From: Robert S. Minton <>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Liebreich v CoS, Schaeffer Hearing re Prince, Jesse testifies 2/2
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:05:55 -0500
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: 12 Dec 2001 15:06:29 -0500,
X-Original-Trace: 12 Dec 2001 15:06:29 -0500,
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 5000
Xref: alt.religion.scientology:79533
X-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:44:37 EST (

3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
7 Plaintiff,
8 vs. VOLUME 2
14 PROCEEDINGS: Motions.
15 DATE: November 7, 2001.
16 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
St. Petersburg, Florida.
BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer
18 Circuit Judge.
19 REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
Notary Public,
20 State of Florida at large.

3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
4 Attorney for Plaintiff.
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
7 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
8 Organization.
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525
11 Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
12 Organization.
740 Broadway, Fifth Floor
14 New York, New York 10003
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
15 Organization.
17 707 North Franklin Street
10th Floor
18 Tampa, FL 33601
Attorney for Janis Johnson
Michael G. Garko, PhD
21 Mr. Allan Cartwright
Ms. Lara Cartwright
22 Ms. Sarah Heller
Mr. Ben Shaw
23 Mr. Peter Mansell
Ms. Stephanie Skjelset


4 Defendant's Motion to Strike 162 6
Recess 215 13
DIRECT Mr. Dandar 241 1
6 CROSS Mr. Moxon 260 7
EXAMINATION The Court 299 22
7 REDIRECT Mr. Dandar 303 6
Reporter's Certificate 341 1

1 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, let's go forward on your
2 motion to strike Mr. Prince as an expert.
3 This transcript belongs to someone, this
4 Fabrizio? I believe it was yours, Mr. Dandar.
5 You may proceed.
6 MR. MOXON: Thank you, your Honor.
7 Florida law requires that the trial court be
8 the arbiter of whether or not an expert is permitted
9 to testify. That's Florida Supreme Court case
10 Ramirez versus State, 651 So2d at 1164. Also a very
11 recent court of appeals case, Poulin versus
12 Flemming, 782 So2d 452.
13 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I'm sorry. Could I just
14 ask a question before we continue?
15 THE COURT: Sure.
16 MR. DANDAR: If Mr. Prince has refused to be my
17 expert witness and has withdrawn, why are we doing
18 this motion?
19 THE COURT: Because if in fact he never could
20 have been an expert to begin with, then whether he's
21 refused because of some wrongdoing or otherwise
22 would be irrelevant. Before his refusal to be a
23 witness based on somebody else's action becomes
24 relevant, there needs to be some initial
25 determination that he ever could have been a

1 witness.
2 Or at least that's part of my thinking process,
3 and that's why we're going through it.
4 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
5 MR. MOXON: These cases refer to the trial
6 court as the, quote, gatekeeper. A number of cases
7 like this.
8 Says: "The trial court is the gatekeeper of
9 when an expert's permitted to testify and when it's
10 not." So of course, this is a determination that's
11 made by the trial court. And if the court finds
12 that the testimony of an expert witness wouldn't
13 assist the jury in determining a fact or issue, then
14 the expert is simply not qualified as matter of law
15 to give his opinion or infect the jury with improper
16 or prejudicial opinions, and he has to be excluded.
17 There are four basic reasons -- there's
18 actually a fifth that just arose last week --
19 okay -- five reasons why Mr. Prince doesn't qualify
20 and can't ever -- could never testify as a witness,
21 as an expert witness.
22 The first is -- and I'll just summarize these
23 briefly and then I'll give you the details.
24 The first is, he's actually a paid fact
25 witness. By law, the testimony of a compensated

1 fact witness is tainted and has to be excluded.
2 Now, the evidence in this case is that
3 plaintiff's counsel and Robert Minton have paid
4 Prince at least $250,000 for statements of fact.
5 All of his affidavits are -- at the top, they say,
6 "These are statements of fact," and that, "If I'm
7 called upon to testify thereto, I could do so
8 competently." At the end of some of them, he offers
9 some opinion, which is just sheer speculation. But
10 primarily they're all fact, and they're admitted at
11 the outset of each one of these declarations.
12 Secondly, the issue that we addressed the most
13 earlier today is that Mr. Prince's hatred for
14 Scientology and Scientologists is so extreme as to
15 require his disqualification due to his bias. He's
16 employed by Minton and LMT, dedicated to overthrow
17 the ecclesiastical leadership, and he engaged in the
18 kind of profane demonstrations you've seen on the
19 videos: Harasses witnesses, harasses church staff
20 and parishioners participating in their religion,
21 yelling obscenities and religious slurs at them; has
22 threatened violence to church staff. And never, in
23 the wildest stretch of an imagination, could he be
24 considered an objective expert.
25 Third reason is, he doesn't qualify as a bona

1 fide expert witness. He's never previously been
2 admitted as an expert. He's been paid a lot of
3 money by Mr. Minton, by the attorneys hired by
4 Mr. Minton, in several different actions. But his
5 first -- his former position of responsibility in
6 the church ended 14 years ago when he violated core
7 ethical principals of the religion; their
8 scriptures, and attempted to oust some other church
9 leaders.
10 So 14 years, he was removed from any position
11 of responsibility. Now he only offers really
12 speculative conclusions and the little bit of
13 opinion he does give as to what church staff were
14 really thinking or what they would have done or
15 might have done or should have done with respect to
16 Lisa McPherson. And these are not legitimate expert
17 issues, because he's just speculating as to, "I
18 think this is what they were thinking when this
19 happened; I think this is what David Miscavige was
20 thinking; and this is what I think other
21 ecclesiastical leaders of the church were thinking
22 when Lisa McPherson was dying."
23 There's no evidence they even knew about it.
24 They didn't. But nevertheless, that's what's been
25 offered by Mr. Dandar.

1 The fourth issue is he's executed binding
2 confidentiality agreements that he's been induced by
3 both Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton to breach, but he's
4 bound by contracts he signed some years ago that
5 would bar him from testifying and breaking this
6 contract.
7 The last reason is that he's now pled the Fifth
8 as to basic questions that could be asked of an
9 expert regarding his qualifications. Remember, he's
10 being proffered here as a religious expert, so -- a
11 religious expert. And obviously, a matter of
12 ethics, too, and his knowledge of religion and
13 ethics. And so his refusal to testify on Fifth
14 Amendment grounds as to a lifetime of crime and drug
15 abuse would disqualify himself. And certainly, his
16 assertion of the Fifth Amendment as to how much
17 money he's been paid by Mr. Minton during the time
18 that he's been working for Mr. Dandar. And he's
19 even -- now asserted the Fifth Amendment as to any
20 money given to him by Mr. Dandar, whether he's
21 deposited it into accounts.
22 I've never heard of an expert witness who's
23 pled the Fifth when you say, "How much money have
24 you been paid?" So he can't testify for that reason
25 either.

1 So the details on this, the first issue is,
2 he's a paid fact witness. As you know from other
3 papers, this case has been funded by Robert Minton.
4 The testimony and the documentation that we've
5 acquired thus far -- and we haven't gotten it all --
6 say Mr. Minton has given Mr. Dandar $1.3 million for
7 this case. Obviously, far more than any experts
8 could ever need, no matter how many experts he
9 hired. And some of these funds have been used to
10 pay Mr. Prince also.
11 But for several years, Mr. Minton's funds
12 represented Mr. Prince's sole source of income. And
13 that's important, because each one of the several
14 declarations that he's filed in other cases and in
15 this case have basically these assertions of fact.
16 And they're just not expert opinions; they're fact.
17 The first paragraph of the affidavit he filed
18 in this case, the first one, says, quote, This
19 declaration is of my own personal knowledge, and if
20 called upon to testify to the facts herein, I could
21 and would be competently able to testify thereto.
22 That was the affidavit he first filed in August of
23 1999.
24 And Mr. Prince also acknowledged his role in
25 working for Mr. Dandar as a fact witness, when he

1 was asked in the deposition what -- why he never
2 gave any bills to Mr. Dandar. He said, "I never
3 give him any bills. You know, he doesn't need bills
4 from me. He just trusts me." And he says, quote,
5 You know, we talked about this earlier, and we have
6 a relationship based on trust, because he
7 appreciates the work that I do. I work very
8 diligently to provide facts as opposed to opinion
9 and things like that, and I think he respects my
10 work.
11 As I stated, his affidavits are virtually all
12 facts. In fact, the first lengthy declaration filed
13 in this case, the first section of it was his
14 history on Scientology, where he lays out his
15 history in Scientology, which was two decades ago,
16 primarily. Remember, he left the church altogether
17 in 1992.
18 And then he goes into alleged practices; you
19 know, his version of what he allegedly learned in
20 the Church; you know, factual issues of what he says
21 the practices are and his alleged experience with
22 isolation.
23 Remember this isolation issue with respect to
24 Ms. McPherson? He's claiming that he has some
25 knowledge of other times when other people were in,

1 quote, isolation, and he wants to testify about
2 those other events. Again, that's as a fact
3 witness.
4 And he's admitted that he has no knowledge
5 concerning Lisa McPherson herself, but again wants
6 to testify how the church must have treated her and
7 what they must have thought, must have instructed
8 Flag staff what the ecclesiastical leaders must have
9 done.
10 So his MO is really the same in other cases,
11 where he has provided just factual testimony.
12 The first case where he was hired, he was
13 hired, again, for Robert Minton in the case of
14 Religious Technology Center versus FACTNet, which
15 was a copyright case in Colorado.
16 FACTNet was an organization that Mr. Minton
17 essentially bought. He put a lot of money into it.
18 It was an anti-Scientology database that, you know,
19 some attorneys used. And he filed a fact
20 declaration in July of 1998. Incidentally, 13
21 paragraphs of that was -- of that declaration were
22 repeated verbatim as factual statements in the
23 declaration he filed in this case. But in that,
24 there was no pretense he was an expert ever. It was
25 just factual.

1 So has a declaration filed in FACTNet, 1998,
2 that's facts. Said, "I'm a fact witness."
3 Then here, in the year 1999, he files the same
4 declaration that says, "Now I'm an expert." But he
5 says the same things.
6 Again, it was paid by Mr. Minton.
7 And he filed another declaration for
8 Mr. Minton's attorney, Daniel Leipold, in another
9 case, where again he says, "This declaration's of my
10 own personal knowledge." And I've attached all
11 these things with it. Every single thing I'm
12 telling is one of the exhibits appended to my motion
13 which is the appendix front of you.
14 Now, he's been compensated a great deal of
15 money for these fact declarations. A great deal.
16 Some of the evidence that we have is Mr. Minton
17 purchased for him a $23,000 SUV; he received $5,000
18 in cash from Mr. Minton for his expenses for a
19 vacation; he became a FACTNet employee; another
20 $2,000 for Mr. Minton -- that was given to him the
21 day before his deposition in the FACTNet case. Then
22 he was given a salary, which he couldn't remember,
23 but he said it was between 3- and $4,000 a month,
24 between September, '98 and February of '99, by
25 Mr. Minton and FACTNet. He was paid another $7,000

1 by Mr. Minton to go Europe during this time, and he
2 was paid another $12,000 by Minton to move from
3 Chicago to Colorado at this time. And then,
4 starting June, '99, according to his testimony and
5 Mr. Dandar, he began receiving $5,000 a month from
6 Mr. Dandar.
7 Now, this is obviously an unusual circumstance,
8 too, where you have someone who's an alleged expert
9 witness, put him on salary.
10 Now, Mr. Minton has asserted from time to time,
11 "Well, yeah. But he's really my consultant, so I'm
12 really paying him as a consultant. He's really an
13 expert." Flips back and forth. You don't have
14 someone who's a, quote, consultant expert, who's
15 also a testifying expert. It's either one or the
16 other.
17 But then, in the beginning of '92, when
18 Mr. Minton gives Prince $50,000, which he apparently
19 uses to buy a house -- I don't know what else he
20 does with it -- and at that time he flips over to
21 LMT. And now he's over at LMT, working at LMT, for
22 the identical salary, being paid $5,000 a month by
23 Dandar, and then immediately flips over; now being
24 paid $5,000 a month from LMT, funded from the same
25 sources.

1 Mr. Minton's the funding source for -- both for
2 Mr. Dandar and for LMT.
3 And so we know that he's received at least
4 $35,000 directly from Mr. Dandar, and actually in
5 excess of $100,000, now, from LMT, and he got a
6 house. Total, to be added up, is over $250,000.
7 By the way, we also know Mr. Minton paid for
8 the defense in his marijuana case. And they
9 admitted that it was $45,000 they paid to
10 Mr. DeVlaming to defend him in his marijuana case,
11 obviously, 'cause it was important for him to be a
12 witness in this case.
13 Now, the Florida law prohibits payments to fact
14 witnesses and requires disqualification. In --
15 Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.4 states,
16 "A lawyer shall not fabricate evidence, counsel or
17 assist a witness to testify falsely or offer an
18 inducement to a witness." This rule has been used
19 by courts to require the exclusion of paid
20 witnesses.
21 A case that we've cited in our papers, Golden
22 Door Jewelry Creations versus Lloyd's
23 Underwriters -- this is a Southern District of
24 Florida case. It's a federal case, which bases its
25 findings upon Florida law. Party and counsel were

1 sanctioned for payments made to witnesses and
2 required the exclusion of all evidence tainted by
3 those payments to the witness. And the decision was
4 based on this rule I just quoted, 4-3.4, and stated,
5 "Justice may not be bought or sold. It is clear
6 that providing compensation for testimony violates
7 the very essence of the integrity of the judicial
8 system."
9 I'm quoting the Florida Supreme Court case,
10 Florida Bar versus Jackson, 490 So2d 935.
11 And the Golden Door case held in part, "The
12 common law rule is that it is improper to pay a
13 witness any fee for testifying." I'm quoting the
14 commentary to rule 4-3.4.
15 This is actually an identical scenario to
16 another case, another federal case here in Tampa,
17 the case of RentClub versus TransAmerica Rental
18 Finance, 811 FdSp 651, Judge Kovakevich, where the
19 court found the acts of counsel in paying a witness
20 who's allegedly, you know, a consultant, fact
21 witness, consultant, et cetera, warranted
22 disqualification, both the witness and the counsel.
23 And I'll address that further.
24 But as a compensated fact witness, his
25 testimony simply has to be excluded.

1 The second reason is -- goes to this bias
2 issue. Mr. Prince had a -- did have a position of
3 responsibility in the church prior to 1987. It
4 wasn't, as Mr. Dandar claims, number two. That's
5 just -- that's just not true. Absolutely not true.
6 He was -- he was one of the -- of a level -- the
7 second level in one part of the church out in
8 California.
9 But he was removed in 1987 for his ethical
10 shortcomings. And as I -- as I mentioned to you
11 earlier, he left the church, he was -- between '87
12 and '92, he was a janitor and a gardener, and he
13 made copies of tapes, copies of video and audio
14 tapes of religious lectures that were sent out to
15 other churches from California. But that's all he
16 did the last five years he was --
17 MR. DANDAR: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection.
18 Is there evidence to this or is it just Mr. Moxon
19 talking? I mean, I don't -- where's the evidence to
20 all the things that he's been saying?
21 MR. MOXON: It's all in my motion.
22 THE COURT: I guess he's saying it's all in
23 these attachments.
24 MR. MOXON: I can give you each exhibit as I go
25 along.

1 MR. DANDAR: Well, I'd certainly like to see
2 the evidence, because --
3 MR. MOXON: This is what I filed last week. It
4 was filed in June. We had a lengthy argument on
5 this in June. And if you'll look at Exhibits 14
6 through 19 of our motion -- not in this one, but in
7 the motion we filed earlier -- gives affidavits of
8 what he was doing; that he was a janitor at that
9 time.
10 MR. DANDAR: See, I'm here on the current
11 motion, and there's two transcripts of hearings
12 attached. And he just keeps talking and talking of
13 all these things. And there's no evidence.
14 THE COURT: Well, I think what he's saying is
15 that in his current motion, he has said that he had
16 previously moved to exclude him as an expert, to
17 strike him as an expert, and Judge Quesada said it
18 was bad timing; we'd wait and have it heard later.
19 So what he's done is he's attached that motion and
20 said that all the attachments to that motion are
21 still valid. He just didn't want to redo the whole
22 thing.
23 MR. DANDAR: I think Judge Quesada said it was
24 a jury question; let the jury decide, when the trial
25 court -- during a trial, based upon the cross

1 examination of the witness.
2 MR. MOXON: That's not what Judge Quesada said.
3 In any event, the affidavits I'm referring to
4 start in the response to Mr. Dandar's sanction
5 motion, with 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, as to what
6 his -- his position was, his last five years. He
7 was a janitor and he was engaged in this violent
8 activity. That's what those refer to.
9 In any event, he left the church in '92, and he
10 got this job selling -- and we discussed somewhat
11 the problems he had in the company. He went into a
12 company where he was assisted by the church to get a
13 job with another Scientologist, but he got into all
14 kinds of ethical dilemmas there, with a harassment
15 of female staff, taking drugs, smoking, smoking
16 marijuana, giving drugs to other staff, encouraging
17 other staff to -- to use drugs. And it's a pretty
18 horrific write-up. His write-up is actually
19 attached to our papers we filed earlier.
20 And he's asserted the Fifth Amendment as to all
21 those matters.
22 And this write-up is Exhibit 20 of our
23 opposition to the sanctions motion, which talks
24 about all of his -- his shortcomings with respect to
25 drugs and other matters; drugs and theft.

1 But that just leads us up to the present, your
2 Honor; the present being -- I mean the time when he
3 started becoming an expert witness.
4 And as I had mentioned earlier, the first time
5 he testified, the very first deposition he gave,
6 before he started getting educated on what he was
7 supposed to say, he said, you know, "What I'm doing
8 here is I'm being paid by FACTNet. I'm being paid
9 to help them out on this case, and whatever I can
10 do. All my living expenses."
11 And then -- I'll repeat this for this record.
12 "So --" he's asked this question by counsel: "So
13 let's see if I've got this straight, now. You
14 reached an agreement." This agreement was with
15 Stacy Brooks, by the way, Mr. Dandar's other, you
16 know, consultant and expert, and who also worked for
17 Mr. Minton at the time.
18 "You reached an agreement with Ms. Brooks, as
19 long as you continue to cooperate and assist in this
20 case, you will be paid all your expenses, including
21 walking-around money. Have I got that right?"
22 Answer by Mr. Prince: "Not quite, sir, but you
23 nearly did. And I can clarify it if you like. You
24 went wrong in limiting it to this case. Because
25 there's other cases that are going on against

1 Scientology that I might be able to help in as well.
2 There's other activities that are projected to do
3 beyond working on this case." And then he said the
4 purpose of his testimony was to get rid of
5 Scientology.
6 "Question: If I wanted to offer you money to
7 testify, no matter how much money it was -- if I
8 offered you a million dollars, I couldn't buy your
9 testimony, right?"
10 He said, "Well, you know, there's a possibility
11 you could, if you're doing something to get rid of
12 Scientology and other cults. Maybe you could entice
13 me that way."
14 That's at Exhibit 7 of the motion attached.
15 Now, there's a great deal of evidence of
16 Mr. Prince's bias in our motion, some of which I
17 played for you earlier this morning. But all of it
18 goes to this court's exercise of its gatekeeper
19 function to keep out an improper witness, an
20 unqualified witness.
21 And now, objections to -- I know Mr. Dandar
22 objected before and said, "Well, this all goes to
23 the weight. Just let the jury decide this." But
24 that's not the test.
25 On an issue like this regarding bias and

1 qualifications, do not go to the weight of the
2 testimony but go to its admissibility. My citation
3 for that statement is the case of Krohne versus
4 Orlando Farming. And that's 102 So2d 399. That's a
5 Second DCA case.
6 And another one, it cites -- and that case
7 cites a U.S. Supreme Court case, Turner versus
8 American Security. Cite for that is 29 Supreme
9 Court 420.
10 And cited there, the Krohne case, quote, The
11 trial court has, in the first instance, a
12 responsibility of allowing or disallowing the
13 testimony of an expert, and he also has the
14 responsibility present to determine not only the
15 qualifications but also as to the range of subjects
16 regarding which he can testify.
17 Another case I'd like to cite to you for this
18 general issue is In Re: Air Crash Disaster; it's
19 737 FdSp 427, affirmed by the Sixth Circuit -- which
20 is -- which is very interesting; the facts are
21 interesting, are very similar to this case -- where
22 it was stated that a proposed expert manifested such
23 bias that his opinion was insufficiently reliable to
24 permit him to go before the jury as a dispassionate
25 expert. Because the plaintiff attempted to use the

1 president of the National Right to Life Committee as
2 an expert on whether an unborn fetus is viable.
3 You see the analogy here. We've got the
4 vice-president of the Lisa McPherson Trust, whose
5 purpose is to, quote, expose Scientology and do away
6 with the ecclesiastical management of the church;
7 that person who's made all the statements you've
8 heard. He is the one being promoted as the expert.
9 And obviously, he's got -- he's got another dog in
10 this fight. It's not as a neutral expert.
11 And the court held -- a very significant phrase
12 here in respect to Mr. Prince -- that court held,
13 "Where an expert becomes an advocate for a cause, he
14 therefore departs from the acts of an objective
15 expert, and any relating testimony would be unfairly
16 prejudicial and misleading. It appears to this
17 court that this witness is an ardent supporter and
18 leader of the Right to Life movement, and as such,
19 his opinion regarding the viability of a fetus
20 cannot be accepted as objective." That's at 737
21 FdSp at 430. And of course, he was stricken.
22 THE COURT: Let me see those cases, please.
23 MR. MOXON: I don't have the cases here with
24 me, your Honor.
25 MR. HERTZBERG: I have it in connection with

1 the Whitfield motion.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. DANDAR: The plaintiff would like to see
4 these cases too, because they are not relied upon in
5 the motion.
6 THE COURT: Yeah, they are.
7 MR. MOXON: Yes, they are. They're quoted in
8 my motion.
9 THE COURT: Look at page 6.
10 MR. DANDAR: Sorry, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Or at least I see In Re: Air Crash
12 Disaster.
13 MR. DANDAR: Right. I don't see Krohne or
14 Turner.
15 MR. MOXON: Yeah. They're in my motion,
16 attached.
17 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, the Air Crash
18 Disaster case is attached as Exhibit L to the filing
19 we made, notice of filing with exhibits in the case
20 in opposition to the motion to reinstate Hana
21 Whitfield. And we can get a loose copy for you as
22 well.
23 MR. MOXON: These cases were also cited and
24 served on Mr. Dandar twice, once back in June and
25 once last week. They're at page 13 of the motion to

1 disqualify Mr. Prince in the appendix. He's had
2 them for six months.
3 MR. DANDAR: That motion was withdrawn. I'm
4 relying on the current motion, which doesn't cite
5 these cases. So this is an unfair advantage.
6 THE COURT: Okay. I still --
7 Where is the Krohne case cited in your motion?
8 MR. MOXON: Krohne case is -- if you'll look at
9 the appendix, which is our main motion, page 13,
10 that whole citation there is from Krohne.
11 THE COURT: Oh, I see.
12 MR. MOXON: Now, obviously, I didn't refile
13 this whole thing as my motion. I gave you a
14 summary.
15 My motion to disqualify Mr. Prince initially
16 was because Mr. Dandar has had this habit of saying
17 he's withdrawing witnesses. A number of times, when
18 we've tried to get the deposition of a witness for
19 which he said is an expert or a fact witness -- it
20 happened to Hana Whitfield; it happened to Stacy
21 Brooks; it happened with two other people. "I'm not
22 going to use them anymore. You can't take their
23 deposition."
24 So I asked Mr. Dandar just last week, "Well,
25 look, you claim now you've withdrawn Jesse Prince.

1 I don't -- you know, I don't buy your reasons. I'm
2 not going to argue with you about that now, but
3 stipulate that he's out of here and I won't have to
4 file a motion to strike him. Because I don't
5 believe you. You know, I've been fooled enough by
6 your reneging on these assertions. Sign a
7 stipulation saying he's out of here." And
8 Mr. Dandar refused. That's why I filed this motion.
9 At any rate, that's why I attached the entirety
10 of my prior motion to disqualify, because it
11 demonstrates why Mr. Prince really isn't -- the real
12 reason why he's not here is because he just doesn't
13 qualify under any stretch of the imagination.
14 I don't know if there's any dispute that
15 Mr. Prince is an advocate for a cause, based on what
16 you've already seen, but I'll cite to you just a
17 couple of things that I made some brief reference to
18 this morning.
19 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question.
20 Something just entered my mind when I realized that
21 counsel was going to object to the testimony of
22 Ms. Whitfield. Is that her name? Hana Whitfield?
23 MR. MOXON: Right.
24 THE COURT: Who would be able to testify
25 regarding ecclesiastical matters, church matters, or

1 PC matters, that had not been either now currently
2 in Scientology or left Scientology and no longer a
3 Scientologist?
4 MR. MOXON: Well, there's -- if that became an
5 issue --
6 THE COURT: Well, obviously it is. They
7 want -- they're going to want to use an expert --
8 MR. MOXON: Okay.
9 THE COURT: -- to explain certain things,
10 perhaps. Maybe they won't. But if they do want to
11 use an expert, where would you find one that either
12 wasn't now a Scientologist or wasn't -- had not been
13 a Scientologist and now was no longer one?
14 MR. MOXON: Well, we, for example, had filed
15 a -- affidavits of actual religious experts, actual
16 religious scholars; a fellow named Frank Flynn, who
17 is a PhD, you know, from Harvard University. And
18 he's -- he was actually somebody who's neutral --
19 who was hired and who's neutral, that said these are
20 the basics, precepts, from a scholarly view, of the
21 Scientology religion.
22 But you've raised a very interesting point,
23 which is not so simple to answer. Because there's
24 some very serious constitutional issues which we
25 will raise, and which I haven't really done here.

1 But it's our position -- and we will -- we'll
2 brief this if this comes up and they really try to
3 inject religious belief and doctrine -- is that they
4 can't. They have to, as a matter of Supreme Court
5 authority, rely on the actual ecclesiastical leaders
6 of the present religion to assert what the religious
7 beliefs are. They can't take an apostate who's left
8 the church long ago in disgrace, was thrown out, and
9 say, "I know better than the ecclesiastical leaders
10 of the church what your religion is."
11 There have been a number of Supreme Court
12 decisions which have found that you can't do that.
13 No court may sit in that kind of a judgment and have
14 an apostate and a present member and them arguing
15 about what the real beliefs of the religion are.
16 THE COURT: Let me ask you another question,
17 then.
18 Let's assume, during the course of the trial,
19 that because the allegation or the -- I guess the
20 proposition of the church is that this all occurred
21 during an introspection rundown, and you don't
22 figure the jury's going to understand that, and so
23 you want to put a witness up to explain what that is
24 and how it works or something like that.
25 Is what you're suggesting, is that is not an

1 expert witness; that's a fact witness?
2 MR. MOXON: That's right.
3 THE COURT: So if that's the case, then you're
4 suggesting that any witness Mr. Dandar would call to
5 say, "Well, that's not accurate; this is what it
6 is," would also be a fact witness.
7 MR. MOXON: Well, there's two different issues.
8 The way you first framed the question is, that
9 she was having an introspection rundown. Now, if
10 Mr. Dandar wants to put on some evidence of saying,
11 "We don't think she was doing introspection rundown;
12 we think she was doing something else," he can't put
13 on evidence of saying, "Well, this is our
14 interpretation of what an introspection rundown
15 really is." That's only up to the church and solely
16 up to the church of what an introspection rundown
17 is.
18 THE COURT: Well -- that can't be true.
19 Because if that were true, you could just claim
20 anything you want, and be full of lies, and nobody
21 could ever contest it. So that is not true.
22 If you put up somebody to say something that is
23 obviously a lie and he has somebody that's going to
24 come up and say that is a lie, I'm not going to
25 entertain argument from you saying, "Well, they

1 can't do that." Because they can. We're going to
2 test -- we may or may not test some of this in
3 court. So we'll address those constitutional issues
4 if we have to, and when we have to.
5 But what I'm suggesting is -- is that you may
6 find yourself wanting to call someone that you might
7 think was a fact witness, that they might claim is a
8 expert witness, and they're going to say they're
9 biased also. So I mean, just --
10 MR. MOXON: They may do that, yeah. That
11 may -- they may do that.
12 THE COURT: Just because someone may have a
13 bias -- in other words -- I don't want you to
14 misunderstand where I'm coming from here.
15 They're -- all expert witnesses are, to some extent,
16 biased. They're biased because they have done what
17 experts do. Maybe they've conducted tests; they
18 have a belief that A plus B equals C based on their
19 expertise. And they're biased. They're biased.
20 That's their belief, you know, and they're going to
21 testify to that, and they believe that. So to some
22 extent, they're always going to be biased witnesses
23 when you're expert witnesses.
24 I think the distinction is, is in somebody
25 who's so extraordinarily biased -- for example, the

1 definition or the suggestion that you made is that
2 to call an expert to assist a jury, which is what an
3 expert's supposed to do, that -- that has made the
4 kinds of statements, say, Mr. Prince has, and who
5 has basically said under oath that he's out to
6 destroy Scientology, it would seem to me, is beyond
7 just a natural bias that an expert has.
8 So I'm not sure we're just talking about just a
9 little bias here. Because both sides are going to
10 have a problem with that, because I said the only
11 person who could ever know about Scientology --
12 well, maybe not. There may be experts that would
13 have read enough or know enough, without ever having
14 been a member -- to be able to testify as an expert.
15 But there's going to be a lot of folks that could
16 qualify, perhaps, who are either in the church or
17 were in the church.
18 MR. MOXON: Well, I see what you're saying.
19 And maybe we're --
20 THE COURT: And I'm saying -- well, are they
21 going to be called as expert witnesses or are they
22 going to be called as fact witnesses? And I'm not
23 real sure. But you know, I always think of an
24 expert witness as somebody that's going to assist
25 the jury in understanding something the jury doesn't

1 really know much about.
2 MR. MOXON: Yeah.
3 THE COURT: They can lend some assistance to
4 the jury. A fact witness is usually somebody that
5 knows something about the case.
6 So I can see where they -- it might be argued
7 in a case such as this; but this is not very common
8 knowledge to anyone, that perhaps both arguments
9 could be made.
10 So --
11 MR. MOXON: That's an interesting issue. I
12 don't know that we need to get to it today. And
13 I --
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. MOXON: It's like saying how high is high.
16 You know, it's -- something is high; it could be two
17 feet high or it could be a mile high. And the kind
18 of bias we're talking about here is a mile high.
19 THE COURT: Extraordinary bias, you're saying.
20 MR. MOXON: Extraordinary bias.
21 And as the cases say, if he's an advocate for a
22 cause, that's different, and it requires his
23 disqualification.
24 For example, his posting on the Internet,
25 saying, at the time that he got hired by Mr. Dandar,

1 he's " -- been executing several confidential
2 projects to quicken the final solution for the
3 Scientology cult problem. At this point, there's
4 nothing that can be done to stop the wheels from
5 turning. Soon all will appreciate what is being
6 done."
7 THE COURT: I never -- I saw that. What I
8 don't know what that means, "quicken the final
9 solution."
10 MR. MOXON: There's an obvious --
11 THE COURT: It's not so obvious or I would have
12 seen it.
13 MR. MOXON: I mean, the final solution to --
14 the final solution, unfortunately, is a phraseology
15 that was used back in the days of World War II and
16 what the Nazis were planning. And that's the,
17 quote, final solution, as applied to a religion.
18 Final solution to get rid of Scientology is to get
19 rid of it.
20 THE COURT: Get rid of the people or get rid of
21 the --
22 MR. MOXON: Well --
23 THE COURT: I just never heard -- final
24 solution is a term --
25 MR. MOXON: Oh, you never heard that. There's

1 this, quote, final solution conference, of the head
2 Nazis. The final solution conference is what then
3 resulted in the concentration camps.
4 THE COURT: The final solution was to execute
5 the Jews, I suppose.
6 MR. MOXON: That's right. Get rid of them.
7 But that's the historical perspective.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. MOXON: And as I indicated earlier today,
10 too, you know, Prince testified that in 1997 he
11 threatened the ecclesiastical leader with guns.
12 He's in the habit of picketing --
13 Oh, there's another issue here, too, with
14 respect to this bias, is that there's this
15 organization in rural Ohio called Wellspring
16 Retreat. And it's a -- it promotes itself as an
17 anticult resource, anticult counseling center. And
18 now a lot of the witnesses in this case have been
19 sent there. Mr. Minton paid for Mr. Prince to be
20 sent to Wellspring before he gave his declaration on
21 this case for counseling about, you know,
22 Scientology. Quote, remove him and change his
23 thinking with respect to the matters that he was
24 supposed to be testifying about. I -- I compare it
25 to a witness preparation center, a witness

1 preparation camp, where he gets this counseling at
2 this anticult center before he testifies, so that
3 he -- so he changes his view.
4 And in fact, Prince published on the Internet
5 some statements about his stay at Wellspring paid
6 for by Mr. Minton while he was an alleged expert.
7 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Do you see --
8 MR. MOXON: He said --
9 MR. DANDAR: Do you see what I'm talking about?
10 He's testifying he knows what goes on at Wellspring.
11 He's never been there. There's no testimony. This
12 is all his imagination.
13 MR. MOXON: -- Exhibit --
14 (Simultaneous speakers.)
15 MR. DANDAR: All of this, since we came back
16 from lunch an hour ago, is his imagination on what
17 goes on and where it goes. And he hasn't been able
18 to cite you record evidence that's admissible.
19 THE COURT: He has, Counselor. It's attached.
20 And I don't know if this is attached --
21 MR. MOXON: It is Exhibit 5.
22 MR. DANDAR: Exhibit 5 to what?
23 MR. MOXON: Exhibit 5 to the attachment to
24 the --
25 MR. DANDAR: To what?

1 MR. MOXON: -- the motion that's attached as an
2 appendix.
3 MR. DANDAR: We don't have it. We never got
4 it.
5 MR. MOXON: It's the motion that's referenced
6 that was filed in June.
7 Give Mr. Dandar an extra copy.
8 THE COURT: It's this motion, today's motion,
9 motion of defendant Church of Scientology to strike
10 Jesse Prince as a witness.
11 MS. WEST: We have it.
12 MR. MOXON: Now look under --
13 MR. DANDAR: No. We didn't get this. We
14 didn't get this at all. We got the motion and we
15 got two attachments, which are Robert Minton's
16 deposition and a hearing before Judge Quesada.
17 MR. MOXON: If you look at the proof, indicates
18 that you did receive that big attachment, because it
19 was already served upon you, Mr. Dandar.
20 MR. DANDAR: But anyway --
21 MR. MOXON: Anyway --
22 MR. DANDAR: Anyway, I just, as matter of
23 record, challenge Mr. Moxon to point in the record,
24 record evidence, that he knows what goes on inside
25 Wellspring --

1 MR. MOXON: Okay.
2 MR. DANDAR: -- how well Wellspring made Jesse
3 Prince's mind change so he will testify against
4 Scientology.
5 MR. MOXON: Okay. Look at page 914 of Exhibit
6 5, which is Jesse Prince's sworn testimony.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MR. MOXON: Starting at line 7, he says, "What
9 became clear to me as a result of my experience at
10 Wellspring is that there's a pattern of deception
11 that happens amongst different groups, such as
12 Scientology, Moonies, other Christian-based groups,
13 which is similar. There's a similar pattern to
14 where there is always one leader, always one holy,
15 sacred, exclusive lord, and different points like
16 this. So that it actually made my experience not
17 one as unique as happens among other things. And
18 there is -- it showed me clearly what the pattern is
19 to deceive someone and take over their lives. And
20 there is -- it showed me clearly what was the
21 pattern is to deceive someone and take over their
22 lives. And that was what was clear to me as a
23 result of that," that being his stay at Wellspring
24 before he testified in this case.
25 Now, he's not the only witness that was sent to

1 Wellspring, by the way. Mr. Dandar's witness, Ann
2 Carlson, was sent there by Mr. Minton; Ms. Stacy
3 Brooks --
4 THE COURT: I don't want to hear about
5 everything else. I want to hear about Jesse Prince.
6 MR. MOXON: Okay. Anyway, after that event,
7 after that event of his stay at Wellspring is when
8 he went out and did all the things on the videos
9 that you've seen, where he was in Boson, screaming
10 at church staff members; where he was doing his
11 pickets in Clearwater, threatening the church
12 ecclesiastical leader; where he was holding signs --
13 in fact, holding signs standing with Mr. Dandar,
14 signs staying "Lisa's blood on Scientology's hands."
15 This is another document, for example, that
16 Mr. Dandar has, which is a photograph of Mr. Dandar
17 and Mr. Prince and others outside the courthouse
18 with Mr. Prince's picket sign. And here's --
19 Mr. Dandar asked for another copy of this picket
20 sign, which I've got for you now. I got it over
21 lunch. That's the sign that he's holding, and
22 that's the sign that he was holding --
23 THE COURT: Who's holding this?
24 MR. MOXON: Here's a --
25 THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you mean?

1 MR. MOXON: Yeah.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. MOXON: Mr. Prince parading around in front
4 of the church with that sign -- now, these people
5 here, a lot of the people here are witnesses in this
6 case -- as Mr. Prince is parading in front of the
7 church, saying, "Here are the responsible parties in
8 this case."
9 If you go down the left side, the first is L.
10 Ron Hubbard. He's the founder of the Church of
11 Scientology. Then David Miscavige, you've heard of.
12 Mike Rinder is someone Mr. Dandar claims is a
13 witness. Elliott Abelson's an attorney. Laura
14 Vaughn's an attorney. Brian Anderson's a witness
15 Mr. Dandar's taken. Janis Johnson is a defendant.
16 David Minkoff is a witness. Alain Kartuzinski is a
17 defendant. Andrea Sprecher is a witness. The top
18 side, David Houghton is a defendant. And all of
19 these other people here that are listed, every
20 single one of them is a witness whose deposition
21 Mr. Dandar has taken, and apparently provided the
22 information to LMT to put on this sign.
23 MR. DANDAR: See, there's a statement -- he has
24 no record evidence that I provided LMT information
25 to put on the sign.

1 I'm sorry --
2 MR. MOXON: All I know.
3 MR. DANDAR: That's the kind of things that I'm
4 saying I would hope --
5 Can I object to this when he just interjects
6 nonrecord evidence?
7 THE COURT: You can. But you know, I don't
8 listen to half of what he says, because I'm only
9 listening to that part of the evidence that deals
10 with Jesse Prince. Every time he talks about
11 somebody else, it just goes in one ear and out the
12 other because I'm not here to address what you did.
13 And so I've told him that a couple times, but he
14 persists in it. So I just don't listen to it --
15 MR. MOXON: Okay.
16 THE COURT: -- anymore than I listen, by the
17 way, when you talk about them, because I'm not
18 interested in that today. When that motion's before
19 me, then I will.
20 MR. MOXON: Well, I'll stop saying that, then.
21 THE COURT: But this is what you're suggesting:
22 This poster is something that Mr. Prince was
23 picketing with. And you have a picture of it, that
24 you've shown me, with him in it, and another picture
25 of him that shows his extreme bias.

1 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: And this list on the poster itself
3 that he was carrying, at least -- at least Janis
4 Johnson, Alain Kartuzinski and David Houghton, those
5 are three of the defendants, aren't they, other than
6 the church itself?
7 MR. MOXON: That's right. And all the other
8 people on the right side are witnesses.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. MOXON: There's another posting to the
11 Internet, which is attached at Exhibit 25 to our
12 motion to disqualify for Mr. Prince, which I'm not
13 going to read into the record. It's -- it's more
14 disgusting than most. But it talks about what he's
15 doing with respect to "Ms. Cabbage." And again,
16 I --
17 THE COURT: Where is that?
18 MR. MOXON: It's Exhibit 25 to that appendix.
19 "Ms. Cabbage." Where he says "Ms. Cabbage," that's
20 a play on words for "Miscavige."
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 MR. MOXON: These are hardly the words of an
23 objective expert, and particularly when he's talking
24 about, he's having me spend money. The money he's
25 having to spend, obviously, is dealing with him in

1 this case.
2 Finally, as to this issue of bias, Mr. Prince
3 is an officer and director of LMT, which was
4 described by Mr. Minton in Exhibit 26 as "an
5 exciting and dynamic effort to expose Scientology
6 and all destructive mind control cults." And he
7 lists here in this document, November, 1999 --
8 identifies Jesse Prince, on the second page, as one
9 of the board members. He's the last -- the last
10 item -- the last person identified as a board
11 member.
12 And I want to show you one clip from his
13 deposition last week, a short excerpt, which --
14 which he describes in his own words that he's not
15 here -- he's not involved in this case as a, quote,
16 paid expert, but he's really here because he is an
17 advocate for a cause. He's here because, he says,
18 "This is my crusade." This is just a very short
19 clip of his deposition.
20 Number 10.
21 (A videotape was played.)
22 MR. MOXON: One of the cases I cited in our
23 papers is the case of Johnson versus United States,
24 597 FdSp 374. And they have excluded witnesses for
25 the kinds of bias that you've just seen here. And I

1 just want to read you this small part of this.
2 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. What page are you on?
3 MR. MOXON: I have it quoted at page 17 of my
4 brief.
5 MR. DANDAR: Thank you. The appendix?
6 MR. MOXON: That's right.
7 MR. DANDAR: There's --
8 THE COURT: Page 17?
9 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor, of the appendix.
10 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry, Judge. I don't
11 understand what he's saying.
12 THE COURT: Page 17 of the appendix to the
13 motion, that was the first motion.
14 MR. DANDAR: Okay. It's the first motion. I
15 get it. All right.
16 MR. MOXON: It's quoted at the bottom of the
17 page.
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. MOXON: Conclusion, of course, here in the
20 final sentence, that, "This witness had to be
21 disqualified because his obsession blinds his
22 objectivity."
23 That's the same situation we're faced with with
24 Mr. Prince. A proposed witness that manifests this
25 bias simply cannot be allowed to go before the jury

1 with a mantle of an expert.
2 There are other cases where, similarly,
3 witnesses were excluded.
4 I'll cite you to another, in addition to the
5 one here, is Viturbo versus Dow Chemical, 646 FdSp
6 1420, at 1425 to 26, affirmed by the Fifth Circuit,
7 where an expert was excluded because he couldn't
8 view the plaintiff's condition objectively and had
9 become an advocate for a cause rather than being an
10 objective witness.
11 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Would you cite that
12 again?
13 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor. Viturbo versus
14 Dow Chemical, 646 FdSp 1420, at 1425 to 26.
15 Because of -- his obsessive anger and
16 resentment to Scientology certainly obliterated any
17 hope of objectivity for this witness, no matter what
18 he was testifying to, no matter what his alleged
19 area of expert is. And we don't think he has any.
20 But no matter what it was, he can't be permitted to
21 go before the court.
22 And that's why the trial has to exercise -- the
23 trial court is required to exercise this gatekeeper
24 function initially to make that determination.
25 And I cite the Florida case, GIW Southern

1 Valve -- it's actually cited here, the next page, on
2 page 18 of my brief -- versus Smith, where an expert
3 witness is qualified to give an opinion as
4 determined in the discretion of the trial court.
5 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Where is that?
6 MR. MOXON: Top of page 18 in my brief, the
7 appendix.
8 Just in case there's any further question as to
9 the court's authority and the requirement that the
10 court make a determination --
11 THE COURT: I found it okay.
12 MR. MOXON: Now, the third reason is that
13 Mr. Prince doesn't qualify as an expert under
14 pertinent legal standards, in addition to this bias
15 issue.
16 Again, the issues about which he is proposed to
17 testify by Mr. Dandar are Scientology practices,
18 Scientology practices and policies, implemented in
19 taking Lisa McPherson to the Ft. Harrison Hotel and
20 in keeping her at the hotel until she died, and,
21 quote, his personal experience and positions in
22 Scientology showing that isolation is an established
23 practice, and that the SEA Organization, with David
24 Miscavige at its head, controls all Scientology, and
25 that, therefore, they would be involved in the

1 isolation of Lisa McPherson. That's what Mr. Dandar
2 told us, in his expert interrogatories, he was going
3 to testify to.
4 And so Mr. Prince purported to look at some
5 counseling folders and say that, "I know what Lisa
6 McPherson was really thinking, and I know that she
7 really wanted to leave the church." And he comes to
8 these conclusions by looking at these
9 priest-penitent documents, and we start getting into
10 that area. We're getting into these other areas --
11 THE COURT: Wouldn't we be outside the area he
12 would be permitted to testify anyway, since summary
13 judgment was granted on the false imprisonment
14 issue?
15 MR. MOXON: I would certainly hope so. I would
16 certainly hope so. But I -- I doubt if Mr. Dandar's
17 given up on some aspects of that, because he wants
18 to use it for emotional distress.
19 At any rate --
20 THE COURT: But as I recall, I told him he
21 couldn't because that had already been eliminated by
22 the false imprisonment summary judgment.
23 MR. MOXON: Oh, okay. Good.
24 THE COURT: Although I'm not happy with,
25 necessarily, the fact that the summary judgment was

1 granted on the false imprisonment case, because I
2 think that may have to be tried -- this may make us
3 try this case another time, no matter what happens
4 the first go-around.
5 MR. MOXON: Very good.
6 The statutory standards as to whether a witness
7 can testify is evidence code 90.72, providing that a
8 scientific or person -- technical person with
9 specialized knowledge who can assist the trier of
10 fact in understanding the evidence or determining a
11 fact in issue is the only one who can testify.
12 Pursuant to the Ramirez case, the Supreme Court
13 case in Florida, a person can only be qualified if
14 he meets three standards. The Ramirez case is 651
15 So2d 1164. And it identified tests for the
16 admissibility.
17 THE COURT: I'll read this stuff --
18 MR. MOXON: So he wanted us to try our facts,
19 and I think perhaps we've done enough on that.
20 Fourth reason is he's barred by contract. And
21 I've addressed this briefly in our papers. I won't
22 go on too much further except that --
23 THE COURT: Where is that? Because frankly, I
24 don't remember reading that.
25 MR. MOXON: Okay.

1 THE COURT: I realize it was in there; I just
2 don't remember reading it.
3 MR. MOXON: His paragraphs are attached at
4 Exhibit 29. And it starts at page 19 of my brief,
5 is the brief argument of that. And I won't address
6 it further except that he is barred by contract.
7 These three contracts --
8 THE COURT: Are you talking about in the
9 appendix brief?
10 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Page 19?
12 MR. MOXON: Yes.
13 This is where this RentClub issue comes back in
14 again, where a witness who's bound by contract not
15 to testify cannot do so.
16 And among his contracts that he signed, his
17 agreements he signed when he was a church member, he
18 agreed he would never disclose information regarding
19 internal structure, functions or activities learned
20 in the course of his being a staff member of the
21 church; he recognizes that any information or
22 knowledge is gathered in a relationship of trust and
23 confidence; and that he has a fiduciary duty to the
24 church not to reveal information of any nature which
25 might tend to harm malign, damage or adversely

1 affect the church.
2 He's been paid by plaintiff and plaintiff's
3 counsel to breach that contract. That's improper,
4 and he can't testify.
5 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you that. Could
6 he testify and be sued for breach of contract or
7 could he be barred from testifying as an expert if
8 he were an expert?
9 MR. MOXON: Well, he could be sued for breach
10 of contract, except he's judgment-proof. He doesn't
11 have any money except what he's paid by Mr. Minton
12 or Mr. Dandar, so it wouldn't do any good to sue
13 him. There's -- obviously -- just today, you can
14 imagine how much money the church has spent in just
15 defending this one motion here today, arising out of
16 Mr. Prince. It's far more than Prince could ever
17 pay. So a suit could be brought, sure, but he's
18 judgment-proof, and there's no --
19 THE COURT: I'm not asking you about that.
20 What I'm asking you is when somebody signs a
21 contract that says, in essence, what you say this
22 contract says, does the court have the obligation
23 not to allow that person to testify, if they
24 otherwise qualify to testify, and uphold the
25 contract, or does the court allow the witness, if he

1 otherwise qualifies, to testify; and then, if he's
2 breached his contract, he's sued? I don't know the
3 answer to that. It's a rhetorical question.
4 MR. MOXON: Well, in the RentClub case, where
5 there was a situation like that, the court says,
6 "I've got to disqualify the witness."
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MR. MOXON: Can't testify.
9 THE COURT: That was in which case?
10 MR. MOXON: RentClub. That's 811 FdSp. My
11 jump cite here is 654 -- yeah -- 651. 811 FdSp 651.
12 This also is -- this is a Florida case, Middle
13 District of Florida, applying Florida contract law.
14 I've cited to other decisions. That was
15 affirmed. And there's also other decisions I've
16 cited to this effect.
17 The final issue, then, is one that's not in our
18 papers and just arose because of his recent
19 testimony where he's asserting the Fifth Amendment.
20 It would obviously be a very unusual situation
21 to put a witness on and --
22 THE COURT: Can't do it.
23 MR. MOXON: -- plead the Fifth.
24 THE COURT: Well, I guess you can --
25 No, you can't. Because if you plead the Fifth,

1 then cross examination, you move to strike his
2 testimony. So knowing in advance if he were going
3 to tell me he was going to claim the Fifth and I
4 asked him, and he said he was, I wouldn't allow him
5 to testify.
6 MR. MOXON: That's what we have here. I took
7 his deposition. He pled the Fifth Amendment.
8 MR. WEINBERG: Clearly, you'd be allowed to ask
9 him, if he testified as an expert, how much he'd
10 been paid, and on and on.
11 MR. MOXON: Yeah.
12 Does the court have any questions?
14 Yes, I have one.
15 You gave me this. This is not part of your
16 motion. And as I indicated to you all, I'm going to
17 allow all of the exhibits that you attach to be
18 considered part of the record, because the record's
19 huge. And this is not part of your attachment, I
20 don't believe.
21 MR. MOXON: If we have -- maybe the court
22 reporter can give us an exhibit -- I'll mark as an
23 exhibit --
24 THE COURT: We'll just make it exhibit -- I
25 don't have --

1 (A discussion was held off the record.)
2 THE COURT: We'll make it Exhibit 1 to this
3 hearing. Do you want to make it part of the record?
4 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 MR. MOXON: The three photographs?
7 THE COURT: Very good. Mr. Prince holding the
8 sign --
9 MR. MOXON: All right.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 Mr. Dandar, you may proceed.
12 MR. DANDAR: I have a case, but it's on my
13 computer. And I think it'll resolve everything
14 unless -- and then I'd like to put Mr. Prince on.
15 He can tell you his qualifications to be an expert
16 on Scientology practices.
17 THE COURT: All right.
18 MR. DANDAR: First of all, I want to tell the
19 court, we have retained Mr. Prince to educate me on
20 Scientology practices, and then to testify as an
21 expert witness on the PC folders of Lisa McPherson.
22 She was kept six to eight weeks at the hotel,
23 Fort Harrison Hotel, in the summer before her death.
24 She has a lot of PC folders, which are her words
25 being recorded by an auditor. And it takes someone

1 with the expertise of Mr. Prince to interpret the
2 abbreviations that are made in the PC folders.
3 Judge Moody already said that at a hearing, when he
4 had the PC folders, when we were trying to get them
5 produced, and he looked at them and said, "I can't
6 make heads or tails. Mr. Prince, what does this
7 say?" And Mr. Prince and Ben Shaw were at that
8 hearing, told Judge Moody what these PC folders
9 said.
10 So also Mr. Prince is being called, very
11 importantly, to talk about what a PC folder is
12 supposed to contain. And in that -- in his expert
13 testimony -- which I, of course, would never know
14 what that -- what it's supposed to be. What do I
15 know, what a PC folder's supposed to have in it?
16 THE COURT: Same thing I know.
17 MR. DANDAR: Right.
18 The duty of the expert is -- the reason why you
19 need an expert is to assist the trier of fact. The
20 trier of fact would not be able to take these PC
21 folders and make any determination whatsoever. The
22 trier of fact could not even read the red or green
23 volumes of the Church of Scientology to decide what
24 is supposed to be in the PC folders.
25 And it becomes very important. Because through

1 the expert testimony of Mr. Prince, there are a huge
2 quantity of missing records. Scientology already
3 admits that the last two and a half days of the
4 attendant logs of those watching Lisa 24 hours a
5 day -- they admit those are missing. We also have
6 records missing from day one to the end.
7 Mr. Prince would also be able to testify as to,
8 if she is indeed participating in a religious
9 practice, as Scientology now claims, then that's
10 supposed to be in her PC folder. It's not there.
11 He would be able to testify as to the significance
12 of that.
13 He would also be able to testify as to what
14 else is missing in the summer of 1995.
15 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I object, because this
16 is none of the things that he listed Mr. Prince to
17 testify about. These are new things he's bringing
18 up now, as to what Prince would be testifying to in
19 the future. He says he's withdrawn him.
20 The question is, of course, back then, back in
21 the year 2000, what was it that he said he was going
22 to testify about? And did he qualify as an expert
23 witness under the issues that we've set forth; not
24 as to what he might want him to testify about now.
25 MR. DANDAR: So in the affidavit of Mr. Prince,

1 filed in 1999 in this case, he puts down in his
2 affidavit, which is under seal with the court, what
3 he found in the PC folders. He first puts out his
4 qualifications to make him an expert witness in
5 Scientology practices; then he puts down what he
6 found in the PC folders, and then he puts down what
7 is missing in the PC folders. Everything I just
8 told you today are in his prior affidavits filed
9 with this court under seal.
10 Now, does the court, at a hearing like this --
11 can the court exclude an expert witness because the
12 defendant says he's biased? He uses foul language
13 when he gets upset. He pickets against the Church
14 of Scientology. He works for the Lisa McPherson
15 Trust, which is organized to expose the abusive
16 practices of Scientology; and also, though, to help
17 those members who want to leave Scientology and get
18 into a life outside the Scientology.
19 They say Mr. Prince hates Scientologists. If
20 Mr. Prince hates Scientologists, why is he now
21 devoting all his time to helping Scientologists?
22 You see, there's a dichotomy there that's illogical
23 and makes no sense.
24 First --
25 THE COURT: You might want to say

1 ex-Scientologists. I dare say he's of no help to
2 Mr. Moxon, for example.
3 MR. DANDAR: Well, he offers help to anyone,
4 including Mr. Moxon, believe it or not.
5 But Mr. Moxon brought up the fact that there
6 are adult children that were talked to by
7 Mr. Prince, and they left Scientology. That's
8 right. These adult children came into the Lisa
9 McPherson Trust; Mr. Prince is here. If you want to
10 hear all this testimony on how he helped them
11 because they decided they wanted to leave and they
12 didn't know how, and Mr. Prince assisted in
13 counseling them on how to do it, and if the court
14 wants to hear, Mr. Prince is ready --
15 THE COURT: Tell me what that would be offered
16 for. To show that he was not biased?
17 MR. DANDAR: Right. He's -- he's there,
18 sitting there, and going on to places where he's
19 called to go to assist people who want to leave
20 Scientology. If he hated Scientologists, he would
21 just tell them, "Hey, go take a walk; you know,
22 leave me alone." He doesn't do that. He goes and
23 assists them. If they say, "I changed my -- I like
24 Scientology fine," they stay in Scientology.
25 So this thing about --

1 But what I'm trying to get to is, there is a
2 case that Mr. Moxon doesn't want to cite to you --
3 THE COURT: How about you cite it? And I'm
4 going to take a break and read those causes.
5 MR. DANDAR: May I sit down and read it off --
6 THE COURT: Sure you can.
7 MR. DANDAR: I'll give you the cite.
8 That case is called Elkins versus Syken. It is
9 from the Third DCA --
10 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What's the last --
11 Syken.
12 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
13 And I'm going to give you the spelling.
14 S-y-k-e-n versus Elkins. And when we got to the
15 Supreme Court, it was reversed Elkins versus Syken.
16 But -- it was 644 So2d 539. This is the Third DCA,
17 1994.
18 The court -- the court held that the trial
19 court does not have discretion to decide if a
20 witness is biased and therefore exclude the witness
21 based on bias.
22 MR. MOXON: What's the cite; the jump cite?
23 MR. DANDAR: I'll give it to you in a second.
24 And it cites the Florida Evidence Code.
25 And I just had this all highlighted and now --

1 I'm sorry I'm taking so long.
2 THE COURT: That's all right.
3 MR. DANDAR: I have the case. I had this all
4 highlighted and underlined on my computer, and now
5 it's not there. But the case is still in front of
6 me. I'm trying to find it to quote to the court.
7 Let's take a break, if that's all right.
8 THE COURT: Okay. It's 10 till. We'll be back
9 at 10 after.
10 I'll try to be better -- I was on the phone
11 both this morning and this afternoon. I'm sorry.
12 So we'll be in recess for 20 minutes.
13 (A recess was taken.)
14 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, you may continue.
15 MR. DANDAR: Thank you.
16 I told the court before the break that it was
17 Elkin versus Syken, but actually the case is Meyer
18 versus Caruso, 731 So2d 118. I've been able to give
19 opposing counsel a copy on one of their disks.
20 And in that case, the trial court was reversed
21 when the trial court struck the plaintiff's expert,
22 a medical doctor, calling the doctor a professional
23 witness, bought and paid for, citing that the doctor
24 formed an opinion based upon conversations with the
25 plaintiff's counsel before he ever looked at any

1 medical records, showing that he was biased; and
2 also due to the fact that 95 percent of the clients
3 of the doctor, expert witness, was for the
4 plaintiff.
5 And the appellate court said that's not
6 appropriate; that's legal error to do that, and
7 cited two rules of evidence under Florida, 702 and
8 704.
9 Rule 90.702 is the only statute we have which
10 concerns qualifications of an expert witness, no
11 matter if it's medical, business -- you know,
12 anything where someone is going to be qualified as
13 an expert. And 702, according to the Fourth DCA,
14 and citing some other Florida cases as well, said,
15 "702 does not enlarge judicial discretion to exclude
16 evidence so much as it affords a party in litigation
17 the right to present expert opinions if they meet
18 the statutory standard of, quote, assisting the
19 trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in
20 determining a fact in issue by testimony from a
21 person qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
22 experience, training or education."
23 And section 90.704 also is not an exclusionary
24 rule at all, but instead merely provides that, "The
25 facts or data upon which that expert bases an

1 opinion may be made known to the expert at or before
2 the trial."
3 The latter statute which they're talking about
4 is 704; does not purport to require that the facts
5 be made known to the expert before he forms an
6 opinion, however desirable that may be.
7 And the court, in determining the
8 qualifications of an expert, only can look to 702,
9 which contains only three requirements:
10 Number one, that the opinion evidence be
11 helpful to the trier of fact; number two, that the
12 witness be qualified as an expert; and number three,
13 that the opinion evidence can be applied to evidence
14 offered at trial.
15 These provisions are a liberal policy on the
16 admission of expert evidence generally rendering
17 such evidence admissible to the extent that it is
18 helpful to the trier of fact.
19 Now, whether or not the witness is biased, a
20 paid professional, only testifies for the
21 plaintiffs, renders opinions before looking at the
22 evidence -- that goes to the weight to be considered
23 only by the jury, not by the court. The court has
24 the discretion only in determining whether or not
25 the qualifications of the person is an expert;

1 qualifies that person as an expert. And that's
2 number one.
3 Number two, Mr. Moxon has been making these
4 motions against me personally for -- since he got in
5 the case back in 2000, about paying fact witnesses;
6 paying a fact witness is unethical. He cites the
7 RentClub case, which I have also here.
8 And what he fails to do is to let the court
9 know that the Florida Supreme Court disagrees with
10 the RentClub case. In the RentClub case, the
11 federal court in Florida held that it was not proper
12 for the attorney to have ex parte communication with
13 a former employee of the defendant. And that's the
14 holding in that case. However the Florida
15 Supreme -- and they cited as authority, in the
16 RentClub case, a case called Barfuss -- and I'll
17 give you the cite, but -- if you need it; Barfuss
18 versus Diversicare Corporation of America.
19 THE COURT: Why are we going to this argument
20 now?
21 MR. DANDAR: Well, he brought it up. I just
22 want you know that that's all -- that is not the law
23 of Florida.
24 The Supreme Court of Florida, in HBA
25 Management, Inc. versus the Estate of May Schwartz,

1 693 So2d 541, overruled Barfuss, which was a Second
2 DCA decision, and said, "Yes, you are allowed to
3 have ex parte communication with former employees."
4 And then he cites the Golden Door case, about
5 paying fact witnesses. And I want to bring the
6 Golden Door case to your attention. That was a case
7 that arose in Miami federal court, where the
8 insurance company paid $700,000 to informants,
9 provided they testified and squealed on the master
10 ringleader of a theft for insurance fraud. And the
11 court said, "You can't condition payment on a fact
12 witness about how good they testify in court."
13 There is no evidence to suggest that I engaged
14 in that activity. There never will be, because it's
15 totally false.
16 But I bring that to your attention, because
17 Golden Door is just way out there on a limb; has
18 nothing to do with this case whatsoever.
19 Now, let me stand up and address you. I'm
20 sorry.
21 Jesse Prince is here ready to testify, and
22 testify as to his qualifications on being an expert
23 on Scientology practices. This testimony is not to
24 talk about whether or not Scientology's a religion.
25 That should not be an issue in this case and we

1 don't want to make it an issue in this case. We do
2 have an expert from Canada if that becomes an issue
3 in the case, but it shouldn't be an issue in the
4 case.
5 THE COURT: Tell me what you were going to call
6 Jesse Prince for.
7 MR. DANDAR: To tell you about his
8 experience --
9 THE COURT: No, no. To tell the jury in the
10 trial.
11 MR. DANDAR: Okay. Jesse Prince will be called
12 in to testify as to explanation of what Lisa
13 McPherson said in her preclear folders in 1995 and
14 prior to 1995; primarily, though, in 1995.
15 In the preclear folders, his affidavits show
16 that he reviewed those preclear folders, and she was
17 very dissatisfied with Scientology. It wasn't
18 working for her.
19 And he will testify that there's many things
20 missing from those preclear folders which are
21 required to be in the preclear folders, according to
22 the policies of the Church of Scientology. That's
23 not attacking Scientology, that's not disparaging
24 Scientology, and it's not saying Scientology is not
25 a religion. It's merely saying, based on his

1 expertise and his knowledge, because of his
2 experience, he knows that these are supposed to be
3 in her PC folders, and that it's a high crime in
4 Scientology for those papers to be missing. And
5 they are missing.
6 Then he'll testify about they have relied upon
7 letters allegedly written by Lisa McPherson, saying
8 how wonderful Scientology is and how wonderful her
9 experience was in the summer of 1995. He will
10 testify as an expert, saying that those are called
11 success stories, and they are required for a member
12 to write in order to continue on. Otherwise, you
13 get put into what's called lower conditions, ethics,
14 which is punishment in Scientology.
15 He will then talk about the 18 -- November 18
16 to December 5th, her stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel,
17 and reading the policies and his experience and
18 expertise on the policy of the Church of
19 Scientology. Number one, he has personal experience
20 on isolation and he can describe what isolation is,
21 why isolation is implemented. And then, looking at
22 the PC folders of Lisa McPherson from August of 1995
23 to the date of her death, December 5th, 1995, what
24 records should be in her file -- that's a different
25 segment -- and what records are missing.

1 And in her stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, if
2 indeed she was participating in a religious service,
3 which they now claim, which they didn't claim prior
4 in statements to the police, for instance, that
5 there are records missing there, and questionable
6 whether she was engaged in any religious activity
7 whatsoever.
8 So you and I and the jury can't make that
9 determination whatsoever. It's taken me years to
10 learn Scientology practices, and I'm certainly not
11 an expert on it.
12 I can hear Mr. Shaw in the background telling
13 me I'm misstating something. I'm sure I'm
14 misstating something. But I'm telling you as best I
15 can what Scientology practices are in reference to
16 Lisa McPherson.
17 But only -- Mr. Prince and someone of his
18 expertise is needed to help the trier of fact
19 determine what went on with Lisa McPherson; why
20 things were going on the way they were. Because no
21 one else can explain it, and we can't certainly rely
22 only upon the defendant to come in here and tell us
23 what was happening to Lisa McPherson.
24 THE COURT: Okay. So you would have used him
25 to testify as an expert about the preclear folders;

1 two things: She wanted to leave and there were
2 things that should have been in there that are
3 missing.
4 MR. DANDAR: Right.
5 THE COURT: That he would have talked about --
6 and somehow I've got a big blank here -- he would
7 have talked about -- the second thing you mentioned.
8 The third thing he was going to talk about the
9 18th through the 25th (sic); he could describe
10 isolation. Also, what records should be in the file
11 that are missing.
12 MR. DANDAR: Right.
13 THE COURT: What was the second thing?
14 MR. DANDAR: Well, from August of '95, when she
15 left, the six to eight weeks at the hotel in the
16 summer till the time she died or the time she went
17 into the hotel the last time --
18 THE COURT: I know what it was.
19 MR. DANDAR: -- there's records missing there,
20 and there's letters purportedly written by her. And
21 he's going to talk about why those letters are
22 written.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, may I very briefly
25 address this --

1 THE COURT: Sure.
2 MR. MOXON: -- issue?
3 As you mentioned earlier, these are the very
4 things that -- the first ones, at least, are the
5 ones that Judge Quesada already ruled on and already
6 struck Mr. Prince's declaration as to these issues
7 concerning her alleged personal experience in
8 isolation, and that she wanted to leave the church.
9 Indeed, it's controverted by the testimony of all of
10 Lisa's family, saying that she wanted to be there.
11 They all said that.
12 In any event, Judge Quesada already ruled on
13 these others.
14 And the other issue, whether or not there's
15 been some documents that are missing, that's been
16 known for years. Everyone knows there's some
17 reports that are missing. There's never been any
18 question about that. That's not a need for expert
19 testimony. That's a factual issue. These documents
20 existed -- Mr. Dandar's taken the deposition of
21 people that have said, "Well, I wrote a report the
22 next day and it can't be found now."
23 So again, that's not -- certainly not an expert
24 issue.
25 MR. DANDAR: But Mr. Prince's expertise comes

1 in because that does not happen in Scientology.
2 There are so many procedures in place that only his
3 expertise can tell us about. Missing records do
4 not -- does not happen in Scientology.
5 THE COURT: Okay. How about the -- so that
6 would have to do with all of the missing things. I
7 know that there's missing notes, because that's been
8 conceded, too, during the -- during the period in
9 question for this lawsuit.
10 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
11 THE COURT: And --
12 MR. DANDAR: And the fact that Lisa McPherson's
13 family said she didn't want to leave, that's from,
14 like, six to eight years before she died.
15 And we --
16 MR. MOXON: No.
17 MR. DANDAR: -- forget to mention the
18 deposition testimony of her girlfriend from high
19 school, who she called the week before she went into
20 the hotel, whose conversation left her with the
21 impression that Lisa McPherson was quitting her job,
22 leaving Clearwater, going back to Texas and getting
23 out of Scientology.
24 I mean, those are all things that a jury can
25 consider. And then consider the fact that there's

1 missing records, and why are there missing records?
2 Only Mr. Prince -- it's not something that -- I
3 miss, records, all the time, as everyone knows in
4 this courtroom -- it's not something that just
5 happens by accident. Missing records is a practice
6 that is a high crime in Scientology, and it only
7 happens unintentionally -- excuse me --
8 intentionally.
9 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, again, those are issues
10 that Judge Quesada's already ruled upon.
11 THE COURT: Well, I think you're right, as far
12 as she wanted to leave. As I understand, in a
13 motion for summary judgment, he's ruled there's no
14 false imprisonment. So that's neither here nor
15 there.
16 But as far as missing records, in particular
17 the missing records from the time of the alleged
18 incident, I suppose you're going to be requesting
19 that the jury can draw an adverse inference from
20 that.
21 MR. DANDAR: Yes, I am, but --
22 THE COURT: So I don't know why you need
23 Mr. Prince for that. I mean, that's -- that's a
24 fact. And a jury is permitted to draw a negative
25 inference from missing records that ought to be

1 there.
2 MR. DANDAR: Judge, this week I am filing a
3 motion to set aside the prior final judgment. It is
4 so full with errors; the judge weighing Mr. Prince's
5 testimony, of weighing conflicting testimony between
6 the staff, of weighing conflicting testimony with
7 the emergency room doctor, and the order was
8 prepared by Mr. Moxon, 99 percent. And it is just
9 so loaded with errors that the Second DCA said it's
10 not appealable at this time. I tried to appeal it.
11 They said, "Wait till the case is over."
12 So this week, I'm filing a motion to rescind,
13 which you, of course, have the inherent authority to
14 do that, based upon if you -- and I have cases that
15 I'll be citing in there -- based upon the fact that
16 it is inherently in error and should be tried before
17 a jury because of the issues.
18 THE COURT: Well, let's deal with that another
19 day.
20 MR. DANDAR: Well, I just want you to know.
21 THE COURT: For now, that is an irrelevant
22 matter, because for now, the motion for summary
23 judgment says false imprisonment is not an issue,
24 okay?
25 But I suppose that there is some -- some expert

1 value to the fact -- unless -- I don't know if it's
2 expert testimony or not, but some value to having a
3 witness state that they introduced these letters and
4 say, "Wow, this is great, and I love it here," just
5 for somebody to say that that's something everybody
6 has to write. Because a jury would not know that
7 without --
8 I don't know if that's an expert, Mr. Dandar,
9 or whether that's a fact witness. Though he's not
10 an expert. It doesn't require expertise. Any
11 Scientologist could come in here and say it, and
12 they're sure not all experts. I mean, they're just
13 Scientologists. It's somebody who's going to --
14 there's a limited number of people that can testify
15 as to matters involving the Baptist Church or
16 matters involving the Church of Scientology, but
17 they're not experts on the -- anything. They just
18 know what they know.
19 MR. DANDAR: Well, I think that -- I think that
20 someone -- I'm sure it's going to -- from what I
21 hear behind me, it's going to be rebutted that
22 that's not true, and someone with an expertise is
23 going to have to come in and establish and prove to
24 you and the trier of fact that here are the
25 policies; this is how the policies are interpreted;

1 this is why these letters are written.
2 An ex-Scientologist, if I could find one
3 willing to testify -- I don't know. I'm sure I
4 couldn't get a Scientologist to testify that way.
5 So I would need someone who's a former
6 Scientologist. I need someone that knows what
7 they're talking about.
8 THE COURT: If it's true, why couldn't you
9 subpoena a Scientologist to testify that way?
10 MR. DANDAR: I just don't believe I'd get
11 accurate information.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Let's see.
13 Okay. Go on ahead with your argument.
14 MR. DANDAR: And the other one are the PC
15 folders. There's -- you know, they're going to come
16 in and try to challenge the -- how the PC folders
17 read. They're going to actually try to prevent
18 anyone from seeing the PC folders on what Lisa
19 McPherson really thought about Scientology. And
20 Mr. Prince --
21 THE COURT: What does what Lisa McPherson
22 thought about Scientology have to do with whether or
23 not there's a wrongful death; whether or not they
24 were negligent, and their negligence caused her
25 death; whether or not they intentionally abused her

1 in causing mental distress -- which I have limited
2 to roach bites and, I think, either starving and/or
3 not giving her water -- in the event the jury does
4 not believe that that is a cause of death? Cause of
5 death doesn't come into intentional infliction of
6 mental distress.
7 But if they buy their theory as to cause of
8 death, then they could perhaps find that they
9 intentionally withheld liquid from her, and
10 therefore, that's a measure of damages.
11 I think that's about what I've limited you to
12 on that area.
13 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
14 THE COURT: So where was I going --
15 MR. DANDAR: I don't know.
16 THE COURT: I don't know. I don't know either.
17 (A discussion was held off the record
18 And the reporter read back to the court.)
19 MR. DANDAR: That's wrongful death, though.
20 That doesn't --
21 THE COURT: You've got three counts left, as I
22 recall: Wrongful death; you've got intentional
23 infliction of mental distress, which I have limited
24 to some extent to those two areas; you've got a
25 battery.

1 MR. DANDAR: And negligence. General
2 negligence.
3 THE COURT: General negligence.
4 What would what she thought about Scientology
5 have to do with any of those things?
6 Now, it would have something to do with false
7 imprisonment, whether she was being held there
8 against her will. But that's been ruled on at this
9 point that that is summary judgment --
10 MR. DANDAR: See, I -- I just don't think this
11 is the appropriate time to -- I mean, the issue that
12 they presented is, is Jesse Prince qualified to be
13 an expert? Not, do we need him? You know, the
14 question is, is he qualified to be an expert?
15 And only through his testimony -- which is, by
16 the way, is in his affidavit on his qualifications,
17 which is not before you 'cause it's under seal in a
18 box --
19 THE COURT: I have one affidavit in your
20 filing. Is there another --
21 Oh, the other affidavit, you're saying, shows
22 his --
23 MR. DANDAR: Right.
24 THE COURT: -- qualifications?
25 MR. DANDAR: Right.

1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. DANDAR: Whether or not he qualifies as an
3 expert. That's the question. I think the court
4 should rule whether or not he qualifies as an
5 expert. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or
6 not he uses foul language, marijuana or hates the
7 Church of Scientology. That goes to bias and weight
8 of the evidence, which is what the Meyer case points
9 out --
10 THE COURT: If I were to ask you, Mr. Dandar,
11 right now here and now, in this court, as an officer
12 of this court, to tell me whether or not, if I were
13 to allow you to use Mr. Prince as an expert, knowing
14 all that you know right now and all that they would
15 use to cross examine him -- if I were to ask you,
16 would you really call him or would you say, "I want
17 to think on that"?
18 MR. DANDAR: No. I would -- I've been wanting
19 to call him for almost five years. Four years.
20 Yeah.
21 It looks -- it looks bad, but they just
22 hand-delivered to me yesterday the videotapes that
23 Judge Beach ordered in full of these little clips
24 that you saw, which look terrible. And if they
25 produce what Judge Beach ordered them to produce, I

1 will be able to judge it better, because it'll show
2 what was going on coming from the minsters of
3 Scientology, what they were saying to Jesse Prince
4 that got him all riled up in the most vulgar of the
5 videos.
6 If you notice the later videos, where he's in
7 Clearwater, where -- I think one had -- he had a tie
8 on -- I mean, he's just talking to them. He's
9 smiling; he's joking around with them. He's not
10 saying anything vulgar. There's two clips like
11 that. So when I get a chance to study the entire
12 clip, I'll have a better idea.
13 But you know, Jesse Prince is, you know, their
14 former expert, contrary to Mr. Moxon. And I have
15 it, and if you want, I can give you the excerpt from
16 Mr. Rosen, the attorney for Scientology in the
17 Bridge Publication versus FACTNet case in Denver
18 federal court, where he said Mr. Prince was the
19 former number two worldwide Scientologist before he
20 left, and Mr. Prince was our expert. And Mr. Prince
21 today, testifying that even the month that Lisa
22 died, he was paid $3,000 by the attorneys for
23 Scientology for his expert consultation.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
25 MR. DANDAR: Okay. Now, Mr. Moxon made some

1 allegations that Mr. Minton and I and Jesse Prince
2 are involved in trading -- or using drug money. I
3 don't know where that came from, but I hope the
4 court disregarded that --
5 THE COURT: I did. I don't even remember it.
6 MR. DANDAR: All right. Good.
7 Well, if we're on the issue of whether or not
8 he has qualifications to be an expert witness, then
9 I'd like to call him to the stand.
10 THE COURT: All right.
11 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince?
12 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, we would object to
13 that. I'll let Mr. Hertzberg address the reasons
14 why.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, first of all, I
17 would assume that if Mr. Prince were to testify,
18 which we don't think he should be permitted to under
19 these circumstances, that he'd be waiving the Fifth
20 Amendment privilege, so --
21 THE COURT: He better. If he doesn't waive the
22 Fifth Amendment privilege, he'll never be able to be
23 called as an expert. So you better tell him that.
24 MR. PRINCE: I do, I waive it, your Honor.
25 MR. HERTZBERG: Okay. Secondly, if I

1 understand the proffer for this testimony, it would
2 be to submit to your Honor what his qualifications
3 are. And I think what Mr. Dandar means by that, and
4 as he's explained in his presentation, he means, was
5 he in the Church for X number of years, and what his
6 position was and all that.
7 Leaving aside and reserving all of our
8 objections to whether somebody -- even if all of
9 that were correct and accepted, and leaving aside
10 all our objections on constitutional and other
11 grounds to the impermissibility of allowing somebody
12 who occupied that status, but is an apostate now, to
13 testify on the grounds that Mr. Dandar listed as his
14 purported -- as his proffered trial testimony --
15 none of that is relevant, seems to me, in response
16 to the legal arguments that Mr. Moxon made, because
17 what Mr. Moxon is relying upon is the bias issue.
18 The bias issue is manifest and in the record from
19 the time period after Mr. Prince left the church.
20 So it doesn't matter whether Mr. Prince can get
21 up there and now testify that, "Many, many years
22 ago, I did this in the church and I did that in the
23 church, and I believe I'm familiar with this
24 practice or I'm familiar with that Scientology
25 practice." That -- that doesn't go to the bias

1 issue.
2 The bias -- the issue is whether this man, by
3 his conduct after leaving the church, has been so
4 manifestly irrational and blind in his -- and
5 manifest in his hatred and his stated views, that,
6 regardless of whether, in the abstract, he might
7 have qualified at one time to be an expert witness,
8 whether he can be one now.
9 And so I would say that his testimony, as I
10 understand it, would be irrelevant to rebut the
11 points that Mr. Moxon made.
12 THE COURT: Well, it may be. And I may have
13 agreed before I read this case. But this case --
14 and granted, I did not have a chance to study all
15 these cases as carefully as I will -- but this case
16 out of the Fourth District is somewhat contrary to
17 what I would have believed the law to be. And it's
18 a 1999 case that seems to suggest that, biased or
19 not, that the rule of -- Florida Rules of Evidence
20 don't permit me to preclude somebody on the basis
21 that they're biased.
22 MR. MOXON: May I address this case, your
23 Honor?
24 MR. DANDAR: You're absolutely right, Judge.
25 THE COURT: You can address it briefly, but I

1 think that -- I don't even know that that would save
2 the day. I think the long and the short of it is --
3 is, I'm going to be asked to make a ruling at the
4 close of this day, and I'm going to do so. And
5 golly, somebody will probably take an appeal before
6 the case is over. But at some point in time, he's
7 going to want to have -- Mr. Dandar, even if I was
8 to rule that he couldn't testify, is going to want
9 to have a record to show that he was qualified.
10 Will you stipulate, without him being called as
11 a witness, that he would testify as to whatever it
12 is in that sealed -- as far as his qualifications --
13 until I could read it --
14 MR. MOXON: That he's qualified to what's in
15 the sealed thing?
16 THE COURT: That he would testify here today as
17 to what he said in his sealed affidavit.
18 Have you seen it?
19 I mean, is it sealed from them?
20 MR. MOXON: I've seen it.
21 MR. DANDAR: They have it.
22 MR. MOXON: I've seen it.
23 THE COURT: Is it accurate?
24 MR. MOXON: No.
25 MR. DANDAR: Oh, then --

1 THE COURT: Then we've got to call him.
2 MR. MOXON: No.
3 But that's not the issue, whether or not it's
4 accurate.
5 THE COURT: He has a right to make his record,
6 Counsel. And you can argue the case in a minute,
7 but I think he can make his record. I just want to
8 hear qualifications, though, okay?
9 _______________________________________
11 the witness herein, having been previously sworn, was
12 examined and testified as follows:
13 THE COURT: You're still under oath.
14 And I'm going to ask you under oath, because
15 they're going to want to take your deposition as
16 soon as this is done. Let's get this straight.
17 You can't testify for one side and then, when
18 the other side starts asking you questions about
19 your bias, which is, you know, how much have you
20 been paid -- that is a clearly permissible bias
21 question. You can't take the Fifth Amendment. Do
22 you understand?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
24 THE COURT: So the first question I would ask
25 you now under oath is, do you understand and are you

1 willing to waive your Fifth Amendment and answer
2 their questions on this?
3 THE WITNESS: In relationship to my finances,
4 yes, your Honor, I am.
5 THE COURT: Yes. In relation to what you've
6 been paid.
8 THE COURT: By either Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton or
9 anyone involving this case.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 We're not going there today. You can take
13 another deposition now if you want to. But I just
14 want to hear his qualifications on the record. You
15 can cross examine those.
16 MR. MOXON: Is this -- is he asserting -- he's
17 waiving the Fifth as to all the questions I asked
18 him?
19 MR. DANDAR: As to his finances.
20 THE COURT: If you asked him something that you
21 couldn't possibly ask him on cross examination, it
22 wouldn't matter.
23 MR. MOXON: Well, there are other questions
24 that would go to his -- to his background and
25 credibility and whether or not he could ever qualify

1 as a religion expert. Remember, he's being --
2 THE COURT: You can ask those.
3 MR. MOXON: But those go to all his drug use
4 and his drug abuse and his criminal histories. As
5 you know, he's claiming to be a religious expert.
6 And so I would want to show --
7 THE COURT: That doesn't have a thing to do
8 with his ability to testify as an expert.
9 MR. MOXON: Sure does, because it's so --
10 THE COURT: No, it doesn't.
11 MR. MOXON: I'll tell you, if I may, your
12 Honor, it's so contrary to Scientology that somebody
13 who can say, "Well, I was a former minister in the
14 Church of Scientology, and in the meantime I've used
15 marijuana thousands of times; I harassed women;
16 I --" you know --
17 THE COURT: I'm going to tell you something:
18 If I let him go testify as an expert, you are going
19 to lose that portion of this motion that suggests
20 that you all did not do anything to set Mr. Prince
21 up. One of the sanctions that I would impose in the
22 event that I allow him to testify is I would
23 preclude you from benefitting from any of that. So
24 I'm not going to allow you to ask it today. There
25 you have it.

3 Q Mr. Prince, state your name, please.
4 A Jesse Prince.
5 Q And what is your date of birth?
6 A March 15th, 1954.
7 Q And do you live here in Clearwater?
8 A Yes, I do.
9 Q On Belleair Road?
10 A Yes, I do.
11 Q Mr. Prince, at what age did you join the Church of
12 Scientology?
13 A Age 21.
14 Q What is the extent of your education before
15 joining the Church of Scientology?
16 A Concerning Scientology?
17 Q Before you joined, what was the extent of your
18 formal education?
19 A I finished high school and did some precollege
20 courses.
21 Q Okay. And --
22 A I also held a -- oh, God, I had --
23 Well, that's okay.
24 Q All right. What is the highest executive position
25 you held in the Church of Scientology?

1 A It's pretty much as Mr. Rosen stated in court in
2 front of the federal judge in Denver.
3 THE COURT: I don't care a thing about that.
4 This record.
5 A Okay. Corporately, I was the second highest
6 ecclesiastical person within Scientology, corporately.
8 Q What was that called?
9 A Deputy inspector general.
10 THE COURT: What did you say, corporate
11 group --
12 THE WITNESS: Corporately -- deputy inspector
13 general was my position. Corporately, I was the
14 second in command in Scientology corporately. But
15 ecclesiastically, that's not the way it was.
17 Q All right. What's it ecclesiastically?
18 A Ecclesiastically, since, I guess, 19 -- somewhere
19 around 1982, David Miscavige has been the ecclesiastical
20 leader of Scientology -- since -- yeah. Even after L. Ron
21 Hubbard passed -- even before L. Ron Hubbard passed, it was
22 David Miscavige.
23 And this gets complicated because -- and I'll tell
24 you why it's complicated -- because Scientology doesn't
25 present the truth --

1 THE COURT: I don't want to hear that.
3 THE COURT: As a matter of fact, maybe we
4 should hear it. Because Mr. Dandar, the more you
5 hear, the more I would wonder if you'd ever call
6 this man as a witness. I mean, that's, right in and
7 of itself, going to show bias.
8 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
10 Q Mr. Prince, what was your highest ecclesiastical
11 position?
12 A Deputy inspector general for the Religious
13 Technology Center.
14 Q Now, is that a corporate position or
15 ecclesiastical position?
16 A That is an ecclesiastical position. I also held a
17 corporate position as the treasurer on the board of
18 directors for the Religious Technology Center.
19 Q Can you tell the court what your duties were as
20 deputy inspector general?
21 A My duties -- I had many duties. One of my duties
22 was to ensure that all the entities -- all the Scientology
23 entities below the Religious Technology Center were properly
24 licensed to use the trademarks of Scientology.
25 Q What does that mean?

1 A Them signing licensing agreements and agreeing to
2 pay certain tithes to be able to be licensed to use the
3 trademarks. Which is basically -- the public works or the
4 books have symbols on them; trademarks, you know, for them
5 to use the books, technical volumes, the policy volumes, the
6 tapes, was one responsibility. And I was responsible for
7 making sure that those entities correctly used the
8 Scientology faith of auditing and the policy of its
9 management as one aspect.
10 A second aspect is, I had the responsibility for
11 ensuring that the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology
12 were filed internationally in the majority of the countries
13 in the world.
14 Q What is your training -- what's the highest
15 training level that you reached in Scientology?
16 A Scientology has, basically, 12 levels of training
17 on its technical side, on its spiritual beliefs, if you
18 will. They go from 1 to 12. I -- and there's two aspects
19 to each level. One aspect is as an auditor, the person that
20 actually performs or interacts with the preclear, and the
21 person who then gets the folders after the sessions are
22 done, in Scientology, and studies them to see that
23 everything that was done on their preclear in auditing was
24 done exactly per the technical materials as written by L.
25 Ron Hubbard.

1 Q Okay. What did you do?
2 A I was a class 9 case supervisor, which means that
3 I was responsible for and trained in the expertise of
4 Scientology's upper-level material, their kind of secret
5 material, and auditing, that -- as well as everything below
6 it.
7 Q Okay. A class 9 case supervisor; how many
8 positions were higher than that when you were there?
9 A Three.
10 Q What are they?
11 A 10, 11, 12.
12 Q Oh, okay. And how well trained were you on the
13 technology of Scientology?
14 A I was very well trained. I was -- because of my
15 position in the Religious Technology Center -- the Religious
16 Technology Center is the highest ecclesiastical and
17 corporate center within Scientology, as far as the purity of
18 that technology. By my position and my experience even
19 prior to being in RTC, because I had a high -- high ability
20 to train people in Scientology, a high level of being able
21 to correctly audit and correctly supervise cases -- because
22 of that, I was selected to be in that position.
23 Q And who selected you to be in that position?
24 A David Miscavige, as approved by L. Ron Hubbard.
25 Q Now, what other duties did you --

1 Now, did you actually train people?
2 A I've trained many people, yes.
3 Q Who did -- what type of people did you train?
4 A Well, Alain Kartuzinski is one.
5 Q Defendant in this case?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What did you train him for?
8 A I did training on him for his -- what's called NED
9 for OTs level. That's a high level in Scientology where
10 they get into the more secret part of their belief system.
11 I trained him on that. I also -- and the other levels of
12 10, 11 and 12, while I was not myself trained or did the
13 courses in those levels, I was still able to correct
14 individuals who were trained in that, because I was familiar
15 enough with those materials myself. I just hadn't done the
16 courses. So I could train and correct anyone on any level
17 of Scientology's route -- which they called the Bridge.
18 Anywhere on the Bridge, I was able to train and correct
19 people on that Bridge.
20 Q Now, as a class 9 case supervisor, you said you
21 would review the PC folders of individuals?
22 A Correct.
23 Q And you would review their auditing sessions to
24 see it was done correctly?
25 A Correct.

1 Q And you did then become familiar with, according
2 to Scientology practices, what was necessary to be inside a
3 PC folder?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. And are there rules and regulations that
6 you're familiar with in reference to what is to be inside a
7 PC folder?
8 A Very much so. There's written exact and specific
9 policies that every person in Scientology that's pursuing
10 these training levels -- there is exact materials that state
11 how you proceed to audit a person; how you administrate the
12 files, who has the ability to review the files; and who is
13 designated to determine if there's errors in the folders.
14 Q And how long were you a case supervisor at any
15 level?
16 A Probably 14 years.
17 Q And were you an auditor?
18 A Yes, I was. I was a class 9 auditor as well.
19 Q Were you a class 9 auditor at the time you were a
20 class 9 case supervisor?
21 A Well, I was a class 9 auditor first and then I was
22 a class 9 supervisor.
23 Q Okay. So how many years were you an auditor of
24 any grade, all combined?
25 A During the entire time I was there, 16 years.

1 Q Okay. So you became a staff member of
2 Scientology, Church of Scientology, at the age of 21?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. And you stayed for 16 years?
5 A Correct.
6 Q So does that mean you left at the age of 37?
7 A Correct.
8 Q What other duties did you have as deputy inspector
9 general?
10 A I was also responsible for overseeing Church of
11 Scientology International, which is the corporate entity
12 located in Los Angeles, California. Actually, Gilman Hot
13 Springs -- that, in return, licenses the -- has the
14 licensing agreements and responsibilities for the purity of
15 the application of the technology to all other Scientology
16 organizations, such as the Flag Service Organization, Church
17 of Scientology West U.S., Church of Scientology South
18 Africa, Church of Scientology Denmark, Church of Scientology
19 Australia.
20 And Church of Scientology International, CSI --
21 there's another -- there's OSA section, Office of Special
22 Affairs, which is -- the Office of Special Affairs breaks
23 down into three departments, really. There is a legal, and
24 the legal section deals with anything to do with lawsuits,
25 building permits, anything to do with the legal system.

1 Next to that is public relations, which has to do with
2 making friendly contact in the environment, in the community
3 that they're in. And then you have an intelligence unit,
4 which is there primarily, as its stated purpose, to predict
5 trouble for Scientology before it happens, before it goes to
6 a legal situation, before it goes to a public relations
7 situation, so their intelligence section that monitors
8 anything that could potentially cause problems in these
9 other two departments.
10 Q And you oversaw all those departments?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And was that just in Los Angeles or worldwide?
13 A Worldwide.
14 Q Who was above you in seniority in reference to
15 your position, number two, as deputy inspector general,
16 while you were in that position?
17 A Okay. Now, that number two position was a
18 corporate position on paper. The -- ecclesiastically, the
19 first person, of course, was L. Ron Hubbard, until his
20 death. The second person was David Miscavige. Well, I take
21 that back. The second person, I came to find out later, was
22 maybe Pat and Annie Broeker together, who were personal
23 aides of L. Ron Hubbard.
24 Q Okay.
25 A Then David Miscavige. Vicky Aznaran, Marty

1 Rathburn, Vicky Aznaran and myself; Marc Yagger.
2 Q All right. How long were you deputy inspector
3 general?
4 A From 1983 until 1997.
5 Q And does every class 9 case supervisor become a
6 deputy inspector general?
7 A No, not at all.
8 Q Were there other deputy inspector generals?
9 A Yes, there were. But not for the specific things
10 that I took care of. There was one other one, for what they
11 called SU, Gold -- Golden area. There was a particular
12 deputy inspector general, just for the Golden-based, where
13 RTC is located, where Church of Scientology International is
14 located, where Golden Productions is located.
15 Q That's in the desert in California?
16 A Yes. In Gilman Hot Springs.
17 Q Okay.
18 A There was also a deputy inspector general MAA,
19 master at arms -- it's a navy term, nautical term -- of a
20 person that specifically supervised the ethics and integrity
21 of the members within the movement.
22 Q When you say you were in charge of the purity of
23 the tech, what does that mean?
24 A That means that ultimately I was responsible to
25 make sure that every auditor, every course supervisor, every

1 student, would study and learn and apply the L. Ron Hubbard
2 theories about auditing, bulletins, giving exact procedures.
3 It was my job to make sure that everyone could follow
4 procedure exactly.
5 Q Did you ever testify on behalf of Scientology,
6 Church of Scientology?
7 A Yes, I did.
8 Q And when was that?
9 A That was in either 1985 or 1986, in a RICO case
10 brought by the Church of Scientology and Religious
11 Technology Center against David Mayo, an individual, the
12 Advance Ability Center, a split organization that he started
13 after he himself left Scientology.
14 Q Okay.
15 A And somehow Lawrence Wollersheim was involved in
16 that as well.
17 Q What subject matter did you testify about on
18 behalf of the Church of Scientology?
19 A I testified on behalf of their -- was really
20 considered to be secret materials, NED for OTs, in that
21 David Mayo, his own NED for OT, which stands for New Era
22 Dianetics for Operating Thetans.
23 (A discussion was held off the record.)
24 A In that case, I testified as to the similarity
25 with what David Mayo was using against what was the actual

1 copyrighted published Scientology bulletins concerning that
2 subject.
4 Q And which way did you testify? You compared the
5 two?
6 A Yes. I compared the two and gave the court an
7 opinion.
8 Q An opinion as to they were different or the same?
9 A They were virtually the same.
10 Q Okay. And how did you testify; as -- were you
11 designated or accepted or offered, I should say, by the
12 Church of Scientology as an expert?
13 A I was offered by Scientology to testify about
14 these scriptures, because I was very high ecclesiastically
15 as well as corporately, for the plaintiff, which was
16 Religious Technology Center, as well as Church of
17 Scientology International, against defendants David Mayo,
18 Advance Ability Center, Lawrence Wollersheim, et al.
19 Q In addition to that, have you consulted with
20 attorneys for the Church of Scientology in reference to your
21 expertise?
22 A Yes, I have.
23 Q And what cases or what matters?
24 A Again, it was the same case of the RICO suit
25 brought by those entities I mentioned before, against David

1 Mayo.
2 And as far as consulting with attorneys, this
3 was -- would be something that I would kind of do on a
4 regular basis, concerning the Lawrence Wollersheim -- one,
5 two, three and four cases out in California; the Mayo case.
6 There was a case against Sarge Gerbode, who was an ex-member
7 of Scientology, who was involved in a legal dispute with
8 Scientology.
9 Q And in reference to your consulting, what would
10 the subject matter be about?
11 A Well, the attorneys would want me to explain to
12 them what was happening; what it meant; what they were
13 looking at. Because Scientology has its own nomenclature.
14 They use words that you don't find in a dictionary.
15 Examples -- some examples of that would be, you know, you
16 got out Int.
17 Q What does that mean?
18 A That means a person has a phenomenon where,
19 spiritually, because Scientology believes that there's a
20 separation in the human form that we see here --
21 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I object to this.
22 A -- there's the body and the mind --
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 A -- and the spirit --
25 (Simultaneous speakers.)

1 THE COURT: All we really need here -- we don't
2 need him to render opinions; we simply need to know
3 his expert qualifications to do so.
4 MR. DANDAR: I just wanted --
5 THE COURT: It is relevant, however, whether he
6 testified as an expert for --
7 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
8 THE COURT: -- Scientology.
9 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
10 THE COURT: And I think you said once you could
11 show me that? Do you have that?
12 MR. DANDAR: I don't, but I --
13 Do you guys have it?
14 It's Bridge Publications versus FACTNet, in
15 federal court in Denver. I can fax it over to you
16 tomorrow. But --
17 THE COURT: That's good. You can fax it to me
18 tomorrow.
19 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I'll address that in
20 cross examination.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
23 Q And Mr. Prince, have you worked in your capacity
24 as deputy inspector general with Michael Hertzberg when you
25 were in that position?

1 A Yes.
2 Q And what respect?
3 A We would have weekly meetings at Office Services
4 to discuss pressing legal matters concerning all the
5 Scientology entities internationally. Mr. Hertzberg, as you
6 well know, represented Mary Sue in the DC case, and he was
7 always an attorney that specifically worked with --
8 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I strenuously --
9 A -- at this stage --
10 MR. MOXON: -- object --
11 (Simultaneous speakers.)
12 THE COURT: We don't need --
13 MR. MOXON: This is a perfect example of
14 what --
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Sit down, Counsel.
18 Q After you left Scientology, do you recall -- you
19 left Scientology on two different occasions, correct, as a
20 staff member?
21 A Correct.
22 Q And when you left the last time, do you recall
23 what year that was?
24 A I recall the year and the date. It was
25 October 31st, 1992.

1 Q Okay.
2 MR. MOXON: What was that? I'm sorry. I
3 didn't hear --
4 THE COURT: 10-31-92, I think he said.
6 Q Since leaving the staff position 10-31-92, were
7 you ever contacted by anyone representing the Church of
8 Scientology for consulting services?
9 A Yes. I was contacted by a gentleman named Michael
10 Suttor, who also worked in the Religious Technology Center,
11 to meet with Earle Cooley in Boston to consult with them on
12 the legal cases.
13 Q And who is Earle Cooley in Boston?
14 A He was Scientology's lead counsel during the '80s.
15 Q Okay.
16 A Late '80s.
17 Q Do you recall when you met with Mr. Cooley?
18 A It was in 1995.
19 Q Okay. And was it -- without going into the
20 subject matter, what -- generally what was the subject
21 matter? I mean, why did he want to talk to you?
22 A Well, he said he wanted to talk to me about legal
23 cases. What ended up happening, in fact, was something a
24 little different.
25 And you know, he asked me -- I guess he -- they

1 wanted me to reaffirm that I was a Scientologist; to
2 reaffirm that -- you know, that Scientology had helped me
3 because I had had errors, you know, in my past before, and
4 that Scientology only worked for the good of everyone. And
5 I think this was tape recorded. And they wanted to also
6 reaffirm that no one had contacted me from a case that was
7 being brought by Victoria and Richard Aznaran, who brought a
8 case that later settled. They wanted to make sure that no
9 one contacted me to testify in the RICO case against David
10 Mayo. And they wanted to make sure I was not contacted in
11 any government or police agencies to testify against
12 Scientology.
13 Q And did Mr. Cooley, on behalf of the Church of
14 Scientology, pay you for your consultation?
15 A Yes, he did.
16 Q And how much did he pay you?
17 A I think, after taxes, it was $2,700.
18 Q So who deducted the taxes? Mr. Cooley?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Since that time, have you testified in any case?
21 A I've given written testimony and I've -- well,
22 I've given written testimony in a case by Dennis Ehrlich,
23 with Morrison and Forrester in San Francisco. I've
24 testified in that case, which has since settled. I've
25 testified in the Wollersheim -- I've given written testimony

1 in the Wollersheim Ford case in California.
2 Q When you say written testimony, you talking about
3 deposition or affidavit?
4 A Affidavits and depositions.
5 Q And when you were deposed in those cases, were you
6 testifying as a fact witness or an expert witness?
7 A When I testified in the FACTNet case, I testified
8 as an expert with knowledge of the facts of the case.
9 Q And in reference to Lisa McPherson, can any
10 layperson just look at her PC folders and understand them?
11 A Not at all.
12 Q Why is that?
13 A Because, again, Scientology has its own
14 nomenclature; it has its own words that you will not find in
15 any dictionary except for a Scientology dictionary. And
16 it's a whole separate language that you literally learn
17 paralleled with your training that you get. The more higher
18 training, the more different Scientology words you learn.
19 MR. DANDAR: Now, Judge, I need somebody to
20 help, here, if I can ask you a question.
21 THE COURT: You may.
22 MR. DANDAR: All right. I believe I've gone
23 through his qualifications in reference to
24 Scientology technology and his knowledge about that.
25 THE COURT: I would agree.

1 I would just have one question. And maybe he
2 doesn't know this.
3 Do you recall ever having a lawyer in a court
4 case, in court, asking a judge to accept you as an
5 expert and allow you to render opinions, and a judge
6 saying "he may render his opinion" or anything like
7 that?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. A couple of times.
9 One time was, again, in this RICO suit brought
10 by the Religious Technology Center and Church of
11 Scientology International, where I gave testimony.
12 It was a copyright issue. And I compared what David
13 Mayo was using --
14 THE COURT: You're as bad as a lawyer. You
15 give me a lot more than I want.
16 So that one and --
17 THE WITNESS: And then in the instant case,
18 here, in front of Judge Moody, I've given testimony,
19 and I've been in hearings and I've worked on --
20 THE COURT: Judge Moody accepted you as an
21 expert witness?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, I think that's --
24 MR. DANDAR: Do you want to get into any
25 payments and things like that? Do we need to do

1 that?
2 Okay.
4 MR. DANDAR: That's all I have.
5 THE COURT: All right.
8 Q Mr. Prince, you say some judge actually asked you
9 if you were an expert; some judge qualified you as an expert
10 in some case?
11 A Correct.
12 Q Who was that judge?
13 A Mariana Pfaeizer.
14 Q And she told you you were qualified as an expert?
15 A Well, I don't have the record in front of me, but
16 I know that I was qualified to give testimony as a
17 representative of the Church of Scientology Religious
18 Technology Center, on behalf of CSI, to determine whether or
19 not --
20 MR. MOXON: I think he's answered my question.
21 May I approach the witness?
22 THE COURT: You may.
24 Q Would you please take a look at this deposition
25 excerpt I've given to you? This is a reporter's transcript

1 for November 22nd, 1985, correct?
2 A Correct.
3 Q And it's in the case of Religious Technology
4 Center versus Wollersheim?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Is this the case you're referring to?
7 A Yes.
8 Q You see Direct Examination, Jesse Prince?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Okay. Would you read for the record, starting
11 at --
12 MR. DANDAR: Judge, may I approach so I can see
13 what they're looking at?
14 THE COURT: Sure.
16 Q Starting at page 282 -- let me read it and you
17 tell me if this is accurate.
18 Who's Mr. Treman, by the way?
19 A He was a lawyer that represented Mr. Mayo, I
20 believe.
21 Q Not sure who he was?
22 A I'm not sure now who he is. I mean, that happened
23 in '85, '86.
24 Q Okay. So you don't remember who the lawyer was on
25 the other side of this case that you were --

1 A Gary -- I think one of the lawyer's name was Gary
2 Bright, and then there was another one there as well. But I
3 do recall Mr. Gary Bright.
4 Q Okay. But you don't know who Mr. Treman is?
5 A I don't recall.
6 Q Okay. Well, Mr. Treman, for the record, is the --
7 was indeed the defense attorney. And Mr. Treman, after
8 Mr. Prince's testimony, part of it says, quote, Objection.
9 Move to strike that conclusion. And lack of foundation. He
10 is not testifying as an expert." Isn't that what that says?
11 A Correct.
12 MR. DANDAR: I'll object, because it's out of
13 context. I have no idea what came before that.
15 Q And the court says, "You must remember the court
16 has looked at the material too, so that may stand."
17 A Right.
18 Q Right?
19 Okay. Now, is it still your -- your testimony
20 that you -- you were allowed as an expert in that case?
21 A Yes. Yes, Counsel.
22 THE COURT: And I would agree with Mr. Dandar.
23 You know, who knows what that lawyer is referring
24 to? I think what will help us is to look at the
25 testimony --

1 MR. MOXON: Well --
2 THE COURT: -- and see whether or not his
3 credentials were proper and whether the lawyer
4 proffered him as an expert.
5 MR. MOXON: They weren't. I can tell you they
6 weren't. I can represent that to the court.
7 THE COURT: Well, that doesn't necessarily give
8 us our answer. That's probably what you have. That
9 doesn't help.
10 MR. MOXON: I didn't know this was going to
11 happen today, so --
12 THE COURT: I know. I didn't either.
13 MR. MOXON: -- I'm doing this impromptu. But
14 I'm representing that this is just not true.
16 Q Is there any --
17 THE COURT: I didn't either. But I must say, I
18 generated it as we've gone along. This has not
19 progressed the way I exactly -- I thought it would.
20 But I think this is where we need to go.
21 MR. MOXON: Yeah.
23 Q Now, are you claiming that, in the FACTNet case,
24 you were permitted by the court to testify as an expert?
25 A You know, in the FACTnet case, I actually never

1 testified. All I did was submit affidavits, I believe, or
2 declarations. And I think that the attorney, Daniel
3 Leipold, made representations I was an expert to the court.
4 But you know, I don't have those records before me. I
5 can't --
6 Q But you're not really sure about that, are you?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q So as an expert, you don't know if you were an
9 expert or not?
10 A No, that's not -- that's inaccurate.
11 Q So you think Mr. Leipold may have done that, but
12 you're not sure?
13 A I'm not positive, but I'm like 90 percent sure he
14 did that.
15 MR. MOXON: Well, I'd proffer to the court that
16 that didn't happen, and I'd like to see it.
18 Q In each of your declarations that you filed, you
19 stated at the beginning, "This declaration is of my own
20 personal knowledge, and if called on to testify to, I could
21 and would be competent and able to testify thereto," isn't
22 that correct?
23 A I have done affidavits and declarations that have
24 began that way, yes.
25 Q Have you done any that didn't?

1 A I would have to have them all before me. I'm not
2 sure.
3 Q Can you recall any --
4 A You know --
5 Q -- dec- --
6 A That seems like a procedure that I've learned from
7 attorneys, that that's what you say, if that's the case.
8 Q That's what fact witnesses --
9 Can you name a single declaration you have ever
10 filed, other than one you filed here just a couple of weeks
11 ago, which didn't recite at the beginning that you were a
12 fact witness?
13 A I don't think that I've ever testified that I've
14 been a fact witness.
15 Q Mr. Prince, my question is, can you think of a
16 single declaration you've ever filed that said, "I'm an
17 expert witness," other than what Mr. Dandar has prepared for
18 you recently?
19 A I think that there may be some, yes.
20 Q Identify them, please.
21 A Oh, I don't have any -- you know, I've done over
22 20, 25 of them. I don't have --
23 Q Identify any of them. Any of the 25 that you --
24 THE COURT: He says he can't, Counsel.
25 MR. MOXON: Okay.

2 Q Do you dispute any of the statements that you saw
3 on the video, you were making statements outside the church?
4 A No. I do not dispute that.
5 Q Were you under the influence of any --
6 MR. DANDAR: Objection, Judge. This has
7 nothing to do with his qualifications as an expert,
8 on whether or not he has the expertise to render
9 interpretation or opinions about these practices.
10 THE COURT: I don't know what his question was
11 going to be.
12 What were you going to ask?
14 Q When you were out doing these demonstrations and
15 yelling at people and making those vile comments, were you
16 under the influence of any drugs?
17 MR. DANDAR: Same objection.
18 THE COURT: What -- are you trying to establish
19 that those statements were made without being under
20 the influence of drugs?
21 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Okay. I'll allow that.
23 A No. I was not under the influence.
25 Q Now --

1 THE COURT: You understand where he was going.
2 He didn't want, later, it to be suggested that he
3 didn't mean that because he was high or --
4 MR. DANDAR: Oh, okay.
5 THE COURT: -- drunk and he didn't know what he
6 was saying.
7 MR. DANDAR: But I thought this was on
8 qualifications, not witness bias.
9 THE COURT: It is, but --
11 Q Now, you claim that you were the second highest
12 corporate person in the entire Church of Scientology,
13 correct?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Okay. And what corporation was that?
16 A Religious Technology Center.
17 Q How many corporations are there in the Scientology
18 religion?
19 A Oh, there are many.
20 Q Hundreds and hundreds, right?
21 A Yeah.
22 Q You weren't a director in any other corporation,
23 were you?
24 A No.
25 Q And Religious Technology Center didn't own any of

1 those other corporations, did it?
2 A Religious Technology Center is a senior
3 ecclesiastical body in Scientology, even today. Even today.
4 Q I'm just talking about corporations, Mr. Prince.
5 A Well, I think --
6 Didn't I say corporation? It's the most senior.
7 Q I didn't want to argue with you, but I just -- you
8 had some conversation with Mr. Dandar of ecclesiastical and
9 corporate.
10 I'm asking, RTC didn't own any corporations, did
11 it?
12 A Own corporations? No. Not to my knowledge.
13 Q Now, in fact, the mother church was the Church of
14 Scientology International, correct?
15 A Yes, it is.
16 Q And what was it in '87?
17 A Yes, it was.
18 Q You sure it wasn't Church of Scientology
19 California?
20 A In 1987?
21 Q Right.
22 THE COURT: What difference does it make?
23 MR. MOXON: Well, show he didn't know what he's
24 talking about.
25 THE COURT: I mean, that's an awfully long time

1 ago. I wouldn't be able to tell you about my
2 church, who was head, either. I wouldn't be able to
3 tell you about my church because I don't have one.
4 But if I did have one, I wouldn't be able to tell
5 you.
6 MR. MOXON: I agree it was an awfully long time
7 ago, 1987, was when he was removed. But -- that's
8 another issue. But that's the time he claimed he
9 was the second in charge of this corporation that he
10 doesn't even know what his ecclesiastical authority
11 was at the time.
12 A That's not true.
14 Q Okay. Who was the mother church in 1987?
15 A In 1987, Church of Scientology International.
16 CSI.
17 Q You're sure.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Wasn't Church of Scientology California.
20 A No. That changed -- that changed earlier, to my
21 knowledge. Church of Scientology California, Church of
22 Scientology Western United States -- all of those
23 corporations changed when the IRS negotiation started, or
24 prior to that. There was a mission, corporate sort-out that
25 happened, and the corporations kind of changed a few times.

1 Q Who were the directors of the mother church in
2 1987?
3 A Marc Yagger had been one; Jim -- fellow named Jim
4 was another director. I know Mark Ingber was a director. I
5 believe Mark Ingber was a director. I don't remember them
6 all.
7 Q 1987? You're claiming those people were directors
8 then?
9 A To the -- to the best of my recollection, yes.
10 Q Now, the people you say were superior to you in
11 1987 were who, in RTC?
12 A In RTC itself? Vicky Aznaran.
13 Q Vicky Aznaran was the only one?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And who are the other people senior to you?
16 A Outside of Religious Technology Center?
17 Q Yeah.
18 A Marty Rathburn -- David Miscavige, Pat and Annie
19 Broeker, Lyman Spurlock, Marty Rathburn.
20 Q And those people weren't in RTC, right?
21 A No. They worked at Office Services of --
22 Q But they were all senior to RTC.
23 A Ecclesiastically, yes.
24 Q Okay.
25 A Ecclesiastically to me.

1 Q So how is it that you are the second person in
2 charge of all Scientology, and all the people from the whole
3 different organization or --
4 THE COURT: Counsel, you're misstating what the
5 man said. What the man said was he was second in
6 command of the corporate structure in the
7 ecclesiastical structure. He admitted he was number
8 seven or eight or whatever. He listed all those
9 folks that were above him.
10 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
11 THE COURT: At least that's what I understand
12 him to say. And I don't understand much about
13 Scientology, but --
14 MR. MOXON: But --
15 THE COURT: -- he seems to be distinguishing
16 between a corporate structure and a ecclesiastical
17 structure.
18 MR. MOXON: In actual fact, he was -- there was
19 a couple dozen people in one corporation he was a
20 director of. That's only one corporation out of
21 thousands and thousands of people. He wasn't the
22 second in corporate of anything.
23 MR. DANDAR: Is this testimony?
24 I object.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q Now, in 1987, you were busted from any position of
3 authority or responsibility, right?
4 A I was removed, correct.
5 Q Yeah.
6 And at that time -- you never held any position of
7 authority after that, did you? After 1987?
8 A No. No, I did not.
9 Q But you stayed in the Church for another five
10 years?
11 A Yes, I did.
12 Q You were doing primarily cleaning, gardening,
13 maintenance, construction work, that sort of thing?
14 A No. I actually worked in the preproduction film
15 department -- it's -- some truth -- partially, I did do
16 that. But the majority of my work had to do with doing pre-
17 and post-production sound for Scientology instructional
18 films.
19 Q That wasn't till 1990, was it?
20 A You know, I'm not sure. It could have been '89;
21 it could have been '88.
22 Q Well, in fact, the first three years after that,
23 you didn't do anything but gardening and construction and
24 confessionals and that sort of thing, right?
25 A No. That's not correct.

1 Q How many years was it after --
2 A Oh, oh, oh, oh, wait a minute. And then there is
3 something that we're missing I was an auditor for.
4 Q Just a minute --
5 A In '87.
6 Q -- Mr. Prince.
7 After 1987 --
8 MR. DANDAR: I object, Judge. He was trying to
9 answer the question. He didn't like the answer and
10 interrupted him.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 And also, I'm not sure what this has to do with
13 his qualifications. Plus -- unless we're talking
14 about gardening.
15 MR. MOXON: Well, no, we're not talking about
16 gardening.
17 THE COURT: I will allow him to finish if you
18 were talking about -- you had asked a question about
19 what he had done --
20 You say you were an auditor part of those five
21 years?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. I am forgotten about
23 that. I did continue to practice auditing and case
24 supervising. I'd forgotten about that. After I had
25 been removed from the high position, I still did

1 those things.
3 Q Oh, by the way, Judge Moody didn't find you an
4 expert, did he?
5 A Judge Moody -- this issue came up, and we argued
6 this in front of Judge Moody. And I know a motion was
7 brought by counsel -- I believe it was a gentleman that was
8 here earlier today -- on whether or not I would qualify as
9 an expert witness. And I know that he did not prevail to
10 disqualify me on that issue.
11 Q Did Judge Moody find you to be an expert or not?
12 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Asked and answered.
13 THE COURT: I don't think you know, do you,
14 sir?
15 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
17 Q Okay. Now, you say you were one of the highest
18 trained people in the Church technically as an auditor? Is
19 that what you're claiming?
20 A And case supervisor, yes.
21 Q And you were a class 9 auditor?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Now, a person can be a class 9 auditor without --
24 Well, tell me this: What is the largest, most
25 complete auditing course that one does in Scientology?

1 It's the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
2 A Yes, it is.
3 Q Did you do that?
4 A Part of it.
5 Q You didn't complete that.
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. And that would make you a class 6 auditor,
8 correct?
9 A Correct.
10 Q So you're not a class 6 auditor.
11 A I wasn't an internal class 6 auditor --
12 Q You were never --
13 A -- but that was not required to be a class 9
14 auditor.
15 Q That's right. I'll get to that.
16 You weren't a class 6 or class 7 or class 8
17 auditor, is that right?
18 A I've done parts of all of those courses.
19 Q Mr. Prince, you were not certified as a class 6, 7
20 or 8 --
21 A Correct.
22 Q -- were you?
23 A Correct. Correct.
24 (Simultaneous speakers.)

1 Q Okay. And a class 9 -- you only have to be a
2 class 4 auditor in order to become a class 9, right? You
3 can jump from 4 to do a class 9 course and then be
4 considered, quote, a class 9.
5 A No, no. That's incorrect. I was actually
6 required to be what's called a graduate 4 and a class 5
7 auditor before you could do those steps.
8 Q Okay. But all the class 6, class 8 -- those
9 people all had far more training than a class 9, right?
10 A Yes.
11 Well, no. Not necessarily. Not far more, but
12 just different types of training.
13 Q And you weren't a class 10 or 11 or 12 --
14 A Correct.
15 Q -- right?
16 A Correct.
17 Q So all these people are higher trained than you.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Since you've left the church and made all these
20 statements deriding and degrading Scientology, you'd
21 probably be one of the last people in the world that any
22 Scientologist would turn to for any advice with respect to
23 Scientology, is that right?
24 A That is so completely false.
25 Q So as any Scientologist -- Church of Scientologist

1 can come to you for advice on technical matters.
2 A Yes. He did.
3 Q Church of Scientology? What Church of Scientology
4 came to you for technical advice?
5 A Oh, you mean --
6 No. No entity has come to me. But individual
7 Scientologists have come to me and asked me for advice.
8 Q You mean the ones that are leaving or left.
9 A Or still in and want to know, maybe --
10 I get so many calls.
11 Q Identify a single Scientologist, who's an active
12 member of the church, who's come to you for advice. A
13 single one.
14 A Jeanine Udall.
15 Q Who?
16 A Jeanine Udall. Who is currently institutionalized
17 after an episode with Scientology.
18 MR. MOXON: Move to strike.
19 A Greg Bradshaw, a man who recently committed
20 suicide because he was turned away right here in Clearwater
21 and had no place to go.
23 Q So he's a Scientologist now?
24 A No. He's dead now.
25 Q So name any human being that's a member of the

1 Church of Scientology who's come to you for advice in the
2 past.
3 MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I'm going to object.
4 Because these people who come to him may not want
5 Mr. Moxon to know who they are.
6 MR. MOXON: There aren't any.
7 THE COURT: Well, I -- I agree. This is kind
8 of a problem area. However, Mr. Prince would not be
9 in any level a confidential relationship. And I
10 think if he's going to make that statement, he has
11 the right to ask. Now, if he doesn't want to
12 answer --
13 Now, he did give you one name; that's Ms. Udall
14 or something like that.
16 Q Is she a member of the church now, you're
17 claiming?
18 A Yes.
19 MR. DANDAR: Two names, actually.
20 THE COURT: Well, one of them's dead. He
21 wanted to know someone who was presently a
22 Scientologist.
23 THE WITNESS: And your Honor, that is true.
24 When these people call me, that the --
25 MR. MOXON: I object.

1 THE WITNESS: -- for me not to divulge who they
2 are or what their names are, because they're afraid
3 of reprisals.
4 MR. MOXON: I'd move to strike.
5 THE COURT: Are you not going to give him any
6 more names?
7 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. No more names.
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 MR. MOXON: There aren't any.
10 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I think Mr. Prince would do
11 an in camera --
12 THE COURT: Well, I think that, in fairness, he
13 does not have -- I'm not going to get into
14 compelling this because it isn't that critical to
15 the issue.
16 MR. MOXON: Fine.
17 THE COURT: But in fairness, he can't -- he
18 can't say, "I'm not going to tell," and then have
19 the record reflect that there are just jillions of
20 them. He's got to be able to name them. If he's
21 not going to name them, then we're dealing with
22 Ms. Udall. But that is one --
23 MR. MOXON: I move to strike if he's not going
24 to tell his alleged qualification --
25 THE COURT: I'm not going to make him do that.

1 I don't think it really has that much to do with
2 whether or not he can testify as an expert, to the
3 limited -- for the limited things that Mr. Dandar
4 said he's going to call him for.
6 Q Now, do you claim that someone from the church
7 actually identified you as an expert in the RTC case that
8 you referred to? And if so, who is this human being?
9 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Who is, was the
10 question?
12 Q Who is the person who allegedly identified you as
13 an expert in the RTC case in 1985?
14 A I think the -- the bit of the transcript that you
15 showed me and read into the record, I happened to glance on
16 the page before, and I think the attorney clearly said
17 who --
18 Q This attorney said you're not an expert. And
19 there was no response to that, was there? Church attorney
20 didn't respond when --
21 A So Mr. Cooley examined me, and he said, "Are you
22 part of the Church of Scientology? Are you a
23 Scientologist?" Answered "yes" to all of these things.
24 "Are you the --
25 Q I --

1 THE COURT: Mr. Prince --
2 A -- (inaudible due to simultaneous speakers) RTC?
3 THE COURT: That is --
4 A "Yes, I am a director and officer --"
5 THE COURT: -- he wanted --
6 A "-- of the corporation."
7 (Multiple speakers.)
8 THE COURT: -- to know if you could look at the
9 transcript and assist in saying what lawyer --
11 THE COURT: -- qualified you as an expert.
13 Q Who's the human being who ever said, in the
14 church, that you were testifying as an expert?
15 MR. MOXON: And your Honor, obviously, we're
16 not prepared for a lot of this, but I can get
17 affidavits from various people to refute these
18 things he's saying today.
19 MR. DANDAR: Judge, how could they not be
20 prepared? They set the motion for today.
21 THE COURT: Well, I think in reality what we're
22 all overlooking is whether -- I mean, yes, I suppose
23 if he had been qualified as an expert many times in
24 the past, it makes it much easier for him to be
25 qualified this time. But in truth, everybody must

1 qualify for the first time. So even if he had never
2 qualified before, that wouldn't preclude him from
3 testifying as an expert.
4 MR. MOXON: I agree. But Mr. Minton has sought
5 to utilize him in a number of other cases. And from
6 time to time, he makes his claim as an expert. But
7 no judge has ever qualified him. Never. This would
8 be the first time if he's ever qualified.
9 THE COURT: He has basically only indicated
10 that there were only two times. And then he
11 admitted, as to Judge Moody, he really doesn't know
12 whether that's true or not. And so I think we're
13 down to possibly one case, and it's that one. And
14 somebody can find where he was called as a witness
15 and find whether or not he was qualified as an
16 expert.
17 MR. MOXON: Well --
19 Q And let me ask you --
20 THE COURT: And if he wasn't, then he can't
21 give us a time. And therefore, this would be the
22 first time he'd be qualified as an expert if he were
23 to be permitted to testify in trial in front of the
24 jury.

2 Q But it is your testimony, in fact, you were
3 proffered as some sort of an expert witness, is that right?
4 A I think that is possible.
5 But you know, I think the judge has made a very
6 good point. I've never testified in front of a jury.
7 MR. MOXON: May I approach, your Honor?
8 THE COURT: You may.
10 Q I've handed --
11 THE COURT: Mr. Bailiff, if you'd like to
12 leave, you may, because we may be a little after 5,
13 and all is under control. So I'm perfectly
14 comfortable if you'd like to leave.
15 THE BAILIFF: Very good, ma'am.
16 THE COURT: All right.
18 Q I hand you a proposed amendment and addition to
19 pretrial order. Jessie Prince is not an expert witness in
20 that case, correct?
21 A Correct.
22 Q Is it still your testimony you were identified as
23 an expert in that case?
24 A No. Now that I've seen this record, no.
25 Q If I showed you a document from the RTC case

1 indicating that you were identified as a fact witness, would
2 that change your testimony?
3 A Yes.
4 Q If I show you a document in the Wollersheim case
5 indicating you were identified as a fact witness, would that
6 change your testimony there too?
7 A Yes.
8 THE COURT: Who did you testify, sir, in this
9 case -- you testified for the defendant or the
10 plaintiff? You testified for FACTnet?
11 THE WITNESS: I testified for the defendant,
12 your Honor.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I guess what he's
16 trying to ask, is do you have any reason to -- this
17 is purportedly a statement, a pleading filed by the
18 lawyer for FACTnet, indicating that you were being
19 added to the list as a nonexpert witness.
20 THE WITNESS: Correct.
21 THE COURT: And I didn't understand. Do you
22 say you still dispute that?
23 THE WITNESS: No, mm-hmm. I --
24 THE COURT: You agree.
25 MR. MOXON: I don't know if you missed it while

1 you were reading. I asked him other questions, if
2 he would dispute if I showed him similar documents
3 from the other cases indicating he was a fact
4 witness, and he said he would not dispute those
5 either.
6 THE COURT: I think my recollection is he said
7 he thought perhaps he was qualified as an expert in
8 two cases. Then he agreed that he really didn't
9 know, in Judge Moody's court. He thought this one.
10 And now he's agreed he wasn't.
11 So this would be a case, presumably, where if
12 he were permitted to testify as an expert, it would
13 be his first time in court in front of the jury.
15 Q You have no valid certificates as a Scientology
16 minister, do you, or auditor?
17 A I no longer have any.
18 Q They were all removed, right?
19 A They were taken from me.
20 Q You remember signing several agreements throughout
21 the year saying that you couldn't do what you're trying to
22 do now, which is to testify about your alleged experiences
23 when you were in the Church?
24 A I remember one -- you know, maybe I've done it in
25 the past. But I know the last one that I did, I know that

1 it was -- and I've given testimony about this -- it was
2 under heavy coercion and threat.
3 Q So you mean you signed documents under penalty of
4 perjury that you say were untrue?
5 A No. I'm saying that I was forced to sign those
6 documents because I was coerced or blackmailed into signing
7 them.
8 Q I see.
9 MR. MOXON: May I approach?
10 THE COURT: You may.
12 Q So the first one, which is -- they're all Exhibit
13 29 to the motion to strike -- first document is dated 1
14 November, 1992. Could you take a look at the last page?
15 THE COURT: What document? I'm sorry. What
16 number?
17 MR. MOXON: It's Exhibit 29 in the appendix.
18 THE COURT: Okay.
20 Q Is that your signature there?
21 A Yes, sir, it is.
22 Q And do you see -- take a look on page 3, paragraph
23 8. Says, "I understand that in my duties as a religious
24 worker, I have had access to information which includes
25 proprietary information and confidential information."

1 A Yes, I do.
2 Q "I further understand this information is to be
3 held strictly confidential by me and not to be revealed,
4 disclosed or given at any time to any person not a verified
5 representative of the Church of Scientology International."
6 A Yes.
7 Q You see that?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And see where it says in paragraph 9, the second
10 sentence, "I further acknowledge I have a duty to maintain
11 this confidentiality even though I may no longer be a
12 religious worker of any org. with Church of Scientology"?
13 A Yes.
14 Q You signed this document, right?
15 A Yes, I did.
16 Q And when you declared, under penalty of perjury on
17 the last page of that, were you telling the truth?
18 A This document was not prepared by me. I was under
19 threat of separation of --
20 MR. MOXON: Move to --
21 A -- losing my --
22 MR. MOXON: -- strike.
23 (Simultaneous speakers.)
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 A -- life by exposing -- exposing sensitive

1 information about me that I gave under priest-penent (sic)
2 conditions, as has happened in this case. And unless I
3 was -- did not sign that --
4 I was already being held in a penal camp. And
5 unless I signed exactly what they wanted me to sign, I was
6 not able to leave, after waiting for three months.
7 MR. MOXON: Outrageous --
9 Q All right. So you lied in this because you said
10 you were under duress?
11 A I was blackmailed and coerced.
12 Q Okay.
13 A And this document was prepared by someone else
14 besides myself. I had no legal counsel, no legal
15 representation.
16 Q Okay. So you say --
17 A And you threatened to sue me over this, and you
18 never have, so far. It's been years.
19 Q So I understand you say you lied, but you had a
20 good reason.
21 A No. Whoever wrote this document lied.
22 Q Okay.
23 A But I was blackmailed and coerced to sign it in
24 order to leave the compound where I had been held for three
25 months against my will.

1 MR. MOXON: Well, I'm not going to get into all
2 that at this point, Judge.
3 A Okay.
4 THE COURT: I'm glad, Counselor.
6 Q Basically -- just one question. Basically, you're
7 saying you were being held prisoner by the church.
8 A Correct.
9 Q And that must have made you awfully angry. If
10 that were remotely true, that must have made you pretty
11 angry, right?
12 A Well, I was really more disappointed and upset
13 because of the violation of trust and things that I thought
14 weren't -- weren't in fact the way they should have been. I
15 finally just --
16 Q So when you signed this thing, you signed -- just
17 signed this legally binding document just to get away.
18 A Just to get out, yes, to be released.
19 Q Take a look at the next one, in December of 1997.
20 You claim you were being held prisoner when you signed that
21 one?
22 A Excuse me, sir. What exhibit is that?
23 Q The next page. Still Exhibit 29.
24 A Exhibit 29.
25 Q Yeah.

1 A What am I looking at now?
2 Q The next document's called A Nondisclosure and
3 Release Bond.
4 A Oh. Just a moment, please.
5 Q You were being held a prisoner when you signed
6 this one too?
7 A No. I think I had just been let out of the prison
8 camp on this one.
9 Q Prison camp.
10 A Yeah.
11 Q Oh, you were in a prison camp now?
12 A The RPF, Religious -- Rehabilitation Project
13 Force.
14 Q So you're calling the Rehabilitation Project Force
15 a prison camp?
16 A Yes. A penal camp.
17 Q That's what your testimony would be if you
18 testified in this case?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. And so 1987, you were just let out of a
21 prison camp, and then you stayed for five more years?
22 A Well --
23 Q Is that right?
24 A I was let out because of this. This was part
25 of -- part of the deal for me to get out.

1 Q Okay. And you stayed for five more years.
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. And then there's another one here, 1979,
4 the next document, Exhibit 29. Were you in prison -- were
5 you in what you call a, quote, prison camp when you signed
6 this document?
7 A This one in 1978? Let me see. January, 19 --
8 Q 1979.
9 A Mine says '78.
10 Q 22 July, 1979.
11 A Oh, mine says 10 January, '79 -- '78. I must have
12 the wrong one.
13 Okay. 22 July, '79. I have this one here.
14 Q So you claim you were in a prison camp when you
15 signed this --
16 A Well, let me look.
17 Q -- release?
18 A No. This is what I had to sign in order to be
19 accepted to that high position that I had in the Religious
20 Technology Center. A mission was -- well, you fully know
21 what a Scientology mission is -- came out to qualify me --
22 Q Mr. Prince --
23 A -- to assume this high position.
24 Q Mr. --
25 A And I was asked to sign this document under threat

1 of expulsion and declare I'd never get a job and I'd be
2 hounded for the rest of my days simply because I did not
3 want to go work for L. Ron Hubbard.
4 Q So 1979, you claim somebody came to the church and
5 told you you were going to be hounded for the rest of your
6 life, and declared from the religion if you didn't sign this
7 document?
8 A Correct.
9 Q And --
10 A And go work for L. Ron Hubbard.
11 Q And so you signed it.
12 A Yes.
13 Q You'd never met L. Ron Hubbard, right?
14 A No, sir.
15 Q And you stayed in the Church for another 13 years
16 after this alleged event?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Okay. And the next one is earlier, dated 1978.
19 Were you held against your will?
20 A I was in the penal camp when this happened.
21 Q You were in another penal colony.
22 A Well, in a different location, yes.
23 Q I see. So all this --
24 Okay. So --
25 A Behind barbed wires on --

1 Q Barbed wire.
2 A -- Sunset.
3 Yeah. Yeah.
4 Q Where was this alleged barbed wire?
5 A The blue building. The base command center.
6 Q In Hollywood.
7 A Yes.
8 Q In the middle of Hollywood, right on Sunset
9 Boulevard?
10 A Yes. It used to be enclosed in a barbed wire
11 fence patrolled by German shepherds. I was there when the
12 raid came, and I was woken out of bed in the basement with
13 the FBI storming the doors.
14 Q So you were in a prison camp on Sunset Boulevard
15 in Hollywood in 1978.
16 A Correct.
17 Q And you were being held there and they made you
18 sign this declaration.
19 A Correct.
20 Q And you stayed for another how many years? 14
21 years?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Did you ever sign a declaration that you didn't
24 falsify or did you sign willingly during all these years?
25 A While working for Scientology?

1 Q Yeah.
2 A No.
3 Q So your testimony in 1985 was that -- that you
4 gave under oath was that also under duress when you were
5 allegedly an expert witness and you were in control of the
6 whole church?
7 A 1985?
8 Q Yeah.
9 A All I did in that -- I gave testimony that this is
10 the exact same as this, because they used the exact same
11 words.
12 Q Yeah. You just compared two documents.
13 A Yeah. That's it.
14 Q Doesn't take an expert to compare two documents,
15 does it?
16 A No, it does not.
17 THE COURT: Redirect.
18 I'm sorry. Are you done?
20 Q Oh, by the way, when you had this meeting with
21 Earle Cooley, you mentioned, in 1985, did you tell the truth
22 then? You said it was a tape-recorded meeting.
23 A Yes. Tape recorded.
24 Q Did you tell the truth then? Were you being
25 truthful?

1 A I said exactly what they needed to hear so that I
2 could leave.
3 Q So you were lying then in 1995 (sic) too.
4 THE COURT: I don't even know what you're
5 talking about. Who's Earle Cooley?
6 MR. MOXON: He mentioned on his direct
7 testimony that he had a meeting with Earle Cooley in
8 1995, and that he -- Earle Cooley gave him $2,700 as
9 an alleged consultant fee.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
12 Q So when Mr. Cooley gave you this -- allegedly gave
13 you $2,700 as a consultant, and you had a meeting, a
14 tape-recorded meeting with him, you lied to Mr. Cooley,
15 telling him whatever he wanted to hear?
16 A Yeah. Maybe. Yes. Yes.
17 Q Okay. So do you think someone who's admitted
18 lying all these times would be qualified as an expert?
19 THE COURT: We don't really care what he
20 thinks. All you care about is what I think.
21 MR. MOXON: Well, that's true.
23 Q What was -- what's the source of LMT's income?
24 A Primarily donations.
25 Q Can you tell me what persons have given any

1 donations to LMT over --
2 MR. DANDAR: Objection.
3 (Simultaneous speakers.)
5 Q -- $500?
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 A You know I cannot.
8 MR. DANDAR: Objection.
9 The judge sustained it.
11 MR. MOXON: Judge, these go to the Fifth --
12 these Fifth Amendment issues that Mr. --
13 THE COURT: I told you you could call him in
14 for another deposition if you wanted to, and he
15 could do those. That doesn't have anything to do
16 with whether or not he has qualifications to
17 testify --
18 MR. MOXON: Okay. Well --
19 THE COURT: -- as an expert.
20 MR. MOXON: I got it.
21 Well, it only goes to the qualifications with
22 respect to further bias, 'cause he's getting all his
23 money from Minton and --
24 THE COURT: But you have all that in here in
25 affidavit form, don't you?

1 MR. MOXON: Well, most of it. Except I don't
2 have it from him. And Mr. Dandar's, of course,
3 objecting to me getting further information.
4 Mr. Minton pled the Fifth on it. Mr. Prince pled
5 the fifth on it. Ms. Brooks pled the fifth on it.
6 The payments that have been made to him during the
7 time period when he was allegedly acting as a expert
8 for Mr. Dandar.
9 MR. DANDAR: They have all the financial
10 information from my office as to what I paid
11 Mr. Prince.
12 THE COURT: If you can get it without a whole
13 lot of harangue, we can get it once and get it done.
14 MR. DANDAR: They have all the paperwork from
15 Mr. Prince at LMT.
16 THE WITNESS: And that was recently turned over
17 to them. Every payroll.
18 THE COURT: Was it all turned over?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. I think --
20 MR. MOXON: Your Honor --
21 THE WITNESS: I think the only thing I haven't
22 admitted to was a $50,000 loan that I got from
23 Mr. Minton to purchase my house, and I'm saying and
24 admitting that now.
25 THE COURT: Okay.

2 Q So you got $50,000 from Mr. Minton?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Did you pay it back?
5 A No.
6 Q And that was in February, 2000?
7 A Correct.
8 Q Has Mr. Minton given you any other money since
9 then?
10 A No.
11 MR. MOXON: Well, we'll take back the
12 depositions.
13 What I would like to point out in part of the
14 testimony, obviously, your Honor, is,
15 notwithstanding the single qualification issue --
16 and obviously we weren't prepared to cross examine
17 him to show him all these documents -- when the
18 witness testified for Mr. Dandar, he testified very
19 emphatically about his being admitted as an expert.
20 And in cross examination he said, "Well, actually,
21 that's not true," once we show him the documents.
22 THE COURT: And in fairness, I realize that
23 you're -- you want to be critical and you want me to
24 be critical of Mr. Prince. Truth of the matter is,
25 a lot of folks that testify don't understand if

1 they're -- if they think they're rendering opinions,
2 they think they're an expert, and in truth they're
3 really not. So I'm not -- he's not so advanced in
4 the law that he would not necessarily know, I think.
5 Now the record's clear that he really hasn't
6 been, at least that he knows of, if his lawyer can't
7 point to it, been qualified as an expert before.
8 MR. MOXON: And as to these other bias issues,
9 we addressed earlier --
10 THE COURT: Bias issues, I think, are very well
11 in the record, and I don't really think you have to
12 explore them. There's been a whole slew of stuff.
13 I wouldn't necessarily preclude you from it, but I
14 just think it would be rehashing things that have
15 already been done.
16 MR. MOXON: And I wanted to point out that the
17 case that was cited by Mr. Dandar --
18 THE COURT: Well, wait. We'll go to cases in a
19 minute.
20 Are you done with him?
21 MR. MOXON: I'm done with him for now.
24 Q All right. I have a couple -- just a couple
25 questions, Mr. Prince.

1 A Yes, ma'am.
2 Q And somewhere, I saw in an affidavit today that if
3 you were asked to testify as an expert, you would not, and I
4 heard you now today kind of volunteer to come up here and
5 testify, waive your Fifth Amendment right. And so I guess
6 what I need to know from you, if I were to say at the
7 conclusion of this day, or the day that I rule on this, that
8 if Mr. Dandar wants to call you as a witness, and I
9 determine that you would be allowed to render opinion
10 testimony as an expert witness, would you testify?
11 A Your Honor, I'll give a qualified answer to that.
12 My qualified answer is no. Because unless I
13 was --
14 Q That's not very qualified. A qualified answer is
15 "maybe."
16 A Okay. Well, maybe.
17 Because you know, I can't take --
18 Q If you say no, that's all right.
19 A I can't take this anymore. I can't take being
20 followed by private investigators. I can't take having my
21 fiance and my children threatened, my house threatened, my
22 phone tapped; you know, people making wild allegations that
23 Mr. Dandar and myself are dealing drugs and me and
24 Mr. Minton are dealing drugs and, you know, I'm running
25 money -- I just can't do that anymore. I'm not willing to

1 continue to go through the intense harassment.
2 I mean, this -- this thing with Mr. Gaston, that's
3 just one instance, your Honor. I have a report on file with
4 the Federal Bureau of Investigation for -- one of
5 Scientology's private investigators came to me and told me
6 that he had my phones wiretapped. They knew everything that
7 I was saying. They told them that I was involved in a child
8 slavery.
9 And that's how they even got this fellow involved,
10 because he's got a youth ministry where he helps
11 underprivileged, abused children. So they got him involved
12 in doing all these illegal activities with me. And he found
13 out that I'm not involved in child slavery, and that's
14 incorrect. So he came and told me everything. And I
15 followed --
16 Q You seem to be giving a lot of explanation, but
17 your answer didn't seem to be very qualified. Is your
18 answer no, you will not testify? You told Mr. Dandar under
19 no circumstance will you testify?
20 A If I could be protected by the court in a way that
21 curtailed Scientology's activity against me specifically, I
22 would be willing to testify. If there is no such guarantee
23 that is possible or beyond the authority of this court, then
24 I am finished. I will not do it again.
25 Q Well, let me ask you this: If I were to enter any

1 type of -- any type of -- I mean, it's been suggested that I
2 enter an order that precludes Scientology or their lawyers
3 from harassing any witness. If I were to do that, then, of
4 course, the church has said today, "Well, then we want their
5 witnesses from harassing the church."
6 A Mm-hmm.
7 Q You know, I saw those -- those things. I would
8 consider that a form of harassment, no matter what you're
9 talking about.
10 A Mm-hmm.
11 Q If I were to enter an order saying they're not to
12 harass you and you're not to harass them, we --
13 A Kind of --
14 Q -- that it's okay for them, but you got a First
15 Amendment --
16 You want me to step on that, or can we have some
17 mutual agreement here?
18 A Well, your Honor, I think that we could find a
19 bridge in this matter.
20 But I do have to say that it's almost been a year
21 since I've picketed any Scientology establishment at all.
22 Q So you wouldn't have any problem with staying away
23 and not doing that.
24 A Yes -- no, ma'am. I would have no problem at all.
25 THE COURT: Well, I don't know where I'm going

1 to go with this, but thank you for that.
2 MR. DANDAR: Could I ask three questions?
3 (A discussion was held off the record.)
4 THE COURT: What is it you want to ask of
5 Mr. Prince?
8 Q Mr. Prince, you said you didn't tell Mr. Cooley
9 what you -- the truth; you told him what he wanted to hear?
10 A Correct.
11 Q And why is that?
12 A Because he reminded me -- he said, you know, "We
13 have all of this information here." You know, he had
14 excerpts from my preclear files, excerpts of my ethics
15 files, previous things that they had made me sign. And he
16 said, "I just want to walk you through this to make sure
17 you're just like this today."
18 And you know, the fact of the matter is, is that
19 because of some of the most severe experiences I've had in
20 Scientology, I was afraid of it in 1995. My idea was to
21 please run away from Scientology and try to have a life.
22 Q Now, when you were in Scientology, you were a
23 minister of Scientology?
24 A Yes.
25 Q You respected the priest-penitent privilege that

1 Scientology said existed on preclear folders?
2 A Absolutely. And even to this day, I've never --
3 and I was the auditor of Miscavige for a while. I
4 case-supervised his folder. I case-supervised John
5 Travolta's folder. I did training with Tom Cruise and other
6 people.
7 MR. MOXON: I object, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 A I have never once --
10 THE COURT: Sustained. Stop.
11 Go ahead.
13 Q And when you were in Scientology, did you sign a
14 billion-year contract?
15 A Yes, I did.
16 Q And why were you -- Mr. Moxon asked you about you
17 being demoted. Why were you removed from your high
18 position?
19 A Because I would not choose a side.
20 Again, there was a big schism in Scientology as
21 does happen almost every five or six years. And you know,
22 they were getting rid of the criminals; again, getting rid
23 of the criminals. There was a battle between Pat Broeker
24 and --
25 MR. MOXON: Objection.

1 (Simultaneous speakers.)
2 A -- Miscavige --
3 THE COURT: Wait a second. Excuse me.
4 I think you opened the door. Overruled.
6 Q Go ahead. There was a fight between who --
7 A There was a fight --
8 THE COURT: We don't need to hear the whole
9 shebang.
10 THE WITNESS: I'll give the summarized version,
11 the condensed version, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 A There was a big power struggle because L. Ron
14 Hubbard had died in '86, so now there was a power struggle.
15 There was an issue came out. And Pat Broeker was to be the
16 new leader of Scientology, but he had problems, you know,
17 even from a non-Scientological viewpoint. You could tell
18 this person wasn't capable of being an administrator.
19 Miscavige then got into a battle with them. I had both of
20 them coming to me, "Join me." "You join me." "You join
21 me." "No." Because I had had my fill of being up there and
22 doing some of the things that was demanded of me. And I
23 told them both, "No."
25 Q Okay.

1 A So for that reason, because I didn't show
2 allegiance to Miscavige and he ultimately won, I was
3 removed.
4 MR. DANDAR: That's all I have, Judge.
5 MR. MOXON: Judge, I -- I could ask him an hour
6 of questions on that. I don't particularly want to.
7 THE COURT: I don't --
8 MR. MOXON: And I don't think it's particularly
9 relevant.
10 THE COURT: I don't either.
11 MR. MOXON: Fact of the matter is, 1987, he was
12 removed from any possible position, and he's the
13 last person in the world who would ever be asked
14 to --
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. MOXON: -- talk about Scientology.
17 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step down.
18 You may resume your seat.
19 Is there to be any more testimony or any more
20 argument?
21 I'm going to ask you all to do something for
22 me.
23 But do you all have anything else you want to
24 present today on this issue of the three matters
25 that we've taken up? I guess it's two matters we've

1 taken up: The motion to strike Mr. Prince as a
2 witness and the motion for severe sanctions, and the
3 opposition -- in the one case, the opposition of the
4 church, and the plaintiff's motion on the other; the
5 opposition of the plaintiff to the defendant's
6 motion. We've got one plaintiff's motion, one
7 defendant's motion that I've heard today, correct?
8 MR. DANDAR: Right. So you only heard two
9 things.
10 THE COURT: Right.
11 MR. MOXON: There's one point, your Honor, is
12 this the only case that Mr. Dandar has cited --
13 THE COURT: I'm going to give you a chance on
14 that, because I want to have you all brief for me.
15 Because I've looked at these cases, and I realize
16 that when -- you can see that I'm looking for
17 something. You know, you're looking in your
18 computer and you grab cases, they're not always
19 right on the money. Because I've read through a
20 couple of these, and they don't help me.
21 I want you all to brief for me whether or not
22 someone whose extraordinarily biased, without
23 question, I can find -- and I'm not faulting him.
24 I'm just simply saying without question, by his
25 actions, by his words and otherwise, Mr. Prince is

1 extraordinarily biased against Scientology. And
2 what I want to know is whether or not that would
3 prohibit him, if otherwise qualified, from
4 testifying as an expert witness.
5 Now, granted, he could be fully cross examined
6 on the matter. I don't need to go there.
7 But what I want to know is at the front end of
8 this is whether that would prohibit him, under
9 Florida law -- not necessarily federal law, because
10 I don't know, for example, if the Florida Evidence
11 Code is in line with the Federal Evidence Code. You
12 all need to go there before you cite me federal
13 cases. Because if it isn't lined up, then federal
14 law doesn't help me much.
15 So you all help me so I don't have to, you
16 know --
17 And you can take some time. This case isn't
18 going to trial tomorrow. So just a little
19 memorandum. Doesn't have to be real long. But just
20 a memorandum with some cases that might help me.
21 I know you think that it's weird, because I
22 know you said, "Well, what difference does it make?
23 He said he's not going to testify." Well, you've
24 asked for sanctions. As far as I'm concerned, where
25 to go on sanctions, if I go your way at all, depends

1 on whether or not, at the outset, as I've told you
2 both, he could ever have testified in the first
3 instance. And if in fact the law says that that
4 someone who is extraordinarily prejudiced against a
5 party, to the extent stated in those federal cases,
6 cannot testify, then I would probably make a finding
7 that he cannot. But if the case -- if the law in
8 Florida is that that is a matter to be brought to
9 the attention of the jury but does not preclude him
10 from testifying as an expert, then I would look at
11 his qualifications, and quite frankly, I'd probably
12 let him testify as to the things he wants to call
13 him for.
14 I don't know if it requires an expert or not,
15 but it requires some assistance for the jury. I
16 think he's qualified to assist the jury. But --
17 So I think this turns --
18 And I think the problem with those contracts is
19 he's going to say he was coerced into signing them.
20 You're going to say he wasn't. I'm not going -- you
21 know, that's going to get us nowhere. If you think
22 he's breached contracts and he testifies, pursue
23 him. But I would not -- for a case of this
24 magnitude and for what I think the value might be to
25 one side or the other of his testimony, I would not

1 take a chance and prohibit him from testifying on
2 the basis of those contracts that he says were
3 coerced.
4 MR. MOXON: The contract issue is an
5 interesting one.
6 THE COURT: It is. And it's very interesting.
7 But I think that, from his testimony, he says he was
8 coerced for each and every one of those. And so,
9 you know, somebody signing something under coercion
10 doesn't mean a great deal.
11 MR. MOXON: I suppose that's probably true as a
12 point of law. However, the most fascinating thing
13 about it, from my viewpoint, because I've never
14 asked him about this before, is that he's saying,
15 "All throughout the years, I'm just saying what
16 somebody wants me to hear and I'm swearing as to
17 something that somebody wants to hear." It's almost
18 a different basis for disqualification.
19 THE COURT: I don't know -- and this would be a
20 very interesting legal argument. I don't know that
21 a church can get a member to agree that, after
22 leaving the church, that they can't testify about
23 anything that they learned or any -- I don't know
24 that a court would want to sanction that. Because
25 in essence, you could have somebody who knew

1 something to assist in a matter being resolved by
2 the court that couldn't testify because of some
3 document they signed when they were a member, and
4 they're no longer a member. So I don't know, as a
5 matter of public policy, if the courts would want to
6 honor those types of contracts.
7 But I don't need to go there. That's -- I'm
8 not --
9 MR. DANDAR: What else would you like us to do?
10 THE COURT: I want to know about the bias
11 issue. You can, if you like, tell me -- and I will
12 not prohibit you from telling me that he's
13 unqualified. I think he is. I think he was there
14 long enough. I think he knows, for the limited
15 purpose that he says that he knows -- he's been an
16 auditor. He therefore would have some knowledge
17 about what they mean. If there's any relevance to
18 them to this case, I don't know that. But you know,
19 for the limited things -- not the false imprisonment
20 stuff, because that's, thus far, out.
21 What were the other things that you told me
22 that --
23 MR. DANDAR: PC folders, missing documents.
24 THE COURT: Missing documents.
25 I mean, I think he's qualified -- he's had

1 enough experience in the way that things are to be
2 done where he could say that that was not the way
3 that the church did business; that they were very
4 careful in their documentation. I don't think that
5 takes a lot of qualifications.
6 MR. MOXON: Okay. Well, we --
7 THE COURT: You can brief it, but I'm telling
8 you that my inclination is that that's going to be
9 within the sound discretion of the court, and I
10 would not keep him out on that basis.
11 I'm very concerned about his clear and obvious
12 bias. So brief that for me.
13 You want to throw anything else in, feel free.
14 But I --
15 MR. MOXON: And we have all these other issues,
16 of course: The bias, whether or not he's qualified
17 as an expert in the first place was a very small
18 part of our opposition.
19 THE COURT: Right.
20 MR. MOXON: Because --
21 THE COURT: The bias is, you know, I think, a
22 very important part.
23 And of course, as an expert witness, he can be
24 paid. That doesn't prohibit you from getting into
25 his payment. But he said -- the Fifth Amendment

1 would have prohibited him from testifying, but he
2 said he'll waive that. So I think we're down to
3 whether or not his bias, which I think was extreme
4 and extraordinary, prohibits him or would allow me
5 to prohibit from testifying, if it is within the
6 sound discretion of the court.
7 I'm a little leery about allowing somebody -- a
8 jury, I think, thinks of an expert as somebody who's
9 going to kind of call it down the middle. There's
10 always a little bias on the part of an expert. But
11 if they're asked a question by the opposition,
12 they're supposed to answer absolutely truthful,
13 because they're not supposed to be -- although they
14 have an opinion -- that as far as one side or
15 another, they're supposed to answer all questions
16 from both sides absolutely honestly,
17 straightforward, because they're an expert. That's
18 how they help a jury.
19 I would have great misgivings about this
20 gentleman, because I think he's extremely biased.
21 And so I think that's what you need to brief for me.
22 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, the answer is 90.403,
23 which --
24 THE COURT: The percentage outweigh the
25 probative value.

1 MR. FUGATE: It's --
2 THE COURT: You can go there if you want, but
3 the problem is going to be if Mr. Dandar says he
4 doesn't have another expert, and that's all the
5 expert he has, then the probative value may well
6 outweigh the prejudice. On the other hand, if he's
7 got two or three more experts, then clearly that
8 does become relevant.
9 MR. FUGATE: Well --
10 THE COURT: And that's, of course, always an
11 issue for the court.
12 MR. FUGATE: And that's -- actually, if you
13 look at 90.7002 through 705, it says before a court
14 can determine whether or not somebody's going to be
15 admitted as an expert, it also has to be balanced by
16 90.403, which is where I think we were all off --
17 THE COURT: Somewhere in one of these cases it
18 said that. I don't remember where, but I was
19 reading one of those cases and I got down to the
20 very bottom -- in fact, it might be the one you
21 cited, Mr. Dandar. It was citing these three
22 things, and it said, of course -- and then, of
23 course, I was reminded of that, so --
24 But again, that -- you know, one of the next
25 motions we're to hear is Mr. Dandar's request to

1 reinstate Ms. Whitfield as an expert. And we're not
2 going to have a whole slew of experts here. We're
3 going to have one.
4 MR. DANDAR: That's all I need is one. But
5 she's now reticent because of what happened to
6 Mr. Prince. She's already been harassed years
7 before by Scientology. We need an injunction.
8 THE COURT: I don't want to hear that.
9 I guess what I'm trying to say, for the issue
10 of whether or not the prejudice is outweighed by the
11 probative value or vice-versa, a lot depends on
12 whether or not he has another expert witness. So
13 yes, you may raise that and you may discuss that in
14 your brief.
15 MR. MOXON: Now, this --
16 THE COURT: Both sides.
17 Okay.
18 MR. MOXON: Okay. And what we've been
19 discussing, of course, is just the motion to strike
20 him as a witness --
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. MOXON: -- as opposed to the earlier
23 motion.
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 MR. MOXON: The motion --

1 THE COURT: To me, for sanctions, and what type
2 of sanctions I might impose, if any, to some extent,
3 is determined to me, in my mind, rightly or wrongly.
4 And I may change my mind on whether or not he ever
5 was qualified as a witness in the first place.
6 MR. MOXON: If I can.
7 THE COURT: So I'm not going to rule on that
8 until I make a decision on whether or not he's to be
9 stricken. And I will only strike him, you know, if
10 I think that his bias precludes him -- at this point
11 I will only strike him if I think his bias precludes
12 him from testifying.
13 MR. MOXON: And as to the other issues that
14 we've raised, we may submit further briefing on
15 that --
16 THE COURT: That's fine.
17 MR. MOXON: -- if you wish.
18 THE COURT: A legal briefing.
19 MR. MOXON: Yeah. For example --
20 THE COURT: Law. Case law. Give it to me.
21 MR. MOXON: And whether or not there's been any
22 evidence provided, for example, that, you know,
23 there was a confidential relationship with
24 Mr. Prince that Barry Gaston --
25 THE COURT: Who?

1 MR. MOXON: -- that Barry Gaston violated in
2 some fashion, since there's been no testimony that
3 I --
4 THE COURT: I don't even know who that was.
5 MR. MOXON: Barry Gaston was the
6 investigator --
7 MR. DANDAR: The undercover --
8 MR. MOXON: -- the confidential informant.
9 THE COURT: Sorry.
10 MR. MOXON: We can address that issue further.
11 I take it the court has not determined, then,
12 what other issues --
13 THE COURT: You know what the court has
14 determined is that there was two -- there were two
15 purposes to the investigators being -- watching
16 Mr. Prince. One of them was valid and one of them
17 wasn't.
18 One of them was to look out for the security of
19 the church because Mr. Prince was a valid threat
20 against the church. And that's as fair as it can
21 be. It is also as fair as it can be that there's a
22 second side of the investigation to surveil a
23 witness that may be harmful. There's nothing wrong
24 with that. You can do that. It's done all the
25 time. They're always lurking behind witnesses and

1 trying to see them pick up something and then use it
2 against them. That's done every day. So that's
3 okay.
4 But what isn't fair is to set up a witness to
5 try to impeach that witness or to try to get
6 criminal charges brought against that witness. And
7 I have no doubt, while I think the church's interest
8 in surveilling Mr. Prince was in part for very
9 proper purposes, I think I am persuaded by the
10 testimony and by the files that, in part, it was for
11 improper purposes.
12 So if you want to brief that, you can brief it,
13 but I'm pretty well persuaded by what I've heard.
14 MR. MOXON: I'd like to --
15 THE COURT: You've got a dual purpose here, and
16 one of them is not proper.
17 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I've kept my mouth shut
18 through all this, but I think that one thing that
19 the court is aware of, and that is how the criminal
20 court process works.
21 And one of the problems with what's been
22 presented in sort of the one-sided fashion that it
23 was presented is that the testimony was, when it
24 became clear that there was illegal drug activity
25 involved, that was turned over to law enforcement.

1 In your packet, Exhibit 41, for instance, is
2 the affidavit of Detective Crosby, who says, "I went
3 to the house." Not that Barry Gaston told him these
4 things, but, "I went to the house. I observed five
5 plants. I asked Mr. Prince about them. He said he
6 took care of them." That was part and parcel of a
7 criminal affidavit that was submitted to a
8 magistrate, which then caused an arrest warrant to
9 be issued. And marijuana was found, and there was a
10 prosecution by the State Attorney's office.
11 And all of this information came out, as you
12 can imagine, pretty ably by Mr. DeVlaming in the
13 criminal case. And had there been any evidence, as
14 the court pointed out in the beginning that there
15 had been any tampering with a witness or a set-up
16 with the witness, that, I'm sure, would have been
17 dealt with by the State Attorney.
18 THE COURT: Let's not kid ourselves,
19 Mr. Fugate. You and I both know the State Attorney
20 probably didn't want to prosecute the first case in
21 the first instance, and they sure as the world --
22 MR. FUGATE: They certified it down to a
23 misdemeanor.
24 THE COURT: And they probably didn't want to be
25 there. But they were there and, in good faith, went

1 ahead and executed it. They do not want to go,
2 probably, to a tampering with a witness.
3 Truth of the matter is, your own investigator
4 said and testified under oath in a trial they have
5 two purposes that they were hired for. One was to
6 look out for a security risk in Jesse Prince; two,
7 to get information that would impeach him in the
8 form of criminal activity. That's your witness.
9 That's your investigator. He was paid for it. And
10 they ought to know what they're talking about.
11 There's enough evidence in this record before
12 me for me to make that decision, and I'm going to
13 make it.
14 I understand where you're coming from. But in
15 my opinion, they were hired to do two things. One
16 was proper and one was not. Therefore, he's going
17 to get his request for sanctions. What they're
18 going to be is going to determine -- be determined
19 based on whether or not, I think, that this man
20 could ever have testified as a witness for them.
21 MR. FUGATE: I understand.
22 THE COURT: You can brief anything you want.
23 But you know, I've -- I know what I've read and I
24 know what I've seen and I know who these people are
25 and I know what they ought to know. And these

1 people are not biased people. These are your people
2 testifying in a trial, your investigator who says,
3 "This is what I was hired for." They ought to know.
4 MR. DANDAR: Judge.
5 THE COURT: And they ought not be biased
6 against the church. The church was paying them,
7 right?
8 Mr. Dandar?
9 MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.
10 We have an emergency hearing that I noticed;
11 just sent the notice out, like, 5:00 yesterday,
12 because I got the subpoena from Mr. Moxon on Monday,
13 for these two Boston banks, of Mr. Minton's
14 accounts, where he is attempting to get Mr. Minton's
15 private financial records to show payment from
16 Mr. Minton to me or the estate.
17 And I haven't seen anything where there's a
18 hearing where Mr. Moxon advised you that there's a
19 stay order entered by the Second District Court of
20 Appeal staying this type of discovery until it
21 considers my writ of certiorari. And I'm asking the
22 court to quash those subpoenas now, because they're
23 set in Boston for November 19th. We're going to be
24 all next week taking depositions in this case, of
25 expert witnesses, and I'm not going to have any time

1 to address it before the 19th. So I ask the court,
2 on an emergency basis, to address it now.
3 THE COURT: Is this your Plaintiff's Motion for
4 Emergency Hearing to Stay Discovery?
5 MR. DANDAR: Yes, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Do you disagree with what he says?
7 MR. MOXON: Absolutely.
8 (A discussion was held off the record.)
9 THE COURT: Okay. We're going to take 10
10 minutes and then we're going to wrap this up. I'm
11 tired; I have a cold.
12 But look at this. Does look to me like there's
13 a stay been entered on something very similar to
14 this. I think I entered a stay on something very
15 similar to this. So why in the world wouldn't I
16 want to enter a stay here? So you think about that
17 while we take a break for our court reporter, okay?
18 (A recess was taken.)
19 THE COURT: Okay. Let's kind of wrap this up.
20 Where are we? Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency
21 Hearing to Stay Discovery.
22 MR. MOXON: Okay. If I may, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: You may.
24 MR. MOXON: On August 29th, Judge Beach entered
25 an order permitting the plaintiff -- ordering the

1 plaintiff to produce documentation with respect to
2 payments received from Mr. Minton. As you know,
3 Mr. Minton -- as we know, $1.3 million that
4 Mr. Minton has given the plaintiff. Mr. Dandar
5 objected to giving anything more than that.
6 The August 29th order required Mr. Dandar to
7 produce this and only this. Here was the request:
8 "Plaintiff's counsel is to provide within 20 days
9 all documents in his possession, custody or control
10 concerning the payment by Robert Minton or any other
11 entity associated with Robert Minton, directly or
12 indirectly, from January 1st, 2000 to the present,
13 any sum of money exceeding $500 to the plaintiff or
14 her attorney or any representative of the
15 plaintiff."
16 So that's the order, is that he was required to
17 produce, on the August 29th order, anything that he
18 had, Mr. Dandar had, with respect to payments to him
19 or to the plaintiff by Mr. Minton. That's all.
20 That was the order.
21 And then he asked Judge Beach to reconsider
22 that. He refused. He denied the motion for
23 reconsideration. But he did say that in light of
24 Mr. Dandar's arguments, he would stay it.
25 And Mr. Dandar's arguments were these materials

1 were privileged. It's privileged, attorney-client,
2 attorney work product. Wasn't too specific about
3 what the privilege was. I think he said, "Well,
4 there's a privacy privilege too. And because it's
5 all privileged, I'm going to writ it."
6 So Judge Beach said, "Okay. Fine. I'll give
7 you time to writ it and I'll stay the order till we
8 hear from the Second DCA." And as you know, when
9 you assert a privilege to the Second DCA, they stay
10 the discovery order. And they did that. So they
11 stayed it.
12 But all they stayed was this: They stayed
13 Mr. Dandar's obligation to produce what he had in
14 his possession with respect to what he claimed was
15 privileged material.
16 Now, we had a second request to this court for
17 an out-of-state commission to get Mr. Minton's bank
18 records from his bank in Boston. Obviously, there
19 was no -- and there was no argument at that time
20 that Mr. Minton's records could conceivably be
21 Mr. Dandar's privilege. Mr. Dandar says, "I've got
22 nothing to do with Minton." You know, "I don't want
23 to have anything more to do with him. He's not my
24 client. There's no conceivable work-product,
25 attorney-client privilege or anything like that."

1 THE COURT: But isn't -- aren't Mr. Minton's
2 records that have already been requested to be
3 produced under seal, and aren't they on appeal
4 and --
5 MR. MOXON: No.
6 THE COURT: Isn't that on appeal?
7 MR. MOXON: No. He lost that. There was a
8 whole writ filed back in February for Mr. Minton's
9 financial records.
10 THE COURT: Why do I have all these checks and
11 stuff in my office?
12 MR. MOXON: Those are LMT. Those are LMT
13 records.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. MOXON: That's similar, but different.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 MR. MOXON: But they filed this whole writ
18 back, and that was denied.
19 But just like this one, the DCA, Second DCA,
20 stayed that order for a few months until they
21 finally denied Mr. Dandar's writ.
22 THE COURT: To produce Mr. Minton's records.
23 MR. MOXON: No. To -- it wasn't to him; it was
24 production from Mr. Minton, not -- and from LMT.
25 THE COURT: Okay.

1 MR. MOXON: So that was denied.
2 So now, after he got this stay from the Second
3 DCA, he's trying to say, "Well, as I interpret the
4 order, even though it's only stayed," his
5 obligation, Mr. Dandar's obligation to produce the
6 records, "I think that nobody else in the universe
7 should be permitted also to have any discovery as to
8 financial records now, if they might implicate me."
9 So we said, "Well, that's -- that's kind of
10 apples and oranges." Obviously, Mr. Minton's bank
11 doesn't have Mr. Dandar's attorney-client
12 information and Mr. Minton's bank doesn't have
13 Mr. Dandar's attorney work-product information, and
14 so, of course, it doesn't apply. How could this
15 stay to Mr. Dandar possibly apply to Mr. Minton's
16 bank?
17 And so that's basically where we are.
18 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Dandar?
19 MR. DANDAR: Yes. This is the classic
20 end-around. The letter intent and spirit of the
21 stay order is, "Church of Scientology, you are not
22 permitted to have the discovery that you want. You
23 are not permitted to get the copies of financial
24 records or checks showing payment from Robert Minton
25 to Kennan Dandar, his law firm or the estate.

1 Stayed." That's the Second District Court of
2 Appeal.
3 So they do an end-around. They go and say,
4 "Judge Beach, we want you to issue subpoenas so we
5 can go to Boston and get the Minton records up
6 there, since Mr. Dandar -- we can't get it from him.
7 There's a stay order." And they couch the request
8 in a very broad language.
9 And when I get the subpoena just two days ago,
10 on Monday, then I see, "We want all the checks
11 written by Robert Minton to Ken Dandar," that's
12 where my name comes up, "and the estate or the law
13 firm."
14 That's an end-around. They are violating the
15 stay order by going through another form of
16 discovery.
17 This is, I believe, the second time they've
18 done this. I can't remember right now -- they --
19 So what I'm asking you, Judge, is to honor
20 and -- as counsel should have done -- and respect
21 the Second District Court's stay order, and stay
22 this discovery until the Second District holds
23 whether I or my client have a privacy right and a
24 privilege, under work product and attorney-client,
25 not to let our adversary know how much money I have

1 on hand to litigate against them.
2 This is inconceivable to me. It's
3 inconceivable how anyone would authorize that type
4 of discovery. But it's been authorized. Judge
5 Moody authorized it. We didn't appeal it back then
6 because Mr. Minton told the world how much money he
7 had given to me.
8 Now, because of Scientology counsel, Mr. Sandy
9 Rosen, in another case, indicating that they're
10 contemplating on filing a RICO charge against
11 Mr. Minton for financing all these lawsuits against
12 Scientology, now Mr. Minton has pled the Fifth
13 Amendment. He doesn't want to talk about financing
14 or loans to attorneys who are involved in litigating
15 against Scientology. And that's his right, to
16 assert that Fifth Amendment privilege, once he did
17 that. And he has kept that private.
18 I now have my privacy right, and my client's
19 privacy right are privileged. I'm not letting them
20 know how much money we have on hand to litigate.
21 They're allowed to know how much money we paid
22 witnesses and experts who are going to testify in
23 the case. That's fine.
24 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question.
25 MR. DANDAR: Oh, yeah. This --

1 THE COURT: I'm looking at their schedule A,
2 and it looks like, at least as the way it was
3 written, there's a whole lot of people besides
4 Dandar and Dandar, PA, and Kennan Dandar in there.
5 MR. DANDAR: Yes, your Honor. That's right.
6 THE COURT: So are you concerned with any of
7 the rest of it, or only those two entities? I don't
8 know who Thomas Dandar is. Is that your brother?
9 MR. DANDAR: Yes. My partner.
10 THE COURT: So Dandar and Dandar, Kennan Dandar
11 and Thomas Dandar. Other than that, are you moving
12 to stay the rest of it?
13 MR. DANDAR: Well, you know, I don't know if I
14 can speak -- I can't really speak on behalf of the
15 other individuals.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 MR. DANDAR: I think those other individuals,
18 by the way, should have a right to come in this
19 court and object. They weren't given an opportunity
20 to object.
21 Look at all those individuals. You know --
22 THE COURT: Well, don't you think maybe the
23 bank ought to be saying, "Just a minute --"
24 MR. DANDAR: Well, they're going -- I've seen
25 it. They have a subpoena issued by a Massachusetts

1 court, under the -- you know, the deposition -- you
2 know, national -- whatever it's called. The
3 deposition law that issues commissions out of state.
4 But I have clients on here, like Lee Skelton
5 and Sam Davis and Dell Liebreich and Ann Carlson --
6 those are my clients because they are the
7 beneficiaries of the estate. They should not be
8 allowed to get any of those.
9 But when it comes down to Hana Whitfield --
10 sure, they can go discover that. But she should be
11 noticed before they delve into personal financial
12 records of these individuals that were not noticed.
13 And Bank of America -- they subpoenaed the Bank
14 of America in this case for Mr. Minton's Clearwater
15 account. I did not know that they were asking for,
16 again, the records that were stayed by the Second
17 District Court of appeal. They obtained a check
18 written by Robert Minton to me, in violation of the
19 stay order of the Second District. I filed a motion
20 for -- order to show cause with the Second District,
21 and they ordered Mr. Moxon to reply to that. I
22 filed one with this court that hasn't been heard by
23 this court. But the Second District Court of appeal
24 has entered an order to show cause. And I'm not
25 sure that's been responded to at this time.

1 But there, they obtained the record that they
2 weren't allowed to obtain by the Second District
3 Court's stay order, which is a check written by
4 Robert Minton to Ken Dandar. Now they're doing
5 another one in here with the banks up in Boston.
6 So I'm not asking for extraordinary relief; I'm
7 not asking not to quash, but to stay this discovery
8 until the Second District Court of Appeal -- just
9 stay it in toto until the Second District Court of
10 Appeal has ruled, or give these other individuals
11 the right to come in here with proper notice of
12 hearing to know what's going on in reference to
13 their -- these personal financial transactions, if
14 there are any at all.
15 And, here obtaining Hana Whitfield's checks, if
16 there are any checks between her and Robert
17 Minton -- I'm pretty sure there aren't -- but that
18 violates her privacy right. They have no right to
19 know that. Because right now, until you rule on
20 whether or not she's a witness in this case, she's
21 not a witness in this case and that has nothing to
22 do with the litigation. Once she becomes a witness
23 in this case, expert or not, they have all the right
24 in the world to find out if anyone's paid her any
25 money to testify.

1 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question: If you
2 want to get somebody's records from a bank, is it
3 not customary to give them notice that you're trying
4 to get the records? I mean, I don't know.
5 MR. MOXON: I'm asking for Mr. Minton's
6 records, your Honor. All these people --
7 THE COURT: Where does it say you're asking for
8 Mr. Minton's records?
9 MR. MOXON: The subpoena's to Mr. Minton's
10 bank. I'm not asking for these people's personal
11 financial records; I'm asking for Mr. Minton's
12 records, no one else's.
13 And the reason is -- the reason why I've listed
14 all these people is, these people are all either
15 beneficiaries of the estate or they're witnesses.
16 MR. DANDAR: Well, this Mr. --
17 THE COURT: Okay. Now, why, didn't you then
18 give -- if this was -- why did not you give
19 Mr. Minton's counsel notice of that?
20 MR. MOXON: I did. He was -- he was here
21 litigating this whole thing. Mr. Minton's counsel
22 was here the day that you entered the orders. We
23 had a hearing on this, Mr. -- you -- Mr. Merrett and
24 you and I, where you entered the orders allowing
25 Mr. Minton's bank records from his bank in Boston.

1 I just limited it. What I did with this Exhibit A
2 is, I said, "Don't give me all of his personal
3 financial records. I just want to limit it to these
4 issues here and payments to these people."
5 THE COURT: I decided this?
6 MR. MOXON: No, no. You signed an out-of-state
7 commission for us to seek all of Mr. Minton's
8 records in Boston.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. MOXON: And I limited it with this and
11 said, "Don't give me everything. I don't want to
12 get into that kettle of fish."
13 THE COURT: But notice of taking deposition --
14 why was it noticed to just Kennan G. Dandar why
15 wasn't it noticed to Mr. -- what's his name?
16 Minton --
17 MR. FUGATE: Merrett.
18 THE COURT: Merrett, Moxon, Mixon --
19 MR. MOXON: It should be. His counsel's on
20 there.
21 THE COURT: No. All I show as counsel is
22 Kennan G. Dandar.
23 MR. DANDAR: And judge, you just signed a
24 blanket out-of-state commission. It didn't specify
25 all these individuals.

1 MR. MOXON: Is there service back, your Honor?
3 Oh, it says, "I hereby --" "true copy of the
4 above document was served upon the attorney of
5 record for each other party." Would that mean --
6 MR. MOXON: I don't know. Do you have the
7 subpoena? Do you have the subpoena there?
9 MS. WEST: Yes.
10 THE COURT: I've got it attached to this. I do
11 not show that he was served.
12 MR. FUGATE: But we had a hearing that he
13 appeared at before your Honor on this issue, as I
14 remember it. Of course, right now --
15 THE COURT: Yeah. I know. That's my problem
16 too.
17 MR. DANDAR: But I don't think you advised of
18 the stay order.
19 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, let me -- this -- this
20 doesn't have the notice. For some reason, he didn't
21 attach the service here. But I know that
22 Mr. Dandar -- I was told by counsel that they
23 definitely served Mr. Minton's counsel with this;
24 that he was absolutely noticed on it.
25 THE COURT: I am going to let you proceed with

1 this deposition, with the exception of, I'm going to
2 enter a stay and tell you you cannot go over these
3 records as to Dandar and Dandar, PA; Kennan Dandar
4 or Thomas Dandar. Because I think that that would
5 be thwarting the stay order that's been entered by
6 the Second District and Judge Beach.
7 So anything else?
8 You see, I've already litigated it. You can go
9 ahead with your deposition.
10 MR. DANDAR: So I understand, the court in
11 Massachusetts, Mr. Minton's Boston counsel, can then
12 do something up there with that, based on the
13 subpoena --
14 MR. MOXON: It's pointless for us to go
15 forward, because the primary reason is to go though
16 the money that's been given to Mr. Dandar.
17 THE COURT: Then wait and see if the stay is
18 lifted. And if the stay isn't lifted, what that
19 means is you shouldn't have had it in the first
20 place. If the stay is lifted, then you can go ahead
21 and go for it.
22 But I do think, since the Second District has
23 entered a stay, that, you know, in prudence, I
24 should honor the request for a stay in this case. I
25 won't as to the others, but I will as to those

1 three.
2 If you want to wait, that's your business.
3 MR. DANDAR: So what do you call that; a stay
4 or a quash --
5 THE COURT: I'm granting your motion --
6 plaintiff's motion for emergency hearing to stay
7 discovery. And I have granted that as to --
8 MR. DANDAR: Me and my firm.
9 THE COURT: -- records pertaining, in
10 accordance with the Second District Court of Appeals
11 stay, entered in a similar cause, as to Dandar and
12 Dandar and you and your brother.
13 MR. DANDAR: All right.
14 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, if we --
15 MR. DANDAR: Does that include the estate?
16 MR. MOXON: -- if the stay is lifted --
17 THE COURT: As soon as the stay is lifted, as
18 far as I'm concerned, you can bring me an order that
19 says the stay is lifted. In other words, I would
20 lift the stay as soon as the Second District lifts
21 the stay.
22 MR. MOXON: All right.
23 THE COURT: At that time, you can go ahead --
24 if you don't want to do this in parts or piecemeal,
25 you want to just wait, just come to me ex parte --

1 MR. MOXON: Okay.
2 THE COURT: -- showing me that the stay has
3 been issued (sic).
4 Of course, you're going to have to give him
5 notice --
6 MR. MOXON: Got you.
7 THE COURT: -- of the deposition.
8 MR. DANDAR: Could we address a housekeeping
9 matter?
10 They actually won an appeal on the
11 tape-recorded interview, allegedly, of my client,
12 Fanny McPherson, before she died. And that was a
13 whole 'nother hearing --
14 THE COURT: I think I found it.
15 MR. DANDAR: It should be in your office. You
16 should have the original and a copy.
17 THE COURT: I don't think I have -- I'll show
18 you what I have, if you want to go to my office. My
19 secretary found a folder that apparently was Judge
20 Quesada's, that was sealed, although it was open
21 when I got it. And I looked inside, and I felt what
22 seemed to be tapes. And it mentioned something
23 about Fanny --
24 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
25 THE COURT: -- McPherson. So I guess I have

1 it.
2 So is that something I should turn over?
3 MR. HERTZBERG: Yes. Under the order, which is
4 self-executing, your Honor, we're entitled to get
5 the copy at this point, and the court should retain
6 the original.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MR. DANDAR: That's exactly what I wanted you
9 to do.
10 THE COURT: Well, let's go get it. You all
11 come with me and -- let's get it.
12 And you men can help me carry these books back
13 to my office.
14 We're adjourned.
15 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I just had a thought.
16 We could go ahead with this deposition and just keep
17 these documents under seal, just the way we did with
18 the other records, and --
19 THE COURT: We could.
20 MR. MOXON: If Mr. Dandar's willing to do
21 that --
22 THE COURT: If Mr. Dandar's willing to do that,
23 that's fine. And they would be ordered sealed --
24 MR. MOXON: Yeah.
25 THE COURT: -- and delivered to me, and I would

1 have those as well as the others.
2 MR. DANDAR: All of the documents -- every
3 single one of them or just the ones --
4 MR. MOXON: All the ones that concern your
5 order.
7 MR. MOXON: And the other ones, of course, we'd
8 get, that don't concern your order.
9 THE COURT: Here.
10 MR. DANDAR: As far as my client and myself are
11 concerned, that's fine. But I can't speak for
12 anybody else.
13 THE COURT: So they'll go from --
14 MR. DANDAR: Will go directly from the court
15 reporter in Boston, in a sealed envelope, to the
16 judge, by Federal Express.
17 THE COURT: Yes. Is that fine?
18 MR. MOXON: That's fine.
19 THE COURT: To this judge or the judge in
20 Boston?
21 MR. DANDAR: To you, unless the lawyer in
22 Boston for Mr. Minton has filed something up there
23 to interfere with that or object to that or quash
24 it.
25 THE COURT: Okay.

1 MR. DANDAR: I'm trying to get your things for
2 you.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, I'm going to give you
4 these documents. It would behoove you -- these are
5 originals. I'm afraid they're going to get mixed up
6 in my stuff. It behooves you to make sure those are
7 filed in the clerk's office, since that's what I
8 would do with them. I'm afraid I would lose them.
9 (The proceedings were adjourned at 6:08 p.m.)

6 I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
7 proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and
complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not a relative,
9 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
10 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
interested in the action.
12 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 9th day of November,
13 2001.
15 ______________________________