http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Baird1.htmlFrom: Robert S. Minton <bob@minton.org> 
To: alerma@bellatlantic.net 
Subject: another try 
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:39:41 -0400 
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 


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