Defendant's supplemental memorandum in support of her motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel

19 March 2003


DELL LIEBREICH, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate .		
of Lisa McPherson, et al.,


COMES NOW the Defendant, DELL LIEBREICH, individually, and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Lisa McPherson, by and through her undersigned attorney,
and hereby files her Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Her Motion to
Disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, and states as follows:

At the hearing on March 5, 2003, beginning at 3:30 p.m., a hearing that was
noticed for a case management conference [1] and the Plaintiff's amended
motion to disqualify the Defendant's counsel, Samuel D. Rosen began the hearing
by providing the court with his written agenda. However, although not mentioned
on the agenda, Rosen begins discussing the Defendant's Motion to Disqualify
Plaintiffs Counsel, (see Exhibit "A", p. 5),
[1] Plaintiff improperly gave notice of a case management conference because
the notice did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Page 1 of 6

a motion that was argued before this court on November 22, 2002 [2] Remarkably,
Rosen represented to this court that "We had filed our response on the aspect
that addresses me." (see Exhibit "A", p. 5). When Thomas Dandar stated "Mr.
Rosen stated that he filed a response to Defendant's Motion to Disqualify
and we never received that response. We would like to get a copy," Rosen
replied: "Sure. Be happy to." (see Exhibit "A", p. 30).
	At no time did Rosen reveal that he had not yet served his response on Defendant's
counsel, that neither Defendant's counsel or the court had seen his response,
or that the response was not filed with the court until 3:45 p.m. on March
5, 2003.
	On March 6, 2003, when Defendant's counsel called Mr. Pope's office for
a copy of the response, Mr. Pope's office did not have a copy and could not
fax it to Defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel did not receive the response
until March 7, 2003. In Rosen's own words, "An attorney who lies to a court
is dishonest." (Rosen's Memorandum, p. 5).
	Addressing Rosen's response, this is the most unprofessional piece of paper
submitted by Mr. Rosen, to date.
	Rosen attempts to sidestep the obvious fact that he clearly lied to this
court and 	continues to do so. At the August 13, 2002 hearing, after Kennan
Dandar advised the court his reasons to continue the hearings, Rosen stated:
"Your honor, we oppose, and I 	will take you through a chronology of what's
happened here." (Exhibit "B", p 6, line 23-25).  After Mr. Rosen begins his
chronology, he then states to the court: "By the way, everything I'm saying
- you see the stack of papers here - this is on a transcript, and anything

	[2]At the November 22, 2003, hearing, Rosen requested leave to file a response
to the Defendant's Motion. Absolutely no response was ever timely filed by Rosen.
		Page 2 of 6
Dandar wants to dispute, I have the transcripts and letters to go with it."
(Exhibit "B", p. 7, line 11﷓15). Dandar has disputed Rosen's accusations
and has now shown to this court Rosen's falsehoods.
Rosen's response concedes that he wrongfully accused Mr. Dandar of backdating
a notice of hearing in Cross v. Nelson. In Rosen's response, he downplays
his accusations by stating that he was unfamiliar with the Cross pleadings.
This is Rosen's method of practice: he makes accusations and allegations
that he concocts, with no factual basis for support, even after representing
that he has documents to support his statements. This is what he did when
he accused Mr. Dandar of countering Mr. Pope's notice of hearing of July
2, by filing a motion with Judge Barton on July 11, 2002, when in fact Mr.
Dandar mailed his notice of hearing on June 27, 2002. On page 8 of Rosen's
response, Rosen concedes that his accusation was "inane." Rosen cannot escape
his responsibility to this court by now admitting that he was stupid to make
these false representations.
Rosen again sidesteps his responsibility to this court, when he stated that
he had written verification of all of the facts he was representing to this
court at the August 13, 2002 hearing. As now conceded by Rosen, he did not
have any papers to support his accusations concerning who attended hearings
before Judge Barton, how long the Cross trial was going to last, or even
if there was going to be an actual conflict between Cross and the hearing
in this case.
On page 7 of his response, Rosen states that pages 10 to 11 of the August
13, 2002 transcript do not contain his accusation that Ken Dandar would know
on July 2, 2002 that

Page 3 of 6
Judge Barton would grant the speedy trial motion and set the Cross case for
an August trial. At line 16 and 17 of page 11, Rosen states that Mr. Dandar
did not mention the Cross trial at the July 2 hearing. Why would anyone represent
something that was not known to be true or confirmed? The speedy trial statute
only applies to those over the age of 65. Even if it was known that Judge
Barton would grant the motion on July 9, the exact time for trial was unknown.

Rosen discredits a transcript of a hearing in Cross v. Nelson in which Judge
Barton acknowledges that the trial was originally scheduled in February 2002
and that Mr. Cross was requesting an expedited trial date of August 19, 2002.
There is absolutely no mention by the court or counsel of the mythical September
trial date as represented by Rosen. Instead, Rosen cites to a document filed
by Mr. Nelson's attorney that contains a typographical error by referring
to "September" instead of "February." [3] This erroneous document refers
to a court order setting the trial date. Why didn't Rosen provide this order?
It's simple; it does not exist. Further, Rosen uses his exhibit to again
wrongly accuse Defendant's counsel of lying.

Next, Rosen argues that he "never testified" in the California court. This
argument is nothing less than saying that as long as Rosen does not sit in
the witness chair and swear to tell the truth, he is at liberty to misrepresent
facts to the court. This is contrary to the oath taken by attorneys and the
Rules Regulating the Bar in all states.

Rosen relies on an obvious misstatement by Kennan Dandar to support his false
representation that Mr. Leipold is co-counsel in the wrongful death case.
Rosen, as lead
[3] As can be expected, Rosen refers to this document as one created by Mr.
Dandar. (See Rosen's memorandum, p. 5).

Page 4 of 6

trial counsel in that case knows this to be false and also knows that the
statement he relies upon is a misstatement. Rosen knows that Mr. Dandar meant
to state Kendrick Moxon, Rosen's co﷓counsel in the wrongful death
case. Mr. Moxon is the one who alleged that Mr. Leipold was Mr. Dandar's
co﷓counsel, (See Exhibit "C", fn. 1), when he was counsel for LMT.
(See Exhibit "D"). 

Rosen noticeably fails to refute, and thus concedes the fact that he knowingly
 presented the false testimony of Mr. Minton before this court. Rosen concedes
that he suborned perjury. Rosen concedes that the presentation of Mr. Minton's
rehearsed  testimony pursuant to the undisclosed Mary Carter agreement was
a charade before this court.

Rosen concedes that he violated the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure concerning
the production of documents from non﷓parties. 

Rosen concedes that he abused process by adding individuals to this case:

a.	to create a conflict of interest between Dell Liebreich, the Estate and
their 	counsel;
b.	creating adverse publicity to influence the jury pool in the wrongful
death case;
c.	to have the Estate's counsel removed from the wrongful death case;
d.	to have the wrongful death case dismissed;
e.	to obtain discovery of financial matters not permitted by the court in
the	wrongful death case;
f.	to create a chilling effect on funding for the wrongful death case; and
g.	to create discord between Robert Minton and Kennan Dandar;
h.	to create discord between Kennan Dandar and the Estate's consultants and
	expert witnesses.
		Page 5 of 6

Rosen has conceded that he or his client, with his knowledge, has threatened
Robert Minton and/or his family, so as to tortiously interfere with the relationship
and friendship with Kennan Dandar with respect to the wrongful death case.
	Rosen has conceded that he conducted secret meetings with MINTON in an effort
to force him to settle all pending litigation with Scientology. When this
plan failed due to MINTON's lack of control over Ken Dandar, Plaintiff and
Rosen then resorted to Plan B which was the filing of the Motions to Disqualify
in this court and Judge Schaeffer's court.
	WHEREFORE, the Defendant, DELL LIEBREICH, as the Personal Representative
of the Estate of Lisa McPherson, demands judgment in her favor and against
the Plaintiff, together with costs and attorney fees pursuant to the agreement,
and other relief as the court may deem just in the premises, and demands
trial by jury.
	I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S.
This 19th day of March, 2003, to F. Wallace Pope, Jr., P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater,
Florida 33757-1368, Samuel D. Rosen, Fifth Floor 75 East 55th Street, New
York, New
York 10022.
112 East Street, Suite B	Post Office Box 24597
Tampa, Florida 33602	Tampa, Florida 33623﷓4597
	813-289-3858/fax 813﷓287﷓0895
	Florida Bar Number 434825
	Attorneys for the Defendants

Page 6 of 6

To Life and Death of Lisa McPherson