3                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
     DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
 5   Representative of the ESTATE OF
 7             Plaintiff,
 8   vs.                                     VOLUME 2
     and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
14   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
                         Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
                         Testimony of Jesse Prince.
     DATE:               July 8, 2002.
     PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
18                       St. Petersburg, Florida.
19   BEFORE:             Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
                         Circuit Judge.
     REPORTED BY:        Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
21                       Notary Public,
                         State of Florida at large.
 3   5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
     Tampa, FL 33602
 4   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 6   112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
     Tampa, FL 33602-4108
 7   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 9   1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
     Clearwater, FL 33755
10   Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
     MR. LEE FUGATE and
13   101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
     Tampa, FL 33602-5147
14   Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
     740 Broadway at Astor Place
17   New York, NY 10003-9518
     Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
18   Organization.
20   980 Tyrone Blvd.
     St. Petersburg, FL 33743
21   Attorney for Mr. Minton.
 2                                                  PAGE   LINE
 3   Recess                                         261     18
     Recess                                         327      1
 4   Reporter's Certificate                         328      1
 1              (The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)
 2             THE COURT:  Good morning.
 3             I want to tell you all that I have not thought
 4        of you very much since I've been gone.  If I had
 5        something I was supposed to do, I didn't do it.
 6             And I see that the story made the front page
 7        yesterday, which reminded me of what we're doing.
 8             So in any event, I had a call from Mr. Dandar
 9        and then I had a call from the other side, talking
10        about the trial date, and I believe it's been
11        indicated by both sides that nobody really believes
12        that the August trial date is viable, is that true?
13             MR. DANDAR:  No, Judge.
14             THE COURT:  No, that's not true?
15             MR. DANDAR:  No.  Not from the plaintiff's
16        side.
17             THE COURT:  That's what you told me.  Why in
18        the world did you call me on the telephone and tell
19        me that?
20             MR. DANDAR:  I told you -- I told you that
21        since this is proceeding and we haven't been able to
22        schedule depositions, becomes more and more
23        unlikely.  But I am not requesting a continuance.  I
24        said, "Please note I do not request a continuance of
25        the August trial date."
 1             THE COURT:  Well, then, good.  We've got a
 2        trial date set.  We'll go.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  But it looks like -- since we
 4        can't take depositions, it looks like it's going to
 5        be impossible to have an August trial date.
 6             THE COURT:  Well, then, you are requesting a
 7        continuance.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  No, I'm not.
 9             THE COURT:  Well, then, we're going.
10             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
11             THE COURT:  It's just that simple.
12             I mean, I thought he wanted a continuance; said
13        the August date would not work.  If that's not so, I
14        don't want to hear any whining about depositions.
15        So you either get them scheduled or you take them
16        the night before they testify.  You know, stranger
17        things have been done.  But if you don't want a
18        continuance -- I haven't heard the other side ask
19        for one.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, what -- the position
21        we've taken is there shouldn't be a trial date --
22             THE COURT:  I know that.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  -- until this hearing is over
24        with.  August is not realistic.  And in light of
25        this thing that happened yesterday, where Mr. Prince
 1        is quoted, Mr. Dandar is quoted, saying this is a
 2        charade -- and this whole article is -- I say, makes
 3        it impossible at this point for -- here, in Pinellas
 4        County, right now -- for us to get a fair trial,
 5        and --
 6             THE COURT:  You're absolutely wrong.  You're
 7        absolutely wrong.  And I base that on 20 years'
 8        experience, with headlines bigger than that, stories
 9        worse than that, all kinds of stuff.  You know,
10        that -- that just doesn't fly.
11             We try to pick a jury.  If you've got problems,
12        then we worry about it.  If you want to file a
13        motion for change of venue, file it.  It isn't going
14        to happen until we see whether we can pick a jury.
15        And I guarantee you we can.  I guarantee you from
16        all the experience that I've had as a lawyer --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
18             THE COURT:  -- and as a judge.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  -- what I think does -- is
20        important -- I mean, I think that's important.  But
21        I think what's most important is that this hearing
22        be concluded and that your Honor rule on the
23        hearing, because it makes all the difference in the
24        world as to where we go in this case, before we have
25        a trial date.
 1             THE COURT:  You should assume that your motion
 2        is to be denied.  I don't know if it will be or not.
 3        I can't wait until I deny a motion and then set a
 4        trial date.  If I grant a motion, the trial date can
 5        be called off.  I've got to set a trial date.  We've
 6        got to have procedures in place to bring in jurors.
 7        That's why I --
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
 9             THE COURT:  -- set a trial date when this
10        motion just started.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, we -- we just --
12             THE COURT:  I mean, you all should not
13        assume -- and you must tell your clients this and
14        have them understand this -- the fact that I set a
15        trial date, reset a trial date, continue a trial
16        date, does not mean I've ruled on this motion.  You
17        should assume this motion is to be denied and we're
18        going to trial.  If you don't, well, then, you
19        don't.  I rule and grant your motion, then it's
20        over.
21             But we can't just crank up a trial the day
22        after I deny a motion, if I deny it.  So I've got to
23        set one.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  There should not be one set in
25        August.
 1             We -- we waited two years to get tapes that
 2        were just -- that were -- we have just gotten;
 3        e-mails that we haven't gotten yet.  We haven't
 4        gotten all the tapes yet.  And when -- these tapes
 5        are incredible.  The tapes put a lie to what has
 6        been going on from the plaintiff's side throughout
 7        this entire hearing here.  We should have had this
 8        before.
 9             And as a result of these tapes, I think it's
10        very clear, if anything, that the counterclaim ought
11        to be tried first.  And if not first, ought to be
12        tried with the -- with the main case.
13             Because when you -- when you look at these
14        tapes, when we play them on rebuttal, you're going
15        to see what we've been saying all along or what we
16        suspected all along; is that -- is that there's no
17        difference between the Lisa McPherson Trust and this
18        lawsuit and what's been going on.  And that these
19        witnesses, all they do is sit over there and they
20        talk about -- with Mr. Dandar -- talk about
21        picketing and how to picket, and it's all planned
22        and it's all a big joke.
23             And here we are, two years into this -- we
24        didn't even have them to cross examine Peter
25        Alexander and Brian Haney when -- when they were on
 1        the stand.  But now we're at this two years; we
 2        finally get them now, and we're going to have a
 3        trial in three weeks or four weeks?  It's not right.
 4        I mean, A, we should be able to finish this hearing;
 5        B, you should be able to -- and brief it.  And you
 6        should be able to decide, not with the press of a
 7        trial date.  We should be able to complete the
 8        discovery.  We should -- and we should be able to
 9        have this counterclaim done with the main trial.
10        Because it is absolutely devastating, we -- we
11        believe.
12             We haven't had that opportunity because, what?
13        Mr. Dandar and, you know, Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks --
14        all these people, for two years, you know, after
15        various courts have ordered, have fought not to get
16        this stuff released.  And we finally get it.
17             THE COURT:  Well --
18             MR. WEINBERG:  We don't have it all.  We don't
19        even have the e-mails.  We've got 400 out of --
20             MR. FUGATE:  More than 3,000.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  3,000.  We don't have all the
22        tapes yet.  Couldn't be privileged.  And these are
23        Lisa McPherson Trust tapes.
24             So --
25             THE COURT:  The -- from everything you've told
 1        me thus far, it sounds like these tapes would affect
 2        the counterclaim.  For now, the counterclaim has
 3        been severed.  I've also indicated to you I will
 4        hear you on that.
 5             Quite frankly, I think your First Amendment
 6        argument is going to be different in the wrongful
 7        death case and in the trial of the counterclaim.  I
 8        believe that.  I believe that, based on my research.
 9        And I believe that the type of information that
10        you're going to want to exclude --
11             I mean, the truth of the matter is, I sat back
12        one day and figured what's going to happen here is,
13        Dandar's going to want to keep the wrongful death
14        and the other count -- or the counterclaim separate;
15        you're going to want them done together.  The truth
16        of the matter is, your opinions should be just the
17        reverse.  Your side does not want that counterclaim,
18        and all the stuff that I think is probably going to
19        be admissible in the counterclaim, to be tried at
20        that wrongful death.  He should want it.  Doesn't
21        surprise me that you'll take the opposite position,
22        because that's just the way things go.
23             But I don't think the First Amendment argument
24        is going to be the same in the counterclaim, where
25        you are acting as the plaintiff, trying to suggest
 1        that there is a -- some sort of an improper --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Purpose.
 3             THE COURT:  -- motive to -- purpose to this.
 4        And that's you as the plaintiff.  I think your
 5        argument's going to be different.
 6             So consequently, I think the cases are going to
 7        stay separate for lots of reasons.  And as I said,
 8        so I suspect that when all is said and done, we're
 9        going to do a wrongful case and a -- and a --
10        because, as I said, I suspect the rulings on the
11        First Amendment will be different.  And I think
12        they're -- because of that, and because of the fact
13        that we may have differences as far as other ruling,
14        that they will be tried separate.
15             So for now -- for now -- all that is set for
16        trial is a wrongful death.  And anything you're
17        talking about on those tapes or anything of the
18        sort, as far as I'm concerned, have very little if
19        anything to do with the wrongful death.
20             So right now, he said he doesn't want a
21        continuance.  You say you do.  I've heard a lot of
22        stuff about this hearing and I've heard a lot of
23        stuff about a wrongful -- about a counterclaim.
24        I've heard very little about a wrongful death except
25        that he hasn't taken expert witnesses' depositions.
 1             He doesn't want the continuance.  I don't think
 2        you have grounds for the continuance.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 4             THE COURT:  Presume it's going -- presume it's
 5        going as scheduled, and presume for now that it's
 6        going to be just a wrongful death.
 7             And I'm not going to listen to him move to
 8        continue it because of deposition problems.
 9             So there you have it.
10             MR. DANDAR:  But Judge, on our telephone call,
11        I told you Mr. Weinberg decided to take the week of
12        July 22nd off, on a long-planned family vacation,
13        right in the middle of what we were supposed to have
14        as a trial date --
15             THE COURT:  Then you can -- if they're you're
16        depositions, he can send somebody else.  He does not
17        have to be there.  If he wants to take a vacation
18        instead, those depositions should be set.
19             However, I do know -- and there's no reason in
20        the world why somebody else can't sit through a
21        deposition.  You've got a huge trial team over here.
22        If depositions can be set and Mr. Weinberg wants to
23        take a vacation, I have no problem with that, but
24        somebody else can go attend those depositions.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  But that is -- that is a
 1        problem, the week of July, whatever it is.
 2             First of all, we don't even know what's going
 3        to be happening in this hearing --
 4             THE COURT:  I know.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  -- that week.
 6             Secondly, it took two years, basically, to
 7        schedule all his experts' depositions because of
 8        their schedules.  We're in the summer now.  It's
 9        very -- it -- it takes at least three weeks to
10        schedule one of these depositions.  It's very
11        difficult.  I mean, our experts are just as busy as
12        his experts.
13             So to say that he can take -- he wants to take
14        a deposition first; he can't even schedule a
15        deposition right now in July because we're in the
16        middle of a hearing that's been going on for almost
17        two months now.  So we're trying to schedule
18        depositions in August, and now he wants an August
19        trial.  There's 10 of these things.  They're in San
20        Francisco.  They're all over the place.
21             So he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
22             THE COURT:  I understand that.  And I just said
23        I won't allow you to complain, Mr. Dandar, about the
24        depositions.  If -- you know, you know your problem.
25        You're the one that called and indicated it looked
 1        like it was going to be impossible to set these
 2        depositions and be ready for August.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 4             THE COURT:  So I expected you to come in here
 5        and move to continue.
 6             Now, if you don't want to do that, then you're
 7        the one with the problem.  It certainly isn't my
 8        problem if this hearing is over, and it really isn't
 9        they're problem.  It's your problem.
10             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I -- I beg to differ.
11             THE COURT:  Well --
12             MR. DANDAR:  I --
13             THE COURT:  -- you can beg to differ all day.
14             MR. DANDAR:  We had -- they cancelled all these
15        depositions we had set.  My brother was available to
16        go on these depositions, and they said, "No way
17        we're going to have a deposition while this hearing
18        is going on."
19             THE COURT:  Well, I didn't hear you bring a
20        motion in front of me to compel the depositions.
21             MR. DANDAR:  No.  I just advised you of that
22        and --
23             THE COURT:  You know, advising me is --
24             MR. DANDAR:  Well --
25             THE COURT:  -- is nothing.  You need to file
 1        motions.  I rule on motions.
 2             MR. DANDAR:  All right.  But I told you last
 3        week, I said --
 4             THE COURT:  I'm still waiting, for heaven's
 5        sake's, for a response to (sic) you for something
 6        that's been going on for two months, that I suppose
 7        you're still working on diligently at nighttime and
 8        on weekends.
 9             MR. DANDAR:  I am.
10             THE COURT:  Well, you had 10 days.  Where is
11        it?
12             MR. DANDAR:  It's near 50 pages now.
13             THE COURT:  Well, where is it?
14             MR. DANDAR:  It's right on my computer.
15             THE COURT:  Well, get it to me.
16             MR. DANDAR:  I will.
17             THE COURT:  All right.  Now, either you want a
18        continuance or you don't.  And if you don't, by God,
19        I don't want to hear anything; I don't want to hear
20        any whining or complaining.  You know very well,
21        those depositions are not going to be set.  I'm
22        telling you now, those are the kinds of experts that
23        are not going to be available just 'cause you want
24        them.
25             MR. DANDAR:  Well, then, they shouldn't be
 1        allowed to call them.
 2             THE COURT:  Well, no, that's not going to
 3        happen.  That is not going to happen.  I told you I
 4        will grant you a continuance if you want it.  You
 5        either want it or you don't.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Till when?
 7             THE COURT:  I have no idea.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Till the third week of September?
 9             THE COURT:  I don't know, Mr. Dandar.  You make
10        your motion.  If it's granted, then we talk about a
11        reset date.
12             MR. DANDAR:  Well, based upon the fact that I
13        haven't been able to take these 10 or 12 depositions
14        that were previously scheduled, because of this
15        hearing, I would request a continuance so I can take
16        these depositions, but not to let Mr. Weinberg go on
17        a family vacation.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  You know, you can just -- I --
19             THE COURT:  Well, I don't want to hear it,
20        Mr. Weinberg.  I don't need it here.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
22             THE COURT:  I've already stated, if Mr.
23        Weinberg wants to go on a vacation, there ought to
24        be somebody else that can take the deposition.
25             I don't know whether those people will be ready
 1        that week.  Obviously, I took a week and a half off
 2        and nothing got done, so I presume that people
 3        weren't available or they'd have been deposed.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  We --
 5             THE COURT:  We --
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  We offered a San Francisco
 7        deposition, and he said he wouldn't do it, and
 8        couldn't do it.
 9             THE COURT:  Well, there --
10             MR. WEINBERG:  So --
11             THE COURT:  -- you have it.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  So there you go.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Yeah, excuse me.  It was
14        June 26th.  It was a few days before the deposition.
15        To make sure that I would spend the full fare to fly
16        to San Francisco to take one, and then have to come
17        back to San Francisco and take the second
18        deposition, when we previously had both San
19        Francisco depositions set up back to back.
20             THE COURT:  Well --
21             MR. DANDAR:  And all the other doctors are
22        going to fly into Tampa for their deposition, but
23        these two, because of their teaching load, insisted
24        on being in San Francisco.  That's fine.  But not
25        to -- not to let you believe that I cancelled the
 1        San Francisco deposition.
 2             THE COURT:  Well --
 3             MR. DANDAR:  That's --
 4             THE COURT:  -- apparently you did.
 5             MR. DANDAR:  -- not --
 6             No.  If I'm going to go to California and
 7        there's two out there, we should at least take two
 8        back to back like we had previously --
 9             THE COURT:  Well --
10             MR. DANDAR:  -- set.
11             THE COURT:  -- you know, you could have taken
12        one.  You elected not to for whatever reason.  I
13        understand it costs money to fly to San Francisco.
14        It was your choice.  You cancelled the deposition.
15        It's just that simple.
16             MR. DANDAR:  It wasn't proper notice.
17             THE COURT:  Look --
18             MR. DANDAR:  I'm going to go ahead and set the
19        depositions, and I'll just set the date myself.  And
20        they can go file an objection --
21             THE COURT:  Well, they will, of course.  And
22        when they file an objection, it'll be granted.  So
23        that's not going to get it.  You're going to have to
24        try to reasonably set these depositions when these
25        people are available.
 1             Listen, you people ought to try cases --
 2        Mr. Fugate knows this -- in the criminal arena.
 3        Nobody cares a thing about your not having taken a
 4        deposition.  Absolutely no one.  I used to represent
 5        people on trial for their life, where -- where the
 6        death penalty was a possibility, with depositions
 7        untaken.  No judge cared; no judge was interested; I
 8        never won an appeal on that basis.  And I've been
 9        told before, when I hadn't taken depositions before
10        they were going to be called, "Go out in the hall,
11        talk to the witness, and let's go.  How much time do
12        you need?  Five minutes?"  It would be an expert and
13        I'd say, "Well, could I have 20?"  "No.  But you can
14        have 10."  There you go.  A sign that is there --
15        nobody cared.
16             So the deal is, you civil lawyers have no idea
17        what it's like in the criminal arena.  You take --
18        you go without deposing --
19             I know what every expert they've got's going to
20        say, and you ought to too.  All you don't know is
21        just the -- what's in between the -- how they're
22        going to say it.  You know what they're going to
23        say.
24             The truth of the matter is, any good lawyer
25        worth their salt, on cross examination of an expert,
 1        takes about 30 minutes maximum, gets out the points
 2        they want to get out, so that in closing argument
 3        they can put it in language that a jury can
 4        understand and explain it to the jury.  Now, that's
 5        what good lawyering is all about, not day-long cross
 6        examination that goes way over a juror's head and
 7        they don't understand it.
 8             So you know what these experts are going to
 9        say.  I know what these experts are going to say if
10        you don't.  So if you don't, ask me during a break
11        and I'll tell you.
12             MR. DANDAR:  Judge --
13             THE COURT:  Just tell me who they are, what
14        their specialty is, and if they're their experts, I
15        can tell you what they're going to say, just like
16        they should know what your experts are going to say.
17             The bottom line is just how to get to the
18        bottom line.
19             So you want a continuance, it's granted.
20             Now we have to set a trial date.
21             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
22             THE COURT:  What is your suggestion?
23             MR. DANDAR:  Third week of September.
24             THE COURT:  The third week of September would
25        be silly since the second week of September is a
 1        normal trial week, and I would have a whole bunch of
 2        jurors coming in here anyway.  So why would I want
 3        to just pass it off for one extra week?
 4             MR. DANDAR:  Well, then, the second week of
 5        September.
 6             THE COURT:  What is your suggestion?
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  Right after the first of the
 8        year.
 9             THE COURT:  Okay.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  After the holidays.
11             THE COURT:  And why do you think that that's
12        more appropriate?
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Because of what I said before
14        about getting this hearing over with --
15             THE COURT:  All right.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  -- us getting the -- getting the
17        depositions taken in due course for Mr. Dandar.  We
18        have a few other depositions to take as well.  And
19        getting the final discovery from -- from the Lisa
20        McPherson Trust.  And of course the holidays.
21        Which, this is not going to be a short trial.  If we
22        start in September, it's going to go, I would say,
23        beyond Thanksgiving and probably into Christmas.
24             THE COURT:  Just the wrongful death?  I don't.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  It's a couple of months.
 1             THE COURT:  I think it's a couple of months.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Particularly with the vitreous
 3        in the case.  I mean, I think that there is a lot of
 4        expert testimony that's going to go on.  And you
 5        heard it.  So I think if the vitreous was out of the
 6        case it would be a much shorter trial.  But with the
 7        vitreous in the case, there's going to a lot of
 8        expert testimony.
 9             You know -- I mean, we -- we sort of got a
10        preview of it in the -- in the vitreous hearing.
11        Maybe not that much detail, but there's going to
12        be --
13             THE COURT:  Right.
14             I think that, as the case is presently
15        situated -- that being that the counterclaim has
16        been severed; that the counterclaim will be tried
17        second; that I will only try the wrongful death --
18        until that changes, or if that changes, then I think
19        we can go with the September date.
20             So I understand your preference.  And if in
21        fact I should consolidate those two hearings, I
22        would absolutely agree with you.  I would not start
23        a consolidated case in September.  But as long -- in
24        its present posture, that's the trial date he has
25        requested.
 1             Really, the problem with the -- with the
 2        depositions, as I take it, is more his than it is
 3        yours.  Frankly, Lisa McPherson's been dead for
 4        seven years.  This is a wrongful death case.  That's
 5        an awfully long time.
 6             I understand your problems; I understand his
 7        problems.  I think September is reasonable.  We'll
 8        start this trial the second week in September.  As
 9        long as it remains in its present posture.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Can I ask you a question?
11             THE COURT:  Yes.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Would -- you said the jurors are
13        coming in -- it's --
14             THE COURT:  It's a regular trial week.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
16             THE COURT:  In other words, they will summons
17        in regular jurors.  What I will tell them to do --
18             Like today there's one trial.  Just one trial.
19        You know, the four judges have trials, they settled.
20        There's one trial.  We've got a hundred and umpteen
21        jurors.  They're here.  There's one judge.  Well, if
22        there's one trial on a regular trial week, we'll
23        have a hundred jurors to start.  If there's three
24        trials, we'll still have a hundred jurors.  In other
25        words, we'll get rid of a few.  And then as jurors
 1        get released from other cases, they don't get
 2        released.  Then I'll -- I'll tell them to go ahead
 3        and summons in another hundred for Tuesday and
 4        another hundred for Wednesday and another hundred
 5        for Thursday.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  I hadn't really thought about
 7        it -- I mean, I had -- I had thought about it, but I
 8        haven't completely thought about it --
 9             Is this -- are we going to bring in special --
10        I mean, a special group of jurors -- I mean, special
11        isn't the right word --
12             THE COURT:  No.  Not if it's set for a -- not
13        if it's set for a regular trial week.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  That's why I was thinking about
15        possibly doing it on another week, and maybe even
16        starting with some sort of a --
17             THE COURT:  Questionnaire?
18             MR. WEINBERG:  -- questionnaire, because of the
19        nature of this case.
20             THE COURT:  Questionnaire is fine, but that
21        doesn't mean we can't get started with the jurors.
22             What you do is you just give them the
23        questionnaire, once it's been approved; you let them
24        fill it out, give it to the lawyers, the lawyers
25        have it, and you start your questioning.  And you
 1        know, you have it in front of you and you can look
 2        at it.  And it works pretty well.
 3             Judge Rondolino did that with the tobacco case,
 4        where they wanted to use a questionnaire.  He just
 5        brought -- as I understand it.  I'll have to check
 6        with him.  'Cause I've never used a questionnaire.
 7        I frankly don't know what their value is.  But if
 8        you want one, I don't care.
 9             But you've got to get one --
10             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
11             THE COURT:  -- done.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
13             THE COURT:  And what you've got to do is, both
14        sides have to agree on it.  And nothing has been
15        agreed on in this case.  But you know, if you all
16        can agree on a questionnaire, I'll use it.  And what
17        you do is you hand it out to everybody.
18             And I wouldn't hand it out to other jurors
19        going to other cases unless they got excused from
20        those other cases, went back to the jury room.  So
21        we would start with our own -- let's say we take our
22        own 50 --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  -- if I could get that many.
25             And I would -- what I normally do on a big --
 1        big trial is bring them in and tell them the trial's
 2        going to last two months.  What kind of problems
 3        does that cause for them?  And we'll get a bunch of
 4        real legitimate problems.  And -- and if I can get
 5        the lawyers' agreement, I'll send them on their way.
 6             Then I'll get into publicity type stuff.  And
 7        we'll see what we get on a one-on -- one-to-one with
 8        that.  And then if some of those need to go, why
 9        they'll be excused.
10             Then whatever I have left, I'll send them out,
11        tell them, you know, "You all appear to be jurors
12        that may be qualified to serve, so we want you to
13        fill out a questionnaire.  It'll save a lot of
14        time."  And I'll send them out.
15             In the meantime, if we've got more jurors
16        coming in, we can -- in other words, we can kind of
17        just do the preliminary stuff, stuff that I normally
18        do, without a questionnaire.  And then when --
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
20             THE COURT:  So that'll take some time, because
21        it's going to take us some time to get maybe 50
22        jurors for you all to question who -- who have no
23        bias, publicity bias, and who can -- more -- more
24        importantly, who can sit for --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  That long.
 1             THE COURT:  -- two months.
 2             I mean, that's a real -- you know, a lot of
 3        folks -- everybody's going to say, "Oh, I can't do
 4        that."  I mean, a lot of people will.
 5             So -- so we'll work out those details.  And
 6        I'll give you all plenty of time to, you know --
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
 8             THE COURT:  So --
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I've just been advised by
10        my paralegal that -- if -- if you can do this, we'd
11        rather start the first week of October.  Since we
12        can't start the third -- last week of September,
13        we'd rather start the first week of October.
14             THE COURT:  Now we're getting into -- now we're
15        getting into Thanksgiving and Christmas.
16             I mean, the problem -- the truth of the matter
17        is, Mr. Dandar, is if we can't start this by the
18        second week of September, quite frankly, we need to
19        start it the second week of January.
20             MR. DANDAR:  I already have four trials
21        scheduled.
22             THE COURT:  You know, I'm just telling you that
23        you don't want to set a two-month trial that's going
24        to encompass your holidays.  I'm not going to do it
25        to jurors; not for a two-month holiday (sic).
 1             I will tell you that I let the jurors go on
 2        Wednesday on a Thanksgiving.  I will let them go the
 3        day before Christmas Eve.  And so we are going to
 4        have long delays in this trial if it gets into the
 5        holiday season.  That means we're going to have
 6        Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday as
 7        to Thanksgiving.  And I don't know what Christmas
 8        is.  I don't know what -- what day it falls, but
 9        we're going to have the day before Christmas Eve;
10        we're going to have Christmas Eve, Christmas -- and
11        that's just because these people, who are giving up
12        two months of their lives, I don't like to interfere
13        with their holidays.
14             MR. DANDAR:  Christmas falls on a Wednesday.
15             THE COURT:  All right.  So they're -- so that's
16        going to mean that whole weekend before, Monday,
17        Tuesday, Wednesday.  And I may just give them the
18        whole week off.  I mean, you know, you've got to
19        give these people that have families coming in -- or
20        they won't serve.  They just simply won't serve.
21             So the second week of September or the second
22        week of January.  So think about it.
23             And -- and I'm telling you, we're starting --
24        I'm starting to look bad.  It's like, "How's come
25        this case is set and then it gets passed and then
 1        it's set and it gets passed?"  Nobody knows.  Just
 2        looks like the dumb judge can't make up her mind.
 3             So I -- you know, I would prefer, quite
 4        frankly, to set the thing for the second week of
 5        January just because that doesn't involve the
 6        holidays.  We're past the holidays.  People are --
 7        that's all done.  It's all behind them.  They're
 8        fresh and ready to serve.  And I think it would
 9        serve both sides better.
10             But if you want to try for the second week of
11        September, I'll try for the second week of
12        September.
13             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
14             THE COURT:  So you -- you think about that.
15             Obviously, your preference is the second week
16        of January.  So you know, you -- you think on it.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Really for the reasons you said.
18        I tried a Christmas case one time --
19             THE COURT:  Oh, yeah.  I've tried many of them.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  It was a disaster.
21             THE COURT:  They're a disaster.
22             And you know, I would think that the person who
23        would not want this case tried would be the
24        plaintiff.  I mean, it's the plaintiff that's
25        trying -- it's the plaintiff that's trying to
 1        prevail in a civil case.  You know, I always used to
 2        love, if I was a defense lawyer, to try a case
 3        around the holidays, because I normally wasn't going
 4        to do much.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.  I was a prosecutor --
 6             THE COURT:  And you were a prosecutor.  So the
 7        prosecutor -- you know, as a defense lawyer --
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Sure.
 9             THE COURT:  -- I loved to set cases around the
10        holidays because it was like I wasn't tying them up,
11        they were.  These folks.  And you didn't say that,
12        but the jury just kind of got that, you know,
13        flavor.  And so I always thought -- to say nothing
14        of the fact that, you know, maybe there was some
15        good spirit around the Christmastime and forgiveness
16        or something.  I don't know.
17             But it is not a good time to try a case.  I
18        really think you ought to think about the second
19        week of January.  Honestly.  That should give
20        everybody time to take their depositions.  We've
21        got, still, two, three motions to hear, that I want
22        to hear.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Plus this.
24             THE COURT:  Plus the rest of this.
25             MR. LIEBERMAN:  We would also -- we -- we would
 1        probably ask the court for sufficient time to brief
 2        this motion too.  There's such a huge record --
 3             THE COURT:  There -- there will be -- I will
 4        give you sufficient time.  I'm just telling you from
 5        your standpoint, that what you need to assume --
 6             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I understand.
 7             THE COURT:  -- is that the case -- the motion
 8        will be denied.  That's how everybody needs to
 9        think.  So you need to think, "Get ready for trial."
10        I mean, I understand that's work that may be for
11        naught.
12             So -- I mean, the fact that I'm going to want
13        you to brief it for me; I'm going to want you to --
14        this is one time I'm going to let you brief it and
15        attach for me.  Because there's such a big record,
16        I'm going to like those attachments.
17             So I'll --
18             But that doesn't necessarily have to stall a
19        trial date.  Except if it's in September, obviously,
20        I have to rule; we're going to have motions in
21        limine.  A lot of the stuff that I've let into this
22        hearing, I certainly would not let into a wrongful
23        death case at all.
24             And as I said, I -- I think that they're going
25        to be different.
 1             One of the reasons why I think I'm going to
 2        keep these cases separate no matter what the
 3        preference is, there's just so much stuff that -- it
 4        would be different in a wrongful death and then a
 5        challenge to some improper purpose in filing the
 6        lawsuit.
 7             So I think the reason why I thought I could
 8        consolidate them is because some of the wrongful
 9        death stuff has to come in, most likely, to the
10        counterclaim.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
12             THE COURT:  But that counterclaim gets bogged
13        down in a lot of areas that just simply are not
14        relevant to the wrongful death.
15             So anyway, I think you all would be smart to
16        think the second week of January.  Go on ahead, do
17        your other trials that you've got scheduled.  You
18        have plenty of time to get those rescheduled.
19             So think on that, okay?
20             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  All right.  Are we ready?
22             Let's get your answer by tomorrow.
23             MR. DANDAR:  To --
24             THE COURT:  To whether you want to try for
25        September --
 1             MR. DANDAR:  Oh.
 2             THE COURT:  The second week of September or the
 3        second week of January.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  Yes, I will.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.  And this continuance,
 6        Mr. Dandar, is charged to you.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  I don't like that at all.
 8             THE COURT:  I understand that.
 9             MR. DANDAR:  I disagree wholeheartedly.
10             THE COURT:  I understand that.  Take it up.
11             Mr. Prince --
12             Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the
13        stand?
14             MR. DANDAR:  Yes, we are.
15             THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Prince, you want to
16        step forward?
17             Mr. Prince, you're already under oath.  So you
18        understand that the oath that you took will be valid
19        throughout your testimony.
20             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I do.
21             THE COURT:  All right.  Would you please resume
22        the stand?
23             Let me make sure, before we start, that I've
24        got the right book.  Give me just a minute,
25        Mr. Dandar.
 1             Hugh Haney?  Was that the last witness?
 2             MR. DANDAR:  Brian --
 3             THE COURT:  Brian.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  Hugh Brian --
 5             THE COURT:  Brian.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Hugh Brian Haney.
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.  I wrote down Hugh.  Hugh
 8        Brian?
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  He goes by Brian.
10             THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  I've got the
11        right book.  I'm ready.
12             Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee --
13        I mean -- coffee -- see, I was thinking of coffee.
14        That'd be nice.  Maybe you'll bring me some.
15             Is this water fresh?
16             THE BAILIFF:  I'm not sure, your Honor.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  I would say that would be --
18             MR. FUGATE:  -- a "no."
19             THE COURT:  That's what I would say.
20             Would you mind?
21             No telling how long that's been sitting in
22        there.  You know what he'll do?  It'll have mold on
23        it.  He'll go -- pour it out --
24             Thank you very much.
25             When this trial comes -- because I will let you
 1        all have water during the trial.  Not coffee, once
 2        we get to a trial --
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
 4             THE COURT:  -- just water.
 5             But I'm going to get me a little cooler and
 6        keep it up here.  Because I don't trust them -- I
 7        can't ask every day.  Just one of the tiny little
 8        things that needs to be done.
 9             And by the way, Mr. Dandar --
10             MR. DANDAR:  Yes, Judge.
11             THE COURT:  -- if I might just suggest, I did
12        notice in that article that you were quoted.  The
13        truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case.  It
14        would be well for you not to be quoted in these
15        articles.
16             MR. DANDAR:  I do not believe that I or
17        Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.
19             MR. DANDAR:  I think -- I think the reporter is
20        quoting from in-court testimony.
21             THE COURT:  If that's the case, then we can't
22        help that.
23             But -- but do not -- and I'm not going to tell
24        the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because
25        you know, part of the -- part of the canons say one
 1        ought not to be talking to the press about their
 2        case while it's ongoing.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  Right.
 4             THE COURT:  That would be like you all having
 5        some comment for me.  I don't think you would be
 6        appreciative of that.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  I do --
 8             That's what happens to me -- off the record?
 9        Can we go off the record for just a second?
10             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
11             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
12             THE COURT:  Madam Reporter?
13             THE REPORTER:  Yes, ma'am.
14             (A discussion was held off the record.)
15             THE COURT:  All right.  Back on the record.
16               ___________________________________
18        Q    All right.  Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked
19   about your position with the Religious Technology Center;
20   you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing
21   investigations involving litigation and other critics of
22   Scientology.  And I'm showing you today Plaintiff's Exhibit
23   113, entitled Intelligence Actions.  Can you identify that
24   document?
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    And what is it?
 2        A    This is a document -- a document written by L. Ron
 3   Hubbard concerning intelligence.  And it speaks about
 4   predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating
 5   individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.
 6   And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives
 7   to be enemies or suppressive persons.
 8        Q    Against whom?  They're enemies of whom?
 9        A    These are perceived enemies of Scientology.  These
10   are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of
11   Scientology.
12        Q    On the -- it's a one-page document.  The third
13   paragraph talks about a standard, is to -- when you're under
14   attack, you attack back.  Does that have anything to do with
15   the prior document where you -- where it mentioned, and you
16   explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence
17   if there's no crimes found?
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I object to all this, your
19        Honor.
20             First of all, this is a 1968 thing.
21             Secondly, I just want to let the record be
22        clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince
23        interpreting policy.  He was booted out of the
24        church -- booted out of the position in 1987; left
25        in disgrace from the church; has been -- has been --
 1        has been, you know, paid to testify against the
 2        church.  And now he's coming in here trying to
 3        interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn't
 4        say anything about creating or manufacturing
 5        evidence and saying that -- trying to interpret it?
 6             I -- I object to that.
 7             THE COURT:  Overruled.
 9        Q    Does this policy have anything to do with the
10   prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and
11   explained to the court about, if you can't find the crimes
12   of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?
13        A    Yes.  This is part and parcel of the activities of
14   the intelligence department in different Scientology
15   organizations.
16        Q    What does that mean in that third paragraph from
17   the bottom, attack loudly?
18        A    You know, I think we must be looking at a
19   different -- I must be looking at a different document than
20   you.
21        Q    I hope not.
22        A    Where did you see that --
23             Oh, I see, okay.  Yes.  Okay.
24        Q    What does that mean, attack loudly?
25        A    Noisy investigation.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me, your Honor.  What
 2        he's saying is what it means to him?
 3             THE COURT:  Yes.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  As opposed to what it means?
 5             THE COURT:  That's what he's saying.
 7        Q    Within your experience and your position of the
 8   inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that
 9   understanding -- what you're understanding of that means.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, see --
11        A    This would mean --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  That, I object to.  If he wants
13        to sit up there and say what it means to him, that's
14        one thing.  If he wants to sit up there and say,
15        "This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy
16        means to a Scientologist," that's nonsense.  And
17        that isn't right.  And that's what's been going on
18        for -- for -- you know, with Mr. Prince and
19        Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the --
20        in the church.  It's not right.
21             They shouldn't be up here trying to interpret
22        for the -- for the religion of Scientology, what
23        policy is.
24             THE COURT:  That's not even your argument;
25        that's the argument of the First Amendment scholar.
 1        And I have let him preserve that argument --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
 3             THE COURT:  -- and it is preserved.  And your
 4        objection therefore is overruled.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
 6             THE COURT:  Because quite frankly, if I don't
 7        agree with his position, this would be relevant to
 8        this, and it would be relevant probably to your
 9        counterclaim.
10             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Your Honor, I guess that means
11        I should be objecting to --
12             THE COURT:  No.  Because I've allowed you to
13        preserve a continuing objection.
14             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.  I understand that, your
15        Honor.
16             But the point is, from the First Amendment
17        point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in
18        creates an untenable position for the church.
19        Because if we -- if we merely preserve our position,
20        then we're put in the position of, do we have to
21        counter it?  To counter it, we would then have to
22        engage in a process which we shouldn't have to
23        constitutionally, which would be incredibly
24        burdensome on us and on the court.
25             Because in order to understand Scientology
 1        policies, you can't take one and look at it in
 2        isolation, and have somebody who was not -- who
 3        was -- who was basically removed from his
 4        position --
 5             THE COURT:  Yes.
 6             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- by the church --
 7             THE COURT:  But he was there.  And he was
 8        there.  And he presumably was high up in the scale.
 9        And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he
10        was removed or not.  I've therefore ruled he's
11        qualified.
12             If you want to withdraw your motion, saying
13        there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a
14        fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will
15        agree with you.
16             You filed the motion in this hearing.  I think
17        it's relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter
18        what your First Amendment argument is going to be,
19        I'm going to allow it in for this hearing.
20             It's your motion.  That's why I said I think
21        you're going to have some distinctions that I'm
22        going to be willing to draw for different things.
23        You do whatever you want to do for this motion.
24        I've allowed you to preserve it.  Your objection is
25        preserved.  You can argue it.  Quite frankly, you
 1        may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as
 2        you have filed the motion you have filed.
 3             You've made your argument.  I'm ready to move
 4        on.
 5             This is not somebody who was not in the church.
 6        This is not some scholar outside.  This is somebody
 7        who was there, who says, "This is what we did."
 8             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I know, your Honor.  And he
 9        also was -- was removed --
10             THE COURT:  Well, then --
11             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- from his position --
12             THE COURT:  -- do it on cross examination.
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- for not being a Scientology
14        expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology
15        expert by the authority that had the ability to
16        determine who are -- who is capable, who is proper
17        to speak for Scientology.
18             THE COURT:  You know, the only thing I can
19        suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you
20        all about Jesse Prince, you must be really
21        frightened of him.
22             You've made your point.  We're going to move
23        on.
25        Q    Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third
 1   paragraph on Exhibit 113 states, "Even if you don't have
 2   enough data to win the case, still attack loudly.  Reason
 3   is, it is only those people that have crimes that will
 4   attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being
 5   found out when attacked back."
 6             Is this considered a scripture of the Church of
 7   Scientology?
 8        A    During -- during my tenure in Scientology, this
 9   document was not considered to be any type of scripture.
10   This was a training material to train a person in
11   intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.
12        Q    Okay.  Now, before the objection, you were talking
13   about -- answering the question about if this relates to the
14   noisy investigation when this document, in the third
15   paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word
16   "loudly."
17        A    Yeah.
18        Q    And what is a noisy investigation?
19        A    A noisy investigation -- I believe we covered that
20   the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted
21   the document in the church.
22             But it's basically to go around and arouse the
23   neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that
24   Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations
25   about the person that may or may not be true.  And according
 1   to Scientology's Manual of Justice, which is a further
 2   document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go
 3   through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy
 4   investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of
 5   it.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Object to the use of the word
 7        "terrorism" or "terrorize."  I mean, that's just --
 8             THE COURT:  I didn't hear him say that.  Did he
 9        say that?
10             MR. WEINBERG:  That's what he said.
11             MR. DANDAR:  Use it to terrorize the person who
12        is attacking the Church of Scientology.
13             THE COURT:  Overruled.  I'm not thinking of
14        that as terrorism; I'm thinking of that as just
15        simply a word.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, that's fine.  But I'm a
17        little sensitive, after reading this article this
18        morning, where -- or yesterday morning, where Osama
19        Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the
20        same sentence.
21             MR. DANDAR:  Take that up with the St. Pete
22        Times.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, no, I --
24             THE COURT:  Well, that was mentioned by
25        Mr. Minton.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Who -- who -- let's make it
 2        clear -- is not our witness, and is a person that
 3        has -- that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar
 4        from -- from the beginning of this lawsuit.
 5             THE COURT:  I hate to tell you this, Counselor,
 6        but he is your witness.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 8             THE COURT:  You called him.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  -- your Honor, that's where we
10        disagree.  But I'm not here to argue with that.
11             THE COURT:  No.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  We disagree about that.
13             We called him as a witness.
14             THE COURT:  You can disagree all you want.  You
15        called him as a witness.  I did not declare him a
16        hostile or adverse witness.  It appeared as if he
17        was able to respond to your questions without
18        leading questions.
19             You called him in this hearing as your witness.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  But that doesn't mean that
21        Mr. Minton is --
22             Well --
23             THE COURT:  It does seem to be a lot ado about
24        nothing, doesn't it?
25             I understand about the article.  That was
 1        Mr. Minton who said --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  My --
 3             THE COURT:  -- that.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  -- objection had to do with
 5        Mr. Prince saying "terrorize," which is -- which
 6        is --
 7             THE COURT:  Well, your objection's overruled.
 8        He can use the word "terrorize" if that's the word
 9        he wants to use.  That has nothing to do, in my
10        opinion, with a terrorist attack.  "Terrorize" is
11        just a word.  We use it all the time.  Don't be so
12        sensitive.  Golly, we've got to get down into
13        getting back into -- stop being so sensitive.
15        Q    In your experience in -- in RTC, in Scientology,
16   how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against
17   the critics?
18        A    Well, there's several ways that I've -- I've seen
19   it done --
20             THE COURT:  And I'm sorry.  When I indicated
21        about the --
22             Excuse me.
23             When I indicated about the motion to dismiss,
24        what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to
25        this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the
 1        allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for
 2        his testimony.  So for that reason as well, I think
 3        it's admissible in this hearing.
 4             Forget what I said about --
 5             I -- I haven't gotten my head back into this
 6        case.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  My head was doing fine until I
 8        read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.
10        Q    So --
11             THE COURT:  I'm sorry, Mr. Prince.  I
12        interrupted you.
13             Madam Court Reporter, read back that question
14        before I interrupted him.
15             THE REPORTER:  The pending question is, "In
16        your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you
17        go about finding or manufacturing threats against
18        the critics?"
19             The witness began to answer, "Well, there's
20        several ways that I've -- I've seen it done --"
21        A    Yes.
22             As far as out-and-out manufacturing information --
23             And again, I want to clarify that.  During the
24   time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in
25   Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls
 1   technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training
 2   of things.
 3             Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about
 4   this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from
 5   me until that point.  So I -- I actually had a very short
 6   amount of time there.  But as what I've seen as far as
 7   manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person --
 8             Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to
 9   Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson.  John
10   Nelson used to be a person that was the CO -- the commanding
11   officer of Sea Org --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.
13        A    -- International.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Hearsay, your Honor.  How's he
15        know this?
16             THE WITNESS:  Because I was there.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  You were in Hong Kong?
18             THE WITNESS:  No.  I was on the phone with the
19        parties.
20             THE COURT:  I'm going to allow it.
22        Q    Were you in charge of the parties?
23        A    Yes.  The party was working in one of my
24   divisions.
25             At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a
 1   private investigator to investigate a fellow named John
 2   Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in
 3   Scientology.  He was the commanding officer of CMO.
 4             THE COURT:  At what?
 5             THE WITNESS:  The commanding officer of the
 6        Commodores Messenger Organization.
 8        Q    And that was an elite organization?
 9        A    At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs,
10   which eventually became Church of Scientology International.
11   CSI.
12        Q    All right.
13        A    And he had started his own splinter organization
14   with another fellow named David Mayo.  At any rate, he was
15   perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology.
16             So he was on a business trip in Taiwan.  Rick
17   Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room
18   next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that
19   they would know when he was coming and going; and when he
20   left, subsequently put heroin in his room.  And the plan was
21   to call the police when he came, to say he was a -- a heroin
22   dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.
23             I found out about that because the private
24   investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back
25   to the United States.  I was on the phone.  He said, "Look,
 1   this is going down.  Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets
 2   convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence."
 3   I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither
 4   did the private investigator.  He was coming back.
 5             I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki
 6   Aznaran.  We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation
 7   and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away -- not
 8   to do that particular operation.
 9             This was an instance of manufacturing information
10   that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had
11   personal knowledge of.  I've heard other things about that.
12   And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. --
13        Q    Well, what year was this?
14        A    That this occurred?
15        Q    Yes.
16        A    This happened in 1985.
17        Q    Okay.  Okay.  And in your position, though, at
18   RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or
19   perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?
20        A    Perceived enemies of Scientology is a -- is -- is
21   what would correctly define -- as opposed to critics.
22   Because there was -- you know, critics wasn't a word that we
23   used in Scientology when I was there.  "Oh, this person's a
24   critic."  That's not a word that we would use in
25   Scientology.  We would use this person is a suppressive.
 1   This person is attacking Scientology.  But it wasn't -- this
 2   whole critic thing didn't come into being, I believe, until
 3   after I even left Scientology.
 4        Q    All right.  Well, what about the enemies of
 5   Scientology?  What other examples can you give us where you
 6   have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going
 7   on?
 8        A    The other partner of this fellow, his name was
 9   David Mayo.  He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials,
10   the NED for OTs.  And he --
11             THE COURT:  Of the what materials?
12             THE WITNESS:  NED for OTs materials.  This is
13        the -- this is the --
14             MR. DANDAR:  NOTS.
15             THE WITNESS:  In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6
16        and 7.
17             THE COURT:  What does the N mean on the front
18        of that?
19             THE WITNESS:  New Era Dianetics for Operating
20        Thetans.  And it's an acronym, NED.
21             MR. DANDAR:  NED.
22             THE WITNESS:  NED.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, objection.  No
24        foundation for any of this testimony.  I mean, that
25        David Mayo wrote this?  Based on what?
 1             THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  I didn't understand.  I
 2        thought he was talking about the NOTS.  I've seen
 3        that in some of the literature.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  That's what he was --
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  But what --
 6             MR. DANDAR:  -- talking --
 7             THE COURT:  I just simply asked what it -- what
 8        it meant.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  No -- all right.
10             But what he said before that was -- that
11        prompted your question -- was that David Mayo had
12        actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT,
13        whatever it is.
14             MR. DANDAR:  You know, this is great for cross
15        examination, but it's really interrupting the flow
16        of the direct.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me.
18             There was an entire proceeding in California
19        about all this.
20             THE COURT:  Well, I'm going to allow it.
22        Q    How do you know that David Mayo is the author of
23   NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?
24        A    Because it's -- the NOTS Materials, as I saw them
25   in 1985 -- each and every one of them had his signature or
 1   his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED
 2   for OTs issues.  I think at the time there was 55 of them.
 3   So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these
 4   materials.  This is what I base that opinion on.
 5        Q    And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote
 6   them, correct?
 7        A    He was a senior CS international at the time he
 8   wrote that.
 9        Q    And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?
10        A    He was Mr. Hubbard's auditor, correct.
11        Q    All right.  So what happened -- what was the
12   operation against Mr. Mayo?
13        A    Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.
14   And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a
15   business place, office complex.  They were on the first
16   floor.  Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his
17   office and electronically bugged the downstairs area.  Also,
18   a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray
19   Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int --
20             (The reporter asked for clarification.)
21             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
22        A    -- was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a
23   deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as
24   well as Nancy Mainy.
25             And the purpose of these deep cover operatives
 1   were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced
 2   Abilities Center to provide information about financial
 3   accounts, how much money the place was making.  They stole
 4   the mailing list for the place.  It was turned over to the
 5   Religious Technology Center.  And they were basically sent
 6   in there to not only glean information but to disrupt
 7   activities, covertly disrupt activities.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, could we date this,
 9        and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis -- what
10        his --
11             THE COURT:  Yes.  What was the year?
12             MR. WEINBERG:  -- of the information is?
13             THE WITNESS:  This, I believe, was 1985.  It
14        was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a
15        hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer
16        ultimately.  And on March 15th -- not March 15th,
17        but somewhere around that time period.  This all had
18        to do with the Wollersheim case.
20        Q    And when you testified in front of a judge on
21   Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?
22        A    Church of Scientology -- Religious Technology
23   Center.
24             THE COURT:  You testified for the Religious
25        Technology Center that the -- that someone from the
 1        Church of Scientology went into --
 2             THE WITNESS:  No, no, no, your Honor.
 3             THE COURT:  -- this man's place and --
 4             THE WITNESS:  No.  I --
 5             THE COURT:  -- stole --
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Wait --
 7             THE WITNESS:  No.
 8             THE COURT:  -- his mailing list and --
 9             THE WITNESS:  No, no.  No.  That's not what I
10        testified to.
11             What I testified to was the fact that the
12        materials that were being used in the Advanced
13        Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the
14        ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.
15             THE COURT:  I see.  So he -- this Mr. David
16        Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and
17        was in a splinter group.
18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  He was -- he was kicked out
19        of Scientology.
20             As a matter of fact, I think I brought the
21        document with me today that -- that shows why he was
22        kicked out of Scientology.  And when he left he
23        started his own movement, basically.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2        Q    What's the name of that document?
 3             THE COURT:  Was he -- was he --
 4        A    RTC Conditions Order Number 1.
 5             THE COURT:  Was he -- was he with Mr. Nelson?
 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 7             THE COURT:  They were part of the same splinter
 8        group?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
10             THE COURT:  I see.
11             MR. DANDAR:  Your Honor -- I'll tell you
12        what --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Could we just have Mr. Prince
14        say what the basis for his testimony was, whether
15        it's hearsay or did he give these alleged orders
16        to -- to --
17             THE COURT:  Okay.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  -- break in and bug and --
19             THE COURT:  How did you know about this?
20             THE WITNESS:  I knew about this because the --
21        the people that were doing the activities were in a
22        division in RTC that I supervised.
23             THE COURT:  Okay.
24             THE WITNESS:  And the -- the people that were
25        involved -- I can tell you specifically the names of
 1        this person.  Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence
 2        officer in RTC.
 3             THE COURT:  Who was "our"?  "Our"?
 4             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  RTC.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Jeff Schriver.
 7             THE COURT:  So you were supervising the people
 8        who were doing this?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
10             THE COURT:  There's your foundation.  I mean,
11        that's the foundation.
12             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I only have -- I haven't
13        copied this yet, but I want him to identify it.  We
14        have the copier in the jury room so it doesn't cause
15        any noise.  And then we'll copy it.  But this is
16        Plaintiff's Exhibit 114.
17             THE COURT:  Okay.
19        Q    Can you identify that?
20             MR. DANDAR:  Then we'll have it copied.
21        A    This is the first Religious Technology Center
22   Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence,
23   actually.  And it lists -- one, two, three, four, five, six,
24   seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 -- has 16
25   individuals listed on this document, of people that are
 1   receiving a justice action.  These are people that were once
 2   in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982.
 3             So David Mayo here was the senior CS
 4   international.  He's on this document.
 5             And this is the document that lists all of their
 6   supposed and alleged crimes.
 7             And the people that constituted the committee that
 8   would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime
 9   composed of -- one, two, three, four, five, six -- seven
10   people.
11             And the chairman was Ray Mithoff.  The secretary
12   was Shelly Miscavige.  That's David Miscavige's wife.  A
13   member was Laura Marlowe.  Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve
14   Marlowe's wife, who -- at the time, he was a commander of
15   the Religious Technology Center.  And then is myself, Jesse
16   Prince.  Then there's Gelda Mithoff, who's the wife of Ray
17   Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher.  Matt Pesch was a
18   security guard.  Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to
19   David Miscavige.
20             And this committee was charged with finding -- and
21   this was basically what is constituted all of in
22   management -- to, you know, basically do another
23   housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a
24   time or two.
25             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I'd like to go ahead and
 1        have this copied, and I'll distribute it.  Is that
 2        all right?
 3             THE COURT:  Sure.
 4             Did you mark it?
 5             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  It's 114.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  I have an objection to
 7        relevance.  I haven't looked at it yet.  But what's
 8        the relevance of a 1982 --
 9             THE COURT:  I don't know.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  -- religious justice action
11        against people?
12             THE COURT:  I can only assume that this is part
13        of Mr. Dandar's case regarding his allegations of
14        threats, extortions or whatever it is he's alleging
15        about.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  That may be.  But Mr. Minton was
17        never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn't --
18        didn't -- didn't undergo any committee of evidence
19        or Scientology justice action.  I just don't
20        understand the relevance.
21             THE COURT:  What is the relevance?
22             THE WITNESS:  Well --
23             THE COURT:  No.  Not you.
24             THE WITNESS:  Oh.
25             MR. DANDAR:  Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg
 1        called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence,
 2        with the other top Int management people, on a
 3        committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the
 4        author of this highly secretive NOTS material.  And
 5        it just shows Mr. Prince's involvement in the higher
 6        echelons of Scientology.
 7             THE COURT:  So this is -- this is just to show
 8        that he's got some -- what, that is -- that he --
 9        is -- is capable of testifying as an expert here?
10             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  And --
11             THE COURT:  Well, I've already accepted him as
12        an expert.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  But it also goes to the
14        policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he --
15        which is the basis of this testimony before we
16        reached that document.
17             THE COURT:  All right.  Then I suppose it may
18        have some relevance.  I don't know.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  How does it go to that?
20             THE COURT:  I don't know.  I mean, I have to
21        believe some of the things the lawyers say.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Let me show our next exhibit.
23        This is in a series of, like, three or four
24        documents on this subject.  And then we'll get on to
25        a different matter.
 2        Q    Plaintiff's Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince.  Can you
 3   identify that?
 4        A    Yes.  This is a confidential issue that goes along
 5   with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual
 6   of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude
 7   of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy.  It kind
 8   of gives the thought process, the -- the basis of it.  It
 9   comes from Klausewitz.
10        Q    Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics.  This is
11   directed against the enemies of Scientology?
12        A    Correct.
13        Q    And then the third -- actually, the fourth
14   paragraph from the bottom it states -- states, quote, One
15   cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections.
16             This policy letter goes to -- applies to former
17   Scientologists as well as someone who's an -- an enemy, who
18   has never been a Scientologist?
19        A    It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a --
20   as an enemy.
21             THE COURT:  Is this again what you call a
22        suppressive person?
23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Or a suppressive group.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.
25             THE WITNESS:  And this talks about cutting off
 1        enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive
 2        the enemy of political advantages, connections and
 3        power.  He takes over enemy territory; he raids and
 4        harasses.  All on a thought plane --
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.  You don't have to read it to
 6        me, Mr. Prince.  I --
 7             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 8             THE COURT:  -- can read.
10        Q    Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph
11   states, "Legal is a slow if often final battle arena.  It
12   eventually comes down to legal in the end.  If intelligence
13   and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close
14   quote.  What is PRO?
15        A    Public relations officer.
16        Q    And intelligence is what?
17        A    Intelligence is the intelligence branch or
18   department or division of Scientology organizations.
19   Intelligence having to do with the prediction.
20             Again, it goes back to this issue we have here,
21   intelligence actions.  The purpose of intelligence is to
22   predict trouble, basically, before it occurs.  And it states
23   that in the issue.  So intelligence would predict or would
24   start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data
25   collection, covert data collection, amass as much
 1   information about the situation as possible, then proceed
 2   accordingly.
 3        Q    That's the -- does that include the use of the
 4   private investigators?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    Okay.  Let me show you Exhibit 116.
 7             THE COURT:  While you're doing that, can you
 8        all tell me whether or not a document called
 9        Middle -- well, it's something filed by Middle
10        District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright
11        infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy
12        Brooks -- is that an exhibit in this hearing?
13             MR. WEINBERG:  I believe so.
14             THE COURT:  Okay.
15             MR. DANDAR:  Not anymore?
16             MR. LIROT:  It wasn't one of our exhibits.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  It was one of our exhibits.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.  Petition to Define Scope of
19        Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?
20             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't think that is.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  I think it was just the
23        complaint.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2        Q    Mr. Prince, what is 116?
 3        A    116 is a document in the same vein of the
 4   documents we've been studying before.  It's the public
 5   investigation section.  And this basically has to do with --
 6   "investigates attacking individual members and see the
 7   results of the investigation, get adequate legal and
 8   publicity."
 9             So this again is similar to what we've gone over
10   here before.
11        Q    So it's in a series of the other exhibits on how
12   to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?
13        A    Correct.
14        Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 117, entitled
15   Attacks on Scientology.  What is that?
16        A    Again, same year, same type of policy letter.  It
17   talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology.  "An attack
18   on Scientology --" well, you know, the basic principle is,
19   never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the
20   attacker.  That kind of thing.
21        Q    Now, these were written in the mid- to late '60s.
22   Were they still in effect when you were in your management
23   position at RTC?
24        A    Very much so.  And they're still in effect today.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me.  Objection, your
 1        Honor.  Based on what?
 2             THE COURT:  Sustained.
 4        Q    And how do you know they're still in effect today?
 5        A    Because of that time track that was submitted into
 6   this courtroom of specific things that have -- that have
 7   occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over
 8   specifically what has happened to me because of my
 9   involvement in this case and other cases.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Same objection.  Lack of
11        foundation.
12             THE COURT:  I think that he might can draw that
13        inference, but I suspect he can't testify that that
14        is in fact what's happening today.  But he can infer
15        that, I think.
17        Q    Now, Mr. Minton -- Mr. Prince, have any of the --
18   these policies come into play in the -- Pinellas County in
19   the past?
20             MR. WEINBERG:  Based on his experience while he
21        was in the church?  Is that what you're asking?
22             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  You mean while he was there?
24             MR. DANDAR:  No.  Based upon his experience.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, then, I object.  Come into
 1        play in Pinellas County?
 2             THE COURT:  If he's talking about what occurred
 3        to him?  Is that what you're --
 4             MR. DANDAR:  No.  What occurred to
 5        non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated
 6        by the Church of Scientology in the past years.
 7        Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor --
 9             THE COURT:  How does he know that?
10             MR. DANDAR:  Well, let me just use these
11        exhibits then.  I can see if he can qualify to talk
12        about them.
13             THE COURT:  All right.
14             MR. DANDAR:  I probably gave you the wrong
15        exhibit, but --
16             I withdraw the question.  And I'm just going to
17        go to another question.  I had the wrong exhibit in
18        my hand.
20        Q    Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit
21   118?
22        A    Yes.  This is similar to RTC Conditions Order
23   Number 1, in that it's an ethics order that declare -- one,
24   two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 --
25   12 people to be suppressive persons.
 1        Q    Paragraph numbered 4 says, "They are fair game."
 2   What does this have to do with?
 3        A    Fair game?
 4        Q    Yeah.  What's this exhibit have to do with?
 5        A    This exhibit has to do with people that used some
 6   version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level
 7   materials and started some type of distribution of those
 8   materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.
 9        Q    All right.  And --
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, again, objection.
11        What does this have to do with this case?
12             If the Church of Scientology, within its
13        internal structure, just like the Catholic church,
14        declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive,
15        you know, because they did something against the
16        church; like, you know, attempt to -- to take the --
17        the scripture and change it -- what's that got to do
18        with this hearing?
19             THE COURT:  I think --
20             MR. WEINBERG:  Has nothing to do with this
21        hearing.
22             THE COURT:  Well, it does have something to do
23        with this hearing.  And if you don't understand it,
24        then I'll have to explain it to you.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
 1             THE COURT:  It is very clear that the assertion
 2        being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive
 3        person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these
 4        things, including finding out all of the crimes that
 5        he may have committed, and bring it to his
 6        attention.  That is the allegation of extortion.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  These are people that are
 8        Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant --
 9        at the time, 1968 -- being declared pursuant to the
10        Scientology religious practices, under their justice
11        system.  Mr. Minton's not a Scientologist.
12             THE COURT:  There's no question in my mind
13        that, according to the matters that have been
14        brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have
15        been considered a suppressive person.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  But he's putting in a document
17        that -- that says pursuant to church policy, these
18        Scientologists are -- are getting a certain justice
19        action.  That's what that is.  I mean, he doesn't
20        have personal knowledge.  This is 1968, before he
21        ever was in the church.
22             THE COURT:  But you remember that the testimony
23        has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it
24        was followed.  And it wasn't changed.  And it would
25        be a high crime to change the writings of
 1        Mr. Hubbard.
 2             You know, we don't change the Bible just
 3        because times change.  I presume you don't change
 4        the writings of Mr. Hubbard.  I mean, that is about
 5        as clear as anything I know.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  To suggest that -- that there is
 7        only one interpretation --
 8             THE COURT:  Nobody said there was one --
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  -- of 50 words that are
10        written --
11             THE COURT:  Nobody said there is one
12        interpretation.  This is something that --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  -- is preposterous.
14             THE COURT:  -- that Mr. Hubbard wrote.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  That has to do with an internal
16        justice action with regard to Scientologists, in
17        1968.
18             THE COURT:  I see the relevance, Counselor.
19        Apparently you don't.  I do.  It's this hearing.  I
20        think it's relevant to this hearing.  And it's
21        coming in.
22             Take it up.  Make your objection.  It's made,
23        take --
24             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
25             THE COURT:  -- it to the appellate court.  Do
 1        whatever you want to do.  Your objection is
 2        overruled.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
 5        Q    Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly
 6   internal?
 7        A    This issue would have been published internally,
 8   but it would have gone out -- but it's something that would
 9   have been put in each organization so that they would know
10   who these suppressive persons are.
11             The purpose of these ethics orders -- one of the
12   purposes of these ethics orders is, when they're issued, for
13   everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn't
14   then walk into an organization and pretend to be
15   Scientologists in good standing and -- and wreak further
16   havoc on the organization --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor --
18        A    -- if that's what's --
19             MR. WEINBERG:  -- that's not --
20        A    -- Scientology --
21             MR. WEINBERG:  -- that's not -- objection.
22                     (Simultaneous speakers.)
23             MR. WEINBERG:  He cannot authenticate this
24        document.  I believe this document, for whatever
25        it's worth, is a forgery.  But he can't authenticate
 1        it.  He's just guessing.  He's speculating.  He
 2        wasn't there when it was published.  If it was
 3        published.
 5        Q    Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?
 6             THE COURT:  Yeah.  Where did you get it?
 7             THE WITNESS:  This document was provided to me
 8        by Vaughn Young.
 9             THE COURT:  So you did not receive this
10        document or see this document when you were in the
11        church.
12             THE WITNESS:  No.
13             THE COURT:  Then that objection is sustained
14        and it will not be admitted.
16        Q    Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the -- does this
17   appear to be a genuine document?
18             THE COURT:  Well, that --
19        A    Absolutely.
20             THE COURT:  That isn't going to get it.  He
21        can't -- he can't authenticate something that was
22        given to him by Mr. Young.  I mean, this is not
23        quite the same as some of these other things that
24        I've seen -- this is something called -- I mean, I
25        don't know if this is authentic or not.  Some of the
 1        other things that all look like the same, then I'm
 2        going to allow it in, necessarily, without his
 3        authenticating.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
 5             THE COURT:  But this is different.  So 118 is
 6        out.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
 9        Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 119.  Can you
10   identify this, please?
11        A    Yes.  This is a policy letter dated 3 February,
12   1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those
13   activities within the Scientology organization.
14        Q    You highlighted the first paragraph under the
15   caption Illegal Officer?  Why did you do that?
16        A    Because I think that it, again, just like these
17   other issues that we've seen, goes along in the same vein,
18   in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself,
19   including what it says it'll do here:  Create the greatest
20   possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a
21   government or whoever to protect Scientology.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113
23        through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I
24        move 119 into evidence.
25             THE COURT:  I'm going to receive those.
 2        Q    Now, Mr. Prince --
 3             MR. FUGATE:  Judge, I have an objection.  And I
 4        know --
 5             THE COURT:  And I'm not going to hear from
 6        Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New
 7        York.  I mean, there's three lawyers at the table.
 8        It isn't going to happen.  So you sit down.
 9        Mr. Weinberg's making the objections.  Or
10        Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate?
11             Which is it going to be?
12             MR. FUGATE:  Mr. Weinberg's witness, your
13        Honor.
14             THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.
15             Occasionally I will hear from our First
16        Amendment expert, occasionally.
18        Q    Let me show you --
19             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I'll exercise restraint, your
20        Honor.
21             THE COURT:  Thank you.
22             MR. LIEBERMAN:  But there are times when --
23             THE COURT:  I'm sure.
24             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- I may try --
 2        Q    Plaintiff's Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Can you identify that?
 5        A    Yes.
 6             THE COURT:  Please remember this is a most
 7        unusual hearing that we're having.
 8        A    This is a document that explains -- a confidential
 9   document written by someone in the Guardian's Office, which
10   was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs,
11   concerning -- the mayor, Gabe Cazares.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.
14        Q    Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn't a Scientologist,
15   right?
16        A    Correct.
17        Q    So these actions -- do the actions we just
18   previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with
19   the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor
20   Cazares?
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection, your Honor.  He has
22        no -- he has no knowledge -- he was never in the
23        Guardian's Office.  We've heard a lot of testimony
24        about the Guardian's Office, all of which is that
25        Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of
 1        its misconduct.  This is a 1976 document.  There's
 2        no way he can authenticate it.  God knows where he
 3        got this one and who gave it to him.
 4             THE COURT:  Where did you get this?
 5             THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, this was, I believe,
 6        on our Internet site -- not ours -- on the Lisa
 7        McPherson Trust Internet site.
 8             THE COURT:  And --
10        Q    Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C.
11   prosecution?
12        A    Yes.
13             THE COURT:  What Washington, D.C. prosecution?
14             THE WITNESS:  This was -- I believe this was an
15        exhibit in the D.C. case --
16             MR. DANDAR:  Mary --
17             THE WITNESS:  -- where the 11 defendants
18        were --
19             MR. DANDAR:  The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the
20        Guardian's Office; people who broke into the FBI and
21        other public government buildings and were
22        prosecuted.
23             Mr. Franks talked about this --
24             MR. WEINBERG:  So --
25             THE COURT:  Excuse me.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to
 2        throw allegations around.  One that he did throw
 3        around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the
 4        murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not
 5        addressed, and he needs to address it.
 6             But this Guardian's Office stuff has nothing to
 7        do with this hearing.  Nothing.  They were -- they
 8        were -- whatever they did wasn't authorized by
 9        Mr. Hubbard, wasn't authorized by the Church of
10        Scientology.  It was found out, they were thrown out
11        of the church and they were prosecuted.
12             And that was all long before 1995.  And what
13        they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into
14        Scientology.  And he said he didn't have anything to
15        do with it.
16             THE COURT:  This was -- yeah.  What is the
17        relevance of this?  It is true that the guardian ad
18        litem -- guardian ad litem.  I need to get back to
19        thinking --
20             The Guardian's office was -- but I think that
21        there's been testimony that the Guardian's Office
22        was simply supplanted by another office.  And I've
23        forgotten the name of it.
24             THE WITNESS:  Office of --
25             MR. DANDAR:  Office of --
 1             THE WITNESS:  -- Special Affairs.
 2             MR. DANDAR:  -- Special Affairs.
 3             THE COURT:  Office of Special Affairs.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 5             MR. DANDAR:  It's the same --
 6             THE COURT:  And consequently -- there is
 7        testimony that it was the same -- and it was just --
 8        it was just something that was done to -- I don't
 9        know if this is true, because -- I mean, this is --
10             I think there's sufficient information to allow
11        this in.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  It's not true.  And Mr. Prince
13        wasn't in the Office of Special Affairs.  He wasn't,
14        and he doesn't have any -- he is not competent to
15        testify about what went on in the Office of Special
16        Affairs.  He certainly can't testify about what went
17        on in the Guardian's Office because he wasn't
18        even -- he wasn't there, and he wasn't in the church
19        at the time.
20             THE COURT:  Well --
21             MR. WEINBERG:  I mean, this is just -- it's
22        just like we're just going to throw all of the slime
23        we can -- excuse me, Ken -- we're going to throw all
24        the slime we can out here?  Well, why don't we --
25             THE COURT:  Well, you know --
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  -- address --
 2             THE COURT:  -- it's your motion.  If you want
 3        to withdraw it, then you're not going to have any
 4        slime.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  We're not --
 6             THE COURT:  Withdraw --
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  -- going to --
 8             THE COURT:  -- or --
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  We're not going --
10             THE COURT:  -- listen and make your objection
11        and I'll rule on it.  And sit down.  Now.
12             I'm going to rule this is admissible.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
14             THE COURT:  You're going to hear some slime
15        when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I understand that, but
17        we've been hearing it for a long time.
18             THE COURT:  Well, we're going to hear it for a
19        lot longer.  You've had your turn.  This is his
20        turn.
22        Q    What's the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?
23        A    Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of
24   conduct where --
25             THE COURT:  I'm not sure that he needs to
 1        explain this to us.
 2             What -- was he in the office in 1976, in the
 3        church?
 4             MR. DANDAR:  No.
 6        Q    Were you in the church at that time?
 7             THE COURT:  Well, then --
 8        A    Yes --
 9             THE COURT:  -- how does he know about --
10        A    -- I was --
11             THE COURT:  -- that?
12             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me.
13        A    But yes, I was in Scientology in '76.
14             THE COURT:  Then did this come up when you were
15        with RTC or something like that?
16             THE WITNESS:  Well, your Honor, I think the
17        reason why we have this document in here is because
18        it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing
19        pattern of conduct, where if there's a perceived
20        enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a
21        specific program to remove him from any position.
22        That's the first thing it says in this document, you
23        know, to remove this person from his job so that
24        he's not a threat to Scientology.
25             And -- and it goes on where, you know, they had
 1        some college -- the person pretend to be a college
 2        student and write a letter --
 3             THE COURT:  Well --
 4             THE WITNESS:  -- saying --
 5             THE COURT:  -- this is 2002.  The allegation
 6        that this occurred is in the year 2002.
 7             Do we have any thought that was -- what was
 8        going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in
 9        2002 with Mr. Minton?  I mean, it's farfetched.
10             THE WITNESS:  Well --
11             THE COURT:  As I said, I let it in, but I don't
12        need a whole bunch of --
13             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
14             THE COURT:  -- explanation from Mr. Prince.
16        Q    Well, let's -- we'll quickly then look at 121, and
17   then we're finished with this part.
18        A    Okay.
19             THE COURT:  And by the way, you call it slime.
20        I should not have used that word.  That was your
21        word.  Very poor choice of my words.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  It was my word.
23             THE COURT:  Yes, it was.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  And I never --
25             THE COURT:  Okay.  I don't even know what it
 1        says.  I haven't read it.  So I don't know if it's
 2        slime or not.
 4        Q    Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit
 5   121?
 6        A    Yes.  This is a document called Project Normandy.
 7   This was a project that was executed when Scientology first
 8   arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence
 9   activity so that it would be informed of exactly --
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection, your Honor.  No
11        competence.  There's no way he can authenticate this
12        document.
13             THE COURT:  Yeah.  This document doesn't look
14        like any document that I have seen.
15             How do you -- where did you see this document?
16             THE WITNESS:  There's a -- this -- this
17        document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long
18        sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit -- an exhibit
19        stamp on it, because this is one of the documents
20        that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles.
21             As -- in this current form, it doesn't have it.
22             This was something that's on -- that was on the
23        Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.
24             THE COURT:  So you've never seen this document
25        except on the Web site?
 1             THE WITNESS:  No.  I -- I have seen the
 2        document with the exhibit number on it.  The exhibit
 3        number was put on it by a court in D.C.  It was part
 4        of the documents -- stipulation of evidence that was
 5        turned in in D.C.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  There was a stipulation of
 7        evidence between the government prosecutor and the
 8        Church of Scientology.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  How does he know?  I mean, your
10        Honor, he -- Mr. Dandar's testifying about some case
11        that went on 20 years ago.
12             THE COURT:  Well, I suppose he knows because
13        presumably he's done some homework on it.  I don't
14        know.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, your Honor, there is no
16        exhibit --
17             THE COURT:  I'm not allowing this in.
18             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
19             THE COURT:  I'm not allowing it in because
20        there's nothing that tells me it can be
21        authenticated by this witness.
22             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
23             THE COURT:  And we -- I'm not going to let the
24        Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which
25        anything is authenticated.
 2        Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 122.
 3             THE COURT:  How much of this are we going to
 4        have to go through?
 5             MR. DANDAR:  It's the last --
 6             THE COURT:  Your point's been made, I think,
 7        the point you're trying to make.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Last one.
 9             THE COURT:  Well, you just said that about
10        Number 121.
11             MR. DANDAR:  Well, you didn't let it in, so --
12             I'm just kidding.  I'm just kidding.
14        Q    Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?
15        A    Yes.  Number 22 (sic) is a document written and
16   copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard.  It
17   was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked
18   in the 1st Division of Scientology --
19             THE COURT:  The what division?
20             THE WITNESS:  The 1st, the number 1 --
21             THE COURT:  F-i-r-s-t?
22             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.  The 1st
23        Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1,
24        HCO division.  Hubbard Communications Office
25        division.
 1             And this basically outlined again how to deal
 2        with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this
 3        kind of thing.  And public relations; how to deal
 4        with the press and public relations.
 5             MR. DANDAR:  I move 122 into evidence.
 6             THE COURT:  Any objection?
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  No.
 8             Only as to relevance.  This has to do with
 9        internal justice actions --
10             THE COURT:  Well --
11             MR. WEINBERG:  -- with regard to
12        Scientologists.
13             THE COURT:  If it can be authenticated --
14             MR. WEINBERG:  I didn't object to the
15        authentication.
16             THE COURT:  All right.  It will be admitted for
17        any relevance that it might have.  May not have any.
18             It's just hard for me to -- when documents are
19        presented, to take the time out to read them.  It
20        may not have any relevance.  And some of these --
21        these things that I'm letting in may be absolutely
22        irrelevant, but they're long and they're hard -- and
23        it's hard to read them.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.  I mean, this
25        church, like the Catholic church and a lot of
 1        churches, has internal -- has an internal justice
 2        system where they deal internally with -- with
 3        what --
 4             THE COURT:  Well --
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  -- you know, what they call
 6        crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not
 7        necessarily crimes.  And --
 8             THE COURT:  And you can make -- and you can
 9        certainly make that point in your closing argument.
10             MR. DANDAR:  I would object to any reference to
11        similarities with the Catholic church.
12             THE COURT:  Well, you can object all you want.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Thank you.
14             THE COURT:  It's been declared a religion.  It
15        is a religion.  So is the Catholic church a
16        religion.
18        Q    Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on
19   this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court's
20   attention?
21        A    Well, if you turn to the second page, under the
22   Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, "When we
23   need somebody haunted, we investigate."
24             This talks about not only people inside of
25   Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of
 1   Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists;
 2   people that are perceived enemies of Scientology.  They
 3   don't have to be a Scientologist.  And it -- and it -- this
 4   is -- this document itself explains the basis of
 5   intelligence, investigation, how it's used, how you handle
 6   bad press.  And it -- it's just kind of like a little
 7   handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to
 8   have that function within Scientology.
 9             THE COURT:  All right.
11        Q    All right.  Now --
12             THE COURT:  Number 122 is in evidence.
14        Q    Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology
15   intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?
16        A    Yes, I have.
17        Q    What and when?
18        A    I guess it was 1999.  I used to do work with
19   families that would call, that had -- members within the
20   Church of Scientology.  And they were concerned, they wanted
21   another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their
22   family member.
23             I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who
24   informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas,
25   Nevada -- Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.
 1   He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was
 2   concerned that he was squandering his inheritance.  I flew
 3   to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father,
 4   and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it.
 5             But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was
 6   a person hired -- a Scientology-hired private investigator.
 7   The person that posed as the victim's father was a retired
 8   sheriff.
 9             And I guess the purpose -- and you know, they paid
10   me a thousand dollars to come down and do this.  But I guess
11   the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything
12   criminal that could be used to show that I'm forcefully
13   deprogramming or capturing people.  And of course, that
14   never happened, so --
15             And then this -- I've only recently learned that
16   this even was so.
17             The whole deal with having a black private
18   investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house,
19   putting the seeds on the back porch -- you know, I'm
20   wondering, "Where is this," you know, and I'm throwing it
21   all -- that whole stuff, as later come out, was an
22   operation.  I mean, they -- they --
23             My father lives in a retirement community.  He's
24   74 years old.  The Scientologists have come and picketed his
25   house and circled his house with signs.
 1             You know, those are just some of the things that
 2   have happened.
 3        Q    Okay.  All right.  Now, let's go to Mr. Minton.
 4             By the way, before we get to Minton, one question.
 5   You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the
 6   Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center.  Did you
 7   ever testify in any other case for the Church of
 8   Scientology?
 9             THE COURT:  What year was that, please,
10        Mr. Prince?
11             THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, I believe it was
12        1986.
13             THE COURT:  Were you still in the Church of
14        Scientology at the time?
15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16             THE COURT:  And you testified as an expert for
17        the church?
18             THE WITNESS:  I testified as to -- an expert
19        particularly in the NED for OTs material.
20             THE COURT:  See, he keeps saying that.  I don't
21        know what that --
22             THE WITNESS:  Oh.
23             THE COURT:  Nefrotease (phonetic)?
24             THE WITNESS:  NED for OTs.
25             MR. DANDAR:  F-o-r.
 1             THE WITNESS:  For.  NED for OTs.
 2             THE COURT:  Oh.  Sounds like you're saying
 3        nefrotease.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Oh.
 5             THE COURT:  NED for OTs.
 6             THE WITNESS:  NED for OTs.
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.
 8             THE WITNESS:  I was a person qualified to study
 9        those documents, so I did a comparison to what David
10        Mayo had as opposed to what the church had
11        copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.
12             THE COURT:  So Madam Court Reporter, you
13        understand all this time he's been saying that, it's
14        NED for OTs?
15             THE REPORTER:  Yes, your Honor.
16             THE COURT:  Not "nefrotease."  All right.
17             (A discussion was held off the record.)
18             MR. DANDAR:  And it's abbreviated as NOTS.
19             THE COURT:  So you were called to say, what,
20        that this NED for OTs material was --
21             THE WITNESS:  Was virtually identical to --
22             THE COURT:  To some L. Ron Hubbard material.
23             THE WITNESS:  No.  The NED for OTs is the L.
24        Ron Hubbard material.  I was comparing them to
25        similar materials that they were using at what was
 1        known as the Advanced Abilities Center.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, just for the record,
 3        my -- my understanding is that Mr. Prince was
 4        testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert
 5        witness.
 6             THE COURT:  Well, it does seem as if there's
 7        some complications as to who's a fact witness and
 8        who's an expert witness, and that's something we'll
 9        have to wrestle with in this trial too.  So we'll
10        not go there.  We'll say he was either a fact or an
11        expert witness.
13        Q    And you were -- you were always -- when you --
14   before you were told -- you didn't choose Mr. Miscavige as
15   being a leader and you were booted out onto the
16   rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before
17   that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?
18        A    Very much so.
19        Q    Okay.  I don't think your microphone's on.
20        A    Oh.  How about now?
21        Q    No.  I don't think it's turned on.
22        A    Oh.
23             THE COURT:  I can hear him fine.  If you
24        lawyers can hear him, okay.
 2        Q    Now, is there a -- how does Scientology consider a
 3   Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and
 4   talking about Scientology?
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 6             THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  What was the question?
 8        Q    How does the Church of Scientology consider
 9   someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  He's now speaking
11        for the entire Church of Scientology now?
12             THE COURT:  I don't know.
13        A    Well --
15        Q    Pursuant to the -- pursuant to written policy of
16   the Church of Scientology.
17        A    According --
18             MR. WEINBERG:  We --
19        A    -- to --
20             MR. WEINBERG:  We object.  He is certainly not
21        talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the
22        church considers some Scientologist coming in and
23        testifying.
24             THE COURT:  If he is testifying regarding his
25        experience when he was in the church and as a
 1        witness, I will allow it.  He is testifying,
 2        however, based on that and not -- he really wouldn't
 3        know how everybody else thinks.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  No.  It's based on the former.
 5        Right.
 6             THE COURT:  Right.
 7        A    It is written policy in the Scientology ethics
 8   book, in its management series and basic staff books, that
 9   it is a crime to come into a court and testify about
10   Scientology without first going over the information with
11   Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.
12             In other words, it's a crime to just walk into a
13   courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology,
14   without first Scientology being privy to what that's going
15   to be --
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, could we -- could he tell
17        us where this policy is?
18             THE COURT:  Right.
19             THE WITNESS:  Introduction to Scientology
20        Ethics.  It's right there.  I can pull it out and
21        read it for you.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  Could you point out --
23             MR. DANDAR:  I'm handing the witness a
24        hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
25             THE COURT:  Did you say without first
 1        discussing it with an ethics officer?
 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Here's one reference to that.  It
 5        says, "Testifying hostilely before a state --"
 6             THE COURT:  Why don't you give us a page
 7        number?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I'm sorry.  This is page
 9        number 209.
10             THE COURT:  Okay.
11             THE WITNESS:  It's listed under Suppressive
12        Act.  Suppressive Acts.  And it says, "Testifying
13        hostilely before state or public inquiries into
14        Scientology to suppress it --"
15             THE COURT:  Well, that doesn't really say --
16        what you had just testified to is that it was a
17        crime to testify without first discussing --
18             THE WITNESS:  Right.
19             THE COURT:  -- it with an ethics officer.
20             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  You're right.
21             And what I'm looking for is called --
22             THE COURT:  I'll tell you what we'll do.  Let's
23        just let him look for that either over the break,
24        our morning break, or at lunch.  And if he can't
25        find it, you can make your objection.  And if he
 1        can, then he can cite it into the record at that
 2        time and we can just go ahead and move on.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
 4             THE COURT:  So you keep that with you and you
 5        can --
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  We have no problem with bringing
 7        the whole book into evidence.  I mean, the book --
 8        many of the policies in there are -- we were
 9        probably going to -- are completely contradictory to
10        what Mr. Dandar's witnesses have been saying.
11             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, if you want to --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  So --
13             THE COURT:  -- put it in -- this may be
14        Mr. Dandar's only copy.  So if you want to put it
15        in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
18        Q    Mr. Prince, have you heard the term "acceptable
19   truth"?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    In Scientology policy, what does that mean?
22        A    An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you
23   don't have to tell the -- tell the whole truth or to tell an
24   accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be
25   acceptable to the person that you're speaking to.
 1        Q    Okay.  Does it have anything to do with not
 2   telling the truth?
 3        A    Very much so.  It's a way to evade or avoid a
 4   question or to avoid -- yeah -- to -- a direct question.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Could we ask Mr. Prince to
 6        identify the policy and show us where in the policy
 7        it says what he just said?
 8             THE COURT:  I think -- I think there's some
 9        stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  There is, but it doesn't say
11        what he just said, that it's okay to lie.
12             THE COURT:  Well, then it --
13             I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you're
14        talking about, is the document that I think I've
15        already seen --
16             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
17             THE COURT:  -- acceptable truth?
18             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
19             THE COURT:  So this is your interpretation of
20        it based on your years in the church?
21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
22             THE COURT:  I can't -- I can't remember what
23        number it is, but there is some number in evidence
24        that deals with acceptable truth.
25             MR. DANDAR:  It's -- it's called a PR series,
 1        and it talks about PR, public relations, and the
 2        second page mentions acceptable truths.
 3             And I'll find that for you during the break.
 5        Q    All right, Mr. -- Mr. Prince.  When is the first
 6   time you met Bob Minton?
 7        A    I met Bob Minton in 1998.  I think it was the
 8   spring of 1998 or perhaps -- no, perhaps it was the summer
 9   of 1998.
10        Q    And how was it that you came to meet him?
11        A    I met him through Mrs. Brooks.  She introduced me
12   to him.
13        Q    Where at?
14        A    New Hampshire.  At his home in New Hampshire.
15        Q    And what caused you to be at his home in New
16   Hampshire?
17        A    I was on vacation --
18             Well, this is kind of a long story.
19             I was on vacation in Connecticut.  Previous to
20   that, I had seen the Internet.  And I never knew anything
21   about it, and I just typed in, "Hey, my name is Jesse
22   Prince.  If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them
23   contact me.  Here's my number."
24             So I was vacationing in Connecticut.  Stacy called
25   me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.
 1        Q    Why is it that you went on the Internet for the
 2   first time and asked for -- have Stacy Vaughn -- Stacy Young
 3   or Vaughn Young call you?
 4        A    Well, this was 1998.  I had literally no contact
 5   with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that
 6   there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and
 7   people and things like that.  I was -- I didn't know
 8   anything about the Internet.  I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.
 9   And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of
10   this stuff come up about Scientology.  I saw all of these
11   people openly critical of Scientology.
12             Now, for me this was completely unheard of.
13   Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would
14   quickly be silenced.  And I saw that -- that Stacy and
15   Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to
16   them.  So I answered their message as best that I could, and
17   say, "I need these people to contact me."
18        Q    When was the last time you considered yourself a
19   Scientologist?
20        A    You know, I know I've answered the question in
21   different ways.  And the fact of the matter is, is it's kind
22   of hard to tell.  I -- for me, I think probably by 1996,
23   maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with
24   anything about it.
25        Q    You left the -- you left the organization where
 1   you -- from RTC, then RPF, and -- and you went to work for a
 2   Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a
 3   Scientologist, correct?
 4        A    Correct.
 5        Q    And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that
 6   company?
 7        A    Correct.
 8        Q    All right.  So were you a Scientologist, then,
 9   when you were working for that company?
10        A    You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.
11        Q    Okay.  When did you leave that company?
12        A    I left that company, I believe, in 1997.
13        Q    Okay.  When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley,
14   the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left,
15   formally, your position in Scientology?
16             THE COURT:  Well, let me help myself out here,
17        'cause I don't know --
18             When you left, whatever that is, were you still
19        a member of the Sea Org?
20             THE WITNESS:  No, your Honor.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.  When did you stop being a
22        member of the Sea Org?
23             THE WITNESS:  October 31st, 1992.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, that is the answer to your
 1        question.  That's when he left.
 2             THE COURT:  Well, that's --
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  So -- so when he left -- the day
 4        he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org,
 5        is what he's telling you, I think.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 7             THE COURT:  So why is it, from 1992 to 1996,
 8        that you still -- you were --
 9             You're saying you were like a public member?
10        Is that it?
11             THE WITNESS:  Just a Scientologist.  Correct.
12             THE COURT:  Just a Scientologist.  Okay.
14        Q    Judge just brought up something.
15             When -- how -- what is the -- what do the Sea Org
16   people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they're
17   Scientologists?
18        A    Public Scientologists.
19        Q    So they use the word "public."
20        A    Correct.
21        Q    Okay.  After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer
22   of '98, what did you do after that, in reference to
23   Mr. Minton?
24        A    I went back home to Minneapolis.  At the time, I
25   was living in Minneapolis.  And I continued to have dialogue
 1   with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that
 2   Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet.
 3             And we started to --
 4             THE COURT:  What was the date, now?
 5             I'm sorry, Mr. Prince.
 6             THE WITNESS:  This would have been 1998.
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.  This was after you went to
 8        Mr. Minton's home in New Hampshire?  You stayed in
 9        touch?  Is what you're --
10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
11             THE COURT:  Okay.
12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
13        A    She said -- she talked to me about that, and she
14   put me in touch with Daniel Leipold.  And I started looking
15   over some of the issues, and thought that I could help.
16             So I started talking with Daniel Leipold,
17   Mrs. Brooks.  And within a week I received a letter from a
18   Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson, letting me know that
19   I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against
20   Scientology, basically.
22        Q    Based on what?
23        A    Based on -- well, for me to leave the situation
24   that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to -- it was a kind of a
25   give-or-take thing.  I had to make certain concessions.
 1             I was being held there against my will, as well as
 2   my wife.  We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs
 3   and -- for months.  And we were told that if we signed these
 4   documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door.
 5             Again, this went on for months.
 6             And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted
 7   us to sign --
 8             THE COURT:  Of what year?
 9             You see, everything --
10             THE WITNESS:  October of 1992.
11        A    Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed.
12             So he made reference to the fact that I had signed
13   a document saying I wouldn't assist anyone in bringing any
14   legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.
16        Q    FACTNet wasn't bringing legal action; they were
17   being sued by Scientology.
18        A    Correct.
19             THE COURT:  Who was this lawyer again?  Which
20        lawyer?
21             THE WITNESS:  Elliott Abelson.
23        Q    And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold
24   on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson.
25   What did you do?
 1        A    Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the
 2   situation to him then, Daniel Leipold.  And when I explained
 3   the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against
 4   maybe Golden Era or whatever -- I never actually saw the
 5   suit myself -- and filed it in Riverside County.
 6             And then there was a whole press thing.  I was
 7   interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.
 8        Q    Okay.  Anything come out of that lawsuit?
 9        A    No.
10        Q    All right.  So did you go to work for FACTNet?
11        A    Yes, I did.
12        Q    All right.  And how long did you stay there?
13        A    Maybe about a year, a year and a half.
14        Q    Okay.  '98 to '99?
15        A    '98 to '99.  Yeah.  About a year.
16        Q    Okay.  And at some point in time you came to
17   Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?
18        A    Correct.
19        Q    All right.  And you looked over those folders with
20   Stacy Brooks?
21        A    Yes, I did.
22        Q    And then after we received a copy of the PC
23   folders under court order, you went and took your time and
24   examined all --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, could there be
 1        direct questions and not --
 2             THE COURT:  Yes.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  I'm just trying to speed it up.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I would prefer a direct
 5        question.
 6             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, you know what, some of
 7        this -- you're right.  But some of this is
 8        preliminary.  We know he looked at the folders.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  It's the -- it's the testimony.
10             THE COURT:  Okay.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  I know he looked at them, and I
12        didn't object to that part of it.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
14             (A discussion was held off the record.)
15             THE COURT:  We'll take a break right now.
16        We'll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes.
17        15, we'll try for.
18               (A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)
19             (The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)
20             MR. BATTAGLIA:  Your Honor, may I approach the
21        bench?
22             THE COURT:  You may.
23             MR. BATTAGLIA:  I'd like to announce to the
24        court I'm going to be making an appearance in this
25        matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will
 1        be submitting a formal notice.  I just want the
 2        court to be aware of that.
 3             THE COURT:  Now, will that be for all purposes?
 4             MR. BATTAGLIA:  Well, for all purposes.  But
 5        Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the
 6        case.
 7             We will send in a formal notice.  We were
 8        retained this past Thursday.
 9             THE COURT:  All right.  Very good.  I think,
10        Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I
11        frankly would like to hear.  Because it is a motion,
12        I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim.  And if it's
13        not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it
14        because it could have some bearing on the
15        counterclaim.
16             MR. BATTAGLIA:  I have to check that.  I
17        understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may
18        have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative
19        defenses.  I'd have to check that out.
20             THE COURT:  If he did, I haven't seen it.
21             MR. DANDAR:  I'm Ken Dandar, by the way.
22             Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the
23        pending counterclaim.  They never filed the new
24        counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely
25        filed a motion to dismiss.  We never received a new
 1        counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as
 2        a defendant.  We're still waiting for that.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.  I think that perhaps the
 4        reason why they didn't file a new one is because I
 5        allowed him to be added orally, to be -- to be
 6        amended, I guess.  So perhaps they -- I mean,
 7        Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for
 8        all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments,
 9        because he did file a motion to dismiss or
10        something.
11             MR. BATTAGLIA:  Your Honor, I did look.  That
12        was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there
13        was no order in the file, and then there was a
14        corrective counterclaim that was filed.  And I
15        didn't understand the import of that, because the
16        party was just added by a corrective counterclaim
17        without an order of the court.  I assumed you had
18        granted that orally.
19             THE COURT:  I had.  And I had granted it
20        orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order.
21             Can you all go back and maybe look into that?
22        Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.
23             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
24             THE COURT:  And I granted it.  And I know
25        Mr. Howie was here, and I said, "It's granted and he
 1        is now a party."
 2             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.  And he was allowed to sit
 3        in as a party from then on, as opposed to being
 4        excluded under the rules.
 5             MR. BATTAGLIA:  Is there presently a motion to
 6        dismiss pending?
 7             THE COURT:  Yes.  That Mr. Howie has filed.
 8             MR. BATTAGLIA:  Filed on behalf of Minton?
 9             THE COURT:  Yes.
10             MR. BATTAGLIA:  We'll look into that.
11             THE COURT:  It's more than a motion to dismiss.
12             MR. BATTAGLIA:  It is.  It's a motion to
13        dismiss and a motion to strike.
14             THE COURT:  Yes.
15             MR. BATTAGLIA:  I saw that.  And we'll get back
16        to the court.
17             You got to understand we're coming in very
18        late.  There's thousands and thousands of exhibits.
19        And we're just trying to catch up here.
20             THE COURT:  Yes.  There are thousands and
21        thousands of exhibits.
22             MR. BATTAGLIA:  It's going to take a bit --
23             THE COURT:  I'm sure it is.
24              (The reporter had technical problems
25            and there was a pause in the proceedings.)
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, before the break,
 2        Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the
 3        section --
 4             THE COURT:  Yes.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  In the ethics book that said you
 6        had to get the permission of an ethics officer to
 7        testify about Scientology.  Could he --
 8             THE COURT:  Did you find that?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, I misspoke as to
10        where the actual quote was.  It's not in the ethics
11        book, but it is in another volume which
12        unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it
13        and I will submit it to the court.
14             THE COURT:  All right.  And the same -- if you
15        can't, why, we'll strike that.
16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
18        Q    Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit
19   Number 123.  Can you identify 123?
20        A    Yes.  This is a series that's put out for the
21   technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC
22   Folder and the contents of the PC folder.
23        Q    And is this something you were trained on as a
24   technical person in Scientology?
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    Okay.
 2             THE COURT:  I hate to interrupt you, and I feel
 3        really bad about it.
 4             This was laying here.  I don't know whether
 5        this is something that was previously admitted.  It
 6        doesn't have a number on it.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  This was.  This was 114, which was
 8        admitted.
 9             THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.
10             MR. DANDAR:  I'd like to move Exhibit 123 in
11        evidence.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Is it one exhibit or two
13        exhibits?  You handed me --
14             MR. DANDAR:  Did I hand you two?
15             MR. WEINBERG:  You handed me The PC folder and
16        Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs.  One
17        was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was
18        after Mr. Hubbard died.  But I don't have an
19        objection to it, if you want --
20             THE COURT:  It does look like you have two
21        different things here.
22             MR. DANDAR:  I have two.  And I meant to do
23        that.  It involves the --
24             THE COURT:  Well, then, how about making them A
25        and B?
 1             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
 2             THE COURT:  123-A will be The PC folder and Its
 3        Contents; 123-B, if you're saying it's related, will
 4        be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs --
 5             MR. DANDAR:  Well --
 6             THE COURT:  -- 123-B?
 7             MR. DANDAR:  Let's make sure I'm right about
 8        that.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  When I say I'm not going to
10        object, I do have an objection to all of this and
11        Mr. Prince testifying, but I don't object to the
12        authenticity of these.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
15        Q    Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that
16   apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its
17   Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs -- is that
18   related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that
19   something different?
20        A    That's something different.
21             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  Then I will withdraw that.
22             THE COURT:  All right.  So it's just 123, The
23        PC Folder and Its Content.
24             MR. DANDAR:  Right.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2        Q    Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology
 3   allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987
 4   on what is supposed to be in a person's PC folder?
 5        A    Not at all.  The whole purpose of this issue is to
 6   clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder.
 7   It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail,
 8   and auditors -- any person that audits in Scientology is
 9   trained on this as a basic for auditing.
10        Q    Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point.
11   Mr. Hubbard died in 1986.  How can this policy letter dated
12   November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on
13   it?
14        A    Well, turning to the last page, it says, "This is
15   a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research
16   Compilations."  There are other -- there's another issue
17   type that isn't a formal issue type within Scientology,
18   which is called advices.  And often, from advices, policy
19   letters can be compiled and issued.
20        Q    And that's what this is?  This is a compilation?
21        A    Correct.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Like to move Exhibit 123 into
23        evidence.
24             THE COURT:  It'll be received.
 2        Q    Also Mr. Prince, I'm going to show you Exhibit
 3   124.  It's marked for identification.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  Hand one to the court and counsel.
 6        Q    Can you identify 124?
 7        A    Yes.  This is a Scientology policy directive.  And
 8   this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and
 9   authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church
10   policy.  This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear
11   folders and what's expected to be in them.
12             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  I'd like to move 124 into
13        evidence.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  No objection.
15             THE COURT:  All right.  It'll be received.
17        Q    Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa
18   McPherson's 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?
19        A    No, I did not.
20        Q    Did you create an affidavit which -- where you
21   disclosed things that were missing?
22        A    Yes, I did.
23             THE COURT:  Are we now into that part of the
24        testimony that deals with the complaint itself?
25             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.
 3        Q    Mr. Prince -- and we've already had marked, and I
 4   believe it's in evidence, Plaintiff's Exhibit 108, which is
 5   your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC
 6   folders, and with a list of things that are missing.  Do you
 7   recall creating that affidavit?
 8        A    Yes, I do.
 9        Q    Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?
10        A    Yes, I do.
11        Q    Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?
12             THE COURT:  What was the number of Plaintiff's
13        Exhibit again?  108?
14             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
15             Let's make sure it's in evidence.  I'm pretty
16        sure it is.
17             THE COURT:  As a matter of fact, if he's going
18        to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could
19        get -- let me use the official copy.  And I'm sure
20        you filed mine in its appropriate book.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, while she's looking,
22        I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what
23        was or what was not in the PC folder.
24             What the hearing is about is whether or not
25        Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince
 1        executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David
 2        Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there's been
 3        various misconduct from the plaintiff's side
 4        regarding various testimony in the case.
 5             What does what was in the PC folder or not have
 6        to do with that?
 7             MR. DANDAR:  This falls under the second
 8        category in Mr. Weinberg's comments:  Various
 9        misconduct.  They have accused me of lying about the
10        fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave
11        Scientology.  Somehow I just made that all up and I
12        got people to lie about it.  And that's part of
13        their terminating sanction motion and
14        disqualification motion.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  So you --
16             But what's that got to do with what's missing?
17        You going to ask him what was in the PC folders?  Is
18        that what you're saying?
19             THE COURT:  Well, there's also an allegation as
20        to his complaint and whether or not there's any
21        basis for it.  And part of what I have read, maybe
22        in Mr. Prince's affidavit, that some of the missing
23        data is data from the workers, which the testimony
24        would be, from some witness -- Mr. Prince,
25        perhaps -- should have been in the PC folders,
 1        and --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  I mean, I -- they've made that
 3        allegation, although the workers all testified what
 4        they did, what they saw and all that.  But that has
 5        nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige
 6        ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed.  Just --
 7             THE COURT:  Well, whether it was an intentional
 8        death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it
 9        does.  So your objection's overruled.
10             MR. DANDAR:  Was 109 not in evidence?
11             THE COURT:  And besides that -- I don't know
12        what his testimony's going to be, but if this is, in
13        some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion,
14        then I think it's got to be relevant for his
15        opinion.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  I thought it was inquiring.  I
17        mean, it's --
18             THE COURT:  I think that probably for all those
19        different things it has some relevance, so I'm going
20        to let it in.
21             MR. DANDAR:  And Judge, 108's previously been
22        admitted into evidence.
23             THE COURT:  Right.
25        Q    Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of
 1   Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?
 2        A    I did not.
 3        Q    And recently we showed you some routing forms
 4   that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of
 5   Scientology states they have reproduced to us.  And did you
 6   review those?
 7        A    Yes, I did.
 8        Q    Do those routing forms have anything to do with
 9   Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft.
10   Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?
11        A    No, they do not.
12        Q    Do those routing forms have anything to do with
13   Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel
14   from November 18th of '95 to December 5th of '95?
15        A    No, they do not.
16        Q    Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson,
17   stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?
18        A    No, she could not.
19        Q    What would the routing form tell us?
20             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Competence.  I mean,
21        is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to
22        what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison
23        Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?
24        You have to have a routing form as opposed to
25        registering as a guest?  What basis?  He never
 1        worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.
 2             THE COURT:  He is telling us, based on his
 3        experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form
 4        is used for and what a routing form should have on
 5        it.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  But Mr. Dandar asked him whether
 7        you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft.
 8        Harrison Hotel.
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Well, let me rephrase the
10        question.
12        Q    Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a
13   program such as the introspection rundown, whether it's the
14   Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of
15   Scientology?
16        A    Yes, you do.
17        Q    And why is that?
18        A    Because the Ft. Harrison --
19             And I'll just say this:  It's incorrect that I
20   never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.  I worked at the Ft.
21   Harrison from 1979 to 1982.
22             The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many
23   departments, many sections that people come either for
24   training or for auditing.  They have different places where
25   people would get auditing.
 1             And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a
 2   person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their
 3   hotel room, they're routed to pay for their hotel room, they
 4   get what their room is, any questions are answered.  When
 5   they're ready for services, they go down, they're put on
 6   another routing form.
 7             And like, if they're going to get a service -- a
 8   training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing
 9   form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and
10   see the director of processing; maybe they would get an
11   interview.
12             In other words, the routing form gives you the
13   areas and the people that you need to see and the places you
14   need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.
15        Q    And is there any policy that permits a deviation
16   from the requirement to have a routing form?
17        A    No, there is not.
18        Q    As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it
19   mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa
20   McPherson?
21        A    Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity.  But
22   when you take into consideration the fact -- many other
23   items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only
24   opine that this was information that would have not been
25   good to discover for Scientology's behalf.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.
 3        Q    Have you --
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Competence, your Honor.
 5             THE COURT:  I'm going to allow it.  I'm going
 6        to allow it for this hearing.
 8        Q    Have you been involved in the destruction --
 9   intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in
10   addition to Mr. Wollersheim's, that you previously testified
11   about at this hearing --
12        A    Well --
13        Q    -- which was ordered to be pulped by
14   Mr. Miscavige?
15        A    Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident
16   happened, because there were threats from other people such
17   as John Nelson and -- well, I don't know.  You know, there
18   was a list of people at the time.  The only one that I
19   specifically recall right now is John Nelson.  But their
20   folders were destroyed as well.
21        Q    What about Mr. Armstrong?
22        A    Yes.  His as well.
23        Q    What about Mr. Franks?
24        A    I believe his was as well.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me.
 1             THE COURT:  Yeah.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Believe?  Or does he know?
 3             THE COURT:  Do you know that or --
 4             THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, as I sit here today,
 5        I can't say for certain --
 6             THE COURT:  Okay.
 7             THE WITNESS:  -- but I knew there were
 8        certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim's folders,
 9        because there were a list of people.  And I can't
10        sit here and recall today every name --
11             THE COURT:  Okay.
12             THE WITNESS:  -- that was on that list.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
15        Q    What is the significance to you -- let's start
16   with the missing -- what's missing from her folder.
17             In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski
18   states she was under November 18th through December 5th of
19   '95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder
20   that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection
21   rundown?
22             THE COURT:  What dates, now?  Are we talking
23        about the 17-day dates?
24             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.
 1        A    Yes.  There would have been, in the very front of
 2   the folder, what's called a program.  It would have been a
 3   repair program.  It would have been something that's on a
 4   pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
 5   The color in the paper -- the color within the preclear
 6   folder also has significance.
 7             But in Lisa's case, there would have been, if she
 8   was on -- on the introspection rundown, it would have given
 9   a short statement of who she was, what she's accomplished,
10   what her last auditing activities were, and what the current
11   problem was, what the symptoms were that she was
12   experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection
13   rundown.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, I have an objection
15        to this whole line.  I -- I take it where he's going
16        is to suggest that she wasn't on the introspection
17        rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she
18        was on the introspection rundown.  It's not an issue
19        in this case.  We answered the complaint.  It's not
20        an issue.
21             THE COURT:  That's true.
22             MR. DANDAR:  I subsequently discovered that
23        this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski,
24        under oath, said was in her PC folder.  Now I'm not
25        sure what she was going through and where she was.
 1             These things -- these things are missing, and
 2        we would have to conform the pleadings to the
 3        evidence as we discover new things that are -- go
 4        on.
 5             THE COURT:  So what are you saying?  Are you
 6        saying that you -- that she was not under the
 7        introspection rundown?
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Well --
 9             THE COURT:  Or you don't know?
10             MR. DANDAR:  I'm saying it's not a confirmed
11        fact that she was on the introspection rundown,
12        because of what's missing.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm going to let this
14        witness testify at this hearing, because we need to
15        get to where it was that he comes up with his
16        conclusions --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
18             THE COURT:  -- and I assume all this has
19        something to do with it, so --
20             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm not sure I have the same
21        assumption, but I understand where you're --
22             THE COURT:  All right.
24        Q    In your experience in Scientology, were things
25   that were beneficial -- papers and documents that were
 1   beneficial to Scientology removed from a member's PC folder?
 2        A    No.  You know -- and I've written a declaration
 3   about this before -- well, this declaration may be in and of
 4   itself -- you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the
 5   process of, "Okay, well, we'll turn over something; we'll go
 6   through and we'll -- we'll get rid of any kind of
 7   incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology."
 8   Then when the production of all the folders were called for,
 9   it -- that became too massive of a task and it was decided
10   to destroy them.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, could I say one more
12        thing, so I don't lose this train of thought?
13             I did object, and I understand your ruling, but
14        he already had alleged that -- that the
15        introspection rundown happened, and his response to
16        your question and my statement was, "I just recently
17        discovered it."  Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC
18        folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and
19        whatever wasn't there in December of 1998 certainly
20        isn't there now.  So what's he talking about?
21             THE COURT:  I don't know, but I think that this
22        testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince
23        concluded what he concluded, which is what
24        Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint.  It is
25        relevant for this hearing.
 1             Please don't object again.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sorry.
 4        Q    Mr. Prince, you -- when did you actually sit down
 5   and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?
 6        A    It was in the fall of 1999.
 7        Q    What's the date of that affidavit?
 8        A    The date of this affidavit is April -- the 4th of
 9   April, 2000.
10        Q    Okay.  And concerning this one issue, the issue of
11   whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her
12   Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she
13   had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?
14        A    Yes, it does.  And I think I've covered that with
15   as much detail as possible:  That she wanted to leave.  She
16   actually made plans to leave.  And she felt like she was
17   starting to become damaged.
18        Q    And that's inside the PC folders?
19        A    Correct.
20        Q    Now, within your experience of Scientology, have
21   you used -- have you -- are you familiar with the term "end
22   cycle"?
23        A    Yes, I am.
24        Q    And what is your understanding or familiarity with
25   that term?
 1             THE COURT:  Can I --
 2             I'm sorry.  I'm as bad at interrupting chain of
 3        thought as anybody.
 4             This -- this particular affidavit is the
 5        affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave
 6        that was part of the motion for summary judgment
 7        that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Well, that was part of it, but
 9        there's a lot more than just that in there.  It
10        talks about things that are missing from her PC
11        folder.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Now we're past
13        the missing items from the PC folder and to --
14             MR. DANDAR:  Trying to get that paragraph 34.
15             THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.
16             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
18        Q    Are people who want to leave the Church of
19   Scientology -- how are they looked at, within your
20   experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?
21        A    Well, people who want to leave Scientology and
22   publicly state such are considered criminals, because that's
23   a high crime in Scientology.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor --
25        A    I do have the instant reference on that right now.
 2        Q    And what is that?
 3        A    That PT/SP package that was --
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Can we just establish, is he
 5        talking about staff members or public members or
 6        both?
 7             THE WITNESS:  Any member of Scientology, public
 8        member of Scientology, it's a high crime.
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  I'm handing the witness
10        PT/SP course, a booklet that was previously talked
11        about --
12             THE COURT:  Oh, yes.
13             MR. DANDAR:  -- by other witnesses.
14             THE COURT:  I think it's in evidence, isn't it?
15             MR. DANDAR:  It's possible.  I mean, I'm not
16        sure.
17             THE COURT:  Maybe it isn't, but I've seen that
18        book.
19             MR. DANDAR:  Right.  Search and Discovery is in
20        evidence.  That came out of here.
21             THE WITNESS:  Says right here, "It is a high
22        crime to publicly depart Scientology."  And this
23        comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965,
24        RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and
25        Scientologists.
 1             THE COURT:  What page are you reading from,
 2        sir, in that book?
 3             THE WITNESS:  Where I read that quote from, I
 4        am reading from -- I just read from 159.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I'll have that entire
 7        policy marked.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, my objection to this
 9        is it talks about -- Mr. Prince read it --
10        publicly -- a person publicly announces he's going
11        to depart Scientology.  Well, that's not what we
12        have in this case.  What's that have to do with this
13        case?
14             THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  I didn't hear him say
15        "publicly."
16             MR. WEINBERG:  That's what he read.  That
17        was --
18             THE WITNESS:  It says, "It is a high crime to
19        publicly depart Scientology."
20             I think Lisa had done that, because she had
21        told her mother and she had told a friend that she
22        was leaving Scientology.  And she made it known, in
23        the notes that I made here, that she intended to
24        leave.  She wasn't happy with --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  I object to that statement
 1        because the evidence --
 2             THE COURT:  Well, look, you don't need to
 3        object to that, because I know enough about --
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
 5             THE COURT:  -- the evidence with the mother and
 6        the evidence with the friend and the fact that what
 7        would be in her PC folder would hardly be public,
 8        where I can determine the validity of that
 9        statement.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  All right.
12        Q    Mr. Prince, within your experience with
13   Scientology, what does that -- what does it mean to publicly
14   leave Scientology?
15        A    You could publicly leave Scientology in several
16   ways.  You could submit a letter of resignation and make
17   that letter available to other parties beyond a recant,
18   which would -- in a normal organization, would be the ethics
19   officer.  I guess in these days and times you could go on
20   the Internet or you could just simply announce to your
21   friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the
22   intention of leaving.
23             THE COURT:  How about if I just don't go back?
24        I mean, if I'm a member of a church -- which I was
25        at one time when I was a child -- and I just don't
 1        go back?  I mean, is that -- is that leaving?
 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  That is considered a form
 3        of leaving.  And -- and in that instance, if you
 4        just simply left, you would be contacted and asked
 5        to come into the organization so that they could
 6        find out what happened.  If you --
 7             THE COURT:  And what if you just don't go in?
 8             In other words, I'm a public member, which is
 9        what Lisa McPherson was -- this is a hypothetical --
10        and I -- even -- I don't want to go back and I don't
11        want to get any more auditing and I don't want to go
12        to any more services and I just don't go?
13             THE WITNESS:  Well --
14             THE COURT:  They say, "Come in," and I just
15        decline and I don't go.
16             THE WITNESS:  Then they'll show up on your
17        door.
18             THE COURT:  Oh.
20        Q    Okay.
21        A    There's a process of getting out of Scientology.
22   There is a way to do it.  And normally, it involves signing
23   a release agreeing that you will never -- that you'll be
24   ineligible for Scientology services in the future --
25        Q    To --
 1        A    -- and you would also have to sign a statement
 2   saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or
 3   upset that you had -- in other words, a general release for
 4   the different Scientology corporations that you've been
 5   involved in.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Could we just make it clear that
 7        that's only -- that he's talking about staff members
 8        and not public members having to sign a release?
 9             THE WITNESS:  I -- it's staff and public.  I --
10        that's the second time I've said that.
12        Q    Okay.  Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her
13   friend from high school about wanting to leave.  Where did
14   you get that information from?
15        A    From her testimony.
16        Q    The friend's testimony?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Kelly Davis?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    And when you said that Lisa called her mother and
21   said she wanted to leave.  Where did you get that from?
22        A    I think -- I read -- I read it -- I read it
23   somewhere in the evidence.  I can't --
24        Q    Okay.
25        A    -- put my finger on exactly where --
 1        Q    Do you recall --
 2        A    -- I saw it.
 3        Q    -- Lisa's mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker
 4   by the name Sandra Anderson?
 5        A    That's right.
 6        Q    Is that what you're referring to?
 7        A    Yes.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, is he, like,
 9        prompting him now?
10             THE COURT:  I would say so.
11             Stop leading him.
12             MR. DANDAR:  It's either -- wanted to make sure
13        it wasn't from me.  Because that's the accusation.
14             THE COURT:  Move on, Counselor.
15             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
17        Q    Mr. Prince, end cycle.  Can you tell us what --
18   where and when you've heard that or seen that term?
19        A    End cycle has a history in Scientology.  And it
20   has varied meanings.
21             One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and
22   stop something.  In other words, you start it -- you start
23   an activity, you carry through to its intended result or
24   purpose, and then you end it.  So ending the cycle, you
25   know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle
 1   when the judge decides who's right and who's wrong or
 2   discovers the issues.  That's one form of end cycle.
 3             Another form of end cycle is to die.  This --
 4   this -- this idea of ending cycle to die came into
 5   prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology
 6   after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior
 7   CS Ray Mithoff.  Because I was curious.  He sat on a
 8   deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.  And I asked him, you know,
 9   "When he died --" I asked him, you know, because this was --
10   L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to.  And
11   I -- and I was curious.  You know, "Well, how did this man
12   die?  What were the exact circumstances?  What happened
13   there?"
14             And he said that he positively started shutting
15   down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part
16   of his systems.  And I asked, "Well, how does this happen?
17   I mean, what are you -- what are you doing?"  And he told me
18   the Scientology process is that you use -- you know, you
19   talk about what the -- your attention may be stuck on; at
20   what problems do you have with dying?  I mean, there's a
21   whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so
22   that you have no attention or problems with death and can
23   die.
24             When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started
25   seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as
 1   far as to die.
 2             THE COURT:  Is this a little bit like a -- what
 3        we might think of Hospice and how they prepare
 4        someone --
 5             THE WITNESS:  Sure.
 6             THE COURT:  -- with a terminal disease in your
 7        family and --
 8             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 9             THE COURT:  Okay.
11        Q    Well, Mr. Hubbard didn't have a terminal disease,
12   though, did he?
13        A    To my knowledge, no.
14        Q    But he still went through that process of end
15   cycle?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    So where else did you see that term used in
18   reference to dying?
19        A    Terminally ill people.  I've also read this up in
20   affidavits.
21             A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had
22   Hodgkin's disease.  It was apparently fatal.  I saw in his
23   folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do
24   in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you
25   know, to die.
 1             THE COURT:  Die in peace --
 2             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 3             THE COURT:  -- like in Hospice.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.
 6        Q    Do they do that by themselves?
 7        A    No.  It's done with an auditor.
 8        Q    And did you --
 9             THE COURT:  With what, sir?
10             THE WITNESS:  An auditor.
12        Q    And is there ever anything in writing about having
13   an auditor go in and assist someone to die?
14        A    Absolutely.  There would be, as in Lisa's case, a
15   program.  That program would --
16             MR. DANDAR:  Can I -- can I please have these
17        people stop laughing?
18             THE COURT:  Yes.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  We apologize.
20             And I object.  "As in Lisa's case, a program."
21        I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there
22        was no program, and therefore --
23             THE COURT:  He is trying to tell us what he
24        believes to be missing --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 1             THE COURT:  -- which is what he's talking
 2        about:  Missing things in the PC folder, which is
 3        what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar,
 4        who filed the complaint.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  But the question was, though,
 6        was generally about his understanding of end cycle,
 7        end of cycle.
 8             THE COURT:  Your objection is overruled.
 9             And I'm going to instruct you all back there to
10        stop laughing.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  You're right.
12             THE COURT:  Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
14             THE COURT:  So it's your belief that an auditor
15        would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died?
16        Is that what you're suggesting, from this missing --
17        missing documents, or what?
18             THE WITNESS:  Well -- well, you know, your
19        Honor, for me that's kind of mixing apples and
20        oranges.  Because the question he asked me was about
21        a specific incident that happened with a fellow
22        named Ted Cormack --
23             THE COURT:  Right.
24             THE WITNESS:  -- so.
25             THE COURT:  Did you see his PC folder?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
 2             THE COURT:  And what is in there?
 3             THE WITNESS:  The process is similar to what
 4        you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace;
 5        you know -- you know, as far as they're concerned
 6        everything's taken care of and they can go.
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.  And so that you saw that in
 8        his PC folder?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  You know --
10             THE COURT:  And said an auditor was there?
11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.  So how do you jump from
13        there to something that's missing in Lisa
14        McPherson's folder and assume that there was an
15        auditor with her with some end cycle directive?
16             THE WITNESS:  Well, with -- and we'll get to
17        that too.
18             But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is --
19        it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a
20        program; that that program most assuredly was in her
21        file folder at some point, along with other reports
22        that are detailed -- that are missing; and those --
23        you know, for whatever reason, those things weren't
24        turned over or made available.
25             THE COURT:  Let's assume that -- for the sake
 1        of argument, that what she was on was the
 2        introspection rundown, and that something went
 3        wrong, and she wasn't taken to the hospital as
 4        quickly as she should have been, and she died.  And
 5        let's assume further that somehow or another
 6        somebody removed part of that from her folder.  That
 7        would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an
 8        auditor being there or anything of the sort.
 9             So I guess my main question is, what caused you
10        to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the
11        documents were missing?
12             And there's no question of that.  So two and a
13        half days, I guess of documents are missing --
14             THE WITNESS:  Right.
15             THE COURT:  -- toward the end of this -- I'll
16        call it an introspection rundown.
17             You know, how do you know that that just didn't
18        have something to do with the fact that either
19        somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B,
20        if they were destroyed it was because somebody was
21        negligent and they didn't want somebody to see that?
22        How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her
23        death and said, "End cycle," or whatever it is
24        that's in the complaint?
25             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  This is exactly how I came
 1        to the conclusion --
 2             THE COURT:  Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?
 3             MR. DANDAR:  No, no.
 4             THE COURT:  That's what we need to get to.
 5             MR. DANDAR:  Let's get -- let's get to it.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Let's get to it.
 7             THE COURT:  Get to it.
 8             How did you conclude -- how did you --
 9             I presume that you read the PC folders.
10             THE WITNESS:  Right.
11             THE COURT:  You answered Mr. Dandar's
12        questions.  He asked you as his consultant, "Can you
13        tell me what you think --"
14             THE WITNESS:  "What happened?"
15             THE COURT:  This is what you told him, and he
16        put it in the complaint.
17             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
18             THE COURT:  All right.  So now you got to tell
19        me how you came to the conclusion you came to and
20        what it is you told Mr. Dandar --
21             THE WITNESS:  I'll --
22             THE COURT:  -- okay?
23             THE WITNESS:  -- tell you exactly --
24             THE COURT:  All right.
25             THE WITNESS:  -- how I did that, your Honor.
 1             THE COURT:  All right.
 2             THE WITNESS:  From reading Lisa McPherson's
 3        preclear folders, reading her ethics folders,
 4        seeing, kind of like, what's missing -- and it
 5        didn't make sense for these things to be out of the
 6        preclear folder unless they were damaging to the
 7        church.
 8             And again, I've been in a position where, you
 9        know, it was considered documents within a preclear
10        folder were damaging to Scientology so they're
11        removed for Scientology's sake.
12             But even a step back from that, your Honor, you
13        get a person --
14             And it clearly states on the introspection
15        rundown that once you are assigned to the
16        introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave
17        introspection rundown until the case supervisor
18        tells you you can leave.  You are literally
19        incarcerated until you are told you can leave.
20             THE COURT:  Well, you know, that may be your
21        interpretation.  If somebody is -- is what I would
22        consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally
23        disturbed, you really wouldn't want them leaving
24        because they might be -- you know --
25             You handled an introspection rundown, right?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Sure.  Yes.  I've done them.
 2             THE COURT:  And I've read what -- what you and
 3        Ms. Brooks said about this woman.  So apparently
 4        there was a time when she was in a situation where
 5        you wouldn't have wanted her just stumbling around
 6        the street, right?
 7             THE WITNESS:  Right.  Correct.
 8             But you know, be that as it may, again, the
 9        person is not allowed to leave until they have
10        permission to leave.
11             THE COURT:  Okay.
12             THE WITNESS:  So whether or not this person
13        experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour
14        and said, "Hey, look, I just want to do something
15        else," they still could not leave, okay?
16             Now, what happens in that situation, from
17        introspection rundowns that I've done -- that I have
18        done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and
19        being incarcerated -- what happens?
20             When you're in a situation you don't want to
21        be, you say -- you tell them, "Look, I don't want to
22        be here."  "Well, too bad.  You have to be here."
23        "No.  It's not too bad.  Now, really, guys, it's
24        over.  I just want to go."  "No.  You're not going."
25             Well, what happens?  It escalates.  The person
 1        says, "Hey, look, if you don't let me out of here,
 2        I'm going to call the police.  If you don't call --
 3        let me out of here, I'm going to find a way to
 4        contact law enforcement.  I'm going to find a way to
 5        get out of here.  You better let me out of here."
 6        And it escalates like that.  And this has happened.
 7             And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa
 8        happened to Lisa -- the reason why I gave that
 9        opinion is, number one, what is missing and what
10        would have been there, which happens as a natural
11        consequence, is, when you're held against your will
12        and people don't want to let you go, then you
13        complain.  You threaten.
14             She threatened.  Oh, no.  Now it becomes a huge
15        problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and
16        she wants to leave, and she's already made it clear,
17        through what I've written here, that Scientology
18        procedures are -- is not making her spiritually more
19        able; it's not furthering her ideas of -- of, kind
20        of, what she had in mind.
21             So it is my opinion that Lisa started
22        threatening Scientology at some point.  She started
23        threatening to go to the police.  She may have
24        threatened that, "I'm going to sue you if you don't
25        let me go.  I'm going to do whatever."  You know,
 1        push the buttons in -- in the hope to get out.  They
 2        didn't let her out.
 3             I think that Lisa became very sick.  I think
 4        Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were
 5        once she left.  And when -- and in that horrible
 6        situation, for Scientology, it would have been a
 7        nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital -- to
 8        leave Scientology and go to the hospital.
 9             Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I
10        state it as such.
11             For them -- for her to say, "Look, they locked
12        me in there."  You know, "This happened, that
13        happened."  And --
14             THE COURT:  Well --
15             THE WITNESS:  -- boom --
16             THE COURT:  -- there was nothing that indicates
17        she wanted to go to the hospital.  She left -- I
18        mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to
19        leave the hospital, so --
20             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
21             THE COURT:  -- if she'd left, presumably she
22        was going to go home.
23             THE WITNESS:  Right.
24             Well, you know -- of course, we know that that
25        didn't happen.
 1             THE COURT:  Well, I know.  But you're saying
 2        what a horrible nightmare it would have been.  The
 3        truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had
 4        gone home to her mother and sister and what have
 5        you, there would have been no nightmare at all --
 6             THE WITNESS:  That's --
 7             THE COURT:  -- for Scientology.
 8             THE WITNESS:  -- right.  That's right.  It
 9        would have been fine.
10             But now we're in a different situation, you
11        see, because now she's being held against her will.
12        You know, you see -- you see in the reports how she
13        becomes violent.
14             You know, again, in my experience, as a natural
15        progression, when you are being held and you want to
16        be in one place and somebody's making you stay in
17        one place, it starts to escalate.
18             THE COURT:  Let me ask you a question,
19        Mr. Prince:
20             Have you ever been in a mental hospital?
21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
22             THE COURT:  So you know how, in a mental
23        hospital, when somebody is really -- I'm going to
24        use the term "crazy," okay?  Very sick.  Somebody
25        who's psychologically extremely disturbed.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 2             THE COURT:  Well, they want to leave too,
 3        right?  That's why they have them behind locked
 4        doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is
 5        because they want to leave.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hmm.
 7             THE COURT:  And they're not fit to leave
 8        mentally.  They would be a danger to themselves,
 9        perhaps others, to let them out in the street.  So
10        when somebody's in a mental hospital, very sick, and
11        they say they want to go, well, they're not allowed
12        to leave.
13             THE WITNESS:  Well, you know -- you know --
14        now, let's take a look at this.
15             You're talking about a person that's sick,
16        right?
17             THE COURT:  Right.
18             THE WITNESS:  That means a medical diagnosis,
19        right?
20             There is no medical diagnosis here.  There is
21        no authority that says this person was crazy.  This
22        is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of
23        Scientology, that they gave her this label of being
24        crazy, okay?  That's way different than being in a
25        mental institution where you've been diagnosed, or
 1        you've committed some crime, or you've harmed
 2        somebody, or something has caused to you go to an
 3        institution --
 4             THE COURT:  Well --
 5             THE WITNESS:  -- which --
 6             THE COURT:  -- schizophrenic.
 7             THE WITNESS:  -- is certainly not the case with
 8        Lisa.
 9             THE COURT:  I mean, you can be in a mental
10        hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a
11        danger -- I mean, you're talking about a Baker Act,
12        where you're -- you're kept against your will
13        involuntarily.  But I mean, there are sick people in
14        a hospital, just because they're sick and they're
15        crazy and they -- and they just aren't fit to be on
16        the street, right?
17             THE WITNESS:  Right.  Right.  In a hospital.
18        There's a difference between being in a hospital and
19        being locked in a room with people who don't
20        understand really what's going on and are just
21        following orders.
22             THE COURT:  Well, they may not.
23             But the truth of the matter is, that's the
24        belief of the Church of Scientology.  You were a
25        part of it and you participated in it, right?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 2             THE COURT:  You participated in an
 3        introspection rundown with somebody who was in the
 4        same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in --
 5        at times, right?
 6             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 7             THE COURT:  Nobody ordered that this lady would
 8        end cycle that you were watching, right?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
10             THE COURT:  Well, then, how -- you see, I'm
11        just -- I'm trying to help you, here, to see if
12        there's any basis for this.
13             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
14             THE COURT:  How is it that you've come to this
15        conclusion, other than just it's -- it's one of
16        many, many thoughts that you might have as to what
17        might have happened?
18             THE WITNESS:  Because based on Scientology's
19        own policy, the first thing you do when a person
20        starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to
21        a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these
22        symptoms are occurring aren't based upon some
23        medical reason, okay?
24             THE COURT:  Okay.
25             THE WITNESS:  Now, this is in their own
 1        documents.
 2             Now, why would they not do that?  Why would
 3        they not do that?  If their documents say if a
 4        person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing
 5        you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take
 6        them to the hospital.
 7             Well, why wouldn't you do that?
 8             THE COURT:  Because maybe --
 9             THE WITNESS:  The reason why you wouldn't do it
10        is because the person in -- they were also telling
11        you, "I'm going to sue you.  I'm going to tell about
12        this.  I'm threatening you.  You got to let me out
13        of here."
14             No, you're not going to the hospital.  Because
15        once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.
16             THE COURT:  Okay.  But that --
17             THE WITNESS:  They're not going to go back to
18        Scientology.
19             THE COURT:  Let's assume --
20             Slow down.
21             Let's assume, for the sake of your testimony
22        and for the sake of your beliefs and what you told
23        Mr. Dandar, that you are right.  That Lisa was
24        saying, "I want to leave," and they were saying,
25        "No, you can't leave," and she said, "I want to
 1        leave."  And therefore -- and therefore, they didn't
 2        take her to a medical doctor.  Of course, she just
 3        came from a medical doctor where she had been seen
 4        and had been released.  So that could have been one
 5        of the reasons.
 6             However, how do you jump from that conclusion
 7        to the conclusion that somebody said, "Let her die,"
 8        or -- not only, "Let her die," but proceed to assist
 9        this along in some fashion; bring an auditor in and
10        cause her to die?
11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  I'll explain to you.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.
13             THE WITNESS:  By their own documents, people
14        that get into this state of mind, all of them do not
15        live.  Search and Discovery, it says some don't make
16        it --
17             THE COURT:  Right.
18             THE WITNESS:  -- okay?
19             You have a person here who, in my opinion,
20        based on what I've seen, and even the missing
21        evidence -- because you know, if everything --
22        again, like the one that I did, okay, well, this
23        girl didn't want to leave.  This little girl didn't
24        really know what was going on.
25             THE COURT:  Which little girl we talking about
 1        now?
 2             THE WITNESS:  Terese, the one --
 3             THE COURT:  The one that you watched.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.
 6             THE WITNESS:  She didn't know.  She --
 7             THE COURT:  When you say that, you meant she
 8        was really out of it mentally.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Completely.
10             THE COURT:  Crazy.
11             THE WITNESS:  Crazy.  Barking like a dog, you
12        know, doing --
13             THE COURT:  Right.
14             THE WITNESS:  -- wild things.
15             When she started to come out of it, she
16        certainly wanted to leave.  She was certainly
17        demanding to leave.  But she was not allowed to
18        leave until she had signed releases that released
19        the Church of Scientology and related organizations
20        with any liability concerning her condition.
21             So in other words, she signed away, you know,
22        "what happened to me is an anomaly.  It had nothing
23        to do with my studies and training or experience in
24        Scientology, and they have no liability for me
25        getting into this."  This is something that's
 1        demanded of a person who finishes that rundown, to
 2        release any liability.
 3             Here you have a person that isn't in that
 4        position.  And it is my belief, because there's so
 5        many --
 6             THE COURT:  What position is she in?  Tell me
 7        how her position differs from --
 8             She's still crazy.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Well -- hold on.
10             Because when she was released, they didn't say
11        she was crazy, from the hospital.  That was not a
12        diagnosis that Lisa was given when she left Morton
13        Plant Hospital.
14             THE COURT:  But you have to admit, from the --
15        from the -- from the reports that were in there from
16        some of the workers, she started staring at a
17        lightbulb; she started talking about she was L. Ron
18        Hubbard, and she started acting crazy.
19             THE WITNESS:  Well, that's when they brought
20        her in there.
21             THE COURT:  Right.  And that's when she began
22        the introspection rundown perhaps, right?
23             THE WITNESS:  Well, come on, Judge.  Let's back
24        up on this.  Because you just said medically she was
25        not diagnosed as being insane.  The -- the medical
 1        records didn't say, "Hey, this is a person we got to
 2        Baker Act.  This is a person that's mentally ill."
 3        Didn't say that, okay?  So I think it's wrong to
 4        assume that.  And the reason why I think it's
 5        wrong --
 6             THE COURT:  Well, what --
 7             THE WITNESS:  -- to assume that --
 8             THE COURT:  -- was -- let me ask you,
 9        Mr. Prince, what's the difference in the lady that
10        you took care of and how she started barking like a
11        dog -- and you say she was crazy --
12             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hmm.
13             THE COURT:  -- and what you read in the reports
14        of Lisa McPherson, where she was crawling on the
15        floor, humping the floor, carrying on like a crazy
16        person?
17             THE WITNESS:  After she had been in their --
18        incarcerated.  And I think by the fact of
19        incarceration, it tipped her over the edge.
20             THE COURT:  Well, you think that same thing
21        happened with the lady you were watching?
22             THE WITNESS:  Huh-uh.  No.  I mean, she was
23        literally sitting in a chair, you know, fine, one
24        moment, and then the next moment somebody went over
25        to see what she was doing and she peed herself
 1        and -- you know, it was a huge difference.
 2             THE COURT:  Could that have been like Lisa
 3        McPherson, who was all right, released from the
 4        hospital, went to the Ft. Harrison, and then just
 5        kind of went like this, and all of a sudden she was
 6        crazy?
 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, you know, you could --
 8             THE COURT:  Could it be?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Not necessarily.  And I'll tell
10        you why.
11             Because by the fact of incarceration, it
12        already pushes a person further than, maybe, where
13        they were.  I mean, she's locked in a little room.
14        No one's talking to her.  She's feeling horrible.
15        She's already wanting to go home --
16             THE COURT:  She's a Scientologist.  That's part
17        of the procedure.
18             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
19             THE COURT:  You were a Scientologist.  That's
20        part of the procedure.
21             THE WITNESS:  No, no, no, no.  See, that's
22        another myth, now.  Because you're a Scientologist
23        it does not mean that one day you are going to know,
24        when they lock you in a room, because you studied
25        it, this is what they -- what's going to happen to
 1        people that do this.  There is no place, no --
 2        absolutely no place that gives clear instructions on
 3        what happens to a person should they experience this
 4        and Scientology decides to take them in and put them
 5        through this routine.  You find that out after the
 6        fact, after the fact it's been determined that you
 7        have a mental problem.
 8             You see --
 9             THE COURT:  Well, let me ask you a question:
10        If the church doesn't believe in psychiatrists and
11        psychologists and they don't believe in mental
12        health treatment in the -- in the traditional
13        form --
14             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hmm.
15             THE COURT:  Everybody knows that.
16             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
17             THE COURT:  That's a very basic tenet of the
18        church.
19             THE WITNESS:  Right.
20             THE COURT:  Okay.  It would be like a Christian
21        Scientist.  They would know that they don't believe
22        in medical treatment, at least in part.  So if
23        you're a member of the Christian Scientists, you
24        know that you believe that.
25             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, there has to be some
 2        folks that become mentally deranged, who are
 3        Scientologists, so they know that there's some other
 4        treatment, just like you would know, if you were in
 5        the -- in the Christian Scientists, if there's a
 6        belief of laying on of hands and God will heal
 7        you --
 8             So they've got to be told there's some
 9        substitute for somebody --
10             THE WITNESS:  Your Honor --
11             THE COURT:  -- that has a mental lapse.
12             THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, they're not.  They
13        are not told that.  It's just simply not true.  You
14        don't find it out until after the fact.  There's no
15        course --
16             Say I'm a public member of Scientology, wants
17        to do auditor training up to class 4.  They go and
18        they train and they -- they get their certificates
19        and stuff like that.  There is no class that says,
20        "Okay.  If this happens to you, this is the exact
21        procedure."
22             That was something that was developed during
23        the time when the introspection first came out.  But
24        then this is something that moved totally off and
25        away from anything that public people could see or
 1        even staff would know.  They were isolated and
 2        hidden from view.
 3             And then normally, the person doesn't do any
 4        more Scientology after introspection rundown.  And I
 5        know several cases after that -- of that.  Because
 6        they make you sign waivers and releases which say,
 7        "The church did not cause your condition.  The
 8        church did not contribute to your condition.  The
 9        church is not liable or responsible for what
10        happened to you."  And you agree to that, and you
11        sign it, and then you're on your way.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, like the lady did in
13        your case.
14             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
15             THE COURT:  But she is a Scientologist.
16             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
17             THE COURT:  Okay.  So -- so --
18             Okay.  I understand what you're saying; that --
19        that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn't know what was
20        going to happen to her, is what you're basically
21        saying.
22             THE WITNESS:  None of them do.
23             THE COURT:  Okay.  Now -- okay.  I'll take your
24        word for that for the sake of your testimony.
25             How do you get from that -- okay.  Let's assume
 1        there was some gross negligence going on here.  She
 2        wanted to leave.
 3             THE WITNESS:  You --
 4             THE COURT:  Which there's already been a judge
 5        that says there's none of this.  But let's assume
 6        that she says, "I want to leave."  They say, "You're
 7        not going to leave."  "I want to leave."  "You're
 8        not going to leave."
 9             One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson,
10        based on her doctors and her experts and the experts
11        for the church:  Either she became severely
12        dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break
13        loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable
14        to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no
15        real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps
16        slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged
17        in her lung in some fashion and she died.
18             THE WITNESS:  Right.
19             THE COURT:  So it's one or the other.  One or
20        the other things happened to her, medically --
21             THE WITNESS:  Right.
22             THE COURT:  -- okay?
23             THE WITNESS:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  Now -- so that's a given, okay?
25             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 1             THE COURT:  So how do you leap from the fact,
 2        in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said,
 3        "No," to the fact that she died from one of those
 4        causes, through anything other than either no
 5        negligence, slight negligence, or really gross,
 6        flagrant negligence?  How do you jump from point A
 7        to point B by saying that David Miscavige said,
 8        "Kill this woman"?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Or, "Let her die."
10             THE COURT:  Or, "Let her die"?
11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Now, you got to listen.
12        I'm going to explain this to you, okay?
13             THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm listening.
14             THE WITNESS:  Now, again by their own policy,
15        this woman first should have been examined by a
16        medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was
17        coming as a result of some medical condition.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.
19             THE WITNESS:  That was not determined when she
20        went to the hospital because it was determined she
21        was not insane.
22             So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft.
23        Harrison, then the next thing that they should have
24        done was to take her to get her medically examined
25        to see if there was a medical reason for this
 1        behavior.
 2             THE COURT:  And you did that in your case?  In
 3        the case where you handled the introspection
 4        rundown?
 5             THE WITNESS:  No.
 6             Oh, yeah.  They had a doctor come out.  Sure.
 7        They had a doctor come out.  Dr. Gene Dink came out
 8        to be with her.  He examined her.
 9             THE COURT:  Was this a real doctor?
10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
11             THE COURT:  I mean -- by that I mean a licensed
12        doctor?  'Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson
13        too, except they weren't --
14             THE WITNESS:  This was --
15             THE COURT:  -- licensed.
16             THE WITNESS:  -- L. Ron Hubbard's doctor, your
17        Honor.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, was this a licensed
19        doctor?
20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles,
21        California.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
23             THE WITNESS:  Worked with the one that we have.
24             THE COURT:  So -- so as I recall, Ms. Arundo
25        (sic) -- and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall
 1        she was a doctor licensed somewhere else.  There was
 2        another doctor, one -- the head of the medical
 3        liaison, who had been a doctor.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  And lost her license.
 5             THE COURT:  And lost her license.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Arrunada's from Mexico and was
 7        never licensed.
 8             THE COURT:  Okay.  But Ms. -- but what's Ms. --
 9        please give me the name.
10             MR. DANDAR:  Johnson.
11             THE COURT:  Ms. Johnson was a physician who had
12        lost her license, who presumably was in charge.
13             But -- okay.  You say they should have taken
14        her to a doctor.
15             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  They --
16             THE COURT:  Or had a doctor come in.
17             THE WITNESS:  Right.
18             THE COURT:  Like they did in your case.
19             THE WITNESS:  Right.
20             THE COURT:  Your case, meaning the case where
21        you were directly involved.
22             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
23             THE COURT:  And they didn't do that.
24             Okay.  What else?
25             THE WITNESS:  Well, we have to wonder why they
 1        didn't do that.
 2             Now, I hate to be -- your Honor, you know,
 3        irrespective of what the defendants believe in this
 4        case, it brings me no great joy to -- to malign them
 5        or say horrible things about them.
 6             But because I've been there and because I've
 7        seen what happens and because I've seen what they
 8        do, it is my belief because when they brought this
 9        girl back from the hospital, she was not insane.
10        She wasn't diagnosed as that.  She went insane
11        there.  She wanted to leave.  She said, "I want to
12        go."  They said, "No, you can't go.  You got a
13        problem.  We're diagnosing you.  Forget what the
14        doctor said.  We're going to do it."
15             THE COURT:  Okay.
16             THE WITNESS:  She began to struggle.  She began
17        to fight.  At that point, it becomes a OSA matter.
18        It was already an OSA matter.
19             THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  A what matter?
20             THE WITNESS:  O-S-A.  OSA.  Office of --
21             THE COURT:  OSA.
22             THE WITNESS:  -- Special Affairs matter.
23             THE COURT:  Okay.
24             THE WITNESS:  For several reasons now:
25             One, because she apparently left the hotel,
 1        drove around and had a minor accident, took her
 2        clothes off, told people that she needed help.
 3        Okay.  That in and of itself was something that drew
 4        attention to Scientology that was non-optimum.  And
 5        in Scientology, that is called a flap.  An
 6        unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology's
 7        reputation somehow.
 8             Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just
 9        two months earlier attested to the state of clear.
10        She stood in front of every Scientologist at the
11        mecca of technical perfection, their highest level,
12        their highest office of -- of tech, and told
13        everyone that, "I no longer have a reactive mind.  I
14        no longer have," you know, "have problems with the
15        past that now come up.  I'm totally free from the
16        past and I'm ready to move on."  In other words, she
17        was what they call in Scientologist (sic) -- not a
18        Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis.  Homo
19        novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.
20        So now this person is literally a demigod two months
21        ago.  Now she's screaming in a room, insane, crazy.
22             This is a problem.  This is a problem that this
23        woman took her clothes off, walking down the street,
24        and -- and OSA had to get involved and, you know,
25        they rushed down there, "Oh, my God."  They bring
 1        her back.  She's not diagnosed as being crazy.  They
 2        just give her -- she wants to get some help.  She's
 3        got something on her mind.  Okay.  So she comes
 4        back.
 5             It is my contention that she wanted to leave,
 6        just like she had been saying.  And they said, "No."
 7        And they put her on the introspection rundown and
 8        she went over the edge and she got crazy.
 9             Well, before that she made many threats.
10             Now, it is Scientology's belief that once you
11        start these processes -- once you start any process
12        in Scientology, you take it to the end.  It's called
13        processing.  The way out is the way through.  What
14        turns it on or turn it off.  Get the preclear
15        through it.  Whatever.  In other words, keep that
16        auditing going until the end result happens.
17             THE COURT:  Or get the person in the
18        introspection rundown fit for auditing.  That is
19        part of the preliminary process.
20             THE WITNESS:  Well, the person is fit for
21        auditing after they've had one eight-hour period of
22        sleep.  Okay?  You got -- you know, you got that
23        step 0, step 00.
24             THE COURT:  Right.
25             THE WITNESS:  The first thing that normally
 1        happens with a person that gets into that state of
 2        mind, they don't sleep for days, they can't sleep,
 3        they're up -- a part of auditing in Scientology is,
 4        you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.
 5        So --
 6             And again, in the instance where I did
 7        introspection rundown with the person, the first
 8        time that woman -- after she was given Valium or
 9        whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the
10        first time she had an 8-hour period of time to
11        sleep --
12                   (The reporter interrupted.)
13             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
14             MR. DANDAR:  Slow down.
15             THE REPORTER:  After they gave her --
16             THE WITNESS:  -- or chloral hydrate or whatever
17        they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight
18        hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is
19        there immediately to start.
20             THE COURT:  I think they tried to bring an
21        auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn't capable.
22             THE WITNESS:  Well, I heard --
23             THE COURT:  I mean, I think I remember that.
24             THE WITNESS:  -- I heard the story that, you
25        know, she licked the cans and -- you know, that
 1        means nothing.
 2             An auditor is trained -- I don't care if you
 3        take the cans and throw them across the room.  An
 4        auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put
 5        them back in the person's hands and get them to do
 6        what you want them to do.  It's called model
 7        session.  You know, that's part of the same --
 8             THE REPORTER:  Slow down, please.
 9             THE WITNESS:  -- auditor series you have.
10        Model session.  Which talks about how to conduct a
11        session.
12             THE COURT:  That's tough to do if the person is
13        still in a psychological state, that's crazy.
14             THE WITNESS:  Well, you know -- and you're
15        assuming that that's the case.  But the doctor
16        didn't assume that when she was let out.
17             THE COURT:  Well, I'm assuming that's the case
18        because of the reports I read.
19             THE WITNESS:  You know -- well, you know,
20        after --
21             THE COURT:  Just like I'm assuming the lady
22        that you watched after, when she barked like a dog
23        and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said
24        she was crazy and like I think you said she was
25        crazy.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 2             THE COURT:  Crazy in the sense that I know --
 3        would think someone was crazy; not medically.
 4             THE WITNESS:  A danger to themselves or other
 5        people.
 6             THE COURT:  Not somebody you would want out on
 7        the street.
 8             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 9             Okay.  So again, she is in a situation now
10        where she's drawn into the local public attention.
11        They've been promised by the doctors that she'll be
12        okay.  Turn her over to Judy Fontana.  They don't
13        turn her over to Judy.
14             Because I think these things all mean in some
15        way she was not agreeing with what was happening to
16        her.  And because she wasn't agreeing and she wanted
17        to leave, it got wild.  It intensified.
18             Now, Scientology's belief is, you know --
19             THE COURT:  I think I can go along with you
20        there.  I mean, I think that there's enough in that
21        folder to realize she was not thinking clearly.  She
22        may have wanted to leave.  You know, the lady you
23        took care of may have wanted to leave.  I mean,
24        they -- they act irrational, right?
25             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 1             THE COURT:  And the idea is they can't leave.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.  So let's say I accept
 4        that --
 5             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 6             THE COURT:  -- okay?  She wants to leave,
 7        they're saying, "No, you're not able to leave yet."
 8        She's getting more and more upset.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Right.
10             THE COURT:  She wants to leave.
11             How do we know they're still not trying the
12        introspection rundown to make her well?
13             THE WITNESS:  I think --
14             THE COURT:  What --
15             THE WITNESS:  -- they were doing it.
16             THE COURT:  Sure.
17             THE WITNESS:  I think --
18             THE COURT:  So --
19             THE WITNESS:  -- they were doing it.  But I
20        think that she had decided she had had enough.
21             You see -- and the reason why I say that is
22        because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps
23        telling them, "I had enough.  I don't want any more
24        auditing.  This is aggravating my condition.  It's
25        making me worse."  This is what she's saying in her
 1        own words, the only thing she was able to say before
 2        she died.  And in which whole thing, if you read
 3        this line by line in the preclear folder, "This is
 4        making me worse.  I'm not getting better."
 5             So what do they do?  Give her more auditing.
 6        Well, she doesn't want that.
 7             THE COURT:  I will say, for the sake of this
 8        hearing, that I -- I can accept that.
 9             THE WITNESS:  So because she doesn't want it,
10        and because she has no way to leave, because she's
11        actually under guard -- I mean, we have a statement
12        by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of
13        her and holds her down.  You know, you have people
14        not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room -- I
15        mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my
16        Scientology experience, is something that would make
17        a person, if they weren't over the edge, would
18        certainly push them over the edge.
19             THE COURT:  But you did that when you took care
20        of the lady you took care of.
21             THE WITNESS:  No.  I talked to her.  I did not
22        not talk to her.
23             THE COURT:  Was that -- were you breaking the
24        rules?
25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I was breaking the rules.
 1             THE COURT:  Well, you don't know that somebody
 2        else might not have broken the rules.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, I don't know that either.
 4             THE COURT:  All right.  So let's take -- we
 5        really need to break for lunch.
 6             But let's assume for the sake of argument that
 7        you are correct.  She wants to leave.  They say,
 8        "No."  She wants to leave, they say, "No."  And
 9        let's assume that they're saying "no" because they
10        believe that she's not finished the introspection
11        rundown, and they're going to get her finished.
12        Just like --
13             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  And they do believe that.
14        Right.
15             THE COURT:  All right.  So now, one of two
16        things happens at some point in time:  Either she's
17        not getting enough water, right; and so she's not
18        getting enough water or whatever, and they should
19        have known better, and they should have given her
20        more water, and she reaches this miserable state and
21        dies.  Or she is getting enough water and a
22        pulmonary -- you know, an embolus in her leg breaks
23        loose, goes to her lungs and kills her.  One of
24        those two things happened at the end of this.
25             And it was -- it was from the embolism, right?
 1        And you wouldn't have known that.  They wouldn't
 2        have known that.  There wasn't a worker there that
 3        would have known that.  Nobody.  These are the
 4        silent -- silent killers --
 5             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 6             THE COURT:  -- okay?
 7             So one of those two things happened, and that's
 8        a fact.
 9             How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere
10        along the line it was, "We're going to keep her here
11        until the embolism we don't even know about breaks
12        loose"?
13             THE WITNESS:  Well, you know, that's
14        ridiculous, your Honor.
15             THE COURT:  Of course it is.
16             THE WITNESS:  Let me -- you got to let me
17        finish --
18             THE COURT:  Okay.
19             THE WITNESS:  -- the whole thing.
20             THE COURT:  I'm going to do that, but we're
21        going to take a lunch break first --
22             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
23             THE COURT:  -- all right?
24             All right.  It's 12:20.  Let's be in recess
25        until 1:30.
 1               (A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)
 2                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 4   STATE OF FLORIDA         )
 6             I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was
     authorized to and did stenographically report the
 7   proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and
     complete record of my stenographic notes.
               I further certify that I am not a relative,
 9   employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
     I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
10   counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
     interested in the action.
12   WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July,
13   2002.
15                             ______________________________
                               DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index