0240 1 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 4 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 5 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. VOLUME 3 9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 11 Defendants. 12 _______________________________________/ 13 14 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 15 Testimony of Frank Oliver. 16 DATE: July 15, 2002. 17 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding 18 St. Petersburg, Florida. 19 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 20 REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, 21 Notary Public, State of Florida at large. 22 23 24 25 0241 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 4 Attorney for Plaintiff. 5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 7 Attorney for Plaintiff. 8 MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 9 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 10 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 11 MR. LEE FUGATE and 12 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 13 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 14 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 15 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 16 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 17 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 18 Organization. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0242 1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS 2 PAGE LINE 3 Recess 327 9 CROSS Mr. Weinberg 342 15 4 Recess 396 21 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0243 1 (The proceedings resumed at 9:01 a.m.) 2 THE COURT: Good morning. 3 I need a little help on these videos that I 4 reviewed yesterday. Some of these people, I don't 5 know if they're witnesses or not. So I started to 6 draw an order and realized that I needed some help. 7 Let's see. Gerry Armstrong. 8 MR. MOXON: Yes. He was -- he was deposed by 9 Mr. Dandar early in the case as a purported expert 10 on Scientology, and information's been used about 11 him. He's been part of LMT, on the board of LMT. 12 THE COURT: Didn't I turn over part of his 13 interview already? 14 MR. MOXON: In fact, they did. The first thing 15 they did, when the -- when the initial excerpts of 16 some depositions or some -- some interviews were 17 produced by LMT back in 2000. Gerry Armstrong was 18 one of the three people for which they produced an 19 excerpt. So he was identified by a witness by -- 20 THE COURT: My question to you, didn't I 21 already release his interview? All I've got here is 22 the last part of it. 23 MR. MOXON: I didn't see anything that was 24 released recently. The last document that I saw 25 from him was several years ago. 0244 1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then I don't have 2 anything but this final part of it. 3 MR. DANDAR: The interesting part is, 4 Mr. Armstrong refused to come back the third time to 5 continue his cross examination, and therefore we 6 withdrew him as a witness. So he's no longer a 7 witness for either side. So I don't -- 8 You know, doesn't matter to us whether -- 9 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to have to check 10 and see what I did on the first part of his 11 interview. The second part was a -- of this one 12 tape was a telephone conference with Mr. Dandar and 13 a potential witness. He has not been listed as a 14 witness. He has nothing to do with this case, as 15 far as I can tell. And that will not be released. 16 The next tape has a lot of unedited footage 17 from LMT, inside and outside. Part of it's a -- a 18 picket, and that'll be released. In this one, 19 there's witnesses -- there's people who aren't 20 witnesses, but it would be impossible to take them 21 out. So I assume that this is -- 22 This is part of the anniversary celebration of 23 the first year of operation. It's mostly Bob Minton 24 and a lady by the name of Tory Bezazian. Is she a 25 listed witness? 0245 1 MR. DANDAR: No. 2 MR. MOXON: She's not a listed witness, but 3 she's definitely going to -- is someone who's 4 involved in the counterclaim issue. She's been 5 doing a lot of picketing on behalf of LMT. 6 THE COURT: There really isn't anything on her 7 regarding this case. That's pretty obvious. It's 8 just general picketing. But I -- but I see people 9 in there whose names I've never -- I've never heard. 10 Bob Peterson. 11 MR. MOXON: He is a -- he's an LMT employee. 12 He was designated as one of LMT's corporate 13 representatives in the first LMT deposition. His 14 deposition's been taken in this case and he's 15 provided information concerning conduct by 16 Mr. Prince, by Mr. Minton. He is definitely a 17 potential witness. 18 THE COURT: Well, are you going to call him? 19 MR. DANDAR: No. 20 THE COURT: Is he on your list? 21 MR. DANDAR: No. He's never -- 22 THE COURT: Are you going to call him? 23 MR. MOXON: I don't know, your Honor. It would 24 be for the counterclaim. 25 THE COURT: Well, Gerry Armstrong -- you're not 0246 1 going to call -- anybody's not going to call, 2 because he's in Canada. 3 MR. MOXON: We're not going to call him as a 4 witness. However, he -- he is a witness. He's -- 5 he's someone who has knowledge of matters and we're 6 using some of the information that he's provided. 7 He's -- he's been a source of harassment against the 8 church and on behalf of the plaintiff and on behalf 9 of the -- for want of a better word, the 10 co-conspirators on the counterclaim. And he was 11 designated by Mr. Dandar a long time ago. That's 12 why I took his deposition. 13 THE COURT: How about Ingrid Wagner? 14 MR. DANDAR: She works at the LMT. And she's 15 not my witness, and neither is Mr. Armstrong. They 16 moved to strike Mr. Armstrong. So I think they 17 should be bound by what they wanted. They got it. 18 He's stricken and he's gone. 19 THE COURT: How about -- 20 MR. MOXON: Your Honor -- 21 THE COURT: How about Dee Phillips? 22 MR. DANDAR: That's Jesse Prince's fiancee. 23 She was a secretary for Mr. Merrett. 24 MR. MOXON: She also obviously is an eyewitness 25 to events at LMT as to Mr. Prince, as to Mr. Minton, 0247 1 as to Ms. Brooks. 2 THE COURT: Greg and Debra Barnes. 3 MR. DANDAR: Former Scientologists. They're 4 not called by me as a witness. They're not listed 5 anywhere. 6 THE COURT: Are they LMT employees? 7 MR. DANDAR: No. 8 THE COURT: Now, the last tape that I -- 9 I'll make a decision on those people. 10 The last tape that I did were three tapes, 11 actually, and they were a cult -- let's see -- cult 12 workshop, I guess you would say; a workshop in 13 December of '99. Looked like they were pretty much 14 talking to each other. I didn't see very many 15 people there. But nonetheless, these are statements 16 of witnesses. 17 No one is claiming Mr. Cazares is a witness. 18 MR. DANDAR: No. 19 THE COURT: He's not an LMT member? 20 MR. MOXON: He's -- no. He's not a witness. 21 He's someone who's been associated with LMT. 22 THE COURT: Well, he's not on the board or 23 anything -- 24 MR. MOXON: Actually, he was. He was a board 25 member. 0248 1 THE COURT: Well, he's not a witness, so -- 2 The orders, as I recall, said these were 3 witness statements that were to be released. 4 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 5 THE COURT: Isn't that what the order said? 6 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 7 THE COURT: Okay. One of these is Ken Dandar 8 talking about the Lisa McPherson case and talking 9 about Jesse Prince. 10 I think, Mr. Dandar, that -- you know, I have 11 indicated to you, and I sincerely believe this: I 12 do not know how the estate can defend the 13 counterclaim without your being a witness. I think 14 you're going to have to be a witness. I mean, the 15 allegation was that the complaint was brought for 16 purposes other than which it was intended; for 17 improper purposes. I don't know how that claim can 18 be brought without your testifying. 19 Frankly, this is a speech given to (sic) you 20 out in public. 21 MR. DANDAR: If it's a speech then it's not 22 protected. 23 THE COURT: Steve Hassan. 24 MR. DANDAR: He is a person who is -- wrote a 25 book about cults. I don't think he's associated, on 0249 1 the board or as a member of LMT. I could be wrong. 2 I'm not sure. But he's not a witness by anyone. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Jeff Jacobsen? 4 MR. MOXON: Jeff Jacobsen's deposition was also 5 taken. He's not -- 6 I think he actually is listed on our witness 7 list as a counterclaim witness. 8 THE COURT: He is? 9 MR. MOXON: Yes. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. DANDAR: You've taken his deposition 12 already? 13 MR. MOXON: Yeah. His deposition was taken. 14 MR. DANDAR: Oh. I didn't know that. 15 I object to them trying to take a second 16 deposition, then, of Jeff Jacobson -- 17 MR. WEINBERG: We're not -- 18 MR. DANDAR: -- which you just signed the 19 papers for last week. He now lives in Arizona. So 20 he's already been deposed and I would object to a 21 second deposition of him. 22 THE COURT: I didn't know he's been deposed 23 before. 24 MR. MOXON: We're talking about videos? That's 25 the video -- 0250 1 THE COURT: Yeah. I did not know, when I 2 signed that out-of-state commission, that he had 3 been deposed. If he's been deposed -- any witness 4 who's been deposed once cannot be deposed again 5 without my permission. So you're going to have to 6 tell me why you need to redepose him. 7 MR. MOXON: Because he's got all these other 8 videos, your Honor. 9 And in LMT, they had two people doing videos. 10 Jeff Jacobsen had a video camera in his hand 11 hundreds of times. He took videos of all sorts of 12 things. We got -- 13 And as you know, the order required them to 14 produce the videos not only that they considered 15 were owned by LMT but also the videos that are of 16 their agents, of LMT's agents and employees. And 17 we've got -- some of Mr. Bunker's were produced, of 18 course, you're going through now. But 19 Mr. Jacobson's weren't produced. 20 I asked Mr. McGowan why there are no Jacobson 21 videos in here and he said Mr. Jacobson refused to 22 produce them. He just -- he wouldn't produce them. 23 He's gone back to Arizona. 24 MR. DANDAR: I think that's his personal -- 25 MR. MOXON: Now, we've -- obviously we want to 0251 1 get this further information, because there's been a 2 lot of -- of very useful evidence that has come out 3 of these videos of these witnesses. 4 So that's -- that's -- 5 The purpose of the deposition is to get, one, 6 the videos; and two, any documents that he may have. 7 Because he also took a lot of documents back with 8 him. 9 THE COURT: Then that should be a fairly short 10 deposition. That should be a deposition subpoena 11 duces tecum; he ought to bring them with him and 12 turn them over. So it should not be one of these 13 duplicate depositions where you go over and over 14 whatever has already been gone over. 15 MR. MOXON: I agree. 16 MR. DANDAR: But Judge, I would just add that 17 they had the -- they knew about Jeff Jacobsen taking 18 his personal videos. They could -- when they 19 subpoenaed him and deposed him last time, they 20 should have asked for it then. They didn't. 21 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to let them do it 22 again -- 23 MR. DANDAR: All right. 24 THE COURT: -- and ask for it. There's been a 25 court order entered which has not been complied 0252 1 with. So this will be another way to try to get 2 what the court's already ordered. 3 So Jeff Jacobsen, yes. 4 Here's this Gerry Armstrong again. And I'll 5 have to decide on this. 6 Peter Alexander testified here so that would be 7 a yes. 8 David Cecere, I saw on your witness list. 9 MR. DANDAR: Right. But we're not calling him. 10 THE COURT: Doesn't matter. He's on your 11 witness list. 12 MR. DANDAR: He's already been deposed. 13 THE COURT: Just trying to decide who's a 14 witness and who's not so I can tell whose statements 15 I'm going to release. 16 That's all of the -- the other -- there's a 17 little footage of Ms. Brooks and her mother and I'll 18 go ahead and release that. It's no big deal. 19 The -- I did not have the afternoon. In other 20 words, I got a morning session at -- there was to be 21 an afternoon session but I don't know whether it 22 didn't happen; whether these have been released -- I 23 don't know what they are. I didn't get them. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Of what? The cult -- 25 THE COURT: The cult -- 0253 1 MR. WEINBERG: There's been a number of them 2 that are already -- 3 THE COURT: You have them already? 4 MR. WEINBERG: -- released. 5 Yes. 6 THE COURT: Okay. This -- this thing that's a 7 picket and toast and all that sort of stuff, I think 8 I'm going to have to release that in its entirety. 9 There's just too -- it's just too intertwined. It 10 would be impossible to go through and edit out most 11 of the people. There are people I've heard of. So 12 I'm going to release that. 13 And Ken, you're there, as is Mr. Garko, as is 14 Mr. Merrett. 15 MR. DANDAR: That's fine, Judge. 16 THE COURT: That will help me do an order. 17 I've started it, but I just didn't have the data 18 that I needed. So I'll get that order out today. 19 MR. MOXON: Thank you, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Now, I have a copy of those videos 21 but I don't have two copies, and I don't -- I 22 obviously am incapable of editing them. So what I'm 23 going to have to do is to give the order to 24 Mr. Keane -- 25 I'll be honest with you, there's a few little 0254 1 things you all might can use. There's not a lot. 2 So you know, it's not as if you're going to be 3 putting together all kinds of stuff -- I mean, it's 4 more -- it's -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: About how long does it take to 6 look at -- 7 THE COURT: Five hours is how long it takes. 8 MR. MOXON: Sorry, Judge. 9 THE COURT: It's a long time. 10 Now, it may not be five hours -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: It seemed like five hours. 12 THE COURT: It seemed like five hours. 13 And I did listen to all the taped statements. 14 Some of them were about Moonies. And as a matter of 15 fact, one of them I'm going to release, because he's 16 a potential witness, isn't about Lisa McPherson at 17 all; it's about the Moonie organization. One of 18 them's about some outfit I never even heard of. 19 Couldn't even say it. Bhagwan Shree -- 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Rajneesh. 21 THE COURT: That's it. 22 Madam Court Reporter, that's B-h-a-g-w-a-n, 23 S-h-r-e-e, R-a-j-n-e-e-s-h. 24 So I've learned some things about some other 25 organizations. 0255 1 So anyway -- as I said, I started my order. I 2 needed your help to finish it. So I'll get that 3 finished today. 4 And what I'll do is tell Mr. Keane to have his 5 videographer put this in some sort of order and then 6 just make two copies, and you all can pay for -- 7 each pay for one. If you don't want one, let me 8 know. 9 MR. DANDAR: I don't want one. 10 THE COURT: Okay. You do. 11 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor. 12 MR. DANDAR: I'll wait to see what they're 13 going to use as evidence, and then I'm going to 14 request them to give me a copy. Because otherwise 15 it's just a total waste of time and money. 16 THE COURT: You know, it's up to you. I don't 17 know how much it costs for a video. Probably a 18 dollar and a half. 19 MR. DANDAR: No. Unfortunately, this 20 company -- his client, Mr. Keane's client -- I 21 believe that's what it is -- charging $45 an hour. 22 And it's not an hour video costs you 45 bucks; it's 23 an hour for them to sit down and do whatever they 24 do. So an hour video may come out to be four or 25 five times $45 an hour. 0256 1 THE COURT: I can understand it, quite frankly. 2 It's tedious. And it's tedious -- you have to take 3 out, put in, take out. And so I can understand it. 4 Okay. I'll get that out today. 5 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, we have a motion that 6 we prepared over the weekend I'd like to give you. 7 I served it on Mr. Dandar. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 MR. MOXON: This was prepared over the weekend. 10 Because when Mr. Lirot left at the end of the day, 11 he indicated that Mr. Oliver was going to be 12 testifying about what he termed this Cult Awareness 13 Network unit that was -- was basically a -- an 14 office that was set up for the purpose of preparing 15 for litigation, in anticipation of litigation. They 16 were doing investigations with respect to this Cult 17 Awareness Network and a number of the persons 18 involved in it. 19 And at that time there was -- there were a 20 number of disputes between the Cult Awareness 21 Network and the church and individual members. 22 There were threats of litigation. And immediately 23 afterwards there indeed was a great deal of 24 litigation involving the church, church members and 25 some individuals who had businesses that were owned 0257 1 by Scientologists that were attacked by this Cult 2 Awareness Network. 3 And although what I've handed you looks pretty 4 big, because it's got a lot of exhibits, the motion 5 itself is not large. If you want to take a look at 6 it, if it's not too big a burden, that might be the 7 most useful thing. 8 THE COURT: Okay. It really is going to take 9 me -- this thing looks like, at the very minimum, 13 10 or 14 pages. It takes me some time to review that. 11 MR. MOXON: I can summarize it for you. 12 Mr. Oliver has testified that he worked in a 13 position where he was getting trained as an 14 investigator. And he did this for a few months in 15 Miami, and he testified that he was in Los Angeles 16 for several weeks in 1991, working in this -- what 17 he termed this Cult Awareness unit. 18 Now, I was out there at the time. Our firm, 19 Bowles and Moxon, I had a primary for the church, 20 and other -- and other Scientologists. We had other 21 clients as well, but that was our primary client. 22 And we spent a lot of time working with the church, 23 my partners and I, on matters concerning the Cult 24 Awareness Network. 25 The Cult Awareness Network essentially was -- 0258 1 was a -- as it's termed, as an anticult or 2 antireligious organization that was established in 3 the early '70s. And they had a -- they had a 4 program or kind of a modus operandi of this thing 5 called deprogramming. I don't know if you've heard 6 of it before -- 7 THE COURT: I know what deprogramming is. 8 MR. MOXON: Okay. Well, they did a lot of 9 that, and a lot of their associates did it. And a 10 lot of them were convicted and charged. And some -- 11 a number of Scientologists, back in the '70s and 12 '80s, were attacked by these deprogrammers. 13 I represented a man from a Pentecostal church, 14 a Christian church in Washington, against the Cult 15 Awareness Network, who had been kidnapped and held 16 against his will, and handcuffed, and held for five 17 days while they attempted to change his -- his 18 interpretation of the Bible, basically. And in 19 fact, that went to trial, and there was a large 20 judgment against the Cult Awareness Network, 21 resulting in a several-million-dollar judgment, and 22 they eventually declared bankruptcy. 23 Mr. Oliver and some other people that are 24 associated with this whole anti-Scientology group 25 have asserted that the Cult Awareness Network was 0259 1 destroyed by Scientology arising out of this 2 judgment against them. 3 But there were over a dozen lawsuits brought by 4 individual Scientologists, in conjunction with the 5 church, in part, against these -- against the Cult 6 Awareness Network. And the Cult Awareness Network 7 also filed some actions against the church. And so 8 there was obviously investigations that were being 9 done through counsel -- specifically through 10 counsel -- to prepare for this litigation and 11 anticipated litigation in 1991. 12 Now, that's all that this office did. 13 Mr. Oliver said he only worked there three weeks. 14 And I guess he wants to testify about what he 15 allegedly did there; what he saw; what he heard; 16 what kind of investigations he may have perceived. 17 But that -- notwithstanding whatever spin he 18 might want to put on it, that is work product, 19 because the office was set up through counsel and 20 was set up for litigation purposes and nothing else, 21 and it resulted in litigation after Mr. Oliver left 22 just a few months later. So as a matter of Florida 23 law, of course, since this was in anticipation of 24 litigation, it's per se work product. 25 THE COURT: You're talking about testimony that 0260 1 you believe he was about to get into that's -- 2 MR. MOXON: That's what Mr. Lirot announced he 3 was going to get into. 4 Now, there's another area of testimony that 5 Mr. Oliver touched upon -- and some evidence came 6 out of it on Friday -- concerning this Geertz case. 7 When he was in Miami, prior to coming to Los 8 Angeles in early 1991, he was being trained also 9 there as an investigator. At the time, there had 10 been some disputes with two gentlemen who lived in 11 Miami, named Fishman and Geertz. 12 Steven Fishman was involved in some securities 13 fraud and was caught by the government and 14 prosecuted for securities fraud, and he tried a 15 novel defense of claiming that the Church of 16 Scientology had something to do with it. He wasn't 17 a Scientologist. I guess he'd read about it in the 18 newspaper. And to set up a defense, he went into 19 the church and bought some books and bought some 20 things. And he claimed to the FBI that he had been 21 pressured somehow by the church. And he asked for a 22 tap to be put on his phone so he could prove it. 23 Well, what Mr. Fishman did at that point was 24 hire a street person to read a script to him over 25 the phone, to make an alleged threat, pretending 0261 1 that he was from the church. Turned out that this 2 fellow turned himself in, and the FBI caught him and 3 found out that the whole thing was a fraud. And 4 Mr. Fishman was not only convicted of securities 5 fraud, but he was convicted of obstruction of 6 justice for this attempted set-up. 7 While he was in jail, in 1991, he gave an 8 interview to a reporter resulting in some magazine 9 articles, both he and his -- and his psychologist, 10 Uwe Geertz. And litigation arose out of that. Was 11 filed in 1991. 12 One of the documents that you saw on Friday was 13 a -- was a telex or a message to Mr. Oliver and to 14 his office to collect some information concerning 15 Mr. Geertz. Because -- 16 THE COURT: Didn't I keep that out? 17 MR. MOXON: Yes, you did. But you indicated 18 you wanted to hear more about it. 19 But I just wanted to let you know that that's 20 part -- and a primary thing that they were doing, in 21 fact in Miami; that the investigative office there 22 was doing at that time. 23 So we've got Mr. Oliver essentially saying, "I 24 was starting to work for the church as an 25 investigator. I was allegedly learning the ropes as 0262 1 an investigator." And he was working on these 2 things that had to do, really, with litigation, both 3 the Geertz case with these Cult Awareness Network 4 cases. And he shouldn't be permitted to testify 5 about these matters. 6 Now, of course we assert that what he's 7 testified to thus far is extremely inaccurate. And 8 I won't go into that any further at this point. But 9 that whatever he claims he is doing as an 10 investigator, working for the church in Miami or as 11 this trainee in Los Angeles, is protected. 12 That's the long and the short of it. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 MR. MOXON: I can give you some more details if 15 you wish. And you may have a chance to read this 16 later. 17 And as a final -- final issue, we've looked 18 again at the -- at theft of these materials, and we 19 haven't found case law that I think is directly 20 applicable. Obviously there could have been a civil 21 action brought, and possibly still can, against 22 Mr. Oliver, arising out of these thefts. 23 But over the weekend, we did contact the person 24 that he identified, Tracy Pase, who he said was his 25 superior in Miami, and she said -- and there's an 0263 1 affidavit in the pack that I've given you. She 2 indicated that she never gave Mr. Oliver this -- 3 this hat pack that he's attempted to introduce into 4 evidence. He never -- he wasn't authorized to have 5 it. 6 And there's a contract that I've also attached, 7 indicating that Mr. Oliver signed a contract saying 8 he had no right to any materials that he kept and he 9 had to turn them back in. 10 Now, this is very interesting. Because if 11 you'll recall, that suppressive person declare that 12 he testified about was a one-page declaration 13 identifying Mr. Oliver as a suppressive person? In 14 that -- in that document, that contemporaneous 15 document issued in 1992, it said that one of the 16 things that Mr. Oliver did was that he kept some 17 materials; you know, he took some records from the 18 church and he refused to return them. But it 19 indicated in that document that he'd now returned 20 everything. 21 So he'd represented at that time that he'd 22 returned whatever it is that he'd taken from his 23 office, whether it's considered stolen or something, 24 it was in his possession, and he just maintained and 25 never mentioned -- he asserted that he'd returned 0264 1 everything, and it didn't turn out until five years 2 later, whatever it was, that Mr. Oliver got up and 3 started making these statements -- 4 THE COURT: The problem I have with the 5 stolen-document allegation is that he, as you all 6 were saying this, was talking over here -- and I'm 7 sure it's on the record -- saying, "I never stole 8 anything. These are not stolen documents." You 9 can't make that an issue just by putting in some 10 affidavit. In other words, if you want to make that 11 an issue, that these are stolen documents, then 12 you're going to have to have somebody come here and 13 testify and say they're stolen documents. 14 What's going to happen, I'm sure, during cross 15 examination, unless somehow or other it can be 16 established they are stolen documents, is that he's 17 going to say they aren't. Well, that's what I'm 18 going to have in front of me. 19 So we'll have to really see where the cross 20 examination goes as to these stolen documents. I 21 can't make -- I can't make a decision right now 22 based on what he said, because right now he has said 23 he didn't steal any documents. 24 MR. MOXON: Well -- 25 THE COURT: So the stolen document is out for 0265 1 now. I mean, if I determine that they're stolen 2 documents, then we'll see whether or not stolen 3 documents can be used in its very limited sense, 4 which as I presume it's being used, is a -- is for 5 this hearing and the specific allegations made 6 during this hearing. But I'm not ready to make the 7 decision yet that they're stolen documents based on 8 what I've heard. So that, we've got to leave for 9 another day or another time. 10 MR. MOXON: I understand. 11 THE COURT: The -- the work product, however, I 12 do have -- I want to hear counsel on that. That's 13 on what I presume is your anticipated testimony on 14 the CAN, C-A-N? 15 MR. MOXON: Yes, Judge. 16 THE COURT: And the testimony -- I don't 17 remember specifically as to the -- Geertz, but I 18 do -- I do remember something about that already. 19 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Go ahead. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Apparently -- the Geertz was 22 that one little -- those notes -- 23 THE COURT: Yes. And I did not let those in. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Right. You did not. 25 THE COURT: So I don't know that we really have 0266 1 to talk about that. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 3 THE COURT: It's the anticipated testimony as 4 to CAN -- 5 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 6 THE COURT: -- and what their intention is, is 7 that he was working for them in anticipation of 8 litigation, and that's what his work was, and 9 therefore it would be privileged. 10 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, in response, I think 11 that we have relied basically on a different theory. 12 And obviously our theory is that there's a -- a 13 custom and practice of the Church of Scientology, in 14 using the OSA investigative arm, not to do research 15 in furtherance of legal activities, but to go 16 digging into areas that have nothing to do with 17 either pending or contemplated litigation, to try to 18 use whatever personal information they could find -- 19 I think you heard testimony about the D-line; 20 going through people's garbage. I can't -- I can't 21 make an argument that says that's in furtherance of 22 litigation. 23 And candidly, Judge, if somebody goes to a CAN 24 meeting to rabble-rouse or to hand out fliers or to 25 in some way impugn the integrity of whoever is 0267 1 operating the organization, the so-called dead agent 2 caper as I think you heard testimony on -- none of 3 that is really being done in furtherance or in 4 contemplation of litigation. 5 And it's our position that basically all of the 6 things that Mr. Oliver has testified to would be 7 subject to the crime fraud exception. There is no 8 fiduciary duty of any employee -- employee -- if, as 9 Mr. Franks has testified, is concerned about is 10 welfare in the eyes of the Church of Scientology, he 11 tried to root out, as he said, and then ultimately 12 he was just handed this suppressive person declare, 13 and I guess that's tantamount to having been thrown 14 out -- he has a right to maintain those documents. 15 Basically, they're given to him in the context of 16 his training. He has a right to protect himself 17 with those. 18 THE COURT: I'm not on that. We're talking 19 about anticipated testimony. 20 I think what I'm going to have to do is -- I've 21 heard your argument. I'm going to have to hear what 22 he says. 23 MR. LIROT: All right. 24 THE COURT: It would seem to me, if what your 25 allegation is, is that what he was doing was -- was 0268 1 not in anticipation of litigation but was to harass 2 and other things, that you might be right. If it 3 was -- he's going to talk about -- he investigated, 4 did this, this and this, and it -- it is in 5 contemplation of litigation, then I would say that 6 he probably should not testify to that. But I'm 7 almost going to have to hear it. 8 MR. LIROT: I would agree, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. MOXON: Just a final point, then. 11 We have attached here, to what I've given you, 12 some of the lawsuits that were -- that came out of 13 this Cult Awareness Network. Several in 1991. They 14 filed against us in 1992. There were threats in 15 1992. 16 Just so -- so you know the scope of this -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. MOXON: -- Mr. -- what -- Mr. Oliver may 19 not have even known everything he was doing. 20 Remember, he was just a trainee, and he was kind of, 21 you know, way down the line, being told, "This is 22 what we want investigated. Look here, look here, 23 look here." And so his awareness of the eventual 24 litigation would be extremely minimal. 25 THE COURT: Part of my problem is -- it's now 0269 1 9:30, we're right in the middle of his testimony. 2 You've handed this to me. And while you say it's 3 short, this thing is a good inch, inch and a half 4 thick. I just can't -- I'm going to have to let the 5 hearing go on. We all want to finish. 6 I can certainly strike this. And I can kind of 7 rule as we go, I think, on some of it. But I may 8 just have to sort of listen, listen to cross 9 examination. And I may strike it all, for all I 10 know. 11 So I -- I know what your position is. I just 12 don't want to take the time to try to understand 13 this. I want to get this hearing over. 14 MR. MOXON: Very good. 15 MR. WEINBERG: So now for the purposes of when 16 he starts to do his testimony, I don't have to get 17 up and say -- 18 THE COURT: No. 19 MR. WEINBERG: -- work product objection. 20 THE COURT: No. You can -- as to all of this 21 CAN, whatever that is -- Cult Awareness Network -- 22 testimony, you may have an objection on work product 23 or work -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 25 THE COURT: -- work product -- 0270 1 MR. WEINBERG: As set forth in the brief. 2 THE COURT: Right. Information received in 3 contemplation of litigation and all that. If I 4 decide that that's what it is, I will strike it. 5 And I will read this brief. 6 Honestly, I'm getting far behind. I can't seem 7 to keep up all of a sudden. You all are putting 8 stuff in so fast and furiously that I -- 9 MR. WEINBERG: We wouldn't -- 10 THE COURT: -- I -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: We wouldn't have done this, but 12 that was the last thing Mr. Lirot said Friday 13 afternoon, that this is what he anticipated, so 14 really this is the first time we could have 15 addressed it. 16 THE COURT: Well, I took these documents home 17 and I tried to read them over the weekend. Frankly 18 with five hours of tapes and duty judge, I didn't 19 get to any of that. 20 And I still haven't even -- I did finish 21 Mr. Miscavige's affidavit, which in and of itself is 22 fairly lengthy. But I did not read the first 23 attachment yet. So I'm clear back there with what's 24 being submitted and what I'm trying to keep up with. 25 So I'm falling behind. Not that I'm not diligently 0271 1 spending my off hours trying to stay up, I'm just -- 2 I'm just falling behind. 3 MR. LIROT: Only human. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Did you have an active duty 6 weekend? 7 THE COURT: Actually, we -- we had a big, long 8 Saturday, but Sunday was -- with the rain, all I had 9 was a lot of domestic batteries. Which I told them 10 on Saturday we would have, but -- too -- too wet for 11 folks to commit armed robberies and sexual 12 batteries. 13 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, may I be excused? I'm 14 going to try and work on the rebuttal. 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 MR. FUGATE: Thank you. 17 THE COURT: Proceed. 18 MR. LIROT: Shall we proceed? 19 THE COURT: Yes. 20 _____________________________________ 21 BY MR. LIROT: 22 Q Mr. Oliver, when we left off last Friday, we had 23 taken a look at, I think, two exhibits that I had marked as 24 Exhibit 175 and Exhibit 176. 25 MR. LIROT: Judge, these were the 0272 1 communications that I think we've discussed this 2 morning. 3 THE COURT: Okay. That I kept out. 4 MR. LIROT: You did keep out. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 BY MR. LIROT: 7 Q Mr. Oliver, I'm going to hand you -- 8 Do you have a copy of 175 and 176? 9 A Yes. I have the copies in my hand now. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Could we just wait a moment and 11 get this exhibit? 12 THE COURT: Yes. 13 MR. LIROT: Those are the telexes. 14 MR. WEINBERG: I thought she kept them out. 15 THE COURT: I kept out 175. That's the last 16 note I have. I don't know -- did I deal with 176? 17 MR. LIROT: I don't think you did, your Honor. 18 I -- I'd handed that up and I said that we would 19 address that -- 20 THE COURT: I think that I was tired of this 21 hearing, and we stopped. 22 MR. LIROT: That's exactly right. 23 THE COURT: I did -- I do show on my own copy 24 that I ruled 175 is not in evidence. 25 MR. LIROT: Now, Judge, I'd like to draw your 0273 1 attention to the second page of 175. 2 THE COURT: How can you draw my attention to it 3 if I kept it out as evidence? If you want to offer 4 some testimony, go on ahead and try. But I can't 5 look at a document that I've said isn't in evidence. 6 MR. LIROT: Very well. 7 THE COURT: I mean, I can, but -- 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q Mr. Oliver, do you recall what the second page of 10 175, Exhibit 175, represents? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Can you tell me what that is? 13 MR. WEINBERG: This is completely 14 inappropriate, your Honor. This document is out. 15 This is clearly -- you can read this document and 16 you can see that it has to do with the case. This 17 violates the work product privilege of the church. 18 Plus this document, you can call it stolen; you can 19 call it unauthorized. Clearly Mr. Oliver had no 20 right to leave his workspace and, 10 years later, 21 try to introduce a work product document into 22 evidence, or to discuss it. 23 THE COURT: I have to look at it again. I've 24 forgotten what it was. 25 It does look to me as if this is something 0274 1 that -- dealing with a case that they are 2 investigating and they've asked him to do some work. 3 And it would seem like this is -- this is matters -- 4 these are matters that he was asked to do pursuant 5 to a case they were working on. It would seem like 6 that that's somehow privileged. 7 MR. LIROT: Judge, I wanted to ask him about 8 the nature of that document, to respond to that 9 concern. And I'm not going to ask him about any of 10 the specifics of the case. 11 There is some language in there that would 12 indicate, at least to me, that -- that there's a 13 direction that criminal charges and/or civil matters 14 be initiated. It doesn't seem to me to be done in 15 contemplation of litigation as much as being done 16 to -- to see that litigation is filed; not so much 17 to promote the interests of the church but to try to 18 in some way harm the individual that's the subject 19 of that communication. 20 I mean the church is not the State Attorney's 21 Office. 22 THE COURT: But you see -- I see what you're 23 suggesting here. All they're doing is kind of 24 laying out what it is they're trying to do, which is 25 to get criminal charges laid against him, and a 0275 1 civil suit, before he leaves Vancouver. But all 2 they're asking him to do is to get some data on the 3 wife's maiden name. So as far as what he was asked 4 to do, I think that that's privileged. As far as 5 what they were trying to do, I don't know how he can 6 really attest to that. I mean, this came to him in 7 sort of a confidential fashion, surely. 8 I have problems with it, quite frankly. 9 MR. LIROT: All right. I won't push it, Judge. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 BY MR. LIROT: 12 Q Why don't you look at Exhibit 176, if you would, 13 Mr. Oliver? 14 A Okay. It's dated 26 August, 1991. It's to the 15 invest officer, MM, which is the abbreviation for Miami. 16 Q Can you tell us what that document is, without 17 talking specifically about any of the names; just the nature 18 of the document? 19 A It's a document requesting me to do a little 20 research and to find -- find some information out on 21 someone, and for it to be used to dead agent someone's 22 testimony in another case. And it was apparently -- it 23 never got -- it never got to me as it should have. And 24 there's a note at the bottom indicating that it was sent to 25 me later on, long after the initial request was made to me. 0276 1 And it came from someone in the CAN unit. 2 Q Now, Mr. Oliver, what does the term dead agent 3 mean? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 5 BY MR. LIROT: 6 Q In the -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: Asked and answered. 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q -- context -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: He explained it last week. 11 THE COURT: Sustained. He did. 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q In the context of that letter, what did you 14 understand it to mean? 15 A I understand it to mean that it would -- that the 16 DA information that would have been found on this subject 17 would have been used to try and reverse a decision in some 18 court case that they had been involved in, where they had 19 given testimony. 20 Q Now, as it relates to the training that you 21 received, and the hat pack and the other documents and 22 policies that you were required to be familiar with, what 23 type of information would you be asked to find to DA a 24 person, or dead agent a person? 25 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Again, he explained 0277 1 this last week. He explained what it was -- 2 THE COURT: I think he did. 3 Didn't you testify about this for us last week? 4 THE WITNESS: I testified to certain aspects of 5 dead agenting as it appeared in policy letters. 6 This is an example of how that -- those policy 7 letters would have actually been implemented in 8 obtaining DA information. So this is -- 9 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. 10 THE WITNESS: So this is the actual -- how it's 11 used. 12 A There were -- part of the -- part of the -- part 13 of the description in the things that someone, as an 14 investigating officer, does in the Office of Special 15 Affairs. And part of what we do is gather information. And 16 it was to be exchanged with the PR department of the Office 17 of Special Affairs or with legal. 18 Now, in these particular -- 19 BY MR. LIROT: 20 Q Now, what -- 21 A In this particular case, they're asking me for 22 information to dig something up that would show the person 23 to be, you know, either a liar, or have, you know, been 24 involved in something that was illegal or criminal; 25 basically to refute that person's story or anything that 0278 1 they might have testified to. 2 Q All right. Were you ever asked just to dig up 3 enough information so that you could use innuendo and just 4 basically dig up -- dig up aspects of a person's life that 5 had nothing to do with litigation? 6 A Well, I was asked in general to -- to look into -- 7 look into information on an individual for anything, and how 8 that information was actually utilized. You know, that went 9 to hiring levels or to the PR department or to legal. So I 10 never know -- I never knew exactly what the information was 11 going to be used for. 12 Q All right. 13 THE COURT: So when you were asked to look into 14 things regarding criminal activities of a person, it 15 was to determine whether or not in fact the person 16 had been convicted of criminal activity or was 17 involved in criminal activity. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 And how that information was used -- 20 THE COURT: You don't know. 21 THE WITNESS: -- I don't know. 22 I had seen it used in different ways. I had 23 seen it used just for propaganda purposes, if you 24 will, DA information about an individual. You know, 25 something published about the individual, saying, 0279 1 you know, this person was involved in, you know, 2 some kind of a crime. You know, I didn't see any 3 litigation behind that. I just saw that, you know, 4 they prepared a pamphlet or something on somebody 5 that was based on information garnered from the 6 Office of Special Affairs. 7 So I -- you know, it wasn't my position to know 8 exactly how the information was used. 9 THE COURT: You were the low end of this -- 10 THE WITNESS: I was on the low end of the totem 11 pole. You're right. 12 THE COURT: Wait till I'm done. 13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 14 THE COURT: You were on the low end of this 15 investigative unit. You just gathered information 16 that you were asked to gather, turned it over to 17 somebody else, who did whatever they did with it. 18 Is that -- 19 THE WITNESS: Correct -- 20 THE COURT: -- fair? 21 THE WITNESS: -- your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 23 BY MR. LIROT: 24 Q Did you ever have an experience where you saw that 25 some of the research that you or people you were familiar 0280 1 with in OSA had done where it ended up being used in ways 2 other than litigation? 3 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He just answered. 4 He talked to you -- he said sometimes it went to PR, 5 sometimes it went to legal. He just went through 6 it. 7 THE COURT: I think he's asking if he knows of 8 any specific instances? Is that what you're talking 9 about? 10 MR. LIROT: Yes, Judge. 11 A Yes. I know of a specific instance where 12 information was gathered on a subject, that I was certain 13 wasn't used for litigation purposes, because of its nature. 14 I won't go into specifics, I guess, because that's not what 15 you want to hear. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q Well, without mentioning any name, can you give 18 the court some specifics as to what the information was? 19 A It tried to paint an individual who was in a 20 position of -- an executive position in an organization, 21 whose views were different than that of Scientology, in an 22 unfair light, as having been involved in some kind of adult 23 entertainment industry, when in fact it wasn't the case. It 24 was just a -- you know, somebody said this, so, "Okay. 25 Yeah. We're going to use that." And it wasn't true about 0281 1 the individual. 2 Q Did you ever see any of the information that -- 3 that you had developed or you knew of people in OSA 4 developing against individuals used in handbills and things 5 like that? 6 A Yes. It was information on some subjects that I 7 did some surveillance on when I was out there, and 8 information was gathered from these individuals and was 9 later explained to be something it was not. It was 10 explained to be deprogramming, when in fact it wasn't. 11 Q In your training -- was -- was your training 12 centered on developing your ability to investigate for 13 litigation purposes only? 14 A No. Not just for litigation purposes. It was 15 also to learn how to -- to run the private investigators 16 themselves. That was part of the training that initially 17 started before I left Los Angeles. And then while I was 18 there, and then when I came back it, you know, it still 19 continued on how to actually run a private investigator. 20 THE COURT: Someone hired outside the church 21 who worked for the church, you mean? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. The church would hire a 23 private investigator. And basically the Office of 24 Special Affairs runs the programs that the 25 investigators are on. The investigators are given 0282 1 their orders from the Office of Special Affairs. 2 THE COURT: Okay. You were trained in how to 3 give those directions, is what you're saying? 4 THE WITNESS: That's what my training was 5 consisting of at the time -- 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: -- yes, your Honor. 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q Now, would the policies, and I guess the letters 10 and other documents that I guess the hat pack required you 11 to be familiar with -- was your understanding that that 12 dealt largely with litigation or with other -- other goals? 13 A No. It dealt more than with litigation. 14 It's clearly stated in my -- in the statistics 15 structure on how, you know, your production is measured; 16 that the information that's gathered on subjects is used 17 for -- and it states it clearly. It says, counsel, PR or 18 legal. So how -- which one of those three entities -- and I 19 didn't have the distinction of knowing what legal versus 20 counsel was -- but any of these three entities would use the 21 information. 22 I myself didn't determine whether this was to be 23 used for this or that and the other. I just gathered the 24 information and sent it up the -- the line. And how it was 25 used -- how -- I -- you know, I kind of see it coming the 0283 1 other way; how it actually got used. 2 THE COURT: The PR meaning a negative PR, sort 3 of. 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes. To dead agent 5 someone or to put out information on the individual 6 based on intelligence that had been gathered by -- 7 BY MR. LIROT: 8 Q So you had -- we talked about the one document 9 that had, basically, the points for local -- local stats, 10 national stats -- 11 A Mm-hmm. Local attacks, national attacks. It was 12 you attacks, who attacks; you know, different statistics 13 that were based on different things on either individuals 14 that were identified as attackers and individuals that were 15 identified as attacker that you got information on. It 16 breaks it down into 10 different stats. And however much 17 information was actually gotten, you know, was worth 18 something. And then if it was actually used -- if it was 19 used in litigation, there was -- actually -- a litigation or 20 getting the person convicted of some crime, it was worth 21 more points, if you will. 22 And it's laid out in the -- in the description of 23 the statistics. 24 Q Was there a record kept of these stats? 25 A The stats were gathered every week and had to be 0284 1 submitted by 2:00 on Thursday. They weren't -- they didn't 2 go through the normal chain of the statistics of the rest of 3 the organization, the Miami org. The statistics for OSA had 4 to go straight up to OSA. 5 Q All right. So those statistics -- did they ever 6 break it down as to, you know, you got three points because 7 this was litigation-related but you got six points because 8 you helped get a newspaper article published that impugned 9 the person that was the subject of the investigation. 10 A Yes. But you had to actually have that -- the 11 article actually had to get published. And that was 12 something that was handled by the PR side, not the invest 13 side. So you would have to work with PR. You'd have to 14 give them information. And if they actually got it used, 15 then, you know, that division, you know, got those -- got 16 those stats because it was actually used. 17 THE COURT: When you say that something went 18 straight up to OSA, OSA where? Where did it end up? 19 THE WITNESS: I had -- it had to go to the next 20 higher level. The person that we were sending our 21 stats to, the person that I had communicated with, 22 was OSA East U.S., which was normally based in New 23 York, at what's considered the FOLO level -- 24 THE COURT: The what level? 25 THE WITNESS: FOLO. F-O-L-O. 0285 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: And that -- that individual, at 3 the time that I went to Los Angeles, wasn't in New 4 York; they were located -- they had been moved over 5 to California because of what was going on out in 6 California. So the person that would normally have 7 been in New York was actually in California. But it 8 was still the person that I spoke with all the time. 9 THE COURT: And the person you sent your 10 statistics to? 11 THE WITNESS: Correct. 12 Well, I would give my statistics to the DSA, 13 director of special affairs, which was Tracy Pase. 14 She in turn would compile my statistics with her 15 statistics and the DSA PRO, public relations 16 officer -- those statistics would all be compiled 17 together, and then they would go up to OSA. 18 I would send reports directly to OSA, to the 19 Office of Special Affairs. 20 I was given a disk with a program on it once, 21 and it allowed me to send my reports up, encrypted, 22 directly to the bulletin board that they had set up 23 at OSA. At the time, there was no Internet. The 24 Internet didn't exist at that point, at least not 25 like it's known now. So there was a bulletin board 0286 1 that OSA had, and you dialed up into it, you know, 2 from my own computer. 3 Now, I didn't have a computer in my office, so 4 naturally a lot of the work that I did, I had to do 5 at home because I had to type up reports. We didn't 6 have computers in the Office of Special Affairs in 7 Miami. So I had to do this from my home computer at 8 the time. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 BY MR. LIROT: 11 Q Now, we have talked about the policies and the 12 cancellation of the policy referred to as fair game. Were 13 you familiar with other policies in your OSA training that 14 also required -- and I'll use the terms of the policy 15 itself -- lie, trick, sue or destroy? Are there other 16 policy letters that indicate those are part of what your 17 responsibilities were? 18 A There were several, I believe. And we 19 introduced -- we introduced a couple of them. I can't 20 remember the exact ones. But they said in essence the same 21 thing. Or I think in another policy letter, that statement 22 is also made, but I can't -- I can't tell you for certain. 23 You'd have to -- 24 THE COURT: You're talking about ones that 25 have -- you have already -- 0287 1 THE WITNESS: Correct. 2 THE COURT: -- looked at here? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor. 4 BY MR. LIROT: 5 Q And were all four of those different categories 6 part of your responsibilities in OSA? 7 A Well, it was -- it was known -- having read the 8 policy, and understanding it, it was part of what was known 9 to be within my job description, if you will, and I guess an 10 expected practice. 11 Q Were you ever instructed that -- that, in keeping 12 with the work product doctrine, that you weren't supposed to 13 lie, trick or destroy people; that you were just supposed to 14 do things relative to suing them? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Sustained. 18 BY MR. LIROT: 19 Q Were you ever told to focus simply on the sue or 20 the litigation nature of those directives? 21 A No. I was never told that specifically. 22 Q Was it encouraged that you go beyond those -- just 23 simply the litigation aspects of OSA's policy letters that 24 you were supposed to familiarize yourself with? 25 A Gathering information on an individual to use in 0288 1 any way possible, as, you know -- as dictated with the hat; 2 you know, it said gather information to be used with PR, 3 legal or -- you know, I didn't know what it was used for. 4 So anything was gathered, anything we could gather on the 5 individual was subject to a report and to be entered into 6 the machine, if you will. 7 Q All right. With your familiarity with the dead 8 agent caper or dead agent doctrine, I guess I'll call it, 9 was that simply focused on litigation or were you encouraged 10 to go beyond that, to try to DA a person? 11 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form. 12 THE COURT: I -- I think he can say yes or no 13 to that, so I'll allow it. 14 A I'm sorry. I'm going to have to ask you to repeat 15 it, 'cause -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: It was an either-or, so I -- ou 17 ycouldn't say yes or no to it, I suppose, but -- 18 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to -- 19 MR. LIROT: I'll phrase it in a yes or no 20 fashion, Judge. 21 THE COURT: Please do. 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q Were you encouraged to go beyond litigation, to 24 try to achieve the DAing of a person? 25 A Yes. 0289 1 Q In what way? 2 A I was sent out to DA an individual that -- I 3 believe I testified to this. I was sent out to DA an 4 individual that had been speaking out critical of the 5 organization. And what I was asked to do couldn't be 6 indicated -- at least I couldn't see how that would have 7 anything to do with legal. I was to go out and try to 8 discredit this person in a public place, and hand out 9 Scientology literature about this -- you know, this man and 10 this -- the organization that he was talking about. Didn't 11 have anything to do with legal. I mean, I had to go out 12 there and try and discredit this man in a public place and 13 give out literature that would counter anything that he had 14 said at this meeting. That wasn't in any way, to me at 15 least, indicative of anything having to do with a legal 16 case. 17 Q Mr. Oliver, I'm going to hand you what we've 18 marked as Exhibit 177. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, this was already 20 kept out for hearsay. This is this news release 21 from the Cult Awareness Network. 22 THE COURT: You know what, for some reason it's 23 not here. I think what happened is I may have 24 pulled out a couple things, or they -- I don't have 25 it. So if I could see somebody's copy -- 0290 1 MR. WEINBERG: You can see mine. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. 3 Tell me what this is. Well, let me ask you. 4 What is this, first of all? 5 THE WITNESS: This is something you receive 6 when -- this is part of the literature that you 7 receive when you become a member of the Cult 8 Awareness Network. It's a paid membership. And 9 then they send you things like this, along with 10 solicitations for contribution. And they send you 11 information on the current scene and what's going on 12 with the Cult Awareness Network and their 13 activities. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Now tell me this. Tell me 15 what it is that you plan to ask him about this. 16 What it is you want to introduce this for. 17 MR. LIROT: Judge, I wanted to ask him, first 18 of all, what his understanding of the Cult Awareness 19 Network was. Obviously, there's a dispute with the 20 nature of the organization. I wanted to ask him 21 what his directions were as far as infiltrating the 22 Cult Awareness Network. And I wanted to ask him, I 23 guess, what -- in his understanding, what 24 nonlitigation assignments or goals he was given as 25 part of the fact that he infiltrated the Cult 0291 1 Awareness Network. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, he already 3 testified -- infiltration's a little extreme. He 4 already testified he got on the mailing list. 5 That's what he said. That's what he did. And he 6 got mail, apparently, this document, or something 7 like it. These are documents that are public 8 documents that are sent all over the country that 9 espouse the -- espouse the virtues, they believe, of 10 the Cult Awareness Network. This is all the stuff 11 that they were saying about Scientology. 12 THE COURT: Did I say that -- I don't remember, 13 and I don't remember that we got this far. But did 14 I indicate that this could come in not for the truth 15 of the matter but for the fact that he got it; 16 therefore, that's what he did? Or did I just simply 17 leave it out. 18 MR. WEINBERG: No, you said it was hearsay. 19 Which it is. 20 THE COURT: Which it is. 21 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, it is. He can 22 testify -- 23 THE COURT: There's no question it's hearsay. 24 MR. LIROT: We're not offering it for the truth 25 of the statements made in the documents, Judge; 0292 1 we're offering it to show the -- the level of -- of 2 activity that he had in this particular assignment 3 that he was given, and what he understood the nature 4 of the Cult Awareness Network to be. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Well, he said he got on the 6 mailing list. We accept that. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. WEINBERG: So what does this document have 9 to do with it? 10 THE COURT: Then I'm -- as far as the document 11 is concerned, it seems to me that it's just bad -- 12 In other words, it's agreed that if he got on 13 the mailing list, he got mailings, including that. 14 But to put that in, I think, just simply puts in a 15 bunch of probably very anti-Scientology stuff that's 16 nothing more than hearsay. So -- 17 MR. LIROT: All right. 18 THE COURT: -- keep it out. 19 MR. LIROT: I won't move -- I won't move the 20 document in, but I would like to inquire as to his 21 awareness of the characteristics of the Cult 22 Awareness Network. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 A I had been instructed that the -- and given 25 information from the Office of Special Affairs that the Cult 0293 1 Awareness Network was some kind of a hate group that was 2 responsible for assisting people in having family members 3 get deprogrammed, and that they were -- people that were 4 affiliated with the Cult Awareness Network were kidnappers 5 and, you know, that were involved in such things like this. 6 And this was how -- my initial briefing that I got on the 7 Cult Awareness Network. 8 And once I was out in Los Angeles, the assignments 9 given to me were that -- the subjects of my first 10 surveillance that I did out there, were people that were 11 involved in the same type of thing, and that that's why we 12 were surveilling them and that's why we were watching what 13 they were doing, and checking their phone records and doing 14 all the things that the Office of Special Affairs does to 15 somebody. 16 But you know, it wasn't -- it wasn't a real covert 17 surveillance. It was a noisy investigation. Which, you 18 know, we had, you know, three and four cars at a time on one 19 block watching these subjects. We followed them very 20 closely, where they went. They knew we were there. And I 21 even had to go into a restaurant, posing as a customer, and 22 sit at the table next to them, to try and listen to the 23 conversation that they were having, and conversations they 24 were having with someone that worked at the restaurant who 25 had a family member that had been involved. And I was also 0294 1 involved in debriefing and reading a document from an 2 individual that they had supposedly tried to deprogram. 3 However, the fact of the matter was, when I -- I 4 witnessed these individuals -- I spoke to the person that 5 had supposedly been involved in an attempted deprogramming. 6 And the facts never -- never matched up to what I had been 7 told about these individuals. 8 Subsequently, years later, I met the individuals 9 in person and a lot of things were cleared up when I was 10 able to confront them face to face about it. 11 And yes, it is true that there were several 12 individuals that were friends, affiliated somehow with the 13 Cult Awareness Network. In fact, that group in itself and 14 the premise for that organization existing wasn't about 15 that; it was formed by the daughter of a -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Way beyond anything I need to know. 18 BY MR. LIROT: 19 Q All right. When you were surveilling these folks 20 in the Cult Awareness Network, were you in -- were you 21 instructed that this was for the purposes of litigation? 22 A At no time was I instructed that it was in the 23 purpose of litigation. 24 Q Were you handed any kind of documents, any phone 25 records or credit reports? 0295 1 A Yes. I was handed those in an office by Mr. Shaw. 2 Q All right. Now, do you have any idea of how a 3 credit report would relate to any pending litigation? 4 A I'm not certain. I was just told to look at the 5 information and see what -- you know, what was on there; 6 what kind of, you know, balances were there; what kind of -- 7 you know, maybe find out what kind of purchases had been 8 made; maybe call the companies for some kind of information. 9 I did -- I was given a phone records list also, 10 and another list of -- I had of phone numbers, and I was to 11 check -- cross reference these phone numbers to see if this 12 individual had called some of these other numbers. 13 I was also shown a -- a videotape, which I believe 14 had been gotten before the show aired. I'm not certain of 15 that, but I believe that was the case. And I saw this 16 videotape of these subjects that I was doing this 17 surveillance on. I was shown this videotape in an office. 18 However, I wasn't told it had to do with litigation, even 19 though the office was Mr. Moxon's. 20 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just so the record's 21 clear, the fact that Mr. Oliver was or was not told 22 the purpose of this is completely -- I don't think, 23 really, is particularly relevant as to what he's 24 doing as part of, you know, protected work product. 25 He's at the low end of the scale. And he was asked, 0296 1 apparently, to do things, you know, that happen in 2 litigation: Looking at credit reports; do things 3 that lawyers, you know, want to be done to check out 4 a witness. 5 So I'm not sure where we're going with this. 6 THE COURT: I didn't know that people, on a 7 normal witness, checked out their credit report 8 before they deposed them. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don't know what he said 10 is true or not. But -- but -- but you know, credit 11 reports, from time to time, are available. 12 MR. LIROT: Judge -- 13 THE COURT: They may be, but they're not 14 generally available on a witness. Generally I would 15 assume that you can't get my credit report or -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: No, I -- 17 THE COURT: -- somebody else's credit report. 18 I can. I'm supposed to be able to get it. 19 MR. WEINBERG: No. We don't get credit 20 reports. 21 THE COURT: Right. 22 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, but -- but -- 23 THE COURT: Well, he's saying you did, see? I 24 don't know if he's telling the truth or not, but 25 he's saying you did. 0297 1 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I just wanted to make it 2 clear. 3 THE COURT: Right. 4 And so he's saying you have these credit 5 reports, which would be -- unless they got -- were 6 obtained in discovery -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: Well, that's what he doesn't 8 know. 9 THE COURT: Right. Of course he doesn't. 10 But you wouldn't -- I don't normally -- I can't 11 think, in all my years on the bench, that I've ever 12 given out somebody's credit report as part of a 13 discovery packet. So -- 14 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, may I -- Mr. Weinberg 15 isn't aware of some of the facts. I think I know 16 what he's talking about. Not with the credit 17 report. I have no idea what he's talking about in 18 the credit report. 19 But into looking into this information about 20 these other deprogrammers, the way it's kind of 21 worked out now, he's giving generalities about 22 specifics. 23 THE COURT: I'm not paying much attention to 24 that. I think the only thing that is -- was of any 25 interest that I even heard was that he was given, by 0298 1 Mr. Shaw, credit reports of the witness and asked to 2 go check and see if they made these -- 3 MR. WEINBERG: He -- he didn't say Mr. Shaw. 4 THE COURT: Yes, he did say Mr. Shaw. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Phone records, he said. 6 THE WITNESS: No. Both. I was given both. 7 MR. WEINBERG: I thought he said credit 8 reports. 9 THE COURT: I thought he said both. 10 MR. MOXON: My only point was this: The 11 individuals that he was talking about that were 12 these deprogrammers in Los Angeles, I think he 13 mentioned at another point, were in point the 14 Whitfields, who were professional deprogrammers, who 15 were involved in litigation with the church; were 16 even Mr. Dandar's expert witness at one point, 17 identified in this case for a long time. And the 18 litigation lasted for -- for several years with the 19 Whitfields. They were also involved in the Cult 20 Awareness Network. 21 THE COURT: Well, then that -- 22 MR. MOXON: So he's giving -- my point is he's 23 giving generalities about things, but in actual 24 fact, he is talking about a work product 25 investigation as to pending litigation. 0299 1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, that -- that part. 2 But frankly, it escaped me. 3 MR. MOXON: Well, I know. 4 THE COURT: Because it didn't sound like it was 5 any bearing on this case. 6 MR. MOXON: No, it doesn't have any bearing on 7 this case. Except that Mr. Dandar's, you know, 8 prior witness he just removed was -- was the person 9 involved. But it did have to do with other 10 litigation. 11 And the work product claim, of course, doesn't 12 die just because it's not related to this case. 13 THE COURT: I understand. 14 But there's allegations -- you all just have to 15 understand this: That the allegations, no matter 16 how you may look at them, are being made that the 17 Church of Scientology does things that would not be 18 considered appropriate to investigation. Going 19 through folks' garbage. That's what -- that's for 20 narcotics detectives to do, generally speaking. And 21 then -- then that always brings forth a motion. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Well, tabloids -- I mean 23 newspapers go through -- it's on the street. 24 THE COURT: Yes, they do. 25 MR. WEINBERG: And it's not a crime. 0300 1 THE COURT: And we don't generally think of 2 that as being very, you know, proper behavior. I 3 wouldn't think most churches that I know of would be 4 involved in going through garbage cans. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Of course not. But I mean, 6 there's a distinction between doing something that 7 is criminal and doing something that we don't think 8 is all that great. 9 THE COURT: Exactly. 10 MR. WEINBERG: And going through somebody's 11 garbage -- you know, we're not saying that that's 12 what happened, but that's -- you know -- that's not 13 a crime. If it's on a public street. And you know, 14 there's cases about all this. 15 And not just investigators -- I mean, not just 16 law enforcement people. Tabloids. I mean, that's 17 how the celebrities -- that's how these magazines 18 are written all the time. You know, they -- they 19 go -- people throw something out and -- 20 THE COURT: I have no problem with that, 21 Counselor. I think the information that's being 22 presented in this case to show that these are the 23 types of things that happened to Mr. Minton which 24 caused him to come in to come here and, as they say 25 it, lie. So that's why it's even remotely 0301 1 admissible in the hearing. 2 MR. WEINBERG: And just so it's clear on the 3 record, at least, when -- when Mr. Oliver says that 4 he did -- you know, he said this to -- Ben Shaw gave 5 him something -- you know, our position is that is 6 not true or correct. 7 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to tell you 8 something. And this would be the same thing that 9 would be true in any hearing, in any trial, in any 10 motion: 11 If something is said and it is -- it is left 12 unrefuted, it becomes a fact. If in fact it is 13 refuted, which is up to you on cross examination or 14 through another witness, then I'll have to decide 15 who's telling the truth or whether he's telling the 16 truth. But just because you say, "By the way, just 17 because he says it doesn't make it true," if he says 18 it, and you don't challenge it on cross and you 19 don't put on another witness, it is a fact and it is 20 true. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- but that -- but that -- 22 if that's the case, then the rebuttal will go for -- 23 for two months. I mean, we have challenged the 24 credibility, for example, of all the witnesses, 25 including Mr. Prince. Mr. Prince said a lot of 0302 1 things. It would take us months to take each 2 individual thing and refute. 3 But we challenged his credibility -- 4 THE COURT: Yes, you did. 5 MR. WEINBERG: -- and -- 6 Right. So -- 7 THE COURT: And as long as you challenge 8 somebody's credibility, then -- 9 You have not even asked this man the first 10 question. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Of course not. 12 THE COURT: You can't stand up, Counsel, in a 13 courtroom, and say, "By the way, what he just said 14 isn't true," and expect me to assume -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. 16 THE COURT: -- that what he said wasn't true. 17 I'm just reminding you what a lawyer does. 18 That's all. 19 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. 20 THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, at this 21 moment, it is true. 22 MR. WEINBERG: And I'm going to challenge his 23 credibility. 24 THE COURT: All right. Then you may do that 25 and then I'll maybe change my mind. 0303 1 MR. LIROT: Very good. 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q Well, Mr. Oliver, tell me the circumstances under 4 which, as you've testified, Mr. Shaw handed you these phone 5 records and these credit reports. 6 A This was in the Office of Special Affairs, in the 7 ASHO building in Los Angeles. And they were offices -- I 8 believe the offices were on the third floor. I may have the 9 incorrect floor. And that's where the CAN unit was. Their 10 offices were in there. 11 And it was in the office of Toni Sharanmanis 12 (phonetic). I don't know how to spell that last name. It 13 was in her office where Mr. Shaw handed me this. 14 Q All right. Were you given any directions or -- I 15 mean, were you told that, "Here, we got this by executing a 16 subpoena or court order"? 17 A I wasn't -- I wasn't instructed as to how the 18 document was obtained. But this -- it always stayed with 19 me, because of the fact that I felt that this was really -- 20 you know, I was really handed something here, and -- it was 21 the first time I'd ever been handed anything like that when 22 I was in OSA. So it -- it stayed with me. "How did --" you 23 know, "How did we get this?" 24 I had worked previously -- years ago, I had worked 25 for a small period of time in a major department store as a 0304 1 credit authorizer, and I knew myself what the particulars 2 were behind obtaining a credit report: TransUnion, CDI, 3 TRW. I had done this myself as a job in my past. 4 So when I was handed this, I was wondering, you 5 know, how did we get this? But I -- I didn't ask questions. 6 I was just given that. I was just given the phone records. 7 THE COURT: The phone records of the individual 8 that you were -- 9 THE WITNESS: The subject that I was doing -- 10 THE COURT: Subject. 11 THE WITNESS: -- surveillance on at the time. 12 Now, I didn't name them. Mr. Moxon did. I 13 didn't use their names, but -- 14 THE COURT: Was it their business phone records 15 or their home records? 16 THE WITNESS: I believe it was their home phone 17 records, your Honor. I don't think they had a 18 business. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 BY MR. LIROT: 21 Q Can you date this for us, Mr. Oliver? 22 A July of 1991. 23 Q And do you know if there was any litigation 24 pending against those individuals at that time? 25 A No, I do not. I didn't know it then, and it 0305 1 wasn't anything that was told to me. I was to dig up 2 information on these individuals, we were to watch them. 3 There was a concern that these individuals were going to be 4 leaving the country soon and meeting with another 5 disaffected member of the organization. 6 These subjects were former members themselves, but 7 I was never told how important they had been in the 8 organization when they were in. I was never told that. I 9 found this out much later. 10 Q Okay. Were you even allowed to ask where these 11 documents had come from? 12 A I'm sure I could have asked anything I wanted, but 13 I didn't. I didn't. There were some questions I knew not 14 to ask and that was one of them. 15 Q All right. For the -- for the personal phone 16 records, as part of doing a noisy investigation, what would 17 you do with those -- with those records? 18 A There was a separate list that was given to me, 19 and I was to cross reference it with other numbers to see if 20 these individuals had been in fact with the people on the 21 other list. And anything that kind of stood out, we were to 22 determine where this phone was -- you know, what city they 23 were in, based on the area code, and then we were to try and 24 obtain -- you know, maybe do a reverse look-up to see if we 25 could find out the name of the individual by giving the 0306 1 information operator the phone number. 2 Q Did you ever contact any of the numbers on these 3 phone records yourself? 4 A Made a phone call to determine whether the person 5 was male or female. That's all I did. To some of the 6 numbers. 7 I was pulled off of that to do something else, 8 also, so I never quite finished that, that I started. 9 Q How about the credit report? What assignment were 10 you given relative to any credit report that you were 11 provided? 12 A We were looking at balances to see if they had 13 been -- if they were -- their credit -- their -- they had 14 been up to date; make sure their bills had been paid and if 15 there was any activity on any particular cards. Kind of to 16 see if a purchase had been made or if a balance had gone out 17 to indicate maybe that somebody had bought a plane ticket or 18 something like that. So it was just looking to see what's 19 there, what do we know about this individual, in terms of 20 their credit? 21 Q Were there any policies in OSA as to what would be 22 done with information showing that a bill was unpaid or 23 somebody had a credit problem? 24 A It would be part of something that would be 25 investigated through the company; try to, you know, get in 0307 1 there and look into -- to see if the individual had, you 2 know, a judgment; if they were going through a financial 3 problem. It was just an indicator. It was a string, 4 basically. They call it a string. If there's something 5 like that that sticks out a string, you pull it to find out 6 what's on the other end of it. 7 I didn't have to do any of that -- that part of it 8 myself, though. 9 Q Now, did you ever attend any Cult Awareness 10 Network meetings? 11 A Not while I was a member, no. 12 THE COURT: Not while you were a member of the 13 Church of Scientology? 14 THE WITNESS: Or the Cult Awareness Network. 15 Either one. Either one. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q Were you familiar with the Lisa McPherson Trust? 18 A Yes. I became familiar with it, you know, once it 19 opened. 20 Q Well, let me back up one time and go back to the 21 Cult Awareness Network. 22 You were familiar with something called Plan 100? 23 A I was familiar with -- not that term exactly, but 24 I was familiar with -- I became aware of something, while in 25 the Cult Awareness Network unit, through someone there, that 0308 1 they were going to plan -- they were going to plan some 2 litigation because they wouldn't let somebody become a 3 member. 4 Q All right. Well, what was the nature of -- of 5 that litigation, if you know? 6 A The Cult Awareness Network unit was -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. This is work 8 product. He's talking about litigation. 9 MR. LIROT: It's -- the general -- the general 10 nature of it, I don't think is. 11 THE WITNESS: That's all -- 12 THE COURT: Well, let me hear it. Let me hear 13 what it is. 14 THE WITNESS: That an -- individuals in the -- 15 in the Cult Awareness Network unit were attempting 16 to join, and they were being kept from joining, and 17 that Scientology was going to close litigation 18 because they weren't allowed to join. 19 THE COURT: Who? Who wasn't allowed to join 20 what? 21 THE WITNESS: Members of -- members of the CAN 22 unit identified openly as members of the Church of 23 Scientology were trying to join the Cult Awareness 24 Network as members of Scientology; stating that they 25 were members of the Church of Scientology; that they 0309 1 wanted to join the Cult Awareness Network. And that 2 the Cult Awareness Network had -- had, at one 3 particular point, tried to keep these people from 4 joining. Thus litigation was going to be initiated 5 by these individuals for the -- you know, the 6 church, through these individuals, to sue the Cult 7 Awareness Network, because they wouldn't allow these 8 openly -- open Scientologists to join the Cult 9 Awareness Network. 10 BY MR. LIROT: 11 Q Do you know that -- that Plan 100 represented 12 the -- the desire of the church to file 100 lawsuits against 13 the Cult Awareness -- 14 MR. WEINBERG: Objection -- 15 Q -- Network? 16 MR. WEINBERG: -- as to form. It's just a 17 leading question. 18 THE COURT: Sustained. 19 BY MR. LIROT: 20 Q What did you understand Plan 100 to be? 21 MR. WEINBERG: Well, this would be hearsay too, 22 whatever response -- 23 THE COURT: Yeah. He said he didn't know. 24 BY MR. LIROT: 25 Q All right. Do you know whatever happened to the 0310 1 assets of the Cult Awareness Network? 2 A Yes, I do. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, unless he has some 4 personal knowledge based on, you know -- based on -- 5 Otherwise it would be hearsay. 6 BY MR. LIROT: 7 Q Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Oliver: You had 8 remained a member of the Cult Awareness Network after you 9 departed Scientology? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What ultimately became of the Cult Awareness 12 Network? 13 A It was forced into bankruptcy. It was basically 14 destroyed. 15 Q All right. And do you have personal knowledge as 16 to what happened to the assets of the Cult Awareness 17 Network? 18 A I did have a phone conversation with Cynthia 19 Kisser once, and we discussed it, you know, because I was -- 20 I had basically called to apologize to Cynthia Kisser and -- 21 MR. WEINBERG: Well, that would be hearsay, 22 your Honor, if he's about to describe a -- 23 THE COURT: Sustained. 24 MR. WEINBERG: -- phone conversation. 25 THE COURT: But if they went bankrupt and 0311 1 they're no longer in existence, it doesn't take a 2 genius to figure it out. 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q Do you know if members of the Church of 5 Scientology obtained a phone number for the Cult Awareness 6 Network? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know if members of the Church of 9 Scientology continued to pose as the Cult Awareness Network? 10 A Yes. 11 Q All right. Can you tell me what you know about 12 that? 13 A I have -- I've contacted the Cult Awareness 14 Network, the new Cult Awareness Network, myself, and the -- 15 there was a Scientologist who bought the assets, the name, 16 the phone number, and they currently are the ones that 17 answer the phone when you call the Cult Awareness Network. 18 They own it lock, stock and barrel. 19 THE COURT: Own -- 20 THE WITNESS: They own the assets that were of 21 the old Cult Awareness Network. 22 THE COURT: You mean it does exist, Cult -- 23 THE WITNESS: There's a new one now, and it's 24 owned by Scientology. And it's called the New -- it 25 was called CAN, and now the Web site says the new 0312 1 CAN. But it's owned by a gentleman who is a member 2 of the Church of Scientology. And he bought the 3 name and the assets, I guess, on the courthouse 4 steps, is what I heard. 5 BY MR. LIROT: 6 Q Well, in -- in your communications with the new 7 CAN, what did you understand the purpose of that 8 organization to be? 9 MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know, I mean we're so 10 far off field, the new CAN, and your conversations 11 with them, the purpose -- this is all hearsay. I'm 12 not sure what it has to do -- 13 THE COURT: I don't know. What does it have to 14 do with this proceeding? 15 MR. LIROT: Judge, just part of the overall 16 practice that Scientology has of trying to undermine 17 organizations deemed to be antagonistic to its 18 viewpoints. 19 THE COURT: Well, this is a new organization. 20 This is a new corporation. I guess they're entitled 21 to set up any corporation they want. 22 MR. LIROT: Very well. 23 BY MR. LIROT: 24 Q Mr. Oliver, let me ask you about what you know 25 about the Lisa McPherson Trust. 0313 1 A Lisa McPherson Trust was formed by Bob Minton. He 2 formed it as a for-profit corporation to try and provide 3 some security for the individuals that would be contacting 4 it, to try and reach loved ones or to help people that were 5 involved in Scientology that were hurt by it, and to try and 6 expose their abusive practices and policies and things that 7 they do to people. 8 Q Did you see any parallels between the purposes of 9 the Lisa McPherson Trust and the Cult Awareness Network? 10 A Yes. 11 Q All right. What would you consider those 12 parallels to be? 13 A The Cult Awareness Network was a clearinghouse, 14 and it provided information to people; the -- the practices 15 that were harmful to people. And the Lisa McPherson Trust 16 was doing the same type of things. Lisa McPherson Trust 17 however was more geared specifically to the issue of 18 Scientology, whereas the Cult Awareness Network also dealt 19 with other cults. The Lisa McPherson Trust had several 20 ex-members, either friends of it or affiliated with it or on 21 the board, that provided a lot more information to people 22 and, you know, provided, I believe, a better resource to 23 individuals that wanted to know more information about the 24 activities of the Church of Scientology, and to offer more 25 counseling and more help to people that were trying to deal 0314 1 with coming out, and family members who had members in 2 there, that they wanted to help them get out as well. 3 Q Now, as far as your relationship with the Lisa 4 McPherson Trust, did you -- were you present on several 5 occasions? 6 Were you a resident of Clearwater? 7 Let me just rephrase the question. 8 Were you a resident of Clearwater during your 9 affiliation with the Lisa McPherson Trust? 10 A No. I was not a resident of Clearwater. I'm a 11 resident of Miami. 12 Q And how extensive was your participation in the 13 Lisa McPherson Trust? 14 A I wouldn't say it was real extensive, as compared 15 to people that were there on a regular basis. I would fly 16 up for events. 17 THE COURT: You said it was real extensive? 18 THE WITNESS: It wasn't as extensive -- 19 THE COURT: When you say -- 20 THE WITNESS: -- as for people that were there. 21 THE COURT: When you say "wasn't," a lot of 22 time that's going to come out "was." 23 THE WITNESS: Oh. 24 THE COURT: So when you're using contractions, 25 be sure you say "was not" or "was." Because I 0315 1 thought you said "was." 2 THE WITNESS: Okay, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: You said "wasn't," apparently. I 4 didn't get the N-apostrophe-T. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 THE COURT: Go ahead. 7 A It wasn't -- it was not as extensive as those 8 individuals who were there or lived in Clearwater, that, you 9 know, spent more time at the trust. I would fly in for 10 different events or different activities or litigation, if 11 it was required that I be there to assist in any way. 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q All right. And did you actually on occasion 14 picket the Church of Scientology? 15 A Of my own choosing, yes. 16 Q All right. Obviously you know Mr. Dandar. 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q Did you ever know Mr. Dandar to join in any 19 pickets? 20 A Never, in the time that I was involved in any of 21 this, have I ever seen Mr. Dandar with a picket sign in his 22 hand. 23 Q And did -- were you paid by the Lisa McPherson 24 Trust? 25 A No, I was not. 0316 1 Q Were you -- have you ever been paid by Mr. Dandar 2 for any purpose? 3 A A company I worked for was paid for trial exhibits 4 produced in the McPherson case. 5 THE COURT: Paid for what? 6 THE WITNESS: Trial exhibits that were created. 7 I'm a graphic designer. We create trial exhibits. 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q And these would be enlarged demonstrative 10 exhibits, things like that? 11 A Correct. 12 Q Have you ever been paid for any testimony as an 13 expert or anything of that nature? 14 A No, I have not. 15 Q You testified that you knew Mr. Minton. From your 16 relationship with the Lisa McPherson Trust, would you say 17 the Lisa McPherson Trust was nothing more than, I guess, a 18 warehouse for witnesses for the Lisa McPherson wrongful 19 death case? 20 A No. That wouldn't be an accurate characterization 21 of the Lisa McPherson Trust. Not to my -- 22 Q And did you -- did you know Mr. Minton to have any 23 level of interest in the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case? 24 A The only level of interest that I knew he had was 25 that he was -- he was providing funding to cover the costs 0317 1 of the litigation. 2 Q Did you ever know Mr. Minton to direct the 3 litigation at all? 4 A No. I don't know Mr. Minton to have directed 5 litigation. He seemed pretty aloof about the case. 6 THE COURT: Truth of the matter is, this 7 witness wouldn't know that. I mean, I guess he'd 8 know if he heard something, but he wouldn't know 9 what went on between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar. 10 MR. LIROT: Just to the extent that he knows, 11 Judge. 12 THE COURT: Right. In your presence, when you 13 were there -- 14 THE WITNESS: Right. 15 THE COURT: -- on the few occasions, what have 16 you, you did not hear Mr. Minton directing 17 Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson -- 18 THE WITNESS: No, I did not, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: -- in the Lisa McPherson wrongful 20 death case. 21 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q Now, Mr. Oliver, I'm going to hand you what we've 24 marked as Exhibit, I believe, 178. This is a Time Magazine 25 article -- 0318 1 I'll ask if you can -- can you identify that for 2 the court? 3 A Yes. It's a copy of the Time Magazine article 4 that appeared in May, 1991. 5 Q And you're familiar with that article? 6 A Yes, I am. 7 Q Can I draw your attention to -- 8 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, any -- I mean, this 9 is -- this article -- 10 MR. LIROT: I haven't asked my question yet, 11 Judge. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Well, you're going to draw your 13 attention. 14 I want to make my objection, as I started last 15 week when -- this would be unmitigated hearsay. The 16 article shouldn't come in, and there shouldn't be 17 questions as to what some reporter said in an 18 article in 1991. 19 THE COURT: I would generally agree with that. 20 However I don't know what his question is. You 21 can't make an objection before the question is 22 raised. I have no idea what he's going to ask. 23 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 24 BY MR. LIROT: 25 Q Mr. Oliver, on -- I guess it's the -- after you 0319 1 open it up, the right page, it has a picture of the 2 L-o-t-i-c-k-s, the Loticks, above a gravesite. Did you know 3 the Loticks to be members of the Lisa McPherson Trust? 4 A Yes. I knew Dr. Lotick and his wife. I met them 5 at the Lisa McPherson Trust. 6 Q All right. You are familiar with the term "PR 7 flap"? 8 A Yes, I am? 9 Q What does that mean to you? 10 A A public relations flap. It means that something 11 involving public -- public relations is -- well, the term 12 "flap" means it's reared its head. It's lifted itself up. 13 There's a problem there. It's a bad situation regarding a 14 public relations matter. 15 Q Were you a member of OSA when this Time Magazine 16 article came out? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Was it described to you as a PR flap? 19 A It was described to me as a huge PR flap. 20 Q All right. And were you ever given any directions 21 relative to any efforts to try to neutralize this PR flap? 22 A To direct any individuals in the organizations 23 that had seen the article -- 24 THE COURT: In the organization, that being 25 the -- 0320 1 THE WITNESS: The Miami organization. Yes. 2 Miami. The Church of Scientology Miami. 3 A To direct any individuals who had seen the 4 article, any questions that had been raised by the article, 5 any knowledge reports written by any staff members 6 concerning this article -- all these people were to be 7 directed to the Office of Special Affairs where they would 8 be debriefed. 9 BY MR. LIROT: 10 Q If you turn the next page, there's a list of -- 11 THE COURT: When you say debriefed, what does 12 that mean? 13 THE WITNESS: They would be given information 14 to try to counter some of the allegations made in 15 the article. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 BY MR. LIROT: 18 Q Mr. Oliver, on the very last page -- it looks to 19 be page 57 of this exhibit -- it says that -- there's a 20 cut-out here says "The Scientologists --" 21 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q "-- and Me." 24 MR. WEINBERG: Now -- 25 Excuse me. 0321 1 Now he's reading from an article that's not in 2 evidence. That's clearly hearsay. 3 THE COURT: Well, you know, the truth of the 4 matter is, it's not a question he's asked yet. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Well, he was just reading from 6 the article. 7 THE COURT: Well, okay. But again, I don't 8 know what the question is. We can -- I can't 9 sustain an objection -- I don't -- I don't know what 10 he's going to read. Thus far what he's asked about 11 the article would be not hearsay. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I'll let him ask the question. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. WEINBERG: But he's starting to quote from 15 it. That's what I was -- 16 MR. LIROT: Judge, I was just directing his 17 attention to a certain section. 18 BY MR. LIROT: 19 Q Says -- the title of the section is The 20 Scientologists and Me. Have you read that particular 21 portion of this article? 22 A Yes. I've read this. 23 Q All right. And it -- in this portion of the 24 article, it appears to be the journalist that wrote the 25 article complaining about some of the tactics that were used 0322 1 against him. 2 A Yes. That's what it says in the article. 3 I've even spoken to this journalist myself. 4 Q All right. Would you find, in your capacity as a 5 member of OSA, that most of what he complains about were 6 tasks similar to those that were assigned to you? 7 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 8 A Yes. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. The only way he can 10 answer that question is to assume that this -- 11 whatever it is that he said in here, is in the 12 record. It's just hearsay. 13 THE COURT: Generally speaking, it would be 14 hearsay. But if he's talking about certain -- 15 If you can tell me what -- 16 I mean, is it stuff he's already testified to? 17 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, I'll ask more specific 18 questions. 19 THE COURT: Well, don't ask about the article, 20 then. Ask if he ever did X, Y and Z, if you haven't 21 already covered it. 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q All right. Mr. Oliver, as far as the -- the 24 investigations that are articulated in here, do you -- what 25 do you understand those investigations against Mr. Behar to 0323 1 be? 2 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q Over and above what the article says. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that. Mr. Behar is 6 the -- is the author of the article. Your Honor has 7 directed him to say, outside of this article -- 8 THE COURT: Right. 9 MR. WEINBERG: -- whether there was something 10 else that he hasn't said he did when he was in OSA. 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 In other words, if you want to know -- I don't 13 know what's in the article. I haven't read the 14 article. May read the article. Haven't read the 15 article. 16 If you want to ask him -- I don't know what's 17 in there, therefore -- "Did you ever go --" for 18 example, if he said his garbage was gone through, 19 you don't need to ask him that. He's already said 20 he's gone through garbage. If it says he -- I don't 21 know what it says. 22 Ask him, "Did you ever do this? Did you ever 23 do that?" 24 You're not going to get the article in, so if 25 there's anything in there that you want to ask him 0324 1 whether he did, that you think would be relevant, 2 you may. 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q All right. For somebody writing an article 5 adverse to the Church of Scientology, would you find it 6 uncommon for 10 attorneys and six private investigators to 7 be assigned to that person? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your 9 Honor. 10 THE COURT: True. 11 How many lawyers and how many investigators 12 would you, if you know, imagine would be assigned to 13 someone writing an article that may be adverse to 14 Scientology? If you know. If you've ever been 15 assigned to such a thing. 16 THE WITNESS: To an article? 17 THE COURT: Right. 18 THE WITNESS: To someone who's writing an 19 article? 20 THE COURT: To someone -- if the church were to 21 learn that somebody was writing something, a book, 22 an article, a pamphlet, whatever, adverse to the 23 church -- 24 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm. 25 THE COURT: -- would -- 0325 1 First of all, would you know whether or not 2 investigators, internal investigators such as 3 yourself, would be assigned to that task? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 THE COURT: And were you ever assigned to such 6 a task? 7 THE WITNESS: To that particular subject, no. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't. 10 THE COURT: Well, then he can't testify. 11 BY MR. LIROT: 12 Q Were you ever aware of a fraudulent company called 13 Educational Services obtaining credit reports as a source of 14 credit reports for the Church of Scientology? 15 A No. 16 Q Were you aware of friends and neighbors being 17 asked questions based on negative characteristics of people 18 being investigated simply to arouse suspicion of those 19 people? 20 THE COURT: Counsel, there's already testimony 21 about that in this record, so -- 22 Go ahead. Are you aware of that? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Did you do that? 25 THE WITNESS: It was done to me. 0326 1 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, to the extent that 2 he's testified, I would like to move this article 3 into evidence. 4 MR. WEINBERG: I object, your Honor, for the 5 reasons -- 6 THE COURT: Sustained. 7 MR. WEINBERG: -- already stated. 8 THE COURT: Objection sustained. It's just a 9 hearsay article; apparently an adverse, 10 inflammatory, I guess -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 12 THE COURT: -- article, and it would just be a 13 hearsay statement, so -- 14 BY MR. LIROT: 15 Q All right. Mr. Oliver, I'm going to hand you what 16 we've marked as Exhibits 179, 180 and 181. Can you identify 17 Exhibit 179 to the court? 18 A Yes. This is a -- this is the title page and the 19 copyright page from the L. Ron Hubbard Introduction to 20 Scientology Ethics book. It's copyrighted as 1989. And 21 it's a -- it's pages from his section concerning rewards and 22 penalties. 23 Q All right. And in that book -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. I'm having trouble 25 finding what it is that you just -- 0327 1 THE COURT: Looks like this. 2 MR. LIROT: That I gave you at the end last 3 week. 4 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 5 MR. MOXON: Do you have additional copies, 6 Mr. Lirot? 7 MR. LIROT: I'll see if I can find them. 8 (A discussion was held off the record.) 9 (A recess was taken at 10:33 a.m.) 10 (The proceedings were resumed at 10:52 a.m.) 11 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, may I exchange this 12 version of that motion I gave to you? What I gave 13 you is the file copy. 14 THE COURT: Yes, you can. 15 This is mine? 16 MR. MOXON: This black one is yours. 17 THE COURT: Thank you. 18 You may continue. 19 MR. LIROT: Thank you, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: By the way, for the record, I just 21 looked briefly at the list of tapes that had been 22 released, and the Gerry Armstrong interview had been 23 released in full. So the one tape that only had 24 Mr. Armstrong in part and an interview by Mr. Dandar 25 on the other part will not be released, because you 0328 1 already have the first part of Mr. Armstrong's 2 interview. 3 Okay. 4 BY MR. LIROT: 5 Q Mr. Oliver, I handed you an exhibit that was 6 marked as 179. Do you have that in front of you? 7 A Yes, I do. 8 Q All right. Can you tell the court what that is? 9 A It's the title page and the date page -- I guess 10 the first page -- of the L. Ron Hubbard Introduction to 11 Scientology Ethics book, copyright 1989. And the sections 12 attached are -- the first one is -- it says here Rewards and 13 Penalties, and the other two sections are from the section 14 entitled Suppressive Acts. 15 Q All right. Can you explain what those terms are 16 briefly, as they're contained in the excerpts from this 17 Introduction to Ethics. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to Mr. Oliver 19 explaining what they mean because he's not an 20 expert. I suppose he could say -- 21 THE COURT: Well, isn't this a book that you 22 all -- 23 MR. WEINBERG: The book -- the whole book -- 24 we're happy to put the whole book in. 25 MR. DANDAR: You did already. 0329 1 THE COURT: I think it is in evidence. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Not this one. 3 MR. DANDAR: Oh, I'm sorry. 4 THE COURT: To me, if you're giving somebody a 5 book to read and it's a book that's for the general 6 public to read, I don't know why he can't explain 7 what he thinks it means to him. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Well, that wasn't the question. 9 The question was, what does it mean? 10 THE COURT: Oh. 11 MR. WEINBERG: I suppose if he wants to be 12 asked what does it mean to him -- I'm not sure of 13 the relevance of what it means to him, but that's a 14 different question. 15 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to let him state 16 what it means to him. He was a member of the 17 church, and he was a -- he's given some testimony 18 about this -- 19 Does this just conform to what you've testified 20 to or not? 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know what specifically 22 we're going to look at here until -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 THE WITNESS: -- I'm asked, so I can't say as 25 to whether or not, your Honor -- 0330 1 THE COURT: Well -- 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q In the excerpts that we've marked as an exhibit -- 4 we talked about the suppressive persons and things like 5 that. And this is part of what you were required to be 6 familiar with as your membership in OSA? 7 A Yes, it is. 8 Q All right. And for those excerpts, as far as 9 suppressive persons, what was your understanding -- not so 10 much what the church's view of this is, but what was your 11 understanding of the necessity for you to be familiar with 12 those terms? 13 A That a suppressive person is someone who commits 14 these acts that are against Scientology. And this, in the 15 Scientology ethic book, delineates -- talks here about 16 rewards and penalties, and also identifies the different 17 ways in which an individual can be labeled a suppressive 18 person by their suppressive acts, which are delineated on 19 222, going through 225, and what their opportunities would 20 be if they were a member of the Church of Scientology as to 21 returning to the group; what steps they would take, here, on 22 the second page. 23 Q And you understand that this is -- this book, 24 copyright 1989? 25 A Yes. This is a -- a 1989 printing, which has some 0331 1 additional information that wasn't in the original printing 2 of the Scientology ethics books, that I was -- that I 3 purchased when I was a member. 4 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'd like to introduce 179 5 into evidence. 6 THE COURT: It'll be received. 7 MR. WEINBERG: So long as -- 8 I mean, we'll just bring the whole book, 9 because this is taken out of context -- 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. WEINBERG: -- if that's okay. 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q Mr. Oliver, I want to draw your attention to 14 what's been marked as Exhibit 180 and ask if you can 15 describe that to the court. 16 A Yes. This is the title page to a book entitled 17 Introduction to Scientology Ethics by L. Ron Hubbard. And 18 this is copyright 1968 but reprinted in 1985. 19 Q Is this a copy of the ethics book that was 20 provided to you as part of the OSHA hat package? 21 A This is a book that I was required to familiarize 22 myself and read from. I had to purchase the book, and I 23 did. I purchased both books. 24 And this has in there the -- 25 THE COURT: These are two different books, are 0332 1 they? 2 THE WITNESS: They -- they seem to be the same 3 book, your Honor, but they're actually different. 4 They seem to be the same, but they're quite 5 different. This one right now is a very -- you 6 know, this book is about maybe a half inch thick, 7 and the one that -- previously that was entered into 8 evidence -- that book's, like, an inch and a half 9 thick. And it's -- it's shown to be the same book, 10 but the title of the books are completely different, 11 so -- 12 THE COURT: The title of the book? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is -- that says "L. 14 Ron Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics," 15 and this one is "Introduction to Scientology Ethics, 16 by L. Ron Hubbard." They are completely different 17 titles. They seem to be the same, but they're not. 18 THE COURT: You bought both books? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 BY MR. LIROT: 22 Q Now, in Exhibit 180, the excerpts there, what was 23 the significance of those excerpts, as far as your training 24 with OSA? 25 THE COURT: Which excerpts are you looking at 0333 1 now? 2 MR. LIROT: Number 180. 3 THE COURT: I know. But what excerpts? Are 4 you on page 32? 5 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm going to start with the 6 first page. 7 THE COURT: Oh, all right. 8 A The first page -- the first page is just the title 9 page. 10 BY MR. LIROT: 11 Q All right. I meant the first page of text. 12 Excuse me. 13 A Okay. The next page is the copyright page. 14 The third page, I guess -- 15 THE WITNESS: Which says 32 and 33 at the 16 bottom, your Honor. 17 A -- that starts -- this is a section of the 18 conditions and the formulas that you apply for a certain 19 condition in Scientology. It goes from nonexistence, 20 danger, junior danger, emergency, and then it goes into 21 the -- and then it skips to the section on the rights of a 22 suppressive person. And there's a small section on the 23 recourse of a potential trouble source. 24 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'd like to move this 25 exhibit into evidence. 0334 1 THE COURT: It'll be received. 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q Finally, Mr. Oliver, I've handed you what's been 4 marked as Exhibit 181, and ask if you can describe that to 5 the court. 6 A Yes. This is a -- this is a copy of a brochure 7 entitled Streamlines, which -- which talks about the routing 8 forms that are used in Scientology. 9 Q All right. Briefly explain the significance of 10 routing forms and their use in the Church of Scientology. 11 A Routing form is used to -- is used for different 12 steps, once an individual's in Scientology. When you go 13 on -- when you purchase a course and you go on to the 14 course, they put you on a routing form. And it has steps. 15 The steps have relevant policies notated underneath as to 16 why those steps need to be taken. They have a place for the 17 person to sign and for the person doing the routing form 18 with you to sign and the date. And they can be used for 19 someone coming onto staff, somebody going into auditing, a 20 student going into the academy, someone leaving staff, 21 someone requesting a leave of absence. These are the type 22 of actions that are used -- that routing forms are used for. 23 It basically keeps track of what is termed in the 24 organization particles in the organization, whether that be 25 a person doing a course or a person getting auditing. It 0335 1 just lets the organization know where people are at what 2 particular point in time and what steps they are on the 3 action course or auditing that they're doing. 4 So if you're going into the academy, the academy 5 supervisor -- once you get up to the steps where you've paid 6 for your course and you go see the academy supervisor, the 7 academy supervisor then holds onto that form while you're 8 doing the course, however long it takes you; days, weeks, 9 months, however -- 10 When you're done with the courses, they -- you're 11 still on that same routing form. That piece of paper kind 12 of follows you through the organization to ensure that 13 you've done all the steps that are required. 14 From there the student would get a certificate, 15 and then they would get, you know -- there are different 16 steps, but in essence they'd get a certificate after their 17 course is completed, and then they'd go and see the 18 registrar again for them to sign them up on their next 19 course, for example. 20 Q Does the church place special importance on the 21 use of routing forms? 22 A Very much so. It is how it manages and runs the 23 organization and keeps track of people, you know, where 24 they're at and what they're doing. Yes. It's very 25 important. It's an integral management tool that is used 0336 1 for auditing and for processing and for just staff members 2 or any individual in the building. 3 Q Is there a penalty if somebody doesn't properly 4 comply with the requirements of the use of routing forms? 5 A The standard ethics penalties would apply for 6 someone not following the rules of a routing form. It would 7 be violation of a policy that, depending on the severity, 8 what it is that they did -- if they altered, destroyed or 9 did something to a routing form, or didn't complete one 10 properly, or didn't finish one off -- you know, depending on 11 the individual and the severity and what they did or didn't 12 do, that would determine how severe the penalty would be for 13 not complying or completing a routing form. 14 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'd like to move Exhibit 181 15 into evidence. 16 THE COURT: It'll be received. 17 MR. WEINBERG: No objection. 18 THE COURT: What is this, by the way? Is this 19 something -- 20 THE WITNESS: That's the cover. 21 THE COURT: I understand that, but is this 22 something you bought or -- 23 THE WITNESS: It was just something that was 24 given to me in the course of being a staff member 25 there. 0337 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: It was a brochure, basically, 3 that explained it. It was nothing more than that. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 BY MR. LIROT: 6 Q All right. I'm going to ask a few questions about 7 the LMT and Bob Minton. 8 And as -- as far as you knew, what was 9 Mr. Minton's view of Mr. Dandar's communicative abilities 10 about the Lisa McPherson case? 11 A It seemed to have degraded as -- you know, as I 12 was involved in the LMT, to a point where -- 13 You know, Mr. Dandar was viewed very -- was very 14 well respected by people in the LMT because of his work in 15 the Lisa McPherson case. And there were individuals that 16 worked there that also happened to be witnesses. It just 17 turned out that way. And Mr. Minton was the one that was 18 funding this case. 19 It wasn't until the fall of -- I believe it was 20 2001 that I had first become aware that Mr. Minton was 21 unhappy with the way the case was going, because of how he 22 perceived Mr. Dandar wasn't complying with the direction, if 23 you will, or advice be given to Mr. Dandar on the case by 24 Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks. And he was upset to the 25 point where I had read on the Web, which provoked the phone 0338 1 call from me to him -- I read that he had cut off the 2 funding to the case. 3 Q Now, as far as Mr. Minton's cut-off of funding, do 4 you know if he ultimately came back to the fold and 5 contributed more money to the wrongful death case? 6 A I believe that happened -- I believe that happened 7 afterwards. 8 One of the reasons -- I mean, it didn't seem to 9 make sense to me. One of the reasons given to me by -- you 10 know, one of the reasons I was told directly from Bob was 11 that he didn't want him talking to Patricia Greenway. And 12 that didn't seem to make sense to me, because I know 13 Patricia Greenway was a good friend of Bob Minton's and was 14 a friend of the people of the LMT and was a friend of mine, 15 and had a relationship there with the individuals and was 16 helping as well. So it didn't make sense to me until I, you 17 know, really got the gist of the fact that there was some 18 friction between -- at least perceived by Stacy Brooks, to 19 be between her and Patricia Greenway. And that was kind of 20 a reason why, I guess. 21 Q Now, as far as your familiarity with, I guess, the 22 policies and routine practices of the church, specifically 23 the OSA arm, why did you maintain these documents? 24 A They were -- any course that I ever did in 25 Scientology, for example, when I had a student pack course, 0339 1 any pack that I was ever given -- like, for example, I 2 bought my student hat pack. That was given to me. That was 3 mine. I kept -- I purchased -- I had to buy all the books 4 that were associated with that course. Any policies, 5 letters relevant to that course, I was to keep. I treated 6 this pack the same way I treated that. 7 Once I was leaving the organization, I realized 8 exactly what I had been involved in, and I didn't think -- 9 by the time everything happened, there were a lot of steps 10 that happened with me trying to leave the organization. And 11 by the time I had left the organization, in the manner in 12 which I left the organization, I had the pack; I had -- they 13 had asked me for certain things to be returned, and I 14 returned everything they asked me to return. Which was just 15 one file that I happened to have in my briefcase. But they 16 didn't ask me for the other stuff back. They didn't ask me 17 for any of this stuff back. 18 And if, in part of my leaving through normal, 19 customary ways in which someone leaves the organization, 20 they had asked me back for the information, I probably would 21 have given everything they asked me for. But if they didn't 22 ask me for it, I thought it was part of my course pack and 23 it was mine. 24 Q Did you pay for the materials in your course pack? 25 A My org was invoiced for that course that I was 0340 1 doing. When you go to a higher org and you do a course 2 there, they bill the org you're coming from for that course, 3 because I was coming there as staff and not as a public 4 person. So for example, I did a course in my own org, they 5 would write an invoice. And since I was a staff member, the 6 org would just hold on t