§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §



From: " Charlotte L. Kates" <ckates@eden.rutgers.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: reposted for propagation: Dandar closing in Baird
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:01:39 -0400
Lines: 5454
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <3d87fca3@news2.lightlink.com>
X-Trace: 18 Sep 2002 00:10:11 -0400,
X-Original-Trace: 18 Sep 2002 00:10:11 -0400,
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1554956

This was posted earlier today by "toby plevin," but didn't make it to
lightlink. It's a must-read!





CASE NO.: OO-002750-CI-20
DELL LIEBREICH, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Lisa McPherson; ROBERT MINTON;







A. There never was a meeting to discuss adding on
parties as described by Minton
. 12

B. There never was an agreement to give any portion of hoped for
proceeds in this case to Robert Minton or the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc

C. There is no evidence that the UBS check of May 2000 for
$500,000 is Robert Minton's
. 45

D. False allegations of commingling and converting Estate money. 60

E. Minton and UBS money are Loans to Dandar. 72


A. The Motive for Extortion . 90
B. The Evidence of Extortion 92

A. The Law on Mary Carter Agreements. 127
B. The Evidence of the Illegal Agreement. 129

. 137



COMES NOW the counsel for defendants, ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON and DELL
LIEBREICH, and files the following Closing Argument to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Disqualification. Counsel, a member in good standing with
the Florida Bar since 1979, who has never suborned perjury or committed
perjury in this case or any other case.


The instant motion to disqualify is based entirely on the testimony of
admitted perjurer, Robert Minton. The Plaintiff is filing the motion
pursuant to the policy of the church.

"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."

Plaintiff's Ex. 109-C, before Judge Schaeffer, Exhibit 8 herein, "HCO
Policy Letter of 15 August 1960."

After spending 10 million dollars and five years of his life combating
what he saw as abusive behavior by the Church of Scientology, FLAG would
have the court believe that when Robert Minton felt compelled to recant
perjury, he chose to contact Scientology attorneys. No reasonable person
would perceive this as a sensible action, given the chronic hostility
and mistrust that existed between these two parties. What Defendant will
show in this argument is that the real motivation behind Minton's
decision to testify on behalf of Scientology at this hearing is his
desire to reach a confidential deal with Scientology that would see the
Church disengage its campaign of harassment against himself, his wife,
his two young daughters, his friends, his family, and his business
associates. It is this deal that FLAG has attempted to conceal from the
court, and Minton's testimony in this hearing is a direct result of the
confidential settlement negotiations between the Church and Minton that
led to that deal.

Although both Minton and Scientology have made every effort to conceal
the details of the negotiations that led to Minton's startling volte
face and subsequent claims of subornation of perjury, the notes taken by
Church attorney Monique Yingling, who was present at the meetings
between Minton and the Church, demonstrate conclusively that Minton's
efforts at reaching an agreement with Scientology depend largely on
making the wrongful death case, in the words of top Church management
official Michael Rinder, "go away." According to the notes, this outcome
was to be reached by any means necessary. Any and all subsequent
testimony by Minton cannot be considered at face value, but must be
weighed against the fact that as per the Yingling notes, he has no
choice but to do whatever it takes to put an end to the wrongful death

When he was unable to persuade the Estate to drop the case voluntarily,
Minton found himself locked into a clandestine agreement with
Scientology that made it necessary for him to come before the court,
both in this case, and in the hearings before Judge Schaeffer, and
perjure himself in order to protect his own interests by attempting to
assist Scientology in reaching its ultimate goal: dismissal of the
wrongful death case itself. The court cannot and should not use the
false allegations and testimony elicited from Minton by Plaintiff to
unwittingly assist Flag in its efforts to derail the wrongful death
case. To do so would be to reward this malicious tortious interference
that Plaintiff has committed, as well as the coercive tactics that led
to Minton's subsequent perjuries before this court.

The plaintiff, FLAG, moves to disqualify counsel for the Estate, Dandar,
by alleging that Dandar committed perjury and solicited perjury from
Dell Liebreich and Robert Minton.

In order for there to be perjury or solicitation of perjury, the false
testimony must be material and prejudicial to the case. State v. Ellis,
723 So.2d 187, 189-190 ( Fla 1998).

In sum, " materiality" is not an element of the crime of perjury in
Florida as Ellis proposes, but rather is a threshold issue that a court
must determine prior to trial, as *190 with any other preliminary
matter. [FN3] Just as the Florida Legislature could have defined
materiality as an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise,
that body is within its rights in designating "material matter" as a
threshold issue for the court. This division of labor between court and
jury guarantees that no Florida citizen will be hauled into court for an
immaterial falsehood or be prosecuted for a trifle:..(cits omitted)
...[T]here is a mind-set in the average juror to condemn any false
statement made under oath and, in the hands of a persuasive prosecutor,
lies told under oath by an accused about any matter may lead to the
conviction of the liar of perjury. In such instances, it is only the
court that stands as a barrier between an immaterial lie and a jail

Out of the four issues presented by FLAG in its Statement of Issues and
Motion to Limit Issues served on August 24, 2002, to support its Motion
to Disqualify, only one is legitimately within the jurisdiction of this
court. That singular issue within this court's jurisdiction is whether
Dandar solicited Minton to perjure himself in Minton's October 2001
deposition in this case concealing Minton's attendance of a meeting with
Dandar, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince, and Michael Garko on deciding to add
parties in the wrongful death case. All the other issues concern
conduct in the wrongful death case of Lisa McPherson, issues not within
this court's jurisdiction. Therefore, this closing will concentrate on
what is relevant and material to this case since the allegation is
perjury and solicitation of perjury. Perjury must be on a matter which
is material and prejudicial to the Plaintiff.

Argyros v. State, 718 So.2d 222 (Fla 2nd DCA 1998).

FLAG's closing is all about the money Minton or his friends have
loaned. FLAG'S closing, the 67 page "Post-Trial Memorandum of Law"
contains false and unfounded allegations by church counsel of how Dandar
either commingled or stole loan money from Minton or Minton's friends in
the death case. FLAG has no standing to assert commingling or theft of
loan money, whether it be the Estate's money or Dandar's money. This
court deserves and requires more than the coerced fabrications of an
admitted perjurer, Plaintiff's key witness, Robert Minton. Since the
court correctly prohibited evidence of how the loan money was spent,
Dandar will not respond to these wild and unfounded allegations in
FLAG'S closing.

This motion to disqualify is motivated by Flag's intention to
circumvent the three decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal
concerning Defendant's finances as it relates to its ability to
complete the wrongful death litigation.

Scientology has not hidden its intentions to stop the trial of the
death case. It is attempting now with this motion to manipulate the
court to rule, outside of its jurisdiction, that all of the loan money
is property of the Estate so that Scientology can garnish any remaining
funds and by doing so, achieve its goal of stopping the death case
outside of the conventional litigation process. Plaintiff disregards
with this motion that only the probate court has jurisdiction to
determine the assets of the Estate. See Rule 5.340 of the Florida
Probate Rules, requiring an inventory of the Estate.

FLAG's closing is all about the money Minton or his friends have
loaned. FLAG's closing, the 67-page "Post-Trial Memorandum of Law"
contains false and unfounded allegations by church counsel of how Dandar
either commingled or stole loan money from Minton or Minton's friends in
the death case. FLAG has no standing to assert commingling or theft of
loan money, whether it be the Estate's money or Dandar's money. This
court deserves more than the exaggerated and fabricated allegations of
an admitted perjurer, Robert Minton. Since the court correctly
prohibited evidence of how the loan money was spent, Dandar will discuss
a limited his response to these wild and unfounded allegations in FLAG's

This court has not had the benefit of the 35-day hearing on the same
issues before Judge Schaeffer. There it was made evident that Minton
and Brooks, his mistress, lied in depositions on many subjects unrelated
to the death case or Dandar. Those lies will be listed in this

To this day, FLAG has intentionally failed to provide this court with
the details of its deal with Minton in violation of Dosdourian v.
Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1993). Minton's deal requires that he
make the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case "go away." In the hearing
before Judge Schaeffer, notes on the negotiation process itself taken by
Church counsel Monique Yingling, who attended the meeting with Minton,
were ordered to be produced before Judge Schaeffer. In this court, Mr.
Rosen chose to testify in direct contradiction to sworn testimony of
Monique Yingling and her notes and therefore her testimony combined with
her notes confirm the falsity of Rosen's testimony before this court.

Jesse Prince, a former confidant of Robert Minton, testified herein that
Minton openly discussed with him the conspiracy to attack the Estate's
counsel both in this case and the death case when Dandar refused the
demands of Scientology to dismiss the Lisa McPherson case. Mr. Prince,
formerly the third highest executive in Scientology's worldwide
operations, was able to produce and explain church policies that require
and ordained these actions on the part of Plaintiff. However, even with
this evidence, Dandar was not permitted to introduce into evidence those
church policies establishing its routine business practice of extortion.

No one supports Minton's version of the truth. FLAG called as its own
witness before Judge Schaeffer, the Estate's jury/trial consultant, Dr.
Garko. Garko later resigned after secretly meeting with church counsel
and was summarily dismissed as a defendant in this case. Nonetheless,
his testimony still did not support Flag's claims:

116 2 Q Okay. Now, did I ever tell Bob Minton to lie
3 about anything?
4 A Not in my presence.
5 Q Did I ever tell Bob Minton to fudge somehow so he
6 didn't have to answer the question truthfully?
7 A Not in my presence.
8 Q Have you ever known me to tell anybody to lie
9 under oath?
10 A No. And I wouldn't work for you if you did.

Michael Garko, Ph.D., Estate's former jury/trial consultant, being
questioned by Ken Dandar before Judge Schaeffer, June 11, 2002. Appendix

Disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a sanction or remedy of
last resort.

...disqualification "strikes at the heart of one of the most important
associational freedoms that a person may have--the right to choose one's
own lawyer ." Kusch v. Ballard, 645 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
(Farmer, J., concurring). Accordingly, disqualification of a party's
chosen counsel is a harsh and drastic sanction and an extraordinary
remedy that should be resorted to sparingly. Lee v. Gadasa Corp., 714
So.2d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); City of Apopka v. All Corners,
Inc., 701 So.2d 641, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Pascucci v. Pascucci, 679
So.2d 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It is because disqualification is such
an extraordinary sanction that a trial court must exercise its
discretion to disqualify counsel only as a last resort to prevent
further conduct in defiance of the court's order or authority. In Re
Gustafson, 650 F.2d at 1022. Even then, the court's power should be
exercised with great caution, and the court should consider the use of
lesser sanctions before invoking disqualification.

Carnival Corporation v. Beverly, 744 So.2d 489, 495-496 (Fla 1st DCA

In Henriquez v. Temple, 668 So.2d 638 (Fla 3rd DCA 1996), the court
upheld disqualification when the attorney:

"deliberately and surreptitiously obtained documents which, after an in
camera inspection, the trial court had previously ordered were not to be
produced. This conduct clearly involved "a situation rife with the
possibility of discredit to the bar and the administration of justice, "
see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630, 634
(Fla.1991), and fully supported the order of disqualification.
Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Fin. Corp., 811 F.Supp. 651
(M.D.Fla.1992), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1439 (11th Cir.1995); State Farm;
Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Indeed, even more serious sanctions, including contempt and bar
discipline, would have been justified on this record.

At 638-639.

The correctness of an order involving the disqualification of counsel
must be determined by testing it against the standards imposed by the
Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cazares
v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 429 So.2d 348, 350 (Fla.
5th DCA 1983)... To require disqualification, prejudice which would or
might result must be more than de minimus. This narrow construction
derives from the policy of the rule and the committee comment thereto,
which notes that the rule was not designed to permit a lawyer to call
opposing counsel as a witness and thereby disqualify him as counsel.
Cazares at 350. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the
likelihood that this prejudice will or might result.

Ray v. Stuckey, 491 So.2d 1211, 1213-1214 (Fla 1st DCA 1986).

The " appearance of impropriety" discussed in State Farm v. K.A.W. above
is a conflict of interest case. The church mistakenly relies on it to
attempt to lower the standard requiring disqualification. There must be
serious misconduct and violation of the Disciplinary Rules before a
court can consider such an extreme sanction. Carnival Corporation v.
Beverly. Another case relied upon by FLAG is Rentclub, Inc. v.
Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1992),
aff'd, 43 F.3d 1439(1Cir. 1995), which sanctioned counsel for contacting
and retaining a former employee of the opposing party. The Florida
Supreme Court effectively overturned that decision in H.B.A. Management,
Inc. v. Estate of May Schwartz, 693 So.2d 541 (Fla 1997), by holding
that it is permissible to contact the opposing party's former employees.
In Hicks v. State, 468 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), also sited by
FLAG, the court reinstated an attorney improperly removed because " the
charges against the attorney were not related to the representation of
petitioner in his criminal trial.... When there is no claim that the
trial will be tainted, appearance of impropriety is simply too slender a
reed on which to rest a disqualification order except in the rarest

The defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof to establish
fraud on the court or any violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida
Bar. Even if the allegations were true, which they are not, no prejudice
has been shown since nothing is material to the plaintiff's claims or
the defenses raised. Ray v. Stuckey.


In serving its Motion for Disqualification on April 8, 2002, FLAG never
complied with Rule 1.100 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which
requires that a motion state the grounds of the motion with
particularity. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Travelers
Indemnity Company, 531 So.2d 1049 (Fla 1st DCA 1988), holding that "
Rule 1.100, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that all motions
"shall state with particularity the grounds therefor." That motion was
therefore legally deficient.

The first Amended Motion is dated April 12, 2002, and cites as its
stated ground commingling of Minton money given to the Estate. This
motion also improperly refers generally to the testimony of Minton of
April 9, 2002, again not stating the grounds with particularity as
required by Rule 1.100.

Confirming the inadequacy of the notice requirement of fair play and
substantial justice under our Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Pope, called
as a witness by FLAG before Judge Schaeffer, testified that upon orders
of Rosen, he signed and filed a "bare-bones motion" because he had no
clue as to the facts to support the motion to disqualify he had signed
and filed with this court until he attended the first hearing on April
9, 2002 in this court. That means that Mr. Rosen and the church kept
their basis for the motion from Mr. Pope, their counsel in this case!

This deliberate obfuscation, which left even the Church's own attorney
in the dark about the 180 degree reversal by Mr. Minton, suggests that
far from being merely an effort to, in Minton's oft-repeated words, "set
the record straight," his testimony at the April 9th hearing was a
direct result of the settlement negotiations that had been taking place
between Minton and the Church of Scientology before the hearing took

5 Q Well, you just told me that if Mr. Rosen
6 apparently told you to go ahead and file a motion to
7 disqualify me, you didn't know what the facts were but you
8 trusted he knew what the facts were?
9 A You know, I suspect Mr. Rosen communicated to me
10 the facts. But I honestly can't -- my -- my present
11 recollection is that the full-blown facts came out at the
12 hearing of the 9th. That is when I learned the meat on the
13 bones.

Wallace Pope, July 17, 2002, questioned by Ken Dandar in Estate of Lisa
McPherson v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Case NO.
00-5682-CI-11. Appendix 2.

Dandar has therefore been deprived of substantive and procedural due
process. It is motion practice by ambush, not permitted by Rule 1.100.

Apparently not knowing what its grounds would be after filing the
motion, on August 24, 2002, after this court had heard all of FLAG's
evidence on April 9, 19, and 30, and after the Plaintiff rested, the
Plaintiff filed a Statement of Issues and Motion to Limit Evidence to
finally state its grounds to four basic issues:

1) Did Dandar solicit the perjury of Robert Minton in Minton's
deposition of October 2001 in this case to conceal a meeting with
Minton, Dandar, Prince, Brooks, and Garko concerning the plan to add on
additional parties.

2) Did Dandar solicit and commit perjury in the wrongful death case by
preparing and filing affidavits of himself, Liebreich, and Minton to
conceal a secret agreement to give the bulk of any proceeds in the
wrongful death case to the LMT.

3) Did Dandar solicit perjury of Minton during Minton's deposition of
May 24, 2000, in the wrongful death case to conceal that Minton had
given Dandar a UBS bank check of $500,000.

4) Did Dandar commingle and convert "funds that Robert Minton
transferred to the Estate for the Estate's use in prosecuting the
wrongful death case."

See Appendix 3, FLAG's Statement of Issues and Motion to Limit Evidence,
dated August 14, 2002.

This Statement of Issues makes it clear that the Minton recantation and
subsequent allegations against Dandar form not simply the base of the
motion to disqualify, but represent virtually the totality of evidence
on which it rests. Yet somehow, Mr. Pope was able to draft a
"bare-bones" motion without any idea what that testimony would
demonstrate. This suggests that the final version of the " truth" offered
by Minton in court was the direct result of a secret deal that had been
struck between the Church and Minton as part of settlement negotiations
dealing with a wide variety of issues, many of which were entirely
unrelated to the wrongful death case.

It is also readily apparent that only the first ground falls within the
jurisdiction of this court since it is the only ground which concerns
testimony in this case. Items two and three above are strictly relevant
only to the wrongful death case, occurred during the course of the
wrongful death case, and are the subject of a 35 day hearing before
Judge Schaeffer in the wrongful death case. For this court to address
items two and three above would intrude upon the jurisdiction of Judge
Schaeffer. However, Dandar will address those matters so that this
court will have a complete understanding of the fraud committed upon
this court by Mr. Rosen and his client, FLAG.


A. There never was a meeting to discuss adding on parties as
described by Minton.

Human nature being what it is, it is a sad reality that from time to
time, courts and lawyers are forced to deal with perjurers. These same
courts should not, however, have to contend with attorneys who know
precisely what the evidence is, yet deliberately misstate it in their
closing, and that is what counsel for FLAG has done.

FLAG's grounds for Item 1 above is Minton's recantation affidavit
describing a meeting attended by Dandar, Garko, Prince, Brooks, and
Minton in Dandar's office which had an elevator. In fact, before this
court, Minton stated in the course of his testimony that a particular
conversation had occurred in the elevator itself after the meeting took
place, wherein Dandar allegedly stressed that it was vital that all
parties deny that such a meeting had taken place. However, immediately
before preparing to give the same testimony before Judge Schaeffer,
Minton's mistress and fellow self-confessed perjurer Stacy Brooks
corrected him by reminding him that Dandar had not moved into his new
and current office , which has an elevator, until late Fall of 1999. The
significance of the elevator is that it places this meeting that Minton
claims to have attended on or after November 1, 1999, the move-in date
when Dandar took occupation of his new office. This would mean that
whether or not such a meeting took place has no relevance whatsoever to
FLAG's cause of action in this case.

The instant case is an alleged breach occurring prior to the date of the
hearing to add-on parties, which was October 8, 1999. The fact that this
alleged meeting, and in particular, the conversation immediately
following the meeting that included Dandar's alleged exhortations to
Minton that its existence be kept secret, could not have taken place as
recounted by Minton. This is fatal to FLAG's entire argument and that
fatality was caused entirely by the false testimony offered by its star
witness, Robert Minton. His testimony and recantation affidavit allege
that Dandar called a special meeting in July or August of 1999 for this
and Minton made a trip to Florida just for this meeting:

173 3 A. July or August of 1999 I flew into town to
4 Tampa airport for the purpose of having a meeting at Ken
5 Dandar's office, an important meeting which I don't
6 remember whether at the time that I knew what the subject
7 matter was, but I was picked up at the airport by Stacey
8 Brooks and taken directly to Mr. Dandar's office, which was
9 very close to the airport.
10 At that time, present at that meeting were
11 myself, Stacey Brooks, Jesse Prince, Michael Garko and
12 Dandar. And this meeting went on for two or three hours
13 and the sole purpose of the meeting was to discuss adding
14 these additional parties to the wrongful death case.

18 6 A. He did, and basically the other four people at
7 the meeting gave their views starting with Dandar, Garko,
8 Jesse Prince and Stacey Brooks and finally I was the last
9 one to talk about it. And all four of those were strongly
10 in favor of adding David Miscavige.

Minton, 4/9/02, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 4.

Of more significance is Minton's later testimony before Judge
Schaeffer. While Minton testified before this court that the special
meeting to discuss the adding on parties in the death case was in the
summer of 1999, i.e., before the motion to add was originally filed, he
later was corrected by Brooks. Then he testified before Judge Schaeffer
that the meeting was sometime in the Fall of 1999, after November 1.
His new and corrected testimony makes the alleged meeting immaterial to
this case, since this case only concerns a breach of contract not to add
parties that occurred before October 8, 1999.

1239 22 Q Here, Mr. Minton, do you recall that, in front of
23 Judge Baird, where you said, "I'm testifying truthfully," on
24 page 17, line 3, you say, "July or August of '99, I flew
25 into town to Tampa Airport for the purpose of having a
1240 1 meeting at Ken Dandar's office. An important meeting.
2 Which I don't remember whether, at the time, that I knew
3 what the subject matter was. But I was picked up at the
4 airport by Stacy Brooks and taken directly to Mr. Dandar's
5 office, which is very close to the airport. And at that
6 time present at that meeting were myself, Stacy Brooks,
7 Jesse Prince, Michael Garko and Ken Dandar. And that this
8 meeting went on --"
18 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, that you did not fly
19 into Tampa airport on July or August of 1999 for this
20 so-called secret meeting to discuss the addition of David
21 Miscavige to the wrongful death suit.
22 A That is true. I didn't. It was later.
23 Q Who -
24 A And the reason I know it was later is because it's
25 after you moved your offices.
1241 1 Q Well, why didn't --
2 A And both Stacy Brooks and Michael Garko told me on
3 that Sunday, at the Radisson Hotel, that it was later -- it
4 wasn't July and August. It was a little later than that;
5 sometime in the fall.
6 Q Are you saying today, Mr. Minton, that Michael
7 Garko told you, after this hearing of April the 9th, that
8 you were at a meeting in my office in the fall of '99, where
9 it was discussed, the addition of David Miscavige?
10 A What Dr. Garko said was that -- and this was after
11 he checked his records to see if he had records of that
12 meeting.
13 He said he had records of another meeting that
14 happened later, after David Miscavige was already added.
15 But he said he didn't have his records. He said, "Some of
16 my records are at Ken Dandar's office and I can't get them."
17 If you remember Dr. Garko was not -- you were not
18 talking to Dr. Garko because of the fact that you owed him
19 10 months' worth of statements that you had denied him,
20 saying that you didn't have any money. And he couldn't get
21 hold of his records. He said, "I don't know, because I
22 can't get hold of my --"
23 THE COURT: Wait --
24 A "-- books."
25 THE COURT: Wait. What does this have to do
1242 1 with whether or not this answer is incorrect?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, it's --
3 THE COURT: Did you need Mr. Garko to -- to
4 tell you what month it was that you went in for this
5 meeting?
6 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, it was after
7 Mr. Dandar had moved from his old office to his new
8 office. And Stacy Brooks and Garko said that didn't
9 happen until the fall. It wasn't July or August.
10 That -- that's all. It was -- you know --
11 I mean, for example, I said here in this -- you
12 know, I got the dates wrong.
13 I said also the check was 2001, but it was
14 2000. You know, I just didn't remember it.

Minton, May 28, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 4.

Minton now states that the "meeting" happened after Miscavige was
added. 1241:14. This means it is after December 14, 1999. It is not
surprising that FLAG failed to point out Minton's substantial change of
testimony in its closing. With this new testimony, even Minton does not
support any argument that perjury was committed and that any such
statement effects this case.

Even Dr. Garko, the Estate's trial/jury consultant, who testified that
he was opposed to adding on parties and was called to testify for FLAG
in the death case destroys Minton's and the church's perjury
allegations. It was learned during the hearing before Judge Schaeffer
that he secretly met the day before he testified for FLAG with lead
counsel for FLAG, while he was the Estate's consultant. FLAG then
released Garko from liability and dismissed him from the instant case
as a defendant. Garko then abruptly resigned as the Estate's trial/jury
consultant after he testified for FLAG that this meeting never happened.

7 A Okay. I would not consider it a meeting.
8 And this is a different interaction than is
9 outlined in Mr.Minton's affidavit.
10 But present were myself, Mr. Dandar, Ms. Brooks
11 and Mr. Minton. And Jesse Prince was not there, as alleged
12 in Mr. -- in Mr. Minton's affidavit.

Garko, June 11, 2002, at 12, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 1.

52 18 Q. Dr. Garko, my question was: Did you agree with
19 Mr. Minton that a meeting took place between you and me,
20 Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince and Mr. Minton as outlined in
21 Mr. Minton's recantation affidavit in my office on Kennedy
22 Boulevard?
23 A. That wasn't your question. Your question is what
24 did I say to him in response to his discussion about the
25 adding of David Miscavige, and I just answered your
53 1 question.
2 Q. Okay. I'm sorry.
3 So my next question is, did you correct -- did
4 you have any reply to Mr. Minton when he said that a
5 meeting took place between you and I, Stacy Brooks, Jesse
6 Prince and he in my office on Kennedy Boulevard discussing
7 the addition of Mr. Miscavige as a defendant?
8 A. I did talk to him about that, and I said that I
9 did not view it as a formal meeting. I tried to explain to
10 him my perception of what went on that day when I was in
11 the room with you, him and Stacy Brooks.
12 Q. So Jesse Prince wasn't there?
13 A. I don't have a recollection of that.
14 Q. You've read the affidavit of Mr. Minton where he
15 describes this meeting, that he flew into Tampa especially
16 for the meeting to come to my office with an elevator,
17 where there was an elevator, to discuss adding on David
18 Miscavige with all of those individuals.
19 A. I read his affidavit, yes.
20 Q. And did you reply to Mr. Minton on April 14th that
21 that meeting that he described never took place?
22 A. What I said to him was that it was not a formal
23 meeting. I viewed it as, for lack of a better term, a
24 conversation.
25 I mean, he and Stacy -- my recollection is that
54 1 he and Stacy Brooks stopped by the office, they did go into
2 the conference room, we did go in there, and we were
3 sitting around talking.
4 I didn't view it as a driven -- an
5 agenda-driven meeting. I just didn't see it that way. I
6 saw it as a more relaxed informal -- If you want to call it
7 a meeting, informal meeting. I don't know what else to
8 call it.
9 Q. Was Jesse Prince there?
10 A. I don't have a recollection of Jesse Prince being
11 there.
12 Q. And was Brian Haney there?
13 A. I don't have any recollection of Brian Haney being
14 there either.
15 Q. Did this take place in my old office on O'Brien,
16 the one you're talking about?
17 A. No, no, no, no. I'm talking about -- no. The
18 meeting that I'm thinking about are the -- this event,
19 whatever you want to call it, took place in your other
20 office where there's an elevator. I think that's Kennedy
21 Boulevard.
22 Q. And do you recall when I moved into that office?
23 A. I think I do. I helped you move.
24 Q. Do you remember?
25 A. I don't have a real clear memory of that.
1 Q. Okay. Well, isn't it true that the meeting that
2 you're talking about that's not a meeting -- just dropped
3 in out of the blue and said hi kind of a meeting, get
4 together -- didn't that occur after the October 8th '99
5 hearing with Judge Moody where he upheld the stipulation?
6 A. I'm unclear as to when it happened. My
7 recollection is that we had been before Judge Moody on this
8 issue at least twice. I remember you filed a motion to add
9 David Miscavige as a party, and I believe Judge Moody
10 denied that motion and you went back.
11 Again, this conversation with Mr. Minton and
12 you and Ms. Brooks and myself occurred either between those
13 two hearings or subsequent to the second ruling by Judge
14 Moody. I'm unclear as to exactly when.

Garko, August 29, 2002, before Judge Baird, Appendix 1.

19 10 A. Before Stacey and Jesse and I left, he told us,
11 I think he went down in the elevator with us and walked out
12 to the cars. He told us that, you know, we should never
13 discuss that this meeting ever occurred in any way.

Minton, April 9, 2002, before Judge Baird, Appendix 4

Although Garko states the meeting never happened as alleged by
Minton,(53:14 above). Minton only remembers it was in the office with an
elevator after Miscavige was added as a party. Jesse Prince was not
there. This is fatal to FLAG's entire argument and the fatality was
caused by its own star witness, Robert Minton.

Dr. Garko also confirms that Brooks stated at this impromptu
"conversation" that she was not in favor of adding Miscavige, when in
fact she was the proponent of it. More importantly, this " conversation"
happened after Judge Moody permitted the addition of Miscavige as a
defendant. The proof of this is Minton's own admission in testimony and
that of the past tense language used by Brooks as relayed by Dr. Garko.

58 15 Q. Did she say something that caused you or shocked
16 you about her position on adding David Miscavige?
17 A. After I made the argument as to why I believed
18 David Miscavige should not have been added or be added as a
19 defendant in the wrongful death case, she looked over at
20 you and said, "And so why did you add him, Ken," something
21 to that effect. That's my recollection, "So why did you
22 add him, Ken?"
23 And I was surprised by that.
25 Q. Why were you surprised by that?
59 1 A. Because I knew that she was the person who came up
2 with that idea, that she was the creator of it, the
3 architect of it, whatever term you want to use. It was her
4 idea.
5 And when she responded that way, it just
6 sounded odd to me. It was like -- I mean, she was
7 encouraging you to do that. She was the one who was making
8 that argument. I was opposed to it, as you know.

Garko, August 29, 2002, Appendix 1.

If Minton participated in this meeting as he claims, then why would
Brooks ask Dandar in front of Minton and Garko why Miscavige was added?
Minton would already know. In addition to Dr. Garko denying that a
meeting took place as described by Minton, the Estate's expert on
Scientology and former confidant of Minton, Jesse Prince, also has
testified in both hearings that this meeting as described by Minton
never took place. Dandar also denies that such a meeting took place.
Brian Haney, a former staff Scientologists, former officer of the Lisa
McPherson Trust, Inc., and a former confidant of Minton also confirmed
no such meeting ever took place.

566 3 Q But Mr. Prince, do you recall having any meeting
4 with me, Dr. Garko and Stacy Brooks about adding on David
5 Miscavige --
24 Q So was there such a meeting?
25 A There was a meeting between you, myself,
567 1 Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, where we discussed -- and I mean, my
2 recollection is there's been more than one time that we
3 discussed this -- about adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.
4 Q Was Mr. Minton ever at any of those meetings?
5 A No, he was not.
6 Q Do you have any idea why Mr. Minton would tell
7 you, when you met with him in April, why he wanted to say he
8 was at a meeting to add on David Miscavige?
16 A Okay. The idea that Mr. Minton told me is
17 Scientology had several things that they wanted Mr. Minton
18 to do. These were in conjunction and coordination with
19 things that could be done to get the case dismissed.
20 Specifically, going after you. Specifically, you
21 were to be made the target of whatever stack of papers that
22 Scientology provided to Mr. Minton. There was five or six
23 things that they wanted him to do in relationship to you
24 only. And you were the obvious target -
25 ///
568 1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Why?
3 A -- to --
4 Because they wanted to get you kicked off the
5 case. Because they figured if they got you kicked off the
6 case, then no other attorney would pick it up and the suit
7 would simply go away.
8 Q And Mr. Minton told you this.
9 A Yes.
10 Q And how many times did he tell you that
11 A Several.
12 Q Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew
13 that what he was saying about me was not true?
14 A Mr. Minton was in -- in the -- in the very
15 beginning, Mr. Minton was in anguish over the -- the
16 prospect of -- of lying on behalf of Scientology for -
17 against you. Mrs. Brooks was in a panic and desperate frame
18 of mind to do whatever it took to extricate Mr. Minton from
19 just the assault that Scientology was enacting upon
20 Mr. Minton. And she thought that it would be a good idea
21 for Mr. Minton to cooperate with Mr. Rinder, with Mr. Rosen,
22 whatever they wanted, to get him extricated from the
23 Scientology assault

Jesse Prince before Judge Schaeffer, July 9, 2002, Appendix 6.

83 2 Q And during that time, did you observe or do you
3 have knowledge of Mr. Minton's having any interaction in the
4 wrongful death case?
5 A Well, I know that from December of '99 on, I went
6 with you to depositions and attended meetings about the
7 strategy in the case and stuff. And I know that Bob didn't
8 attend any of those. I even asked him to at times. And he
9 didn't.
17 Q Did Bob Minton exert any control whatsoever over
18 the Lisa McPherson case?
19 A No. Nothing that I observed.
20 THE COURT: Did he appear to be a person who
21 was funding -- helping to fund the litigation but
22 had no other real interest?
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And that was the only
24 thing he ever talked about. Like on the Internet he
25 just would always talk about, I have to give more
84 1 money, or, Dandar wants more money, that kind of
2 thing.
3 And he would often talk about, "Well, if I'm
4 spending this much, then Scientology is spending ten
5 times that" or whatever. That was his point of
6 pride, so to speak.
7 But other than that, he didn't have an
8 interest. Even when I tried to tell him stuff, he
9 just didn't have any interest.
11 Q Did you attend any meetings, as my consultant, to
12 talk about adding on parties to the wrongful death case?
13 A Yes.
14 Q How many?
15 A Mmm, four or five.
16 Q And do you recall when those were?
17 A Mmm, not specifically, no. I mean, it was
18 sometime in 1999.
19 Q Okay. And one of those parties -- or did you
20 attend -- was it more than one person we talked about?
21 Maybe that might help.
22 A Well, the main thing was about adding David
23 Miscavige.
24 Q Okay. And did Bob Minton attend any of those
25 meetings?

94 1 A No.
2 Q Who attended those meetings?
3 A You, me, Jesse, Stacy and sometimes Michael Garko.
4 And I think Thom Haverty was there once.
5 Q And out of all those people, who was the proponent
6 of that idea?
7 A It was Stacy's idea. And Jesse supported it.
8 Q Okay. And what did I -- if you remember, did I
9 respond to that idea?
95 12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q What did I say in response to these -- to
14 Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince?
15 A Mmm, I can just characterize what each person did
16 at the meetings.
17 It was Stacy's idea. Jesse supported it. They
18 were both very emphatic. Michael Garko opposed it.
19 And you just kept asking Bob and Stacy, "Are you
20 sure you have enough direct evidence to show that he was in
21 charge?" And you just kept asking them over and over again,
22 because you had signed some agreement based upon -- you told
23 me -- advice you got from Dan Leipold at the beginning of
24 the case about not adding parties. And I don't really know
25 the specifics of it.
96 1 Q You just said Bob and Stacy. Did you mean to say
2 Bob? Was Bob there?
3 A I'm sorry, Jesse and Stacy.
4 Q All right. Are you sure?
5 A Yes. I'm positive.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Is it still your testimony
14 Bob Minton was not present at any of those meetings?
15 THE WITNESS: Bob never attended like a trial
16 strategy meeting that I was at, ever.

Haney, June 19, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 7.

FLAG tries to suggest that Minton's imagined meeting proves that Minton
is in control of the case. Even Minton admitted that he had no control
over the death case.

105 11 A. Ah, it's true if I -- I'm not quite
12 certain what you're asking me is true, but it was
13 true that Mr. Dandar -- that I didn't want to have
14 anything to do with the control of this case
15 because Mr. Dandar told me in his first letter to
16 me back in -- soon after that first check in
17 October of '97, that that's what the Florida Bar
18 had said and that's the way it had to be
19 conducted.

Minton, April 19, 2002, Appendix 4.

How could Minton both be in control of the case and yet have Dandar
force him to lie?

FLAG, knowing that Minton dramatically changed his story on this
subject, never mentions in its closing Minton's originally rehearsed
version placed before this court by Mr. Rosen. This is subterfuge and
bad faith, and results directly from Flag's dependence on the
credibility of Minton's new testimony to sustain its motion.

Others have testified that Minton admitted he had no control:
Frank Oliver, Brian Haney, Peter Alexander, and Michael Garko.

83 17 Q Did Bob Minton exert any control whatsoever over
18 the Lisa McPherson case?
19 A No. Nothing that I observed.
20 THE COURT: Did he appear to be a person who
21 was funding -- helping to fund the litigation but
22 had no other real interest?
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And that was the only
24 thing he ever talked about. Like on the Internet he
25 just would always talk about, I have to give more
84 1 money, or, Dandar wants more money, that kind of
2 thing.
3 And he would often talk about, "Well, if I'm
4 spending this much, then Scientology is spending ten
5 times that" or whatever. That was his point of
6 pride, so to speak.
7 But other than that, he didn't have an
8 interest. Even when I tried to tell him stuff, he
9 just didn't have any interest.

Brian Haney, June 19, 2002, Appendix 7.

137 14 A Okay. Well, while we were at dinner, Patricia
15 asked Bob about the case. And she said, "How's the case
16 going?" And Bob said, "I don't really know." And she said,
17 "What you mean, you don't --"
18 THE COURT: Your objection's overruled. That
19 would be appropriate, as far as impeachment.
20 A And so he says -- well, she says -- you know, she
21 was actually like saying, "Well, that's not fair." I mean,
22 I don't remember her exact words, but, "That's not right.
23 You're paying for this thing and you don't get to know about
24 it?"
25 And he says, "Well, I can't know." He said,
138 1 "There's this obscure Florida law --" I remember the -
2 that's how he described it. "There's an obscure Florida
3 law, and it's called directing the case. So I can't have
4 anything to say about it."
5 Now that sounded incredible to me. Now, I don't
6 know all these laws in Florida.
7 So I said, "You mean you're paying for this and
8 you don't even get briefed about it?" He says, "No. I
9 can't."
10 But it didn't seem to bother him, so I thought,
11 "Well, okay." I just dropped it.

Peter Alexander, June 7, 2002, Appendix 8.

96 15 Q In the two-plus years that you've been working on
16 this case for me, who was in control of this case?
17 A The client.
18 Q Well, what about Bob Minton? Does he have
19 anything to do with running the case?
20 A Do you mean day-to-day operations of the case?
21 Q Day-to-day decision-making?
22 A No. No.
23 Q How would you describe Mr. Minton's association
24 with the day-to-day operation of the case, strategizing,
25 decision-making, et cetera?
97 1 A I can only speak from my experience and what I
2 observed of Mr. Minton's behavior. I would describe it as
3 hands-off, laissez-faire, aloof.
4 Q Would you agree or disagree that to try to talk to
5 Bob Minton over the two-plus years about the case was like
6 pulling teeth?
7 A I would agree with that.

Michael Garko, June 11, 2002,before Judge Schaeffer as a witness called
by FLAG, Appendix 1.

316 22 Q And did you -- did you know Mr. Minton to have any
23 level of interest in the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case?
24 A The only level of interest that I knew he had was
25 that he was -- he was providing funding to cover the costs
317 1 of the litigation.
2 Q Did you ever know Mr. Minton to direct the
3 litigation at all?
4 A No. I don't know Mr. Minton to have directed
5 litigation. He seemed pretty aloof about the case.

Frank Oliver, June 15, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 9.

FLAG has failed to meet its burden of proof on its only issue that
concerns this case.

B. There never was an agreement to give any portion of hoped for
proceeds in this case to Robert Minton or the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc.

The original affidavits of Dandar, Minton, and Liebreich are
absolutely true: There never was any agreement to give any portion of
the hoped for eventual proceeds of the wrongful death case to either
Robert Minton or the Lisa McPherson, Trust, Inc. The only evidence of
how the proceeds would be distributed is the family's testimony that it
was their "idea" to set up a nonprofit foundation in memory of Lisa
McPherson to help victims of cults. The only party that thinks that
there is anything wrong with this idea is the Church of Scientology,
Further, contrary to the misrepresentation of counsel for FLAG, Minton's
own attorney, John Merrett, testified that he, not Dandar, prepared the
Minton affidavit on this subject.
John Merrett destroys both Minton's and Brooks' testimony on the
allegation of an agreement to give any portion of a settlement/judgment
proceeds to Minton or the LMT.

73 22 . . . Like I said -- I have said, there is no
21 agreement. But that is what we're calling the
22 secret agreement.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
24 THE COURT: Now, what I recall is that
25 Ms. Brooks said she testified falsely about it in
74 1 her deposition. So I'm going to assume that she
2 said in her deposition it didn't exist because she
3 now says it did exist.
4 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, by application of
5 reason, she would have had to have said it didn't
6 exist because my understanding was that it didn't
7 exist.
8 THE COURT: So it didn't exist. So your
9 understanding was it didn't exist?
10 THE WITNESS: Correct.

John Merrett, May 23, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 10.

Other witnesses also confirmed that Minton is lying. Brian Haney, once a
trial consultant to the Plaintiff, once a member of the LMT, once a
confidant of Minton, testified:

89 6 Q At that dinner did you hear Dell Liebreich tell
7 Bob Minton that she wanted to give him or his
8 organization -- which the trust was already formed at that
9 time -- any bulk or substantial amount of the money if
10 recovered in this case?
11 A No. What happened was I suggested to you that Bob
12 Minton do something like that. But she didn't say anything
13 like that at all.
14 Q When did you suggest that to me?
15 A Right there at the dinner.
16 Q Was that in front of Bob Minton?
17 A No.
18 Q That was just a private conversation between you
19 and I?
20 A Yes.
21 Q So you predicted Bob Minton would do what?
22 A Would claim that money belonged to him. That in
23 return for funding the wrongful death case, that he or the
24 trust would be entitled to that money.
25 Q Why did you predict that? I mean, what made you
90 1 even think that?
2 A I had some experience with Mr. Minton and his
3 behavior by that time.
4 Q In what way?
5 A He's what I called assumptive and presumptive. He
6 would -- you know, he would take over a situation and
7 commandeer it and think that it was his right to just be in
8 charge or take over things that I don't think were within
9 his -- you know, his domain.
10 Q Did you ever hear, later on, Bob Minton claim that
11 he had some agreement with me or the estate to get the bulk
12 or substantial amount of any recovery in this case?
13 A I read a thing on the Internet where he said it in
14 a radio program, that -- that -- first he said that the
15 money was supposed to go to an anti-cult organization.
16 And then at some point later he said it was
17 supposed to go to the LMT. And that is when I called you
18 and I said, "See," so, yes -- "it happened."
19 Q And what -- did I respond to when you called and
20 said, "See, it happened"?
21 MR. WEINBERG: Now Mr. Dandar is asking for
22 Mr. Haney to apparently parrot self-serving
23 statements that Mr. Dandar made which is hearsay.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 MR. DANDAR: All right.
2 Q Did you ever talk to Bob Minton about that -
3 A Yes.
4 Q -- Internet posting?
5 A Yes. About that situation, yes.
6 Q What did he say?
7 MR. WEINBERG: Could we date this conversation,
8 please?
9 MR. DANDAR: We will.
10 A He kind of -- he -
11 THE COURT: Well, do it now.
12 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
14 Q When did you talk to Bob Minton about his
15 postings?
16 THE COURT: Approximately, if you can give us
17 an approximate year, month.
18 THE WITNESS: End of January of 2000.
19 THE COURT: This would have been after he had
20 been on the radio proclaiming that he had the deal?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
23 Q What did he say?
24 A He kind of laughed and he said, "I guess I got a
25 little carried away, huh?" Then he had a big smile.
92 1 Q What impression were you left with after that
2 conversation?
3 A That he had done what I thought he would do.
4 Just, you know, take it over. Because he just figured no
5 one would oppose him. He figured he had the power to get
6 what he wanted because you were dependent upon him to
7 finance the case. Most of the other people were dependent
8 upon him for their livelihood. The same way he got them to
9 picket. It is all the same thing.
10 Q Did he ever tell you that rather than just being
11 carried away, did he ever tell you that he actually had an
12 agreement with the estate or with me for the estate to give
13 him any recovery out of the wrongful death case?
14 A No. And, in fact, I called you and asked you, and
15 I called Dell and asked her after that, you know.
16 And you both confirmed it wasn't true. I just
17 wanted to make sure that there wasn't something going on
18 didn't know about.

Brian Haney hearing testimony of June 19-2002, before Judge Schaeffer,
Appendix 7.

Teresa Summers, a former executive of the LMT, also confirmed that there
was no agreement.
4 Q Okay. Did you ever hear anyone at the Lisa
5 McPherson Trust talk about there being some type of
6 agreement between the estate and the trust or Minton to pay
7 the bulk of the proceeds from the settlement or judgment in
8 the Lisa McPherson case to Mr. Minton or the LMT?
9 A Well, I spoke with Stacy about that because I -
10 the allegations were being made, I believe in depositions,
11 that that was the case. And, Mmm, and I did ask Stacy.
12 And she said, "No, you know, certainly that is not
13 true. It is just what the Church is trying to drum up to
14 create problems."
15 Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton talk about that?
16 A I'm sure I did. And he said the same thing, you
17 know, you know, "There is no agreement. It's -- you know,
18 it's just them drumming up stuff."

Summers hearing testimony of June 6, 2002, at 99, before Judge
Schaeffer, Appendix 11.

Michael Garko also denied such an agreement existed.

2 Q Dr. Garko, are you aware of any agreement between
3 me or the estate and Mr. Minton or LMT or Stacy Brooks or
4 anybody where the bulk of the proceeds, if that ever comes
5 about in this case, would ever be given to them?
6 A I'm not aware of any such agreement.
7 Q How about just a little bit?
8 A No.

Garko at page 100 on June 11, 200, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 1

The only agreement concerning the settlement/judgment proceeds is one
which exists among the aunts and uncle of Lisa McPherson. No third
party, such as Minton, Brooks, or the LMT, is part of this family goal,
which is to set up a non profit foundation to help those abused by
cults, such as Scientology. This is what Lisa's mother, Fannie
McPherson, wanted.

187 10 Q. Now have you or your family agreed to donate
11 the bulk of any recovery to cult awareness
12 groups?
13 A. We've discussed it, yes.
14 Q. Who -
15 A. Fannie wanted us to if there was anything.
16 Q. Who has discussed it?
17 A. My family.
18 Q. Well, who in your family?
19 A. Ann and Fan -- Lee and Sam.
20 Q. Is there a written agreement as to that?
21 A. No written agreement.
22 Q. Well, how much -- how much have you-all
23 decided to donate to cult awareness groups?
24 A. It is a substantial amount.
25 Q. Well, how much?
188 1 A. We have no set amount.
2 Q. Have you reached some understanding with
3 your beneficiaries?
4 A. We have agreed that that is what Fannie
5 would have wanted, and that is what we want
6 to do.
7 Q. How do you know that that is what Fannie
8 would have wanted?
9 A. Because she stated that she wanted --
10 Q. Stated to whom?
11 A. To us.
12 Q. When?
13 A. Before she died.
14 Q. When did you and the other -- and your other
15 siblings reach this agreement?
16 A. When did we reach the agreement?
17 Q. Yeah. To --
18 A. I don't remember when it was.
19 Q. -- distribute a substantial portion of any
20 recovery to a cult awareness group.
21 A. Oh, a few months ago or whatever. I don't
22 remember the date. We have nothing written.

Dell Liebreich deposition, May 24, 1999, Appendix 12.

Judge Schaeffer correctly held that there is nothing illegal about the
Estate wanting to give any portion of any recovery to any person or
group. There is no reason for anyone to lie about this. Unless of
course, one is like Minton, who is of the habit of inventing various
ways to provoke Scientology. Only a group, such as Scientology, who
does not want victims of cult abuse helped, would make such an honorable
goal appear unseemly.

Many times throughout the testimony of Minton, Judge Schaeffer stated to
Minton that there is no evidence of an agreement. Minton and Brooks
stand alone in this lie.

The only evidence of how the proceeds would be distributed is the
family's testimony that it was their "idea" to set up a nonprofit
foundation in memory of Lisa McPherson to help victims of cults.
Scientology and only Scientology thinks this is a bad idea. Further,
contrary to the misrepresentation of counsel for FLAG, Minton's own
attorney, John Merrett, testified that he, not Dandar, prepared the
Minton affidavit on this subject.

35 10 Q Now, look at Exhibit 44, a notice of filing
11 affidavits in support of plaintiff's motion to strike
12 witnesses from the defendant's witness list. Do you see
13 that?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And take a look at the Grady Ward affidavit, the
16 first one. Who prepared that?
17 A I believe I did.
18 Q How can you tell?
19 A Mmm, the type face -
7 Q Mr. Ward was a contractor for the Lisa McPherson
8 Trust. Is that right?
9 A Correct.
10 Q And how can you tell you prepared this affidavit?
11 A It appears to be an affidavit prepared by me based
12 on the type face and size and the way that the style of the
13 case is set up.
14 Q Okay. Let me -- well, of course we won't have
15 enough time to do this.
16 A As well as the language of the jurat at the
17 commencement of the affidavit.
18 Q Okay. When you say the style of the caption, are
19 you talking about up here (indicating)?
20 A Yes, where the identity of the court and the case
21 number are affixed in the upper right-hand corner of the
22 first page of the affidavit.
23 Q Okay. And the jurat is at the end where Mr. -
24 A No, the jurat actually begins at the beginning of
25 the affidavit.
37 1 Q "Before me, the undersigned authority."
2 A Yes.
3 Q Is that your language?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. Let's turn to -- well, let's turn to
6 Mr. Minton's --
4 Q So it's your -- Mr. Merrett, the way you do your
5 affidavits up in Jacksonville, you put the name of the court
6 from the center over to the right in the affidavit, correct?
7 A Correct.
8 Q And the jurat, "Before me, the undersigned
9 authority," this is the way you do your jurats in your
10 office?
11 A Yes. And what is distinctive about it is the
12 omission of the "personally known" language, which I always
13 omit when I'm having them sign not under my direct
14 supervision, because of the -- of the risk that -- sometimes
15 I have seen notaries just circle "Personally known," when
16 they didn't know the guys from Adam's ox, and by omitting
17 that part and leaving blank "for identification" it insures
18 the notary will see identification and the jurat will be in
19 proper form.
20 Q Now, this particular affidavit is of Mr. Minton,
21 correct?
22 A As custodian of the records of the LMT, not of him
23 personally.
24 Q And you prepared this affidavit?
25 A Yes. I'm sure I did.
39 1 Q All right. Turn to the next Robert Minton
2 affidavit. This is one for him personally, correct?
3 A Correct.
4 Q And this one, was this prepared by you?
5 A Yes.
6 Q It is because you can tell by the way you have the
7 format?
8 A Well, it's that. And looking at the two
9 affidavits, I recall drafting two separate affidavits
10 because of Mr. Minton's dual roles. And I was attempting to
11 cover all of the bases which I regarded as spurious under
12 which he might be dragged into the litigation for purposes
13 of discovery.
14 Q Okay. Why did you regard it as spurious?
15 A Because he has no information about the death of
16 the girl or about anything else that is actually pertinent
17 to the wrongful death case.
18 Q Well, let me ask you this. You were Mr. Minton's
19 attorney for the year --
40 16 MR. DANDAR: This was prepared by Mr. Merrett.
17 THE WITNESS: Correct.
19 Q How did Mr. Minton get it?
20 A Either -- it would have been one of three ways.
21 Either I E-mailed it to him and had him print out an
22 original, sign it, fax it back or Fed Ex it back, or I Fed
23 Ex'd it to him so it could be executed and Fed Ex'd back, or
24 may have -- from the quality of document -- I doubt it, it
25 may have been faxed to him for signature and faxed and Fed
41 1 Ex'd.
2 Q So you are pretty positive this was not done in
3 Clearwater?
4 A Yes. For the one thing, the notary is a New
5 Hampshire notary.
6 Q How do you know that?
7 A The notary stamp on the third page, if you can
8 read the -- the middle line, you see "C-New," then you can
9 make out, even on my copy, an "H" at the beginning of the
10 next word.
11 Q I think that says "New Hampshire."
12 A Yes.
13 Q And this was signed by Mr. Minton on December 13
14 of 2000, correct?
15 A A New Hampshire notary public says so.
16 Q All right. Okay. Now -
17 THE COURT: You would have E-mailed it, Fed
18 Ex'd it, or what was the third?
19 THE WITNESS: Faxed it. But that is unlikely,
20 based on the quality of the copy.
21 THE COURT: All right.
23 Q Now, did you also send one to Stacy Brooks?
24 A I prepared one for Stacy Brooks.
25 Q And is this the one right after Mr. Minton's
42 1 second one, this is Stacy Brooks', is this something -
2 again, your format, where the caption of the case, the name
3 of the court, is to the right of center line, and the jurat
4 is the jurat you use?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And what about the notary?
7 A That appears to be the same New Hampshire notary.
8 Q Also dated December 13, 2000?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Okay. Now, according to the notice of filing, I
11 am the one that filed these affidavits of Ward, two of
12 Minton, and one of Brooks, one of Keller, on December 14,
13, 2000.
14 How did I get these affidavits?
15 A I believe I delivered them to you or had them
16 delivered to you.
17 Q Do you recall coming in to my office?
18 A I was in your office on a number of occasions.
19 Q Okay.
20 A But I would think that -- I think that either at
21 this same time or almost immediately thereafter, I was -- I
22 had filed or was filing motions for protective order on
23 behalf of these people. I believe I used these same
24 affidavits in filings I made on their behalf, because their
25 interests in being deposed and your interests not having to
43 1 sit through their depositions were conterminous.

Merrett, May 23, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 10.

Prior to this hearing, Minton consistently and correctly testified under
oath that there was no agreement between him and the ESTATE to donate
any portion of the money that may be received by the ESTATE in this
case. In every one of his depositions, beginning with the first one in
1998, he denied any agreement to receive any money from this case,
except what he loaned to counsel. At this hearing, he testified that his
December 2000 affidavit, which states there was no such agreement, was
false -- yet it supports his prior deposition testimony of May 2000, as
pointed out by Judge Schaeffer at page 673 of Minton's hearing

65 14 A Well, he says, I've already had that idea but I haven't
15 discussed it with Dell Liebreich yet.
16 Q Has he since told you that he discussed it with
17 Ms. Liebreich?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What did he say?
20 A He said she agreed to do just that.
21 Q When did he tell you this?
22 A I think the 5th of December.
23 Q What cult awareness group was agreed on?
24 A No specific groups were discussed. The only one that
66 1 was discussed was one that Mr. Lottick is involved in...

Minton first deposition of 1-13-98, Appendix 4.

13 Q. Do you have any agreement of any kind with
14 the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Does the Lisa McPherson Trust have any
17 agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
18 A. No.

Minton deposition of May 24, 2000 at 239, Appendix 4.

158 18 Q Do you know of anyone else investing in the case?
19 MR. MERRETT: Objection. Assumes facts not
20 in evidence, argumentative.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 MR. MERRETT: Do you know of anybody
23 investing?
24 A I don't know of anyone investing in the case,
25 including me.

Minton deposition of 9-18-01, Appendix 4.

269 10 Q. Exhibit 34, Mr. Minton, this is a posting
11 by Mr. Bunker, who is employed at the LMT, right?
12 A. He was at that time, that's correct.
13 Q. Right. And the time is April 6th, 2001?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This posting? I want to direct your
16 attention to one portion of this posting. It's the
17 next to the last page of the document, and if you
18 look -- can I see the copy you're holding just to
19 make sure we are at the same place? Yeah. If you
20 look at the last paragraph on the page, starting
21 four lines up from the bottom of the page:
22 Additionally, Scientology is aware that the family
23 of Lisa McPherson has agreed to donate the bulk of
24 any funds they receive from this litigation to the
25 Lisa McPherson Trust, which Bob recently set up in
270 1 Clearwater.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. And is that statement accurate?
5 A. It's not.
6 Q. Huh?
7 A. It's not.
8 Q. What is incorrect about it?
9 A. It's just completely incorrect.
10 Q. Is there anything that's right about it?
11 A. No.
18 Q. Did the family of Lisa McPherson agree to
19 donate the bulk of any funds?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do they agree to donate anything?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Had they ever agreed to do so?
24 A. No.

Minton deposition of 10-11-01, Appendix 4.

FLAG states that Minton admitted in his May 24, 2000, deposition that
the Estate does have an agreement to donate a bulk of the proceeds to
the LMT. FLAG refers to pages 391-392 of the deposition. However, as is
common with the Plaintiff, and hopefully not with the Estate, Flag does
not "tell the rest of the story" by including clarifying testimony, so
Defendant will do so. At 219 of his May 2000 deposition, Appendix 4,
Minton is speaking of the one and only agreement, i.e., repayment of the
money he loaned to Dandar as explained in Minton's 1998 deposition.

219 2 Q. Is the agreement that you just described
3 with Mr. Dandar in writing?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Is it memorialized in any fashion?
6 A. In the depositions that I've done before.
7 Q. It's memorialized in writing no other
8 place except where your words have been
9 transcribed?
10 A. Not to my knowledge.
11 Q. Why not?
12 A. It's not necessary.
13 Q. Is there any writing with any of Lisa
14 McPherson's relatives -
15 A. No.
16 Q. -- with respect to this agreement?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Was there ever?
19 A. No.

223 1 Q. Have you talked to Dell Liebreich about
2 what would happen to the hoped for proceeds in this
3 case?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Have you had any discussion with her about
6 money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust?
7 A. No.
8 Q. It's never happened?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Have you talked to anyone in the family
11 about money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust
12 arising out of the hoped for proceeds of this case?
13 A. No. No.
14 Q. Have you talked to anyone in the family
15 about potential proceeds in this case going to a,
16 quote, anticult, end quote, organization?
17 A. No.

239 10 Q. Have you had any written communications
11 with any other family member I haven't mentioned?
12 A. Not to my knowledge.
13 Q. Do you have any agreement of any kind with
14 the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Does the Lisa McPherson Trust have any
17 agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
18 A. No.

391 18 Q. Now, January 31st, 2000, you appeared on a
19 talk show, 1270 AM, WXYT Detroit -
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. -- where you said, and I quote: The
22 family who I have been supporting in the civil
23 lawsuit have agreed that when and if they prevail
24 against the Church of Scientology in this lawsuit,
25 they will donate a very substantial amount of the
392 1 proceeds of that lawsuit to this organization
2 called the Lisa McPherson Trust.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Do you remember saying that?
5 A. That's correct, yes.
6 Q. So how much have you agreed with them that
7 they will donate to the Lisa McPherson Trust if
8 they prevail in this lawsuit?
9 A. I haven't had any direct discussions with
10 them about it.
11 Q. Where did you get this information, that
12 they were going to donate a substantial amount of
13 the proceeds of the lawsuit to the Lisa McPherson
14 Trust?
15 A. Mr. Dandar.
16 Q. When did he tell you that?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. What did he tell you?
19 A. Just what it said.
20 Q. What did you understand the substantial
21 amount of the proceeds to be?
22 A. A substantial amount of money.
23 Q. What year did he tell you that?
24 A. '98 or '99.
25 Q. Well, actually, the Lisa McPherson Trust
393 1 didn't exist until November '99.
2 A. The Lisa McPherson Trust has nothing to do
3 with it.
4 Q. What do you mean?
5 A. Oh, that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that part,
6 yes. So that would have been '99.
7 Q. What do you mean the trust has nothing to
8 do with it? Was there a prior agreement -
9 A. No.
10 Q. -- that money would be donated to -
11 A. No. There was a discussion at one stage
12 that they would, and this was with Mr. Dandar over
13 lunch, which I think I testified to in January
14 '93 -- January '97 -- whenever the -
15 MR. BOULT: That's outside the scope.
16 A. '98. Sorry. Okay.
17 MR. DANDAR: Objection; outside the
18 scope.
19 A. -- that they would support the anticult
20 community with a significant amount of money from
21 this lawsuit.
22 Q. All right. When did Mr. Dandar tell you
23 that the family is going to make a substantial
24 amount -- provide a substantial amount of the
25 proceeds to the Lisa McPherson Trust?
394 1 A. Sometime -- I don't remember whether it
2 was before or after it was formed.
3 Q. It may have been before?
4 A. It could have been. I mean, you know,
5 that sort of time frame. That would be roughly
6 summer through late fall.
7 Q. Was it around September of 1999 when he
8 told you that?
9 A. Excuse me?
10 Q. Was it around September of 1999 that
11 Mr. Dandar told you that a substantial amount of
12 the proceeds of this lawsuit would be donated to
13 the Lisa McPherson Trust?
14 A. That falls within the time range that I
15 think, you know, between summer and fall of '99,
16 late fall.
17 Q. Was it before or after you gave Mr. Dandar
18 the $250,000 payment?
19 A. Do you know when that was?
20 Q. Well, apparently it was on or about
21 September 2nd, 1999.
22 A. I don't recall that that particular thing
23 had anything to do with it, you know, time-wise.
24 Q. Was it before or after that?
25 A. I don't remember.
395 1 Q. What was the context when Mr. Dandar told
2 you that you were going to get this money back from
3 the family?
4 MR. MERRETT: I'll object; argumentative,
5 assumes facts not in evidence.
6 A. I've already testified to that prior, in
7 a prior deposition.
8 Q. No. I'm talking about the communication
9 you had with him about the Lisa McPherson Trust
10 since the prior deposition of the trust didn't
11 exist, right?
12 A. No, but you asked when I was going to get
13 the money back.
14 Q. Okay. So what was the context of the
15 communication you had with Mr. Dandar when you
16 talked to him about the family providing a
17 substantial amount of the proceeds in this case to
18 the Lisa McPherson Trust?
19 A. There was no particular context. It was
20 just, you know, the family was very supportive of
21 the idea of setting up this organization, you know,
22 something like that. I don't remember any
23 particular context.
24 Q. What did the family think this
25 organization was?
396 1 A. A Scientology watchdog group.
2 Q. Did they -- did you give them the
3 impression it was a nonprofit organization?
4 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object for
5 scope and relevance.
6 MR. BOULT: Overruled.
7 A. You know, I didn't give them any direct
8 impression. Whatever impression they got,
9 Mr. Dandar gave it to them. It was intended to be
10 nonprofit until such time as we determined that
11 there was too much transparency in a nonprofit and
12 the Church of Scientology would be snooping around
13 all the time, like you're doing here in this
14 deposition.
15 Q. Did you have a discussion with the family
16 about that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So everybody understood it would be
19 nonprofit early on?
20 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object as
21 being -- I apologize.
22 Q. Let me give you the question again.
23 Generally, when y'all were talking about starting
24 this organization, it was understood it was going
25 to be nonprofit, correct?
397 1 MR. MERRETT: And I'll object as being
2 beyond the scope. It's going into the
3 internal affairs of the trust.
4 MR. DANDAR: Join in the objection.
5 MR. BOULT: Overruled.
6 A. We all talked as though it were going to
7 be nonprofit, that's pretty much accurate except --
8 except I did say that, you know, we have to examine
9 the transparency issue with a nonprofit.
10 Q. Okay. Did you have any -- you had some
11 communications with Dell Liebreich and she was
12 supportive of -
13 A. No, not on that subject.
14 MR. MERRETT: Let him finish the question.
15 Q. Well, let me finish the question. You
16 had some communications with Dell Liebreich and she
17 was supportive of the idea of setting up this
18 organization, right?
19 A. I didn't have any communications with Dell
20 Liebreich.
21 Q. Who did you have communications with in
22 the family you told me were supportive of setting
23 up -
24 A. Mr. Dandar. He told me the family was
25 very supportive of the idea of setting up this
398 1 organization.
2 Q. Okay. Who in the family would that be?
3 A. I don't know who he talked with but I
4 assume Dell Liebreich.
5 Q. And you later worked out with Mr. Dandar
6 that this was going to be a for profit company,
7 correct?
8 A. Mr. Dandar had nothing to do with the
9 decision that it was going to be a for profit
10 corporation.


In this testimony, Minton states there is no agreement for the bulk of
anything, and is then confronted with an unsworn media interview. While
he states that his interview statements are correct, he finally admits
he has no agreement with the family or the Estate, and that all he knows
is that the family thought it was a good "idea." Id.,at 395:19-23;
397:25. Even Minton admits that the idea was to support the "anti-cult
community," not the LMT or Minton. 393:19-21.

Contrary to Minton's apparent desire to see the money go to the specific
anti-cult organization that he controlled, there was never such an
agreement between the Estate and Minton or the LMT. Minton talks of the
same luncheon meeting he had with Dandar in 1997. All of this conforms
to his deposition testimony of January 1998 and the beneficiaries
testimony of December 1999. No one is contesting that it was the
family's idea to set up a foundation in the memory of Lisa McPherson.

But there was no agreement, formal or otherwise, that such a foundation
would in any way be one controlled by Minton or the LMT. It was and is
an idea of the family, and a noble one at that. After making his deal
with Scientology, however, Minton now claims he lied in all of his
depositions, and that despite the fact that he had his own counsel
present, that it was with the ESTATE'S counsel who suborned his
perjury. FLAG has failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue.

C. There is no evidence that the UBS check of May 2000 for $500,000
is Robert Minton's.

FLAG alleges that Dandar solicited perjury from Minton in his deposition
of May 2000 in the death case. However, Minton's own attorney, John
Merrett, testified that he, not Dandar, prepared Minton for this

13 5 Q Okay. And is it your understanding at the time of
6 the May 24, 2000 deposition of Mr. Minton that the trial was
7 scheduled in June of 2000 in Tampa?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And that is the Lisa McPherson case?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, are you aware of any instance where I sat
12 down, in person or over the telephone, with Mr. Minton and
13 attempted to prepare him for his May 24th, 2000 deposition?
14 A No. In fact, it's my understanding that the
15 reason that he came to me was because there wasn't anybody
16 involved in the case who could do that without creating a
17 conflict of interest.

Merrett, May 23, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 10.

Minton claims to have had his money sent to the UBS Bank which then
issued the May 2000 check payable to Ken Dandar. The only evidence
presented by FLAG that this $500,000 bank check is money of Robert
Minton is from the testimony of an admitted perjurer, Robert Minton.
Minton pled the Fifth Amendment when asked to identify the financial
institution which sent the money to the UBS Bank. Minton states he had
no relationship with the UBS Bank. He states that is why he could not
obtain a copy of the UBS checks. Minton, by pleading the Fifth
Amendment is protecting the source of the money transferred to the UBS
Bank Without corroborating evidence to prove the UBS check was
Minton's money, FLAG has failed to meet its burden of proof.

Both Dandar and Jesse Prince have testified that each were separately
told by Minton that this check was from friends in Europe. Minton told
the same thing to Dandar about the March 2002 check. Of course, there
was never any prior testimony of the March 2002 check before FLAG filed
its motion. Therefore, it certainly cannot be a matter of perjury
before this court.

This "friends in Europe" scenario does not just involve the May 2000
check and the March 2002 check to Dandar. Minton apparently also lied
to his own attorney, John Merrett, about "friends in Europe," leading
Merrett to set up a fictional "Fat man" to donate money to the Lisa
McPherson Trust all at the behest of Minton. Not until he testified
before Judge Schaeffer did Merrett learn that this money, a $300,000
donation to the LMT from a web site known as "Operation Clambake" as
well as a $500,000 wire transfer to the LMT was really money from
Minton. Minton's mistress, Brooks, also testified in a previous
deposition that these donations were from third parties, but claimed in
testimony before judge Schaeffer that it was only after this deposition
that she learned that the money was actually from Minton. Therefore,
Minton lied to her as well, demonstrating that he apparently had no
difficulty lying to even his closest confidante and associate.

Minton and FLAG argue that Dandar had to know that this UBS check was
Minton's money, but Brooks admits that she never knew that the donations
from Operation Clambake totaling $300,000 and the $500,000 respectively
were, in fact, Minton's money -- and as his constant companion, Brooks
is clearly much closer to Minton than anyone else, and would be more
likely to know the truth than an attorney with whom Minton maintained a
friendship. Minton also told this same story to his attorney, Merrett,
and Merrett also believed him. The court is now expected to take him at
his word when he now claims that the money came from his own personal
funds, and not the "anonymous donors" that he had previously led not
only Dandar, but also his own attorney and close companion Brooks to

308 14 THE COURT: Then LMT got a $500,000 anonymous
15 donor from someplace in Europe, is that true?
16 THE WITNESS: At that time, that is -
17 THE COURT: I'm asking you now, is that true?
18 THE WITNESS: No, it's not.
19 THE COURT: Where did the money from?
20 THE WITNESS: From Mr. Minton.
21 THE COURT: So Mr. Minton forgot to tell us he
22 lied about that, too.

Brooks, May 6, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 13.

Not even Minton suggests that he lied to Brooks and his own attorney at
the behest of Dandar. If Minton was lying then, this shows Minton is
lying about this offshore money for reasons unknown to Dandar, Prince,
Merrett, and Brooks, but now probably well known to Scientology. If
Minton told the truth to Brooks, Merrett, Prince, and Dandar that these
UBS checks and donations were really from anonymous European donors,
then he is lying now only for Scientology so that Scientology will
"disengage" from all aspects of Minton's life. To this day, Minton
refuses to show proof that the money came from his accounts.

Minton testified at his May 2000 deposition that he loaned $1,050,000 to
212 11 Q. Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since
12 January 13th, 1998?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Tell me all the amounts that you have
15 given him.
16 A. I don't know all the amounts. The total
17 amounts to a little over a million dollars,
18 $1,050,000.
19 Q. Did you make these checks to him yourself?
20 A. Did I what?
21 Q. Did you make the checks to him yourself
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Each check was drawn on one of your
24 personal accounts?
25 A. I believe it was, yes.
213 1 Q. Did you instruct anyone else to write the
2 checks or --
3 A. No.
4 Q. -- did you physically write them?
5 A. I think I physically wrote them all.
6 There may have been a wire transfer in there or
7 two. I don't remember.

Minton May 2000 deposition, Appendix 4.

This testimony is inconclusive. Given Minton's statements to Dandar,
Prince, and Brooks that this UBS check was from "friends in Europe, "
this testimony is truthful. Minton now states at this hearing that he
concealed in this deposition and two subsequent ones that he gave Dandar
a UBS check in May 2000 for $500,000. Per Minton, the concealment was
not his idea, but borne of Dandar's desire to keep this sum hidden both
from Scientology and from his own employees and consultants. This claim
is made despite the fact that Dandar asked Garko to go to New Hampshire
to visit Minton and funding was freely discussed in front of Garko.
Further, Minton volunteered to tell Scientology about giving over a
million dollars, of which Dandar's employees and consultants did not
know. Why, then, would Dandar develop this complex deception solely to
avoid including an additional $500,000? If Dandar wanted Minton to lie
about the money that he had provided, why would he not have suggested
the "anonymous friends" deception for the entire loan of over one
million dollars? Per court order, up to January 2000, Dandar provided
Scientology with copies of either deposit statements or checks from
Minton totaling $750,000. Minton's accusations make no sense, and on top
of the lack of consistency in Minton's current testimony on the subject,
there is still no proof that the UBS check was issued using Minton's
money in the first place, as he has maintained his Fifth Amendment
privilege through all subsequent questioning on the subject. As this
does not allow Dandar to present a complete and cohesive defense to the
claim since he is thwarted from being able to question the witness in
depth on the details of this supposed transaction, this testimony must
be stricken. City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So.2d 681, 685
(Fla. 2d DCA 1978), Fifth Amendment cannot be used as sword and

Minton's own pattern of conduct and his inability to tell the truth
during this hearing leads to the conclusion that he is not telling the
truth now on the source of this check and that he did tell the Estate's
counsel the truth in May 2000 that this check was from anonymous sources
in Europe. Dandar, May 30,2002, at 31:16-17. Furthermore, Minton told
Jesse Prince that this check was from his friends in Europe.

367 2 And he came and he said,
3 "Come here, you guys come out here," because he had a fear
4 that the building that we were in was electronically bugged.
5 And we got in Stacy's car and we went into the
6 city parking lot, which is directly across the street from
7 the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see.
8 And he said, "Look, I'm going to tell you guys,
9 you can't tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he
10 doesn't know where it came from. It came from Europe. You
11 know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I
12 hope this takes you to trial."
13 That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he
14 didn't want the office to know, you know, Ken didn't want
15 everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this
16 $500,000 came. And -- and, you know, everything with the
17 case would be okay, basically, was the one instance.

368 2 Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from?
3 A Europe. People from Europe.
4 Q Did he say to you it was his money?
5 A No. He said he had arranged from some people from
6 Europe who made this money available.

446 5 Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton,
6 for instance, let's go to that night, the Adam's Mark Hotel,
7 where he's talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he
8 told you in the parking lot about it?
9 A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were
10 saying, you know, "Ken is really going to get it. He told
11 me to lie about this check."
12 I said, "Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you --"
13 he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all
14 responsibility is gone. "Hee-hee. Guess what?"
15 "Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot.
16 Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving
17 this check to Ken, Ken didn't know where it was coming from,
18 told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you
19 gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken's fault?"
20 Q What did they say?
21 A They just looked at me like, "Oh, yeah, we forgot
22 about that part." Mmm, they were telling me things like,
23 "We really got him now."
24 I said, "But don't you remember what we did?
25 Don't you remember this is what really happened as opposed
447 1 to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what
2 actually happened?"
3 Q What was their response?
4 A "Hmmm." You know, just "Hmmm." Like, "He's not
5 cooperating."
6 Q So -
7 A So I told him, you know, "Now, you know we were up
8 in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So
9 now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this
10 is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?"
11 THE COURT: What did he say?
12 THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was
13 crazy. And they looked at each other and they
14 changed the subject. We started talking about -
15 Mmm - what else did we start talking about?
16 They brought up something else that -- the
17 meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want -
18 "they" being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they
19 want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at
20 some meeting that happened where we all said, "Yeah,
21 add Miscavige and don't talk to anybody about it."
22 I am like, "Are you crazy? That didn't happen
23 either."

Jesse Prince, July 8, 2002, Appendix 6.

228 15 Q. And what did Mr. Minton tell you on the rooftop of
16 this parking garage?
17 A. He explained to myself and Ms. Brooks that you
18 were going to receive the check, you did not know where it
19 came from, and he didn't tell us where it came from, but he
20 said this check -- this check was being given to you -- I
21 believe he said -- you know, because he said this to me as
22 well about people in Europe that were contributing to this
23 case financially.
24 He said that this check was to take you to
25 trial and through trial.
229 1 Q. Why were you talking with him on the top of a
2 parking garage?
3 A. Because it was Mr. Minton's concern that -
4 MR. ROSEN: Objection. Mr. Minton's
5 concern? This witness is now a mind reader?
6 THE COURT: Why is it relevant?
7 MR. DANDAR: It's relevant to Mr. Minton's
8 state of mind, which continues on until -
9 THE COURT: Mr. Minton's state of mind at
10 the time he made those statements is not
11 relevant. What's important is the statements,
12 okay?
13 MR. DANDAR: It will be subsequently
14 relevant to the defense that I'm offering to
15 the Court of these false accusations.
17 Q. Why were you meeting on the top of the garage?
18 A. Mr. Minton had a concern that -
19 MR. ROSEN: Objection, same statement.
20 Did Your Honor rule on that? I'm sorry. I
21 didn't hear.
22 THE COURT: Well, I guess I didn't. You
23 know, I guess you're going to have to establish
24 how he knows why it was they were meeting,
25 unless he just pulled it out of the air.
230 1 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, do I understand
2 this is a meeting two years ago in April of
3 2000?
4 THE COURT: I think it was -- is it May
5 2000? April or May?
7 Q. Mr. Prince, can you tell us more specifically when
8 it was?
9 A. It was April or May of 2000, as best as I can
10 recall.
17 Q. Did Mr. Minton tell you why he wanted to meet on
18 the garage?
19 A. Yes, he did.
23 THE WITNESS: He told me that he had a
24 concern that Scientology had electronically
25 bugged the Lisa McPherson Trust, and so privacy
231 1 was an issue.
3 Q. Now, did he tell you whose money it was that I was
4 going to get from Europe?
5 A. As far as I recall about that, this was money from
6 people from Europe that were contributing -- that were
7 willing or able to contribute financially to the wrongful
8 death case.
9 Q. Did Mr. Minton ever express to you that it was his
10 money?
11 A. No.

Prince, August 29, 2002, Appendix 6.

Minton also told the same story to his own attorney, John Merrett,
about the source of the anonymous donations to the LMT. There was
certainly no motive for Minton to lie not only to Dandar, but also to
Brooks, Prince and Merrett, and the most plausible conclusion that can
be drawn, given the testimony that contradicts Minton's current
testimony, is that he is currently lying under oath about the provenance
of the check as a direct result of settlement negotiations with

Even though Minton had no account at the UBS Bank, Scientology
amazingly was able to obtain a copy of this UBS check before Minton
could get a copy! Appendix 6, Prince at 386-387, July 8, 2002. See
also Dandar's testimony elicited by Rosen before this court confirming
this and no correction by Rosen! April 19, 2002 at 268.) Scientology
must therefore not only know the source of the money used for the UBS
check, but must have known that Minton would refuse to testify to show
proof that this money is his. Therefore, including this allegation in
its motion is frivolous and in bad faith.

Based on the three Second District Court decisions, money to the Estate
or its counsel is immaterial. It can therefore not be a matter of
perjury. Argyros v. State, 718 So.2d 222 (Fla 2nd DCA 1998).

Again Dr. Garko does not support Minton's story in court.

22 Q During -- during this time that you were there in
23 New Hampshire, did you overhear any discussions or
24 conversations between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton about money,
25 about getting more money and where the money might be coming

36 1 from? And if so, can you tell us what you remember was
2 being said and what your reaction was to it?
3 A I do remember conversations about money and
4 funding.
5 Mr. Dandar -- despite Mr. Minton's assertion that
6 he's no longer going to fund this case, Mr. Dandar still
7 wanted to know if there were other ways to fund the case,
8 and if there were other people that could fund the case.
9 And they were talking about -- talking about that. No
10 specific names were mentioned, no particular individual that
11 I could say, Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith or something like that
12 It was generally perhaps people from Europe might be able to
13 fund the case --

Garko, June 11, 2002.

Only during the hearing before Judge Schaeffer did Minton finally admit
that the $300,000 from Clambake to the LMT and the anonymous $500,000 to
the LMT from Europe were really monies from Minton. Minton at 443-446.
He lied about this in his court ordered deposition in this case on April
8, 2002. Dandar was also successful in getting Minton to admit that
contrary to his testimony in his recantation deposition of April 8,
2002, there were two additional transactions that Minton conducted that
used the same method of transferring money from a Swiss Bank to an
individual in the United States, who then transferred the money back to
Minton or the Lisa McPherson Trust, an entity with its own financial
obligations to Minton that was in the process of repaying his loan. It's
also interesting to note that Minton never provided the court with proof
of this loan to the LMT. Both the $100,000 loan repayment from Gerald
Armstrong to Minton and the subsequent $100,000 donation by Armstrong to
the LMT were, in fact, simply a circuitous way for Minton to move his
own money around from one account to another. Until these lies were
revealed before Judge Schaeffer, however, both Minton and Scientology
were perfectly willing to let the lies slide through, since neither
transaction had anything to do with this case, except to show using the
UBS checks is part of Minton's scheme.

However, such evidence does support the contention that the Swiss bank
transfers and "European friends" were the result of Minton's desire to
transfer his money in an untraceable fashion. Minton was completely
unable to provide a plausible explanation for the curiously familiar
pattern exemplified by the Armstrong transactions, or for lying about it
by deliberately omitting it from his recantation deposition, hearing
testimony before this court, and affidavits.
Concealing the existence of the Armstrong UBS check in question damaged
the Estate by preventing evidence that the UBS check transaction is
really Minton's invention to circumvent income tax.

In short, it is indeed peculiar that Minton would choose to "set the
record straight" and immediately thereafter get caught in lie after lie
after lie after lie.

926 6 THE COURT: Yeah. So this would be a fine time
7 for him to go get it and bring it back, show it to
8 your lawyer so we can all find it, so we can get
9 this straightened out.
10 And I would appreciate it, Mr. Howie, if we're
11 going to have any more lies, and this three that he
12 hasn't recanted, that I know of -- three that I know
13 of -- that if there are more that perhaps he needs
14 to spend enough time to go through his deposition --
15 I mean, his credibility is indeed at issue.
16 This is a man who says to me, "I lied. I committed
17 perjury," and then all of a sudden, when Ms. Brooks
18 is asked a question, well, he remembers some more
19 lies. And now we've got another lie that apparently
20 he didn't tell you about, I'm sure, in the recanting
21 affidavit because he didn't tell the church about
22 it, about something I would assume would be fairly
23 critical, but it just dawned on him last night when
24 he was looking at transcripts.
25 So what I want to see are the transcripts.
927 1 Maybe you can point it out to me so I can go to it
2 and so I can see what it was that refreshed his
3 memory.
4 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. If I have the
5 permission of the court -
6 THE WITNESS: I'll go get them.
7 MR. HOWIE: -- to discuss Mr. Minton's
8 testimony to that extent only.
9 THE COURT: To the extent of whatever this is
10 he's talking about --
11 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: -- you may.
13 MR. DANDAR: And any other things that he
14 discovered. I mean, I don't want --
15 THE COURT: Oh, yeah.
16 Are there more lies that you discovered last
17 night?
18 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Then you may discuss this
20 new lie.
21 MR. HOWIE: Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Do I need to get the state attorney
23 here? I mean, I thought I could refer this to the
24 state attorney when this was all done. But as far
25 as I'm concerned, there are at least two lies that I
928 1 uncovered, and those are prosecutable, quite
2 frankly. This one, he brought to our attention
3 first
4 So I just thought I'd wait and deliver all
5 this, because we've got allegations of lies on one
6 side; on the other side we've got allegations of
7 people committing extortion and bribery, and all
8 that has got to be figured out with the state
9 attorney. I don't prosecute crimes, I don't defend
10 crimes. That's a matter for the state attorney. So
11 I thought we'd just wait till this was all over and
12 we could send all this out.
13 Of course, I told Mr. McCabe this was coming.
14 But you know, maybe I need somebody here to advise
15 this man of his rights.
16 Are you -- are you fully equipped to do that?
17 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor.

Minton before Judge Schaeffer, May 23, 2002. Appendix 4.

This can only result in a negative inference with this blatant refusal
to answer a question that strikes so close to the heart of the
allegation that Flag is currently using Minton's new testimony to
support. It is completely implausible that Minton would perform this
astonishing sleight-of-hand with UBS checks and have no idea why he did

7 Q When did you write a check to Gerry Armstrong so
8 he could pay you back?
9 A I never wrote him a check.
10 Q All right. How did he get the money?
11 A He got a check from UBS.
12 Q And what's the source of that UBS check?
13 A Me.
14 Q What's the name of the financial institution that
15 sent the UBS money?
16 A I'm going to take the Fifth Amendment on that
17 question.
18 Q And you're telling this court that you don't know
19 why you did it that way; why you made this false pretense of
20 showing that Gerry Armstrong was using his money to pay back
21 your loan.
22 A I'm not sure why.

Minton, 1251, May 28, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 4.

The inference is obvious, and was promptly drawn by Judge Schaeffer.
Minton played this shell game not because of any demands by Dandar, but
in an attempt to conceal his own tax evasion and it was that tax evasion
that was discovered and used for purposes of blackmail and extortion by

1252 23 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this question.
24 When you bring in money from the foreign countries,
25 don't you have to pay taxes on it?
1253 1 THE WITNESS: It would --
2 THE COURT: If you made money?
3 THE WITNESS: -- depend on the nature of it.
4 THE COURT: If you made money in a foreign land
5 and you bring that money into the United States of
6 America, isn't that something that you report and
7 pay taxes on?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's correct.
10 Q Did you pay tax on the money that Gerry Armstrong
11 paid you back a hundred thousand dollars on the loan?
12 A I would have to look at my tax returns for the
13 year.
14 Q What year was this?
15 A 2001.
16 Q What month?
17 A I don't remember which month it was.
18 Q Was it before or after your September, 2001
19 deposition?
20 A I think it was before.
21 THE COURT: Isn't there a little box on the
22 income tax return that has a person disclose whether
23 any of the money reported in income came from a
24 foreign source?
25 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether there is.
1254 1 THE COURT: Well, I know there is, 'cause I
2 know I check it "no" every year, 'cause I don't have
3 any. So perhaps if we don't know the answer to
4 these things --
5 I mean, what did I say as to his income tax
6 return; that -- oh, he claimed the Fifth Amendment
7 on that, didn't he?
8 MR. HOWIE: I believe, your Honor --
9 THE COURT: Because I would demand that, based
10 on his answer -- right now I would demand it. He
11 may claim the Fifth Amendment after my demand, but I
12 think it's important. So his Fifth Amendment will
13 stand. But at this point in time, it's not just one
14 of those things that I think is -- is personal, that
15 I don't need. I think we need the income tax
16 returns
17 I'm going to find that I need the income tax
18 return to resolve some of these issues. However, he
19 can claim the Fifth Amendment, refuse to turn it
20 over.
21 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: But I'm demanding it at this time,
23 saying that I need it for my purposes.
24 And he is claiming the Fifth, is that correct?
25 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I'd request permission
1255 1 to discuss that matter with my client --
2 THE COURT: All right.
3 MR. HOWIE: -- during a recess.

Minton, May 28, 2202, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 4.

D. False allegations of commingling and converting Estate money.

Item 4, commingling or conversion of funds, is not an issue within the
jurisdiction of this court. It is solely within the province of the
Florida Bar. It is not a matter to be raised by Dandar's client, the
Estate, since the loan money is not the client's money under any stretch
of the imagination. If it were Estate money, it would have had to have
been borrowed by the Personal Representative under the Florida Probate
laws. § 733.612(14). Further, there exists no contract or loan
agreement between Minton and the Estate. And if Liebreich had borrowed
the money for the estate, FLAG would still have no standing since it is
not the client. Estate property is only the decedent's property at the
time of the decedent's death. § 731.201(12), Fla. Stat. (2002).

The Texas federal court has previously ruled that the Estate has no
asset except the death case. It is also not a matter for Minton to
raise, since Minton is not Dandar's client. There has not been any
commingling or theft. This is another fabrication by the church and its

Mr. Minton, as conceded by FLAG, has always maintained that the funds
were loaned to Mr. Dandar for the expenses in the wrongful death case,
to be spent within the full discretion of Ken Dandar, not Minton or Dell
Liebreich. Thus, there are "no strings." Ken Dandar and his firm are
record counsel in the wrongful death case. It is indisputable that the
funds were loaned to the counsel of record in the wrongful death case.
It is also indisputable that the funds were not loaned to the counsel of
the personal representative. The fact that Ken Dandar happens to hold
both positions does not mean FLAG can arbitrarily blur the distinction.

This court has held in this hearing that how Dandar spent loan money is
irrelevant and sustained objections by Dandar when Mr. Rosen attempted
to delve into this area. The Second District Court of Appeal in three
separate decisions and through five appellate judges specifically agreed
with the Estate and held that the church is not permitted to know
anything about the amount or use of the funds counsel for the Estate has
for the litigation against the church. Even when FLAG moved for
reconsideration and advised the Second District of its new allegation of
perjury by Dandar, the Second District denied its motion. Therefore,
Minton's money remains irrelevant to all issues raised by FLAG.
Irrelevant matters cannot be the basis of a charge of perjury. State v.
Ellis, 723 So.2d 187, 189-190 (Fla 1998).

This church has repeatedly attempted to find out how much money counsel
for the Estate has received and how much counsel has left. The church
will stop at nothing to put an end to the wrongful death case, as is
clear from the notes prepared by Church attorney Monique Yingling, and
produced during the hearings in Judge Schaeffer's court as a result of
the Estate's request. Clearly, any action that would lead to
successfully disqualifying the Estate's counsel, or bankrupting the
Estate itself, would further the overall goal of derailing the wrongful
death case itself.

The Yingling notes indicate precisely the level of intent on the part
of the Church to make the McPherson case "go away", and also demonstrate
how that outcome was so closely tied to Minton's own prospects for
successful settlement with the Church by both lawyers and Church
representatives attending that meeting. An obvious sign of desperation
is FLAG citing to page 341 of Dandar's testimony before Judge Schaeffer,
where FLAG misrepresents the testimony as being Dandar's admission that
he knew these UBS checks to Dandar were Minton's money. See page 28 of
FLAG's closing brief. Dandar is telling Judge Schaeffer on page 341 on
June 4, 2002, that he now knows the $300,000 donation from " Operation
Clambake" and the $500,000 anonymous wire transfer, all to the Lisa
McPherson Trust, are in reality Minton's money based on Minton's
testimony in this court. If Minton is lying, then no one knows except
Minton. Minton lied about this in his deposition in this case on April
8, 2002.

In fact, Dandar has not, and will not "admit" to knowing that the money
in question originally came from Minton, and not from anonymous donors,
as he had previously testified and believed to be the case, because it
was not until the April 9th hearing that he had any inkling that this
may be the case. As he has testified to at length in open court before
Judge Schaeffer, Dandar had taken Minton at his word when Minton had
explained to him that the money in question was from friends in Europe
who wanted to help the case without the risk of being the target of the
same kind of harassment that Minton had received from the Church of
Scientology after he had first decided to offer financial support to the
wrongful death suit. It was not until after he had heard Mr. Minton
state, repeatedly, that the money had, in fact, been his own money that
Dandar finally acknowledged that he could not definitively state that
Minton was lying on this issue. However, at the same time, it should be
noted that Minton has consistently failed to conclusively demonstrate
that the money in question did belong to him. Minton has explained at
length how he had developed a system to transfer money from at least one
account that he holds in an overseas bank by using UBS as a " middleman"
that issues a blank "cashier-style" check that can then be forwarded to
any individual, anywhere in the world, without the possibility of being
traced back to the original Minton account. At no point during either
the hearings in this court, or in those held before Judge Schaeffer, has
Minton ever brought forward any proof that the donation to Dandar was
handled in this manner. In fact, he refuses to answer any questions
regarding the originating bank account itself, instead choosing to plead
the Fifth Amendment rather than back up his story with some sort of
tangible proof. This segment of Dandar's testimony comes after Brooks
admitted this in open court on May 6, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer.
This testimony of Dandar has nothing to do with the UBS checks to Dandar
from Minton.

339 1 THE WITNESS: But, see, I knew he had a
2 business partner who was in Europe and who is just
3 as wealthy as Mr. Minton. And I also know his
4 friend, because of Scientology investigators, had to
5 go pay taxes that he owed.
6 I mean, I -- I knew that Mr. Minton was wealthy
7 and he had a circle of friends that he -- I assumed,
8 were as wealthy as he was or even more. So I had no
9 reason to suspect that he was pulling something off
10 or lying to me.
11 THE COURT: But you know what I have seen is
12 that everybody who wants to support this
13 anti-Scientology movement, as far as I can tell,
14 with money is fairly proud of it and wants to be
15 known, wants to toot their horn. Certainly
16 Mr. Minton did. He wanted to bang his chest and
17 toot his horn.
18 All of a sudden you see a little different
19 person in court and, "I don't want to toot any
20 horns," and he doesn't want to be on any internets.
21 But -- boy, we've seen a 180.
22 But I would assume, if I'd been sitting in your
23 shoes, the same thing: Somebody wants to support
24 LMT, somebody wants to support the Lisa McPherson
25 lawsuit, they would have been quite proud of
340 1 themselves.
2 THE WITNESS: But, no, wait. This is what --
3 now I -- now I see what is missing, I think.
4 THE COURT: Well, maybe you do. The light bulb
5 just came on now?
6 THE WITNESS: Well, there is a lot to cover
7 here. But in May of 2000 the discovery against the
8 LMT and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks was heating up.
9 It had just started, I believe, in February of 2000.
10 Mr. Minton, prior to May of 2000, went on the
11 Internet and told everybody how much money he gave
12 me, to my dismay, which I didn't want him to do, but
13 he did.
14 And we turned over all of the checks, up to
15 January of 2000, because that is what the court
16 order was. And only from Mr. Minton, because
17 Mr. Weinberg said to Judge Moody, "I'm only
18 interested in Mr. Minton." So that is what we did,
19 we complied with all of the court orders.
20 So when he's getting discovered, like he was,
21 in May of 2000, I can understand then and now why he
22 might have people in Europe who have similar
23 thinking as him as to supporting the case but did
24 not want their names disclosed because they did not
25 want to have this discovery go on about their
341 1 finances. And Mr. Minton was being subjected to
2 this -- this discovery of his personal finances.
3 And then it went on in the year 2001. So I get
4 another check in 2002. I can understand -- and I
5 had already gotten a stay entered by the Second
6 District. And I can understand why no one in
7 Europe, if he had anonymous friends like he said he
8 had, wouldn't want me to know who they were so
9 wouldn't have to disclose it to the Court. They
10 didn't want Scientology to know who they were, they
11 didn't want to be subject to all this discovery. I
12 mean, that makes sense.
13 But Mr. Minton was the only individual I know
14 who was proud and bragged about -- until he started
15 to plead the Fifth --
16 THE COURT: Mr. Minton is also the only one who
17 gave them this kind of money, too, isn't he?
19 THE COURT: There weren't any pals in Europe,
20 there wasn't any "Fat Man."
21 THE WITNESS: Well, now I know that is right.
22 THE COURT: So once again, when people give
23 this kind of money, I don't know of a soul who gives
24 this kind of money very often that doesn't like to
25 brag about it. Take it from somebody who knows.

Dandar, June 4, 2002, with Judge Schaeffer.

On line 17 above, where Judge Schaeffer states: "Mr. Minton is the only
one who gave them this kind of money..." She is referring to the LMT,
not Dandar. In fact, The term "The Fat Man" was invented on the spur of
the moment by Minton's former attorney, John Merrett, as part of a
similarly complex scheme to transfer money to Operation Clambake, a web
site in Norway critical of Scientology, who then in turn had it
transferred to the LMT.

Merrett testified that he believed, based on information given to him by
Minton, who was his client at the time, that this money came from
"anonymous friends in Europe" the very same explanation that Minton had
offered to Dandar, yet this time, as part of a transaction to which
neither Dandar nor the Estate was a party! Only during the Schaeffer
hearing was it revealed that the $300,000 and the $500,000 anonymous
donation from friends in Europe was really Minton's money. Even John
Merrett did not know it was Minton's money until Judge Schaeffer
informed him of this during his hearing testimony.

48 21 Q Did you ever learn that the LMT received a
22 $300,000 payment, donation, whatever, from Operation
23 Clambake?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Did you have anything to do with securing or
49 1 arranging for that payment?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What did you do?
4 A I located an individual over the Internet to
5 operate as a go-between, severing initial direct connect
6 between the LMT and Operation Clambake in order to protect
7 Operation Clambake and whatever source of the money was from
8 discovery by Scientology.
15 A The third party telephoned Operation Clambake, I
16 think it's Andreas Heldal-Lund -
21 THE WITNESS: Operation Clambake is a website
22 owned and operated by Andreas Heldal-Lund.
51 8 A The third party contacted Mr. Lund and said he was
9 speaking on behalf of people in Europe who wished to donate
10 money to the Lisa McPherson Trust, but for obvious reasons
11 did not wish to be identified as supporters of the Lisa
12 McPherson Trust and wanted Mr. Lund to handle the actual
13 transfer of the money, to receive a check, to deposit the
14 check, and then to write a check to the Lisa McPherson
15 Trust.
16 The individual also called the Lisa McPherson
17 Trust and advised Ms. Brooks that this was being arranged,
18 and that the -- Mr. Lund or someone, I don't know whether it
19 was identified as Mr. Lund, but that somebody would be
20 calling to notify her of the impending transfer.
21 Q And this is someone you just met in a chat room on
22 the Internet?
23 A Yes.

54 8 Did you use any code names?
9 A The individual who was handling the message
10 identified himself as the "Fat Man."
11 Q Is that right? And did you come up with that
12 name?
13 A Yes.
55 7 THE COURT: Well, if I were to tell you that
8 Mr. Minton has testified that the money came from
9 him, would you know what the next circle out was?
10 THE WITNESS: Mmm, investment banking would be
11 my guess. I think that is where his money comes
12 from.
13 THE COURT: Well, you did not know this money
14 was coming from Mr. Minton?
17 Q Mr. Merrett, this is a very important area. So
18 you did not know that the money that was being transferred
19 to Operation Clambake through the "Fat Man" was coming
20 really from the bank account of Mr. Minton?
21 A That is correct.

Merrett, May 23, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 10.

The remarkable similarity between the stories told by Minton to both
Dandar and Merrett to explain the provenance of ostensibly anonymous
donations demonstrates that it was, in all likelihood, Minton himself
who came up with the scheme of transferring his own or others' money to
third parties by using a Swiss Bank as a third party to disguise the
origin. In fact, in the case of the money transferred through Operation
Clambake to the Lisa McPherson Trust, the ultimate beneficiary of the
"anonymous donation" was Minton himself, as the Trust immediately
transferred the money back to Minton as loan repayment.

It is interesting to note that Dandar had no control or interest in the
activity where Minton "caused to be issued" to Courage Production a
substantial UBS check. Minton or his friends used the same method of
payment to Dandar as they did to the movie production. There is no
evidence that Dandar was in control of this transaction.

12 Q. There's no question in your mind that this is
13 Mr. Minton's money; is it?
14 A. Sure, there's a question in my mind.
15 Q. Do you think the fat man was bankrolling the
16 production of a movie?
17 A. I think his friends in Europe could very well have
18 sent this money in, just like they sent it to me.
19 Q. They didn't send anything to you; did they?
20 A. Sure they did.
21 Q. I thought you said that they weren't sent to you;
22 Mr. Minton gave it to you, the check?
23 A. Well, if you want to do that, that's fine, right.
24 He hand-delivered it to me and mailed one.

Dandar, Appendix 5, April 30, 2002 at 184.

Clearly, the only person who benefitted from Minton's labyrinthine
system of transferring money was Minton himself. Contrary to the
suggestion made in Plaintiff's closing argument, Minton alone had the
motive, the skill and, most importantly, the personal knowledge of his
own accounts held in other countries that would be essential to
orchestrating such a complex transaction that would divert attention
from himself as the source of the funds. There is no evidence present,
nor has any testimony been proffered, that in any way suggests that Mr.
Dandar has "the knowledge, the apprehension of the truth emerging, and
the legal skills to fabricate cover stories," as suggested in
Plaintiff's closing argument. He has never been accused of such actions
before the allegations put forward by Mr. Minton, and it must also be
noted that there is no particularly arcane legal trickery that must be
present in order for an individual to lie about money -- something that
Mr. Minton, in contrast to Mr. Dandar, has acknowledged having done in
the past with regards to donations to the now defunct Lisa McPherson
Trust, entirely independently of any such advice by Mr. Dandar.

As for who would suffer the consequences of "truthful disclosure", the
Church's position that somehow, it would be Mr. Dandar on whom would
fall the bulk of any repercussions to such revelations is insupportable
even given statements made by its own representatives in the "global
settlement" negotiation meetings that occurred prior to Mr. Minton's
volte face, which Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks have both testified left
them convinced that it would be Mr. Minton who would pay the price for
such alleged deceptions, including facing several outstanding contempt
charges for failure to produce and perjury.

This court also ruled that how the Minton money was spent is not
discoverable. Failing to substantiate its allegations of commingling,
FLAG launches into an area prohibited by the three appellate decisions.
Judge Schaeffer also had to stop FLAG from questioning of how the loan
money was spent in the recent 35-day hearing and also did not permit
questioning on where Minton money to Dandar was deposited.

345 14 Q And you testified in front of Judge Baird that
15 those last three checks, the ones you say are loans that
16 were made out to you personally, were put into personal
17 accounts?
18 THE COURT: That is an unfair question, an
19 unfair question here, and it won't be answered in my
20 courtroom. And whatever it was he answered in Judge
21 Baird's courtroom will not be part of this record.
22 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
23 THE COURT: And that is based upon the ruling
24 of the -- you're just not -- I mean, frankly, you
25 weren't to have the $500,000 check and you weren't
346 1 to have the $250,000 check pursuant to the ruling of
2 the Second District Court of Appeal. Mr. Minton
3 gave those to you and that is how you have them.
4 Beyond that, you are not to ask him any
5 questions until such time as you get some reversed
6 ruling from some appellate court.
7 I'm not interested in where it went. I'm not
8 interested in whether it went into his personal
9 account. I'm not interested in whether it went into
10 his business account. And I'm not going to let you
11 ask those questions.
12 If you want to ask them, take it up to the
13 Second District Court of Appeal. You are not going
14 to ask it in this courtroom.

Dandar, June 4, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer.

Rosen 22 Q. Is that in truth what you've done with
23 the two million dollars?
24 A. I'm not answering your question about
25 the two million dollars because that's subject to
247 1 a stay order.
2 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, counsel is -
3 the witness is offering some of the testimony
4 voluntarily and then says I close the door?
5 He just volunteered the information.
6 THE COURT: Yeah. I think the fact that
7 he received the funds, where he put them and
8 who they came from is significant. After
9 that, I'm not so sure that the use of the
10 funds is that significant.
11 MR. ROSEN: Okay. Well, it goes to the
12 issue did he, in fact, use the funds for
13 personal expenses that would perhaps confirm
14 his story.
15 THE COURT: No, I don't think so.
16 MR. ROSEN: I won't go there, Judge.
17 THE COURT: All right.

Dandar, April 19, 2002, Appendix 5.

Even with this clear holding from this court, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Pope
proceed in their final brief to malign Dandar by arguing ad nauseam that
Dandar has misappropriated the Minton money and therefore, he should be
disqualified. There is simply no evidence of how this money was spent.
While honest mistakes by Mr. Rosen and Mr. Pope may not be sanctionable,
arguing fiction as fact is a fraud upon the court and is sanctionable.
FLAG has no standing in this court to argue commingling and conversion.
In fact, there has not been any evidence of commingling or conversion.
Further, there is no evidence that Dandar spent Minton money on anything
except for the benefit of its client, the Estate of Lisa McPherson.

Rosen 9 Q. Did you use any part of that money for
10 expenses for the wrongful death case, sir?
11 A. I'm sure I did.

Dandar, April 19, 2002, before Judge Baird at page 243. Appendix 5.

Again, we are therefore left with the only issue raised by FLAG over
which this court could possibly exert its jurisdiction: did Dandar
solicit perjury from Minton to conceal a meeting to add on parties in
the wrongful death case in Minton's October 2001 deposition in this
case, Item 1 above.

E. Minton and UBS money are Loans to Dandar.

Although the church has no standing to challenge if the Minton money is
a loan to Dandar or a loan to the Estate, long ago Minton testified that
this money was a loan to Dandar, without strings, and full repayment was
left up to the Estate, i.e., the success of the death case. FLAG lawyers
may not be pleased with that arrangement, but as neither Flag nor its
counsel are or were a party to the original loan, it is entirely out of
their jurisdiction to complain. The loan arrangement was originated and
agreed upon entirely between Minton and Dandar, not the Estate.

Despite the Church's casual use of the word "unimpeachable" to describe
the documents on which this portion of the claim rests, it is clear that
this is by no means as unambiguous as is implied: Dandar has maintained
throughout both this hearing, and that before Judge Schaeffer, that
there was no legally binding requirement that would enjoin him from
using the money contributed by Mr. Minton solely to the furtherance of
the McPherson case. However, he has been equally vehement in averring
that despite the lack of the formal and enforceable contract that the
Church alleges existed between Minton and Dandar, Dandar took it upon
himself to ensure that the money was directed in its entirety towards
the continuing costs of mounting a suit against a large and wealthy
opponent. At no point in either this hearing, or that before Judge
Schaeffer, has the Church proved the claim that the money was diverted
into any other avenue of income for Dandar. In fact, to do so would be
to weaken the underpinnings of its parallel, but contradictory claim
that it was through this imaginary agreement that Mr. Minton was able to
control the direction of the case. It cannot simultaneously argue that
Dandar committed actionable fraud by stealing money that was legally
earmarked for the case, and that Minton controlled the case by forcing
Dandar to acquiesce to his directions for the case by providing money
only to ensure that his demands were met.

As far as " evidence" offered in support of this initial claim, the
Church's argument rests entirely on new, contradictory testimony, that
was elicited from Mr. Minton only after confidential "settlement
negotiations" with the counsel and representatives from the Church, that
both Minton and the Church confirm were concerned with, amongst other
stipulations, ensuring that the wrongful death suit would "go away."

Ms. Yingling's notes indicate that Minton agreed to make every effort to
meet those terms. Given the lack of credibility of the Church's sole
witness in support of its claim, and the clear motivation on the part of
Mr. Minton to meet the requirements of a settlement proposition from the
Church, it is not difficult for a reasonable person to accept the very
real probability that the changed testimony of Mr. Minton cannot be
accepted without serious question.

As part of its efforts to prove that Dandar mishandled the Minton loan
without relying solely on the testimony of Minton, a self-confessed
perjurer, Plaintiff's Closing Argument points to the fact that Dandar
contacted the Florida Bar to determine what rules apply to third-party
donations, an action that it inexplicably attempts to paint as somehow
sinister in nature.

Despite making every effort to impugn Dandar's character and cast doubt
on his motives, the very fact that Dandar responded to Minton's initial
offer of support by immediately writing to the Bar to seek advice, he
demonstrated professional responsibility and respect for the law.

It should also be noted that Dandar followed to the letter the advice
given by the Bar, as covered in the hearing before Judge Schaeffer, and
at no point before April 9, 2002 did either the client, the Estate of
Lisa McPherson, the courts or Mr. Minton himself in any way question
whether the transactions were being handled in an entirely
straightforward fashion. There is no doubt that even the existence of
third party donations to an attorney involved in ongoing litigation is a
relatively rare event; however, given the subject matter, and the
widespread interest and support that this suit has received from those
not directly involved, the fact that donations were made to the case
cannot be deemed to be somehow sinister simply because it is unusual.
Dandar made every effort to handle the matter in a manner that met his
professional responsibility. He had no reasonable expectation that at a
much later date, Mr. Minton would turn on him at the behest of the
Church, and collude with its lawyers in attempting to rewrite history by
attempting to redefine his generous donations/loans over the last five

It was only subsequent to entering into confidential settlement
negotiations with the Church of Scientology that Minton changed his
story, and alleged that in fact, the money was a loan to the Estate, and
that the agreement included specific provisions for its repayment.

What business is it of Scientology if the money loaned from Minton
directly or through his European friends and given to Dandar is a loan
to counsel or the Estate? Before there was ever an issue of Minton's
money, Scientology elicited from Minton the following admissions
concerning his giving of money to Dandar. At his first deposition,
January 13, 1998, with two of Minton's attorneys present, Steven Jonas
and Kathy Shipe, Minton admitted this money was a loan to Dandar, with
repayment left up to the success of the case.

46 20 Q My question is: Was this $100,000 a loan to
21 Mr. Dandar?
22 A It was.
23 Q Or a gift to Mr. Dandar?
24 A It requires a little bit of thought because it could be
47 1 either depending on what happens in the case.
2 Q Can you explain that?
3 A What I have said and what he has said is that if
4 they -- "they" being the estate of Lisa McPherson -
5 are successful in getting money back over and above
6 their legal expenses in this case and they had $100,000
7 left to pay me, I would get paid back my $100,000. If
8 they do not succeed in this case, they're under no
9 obligation to pay me back.

Minton Deposition , 01/13/98, Appendix 4

In his second deposition on May 24, 2000, Minton is asked the same
question and he gives the same answer.

217 11 Q. What is the agreement with Mr. Dandar with
12 respect to the over one million dollars that you've
13 given him?
14 A. The agreement is basically that if and
15 when the Estate of Lisa McPherson prevails against
16 the Church of Scientology and collects money, that
17 the estate will pay back out of the proceeds of
18 that, if the proceeds are sufficient to cover all
19 the expenses, the principal amount that I have
20 advanced to the estate to Mr. Dandar. That's it.
24 Q. Advanced to the estate for Mr. Dandar?
25 A. No, to Mr. Dandar for -- to prosecute the
218 1 case of the estate.

Minton Deposition, 05/24/00, Appendix 4.

Although Scientology attempts to thwart the clear language of the three
appellate opinions by asking how the money could be spent, before making
his deal with Scientology, upon questioning by Mr. Rosen, Minton
answered that there were no conditions.

314 1 Q. Was he limited by your agreement with him
2 to use the funds that you loaned only for expenses
3 in the wrongful death case?
4 A. There weren't any conditions about it. It
5 was -- the conditions were that it was to support
6 that case.
7 Q. Okay. Well, let me give you an example.
8 Let's assume that Mr. Dandar's carpeting in his
9 office is getting a little ratty, so he decides to
10 replace it. Was there anything in your discussion
11 with him which would prohibit him from using any of
12 the funds that you loaned to replace his carpet?
13 A. Like I said, I didn't put any restrictions
14 on what Mr. Dandar did with the money.
15 Q. So he could use it to replace his carpet
16 if he wanted to?
17 A. You know, he could walk away from the
18 thing and steal the money, basically, if he wanted.
19 Q. But you wouldn't have been happy with
20 that, right?
21 A. You know, I think I was able to make a
22 good enough judgment about Mr. Dandar to think that
23 that's not something he would be doing.
24 Q. Okay. But by the same token, if he wanted
25 to replace the carpet in his office or he wanted to
315 1 buy a new pencil sharpener, you know, it didn't
2 have to be related to the case, right, that would
3 be okay?
4 MR. MERRETT: I'm sorry, could you tell me
5 how this modifies his statement that there
6 were no conditions?
7 MR. ROSEN: Because now I'm talking about
8 his understanding of -- what his understanding
9 was of the terms of the loan. When he spoke
10 about conditions, I think he was referring to
11 things that were articulated, that came out of
12 his mouth.
13 A. Yeah. Look, Mr. Dandar has never
14 explained to me how he spent a penny in this case.
15 Q. And you haven't asked him, right?
16 A. And I haven't asked him.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. So, you know, Mr. Dandar can literally do
19 whatever he wants with this money.
317 8 Q. Was it your understanding -- let me take
9 it first in terms of what was in your mind and then
10 we'll get to the discussion with Mr. Dandar. Was
11 it your understanding that Mr. Dandar could use
12 some of the money to pay himself attorney's fees
13 for the wrongful death case?
14 A. If he wanted to do that, yeah, he could.
15 I mean there wasn't any restriction to it.
16 Q. Okay. And that would have been okay with
17 you?
18 A. Yeah.
318 14 Q. Okay. So if he had signed on with the
15 family to work for no fee, you know, unless he
16 recovered, and then got a percentage of the
17 recovery, would it have been consistent with your
18 intention when you loaned him the money if he took
19 some of that money and paid himself a legal fee?
20 A. There weren't any conditions.

Minton deposition, 10-01, Appendix 4.

Minton was telling the truth in the above depositions. This line of
questioning by Mr. Rosen clearly demonstrates an intent to tortiously
interfere with the relationship between Minton and Dandar. Minton
conceded at this hearing that Rinder implied that Dandar had spent
Minton money on cars, property, and estates, presumably in an effort to
poison the relationship of trust between these two men, and make more
palatable a subsequent quid pro quo arrangement that would see Minton
deliver false testimony that could potentially devastate both Dandar and
the Estate.

Rosen questioned Minton and Dandar before this court on this matter,
clearly to cement into Minton's mind that the money was improperly
spent. Rosen knew he had no evidence of this, but that did not stop him
from maligning Dandar and putting a wedge between Minton and Dandar. In
fact, to this date, no formal allegations have ever come forward from
either Flag or Minton himself that the money was spent on anything other
than the operating costs of managing a small law firm while fighting a
wrongful death suit against a powerful, well-financed and
extraordinarily legally aggressive entity such as Flag. Instead, there
are veiled accusations, innuendo and claims of theft with no actual
evidence to support any such claim.

Minton disclosed how extensive Scientology lied to him during the secret
meetings to distance him from Dandar:

1525 20 A They told me that you had purchased a vacation
21 home in North Carolina, and that you had purchased two
22 homes, one for your mother and one for you, and that there
23 was -- some of these properties -- I think that's near
24 Odessa or somewhere in that vicinity north of Tampa, I
25 believe -- and that some of these things you put into other
1526 1 family members' names and then transferred them from one
2 family member to another and

1528 16 Q Did he tell you that your money was used to buy
17 all this property?
18 A He implied that. He didn't say it.

Minton, May 29, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 4.

More evidence of FLAG's desperation is trying to use new evidence of the
Estate's counterclaim against FLAG in the death case. That Estate's
counterclaim states that Minton's loan money to Dandar was to benefit
the Estate by providing money to Dandar to litigate on behalf of the
Estate. That third party beneficiary status does not equate into Minton
money being a loan to the Estate. It also does not mean that all of the
Minton money is to be exclusively used by Dandar for the death case, but
that Minton's intentions were, at the time, to make it possible for
Dandar to continue to fight the case on a contingency basis, despite
mounting costs that resulted from the seemingly endless pre-trial
motions and diversionary tactics that Flag has employed to delay the
trial itself. Minton's deposition testimony remains the truth.

Finally, Minton recently testified that he had no problem if Dandar
used the money he borrowed for general overhead, including personal use
by Dandar.

920 16 THE COURT: And Mr. Dandar said, "Whoops, I've
17 taken some money." And you, of course, having given
18 this money to the estate, said, "Why did you do
19 that? You have no authority to do that."
20 THE WITNESS: Look, your Honor, he said, you
21 know, "Look, I haven't been making any money. You
22 know, I had to take some money for fees."
23 THE COURT: And you said, "Okay."
24 THE WITNESS: I did.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
921 1 THE WITNESS: You know -- you know, I didn't
2 say, "Okay." I just said, "Okay. No problem."

Minton before Judge Schaeffer, May 7, 2002, Appendix 4.

Although Minton is not correct on when this conversation happened nor
in the previous page to this testimony that Dandar quoted a figure of
$60,000, the truth is that Minton had no problem with how Dandar spent
the money he borrowed. He fully trusted Dandar until Rosen and FLAG
extorted him. He fully trusted Dandar until Rosen and FLAG manipulated
his fears of being the target of continuing litigation and other actions
by the Church of Scientology unless he agreed to the global settlement
that led to this false testimony.

Dandar has never breached that trust. Dandar testified before Judge
Schaeffer and in this court that using borrowed funds for general
purposes occurred in late 1999 or the beginning of 2000, about six
months before the first scheduled trial in the death case.

35 2 A No. Mr. Minton could care less about the case.
3 Q Now, you had spoken at one point about the funds
4 that Mr. Minton had given you. And as your efforts and
5 obligations had increased, did the character of the
6 relationship between you and Mr. Minton, as far as, I guess,
7 whatever label you want to put on the funds provided to you,
8 ever change?
9 A The character changed. In the beginning -- I had
10 been financing the case out of my pocket, my brother and I,
11 our law firm, from -- you know, from early -- well, late
12 January '97 through the remaining part of '97. So all of
13 '97.
14 And so I got this money from a stranger. And
15 after I went through all that with the Florida Bar, I still
16 was not sure who he was. And after I got to meet him and
17 got to see who he was, I got more comfortable with him. And
18 I continued -- once in a while, he would send a check.
19 The conditions under which he gave me the check
20 were very vague, not really -- nothing in writing. That is
21 the way -- just that little letter he wrote me. That is the
22 way he wanted it. And, you know, I -- a trust built up
23 between us
24 And when this thing was set for trial in June of
25 2000, either at the end of '99 or the beginning of 2000,
36 1 the -- we had a conversation somewhere where he said -- I
2 said, "You know, I'm canceling my trials. When I cancel a
3 trial, I'm not making any income and I'm spending all my
4 time on this case, or a lot of my time on the case, you
5 know. Does it matter to you how I spend the money?"
6 He said, "No. I trust you 100 percent. You can
7 spend the money any way you want."
8 And that is how the relationship continued on
9 after that until even when I got the last check in March of
10 2002.
11 Q Now, Mr. Minton testified about some alleged
12 conversation you and he had about a $60,000 expenditure?
13 THE COURT: Did you tell me when this -- when
14 this discussion with Mr. Minton was, this discussion
15 over the kind of a change in the -- what he had told
16 you the money was for and how it was to be used?
17 You indicated the trial was to happen in June
18 of 2000?
19 THE WITNESS: Right.
20 THE COURT: A $500,000 check, no matter who it
21 came from, came in May of 2000?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, that is true, that is
23 right. But it was before that.
24 THE COURT: So it was before -
37 1 THE COURT: All right. You were obviously -
2 when did the trial in June of 2000 get continued?
3 THE WITNESS: Oh, right at the last moment. As
4 I remember, it was right at the last moment. And I
5 had like four or five trials set for the beginning
6 six months of the year 2000. And -- just like I did
7 for this 2002, I canceled them all, I moved them
8 around, rescheduled them.
9 And so all we were doing was this case. And
10 that is why things changed.
11 THE COURT: So you said you might -- you might
12 need the money, meaning, "I used it for to
13 substitute for the money I am losing for not doing
14 these other cases." It was a loan, I take it?
15 THE WITNESS: Exactly. It has always been a
16 loan and it has to be paid back.
17 THE COURT: But the question was did you have
18 to hold it in reserve just to use for the Lisa
19 McPherson case, or could you use it to subsidize
20 yourself?
21 And you are saying he agreed to that in -
22 somewhere around 2000?
23 THE WITNESS: That is right, at the beginning
24 of 2000, end of '99. It could have been in the
25 December of '99 vigil. It could have been at that
38 1 time that we had that conversation, because by that
2 time I had already canceled these trials.
3 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: But I can assure the Court that
5 contrary to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder's statements to
6 Mr. Minton, I did not go out and buy homes, boats,
7 planes. I didn't go to the Cayman Islands and open
8 up a bank account. I didn't do any of those things.
9 I did (sic) buy a 200,000 square foot warehouse in
10 Odessa, Florida. I didn't buy my parents a house in
11 Florida or in North Carolina. Those are all lies.

Dandar before Judge Schaeffer, July 16, 2002, Appendix 5.

201 7 Q. Okay. All right. Now, I want to be
8 real clear about one thing that's confusing to me.
9 In Exhibit 8, Mr. Dandar, you're told by
10 Mr. Minton that he's giving you this money, quote,
11 To help with the expenses incurred in the Lisa
12 McPherson vs. Scientology case. Do you see that?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. But, sir, am I understanding correctly
15 then that it is your testimony that you had no
16 strings on this money, it was a personal loan to
17 you, you could go out and buy a boat, do whatever
18 you wanted with it? That's your interpretation,
19 right?
20 A. Well -
21 Q. Yes or no?
22 A. That -- not from that letter, no.
23 Q. But -
24 A. It evolved.
25 Q. It evolved. Well, how did it evolve
202 1 from help use some money for the benefit of the
2 Estate to put it in your pocket and buy a house
3 with it? How did it evolve to that?
4 A. Well, I didn't put it in my pocket and
5 buy a house with it.
6 Q. How did it evolve, Mr. Dandar?
7 A. I put it into the bank. I put it into
8 several accounts, Dandar & Dandar, depending on
9 how Mr. Minton wrote the check. I put it into
10 other accounts that made interest. I was trying
11 to make some money on this money so I wouldn't
12 have to keep going back and telling Mr. Minton,
13 Well, do you want to give us some more money?
14 Then I would transfer it to the trust account and
15 from the trust account to the operating account.

Dandar in this court, April 19, 2002, Appendix 5.

Finally, in its Closing Argument, Plaintiff makes much of the fact that
Dandar failed to "correct" Minton for his practice of adding notations
such as "for McPherson" on checks that he sent to Dandar as part of his
efforts to support the case. For the Church to leap to this wholly
unsupported conclusion that relies on the simple omission by Dandar to
tell Mr. Minton what to write as a personal notation on a check is yet
another glaring indication of the stark paucity of conclusive evidence
that has been brought forward to support the claims laid out in the
motion at hand.

Yet the Church suggests in this argument that somehow his failure to add
to his already daunting burden by taking on the role of unpaid and
unsolicited accounting advisor to Minton constitutes a prima facie
example of deliberate deception.

No testimony has been elicited from Dandar, or indeed Minton, in this
hearing that in any way supports the allegation that this was a
deliberate effort on the part of Dandar to mislead Minton as to his
understanding of the agreement. The Church does not profess to have the
ability to discern either Mr. Dandar's awareness of the notation, or the
state of mind that led him to ignore the ambiguous terminology used in
Mr. Minton's notes, it cannot feasibly argue that the absence of a
direct action to "correct" Mr. Minton is somehow evidence of an overall
intention to deceive on the part of Dandar.

On resting its case, FLAG still has not proven its claim that somehow,
the money in question was both obtained and dispersed in a manner not in
line with the laws of the court, the rules of the Bar, or, indeed, the
Dandar/Minton agreement itself. Judge Schaeffer, as well as this
court, in following the Second District Court of Appeal did not permit
questioning of how the money was spent. Of course, that did not stop
counsel for FLAG arguing about it with huge speculation in its closing,
but the Court cannot allow Flag to use to its own advantage a court
decision that was reached in order to protect the Estate from invasive
scrutiny of its assets in an effort to determine how much more it can
withstand before being unable to proceed with the complaint.

FLAG has no standing to challenge how Dandar spends his or even his
client's money, and yet again, FLAG has failed to prove perjury when
arguing the new version of events that has been provided by its witness,
Robert Minton, whose recantation almost certainly results from pressure
exerted on him by the Plaintiff. The church has a direct fiduciary
interest in ensuring that Flag prevails when the wrongful death suit
eventually goes to trial. Even with all this evidence FLAG still has not
proven anything.

Dandar is solely responsible for advancing costs in the death case. The
standard retainer agreement was indeed amended as reflected in a letter
to Dell Liebreich disclosing who is responsible for costs. FLAG fails
to point this out. See Dandar letter to Liebreich of February 10, 1997,
Appendix 15, in evidence before Judge Schaeffer. Flag filed, after the
end of the hearing, a recent accounting in the probate court which FLAG
demanded disclosing funds received by the Estate. The accounting shows
a settlement with one of the former defendants in the death case for
$100,000. $20,000 was retained by Dandar for future costs. That is a
matter between the client and Dandar, not FLAG. It changes none of the
terms of the agreement with the client.


The entire motion to disqualify is based on Minton and his meetings with
counsel for the church. There is a glaring inconsistency between Mr.
Rosen's testimony and that of the notes of other church counsel, Monique
Yingling, Appendix 16.
Minton and Brooks testified before Judge Schaeffer that Rosen and Rinder
told them that the McPherson case would have to go away before there
would be disengagement by the church of whatever it was doing to
Minton. Monique Yingling, church counsel, is apparently the only one
who took notes of the New York meeting. Her notes state:

"...until wrongful death case goes away - we can not have

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

"SJ - outstanding litigation would have to go? Do we mean BM would have
to bring about dismissal of McPherson case.? MR - yes that is what we

"SJ-do we have expectation that Florida case will go away -with no

"Yes-no money from us."[page 11].

Yingling notes of March 28, 2002. Michael Rinder, Scientology's Senior
Management Executive Worldwide MR, confirming to Minton's lawyer, Steve
Jonas, SJ, that Scientology demands McPherson case be dismissed before
Scientology would entertain "disengagement" with Minton andhis family.

Mr. Rosen testified in this court quite differently from the written
Yingling notes.

140 2 Q. Now, isn't it true, sir, that Mr. Rinder told
3 Mr. Minton at that meeting on March 28th that before the
4 church would enter into any discussions with him on
5 disengagement, that Mr. Minton first had to make the Lisa
6 McPherson wrongful death case and the Larry Wollersheim
7 case in California go away?
8 A. Absolutely not. Never said that.
9 Mr. Rinder expressed a strong preference for a
10 global settlement and expressed in the strongest possible
11 terms his preference that all of the litigation go away.
12 Mr. Jonas, I believe, asked if we were willing
13 to let Mr. Minton out of the breach case and out of the
14 wrongful death case.
15 And Mr. Rinder's response was, "Your client's
16 not getting out of any case until the case is over. We're
17 not letting you out and then continuing to litigate with
18 the others.
19 "So if what you want is to get out of the
20 wrongful death case where you're about to be added as a
21 defendant, then we're telling you, you're not getting out
22 until the case is over," and that's what Mr. Rinder said.

Rosen, August 29, 2002, Appendix 17.

The above Yingling notes confirm that Minton had to get the death case
to go away, not just wait till the death case was over.

Rosen states that there was no demand for a global settlement.

129 15 Q. Okay. Did you relate to Mr. Howie that your
16 client was not interested in settling with him in this case
17 with Judge Baird, that your client was only interested in a
18 global settlement?
19 A. Absolutely not.

130 2 Q. During any of those conversations, did you tell
3 Mr. Howie that your client was only interested in a global
4 settlement, rather than just settling with Mr. Minton in
5 this case?
6 A. Absolutely not.

Brooks and Minton testified that when their attorney, Bruce Howie,
first contacted Rinder to settle this case, MR Howie was informed that
the church would only be interested in a global settlement. The
Yingling notes spell out the terms of the global settlement demands.

5 A Mmm, that was pretty much the role that Mr. Rosen
6 had in the meeting. I'm pretty sure it was Mr. Rinder who
7 then basically said, you know, we're really not willing to
8 discuss any kind of global settlement with you until you set
9 the record straight on the wrongful death case.
10 Q Well, nobody cared about setting the record
11 straight. Did they? The request was dismiss the case, get
12 this case wrapped up because it is the biggest nightmare we
13 have. Wasn't that what Mr. Rosen told you?
14 A No, he said Mr. Rinder said that they wouldn't be
15 willing to discuss settlement with us until we set the
16 record straight in the wrongful death case.

Brooks, before Judge Schaeffer, May 7, 2002 at 570, Appendix 13.

All counsel notes of these New York meetings and Jonas' letter to Dandar
conclusively show that the first precondition was for Minton to make the
Florida case and the Wollersheim case "go away." Jonas' letterto
Dandar of April 11, 2002, states that the McPherson case must be
"dismissed." Appendix 18. Notice that there is never any mention by
Jonas of setting the record straight or perjury. Brooks, in protecting
Scientology, lied to the court when she denied that Rosen demanded the
McPherson case be dismissed.

8 Q Why was he asking him to drop the case? Was that
9 a demand made by Mr. Rosen?
10 A No. No.

Brooks May 3, 2002, at 221:8-10, before Judge Schaefer, Appendix 13.

Yet the Yingling notes quoted above and the Jonas letter to
Dandar confirm dismissal is a precondition. Rosen testified that no such
request for dismissal was made.

16 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that Michael Rinder told
17 Mr. Minton in your presence on March 28th that before there
18 would ever be disengagement between him and the Church of
19 Scientology, Mr. Minton had to get the Lisa McPherson
20 wrongful death case dismissed?
21 A. Absolutely false. And the events of March 29th
22 proved it to be false.

Rosen, August 29, 2002 at 141, Appendix 17.

Brooks not only states that a RICO suit was threatened, but that she
remembers Rosen waiving a RICO suit in his hands. Yingling testified
that the list of church litigation costs, about 35 million dollars, was
the magnitude of the damages which Minton's lawyer, Jonas, said would be
for the planned RICO case. (Appendix 19, pp.61-62).

"SR - now preparing RICO case which will encompass all damages above."

Page 5 of Yingling notes, where SR stands for Sandy Rosen.

Rosen also testified that there was no demand that the expert affidavits
of the Estate and the ones of Prince and Brooks in the Wollersheim case
be withdrawn. (Appendix 17, pp.140-141). However, the Yingling notes
and testimony from Brooks and Leipold are to the contrary.

"withdrawal of JP and SB affidavits"

Yingling notes, where JP is Jesse Prince and SB is Stacy Brooks.

Dan Leipold, Wollersheim's current attorney, testified that both Brooks
and Minton called him on April 8, 2002, to withdraw her declaration and
Prince's declaration in hopes of getting the Wollersheim case dismissed.

14 A I filed the declaration originally, I believe,
15 sometime in mid-1997, and I received a telephone call from
16 Ms. Brooks on April 8th, I believe, 2002, in which she told
17 me that she and Robert Minton were attempting to settle
18 legal actions against them or settle with the Church of
19 Scientology, and she wished me to withdraw that declaration
20 from the -- from the court. And then later that day, Bob
21 Minton -
23 A -- he asked me to dismiss that action on behalf of
24 my client.

Leipold at 27, Appendix 20.

Rosen also testified that there was no demand to withdraw affidavits.

23 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that Mr. Rinder told
24 Mr. Minton that the declarations and affidavits of Jesse
25 Prince, Stacy Brooks and Vaughn Young would have to be
141 1 withdrawn in the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case
2 before the Church of Scientology would consider
3 disengagement from Mr. Minton?
4 A. Absolutely not.

Rosen, Appendix 17.

The Yingling notes also state that the global settlement had to be
accomplished by April 8, 2002. Rosen testified that there was no

151 15 Q. Isn't it true on Friday, March 29th you told
16 Mr. Minton that if he wanted disengagement, he would have
17 to meet the demands that were placed on him by Mr. Rinder
18 by April the 9th, the following Friday?
19 A. Sir, there weren't any demands placed by -- there
20 was no proposal for a settlement by Mr. Rinder ever
21 presented, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Rosen, Appendix 17

No proposal for settlement? Rosen's co-counsel Yingling, and her notes
certainly detail the demands for settlement by the church.


A. The Law of Extortion.

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 4th DCA 1984).

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, Rosen's and
Rinder's threats to Minton are extortion since they are conveyed to
Scientology's pecuniary advantage not to pay death damages, as well as
to have Minton ultimately pay Scientology as part of the "global
settlement" agreement.

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 Minton's wife and their
daughters. Dudley v. State, 634 So.2d 1093 (Fla 2nd 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).

B. The Motive for Extortion.

The Scientology intelligence operation writings of Mr. Hubbard encourage
the use of extortion, whether it is uncovering real crimes of its
enemies or manufacturing evidence, the goal is to present that
investigation so that the enemy sues for peace.
Jesse Prince, former Deputy Inspector General International in RTC,
three positions down from Miscavige, testified before Judge Schaeffer as
to these intelligence operations against the enemies of Scientology and
the applicable policies which promote it.

25 Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third
201 1 paragraph on Exhibit 113 states, "Even if you don't have
2 enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason
3 is, it is only those people that have crimes that will
4 attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being
5 found out when attacked back."
6 Is this considered a scripture of the Church of
7 Scientology?
8 A During -- during my tenure in Scientology, this
9 document was not considered to be any type of scripture.
10 This was a training material to train a person in
11 intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.
12 Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking
13 about -- answering the question about if this relates to the
14 noisy investigation when this document, in the third
15 paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word
16 "loudly."
17 A Yeah.
18 Q And what is a noisy investigation?
19 A A noisy investigation -- I believe we covered that
20 the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted
21 the document in the church.
22 But it's basically to go around and arouse the
23 neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that
24 Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations
25 about the person that may or may not be true. And according
202 1 to Scientology's Manual of Justice, which is a further
2 document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go
3 through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy
4 investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of
5 it.

Prince, July 8, 2002, Appendix 6.

The following are some of the church policies or instruction material
proffered here as Composite Exhibit 8 and in evidence in the death case
issued by the Church of Scientology to destroy its enemies. (Exhibit
numbers below refer to exhibit numbers in the death case.)

"Battle Tactics"

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.

Ex. 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 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.

Ex. 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.

Ex. 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.
Ex. 109J, "HCO Executive Letter of 5 September 1960.


When things go wrong and we don't know why already by intelligence, we
resort to Investigation.

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 -by 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 we re 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

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
When you get their data, give it to your attorneys for any action they
want. Or post it.

Ex.. 122, Manuel of Justice, a Scientology publication.

So it is therefore a reasonable assumption that this church, which does
have a criminal history, will do whatever is necessary to protect
Scientology, even if it means breaking the law.

151 17 THE COURT: Show me where you're reading from.
18 MR. WEINBERG: I see it. It's the third
19 paragraph.
20 THE COURT: Okay. "If attacked on some
21 vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any
22 organization, always find or manufacture enough
23 threat against them to cause them to sue for peace."
24 What is this?
25 THE WITNESS: This is a policy letter, your
152 1 Honor. This is a church policy letter that is a
2 policy letter for the department of government
3 affairs, which is a department or a section or a
4 unit within the Scientology organization, that
5 basically talks about -- you know, things having to
6 do with tax matters, legal activities, whatever, for
7 an organization.
8 THE COURT: What does the term "sue for peace"
9 mean?
10 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means
11 basically that a person just wants to end
12 what's-ever happening and let's just settle it and
13 all walk away as happy as possible.
15 Q Like a disengagement?
16 A Yes.

Prince, June 18, 2002, Appendix 6.

This is not simply testimony, it is the unrebutted policy letters of
Scientology! Judge Schaeffer suggested to the church to bring in their
Scientology expert to rebut. The church failed or refused to do so.
Jesse Prince described one chilling experience where he halted an
operation that would have certainly resulted in the death of a targeted

205 13 Madam Court Reporter, read back that question
14 before I interrupted him.
15 THE REPORTER: The pending question is, "In
16 your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you
17 go about finding or manufacturing threats against
18 the critics?"
19 The witness began to answer, "Well, there's
20 several ways that I've -- I've seen it done --"
21 A Yes.
22 As far as out-and-out manufacturing information
23 And again, I want to clarify that. During the
24 time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in
25 Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls
206 1 technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training
2 of things.
3 Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about
4 this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from
5 me until that point. So I -- I actually had a very short
6 amount of time there. But as what I've seen as far as
7 manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person --
8 Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to
9 Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John
10 Nelson used to be a person that was the CO -- the commanding
11 officer of Sea Org --
12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection.
13 A -- International.
14 MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How's he
15 know this?
16 THE WITNESS: Because I was there.
17 MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?
18 THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the
19 parties.
20 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.
22 Q Were you in charge of the parties?
23 A Yes. The party was working in one of my
24 divisions.
25 At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a
207 1 private investigator to investigate a fellow named John
2 Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in
3 Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.
4 THE COURT: At what?
5 THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the
6 Commodores Messenger Organization.
8 Q And that was an elite organization?
9 A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs,
10 which eventually became Church of Scientology International.
11 CSI.
12 Q All right.
13 A And he had started his own splinter organization
14 with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was
15 perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology.
16 So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick
17 Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room
18 next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that
19 they would know when he was coming and going; and when he
20 left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was
21 to call the police when he came, to say he was a -- a heroin
22 dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.
23 I found out about that because the private
24 investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back
25 to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, "Look,
208 1 this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets
2 convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence."
3 I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither
4 did the private investigator. He was coming back.
5 I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki
6 Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation
7 and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away -- not
8 to do that particular operation.
9 This was an instance of manufacturing information
10 that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had
11 personal knowledge of. I've heard other things about that.
12 And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. --
13 Q Well, what year was this?
14 A That this occurred?
15 Q Yes.
16 A This happened in 1985.

211 11 Q All right. So what happened -- what was the
12 operation against Mr. Mayo?
13 A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.
14 And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a
15 business place, office complex. They were on the first
16 floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his
17 office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also,
18 a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray
19 Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int -
22 A -- was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a
23 deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as
24 well as Nancy Mainy.
25 And the purpose of these deep cover operatives
212 1 were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced
2 Abilities Center to provide information about financial
3 accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole
4 the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the
5 Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent
6 in there to not only glean information but to disrupt
7 activities, covertly disrupt activities.

219 2 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you
3 identify that?
4 A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along
5 with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual
6 of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude
7 of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind
8 of gives the thought process, the -- the basis of it. It
9 comes from Klausewitz.
10 Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is
11 directed against the enemies of Scientology?
12 A Correct.
13 Q And then the third -- actually, the fourth
14 paragraph from the bottom it states -- states, quote, One
15 cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections.
16 This policy letter goes to -- applies to former
17 Scientologists as well as someone who's an -- an enemy, who
18 has never been a Scientologist?
19 A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a --
20 as an enemy.
220 10 Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph
11 states, "Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It
12 eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence
13 and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close
14 quote. What is PRO?
15 A Public relations officer.
16 Q And intelligence is what?
17 A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or
18 department or division of Scientology organizations.
19 Intelligence having to do with the prediction.
20 Again, it goes back to this issue we have here,
21 intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to
22 predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states
23 that in the issue. So intelligence would predict or would
24 start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data
25 collection, covert data collection, amass as much
221 1 information about the situation as possible, then proceed
2 accordingly.
3 Q That's the -- does that include the use of the
4 private investigators?
5 A Yes

222 3 A 116 is a document in the same vein of the
4 documents we've been studying before. It's the public
5 investigation section. And this basically has to do with --
6 "investigates attacking individual members and see the
7 results of the investigation, get adequate legal and
8 publicity."
9 So this again is similar to what we've gone over
10 here before.
11 Q So it's in a series of the other exhibits on how
12 to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?
13 A Correct.
14 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 117, entitled
15 Attacks on Scientology. What is that?
16 A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It
17 talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. "An attack
18 on Scientology --" well, you know, the basic principle is,
19 never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the
20 attacker. That kind of thing.
21 Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late '60s.
22 Were they still in effect when you were in your management
23 position at RTC?
24 A Very much so. And they're still in effect today.

223 4 Q And how do you know they're still in effect today?
5 A Because of that time track that was submitted into
6 this courtroom of specific things that have -- that have
7 occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over
8 specifically what has happened to me because of my
9 involvement in this case and other cases.

230 9 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 119. Can you
10 identify this, please?
11 A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February,
12 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those
13 activities within the Scientology organization.
14 Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the
15 caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that?
16 A Because I think that it, again, just like these
17 other issues that we've seen, goes along in the same vein,
18 in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself,
19 including what it says it'll do here: Create the greatest
20 possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a
21 government or whoever to protect Scientology.

237 16 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the
17 reason why we have this document in here is because
18 it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing
19 pattern of conduct, where if there's a perceived
20 enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a
21 specific program to remove him from any position.
22 That's the first thing it says in this document, you
23 know, to remove this person from his job so that
24 he's not a threat to Scientology.
25 And -- and it goes on where, you know, they had
238 1 some college -- the person pretend to be a college
2 student and write a letter -

243 18 Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on
19 this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court's
20 attention?
21 A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the
22 Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, "When we
23 need somebody haunted, we investigate."
24 This talks about not only people inside of
25 Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of
244 1 Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists;
2 people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They
3 don't have to be a Scientologist. And it -- and it -- this
4 is -- this document itself explains the basis of
5 intelligence, investigation, how it's used, how you handle
6 bad press. And it -- it's just kind of like a little
7 handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to
8 have that function within Scientology.

Prince, July 8, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 6.

There has not been any rebuttal of the above by the church. Frank
Oliver, a former Scientologist and employee of Scientology who quit
Scientology's intelligence division, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA)
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. 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 290, July 15, 2002, Appendix 9.)

Contrary to Scientology's statements before Judge Schaeffer 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, such as Mrs.
Hubbard, the courts have recognized that those criminal actions were
authorized by Mr. Hubbard as well.

Plaintiff's allegations that the Hubbards controlled the Guardian's
Office of the Church is corroborated by the findings in (US.v Heldt )
United States v. Hubbard, et al, 668 F.2d 1238 (C.A.D.C.1981). (Exhibit
B to plaintiff's 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).

Even after a small group of top-ranking Scientology officials were
convicted for their part in the Snow White Operation of Department 20,
including Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard,
the Church continued to knowingly participate in criminal activities.
The Florida Bar v. Vannier, 498 So.2d 896, 897(Fla. 1986). "TheChurch,
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, who was
unaware that his own attorney was a spy for Scientology while Mayor
Cazares was embattled in litigation with Scientology.

Even during the wrongful death case, FLAG engaged in improper activity
by tampering with the Plaintiff's expert witness, Jesse Prince, by
sending in an undercover private investigator into his home. This court
unwittingly signed a search warrant for Prince's home based upon FLAG'S
private investigator posing as a confidential informant falsely accusing
Prince of trafficking in cocaine and stolen auto parts.

Employing the written commands of Mr. Hubbard of conducting a "noisy
investigation," finding the crimes of Mr. Minton, or manufacturing
evidence so that Minton begs for peace most likely resulted in huge
bonuses for those involved.

194 18 Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked
19 about your position with the Religious Technology Center;
20 you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing
21 investigations involving litigation and other critics of
22 Scientology. And I'm showing you today Plaintiff's Exhibit
23 113, entitled Intelligence Actions. Can you identify that
24 document?
25 A Yes.
195 1 Q And what is it?
2 A This is a document -- a document written by L. Ron
3 Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about
4 predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating
5 individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.
6 And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives
7 to be enemies or suppressive persons.
8 Q Against whom? They're enemies of whom?
9 A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These
10 are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of
11 Scientology.

Prince, July 8, 2002, Appendix 6.

As 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
22 happening.
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.
3 Q From the Church -- the Church was saying this to
4 him?
5 A The Church was saying this to him, that we could
6 settle but no more money to Ken.

Nancy Many, July 12, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 22.

384 17 Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when
18 Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by
19 Scientology of a UBS check?
20 A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made
21 reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the
22 last one that I did, the April 2002.
23 He called me just in grief, crying. He's like,
24 "It's over. They got me. You know, I'm going to jail."
25 He's just -
385 1 THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You
2 want your last affidavit? I think it was in there.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week
4 prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th.
5 So we're talking like maybe March 21st or something
6 like that. You know, the week prior to going to New
7 York.
9 Q All right, here is the April 2002 affidavit.
10 A Okay.
16 A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks
17 and --
19 Q Well, let's back up.
20 Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, "It is
21 all over." What else?
22 A He said that, Mmm, "I'm going to jail. I have
23 been told I'm going to jail. They're coming after Therese
24 and the kids."
25 And he was just completely despondent about that.
386 1 Q And this was before the New York City meetings?
2 A Yeah.
3 Q Okay.
4 A Yeah. So then --
5 Q But he didn't go into detail as to why he thought
6 he was going to jail?
7 A No, he wouldn't tell me then. I wanted to know,
8 what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new
9 thing has happened? He wouldn't tell me.
10 Q Okay.
11 A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional
12 information. She didn't know what the heck had happened.
13 But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there
14 that day.
15 Q To New Hampshire?
16 A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an
17 idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I
18 had no idea that this was a significant incident.
19 But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten
20 a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that
21 he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this
22 $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to
23 prosecute him on it.
24 Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy
25 of this UBS check?
387 1 A No. He said he didn't know how they got a copy
2 because he can't get a copy of it. He said, "I tried. I
3 can't get a copy of it."
4 Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him.
5 And he was just beside himself.

388 13 MR. DANDAR: He's reading from Paragraph 9 on
14 Page 3.
16 Q Am I right?
17 A Yes. But, you know -- yes, that was on Page 3,
18 Number 9, during the time period, what I'm talking about
19 here.
20 And before I wrote this affidavit on the
21 attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first
22 page that -- that Scientology had gathered enough
23 information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted,
24 convicted and jailed.
25 MR. DANDAR: He's looking at his handwritten
389 1 attachment.
2 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
4 MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first
5 paragraph.
6 THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?
17 I don't mention the check specifically, but
18 what I mention is, is the information that
19 Scientology had gotten, information that said they
20 were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail.
21 You know --
23 Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation --

24 the first conversation where he's crying?
25 A Yes. They discovered information about him that
390 1 threatened his wife and children's future. You know, again,
2 he's suicidal. And then --

391 1 And then he's telling me, you know, they have
2 got this check. And, you know, and he says --
3 basically, it's come down to me or Ken Dandar,
4 somebody has to die here.
5 And I'm like, you know, this was such a
6 complete turnaround. These are people I worked with
7 now for years. We have all been on one accord,
8 doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now
9 Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar.

Prince, July 8, 2002, Appendix 6.

Ken Dandar also testified and it was confirmed by Minton, that during
the Good Friday telephone calls between the two on March 29, 2002,
Minton verified that these threats not only involved the very real
threat of jail for himself, but also involved his wife Therese and their
two daughters. That call was corroborated by Dandar in writing to Minton
on March 30, 2002:

March 30, 2002


Your call yesterday was disturbing to me on a professional and personal
level. I do not know what extortion Scientology, through Rinder, Rosen
and Yingling are perpetrating against you, but it appears to be one that
has pushed you over the edge. It was extremely incendiary for Stacy to
say that the "blood" of your wife, daughters, and you will be on our
hands! It is beyond me how you could ask Dell and me to dismiss the
case and just walk away.

With all due respect to you, this lawsuit against Scientology is not
about you. It is about the death of Lisa McPherson, a homicide. Contrary
to what Scientology has attempted to make the courts and world at large
believe, you do not, never have or ever will control this lawsuit
against Scientology in any way, shape or form.

Following your call to me, I called Dell. I advised her of our telephone
conversation. She in no uncertain terms told me that will never walk
away from the case. Her directive to me was at it always has been. That
is, do not relent in the effort to carry out the wishes of Fannie.
Fannie instructed Dell and me to tell the world what Scientology did to
her daughter and to make Scientology be accountable for causing Lisa's
death. When I went to visit with Fannie in Texas, Dell, in front of me,
promised Fannie, whom she dearly loved, that she would carry the case to
the end. I made the same promise. That is a promise that neither Dell
nor I will ever break under any circumstances.

I am a lawyer with ethical obligations to my client, Dell. I take those
obligations very seriously. I have only one client in this wrongful
death lawsuit against Scientology and that is Dell and not you or Stacy
Brooks. As you well know, Dell has been and always will be in charge of
the litigation. Your personal loans to me were unconditional. I was
free to spend that money as I saw fit. You repeatedly stated under oath
in your depositions that you trusted me, which I hope you still do, to
spend the money as I sought fit. You confirmed in your original and only
letter that the loans to me were without any strings and would only need
to be repaid if and only if the Estate of Lisa McPherson determined that
it has been reasonably compensated, after payment of fees and costs.

Now that you know that Dell will never walk away from the case, you must
also know that she prays for you and your wife and daughters every day
as she does for wife, my daughter and me. If I knew in the beginning
that there were problems with your finances, I would have never accepted
your loans. Had you remained silent in the background, Scientology would
never have known about you and your desire to fund the case to defray
the costs of the litigation. You chose to start the LMT against my
professional and personal advice and of Dell. You appointed me as an
"advisor" whose advice you never followed. Dell agreed to serve on the
board to try to provide advisory input, but she too was ignored.

I still do not know what problems you face now that are so great that
you would insist that Dell heed the demands of SCN and walk away from
the Lisa case. That has placed great stress on Dell and I because that
will never be considered.
Dell and her family will never make a deal with the devil. You should
not be so foolish to do so either. The devil will never honor its deal.

Does this make Dell and I heartless? I would hope that you do not see it
that way. We are extremely concerned for you, your wife, and your
daughters. I am insistent that you and Steve are smart enough to figure
out a solution that does not cause harm to you and your family.

You need to get your life in order, Bob. I know I have no business in
saying that, but that comes from the heart and it is not the first time
I said it. No matter what happens, I will forever say that there is no
one in the world like Bob Minton. You are the most genuine, honest,
modest, and sincere person I have ever met. I will always be here or
anywhere in the world to help you. You can ask me for anything, except
for those things that do not require me to compromise my ethics as a
lawyer and my values as a person. Dismissing the case because
Scientology is attempting to extort and blackmail you is a request I
cannot nor will ever honor. From what I know so far, it is my opinion
that Scientology and its counsel are blackmailing and extorting you. I
am outraged, but then I have no respect for anyone who works for

Steve told me yesterday after I talked with you that he does not believe
that the demand is a total walk away. It is more like demanding the
Estate take less than it expects. It is totally unethical for Rosen,
Yingling and Rinder to meet with you and make any demands on the Estate.
You have no power or authority to negotiate with anyone, never mind
Scientology, for the Estate. Scientology certainly cannot be afraid to
negotiate with Dell and me. Therefore, I believe Scientology and its
unethical representatives are not acting in good faith. They are simply
again trying to interfere and undermine the litigation against them and
our relationship.

The court has set our third mediation for April 19, something Rosen
conveniently forgot to mention to Steve. The case has never been as
strong as it is now!

You always told me that the Nigerian thing is a bunch of lies and all
your transactions have been proper. That is why you need to be strong
and fight for your rights. If you need me, I will fight there with you.
However, I will never put myself in any situation, which presents a
conflict of interest. Scientology has never succeeded in intimidating me
and they never will.

I have said quite a bit now, but I need you to know exactly where Dell
and I stand. We hope this does not mean that you will never talk to us
again. We hope that your attorneys can figure out a way to resolve the
issues favorably. When you first got into this, after you made a
settlement with them in FACTNet, you certainly knew what evil
Scientology is capable of spawning. Yet you plowed right in as one of
the bravest men in the world. You need to find that strength now. Pray
for God's wisdom. Dell and I will continue to pray for you and your
family. Prayer does work!


This further confirms the subsequent Prince testimony above. It also
shows that Minton going to jail has nothing to do with the two contempt
hearings in Florida, since his wife and young daughters had no
involvement in such a turn of events - an eventuality which, in fact,
neither Scientology nor Flag would have had any ability to either bring
about or prevent, since contempt is, by law, a matter for the courts,
and not Scientology to decide.

The first letter from Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, of April 1, 2002,
did not respond to the above e-mail. The second letter from Jonas of
April 11, 2002, introduced into evidence before Judge Schaeffer as
Plaintiff's Ex. 12 and Appendix 18 here, also does not rebut the
extortion allegation in this e-mail of March 30, 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. Minton. One of them was their request that 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. Minton and
Scientology and, in fact, told you that through me Mr. Minton had
entered into a confidentiality agreement that would prevent either 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

This Jonas letter in addition to the Yingling notes confirms, contrary
to Rosen's, Minton's, and Brooks' hearing testimony, that Scientology
demanded that the McPherson case be dismissed.

Neither here nor before Judge Schaeffer, did Scientology rebut this
testimony of extortion, not at all.

C The Evidence of Extortion.

"Wrongful death No Money or other support, withdrawal of JP and SB
affidavits, commit to be Ws, effort to try to exert influence over-
Dandar and Liebreich 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 arc 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"

"...until wrongful death case goes away - we can not have

Yingling notes of March 28, 2002, Appendix 16.

Disengagement? Need more be said? Minton was absolutely intent to have
disengagement. The policy letters of extortion via "noisy
investigations" and digging up crimes of Minton had worked. In the
above meeting excerpt, Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, "SJ," is summing
up Scientology demands, which include demanding that the wrongful death
case be dismissed, that Minton stop funding the case, and that Jesse
Prince and Stacy 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 Sandy Rosen's comments that he hopes it is not a " harbinger
of things to come" because he, Rosen, would be "extremely
disappointed." There is no uncertainty that Scientology, through Rinder
and Rosen, is demanding the McPherson case "go away."

"MR knows BM can do it - can discuss later how." This is the
introduction to Minton of future discussions of making the case "go
away," since Jonas already stated that he was not sure Minton could
procure the dismissal. This is also an admission that Minton had no
control over the case, despite Flag's assurance that he has such
influence, which continues to this day in the counterclaim motion
currently before Judge Schaeffer. Rinder did not broach that subject
then because Rinder did not want to discuss his plans in front of
Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas. We do know that later in Florida, Rinder
instructed Minton on exactly how to do this - while Minton was without
counsel, making it easy for Scientology to rely on plausible deniability
to avoid facing any consequences for its actions even if Minton had a
further change of heart and spoke out about the extortion attempt.

The identification of the source of the UBS checks by identifying the
account numbers and financial institution originating the funds to the
UBS is the key to the extortion of Robert Minton. That is why Minton
pled the Fifth Amendment on this subject before Judge Schaeffer.

432 23 Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you
24 hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar
25 making a lie about the $500,000 check?
433 1 A No. I got up and left immediately.
2 Q All right. And when is the next time you were
3 talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks?
4 A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just
5 couldn't even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw
6 that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn't
7 know what to do.
8 And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind
9 something criminal was going on here, I need to do something
10 to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming.
11 And I --
12 THE COURT: When you say to help your friends,
13 you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and
14 Stacy Brooks?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
17 Q So you went, on your own, to Denis's office?
18 A Yes.
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I should not put words
20 in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant
21 Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other
22 friend?
23 THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to
24 Mr. deVlaming's office and I explained to him that I
25 had been privileged to know that this was going to
434 1 happen, that this was going to be created and done
2 against you, and I explained the whole thing to him.

Prince before Judge Schaeffer on July 8, 2002, Appendix 6.

Minton had called Dandar in early March 2002 desperately trying to
ascertain whether there was any court action here in Florida which may
be causing his and the "Fat Man's" Swiss bank concerns, or lead the
Swiss prosecutors to show renewed interest in Minton. The inference is
that this is the time Scientology made progress in getting the UBS
check. Scientology also noticed and obtained a court order of Minton's
wife for deposition. (See Appendix 23.) This confluence of events was
clearly making Minton very nervous and threatened, since the inference
is Minton's wife did not know of the undisclosed and secretive financial
transactions coming out of his Swiss bank accounts. The noose was
tightening around Minton's neck and Minton's chicanery involving dubious
financial practices was coming home to roost.

313 15 But what is interesting about all of this -- and I
16 still don't know the answer to this -- is that he was
17 extremely concerned that I hurry up and deposit that check.
18 I don't know -- I took it to mean that, you know, something
19 was going on wherever this check came from, because we had a
20 couple of phone calls about that.
21 Q You and Mr. Minton had a couple phone calls about
22 it?
23 A About something going on in Switzerland, and he
24 was really, really, really concerned about --
25 Q Did he say what he was concerned about?
314 1 A Well, it was after this check came, I deposited
2 the check, he calls me up and asks me, "Did the court in
3 Florida send something out to the Swiss banks, like a letter
4 interrogatory, a subpoena for documents?"
5 I said, "Not as far as I know."
6 I asked him, "Why are you asking me this
7 question?"
8 He said, "Because something is happening in the
9 Swiss banks. And there is a new prosecutor in Switzerland,
10 there is a new judge. They had a hearing about me."
11 And he suspected Scientology was behind all that
12 because they were behind the false accusations in Nigeria --
13 at least he told me they were false. But he was extremely
14 concerned. And that is when he said I need to hurry up and
15 deposit the check, because somehow his friends and he were
16 somehow implicated in whatever was going on in the Swiss
17 bank.

Dandar before Judge Schaeffer, June 4, 2002, Appendix 5.

As far as the evidence discloses, the extortion begins when Rinder tells
Minton he has the UBS check of May 2000, when Minton can't get a copy of
this check. It continues in the meetings of March 28 & 29, 2002 in
Rosen's office in New York.

"SR - now preparing RICO case which will encompass all damages above."

Page 5 of Yingling notes, where SR stands for Sandy Rosen.

There, solely for the pecuniary advantage of Scientology, Rinder and
Rosen threaten Minton with RICO and the Armstrong suit, where damages
are in excess of 200 million dollars. Rinder and Rosen give Minton the
demand to make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away"
before Scientology will even consider "disengagement." Note, this is
the word of Rinder or Rosen. It is not settlement of a case. Neither
Minton, Rosen, nor Rinder had any right to settle or dismiss the
McPherson case. It is disengagement of the threats, the harassment,
the threats to put Minton's wife in jail. (See Minton's Harassment Time
Line, Plaintiffs Ex. 4, attached here as Appendix 24.) "I'm going to
jail. I have been told I'm going to jail. They're coming after
Therese and the kids." Prince, supra. Scientology is not the
justice/legal system. This is extortion.

1398 25 Q Isn't it true in that conversation that Bob
1 Minton said if the case was not dismissed immediately the,
2 quote, blood and death of his daughters, his wife, and
3 himself would be on my hands?
4 A I think he said "the blood."
5 Q Did he say "blood and death" or just "blood"?
6 A I think just "blood."
7 Q Okay.
8 A But, you know.
9 Q Do you know what Mr. Minton meant when he used
10 the word "blood"?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What?
13 A It was a fairly dramatic way of saying -- and I
14 think he also said that you and he were both going to go
15 down --
16 THE COURT: Before you get into the rest of
17 it, tell him -- he asked you what it meant. So --
18 THE WITNESS: Well, okay. It was a fairly
19 dramatic way of -- I mean, he wasn't -- it was just a
20 dramatic way of saying that they were going to both be
21 destroyed.

Brooks, at page 1399 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 13.

This is not a discussion that begins, "We are going to sue you if you
do not pay our damages." This is the coercion and duress of
"disengagement": go out and force all these people to stop criticizing
and dismiss their legal claims against Scientology or else! Mr.
Rinder, head of OSA INT, had no right to demand that Minton make the
McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away." Mr. Rosen had no
legal justification to threaten Minton with RICO, claiming the magnitude
of their damages is their prosecution costs of Scientology critics and
defense costs of claims, such as Lopez. Therefore their threats are
"malicious" under § 836.05 and their actions are extortion. Alonso v.
State, supra.

The threats are well preserved in the typed Yingling notes of the New
York meetings. Appendix 16. For example, on page 13, Rosen states that
Minton's deposition in the breach case is not just about whether he
encouraged the breach, but it is about all of Minton's "financial
information." This is a prime example of how Scientology discovery is
a fishing expedition on intelligence gathering on collateral matters.
It is per policy of Scientology, it is extortion, and it is all

Threats made to Minton, who, upon demand of Rinder and Rosen, in turn
threatens the Estate and its counsel remains a threat from the Church of
Scientology under the Extortion statute

22 Q Now, Mr. Rosen, in addition to saying he spent
23 $40,000 on research and other things, he also said to
24 Mr. Minton that the RICO suit will be filed when the
25 wrongful death case is won. Right?
1 A Mmm, that -- that is what is reflected in -- in
2 the notes. I don't have a specific recollection of -- of
3 that having been said.
4 Q At that point in time -- this is probably a silly
5 question -- do you recall Minton or Mr. Jonas saying
6 anything in response to that?
7 A No. The only thing -- the only time that
8 Mr. Jonas said something about RICO was when -- as I
9 explained before, when Mr. Minton asked for a total of all
10 of the damage and -- and Mr. Jonas dismissed that question
11 and said that he -- he believed that one of the reasons for
12 the exercise of setting forth what damage the Church
13 believed Mr. Minton had caused was as a measure of magnitude
14 for a RICO case.

Appendix 19, pages 217-218 of Scientology attorney Yingling, June
12-2002 testimony before Judge Schaeffer.

In direct contravention of Minton's testimony before Judge Schaeffer, on
page 563 on May 7, 2002, Appendix 13, Stacy Brooks confirms Yingling's
and Jonas' notes that not only was a RICO suit threatened by Rosen
against Minton, but that a draft of the RICO suit was in Rosen's hands
on March 28,2002, contrary to Rosen's testimony before this court.

2 Q....And you were telling me about
3 Mr. Rosen's activities at this meeting. And apparently was
4 there a large stack of paper represented to be a
5 racketeering lawsuit shown to Mr. Minton or yourself at that
6 time?
7 A Not that I recall.
8 Q Just discussion about the issue?
9 A Uh-huh.
10 THE COURT: "Uh-huh," was that a yes?
11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes.
12 THE COURT: Okay. I say that and I'll tell you
13 why. Uh-huh and uh-uh are very hard to know whether
14 it is a yes or no on one of those records.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
18 Q Did the LMT hire a gentleman by the name of
19 Patrick Yost?
20 A Excuse me just a second. He may have held
21 something up and said this was a draft. I -- that may have
22 happened. I'm not sure.

Scientology, Rosen, and Minton deny that Minton was shown a copy of a
RICO suit. Prince testified that Minton did show him a copy of the $110
million RICO suit in April 2002. While Scientology may claim it has a
right to pursue a civil RICO suit, threatening to do so for its own
pecuniary advantage/gain, i.e., to get Minton to obtain dismissal of the
McPherson case or there would be no "disengagement" from Scientology
harassment or litigation, is indeed extortion under Florida law.

There can be no doubt that the wife signed the property settlement
agreement without having an actual gun at her head. Equally without
question is the fact that she did have independent legal advice and that
both her lawyer and a friend cautioned her not to sign it. Nonetheless,
she did so. All this being so, at first blush, it would appear she not
only signed the agreement voluntarily and with full disclosure, but
indeed insisted on signing it. However, the coercion and duress aspect
inescapably arises because the husband admittedly insisted that she sign
it or he would turn her and her partners in to the Internal Revenue
Service. Apparently, the wife had been failing to report substantial
cash receipts from the operation of her beauty salon business. Her
unrebutted testimony is that fear of the I.R.S. is the only reason that
she signed it. (Emphasis added).We certainly agree that the husband had
a legal right to actually turn her in to the I.R.S. and that a claim of
coercion cannot be predicated on a threat to do an act which the person
has a lawful right to do. However as we have already discussed above,
the husband does not have the right to threaten to do it for his own
pecuniary advantage. See Paris v. Paris, 412 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA
1982). Berger at 1150.

The obviousness of the plan to make the McPherson case and the
Wollersheim case "go away" is in the fact that the recantation
affidavits also include the Wollersheim case. Dan Leipold,
Wollersheim's current attorney, testified that both Brooks and Minton
called him on April 8, 2002, to withdraw her declaration and Prince's
declaration in hopes of getting the Wollersheim case dismissed.

14 A I filed the declaration originally, I believe,
15 sometime in mid-1997, and I received a telephone call from
16 Ms. Brooks on April 8th, I believe, 2002, in which she told
17 me that she and Robert Minton were attempting to settle
18 legal actions against them or settle with the Church of
19 Scientology, and she wished me to withdraw that declaration
20 from the -- from the court. And then later that day, Bob
21 Minton -
23 A -- he asked me to dismiss that action on behalf of
24 my client.

Leipold at 27, Appendix 20.

Consider the following:

1. Rosen accusing Minton in Minton's October 2001 deposition in this
case of money laundering, tax evasion, and RICO.

2 Rosen being uncharacteristically genial to Minton in his deposition
of April 8, 2002, in this case;

3 Scientology's tax attorney expert, Yingling, present at every

4 The evidence from Minton and Brooks that Minton never expressed to
others his fear of tax evasion;

5 Other witnesses' testimony that Minton did emphatically express

6 No notes of the Clearwater meetings; and

7 Minton's counsel not present

This leads to the conclusion that coercion was placed on Minton by
Scientology about his tax evasion.

189 13 A We had just come from looking at the sound stage
14 where we were building the set. He didn't seem to be very
15 interested in it. He seemed to be agitated and upset and
16 unhappy. So he ordered a drink.
17 And I said, "What's up?"
18 He said: "These Scientologists are driving me
19 crazy. They're following me everywhere. They're harassing
20 my daughters." He said, "And I'm very, very upset." And
21 he said, "They're all over me for this Nigerian thing." He
22 made some business deal in Nigeria.
23 And I said, "Well, so? What's up with that?"
24 You know, "They're not going to get anything on you."
25 And then Patricia was there for some of that
190 1 conversation. She left. And when she left and he was
2 talking about that Nigeria money, he broke down into tears,
3 and he said that he had tax problems with respect to that
4 money and that that was what was worrying him. And so -
5 Q Did he say what kind of tax problems he had with
6 that Nigerian money?
7 A Yes, said he hadn't paid taxes on that money.
8 Q And he was in tears?
9 A Yes.

Peter Alexander, June 7, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 8.

9 Q Well, so why was it coming from Operation
10 Clambake?
11 A Mmm, see, that was the tax evasion part. It was
12 as a donation. Right? And I guess if it comes in as a
13 donation to a company, then rather than Bob bringing his own
14 money in -- you know, I don't know all of the details of
15 this, but this was my understanding -- that then he didn't
16 have to pay taxes because it was a donation to a company.

Teresa Summers, at 75, June 10, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix

Minton's refusal, based on the Fifth Amendment, to produce his tax
returns or proof of the identity of the source of the originating bank
of those funds, creates the reasonable inference under Florida law that
the identity of the source of the funds would be viewed negatively
toward Minton. Pleading the Fifth Amendment and retaining a money
laundering/tax expert, Patrick Jost, formerly with the U.S. Treasury
Department, who admitted in deposition that he was retained for this
particular expertise, also discloses the most vulnerable area of Mr.
Minton to be subject to duress and coercion: his money and the failure
to pay taxes.

Minton's former business partner, Jeff Schmidt, was subjected to
Scientology's business practice of "Fair Game" via extortion, otherwise
known as a "noisy investigation."

119 6 Q Did you observe any noisy investigation of Bob
7 Minton?
8 A Yes.
9 Q What -- give us some examples.
10 A Well, the most vivid one that comes to mind is an
11 operation that was done on his best friend, Jeff Schmidt,
12 who he had apparently started a company with. Scientology
13 found out about Jeff Schmidt through its investigation of
14 Bob Minton.
17 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I was there and I
18 spoke with Jeff Schmidt and Robert Minton. We were
19 in the financial district in London. And he made it
20 very clear to me what Scientology had done. And he
21 was in the process of packing up his office to move
22 out of the country.

120 7 Q And Jeff Schmidt was Bob Minton's business
8 partner?
9 A Correct.
10 Q And what happened to him?
11 A He eventually disassociated himself from Bob
12 Minton from fear of losing his business practice. He
13 basically couldn't stand a threat --
14 What he told me specifically is that a Scientology
15 investigator came to him and asked him to either provide or
16 show them how to create information to get Bob Minton; in
17 other words, to get him in legally, to get him involved in
18 law enforcement, on the bad end of law enforcement. And
19 Jeff Schmidt said that he was refusing to do it, and had had
20 many negotiations with this private investigator.
21 Finally his office was broken into and materials
22 were taken out of the office, and at that point, that's when
23 Bob and I flew over there to discuss, "Well, okay. What was
24 taken? What does this mean? What can be done?"

Prince at 119-120 on June 18, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 6.

It is utterly inconceivable that Scientology did not threaten Minton.
Minton is now doing what Scientology has demanded him to do to make the
McPherson case "go away."

13 Q Are you aware of any kind of trouble that was
14 started with Nigeria in reference to the Swiss government?
15 A I know that certain allegations were brought in
16 Nigeria. And the private investigator working on
17 Scientology's behalf did go to Switzerland, talked to
18 prosecutors, talked to law enforcement, and to use whatever
19 sway or ability that they had to try to get charges brought
20 against Bob in-

Prince at 124 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 6.

127 12 Q And how did Mr. Minton feel about losing his
13 partnership in a Lexus dealership in New England?
14 A He just broke down and cried. He was like, how is
15 it possible to live in a country like America and not be
16 able to stop this, to turn this off in some way?
17 Q What about any other noisy investigations?
18 A I guess they went to his mother's house and
19 basically told his mother that he's crazy and needed to be
20 incarcerated, and to somehow get the family together to try
21 to get some kind of incarceration going, or at least get
22 that idea going something was seriously wrong with Bob.

132 10 A He -- he called me on the phone and he said,
11 "Jesse, you won't believe what they're doing now. They're
12 going after my daughters." "Oh. What happened?" " Well,
13 she was followed," or, "They papered the neighborhood," or,
14 you know, "They're passing leaflets out. They're talking to
15 their friends," his daughter's associates, parents, or
16 different people, you know, and just kind of doing their
17 noisy investigation. And this was apparently quite
18 upsetting to his wife, Therese, who would always -- Bob said
19 she would ask, "Well, what are you going to do about it?
20 Well, this can't happen. How do you make this stop?"

133 7 So for anyone
8 to -- to have that much done to them, I mean, even in my
9 time I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy an
10 individual.

137 24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Minton said that he felt that
25 if he came to Florida, that he was going to go to
138 1 jail. He had been being told that he was going to
2 jail.

139 3 He was concerned that if Scientology was
4 allowed to have access to his different bank
5 accounts, that he would end up fighting another war
6 with Scientology as he did with the John Fashanu
7 fiasco, and he was just tired of it.

140 8 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there's another
9 aspect to this, your Honor. And the aspect is this:
10 Bob Minton, in his mind, always tried to keep
11 his family separate from his activities. He was
12 ready to exhaust every personal resource that he had
13 for himself to keep the fight going, but he was not
14 willing to risk that for his wife and his children.
15 And so when the wife and children became a factor I
16 guess something happened.

Prince, June 18, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer.

Plaintiff's Ex. 109 before Judge Schaeffer is a policy
letter introduced into evidence through Prince, part of composite 8
herein. It describes manufacturing evidence if real evidence to
intimidate the attacker/enemy of Scientology is
not discovered.

8 THE COURT: What does the term "sue for peace"
9 mean?
10 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means
11 basically that a person just wants to end
12 what's-ever happening and let's just settle it and
13 all walk away as happy as possible.
15 Q Like a disengagement?
16 A Yes.

Prince at 151-152 questioned by Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 6.

Per this policy letter, Scientology has Minton begging for peace, doing
whatever Scientology wants so that its harassment and "noisy
investigation" of Minton, his wife, and daughters will end. This is


A. The Law on Mary Carter Agreements.

Testifying without informing the opposing party and the court that the
testimony is pursuant to a settlement or as a precondition to a
settlement is known in Florida as a "Mary Carter Agreement." Such
secret agreements have been declared "illegal" and " unethical" by the
Florida Supreme Court. Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla.
1993), where it stated that these agreements "mislead judges and juries
and border on collusion." At 243. The court later deemed any secret
agreement as "charades in trials." Lamz v. Geico General Insurance
Company, 803 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla 2001), reversing the trial court which
refused to permit the victim to refer to the victim's insurer as his
"uninsured/underinsured motorist" insurer. Unethical and illegal
conduct by lawyers requires bar discipline and court sanctions.

In many instances, Mary Carter defendants may exert influences upon the
adversarial process before a trial as well. They may, for example,
share with a plaintiff work product previously (or subsequently, if the
agreement remains secret) disclosed to them by a nonsettling
defendant....In addition, Mary Carter agreements, by their very nature,
promote unethical practices by Florida attorneys...In order to
skillfully and successfully carry out the objectives of the Mary Carter
agreement, the lawyer for the settling parties must necessarily make
misrepresentations to the court and to the jury in order to maintain the
charade of an adversarial relationship. These actions fly in the face of
the attorney's promise to employ "means only as are consistent with
truth and honor and [to] never seek to mislead the Judge or Jury by any
artifice or false statement of fact or law." ... Some courts have even
held that a Mary Carter agreement in which the settling defendant
retains a financial interest in the plaintiff's success against the
nonsettling defendant is champertous in character.
Dosdourian, at 244.

B. The Evidence of the Illegal Agreement.

In addition to the extortion, FLAG also entered into an illegal Mary
Carter Agreement with Minton. If it were not for Judge Schaeffer
ordering the production of the Yingling notes, there would be no
evidence of the demand to make the case go away. One need only apply
common sense to the fact that Brooks and Minton went to Scientology
first before coming to this court to claiming that they needed to " set
the record straight" in order to see through the charade, that their
recantations are a direct result of collusion with Scientology to bring
about an end to the wrongful death case. The fact that Bob Minton, who
was until recently one of Scientology's most vocal opponent worldwide,
who spent over 10 million dollars helping fellow opponents and victims
of Scientology with everything from legal costs to income support, is
now in collusion with the same organization that he opposed for years
needs no further explanation. Minton and Brooks' motivation for coming
to this court to knowingly lie about the facts is to serve Scientology's
interests in the wrongful death case. The words of Jesse Prince ring
true: Scientology could not use Minton's alleged influence over Dandar
and the Estate to have the case voluntarily dismissed, and so resorted
to the next plan: get rid of the attorney involved, or win an
involuntary dismissal:
Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and company
and both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to do. The
bottom line was Scientology wanted Bob to say that Ken Dandar caused Bob
Minton to perjure himself in the breach of contract case in front of
Judge Baird. The plan was to get Ken removed from the wrongful death
case and get disbarred as an attorney.

Prince April 2002 affidavit at 612, line 22-26, page 6, in evidence.

13 Q. All right. Can you tell me about those
14 meetings?
15 A. At the present time there's a
16 confidentiality agreement in place between my
17 attorneys and the attorneys for the Church of
18 Scientology and I'm not at liberty to comment.
19 Q. Why is that? Why a confidentiality
20 agreement? What is it that -- what is it that the
21 Church of Scientology has presented to you to
22 cause this complete reversal of position on your
23 part?
24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, to the extent
25 that counsel is insinuating that the Church
1 has made any promise or any inducements to
2 this witness to testify as he has here before
3 you today on April 19th we waive
4 confidentiality.
5 He can just ask him the question --
7 MR. ROSEN: -- did they promise you
8 anything? And I will not assert any
9 confidentiality with respect to that.

Minton, April 19, 2002 hearing before Hon. Judge Baird at 132-133,
Appendix 4.

Notice how cleverly Mr. Rosen couches the waiver of confidentiality by
limiting the waiver to promises or inducements made by the Church, which
technically excludes threats of any kind. This effectively prevented
Dandar from questioning Minton in detail about precisely what terms were
proposed as part of the meetings with Scientology in order to bring
about "disengagement" between Minton and the church, denying the
Defendant the ability to present a plausible alternate theory behind
Minton and Brooks' recantations.

The evidence of collusion of Minton and Scientology was presented to
Judge Schaeffer when Minton's attorney, Bruce Howie, was ready to
produce all of the notes of the New York meetings, until Scientology
counsel, Lee Fugate, spoke up and said that Rosen would have to first
give his permission!

63 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, so the record is clear,
13 I have communicated with Mr. Jonas and resolved our
14 position on the last page. However, Mr. Fugate's
15 raising a new issue concerning turning over all
16 notes of the meeting that I think pertain to these
17 notes, and I think it's best that we turn them all
18 over --
19 THE COURT: You mean to tell me you're ready to
20 turn them over and Mr. Fugate has some objection?
21 MR. HOWIE: No. There's -- there's another
22 issue that Mr. Fugate is -- is raising here,
23 concerning turning over --
24 THE COURT: What is it?
25 MR. HOWIE: -- all the notes.
64 1 THE COURT: What's the issue?
2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the issue --
3 Here's what I would like to do. I want to get
4 Mr. Rosen's notes. And I want to have those notes,
5 provide the notes to you. There's -- there's --
6 THE COURT: I don't understand this. This is
7 Mr. Minton's counsel. Mr. Minton's counsel has been
8 contacted by the current counsel and they have no
9 objection. Why in the world would the church have
10 any authority to step in and make any statement?
11 MR. FUGATE: I don't have any authority --
12 THE COURT: Well, then good. Then you don't
13 need to be here and we can deal with this today.
14 MR. HOWIE: Well, your Honor, it's just that I
15 have to revise my notice of filing and so on. And I
16 understand there are issues concerning the
17 confidentiality agreement that Mr. Fugate wishes to
18 address on Monday, which may affect --
20 MR. HOWIE: -- the issue of the notes.
21 MR. FUGATE: That's all, Judge. There's no
22 hide and seek. I don't have any authority over
23 that. It's an issue that I want to raise with the
24 court that's been raised with me through counsel.
25 THE COURT: Who? Which counsel?
65 1 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Rosen.
3 MR. FUGATE: And that's all, Judge. And I --
4 you know --
5 THE COURT: On these notes? On Mr. Minton's
6 counsel's notes?
7 MR. FUGATE: On our -- when I say our,
8 Mr. Rosen's notes.
9 And I think it reflects on what I understand
10 are in these notes. All I just want to do is just
11 bring it to the court's attention and let you look
12 at those sets and that's it.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. HOWIE: That's correct, your Honor.
15 Because much of what Mr. Jonas's notes have include
16 comments by Mr. Rosen.
17 THE COURT: I -- oh, I see. All right.
18 MR. FUGATE: No -- no hide and seek. Nothing
19 nefarious. I just want to raise an issue with your
20 Honor and let you look at them and then you decide
21 whatever you want to do.
22 THE COURT: We'll take that up Monday. And you
23 may be excused.
24 MR. HOWIE: We'll be here 9:00 Monday.

June 7, 2002 before Judge Schaeffer, Appendix 26.

When parties returned to the courtroom the following Monday morning
before Judge Schaeffer, no explanation was given by Fugate, Howie,
Rosen, or anyone else representing Scientology for the reasons behind
either Flag's objection to the production request, or the delay in
producing the Jonas notes.

4 23 THE COURT: Now, some notes. Let me start
24 and go backwards.
25 Well, Mr. Howie, did you have something for
5 1 me this morning?
2 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, I do. I'm
3 going to go ahead and file the notes of the March 28th
4 meeting in New York that I received from Steve Jonas,
5 starting as always with a courtesy copy to the Court.
6 THE COURT: Thank you.
7 MR. HOWIE: And I'm filing the original with
8 the clerk.
9 THE COURT: All right.
10 MR. HOWIE: And I'll distribute the copies.
11 THE COURT: I expect we ought to make this
12 an exhibit.
13 MR. WEINBERG: That's fine.
14 THE COURT: I don't know who -- I think,
15 Mr. Dandar, it was you that wanted these, wasn't it?
16 MR. DANDAR: Yes. It would be plaintiff's
17 exhibit.
18 THE COURT: So we might make it plaintiff's
19 next in line, Madam Clerk. What would that be?
20 THE CLERK: 90.
21 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Howie.
22 MR. HOWIE: And that's all I have this
23 morning, unless anybody needs me.
24 THE COURT: I don't. And I thank you for
25 coming and bringing this, and I'll take an opportunity
6 1 to look through it when I have a minute.
2 MR. WEINBERG: That was 90?
3 THE COURT: 90.
4 MR. DANDAR: Are these all the notes?
5 MR. HOWIE: Those were all the notes, with
6 the exception of the last page, which we determined in
7 conversations with Steve Jonas to be work product,
8 indicating his mental impressions of what he was
9 hearing from the Church.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. DANDAR: I would like that filed with
12 the Court, to have the Court determine if it meets
13 that criteria and if it's still protected under
14 Florida law.
15 THE COURT: Well, do you want to speak with
16 Mr. Jonas about that and see if he has an objection
17 with it?
18 MR. HOWIE: I'll speak with him.
19 THE COURT: It's sort of in the nature of a
20 privilege log or something like that?
21 MR. HOWIE: Well, it's -- without
22 representing the contents of it, it's a total of two
23 lines indicating his mental impression of what he
24 feels the --
25 THE COURT: Well, then why don't you -- if
7 1 you don't think he would have an objection, why don't
2 you just bring it over and let me take a look at it.
3 If I agree with you, I'll hand it back.
4 MR. HOWIE: Let me speak with Mr. Jonas.
5 MR. DANDAR: There were no notes on the
6 29th, correct?
7 MR. HOWIE: No. These are all the notes
8 that I've been faxed, except for that one page, which
9 consists of about two lines. And I did not receive
10 any notes for the 29th. I believe these were strictly
11 notes for the 28th. That's the way it's been
12 represented to me.
13 THE COURT: And there were none from the
14 29th?
15 MR. HOWIE: I have not received any from the
16 29th. I'm not aware of any from the 29th. I assume
17 that Mr. Jonas provided me with all the notes that he
18 had.
19 MR. DANDAR: Since he's going to contact
20 Mr. Jonas about that last page, could we ask him to
21 ascertain if there's notes on the 29th?
22 THE COURT: Could you ask Mr. Jonas, were
23 those all his notes and he simply did not make any for
24 the 29th?
25 MR. HOWIE: Yes, I will ask him.
8 1 THE COURT: In case there's any confusion.
2 MR. HOWIE: And I'll try to get through to
3 him today, although there's sometimes as much as
4 one-day delay in him getting back.
5 THE COURT: That's all right.
6 MR. HOWIE: Thank you very much.
7. THE COURT: I appreciate if.
8. (MR. Howie left the courtroom.)

June 10, 2002, AM session.

In the afternoon session before Judge Schaeffer, Mr. Howie gave two
pages to the court in camera for review. After review, the Judge
Schaeffer held page six was mental impressions and that page was not
turned over. See pages 47-48 of June 11, 2002, Appendix 26.

If Rosen had no problem in letting Minton testify in front of Judge
Baird, why did he now have a problem in letting the notes of Minton's
lawyer come into evidence? We will never know, since it was never
explained. However, the fact that Minton's lawyers yielded to Rosen's
objections makes it glaringly obvious that the controlling party that
was responsible for ultimately making strategic decisions about the
production of documents by Minton's counsel was, in fact, Flag on behalf
of the Church of Scientology.


Scientology has a history of attacking its critics and their attorneys.
In evidence before Judge Schaeffer and proffered here are Scientology
documents ordering the "manufacture" of evidence, using suits to harass,
and evidence of attacking other attorneys, both physically and with
allegations of suborning perjury. The following are examples of other
cases of Scientology's routine of disqualification motions.

1. Entire United States District Court for the Central District of
California in the Wollersheim case.

2. Entire Los Angeles Superior Court including the two trial judges,
Swearinger and Margolis, in the Wollersheim case.

3. Graham Berry in the Fishman case.

4. Graham Berry in the Aznaran case.

5. Graham Berry in the Cipriano case.

6. Graham Berry in the FACTNET case.

7. Dan Leipold in the Wollersheim case.

8. Charles B. O'Reilly in the Wollersheim case

9. Walt Logan in the Cazares case.

10. Robert Hayden in the McLean case.

11. Michael Flynn in multiple suits.

The ESTATE does not imply from the above list that the list is
exhaustive. Interestingly, Scientology also sought from Attorney Michael
Flynn and his counsel the "amount and sources of fees paid." Flynn v.
Church of Scientology International, 116 FRD 1 (D. Mass. 1986).

The complaint alleges a written conspiracy by Hubbard and his individual
and organizational agents and employees "to destroy" Flynn. This
conspiracy was carried out, it is alleged, by various named Scientology
organizations and individuals over which Hubbard has absolute
authority. The torts alleged to have been committed at Hubbard's
direction are: malicious abuse of process; malicious prosecution;
intentional infliction of emotional distress; trespass; conversion;
interference with contractual rights; invasion of privacy; unfair or
deceptive practices in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 93A; assault
and *1086 battery; and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68.
Flynn v. Hubbard, 782 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir. 1986).

Of particular importance is the case of United States v. Kattar, 840
F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1988), an extortion prosecution of Scientology's
private investigators, which found that these Scientology-hired private
investigators were targeting attorney Michael Flynn as an enemy of the
church. This decision notes that Scientology's top private investigator,
Eugene Ingram, suborned perjury against Flynn. This is the same Eugene
Ingram, who is described in the Minton Harassment Time line, Appendix
24, as well as the same Eugene Ingram who was employed by Scientology
attorney Kendrick Moxon to suborn perjury from Cipriano against attorney
Graham Berry.

Geoffrey Shervell was put in charge of the Church's investigation.
Shervell, who testified as a government witness in this case, oversaw
the investigation in his capacity as Director of Scientology's
Investigation Section. The Church ran advertisements in several major
newspapers, including the Boston Globe, offering a $100,000 reward " for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or
persons responsible for the forgery and attempted passing of [the]
check." Shervell employed private investigators to look into the check
scheme. Some evidence was adduced at trial that these investigators,
particularly Eugene Ingram, suborned false statements from various
persons in order *120 to implicate Flynn himself in the check forgery.
The statements against Flynn were given substantial play in the Church's
newspaper, Freedom.

The Church also publicized these allegations in a number of press

Shervell was removed from the check scam investigation for several
months due to his "ineffectiveness" in procuring information, but was
reinstated by the Church in August 1984. At this point Reservitz, the
actual mastermind of the check scheme, became a cooperating witness and
operative of the government. Reservitz testified that he approached
Church investigators to see if they would attempt to procure false
testimony from him. In effect, he was to be bait for possible
illegalities by the Church. Church investigator Ingram did in fact try
to get Reservitz to implicate Flynn. Reservitz, while wearing a body
recorder provided by the FBI, negotiated with the Church investigators
about how much he was to be paid for his incriminating statements.
At 119-120.

We reject the idea that Kattar's asserted "agreement" with the Church
could constitute a "legitimate entitlement" to the reward money. Any
contract that was entered into between Kattar and the Church that Kattar
would be paid $100,000 for false information, so that that information
could be used to defame, ridicule and discredit Michael Flynn, is an
illicit and unenforceable pact. Even if Kattar had some sort of claim
to the money, such cannot be said to have been a "legitimate
entitlement." We therefore conclude that any threat of pecuniary harm
used to obtain the money would have been "wrongful," and thus a
violation of the Hobbs Act. If the jury found that Kattar threatened
to blow the lid on the Flynn incrimination scam unless paid the $67,000,
then conviction was appropriate on a theory of economic extortion, even
though there may have been an agreement to exchange the money for
Kattar's false statements.
At 124.

In this case, the court also noted that the government acknowledged
Scientology's illegal practices and "Fair Game" policy. 127-128. The
criminal actions took place in 1984, and the conviction occurred in 1986
alt the same time that David Miscavige, the current head of Scientology,
was responsible for running all of Scientology and the Office of Special
Affairs, Department 20, was actively engaged in managing Scientology's
legal strategy, as it remains to this day.

ENEMY -SP Oder. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by
any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

Ex.. 165 before Judge Schaeffer, part of composite 8, HCO Policy Letter
of 18 October 1967, Penalties for Lower Conditions

272 2 Q Now, Mr. Oliver, what does the term dead agent
3 mean?
13 Q In the context of that letter, what did you
14 understand it to mean?
15 A I understand it to mean that it would -- that the
16 DA information that would have been found on this subject
17 would have been used to try and reverse a decision in some
18 court case that they had been involved in, where they had
19 given testimony.

280 11 A Yes. I know of a specific instance where
12 information was gathered on a subject, that I was certain
13 wasn't used for litigation purposes, because of its nature.
14 I won't go into specifics, I guess, because that's not what
15 you want to hear.
17 Q Well, without mentioning any name, can you give
18 the court some specifics as to what the information was?
19 A It tried to paint an individual who was in a
20 position of -- an executive position in an organization,
21 whose views were different than that of Scientology, in an
22 unfair light, as having been involved in some kind of adult
23 entertainment industry, when in fact it wasn't the case. It
24 was just a -- you know, somebody said this, so, "Okay.
25 Yeah. We're going to use that." And it wasn't true about
281 1 the individual.
2 Q Did you ever see any of the information that --
3 that you had developed or you knew of people in OSA
4 developing against individuals used in handbills and things
5 like that?
6 A Yes. It was information on some subjects that I
7 did some surveillance on when I was out there, and
8 information was gathered from these individuals and was
9 later explained to be something it was not. It was
10 explained to be deprogramming, when in fact it wasn't.

283 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes. To dead agent
5 someone or to put out information on the individual
6 based on intelligence that had been gathered by --
8 Q So you had -- we talked about the one document
9 that had, basically, the points for local -- local stats,
10 national stats -
11 A Mm-hmm. Local attacks, national attacks. It was
12 you attacks, who attacks; you know, different statistics
13 that were based on different things on either individuals
14 that were identified as attackers and individuals that were
15 identified as attacker that you got information on. It
16 breaks it down into 10 different stats. And however much
17 information was actually gotten, you know, was worth
18 something. And then if it was actually used -- if it was
19 used in litigation, there was -- actually -- a litigation or
20 getting the person convicted of some crime, it was worth
21 more points, if you will.
22 And it's laid out in the -- in the description of
23 the statistics.

286 10 BY MR. LIROT:
11 Q Now, we have talked about the policies and the
12 cancellation of the policy referred to as fair game. Were
13 you familiar with other policies in your OSA training that
14 also required -- and I'll use the terms of the policy
15 itself -- lie, trick, sue or destroy? Are there other
16 policy letters that indicate those are part of what your
17 responsibilities were?
18 A There were several, I believe. And we
19 introduced -- we introduced a couple of them. I can't
20 remember the exact ones. But they said in essence the same
21 thing. Or I think in another policy letter, that statement
22 is also made, but I can't -- I can't tell you for certain.
23 You'd have to -
24 THE COURT: You're talking about ones that
25 have -- you have already -
287 1 THE WITNESS: Correct.
2 THE COURT: -- looked at here?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.
5 Q And were all four of those different categories
6 part of your responsibilities in OSA?
7 A Well, it was -- it was known -- having read the
8 policy, and understanding it, it was part of what was known
9 to be within my job description, if you will, and I guess an
10 expected practice.
11 Q Were you ever instructed that -- that, in keeping
12 with the work product doctrine, that you weren't supposed to
13 lie, trick or destroy people; that you were just supposed to
14 do things relative to suing them?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your
16 Honor.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q Were you ever told to focus simply on the sue or
20 the litigation nature of those directives?
21 A No. I was never told that specifically.
22 Q Was it encouraged that you go beyond those -- just
23 simply the litigation aspects of OSA's policy letters that
24 you were supposed to familiarize yourself with?
25 A Gathering information on an individual to use in
288 1 any way possible, as, you know -- as dictated with the hat;
2 you know, it said gather information to be used with PR,
3 legal or -- you know, I didn't know what it was used for.
4 So anything was gathered, anything we could gather on the
5 individual was subject to a report and to be entered into
6 the machine, if you will.
7 Q All right. With your familiarity with the dead
8 agent caper or dead agent doctrine, I guess I'll call it,
9 was that simply focused on litigation or were you encouraged
10 to go beyond that, to try to DA a person?

23 Q Were you encouraged to go beyond litigation, to
24 try to achieve the DAing of a person?
25 A Yes.
289 1 Q In what way?
2 A I was sent out to DA an individual that -- I
3 believe I testified to this. I was sent out to DA an
4 individual that had been speaking out critical of the
5 organization. And what I was asked to do couldn't be
6 indicated -- at least I couldn't see how that would have
7 anything to do with legal. I was to go out and try to
8 discredit this person in a public place, and hand out
9 Scientology literature about this -- you know, this man and
10 this -- the organization that he was talking about. Didn't
11 have anything to do with legal. I mean, I had to go out
12 there and try and discredit this man in a public place and
13 give out literature that would counter anything that he had
14 said at this meeting. That wasn't in any way, to me at
15 least, indicative of anything having to do with a legal
16 case.

Frank Oliver, former OSA agent, July 15, 2002, before Judge Schaeffer,
Appendix 9.

Contrary to Ben Shaw's testimony before Judge Schaeffer and counsel for
FLAG in the death case, "Fair Game" is a continuing practice of the
Church of Scientology. Wollersheim and U.S. v. Hubbard, 474 F.2d 64
(D.C. 1979). Other cases also address the continuing use of "Fair

1. United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 126 (1st Cir. 1988), which

The Church, according to the U.S. Attorney, "launched vicious smear
campaigns ... against those ... perceived to be enemies of
Scientology." The Church's methods for this included the subornation of
perjury.... The memo also acknowledged the existence of the Fair Game
doctrine as the active animating philosophy of the Church. More
significantly, in a footnote, the government alleged that the Church
"continues to pursue" (in 1986) the Fair Game Policy, "as the action
against Flynn, Sullivan and others referenced in the text attests."
This directly contradicts Shervell's testimony, and in fact strongly
suggests that the Fair Game Policy was in effect as to Michael Flynn
during this time period.

2. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 232 Cal.App.3d
1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917 (2nd Dist. 1991),

3 Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 57 Or.App. 203,
644 P.2d 577 (OR App 1982),

4 Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d
705 (CA 2nd 1993),

5 Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 (1984),

6 Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr.
(Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 18, 1976),

7. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 535
F.Supp. 1125, 1141-1142 (M.D.Mass. 1982), where the
court stated:

Finally, taking plaintiff's complaint as a whole, Count XI, which
alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress through the Fair
Game doctrine, does state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Van
Schaick alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Game doctrine, agents of the
Church engaged in a course of conduct, including slanderous telephone
calls to her neighbors and employer, physical threats, and assault with
an automobile, which was designed to dissuade her from pursuing her
legal rights.

In Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917
(2nd Dist. CA 1991), Armstrong left the church and took church documents
in fear of retribution from Scientology. The trial court's evidentiary
finding that the church's "Fair Game " policy was implemented against
Armstrong in 1981 and 1982, (well after the policy was canceled per the
church), was upheld on appeal. "[T]he court also determined that
Armstrong's conduct was justified, in that he believed the Church
threatened harm to himself and his wife, and that he could prevent such
harm by taking and keeping the documents." 1063-1064.

The American Lawyer magazine ran an investigatory article on Scientology
litigation tactics.

In addition, the church wrote nine letters of complaint to the
Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers about Flynn alleging unethical
conduct -- one complaint based upon drafts of documents church
detectives found by rummaging through Flynn's trash.

Outside trial lawyer Earle Cooley, who joined the church's legal team
two years after the last complaint was filed, defends the church's
method of gathering information: "Trash retrieval has been [upheld] by
the Supreme Court of the United States."

Cooley insists that at least one complaint against Flynn was
justified. "Flynn had a corporation called FAMCO in which shares were
sold to lawyers throughout the country to participate in a nationwide
program of civil litigation against the church!" he exclaims. Drafts of
a plan for FAMCO (purportedly found in Flynn's trash) were provided to
The American Lawyer by Cooley, who says he "assumes" it became
operative. Regardless, according to a spokesperson for the
Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, Flynn has never been the subject
of a disciplinary action. Plaintiffs lawyers Charles O'Reilly claims
he became a target for retaliation after he won a $ 30 million jury
verdict against the church on behalf of former Scientologist Larry
Wollersheim in 1986 in California superior court. (The verdict was
reduced to $ 2.5 million and finally affirmed on appeal this March; the
church petitioned the California Supreme Court for review on May 29.)
Wollersheim had alleged that the church's fair game harassment tactics
and coercive religious practices, such as auditing, exacerbated an
existing mental illness. O'Reilly contends that, in the years following
the verdict, he was questioned by the California state bar for substance
abuse (the inquiry was eventually dropped), by the IRS (an investigation
in ongoing), and by the state franchise tax board (no charges were ever
brought). The evidence of church involvement in these matters is
circumstantial -- and thin.

O'Reilly points to documents filed in federal court by church lawyers
during the Wollersheim case seeking records from substance abuse
treatment centers relating to him. "I've never been in any of those
facilities," he says. O'Reilly presents no other proof of church

American Lawyer, at n.24.

Also, the Estate filed a declaration of Robert Cipriano in the wrongful
death case. Cipriano alleges that Scientology, through Kendrick Moxon,
in-house counsel for Scientology and a former official with the
Guardian's Office, now renamed Office of Special Affairs, suborned
Cipriano's perjury against Graham Berry, an attorney that has been
actively involved in litigation against Scientology. Mr. Moxon then
informed Judge Schaeffer that there were several declarations that
Cipriano had subsequently filed that recanted the declaration filed by
the Estate. Moxon then filed those declarations.

What Moxon failed to tell Judge Schaeffer is that Moxon took a
subsequent deposition of Cipriano to attempt to clarify the several
declarations. In that deposition, Mr. Cipriano is adamant that it was
Mr. Moxon who originally suborned his perjury that was then used by
Scientology to attack Graham Berry.

In the case of Michael Hurtado v. Graham E. Berry, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case # BC 208
227, Robert J. Cipriano discusses in his August 7, 2000 deposition
conducted by Kendrick Moxon the following:

1. As he arrived for his deposition, Cipriano met Moxon outside and
shook his hand. He informed Moxon that he had had enough and was " here
for the truth. This is an atrocity; that I am not for or against
Berry. I am not for or against Mr. Moxon and that I have been privy to
documents in the last four weeks....I just want an end to this and the
truth to come out as I see it..." Page 53-54.

2. He was visited by private investigator, Eugene Ingram, retained by
Moxon & Kobrin or the Office of Special Affairs. Mr. Ingram had
penetrated Cipriano's highly secure condominium complex and when Ingram
knocked on his door, Ingram flashed a Los Angeles police badge,
identifying himself as a police detective from that police department.
Page 65.

3.. Ingram told Cipriano that his attorney, Graham Berry, had done
illegal things in Los Angeles with regard to his practice....and
involved in "some seedy sexual occurrences." Page 68.

4. Ingram told Cipriano that he knew Cipriano had an arrest warrant
issued against him in New Jersey, he was a "fugitive from the law" and
wanted on "numerous charges both in New York, New Jersey, and other
places. Page 71.

5. He was also led to believe that if he did not cooperate, Cipriano
would take him back to New Jersey for arrest. Page

6. Ingram had told Cipriano that if anyone attacks Scientology there is
a term used called "Fair Game"...to "discredit them so that they're
attack (sic) upon whatever organization is weak by finding credibility
problems with the person." Page 202.

7 During a " number of conversations" Ingram said Berry was subject to
Fair Game and that "If Mr. Berry would just go away, quit litigating
against his boss, then he would live a free and easy life." Page 202.

8 Later Ingram told him they plastered Berry's neighborhood with " hate
flyers" and "we grabbed his bank accounts." Page 202-203.

9. Moxon paid cash to and for Cipriano, including his apartment,
security deposit, rental car, paid off final judgments, and paid him to
sign a declaration against Berry by disguising it as a donation to the
Day of the Child Foundation. Moxon also paid him to sign a recantation
affidavit. Pages 154, 155, 157, 159, 160-163, 166, 167-177, 189, 195,
197, 210, 211.

10. The declaration that Cipriano signed as prepared by Moxon and given
to Cipriano by Ingram was false. It was not what Cipriano had said. It
also had exaggerations in it which Cipriano told to Ingram and Moxon.
Nonetheless, it was used against Berry. Pages 100-103.

11. Ingram and Moxon talked of filing a bar complaint against Berry.
Page 110.

12. Flyers would be circulated to Berry's clients. Page 114.

13. Moxon had also paid another fact witness to testify against Berry,
Anthony Apodaca. Pages 113-120.

14. Moxon referred Cipriano to Gary Soter, the same attorney referred to
Minton by Moxon. Page 140.

15. "There were conversations which I carefully let Mr. Moxon know that
most of this declaration of May 94 was an exaggeration by Ingram."
Pages 146-147.

16. Moxon told Cipriano "not to say anything about the exaggerations."
Page 156.

Not only was perjury suborned, but Mr. Moxon leased a car and apartment
for Cipriano, and paid him to sign false declarations. This multi-volume
deposition was filed in the death case as further evidence of the
criminal nature of the established business practice of Scientology. In
this case, Dandar requests that this court take judicial notice of the
Cipriano deposition in support of its claim of extortion herein and the
routine of attacking opposing counsel.


2 Q And you-all talked about ending the fight against
3 Scientology?
4 A We talked about committing perjury on behalf of
5 Scientology.

Jesse Prince, July 10, 2002, at 988, before Judge Schaeffer, describing
his first meeting with Robert
Minton following Minton's testimony of April 9, 2002.

This is a fraud upon the court by the Church of Scientology.

Counsel and the Estate request severe sanctions, terminating sanctions, and
referral to the state attorney. Patsy v. Patsy, 666 So.2d 1045, 1046-47
(Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming trial court's inherent authority to award
attorney fees and costs against attorney for a bad faith motion to
disqualify counsel, filed without a factual basis and solely to delay
the proceedings).

The Motion to Disqualify was not only filed without any stated grounds
in violation of Rule 1.100, but upon resting its case, FLAG failed to
meet its burden of proof to establish what it alleged: perjury in this
case resulting in prejudice to the church in this case.


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by hand-delivery on the 7th day of September, 2002, to F.
WALLACE POPE, ESQ., at his residence by his request.

1715 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 750
Post Office Box 24597
Tampa, Florida 33623-4597
813-289-3858/FAX: 813-287-0895
Florida Bar No. 289698
Attorney for Defendant

112 East Street, Suite B
Tampa, Florida 33602
813-221-9533/Fax: 813-221-9275
Florida Bar No. 714836
Attorney for Counsel

Charlotte L. Kates
ckates@eden.rutgers.edu ** ckates@ruwomenscenter.org
http://www.ruwomenscenter.org/ ** http://www.offlines.org
Practice organized resistance and conscious acts of solidarity!



§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §