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
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.151.130.159
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.151.130.159
Message-ID: <3d87fca3@news2.lightlink.com>
X-Trace: 18 Sep 2002 00:10:11 -0400, 198.151.130.159
X-Original-Trace: 18 Sep 2002 00:10:11 -0400, 198.151.130.159
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!

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.
CASE NO.: OO-002750-CI-20
DELL LIEBREICH, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Lisa McPherson; ROBERT MINTON;
THE LISA MCPHERSON TRUST;
DANDAR & DANDAR, P.A., and
KENNAN G. DANDAR,

Defendants.
____________________________/

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL'S CLOSING ARGUMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION. 1

II. THE MOTION. 9

III. THE ISSUES RAISED BY FLAG

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 .
26

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

IV. PERJURY OR JUST INCONSISTENCIES. 85

V. ALLEGED "RECANTATIONS" RESULT FROM EXTORTION .
A. The Motive for Extortion . 90
B. The Evidence of Extortion 92

VI. ALLEGED "RECANTATIONS" ARE A FRAUD ON THIS COURT
RESULTING FROM AN ILLEGAL "MARY CARTER AGREEMENT."
A. The Law on Mary Carter Agreements. 127
B. The Evidence of the Illegal Agreement. 129

VII. ATTACKING OPPOSING COUNSEL IS AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS
PRACTICE OF SCIENTOLOGY. 137

VIII.CONCLUSION 153

DEFENDANTS'S COUNSEL'S CLOSING ARGUMENT

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.

I. INTRODUCTION.

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
case.

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
cell.

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
closing.

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
closing.

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
1.

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
1999).

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
cases."

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.

II. THE MOTION.

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
place.

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.

III. THE FOUR ISSUES RAISED BY 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 --"
...
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
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 --
....
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.

THE COURT:
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.
91 1 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
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 -
....
36 6 BY MR. DANDAR:
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 --
...
38 3 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
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
testimony.

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
deposition.

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
believe.

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
Dandar.
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
shield.

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.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
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?
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
...
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
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
Scientology.

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
it.

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
Scientology.

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.
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.
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
counsel.

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?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
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?
15 THE WITNESS: No.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
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.
Dandar:

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 COUR