CASE NO. 00-002750-CI-20



DELL LIEBREICH, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Lisa McPherson, ROBERT MINTON, and THE

Circuit Court Judge
315 Court Street
Courtroom B
Clearwater, Florida
DATE: April 19th, 2002
TIME: 1:30 p.m. - 8:15 p.m.
Deputy Official Court Reporter
Sixth Judicial Circuit
Notary Public, State of Florida
Pages 171 - 352
Index Included
P.O. BOX 35
(727) 443-0992

911 Chestnut Street
Clearwater, Florida 33757
Attorney for Plaintiff

112 East Street, Suite B
Tampa, Florida 33602
Attorney for Kennan Dandar

5720 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33707
Attorney for Defendant Minton

150 Second Avenue North, Suite 1500
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Attorney for Defendant LMT
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 THE BAILIFF: All rise.
3 THE COURT: Be seated. Okay. We have
4 several motions.
5 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, obviously the
6 predominant motion for which we have an
7 evidentiary hearing scheduled today is a
8 Motion to Disqualify Kennan Dandar and the
9 firm of Dandar & Dandar in this case.
10 Um, there are motions that -- other
11 motions that are less important than --
12 I've -- we've already conferred with
13 Mr. Lirot, the Motion to Add Punitives is --
14 we're withdrawing that without prejudice and
15 we'll deal with that later after the Fourth
16 Amended Complaint.
17 We don't intend to argue the Motion to
18 Amend except and until if there is time left
19 at the end of the hearing on the
20 disqualification and time would then allow as
21 we will argue that motion as well as the
22 Motion to Compel the documents that we
23 produced to the custody of the Court.
24 Mr. Lirot has one motion he wants to
25 make first and before he -- before he does
1 that we have a pretty full courtroom today.
2 I'm going to invoke the rule, going to ask
3 for sequestration of witnesses.
4 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any
5 witnesses present that you intend to have
6 testify in this hearing?
7 MR. LIROT: We do, Your Honor. For the
8 record, Luke Lirot on behalf of Kennan
9 Dandar, Thomas Dandar, Dandar & Dandar, also.
10 I'll be arguing in place of Thomas Dandar
11 this afternoon.
12 Judge, we have a witness list informally
13 here. We had intended to certainly seek
14 testimony from Mr. Minton, from Stacy Brooks,
15 from Jesse Prince, from Michael Garko. We
16 have a witness that we would like to testify
17 by telephone, Dan Leipold, Patricia Greenway,
18 Peter Alexander, Thomas Haverty, Frank
19 Oliver.
20 I already mentioned Mr. Minton. We may
21 ask to call Mr. Rosen. Obviously he can
22 certainly stay. Ms. Liebreich is a party, so
23 she can certainly stay. And then by
24 telephone again, Mr. Wollersheim.
25 I believe that summarizes the list of
1 witnesses we had hoped to elicit testimony
2 from this afternoon.
3 THE COURT: Well, all of those
4 individuals who are present --
5 MR. LIROT: Mr. Dandar I would also like
6 to call, but I think he's certainly entitled
7 to stay.
8 THE COURT: Yeah. All of those
9 individuals who are present in the courtroom
10 and who anticipate testifying then will have
11 to step out and you'll be called in one at a
12 time other than the parties. All right.
13 You're not to discuss your testimony
14 with each other or with anyone else.
15 MR. MCGOWAN: Your Honor, may it please
16 the Court, Tom McGowan. I represent the Lisa
17 McPherson Trust, that dissolved Florida
18 corporation, the shareholder and chief
19 officer at the time of the dissolution of
20 the Corporation was --
21 THE COURT: You're going to have to
22 speak up a little, Tom. I can't hear you.
23 I'm sorry.
24 MR. MCGOWAN: Stacy Brooks is here with
25 me and she is a party in that she was the
1 last officer, shareholder of the Lisa
2 McPherson Trust which is a dissolved Florida
3 corporation, so I believe by operation of law
4 she's the trustee of the corporation,
5 therefore, I think she's a party.
6 She's also on the list to testify, so I
7 just wanted to make that clarification with
8 the Court.
9 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, we don't have
10 any objection to Ms. Brooks staying. LMT, as
11 you know, is a defendant in this case.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think I left off
14 one, Teresa Summers was also an individual
15 that we intended to call. And I think I
16 already mentioned Michael Garko.
17 THE COURT: Yes. Garko and Ms. Summers
18 if you're present, you'll have to leave the
19 courtroom until you're called as witnesses.
20 MR. ROSEN: I think Mr. Minton has
21 arrived. He's going to be the first witness
22 we're putting on, so is it okay if he stays?
23 THE COURT: Sure.
24 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court,
25 Mr. Minton is a party to this case.
1 THE COURT: Well, he's going to be
2 called as the first witness anyway and he is
3 a party. Okay.
4 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may, I have
5 asked if I could file in open court the
6 documents that we prepared. Obviously the
7 first document was the Notice of Hearing. We
8 wanted to argue the Motion to Stay as the
9 first matter that we took up today.
10 I prepared such a Motion to Stay. I've
11 got the original for the court file. We also
12 prepared a response in opposition to the
13 Motion to Place Documents into the Custody of
14 the Court, a response in opposition to the
15 Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel, a
16 response in opposition to the Motion for
17 Leave to File the Amended Complaint, and a
18 response in opposition to the Motion for
19 Leave to Amend to Assert a Claim for Punitive
20 Damages.
21 I would like to file those with the
22 Court, if I may. I already faxed the copies,
23 as I indicated in the certificate of service.
24 I understand that they are abating for the
25 time being the Motion to Add Punitive Damages
1 and the request unless there's time for the
2 Fourth Amended Complaint, but if I could
3 approach the bench.
4 THE COURT: All right. Are these the
5 originals?
6 MR. LIROT: These are the originals,
7 Judge.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. LIROT: I can take them to the
10 clerk, if you prefer.
11 THE COURT: That's okay. I just wanted
12 to know. I can see it in the file.
13 MR. LIROT: Okay. And, Judge, while I'm
14 making the trip, I will hand to opposing
15 counsel and also to the Court a courtesy copy
16 of the Motion to Stay and the citations of
17 authority that we're going to be relying on.
18 Here you go.
19 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Opposing
20 counsel have been provided with copies of all
21 of these?
22 MR. LIROT: Yes. They've got a copy and
23 I have one copy for you to use.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry. You provided me
1 with copies of the cases you just handed up?
2 MR. LIROT: There should be cases
3 attached to the --
4 MR. ROSEN: Oh. What you just handed
5 me? Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. LIROT: Here is another copy.
7 MR. ROSEN: Thanks.
8 MR. LIROT: May it please the Court,
9 Your Honor. The first matter we would like
10 to bring up is a Motion to Stay these
11 proceedings, Judge. Actually, I would like
12 to track the motion, if I may.
13 What we have in this particular action
14 is essentially a breach of contract which, as
15 I understand it, is based on an agreement --
16 a purported agreement which was made some
17 time ago not to seek to add parties to the
18 wrongful death case involving Lisa McPherson.
19 I identified the gist of the case,
20 properly identified the basis of the
21 agreement. And I think in paragraph three on
22 page two, I think I've accurately summarized
23 this case by saying that both cases have been
24 the subjects of extensive litigation,
25 acrimony and controversy.
1 I think, from a procedural standpoint,
2 it's clear that the wrongful death action
3 contains a counterclaim. And, as I
4 understand it, the trial in the wrongful
5 death action has been scheduled for June 10th
6 of this year.
7 There has been a bifurcation of the
8 counterclaim and, again, as I understand it,
9 Judge Schaeffer has delayed any trial or
10 judicial evaluation of that counterclaim
11 until after the conclusion of the wrongful
12 death case.
13 Now, in the instant action, counsel for
14 the plaintiffs here, and we'll refer to them
15 simply as the Church if that will be
16 acceptable to the Court, they filed their
17 Motion to Amend the Complaint, a Motion to
18 Disqualify Counsel, a Motion for Leave to
19 Amend and Assert the Claim for Punitive
20 Damages, and a Motion to Place Documents in
21 the Custody of the Court.
22 Ah, we've got a Notice to Produce and,
23 quite honestly, Judge, since the last time we
24 were before you, I'm sure that every firm's
25 fax machine has been struggling simply to
1 stay functioning. We've got a first Notice
2 to Produce requesting a significant amount of
3 correspondence. These are attached as
4 exhibits. That is Exhibit A.
5 We got a second Notice to Produce, which
6 is asking for the submission that Kennan or
7 Thomas Dandar made to the Florida Bar in
8 1997, and the Florida Bar's letter approving
9 the Minton funding.
10 And ultimately, we got a third Notice to
11 Produce asking for the current and
12 immediately previous passports of Kennan
13 Dandar.
14 Judge, what's happened in the interim
15 and I think just before -- I think prior
16 there have been numerous battles involving
17 discovery requests and attempts on the part
18 of certainly the plaintiffs in this case to
19 seek information regarding the funding, where
20 did you get the money, how have you been able
21 to maintain either the prosecution or the
22 defense of these two respective actions.
23 And, as recently as April 12th, the
24 Second District Court of Appeal has issued
25 their most recent order reversing previous
1 court orders, asking for the divulgence of
2 certain financially-related documents.
3 Judge, I've attached as Exhibit D to the
4 motion a copy of the first opinion, which was
5 filed on April 3rd, 2002, which came from the
6 Second District Court of Appeal.
7 And, Judge, quite simply that was -- I
8 think I will just quote from the case. It
9 says, that issue here is a discovery order
10 that trial court entered pursuant to the
11 Church's 47th request for production.
12 It talks exactly about the challenged
13 order requiring the estate to produce the
14 following: All documents concerning the
15 payment by any person or entity since January
16 1st of 2000 of any sum of money over the
17 amount of $500 to the plaintiff or her
18 attorney or any representative or agent of
19 plaintiff used to pay for any costs, expense
20 or fee associated with this litigation
21 excluding payments from Robert Minton and any
22 agreements thereto.
23 The trial court issued an order to
24 produce. A Petition for Certiorari was filed
25 with the Second District Court of Appeal.
1 And, Judge, if I can draw your attention to
2 page three, this was the rationale that the
3 Second District Court used in reversing the
4 trial's court's order and actually quashing
5 the order to produce.
6 It says, That under the circumstances
7 here, however, we agree with the estate that
8 if the challenged discovery is allowed, it
9 will create irreparable harm that cannot be
10 remedied on plenary appeal.
11 I'm skipping down. It says, As the
12 estate contends, this will create a chilling
13 effect on receiving future funding.
14 Furthermore, the estate points out that if it
15 is forced to disclose how much money it has
16 to spend on litigation prior to the
17 conclusion of the case, the Church will know
18 how long the estate, quote, can last before
19 it has to throw in the towel due to lack of
20 funds.
21 The fact that this is the Church's 47th
22 request for production bolsters the
23 conclusion that the Church will litigate
24 until the estate can no longer afford to
25 continue.
1 With this in mind, we hold that the
2 production of the requested documents will
3 cause the estate to suffer irreparable harm.
4 Now, Judge, the second opinion came just
5 nine days after. And, quite honestly, the
6 Second District Court of Appeal, as all good
7 efficient courts do, utilizing the word
8 processor, they basically articulated the
9 same exact rationale for again reversing the
10 trial court's order to produce these
11 documents.
12 This document and at least what was at
13 issue in -- this was the 41st request for
14 production. And, obviously, Judge, the
15 decisions came out a little out of sequence.
16 The first decision dealt with the 47th
17 request. The second decision dealt with the
18 41st request. The challenged order in the
19 second decision was based on this request,
20 Judge.
21 It says, Plaintiff's counsel is to
22 provide within 20 days all documents in his
23 possession, custody or control concerning the
24 payment by Robert Minton or any other entity
25 associated with Robert Minton directly or
1 indirectly during the period of January 1st,
2 2000, to the present or any sum of money
3 exceeding $500 to the plaintiff or her
4 attorney or any representative or agent of
5 the plaintiff intended for any cost, expense
6 or fee associated with this litigation, that
7 would be the wrongful death litigation,
8 including, without limitation, any deposit
9 slips, bank statements, checks, wire transfer
10 records, and bank data.
11 And, Judge, again, the Second District
12 Court of Appeal talked about the clear reason
13 that these documents were being sought the --
14 the -- just to put it mildly, the heavily
15 litigious nature of what was being attempted
16 by the defendants in the wrongful death
17 action and clearly the same plaintiffs in
18 this action.
19 Now, one of the issues that we had
20 brought up in requesting this Court to stay
21 this action is looking at the impact of
22 exactly what will happen.
23 Now, the facts in this case really are
24 somewhat frozen in time. The issue here
25 deals primarily with whether or not there was
1 a breach of an agreement. And that certainly
2 is a finding of fact that goes to the
3 circumstances surrounding a court document
4 which was filed.
5 I understand that the breach was
6 predicated on the filing of a public document
7 a Motion to Amend the prior Complaint to add
8 additional parties.
9 The reason that we seek this stay is
10 that we feel that the conduct in this case as
11 being performed by the plaintiffs is clearly,
12 in our opinion, simply an attempt to try to
13 derail the wrongful death case which is on
14 the precipice of going to trial after five
15 long years of 47 requests for production and
16 all of the other incredible effort that's
17 gone into that case.
18 And, Judge, to support that position,
19 I've attached as Exhibit F a letter from
20 Mr. Moxon, which was apparently issued prior
21 to today.
22 As I understand it, in the wrongful
23 death action there was a court-ordered
24 mediation which was to occur today and this
25 letter was to Michael Keane who I understand
1 was acting as the mediator. It's dated April
2 17th, obviously. And it says, Dear
3 Mr. Keane, as you know, mediation of this
4 action, that's the wrongful death action, is
5 presently set for Friday, April 19th in your
6 offices.
7 It says, However, recent sworn testimony
8 of Robert Minton indicates that Kennan Dandar
9 has sworn perjury as to central issues in
10 this case, and has made material
11 misrepresentations to the District Court and
12 the Court of Appeals.
13 Well, Judge, I don't think that was ever
14 said, but to make the matter clear it says,
15 the Motion to Disqualify Mr. Dandar from
16 appearing as counsel to Ms. Liebreich has
17 been set for April 19th at 1:30 p.m. Before
18 Judge Baird in the related case arising out
19 of some of these acts.
20 Now, Judge, I think what the next
21 paragraph says is very critical. It says, In
22 view of the potential effort -- I'm sorry.
23 In view of the potential effect of these
24 events upon this case, all the defendants
25 agree that these circumstances make it
1 impossible for the mediation to go forward at
2 this time with Mr. Dandar representing the
3 plaintiffs.
4 So, clearly the plaintiffs in this case,
5 the defendants in the wrongful death case,
6 are trying to use this recent what we'll call
7 I guess an epiphany of ethics on the part of
8 Mr. Minton clearly to try to derail the
9 wrongful death case.
10 And, Judge, quite simply, if you look at
11 the rationale used by the courts in granting
12 a Motion to Stay, a Motion to Stay other
13 proceeding that has similarities or an impact
14 on a prior filed proceeding, is clearly
15 within the discretion of the Court and it's
16 there to prevent exactly what I think we see
17 happening today. There's an effort being
18 made to try to derail that wrongful death
19 case.
20 I've included some citations of
21 authority and I think, Judge, the cases I
22 have, and I'll quote them for the record,
23 I've got the case of Ricigliano versus Peat,
24 Marwick & Main. And quite simply, Judge, it
25 says, trial courts are afforded broad
1 discretion in granting or denying stays.
2 And, in this case, there was an issue about
3 estate and federal actions -- estate and
4 federal actions are sufficiently similar to
5 warrant the trial court to stay of a
6 subsequently filed stayed action.
7 Now, I know, as this Court well knows,
8 there's a very dramatic difference between a
9 stay, which is within the discretion of the
10 Court, and an order of abatement, which would
11 require the two cases involve exactly the
12 same parties and exactly the same cause of
13 action.
14 But what we have here, Judge, is a clear
15 example of a situation where the exercise of
16 this Court's discretion to prevent the
17 irreparable harm that will affect the other
18 important case, quite candidly, Judge,
19 assuming for the sake of argument that
20 anything that Mr. Minton says is even
21 remotely, possibly accurate, that doesn't
22 have any impact on the continuation of the
23 wrongful death case.
24 Whether or not he said something that
25 was true or untrue, we're talking about a
1 breach of contract that called for perhaps
2 the addition of parties that were never
3 added. There is no prejudice by allowing the
4 wrongful death case to go forward.
5 So the breach of contract at issue in
6 this case never manifested itself in a way to
7 prejudice the wrongful death case.
8 Again, Your Honor, I think it's clear
9 that this will have a dramatic impact. My
10 biggest obstacle today was thinking of a way
11 that I could say that clearly that's their
12 intent.
13 Mr. Moxon is saving the trouble by
14 writing you the letter and at least
15 circulating that letter. We're going to
16 violate a court order telling us to go to
17 mediation because of all these things that
18 are happening in that other case.
19 And I think clearly whatever happens
20 here will contaminate the wrongful death case
21 with no other result and it will cause
22 unnecessary delay to everybody, including the
23 Court, unnecessary expense and inconvenience
24 clearly to everybody including the Court.
25 As I understand it, there have been
1 extensive Frye hearings and other things
2 conducted which to benefit any judicial
3 evaluation of the fact are best conducted
4 while the Court remains cognizant and the
5 things are still fresh in the Court's mind.
6 The issues here clearly are things that
7 will never change. Nothing is going to
8 happen to prejudice any party if this
9 particular case is stayed, the other case is
10 allowed to go forward, and then we can decide
11 whether or not there was any wrongdoing,
12 whether Mr. Minton was adversely or unduly
13 influenced by anything that might have
14 occurred within the last few months.
15 We could explore those issues in great
16 depth because they were frozen in time. The
17 continuation of that case is very, very
18 important, both to the estate and clearly to
19 the people involved that are looking for
20 those responsible as alleged in the Complaint
21 for wrongful death action to actually have
22 the opportunity to seek justice in -- on both
23 sides.
24 It will give everybody a chance to put
25 whatever evidence and testimony they have in
1 the scales of justice and see who prevails,
2 but there's no purpose served by allowing
3 this case to go forward at this point when
4 there's now a clear argument to be made that
5 it will have an adverse impact on the
6 continuation of the wrongful death case.
7 And, quite honesty, Judge, there is no
8 other result that can happen from the
9 continuation.
10 On the alternative, if, in fact, this
11 case is stayed, it doesn't prejudice any
12 party whatsoever. The facts in this case
13 will remain frozen in time and we can explore
14 those in the future just as Judge Schaeffer
15 found appropriate for the counterclaim at a
16 point when it doesn't have the adverse effect
17 on the wrongful death action.
18 So, Judge, it's our request here that --
19 and certainly we think it's well supported
20 that the Motion to Stay that we have filed be
21 granted and this action be stayed until the
22 conclusion of the wrongful death case.
23 THE COURT: Do I understand, Mr. Lirot,
24 that you are now counsel of record for the
25 defendant in this case?
1 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm actually here for
2 Mr. Tom Dandar. And I'm in an awkward
3 position and I'll explain it to the Court. I
4 had originally been retained to hire Kennan
5 Dandar and the firm of Tom Dandar.
6 Kennan, being a witness today, had asked
7 me to stand in for his brother who is out of
8 town actually visiting their mother out of
9 state.
10 This is one of those situations where I
11 understand we have a unique way of scheduling
12 hearings in this matter. I'm actually
13 arguing, but I do intend to file a Notice of
14 Appearance for the Estate.
15 THE COURT: All right. So you intend to
16 appear on behalf of the Estate?
17 MR. LIROT: I do to the extent that I'm
18 allowed to do so by the Court.
19 THE COURT: All right. Okay.
20 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I will try to be
22 brief. Mr. Lirot perhaps because he's late
23 to this case is suffering under the
24 fundamental misunderstanding while this case
25 involves a breach of contract and tortious
1 interference, this hearing does not.
2 We aren't trying the underlying
3 Complaint in this hearing. We are trying
4 evidence which, if believed, would establish
5 that a member of the Bar of this Court is
6 engaged in subornation of perjury,
7 obstruction of justice, and violations of the
8 canons of ethics, commingling of his funds
9 and his client's funds.
10 And the response to this, if I
11 understand correctly, the response to
12 these -- I can't think of any more serious
13 charges to be -- that could be made against
14 an attorney.
15 The response to this is in paragraph 13
16 of the motion, we request that this Court
17 stay the instant action, not the motion. We
18 should stay our entire proceeding in order to
19 allow an attorney who is now under a cloud
20 based on the evidence presented to you on
21 April 9th and to be presented today, in order
22 to allow him to try another case.
23 This is -- comes under the category of
24 temerity. An attorney charged with
25 misconduct of this magnitude who says before
1 you I am -- before you try me on this
2 misconduct, give me a chance to try this
3 other case, give me a chance to try a case
4 and then I'll come back and respond on the
5 allegations of misconduct.
6 I always thought that disqualification
7 took priority over everything because if the
8 attorney should not -- if Mr. Dandar should
9 not be counsel in this case because of the
10 disqualification that Your Honor may impose,
11 he has no right to do anything in this case.
12 Whatever Judge Schaeffer does in terms
13 of Mr. Dandar's participation is up to Judge
14 Schaeffer. And we once again have this kind
15 of miss and match of this case versus the
16 breach case -- excuse me, the wrongful death
17 case.
18 Also because I guess Mr. Lirot has not
19 been up to speed let me, if I might, just
20 correct one or two things that he said about
21 the wrongful death case. This whole argument
22 is based on the wrongful death case.
23 Number one, a counterclaim. And the
24 counterclaim is the same as this -- the
25 counterclaim in the wrongful death case is
1 the same, essentially, as the claim before
2 Your Honor.
3 Mr. Kennan Dandar made a motion before
4 Judge Schaeffer making that exact argument
5 saying that the counterclaim is the same as
6 the case here before Judge Baird.
7 Mr. Dandar made a Motion to Consolidate
8 the two on that basis, that the two -- that
9 the counterclaims in this case were
10 essentially the same.
11 On the 12th of April of this year, oral
12 argument was heard on that motion. Myself
13 and my cocounsel in this case Mr. Pope
14 appeared before it involved a consolidation
15 of our case here. We're not counsel in the
16 wrongful death case.
17 And Judge Schaeffer said on the record,
18 The motion is denied. There is no
19 similarity. I see that the claim before
20 Judge Baird involves a breach of an agreement
21 not to add parties. That is not the
22 allegation in the counterclaim. The Motion
23 to Consolidate the counterclaim in this case
24 is denied.
25 Counsel -- and I don't -- I don't fault
1 counsel for not knowing that. He wasn't in
2 the case at the time, but there is no such
3 pending count -- pending issue.
4 Next, counsel cites to orders of the
5 second DCA issued April 3rd and April 12th.
6 That's in the wrongful death case. What that
7 has to do with this proceeding is beyond me,
8 but I want to address those orders because
9 counsel has put them in.
10 Counsel has overlooked the critical
11 language of each of the two orders. The
12 order of the Second DCA dated April 3rd --
13 just give me a moment to find it, Your
14 Honor -- says at page four, and here is the
15 critical language, the Court concludes that
16 the information sought is not reasonably
17 calculated to lead to the discovery of
18 admissible evidence in the trial of this
19 wrongful death action.
20 I don't know if the Second DCA is right
21 or wrong. I'm not in that case. All I know
22 is that it is -- that the Second DCA has
23 addressed some dispute with which I'm not
24 familiar respecting some discovery in the
25 wrongful death case and has made a
1 determination, based upon, among other
2 things, and this is the key thing, not
3 calculated to lead to the discovery of
4 admissible evidence.
5 This very same language appears in the
6 April 12th order at page four verbatim. We
7 thoroughly reviewed the response, attachments
8 and conclude the information sought is not
9 reasonably calculated to lead to the
10 discovery of admissible evidence in a trial
11 of this wrongful death action.
12 What those orders have to do with this
13 case I have no idea, but I'm going to go
14 beyond that. Apparently counsel believes
15 that our intention is to somehow use -- or my
16 client's intention is to somehow use this
17 proceeding to obtain evidence of how much --
18 how Mr. Dandar spent the funds so we would
19 find out how much he has in connection with
20 the wrongful death case. That is not our
21 intention.
22 The orders of the Second DCA, as I read
23 them, and I just read them now, talk about a
24 request to inquire of Mr. Dandar as to how he
25 has spent the funds to find out how much he
1 has left.
2 I don't have any intention of asking him
3 how much money he has left to litigate the
4 wrongful death case. It's not an issue. To
5 the extent we talk about money today, as we
6 did last time, we're talking about
7 subornation of perjury, we're talking about
8 obstruction, we're talking about monies that
9 Mr. Dandar received from Mr. Minton that were
10 not disclosed that indeed, to the contrary,
11 not only were not disclosed, but were lied
12 about in this case, not the wrongful death
13 case, this case before you.
14 I don't have any intention of asking
15 Mr. Dandar for an accounting of how much
16 money he has spent or how much he has left in
17 connection with that wrongful death case.
18 So, even though these two orders have no
19 application here, even though these two
20 orders of the Second DCA are very fact
21 intensive and specific on relevance and have
22 no application here, I don't have any
23 intention of asking the questions that
24 Mr. Lirot is afraid of.
25 The third and final point is, again,
1 predicating this entire motion upon the
2 wrongful death case counsel has offered you a
3 letter from Mr. Moxon who apparently is one
4 of the attorneys in the wrongful death case
5 something about a mediation.
6 I don't know what that has to do with
7 this case. We're here on -- to try a matter
8 of gravest importance to the integrity of the
9 Bar and of this Court and its processes.
10 I don't know what mediation has to do
11 with it. Apparently there is -- there was
12 some mediation and Mr. Lirot could correct me
13 if I'm wrong, but I understand that mediation
14 went forward this morning and Mr. Dandar was
15 there.
16 So, I don't know what happened, Judge,
17 because I'm not party to that case and I
18 certainly wasn't at the mediation, but all I
19 do know is that Mr. Lirot has told the Court
20 that Mr. Dandar -- Mr. Moxon had asked
21 somehow to delay the mediation or has refused
22 to come, but, in fact, I understand that
23 mediation went forward.
24 So, once again it is a distraction.
25 It's a red herring. What difference does it
1 make to the issue that we have at hand? The
2 issue we have at hand is the issue of whether
3 or not the -- Mr. Kennan Dandar has been --
4 has committed conduct of a kind that would
5 require his disqualification in this case.
6 Thank you, Your Honor.
7 MR. LIROT: Brief rebuttal. I think my
8 statement to the Court was clear, I didn't
9 suggest the counterclaim was the same cause
10 of action, otherwise abatement would have
11 been appropriate.
12 My point was, that the letter issued by
13 Mr. Moxon clearly shows the intent to use the
14 proceedings in this case at least purportedly
15 to derail the action in the wrongful death
16 case.
17 Now, from what I understand, the
18 mediation lasted a couple hours and reached
19 an immediate impasse, but I think it's not so
20 much the fact that there was a threat to
21 violate the Court order by not attending the
22 mediation.
23 The reason I present that letter to this
24 Court is to show that that's what the intent
25 is, to use these proceedings in a way to
1 derail that other case.
2 And I think most importantly is the fact
3 that, I did not tell the Court earlier, but,
4 as I understand it, there has been a stay
5 issued in this case where there was a Motion
6 for Stay and there was a stay which was
7 remaining in place and there have been
8 several stays -- an emergency -- excuse me,
9 an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review.
10 I just am concerned that the continued
11 progress of this case is going to provide too
12 many opportunities for the Plaintiffs herein
13 to circumvent these stays, these clear orders
14 from the Second District Court of Appeal
15 that's the primary concern.
16 And, again, assuming that everything
17 Mr. Rosen says is absolutely true, it doesn't
18 cause any prejudice to the Church to abate or
19 stay this case pending a determination of the
20 other case.
21 I think that's the only way to ensure
22 that this case doesn't have the negative
23 effect that we want to avoid and the
24 irreparable harm I think, as the Second DCA
25 has clearly said, the irreparable harm, the
1 chilling effect, the adverse impact that the
2 continuation of this case poses.
3 There's nothing to be gained and there's
4 a great deal to be lost if this goes forward.
5 Obviously the Court knows disqualification is
6 a very harsh sanction, I'm prepared to argue
7 that, but I think when all is said and done
8 we categorically deny the allegations made
9 against us.
10 I think this Court would certainly be
11 able to evaluate the evidence and testimony
12 that it hears, but nothing will change by
13 staying this matter. Nothing will be gained
14 at all by the Plaintiffs by going forward now
15 that they wouldn't be able to achieve by
16 going forward in the future.
17 And I think in light of all of these
18 different stays, the reversals, and quashal
19 of other orders for production, it just seems
20 that in an abundance of caution and certainly
21 to recognize the due process rights of the
22 Plaintiffs in the wrongful death case if
23 we're going to stick our neck out a little
24 bit we should do so in the abundance of
25 caution that we request in the form of
1 granting this stay.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, if I may just
4 make one last remark and that is if counsel
5 is concerned about this proceeding
6 interfering with the wrongful death case,
7 whether it be the trial or anything else, I
8 have only had the pleasure of watching Judge
9 Schaeffer once.
10 I've never been before her, but I am
11 told and from what I saw in the proceedings
12 before her on April 12th, Judge Schaeffer
13 will not be dissuaded from doing what she
14 believes needs to be done.
15 If counsel is saying he wants you to
16 stop the Church of Scientology Flag from
17 derailing the wrongful death case, that's an
18 argument he can make to Judge Schaeffer. I
19 don't quite understand how the argument is
20 made here to you that you should stop a
21 derailment of a case that's before another
22 judge.
23 And in terms of the injury, I have a
24 case that's pending. It's been pending now I
25 think three years. We would like to go to
1 trial and we need to know whether or not the
2 Defendants going to be Represented by
3 Mr. Dandar, the Estate anyway.
4 No prejudice? I must respectfully
5 submit, not only is there a prejudice to us
6 in terms of delaying our case, but far more
7 important, there is prejudice to the Court,
8 to the integrity of the Court and its
9 processes.
10 If there has been, and I say "if," it is
11 certainly not -- all the evidence is not in
12 yet, if, in fact, Mr. Kennan Dandar has
13 suborn perjury in this case, not the wrongful
14 death case, if Mr. Kennan Dandar has
15 obstructed justice in this case, not the
16 wrongful death case, every day he continues
17 to be counsel in this case is an affront to
18 the integrity of this Court. Thank you.
19 MR. LIROT: Judge, the last point to
20 make and then I will cease my argument was to
21 show that our argument -- they are trying to
22 circumvent the orders of the other Court is
23 directly stated in the Plaintiff's Motion to
24 Place Documents in the Custody of the Court,
25 they have asked that they immediately place
1 in custody all documents in their possession,
2 et cetera, et cetera, to deposit such funds
3 in any form of institution or bank or other
4 financial account and the expenditure of such
5 funds.
6 So, it's our position that that clearly
7 violates the decisions of the Second District
8 Court of Appeal.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I understand
10 your position, the motion will be denied.
11 Any time there are allegations this serious
12 about the conduct of counsel I think they
13 need to be addressed as soon as possible in
14 order to maintain the integrity of this
15 system.
16 And I appreciate your concerns about the
17 other case, but, frankly, this case has to
18 stand on its own, and these allegations
19 regarding this case, they don't affect the
20 other.
21 MR. LIROT: Very good. We will proceed.
22 THE COURT: So it will be denied.
23 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge.
24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, may I proceed
25 with the presentation of evidence?
2 MR. ROSEN: I call to the stand Robert
3 Minton.
4 THE BAILIFF: Step up here. Face the
5 judge. Raise your right hand.
6 (Thereupon, the witness was duly sworn on oath.)
7 THE BAILIFF: Step up. Speak in a loud
8 and clear voice.
9 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, in the interest
10 of expediting this a little bit, may I -- I
11 prepared a series of folders of exhibits I
12 intend to question this witness on. I have
13 one for the witness and one for the Court so
14 I only need to request permission to approach
15 once.
16 THE COURT: All right.
24 Q. Mr. Minton, you were previously sworn
25 and testified in this court -- in this courtroom
1 on the 9th of April of this year; is that right?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And you provided testimony at that time
4 in the context of contempt proceeding?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And, as you sit here today, was all that
7 testimony true and accurate?
8 A. It was.
9 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I would move, in
10 the interest of moving this along, to admit
11 into this proceeding, the disqualification
12 hearing, the testimony Mr. Minton gave on
13 April 9th, and the exhibits that were marked,
14 namely Exhibits 1 through 4 that he
15 identified in his testimony.
16 MR. LIROT: Judge --
17 MR. ROSEN: I -- certainly counsel has a
18 right to cross-examine.
19 MR. LIROT: Judge, I would like to
20 cross-examine, but those have already been
21 made part of the court file.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, if that will be
24 granted, then I will just proceed to
25 questioning the witness on other matters.
1 THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead.
3 Q. Mr. Minton, I put in front of you a
4 series of folders that have exhibits. I would ask
5 you to please keep them closed until I ask you to
6 open each one. Is that -- will you do that for
7 me?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Okay. Mr. Minton --
10 MR. LIROT: Judge, we'd object to
11 anything that wasn't identified in the motion
12 or wasn't presented at the last hearing.
13 This is not the place to be bringing in new
14 evidence.
15 THE COURT: I think that's what this
16 hearing is about.
17 MR. LIROT: I understand that, but
18 certainly there were no exhibits attached to
19 the motion and we have no idea what's been
20 presented today and I think --
21 THE COURT: I don't think the exhibits
22 have to be attached to the motion. I think
23 that that's what this evidentiary hearing is
24 for, is to present evidence.
25 MR. LIROT: Judge, I understand that,
1 but I would like to register our objection.
2 We should have been provided with these in
3 advance.
4 THE COURT: Well, I disagree, so I'll
5 deny your objection. Okay.
7 Q. Mr. Minton, last time -- I just want to
8 bring you back to something. You offered some
9 testimony about two checks that were drawn on a
10 Swiss bank that were given -- that you gave to
11 Mr. Dandar.
12 A. Yes, sir, I remember that.
13 Q. And when was the -- what was the date or
14 approximate date of the first of those checks,
15 those -- we'll call them Swiss checks, Swiss bank
16 checks?
17 A. I believe I stated last time it was May
18 2001, but, in fact, it was May 2000.
19 Q. Okay. Now could you tell --
20 A. And the other check was March 7th, 2002.
21 Q. I'm sorry. Say that again.
22 A. The second check for $250,000 -- I'm
23 sorry. The first check was for 500,000, that was
24 March 2000. The second check was for 250,000 and
25 that was dated March 7th, 2002.
1 Q. All right. I'll ask you to open the
2 folder in front of you that was marked Exhibit 5,
3 sir.
4 A. Five?
5 Q. Five, yes.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. Would you tell the Court what that is?
8 A. That's the May 2000 check for five --
9 May 1st, 2000 check for $500,000.
10 Q. It's a check that you caused to be
11 issued by the United Bank of Switzerland UBS and
12 payable through Chase Manhattan?
13 A. Union Bank of Switzerland.
14 Q. Certainly. Union Bank of Switzerland
15 paid through Chase Manhattan?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Check made out to? Who was the payee,
18 please?
19 A. Mr. Kennan Dandar.
20 Q. In the amount of $500,000?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Would you tell us, sir, how it came
23 about that this check -- you caused this check to
24 be issued to Mr. Dandar?
25 A. Well --
1 MR. LIROT: Judge, we'd object. The
2 response would violate the stay order and
3 also violate the Second District Court's
4 decision recited to the Court.
5 MR. ROSEN: I don't understand the
6 objection, but I'll rephrase the question.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
9 Q. Was there any conversation between you
10 and Mr. Dandar which led to the issuance of this
11 check?
12 A. Yes. Mr. Dandar needed money which was
13 a fairly common event throughout the course of the
14 wrongful death litigation.
15 MR. LIROT: Judge, this is -- may I
16 interject? This is exactly the basis of my
17 objection. This is exactly what the stay
18 called to prevent was any testimony --
19 THE COURT: What stay are we talking
20 about?
21 MR. LIROT: Judge, the stay that says
22 you're not supposed to divulge any
23 information about the source of the funds.
24 The order that was -- that was issued to
25 provide that evidence was quashed and there's
1 been a stay issued to prevent any testimony
2 or evidence dealing with --
3 THE COURT: And that was in the wrongful
4 death case?
5 MR. LIROT: It was in this case, Your
6 Honor.
7 THE COURT: In this case there was a
8 stay entered?
9 MR. LIROT: That's my understanding,
10 Judge.
11 MR. ROSEN: Counsel is incorrect. The
12 only stay that was entered in this case, and
13 brought it to Your Honor's attention on April
14 9th, is with respect to interrogatories
15 addressed to Mr. Dandar or his counsel for
16 them to make disclosure of information which
17 is why the last time I had asked that the
18 documents be deposited with the Court rather
19 than give them to me.
20 To the contrary, Your Honor has
21 ordered -- had ordered disclosure by
22 Mr. Minton, no stay -- and I think the appeal
23 taken by Mr. Merrett has been dismissed.
24 There is no stay in effect that this violates
25 in this case.
1 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may, I'm looking
2 here at a July 2nd, 2001 order from the
3 Second District Court of Opinion -- Second
4 District Court of Appeal in this particular
5 case, 2750, and it says, By order of the
6 Court, Respondent's Motion for Rehearing of
7 Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay is
8 granted.
9 The Court has considered the
10 Respondent's response to the Motion for Stay
11 and the stay will remain in place until
12 further order of this Court.
13 There is a second one dated June 27th,
14 2001. It says, Petitioner's Emergency Motion
15 for Stay Pending Review is granted. And the
16 Emergency Motion for Stay basically says
17 that -- the issue talks about the funds and,
18 quite honestly, this paragraph says, Without
19 the Court entering a stay it would render
20 moot the petition because the petitioners or
21 counsel will be irreparably damaged by having
22 to divulge the privileged information before
23 the Court has time to rule on the other
24 petition.
25 The stay has not been modified. And it
1 seems to me that any testimony about checks
2 or money or the source of any funds is
3 directly in contravention of the stay and
4 those orders that this Court just read.
5 MR. ROSEN: Counsel has just read the
6 stay order issued upon an order of this Court
7 compelling the Defendants, compelling
8 Ms. Liebreich to answer interrogatories.
9 What this has to do -- and counsel just
10 read it. I mean, it's a prejudiced claim.
11 There was never a privileged claim with
12 respect to Mr. Minton. He was never
13 represented by Mr. Dandar.
14 I think counsel has got the wrong order.
15 We acknowledge that order. That precludes us
16 from asking Ms. Liebreich --
17 THE COURT: Well, just from reading the
18 -- or hearing the decision of the Second
19 District in that case, and I do recall that
20 there was a stay entered as to some specific
21 discovery that was requested in this case, I
22 don't think that's a global stay.
23 I think it refers specifically to what
24 was being, you know, addressed up in the
25 Second District pursuant to the motion. If
1 you would like to -- if you would like to
2 accompany that order along with the motion so
3 that -- so that I can review the motion
4 itself and the stay together, then I have a
5 little bit better idea of what it was you're
6 talking about.
7 But I believe that counsel is correct,
8 that it was -- had to do with some
9 interrogatories, some written
10 interrogatories, that were sought to be
11 answered and the answering of those
12 interrogatories was stayed.
13 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, may I hand up
14 the very order that is the subject of the
15 stay?
16 MR. LIROT: Judge, is this the July 2nd,
17 2001 order?
18 THE COURT: Um, no.
19 MR. ROSEN: That's the order compelling
20 interrogatory answers. July 5th, I believe,
21 Counsel.
22 MR. DANDAR: June 5th.
23 THE COURT: No, this one is June 5th.
24 MR. ROSEN: That's correct. Thank you,
25 Mr. Dandar. June 5th. That was the order
1 that was stayed.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. LIROT: Judge, our position is that
4 this -- the benefit derived from this order
5 is circumvented by the elicitation of this
6 testimony.
7 I mean, clearly the stay is issued for a
8 reason, it is to prevent divulgence of this
9 information for a specific purpose. And
10 clearly any attempt to circumvent the impact
11 of this order would be improper. That's our
12 concern, Judge.
13 THE COURT: I don't think so, number
14 one, because this is a matter that the Court
15 can certainly separate. What we're hearing
16 here is evidence regarding the subornation
17 of perjury and the obstruction of justice.
18 And to the extent that -- that this
19 order was entered regarding these
20 interrogatories, I can't see that it applies
21 at all. So it will be denied. You could
22 continue.
23 MR. LIROT: Understood, but I would like
24 to register a standing objection,
25 respectfully, Your Honor, and I'll try not to
1 be too -- to interject --
2 THE COURT: That's all right. Your
3 objection is noted for the record.
5 Q. Mr. Minton, let me pose to you again the
6 question: Did you have any conversation with
7 Kennan Dandar which related to or lead to the --
8 your issuance or causing to be issued Exhibit 5?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Can you tell us what that conversation
11 was?
12 A. Well, Mr. Dandar was somewhat reluctant
13 to keep coming to me all the time for money, so he
14 suggested that I give him maybe a larger amount
15 and, therefore, minimize his calls on me for
16 additional funds.
17 He also said that he had set up an
18 account somewhere that he could hide this money
19 from Scientology. And so he asked me if I could
20 find a way to get him some money that he could
21 make sure that Scientology would never know about.
22 Q. Now, sir, is this conversation in or
23 about May of the year 2000?
24 A. It would have been prior to that.
25 Q. How much prior?
1 A. Very shortly.
2 Q. April? Thereabouts?
3 A. I would think it would be in April.
4 Q. Okay. Now, there was a conversation --
5 withdraw that.
6 Up until this time, from October of 1997
7 when you first sent the first check --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- to Mr. Dandar, until approximately
10 April of 2000 or May of 2000, is it correct that
11 every check you sent to Mr. Dandar was drawn by
12 you on one of your accounts, regular checks signed
13 by you?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Is this the first check which is a bank
16 check drawn on the Bank of Switzerland, right?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And is that because Mr. Dandar wanted
19 the check that way?
20 A. Ah, he didn't specifically ask for any
21 particular type of check. He pretty much left it
22 up to me as to how I could get that to him in a
23 way where it didn't appear to come from me.
24 And that was based on his concerns about
25 what had been going on in the court case, the
1 wrongful death case, about my financial
2 involvement in the case.
3 And I don't remember whether it was then
4 or subsequent, but there were discussions numerous
5 times about the fact that Scientology was
6 objecting, that there was some sort of improper
7 business deal between myself and the Estate.
8 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Minton, the checks
9 that you wrote prior to this one on your own
10 account, they had your name imprinted on them?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And you signed them in your own hand?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. And they were made out to Mr. Dandar or
15 his firm?
16 A. I think they were all made out to
17 Dandar & Dandar.
18 Q. So if they were discovered it would
19 be -- it would be apparent from the face of the
20 instrument who the source of the money was, namely
21 you?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Is there anything on the face of Exhibit
24 5 which discloses who the source of the $500,000
25 is?
1 A. No one other than Union Bank of
2 Switzerland.
3 Q. Okay. Now, how did -- how was this
4 check physically delivered to Mr. Dandar?
5 A. Well, the check was sent to me by
6 courier or something and then I brought it down to
7 Clearwater. I was in New Hampshire at the time.
8 I brought it down to Clearwater and called
9 Mr. Dandar, told him I had some funds that we had
10 talked about.
11 And he suggested that we meet somewhere
12 halfway in between his Tampa office and my office
13 in downtown Clearwater. So we met at the Bombay
14 Bicycle Club which is I think out of business now,
15 but it was on Gulf-to-Bay just on the Tampa side
16 of Route 19, on the Tampa side of the Clearwater
17 Mall.
18 Q. And was there anybody else present?
19 A. Well, there were other people in the
20 Bombay Bicycle Club. It was lunch time, but we
21 went to a small round table in the bar area so we
22 could be completely alone because most people were
23 eating in the lunch part of the restaurant, and I
24 gave Mr. Dandar the check.
25 Q. When I say were other people there, I
1 meant, were any people in your group, either
2 somebody who was accompanying you or somebody
3 accompanying Mr. Dandar?
4 A. No, we were alone.
5 Q. Okay. If I -- did there come a time in
6 February of 2002 when you issued another or caused
7 to be issued another bank check to Mr. Dandar?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. May I ask you, sir, to open what is in
10 front of you the folder that is marked Exhibit 6.
11 A. Sorry. Just one second. Did you say
12 February 2002?
13 Q. I'm sorry, March of 2000.
14 A. It was March, yes.
15 Q. March of 2002. And would you open the
16 folder that is marked Exhibit 6, please, sir?
17 A. Just one second. Yes.
18 Q. Could you tell us -- tell the Court what
19 that is.
20 A. That's a check for $250,000 payable to
21 Ken Dandar issued by Union Bank of Switzerland
22 dated March 7th, 2002.
23 Q. You --
24 A. Drawn on Chase Manhattan Bank in New
25 York.
1 Q. And you caused that check to be drawn --
2 A. I did.
3 Q. -- by Union Bank of Switzerland?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. Okay. Now, prior to the delivery of
6 this check to Mr. Dandar, were there any -- was
7 there any conversation which led up to this
8 between you and Mr. Dandar?
9 A. Ah, yes. There were numerous
10 conversations. Mr. Dandar came to visit me in New
11 Hampshire in early February along with Dr. Garko
12 for the sole purpose of, you know, soliciting
13 funds for the case.
14 And, you know, I had been somewhat
15 reluctant in the past few months prior to that
16 meeting to give money, give any further money.
17 And so Mr. Dandar and Mr. Garko came up there to,
18 you know, give me a sort of sales pitch on the
19 state of the case.
20 Q. And was there any discussion at that
21 time about how to issue what kind of check to
22 provide by way of funds; whether it be a personal
23 check or another Swiss Bank check?
24 A. Um, yes, it was discussed obliquely
25 though. It was discussed in an oblique way
1 because Dr. Garko was there. And going back to
2 that May 2000 event, if I could just, because this
3 is somewhat relevant to --
4 Q. Sure.
5 A. -- the issue of the March check. As I
6 had stated before in this Court, one of the
7 principal things that Mr. Dandar had said to me at
8 the time was that he was going to not tell his
9 trial team, basically, that he had money, and that
10 he would basically be telling them that I wasn't
11 giving money at that stage and he was financing
12 out of his own personal retirement account this
13 case.
14 So, going back to February of 2002 when
15 Mr. Dandar and Mr. Garko came up there, because of
16 Mr. Dandar's concerns about Mr. Garko not knowing
17 about these funds that he was apparently, you
18 know, putting in this place where nobody would
19 find out about it, you know, the discussions at
20 that time were basically referring to friends of
21 mine in Europe who might be able to help.
22 You know, Mr. Dandar would still, if we
23 were in private, he would see, you know -- he
24 would say, you know, is Fred going to do anything
25 or not?
1 Q. Fred meaning his pet name for you?
2 A. Well, his pet name for the source of
3 funds that didn't necessarily run through his
4 trust account.
5 Q. Meaning -- but that source was you?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Uh-huh. So, in the presence of
8 Dr. Garko, was anything overtly said by Mr. Dandar
9 about, I need some more money that's untraceable?
10 A. No, not in the presence of Dr. Garko.
11 Q. After that visit to your home in New
12 Hampshire, did there then come a time when
13 Mr. Dandar called you from Cayman Islands?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you tell us what was said during
16 that conversation?
17 A. Well -- no. No. Sorry. That's an
18 incorrect sequence. Mr. Dandar went to the Cayman
19 Islands before he came to New Hampshire.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. In fact, the reason he came to New
22 Hampshire was because I wasn't either willing or
23 able to come to the Cayman Islands to meet him
24 when he went down there on a vacation with his
25 family.
1 Q. Fine.
2 A. And just one more item.
3 Q. Sure.
4 A. You know, going back to when Mr. Dandar
5 came in February to my house in New Hampshire for
6 the weekend with Dr. Garko. We started that
7 discussion, you know, in terms of him soliciting
8 additional funds, I started it by saying, you
9 know, Mr. Dandar or Ken, you know, I've got to
10 tell you something that wherever we go from this
11 point, you have to understand that I don't trust
12 you, I don't trust the Estate, and I don't trust
13 Dell Liebreich anymore.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. And so we had to go from that point to a
16 point a couple of weeks later after he left for me
17 to agree to give any more money.
18 Q. After he left your house in New
19 Hampshire -- when Ken Dandar left your house in
20 New Hampshire, were there additional conversations
21 between you and Ken Dandar leading up to the -- to
22 the drawing of Exhibit 6, the $250,000 check?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And is it my understanding from your
25 prior answer that as a result of these discussions
1 Mr. Kennan Dandar convinced you to again have some
2 untraceable funds issued -- untraceable funds
3 provided to him?
4 A. Well, I don't think there was any
5 subsequent discussions to our discussions in New
6 Hampshire about, you know, untraceable funds, but
7 it was always clear that that's what we were
8 talking about in New Hampshire.
9 Q. Was it your understanding then in March
10 of 2002 that Mr. Ken Dandar did not want a
11 personal check of yours for $250,000, but rather
12 wanted some bank check?
13 A. Well, I believe he would have taken any
14 check, but I think he preferred the type of check
15 that he got.
16 Q. He preferred the bank check?
17 A. Yep.
18 Q. Okay. How did the bank, Exhibit 6, how
19 did that check physically get into the possession
20 of Ken Dandar?
21 A. Um, it was -- well, first it was sent to
22 me in New Hampshire. I would imagine that I
23 probably got it on the 9th or 10th of March. And,
24 you know, I was still somewhat concerned about
25 Mr. Dandar, the Estate and Dell Liebreich despite
1 the conversations in New Hampshire, and despite
2 other conversations with Mr. Dandar after that.
3 So, I sat on this check for a few days.
4 Mr. Dandar was out of town the following week
5 after I got the check and I sat on the check for
6 several days before sending it.
7 And I believe it was the Wednesday or
8 the Thursday of the week following my receipt of
9 the check that Mr. Dandar called me up to say,
10 Hey, the check didn't arrive yet.
11 He was out of town. And, you know,
12 obviously his assistant Donna West was checking
13 this for him and she told him what she hadn't
14 received anything from me.
15 Q. And what did you say to him?
16 A. I said, I sent it today. I sent it the
17 day that he had actually made that call. I sent
18 it before he called.
19 Q. Did Mr. Dandar give you any instructions
20 or suggestions as to how to wrap the check or how
21 to put it into an envelope to send to him?
22 A. Um, well, he had previously asked me,
23 you know, I don't think this was Mr. Dandar's
24 idea, but he had asked me to send him an essay
25 written by a woman named Caroline Letkeman, which
1 I did send him by email.
2 I printed that -- I printed that
3 document out which ran some 20 or 30 pages, I
4 think. I can't remember how many pages it was.
5 But, you know, somehow -- and I don't know whether
6 I said this or Mr. Dandar said this, but, you
7 know, it ended up being on page 23 of that
8 document.
9 Q. I'm not understanding.
10 A. The check. The check was put on page 23
11 of that document so that -- knowing that he was
12 out of town, you know, when it arrived at his
13 office, you know, given his concern for keeping
14 everything secret, you know, either on that phone
15 call when -- you know, I must have done it before
16 then. You know, I put it on page 23 and I
17 subsequently called him again to tell him that's
18 where it was.
19 Q. So he would know when he got this
20 article that page 23 --
21 A. That --
22 Q. -- stuck on page 23 was the check?
23 A. That -- well, he shouldn't shred the
24 document for any reason.
25 Q. All right. Now, did you send that to
1 his office to his street address or some other
2 depository?
3 A. Yes. Well, I recall now when he said
4 it -- when he said he hadn't gotten the check and
5 I said I sent it today I said, but I sent it to
6 your post -- no, because he called back the next
7 day. That's right.
8 He called back the next day to say that
9 they still hadn't gotten it, because I was
10 supposed to send it overnight. I said -- he said
11 they still hadn't gotten the check. And, you
12 know, he said, you know, Donna has been here in
13 the office all day and nothing's come. And I
14 said, Well, I sent it to the post office box, his
15 post office box.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And then the following day he called me
18 back to confirm that he got it.
19 Q. Okay. Do you know a Michael Garko? I
20 think you referred to -- his name is Dr. Garko.
21 Is that Michael Garko?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Could you identify what role, if any, he
24 has? Who he is?
25 A. He's been Mr. Dandar's trial consultant
1 throughout this wrongful death litigation and this
2 case, I believe.
3 Q. Did Michael Garko come to visit you this
4 past Sunday? That would have been the 14th of
5 April.
6 A. Ah, yes, he did.
7 Q. Did Mr --
8 A. At the Radisson Hotel.
9 Q. I'm sorry?
10 A. At the Radisson Hotel on Sand Key.
11 Q. Did Mr. Garko ask you or say anything to
12 you about these bank checks?
13 A. Yes, he did.
14 Q. Would you tell us what it is that he
15 asked or said to you about them?
16 A. Well --
17 MR. LIROT: Judge, I believe that's
18 hearsay. Mr. Garko is not a party opponent.
19 It would be no admission on his part.
20 MR. ROSEN: It is a co-conspirator.
21 He's going to testify. He's on the witness
22 list.
23 MR. LIROT: Foundation, Judge.
24 THE COURT: I don't see any allegations
25 in the motion regarding Mr. Garko.
1 MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
2 THE COURT: I said, I don't see any
3 allegations in your motion regarding
4 Mr. Garko.
5 MR. ROSEN: He's a co-conspirator to the
6 conduct that is identified in the motion.
7 THE COURT: This isn't a conspiracy
8 case. This is a Motion to Disqualify.
9 MR. ROSEN: Okay.
10 THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
12 Q. Mr. Minton, let me turn to another
13 subject then. In -- I want to direct your
14 attention to on or about December of 1997. Did
15 you have any discussion with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Ken
16 Dandar, on the subject of the proceeds to be had
17 from the wrongful death case?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Will you tell us what that conversation
20 was?
21 A. The conversation took place at the Tampa
22 Club, I believe it was, in Tampa. You know, at or
23 near the 1st of December because several days
24 later or something happened I remember and that
25 was the 5th, so it had to be in the first few days
1 of December.
2 And I had suggested to Mr. Dandar
3 that -- well, at the time Scientology was making a
4 big issue that, you know, that Dell Liebreich was
5 a money grubbing whatever, you know, just out for
6 the money.
7 And I suggested to Mr. Dandar to deflate
8 that argument that the Estate should agree to
9 donate the bulk of the proceeds or a large --
10 substantial part of the proceeds to an anticult
11 organization to fund, you know, a cult awareness
12 type organization in the future.
13 Q. One that you were associated with or
14 forming?
15 A. Well, I was -- I was soon to be a
16 director of FACT Net. And FACT Net was the
17 organization which is an organization that --
18 their name stands for Fight Against Coercive
19 Tactics Network.
20 Q. Okay. Did there come a time after that
21 that Mr. Dandar then reported back to you on the
22 subject of his discussion of this suggestion of
23 yours with Ms. Liebreich?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When was that?
1 A. On --
2 Q. Wait for my question.
3 A. Okay. I'm sorry.
4 Q. When was that?
5 A. Excuse me?
6 Q. When was that that Mr. Dandar reported
7 back to you?
8 A. I believe it was December 5th, just a
9 few days later.
10 Q. Okay. And tell us what it is that he
11 said to you at that time?
12 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'd interpose an
13 objection on relevance.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 THE WITNESS: Well, just to go back to
16 that Tampa meeting for one second. He also
17 said that he had had this idea, the same idea
18 that I suggested to him.
19 So, going to the 5th of December he said
20 that he had discussed the matter with the --
21 with Dell Liebreich and that, yes, indeed
22 that is what they decided that they were
23 going to do with the substantial part of the
24 proceeds of the wrongful death litigation.
1 Q. Were going to be giving to some anticult
2 group that you were selecting?
3 A. One or a couple.
4 Q. Okay. Directing your attention to the
5 end of November -- excuse me, the end of 1999 and
6 into the early part of 2000. Mr. Minton, did you
7 go on a radio show and announce this agreement
8 with the Estate to contribute the lion's share or
9 a substantial amount of the proceeds in the
10 wrongful death case to an anticult group?
11 A. Yes. This was about the time the Lisa
12 McPherson Trust was being formed. You say
13 December of '99?
14 Q. December of '99, beginning of 2000, that
15 period of time.
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. And you made that statement public based
18 upon Mr. Dandar having told you that the Estate
19 had agreed to that?
20 A. That's right. And I had previously
21 testified in court about this -- not in court, in
22 deposition that this agreement was basically in
23 place.
24 Q. And, in fact, that is of that time that
25 you went on radio and announced this. In addition
1 to what Mr. Dandar had told you, were you aware
2 that Ms. Liebreich and her two siblings had
3 confirmed this agreement in their own depositions?
4 A. I wasn't aware of that at that time, no.
5 Q. You became aware of that later?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you also then post on the Internet
8 an announcement about this time in the end of '99,
9 beginning of 2000, of this agreement with the
10 Estate to donate all or a substantial part of the
11 proceeds in the wrongful death case to an anticult
12 group?
13 A. Yes, I did, specifically the Lisa
14 McPherson Trust.
15 Q. The Lisa McPherson Trust that you
16 created, you incorporated down here in Florida?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. For which Mr. Dandar was the counsel and
19 incorporator, Ken Dandar?
20 A. That's right, he did.
21 Q. Okay. Did there then come a time, sir,
22 later on in the year 2000 that there was any
23 conversation -- that you had any conversation with
24 Mr. Ken Dandar on the subject of these -- of this
25 agreement for the Estate to donate a substantial
1 part of the proceeds to the Lisa McPherson Trust?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you tell me about when that was
4 that you first had conversation with Mr. Dandar on
5 that subject?
6 A. The first time was probably soon after
7 those public pronouncements.
8 Q. Give me an approximation.
9 A. That would probably have been, you know,
10 February or March.
11 Q. All right. Now, would you tell us what
12 it is in substance Mr. Ken Dandar said to you on
13 this subject?
14 A. Well, he said, you know, look, this is
15 going to be a huge issue in the wrongful death
16 case and we're going to have to backtrack big time
17 on what you said.
18 Q. Backtrack big time?
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. What does that mean or what did it mean
21 to you?
22 A. Ah, basically we have to say that's not
23 really the case.
24 Q. In other words, you have to say that the
25 statements you made about this agreement were
1 untrue?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. As far as you were concerned they were
4 true, right?
5 A. They were true at that time and I was
6 subsequently deposed about this. Mr. Dandar was
7 also somewhat concerned that -- I think it was in
8 like May or June of 2000 I was deposed about it --
9 and Dandar was concerned that I had yet again
10 reaffirmed this agreement in a deposition.
11 Q. Did Mr. Dandar express to you why it was
12 necessary for you to quote -- for we to, quote,
13 backtrack, close quotes, on the public disclosure
14 of this agreement?
15 A. Well, again, it goes back to this whole
16 issue that --
17 Q. Well, just tell me what he said, if you
18 can, Mr. Minton. Did he say anything to you on
19 the subject as to why you needed to backtrack?
20 A. Yes. He said because it looks bad for
21 the case because it appears that there's some
22 improper business deal between the Estate and Bob
23 Minton with respect to the proceeds of this case.
24 Q. All right. Well, let me see if I can
25 invite your attention then to on or about December
1 1 of the year 2000 later that same year that you
2 are referring to. Was there a meeting of the
3 board of LMT down here in Clearwater?
4 A. Yes, there was.
5 Q. Was -- were you present?
6 A. I was.
7 Q. Was Ken Dandar present?
8 A. He wasn't present at the beginning of
9 the meeting, but he did come later.
10 Q. Was Dell Liebreich present?
11 A. The same with Mrs. Liebreich, she was
12 not present at the start, but came with Mr. Dandar
13 later.
14 Q. And was one of Mrs. Liebreich's --
15 Ms. Liebreich's siblings, one or more of her
16 siblings there, too?
17 A. I believe both of her sisters were
18 there.
19 Q. Do you know their names?
20 A. Ann Carlson and Lee Skelton.
21 Q. Okay. And I only want to ask you about
22 what transpired during the portion of the meeting
23 at which Mr. Ken Dandar and Dell Liebreich and her
24 two sisters were present. Okay?
25 So please put out of your mind, if you
1 will for a moment, what occurred before they
2 arrived at the meeting, okay?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Now, when they arrived at
5 the meeting, was there any discussion on this
6 subject of quote, backtracking, close quote?
7 A. No.
8 Q. As the meeting progressed, did this
9 subject of the agreement between you and the
10 Estate for the Estate to devote all or
11 substantially all of the proceeds to the Lisa
12 McPherson Trust, did that issue come up at all in
13 the discussion?
14 A. It did, but not in the public
15 discussion. After the meeting was over --
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. -- there was a brief discussion about
18 it.
19 Q. Was this discussion then occurred in a
20 private meeting?
21 A. Well, there was --
22 Q. As opposed to the board meeting?
23 A. That's correct. There was no one
24 standing around so it was, you know, there were
25 people in the room, but it was private in the
1 sense that it was...
2 Q. Okay. Who was present at this private
3 meeting?
4 A. Dell Liebreich.
5 Q. Was Mr. Dandar present?
6 A. He wasn't standing close enough to know
7 what was happening.
8 Q. So was this a conversation then that
9 ensued just between you and Dell Liebreich?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Could you tell us what was said?
12 A. I thanked her for the Estate having
13 agreed to support the Lisa McPherson Foundation in
14 the way that they had agreed to.
15 Q. And what did she say?
16 A. She said, you know, this is what Fannie
17 would have wanted. This is what Lisa would have
18 wanted.
19 Q. Okay. Did you have any conversation
20 with Ken Dandar on that date, December 1, 2000,
21 with respect to this agreement?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. This meeting then is December 1,
24 2000, this conversation with Ms. Liebreich?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Um, did there come a time then after
2 that date when Mr. Dandar and you had conversation
3 on the subject of quote, backtracking?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you tell us how soon after that
6 December 1 meeting this conversation occurred?
7 A. Ah, within two weeks.
8 Q. And could you tell us what was said in
9 that conversation?
10 A. Well, Mr. Dandar -- there were two
11 conversations. The first conversation --
12 Q. All right. If there are two let me ask
13 you, sir, to break it down so we have a clear
14 understanding.
15 First tell us what was said in the first
16 conversation and then when you're done I'll ask
17 you to tell us what was said in the second. So
18 let's see if we could do that.
19 A. On the first conversation, um, he said
20 that, you know, that we're going to have to do
21 something about this secret agreement. And he
22 said, I've prepared an affidavit for you and I'm
23 going to send it up to you. And that was the
24 essence of the conversation. There wasn't any
25 details discussed and he sent me an affidavit.
1 Q. And did you then have a second
2 conversation with him?
3 A. Yes, after I got the affidavit.
4 Q. Let me ask you if you can look at -- if
5 you open the folder that is marked Exhibit 42,
6 sir.
7 A. Yeah. Yes, I've got it.
8 Q. Do you have it?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. Is this the affidavit that Mr. Dandar
11 sent to you?
12 A. It is.
13 Q. Now, when he sent it to you it obviously
14 was not signed; is that right?
15 A. Right, it wasn't signed.
16 Q. And he sent it to you with a request
17 that you sign this affidavit?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you then -- did that then
20 produce another conversation between you and Ken
21 Dandar?
22 A. It did.
23 Q. And tell us what that conversation was?
24 A. Well, I was extremely uncomfortable
25 about the affidavit because, number one, it was
1 false.
2 Number two, I was concerned because it
3 was effectively a possibility of the Estate being
4 able to renege on the agreement that we already
5 had, about the proceeds of this case.
6 Q. And you expressed that to Mr. Dandar,
7 did you?
8 A. Those two items were my principal
9 concerns.
10 Q. And what did Mr. Dandar say in response?
11 A. Well, he said, you know, from hence
12 forth the agreement will have to be secret, but
13 the agreement still exists. And -- but with
14 respect to the fact that the thing was untrue he
15 said, you know, this is the only way we can get
16 this argument taken out of the case is for
17 everybody to backtrack on this.
18 Q. Well, let me understand something. For
19 everybody to backtrack on the public statements
20 about the agreement; is that what you mean?
21 A. On the public statements, on sworn
22 testimony.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. You know.
25 Q. Now --
1 A. Because we discussed the fact, you know,
2 I said, you know, Well, I've talked about this on
3 the radio. I've done it on the Internet. You
4 know, I've testified about this in depositions in
5 the past and I reaffirm that this agreement
6 exists.
7 Q. Mr. Minton, I want to go back to
8 something you said in your last answer. What did
9 Mr. Dandar say about -- on the subject of whether
10 the agreement would remain in effect, the
11 agreement between you and the Estate?
12 A. He said it would remain in effect, but
13 it has to be secret.
14 Q. So there was no change in the original
15 agreement for the Estate to give you or your group
16 all or the lion's share of the proceeds? That
17 stayed the same?
18 A. That was supposed to stay the same.
19 Q. The only thing that was supposed to
20 change was now it was going to be secret and
21 everyone was going to deny that that agreement
22 existed?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. And did you then sign -- did you then
25 execute Exhibit 42, sir?
1 A. Um, I did.
2 Q. And you sent it back to Mr. Dandar?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. You knew when you signed that
5 statement -- that this affidavit was false?
6 A. I did, sir.
7 Q. I want to direct your attention
8 specifically to paragraph five.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. This is -- in this paragraph you are
11 saying the statement attributed to him, it's
12 written in the third person, him being you,
13 concerning statements to Dell Liebreich about the
14 disposition were made before the LMT Trust was
15 conceived.
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. That statement is untrue, isn't it?
19 A. Ah --
20 Q. Those statements about the disposition
21 were made in 1997, right?
22 A. And after that and before this.
23 Q. Okay. Now, did Mr. Dandar in his
24 conversation with you indicate that anybody else
25 was going to be signing affidavits backtracking on
1 this agreement or were you the only one who was
2 being asked to do it?
3 A. He didn't say anybody else was going to
4 be backtracking, but he did say that he was going
5 to get Dell Liebreich to sign a similar affidavit.
6 Q. He was going to Get -- say that again
7 please, sir.
8 A. He was going to get Dell Liebreich to
9 sign a similar affidavit.
10 Q. Would you open, sir, the envelope --
11 excuse me, the folder that has Exhibit 33 as its
12 label?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you recognize this document, sir?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. This is an affidavit signed by Dell
17 Liebreich?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At or about the same time, the 20th of
20 December, year 2000?
21 A. Yes, that's a week after I signed mine.
22 Q. Okay. And directing your attention,
23 sir, to paragraph two of that affidavit in which
24 Ms. Liebreich denies that there was ever any
25 binding agreement with Mr. Minton as to any
1 disposition of any funds; do you see that?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. To your knowledge, is that statement
4 false?
5 A. I believe it was.
6 Q. And that affidavit, to your knowledge,
7 was then prepared by Mr. Ken Dandar?
8 A. I believe it would have been, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to --
10 Mr. Minton, could I ask you to go back to your
11 affidavit for a moment, please, that I believe was
12 Exhibit 42.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. I previously asked you about paragraph
15 five. Can I ask you about paragraph six?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you read that out loud, please,
18 it's very short.
19 A. It says, Dell Liebreich has made no
20 promise or commitment to make any donation to the
21 LMT and is under no obligation to make any such
22 donation.
23 Q. Now, is that true?
24 A. It wasn't true at that time.
25 Q. And it's not true today?
1 A. Well, things are a little messy today.
2 Q. Well, today if you were asked if Dell
3 Liebreich --
4 A. The LMT doesn't exist anymore.
5 Q. No, today. If you were asked today
6 whether Dell Liebreich had in the past ever made
7 any promise or commitment to make any donation to
8 LMT.
9 A. Sure, she did.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. Sure she did through her attorney,
12 Mr. Dandar.
13 Q. And confirmed to you on December 1,
14 2000?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Okay. Would you open the envelope --
17 excuse me, the folder marked Exhibit 41, please,
18 sir?
19 A. I've got it.
20 Q. Do you recognize this?
21 A. It's an affidavit of Ken Dandar.
22 Q. A sworn statement of Ken Dandar. And I
23 direct your attention to paragraph six.
24 A. Yes, sir. Six or five?
25 Q. Six.
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. At no time is the Estate or the
3 beneficiaries entered into any informal or formal
4 negotiations, discussions or agreements with
5 Robert Minton or any other third party concerning
6 the disposition of any proceeds realized from any
7 litigation involving the Estate of Lisa McPherson.
8 That's Mr. Dandar's sworn affidavit on
9 December 20th of the year 2000. To your own
10 personal knowledge, is that statement true or
11 false?
12 A. Well, it is December 3rd, but it's a
13 false statement.
14 Q. I'm sorry, December 3rd.
15 A. It's a false statement.
16 Q. Okay. Mr. Minton, after executing your
17 affidavit, Exhibit 42, did there then come a time
18 when you were deposed and specifically in October
19 of the year 2001 by me in this case, in this
20 breach case?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And during the course of that
23 deposition, were you asked a series of questions
24 on this very subject, about whether there was or
25 was not an agreement?
1 A. Yes, I was.
2 Q. And did you give answers to the effect
3 that you have been mistaken in your radio
4 statement and your Internet announcement? Did you
5 backtrack and say there was no agreement?
6 A. Yes. I backtracked. I misunderstood
7 what Mr. Dandar had told me and ...
8 Q. You gave a lot of excuses in terms of
9 trying -- a lot of reasons and excuses to get away
10 from the agreement that you had already made
11 public, right?
12 A. It was a pretty uncomfortable
13 deposition, yes.
14 Q. Okay. And you did that because of
15 Mr. Dandar's request that you had to backtrack
16 because it was hurting the case?
17 A. That's correct and because I had signed
18 this affidavit that he wanted me to sign and I had
19 to backtrack at that point.
20 Q. Have you now, in consultation with your
21 counsel, formally recanted that testimony, that
22 false testimony?
23 A. Yes, sir, I have.
24 Q. Okay. Um, one more quick subject,
25 Mr. Minton, I would like to go over with you.
1 Last time you mentioned that the purpose of the
2 funds you gave to Mr. Dandar, the Ken Dandar or
3 Dandar & Dandar, whatever, that the agreement was
4 that they were to be used to pay the expenses of
5 the Estate in the wrongful death case.
6 Do you remember that testimony?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Now, are you clear on this that that was
9 the only intention, the only allowed use of those
10 funds, the expenses of the Estate in the wrongful
11 death case?
12 A. Well, from the beginning that's always
13 been the understanding.
14 Q. Okay. And that understanding was
15 reached with Mr. Ken Dandar in October of 1997?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So your understanding with him is not as
18 Mr. Ken Dandar says that this was a personal loan
19 to him? These monies?
20 A. Not at that time.
21 Q. Were any of the funds a personal loan to
22 him?
23 A. No, they weren't.
24 Q. With respect to the entirety of the
25 funds that you provided from October of 1997 right
1 up through March of 2002, a total of approximately
2 2 million dollars, were they all covered by the
3 same agreement, that these funds were to be used
4 by the Estate for the Estate's expenses in the
5 wrongful death case?
6 A. That was always my assumption.
7 Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Dandar in
8 October of '97, that that was the limitation of
9 the use of these funds?
10 A. Ah, yes.
11 Q. Okay. I would ask you to open, sir, the
12 folder that is marked Exhibit 8.
13 A. I have it.
14 Q. Could you tell us what the document is,
15 sir?
16 A. This is a note on a little 4 x 6 card
17 that I sent to Mr. Dandar along with the first
18 check for $100,000.
19 Q. And the date on it, it bears is October
20 6th, 1997?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Is that at or about the date that you
23 sent this little card with the first check to
24 Mr. Ken Dandar?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Would you please read the handwritten
2 note into the record for us, sir?
3 A. Dear Ken, further to our conversation
4 this a.m., I pleased to enclose a check for
5 $100,000 to help with the expenses incurred in the
6 Lisa McPherson versus Scientology case.
7 In the event you prevail in this case,
8 but only in that event, and obtain sufficient
9 resources from the Defendants, I would appreciate
10 being repaid, otherwise let's consider the funds
11 an investment in the lives of other potential
12 victims of the Scienos.
13 Please let Lisa's family know that
14 others share in their grief and are determined to
15 minimize the evil impact Scientology tries to
16 exert on everyone it comes in contact with.
17 Thank you, Ken, for your courageous and
18 principled stand -- sorry -- for the courageous
19 and principled stand you have taken against these
20 devils.
21 I hope to see you in both Clearwater and
22 Boston in December. All the best, Bob.
23 Q. Now, I would ask you to turn to the
24 third page of the exhibit. And on that page there
25 is photostats of two checks. The top one is
1 Dandar & Dandar October 6th for 100,000 and then
2 underneath it there's a photostat of a check to
3 the Bank of Boston.
4 I believe these checks were photostated
5 together for some reason because they were
6 produced, but the second check, does it have
7 anything to do with this case?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. I don't think so.
11 Q. So it was just another check on your
12 personal -- you and your wife's personal account?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. And, therefore, you would have no
15 problem if we delete that check from the exhibit?
16 A. I wouldn't have any problem.
17 Q. Is the check above it, the check for
18 5000 -- the check number 5104 for $100,000 is that
19 the check that you sent to Mr. Dandar with the
20 cover note that you just read into the record,
21 sir?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And consistent with the note and your
24 testimony, did you then make a notation on the
25 bottom left-hand side of the check?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What does it say?
3 A. It says Re: Lisa McPherson the
4 Scientology case.
5 Q. Okay. Um, turn to the fourth page of
6 the document. And, again, you could ignore the
7 back of the check on the bottom.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Just focus on the back of the check of
10 your $100,000 check. Do you see where that check
11 was deposited?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Could you read that into the record?
14 A. Dandar & Dandar, P.A. Trust account.
15 Q. Trust account?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And would that be consistent with your
18 understanding and intention that the monies you
19 were providing to Mr. Dandar would be deposited
20 into a trust account because they were for the use
21 of the Estate?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. ROSEN: May I just have a moment,
24 Your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
1 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I have no
2 further questions. I would move the
3 introduction into evidence of the documents
4 that the witness has identified during this
5 examination.
6 THE COURT: Any objection?
7 MR. LIROT: I'd -- just subject to the
8 standing objection regarding the orders that
9 we talked about, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Let's -- before we
11 get started on cross-examination, Mr. Lirot,
12 let's take a short break.
13 MR. LIROT: Very good, Judge.
14 THE COURT: Take about five minutes.
15 THE BAILIFF: All rise.
16 (Thereupon, there was a five-minute break.)
17 THE COURT: Be seated.
18 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, it's been
19 brought to my attention that we've had
20 several problems with sequestration. Um,
21 there was a witness who had been sequestered
22 who has been signalling and people who work
23 with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Emmons, his private
24 investigator, and this gentleman sitting here
25 have gone out of the courtroom and spoken to
1 Mr. Haverty.
2 And during the break, Mr. Haverty and
3 Mr. Prince came in to the courtroom to speak
4 to Mr. Lirot. Did I say that right?
5 MR. LIROT: Yes.
6 MR. ROSEN: And I was standing here.
7 Mr. Lirot told them to leave. I asked them
8 to leave, they wouldn't leave. Um, could we
9 ask that the court instruct the Marshal to
10 retain these witnesses in a place that they
11 are not subject to being contacted by folks
12 that are sitting in the courtroom?
13 THE COURT: Is this going to be
14 necessary?
15 MR. LIROT: Judge, I didn't expect
16 anybody to come in and talk to me. I asked
17 them to leave the minute they came in. I had
18 no knowledge what was going on out in the
19 hall. Mr. Rosen was standing right here. I
20 haven't -- I haven't in any way instructed
21 anybody to say anything or do anything.
22 THE COURT: Let's just -- let's see if
23 we can muddle through here, Mr. Rosen, okay?
24 Let's proceed.
25 MR. LIROT: May it please the Court.
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Minton.
4 A. Good afternoon.
5 Q. My name is Luke Lirot. We haven't had
6 the opportunity to meet officially, but it's good
7 to meet.
8 A. Is it Mr. Lirot?
9 Q. Lirot, that's correct.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. You haven't met me before, have you?
12 A. I haven't. I received a letter from
13 you, a couple of letters.
14 Q. From me?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Just to clear the record, I -- we had a
17 hearing the other morning, a Motion for Protective
18 Order, there was a subpoena issued to the Swiss
19 Bank regarding those first two checks, I think
20 that's Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6.
21 The deposition was cancelled and I think
22 certainly the Court was upset that we went forward
23 with -- I think the Motion for Sanctions and for
24 Protective Order.
25 And we're very curious how Mr. Rosen got
1 those checks after the cancellation of the
2 deposition. It seems that that clearly is in
3 violation of the stay and the order that was
4 issued by the Second DCA.
5 MR. ROSEN: Objection to this -- to the
6 speech. If Counsel has a question --
7 THE COURT: If you've got some
8 cross-examination, let's move on regarding
9 the issues that we're here about today.
10 MR. LIROT: Very good.
12 Q. Mr. Minton, you've got a long historical
13 experience of having a deep dislike for
14 Scientology; have you not?
15 A. I have been an anti-Scientology person
16 for -- since sort of 1995.
17 Q. All right. How did that begin?
18 A. Scientology was involved in what was
19 portrayed on the Internet at that time as an
20 attack on free speech on the Internet and I was a
21 member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in
22 San Francisco who sent a newsletter in early
23 January 1995 in which they talked about this issue
24 and so I became interested in it.
25 Q. All right.
1 A. Purely from a free speech standpoint.
2 Q. All right. And you picked up a lot of
3 momentum from there, didn't you?
4 A. Um, beginning in 1996 I picked up a fair
5 amount of momentum which was still pretty quiet at
6 that time, though.
7 Q. All right.
8 A. The momentum picked up December 1997.
9 Q. All right. And you've certainly funded
10 a significant number of lawsuits and other efforts
11 battling what you considered to be the adverse
12 characteristics of Scientology; is that true?
13 A. I funded a number of lawsuits, a number
14 of witnesses, you know, which are basically all
15 the same witnesses in all the cases, yes.
16 Q. And how much money would you say that
17 you've put into the other cases, not this case.
18 MR. LIROT: Judge, for the record, I
19 don't want any of this to be considered a
20 waiver of the orders that we've already
21 brought to the attention of the Court.
23 Q. But other cases, how much funding would
24 you say approximately you've put into other cases?
25 A. Um, close to what I've put into this
1 case. This case being the wrongful death case, 2
2 million, roughly.
3 Q. Across the board? In all --
4 A. In those other cases.
5 Q. -- those other cases?
6 A. Well, it could be a little bit more than
7 that. I haven't calculated it.
8 Q. How many lawsuits are you funding at
9 this time or have you funded in the past?
10 A. Well, I think I'm involved in probably
11 16 or 18 cases that have to do with litigation
12 with Scientology that I've had some involvement
13 in.
14 Q. And, in this particular case, you have
15 contributed some substantial sums; is that
16 correct?
17 A. Two million, fifty thousand is a
18 substantial sum.
19 Q. We've certainly seen some of the checks
20 here today, some of the other checks that you've
21 brought out. As far as the funding and I guess
22 the maintenance of some witness in those cases,
23 have you done that as well?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you tell me what extent, what
1 financial extent that's gone to?
2 A. A million-and-a-half to 2 million
3 dollars, roughly.
4 Q. And that's outside the litigation
5 expenses that you described before?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. All right. Now, have you put yourself
8 in personal peril in your campaign battling what
9 you considered to be the adverse characteristics
10 of Scientology?
11 A. Ah, well, I certainly have. I believe
12 I've had some help from Mr. Dandar as well.
13 Q. Well, I'm just talking about what you've
14 done on your own.
15 A. Yeah, I've been in personal peril a
16 number of times.
17 Q. All right. Can you tell me about some
18 of those situations?
19 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I'm not sure
20 that this has anything to do with the issue
21 that is before us.
22 THE COURT: What's the relevance here?
23 MR. LIROT: It goes to the bias of the
24 witness. Your Honor, I'm trying to establish
25 a historical characteristic.
1 THE COURT: I'll let it continue, but
2 you're going to need to --
3 MR. LIROT: I'll be brief.
4 THE COURT: All right.
6 Q. Have you had injunctions entered against
7 you to keep you away from Scientology's
8 headquarters?
9 A. Ah, I've had a mutual injunction issued
10 that has been issued that keeps Scientology just
11 as far away from me as I have to be away from
12 them.
13 Q. And basically had you charged with
14 criminal violations for some of the activities
15 that have been alleged against you in your
16 endeavors battling what you consider to be the
17 adverse characteristics of the Church of
18 Scientology; is that correct?
19 A. Well, I've been -- I've had criminal
20 charges filed against me. I wouldn't say I was
21 exactly fighting the adverse characteristics of
22 Scientology. I was -- there was an incident where
23 I got arrested for assault and battery.
24 Q. Was that --
25 A. Two, actually. One was assault and
1 battery and one was assault and battery with a
2 dangerous weapon.
3 Q. And that was -- was that related to the
4 Church of Scientology in any way?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Have you had a situation
7 where you've gotten communications from members of
8 your family because Scientology members were
9 picketing your home or their home in other areas?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. Can you tell us about that?
12 A. During 1998, I believe, I'm a little
13 foggy on '98, but certainly in -- yeah, '98,
14 towards the latter part of '98, '99 there were
15 numerous pickets of homes of mine, pickets of me
16 at airports throughout the country when I was
17 travelling around, pickets at hotels when I would
18 arrive at a hotel, you know, things of that
19 nature.
20 Q. Have you ever been the recipient of a
21 telephone call from a member of your family that
22 felt that their personal safety was in jeopardy
23 because of any activities?
24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I don't
25 understand that this is impeachment. If
1 anything, it's showing that the witness has
2 every reason not to testify in favor of
3 Scientology. It's the reverse.
4 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,
5 Mr. Rosen. You can continue, but, again,
6 Mr. Lirot, you're going to need to go
7 someplace with this.
9 Q. Have you filed lawsuits against
10 Scientology in other countries?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. Two.
14 Q. All right. What countries have those
15 lawsuits been filed in?
16 A. France and Germany.
17 Q. Tell us about your relationship with the
18 Lisa McPherson Trust?
19 A. Well, I was the original incorporator of
20 it. I was the chairman of the board.
21 Q. What was the mission statement for the
22 Lisa McPherson Trust?
23 A. That was to expose the abusive and
24 deceptive practices of the Church of Scientology
25 and to help those who have been victimized by it.
1 Q. It's actually much more extensive than
2 that, isn't it? It's about a two-page statement?
3 A. That is the mission statement.
4 Q. All right. And in that event, what type
5 of organization, what type of entity was formed
6 for the Lisa McPherson Trust?
7 A. What do you mean what type of entity?
8 Q. Was it a nonprofit organization? Was it
9 a for-profit organization?
10 A. It was originally incorporated as a
11 for-profit organization.
12 Q. And why was that?
13 A. To keep the Church of Scientology from
14 gaining access to financial information or
15 reporting requirements that a nonprofit would have
16 been subjected to.
17 Q. That was done at your direction.
18 A. Well --
19 Q. You didn't want Scientology meddling in
20 your business, did you?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. At that point in time?
23 A. Yeah. As to what -- when you say it was
24 done at my direction, yes, Mr. Dandar incorporated
25 it at my direction and we discussed the whole
1 issue as to whether it should be profit or
2 nonprofit and the idea was that for the time being
3 to keep Scientology out of checking into this that
4 we would make it for-profit and then later, when
5 we needed to, we would make it a nonprofit.
6 Q. Now, the reason for that I think you're
7 aware of, aren't you? Why would you not want the
8 Church of Scientology knowing about the funding
9 for a particular litigation involved in this case?
10 A. Well, the Lisa McPherson Trust has never
11 been involved in any funding of litigation.
12 Q. Why would you not want Scientology to
13 know about the monies available to the Lisa
14 McPherson Trust?
15 A. It was not their business.
16 Q. Then just like it wasn't their business
17 to know anything about the funding for the
18 wrongful death case or for this case; isn't that
19 true?
20 A. Well, from January of 1998 when I was
21 first deposed in this case, you know, I produced
22 the check that has been put here in evidence. You
23 know, there wasn't any attempt to hide anything.
24 Q. There's never been any attempt --
25 A. Up until May of 2000.
1 Q. All right. Well, let me ask you some
2 questions about your testimony. You testified
3 about two checks. And I'll go ahead and draw your
4 attention to what's been marked as Exhibit 5.
5 This is a check that apparently you said
6 was drawn on the United Bank of Switzerland; if
7 I'm not mistaken?
8 A. That's not correct. It's Union Bank of
9 Switzerland.
10 Q. Union Bank. Forgive me. And this is
11 the check dated May of 2000?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. All right. In May of 2000, was there
14 ever any court order requiring you to divulge the
15 existence of that check?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Was there ever a subpoena telling you,
18 hey, tell us about this check?
19 A. Well, I would certainly have been
20 subject to -- later to subpoenas that would have
21 asked about whether -- how much money I had given
22 to the Estate.
23 Q. But this particular check, when you
24 handed it over in this fashion there was no court
25 order that was being violated, there was no
1 official directive saying, you can't give checks
2 out like this, you have to make sure that
3 everything is done on checks with your name?
4 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I think --
5 MR. LIROT: There's nothing --
6 MR. ROSEN: -- we object. I think we're
7 getting into closing argument. There's not a
8 question.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. LIROT: I will rephrase the
11 question, Judge.
12 THE COURT: All right.
14 Q. Was there any court order at that time,
15 any requirement, that the source of this check be
16 divulged when this check was issued?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And when your deposition was
19 subsequently taken, I think you talked about this
20 check and a number of other checks; is that
21 correct?
22 A. I don't believe I ever discussed this
23 check in a deposition.
24 Q. Well, let me ask you this: When your
25 deposition was taken I think that --
1 A. You want to give me a date for that
2 deposition.
3 Q. I will indeed. That's only fair.
4 Mr. Minton, I'm going to ask you to draw your
5 attention, if you would, to a deposition taken --
6 I'm trying to locate the date here -- on October
7 11th and 12th of 2001.
8 Do you remember your deposition being
9 taken at that point in time?
10 A. I believe that was by Mr. Moxon, was it,
11 in the wrongful death case or was that Mr. Rosen
12 in this case?
13 Q. I think it identifies counsel for the
14 plaintiff as Mr. Rosen.
15 A. Okay. So that would have been this
16 case.
17 Q. And let me just ask you some questions
18 about some of the testimony in this deposition. I
19 think the last time you were here you talked about
20 some meetings and I guess the thrust of this
21 actual case, an alleged breach of contract and not
22 adding parties to the wrongful death case. Are
23 you aware of those issues?
24 A. Could you repeat the question?
25 Q. You're aware of the issues in this case.
1 You know why we're here for this case; is that
2 correct?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. All right. And at some point didn't
5 there become an issue, I think, that your
6 testimony from April 9th, the last time you were
7 here, the first time that you and I had ever been
8 in the courtroom together, there was an issue
9 about you concerning yourself with certain issues
10 about adding the parties or in some way engaging
11 in some meetings to that effect; is that correct?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. All right. During the October 11th and
14 12th deposition I believe -- and Counsel, I draw
15 your attention to page 393 -- it says, Did you
16 have any discussion with Mr. Dandar at any time,
17 meaning after November of 1997, on the subject of
18 adding any defendants in the wrongful death case?
19 And your answer was, No.
20 That was true, wasn't it?
21 A. I don't want to be tricked here. The --
22 say the question that was in the deposition again.
23 Q. The question again: Did you have any
24 discussion with Mr. Dandar at any time, meaning
25 after November of 1997, on the subject of adding
1 any defendants in the wrongful death case?
2 Answer, continued on page 394, no.
3 A. That's a false answer.
4 Q. Let me draw your attention to page 395.
5 It says: And the first you found out about it,
6 that it would complicate the case, was the
7 addition of Mr. Miscaviage as a defendant?
8 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, could I have a
9 idea where counsel is reading from?
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. LIROT: It's page 395, line 17.
12 This is volume three of the October 11th and
13 12th deposition. All set?
14 MR. ROSEN: Yes, thank you.
16 Q. And it says: And the first you found
17 out about it that it would complicate the case was
18 the addition of Mr. Miscaviage as a defendant?
19 Your answer was: Yeah.
20 The question continues: The first you
21 found out about this was after it had already
22 occurred?
23 You answered: I think so.
24 Do you think if you had any knowledge
25 that Mr. Dandar was looking to add or seeking to
1 add Mr. Miscaviage, do you think you had knowledge
2 of that before the Court allowed him to be added?
3 Answer: I might have heard about it,
4 but I don't remember hearing about it.
5 Question: So you were against it, in
6 any event, you communicated to Ms. Brooks that you
7 were not happy about it because it would
8 complicate the case?
9 It would add a lot of time to the case
10 and therefore cost more money.
11 Did you communicate that to Mr. Dandar?
12 And your answer was: No.
13 Was that a truthful answer?
14 A. That was false.
15 Q. Let me draw your attention to page 400
16 in the deposition on line 11.
17 Question: The same question with
18 respect to Ms. Brooks. Do you have any reason to
19 believe that she ever communicated your views,
20 your unhappiness about Mr. Miscaviage being added
21 to anyone?
22 Your answer was: Not that I'm aware of.
23 Question: Okay. Is there a reason you
24 never communicated these views to Mr. Dandar
25 directly?
1 The answer was: Yes.
2 Question: Why?
3 Answer: Well, you know, the essence of
4 my agreement with Mr. Dandar based on his original
5 contact with the Florida Bar Association made it
6 clear that, you know, I was to have nothing to do
7 with how this case was run and, therefore, you
8 know, it was always better for me not to have any
9 contact with him about it.
10 Was that true?
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.
20 Q. All right. Well, you talked about that
21 first check in '97. I believe that that was
22 attached in Composite Exhibit 8 with the note --
23 A. Right.
24 Q. -- that Mr. Rosen read in the record.
25 It says, I guess a card, October 6th of 1997
1 wherein you enclosed a check for $100,000.
2 And we looked at the front of that check
3 October 6th, '97 to Dandar & Dandar for the sum of
4 $100,000. You're aware of that check?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Were you aware of
7 Mr. Dandar's inquiries to the Florida Bar about
8 whether he could even accept that check?
9 A. Afterwards he told me. Afterwards when
10 he wrote the letter.
11 Q. So you were ultimately aware?
12 A. I was, yes.
13 Q. Not before you gave him the check, but
14 afterward you found out; is that correct?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. At some point did you become discouraged
17 or upset that you did not have more control in
18 directing any of the litigation involving Lisa
19 McPherson, either this case or the wrongful death
20 case?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. You did not -- you've never complained
23 about not having the ability to control those
24 cases to anyone?
25 A. I have complained about certain aspects
1 of the case. I haven't complained about not
2 having any control of the case.
3 Q. Do you communicate extensively on the
4 Internet?
5 A. With who?
6 Q. With anyone?
7 A. I have in the past posted messages on
8 news groups. I send e-mail occasionally. I'm not
9 a big e-mail guy, but I do post messages on the
10 Internet every now and then. A lot less these
11 days.
12 Q. You're not a big e-mail guy?
13 A. That's correct. Communications, for
14 example, between Mr. Dandar and I have been, you
15 know, one liners and I've testified that neither
16 one of us were very good typists.
17 Q. Well, isn't it true that you issued
18 e-mails complaining about your inability to
19 control Mr. Dandar in this litigation?
20 A. Maybe you could draw my attention to
21 one. I'm not familiar with what you're talking
22 about.
23 Q. Well, you've never had conversations
24 with Patricia Greenway or Peter Alexander about --
25 complaining about your inability to control this
1 litigation?
2 A. I never have.
3 Q. You never have?
4 A. Not a single time.
5 Q. All right. Do you know Patricia
6 Greenway and Peter Alexander?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. All right. How do you know them?
9 A. Well, I know them now that basically
10 Mr. Dandar is taking advice from them.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. In the past they've been members of the
13 board of the Lisa McPherson Trust and were asked
14 to leave the board. They're also people who
15 produced a movie which I financed and spent a
16 couple -- two-and-a-half million dollars on.
17 Q. All right. What was -- what was that
18 movie?
19 A. It was a movie called "The Profit,"
20 which was basically about the Church of
21 Scientology or a parody or something about the
22 Church of Scientology.
23 Q. And you don't recall going out to dinner
24 with Ms. Greenway and Mr. Alexander and
25 complaining that you were funding these cases and
1 that you didn't have the ability to control how
2 they were being litigated?
3 A. I've never complained about that to
4 anybody. Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander
5 for sure not or anybody else. I think you'll find
6 that -- and Mr. Dandar has said this to me
7 before -- he said, you know, I've never had
8 anybody be more hands-off, giving me so much
9 money. And Mr. Garko has made that same statement
10 to me, concerning the money I gave to Mr. Dandar.
11 Q. When you were here on April 9th you made
12 some statements regarding the sum of money and
13 this has already been made a part of the court
14 file, Your Honor.
15 On page five you were asked, it says,
16 and you're aware that the amounts that had
17 been testified to and checks produced of monies
18 paid by you to either Mr. Dandar or his firm total
19 approximately 1.3 million dollars.
20 At the time you were asked that
21 question, that was absolutely true, wasn't it?
22 A. What was the date of that statement.
23 Q. I believe they're talking about -- the
24 date of this statement was April 9th, this was the
25 last time you were in court here. And this would
1 have been the exhibits attached to the Motion for
2 Disqualification, the two excerpts that were made
3 part of this record.
4 A. Well --
5 Q. You were being asked that --
6 A. Well, I haven't seen the Motion for
7 Disqualification, so ...
8 Q. Well, you were handed some transcripts
9 of that deposition testimony; were you not?
10 MR. ROSEN: Objection --
11 THE WITNESS: When I --
12 MR. ROSEN: -- I don't know what counsel
13 is referring to.
14 THE WITNESS: When I testified before,
15 you mean?
17 Q. Yes. Here on April 9th.
18 A. I don't remember what -- I mean, I was
19 handed several things.
20 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I could have a
21 moment?
22 THE COURT: Okay.
24 Q. Mr. Minton, to refresh your memory, I
25 think it's been made a component of the court file
1 here, Exhibit 3, apparently filed by Mr. Rosen --
2 A. Is that in these folders here?
3 Q. I don't believe it is. This was --
4 again, this was an excerpt of your testimony on
5 October 11th and 12 of 2001 and it was identified
6 as Exhibit 3 to the Amended Motion to Disqualify
7 Counsel. It was handed to you during that April
8 9th hearing?
9 A. I still don't know what you're talking
10 about, though, what was handed to me.
11 Q. I'll read it to you, sir. These are
12 pages 393. And I believe Mr. Rosen asked you
13 about some documents and essentially this -- and
14 for the record, I don't want to read the whole
15 thing since we've already gone through it, but it
16 says, having discussions with Mr. Dandar in
17 November of 1997, and the addition of
18 Mr. Miscaviage as a defendant in December of 1999,
19 and going through the rest of the testimony.
20 The question that I ask is when you were
21 asked at that point in time about the amount of
22 money that you had contributed to that case, when
23 you answered that question that was true; was it
24 not?
25 MR. ROSEN: Objection, Your Honor, I
1 don't understand that.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. When? Oh, sorry.
3 THE COURT: Whether you understand it or
4 not is really not the issue. I think it's
5 whether he understands it.
6 MR. ROSEN: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: When was the question
8 asked? When are you talking about?
10 Q. The question that I'm referring to was
11 asked on April 9th. The question referred back to
12 the October 11th and 12th of the year 2001 asking
13 you about your knowledge of special meetings for
14 the addition of parties to the wrongful death suit
15 that resulted in what I understand to be the
16 filing of this action.
17 And you were commenting on the amount of
18 money that was funded to these cases and you said
19 1.3 million dollars and that was true at the time;
20 isn't that correct?
21 A. Well, first of all, it wasn't for these
22 cases. It was for the wrongful death case, number
23 one. And at that time that was not true.
24 Q. Based on what?
25 A. It would have been 1.8 million.
1 Q. Based on what?
2 A. Based on that $500,000 check.
3 Q. Now, let me ask you this: Now, when you
4 signed the affidavit regarding the testimony
5 involved in that matter --
6 A. Just let me -- let me just go back on
7 that last answer. That 1.3 million dollars were
8 the amounts of personal checks that I had written
9 to Mr. Dandar. And Mr. Dandar, this had come up
10 in depositions before, and Mr. Dandar had said to
11 me, Concentrate on the checks you have written.
12 Q. Were you represented by counsel at those
13 depositions?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It wasn't Mr. Dandar, was it?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You've never been represented by
18 Mr. Dandar, have you?
19 A. That's totally false.
20 Q. Well, in this matter, have you been
21 represented by Mr. Dandar?
22 A. No.
23 Q. In the matters in which you were being
24 deposed were you represented by Mr. Dandar?
25 A. On occasion.
1 Q. Wasn't your attorney John Merrett?
2 A. You're talking about in this case or any
3 case?
4 Q. In this case?
5 A. He's never represented me in this case.
6 Q. Well, who has represented you in this
7 case?
8 A. Mr. Howie is my current counsel and John
9 Merrett was prior to that.
10 Q. So what you just said was wrong, you
11 said Mr. Merrett never represented you and now you
12 said that he previously represented you in this
13 very case?
14 MR. ROSEN: Objection. Argumentative.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 Q. So Mr. Merrett has been your counsel for
18 this case and has represented you in all the
19 matters for which these depositions were taken;
20 isn't that correct?
21 A. In this case?
22 Q. I think you already testified that he --
23 Mr. Merrett represented you in this case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. And has your deposition been
1 taken in this case?
2 A. It has.
3 Q. And your counsel was either Mr. Merrett,
4 succeeded by Mr. Howie, correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. It was never Mr. Dandar?
7 A. Not in this case, no.
8 Q. All right. In the wrongful death case
9 you're not even a party, are you?
10 A. I'm a party in the counterclaim.
11 Q. Who is your counsel in that case?
12 A. I guess Mr. Howie will be. I'm not sure
13 we've actually got the amended complaint.
14 Q. Who was your counsel in the counterclaim
15 in the wrongful death case? It was not
16 Mr. Dandar, was it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So Mr. Dandar --
19 A. Well, in the wrongful death case?
20 Q. Mr. Dandar has never represented you in
21 either of those cases?
22 A. Well, Mr. Dandar has certainly filed
23 motions on my behalf in the wrongful death case.
24 Q. Mr. Dandar has never formally entered an
25 appearance for you in either of those cases; isn't
1 that true?
2 A. Ah, I think you would have to check the
3 record on that, but I believe that he has entered
4 motions on my behalf in that case, in the wrongful
5 death case.
6 Q. Let me draw your attention to some of
7 the exhibits that Mr. Rosen just handed up to you.
8 And I would like to draw your attention
9 particularly to --
10 A. For example, I just remembered, a number
11 of protective orders that had nothing to do with
12 these checks, for example.
13 Q. I haven't asked a question, Mr. Minton.
14 A. I'm going back to the last one and
15 trying to give you an example of the instance
16 where he was representing me.
17 Q. Mr. -- my question was, he's never filed
18 a formal appearance to represent you in any of
19 these cases; isn't that true?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. All right.
22 MR. LIROT: Judge, may I approach the
23 witness?
24 THE COURT: Sure.
1 Q. I'm going to show you what has just been
2 entered into evidence by Mr. Rosen. And this has
3 been marked as Exhibit 42, the Affidavit of Robert
4 Minton.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you recognize that document?
7 A. I'm familiar with it, yes.
8 Q. All right. Let me show you now what's
9 been marked as Exhibit 33 and this is an affidavit
10 for Dell Liebreich. And what's been marked as
11 exhibit --
12 A. Is this also one of the ones that I've
13 already seen?
14 Q. These were all given to you today.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. And you've gone through these today.
17 A. Right.
18 Q. And Exhibit 41, the Affidavit of Ken
19 Dandar, all right?
20 A. I knocked off someone's microphone here.
21 Q. Mr. Minton, take a look at those
22 affidavits. And the one that you said that you
23 attributed to it being produced by Mr. Dandar's
24 office, it's different than the other affidavits,
25 isn't it? Just in the typeface, in the way that
1 it's typed up, the way that it looks?
2 A. Yes, it looks different.
3 Q. It look substantially different?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Completely different typeface?
6 A. It does look different, yeah.
7 Q. And it's a completely different
8 placement of the court and the jurisdiction in
9 which the case is being prosecuted; isn't that
10 correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Mr. Dandar's office never prepared that
13 affidavit, did they?
14 A. No, that's false.
15 Q. Mr. Merrett's office prepared that
16 affidavit; isn't that correct?
17 A. No, Mr. Merrett has never prepared this
18 affidavit.
19 Q. The affidavits are visually different;
20 isn't that correct?
21 A. They're visually different.
22 Q. And if you look to the back, take a look
23 at the signature line, the place where you signed
24 under oath.
25 A. Right.
1 Q. Attesting that everything is true and
2 correct.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That's completely different than the
5 other affidavits; isn't that true?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are you familiar with word processing?
8 A. I am.
9 Q. All right. Are you familiar that law
10 offices when they produce documents usually
11 cannibalize the previous produced document to make
12 the other ones look pretty much the same?
13 A. Right.
14 MR. ROSEN: Objection. No foundation
15 for this.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 Q. Those affidavits are substantially
19 different. They were not produced by the same
20 office, were they?
21 MR. ROSEN: Objection.
22 THE WITNESS: Ah, I --
23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 THE WITNESS: Should I answer? This
25 affidavit was produced by Mr. Dandar.
2 Q. And it's completely different than the
3 other two affidavits which were produced by
4 Mr. Dandar?
5 A. You know, whether it's different or not
6 in typeface or any other thing doesn't matter to
7 me. You know, whether Mr. Dandar sent this to me
8 rather by courier than by fax, I don't remember
9 how he sent it, but it came from Mr. Dandar
10 because the discussions about it came from
11 Mr. Dandar.
12 Q. That's your testimony?
13 A. That's right.
14 MR. LIROT: May I retrieve the exhibits,
15 Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Of course.
17 THE WITNESS: In fact, the same day he
18 had sent an affidavit to Stacy Brooks.
20 Q. Who is Stacy Brooks?
21 A. Ah, what would you like to know about
22 her?
23 Q. Everything that is relevant to this
24 case?
25 A. She is a party to the case through the
1 Lisa McPherson Trust which has been added as a
2 party and she's their representative.
3 Q. Well, how do you know what affidavits
4 were being provided to her?
5 A. Because she was there with me at the
6 same time.
7 Q. And why would that be?
8 A. Because she was physically present in
9 the State of New Hampshire at 137 Freemont Road,
10 Sandale, New Hampshire.
11 Q. Do you have a personal relationship with
12 Ms. Brooks?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. And has Ms. Brooks been conversant in
15 some of the decisions made perhaps in dealing with
16 you on the progress in these particular cases?
17 A. Could you ask that again?
18 Q. Do you know if Ms. Brooks was the one
19 that was intimating the necessity of adding David
20 Miscavige to the wrongful death suit?
21 A. I believe she was the primary advocate
22 for it, yes. Primary advocate among those who
23 were advising Mr. Dandar.
24 Q. So it was everybody else's idea; isn't
25 that correct?
1 A. No, I didn't say it was everybody else's
2 idea. I said she was the primary advocate.
3 Q. So the decision or at least the
4 suggestion didn't emanate from anyone other than
5 Ms. Brooks at that point in time; is that correct?
6 A. Well, Ms. Brooks was involved in a
7 previous case called the Fishman case which was
8 Fishman and Geertz versus Church of Scientology
9 handled by an attorney named Graham Berry. And
10 Graham Berry hired Mrs. Brooks or Mrs. Young at
11 that time as an expert witness in the case.
12 And Graham Berry was trying to find a
13 way to put pressure on Scientology to get
14 Scientology to settle the case or drop it or
15 whatever and he asked Ms. Brooks and others, you
16 know, what they thought the best way to put that
17 kind of intense pressure on Scientology would be
18 and they came up with the idea that the main thing
19 is to go after David Miscaviage.
20 If you can make his life uncomfortable
21 in any way, in any serious way, you know, you're
22 going to get Scientology to drop or settle,
23 whatever the case was. I can't remember the
24 details of that case because I wasn't involved in
25 it. So --
1 Q. Do you?
2 A. -- Ms. Brooks, when she was hired by
3 Mr. Dandar to work relative to this case, was a
4 vocal proponent of adding David Miscavige, maybe
5 others. I don't know whether she was involved. I
6 think there were three attempts to add parties.
7 I don't know when she got involved, but
8 she certainly, you know, at the meeting that I
9 attended was a very strong advocate for it until
10 later in the meeting.
11 Q. Was that strong advocacy the result of
12 conversations with Jesse Prince?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Do you know Jesse Prince?
15 A. Well, are you saying was that strong
16 advocacy because of her conversations with Jesse
17 Prince or mine?
18 Q. Her's. You said you don't know --
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. -- I'll take you at your word.
21 A. I don't know. You know, I don't know
22 that she talked to Jesse Prince about this, but,
23 you know, Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks were
24 working in the office with Ken Dandar, so I'm sure
25 they would have discussed it, but I don't know of
1 any conversations.
2 Q. Were you present at any such
3 discussions?
4 A. Not until the one before they added
5 David Miscaviage, after Judge Moody, you know,
6 they were wrestling with the issue of whether Dave
7 Miscaviage could be added as the head of the Sea
8 org as opposed to chairman of RTC or something
9 like that.
10 Q. Isn't it true that the attempt to add
11 Mr. Miscaviage was because it was found out that
12 no decisions regarding Lisa McPherson would have
13 been made in the fashion that they were without
14 Mr. Miscaviage's approval?
15 A. Well, the --
16 Q. Wasn't that the reason he was added or
17 attempted to be added to the case?
18 A. No, that wasn't the reason, in my
19 opinion.
20 Q. Do you know that to be a true fact?
21 A. No. The reason he was added as a
22 defendant in this case were several fold: Number
23 one, Dandar wanted to add him as a defendant.
24 Q. Well, you said that Stacy Brooks --
25 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, he was in the
1 middle of a answer and counsel just cut him
2 off.
3 THE COURT: Give him a chance to
4 respond.
5 MR. LIROT: I will, Your Honor.
6 THE WITNESS: Number one, Mr. Dandar
7 wanted to add him as a defendant. He thought
8 this would be the fastest way to put pressure
9 on Scientology, bring them to the settlement
10 table and make them settle for more money.
11 The next item in terms of why he was
12 added was -- you made me lose my train of
13 thought there when you stopped me, but -- oh.
14 Was based on Jesse Prince's affidavit.
15 Jesse Prince wrote a totally speculative
16 affidavit that said Ray Minthoff, Marty
17 Rathbon and David Miscaviage must have known
18 about the Lisa McPherson situation in
19 Clearwater, Florida.
21 Q. How would you ever know if it was
22 speculative?
23 A. Because Jesse told me. I mean, you read
24 it, it's totally speculative. Michael --
25 Q. How --
1 A. -- Garko said there was no evidence to
2 it. There was no evidence whatsoever to support
3 it. And that was the basis, apart from
4 Mr. Dandar's desire to, you know, gain some
5 notoriety and publicity for the case, that's the
6 basis.
7 That is the factual basis or what Dandar
8 tried to portray as the factual basis was a
9 speculative document based on Jesse Prince's
10 affidavit.
11 When Jesse tells some wild story about
12 somebody being put under an air conditioner out in
13 California after they were dead just to keep their
14 body cold for a couple of days until they could do
15 whatever. I don't know. I mean, it sounded like
16 an impossible story for him to come to the
17 conclusion that all these guys knew about it.
18 Q. How would you ever know?
19 A. Well, you know, I can speculate as well
20 as the next guy.
21 Q. I'm sure you can, but my question is:
22 How do you know that Mr. Prince's affidavit was
23 not correct?
24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I think we're a
25 little far afield?
1 THE COURT: Yeah. Where are we going
2 with this?
3 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm just -- I'll
4 bring it back.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
7 Q. Do you know Dan Leipold?
8 A. It's Leipold.
9 Q. Leipold?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How do you know Mr. Leipold?
12 A. He's also a part of the Scientology
13 litigation enterprise.
14 Q. What do you mean by that?
15 A. You know, he's an attorney who files
16 cases against Scientology or handles cases against
17 Scientology. He's been handling them for a very
18 long time and has had some success in dealing with
19 a number of cases. And I've loaned him a lot of
20 money.
21 Q. He's another attorney that you have
22 given money to involving litigation against the
23 Church of Scientology; is that correct?
24 A. He's the only attorney that I've loaned
25 money to.
1 Q. But he is an attorney handling cases
2 against the Church of Scientology that receives
3 funding in some fashion from you; is that correct?
4 A. He has, yes.
5 Q. All right. Did you ever have
6 communication with Mr. Leipold in the last few
7 weeks trying to coerce or entice him into dropping
8 the litigation that he's involved with against the
9 Church of Scientology?
10 MR. ROSEN: I object, Your Honor. I
11 don't understand what this is about. And it
12 doesn't seem to be at all relevant to the
13 issue of Mr. Dandar's conduct.
14 MR. LIROT: I'll tie it up, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: All right.
17 Q. Did you have contact with Mr. Leipold to
18 try to coerce him or in some way influence him to
19 drop the case that he has against Scientology in
20 California?
21 A. Coerce is a very strong word. I did
22 suggest to Mr. Leipold a couple of possible ways
23 for him to get his client to settle that case.
24 One of the ways, which was communicated
25 directly to his client via a third party, not
1 Mr. Leipold -- well, you've got to -- since you've
2 brought up this case you're going to have to put
3 this in perspective. I'm going to have to tell
4 you a few things about it.
5 Q. Let me -- I'll put it in perspective --
6 A. No. I'm happy to do it for you because
7 I know the case a lot better than you.
8 Q. Let me just -- well, maybe you can clear
9 up my question. Here you are and you have
10 dedicated your life, so to speak, you've taken
11 personal risk, you've sunk millions and millions
12 of dollars into fighting the Church of Scientology
13 and within a month here you are trying to convince
14 people that you funded for years to drop the
15 cases. What happened?
16 A. Let me explain to you. Let's go to that
17 case. Let's take that specific case.
18 MR. ROSEN: What case are we talking
19 about?
20 THE WITNESS: This is the Wollersheim
21 versus Church of Scientology California.
22 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I object to
23 this. This has nothing to do with
24 Mr. Dandar's conduct. I'm just --
25 THE COURT: All right. I'm just, you
1 know, I want to give you some leeway here,
2 but --
3 MR. LIROT: Judge, I understand.
4 THE COURT: -- this is just getting
5 awful far afield.
6 THE WITNESS: So I'm going to finish my
7 answer?
8 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure if you
9 are or not. I don't think so. No. Okay.
10 MR. LIROT: Judge, our position, and I
11 think what I would like to do is I would like
12 to ask Mr. Minton specific questions about
13 what threats or influence he may have
14 received and the meetings he may have had in
15 the past month or few weeks with the Church
16 of Scientology, with members, either with or
17 without his counsel that might have
18 influenced him to change his position which I
19 think historically this Court is certainly
20 well aware of.
21 To what do we owe this dramatic
22 turnaround? And I think that that's a fair
23 area of inquiry for me to delve into today,
24 Judge.
25 THE COURT: Why don't you ask him that
1 question.
2 MR. LIROT: All right.
4 Q. What happened, Mr. Minton? Why did you
5 change your mind?
6 A. About what? What happened about what
7 and what did I change my mind about? What are you
8 talking about?
9 Q. About being behind -- the e-mails you
10 sent. Have you sent e-mails saying that -- to
11 Mr. Dandar saying, we'll be behind you 100
12 percent. I don't like the Church. I don't like
13 what it's done. I don't like what happened to
14 Lisa McPherson.
15 Do you recall sending e-mails to that
16 effect?
17 A. I don't.
18 Q. Did you, in your original exhibit here
19 --
20 A. You know, I believe, if you want to get
21 these questions answered, you need to really give
22 me a question to answer.
23 Q. Mr. Minton, I want to find out what
24 happened to you. A bold and long, long-term
25 challenger of the Church of Scientology, now
1 you're going around, you're telling people, I
2 don't want to fund these cases. I need you to
3 dismiss these cases.
4 To what do we owe this 180?
5 A. Mr. Dandar.
6 Q. Well, you haven't had any meetings with
7 Mr. Dandar for quite some time, have you?
8 A. Since early February is not that far.
9 Q. You had a lot of meetings with the
10 Church of Scientology after early February of this
11 year, haven't you?
12 A. I have.
13 Q. All right. Can you tell me about those
14 meetings?
15 A. At the present time there's a
16 confidentiality agreement in place between my
17 attorneys and the attorneys for the Church of
18 Scientology and I'm not at liberty to comment.
19 Q. Why is that? Why a confidentiality
20 agreement? What is it that -- what is it that the
21 Church of Scientology has presented to you to
22 cause this complete reversal of position on your
23 part?
24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, to the extent
25 that counsel is insinuating that the Church
1 has made any promise or any inducements to
2 this witness to testify as he has here before
3 you today on April 19th we waive
4 confidentiality.
5 He can just ask him the question --
7 MR. ROSEN: -- did they promise you
8 anything? And I will not assert any
9 confidentiality with respect to that.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Have at it.
12 Q. Has the Church of Scientology threatened
13 you with bringing criminal charges for some of
14 your business practices involving the country of
15 Nigeria?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Have you dealt with the country of
18 Nigeria in some of your past business practices?
19 A. From 1988 to 1992, early '93.
20 Q. Has the Church of Scientology presented
21 you with a stack of papers represented to you to
22 be a suit charging you with racketeering?
23 A. No.
24 Q. An eleven-inch stack of papers?
25 A. No.
1 Q. When you met with Mr. Dandar and
2 Mr. Garko, you were quite depressed back in
3 February; were you not?
4 A. You know, if you had given Mr. Dandar as
5 much money as I had at that time you would be
6 depressed as well.
7 Q. You called him up there, didn't you?
8 A. No, I didn't. Mr. Dandar had asked me
9 to meet him in the Cayman Islands to discuss this
10 exercise to obtain money from me. And, you know,
11 I didn't either want to go or couldn't go. I
12 can't remember what the situation was at the time.
13 But after he got back from the Cayman
14 Islands he said, Look, we've got to get together
15 and discuss this money. I might have said, you
16 know, Well, then why don't you come up to New
17 Hampshire because I had no intention of coming to
18 Florida.
19 I mean, every time I come into the State
20 of Florida I get a lawsuit served on me. You
21 know, I get subpoenaed. I get brought into court
22 for sanction hearings. I've been in front of
23 Judge Baird before on contempt hearings, in front
24 of Judge Schaeffer. You know, this is not a happy
25 place for me to be, in Florida.
1 Q. And that's --
2 A. So he came to New Hampshire.
3 Q. And that's the reason that you didn't
4 want anybody in Scientology to know about you
5 funding any of the litigation against them?
6 A. No, that's not true.
7 Q. Well, weren't you sick of Scientology
8 deposing you regarding your funding and activity
9 in these cases?
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. All right. Do you suffer from being
12 clinically depressed or any other shall we say
13 malady of a psychological nature?
14 A. Every time I look at my checkbook I get
15 depressed, but...
16 Q. That's a characteristic we share,
17 Mr. Minton.
18 A. Yes. Good. But, yes, I have been
19 treated for depression in the past and I haven't
20 seen a doctor about it in four years, perhaps.
21 Q. Are you on any kind of medication?
22 A. From time to time I take some.
23 Q. All right. Is it --
24 A. I'm not currently on it. I haven't for
25 the last couple of weeks.
1 Q. Is it true that the Church of
2 Scientology got a hold of your confidential
3 medical record and put them on the Internet?
4 MR. ROSEN: Objection, Your Honor.
5 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware. I'm not
6 aware they did. I'm sorry, Your Honor --
7 THE COURT: That's all right.
8 THE WITNESS: I didn't mean to answer
9 before --
11 Q. You had said that your formation of the
12 Lisa McPherson Trust was to fight against coercive
13 tactics. Have any coercive tactics been used
14 against you to cause this change of position.
15 A. I didn't say it was to fight against
16 coercive tactics. That was the name of FACT Net.
17 What I said about the Lisa McPherson Trust was its
18 mission statement was to expose the abusive and
19 deceptive practices of Scientology and to help
20 those who had been victimized by it.
21 Q. Do you believe there are people who have
22 been victimized?
23 A. I believe there are.
24 Q. Why would you want to abandon those
25 people at this point in time? Why would you want
1 to cause the dismissal of any lawsuit?
2 A. I don't consider that abandoning
3 anybody.
4 Q. Well --
5 A. You know, what my future activities are
6 is subject to what happens in the future. I don't
7 know. I do want to get out of the Scientology
8 litigation business. I don't want to be involved
9 in it anymore.
10 Q. Does that mean that other people have to
11 give it up?
12 A. Um, I think I know at least one other
13 person that wants to get out of it as well, but
14 nobody has to give it up. Anybody who wants to
15 give it up, it's their business. But I do know
16 one other person who wants to get out of it.
17 Q. Mr. Minton, you have an attorney by the
18 name of Mr. Jonas; is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And he represents you in the firm of
21 Hale and Dorm (phonetic) in Boston?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Are you familiar with the April 1st
24 letter that your attorney Mr. Jonas sent to
25 Mr. Dandar?
1 A. Um, I'm familiar with a letter he sent
2 to Mr. Dandar after Mr. Dandar replied to that
3 April 1st letter, but I don't think I've seen that
4 April 1st letter.
5 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may approach?
6 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
8 Q. Why don't I give you a copy of this.
9 Could you read into the record --
10 MR. ROSEN: Could I have a copy?
11 MR. LIROT: It's attached as an exhibit
12 to the motion.
13 THE COURT: It's attached as an exhibit
14 to what?
15 MR. LIROT: On the -- our response in
16 opposition to the Amended Motion to
17 Disqualify Counsel.
18 MR. ROSEN: Could I have a copy so I
19 don't have to tear your motion apart?
20 MR. LIROT: I will get it for you.
21 MR. ROSEN: Thank you. Never mind.
23 Q. Okay. What did your attorney tell
24 Mr. Dandar on April 1st in that letter?
25 A. Can I read it?
1 Q. Certainly.
2 A. Well, I still haven't read the second
3 paragraph. How do you want me to tell you what he
4 said?
5 Q. Why don't you read the whole letter to
6 us.
7 A. You want me to read it?
8 Q. It's part of the record, sure. It's
9 your attorney speaking on your behalf to Mr.
10 Dandar.
11 MR. ROSEN: I don't think it's part of
12 the record. I don't think it's been
13 identified or properly authenticated, for
14 that matter.
15 THE COURT: How are you going to do
16 that?
17 MR. LIROT: I'll go ahead.
19 Q. Mr. Jonas is your attorney?
20 A. He is.
21 Q. And did you cause to have him send a
22 letter to Mr. Dandar regarding your desires in
23 relation to this litigation?
24 A. I don't believe I discussed this letter
25 with Mr. Jonas.
1 Q. Well, he does represent you; isn't that
2 correct?
3 A. He does.
4 Q. And in this letter it says --
5 THE COURT: Wait a minute. We're not
6 talking about what it says. We're talking
7 about authentication of the letter. He's
8 never seen it. So, how are we going to
9 authenticate it?
10 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, if I could ask
11 the witness to draw his attention to the
12 carbon copy quotation at the bottom on the
13 left-hand side.
14 THE COURT: Yeah.
16 Q. Does it show that carbon copy was sent
17 to you?
18 A. It was probably mailed to me in New
19 Hampshire, which I haven't been in since that time
20 period, I don't believe.
21 Q. And quite simply, do you read the mail
22 that you receive from your attorney, Mr. Jonas?
23 A. If I'm there to receive it, yes.
24 Q. All right. Well, let me ask you this:
25 Did you have discussions with Scientology and the
1 substance of those discussions with them would
2 remain confidential; is that an accurate
3 statement?
4 A. I believe I just testified to that.
5 Q. All right. And is plausible that
6 Mr. Jonas would tell Mr. Dandar that that's why he
7 can't tell him anything that's going on?
8 MR. ROSEN: Objection. Speculation. Is
9 it possible?
10 MR. LIROT: Plausible.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. Did you direct Mr. Jonas not to tell
14 Mr. Dandar about any of the confidential meetings
15 that you were having with Scientology at the time?
16 MR. HOWIE: Objection. Personal to the
17 witness -- Bruce Howie for Robert Minton.
18 Privileged. Attorney-client.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. Can I ask you how many meetings you had
22 with members of the Church of Scientology from the
23 end of February until today?
24 A. I would be, you know, speculating, but
25 maybe 10, 12. Something like that.
1 Q. And that's in the space of about two or
2 three months?
3 A. You said since the --
4 Q. The end of February 2002?
5 A. Let's see. March, April. We're in the
6 middle of April. That's --
7 Q. So that will be about 10 or 12 meetings?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the content of those meetings is
10 confidential?
11 A. There's a confidentiality agreement in
12 place concerning any of these discussions.
13 MR. LIROT: Judge, may we approach?
14 THE COURT: Sure.
15 THE COURT REPORTER: Is this on the
16 record or off the record?
17 THE COURT: This will be on.
18 MR. LIROT: On the record is good.
19 (Thereupon, the following sidebar conference was
20 held.)
21 MR. LIROT: Judge, I have attached these
22 letters basically not so much to in any way
23 interfere with the attorney/client
24 relationship that Mr. Minton has with
25 Mr. Howie in any of these confidential
1 meetings, but I think clearly we are able to
2 go to whatever his state of mind is as far as
3 why he would completely change his position
4 over the years.
5 THE COURT: Well, you asked him that.
6 MR. LIROT: I think I'm allowed to ask
7 him about the letter, too.
8 THE COURT: You can't ask him about a
9 letter that's not in evidence and has not
10 been authenticated.
11 MR. LIROT: All right.
12 THE COURT: That's the problem. If you
13 had somebody to authenticate the letter, then
14 we could ask him about it, but --
15 MR. LIROT: All right.
16 THE COURT: -- he didn't see it. He
17 doesn't know, so I don't know how he can
18 authenticate a letter he's never seen before.
19 MR. LIROT: I will take care of that
20 when I have Mr. Dandar on the stand.
21 THE COURT: Whatever will work.
22 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 (Thereupon, the side-bar {sidebar} conference
25 was concluded.)
1 THE WITNESS: Can I just ask a question,
2 Judge?
4 MR. LIROT: No. Thank you, Judge.
6 Q. Mr. Minton, did you file your own Motion
7 for Protective Order against disclosure of
8 documents relating to payments back on I guess
9 April 3rd, 2002?
10 MR. LIROT: May I approach the witness,
11 Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. ROSEN: Can I have a copy? Do
14 you -- are you marking this as an exhibit?
15 MR. LIROT: No. I'm just going to ask
16 him about the content of this.
17 MR. ROSEN: Could I have a copy so I can
18 follow when you ask him? Your Honor, I'm not
19 understanding. We've supplied copies of
20 documents to opposing counsel --
21 THE COURT: Is that a copy of a document
22 that's a part of your motion?
23 MR. LIROT: It is not. I was just
24 handed this, Judge. It's in this case. It's
25 part of the court file --
1 THE COURT: It's part of the court file?
2 MR. LIROT: It shows that Mr. Rosen was
3 sent a copy of it on April 3rd.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MR. ROSEN: Can I see it a minute?
6 MR. LIROT: Certainly.
8 Q. Mr. Minton, did you have your attorney,
9 Mr. Howie, file a Motion for Protective Order
10 against the disclosure of documents relating to
11 payments?
12 A. Relating to what payments?
13 Q. Well, were you served with a subpoena
14 duces tecum on May 22nd, 2001? Do you recall
15 that?
16 A. In this case?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. And is that the deposition that I
19 subsequently went into with Mr. Rosen in October?
20 Q. I don't know. Do you recall being
21 served with such a subpoena duces tecum?
22 A. If you could show it to me I could
23 perhaps --
24 Q. I would be happy to.
25 A. This is a Motion for a Protective Order?
1 Q. Correct.
2 A. But do you have the subpoena?
3 Q. I do not. Do you recall having received
4 a subpoena?
5 A. Well, I know I was subpoenaed because
6 otherwise I wouldn't be there.
7 Q. All right.
8 A. But I don't know whether it was May.
9 Q. The point is at that point in time you
10 didn't want anybody to know about any of the
11 payments or any of the information that was called
12 for in the subpoena; isn't that correct?
13 A. You know, without looking at the
14 subpoena, I don't know.
15 Q. Let me go back to Jesse Prince for just
16 a moment. Have you communicated with Mr. Prince
17 recently?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. Have you had communication with him that
20 Scientology has gathered enough information about
21 you to get you prosecuted, convicted and jailed?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You've never had that conversation with
24 Mr. Prince?
25 A. Well -- well, I had discussed with him
1 the fact that -- that I have committed enough
2 instances of perjury that I could get put in jail
3 unless I recanted that testimony, which I have
4 done.
5 Q. What about conversations with Mr. Prince
6 about your wife, about any information the Church
7 of Scientology would have gathered about your
8 wife? She hasn't testified in this case, has she?
9 A. Well, I don't know whether -- the only
10 thing I mentioned to Mr. Prince about my wife was
11 the fact that she too had been noticed for
12 deposition in either the wrongful death case or
13 this case. I don't know which one.
14 Q. Did you ever indicate to Mr. Prince that
15 it was a matter of life and death? That you felt
16 that your life was being threatened and it came
17 down to just being an issue between either you or
18 Mr. Dandar going down?
19 Did you ever have a conversation with
20 him to that effect?
21 A. The conversation that I had with
22 Mr. Prince concerning the issues you're trying to
23 revolve around concern the fact that on March 30th
24 about, it could have been a day or two before
25 that, but I told Mr. Dandar that we were both
1 going to be destroyed if I did not go into the
2 deposition scheduled with Mr. Rosen the following
3 week and disclose those two checks.
4 I said Steve Jonas -- this is what I'm
5 saying to Dandar now -- I said, Steve Jonas has
6 told me I have to disclose those two checks. And
7 I told Dandar, I said, If I don't go -- if we just
8 keep going the same way we're going on this, we're
9 both going to be destroyed by this.
10 And this is what I told Jesse Prince,
11 that Dandar and myself would be destroyed unless
12 the truth got told in this case.
13 Q. That's what I'm looking for, Mr. Minton.
14 Was it ever mentioned to you that helping to
15 dismiss this case would halt the possible
16 prosecution in Switzerland?
17 A. To my knowledge, there is no prosecution
18 in Switzerland.
19 Q. Was it ever mentioned to you that
20 Scientology wanted you to dismiss this case to
21 avoid any possible reporting of you not filing
22 proper tax returns or committing tax evasion?
23 MR. HOWIE: Objection. Fifth Amendment
24 privilege.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
1 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm not asking him if
2 he did it. I'm just asking him if that was
3 brought up as a component.
4 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
6 Q. Have you talked with Mr. Prince
7 recently?
8 A. Yes. I talked to him -- the first time
9 that I talked to him since I came back down here,
10 I flew back to Clearwater from New York or to
11 Tampa on Friday a week ago, I guess.
12 And I believe that night, it might have
13 been the next day, the Saturday, he came to see
14 Stacy Brooks and I at the Adams Mark Hotel on
15 Clearwater Beach and we had a rather extensive
16 talk.
17 Q. And did that talk involve Mr. Prince
18 asking you or inviting you to go and talk to the
19 Florida Department of Law Enforcement and provide
20 some level of protection to you?
21 A. No, it didn't. There was --
22 Q. Do you --
23 A. There was a subsequent discussion where
24 he brought that up, not directly, but through his
25 girlfriend who read a letter from Mr. Prince to
1 Ms. Brooks and I over the telephone in our office
2 and Clearwater two, maybe three nights ago. I'm
3 not sure of the date.
4 But what he said was, in his letter,
5 that was -- Bob, you know, I'm working with the
6 FDLE. He say they're going to be in the courtroom
7 in Florida on Friday when you testify.
8 If you so much as dare tell a lie
9 they're going to haul you off to jail. I think he
10 also said at that time that the FBI -- no, the FBI
11 came up yesterday. He told Mr. Howie that the FBI
12 was also going to be here.
13 Mr. Prince, you know, has done
14 everything he can to threaten me ever since he
15 came to our new hotel, the Radisson Hotel which we
16 moved to on Sunday, this past Sunday. Um, Prince
17 came to that hotel. He threatened me and he
18 threatened top people in Scientology.
19 Q. Did you invite --
20 A. He talked about -- excuse me?
21 Q. Did you invite him?
22 A. Can I finish what I was answering?
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. Um, you know, we went down and had
25 dinner at the restaurant in the Radisson Hotel.
1 Mr. Prince was drunk before he got to the hotel.
2 During the course of dinner -- I think Mr. Prince
3 only ordered an appetizer. He said he already had
4 something to eat.
5 He said to Stacy Brooks and myself --
6 well, this was principally addressed to me, he
7 said, Minton, I am not going to let you do this.
8 I am not going to let you go down this road. And
9 I will do everything in my power to stop you.
10 You've become a Scientologist and he used some
11 vulgar words in front of that.
12 And then he started into the story about
13 how when he was in Scientology and he was in
14 trouble one time they -- that he went back to his
15 room when he was being -- his room while he was in
16 California in the desert compound there.
17 That he went and got an AK-47 and a 45
18 caliber pistol and came out and pointed it at the
19 head of the Church of Scientology, David
20 Miscavige, Norman Starkey, Mike Rinder and one
21 other person whose name I can't remember.
22 And, you know, this was, you know, I --
23 this was a very, very upsetting thing, the way
24 Mr. Prince acted toward Ms. Brooks and myself. He
25 said, you know, that you've never done anything
1 for me.
2 I'm not going to let you go and do
3 anything with Scientology. These people have
4 destroyed me twice when I've tried to settle with
5 them and I'm not going to let you go down this
6 road. I'm not going to let you do this.
7 And I asked him to get up from the table
8 and walk out the front door of this hotel and that
9 I never wanted to see him again.
10 Q. Did you see him after that?
11 A. I saw him today.
12 Q. Did you see him before today?
13 A. Since that night, no. You know, I've
14 only, as I said, the only communication I've had
15 from him since has been the call that his
16 girlfriend made to read a letter from him.
17 Yesterday morning he called Stacy Brooks
18 on her cell phone. She told him that I didn't
19 want to talk. He was asking for me and she told
20 him I didn't want to talk to him without my
21 attorney present, Mr. Howie.
22 He called back and he said, you know,
23 forget it, to Stacy Brooks. And he called back
24 about an hour later. I happened -- she was
25 outside on the balcony and I picked up her cell
1 phone and it was Jesse Prince.
2 And he said, okay, I'm willing to meet
3 with you with your attorney. And I talked -- I
4 called Mr. Howie about it. I asked, you know, I
5 brought Mr. Howie up to date.
6 He was already aware of the threatening
7 circumstances of the Sunday night incident. And I
8 asked Mr. Howie to call back Mr. Prince and tell
9 him -- and sort of, you know, in a real -- I asked
10 Mr. Howie to do it in a very gentle and nice way
11 because Jesse is, I think at this moment in time,
12 mentally unstable.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And Mr. Howie did that.
15 Q. Did you ever go to any meetings with
16 Scientology without your counsel, of those 10 or
17 12 meetings that you referred to?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. All right. And the contents of those
20 meetings is all confidential; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Dandar that if he
23 did not dismiss the wrongful death case that he
24 would, quote, Have the blood and death of you,
25 your wife, and your two daughters on his hands?
1 A. I did say that in the same conversation
2 when I said we're both going to be destroyed if we
3 keep on this same course. You know, I wasn't --
4 I'm not anxious to get destroyed here.
5 Q. Don't you think blood and death --
6 A. And I think I made it really clear to
7 Mr. Dandar that the destruction was going to come
8 about as a result of the lies that were being told
9 in this case and the unethical acts that he had
10 asked people to do in this case. That's what that
11 was all about.
12 Q. And your wife, you, and your daughters
13 were going to suffer death because of that?
14 A. You know, even as recently as a night in
15 a bar here I said to Stacy Brooks, you know, maybe
16 I'm not doing the right thing here. You know,
17 maybe I should just walk in and sacrifice myself
18 and not tell the truth and let Mr. Dandar get on
19 with this case. And that is not the right thing
20 to do. I do not intend to do anything here but
21 tell the truth about what has happened between
22 Mr. Dandar and myself over the course of the last
23 five years.
24 Q. Did you call Mr. Dandar on Good Friday?
25 Do you recall calling him on Good Friday?
1 A. Ah, I think I remember we talked on Good
2 Friday. I think I did. I'm not sure.
3 Q. Do you remember telling him that
4 Scientology had the goods on you and that you had
5 to have this case dismissed or it was going to
6 cause your ruination?
7 A. You know, what I told -- no, I never
8 said Scientology had the goods on me. You know,
9 again, this is the same issue. I said, For both
10 of our sakes this case needs to be dropped.
11 Q. Why? Why would the case have to be
12 dismissed?
13 A. Look, I've already explained it. You
14 know, Jonas had told me, You need to go down there
15 to Florida and tell the truth about these checks,
16 for example.
17 There were other issues that I discussed
18 with Mr. Jonas, but these checks were the matters
19 at issue. I mean, Mr. Dandar made it clear to me
20 that he had not reported these checks to the
21 Court.
22 You know, he didn't, you know, these
23 were from Fred. These were not from me. These
24 were from Fred, according to Mr. Dandar.
25 Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Dandar that these
1 checks came from another party?
2 A. In front of Mr. Garko I did.
3 Q. In --
4 A. No, not these checks, not these checks,
5 but any money coming from overseas came from
6 friends of mine. And --
7 Q. Didn't you --
8 A. And why did that happen in front of
9 Mr. Garko that way? Because Mr. Dandar --
10 Q. I didn't ask you a question.
11 A. -- didn't want Mr. Garko to know.
12 Q. You gave Mr. Dandar a number of checks
13 after the first check from your own personal
14 account?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. You gave him a great deal of money after
17 that point in time?
18 A. I'm not sure how much, but, you know, I
19 gave him some money, yes.
20 Q. Hundreds of thousands of dollars; isn't
21 that correct?
22 A. Undoubtedly.
23 Q. All right. Why wouldn't you hide that?
24 If the goal was to hide the money, why wouldn't
25 you hide all the money?
1 A. It wasn't my goal to hide the money. My
2 goal was to give Mr. Dandar the money.
3 Mr. Dandar's goal was to try to hide the $500,000
4 check and the $250,000 check. You know, from my
5 standpoint, you know, getting a check like this
6 issued is not a simple process.
7 Q. Because you --
8 A. Writing a check --
9 Q. -- don't have a relationship with those
10 banks?
11 A. I don't have a relationship with that
12 bank, that's correct. I write a check on my
13 personal account -- Mr. Dandar doesn't care where
14 he gets the money. You know, Mr. Dandar has
15 gotten over 2 million dollars, a substantial
16 amount of which I don't even believe he's used in
17 the wrongful death case.
18 Q. Well, you don't have any reason to
19 believe that, do you?
20 A. You know, I believe Mr. Dandar is a liar
21 and he is an unethical lawyer. And I have
22 participated in his lying and unethical activities
23 and I am not doing it anymore.
24 Q. And you're going to have us believe that
25 a check coming from an undisclosed source and then
1 another check two years later after all of this is
2 said and done is the basis of all of this
3 turnaround?
4 A. No. What I said was, you know, that the
5 main issue confronting me in terms of being
6 destroyed, going to jail, whatever you want to
7 call it, I mean, you know, it wouldn't be a
8 pleasant thing for my wife and family to have --
9 and my daughters to have their father in jail.
10 I have committed so much perjury in this
11 case that Mr. Dandar has elicited from me and I am
12 fed up with Ken Dandar's actions.
13 Q. But he never represented you in this
14 case. We've already established that.
15 A. You can call it whatever you want, but
16 Mr. Dandar is a lying thief.
17 Q. And you've admitted here today that
18 you've done nothing but lie throughout this case;
19 is that correct?
20 A. You know, I would have practically done
21 anything and have to help Mr. Dandar as he has
22 always said, for the good of the case. You know,
23 Mr. Dandar, for the good of the case, will let
24 anything happen if it advances the possibility
25 that he gets 40 percent of whatever settlement is
1 coming. And I am now of the belief that
2 Mr. Dandar is only in this for the money. That
3 all of his noble statements are bullshit. Excuse
4 me.
5 Q. Well, let me ask you this: You've been
6 involved in those other cases, you've hidden money
7 in those cases, haven't you?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You've never been the subject of a
10 subpoena or some kind of court order telling you
11 to show that you had participated and given funds
12 in other cases?
13 A. The funds that I've given in other
14 cases, you know, I've produced records on them.
15 Q. You've never violated a court order in
16 any other case asking to you divulge funds? Cases
17 completely unrelated to anything Mr. Dandar has
18 done?
19 A. Give me a case. I don't know what
20 you're talking about here. I mean, you know, for
21 example, you want me to go through the litany of
22 cases I've been involved in and I will tell --
23 Q. Just --
24 A. No, let's just do it. If you want an
25 answer, it has to be a complete answer --
1 Q. I just want the cases where people have
2 asked you --
3 A. Let's take the Wollersheim case --
4 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a
5 minute. Wait a minute.
6 MR. LIROT: I'll let him finish, Your
7 Honor.
8 THE COURT: No. He's finished. You ask
9 the question and let him answer it and let's
10 move along. Okay.
11 THE WITNESS: Let's -- do you want me to
12 finish with that question?
13 THE COURT: No. Do we need to take a
14 break, Mr. Minton?
15 THE WITNESS: No, I'm okay. Thank you.
16 THE COURT: Are you sure?
18 THE COURT: All right. Let's just calm
19 down and see if we could get through this.
20 MR. LIROT: I don't mean to be
21 argumentative.
23 Q. Your testimony here today under oath is
24 that cases with no involvement of Mr. Dandar where
25 you've been asked to be truthful about whether or
1 not you funded those cases, you've been honest
2 every time you've been asked to produce records or
3 respond to designate or identify your
4 participation of other cases, you've been
5 completely pristine across the board except for
6 this one case; is that what you're saying?
7 A. Well, I'm going to have to walk through
8 the cases so I can know which cases we're -- you
9 know, just so I can answer that. You know, I'm
10 taking the Wollersheim case. The $750,000
11 advanced to, you know, for Larry Wollersheim.
12 There's a public lien, you know, the
13 State of California UCC1 filing against that --
14 the judgment he has in that case. There's no
15 hidden money there.
16 Money to -- involving Arnie Lerma. The
17 case that he did in the Virginia courts. Those
18 records have all been produced.
19 The case involving -- oh, Grady Ward and
20 Keith Henson, two other cases. Checks that had
21 been written to not only to Keith Henson, but to
22 his attorney Graham Berry. Those have been
23 produced.
24 I believe in the Grady Ward case that
25 those checks and any monies given to Grady Ward
1 have been either produced or testified to. You
2 know, that's pretty much it.
3 Q. There's never been a case where you were
4 asked to produce records involving funding that
5 you didn't comply with that request, outside of
6 this case?
7 A. You're saying this case or the wrongful
8 death case?
9 Q. Outside of this case. I'm familiar with
10 this case. I'm talking about other cases not
11 involving Mr. Dandar. You've been completely
12 upfront -- and nothing to do with Mr. Dandar.
13 You've complied with every request made of you to
14 divulge records involving funding; is that true?
15 A. In the wrongful death case Mr. Dandar --
16 Q. No. No. No.
17 A. -- has asked me not to.
18 Q. No. Let me rephrase my question. In
19 cases not involving Mr. Dandar --
20 A. Oh, okay.
21 Q. -- you've been completely upfront and
22 complied with every subpoena, every court order,
23 answered every deposition question truthfully
24 involving your funding of those cases; is that
25 true?
1 A. I believe that's true.
2 Q. Why would you want the case in
3 California dismissed over two checks in this case?
4 MR. ROSEN: Objection, Your Honor.
5 We're back to California? I don't understand
6 what this has to do with this case.
7 THE COURT: I think that's a relevance
8 objection.
9 MR. LIROT: I would -- well, Judge, I'm
10 just probing here. We've got an explanation
11 --
12 THE COURT: Well, I think you've asked
13 it about three or four different times and
14 he's told you and you can argue with him, if
15 you want, but I don't think -- it doesn't
16 appear to me that it's --
17 MR. LIROT: I don't want to argue with
18 him, Judge.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. LIROT: I don't want to argue with
21 him. Judge, may I have just a moment?
22 THE COURT: Of course.
24 Q. Mr. Minton, Mr. Rosen, I guess to the
25 extent of some of his questioning have waived the
1 confidentiality agreement. Were you presented
2 with a chart, that I believe is part of the
3 evidence in the wrongful death case, showing you
4 as the center of a hub with prongs giving
5 donations to a lot of different cases involving
6 Scientology?
7 A. Was I given a chart?
8 Q. Were you shown a chart?
9 A. No. I saw a chart. You know, it was --
10 somebody gave me a copy of a court document.
11 Q. All right. What do you recall was
12 represented on that chart?
13 A. It was filed in Tampa in federal court
14 in connection with the bankruptcy case of Grady
15 Ward and I think that was about two years ago, if
16 I'm not mistaken. And that chart showed it was
17 called -- I think it said Minton Enterprise at the
18 top. It might have said something, but ...
19 Q. The --
20 A. The word enterprise was used.
21 Q. Inferring racketeering enterprise?
22 A. As in RICO Enterprise, yeah, but let me
23 just describe the chart.
24 Q. Well, who gave you the chart? Who
25 produced the chart to you; to your knowledge?
1 A. It was part of a court filing.
2 Q. The Church of Scientology produced that
3 chart?
4 A. I believe they produced it and presented
5 it in court. I wasn't in court. You know, it was
6 Grady Ward or whatever was there, you know, came
7 back and gave me a copy of -- but, they didn't
8 then, but the next day gave me a copy of this
9 chart that was in there.
10 So, if you want me to finish and
11 describe the chart, I will. The chart was -- in
12 the middle it had Robert Minton, and spread all
13 over the chart in a circle were, you know,
14 individuals or lawsuits or other things that I was
15 involved in in litigation or funding of witnesses
16 or, you know, whoever in Scientology-related
17 litigation.
18 Q. And that chart was used to allege that
19 you were in some way affiliated with racketeering
20 because of your participation in these other
21 efforts?
22 MR. ROSEN: Objection. Witness is
23 incompetent to answer that. It was a chart
24 put in in another case --
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 Q. Did anybody ever tell you that that's
3 the reason the chart was created?
4 MR. ROSEN: Objection. Same objection.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. In -- when in any deposition regarding
8 any of these checks did you ever lie? Didn't you
9 take the Fifth Amendment in all the questions
10 asked about these checks?
11 A. Ah, there was one deposition where I
12 took the Fifth Amendment on anything to do with
13 money between me and anybody else based on
14 concerns for racketeering charges that Scientology
15 might level against me.
16 Q. Well, that's not a lie, is it?
17 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, this is
18 argumentative.
19 THE WITNESS: What's not a lie? I'm
20 sorry.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
23 Q. Asserting your right under Fifth
24 Amendment?
25 A. I think it's a privilege.
1 Q. It is a privilege. When you assert the
2 Fifth Amendment that's not giving false testimony,
3 is it?
4 A. No, it's not. It's giving no testimony.
5 MR. LIROT: One last second, Your Honor.
6 I need a moment and I'll be finished.
8 Q. I have one question that I neglected to
9 ask you earlier. You talk about two checks here
10 in the testimony that you've given. When could
11 you ever have been involved in a proceeding where
12 you would ever lie about a February 2002 check?
13 A. I never said I lied about that check.
14 Q. We've been talking about two checks?
15 A. Well, I had to disclose the two checks.
16 I never said I lied about the February 2002 check
17 or the March 2002 check.
18 Q. So what you're saying is that you lied
19 in your deposition about the 2000 --
20 A. The $500,000 check.
21 Q. The first check that was issued when
22 there were no court orders in place. The very
23 first check. Where did you lie? Where were you
24 ever asked about that check where you didn't
25 assert the Fifth Amendment?
1 A. I was asked how much money I had given
2 to the Estate of Lisa McPherson and my answer was
3 either one million and fifty thousand or one
4 million three-hundred thousand. There were two
5 different occasions, two different answers,
6 neither one included the 500,000.
7 Q. But you were never asked about that
8 specific check. Was there ever an instance where
9 you didn't assert the Fifth Amendment? Those
10 would be --
11 A. I was never asked about that check.
12 Q. So throughout these entire proceedings
13 of those two answers about that one check is the
14 sole explanation you have to the complete
15 turnaround that you've made?
16 A. No, I never said that. That is what you
17 have said. I've told you about the perjury
18 charges that are possible. You know, that I know
19 because I know what I've done in this case and I
20 have purged myself in this case and in Judge
21 Schaeffer's case of the previous testimony.
22 You know, this is -- this is key. You
23 know, nothing has anything to do with hiding a
24 check. It's to do with the results of what has
25 happened as a result of my involvement with Ken
1 Dandar in this wrongful death case.
2 Q. I don't want to probe the obvious, but
3 you've testified in court and under oath and in
4 other depositions and have given answers that were
5 false. Why should we believe you today?
6 A. Where have I done that? In Judge
7 Schaeffer's case?
8 Q. You tell me where you've done it.
9 A. Yeah. Any case that Mr. Dandar is
10 involved in, I have recanted my testimony in those
11 cases. I have not lied in any other cases. I've
12 not had the type of legal watchdog, like
13 Mr. Dandar is, looking over my shoulder in those
14 other cases.
15 Q. So you expect us to believe everything
16 now?
17 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, is this closing
18 arguments to the jury?
19 THE COURT: I don't know.
20 MR. LIROT: I'm finished, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Counsel approach,
22 please.
23 THE WITNESS: Can I be excused, Your
24 Honor?
25 (Thereupon, there was an off-the-record
1 discussion.)
2 MR. ROSEN: No further questions.
3 THE COURT: You could step down.
4 We will take a five-minute break.
5 (Thereupon, there was a five-minute break.)
2 * * * * *
3 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, we would call
4 Ken Dandar.
11 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I would intend
12 the same thing here. May I approach the
13 bench with the exhibits that are going to
14 be -- that the witness will be questioned
15 from?
16 THE COURT: Yes.
18 Q. Mr. Dandar, I put in front of you a
19 stack of folders that are marked with exhibit
20 numbers. If you could just wait until I ask you
21 and tell you which ones to open. Could you do
22 that for me?
23 A. I can do that.
24 Q. Thank you. Mr. Dandar, there came an
25 agreed -- there came a time in January of 1997
1 when you went into a contingent fee agreement to
2 represent the Estate of Lisa McPherson in the
3 wrongful death case?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And under that contingent fee agreement
6 you were obliged to personally -- you were
7 obligated to provide all the funding for
8 out-of-pocket expenses?
9 A. My firm was.
10 Q. And in return you got some contingent
11 fee, 40 percent or something like that, whatever
12 recovery there is?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. And it's a pretty standard form
15 contingency fee agreement used by attorneys in
16 this state?
17 A. I have no idea, but it mimics what's
18 required on the contingent fees -- contingency
19 fees under the Supreme Court rules.
20 Q. Can you speak up?
21 A. This is not on. Oh, okay. Sorry. I
22 thought I was talking loud.
23 Q. No, I couldn't hear you.
24 A. It conforms with the Supreme Court rules
25 on contingency fees, yes.
1 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look, sir, at
2 Exhibit 52, if you could pull the folder. It says
3 52?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. Is this a true copy of the contingent
6 fee agreement you signed respecting the wrongful
7 death agreement, wrongful death case?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On January 27th, 1997?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Okay. Now, in October of 1997, there
12 came an occasion for you to then be talking the
13 first time with Robert Minton?
14 A. October or September of '97.
15 Q. Okay. And you had a conversation with
16 Mr. Minton at that time on the subject of his
17 willingness to provide money?
18 A. That's right. He called me.
19 Q. He called you?
20 A. He call me up because Elliot Ableson
21 (phonetic) was questioning him about whether or
22 not he gave counsel --
23 Q. Counsel, I'm going to -- Mr. Dandar, I'm
24 going to try to ask you very specific questions.
25 If you listen to my questions we're going to get
1 through this, okay?
2 A. Just don't interrupt my answer, okay?
3 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, but he
4 was interrupting me, Judge. Sorry.
5 THE COURT: You've got counsel and I
6 know it's tough, but --
7 THE WITNESS: This is very --
8 THE COURT: -- you don't need to be
9 saying those kinds of things.
10 THE WITNESS: This is very tough, but
11 I'm sorry.
13 Q. You had a conversation with Mr. Minton
14 at that time on the subject of him providing money
15 for the wrongful death litigation?
16 A. What time?
17 Q. September, October of 1997?
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. Did you have a conversation with him on
20 whether this money was going to be a loan, a gift
21 or some other form?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Could you tell us what that conversation
24 was, what that agreement was with Mr. Minton
25 respecting the funding that he was to provide?
1 A. I said to Mr. Minton, I said, I've never
2 had anyone call me who I did not know and offer to
3 provide funds for a case. Let me check with the
4 Florida Bar. Let me check with my client and I'll
5 call you back, because I was very suspicious of
6 someone out of the blue trying to say --
7 MR. ROSEN: Move to strike the last part
8 of the answer as not responsive.
9 THE COURT: Overruled. Move on.
11 Q. Before -- at the time that you said
12 this, let me call the Florida Bar, et cetera, had
13 you discussed with Mr. Minton whether this money
14 was going to be a gift, a loan or something else?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you then write to the Florida Bar?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You called their hotline?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And how did you describe to the Florida
21 Bar how this transaction was going to be
22 structured? And, specifically, did you tell them
23 it was going to be a loan or a gift?
24 A. No. I said I had a stranger call me on
25 the phone that wants to send me money for a case,
1 am I allowed to take the money.
2 Q. And you didn't tell the Florida Bar
3 whether this money that was being sent was a loan,
4 an investment, a gift, a loan to you, a loan to
5 your client? You didn't tell them any of that,
6 right?
7 A. It didn't matter.
8 Q. You just said there's money coming?
9 A. The Florida Bar, it didn't matter to
10 them and it didn't matter to me.
11 Q. My question is you --
12 A. I didn't say anything.
13 Q. -- didn't disclose it, right?
14 A. There was nothing to disclose.
15 Q. Okay. And the Florida Bar said, Yeah,
16 you could take the money?
17 A. No. They said, You can take the money
18 provided your client agrees. They cited the rule,
19 provided this donor who you don't know has no
20 control over the litigation, is not privy to
21 confidential information.
22 Q. Okay. Anything else that they told you?
23 A. That's it.
24 Q. Do you have any memos or notes that
25 reflect that oral conversation?
1 A. Not with the Florida Bar, but I
2 reiterated that in my letter to Mr. Minton.
3 Q. Sir, do you have any notes of your
4 telephonic inquiry to the Florida Bar or the
5 Florida Bar's response?
6 A. Nope.
7 Q. Did you ever have any?
8 A. Yeah. I wrote down the rules that they
9 cited and then I put it in a letter to Mr. Minton.
10 Q. What happened to the notes of the rules
11 that you cited to Mr. Minton?
12 A. They are thrown away.
13 Q. Thrown away, okay. All right. Now,
14 after you got this response from the Florida Bar,
15 did you then have further conversation with
16 Mr. Minton on the subject of funding?
17 A. Well, after I talked to my client, then
18 I did.
19 Q. Okay. So first you spoke to the Florida
20 Bar and then you spoke to Dell Liebreich?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. And did you tell Ms. Liebreich how much
23 money Mr. Minton was willing to -- was intending
24 to give?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. How much did you tell her?
2 A. 100,000.
3 Q. Did you tell her that he was intending
4 to give more after that 100,000, that this was a
5 first installment or that this was -- it was going
6 to be more?
7 A. No. I just knew about the 100,000.
8 Q. Was it your understanding at that time
9 that the only money that Mr. Minton had in mind to
10 give was $100,000, a one-time payment?
11 A. No. I just knew that he wanted to send
12 100,000. He came up with the figure.
13 Q. Sir, in your conversation, in your
14 original conversation with Mr. Minton, did you
15 understand that he wanted to fund this case or put
16 up money on an ongoing basis, not just a one-time
17 contribution?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ask him?
20 A. No.
21 Q. During that conversation with
22 Mr. Minton, before you called the Florida Bar, did
23 you ask him how much money he was willing to put
24 up?
25 A. No. He first said 100,000.
1 Q. And did he indicate to you that it was
2 just the one-time payment of 100,000?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did he indicate that there would be
5 more?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So, as far as you knew, at the time that
8 you spoke to the Florida Bar, and at the time you
9 spoke to your client, all you knew was that
10 Mr. Minton was going to make a one-time
11 contribution or payment of $100,000; is that
12 right?
13 A. A payment.
14 Q. Of $100,000, right?
15 A. I cannot make -- say the one-time
16 payment; I can say a payment of $100,000.
17 Q. Okay. So at the time you spoke to the
18 Florida Bar and your client, you had no idea that
19 Mr. Minton had intended to make any further
20 payments beyond 100,000, right?
21 A. That's not -- well, that's my
22 recollection, that was just it, $100,000.
23 Q. Okay. Now, when you contacted your
24 client to get her approval, Ms. Liebreich, did you
25 do this in writing?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you do it in e-mail?
3 A. No.
4 Q. You communicate with e-mail with
5 Ms. Liebreich, don't you?
6 A. Rarely. Not back then anyway.
7 Q. Uh-huh. So, Mr. Dandar, is it your
8 testimony that this conversation was entirely
9 oral?
10 A. You got it. That's right.
11 Q. No witnesses, right?
12 A. No witnesses.
13 Q. And no notes? You don't have any notes
14 of this conversation --
15 A. No notes.
16 Q. -- with Ms. Liebreich in which she said
17 okay, right?
18 A. I answered that. No notes.
19 Q. Your testimony is Ms. Liebreich said,
20 Fine, take the money?
21 A. She said, If that's the thing to do,
22 then go ahead.
23 Q. Okay. Did you then have another
24 conversation with Mr. Minton?
25 A. I called him back up.
1 Q. And you told him what?
2 A. I said the Bar approved it; my client
3 approved it. And I said, If you want to do that,
4 that's fine. He says, Well, I'll show you I'm for
5 real.
6 Q. If he wanted to do what?
7 A. If he wanted to send money, I said it's
8 fine. I gave him the rules of the Florida Bar and
9 he sent the money. He said, I'll prove to you
10 that I'm for real.
11 Q. Now, was there any conversation at this
12 time about -- on the subject of whether Mr. Minton
13 would make additional contributions?
14 A. Not that I remember.
15 Q. So, in other words, at the time of this
16 conversation with Mr. Minton, you continued to be
17 under the impression that his intention was to
18 make a one-time payment of 100,000; is that right?
19 A. I had no inclination if it was a
20 one-time payment or not. I didn't believe it was
21 going to happen.
22 Q. Sir, was there any conversation on the
23 subject of whether or not Mr. Minton was going to
24 make or would consider making any payments beyond
25 the $100,000 first payment?
1 A. I don't think so. I can't remember
2 that.
3 Q. Okay. And after that, was it
4 immediately after that conversation then that
5 Mr. Minton sent you a check for $100,000?
6 A. A few days later.
7 Q. And he sent you a note with it, right?
8 A. Yes, he did.
9 Q. I believe Exhibit 8 of -- not the ones
10 that I gave you, Mr. Dandar, the ones that were
11 left there by Mr. Minton.
12 A. Without the highlighting, that's the --
13 that's what it looks like.
14 Q. Okay. And that's the note that you
15 received, right?
16 A. Right. It was a one page and the second
17 page was written on the back of the first page.
18 Q. And with that note came the check to
19 Dandar & Dandar for $100,000, right?
20 A. Well, let me see who it was payable to.
21 That's right.
22 Q. Now, sir, was there any conversation
23 with Mr. Minton at the time up until the time that
24 he sent you this check as to whether this was a
25 loan, a gift, a donation?
1 A. I would have to see the letter that I
2 sent back to him to try to remember what that was
3 about.
4 Q. Sir, just so we understand each other,
5 the word loan means that there is some obligation
6 to repay under certain conditions?
7 A. Well, if you look at the letter, there's
8 an obligation to repay, but it's the -- it's up to
9 the client.
10 Q. And is that a fair definition of the
11 word loan? If I make a loan to you, you have some
12 obligation -- some obligation to repay it under
13 certain conditions, yes?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What does the word donation mean?
16 A. A donation means that there is no
17 obligation to repay.
18 Q. For example, when you go to church on
19 Sunday and you put the money on the plate, there
20 is never an obligation by the church to repay that
21 money, right?
22 A. Not my church.
23 Q. That's a donation, right?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. Was -- did you have an understanding
1 that the money that Mr. Minton provided was a
2 donation or a loan?
3 A. I think my letter spells it out as a
4 donation.
5 Q. I'm asking you what you thought it was,
6 a donation --
7 A. I'm answering you, to the best of my
8 recollection, I need to look at my letter to
9 refresh my memory.
10 Q. Okay. You thought it was a donation?
11 A. I can't answer you right now.
12 Q. Okay. It wasn't a loan to you
13 personally, was it?
14 A. No, it went to Dandar & Dandar.
15 Q. Okay. And after that -- and you
16 understood that that was money intended to be
17 used -- intended for the benefit of your client to
18 use for expenses in the wrongful death case,
19 right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And because of that, you deposited it
22 into the Dandar & Dandar trust account, right?
23 A. Well, on -- I can't tell you where I
24 deposited that check unless you show me something
25 that tells me that.
1 Q. Sure. Exhibit 8, fourth page of the
2 exhibit.
3 A. Right.
4 THE WITNESS: That's -- by the way, the
5 $50,000 check, Judge, that did not come to
6 Dandar & Dandar. That's a --
7 THE COURT: I think we've already
8 established that.
9 THE WITNESS: All right. The $100,000,
10 one was placed into my trust account; that's
11 correct.
13 Q. And you do maintain a trust account for
14 the deposit of payments like this that are --
15 could be given to you either by a client or for a
16 client's benefit, right?
17 A. Of course.
18 Q. And you maintain that separately from
19 the Dandar & Dandar general account or from your
20 own personal account; is that right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Okay. After this, was there a time
23 then -- did there come a time then that there was
24 further conversation with Mr. Minton on the
25 subject of funding?
1 A. Well, of course.
2 Q. When was the next time, sir?
3 A. I have no idea.
4 Q. Did there come a time when there was a
5 discussion that you had with Mr. Minton of
6 respecting his willingness to continue to pay, to
7 pay on an ongoing basis money that was needed as
8 opposed to a one-time payment?
9 A. Now I remember. After I got this check
10 and I deposited it in my trust account I waited to
11 see if it would bounce, because I thought this was
12 some kind of scheme, and it didn't bounce.
13 Then I had a conversation with
14 Mr. Minton. He said, See, I'm for real. I said,
15 Well, this is great. Thank you very much. And
16 then sometime, I think, the following year, and I
17 can't tell you when or where or what was said, but
18 then we -- he started to send more money.
19 Q. Well, did he start to send more money on
20 his own or was it because you asked him to send
21 more money, Mr. Dandar?
22 A. Well, I'm sure we had a conversation, Do
23 you need more money? If I'd say yes or no,
24 sometimes I said no, sometimes I said yes.
25 Q. So you're telling me that every time
1 Mr. Minton sent you money it was because he
2 raised -- he put up the offer to you and you
3 either accepted it or rejected it? You didn't go
4 to him and ask him for money, right?
5 A. I think in the first year after this,
6 '98, I think we only received one check and I
7 can't tell you who initiated the conversation.
8 Q. How much money has Mr. Minton given to
9 you --
10 A. I object.
11 Q. -- that caused to be given to you?
12 MR. LIROT: I object, Your Honor. I
13 think that that violates the stay order.
15 Q. Mr. Dandar -- let me withdraw the
16 question, Your Honor. I don't think it does, but
17 I could come at it another way.
18 A. Well, I assert a privilege.
19 Q. What privilege?
20 A. Recognized by the Second District Court.
21 Q. What privilege do you assert?
22 A. The privilege recognized by the Second
23 District Court in both opinions in the wrongful
24 death case.
25 Q. Could you tell me what privilege it is?
1 Is it Fifth Amendment --
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is it attorney/client?
4 A. Never.
5 Q. Huh?
6 A. It is attorney/client --
7 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a
8 minute. Wait a minute. I don't know that
9 he -- I thought you withdrew your question?
10 MR. ROSEN: I have, but the witness
11 insisted on invoking a privilege.
12 THE COURT: You know, before we argue
13 about something, let's have something to
14 argue about.
16 Q. Okay. Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton has
17 testified that he's given you, between his
18 personal checks and the two bank checks, a total
19 of $2,050,000; is that accurate?
20 A. Privilege.
21 MR. LIROT: I object, Your Honor, I
22 think that that's privileged.
23 THE COURT: Huh?
24 MR. LIROT: The question about how much
25 he's given him is privileged to those orders.
1 THE COURT: Privileged to who?
2 MR. LIROT: It's the subject of the
3 Second District Court of Appeal opinions of
4 April 3rd, 2002 and April 12th, 2002.
5 THE COURT: And those opinions were
6 opinions that were based on relevance of the
7 questions to the wrongful death case; isn't
8 that correct?
9 MR. LIROT: That is correct.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
12 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Dandar?
13 A. I can't swear it's correct, but that's
14 what Mr. Minton says and it's probably close to
15 being accurate.
16 Q. It's close to being accurate?
17 A. Well, close to being accurate except for
18 two checks.
19 Q. Go ahead.
20 A. One for 500,000 and one for 250,000 from
21 the Union Bank of Switzerland.
22 Q. He's wrong about those?
23 A. He's wrong about it, according to what
24 he told me, yes.
25 Q. Sir, did you receive those two checks?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Did you deposit them into your client
3 trust account?
4 A. Well --
5 Q. Yes or no?
6 A. I assert a privilege.
7 Q. What privilege is that?
8 A. My privilege.
9 Q. Of what?
10 A. My privilege of privacy recognized by
11 the Second District Court of Appeal.
12 THE WITNESS: However, Judge, if you
13 tell me to answer that, I will answer the
14 question. Only under a court order will I
15 answer the question.
16 THE COURT: Well, yeah, go ahead and
17 answer the question.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. No. Those two
19 checks were deposited into my private bank
20 account.
22 Q. Where?
23 THE WITNESS: Do I need to answer that,
24 Judge? I assert a privilege.
1 Q. What privilege is this that you assert?
2 THE COURT: Now, wait a minute. Wait a
3 minute. Wait a minute. I'm not sure
4 that's -- I'm not sure that's necessary.
5 MR. ROSEN: Okay. I'll move on, Your
6 Honor.
7 THE COURT: All right.
9 Q. Did there come a time when you had a
10 conversation or an agreement with Mr. Minton on
11 the subject of the ongoing money he was providing,
12 whether it be a loan, a gift, a donation? Did you
13 have such a conversation?
14 A. We had multiple conversations and they
15 were loans.
16 Q. Did there come a time when there was an
17 agreement reached between you and Mr. Minton as to
18 what these funds were that he was providing, a
19 loan, a gift, a donation?
20 A. Well, they were loans because that's
21 what his letter characterizes it as, a
22 non-recourse loan with no interest paid back
23 according to the client's discretion.
24 Q. A non-recourse loan to who?
25 A. Well, to me.
1 Q. To you?
2 A. And my firm.
3 Q. Oh, I see.
4 A. That's right. That's my obligation.
5 Q. What letter is it that you're referring
6 to?
7 A. The original letter.
8 Q. October 8th?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. October 6?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Does that letter say that this is a
13 non-recourse loan to you?
14 A. No, it doesn't say --
15 Q. Sir?
16 A. It doesn't say anything like that, but
17 you have to interpret the language of Mr. Minton.
18 Q. Well, let's interpret the language of
19 Exhibit 8, sir. "I am pleased to enclose a check
20 for 100,000 to help with the expenses incurred in
21 the Lisa McPherson the Scientology case."
22 What is it in that note that suggests to
23 you that this is a personal loan to you?
24 A. It's made out to me, Dandar & Dandar,
25 which is my firm, and it is for the Lisa McPherson
1 case, the death case to defray cost of the
2 litigation.
3 Q. Let me ask you --
4 A. It makes it a loan because it's to me,
5 and when I say "me" I'm talking about my firm, and
6 the -- it is a very flimsy repayment condition
7 because it leaves it up -- it leaves it up in the
8 air as to whether or not it will ever get paid
9 back. And it only gets paid back out of the
10 proceeds of any recovery.
12 Q. Let me see if I understand this, this
13 100,000 is a personal loan to you, not to your
14 client, right?
15 A. Right. My client signed --
16 Q. Yes or no, sir?
17 A. I just answered that.
18 Q. Is that a personal loan to you, not your
19 client?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And the obligation to repay this
22 personal loan out of the recovery is your client's
23 obligation, right?
24 A. No, it's my obligation.
25 Q. I see. So you're saying that if you
1 recovered from the wrongful death, then the
2 $100,000 would be paid back not by the Estate, but
3 by you personally?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Out of what?
6 A. Out of whatever funds I recovered,
7 period.
8 Q. In terms of your contingent fee
9 agreement?
10 A. So it comes out of either the
11 contingency fee or it comes out of the amount of
12 costs that this went towards.
13 Q. Well, let me understand something, sir.
14 You make the -- you get a loan from Mr. Minton
15 that is a personal loan to you. It's no
16 obligation of your client, the Estate, and if you
17 win the wrongful death case, out of the 40 percent
18 contingency fee you have to pay back Mr. Minton;
19 is that your testimony?
20 A. Yeah, I have to pay it back.
21 Q. That's your testimony as to your
22 arrangement with Mr. Minton?
23 A. That's about the fourth time I answered
24 that.
25 Q. I can't hear you.
1 MR. LIROT: I'd make a best evidence
2 objection. I think this speaks for itself.
3 This agreement is the best evidence of what
4 it is.
5 THE COURT: I'm not sure it's an
6 agreement, but I think it's subject to
7 several interpretations and I'm interested to
8 hear what his is.
10 Q. So, I just want to -- I don't want to be
11 redundant. I just want to make sure that I
12 understand this. A person loans you personally
13 $100,000 and your only obligation to repay it is
14 if you get a case -- if you win a case and then
15 you will pay it out of your contingency portion of
16 the fee, right?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And the Estate has no obligation to pay
19 your debt, right?
20 A. It was never an obligation of the
21 Estate.
22 Q. Got you. Okay. And is that true with
23 respect of all of the two million dollars, so we
24 could save some time, that passed from Mr. Minton
25 to you?
1 A. It's for all of the money, some of which
2 would go back to Mr. Minton and 750 would go back
3 to this unidentified third party.
4 Q. Okay. But I want to understand
5 something, so we don't have to go over each
6 payment, your testimony is that the entirety of
7 these payments of two million dollars, all of them
8 are loans to you personally?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And all of them, the only person who was
11 obligated to repay them if -- out of this
12 contingent fee is you?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And the Estate doesn't have an
15 obligation to repay one cent of these funds?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Okay. Now, let's talk further about
18 this arrangement with Mr. Minton. Were there any
19 strings on how you could use these monies that
20 were loaned to you personally?
21 A. No strings.
22 Q. No strings?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So you could go out and buy a house in
25 North Carolina for yourself, if you wanted to?
1 A. I could go buy a house, but not with
2 Mr. Minton's money.
3 Q. Say again?
4 A. Because I wouldn't do that.
5 Q. I can't hear you.
6 A. Why can't you hear me? I'm talking --
7 THE COURT: I couldn't hear you
8 either --
9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
10 MR. LIROT: So just speak up.
11 THE WITNESS: All right.
12 THE COURT: He asked a question, you
13 could give him an answer. You want to repeat
14 the question, Mr. Rosen.
16 Q. So you could just elect to use the money
17 that Mr. Minton gave you to buy yourself a house
18 in North Carolina, right?
19 A. I could if I wanted to; that's correct.
20 Q. Okay. You had no obligation to use the
21 money that Mr. Minton provided for the wrongful
22 death case?
23 A. Personal loan, I can use it anyway I
24 want.
25 Q. Sir, follow me, two million dollars, you
1 had no obligation to use any part of it for the
2 wrongful death case; is that right?
3 A. Not legally; that's correct.
4 Q. And you had no obligation to use any
5 part of it to -- for the benefit of your client,
6 the Estate, right?
7 A. Not legally, that's correct.
8 Q. Legally that money was money in your
9 pocket, a personal loan to you, right?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Why deposit it in your trust account?
12 A. Because that's where I put the first
13 check.
14 Q. Why did you deposit the first check in
15 your trust account?
16 A. Because I made that decision.
17 Q. Mr. Dandar, are you aware of the canons
18 of ethics that prohibit an attorney from mingling
19 his personal funds with the funds of his client?
20 A. Of course.
21 Q. Yes or no?
22 A. Of course.
23 Q. So you took money that you tell us now
24 were personal funds that was a loan from
25 Mr. Minton, just like if you took a loan from a
1 bank, and you took those monies which were
2 personal funds of yours, and you commingled them
3 with client funds in your trust account, right?
4 A. No.
5 Q. What do you mean no?
6 A. Because the check was made payable to
7 Dandar & Dandar, the first check.
8 Q. Right.
9 A. If you want to go through each and every
10 check we could do that.
11 Q. Hold it.
12 A. But that changed.
13 Q. Wait a minute. The check is Dandar &
14 Dandar. You deposited it in your trust account;
15 did you not?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. You deposited money that you're telling
18 us was a personal loan to you into an account
19 commingled with money you were holding for your
20 clients, whatever clients, not the Estate, your
21 trust account?
22 A. Right, because I was personally
23 responsible for the costs, so I put the money in
24 my trust account in October of '97.
25 Q. The reason you put the money in the
1 trust account was that -- even though it was a
2 personal loan to you -- was because under your
3 contingent fee agreement with your client you were
4 personally liable to -- personally responsible for
5 funding the costs of the wrongful death case;
6 that's the reason?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Why didn't you put it into the Dandar &
9 Dandar, P.A. account?
10 A. Because it makes for a better
11 accounting.
12 Q. It makes for a better accounting. Well,
13 I'm not an accountant, Mr. Dandar, but I would
14 sure like to have you explain to me how it makes a
15 better accounting.
16 A. Is that a question or is that --
17 Q. Yes, sir. Could you please explain to
18 me how it makes for better accounting to take your
19 personal funds and put it in a client trust fund
20 instead of in your own account?
21 A. Because the money was going to go into
22 the trust account and from the trust account it
23 goes into the operating account as we write checks
24 to pay for expenses, just like any law firm would
25 do, I would assume.
1 Q. In other words, you do this regularly,
2 you take money that's your personal funds and you
3 run it through your client trust account, and from
4 there you transfer it to your firm's regular
5 account? Is this a regular practice of yours?
6 A. No, this is an unusual case.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Now, I want to be
8 real clear about one thing that's confusing to me.
9 In Exhibit 8, Mr. Dandar, you're told by
10 Mr. Minton that he's giving you this money, quote,
11 To help with the expenses incurred in the Lisa
12 McPherson vs. Scientology case. Do you see that?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. But, sir, am I understanding correctly
15 then that it is your testimony that you had no
16 strings on this money, it was a personal loan to
17 you, you could go out and buy a boat, do whatever
18 you wanted with it? That's your interpretation,
19 right?
20 A. Well --
21 Q. Yes or no?
22 A. That -- not from that letter, no.
23 Q. But --
24 A. It evolved.
25 Q. It evolved. Well, how did it evolve
1 from help use some money for the benefit of the
2 Estate to put it in your pocket and buy a house
3 with it? How did it evolve to that?
4 A. Well, I didn't put it in my pocket and
5 buy a house with it.
6 Q. How did it evolve, Mr. Dandar?
7 A. I put it into the bank. I put it into
8 several accounts, Dandar & Dandar, depending on
9 how Mr. Minton wrote the check. I put it into
10 other accounts that made interest. I was trying
11 to make some money on this money so I wouldn't
12 have to keep going back and telling Mr. Minton,
13 Well, do you want to give us some more money?
14 Then I would transfer it to the trust account and
15 from the trust account to the operating account.
16 Q. Mr. Dandar, when you say your operating
17 account, that is the account of the firm of Dandar
18 & Dandar that you use to write out checks for,
19 let's say, your rent or your lights?
20 A. Sure. And expert fees and depositions
21 costs.
22 Q. Let's stay with my question. Your
23 general operating accounts that pay for your
24 lights and your rent?
25 A. Yeah, that's where the money goes.
1 Q. And, sir, you're telling me that you
2 regularly transferred money from your client trust
3 account to that account?
4 A. Are we talking about this case?
5 Q. Yes, sir. That's what you did, you
6 transferred money from a client trust account into
7 an account to pay your lights and rent?
8 A. When my secretary tells me we have --
9 Q. Yes or no --
10 A. -- we have $20,000 in cost, we transfer
11 it --
12 THE COURT: Wait. Whoa. Wait a minute.
13 Wait a minute. I don't think you're being
14 responsive.
15 THE WITNESS: I'm not?
16 THE COURT: I think he's asking you a
17 question --
18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
19 THE COURT: -- I think you need to
20 respond to it.
22 THE COURT: If you need to explain --
23 excuse me just a second. If you need to
24 explain your answer, I'll give you a chance
25 to do that, but I want you to answer his
1 question, okay?
2 THE WITNESS: All right. We take money
3 from the trust account, we put it into the
4 operating account, we write checks on that
5 amount of money on this case for costs and
6 expenses.
8 Q. Sir, you just said you write checks out
9 of that operating account for lights and rent.
10 Now you want to tell me that you would have
11 allocated the amount of the lights and the amount
12 of the rent that goes to this case?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is that what you're going to tell me?
15 A. No. I have other income, Mr. Rosen.
16 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Dandar, in addition to
17 writing out checks for light and rent out of your,
18 quote, operating account, I assume you draw money
19 out of the accounts?
20 A. We draw all kinds of money out of the
21 account.
22 Q. For your own personal use?
23 A. We draw paychecks out of the account.
24 Q. I'll try it again. You draw money out
25 of the account for your own personal use?
1 A. I don't think so.
2 Q. Do you pay yourself?
3 A. We get paid, but it doesn't come out of
4 that account.
5 Q. It comes out of a different account?
6 A. It comes out of a different account.
7 Q. You pay your employees out of the Dandar
8 & Dandar account?
9 A. Out of one of them, yes.
10 Q. Either out of the client account or out
11 of the general account?
12 A. No. It comes out of a Dandar & Dandar
13 account that's not a client account.
14 Q. Sir, the check that was given to you in
15 October of '97, sent to you, said Dandar & Dandar.
16 Couldn't you have just deposited it into your
17 Dandar & Dandar general account; the one that you
18 write checks from to pay the rent?
19 A. I could have done anything with that
20 check and I chose to put it in the trust account.
21 Q. Do you think, sir, as an attorney, could
22 you have, quote, done anything with that check?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Okay. Okay. So, if I understand this,
25 we're talking about two million dollars over a
1 period from October of '97 until February of this
2 year, 2002. As to all of that money that was a
3 loan to you, personal loan to you to be repaid out
4 of your contingent fee out of the case, right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. No obligation for your client to repay
7 it?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. And no strings. You could use all of
10 it, some of it, or none of it for the benefit of
11 your client, the Estate --
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. -- in the wrongful death case, correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Okay. Why don't we go to Exhibit --
16 Exhibits 5 and 6, sir. They're in the pile that
17 Mr. Minton left up there. I'll take Exhibit 5
18 first.
19 Do you deny that you received this
20 check?
21 THE WITNESS: Are you ordering me to
22 answer this, Judge?
23 THE COURT: Yeah.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. I received this
25 check.
2 Q. Did you negotiate this check by
3 depositing it into some depository?
4 A. In where?
5 Q. Did you negotiate this check by
6 depositing it into some depository?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Don't tell me where.
9 A. Yeah. I made a deposit of this check.
10 Q. And did you deposit it into an account
11 that was a client trust account of Dandar &
12 Dandar?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you deposit it into an account that
15 had your name on it?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Your personal account?
18 A. Personal account.
19 Q. You sat in this courtroom and heard
20 Mr. Minton describe the circumstances under which
21 he gave you this check?
22 A. That's right, I heard that.
23 Q. To your requests of him?
24 A. I heard that.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. That's not true, but I heard it.
2 Q. You'll get your chance, don't worry.
3 Let's go to Exhibit 6. Do you deny that
4 you received this check?
5 THE WITNESS: Are you ordering me to
6 answer this question, Your Honor?
7 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
8 THE WITNESS: I received this check.
10 Q. Did you deposit -- did you negotiate
11 this check by depositing it into a depository
12 bank?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was that the account of Dandar & Dandar
15 trust account into which these monies were
16 deposited?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Was it an account in your personal name?
19 A. Yes, it's made payable to me.
20 Q. Okay. All right. Let's talk about the
21 issue of whether these monies were loans to you,
22 as you've described this two million dollars loans
23 to you personally, where only you had the
24 obligation for repayment.
25 Let's start with Exhibit 9, that should
1 be in front of you, Mr. Dandar.
2 A. Well, what stack is it in?
3 Q. It's on this stack, sir.
4 A. The old, right?
5 Q. It should be pretty close to the top.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Exhibit 9 is a letter you wrote to
8 Mr. Minton acknowledging receipt of that check for
9 $100,000, right?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. And in that letter you advise Mr. Minton
12 of what the Florida Bar had told you?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. And you say, quote, the client must
15 consent to your donation?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Was the $100,000 a donation or a loan to
18 you, Mr. Dandar?
19 A. Well, the letter speaks for itself.
20 Q. No, sir, it doesn't. You wrote the
21 letter. I would like to know -- your testimony
22 here in court under oath is that this was a loan
23 to you, yet in your letter you said it's a, quote,
24 donation. Which is it, Mr. Dandar?
25 A. I told you that, Mr. Rosen, it was in a
1 donation in the letter and it evolved into
2 loans --
3 Q. Sir --
4 A. -- personally to me.
5 Q. You told us it was a loan to you
6 personally, now you're telling me it's a donation.
7 A. Mr. Minton explained this in his
8 deposition correctly --
9 Q. Mr. Dandar, I'm not asking you --
10 A. -- it started out as a --
11 Q. Mr. Dandar -- excuse me. Counsel.
12 Counsel, I'm not asking you to tell me what Minton
13 testified to. Please listen to my questions.
14 Is it your testimony now that you've
15 seen this letter that the first check for $100,000
16 in October of 1997 was not a loan to you, but was
17 a, quote, donation? Is that your testimony now?
18 A. No.
19 Q. After you have seen this letter, does it
20 continue to be your testimony that the $100,000
21 was a personal loan to you?
22 A. It's always been a personal loan.
23 Q. Okay. So you then have no explanation
24 for why, sir -- well, rather -- I shouldn't say
25 that. I don't want to be presumptuous.
1 Why don't you give the Court any
2 explanation you have for why, in writing back to
3 Mr. Minton to acknowledge receipt of what you're
4 telling us is a loan to you, you thank him for
5 his, quote, donation?
6 A. Because that's the way I dictated it
7 back in October of '97. There's no explanation
8 for it.
9 Q. But we can agree, sir, that if I lent
10 you money it would be a mistake to call that a,
11 quote, donation, right? We would call it a loan,
12 right?
13 A. It's a donation if the case is lost.
14 It's a loan if the case is won. And that's
15 exactly how Mr. Minton correctly identified it in
16 his deposition.
17 Q. But, sir, it's a donation to who?
18 A. To me.
19 Q. To the attorney?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. To you?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Let me see if I get this right. If the
24 case is lost you have kept this donation of
25 $100,000, you have used it, as you said, no
1 strings, go out and buy a car, a house, whatever
2 you like.
3 And if the case is lost, that loan
4 becomes a donation not to your client, but to you?
5 A. That's right, sir. I'm responsible for
6 all of the costs.
7 Q. Are you a church? Do you accept
8 donations?
9 I withdraw that question.
10 Um, let's go to the fourth paragraph of
11 the letter. As you state in your letter, "If the
12 litigation is not successful, the client is not
13 obligated to repay your donation."
14 Well, Mr. Dandar, I thought you told me
15 a moment ago that your client never had any
16 obligation to repay this, quote, donation, to Ken
17 Dandar?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. So I'm a little confused now.
20 A. That's because the letter is not written
21 correctly.
22 Q. Well, you know, Scientology didn't write
23 this letter, you did, right?
24 A. As far as I know.
25 Q. Uh-huh. So, if you had it to do over
1 again this letter would say, Thank you for your
2 personal loan to me. And if we win, I will pay
3 you back out of the contingency fee I win, I get.
4 And if I don't, we'll consider it a donation.
5 That's -- if you were writing this letter today
6 that's what you would say, right?
7 A. No, that's not exactly right.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Do you want to know the right way?
10 Q. No, let's go on.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Oh, I'm sorry.
13 A. That's all right.
14 Q. I missed something. Um, this letter
15 says that you have advised, second paragraph,
16 "Please be advised if the client does consent and
17 is very appreciative of your donation."
18 The client you are referring to in the
19 second paragraph is Dell Liebreich, right?
20 A. No, it's the Estate.
21 Q. The Estate which is operated through
22 Dell Liebreich as personal representative?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So when you said "the client" you were
25 referring to Ms. Liebreich as the representative
1 of the client?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. She's the one who said, I consent and
4 I'm appreciative, right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. So, let's see if I understand this, does
7 a client have to consent to somebody making a
8 personal loan to you, Mr. Dandar?
9 A. That's what the Florida Bar said.
10 Q. Did you tell them, Mr. Dandar, that this
11 was being structured as a personal loan to you?
12 A. I told them exactly what I've already
13 answered, Mr. Rosen.
14 Q. Well, I know it's a little hard to --
15 it's now five years later, you don't have any
16 notes, but did you tell the Florida Bar when you
17 called them and made this inquiry that the way
18 this was being structured was a personal loan to
19 you, the attorney, and not to your client?
20 A. I told them I'm responsible for all the
21 costs --
22 Q. How about answering my question?
23 A. I am answering it. And I've answered
24 this four times.
25 Q. Yes or no? Mr. Dandar, look, please,
1 it's late. Yes or no, did you tell the Florida
2 Bar when you made the inquiry to them that this
3 transaction was a loan to you, not to
4 your client?
5 A. For the fourth time --
6 Q. Yes or no?
7 A. -- I did not discuss the -- use the
8 words loan or donation. I didn't know what it was
9 at that time. The man wanted to give us money. I
10 had to pay for the costs. I said, This is great;
11 this is wonderful.
12 Q. Mr. Dandar, don't you think that if you
13 don't know what it is you ought to decide first
14 before you put it into a trust account? Didn't
15 you -- didn't you think you should have inquired
16 about that first, sir?
17 All right. I'll withdraw that question
18 to you. I want to move on. Let's see, so the
19 client is appreciative of your donations? What
20 you're saying here is Ms. Liebreich appreciates
21 that Mr. Minton is lending you money?
22 A. That's right. That's what she said.
23 Q. Right. So let me see if I understand
24 this. Why would Ms. Liebreich appreciate that?
1 Mr. Minton just lent you $100,000 that you are
2 perfectly free to use any way you want and not spend
3 one dime for the case? You could go out and buy a
4 $100,000 car.
5 Why would Ms. Liebreich be so
6 appreciative of that?
7 A. Because that's what she said.
8 Q. That's what she told you?
9 A. That's what Mrs. Liebreich said.
10 Q. Right. And she told you in this
11 telephone conversation that you -- withdraw that.
12 You told her in this telephone
13 conversation that this money coming from
14 Mr. Minton was a loan from him to you, right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And you told your client that the only
17 obligation to repay is yours, not your client's,
18 right?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. You told her all of that?
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. Mr. Dandar, after going to the trouble
23 of requesting an opinion on the hotline from the
24 Florida Bar, you think it might have been smart to
25 put this in writing to your client?
1 A. Lord only knows what's smart, you know.
2 Q. Mr. Dandar, how long have you been
3 practicing law?
4 A. 23 years.
5 Q. Did it ever occur to you to confirm in
6 writing to your client her consent to this
7 transaction?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you write any kind of file note so
10 you would have a record and be able to refresh
11 your memory later --
12 A. That --
13 Q. -- that there had been a consent?
14 A. That letter is my file note.
15 Q. What if your client came in today and
16 said, I know nothing about this?
17 A. It doesn't matter.
18 MR. LIROT: Objection. It calls --
19 MR. ROSEN: You mean --
20 MR. LIROT: Objection.
21 MR. ROSEN: Huh?
22 MR. LIROT: It calls for speculation,
23 assumes facts not in evidence.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
1 Q. Let's go to, um, I want to make sure I
2 understand this. You are certain that you spoke
3 to Dell Liebreich about this? I mean, you can
4 identify her voice on the telephone, right?
5 A. Yes, Mr. Rosen.
6 Q. Okay. And you -- this is by phone, you
7 were here and she was in Texas?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 18. If I
10 could direct your attention to the second page of
11 the document. You are here telling the, I guess
12 DCA, it says Petition for Writ, on the second
13 page, they -- that after 10 months of litigation
14 counsel received a loan from Robert Minton with
15 approval of the personal representative, right?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. So that you told the Court, and this is
18 now -- what's the date of this, Mr. Dandar?
19 A. I have no idea.
20 Q. Well. Okay. The 17th of September,
21 2001.
22 A. All right.
23 Q. You told the second DCA that this
24 loan -- the monies you received from Mr. Minton
25 which up to that point, September of 2001, were
1 over a million dollars, were a non-recourse
2 interest free loan to you?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. How much had you received as of the date
5 of this petition, Mr. Dandar?
6 A. Over a million dollars. That's what it
7 says.
8 Q. Sir, how much did you receive? Can you
9 be any more specific?
10 A. From Mr. Minton?
11 Q. Yeah.
12 A. Over a million dollars.
13 Q. Mr. Dandar, if you want to continue to
14 fence with me we will be here forever.
15 A. I answered --
16 Q. You understand very well what the
17 question is, sir.
18 THE WITNESS: I answered the question,
19 Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: I guess it's --
22 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 17.
23 THE COURT: I think you have to be a
24 little more specific, if you want him to
25 respond.
2 Q. Is it your testimony that the monies
3 represented by the two checks, 500,000 and a
4 quarter of a million, these checks were not monies
5 of Mr. Minton?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. Who did these monies belong to?
8 A. I have no idea. Why --
9 Q. You don't know --
10 THE WITNESS: Can I object to him
11 smiling at me?
12 THE COURT: No --
14 Q. Mr. Dandar, let me see if I get this
15 right. Some person, you don't know who it is, has
16 just loaned you $500,000 anonymously, right?
17 A. According to Mr. Minton, that's right.
18 Q. The check -- this person unknown, is his
19 name Fred?
20 A. No.
21 Q. So let's see, the check of this 500,000
22 anonymous loan is delivered to you, handed to you
23 by Mr. Minton?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. So how would you pay him back?
1 A. When the case is over and there was
2 money to pay back I would call Mr. Minton and say,
3 Who do I write the check to?
4 Q. What happens if Mr. Minton died, God
5 forbid, or what happens if he decided he didn't
6 want to be involved anymore? You're telling me
7 that you have an obligation to repay $500,000 to a
8 person you don't know?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 17. This is
11 a deposition.
12 A. Oh, what stack is this?
13 Q. Seventeen, sir.
14 A. Got it.
15 Q. This is a deposition taken of your
16 client, Dell Liebreich, on May 24th, 1999.
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. You were present?
19 A. Of course.
20 Q. Okay. And if we turn -- does Your Honor
21 have that exhibit?
22 THE COURT: Yes, I do.
24 Q. If we turn to page 162 of the
25 deposition, you sat there as your client was
1 asked, When did you first hear the same Bob
2 Minton, what were the circumstances and when --
3 when you first hear it. Last year sometime.
4 1998. I think I read a article in New York Times
5 or something about him.
6 A. Well, there's -- she did not say 1998.
7 Q. I know. It says last year and the
8 deposition of May of '99. Let's go on to page 163
9 where she's asked if there is any agreement
10 regarding the monies he's putting up. No written
11 agreement.
12 Have you reviewed any agreements?
13 No.
14 We're down to line 19. Where did you
15 meet him? This is Mr. Minton.
16 In December at the -- when they had the
17 picket down there, the candlelight vigil.
18 December of 1998?
19 Yes.
20 That was the first time you met him?
21 Yes.
22 How did you first learn that Mr. Minton
23 was going to, using your words, give money to help
24 finance this lawsuit?
25 Ken told me, I believe.
1 When was that?
2 I can't remember the dates. It was
3 probably -- it was before we went down there in
4 December of '98, but I don't remember. It could
5 have been November or October.
6 Here's your own client --
7 MR. LIROT: Objection, Your Honor. He's
8 leaving out the last sentence of that. I
9 don't remember.
10 MR. ROSEN: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't
11 remember.
12 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge.
14 Q. You sat there with your client
15 testifying that the first you ever told her about
16 any money from Mr. Minton was October or November
17 of 1998.
18 MR. LIROT: Objection, Your Honor.
20 Q. That's what you said, right?
21 MR. LIROT: That's not what she said.
22 The deposition speaks for itself, Judge. I
23 object.
24 THE WITNESS: She said, I don't
25 remember.
1 THE COURT: I will sustain that one.
3 Q. She said, October or November of 1998, I
4 don't remember, right?
5 A. That's right, she didn't remember.
6 Q. Now, sir, is it your practice that after
7 your client testifies, gives a deposition, if you
8 feel like you'd like to correct things that are
9 wrong, you have made changes, including in this
10 case before Judge Baird to a deposition
11 transcript, it's on an errata?
12 A. Yeah, my client changes and makes
13 corrections if she made a mistake.
14 Q. Right. And when she makes those changes
15 in concert with you, discussion with you, right?
16 A. Well, she reads it over first and then
17 we talk about it, right.
18 Q. Now, at the time that you sat there and
19 listened to that answer we just read, October,
20 November of 1998, I don't remember. According to
21 you, she was wrong; is that right? She was
22 incorrect?
23 A. Hold on for a minute. What was the
24 question?
25 Q. As you sat there and heard your client
1 testify --
2 A. Right. Right. Right. She's wrong.
3 Q. Sir, could you tell me why there was no
4 errata sheet prepared for this deposition --
5 A. No.
6 Q. -- correcting that error?
7 A. I don't think there was any errata sheet
8 for this deposition.
9 Q. Could you tell me why?
10 A. No. It certainly isn't an important
11 question. It's not an important question, but I
12 can't tell you anything else.
13 Q. Sir, did you keep your client informed
14 as to how much money Mr. Minton was providing?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You did?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you write her letters?
19 A. No.
20 Q. This was all oral, huh?
21 A. It's all oral.
22 Q. Hum. And you don't have any notes, any
23 notations, any file records to show that you had,
24 in fact, communicated these things to your client?
25 A. How much I borrowed for the case, no.
1 Q. No. Sir, I want to direct your
2 attention to page 164 of that same Exhibit 17
3 starting with line 22.
4 Question asked of your client: "How
5 much money, and this is as of May of '99, how much
6 money do you understand Mr. Minton has given to
7 you and your family with regard to financing the
8 lawsuit? You and your family?
9 Answer: I think I saw on the Internet a
10 couple of hundred -- a couple of hundred thousand
11 or something like that."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. I see it.
14 Q. Your client got her information on how
15 much money Mr. Minton was giving you from the
16 Internet?
17 A. In May of '99 that's correct. That's
18 what she said.
19 Q. Yeah. Was she right? Did she have to
20 get the information from the Internet because you
21 hadn't told her?
22 A. Have to get it? No.
23 Q. Well, sir, let's be direct, if, as you
24 say, you kept your client apprised as these checks
25 came in from Mr. Minton as to how much money Mr.
1 Minton had given to you, why would your client
2 have to read the Internet to find that information
3 out?
4 A. I have no idea.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. You would have to ask her, I guess.
7 Q. Now, she also says here, and I want to
8 read that again --
9 THE WITNESS: Judge, could I interrupt?
10 Could I ask a question of you, Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: Yeah.
12 THE WITNESS: This is a deposition in a
13 wrongful death case. Mr. Rosen started out
14 this proceeding by saying it has -- only
15 thing to do with this case and he's going
16 into the wrongful death case, which I believe
17 is Judge Schaeffer's domain. I would just --
18 THE COURT: It's sworn testimony that
19 affects the issues in this case, so I think
20 it's appropriate.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay. All right.
22 THE COURT: Thank you.
24 Q. The question that I read --
25 A. I'm sorry, where are we at?
1 Q. We're on line 22 of page 164. The
2 question was: "How much money do you understand
3 Mr. Minton has given to you and your family?"
4 Well, in truth, according to your
5 testimony, the answer to that question of how much
6 money Mr. Minton has given to Dell Liebreich and
7 her family is zero; is that right?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Dead zero?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. And you told Dell Liebreich that?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. Is there a reason why you didn't correct
14 this transcript?
15 She gave a wrong answer, didn't she?
16 A. There's no reason. It's not important.
17 MR. LIROT: Objection, Your Honor.
18 THE WITNESS: It's not important to you.
19 MR. LIROT: Objection. The transcript
20 speaks for itself. It concludes with, I'm
21 not sure.
23 Q. Okay. Let's see now. Let's go to
24 Exhibit 11.
25 A. What stack?
1 Q. The stack in front of you, sir.
2 A. I have two in front of me. All right.
3 Q. This is a letter -- I assume this is
4 authentic, Mr. Dandar?
5 A. It looks that way.
6 Q. Huh?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Good.
9 A. Looks that way.
10 Q. It's a letter that you wrote to
11 Mr. Minton, May 12th, 1999. This is on the
12 occasion of him giving you a second $100,000,
13 right?
14 A. A second one?
15 Q. Yeah.
16 A. Well, I don't know if this is number two
17 in the sequence of events.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I don't think that would be correct.
20 Q. Okay. This will confirm that you will
21 again be providing us with a donation in the
22 amount of $100,000.
23 Now, last time you told -- a few minutes
24 ago you told me that maybe the wording of the
25 October 1997 letter was a little inartful and
1 maybe it was in error. That if you were writing
2 it today you wouldn't write it that way.
3 Here is a May '99 letter. Same thing,
4 Mr. Dandar, thank you for your donation, right?
5 A. It is a donation depending upon the
6 outcome of the case.
7 Q. Oh, so let's see, I --
8 A. I keep saying that to you over and over
9 again.
10 Q. All right. I just want to see if I
11 understand your thinking, Mr. Dandar. I made a
12 loan to Enron and they went bankrupt and I'm going
13 to --
14 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object.
15 MR. ROSEN: If I may --
16 MR. LIROT: I would prefer him to ask a
17 question --
18 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
20 Q. If I made a loan to Enron and they went
21 bankrupt and they were not able to repay me, would
22 you then consider that my loan was a, quote,
23 donation, sir?
24 A. I'm sorry. I can't answer the question.
25 Q. Okay. A loan which is not paid back
1 becomes a donation; is that right?
2 A. In this case with Mr. Minton's
3 instructions, that is correct.
4 Q. A donation to you, not to your client,
5 right?
6 A. Well, it's a donation to the cause.
7 Q. No, sir. It's a donation to you because
8 without Mr. Minton's money under the contingency
9 fee agreement you had the personal obligation, you
10 and your firm, to fund the case?
11 A. That's probably a legal opinion, that's
12 probably correct.
13 Q. So it is a donation to you -- you are
14 the only one who got any benefit out of this
15 money?
16 A. I don't think that's correct.
17 Q. Well, sir, under your contingency fee
18 agreement, assuming you intended to live up to it,
19 your client didn't have to put up a nickel for
20 expenses for the case, right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. So if you were obligated to pay the
23 expenses for the case, if somebody comes along and
24 gives you a, quote, donation, all they're doing is
25 helping you, they're relieving you of your
1 obligation, right?
2 A. That's just only one way to look at it,
3 Mr. Rosen. Thank you for that.
4 Q. Does it make any difference to your
5 client whether the half a million dollars in
6 expenses comes out of your pocket or Mr. Minton's
7 pocket? Does it make any difference at all?
8 A. No, legally.
9 Q. Oh.
10 A. I think she does care about how things
11 progress and how they're doing.
12 Q. Let's continue on with the second
13 paragraph of the letter. The client has consented
14 to your donation. You then had -- you're saying
15 you had another conversation with Ms. Liebreich
16 and she said, Yes, take the donation?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And you told Ms. Liebreich that this,
19 quote, donation, was a personal loan to you,
20 right?
21 A. She knows that.
22 Q. Did you tell her then?
23 A. I have no idea what I told anyone in May
24 of '99.
25 Q. All right. Let me make an assumption,
1 sir. Tell me if I'm wrong. You have no letter,
2 you have no note, you have no file memo, you have
3 nothing confirming that you ever had a
4 conversation with your client on this subject; is
5 that right?
6 A. Except this letter, that's correct.
7 Q. Well, the letter doesn't show you had a
8 conversation, it's only you saying you did?
9 A. No. That's something only between me
10 and my client and not you.
11 Q. Well, if that's the case, why didn't you
12 show or send a copy of this letter to your client?
13 A. It could have gone to my client.
14 Q. Sir, look at the bottom. It could have
15 gone. It doesn't show a cc?
16 A. Well, excuse me, maybe it doesn't --
17 maybe it doesn't, so what? That doesn't mean it
18 didn't happen.
19 Q. Mr. Dandar, was it your practice if you
20 send out a letter or you send a cc of a letter to
21 somebody that you show a cc on the bottom?
22 A. Sometimes.
23 Q. Sometimes. Did you send this copy -- a
24 copy of this letter to your client?
25 A. Possibly.
1 Q. Possibly. Well, I guess if you did, you
2 would have your file copy of this letter which
3 would show that, right?
4 A. No. My file copy is the copy that you
5 have here. We copied this for you, your client.
6 Q. Where is your file copy of the letter?
7 A. Well, it's sure -- it's in the file
8 under the correspondence section like all the
9 other correspondence that goes with -- between me
10 and my client. It's none of your business.
11 Q. It's none of my business. Do you think
12 it's the Court's business to know whether or not
13 you sent a copy of this to your client?
14 A. No, I don't think so at all.
15 Q. That's fine. Okay. All right. Let's
16 go on with this letter. As you have previously
17 stated, if the litigation is not successful, the
18 client is not obligated to repay your donation,
19 right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. The client was never obligated, right?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. By the way, in the first sentence of
24 that paragraph, "Upon successful conclusion of
25 this case your funds will be repaid to you."
1 Why didn't you say, Mr. Dandar,
2 consistent with what you've testified to, that --
3 in that letter, why didn't you say, I will repay
4 you the loan? Why this passive voice about your
5 funds will be repaid to you, sir?
6 A. I have no idea, Mr. Rosen.
7 Q. Because you wanted the latitude, sir, of
8 denying that this was a loan to you personally.
9 You wanted the latitude of saying --
10 MR. LIROT: Objection.
11 MR. ROSEN: -- the only repayment --
12 THE COURT: Sustained --
13 MR. ROSEN: -- made by the Estate.
14 MR. LIROT: Objection.
15 THE COURT: Argumentative. Let's move
16 on, Mr. Rosen.
17 MR. ROSEN: Okay.
19 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 12. June 17th, '99,
20 this is now a summary letter, if you will.
21 A. It's the following month from the prior
22 letter.
23 Q. I'm sorry, I said summary letter.
24 You're summing up the events to date.
25 A. That's right. Mr. Minton asked for
1 this letter.
2 Q. You said, To date you have generously
3 provided four checks each in the amount of
4 $100,000, et cetera, right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. In this letter you are still referring,
7 in the second paragraph, to these payments as your
8 donations, right?
9 A. I am consistent.
10 Q. Mr. Dandar, it would be consistent for
11 you to call them donations if they were money
12 provided to your client, wouldn't it?
13 A. No, that's argumentative.
14 Q. Are you making an objection?
15 A. No. I'm just saying it's argumentative.
16 I mean, it all depends on how you look at it.
17 THE COURT: It sounds like he's making a
18 ruling.
21 Q. And here again you remind Mr. Minton
22 that your client is not obligated to repay your
23 donations, but your client has agreed that upon
24 successful conclusion of this matter, your funds
25 will be repaid to you.
1 A. The same as the other letter.
2 Q. No. No. This is very different,
3 Mr. Dandar. Not so fast. Your -- my client has
4 agreed, this letter says, that upon successful
5 completion of this case your funds, Mr. Minton,
6 will be repaid to you. That's what this letter
7 says.
8 A. So?
9 Q. Why --
10 A. Is there a question?
11 Q. Are you still telling me this is a
12 personal loan to you, huh?
13 A. I'm still telling you the same thing
14 that I've been telling you all day.
15 Q. Sir, I want you to explain to me why you
16 need the consent of your client to repay
17 Mr. Minton the money he loaned to you?
18 A. Because that's how it all started out.
19 That's what the Florida Bar said.
20 Q. The Florida Bar said if you go out and
21 borrow money personally, your client has to
22 consent to the repayment?
23 A. In this particular.
24 Q. Is that --
25 A. I'm sorry, did I interrupt you? I'm
1 sorry.
2 Q. Is that what they said to you?
3 A. In this particular circumstance, that is
4 correct.
5 Q. What's the name of the person you spoke
6 to from the Florida Bar, Mr. Dandar?
7 A. In October of 1997 I do not remember.
8 Q. Did you make any note?
9 A. For the fourth time, no.
10 Q. Mr. Dandar, do you call the Florida Bar
11 for opinions on a regular basis?
12 A. I call them about what you've done to
13 Mr. Minton yesterday, yes, I do.
14 Q. You do?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. How often do you call them?
17 A. Well, I can't say.
18 Q. Roughly? Once a year? Twice a year?
19 A. I have no idea.
20 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object on
21 relevance.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. And is it your practice that whenever
25 you call the Florida Bar not to make any notes of
1 who you spoke to?
2 A. That's true.
3 Q. So if there's a problem --
4 A. Well, no, I take that back. I take that
5 back. I made notes of the rules that they cited
6 to me and how they interpreted it.
7 Q. But, sir --
8 A. But I don't keep the notes.
9 Q. Sir, you got a go ahead from the Florida
10 Bar. They said, As long as your client does this
11 and your client consents and Mr. Minton doesn't
12 control, it's okay and you don't have any notation
13 confirming that?
14 MR. LIROT: Objection.
16 Q. It's your word against an
17 unidentified --
18 MR. LIROT: Asked and answered.
19 MR. ROSEN: I'll withdraw the question.
20 THE COURT: Good.
22 Q. Okay. Um, in any event, did you -- did
23 Ms. Liebreich agree as expressed in the last
24 sentence of this letter, did you speak to
25 Mr. Liebreich -- Ms. Liebreich rather, I'm sorry,
1 and did she, in fact, agree that upon successful
2 conclusion of this matter, Mr. Dandar would repay
3 you your funds, Mr. Minton?
4 A. On that date? Probably not.
5 Q. You didn't agree?
6 A. Because we reiterated over and over
7 again. It's the same thing.
8 Q. Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 13. There's
9 a check dated 8/27/99 from Mr. Minton to Dandar &
10 Dandar? Yeah?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And Mr. Minton has written a note on it
13 in the lower left-hand side, it says McPherson,
14 right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. You got this check, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Tell me what account you deposited it
19 into.
20 A. Dandar & Dandar, PA, for McPherson.
21 Q. Is that an attorney trust account?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So if this money were provided for the
24 benefit of your client, the Estate of Lisa
25 McPherson, you just deposited those funds into a
1 personal account, into a non-trust account, right?
2 A. Well, it's not the facts, but that
3 hypothetical, that's right.
4 Q. By the way, I'm confused about
5 something. Was the loan by Mr. Minton, was it to
6 you personally or was it to your law firm?
7 A. Oh, I considered it personally, but it
8 goes to the law firm.
9 Q. No, sir. Who was the one who -- you
10 considered it personal, but it goes to the law
11 firm? I'm sorry, sir, that sounds like --
12 A. I had a personal obligation to
13 Mr. Minton that I took on personally rather than
14 my law firm -- I run the law firm, so it's the
15 same thing.
16 Q. Are you the sole owner of your law firm?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So any -- so what you did here, then, if
19 I understand correctly, you took a $250,000 check
20 which was loaned to you personally and you
21 deposited it into an account for the law firm in
22 which you don't own 100 percent. So you are
23 gifting part of this, the benefit of this, to your
24 brother?
25 THE WITNESS: Do I have to answer that,
1 Judge? I mean, this is so --
2 THE COURT: Well, that was the question.
3 If you can answer it, yeah.
4 THE WITNESS: It's in a Dandar & Dandar
5 account. That's all I can answer you.
6 Gifting it, I'm not a tax attorney, I can't
7 tell you what -- I don't even know what
8 you're talking about.
10 Q. Have you kept any records of --
11 withdraw that.
12 Okay. Let's go on to Exhibit 19. I'm
13 sorry, let's go to Exhibit 1 for a second.
14 A. What stack is that in?
15 Q. That was part of the exhibits from
16 Mr. Minton. The check we just reviewed, sir, it
17 appears as the second check on page 1, right?
18 8/27 of '99?
19 A. Excuse me. That's right.
20 Q. Let's go to the second page. There's a
21 $200,000 check from Mr. Minton dated January 14th,
22 2000. The notation is McPherson, right?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. Where did you deposit this check?
25 A. Dandar & Dandar account.
1 Q. Not the trust account?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And then there's a check underneath it,
4 May 21, '01, Kennan Dandar, 200,000 -- 250,000, a
5 notation on the bottom, McPherson.
6 Where did you deposit that check?
7 A. Well, that's made payable to me
8 personally. I put that in a personal account.
9 Q. Did you use any part of that money for
10 expenses for the wrongful death case, sir?
11 A. I'm sure I did.
12 Q. Well, if your understanding, sir, from
13 the beginning is that these loans were made to you
14 personally with no strings and you could do with
15 them whatever you wanted, did it ever occur to you
16 to question why every single check from Mr. Minton
17 has a re on the bottom that says McPherson?
18 A. That's his personal bookkeeping.
19 Q. It's his personal bookkeeping?
20 A. Well --
21 Q. Is that your answer?
22 A. Well, I have to assume that.
23 Q. That is --
24 A. That's how I do it.
25 Q. You never bothered to say to him, Look,
1 if you're lending me money personally why are you
2 writing McPherson on the check? You never asked
3 him that, right?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. All right. Let's go on to
6 Exhibit 19. This is in answer to an interrogatory
7 signed by you, right?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And an answer on page -- the second page
10 of the exhibit you were provided the following
11 information, An unconditional donation was paid
12 not to Plaintiff, but to Plaintiff's counsel from
13 Robert Minton. It is a donation, not a loan?
14 A. That's what -- it says what it says.
15 Q. Well, sir, I didn't write it, you did.
16 A. It says what it says. It's an
17 unconditional donation.
18 Q. Sir, I'm sorry, you wrote it. You wrote
19 the word donation, right?
20 A. In this interrogatory, that's correct.
21 Q. Did you mean to say loan?
22 A. It really should say loan/donation which
23 I think appears in subsequent answers, not this
24 one. That's what it should say.
25 Q. Okay. And --
1 A. But it's correct in saying it was paid
2 to the Plaintiff's counsel, not the Plaintiff.
3 Q. Okay. Let's go on to Exhibit 20.
4 Exhibit 20 is a transcript of the hearing before
5 Judge Moody, is that a true and correct statement
6 of what you told Judge Moody?
7 A. Are you wanting me to read this? I
8 assume the court reporter took it down correctly
9 and everything I told Judge Moody was, of course,
10 the truth.
11 Q. Well, let me direct your attention to
12 page 21. Starting on line 8 you explained the --
13 what the Florida Bar told you and the limitations
14 on this. And then on line 16, When we understood
15 that, we then deposited the funds into my trust
16 account. Those funds are used to defray expenses.
17 Do you see those words?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Whose expenses?
20 A. My expenses.
21 Q. Your personal expenses?
22 A. From Dandar & Dandar for this case.
23 Q. Wait a minute. Your personal expenses,
24 your morning coffee? Is that what you're talking
25 about; your personal expenses?
1 A. I object. This is badgering a witness.
2 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure.
3 THE WITNESS: Unless you want me -- I'm
4 sorry. All right. No. The answer is no.
5 It's not my morning coffee. My morning
6 coffee is consumed at home.
8 Q. Well, let's see if I understand this.
9 Those funds are used to defray expenses. You told
10 us a moment ago, several times, that there were no
11 strings, you could have just gone out and spent
12 that hundred grand to buy yourself a Porsche,
13 right?
14 A. That's what I said. It's a personal
15 loan.
16 Q. Yeah. So --
17 A. I'm personally obligated to pay.
18 Q. -- I'm now a little confused here when
19 you told Judge Moody that the monies are being
20 used to defray expenses.
21 A. That's what I was doing with the money.
22 Q. Is that in truth what you've done with
23 the two million dollars?
24 A. I'm not answering your question about
25 the two million dollars because that's subject to
1 a stay order.
2 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, counsel is --
3 the witness is offering some of the testimony
4 voluntarily and then says I close the door?
5 He just volunteered the information.
6 THE COURT: Yeah. I think the fact that
7 he received the funds, where he put them and
8 who they came from is significant. After
9 that, I'm not so sure that the use of the
10 funds is that significant.
11 MR. ROSEN: Okay. Well, it goes to the
12 issue did he, in fact, use the funds for
13 personal expenses that would perhaps confirm
14 his story.
15 THE COURT: No, I don't think so.
16 MR. ROSEN: I won't go there, Judge.
17 THE COURT: All right.
19 Q. Twenty.
20 A. We are on 20?
21 Q. Twenty-one, sir. It's a transcript of
22 the proceeding before Judge Moody. Let me see.
23 Yep. October 1, 1999. I want to direct your
24 attention to what you said to Judge Moody on page
25 45, beginning on line 4.
1 And I'll read it to you, sir: And as
2 Mr. Minton already testified to and I think it's
3 attached to his deposition, you know, the family
4 doesn't have to pay me back, me being Minton,
5 right?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. Unless they think they got enough money
8 and there's no restrictions on how the money is
9 spent except for the Lisa McPherson case?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. That's what you told Judge Moody?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. So let's see if I get this right now,
14 the family doesn't have to pay Mr. Minton back
15 unless they get enough money from the recovery?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. And if they get enough money from the
18 recovery, then this loan that was a personal
19 obligation of yours now becomes an obligation of
20 the family to pay Mr. Minton back?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Well, Mr. Dandar, I want to give you
23 every opportunity to explain under what
24 circumstances the family would ever have an
25 obligation to repay money that Mr. Minton loaned
1 to you personally and which, according to you, no
2 strings, you could go out -- use it to go out and
3 buy a car?
4 A. Never.
5 Q. No explan -- you don't want to provide
6 an explanation, sir?
7 A. No, never. The family never had an
8 obligation to Mr. Minton.
9 Q. Sir?
10 A. Me, I had the obligation to Mr. Minton.
11 Q. The family doesn't have enough to pay me
12 back.
13 A. That's what Mr. Minton said.
14 Q. But you are endorsing that to Judge
15 Moody --
16 A. I'm saying --
17 Q. -- you're saying that's right?
18 A. No, I'm saying what the -- and even then
19 I thought it was on a cardboard Kleenex box and I
20 was wrong about that, too.
21 Q. Mr. Dandar, please, don't say Mr. Minton
22 said it. You were telling Judge Moody this and
23 sponsoring that statement?
24 A. I'm sponsoring the statement that he
25 mailed to me in October of '97. That's what it
1 says.
2 Q. No, it doesn't, sir, but I'm not going
3 to argue with you.
4 A. Well, let's go with that.
5 Q. The last part of this statement,
6 Mr. Dandar, says, and quote, And there's no
7 restrictions on how the money is spent except for
8 the Lisa McPherson case, close quote.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Well, now I'm confused.
12 A. I'm so sorry.
13 Q. Help me out. So far you've told us a
14 half dozen times no strings, you could take the
15 money and go out and buy a car, no obligation to
16 spend it for the benefit of your client.
17 And now I'm reading what you told Judge
18 Moody, no restrictions except that they have to
19 use it for the Lisa McPherson case.
20 So which is it, Mr. Dandar?
21 A. I'm reciting to the judge what the note
22 said from October of '97.
23 Q. Mr. Dandar, are you telling me that you
24 were reciting this to Judge Moody and it was a
25 lie?
1 A. Of course not.
2 MR. LIROT: Objection, Your Honor.
4 Q. Are you telling me --
5 THE COURT: What? What's the nature of
6 the objection?
7 MR. LIROT: Rule of Completeness. I
8 don't see a question here. We're starting
9 off with Mr. Dandar's testimony and I don't
10 know what's on page 44. I don't even know
11 what the context of this statement is.
12 THE COURT: I don't think he's asking
13 about what's on 44. Overruled.
15 Q. You made a representation to a judge,
16 sir, that you -- that the money could only be used
17 for the Lisa McPherson case. You made that
18 representation. Now you're telling me that that
19 was untrue?
20 A. No. My statement on that particular day
21 in that hearing concerned Mr. Minton's handwritten
22 note of October 6th, 1997, which is Exhibit 8 at
23 this hearing, which you've already gone over and
24 Mr. Minton read. In there he talks about me and
25 he talks about the family.
1 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 24. Do you have it,
2 Mr. Dandar?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Turn to page 3 of this exhibit. This is
5 a proposed finding that you submitted to Judge
6 Quesada. Page three, proposed finding number six
7 by Ken Dandar. Robert S. Minton has provided
8 funding to the Estate of Lisa McPherson through
9 Plaintiff's counsel to defray the costs of the
10 wrongful death lawsuit.
11 A. That's true.
12 Q. That's what you said?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. Robert Minton has provided funding to
15 the Estate? No, sir. Robert Minton didn't give a
16 nickel to the Estate. According to you, he loaned
17 it to you?
18 A. That's true.
19 Q. Continuing on --
20 A. He loaned it to me for the Estate.
21 Q. He provided this money, quote, to defray
22 the costs of the wrongful death lawsuit?
23 A. That's true.
24 Q. But, sir, you told us there were no
25 strings?
1 A. There were no strings and that's -- the
2 reason why he sent the money was for the wrongful
3 death case.
4 Q. Mr. Dandar, do you recall more recently
5 standing in this very courtroom before Judge Baird
6 and telling him that this was a non-recourse loan
7 to you, no strings?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. That's still your testimony, right?
10 A. That's still correct.
11 Q. Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 26. This is
12 a Petition for a Writ that you filed in the Second
13 DCA, right? Right, Mr. Dandar?
14 A. Just give me a second, please. I filed
15 it on behalf of the Estate in conjunction with
16 Mr. Minton, the Lisa McPherson Trust Incorporated,
17 and Stacy Brooks.
18 Q. Sir, could you turn to the last page of
19 the document?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is that your signature on it?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. You signed this petition for a Writ to
24 the Appellate Court of the State of Florida on the
25 29th of January the year 2001, right?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Let's turn to the page -- the third page
3 of the exhibit. However -- I'm reading in the
4 middle of the first of the paragraph. However,
5 there is no agreement and no evidence of any
6 agreement requiring the Estate to pay Minton or
7 anyone else any funds derived from this case
8 beyond repayment of costs money advanced to the
9 Estate.
10 Whose obligation is it to repay it, the
11 Estate's or yours?
12 A. Mine.
13 Q. Do you think that that's what this says
14 to the Second DCA?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. In other words --
17 A. It's a matter of semantics.
18 Q. Mr. Dandar, do you think that this is --
19 that perjury is semantics?
20 A. This is not perjury.
21 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. This wasn't under oath,
22 right?
23 A. It's still not perjury.
24 Q. Do you think it would have been more
25 accurate to say to the Second DCA that this loan
1 is a non-recourse loan to me?
2 A. Well, you know what? Let me read it.
3 It may say that somewhere. Actually this is the
4 petition that we prevailed upon later, I believe.
5 If I'm not mistaken.
6 Q. Now, we know why you prevailed upon it,
7 Mr. Dandar, but that's for another day. It's
8 late.
9 A. Oh, no, this is only -- no, this
10 involves everyone else. So this is not the one
11 that we prevailed upon. Look, I mean, how much
12 more do I have to explain it?
13 Mr. Minton advanced this money because
14 there was a pending lawsuit. He didn't advance
15 the money to me because he just wanted to be my
16 friend. All right. We all know that.
17 Q. Well --
18 A. So the Estate --
19 Q. Mr. Dandar --
20 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let him
21 finish his answer.
22 THE WITNESS: -- the Estate in the
23 wrongful death case and Mr. Minton's
24 advancement of these loans are all tied
25 together and they are loans/donations. That
1 would be the most accurate way to describe
2 it.
4 Q. Loan/donation?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Mr. Dandar, I've made loans and I've
7 made donations. I've never made a loan/donation;
8 have you, sir?
9 A. No. This is a very unique situation, as
10 you well know.
11 Q. Very unique?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. Thank you. Let's turn to Exhibit 27,
14 Mr. Dandar. And this is a portion of the
15 transcript of the deposition of Kennan Dandar
16 taken in this case on January 25, 2001.
17 Do you see that?
18 A. This case?
19 Q. Yeah, the breach case.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Do you see it?
22 A. Yeah, I remember now. Okay.
23 Q. You got it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. So do you recall that you were
1 put under oath, right?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. This is sworn testimony, right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. It's not just a Petition for Writ, it's
6 sworn testimony. All right.
7 Let's turn to page 41, line 16 -- 17:
8 "You've received some money from Mr. Minton?
9 Answer: Correct.
10 Question: And that money is earmarked
11 for use in this case, in the wrongful death case?
12 Answer: Correct."
13 Was that true? Was the money from
14 Mr. Minton, quote, earmarked to use in the
15 wrongful death case?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Even though you had the right to spend
18 not one nickel of the two million dollars in the
19 wrongful death case, right?
20 A. Well, that's not right.
21 Q. Well, it's not right?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you say that before?
24 A. No. That's a ridiculous statement.
25 Q. Well, it's up -- let's put it this way:
1 How much you spend or don't spend on a wrongful
2 death case is entirely up to you?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. Got you. Okay. And then continuing on:
5 Was there any limitation? In other words, can you
6 use the money for things other than the wrongful
7 death case?
8 Privileged. Refuse to answer.
9 Do you see that, Mr. Dandar?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Do you see your refusal to answer --
12 first of all, I want to know which privilege you
13 invoked in refusing to answer the question of
14 whether you could use the money for things other
15 than the wrongful death case.
16 Tell me what privilege it is, sir.
17 A. The same privilege as recognized in the
18 two opinions by the Second District Court of
19 Appeal, namely, attorney/client privilege, work
20 product privilege and personal privacy privilege.
21 Q. Mr. Dandar, there is no privilege,
22 number one. And, number two, you invoked
23 privilege because you did not want to commit under
24 oath to the story that this was a loan for you to
25 do with whatever you wanted; isn't that right?
1 A. No.
2 MR. LIROT: Objection. Argumentative.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. Continuing on at line 3: "Can you tell
6 me how much money you received from Mr. Minton?
7 Answer: Privileged."
8 So let's see, Mr. Minton is not your
9 client, it's not work product because it's him,
10 not you, which privilege is this?
11 A. Privacy.
12 Q. Whose privacy?
13 A. Mine.
14 Q. Yours? But Mr. Minton says I'm telling
15 you how much that's -- you still have a privacy
16 right as to say I'm not going to confirm that as
17 true?
18 A. That's my privacy right. It's my
19 client's privacy right.
20 Q. You were asked at the bottom of the page
21 whether you basically were taking any of the money
22 for legal services, for the scope of legal
23 services.
24 You answered: Privileged.
25 Whether you took any of Minton's --
1 Mr. Minton's money and put it in your pocket,
2 paying yourself for legal services is privileged,
3 right, Mr. Dandar?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. That's none of your business.
7 Q. Let's go to page 43.
8 A. I did answer the question, by the way,
9 on line 20: I'm not charging the Estate by the
10 hour and Mr. Minton's money doesn't go for things
11 of that nature.
12 You forgot to mention that part.
13 Q. Let's go to page 44, line 7. And I want
14 you to think real carefully about this, sir, when
15 I ask you this question.
16 Here's the question you were asked: Do
17 you know that Mr. Minton has already testified at
18 one point as to how much he's paid you, and I
19 think you have too. I know at one point it was in
20 excess of a million dollars.
21 Your answer: Mr. Minton testified
22 $1,050,000.
23 That was at a given point in time,
24 right?
25 Whenever his last deposition was.
1 Question of you: Was that number
2 accurate?
3 Answer: Yeah.
4 Was $1,050,000 an accurate number as of
5 January of 2001?
6 A. I believe it was because his last
7 deposition was -- that he said that in was May of
8 2000.
9 Q. Sir, January 2001, the 1,050,000 here
10 does not include the 500 grand, right?
11 A. Because it's not from Mr. Minton.
12 Q. It's not from Mr. Minton?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. So that's the reason why you have -- you
15 feel that you don't have to disclose that money,
16 because it's not from Mr. Minton?
17 A. Actually, I disclosed every check that
18 Mr. Minton gave me pursuant to court order.
19 Q. You didn't disclose --
20 A. Up to January --
21 Q. -- these two checks, did you?
22 A. Excuse me. Up to January of 2000.
23 After that I have not disclosed checks because
24 there was no court order to do so and I appealed
25 and we won that appeal.
1 Q. Mr. Dandar, I'm trying to understand how
2 we get to this point. Your only defense, your
3 only explanation for why you didn't disclose when
4 asked here, the $500,000 check in March of --
5 excuse me, in May of 2000, is that it's not from
6 Mr. Minton.
7 That's your only defense to perjury,
8 right? It's not from Mr. Minton?
9 A. Your question was on line 7, page 44:
10 Do you know that Minton has already testified at
11 one point as to how much he has paid you and I
12 think you have too. I know at one point it was in
13 excess of a million dollars.
14 And I answered: Mr. Minton testified
15 $1,050,000.
16 Q. Keep going. And then I said to you on
17 line 18: Was that number accurate?
18 A. At the time he testified, that's
19 correct.
20 Q. Sir --
21 A. That's what we were talking about --
22 Q. At the time he testified it was
23 $1,050,000 plus $500,000?
24 A. You can say that all you want, but
25 that's not true.
1 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Dandar, that
2 throughout all of these proceedings, I don't care
3 if it's this Court, Judge Penick, Judge Schaeffer,
4 the Second DCA, at no time did you ever disclose
5 the two Swiss bank checks to any Court?
6 A. If I was clairvoyant I would have
7 expressed the two bank checks.
8 Q. Is it correct that at no time --
9 A. Because --
10 Q. How about answering my question?
11 A. I am.
12 Q. Is the answer --
13 A. You know it's impossible to disclose two
14 Swiss bank checks.
15 Q. Sir, did you ever disclose these two
16 Swiss bank checks to your client?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Dell Liebreich?
19 A. She knew.
20 Q. You told her about these checks?
21 A. Yes, and she knew it didn't come from
22 Mr. Minton.
23 Q. Mr. Dandar, would I be correct in
24 assuming that these were telephone conversations
25 that you had with Dell?
1 A. Or in person, either one.
2 Q. Or in person. And there are no notes
3 and there are no letters, right?
4 A. There's no need to be.
5 Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Garko, Dr. Garko,
6 your jury trial specialist that you had hired, did
7 you ever tell Mr. Garko about the 500,000 or the
8 $250,000 bank checks?
9 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge. There
10 were conversations protected by work product
11 with Mr. Garko.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 MR. ROSEN: Work product?
14 THE COURT: Yep.
16 Q. When Mr. Minton handed you this $500,000
17 check at the Bombay Bicycle Club, did you ask him
18 whose money this was?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Huh?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And what did he say?
23 A. He said, I can't tell you.
24 Q. Uh-huh. And when he sent you the
25 $250,000, did you ask him whose money that was?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And?
3 A. He said it's the Fat Man.
4 Q. The Fat Man?
5 A. In Switzerland.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. I said, Who's that? And he said, I
8 can't tell you.
9 Q. Mr. Dandar, there aren't any witnesses
10 to these conversations, right?
11 A. Well, I don't know about that. Let me
12 think.
13 Q. Are there? You tell me.
14 A. I think he mentioned the Fat Man in
15 front of Stacy Brooks and Dr. Garko in his New
16 Hampshire house when he asked me, begged me, to
17 come up there and talk to him.
18 Q. Okay. Any witness to the conversation?
19 Any other conversations of this kind that you
20 described, including at the Bombay Bicycle Club?
21 A. No, there's no witnesses at the
22 restaurant and there's no witnesses on -- by the
23 telephone.
24 Q. Mr. Dandar, we have seen it already in
25 the exhibits in this case that early on you had a
1 practice of whenever you received a check from
2 Mr. Minton you would write him this note, thank
3 you for your donation.
4 A. That's not true.
5 Q. How many of those notes have we seen?
6 Three?
7 A. I think you have all the letters because
8 I was ordered to produce those in the wrongful
9 death case and Mr. Minton had already discussed
10 them on the Internet, but I don't think I wrote a
11 letter every time he sent a check.
12 Q. No, sir. Sir --
13 A. Did I misunderstand?
14 Q. You wrote him a letter when you got the
15 first check?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. And then we've shown you a second letter
18 written in May of '99 where you acknowledge
19 another donation of 100,000, right?
20 A. Whatever we've gone through, we've gone
21 through.
22 Q. Right. Then you have a third letter
23 which is kind of a summary letter in, I think,
24 July of '99, in which you say, so far you've given
25 me $400,000?
1 A. Well, that's not the right date, but
2 that was at his request, that's correct.
3 Q. How come you didn't send Mr. Minton a
4 letter acknowledging the 500,000?
5 A. Because it didn't come from Mr. Minton.
6 Q. But he gave it to you, he arranged for
7 that money, didn't he?
8 A. He gave me and handed me the check,
9 that's correct.
10 Q. And you didn't arrange for that money,
11 you have no idea who it's from?
12 A. I've answered that, that's right.
13 Q. Why didn't you thank Mr. Minton for it,
14 for arranging it?
15 A. Because it didn't come from Mr. Minton.
16 Q. Sir, is the only basis of your testimony
17 that the money did not come from Mr. Minton is
18 your -- is your only basis for that that you say
19 Mr. Minton told you it wasn't his money?
20 A. That's not --
21 Q. Is that it?
22 A. No, and it's not on his account.
23 Q. Is what?
24 A. It's not on his account.
25 Q. How would you know, it's a bank check?
1 A. But it's not his account, that's right.
2 It's a bank check and he's already testified he
3 can't even get a copy of it, which I'm still
4 trying to figure out how you got a copy of it.
5 Q. Counsel, please remember -- Counsel --
6 A. I answered your question.
7 Q. Is the sole basis of your testimony that
8 this money was not Mr. Minton's, is the sole basis
9 for that that you say that Mr. Minton admitted to
10 you it wasn't his money; is that it?
11 A. Apparently you didn't hear my answer.
12 There's two points; he told me it wasn't his money
13 and it's not on his checking account.
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. That's two points.
16 Q. Sir, I don't understand. How could a
17 bank check be on somebody's checking account?
18 A. Well, you know, I get bank checks, and
19 you know what? My name is on the check when it
20 goes out to somebody. It's coming from me.
21 Q. Well, I guess if that were the case then
22 the name of the Fat Man would have been on that
23 check?
24 A. That's right. I would know who that
25 person is.
1 Q. It's not there, is it?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. There's no name on their except mine.
5 Q. Your's as the payee?
6 A. My personal name.
7 Q. All right. Thank you.
8 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I'm getting a
9 little weary. I don't know if Your Honor is,
10 is this a good place to --
11 THE COURT: Oh, no. Are you about done?
12 MR. ROSEN: No, I've got another hour,
13 hour-and-a-half. This remaining stack of
14 papers.
15 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honor -- I
16 guess I can't say that. You scheduled
17 this --
18 (Thereupon, there was an off-the-record
19 discussion.)
20 THE COURT: Are you ready to continue?
21 MR. ROSEN: Just one second to let me
22 find my place.
24 Q. Mr. Dandar, let's talk about another
25 subject. You heard the testimony of Mr. Minton
1 respecting this need to, quote, backtrack?
2 A. I heard him say that today.
3 Q. On this business about the agreement?
4 A. I heard that today.
5 Q. Yes. And, sir, you did, in fact,
6 prepare those affidavits?
7 A. No.
8 Q. The affidavits that Mr. Minton signed?
9 A. No.
10 Q. That's Exhibit 43, I believe?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Or 42, I'm sorry. Do you have it? I
13 think it's in the pile to the right. It's within
14 the Minton documents. Exhibit 42.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. Who sent it to Mr. Minton in New
17 Hampshire?
18 A. I have no idea. He had a lawyer at that
19 time.
20 Q. Who did he send it back to?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Mr. Dandar, are you saying this
23 affidavit was not sent to you?
24 A. No. Showing me an affidavit without
25 anything else to say how it was transmitted --
1 Q. Mr. Dandar, look, it's late --
2 A. -- excuse me --
3 Q. Mr. Dandar --
4 A. I do not know.
5 Q. Did you receive this or not?
6 A. I do not -- I think it's filed in the
7 case, so, of course, I received it.
8 Q. Did you receive it in the mail from
9 Mr. Minton?
10 A. I don't think so.
11 Q. Who filed it in the case, sir? You did,
12 didn't you?
13 A. I don't know. Show me.
14 Q. Sir, who filed this document in a case
15 entitled Estate of Lisa McPherson, your counsel?
16 A. Show me.
17 Q. Mr. Dandar, you -- are you saying under
18 oath that you don't know if you filed this?
19 THE WITNESS: Judge, that's the best I
20 can do at 20 minutes to seven.
22 Q. Well, maybe when we resume you'll have
23 an opportunity to review that further.
24 A. Show me something that will help me
25 refresh my memory, like I would expect you to do.
1 Q. Well, sir, you're testifying you didn't
2 write it. You're testifying that you didn't
3 receive it either?
4 THE COURT: Is your answer you don't
5 know?
6 THE WITNESS: I really don't know --
7 THE COURT: All right.
8 THE WITNESS: -- but why would I type an
9 affidavit?
11 Q. But Exhibit 33, the affidavit of Dell
12 Liebreich, you did write, didn't you?
13 A. Well -- show it to me.
14 Q. Exhibit 33, it's on the right-hand side.
15 A. Right-hand side?
16 Q. Yeah.
17 A. Did I dictate it, yes.
18 Q. You had it signed and you filed it,
19 right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And was that true?
22 A. I just said yes.
23 Q. There was never any discussion, never
24 any agreement about the Estate repaying the money,
25 right?
1 A. That's correct, there's no deals.
2 Q. I want you to look at paragraph two,
3 sir. There is no obligation of the Estate to
4 repay except in excess -- except in excess of any
5 costs advanced by Robert Minton to defray costs.
6 Do you see that?
7 A. I see that.
8 Q. So would that go back to the same
9 problem?
10 A. The same semantical problem, that's
11 right.
12 Q. It's semantics to you, sir, defraying
13 costs versus putting it in your pocket?
14 THE WITNESS: Judge, would you like me
15 to explain this once and get it all --
16 THE COURT: I think you've testified
17 regarding this. I think your testimony
18 apparently is going to be consistent
19 regarding this affidavit, correct?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
21 THE COURT: All right.
22 THE WITNESS: The only time repayment
23 comes into play is if the McPherson case is
24 resolved favorably, otherwise there is no
25 repayment.
2 Q. And there's no strings on the money and
3 you don't have to use it to, quote, defray costs,
4 right?
5 A. Yeah, but I do --
6 Q. Right?
7 A. Not --
8 Q. Well, yes or no?
9 A. But I do defray costs with it.
10 Q. Sir, are you backing off that --
11 A. I'm not backing off anything. I defray
12 cost in the McPherson case with the money that I
13 borrowed from Mr. Minton and this third party.
14 Q. Mr. Dandar --
15 A. It's never changed.
16 Q. Mr. Dandar, we don't know how much of
17 that two million dollars you've used to defray
18 costs versus how much you put in your pocket, do
19 we?
20 A. And you will never know that.
21 Q. But you're asking us to believe that you
22 have spent money to, quote, defray costs?
23 A. That's absolutely correct.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. Your client knows exactly how many costs
1 and depositions and everything else that's been
2 spent in this case.
3 Q. Let's turn to Exhibit 53, sir. This is
4 a deposition of your client, Dell Liebreich, taken
5 in Dallas on May 24th, 1999, right?
6 A. Same deposition, that's right.
7 Q. Okay. Now, sir, you said a moment ago,
8 and I want to make sure I got this right, there
9 was never any agreement to contribute the monies
10 to be recovered in the wrongful death case to a
11 cult awareness group, right?
12 A. Well, you show me where I said that,
13 Mr. Rosen, because you know that's not true.
14 Q. Well, sir, was there such an agreement?
15 A. Among the family members there was.
16 Q. Was there ever an agreement between Dell
17 Liebreich on the one hand and her family and
18 Mr. Minton on the other that a substantial, if not
19 that -- that all, if not a substantial amount, of
20 the recovery from the wrongful death case was
21 going to be contributed to an anticult group?
22 A. No.
23 Q. There was no such agreement?
24 A. Let me tell you again, apparently you
25 didn't hear me. There's been no agreement with
1 Mr. Minton on disposition of funds outside of
2 trying to pay him back.
3 Q. Outside of the Estate paying him back,
4 right?
5 A. Me.
6 Q. Okay. Let's look at this deposition
7 transcript, sir. Page 189, line 5. Did you
8 authorize your attorney to tell Mr. Minton that
9 you and the family had reached that agreement?
10 The agreement to contribute the money?
11 Oh, we told Ken.
12 Is that true, to the best of your
13 knowledge, sir?
14 A. I don't even know what agreement we're
15 talking about.
16 Q. Is that true, to the best of your
17 knowledge?
18 A. I can't answer the question. What's the
19 question? What agreement are you talking about
20 here?
21 Q. The agreement to pay substantially the
22 amount of the recovery to a cult awareness group?
23 A. Hold on here. A cult awareness group.
24 The family talked about that and that it was a
25 good idea. They told me that, too. That's
1 correct.
2 Q. And the family authorized you to tell
3 Mr. Minton that?
4 A. Yeah, that that's what they decided
5 among themselves.
6 Q. And did you tell Mr. Minton that?
7 A. Yes. The family decided among
8 themselves, but Minton -- Mr. Minton was not part
9 of the agreement between the family members.
10 Q. Let's see if I understand this.
11 A. Laugh as much as you want. That's the
12 truth.
13 Q. Let's see if I understand this. The
14 family authorized you to tell Mr. Minton that it
15 is their intention to donate a substantial portion
16 of the recovery to a cult awareness network,
17 right?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. And you told Mr. Minton that?
20 A. Right, because that's a privileged
21 communication and they said I'm authorized to tell
22 Mr. Minton that.
23 Q. Okay. Let's go to page 198 starting on
24 line 19. Is it an accurate description of your
25 agreement that -- is it correct that you, on
1 behalf of the Estate of Lisa McPherson, have
2 agreed to donate the bulk of any money that you
3 get out of this case to a cult awareness group; is
4 that accurate?
5 Answer: Yes.
6 Do you see that?
7 A. I see it.
8 Q. It's your own client saying, yes, we
9 have an agreement to donate it, right?
10 A. It's the fourth time she said it among
11 the beneficiaries of the Estate only is the
12 agreement made.
13 Q. That's not what this says?
14 A. It is exactly what it says.
15 Q. Excuse me. Let's go to the next page,
16 Counsel. Has that been discussed with your other
17 siblings? The agreement on page 198 is the
18 agreement with Mr. Minton.
19 On 199 the question is asked of Dell
20 Liebreich: Have you discussed this agreement with
21 Mr. Minton with your other siblings? And they
22 have agreed to it --
23 MR. LIROT: Objection. Objection.
24 Mischaracterizes the deposition.
25 THE WITNESS: That's a terrible
1 mischaracterization. I'm surprised --
2 THE COURT: No one asked you --
3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
4 THE COURT: -- for your opinion
5 regarding this, Mr. Dandar.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
7 THE COURT: Okay?
8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
9 THE COURT: You're the witness. Try and
10 remember that. Okay. I've read it.
12 Q. Let's turn to page 252. Are you with
13 me, Mr. Dandar? 252. Here is a question put to
14 your client, Dell Liebreich. Is it your
15 understanding that Mr. Minton is donating the
16 money to the Estate for purposes of funding the
17 litigation?
18 Answer: Right.
19 Your own client thought that Mr. Minton
20 was not loaning money to you, was donating money
21 to the Estate; isn't that right?
22 A. She's correct.
23 Q. She's correct; Mr. Minton donated money
24 to the Estate?
25 A. Well, legally, technically, no, but --
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. -- it's the same.
3 Q. Well, sir, if she's correct that
4 Mr. Minton donated money to the Estate, sir, then
5 you took that money and deposited it in your
6 personal account, didn't you?
7 A. Okay, Mr. Rosen.
8 Q. Didn't you?
9 A. She is not artfully correct, that's
10 right.
11 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 54.
12 A. You don't want to mention the bottom of
13 page 252 --
14 Q. Counsel --
15 A. -- to clarify?
16 Q. -- you're a witness. Please --
17 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar --
19 Q. -- don't ask me questions.
20 THE COURT: You will have an opportunity
21 to respond to this.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
24 Q. Exhibit 54. Line 25. This is a
25 deposition of Ms. Liebreich's sister Lee -- is it
1 sister, Lee Skelton?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. She is another beneficiary of the
4 Estate?
5 A. The Estate of Fannie McPherson, that's
6 right.
7 Q. Right. So --
8 A. Not Lisa McPherson.
9 Q. -- cutting through the probate issues,
10 if -- if there's a recovery in the wrongful death
11 case, Lee Skelton will receive money?
12 A. It will go to the Estate of Fannie
13 McPherson.
14 Q. And through that to Lee Skelton among
15 other people?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Here is Lee Skelton testifying.
18 Let's go to page 25.
19 Have you authorized Mr. Dandar through
20 your sister Dell or anyone to announce that the
21 bulk of any funds that were received from this
22 lawsuit will be donated to a cult awareness or
23 anti-Scientology group?
24 Yes, I agree that a substantial amount
25 will be donated.
1 Were you authorized to announce it,
2 Mr. Dandar?
3 A. Do you want to finish her answer?
4 Q. Were you authorized to announce it,
5 Mr. Dandar? Stop asking me questions, please,
6 sir.
7 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object --
8 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
9 question.
10 MR. LIROT: It's getting heated and --
11 THE COURT: Well, I think it would be
12 less heated if he could just respond to the
13 question. He asked him a question and he
14 responded with a question. That doesn't make
15 for a very, you know, compatible situation.
16 Why don't you try to respond.
17 THE WITNESS: I was authorized to
18 announce that the bulk of any funds from the
19 Lisa McPherson case would go to something
20 that would be called the Lisa McPherson Cult
21 Memorial Fund.
23 Q. And did you make such an announcement?
24 A. I have no idea.
25 Q. Well, think about it. Did you make such
1 an announcement?
2 A. I have no idea.
3 Q. Did you talk to the St. Pete Times or a
4 radio station?
5 A. I may have said it in an interview. I
6 have no idea, as I sit here today.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. It certainly wasn't the Robert Minton or
9 the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don't know about the
10 Lisa McPherson Cult Memorial Fund.
11 Q. Okay. Let's move on to Exhibit 55.
12 This is the deposition of another of
13 Ms. Liebreich's sisters, Ann Carlson, right?
14 A. I'm not there yet. Hold on.
15 Q. I'm sorry.
16 A. Right. May '99, Ann Carlson.
17 Q. All of these depositions are in 1999
18 before what Mr. Minton has testify is the need to
19 backtrack in December of 2000. Do you notice all
20 these are '99, right?
21 A. These are the original depositions of
22 the clients.
23 Q. Ann Carlson is another sister of
24 Ms. Liebreich?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Another beneficiary of the Estate of
2 Fannie McPherson?
3 A. That's right. She's the oldest.
4 Q. Huh?
5 A. She's the oldest.
6 Q. Okay. Were you present at this
7 deposition, sir?
8 A. Of course.
9 Q. You were?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Ann Carlson testified at page 19, The
12 only thing we've discussed was, and we discussed
13 this recently, that when there is a settlement,
14 the majority of the money would go toward a
15 foundation for Lisa McPherson.
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Is that true?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. To your knowledge?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Same as Lee Skelton and Dell Liebreich.
24 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 56. This is a
25 deposition of Dell Liebreich -- excuse me, Ann
1 Carlson, right?
2 A. Yes. Volume three, July 2000.
3 Q. July 27th of 2000.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On page 225 Ms. Carlson testifies, at
6 the bottom of line 22 through 25, the Lisa
7 McPherson Trust, that foundation that you were
8 referring to when you gave that testimony, this is
9 where the money is going, right? This is where
10 the contribution is being made, right?
11 A. Is this -- where we at? Are you reading
12 a question?
13 Q. Yeah -- no. I'm asking you whether or
14 not this reference to the answer on line 25 is
15 that the Lisa McPherson Trust is the trust -- is
16 the foundation that's going to receive this money,
17 the bulk of the proceeds of the Estate -- of the
18 case; isn't that right?
19 A. That's what she answered. She called it
20 a foundation.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. So it's not the same Lisa McPherson
23 Trust.
24 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 57. Exhibit 57 is
25 the deposition of Dell Liebreich taken in this
1 case on January 11th, 2001; do you see it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Forty-one days after the discussion
4 Mr. Minton testified to at LMT of December 1,
5 2000. Less than a month after the affidavits of
6 you, Ms. Liebreich and Mr. Minton saying that
7 there was never any agreement.
8 Less than a month later here is your
9 client testifying in deposition, right? And let's
10 see what she says. If you'll turn to page 230 --
11 299.
12 A. Go ahead.
13 Q. Question is asked: Ms. Liebreich, if
14 you earlier said that after the expenses are paid
15 that the bulk of any recovery in the wrongful
16 death case is going to be donated to some group
17 like the Lisa McPherson Trust? And there you are
18 Mr. Dandar, objection, scope, mischaracterization,
19 obstruction.
20 And then the answer is: Oh, yeah. I
21 said it.
22 Question: You did?
23 Answer: There's nothing in writing.
24 Okay. And when did you say it roughly?
25 In one of the depositions.
1 Skipping down on page 300 to line 20, my
2 question is: When you said it last year in a
3 deposition, did you mean it at the time you said
4 it?
5 Mr. Dandar, what's this, five lines of
6 objection. Were you trying to stop Ms -- to
7 obstruct the discovery of this witness,
8 Mr. Dandar?
9 A. No. You're not following proper
10 procedure --
11 MR. LIROT: Objection. Attorney/client
12 privilege.
13 THE COURT: Sustained. Just move on
14 with the answer.
16 Q. And then on line 18 of page 301
17 Ms. Liebreich is asked, respecting her intentions
18 to donate the bulk of the funds. Do you still
19 have that same intention today?
20 Answer: I don't know what's going to
21 happen. I don't know.
22 Do you see that Mr. Dandar?
23 A. I see it.
24 Q. Did something happen between her first
25 deposition and January 11th, 2001 --
1 A. No.
2 Q. -- to cause her to say, I don't know
3 what is going to happen today?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Nothing, huh?
6 A. Nothing.
7 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with
8 Mr. Minton in which you told him, Hey, we need to
9 backtrack on these statements that you've been
10 making on the radio, et cetera, about the monies
11 that are being paid to -- the bulk of the recovery
12 being paid to an anticult group?
13 A. No, as you phrased the question.
14 Q. Do you ever tell Mr. Minton in words or
15 substance, we got to backtrack on these
16 statements, these public statements?
17 A. No. I told Mr. Minton he shouldn't be
18 making untrue public statements.
19 Q. The statements -- you thought the
20 statements he made were untrue?
21 A. He said to the Li -- the bulk goes to
22 the Lisa McPherson Trust, that is an untrue
23 statement.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. Because there is no such agreement.
1 Q. What was the --
2 A. Never has been.
3 Q. What was the purpose of you soliciting
4 the affidavit, Exhibit 33, of your client in
5 December of 2000?
6 MR. LIROT: Objection, assumes facts not
7 in evidence.
8 THE WITNESS: I didn't understand it
9 anyway.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 Q. The affidavit of your client, Exhibit 33
13 that she executed in December of 2000, was that
14 filed at that time with some sort of motion?
15 A. Yeah. It was all the frivolous
16 discovery that your client was conducting in the
17 wrongful death case. We were getting sick of it.
18 Q. When was it filed?
19 A. I don't know. After that.
20 MR. ROSEN: May I have just one minute,
21 Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
24 Q. In fact, Mr. Dandar, you filed that
25 affidavit in support of a motion to preclude -- to
1 strike Mr. Minton's name from the witness list?
2 A. From Flag's --
3 Q. So he couldn't testify, right?
4 A. From Flag's witness list, that's right.
5 He has nothing to do with this case.
6 Q. Uh-huh. Okay.
7 A. He was suffering from all this abusive
8 discovery.
9 Q. Thank you, sir. On 48 -- actually,
10 let's take 48, 49, 50 and 51 together. Sir, 48 is
11 a Notice to Produce for this hearing?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And --
14 A. Well, that's not true. It's a Notice to
15 Produce for four p.m.
16 Q. Okay. The notice as to paragraph one
17 for copies of all transmittal letters from anyone
18 in the Dandar & Dandar firm to Dell Liebreich.
19 Do you see that?
20 A. I see that.
21 Q. The answer is there are none, right?
22 A. I don't think so.
23 Q. Is that correct?
24 A. I don't think so.
25 Q. Well, let me see if I could help you
1 out --
2 A. I think I filed a response.
3 Q. If you'll refer to Exhibit 51, here is
4 your response. After stating objections, the
5 response says, quote, Defendants states there are
6 none.
7 A. Well, I think there was another
8 response.
9 Q. Let's stay with this one, Mr. Dandar.
10 A. We already provided those letters to you
11 in this courtroom.
12 Q. Mr. Dandar, how about listening to my
13 question? The notice asked for copies of all
14 transmittal letters from anyone in the firm of
15 Dandar & Dandar to Dell Liebreich. And the
16 response, sir, Exhibit 51 says, quote, Defendants
17 states there are none.
18 A. I see that, but I'm telling you --
19 Q. Is that not true?
20 A. -- I think we filed an amended response.
21 Q. Well, who would have filed that amended
22 response?
23 A. My brother or I.
24 Q. Well, think. This response, sir, is
25 dated the 18th of April. That was yesterday. So
1 why don't you pause for a moment, give it some
2 thought.
3 Do you think you might have filed one
4 between yesterday and today?
5 A. Yeah, I think so. I think we got four
6 or five of these and one at like even this
7 morning, even.
8 Q. Do you have the document -- if you want
9 to consult with your counsel, I'll take his
10 answer.
11 A. No.
12 Q. If there's an amended response to this I
13 would like to see it.
14 A. I'll consult with my paralegal who would
15 know. I saw something.
16 MR. ROSEN: Like, do you have the
17 amended response?
18 MR. LIROT: I do not, but that does not
19 mean that one wasn't filed.
20 MR. ROSEN: You haven't seen it. All
21 right.
22 THE WITNESS: But I know we produced --
23 MR. ROSEN: Wait, there's no question
24 before you, Mr --
25 THE WITNESS: Well, I thought there was.
1 MR. ROSEN: Mr. Dandar.
2 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may, there is --
3 Mr. Dandar testified we got a first Notice to
4 Produce, a Second Notice to Produce and a
5 Third Notice to Produce, I believe, from
6 Mr. Pope. Then we got a Notice to Produce
7 from Mr. Rosen --
8 MR. ROSEN: You're missing the point.
9 The question is: Is there an amended
10 Defendants' response?
11 MR. LIROT: I'm trying to make sure what
12 response was to what Notice to Produce?
13 MR. ROSEN: Well, this response is to
14 the first and second --
15 THE WITNESS: Oh, here it is right here.
16 It's your Exhibit 50.
17 MR. ROSEN: This --
18 THE WITNESS: No, that's your amended
19 notice. Sorry, I'm getting tired.
21 Q. Sir, Exhibit 51 is your response to the
22 first notice and your response to the second
23 notice?
24 A. That's all I can tell you is I saw it.
25 I thought I saw it today.
1 Q. Well, you asked your paralegal. Does
2 your paralegal have anything to refresh your
3 memory as to whether you filed something between
4 yesterday and today?
5 A. Where is Debbie? Where's Debbie at? I
6 saw it on her desk. That's my brother's
7 paralegal. In fact, I signed it for my brother.
8 So -- I'm getting exhausted. Sorry. I'm rambling
9 on.
10 Q. Mr. Dandar, let's go on. Look at
11 paragraph four of the exhibit, the Notice to
12 Produce?
13 A. Is that number 48?
14 Q. Say again?
15 A. Are we on 48?
16 Q. Yeah, Exhibit 48.
17 A. Okay. I got it.
18 Q. Look at paragraph four.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. It asked for all bank records of Dandar
21 & Dandar, Kennan Dandar and Thomas Dandar, showing
22 receipts and deposits of all payments any of them
23 received from Robert Minton. Do you see that?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 51, sir, your
1 response --
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. -- to that. After objections the
4 response is, quote, Without waiving said
5 objections, defendants states there are none.
6 How could that be?
7 A. Well, I guess --
8 Q. You don't have any bank records?
9 A. You'll have to ask my brother. We don't
10 have --
11 Q. Oh, Mr. Dandar --
12 A. We don't have any in our possession. We
13 don't have bank records. And it does violate the
14 stay order. It does violate the opinions of the
15 Second DCA.
16 Q. And it's also false. In addition to
17 violating every order, it's also a lie.
18 A. No, it isn't.
19 Q. Do you mean --
20 A. We have no bank records --
21 Q. -- you don't have any bank records at
22 your -- of the Dandar & Dandar account?
23 A. We have no bank records in our
24 possession, that's correct.
25 Q. Well, what do you do with your bank
1 records?
2 A. It's none of your business. I object.
3 Privilege. If I could tell the Court there are no
4 records --
5 Q. Mr. Dandar, excuse me a minute. Before
6 you do that again, do you understand the
7 consequences of this hearing?
8 A. Oh, wait a second.
9 Q. Do you understand that you could have
10 proceedings against your license?
11 A. I --
12 Q. Is it your desire to continue to give me
13 wiseguy answers, sir?
14 A. Mr. Rosen, I going to amend my answer.
15 This is in paragraph number four. You're asking
16 about receipts and deposits of all payments from
17 Robert Minton. I don't know why -- I can't answer
18 for my brother, but you already have those.
19 Q. Wait a minute. The notice asks for
20 production of bank records of Dandar & Dandar,
21 Kennan Dandar and Thomas Dandar, showing receipts
22 and deposits of payments from Mr. Minton.
23 You're telling me you don't have any
24 records of your personal account into which you
25 deposited a $250,000 Minton check?
1 A. Well, that's not a Minton check.
2 Q. The one that has Minton's name on it?
3 A. Well, then, that's a Minton check.
4 Q. Yeah. You don't have any bank records?
5 A. Well, excuse me. I don't have them
6 personally, no.
7 Q. Well, who does have them?
8 A. My -- the person that does my books
9 probably has them.
10 Q. Who is that?
11 A. My sister. Used to be my father before
12 he passed away.
13 Q. Wait a minute. Your sister does your --
14 balances your bank statements each month?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Do you think it's defense to not
17 produce -- to non-compliance with a notice to say,
18 I don't have them, my sister has them?
19 A. No, we objected to it.
20 Q. You said there are none?
21 A. Yeah, I don't know how --
22 Q. The game, Mr. Dandar, is to tell us --
23 A. Excuse me.
24 Q. -- exactly --
25 A. Excuse me.
1 Q. -- that there are none so the Judge will
2 say, if there are none, what are we fighting about
3 objections?
4 A. No. This is no game. Not the way
5 you're attacking me. This is not a game at all.
6 Q. Mr. Dandar --
7 A. But this is my brother's response --
8 Q. Do you --
9 A. -- I'm not sure.
10 Q. Mr. Dandar, do you truly want to stand
11 by the statement that since it's a Notice to
12 Produce to you, because your sister has your bank
13 records, you don't have to produce them?
14 A. No, actually --
15 Q. Do you want to stand by that answer?
16 A. She does not have those bank records.
17 Q. Well, who does have your bank records?
18 The bank records of the checking account of Kennan
19 Dandar, who has them?
20 A. Oh, I have those. You have the rest.
21 Q. Oh, you have them?
22 A. You have the rest.
23 Q. I don't have your records, sir.
24 A. Yes, you do. Your client does.
25 Q. I don't have your records. I don't even
1 know what bank you have. Okay. So that statement
2 is untrue, right?
3 A. I have to -- I can't answer for my
4 brother. He's the one that dictated this and
5 signed it. That's all I can tell you.
6 Q. Mr. Dandar, let me ask you a question,
7 sir --
8 A. Oh, wait a minute. I know why.
9 Q. Mr. Dandar --
10 A. There are no payments from Robert
11 Minton, that's why.
12 Q. No?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 1, four checks
15 from Mr. Minton.
16 A. That is a legally -- that's a legal
17 definition of the word payments.
18 Q. Let's take a look at number one and see
19 if we can figure out the legal definition.
20 A. All right.
21 Q. Do you got Exhibit 1?
22 A. I will tell you what the answer is.
23 Q. No, I don't want -- please don't tell
24 me. Wait for my question --
25 A. May I finish my answer?
1 Q. No.
4 Q. There is no question pending. Look at
5 Exhibit 1.
6 A. What is Exhibit 1?
7 Q. Do you have another copy of Exhibit 1?
8 A. Oh, here it is. Here it is. Here it
9 is.
10 Q. Here is another copy of Exhibit 1.
11 A. I have it. I have it. All right. The
12 first check.
13 Q. Exhibit 1 has four checks. It's made
14 out to either Dandar & Dandar or Ken Dandar,
15 right?
16 A. The last one is to me, right.
17 Q. Okay. The Notice to Produce said, All
18 bank records of Dandar & Dandar, Kennan Dandar and
19 Tom Dandar showing receipts and deposits of all
20 payments, any of them received from Robert Minton.
21 So, you're about to tell me something.
22 This is not a, quote, payment?
23 A. No, payments are for wages. Payments
24 are not loans or donations.
25 Q. Payments are for wages?
1 A. Since you didn't define the term --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- payment --
4 Q. Mr. Dandar, let me ask you one last
5 question, sir --
6 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Just a
7 second. Did you want to finish that answer?
8 THE WITNESS: Since you didn't define
9 the word payment, he objected to the
10 terminology of your request.
12 Q. There's no objection to the terminology.
13 A. Excuse me? Really? I think there is an
14 objection there, isn't there?
15 Q. Well, you didn't have anything to do
16 with this, you said. Your brother did this,
17 right?
18 A. Right. I brought the definition of
19 payment with me.
20 Q. So, if the question -- if the notice had
21 instead said donations --
22 A. And loans --
23 Q. -- or loans/donation, then you would
24 have complied?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Mr. Dandar, I have one final question --
2 A. No. We have a stay order and we have an
3 opinion.
4 Q. Dr. Dandar, I have one final question of
5 you, sir. Are you ready?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Dandar, would you like this motion
8 to turn, and would you like your license to
9 practice to turn on the integrity and veracity of
10 that answer?
11 Should we make it easy for the Judge?
12 Make it a one-issue case? Do you want your
13 license to turn on the integrity of the --
14 MR. LIROT: Objection, argumentative.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 MR. ROSEN: I'll withdraw the question,
17 Your Honor. Nothing further.
18 MR. LIROT: Shall we approach?
19 THE COURT: Sure.
20 (Thereupon, there was an off-the-record
21 discussion.)
24 Q. Good evening, Mr. Dandar.
25 THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr --
1 MR. LIROT: Lirot.
2 THE COURT: -- can we release the other
3 witnesses tonight?
4 MR. LIROT: Certainly.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Does counsel have any
6 objection to releasing the remainder of the
7 witnesses tonight?
8 MR. ROSEN: No.
9 THE COURT: All right.
10 MR. ROSEN: Excuse me. I think we might
11 need an instruction that they not talk with
12 anybody and that they are not allowed to
13 receive any information from anyone about the
14 proceedings in this case tonight.
15 THE COURT: They're not to discuss their
16 testimony, nor are they to discuss the
17 testimony of any witness that's been
18 testifying --
19 MR. ROSEN: Has testified to date.
20 THE COURT: -- in this proceeding.
21 Yeah. That's right.
22 MR. ROSEN: I think that in view of what
23 happened before, we will need an instruction.
24 THE COURT: All right. I'll tell you
25 what, bring the other witnesses in. I want
1 to excuse them all at once.
2 THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.
3 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court,
4 Mr. Minton had left the courthouse and was
5 not present for an instruction from the
6 Court. If he's not subject to recall, I take
7 it, he would not be subjected to this court
8 order?
9 THE COURT: Well, that's true. But I
10 think since he's represented you can
11 certainly instruct him regarding the rules,
12 you know, regarding --
13 MR. ROSEN: He's a party.
14 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I will so
15 instruct him.
16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
17 THE BAILIFF: The witnesses are
18 scattered, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: The witnesses are scattered.
20 THE BAILIFF: I told them to gather them
21 up and not to --
22 MR. LIROT: Should we take that both
23 ways?
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 THE BAILIFF: -- while they're gathered
1 up.
2 THE COURT: Why don't we get started and
3 when they -- it's like herding cattle, when
4 you get them all together we'll bring them in
5 here, okay.
8 Q. Mr. Dandar.
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. When you were first contacted by
11 Mr. Minton I think your testimony was that you
12 were leary of the check that you received; is that
13 correct?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And based on that concern you contacted
16 the Florida Bar?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. All right. And I think you were
19 criticized that you didn't keep notes on that?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. All right. Did you identify the Florida
22 Bar rule in your letter thanking Mr. Minton?
23 A. Yes, I did. That's information that I
24 received from the Florida Bar.
25 Q. What did you understand the requirement
1 of that rule to be?
2 A. Mr. Minton, with my client's approval,
3 could give me money, but he could not obtain
4 financial -- confidential information of the case
5 nor control the case in any manner.
6 Q. Did they give you any other conditions?
7 A. Only what's spelled out in my letter.
8 Q. And based on that, what understanding
9 did you have about the use of those funds?
10 A. In October of '97 the use of those funds
11 were to defray the costs of the expense of the
12 litigation. And that's why it went into my trust
13 account.
14 Q. I think there was a question about
15 the -- your contingency agreement with the Estate.
16 Is that the same contingency agreement you use
17 with everybody?
18 A. Yes -- well, no. No. No. This is
19 changed. The one in this case obligates me to pay
20 for all the costs and remains my liability
21 forever.
22 Q. And that was something that you talked
23 to your client about and those terms were agreed
24 to?
25 A. Well, that's something actually the
1 client demanded of me when I went to speak with
2 her and I'm talking about Fannie McPherson and
3 Dell Liebreich.
4 Q. All right. And Fannie McPherson has
5 passed away since then; is that correct?
6 A. Unfortunately, yes.
7 Q. And, to your knowledge, when you used
8 that contingency fee agreement, did it comply with
9 all the requirements of the Florida Bar for such
10 contingency fee agreements?
11 A. Oh, yes.
12 Q. And have you ever had your clients
13 complain about any of the provisions in that
14 agreement?
15 A. Only when it comes time to deduct the
16 costs from the gross.
17 Q. Now, you talked about in September or
18 October of '97 that Mr. Minton contacted you and
19 said that he would have money for you with
20 litigation. Had you met Mr. Minton before that?
21 A. Not that I knew of, but I believe he
22 told me that he had been present in a meeting that
23 I had with some of the picketers here in
24 Clearwater before that in, I think -- let me get
25 this right -- in March of '97 and he had remained
1 in the -- it was a room and he had remained quiet.
2 He was the quiet guy in the room just observing.
3 That's what he told me when he finally called me
4 in September of '97.
5 Q. Now, at that point in time, you said you
6 were a little bit leary. Have you used the money
7 to buy a house in North Carolina?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you spend a lot of money on coffee?
10 A. No, I only have two mugs, that's it.
11 Q. Has the appropriate amount of these
12 monies, without waiving our ability to enjoy the
13 rights given to us under those Second District
14 Court of Appeal court orders, have you not
15 dedicated the correct amount of monies you've been
16 given to this case and to all the cases where they
17 would be appropriately directed?
18 A. I did it appropriately, yes.
19 THE COURT: All right. Folks, let's
20 hold on just a second.
21 (Thereupon all the witnesses entered the
22 courtroom.)
23 THE COURT: What I would like for you to
24 do is beginning with you, ma'am, if you could
25 just state for the record your name, please,
1 and then we'll just move down the line.
2 MS. GREENWAY: Patricia Greenway.
3 MR. ALEXANDER: Peter Alexander.
4 MR. HAVERTY: Thomas Haverty.
5 MS. SUMMERS: Teresa Summers.
6 MR. PRINCE: Jesse Prince.
7 MR. GARKO: Michael Garko.
8 MR. OLIVER: Frank Oliver.
9 THE COURT: All right. Each of you has
10 been subpoenaed to testify in this case; is
11 that correct?
13 THE COURT: I'm going to release you
14 from those subpoenas at this time. However,
15 this hearing will not conclude tonight and it
16 will continue at a later date.
17 I need to advise you that since this
18 hearing has commenced and you have not yet
19 testified, there is a witness sequestration
20 rule that is in effect.
21 You are not to discuss your testimony
22 with each other, with anyone else. You're
23 not to discuss the testimony of anyone else
24 who has already testified.
25 Do each of you understand that?
1 THE WITNESSES: Yes, sir.
2 THE COURT: All right. You are
3 released. Thank you very much.
4 (Thereupon, the witnesses exited the courtroom.)
5 THE COURT: All right.
7 Q. Have you ever misappropriated money from
8 your trust account?
9 A. Never.
10 Q. From any source that would violate any
11 Florida Bar rule?
12 A. Never.
13 Q. Let me draw your attention to Exhibit
14 Number 8, which was the handwritten note from
15 Mr. Minton apparently accompanying his first
16 check.
17 And it says: "In the event you prevail
18 in the case, but only in that event, and obtain
19 sufficient resources from the defendants, I would
20 appreciate being repaid."
21 So don't those words indicate to you
22 that everything in this was a loan --
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. -- to be repaid?
25 A. That's right. It became a donation if
1 we didn't prevail.
2 Q. So when it comes to the exhibits that
3 Mr. Rosen gave you about the letters, Exhibit 9,
4 your letter of October 9th, 1997, you had referred
5 to this as a donation. And I think basically it
6 was your testimony that you followed the
7 instructions given to you by the Florida Bar and
8 indicated that it was okay to take Mr. Minton's
9 money, but he didn't have the right to instruct
10 you on how to handle the litigation?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. And that's what the Bar told you?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. Now, do you use a word processor in your
15 office?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So if you're going it write another
18 letter to Mr. Minton, say the letter of May 12th,
19 1999, to the same person regarding the same file,
20 would your office bring up the last letter, save
21 it, and then make modifications to it?
22 A. Well, actually it's my paralegal. All I
23 do is I say, send out a letter to Mr. Minton
24 acknowledging this check. And then she composes
25 it, types it up and then I sign it. Sometimes I'm
1 careful in looking at it and sometimes I'm in a
2 hurry.
3 Q. That's pretty standard in every law
4 office, isn't it?
5 A. I hope not.
6 MR. ROSEN: Objection.
7 THE WITNESS: I hope not.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 Q. Now, in these letters it indicates that
11 you conferred with your client, which I guess at
12 the time these letters were written were either
13 Fannie McPherson or Dell Liebreich; is that
14 correct?
15 A. Well, it was definitely Dell Liebreich,
16 the personal representative.
17 Q. At that point in time?
18 A. Sure.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. Fannie died in February of '97.
21 Q. All right. So this is October of '97
22 for Exhibit 9, May, '99 for Exhibit 11 and June of
23 '99 summarizing a number of checks.
24 Did you feel any obligation to write
25 Mr. Minton for every single check you received?
1 A. No. We only wrote those checks -- those
2 letters -- the first letter was written at my
3 insistence to confirm -- I mean, I didn't know
4 Mr. Minton, so I didn't know who he was. So I
5 confirmed everything in writing. The next letters
6 were all written at the request of Mr. Minton.
7 Q. They were all written at the request of
8 Mr. Minton?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And how did that come about?
11 A. He called and said, I need a letter to
12 confirm what I sent you.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. I said, Okay.
15 Q. Did he make such a request for every
16 check that he sent?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did the Florida Bar tell you you were
19 under any obligation to write such a letter for
20 every check you received?
21 A. No. I didn't have to write a letter at
22 all.
23 Q. Did you think the message got through to
24 him that he wasn't to direct the litigation and
25 that was the only condition?
1 A. I didn't understand your question.
2 Q. Did you think that these letters were
3 sufficient to notify him of the terms provided to
4 you by the Florida Bar?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I will try to be merciful on you and go
7 through these exhibits in the sequence that they
8 are identified. And it may take me a second,
9 Judge, to find them in my notes here.
10 All right. Exhibit 17 was provided to
11 you. It's the deposition of Dell Liebreich dated
12 May 24th, 1999. I believe there was some
13 highlighted sections in here that Mr. Rosen drew
14 to your attention.
15 A. What exhibit?
16 Q. This is Exhibit Number 17, the May 24th,
17 1999 deposition.
18 A. All right.
19 Q. Of Dell Liebreich?
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Were you there for this deposition?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did Ms. Liebreich testified in any way
24 in this deposition, did she say anything that
25 wasn't true or wasn't qualified with the answer I
1 don't know or I'm not sure or words to that
2 effect?
3 A. No. She testified truthfully.
4 Q. Was there any reason to file any kind of
5 errata sheet, and we don't know if one exists or
6 not, but was there any reason to correct an answer
7 that ends with I'm not sure?
8 A. Only if she remembered, I mean,
9 afterwards. If she could -- you know, sometimes I
10 think actually that happened a few times.
11 Q. But there is nothing untrue in anything
12 stated in this deposition?
13 A. Oh, no.
14 Q. And you didn't tell anybody to say
15 anything untrue in anything stated in this
16 deposition?
17 A. Never.
18 Q. How about Exhibit 18, the Petition for
19 Writ of Certiorari?
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Where it talks about Mr. Rosen made a
22 big deal this is not under oath. You wouldn't put
23 anything in a petition to the Second District
24 Court of Appeal that wasn't true, would you?
25 A. Never.
1 Q. And this says that Mr. Minton loaned
2 counsel over a million for costs and expenses.
3 That's a loan, right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. You got it there. We made a big deal
6 about loans and donations and things like that,
7 but that's what you called it here?
8 A. That's what it says.
9 Q. And is that accurate?
10 A. That's accurate. It says, To counsel.
11 Q. How about Exhibit Number 19, which is
12 the Notice of Serving Amended Answers to
13 Interrogatories dated December 23rd, 1997?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. We heard that -- please identify
16 each person who is funding the litigation in any
17 manner for or on behalf of the plaintiff
18 including, but not limited to payments to third
19 parties for, among other things, consulting or
20 investigative services.
21 And it's -- your answer was, "An
22 unconditional donation was paid not to plaintiff,
23 but to plaintiff's counsel from Robert Minton."
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Is there anything untrue about that?
1 A. That's absolutely true. That's December
2 of 1997, right after the -- a month or two after
3 the first check.
4 Q. How about Exhibit 20, a transcript of
5 the proceedings in front of Judge Moody dated
6 December 23rd, 1997, a day before Christmas Eve.
7 I can't imagine a better way to spend it.
8 A. What exhibit number, I'm sorry?
9 Q. 20.
10 A. Bear with me. It's not in order
11 anymore, so...
12 Q. Understood.
13 A. I got it.
14 Q. All right. Let me draw your attention
15 to page 19.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Line 12, picking up -- we don't have
18 anything before that, but that's a good place to
19 pick up. It attributes to you, it says, When I
20 filed an objection to that interrogatory on
21 September 16th I still had no idea who Robert
22 Minton was. Lo and behold -- and then Judge Moody
23 asked you, Why did you object? Why didn't you
24 just say, I don't know?
25 Your answer was, Because I didn't want
1 to give them an opening to delve into my
2 privileged -- what I would consider and I still
3 consider to be privileged, so I objected.
4 Have you been upheld in that belief by
5 the decisions of the Second District Court of
6 Appeal that these types of questions in delving
7 into the source of funding and all those related
8 issues is something that is protected?
9 A. It is absolutely protected.
10 Q. And the rationale they gave is it would
11 give the opponents an unnecessary or certainly an
12 unjustifiable edge to try to use whatever methods
13 or mechanisms they have at their disposal to try
14 to starve you out for want of a better term?
15 A. That's right, because that's how they
16 threatened me when I first got the case. They're
17 going to starve me out and bury me.
18 Q. Is there anything in Exhibit 20 that you
19 stated that is in any way untrue?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Let me draw your attention to Exhibit
22 21, the hearing of October 1st, 1999 in front of
23 Judge Moody. And the brief excerpt here Mr. Rosen
24 started right off with the answer.
25 We didn't get the benefit of the
1 question, but on page 45 you were attributed at
2 this date of saying, As I said in the first
3 hearing on this, there's a handwritten cardboard
4 Kleenex box, and as Mr. Minton already testified
5 to, and I think it's attached to his deposition,
6 the family doesn't have to pay me back unless they
7 think they got enough money and there's no
8 restrictions on how the money is spent except for
9 the Lisa McPherson case.
10 Is there anything untrue about that?
11 A. No, except, yeah, I did use the word
12 family, but, you know, I'm representing the family
13 and it's money that's coming to me and it's --
14 he's sending me the money because there's a case
15 that exists.
16 Q. Exhibit Number 24, these are proposed
17 findings of fact and conclusions of law for Judge
18 Quesada's consideration. I guess he was involved
19 in this for a while.
20 A. You're correct.
21 Q. And on page three Mr. Rosen decided to
22 focus on paragraph six where it says, "Robert
23 Minton has provided funding to the Estate of Lisa
24 McPherson through plaintiff's counsel -- through
25 plaintiff's counsel to defray the costs of the
1 wrongful death lawsuit against the Church of
2 Scientology for the death of Lisa McPherson.
3 He began this funding October of 1997
4 long before the Lisa McPherson Trust was ever
5 formed. Consequently, Robert Minton's funding of
6 the case has nothing to do with the trust.
7 Is that true and accurate?
8 A. That's true and accurate, yes.
9 Q. Exhibit Number 26 was the Petition for
10 Writ of Certiorari that Mr. Rosen focussed on.
11 And I guess -- I couldn't understand his
12 questioning on this, but I guess I'll just ask
13 you: Is there anything in this petition which is
14 apparently signed by you, attorney for the
15 petitioner, which would be the Estate, obviously,
16 because if you look at the last page it's signed
17 by John Merrett who indicates that he represents
18 the petitioner's other than the Estate.
19 So that would mean that at that point in
20 time Mr. Merrett represented Robert Minton, Stacy
21 Brooks and the Lisa McPherson Trust?
22 A. Yes. He did represent those three
23 entities and people, yes.
24 Q. Well, you signed this. Is there
25 anything in here that isn't true and correct?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Exhibit 33 was the affidavit of Dell
3 Liebreich. And I guess we're concerned about the
4 disposition of funds in the wrongful death action
5 pending against the Church.
6 I guess the statement is that, The
7 affiant has never entered into a binding agreement
8 with Robert Minton nor the Lisa McPherson Trust or
9 anyone else as to any disposition of any funds
10 obtained by the Estate of Lisa McPherson in the
11 wrongful death action pending against the Church
12 of Scientology in excess of any costs advanced by
13 Robert Minton to defray costs in the litigation.
14 Was there ever any binding agreement?
15 Is that statement true?
16 A. That's a true statement. There's never
17 been, never has, and even to this day there isn't.
18 Q. It says, At no time were any funds
19 advanced by the Lisa McPherson Trust to defray
20 costs or for any other matter in reference to the
21 wrongful death action pending against the Church
22 of Scientology brought by the Estate of Lisa
23 McPherson.
24 Was the purpose of this affidavit to
25 keep the Church from delving into the affairs of
1 the Trust?
2 A. That was to tell the Court what the
3 truth was, whatever consequence the truth had I --
4 that is what was the purpose. But they kept
5 bringing the Trust in the wrongful death case and
6 the Trust has nothing to do with the wrongful
7 death case nor the Estate. It's just another
8 sideline.
9 Q. You signed an affidavit yourself in
10 December, December 3rd of 2000 stating that you
11 were the affiant for the Estate of Lisa McPherson
12 in the wrongful death suit against the Church of
13 Scientology Flag Service Organization, you were a
14 member of good standing with the Bar since 1979,
15 at no time has Robert Minton ever controlled in
16 any manner the wrongful death suit.
17 At all times from the commencement to
18 the present and into the future all litigation
19 involving the Estate of Lisa McPherson is in the
20 absolute control of the personal representative,
21 Dell Liebreich, the material aunt of Lisa
22 McPherson appointed by Fannie McPherson, Lisa's
23 mother.
24 Any money provided by Robert Minton has
25 been provided -- excuse me -- has been provided
1 only as a non-recourse interest free loan.
2 Mr. Minton has no, quote, investment, end quote,
3 in any litigation involving the Estate of Lisa
4 McPherson.
5 Repayment to Mr. Minton is at the sole
6 discretion of the Estate. At no time has the
7 Estate or the beneficiaries of the Estate entered
8 into any informal or formal negotiations,
9 discussions or agreements with Robert Minton or
10 any third party concerning the disposition of any
11 proceeds realized from any litigation involving
12 the Estate of Lisa McPherson, et cetera, et
13 cetera.
14 Is everything in this true and correct?
15 A. It is. I mean, technically the Estate
16 is not paying back, I am. But it's, again,
17 triggered around the Estate recovering.
18 Q. This was a big interesting point, was
19 the affidavit of Mr. Minton, Exhibit 42 of
20 December 13th, 2000. Your office didn't prepare
21 this affidavit?
22 A. No. Someone would have to show me
23 something to prove that. That's a terrible form.
24 Our form does not look like that.
25 Q. We don't do pleadings like this around
1 this locally, do we?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Have you ever put a signature page on an
4 unnumbered, completely non-descriptive piece of
5 paper where someone gives an affidavit and you go
6 from what you assumed to be page two to just a
7 signature baldly placed on a single piece of
8 paper?
9 Have you ever done that in your office?
10 A. No. Never. I can't believe a lawyer
11 did that. So, I don't know how -- where that came
12 from. But, again, somebody would have to show me
13 something, but that's not the form we use.
14 Q. These were the flurry of documents that
15 we recently received, the Exhibit 49, the second
16 Notice to Produce, Exhibit 50, the Amended Notice
17 to Produce, the response that was file apparently
18 under your brother's signature.
19 And isn't it true that these were just
20 filed a few days ago or just as recently as
21 yesterday or maybe even today in response to these
22 Notices to Produce?
23 A. Yes. I think they started coming in off
24 the fax machine by the time on there after our
25 office was closed on whatever day it was.
1 Q. And is it clear from this that your
2 brother found the terminology used in this
3 particular Notice to Produce less than clear and
4 specific?
5 A. That's right.
6 MR. ROSEN: Counsel is now being asked
7 to give the mind reading effects of what his
8 brother thought?
9 THE WITNESS: That's exactly what the
10 document states.
11 THE COURT: Yep.
12 THE WITNESS: There's a specific legal
13 definition for the word payments.
15 Q. Was the term transmittal defined in that
16 Notice to Produce?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Was any payment ever made?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Payment --
21 A. Payment, that's the wrong word.
22 Q. Payment --
23 A. That's a very technical thing.
24 Q. Did you ever get a payment for anything
25 from Mr. Minton?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Fifty-two was the contingency agreement
3 we talked about. Exhibit 53, the video deposition
4 of Dell Liebreich.
5 And from what I recall there was some
6 concern about a question on page 189: "Did you
7 authorize your attorney to tell Mr. Minton that
8 you had -- the family had reached that agreement?"
9 What agreement are they talking about
10 here? Do you even remember?
11 A. Yeah, I remember. I was there. It was
12 at dinner while we were in Dallas on these
13 depositions of the family members. And it was an
14 agreement among the members of the family, the
15 sisters and the brother, to give money, if any was
16 recovered, a bulk of the money to nonprofit
17 foundation to assist victims of cults in honor of
18 Lisa McPherson.
19 Q. Was there ever any formal agreement
20 written down or reduced to writing of something
21 this important or was it just --
22 A. Oh, no. It was just a dinner, dinner
23 talk. They said, Yeah, that's a good idea.
24 That's what we want to do.
25 Q. We don't have a penny to give anybody
1 from that case, do we?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Not today?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Not then?
6 A. Not yet. We will.
7 Q. Exhibit 54, the videotaped deposition of
8 Lee Skelton, I believe the issue Mr. Rosen
9 focussed on was on page 19 -- excuse me, 55. I
10 think the same issue there is on page 26.
11 In answer to a question: "Yes, I agree
12 that a substantial amount should be donated to the
13 Lisa McPherson Cult Memorial Fund."
14 Is there any such fund that you know of?
15 A. Not yet.
16 Q. Exhibit 55. Mr. Rosen called our
17 attention to page 19 and quoted this section on
18 line 10: "The only thing we discussed was, we
19 discussed this recently, that when there was a
20 settlement, the majority of the money would go
21 toward a foundation for Lisa McPherson to prevent
22 things like this happening to anyone else." Is
23 that accurate?
24 A. Yes. The key word is foundation, a
25 nonprofit foundation.
1 Q. Exhibit 56, the videotaped deposition or
2 the transcript, obviously, of Ann Carlson.
3 Mr. Rosen drew our attention to page 225 and again
4 the same line of questioning, the same issue.
5 I think the question was: "Do you
6 recall testifying at your last deposition that you
7 and your sisters had a discussion about how monies
8 that might be obtained in a settlement or from a
9 judgment in this case would be contributed to a
10 foundation for Lisa McPherson to prevent things
11 like this happening to anyone else?
12 Do you remember testifying to that under
13 oath?"
14 The answer was: "Yes."
15 "Is this trust, the Lisa McPherson
16 Trust, that foundation that you were referring to
17 when you gave that testimony?"
18 You said: "Yes."
19 Is the deponent here a layperson?
20 A. No, she's -- I mean, yes, she's a
21 layperson.
22 Q. Ann Carlson?
23 A. Right. She doesn't know if it's a
24 foundation or not, so...
25 Q. So do you think there was any intent in
1 her answer to be less than forthright and
2 responsive?
3 A. No, not at all.
4 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I know I don't
5 need to object because I know you know what
6 this is worth, but maybe we could just move
7 this along since everybody in the courtroom
8 knows that this is useless.
9 THE COURT: Well, I'll give it the
10 weight I think it deserves.
11 MR. LIROT: I didn't put these exhibits
12 on, Judge.
14 Q. Another -- your deposition of January
15 25th, 2001. The question about money was
16 earmarked for use in the case. What legal
17 definition does earmarked have?
18 A. I have no idea.
19 Q. Do you know of any legal obligation
20 created by things that are earmarked?
21 A. No. I really -- that's not a legal
22 term, as far as I know.
23 Q. And Mr. Rosen was concerned that you
24 objected basically to answering these questions
25 because you felt they were privileged.
1 A. And I was right.
2 Q. Has your position been vindicated by the
3 two recent Second District Court of Appeal
4 decisions?
5 A. Absolutely.
6 MR. ROSEN: Objection.
8 Q. Exhibit 57, the oral deposition --
9 THE COURT: Let me ask something because
10 I'm not sure that I understand -- you keep
11 talking about these being privileged, but I
12 thought that they were -- that the objections
13 were sustained because of lack of relevance;
14 isn't that true?
15 MR. LIROT: Yes.
16 THE COURT: Okay. So it wasn't a
17 privilege, was it? It was relevance?
18 MR. LIROT: Well, I think that the
19 basis --
20 THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Is
21 that right?
22 MR. LIROT: The decisions speak for
23 themselves. You are correct, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Okay. That's all I wanted
25 to be sure of.
1 MR. ROSEN: They speak for themselves.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, can I answer that?
6 Q. Again, in this Exhibit 57 Dell Liebreich
7 was asked: "Ms. Liebreich, have you earlier said
8 that after the expenses are paid that the bulk of
9 any recovery in the wrongful death case is going
10 to be donated to some group like the Lisa
11 McPherson Trust?"
12 And you objected and asked -- obviously
13 indicated later that there was nothing in writing.
14 Is there anything in this about any
15 testimony about the disposition of any speculative
16 funds to be gained from any other action, is any
17 of that untrue or misleading?
18 A. No, it's all true. It's all consistent.
19 Every one of those depositions. It's all true.
20 Q. Let's get to the juicy one here, Exhibit
21 5 and Exhibit 6, these bank checks. One from
22 May -- it looks like 1 May, 2000.
23 Do you have a copy of that, Mr. Dandar?
24 Could I hand you this one?
25 A. You could hand it to me. I'm sure it's
1 in here somewhere, I just don't know where.
2 Q. Tell me how you came to receive that
3 check?
4 A. Mr. Minton was in town and he called me
5 up and said to have lunch with him and I had lunch
6 with him and he handed me this check. He was
7 right, it was at the Bombay Bicycle Club
8 Restaurant, which is now closed.
9 Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Minton that you
10 didn't want anybody to know that this check came
11 from him and that's the reason it had to come from
12 a non-disclosed source?
13 A. No. Never.
14 Q. What did Mr. Minton tell you about the
15 source of this check?
16 A. This came from an unidentified third
17 party in Switzerland who did not want to be known,
18 so I had no idea who it was. It did not come from
19 Mr. Minton.
20 Q. Do you know if third parties have
21 donated, other than Mr. Minton, in litigation
22 involving the Church of Scientology?
23 MR. ROSEN: Objection to donated. This
24 is a loan.
25 THE WITNESS: No, others have donated.
1 Others have donated. There is no -- it's not
2 this type of arrangement that Mr. Minton
3 created.
5 Q. But monies have come from other sources
6 than Mr. Minton; is that correct?
7 A. Oh, yes.
8 Q. Maybe under different circumstances?
9 What did Mr. Minton tell you about this money?
10 A. He just told me it was -- I just said
11 that. You know, it came from a third party who
12 did not want to be identified and to -- and here
13 it is.
14 Q. How about Exhibit Number 6, if I could
15 approach, the check of March 7th, 2002?
16 A. Right, this is the recent check. This
17 check was a surprise because I had just gone to
18 Mr. Minton's New Hampshire home at his request
19 with Dr. Garko.
20 Um, he wanted to meet me in all
21 different types of places, you know. Once I was
22 going to Vanderbilt University for a deposition, I
23 was going to the Cleveland Clinic, I was going to
24 the Cayman Islands on vacation and he was talking
25 about meeting me in all these different places.
1 And then I did meet him at his house.
2 He said, There's no more money from me. I said, I
3 understand that. He had stopped the funding back
4 in August. And this check came.
5 Q. Had you received a letter -- had you
6 receive a letter from Mr. Minton prior to your
7 receipt of that check telling you that you weren't
8 going to get anymore money from him?
9 A. I received a letter from his attorney,
10 Mr. Merrett.
11 Q. Did you receive a letter indicating that
12 Mr. Minton was not --
13 A. Right.
14 Q. -- going to provide you with anymore
15 money under any circumstances?
16 A. Right.
17 MR. ROSEN: Objection, best evidence.
18 Where is the letter?
19 MR. LIROT: We have it.
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
21 MR. LIROT: This is an e-mail. If I may
22 --
23 MR. ROSEN: Oh, excuse me. That's not
24 authenticated.
25 THE COURT: Well, you know, e-mail
1 letter, what the hell.
2 MR. ROSEN: Well, e-mails require --
3 it's unsigned, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: I guess it's close enough
5 for government inspection. Let me see what
6 you've got.
7 MR. LIROT: There you go, Judge.
8 THE COURT: Okay. This was not from
9 Mr. Minton, this was from Mr. Merrett.
10 MR. LIROT: Mr. Merrett, that's correct.
11 THE COURT: Yeah. To Mr. Dandar?
12 MR. LIROT: Correct.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 THE WITNESS: That's August 24th of
15 2001.
17 Q. What does that e-mail say?
18 A. The short version of what's going on is
19 this, the well is dry, as far as money goes.
20 Jesse is going to withdraw as an expert witness.
21 Bob feels that the case is way out of
22 control and has focus 100 percent on him, and
23 specifically on trying to put him in jail. He
24 wants Dell to settle the case or otherwise make it
25 go away.
1 Bob isn't coming into Florida anytime
2 soon. Can you meet with me and Stacy this weekend
3 to discuss this.
4 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, has this got an
5 exhibit number? Counsel?
6 THE COURT: We can mark it.
7 MR. ROSEN: That might be a good idea
8 since he is reading it.
9 THE COURT: Okay. This will be
10 Defendant's Exhibit Number 1.
11 MR. LIROT: For today's date, yes, Your
12 Honor.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. ROSEN: Is it being offered, Your
15 Honor?
16 MR. LIROT: I would like to offer.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
19 Q. Do you know where Mr. Merrett is today?
20 A. Mr. Merrett is in Israel on a prolonged
21 trip.
22 Q. So did your receipt of the check of, I
23 guess, February in any way surprise you at all?
24 A. I received it in March and I was in
25 shock. Because not only did I have this letter
1 and it was buzzing all over the Internet, in New
2 Hampshire in February of 2002 I sat down at the
3 dinner table with Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks and
4 Dr. Garko and he said -- eyeball to eyeball he
5 said, I have no more money to give you. I say,
6 That's okay. I appreciate all your help. That
7 was it.
8 Q. So --
9 A. But --
10 Q. Go ahead.
11 A. He did go on and say that there is this
12 person in Switzerland and let's just call him the
13 Fat Man. I said, Okay. And he's upset with all
14 the criticism on the Internet. I said, Okay.
15 He said, If that goes away, maybe I
16 could convince him to send you some money. I
17 said, I have no control over the Internet. I
18 don't get on there. I don't do these -- you know,
19 these people are all independent of me, but I'll
20 ask and put the word out, because Bob was
21 emotionally -- I mean, just before that he was
22 crying like a baby and I was worried about him.
23 At that time we were friends. After today I guess
24 we're not.
25 But I said, I'll do whatever I can
1 because he was emotionally -- he was just broken
2 down in front of me, which is the second time I've
3 ever seen him like that.
4 So I just urged -- I just urged people
5 that I know that go on the Internet and I said,
6 Please, stop talking about Bob, and they did. I
7 said, This isn't good, and they did.
8 Then I got a check in March from this --
9 the same bank check account, unidentified third
10 party again, made payable to me.
11 Q. Was that consistent with what you
12 thought Mr. Merrett's e-mail stated?
13 A. No.
14 Q. It didn't come from Mr. Minton?
15 A. Well, it didn't come from Mr. Minton,
16 but when I put the word out that people on the
17 Internet -- I said, Please, tell everybody to stop
18 criticizing Bob, this is not good for him. This
19 check came in, not from Bob Minton. He said it
20 was from this man in Switzerland who was concerned
21 about Bob as well.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I can't wait to meet this guy.
24 Q. Did you ever tell Bob Minton to ever say
25 anything that was untrue in any deposition --
1 A. Never.
2 Q. -- or any court testimony of any kind?
3 A. Never.
4 Q. Did you ever --
5 A. Never.
6 Q. -- direct Bob Minton to ever not comply
7 with any court order or subpoena --
8 A. Never.
9 Q. -- of any sort without filing at least
10 -- in the respect that you represent your clients,
11 a Motion for Protective Order or some Petition for
12 Writ of Certiorari?
13 A. Never, he had his own attorney. And I
14 never told him and talked to him about what he was
15 going to do or not going to do.
16 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge.
17 MR. ROSEN: Are you done?
18 MR. LIROT: Yes, I'm done.
19 THE WITNESS: What --
20 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I've got about
21 five minutes.
22 THE COURT: Proceed.
23 MR. ROSEN: If I can impose upon Your
24 Honor for that much more.
2 Q. Mr. Dandar, um, a moment ago when your
3 counsel asked you about this check 250 that came
4 in March of 2002, you said, and I think I wrote
5 this down, that Mr. Minton said, quote, There's
6 this Fat Man in Switzerland, maybe I can convince
7 him to send you some money.
8 A. He said, Let's call him the Fat Man,
9 that's right. And the rest is right, maybe I can
10 convince him to send you some money.
11 Q. Well, if there was this person in
12 Switzerland who wanted to make a loan to you of
13 half million or 750,000 and he didn't want his
14 identity known, but he wanted to get you the money
15 to use for the case or otherwise, I guess he could
16 have just put it in an envelope and sent that
17 check to you, right?
18 A. Yeah. I don't know what he could have
19 done. I don't even know if it's the same person.
20 Q. Wait a minute. Mr. Dandar, I can find
21 your address on the Internet. I could find it in
22 a phonebook, right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. So if I was sitting in some canton in
25 Switzerland and had this desire to send you money,
1 I wouldn't have to send it to Mr. Minton, I could
2 just mail it to you, mail a check to you --
3 A. Well --
4 Q. -- from the United Union Bank of
5 Switzerland, couldn't I?
6 A. There are all kinds of possibilities.
7 That's a possibility.
8 Q. Do you think it's really strange that
9 some third party, some Fat Man instead of sending
10 this check to you is sending it to Mr. Minton to
11 have Mr. Minton -- in Mr. Minton's bank, Chase
12 Manhattan, to send it up to him for him to give to
13 you? Seems a little circuitous, doesn't it?
14 A. I don't know. Well --
15 Q. You don't know how to answer that?
16 A. I can't follow what question because I
17 don't know about Mr. Minton's bank and Chase
18 Manhattan.
19 Q. Let move on to something else. I wanted
20 to understand one thing here, the -- you're
21 obligated to pay the expenses in the wrongful
22 death case. So if the money is a loan to you
23 it's -- you could use it for the expenses, it
24 doesn't make a difference, you're obligated to pay
25 them anyway, right?
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And let me see if I understand how the
3 repayment works. Let's -- I'll give you a
4 hypothetical, wrongful death case, you recover 10
5 million dollars. Out of that 10 million you take
6 40 percent. Assume that the number is right, I
7 don't know if it's 35 or 40. You take 4 million
8 dollars, the Estate gets six million bucks, right?
9 A. No. No.
10 Q. How much does the Estate get?
11 A. The Estate gets the percentage, whatever
12 that is, because it's all different. The Estate
13 gets the percentage, you subtract the costs, and
14 then the Estate gets the rest.
15 I didn't say it correctly. The
16 attorney's fees come off the top, then the costs,
17 then the balance to the Estate.
18 Q. Oh, wait a minute. So let's assume a 10
19 million dollar verdict in a wrongful death case.
20 You get 40 percent right off the top?
21 A. If it's 40 percent, that's right.
22 Q. I don't care --
23 A. Whatever it is, right.
24 Q. So that's four million over here, right?
25 Now, what happens to the other six million?
1 A. Then you subtract the costs. Then the
2 Estate gets the balance.
3 Q. Subtract the cost meaning you get
4 reimbursed for the costs that you laid out?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. So if, for example, you laid out a
7 million dollars --
8 A. Right.
9 Q. -- you would then get another million,
10 so you get five million --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. So four million for fees, a million for
13 costs and the Estate keeps five million, right?
14 A. Right. And then I deal with Mr. Minton.
15 Q. So that way you get to keep a million
16 dollars in costs out of the verdict, plus you just
17 got to keep the million dollars for the very same
18 costs that Mr. Minton gave you, loaned to you,
19 right?
20 A. How do you think? I mean, come on.
21 That's not what the testimony is.
22 Q. I'm sorry?
23 A. I pay Mr. Minton back, Mr. Rosen.
24 Q. How much do you pay him back?
25 A. I pay him back all of the money that he
1 advanced, and I pay this other person back.
2 Q. Oh, wait a minute. Let's see now --
3 A. Out of my --
4 Q. You repay him back two million dollars
5 even though you may have used for expenses in the
6 case something less than the two million. Maybe
7 you used a million, but you are paying back the
8 two million?
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. So, hypothetically --
11 MR. LIROT: Judge, objection, we're
12 talking about some contingency in the future
13 hypothetical and it's too late in the day for
14 math. I object.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 Q. So let's -- I got one more hypothetical.
18 Let's assume that the two million from Minton,
19 let's assume you used a million for costs in the
20 wrongful death case and a million to buy yourself
21 a birthday present, all right?
22 A. All right.
23 Q. So when you get a 10-million dollar
24 verdict, you get the four million for the
25 attorney's fees and the Estate gives you how much,
1 a million or two million for the costs?
2 A. No, the cost of the Estate --
3 Q. They get --
4 A. -- the birthday present the Estate does
5 not pay for.
6 Q. Okay. So if conversely you lose the
7 wrongful death case?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Then you don't have to pay back either
10 the million you spent in costs for the wrongful
11 death case nor do you have to pay back to
12 Mr. Minton the million that you spent for your
13 birthday present, right?
14 A. In your hypothetical you're correct.
15 Q. That is correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You just profited by a million dollars
18 to lose the case?
19 A. Well --
20 Q. To lose the case you're going to do
21 better.
22 A. I doubt it, Mr. Rosen.
23 Q. Well, let me give you a hypothetical.
24 Judge Schaeffer has said, I believe, I'm told,
25 that she believes this case is worth $500,000.
1 A. You're mistaken, Mr. Rosen.
2 Q. All right. I don't care. Let's assume
3 the jury gives you a verdict of a million dollars,
4 all right. You get 40 percent of that. You get
5 $400,000. You got to keep over two million
6 dollars from Mr. Minton, right?
7 A. Assuming that the money was not all
8 spent on the Estate costs.
9 Q. And the whole basis for this, the whole
10 concept for this is that you're obligated to pay
11 to advance these costs anyway?
12 A. I have to advance the costs, that's
13 right.
14 Q. Right. So it's your obligation. You
15 signed on so Minton is helping you. It's no
16 different than if you went out and took a second
17 mortgage on your house to raise money to finance a
18 case, right?
19 A. Oh, there's a big difference.
20 Q. A big difference? Well, you know
21 something, here is Exhibit 52. Here is your
22 contingency fee agreement. You tell me where it
23 says in there that you are advancing the costs,
24 sir?
25 A. Do you want to give me some time?
1 Q. I've already highlighted it for you.
2 A. Well, I'm reading it. Just relax.
3 Q. Exhibit 52.
4 A. Right. This is our standard form.
5 Q. No, it's not your standard form. It's
6 the form that was signed by you and your client.
7 A. It's a standard form.
8 Q. You know, when I asked you before if it
9 was a standard form you told me no.
10 A. Well --
11 Q. Now it's a standard form.
12 A. I just told you --
13 Q. I want you to read into the record,
14 Counsel, under costs and expenses read it out
15 loud.
16 A. "In further consideration of our
17 attorneys' promise to represent us and to expend
18 their time in representing us, we agree to pay any
19 and all costs of investigation, expert fees,
20 medical case management, and other expenses
21 incurred by the office of Dandar & Dandar
22 Professional Association, their staff, court
23 costs, photographs, and mailing expenses in order
24 to properly represent us in the pursuit of our
25 claim.
1 We further understand that we are
2 obligated to pay these costs whether or not our
3 claim is successful. This agreement on the
4 undersign's part is pursuant to the Rules of
5 Ethics established by the Florida Bar and the
6 Florida Supreme Court."
7 Q. So you were wrong when you testified
8 that you had the obligation?
9 A. No. No. I'm not wrong. I'm just not
10 understanding why it's not in there. Maybe it's
11 somewhere else.
12 Q. Mr. Dandar, what do you mean you're not
13 wrong? It says in black and white that your
14 clients are supposed to pay these costs, not you.
15 A. Well, they pay the costs.
16 Q. And the whole premise for your theory
17 about a loan from Mr. Minton is that you are using
18 it to pay costs that you're otherwise obligated to
19 pay under your retainer agreement, under your
20 contingent fee.
21 So when we show that to be exposed as
22 inaccurate, what's left of your loan theory,
23 Mr. Dandar? What's left of it?
24 A. Those two don't go together.
25 Q. Huh?
1 A. Whatever you're trying to say doesn't go
2 together with this. It's apples and oranges.
3 You're mixing it all up.
4 Q. Right. I see how this works. The way
5 this works in my hypothetical is you get a
6 judgment in a wrongful death for 10 million
7 dollars. You take your 40 percent off the top of
8 four million. Then you say to your client, Hey,
9 by the way, you were supposed to pay for these
10 costs, not me --
11 MR. LIROT: Objection.
13 Q. -- right?
14 A. No, that's not true. You know it's not.
15 Q. Mr. Dandar, do you still want to stay
16 with your story that this whole loan agreement,
17 this whole arrangement that you had with
18 Mr. Minton was because you were obligated to pay
19 to advance the costs?
20 A. That's true.
21 MR. ROSEN: Thank you. No further
22 question.
23 THE WITNESS: That's a true statement.
24 I am obligated to advance the costs.
25 MR. ROSEN: Right. No further
1 questions.
2 THE COURT: Anything else?
3 MR. LIROT: Just briefly.
6 Q. Did you sign this before you knew
7 Mr. Minton, January of '97?
8 A. Of course.
9 Q. And after Mr. Minton got involved, did
10 you talk with Ms. Liebreich and tell her of the
11 arrangement as you understand it?
12 A. With Mr. Minton?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. LIROT: No further questions.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Very good. We will
17 adjourn the hearing for the time being
18 subject to being reset. You all can call my
19 office Monday and get some time.
20 MR. LIROT: We will, Your Honor.
21 MR. ROSEN: Thank you.
22 MR. LIROT: Thank you for your time,
23 Judge.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 THE BAILIFF: All rise.
1 (Thereupon, the hearing was concluded.)
5 I, CHARLENE M. KOCH, R.P.R., certify
that I was authorized to and did stenographically
6 report the foregoing proceedings; and that the
transcript is a true record of the proceedings.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a
8 relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of
the parties hereto, nor am I a relative or
9 employee of such attorney or counsel, nor do I
have any interest in the outcome or events of this
10 action.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2002.
Deputy Official Court Reporter
15 Notary Public, State of Florida