IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-002750-CI-20 ----------------------------------------X CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE : ORGANIZATION, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : DELL LIEBREICH, Individually and as : Personal Representative of the Estate of: Lisa McPherson, ROBERT MINTON, and THE : LISA MCPHERSON TRUST, : : Defendants. : ----------------------------------------X BEFORE: THE HONORABLE W. DOUGLAS BAIRD Circuit Court Judge PLACE: PINELLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 315 Court Street Courtroom B Clearwater, Florida DATE: April 19th, 2002 TIME: 1:30 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. REPORTED BY: CHARLENE M. KOCH, RPR Deputy Official Court Reporter Sixth Judicial Circuit Notary Public, State of Florida __________________________________________________ VOLUME II __________________________________________________ Pages 171 - 352 Index Included ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS P.O. BOX 35 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34617-0035 (727) 443-0992 A P P E A R A N C E S SAMUEL ROSEN, ESQUIRE F. WALLACE POPE, JR., ESQUIRE JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33757 Attorney for Plaintiff LUKE LIROT, ESQUIRE 112 East Street, Suite B Tampa, Florida 33602 Attorney for Kennan Dandar BRUCE G. HOWIE, EQUIRE PIPER, LUDIN, HOWIE & WERNER, P.A. 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33707 Attorney for Defendant Minton THOMAS H. MCGOWAN, ESQUIRE MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, L.L.P. 150 Second Avenue North, Suite 1500 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Attorney for Defendant LMT 3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 THE BAILIFF: All rise. 3 THE COURT: Be seated. Okay. We have 4 several motions. 5 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, obviously the 6 predominant motion for which we have an 7 evidentiary hearing scheduled today is a 8 Motion to Disqualify Kennan Dandar and the 9 firm of Dandar & Dandar in this case. 10 Um, there are motions that -- other 11 motions that are less important than -- 12 I've -- we've already conferred with 13 Mr. Lirot, the Motion to Add Punitives is -- 14 we're withdrawing that without prejudice and 15 we'll deal with that later after the Fourth 16 Amended Complaint. 17 We don't intend to argue the Motion to 18 Amend except and until if there is time left 19 at the end of the hearing on the 20 disqualification and time would then allow as 21 we will argue that motion as well as the 22 Motion to Compel the documents that we 23 produced to the custody of the Court. 24 Mr. Lirot has one motion he wants to 25 make first and before he -- before he does 4 1 that we have a pretty full courtroom today. 2 I'm going to invoke the rule, going to ask 3 for sequestration of witnesses. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any 5 witnesses present that you intend to have 6 testify in this hearing? 7 MR. LIROT: We do, Your Honor. For the 8 record, Luke Lirot on behalf of Kennan 9 Dandar, Thomas Dandar, Dandar & Dandar, also. 10 I'll be arguing in place of Thomas Dandar 11 this afternoon. 12 Judge, we have a witness list informally 13 here. We had intended to certainly seek 14 testimony from Mr. Minton, from Stacy Brooks, 15 from Jesse Prince, from Michael Garko. We 16 have a witness that we would like to testify 17 by telephone, Dan Leipold, Patricia Greenway, 18 Peter Alexander, Thomas Haverty, Frank 19 Oliver. 20 I already mentioned Mr. Minton. We may 21 ask to call Mr. Rosen. Obviously he can 22 certainly stay. Ms. Liebreich is a party, so 23 she can certainly stay. And then by 24 telephone again, Mr. Wollersheim. 25 I believe that summarizes the list of 5 1 witnesses we had hoped to elicit testimony 2 from this afternoon. 3 THE COURT: Well, all of those 4 individuals who are present -- 5 MR. LIROT: Mr. Dandar I would also like 6 to call, but I think he's certainly entitled 7 to stay. 8 THE COURT: Yeah. All of those 9 individuals who are present in the courtroom 10 and who anticipate testifying then will have 11 to step out and you'll be called in one at a 12 time other than the parties. All right. 13 You're not to discuss your testimony 14 with each other or with anyone else. 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Your Honor, may it please 16 the Court, Tom McGowan. I represent the Lisa 17 McPherson Trust, that dissolved Florida 18 corporation, the shareholder and chief 19 officer at the time of the dissolution of 20 the Corporation was -- 21 THE COURT: You're going to have to 22 speak up a little, Tom. I can't hear you. 23 I'm sorry. 24 MR. MCGOWAN: Stacy Brooks is here with 25 me and she is a party in that she was the 6 1 last officer, shareholder of the Lisa 2 McPherson Trust which is a dissolved Florida 3 corporation, so I believe by operation of law 4 she's the trustee of the corporation, 5 therefore, I think she's a party. 6 She's also on the list to testify, so I 7 just wanted to make that clarification with 8 the Court. 9 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, we don't have 10 any objection to Ms. Brooks staying. LMT, as 11 you know, is a defendant in this case. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think I left off 14 one, Teresa Summers was also an individual 15 that we intended to call. And I think I 16 already mentioned Michael Garko. 17 THE COURT: Yes. Garko and Ms. Summers 18 if you're present, you'll have to leave the 19 courtroom until you're called as witnesses. 20 MR. ROSEN: I think Mr. Minton has 21 arrived. He's going to be the first witness 22 we're putting on, so is it okay if he stays? 23 THE COURT: Sure. 24 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court, 25 Mr. Minton is a party to this case. 7 1 THE COURT: Well, he's going to be 2 called as the first witness anyway and he is 3 a party. Okay. 4 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may, I have 5 asked if I could file in open court the 6 documents that we prepared. Obviously the 7 first document was the Notice of Hearing. We 8 wanted to argue the Motion to Stay as the 9 first matter that we took up today. 10 I prepared such a Motion to Stay. I've 11 got the original for the court file. We also 12 prepared a response in opposition to the 13 Motion to Place Documents into the Custody of 14 the Court, a response in opposition to the 15 Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel, a 16 response in opposition to the Motion for 17 Leave to File the Amended Complaint, and a 18 response in opposition to the Motion for 19 Leave to Amend to Assert a Claim for Punitive 20 Damages. 21 I would like to file those with the 22 Court, if I may. I already faxed the copies, 23 as I indicated in the certificate of service. 24 I understand that they are abating for the 25 time being the Motion to Add Punitive Damages 8 1 and the request unless there's time for the 2 Fourth Amended Complaint, but if I could 3 approach the bench. 4 THE COURT: All right. Are these the 5 originals? 6 MR. LIROT: These are the originals, 7 Judge. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. LIROT: I can take them to the 10 clerk, if you prefer. 11 THE COURT: That's okay. I just wanted 12 to know. I can see it in the file. 13 MR. LIROT: Okay. And, Judge, while I'm 14 making the trip, I will hand to opposing 15 counsel and also to the Court a courtesy copy 16 of the Motion to Stay and the citations of 17 authority that we're going to be relying on. 18 Here you go. 19 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Opposing 20 counsel have been provided with copies of all 21 of these? 22 MR. LIROT: Yes. They've got a copy and 23 I have one copy for you to use. 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry. You provided me 9 1 with copies of the cases you just handed up? 2 MR. LIROT: There should be cases 3 attached to the -- 4 MR. ROSEN: Oh. What you just handed 5 me? Okay. Thank you. 6 MR. LIROT: Here is another copy. 7 MR. ROSEN: Thanks. 8 MR. LIROT: May it please the Court, 9 Your Honor. The first matter we would like 10 to bring up is a Motion to Stay these 11 proceedings, Judge. Actually, I would like 12 to track the motion, if I may. 13 What we have in this particular action 14 is essentially a breach of contract which, as 15 I understand it, is based on an agreement -- 16 a purported agreement which was made some 17 time ago not to seek to add parties to the 18 wrongful death case involving Lisa McPherson. 19 I identified the gist of the case, 20 properly identified the basis of the 21 agreement. And I think in paragraph three on 22 page two, I think I've accurately summarized 23 this case by saying that both cases have been 24 the subjects of extensive litigation, 25 acrimony and controversy. 10 1 I think, from a procedural standpoint, 2 it's clear that the wrongful death action 3 contains a counterclaim. And, as I 4 understand it, the trial in the wrongful 5 death action has been scheduled for June 10th 6 of this year. 7 There has been a bifurcation of the 8 counterclaim and, again, as I understand it, 9 Judge Schaeffer has delayed any trial or 10 judicial evaluation of that counterclaim 11 until after the conclusion of the wrongful 12 death case. 13 Now, in the instant action, counsel for 14 the plaintiffs here, and we'll refer to them 15 simply as the Church if that will be 16 acceptable to the Court, they filed their 17 Motion to Amend the Complaint, a Motion to 18 Disqualify Counsel, a Motion for Leave to 19 Amend and Assert the Claim for Punitive 20 Damages, and a Motion to Place Documents in 21 the Custody of the Court. 22 Ah, we've got a Notice to Produce and, 23 quite honestly, Judge, since the last time we 24 were before you, I'm sure that every firm's 25 fax machine has been struggling simply to 11 1 stay functioning. We've got a first Notice 2 to Produce requesting a significant amount of 3 correspondence. These are attached as 4 exhibits. That is Exhibit A. 5 We got a second Notice to Produce, which 6 is asking for the submission that Kennan or 7 Thomas Dandar made to the Florida Bar in 8 1997, and the Florida Bar's letter approving 9 the Minton funding. 10 And ultimately, we got a third Notice to 11 Produce asking for the current and 12 immediately previous passports of Kennan 13 Dandar. 14 Judge, what's happened in the interim 15 and I think just before -- I think prior 16 there have been numerous battles involving 17 discovery requests and attempts on the part 18 of certainly the plaintiffs in this case to 19 seek information regarding the funding, where 20 did you get the money, how have you been able 21 to maintain either the prosecution or the 22 defense of these two respective actions. 23 And, as recently as April 12th, the 24 Second District Court of Appeal has issued 25 their most recent order reversing previous 12 1 court orders, asking for the divulgence of 2 certain financially-related documents. 3 Judge, I've attached as Exhibit D to the 4 motion a copy of the first opinion, which was 5 filed on April 3rd, 2002, which came from the 6 Second District Court of Appeal. 7 And, Judge, quite simply that was -- I 8 think I will just quote from the case. It 9 says, that issue here is a discovery order 10 that trial court entered pursuant to the 11 Church's 47th request for production. 12 It talks exactly about the challenged 13 order requiring the estate to produce the 14 following: All documents concerning the 15 payment by any person or entity since January 16 1st of 2000 of any sum of money over the 17 amount of $500 to the plaintiff or her 18 attorney or any representative or agent of 19 plaintiff used to pay for any costs, expense 20 or fee associated with this litigation 21 excluding payments from Robert Minton and any 22 agreements thereto. 23 The trial court issued an order to 24 produce. A Petition for Certiorari was filed 25 with the Second District Court of Appeal. 13 1 And, Judge, if I can draw your attention to 2 page three, this was the rationale that the 3 Second District Court used in reversing the 4 trial's court's order and actually quashing 5 the order to produce. 6 It says, That under the circumstances 7 here, however, we agree with the estate that 8 if the challenged discovery is allowed, it 9 will create irreparable harm that cannot be 10 remedied on plenary appeal. 11 I'm skipping down. It says, As the 12 estate contends, this will create a chilling 13 effect on receiving future funding. 14 Furthermore, the estate points out that if it 15 is forced to disclose how much money it has 16 to spend on litigation prior to the 17 conclusion of the case, the Church will know 18 how long the estate, quote, can last before 19 it has to throw in the towel due to lack of 20 funds. 21 The fact that this is the Church's 47th 22 request for production bolsters the 23 conclusion that the Church will litigate 24 until the estate can no longer afford to 25 continue. 14 1 With this in mind, we hold that the 2 production of the requested documents will 3 cause the estate to suffer irreparable harm. 4 Now, Judge, the second opinion came just 5 nine days after. And, quite honestly, the 6 Second District Court of Appeal, as all good 7 efficient courts do, utilizing the word 8 processor, they basically articulated the 9 same exact rationale for again reversing the 10 trial court's order to produce these 11 documents. 12 This document and at least what was at 13 issue in -- this was the 41st request for 14 production. And, obviously, Judge, the 15 decisions came out a little out of sequence. 16 The first decision dealt with the 47th 17 request. The second decision dealt with the 18 41st request. The challenged order in the 19 second decision was based on this request, 20 Judge. 21 It says, Plaintiff's counsel is to 22 provide within 20 days all documents in his 23 possession, custody or control concerning the 24 payment by Robert Minton or any other entity 25 associated with Robert Minton directly or 15 1 indirectly during the period of January 1st, 2 2000, to the present or any sum of money 3 exceeding $500 to the plaintiff or her 4 attorney or any representative or agent of 5 the plaintiff intended for any cost, expense 6 or fee associated with this litigation, that 7 would be the wrongful death litigation, 8 including, without limitation, any deposit 9 slips, bank statements, checks, wire transfer 10 records, and bank data. 11 And, Judge, again, the Second District 12 Court of Appeal talked about the clear reason 13 that these documents were being sought the -- 14 the -- just to put it mildly, the heavily 15 litigious nature of what was being attempted 16 by the defendants in the wrongful death 17 action and clearly the same plaintiffs in 18 this action. 19 Now, one of the issues that we had 20 brought up in requesting this Court to stay 21 this action is looking at the impact of 22 exactly what will happen. 23 Now, the facts in this case really are 24 somewhat frozen in time. The issue here 25 deals primarily with whether or not there was 16 1 a breach of an agreement. And that certainly 2 is a finding of fact that goes to the 3 circumstances surrounding a court document 4 which was filed. 5 I understand that the breach was 6 predicated on the filing of a public document 7 a Motion to Amend the prior Complaint to add 8 additional parties. 9 The reason that we seek this stay is 10 that we feel that the conduct in this case as 11 being performed by the plaintiffs is clearly, 12 in our opinion, simply an attempt to try to 13 derail the wrongful death case which is on 14 the precipice of going to trial after five 15 long years of 47 requests for production and 16 all of the other incredible effort that's 17 gone into that case. 18 And, Judge, to support that position, 19 I've attached as Exhibit F a letter from 20 Mr. Moxon, which was apparently issued prior 21 to today. 22 As I understand it, in the wrongful 23 death action there was a court-ordered 24 mediation which was to occur today and this 25 letter was to Michael Keane who I understand 17 1 was acting as the mediator. It's dated April 2 17th, obviously. And it says, Dear 3 Mr. Keane, as you know, mediation of this 4 action, that's the wrongful death action, is 5 presently set for Friday, April 19th in your 6 offices. 7 It says, However, recent sworn testimony 8 of Robert Minton indicates that Kennan Dandar 9 has sworn perjury as to central issues in 10 this case, and has made material 11 misrepresentations to the District Court and 12 the Court of Appeals. 13 Well, Judge, I don't think that was ever 14 said, but to make the matter clear it says, 15 the Motion to Disqualify Mr. Dandar from 16 appearing as counsel to Ms. Liebreich has 17 been set for April 19th at 1:30 p.m. Before 18 Judge Baird in the related case arising out 19 of some of these acts. 20 Now, Judge, I think what the next 21 paragraph says is very critical. It says, In 22 view of the potential effort -- I'm sorry. 23 In view of the potential effect of these 24 events upon this case, all the defendants 25 agree that these circumstances make it 18 1 impossible for the mediation to go forward at 2 this time with Mr. Dandar representing the 3 plaintiffs. 4 So, clearly the plaintiffs in this case, 5 the defendants in the wrongful death case, 6 are trying to use this recent what we'll call 7 I guess an epiphany of ethics on the part of 8 Mr. Minton clearly to try to derail the 9 wrongful death case. 10 And, Judge, quite simply, if you look at 11 the rationale used by the courts in granting 12 a Motion to Stay, a Motion to Stay other 13 proceeding that has similarities or an impact 14 on a prior filed proceeding, is clearly 15 within the discretion of the Court and it's 16 there to prevent exactly what I think we see 17 happening today. There's an effort being 18 made to try to derail that wrongful death 19 case. 20 I've included some citations of 21 authority and I think, Judge, the cases I 22 have, and I'll quote them for the record, 23 I've got the case of Ricigliano versus Peat, 24 Marwick & Main. And quite simply, Judge, it 25 says, trial courts are afforded broad 19 1 discretion in granting or denying stays. 2 And, in this case, there was an issue about 3 estate and federal actions -- estate and 4 federal actions are sufficiently similar to 5 warrant the trial court to stay of a 6 subsequently filed stayed action. 7 Now, I know, as this Court well knows, 8 there's a very dramatic difference between a 9 stay, which is within the discretion of the 10 Court, and an order of abatement, which would 11 require the two cases involve exactly the 12 same parties and exactly the same cause of 13 action. 14 But what we have here, Judge, is a clear 15 example of a situation where the exercise of 16 this Court's discretion to prevent the 17 irreparable harm that will affect the other 18 important case, quite candidly, Judge, 19 assuming for the sake of argument that 20 anything that Mr. Minton says is even 21 remotely, possibly accurate, that doesn't 22 have any impact on the continuation of the 23 wrongful death case. 24 Whether or not he said something that 25 was true or untrue, we're talking about a 20 1 breach of contract that called for perhaps 2 the addition of parties that were never 3 added. There is no prejudice by allowing the 4 wrongful death case to go forward. 5 So the breach of contract at issue in 6 this case never manifested itself in a way to 7 prejudice the wrongful death case. 8 Again, Your Honor, I think it's clear 9 that this will have a dramatic impact. My 10 biggest obstacle today was thinking of a way 11 that I could say that clearly that's their 12 intent. 13 Mr. Moxon is saving the trouble by 14 writing you the letter and at least 15 circulating that letter. We're going to 16 violate a court order telling us to go to 17 mediation because of all these things that 18 are happening in that other case. 19 And I think clearly whatever happens 20 here will contaminate the wrongful death case 21 with no other result and it will cause 22 unnecessary delay to everybody, including the 23 Court, unnecessary expense and inconvenience 24 clearly to everybody including the Court. 25 As I understand it, there have been 21 1 extensive Frye hearings and other things 2 conducted which to benefit any judicial 3 evaluation of the fact are best conducted 4 while the Court remains cognizant and the 5 things are still fresh in the Court's mind. 6 The issues here clearly are things that 7 will never change. Nothing is going to 8 happen to prejudice any party if this 9 particular case is stayed, the other case is 10 allowed to go forward, and then we can decide 11 whether or not there was any wrongdoing, 12 whether Mr. Minton was adversely or unduly 13 influenced by anything that might have 14 occurred within the last few months. 15 We could explore those issues in great 16 depth because they were frozen in time. The 17 continuation of that case is very, very 18 important, both to the estate and clearly to 19 the people involved that are looking for 20 those responsible as alleged in the Complaint 21 for wrongful death action to actually have 22 the opportunity to seek justice in -- on both 23 sides. 24 It will give everybody a chance to put 25 whatever evidence and testimony they have in 22 1 the scales of justice and see who prevails, 2 but there's no purpose served by allowing 3 this case to go forward at this point when 4 there's now a clear argument to be made that 5 it will have an adverse impact on the 6 continuation of the wrongful death case. 7 And, quite honesty, Judge, there is no 8 other result that can happen from the 9 continuation. 10 On the alternative, if, in fact, this 11 case is stayed, it doesn't prejudice any 12 party whatsoever. The facts in this case 13 will remain frozen in time and we can explore 14 those in the future just as Judge Schaeffer 15 found appropriate for the counterclaim at a 16 point when it doesn't have the adverse effect 17 on the wrongful death action. 18 So, Judge, it's our request here that -- 19 and certainly we think it's well supported 20 that the Motion to Stay that we have filed be 21 granted and this action be stayed until the 22 conclusion of the wrongful death case. 23 THE COURT: Do I understand, Mr. Lirot, 24 that you are now counsel of record for the 25 defendant in this case? 23 1 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm actually here for 2 Mr. Tom Dandar. And I'm in an awkward 3 position and I'll explain it to the Court. I 4 had originally been retained to hire Kennan 5 Dandar and the firm of Tom Dandar. 6 Kennan, being a witness today, had asked 7 me to stand in for his brother who is out of 8 town actually visiting their mother out of 9 state. 10 This is one of those situations where I 11 understand we have a unique way of scheduling 12 hearings in this matter. I'm actually 13 arguing, but I do intend to file a Notice of 14 Appearance for the Estate. 15 THE COURT: All right. So you intend to 16 appear on behalf of the Estate? 17 MR. LIROT: I do to the extent that I'm 18 allowed to do so by the Court. 19 THE COURT: All right. Okay. 20 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Your Honor. 21 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I will try to be 22 brief. Mr. Lirot perhaps because he's late 23 to this case is suffering under the 24 fundamental misunderstanding while this case 25 involves a breach of contract and tortious 24 1 interference, this hearing does not. 2 We aren't trying the underlying 3 Complaint in this hearing. We are trying 4 evidence which, if believed, would establish 5 that a member of the Bar of this Court is 6 engaged in subornation of perjury, 7 obstruction of justice, and violations of the 8 canons of ethics, commingling of his funds 9 and his client's funds. 10 And the response to this, if I 11 understand correctly, the response to 12 these -- I can't think of any more serious 13 charges to be -- that could be made against 14 an attorney. 15 The response to this is in paragraph 13 16 of the motion, we request that this Court 17 stay the instant action, not the motion. We 18 should stay our entire proceeding in order to 19 allow an attorney who is now under a cloud 20 based on the evidence presented to you on 21 April 9th and to be presented today, in order 22 to allow him to try another case. 23 This is -- comes under the category of 24 temerity. An attorney charged with 25 misconduct of this magnitude who says before 25 1 you I am -- before you try me on this 2 misconduct, give me a chance to try this 3 other case, give me a chance to try a case 4 and then I'll come back and respond on the 5 allegations of misconduct. 6 I always thought that disqualification 7 took priority over everything because if the 8 attorney should not -- if Mr. Dandar should 9 not be counsel in this case because of the 10 disqualification that Your Honor may impose, 11 he has no right to do anything in this case. 12 Whatever Judge Schaeffer does in terms 13 of Mr. Dandar's participation is up to Judge 14 Schaeffer. And we once again have this kind 15 of miss and match of this case versus the 16 breach case -- excuse me, the wrongful death 17 case. 18 Also because I guess Mr. Lirot has not 19 been up to speed let me, if I might, just 20 correct one or two things that he said about 21 the wrongful death case. This whole argument 22 is based on the wrongful death case. 23 Number one, a counterclaim. And the 24 counterclaim is the same as this -- the 25 counterclaim in the wrongful death case is 26 1 the same, essentially, as the claim before 2 Your Honor. 3 Mr. Kennan Dandar made a motion before 4 Judge Schaeffer making that exact argument 5 saying that the counterclaim is the same as 6 the case here before Judge Baird. 7 Mr. Dandar made a Motion to Consolidate 8 the two on that basis, that the two -- that 9 the counterclaims in this case were 10 essentially the same. 11 On the 12th of April of this year, oral 12 argument was heard on that motion. Myself 13 and my cocounsel in this case Mr. Pope 14 appeared before it involved a consolidation 15 of our case here. We're not counsel in the 16 wrongful death case. 17 And Judge Schaeffer said on the record, 18 The motion is denied. There is no 19 similarity. I see that the claim before 20 Judge Baird involves a breach of an agreement 21 not to add parties. That is not the 22 allegation in the counterclaim. The Motion 23 to Consolidate the counterclaim in this case 24 is denied. 25 Counsel -- and I don't -- I don't fault 27 1 counsel for not knowing that. He wasn't in 2 the case at the time, but there is no such 3 pending count -- pending issue. 4 Next, counsel cites to orders of the 5 second DCA issued April 3rd and April 12th. 6 That's in the wrongful death case. What that 7 has to do with this proceeding is beyond me, 8 but I want to address those orders because 9 counsel has put them in. 10 Counsel has overlooked the critical 11 language of each of the two orders. The 12 order of the Second DCA dated April 3rd -- 13 just give me a moment to find it, Your 14 Honor -- says at page four, and here is the 15 critical language, the Court concludes that 16 the information sought is not reasonably 17 calculated to lead to the discovery of 18 admissible evidence in the trial of this 19 wrongful death action. 20 I don't know if the Second DCA is right 21 or wrong. I'm not in that case. All I know 22 is that it is -- that the Second DCA has 23 addressed some dispute with which I'm not 24 familiar respecting some discovery in the 25 wrongful death case and has made a 28 1 determination, based upon, among other 2 things, and this is the key thing, not 3 calculated to lead to the discovery of 4 admissible evidence. 5 This very same language appears in the 6 April 12th order at page four verbatim. We 7 thoroughly reviewed the response, attachments 8 and conclude the information sought is not 9 reasonably calculated to lead to the 10 discovery of admissible evidence in a trial 11 of this wrongful death action. 12 What those orders have to do with this 13 case I have no idea, but I'm going to go 14 beyond that. Apparently counsel believes 15 that our intention is to somehow use -- or my 16 client's intention is to somehow use this 17 proceeding to obtain evidence of how much -- 18 how Mr. Dandar spent the funds so we would 19 find out how much he has in connection with 20 the wrongful death case. That is not our 21 intention. 22 The orders of the Second DCA, as I read 23 them, and I just read them now, talk about a 24 request to inquire of Mr. Dandar as to how he 25 has spent the funds to find out how much he 29 1 has left. 2 I don't have any intention of asking him 3 how much money he has left to litigate the 4 wrongful death case. It's not an issue. To 5 the extent we talk about money today, as we 6 did last time, we're talking about 7 subornation of perjury, we're talking about 8 obstruction, we're talking about monies that 9 Mr. Dandar received from Mr. Minton that were 10 not disclosed that indeed, to the contrary, 11 not only were not disclosed, but were lied 12 about in this case, not the wrongful death 13 case, this case before you. 14 I don't have any intention of asking 15 Mr. Dandar for an accounting of how much 16 money he has spent or how much he has left in 17 connection with that wrongful death case. 18 So, even though these two orders have no 19 application here, even though these two 20 orders of the Second DCA are very fact 21 intensive and specific on relevance and have 22 no application here, I don't have any 23 intention of asking the questions that 24 Mr. Lirot is afraid of. 25 The third and final point is, again, 30 1 predicating this entire motion upon the 2 wrongful death case counsel has offered you a 3 letter from Mr. Moxon who apparently is one 4 of the attorneys in the wrongful death case 5 something about a mediation. 6 I don't know what that has to do with 7 this case. We're here on -- to try a matter 8 of gravest importance to the integrity of the 9 Bar and of this Court and its processes. 10 I don't know what mediation has to do 11 with it. Apparently there is -- there was 12 some mediation and Mr. Lirot could correct me 13 if I'm wrong, but I understand that mediation 14 went forward this morning and Mr. Dandar was 15 there. 16 So, I don't know what happened, Judge, 17 because I'm not party to that case and I 18 certainly wasn't at the mediation, but all I 19 do know is that Mr. Lirot has told the Court 20 that Mr. Dandar -- Mr. Moxon had asked 21 somehow to delay the mediation or has refused 22 to come, but, in fact, I understand that 23 mediation went forward. 24 So, once again it is a distraction. 25 It's a red herring. What difference does it 31 1 make to the issue that we have at hand? The 2 issue we have at hand is the issue of whether 3 or not the -- Mr. Kennan Dandar has been -- 4 has committed conduct of a kind that would 5 require his disqualification in this case. 6 Thank you, Your Honor. 7 MR. LIROT: Brief rebuttal. I think my 8 statement to the Court was clear, I didn't 9 suggest the counterclaim was the same cause 10 of action, otherwise abatement would have 11 been appropriate. 12 My point was, that the letter issued by 13 Mr. Moxon clearly shows the intent to use the 14 proceedings in this case at least purportedly 15 to derail the action in the wrongful death 16 case. 17 Now, from what I understand, the 18 mediation lasted a couple hours and reached 19 an immediate impasse, but I think it's not so 20 much the fact that there was a threat to 21 violate the Court order by not attending the 22 mediation. 23 The reason I present that letter to this 24 Court is to show that that's what the intent 25 is, to use these proceedings in a way to 32 1 derail that other case. 2 And I think most importantly is the fact 3 that, I did not tell the Court earlier, but, 4 as I understand it, there has been a stay 5 issued in this case where there was a Motion 6 for Stay and there was a stay which was 7 remaining in place and there have been 8 several stays -- an emergency -- excuse me, 9 an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review. 10 I just am concerned that the continued 11 progress of this case is going to provide too 12 many opportunities for the Plaintiffs herein 13 to circumvent these stays, these clear orders 14 from the Second District Court of Appeal 15 that's the primary concern. 16 And, again, assuming that everything 17 Mr. Rosen says is absolutely true, it doesn't 18 cause any prejudice to the Church to abate or 19 stay this case pending a determination of the 20 other case. 21 I think that's the only way to ensure 22 that this case doesn't have the negative 23 effect that we want to avoid and the 24 irreparable harm I think, as the Second DCA 25 has clearly said, the irreparable harm, the 33 1 chilling effect, the adverse impact that the 2 continuation of this case poses. 3 There's nothing to be gained and there's 4 a great deal to be lost if this goes forward. 5 Obviously the Court knows disqualification is 6 a very harsh sanction, I'm prepared to argue 7 that, but I think when all is said and done 8 we categorically deny the allegations made 9 against us. 10 I think this Court would certainly be 11 able to evaluate the evidence and testimony 12 that it hears, but nothing will change by 13 staying this matter. Nothing will be gained 14 at all by the Plaintiffs by going forward now 15 that they wouldn't be able to achieve by 16 going forward in the future. 17 And I think in light of all of these 18 different stays, the reversals, and quashal 19 of other orders for production, it just seems 20 that in an abundance of caution and certainly 21 to recognize the due process rights of the 22 Plaintiffs in the wrongful death case if 23 we're going to stick our neck out a little 24 bit we should do so in the abundance of 25 caution that we request in the form of 34 1 granting this stay. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, if I may just 4 make one last remark and that is if counsel 5 is concerned about this proceeding 6 interfering with the wrongful death case, 7 whether it be the trial or anything else, I 8 have only had the pleasure of watching Judge 9 Schaeffer once. 10 I've never been before her, but I am 11 told and from what I saw in the proceedings 12 before her on April 12th, Judge Schaeffer 13 will not be dissuaded from doing what she 14 believes needs to be done. 15 If counsel is saying he wants you to 16 stop the Church of Scientology Flag from 17 derailing the wrongful death case, that's an 18 argument he can make to Judge Schaeffer. I 19 don't quite understand how the argument is 20 made here to you that you should stop a 21 derailment of a case that's before another 22 judge. 23 And in terms of the injury, I have a 24 case that's pending. It's been pending now I 25 think three years. We would like to go to 35 1 trial and we need to know whether or not the 2 Defendants going to be Represented by 3 Mr. Dandar, the Estate anyway. 4 No prejudice? I must respectfully 5 submit, not only is there a prejudice to us 6 in terms of delaying our case, but far more 7 important, there is prejudice to the Court, 8 to the integrity of the Court and its 9 processes. 10 If there has been, and I say "if," it is 11 certainly not -- all the evidence is not in 12 yet, if, in fact, Mr. Kennan Dandar has 13 suborn perjury in this case, not the wrongful 14 death case, if Mr. Kennan Dandar has 15 obstructed justice in this case, not the 16 wrongful death case, every day he continues 17 to be counsel in this case is an affront to 18 the integrity of this Court. Thank you. 19 MR. LIROT: Judge, the last point to 20 make and then I will cease my argument was to 21 show that our argument -- they are trying to 22 circumvent the orders of the other Court is 23 directly stated in the Plaintiff's Motion to 24 Place Documents in the Custody of the Court, 25 they have asked that they immediately place 36 1 in custody all documents in their possession, 2 et cetera, et cetera, to deposit such funds 3 in any form of institution or bank or other 4 financial account and the expenditure of such 5 funds. 6 So, it's our position that that clearly 7 violates the decisions of the Second District 8 Court of Appeal. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I understand 10 your position, the motion will be denied. 11 Any time there are allegations this serious 12 about the conduct of counsel I think they 13 need to be addressed as soon as possible in 14 order to maintain the integrity of this 15 system. 16 And I appreciate your concerns about the 17 other case, but, frankly, this case has to 18 stand on its own, and these allegations 19 regarding this case, they don't affect the 20 other. 21 MR. LIROT: Very good. We will proceed. 22 THE COURT: So it will be denied. 23 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge. 24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, may I proceed 25 with the presentation of evidence? 37 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 MR. ROSEN: I call to the stand Robert 3 Minton. 4 THE BAILIFF: Step up here. Face the 5 judge. Raise your right hand. 6 (Thereupon, the witness was duly sworn on oath.) 7 THE BAILIFF: Step up. Speak in a loud 8 and clear voice. 9 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, in the interest 10 of expediting this a little bit, may I -- I 11 prepared a series of folders of exhibits I 12 intend to question this witness on. I have 13 one for the witness and one for the Court so 14 I only need to request permission to approach 15 once. 16 THE COURT: All right. 17 THEREUPON, 18 ROBERT MINTON 19 WAS ADDUCED AS THE WITNESS HEREIN AND AFTER 20 BEING DULY SWORN ON OATH WAS EXAMINED AND 21 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. ROSEN: 24 Q. Mr. Minton, you were previously sworn 25 and testified in this court -- in this courtroom 38 1 on the 9th of April of this year; is that right? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And you provided testimony at that time 4 in the context of contempt proceeding? 5 A. Yes, I did. 6 Q. And, as you sit here today, was all that 7 testimony true and accurate? 8 A. It was. 9 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I would move, in 10 the interest of moving this along, to admit 11 into this proceeding, the disqualification 12 hearing, the testimony Mr. Minton gave on 13 April 9th, and the exhibits that were marked, 14 namely Exhibits 1 through 4 that he 15 identified in his testimony. 16 MR. LIROT: Judge -- 17 MR. ROSEN: I -- certainly counsel has a 18 right to cross-examine. 19 MR. LIROT: Judge, I would like to 20 cross-examine, but those have already been 21 made part of the court file. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, if that will be 24 granted, then I will just proceed to 25 questioning the witness on other matters. 39 1 THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. 2 BY MR. ROSEN: 3 Q. Mr. Minton, I put in front of you a 4 series of folders that have exhibits. I would ask 5 you to please keep them closed until I ask you to 6 open each one. Is that -- will you do that for 7 me? 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Okay. Mr. Minton -- 10 MR. LIROT: Judge, we'd object to 11 anything that wasn't identified in the motion 12 or wasn't presented at the last hearing. 13 This is not the place to be bringing in new 14 evidence. 15 THE COURT: I think that's what this 16 hearing is about. 17 MR. LIROT: I understand that, but 18 certainly there were no exhibits attached to 19 the motion and we have no idea what's been 20 presented today and I think -- 21 THE COURT: I don't think the exhibits 22 have to be attached to the motion. I think 23 that that's what this evidentiary hearing is 24 for, is to present evidence. 25 MR. LIROT: Judge, I understand that, 40 1 but I would like to register our objection. 2 We should have been provided with these in 3 advance. 4 THE COURT: Well, I disagree, so I'll 5 deny your objection. Okay. 6 BY MR. ROSEN: 7 Q. Mr. Minton, last time -- I just want to 8 bring you back to something. You offered some 9 testimony about two checks that were drawn on a 10 Swiss bank that were given -- that you gave to 11 Mr. Dandar. 12 A. Yes, sir, I remember that. 13 Q. And when was the -- what was the date or 14 approximate date of the first of those checks, 15 those -- we'll call them Swiss checks, Swiss bank 16 checks? 17 A. I believe I stated last time it was May 18 2001, but, in fact, it was May 2000. 19 Q. Okay. Now could you tell -- 20 A. And the other check was March 7th, 2002. 21 Q. I'm sorry. Say that again. 22 A. The second check for $250,000 -- I'm 23 sorry. The first check was for 500,000, that was 24 March 2000. The second check was for 250,000 and 25 that was dated March 7th, 2002. 41 1 Q. All right. I'll ask you to open the 2 folder in front of you that was marked Exhibit 5, 3 sir. 4 A. Five? 5 Q. Five, yes. 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Would you tell the Court what that is? 8 A. That's the May 2000 check for five -- 9 May 1st, 2000 check for $500,000. 10 Q. It's a check that you caused to be 11 issued by the United Bank of Switzerland UBS and 12 payable through Chase Manhattan? 13 A. Union Bank of Switzerland. 14 Q. Certainly. Union Bank of Switzerland 15 paid through Chase Manhattan? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Check made out to? Who was the payee, 18 please? 19 A. Mr. Kennan Dandar. 20 Q. In the amount of $500,000? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Would you tell us, sir, how it came 23 about that this check -- you caused this check to 24 be issued to Mr. Dandar? 25 A. Well -- 42 1 MR. LIROT: Judge, we'd object. The 2 response would violate the stay order and 3 also violate the Second District Court's 4 decision recited to the Court. 5 MR. ROSEN: I don't understand the 6 objection, but I'll rephrase the question. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 BY MR. ROSEN: 9 Q. Was there any conversation between you 10 and Mr. Dandar which led to the issuance of this 11 check? 12 A. Yes. Mr. Dandar needed money which was 13 a fairly common event throughout the course of the 14 wrongful death litigation. 15 MR. LIROT: Judge, this is -- may I 16 interject? This is exactly the basis of my 17 objection. This is exactly what the stay 18 called to prevent was any testimony -- 19 THE COURT: What stay are we talking 20 about? 21 MR. LIROT: Judge, the stay that says 22 you're not supposed to divulge any 23 information about the source of the funds. 24 The order that was -- that was issued to 25 provide that evidence was quashed and there's 43 1 been a stay issued to prevent any testimony 2 or evidence dealing with -- 3 THE COURT: And that was in the wrongful 4 death case? 5 MR. LIROT: It was in this case, Your 6 Honor. 7 THE COURT: In this case there was a 8 stay entered? 9 MR. LIROT: That's my understanding, 10 Judge. 11 MR. ROSEN: Counsel is incorrect. The 12 only stay that was entered in this case, and 13 brought it to Your Honor's attention on April 14 9th, is with respect to interrogatories 15 addressed to Mr. Dandar or his counsel for 16 them to make disclosure of information which 17 is why the last time I had asked that the 18 documents be deposited with the Court rather 19 than give them to me. 20 To the contrary, Your Honor has 21 ordered -- had ordered disclosure by 22 Mr. Minton, no stay -- and I think the appeal 23 taken by Mr. Merrett has been dismissed. 24 There is no stay in effect that this violates 25 in this case. 44 1 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may, I'm looking 2 here at a July 2nd, 2001 order from the 3 Second District Court of Opinion -- Second 4 District Court of Appeal in this particular 5 case, 2750, and it says, By order of the 6 Court, Respondent's Motion for Rehearing of 7 Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay is 8 granted. 9 The Court has considered the 10 Respondent's response to the Motion for Stay 11 and the stay will remain in place until 12 further order of this Court. 13 There is a second one dated June 27th, 14 2001. It says, Petitioner's Emergency Motion 15 for Stay Pending Review is granted. And the 16 Emergency Motion for Stay basically says 17 that -- the issue talks about the funds and, 18 quite honestly, this paragraph says, Without 19 the Court entering a stay it would render 20 moot the petition because the petitioners or 21 counsel will be irreparably damaged by having 22 to divulge the privileged information before 23 the Court has time to rule on the other 24 petition. 25 The stay has not been modified. And it 45 1 seems to me that any testimony about checks 2 or money or the source of any funds is 3 directly in contravention of the stay and 4 those orders that this Court just read. 5 MR. ROSEN: Counsel has just read the 6 stay order issued upon an order of this Court 7 compelling the Defendants, compelling 8 Ms. Liebreich to answer interrogatories. 9 What this has to do -- and counsel just 10 read it. I mean, it's a prejudiced claim. 11 There was never a privileged claim with 12 respect to Mr. Minton. He was never 13 represented by Mr. Dandar. 14 I think counsel has got the wrong order. 15 We acknowledge that order. That precludes us 16 from asking Ms. Liebreich -- 17 THE COURT: Well, just from reading the 18 -- or hearing the decision of the Second 19 District in that case, and I do recall that 20 there was a stay entered as to some specific 21 discovery that was requested in this case, I 22 don't think that's a global stay. 23 I think it refers specifically to what 24 was being, you know, addressed up in the 25 Second District pursuant to the motion. If 46 1 you would like to -- if you would like to 2 accompany that order along with the motion so 3 that -- so that I can review the motion 4 itself and the stay together, then I have a 5 little bit better idea of what it was you're 6 talking about. 7 But I believe that counsel is correct, 8 that it was -- had to do with some 9 interrogatories, some written 10 interrogatories, that were sought to be 11 answered and the answering of those 12 interrogatories was stayed. 13 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, may I hand up 14 the very order that is the subject of the 15 stay? 16 MR. LIROT: Judge, is this the July 2nd, 17 2001 order? 18 THE COURT: Um, no. 19 MR. ROSEN: That's the order compelling 20 interrogatory answers. July 5th, I believe, 21 Counsel. 22 MR. DANDAR: June 5th. 23 THE COURT: No, this one is June 5th. 24 MR. ROSEN: That's correct. Thank you, 25 Mr. Dandar. June 5th. That was the order 47 1 that was stayed. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. LIROT: Judge, our position is that 4 this -- the benefit derived from this order 5 is circumvented by the elicitation of this 6 testimony. 7 I mean, clearly the stay is issued for a 8 reason, it is to prevent divulgence of this 9 information for a specific purpose. And 10 clearly any attempt to circumvent the impact 11 of this order would be improper. That's our 12 concern, Judge. 13 THE COURT: I don't think so, number 14 one, because this is a matter that the Court 15 can certainly separate. What we're hearing 16 here is evidence regarding the subornation 17 of perjury and the obstruction of justice. 18 And to the extent that -- that this 19 order was entered regarding these 20 interrogatories, I can't see that it applies 21 at all. So it will be denied. You could 22 continue. 23 MR. LIROT: Understood, but I would like 24 to register a standing objection, 25 respectfully, Your Honor, and I'll try not to 48 1 be too -- to interject -- 2 THE COURT: That's all right. Your 3 objection is noted for the record. 4 BY MR. ROSEN: 5 Q. Mr. Minton, let me pose to you again the 6 question: Did you have any conversation with 7 Kennan Dandar which related to or lead to the -- 8 your issuance or causing to be issued Exhibit 5? 9 A. Yes, I did. 10 Q. Can you tell us what that conversation 11 was? 12 A. Well, Mr. Dandar was somewhat reluctant 13 to keep coming to me all the time for money, so he 14 suggested that I give him maybe a larger amount 15 and, therefore, minimize his calls on me for 16 additional funds. 17 He also said that he had set up an 18 account somewhere that he could hide this money 19 from Scientology. And so he asked me if I could 20 find a way to get him some money that he could 21 make sure that Scientology would never know about. 22 Q. Now, sir, is this conversation in or 23 about May of the year 2000? 24 A. It would have been prior to that. 25 Q. How much prior? 49 1 A. Very shortly. 2 Q. April? Thereabouts? 3 A. I would think it would be in April. 4 Q. Okay. Now, there was a conversation -- 5 withdraw that. 6 Up until this time, from October of 1997 7 when you first sent the first check -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- to Mr. Dandar, until approximately 10 April of 2000 or May of 2000, is it correct that 11 every check you sent to Mr. Dandar was drawn by 12 you on one of your accounts, regular checks signed 13 by you? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Is this the first check which is a bank 16 check drawn on the Bank of Switzerland, right? 17 A. That's right. 18 Q. And is that because Mr. Dandar wanted 19 the check that way? 20 A. Ah, he didn't specifically ask for any 21 particular type of check. He pretty much left it 22 up to me as to how I could get that to him in a 23 way where it didn't appear to come from me. 24 And that was based on his concerns about 25 what had been going on in the court case, the 50 1 wrongful death case, about my financial 2 involvement in the case. 3 And I don't remember whether it was then 4 or subsequent, but there were discussions numerous 5 times about the fact that Scientology was 6 objecting, that there was some sort of improper 7 business deal between myself and the Estate. 8 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Minton, the checks 9 that you wrote prior to this one on your own 10 account, they had your name imprinted on them? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And you signed them in your own hand? 13 A. I did. 14 Q. And they were made out to Mr. Dandar or 15 his firm? 16 A. I think they were all made out to 17 Dandar & Dandar. 18 Q. So if they were discovered it would 19 be -- it would be apparent from the face of the 20 instrument who the source of the money was, namely 21 you? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Is there anything on the face of Exhibit 24 5 which discloses who the source of the $500,000 25 is? 51 1 A. No one other than Union Bank of 2 Switzerland. 3 Q. Okay. Now, how did -- how was this 4 check physically delivered to Mr. Dandar? 5 A. Well, the check was sent to me by 6 courier or something and then I brought it down to 7 Clearwater. I was in New Hampshire at the time. 8 I brought it down to Clearwater and called 9 Mr. Dandar, told him I had some funds that we had 10 talked about. 11 And he suggested that we meet somewhere 12 halfway in between his Tampa office and my office 13 in downtown Clearwater. So we met at the Bombay 14 Bicycle Club which is I think out of business now, 15 but it was on Gulf-to-Bay just on the Tampa side 16 of Route 19, on the Tampa side of the Clearwater 17 Mall. 18 Q. And was there anybody else present? 19 A. Well, there were other people in the 20 Bombay Bicycle Club. It was lunch time, but we 21 went to a small round table in the bar area so we 22 could be completely alone because most people were 23 eating in the lunch part of the restaurant, and I 24 gave Mr. Dandar the check. 25 Q. When I say were other people there, I 52 1 meant, were any people in your group, either 2 somebody who was accompanying you or somebody 3 accompanying Mr. Dandar? 4 A. No, we were alone. 5 Q. Okay. If I -- did there come a time in 6 February of 2002 when you issued another or caused 7 to be issued another bank check to Mr. Dandar? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. May I ask you, sir, to open what is in 10 front of you the folder that is marked Exhibit 6. 11 A. Sorry. Just one second. Did you say 12 February 2002? 13 Q. I'm sorry, March of 2000. 14 A. It was March, yes. 15 Q. March of 2002. And would you open the 16 folder that is marked Exhibit 6, please, sir? 17 A. Just one second. Yes. 18 Q. Could you tell us -- tell the Court what 19 that is. 20 A. That's a check for $250,000 payable to 21 Ken Dandar issued by Union Bank of Switzerland 22 dated March 7th, 2002. 23 Q. You -- 24 A. Drawn on Chase Manhattan Bank in New 25 York. 53 1 Q. And you caused that check to be drawn -- 2 A. I did. 3 Q. -- by Union Bank of Switzerland? 4 A. I did. 5 Q. Okay. Now, prior to the delivery of 6 this check to Mr. Dandar, were there any -- was 7 there any conversation which led up to this 8 between you and Mr. Dandar? 9 A. Ah, yes. There were numerous 10 conversations. Mr. Dandar came to visit me in New 11 Hampshire in early February along with Dr. Garko 12 for the sole purpose of, you know, soliciting 13 funds for the case. 14 And, you know, I had been somewhat 15 reluctant in the past few months prior to that 16 meeting to give money, give any further money. 17 And so Mr. Dandar and Mr. Garko came up there to, 18 you know, give me a sort of sales pitch on the 19 state of the case. 20 Q. And was there any discussion at that 21 time about how to issue what kind of check to 22 provide by way of funds; whether it be a personal 23 check or another Swiss Bank check? 24 A. Um, yes, it was discussed obliquely 25 though. It was discussed in an oblique way 54 1 because Dr. Garko was there. And going back to 2 that May 2000 event, if I could just, because this 3 is somewhat relevant to -- 4 Q. Sure. 5 A. -- the issue of the March check. As I 6 had stated before in this Court, one of the 7 principal things that Mr. Dandar had said to me at 8 the time was that he was going to not tell his 9 trial team, basically, that he had money, and that 10 he would basically be telling them that I wasn't 11 giving money at that stage and he was financing 12 out of his own personal retirement account this 13 case. 14 So, going back to February of 2002 when 15 Mr. Dandar and Mr. Garko came up there, because of 16 Mr. Dandar's concerns about Mr. Garko not knowing 17 about these funds that he was apparently, you 18 know, putting in this place where nobody would 19 find out about it, you know, the discussions at 20 that time were basically referring to friends of 21 mine in Europe who might be able to help. 22 You know, Mr. Dandar would still, if we 23 were in private, he would see, you know -- he 24 would say, you know, is Fred going to do anything 25 or not? 55 1 Q. Fred meaning his pet name for you? 2 A. Well, his pet name for the source of 3 funds that didn't necessarily run through his 4 trust account. 5 Q. Meaning -- but that source was you? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Uh-huh. So, in the presence of 8 Dr. Garko, was anything overtly said by Mr. Dandar 9 about, I need some more money that's untraceable? 10 A. No, not in the presence of Dr. Garko. 11 Q. After that visit to your home in New 12 Hampshire, did there then come a time when 13 Mr. Dandar called you from Cayman Islands? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Could you tell us what was said during 16 that conversation? 17 A. Well -- no. No. Sorry. That's an 18 incorrect sequence. Mr. Dandar went to the Cayman 19 Islands before he came to New Hampshire. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. In fact, the reason he came to New 22 Hampshire was because I wasn't either willing or 23 able to come to the Cayman Islands to meet him 24 when he went down there on a vacation with his 25 family. 56 1 Q. Fine. 2 A. And just one more item. 3 Q. Sure. 4 A. You know, going back to when Mr. Dandar 5 came in February to my house in New Hampshire for 6 the weekend with Dr. Garko. We started that 7 discussion, you know, in terms of him soliciting 8 additional funds, I started it by saying, you 9 know, Mr. Dandar or Ken, you know, I've got to 10 tell you something that wherever we go from this 11 point, you have to understand that I don't trust 12 you, I don't trust the Estate, and I don't trust 13 Dell Liebreich anymore. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. And so we had to go from that point to a 16 point a couple of weeks later after he left for me 17 to agree to give any more money. 18 Q. After he left your house in New 19 Hampshire -- when Ken Dandar left your house in 20 New Hampshire, were there additional conversations 21 between you and Ken Dandar leading up to the -- to 22 the drawing of Exhibit 6, the $250,000 check? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And is it my understanding from your 25 prior answer that as a result of these discussions 57 1 Mr. Kennan Dandar convinced you to again have some 2 untraceable funds issued -- untraceable funds 3 provided to him? 4 A. Well, I don't think there was any 5 subsequent discussions to our discussions in New 6 Hampshire about, you know, untraceable funds, but 7 it was always clear that that's what we were 8 talking about in New Hampshire. 9 Q. Was it your understanding then in March 10 of 2002 that Mr. Ken Dandar did not want a 11 personal check of yours for $250,000, but rather 12 wanted some bank check? 13 A. Well, I believe he would have taken any 14 check, but I think he preferred the type of check 15 that he got. 16 Q. He preferred the bank check? 17 A. Yep. 18 Q. Okay. How did the bank, Exhibit 6, how 19 did that check physically get into the possession 20 of Ken Dandar? 21 A. Um, it was -- well, first it was sent to 22 me in New Hampshire. I would imagine that I 23 probably got it on the 9th or 10th of March. And, 24 you know, I was still somewhat concerned about 25 Mr. Dandar, the Estate and Dell Liebreich despite 58 1 the conversations in New Hampshire, and despite 2 other conversations with Mr. Dandar after that. 3 So, I sat on this check for a few days. 4 Mr. Dandar was out of town the following week 5 after I got the check and I sat on the check for 6 several days before sending it. 7 And I believe it was the Wednesday or 8 the Thursday of the week following my receipt of 9 the check that Mr. Dandar called me up to say, 10 Hey, the check didn't arrive yet. 11 He was out of town. And, you know, 12 obviously his assistant Donna West was checking 13 this for him and she told him what she hadn't 14 received anything from me. 15 Q. And what did you say to him? 16 A. I said, I sent it today. I sent it the 17 day that he had actually made that call. I sent 18 it before he called. 19 Q. Did Mr. Dandar give you any instructions 20 or suggestions as to how to wrap the check or how 21 to put it into an envelope to send to him? 22 A. Um, well, he had previously asked me, 23 you know, I don't think this was Mr. Dandar's 24 idea, but he had asked me to send him an essay 25 written by a woman named Caroline Letkeman, which 59 1 I did send him by email. 2 I printed that -- I printed that 3 document out which ran some 20 or 30 pages, I 4 think. I can't remember how many pages it was. 5 But, you know, somehow -- and I don't know whether 6 I said this or Mr. Dandar said this, but, you 7 know, it ended up being on page 23 of that 8 document. 9 Q. I'm not understanding. 10 A. The check. The check was put on page 23 11 of that document so that -- knowing that he was 12 out of town, you know, when it arrived at his 13 office, you know, given his concern for keeping 14 everything secret, you know, either on that phone 15 call when -- you know, I must have done it before 16 then. You know, I put it on page 23 and I 17 subsequently called him again to tell him that's 18 where it was. 19 Q. So he would know when he got this 20 article that page 23 -- 21 A. That -- 22 Q. -- stuck on page 23 was the check? 23 A. That -- well, he shouldn't shred the 24 document for any reason. 25 Q. All right. Now, did you send that to 60 1 his office to his street address or some other 2 depository? 3 A. Yes. Well, I recall now when he said 4 it -- when he said he hadn't gotten the check and 5 I said I sent it today I said, but I sent it to 6 your post -- no, because he called back the next 7 day. That's right. 8 He called back the next day to say that 9 they still hadn't gotten it, because I was 10 supposed to send it overnight. I said -- he said 11 they still hadn't gotten the check. And, you 12 know, he said, you know, Donna has been here in 13 the office all day and nothing's come. And I 14 said, Well, I sent it to the post office box, his 15 post office box. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. And then the following day he called me 18 back to confirm that he got it. 19 Q. Okay. Do you know a Michael Garko? I 20 think you referred to -- his name is Dr. Garko. 21 Is that Michael Garko? 22 A. Yes, it is. 23 Q. Could you identify what role, if any, he 24 has? Who he is? 25 A. He's been Mr. Dandar's trial consultant 61 1 throughout this wrongful death litigation and this 2 case, I believe. 3 Q. Did Michael Garko come to visit you this 4 past Sunday? That would have been the 14th of 5 April. 6 A. Ah, yes, he did. 7 Q. Did Mr -- 8 A. At the Radisson Hotel. 9 Q. I'm sorry? 10 A. At the Radisson Hotel on Sand Key. 11 Q. Did Mr. Garko ask you or say anything to 12 you about these bank checks? 13 A. Yes, he did. 14 Q. Would you tell us what it is that he 15 asked or said to you about them? 16 A. Well -- 17 MR. LIROT: Judge, I believe that's 18 hearsay. Mr. Garko is not a party opponent. 19 It would be no admission on his part. 20 MR. ROSEN: It is a co-conspirator. 21 He's going to testify. He's on the witness 22 list. 23 MR. LIROT: Foundation, Judge. 24 THE COURT: I don't see any allegations 25 in the motion regarding Mr. Garko. 62 1 MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry, Your Honor? 2 THE COURT: I said, I don't see any 3 allegations in your motion regarding 4 Mr. Garko. 5 MR. ROSEN: He's a co-conspirator to the 6 conduct that is identified in the motion. 7 THE COURT: This isn't a conspiracy 8 case. This is a Motion to Disqualify. 9 MR. ROSEN: Okay. 10 THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. 11 BY MR. ROSEN: 12 Q. Mr. Minton, let me turn to another 13 subject then. In -- I want to direct your 14 attention to on or about December of 1997. Did 15 you have any discussion with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Ken 16 Dandar, on the subject of the proceeds to be had 17 from the wrongful death case? 18 A. Yes, I did. 19 Q. Will you tell us what that conversation 20 was? 21 A. The conversation took place at the Tampa 22 Club, I believe it was, in Tampa. You know, at or 23 near the 1st of December because several days 24 later or something happened I remember and that 25 was the 5th, so it had to be in the first few days 63 1 of December. 2 And I had suggested to Mr. Dandar 3 that -- well, at the time Scientology was making a 4 big issue that, you know, that Dell Liebreich was 5 a money grubbing whatever, you know, just out for 6 the money. 7 And I suggested to Mr. Dandar to deflate 8 that argument that the Estate should agree to 9 donate the bulk of the proceeds or a large -- 10 substantial part of the proceeds to an anticult 11 organization to fund, you know, a cult awareness 12 type organization in the future. 13 Q. One that you were associated with or 14 forming? 15 A. Well, I was -- I was soon to be a 16 director of FACT Net. And FACT Net was the 17 organization which is an organization that -- 18 their name stands for Fight Against Coercive 19 Tactics Network. 20 Q. Okay. Did there come a time after that 21 that Mr. Dandar then reported back to you on the 22 subject of his discussion of this suggestion of 23 yours with Ms. Liebreich? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. When was that? 64 1 A. On -- 2 Q. Wait for my question. 3 A. Okay. I'm sorry. 4 Q. When was that? 5 A. Excuse me? 6 Q. When was that that Mr. Dandar reported 7 back to you? 8 A. I believe it was December 5th, just a 9 few days later. 10 Q. Okay. And tell us what it is that he 11 said to you at that time? 12 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'd interpose an 13 objection on relevance. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. 15 THE WITNESS: Well, just to go back to 16 that Tampa meeting for one second. He also 17 said that he had had this idea, the same idea 18 that I suggested to him. 19 So, going to the 5th of December he said 20 that he had discussed the matter with the -- 21 with Dell Liebreich and that, yes, indeed 22 that is what they decided that they were 23 going to do with the substantial part of the 24 proceeds of the wrongful death litigation. 25 BY MR. ROSEN: 65 1 Q. Were going to be giving to some anticult 2 group that you were selecting? 3 A. One or a couple. 4 Q. Okay. Directing your attention to the 5 end of November -- excuse me, the end of 1999 and 6 into the early part of 2000. Mr. Minton, did you 7 go on a radio show and announce this agreement 8 with the Estate to contribute the lion's share or 9 a substantial amount of the proceeds in the 10 wrongful death case to an anticult group? 11 A. Yes. This was about the time the Lisa 12 McPherson Trust was being formed. You say 13 December of '99? 14 Q. December of '99, beginning of 2000, that 15 period of time. 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. And you made that statement public based 18 upon Mr. Dandar having told you that the Estate 19 had agreed to that? 20 A. That's right. And I had previously 21 testified in court about this -- not in court, in 22 deposition that this agreement was basically in 23 place. 24 Q. And, in fact, that is of that time that 25 you went on radio and announced this. In addition 66 1 to what Mr. Dandar had told you, were you aware 2 that Ms. Liebreich and her two siblings had 3 confirmed this agreement in their own depositions? 4 A. I wasn't aware of that at that time, no. 5 Q. You became aware of that later? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you also then post on the Internet 8 an announcement about this time in the end of '99, 9 beginning of 2000, of this agreement with the 10 Estate to donate all or a substantial part of the 11 proceeds in the wrongful death case to an anticult 12 group? 13 A. Yes, I did, specifically the Lisa 14 McPherson Trust. 15 Q. The Lisa McPherson Trust that you 16 created, you incorporated down here in Florida? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. For which Mr. Dandar was the counsel and 19 incorporator, Ken Dandar? 20 A. That's right, he did. 21 Q. Okay. Did there then come a time, sir, 22 later on in the year 2000 that there was any 23 conversation -- that you had any conversation with 24 Mr. Ken Dandar on the subject of these -- of this 25 agreement for the Estate to donate a substantial 67 1 part of the proceeds to the Lisa McPherson Trust? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Could you tell me about when that was 4 that you first had conversation with Mr. Dandar on 5 that subject? 6 A. The first time was probably soon after 7 those public pronouncements. 8 Q. Give me an approximation. 9 A. That would probably have been, you know, 10 February or March. 11 Q. All right. Now, would you tell us what 12 it is in substance Mr. Ken Dandar said to you on 13 this subject? 14 A. Well, he said, you know, look, this is 15 going to be a huge issue in the wrongful death 16 case and we're going to have to backtrack big time 17 on what you said. 18 Q. Backtrack big time? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. What does that mean or what did it mean 21 to you? 22 A. Ah, basically we have to say that's not 23 really the case. 24 Q. In other words, you have to say that the 25 statements you made about this agreement were 68 1 untrue? 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. As far as you were concerned they were 4 true, right? 5 A. They were true at that time and I was 6 subsequently deposed about this. Mr. Dandar was 7 also somewhat concerned that -- I think it was in 8 like May or June of 2000 I was deposed about it -- 9 and Dandar was concerned that I had yet again 10 reaffirmed this agreement in a deposition. 11 Q. Did Mr. Dandar express to you why it was 12 necessary for you to quote -- for we to, quote, 13 backtrack, close quotes, on the public disclosure 14 of this agreement? 15 A. Well, again, it goes back to this whole 16 issue that -- 17 Q. Well, just tell me what he said, if you 18 can, Mr. Minton. Did he say anything to you on 19 the subject as to why you needed to backtrack? 20 A. Yes. He said because it looks bad for 21 the case because it appears that there's some 22 improper business deal between the Estate and Bob 23 Minton with respect to the proceeds of this case. 24 Q. All right. Well, let me see if I can 25 invite your attention then to on or about December 69 1 1 of the year 2000 later that same year that you 2 are referring to. Was there a meeting of the 3 board of LMT down here in Clearwater? 4 A. Yes, there was. 5 Q. Was -- were you present? 6 A. I was. 7 Q. Was Ken Dandar present? 8 A. He wasn't present at the beginning of 9 the meeting, but he did come later. 10 Q. Was Dell Liebreich present? 11 A. The same with Mrs. Liebreich, she was 12 not present at the start, but came with Mr. Dandar 13 later. 14 Q. And was one of Mrs. Liebreich's -- 15 Ms. Liebreich's siblings, one or more of her 16 siblings there, too? 17 A. I believe both of her sisters were 18 there. 19 Q. Do you know their names? 20 A. Ann Carlson and Lee Skelton. 21 Q. Okay. And I only want to ask you about 22 what transpired during the portion of the meeting 23 at which Mr. Ken Dandar and Dell Liebreich and her 24 two sisters were present. Okay? 25 So please put out of your mind, if you 70 1 will for a moment, what occurred before they 2 arrived at the meeting, okay? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All right. Now, when they arrived at 5 the meeting, was there any discussion on this 6 subject of quote, backtracking, close quote? 7 A. No. 8 Q. As the meeting progressed, did this 9 subject of the agreement between you and the 10 Estate for the Estate to devote all or 11 substantially all of the proceeds to the Lisa 12 McPherson Trust, did that issue come up at all in 13 the discussion? 14 A. It did, but not in the public 15 discussion. After the meeting was over -- 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. -- there was a brief discussion about 18 it. 19 Q. Was this discussion then occurred in a 20 private meeting? 21 A. Well, there was -- 22 Q. As opposed to the board meeting? 23 A. That's correct. There was no one 24 standing around so it was, you know, there were 25 people in the room, but it was private in the 71 1 sense that it was... 2 Q. Okay. Who was present at this private 3 meeting? 4 A. Dell Liebreich. 5 Q. Was Mr. Dandar present? 6 A. He wasn't standing close enough to know 7 what was happening. 8 Q. So was this a conversation then that 9 ensued just between you and Dell Liebreich? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Could you tell us what was said? 12 A. I thanked her for the Estate having 13 agreed to support the Lisa McPherson Foundation in 14 the way that they had agreed to. 15 Q. And what did she say? 16 A. She said, you know, this is what Fannie 17 would have wanted. This is what Lisa would have 18 wanted. 19 Q. Okay. Did you have any conversation 20 with Ken Dandar on that date, December 1, 2000, 21 with respect to this agreement? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. This meeting then is December 1, 24 2000, this conversation with Ms. Liebreich? 25 A. That's right. 72 1 Q. Um, did there come a time then after 2 that date when Mr. Dandar and you had conversation 3 on the subject of quote, backtracking? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Can you tell us how soon after that 6 December 1 meeting this conversation occurred? 7 A. Ah, within two weeks. 8 Q. And could you tell us what was said in 9 that conversation? 10 A. Well, Mr. Dandar -- there were two 11 conversations. The first conversation -- 12 Q. All right. If there are two let me ask 13 you, sir, to break it down so we have a clear 14 understanding. 15 First tell us what was said in the first 16 conversation and then when you're done I'll ask 17 you to tell us what was said in the second. So 18 let's see if we could do that. 19 A. On the first conversation, um, he said 20 that, you know, that we're going to have to do 21 something about this secret agreement. And he 22 said, I've prepared an affidavit for you and I'm 23 going to send it up to you. And that was the 24 essence of the conversation. There wasn't any 25 details discussed and he sent me an affidavit. 73 1 Q. And did you then have a second 2 conversation with him? 3 A. Yes, after I got the affidavit. 4 Q. Let me ask you if you can look at -- if 5 you open the folder that is marked Exhibit 42, 6 sir. 7 A. Yeah. Yes, I've got it. 8 Q. Do you have it? 9 A. I do. 10 Q. Is this the affidavit that Mr. Dandar 11 sent to you? 12 A. It is. 13 Q. Now, when he sent it to you it obviously 14 was not signed; is that right? 15 A. Right, it wasn't signed. 16 Q. And he sent it to you with a request 17 that you sign this affidavit? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And did you then -- did that then 20 produce another conversation between you and Ken 21 Dandar? 22 A. It did. 23 Q. And tell us what that conversation was? 24 A. Well, I was extremely uncomfortable 25 about the affidavit because, number one, it was 74 1 false. 2 Number two, I was concerned because it 3 was effectively a possibility of the Estate being 4 able to renege on the agreement that we already 5 had, about the proceeds of this case. 6 Q. And you expressed that to Mr. Dandar, 7 did you? 8 A. Those two items were my principal 9 concerns. 10 Q. And what did Mr. Dandar say in response? 11 A. Well, he said, you know, from hence 12 forth the agreement will have to be secret, but 13 the agreement still exists. And -- but with 14 respect to the fact that the thing was untrue he 15 said, you know, this is the only way we can get 16 this argument taken out of the case is for 17 everybody to backtrack on this. 18 Q. Well, let me understand something. For 19 everybody to backtrack on the public statements 20 about the agreement; is that what you mean? 21 A. On the public statements, on sworn 22 testimony. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. You know. 25 Q. Now -- 75 1 A. Because we discussed the fact, you know, 2 I said, you know, Well, I've talked about this on 3 the radio. I've done it on the Internet. You 4 know, I've testified about this in depositions in 5 the past and I reaffirm that this agreement 6 exists. 7 Q. Mr. Minton, I want to go back to 8 something you said in your last answer. What did 9 Mr. Dandar say about -- on the subject of whether 10 the agreement would remain in effect, the 11 agreement between you and the Estate? 12 A. He said it would remain in effect, but 13 it has to be secret. 14 Q. So there was no change in the original 15 agreement for the Estate to give you or your group 16 all or the lion's share of the proceeds? That 17 stayed the same? 18 A. That was supposed to stay the same. 19 Q. The only thing that was supposed to 20 change was now it was going to be secret and 21 everyone was going to deny that that agreement 22 existed? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. And did you then sign -- did you then 25 execute Exhibit 42, sir? 76 1 A. Um, I did. 2 Q. And you sent it back to Mr. Dandar? 3 A. I did. 4 Q. You knew when you signed that 5 statement -- that this affidavit was false? 6 A. I did, sir. 7 Q. I want to direct your attention 8 specifically to paragraph five. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. This is -- in this paragraph you are 11 saying the statement attributed to him, it's 12 written in the third person, him being you, 13 concerning statements to Dell Liebreich about the 14 disposition were made before the LMT Trust was 15 conceived. 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. That statement is untrue, isn't it? 19 A. Ah -- 20 Q. Those statements about the disposition 21 were made in 1997, right? 22 A. And after that and before this. 23 Q. Okay. Now, did Mr. Dandar in his 24 conversation with you indicate that anybody else 25 was going to be signing affidavits backtracking on 77 1 this agreement or were you the only one who was 2 being asked to do it? 3 A. He didn't say anybody else was going to 4 be backtracking, but he did say that he was going 5 to get Dell Liebreich to sign a similar affidavit. 6 Q. He was going to Get -- say that again 7 please, sir. 8 A. He was going to get Dell Liebreich to 9 sign a similar affidavit. 10 Q. Would you open, sir, the envelope -- 11 excuse me, the folder that has Exhibit 33 as its 12 label? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you recognize this document, sir? 15 A. I do. 16 Q. This is an affidavit signed by Dell 17 Liebreich? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. At or about the same time, the 20th of 20 December, year 2000? 21 A. Yes, that's a week after I signed mine. 22 Q. Okay. And directing your attention, 23 sir, to paragraph two of that affidavit in which 24 Ms. Liebreich denies that there was ever any 25 binding agreement with Mr. Minton as to any 78 1 disposition of any funds; do you see that? 2 A. I do. 3 Q. To your knowledge, is that statement 4 false? 5 A. I believe it was. 6 Q. And that affidavit, to your knowledge, 7 was then prepared by Mr. Ken Dandar? 8 A. I believe it would have been, yes. 9 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to -- 10 Mr. Minton, could I ask you to go back to your 11 affidavit for a moment, please, that I believe was 12 Exhibit 42. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. I previously asked you about paragraph 15 five. Can I ask you about paragraph six? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Could you read that out loud, please, 18 it's very short. 19 A. It says, Dell Liebreich has made no 20 promise or commitment to make any donation to the 21 LMT and is under no obligation to make any such 22 donation. 23 Q. Now, is that true? 24 A. It wasn't true at that time. 25 Q. And it's not true today? 79 1 A. Well, things are a little messy today. 2 Q. Well, today if you were asked if Dell 3 Liebreich -- 4 A. The LMT doesn't exist anymore. 5 Q. No, today. If you were asked today 6 whether Dell Liebreich had in the past ever made 7 any promise or commitment to make any donation to 8 LMT. 9 A. Sure, she did. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Sure she did through her attorney, 12 Mr. Dandar. 13 Q. And confirmed to you on December 1, 14 2000? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. Okay. Would you open the envelope -- 17 excuse me, the folder marked Exhibit 41, please, 18 sir? 19 A. I've got it. 20 Q. Do you recognize this? 21 A. It's an affidavit of Ken Dandar. 22 Q. A sworn statement of Ken Dandar. And I 23 direct your attention to paragraph six. 24 A. Yes, sir. Six or five? 25 Q. Six. 80 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. At no time is the Estate or the 3 beneficiaries entered into any informal or formal 4 negotiations, discussions or agreements with 5 Robert Minton or any other third party concerning 6 the disposition of any proceeds realized from any 7 litigation involving the Estate of Lisa McPherson. 8 That's Mr. Dandar's sworn affidavit on 9 December 20th of the year 2000. To your own 10 personal knowledge, is that statement true or 11 false? 12 A. Well, it is December 3rd, but it's a 13 false statement. 14 Q. I'm sorry, December 3rd. 15 A. It's a false statement. 16 Q. Okay. Mr. Minton, after executing your 17 affidavit, Exhibit 42, did there then come a time 18 when you were deposed and specifically in October 19 of the year 2001 by me in this case, in this 20 breach case? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. And during the course of that 23 deposition, were you asked a series of questions 24 on this very subject, about whether there was or 25 was not an agreement? 81 1 A. Yes, I was. 2 Q. And did you give answers to the effect 3 that you have been mistaken in your radio 4 statement and your Internet announcement? Did you 5 backtrack and say there was no agreement? 6 A. Yes. I backtracked. I misunderstood 7 what Mr. Dandar had told me and ... 8 Q. You gave a lot of excuses in terms of 9 trying -- a lot of reasons and excuses to get away 10 from the agreement that you had already made 11 public, right? 12 A. It was a pretty uncomfortable 13 deposition, yes. 14 Q. Okay. And you did that because of 15 Mr. Dandar's request that you had to backtrack 16 because it was hurting the case? 17 A. That's correct and because I had signed 18 this affidavit that he wanted me to sign and I had 19 to backtrack at that point. 20 Q. Have you now, in consultation with your 21 counsel, formally recanted that testimony, that 22 false testimony? 23 A. Yes, sir, I have. 24 Q. Okay. Um, one more quick subject, 25 Mr. Minton, I would like to go over with you. 82 1 Last time you mentioned that the purpose of the 2 funds you gave to Mr. Dandar, the Ken Dandar or 3 Dandar & Dandar, whatever, that the agreement was 4 that they were to be used to pay the expenses of 5 the Estate in the wrongful death case. 6 Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Now, are you clear on this that that was 9 the only intention, the only allowed use of those 10 funds, the expenses of the Estate in the wrongful 11 death case? 12 A. Well, from the beginning that's always 13 been the understanding. 14 Q. Okay. And that understanding was 15 reached with Mr. Ken Dandar in October of 1997? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So your understanding with him is not as 18 Mr. Ken Dandar says that this was a personal loan 19 to him? These monies? 20 A. Not at that time. 21 Q. Were any of the funds a personal loan to 22 him? 23 A. No, they weren't. 24 Q. With respect to the entirety of the 25 funds that you provided from October of 1997 right 83 1 up through March of 2002, a total of approximately 2 2 million dollars, were they all covered by the 3 same agreement, that these funds were to be used 4 by the Estate for the Estate's expenses in the 5 wrongful death case? 6 A. That was always my assumption. 7 Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Dandar in 8 October of '97, that that was the limitation of 9 the use of these funds? 10 A. Ah, yes. 11 Q. Okay. I would ask you to open, sir, the 12 folder that is marked Exhibit 8. 13 A. I have it. 14 Q. Could you tell us what the document is, 15 sir? 16 A. This is a note on a little 4 x 6 card 17 that I sent to Mr. Dandar along with the first 18 check for $100,000. 19 Q. And the date on it, it bears is October 20 6th, 1997? 21 A. That's right. 22 Q. Is that at or about the date that you 23 sent this little card with the first check to 24 Mr. Ken Dandar? 25 A. That's right. 84 1 Q. Would you please read the handwritten 2 note into the record for us, sir? 3 A. Dear Ken, further to our conversation 4 this a.m., I pleased to enclose a check for 5 $100,000 to help with the expenses incurred in the 6 Lisa McPherson versus Scientology case. 7 In the event you prevail in this case, 8 but only in that event, and obtain sufficient 9 resources from the Defendants, I would appreciate 10 being repaid, otherwise let's consider the funds 11 an investment in the lives of other potential 12 victims of the Scienos. 13 Please let Lisa's family know that 14 others share in their grief and are determined to 15 minimize the evil impact Scientology tries to 16 exert on everyone it comes in contact with. 17 Thank you, Ken, for your courageous and 18 principled stand -- sorry -- for the courageous 19 and principled stand you have taken against these 20 devils. 21 I hope to see you in both Clearwater and 22 Boston in December. All the best, Bob. 23 Q. Now, I would ask you to turn to the 24 third page of the exhibit. And on that page there 25 is photostats of two checks. The top one is 85 1 Dandar & Dandar October 6th for 100,000 and then 2 underneath it there's a photostat of a check to 3 the Bank of Boston. 4 I believe these checks were photostated 5 together for some reason because they were 6 produced, but the second check, does it have 7 anything to do with this case? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. I don't think so. 11 Q. So it was just another check on your 12 personal -- you and your wife's personal account? 13 A. That's right. 14 Q. And, therefore, you would have no 15 problem if we delete that check from the exhibit? 16 A. I wouldn't have any problem. 17 Q. Is the check above it, the check for 18 5000 -- the check number 5104 for $100,000 is that 19 the check that you sent to Mr. Dandar with the 20 cover note that you just read into the record, 21 sir? 22 A. Yes, it is. 23 Q. And consistent with the note and your 24 testimony, did you then make a notation on the 25 bottom left-hand side of the check? 86 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What does it say? 3 A. It says Re: Lisa McPherson the 4 Scientology case. 5 Q. Okay. Um, turn to the fourth page of 6 the document. And, again, you could ignore the 7 back of the check on the bottom. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Just focus on the back of the check of 10 your $100,000 check. Do you see where that check 11 was deposited? 12 A. Yes, I do. 13 Q. Could you read that into the record? 14 A. Dandar & Dandar, P.A. Trust account. 15 Q. Trust account? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And would that be consistent with your 18 understanding and intention that the monies you 19 were providing to Mr. Dandar would be deposited 20 into a trust account because they were for the use 21 of the Estate? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. ROSEN: May I just have a moment, 24 Your Honor? 25 THE COURT: Yes. 87 1 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I have no 2 further questions. I would move the 3 introduction into evidence of the documents 4 that the witness has identified during this 5 examination. 6 THE COURT: Any objection? 7 MR. LIROT: I'd -- just subject to the 8 standing objection regarding the orders that 9 we talked about, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Let's -- before we 11 get started on cross-examination, Mr. Lirot, 12 let's take a short break. 13 MR. LIROT: Very good, Judge. 14 THE COURT: Take about five minutes. 15 THE BAILIFF: All rise. 16 (Thereupon, there was a five-minute break.) 17 THE COURT: Be seated. 18 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, it's been 19 brought to my attention that we've had 20 several problems with sequestration. Um, 21 there was a witness who had been sequestered 22 who has been signalling and people who work 23 with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Emmons, his private 24 investigator, and this gentleman sitting here 25 have gone out of the courtroom and spoken to 88 1 Mr. Haverty. 2 And during the break, Mr. Haverty and 3 Mr. Prince came in to the courtroom to speak 4 to Mr. Lirot. Did I say that right? 5 MR. LIROT: Yes. 6 MR. ROSEN: And I was standing here. 7 Mr. Lirot told them to leave. I asked them 8 to leave, they wouldn't leave. Um, could we 9 ask that the court instruct the Marshal to 10 retain these witnesses in a place that they 11 are not subject to being contacted by folks 12 that are sitting in the courtroom? 13 THE COURT: Is this going to be 14 necessary? 15 MR. LIROT: Judge, I didn't expect 16 anybody to come in and talk to me. I asked 17 them to leave the minute they came in. I had 18 no knowledge what was going on out in the 19 hall. Mr. Rosen was standing right here. I 20 haven't -- I haven't in any way instructed 21 anybody to say anything or do anything. 22 THE COURT: Let's just -- let's see if 23 we can muddle through here, Mr. Rosen, okay? 24 Let's proceed. 25 MR. LIROT: May it please the Court. 89 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Minton. 4 A. Good afternoon. 5 Q. My name is Luke Lirot. We haven't had 6 the opportunity to meet officially, but it's good 7 to meet. 8 A. Is it Mr. Lirot? 9 Q. Lirot, that's correct. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. You haven't met me before, have you? 12 A. I haven't. I received a letter from 13 you, a couple of letters. 14 Q. From me? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Just to clear the record, I -- we had a 17 hearing the other morning, a Motion for Protective 18 Order, there was a subpoena issued to the Swiss 19 Bank regarding those first two checks, I think 20 that's Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. 21 The deposition was cancelled and I think 22 certainly the Court was upset that we went forward 23 with -- I think the Motion for Sanctions and for 24 Protective Order. 25 And we're very curious how Mr. Rosen got 90 1 those checks after the cancellation of the 2 deposition. It seems that that clearly is in 3 violation of the stay and the order that was 4 issued by the Second DCA. 5 MR. ROSEN: Objection to this -- to the 6 speech. If Counsel has a question -- 7 THE COURT: If you've got some 8 cross-examination, let's move on regarding 9 the issues that we're here about today. 10 MR. LIROT: Very good. 11 BY MR. LIROT: 12 Q. Mr. Minton, you've got a long historical 13 experience of having a deep dislike for 14 Scientology; have you not? 15 A. I have been an anti-Scientology person 16 for -- since sort of 1995. 17 Q. All right. How did that begin? 18 A. Scientology was involved in what was 19 portrayed on the Internet at that time as an 20 attack on free speech on the Internet and I was a 21 member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 22 San Francisco who sent a newsletter in early 23 January 1995 in which they talked about this issue 24 and so I became interested in it. 25 Q. All right. 91 1 A. Purely from a free speech standpoint. 2 Q. All right. And you picked up a lot of 3 momentum from there, didn't you? 4 A. Um, beginning in 1996 I picked up a fair 5 amount of momentum which was still pretty quiet at 6 that time, though. 7 Q. All right. 8 A. The momentum picked up December 1997. 9 Q. All right. And you've certainly funded 10 a significant number of lawsuits and other efforts 11 battling what you considered to be the adverse 12 characteristics of Scientology; is that true? 13 A. I funded a number of lawsuits, a number 14 of witnesses, you know, which are basically all 15 the same witnesses in all the cases, yes. 16 Q. And how much money would you say that 17 you've put into the other cases, not this case. 18 MR. LIROT: Judge, for the record, I 19 don't want any of this to be considered a 20 waiver of the orders that we've already 21 brought to the attention of the Court. 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q. But other cases, how much funding would 24 you say approximately you've put into other cases? 25 A. Um, close to what I've put into this 92 1 case. This case being the wrongful death case, 2 2 million, roughly. 3 Q. Across the board? In all -- 4 A. In those other cases. 5 Q. -- those other cases? 6 A. Well, it could be a little bit more than 7 that. I haven't calculated it. 8 Q. How many lawsuits are you funding at 9 this time or have you funded in the past? 10 A. Well, I think I'm involved in probably 11 16 or 18 cases that have to do with litigation 12 with Scientology that I've had some involvement 13 in. 14 Q. And, in this particular case, you have 15 contributed some substantial sums; is that 16 correct? 17 A. Two million, fifty thousand is a 18 substantial sum. 19 Q. We've certainly seen some of the checks 20 here today, some of the other checks that you've 21 brought out. As far as the funding and I guess 22 the maintenance of some witness in those cases, 23 have you done that as well? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you tell me what extent, what 93 1 financial extent that's gone to? 2 A. A million-and-a-half to 2 million 3 dollars, roughly. 4 Q. And that's outside the litigation 5 expenses that you described before? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. All right. Now, have you put yourself 8 in personal peril in your campaign battling what 9 you considered to be the adverse characteristics 10 of Scientology? 11 A. Ah, well, I certainly have. I believe 12 I've had some help from Mr. Dandar as well. 13 Q. Well, I'm just talking about what you've 14 done on your own. 15 A. Yeah, I've been in personal peril a 16 number of times. 17 Q. All right. Can you tell me about some 18 of those situations? 19 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I'm not sure 20 that this has anything to do with the issue 21 that is before us. 22 THE COURT: What's the relevance here? 23 MR. LIROT: It goes to the bias of the 24 witness. Your Honor, I'm trying to establish 25 a historical characteristic. 94 1 THE COURT: I'll let it continue, but 2 you're going to need to -- 3 MR. LIROT: I'll be brief. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 BY MR. LIROT: 6 Q. Have you had injunctions entered against 7 you to keep you away from Scientology's 8 headquarters? 9 A. Ah, I've had a mutual injunction issued 10 that has been issued that keeps Scientology just 11 as far away from me as I have to be away from 12 them. 13 Q. And basically had you charged with 14 criminal violations for some of the activities 15 that have been alleged against you in your 16 endeavors battling what you consider to be the 17 adverse characteristics of the Church of 18 Scientology; is that correct? 19 A. Well, I've been -- I've had criminal 20 charges filed against me. I wouldn't say I was 21 exactly fighting the adverse characteristics of 22 Scientology. I was -- there was an incident where 23 I got arrested for assault and battery. 24 Q. Was that -- 25 A. Two, actually. One was assault and 95 1 battery and one was assault and battery with a 2 dangerous weapon. 3 Q. And that was -- was that related to the 4 Church of Scientology in any way? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. All right. Have you had a situation 7 where you've gotten communications from members of 8 your family because Scientology members were 9 picketing your home or their home in other areas? 10 A. Yes, I have. 11 Q. Can you tell us about that? 12 A. During 1998, I believe, I'm a little 13 foggy on '98, but certainly in -- yeah, '98, 14 towards the latter part of '98, '99 there were 15 numerous pickets of homes of mine, pickets of me 16 at airports throughout the country when I was 17 travelling around, pickets at hotels when I would 18 arrive at a hotel, you know, things of that 19 nature. 20 Q. Have you ever been the recipient of a 21 telephone call from a member of your family that 22 felt that their personal safety was in jeopardy 23 because of any activities? 24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I don't 25 understand that this is impeachment. If 96 1 anything, it's showing that the witness has 2 every reason not to testify in favor of 3 Scientology. It's the reverse. 4 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, 5 Mr. Rosen. You can continue, but, again, 6 Mr. Lirot, you're going to need to go 7 someplace with this. 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q. Have you filed lawsuits against 10 Scientology in other countries? 11 A. Yes, I have. 12 Q. All right. 13 A. Two. 14 Q. All right. What countries have those 15 lawsuits been filed in? 16 A. France and Germany. 17 Q. Tell us about your relationship with the 18 Lisa McPherson Trust? 19 A. Well, I was the original incorporator of 20 it. I was the chairman of the board. 21 Q. What was the mission statement for the 22 Lisa McPherson Trust? 23 A. That was to expose the abusive and 24 deceptive practices of the Church of Scientology 25 and to help those who have been victimized by it. 97 1 Q. It's actually much more extensive than 2 that, isn't it? It's about a two-page statement? 3 A. That is the mission statement. 4 Q. All right. And in that event, what type 5 of organization, what type of entity was formed 6 for the Lisa McPherson Trust? 7 A. What do you mean what type of entity? 8 Q. Was it a nonprofit organization? Was it 9 a for-profit organization? 10 A. It was originally incorporated as a 11 for-profit organization. 12 Q. And why was that? 13 A. To keep the Church of Scientology from 14 gaining access to financial information or 15 reporting requirements that a nonprofit would have 16 been subjected to. 17 Q. That was done at your direction. 18 A. Well -- 19 Q. You didn't want Scientology meddling in 20 your business, did you? 21 A. That's right. 22 Q. At that point in time? 23 A. Yeah. As to what -- when you say it was 24 done at my direction, yes, Mr. Dandar incorporated 25 it at my direction and we discussed the whole 98 1 issue as to whether it should be profit or 2 nonprofit and the idea was that for the time being 3 to keep Scientology out of checking into this that 4 we would make it for-profit and then later, when 5 we needed to, we would make it a nonprofit. 6 Q. Now, the reason for that I think you're 7 aware of, aren't you? Why would you not want the 8 Church of Scientology knowing about the funding 9 for a particular litigation involved in this case? 10 A. Well, the Lisa McPherson Trust has never 11 been involved in any funding of litigation. 12 Q. Why would you not want Scientology to 13 know about the monies available to the Lisa 14 McPherson Trust? 15 A. It was not their business. 16 Q. Then just like it wasn't their business 17 to know anything about the funding for the 18 wrongful death case or for this case; isn't that 19 true? 20 A. Well, from January of 1998 when I was 21 first deposed in this case, you know, I produced 22 the check that has been put here in evidence. You 23 know, there wasn't any attempt to hide anything. 24 Q. There's never been any attempt -- 25 A. Up until May of 2000. 99 1 Q. All right. Well, let me ask you some 2 questions about your testimony. You testified 3 about two checks. And I'll go ahead and draw your 4 attention to what's been marked as Exhibit 5. 5 This is a check that apparently you said 6 was drawn on the United Bank of Switzerland; if 7 I'm not mistaken? 8 A. That's not correct. It's Union Bank of 9 Switzerland. 10 Q. Union Bank. Forgive me. And this is 11 the check dated May of 2000? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. All right. In May of 2000, was there 14 ever any court order requiring you to divulge the 15 existence of that check? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Was there ever a subpoena telling you, 18 hey, tell us about this check? 19 A. Well, I would certainly have been 20 subject to -- later to subpoenas that would have 21 asked about whether -- how much money I had given 22 to the Estate. 23 Q. But this particular check, when you 24 handed it over in this fashion there was no court 25 order that was being violated, there was no 100 1 official directive saying, you can't give checks 2 out like this, you have to make sure that 3 everything is done on checks with your name? 4 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I think -- 5 MR. LIROT: There's nothing -- 6 MR. ROSEN: -- we object. I think we're 7 getting into closing argument. There's not a 8 question. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. LIROT: I will rephrase the 11 question, Judge. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 BY MR. LIROT: 14 Q. Was there any court order at that time, 15 any requirement, that the source of this check be 16 divulged when this check was issued? 17 A. No. 18 Q. And when your deposition was 19 subsequently taken, I think you talked about this 20 check and a number of other checks; is that 21 correct? 22 A. I don't believe I ever discussed this 23 check in a deposition. 24 Q. Well, let me ask you this: When your 25 deposition was taken I think that -- 101 1 A. You want to give me a date for that 2 deposition. 3 Q. I will indeed. That's only fair. 4 Mr. Minton, I'm going to ask you to draw your 5 attention, if you would, to a deposition taken -- 6 I'm trying to locate the date here -- on October 7 11th and 12th of 2001. 8 Do you remember your deposition being 9 taken at that point in time? 10 A. I believe that was by Mr. Moxon, was it, 11 in the wrongful death case or was that Mr. Rosen 12 in this case? 13 Q. I think it identifies counsel for the 14 plaintiff as Mr. Rosen. 15 A. Okay. So that would have been this 16 case. 17 Q. And let me just ask you some questions 18 about some of the testimony in this deposition. I 19 think the last time you were here you talked about 20 some meetings and I guess the thrust of this 21 actual case, an alleged breach of contract and not 22 adding parties to the wrongful death case. Are 23 you aware of those issues? 24 A. Could you repeat the question? 25 Q. You're aware of the issues in this case. 102 1 You know why we're here for this case; is that 2 correct? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. All right. And at some point didn't 5 there become an issue, I think, that your 6 testimony from April 9th, the last time you were 7 here, the first time that you and I had ever been 8 in the courtroom together, there was an issue 9 about you concerning yourself with certain issues 10 about adding the parties or in some way engaging 11 in some meetings to that effect; is that correct? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. All right. During the October 11th and 14 12th deposition I believe -- and Counsel, I draw 15 your attention to page 393 -- it says, Did you 16 have any discussion with Mr. Dandar at any time, 17 meaning after November of 1997, on the subject of 18 adding any defendants in the wrongful death case? 19 And your answer was, No. 20 That was true, wasn't it? 21 A. I don't want to be tricked here. The -- 22 say the question that was in the deposition again. 23 Q. The question again: Did you have any 24 discussion with Mr. Dandar at any time, meaning 25 after November of 1997, on the subject of adding 103 1 any defendants in the wrongful death case? 2 Answer, continued on page 394, no. 3 A. That's a false answer. 4 Q. Let me draw your attention to page 395. 5 It says: And the first you found out about it, 6 that it would complicate the case, was the 7 addition of Mr. Miscaviage as a defendant? 8 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, could I have a 9 idea where counsel is reading from? 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. LIROT: It's page 395, line 17. 12 This is volume three of the October 11th and 13 12th deposition. All set? 14 MR. ROSEN: Yes, thank you. 15 BY MR. LIROT: 16 Q. And it says: And the first you found 17 out about it that it would complicate the case was 18 the addition of Mr. Miscaviage as a defendant? 19 Your answer was: Yeah. 20 The question continues: The first you 21 found out about this was after it had already 22 occurred? 23 You answered: I think so. 24 Do you think if you had any knowledge 25 that Mr. Dandar was looking to add or seeking to 104 1 add Mr. Miscaviage, do you think you had knowledge 2 of that before the Court allowed him to be added? 3 Answer: I might have heard about it, 4 but I don't remember hearing about it. 5 Question: So you were against it, in 6 any event, you communicated to Ms. Brooks that you 7 were not happy about it because it would 8 complicate the case? 9 It would add a lot of time to the case 10 and therefore cost more money. 11 Did you communicate that to Mr. Dandar? 12 And your answer was: No. 13 Was that a truthful answer? 14 A. That was false. 15 Q. Let me draw your attention to page 400 16 in the deposition on line 11. 17 Question: The same question with 18 respect to Ms. Brooks. Do you have any reason to 19 believe that she ever communicated your views, 20 your unhappiness about Mr. Miscaviage being added 21 to anyone? 22 Your answer was: Not that I'm aware of. 23 Question: Okay. Is there a reason you 24 never communicated these views to Mr. Dandar 25 directly? 105 1 The answer was: Yes. 2 Question: Why? 3 Answer: Well, you know, the essence of 4 my agreement with Mr. Dandar based on his original 5 contact with the Florida Bar Association made it 6 clear that, you know, I was to have nothing to do 7 with how this case was run and, therefore, you 8 know, it was always better for me not to have any 9 contact with him about it. 10 Was that true? 11 A. Ah, it's true if I -- I'm not quite 12 certain what you're asking me is true, but it was 13 true that Mr. Dandar -- that I didn't want to have 14 anything to do with the control of this case 15 because Mr. Dandar told me in his first letter to 16 me back in -- soon after that first check in 17 October of '97, that that's what the Florida Bar 18 had said and that's the way it had to be 19 conducted. 20 Q. All right. Well, you talked about that 21 first check in '97. I believe that that was 22 attached in Composite Exhibit 8 with the note -- 23 A. Right. 24 Q. -- that Mr. Rosen read in the record. 25 It says, I guess a card, October 6th of 1997 106 1 wherein you enclosed a check for $100,000. 2 And we looked at the front of that check 3 October 6th, '97 to Dandar & Dandar for the sum of 4 $100,000. You're aware of that check? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. All right. Were you aware of 7 Mr. Dandar's inquiries to the Florida Bar about 8 whether he could even accept that check? 9 A. Afterwards he told me. Afterwards when 10 he wrote the letter. 11 Q. So you were ultimately aware? 12 A. I was, yes. 13 Q. Not before you gave him the check, but 14 afterward you found out; is that correct? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. At some point did you become discouraged 17 or upset that you did not have more control in 18 directing any of the litigation involving Lisa 19 McPherson, either this case or the wrongful death 20 case? 21 A. No, I did not. 22 Q. You did not -- you've never complained 23 about not having the ability to control those 24 cases to anyone? 25 A. I have complained about certain aspects 107 1 of the case. I haven't complained about not 2 having any control of the case. 3 Q. Do you communicate extensively on the 4 Internet? 5 A. With who? 6 Q. With anyone? 7 A. I have in the past posted messages on 8 news groups. I send e-mail occasionally. I'm not 9 a big e-mail guy, but I do post messages on the 10 Internet every now and then. A lot less these 11 days. 12 Q. You're not a big e-mail guy? 13 A. That's correct. Communications, for 14 example, between Mr. Dandar and I have been, you 15 know, one liners and I've testified that neither 16 one of us were very good typists. 17 Q. Well, isn't it true that you issued 18 e-mails complaining about your inability to 19 control Mr. Dandar in this litigation? 20 A. Maybe you could draw my attention to 21 one. I'm not familiar with what you're talking 22 about. 23 Q. Well, you've never had conversations 24 with Patricia Greenway or Peter Alexander about -- 25 complaining about your inability to control this 108 1 litigation? 2 A. I never have. 3 Q. You never have? 4 A. Not a single time. 5 Q. All right. Do you know Patricia 6 Greenway and Peter Alexander? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. All right. How do you know them? 9 A. Well, I know them now that basically 10 Mr. Dandar is taking advice from them. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. In the past they've been members of the 13 board of the Lisa McPherson Trust and were asked 14 to leave the board. They're also people who 15 produced a movie which I financed and spent a 16 couple -- two-and-a-half million dollars on. 17 Q. All right. What was -- what was that 18 movie? 19 A. It was a movie called "The Profit," 20 which was basically about the Church of 21 Scientology or a parody or something about the 22 Church of Scientology. 23 Q. And you don't recall going out to dinner 24 with Ms. Greenway and Mr. Alexander and 25 complaining that you were funding these cases and 109 1 that you didn't have the ability to control how 2 they were being litigated? 3 A. I've never complained about that to 4 anybody. Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander 5 for sure not or anybody else. I think you'll find 6 that -- and Mr. Dandar has said this to me 7 before -- he said, you know, I've never had 8 anybody be more hands-off, giving me so much 9 money. And Mr. Garko has made that same statement 10 to me, concerning the money I gave to Mr. Dandar. 11 Q. When you were here on April 9th you made 12 some statements regarding the sum of money and 13 this has already been made a part of the court 14 file, Your Honor. 15 On page five you were asked, it says, 16 and you're aware that the amounts that had 17 been testified to and checks produced of monies 18 paid by you to either Mr. Dandar or his firm total 19 approximately 1.3 million dollars. 20 At the time you were asked that 21 question, that was absolutely true, wasn't it? 22 A. What was the date of that statement. 23 Q. I believe they're talking about -- the 24 date of this statement was April 9th, this was the 25 last time you were in court here. And this would 110 1 have been the exhibits attached to the Motion for 2 Disqualification, the two excerpts that were made 3 part of this record. 4 A. Well -- 5 Q. You were being asked that -- 6 A. Well, I haven't seen the Motion for 7 Disqualification, so ... 8 Q. Well, you were handed some transcripts 9 of that deposition testimony; were you not? 10 MR. ROSEN: Objection -- 11 THE WITNESS: When I -- 12 MR. ROSEN: -- I don't know what counsel 13 is referring to. 14 THE WITNESS: When I testified before, 15 you mean? 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q. Yes. Here on April 9th. 18 A. I don't remember what -- I mean, I was 19 handed several things. 20 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I could have a 21 moment? 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 BY MR. LIROT: 24 Q. Mr. Minton, to refresh your memory, I 25 think it's been made a component of the court file 111 1 here, Exhibit 3, apparently filed by Mr. Rosen -- 2 A. Is that in these folders here? 3 Q. I don't believe it is. This was -- 4 again, this was an excerpt of your testimony on 5 October 11th and 12 of 2001 and it was identified 6 as Exhibit 3 to the Amended Motion to Disqualify 7 Counsel. It was handed to you during that April 8 9th hearing? 9 A. I still don't know what you're talking 10 about, though, what was handed to me. 11 Q. I'll read it to you, sir. These are 12 pages 393. And I believe Mr. Rosen asked you 13 about some documents and essentially this -- and 14 for the record, I don't want to read the whole 15 thing since we've already gone through it, but it 16 says, having discussions with Mr. Dandar in 17 November of 1997, and the addition of 18 Mr. Miscaviage as a defendant in December of 1999, 19 and going through the rest of the testimony. 20 The question that I ask is when you were 21 asked at that point in time about the amount of 22 money that you had contributed to that case, when 23 you answered that question that was true; was it 24 not? 25 MR. ROSEN: Objection, Your Honor, I 112 1 don't understand that. 2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. When? Oh, sorry. 3 THE COURT: Whether you understand it or 4 not is really not the issue. I think it's 5 whether he understands it. 6 MR. ROSEN: Yes. 7 THE WITNESS: When was the question 8 asked? When are you talking about? 9 BY MR. LIROT: 10 Q. The question that I'm referring to was 11 asked on April 9th. The question referred back to 12 the October 11th and 12th of the year 2001 asking 13 you about your knowledge of special meetings for 14 the addition of parties to the wrongful death suit 15 that resulted in what I understand to be the 16 filing of this action. 17 And you were commenting on the amount of 18 money that was funded to these cases and you said 19 1.3 million dollars and that was true at the time; 20 isn't that correct? 21 A. Well, first of all, it wasn't for these 22 cases. It was for the wrongful death case, number 23 one. And at that time that was not true. 24 Q. Based on what? 25 A. It would have been 1.8 million. 113 1 Q. Based on what? 2 A. Based on that $500,000 check. 3 Q. Now, let me ask you this: Now, when you 4 signed the affidavit regarding the testimony 5 involved in that matter -- 6 A. Just let me -- let me just go back on 7 that last answer. That 1.3 million dollars were 8 the amounts of personal checks that I had written 9 to Mr. Dandar. And Mr. Dandar, this had come up 10 in depositions before, and Mr. Dandar had said to 11 me, Concentrate on the checks you have written. 12 Q. Were you represented by counsel at those 13 depositions? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. It wasn't Mr. Dandar, was it? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You've never been represented by 18 Mr. Dandar, have you? 19 A. That's totally false. 20 Q. Well, in this matter, have you been 21 represented by Mr. Dandar? 22 A. No. 23 Q. In the matters in which you were being 24 deposed were you represented by Mr. Dandar? 25 A. On occasion. 114 1 Q. Wasn't your attorney John Merrett? 2 A. You're talking about in this case or any 3 case? 4 Q. In this case? 5 A. He's never represented me in this case. 6 Q. Well, who has represented you in this 7 case? 8 A. Mr. Howie is my current counsel and John 9 Merrett was prior to that. 10 Q. So what you just said was wrong, you 11 said Mr. Merrett never represented you and now you 12 said that he previously represented you in this 13 very case? 14 MR. ROSEN: Objection. Argumentative. 15 THE COURT: Sustained. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q. So Mr. Merrett has been your counsel for 18 this case and has represented you in all the 19 matters for which these depositions were taken; 20 isn't that correct? 21 A. In this case? 22 Q. I think you already testified that he -- 23 Mr. Merrett represented you in this case? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. All right. And has your deposition been 115 1 taken in this case? 2 A. It has. 3 Q. And your counsel was either Mr. Merrett, 4 succeeded by Mr. Howie, correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. It was never Mr. Dandar? 7 A. Not in this case, no. 8 Q. All right. In the wrongful death case 9 you're not even a party, are you? 10 A. I'm a party in the counterclaim. 11 Q. Who is your counsel in that case? 12 A. I guess Mr. Howie will be. I'm not sure 13 we've actually got the amended complaint. 14 Q. Who was your counsel in the counterclaim 15 in the wrongful death case? It was not 16 Mr. Dandar, was it? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So Mr. Dandar -- 19 A. Well, in the wrongful death case? 20 Q. Mr. Dandar has never represented you in 21 either of those cases? 22 A. Well, Mr. Dandar has certainly filed 23 motions on my behalf in the wrongful death case. 24 Q. Mr. Dandar has never formally entered an 25 appearance for you in either of those cases; isn't 116 1 that true? 2 A. Ah, I think you would have to check the 3 record on that, but I believe that he has entered 4 motions on my behalf in that case, in the wrongful 5 death case. 6 Q. Let me draw your attention to some of 7 the exhibits that Mr. Rosen just handed up to you. 8 And I would like to draw your attention 9 particularly to -- 10 A. For example, I just remembered, a number 11 of protective orders that had nothing to do with 12 these checks, for example. 13 Q. I haven't asked a question, Mr. Minton. 14 A. I'm going back to the last one and 15 trying to give you an example of the instance 16 where he was representing me. 17 Q. Mr. -- my question was, he's never filed 18 a formal appearance to represent you in any of 19 these cases; isn't that true? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. All right. 22 MR. LIROT: Judge, may I approach the 23 witness? 24 THE COURT: Sure. 25 BY MR. LIROT: 117 1 Q. I'm going to show you what has just been 2 entered into evidence by Mr. Rosen. And this has 3 been marked as Exhibit 42, the Affidavit of Robert 4 Minton. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recognize that document? 7 A. I'm familiar with it, yes. 8 Q. All right. Let me show you now what's 9 been marked as Exhibit 33 and this is an affidavit 10 for Dell Liebreich. And what's been marked as 11 exhibit -- 12 A. Is this also one of the ones that I've 13 already seen? 14 Q. These were all given to you today. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. And you've gone through these today. 17 A. Right. 18 Q. And Exhibit 41, the Affidavit of Ken 19 Dandar, all right? 20 A. I knocked off someone's microphone here. 21 Q. Mr. Minton, take a look at those 22 affidavits. And the one that you said that you 23 attributed to it being produced by Mr. Dandar's 24 office, it's different than the other affidavits, 25 isn't it? Just in the typeface, in the way that 118 1 it's typed up, the way that it looks? 2 A. Yes, it looks different. 3 Q. It look substantially different? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Completely different typeface? 6 A. It does look different, yeah. 7 Q. And it's a completely different 8 placement of the court and the jurisdiction in 9 which the case is being prosecuted; isn't that 10 correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Mr. Dandar's office never prepared that 13 affidavit, did they? 14 A. No, that's false. 15 Q. Mr. Merrett's office prepared that 16 affidavit; isn't that correct? 17 A. No, Mr. Merrett has never prepared this 18 affidavit. 19 Q. The affidavits are visually different; 20 isn't that correct? 21 A. They're visually different. 22 Q. And if you look to the back, take a look 23 at the signature line, the place where you signed 24 under oath. 25 A. Right. 119 1 Q. Attesting that everything is true and 2 correct. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. That's completely different than the 5 other affidavits; isn't that true? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Are you familiar with word processing? 8 A. I am. 9 Q. All right. Are you familiar that law 10 offices when they produce documents usually 11 cannibalize the previous produced document to make 12 the other ones look pretty much the same? 13 A. Right. 14 MR. ROSEN: Objection. No foundation 15 for this. 16 THE COURT: Sustained. 17 BY MR. LIROT: 18 Q. Those affidavits are substantially 19 different. They were not produced by the same 20 office, were they? 21 MR. ROSEN: Objection. 22 THE WITNESS: Ah, I -- 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 THE WITNESS: Should I answer? This 25 affidavit was produced by Mr. Dandar. 120 1 BY MR. LIROT: 2 Q. And it's completely different than the 3 other two affidavits which were produced by 4 Mr. Dandar? 5 A. You know, whether it's different or not 6 in typeface or any other thing doesn't matter to 7 me. You know, whether Mr. Dandar sent this to me 8 rather by courier than by fax, I don't remember 9 how he sent it, but it came from Mr. Dandar 10 because the discussions about it came from 11 Mr. Dandar. 12 Q. That's your testimony? 13 A. That's right. 14 MR. LIROT: May I retrieve the exhibits, 15 Your Honor? 16 THE COURT: Of course. 17 THE WITNESS: In fact, the same day he 18 had sent an affidavit to Stacy Brooks. 19 BY MR. LIROT: 20 Q. Who is Stacy Brooks? 21 A. Ah, what would you like to know about 22 her? 23 Q. Everything that is relevant to this 24 case? 25 A. She is a party to the case through the 121 1 Lisa McPherson Trust which has been added as a 2 party and she's their representative. 3 Q. Well, how do you know what affidavits 4 were being provided to her? 5 A. Because she was there with me at the 6 same time. 7 Q. And why would that be? 8 A. Because she was physically present in 9 the State of New Hampshire at 137 Freemont Road, 10 Sandale, New Hampshire. 11 Q. Do you have a personal relationship with 12 Ms. Brooks? 13 A. I do. 14 Q. And has Ms. Brooks been conversant in 15 some of the decisions made perhaps in dealing with 16 you on the progress in these particular cases? 17 A. Could you ask that again? 18 Q. Do you know if Ms. Brooks was the one 19 that was intimating the necessity of adding David 20 Miscavige to the wrongful death suit? 21 A. I believe she was the primary advocate 22 for it, yes. Primary advocate among those who 23 were advising Mr. Dandar. 24 Q. So it was everybody else's idea; isn't 25 that correct? 122 1 A. No, I didn't say it was everybody else's 2 idea. I said she was the primary advocate. 3 Q. So the decision or at least the 4 suggestion didn't emanate from anyone other than 5 Ms. Brooks at that point in time; is that correct? 6 A. Well, Ms. Brooks was involved in a 7 previous case called the Fishman case which was 8 Fishman and Geertz versus Church of Scientology 9 handled by an attorney named Graham Berry. And 10 Graham Berry hired Mrs. Brooks or Mrs. Young at 11 that time as an expert witness in the case. 12 And Graham Berry was trying to find a 13 way to put pressure on Scientology to get 14 Scientology to settle the case or drop it or 15 whatever and he asked Ms. Brooks and others, you 16 know, what they thought the best way to put that 17 kind of intense pressure on Scientology would be 18 and they came up with the idea that the main thing 19 is to go after David Miscaviage. 20 If you can make his life uncomfortable 21 in any way, in any serious way, you know, you're 22 going to get Scientology to drop or settle, 23 whatever the case was. I can't remember the 24 details of that case because I wasn't involved in 25 it. So -- 123 1 Q. Do you? 2 A. -- Ms. Brooks, when she was hired by 3 Mr. Dandar to work relative to this case, was a 4 vocal proponent of adding David Miscavige, maybe 5 others. I don't know whether she was involved. I 6 think there were three attempts to add parties. 7 I don't know when she got involved, but 8 she certainly, you know, at the meeting that I 9 attended was a very strong advocate for it until 10 later in the meeting. 11 Q. Was that strong advocacy the result of 12 conversations with Jesse Prince? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Do you know Jesse Prince? 15 A. Well, are you saying was that strong 16 advocacy because of her conversations with Jesse 17 Prince or mine? 18 Q. Her's. You said you don't know -- 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. -- I'll take you at your word. 21 A. I don't know. You know, I don't know 22 that she talked to Jesse Prince about this, but, 23 you know, Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks were 24 working in the office with Ken Dandar, so I'm sure 25 they would have discussed it, but I don't know of 124 1 any conversations. 2 Q. Were you present at any such 3 discussions? 4 A. Not until the one before they added 5 David Miscaviage, after Judge Moody, you know, 6 they were wrestling with the issue of whether Dave 7 Miscaviage could be added as the head of the Sea 8 org as opposed to chairman of RTC or something 9 like that. 10 Q. Isn't it true that the attempt to add 11 Mr. Miscaviage was because it was found out that 12 no decisions regarding Lisa McPherson would have 13 been made in the fashion that they were without 14 Mr. Miscaviage's approval? 15 A. Well, the -- 16 Q. Wasn't that the reason he was added or 17 attempted to be added to the case? 18 A. No, that wasn't the reason, in my 19 opinion. 20 Q. Do you know that to be a true fact? 21 A. No. The reason he was added as a 22 defendant in this case were several fold: Number 23 one, Dandar wanted to add him as a defendant. 24 Q. Well, you said that Stacy Brooks -- 25 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, he was in the 125 1 middle of a answer and counsel just cut him 2 off. 3 THE COURT: Give him a chance to 4 respond. 5 MR. LIROT: I will, Your Honor. 6 THE WITNESS: Number one, Mr. Dandar 7 wanted to add him as a defendant. He thought 8 this would be the fastest way to put pressure 9 on Scientology, bring them to the settlement 10 table and make them settle for more money. 11 The next item in terms of why he was 12 added was -- you made me lose my train of 13 thought there when you stopped me, but -- oh. 14 Was based on Jesse Prince's affidavit. 15 Jesse Prince wrote a totally speculative 16 affidavit that said Ray Minthoff, Marty 17 Rathbon and David Miscaviage must have known 18 about the Lisa McPherson situation in 19 Clearwater, Florida. 20 BY MR. LIROT: 21 Q. How would you ever know if it was 22 speculative? 23 A. Because Jesse told me. I mean, you read 24 it, it's totally speculative. Michael -- 25 Q. How -- 126 1 A. -- Garko said there was no evidence to 2 it. There was no evidence whatsoever to support 3 it. And that was the basis, apart from 4 Mr. Dandar's desire to, you know, gain some 5 notoriety and publicity for the case, that's the 6 basis. 7 That is the factual basis or what Dandar 8 tried to portray as the factual basis was a 9 speculative document based on Jesse Prince's 10 affidavit. 11 When Jesse tells some wild story about 12 somebody being put under an air conditioner out in 13 California after they were dead just to keep their 14 body cold for a couple of days until they could do 15 whatever. I don't know. I mean, it sounded like 16 an impossible story for him to come to the 17 conclusion that all these guys knew about it. 18 Q. How would you ever know? 19 A. Well, you know, I can speculate as well 20 as the next guy. 21 Q. I'm sure you can, but my question is: 22 How do you know that Mr. Prince's affidavit was 23 not correct? 24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I think we're a 25 little far afield? 127 1 THE COURT: Yeah. Where are we going 2 with this? 3 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm just -- I'll 4 bring it back. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 BY MR. LIROT: 7 Q. Do you know Dan Leipold? 8 A. It's Leipold. 9 Q. Leipold? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How do you know Mr. Leipold? 12 A. He's also a part of the Scientology 13 litigation enterprise. 14 Q. What do you mean by that? 15 A. You know, he's an attorney who files 16 cases against Scientology or handles cases against 17 Scientology. He's been handling them for a very 18 long time and has had some success in dealing with 19 a number of cases. And I've loaned him a lot of 20 money. 21 Q. He's another attorney that you have 22 given money to involving litigation against the 23 Church of Scientology; is that correct? 24 A. He's the only attorney that I've loaned 25 money to. 128 1 Q. But he is an attorney handling cases 2 against the Church of Scientology that receives 3 funding in some fashion from you; is that correct? 4 A. He has, yes. 5 Q. All right. Did you ever have 6 communication with Mr. Leipold in the last few 7 weeks trying to coerce or entice him into dropping 8 the litigation that he's involved with against the 9 Church of Scientology? 10 MR. ROSEN: I object, Your Honor. I 11 don't understand what this is about. And it 12 doesn't seem to be at all relevant to the 13 issue of Mr. Dandar's conduct. 14 MR. LIROT: I'll tie it up, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q. Did you have contact with Mr. Leipold to 18 try to coerce him or in some way influence him to 19 drop the case that he has against Scientology in 20 California? 21 A. Coerce is a very strong word. I did 22 suggest to Mr. Leipold a couple of possible ways 23 for him to get his client to settle that case. 24 One of the ways, which was communicated 25 directly to his client via a third party, not 129 1 Mr. Leipold -- well, you've got to -- since you've 2 brought up this case you're going to have to put 3 this in perspective. I'm going to have to tell 4 you a few things about it. 5 Q. Let me -- I'll put it in perspective -- 6 A. No. I'm happy to do it for you because 7 I know the case a lot better than you. 8 Q. Let me just -- well, maybe you can clear 9 up my question. Here you are and you have 10 dedicated your life, so to speak, you've taken 11 personal risk, you've sunk millions and millions 12 of dollars into fighting the Church of Scientology 13 and within a month here you are trying to convince 14 people that you funded for years to drop the 15 cases. What happened? 16 A. Let me explain to you. Let's go to that 17 case. Let's take that specific case. 18 MR. ROSEN: What case are we talking 19 about? 20 THE WITNESS: This is the Wollersheim 21 versus Church of Scientology California. 22 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I object to 23 this. This has nothing to do with 24 Mr. Dandar's conduct. I'm just -- 25 THE COURT: All right. I'm just, you 130 1 know, I want to give you some leeway here, 2 but -- 3 MR. LIROT: Judge, I understand. 4 THE COURT: -- this is just getting 5 awful far afield. 6 THE WITNESS: So I'm going to finish my 7 answer? 8 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure if you 9 are or not. I don't think so. No. Okay. 10 MR. LIROT: Judge, our position, and I 11 think what I would like to do is I would like 12 to ask Mr. Minton specific questions about 13 what threats or influence he may have 14 received and the meetings he may have had in 15 the past month or few weeks with the Church 16 of Scientology, with members, either with or 17 without his counsel that might have 18 influenced him to change his position which I 19 think historically this Court is certainly 20 well aware of. 21 To what do we owe this dramatic 22 turnaround? And I think that that's a fair 23 area of inquiry for me to delve into today, 24 Judge. 25 THE COURT: Why don't you ask him that 131 1 question. 2 MR. LIROT: All right. 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q. What happened, Mr. Minton? Why did you 5 change your mind? 6 A. About what? What happened about what 7 and what did I change my mind about? What are you 8 talking about? 9 Q. About being behind -- the e-mails you 10 sent. Have you sent e-mails saying that -- to 11 Mr. Dandar saying, we'll be behind you 100 12 percent. I don't like the Church. I don't like 13 what it's done. I don't like what happened to 14 Lisa McPherson. 15 Do you recall sending e-mails to that 16 effect? 17 A. I don't. 18 Q. Did you, in your original exhibit here 19 -- 20 A. You know, I believe, if you want to get 21 these questions answered, you need to really give 22 me a question to answer. 23 Q. Mr. Minton, I want to find out what 24 happened to you. A bold and long, long-term 25 challenger of the Church of Scientology, now 132 1 you're going around, you're telling people, I 2 don't want to fund these cases. I need you to 3 dismiss these cases. 4 To what do we owe this 180? 5 A. Mr. Dandar. 6 Q. Well, you haven't had any meetings with 7 Mr. Dandar for quite some time, have you? 8 A. Since early February is not that far. 9 Q. You had a lot of meetings with the 10 Church of Scientology after early February of this 11 year, haven't you? 12 A. I have. 13 Q. All right. Can you tell me about those 14 meetings? 15 A. At the present time there's a 16 confidentiality agreement in place between my 17 attorneys and the attorneys for the Church of 18 Scientology and I'm not at liberty to comment. 19 Q. Why is that? Why a confidentiality 20 agreement? What is it that -- what is it that the 21 Church of Scientology has presented to you to 22 cause this complete reversal of position on your 23 part? 24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, to the extent 25 that counsel is insinuating that the Church 133 1 has made any promise or any inducements to 2 this witness to testify as he has here before 3 you today on April 19th we waive 4 confidentiality. 5 He can just ask him the question -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 MR. ROSEN: -- did they promise you 8 anything? And I will not assert any 9 confidentiality with respect to that. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Have at it. 11 BY MR. LIROT: 12 Q. Has the Church of Scientology threatened 13 you with bringing criminal charges for some of 14 your business practices involving the country of 15 Nigeria? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Have you dealt with the country of 18 Nigeria in some of your past business practices? 19 A. From 1988 to 1992, early '93. 20 Q. Has the Church of Scientology presented 21 you with a stack of papers represented to you to 22 be a suit charging you with racketeering? 23 A. No. 24 Q. An eleven-inch stack of papers? 25 A. No. 134 1 Q. When you met with Mr. Dandar and 2 Mr. Garko, you were quite depressed back in 3 February; were you not? 4 A. You know, if you had given Mr. Dandar as 5 much money as I had at that time you would be 6 depressed as well. 7 Q. You called him up there, didn't you? 8 A. No, I didn't. Mr. Dandar had asked me 9 to meet him in the Cayman Islands to discuss this 10 exercise to obtain money from me. And, you know, 11 I didn't either want to go or couldn't go. I 12 can't remember what the situation was at the time. 13 But after he got back from the Cayman 14 Islands he said, Look, we've got to get together 15 and discuss this money. I might have said, you 16 know, Well, then why don't you come up to New 17 Hampshire because I had no intention of coming to 18 Florida. 19 I mean, every time I come into the State 20 of Florida I get a lawsuit served on me. You 21 know, I get subpoenaed. I get brought into court 22 for sanction hearings. I