery on Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks and other staff members that worked at the trust.
And this was something that he was very concerned about, because financially it was ruining the Lisa McPherson Trust to have a lawyer have to represent all of the staff members, you know, when they get deposed, and they’re away, and on and on and on. So —
Q Did there come a time when — well, let’s go back to the question.
Did there come a time when you had knowledge about Stacy Brooks wanting to go to Dell Liebreich?
A Yes. So because of that, you know, and there was more discovery by Scientology specifically on Mr. Minton’s finances, they were just narrowing down on that, which is pursuant to their policy here to cut off the funds, on and on and on. They are on a systematic program.
One thing that can be said about Scientologists, they are extremely organized and they have resources to do
378
what they need to do.
So Stacy thought that, you know, a lot of stress was coming because of this. So she thought, well, the only reason this is happening is because of this wrongful death case. So she decided to go visit with Dell Liebreich and ask her to drop the case because of what was happening with Bob Minton. And she decided to do this without Mr. Minton knowing about it.
And she consulted me on it and asked me, “Do you think he will be extremely upset if I do this?”
And I told her that I thought he would be extremely upset, you know, without talking to you about it and just go down there because there was no relationship.
Stacy had no relationship with Dell Liebreich. So for her to now — now come out of the blue and ask her to drop the case, it would be like a woodpecker coming along, telling me to pay my house rent or something, something as bizarre as that. So, you know, Stacy decided she was going to do it anyway.
She finally asked Bob Minton. And he said, “No, you don’t do it. You don’t do that.” She decided to do it anyway. She attempted to have a phone conversation with Mrs. Liebreich. And I think at that point, after Mrs. Liebreich spoke with Stacy, she then spoke with you and refused to speak with Stacy anymore.
379
Q Are you aware of any instance where Bob Minton controlled the wrongful death case?
A Not at all. The wrongful death case was the last thing that Mr. Minton was interested in because he had turned it over to you, he felt you were a competent, honest attorney, and, you know, many arguments have happened between Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton concerning the fact that she did not need to be involved in the case, or if there was a differing of opinion, to do what you say because you are the lawyer.
And, no, he — he — he never — Bob Minton was more concerned about what was going on at the Lisa McPherson Trust.There was a period of time, after we came into existence and actually established a phone number, that people just started calling like crazy. “Hey, can you help me with this? Can you help me with this? Can you tell me what is going on with my brother? He doesn’t speak to me anymore. Can you tell us what it means to be an SP? I need to get my money back from Scientology that I haven’t used because I have no life, I don’t have a place to live.” You know, all of these kind of phone calls. And we — we became extremely interested because after the trust was set up, it gave you a broad cross section of, well, what types of things do people need help
380
with in relationship to Scientology?
So our job became, well, there is nothing we can do about it. If there is a criminal activity concerned, if there is any fraud that is concerned or bad business practices, at that point we started referring people to the responsible governmental agencies.
If you have a problem with them returning your repayment money, you refer them to the Consumer Fraud Department — Department of Agriculture, Consumer Fraud. If it is bad business practices, the Better Business Bureau. If it has something to do with money — the IRS could possibly be a person to contact if they are not getting satisfaction with known policies on giving money back. This kind of thing.
And we had nothing whatsoever — and the whole reason I stopped working in your office is that we had gone through deposing the majority of the Scientologists and Scientology witnesses. And you were going on to your medical experts. So there was no reason for me — I mean, I didn’t need to sit and listen to a medical expert being deposed.
So I worked at the trust. And this is kind of what we were doing. It was kind of like when you went off doing your medical people, we just forgot about the case.
At least, I did.
381
Q So you actually did work at the trust in answering calls for people who needed counseling?
A Very much so.
Q You weren’t just waiting for the trial of the Lisa McPherson case to start?
A This trial — you know, as much as I’m willing to offer my services — help point out certain things, what happened with Mrs. McPherson was a very unfortunate thing but there are still a lot of people alive that needed help.
And that is where I went to — what I wanted to do.
Q What was my involvement with the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A Occasionally stop by to have dinner.
Occasionally, like maybe I think I maybe seen you there two times during its entire existence, maybe three.
Q Did I give any orders to anyone at the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A Not that I ever saw. It would be highly unusual if that happened.
Q Did I direct any of the picketing?
A No.
Q Do you know if I ever participated in a picket?
A No. You know, I was sitting here listening to testimony about that, and I listened with a sharp ear as Judge Schaeffer here mentioned the fact that you shouldn’t
382
have been anywhere near picketing. And I think what may be kind of misunderstood here is the fact that the vigil is not — was not and never has been a picketing experience. The vigil is where the people come from all over, they light the candles, they — they do some Bible stuff, they sing hymns and they may place a wreath where she died at the cabana. That is not a picketing experience.
And that is where I have seen you with the vigils, along with the family. And you were there because the family was there.
Q Okay.
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection.
In light of Mr. Prince’s last statement, he said he understood you had said certain things during the hearing? How would he know that if he was to be excluded?
THE COURT: I am sure he read transcripts.
MR. WEINBERG: Well, but it is —
THE COURT: It would have been what he read or somebody told him, which would be inappropriate, too.
A I think it came up on the first day when I sat here in the courtroom giving testimony where you admonished Ken and pointed that out. I heard that direction from this
383
seat.
THE COURT: I’m not excluding you from testifying if you read something or heard something.
THE WITNESS: Well, I’m just saying that is not the case. I heard it right here in this seat on the first day I was here.
THE COURT: You have to understand to the — to the rest of the world, if candles are being carried, signs are being carried, it is being done, the Church of Scientology — it may look and seem like a picket. A lot of folks have talked about it as being a picket.
THE WITNESS: Right. But at the vigil there are no signs, though.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, did you ever hear Mr. Minton talk about the money that he gave me as — giving it to me or giving it to the estate? Did you ever hear him talk about that?
A I have. And what Mr. Minton has always said to me is he is giving this money to Ken to use on the case at his discretion. He’s loaning the money to Ken. That is what I heard.
Q Did you ever hear Mr. Minton write or speak about the LMT or Mr. Minton getting the bulk of any of the money
384
that may be realized from the wrongful death case?
A The only time I heard that statement made was when Mr. Minton came back from a radio interview. And he was laughing. And he said, “Hey, you know what, I just went in there and said the bulk of the proceeds are going to go to an anti-cult group or whatever. And I know this is going to chap Scientology’s behind.” He was into that kind of tit for tat kind of thing.
Q Did you ever hear him talk about it in private or outside of the media’s presence?
A Well, you know, the particular time that I’m talking about was private, you know. And I — you know, I made the comment, “Really, you know, is that the way it’s going to go?”
He said, “Look, I’ll probably never see a dime from this stuff. I just said it.”
Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by Scientology of a UBS check?
A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the last one that I did, the April 2002.
He called me just in grief, crying. He’s like, “It’s over. They got me. You know, I’m going to jail.”
He’s just —
385
THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You want your last affidavit? I think it was in there.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th. So we’re talking like maybe March 21st or something like that. You know, the week prior to going to New York.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q All right, here is the April 2002 affidavit.2
A Okay.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy?
THE COURT: No. I know it is in evidence somewhere. If I need to see it, I’ll ask to see a copy of it.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks and —
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, let’s back up.
Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, “It is all over.” What else?
A He said that, Mmm, “I’m going to jail. I have been told I’m going to jail. They’re coming after Therese and the kids.”
And he was just completely despondent about that.
386
Q And this was before the New York City meetings?
A Yeah.
Q Okay.
A Yeah. So then —
Q But he didn’t go into detail as to why he thought he was going to jail?
A No, he wouldn’t tell me then. I wanted to know, what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new thing has happened? He wouldn’t tell me.
Q Okay.
A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional information. She didn’t know what the heck had happened. But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there that day.
Q To New Hampshire?
A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I had no idea that this was a significant incident.
But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to prosecute him on it.
Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy of this UBS check?
387
A No. He said he didn’t know how they got a copy because he can’t get a copy of it. He said, “I tried. I can’t get a copy of it.” Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him.
And he was just beside himself.
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I ask, could we point out in this affidavit where this incident is that he’s just described?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Because I don’t think it’s in there. They are saying something about a $500,000 check prior to the New York meetings.
THE COURT: You have your affidavit there in front of you?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I do.
THE COURT: See if it is in the affidavit, or if it is something not in your affidavit.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay, so here, if you turn to Page 3 of the affidavit, I started talking about what I’m explaining right now on the 20th of March, 2002.
THE COURT: What is this number?
MR. DANDAR: Paragraph 9.
THE WITNESS: Paragraph Number 9.
THE COURT: I don’t have it. Maybe I do need
388
it. What is the number of the exhibit and I’ll have the clerk get it?
MR. FUGATE: I believe it is attached to Mr. Dandar’s response to our memorandum of fact and law. I believe that is where it is.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FUGATE: Can I give you a copy?
THE COURT: Yes, please. If you would, that would be great. I’ll give this back to you because I know it is in evidence or in the pleadings.
MR. FUGATE: It is in the pleadings, I believe, Judge.
MR. DANDAR: He’s reading from Paragraph 9 on Page 3.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Am I right?
A Yes. But, you know — yes, that was on Page 3, Number 9, during the time period, what I’m talking about
here.And before I wrote this affidavit on the attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first page that — that Scientology had gathered enough information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted, convicted and jailed.
MR. DANDAR: He’s looking at his handwritten
389
attachment.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first paragraph.
THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?
MR. WEINBERG: I asked you — I asked you, does it say in the affidavit about this conversation you supposedly had with Mr. Minton prior to the New York meetings where he told you that the Church had a copy of a $500,000 check, and he didn’t —
THE WITNESS: I don’t —
MR. WEINBERG: — have a copy and didn’t know where they got it.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to cut you off.
I don’t mention the check specifically, but what I mention is, is the information that Scientology had gotten, information that said they were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail.
You know —
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation — the first conversation where he’s crying?
A Yes. They discovered information about him that
390
threatened his wife and children’s future. You know, again,he’s suicidal. And then —
THE COURT: In your handwritten notes it appears that you are talking about this — this information before Paragraph 3 which deals with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks flew to New York.
So I presume you were discussing — or you — your notes indicated that occurred before the New York trip?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I don’t think it is very clear, certainly, in the affidavit, but he says that is what he’s talking about.
THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I really did try to do the best I could. This is a very disturbing time for me, too.
THE COURT: There is nothing that says that you have to speak to every word of your affidavit. You can expand on it. If that is your testimony, that is fine.
THE WITNESS: Thank you. And, you know, in the days between the New York meeting and the 20th of March that I noted here, which is where I came to find out, you know, what is this. Because Stacy flew there. And after she was there, I let her, you know, get settled.
391
And then he’s telling me, you know, they have got this check. And, you know, and he says — basically, it’s come down to me or Ken Dandar, somebody has to die here.
And I’m like, you know, this was such a complete turnaround. These are people I worked with now for years. We have all been on one accord, doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q And did you have any further conversation in that phone call with Mr. Minton?
A Well, he informed me —
THE COURT: This is the phone call before –you are saying this is the phone call before the first time Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks went to New York?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: We’re going to finish that phone call, then we’ll take a break.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
A Yes. He said he didn’t feel safe about discussing the information over the phone, he was too upset to talk about it.
392
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: Did you say this was about a week before the trip to New York?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I said on or around the 20th of March. And the trip to New York was the 28th of March.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: The 28th and 29th of March.
THE COURT: Let me just say this about affidavits. They wanted me to sign an affidavit of borrower to buy my house. And I refused to sign it without — I said, “I’m not going to sign this without this and this and this and this.”
And finally they just said, “Well, we’re going to throw it out. It is not that important.”
I said, “Well, good.”
All this, and affidavits. It makes me very nervous. You know, some things might not have made me so nervous.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Anything else on that phone call with Mr. Minton before we take our break?
A Mmm, you know, again, starting on March 20th until they actually went to New York, there were many conversations. You know, I don’t want to give the illusion
393
this just happened one phone call and suddenly they were in New York.
THE COURT: Let’s go ahead and break and then we’ll start with — if you want to go into the other phone calls before New York. All right?
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 3:15.
(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:55 to 3:15 p.m.)
______________________________________THE COURT: All right. You may be seated.
MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, before we begin back again, on May 13, 2002 we had filed a request to produce to Mr. Dandar for all financial records of payments to Jesse Prince, including bank records and checks, all W2s, 1099s, and any other tax form issued from Dandar & Dandar for Jesse Prince for tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001. It was never responded to.
I think it is now relevant, based on the testimony elicited, that that be produced, or at least responded to that was filed May 13th of 2001 (sic).
MR. DANDAR: Didn’t we respond to that?
THE COURT: Had you responded to this?
MR. DANDAR: We produced at the time they took
394
Jesse Prince’s deposition — he’s no longer working for me — all of the W2s, 1099s, all of the checks we wrote. We did not respond to that one.
THE COURT: Is there anything additional?
MR. DANDAR: I’ll have to check. I’m sure — you know, since I brought him back on board as my expert, yes, I paid him since then. So there is something additional. But not back on May 13.
THE COURT: You don’t need him to regive you what he has already given you.
MR. FUGATE: No, I’ll go verify what we have and compare that to what he gives us. But — but he needs to respond. And he needs to give us —
THE COURT: I’m not going to require you to give him what he gave you already. So if he gave you stuff for the depositions —
MR. FUGATE: I’ll check that tonight.
THE COURT: Then you must give him whatever else there is.
MR. DANDAR: I will.
THE COURT: Try to have that to him by the morning. All right?
MR. DANDAR: All right.
THE COURT: You may continue.
395
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Okay, Mr. Prince, following that telephone conversation, which you said was on or about March 20, 2002 with Mr. Minton, did you have any more conversations with him before he went to see Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen in New York City?
A Yes, I did. I may have had maybe three to four conversations with Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks concerning this. Yes.
Q Before the New York City meeting?
A Yes.
Q And what was your relationship with Mr. Minton at that time?
A Mr. Minton was a good friend of mine. A person that I trusted. You know, we worked together.
Q Okay. Did he confide in you?
A Yes. On some things, he certainly did.
Q And some things, he didn’t?
A I can’t say that he confided in me on everything. But I know some things he did.
Q All right. For instance, when he talked about somehow this check was going to make him and his wife go to jail, did he confide in you what it was that they got — this new thing in the year 2002 that caused him to think he was going to go to jail?
396
A You know, he said that they got a copy of that check, that — Mmm — that he — you know, had given different testimony, I think, in a deposition or something.
And this is what was going to — this is how they were going to put him in jail for perjury.
Q And did he — all right. Did he go into more detail how that was going to be perjury?
A Because he said that he had given testimony contrary to — you know, in other words, this check, this $500,000 check, came from him, apparently, not people from Europe. Scientology had discovered that. And they were going to use it to get him convicted for perjury.
Q Did you ask him why he lied to you and told you that check was from people in Europe?
A You know, that was a very good question that I should have asked. But at the time this was all new news to me.
He’s telling me, you know, “Oh, well, it came from me, it didn’t come from him. Now I’m in trouble and now they are getting ready to depose my wife Therese and bring her in on all of this stuff.”
And in the heat of the moment, the panic of the moment, I’m sure I didn’t ask, you know, all of the right questions. But no, I didn’t ask him that specific question.
Q During those three or four other telephone calls with Mr. Minton before the New York meeting he had with
397
Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder, did Mr. Minton tell you how it was that Scientology can find out that this bank check from UBS that doesn’t have his name on it came from him?
A The only comment he said was he had no idea how they possibly got a copy of that check because he himself did not have a copy, nor did he know how to obtain a copy.
Q Did Mr. Minton ever mention to you anything about Swiss prosecutors during — before the New York meeting?
A Yes, he did. He told me that there was yet another action being contemplated by a prosecutor in Switzerland. And it was my understanding that this had something to do with Nigeria but I’m not sure. You know, I don’t know the details of it.
Q And he told you this in March before the New York meeting?
A Yes.
Q Now, isn’t it true that before Minton called —
MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form to the question, “Isn’t it true.”
THE COURT: Yes, “isn’t it true” is suggesting that the answer to that is yes. I mean, I don’t know what the question is, but I know what the answer is. That is what the leading part is.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q What was your understanding, Mr. Prince, of the
398
status of the Swiss prosecution concerning Mr. Minton prior to Mr. Minton’s frantic calls to you in March of 2002?
MR. FUGATE: Objection, hearsay. Or at least the basis for this statement, “What was your understanding.”
THE COURT: If it came from Mr. Minton, he can answer. If it came from somebody else, then I am not sure you can answer.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q From Mr. Minton.
A Mr. Minton told me they were going to prosecute, going to file charges.
THE COURT: In Switzerland?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q When did he tell you that?
A Mmm, at one of the phone conversations between the 20th and 28th of March.
Q Well, my question is prior to that, had you ever heard from Mr. Minton about Swiss prosecutors?
A Oh, yes. I mentioned that before.
Q Right. And what was the status of the Swiss prosecution prior to you getting this call —
A These phone calls? Oh, I thought it was over.
Q What made you think that?
399
A Because Patrick Jost had went over there and talked with people.
There was one other thing that was pending which, when Scientology got the bank records for the Bank of America, somehow the Bank of — someone in the Bank of America in Europe, some executive or some banking official, had did something that was improper concerning either divulging or passing along information about Mr. Minton’s accounts. And Mr. Jost was over there to pursue that.
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay as to any conversations with Mr. Jost or anybody else. If he’s saying this is something Mr. Minton said, I would appreciate if he could date it.
THE COURT: Is this something you learned from Mr. Minton?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Could you tell us about when that was?
THE WITNESS: Mmm, gosh. This — this would have to be in the fall of 2001. Maybe October, something like that.
THE COURT: As best you can remember?
THE WITNESS: As best I can recall, yes.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q All right. What was it the Bank of America
400
official in Europe did improperly, according to Mr. Minton, what he told you?
THE COURT: Does this have something to do with this Swiss prosecution?
MR. DANDAR: I don’t know.
A This has something to do with when the bank records were obtained by Scientology here, the Bank of America somehow simultaneously did something — something happened in Europe, as well. I think they used the fact they had these records to get information that they were not supposed to get, they made it appear like the Court sanctioned them having this information or it was proper for them to get the information, when it was not.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q How did Mr. Minton react to them getting this information in Europe?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Your Honor, this is hearsay based on hearsay. It is speculation. Then the question is how did they react to the Church supposedly getting this information in Europe? What information in Europe? What is he talking about? This is just hearsay.
And, you know, Mr. Minton testified. Mr. Dandar had an opportunity to ask Mr. Minton about this. He didn’t say anything about this,
401
about this accusation or anything like this. He didn’t even ask him the question.
THE COURT: Overruled. This bears on Mr. Minton’s state of mind, anything Mr. Minton may have said about what he thought was going on, what the Church knew. Remember, we had a lot of this, as I tried to explain.
MR. WEINBERG: I object more to the form of the question. When he said the Church did such and such at such and such a time, it is just an improper form, I think.
MR. DANDAR: It is based on the witness’s answer.
THE COURT: Right.
A He was very distraught and upset that this had happened. You know, he felt like that there was no one that could be trusted or no one who was impervious to Scientology’s ability to penetrate and get information that they should necessarily have.
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, so we are talking about now the fall of 2001 that he’s distraught?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is this —
THE WITNESS: Yes.
402
THE COURT: The same October period of 2001?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q And even — did you have any conversations with Mr. Minton in January or February of 2002 before you had this — what you described as this March 20 — the first call in 2002?
A Conversations concerning?
Q Mr. Minton’s well-being, his mental state?
A Well, Mr. Minton — back in the fall of 2001, we decided that we could no longer operate the Lisa McPherson Trust. He was quite despondent about that. He was despondent about what to do with the people that we were either in the process of servicing or starting some — something with new people that were calling. And plus the phones just never stopped ringing.
So he was distraught over the fact that it wouldn’t be there anymore. He was distraught over the fact he felt Scientology had successfully caused the Lisa McPherson Trust to no longer exist because of a misunderstanding, that misunderstanding being that it was somehow inextricably tied into the Lisa McPherson case.
Q Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks order you to quit being the expert for the estate?
A Ms. Brooks asked me to — and this, again, is in
403
the fall of 2001 — to not be an expert in this case on the theory that anything — we were trying to sever any real or imagined ideas that the Lisa McPherson Trust was connected with the ongoing litigation.
Q And did you listen to her?
A No. I — I — I consulted Bob about that. I had a conversation with him.
And he told me that Mrs. Brooks was very upset about the discovery that was going on, particularly the finances. And — Mmm — this is why she was doing it. And he understood why she was doing it.
And — Mmm — what he said, you know, “If Ken — you are Ken’s expert. If he’s going to need you, you know, I’m sure you’re going to go and do what you have to do.”
MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that, your Honor, when that conversation took place?
THE WITNESS: Mmm, I think we were speaking about late 2001/early 2002. Maybe January, around there. This is as close as I can place it.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, prior to that, you filed or signed an affidavit dated September of 2001 withdrawing as the expert for the estate.
A Okay.
Q So was this conversation with Stacy Brooks before,
404
or after, that affidavit?
A Preceding that.
Q So it was before that?
A Correct.
Q All right. And in that affidavit — do you recall that affidavit when you withdrew as the expert?
A Not particularly.
Q No?
A I mean, I have a general idea.
Q What is your general idea of why you withdrew as the expert?
A Mmm, again, this was during the time period when the Lisa McPherson Trust was in the process of closing. The trust itself had literally been drained of operating funds for, you know, paying lawyers. This wasn’t anything that we ever anticipated or budgeted for. And it became the most expensive part of the operation, which was trying to step away from this case. And that is what I remember about it.
Q Let me show you your signed affidavit September 21, 2001 and see if you can identify that.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy of this?
THE COURT: No. No. This is the one I remember quite well.
MR. DANDAR: All right.
405
MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, is he impeaching Mr. Prince with this affidavit now?
THE COURT: I don’t know if he’s trying to refresh his memory or what.
MR. DANDAR: Refresh.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q First of all, is that your affidavit?
A Yes, it is.
Q Did you prepare that affidavit?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you sign it?
A Yes, I did.
Q Is that the affidavit that you signed concerning the reasons for your withdrawal as the estate’s expert?
A Yes, it is. And, you know, I remember because I was talking about now the trust was closing, there were no lawyers — I mean we just couldn’t afford to pay lawyers anymore.
I personally cannot afford to have a lawyer to come in here and do activities like you are involved in or represent me or — or be here on my behalf. I have a family. I have people that are totally innocent to this and could care less.
But my family was threatened with the Scientology operation that was wrought on me to plant drugs in my house
406
and get my house raided by the DEA, and try to get multiple charges put against me. And now I’m losing my job, too. There is no way that I could continue this activity without being able to see that my family would be safe and cared for.
Q Did you continue to receive income from Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks in the fall of 2001?
A Yes.
Q And the income you received in the fall of 2001, was that from Stacy Brooks individually, or from the Lisa McPherson Trust?
A I think it was probably Ms. Brooks individually.
Q Okay. What about 2002? Did she continue to pay you?
THE COURT: When did — when did LMT close down again? I have been away from this awhile and some of the details are out of my mind.
MR. DANDAR: It closed in August.
THE COURT: Of 2001?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, you tell us, Mr. Prince, instead of me.
What was going on in the LMT in the fall of 2001?
A They were closing — wrapping up, closing down, terminating the operation. Mmm, there was an order to allow
407
a magistrate to come in and go through the personal files and records at the trust. So for a month or two it was kind of kept open for that reason alone, just to finish that. So that — you know, there was an extensive library that —
that library had to be shipped, cleaned — the building had to be cleaned up and prepared to be sold.It became our responsibility to ensure that the building did get sold. I had a verbal agreement with Mr. Minton, because at that point I didn’t have a lot of money either, that if I sold the building, I would get 25 percent of whatever the building sold for so that I could move — I was in the process of leaving Clearwater. My house was on the market. We were finished — the trust was over. We were finished.
I mean, if that is what Scientology wanted, they had accomplished it. It was finished. We were all moving.
I put my house on the market, put the building on the market, we were trying to sell it. We’re — we’re done. But it is never done, I guess.
Q Back to 2002, do you believe — have we exhausted your conversations with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks prior to the New York City meetings?
A The only additional things —
THE COURT: I just dread the thought of asking this question, but are you suggesting there is some
408
agreement between you and Mr. Minton regarding the sale of real estate, as to your receiving proceeds from it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: I see. Is there a lawyer in the room that wants to take that on a contingency? Probably not, Mr. Prince.
Okay. Continue on.
THE WITNESS: You know, I missed the point. I guess you’ll explain it to me later.
MR. DANDAR: That is all right.
THE WITNESS: I hate to miss the punch line.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So anything else about these phone calls, before we get to the New York City meeting?
A Well, the only other thing I think I covered in my affidavit that Mr. Minton said is, you know, after having conversations with Mr. Rinder, that it basically boiled down to who is going to die? Is it going to be Ken Dandar? Is
it going to be me. And I —THE COURT: Is that the word he used, “die”?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. And for the life of me, you know, I couldn’t get a concept of what he was saying. I mean, he said it several times —
409
THE COURT: Is this — I’m sorry, my mind is off on agreements and it is kind of an insider joke that has nothing to do with you really, a lot of agreements we’re talking about in this particular hearing, and we teasingly asked about what lawyer would take what on a contingency fee.
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. So nobody wants my opinion.
THE COURT: Well, it will be volunteered, Mr. Prince.
Was this before or after the New York meeting, this conversation?
THE WITNESS: This was before the New York meeting. This is after Ms. Brooks arrived.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: He was telling me that, you know, that somebody has to die.
And, you know, Bob has always come to me, when he wanted to interface or maybe know something from Ken, he’s asked me, you know.
So for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how is it now that suddenly we sit here today and we have to decide who dies. Why does anyone have to die? That was my question.
And — Mmm — he told me that for them — for
410
him not to go to jail and be prosecuted — and he had actions going in both cases in front of both judges, Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird — that he somehow had to make this case go away, the Lawrence Wollersheim case go away, and that is — he said, “That is all — that is what they said they want.
So we’re going to go talk about that.”
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q In New York City?
A Yes.
Q All right. And — all right. Anything else, before we get to New York City?
A That — Mmm — Stacy was just adamant that she would be able to successfully settle with Scientology so that they would disengage Bob Minton, because he was literally being driven insane. He was terrorized into a state of mind that was beyond anything he was capable of dealing with.
THE COURT: Did you ever ask him what — when he used the word “die,” whether he was — I mean, we all say, “Oh, I’m just going to die if such and such happens.” But he was not using that word in a literal sense, that was a —
THE WITNESS: Well, I asked him later about this.
411
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: After they came back from New York and was in the hotel, what was he talking about.
THE COURT: Right.
THE WITNESS: And what he was talking about was saying that Ken Dandar, as one thing, perjured — you know, blamed the perjury on Ken. I mean, these are all things to do to get rid of the case. Okay, so now we made Ken responsible for any perjury that Bob Minton did. Then, you know, he mentioned about what’s going to happen is Mr. Dandar is going to be disbarred.
And I took it a step further. I said, “Well, if Mr. Dandar gets disbarred, he’s going to lose his business. If Mr. Dandar loses his business, he’s going to lose his home and his family. Is this really what you want for Ken Dandar after you built him up all of this time, and now you get in trouble and now this is what we do?”
THE COURT: So, again, I think my question was is we all tend to use the word “die” and we don’t really mean it literally, drop dead, I mean, die.
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I don’t think —
THE COURT: He meant either business-wise or
412
something?
THE WITNESS: Professional decease, to cause decease, which is in accord with one of the Scientology policies we have gone over here.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Is that known as fair game?
A No. It is called the Scientologist’s Manual of Dissemination, where it talks about, if possible, of course, ruin the person utterly.
Q Let’s get to New York City. Did you have any conversations with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks about the New York City meeting with Rosen, Rinder and Yingling?
A Yes, I did. When they were traveling to New York City, I was traveling to Memphis, Tennessee to drop my family off. It had just reached a peak for me. And I just wanted to have some safety in my life.
So they called me when they left home. They called me when they arrived. They called me when they met, had the first meetings. They seemed somewhat hopeful. Then, of course, the next day happened.
But when they got there, you know, Steve Jonas arrived. They were there. They met. They went over what they wanted. And Bob — you know, one of the things Bob did, which I didn’t know he was going to do until he got to New York, is he said he wanted my house to be able to be
413
sold, because I had had my house on the market for some time, zillions of people were coming there. And, you know, unfortunately, it just didn’t sell.
So he thought that that may have had some Scientology influence. And the reason why I think he thinks that, because the realtor for our building —
THE COURT: He? This is Mr. Minton again?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
A The realtor for the building in downtown called Mr. Minton while he was in New York and told him he had had a buyer for the LMT building, and this buyer was a person that sold furniture, sold used furniture.
And he mentioned this potential buyer — this potential buyer mentioned to his clients, current clients, that he was going to move his operations to this building, and would that be okay, would he still be able to service them.
And he came back and said he found out that 45 percent of his clients were, in fact, Scientologists.
And he was told in no uncertain terms that if he moved into that building, that they would no longer do business with him. So —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object.
A He couldn’t — he couldn’t —
414
MR. WEINBERG: This is hearsay on hearsay. This is supposedly what Mr. Minton said that somebody said.
THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Minton said to me that the realtor —
MR. WEINBERG: Said to him. Objection, double hearsay.
THE COURT: I do understand. But, remember, this has to do with Mr. Minton and whether Mr. Minton has lied or whether Mr. Dandar is lying.
Mr. Minton’s state of mind, therefore, becomes, to some extent, relevant.
I understand it is double hearsay. I understand what that means. But I’ll allow it. It is a very unusual hearing.
MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So when did you first hear back from Bob Minton concerning the first day of the New York City meeting on the 28th?
A The night of the 28th after they met. He said, “Well, we met.”
I spoke to Stacy. She said, “I think it is going to be okay. I think we’ll be able to work this out. Ken Dandar is not going to be happy.”
415
Mmm, you know, I said, “Okay,” whatever that meant, because, you know, I’m not really tracking. I just know something traumatic has happened, it has to do with some information that came up on Bob, and I know that now Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton are in negotiations to disengage this whole thing, and I am not there but they are calling me, telling me what is going on.
Q Did they tell you why I would not be happy?
A Whew. Because they were going to say that you caused Bob Minton to lie about the check — that you advised him to lie about the check. This was during that particular time.
THE COURT: Is this Ms. Brooks testifying — or Ms. Brooks telling you this? Or is this Mr. Minton telling you this?
THE WITNESS: You know, it is kind of a bit of both, your Honor.
THE COURT: Was this over the telephone?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: This was after the first New York meeting?
THE WITNESS: This was the night of the first day of the meeting on the 28th.
THE COURT: Of March?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
416
THE COURT: It was this night they were explaining to you — either Bob or Stacy, or both of them, on the phone, explaining why Ken wasn’t going to be happy?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Now, Mr. Prince, I want to make sure you don’t have your dates mixed up. Could you look at your affidavit to refresh your memory and make sure you have your dates down when you first mentioned that Ken Dandar wasn’t going to be happy.
A Okey-doke. Okay, I’m looking at my affidavit —
Q By the way, who typed that affidavit?
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Just a second now.
MR. WEINBERG: I object to this process. He has done this a number of times. He elicits testimony. Mr. Prince testifies, he’s very specific, he had this conversation.
Then Mr. Dandar takes his affidavit and says, “Well, look at this and see if it is really your testimony.” He’s impeaching him.
MR. DANDAR: Well —
MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it is proper.
417
THE COURT: I think that I’m — I have heard his testimony. I think he can look at his affidavit and see if it refreshes his memory. If it does, I’ll just have to remember his testimony was different before it was refreshed with this
affidavit.MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
A Yes. Okay. I talk about the problem with the checks. We talked about that again. This was the next day on the 29th — now, wait a minute. “Bob told me he called –” now, see, this is before they went to New York, “Bob told me he made — ”
THE COURT: You are going way too fast.
A “Scientology was going to put him in jail.”
THE COURT: What page are you on, please?
THE WITNESS: I’m on Page 3. Bottom of Page 3, Line 27 —
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: — and 28. “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar.”
That was the —
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q That is before the New York trip?
A Yes. Okay, so they arrive in New York. “The next
418
day, on the 29th, the next day around noontime,” I’m on Page 4, Line 10, “Stacy called me. She was upset. Bob was going to jail for contempt in front of Judge Schaeffer, going to jail for perjury in front of Judge Baird. At this point they had only mentioned to me about the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim suit having to be dismissed for Bob not to go to jail. Mr. Rinder –”
THE COURT: You don’t have to read out loud.
You really are looking to see when it was that — if this — if this refreshes your memory as to when this statement about why it was that Mr. Dandar would not be happy.
MR. DANDAR: Right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q When did that first occur?
THE COURT: When it occurred.
A Either the 28th or the 29th, one of those two days.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Okay. And then again I want you to look at your affidavit —
A And, you know, this information was sketchy because I didn’t get the full picture until they came here to Florida. I wasn’t able to divine the full picture until they actually came back from that meeting.
419
Q Okay.
A Now —
Q Do you recall — do you recall that Mr. Minton called you up, after the second day of the New York City meeting, to talk to you about a phone call he received from Mr. Rinder?
A Oh, after they got back from New York?
Q Right.
A Yes — well, no. Stacy is the one that I spoke to.
Q What did she say?
A She said, after they got back from New York, they were all upset and thought they wouldn’t be able to negotiate with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen.
Q Why? Why wouldn’t they be able to negotiate?
A Because they told Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder flat out that they had no influence to get either of these cases dismissed or made go away or whatever, they had no authority to do that; that Stacy Brooks had already made an attempt to contact Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case, so she wasn’t interested in hearing from Stacy; and Mr. Wollersheim certainly — and Mr. Leipold were certainly not interested in dismissing their case, either.
THE COURT: When — now, I’m so confused, and I haven’t read your affidavit in some time so I’m
420
listening basically to your testimony.
You indicated — what I think you just said is Ms. Brooks told you on the telephone that she had told Mr. Rinder that they didn’t have the proper influence to get the case dismissed?
THE WITNESS: See, I’m totally screwing this up if you think that, your Honor, because what I’m saying there is that happened in New York where they were face-to-face with Mr. Rinder, with — at least this is what was relayed to me by Stacy and by Bob on the phone conversation when they left the office, I think it was about noontime on the 29th where they tried to make it clear that they had no influence over these cases and they were asking them to do something they were not able to do.
THE COURT: What confuses me, if I did understand your testimony, after the New York meeting, perhaps the very night of the New York meeting, Stacy called and — Stacy and/or Bob called and said, “I think we’re going to be able to work this out.”
THE WITNESS: Yes, that was after they came back to New Hampshire, left New York, because they were back in New Hampshire that day.
THE COURT: Okay.
421
THE WITNESS: It was either that night or the next day I spoke to Stacy Brooks, and she said she had received a second conversation from Mr. Rinder, who mentioned that he thought that there may have been a misunderstanding, while he understood that they legally — or, you know, weren’t plaintiff or defendant, had no standing to effect these cases one way or another, that there were things that could be done to get the same result.
THE COURT: This was another conversation with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks, when they told you about that, that is when they said, “We think we can do something but it is not going to make Ken Dandar happy”?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WEINBERG: Would that be on the 29th, your Honor?
THE COURT: I believe.
THE WITNESS: The 29th or the 30th or such a date of this.
MR. WEINBERG: Of March?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q When did you get the details about what that meant about Ken Dandar not being happy?
422
A When they traveled to Florida for the Judge Baird hearing that was, I think, occurring on April 5.
Q That is Judge Schaeffer.
A Hmmm?
Q Judge Schaeffer was April 5?
A That is right. Judge Schaeffer was April 5. But they had a Baird one right the next week or whatever.
Q Right.
A Anyway, when they came down for that activity, then we had a meeting at the Harbour Bay Hotel in Tampa, Florida where they made it clear to me what was happening here.
Because I asked them, “Did you find out what these things were that you can do to make these cases go away?”
I’ll start with Wollersheim because that will be quickly.
Q All right.
A She said what she had already done and told Scientology she would do and had done, that she called Dan Leipold and told him to withdraw her testimony — her affidavits in the Wollersheim case, and she had instructed him to do the same for my affidavits.
And there was only three, Vaughn Young, Stacy and me. Vaughn Young, because of his physical condition, how upset he would be to even do that, she told me she had not
423
promised Scientology anything in relationship to Vaughn, but she could promise the relationship to me and her.
Q How did you react to your affidavit being withdrawn?
A I was shocked. I was like, “I’m not withdrawing my affidavit.”
Q Why did she want to withdraw her affidavit?
A Because these are the things that she could do — you know, they want — they want what are the things you can do? What you can do is take your testimony out. Take Jesse’s testimony out of there. Because there was only three witnesses that they were using on the issue of alter ego to claim the judgment.
Q Did you ever —
MR. WEINBERG: Before — could we just date that? Is that at Harbour Island? Is that what you are saying? Could we just date it?
THE WITNESS: I think I dated it in the affidavit.
THE COURT: You want to look at your affidavit and see if you can find it then?
THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Yes, Page 5, Line 11.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q What is the date?
424
A If you look at Line 22, he starts talking about things that could be done.
THE COURT: Line 22?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Where it starts talking about things that could be done.
THE COURT: And that is where you use the phrase, “Ken Dandar was not going to be happy”?
THE WITNESS: Right. So when we met at the hotel, you know — and I’m doing the best job I can here — I asked them — they mentioned about getting the affidavits out of the Wollersheim case, then specifically here in the wrongful death case — “Well, what are you going to do with that?”
“Well, Mmm, we’re going to –” they had a couple of things they were going over. One, the perjury of the check to make it seem like it was Ken Dandar’s fault. And then they were insistent about some meeting that had occurred which included myself, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Mr. Dandar, where we were discussing adding Mr. Miscavige as a party, and how Ken Dandar had instructed Mr. Minton to say the conversation never happened, something about it never happened.
Now, you know, for me, I’m not understanding
425
this because it is not making a whole lot of sense why it would matter one way or another. You know, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a criminal, I didn’t understand what they were talking about. But those were two things specifically that they mentioned bringing out about Mr. Dandar and connecting him with perjury.
THE COURT: One was the check? Is it the $500,000 check that you testified to previously?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Number two was some meeting that occurred dealing with adding Mr. Miscavige as a party?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Was there anything else of how they were going to get Ken Dandar, besides these two items?
A Well, the only other thing that came up — I knew about those two things. But then they had the meeting with Judge Schaeffer where Bruce Howie did something, and the whole thing was moot. And they were happy about that.
I think maybe that same day he got served with the Armstrong suit. And he told me, “It’s not over, I still have got to go in front of Judge Baird.”
Now, I think at that same time the decisions came426
down from the 2nd — from the appeals court concerning discovery issues with finances and this, that and the other thing, so it was kind of like things were turning around.
So I’m questioning them, “Do you really think you need to do this?”
And they are trying to elicit my cooperation, like we used to have this thing amongst us, me, Stacy and Bob, we called ourselves the A team. There was three of us, this is an A team activity. It is tough at the top, we have to make some hard decisions here, you know. So I’m part of that entity. So we’re discussing these matters. And, Mmm —
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is this all one conversation? Does it mean it happened after your hearing on April 5?
THE COURT: I’m not real sure.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: Was this all at the same conversation?
THE WITNESS: Mmm, your Honor, maybe not because, I mean, I was with them the whole time and, you know, Page 5, starting at Line 11 — 16, Number on the affidavit, I talked about the time periods we were there, the 2nd or 3rd of April through —
THE COURT: Did you try, in your affidavit, to date the time frames when these conversations took
427
place as you remembered them?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I sat there with a calendar and I did it as best I could.
THE COURT: Okay. So those are the dates as best you can recall?
THE WITNESS: As best I can recall.
THE COURT: All right. So whatever it says in the affidavit is the best he can recall.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the way I sat and worked on it.
MR. WEINBERG: I was really more asking whether this was one conversation or he was — he talked about a conversation in the Harbour — I think he meant Harbour Island Hotel, but —
THE COURT: It depends what the affidavit says.
MR. WEINBERG: All right.
THE COURT: Is that right, Mr. Prince?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The affidavit speaks of these things that you have been talking about in different conversations. That would be your testimony if you refreshed your memory?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
428
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So your memory was better when you wrote this in April than it is in July?
A For sure.
Q In your affidavit you say Harbor Bay Hotel. That is not Harbour Island Hotel. Do you know where the Harbor Bay Hotel is?
A No, I guess not if I am confused about it. It is the one that has the restaurant in there — well, that means nothing, they all have. Okay, I’m sorry, I spoke out of turn.
Q All right. But what I’m saying, when you took the time to sit down and write your affidavit of April 2002, of course you weren’t under pressure, being examined in front of a judge in a courtroom. You said you had a calendar in
front of you?A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, let’s jump back again to New York City. All right?
A Okay.
Q Well, no, I’m sorry. Let’s go to the conversations you had with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks about New York City.
Did they tell you what type of things Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Minton at the New York City meetings?
429
A That he was going to jail and actually spoke with him quite loudly about this. That he was going to jail. He was going to be prosecuted in front of Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird.
Mmm, by giving the affidavit, I wrote either Bob — Mr. Rinder — he told me — Bob Minton told me specifically Mr. Rinder said, you know, “Bob, you know I’m f-ing you but I’m doing it to your face. You have people around you that are doing it behind your back.”
And he mentioned the people that were doing it behind his back being yourself, Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander.
Q Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton showed you any documents that he received from the Church of Scientology?
A Yes. This was when they had — yeah, now this is after I actually attended the Judge Baird hearing, saw Bob get up on the stand and start lying, and left and went to —
Q All right, I probably jumped the gun. And I apologize. Let’s go back.
Before we get to the Judge Baird hearing, let’s make sure, as far as you can recall today, what transpired when Bob and Stacy came to Florida.
A The first time they came to Florida, they were concerned about the hearing in front of Judge Schaeffer.
430
They were meeting with Bruce Howie. They were continuing to meet with Scientology, working on the things that could be done to get these suits dismissed.
And I guess part of it was to elicit my cooperation to go along with this new plan to disengage Scientology from Bob Minton.
Q Okay. And did Mark Bunker come with them?
A Yes.
Q And Mark Bunker, did he stay at your house?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did anyone else stay at your house?
A No.
Q All right. So did you attend the deposition of Mr. Minton on April 8?
A No, I did not.
Q All right. So the first time you saw Mr. Minton testify was before Judge Baird?
A Correct.
Q All right. And you said that you sat in the audience?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you hear Mr. Minton say you thought was a lie?
A Mmm, something about Mr. Dandar making — telling Bob to perjure himself in relationship to the checks.
431
Q All right. How did you know that was a lie?
A Because if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened. You know —
Q Why is that?
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I move to strike, “if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened.” How is that a response?
MR. DANDAR: I’m asking him to explain it right now.
THE COURT: Yes. Overruled.
A If there had been some agreement between Mr. Dandar and Bob Minton to hide the fact that — the check, I would have known about it when it happened.
THE COURT: Are you saying that Mr. Minton would have told you?
THE WITNESS: Yes. That is what I’m trying to say. He would have told me when it happened. Now, this coming up after all of this time, when I’m sitting there and he — you know, he’s taking us up to the garage when he gave the check, he’s saying this stuff is coming from Europe and you don’t know where it is coming from, on and on, now suddenly he changes his mind, I knew it was a lie.
Or he told me — one way or another, he’s lying now.
432
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q All right. What was the next thing he lied about before Judge Baird?
A I just got up and just walked out. I couldn’t take it. I couldn’t believe what was happening. I was extremely distraught.
As I say in my affidavit, I actually wept because — you know, because once again we see the big Scientology machine, with all of its high-priced lawyers and endless resources, endless staff, to make this occur. “We can’t get the case dismissed or thrown out in any other way so now let’s go manufacture some information.”
MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.
A Let’s create —
MR. WEINBERG: This is pure and utter speculation.
THE COURT: Not only that, but I think it is just kind of a discussion what he thinks. And, frankly, I need his testimony, not what he thinks. He can put that in someplace else.
That objection is sustained.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar making a lie about the $500,000 check?
433
A No. I got up and left immediately.
Q All right. And when is the next time you were talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks?
A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just couldn’t even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw that that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn’t know what to do.
And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind something criminal was going on here, I need to do something to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming. And I —
THE COURT: When you say to help your friends, you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So you went, on your own, to Denis’s office?
A Yes.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, I should not put words in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other friend?
THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to Mr. deVlaming’s office and I explained to him that I had been privileged to know that this was going to
434
happen, that this was going to be created and done against you, and I explained the whole thing to him.
And his reaction was, “Oh, well, they got him this time.” But because he had represented me before, and he had also represented Mr. Minton, he told me that it was a conflict of interest, because I went there to see if I could somehow get law enforcement involved in what was going on here because I was confident that Bob was lying on behalf of Scientology.
And I asked him to put me in touch with someone on a federal level, because I believed that Scientology did have influence in the state prosecutor’s office. I believed that they were able to somehow enact, somehow, undue influence on prosecutors simply because they never get prosecuted for the things that they do. And I myself, you know, I could have one little small marijuana plant in my house, I’m raided by the DEA.
But, you know, a person — a dead body shows up, they can’t do anything.
I had no confidence in that. I asked a federal — asked for federal protection, a federal level, because I said in my mind what they have done is RICO; they have conspired to commit a crime that
435
started in New York, they continued it down here in Clearwater.
Bob told me clearly that he was not going to involve his lawyers in the negotiations proper to any degree where they’re really getting down to the meat and potatoes.
THE COURT: Did Bob tell you why?
THE WITNESS: Because they disagreed.
Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful that was going on.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Mr. Minton’s lawyer?
A Yes. Mr. Jonas, up in Boston. And you notice he has been visibly gone. He didn’t want nothing to do with this.
So they decided to use Mr. Howie to enact this. And they didn’t tell him what was going on. They were happily meeting with these lawyers and without any representation.
Q Well, why —
THE COURT: Wait, you said they were happily meeting with these lawyers without representation.
What is it you mean?
THE WITNESS: The lawyers specifically that Bob and Stacy were meeting with was Sandy Rosen and
436
Monique Yingling.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did Mr. Minton tell you why he chose not to have Mr. Howie or Mr. Jonas go with him to meet with Mr. Rinder, Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling?
A Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful and thought it would be improper.
And he told Bob specifically — and Bob told me he told him — not to meet with Scientology without representation.
Mr. Minton — Mr. Minton mentioned that Mr. Howie could be used because he didn’t really understand what was going on in the first place with — I mean, and the reason why he didn’t understand, it is not because he’s a stupid or ignorant person — but because they weren’t giving him all of the information, Bob and Stacy were not telling Mr. Howie everything, they were negotiating with Scientology and telling Mr. Howie what they wanted him to hear.
Q But why — did Mr. Minton explain to you why he chose not to have his attorneys be present at the meetings?
THE COURT: I presume you’re talking about the meetings in Florida?
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE COURT: And his lawyer down in Florida being Mr. Howie?
437
MR. DANDAR: Yes.
THE COURT: Because Mr. Jonas was in New York?
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Yes. Did he tell you why he didn’t want Mr. Howie at these meetings?
A Mr. Minton expressed to me that he had personally had enough of lawyers, period. And he thought that this is something he needed to do.
Q All right. By the way, did Mr. Minton ever appear at a meeting with you, me, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, to talk about adding on David Miscavige?
A No.
Q Ever?
A No. This was the second big point, you know, that — you know, that Stacy is going on and on, “Jesse, you have to remember, it happened like this.”
“I told you, you are imagining this. It never happened. I’m not going to sit and lie about this.”
But this was another point I was supposed to go along with at the meeting. This is where they were really trying to bring me in to find these points to get you, basically.
Q Well, what made you not join and continue to be part of the A team, as you call it?
A Well —
438
MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I — can we explain what the A team is? Because maybe I missed something.
THE COURT: Yes, the A team is Jesse Prince, Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks. They laughingly referred to themselves as the A team.
MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was daydreaming. I didn’t hear that. Sorry.
THE COURT: I did. So I — I miss some, but I recall that.
MR. WEINBERG: You caught that but I missed the A team. Okay.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So why did you choose not to go along?
A Well, Mr. Dandar, for obvious reasons. Number one, I worked for years on this case. I have worked honestly, to the best of my ability, on this case. I assumed that Stacy was, as well.
Mmm, I understood that Bob Minton — Scientology discovered something about him that upset him greatly and had him horribly concerned. But I wasn’t going to lie to protect him to hurt someone else.
And, in fact, my exact words to Mr. Minton was — and Mrs. Brooks, that I will never, in my life, help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.
439
Q When did you tell them that?
A After — after I walked out of Judge Baird’s courtroom, and then now they’re all looking for me and they’re calling around to see if I’m in jail or see if I’m in the hospital. They thought I had a heart attack, because I was visibly upset. I mean, I was shaking when I walked out of that Judge Baird’s courtroom.
But the thing is I didn’t want to see them. I told my fiance, “You tell them to go home where they live because –” excuse this expression “– they have come and shit all over where I live, I don’t want to see them. You go back to where you live and then we’ll discuss this.”
And we discussed it. And when we discussed it, when I got on the phone with them after they got back, that is when I had the conversation and said that to them. “I can’t do it.”
Q Did you meet with them after Judge Baird’s hearing in Clearwater?
A Yes. I met with them a couple — not after the Judge Baird hearing. You know, at a later date after that, sure.
Q Do you recall meeting with them that following weekend?
A It could have been that weekend. Again, I have done the dates here to the best of my recollection, with
440
sitting down with the calendar. But it was after the Judge Baird — yeah, because Bob had been deposed — no, wait a minute, I’m confusing incidents now, because by the time they went back, they had already been through the Baird (sic) deposition and they were having the contempt hearing or whatever it was in front of Baird where he lied.
So, you know, they came back at a later date. And the discussion was — after they got back to New Hampshire, I told them how upset I was and how I couldn’t do it, and Stacy said to me in no uncertain terms that, “The reason you feel this way is because you don’t have all of the information. We’ve been leaving you out of the loop on some things that you need to know.”
She said that they had signed some agreement with Scientology, so — she couldn’t tell me everything, but the next step was to bring me back into the circle to make this go away for Bob.
And Stacy was just hell bent for leather to do whatever she had to do to disengage Bob from Scientology because she thought it was killing him.
Q Did you meet with them in Clearwater then?
A Yes, I did. We met at Adam’s Mark Hotel.
Q At the Adam’s Mark Hotel there are two things I want you to talk about. Number one, the conversation. And, number two, any documents you saw.
441
A Well, I hadn’t seen Bob. He knew I was furious with him. I hadn’t seen Stacy because I was furious with her. But we agreed to meet because we were friends.
Friends don’t get along every day. It would be nice if you did. But you don’t lose a friend because there is a disagreement.
So we met. And Bob told me, you know, he said, “Look, Jesse, you know, I’m not sure that this is gonna work, either. Stacy is more confident about doing this than I am. I don’t know.” We were kind of having that discussion.
Then the phone rang. Mr. Minton spoke with someone and he said, “Okay, leave it at the desk” and he hung up the phone.
And I asked him what that was.
And he said Scientology was delivering to him a packet of information that had to do with his prior deposition testimony — or prior testimony, that amounted to about 11 inches, for him to go through for the purpose of finding more things for him to — Mmm — quote/unquote, recant or do whatever he was going to do.
There was total — I asked him, “How many things besides Wollersheim and the Lisa McPherson case, what else do they want you to do? Do you know when your leash is over with, where they get done with you? Okay, you think if you
442
destroy Ken, that will make you safe. But what else are they going to have you do? Do you know?”
He said he didn’t know, but this package represented six to seven other things that they wanted him to change testimony about or — or say something different about.
Q Did you see this package?
A Mmm, no.
Q How do you know it was 11 inches high?
A He told me.
Q Okay.
A And he also told me at that time that his attorney, Steve Jonas, told him not to meet with Scientology concerning that package without representation, but he was going to do it anyway —
Q Okay.
A — because he’s taking control.
Q Did you ever see any lawsuits that Mr. Minton was given where Scientology was suing him or contemplating suing him?
A He had a rough draft of a RICO suit that he showed me. It was about this thick.
Q How many inches is that?
A It was about maybe an inch, inch and a quarter, something like that. And he —
443
Q All right.
A — flipped through it like this. And he would never physically give it to me.
He said — and we all predicted they were going to do some crazy RICO thing. He said, “They finally did it. Here is the RICO thing. We already have the Armstrong thing. They are suing me for 80 million which I’ll be liable for, here is the — another RICO, that is another 110 million. They are adding me as a defendant in the breach of contract.
And,” he said, “I’m the only person with money. I have got to get out of this.”
Q Okay. Now, did you at any time tell Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks that you were willing to meet with Scientology?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A Mmm, at the Adam’s Mark Hotel when they — you know, what they call bringing me into the circle.
And I’m looking at these people that I have worked with for years and I might as well have been looking at strangers, because Stacy has this whole thing lined up.
She — you know, she knows exactly what is going to happen, who is going to do what. And Bob is kind of like following along because he’s just at his wit’s end.
And Stacy figures that she knew Mike Rinder for a long time and they were good friends and she’s just going to make this as good for Bob as possible.
444
And, to me, she just delivered Bob into the hands of his enemies.
Q Did Stacy Brooks ever — in all of the years you have known her, did she ever say to you, “I filed a false declaration or affidavit”?
A Never in a million years. To the contrary, Stacy is fully aware that part of, you know, Scientology’s intelligence operations are to get rid of the lawsuit in any way possible. You know, whether you actually have real evidence, get rid of it, or you manufacture it or you bring up enough threat where the person just wants to be done with it.
She knows this because it happened to her.
Q When?
A December of 1999 she did an affidavit about it, about the same people, Mr. Rinder, Mr. Sutter, coming in, wanting them to change testimony, offering money.
THE COURT: We have had testimony about that.
THE WITNESS: Yes. All right.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Well, did she ever say — I just wanted to touch on that. Did she ever say that Mr. Rinder was actually telling her the truth about attacking Graham Berry and Graham Berry did something bad?
A No. But what she did mention to me, she said, “You know, after speaking with Mr. Rinder, you know, I
445
always thought in the Fishman case –” where she appeared as an expert, she said she always thought that because they tried to add Miscavige on as a party, that that made Scientology want to instantly settle because, you know,
hands off from Miscavige, he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the Church, Sea Org, on and on.So she said that after speaking with Mr. Rinder, she came to realize that it wasn’t adding Miscavige that caused the suit to be settled in the way it was. After talking with Mr. Rinder she came to understand that it was because of the introduction of Scientology’s upper levels at which they commonly call it as being trade secrets that was the real issue at hand.
Q Okay. Did Stacy Brooks ever say that her affidavits that she filed about Mr. Rinder offering her and her husband over $200,000 to change their testimony — did she ever tell you that Mr. Rinder’s version of what her declaration should be was true versus what Mr. Berry had her sign?
A Mmm, no. We — I mean, I had read that information before that she had done this. And at this point in time at the Adam’s Mark Hotel, Stacy was not an obvious target. They were working on Bob Minton.
Q Okay.
A Stacy was incidental at that point.
446
Q All right.
A It wasn’t contemplated for her to change her testimony. It was Minton to do it.
Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton, for instance, let’s go to that night, the Adam’s Mark Hotel, where he’s talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he told you in the parking lot about it?
A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were saying, you know, “Ken is really going to get it. He told me to lie about this check.”
I said, “Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you –“he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all responsibility is gone. “Hee-hee. Guess what?”
“Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot. Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving this check to Ken, Ken didn’t know where it was coming from, told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken’s fault?”
Q What did they say?
A They just looked at me like, “Oh, yeah, we forgot about that part.” Mmm, they were telling me things like, “We really got him now.”
I said, “But don’t you remember what we did?
Don’t you remember this is what really happened as opposed
447
to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what actually happened?”
Q What was their response?
A “Hmmm.” You know, just “Hmmm.” Like, “He’s not cooperating.”
Q So —
A So I told him, you know, “Now, you know we were up in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?”
THE COURT: What did he say?
THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was crazy. And they looked at each other and they changed the subject. We started talking about — Mmm — what else did we start talking about?
They brought up something else that — the meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want — “they” being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at some meeting that happened where we all said, “Yeah, add Miscavige and don’t talk to anybody about it.” I am like, “Are you crazy? That didn’t happen either.”
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So when you told them it didn’t happen —
448
A Then they said, “Look, let’s stop talking about this. Let’s go to dinner. We’ve made some progress.”
But, on the other hand, I’m thinking, “I have to talk to somebody from Scientology about this,” because obviously I’m looking at Bob and Stacy, they are just convinced that I’m just going to to-to-to, go along with this. They are just convinced.
They are telling me — Stacy said, “Look, we’re going to do this, it is unpleasant, but we’ll put all this behind us. You won’t have worry — money problems anymore, you’ll have plenty of money, you’ll be taken care of, you know, and –”
THE COURT: Who was going to give you the money?
THE WITNESS: The same — your Honor, the same person that has been, Bob Minton. They have been taking care of everything.
(Discussion had off the record.)
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So this was — then you went out to dinner?
A Yes. We went out to dinner and we just kind of changed the subject because it was getting heated. You know, I’m trying to find a scintilla of logic of what is going on here. And I can’t — I can’t even imagine — I can’t even make myself imagine what they are talking about
449
here.
Then I told Bob, I said, “Bob, isn’t this strange –”
(Discussion had off the record.)
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So Bob Minton said —
A I keep losing my train of thought.
Q I know. Sorry. Maybe we should read it back.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
(Last answer read back by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Repeat the last line again.
(Last answer reread by the reporter.)
A I got it. Because I started talking to them, I said, “Well, look, we had further discussions about Wollersheim, too.”
And I said, “Well, you have loaned Lawrence money to continue his case. Now you’re going after him. You have given all of this money against Ken Dandar. Now you are going after him. Don’t you think it is obvious what has happened here? Don’t you think it is going to be obvious to all concerned that something bad happened here?”
His response was, you know, “I’m not convinced.
Stacy is convinced this is going to work, Jesse. I’m not convinced about it. And I feel bad what is going on with Ken.”
450
My thing was, okay, I have to talk to somebody about Scientology about this because obviously these two things — I have a ring in my nose and they have a leash. I have to let Scientology know they’re not going to get away with this, this is not going to work.
THE COURT: Who was it — you are saying you had the ring through your nose and they had a leash?
THE WITNESS: Yes, this is an analogy of what seemingly was in their minds.
THE COURT: “Their” meaning Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thought they had the leash and were leading you around.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: You thought you had to tell Scientology that wasn’t accurate?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
A So I’m going along now with this whole thing. I said, “Look,” I told them, “Okay, I’ll do it. Okay, I’ll do it. Tell me –” because they said, “We have to bring you in. You have to meet with Mike Rinder now. You have to meet him face-to-face and go over this and you are going to be happy like us.”
451
“Okay. Okay.”
I tell you, I left that Adam’s Mark Hotel and I felt like, “Oh, my God.” You know, I would rather be doing anything. But ultimately I came home and I told my fiance, I said, “Look, it is over. I can’t do it anymore. I have to let Ken know. I have to call somebody.”
So I called Frank Oliver and told him the whole story of what had been going on the whole time and told him to please tell Ken, and I’m so sorry what happened to him.
I sat in Judge Baird’s courtroom and it upset me greatly, and asked him to arrange for you and I to meet, at which point you called me and we met the Sunday.
And I was supposed to meet with Bob and Stacy and Mike Rinder that time. And I told them, “Yes, I’m going to go along with your plan.”
And as I state here in my affidavit and I said to you to your face, I just want to see Mike Rinder’s face when he finds out that this isn’t going to work if he thinks he’s going to use me to do this thing.
So we have that meeting —
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q You and I had a meeting?
A You and I had the meeting. And Mr. Lirot was there.
Q Right. Right. And then you went to meet with Bob
452
and Stacy and, you thought, Mike Rinder?
A I thought Mike Rinder would be there. So what happens, now they moved hotels, they moved to the Radisson on Clearwater Beach. I guess they didn’t like the Adam’s Mark. So we are at the Radisson.
And he has this big sheaf of papers. And he said, “Jesse, you are unreal. Let me show you what Judge Schaeffer is saying about you.” And he read something that, to me, was totally uncomprehensible.
And he said, “See, she doesn’t trust you. You are not credible in her eyes. You are going to jail if you don’t do what we tell you to do.”
I said, “Bob, I think you’re the one going to jail. You’re the one lying. You’re the one that has already went in court and lied. And you want me to do it? I think you’re the one going to jail.”
Oh, my God, it gets hot. “Okay, let’s go down to dinner.”
Then I sit and I explained to them, I said, “Look, let me tell you specific experiences I have personally had making deals with Scientology. Let me tell you the results.”
I told them painstakingly some awful things if I even started to mention, I am sure Mr. Weinberg would be up in a flash.
453
MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor, I would like to hear exactly what he said he told Mr. Minton about all these awful experiences.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Okay. Go ahead.
A I told him about the time I was removed from that position you saw me on the video with the sailor clothes, on and on. I told them about the circumstances about me being removed from there.
THE COURT: I’m not sure I saw that.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it was the first day I was here, Miscavige introduces me, I’m telling him I’m from RTC and we are going to get the squirrels and what do the squirrels mean.
THE COURT: I remember.
MR. DANDAR: This is the New Year’s Eve speech.
THE COURT: Right. I remember now.
A Well, how I got removed from that position. I’m telling him the story where Miscavige wants to come in and get rid of Broeker because he thinks Broeker is crazy.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q So you were caught in between Broeker and Miscavige?
A Yes. And I told them, either one, “I don’t want anything to do with either one of you,” because when I got
454
involved myself in doing illegal activities, with listening to wiretapping and, you know, all of this crazy stuff I’m being shown how to do, I’m cutting my teeth, I am being broken into OSA, this is no Scientology that I ever knew
anything about.You know, I don’t want nothing to do with this part of it. I didn’t even know it happened where they do this stuff to people.
Mmm, and then, you know, they — because I didn’t go along with that, I’m woken up at 5 o’clock in the morning, there is — there is Miscavige standing there, there is Lymon Sperlock, Ray Mithoff, Mike Sutter, Greg Wilheir (phonetic), his brother, security guards. There are about 12 people there.
I walk into Miscavige’s office, and there is Vicki Aznaran, the person that used to be inspector general of RTC, just crying in the corner, crumpled. They are all in their Sea Org uniforms just like, grrr. And I’m running around with something that looks like pajamas.
And he told me, “You didn’t go along with this, you wouldn’t follow me, now you are going to the RPF. You call me sir. You have been disrespectful.”
I stood up and told him to go to hell and went and tried to leave, at which point they tried to grab me. And me and Judge Moody has been through this story before so I’m
455
not telling a new story.
And I ran to my bedroom and I got a Mini 14 assault rifle I had been given for my birthday from L. Ron, and a .45, loaded in both, went back to that office, and I have them like this (indicating). And now they are standing there like — oh, Norman Starkey was there. And Norman says, “Jesse, you traitor. You can’t kill us all.”
And I said, “Well, I’ll tell you what, maybe not, but you will certainly be the first to go.”
And I’m standing there with these guns. Then Miscavige, because he and I used to be very good friends, too, he and I were very good friends at one point in time, he came over and he said, “Jesse, look, this is horrible, let’s stop this.”
He knew I wasn’t going to do anything. He walked right up to me. He told all those other jerks, “Get out of here, I have got to talk to Jesse.”
So we go down to the ship and we have a conversation. And he tells me, “Jesse, I know this all seems horrible now, but I need you to take this fall. I need you to be a head on a pike.” Head on a pike is a term in Scientology where somebody takes a fall for Scientology.
Put a head on the pike means if you are going through the gate, you end up like this, head on the pike.
“I want you to be the head on the pike.” He
456
wanted me to go to RPF. You know, Vicky and Rick really screwed things up with the Broekers and conspired about him, yik-yik and on and on. And he said, “Look, this will be over, you’ll be restored to your position,” on and on.
“Oh, okay, Dave, I do it.” We talked. I willingly once again go to the damn concentration camp.
Once again. Like eighteen months wasn’t long enough. Now I’m in there again.
What immediately happens? Miscavige starts issuing this horrible stuff about me, “He’s terrible, he’s a piece of crap.”
I stood up and walked out of that place, went to that base and said, “Look, if this is the way you want to play this, I’m going to the police, I’m going to go talk to them about what you do here.”
Oh, my God, all them issues are canceled. No, Jesse is good again. “Jesse, I’m sorry.” It is always someone’s fault, someone else acted in an unauthorized manner and put these things out.
Okay, he got rid of all of that stuff. I mean, I had to have something to show for being in Scientology 16 years. Every certificate I had — I had a wall from top to bottom, at least half of that, of everything I have ever done in Scientology used to be in my office.
And, Mmm, so I ended up going back to the RPF.
457
Oh, no, we straighten it all out again. That was one instance.
Just lying. Just can’t wait to get me in a position to where I am incapacitated to do something.
The second time I’m trying to leave Scientology, “Look, you guys can do this. Do whatever you want to do, you know. You want to do this activity? I don’t want to do it anymore. I just want to take me and my wife and leave, just be away.”
Well, of course that didn’t happen. I had to be degraded for four and a half months, locked up, sec-checked, told to divorce my wife. I have written about this, too. Finally, I leave.
THE COURT: What did you say, seg-checked?
THE WITNESS: Sec, security checked. Being interrogated on the E-meter.
A Well, what happens, as soon as I leave, they have someone that is a tail on me that works for this Scientology business who, because I won’t continue to do Scientology and their business, now I’m no good. You know, I have come in there and boomed that business. I was hired, I was on salary making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Are you talking about the artwork business?
A Yes, the artwork business.
458
would call me once or twice a week. Mike Sutter, RTC, “Jesse, how are you doing?”
So now they want me to do Scientology work where they want me to do cramming, do correction, yik-yik, on and on.
I said, “Look, I have left that. I’m not doing that anymore. Let me just do a regular job. I’m just doing a regular job now, not using the Scientology mess, and everything is going fine. You know, don’t fix something when it is not broke.”
No, that is not good enough, that gets reported to RTC. Now I have to get removed and now I have to go through endless crap.
It finally culminated losing my job, having to start my own business, being followed around every place in Minneapolis, because I travel a lot. Then one day I found a bag right outside my hotel room, like this (indicating), Rock cocaine.
THE COURT: How big?
THE WITNESS: Huh?
THE COURT: You are showing it.
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Tell —
A Like this (indicating).
THE COURT: Say for the record, is that the
459
size of a baseball?
THE WITNESS: About the size of a softball.
THE COURT: About the size of a softball?
THE WITNESS: With individually little crack cocaines.
A And I’m like, uh-uh, this is it.
So, to me, I’d already been through enough betrayal with Scientology. And I explained this to them.
THE COURT: This is just — all that cocaine just sitting outside your hotel room?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. And the fact of the matter is, your Honor, it is known that I had, you know, smoked marijuana before or whatever, but if anyone in my family — because my brother tried it — does cocaine, he did it, had a double aneurysm. I sat in the hospital a month while they cut off his dreadlocks, peeled his skin back, cut his scalp, went through his brain, cauterized two microscopic veins because his head exploded from fooling around with crap, and put it all back together.
And the reason they said it happened to him, something genetically in our family that makes those veins do that. What do I want to do with cocaine
460
for? It is just —
THE COURT: I think we’re far afield.
MR. WEINBERG: Is this what — all these incidents you told Mr. Minton?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I’m telling all this to Mr. Minton. I said, “In the end you may think –” and I told him, “As you sit here you can’t tell me when Scientology is going to be done with you. When are they going to be finished having you done whatever they want you to do? All you know, you have Wollersheim and you have McPherson.”
He said, “Jesse, you are being unreal.” He got mad. He cursed at me and said something. And his last words were, “Well, fuck it, you’re going to jail.”
BY MR. DANDAR:
Q Did you use the same language back at him?
A I said, “Bob, I’m sorry, you’re going to jail.
Stacy, you’re going to jail. I’m not having anything to do with this.”
I got up — he asked me to leave. He said, “Get out.”
I said, “Fine.”
Stacy follows me in the parking lot. She said, “You know, after all of the things Bob has done for you,
461
this is how you treat him?”
I’m looking, “What in the hell has Bob done for me that I have to perjure myself, I have to become a criminal because he thinks this is what I got to do to save him?
Uh-uh. He’s not done anything for me. And there is only one person can sell my soul. That is me. I already sold my soul to this organization one time and I got it back. Bob Minton is in no position to offer my soul to them.”
And I told her that. And we really haven’t talked that much since.
Q Well, now, was there a point in time when Bob Minton was coming over to your house after that for barbecue?
A Well, again, we have been friends a long time. This was another bridge of disagreement, blowup, everybody cursing, but we have such history. Even as I sit here today, I can’t fathom not talking to him once or twice a week.
So, you know, we’re talking again.
“Look –” Stacy said, “Look, this is going to blow over with or without you. We’re going to make sure.”
So I said, “Okay, well, then if we’re not doing this, could we still be friends?”
They love to come over to the house. We barbecue and have little parties. “Sure.”
462
But then he called his lawyer and he was told not to come.
Q This is while the hearing is going on in this courtroom?
A Yes. They want to tell me what is going on. They want me to be a part of it because I have been since the beginning. But I can’t because of what they’re doing.
Q Did Bob Minton want to close down the LMT?
A No.
Q Whose idea was that?
A I don’t think it was any one person’s idea. Well, if it was anybody’s idea, I think it was Stacy’s, because the LMT was being used as a vehicle to get to Bob. And —
THE COURT: I think it sounds — this must be allowed to start at 4:30, but it is giving me a headache. Is this a good stopping point?
MR. WEINBERG: Yes — I’m sorry.
MR. DANDAR: This would be — this would be fine.
THE COURT: They probably are allowed to start up at 4:30.
MR. WEINBERG: I thought I was having a ringing in my ears, which I do have an ear issue.
THE COURT: So we’ll go ahead and quit. We’ll start up at 9 o’clock. Mr. Prince —
463
MR. WEINBERG: Remember you said ten?
THE COURT: Oh, I did. Ten o’clock tomorrow.
Ten o’clock tomorrow. I think I told you this before, but if I didn’t, let me remind you: While you are on the witness stand, I did give you permission to speak with Mr. Dandar because of the long break, but now, like overnight, you and he can’t talk.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay? I mean, you can talk about something else, but you can’t talk anything about your testimony or about this case. Of course you can’t talk to the other side, you can’t talk to anybody while you are on the stand about this case or your testimony. Okay?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I understand that.
THE COURT: We shall be in recess.
MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have one issue on the E-Mails. And I’ll be really quick.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. FUGATE: There are, to my understanding, about 3,000 E-Mails. And during the break —
THE COURT: Have you-all come up with any agreement as to a list?
464
MR. FUGATE: That is what I want to talk to you about. I went over to see, there is a list that prints out all of the ones that they were able to recover from the various hard drives. And I have found a series of — on that list of E-Mails that related to Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, and I have left a list of those with Mr. Keane.
And then I understand that Mr. Dandar indicated that those shouldn’t be produced because Ms. Greenway is a consultant. And, you know, in this hearing he said she wasn’t.
I don’t really care what she is today. But back during the time that she was at LMT prior to this hearing beginning, which is where all these E-Mails generate from, I don’t think they would be covered as a consultant —
THE COURT: Counsel, I can’t deal with something that won’t be agreed to with this noise. That is why I stopped this hearing. We’ll take this up first thing in the morning, and hopefully we won’t have any noise and we’ll get it done then.
Ten o’clock tomorrow. Bring it to my attention then.
MR. FUGATE: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you all.
465
(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)
REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2002.
______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR
Notes
- Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-008-070802-Prince-V3.html ↩
- See Affidavit of Jesse Prince (April 2002). ↩
Affidavit of Jesse Prince (August 20, 1999)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISIONESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH
Plaintiff,vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI; and DAVID HOUGHTON
Case No. 97-01235
Defendants.
_________________________________/STATE OF FLORIDA :
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH :
AFFIDAVIT OF JESSE PRINCE1
BEFORE ME, personally appeared JESSE PRINCE, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am over 18 years of age and currently reside in the state of Illinois, Cook County. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to
testify thereto.My History in Scientology
2. I was in Scientology for 16 years (1976-92). In July of 1992, I escaped with my wife from Scientology headquarters at Gilman Hotsprings, Ca. Under duress, my wife and I were forced to return. After intense interrogation and isolation, my wife and I on October 31, 1992, were able to leave Scientology, but only after we were coerced to sign a release containing untrue statements protecting Scientology from legal liability. I remained silent about my experience in Scientology, since upon leaving I was subjected to routine monitoring by Mike Sutter of the Religious Technology Center, (RTC), and Earl Cooley, Scientology counsel. In July of 1998, I discovered that others had similar experiences and were courageous enough to speak out against Scientology. I therefore ended my silence so that others would know about the truth of what really happens within the inner circles of Scientology.
2. I am intimately familiar with the organization, movement, beliefs, practices and technologies of Scientology. I served in the highest ranks of Scientology, including second in command of the Religious Technology Center
(RTC), the most senior body of Scientology.3. Beginning in March of 1983 and until the Spring of 1987, I held the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”. In this position, I was one of three members of the Board of Directors of RTC while David Miscavige was on its Board of Trustees.
4. In the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”, I was in charge of supervising all activities in every aspect of Scientology, i.e., supervising senior management structure of the “mother church”, Church of Scientology International, CSI. In the hierarchy of all of Scientology, I was only two steps removed from L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard gave his orders to David Miscavige who in turn gave them to me to supervise, delegate and enforce their execution. Corporately speaking, Vicki Aznaran, the President of RTC, and I were accountable and reported only to David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard. RTC gave CSI the license to use Dianetics and Scientology technologies.
5. Moreover, I was in charge of the Trademark Integrity Secretary, (TMI Sec), Jim Mooney, who had authority over the senior management of CSI called the Watchdog Committee. This Committee has complete authority over the different sectors of all of Scientology. The members of this committee are comprised of senior management officials who oversee and control the management of the following: FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION,(FSO); World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, (WISE); Scientology Missions International,(SMI); Reserves, the person responsible for the management and supervision of all bank accounts and revenues; Golden Era Productions, (GOLD);Flag Land Base,(FLB); Sea Org, (SO); Celebrity Center International, (CCInt); and Office of Special Affairs, (OSA), which handles all the legal and intelligence functions of Scientology.
7. Some of my specific duties as Deputy Inspector General, External, included supervising all litigation by or against any Scientology organization, intelligence and covert operations brought against perceived or imagined “enemies”, trademark registrations, and the licensing of trademarks to other Scientology corporations to create the false impression of “corporate integrity”. I was also in charge of the “Celeb Project,” which ran all auditing of Scientology celebrities, such as John Travolta, Priscilla Presley, Kirstie Alley, Anne Archer, and Chick Corea to name a few. I was also the auditor for David Miscavige and his wife, Shelly. I was the course instructor for all of the auditing courses for Alain Kartuzinski and his Cramming Officer for Class 10, 11, and 12, 12 being the highest level an auditor can reach.
6. I first became involved with Scientology in September, 1976, in San Francisco. In late 1976, I joined the elite Scientology paramilitary organization known as the Sea Organization, also known as the “Sea Org” or the acronym “SO”. Sea Organization personnel are authorized to take over and control Scientology organizations and to demote or promote personnel including chief executives, move bank accounts, and run the corporation as if SO personnel were employees or representatives of that corporation. The power of the SO is not only over the purported religious Scientology organizations but also prevails over the secular organizations such as WISE or Bridge Publications. The Sea Org’s pervasive authority is possible because the only personnel allowed into executive positions in these organizations are those who are in full agreement that the Sea Organization is the commanding organization.
7. Before I was recruited into the Religious Technology Center (RTC) in 1982, most of my experience was with Scientology technical material; the actual codified auditing and administrative techniques used within the organization. This gave me considerable time to become familiar with these technical materials, most of which was written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. My knowlege and expertise of the technologies prompted my promotion to a technical position at RTC.
8. In the fall of 1982, L. Ron Hubbard issued an order to find the best Supervisor/Cramming Officer in all of Scientology and bring that person to Golden Era Productions (GOLD) to correct and train the senior executive management structure of the Scientology empire all around the world. A Supervisor in Scientology is analogous to a teacher in a class room. A Cramming Officer is responsible for the correction of individuals who have difficulty in executing the techniques of Dianetics and Scientology or otherwise following the dogma of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter. Mike Eldridge, a personal emissary of L. Ron Hubbard, in charge of conducting the search to
find the most qualified person to serve as Supervisor/Cramming Officer, recommended me to David Miscavige, who ultimately approved my appointment. I was transferred to, lived and worked at what is known as “Golden Era Studios,” near Hemet, California. It is also known as “Gold” or simply “The Base”, where senior management of Scientology is headquartered.9. By Scientology standards, I was a very highly trained auditor and case supervisor. An auditor in Scientology is a trained practitioner of the pseudo scientific methodology of psychological counseling commonly referred to as “The Tech,” as dictated and written by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. A case supervisor is also a trained auditor who reads the “auditing” records of every counseling session performed by an auditor to ensure “The Tech” was applied exactly. In Scientology there are 12 levels of auditor and case supervisor classification, each level being “higher” than the next. In this system, I was certified as a Class 9 Auditor and a certified Class 9 Case Supervisor.
10. In my capacity as Deputy Inspector General, External, I traveled about the U.S. and outside of the U.S. on behalf of RTC. I traveled to Germany, Italy, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Mexico and Canada. These trips were designed to put together an infrastructure that would interface with RTC for the purpose of trademark enforcement. I was personally chosen by David Miscavige over Vicki Aznaran to speak on behalf of RTC to a worldwide audience via satellite to warn them that RTC holds the trademarks of Scientology and eradicates all those who violate “The Tech” or infringe on trademarks.
11. I became familiar with the trademark laws of the various countries in which I traveled. I interviewed and retained law firms, and put personnel in place that would report to RTC and be our site representatives. I testified as an expert witness on Scientology technology on behalf of RTC in federal court in Los Angeles in a RICO action with RTC as the plaintiff in 1985. In 1983, on orders from L. Ron Hubbard, I brought into existence within RTC a unit called “The Tech Unit”. The Tech Unit had the responsibility of inspecting PC files a/k/a Pre-Clear files, (counseling files), in all Scientology organizations to ensure “The Tech” was being applied 100% according to the standard tech.
12. When Hubbard died in 1986, there was a power struggle in Scientology for the next 18 or so months that resulted in Hubbard’s closest and most powerful aide (Pat Broeker) being removed from Scientology. Total power was taken over by David Miscavige who purged the organization of anyone who was friendly with Broeker. In mid 1987, because I did not want to participate in Miscavige’s power struggle to become the head of Scientology, I was forcefully removed from my position and put under armed guard at Happy Valley, located deep in the desert behind the Soboba Indian Reservation. It is my belief that my undated resignation, which I signed when appointed to the Board, was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned, when I had not.
Practices of Scientology
13. From time to time, based on orders that I received from David Miscavige, I would order others to engage in illegal activities against perceived enemies of Scientology. These activities included, but were not limited to, wire-tapping and document destruction. For example, on or about April,1983, I was present at a meeting which took place in Los Angeles, California, at a Scientology office called Author Services, Inc. (ASI), a for profit company
and the “literary agency” for Hubbard, run by David Miscavige. There is no real corporate structure among the many Scientology corporations. ASI was the meeting place where various Scientology corporations went to receive orders. Present at this meeting was David Miscavige, then the Chairman of the Board of ASI, Vicki Aznaran, Deputy Inspector General of RTC, Marc Yeager, Commanding officer of CSI, and Lyman Spurlock, who was “Director of Client Affairs” for ASI. Mr. Miscavige expressed concern at this meeting that there might possibly be a raid on Scientology by the IRS. At that time, none of the churches of Scientology had received tax exempt status. At this meeting, David Miscavige announced to the group that the destruction and alteration of documents to protect Scientology was in progress. One principal reason why tax exempt status had not been granted was the IRS’s position that Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH), was actually the managing agent of Scientology in complete disregard of the corporate structure of Scientology. We knew this to be a fact, but also knew that it violated IRS rules and thus had to be hidden. There was concern that the IRS would obtain the hundreds of daily, weekly and monthly LRH orders written by Hubbard and distributed throughout Scientology. These orders were commonly referred to in Scientology as “advices” to avoid the appearance that Hubbard was actually running Scientology. In fact, Hubbard was running Scientology. The principal concern expressed at this meeting was that the LRH orders or “advices” would be used to name Hubbard as the managing agent of Scientology. Because of an already existing fear that an LRH “advice” might fall into the wrong hands, these orders from him were written in a way that we could deny it was from him. His name was not on them. He was never cited in the dispatch except in the third person. There was no signature and a salutation in reply was never more than “Dear Sir.” The routing at the top referred to him merely as “###”, (three pound signs), while his closest aids, Pat and Annie Broeker, were referred to as “* “, (an asterisk). However, if a person (or agency) got enough of these, there would be little doubt that we were in touch with Hubbard (via ASI) and that he was telling us and each corporation what to do to make him more money.14. David Miscavige specifically ordered destruction of any documents in ASI’s posession which would implicate Hubbard as managing agent of Scientology. He stated that under his directive the LRH orders, or “advices” were being collected and transferred by truck to a Riverside County recycling plant where the documents were to be “pulped.” This method of destruction was considered to be better than shredding. I was also put in charge of purging the remainder of the LRH orders, i.e. “Advices”. This was to include “advices” that were located in Church of Scientology of California (CSC); Church of Scientology International (CSI); and RTC.
15. Several weeks after the April, 1983 meeting, I attended another meeting at the ASI offices concerning the continuing destruction of Scientology corporate documentation. In attendance at this meeting were David Miscavige,
Lyman Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Norman Starkey, Marty Rathbun, and Scientology attorney, Earl Cooley. At this meeting, Miscavige, for the first time, stated that Scientology had been ordered by a court to produce various documents concerning a former Scientology member, Lawrence Wollersheim, who had a lawsuit pending in Los Angeles against the Church of Scientology of California. The court had ordered Scientology to produce Wollersheim’s entire Pre-Clear file.16. A “Pre-Clear” file is one of the several files kept on members. The Pre-Clear file is the file that includes all written records of all “confessionals’ done by the member. This means that it includes not only the most self-damaging material, but it also reflects every problem the person might have had with the organization, including complaints. This Pre-Clear file grows with the person’s tenure in Scientology.
17. Mr. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file was several thousand pages in length and stood as high as a six-foot tall man. Initially at this meeting, it was decided that Mr. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file would be redacted and culled of any evidence or documentation which might assist Wollersheim in his lawsuit against CSC. There was also concern that the materials known as Clear, OT I, OT II, OT III, and NED for OT’s (NOTS) would be open to public inspection if Wollersheim’s files were produced as ordered. Scientologists are taught that a person could catch pneumonia and die if that person is prematurely exposed to these “upper level” materials without first having taken many hours of preparatory auditing.
18. Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear file was purged of any incriminating evidence against Scirentology based on a direct order from Miscavige in the presence of Scientology’s lead trial counsel, Earl Cooley of Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Cooley thereafter represented to the court that the purged file was indeed the entire PC File of Mr. Wollersheim. Ultimately, approximately 50 pages were produced pursuant to the court order.
21. Later, I was informed that a second court order was issued to produce Wollersheim’s entire file. Faced with the prospect of having to produce the entire file, Miscavige gave orders that the entire file simply be destroyed by being pulped.
22. Pursuant to Miscavige’s orders, I ordered Rick Aznaran to take Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear files to the recycling plant in Riverside to be pulped. Several hours after I gave the order to have Wollersheim’s Pre-Clear files destroyed, Rick Aznaran returned and confirmed that the records had been pulped and even showed me a small bottle of pulped material. “Here’s what’s left,” he said.
23. Members of Scientology are induced to confess to acts that, if not outright criminal, are embarrassing or possibly destructive to the person’s job, marriage or profession. For example, shoplifting, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, drug abuse, or any other potentially embarassing or illegal matters are recorded. Members are urged to write down these compromising facts in their own handwriting, under the guise that it is a “religious confessional” for the member’s good. The truth is that these “confessions” are kept to blackmail and extort members should they dare to speak out against Scientology. Members are also coerced to sign documents that are self-damaging in order to protect Scientology in case they dare to leave its control and speak the damaging truth. I know all this to be true, because I watched this done to others; I did it to others; and it was done to me.
24. I have personally witnessed executive decisions directed to members instructing them to “end cycle”, i.e., die. I have personally read written instructions by Ray Mithoff concerning the following individuals: a) Diane Morrison, a personal friend of mine. She had cancer. Radiation treatment is forbidden by Scientology. She was instructed by Ray Mithoff to “end cycle.” Her husband, Shawn Morrison, was ordered by Ray Mithoff to transport her off of the Scientology property at Gilman Hotsprings, California, to her mother’s house so that she would not die on Scientology property. b) Ted Cormier, a personal friend of mine. He had Parkinson’s disease. He was ordered to leave Gilman Hotsprings and go directly to Flag for NOTS 34, auditing to cure his cancer. When this failed, Ray Mithoff sent him orders in his Pre-Clear folder for him to “end cycle.” He died.
25. I have personally reviewed a video of a television interview of Roxanne Friend, a former Scientologist. She had cancer which could have been successfully treated. She was kidnapped in California and taken across
country in a motorhome to FLAG in Clearwater where she was held against her will, which prevented her from getting cancer treatment. After she escaped she gave this interview that I observed on a television talk show. She
disclosed that she was beyond treatment because of this delay and subsequently died. Based on my experience in Scientology, her statements ring true.My Experience with Isolation
26. In 1973, Hubbard announced to the Scientology world that he had solved the problem of how to handle a person in a “psychotic break”. Hubbard stated that this was a “technical breakthrough” which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the twentieth century. He further said his discovery means the last reason to have psychiatry around is gone. He went on to say the key is what caused the person to introspect before the psychotic break. During my tenure in Scientology I have observed four instances of people having a psychotic break. In each case the person was sleep deprived; each had been told their job performance was inadequate; and each person was subjected to Scientology ethics.
27. I am familiar with the practice of “Isolation,” also known as “baby watch” as practiced by Scientology and I have participated in the “handling” of one Scientologist that was ordered to “Isolation”. No one volunteers to go into Isolation. I have seen with my own eyes how a person is driven to the point of having a “psychotic break” and the subsequent brutality of treatment the person then receives as a result of the handlers following strict Scientology methods.
28. In the four instances of Isolation I observed, the person was locked in a room with at least two other people guarding the exit door. The people that watch the person in a psychotic break are not allowed to talk to the person at all. They are only allowed to physically restrain the person. The reason there are people guarding the exit door is that the person wants to leave and attempts to leave time after time. By their own policy the person in a psychotic break is not allowed to leave until the Case Supervisor allows it. Here is a direct quote from Scientology technical “Introspection Rundown, Additional Step”: “Dear Joe. What can you guarantee me if you are let out of
Isolation?” If the persons’s reply shows continued irresponsibility toward other dynamics or fixation on one dynamic to the exclusion of others damaged, the C/S (Case Supervisor) must inform the person of his continued Isolation and why. Example: “Dear Joe. I’m sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet…”29. In 1987, I was at a place called Happy Valley, located behind the Soboba Indian Reservation in California. Happy Valley is where the Scientology Rehabilitation Project Force, RPF, is located. It is a prison /slave labor camp for Scientologists who no longer ascribe totally to the doctrine of Scientology. I, along with six other Sea Org members, were ordered to do a “isolation watch” on another Sea Org member who was having a psychotic break. Prior to having the psychotic break the person was very normal. She had been deprived of sleep for many days due to a deadline she was ordered to meet on her job. She was sent to “Ethics” and was constantly humiliated and degraded for making errors and for falling asleep at her work station. When she was given to me to watch she was on her hands and knees and literally barking like a dog. She thought she was L. Ron Hubbard. It was at this time that I learned how forced feeding was done and the extent of restraint we all had to enforce on a young woman barely 5 feet tall. I was horrified at just how close she was to losing her life due to the “help” we were being ordered to give her. Even though she was now being allowed to sleep, she could not sleep and had been up for nearly four days. She was in a very agitated and violent state. She would scream for hours until she could scream no more. She fought to escape and mutilated herself in the process. Finally a doctor was called in and it took four people plus the doctor to hold her down to give her a shot to make her go to sleep.
30. A major part of the trauma a person experiences in Scientology’s “isolation” treatment is the person’s struggle to get away or to get out of the room they are being confined in. The young woman I had to “iso watch” had
numerous injuries as a result of her beating on the walls and the door trying to get away. She would drift in and out of her psychotic state. I was informed by the security guard watching over us all that her family was desperately trying to find her and during the times when she was “okay” I had to let her call her mother after I told her what to say. I held a separate phone while she talked to her family and when things started to get “weird” I would end the conversation. She would tell her mother that she was okay and would be home soon. During this time she became very upset with me because I made her see a doctor she did not know and who was not allowed to talk to her
while he was giving her shots. She physically attacked me on more than one occasion. This was a public relations nightmare for Scientology and this is why she was told to lie to her family about what was really going on with her. This went on for two months. After she seemed stable for a week and completed the “Introspection Rundown” she was made to sign a release form which in essence said Scientology was not responsible for what had happened to her and she was quickly sent home.31. If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that based upon my own observations she would have died.
32. The people who are selected to watch a person in a psychotic break are trained to make a person physically comply with orders and demands. Controlling a person physically is taught in Scientology in its Training Routine Courses. As an example, in what is called “Training Routine 7, High School Indoc” the Scientology student is trained to never be stopped by a Pre-Clear. No matter what the person in “Isolation” does or says, they are not allowed to leave until the C/S says they can.
My Involvement in the case of Lisa McPherson
33. I have been retained as an expert witness and trial consultant in the case of Lisa McPherson since Nov, 1998. In Dec, 1998, Scientology representative Glenn Stilo brought Lisa McPherson’s Pre Clear files to the
office of Ken Dandar by order of this court for inspection. Glenn Stilo and I knew each other when I was in Scientology. At that time, Glenn was fully aware that I was present at Mr. Dandar’s Office and that I was there inspecting Lisa McPherson’s auditing files. I have also reviewed the “caretaker logs” of Lisa McPherson at the Fort Harrison Hotel and her Ethics File.34. It is obvious from these files that Lisa McPherson complained that auditing and Scientology were not working for her in 1995 and that she wanted to leave and return to Texas. Her “stats” were down, i.e., her production and income at AMC Publishing. As a result, she was placed in Ethics at her work where the records revealed that she was constantly doing “amends” and writing “O/W’s”, overts and write-ups, which resulted in less time to obtain adequate sleep which further, in my own observations, leads to psychotic breaks. This is confirmed by L. Ron Hubbard in his own writings, “Introspection Rundown Additional Steps.”
35. FLAG at the Ft. Harrison Hotel is “the mecca of technical perfection” according to Scientology. I can attest that it is a high crime in Scientology to alter or ignore the tech. It is also a high crime to lose or omit vital information from any PC folder, including “caretaker logs.” The Lisa McPherson “caretaker logs” are missing substantial day-to-day portions, in particular, the last three and one-half days of her Isolation. This is no accident. Records of this magnitude are not lost. Based on my experience, these missing records were intentionally destroyed to conceal material matters damaging to Scientology. Hubbard explicitly writes in CS SERIES 97 and CS SERIES 98 that “omissions from folders and complete loss of folders is a very serious matter….” If proven, expulsion from Scientology is mandatory.
36. I have been asked to address the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson would have consented to her own isolation prior to experiencing a psychotic break. Without question, no Scientologist, except a Class 4 auditor or above, would have prior knowledge of how someone would be treated who is declared to be PTS Type III: a “Potential Trouble Source” who is experiencing a psychotic break. Only those auditors would have the knowledge that “Isolation” is implemented or the details of “Isolation” for those who are PTS Type III. In reviewing the Scientology records of Lisa McPherson, she was not an auditor and would therefore never have acquired the knowledge prior to becoming PTS Type III to consent to being held against her will in isolation.
37. In Scientology technical bulletin “Search and Discovery” under the subtitle “Handling Type III”, L. Ron Hubbard wrote, “But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a
final defense, sometimes can’t be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught to ever become quiet, the extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as “catatonia” (withdrawn totally) and “manic” (too hectic).”38. Following the dogma of L. Ron Hubbard to the letter is the highest priority for a person practicing Scientology. In a Scientology policy letter called “Keeping Scientology Working”, L. Ron Hubbard says “The proper
instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we are going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”39. In terms of the report and control of RTC, it is required by any and all Scientology organizations to report directly to RTC any extreme deviations from “standard tech”. For example, it would be considered a deviation when a
Scientology Pre-Clear, (a person that has paid for auditing services from Scientology), has left Scientology and threatens to sue. Other examples would include a Pre-Clear who is not getting the expected results or one who has had a psychotic break (PTS Type III). Once the RTC Tech Unit completed a review of a Pre-Clear folder, it would be sent back via the Office of the Senior Case Supervisor International (located in Church of Scientology International) to ensure compliance to orders and correction as deemed necessary by the RTC Tech Unit. CSI receives updated status reports and without question would have received updated status reports on the Isolation of Lisa McPherson and her deteriorating medical condition because RTC has an on site representative at FLAG. These reports would be composed and sent up line to Ray Mithoff at RTC by the Senior Case Supervisor, Alain Kartuzinski. Ray Mithoff would then take the report to RTC. The Office of Special Affairs, OSA, locally and internationally, would be informed of the Isolation as well. Marty Rathbun, Inspector General Ethics, is over all the legal affairs of every case and situation in Scientology and would also have knowledge of a PTS Type III in Isolation.40. The above reporting procedure is still practiced in the Scientology conglomerate today. For example, in the attached “D/Inspector General Office,” published by Religious Technology Center and copyrighted in 1997, it
compels reporting directly to RTC any listed situation, such as “any person who acts PTS Type III.” This is all done in order to help RTC “locate and eradicate any suppression (i.e., a threat) and thereby make sure that Scientology keeps working.” Lisa McPherson was deemed PTS Type III and therefore was such a threat.41. RTC receives all reports on situations involving Isolation for guidance from RTC to the Senior Case Supervisor, Sr. C/S. RTC then reports the matter to Sr. C/S INT, i.e., International, office for further investigation. Sr.
C/S INT then reports back to the RTC Reports Officer. Ray Mithoff is the Sr. C/S INT at CSI, the mother church. Ray Mithoff, Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige, as they have done on other occasions within my personal knowledge, meet and discuss various options available to Scientology on how to deal with a public relations flap. No one else has the authority to do so. Lisa McPherson was such a public relations flap to Scientology since she took her clothes off in public and was placed in Isolation.42. In records I have reviewed provided by FLAG in this case concerning Lisa McPherson, she had previously complained that Scientology was not working for her and her stats were down. Based upon my own experience and Scientology procedures and protocol, these three individuals would have met and discussed on several occasions what to do with Lisa since she was not improving in Isolation. It is important to know that Scientology has no prohibition on members seeking emergency medical treatment as stated in HCOB Physically ILL PCs and Pre-OTs, 12-3-69, which mandates a medical cure before auditing, where Hubbard states “if we already know he is ill we should call in the doctor.” page 328 of Volume 8 of the Technical Bulletins
43. Yet, from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals: Mithoff, Rathbun, and Miscavige, had no option other than to permit her to die in Isolation rather than take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physicians, press, and authorities with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery. This is true because in
Scientology it is never an option to be held accountable. Contrary to their own policy that “THE CORRECT ACTION ON AN INSANE PATIENT IS A FULL SEARCHING CLINICAL EXAMINATION BY A COMPETENT MEDICAL DOCTOR.” Page 327, Volume 8 of the Technical Bulletins, Scientology decided in Lisa’s case, through these three individuals acting through FLAG, not to follow this particular policy and let her die. Scientology provides an option called “end cycle” which is permitting and ordering the person to die. It is obvious to me that the decision was to permit Lisa McPherson to die rather than face an extreme public relations flap by taking her to the local emergency room in her morbid condition as described in the “caretaker logs.”44. Based on my personal experience and expertise in Scientology, I have formed the following opinion: 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 the chosen option to minimize a public relations flap.
45. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________
JESSE PRINCESWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, this ___ day of August, 1999.
___________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:Personally Known ____
Produced ID ____
Type of ID Produced _____________________
Notes
- Document source: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/legal/jesse_aff_9908.html ↩