CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
5    Representative of the ESTATE OF
7              Plaintiff,
8    vs.                                     VOLUME 2 of 2
15    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
CONTENTS:           Testimony of Hana Whitfield.
DATE:               July 16, 2002.  Afternoon 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:  You may continue.
2              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
4         Q    Let's see.  Are you familiar with the term
5    "bypass"?
6         A    I didn't get that.
7         Q    Are you familiar with the term "bypass" in
8    Scientology?
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    What is that?
11         A    That is the action of a superior taking over, so
12    to speak, the job of someone working below him because that
13    individual has made an error -- a drastic error or some big
14    mistake and is not adequately correcting it.  And the
15    superior has to step in and correct the mistake or the goof.
16         Q    And are you familiar with the term "PR flap" in
17    Scientology?
18         A    Yes.  Public relations flap.
19         Q    Would Lisa McPherson, in November of 1995, be
20    considered a PR flap?
21         A    I would think so.
22              MR. MOXON:  Objection to the form.
23              THE COURT:  Overruled.
24         A    I would think so, definitely.

2         Q    And why is that?
3         A    If information about her condition -- her
4    deteriorating condition -- become known outside Scientology
5    and the fact that she was administered prescription
6    medications without a licensed Florida health official
7    prescribing same, and -- it would -- would definitely make
8    news in the newspapers and the general public.
9         Q    Well, Dr. Minkoff was an OTA public Scientologist.
10    He's the one that wrote the prescription for the Valium
11    twice and the chloral hydrate.  So he's a licensed Florida
12    physician.
13              That wouldn't be a PR flap, would it?
14         A    Mmm, it might be, to some extent, because I
15    don't -- if I remember correctly, I don't believe he saw
16    Lisa when he made -- wrote out those prescriptions.
17         Q    Correct.  So that would be something --
18         A    It could have turned into a PR flap.
19         Q    Okay.  Are you familiar with the book Science of
20    Survival?
21         A    Yes.
22         Q    And how is it that you are familiar with that
23    book?
24         A    I read it fairly early on in my Scientology
25    career.  And I think as part of my training on the St.

1    Hill -- two words -- special briefing course, or in my
2    training on the organizational executive course, I had to
3    read that book.  I had to read it some way on some check
4    sheet that I did.
5         Q    Okay.
6              THE COURT:  By the way, you can tell Mr. Fugate
7         he can have until tomorrow.  It is pretty obvious.
8              MR. WEINBERG:  I was waiting.
9              THE COURT:  If we get to that, it would
10         obviously be late in the day, so he doesn't have to
11         worry until tomorrow, if we even get to it tomorrow.
12              MR. WEINBERG:  I'm hoping.
13              THE COURT:  I am, too.
14              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I was hoping this morning, your
15         Honor.
16              THE COURT:  I was, too.
17              MR. WEINBERG:  That was the reason we stayed up
18         all night.
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's 188.  I'll show you
21    the clerk's copy.  This is an excerpt from Mr. Hubbard's
22    book Science of Survival.  And what I want you to do is turn
23    to Page 30, which is the last page.
24         A    Okay.
25         Q    It talks about a person who is insane.  Do you see

1    that?
2         A    Mmm, yes.  Yes, I do -- yes, I remember this.
3         Q    Okay.  It says, "Don't --
4              THE COURT:  How do you know it is talking about
5         somebody that is insane?
6              MR. DANDAR:  Pardon me?
7              THE COURT:  How do you know it's talking about
8         somebody who is insane?
9              MR. DANDAR:  In the middle of the first
10         paragraph it said, "You can't beat a man into
11         sanity."
12              THE WITNESS:  And on Page 29, the preceding
13         page, your Honor, if you flip back one page --
14              THE COURT:  You didn't give me Page 29.
15              THE WITNESS:  Oh, you need it.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  I don't have it, either.
17              MR. MOXON:  Could we have it, too, please,
18         Mr. Dandar?
19              MR. DANDAR:  I must have messed up in my
20         copying process.
21              THE WITNESS:  Here is a Page 29.
22              THE COURT:  I'm not disputing with you if that
23         is what you say it is about, but I couldn't tell
24         from reading this brief clip.
25              MR. DANDAR:  I'll tell you --

1              MR. MOXON:  That is the part of -- taking any
2         part of it out of context, a page of a book.
3              THE COURT:  I understand it.  You-all do it all
4         of the time, take little clips, little clips, and I
5         hear these objections all of the time.
6              If you want the whole thing introduced -- that
7         is a problem, you take little clips, because they
8         are out of context.
9              MR. WEINBERG:  If he wants to introduce a page,
10         we'll just put the whole book in.
11              THE COURT:  Okay.
12              MR. DANDAR:  Right now, we're going to skip
13         over this question.  And I'll get copies and I'll
14         come back to it.  I'll try to speed this up, if I
15         can.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Are you familiar with a CSW?
18         A    Yes.
19         Q    What is a CSW?
20         A    Completed staff work.
21         Q    What is that?
22         A    It is the submission -- I -- for example, if you
23    were my superior and I wanted something or needed to request
24    you for something, I would write up a report saying what the
25    situation was, that I needed this particular item.  I would

1    give as much information under "data" as I could, why I
2    needed it, what it was for and so forth.
3              And then, at the bottom, would be the solution.
4    And this is the reason why I need it.  "Sincerely."  Okay.
5    Not okay.
6              Then I would submit that to you with any
7    additional proof that I needed.  And you would either
8    approve it or disapprove it.
9         Q    This is to purchase something off the base of
10    Scientology?
11         A    It could be.  It could also be used for
12    situations.  For example, I find suddenly a situation in
13    my -- in my -- in my area, the area below me or the people
14    who are working for me, and I know that it's caught your
15    attention.  And I immediately send you up a report that
16    gives the situation, what I'm doing with it and -- and
17    what -- and the resolution that I hope to achieve.  That
18    kind of thing.
19              So it both states what the situation is, it gives
20    accompanying information around the situation, and then it
21    proposes a solution for a superior's approval, disapproval.
22         Q    Do you know whether a CSW would be used to
23    purchase prescription drugs like Valium or chloral hydrate
24    for Lisa McPherson?
25         A    Probably.  A purchase order certainly would be

1    required.  A CSW might accompany a purchase order.
2         Q    All right.  I'm going to hand you back Page 28 and
3    29.
4              MR. DANDAR:  Judge, here is that page.
5              THE COURT:  Oh.
6              MR. DANDAR:  You want me to staple it together
7         for you?
8              THE COURT:  No.  It is all right.
9              THE WITNESS:  Judge, you also need Pages 26 and
10         27 if --
11              MR. DANDAR:  Do you need those, too?
12              THE WITNESS:  No.  But the judge would need
13         those, too, if she doesn't have it.
14              THE COURT:  Here it is.  It is all right.
15         "Handle a psychotic gently."  Now I know we're
16         talking about psychotic people in this paragraph.
17         I -- you need to read the whole paragraph.
18    BY MR. DANDAR:
19         Q    Okay.  What is the back page?
20         A    That is the same one you have got.
21         Q    Okay.  I see.  All right.
22              So that is talking about a psychotic person.
23    Right?
24         A    Yes.
25         Q    And on Page 30, could you read where it says --

1    starts with "Don't fill."
2         A    "Don't fill him full of sedatives or put him in
3    restraints.  By being as gracious and serene as you possibly
4    can be, you will greatly increase your success in treating
5    your fellow man and you have to be first cousin to a saint
6    to get the best results with psychotics.  Any effort made
7    to --"
8              THE COURT:  Counsel, we don't really need her
9         to read everything.
10              MR. DANDAR:  That is fine.  That is fine.
11              THE WITNESS:  Okay.
12              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
13              THE COURT:  Are you introducing this?
14              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  I move that into evidence.
15              THE COURT:  Any objection?
16              MR. WEINBERG:  No.
17              THE COURT:  All right.  It will be received.
18              Did you give the clerk the -- did you give her
19         whatever it is you gave me, the clerk?
20              MR. DANDAR:  The witness has the clerk's copy.
21              MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, what is the number?
22              THE COURT:  188.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    Have you ever met Mr. Minton?
25         A    Mr. --?

1         Q    Minton, Robert Minton?
2         A    Yes.
3         Q    And under what circumstances?
4         A    The first time I met him was five, six years ago.
5    He was in Tampa, meeting with a ex-Scientologist, and
6    somebody else was there.  I don't remember where it was.  My
7    husband went up to meet him.  He wanted to meet us.
8         Q    Have you ever been part of the Lisa McPherson
9    Trust?
10         A    No.
11         Q    Have you ever received money from Mr. Minton?
12         A    No.
13         Q    What did -- why did Mr. Minton want to meet you
14    that time, that first time?
15         A    He was -- he was curious.  He was getting to
16    know -- he was looking into Scientology and meeting former
17    Scientologists.  And he had heard about us and he was
18    curious to get to know us.  There was no other particular
19    reason.
20         Q    Why was it up in Tampa?
21         A    That is where he was staying, at some hotel close
22    to the airport.
23         Q    Okay.  Did you ever visit the Lisa McPherson
24    Trust?
25         A    No.

1         Q    Did you ever hear about what the Lisa McPherson
2    Trust was about?
3         A    Oh, yes.  Mmm, I heard a little from Stacy Young,
4    Stacy Brooks.  That is the only person, I think, I heard
5    anything from.
6         Q    What did she say about the Lisa McPherson Trust?
7              THE COURT:  That could be awfully long,
8         couldn't it?
9              THE WITNESS:  Actually, it's pretty brief, your
10         Honor.
11              THE COURT:  Okay.
12         A    Just that, Mmm, she and Bob had constructed this
13    trust.  Bob had put it together.  And that they were going
14    to try to take care of all the inquiries in the United
15    States about Scientology, and help the families in need, and
16    also help Scientologists who wanted to leave.  That was sort
17    of the gist of it.
18    BY MR. DANDAR:
19         Q    Okay.  I just want to show you -- I'm almost
20    finished here -- our next exhibit, 189, a copy -- excerpt
21    from the tech dictionary.
22              THE COURT:  Is this the same one we keep
23         getting from time to time with a definition from one
24         side or another?  Is this all one book?
25              MR. DANDAR:  It is all in this book here.

1              THE COURT:  Two books?  Mr. Shaw says two
2         books.
3              MR. MOXON:  There is one for administrative
4         matters and one for technical matters.
5              MR. DANDAR:  This is from the technical.
6              THE COURT:  Okay.
8         Q    If you would, just -- in this book that actually
9    is, I think, Mr. Oliver's book, right, it has a definition
10    of fair game.  Do you see that?
11         A    Yes.  I do.
12         Q    Okay.  We don't need to read it.  It is right
13    there.  But, also, there is -- turn to the next page.  It
14    has definition of no report.
15         A    Uh-huh.  Yes.
16         Q    And what does that -- I mean, without having to
17    read the whole thing, but in your words what does that mean,
18    no report?
19              MR. MOXON:  Well, I object.  It speaks for
20         itself.  Whatever the definition here is the
21         definition.
22              THE COURT:  Yes.  The definition is adequate.
23         You want to read that definition and tell me if you
24         think that is fair?
25              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  That is correct.

1              THE COURT:  Okay.
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  What it says here about no
3         report -- the definition, yes.
5         Q    Then the no report report, did you -- are you
6    familiar with that term?
7         A    I am.
8         Q    What does that mean?
9         A    Mmm, if somebody doesn't make a report that he is
10    required to make, he can be cited for not reporting it, the
11    report.  There, hence, no report report.
12         Q    Okay.  Then on Page 429, the definition for
13    putting a head on a pike, I bring that to your attention
14    because you mentioned that before the lunch break.
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    Is that definition the same definition you are
17    operating under?
18         A    Yes.  That is the one.
19              MR. DANDAR:  I move that 189 into evidence.
20              THE COURT:  All right.  We'll receive it.  We
21         have had a lot of this book --
22              THE WITNESS:  Can I make -- can I say
23         something, your Honor?
24              THE COURT:  Sure.
25              THE WITNESS:  The definition of fair game, if I

1         could go back to it, is one definition.  There is
2         another definition which is not cited in the
3         administrative dictionary.
4              MR. MOXON:  I object then, your Honor.
5              THE COURT:  Yes.  We have heard a lot about
6         fair game.  So I think probably we have quite a bit
7         of evidence already in --
8              THE WITNESS:  Okay.
9              THE COURT:  -- so unless you are asked a
10         question, I think that would be probably all we need
11         to hear on that.
12              MR. DANDAR:  And our last exhibit --
13              THE COURT:  I have a question for you on this
14         putting the head on the pike.  I'm not sure I really
15         understood it, but I thought what I understood is
16         that it could be a situation where a head was put on
17         a pike where it was -- maybe this says this -- where
18         it was a show of a need for somebody to be -- I hate
19         to use the word "fall guy" but that is the term I am
20         familiar with.
21              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
22              THE COURT:  So you kind of put the head on the
23         pike to show that somebody paid for this, and it may
24         be real or it may not be real.
25              THE WITNESS:  Right.  And any others, whether

1         they were implicated or not, had better watch their
2         P's and Q's and tow the line and start operating
3         according to policy.
4              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Your Honor, if we're going to
5         have a definition other than the dictionary
6         definition as to a term in Scientology, if this is a
7         term your Honor wants defined, I can get an
8         interpretation that --
9              THE COURT:  I think that is kind of what it
10         says.  And I remember Mr. Prince indicated that
11         Mr. Miscavige had said he had to have his head put
12         on a pike.  And I just wanted to see if she
13         concluded the same as he did, that that could be a
14         real situation or a situation to call others -- not
15         really the definition as much as it is it could be a
16         situation where it was to show others what would
17         happen if they didn't follow the rules but might not
18         be -- could be real, could be not real.
19              Mr. Prince indicated his was not real, although
20         it did seem as if perhaps it was real.  But --
21              MR. LIEBERMAN:  All right.
22              THE COURT:  -- I wasn't challenging the
23         definition.
24              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
25              THE COURT:  I was just wanting to know more or

1         less if there was a situation where a head was on a
2         pike where it wasn't necessarily a real situation.
4         Q    All right, look at Exhibit 190 called "Verbal tech
5    penalties."  Are you familiar with that?
6         A    I am.
7         Q    What does that mean?
8              MR. MOXON:  Again, objection.  It speaks for
9         itself.
10              THE COURT:  I don't even have it.  Where is it?
11              MR. DANDAR:  I believe I handed it to you.
12              THE COURT:  Did you?
13              MR. MOXON:  It says what it says.  I don't know
14         why Mr. Dandar is asking her what it means, and I
15         object to it for the reasons that Mr. Lieberman has
16         been discussing in the past month.
17    BY MR. DANDAR:
18         Q    Let me rephrase the question.  When it says, "Any
19    person found to be using verbal tech shall be subject to a
20    court of ethics," what is "verbal tech"?
21         A    That is what I have been doing in this courtroom
22    today, talking about technical aspects of Scientology
23    without having the bulletin in front of me and reading
24    verbatim from the bulletin.
25              Another example is the gentleman over there just

1    stood up and said -- somebody stood up and said it is what
2    it is, you don't discuss it or talk about it.  That is
3    verbal tech.
4              So in Scientology it is forbidden to discuss
5    aspects of the technology --
6              THE COURT:  Didn't I read something that said
7         if it isn't written --
8              THE WITNESS:  It isn't true.
9              THE COURT:  -- it isn't true?  If it isn't
10         written, it isn't true.  Are those the words of L.
11         Ron Hubbard?
12              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13              THE COURT:  Is that in a policy letter
14         somewhere?
15              THE WITNESS:  It is in a policy letter, yes.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Does that saying by Mr. Hubbard have anything to
18    do with anyone but Mr. Hubbard being able to change the
19    tech?
20         A    It --
21              MR. MOXON:  Objection.  Again, interpretation.
22         She's already defined it.
23              THE COURT:  You know, Mr. Moxon, this has been
24         subject to a lot of -- a lot of objection.  And I am
25         going to make the same consistent ruling, which is

1         basically you-all can argue that as a legal matter
2         but for now we're going to go ahead and hear her
3         explanation.  And if I buy your legal argument, then
4         none of this will matter.  You do not have to
5         preserve it.  It has been preserved over and over
6         and over.
7              MR. MOXON:  I know.  I'm sorry.
8              THE COURT:  I don't want to hear it again.
9              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I think that was directed more
10         to me than you.
11              THE COURT:  Pardon me?
12              MR. LIEBERMAN:  That was probably directed more
13         at me than at Mr. Moxon.
14              THE COURT:  Well, it was directed at you
15         before.  I told you that before.
16              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
17              THE COURT:  This time I told Mr. Moxon.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  And I suspect I fall in that
19         category.
20              THE COURT:  You probably have been told once or
21         twice.  But that is probably good for a 35-day
22         hearing.
23              MR. WEINBERG:  I don't think that is bad at
24         all.
25              THE WITNESS:  Could I have the question again?

1              THE COURT:  Yes.
2              (Last question read back by the reporter.)
3         A    And the saying again was --
5         Q    If it isn't written, it isn't true.
6         A    No, I wouldn't say directly.  There are other
7    policies written by Mr. Hubbard which expressly state that
8    the policy letters he has written and the bulletins he wrote
9    could only be changed by himself, they could not be changed
10    by anyone else.
11         Q    Is one of those policies "The integrity of
12    source"?
13         A    I think so.  Yes.
14         Q    Is another one "Keep Scientology working"?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    How high was your highest position as a Sea Org
17    member?
18              MR. MOXON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
19              THE COURT:  If it was, I have forgotten it.
20              MR. WEINBERG:  She said commodore something.
21              THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't give that as an
22         answer.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    What was your highest Sea Org rank?
25         A    Oh.  Rank?  Commander right arm.  I did give that

1    before.
2         Q    All right.  On the scale of ranks from the bottom,
3    to the very top being Mr. Hubbard, where did you fit in?
4              THE COURT:  Are you talking now about the Sea
5         Org?
7         Q    Yes, on the Sea Org?
8         A    Well, above my rank came the rank of captain.  And
9    above that came the rank of commodore.
10         Q    So you were two ranks down from Mr. Hubbard?
11         A    Yes.
12         Q    Okay.  Were you ever declared?
13              MR. MOXON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
14              MR. DANDAR:  I don't think so.
15              THE COURT:  I don't think so.  Overruled.
16         A    Declared?
17    BY MR. DANDAR:
18         Q    By the Church of Scientology, declared?
19         A    Yes, as a suppressive person?
20         Q    Yes.
21         A    Yes.  I was.
22              THE COURT:  She said she was a suppressive
23         person.  I thought being declared was a piece of
24         paper like Mr. Oliver had.
25              MR. DANDAR:  That is what I thought, too.

1              THE COURT:  Did you get a piece of paper?
2              THE WITNESS:  Yes, I did.  Twice.  Your Honor,
3         I was declared twice.
5         Q    Okay.  Now, I'm just going to tell you this.  In
6    evidence --
7              THE COURT:  Could I ask you a question?
8              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
9              THE COURT:  When you said you were at some
10         level, is that an OT level you were talking about?
11              THE WITNESS:  Mmm, was that the level of
12         commander right arm?
13              THE COURT:  No.  You were talking about you
14         worked at the level of a 7 or 8 or --
15              THE WITNESS:  Class 7 or Class 8.
16              THE COURT:  I don't think I ever had anybody
17         tell me they were a class anything.  They would
18         always have been talking about -- I heard about
19         OT --
20              THE WITNESS:  OT, yes.
21              THE COURT:  -- and clear.
22              THE WITNESS:  The word "class" in Scientology
23         is used for a training level.  When somebody does
24         training on specific procedures, such as either the
25         administrative procedures in Scientology or the

1         technical auditing procedures, they are given a
2         classification.  And they go from 0, all of the way
3         up to 10, 11, 12.  And I got up to 7.
4              THE COURT:  That has nothing to do with an OT?
5              THE WITNESS:  No.
6              THE COURT:  That is something else?
7              THE WITNESS:  Right.  An OT is a spiritual
8         level one reaches in Scientology.
9              THE COURT:  That is on the bridge?
10              THE WITNESS:  Yes, that is on the bridge.  That
11         is on one side of the bridge.  The training is on
12         the other side of the bridge.
13              THE COURT:  All right.
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    Early on in -- this morning, the judge told you
16    that there are two different viewpoints by experts as to how
17    Lisa McPherson died, one being she died suddenly,
18    unexpectedly, and the other being she died slowly from
19    severe dehydration.
20              I want you to assume that according to the
21    plaintiff's experts she died slowly from severe dehydration,
22    that Heather Hof Petzod, who was in training for deputy
23    inspection and reports, I believe, 17 years old, was
24    hand-delivering reports to Mr. Kartuzinski saying that Lisa
25    was not eating or drinking enough to survive, she was

1    declining physically, her condition was getting worse and
2    Heather was frantic and she delivered those reports daily,
3    commencing, according to her sworn testimony to the
4    prosecutor, on December 2, December 3, December 4 and
5    perhaps December 5.
6              And if the medical experts state that she died
7    from severe dehydration, she was in a coma during those days
8    is true, can you explain --
9              THE COURT:  Not a coma.  You have several
10         things wrong with your question.  Just from my
11         knowledge, number one, I don't know that anybody
12         ever said it was slow or fast.  What they said was
13         it would have been obvious, and she was in a coma
14         not as we would know it, not as you and I might know
15         a coma where you are gone and there is no coming
16         back --
17              THE WITNESS:  Unconscious, yes.
18              THE COURT:  A coma, as a nurse, you might know
19         this was a --
20              MR. DANDAR:  Uremic.
21              THE COURT:  -- uremic coma where somebody could
22         be alerted but if they weren't alerted, they would
23         be basically asleep or out.
24              THE WITNESS:  That's right.
25              THE COURT:  Also, I have not read all of

1         Ms. Hof's data, but I started to and I read the part
2         about the State Attorney and I thought she indicated
3         that those were perhaps three days, 5th, 4th and
4         3rd.  But you would know that better than I.  So
5         I'll let you talk about --
6              MR. DANDAR:  When I combined the other
7         deposition I took and used those statements -- and
8         I'll get corrected, I'm sure -- but I believe it
9         starts on the 2nd of December.
10              THE COURT:  Okay.
11    BY MR. DANDAR:
12         Q    So, anyway, groggy, somnolent state, this uremic
13    coma state, do you have -- based on your experience and
14    understanding as to Scientology as to why it was obvious, as
15    the medical doctors say, why nothing was done sooner to save
16    Lisa McPherson?
17              MR. MOXON:  Objection, your Honor.  Improper
18         hypothetical.
19              THE COURT:  It may be an improper hypothetical.
20         Then the answer will be as worthless as the
21         hypothetical.  I honestly have not read enough to
22         know.  I can't tell.
23              MR. MOXON:  She's obviously not qualified to
24         give an opinion like this.  Mr. Dandar is asking her
25         for some sort of expert opinion on everything to do

1         with medical testimony.
2              THE COURT:  Actually, I think his question had
3         to do with Scientology.
4              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
5              THE COURT:  And I'm not sure if she qualifies
6         as an expert there or not.  For purposes of this
7         hearing, I'm going to allow it, depending on what
8         she's going to say.  Let me see what she has to say.
10         Q    Go ahead.
11         A    Could I have the question again?
12         Q    Yes.  Based on that medical testimony and the
13    testimony of the attendant, Ms. Hof, do you have an opinion,
14    based upon your experience in Scientology, as to why nothing
15    would have been done sooner for Lisa McPherson?
16         A    Mmm, I do.  Again, it's surmise.  And that is that
17    Heather Hof's report was one report amongst many that were
18    getting to Alain Kartuzinski.
19              In my experience in Scientology, when there is a
20    situation ongoing like Lisa's was -- which could be termed
21    critical, severe -- there was a flood of dispatches, memos,
22    internal memos, forwarding backwards, forward, from the
23    watchers to Alain Kartuzinski, from Alain Kartuzinski to
24    Senior CS International Raymond Hupp (phonetic), and
25    possibly to the captain, FSO Debbie Cook, and possibly to

1    Department of Special Affairs FSO.  And he was getting a
2    flood of communications back.  He might have been getting
3    communications from the MLO, from the watchers, from his
4    superiors.
5              One report by Heather Hof in such a flurry of
6    communications can get lost.  It can get overlooked.  And I
7    think the situation in those last three or four days was
8    severe enough with whatever else was going on, including
9    maybe auditors checking up on Lisa, that that possibly could
10    have --
11         Q    Possibly could have what?
12         A    It could have occurred that Heather Hof's reports
13    were overlooked or just rapidly scanned and not comprehended
14    because of all of the flurry of paperwork.
15         Q    Okay.  And what does it mean to you that none of
16    her reports, not one of her reports, have been produced?
17         A    Mmm --
18              MR. MOXON:  Same objection, your Honor.  Object
19         to the form.
20         A    Very serious, because no case supervisor or
21    auditor --
22              THE COURT:  Overruled.
23         A    -- or anyone responsible for the care of the
24    preclear can adequately -- adequately do their job as
25    written by Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard, if they don't have all of

1    the information, all of the data relevant to a preclear.
3         Q    And what does it mean to you that none of these
4    reports that you believe should have been -- existed from
5    OSA and from the senior case supervisor international,
6    Mr. Mithoff, back and forth with Mr. Kartuzinski, not one of
7    those have been produced.  What does it mean to you to have
8    all those records missing?
9              MR. MOXON:  Objection.  Assumes facts not in
10         evidence.
11         A    Me?  Again, it's my surmise, but it is that there
12    was something in those records that would have -- Mmm --
13    placed Scientology into a PR flap or the FSO in Clearwater,
14    Florida, which would be a PR flap, and they could not be
15    produced --
16              THE COURT:  FSO is what?
17              THE WITNESS:  Flag Service Organization.
18              THE COURT:  Oh.  Oh.  I'm sorry, that is the --
19              MR. WEINBERG:  It has been 35 days, Judge.
20              THE COURT:  Yes.  Okay.  I'm sorry, did you
21         finish your answer?
22              THE WITNESS:  I did.  Thank you, ma'am.
23              THE COURT:  Would the mere fact that there was
24         perhaps some negligence involved in this watch, that
25         they overlooked this and maybe they should have

1         taken her to the hospital sooner, would that be such
2         that -- is that just it, that that would cause --
3              THE WITNESS:  That is my thought on it, your
4         Honor.  She should have gone to the hospital
5         earlier.  And for some reason, maybe it was the --
6         the watchers who were watching her were just not
7         familiar with the deterioration of a physical body
8         and did not see it clearly enough to include that in
9         their reports which, then, along with Heather Hof's
10         reports, would have given Mr. Kartuzinski a very
11         clear picture that something was going on.
12              On the other hand, I also think -- and I was
13         going to mention it earlier and it slipped my
14         mind -- there is another thought that I had.  And
15         that is that if Lisa was trying to get away and was
16         trying to get home, it puts a different aspect on
17         her being kept in isolation.  She could have been
18         kept until she -- her situation -- her mental
19         situation was resolved and she no longer wanted to
20         leave Scientology, she agreed to stay.
21              I'm saying that because I have experienced in
22         the past, when I was in the Sea Org, that happening.
23         Sea Org members who wanted to leave the ship were
24         held on the ship until they received auditing or
25         security checks or ethics conditions and, in an

1         attempt to resolve their intention to leave, to
2         depart.
4         Q    Has the Flag in Clearwater -- is that the
5    successor of the ship Flag?
6              THE COURT:  That is the Flag Land Base, as
7         opposed to the ship.
8         A    It is the Flag Land Base.  But it is also
9    international management in Los Angeles or in California,
10    because both of those existed on the ship so it is -- it
11    split in two soon after it came ashore.
12    BY MR. DANDAR:
13         Q    Your understanding of the Lisa McPherson Trust and
14    your understanding of the Cult Awareness Network, CAN, is
15    there any similarity between the two organizations?
16         A    Knowing --
17              THE COURT:  How could she tell?  She has never
18         been a part of LMT.
19         A    Yes, knowing so little about the LMT -- I do
20    believe that CAN promoted deprogrammings.  Also I heard
21    lateral kidnappings and deprogrammings.  I do not believe
22    the Lisa McPherson Trust did.
23              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  All right.  That is all I
24         have.
25              THE COURT:  Cross-examine.

1              I don't think I ever got an answer -- I don't
2         think I ever finished my question.
3              My question was is if you assume that there
4         were -- there was all this flurry of reports and
5         somehow they are not in there, therefore, somebody
6         either negligently or deliberately destroyed these
7         reports or withheld these reports or put them in the
8         wastebasket or shredded them --
9              THE WITNESS:  Circular file or something.
10              THE COURT:  -- would that have been something
11         done even if the Heather Hof report said we have to
12         do something, we have to change the course of
13         action, something needs to be done?
14              I guess what I'm trying to tell you -- what I'm
15         trying to suggest, I tried to suggest it to counsel
16         here, as well, that that is far less than what the
17         one side is trying to make of those missing reports.
18              THE WITNESS:  Right.  Right.
19              THE COURT:  I mean, hospitals get sued for
20         negligence every day.  Doctors get sued for
21         negligence every day.  Nursing homes get sued.
22         There isn't anybody that takes care of somebody that
23         doesn't get sued for negligence.  It happens whether
24         they are responsible or they are not responsible.
25              But it's a lot worse if the reports are missing

1         because it looks like there is something worse going
2         on than just a simple lack of care.
3              THE WITNESS:  There is also another possible
4         thought which came to my mind when I was going
5         through the folders, and that is that Heather Hof's
6         reports -- that was one report amongst many that
7         differed from the majority.  She was urging action
8         be taken on Lisa, and the others were simply
9         reporting as it was happening, she was taking food
10         and water and messing up a bit, but -- so forth.
11              So it is possible that Heather Hof's reports
12         were marked as flappy.  She was making too much out
13         of it.  Her reports was she was too excitable and,
14         therefore, no one should take too much notice of her
15         reports.
16              But that is just my thought.
17              THE COURT:  Well, there would have been no
18         authority, though, to just take those reports
19         because of that and throw them in the wastebasket,
20         would there?
21              THE WITNESS:  No.
22              THE COURT:  Mr. Moxon.
23              MR. MOXON:  Yes, Judge.
24                        CROSS-EXAMINATION
25    BY MR. MOXON:

1         Q    In 1991 you were heavily involved in violent
2    deprogramming activities.  Isn't that right?
3         A    No, it's not.
4         Q    Well, you haven't used -- you haven't actually
5    used the term to describe the business that you and your
6    husband have where you said -- you kind of generally
7    described it, you said you were working with families.
8         A    I said --
9         Q    Isn't that right?
10         A    -- earlier today that Scientology has defined the
11    word "programming" as kidnapping and coercively pulling
12    beliefs from one's mind and changing those beliefs.
13              And I said we do not do that.
14         Q    Well, you just said, though, a moment ago that the
15    Cult Awareness Network actually did violent deprogrammings
16    and kidnappings?
17         A    I did.
18         Q    So the term "deprogramming" then means to try to
19    change someone's viewpoint of their religion?
20         A    No.  Deprogramming consists of kidnapping and
21    holding a person against their will.
22         Q    So you --
23         A    That is the general -- general understanding of
24    the term.
25         Q    And it is --

1         A    And when I mentioned it came to deprogrammings,
2    that is the definition, in addition, I was referring to.
3         Q    So you were doing deprogrammings in a non-violent
4    way?
5         A    We weren't doing deprogrammings.
6         Q    What did you call it?  What is the term you used?
7         A    Interventions.
8         Q    Intervention?
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    And --
11         A    And basic two-way communication as I learned in
12    Scientology.
13         Q    You are intervening in someone's life to change
14    their viewpoint.  Is that it?
15         A    We were helping a family to intervene.  We were
16    helping the family to intervene with their loved one, their
17    child or spouse or parent.
18         Q    In fact --
19         A    The family was the one that wanted to intervene.
20         Q    They paid you to do this.  Correct?
21         A    Oh, yes.  Yes.  We were paid for our work.
22         Q    You solicited families to --
23         A    No, we never solicited --
24              THE COURT:  Now, wait.
25         A    -- a single family.

1              THE COURT:  You'll have to let him ask his
2         whole question.  He said "to" and you started
3         talking.
4              And you are going to have to wait for her to
5         answer fully.
6              THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
7              THE COURT:  Wait until he's done with his
8         question, then you'll pause and then you answer.
9         Okay?
10              THE WITNESS:  Good.
11              THE COURT:  Go ahead, Mr. Moxon.
12    BY MR. MOXON:
13         Q    Didn't, in fact, you solicit families to retain
14    you and your husband for this purpose, intervention?
15         A    No, we did not.  I already mentioned that we did
16    not.
17         Q    Many of your referrals came through the Cult
18    Awareness Network, didn't they?
19         A    No.  A percentage did.  But not the majority.
20         Q    In fact, you used to give speeches at Cult
21    Awareness Network conferences, isn't that right?
22         A    Yes, we did.  We gave speeches elsewhere, too.
23         Q    And at some of these speeches you gave at the Cult
24    Awareness Network, you were introduced to people that
25    subsequently hired you as an interventionist or

1    deprogrammer?
2         A    That is correct.  That usually happens at most
3    meetings that people get together at.
4         Q    Now, these CAN conferences, there were a lot of,
5    oh, violent deprogrammers that would attend the conference
6    also, isn't that right?
7         A    Excuse me.  Can you tell me that again -- ask me
8    that again?
9         Q    Weren't there violent deprogrammers that would
10    also attend CAN conferences to get referrals for clients?
11         A    I can't say that for sure because I never saw
12    anyone do a violent deprogramming.
13         Q    You are aware, though, that a number of CAN
14    deprogrammers were arrested for violent acts?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    Those were people that you were associated with in
17    CAN, correct?
18         A    The ones who were arrested, no, we did not
19    associate with those.
20         Q    Well, how about --
21         A    There was one -- one Joseph Zimhart, we chatted to
22    him sometimes at conferences, but -- and I think we met him
23    once in his home in northern New Mexico.  And that was it.
24         Q    He was arrested several times for acts of violence
25    during deprogrammings.  Right?

1         A    I don't know how many times.
2              THE COURT:  Can I ask you a question,
3         Mr. Moxon?  Is the violence considered the
4         kidnapping?  Or is there violence beyond the
5         kidnapping?
6              MR. MOXON:  Well, there is violence beyond the
7         kidnappings.  For example, Mr. Zimhart was one of
8         their CAN deprogrammers that, after the kidnapping,
9         the persons were held against their will and they
10         wouldn't be permitted to leave until they either
11         escaped or the deprogramming was over.
12              THE COURT:  Kidnapping is considered a violent
13         act, crime of violence.  So is that the violence you
14         are speaking of?
15              MR. MOXON:  I'm actually speaking of that, but
16         more.
17    BY MR. MOXON:
18         Q    You knew Galen Kelly?
19         A    Only by sight.  And I think I was introduced to
20    him once.
21         Q    He was convicted of a violent deprogramming?
22         A    Yes.  I did not know him -- I mean, I don't know
23    him as well as I know other people in this courtroom.  I
24    knew of him more than I knew him personally.
25         Q    How about Karen Reinhart (phonetic)?  Did you know

1    her?
2         A    Didn't know her.
3         Q    You knew of her?
4         A    No.  I didn't -- I have never even seen her as far
5    as I believe.
6         Q    How about Randall Berkey (phonetic)?
7         A    I think I met him once at a CAN conference.
8         Q    He was arrested for deprogramming, also?
9         A    I don't know.
10         Q    Did you know Mark Bloksom (phonetic)?
11         A    I don't think so.
12         Q    Did you know of him?
13         A    I think I read of him, saw his name, in a CAN --
14    no, in a Freedom Magazine -- Scientology magazine article
15    talking about his deprogramming activities.  That is a
16    Scientology magazine.
17         Q    It was your understanding that the Church
18    generally, or Church members, believed that you were
19    involved in deprogrammings as you have defined it, right,
20    that is, violent acts?
21         A    I believe that most Church members were told that
22    is what we do, even though we don't.
23         Q    And I believe you said, if I wrote it down
24    correctly, that you were working with families to "get over
25    their hostility toward Scientology" so they could

1    dialogue --
2         A    That is correct, yes.  The rift with most families
3    and their Scientology member is one of hostility.  The
4    parents are hostile to the fact that their loved one has
5    gone into Scientology.  And the Scientologist is hostile
6    because his parents are trying to rattle his -- Mmm -- his
7    parade, so to speak.  And the first step --
8         Q    You --
9         A    I'm sorry, go ahead.
10         Q    That is fine.  And in these interventions that you
11    did where you are intervening in these families, in fact a
12    number of them resulted in the families breaking up or being
13    asunder in some fashion, isn't that right?
14         A    A very small percentage, unfortunately, did.  The
15    great majority didn't.  They were successful.
16         Q    David Houghton is the one you mentioned?
17         A    Yes, I did.
18         Q    In David Houghton's situation, his family was
19    basically destroyed by what you did, wasn't it?
20         A    Not that I'm aware of.
21         Q    Did you ever read the declaration that
22    Mr. Houghton filed after your attempted deprogramming of him
23    and his wife?
24         A    I think I did.  But not everything in that
25    declaration was correct, from what I had experienced with

1    Lori and Mr. Houghton, with him and his wife.
2              MR. MOXON:  May I approach, your Honor?
3              THE COURT:  You may.
4              MR. MOXON:  I don't know what the next exhibit
5         is.  What is next?
6              MR. DANDAR:  For the record, we object to
7         Mr. Moxon continuing to accuse the witness of
8         deprogramming when she said many times she has never
9         deprogrammed anyone.
10              THE WITNESS:  Could I --
11              THE COURT:  No, you really can't, not during
12         cross-examination.  The difference is that if he's
13         using deprogramming perhaps in one form, she's using
14         it in another, he maybe doesn't agree with what she
15         says and it's his cross-examination.  So, overruled.
16              MR. MOXON:  It may be, too, a matter of
17         semantics.  Some of the deprogrammers say there is a
18         term violent deprogramming, involuntary and
19         voluntary deprogramming.
20              In the Scott decision I referenced yesterday of
21         the Pentecostal client that I had in Washington
22         state who got the big judgment against CAN and
23         deprogrammers there, there was a discussion in the
24         decision that I have given to the Court where the
25         Court said calling it "Involuntary deprogramming is

1         just kind of whitewashing a really violent act,"
2         but --
3    BY MR. MOXON:
4         Q    So this was the incident in Indianola, you are
5    referring to --
6         A    Indianola, both in St. Joseph and Indianola.
7         Q    They are near each other?
8         A    Yes, probably within a 50-mile distance.
9         Q    The St. Joseph incident and Indianola --
10         A    Were the same with the Houghton family.  Yes.
11         Q    You know David Houghton is a defendant in this
12    case.  Correct?
13         A    Yes, I do know that.
14         Q    Now, in Mr. Houghton's declaration he said you
15    referred to yourself also as exit counselors.  Is that
16    another term of art for your profession?
17         A    We've never called ourselves exit counselors.
18    After the first year or so we started doing work, because to
19    be a counselor in California you have to be licensed, so
20    after we learned that, we started calling ourselves exit
21    consultants.  So for a period of time, a number of years, we
22    called ourselves exit consultants, not exit counselors.
23         Q    Obviously, as the term would apply, you are trying
24    to exit someone from something, right?
25         A    We adopted the term because that was the term

1    being used by others doing this kind of work.
2         Q    Yes.  You were trying to exit a member from his
3    chosen religion.  Right?
4         A    Well, one could -- one could put that definition
5    onto it.  But that is not the work we did.  We didn't try to
6    coerce people or change their minds about Scientology.
7         Q    But you put in your business card that you were a
8    cult exit consultant, didn't you?
9         A    Well, that is what we called ourselves, exit
10    consultant.
11         Q    Now, in your -- your exit counseling or exit
12    consulting or intervention -- let's just call it exit
13    counseling, can we do that, for the rest of the questions?
14         A    Okay.  Actually, intervention would be better
15    because shortly after we --
16              THE COURT:  It's a nice compromise.
17              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
18         A    Intervention.  Good.
19    BY MR. MOXON:
20         Q    In your intervention with the Whitfields -- I'm
21    sorry -- with the Houghtons, you came up with a plan for his
22    family where David Houghton's wife would lie to him,
23    correct, about what you were doing there?
24         A    I don't believe we did.  No.
25         Q    Well, take a look at Paragraph 3.

1         A    I know, but not everything in this declaration
2    is --
3              MR. DANDAR:  Object.  Trying to impeach someone
4         with Mr. Houghton's -- a defendant in this case --
5         affidavit.
6              THE COURT:  He can have her refer to it.  Of
7         course, if she said it is not true, then that is
8         what she said.
9    BY MR. MOXON:
10         Q    Were you always totally above-board and made sure,
11    when you went to the family, you told them not to withhold
12    anything from the targets of your intervention?
13         A    I don't understand the question.
14         Q    Well, didn't you tell the family members in a
15    typical intervention that they would have to basically
16    misrepresent the purpose of your visit?
17         A    I'm sorry, the question is too broad.  It happened
18    so differently, family to family, with little instances of
19    this and that.  I can't take it as a generality.
20         Q    Well, let's take the Houghton family, first of
21    all.  With the Houghton family, you first met with the -- I
22    guess with the brother -- some of the brothers and the
23    parents of the Houghtons?
24         A    And other relatives, yes.
25         Q    And you met them in a CAN conference, didn't you,

1    initially?
2         A    I don't remember.
3         Q    You --
4         A    You know more about it than I do.
5         Q    Didn't you try to convince the family that they
6    should lie to David about the purpose of your visit to see
7    them?
8         A    Not as far as I remember, no.
9         Q    Didn't you work out a plan with them to explain
10    the purpose for being there?
11         A    Lori worked out a plan with her family as to how
12    to explain the period of time she was staying with them so
13    that her husband was not suspicious as to why she was so
14    long with her family when we were there.
15         Q    Now, both David Houghton and his wife Lori were
16    happily married Scientologists, weren't they, at the time
17    that you intervened in their lives?
18         A    Yes.  So I believe.
19         Q    And you came into their lives and told their
20    family that they were in some danger with Scientology, there
21    was a problem with Scientology?
22         A    No, we didn't, Mr. Moxon.  The family already had
23    their own opinions and ideas about Scientology.
24              Almost every family we have worked with asked us
25    to help because they already had their -- they had already

1    done homework on it and found what they were scared of about
2    Scientology or concerned about.
3         Q    You came to the family and gave them more
4    information, making them more scared, making them more
5    concerned about Scientology?
6         A    No.  No.  We didn't.
7         Q    Well, at the end of this -- at the end of this
8    attempted deprogramming of the Houghtons, did you know that
9    they separated?
10         A    No -- yes, I think I read it in his -- if it is in
11    here, then that is where I read it.
12         Q    Weren't they -- weren't the parents so upset about
13    what had happened that they demanded a refund of the money
14    they paid you for intervention?
15         A    No.  No.  Lori's family were very grateful for the
16    help we had given.  Mr. Houghton -- David Houghton's parents
17    asked for a refund.
18         Q    They obviously weren't pleased with the
19    intervention?
20         A    They weren't pleased.  Right.  And we promptly
21    gave them the refund.
22         Q    Did you feel you helped the family in that sense
23    when you intervened in the family, helped the relationship
24    between David and his family?
25         A    I think we helped Lori's parents and siblings to

1    understand that Scientology was a completely different
2    culture and they had to respect that culture in order to
3    gain Lori and David's respect for them in order to
4    reestablish that respect.
5              And they were very grateful to us all for
6    educating them in that and bringing them to see that so they
7    could better approach Lori and eventually David.
8         Q    And they were so pleased with that that they
9    demanded a refund of the money?
10         A    I already said --
11              THE COURT:  She covered that now.
12         A    -- Lori's parents --
13              THE COURT:  You are talking about one side of
14         the family.  She's talking about another side of the
15         family.  Move on.
16              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
17              THE COURT:  What is the number on this exhibit,
18         by the way?
19              MR. MOXON:  260.  I'll move that into evidence,
20         your Honor.
21              THE COURT:  All right.  It will be received.
22    BY MR. MOXON:
23         Q    You demanded a retainer from the families that
24    you -- that hired you to intervene for their children,
25    right?

1         A    On some occasions, yes.
2         Q    And that was between $2,000 and $3,000 was your
3    standard retainer?
4         A    That sounds about correct.
5         Q    And you charge $1,000 a day, also, for your work?
6         A    Yes.
7         Q    Plus expenses?
8         A    Yes.
9         Q    Is it your position that you never tried to get
10    anyone away from Scientology with exit counseling,
11    intervention?
12         A    No, we didn't.
13         Q    That was not part of the purpose?
14         A    No.  If the family -- it was the family who wanted
15    their child or their -- the spouse or a parent to leave
16    Scientology.  Usually that is the situation we ran into.
17         Q    Now, of course the people that you -- the targets
18    of your counseling, your intervention, would typically be
19    very upset with being lied to by the family, having
20    misrepresentation as to what was going on with this
21    intervention, isn't that right?
22         A    No.
23              MR. MOXON:  May I approach?
24              THE COURT:  You may.
25              MR. MOXON:  I'm marking as Exhibit 261 a letter

1         from --
2    BY MR. MOXON:
3         Q    Well, can you identify this document?
4         A    It is not addressed to anyone.  No, I don't.
5         Q    Is this your address, 661 North Occidental
6    Boulevard?
7         A    Yes, but it is not addressed to anyone.  There is
8    no addressee.
9              THE COURT:  Well, what he wants to know, it is
10         a form letter that you used?
11              THE WITNESS:  No, we never used a form letter,
12         your Honor, never.
13              THE COURT:  I can see some sort of a signature,
14         although, granted, it certainly isn't complete, that
15         is for sure.  So are you saying this is not your
16         literature?
17              THE WITNESS:  Mmm, I would have to go through
18         it, your Honor.
19              THE COURT:  Well, go ahead and do that.
20              Well, obviously this was addressed to somebody,
21         right?  I mean, this doesn't look -- I thought maybe
22         this was just something you pass out to everybody.
23         But this was a specific person, this looks like, it
24         is going to.
25              THE WITNESS:  No, I don't recognize this letter

1         because I typically never wrote anything like this
2         to a family that we were working with, certainly not
3         in this detail.  And never from the first person.  I
4         mean, if we ever wrote a family, it was usually
5         written from Jerry and myself.  So I don't recognize
6         this.
7              THE COURT:  Okay.
8    BY MR. MOXON:
9         Q    Okay.  So this is not a letter you wrote
10    concerning -- it says, about David, you're going to build a
11    profile of David.  You are saying this is not about David
12    Houghton?
13         A    I don't recognize this.
14         Q    Well, let me ask you this --
15              THE COURT:  You can't ask her anything more
16         about this if she doesn't authenticate it.
17              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
18    BY MR. MOXON:
19         Q    Let me see if I can refresh your recollection with
20    part of it, though, if I may.
21              If you look at Section F, which is on unnumbered
22    Page 3 --
23         A    Okay?
24         Q    -- making reference to how long an intervention
25    lasts, and you can see Point 3 under the Letter F where it

1    says that you basically "want to brief the person on who
2    will take up and resolve his upset or anger when he finds
3    out the meeting was preplanned."
4              Do you see that?
5         A    I do.
6         Q    Is that a typical part of your briefing to the
7    family, to make sure that there was a means to handle the
8    anger or upset of the target of your intervention?
9         A    Sometimes, but not that often.  But I don't
10    remember ever writing a letter like this.  I'm having -- I'm
11    having a problem that, if I may, your Honor --
12              THE COURT:  You haven't identified it.  That
13         should be the end of it.
14              Move on, Counselor.
15         A    And the reason I'm having a problem with it --
16              THE COURT:  We're done with it.
17              THE WITNESS:  Okay.
18    BY MR. MOXON:
19         Q    Well, when was the incident in England you
20    referenced?
21         A    I didn't hear the question.
22         Q    There was an incident in England where you talked
23    about that you said somebody was following you in England?
24    When was that?
25         A    June, July, August, 1991.

1         Q    Were you there for three months?
2         A    Oh, no.  No.  No.  It was sometime in that period
3    of time.  I don't remember the exact date.
4         Q    You don't know who it was that was allegedly
5    following you in England, do you?
6         A    I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
7         Q    You don't know who it was that allegedly following
8    you in England?
9         A    We eventually found out one of them was Mr. Ben
10    Shaw, over there.
11              Mmm, Barbara Bradley, who was the head of the
12    department -- or the Office of Special Affairs in England.
13    We don't know that she was actively following us, but she
14    did appear at the bed and breakfast twice.
15              And there was another gentleman, and I have
16    forgotten his name.  Mmm, a little bit taller than you are,
17    white hair, slender, good-looking.  He came to the bed and
18    breakfast two or three times.  And he was identified as a
19    Scientologist.
20         Q    And it was your understanding that they thought
21    you were about to perform a kidnapping on a Scientologist?
22         A    That is what the Exmouth Police told us, that they
23    had been approached by Scientologists and given smear packs
24    on my husband and myself and had been told that we were
25    planning to kidnap somebody in Exmouth and do a violent

1    deprogramming on that person.
2         Q    Do you remember one of the targets of your
3    intervention named Mark Hess?
4         A    Who?
5         Q    Mark Hess?
6         A    Yes, I do remember.
7         Q    He was another Scientologist that you were hired
8    to attempt to exit counsel, correct?
9         A    Not exit counsel.  To help the family intervene.
10         Q    And this one ended badly, too, the family being at
11    odds?
12         A    Well, it didn't even start, actually.  We were
13    scheduled to arrive at his parents' house, I think --
14              THE COURT:  Why would I care, in this hearing,
15         whether or not, in her line of work, she -- she does
16         a job people like or don't like?  I mean, for this
17         hearing, if you are trying to establish that she is
18         what she is, she's admitted it.
19              MR. MOXON:  Well, let me give you a number of
20         declarations and I'll show you, the point, your
21         Honor --
22              THE COURT:  You're not going to get
23         declarations in of some strangers that say they
24         didn't like what she did.  She admitted what she
25         did.  Whether or not she did a good job or not so

1         good a job isn't relevant for this hearing.  Not for
2         this hearing.
3              What I take it is relevant for this hearing is
4         what she had to say about Lisa McPherson and the
5         fact that she -- she has brought some truth -- at
6         least she testified as true -- that Scientologists
7         were, in fact, some of the people following and
8         harassing suppressive persons.  That is all that is
9         relevant.
10              MR. MOXON:  Okay.  Good enough.
11              THE COURT:  Let me look through this and see if
12         there is anything else, so I don't forget.
13    BY MR. MOXON:
14         Q    This may be my last question on this area then.
15              Ms. Whitfield, you would concede that a lot of
16    upset was caused in the lives of Scientologists in whose
17    families you intervened --
18         A    No, I don't.
19         Q    Well, let me just mention a couple more then.
20              MR. DANDAR:  Cumulative, Judge, and irrelevant.
21              THE COURT:  Sustained.
22              MR. MOXON:  All right, well, I'll file the rest
23         of these.  I have affidavits.  At some point when we
24         take her deposition later, we'll do it that way.

1    BY MR. MOXON:
2         Q    Well, there was a woman named Julie Ann Easterling
3    who was a very recent attempt to deprogram.  Do you remember
4    that?
5         A    No.  I had nothing to do with her.
6         Q    You were in communication with her husband, a
7    fellow named Douglas Carter, after you signed on to work for
8    Mr. Dandar?
9              THE COURT:  Mr. Moxon --
10         A    No.
11              THE COURT:  I'll not tell you again.  Here is
12         the deal.  This is the hearing -- they didn't get
13         into a great deal as far as what it was she did.
14         You have gone into Mr. Houghton quite a great deal.
15              I don't care whether she did a good job or
16         didn't do a good job.  I really don't care whether
17         she upset families or didn't.
18              I hear about two things I think are relevant to
19         this:  Whether or not she was followed.  Whether or
20         not her bank records were obtained.  Whether or not
21         she was followed by members from the Church of
22         Scientology.  Whether or not the Church of
23         Scientology went and got -- tried to get her credit
24         report.  Whether or not the members of the Church of
25         Scientology were, in fact, doing what she says they

1         do to suppressive persons, and other persons have
2         also testified to that.  That is one area.
3              The other area is all of the things she
4         purported to testify about what she knew about this
5         case.
6              Other than that -- I think that is all that is
7         relevant.
8              MR. MOXON:  Okay.  Good enough.
9              THE COURT:  In this case, only as it pertains
10         to this hearing --
11              MR. MOXON:  All right.
12              THE COURT:  -- which is whether or not Mr. --
13         Mr. Dandar falsely, knowing it was false, filed a
14         complaint, that type of thing.
15              MR. MOXON:  All right.
16    BY MR. MOXON:
17         Q    Ms. Whitfield, have you requested credit of any
18    kind in the past ten years, any commercial credit at all?
19         A    I don't understand your question.  For myself?  Or
20    somebody else?
21         Q    You and/or your husband?
22         A    I have requested my credit report a number of
23    times, yes.
24         Q    I'm talking about requesting credit, that is,
25    using a credit card or --

1         A    I see.
2         Q    -- acquiring a credit card?
3         A    No, I have not requested a credit card in the last
4    probably 15 -- or 12 years.
5         Q    So you don't own a credit card?
6         A    Yes, I own a few.  But they were -- I was sent a
7    form saying that I have been preapproved and I just have to
8    sign on the line.  And I sent it in and got the card.  I
9    didn't request it initially myself.  I didn't make the first
10    request.
11         Q    All right.  But you have filled out forms to get
12    new credit cards in the past --
13         A    Yes.
14         Q    -- 15 years?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    How many credit cards do you have?
17         A    Mmm, I am not --
18              THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, I'm not willing to go
19         into that without -- with our credit records being
20         obtained.
21              THE COURT:  I'll not let him ask too many
22         questions.  I don't know why he would care.  The
23         truth of the matter is whether you know it or not,
24         when you sign on these little forms, they will get
25         your credit record, they will call the credit

1         company.  Even though it says you are preapproved --
2         you don't know -- they are going to call, after you
3         submit your report, to make sure that your credit is
4         okay before they issue you a card.
5              THE WITNESS:  Right.
6              THE COURT:  I mean, Lord, they'll send things
7         out to people whose credit is awful.  You may -- you
8         know, you and I both say, we may or may not apply,
9         so -- so I'm not going to let either side get into
10         what sort of debts do you have.  That is not
11         relevant.
12              He wants to know how many cards, for example,
13         have you applied for in the last 10 years?
14              THE WITNESS:  That is different to the question
15         he asked me.  He asked me how many cards I have.
16    BY MR. MOXON:
17         Q    Well, the Judge's question is fine.
18         A    Okay.  Probably over the last -- how long?
19              THE COURT:  Ten years.
20         A    Ten years?  Probably maybe three, maybe four.
21    BY MR. MOXON:
22         Q    Have you --
23         A    Maybe even two.
24         Q    Have you bought a car in the past ten years?
25         A    Yes.

1         Q    On credit?
2         A    Yes.
3         Q    Have you moved in the past ten years?
4         A    Yes.
5         Q    Have you bought a new house or --
6              THE COURT:  Did you finance your house?
7              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
8    BY MR. MOXON:
9         Q    You live in a house then?
10         A    Yes.
11         Q    More than once over the past ten years?
12         A    No.
13         Q    Have you made any purchases of large appliances
14    over the past ten years on credit?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    Have you made any purchases of anything else,
17    something expensive, in the past ten years?
18         A    Not apart from what we covered.
19         Q    Now, you have indicated one of the documents that
20    Judge Schaeffer was asking you about earlier was a credit
21    alert company where, when someone asks for credit, they --
22    you purchased that so you would have this system --
23         A    Right.  That was in January this year.
24         Q    The purpose of that is to keep your credit clean
25    so you will know when people are asking for credit for you?

1         A    Yes.
2         Q    Now, you don't actually know if these requests to
3    the credit companies had to do with your own request for
4    credit that we've just discussed, do you?
5         A    I'm fairly certain they don't because I haven't --
6    Mmm -- I haven't purchased a car around about that time, or
7    a home, or applied or got a credit card -- a new credit
8    card.  Nothing of that kind at all.
9              THE COURT:  When was the inquiry made?
10              THE WITNESS:  The inquiry was made in -- it
11         doesn't say when the inquiry was -- it does, the 7th
12         of January, 2002.
13              THE COURT:  Okay.  So the relevant question
14         regarding that would be whether she had bought a
15         house, car, applied for credit or anything of that
16         sort around that time.  Not in the last ten years.
17              THE WITNESS:  And the answer is I didn't.
18    BY MR. MOXON:
19         Q    Did you use your credit card around that time?
20         A    Mmm, we use our credit card -- some credit cards
21    for small things.  But for no major, major purchases, no.
22         Q    So it is just speculation on your part as to what
23    happened here, you have got no evidence that anyone
24    connected with the Church made some unauthorized demand for
25    your credit, do you?

1         A    No.  As I mentioned, I have no idea who it was
2    except it was the company in San Diego, in Poway, mentioned
3    by the reporting --
4              THE COURT:  She already testified to that.
5              MR. MOXON:  That is fine.
6              THE COURT:  And I, frankly, think it is some
7         evidence, the fact it is a company that doesn't
8         exist.  I'm not saying evidence of what.  But she
9         followed it up.  And there is somebody making a
10         report -- a request that is an unknown person.  That
11         is very unusual.
12    BY MR. MOXON:
13         Q    Well, did you find out this David Raskin didn't
14    exist?  I thought you found he actually had three companies.
15         A    No.  No.  You misunderstood what I said.
16         Q    May I see the document you --
17         A    This -- let me get you --
18              MR. MOXON:  May I approach, your Honor?
19              THE COURT:  You may.  You know, this is kind of
20         a waste of time.  The deal is she doesn't know if
21         the Church of Scientology did it.  And nobody is
22         going to get up here and say they did it.  In fact,
23         they would testify they didn't.  The fact of the
24         matter is nobody will ever know.
25              MR. MOXON:  Well, I agree there is just the

1         inference, your Honor, that it was.  And -- well,
2         I'll deal with that.
3              THE COURT:  The inference is it is strange, a
4         strange occurrence.
5              But there is a further inference she was
6         followed by members of the Church of Scientology who
7         she has identified.  Until such time as they testify
8         it is not true, it is true.
9              During the same period of time she has
10         identified members of the Church of Scientology
11         connected with some other things.  Those things all
12         have to do with inferences of other situations.  So
13         you're going to have to live with that.
14              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
15              THE COURT:  We also had a man testify one of
16         the things he did, when he was in OSA, was to try to
17         get peoples' credit reports.  This is what he was
18         given by assignment.  You'll have to live with that.
19         So there are things here that have come into this
20         case.  But exploring this -- I mean, she doesn't
21         know any more than what she said.
22              MR. MOXON:  Okay.  Good enough.  Just to
23         correct, unless I misheard Mr. Oliver, I think he
24         said someone allegedly gave him a credit report but
25         he didn't ask for one, didn't get one and doesn't

1         know how to do it.
2              THE COURT:  Whatever he said, it will be there
3         in a couple days for us to look at.
4              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
5    BY MR. MOXON:
6         Q    Did you ever work in the MLO office?
7         A    No, I don't think it was the MLO office.  It was
8    the MO office when I was in Scientology.
9         Q    Okay.  Do you know what a medical flow is for the
10    MO's office?
11         A    I don't know of it personally.  I have heard of
12    it.  I know it existed when I was in Scientology.
13         Q    That was a flow of money for purchases of
14    medication or whatever is needed by people?
15         A    Mmm --
16         Q    Correct?
17         A    For emergencies, I think.
18         Q    All right.
19         A    Yes.
20         Q    How much have you been paid by Mr. Dandar?
21         A    Mmm, not a thing for this hearing.
22         Q    How much have you been paid in total by
23    Mr. Dandar?
24         A    Oh, I would have to look.
25              THE COURT:  Give us your best guess.  If you

1         don't know, that is -- it's a question he's allowed
2         to ask.  And if you --
3         A    Maybe --
4              THE COURT:  Excuse me.  When I talk, nobody
5         else talks.
6              THE WITNESS:  Sorry.
7              THE COURT:  All right.  If you don't know, you
8         give it your best estimate.  But let him know you
9         are giving it your best estimate.
10         A    Between $15,000 and $20,000.
11    BY MR. MOXON:
12         Q    Do you have a contract with Mr. Dandar?
13         A    No.
14         Q    Do you charge by the hour?
15         A    Mmm, I think -- yes, I think so.  I think that is
16    how I charged him.
17         Q    How much do you charge by the hour?
18         A    Mr. Moxon, it's been a while.  And I don't
19    remember the details.  I would have to go back and look at
20    them.
21         Q    Does your husband also work for Mr. Dandar?
22         A    No.
23         Q    Have you sent him bills, Mr. Dandar?
24         A    Yes.
25         Q    So you have got records of --

1         A    Yes.  Oh, yes.
2         Q    Are you going to bill him for your work today?
3         A    No.
4         Q    By the way, did I see you come in with Mr. Oliver,
5    into the courtroom this morning?  Did you come into the
6    courtroom with Mr. Oliver this morning?
7         A    I think so, yes.
8         Q    Is Mr. Oliver part of Mr. Dandar's trial team now?
9         A    I have no idea.
10         Q    When did Mr. Dandar hire you as a consultant?
11         A    Approximately almost two years ago.  Around about
12    August of 2000, I think.
13         Q    Did he, at that time, ask you for your opinions
14    with respect to what happened to Lisa McPherson?
15         A    No.  Not at the time.  I had no idea what happened
16    to Lisa.  All I heard was the news reports and things like
17    that.
18         Q    Did Mr. Dandar ever ask you, during the year 2000,
19    what you thought happened to Lisa McPherson?
20         A    I don't believe so, no.  When he asked me to look
21    at the preclear folders, I did that.  And then we spoke
22    about the contents.  But I don't think we spoke initially
23    about what happened to Lisa.
24         Q    Did he give you a copy of the complaint as it
25    existed when he hired you?

1         A    I think so.  Yes.
2         Q    Did he ask you that it looked correct to you what
3    he alleged in the complaint?
4         A    I didn't know the specifics of what happened to
5    Lisa so I had no idea if the complaint was correct.
6         Q    Now, you have been involved in litigation, you
7    mentioned earlier in your testimony, with the Church.
8    Right?
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    And in 1986 you were the named plaintiff in an
11    attempted class-action suit.  Correct?
12         A    I was one of six named plaintiffs.
13         Q    And at that time, you were also involved in, for
14    want of better term, a splinter group of the Church called
15    AAC in Santa Barbara?
16         A    No.  I was never a member of that group.
17         Q    You used to go there, didn't you?
18         A    I went there once or twice.  And that was all.
19         Q    In fact, you were married there, weren't you?
20         A    Yes.  But that was a few years later after my
21    first visit.  I knew David Mayo very well in Scientology and
22    asked him to marry myself and my husband.  That had nothing
23    to do with the AAC in Santa Barbara.
24         Q    They were your friends?
25         A    David Mayo is a friend of mine.  David and Judy

1    both.
2         Q    People in the splinter group are friends of yours,
3    too?
4         A    I'm not sure which people you are referring to.
5         Q    Well, I don't know.  I don't know.  The people
6    that were up there, were they your friends or not?
7         A    Some I knew and some I was friendly with, and some
8    I didn't know.
9         Q    Now, the purpose of this class action was to try,
10    in part, to get a receiver to take over the assets of the
11    Church?
12         A    Yes.  That is correct.
13         Q    And also, expressly, it was intended to change the
14    Church management?
15         A    That is correct.
16              THE COURT:  What was the year of this lawsuit,
17         please?
18              MR. MOXON:  It was filed in December of 1986.
19              THE COURT:  Thank you.
20    BY MR. MOXON:
21         Q    Part of the purpose of this lawsuit, also, was to
22    assist David Mayo's litigation against the Church, wasn't
23    it?
24         A    I would have to review the -- the records.  I
25    don't recall that it did -- if you have something to show

1    me, that would be fine, because I don't -- really don't
2    recall.
3         Q    I marked as --
4         A    Oh, I see, okay.
5         Q    -- Defendant's 262 a document dated February 4,
6    1986 called "F.A.I.R." at the top.  Are you familiar with
7    this document?
8         A    Yes.  Yes.  I'm familiar with this.
9         Q    In fact, at the end it is signed by the F.A.I.R.
10    Steering Committee, which includes you and your husband?
11         A    Yes.  And four other people.
12         Q    Look at Paragraph 2.  It states, "This is the
13    action that can torpedo the Church's suit again David Mayo.
14    It can result in David Mayo winning his suit.  One of the
15    factors that will bring this about is to position the tech
16    materials, including confidential materials, as our
17    property."  Right?
18         A    Yes.
19         Q    So part of the intention of your suit was to
20    somehow take over the possession or the legal right to
21    Church technical materials, in particular, the Hubbard --
22         A    For all Scientologists, not for myself personally.
23         Q    Well, it was for the members of this class?
24         A    Right.
25         Q    It also indicates in Paragraph 4 -- well, we

1    mentioned earlier, that you could potentially get a receiver
2    appointed if, as you hope, the IRS would issue indictments
3    against Church management?
4         A    That is correct.  Yes, this is -- this is -- this
5    is a newsletter that was written at that time.
6         Q    Paragraph 12 of Exhibit 262 says, "In answer to
7    the question 'Who will take over the Church of Scientology
8    when top management is removed,' there are many
9    possibilities."
10              So this was also a goal was to deplace Church
11    management that existed at that time?
12              THE COURT:  She --
13         A    Yes.
14              THE COURT:  -- already admitted that.
15    BY MR. MOXON:
16         Q    And that includes David Miscavige and other
17    ecclesiastical leaders.  Yes?
18         A    I think I already answered that.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.  What you have to worry about
20         is when I decide you don't have to answer because a
21         lot of times I have heard all I want to hear.  But,
22         really, until they object, the truth of the matter
23         is he can ask it a thousand times.  And it is only
24         if I happen to intervene because I can't stand it
25         another time because they don't object that you have

1         to answer.  If he asks the same question 500
2         times --
3              THE WITNESS:  I'll answer.
4              THE COURT:  -- you have to answer, until these
5         lawyers over here object, or until I say you don't.
6         All right?  Mr. Moxon has the right to keep asking
7         until those things happen.
8              This is Number 262.  Is that right?
9              MR. MOXON:  Yes, your Honor.
10    BY MR. MOXON:
11         Q    The amount of damages that you sought in your
12    complaint was $1 billion, right?
13         A    That is correct.
14         Q    Now, you and I obviously have a little history on
15    this.  I litigated this case, right, or I defended the case?
16         A    Yes, I remember you from that time.
17         Q    And your complaint was thrown out five times,
18    wasn't it?
19         A    Yes.  We were given leave to amend.
20         Q    And eventually you were no longer given leave to
21    amend because the complaint was found to be frivolous?
22         A    Right.  That is correct.
23         Q    And you had to pay sanctions, also, for discovery
24    abuse in that case.  Do you remember that?
25         A    That is correct.

1         Q    You also lost on appeal to the California Court of
2    Appeals, didn't you?
3         A    That is correct.
4              THE COURT:  Are you moving to introduce this?
5              MR. MOXON:  Yes, your Honor.
6              THE COURT:  Any objection?
7              MR. DANDAR:  Relevance.  But otherwise, no.
8              THE COURT:  I'll let it in.
9    BY MR. MOXON:
10         Q    You also sent a pledge to potential class members,
11    that is, a pledge to try to solicit money and solicit class
12    members.  Is that right?
13         A    Yes.  We sent them a notification that the class
14    was to be formed, and if they were interested in coming
15    forward with their complaints, they could do so, and could
16    they help us finance the legal action.
17         Q    In your pledge, it also indicated that the assets
18    that you were looking for were the assets "Illegally held by
19    Miscavige and Scientology corporations, and that they were
20    not limited to bank accounts but also included all Church
21    funds."
22         A    I don't remember.  I would have to see a copy of
23    that.
24              THE COURT:  I can see you have a whole file
25         full.  How much are we going to get into this?

1              MR. MOXON:  This is my last question.
2              THE COURT:  Are you trying to say she was
3         biased against the Church?
4              MR. MOXON:  Yes.
5              THE COURT:  I mean, that was established as a
6         fact.
7              MR. MOXON:  Well, can I just enter this as an
8         exhibit and then I'll move on?
9              THE COURT:  Okay.  I mean, it was established
10         as a fact as far as legal bias is concerned.  I
11         mean, when somebody leaves, they sue, they are
12         involved in what they are involved in.  I really
13         don't think we need to beat this around.
14              Did you give me a copy of whatever you
15         introduced?
16              MR. MOXON:  No, I didn't actually introduce it.
17         But let me do that.
18              THE COURT:  I thought you said let you
19         introduce this one thing.
20              MR. MOXON:  I did.  I lost my mind.
21              THE COURT:  You may have introduced that.
22              MR. MOXON:  The pledge is attached to the back
23         of this.
24              THE COURT:  This is 263?

1    BY MR. MOXON:
2         Q    I marked as a copy of Defendant's 263 a copy of
3    the F.A.I.R bulletin with a pledge attached.  Do you
4    recognize this attached pledge?
5         A    Yes.  I do.  I think this is a correct copy.
6         Q    Do you agree then that part of the purpose and
7    solicitation for actual members of the Church at that time
8    was to seek assets, including but not limited to, bank
9    accounts, including bank accounts into which Church funds
10    have been transferred, and any real estate, publications,
11    copyrights, trademarks, specifically including but not
12    limited to all OT level materials?
13         A    Yes.  The reason we were doing this, because we
14    were tired of the fair game practices that had been
15    practiced on other people and we felt would be practiced on
16    us, and we didn't feel the Church should be engaging in
17    those activities.
18              MR. MOXON:  I move 263 in evidence.
19              THE COURT:  It will be received.
20              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, Mr. Lieberman told you
21         we would give you a copy of the Stanfield versus
22         Starkey opinion if you like.  I don't think we need
23         to make it an exhibit.
24              THE COURT:  Sure.
25              MR. MOXON:  Thank you.

1    BY MR. MOXON:
2         Q    Now, you indicated to Mr. Dandar that you were
3    declared a suppressive person in 1982?
4         A    Yes.  Around about that time.
5         Q    The reason for that declare was, in part, that you
6    had started an affair with a parishioner while you were an
7    auditor for the Church?
8         A    That is actually incorrect.  I never started an
9    affair.  It -- it -- we had -- we were friends.  And he
10    offered me --
11              MR. DANDAR:  Objection.  This is -- what
12         relevance could this possibly have?
13              THE COURT:  Well, she's kind of testified that
14         she was declared a suppressive person for leaving
15         the Church.  And now I think they are trying to show
16         there may have been some other reason.  So I think
17         it is relevant.
18         A    No.  There was no affair.  We were friends.  And
19    he offered me a place to stay when I left.
20    BY MR. MOXON:
21         Q    You had -- you had, at any rate, a relationship
22    with a parishioner that was considered to be improper by the
23    Church mores, as an auditor of the Church?
24         A    Yes, somehow they considered it to be improper.
25    But it was a friendship.  There was nothing improper about

1    it.  He was a Church parishioner and so was I.
2         Q    You were also -- in the suppressive person declare
3    that you mentioned it also indicated you falsified work
4    sheets?
5         A    Yes, it did.
6         Q    I think you told Judge Schaeffer that would be
7    considered a very, very serious matter for an auditor to
8    falsify --
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    -- counseling work sheets?
11         A    Yes.  But -- I did do that a few times and I did
12    admit to it and I did do penalties for that.
13         Q    And you also violated Church policy by accepting
14    what was known as an unusual favor from a parishioner by
15    accepting a loan of several thousand dollars?
16         A    Mmm, who was the parishioner?
17         Q    I have no idea.  I can give you a copy of this.
18    Maybe it would refresh your recollection.
19         A    That would be great.  I think I remember who it
20    was.  Oh, it doesn't say in here.
21         Q    Do you recall part of your -- part of the reason
22    why you were declared, as indicated in your suppressive
23    person declare, is that you had violated Church policy by
24    accepting a large loan from a parishioner while you were a
25    staff member?

1         A    Yes.  But I'm -- I know that I -- I have a copy of
2    this at home.  Mmm, I know this was stated in here.  But I
3    don't know who the parishioner was and it's not mentioned,
4    it just said several thousand dollars.  So I'm not sure --
5    Mmm -- who this was.
6         Q    Now, all your certificates were cancelled at that
7    time in March of 1982?
8         A    Yes.  But that is -- that is standard Church
9    policy when somebody is declared a suppressive person.
10              But about a year and a half after that I was
11    restored to good standing.  So the stigma of this would have
12    been removed at that time.
13         Q    When you were restored to good standing, that is
14    because you completed the steps set forth in your
15    suppressive person declare, which is Steps A to E of HCO PL
16    16 May, '80 issued to FX suppressive acts, suppression of
17    Scientology and Scientologists?
18         A    That is correct.
19              THE COURT:  This is because she left?  Was
20         this --
21              MR. MOXON:  No.  All of the steps that -- no,
22         not just because she left, your Honor, because of
23         all of the other reasons.
24              THE COURT:  She left the Church and she became
25         a suppressive person.  She had to go through all

1         these steps to come back?
2              MR. MOXON:  That is right.  Exactly right.
3    BY MR. MOXON:
4         Q    When you -- when you did that, when you went
5    through all these steps, you considered that you'd benefited
6    from the -- from this ethics handling or this -- this
7    suppressive person declare, isn't that right?
8         A    Yes, I did.  At the time, I did.
9         Q    And you indicated in your success story that you
10    wrote that you believed that the purpose of this ethics was
11    to help you.  Right?
12         A    Yes.
13         Q    And you came back totally on your own.  Right?
14         A    Yes.  I did.  Yes, I believed at that time in the
15    principles of Scientology and its code, its creed and the
16    technology and the policies, and I wanted to continue, not
17    as a Sea Org member but as a Scientologist.
18              MR. MOXON:  I have no other questions, your
19         Honor.
20              THE COURT:  Thank you.  Redirect.
21                       REDIRECT EXAMINATION
22    BY MR. DANDAR:
23         Q    What is a success story?
24         A    A success story is something one writes up after
25    completing a training action or an auditing action and the

1    person -- it details either the enlightenment, the benefit,
2    the progress, spiritually or otherwise, he made in the
3    training action or auditing action.
4         Q    Is he required to write a success story?
5         A    It is required by policy.  If --
6         Q    What if -- go ahead.
7         A    If a success story is not considered good enough,
8    the person -- the person's completion is suspect and he is
9    ordered either to redo or retrain or word clearing or some
10    corrective action.
11         Q    And so if they don't like your last course or
12    whatever it is you are writing a story on, you have to
13    keep -- you have to keep writing that story until they like
14    it?
15         A    Basically, yes.
16         Q    Now, the reason why you got -- you got in trouble
17    was for having a parishioner loan you money?
18         A    Yes.  Well, that was cited in the suppressive
19    person order.  But at the time I was leaving, I don't
20    believe that anyone -- I don't remember anyone asking me
21    about it, questioning me about it, or -- like making a big
22    thing about it.  So --
23         Q    Did you get a loan -- did you get a loan when you
24    were a Sea Org member?  Is that the first time you left?
25         A    Yes, I did.  I got a loan from a Sea Org -- a

1    Scientologist, not a Sea Org member, a Scientologist who was
2    visiting the Ft. Harrison Hotel in Clearwater.  And she
3    offered it to me.  I didn't ask her for it.  She --
4              THE COURT:  Really, do I have to hear all this?
5              MR. DANDAR:  I don't know.  I mean, they
6         brought it up.  I'm not sure --
7              THE COURT:  I know.  But didn't I cut them
8         short, too?
9              MR. DANDAR:  All right.  That is all I have.
10         Wait, do I have something else?  Oh, yes,
11         Mr. Moxon's Exhibit 262.
12    BY MR. DANDAR:
13         Q    The F.A.I.R. newsletter, on the back page above --
14              THE COURT:  262 or 263?  The one with the
15         pledge, or the one without the pledge?
16              MR. DANDAR:  Actually, they are both the same.
17         One has 1, and one has 1 and 2.  I'm looking at
18         Bulletin Number 2.  It says Number 2 at the top.
19              THE COURT:  Yes?
20              MR. DANDAR:  At the back page, the third page
21         of that --
22              THE COURT:  Okay.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    If you would turn to that.  The last paragraph
25    says, "Mr. Flynn --" the attorney, Michael Flynn.  Do you

1    see that?
2         A    I'm not sure where you are at with -- yes, over
3    there.  Okay.
4         Q    It says, "Mr. Flynn currently has 22 cases in
5    progress against the Church of Scientology.  He has never
6    lost a case against the Church so far.  He is also number
7    one on the Church's hit list."
8              What is your understanding about that?  What does
9    that mean, the attorney suing Scientology is number one on
10    the Church's hit list?
11         A    I didn't know about a hit list while I was in
12    Scientology in the Sea Organization.
13              But from the time I left and began to review the
14    Gerald Armstrong court testimony and other cases filed by
15    Scientology against critics and by critics against
16    Scientology, I became aware of this term, the "hit list."
17    It's an expression of -- that Scientologists' greatest
18    enemies and the ones they have to battle against the most,
19    their bitterest critics or their most vocal critics, that
20    they have to try to silence according to the fair game, lie,
21    cheat and even destroy.
22         Q    And based upon your knowledge of Scientology,
23    would Robert Minton be one of those people on the top of the
24    hit list?
25              MR. MOXON:  Objection, your Honor.  Outside of

1         the scope.
2              THE COURT:  Sustained.
3         A    I --
5         Q    Have you ever seen the hit list?
6         A    I have.  In the Gerald Armstrong court exhibits, I
7    think there were one or two examples, if I recollect
8    correctly, of people the Church had targeted for action
9    against.  There were Guardian Office reports assigned to
10    specific -- like the southeast U.S., northeast U.S., and the
11    person who was responsible for the action.  And there were
12    actions to be taken against Paulette Cooper and --
13              THE COURT:  Honestly --
14         A    -- and against --
15              THE COURT:  Ma'am, remember what I told you,
16         when I talk, nobody talks.
17              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
18              MR. DANDAR:  I'm done.
19              THE COURT:  I have heard about all I want.
20              MR. DANDAR:  I'm done.  Thank you.  That is all
21         of the questions.
22              THE COURT:  Anything further?
23              MR. MOXON:  One last question.
24              THE COURT:  All right.

1                       RECROSS-EXAMINATION
2    BY MR. MOXON:
3         Q    Michael Flynn wasn't the attorney in this case,
4    was he?
5         A    Initially, he was.
6         Q    It was filed by Larry Levy, correct?
7         A    Yes, but initially he dropped it after the draft
8    complaint which he handed to Mr. Levy and the other
9    attorney.
10              MR. MOXON:  Thank you.
11              THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you, ma'am.  You
12         may step down.  Thank you for coming.
13              All right, it is time for our afternoon break.
14         It is five after three.  We'll be in recess fifteen
15         minutes.
16      (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:05 to 3:20 p.m.)

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