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

     
 

 

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mhm0gv0cmnbo8grlg8cevu68m6kcok64da% 404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Armstrong, Minton and their "money laundering" schemes
Organization: The Buttersquash Conspiracy
Message-ID: <mhm0gv0cmnbo8grlg8cevu68m6kcok64da@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 266
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:55:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.33.67.152
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1056988506 4.33.67.152 (Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11: 55:06 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:06 EDT


"Money-laundering" because the money itself appears not
to have been dirty, as such, except for possibly being untaxed,
and misrepresented as a "loan." Here's the basic deal. Bob
claimed that his original $100,000 to Gerry Armstrong was a
"loan" (despite the fact it's pretty obvious Gerry Armstrong
was not likely to be in any position to repay any such "loan"
at any time in the foreseeable future). Then, later, Bob gave
Gerry an additional $100,000 to "repay" Bob his original " loan."

This isn't the OTHER $100,000 that Bob gave to Gerry so that
Gerry could "donate" it to the LMT and then the LMT could
give it straight to Bob. This is an entirely different $100,000 that
Bob didn't admit to until over a week into testimony, and even
then, only because it turned up in other evidence. This very
nearly got missed. Needless to say, Schaeffer was infuriated.

Now here's the demented part of this. Bob is asked why he
engaged in this bizarre, elaborate ruse to "give" Gerry Armstrong
$100,000 of his own money so that Gerry Armstrong could
"repay" a "loan" of the original $100,000. It's important to recall
that Minton's definitions of "gifts" and "loans" and "agreements"
is quite fluid and seems to depend on the current situations.

Now here's the rub: when Bob is questioned as to WHY on
Earth he would go to these extreme lengths to play funny monkeys
with this money, and why he would give Armstrong $100,000
to "repay" HIMSELF with his OWN MONEY, he just claims he
doesn't know why he did it. He just did it for no reason, apparently,
and it doesn't stick in his mind at all why he'd do a weird-ass thing
like this.

Incidentally, my speculation as to his real reason at least for not
owning up to this other UBS check to Armstrong is that it seriously
weakens Bob's claim that he only did this because Dandar wanted
him to. If he only did this weird UBS deal on Dandar's insistence,
then why is he going around doing THE EXACT SAME THING
over and over again with other completely unrelated transactions,
like this Armstrong "repayment" and the similar " repayment" from
the LMT that was funnelled through Operation Clambake?

It ends, of course, with Bob refusing to name the financial institution
involved, which as a consequence I nickname the First Bank of the
Fifth Amendment.

Minton testimony, May 2002, AM Session

20 BY MR. DANDAR:
21 Q But the reason why you didn't bring up the money
22 to the LMT, that was your money and the money of a repayment
23 of a loan you made to Gerry Armstrong -- that was your money
24 on the repayment of the loan -- was because that wasn't part
25 of your deal with Scientology, because that wouldn't bring
1246
1 down the Lisa McPherson case or Ken Dandar, would it?
2 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your
3 Honor.
4 THE COURT: Overruled.
5 A First of all, I didn't have any deal with
6 Scientology. And those -- no, that had nothing to do with
7 it whatsoever.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Are you saying that you told, through counsel,
10 Mr. Rosen, that you lied about the source of the Clambake
11 money and the wire transfer to the LMT?
12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That Mr. Rosen lied
13 about it?
14 MR. DANDAR: No.
15 THE COURT: No. That he told Mr. Rosen the
16 true source of the money.
17 Your objection's overruled.
18 A At that deposition?
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q At --
21 THE COURT: At any time.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q -- the deposition, at the hearing, any time.
24 A I never had any discussions with Mr. Rosen except
25 for that one time in New York.
1247
1 No, I didn't tell him --
2 I did tell other people in the Church of
3 Scientology.
4 Q Who?
5 A Mr. Rinder for sure.
6 Q When?
7 A I'm not sure.
8 Q Now, you --
9 A I --
10 Q You went --
11 I'm sorry. Go ahead.
12 A I'm just not sure when it was.
13 Q It was --
14 A You know, there was --
15 Q -- before we came to Judge Schaeffer, though,
16 wasn't it? It was before this hearing --
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q -- started, before Judge Schaeffer, wasn't it?
20 A Yes. I believe so.
21 Q It was before you signed your very lengthy second
22 recantation affidavit, wasn't it?
23 A I'm not sure. There were a number of things that
24 came up after that. You know, I mean, this wasn't a
25 situation where -- you know, we went over these three main
1248
1 areas, you know, and we went over documentation that related
2 to those three main areas. There were a lot of other things
3 that have come up that were never touched on. And they
4 weren't -- it wasn't that they weren't touched on because
5 there was no desire to do it; it was a question of -- there
6 was a lot of stuff to go over --
7 THE COURT: Are we saying --
8 THE WITNESS: -- you know --
9 THE COURT: -- here, Mr. Minton, that it's only
10 if somebody asks you a question about something that
11 you lied about that you're going to tell the truth
12 about it?
13 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. That's not what
14 I'm saying. I'm saying that, you know, that there
15 is a lot of documentation, a lot of testimony in
16 this case. And it hadn't all been gone over. You
17 know, we -- with Mr. Howie, we tried to go over
18 everything that we could find. We didn't find
19 everything.
20 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I think, in completeness,
21 Mr. Dandar ought to read pages 30 and 31, lines 22
22 through line 8 on page 31 --
23 THE COURT: Where was he reading from?
24 MR. FUGATE: He was reading earlier in the
25 transcript --
1249
1 THE COURT: Then the rule of completeness
2 requires that you read the rest of what's right
3 there. If there's something that was done later,
4 you can bring it up.
5 MR. FUGATE: Well, it has to do with
6 recantation, is the only --
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q Mr. Minton, when did you get -- how did you go
9 about getting the UBS checks to me, that were made payable
10 to me?
11 A I called up a financial institution and asked them
12 to get them.
13 Q And that was some other financial institution in
14 Switzerland other than UBS.
15 A It was another financial institution that I asked
16 to get them from UBS in Switzerland.
17 Q And who was that?
18 A I'm going to take the Fifth Amendment on that
19 question.
20 MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I just can't have
21 Mr. Minton taking the Fifth Amendment to prove that
22 the source of money was from him, because all we
23 still have is his testimony. And then he stands
24 here and takes the Fifth Amendment.
25 THE COURT: Counselor, all I can tell you is he
1250
1 has the right to take the Fifth Amendment. However,
2 remember, I can strike his testimony or find his
3 testimony is untruthful or is not to be believed, or
4 I can simply strike it based on his taking the Fifth
5 Amendment. So there's nothing we can do about his
6 taking the Fifth Amendment. That's a right he has.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q Mr. Minton, did the Church of Scientology -- and
9 I'm talking about anyone, including private investigators,
10 attorneys, church officials -- anybody ever find out the
11 identity of the financial institutions that you are taking
12 the Fifth Amendment on?
13 A Not to my knowledge.
14 THE COURT: Do they know as we speak today?
15 THE WITNESS: They don't know, as far as I
16 know, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q Why is it, Mr. Minton, that you had to give Gerry
20 Armstrong a hundred thousand dollars so that he could write
21 a check to you and pay you back?
22 A Just to sort of get rid of the loan.
23 Q That's a scam, isn't it?
24 A It's not a scam.
25 Q That's not his money; it's your money. Why did
1251
1 you go through this elaborate scheme to show that he's
2 paying you back?
3 A I'm not sure.
4 Q Does it have to do with the evasion of paying
5 income tax on the money?
6 A No, it doesn't.
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.
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?
1252
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.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
1253
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
1254
1 to discuss that matter with my client --
2 THE COURT: All right.
3 MR. HOWIE: -- during a recess.
4 THE COURT: You can.
http://buttersquash.net


 
 

Thread

 

 

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