Bob Minton Deposition

April 9 2002 / pages 1 - 36



	CASE NO.: 00-002750-CI-20

DELL LIEBREICH, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate
of Lisa McPherson, ROBERT MINTON, and


Circuit Court Judge

Deputy Official Court Reporter
Sixth Judicial Circuit
Notary Public,
State of Florida at Large

PLACE: 	Pinellas County Courthouse
315 Court Street
Clearwater, Florida 33765

		Tuesday,April 9, 2002

TIME: 			Commencing at 1O:lO a.m.

CONTEMPT HEARING (continuation)
                                   Pages 1-36

Official Court Reporters
Post Office Box 35
Clearwater, Florida 34617-0035
(727) 464-4858 443-0992



Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor,
Ruppel & Burns, P.A.
Post Office Box 1368
Clearwater, Florida  33757

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker, LLP
75 East 55th Street, Room 503
New York, New York 10022

Piper, Ludin, Howie & Werner, P.A.
5720 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida  33707

Dandar & Dandar, P.A.
Post Office Box 24597
Tampa, Florida 33623-4597

Luke CHARLES Lirot, P.A.
112 East Street, Suite B
Tampa, Florida  33602




Direct Examination by Mr. Rosen. . . . . 		  	4
Cross-Examination by Mr. Howie . . . . . 		  	24

  CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER. . . . . . . . . . . .		  	36

Photostats of checks written to Ken Dandar or 	
Dandar & Dandar . . . . . . . . . . . . 	   		5

  	Motion to Amend Complaint . . . . . . .	  		11	 

Excerpts from the Deposition Testimony
on October 11, 2001, of Robert Minton ...			12

Excerpts from the Deposition Testimony
on October 12, 2001, of Robert Minton ..			15


THE COURT: What are we doing this morning?
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, as you know, this is the date and 
time set for the continuation of the contempt proceedings 
involving Mr. Minton.
I believe we can get this wrapped up, if I can have the 
Court's indulgence for a few minutes, and with the consent 
of Mr. Minton's counsel, Mr. Howie, I want to recall Mr. 
Minton to the witness stand for a few minutes to continue 
the testimony he gave before you earlier in the contempt 
proceeding and I believe that we will be able to then come 
to a conclusion on the contempt. So, if I could have Mr. 
Minton take the stand.



Q.  Mr. Minton, recently you engaged Mr. Howie as your 
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Howie has, I believe, as he advised Judge Baird, he's 
advised you the best course of action for you is to tell the 
truth and to cooperate fully and honor subpoenas and court 

A. That's correct, he has told me that.
Q. And are you prepared to do that?
A. I am, sir.
Q. Mr. Minton, I'm just going to take a few 5 minutes,
very short, to go over a couple of matters with you.
      Item number one, with respect to the money that you 
paid to Mr. Dandar, Ken Dandar or his firm, to defray the 
expenses of the wrongful death case, you're aware that 
that's one of the critical issues in this case here before 
Judge Baird?
     A. I'm aware of that.
     Q. And you're aware that the amounts that had been 
testified to and checks produced of monies paid by you to 
either Mr. Dandar or his firm total approximately 1.3 
million dollars?
     A. Yes, sir. I'm aware of that.
MR. ROSEN: If I may approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
     Q. Mr Minton, does Exhibit 1 represent photostats of 
checks that you wrote on your personal account and you 
signed -- addressed -- made out to either Dandar & Dandar or 
Ken Dandar for purposes of defraying the expenses of the 
wrongful death case?

A. Yes.
Q.  Now, Mr. Minton, you're aware that one of the acts of 
contempt that you were charged with was that you were asked 
if there were any additional payments that you made to Mr. 
Dandar or his firm beyond those reflected in Exhibit 1 and 
that you refused to answer that question. You remember 
that's one of the issues of contempt?
  	A. Yes, sir.
Q. Sir, are you prepared to answer the questions today?
  	A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you do so. Are there any payments made by you to 
either Ken Dandar or his firm over and above those that 1.3 
million reflected in personal checks of yours?
  	A. Just let me clarify one thing. The checks that you put 
in front of me in terms of Exhibit 1, this is a sample of 
those 1.3 million --
Q. All of them are not there, they are just the ones we 
have, but beyond the 1.3 million of personal checks that you 
signed made out to either Ken Dandar or Dandar & Dandar for 
purposes of defraying the cost, the expenses of the wrongful 
death case, did you, sir, provide any additional monies for 
that purpose to either Ken Dandar or the firm of Dandar & 

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Will you tell us, please, what you did?
A. I caused two checks, one in the amount of five hundred 
thousand dollars to be issued to I believe it was Ken Dandar 
and around May of 2001 and an additional check for two 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars I caused to be issued to 
Mr. Dandar in February or early March, late February, early 
March time frame of this year.
Q. And were those checks of the same kind, mainly checks 
drawn on your personal account and signed by you?
  	A. No, sir.
Q. What kind of checks were these?
A. These were checks that were issued by Union Bank of 
      Q. The New York office of that bank?
      A. No, the Zurich office. They were payable -- no, 
they were issued by the Geneva office of Union Bank of 
Switzerland. I think they were payable at Union Bank of
Switzerland New York.
      Q. So these are in the nature of bank checks that 
don't have a depositor's name on it like Robert Minton, but 
have the name of the bank?
      A. Correct.
      Q. And both of these checks, five hundred thousand 
andtwo hundred and fifty thousand, were made out to whom,

      A. I believe they were both made out to Ken Dandar.
  	Q. Can you tell me how it came about by way of discussion 
with Mr. Dandar, Ken Dandar as to how you came to issue 
these two checks for seven hundred and fifty thousand 
dollars total?
A. Well, sometime in Springish of 2001, Mr. Dandar said, you 
know, he needed money to continue with the case and 
basically bring the case to trial and, you know, he 
requested that I get him some money. And, you know, and he 
said that he wanted to do this in such a way that it didn't 
appear that the money came from me.
      He mentioned several reasons why he didn't want it to 
appear to come from me. Number one, that the wrongful death 
case was getting to be extremely messy because of my 
financial contributions to the case.
      Secondly, that he did not wish to run this money through
his trust account. That he had another means of hiding this 
money from the Scientologists as well as some of his 
He mentioned specifically Michael Garko and Tom Haverty 
where I think Mr. Dandar was trying to, as he explained to 
me, trying to cut back on payments to them in order to 
conserve money to continue the case.


Q. Did Mr. Dandar say anything to you on the subject of 
whether you should or should not disclose these payments?
A. Yes. He said, you be known that they appear from
recently as March he said, you know, that these should not
you and you shouldn't -- as know, I haven't revealed these 
payments to the Court and you shouldn't reveal them to the 
Q. Now, Mr. Minton, there then came a point in May of 2001 
that you were served with a duces tecum subpoena for 
deposition in this case which then resulted in contempt 
proceedings, contempt order, do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
      Q. That duces tecum subpoena, and I quote from the
May 22 subpoena at paragraph one, required you to produce
"All documents relating to payment by you or by the Lisa
McPherson Trust to Ken Dandar, Thomas Dandar or the law firm".
You did not produce anything relating to these two checks 
you're telling us about today did you, sir?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Can you tell us why you did not produce them?
      A. I didn't have copies of them, number one, and Mr. 
Dandar had asked me not to reveal that those checks came 
from me.


       Q. Sir, I understand you didn't have copies but as 
the one who caused the checks to be issued, if you wanted to 
get copies from the bank, you could do that, correct?
A. I didn't have a relationship with that particular 
Q. Okay. You then appeared in this Court on October 4th of 
2001 in connection with a contempt proceeding that was 
originally scheduled to be your sentencing before Judge 
Baird, right?
A. I believe that's right.
Q. And at that time you advised Judge Baird that you would 
testify. You would testify honestly and purge yourself for 
the contempt, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a result of that there were -- a deposition of you was 
scheduled for a week later, October llth and October 12th, 
is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you again, did you have any further conversation with 
Ken Dandar in relation to that deposition on the subject of 
disclosing these checks?
  	A. Not at that time, no.
  	Q. How many different times did you have conversations with 
Ken Dandar on the subject of not disclosing these checks?


A. At least six or eight times.
      Q. Have you now, sir, purged yourself of that contempt 
by fully testifyjng truthfully as to the item identified in 
paragraph one, namely any and all payments made to Ken 
Dandar, Tom Dandar or the law firm?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q.  Let me address one other issue with you. Sir you're 
aware that the key issue in this case -- I shouldn't say 
issue, the key fact in this case is a motion to amend the 
wrongful death case to add five certain parties that was 
filed by Mr. Dandar on September 7th, 1999. Are you aware of 
that, that that's what this case is about?
A. Yes, I am.
MR. ROSEN: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Just so it's part of the same record, I have
marked as Exhibit 2 a copy of that motion and it bears a
date of September 7, 1999.
Now, sir, in context of the advice or instructions given to 
you by Judge Baird on October 4th and the advice given to 
you by your new counsel, Mr. Howie, you understand that to 
purge yourself of contempt, you must not only comply with 
the subpoena by showing up, but you must testify truthfully. 
Do you understand that?


A. I do.
Q. Do you understand that showing up for example and giving 
false answers ,under oath is not a purge of contempt?
A. I do understand that.
Q. Okay. Mr. Minton, did you then appear for deposition on 
October 11th and October 12th?
A. I did.
Q. And during that deposition were you asked questions on 
this specific issue of whether you had any conversations 
with Ken Dandar or any other attorneys for the wrongful 
death point on the subject of this motion, namely adding 
parties to the case; were you asked those questions?
A. I was.
      		MR. ROSEN: May I approach, Your Honor?
      		THE COURT: Yes.
             MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, what I've marked as
Exhibit 3 for this hearing are excerpts of the deposition of 
Mr. Minton taken pursuant to your order on October llth and 
October l2th. Exhibit 3, I believe is October llth.

Q. Mr. Minton, if you'll turn to the first page, please. At 
the bottom, starting on line twenty-three of


page 393, you were asked by me specifically, did you have
any discussion with Mr. Dandar at any time, meaning after
November of 1997 on the subject of adding defendants in the
wrongful death case and the answer you gave was no, is that
A. That's correct.
Q. Turning to page 395, you were asked on line
seventeen, and the first you found out about it, it being
the amendment to the wrongful death case, that it would
complicate the case was the addition of Mr. Miscavige as a
defendant, and you said yes.
And then continuing on you were asked the first you found 
out about this was after it had already occurred meaning 
after the motion had been filed and you said yes, right?
A. I said I think so.
Q. Okay. And continuing on, you were then asked by me, do 
you think that you had any knowledge that Mr. Dandar was 
looking to do or seeking to add Mr. Miscavige, do you think 
you had knowledge of that before the Court allowed him to be 
added, and you answered I might have heard about it, but I 
don't remember hearing about it.
And then I asked you, so you were against it? In any
event you communicated to Ms. Brooks that you were not happy
about it because it would complicate the case and


you basically said yes, I mean it would add a lot of time to 
the case and therefore cost money. And I asked, did you 
communicate that to Mr. Dandar and your answer at that time 
was no, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q.  Turn to page 400, please.
A. Yes.
Q. And continuing on, questioning on line eleven, second 
sentence of the question. Do you have any reason to believe 
that she, Ms. Brooks, ever communicated your views, your 
unhappiness about Mr. Miscavige being added to anyone and 
you answered not that I'm aware of.
I asked you was there any reason you never communicated 
these views to Mr. Dandar directly. You said yes. I asked 
why. You said the essence of the agreement with Mr. Dandar 
and his representations to the Florida Bar that you would 
have nothing to do to control the case, is that a fair 
summary of that testimony?
A. That's ,right.
Q. Turning to page 401. I asked you, did you ever 
communicate to him, and the context is Mr. Dandar, Ken 
Dandar, that you weren't happy about the course of the case 
going up by virtue of Mr. Miscavige being added and you said 
no, you did not communicate that, right?
A. That's correct.


Q. Then the deposition continued on October 12th.
May I approach, Your Honor? And Exhibit 4 is an excerpt of
the transcript of that -- the deposition on that date. Let
me first direct your attention to page 629.
I asked you, now did you have any input whatsoever of adding 
on David Miscavige to the wrongful death case and the
A. That's right.
Q. Turning to page 631, and you are now being examined by 
Mr. Dandar, Ken Dandar, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Ken Dandar was present at both days of this
deposition on October llth and 12th, is that right?
A. I believe he was, yes.
Q. And when I finished questioning you, Mr. Dandar
then began to question  you on October 12th, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the bottom of page 631, it was Ken
Dandar who asked you the following questions: Do you know
of anyone who was involved in the decision-making process
to add David Miscavige or any other Scientologists or
Scientology corporation to the wrongful death case, and you
answered, I don't know anybody with certainty. I suppose
you and Michael Garko and the Estate, Dell Liebreich
discussed it. That's all I can assume.


And then Mr. Dandar continued on line 9 to ask you, outside 
of the litigation team, the people who work
for you, including myself and my law firm, my client, do
you know of anyone else who was involved in the decision-
making process to add on anybody to the wrongful death case
and you answered I don't know. Is that right?
A. Yes, I did.
      Q. Every single one of those answers that I have just 
read on October 11th and October l2th were false, weren't 
       A. Yes, sir.
      Q. Would you now -- are you now prepared to purge
yourself of that contempt and to recant that testimony, sir?
       A. Yes, I am.
      Q. Will you please tell us the truth as to what 
happened on the subject of discussions to add, to file a 
motion to amend to add additional church parties to the 
wrongful death case?
  	A. Well, at least the knowledge that I have of it --
  	Q.  I'm only asking you to tell us what you have
personal knowledge of, sir.
A. Sometime in July or August of -- what year was


Q. The motion to amend was added September 7th. Was filed 
September 7th, 1999.
A. July or August of 1999 I flew into town to Tampa airport 
for the purpose of having a meeting at Ken Dandar's office, 
an important meeting which I don't remember whether at the 
time that I knew what the subject matter was, but I was 
picked up at the airport by Stacey Brooks and taken directly 
to Mr. Dandar's office, which was very close to the airport.
At that time, present at that meeting were myself, Stacy 
Brooks, Jesse Prince, Michael Garko and Ken Dandar. And this 
meeting went on for two or three hours and the sole purpose 
of the meeting was to discuss adding these additional 
parties to the wrongful death case.
Q. Who brought up that subject, who first suggested adding 
additional parties to the wrongful death case, sir?
A. Mr. Dandar.
Q. It was not you or Dell Liebreich?
A. No.
Q.  Was Dell Liebreich present at this meeting either in 
person or by telephone?
A. No, she wasn't.
Q. And prior to this meeting -- withdraw that. Is
this meeting the first time that Mr. Dandar suggested


adding additional defendants?
A. The first time that I'm aware of, yes.
      Q. Okay. And did Mr. Dandar then assert the same
words of substance, I want to add additional church 
defendants to this case?
A. He did, and basically the other four people at
the meeting gave their views starting with Dandar, Garko,
Jesse Prince and Stacey Brooks and finally I was the last
one to talk about it. And all four of those were strongly
in favor of adding David Miscavige.
They agreed with Mr. Ken Dandar's assessment
that adding David Miscavige and these other defendants
would force Scientology to pay a larger amount in
settlement and get them to the settlement table a lot
sooner based on a strategy that they believe had worked in
the past in the Fishman case which is another case
  	Q. When Mr. Dandar -- when Mr. Ken Dandar at this
meeting suggested the strategy of adding additional
defendants, church defendants, including Mr. Miscavige,
what, if anything, did he say as to his thinking of the
reason why he wanted to do this?
A. Well, several reasons. Number one, the two that I just 
stated, that this would force Scientology to the settlement 
table sooner, it would likely increase the


amount of any settlement that would be agreed to and 
thirdly, he thought this would be a rather sensational act 
and generate a fair amount of interest in the case.
  	Q. Did Mr. Dandar say anything on the subject of whether or 
not, you and the other participants in this meeting could 
ever disclose the existence of this meeting?
A. Well, yes.
  Q. Can you tell us what Mr. Dandar said on that subject?
A. Before Stacy and Jesse and I left, he told us, I think he 
went down in the elevator with us and walked out to the 
cars. He told us that, you know, we should never discuss 
that this meeting ever occurred in any way.
  	Q. And did he tell you why?
  	A. No. He didn't explain why. He just said this is not 
something that I want anybody to know about.
Q. And did you have 'any further conversations thereafter as 
your deposition was then approaching with Mr. Dandar on the 
subject of disclosing this meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. Sometime prior to my deposition. I don't know exactly when.
Q. Tell us what was said.
A. But Mr. Dandar said, do you remember the


meeting that never happened, and I said no. And he said 
that's the correct answer.
Q. I wanted to make one thing clear on the record,
you've been providing answers with Mr. Dandar, you know we
have two --
  	A. I'm speaking of Ken Dandar.
Q. Am I correct that all of the answers you've given which 
you said Mr. Dandar relate to Ken Dandar?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. When you then appeared for deposition on
October llth and 12th pursuant to Judge Baird's order on the
lit: and 12th of last year and you provided the answers that
I read to you to the questions, both the ones that I 
proposed to you and the ones Ken Dandar himself proposed to 
you, you provided false answers because you were listening 
to Ken Dandar's instructions that you may not disclose the
existence of this meeting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. One other thing, sir, I want to go back to the
bank checks for a moment. When you were served with the 
subpoena, the May 22 subpoena to produce all documents
relating to payments to Ken Dandar, Thomas Dandar or the
law firm, did you have any discussion with Ken Dandar on
the subject of these two bank checks, whether or not they
should be disclosed?


A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
      Q. Sure. When you were served with a deposition 
subpoena and you were going to be questioned about -- you 
knew you were going to be questioned about your payments 
made to Ken Dandar, Tom Dandar or Dandar & Dandar law firm, 
did you have any discussion with Ken Dandar as to whether 
you had to disclose the existence of these two bank checks, 
the five hundred thousand and the two fifty?
      A. Yes, I did.
  	Q. Will you tell us when that discussion was, sir?
  	A. This was in February sometime by telephone. I was in New 
Hampshire. This was after Mr. Dandar had come up with 
Michael Garko to visit me in New Hampshire.
Q. February of what year, sir?
A. This year.
Q. And could you tell us what was said in that meeting on 
this subject of your disclosing the existence of these bank 
A. Well, I explained to Ken Dandar that my Boston attorney, 
Steven Jonas, who is here in the courtroom, advised me that 
I should disclose those checks and Mr. Dandar said, look, I 
haven't disclosed these checks and you shouldn't disclose 
these checks. Furthermore, you know, these didn't come from 
you. You didn't write these checks.


These came from Fred. Fred was a mythical man that Ken used 
to refer to me as when he wanted to talk about these checks.
Q. So Fred was kind of like a pet name that Mr. Dandar had 
for you?
A. It was a pet name for me relative to those checks.
      Q. okay. And is that advice or instruction that Mr. 
Dandar gave you, is that the reason why you never disclosed 
until today the existence of t:hose two bank checks totaling 
seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars?
      A. Yes, sir.
      Q. Mr. Minton, have you now -- (do you now feel that 
you have purged yourself of your contempt, including your 
false answers as you had told Judge Baird you would do on 
these matters, the ones that I'm --
A. On those two matters, yes.
Q. And, sir, is it my understanding from your counsel that 
to the extent any further participation of you is needed by 
way of a deposition, a court hearing, anything else in this 
matter, that you are, of course, to cooperate to appear and 
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Minton, have you been promised


anything by way of any payment, any reward -- we'll leave 
out rewards for the next world, for your testimony today and 
for setting the record straight so-to-speak with truthfully 
telling us what happened? Have you been promised anything?
A. I think I've been promised that if I answered truthfully 
and correctly that you will ask that this
contempt be dismissed.

MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, at this point there are -- I would 
just like to enumerate for you four motions we would like to 
make. I'm not going to argue them now because I think that 
first I want to advise you of the motions and then I want to 
pass the witness if anybody wants to examine.
Motion number one is, it is my recommendation to the Court, 
I believe that this testimony is truthful, I believe that 
Mr. Minton has purged himself and with his commitment to 
cooperate and testify truthfully, it would be my 
recommendation that the Court withdraw its proceedings 
against Mr. Minton, including abating what are the ongoing 
orders or fines payable to the clerk of the court.
The second issue I intend to raise, the second motion is for 
leave to file an amended complaint against Ken Dandar, the 
firm of Dandar & Dandar, Mr.


Garko, of alleged inappropriate course of action
based on the testimony you heard.
The third is a motion for disqualification of Ken Dandar and 
his firm and the fourth is a motion to impound to the Court 
and not give to us, Ken Dandar and Dandar & Dandar records 
of bank depositories into which these funds were put. As 
Your Honor -- I'll address that later, I don't want these 
records, but we are concerned about securing them.
I will -- those are the motions I want to address, but I 
think it's more appropriate before Mr. Pope and I address 
the motions that I pass the witness and allow 

Q. May it please the Court. Mr. Minton, pursuant to court 
order, did you appear for deposition yesterday at
11:OO at the law firm of Johnson, Blakely in Clearwater?
A. Yes, I did.
      Q. Did you in fact respond to questions during the 
course of that deposition?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were your responses truthful?
      A. Yes. I believe we said at the end there was some 
clarifications that we needed to make, but yes.


Q. And during the course of that deposition, did
you refuse or fail to answer any questions propounded to you?
A. I believe I answered all the questions.
Q. Did you present documents at that deposition pursuant to 
the subpoena duces tecum in this case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And generally what were the nature of the documents you 
A. Principally, records of payments for legal expenses 
related to five different cases that were specified within 
the subpoena.
Q. And specifically that related to paragraph two of the 
subpoena duces tecum?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you present all records that you had available to you 
or in your possession in response to that subpoena?
A. Yes. With the exception of the checks which the Church of 
Scientology already had.
Q. And was there in fact a stipulation of the
deposition to paragraph one of that subpoena that was
  	A. Yes, that was.
  	Q. Do you feel that you have fully complied with


the subpoena duces tecum at deposition yesterday?
      A. I have complied with it.
MR. HOWIE: Thank you very much. No further questions.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I just want to state for the record, 
I think Mr. Howie would agree that the deposition was 
adjourned yesterday. Everything Mr. Howie elicited is fully 
accurate except that Mr. Minton's deposition did not 
conclude yesterday. It needs to be continued.
	MR. HOWIE: That's correct, Your Honor.
      MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, am I free to ask questions? I 
know this is a contempt hearing, but to bring up other 
matters -- may I ask questions at this time?
  		THE COURT: I'm not sure that you really have any standing at 
this point. There will certainly come a time when you will, 
but it appears to me that at least at this point the parties 
that have standing are Mr. Minton and the Church that's 
brought this action.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ROSEN: If there's no other questions, Your Honor, let me 
then address one or two of the motions I alluded to. Mr. 
Pope is going to address the


MR. HOWIE: May the witness step down?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
  		MR. ROSEN: The first matter I have already
addressed, Your Honor, and that is the recommendation
of the Plaintiff respecting Your Honor's course of
action for the outstanding contempt.
  	The second is a motion, my motion for leave to
amend. I don't have a pleading. This has come up obviously 
quite suddenly. I would ask that we be allowed to amend to 
include claims against Ken Dandar, Dandar & Dandar, Mr. Garko.
  	It's obvious here, Your Honor, the abuse of
process, conspiracy and tortious interference with a 
contract. I would ask permission 'to certainly file that 
amended pleading.
I would also ask, based on the testimony today,
that rather than making a separate motion, that I be
permitted to plead punitive damages in the amended
pleadings. And then Mr. Pope has one or two matters
to address.
      MR. POPE: Your Honor, we filed a motion to
disqualify the firm of Dandar & Dandar and the individual 
attorneys for misconduct. May I pass these cases up to the 


      MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I would object to it.
           MR. LIROT: I'd like to introduce myself. I'm
Luke Lirot and I'd like to enter an appearance on behalf of 
Mr. Dandar.
As I understand it, the motion was simply provided to their 
office yesterday on April 8th. The motion doesn't set forth 
with any specificity what the particular allegations are. 
I've looked at it, it's one paragraph long. I think this 
Court is well familiar with the rule of pleading with 
specificity what the basis for disqualification is. I think 
the general statements do not comply with that rule.
I move ore tenus since we haven't had an opportunity to 
review any of this to ask that the motion be stricken, that 
they file a motion that provides some specificity to what it 
is they are alleging here today. And that we be given an
opportunity to evaluate the motion.. Respond to whatever 
allegations they have to make before this motion is heard by 
the Court.
It wasn't cleared on anyone's calendar. I think in all 
fairness, in light of the complexity, that would be the best 
course of action.
      MR. POPE: I can't disagree with that, Your Honor. I 
think he's entitled to a more detailed


motion and I'll gladly afford it to him.
      THE COURT: All right.
           MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge.
           MR. POPE: May we consult with your secretary 
about setting a date for a hearing?
      THE COURT: Oh, yeah. You got anything else?
           MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court. Concerning 
the matter of sentencing, since the motion is withdrawn, I 
take it, and obviously we stipulated to that withdrawal of 
the motion, I did not know whether the Court would be 
prepared to proceed with an adjudication on the merits of 
the contempt or not proceed at all. Whether the motion to 
withdraw had
been granted.
      THE COURT: All right. Plaintiff has filed a motion to 
withdraw the contempt against Mr. Minton?
      MR. ROSEN: No, Your Honor. The motion that we're 
making because at this point you have given us the relief 
that we were entitled to as the victim and what remains of 
the sentencing, of the penalties on the contempt, are really 
the Court's prerogative in terms of incarceration and 
payment of running fines to the clerk of the court.
I didn't believe it was appropriate for me to purport to 
withdraw those actions. I believe that is


Your Honor's prerogative. We have no request for leave 
before Your Honor. We have nothing to withdraw.
      MR. HOWIE: Given that the Court has ordered this 
matter for sentencing, we ask for a determination by the 
Court finding that pursuant to the purge provisions of the 
court order issued on or about March 14th, that the Court 
finds that Mr. Minton has in fact purged himself of contempt 
and that the Court will not proceed with sentence.
      THE COURT: I'm going to take that under consideration. 
There is a lot that's gone on here over a long period of 
time. I have some very, obviously serious concerns about 
manipulation of the process and the responsibility of the 
parties involved.
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Minton has come up here and 
extensively cooperated with the Plaintiff and with the Court 
in getting this matter resolved, but I want to take it under 
consideration at this time.
      MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I would merely add that the 
purge provision is related directly to Mr. Minton's 
appearing to cooperate with the subpoena duces tecum. Simply 
ask the Court to consider the


testimony presented today.
In addition, Your Honor, I have advised or we
have discussed the provisions based on -- 7.07 of the
Florida Statute concerning recantation. I merely wish to 
place on the record, protecting my client that -- what 
recantation that has not yet occurred as of all points will 
occur pursuant to affidavit or other testimony in this 
      MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I only have one thing to add to 
the comment that Mr. Howie made and observation made and 
that is as follows: My client, more than anybody else has 
suffered through this in terms of time and expense. I will 
say one thing that I think is critically important in terms 
of your consideration. If it weren't for Mr. Minton coming
forward with his testimony, I don't think there's a chance 
in a million that the truth ever would have come out.
If you look at the nature of the testimony with all of our 
efforts of discovery, both in this case and the wrongful 
death case before Judge Schaeffer, there is no way on God's 
earth we could have, for example, discovered, found that 
check, those checks coming out of the Swiss bank.
There is no way we could have discovered what


happened in this meeting that Mr. Minton testified to on the 
subject of amending the complaint, so to the extent that 
that is a relevant factor in Your Honor's consideration, I 
would represent that in my view, we would never have found 
this out but for Mr. Minton disclosing this information to 
you today.
      THE COURT: I understand that, and I appreciate it.
      MR. ROSEN: The last item that I wanted to make, we 
wanted to make a motion for Your Honor to order Mr. Dandar 
and the firm of Dandar & Dandar to immediately deposit to 
the Court under seal the records of the deposits, whether 
the depositories that money went into respecting these two 
We're not interested in seeing checks out of the account, we 
want Your Honor to see that. And the reason why I say that I 
don't want to see it at this point is because the Second DCA 
has in effect a stay order respecting our request, not of 
Mr. Minton, but of the Estate for production of records 
showing receipt of payments by anyone.
So the Estate has the protection of the stay order that it 
need not comply with discovery. I'm not asking for 
discovery, I'm asking that Your Honor order these records be 
impounded. I think based on


the testimony you heard today there is certainly a more than 
likely, more than reasonable possibility that if you don't 
do that immediately, those records are going to disappear.
Your Honor, there's one part of Mr. Minton's testimony, and 
that is the statement that Mr. Dandar said he had a way to 
hide this money.
      MR. LIROT: If I might respond to that. I think the 
appropriate motion and notice would be required. We are 
obviously not going to take lightly to these accusations. I 
assure the Court that no records will be destroyed.
In all candor, in light of the Second District Court of 
Appeal's decision, I think we need to look at exactly what 
is being asked for, but the impact of that is that no 
records will be destroyed. I'd like this to be noticed up 
and a motion filed and we'll do this appropriately with the 
right procedures to get this resolved.
      THE COURT: I think that's the way it has to be done. 
This whole thing is very disturbing. Very disturbing. Just 
when I thought that it couldn't get any more bizarre, it 
gets more bizarre. Anything else?
      MR. ROSEN: Can we have an order directing that


these records, if counsel is going to take possession, we're 
only talking about possibly one record -- .
           THE COURT: File your motion. Set it for a 
hearing, and we'll resolve it. These gentlemen are officers 
of the Court. They have been put on notice by the Court and 
certainly in these proceedings that these records are 
significant. I expect them to be retained and, you know, I 
would hope at the very least that there is enough 
professionalism that they
aren't going to be destroyed or somehow damaged or disappear.
Do I have that assurance from you, Mr. Dandar?
           MR. DANDAR: Yes, Your Honor. These records were 
requested by them a long time ago. Everything has been stayed.
      THE COURT: I'm not talking about revealing them, I'm 
talking about destroying them.
      MR. DANDAR: The records are there. The records are 
there. There is no intention on our part -- like I said, if 
I would have time to cross-examine Mr. Minton, it may clear 
some things up.
      THE COURT: You'll have that opportunity.
           MR. HOWIE: Is the status of sentencing, that is 
continued, or is the Court taking it under


      THE COURT: I'm taking it under advisement.
           MR. HOWIE: And therefore we should simply await 
final order?
      THE COURT: Yes. Anything else? You need to file the 
appropriate motions and get them on the calendar.
I'm starting a three week jury trial, actually starting 
Monday. It will go I don't know how long. If need be, we may 
be able to work some time in and I'll talk to Claudia about 



I, ALICIA M. PEREZ,. Notary Public, State of Florida
at Large, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings 
were taken before me at the time and place set forth in the
caption thereof; that the proceedings were stenographically
reported by me in shorthand, and that the foregoing pages,
numbered 1 through 35 inclusive, is a true and correct
transcription of my said stenographic report.
  	I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative or
employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties
hereto, nor a relative or employee of such attorney or
counsel, nor do I have any interest in the outcome or
events of the action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  I have hereunto affixed my
official signature and seal this 10th day of April, 2002,
at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida.


Alicia M. Perez
Deputy Official Court Reporter

To Life and Death of Lisa McPherson