Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500
510
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
2 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
3
4
5
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
6 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
7
8 Plaintiff,
9 vs. VOLUME 5
10 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
11 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
12
Defendants.
13
_______________________________________/
14
15
16 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
17
CONTENTS: Testimony of Kennan Dandar.
18
DATE: June 5, 2002. Afternoon Session.
19
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
20 St. Petersburg, Florida.
21 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
22
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
23 Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
24
25
511
1 APPEARANCES:
2
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
3 DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
4 Tampa, FL 33602
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
5
6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
8 Attorney for Plaintiff
9
MR. KENDRICK MOXON
10 MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
11 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
12 Organization.
13
MR. LEE FUGATE and
14 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
15 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
16 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
17
18 MR. BRUCE HOWIE
5720 Central Avenue
19 St. Petersburg, Florida.
Attorney for Robert Minton.
20
21 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN
MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP
22 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
23 Attorney for Stacy Brooks.
24
25
512
1 THE COURT: Okay. I said we would take up in
2 plaintiff's motion to abate dissemination of any
3 portion of the film The Profit. And I was handed
4 shortly before I came into court Stacy Brooks'
5 opposition to motion today.
6 Mr. Howie, are you here for Mr. Minton on this?
7 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. I have just read
8 the motion to abate. And I'm here on behalf of
9 Mr. Minton, because he's named as a potential
10 injunctee in that case.
11 THE COURT: Okay. I show that you were served.
12 But it may be that they were served by mail, is that
13 right?
14 MR. LIROT: Judge, they should have had a copy
15 faxed to their offices. I haven't been there all
16 day. I wasn't able to check on that.
17 THE COURT: But I see Mr. McGowan is noticed.
18 Yes, Bruce Howie, so I guess it is en route.
19 MR. McGOWAN: I have not seen it until lunch.
20 I -- I have not seen it --
21 THE COURT: Okay. We'll make this fairly
22 brief. I have read the motion.
23 MR. LIROT: We can, Judge. I think that you
24 are aware -- just to give you a little bit of
25 historical statement here, this issue first came up
513
1 before Judge Beach.
2 There was a subpoena that was issued to
3 Ms. Greenway, who I know you know, and
4 Mr. Alexander, seeking a variety of records and
5 things showing the funding.
6 And what we asserted was privileged trade
7 secret, that was important to ensure the commercial
8 vitality of the film, if you give all of the
9 information out, somebody that doesn't want you to
10 be successful in distributing the film.
11 We filed a motion for protective order. We had
12 a hearing in front of Judge Beach, and Judge Beach
13 issued the order, which I had already attached to a
14 similar request made by Mr. Moxon of Ms. Greenway,
15 that she provide copies of checks that were given to
16 Courage Productions by Mr. Minton for the production
17 of the movie, and a variety of other requests that
18 were made, copy of the movie, and I think that we
19 had provided that to you in camera.
20 I had, after --
21 THE COURT: I don't think I received anything
22 in camera.
23 MR. LIROT: Well, I just say generally we gave
24 you a copy of the movie. You watched it on your
25 own.
514
1 THE COURT: The movie? I thought you meant the
2 documents.
3 MR. LIROT: No, ma'am. Not at all.
4 THE COURT: The movie? Yes.
5 MR. LIROT: And I think relative to the
6 documents you said what Judge Beach says still
7 stands.
8 Now, what Judge Beach did is he precluded --
9 and I attached a copy of my order to that particular
10 motion. Essentially what he had done, he just
11 put -- and I'll just read the portion out of his
12 order -- it says: "The Court orders that the
13 subject film not be shown prior to the trial on the
14 complaint," and then he handwrote in, "Or the
15 counterclaim."
16 And what we had done is we filed a motion for
17 rehearing, asking that that be simply the
18 jurisdiction of the State of Florida. We didn't
19 want the whole movie stopped, but we just wanted it
20 stopped for purposes of the State of Florida.
21 Well, that was then. This is now. A whole lot
22 has happened since then. And from our perspective,
23 it looks like the --
24 THE COURT: I don't know what you are speaking
25 for, the plaintiff in the wrongful death case?
515
1 MR. LIROT: I think Judge Beach's order is for
2 anybody to show the movie. Obviously, the
3 presumption then was that my clients, Courage
4 Productions -- or at least, you know, back when
5 Mr. Minton and Mr. Alexander were still speaking, I
6 suppose, I had appeared on their behalf as a
7 representative of Courage Productions, to try to
8 keep any harm from happening or occurring as it
9 relates to the vitality -- or at least the
10 commercial viability of this movie in the future.
11 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't make myself
12 clear. Today you are appearing as co-counsel for
13 the plaintiff, and this is -- the plaintiff in the
14 motion before me --
15 MR. LIROT: That is --
16 THE COURT: -- is the estate of Lisa McPherson.
17 You are appearing for that, for this?
18 MR. LIROT: That is exactly correct.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. LIROT: The reason I say that, it came to
21 our attention that on the Lisa McPherson Trust site
22 a number of so-called snippets of the film -- I
23 think I was given information that about ten minutes
24 of the film had been shown, and there was concern
25 here is a snippet, there is a snippet, eventually
516
1 the whole film is out and the commercial vitality of
2 the film is lost.
3 But the reason I make this motion is as the
4 testimony from Mr. Minton came out last Thursday, I
5 believe, his statement was that -- in answer to a
6 question posed to him, he said: "I funded
7 production of a movie about Scientology, The Profit.
8 I invested 2.5 million to have two anti-Scientology
9 critics produce the movie along with me, Jesse
10 Prince, Stacy Brooks and other LMT staff.
11 Mr. Dandar also had an acting role in the movie.
12 Mr. Dandar played an FBI agent. And then it was
13 Mr. Dandar felt the movie would help generate a
14 negative view of Scientology with potential jurors
15 in the area."
16 Obviously this has become a more critical
17 issue. It seems no good deed goes unpunished in
18 this case. So in an abundance of caution, we would
19 like this Court to eliminate whatever potential --
20 shall I say -- sword-like effort is utilized by the
21 defendants in this case to say, "You guys let all of
22 this stuff out on the Internet and you have
23 contaminated the jury pool on the eve of trial,
24 we're going to ask for change of venue. Something
25 bad is going to happen if we don't put a stop to
517
1 whatever is being done."
2 Now, it is certainly our position, and we
3 respectfully submit to the Court, that Ms. Brooks
4 and Mr. Minton, while they may be wanting to get out
5 of the anti-Scientology business or whatever their
6 testimony, continuing to put this out doesn't really
7 say that unless what is being put out over the
8 Internet will come back to be used against the
9 estate. And it's our concern that it's not going to
10 be good for the estate.
11 We think that it's within the province of this
12 Court to certainly stop any additional
13 dissemination.
14 The federal suit I filed is for copyright
15 infringement. There was a response filed that since
16 there is an operating agreement that says before you
17 do anything for Courage Productions, the limited
18 liability company, there has to be full agreement of
19 the two members of that company, Mr. Minton and
20 Mr. Alexander.
21 Well, what had happened was once this started
22 to go out into the -- to the public in the way these
23 snippets, as I said, they just add up and up to
24 eventually what we feel will be putting an end to
25 the commercial viability of the film, I filed a
518
1 lawsuit, in an abundance of caution, based on
2 Mr. Alexander's right, and I attached this as an
3 exhibit to my motion.
4 He has the right to act in the best interests
5 of the LLC. He's not trying to do anything to hurt
6 Mr. Minton. He's trying to protect the only asset
7 the LLC has.
8 THE COURT: The LLC is?
9 MR. LIROT: Being Courage Productions. They
10 are the owners of the copyright of the film.
11 THE COURT: LLC?
12 MR. LIROT: Limited liability company. It's a
13 specific --
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. LIROT: -- entity. And essentially, Judge,
16 if somebody is -- a member of an LLC starts to go
17 off the deep end and do things bad for the LLC,
18 regardless of anything to the contrary, a managing
19 member can take over and say, "I'm going to protect
20 the interests of the LLC."
21 Now, there is an arbitration clause in the
22 operating agreement. The only reason I say that,
23 those are all issues in the federal action. I
24 looked at Mr. McGowan's response. And he alleged
25 what we are trying to do is circumvent or bypass or
519
1 in some way use this Court to buttress what is going
2 on in federal court.
3 That is a separate proceeding. That is a
4 copyright case. We are asking for damages, punitive
5 damages, and all of the remedies available, should
6 we prevail in copyright proceeding.
7 What we want to do here is in the best
8 interests of the estate. It's our position, from
9 the estate standpoint, that there is nothing good
10 that can come from the dissemination of these
11 things, this what I'll call snippets on the
12 Internet. And it looks to us like, rather than try
13 to give an accurate depiction of the movie, it's
14 using materials that are not well produced, I think
15 they are third or fourth generation, they are very
16 bad for whatever future the movie may have.
17 But, most importantly, all they do is fall
18 right into line with what is alleged in the
19 counterclaim. That the movie was produced and uses
20 witnesses and people from the LMT. The snippets are
21 what the general nature of the movie is. You saw
22 it, there is a great number of different actors and
23 actresses in this movie that had nothing to do with
24 the LMT. Well, strangely enough, they don't find
25 their way into the so-called snippets on the LMT
520
1 website.
2 So, basically, it's our position that while it
3 might be some First Amendment fair use issue which
4 we don't think applies, it's our position that the
5 way it's being used right now is to advance the
6 defendant's arguments in the counterclaim to create
7 what we consider is really somewhat of a
8 disingenuous position, because if they are concerned
9 that the movie was made to create some sort of jury
10 contamination or have adverse impact on their
11 ability to obtain a fair trial, why in the heck are
12 people on that side of the camp putting it up on the
13 Internet for?
14 We have spoken with the people at Courage.
15 They have no objection to the entry. And I think
16 that is an important point. We do this in the best
17 interests of the estate. We have --
18 THE COURT: I'm sorry, people from Courage?
19 MR. LIROT: From Courage. Mr. Alexander. Now,
20 whether Mr. Minton thinks it's a good idea or not,
21 I'm sure he doesn't --
22 THE COURT: He's the main stockholder of
23 Courage Productions?
24 MR. LIROT: No. They are equal partners. He's
25 the major investor. But with an LLC, you know,
521
1 whether you put in a dime or dollar, Mr. Alexander
2 apparently wrote the script. Contrary to what
3 Mr. Minton might have testified to, I don't think
4 Mr. Minton had any input into the script. Not
5 important.
6 But the bottom line is we don't think anything
7 good can come out of this, we don't think it's a
8 legitimate fair use of anything because the movie
9 has never been finished, it has never been
10 commercially released, other than one test showing,
11 and it's our position that we don't want it to be
12 used against us.
13 If we're the ones who have made the movie or,
14 obviously, the estate, if it was made to create jury
15 contamination, well, we want to prove that is not
16 the case. We --
17 THE COURT: When you say we're the ones who
18 have made the movie, who is the "we"?
19 MR. LIROT: Well, the allegation by Mr. Minton
20 was that Mr. Dandar and all of this anti-Scientology
21 jihad, as it has been referred to as, everybody got
22 together and said, "Well, we're going after
23 Scientology, plus I'm going to fund this movie which
24 will make Scientology look bad and it will
25 contaminate the jury pool, so anybody who watches
522
1 the film will automatically think that Scientology
2 is a bad thing and enter a verdict in favor of
3 whoever is against Scientology."
4 I'm not saying that we buy into that. We don't
5 want to hear it any more.
6 We would like the Court to issue an order
7 abating any further dissemination of this movie, and
8 I think we're the ones speaking from the strongest
9 First Amendment perspective.
10 The movie belongs to Courage Productions. They
11 are willing to let this court enter an order abating
12 any further dissemination to stop that from becoming
13 an issue. We don't want anybody to say it was out
14 there for purposes of jury contamination. We don't
15 want it to be used as any sort of tool in advancing
16 the counterclaim or motion that is before the Court.
17 And we're willing to sacrifice our rights for the
18 benefit of the estate.
19 THE COURT: "We're willing"?
20 MR. LIROT: Courage Productions and the estate
21 are willing to put their rights aside.
22 THE COURT: Now you are saying "we're" and you
23 are representing Courage Productions and you are
24 here arguing for the estate as co-counsel for the
25 estate.
523
1 This is the very thing I'm going to hear about
2 and have some transcript end up up here about you,
3 Mr. Lirot.
4 MR. LIROT: I'll be more specific. I'll be
5 more specific. The motion is on behalf of the
6 estate. I also represent Courage Productions,
7 subject to whatever objections they have that
8 Mr. Minton hasn't approved of my representation.
9 I think what I have stated is my representation
10 is based on the statutory provisions that allow any
11 operating member of an LLC to take steps that are in
12 the best interests of the LLC. And I would
13 certainly submit that.
14 But the argument before this Court is made on
15 behalf of the estate to prevent any adverse argument
16 made that, A, the film was created to contaminate
17 the jury pool or, B, that it did so.
18 And obviously, Judge, the case law, I think, is
19 pretty clear from your perspective. A trial judge
20 has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize
21 the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.
22 There are many cases that stand for that.
23 THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. The
24 problem is the parties that are listed here as
25 defendant is Church of Scientology Flag Service
524
1 Organization, Janis Johnson, Alain Kartuzinski and
2 David Houghton. They don't have a thing to do with
3 the LMT site, they don't have a thing to do with
4 Courage Productions, they don't have a thing to do
5 with the LLC, and they don't have a thing to do with
6 whatever is going on.
7 I mean, I could enter any order I want to in
8 this case against the Church of Scientology Flag
9 Service Organization. The problem is that isn't the
10 right person.
11 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge --
12 THE COURT: They have no -- no more authority
13 than I do to tell somebody that is not here, that
14 has not been joined, that is not before this Court,
15 to stop disseminating something.
16 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, I would respectfully
17 disagree with that. I think it is within your
18 province. For instance, the cases where newspapers
19 on many occasions have sought to circumvent gag
20 orders and engage in disseminating different
21 information that certain judges have felt would be
22 prejudicial to whatever it is that they're trying to
23 do to maintain a fair and equal, impartial
24 proceeding.
25 I don't think that Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks,
525
1 anybody associated with whoever is putting this out
2 on the Internet, I don't think they need to be
3 parties. I think that your discretion to maintain
4 the sanctity of these proceedings allows you to
5 issue a blanket order saying nobody does this
6 anywhere.
7 And, quite honestly, Judge Beach's order says
8 that to some extent. He says nobody can show the
9 movie. Is it not constructively showing the movie
10 if you put in 47 snippets that just happen to be 47
11 scenes from the movie? I think an argument could be
12 made to that effect.
13 So it's our position that you do have the
14 authority to issue whatever order of abatement is
15 appropriate. And we would like to see you do it, in
16 an abundance of caution, so we're not down the road
17 saying, "Oh, all these terrible Internet postings
18 have caused the jury pool to be contaminated, voir
19 dire is affected, now on the eve of trial we have to
20 change venue."
21 Quite potentially, Judge, I see a lot of
22 problems that could come out of this. This seems
23 like the most cautious step to take. And I don't
24 think it is in any way asking for any sacrifice of
25 any First Amendment right that isn't vastly
526
1 outweighed by the protection of these proceedings
2 that I think are appropriate.
3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
4 What says the Church?
5 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I don't have a dog in this
6 fight, as the Court pointed out, on the one hand.
7 But I do have a concern because there was a
8 comment just made about the disingenuous position of
9 this side of the camp. I'm not sure if that is
10 pointing to us, or this over here.
11 THE COURT: Meaning at the Church, or
12 Ms. Brooks' and Mr. Minton's lawyers?
13 MR. FUGATE: Right. I'm sorry, Judge.
14 THE COURT: Right.
15 MR. FUGATE: But the problem that I have is one
16 I raised earlier on. And that is the appearance of
17 conflict or the appearance of impropriety, because I
18 just went up and looked at Defendant's Exhibit 139,
19 which is the lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Lirot on
20 behalf of Patricia Greenway. I won't go through all
21 of that again.
22 But by my count, Mr. Lirot now files a motion
23 on behalf of the plaintiff who -- he says he
24 represents the estate, he filed a notice of
25 appearance representing Mr. Dandar individually and
527
1 Dandar & Dandar. He sued a witness in this hearing.
2 He cross-examined another witness in this hearing
3 who is the 50 percent owner of the company that he's
4 filed a lawsuit on behalf of.
5 So he's representing -- or attacking four
6 witnesses in this proceeding: Ms. Brooks,
7 Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and Peter Alexander. And
8 he's filing lawsuits that -- if I read the pleadings
9 correctly, he's at odds with one of the 50 percent
10 owners of the company.
11 I see this -- the reason I raise it, I see this
12 as a potential conflict. And I don't want that to
13 go unnoticed by the Court or unobjected to by us,
14 because if there is an adverse ruling down the road
15 somewhere, I can imagine Mr. Dandar saying, "Geez, I
16 didn't realize this, and maybe I didn't get fair
17 representation by Mr. Lirot."
18 But Mr. Lirot, by my count, represents a whole
19 host of people who are witnesses, who are
20 plaintiffs, who are people that he's cross-examining
21 in this case in front of this Court. And I think it
22 is inappropriate.
23 I think under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7 A and B,
24 there is a potential conflict. And I just call that
25 to the Court's attention.
528
1 Whatever you want to do with regard to the
2 movie -- you know, we obviously made our position
3 very clear on The Profit and on Courage Productions.
4 And we don't need to be --
5 THE COURT: What is your position?
6 MR. FUGATE: Our position --
7 THE COURT: You would agree. Obviously, if you
8 are consistent, you would agree with them.
9 MR. FUGATE: Oh, I do agree that is what it --
10 we have addressed it in our motion.
11 THE COURT: You would agree you want it taken
12 off the site, right?
13 MR. FUGATE: I would agree it ought not to be
14 disseminated during the pendency of this proceeding.
15 THE COURT: Period. All right.
16 Mr. McGowan.
17 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, on behalf of Stacy
18 Brooks, first of all, she's not party to the
19 lawsuit, as the Court points out. And that raises a
20 host of problems.
21 What this motion really is, is seeking
22 injunctive relief. She hasn't been properly served.
23 There is no allegations of irreparable harm and
24 other allegations necessary for an injunction as to
25 Ms. Brooks. And the motion is unsworn.
529
1 In addition to that, it is the Courage
2 Productions -- or at least under the guise of
3 Courage Productions, this very matter is in the
4 Middle District of Florida. Stacy Brooks is a named
5 defendant in that case for the very same activity,
6 putting these so-called snippets on the Internet.
7 And that lawsuit, which is in the court file --
8 excuse me, I have a cold -- that lawsuit seeks
9 injunctive relief.
10 So, I mean, what you have got here is you have
11 commercial speech that is protected. There is a
12 fair use defense. There is petition for injunction
13 in the Middle District of Florida. We filed a
14 motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment.
15 And they are in the -- their Rule 11C safe harbor
16 right now.
17 So this is nothing more than an end run to what
18 they are seeking in the middle district. They are
19 seeking this Court to do what they can't get the
20 Middle District to do.
21 If they have copyright problems, then they can
22 go and do what they have to do in federal court. If
23 the estate has a problem with Ms. Brooks and they
24 want to enjoin the speech, then they better serve
25 her and they better do it the right way, because --
530
1 because anything -- anything that get signed and
2 enjoined in speech isn't going to have a lot of
3 force and effect. And there is just no jurisdiction
4 to do this as to Ms. Brooks.
5 And so -- so I hear in some motion, unsworn,
6 just served on me by hand --
7 THE COURT: You would admit, would you not,
8 Counsel -- you are absolutely right in the
9 presentation you make.
10 But, on the other hand, Ms. Brooks really wants
11 to set the record straight and go in and make a
12 global settlement, and help Mr. Minton make a global
13 settlement with the Church of Scientology.
14 If she doesn't do this at the request of both
15 sides here, the only reason would be somehow or
16 another that she must think there is some benefit to
17 the Church, or she would take it off immediately if
18 she wanted to settle with them.
19 MR. McGOWAN: Well, the fact is it is taken
20 off. It is down.
21 THE COURT: Then you shouldn't have any
22 objection, either, other than the fact you don't
23 want me entering any order. What you ought to be
24 saying is, "That is fine, we're going to shut it
25 down, but you should not be entering any order."
531
1 MR. McGOWAN: That is why it is shut down, and
2 I don't know Ms. Brooks ever put anything up there.
3 But, you know, I think that is something the federal
4 court should be addressing.
5 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Howie?
6 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, Mr. Minton is not a
7 defendant or a named party in the federal action.
8 However, they apparently are thinking to enjoin him
9 here. The Court's jurisdiction over him is as
10 counterdefendant.
11 If this is actually a request for injunction,
12 it fails legally because they failed to cite any
13 irreparable harm, and they failed to cite they have
14 no adequate remedy at law.
15 Obviously, if they have adequate remedy at law,
16 they are trying to exercise it in federal court. If
17 this is a motion for protective order, as was just
18 indicated, this is a situation where the snippets
19 that they're referring to are not part of any
20 evidence or documents produced in this case, they
21 were obtained independently.
22 However, given the fact there is no harm being
23 done because the -- the items have been taken off
24 the website, I don't think they provide the Court
25 with an adequate factual basis, either for
532
1 protective order or for an injunctive order, and we
2 would object to the motion to abate.
3 THE COURT: Okay. I'll ask you the same thing
4 that I -- that I asked counsel for Ms. Brooks.
5 The Church here has joined, in essence, with
6 the plaintiff, stating that it would be in
7 everybody's best interests if this wasn't up and
8 running on some site, in the event some potential
9 juror in this case -- in the event there is a trial,
10 a juror sees this and, somehow, because they have
11 seen it, relate it somehow as an anti-Scientology
12 snippet that would cause them to be prejudiced
13 against the Church of Scientology in a lawsuit.
14 If that is not farfetched -- well, that is what
15 the allegation is. So if it sounds farfetched, it
16 does to me, too.
17 Nonetheless, since Mr. Minton wants to settle
18 and wants to make a global settlement with the
19 Church of Scientology, and since they don't want it
20 up and running, then it would seem to me he would
21 want to accommodate that.
22 So I can't grant your order. I have no
23 jurisdiction to enter this order, as far as I am
24 concerned.
25 But I simply tell counsel for Ms. Brooks and
533
1 counsel for Mr. Minton that if there is any truth to
2 the fact that Mr. Minton wants to enter a global
3 settlement with the Church of Scientology, set the
4 record straight, and all of the things he testified
5 to in this Court, he ought to get that off the web
6 as will she, Ms. Brooks. And, therefore, if it is
7 up and running, I can only assume, if they have any
8 control over that, there is something very strange
9 going on. So I'm not going to say any more than
10 that. I think I made myself clear.
11 MR. HOWIE: I'll pass the communication on.
12 Thank you.
13 THE COURT: So your motion is denied but --
14 because I don't think I have any authority to enter
15 that.
16 MR. LIROT: Your directives are clear, Judge.
17 Thank you.
18 THE COURT: Now, if I'm done with this, I'm
19 going to throw it in the wastebasket.
20 MR. McGOWAN: Do we need an order?
21 THE COURT: I don't know. I guess I do. I
22 guess --
23 MR. McGOWAN: I'll do it.
24 THE COURT: I guess what I probably need to say
25 is that the defendants joined with the plaintiffs.
534
1 However, the argument was the Court lacked
2 jurisdiction to enter the order, or whatever.
3 MR. McGOWAN: I'll --
4 THE COURT: The truth of the matter is there
5 is -- it is better not to have it in the order. Put
6 it is denied or put everything in I just said.
7 MR. McGOWAN: The record speaks for itself.
8 THE COURT: I mean, I do want to make it clear
9 that the credibility here of Mr. Minton and
10 Ms. Brooks is at issue in this case in this hearing
11 before me.
12 There is no question that if they are trying to
13 settle something with the Church, the Church's
14 position ought to be exactly what it is, which is
15 take that stuff off the net. That is what the
16 plaintiff wants, too.
17 So there really would be no reason for them not
18 to do that. That is my point. And that is what my
19 order should state.
20 But as far as ordering them to do that, the
21 suit has been filed in federal court. It needs to
22 be decided over in federal court. Okay?
23 All right. Mr. Dandar.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Weinberg, are you ready?
535
1 MR. WEINBERG: Almost.
2 THE COURT: All right.
3 MR. WEINBERG: I get tired, too, every now and
4 then.
5 THE COURT: I get tired. My neck gets tired.
6 MR. WEINBERG: I know.
7 MR. DANDAR: At least you are looking down, not
8 up.
9 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, you are sitting.
10 THE COURT: Although, actually, sometimes I
11 wish I were standing.
12 MR. WEINBERG: I sort of go back and forth. I
13 get stiff both ways.
14 THE COURT: Me, too.
15 MR. WEINBERG: I marked four exhibits that we
16 did before but I didn't put them in at the break and
17 I just wanted to offer them.
18 This is -- let me get my glasses -- this we
19 marked as 163A, which was the subpoena to Vaughn
20 Young which we went over.
21 163B, which is Kartuzinski's emergency request
22 for expedited production of documents from expert
23 Vaughn Young.
24 163C, which is Mr. Dandar's January 19, 2000
25 fax transmittal with the interrogatories, and
536
1 those -- I think it was -- eleven letters to
2 Mr. Young.
3 And then 163D, which was excerpts from
4 Mr. Young's deposition, particularly those excerpts
5 which I read of my exchange with Mr. Dandar
6 concerning the production.
7 And I offer 163A, B, C, and D into evidence.
8 THE COURT: Any objection?
9 MR. LIROT: No objection, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: They will be received. I have
11 forgotten, I'm sure it's in my stack here, because I
12 have it right here. I know you mentioned it. What
13 was the letter? What was the exhibit number of
14 this?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is 73, I think, but let
16 me -- I have it in my notes here. Hang on a second.
17 THE COURT: It's all right.
18 MR. WEINBERG: No. No. I actually have a
19 weird way of filing this.
20 THE COURT: I just thought you could get it for
21 me quickly.
22 MR. WEINBERG: It is 73. I was right.
23 THE COURT: 73? That is Defendant's 73?
24 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is.
25 THE WITNESS: Judge, if I could just tell you
537
1 something on the record.
2 THE COURT: All right.
3 THE WITNESS: During the lunch break I called
4 my office and spoke with my paralegal, Donna West.
5 I said, "Find this letter, May 2, 1997. Look
6 everywhere, correspondence, Mr. Young's file, Stacy
7 Young's files, if there is one for her."
8 And she reported back to me this letter does
9 not exist in my office.
10 BY MR. WEINBERG:
11 Q Just look at that letter for a second.
12 A Yes.
13 Q We're talking about the May -- whatever -- 2nd,
14 whatever it was, letter, is that the date?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Is that your signature?
17 A Yes, it appears to be.
18 Q And you sent that letter to Mr. Young on or about
19 May 2, 1997. Right?
20 A I assume I did, yes.
21 Q So you have no explanation for how it is you don't
22 have a copy of that letter at this point?
23 A No explanation.
24 Q Or why you didn't have a copy of it when these
25 requests for productions went out?
538
1 A It's the same explanation. It's not in my office
2 anywhere. Now or then.
3 Q Excuse me?
4 A It's not in my office anywhere now and back then
5 when you asked for it in 2000.
6 MR. WEINBERG: Now I'm going to go to a
7 different subject matter.
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to hand Mr. Dandar,
10 for convenience, the fifth amended complaint which
11 is the January 20th -- the extant one, the one that
12 we're dealing with now. I can give you a copy if
13 you want it.
14 THE COURT: That would be good.
15 MR. WEINBERG: It's in your notebook, but it's
16 easier --
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to give Mr. Dandar
19 that, and a copy of Mr. Prince's affidavit, which is
20 August 20, '99. And I'll hand you up a copy of
21 that, too -- I believe it's already in evidence in
22 this case -- because I'll be referring to those two
23 things. That is Mr. Prince's affidavit from August
24 of '99.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
539
1 MR. LIROT: So I have the affidavit of Jesse
2 Prince?
3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. That is it.
4 BY MR. WEINBERG:
5 Q Now, Mr. Dandar, you relied solely on the
6 speculation of Jesse Prince with regard to the allegations
7 contained in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint.
8 Correct?
9 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object to the
10 characterization. I don't think speculation -- I
11 think affidavit is a good enough example. I don't
12 think speculation is --
13 THE COURT: I think that is true. I think you
14 may refer to it as speculation. But I think -- I
15 don't think he's going to be able to suggest that it
16 was speculation. So I think you need to change your
17 terminology.
18 MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question again.
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 BY MR. WEINBERG:
21 Q You relied solely on the affidavit, the August 20,
22 1999 affidavit of Jesse Prince, with regard to the
23 allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended
24 complaint? Those are the allegations that include end of
25 cycle -- end cycle and decision to let her die.
540
1 A No.
2 Q In addition to the -- did you rely on the Jesse
3 Prince affidavit back in 1999?
4 A In part, yes, I did.
5 Q Okay. In addition -- for the end cycle
6 allegation, what else, other than Jesse Prince, did you rely
7 on?
8 A I relied upon all of the Scientology-published
9 documents that Mr. Prince refers to, and some he doesn't
10 refer to, in his August '99 affidavit.
11 Q Okay. Anything else?
12 A I relied upon other people, one of which was
13 Vaughn Young, but -- and I know this sounds -- I did see a
14 Scientology dictionary of some kind, some document, that had
15 end cycle. And as the definition of end cycle it said,
16 "To," T-O, "die."
17 Q Anything else?
18 A Right now, I can't remember anything else.
19 Q All right. Now, specifically I'm talking about --
20 my question is focused on -- Paragraph 34. Have you had a
21 chance to look at that?
22 A Of course. Yes.
23 Q The last sentence of Paragraph 34 says --
24 THE COURT: When you are asking your question
25 you are specifically referring to that --
541
1 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, Paragraph 34.
2 THE COURT: But the part of 34 that deals with
3 end cycle? I mean, obviously he could tell you a
4 lot of things about the entire paragraph. It is end
5 cycle, right?
6 MR. WEINBERG: I will make myself clear. I was
7 really referring to Paragraph 34 where the
8 allegation was contained where this was an
9 intentional act by the Church and management of the
10 Church to allow her to die. That allegation is --
11 THE COURT: Read to us exactly what you're
12 talking about.
13 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
14 THE COURT: Because -- in other words, the
15 first sentence says: "The extremist medical
16 condition of Lisa McPherson was obvious to
17 Scientology and all of the individuals --" there is
18 a lot of stuff that I have read in expert
19 depositions that he could refer to about that if he
20 had it.
21 I don't think that is what you're talking
22 about. So I'm trying to say what it is you're
23 talking about.
24 MR. WEINBERG: You're right.
25
542
1 BY MR. WEINBERG:
2 Q "Yet, the defendants, in total and conscious
3 disregard to the rights of Lisa McPherson, willfully,
4 intentionally, wantonly and maliciously, toward the last
5 days of her life, decided to let Lisa McPherson die, i.e.,
6 end cycle, in Scientology terms, rather than save her life,
7 even though her extremist physical condition was known to be
8 entirely reversible. Scientology has no restrictions on
9 seeking licensed professional medical care. This decision
10 made by Scientology, through the Sea Org by David Miscavige,
11 carried out by Kartuzinski, Johnson and Houghton, was only
12 due to their decision to protect Scientology from bad public
13 relations."
14 That is the allegations that I'm talking about.
15 A That is most of 34. The first thing that comes to
16 my mind is Dr. Werner Spitz, pathologist retained by the
17 estate, who told me, after reviewing all of the information
18 on the medical aspects only, that they simply watched her
19 die. So that is why it is in there like that. That comes
20 from Dr. Spitz.
21 Dr. Bandt --
22 Q Before you go on, so you mean where it says
23 "decided to let Lisa McPherson die, rather than save her
24 life," that comes from Dr. Spitz?
25 A Right.
543
1 Q Okay. What else?
2 THE COURT: Just Dr. Spitz? Or are you -- are
3 you talking about all of the things here?
4 THE WITNESS: No. No. I'm talking about the
5 whole paragraph, but, in particular, the medical
6 part. Dr. Spitz is the one who told me first that
7 his opinion was they watched her die.
8 Dr. Bandt and Dr. Coe also came to the same,
9 independently of all three. They are all acting
10 independently of each other. He came to the same
11 conclusions.
12 Now, Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young contributed
13 to that by bringing in the Scientology thinking
14 about doing everything you can possibly do to
15 protect your seniors, higher-ups, and doing
16 everything you can possibly do to protect the image
17 of Scientology, protect the tech of Scientology,
18 which is the tech never fails anyone. But Lisa
19 McPherson is a prime example it does fail, and so,
20 therefore, in the thinking of Scientology, according
21 to my Scientology experts, and the fact that
22 Scientologists firmly believe that there is
23 reincarnation, you drop your body, meaning you die,
24 you come back later, it's not a big deal. Letting
25 Lisa McPherson die would be the best choice under
544
1 these circumstances, rather than take her back to
2 the emergency room where they had previously
3 promised the ER doctor that they would make sure
4 that she would get better, and if she didn't, they
5 would immediately bring her back, which they didn't
6 do.
7 Now, that is -- this paragraph is a combination
8 of at least three forensic pathologists, plus Jesse
9 Prince, plus Vaughn Young.
10 BY MR. WEINBERG:
11 Q Anything else?
12 A It might even be Stacy Brooks.
13 Q Okay, when your allegation -- this is the
14 complaint now, correct?
15 A That's right.
16 Q Okay. When you say the defendants --
17 THE COURT: Whose machine is that? Sometimes
18 it just gets a little loud.
19 Go ahead.
20 MR. WEINBERG: Sometimes when one
21 concentrates -- I didn't even hear it. But I did
22 when you pointed it out.
23 THE COURT: Right.
24 BY MR. WEINBERG:
25 Q When you say the defendants decided to let Lisa
545
1 McPherson die, you are saying and you are alleging that
2 there was a conscious decision by the management of
3 Scientology, of the Church of Scientology, to allow her to
4 die, correct? That is what the allegation is?
5 A It speaks for itself.
6 Q But am I right?
7 A That is right.
8 Q All right now --
9 A Somebody made a decision --
10 Q Well, not just somebody.
11 THE COURT: Not somebody, Mr. Dandar. It says
12 in here that it was -- it was made by Scientology,
13 through the Sea Org, by David Miscavige.
14 THE WITNESS: That is the only one that can
15 make that decision.
16 THE COURT: Well then, what -- the doctors have
17 got absolutely nothing to say about that, they
18 wouldn't know a thing about that.
19 THE WITNESS: That is what I said. I said this
20 is a combination of medical --
21 THE COURT: Well, who is it that you have that
22 says that?
23 THE WITNESS: On David Miscavige, is Jesse
24 Prince, Vaughn Young and Stacy Brooks.
25
546
1 BY MR. WEINBERG:
2 Q No other evidence?
3 A Well, there could be other former Scientologists
4 that told me that.
5 THE COURT: Literature? Are you relying on the
6 literature?
7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes.
8 THE COURT: I don't know what literature, but
9 he said before the literature. I want to make sure
10 I know what he's talking about.
11 THE WITNESS: There is the RT News. It says
12 PTS Type III has to be immediately reported up the
13 lines to RTC, the command channels of Scientology --
14 which is the booklet which I now have a complete
15 copy of, by the way -- that talks about reporting up
16 the lines for either PTS Type III or PR problems.
17 And there is some other things that talk about
18 OSA and RTC. Plus the depositions of the OSA
19 members I took in this case that they were
20 immediately on this case as soon as they heard Lisa
21 McPherson took her clothes off and was going to the
22 emergency room, because it was a huge PR flap to
23 Scientology.
24 BY MR. WEINBERG:
25 Q Now, there is not one document, there is not one
547
1 witness that has testified that anyone at the Church of
2 Scientology --
3 THE COURT: Counselor, if you are getting ready
4 to testify, you're going to have to do it. You
5 can't stand here and say that is --
6 BY MR. WEINBERG:
7 Q Do you agree --
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 BY MR. WEINBERG:
10 Q Do you agree -- do you agree -- is there any
11 witness that you're aware of that has testified that David
12 Miscavige or anyone at the Church of Scientology made a
13 conscious decision to let Lisa McPherson die? Anyone?
14 A It would be a high crime of Scientology. They
15 would never testify --
16 Q Just answer that question. Is there anyone?
17 A Never. No. It is the publications by Scientology
18 that show that.
19 Q Is there any document that you have seen in this
20 case that says that David Miscavige or anyone else in the
21 Church of Scientology made a decision to allow Lisa
22 McPherson to die?
23 A Not specifically that says Lisa McPherson. That's
24 right.
25 Q There is nothing specific that you have in this
548
1 case that indicates that there was any decision made by
2 anyone at the Church of Scientology to allow Lisa McPherson
3 to die, is there?
4 A Well, the medical records say that -- to my
5 experts on the medical side -- that someone let her die. I
6 just told you what Dr. Spitz said.
7 Q Now, on this last sentence here, Paragraph 34, you
8 say, "This decision --" I assume when you say "This
9 decision," that is the decision to let her die, right?
10 A Right, let her die, not do anything, omission.
11 Q But when you say the word "decision," you are
12 saying the decision that was made by, in your allegation,
13 the Church management to permit her to die, that is what you
14 are referring to?
15 A Correct.
16 Q You say, "This decision made by Scientology,
17 through the Sea Org, by David Miscavige, and carried out by"
18 these three individuals, you say, "was only due to their
19 decision to protect Scientology from bad public relations."
20 A Correct.
21 Q Now, what evidence do you have that there was a
22 decision by anyone related to Lisa McPherson to protect --
23 that had to do with her death to protect Scientology from
24 bad public relations?
25 A The general business practice of the Church of
549
1 Scientology. The publications of the Church of Scientology.
2 The greatest good for the greatest number. The knowing
3 Scientology or keep it working, keep Scientology working by
4 Mr. Hubbard, saying I would rather have you dead than
5 incapable. The introspection rundown. The search and
6 discovery document course that says the psychotics --
7 sometimes they can't be kept alive. This book, Signs Of
8 Survival, that said if you blow 2.0 on the tone scale, which
9 someone who is psychotic or chronically ill would be, if you
10 can't get them any better, then you let them die quietly and
11 without sorrow.
12 That is the only thing that comes to mind at this
13 time.
14 Q All right. And all that was in your mind when you
15 made this allegation in this complaint that is the extant
16 complaint in this case?
17 A At least that much was in my mind.
18 Q Now, discovery has been going on since February of
19 '97, and it's been ongoing throughout every iteration of the
20 complaint in this case. Right?
21 A Correct.
22 Q And there has been discovery on Paragraph 34 --
23 the allegation of Paragraph 34, the end cycle, permit her to
24 die, public relations allegation, since the fifth amended
25 complaint was filed. Correct?
550
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. And you have been asked, in discovery, the
3 question, "What evidence do you have," because in these
4 civil lawsuits each of us parties have an obligation to set
5 forth what the evidence is that supports various
6 allegations. Right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And specifically you were asked -- I'll just pull
9 it out here -- there were interrogatories that were served
10 by Alain Kartuzinski.
11 And amongst other things, there were questions --
12 there was a question, Question 29, it's an interrogatory --
13 the first set of interrogatories propounded by
14 Mr. Kartuzinski, served on February 14, 2000, which is right
15 after this extant version of the complaint was filed.
16 And it says, "Identify all evidence, including
17 documents and testimony of witnesses, upon which you rely to
18 support your contention in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended
19 complaint that the defendants willfully, intentionally,
20 wantonly and maliciously decided to let Lisa McPherson die,
21 specifically including in your response such evidence that
22 demonstrates that Kartuzinski decided to let Lisa McPherson
23 die."
24 And the answer was, "Objection. Work product.
25 Without waiving objection, see Dr. Coe's deposition,
551
1 affidavit of Jesse Prince and affidavit of Dr. Spitz."
2 Now, do you recall that?
3 A No.
4 Q Do you want to look at it?
5 A How long ago was that?
6 Q Excuse me?
7 A Was that in '99?
8 Q No, February of 2000.
9 MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach, your Honor?
10 A No. If you say that is what it says, that is
11 fine.
12 BY MR. WEINBERG:
13 Q All right. And since that day, since that
14 production, you -- until this very day, you haven't in any
15 way indicated that there is any other witness, other than
16 Jesse Prince, Dr. Coe and Dr. Spitz, that would support the
17 allegation contained in Paragraph 34, correct? This is it?
18 A I'm not sure. I have answered Mr. Kartuzinski's
19 interrogatories many times, so I'm not sure if there has
20 been amendments to that. If you tell me that is the only
21 answer ever --
22 THE COURT: Has nobody else ever asked that
23 question?
24 MR. WEINBERG: I believe that in this case we
25 tried not to have the parties ask the same
552
1 questions. So I believe in this situation,
2 Mr. Kartuzinski submitted the interrogatories that
3 specifically addressed those allegations in the
4 extant version of the fifth amended complaint.
5 THE COURT: I would say -- obviously, I don't
6 know that, and I hear you saying you believe, so I
7 assume you don't necessarily know that either, you
8 are assuming, the best you can tell.
9 Obviously, any answer to that response on
10 behalf of any of the defendants would have to be
11 added together, even if --
12 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
13 THE COURT: Okay? If there is another
14 interrogatory, and there is more there, then you can
15 kind of add it together.
16 I mean, this defense is being presented fairly
17 unified, which is obvious from the fact there has
18 never been a defendant's lawyer, here from the
19 moment this started, other than the Church's
20 lawyers.
21 MR. WEINBERG: At this hearing?
22 THE COURT: Yes, and at many other hearings.
23 But the truth of the matter is you all are
24 protecting those three defendants most of the time.
25 MR. WEINBERG: Well, we have -- I mean, the way
553
1 I would put it is we have joint interests. And
2 there is no reason to file five different motions
3 when we can file one on behalf of everybody. That
4 is what we've tried to do in this case.
5 THE COURT: I understand that. And I think you
6 understand what I'm saying. The deal is, is that
7 these people do not have the first lawyer here,
8 Mr. Houghton's lawyer isn't here. Mr. Kartuzinski's
9 lawyer isn't here. And --
10 MR. WEINBERG: Actually, now Mr. Houghton is
11 represented by Mr. Moxon, as well, because,
12 remember, Bob Pulin moved to Hawaii.
13 THE COURT: I think Ms. Kobrin was representing
14 her.
15 MR. WEINBERG: They are partners.
16 MR. MOXON: We're partners.
17 THE COURT: Then he's not speaking on behalf of
18 the Church then.
19 MR. WEINBERG: But I agree with your point.
20 We're not arguing --
21 THE COURT: I hope not, because it is very
22 clear to me the lawyers for the Church are
23 representing the interests of these individual
24 defendants.
25 I am simply saying if these individual
554
1 defendants, or the Church, put out interrogatories,
2 as far as I'm going to be concerned, if he responded
3 and he has forgotten to put it one place, so he put
4 it somewhere else, he gets to add it in.
5 MR. WEINBERG: Absolutely. I agree.
6 THE COURT: All right.
7 MR. WEINBERG: And if I thought there was
8 something else, I would put it in front of him. I
9 don't think there is, particularly in light of his
10 answer today.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 MR. WEINBERG: So I'm going to mark this as the
13 next exhibit. We've just gone over it, so we don't
14 need to go over it again.
15 THE COURT: Well, I certainly heard about
16 literature many, many times in response to this end
17 cycle business. I have seen literature many times
18 in response to the end cycle. I have seen, in this
19 hearing, stuff about end cycle.
20 So the idea that the Church of Scientology
21 didn't know that he was relying on Church of
22 Scientology literature, despite the fact he didn't
23 have Alain Kartuzinski's response --
24 MR. WEINBERG: That isn't my point. I'm going
25 to get to end cycle in a minute.
555
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. WEINBERG: That is not my point at all.
3 I'm really talking witnesses here in the
4 interrogatories.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 MR. WEINBERG: I have marked as Defendant's
7 Exhibit 164 -- it is the response of February 14 of
8 Mr. Dandar. And specifically we will refer to
9 Number 29.
10 BY MR. WEINBERG:
11 Q Just take a look at it. This was something that
12 was sworn to by Dell Liebreich and filed by you in this
13 case, correct?
14 A Yes. The exhibit number again?
15 Q 164.
16 A Okay.
17 Q Is that right?
18 A Yeah. This is the first answer to this first set
19 of interrogatories. I think I have answered this five
20 times, if I'm not mistaken.
21 THE COURT: Answered what five times?
22 THE WITNESS: The first set of interrogatories
23 by Mr. Kartuzinski.
24 BY MR. WEINBERG:
25 Q Not this particular question, because you answered
556
1 it the first time?
2 A Yes. But -- if I had my file I could tell you for
3 sure, but I didn't bring that today.
4 MR. WEINBERG: There were motions to compel
5 with regard to some of the other questions, I
6 believe. But that particular question he answered.
7 I'll put this back.
8 BY MR. WEINBERG:
9 Q All right. Now, you said, in response to both my
10 question and, I believe, something that Judge Schaeffer
11 asked you a few minutes ago, that in addition to Jesse
12 Prince and Vaughn Young, that you may have been relying on
13 Stacy Young, as well, with regard to the allegations in
14 Paragraph 34. Right? Isn't that what you said?
15 A Yes.
16 Q But you certainly weren't relying on her for the
17 end of cycle allegation, were you?
18 A No.
19 Q No? In other words, you agree?
20 A I agree, I was not. She was there -- she had
21 filed -- in our motion to add parties back in September, I
22 had a declaration from the Wollersheim case where she talked
23 about the micro-management of David Miscavige in all
24 Scientology corporations.
25 Q Was it the Wollersheim case, or the Fishman case,
557
1 that you --
2 A I -- well, I think it's the Wollersheim case.
3 There was no heading on the affidavit or -- or the
4 declaration.
5 Q It was attached to your original motion -- or
6 supplement to your motion?
7 A It was a supplemental additional authority, I
8 believe. Vicki Aznaran talked about it.
9 THE COURT: We all know what it is.
10 MR. WEINBERG: All right.
11 THE COURT: It's in the -- it's in this
12 hearing.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 BY MR. WEINBERG:
15 Q And you knew, back in 1999 when you filed this
16 Paragraph 34 of the amended complaint, that the one example
17 that Stacy Brooks -- back then Stacy Young -- referred to in
18 her prior affidavit about introspection rundown that she had
19 done, and the one example of the introspection rundown that
20 Jesse Prince had been on and set forth in his affidavit,
21 turned out to be the same woman? You knew that, right?
22 A I knew they did one together. So, yeah, I would
23 have to -- yes, I would have to say yes to that.
24 Q And you interrogated both of them at that time,
25 before you filed this complaint, as to what the
558
1 circumstances were of their one life experience on an
2 introspection rundown?
3 A I don't think I interrogated them. But I did ask
4 them questions.
5 Q You knew back at that time that the woman that
6 they had been on the introspection rundown with did not die?
7 You knew that?
8 A I knew that.
9 Q You knew that there had been no orders from anyone
10 above to let her die or permit her to die or to do what is
11 characterized in the complaint as an end of cycle? You knew
12 that, too, right?
13 A I knew that because Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks
14 told me that they made every effort they could to get her to
15 drink water. Because had they not, she would have died.
16 Q And you knew, at that time in 1999 when you filed
17 the complaint, that no witness that you had talked to,
18 including Mr. Young, Ms. Young or Jesse Prince, had any
19 experience that the introspection rundown had ever been --
20 had ever been used to murder someone? You knew that?
21 A Well, if you're going to use the word "murder," I
22 can't answer that question the way you phrased it.
23 Q Okay. Well, let me ask it a different way. You
24 had no evidence --
25 THE COURT: Asked to let him or her die,
559
1 intentionally let him or her die. That is the way
2 you stated. You didn't use the word "murder" here.
3 MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question a
4 different way.
5 THE COURT: I just asked mine.
6 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
7 THE COURT: Let Lisa McPherson die. You said
8 they decided to let Lisa McPherson die.
9 THE WITNESS: Right. They did not put a gun to
10 her head. They didn't do anything -- this is an act
11 of omission. It's like watching somebody bleed to
12 death in front of you. You didn't cause the person
13 to bleed, but you are standing there, or you are
14 walking out of the room, and they are bleeding to
15 death and they can't save themselves. That is an
16 act of omission.
17 That is what my medical doctors said happened
18 in this case. They just didn't do what a first
19 grader would have done. They looked at this woman
20 in a coma-like state and they just virtually
21 abandoned her. And they said that is homicide. And
22 I agree with that.
23 THE COURT: Well, as I read it, they said it is
24 manslaughter, which is kind of a reckless
25 indifference to human life. It certainly does not
560
1 equate, nor is it equatable, with intentional
2 murder.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, no. I agree with you.
4 THE COURT: Your complaint is phrased as if
5 it's an intentional decision by higher-ups to allow
6 her to die intentionally. That is murder.
7 Manslaughter is reckless indifference to human life.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, I do say in -- I believe
9 I'm saying this, Judge, in this Paragraph 34, "Total
10 and conscious disregard for the rights of Lisa
11 McPherson, willfully, intentionally, wantonly and
12 maliciously, rather than save her life, decided to
13 let her die."
14 That is how they told me and that is how it is
15 in the deposition.
16 THE COURT: Whose deposition?
17 THE WITNESS: It's in Dr. Spitz's --
18 THE COURT: No, it isn't. I read it. It is
19 not. It is not in Dr. Spitz's deposition. It
20 certainly isn't in Dr. Coe's deposition. And it
21 really isn't in Dr. Spitz's deposition like that.
22 I mean, he basically kind of gives you a very
23 clear manslaughter. It's very questionable, to me,
24 as to whether or not he gives you an intentional
25 murder. In fact, I think he specifically said it
561
1 isn't.
2 THE WITNESS: And I'm saying to you I'm
3 agreeing with, of course, what my experts say. I'm
4 telling you -- or I'm suggesting to you that this
5 paragraph comports to what my medical experts told
6 me, which is in their deposition, also, after this
7 complaint was filed, is that no one shot her or
8 intentionally did anything to cause the injury.
9 They simply did not do anything, when it was obvious
10 they should have done something. It is an omission.
11 THE COURT: If you would have phrased it like
12 that, you would be in pretty good shape. That is
13 not how you phrased it. And you can't sit here and
14 pretend that is how you phrased it.
15 You phrased it like there was a conscious
16 decision sent down through channels to these workers
17 that told them, don't give her water, let her die.
18 That is what you said. And you have got no proof.
19 THE WITNESS: If you recall, even Stacy Brooks,
20 in this hearing, told you, Judge, that end cycle and
21 her definition and understanding as a former
22 Scientologist, is if someone has a terminal illness,
23 there are processing, as they call them in
24 Scientology, to help the person die.
25 THE COURT: Well, of course according to your
562
1 expert -- according to your experts and according to
2 everything you would be telling this jury, she did
3 not have a terminal illness.
4 You would be saying, and your experts would be
5 saying, all they had to do is take her to the
6 doctor, hook up the IVs and she would be a living,
7 walking, breathing girl today.
8 THE WITNESS: That is exactly right.
9 THE COURT: So that is right. And I know it.
10 So what you have said in here, and what you're going
11 to try to promote in here, is a decision was made
12 "She's no good to us, we don't want her anymore, let
13 her die." That is what you said.
14 THE WITNESS: That is what I said.
15 THE COURT: And you don't have any proof of it.
16 THE WITNESS: But what I have is the medical
17 evidence of my doctors telling me how in the world
18 can anybody let someone get in this condition and
19 not rush them to the hospital.
20 THE COURT: Because they acted with reckless
21 indifference to human life. It is called
22 manslaughter. And it surely is a far cry from what
23 you put in 34.
24 And what the Church is saying, and what they
25 have been saying, and -- once it became apparent to
563
1 me what they were saying, is this is what brought
2 them so much grief. You said out there, everybody
3 said out there, they murdered Lisa McPherson. You
4 said it, and you don't have any proof of it. You
5 still don't have any proof of it, right, except what
6 Jesse Prince may have said?
7 THE WITNESS: I have -- I have proof of a
8 homicide.
9 THE COURT: You have a proof of a homicide
10 through manslaughter.
11 THE WITNESS: I agree with you. That is --
12 THE COURT: You have some evidence of that. I
13 shouldn't say you have proof, but you have doctors.
14 THE WITNESS: And that is what I have been
15 saying all along.
16 THE COURT: No, you haven't.
17 THE WITNESS: If I wanted to say they murdered
18 her, Judge, I think I would have used the word
19 "murder." But I didn't.
20 Paragraph 34 is the reckless indifference, it's
21 the total and conscious disregard, which Florida
22 Statutes equates to intentional conduct. It is like
23 running a stop sign totally drunk.
24 THE COURT: Well, I think what he's saying now
25 is basically he doesn't have any proof that David
564
1 Miscavige, from on high, I said that lightly, but,
2 you know, the top dog, so to speak, top banana, head
3 of the Church, said, "Let's see, she's got problems
4 down there, I think she's better off dead than
5 alive," so they chose to step back and let her die.
6 There is no proof of that. And apparently he's
7 saying that is not what he meant for proof. But --
8 MR. WEINBERG: I can read --
9 THE COURT: But I offered him the opportunity,
10 at the beginning of the hearing, to tell me
11 differently. And I think he said no.
12 MR. WEINBERG: And I agree with you. And I can
13 read, too. And this is what we've been dealing with
14 since -- since it first appeared in this case in
15 September of '99, and ended up in this extant fifth
16 amended complaint.
17 BY MR. WEINBERG:
18 Q I have one more question for you, Mr. Dandar.
19 THE WITNESS: Well, I need to add something to
20 what you said, Judge.
21 I have no document from David Miscavige saying,
22 "End cycle Lisa McPherson."
23 I would never get such a document from this
24 defendant that has, according to the affidavits and
25 declarations from other cases that I have seen --
565
1 they -- they destroy documents all of the time. The
2 last three days of Lisa McPherson's life, those
3 records that did exist are now nonexistent. Those
4 records may have showed us a great deal that was
5 going on.
6 THE COURT: Yes, they might have. And I
7 suppose that is something you might allude to for
8 some sort of reckless conduct or what have you.
9 But it's awfully difficult to allude to
10 something that is not there, to just say, from these
11 little notes that somehow they wrote in there, "Dear
12 Sir," is how they write, "Dear Sir, I got a message
13 from David Miscavige and it told me --" that ain't
14 going to be in those notes.
15 The notes might say, "I thought she needed more
16 water and I thought she was getting dehydrated, we
17 ought to take her to the doctor. And Janis said,
18 'No, you know, she's not that sick yet.'" That is
19 what you might find in those notes.
20 But you wouldn't find anything saying, "David
21 Miscavige gave us a message and it was to let her
22 die."
23 THE WITNESS: Based upon the Scientology
24 business practice of who -- who are the people to
25 get involved in this type of situation to make the
566
1 big decisions, that is not the little people at the
2 little Ft. Harrison Hotel or wherever she was.
3 That is from Los Angeles. That is from the top
4 management people in Scientology where David
5 Miscavige sits at the very top.
6 I have several witnesses, one of whom is going
7 to be Teresa Summers, who used to be a commanding
8 officer --
9 THE COURT: Well, look, is she one of your
10 witnesses?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Not for Paragraph 34. You didn't
13 mention her.
14 THE WITNESS: I forgot then -- I didn't have
15 her at the time I wrote the paragraph. That is how
16 I was answering the question.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 THE WITNESS: I have discovery of her since
19 then. And she was present in the office when an end
20 cycle order came in for someone who was dying of a
21 terminal disease.
22 And it's true, Lisa McPherson did not have a
23 terminal disease. This should never have happened,
24 if what is published by the Church of Scientology on
25 go to a medical doctor was followed. For some
567
1 reason, they didn't do what they published they
2 would do. They did something totally different.
3 THE COURT: Well, there are two explanations
4 for that, isn't it?
5 Number one, their experts are right and your
6 experts are right. That is what you have juries
7 for. That is the first explanation.
8 And the second explanation is, is that they
9 were negligent. They were grossly negligent. And
10 they didn't realize how sick she was. And they were
11 too slow. They should have been quicker.
12 And that is how you can prevail in the lawsuit
13 and get money for it, for the wrongful death. That
14 isn't what you said.
15 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying --
16 THE COURT: You tried to say and you tried to
17 imply, and apparently now that I have been through
18 this hearing, you tried to put out there in the
19 community that the Church, through its leader,
20 determined that this woman should die, made a
21 decision that said, "Don't take care of her, let her
22 die."
23 And the truth of the matter is that is a pretty
24 outrageous allegation. And if you have proof of it,
25 it comes from Jesse Prince.
568
1 THE WITNESS: No, not just Jesse Prince. It
2 comes from Vaughn Young, and there is some coming
3 from Teresa Summers. And I expect there will be
4 some coming now from Bill Franks.
5 THE COURT: All right. Well, then he said he
6 has more evidence. Now, see, I want you to
7 understand this, because we're going to get to this
8 one day.
9 MR. WEINBERG: I know.
10 THE COURT: I gave him this opportunity on day
11 one, because I was kind of confused.
12 Now, listen to me, Mr. Lirot. I don't know
13 what you are sitting back there doing, but listen to
14 this.
15 On the first day of the hearing I made it real
16 clear that I want to know what in the world and
17 where it was you-all were coming from. And I
18 thought you were coming from a theory, I believe I
19 said, of -- some sort of manslaughter theory,
20 reckless display, something like that.
21 Mr. Dandar was very clear to point out to me I
22 was wrong. This was after I pointed out to -- to --
23 to Mr. Lieberman whatever it was legally. Then I
24 finally said, "We're not going there." He was
25 talking about all this. I said, "We're not going
569
1 there. They're talking about a wrongful death,
2 recklessness, some sort of manslaughter type
3 theory."
4 Then I finally looked at you and said, "Isn't
5 that so?"
6 And very clearly he told me -- Mr. Dandar said,
7 "No, that is not what we're saying. What we're
8 saying is they intentionally -- intentionally --"
9 that is not manslaughter, "intentionally allowed her
10 to die."
11 And I said, "I apologize to Mr. Lieberman." I
12 think the record will reflect that.
13 I went home, I read the complaint, and I came
14 back and I said I was really wrong. I thought we
15 were trying a wrongful death here. I thought it all
16 along. I thought, when we did the Frye hearing, I
17 thought we had two different theories, one would be
18 this, one would be that.
19 I have read the complaint. I have listened to
20 what Mr. Dandar said. And, you're right, that is
21 what they're saying. They corrected me. Nobody
22 said, "No, Judge, you don't get it."
23 So now I'm saying again that what you have said
24 here, as clear as a bell -- it's clear as a bell,
25 you might as well have said murder. It says that
570
1 David Miscavige, the man at the top, made a decision
2 that Lisa McPherson no longer needed to live. And
3 he passed the word down, through his underlings, and
4 it got to the workers, and they stood back and let
5 her die, i.e., end cycle, which is exactly what it
6 says, "decided to let Lisa McPherson die, i.e., end
7 cycle."
8 And I have just -- he's asked you what your
9 proof was. You said what your proof was. And you
10 will have to prove it. I mean, you'll have to come
11 forward with some evidence of that to prove it.
12 But, you know, that is what their point has
13 been all along is you have not talked reckless
14 indifference or manslaughter; you talked intentional
15 acts, and you talked about it from their superior
16 leader.
17 And they take great offense at that because
18 they didn't think you had much proof of that other
19 than Mr. Prince in his affidavit.
20 Anyway, proceed.
21 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
22 BY MR. WEINBERG:
23 Q A couple more questions on this point.
24 You don't have any evidence, testimony from
25 anyone, affidavit or testimony, indicating -- saying that
571
1 the introspection rundown has ever had an end of cycle
2 order, as you use it, attached to it? There is no evidence
3 of that, is there? Not in Prince's affidavit, not in Vaughn
4 Young's, not in Stacy Brooks'?
5 A No, there is no evidence, that is right, as of
6 right now.
7 Q And Vaughn Young didn't testify, in his trial
8 testimony that was done by you literally on the day that the
9 final version of the fifth amended complaint was filed, and
10 he didn't indicate in any affidavit that he had any
11 knowledge whatsoever of end of cycle. He doesn't say
12 anything about end of cycle in his testimony, does he?
13 A I don't remember him saying that. I do remember
14 him talking about the public relations aspect of how far the
15 Church of Scientology will go to protect their public
16 relations image.
17 THE COURT: Could I ask a question?
18 MR. WEINBERG: Sure.
19 THE COURT: This is sort of mind-boggling to
20 me. Is it really something that you mean to
21 present, that the Church of Scientology would have
22 worse relations if they had taken Lisa McPherson to
23 the hospital, dehydrated -- let her be dehydrated --
24 hydrated, I should say, if that is what the problem
25 was, and let her either stay or leave or whatever,
572
1 than it was to let her die and go through this flap?
2 THE WITNESS: It's -- it makes -- outside of
3 the thinking of the Church of Scientology, it
4 boggles the mind, it boggles my mind.
5 But I'll have to rely on my former -- my
6 experts who are former Scientologists, especially
7 Mr. Prince, who talks about other end cycles he has
8 seen.
9 THE COURT: I understand that. And I
10 understand that Mr. Prince may say that.
11 But, I mean, I do understand what you alleged
12 and what you said the Church feels about bad public
13 relations and some of those things.
14 But, I mean, nobody in their right mind would
15 think they would want this woman to die in their
16 care because they thought somehow that would not
17 cause bad public relations. Why, they would know
18 very well that would cause huge public relations, as
19 it, indeed, did here.
20 I mean, these -- these are not stupid people
21 we're dealing with.
22 THE WITNESS: The question is why did they take
23 her fifty minutes away to another hospital to -- and
24 lie to their own public Scientology member,
25 Dr. Minkoff, who said they lied -- Janis Johnson
573
1 lied to him. And he was appalled and shocked about
2 her lies about the condition of Lisa McPherson.
3 THE COURT: Wouldn't you say that is reckless
4 indifference, perhaps?
5 THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's a little more
6 than that.
7 THE COURT: Why did she take her at all? Why
8 didn't she kind of bury her in the backyard? How
9 stupid, Mr. Dandar.
10 THE WITNESS: It would be a death -- in this
11 physical condition, either at the Ft. Harrison Hotel
12 or Hacienda, wherever she was, it would be a death
13 that they would --
14 THE COURT: I'm tired of hearing that. Do you
15 have any proof of that, she was at the Hacienda
16 where there were cockroaches?
17 THE WITNESS: Well, that is where the
18 cockroaches are.
19 THE COURT: I don't know if there are
20 cockroaches there or not. But you have no proof of
21 that, and I'm tired of hearing about it.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, I have eyewitness testimony
23 that there is cockroach -- infestation of
24 cockroaches at the Hacienda.
25 THE COURT: Oh, boy. I just don't think I can
574
1 stand another minute.
2 Do you have any proof of the fact that Lisa
3 McPherson was at the Hacienda instead of at the Ft.
4 Harrison?
5 THE WITNESS: Testimony? No.
6 THE COURT: Do you have any proof?
7 THE WITNESS: No. I have no testimony, no
8 documents.
9 BY MR. WEINBERG:
10 Q Well, do you have any proof?
11 A I have cockroaches feeding on Lisa McPherson's
12 body. And if -- if there is none at the hotel, then where
13 is she?
14 THE COURT: No, actually what you have, you
15 have somebody that says there is a 80 percent chance
16 they are consistent with cockroaches. At best you
17 have a 20 percent chance it is not consistent with
18 cockroaches. In your best case you have a doctor
19 that says it is 80 percent consistent with
20 cockroaches. Anybody can look at that and figure
21 there is a 20 percent chance that it isn't
22 consistent with cockroaches.
23 You have a whole bunch of other folks that say
24 it is abrasion.
25 Guess what? With the facts as they are, you
575
1 can look at it and say, well, the 20 percent chance
2 must be the right one here because there is no
3 cockroaches at the Ft. Harrison.
4 THE WITNESS: I -- there is other evidence.
5 Dr. Goff also said, Judge, that based upon his
6 expertise and experience, he can't think of anything
7 else but cockroaches that would have caused those
8 marks.
9 THE COURT: You know, I swear to God I don't
10 think you read the same thing I read.
11 He can't even say it's an insect. He doesn't
12 know if it's an insect or abrasion. He has to look
13 to the medical examiner to tell you whether it's an
14 insect or abrasion. The guy that says it's an
15 insect or abrasion can't tell you he's a 100 percent
16 sure. He can tell you within reasonable degree of
17 medical probability, which is 51 percent.
18 So, guess what? You put all this together,
19 what do you have, a good, smart-thinking lawyer like
20 you? What do you have?
21 THE WITNESS: You have a prima facie case.
22 THE COURT: Well, you have -- what you have got
23 is a good probability, unless you can establish that
24 there are, A, roaches at the Ft. Harrison, or, B,
25 she was at Hacienda.
576
1 What you really have is probably they were
2 abrasions. And that is exactly what they are. And
3 your Dr. Goff wouldn't argue with that because he
4 said he wouldn't even begin to say whether they are
5 insect bites or not.
6 THE WITNESS: Their own entomologist, who is
7 with a master's degree -- I can't remember his name
8 right now but I took his deposition, Judge -- he
9 said this -- based on the pictures he was shown by
10 defense counsel, shows openings in the door which is
11 right adjacent to the public street, and there is a
12 little plant area between the door and the public
13 street. He said those openings in that door are
14 sufficient enough to have roaches or other insects
15 come into that room. And they are attracted by
16 what? There is no lights on in the room and there
17 is feces --
18 MR. WEINBERG: That is not true. That is not
19 what the testimony was. There were lights on and
20 people in the room.
21 THE COURT: Yes, you just don't really need to
22 go there. I have already entered that order.
23 But I just was trying to say -- you seem to be
24 playing right into -- I hate to tell you this, but
25 you seem to be playing right into their hands here.
577
1 It seems like maybe you haven't read their
2 motions or terminating sanctions. It seems as if
3 everything you want to just continue and continue to
4 say and do, with very little proof of it, kind of
5 shows what you were really out to do is to damn the
6 Church of Scientology.
7 THE WITNESS: That is not true at all.
8 THE COURT: Well, it sure does sound like it.
9 And that is what they're saying. And that is what
10 they're saying in their counterclaim. And that is
11 what they're saying in their motion for terminating
12 sanctions, that -- it goes beyond that.
13 What they are saying is that is exactly what
14 the situation is, and that you knew it, and that you
15 and Mr. Minton were in on it together, and this is
16 what you really had in mind to do, which was to set
17 out to ruin, put down, do away with, cause
18 embarrassment to, on and on, the Church and its
19 members.
20 And, of course, you say, well, that wasn't
21 true. But -- but -- you know, you do understand
22 that is what they're saying?
23 THE WITNESS: I do. This allegation, from my
24 experience in doing personal injury/wrongful death
25 cases for over 20 years, this allegation was an
578
1 allegation that I would make against a really,
2 really, really bad nursing home who let someone in
3 bedsores just sit and suffer and die from the
4 bedsore. Someone who made a decision, "I'm not
5 going to do anything about it. I'm going to do the
6 act of omission," and the person dies from a
7 bedsore. Or the person bleeds to death in bed in a
8 bad, bad nursing home.
9 I could care less about the Church of
10 Scientology. I didn't even know about the Church of
11 Scientology, and I lived in Pinellas County, south
12 county, before I ever got this case. I could care
13 less about the Church of Scientology.
14 I'm not Mr. Minton's puppet. I wasn't on his
15 agenda. I was doing the wrongful death case.
16 And this allegation is above a manslaughter
17 allegation but it's below a murder count. It's in
18 the between now. And it is based on my medical
19 doctors, not Jesse Prince.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21 Continue.
22 BY MR. WEINBERG:
23 Q The fact is that throughout this case you have, in
24 pleadings and in public statements, accused the Church of
25 murder, M-U-R-D-E-R, with regard to Lisa McPherson.
579
1 Correct?
2 A No.
3 Q All right. Well, let me show you --
4 A I don't believe I ever used --
5 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, I think you have. I
6 think there is already evidence in this record of
7 that.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, it is the way he framed his
9 question. I don't think I ever used the word
10 "murder" in public.
11 I did use "murder" in a brief to the 2d DCA,
12 because I had my pathologist telling me that is what
13 it was.
14 BY MR. WEINBERG:
15 Q Well, I'm going to show you -- it won't take
16 long --
17 THE COURT: That is where I read it, in several
18 pleadings.
19 MR. WEINBERG: You also heard it on video.
20 BY MR. WEINBERG:
21 Q Remember the December 4, 1999 appearance with the
22 media there where the Lisa McPherson Trust was announced,
23 and your opening line was -- and we played it when
24 Ms. Brooks was on the stand -- "Thank you. I'm here to talk
25 about the murder of Lisa McPherson by a cult known as the
580
1 Church of Scientology."
2 Do you remember saying that to the media and to
3 the public on December 4, 1999?
4 A I think I remember the video being played here.
5 Q And you remember saying that. Right?
6 A I don't remember saying it until you showed me the
7 video.
8 Q And do you remember that on -- that on --
9 A But I thought I was talking about seeing it -- but
10 if you say that is what I said, fine. I thought I was
11 talking about end cycle.
12 Q Well, we just marked it as -- the transcript of
13 your speech. Want to take a look at the transcript and take
14 a look at the opening line? Is that what it says, what I
15 just read to you?
16 A That is what this says, the transcript that I
17 guess somebody at the Church typed up.
18 Q Well, you surely don't want me to play that video
19 clip again when Ms. Brooks was on the stand, but I'll be
20 happy to play it for you.
21 A No. No. It is okay.
22 THE COURT: I mean, if he doesn't remember
23 saying it, you better play it.
24 MR. WEINBERG: Well, let's play that for him.
25 Let's key that up.
581
1 ______________________________________
2 (Whereupon, the videotape is played.)
3 "I'm here to talk about the murder of Lisa
4 McPherson by a cult known as the Church of Scientology."
5 (This concludes the playing of the videotape.)
6 ______________________________________
7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 BY MR. WEINBERG:
9 Q Does that refresh your recollection?
10 A It certainly does.
11 Q And the press was there, there was a microphone
12 sitting there from one of the local TV stations. Correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q You weren't reluctant about accusing the Church,
15 in December of '99, right after you had filed your motion to
16 add David Miscavige under the Sea Org theory, with this
17 Paragraph 34, saying that he had ordered the death of Lisa
18 McPherson; you weren't reluctant to say that to the public
19 on December 4, 1999, that this was murder, were you?
20 A Well, it was prior to the hearing, ten days.
21 Q Prior to the hearing, after the motion was filed?
22 A Okay, did I talk about the motion being filed? I
23 don't think so.
24 Q Well --
25 THE COURT: Counselor, you two just really need
582
1 to stop.
2 What you wanted to ask him is whether or not he
3 said that Lisa McPherson had been murdered. He
4 couldn't recall it. And now you have shown him one
5 instance.
6 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
7 THE COURT: Do you have more than that to show
8 him?
9 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I do.
10 THE COURT: Well, then go ahead, show him that,
11 then we're going to take a break.
12 BY MR. WEINBERG:
13 Q Let me hand you the answer brief you filed in the
14 2d DCA on August 4, 1999. I will refer you to Page 1, the
15 statement of the case. And I -- in the first paragraph, I
16 want you to read what you said in the last sentence that is
17 yellowed.
18 A "This is a case of murder by an organization
19 calling itself a church."
20 Q That is the second time. You acknowledge you
21 filed that pleading. Right?
22 A Yes. I did.
23 THE COURT: What -- what document is that?
24 MR. WEINBERG: Here. I'm going to mark it.
25 THE WITNESS: The answer brief of an appeal
583
1 brief filed by Bennetta Slaughter and other people
2 who worked for the AMC Publishing Company.
3 THE COURT: I have seen this. This isn't the
4 first time I have seen this. It has been filed
5 somewhere in this case.
6 MR. FUGATE: It's in a number of pleadings, I
7 think, to the Second District, your Honor.
8 MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark this as our next
9 exhibit, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: I guess what I'm telling you, this
11 is not the first time that I have seen that
12 allegation in an appellate brief or in an appellate
13 pleading by Mr. Dandar. I don't know if this is
14 where I have seen it before, or if it is in this
15 stack of stuff somewhere.
16 MR. WEINBERG: It's not in the stack of stuff,
17 because we haven't put this document before you.
18 But I think we've referred to it before.
19 THE COURT: All right. What is the number
20 here?
21 THE CLERK: 165.
22 MR. WEINBERG: And I move 165 into evidence,
23 which is the answer brief of appellee filed by
24 Mr. Dandar on August 4, 1999.
25 THE COURT: Any objection?
584
1 MR. LIROT: No. No objection, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: It will be received.
3 BY MR. WEINBERG:
4 Q Okay, now do you remember filing a motion to
5 dismiss the counterclaim with prejudice, motion to strike
6 and motion for sanctions on February 26, 2001?
7 A No. But I'm sure if you have it there, I did.
8 Q Okay. Let me hand that up to you.
9 MR. WEINBERG: Do you have another copy of
10 that?
11 All right, I'm going to hand this to you. And
12 if I could stand by Mr. Dandar, that seems to be my
13 only copy.
14 BY MR. WEINBERG:
15 Q All right, this is a pleading you filed, right, in
16 2001?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And can you read what you have yellowed there?
19 A What you have yellowed?
20 Q What I have yellowed. Correct.
21 A "Redress for the intentional torture and killing
22 of Lisa McPherson."
23 Q Then, at the bottom, you talk about also, same
24 words, "For the killing and torture of Lisa McPherson"?
25 A That's right.
585
1 Q And then, on Page 4, you say, "Scientology
2 maliciously tortured and killed Lisa McPherson"?
3 A That's right.
4 Q And then there are a few other references to --
5 well, one other reference on Page 10, "The torture and
6 killing of Lisa McPherson"?
7 A Right.
8 Q And in that pleading filed in this case, that was
9 a murder allegation, right, "Intentional torture and
10 killing" is murder, right?
11 A No. It said, "Intentional torture and killing."
12 Q Oh, so intentional didn't modify killing?
13 A No. It modified torture.
14 Q Oh, I see. So the killing was unintentional?
15 A No. The killing rose between murder and above
16 manslaughter.
17 MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark that as my next
18 exhibit.
19 A And it didn't say murder.
20 MR. WEINBERG: That, your Honor, is Exhibit
21 166, which is motion to dismiss counterclaim with
22 prejudice, motion to strike and motion for sanctions
23 filed by Mr. Dandar on February 26, 2001.
24 I move that into evidence.
25 THE COURT: What is it? What number?
586
1 MR. WEINBERG: It's 166; Defense 166.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. LIROT: No objection.
4 THE COURT: Thank you. I'll assume, Mr. Lirot,
5 especially on these pleadings, that they're already
6 part of the record.
7 MR. LIROT: Part of the record, Judge.
8 THE COURT: And as I said, basically I'm just
9 going to assume that you don't have an objection
10 unless you say so, so that --
11 MR. LIROT: Fair enough.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 BY MR. WEINBERG:
14 Q Now, you do remember that --
15 THE COURT: What is above a manslaughter and
16 below a murder?
17 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not familiar -- oh, you are
18 asking Mr. Dandar?
19 THE COURT: I'm asking Mr. Dandar.