IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI; and DAVID HOUGHTON,
Case No. 00‑5682‑C1 Section 11
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby moves for sanctions, including default judgment on liability on the Fifth Amended Complaint against all Defendants, and final default judgment on the Counterclaim filed by Defendant, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., as well as costs and attorney fees incurred in the Omnibus Hearing (OH). As grounds therefore
Plaintiff states as follows:
1. GROUNDS FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL.
Pursuant to this court's order of January 12, 2003, denying the Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and/or Disqualification of Plaintiffs counsel, this court held that the main
Page 1 of 19
evidence presented by the Defendants for terminating sanctions was the testimony of ROBERT MINTON (Minton) and his mistress, STACY BROOKS (Brooks), both admitted perjurers. This is not the first time this church has been guilty of perjury or suborning perjury. See In Re Search Warrant et al, 572 F2d 321 (DC Cir, 1978). And in the Omnibus Hearing, OH, there was more evidence of this church practice of suborning perjury, such as its chief executive, Michael Rinder, who is also senior to Ben Shaw, OSA Chief and FLAG representative in this case, trying to get Stacy Brooks and Robert Vaughn Young to sign perjurious declarations against Scientology's foe, Attorney Graham Berry. (Pointed out by this court in its January 12, 2003 Order.)
2. The Defendants1 extorted Robert Minton in violation of §863.05, Florida Statutes, by demanding that Mr. Minton make the McPherson death case "go away" before Scientology would even consider "total disengagement" with Mr. Minton and his family. When the Personal Representative refused Scientology's demand of immediate voluntary dismissal of the case through its agent, Mr. Minton, the record is clear that Scientology turned to its next means of accomplishing its goal by targeting for disqualification the Plaintiff's counsel and/or terminating sanctions based on the testimony of their witnesses, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks.
3. To accomplish its goal of disqualification and involuntary dismissal of the case, Scientology intentionally presented false testimony of Mr. Minton before this court. This false testimony was not on a collateral issue, but to the main case of the Plaintiff and to the Defendants'
1 The term "Defendants" includes all three individual defendants acting through the corporate defendant FLAG. Although Sandy Rosen was representing FLAG in the breach case and Monique Yingling was representing "The Church of Scientology" when they met with Minton, both were acting on behalf of FLAG and "The Church of Scientology" in the instant matter.
Page 2 of 19
main case of disqualification and dismissal. It is therefore, a fraud on the court, and Florida law demands sanctions in the form of default judgment on liability in favor of the Plaintiff on the Fifth Amended Complaint, as well as final default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the Counterclaim filed by COSFSO.
4. In the 35‑day Omnibus Hearing, this court heard concessions from counsel for the Church of Scientology, Monique Yingling, wherein she stated that she knew that Mr. Minton had falsely testified and that his recantation affidavits, which she helped edit, did not recant this false testimony. (Yingling OH testimony, pp.272‑275).
5. Prior to filing the Omnibus Motion and throughout the hearing, the Defendants knew that Mr. Minton did not produce any evidence to them that the UBS check of May 2000 was indeed from his personal bank account rather than third parties.
6. Prior to filing the Omnibus Motion and throughout the hearing, the Defendants knew that they would not be able to demonstrate to this court that the May 2000 UBS check was indeed from the funds of Mr. Minton.
The Defendants knew that the Second District Court of Appeal held that amounts and source of funding for litigation was totally irrelevant and outside the scope of discovery and therefore, that information could never form the basis of terminating sanctions or disqualification of counsel.
8. At the Omnibus hearing, Sandy Weinberg, counsel for COSFSO, met privately with the Plaintiff’s trial consultant, Michael Garko. Before this meeting with Mr. Garko, COSFSO added him as a defendant in the breach of contract case pending before the Honorable Douglas Baird in Clearwater. Predictably, this maneuver by Scientology was designed to alienate and breach the
Page 3 of 19
privileged relationship between Dr. Garko and the ESTATE's counsel, and force him to retain his own counsel at his expense. The transparency of adding Dr. Garko is made evident from the fact that as a condition for this private meeting with Mr. Weinberg to prepare him for his testimony at the Omnibus Hearing, COSFSO dismissed Dr. Garko from the breach case and also executed a release of any and all liability of Dr. Garko, for "valuable consideration" exchanged between the parties. Shortly after testifying for COSFSO, Dr. Garko resigned as the trial consultant for the ESTATE.
9. Monique Yingling, Kendrick Moxon, Lee Fugate and Sandy Weinberg all participated in obtaining work product documents from Plaintiffs counsel's consultant, Ms. Brooks, and used correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel to the Estate's expert, Robert Vaughn Young, obtained through Ms. Brooks at the Omnibus Hearing, knowing full well that this correspondence was protected under work product and otherwise privileged. The excuse given by Ms. Yingling was that Ms. Brooks was no longer a consultant for the ESTATE's counsel. However, that does not vitiate the privilege and improper conduct.
II. APPLICATION OF LAW.
In Morgan vs. Campbell, 816 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), giving false testimony on a central issue of the case does result in involuntary dismissal as a sanction, if the false testimony demonstrates a clear showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or similar wrongdoing.
Court has held that a trial court has the inherent authority to
Page 4 of 19
of such a dismissal, this sanction should be imposed only on a
The defendants' wrongdoing of extortion of Minton and presenting his false testimony to this court to force dismissal of this case or disqualification of counsel warrants involuntary dismissal.
Florida Statutes, § 836.05, entitled "Threats; extortion," provides:
Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (Emphasis added).
A threat is "malicious" for purpose of an extortion offense if it is made intentionally and without any lawful justification. Alonso v. State, 447 So.2d 1029 (Fla 4' DCA 1984). Attorney Yingling conceded at the hearing that "Mr. Minton was really feeling the heat."(Yingling OH p.197). Mr. Minton admitted at this hearing that Mr. Rinder was the "triggerman" and Moxon was aiming the gun. (Mr. Minton, May 30, 2002, Vol. 14, OH p.1850 and May 30, 2002, Vol. 15. OH p.1894.)
Attorney Rosen told Mr. Minton that his intent was not only to discover Mr. Minton's alleged involvement in the breach case, but to go into all of his financial information! (Yingling, OH p. 213). This was the breaking point for Mr. Minton, the intimidation and threat of extortion by exposing Mr. Minton's financial information.
Page 5 of 19
Coercion and duress, such as threatening to turn one over to the Internal Revenue Service, constitutes criminal extortion under §863.05. Berger v. Berger, 466 So.2d 1149 (Fla 4th DCA 1985). In Berger, the husband demanded that the wife sign his settlement and custody agreement or he would turn her over to the IRS. The wife had her own attorney. That was held to be extortion, since his legal right to insist on his proposed agreement and his legal right to turn her over to the IRS was motivated by his desire for pecuniary gain. Likewise, Atty. Rosen's and Mr. Rinder's threats to Mr. Minton are extortion since they are conveyed for Scientology's pecuniary advantage not to pay death damages and to have Mr. Minton pay Scientology, even though what they threaten to do may be perfectly legal.
Neither actual intent to do harm nor ability to carry out the threat is essential to prove that extortion occurred. In establishing extortion, it is sufficient that the threat of injury was against a person other than the person actually threatened, such as Mr. Minton's wife and his daughters.
Dudley v. State, 634 So.2d 1093 (Fla 2°d DCA 1994).
Appellee argues that the statute applied only to threats involving individuals, and should not be so construed as to include within its proscription threats directed primarily against a corporation. With this contention we are unable to agree. The nature of the entity against whom the threat is primarily directed is of importance only in determining whether such a relationship exists between the entity and the person to whom the threat is communicated as would be calculated to coerce the victim to meet the demands of the extortioner in order to prevent the threat from being carried out. It therefore is of no consequence whether the threat is primarily directed against the victim himself, his loved ones, his friends or a corporation with which he is actively identified and in which he owns an interest.
State v. McInnes, 153 So.2d 854, 858 (Fla 4th DCA 1963).
Page 6 of 19
Clearly, if a case can be involuntarily dismissed because of misrepresenting prior medical history, then testimony gained through the acts of extortion, knowing that the testimony is false, is wrongdoing that warrants involuntary dismissal.
From the evidence adduced at the Omnibus Hearing, it is clearly shown that the Church of Scientology engaged in "fraud, pretense, collusion, or similar wrongdoing" mandating involuntary dismissal.
This Court cannot condone actions of parties, including their counsel, engaging in presenting false testimony before the Court, hiding the true nature of the motivation of its star witnesses through a secret, illegal and unethical agreement to interfere with the ongoing litigation involving the homicide of Lisa McPherson, especially, when Mr. Minton is not a party to the wrongful death case. This action by COSFSO is more egregious than a Plaintiff lying about his or her prior medical history in a personal injury action. Baker v. Myers Tractor Services, Inc., 165 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) where the Appellate Court upheld the sanction of dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury case as sanctions for plaintiff’s false testimony directly related to a central fact necessary to establish the Plaintiffs claim.
In the instant matter, Defendants had absolutely no hesitation in presenting the testimony of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, knowing that their testimony was completely false and directly related to central facts necessary to establish their claim of terminating sanctions and/or disqualification of counsel.
Furthermore, Rule 4‑3.3(a)(4) of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibits a lawyer from offering testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, and if the lawyer learns that the testimony is false, the lawyer shall take reason remedial measures by
Page 7 of 19
either disclosing the false testimony to the court or to the other party, even if it involves confidential information. Id. at 151.
In Figgie International Inc. vs. Alderman, 698 So.2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), a default judgment was upheld as a result of destruction of documents, presentation of false testimony, and other deliberate obstruction of discovery process.
In this Court's Order of January 13, 2003, the Court pointed out the obviousness of the shenanigans occurring between Mr. Minton and the Church of Scientology. During the depositions of Mr. Minton taken in September 2001 and October 2001, COSFSO counsel, Kendrick Moxon and Samuel Rosen, continuously questioned Mr. Minton about money laundering, Swiss banks, German banks and evasion of income tax on money brought into the country by Mr. Minton. All pressure points of Mr. Minton and totally irrelevant to both the death case and the breach case.
The Court also raised the issue of why Mr. Minton would go to the Church of Scientology, his arch enemy, and disclose that he had given Ken Dandar a $500,000 UBS check, if indeed he did not want the Church of Scientology to know the source of the money he was transferring into the United States to either the Lisa McPherson Trust, his movie venture, or to help fund the litigation in the Lisa McPherson case. (See p.26 and 27, Order 1/12/03). The court stated it was obvious why he did so. That obviousness is that the Church of Scientology had discovered these UBS checks and the source of the funds which Mr. Minton so desperately wanted to protect. The cat was now out of the bag! He therefore had to deal with the Church of Scientology to prevent further disclosure to the authorities. Thus extortion by the Church of Scientology was easy.
COSFSO also questioned Mr. Minton about the "Discount Bank in Switzerland," which bank was never disclosed by Mr. Minton in his depositions or at the Omnibus termination hearings. (See
Page 8 of 19
p.27, Order 1/12/03, which incorporates Mr. Minton's testimony at his Sept. 18, 2001 deposition, pp. 90,149, 232 & 234). Mr. Minton admitted that he believed that Scientology had caused the Swiss government to look into his Nigerian business deal which he was afraid would lead to an IRS investigation in the United States. (p.29, Order 1/12/03 and Minton, May 24, 2002, OH pp.133138).
This Court also pointed out more extortion by the Church of Scientology when it took pictures of Mr. Minton and his mistress, Ms. Brooks, at the farmhouse swimming pool in New Hampshire and hand‑delivered those pictures with a letter to Mrs. Minton in England. This was done by the church to show Mr. Minton that the Church of Scientology would follow through to destroy him as "fair game" since refused to settle with Michael Rinder of the Church of Scientology in 1998. Why else would a church engage in such action, unless it wanted to blackmail Mr. Minton? Of course, the Mr. Minton 50‑plus page timeline introduced into evidence as OH Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, is Mr. Minton's evidence of the continuous harassment of his wife, his minor daughters, his friends, and business associates from which Mr. Minton had begged Scientology to disengage. As an example, Scientology picketed Mr. Minton's family's home, followed his daughter to a friend's house out of state, turned his friend into the British revenue department, and forced Mr. Minton had to give up his New England Lexus dealership.
As pointed out by this Court's Order of January 12, 2003, it is without question that the meetings on March 28 and 29, 2002, in the offices of Atty. Rosen and as verified by the written notes of Atty. Yingling, demonstrate duress and coercion exerted by Atty. Rosen upon Mr. Minton concerning adding Mr. Minton to the Jerry Armstrong litigation for damages in excess of $10 million, threats of RICO violation for damages in excess of $35 million, and ongoing extensive discovery into Mr. Minton's financial matters. (See p.3132, Order 1/12/03 and Yingling notes).
Page 9 of 19
More wrongdoing by the Church of Scientology is in the fact that Atty. Yingling, who took very extensive notes on March 28 and 29, 2002, while Mr. Minton was present with his attorney, claims absolutely no notes were taken for the continuous meetings in Clearwater with Mr. Minton, but without Mr. Minton's attorney and when Mr. Minton allegedly concedes to the felony of perjury. (Yingling, OH p.246). The obvious reason for producing the March Yingling notes is that Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, was a witness to Yingling writing copious notes. Therefore, neither the church nor Ms. Yingling could deny their existence. However, when Minton meets with Ms. Yingling without his attorney in Clearwater, denial of taking notes cannot be rebutted.
Furthermore, the "settlement discussions" with Mr. Minton had absolutely nothing to do with the only case where Mr. Minton was a party, the Clearwater breach case. Rather, these discussions had to do with extorting Mr. Minton to make sure that the Lisa McPherson and Wollersheim cases would be dismissed, even though Mr. Minton was not a party to these cases. That is not a settlement, that is "total disengagement," meaning that the Church of Scientology would stop going after Mr. Minton, his wife and two young daughters, as well as business associates, only in the event that these litigations would "go away." That is extortion!
The wrongdoing of the Church of Scientology is made more manifest by the fact that it had committed sanctionable conduct in attempting to prohibit Jesse Prince from testifying in the Lisa McPherson case. The first sanctionable event was when the Church of Scientology hired a private investigator to befriend Prince and then used that same investigator as an undercover agent for the Largo Police Dept. in having Prince arrested for cultivation of marijuana, i.e., growing marijuana on his back porch. Although that criminal trial resulted in a hung jury, based primarily on the fact that
Page 10 of 19
the jury recognized a setup by the Church of Scientology, this Court sanctioned the COSFSO for this improper conduct.
Combining that improper conduct in the setting up of Prince with the obvious and monumental misconduct which took place between the Church of Scientology and Mr. Minton both before and during the 35‑day Omnibus Hearing must result in the most severe sanction against the Defendants, involuntary dismissal via default judgment on liability with a jury trial on damages and involuntary dismissal of the Counterclaim.
The Church of Scientology is no stranger to acts of extortion. The following are some of the church policies or instruction material in evidence issued by the Church of Scientology to destroy its enemies.
We ourselves fight on a basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. [the enemy] Just go all the way in and obliterate him.
One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes every enemy territory. He raids and harasses. All on a thought plane ‑‑ press, public opinion, governments, etc.
Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well then legal gets an easy in.
OH Plaintiff's Exhibit 157, "HCO Policy letter of 16 February 1969"
Dept. of Govt Affairs
In the face of dangers from Govts or courts there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) Find out if we want to play the offered game or not, (2) If not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks, (3) Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail, (4) don't
Pagel 11 of 19
try to get any money out of it, (5) Make every attack by us also sell Scientology, and (6) Win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.
The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order.
OH Plaintiff's Exhibit 109‑C, "HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960"
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
OH Plaintiff s Exhibit 169, "Ability" The Scientologist, p157.
How to do a NOISY Investigation
...how to go about dealing with attackers of Scientology.
Soon as one of these threats starts you get a Scientologist or Scientologists to investigate noisily.
You find out where he or she works or worked, doctor, dentist, friends, neighbors,
anyone, and `phone `em up and say, "I am investigating Mr/Mrs for criminal
activities as he/she has been trying to prevent Man's freedom and is restricting my
religious freedom and that of my friends and children, etc... ...
You say now and then, "I have already got some astounding facts, " etc., etc. (Use a generality) ... It doesn't matter if you don't get much info. Just be NOISY.
OH Plaintiff's Exhibit 109J, "HCO Executive Letter of 5 September 1960.
When things go wrong and we don't know why already by intelligence, we resort to
When we need somebody haunted we investigate.
When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts. Remember that
Page 12 of 19
investigation alone we can curb pushes and crush wildcat people and unethical
"Dianetics and Scientology" organizations. It's almost funny. We sometimes learn
nothing useful and yet because people heard were investigating their consciences sent them into headlong flight or sudden collapse. There's power in the question alone!
Investigation by Outside Sources
Overt investigation of someone or something attacking us by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense. it's very effective. Often investigation by a private detective has alone closed up an entheta source or a squirrel organization.
Procedure on Entheta Press
In the case of a bad magazine article which is signed, use the following procedure:
1. Tell them by letter to retract at once in the next issue.
2. Hire a private detective of a national‑type firm to investigate the writer, not the
magazine, and get any criminal or Communist background the man has.
(Because all subversive activities foolishly use criminals they "have
something on" and men who have been paid to attack, attack us, you'll have
data incoming from the detective agency if they do their work well.
3. Have your lawyers or solicitors write the magazine threatening suit. (Hardly
ever permit a real suit ‑‑ they're more of a nuisance to you than they're worth.)
4. Use the date you got from the detective at long last to write the author of the
article a very tantalizing letter. don't give him your data on him. Just tell him
we know something very interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come
in and talk about it. (If he comes, ask him to sign a confession of collusion
and slander ‑‑ people at that level often will, just to commit suicide ‑‑ and
publish it in a paid ad in a paper if you get it.) chances are he won't arrive.
but he'll sure shudder into silence.
5. Give any new data you have from the detective to your attorneys for their use
against the magazine.
Investigating A Squirrel
A person or an organization using Dianetics or Scientology wrongly or without rights, or a wildcat magazine, is best shut down or shut up by hiring a private detective. Tell the detective "We don't care if they know you're investigating them for us. In fact, the louder the better." Detectives cost dozens of dollars or pounds. They save thousands.
Page 13 of 19
When you get their data, give it to your attorneys for any action they want. Or post it.
OH Plaintiffs Exhibit 122, Manuel of Justice, a Scientology publication.
So it is therefore within the province of this church, which does have a criminal history, to do whatever is necessary to protect Scientology, even if it means breaking the law. The above admitted evidence at the OH is the unrebutted policy letters of Scientology! This court suggested to the defendants to bring in their expert to rebut. The defendants failed to do so.
Frank Oliver, who quit as an OSA operative in 1992, also confirmed this policy of finding or manufacturing evidence to make the enemy sue for peace when he testified about seeing illegally obtained credit information, bank records, airline reservations, and phone records of those Scientology was targeting. This type of action is not on the merits of the dispute, but rather on gathering information for extortion and blackmail. He also was involved in investigations concerning the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), which was infiltrated by Scientology and eventually bankrupted. Scientology now runs CAN after purchasing its name from the Bankruptcy Court. (Oliver, beginning at OH p.290, July 15, 2002.)
Contrary to Scientology's statements in this Court that the past criminal conduct of the Guardian's Office, Department 20 n/k/a OSA, was the action of a few misguided and unauthorized zealots,2 such as Mrs. Hubbard, the courts have recognized that those criminal actions were authorized by Mr. Hubbard as well.
Plaintiffs allegations that the Hubbards controlled the Guardian's Office of the Church is corroborated by the findings in (US. v Heldt)
2 Mr. Weindberg stated to this court on July 8, 2002 at 239:
8 whatever they did wasn't authorized by
9 Mr. Hubbard, wasn't authorized by the Church of
Page 14 of 19
United States v. Hubbard, et al, 668 F.2d 1238 (C.A.D.C.1981).
(Exhibit B to plaintiffs opposition to defendant Lisa's motion for protective order filed October 15, 1981. The indictment there covers the same general time span as this case.) The Court of Appeals found the Hubbards to be the first and second highest officials in the Scientology organization. Id. at 1243.
McLean v. Church of Scientology of California, 538 F.Supp. 545, 548 (M.D. FLA 1982).
After a small group were convicted in the Snow White Operation of Department 20, such as Mrs. Hubbard,3 that did not stop criminal activity of this church. The Florida Bar v. Pannier, 498 So.2d 896, 897(Fla. 1986). "The Church, or its agents, were involved in numerous civil and criminal cases throughout the United States during and following this period of time. In the seizure of documents from the Church's Los Angeles headquarters, it was revealed that Vannier was an undercover agent for the Church." Vannier was the attorney for Gabe Cazares, Mayor of Clearwater, embattled in litigation with Scientology.
Scientology's motive to extort Mr. Minton is apparent. The Lisa McPherson case is Scientology's worst PR FLAP. The story had gained national press exposure. It occurred at the
3 For example, In re Search Warrant Dated July 4, 1977, for Premises at 2125 S Street, Northwest Washington, D.C., 572 F.2d 321 (US Ct App, DC, 1978), executives of Scientology, including the founder's wife, were found guilty and sentenced in Scientology's "Snow White" operation, resulted in convictions of its executives for "(1) Conspiracy to steal government property from: (a) the office of the United States Attorney in the U.S. Court House, Washington, D.C., and more particularly from the office of "Assistant United States Attorney Nathan Dodell" (App. 41, 52); (b) the office of Staff Attorney Paul Figley, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (App. 41, 48, 50); (c) the Internal Revenue Service (identification cards) (App. 42) and possibly other documents; and (d) by unlawfully breaking and entering such offices and the offices of Interpol maintained in the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington, D.C. (App. 49). (2) Conspiracy to obstruct justice: (a) by illegally obtaining from opposing parties in litigation "documents relating to Scientology‑instituted Freedom of Information Act suits against, inter alia, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, (the U.S.) Customs (Service), Interpol and the Defense Communications Agency" (App. 50); (b) by engaging in illegal eavesdropping (App. 46); (c) by perjury and subornation of perjury committed, inter alia, by Henning Heldt, Greg Willardson, Duke Snider, Michael James Meisner, Richard Weigand, Gerald Bennett Wolfe (App. 5761) and others; most of whom occupy managerial positions with the Church of Scientology in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, California (App. 75, 76)."
Page 15 of 19
"mecca of technical perfection" in the first "Scientology City." The Estate had seemingly unlimited funding and more than sufficient evidence of culpability not only of the "tech" but also the leadership of Scientology. As Mr. Minton told Nancy Many, former OSA volunteer, on March 12, 2002, Scientology would stop at nothing to stop the Lisa case from going to trial in June 2002.
156 18 A Been to Sandown, New Hampshire, to his place in
19 Sandown, New Hampshire; that the trial date was set for
20 early June; and they, meaning the Scientologists, were going
21 nuts and would stop at nothing to prevent that trial from
23 And he said that it was – that he was in
24 negotiations with the Church, settlement negotiations, and
25 that that also was going well, but the sticking point had
157 1 been that no more money was to go to Ken Dandar.
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q From the Church – the Church was saying this to
5 A The Church was saying this to him, that we could
6 settle but no more money to Ken.
Nancy Many, OH July 12, 2002.
I received your letter of April 10, 2002, and have the following comments. We did speak on March 29, 2002 and I did tell you that Scientology had made certain demands (I did not mentioned threats) towards Mr. Mr. Minton. One of them was their request that Mr. Mr. Minton bring about the dismissal of the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case. I did not offer to go into detail about the discussions between Mr. Mr. Minton and Scientology and, in fact, told you that through me Mr. Mr. Minton had entered into a confidentiality agreement that would prevent either Mr. Mr. Minton or me from going into detail about those discussions. We did not discuss your signing or being bound by such an agreement . ...
Steven A. Jonas
Jonas letter to Dandar, April 11, 2002.
This Jonas letter in addition to the Ms. Yingling notes confirms, contrary to Mr. Minton's and Ms. Brooks' hearing testimony, that Scientology demanded that the McPherson case be dismissed.
Page 16 of 19
Scientology did not rebut this testimony of extortion, not at all.
The Evidence of Extortion.
No Money or other support, withdrawal of JP and SB affidavits, commit to be Ws,
effort to try to exert influence over‑ Dandar and Leibrick to resolve matter: SJ say can't commit to making case go away [page 6]
SR ‑ hope this is not harbinger of things to come because extremely disappointed ‑ SB& JP already are not W's ‑ Dandar has told Ct would not be W's"
"MR ‑ until wrongful death case goes away ‑ we can not have disengagement. MR knows BM can do it ‑ can discuss later how"
"SR believes BM can he very persuasive with Dandar"
Yingling notes of March 28, 2002.
"...until wrongful death case goes away ‑ we can not have disengagement"
Disengagement? Need more be said? Mr. Minton was absolutely intent to have disengagement. The policy letters of extortion via "noisy investigations" and digging up crimes of Mr. Minton had worked. In the above meeting excerpt, Mr. Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, "SJ," is summing up Scientology demands, which include demanding that the wrongful death case be dismissed, that Mr. Minton stop funding the case, and that Jesse Prince and Stacy Ms. Brooks withdraw their affidavits and not be witnesses. However, the more profound evidence of extortion is found in the language of "effort to try to exert influence over Dandar and Liebreich" followed by Mr. Rosen's comments that he hopes it is not a "harbinger of things to come" because he, Mr. Rosen, would be "extremely disappointed." There is no uncertainty that Scientology, through Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen, is demanding the McPherson case "go away."
"MR knows BM can do it ‑can discuss later how." This is the introduction to Mr. Minton of future discussions of making the case "go away," since Jonas already stated that he was not sure
Page 17 of 19
Mr. Minton could procure the voluntary dismissal. This is also an admission that Mr. Minton had no control. Mr. Rinder did not approach that subject then because Mr. Rinder did not want to discuss his plans in front of Mr. Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas. We do know that later in Florida, Mr. Rinder instructs Mr. Minton how to do it while Mr. Minton is without counsel.
As far as the evidence discloses, the extortion begins when Mr. Rinder tells Mr. Minton he has the UBS check of May 2000, when Mr. Minton can't get a copy of this check. It continues in the meetings of March 28 & 29, 2002 in Mr. Rosen's office in New York.
"SR ‑ now preparing RICO case which will encompass all damages above. "
Yingling notes, p.5 where SR stands for Sandy Rosen.
3. It matters not if the extortion is Scientology holding Mr. Minton's feet to the fire to legally pursue financial discovery and the two contempt hearings before this court and Judge Baird.
What does matter is that Scientology used these pressure points to force Mr. Minton to do something he not only did not want to do, but had no right to do: dismissal of the McPherson case. The extortion resulted in the church presenting known false testimony on material matters in this court. This is fraud on the court warranting dismissal. Morgan at 252.
WHEREFORE, the ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON requests that this court grant sanctions as requested, plus enter an order granting attorney fees and costs to the ESTATE incurred for the Omnibus Hearing.
Page 18 of 19
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been furnished by U.S.
Mail this 3rd day of February, 2003, to the attached Service List.
[signed by Ken Dandar]
KENANN G. DANDAR, ESQ.
cc: The Honorable Susan Schaeffer
Page 19 of 19
Morris Weinberg, Esquire Lee Fugate, Esquire
Ronald P. Hanes, Esquire
Douglas J. Titus, Jr., Esquire Attorney at Law
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, Florida 33755
Attorney for David Houghton
Samuel D. Rosen, Esquire
(Scientology FLAG's 28 February 2003 response to this motion)
To Life and Death of Lisa McPherson