CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
5    Representative of the ESTATE OF
7              Plaintiff,
8    vs.                                     VOLUME 1 of 2
15    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
CONTENTS:           Testimony of Hana Whitfield.
DATE:               July 16, 2002.  Morning Session.
PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19                        St. Petersburg, Florida.
20    BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
REPORTED BY:        Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22                        Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.



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
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
14    Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
15    Organization.
740 Broadway at Astor Place
18    New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
19    Organization.
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
22    980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida  33710
23    Counsel for Robert Minton.



1              THE COURT:  Okay.  Here is the order.  Sue was
2         not in yesterday.  There are a couple copies for
3         you.
4              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
5              THE COURT:  And here are three or four copies
6         for you-all.  And I know you will distribute them to
7         the other counsel.
8              MR. WEINBERG:  Thanks.
9              THE COURT:  In there I indicated since these
10         things were not originally made for either the
11         Church of Scientology or the Lisa McPherson Trust,
12         that these should be used for this matter, and any
13         other use of those you should get my permission
14         first.
15              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
16              MR. FUGATE:  Very good.
17              THE COURT:  And that includes everything you
18         have gotten from them.  In other words, it really is
19         a direction on all of the stuff.
20              MR. DANDAR:  That is good.
21              THE COURT:  Mr. Keane probably doesn't have
22         that yet because I told Sue to fax it to him when
23         she got in.  But as soon as he gets it, I'm sure
24         he'll release it.
25              One tape I released in its entirety so you can



1         get that right away.  One tape I did not release
2         because you have part of it already, and I didn't
3         release the second part.  Then the other one you
4         will have to cut and paste a little bit, but it
5         should not be too hard, just a matter of removing a
6         couple of the speakers.
7              MR. MOXON:  Thanks, Judge.  I'll try to call
8         Mr. Keane at the first opportunity.
9              THE COURT:  Obviously either side may want to
10         use some of this material.  I'm not sure if you do
11         but you might.  Probably can't be used today.  So
12         we'll go ahead and reschedule and come back
13         tomorrow, I guess, even if we finish today, to
14         include any -- anything that you may have gotten.
15         And that is how we'll handle that.
16              I did try to think last night of things that I
17         might be interested in hearing from you.  And I
18         started formulating them in my mind but I didn't put
19         them down on paper.  So maybe by tomorrow I can do
20         that.
21              I do have some questions and some -- some legal
22         things that I probably will ask you to be sure you
23         include.  So I'll try to tell you that tomorrow.
24              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.  If there are any
25         factual matters that you thought we needed to



1         address, as well.
2              THE COURT:  There have been so many facts in
3         here --
4              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
5              THE COURT:  -- it is hard for me to sort out
6         what is going to bear on what issues.  So we may
7         have a lot more facts than we need.
8              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I suspect we do, your Honor.
9              THE COURT:  Right.  So it really is more legal
10         things.
11              One, for example, is I think that the Church,
12         in their argument, should assume for the sake of
13         this argument that I have already -- I know you are
14         going to have another argument that says Mr. Prince
15         should not qualify as an expert witness.  I think
16         you should go past that and say that if he does --
17              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I assumed that, your Honor.  I
18         will do it in the alternative.
19              THE COURT:  Right.  And also some of the things
20         that I think, in particular, that bear on the issue
21         of the -- of the actual allegation in the complaint
22         is there is no question that Mr. Prince opined what
23         he opined.  And it really is the basis of an opinion
24         and not based upon much in the way of facts.
25              But experts do get opinions.  So somebody



1         better concentrate on opinion testimony and whether
2         it has to be supported by something -- something in
3         the way of some facts that they can point to.
4              And maybe it may be -- Mr. Dandar, you know,
5         you'll certainly want to research that, too, just
6         maybe somebody's experience and what have you -- I
7         mean, I'm of the mind that Mr. Prince couldn't
8         really point to any experience he had where he knew
9         of this or -- so those are the kinds of things I
10         would normally be looking for.  They didn't exist in
11         this case.  So that, I think, is quite important.
12              I would address, if I were you-all -- these are
13         just ramblings right now, you'll remember -- I have
14         a crook in my neck, it just came on my last night, I
15         don't know why, maybe it is from turning to look at
16         you, Mr. Dandar, maybe that is it, but I can't turn
17         my head this way, so if you think I'm not paying
18         attention to you, that is not the case, I just can't
19         turn that way.
20              MR. DANDAR:  Your chair swivels.
21              THE COURT:  That is true.  If I remember to do
22         that.  That got me off my train of thought.
23              Oh, I talked to you-all a little bit about a
24         manslaughter criminal charge and what, under the
25         State of Florida, that entailed which included both



1         intentional -- it includes reckless disregard for
2         things to the point that are almost intentional.
3              So I think I would deal with -- I think that
4         is -- if I had to guess what he's really saying, so
5         I think I would deal with that a little bit, both
6         sides.
7              I think that -- I think that I would be
8         interested in knowing whether there is a distinction
9         in the First Amendment protection that a church --
10         any church -- would have regarding an intentional
11         tort versus a tort that is negligent versus a tort
12         that is grounded in what I would call, I guess,
13         gross negligence.  You know, in other words, a
14         higher negligence than simple negligence.  And, in
15         particular, that standard of negligence that would
16         give rise to a claim of manslaughter.  Because as I
17         said, I think, as I read his allegation, you know,
18         there is this allegation of intentional.
19              But I -- I would be interested in knowing the
20         difference in the First Amendment defense on simple
21         negligence -- really gross and flagrant negligence
22         and intentional.  So that would be helpful to me.
23              I'll try to make a little list of the things
24         that, you know, I think would be helpful.
25              I don't even know what the burden of proof is,



1         to tell you the truth.  I presume it is
2         preponderance of the evidence.  I don't know.  Maybe
3         it is clear and convincing.  I don't know what it
4         is.  But it is always helpful to know right sort of
5         at the outset, when I start doing an analysis, what
6         it is.  Obviously it would be, I assume, plaintiff's
7         burden originally -- I'm sorry, the defendant's
8         burden in this case, it is your motion.
9              So I don't know what the burden is.  Maybe that
10         would be helpful.  It is not done every day so it is
11         not something very clear with -- to me that I have
12         dealt with a hundred times in the past.  So you
13         might try to look up whether it is preponderance of
14         the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, just
15         what the standard is.
16              MR. LIEBERMAN:  We also may have an argument,
17         once we make a certain showing, the burden may
18         shift.
19              THE COURT:  That is fine.  Whatever it is.  But
20         that is always helpful to put right sort of at the
21         outset of your argument or somewhere close to the
22         beginning so I know, as I'm looking, what burden I'm
23         operating with.  Okay?  That would be helpful.
24              Obviously, I'm looking that way.  I'm not
25         meaning to avoid you --



1              MR. DANDAR:  That is why I'm over here, so you
2         don't have to turn the other way.
3              THE COURT:  Thank you.
4              Both sides need to address these things.
5              On the summary judgment, since I'm not sure
6         exactly when we're going to conclude this hearing,
7         how about if you get your -- whatever it is --
8         motion in opposition to the summary judgment, in by
9         Friday.  Can you do that?
10              MR. DANDAR:  That is perfect.
11              THE COURT:  Then we need to set a schedule, a
12         briefing schedule, closing argument schedule, for
13         you-all.  Obviously, the sooner I can have this, the
14         better.  I'll probably start reading transcripts but
15         not with the fervor I will until I have your closing
16         arguments.  So I'm sitting on kind of a delay
17         pattern.  And the sooner I can put my mind to this,
18         the sooner you-all will have the answer.
19              MR. LIEBERMAN:  We understand that.  It will
20         take a while, your Honor.  There is so much --
21              THE COURT:  There is a lot.  But I assume that
22         hopefully you-all were digesting this as you went
23         along, to some extent.  So what are you thinking?
24         Ten days?
25              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Oh, your Honor, I -- I would --



1         I was going to urge that we have thirty days.  There
2         is really so much to go through.  We've been working
3         fifteen hours a day here.  We haven't -- we have
4         been digesting it the same way you have, but it has
5         really been impossible to digest it any other way.
6         There is a lot here, a lot of facts to go through, a
7         lot of law, and just separating the wheat from the
8         chaff is a very difficult --
9              THE COURT:  That is true --
10              MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- process.  Ten days would be
11         virtually impossible to do an adequate job.
12              THE COURT:  How about two weeks?  I mean, it's
13         a closing argument.  You know, a lot of times at the
14         end of a very complicated case you save it up and
15         make your closing argument.  So this is not like --
16              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I understand.  But you also
17         want a lot of legal discussion, in addition to
18         facts.
19              THE COURT:  But you have given me a lot of
20         legal stuff as you went along.  I mean, you
21         presented me some legal that I have read.  But I
22         read them, again, not -- you know, just read them as
23         they came up.
24              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Your Honor, I mean, I really
25         appreciate the schedule you are trying to deal with.



1         I honestly say to you that in order to do the kind
2         of professional, adequate job that you want and that
3         I would feel comfortable with, three weeks would be
4         the minimum.
5              THE COURT:  All right.  Three weeks.
6              How many weeks do you need?
7              MR. DANDAR:  One.
8              THE COURT:  One week?
9              MR. DANDAR:  After they file whatever they are
10         filing.  But I would hope you would make them do it
11         in two weeks.
12              THE COURT:  Well, he said he needed three.  I'm
13         not necessarily interested in rushing this, if he
14         says that is what he needs to do a credible job,
15         that is what I want.  One week for you.  Then all
16         you have is one week to respond.
17              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I understand that.
18              THE COURT:  Matter of fact, I would like it
19         sooner than that.  If he only needs a week to
20         respond, why, certainly a week is plenty.  Okay?
21              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Okay.
22              THE COURT:  Okay?  Let's go.  Call your next --
23         you want to talk about the introduction of these
24         documents?
25              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  I have marked with the



1         clerk, given to counsel, and I have on your bench
2         Plaintiff's Exhibits 182 through 187.  Let me
3         announce on the record what they are.
4              THE COURT:  Okay.
5              MR. DANDAR:  182 is the Joseph Yanny
6         declaration, which he is the former attorney for
7         RTC.
8              183 --
9              THE COURT:  Let's deal with these one at a
10         time.
11              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
12              THE COURT:  Let me have it.  Any objection to
13         this?
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
15              THE COURT:  All right.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  You want me to explain?
17              THE COURT:  Go ahead.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  This apparently was a
19         declaration done by Mr. Yanny for a lawsuit between
20         him and the Church of Scientology that was executed
21         back in July of 1988.
22              I mean, it is -- it is -- it is -- it would be
23         a hearsay document.  It has all kinds of
24         accusations.  I mean, to give you a flavor of it, he
25         refers to the plaintiff, which is the Church of



1         Scientology, in Paragraph 2, as "the cult."  And,
2         therefore, throughout the entire affidavit he talks
3         about "the cult," which gives you a sense.
4              Most of the affidavit is just his rantings
5         about -- about his -- about his -- about various
6         things that we would have no ability to
7         cross-examine on.  I mean, to give you a sense, on
8         Page 24, Paragraph 11, Mr. Yanny says, "I have
9         personal knowledge of the fact that while the cult
10         claims in the verified complaint to be religious,
11         this cult claims to be religious only in those
12         jurisdictions where it is expedient to be so, the
13         U.S. where there is a tax-exempt status for such
14         activities."  Then he goes on.  That is what the
15         nature of this affidavit is.
16              It is just, to be honest, garbage and doesn't
17         belong --
18              THE COURT:  Who is Mr. Yanny?  His name has
19         come up in this hearing.
20              MR. WEINBERG:  It came up because I
21         cross-examined Mr. Prince on a deposition that
22         Mr. Yanny took of Mr. Prince in this lawsuit when
23         Mr. Prince said that he had not destroyed the PC
24         folders.
25              THE COURT:  Okay.



1              MR. WEINBERG:  And that is all.  That is the
2         only time Mr. Yanny's name came up.  I mean, this is
3         just --
4              THE COURT:  Well, we have declarations of all
5         kinds of people in all kinds of lawsuits.  The
6         declaration of Stacy Brooks --
7              MR. WEINBERG:  But she appeared.
8              THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Miscavige didn't.  And I
9         have a declaration from him.
10              MR. WEINBERG:  Remember, Mr. Prince put a
11         declaration in which responded to Mr. Miscavige's
12         declaration and that is why it went in.  And Mr. --
13         and Mr. Dandar put in a December -- I forget what
14         year now -- 19-whatever it was, 1999 -- it may be
15         the wrong year but --
16              THE COURT:  Look, Counselor, the deal is that
17         any affidavit that comes into a hearing where a
18         person didn't appear as a witness, that includes
19         Mr. Miscavige, is really -- you are right, number
20         one, it is a hearsay document.  Number two, it was
21         not challenged, it was not cross-examined, it
22         therefore carries little, if any weight.  I have a
23         lot of these declarations.  I'm going to let it in.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  This isn't one of
25         those things where if we don't counter it, you



1         are --
2              THE COURT:  Right.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
4              MR. DANDAR:  But Mr. Yanny in that declaration
5         does talk about fair game and -- occurring in the
6         '80s, even though they keep claiming it was
7         cancelled.
8              THE COURT:  I understand.  But as I said, he's
9         not here.  He wasn't cross-examined.  And,
10         therefore, it carries -- you know --
11              MR. DANDAR:  Plaintiff's Exhibit 183 is the
12         declaration of Stacy Brooks, December 14, 1994.
13              THE COURT:  Now, Ms. Brooks did indicate she
14         had given a lot of affidavits, that she -- if they
15         were signed by her, would stand by them and she does
16         not recall having lied in any affidavits is
17         basically what I would remember she would tell us
18         about those.
19              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
20              THE COURT:  So I'll allow that in.
21              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  I think I just marked them
22         twice.  Was that number --
23              THE COURT:  It is 183.
24              MR. DANDAR:  So I marked 184, it was also Stacy
25         Brooks's declaration.



1              THE COURT:  The same one?
2              MR. DANDAR:  Of December 14, 1994.  I'll
3         withdraw 184.
4              THE COURT:  That is in this case.  It's a
5         declaration in this case?
6              MR. DANDAR:  No.  It is -- I -- that is just
7         notice of filing but the declaration is right here.
8              MR. WEINBERG:  So what is in now?
9              MR. DANDAR:  I'm withdrawing 184 because it is
10         redundant.
11              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
12              MR. DANDAR:  Then 185 is a Stacy Young -- same
13         person -- declaration, which is from the Wollersheim
14         case as a joint appendix.  And that one is dated
15         May 2, 1997.  That is exhibit -- Plaintiff's Exhibit
16         185.
17              THE COURT:  Any objection?
18              MR. WEINBERG:  Mmm, only on the same grounds I
19         objected before.
20              THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm going to receive it.
21              MR. DANDAR:  Then Plaintiff's Exhibit 186 is
22         the Robert Cipriano declaration dated August 9,
23         1999.
24              THE COURT:  Who is he?
25              MR. DANDAR:  He is a person that Mr. Moxon



1         knows quite well.  Mr. Moxon represented him against
2         Mr. Berry.  Sutter, who is Mr. Minton's attorney now
3         in California, also represented Mr. Cipriano.  And
4         it talks -- this goes to our allegation of the
5         pattern, practice, of behavior concerning the Church
6         of Scientology in attacking lawyers.
7              MR. MOXON:  I --
8              THE COURT:  Why don't you call him as a
9         witness?
10              MR. DANDAR:  He's in California.
11              THE COURT:  And?
12              MR. DANDAR:  I don't have any control over him.
13              THE COURT:  He wouldn't come?
14              MR. DANDAR:  Quite honestly, Judge, I didn't
15         call him to find out if he would.  But this is not a
16         person I have any contact with.
17              THE COURT:  All right.
18              MR. MOXON:  I would strenuously object to this.
19         This whole scenario has a long history.  He's --
20         this is a person that I represented.  He gave an
21         affidavit several years ago and was sued by a man
22         named Graham Berry who has been kind of associated
23         with this whole movement, these anti-Scientologists.
24         And Mr. Cipriano was sued for libel by Mr. Berry and
25         I defended him in California.



1              And it was a contentious suit which I won, it
2         was dismissed, and it was one of the actions that
3         gave rise to a vexatious litigation claim against
4         Mr. Berry.
5              Mr. Berry subsequently has been -- he's not
6         been disbarred, but he's serving an 18-month
7         suspension for various frivolous litigation and
8         acts, one of which includes a Rule 11 sanction in a
9         suit he filed against me where I was one of the
10         defendants along with -- you may have heard this,
11         President Clinton and Madeleine Albright and John
12         Travolta and the prime minister of Russia.
13              And it is just an insane thing.  The complaint
14         is thicker than what you have in front of you; it is
15         over 250 pages long.
16              But after I successfully represented
17         Mr. Cipriano, he signed this affidavit which was
18         written by Mr. Berry.  And if you read any of it
19         you'll see it is the most spurious kind of stuff
20         attacking every attorney the Church ever represented
21         and making all kinds of weird, weird allegations.
22              Mr. Cipriano, by the way, was never a
23         Scientologist.  He was -- frankly, it's in the
24         public record.  He was a drug addict, some man from
25         New York that Mr. Berry used to work with some years



1         ago.
2              In any event, after Mr. Cipriano filed this
3         declaration --
4              THE COURT:  This one, we're talking about.
5              MR. MOXON:  The one we're talking about now, he
6         retracted it.
7              THE COURT:  Let -- I don't understand, let me
8         ask you a question.  I'm all confused.  You
9         represented him in a claim against another lawyer?
10              MR. MOXON:  No, I defended him.
11              THE COURT:  You defended him in a claim brought
12         against another lawyer and he prevailed, now he's
13         writing a declaration for whom, and what?
14              MR. MOXON:  Then he wrote a declaration for
15         Mr. Berry, the man who sued him.
16              THE COURT:  In another lawsuit?  In what
17         lawsuit is this declaration?
18              MR. MOXON:  No lawsuit.
19              THE COURT:  No lawsuit?
20              MR. MOXON:  Mr. Berry filed this and used this
21         declaration in many actions where he's actually
22         tried to, you know -- I guess he got this reversed,
23         he filed it in court of appeals and filed it for
24         motion for new trial or to vacate the judgment in an
25         action he lost and several other lawsuits he filed



1         where he lost.
2              In any event, there was this flip-flop but he
3         retracted the affidavit.
4              THE COURT:  Mr. Cipriano did.
5              MR. MOXON:  Right.  Then he filed another
6         affidavit saying no, the first affidavit was
7         accurate, then he filed another one saying -- he
8         retracted it and saying, "Mr. Berry threatened me,
9         held me against the will."  It is just the most
10         bizarre story you ever heard.  He has written
11         E-Mails and apologized and lied and said, "I'm
12         sorry, so sorry."  It is just a complete mess.
13              THE COURT:  I'm going to let you --
14              MR. MOXON:  Nothing to do with this case.
15              THE COURT:  -- let you file it because you have
16         notice of filing here.  I'm not sure why I would
17         want to receive it in evidence, however.
18              MR. DANDAR:  It talks about Mr. Moxon suborning
19         perjury, of which I allege is the same thing they
20         have done in this case with Mr. Minton and
21         Ms. Brooks.
22              THE COURT:  I don't see how you can just come
23         in and introduce an affidavit of somebody and ask me
24         to consider that without presenting the person for
25         some sort of cross-examination, particularly in



1         light of the fact that he reneged on the affidavit
2         and filed it again and reneged against.  If it is
3         not true, why should I consider it?
4              MR. DANDAR:  I'm not aware of these other
5         subsequent declarations that Mr. Moxon just told you
6         about.  Had I known about that, I would have
7         considered that, maybe filed them all or maybe --
8         you know, if there is a way I can get
9         Mr. Cipriano -- of course we're running out of time.
10         I don't know how long their rebuttal is because they
11         haven't told us what they plan on doing today, but,
12         you know, if I can get Mr. Cipriano willing to come
13         to Florida to testify before you -- because he's --
14         these are serious matters that he raises in his
15         declaration.
16              THE COURT:  You --
17              MR. DANDAR:  I'll try to do that.
18              THE COURT:  All right.  It is my inclination at
19         this moment not to receive this in evidence in this
20         case.  I can't remember what I have received in
21         evidence, to tell you the truth.  I know I received
22         a lot of declarations.  I thought most everybody had
23         either testified or had been referred to in some
24         fashion, something came out.  So, you know, there
25         may be some relevance.



1              This obviously would be relevant.  But I just
2         don't -- I'm not sure how I can take an affidavit
3         filed in some other case, the guy doesn't show up
4         here, he has never been mentioned before, now all of
5         a sudden I'm supposed to take this and say, "Oh,
6         yeah."  I mean, I don't even know what he would look
7         like.  I don't know whether the guy is able to look
8         up from his hands or what.  I mean, this is very
9         difficult.
10              So you can file it because you can file -- this
11         is a declaration you can file.  At the moment, I am
12         inclined not to receive it.  I will read it and --
13              MR. MOXON:  Well, I didn't ask you not to read
14         it.  You can see how big this is.  My kind of
15         position is if you read this stuff, then what shall
16         I do?  Shall I try to refute it?  Because it is just
17         kind of Mr. Dandar --
18              THE COURT:  No, there is just a lot of stuff I
19         read -- judges really are able to do that.  I mean,
20         you always have to read stuff to determine whether
21         something is admissible or not.
22              MR. MOXON:  I know.
23              THE COURT:  You know, my inclination is at this
24         time it is not unless he can bring this man here to
25         testify.  But I'll glance through it.  You know, I



1         suppose if you have -- if you want me to read
2         something that says he refuted it, I'll read it too.
3              MR. MOXON:  The funny thing with this
4         affidavit -- not funny, but he never actually says
5         what Mr. Dandar claimed.  He kind of makes
6         inferences, but he never says he ever perjured
7         himself and he never says whatever it was that he
8         claims was a misrepresentation in his -- in his
9         testimony.
10              And, in fact, it's -- you know, I could get
11         into a whole big thing on this.  I have a lengthy
12         taped interview, for example, where he affirms
13         everything in the original lawsuit that Mr. Dandar
14         says, now he says is not true and he signs every
15         page and --
16              THE COURT:  Okay.  You know, you say don't read
17         it, but I had to read something filed by Gerry
18         Armstrong -- was that his name?
19              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
20              THE COURT:  -- to see what it was.  And so I --
21         I couldn't even tell you now what he said.
22              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
23              THE COURT:  But I'm sure it was stuff that
24         wasn't flattering.  But I don't remember, so, you
25         know, I have got enough to put my mind on, on stuff



1         that I determine is relevant or admissible.
2              So my inclination, Counsel, is not to let this
3         in.  I'll try to briefly look at it, see if I change
4         my mind.  If you think this man -- since I won't
5         accept his declaration -- is critical to your case,
6         call him, see if he's willing to come.  If he is,
7         let me know that and if he can come by Friday, maybe
8         I'll let you bring him.
9              MR. DANDAR:  All right.  Last is the
10         Plaintiff's Exhibit 187, which is an affidavit of
11         Sandra Anderson, the hospice worker for Fannie
12         McPherson, Lisa's mother; the deposition of Joan
13         Wood, February 10, 1997, taken by Mr. Weinberg who
14         also took Sandra Anderson's testimony; and
15         deposition of Joan Wood, June 1, 2000, which is
16         actually the interview by the prosecutor of Joan
17         Wood under oath, which we used in our memorandum of
18         law that is going to be filed in opposition to the
19         motion for summary judgment.  And Sandra Anderson is
20         filed in opposition to that, as well as determining
21         sanctions.
22              They claim I'm lying about Lisa McPherson
23         wanting to quit.
24              THE COURT:  You are filing this in opposition
25         to the summary judgment and as evidence in this



1         case?
2              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
3              THE COURT:  All right.  Any objection?
4              MR. WEINBERG:  It's --
5              THE COURT:  I think that there is a difference
6         here.  These are people that are -- that are
7         certainly involved in this case.
8              MR. WEINBERG:  I have some objection with
9         regard to Mr. Crow's interview of Ms. Wood.  Because
10         we never had a chance to cross-examine Dr. Wood.
11         But, you know, Sandra Anderson, what he's filing is
12         the deposition in this case, I think.
13              THE COURT:  It's an affidavit.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Oh, it's an affidavit?
15              THE COURT:  Dated November of '99.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  Did you give us a copy of that
17         last night?  Ken?
18              MR. MOXON:  Mr. Dandar?
19              MR. WEINBERG:  I don't have that one, Sandra
20         Anderson.
21              MR. DANDAR:  The deposition?
22              MR. WEINBERG:  No, Judge Schaeffer said --
23              THE COURT:  Didn't you say it was an affidavit?
24              MR. DANDAR:  I thought I said deposition.
25              MS. WEST:  This is the affidavit.



1              MR. DANDAR:  Well, there is a deposition, as
2         well, we'll file the deposition.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  I object to the affidavit.  If
4         it is the deposition, I had an opportunity to be
5         there and ask her questions if that is the one I'm
6         thinking of.
7              MR. DANDAR:  Right, we'll substitute the
8         affidavit for the deposition.
9              MR. WEINBERG:  You mean the opposite.
10              MR. DANDAR:  Deposition for the affidavit.
11              THE COURT:  Okay.
12              MR. DANDAR:  It is one of those mornings.
13              THE COURT:  Then I'll receive all that.
14              You also gave me a book, I haven't read it yet,
15         but you gave me a book, notice of filing of a lot of
16         depositions.
17              MR. DANDAR:  They are depositions of staff
18         taken either by me or under-oath interviews by the
19         police or the prosecutor.
20              THE COURT:  Are those -- are you trying to file
21         those as evidence in this case?
22              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
23              THE COURT:  In this hearing?
24              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
25              THE COURT:  Well, you haven't designated them



1         as numbers, have you?
2              MR. DANDAR:  I think there is an exhibit number
3         for that.
4              THE COURT:  Okay.
5              MR. DANDAR:  I did hand it to the clerk.
6              Do you recall that?
7              THE COURT:  Can you imagine -- I mean, let's
8         just project this for a moment that I make a ruling,
9         one side or the other, both sides decide to take an
10         appeal of this.
11              MR. WEINBERG:  Right?
12              THE COURT:  Can you just see all this being
13         toted up to the Second District and seeing those
14         judges up there --
15              MR. WEINBERG:  They'll all be applying for the
16         Supreme Court.
17              THE COURT:  Yes.  I mean, it would just be
18         remarkable to see even their clerks, who are used to
19         taking the record -- at least when I sat over there
20         I would get some nice little thing done by some
21         clerk and had the record available to me --
22              MR. FUGATE:  If they had a semi truck, maybe.
23              THE COURT:  But can you imagine the clerk just
24         saying, "I'm done"?
25              MR. WEINBERG:  I think that is what they would



1         do, probably.
2              THE COURT:  So you may assume, Mr. Dandar, that
3         Mr. Cipriano's deposition -- affidavit is not in
4         evidence, but as I said, I have got to go back and
5         look and see what all -- I took a lot of
6         declarations at the beginning of this.  I don't know
7         what they were.  If I just take any declaration
8         anybody wanted to file and I have a lot of unrelated
9         affidavits, declarations, I may take it, as well.
10              As I say, it doesn't stand for much unless
11         somebody comes to court to testify, but for now it
12         is not in evidence.
13              I think he -- you did have a number.
14              MR. DANDAR:  This is what it looks like and
15         we're trying to find it.  It was in a binder, wasn't
16         it?
17              THE COURT:  Mine was in a binder.  It is at
18         home in my "to be read" file.
19              MR. WEINBERG:  For what it is worth, I really
20         don't -- I don't think you put a number on it.  I --
21              MR. DANDAR:  Well, we'll go ahead and -- just
22         I'll tell you on the record what it is and then I'll
23         make a copy of it and we'll copy it again.  But
24         don't you have in -- in a binder?
25              THE COURT:  I have it but it was my copy.



1              MR. DANDAR:  Exactly.
2              THE COURT:  And I'm sure you filed the
3         original.  But see what it was was a notice of
4         filing, so I asked you, I think, at the time did you
5         just file this.
6              MR. DANDAR:  Right.  And I did --
7              THE COURT:  There is a difference in filing
8         something and introducing it in evidence, so Madam
9         Clerk, you may have seen notice of filing on it but
10         they didn't file it.
11              MR. DANDAR:  We're going to mark this then as
12         our next exhibit, in fact the exhibit that we
13         withdrew --
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Ken, there is -- look at 130.
15         Look at Plaintiff's 130, see if that is it.
16              MR. DANDAR:  Yes, that is it.  It is Exhibit
17         130.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  You were going to give us a copy
19         of it.  Remember?
20              THE COURT:  Let me see that.  There is one
21         thing I said I would not receive.
22              MR. DANDAR:  It was J, which is the Detective
23         Carrasquillo's interview of Scientologists staying
24         in the cabanas, one of whom saw David Miscavige
25         there --



1              THE COURT:  Yes.
2              MR. DANDAR:  -- at that time.
3              THE COURT:  That was not a sworn declaration,
4         that was a hearsay declaration, that was triple --
5         quadruple hearsay by the time it gets here so I said
6         I would not receive that.  Sworn statements, these
7         are all witnesses in the case?
8              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
9              THE COURT:  Depositions -- it says here I,
10         statement of Judy Fontana.
11              MR. DANDAR:  That is a police interview.
12              THE COURT:  Sworn statement?
13              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
14              There is Exhibit 130 of the plaintiff marked on
15         July 8.
16              MR. FUGATE:  Well, I don't recall that being
17         sworn.  If it was, I'll be --
18              MR. DANDAR:  Here.
19              THE COURT:  Is she a witness?
20              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
21              THE COURT:  Who is she?
22              MR. DANDAR:  She's OSA.  She was deposed by me,
23         and she is the one who I believe, if I'm not
24         mistaken, either her or the other OSA person, Andy
25         Mora, picked up Lisa's PC folders and shipped them



1         to Los Angeles.  And also she or her husband,
2         Mr. Fontana -- for sure Mr. Fontana was at the
3         emergency room when Lisa McPherson was there after
4         her car accident.
5              THE COURT:  This is a statement to the police?
6              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  It's an under-oath
7         interview.
8              MR. FUGATE:  No, you know what it is, it is a
9         State Attorney's investigation.
10              THE COURT:  That is under oath.  If she's a
11         witness in this case, I'll receive it.  If you want
12         to put her deposition in you can.
13              MR. FUGATE:  I don't know -- have you taken her
14         deposition?
15              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
16              MR. FUGATE:  Okay.
17              MR. DANDAR:  Do you really need all these
18         copies?  It is my only one.
19              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, if you are putting it in
20         evidence --
21              MR. DANDAR:  All right, it is Exhibit 130.
22         I'll hand it to Mr. Weinberg --
23              MR. WEINBERG:  We need to refer to it.
24              THE COURT:  Do you have the front page of it so
25         you know what you filed?



1              MR. DANDAR:  I'm sorry.
2              THE COURT:  Do you have the front page of it so
3         you know what you just filed?
4              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  Yes.
5              THE COURT:  Okay.  Then presumably you have
6         copies of it.
7              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
8              THE COURT:  You all have copies of it.  But --
9              MR. WEINBERG:  I mean, when it's --
10              THE COURT:  Okay, I have got it.
11              MR. DANDAR:  It is now in evidence in this
12         hearing?
13              THE COURT:  It is in evidence.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Except for --
15              THE COURT:  Except for J.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  What do we do for the court
17         record on that one?
18              THE COURT:  Just reflects it is not in
19         evidence.  I just write at the bottom of mine, "Not
20         in evidence."  Madam clerk will probably put on the
21         evidence list Number 130, list what it is, then say
22         J and she'll list what it is and say excluded or
23         something like that.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
25              THE COURT:  Or something like that.



1              MR. WEINBERG:  I didn't know how that worked.
2              THE COURT:  I think as long as we-all know here
3         what happened to that, it is okay.  This is what I'm
4         saying.  Can you imagine --
5              MR. WEINBERG:  No.
6              THE COURT:  -- at district court level they are
7         going to root through and read somehow J?  I don't
8         think so.  I think, as we all know what is in and
9         what is out, we're in pretty good shape.  We'll have
10         to read your briefs or whatever --
11              MR. WEINBERG:  We may not be in as good shape.
12              THE COURT:  Somebody may want to go read
13         something, but chances are they won't want to read
14         what is not in evidence.
15              Okay, Mr. Dandar, are you ready to testify?
16         Are you going to take the stand again?
17              MR. DANDAR:  Judge, after Mr. Weinberg's
18         cross-examination questions last night, I convinced
19         and persuaded my former expert Hana Whitfield to
20         drive up here and testify concerning the things that
21         Mr. Oliver talked about that Mr. Weinberg
22         questioned.  And she's here, she's driven up this
23         morning from Fort Myers.
24              THE COURT:  All right.
25              MR. DANDAR:  So we call Hana Whitfield.



1              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, I would like to object
2         to that if I may.
3              THE COURT:  What is your objection?  She's a
4         witness.  She's a witness for this hearing.  There
5         is no requirement on a motion that I know of that
6         requires reciprocal discovery.  He can call anybody
7         he wants to that he thinks has relevant information.
8         It is not a trial.  It is -- you know, this is a
9         motion.  And he can call, you know, somebody you
10         have never even heard of, as far as I'm concerned.
11              So go ahead and list your objection.
12              MR. MOXON:  Okay.  Well, I'll spare all of the
13         history, but of course you may recall that
14         Ms. Whitfield was identified as a witness some time
15         ago, in fact in the year 2000.  And we noticed her
16         deposition at that time.  Mr. Dandar refused to
17         produce her and withdrew her as a witness after we
18         noticed her deposition.
19              We went through just a whole big thing with
20         this.  We tried to -- in fact, he said, "Well, she's
21         not going to be a witness because she's my trial
22         consultant now."  It is kind of that familiar theme.
23              At any rate, so she was withdrawn after we
24         noticed her deposition.  And then at some point
25         later on he -- he filed an affidavit from her.  And



1         we sought to take her deposition again.  He didn't
2         allow it.  And she withdrew again.  Then after
3         Mr. Prince left -- after Mr. Prince said he was
4         withdrawing as a witness, then he brings out Hana
5         Whitfield all over again.  I noticed her deposition.
6         Three days later he said, "I have withdrawn her
7         again," and gives various reasons for having
8         withdrawn her.
9              But back in the year 2000 when we had a lot of
10         litigation, there were several motions before Judge
11         Moody.  There is actually an order in this case
12         saying that she may not testify in this case absent
13         a new motion and leave of the court because of all
14         we've been through, trying to get her deposition and
15         trying to work this out and Mr. Dandar's just
16         refusal and flip-flop, flip-flop, for the past two
17         years.
18              So --
19              THE COURT:  Maybe if I could see that -- that
20         order.  But -- but I suspect Judge Moody was talking
21         about the trial.  But maybe not.  I would have to
22         see what he said in his order.
23              MR. MOXON:  I have it here.  Let me pull it
24         out.
25              MR. DANDAR:  He's talking about trial.



1              THE COURT:  Mr. Moxon, you looked organized.
2              Mr. Dandar, did you tell them you might be
3         calling her today?
4              MR. DANDAR:  Mr. Lirot telephoned Mr. Fugate
5         last night on his cell phone, left a message and
6         actually didn't get a reply.
7              MR. MOXON:  I actually heard about this from
8         Mr. Fugate last night at eleven.
9              MR. FUGATE:  No, he heard about it from me
10         about 1:30 last night, because I got in my car,
11         turned from -- leaving from preparing for rebuttal
12         when we left for the day, and I got a voice mail
13         message from Mr. Lirot at 6:35 saying, "We're
14         thinking about calling Hana Whitfield.  Based on the
15         fact we said we weren't calling anybody else, I
16         wanted to let you know."
17              So I called back and said, "Do we have anything
18         on Hana Whitfield?"
19              Judge, I'm upset about this because this is a
20         pattern and practice.  This is a person who has been
21         repeatedly told to you by Mr. Dandar is afraid to
22         come in and testify because of harassment so there
23         is never any discovery taken, then all of a sudden
24         she's popped on the stand with no real ability for
25         any of us to be prepared to cross-examine her.



1              And yesterday, as I understood, the end of the
2         day, "Do you have any other witnesses?" "No" was the
3         answer.
4              MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, the other thing, I'm
5         listed in the phone book.
6              THE COURT:  You know what, here we have three
7         lawyers arguing.  I'm not going to have that.
8              MR. FUGATE:  I was responding to when I got the
9         notice.
10              THE COURT:  All right.
11              Okay, this would seem to say that it said,
12         "Ordered and adjudged the plaintiff may not call
13         either Hana Whitfield or Jim Singleman as a
14         witness -- as witnesses for any purpose in this case
15         without first obtaining a further order of this
16         court permitting Ms. Whitfield or Mr. Singleman to
17         testify."
18              So that would seem like any purpose.  However,
19         as I said, this is a motion -- this is a motion to
20         terminate the case.  I think anybody who has got
21         relevant information should be able to testify.  I
22         suspect you-all can do just fine cross-examining
23         Ms. Whitfield, but I don't want to hear a bunch of
24         repeat stuff, stuff I already heard.
25              MR. DANDAR:  All right.



1              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, could we request then
2         Mr. Dandar not be permitted to put on any evidence
3         through Ms. Whitfield which were all of the things
4         he said she would testify about but refused to
5         produce her earlier when we wanted to cross-examine
6         her as to her affidavits, and Lisa McPherson, and
7         alleged harassment?
8              All of these issues -- remember I subpoenaed
9         her twice.  We actually subpoenaed her and said we
10         want to find out what this lady wanted to say,
11         Mr. Dandar kept representing she was going to be a
12         witness.  So, you know, per the standard civil
13         authorities on this, you know, you don't have this
14         ambush situation.  And he just absolutely refused,
15         every single time, he wouldn't let her come in.
16              So if she wants to come in and testify about
17         Mr. Minton and her -- you know -- conversations with
18         Mr. Minton or something like that, that would be one
19         thing because that wouldn't have been an issue
20         necessarily, but if she's going to testify about any
21         issue --
22              THE COURT:  You know what?  It is your motion.
23         There is no requirement under the Rules of Civil
24         Procedure that I am aware of in a motion that the
25         other side has to give you notice, allow you to take



1         their depositions or anything of this sort.  I am
2         not aware of any such thing.
3              I'm going to let her testify to anything she
4         knows that might be relevant to this proceeding.  If
5         you want to take her deposition -- I mean, there are
6         different rules for a trial.  And in Florida they
7         have this wonderful discovery process so everybody
8         knows everything that is going to happen in a trial.
9              I mean, this is -- this is a motion with --
10         with 200-something exhibits on one side, we're up to
11         180-something on the other, and I want to hear
12         really from anybody that has anything relevant.
13              So I suspect you could cross-examine.  If you
14         can't, after she testifies, you let me know and
15         we'll -- I'll see.  Okay?
16              MR. MOXON:  All right.
17              MR. DANDAR:  Hana Whitfield, please step up and
18         be sworn.
19              THE COURT:  Mr. Dandar, it really is
20         aggravating to have somebody that -- you know --
21         isn't going to testify, isn't going to testify,
22         isn't, is, isn't, then all of a sudden in they come,
23         and with a call at 1:30.  I mean, it isn't good
24         form.
25              MR. DANDAR:  The call was at 6:30.



1              THE COURT:  Well, 6:30, 1:30, 9:30.
2              MR. DANDAR:  It is aggravating.  I'll have
3         Miss Whitfield explain that.
4              THE COURT:  Well, step up here.
5              Mr. Battaglia, are you here just to observe
6         today?
7              MR. BATTAGLIA:  I have no standing, your Honor.
8         I'm here to observe.  Yes.
9              THE COURT:  Okay.  We're happy to have you.
10              MR. BATTAGLIA:  I would love to participate,
11         but I am told --
12              MR. FUGATE:  He left me voice mails, as well,
13         Judge, and I didn't get those until 1:30.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Just let the record reflect I
15         have a home phone number listed in the phone book,
16         has been since 1985.  They could have called me at
17         home.
18              THE COURT:  As I told you, I quite don't know
19         what to say except to say this again.  I think you
20         can spring any witness, any unknown witness.  If he
21         finds somebody before this hearing is over you-all
22         have never heard of, I would let him call him to
23         testify.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  We understand that.
25              THE COURT:  This is not a trial.



1              MR. WEINBERG:  But when you leave at 4:30 and
2         you are told you have to do a rebuttal case and
3         people stay up all night preparing for rebuttal
4         instead of preparing for a witness, that is
5         aggravating.
6              THE COURT:  That is aggravating to me.  I
7         thought I had a doctor's appointment this afternoon,
8         but I'm happy to get out of it, so --
9              Raise your right hand, please.
10              (Witness sworn.)
11              THE WITNESS:  I do.
12              THE COURT:  You may lower your hand.
13              You may proceed.
14              ______________________________________
15                         HANA WHITFIELD,
16    the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined
17    and testified as follows:
18                        DIRECT EXAMINATION
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    Please state your full name and spell your last
21    name.
22         A    Hana Whitfield.  W-H-I-T-F-I-E-L-D.
23         Q    Where do you live?
24         A    In Cape Coral, Florida.
25         Q    And how long have you been a resident of Florida?



1         A    About six and a half years.
2         Q    What is the extent of your formal education?
3         A    I graduated high school, so to speak, except it
4    was the English Cambridge equivalent of high school in
5    Southern Rhodesia in 1956.
6         Q    And did you go to any post-high school education?
7         A    Yes.  I did a four-year nursing course in South
8    Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa.
9         Q    Did you obtain your four-year nursing license?
10         A    Yes, I did.
11         Q    Degree?
12         A    Yes, registered nurse.
13         Q    All right.  And sometime after that you joined the
14    Church of Scientology?
15         A    I did.  Excuse me.  I joined the Church in
16    March 1965 in Johannesburg.
17         Q    And after joining the Church of Scientology you
18    became a Sea Org member?
19         A    Yes.
20         Q    And did you work with Mr. Hubbard?
21         A    Yes.
22         Q    Where?
23         A    On board his ship the Avon River, later called the
24    Athena, and his Flag ship the Royal Scotman, later renamed
25    the Apollo.



1         Q    And did you work with Mr. Hubbard day in and day
2    out?
3         A    Pretty much so.  Yes.  I was one of his -- at
4    first, I went up in the ranks, and about six, seven months
5    after I joined the Sea Org, I became the captain of the Avon
6    River.
7              THE COURT:  Of the what?
8              THE WITNESS:  The captain.
9              THE COURT:  Of the?
10              THE WITNESS:  Avon River.  It was a one -- it
11         was about a 150-foot old English fishing trawler.
12              THE COURT:  Oh, okay.
13              THE WITNESS:  And it sailed in English waters
14         and the Mediterranean.
15              THE COURT:  All right.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Were you captain of any other ship of
18    Mr. Hubbard's or the Church of Scientology?
19         A    Yes.  The Apollo for a short time, for about six
20    to seven months.
21         Q    Okay.  And from --
22         A    Excuse me.  I was the deputy captain.  Mr. Hubbard
23    was the captain.
24         Q    Okay.
25              THE COURT:  Is this the captain that sails the



1         ship?  Or is this --
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
3              THE COURT:  You are actually a real captain?
4              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
5              THE COURT:  Okay.
6              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
7              THE COURT:  Okay.
9         Q    What was your highest rank in the Sea Org?
10         A    Commander right arm.
11         Q    And when did you cease membership in the Sea Org?
12         A    In March 1982.  That was when I left the Sea Org
13    of my own accord in Clearwater, Florida from the Ft.
14    Harrison Hotel.
15         Q    And did you remain a staff or public member of
16    Scientology then?
17         A    Not a staff.  I remained a public member.  I
18    went -- when I left, because I left without permission, I
19    was assigned a suppressive person status.  And about six
20    months after that I went to Los Angeles, back to
21    Scientology, the headquarters there, and I did a policy
22    called steps A to E to reenter back as a Scientologist in
23    good standing.
24              And I finished all those steps and I was
25    reinstated as a Scientologist in good standing in, I think,



1    1983.  I don't have those records with me.
2         Q    Okay.
3         A    But I do have them.
4         Q    And how long did you remain a Scientologist in
5    good standing?
6         A    From that time in 1983, only up to about the
7    middle of 1984.  About a year more.
8         Q    And then what happened?
9         A    And then I had what I consider an unfortunate
10    experience in a dental clinic in San Bernadino.  I worked
11    for Sterling Management Systems.
12         Q    Is that a Scientology --
13         A    That is a Scientology group.  And they -- they
14    still exist.  They consult with doctors and dentists and
15    chiropractors to help them run their business better.  And I
16    worked for a subsidiary of Sterling Management Systems in
17    this particular dental clinic.  And I witnessed some very
18    heavy handling of the doctors by Sterling Management
19    consultants who flew down from San Francisco, where Sterling
20    was then based, to San Bernadino to deal with the doctors
21    because they were getting a bit riled up about Scientology.
22              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, I object on relevance,
23         whatever happened with doctors and --
24              THE COURT:  What is the relevance?
25              MR. MOXON:  -- private company.



1              MR. DANDAR:  You know, if I tell you the
2         relevance, then you will say I'm coaching the
3         witness, so I'm hesitant --
4              THE COURT:  You are going to link it up is what
5         you are telling me?
6              MR. DANDAR:  I'm going to link it up.
8         Q    Is Sterling Management what is called a WISE
9    company?
10         A    It is a member of WISE, the World Institute of
11    Scientology Enterprises.
12         Q    And does it sell or administer Hubbard technology
13    to private businesses so they run their businesses according
14    to Mr. Hubbard's technology?
15         A    Yes, they do.
16         Q    Okay.  So after you had this experience in the
17    dental office, did you continue to be a Scientologist?
18         A    No.  At that point I realized I had to rethink my
19    association with Scientology because the activities I saw in
20    the office did not match the policies of Mr. Hubbard that I
21    was familiar with.  And I left and decided to leave
22    Scientology at that time.
23         Q    And what year did you leave?
24         A    I left in -- I think it was 1984.
25         Q    Who was the head of the Sea Org when you left



1    Scientology?
2         A    It was -- it was still Mr. Hubbard, as far as I
3    was aware.
4         Q    Because he was still alive?
5         A    Yes, he was still alive then.
6         Q    And when Mr. Hubbard died, who was the head of the
7    Sea Org?
8              MR. MOXON:  Objection.
9              THE COURT:  We don't need this.  This is
10         duplicative.
11              MR. DANDAR:  Well --
12              THE COURT:  She left.  She wasn't even there.
13    BY MR. DANDAR:
14         Q    When you left Scientology, did you keep up with
15    Scientology's --
16              THE COURT:  There really isn't any dispute over
17         the fact of who was the head of the Sea Org unless
18         it is somebody that she's going to testify different
19         from what has been testified to by every other
20         witness.
21              MR. DANDAR:  Except Mr. Shaw.  If you recall,
22         Mr. Shaw and Ms. Brooks have a different testimony
23         than every other witness.
24              THE COURT:  I don't remember that.  Ms. Brooks
25         said that David Miscavige was head of the Sea Org,



1         didn't she?
2              MR. DANDAR:  No -- well, I think -- I think she
3         kind of hemmed and hawed about it.  Went around in
4         circles.
5              THE COURT:  Counsel, move on to some other
6         questions.
7              MR. DANDAR:  I will.
8              THE COURT:  You are lucky to get this witness
9         on the stand.
10              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
11    BY MR. DANDAR:
12         Q    After you left Scientology, did it ever come to
13    your attention that the Church of Scientology had private
14    investigators following you or your husband?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    When was that?
17         A    1986 was the first time we became aware of it.
18    I'm not sure of the date or the month, but it was at the
19    time that a group of former Scientologists held a meeting at
20    the Leo Baeck Temple in west Los Angeles.  I can't give you
21    a time more than that.
22         Q    Okay.  And how is it that you associated the
23    private investigators with the Church of Scientology?
24         A    When we were at the meeting inside, one of the
25    security guards came to -- I think it was Frank and Mary



1    Freedman and told them the security guards at the table --
2              MR. MOXON:  Objection, hearsay.
3              MR. DANDAR:  It is not asserted for the truth
4         of the matter but her state of mind.
5              THE COURT:  Overruled -- I mean sustained.
6         This is asserted for the truth of the matter that
7         these investigators were with the Church of
8         Scientology.
10         Q    Did you independently go and find out who these
11    private investigators were associated with?  Or are you
12    relying on what someone at this meeting told you?
13         A    Mmm, we relied on what the person at the meeting
14    told us.
15              THE COURT:  Do you know of any other person --
16         any other organization, any other entity that would
17         want to have investigators following you?
18              THE WITNESS:  Not at that -- no, your Honor.
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    Was this meeting -- did this meeting have anything
21    to do with the Church of Scientology?
22         A    It had to do with gathering together former
23    members and promoting a lawsuit against Scientology.
24         Q    Okay.  And did you and your husband participate in
25    any lawsuit against Scientology?



1         A    Yes, we did.
2         Q    When was that?
3         A    That was in 1986.  I think it was filed December
4    '86.
5         Q    All right.  Was that lawsuit ultimately dismissed?
6         A    Yes, it was.
7         Q    Do you know when it was dismissed?
8         A    Mmm, no.  A few years later, three or four years
9    later.
10         Q    Okay.  During the three or four years that the
11    lawsuit was pending, did you have any private investigators
12    following you, harassing you or any other strange things
13    happen to you or your husband?
14         A    Mmm, I think we did.  We didn't -- at that time we
15    didn't take that much notice.  And I don't have any clear
16    recollection.
17         Q    When is the first -- next time --
18              THE COURT:  Can I interrupt just a moment?  I
19         heard about so many lawsuits.
20              Is this lawsuit that was filed -- did it have a
21         name?
22              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes, your Honor, called
23         Stansfield versus Starkey reported in the California
24         Reporters.  It was dismissed with sanctions.  The
25         dismissal was affirmed by the California Court of



1         Appeals as frivolous --
2              THE COURT:  Stan --
3              MR. LIEBERMAN:  S-T-A-N-S-F-I-E-L-D versus
4         Starkey, Norman Starkey, S-T-A-R-K-E-Y.  Among the
5         defendants was David Miscavige.  And the lawsuit was
6         dismissed six or seven times with leave to replead,
7         finally dismissed with sanctions, affirmed by the
8         California Court of Appeals.  I can get the citation
9         for you by this afternoon.
10              THE COURT:  I honestly just wanted to know
11         whether this was a suit that I had heard about and
12         it is not.  This is one I haven't heard about.
13              Go ahead.
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    When is the next time you or your husband realized
16    you were being in contact or being followed by private
17    investigators for the Church of Scientology?
18         A    Mmm, I think it started seriously in 1991.  July.
19    We were traveling around quite a bit.  We worked with
20    families who had a child or a spouse in Scientology.  And we
21    worked with the families to try to educate the family to get
22    over their hostility toward Scientology so that they could
23    talk to their youngster or their spouse and engage in a
24    dialogue which would bring them back together again.
25              THE COURT:  When you say they, ma'am, this is



1         you and your husband or is this another group of
2         people?
3              THE WITNESS:  This is the family -- this is the
4         family.
5              THE COURT:  No, you said in 1991 -- I wrote
6         down "they" were traveling around so I don't know
7         who "they" are.  Is that you and your husband?
8              THE WITNESS:  We, myself and my husband.
9              THE COURT:  Was he also a former member of the
10         Church of Scientology?
11              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes.
12    BY MR. DANDAR:
13         Q    When you say working with families, are you
14    familiar with the term called "deprogramming" or
15    "deprogrammer"?
16         A    Yes.
17         Q    Is that what you and your husband were?
18         A    No.  Mmm, Scientology defines deprogramming and
19    deprogrammer as a manipulative and coercive method of
20    ripping a person's believes out of his or her mind and
21    replacing them with other beliefs, and we do not do that.
22    We have never done that.
23         Q    You said just a little while ago you and your
24    husband would educate the families about Scientology.
25         A    Yes.  To some extent.  And the culture of



1    Scientology and that it was a culture as important as their
2    own family culture.  And if they could not see it in that
3    light, they could never bridge the gap to talk to their son
4    or daughter or their spouse.  They had to respect what their
5    son or daughter or spouse was into and only on that footing
6    could they engage in some sort of dialogue to bring them
7    back together again.
8         Q    Did you ever participate in talking to someone who
9    was a current member of Scientology, trying to get them to
10    quit?
11         A    Well, we never tried to get anyone to quit.  So
12    let me make that clear.
13         Q    Okay.
14         A    But, yes, I have spoken to Scientologists.
15         Q    In an attempt to do what?
16              THE COURT:  Active -- you mean Scientologists
17         who were presently Scientologists?
18              THE WITNESS:  Right.
19         A    In an effort to establish a dialogue with their
20    parents or a spouse.
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    Who were not Scientologists?
23         A    Who were not Scientologists, right.
24         Q    Did you use any type of coercion to attempt to do
25    this?



1         A    No.
2         Q    I mean, did you hold them against their will?
3         A    No.
4         Q    Kidnap them?
5         A    No.
6         Q    Okay.  How would you meet a current Scientologist
7    in order to talk to them?
8         A    Mmm, we would arrange to meet the family and
9    the -- the Scientologists when they -- they were meeting,
10    when the family and the Scientologists were meeting, either
11    in their home or a restaurant or some other place.
12         Q    And if in -- if in your experience, if a current
13    Scientologist just said, "I don't want to talk to you, let
14    me alone," did you and your husband engage in any other
15    activity to prevent that person from either leaving or
16    not -- or not talking?
17         A    Absolutely not.  At that point, we withdrew.  And
18    we told each family we worked with that that is what we
19    would do.
20         Q    Okay.  Now, what was going on in '91 that caused
21    you in July of '91 to see or suspect private investigators
22    were once again following you or your husband?
23         A    Mmm, we had -- as I said, we were traveling a good
24    bit so we were away from home at times.
25              On the 13th of July we were in England working



1    with a family.  And when we came home we found a message on
2    our answering machine from American Express saying that
3    someone had called in and a security breach had occurred and
4    could we get a hold of American Express.
5              Now, that happened on the 13th.  And we got back a
6    week -- week and a half later.  I can't remember exactly.
7              So then we called in to American Express and we
8    found out somebody called in impersonating my husband.
9              MR. MOXON:  Objection, hearsay.
10              THE WITNESS:  No, I was on the phone.  I heard
11         this.
12              MR. MOXON:  Hearsay.
13    BY MR. DANDAR:
14         Q    Go ahead.
15         A    That somebody called in impersonating Jerry and
16    had asked for our May, June and July American Express
17    statements and had received them.  We got very concerned and
18    asked what had triggered the alert and the American Express
19    security lady would not tell us.  And we also asked to what
20    address had the statements been sent.
21              And she said she couldn't divulge that
22    information.
23              So at that point we realized that we had to be
24    more cautious about how we traveled and how we recorded our
25    travels.  And we cancelled that American Express account.



1         Q    Jerry Whitfield, that is your husband?
2         A    That is my husband.
3              And a little earlier, July 2nd --
4              MR. MOXON:  Objection, your Honor, there is no
5         question.  This is just a narrative.
6              MR. DANDAR:  She's continuing to answer my
7         question.
8              THE COURT:  Yes, she was asked whether or
9         not -- what caused her to think in July that she was
10         being followed or something by the Church
11         investigator.  If that is continuation of that
12         answer --
13              MR. DANDAR:  Yes, it is still in July.
14         A    Yes, this is in July.  We called up our phone
15    company -- we found out that phone companies keep records
16    for anywhere from three to six months of people who call in
17    to inquire about their account, you know, "Please send me a
18    statement, I have lost my last month's statement, please do
19    this or that for me."
20              So we thought just on the spur of the moment we
21    would call in and see if there had been any inquiries on our
22    phone accounts that had not come from us.
23              And we found on our Pacific Bell account that
24    there had been some inquiries.  A Paul -- this was in -- up
25    to July 2nd when we placed the phone call with Pacific Bell,



1    a Paul Henry or Harry had called saying he was from General.
2    Telephone.  When he found out he could not get any copies of
3    the statements sent to him, he hung up.  He left no number.
4              Somebody called Sam from AT&T wanted --
5    represented himself as Jerry -- I'm sorry, Sam from --
6    representing himself as Sam said he was from AT&T and wanted
7    copies of our bills.  They were refused.  He left an 800
8    number.
9              He also wanted to know what calls we were
10    making --
11              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, I object, hearsay.
12              THE COURT:  This isn't hearsay because this is
13         not introduced for the truth of the matter because
14         obviously this is all lies.  By that I mean whoever
15         was calling in and doing whatever they were doing
16         was not these people --
17              THE WITNESS:  Right.  Right, your Honor.
18         A    And then a Darrell from Continental Telephone had
19    also called in and wanted to know if we were making any
20    619 -- that is the area code for San Diego -- if we were
21    making any 619 calls to that area.
22              And we could not find out if he had been given
23    that information or not.  I think, as it was at the time, we
24    hadn't been.
25              So at this point we became concerned and decided



1    to start being more watchful about our bank accounts, our
2    telephone accounts and possibly if we were being followed.
3    Because having been Scientologists, we had been privy to
4    some of Mr. Hubbard's policies back in the late '50s, '60s,
5    that indicated how Scientology could attack critics.  And
6    these types of tactics were ones that would fit into those
7    policies.
9         Q    When you were a Scientologist from '65 to '84, did
10    you -- were you familiar with the fair game policy?
11         A    Oh, yes.  Very much so.
12         Q    And was -- when you left Scientology in '84 was
13    the fair game policy on how to treat suppressive people, was
14    that in effect, or cancelled?
15         A    That was in effect.
16              MR. MOXON:  Objection, your Honor.  Apparently
17         she's giving now opinion testimony.
18              THE COURT:  I'm going to allow it.  Overruled.
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    How do you know it was in effect?
21         A    Because it was -- it was practiced when I got in
22    in 1965.  Mr. Hubbard himself wrote a number of suppressive
23    person orders, people in Australia who had filed lawsuits or
24    testified in lawsuits against Scientology, and a number of
25    people in England and American who had purportedly stolen



1    confidential Scientology upper-level materials.  He
2    personally had written suppressive person orders declaring
3    these particular people fair game.
4         Q    What about in the last, say, four or five years of
5    your membership in the '80s, was the fair game policy still
6    in effect as far as you know or was it cancelled?
7         A    Publicly, it had been cancelled.  But internally,
8    there was -- often I heard talk about the Guardian's Office
9    security checking people who had been --
10              MR. MOXON:  Objection, hearsay.  She started
11         talking about somebody else --
12              THE COURT:  You know what now, I'm just going
13         to get through this and we're just going to allow
14         this.  This all has to do with this First Amendment
15         and whether or not -- this will be briefed.  I just
16         don't want to hear the objections.  I'm going to
17         allow it on the same basis I have allowed it
18         throughout the proceedings.
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    Outside of your --
21         A    I would like to add something to that if I could,
22    your Honor.
23         Q    Yes?
24         A    In the Hubbard guidance center in 1979, '80 and
25    '81 and '82 I personally ordered a number of preclears, I



1    think all of them public preclears, who had had dealings
2    with the Guardian's Office and who had been extremely upset
3    over those dealings.
4              MR. MOXON:  I do object now.  I'm sorry to
5         interrupt during the middle, but now if I understand
6         what she's saying, she, as a church minister, as an
7         auditor, was auditing people and now she's telling
8         about what they told her during these confidential
9         auditing sessions?
10              THE COURT:  I'm not going to allow any of the
11         confidential matters.
12              THE WITNESS:  I haven't mentioned anything
13         confidential or names and I will not.
14              MR. MOXON:  Well, not mentioning names is one
15         thing, but saying this is what a person X told me,
16         without identifying them, an anonymous person told
17         me something, and --
18              THE COURT:  You know what, even the judge has a
19         right to ask a priest did somebody else confess to
20         the crime and they will answer that.  They will not
21         tell you who and they will not tell you what they
22         said or what have you.  I think what she's trying to
23         tell us is something about fair game here with
24         somebody that she talked to.  I'm going to allow it.



2         Q    Where were you auditing?
3              THE COURT:  We don't need to be any more
4         specific than that, Counsel.
5              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
7         Q    How high did you go on the bridge, both sides of
8    the bridge?
9              THE COURT:  I didn't hear the rest of her
10         answer --
11              MR. DANDAR:  That is right.
12              THE COURT:  -- with all this hoopla.  Now you
13         don't want her answer.  If you don't care about it,
14         just move on.  What were you about to tell me,
15         ma'am?
16              THE WITNESS:  Mmm, I have lost my train of
17         thought.
18              THE COURT:  Well, it had something to do with
19         some folks that you talked to in the Church
20         regarding fair game perhaps.
21              THE WITNESS:  Right.  These -- these people
22         were public Scientologists, meaning they weren't
23         employed by the sea organization.
24              THE COURT:  You can assume, Ms. Whitfield,
25         that, I know all about.  I have been here 30-some



1         days.  I know more than I ever dreamt I would know.
2              Was there something you learned about some
3         public members about fair game I think you were
4         about to say.
5              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor, I did.  From
6         these people.  They were upset at the treatment they
7         had received by members of the Guardian's Office
8         because they had either been critical of Scientology
9         or not adhered to Scientology policies or had --
10         Mmm -- displayed an independence of Scientology; in
11         other words, they were not following Scientology in
12         their business or their private life but doing
13         something else.
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    Okay.  And how high of an auditor were you?
16         A    Mmm, I received -- I trained through Class 7.  And
17    received my certification and classification in England.
18    And beyond that, I did no other formal auditor training.
19    But when I was auditing at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in
20    Clearwater in the late '70s, early '80s, Jeff Walker, the
21    then senior case supervisor, said I was auditing at Class 8
22    level and I should be awarded that level.
23         Q    All right.  Now --
24              MR. MOXON:  I move to strike that hearsay
25         comment about what somebody else thought she should



1         be awarded.  That doesn't go to obviously the truth
2         of the matter.  As I understand what she said
3         someone else told her he thought she should be at a
4         certain level.
5              THE COURT:  Do you really think I care whether
6         she was auditing Class 7 or Class 8?  Give me a
7         break.
8              MR. MOXON:  All right.
9              THE COURT:  Give me a break.  Please don't
10         interrupt with things that don't make one whit of
11         difference to me.
12    BY MR. DANDAR:
13         Q    Without identifying anyone, as you said you
14    wouldn't do any way, can you give us some examples of the
15    complaints that you heard concerning fair game on these
16    public members of Scientology?
17         A    One I remember particularly, a young man, had been
18    security checked, put through a security check by the
19    Guardian's Office.  And he said that it was very stressful.
20    It had gone on for hours and hours and hours for a few days.
21    Mmm, and he had been shouted at.  The desk had been -- the
22    auditing desk had been thumped and he was very distressed
23    about it.
24         Q    Anything else?
25         A    No, that is all I'll say.



1         Q    Okay.  Are you saying there is more but you don't
2    want to talk about it?
3         A    I would have to -- I would have to recollect.  I
4    would have to take some time and --
5         Q    Okay.
6         A    Yeah.
7         Q    Okay.  Now, after this incident in July of '91
8    where the phone records and your American Express records
9    were accessed or attempted to be accessed, can you tell us
10    about any other occurrences where you and your husband
11    believed had something to do with the Church of Scientology?
12         A    Yes.  This again is in July.  Before we went to
13    England.  We weren't sleeping that well at that -- after we
14    found out about the phone calls, we weren't sleeping that
15    well.  We got up early one morning and found a car parked
16    across the street with two men in it.  This is about 5, 5:30
17    in the morning.  And by 6:30 they were still in the car.
18              And we checked again at about 7 and somehow the
19    car had rolled back down the hill and its bumper had
20    interlocked with another car's bumper and the two men in the
21    car were out trying to disengage the bumpers.  And my
22    husband went out -- we went out into the street and my
23    husband said, "Why are you sitting here?"
24              And the two gentlemen were very evasive.  They
25    continued trying to untangle their bumpers.  And at that



1    point the -- one of them said, "I have to phone the
2    complex."  And he got out of the car and started walking
3    down the hill from our home to a store on the corner where
4    he could call.  And when he mentioned the word "complex,"
5    the only place we know as the complex is the Scientology
6    headquarters in Los Angeles which is commonly referred to as
7    the complex.
8              And that was the association we made at that time.
9    They took a few hours disentangling their car, and then they
10    left.
11         Q    Okay.
12         A    Shortly -- shortly after that, we were due to
13    leave for England.  And our plane left fairly early in the
14    morning.  We left our home I think at about 6 or 6:30 and
15    there was a white car following us.  And it seemed to very
16    clearly be following us.  It just stayed on us.
17              My husband did, I think, four right-hand turns and
18    the car kept on after us.
19              At that point, my husband speeded up and we did
20    some zigzags and it appears we lost the car.  But we weren't
21    certain.  We went to LAX, parked our car and got on the
22    plane and went to England.
23         Q    Anything happen in England?
24         A    The first evening, I think, that we were in
25    England, we traveled from Heathrow to East Grinstead and



1    then down to Exmouth, E-X-M-O-U-T-H, on the south coast.
2    And we were put up by the family we were working with in a
3    B&B, bed and breakfast.  And by -- by a very quiet part of
4    Exmouth, very few cars on the street.
5              And by about 6:30, 7 o'clock that evening, the --
6    the -- I'm sorry, the first evening I think there was nobody
7    around.
8              The first evening I received a phone call from
9    Noella Atak, a friend of ours in England.  And she said she
10    had a phone call from Jerry's father in the United States,
11    that he was in physical trouble, badly in physical trouble
12    and needed to speak to his son.
13              And I got pretty concerned.  I said to Noella,
14    "How do you know it was Jerry's father?"  She said, "Well,
15    he spoke in a very high, quavering voice and to me that
16    sounded like it could have been Jerry's father."  Jerry and
17    John Atak, a friend of ours, and the family had gone out for
18    a meal and I was at the B&B.
19              I immediately placed a call to Jerry's father in
20    New Mexico, in Clovis, New Mexico, and could not get
21    through, it just rang and rang.  There was no answer.
22              At that point I put a call through to his son Jack
23    Whitfield, also living in Clovis.  No answer.  At that point
24    I put a call through to our nephew, Mark Whitfield, and I
25    got him.  And I asked Mark please to call around and find



1    Jerry's father, see how he was doing.  And if it was urgent,
2    we would fly back to the states.
3              Half an hour later Mark called and said he didn't
4    know what information we were acting on but Jerry's father
5    was fine, there was no problem, he had not placed a call to
6    us.
7              So at that point I called Noella back.  I said,
8    "Noella, if you get any more phone calls, please let us know
9    but don't panic."  At that point Noella said, "Okay, I
10    better let you know, seeing the call was false, that the
11    caller asked for where you were in the U.K. and I told him
12    that you were in Exmouth."  And I said, "Oh, boy.  Well,
13    maybe at this point we can expect visitors."  That was just
14    a surmise of mine.
15              I think it was later that evening, by about maybe
16    9, 10 o'clock, maybe even a bit later, we noticed there were
17    five, six cars driving around the bed and breakfast and some
18    were parked on the street.  And one of them parked right
19    opposite the entrance to the bed and breakfast, had a
20    huge -- a big camera with a long lens on it.  And the window
21    was open.  He had that pointing outward.
22              So at that point we thought we're being followed.
23    We weren't certain of it.  We couldn't prove it.  But again,
24    we thought that that was the case.
25         Q    Did you approach the men?



1         A    No.  We did not.  We thought of filing a police
2    report, but we didn't.  We had no proof of anything except
3    the man with the camera and the cars.
4              And the following morning a tall, elegant-looking,
5    silver-haired, slender man came in looking for a place -- a
6    room to rent.  And he looked around, looked in on Jerry and
7    myself having breakfast and then he left.
8              I think another couple came in looking for a
9    place.  A place to stay.
10              Mid-morning, the Exmouth police showed up.  There
11    was Detective Inspector Lemon and a sergeant with him.  And
12    they came into the dining room where Jerry and I were eating
13    and were quite abrupt and hostile with us and said they had
14    had a report that we had kidnapped someone.
15              And they separated -- at that point they separated
16    us.  The detective inspector stayed with my husband and I
17    had to go with the sergeant to another room.  And I guess my
18    husband gave his story and I gave mine to the sergeant.  And
19    that was pretty much what I have told you up until now.  I
20    told the sergeant that we were working with the family and
21    we were there in the bed and breakfast waiting to meet with
22    the family and their daughter Madelena and her fiance, Andy,
23    and that their son Shawn would be coming down from London
24    the next day or two days later.
25              THE COURT:  Counsel, you're going to have to



1         speed this up a little bit.
3         Q    Did you kidnap anyone?
4         A    No.
5         Q    Was there any other -- I want to just move through
6    this -- any other occurrences in England, then we'll get
7    back into the States?
8         A    Well, the family had two ex-Marine -- Royal Marine
9    Special Forces friends.  And those two men helped us each
10    morning, they took us into the car and they drove us through
11    the highways and byways of Exmouth and across one-way
12    bridges and so on, and they would stop and Scientologists,
13    we presumed who were following us, stopped.  We got out of
14    the one car and got into a car ahead so we could get to the
15    family without then them following us.  And that happened
16    every morning for a few days until that was over.
17         Q    Okay.  All right.  Now, back in the United States
18    have you had any occurrences that -- with your credit
19    report?
20         A    Well, there was further surveillance after we got
21    back.  But credit reports, yes.
22         Q    When did the credit report circumstances happen?
23    Tell us what happened.
24         A    In April of 1993, that was the next year, Jerry
25    and I had been in Boston.  And when we got back home we



1    received a notice in the mail from a major credit card
2    company referring to Jerry's request for our credit reports
3    and saying that -- and the credit card company had in their
4    letter they said that the enclosed copy of our April 1993
5    statement would resolve the matter.  Well, it didn't.  I
6    have some samples here.  All -- all it says is that we
7    recently -- Hana and Jerry Whitfield recently requested some
8    records pertaining to our account and -- and we hadn't
9    requested.  The point is we had not requested our account
10    information.
11         Q    Did you find out who did?
12         A    Well, we called up the security of that credit
13    card company and they would not divulge any information
14    about who had.  They simply said the person who called
15    represented himself as Jerry Whitfield.
16              We asked for the address to which the records had
17    been sent.  And that also was not given to us.  So we didn't
18    take that any further at that time.  We just left it.
19         Q    Okay.  What is the next thing?
20         A    Mmm, I would like to backtrack a bit.
21         Q    All right.
22         A    And say that in July after we got back from
23    England, we were again followed by a white car for a number
24    of days.  I was for a week while my husband was away and
25    after he returned for a few days.  And we then pulled up to



1    a black and white, which is a police car, to ask them if we
2    had any rights in the matter because this car was following
3    us consistently, it didn't have any license plates on it.
4    And we didn't know who it was.
5              Mmm, subsequent to that, and the police taking our
6    report, I have some pictures of the police interrogating the
7    driver of the car and having him in handcuffs.  If -- if you
8    need those photographs, I have them.
9         Q    Okay.
10         A    Mmm, we also have some videotape of the earlier
11    surveillance of our home.
12              Subsequent to that, we were -- a lawsuit was filed
13    against us by the driver of that white motor vehicle for
14    false arrest.  Well, he was never really arrested.  He was
15    detained in handcuffs, or so the policeman told us, because
16    he had resisted showing the police any ID when they stopped
17    him when they flagged him down.  And they put him into cuffs
18    just until they could check him out.  And as he had no
19    record, they then let him go with a warning that he should
20    quit following us and just let us get away first.
21         Q    So that man sued you?
22         A    He sued us.  Anjel Casillas, A-N-J-E-L,
23    C-A-S-I-L-L-A-S.  Casillas.
24         Q    As a result of that lawsuit, did you find out if
25    he had any relationship to the Church of Scientology?



1         A    Yes.  He was a member in good standing.  He was a
2    Scientologist.
3         Q    And did you find out why he was following you?
4         A    No, I did not find that out, but the police told
5    us he had in his car high-powered binoculars, a tape
6    recorder, a fax machine, and of course a radio.
7         Q    Did that lawsuit result in a judgment against you
8    and your husband?
9         A    No.  Scientologists -- Anjel Casillas dismissed
10    that lawsuit three or four years later.  There was no
11    evidence to prove his claim.
12         Q    Okay.  What is the next circumstance you recall?
13         A    Mmm, in about July 1998 we saw in our Wells Fargo
14    Bank account statement that there had been a telephone
15    inquiry on our account.  We knew we hadn't made it.  It
16    showed up on --
17              THE COURT:  What is Wells Fargo, ma'am?  Is
18         that a credit card or a bank --
19         A    It's --
20              THE WITNESS:  It's a bank.  I think it's in
21         California and other states.  It's a large --
22              THE COURT:  So this is your bank account at
23         that bank, Wells Fargo?
24              THE WITNESS:  Yes, in Los Angeles.



2         Q    How did you discover a telephone inquiry at your
3    bank?
4         A    It showed up on the bank statement, on the monthly
5    statement, Wells Fargo prints -- you are allowed three free
6    inquiries on your account per month.  So this inquiry showed
7    up in the period June 9, 1998 through July 9, '98.  And we
8    knew he had not placed that call.  So somebody else placed
9    that call to inquire about our bank account, make some
10    inquiry in our bank account.
11         Q    Did you find out what the inquiry was?
12         A    No.  We phoned and we just heard that it was made
13    from -- by one of us.  And that was all.
14         Q    Do you know what information the person would have
15    to have in order to inquire about your bank account,
16    personal information?
17         A    I don't remember with this one.  Mmm, I don't
18    remember what the specifics were.
19         Q    Were you involved in any litigation in '98?
20         A    In '98?
21         Q    When this happened?
22         A    I don't believe so.
23         Q    Were you still -- you and your husband still
24    counseling with people, with families?
25         A    In '98?  Yes, somewhat.  Not as much as we had



1    been but somewhat.
2         Q    Okay.
3         A    The next instance is in July '98.  We had a number
4    of occurrences occur in connection with our AmSouth Bank.
5    AmSouth is a bank in southern Florida, your Honor.
6              And the lady we spoke to, Brenda at -- we went in.
7    Our favorite teller, Kitty, told us about this, and we went
8    in and spoke to Brenda Amal at the bank.  And she said she
9    was concerned with the sophisticated tactics used in
10    requesting information.
11              The first caller identified himself as my husband.
12              The second one -- but he was denied the
13    information he wanted because he didn't have -- I forget
14    what it was.
15              MR. MOXON:  Objection, hearsay.
16         A    Specific --
17              MR. MOXON:  I haven't made objections for a
18         while but most of this is hearsay, irrelevant,
19         certainly cumulative but all hearsay.
20              THE COURT:  I'm going to allow it.
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    Just before you get back onto AmSouth, were there
23    two inquiries in July of '98 at two different banks, one at
24    Wells Fargo, one at AmSouth?
25         A    No, the Wells Fargo one was at -- yes, that was in



1    July of '98.  And this was, in AmSouth, '98.  Yes, in the
2    same month.
3         Q    Okay.
4         A    One at Wells Fargo and three at AmSouth in Cape --
5    in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.
6         Q    Why was it so sophisticated?  You said it was a
7    sophisticated --
8         A    Well, the first person --
9              THE COURT:  I really don't want to go through
10         all of the deals and details.
11              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
12              THE COURT:  You don't have any -- you didn't
13         buy -- you didn't make any purchase where somebody
14         would be calling your account?
15              THE WITNESS:  No, your Honor.
16              THE COURT:  You didn't buy a home.
17              THE WITNESS:  No, your Honor, nothing.
18              THE COURT:  You didn't put anything on a credit
19         application indicating what your bank was.
20              THE WITNESS:  No, your Honor.
21              THE COURT:  You had no reason to know why
22         anybody would be calling your bank --
23              THE WITNESS:  Not --
24              THE COURT:  -- to make inquiry.
25              THE WITNESS:  Not at all.



1              THE COURT:  You-all did not make the inquiry.
2              THE WITNESS:  No, we didn't.
3              THE COURT:  You were told it was you-all who
4         made the inquiry.
5              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
6              THE COURT:  As far as you know the only way to
7         get information from your bank would be for you or
8         your husband to get information.
9              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
10              THE COURT:  Or to allow somebody else some sort
11         of written permission to get it?
12              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13              THE COURT:  Credit companies, I think, whatever
14         you call it, credit bureaus, I think -- I don't know
15         if they can get the amount of money in your bank or
16         not, I don't know, probably.
17    BY MR. DANDAR:
18         Q    These calls to your bank in '98, someone was
19    impersonating your husband?
20         A    Yes, three times.
21         Q    What about credit report --
22         A    Calling to different branches in '98, the same
23    information.
24         Q    What about credit reports?
25         A    We had somebody obtained our credit reports in



1    January of this year.  This was about the time that you were
2    having a hearing I think in front of yourself, your Honor,
3    in this --
4              THE COURT:  You say this year meaning 2002?
5              THE WITNESS:  In 2002, your Honor.
6              THE COURT:  Okay.
7         A    Again, we don't know who this is.  The credit card
8    company sent us this notice on January 9 saying that the
9    report had been asked for by REL Reporting Services, 12395
10    First American Way, Poway, California, 92064.  And there is
11    an EXP number and whatever.
12              Both my husband and myself got letters like this.
13              Mmm, as a result of this, I --
14              THE COURT:  Are you talking about a credit
15         bureau now?
16              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
17              THE COURT:  A credit bureau notified you --
18              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
19              THE COURT:  -- that somebody had made a
20         request?
21              THE WITNESS:  It was Credentials Credit Bureau
22         notified us from Trumbull, Connecticut.
23              THE COURT:  Prudential?
24              THE WITNESS:  Credentials.
25              THE COURT:  Credentials?



1              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
2              THE COURT:  All right.
4         Q    That is a letter in front of you that you received
5    from that --
6         A    Yes, both my husband and I received the same --
7    the identical letter.
8              THE COURT:  I'm kind of curious because if I go
9         to apply for credit -- I mean, I can go apply at a
10         store and they call -- I mean, I know they call,
11         they call straight to the credit place and they say
12         we need credit verification on -- because, you know,
13         they'll come back and I get to sign my little ticket
14         and I go home.
15              MR. WEINBERG:  Exactly.
16              THE COURT:  There is inquiry, but I have never
17         gotten -- I mean, I have never gotten a letter from
18         a credit bureau or whatever saying somebody makes an
19         inquiry.  People can make inquiry all of the time.
20              MR. DANDAR:  To make inquiry you have to have a
21         person's written approval to make an inquiry.
22              THE COURT:  How do they know that?  I had this
23         last weekend had to buy a new receiver because in my
24         new home the speakers were too big for my
25         little-bitty receiver so that is why I couldn't get



1         volume up where I could even hear it.  So I went off
2         to get a receiver, with all of the knowledge that I
3         have about such things.
4              And it was one of these deals where you have a
5         year before you have to pay for it, no credit, no
6         interest, no nothing.  Well, that is just too good
7         to pass up.  So I said, "Well, sure I'll take that."
8         And I thought they wanted me to fill out something.
9         I didn't fill out hardly anything.  They took my
10         name and address but they came back in just a
11         minute.
12              I know what they did.  I know they called a
13         credit bureau who gave them a number, we are all
14         assigned a number, whatever it was must have been
15         good enough because I signed off and went home with
16         my fancy receiver.
17              So -- but I mean -- and this happens all of the
18         time.  You go buy something --
19              MR. MOXON:  All of the time.
20              THE COURT:  But they never write to me to tell
21         me somebody made an inquiry.
22              MR. MOXON:  Well, her experience is she is
23         saying -- I get things like this all of the time.
24         Maybe her credit is better than mine.  But I get
25         inquiries from whenever I apply for credit for a



1         card or for a car or whatever.
2              THE COURT:  I'm talking about the credit
3         bureau.
4              MR. MOXON:  Me, too.
5              THE COURT:  They never call me to say somebody
6         made an inquiry.
7              MR. MOXON:  Well, they have with me.
8              MR. DANDAR:  Well, let's find out --
9              THE WITNESS:  Not as a routine, they don't.
10              THE COURT:  How is it they were notifying you?
11              THE WITNESS:  And this made me curious.  When
12         these arrived in the mail, I -- I couldn't
13         understand why it was coming to us, why somebody in
14         San Diego County would be requesting our credit
15         history because we weren't making any major
16         purchase, we weren't buying a home, we weren't
17         buying anything else major, we weren't buying a new
18         car.
19              THE COURT:  Wasn't applying for a credit card?
20              THE WITNESS:  Or applying for a credit card or
21         remortgaging our house or anything like that,
22         nothing.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    So this is someone making a request for your
25    credit history, rather than your credit rating when you go



1    to buy an appliance or something in the store?
2         A    Right.  And this person received a copy of our
3    credit history from Credentials' credit history.
4         Q    They did get a copy?
5         A    They did get a copy.
6         Q    And this is --
7         A    Now, I -- I got concerned at this point and I
8    called around.  I called Credentials.
9              THE COURT:  That required your permission, does
10         it not?
11              THE WITNESS:  Yes, it does.
12              THE COURT:  Because I think here again, always
13         drawing on personal experience, having just bought a
14         house, I think I got a copy -- they got a copy, the
15         mortgage company.  But I think I had to give them
16         authorization.
17              MR. DANDAR:  Certainly.
18              THE COURT:  They got it all right, they had it
19         and they just sent me a copy.
20              MR. FUGATE:  Do you know what you'll get now
21         for the next six or seven months, unsolicited, all
22         kinds of things from mortgage companies saying we
23         can beat your mortgage, you ought to sign up with
24         us.  Some look like it came from your bank.  I
25         get -- I got one yesterday in the mail saying you



1         can refinance your mortgage and it has all of the
2         particulars of all of the information about my
3         house.  And I'm going, I thought it came from the
4         bank.  It comes from like Consumer Credit Bureau or
5         something, which is -- I don't know what, but I get
6         a letter.  I mean, this happens all of the time.
7              MR. DANDAR:  But this does not access and get a
8         copy of your credit history.
9              THE COURT:  Right.
10              MR. DANDAR:  That way.
11              THE WITNESS:  It says here the companies listed
12         on the reverse side have requested and received
13         copies of your Experian credit report.  This is in
14         my -- if you would like to see it, your Honor, that
15         is in the letter to me.  And the letter to my
16         husband is the same.  And on the reverse side -- oh,
17         your Honor -- well, on the reverse side is the
18         company that the report was made to that requested
19         copies of our credit --
20              THE COURT:  Okay.
21              THE WITNESS:  You want to see my husband's,
22         too, your Honor?
23              THE COURT:  Well, this must be something
24         different because this says Credentials' credit
25         report monitoring service has been notified by



1         Experian -- Experian is the credit report -- that
2         the following activity has occurred on your personal
3         credit report.
4              You-all must have asked -- you know, there is
5         this deal where you can get it, because I get this,
6         too -- you can sign up for it, which says that --
7         that if somebody makes an inquiry, you will be
8         notified.  You know what I'm talking about?
9              THE WITNESS:  Yes, I do.
10              THE COURT:  So maybe you-all had requested --
11              THE WITNESS:  I think that is the reason that
12         was sent to us, yes.
13              THE COURT:  Yes, so this -- so they are then
14         responding pursuant to probably your direction,
15         because as I said, I could sign up for that, too.
16         And the only problem is it costs money and I didn't
17         feel like paying the money.  But the REL Reporting
18         Service, you do not know who they are, is that what
19         you're telling me?
20              THE WITNESS:  No, I don't.  I made inquiries
21         and I got a bit more information.
22              THE COURT:  But as far as you know, you didn't
23         make any credit card purchases or apply for credit
24         or any of the things that would normally bring forth
25         a request to a credit bureau?



1              THE WITNESS:  No, nothing.
2              THE COURT:  Okay.
3              THE WITNESS:  Nothing, your Honor.
5         Q    So what did -- what did you do when you got this
6    from the Credentials' reporting service?
7         A    Well, I called -- I called the --
8              THE COURT:  It is time for a break.  I'm sorry,
9         but let's go ahead and break.  It is twenty till.  I
10         want to give this reporter a break.  We'll be in
11         recess until 10 o'clock -- 11 o'clock.
12              MR. FUGATE:  11 o'clock.
13              THE COURT:  Ma'am, I should tell you while you
14         are on the witness stand you are not allowed to talk
15         to even the lawyers about your testimony.  Okay?
16              THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
17              THE COURT:  You can leave, go do whatever, talk
18         to them about lunch, but you can't talk about your
19         testimony with the lawyers while you are on the
20         witness stand, or anybody else.
21              THE WITNESS:  Okay, thank you.
22                (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)
23             ________________________________________
24              THE COURT:  Madam Clerk, did I hand you the
25         original of that order I did this morning?  I gave



1         one of you-all the original.  It would be signed in
2         blue.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear -- oh,
4         you gave --
5              THE COURT:  I gave somebody the original order.
6              MR. LIROT:  Judge, I believe this is it.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  No.
8              THE COURT:  It was signed in blue.
9              MR. MOXON:  When Joyce comes back in I'll check
10         with her.
11              MR. WEINBERG:  You gave me four or five of
12         them.  I didn't look.
13              THE COURT:  I did.  One of the ones I handed
14         out was signed in blue ink.
15              MR. LIROT:  I'll check.
16              THE COURT:  If you-all could look and if you
17         could find it that would be good, I wouldn't have to
18         do another one.
19              MR. WEINBERG:  Is that the practice, you need
20         to do it in blue?
21              THE COURT:  I started doing it in blue only
22         because the copies are so good --
23              MR. WEINBERG:  Look the same.
24              THE COURT:  When lawyers hand me things, for
25         example, so many times I think they sent me the



1         original, then I have to call them on the phone and
2         say -- because you should not send me -- and
3         sometimes they have sent me the original.
4              MR. WEINBERG:  Here is Joyce, let's just see.
5              MR. LIEBERMAN:  They must be on the table
6         somewhere.
7              MR. FUGATE:  That is the worst news.
8              MR. LIEBERMAN:  That is really terrible news.
9              THE COURT:  Yes.
10              MR. FUGATE:  Judge, I'll just try and look --
11              THE COURT:  Okay.  We can continue on, if
12         you-all would just look.
13              MR. WEINBERG:  We're typically organized but
14         obviously we've become disorganized.  You will find
15         my fingerprints on them now.
16              THE COURT:  I gave you-all two copies.  Your
17         both copies look black?
18              MR. DANDAR:  We can only find one, though.
19              MR. LIROT:  The one does and I think
20         Mr. Dandar's secretary might have taken the other
21         with her.
22              THE COURT:  Would you ask her when she comes
23         back -- she's not coming back today?
24              MR. DANDAR:  But I'll ask her when she gets to
25         the office.



1              MR. WEINBERG:  We'll find it.  I mean, I
2         know --
3              THE COURT:  Thank you.
4              MR. WEINBERG:  -- I handled it.
5              THE COURT:  But I don't want to forget because
6         it is important it needs to be filed and I haven't
7         filed it.  In other words, my secretary has taken
8         down a copy to be filed.  I said, "No, no, I must
9         have taken it into court."
10              Okay, continue on.
11              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
12    BY MR. DANDAR:
13         Q    So when you got this inquiry notice in January of
14    this year, 2002, what did you do?
15         A    Mmm, I decided to try to check out if I could find
16    what this business was and if I could speak to somebody at
17    the business to find out why they had requested copies of
18    our credit reports.
19              So first of all I called Credentials.  That is the
20    reporting company that sent us this notice.  And she said I
21    could make out a dispute form and send one to the credit
22    bureau and -- but nothing much would come of it, they
23    wouldn't really deal with what I wanted dealt with.
24              I contacted the Better Business Bureau in San
25    Diego County.  I contacted the Attorney General's Office in



1    Sacramento.  And I got a long phone menu but that didn't
2    direct me to anything that really applied to what I wanted.
3              THE COURT:  Stop just a minute.  Madam Clerk,
4         here is the original.  Would you see this is filed?
5         Thank you-all.
6              MR. WEINBERG:  Sure.
7              THE CLERK:  Into the Court file?
8              THE COURT:  Into the Court file.  Right.
10         Q    After you contacted the Attorney General in
11    Sacramento, California, then what did you do?
12         A    Then I got on the Internet and I accessed -- I got
13    a street map of where this business was.  And then I
14    accessed the Better Business Bureau and tried to find out
15    who this company -- what this company was and what it did.
16              And I found out that it was licensed under three
17    names, one was First American Appraisal Service.  Another
18    one was -- Mmm -- First American Registry.
19              And there was a third name and I can't find it
20    right now.  As I come across it I'll give it to you.
21              Mmm, the person listed as the principal customer
22    contact was a Mr. David Raskin, the manager, and it gave a
23    phone number for him.  And I phoned repeatedly that day.  I
24    kept phoning every half hour almost through the morning and
25    into the afternoon.  And I couldn't -- there was no answer.



1    There was no answering machine on the phone.  And it just
2    rang and rang and rang.
3              Then I checked the yellow pages to see if David
4    Raskin was listed any way in San Diego or --
5              THE COURT:  David who?
6              THE WITNESS:  David Raskin, your Honor,
7         R-A-S-K-I-N.
8         A    There was no home listing for him, no street
9    address and no phone number to contact him apart from that
10    business.  And he wasn't a member of the Better Business
11    Bureau, he wasn't a member of the Chamber of Commerce.  The
12    name didn't come up anywhere.  I punched in the name looking
13    for that name.  And it didn't come up.
14              So at that point Jerry and I discussed it being a
15    felony that this had been done and we looked at filing a
16    police report.  And I contacted the -- phoned the police
17    department in San Diego County to see if I could file a
18    police report.  And they told me to do it through the local
19    police.
20    BY MR. DANDAR:
21         Q    Where you live?
22         A    Beg pardon?
23         Q    Where you live?
24         A    Where we live in Cape Coral.
25         Q    Okay.



1         A    And I never got around to do it.  One thing and
2    another and I just didn't do it.  I should have done it.
3         Q    All right.
4         A    It is probably too late to do it now.
5         Q    Has anything else other than what you already
6    talked about -- do you recall any other instances where you
7    believe your credit, bank, phone records were accessed,
8    people were following you, that you haven't talked about?
9         A    There were a number of others but I would have to
10    get back to my notes.  I don't -- I don't have everything
11    with me.
12         Q    All right.
13         A    And it's -- a lot of the things that have
14    happened, including the instances of surveillance, it's --
15    it's sometimes difficult to keep track of it all.
16         Q    Now, where did you live in 1991?
17         A    We lived in Los Angeles, California at 661 North
18    Occidental Boulevard.
19         Q    Is that a subdivision?
20         A    Yes.
21         Q    What was it called?
22         A    Silver Lake.
23         Q    And in California, did you participate or were you
24    associated with the organization back then known as the Cult
25    Awareness Network?



1         A    Yes.  To -- to a little extent.
2         Q    How?
3         A    We had met the head of the Cult Awareness Network
4    affiliate in Los Angeles, Priscilla Coates.  And she had
5    helped us -- Mmm -- sort out our Scientology experiences to
6    some extent.  She gave us a few books to read, things like
7    that.  And she was the one who mentioned that with our
8    extensive Scientology experience, we may be able to talk to
9    and help families in distress who had a loved one in
10    Scientology.
11         Q    Okay.  Do you know Frank Oliver?
12         A    Yes.
13         Q    When did you first meet Frank Oliver?
14         A    Mmm, a few years ago when we were living in Cape
15    Coral, if I'm not mistaken, at the time that some TV company
16    was making a documentary about Scientology.
17         Q    And did Frank Oliver introduce himself to you?
18         A    Yes, he came to our home and introduced himself.
19    And blurted out that he had been the one responsible for
20    organizing -- or running -- which is a Scientology word, the
21    surveillance --
22              MR. MOXON:  Objection, hearsay, your Honor.
23              MR. DANDAR:  He's testified as a witness.
24              THE COURT:  I'll allow it.



2         Q    Go ahead.
3         A    Mmm, that Frank had been the one who had organized
4    or run the surveillance on us in I believe it was round
5    about June, July, August, in that period of time in Los
6    Angeles.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  Which year are we talking about
8         now?
10         Q    Which year?
11         A    1991.
12         Q    Okay.
13         A    And I was shocked and perturbed but very glad to
14    be able to smack him -- no.  No, I didn't smack him -- to
15    talk to him about it and -- and --
16              THE COURT:  He indicated he had run the
17         surveillance on you in 1991?
18              THE WITNESS:  Yes, June, July, August, in that
19         period of time, your Honor, in 1991.
20              THE COURT:  Okay.
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    All right.
23         A    And at the time that we were speaking, I said,
24    "Oh, so you -- you were the one who -- who had Scott
25    Musselman follow me on the motorbike?  You were the one who



1    had --" because I knew Scott Musselman from when I was
2    working in the Ft. Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, I knew
3    Scotty quite well.  We bumped heads all of the time.  And I
4    had recognized him as being the motorbike rider who followed
5    me ten days continuously from the time I got up in the
6    morning until the time I went to bed at night, that
7    motorbike was always behind my car.
8              THE COURT:  When was this?
9              THE WITNESS:  This was in -- I think it was in
10         July -- June, July, August, sometime in that period
11         of time.
12              THE COURT:  Of '91?
13              THE WITNESS:  '91, your Honor, when my husband
14         was out of town for a week working with family, I
15         stayed --
16              THE COURT:  Who was this person, Scott who?
17              THE WITNESS:  Musselman, M-U-S-S-E-L-M-A-N, I
18         think.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.
20    BY MR. DANDAR:
21         Q    And do you know Ben Shaw?
22         A    Yes, I do.
23         Q    How do you know Ben Shaw?
24         A    Mmm, he was one of the gentlemen who appeared
25    outside the bed and breakfast in England when we were



1    working with a family in Exmouth.  And he also was one of
2    the people who did surveillance on us when we were in St.
3    Joseph working with a family, and in Indianola working with
4    a family.  I-N-D-I-A-N-A-O-L-A, I think.
5         Q    What year was that?
6              THE COURT:  What is Indianola?  Is that a
7         state?
8              THE WITNESS:  A city.
9              THE COURT:  Where is that?
10              THE WITNESS:  It's in -- it's a city.  It's
11         in -- I don't know where it is.
12              THE COURT:  United States?
13              THE WITNESS:  In the United States, yes, it is
14         near Des Moines.  Near Des Moines, Iowa.
15              THE COURT:  What was the other place?
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    St. Joseph?
18         A    The other place was St. Joseph, and that is, I
19    think, in -- I don't know where St. Joseph is.
20         Q    Is that Missouri?
21         A    I -- I can get you that information, if you --
22              THE COURT:  That is all right.
23              THE WITNESS:  -- need.
24              THE COURT:  Is this a city?
25              THE WITNESS:  It's a city.



1              MR. MOXON:  What is the date?
2              THE COURT:  In this country?
3              THE WITNESS:  In this country.
4              MR. MOXON:  Could we get the date for this St.
5         Joseph.
7         Q    St. Joseph, what date was that, do you recall?
8         A    Somewhere in that same period of time.  I don't
9    remember exactly.  That was June, July, August, September,
10    somewhere in that period of time.
11         Q    1991?
12         A    1991.
13         Q    Was anything going on in the summer of '91?
14         A    Just that -- that I know of, no.  Just that my
15    husband and I were working with families who had a loved one
16    in Scientology.  And -- and we were doing it effectively.
17    And I think my surmise was at the time that that is what
18    prompted this.
19         Q    Okay.  Do you know David Houghton, a defendant in
20    this case?
21         A    Yes, I do.
22         Q    How do you know him?
23         A    I know him because his wife's family asked us to
24    intervene on their daughter's behalf, Lori, Lori Houghton.
25    And they were the people we saw in St. Joseph, Lori's



1    family, her sister, and Lori herself.
2         Q    Lori is who?
3         A    Lori Houghton, David Houghton's wife.
4         Q    She asked you?
5         A    No.  Lori's family asked us to come and speak with
6    them and Lori.  And Lori was willing to speak with us and
7    did.
8         Q    Okay.
9         A    So we spoke with her and with the family.
10         Q    Did you speak with David Houghton?
11         A    Not at that time.  Mmm, a few days later -- Mmm --
12    and this is where Mr. Shaw was present as one of the people
13    who surveilled us -- we met David -- David asked us to meet
14    him and his wife in a restaurant in Indianola.  And the
15    police who came to the restaurant identified Mr. Shaw as one
16    of the people in one of the cars that was surveilling the
17    restaurant while we were there.
18              Mmm, David was outraged that we had dared to talk
19    to his wife, and called us deprogrammers, called me --
20    called us deprogrammers, suppressive people -- Mmm -- all of
21    the derogatory terms that he could.
22              THE COURT:  Was his wife in the Church of
23         Scientology?
24              THE WITNESS:  Mmm, I believe she was, your
25         Honor.  She was at the beginning stages of



1         Scientology, and he had moved a little ahead of her
2         in his training and his --
3              THE COURT:  And the daughter?  Was she in
4         Scientology?  In the Church?
5              THE WITNESS:  They -- no, their daughter was
6         very young.  No, she was not old enough to be --
7         knowingly be a Scientologist.  I think they had one
8         or two children but they were babies.
9              THE COURT:  What did the wife want you to do?
10              THE WITNESS:  The wife was willing to talk to
11         us and her sister and parents about her association
12         with Scientology and the differences her family saw
13         in her since she had joined Scientology, and we were
14         there to try to level the playing field, to try to
15         give them an opportunity to have an honest dialogue.
16              THE COURT:  So Mr. Houghton met you at a -- a
17         restaurant, and he was unhappy with what you were
18         doing?
19              THE WITNESS:  Days later.  He had -- was very
20         unhappy.  He had been shown the videotape
21         purportedly taken by video -- by private
22         investigators, showing the family meeting us at our
23         hotel room, showing us arriving at the family house
24         in St. Joseph.
25              And he was outraged.  And -- Mmm -- he -- he



1         had on a heavy coat which -- it was wintertime, it
2         was snowing outside, it was cold.  But in the
3         restaurant he began perspiring and he said -- we
4         said, "Take your coat off, you'll be more
5         comfortable."  And he didn't.  And I wondered if he
6         had a mike.  That was my wonderment at the time.
7              Later on the police who came of their own
8         accord to the restaurant -- because the restaurant
9         owner called because of the cars that were
10         surrounding the restaurant -- told us that one of
11         the drivers -- the driver of one of the cars was
12         John Gaw, a private investigator hired by
13         Scientology, and he had a tape recorder running in
14         the seat -- front seat -- the passenger seat next to
15         him when they went to look at his car.  And they
16         told that to us -- to my husband and myself after
17         David and Lori Houghton left the restaurant.
18    BY MR. DANDAR:
19         Q    Did you try to stop Mr. or Mrs. Houghton from
20    leaving the restaurant?
21         A    No.  There was no reason to.
22         Q    Okay.
23         A    They wanted to leave.  It was time for them to go
24    and they went.
25         Q    How long did David Houghton talk to you?



1         A    About an hour.
2         Q    Okay.  Was he ever at any point in time not angry?
3         A    No.
4         Q    Okay.  Do you know Jesse Prince?
5         A    Yes, I do.
6         Q    How is it that you know him?
7         A    I know him from when I was in Scientology in the
8    Sea Org and he was, as well.
9         Q    What was Jesse Prince --
10              THE COURT:  Can I ask a couple more questions
11         about this episode?
12              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13              THE COURT:  This was the episode you indicated
14         occurred in St. Joseph, wherever St. Joseph is?
15              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
16              THE COURT:  In this time frame, June through
17         August of 1991?  Is that right?
18              THE WITNESS:  Approximately, yes.
19              THE COURT:  And this Mr. Houghton indicated he
20         had been shown a video tape taken --
21              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
22              THE COURT:  -- taken by someone surveilling you
23         and your husband, I take it?
24              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
25              THE COURT:  And this was following you-all to



1         his home?
2              THE WITNESS:  No.  To his wife's family's home.
3              THE COURT:  His wife's family's home?
4              THE WITNESS:  Yes, in St. Joseph.
5              THE COURT:  And that is where you had met with
6         his wife --
7              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
8              THE COURT:  -- and the family?
9              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And the surveillance tape
10         also showed us meeting the family in our hotel room.
11         My husband and I were at the hotel room, and Lori's
12         family came over to see us.  And the videotape had
13         that on it, as well.
14              THE COURT:  Had you any idea that you were
15         being videotaped on these two occasions?
16              THE WITNESS:  No, not at all, your Honor.
17              THE COURT:  So the videotape that Mr. Houghton
18         told you about also showed the family coming to
19         visit you and your husband at a hotel room --
20              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
21              THE COURT:  -- during the same time period?
22              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    Was the videotape in the lobby or in your room?
25         A    We were staying at the Residence Inn, which is



1    like a little condo, two-story place.  When the family came
2    to the front door and we opened the door to let them in,
3    that apparently was when the video was taken, or part of the
4    video was taken, apparently by someone in the little condo
5    right opposite our door.  So they had a clear view of our
6    comings and goings.
7         Q    Now, did you work with Jesse Prince?
8         A    I don't believe so.  We passed each other in the
9    day and the night.
10         Q    Where was this at?
11         A    This was in Clearwater, Florida.  I think that was
12    the only -- that was the only place.
13         Q    What was Mr. Prince doing there?  What was his
14    post?
15         A    Mmm, I'm sorry but I don't remember.
16         Q    Okay.  All right.  Now, in this case, Lisa
17    McPherson case, I retained you a while back as an expert
18    witness.  Correct?
19         A    Yes.
20         Q    And you reviewed Lisa McPherson's PC folders?
21         A    That is correct.
22         Q    All right.  Then there came a time when your
23    deposition was requested by the defense.  Do you recall the
24    first time?
25         A    I do.



1         Q    In fact, there has been more than one time.
2    Correct?
3         A    Yes.
4         Q    All right.  And why is it that you did not go
5    forward with your deposition?
6         A    Mmm, I was concerned and scared.
7         Q    About what?
8         A    About reawakening the type of harassment that we
9    have gone through from 1986, escalating into the 1990s.  And
10    if another lawsuit was filed against us for whatever reason,
11    we didn't have the means to defend ourselves.  It -- it was
12    troubling.
13         Q    And then there -- there came a time when you came
14    back in as the expert.
15         A    The other reason also, which entered my mind and
16    then left and entered my mind and then left, was that it was
17    more than likely that my husband's and my work with families
18    who had a loved one in Scientology would be heavily
19    addressed in any deposition.  And I was unwilling to give up
20    the names of any of our clients, because while we worked
21    with them, we assured them that we would not do so.
22              And I didn't know if that would get me into
23    trouble or not.
24         Q    All right.  But then you came back in as an expert
25    witness for the estate, and then you withdrew as the expert



1    witness for the estate.  What caused you to come back in and
2    then change your mind and pull back out?
3         A    Well, it's just how life goes, you know.  You get
4    away from something and you feel better about it and think
5    you can tackle it and you get back into it again and, you
6    know, it's the same old story all over again and I just got
7    scared again.  And my husband was equally scared.
8         Q    Okay.  Now, are you familiar with the
9    introspection rundown?
10         A    Yes.
11         Q    And in your review of the Lisa McPherson PC
12    folders, did you find a program for the introspection
13    rundown?
14         A    Yes, I did.
15         Q    Where was that?
16         A    Where?
17         Q    Yes, what month?
18         A    It was in -- oh, if my memory serves me, it was in
19    around about June, July, of 1995, I think.
20         Q    Okay.
21         A    Somewhere May, June, July, somewhere in there.
22         Q    What about November and December of '95?
23         A    No.  In her -- in her last PC folder there was
24    no -- no auditing records at all of any kind from the time
25    she completed her clear attestation.  There was nothing



1    beyond that of any kind, not an introspection rundown
2    checklist, not any session reports saying, oh, this was an
3    attempt to audit Lisa but she couldn't be audited because
4    she wasn't of sound mine, nothing.  There was nothing.
5    No -- nothing.
6         Q    Is that against policy, if in fact an attempt had
7    been made at the introspection rundown or auditing?
8         A    Definitely.  That was against policy.  However, to
9    make it quite clear, when a person achieves the state of
10    clear, his auditing folders at that point -- while I was in
11    Scientology -- were retired and a new set of auditing
12    folders was started because the person was now on advanced
13    levels.
14              So any auditing records of Lisa's may have gone
15    into one of those folders but, if so, that folder was not
16    given to you as you had requested.
17         Q    Did you come to any conclusions in reviewing her
18    PC folders as to whether Lisa McPherson wanted to leave
19    Scientology?
20              MR. MOXON:  Objection, your Honor.  Asking for
21         an opinion now.  He brought her here as a fact
22         witness.
23              THE COURT:  What does this have to do with this
24         hearing?
25              MR. DANDAR:  This is one of the accusations



1         against me for lying in my pleadings and in argument
2         to Court.  They allege that I had lied to this court
3         in saying that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave
4         Scientology.
5              THE COURT:  I'll allow it.
7         Q    Go ahead.
8         A    Yes, there were a number.  I don't recall when --
9    I would have to go back to the folders but they are
10    locatable, I mean, they are there.  There were a number of
11    those.
12         Q    Okay.
13         A    She didn't say it in so many words, "I want to
14    leave Scientology," but she said it in words that were
15    sufficient to get the intent across.  She wasn't happy.
16    She -- she thought that might be the right thing to do, but
17    I have to go back to the folders to see exactly what it was
18    she said.
19              THE COURT:  If you haven't asked her to review
20         all of this, I'm sure this is not in the front of
21         her mind, and to try to ask her to recall something
22         she may have done months and months ago is really
23         unfair to the witness.
24              MR. DANDAR:  That is the last question.
25              THE WITNESS:  Some of the questions I'll be



1         able to answer but some I won't, I would have to
2         review the files.
3              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
5         Q    Did you find other documents of the PC folders
6    missing?
7         A    Yes.  There were a number of them missing.  And I
8    think I made a sheet for you on missing contents.
9              All of her L10, L11 and L12 auditing sessions were
10    missing.  I corroborated that by looking at the folder
11    summary entries and the folder error summary entries and the
12    program sheets to make sure she had had all those sessions.
13    And she had.  And they were missing.
14              There were a number of sessions missing from --
15              THE COURT:  I'm sorry, that doesn't mean
16         anything to me, L10 through L12?
17              THE WITNESS:  Oh, your Honor, those are
18         upper-level auditing processes that are --
19         Scientology calls major case boosters.  They can be
20         done almost at any point in the auditing bridge.
21              THE COURT:  The file reflected she had had
22         those sessions?
23              THE WITNESS:  Yes, the summaries -- her
24         auditing summaries reflected she had had those
25         sessions but they weren't in her folders.



1              THE COURT:  The --
2              THE WITNESS:  The preclear.
3              THE COURT:  Well, I understand what preclears
4         are.  But there was indication she had had those,
5         but the actual paperwork that would go along with
6         those auditing sessions were missing?
7              THE WITNESS:  Right.  That is correct.
8              THE COURT:  What would the L10 through L12 be?
9         What would those auditing programs be?
10              THE WITNESS:  They are confidential auditing
11         levels.  I do not know the content of them.
12              THE COURT:  No, no, I mean, is it like -- is it
13         on any particular thing?  Or is it just upper-level
14         auditing?
15              THE WITNESS:  It is upper-level auditing which
16         is designed to find areas the individual still has
17         negative emotions or upsets on and address those and
18         get them resolved.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.
20    BY MR. DANDAR:
21         Q    Now --
22         A    Oh, you asked me if introspection rundown -- there
23    was some sessions missing out of her introspection rundown
24    rundown, that period.  And there were other sessions missing
25    in and around the times that Lisa was doing the worst.  And



1    that is scattered throughout the year.  Again, I would have
2    to go back to find exactly in which month and week that
3    occurred.
4              But repeatedly throughout the folders there were
5    sessions missing in and around those times.  And there were
6    often in and around those times there were case supervisor
7    orders missing, order to report to the case supervisor
8    missing, as well as the actual auditing session reports.
9         Q    Do you recall reviewing any documents of Lisa
10    McPherson that showed that Int Management was involved in
11    1995?
12              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, before she answers this
13         I just want to reaffirm, not for this question, I
14         want it understood before Mr. Dandar asks his next
15         question, this sort of demonstrates she did file an
16         affidavit at one point.  And we wanted to
17         cross-examine her as to these allegations of missing
18         documents.  In fact, there are no documents.
19              But a lot of the things she said are just
20         absolutely not true.  And it would be very easy to
21         show through a detailed cross-examination with all
22         of the records here.  We had no idea what she would
23         be testifying about today.  But this is why the
24         ambush sort of --
25              THE COURT:  It is not an ambush, Counsel.  This



1         is a motion hearing.  If you need time to get the
2         records here, ask for them, you can go get them
3         here, take as long as you want.
4              MR. MOXON:  All right.
5              THE WITNESS:  If I may explain a little about
6         that, your Honor, it might help.
7              I did make one error in an affidavit I wrote
8         for Mr. Dandar in which I stated that a large number
9         of records between these pages and these pages were
10         missing.  In my subsequent affidavit I mentioned
11         that was a mistake, and I made that mistake because
12         the auditing folders were -- they were numbered
13         correctly by Bates number, they were in Bates number
14         order, but they were not in date order.  And when I
15         put them into date order so I could follow what
16         happened to Lisa, I got confused by the Bates
17         numbers because they were all out of order.
18              So in my subsequent affidavit I explained that
19         and corrected the session reports that really were
20         missing and were definitely missing.
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    Is it -- how does Scientology view -- with your
23    understanding as an auditor -- missing records from a PC
24    folder?
25         A    Well, I think --



1              MR. MOXON:  Objection to her -- excuse me,
2         object to her asserting what, quote, Scientology
3         views something.
4              THE COURT:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear the
5         question.  What was the question again?
7         Q    Within your experience as a Scientologist and as
8    an auditor, what is the -- how does Scientology -- how does
9    the Church of Scientology view missing records from a PC
10    folder?
11              MR. MOXON:  I would object to that, the way it
12         is framed.
13              THE COURT:  Well, from your experience, what do
14         you -- she was an auditor, she was there.  I think
15         by saying Scientology that is awfully broad.
16              MR. DANDAR:  It is.
17              THE COURT:  What do you -- what does it mean to
18         you that something was missing from an auditing
19         folder?
20              THE WITNESS:  It's a very serious omission.
21         And I think it is currently categorized as a high
22         crime in Scientology.  I'm not totally sure of that
23         but I think it is.
24    BY MR. DANDAR:
25         Q    Of course you don't know why these documents are



1    missing, do you?
2         A    No.
3         Q    Now, in the process of getting auditing --
4              THE COURT:  If you were an auditor in the
5         Church of Scientology and in the process of auditing
6         a person, I take it when you were done you would do
7         whatever you needed to do and put it with the folder
8         and send it on to the person who is going to be --
9              THE WITNESS:  The case supervisor.
10              THE COURT:  -- the case supervisor?  All right.
11         If when it got to the case supervisor, the report,
12         whatever it is you had done, was not there and you
13         couldn't find it, what would happen to you?
14              THE WITNESS:  Oh, there would be serious --
15         serious trouble.  There would be an investigation to
16         find out whether I had done something with those
17         reports or someone who had carried that folder to
18         the case supervisor had done something with them, or
19         if the case supervisor -- someone would have been
20         responsible and that someone would be hunted down.
21         It was very serious.
22              THE COURT:  And what would happen to that
23         someone?
24              THE WITNESS:  That someone would be penalized,
25         would be assigned ethics conditions.



1              THE COURT:  In other words, this is not
2         acceptable --
3              THE WITNESS:  Absolutely not --
4              THE COURT:  -- for an auditing session to
5         simply be missing.
6              THE WITNESS:  Absolutely not, your Honor.
7         Mr. Hubbard wrote extensive bulletins on the need
8         for preclear folders to be complete down to the last
9         crossed T and dotted I.  He said that a case
10         supervisor had no hope of resolving case
11         difficulties if he had incomplete information, and
12         an auditor had no hope of helping his or her
13         preclear if he didn't have a complete auditing
14         record going back in time.  He had extensive
15         bulletins written on this.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Is there --
18              THE COURT:  You indicated that information from
19         Lisa's file was missing when she was doing the work.
20         Are you talking now about when she was on the last
21         introspection rundown and died?  Or are you talking
22         about before that?
23              THE WITNESS:  Before that, your Honor.  I'm
24         talking about from February 1995 all of the way
25         through to November 1995.  Because those --



1              THE COURT:  Before the last --
2              THE WITNESS:  Before that, yes.
3              THE COURT:  Before the last where she was taken
4         from the hospital and put in the Ft. Harrison
5         Hotel --
6              THE WITNESS:  Right.
7              THE COURT:  -- for the final watch?
8              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
9              THE COURT:  From what periods of time?
10              THE WITNESS:  From February of 1995 through
11         October/November 1995.  I think some of the latest
12         watch reports I saw were actually December.  So it
13         would have been from February through December 1995.
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    And then November, December of 1995, I think I
16    already asked you this, but just to clarify, did you find
17    missing documents?
18         A    Yes, I did.
19         Q    I mean, did you see that some documents were
20    missing?
21         A    Auditing, any auditing records, attempts to audit
22    Lisa.  You asked me about an introspection rundown at that
23    point.  There was no introspection rundown checklist in her
24    preclear folder.
25         Q    And --



1         A    And --
2         Q    When is that checklist prepared?
3         A    Additionally, there were no -- excuse me -- there
4    were no entries on Lisa's folder summary that an
5    introspection rundown had been done in November or December,
6    or attempted.
7              And there was also no entries on her folder error
8    summary that such had been done or attempted.
9         Q    And that is required?
10         A    Absolutely.  If they're done or attempted, yes,
11    that is required.  So that is why I presumed they were in
12    another folder which you hadn't been given.
13              THE COURT:  Are you talking about the error
14         summary?
15              THE WITNESS:  Folder error summary.
16              THE COURT:  Okay.
17              THE WITNESS:  That is a summary that is done in
18         the preclear folder to detect all auditing.  And the
19          supervisor -- and it is kept with the current
20         preclear folder.
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    Are you familiar with routing forms?
23         A    Yes.
24         Q    Was a routing form required for a rundown?
25         A    When a preclear stops a rundown, yes.



1         Q    What does that routing form do -- what is the
2    function of the routing form for a rundown?
3         A    The routing form routes the person through a
4    number of people to ensure that the service is paid for,
5    that the person has ethics clearance, that everything is in
6    order.  So -- and then to the guidance center to get
7    auditing.  So there are points on the routing form to check
8    off by each of these people.
9         Q    And do you recall seeing a routing form for the
10    introspection rundown or anything happening at the hotel in
11    November, December of '95?
12         A    No, there wasn't anything.
13              THE COURT:  Should there have been?
14              THE WITNESS:  Yes, there should have been, your
15         Honor.  If such had been attempted.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Okay.  Was there any evidence at all that there
18    was an attempt at an introspection rundown in November and
19    December of '95?
20         A    Not that I could find in her preclear folders or
21    in any other notes that I saw.
22              THE COURT:  Did you see the workers -- I'll
23         call them workers, I don't know what the technical
24         term is -- but the folks who were taking care of
25         Lisa during the last seventeen days?



1              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
2              THE COURT:  There were some summaries written
3         by them that were apparently in the PC folders.  Did
4         you see those?
5              THE WITNESS:  I did see -- I don't think I saw
6         all of them, your Honor, but I saw a large number.
7              THE COURT:  There are apparently some that are
8         missing.  But there are some that are there.
9              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
10              THE COURT:  And in these -- it's been a while
11         since I looked at them myself -- but my recollection
12         is at least in some of them, they talk about the
13         fact that they understood they were not to speak,
14         and they didn't speak, some of the things that would
15         be part of an introspection rundown?
16              THE WITNESS:  That is correct.
17              THE COURT:  They spoke about -- I don't know if
18         you read any of their depositions or their sworn
19         statements or what have you -- but they clearly
20         testified that they were called in and said, "You're
21         going to go help on an introspection rundown," they
22         were told what that was and told about the muzzled
23         speech.  Did you read that?
24              THE WITNESS:  Absolutely, your Honor.  That is
25         very clear.



1              THE COURT:  So when you say there is nothing in
2         the PC folder indicating there is an introspection
3         rundown, the summaries would indicate that at least,
4         as far as workers, they felt they were participating
5         in an introspection rundown.
6              THE WITNESS:  Yes, but there were no routing --
7         there was no routing form routing Lisa onto the
8         introspection rundown.  There were no session
9         reports.  There was no case supervisor order to
10         start the introspection rundown.
11              THE COURT:  Do you know whether or not, in a
12         situation where the person has not yet reached the
13         stage where they can receive auditing -- in other
14         words, I sound like I know something, I really
15         don't, but I know enough to ask these questions --
16              THE WITNESS:  You know a lot.
17              THE COURT:  If somebody is in that stage, what
18         they call introspection rundown stage 0 to 00, where
19         they are receiving rest, vitamins, all of the things
20         to hopefully prepare them for the rundown session,
21         the auditing session accompanying the introspection
22         rundown --
23              THE WITNESS:  Right?
24              THE COURT:  -- well, if they don't ever get out
25         of that stage, which apparently according to the



1         testimony Lisa did not --
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
3              THE COURT:  -- there really wouldn't be
4         anything much to route because there wouldn't be
5         any -- she was still there and not receiving any
6         auditing or any of this.
7              THE WITNESS:  However, I believe the watchers
8         were instructed not to speak to her because she was
9         going to be on the introspection rundown.
10              THE COURT:  Right.
11              THE WITNESS:  If they were told that, there
12         should have been evidence in her folder that that
13         rundown had been started because that is one of the
14         first steps.
15              THE COURT:  So it is your testimony that this
16         checklist for the introspection rundown would go in
17         the PC folder when the person was in the 0, 00
18         stage?
19              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.  That is
20         correct.
21              THE COURT:  And --
22              THE WITNESS:  Because that --
23              THE COURT:  And there is some notation from the
24         case supervisor that this is what was happening?
25              THE WITNESS:  And a program from the case



1         supervisor saying, "Go to do the introspection
2         rundown, and make sure Lisa is on step 0, 00, et
3         cetera, and make sure the watchers are muzzled, they
4         don't talk to her," all of those points technically,
5         according to Mr. Hubbard's bulletins, should have
6         been in a case supervisor program in Lisa's auditing
7         folder.
8              THE COURT:  Okay.
9              THE WITNESS:  When that happened.
10              THE COURT:  Now, let me ask you this.  Let's
11         say that someone went and attempted to see whether
12         or not Lisa was ready for auditing, the rundown --
13              THE WITNESS:  Yes?
14              THE COURT:  -- and they went and -- she was
15         not -- in other words, that I heard testimony, that
16         I have read somewhere, that she threw the cans and
17         was still in a very psychotic state, was not capable
18         of being audited.
19              THE WITNESS:  Right.
20              THE COURT:  Was that in the folder?
21              THE WITNESS:  No, it wasn't.
22              THE COURT:  That attempt at auditing, would
23         that be something you as an auditor would put in the
24         folder?
25              THE WITNESS:  Absolutely, your Honor.  The



1         auditor that went to do that -- I forgot her name
2         right now, it is on the tip of my tongue -- she
3         would have made a report of the proceedings during
4         her interchange with Lisa, she would have written
5         down what happened in the room with Lisa, and when
6         she determined that she could not audit Lisa she
7         would have ended the session or left it, made up her
8         cover sheet report to the case supervisor and sent
9         the folder to the case supervisor saying, "Lisa is
10         not auditable at this time."
11              THE COURT:  And the case supervisor would have
12         checked that to see whether or not he believed that
13         person was correct or not?
14              THE WITNESS:  He might have checked it.  He
15         might have accepted the auditors, because auditors
16         are normally considered very trustworthy, and all of
17         the auditors I know are ED, honest, ethical
18         trustworthy people.
19              THE COURT:  But -- I read so much that I don't
20         know whether this is even accurate so you tell me if
21         it is not.  Isn't there something that says that an
22         auditor is checked to see if they performed the
23         procedure correctly, if there is any error in their
24         handling of the situation and --
25              THE WITNESS:  Oh, that happens if a preclear



1         has actually had a session successfully.  If he has
2         been audited and the session has ended, he then goes
3         to the preclear examiner for a quality control
4         check.
5              THE COURT:  But if the person has not been
6         audited, which obviously in this case Lisa was
7         not --
8              THE WITNESS:  There was not --
9              THE COURT:  -- then there would not necessarily
10         be a follow-up sheet from Mr. Kartuzinski saying he
11         had checked and as far as he was concerned that this
12         was correct that she was still to be in step 0, 00,
13         because she couldn't receive auditing?
14              THE WITNESS:  Right, your Honor.  But he may
15         have written a further order at that point to the
16         watchers or to the auditor -- I'm surmising at this
17         point -- to make sure that the -- at this point to
18         make sure her treatment was going well at 0, 00 on
19         assists.
20    BY MR. DANDAR:
21         Q    What --
22              THE COURT:  Excuse me.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    What are assists?
25         A    Assists are auditing techniques.  They can be done



1    out of an auditing session or in an auditing session to
2    assist with minor pains, injuries, sometimes severe ones,
3    too.
4         Q    Was there any evidence of any assists being given
5    to Lisa McPherson in November, December of 1995?
6         A    No.
7              MR. MOXON:  I object.  I don't know whether
8         this had anything to do with the hearing, whether
9         she had assists.  I can't see it goes to the sham
10         issues, what Mr. Dandar has done --
11              MR. DANDAR:  They filed motion for summary
12         judgment and combined it with this hearing.
13              THE COURT:  Overruled.
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    So let me ask, can you have what is called a baby
16    watch without having an introspection rundown?
17         A    I'm taking some time to think of it because I'm
18    just looking at instances I know of personally where that
19    has happened.  And -- Mmm -- before the introspection
20    rundown -- before Mr. Hubbard wrote the introspection
21    rundown, there were instances I knew of where baby watches
22    occurred but the rundown didn't exist.  That was earlier.
23         Q    Okay.
24         A    From the point he wrote the rundown, I don't know
25    of any that were done.  I don't know definitely any that



1    were done without the introspection rundown.
2         Q    And were you on the ship with Mr. Hubbard when he
3    wrote the rundown?
4         A    Yes.
5         Q    Okay.
6         A    Mmm, no, when was the rundown written?
7         Q    '72, '73.
8         A    Yes, that was on the ship.
9              THE COURT:  Tell me what your assumption is
10         here.  We have a bunch of folks, a lot of nice
11         folks, who went in and did heavy-duty work, who
12         apparently calmed this person down and tried to help
13         her and tried to get her ready to be audited, which
14         would be very important to all these people and to
15         Ms. McPherson, as well.
16              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
17              THE COURT:  So they certainly thought they were
18         on the introspection rundown, they were told they
19         were.
20              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
21              THE COURT:  Their notes reflect they were.
22              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
23              THE COURT:  And yet there is not this sheet
24         that is -- checklist sheet, or Mr. Kartuzinski
25         didn't do what apparently a case supervisor -- you



1         would have expected to do.
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
3              THE COURT:  So what do we conclude from that?
4         We conclude from that one of two things.  Either all
5         these workers didn't have a clue as to what was
6         going on and they were just there thinking that --
7         thinking that they were not talking, not doing the
8         things they would have done in an introspection
9         rundown --
10              THE WITNESS:  Right.
11              THE COURT:  -- or Mr. Kartuzinski didn't do
12         what he was supposed to do as a case supervisor.
13         Isn't that -- or he put something in -- there are
14         three suggestions:  Mr. Kartuzinski didn't do what
15         he was supposed to do, and apparently he has been
16         the janitor or something now, or it was there and it
17         was removed.  There are really only three things.
18         Right?
19              THE WITNESS:  Right.
20              THE COURT:  Either she was there as a guest and
21         all these people -- that is just not a likely
22         thought --
23              THE WITNESS:  Right.
24              THE COURT:  All these people went in there,
25         they stayed with her, they tried to help her, they



1         didn't talk to her because they were told not to,
2         muzzled speech, which would be part of step 0, 00.
3              THE WITNESS:  Right.
4              THE COURT:  So these folks just weren't doing
5         this for the fun of it.
6              THE WITNESS:  Right, yes.
7              THE COURT:  So, either -- two things.  It seems
8         we're narrowed down to a couple things.  One,
9         Mr. Kartuzinski apparently was supposed to be pretty
10         high up the line and should have known what he was
11         doing, didn't do it.
12              THE WITNESS:  He was.  I knew him, your Honor.
13         He was --
14              THE COURT:  So that is one.  He didn't do it.
15         Or two, he did it and for some reason it was
16         removed.  She didn't get very far, so you really
17         have to wonder why they would remove it.
18              What would you have expected to be on there
19         that would somehow be detrimental to somebody where
20         they would remove it?  She didn't get into auditing,
21         she was strictly in 0, 00, give her rest, vitamins,
22         get her ready to be audited.
23              THE WITNESS:  Right.
24              THE COURT:  And this lady went in, that didn't
25         work.  He may or may not have written something.  So



1         really all we would expect in there is here is what
2         we want to have happen.
3              THE WITNESS:  Right.
4              THE COURT:  If we want to do this, this and
5         this.  We want her to be ready to be audited and
6         here is the program.  When we get to the
7         introspection rundown, I want you to follow it, do
8         it exactly as it says to do it.
9              THE WITNESS:  Right.
10              THE COURT:  Whatever.  And nothing happened.
11         They didn't get to that stage.  So what would you
12         have expected to be in that whatever it is that
13         Mr. Kartuzinski that -- was supposed do that would
14         be harmful?  In other words, we are left with just
15         assuming that if it wasn't there, Mr. Kartuzinski
16         was negligent?  Or -- or they couldn't find it?
17              THE WITNESS:  No, I personally don't think
18         Mr. Kartuzinski was negligent.  I knew him for many
19         years.  And he was a very conscientious auditor when
20         we were both auditing in the case cracking unit in
21         the Ft. Harrison Hotel in Clearwater.  Subsequent to
22         that, I haven't known him so I don't know what
23         happened to him.
24              But I think that my surmise is that those
25         reports were removed for some reason.  And --



1              THE COURT:  Reports?  I'm only hearing about --
2         I know there are some case worker reports missing.
3              THE WITNESS:  The auditor report and
4         Mr. Kartuzinski's orders.
5              THE COURT:  His orders?
6              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
7              THE COURT:  Okay.
8              THE WITNESS:  And I think they were removed and
9         possibly either orders from other parts of the
10         organization, such as the Department of Special
11         Affairs or the Office of Special Affairs
12         International, on how Lisa was to be handled, those
13         were removed because they were too inflammatory,
14         because they -- they would --
15              MR. MOXON:  I object.  Speculation.
16              THE WITNESS:  -- show in some way --
17              THE COURT:  You have to kind of speculate, if
18         they were supposed to be there and they are not
19         there, then we have to figure out why they are not
20         there.  What would be on there that is too
21         inflammatory?
22              THE WITNESS:  Mmm, the conversations or
23         dialogue such as, "We can't audit her because she is
24         not of sound mind, we can't get her to a
25         psychologist or psychiatrist to help her because



1         that is totally against Scientology's belief."
2              THE COURT:  Right, we wouldn't expect that to
3         be in there because that was not an option.
4              THE WITNESS:  But this kind of backwards and
5         forwards trying to get her into a convalescent home
6         somewhere, or the lack of those orders, would either
7         show negligence on the part of the people in charge,
8         or it would show that they were caught in a corner
9         because they couldn't get mental health aid for Lisa
10         and they didn't have the tools themselves to help
11         her.  So they were like caught between a rock and a
12         hard spot.
13              THE COURT:  But, you see, under the law,
14         Ms. Whitfield, something -- if the plaintiff can
15         establish that something is supposed to be there, if
16         they established this --
17              THE WITNESS:  Yes?
18              THE COURT:  -- and it's not there, a jury can
19         be instructed that they may draw an adverse
20         inference from that.  So --
21              THE WITNESS:  Okay.
22              THE COURT:  -- now, you know, there is lots of
23         lawyers in the Church of Scientology.  They would
24         know that.
25              THE WITNESS:  Yes.



1              THE COURT:  So if it just simply says we can't
2         get her where we would like for her to be, it just
3         seems silly that they would remove those things that
4         might tend to show negligence.  I mean -- I mean,
5         that -- I mean, I don't really get it.  You are
6         saying there might be something harmful and, yet,
7         you know, it just doesn't make much sense to me.
8              THE WITNESS:  I know, your Honor.
9              THE COURT:  I mean, short something Mr. Prince
10         said, which some orders came down from Mr. Miscavige
11         that said murder her, let her die.  Frankly, there
12         is no evidence of that.
13              THE WITNESS:  There is no evidence of that.
14              THE COURT:  There just is not.
15              THE WITNESS:  No, and I won't expect there to
16         be that kind of evidence in a preclear folder.  And
17         that is the kind of -- Mmm, I wouldn't -- I won't
18         necessarily go that far.  I don't personally know
19         Mr. Miscavige.  But I do know Mr. Hubbard's -- some
20         of the policies he wrote that went a little
21         overboard.
22              And -- and I know of one instance -- and this
23         goes back a bit into the '70s, I think -- when a
24         Scientologist was dying of cervical cancer in Los
25         Angeles.  Her name was Sally Chaleff, C-H-A-L-E-F-F.



1         And she had had no medical care so the cervical
2         cancer wasn't caught in time.  And -- Mmm -- she was
3         doing very badly.  And when visited, she said,
4         "Well, I'm -- I'm just here to die now.  That is
5         what I have been told.  I'm just here to die."
6              Now, that is the only time I know or have heard
7         that statement.
8              THE COURT:  In Scientology?
9              THE WITNESS:  In Scientology.  I have never
10         seen anything like that in print or in a policy
11         letter.
12              THE COURT:  Well, we learned a lot in this
13         hearing.  One of the things we have learned is
14         that -- that -- well, you would know this, having
15         been a Scientologist, that leaving one body --
16              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
17              THE COURT:  -- one body to perhaps enter
18         another body is not a bad thing.
19              THE WITNESS:  Right.  That is right.
20              THE COURT:  A Scientology belief.
21              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
22              THE COURT:  Consequently, ending this cycle,
23         moving on to another one, isn't all bad.  So
24         somebody in a terminal state, we heard about end
25         cycles, several of them, in a terminal state,



1         somebody is dying, to me, not knowing -- have not
2         known much about Scientology, but I know about
3         hospice and a hospice worker goes to a critically
4         ill -- someone who is dying, to in essence help them
5         to die peacefully, at peace with themselves, knowing
6         that is what is going to occur, making it a peaceful
7         experience.
8              So this end cycle to me is not necessarily a
9         derogatory term; it means something is dying, it's a
10         good thing the spirit is going to move from one body
11         to another body and begin again, peaceful.
12              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13              THE COURT:  In my head, I can think of it this
14         way.  Okay?
15              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16              THE COURT:  But all we know about is in some --
17         in situations where -- where the member of the
18         Church -- and there are not many of them -- but
19         really in a terminal state, are dying, that was not
20         the situation as I perceive it of Lisa McPherson.
21         There was a belief -- there was a belief that the
22         introspection rundown work.
23              THE WITNESS:  Yes, that is right.
24              THE COURT:  And the belief was if they could
25         get her to a state where they could audit her and



1         follow the introspection rundown, she would --
2              THE WITNESS:  She would recover.
3              THE COURT:  -- she would recover as others had
4         recovered.
5              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
6              THE COURT:  So there really wasn't any reason
7         for somebody to say end cycle.  I mean, the thought
8         was she was going to recover.
9              THE WITNESS:  Right.
10              THE COURT:  That was the belief, everybody
11         would have believed it, the workers would have
12         believed it, Mr. Kartuzinski would have believed it
13         and so would David Miscavige believe it.
14              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
15              THE COURT:  So there would be no reason for
16         somebody to say end this woman's cycle.
17              THE WITNESS:  If I may elaborate a bit, there
18         is some information that might add to the picture
19         that we have here.
20              And that is in Scientology, a basic belief is
21         that anything one experiences in life is one's own
22         fault.  If somebody --
23              THE COURT:  Thought or fault?
24              THE WITNESS:  Fault.  In other words, I cause
25         what happens to me, good or bad.  And that is a



1         basic bottom-line belief that runs through
2         Scientology.
3              In a case such as Lisa's -- in the case of
4         auditing, Mr. Hubbard's belief as reflected in his
5         bulletins, his technical bulletins, was that if I'm
6         suffering with arthritis or whatever and I go and
7         get auditing, I'll get better because the auditing
8         addresses, in my mind, my own impurities,
9         negativities and so forth.  But I have created -- it
10         allows me to look at those, remove those and
11         therefore I get better.
12              So everything that happens to one is one's own
13         fault.
14              In the case of Lisa, if she got into the
15         condition that she was of such unsound mind that she
16         couldn't even get an auditing session, it was her
17         own fault.  That would be the predominating belief.
18         That was her own fault that she was in that
19         condition.
20              When I got into trouble with Scientology when I
21         was leaving and I left on my own, I was declared a
22         suppressive person; it was my own fault, it was my
23         overts, my misdeeds.  It is always the person's
24         fault.
25              So in the case of Lisa, again my surmise, when



1         she didn't rapidly get through 00 and 000, she was
2         doing herself in, which is a common expression in
3         Scientology, auditors use it, case supervisors use
4         it; "Oh, this person is just doing himself in, it's
5         his own fault that he's going through all these
6         problems."
7              So even though the lower-level workers -- the
8         watchers who weren't necessarily that trained and
9         aware that heavily of it's always your fault, they
10         were there, they were honestly trying to look after
11         Lisa.  That is my belief.  They were in there
12         pitching.  But higher up the ranks, middle, top
13         management, the opinion may have come about that
14         there is nothing more we can do, there is nothing we
15         can do for this girl.
16              THE COURT:  But the opinion may just as easily
17         have been we've got to keep -- keep -- I mean, there
18         are other people that have been on the introspection
19         rundown a lot longer than Lisa McPherson was who
20         eventually got better.
21              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
22              THE COURT:  17 days is not necessarily a long
23         term.
24              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
25              THE COURT:  She was dead in 17 days.



1              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
2              THE COURT:  So it wasn't as if everybody
3         recovers after three days and somehow she was
4         dragging this on.
5              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  No.
6              THE COURT:  This was -- you know, this would
7         not have been an abnormal period.
8              THE WITNESS:  Right.  As far as her physical
9         condition and deterioration, my surmise on that was
10         as an RN, even though my experience comes back from
11         the '60s, when I did my training, my experience is
12         there was neglect at that point.
13              THE COURT:  And that is -- is an issue that
14         will have to be determined, whether or not there
15         should have been faster seeking her medical
16         treatment.
17              THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
18              THE COURT:  But you cannot provide me any
19         assistance or you have no evidence to suggest that
20         somehow an order was given that her -- she should
21         just be allowed to die, can you?
22              THE WITNESS:  No, I can't.  Not in my -- not in
23         my experience, your Honor.
24              THE COURT:  Or from the PC folders, you know,
25         the things that are missing, but --



1              THE WITNESS:  Definitely not from the PC
2         folders.  If it existed, it's missing.
3              THE COURT:  And if these people are believers,
4         as I have no reason to believe they are not, that
5         includes Mr. Kartuzinski, that includes
6         Mr. Miscavige, that includes Mr. Rathbun and all
7         these people --
8              THE WITNESS:  Yes?
9              THE COURT:  -- they would have believed this
10         process would have worked.
11              THE WITNESS:  Yes, unless it got to a point,
12         your Honor, where Lisa just wasn't getting better,
13         she was deteriorating day by day slowly.  And in
14         that case, they would have seen the decline and they
15         may have changed their mind on the fact the
16         introspection rundown is going to work, keep at it.
17              THE COURT:  Well, of course, they have -- they
18         have no qualms about taking somebody who is ill to a
19         medical doctor for treatment.
20              THE WITNESS:  Right.
21              THE COURT:  So if she was declining
22         medically --
23              THE WITNESS:  They should have taken her much
24         earlier.
25              THE COURT:  So does it not kind of stand to



1         reason if they didn't, perhaps there was -- you
2         know, they may have been negligent, they may not.
3         That's for somebody else, not this hearing.
4              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
5              THE COURT:  However, that would depend, to be
6         honest, which theory and which bunch of doctors they
7         believe.  One supports the theory of negligence.
8         One does not.  One may support gross negligence.
9         One may support intentional conduct.  One does not.
10         One said, a doctor, this would have happened, it
11         probably would have happened quickly, nothing
12         anybody else could have done.  Another would say she
13         was in extreme grave condition, somebody should have
14         known, grossly negligence, intentional act.
15              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16              THE COURT:  But I guess my biggest -- my
17         biggest problem that I'm having in this hearing is,
18         again, why this -- why this sheet -- again, what --
19         tell me one more time, what would you have expected
20         on this sheet, forget the notes because a jury can
21         infer from those missing notes around about the time
22         Lisa died there may have been things on there that
23         were --
24              THE WITNESS:  Right.
25              THE COURT:  -- harmful to the physician of the



1         person who lost them, we can infer that.  What can
2         you expect to see on this sheet that said there is
3         this introspection rundown in process?
4              THE WITNESS:  I would have expected to see an
5         introspection rundown checklist.
6              THE COURT:  Checklist, okay.
7              THE WITNESS:  In the folder, marked as per the
8         step Lisa was on with the date on it.
9              THE COURT:  Which we know what step it was,
10         right?  0, 00.
11              THE WITNESS:  Right, but the step would have
12         been marked or in some way the date maybe she
13         started on that step.
14              Mmm, I would have expected to see in her folder
15         an order from the case supervisor, an order to start
16         the program, the introspection rundown, to make sure
17         that all of Lisa's watchers were muzzled, in other
18         words, they were not talking in her presence.
19              THE COURT:  What would you have expected to
20         see, something from Mr. Kartuzinski, saying, "I
21         advise so-and-so to advise all of the workers that
22         they were to --"
23              THE WITNESS:  Something to that effect, your
24         Honor, covering all of the points, Lisa is to be
25         kept confined, her watchers are to be muzzled, she



1         must be given food and vitamins and watched and
2         things like that that a case supervisor would
3         normally do in a situation like that.  And I -- it
4         just wasn't there.
5              THE COURT:  What -- in your wildest dreams what
6         could you imagine could have been on there that
7         would have been harmful?  I'm just wondering whether
8         or not it is not there, Mr. Kartuzinski lost it, it
9         got lost in the shuffle, what could we have expected
10         to see on this sheet that would be so bad that
11         somebody in the alternative said, "Oh, this is too
12         bad, we're just going to take it out and shred it"?
13         Can you think of anything?
14              THE WITNESS:  The only thing I can think of is
15         Mr. Kartuzinski may have ordered she be allowed to
16         die.
17              THE COURT:  But you have no evidence of that?
18              THE WITNESS:  No, absolutely nothing.  And that
19         is just stuff I have heard.  But I have no evidence
20         of it at all.
21              THE COURT:  You never -- in your time in
22         Scientology, you don't know of any case supervisor
23         ever ordering that.
24              THE WITNESS:  Oh, no.
25              THE COURT:  As a matter of fact, I would expect



1         he would be more -- less than a janitor, if he had,
2         that should not be something he would order, should
3         he?
4              THE WITNESS:  No.
5              THE COURT:  He had to check that with somebody,
6         I would hope.
7              THE WITNESS:  He would be in police custody,
8         I'm sure.  I don't know, your Honor.  I don't know
9         why those reports are not there.  My only surmise on
10         it was that Lisa was worsening day by day, and the
11         watch reports that were allowed to remain in her
12         preclear folder were those that, even though they
13         were damaging about how Lisa was doing and not
14         responding and so on, at least some had to be there
15         to show what happened to her, so those were left.
16         But other reports were removed because they showed
17         that -- that the senior superiors were aware of her
18         decline and weren't doing anything adequate to get
19         her to medical health or medical care or what have
20         you.
21              THE COURT:  Okay.  Let me ask you a question.
22         If Ms. McPherson died and the police were called and
23         the police were coming --
24              THE WITNESS:  Yes?
25              THE COURT:  -- and Mr. Kartuzinski was the



1         highest-up person in the hotel and --
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes?
3              THE COURT:  -- and somebody thought, "Oh, my
4         God, we didn't get her to a hospital fast enough."
5         You know, "Here it is.  I got this report for
6         Ms. So-and-So that said, 'We better change
7         something,' she looks bad to me, she's not working
8         today or whatever."
9              Some of those reports may have said -- how high
10         up did you get?  Were you ever a case supervisor?
11              THE WITNESS:  No, I was never posted to the
12         position of a case supervisor.  Mmm, I was only an
13         auditor.  But I did write my own case supervision
14         orders to the case supervisor that were often
15         approved.
16              THE COURT:  What if -- what if he thought, "Oh,
17         the police are coming, we should have done
18         something, we didn't do it fast enough, we're in
19         trouble, I'm going to protect Scientology and took
20         them out," now, what would happen to that person if
21         they removed something that should have been in that
22         folder and they removed it without getting
23         permission and it was gone?  Would that person be
24         demoted?
25              THE WITNESS:  Absolutely not.  That person



1         would be congratulated for being fast enough on his
2         feet to remove information which would be damaging
3         to Scientology.
4              THE COURT:  Why?  Well, imagine this.  Imagine
5         that the person thought it was damaging, the person
6         thought they were doing something good, but as it
7         turns out, it turns out to be pretty bad.  This
8         turns out to be pretty bad because now the jury will
9         be able to conjure up in their mind what was on
10         there because the jury will be told that this is
11         something that they can infer --
12              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13              THE COURT:  -- was harmful to the party that
14         may -- if they can establish they were destroyed.
15              THE WITNESS:  Yes, but your Honor, in a moment
16         of panic or in a moment when things are tense and
17         one isn't thinking rationally and completely
18         logically, it's possible to make mistakes like that.
19              THE COURT:  Yes, it is.  Then you inform
20         Scientology and say you have done something wrong by
21         destroying -- then what would happen?  You would be
22         punished, wouldn't you, in an internal fashion?
23              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes.
24              THE COURT:  Sorry to take up so much time.



2         Q    Have you heard of an acceptable truth?
3         A    Yes.
4         Q    What is that?
5         A    Mmm, that is a statement that appears to be a fact
6    said in order to appease somebody.
7              In other words, if I was to tell you that you
8    looked ugly today, to you, that would not be an acceptable
9    truth.  To you, you would probably be upset that I have said
10    something like that.  So even though I thought your clothing
11    wasn't right, I would say, "Oh, you look good."  That would
12    be an acceptable truth.
13         Q    Is that a lie?
14         A    Yes, it can be called a lie.
15              THE COURT:  It is an acceptable truth if he
16         doesn't look good and you say he looks good?
17              THE WITNESS:  That's right.
18              THE COURT:  What if he does look good and you
19         say he looks good, is that an acceptable truth?
20              THE WITNESS:  Not in the sense it is used in
21         Scientology.  That is just a truth.
22    BY MR. DANDAR:
23         Q    All right.  All right.
24              THE COURT:  I apologize.  I took up a whole lot
25         of time, but I want to stop for lunch at 12:15 so



1         you have five minutes.
3         Q    Now, did you work with -- in RTC at all?
4         A    No.  Never.  RTC was just being formed when I left
5    the Ft. Harrison in March '82.
6         Q    All right.  Are you familiar with the post at RTC
7    of deputy inspector general?
8         A    Yes, from literature.
9         Q    Okay.  Is that someone who has that post -- would
10    that someone be working closely -- would that someone be
11    considered a top executive at RTC?
12              MR. MOXON:  Objection, your Honor.
13         A    Definitely.
14              MR. MOXON:  Objection.  She said she doesn't
15         know.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    She said she read it in literature?
18         A    Scientology literature.
19         Q    All right.  Are you familiar with Scientology use
20    of chloral hydrate?
21         A    No.  No drugs of any kind are used in Scientology.
22    Not even aspirin, Motrin, Tylenol, Advil.
23         Q    What about injectable Valium?
24         A    Absolutely not.
25         Q    And you read the depositions and the notes of the



1    attendants of Lisa McPherson.
2         A    Unless -- excuse me, unless prescribed by a
3    doctor, by a medical person for a medical condition.  But
4    just willy-nilly, no.
5         Q    This program of the introspection rundown that is
6    missing, would that have on there exactly when and how much
7    to give a person such as Lisa, you know, the Cal-Mag,
8    valerian root, chloral hydrate, prescribed by Dr. Minkoff,
9    and things like that?
10         A    That -- those things that were given to Lisa
11    should have been in her preclear folder, either written up
12    by the medical officer or one of the medical officer's
13    staff, or written up by Dr. Houghton when he gave Lisa what
14    he gave her.  It might have been included in a case
15    supervisor order to continue giving Lisa this and this and
16    this and this if she shows signs of this and this again.
17              So Mr. Kartuzinski may have condoned and ordered
18    that chloral hydrate or injectable Valium or whatever be
19    repeated if need be.  But if he did, those reports, those
20    orders, are not in Lisa's preclear folders.
21              THE COURT:  So the preclear folder does not
22         have the medical doses and that kind of thing in
23         there?
24              THE WITNESS:  No.
25              THE COURT:  You would have expected that in a



1         preclear folder?
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes, I would have expected either
3         an order citing that to be in the preclear folder or
4         a report from Dr. Houghton and/or the medical
5         liaison officer.
6              THE COURT:  Are you talking about Dr. Minkoff
7         now?
8              THE WITNESS:  Dr. Houghton.
9              THE COURT:  He's the dentist.
10              THE WITNESS:  He's the dentist who gave Lisa
11         the injectable Valium, maybe -- and again I would
12         have to go back to the folder, maybe the chloral
13         hydrate.
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    Well, he's one of the people who picked up
16    injectable Valium and Nurse Weber also picked up injectable
17    Valium in a different drug store.  And are these workers --
18    these attendants who were in the room with Lisa, do they
19    have the authority to do anything beyond the orders that
20    they are given?
21         A    Mmm, by the attendants?  Who do you mean?  Do you
22    mean the watchers?  Or --
23         Q    The watchers.
24         A    The watchers?
25              THE COURT:  What do you mean, do they have the



1         authority to pick up the telephone and call the
2         ambulance?
4         Q    Yes, could they pick up the telephone and call an
5    ambulance without an order from the case supervisor?
6         A    With my experience on the ship, with one person
7    being baby watched, the watcher had no such authority.
8    Everything had to be reported to the next person in line and
9    on up to LRH, then reviewed and LRH would order something or
10    somebody down the line from LRH would order something.
11         Q    In the case of Lisa McPherson, based on your
12    experience in Scientology, who was in charge of her stay at
13    the Ft. Harrison Hotel?
14         A    Well --
15              MR. MOXON:  Objection.  Calls for speculation,
16         your Honor.
17              THE COURT:  I'm sorry, what was the question?
18         I was making a note.
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    In your experience, based on your experience, who
21    was in charge of Lisa McPherson's stay at the Ft. Harrison
22    Hotel?
23              MR. MOXON:  She doesn't have any experience
24         with Lisa McPherson's stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel
25         so she testified she doesn't know anything about it.



1              THE COURT:  I think she is, I guess, testifying
2         here today as some sort of combination expert,
3         somebody that reviewed the file, something or
4         another, so I'll allow her to answer it if you can.
5              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
6              THE COURT:  It is acceptable, I told a lot of
7         witnesses this, if you don't know the answer to
8         something, don't try to force an answer.  If you
9         don't know, just say, "I don't know."  It is a
10         perfectly acceptable and very good answer in court.
11              THE WITNESS:  Yes, thank you, your Honor.
12         A    Technically, the senior CS FSO, Alain Kartuzinski,
13    would have been in charge of her.  But he would have been
14    reporting up line.
15    BY MR. DANDAR:
16         Q    To who?
17         A    To senior CS International, Ray Mithoff, probably
18    to the executive director of the FSO, Debbie Naughton, and
19    could be to the Department of Special Affairs.
20              THE COURT:  Debbie Naughton, ED FSO, Debbie --
21         Debbie, let's just call her Debbie.
22    BY MR. DANDAR:
23         Q    Debbie Cook?
24              MR. MOXON:  I object to Mr. Prince giving
25         her -- she's looking for the word and Mr. Prince



1         said "Cook.  Cook."
2              THE WITNESS:  I did not hear him.
3              MR. DANDAR:  She looked at me and I told her
4         Debbie Cook.
5              THE WITNESS:  I did not hear him.
7         Q    All right, as you sit here today with your
8    experience, do you have any idea why Mr. Kartuzinski in his
9    deposition I took of him would not admit that he reported to
10    OSA Int or the senior CS?
11              MR. MOXON:  Object to the form, your Honor.
12              THE COURT:  I'll allow it.
13         A    Mmm, I can surmise, which I did at the time I was
14    going through the folders.  And I thought that Alain was --
15    Mr. Kartuzinski was picked to take the brunt of what had
16    happened to Lisa and that would let other people off the
17    hook.  And when -- when an emergency happens or something
18    catastrophic happens in Scientology, the -- Mr. Hubbard's
19    policy is to find someone and put a head on a pike.  And
20    that is written in policy.  And I think that was the fate of
21    Mr. Kartuzinski.
22    BY MR. DANDAR:
23         Q    Can you -- in your review of Lisa McPherson's
24    folders and the depositions and the watchers' logs, can you
25    imagine any scenario where Mr. Kartuzinski, the senior case



1    supervisor at Flag, would not report to the senior case
2    supervisor International on Lisa McPherson?
3         A    No.
4              MR. MOXON:  Object to the form.  Also asking
5         for speculation.
6              THE COURT:  I'm going to allow it.  She can say
7         yes or no.
8              Who is the senior CS Int, whatever you are
9         saying?
10              THE WITNESS:  Mr. Ray Mithoff.
11              THE COURT:  This is not -- what is Ms. Cook?
12              MR. DANDAR:  She's captain of Flag.
13              THE COURT:  She's the head of Flag?
14              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Captain FSO.
15              THE COURT:  Captain FSO?  She would be superior
16         to Mr. Kartuzinski?
17              MR. DANDAR:  On one side.
18              THE WITNESS:  Only on the administrative side,
19         not over his technical expertise.
20              THE COURT:  Who is it that is going to
21         report -- this is confusing.  In your opinion who is
22         it that is going to report to Mr. Mithoff,
23         Mr. Kartuzinski?  Or Ms. Cook?
24              THE WITNESS:  Mr. Kartuzinski.
25              THE COURT:  So he doesn't have to report to



1         Ms. Cook, the administrative person, maybe he does,
2         but the person he's going to get permission to do
3         whatever it is he does is going to be Mr. Mithoff?
4              THE WITNESS:  But he might report to the
5         commanding officer of the corporation because she
6         would be concerned having a person -- preclear in
7         that condition under her care.
8              THE COURT:  What is Mr. Mithoff's title?
9              THE WITNESS:  Mmm, senior case supervisor
10         International.
11              THE COURT:  Okay.
12    BY MR. DANDAR:
13         Q    And what you know about Lisa McPherson --
14              THE COURT:  I said I needed to be at lunch at
15         quarter after.  I am past that.  We will be in
16         recess until 1:30.
17              MR. WEINBERG:  It is the same instruction?
18              THE COURT:  Same instruction.  You can have
19         lunch with the lawyers, but don't talk about the
20         case.
21              (WHEREUPON, a recess is taken from 12:20 to
22         1:30 p.m.)
23              ______________________________________



1                      REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3    STATE OF FLORIDA         )
5              I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter,
certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically
6    report the 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,
8    employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
9    attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action.
11              DATED this 16th day of July, 2002.
14                              ______________________________

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index