IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 99-7430-CI-08 ----------------------------------------X : CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE : ORGANIZATION, INC., a Florida : corporation, : : Petitioner, : : vs. : : ROBERT S. MINTON, JR., ET AL., : : Respondents. : ----------------------------------------x BEFORE: The Honorable THOMAS E. PENICK, JR. PLACE: Pinellas County Judicial Building 545 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida DATE: January 20, 2001 January 21, 2001 REPORTED BY: JACKIE L. OSTROM Court Reporter --------------------------------------------------- ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE -------------------------------------------------- Pages 1397 - Volume ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 35 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA (727) 443-0992 APPEARANCES The Honorable THOMAS E. PENICK, JR. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE F. WALLACE POPE, JR., ESQUIRE JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE ET AL 911 Chestnut Clearwater, Florida HELENA KOBRIN, ESQUIRE MOXON AND KOBRIN 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90010 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Ship Organization JOHN MERRETT, ESQUIRE 2716 Herschel Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 BRUCE G. HOWIE, ESQUIRE PIPER, LUDIN, HOWIE AND WERNER 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33707 Attorneys for Robert Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc. 1399 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 THE COURT: Okay. This is time I've set 3 for closings or for any motions. I notice I 4 have up here on the bench an original 5 document. What is this? It's a transcript 6 from these proceedings. Let me see what this 7 is just a second. 8 MR. MERRETT: Judge, that's 9 Ms. Wennberg's testimony from yesterday. 10 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And let 11 me get the original marked filed. Okay. It 12 is marked and filed. 13 Now, I also have a stipulation for entry 14 of permanent injunction. I noticed that it 15 was signed by John Merrett and Bruce Howie 16 and it is not signed by the petitioners, 17 although the petitioners are the ones that 18 petitioned for an injunction, but we can 19 file this but I raise a question and here's 20 my question. 21 The matter of the injunction is on 22 appeal and I'm afraid I'm stayed. There is 23 really not a whole lot we can do right now 24 other than just file it. 25 MR. MERRETT: We will be dismissing the 1400 1 appeal. That's going out today. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Once that's done and 3 I'll tell you all now too that I think we 4 need to work both sides, everybody, we need 5 to get together and hammer out some 6 clarifications. I mean there is lot of holes 7 in this thing and I've been making notes 8 about what I need to do and what I need to 9 modify and not the distance or anything, but 10 just so everybody knows -- look, well I'm not 11 going to say anything right now. I just 12 think we need to get together. 13 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. 14 MR. POPE: Your Honor, I was just served 15 this about two minutes ago. 16 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 17 MR. POPE: And it only applies to 18 Mr. Minton, the Trust and Ms. Brooks. It 19 doesn't apply to the other defendants having 20 stipulated to such a permanent injunction and 21 I too have been making notes about matters 22 that need clarification making the injunction 23 more meaningful and of course at some point, 24 you know, we're -- if they're still willing 25 to stipulate to an injunction we might be 1401 1 able to work one out that everybody would be 2 pleased with perhaps. 3 THE COURT: I would love for you three 4 to try to hammer it out and see if you can 5 come up with something and once I hear your 6 closing arguments and we conclude this 7 portion, the orders to show cause, I'll also 8 share my thoughts as to where you need to 9 concentrate because there is some holes there 10 that worry me. 11 You know, it's okay with me, quite 12 frankly, this could become a career case 13 and, you know, I just -- I've got 1500 cases 14 or something, 2000, and I keep this one on 15 the front burner. It's okay with me, but I 16 see it happening unless everybody puts their 17 heads together and let me say this too 18 before you start your closing arguments. 19 I'm not unmindful of the feelings and 20 the missions of both sides. I can 21 appreciate where both of you are coming 22 from. But I feel and maybe the lawyers 23 won't appreciate me saying this, but I think 24 you can put your money to better use than 25 coming in here all the time. I figure there 1402 1 would be other things you're going to need 2 the lawyers for. But, this gets -- I think 3 really I'm optimistic there is a wealth of 4 opportunity there and with the talent and 5 the brain power of the attorneys that are 6 involved for the parties, there is no doubt 7 in my mind that you could hammer out 8 something that would be doable and could 9 even probably serve as a national example 10 for any situation where First Amendment is 11 involved, protests, etcetera, etcetera and 12 you can think of many, many places where you 13 all could be blazing leadership trail. And 14 I even see opportunities for the three 15 attorneys here to put their heads together, 16 the four attorneys. Five if you count the 17 one that's not here, Mr. Hertzberg, putting 18 on some CLEs or seminars or something about 19 what's under the First Amendment. 20 There's some opportunities there for you 21 and that there ain't a whole lot of material 22 out there to help other attorneys. Pocket 23 change on the side maybe. 24 All right. Let's do this. I'll file 25 this, okay, and motions for JOA, who wants 1403 1 to go first. 2 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, I promised 3 yesterday I'll make it very brief. When I 4 made the first JOA motion I was not yet aware 5 of the amount of attention and time the court 6 devotes to making notes and so I kind of 7 exhaustively reviewed the facts adduced up to 8 that point. 9 Essentially, I would just like to point 10 out a few salient episodes in the evidence 11 to the court. 12 First, with respect to Ms. Bezazian, if 13 you will recall, the evidence remains 14 uncontroverted that each time she was asked 15 or directed to do anything by the police 16 officer she did it during the days that the 17 violations are alleged. There was not a 18 time when she ever claimed to stand on her 19 rights or asserted that she had a right to 20 do other than what the police officer 21 directed her. And she certainly can't be 22 faulted for doing something and then the 23 policeman didn't like it and changing her 24 mind and dod it the way the policeman wanted 25 it. 1404 1 There has been no showing at all and her 2 testimony is uncontroverted that all she was 3 attempting to do was to exercise her First 4 Amendment right within the scope of the 5 restraints laid out by the court. 6 As I said, I know that you listened to 7 all the evidence in that you have your notes 8 and that's perfectly clear. As Mr. Pope was 9 as pains to make clear during the first 10 portion of these proceedings, in an attempt 11 to thwart or to violate is a necessary 12 element for indirect criminal contempt and 13 that is clearly lacking here. 14 If the court determines that her blind 15 stumbling during the first days or weeks of 16 the injunction was technically in violation 17 of the court's order, both her demeanor from 18 the stand and the testimony of Officer 19 Butterfield made it clear that there was 20 never any intent to violate the court order 21 and her behavior was instantly modified in 22 compliance with that. 23 With respect to Mr. Enerson, again I 24 would point out that the single charge 25 against him consists of his walking west 1405 1 across the south face of the Clearwater Bank 2 Building. The evidence is uncontroverted 3 that he was returning to the Lisa McPherson 4 Trust after picketing. He. 5 Doesn't say anything on that videotape, 6 nobody claims that he says anything, didn't 7 wave his signs. He was walking through. He 8 was in transit. 9 The interesting point there is that 10 Mr. Avila testified expressly that on 11 another occasion, I believe it was 12 January 6, he did not videotape the 13 protesters as they were in transit westward 14 on Cleveland Street because he knew that 15 they're not being in an orange area they 16 clearly weren't picketing, although he 17 conceded on cross-examination that they 18 still had their picket signs and megaphones 19 with them. 20 All that you see is people in one-way 21 transit through that area. You don't see 22 anybody picketing, and again you have -- you 23 heard Mr. Enerson's testimony which was that 24 he considered it a blessing not to have Mary 25 DeMoss busting his eardrums by screaming at 1406 1 him from two inches away while he was 2 protesting. 3 There is clearly no evidence of any 4 intent on his part to violate the 5 injunction. 6 With respect to the crossing of the 7 driveway on Ft. Harrison Avenue, the 8 Coachman driveway, I will simply point out 9 and I hope that I will not have occasion to 10 do so, but if need be I'll discuss it at 11 greater length later, but I will simply 12 point out that when you read Temporary 13 Injunction Number Two and you read your 14 order of December 1 amending and clarifying 15 Temporary Injunction Number Two, the net 16 result of reading those two documents 17 imperia is that picketing is permitted only 18 in orange zones -- let me back up. 19 Picketing is permitted in areas depicted on 20 the maps only within the orange zones. 21 In other words, if the places on one of 22 the maps that's attached to Temporary 23 Injunction Number Two, you may not picket 24 there unless that area is colored in orange. 25 Obviously, that creates fundamental 1407 1 practical difficulties and the practical 2 difficulties essentially consist of trying 3 to decide what is picketing. 4 Scientology is here attempting to get 5 you to hand down criminal convictions 6 because the people who were picketing 7 selected one of a nearly infinite number of 8 analytically identical ways of passing, 9 making a necessary passage through a 10 non-orange zone while in the course of 11 picketing. 12 Again, we're talking about the area ten 13 feet on either side of the Coachman driveway 14 or the Coachman driveway itself, on either 15 side of the those ten foot areas is an 16 orange zone. In order to get from one 17 orange zone to another, a person must be on 18 the map and outside of an orange zone. I 19 mean, that's the bottom line. 20 There is, you know, none of the critics 21 have powers of teleportation. They have to 22 do what they did which is walk without 23 saying anything, without doing anything. 24 Mr. Minton only telling Mr. Avila to keep 25 ten feet away and obey the injunction, but 1408 1 without saying anything or doing anything 2 they can either pass through that ten foot 3 zone which is a non-orange area on the map; 4 they could have crossed Ft. Harrison Avenue 5 and walked in front of the parking lot of 6 the Presbyterian church which is a 7 non-orange zone on the map; they could have 8 gone around the other side of the block 9 which is a non-orange area which is on the 10 map. 11 You don't see any evidence of any abuse 12 or any intent to violate. All these people 13 were doing was getting from one side to the 14 other. 15 With respect to the Ms. Bezazian, again 16 she transitted down to the blindest side of 17 the Clearwater Bank Building. You recall 18 her testimony that if you go on the east 19 side of the Clearwater Bank Building there 20 are very often Scientologists there. There 21 are people there. 22 She was headed for the Ft. Harrison to 23 picket so she went down the other side which 24 you heard described in detail and which the 25 this court has noted is subject to judicial 1409 1 notice as being essentially a blind wall 2 with much of it having no windows at all, 3 many of the windows that are there being 8, 4 9, 10, 12 feet up in the area and the 5 windows that are visible at ground level 6 being shrouded by shades, that's the side 7 that she walked down. And she proceeded 8 with out hesitating, without stopping except 9 to cross the street from there to an orange 10 zone from an orange zone back. 11 You heard the female police officer 12 testify that at one point she told 13 Ms. Bezazian it would be wiser to put her 14 signs down and you see on the videotape that 15 that's what she did. 16 Quite simply, Your Honor, you are 17 sitting both as judge and as jury in a 18 criminal case you are being asked to hand 19 down criminal convictions based on these 20 allegations. There is not a prima facie 21 case even in view of all the evidence of any 22 intent on anybody's part to violate the 23 court's order. 24 What you see instead is obvious 25 cognisance of the injunction and you see 1410 1 deliberate efforts made to comply with the 2 injunction. What you have is Scientology 3 desperately grabbing at what they believe to 4 be technical violations in the hope that you 5 will fulfill Hubbard's mandate to make the 6 critics criminals. 7 At this juncture you simply do not have 8 any evidence of willful violation of the 9 court's injunction by anybody. 10 The examination of the camera does not 11 violate any aspect of the injunction. We 12 made this list at the beginning of the case 13 of the five things that are prohibited. 14 None of those thing is prohibited. 15 If being on the sidewalk is prohibited, 16 Judge, then nobody who is covered by the 17 injunction, Scientologists or critics, 18 everyone has a right to be on any sidewalk. 19 If that's the basis of a claim that this 20 is a violation, because if I'm on the 21 sidewalk and the sidewalk is not at least 12 22 feet wide, the sidewalk is blocked, So I 23 have no right to go anywhere. I have no 24 right to be anywhere. I can't live when I'm 25 in Clearwater. 1411 1 THE COURT: Okay. You're getting into 2 what I think are closing arguments. 3 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. 4 THE COURT: Stick to legalities or 5 something like that on a JOA here. 6 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. Clearly, 7 clearly mere presence on the sidewalk does 8 not constitute a violation anywhere in 9 Clearwater. Under the terms of your 10 injunction the only way that a violation can 11 be committed by a person who is not picketing 12 is either by actually blocking somebody's 13 path, by protesting outside of the orange 14 zone or by harassing or committing acts of 15 violence. Simply being on the sidewalk with 16 the ladder did none of those things. 17 Manually examining the camera did none of 18 those things. 19 Obviously, that's not something 20 Scientology likes, but you're not here, 21 certainly not at this stage as a vindicator 22 of Scientology's likes and dislikes. 23 There is no portion of this -- you heard 24 the legal definitions of harassment from 25 every possible source; statutory, judicial 1412 1 and they all involved the infliction of 2 emotional distress on a person, on a natural 3 person, on an individual obviously because 4 you can't commit emotional distress on a 5 corporate entity like Scientology. 6 There is no evidence that anybody was 7 harassed by that, no evidence that anybody 8 was touched by that. 9 Ms. Wennberg's sad testimony, which I 10 hope however you rule on this you will give 11 me the opportunity to walk through with the 12 videotape is totally ineffectual because her 13 testimony is not within the limits of the 14 order to show cause that was adduced by the 15 court. If you're going to convict 16 Mr. Minton and I based on the episode of 17 December 4, it must be because as alleged in 18 the order to show cause we blocked a bread 19 delivery. And that apparently is the bread 20 delivery that you see carried out in the 21 videotape where the man goes in with bread 22 and comes out with empty baskets. That's 23 the one they seem to be claiming. 24 Ms. Wennberg's testimony added nothing 25 to the prima facie case because it was not 1413 1 about a charged event or charged incident. 2 The people who were charged with 3 blocking transit on the sidewalk have 4 already been released by the court's earlier 5 judgment of acquittal. 6 In short, Judge, we are in a situation 7 where there is simply -- leaving aside 8 everything else. Leaving aside for now the 9 identity issue which has still not been 10 proven of anybody but me during 11 Scientology's case in chief and remember, 12 Judge, if there was a jury sitting in that 13 box and you forget to say the prosecutor 14 forgets to say which of the people sitting 15 at the table is Mr. Jones who robbed him, 16 whatever it is that's sitting at the table 17 goes free because identity is failed and 18 nobody attached a body to any of these names 19 except mine during the course of these 20 proceedings. 21 The fact is that when you look at the 22 five prohibitions that you included in your 23 injunction you have not found even a 24 technical violation of them and even if for 25 some reason the court decides to stretch its 1414 1 mind and encompass some of the conduct you 2 saw as technical violations, there is 3 absolutely no evidence of any intent to 4 disregard the court's order, to impede the 5 enforcement of the court's order or to 6 prohibit the carrying out of the court's 7 wishes with respect to the injunction. 8 Thank you. 9 THE COURT: Mr. Howie. 10 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, first I wish to 11 reiterate without going into any detail the 12 arguments that I made in my first judgment of 13 acquittal argument in support of my motion. 14 I want to adopt all those here. I also wish 15 to adopt all matters raised by Mr. Merrett in 16 his argument concerning the judgment of 17 acquittal. 18 Again, perhaps it's because I have been 19 practicing criminal law for 22 years, but I 20 go into this JOA motion pointing out that 21 first the order show cause is the charging 22 documenting here. And as the court is well 23 aware we are not here to charge -- we are 24 not here to try anything outside of that 25 charging document. 1415 1 Second, the charging document, the order 2 to show cause, the two orders to show cause 3 specifically state in the first paragraph 4 each word that the allegations are that the 5 temporary injunction was violated by 6 Mr. Minton. It does not say that Mr. Minton 7 committed any other breaches that result in 8 a contempt of court hearing. So is it my 9 position first and foremost in making this 10 motion for judgment acquittal that we are 11 here confined to the orders to show cause as 12 they stand right now and we are confined to 13 actual violations of the second temporary 14 injunction. And as far as where we've 15 already put on the chart and we've repeated 16 the five types of violations that could be 17 committed here, that is coming within ten 18 feet, blocking amy member of the Church of 19 Scientology or any church vehicle, 20 physically preventing anybody from entering 21 or leaving, acts of harassment or violence 22 against any member of the Church and 23 picketing or protesting in areas other than 24 designated areas. 25 It's our position that the evidence 1416 1 simply does not establish a prima facie case 2 of guilt Mr. Minton. 3 I will adopt the argument concerning 4 lack of identification of Mr. Minton as to 5 each and every one of the five remaining 6 allegations against him. 7 Going through those allegations quickly 8 I point out in the spy camera incident we 9 were provided with rebuttal evidence which 10 again I would point out to the court was 11 legally improper as rebuttal. It did not 12 rebut anything that was raised during the 13 course of Mr. Minton's defense or anybody 14 else's defense in this. 15 It was not only rebuttal, but in fact 16 should have been presented in the 17 petitioner's case in chief. It is no 18 defense to this presentation that they only 19 learned of Ms. Wennberg's testimony the day 20 before she provided it. Therefore, I'm 21 asking the court not to consider that in 22 ruling on our motion for judgment of 23 acquittal. Her testimony still does not 24 establish Mr. Minton's intent to commit any 25 violation of the injunction by taking 1417 1 photographs of the spy camera. 2 If the court is going to consider the 3 testimony, I would point out that she 4 herself admitted that Mr. Minton never had 5 any opportunity to acknowledge her presence 6 and in fact was without knowledge of her 7 presence. 8 I would point out that the allegation in 9 the order to cause again emphasizing the 10 interference with one property of the Church 11 being the spy camera if such interference 12 ever occurred and second, that there was 13 obstruction of a bread delivery. 14 There was nothing in the charging 15 document here concerning anything 16 Ms. Wennberg had to say and for that reason 17 I ask that the court discount and ignore her 18 testimony on that point. 19 Next, case on the January 5 matter 20 concerning Lindsey Colton, the personal 21 investigator, I would simply point out that 22 the evidence shows that Mr. Minton did not 23 have any intent to violate any component of 24 the injunction and in fact there was no 25 violation of the injunction. 1418 1 The petitioner is emphatic that she is 2 not a member of the Church of Scientology 3 and that alone knocks out three of the five 4 ways in which a person can violate this 5 injunction. 6 He did the not get within ten feet of a 7 member of the Church, he did not block 8 anybody's path, he did inhibit anybody from 9 entrance or exit from Scientology property, 10 he did not harass or commit violence against 11 any member of the Church and he certainly 12 wasn't demonstrating at the time and even if 13 he was, he was in the right spot for doing 14 so. So, in that situation again there was 15 no violation of the injunction. 16 I would point out that it's the 17 petitioner's argument that this violation is 18 outside of the injunction. We object to 19 that because obviously we are limited to the 20 injunction by the wording of the order to 21 show cause, but if the court finds that we 22 are not limited to the wording in the order 23 to show cause, I would point out that their 24 theory that this was somehow a violation of 25 the criminal laws doesn't hold water because 1419 1 of Winer versus Kelly already presented to 2 the court that holds this equity including 3 injunctions cannot be used in enforcing the 4 laws. And then they have this Thompson 5 theory that they have attempted to present 6 to the court and I would point out that this 7 did not obstruct or oppose the proper 8 functioning this court because in fact 9 process was not being served on Mr. Minton 10 in this cause within the jurisdiction of the 11 court pursuant the 1.070 of the Rule of 12 Civil Procedure. 13 That specifies what is service of 14 process and it refers to an original 15 complaint or summons being served. This was 16 not service of process. It was a hand full 17 of motions or notices of various types, but 18 it did not constitute process. And they 19 were in fact papers that should have been 20 served through Mr. Minton's attorney of 21 record, namely me, having been attorney of 22 record on this case since December of 1999 23 as indicated from the court records. 24 This is in Rule 1.080 of the Florida 25 Rules of Civil Procedure was not complied 1420 1 with and therefore they cannot argue that 2 throwing papers to the sidewalk in an act of 3 disgust as Mr. Minton has testified to would 4 constitute anyway an obstruction or opposing 5 of this court or embarrassment of this 6 court. 7 Mr. Minton has also agreed that in fact 8 he was served. The court has seen the 9 videotape in which Mr. Minton had the papers 10 in his hands and there is no theory by which 11 they can claim that his subsequent actions, 12 throwing the papers to the ground amounted 13 to an obstruction of the function of this 14 court. 15 Concerning the instance on January 6, 16 the allegation that Mr. Minton demonstrated 17 while walking across the driveway of the 18 Coachman parking lot, the evidence clearly 19 shows from the videotape that Mr. Minton was 20 initially emerging from an orange zone south 21 of the driveway entrance to the Coachman 22 parking lot. He had the Threep in one hand 23 and a megaphone in the other. 24 When he was still at least ten feet 25 south of the driveway he turned his 1421 1 attention to Antonio Avila who was 2 videotaping him and he addressed Mr. Avila 3 saying words to effect you better stay ten 4 feet away, buddy. 5 He proceeded to protest against 6 Mr. Avila's approaching him and admonitions 7 that Mr. Avila stay ten feet away from him 8 in compliance with the injunction and that 9 he had it hanging from the end of the 10 Threep. 11 He continued this admonition against 12 Mr. Avila as he crossed the entire width of 13 the Coachman driveway and continued it for 14 four to five paces once he had gotten north 15 of the north curb to that driveway. 16 Only then when he was back in a 17 designated orange zone did he then turn his 18 attention as well as the megaphone to the 19 individuals who would then have been 20 purported to be identified as members of the 21 Church of Scientology. 22 It is our position that during the 23 entire time he was crossing from one orange 24 zone to another he was not involved in an 25 act of demonstration against the Church of 1422 1 Scientology or its policies. He was in fact 2 admonishing a member of the Church to obey 3 the injunction and all of his words and 4 actions were in support of that injunction. 5 Next, concerning the incident on the 6 January 6 next to the Clearwater Bank 7 Building, again the videotape is the best 8 evidence in support of our motion for 9 judgment of acquittal where Mr. Minton is 10 standing in the designated orange zone with 11 a megaphone in one hand and he is shouting 12 across the street of the Clearwater Bank 13 Building. 14 Although the videotape does not 15 specifically show the moment, it is clear 16 from what the court will see before and 17 after that Mr. Minton passed the megaphone 18 to Mr. Lerma and then proceeded across the 19 street holding the Threep in his hands with 20 injunction at the end of the Threep. 21 He then walked down the west side of 22 Watterson, obviously heading directly back 23 to the Lisa McPherson Trust Building holding 24 the Threep with the injunction at the end of 25 it straight up in the air. 1423 1 This again did not constitute a 2 demonstration, a picketing or protest of any 3 kind any more than if a member of the Church 4 of Scientology took a copy of this court's 5 temporary injunction, walked into an orange 6 zone and presented it to protesters and 7 critics of the Church as we have seen on 8 videotapes presented to the court. 9 Clearly, if we had argued that this 10 constituted a violation of the court's 11 injunction because holding a copy of an 12 injunction in a non-designated area 13 constituted a violation of this injunction, 14 I think the petitioner would have the right 15 to laugh us out of court. 16 Similarly, it is our position that this 17 did not constitute a demonstration and all 18 Mr. Minton had with him was a copy of the 19 injunction and the means by which he 20 enforced that injunction, namely the Threep. 21 If the court listens to the videotape, I 22 am convinced that the court will not hear 23 any sounds on that tape that can be 24 attributed to Mr. Minton as he walked on the 25 west side of the Watterson heading back to 1424 1 the Lisa McPherson Trust, therefore that 2 incident does not demonstrate any violations 3 of the injunction. 4 Finally, on the evening of January 7, 5 the argument with the police on Watterson, 6 the video is again the best evidence of 7 that. Mr. Minton stepped off the sidewalk 8 in the designated orange area only because 9 he saw the police there and was trying to 10 comply with the injunction. 11 The police then came out and confronted 12 him in the middle of Watterson where the 13 shouting occurred, shouting match occurred. 14 When the police directed Mr. Minton to 15 resume his position on the sidewalk, he did 16 so promptly. 17 There was no obstruction of any members 18 of the Church of Scientology or their 19 vehicles, no one was inhibited from entering 20 or leaving Scientology property by which I 21 will include the buses that were parked 22 there on Watterson. There was no harassment 23 or violence to any members of the Church and 24 again the petitioner emphasizes that these 25 officers were not members and if there was 1425 1 any picketing or protesting, it occurred 2 entirely within the orange zone. 3 For all these reasons I ask that the 4 court grant a judgment of acquittal as to 5 each and every one of these counts. 6 THE COURT: Mr. Pope. 7 MR. POPE: May it please the court, may 8 I remain here, Your Honor? 9 THE COURT: You may, sir. 10 MR. POPE: With regard to Mr. Merrett's 11 argument, I really didn't hear anything that 12 was different from what he argued in his 13 first one. Unless there was some particular 14 matter you wanted me to respond to, I'm just 15 going to adopt my earlier argument on that 16 one. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. POPE: As to Mr. Howie's argument, 19 he did bring up a couple of matters that I 20 consider to be new, so I would like to 21 respond to those. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. POPE: First off, let me cite the 24 court to the case of Paul, P-A-U-L versus 25 Johnson. It's a Fifth District case, 1426 1 604 So. 2d. 883 and essentially I'm citing it 2 for the proposition that intent is an 3 essential element of contempt and absent 4 admission of the charged person of that 5 existence of that intent it must be 6 established by circumstantial evidence and so 7 what we have in this matter, Your Honor, is 8 quite a bit of circumstantial evidence with 9 respect to intent of both Mr. Minton and all 10 the other parties in this matter. 11 Now, on the question of the service of 12 process, the court on December 1, 2000 13 entered an order saying that ten foot rule 14 doesn't apply to process servers who are 15 legally trying to serve process. And this 16 effort to serve Mr. Minton occurred five 17 weeks after that. 18 Now Mr. Minton sat on the stand and said 19 I didn't know about that, but as you can 20 well remember, ignorance of the law is no 21 excuse. He was charged with knowledge of 22 that and certainly five weeks down the line 23 he should have known about it. 24 But let's talk -- now they're saying 25 that there was no need to serve this process 1427 1 on Mr. Minton. Mr. Minton was served with a 2 sheave of things including a copy of the 3 amended and supplemental complaint and an 4 order to show cause, plus a copy of 5 Injunction Number Two. 6 Now, let me tell you why he was served 7 with a copy of Injunction Number Two. He 8 didn't attend the hearing, Your Honor, that 9 led to number two and he admitted that on 10 the stand. How are were going to know that 11 he's got a copy of except we serve him. 12 We wanted him to have a actual knowledge 13 of it so he was served that, but the order 14 to show cause and the amended and 15 supplemental complaints were served on him 16 for a couple reasons. 17 First, there is case called Giles versus 18 Renew, R-E-N-E-W. It is a Second District 19 Court of Appeals case at 639 So. 2d. 701 and 20 may I provide the court with a copy of this? 21 THE COURT: Please. Thank you, sir. 22 MR. POPE: This case, Your Honor, 23 basically says that where you do an order to 24 show cause in a civil case under Criminal 25 Rule 3.840 as we've done here, you have to 1428 1 serve the person as if it were a summons. 2 You can't just do it on the lawyer. 3 Now, we also served the amended and 4 supplemental complaint on Mr. Minton and 5 bear in mind that he's not always in town, 6 so we have to serve him when he's around and 7 we can get service on him, but at the 8 December 20, 2000 hearing in this matter we 9 had a big who-ha about service of process 10 and I would like to quote to you from that 11 transcript from page eight, Mr. Merrett 12 said: With respect the issue of service, 13 process initial service of process after 14 this case died and was then resurrected, 15 service of process was never affected on 16 Mr. Prince and Mr. Ward as to the amended 17 supplemental injunction. The injunction is 18 ex parte as to Mr. Ward and Mr. Prince. 19 Then he says: Unfortunately, Your 20 Honor, the law specified that supplemental 21 pleadings must be served by process, period, 22 in the absence of a stipulation and there is 23 no stipulation. 24 Then he said: That is with respect to 25 the service of papers, Your Honor, a 1429 1 supplemental pleading must be served by 2 professional service of process just as an 3 original pleading must if counsel has proof 4 of service of the amended or supplement 5 petition or complaint on any of these people 6 I would ask you produce it at this time, so 7 Mr. Merrett was insisting that service of 8 that had to be proven even when Mr. Minton 9 was a party. 10 I frankly disagreed with him. I thought 11 that the service on the lawyer was okay. 12 Mr. Howie didn't disagree with it, so I 13 served him because he insisted on it. So, 14 that's why Mr. Minton got served with all 15 those papers and certainly the order to show 16 cause according to that case had to be 17 served upon him, so that -- let me just read 18 to you. 19 I quoted to you from I think the 20 contempt chapter of Florida Juris Prudence, 21 that same point of law appears under 22 Contempt in 17 Am. Jur. 2d. Section 75, the 23 intentional hinderance of service of process 24 constitutes contempt regardless of the 25 particular means by which such hinderance is 1430 1 accomplished and a contempt is commits if a 2 person hinders or prevents service of 3 process by deceiving the officer or 4 circumventing his by any means even though 5 there is no force or intimidation or direct 6 refusal to obey process. So, that really 7 ought to deal with that -- 8 THE COURT: What was that cite? 9 MR. POPE: That was 17 Am. Jur. 2d. 10 Contempt, Section 75. 11 THE COURT: Could we have the name of 12 the case for my notes or the statute? 13 MR. POPE: Blackburn versus United 14 States, 284 U.S. 421, Birch versus Zeuch, 15 202 NW 542 and others. 16 Now, with regard to the Coachman lot 17 episode, Your Honor, the thing that they 18 keep overlooking is on your map you say stay 19 ten feet back from the entranceway, just a 20 flat out command. It doesn't say when 21 picketing or anything. It says stay ten 22 feet back. They didn't do that. That ought 23 to be the end of the story there. 24 With regard to the January 6 item where 25 Mr. Minton crosses over Watterson, gets 1431 1 right next to the Bank of Clearwater 2 Building and has the Penick Picket Pole all 3 the way extended, dangling the injunction in 4 the windows of the second floor, that was 5 part of a great protest scheme because 6 number one, notwithstanding his testimony, 7 you pretty clearly hear him hollering on the 8 video and there are guys across the street 9 with their megaphones yelling, so it was 10 part of a protest that they ere involved in 11 and it was outside the zone. 12 Finally, the police situation on 13 Watterson Street. He was outside the zone. 14 He was hollering at the police through a 15 megaphone. He was protesting. He was 16 ordered off as the police had the authority 17 and he balked and cursed them, so, Your 18 Honor, that I believe should handle the 19 issue of the JOA as to Mr. Howie. Thank 20 you. 21 THE COURT: Any brief rebuttal? 22 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, Mr. Pope has 23 acknowledged that in fact process was served 24 in the January 5 incident. The language 25 concerning hindering or preventing service 1432 1 comes from case law that may or may not be 2 persuasive but certainly is not controlling 3 in this case being outside of this 4 jurisdiction. 5 To say that Mr. Minton hindered or 6 prevented and to base their entire argument 7 on that is to ignore again both the wording 8 of the order to show cause and the five ways 9 in which the injunction can be violated. 10 In addition, I suspect that if 11 Mr. Minton stood there calmly and received 12 process it actually would have taken longer 13 than it did in the way in which it was 14 served. I don't think there is any actual 15 proof that there was any hindering and 16 certainly no preventions of the service of 17 process if that's their theory of the case 18 which I reject. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took 21 place.) 22 Let me take your arguments and just take 23 a look a this. I'll rule on those JOAs so 24 you know exactly what you've got to argue in 25 your closing. 1433 1 (A short recess took place after which the 2 proceedings continued.). 3 THE COURT: All right. In regards to 4 the JOAs, the first one involving Tory 5 Bezazian and picketing in a non-orange area, 6 mainly walking down Ft. Harrison there on the 7 west side of the Bank of Clearwater building 8 holding those two signs high, that's denied. 9 As to the picketing in the entrance to 10 the parking lot, the JOA is denied. 11 As to Henson, the JOA is granted. 12 As to the Minton and Merrett spy camera 13 matter, the JOA is denied. 14 As to Enerson, the JOA is granted. 15 As to Mr. Minton's alteration with the 16 police in the middle of Watterson, that JOA 17 is granted. As to Mr. Minton's JOA argument 18 regarding the resisting of service of 19 process, that JOA is denied. And as to 20 Mr. Minton using the Threep in the 21 non-orange area on the west side sidewalk of 22 Watterson, the JOA is denied. 23 MR. POPE: I have one question I want to 24 ask about Mr. Enerson. There were two 25 episodes. 1434 1 THE COURT: That's granted as to both. 2 MR. POPE: As a both, all right. 3 THE COURT: As to both. 4 MR. POPE: But the other folks who were 5 with Enerson over around the parking lot? 6 THE COURT: That's granted. 7 MR. POPE: That was granted? 8 THE COURT: That was granted previously. 9 Except for Bezazian standing there when that 10 car incident. I want argument on that. 11 MR. POPE: All right. 12 THE COURT: Two on Bezazian; one, that 13 walking down Ft. Harrison with the two signs 14 and the incident in the entrance to the 15 Coachman parking lot. 16 MR. POPE: Okay. 17 THE COURT: As to Minton and Merrett and 18 the camera caper, I want argument. 19 MR. POPE: All right. 20 THE COURT: As to Minton and resisting 21 service of process, argument. The JOA is 22 denied as to Mr. Minton with the Threep in 23 the non-orange area. That JOA is denied. 24 MR. POPE: So we have four episodes. 25 THE COURT: One, two, three, four. 1435 1 MR. POPE: Okay. 2 THE COURT: Narrows it down to that. 3 I'll reserve my comments on some of that as 4 to why the JOAs were granted until I rule 5 tomorrow, because some things that come out 6 and we've taken the time to actually go into 7 this in depth and there are some matters that 8 I would be remiss as the judge who's listened 9 to this if I didn't make some comments for 10 the benefit of both sides. 11 All right. Let's go. Let's start 12 closing arguments at this time. 13 MR. POPE: Your Honor, may I argue from 14 here, Your Honor? 15 THE COURT: You may, sir. 16 MR. POPE: All right. May it please the 17 court, let's just remember a little bit of 18 history of this thing. It started out with a 19 physical altercation between Mr. Minton and 20 Mr. Howd back in 1999 that resulted in an 21 injunction. 22 The injunction came up for renewal at 23 the end of 180 days. We tried to renew it 24 in Mr. Howd's name only. The court denied 25 that. We decided we would see if we 1436 1 actually needed one and didn't immediately 2 refile. 3 The next thing we knew there was another 4 physical altercation between Mr. Minton and 5 somebody. There were pickets in front of 6 the Ft. Harrison Hotel. There was a Hindu 7 wedding disrupted and there were police cars 8 all over the place, six to ten police cars 9 tied up, resources, etcetera, and so that 10 resulted in Injunction Number Two. 11 The point of that little bit of history, 12 Your Honor, is to simply say that this is an 13 issue of civil order in the City of 14 Clearwater. It's not an issue whether the 15 plaintiff or the defendants are good or 16 evil. 17 The defendants had sought to paint the 18 plaintiff as an evil empire. We're way past 19 that issue. The question is civil order in 20 the City of Clearwater. 21 The simple issues are what does the law 22 provide? What does the injunction say? 23 What was the defendants' conduct. 24 The greater issue is in this matter, are 25 the police, the parties, the court going to 1437 1 have to continue devoting inordinate amounts 2 of time to this matter or is the court going 3 to signal defendants that the court's order 4 has some meaning. Is it going to be the 5 rule of the law or the rule of the mob. 6 Let me just get down to Ms. Bezazian. 7 Compare this statement she made on the 8 stand. Quote,I was have in full agreement 9 with the judge and the injunction with her 10 statement on December 6, 2000 on the 11 internet posting, paragraph eight. Here's 12 what she said. Having the cult go through 13 all this effort to get bunches of people, 14 myself included, in this bogus injunction 15 knowing they were hoping it would stop us as 16 it gave limitations to where we could 17 picket, truth is we loved it. It protects 18 us which is extremely important as they were 19 getting quite violent, beating up BM a few 20 months ago. It didn't work at all, re: 21 stopping us. We were everywhere and that 22 was great to see. 23 Also compare the reference here to the 24 bogus injunction and to her megaphone 25 yelling that it was a stupid injunction, I 1438 1 think this reflects her true attitude 2 towards this injunction. 3 Now, compare her conduct to what the 4 injunctions says. Officer Butterfield 5 explained it to her five times. We now know 6 that the police lieutenant also explained it 7 to her and she was in next to Mr. Henson on 8 that videotape listening to that. 9 He specifically told her if you don't 10 want to picket -- this is real simple. If 11 you don't want to picket, hold it upside 12 down. That was the rule of the game. If 13 they didn't want to be considered picketing, 14 hold it upside down, you can go anywhere you 15 want to. Real easy. And they wouldn't do 16 it. They were defiant about it. They 17 wanted to hold that picket sign up no 18 matter. 19 She picketed along side the Bank of 20 Clearwater Building, came down there with 21 the two pickets up after she had been told 22 by Officer Butterfield and she was told by 23 the lieutenant and she was told by the 24 female officer whose name I can't pronounce 25 at the time moment and then she blocked the 1439 1 entranceway of the Coachman Building, 2 knowing full well that order says stay ten 3 feet back. 4 She blocked it, she was bent over, there 5 was a car stopped there. The video shows 6 that there was a van out in Ft. Harrison, so 7 she violated it, clear cut right where she 8 was not supposed to be and she did it 9 anyway. And, Your Honor, doing it after 10 warning, after explanation by three 11 different police officers can only amount to 12 a willful violation. 13 The premiering order the conduct reveal 14 an utter distain for the court and its 15 injunction, referring to the injunction 16 variously as stupid and bogus. 17 Now, the camera tampering. The court -- 18 that various provisions of the injunction 19 are that the parties are enjoined from 20 committing and acts of harassment against 21 any member of the Church. Also order to 22 picket, protest and/or exercise First 23 Amendment rights only in the areas 24 designated in orange, enjoined from coming 25 within ten feet of any member of the Church, 1440 1 blocking the path of any member of the 2 Church from physically or by any other means 3 inhibiting any Church member, any member of 4 the general public or my motor vehicle from 5 entering or leaving any properties owned 6 and/or operated by the Church. 7 The conduct of Mr. Merrett and 8 Mr. Minton constituted at least harassment. 9 It constituted a protest outside of the 10 permitted orange zone. It inhibited church 11 members from entering or leaving the Bank of 12 Clearwater Building. 13 They were doing it right next to an 14 entranceway there. And they had really 15 absolutely no right to engage under these 16 circumstances in self-help with respect to 17 their protest to this camera about which 18 they were apparently unhappy and about what 19 they all poured out of the building to 20 examine and inspect. 21 If they wanted to inspect it they should 22 have filed a motion in this court and not 23 are resorted to that. 24 With regard to the obstruction of the 25 service of process, Your Honor, the tape 1441 1 video on this tells it all. It's a contempt 2 of court to obstruct the process server and 3 also a crime. It's also in Florida, the 4 State of Florida has decided it's serious 5 enough that that it can be a third degree 6 felony if violence is involved. 7 In violates the -- his conduct violated 8 that part of the rule saying the ten foot 9 rule doesn't apply to process servers. You 10 had ruled that five weeks over. This 11 doesn't apply to process servers and yet he 12 was making a big scene that it does. 13 It also contains a clear death threat, 14 although she was supposed to understand that 15 you were going to kill her instead of he. 16 It was an act calculated to obstruct the 17 court in the administration of justice and 18 Mr. Minton was served with papers that we 19 had to serve him with, including an order to 20 show cause. He was served with an amended 21 and supplemental complaint that they 22 insisted he be served with and that service 23 on counsel didn't count. That's why he got 24 served. That made that insistence in the 25 20th of December, 2000. We made the service 1442 1 on January 5. 2 Case of Giles versus Renew, 639 So. 2d. 3 701 clearly holds that orders to show cause 4 must be served by a process server. Order 5 to show cause would not have been valid 6 against Mr. Minton had it not served him on 7 January 5. 8 Now, I believe Mr. Minton, Enerson, 9 Lerma and Gogolla, that's the JOV? 10 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 11 MR. POPE: The Minton, Enerson, Lerma 12 and Gogolla along the side of the Coachman 13 Building, was that JOV? 14 THE COURT: That was a JOA. 15 MR. POPE: Okay. Granted? 16 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 17 MR. POPE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: That last one is the Minton 19 Three P, Threep on the west side of Watterson 20 in a restricted zone. 21 MR. POPE: All right. Your Honor, with 22 the Penick Picket Pole in hand, which I don't 23 see how a reasonable person can believe that 24 that pole is anything but a jab at the court 25 or at the authority of the court. That's for 1443 1 you to decide. But whatever, he is going 2 down Watterson Avenue with this pole in hand 3 and with several other of his people in tow 4 with megaphones and they're hollering and 5 they're protesting and they get half way 6 down, just past the stripe and he decides to 7 cross the street and protest by dangling it 8 in front of the windows along the Bank of 9 Clearwater Building while continuing to yell. 10 Now, I'll leave it to you. He said he 11 wasn't yelling but it sounded like his voice 12 to me. It's kind of a booming voice. It's 13 boomiest of all the voices of the witnesses 14 we've heard here. So, that was a improper 15 protest in a non-orange zone. 16 Your Honor, just let me summarize what 17 has been going on here. Essentially we've 18 had a massive amount of game playing, let's 19 push it to the limit, let's just see how far 20 we can go, let's not just abide by this 21 judge's orders. Let's see if we can just 22 push and push and push and taunt and we had 23 total twisting of the meaning of the ten 24 foot rule claiming its benefit for refusing 25 to recognize the responsibilities of the 1444 1 injunction. Mocking the court with the 2 Penick Picket Pole, obstructing process, 3 harassing with yelling through megaphones 4 and other noise, blocking at cursing at 5 police, attempting to enforce the injunction 6 and preserving public order, picketing and 7 protesting in unauthorized areas, inhibiting 8 ingress and egress on Scientology properties 9 and generally treating the injunction as a 10 joke. 11 As Ms. Bezazian put it in her internet 12 posting, playing with everyone here, 13 laughing and having a good time. So, Your 14 Honor, the message needs to go out and the 15 court has sat here with more patiences 16 frankly than I thought you'd ever have and 17 listened to all this. And it's time that a 18 message be sent out that we're going to live 19 in this community together. They got a 20 right to protest. We got a right to exist. 21 This sets down the recipe. 22 I look forward to refining in the 23 future. It's going to be a lot easier to 24 refine if they know you mean business. I 25 think I've said enough, Your Honor. 1445 1 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. 2 Mr. Merrett. 3 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, Mr. Howie is 4 going to go next, if that's okay. 5 THE COURT: That's fine. 6 MR. HOWIE: Thank you. Your Honor, the 7 petitioner has presented three theories by 8 which the court should hold Mr. Minton in 9 contempt. 10 The first theory is that somehow 11 Mr. Minton violated one or more of the 12 prohibitions of the court's second temporary 13 injunction. And we've recited those ad 14 nauseam, but by that I mean coming within 15 ten feet of a church member, blocking the 16 path of a Church member vehicle, physically 17 inhibiting any person from leaving or 18 entering the building, committing acts of 19 harassment or violence against a member of 20 the Church, and demonstrating in a 21 non-orange zone. 22 Now, there are two remaining theories 23 but they do comport with the charging 24 document here, because again, the orders to 25 show cause specifically refer to violations 1446 1 of the injunction. It did not refer to 2 violations of the law or ask that otherwise 3 exemplified contempt of court. 4 However, addressing those two theories 5 they suggest there were is indirect criminal 6 contempt of the court using Thompson V. 7 State at 398 So. 2d. 514 and that this 8 constituted an obstruction of the court's 9 proper function. 10 I would point out that Thompson first of 11 all is not on point because it involved a 12 contempt of court by a lawyer failing to 13 appear for a trial calendar. I would also 14 point out that the court found that there 15 was a complete lack of intent in that case 16 and the conviction for contempt was 17 reversed. 18 I'm also concerned that the Church has 19 any standing to raise this issue when their 20 motion for an order to show cause clearly 21 referred only to violations of the court's 22 temporary second injunction. 23 Be that as it may, I would point out to 24 the court that if the court wishes to 25 proceed on that theory and reviewing the 1447 1 evidence, that Thompson does state that 2 intent is an essential element of the 3 contempt and that intent must be proved 4 beyond and to the exclusion every reasonable 5 doubt before there can be a finding of 6 contempt. 7 They third theory presented by the 8 petitioner, a theory that we again reject on 9 very solid legal grounds is that these 10 constituted criminal acts, acts which 11 violated specific statutes. 12 The criminal law cannot and does not 13 define these offenses. And the law in 14 Florida for at least the last 46 years has 15 been that an injunction cannot be used to 16 enjoin the commission of a crime or to 17 enforce criminal laws and I've cited Winer 18 v. Kelly, 82 So. 2d. 155 on that point. 19 The court of course is fully aware that 20 the proof must be beyond and to the 21 exclusion of every reasonable doubt and that 22 the reasonable doubt can be established by 23 the evidence, conflicts in the evidence ot 24 lack of evidence. 25 The conflicts in this evidence and the 1448 1 lack of evidence combined with the lack of 2 the legal basis clearly show that Mr. Minton 3 is not guilty of contempt of any violation 4 of the injunction and should not be 5 subjected to a finding of criminal contempt. 6 Talking about the specific instances, 7 the spy camera incident on December 4 in 8 anticipation of Mr. Merrett's own arguments, 9 I will adopt those arguments as well, but 10 let's talk about the basis by which they 11 came to be there. 12 Mr. Minton was there photographing this 13 spy camera for a legitimate purpose. It was 14 to serve as the basis of a motion or other 15 remedy in an independent action. 16 It has been typified as a self-help 17 measure. It was no more self-help than a 18 person taking pictures of an automobile 19 accident. 20 Mr. Minton has a right to be where he 21 was and he had a right to do what he was 22 doing. They have cited absolutely no basis 23 under which this was a violation of the 24 injunction. 25 The closest possible tenuous argument 1449 1 stretching it to the limit is that somehow 2 that constituted a harassment of a Church of 3 Scientology member. There was absolutely no 4 competent evidence presented to this court 5 that any member of the Church of Scientology 6 was harassed by this action. 7 I would also point out that Mr. Minton's 8 actions were done appropriately and with due 9 care. There is no competent evidence 10 presented to the court that the camera was 11 broken or that the focus was even hurt. 12 The only work that we know of that they 13 performed on this camera and the junction 14 box contained in it, was to quickly move the 15 camera from the rat bait building to the 16 side of the Clearwater Bank Building for the 17 benefit of the self-serving exhibit number 18 seven showing that the camera was now 19 against the Clearwater Bank Building. 20 This action by Mr. Minton did not 21 constitute a picketing or demonstration by 22 any stretch of the imagination. He did not 23 block or interfere with anyone. The bread 24 delivery breezed right through. 25 Again, I remind the court that the bread 1450 1 delivery was the only allegation in the 2 motion to cause for the order to show cause 3 in which it was alleged that Mr. Minton 4 blocked or interfered with anybody going 5 into or ot of the building. And it's clear 6 that the bread delivery went through. 7 On the issue of inhibiting someone from 8 exiting the building, I think it is 9 significant that during the petitioner's 10 case in chief they never presented any 11 evidence whatsoever that anybody was 12 inhibited from entering or leaving the 13 building. 14 Subsequently on rebuttal I think the 15 court will certainly consider that, that it 16 was first presented on rebuttal. The only 17 evidence we have on this point is from 18 Barbro Wennberg who was improperly presented 19 as a rebuttal witness when it should have 20 been presented in the case in chief. 21 Apart from the fact that her testimony 22 has absolutely nothing to do with any of the 23 allegations in the order to show cause, she 24 testified that in fact she was inhibited 25 from exiting the building. 1451 1 There are two credibility problems with 2 her testimony. She claims to have told 3 nobody about this at all until her 4 conversation with the attorneys for the 5 first time on Sunday, February 18, the day 6 before her testimony. 7 Now, there is a definite credibility 8 problem as to how this testimony suddenly 9 emerged full blown and conveniently in time 10 for it to serve as some form of rebuttal 11 evidence. 12 We are not told how she was located, how 13 her testimony came to light. There is no 14 corroboration for her complaint. There is 15 no background provided by the petitioner as 16 to why we should believe Ms. Wennberg. 17 But then there is credibility problem 18 number two and is far more substantive. Her 19 version of what occurred that day while 20 Mr. Minton was actually on the ladder does 21 no comport with either the known facts or 22 the physical evidence presented to the court 23 by way of the videotape of the December 4 24 camera incident. 25 The videotape quite frankly does not 1452 1 support her version. The court heard her 2 testimony. She testified that she came out 3 of the right-hand door of the double door, 4 that she opened that door fully, that she 5 stepped one to two feet out of that door and 6 that when she saw Mr. Minton, his back was 7 turned to her on the ladder however she was 8 able to identify him because he was in 9 profile to her. She further states that she 10 viewed this for one to two seconds, felt 11 inhibited and went back into the building. 12 I invite the court to view the video and 13 I believe, I think Mr. Merrett may in fact 14 present that to the court as part of his 15 argument and I won't steal Mr. Merrett's 16 thunder on that point, but I can't let it 17 pass without pointing out that during the 18 entire time Mr. Merrett or Mr. Minton rather 19 is on the ladder, we do not see the door 20 open for anything other than a bread 21 delivery. 22 There is a point at which the court will 23 observe that Mr. Minton, with the assistance 24 of Jesse Prince, moves the ladder a few feet 25 further south in order to get a different 1453 1 angle. 2 At that point and only at that point is 3 his back turned towards the double door when 4 Ms. Wennberg claims she came out of the 5 door. 6 Observe it closely and you will see that 7 the videotape fully shows the right-hand 8 side door and not once does that door open 9 crack. It certainly doesn't open fully and 10 Mrs. Wennberg doesn't appear on videotape at 11 all emerging one to two feet out of that 12 door looking at Mr. Minton and then 13 retreating back in because she's inhibited. 14 That videotape clearly shows fabrication 15 on the part this witness. And whatever the 16 court may do with this particular incident, 17 it should not base its decision on any 18 testimony presently by this witness where 19 her testimony is not only not corroborated. 20 It is in fact belied by the videotape 21 evidence which the court has. 22 There is no indication during this 23 entire incident that Mr. Minton came within 24 ten feet of any member of the Church of 25 Scientology. He clearly has indicated that 1454 1 there was no intent to commit a violation of 2 the word of the order and the spirit of the 3 injunction when he took pictures of the 4 camera. He did not see anyone within ten 5 feet of him. And by Ms. Wennberg's own 6 testimony if we were to afford it the 7 credibility it does not deserve, Mr. Minton 8 did not appear to see her because he was too 9 busy taking pictures and therefore could not 10 have even known of her presence. 11 There is no independent proof of a 12 separate intent to violate this court's 13 injunction during this entire episode. 14 There was not violation of any of the five 15 prohibitions in the injunction nor was there 16 otherwise any form of the direct criminal 17 contempt. 18 Next, concerning the process server 19 incident on January 5. We have maintained 20 this is not a violation of the injunction. 21 Clearly, Lindsey Colton, the personal or the 22 private investigator was not a member of the 23 Church of Scientology. So, right there, 24 that eliminated certain violations 25 injunction. 1455 1 He did not come within ten feet of a 2 member of the Church. He did not harass or 3 do violence to a member of the Church. He 4 did not block entrance or egress from any 5 Church property. 6 The only issues that remain -- well, 7 there's demonstration. He certainly wasn't 8 demonstrating right in front of the Lisa 9 McPherson Trust Building. And because it 10 happened right in front of the Lisa 11 McPherson Trust Building, there is no 12 violation of the word for the purpose of the 13 injunction. 14 The petitioner's entire focus here 15 appears to be on the court's order of 16 December 1 that clarifies the injunction. 17 Now, what does that order say as to process 18 servers? 19 It simply says that process servers are 20 not subject to the injunction. That if the 21 Church or Lisa McPherson Trust hire a 22 process server that process service is 23 allowed to come with ten feet of someone to 24 serve papers. 25 Consider going back to the December of 1456 1 last year. Consider what the court's 2 purpose was in clarifying the injunction. 3 Consider also by the way that this motion 4 for clarification was not actually subject 5 to a hearing by the court but was granted 6 essentially ex parte based on the court's 7 own feelings concerning what was necessary 8 to clarify. And it is clear, at least I 9 presume that it's clear. What the court's 10 intent was as to process servers and that 11 was that there would be times when the 12 Church would wish to serve a copy of the 13 injunction upon people in the orange zone, 14 people who might be associated with the Lisa 15 McPherson Trust and would not be a violation 16 for them to be approached by a process 17 server and handed a copy of the injunction. 18 Now, the court did not say in its motion 19 for clarification that if a member or 20 associate or employee of the Lisa McPherson 21 Trust turns on their heels and walks from 22 the process server, they are thereby in 23 violation of injunction. 24 The court never said that. The court 25 didn't intend to say that. 1457 1 I think it is almost a perverse 2 misinterpretation of the court's order by 3 the petitioner, to the same degree a 4 perversion they accuse of committing, to say 5 that the court's order must be interpreted 6 that Mr. Minton shall stands still, rock 7 solid in place and submit to service of 8 process by a process server. 9 The court did not say that and that was 10 not the purpose of the court's clarification 11 of this injunction. 12 The petitioner seems to argue that if 13 Mr. Minton tries to maintain a ten foot 14 distance from a process server under the 15 mistaken but cautious misinterpretation of 16 the injunction, he is thereby in violation 17 of the injunction, no question about it and 18 that is taking this injunction and the 19 court's order for clarification and turning 20 them completely on their head on one of the 21 most amazing demonstrations of dislogic I've 22 ever seen in the courtroom. 23 The violation theory under Thompson that 24 somehow his running from Lindsey Colton is 25 obstructing or embarrassing the court in its 1458 1 proper functions just doesn't hold water. 2 This is based on the idea that the 3 process server is an agent of the court 4 under the court's order of December 1. 5 Granted the process server is an agent of 6 the court for making sure that any process 7 server, no matter who hires that process 8 server is not subject to an injunction. 9 That's accepted. That the common 10 demonstration in the courts order. 11 But, this was not meant, this order by 12 the court of December 1 was not meant to be 13 a weapon to be used only by the petitioner 14 so that they could take their process 15 servers and intrude anywhere they wanted to 16 and woe be to the person who some much as 17 looked cross-eyed at them. 18 There may an alternative argument here 19 that the petitioner is trying to make and I 20 ask the court to reject that argument and 21 that is based on the idea that process 22 server is a law enforcement officer under 23 843.01 and 843.02 of the Florida statutes. 24 Well, again, I cite Winer v. Kelly. You 25 cannot use an injunction to enforce a 1459 1 criminal statute. Clearly 843.01 and 02 is 2 a criminal statute. 3 If they're suggesting to you that you 4 should hold Mr. Minton in contempt of court 5 because somehow a process server is a law 6 enforcement officer under Chapter 842 and 7 that he committed the act of obstructing or 8 opposing, well, we have another division of 9 this court that can handle that, but this 10 court cannot handle that as a contempt of 11 court and cannot handle that as a violation 12 of the this injunction. 13 Now, if the court were to accept their 14 interpretation of the law, that means that 15 every time a person refuses to answer the 16 knock on the door from a process server, 17 that person is guilty of a misdemeanor. The 18 court is well aware that that is not the 19 state of our law. 20 I ask the court to reject these 21 alternative theories that somehow 22 Mr. Minton's actions constituted either a 23 violation of the law or some contempt of 24 court in embarrassing the court's proper 25 function. And to find that the there is 1460 1 clearly no violation of the injunction. 2 My final concern about this whole 3 episode, my deepest concern about this whole 4 episode involving the process server is that 5 the whole thing was clearly a setup. 6 After all, the petitioner knew that the 7 injunction was being interpreted by the 8 respondents to extend to process servers, 9 Clearwater police officers who were under 10 the pay of the Church of Scientology and 11 that can they take advantage of this 12 misinterpretation by Mr. Minton and by 13 others. 14 The petitioner was aware of the 15 incidents involving John Merrett and Stacy 16 Brooks in which they strongly and verbally 17 opposed service of process under certain 18 circumstances such as at the restaurant and 19 in the corridor of the Lisa McPherson Trust 20 Building. 21 The petitioner knew that Mr. Minton was 22 knowledgable of these incidents. The 23 petitioner knew that Mr. Minton would be 24 arriving at the Lisa McPherson Trust 25 Building at a particular range of time so 1461 1 that the process server, Lindsey Colton, 2 laid in wait for Mr. Minton for a period of 3 about 45 minutes. 4 Now, they have a video camera there. 5 This was new too. It was something they had 6 not done before during any prior service of 7 process incident but they have a video 8 camera to make sure that they recorded 9 Mr. Minton's predictable adverse reaction to 10 service of process. 11 Then the petitioner put together a 12 largely pointless package of paper which 13 should have been served pursuant to Rule 14 1.080 of the Florida Rules of Civil 15 Procedure, because it did not constitute 16 actual service of process under 1.070. 17 They knew, the petitioner knew that 18 Mr. Minton had an attorney of record who 19 would receive service of papers that they 20 had to serve on Mr. Minton. So they 21 contrived this whole event in an effort to 22 put Mr. Minton in a bad light, but the 23 problem with what they contrived was that 24 that were hoisted on their own petard when 25 Mrs. Colton actually did her job and 1462 1 succeeded in serving Mr. Minton with the 2 stack of papers that she had. 3 There is no dispute that he was served. 4 We are hardly in a position to contend that 5 Mr. Minton was not served and we knew that 6 he was. He was served just as quickly with 7 just as much expedition as if he had stood 8 stalk still to the sidewalk, given 9 Ms. Colton and a big smile and a big thank 10 you after she had served him. 11 There is in fact no obstruction of this 12 court in its proper functions in what 13 occurred. 14 If, to demonstrate his disgust, 15 Mr. Minton hurls these papers to the 16 sidewalk, he does so at his own peril. If 17 he fails to appear for a deposition or a 18 motion hearing, he does so at his own peril 19 and the court is in a position to deal with 20 that issue at that time. But the court 21 should not find a contempt of the court 22 occurs every time somebody scowls at papers 23 that have been served to them. 24 It does not -- it is not indicative of a 25 contempt of this court or anything other 1463 1 than what Mr. Minton said it was which was 2 to signal his disgust in the manner in which 3 he was served by the petitioner. 4 If Mr. Minton was showing his contempt 5 for the Church and not for this court, 6 that's hardly a basis for a violation of 7 this injunction. 8 I would then point out that as part of 9 this process, as part of the setup, the 10 petitioner or the process server for the 11 petitioner then files a questionable 12 affidavit concerning subpoenas or referring 13 to subpoenas which were not even at issue in 14 this case and then to top it all off, the 15 petitioner comes in asking for an equitable 16 remedy when their hands re: dirty with the 17 stuff that that contrived in order to show 18 that Mr. Minton somehow was violating the 19 injunction. 20 The petitioner should be denied its 21 equitable remedy in this matter simply 22 because they come into this courtroom with 23 unclean hands; unclean hand as a result of 24 the setup that they imposed on Mr. Minton. 25 Mr. Minton's history shows that he did 1464 1 not avoid process servers in the past, even 2 under the most trying of circumstances. 3 When they served him on his birthday with 4 balloons, when they served him at dinners, 5 they served him by running a car under a 6 closing garage door. 7 Mr. Minton, under the circumstances 8 showed unusual grace in the acceptance of 9 service of papers in the past. 10 In this particular instance, Mr. Minton 11 acted in accordance with what he reasonably 12 interpreted the injunction to mean out of an 13 abundance of caution. He had no actual 14 knowledge of the court's order of December 1 15 clarifying the injunction, but it doesn't 16 matter if he did. 17 The order of December 1 making process 18 servers agents of the court did not mean 19 that all respondents are ordered to stand 20 still and obey all process servers as if 21 they were obeying the court itself. 22 The petitioners suggest that Mr. Minton 23 should be punished for being overly cautious 24 in his interpretation of the temporary 25 injunction. That somehow his over caution 1465 1 is a mockery of this courts injunction. I 2 suggest to you that caution in following 3 this injunction and insisting that others 4 obey this injunction cannot possibly be a 5 mockery of this court's injunction or any 6 other order of the court. 7 Because there is no legal basis for 8 finding this incident amounts to a contempt, 9 there is clearly no factual basis for proof 10 beyond a reasonable doubt on this matter. 11 Now, in the Coachman driveway incident 12 on January 6, the videotape is the best 13 evidence of this episode and at the risk of 14 restating what I said during my renewal of 15 my judgement of acquittal argument, I want 16 to review the facts quickly. 17 Mr. Minton was walking northbound on the 18 east side of Ft. Harrison in an orange zone 19 as he approached the Coachman driveway. The 20 videotape clearly shows what when he was 21 more than ten feet south of the south edge 22 of the drive, still in an orange zone, he 23 turned his attention to Antonio Avila who 24 was videotaping him. 25 Mr. Minton as the video shows, points 1466 1 the Threep at Mr. Avila and warns him 2 through a megaphone stay back ten feet, 3 Buddy. He then continues this admonition if 4 Mr. Avila as he crosses the entire width of 5 the driveway of the Coachman parking lot 6 from the southern orange zone, all the way 7 up to the northern orange zone. 8 The court will see by viewing the 9 videotape that Mr. Minton clearly takes 10 four, perhaps five after, he passes the 11 north edge of the drive before he then turns 12 his attention to the two men who were 13 working on the pressure washer a few yards 14 away at which admittedly he is arguably 15 demonstrating while clearly in an orange 16 zone ten feet from the driveway. 17 He shouts to the two men who ignore him 18 and in fact their pressure washing is going 19 while he goes on. Clearly it demonstrated 20 that they weren't harassed, intimidated or 21 thwarted in their efforts by Mr. Minton. 22 He obstructs no persons or vehicles 23 while he is crossing the driveway, which 24 after all, was the purpose of this court's 25 order on in that particular point. When the 1467 1 court took it's blue marker and marked off 2 the driveway with the admonition, stay ten 3 feet away from the drive, it was clearly 4 with the intent to say you can't demonstrate 5 here and you certainly can't block the path 6 here. 7 Mr. Minton complied with that order of 8 this court. He crossed the driveway with 9 all due diligence and deliberation and he 10 did not block anybody in the course of 11 crossing the drive. 12 He did not resume demonstrating until he 13 was clearly ten feet north of the driveway. 14 MR. POPE: Excuse me, Your Honor, I may 15 have understood but was under the impression 16 that the incident Mr. Howie is arguing now 17 was a JOV by the court. 18 THE COURT: It was, but I figured if he 19 wants to argue, we might be right back into 20 it. 21 MR. HOWIE: I'm sorry. 22 THE COURT: I'm sitting here fat, dumb 23 and happy. Let the record be real clear. 24 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I 25 have it down as a denial. 1468 1 THE COURT: That's all right. If you 2 want to go ahead and argue your man right 3 into it, go ahead. 4 MR. HOWIE: I'll move to strike what I 5 just said. 6 THE COURT: Granted. 7 MR. HOWIE: Thank you. 8 THE COURT: Moving on. 9 MR. HOWIE: Concerning the Watterson 10 Street incident -- I'm sorry, I was going 11 along so well with my argument here. 12 THE COURT: You were on a roll and I 13 didn't want to interrupt you. 14 Let the record be real clear of the 15 professionalism and integrity on Mr. Pope's 16 part there to help you out, Mr. Howie. 17 MR. HOWIE: I appreciate that. 18 THE COURT: You owe him one. 19 MR. HOWIE: I will have him do my 20 closing argument in my next case. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 22 MR. HOWIE: Let me talk about something 23 a little more relevant then, the Watterson 24 Street Threep incident on January 6. 25 Again, the videotape is our best defense 1469 1 in that regard. The facts are fairly clear 2 that Mr. Minton was in an orange zone as he 3 shouted through the megaphone. The video 4 camera pans away momentarily, but when it 5 pans back onto Mr. Minton and the people 6 accompanying him, it is clear that 7 Mr. Minton no longer has a megaphone in his 8 hand and that Mr. Lerma who did not have a 9 megaphone in his hand previously now has a 10 megaphone in his hand. 11 Mr. Lerma brings the megaphone up to his 12 mouth and starts shouting. Now, that's 13 significant. If the court will look at the 14 videotape when Mr. Lerma is clearly calling 15 out through the megaphone, the court will 16 hear Mr. Lerma's voice and can identify 17 Mr. Lerma's voice at that point. 18 Now, as to Mr. Minton holding only the 19 Threep, he crosses the Watterson Avenue in a 20 diagonal. obviously heading towards the Lisa 21 McPherson Trust Building, his demonstrating 22 being done for the day. 23 I point out that he is north of the 24 northern white line with the clear purpose 25 of heading back to the Trust building. At 1470 1 that point Mr. Minton only has the Threep in 2 his hand and he is holding it up, straight 3 up, as he walks down the western sidewalk 4 going towards the Lisa McPherson Trust 5 Building. 6 Now, during this entire time there is 7 noise on the tape, the noise of people 8 calling in loud booming voices across the 9 street. The petitioner argues in this case 10 that this must be Mr. Minton's voice. 11 I ask the court to look at the entire 12 tape including the incident where Mr. Lerma 13 is clearly talking on the megaphone and I 14 believe that the court will identify this 15 booming voice assigned to Mr. Minton as 16 actually being the voice of Mr. Lerma 17 speaking through a megaphone which gives it 18 such application. 19 There is absolutely no competent 20 evidence in this case, either from the 21 videotape or anything else the court heard 22 that says this was Mr. Minton's booming 23 voice as he walked northbound on Watterson. 24 There is simply no evidence of that. 25 All the videotape shows Mr. Minton doing 1471 1 is holding the Threep straight up in the 2 air. The Threep had absolutely no worded on 3 it other than the injunction that was 4 attached to the end of it. Clearly 5 displaying the court's injunction even in a 6 non-orange zone does not -- is not an act of 7 demonstrating, picketing or protesting in a 8 non-orange zone. 9 There is certainly no proof beyond a 10 reasonable doubt that this act would 11 constitute a picketing or protest in a 12 non-orange zone. 13 Finally, I would point out that during 14 this entire incident there was no other 15 violation of the injunction. He certainly 16 did not come within close to any member of 17 the Church of Scientology. He clearly did 18 not block anybody. The street was empty. 19 He clearly did not inhibit anybody from 20 going into or out of the building. There 21 were no other violations of the injunction. 22 Mr. Pope spoke of the court wasting its 23 time in the future. I would like to think 24 that this hearing has not been a waste of 25 time because in fact a lot of things have 1472 1 been hammered out here and some good may 2 come of this hearing. But I think where we 3 have wasted time in this hearing is that the 4 petitioner has been required to prove a 5 violation of this injunction beyond and to 6 the exclusion of a reasonable doubt and the 7 petitioner has failed in that effort in each 8 and every matter that was raised in the 9 order to show cause. 10 Mr. Minton has demonstrated that he did 11 not have any intent to violate this 12 injunction. And that in fact he comports 13 for himself within the injunction with 14 caution and will continue to do so. 15 For those reasons I ask the court that 16 you find Mr. Minton not guilty on each and 17 every one of these count. 18 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Howie, I thank you 19 very much. Before we launch into the 20 argument by Mr. Merrett, this would be an 21 appropriate time to take a luncheon break. I 22 anticipate his will be at least the full 45 23 minutes, so if we come back at 1:15, we'll 24 pick it up from there with the closing 25 arguments. 1473 1 Thank you all very much. 2 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken, 3 after which the proceedings continued.) 4 THE COURT: Mr. Merrett, sir, you may 5 proceed. 6 MR. MERRETT: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 For nearly 60 years, Judge, the people of the 8 all ages from infancy to dotage in this 9 country at least have seen a movie. I think 10 we almost all share in common as part of our 11 cultural heritage. The movie is the "Wizard 12 of Oz". 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. MERRETT: It's filled with images 15 and sayings that have become part of the 16 fabric of our culture, but there's one 17 particular scene in that movie that has 18 acquired almost universal resonance. It's a 19 touchstone for when people play games with us 20 and it's that moment in the movie when the 21 little dog grabs the edge of the green 22 curtain and pulls it back exposing the 23 charlatan and the great and powerful Oz, the 24 terrible vision suspends above the flames at 25 the front of the room says, ignore the man 1474 1 behind the curtain. 2 Well there is a reason that the great 3 and powerful Oz has said that and the reason 4 is that if you don't ignore the man behind 5 the curtain you find out that the great and 6 powerful Oz in all of his all reputation for 7 all the terror that he inspires is nothing 8 more than smoke and flickering light. 9 Your Honor, I suggest to you that it is 10 a similar motivation to cause Mr. Pope to 11 open his remarks to you with the statement 12 that we're past who these parties are. 13 We're past what goes on. We're past right 14 and wrong. We're past who's evil and who is 15 good. 16 If you take that advice, Judge, and you 17 decline to look at the charlatan behind the 18 curtain, what you ignore coming into this 19 case is the very reason that you have eight 20 or nine or ten pages of criminal charges 21 brought by Scientology as to which they were 22 able to adduce prima facie case of five 23 incidents. 24 After all this time. After seven days 25 of evidence. You missed that. You missed 1475 1 the fact that when you leaf back through the 2 file as I'm sure you will, you will find not 3 only that one of the process servers filed 4 an affidavit saying that he acted at the 5 direction of Kendrick Moxon who is not an 6 attorney in Florida in serving process long 7 before Ms. Kobrin filed her appearance in 8 the case. 9 You'll also see that some of these same 10 process servers filed other affidavits of 11 service listing Mr. Pope's address as the 12 address of Moxon and Kobrin. 13 If you don't look behind the curtain, 14 Judge, you don't see the significance of 15 that fact, because you don't see that 16 Kendrick Moxon is an unindicted 17 coconspirator in a domestic spying ring. 18 You don't see that there is a reason for his 19 involvement in what has been presented to 20 you. You don't see that there is a reason 21 that Mr. Hertzberg has been flung into outer 22 darkness and Mr. Moxon's partner is brought 23 in here to sit at counsel table. 24 This is a special situation requiring 25 special handling, so we have Moxon and 1476 1 Kobrin brought in. Moxon first of all. 2 No appearance in this case by anybody in 3 his firm and he's not a lawyer, but he's all 4 of a sudden in the case. 5 MR. POPE: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm 6 going to have to interrupt counsel as much as 7 I hate to do because he's arguing things that 8 aren't in evidence. Mr. Hertzberg left 9 because he had to go to Paris. 10 You know, he's arguing stuff that is 11 totally outside the evidence and I think he 12 ought to be constrained to argue the 13 evidence. 14 He's got two issues. One is the camera 15 episode as to himself and the other is to 16 Ms. Bezazian, his client, and all the rest 17 of this is totally outside of the record. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hertzberg went to 19 Paris in springtime? 20 MR. POPE: He did. 21 MR. MERRETT: I would point out to the 22 court that the last time we were told why he 23 left, it was New York. You'll probably 24 remember that from the session in chambers. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. That's all 1477 1 right. 2 MR. MERRETT: In any event, we have this 3 sudden change of the players in the course of 4 the case and invitation to ignore everything 5 that you know about the people who are here, 6 everything that you know about Scientology. 7 I'm not going to make this the theme of 8 my remarks so I'll out all of this up front 9 and ask that you just keep in mind what came 10 into evidence about Scientology and about 11 what's going on hear. 12 Mr. Minton testified that part of 13 Scientology's fair game, part of their 14 doctrine with regards to critics is that all 15 critics are criminals and that they are 16 entitled to do anything to make that a fact. 17 They are entitled to do anything to allow 18 themselves to publicly proclaim, look we 19 told you they are criminal, and I suggest to 20 Your Honor that that includes coming into 21 this courtroom and asking you to sign off on 22 Hubbard's doctrine. 23 THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, Mr. Merrett. 24 How do I get to Hubbard's doctrine for all 25 the stuff we've had here for ten days? 1478 1 MR. MERRETT: I can tell you very easily 2 how you get there. You get there because 3 everything that you've heard, everything that 4 you've seen written on the paper everything 5 that you've heard from these witnesses you 6 don't have a single Scientologist saying 7 Judge, they got in my face. They bothered 8 me. They interfered with me. 9 You do have Ms. Wennberg, but we'll deal 10 with her at some length and in some detail. 11 But other than that, all of this viewed in 12 the light most favorable to Scientology, is 13 technical allegations with no actual effect 14 on anybody who was intended to be protected 15 by the injunction. 16 The point of this is not to protect 17 Scientologists or Scientology. The point of 18 this is not to deter any conduct harmful to 19 anybody. The point of this is simply at 20 whatever cost to secure a conviction. 21 Now, Mr. Bunker testified about that 22 Bigotwatch web site. Mr. Shaw was kind 23 enough to tell us he was wrong by correcting 24 the name of the web site for us and you 25 recall he testified about it being pointed 1479 1 out to the court one day that there was a 2 pleading from case or an order that was on 3 Bigotwatch before it was delivered to me and 4 it taken down that very day when the was 5 apprised of its presence. 6 Judge, that's where your order is going 7 if there is a conviction. That's the 8 purpose of this is they want to document it. 9 They want a judgment of guilty to post on 10 Bigotwatch so they can tell everybody, see, 11 we told you, they're criminals. Their 12 lawyer is criminal. Tory Bezazian was one 13 of us for 30 years and she's a criminal. If 14 she wasn't a criminal she would be a critic. 15 MR. POPE: Same objection. Your Honor, 16 now he's telling you with no evidentiary 17 foundation whatever why it is we've brought 18 this thing and what we're going to do in the 19 future. I mean this is ridiculous. 20 MR. MERRETT: I'll move on, Your Honor, 21 simply noting that it is the -- 22 MR. POPE: There he goes again. 23 MR. MERRETT: That, Your Honor, is the 24 basis of our presence here today. And I ask 25 you again, look at the orders to show cause. 1480 1 Look for the allegation that anybody was 2 injured. It's not there. 3 Now, I want to talk first about 4 Ms. Bezazian. Mr. Pope was loud and long 5 and repeated in saying all she had to do was 6 turn the sign upside down. That's all she 7 had to do. 8 Well, the first thing that we need to do 9 and I'm sure Mr. Pope will do this when he 10 gets back up is he'll read to you from the 11 injunction where you explained how is that 12 you protect yourself when you have to move 13 through a zone other than an orange zone and 14 have a picket sign in your possession. I'm 15 sure he can do that since he's very clear 16 that any idiot could have figured that out. 17 It is self-evident and criminal not to have 18 turned the sign upside down. 19 Remember, Judge, that's what -- 20 everything he says, he's saying that. It is 21 criminal to do this, it is criminal not to 22 do this. 23 His allegation to you that is so clear 24 that not turning the sign upside down as you 25 walk from the LMT down Ft. Harrison Avenue 1481 1 toward the Ft. Harrison Hotel, that keeping 2 them upright instead of inverted is a crime 3 and because she kept them in her hands 4 upright when she came back the other way it 5 is so self evident that all you got to do is 6 turn them upside down, that not turning them 7 upside down is a crime. 8 Now, Mr. Pope was careful to point out 9 to you, Your Honor, that Ms. Bezazian was 10 present when that police lieutenant was 11 explaining the injunction to people. 12 I want you to watch, if you will -- 13 THE COURT: Let's do this. Let's take 14 it around and let's do what we said we were 15 going to do so the people will be able to 16 see. 17 MR. MERRETT: Listen carefully to what 18 this police lieutenant says, Your Honor. 19 (whereupon, the videotape was played.) 20 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I don't 21 understand any of that with the scratching 22 and all. 23 MR. MERRETT: What that is the parakeets 24 in the trees overhead, Judge. 25 THE COURT: Parakeets, okay. 1482 1 (Whereupon, the videotape was played.). 2 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, it's important 3 that you catch what this officer is doing as 4 he talks. He just told them the button is 5 not picketing and watch what he does. 6 (Whereupon, the videotape was played.) 7 What you saw there, You Honor, was 8 Mr. Henson standing with his signs inverted 9 just like Mr. Pope wants him to do and a 10 policeman can up to the sign and said this 11 is picketing, this is picketing, this is a 12 picket. And the signs were upside down and 13 Ms. Bezazian was standing right there. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Now, stop there just 15 a minute, please, sir. 16 (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took 17 place.) 18 Okay. Are going to be putting on any 19 more videos? 20 MR. MERRETT: I probably will, unless 21 the court is more comfortable at the bench. 22 It doesn't matter to me. 23 So where we find ourselves, Judge, is 24 that even if Scientology had equipped 25 Ms. Bezazian to read minds, she was still 1483 1 confronted with a police officer telling her 2 that standing there with the sign upside 3 down was picketing which leaves her with the 4 question and it's not a big deal if you're 5 applying reason rather than prejudice, is 6 how you get from a orange zone to another. 7 How do you get from one place where you 8 have right to be with a picket sign to 9 another place that you have a right to be 10 with a picket sign when the entire area is 11 on the maps attached to the injunction and 12 parts of your necessary path are not orange. 13 What she did was move directly and 14 continuously from her point of origin to her 15 destination, she picketed and then she went 16 back. 17 You don't see her making a circuit up 18 and down the west side of the Clearwater 19 Bank Building with her signs. You don't see 20 her standing in place near the Clearwater 21 Bank Building except for the time that she 22 is talking to the police officer, the female 23 police officer, you don't see her doing any 24 of that. 25 Now, Mr. Pope made a big, big point of 1484 1 accusing the critics, particularly including 2 Ms. Bezazian, of game playing. 3 Now, clearly as a matter of logic it 4 must be possible since the court did not 5 prohibit picketing, it must be possible to 6 move from one place to another in possession 7 of picket signs. 8 Now, it's lawful and it is not in 9 obedience to the court's order if you picket 10 in those proscribed area. The question is 11 are we playing games? Have you seen abuse? 12 Judge, what is the hot button place? 13 What is ground zero for picketing? Where 14 was it that you saw Bob Minton when we were 15 in the original trial of this case being 16 swarmed by dozens of Scientologist who 17 miraculously appeared out of nowhere ten 18 minutes after he started picketing, where 19 was all the that? In front of the 20 Ft. Harrison Hotel, not in front of some 21 Scientologist swore to was actually across 22 the street, the real in front of te 23 Ft. Harrison. Right there on the sidewalk 24 outside the front door. That's the place, 25 Judge. That's where the pickets were going 1485 1 on beforehand, that's where the trouble that 2 led to the entry of the injunction came 3 from. 4 Mr. Pope has attributed a great deal of 5 malicious cleverness to the critics 6 including Ms. Bezazian, they're playing 7 against, they're pushing the limits. You 8 know what, Judge. If he was right there is 9 something you would have heard that you 10 didn't hear. 11 What you would have heard is a 12 Scientologist saying yes, Your Honor, that's 13 the videotape of Tory Bezazian walking 14 across in front of the Ft. Harrison outside 15 the front door with a picket sign. And then 16 you would have heard Tory Bezazian saying 17 but, Judge, I was just trying to get to the 18 orange area around on Pierce Street. 19 If there was game playing, Judge, unless 20 you adopted judicial finding that the 21 critics are all nitwits, if there was game 22 playing it would have been to some desired 23 end or desired effect. It would have been 24 to engage in actual picketing at a 25 meaningful location which would have 1486 1 otherwise been proscribed. 2 One doesn't play games, one doesn't pull 3 the court's nose by picketing alongside a 4 blind wall down Ft. Harrison Avenue. Judge, 5 there is no way. 6 If this was game playing, if this was 7 bogus, if this was made up, you would have 8 seen picketing directly in front of 9 Ft. Harrison Hotel and then you would have 10 heard the excuse, Judge, I was just trying 11 to get to the legal place. I was going to 12 picket in front of the courthouse. I was 13 headed to Pierce Street. I was on my way to 14 the covered walkway on the other side of 15 Ft. Harrison, but you didn't hear that. You 16 don't see anything that even looks like 17 anybody playing games or making up excuses 18 or pulling the court's nose. 19 What you see is somebody taking not 20 necessarily the most direct route down 21 Ft. Harrison Avenue to a legal picketing 22 area, but the route which the least likely 23 to bring her into immediate contact with 24 Scientologists. 25 She testified if you recall if this the 1487 1 Clearwater Bank Building and this is the 2 Coachman Building, she testified that she 3 came down this side. Mr. Enerson described 4 in great detail what's here and the court 5 noted that the court was familiar with that 6 building. You got about a third of the 7 building is blank walls, a third of the 8 building is windows that are about ten feet 9 off the ground and the last third of the 10 building is ordinary eye level windows, but 11 they're covered with window shades which 12 according to the testimony that you heard 13 are always drawn. 14 She moved continuously down here across 15 the street they told on the Ft. Harrison and 16 then she came back. 17 Now, that same day you have the incident 18 in the driveway. And the allegation is 19 number one, that she failed to stay ten feet 20 back from the driveway and number two, that 21 she blocked the driveway. 22 Now, if wishes were horses, then beggars 23 would ride. If watches were turnips, I 24 would wear one by my side, but none of those 25 things is true. 1488 1 If Ms. Bezazian had blocked the 2 driveway, she might well be in violation of 3 the injunction. However, it's absolutely 4 incontroverted and not even admitted, 5 Scientology has pretended throughout this 6 proceeding like it simply didn't happen, 7 that this UPS truck as big as a house drove 8 through the supposedly blocked driveway. 9 Nobody has, and I suspect it's because 10 nobody can, attempted to resolve the tension 11 between the driveway as blocked and the 12 giant brown truck drove into the driveway. 13 That's simply not possible. And you see it 14 on both views and one thing the court needs 15 to be aware of when watching these 16 videotapes is that you have reversed angles 17 from two different spy cameras. 18 You see it first from the Ft. Harrison 19 down here and then you see it from the 20 Coachman Building and in each instance you 21 see the UPS truck swinging in the driveway 22 big as life visible to everybody except 23 whoever swore out this order to show cause 24 claiming that the driveway was blocked. 25 You have only Mr. Avila's uncorroborated 1489 1 testimony that a van was stopped in the 2 street. 3 Now, the interesting thing is if you 4 watch the videotape you can see the right 5 rear corner of the van in question disappear 6 past the back of the green car. 7 Now, I don't where it went. But it is 8 not on the videotape. If you look there is 9 not a shadow of it on the videotape and 10 manifestly the van does not stop in a 11 position that would indicate that it was 12 waiting for the green car to move. 13 If it stopped it stopped someplace 14 further north out of the field of view of 15 the camera. And if it stopped, it stopped 16 because the driver is incompetent. Because 17 remember, Judge, this evidence was adduced. 18 The vans are smaller than a UPS truck. 19 If this van exists, if this can stopped, the 20 only reason it can't have stopped is because 21 Scientology uses drivers who can't put a 22 standard size van in a hole that a gigantic 23 UPS truck will fit through which means that 24 the problem is not anything that 25 Ms. Bezazian did but rather a lack of 1490 1 competence on the part of the driver. 2 The bottom line, however, Judge, is that 3 you cannot with any application of logic or 4 common sense declare that a driveway which 5 can be transited by a UPS truck is blocked. 6 Now, with regard to her coming within 7 ten feet, the -- actually, let me back up 8 just a second. 9 What I would like to review with you for 10 just a moment, I think it's become obvious I 11 mean Scientology can lay its hands on its 12 people with Ms. Wennberg's sudden 13 appearance, I'd like to review for you 14 briefly the testimony of the van driver who 15 was blocked out in the street. 16 Were done now. You don't remember him 17 testifying either, I take it. It's because 18 they didn't present him. 19 THE COURT: No,he had on that attractive 20 Hawaiian shirt. Come on. Let's go. John. 21 MR. MERRETT: I understand. If that had 22 happened, it would have been easy enough to 23 produce him. The fact is this driveway was 24 not blocked. 25 Obviously, she is, when talking to the 1491 1 driver or passenger of the car, whoever she 2 was talking to was within ten feet of 3 driveway, within ten feet of the opening. 4 However, she testified it is uncontroverted 5 that she was there because she was summoned 6 by the driver, that the car stopped first 7 and called her over while she was in 8 transit. If you watch the time stamp on the 9 tape you'll see that conversation was I 10 think 46 seconds. She testified that she 11 didn't initiate the conversation and she 12 testified that she clearly and it's obvious. 13 You talked to her on the stand, Judge. Her 14 intent was not to violate the injunction. 15 Her intent was evidently not to be rude to 16 the people who stopped in the driveway. As 17 Mr. Pope pointed out to you at the beginning 18 of these proceedings, that intent is a 19 necessary element. 20 I think you can safely assume from her 21 having been here that that ain't going to 22 happen again regardless of who stops in the 23 driveway calls to her. 24 But, Judge, you had the opportunity to 25 observe her demeanor, to talk to her 1492 1 essentially in a free association 2 environment, and, Judge, you know, just like 3 everybody else in this room knows that there 4 was never an intent to violate the 5 injunction. And she never blocked the 6 driveway. 7 Now, that essentially takes care of the 8 specific instances regarding Ms. Bezazian. 9 With regard to the spy camera incident, 10 that brings us to the man behind the 11 curtain. And it bring us to the fact that 12 it is only by considering who it is behind 13 that curtain that you can make sense of what 14 happened yesterday and the witness was 15 dredged up and poured out in front of the 16 court. 17 Now, I want to review with you first, 18 her testimony, who, as Mr. Howie pointed 19 out, was not rebuttal of anything. 20 First off, what she testified to was 21 that the door which is to the left of the 22 viewer from the street remains locked. It 23 is the other, the northernmost of the double 24 doors that can be opened. 25 That was her testimony and if you watch 1493 1 on the videotape you will see that in fact 2 this door, the one on which I wrote while 3 she was testifying opened this door, this is 4 the door that was open, the northernmost 5 door. 6 THE COURT: By her. 7 MR. MERRETT: The door that she claims 8 to have opened, yes. 9 THE COURT: Right. Yeah. Not the bread 10 man. 11 MR. MERRETT: Correct, that's what she 12 said. However, you see it open and closed, 13 thus verifying that the northernmost door is 14 the unlocked door on the videotape. 15 Now, a rule that I was taught early on 16 is that if you can't beat the truth out of a 17 witness, you at least nail them down. You 18 can always accomplish that. 19 Well, given what I was given to work 20 with, what I was stuck with was nailing her 21 down. 22 Now, let's look at what she saw when she 23 tells you that she stepped to that door and 24 the reason that this critical, Judge, is 25 because the events that she tells she saw 1494 1 pin it down a specific instant and we can 2 look at the videotape and see what was I 3 happening at that time instant. 4 If you remember, Mr. Minton testified in 5 surrebuttal that the events that she 6 testified to did happen, but they happened 7 only one time and they're on the videotape. 8 She testified that Mr. Minton was 9 stopped at the time she looked out the door, 10 which she said she opened all the way, 90 11 degrees out. Remember that. Mr. Minton was 12 stopped half way up the ladder taking 13 pictures. 14 When Mr. Howie examined her she 15 testified that Mr. Minton's back was to her. 16 Mr. Minton testified there was in fact a 17 point during which he had his back to the 18 ladder and that is that he was facing north 19 while taking pictures and that happened 20 once. 21 She also testified that she saw me in my 22 dark outfit and that she saw a policeman. 23 So we know that all of this occurred the 24 time that she says she opened the door fully 25 to its 90 degree extension occurring the 1495 1 moment when Mr. Minton was half way up the 2 ladder facing north and I was standing at 3 the foot of the ladder wearing a dark outfit 4 and there was a policeman there. 5 Well, first off, Judge, I was wearing 6 the only clean shirt I own and it was white. 7 It's not a dark outfit. But we'll leave 8 that lay and just put that in a phrase in 9 your memory overall but you'll see in the 10 video there is no dark outfit. 11 However, there is that moment when 12 Mr. Minton is facing north on the ladder 13 with the policeman there. And unfortunately 14 for Ms. Wennberg and whoever it is that fed 15 her this story, you can see the top of the 16 door -- 17 MR. POPE: Objection, Your Honor. There 18 is not the first bit of evidence here to 19 support that kind of claim, whoever it is 20 that fed her this story. It's just part of 21 his while hyperbole that he's so famous for. 22 I'd like for him to stick to arguing the 23 evidence and the inferences there from. 24 MR. MERRETT: We can do that, Judge. 25 You draw the inference. She never told a 1496 1 sole that she was anywhere there that time, 2 but who popped us Sunday morning? OSA, to 3 tell her the lawyers wanted talk to her about 4 December 4. She never told a sole about it 5 but OsA popped up. 6 The next thing you know she's talking to 7 Mr. Moxon's partner. She's talking to Wally 8 Pope and she's in here testifying, so, 9 Judge, I'll let you draw the inference after 10 you see this videotape about where the sorry 11 came from. And I would like to show it to 12 you to now if I might. 13 Judge, where this picks up is -- 14 THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. 15 MR. MERRETT: Judge, where this picks up 16 is you will see the back of the policeman's 17 head as he comes into the frame walking 18 towards the ladder. 19 (Whereupon, the videotape was played.) 20 You see the door is closed. All right. 21 THE COURT: Is that the bread truck 22 right there? 23 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. MERRETT: You'll see the phone here 1497 1 which is south of the doorway and this shadow 2 her is the top of the doorway. 3 (Whereupon, the videotape was played.) 4 You saw Mr. Minton facing north taking 5 the picture and you saw the door is in the 6 frame. 7 The woman testified before God and 8 everybody that she opened the door fully 90 9 degrees across the sidewalk at that moment 10 and you can see the door closed, you can see 11 the shadow, its angle unchanging across the 12 top of door and you remember, she told you 13 of those two doors, that's the only one that 14 opened. 15 Another thing I'd like for you to take a 16 look at when you have leisure, go back to 17 the beginning of the tape and look at how 18 much of the ladder is covered by the door 19 when the door is open. When the bread man 20 comes out the door is open fully and then it 21 closes and it covers everything of the 22 ladder out across the sidewalk except the 23 outside ledge. So you have an unobstructed 24 view of the both legs of the ladder 25 throughout that incident where Mr. Minton is 1498 1 facing north taking the picture. 2 There is no way to overemphasize the 3 import of that, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: All right. Just hold on. 5 (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took 6 place.) 7 Okay. Go ahead. 8 MR. MERRETT: Actually, that's the last 9 of the videos that I have, I believe. But, 10 again, Your Honor, we have filed the original 11 transcript of her testimony and her testimony 12 is unequivocal. There is a space of one to 13 two seconds while Mr. Minton was facing north 14 down Watterson Street taking photographs with 15 his back to her and his back to the ladder, 16 she opened that door fully, 90 degrees and 17 saw him up there. 18 Your Honor, the old saying is oh, what a 19 tangled web we weave when first we practice 20 to deceive. I think the illustration we 21 have here is that we weave rather a more 22 tangled web when we don't practice enough. 23 She told you she saw the video once. 24 Maybe they should've left her with a copy of 25 the video for a while. Because, Judge, you 1499 1 cannot reconcile that testimony with that is 2 on Scientology's surveillance tape. That 3 didn't happen. 4 That's probably why she want here before 5 yesterday, because nobody can see a need to 6 put a little spackle in that hole until we 7 came back to court yesterday. 8 Now, another interest thing about her 9 testimony is this. She testified that she 10 saw Mr. Avila when she opened the door that 11 doesn't open at the time she said it was 12 opened. She said she went to move to her 13 right and she saw him on the sidewalk 14 somewhere in the area of his regular beat. 15 However, in one of those moments that 16 always takes us by surprise I asked her what 17 was outside the door? What was parked 18 there? What did she tell you, Judge? 19 Nothing. She testified that there was 20 nothing there. 21 Well, for the moment the fact we all see 22 the bread truck there, that we see the bread 23 man coming and going unimpeded making their 24 bread delivery. Forget what our own eyes 25 tell us. Ask yourself this, Judge. 1500 1 She testified that she had parked her 2 van south of the that door. Why? Because 3 she couldn't park up there by the door, so 4 she was impeded by a bread truck which was 5 either not there or was there but was 6 invisible to her from parking in her normal 7 place next to the door and was thereby 8 forced to park south down the block. 9 Now, she testified and everybody 10 remembers this phrase and I'm afraid 11 although he said many brilliant things, it's 12 the only thing that Dean Widmore is 13 remembered for, Dean Widmore once said that 14 cross-examination is the greatest engine yet 15 devised by the mind of man for the 16 divination of the truth. And you saw a 17 little bit if that here yesterday, because 18 she originally testified that what she was 19 doing was delivering these 200 meals to the 20 poor hungry children at the Quality Inn. It 21 was only later when she was examined by the 22 court and then by myself that she conceded 23 that what she was actually doing was going 24 to get the van to move it. 25 She didn't have any food loaded. She 1501 1 wasn't headed out the door with food. She 2 wasn't already to load the van. She was on 3 her way to walk to the van to change its 4 parking location. 5 Now, what she admits but can't explain 6 is why she was going out the door of the 7 Clearwater Bank Building. You've seen the 8 video. That's the last door north on the 9 building. There is not a door in the place 10 that is further from where she was going 11 than the door she lied about stepping out 12 of. 13 She couldn't get any further away and 14 still be in the bank building. She admitted 15 that the door she had come in was right next 16 to where the van was parked and way more 17 than ten feet away from Mr. Minton and 18 myself. But she didn't go that way. 19 The reason is that none of this happened 20 and if she goes out that door there is no 21 point in her coming here and telling you 22 this story if she goes out the door she came 23 in. 24 Now, it is important, the court going to 25 be Anglo Saxon System of Juris Prudence have 1502 1 always and you may or may not be aware of 2 this. A lot of people aren't. But it's 3 going back 800 years and more, courts 4 sitting in any capacity have been regarded 5 as the particular guardians of children any 6 time the welfare of children touches on the 7 work of the court. And the court was, as I 8 assume everybody was alarmed, when she 9 talked about her mission to feed the poor 10 hungry children at the RPF camp at the 11 Quality Inn. 12 She also testified I can't tell that my 13 schedule was disrupted. I can't tell you I 14 was late. I can't tell you that it made any 15 difference to when I delivered those things. 16 You have her testimony up there filed, 17 Judge. And if you need anything else to 18 tell you that her testimony was 100 percent 19 rotten through and through, if Scientology's 20 videotape, your own eyes and the force of 21 cross-examination doesn't do it, go back to 22 the man behind the curtain. 23 Laboring in obscurity is the deputy 24 chief steward for the Quality Inn. Thinking 25 her own thoughts, suddenly out of nowhere 1503 1 these unuttered thoughts are devined by some 2 operative from OSA who mystically appears 3 and tells her the lawyers need to talk to 4 her about December 4. Then you have a story 5 that cannot be matched with anything else in 6 evidence. 7 Judge, if you want to look at the lynch 8 pin that the entire case for Scientology 9 hangs on, if you want to look at the 10 substance of that case, the substance of 11 that case is in the patent falsehood brought 12 to you by Ms. Wennberg and whoever decided 13 she needed to talk. 14 That's what this case stands and 15 ultimately falls on. 16 Now, is it this from Scientology's 17 prospective serious business regarding the 18 injunction and the goals of the injunction 19 and he purposes of the injunction? Is it 20 correct that by God somebody needs to wipe 21 the smile off these people's faces and still 22 the laughter in their mouths, is that the 23 important thing? 24 THE COURT: And do what? 25 MR. MERRETT: Still the laughter in 1504 1 their mouths. 2 THE COURT: Sorry. Go ahead. 3 MR. MERRETT: It might, except that it 4 doesn't appear to be an injunction that 5 Scientology itself take very seriously. And 6 you are sitting at this moment as a 7 chancellor in equity. This is an equitible 8 matter because it deals with an injunction. 9 Clean hands is one of the prerequisites in 10 seeking relief from a chancellor. 11 Here's the interesting thing through the 12 testimony of Scientology's own witnesses. 13 On January 6, you have the exhibit in 14 evidence, Mr. Avila told you that Tory 15 Bezazian, Arnie Lerma and John R. Enerson 16 were picketing in the orange zone on Pierce 17 Street north in the Ft. Harrison Hotel and 18 had, himself, came around the corner and 19 into that orange zone while they were 20 picketing. That's how careful Scientology 21 is about the injunction that they sent their 22 security man taking these photographs into 23 an area that you specifically reserved for 24 people to exercise their First Amendment 25 rights. 1505 1 You hear Mr. Enerson on the tape telling 2 Mr. Avila, look, you're within ten feet. 3 You need to get out of here and you're 4 violating the injunction. 5 Secondly, the great and terrible Tory, 6 while she was terrifying all of downtown 7 Clearwater walking beside the parking lot of 8 the Coachman Building, stopped to talk to 9 the car entering the driveway, do you 10 remember what happened, Judge? Do you 11 remember what one of the poor, put upon, 12 desperate Scientologists did? 13 Here's Ms. Bezazian. Here comes, what? 14 Not just any Scientologist. A Scientology 15 security man on a bicycle and rides a loop 16 around her. It was the witness who 17 testified to it on the sidewalk with her. 18 That's how serious this is. That's how 19 serious they are about it. 20 Judge, what all this means is real 21 simple. It means that they're here hoping 22 they will bite on what is at best, 23 allegations of technical violations and make 24 somebody a criminal for it. 25 You want another one? The evidence is 1506 1 incontroverted that Mr. Avila came within 2 ten feet of Mr. Minton on the night of 3 January 7 when Mr. Minton was hollering at 4 the police. 5 Now, if you didn't make an exception for 6 the people who are taking videotapes, you 7 didn't make an exception for Scientologists 8 or for Scientology security men. 9 What you have, Judge, is Scientology 10 coming in here asking for criminal 11 convictions based on the injunction that 12 their treating it as though it were 13 unilateral. That they are treating as 14 though it were simply a harness on critics, 15 that they are treating it as though it had 16 nothing to do with them. He who seeks 17 equity must do equity. 18 Now, the other thing that we really 19 should take a look at going back now to the 20 December 4 spy camera incident, what we 21 really need to take a look at to lay this 22 matter to rest, you remember Mr. Elkamel 23 testified that the videotapes run on all 24 these cameras and all these cameras are 25 running 24 hours a day. That's his job, 1507 1 whatever his shift is to watch them for that 2 portion 24 hours a day. We can put this 3 issue about whether or not the camera was 4 disturbed or thrown out of focus to rest 5 simply by re-examining the videotapes from 6 you spy camera which would clearly show the 7 field of view as I approached the camera and 8 as Mr. Minton and I left the camera. 9 However, Judge, we're not going to do 10 that. And I think you know why we're not 11 going to do that. Because Scientology 12 didn't bring I the videotapes. 13 If just seems to me that if you're the 14 one in possession of the evidence and you 15 contend that that evidence would support a 16 proposition that you have offered and you 17 don't produce the evidence, that says more 18 about the proposition than it does anything 19 else. 20 Every comment that you have heard, 21 Judge, that was made outside of court by a 22 critic, specifically Mr. Minton and 23 Mrs. Bezazian, regarding the injunction has 24 been what? Thank God, they can't get in our 25 faces anymore. 1508 1 The one that, I mean, my hat's off to 2 him for reading the whole paragraph but when 3 Mr. Pope read to you from that posting by 4 Ms. Bezazian after bogus injunction is says 5 I guess that didn't realize that it would 6 protect us too. The bogus character, the 7 stupid character doesn't lie in the 8 injunction itself and I think that's clear 9 when you look in context at the entirely of 10 Ms. Bezazian's statement is that Scientology 11 spend however much money they spent trying 12 to get you to put a leash on the critics 13 alone and you saw through it and entered a 14 bilateral injunction that actually protects 15 people's right to picket. 16 I mean you saw what happened in July 17 during the window when the old injunction 18 expired. Hoards of Scientologists come 19 boiling down the street. Inches from the 20 critics you saw in the film. Mr. Minton 21 being shoved out into the street. You saw 22 Mr. Minton being hit. You saw Mr. Bunker 23 being stepped on. You saw other critics 24 being punched. 25 That's what's stupid and bogus is 1509 1 Scientology and OSA spending whatever they 2 spent and finding out that what it did is 3 prevent them from doing that as well. 4 Every time that you've seen a comment 5 about the injunction it was made outside of 6 this courtroom. Whatever the other comments 7 are, it also says but you know, it protects 8 us too. 9 Some famous historian said that the life 10 of man in a state of nature was nasty, 11 brutish and short. Now the first time I 12 heard that quote I had assumed that they 13 were talking about me. But, it turned out 14 in fact Professor Tornby talking about 15 primitive man. 16 The fact is, Judge, that human 17 civilization has come a long way just in the 18 life of this nation. What we forget is 19 this. The history of mankind overall is a 20 dark, dark night and freedom and the rights 21 of the individual are a shooting star. It's 22 not going to last. It's never lasted. 23 There have been brief moments. There 24 was classical Greece where men spoke their 25 minds, but that dream and that bright moment 1510 1 died when Socrates was put to death for 2 speaking his mind for uttering an unpopular 3 idea. 4 Rome had its hay day as a republic and 5 it ended as a debauched empire and liberty 6 again faded from the scene. And actually 7 didn't come back until this country was 8 founded 1400 years later after Rome had 9 fell, after the dark hand of history closed 10 on the throat of man again. 11 The question that each of has to answer, 12 Judge, and unfortunately you more than 13 anybody, is this. During this brief hour 14 before mankind returns to the darkness that 15 our liberty arose from, how have we tended 16 the delicate flame of our liberty? 17 Judge, this is a criminal case. You 18 know the law. You know your duty. Thank 19 you for your attention. 20 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Merrett. 21 Mr. Pope, you ready? 22 MR. POPE: Ready. May it please the 23 Court, Your Honor there are a couple reasons 24 that I think you should be little suspect of 25 some of Mr. Merrett's wilder allegations. He 1511 1 has had a habit of standing up and arguing 2 matters that have no factual basis in the 3 record. 4 One of the first ones now was that he 5 spun this web of some sort of conspiracy 6 arising out of Mr. Hertzberg leaving and 7 going overseas. I'd like to bring the 8 court's attention to the transcript of our 9 motion hearing on January 12 when you were 10 trying to set a hearing in the matter and 11 trying to pick a date. On page 71 I state: 12 Mr. Hertzberg has the 15th through the 21st 13 and you said of February. And I said yes, 14 where he is to be overseas, so that was 15 something that we displayed. 16 Of course, Mr Merrett hears what he 17 wants to hear and excludes what he wants to 18 exclude. 19 One of the things he apparently didn't 20 hear or doesn't want to hear is that when 21 Mr. Antonio Avila testified, he said in 22 substance regarding that door. I know there 23 was woman that was trying to get out. He 24 said that. It's in the transcript. And 25 when they came up and put on their 1512 1 testimony, they made a huge point of saying 2 nobody was impeded. There was no 3 interference with anybody. Nobody got 4 within ten feet, etcetera, etcetera. 5 Now, he has come in here and has 6 essentially accused me and Ms. Kobrin of 7 suborning perjury. He's essentially said 8 got what with a trumped up witness and 9 brought in here some manufactured testimony 10 without any evidence whatsoever. 11 He can chip away and do what he wants 12 too, but that just is a little bit beyond 13 the table, but let me it tell you something, 14 Your Honor. If that was to be manufactured 15 testimony, I did a pretty poor job of it, 16 because the way you manufacturing testimony 17 is you make would make it fit that video 18 absolutely to a T and it wasn't manufactured 19 testimony. 20 It was the testimony of the witness who 21 had a brief encounter and testified to the 22 best of her recollection and Mr. Merrett 23 made a big point out of the fact that she 24 said he had on a dark outfit. That is what 25 she said the second time the question was 1513 1 asked. The first time she said he had on a 2 hat which was clear. 3 THE COURT: I remember that little 4 diatribe there when she said hat and nothing 5 else. 6 MR. POPE: At any rate, this lady was 7 brought in here because Mr. Avila said I know 8 there was a woman in there trying to get out. 9 We found her, brought her in, had her give 10 the testimony and he's entitled to chop away 11 all day long and point out the discrepancies 12 that exist between what she said and what the 13 video may say and divine difference there, 14 but accusing lawyers of in essence of 15 suborning perjury I think is a little beyond 16 the pale, but it is in keeping with his 17 pugnacious ad homonym style of attack 18 counsel, attack the parties that we have seen 19 throughout this proceeding. And that's too 20 bad, it's too bad. There are some unkind 21 things that I could say about his clients but 22 I've always considered that to be somewhat 23 unprofessional to do that. 24 Now let's talk a bit about Ms. Bezazian. 25 You know, the videotape shows very clearly 1514 1 she stopped a car in the entranceway. She 2 wasn't supposed to be there. You see these 3 things. 4 You see a little red car have to get 5 round dodge around the van that is obviously 6 there just off camera and then as soon as 7 she moves the car that's in the driveway 8 move, the van comes in right behind her. 9 That's a little piece of tapestry that just 10 doesn't seem to me to fly. 11 Now, with respect to Mr. Howie's 12 argument, he suggested that we contrived I 13 think the language was we contrived to put 14 Mr. Minton in a bad light. 15 You know, the interesting thing about it 16 is, we didn't have to contrive anything with 17 regard to Mr. Minton. He's quite capable of 18 putting himself in a bad light and he did 19 so. I will tell you that Mr. Howie has done 20 a very nice job, a very smooth job and very 21 professional job of sugarcoating 22 Mr. Minton's behavior, but that's exactly 23 what it has been it's been a sugarcoating 24 job. 25 He describes Mr. Minton's action as 1515 1 overly cautious. There is a trail of 2 evidence in this case, Your Honor, showing 3 you that Mr. Minton is not overly cautious 4 at all. He's pretty bombastic. He has a 5 short fuse and from time to time he has a 6 potty mouth. 7 And the final thing is the claim that 8 Mr. Minton has been set up, that that 9 service of process was a setup job. Your 10 Honor, there is no evidence of that 11 whatever. 12 Let's review the facts. On the 20th of 13 December at a hearing and I quoted from it, 14 Mr. Merrett with Mr. Howie's acquiescence 15 loudly insisted that process had to be 16 served on these people and that serving 17 counsel supplemental claim doesn't work. 18 You got to serve them. 19 Meanwhile, we got an order to show cause 20 and the case law says you got to serve them 21 personally. 22 He's out of town a lot of times. He 23 breezes in, pickets, does his thing and then 24 leaves for parts unknown. So, when he comes 25 to town on the 5th, two weeks later and he 1516 1 didn't attend the trial at all. I don't 2 know whether he's got a copy of the 3 injunction at all. He claims he never got a 4 copy of the amendment, so we serve him. We 5 serve him. There was nothing set up about 6 that. 7 The Penick Picket Pole on Watterson 8 Street, he can't claim he wasn't 9 demonstrating. He had the thing in a full, 10 upright position. You know what your 11 injunction says? Your injunction says there 12 is certain areas in which you to do certain 13 things. It says only in the orange areas do 14 you picket, protest and/or exercise their 15 First Amendment rights. 16 Well, at the very least, dangling this 17 injunction at the tip of a ten foot pole 18 might be termed exercising your First 19 Amendment rights as what he was trying to do 20 was educate the people on the second floor 21 of the Bank of Clearwater Building as to its 22 terms, he was either protesting, picketing, 23 or he was exercising his First Amendment 24 rights in an area that outside the scope of 25 the injunction. 1517 1 It's interesting how Mr. Merrett 2 characterizes Mr. Avila's testimony about 3 the van stopped in the street. He said it 4 was uncorroborated. Well, I would call it 5 uncontradicted. There was nothing around, 6 nothing, no other evidence in there to 7 contradict it and in fact it was supported 8 by the videotape of the episode. 9 Your Honor, I think we've beat this 10 thing to death for the last few days and 11 it's with you. Thank you. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pope. 13 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, may I make one 14 statement not in rebuttal but to court. 15 THE COURT: Is it absolutely necessary? 16 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir, I believe it is. 17 THE COURT: It's your call. 18 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, I apologize to 19 Mr. Pope and Mrs. Kobrin if my remarks were 20 taken to impute subornation to them. While I 21 did argue deliberately the witness as suborn. 22 it was not my intention to impugn either 23 Mrs. Kobrin or Mr. Pope in that activity. 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took 1518 1 place.) 2 THE COURT: Tomorrow, two o'clock this 3 courtroom, I'll announce my decision. Thank 4 you all very much. 5 (Thereupon, the trial was adjourned to 6 reconvene at 2:00 P.M. on February 21, 2001.) 7 8 *********************************** 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1519 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 THE COURT: No tape recorders. We have 3 an official court reporter taking them and if 4 you're press or something we have a procedure 5 where you come request or identify, the same 6 that we have for the cameras. Press? 7 UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I'm a reporter 8 from the Times. I'm sorry, I didn't realize 9 your procedures, sir. 10 THE COURT: Yeah. I don't care. 11 UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: If you don't 12 want me to, I won't. 13 THE COURT: No, but remember, remember, 14 she's press now, okay. That doesn't go 15 for -- no, there's special procedures we 16 follow and we have followed in all these 17 cases, ma'am, and I'm not doing anything and 18 I'm not singling you out. 19 UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I understand. 20 THE COURT: But that's okay. I'll let 21 you do it. Go ahead. Okay. And Mr. Bunker, 22 the same rules apply here. 23 Remember, now, you've already had your 24 one bite at the apple. If those start 25 making noises or, you know, then they're 1520 1 mine. 2 Okay. All right. All right. Thank you 3 for your patience. 4 I think the court system has been 5 patient with you all, and what looked like 6 some simple show causes have consumed nine 7 days of in-court proceedings. Many 8 witnesses and a lot of exhibits, a lot of 9 videotaping, and it's now the Court's time 10 to render its decision regarding the matters 11 that were brought forward. 12 Now, first let me do this. I would like 13 to thank the attorneys for an outstanding 14 job of representing their clients. The 15 Court is not unmindful of the fact that in 16 making oral arguments and presentations and 17 cross-examining witnesses there comes a time 18 some of the time when a little theatrics 19 gets involved. 20 I'm not trying to say that there wasn't 21 some tension here at times between 22 attorneys, but I do thank you for backing 23 down rather than pressing the issue. There 24 was some times when I felt that I might have 25 to intercede more than I wanted to, but on a 1521 1 whole they were very eloquent arguments, 2 excellent cross-examination, but a lot has 3 come out during these nine days of 4 proceedings. 5 What started out with a temporary 6 injunction actually started a year ago 7 because we had a temporary last year and 8 then again this year there was the necessity 9 for a temporary injunction, the Court 10 designed what we could call a loose and 11 general injunction. But I did go to what I 12 felt were great length to color code it or 13 make it visually understandable, knowing 14 full well when I did that that with the 15 intelligence level that was evidenced last 16 year that it was going to be like the OSHA 17 rules and regulations for safety at a 18 construction site. 19 You know, they say well, you have this, 20 that and the other and you have a safety 21 net. If you don't spell out the size of 22 holes in the safety net, they'll have a 23 safety net with five feet between each hole 24 so even a bulldozer falls through it. 25 That's what happened here. Both sides 1522 1 found every loophole possible. And you're 2 going to have that when you have AB lawyers 3 and you have people that comprise the 4 parties that we have in this case. 5 Ladies and gentlemen, the talent, the 6 technology and the expertise on both sides 7 is awesome. Any good small business would 8 love to have your talents available to them. 9 Technicians in videography, technicians in 10 electronics, technicians in mechanical 11 design, technicians in computers, and you 12 couple all of that with two sides that has 13 strong feelings. I mean, we're talking 14 about super strong feelings here, folks. 15 It was very clear to this court beyond 16 any reasonable doubt that there is no love 17 lost between either side and both of you 18 will go to the ends of the earth to make 19 your point. So it's kind of hard for one 20 little old judge sitting in St. Petersburg, 21 Florida to close all of the holes in the 22 dikes or the dike that's separating you two. 23 Now, where is all this going? Well, 24 folks, you all have already agreed. It's 25 been said -- I mean how many times did I 1523 1 hear it from the witnesses that both sides 2 appreciated the injunction, they you were 3 glad there was the ten feet and that you 4 want a permanent injunction. 5 Now, let me tells you was scares me. 6 This permanent injunction is probably going 7 to be thicker than the Random House 8 Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition, and 9 that thing is about ten inches high. And 10 with the diagrams that are going to be 11 necessity just to encompass the danger 12 zones, as I call them, that have come out in 13 these proceedings, the diagrams will exceed 14 the blueprints for the International Space 15 Lab. And I'm not being naive or sarcastic. 16 I'm telling you facts of life. 17 I didn't count them all up, but I 18 imagine there were probably at least 25 19 different allegations of contempt with all 20 of the various defendants and all of the 21 various events and all of that took place in 22 less than a month of having the injunction 23 in effect. 24 Now, a lot of it was much ado about 25 nothing. Unfortunately, a lot of it was 1524 1 adult nursery school antics, and I said it 2 earlier and I'm totally convinced of it now. 3 This calls for a professional nanny and not 4 a judge. 5 You know what's scary? All of this has 6 international flavor. I mean several days 7 we had the French media here, French 8 lawyers, the German government has been 9 here, representatives from of Hamburg 10 government, and all of this is going on, not 11 in Clearwater, not in St. Petersburg, but 12 all over the word. I mean name calling 13 taunting, teasing, stalking, yelling, 14 screaming, games of Hide and Seek, King of 15 the Mountain, Blind Man's Bluff, Red Rover 16 Red Rover, Picket Chicken. 17 That's just the videotape that was 18 entered into evidence. I don't know who has 19 the franchise to sell you all the videotapes 20 but somebody is getting filthy rich. 21 Now, what did we learn? The first thing 22 we learned is the battle lines are blurred. 23 Each side has a different spin on what the 24 injunction says. 25 And I've asked the attorney for the 1525 1 Clearwater Police Department to be present 2 here today when I announced my findings and 3 my decision because the Clearwater Police 4 Department has tried to tell each of the 5 sides what the injunction said and they have 6 their own spin on what's involved. 7 Unfortunately, the lines have become 8 very blurred in exactly what is picketing, 9 what is protesting, what is the exercise of 10 the First Amendment Right, what is a picket 11 device, what is a First Amendment device, 12 etcetera, etcetera. And this case has its 13 own unique features. 14 Usually, if there is a question about 15 what an injunction or a document that's been 16 drawn by a judge says, in the past it's been 17 my experience that if you don't understand 18 it, you come back and ask the judge. But 19 there was far too much street justice being 20 meeded out by either off-duty or on-duty 21 Clearwater police officers. 22 Quite frankly, they led to a lot of the 23 confusion here of which charges could not 24 stick because these officers would tell the 25 people one thing today and turn around the 1526 1 tell the next thing tomorrow after somebody 2 else has taken a course of action. 3 Let give you some examples. Mr. Henson 4 is a good example. He asked where can I 5 picket. I'm not with the LMT. I need to 6 know what's going on. That's fine. You can 7 picket there in front of the hotel. Have a 8 ball. Clearwater police tell him that. 9 So, Scientology rushes into court, gets 10 a show cause on him saying you can't picket 11 on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. He 12 asks the police again. They said woops, no, 13 you've got to be on the other side of the 14 street, so I waste a whole day on that show 15 cause. 16 What is a picket? Well, if you turn the 17 sign upside down and you march that way, 18 it -- common sense would tell you that's not 19 a picket. But yet, we saw videos and there 20 is a video there where somebody is leaning 21 on a sign turned upside down and the police 22 officer walks over and pats it on the butt 23 end of the thing sticking up in the air with 24 the words down saying this is a picket. I 25 waste more time. 1527 1 Now, the other thing that bothered me 2 immensely is that all good -- you know, no 3 good deed goes unpunished, seriously, and 4 you've just got to love the Clearwater 5 police. 6 They're trying has hard as they can and 7 they're caught in middle of this just like I 8 am and something for the good of the masses, 9 a chance for the off-duty officers to make 10 some extra money and they're trying to do 11 their job, but it's become obvious to me 12 that they're getting a little more help than 13 they need from the people that are paying 14 their bill. And they're coming very 15 dangerously close to being a private 16 security force for the Church of 17 Scientology. 18 Now, that's something that's got to be 19 worked out by both side together with the 20 police department of Clearwater, their 21 attorneys. I think all lawyers need to sit 22 down and hammer this out because there have 23 been instances where the independents, if 24 that's why they're there, is shaky at best. 25 And, you know, it became obvious that 1528 1 this side has this police agency and the 2 other side is over here and they want to use 3 a police agency to protect their protest 4 zones, what's to keep them from getting the 5 sheriff's office or the Florida Highway 6 Patrol off duty? What are they going to 7 have to do, go get FDLE? I'm serious about 8 this folks. 9 Another example of the blurred line, 10 process servers. Process server is supposed 11 to be an officer of the court serving 12 documents of the court. When I was asked to 13 make that modification to the injunction 14 that said that process servers, and let me 15 get that quote. Any process server retained 16 by any party to this action pursuant to the 17 laws of the State of Florida and the 18 applicable rules of court, is free to 19 legally -- I wrote that in and put my 20 initials out there, serve process on any 21 person notwithstanding the terms of 22 temporary injunction number two inasmuch as 23 such process server would be an agent of 24 this court for the purpose of serving 25 process. 1529 1 Now, folks, I had some severe heartburn 2 about the independence of so-called arms of 3 this court. When we get around to 4 redrafting and working on this permanent 5 injunction and I'll talk about that in a few 6 minutes, there needs to be some special 7 provisions that the process servers are 8 going to have to come from a pool of process 9 servers somehow determined by the three of 10 you or this court included and they can't 11 work at any other time for anybody. But 12 when I see so-called process servers forming 13 armed chains so the people can get in and 14 out of the Church of Scientology, which was 15 caused by disruptions of other side, I 16 question the independence of the process 17 server. I'm not that gullible. That 18 doesn't cut it, folks. 19 Now, let me make it real clear that when 20 we come up with a permanent injunction, I 21 want language in there that basically says 22 that it will be independent process servers 23 and they well serve process legally and 24 professionally so that they don't violate 25 any rules or statute in the State of 1530 1 Florida, and also I want it worked into the 2 injunction that when these independent 3 process servers duly certified and appointed 4 attempt to serve process pursuant to the 5 laws, that any shenanigans as far as not 6 taking it, throwing it on the ground and 7 everything else will be deemed a hinderance 8 of the progress of justice, that the 9 applicable a statutes of laws will be 10 applied and that regardless of what the law 11 says can be meeded out for punishment, it 12 will be a per se contempt enforceable by 13 contempt. Because, I'm telling you, that's 14 got to stop. And that's going to be part of 15 the injunction. 16 Self help: I am amazed at the quality 17 of technology that both sides have available 18 to themselves. Folks, like I said, I am but 19 a pebble of sand on this mountain or a 20 molehill, whichever you want to call it, but 21 when I look at the technology and the 22 knowledge on the internet alone and all of 23 these websites and everything you were 24 showing me and the stuff that's posted, not 25 posted and the graphics and all that, you 1531 1 leave me way behind. 2 As Technology Chairman for this circuit, 3 I keep trying to tell the Chief Judge and 4 Mr. Lockhart and all of his computer people, 5 listen to me this. There is all this stuff 6 out there and I thought we were on the 7 cutting edge. Man, you all got the 8 computer. We got Nintendo. 9 Now, something else that concerns me, 10 folks and it puts this in proper 11 prospective. For this court to try and 12 draft a workable injunction is really scary 13 when you consider the international 14 implications that are going on here, when 15 you consider the technology that's involved, 16 when you consider the local governments. 17 Now, let me talk about technology a 18 little bit further. I'm concerned that 19 Picket Chicken is but a rouge to hide the 20 moving of the shell with a pea under it. 21 Let's talk about the spy camera. Let's 22 talk about self help. Ladies and gentlemen, 23 as the judge on this case and after 24 listening to everything, nine days worth, I 25 understand now, I have a much better grasp 1532 1 for the seriousness of the feelings between 2 both sides and I have a far greater grasp of 3 the seriousness that the Clearwater police 4 find themselves in out there in the 5 trenches. Because both sides having 6 videographers sitting around at alert, ready 7 to rush out with a video camera for the 8 least little thing to film the other side, I 9 harken to back to my days when I spent 10 thousands of hours on alert stranded in a 11 mole hole halfway around the world and you 12 all make like you have your videographers 13 and cameramen on bicycles respond to the 14 incidents and everything else. 15 To place a camera in the down spout on 16 the building, I'm missing the point here. I 17 hope someone will let us know when the great 18 invasion is coming. Give the citizens a 19 head start. 20 Sophisticated cameras hidden in the 21 shrubbery around the apartment houses; 22 taking pictures of people going up and down 23 Saturn to go to the little league ball park. 24 I'm missing something. 25 I don't know how we're going to handle 1533 1 it. I understand that it's a sticky wicket. 2 How do you come into court and say, Judge, I 3 mean obvious cameras and hidden cameras and 4 everything else we know they're there and I 5 say, okay, prove it and you say we can't put 6 the ladder up and we can't go there because 7 it's going to be in a no go zone or 8 something. 9 But I don't see this coming to an end. 10 I'm concerned. You know, the great attorney 11 Jerry Spence in introduction to his latest 12 book talks about the fox slowly eating 13 everybody around that's in the outer circle 14 and then the next circle and the next circle 15 and the next circle until they finally get 16 into everybody in the middle. When is all 17 this going to stop? 18 Transitional movements: Okay, not all 19 the picket areas are adjacent to each other. 20 And I knew when I drafted the injunction and 21 I sat there and I looked at that and I said, 22 you know, right now all the different ways 23 that something can happen as they go from 24 one area where they can picket to the next 25 area, how they going to cross Ft. Harrison? 1534 1 How are they going to go across Cleveland? 2 And you know, after I had written about two 3 pages of this yellow tablet it suddenly 4 dawned on me. Leave it alone. You couldn't 5 plug those holes if you tried and you've 6 proved me right. 7 Now, the thing that concerns me is 8 really and truly, you know, in a lot of the 9 pickets and a lot of the protest around our 10 country there is a message or you're trying 11 not only to reach the people that might be 12 coming or going from a particular facility, 13 but you also have a message for the public 14 as a whole. 15 Quite frankly, everything I've heard 16 here and everything I saw, this is a feud 17 between the parties. I haven't seen any 18 messages for the general public. 19 These were messages to people within 20 Scientology to get out, you know, what's 21 wrong here, what's wrong there, come to us, 22 help us and this was a fight to the other 23 side to stifle the people exercising their 24 First Amendment Rights trying to reach the 25 people inside the Church. But the taxpayers 1535 1 and the public as a whole have been burdened 2 with this. 3 Now, knowledge: I see a problem. We 4 have a problem. How do you reach somebody 5 who just comes into town and is not a named 6 defendant or doesn't know what's going on. 7 Now, fortunately this hasn't reached the 8 size of the masses that that's been a major 9 problem. The legislatures a long time ago 10 came up with those catch all phrases that 11 are in the rules and the statutes regarding 12 injunctions. 13 That works up to a point, but in the 14 permanent injunction there's going to have 15 to be something worked out so that you don't 16 have one group across the street in the 17 orange zone where they can legally protest 18 and a whole bunch of other people blocking 19 traffic claiming ignorance because it's only 20 going to get worse and it's going to get 21 messy. 22 Now, fortunately we had some real close 23 instances where the water could have broken 24 through the dike and this could have gotten 25 real bad and I'm talking about the so-called 1536 1 neutral zones. 2 If this weren't criminal proceedings and 3 it required specific documents and specific 4 pleadings, there were several instances 5 where some of the OSA agents for the Church 6 were in violation of the injunction, i.e. 7 riding a bicycle in and out of the orange 8 zone within ten feet of the protesters, 9 rushing out into neutral zone to get the 10 video camera in the policeman and 11 Mr. Minton's face; instances like that. 12 That's something we're going to address 13 in the permanent injunction, but if 14 something's going on there is a little 15 tete-a-tete between say Mr. Minton and the 16 so-called off-duty police officers, there is 17 no need for the Scientology OSA agent to be 18 in there with that camera in everybody's 19 face. They're only asking for trouble and 20 it will only be a matter of minutes until 21 you get it from them and then we'll be all 22 back here again and here we go again. Like 23 I said the other day, I know there are 24 things bigger and better that you can put 25 your energies to. 1537 1 Now, a couple of instances; video 2 cameras, spy cameras or not video, spy 3 camera incident: Let me just suffice it to 4 say there was a winner going there until we 5 got into that rebuttal. When we went back 6 and revisited everything, that was 7 embarrassing. That's all I'm going to say. 8 You know what I'm talking about. The bread 9 went in, the bread came out. There was no 10 hinderance, nothing else. That's over. 11 Sitting in the Santa Claus chair: You 12 know, that was a classic example of the 13 injunction not being eight inches high. 14 You can't have a definition for 15 everything. When you're dealing with clear 16 and convincing and you have to consider what 17 it will look like when it goes through the 18 appellate hopper, it wasn't there. But I 19 hope in the future when it's spelled out 20 enough that that's taunting, teasing, 21 rubbing their nose in it, whatever you want 22 to call it, that's got to stop. 23 Now, let's talk about something else. 24 The use of megaphones, horns, other noise 25 makers, screaming, yelling, etcetera. Where 1538 1 this is headed folks that concerns me is 2 that a court is not going to be prepared to 3 deal with this. I can't draw an injunction 4 to say that you can't honk the horn that 5 many decibels, that you got -- you can't 6 scream except only so loud, etcetera. 7 That's going to be government's job. 8 That's the local municipalities. They've 9 got to establish their noise ordinances. 10 They've got to establish their littering. 11 If you're going to take documents and throw 12 them down, if you're going to hand out 13 documents and people are going to throw them 14 down, that's going to be up to either the 15 local city, the town, the county or the 16 state or the feds. 17 Now, we can humbly try, but that goes 18 back to the source and that goes back to the 19 law enforcement officers for the source. 20 That if they're out there and they know 21 their ordinances, that's where I question 22 can an off-duty policeman do something as 23 opposed to hearing it and having to call the 24 on-duty to come over and by the time he gets 25 there you could hear two roaches talking and 1539 1 I mean pests. I'm not talking about 2 anything else. 3 It concerns me, so a lot of this, what I 4 feel is necessary to keep peace, that's 5 going to have to be worked out at a lot of 6 levels. 7 Now, we've gone down the various events 8 pretty much with the judgment of acquitals 9 and those arguments thereto and it actually 10 comes down to two events and two instances. 11 After all of this was said and 12 done -- now, let me go at this one at a 13 time. The first one that I have involves 14 Ms. Bezazian. And it involves the incident 15 on the 7th of December the year 2000. And 16 it involves the walking down the east side 17 of Ft. Harrison on the north side of the 18 Bank of Clearwater Building in a no picket 19 zone carrying two picket signs upright so 20 that everybody can read them. 21 Let's do this. Ms. Bezazian, would you 22 and your attorney come to the rostrum? 23 Ms. Bezazian, you were charged by an 24 order to show cause violating this court's 25 injunction on the 30th of November, the year 1540 1 2000 as amended on December 1, the year 2 2000, by willfully and intentionally 3 picketing in an injunction prohibited zone, 4 i.e. that area next to the Ft. Harrison 5 Hotel by walking through that area with two 6 picket signs held high. 7 Now, I do find you guilty of violating 8 the injunction or of contempt of court for 9 that action. Is there any reason why 10 sentence should not be imposed at this time? 11 MS. BEZAZIAN: Your Honor, I'm very 12 sorry that I had those signs up, but I was 13 walking from the Trust to the Ft. Harrison 14 and the policewoman did say, as soon as she 15 said and she did say I know you're not 16 picketing but it might look like it because 17 your signs are up. Would you please put them 18 down and I did put them down. 19 MR. MERRETT: The only other thing that 20 I would add for the Court is that as the 21 Court mentioned there had previously been a 22 police lieutenant telling Ms. Bezazian that 23 holding them upside down was picketing, 24 leaving a set of facts where it was 25 impossible to move from the Lisa McPherson 1541 1 Trust to any orange zone if both of those 2 officers were to be believed. However, as to 3 legal cause why sentence should not be 4 imposed, there is none. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. MERRETT: Judge, I would ask rather 7 that the Court enter a judgment of not guilty 8 notwithstanding the verdict. 9 THE COURT: In this particular case I 10 will do that and the sentence will be $100 11 fine. That concludes this as far as that is 12 concerned and as far as Ms. Bezazian is 13 concerned. 14 MR. MERRETT: That is a withhold of 15 adjudication? 16 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 17 MR. MERRETT: Thank you, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Now, I know that there is a 19 question to whether in contempt you can 20 withhold. Now, in this incident I'm going to 21 withhold and impose the $100 fine. 22 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. Is that $100 23 costs or $100 fine together with the 24 statutory addition? 25 THE COURT: No. Fine, period, end of 1542 1 ball game. 2 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. 3 MS. BEZAZIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: That's it. Now, I want this 5 clear. Legally every attorney in here knows 6 that nuances and the problems that the Court 7 had to face in light of the allegations and 8 the charges based on the evidence. And when 9 you've got to go beyond a reasonable doubt 10 there are only two instances that I was about 11 to go beyond a reasonable doubt and find. 12 But I don't want anybody to think that with 13 this whole big pile, the next time around I 14 think both sides know how to make a case and 15 I figure it won't take me nine hours to 16 listen to the testimony and make a ruling 17 that will probably include jail, so hear me 18 out. Thank you, ma'am. 19 Now, the other matter that I have 20 involves Robert S. Minton and this one I 21 want to make real clear. A judge has to do 22 what a judge has to do. 23 I was deeply concerned on this one, 24 because no matter what I did there would be 25 comments made that well, you were biased, 1543 1 you were prejudiced, you were wearing your 2 feelings on your robe, but quite frankly, 3 when you look at the video and you look at 4 that video and you look at that video, the 5 Court does find, as to Robert Minton the 6 Court finds that Mr. Minton willfully and 7 intentionally violated the injunction of 8 January 6 in the year 2001 by walking into 9 the injunction's prohibited zone from the 10 west sidewalk abutting Waterson Avenue in 11 Clearwater, Florida and protesting or 12 otherwise engaging in First Amendment 13 activity. 14 Specifically, the defendant went to 15 within one or two feet of the Scientology 16 building known as the Clearwater Bank 17 Building and vertically extended and waved a 18 fishing pole with a copy of the injunction 19 attached to the end of the pole referred to 20 throughout the proceedings as the "Threep", 21 in front of the windows of the building in a 22 taunting manner likely to provoke. 23 I find Robert Minton therefore guilty of 24 contempt as charged in Paragraph 1F, the 25 order to show cause regarding contempt dated 1544 1 January 10 in the year 2001. 2 Mr. Howie, Mr. Minton, is there any 3 reason why sentence should not be imposed? 4 MR. HOWIE: No legal cause, Your Honor. 5 We wish to be heard in mitigation. 6 THE COURT: You may, sir. 7 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, again, although 8 the Court has stated that there is some legal 9 concern over adjudication or withhold of 10 adjudication, we would request a withhold of 11 adjudication in this case. 12 I would also point out that in imposing 13 any sentence the offer of two concerns for 14 the court. One is the penalty imposed for 15 violation of the Court's injunction. 16 Another concern is the extent to which harm 17 or damage was caused as a direct result or 18 even an indirect result of that violation. 19 I would point out as the Court is well 20 aware, that there is no allegation, no 21 evidence presented that any actual harm rose 22 out of this. I think if anything the Court 23 should do is by way of affirmatively stating 24 for all concerned, no just Mr. Minton but 25 for all concerned, that there are going to 1545 1 be certain activities that are going to be 2 completely barred and that this is an 3 example of them. 4 I think it's more significant the Court 5 has made this ruling and that people have 6 heard this ruling than any penalty that can 7 be imposed. I ask that the court limit its 8 contempt power to the imposition of a fine 9 and that that fine clearly reflects the 10 extent of the damage caused. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Minton, do you want to 12 say anything other than what you've said so 13 far or do you want to stand on what your 14 attorney said? I'm not forcing to it. I'm 15 giving you an opportunity to if you wanted to 16 avail yourself of it. 17 MR. MINTON: Yes, Your Honor, I would be 18 happy to say a few words if you wouldn't 19 mind. 20 You know, I am sorry that you have 21 chosen to view this in the way that you 22 have. I, certainly judging by the -- on the 23 basis of the comments that you've made 24 throughout the course of today's events I've 25 certainly learned a lot about how you view 1546 1 this injunction and how everybody else 2 should view this injunction. 3 I apologize for appearing in any way to 4 hold the court in any contempt with respect 5 to this incident which was done as 6 carelessness at the worst and that's really 7 all I have say, sir. 8 (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took 9 place.) 10 THE COURT: Here's what I'm going to do 11 in this case. Mr. Minton, you certainly are 12 a moving force in the protest movement of the 13 Church of Scientology. You have obviously 14 many good ideas and thoughts on how legally 15 and peacefully the message can get out. 16 I've thought about this quite a bit. 17 What I will do is I'll withhold 18 adjudication, I'm going to place you on 19 probation for six months. The conditions of 20 probation is that you pay a fine of $500, 21 that you live and remain at liberty without 22 violating any laws or any other injunctions, 23 temporary or permanent entered by this 24 court, that you pay any costs of probation 25 that may be lawfully imposed by the 1547 1 administration of probation, and that you, 2 in cooperation with your attorney, work to 3 draft the permanent injunction that will 4 make this peacefully be a viable document 5 for your side, the other side and the City 6 of Clearwater. 7 MR. MINTON: Yes, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: I see talent there. I don't 9 want to say it's misguided. I just want it 10 directed the right way. 11 MR. MINTON: Yes, sir. 12 THE COURT: And I want you to understand 13 that everything would have been fine, 14 probably, I don't know, if you had kept that 15 Threep out horizontal, but when you raised it 16 vertical you and I know good and well that 17 that was a symbol of your exercising your 18 First Amendment Rights in the wrong area and 19 I might just throw this out also. 20 If you take a look at the law of, which 21 a member of my staff reminded me. Thank 22 you, Mr. Bailiff, by holding that Threep in 23 your hand, it's an extension of your body so 24 the ten feet actually starts at the end of 25 the pole. Am I not right, Mr. Howie? 1548 1 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I recall 2 something in tort law about that and I 3 figured that may not include criminal law, so 4 I didn't mention it. 5 THE COURT: Well, of course, if you hold 6 a baton in your hand and you strike somebody 7 that's a battery. You don't have to use your 8 fist, so I'm wondering if that thing -- where 9 does the ten feet really start? It may be a 10 20 foot pole before you know it, but anyway, 11 my point I want to make here is that we've 12 got to, after all this we've come down to 13 this and I admonish, beseech and beg both 14 sides, please -- I'm scared to say this. I 15 want to say graduate from kindergarten. but 16 my gosh, if your expertise at the 17 kindergarten level has been this great, 18 what's it going to be if I say act like high 19 school students. 20 Please, now, we've come a long way. I 21 don't have anything. Is there anything else 22 that anybody wants to say for the good of 23 the Court? 24 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, for purposes of 25 clarification, I take it that given the 1549 1 nature of the sentence you would want 2 Mr. Minton to report to Salvation Army? 3 THE COURT: Yes, yes, yes, and let's 4 just get this on down the road, okay. 5 MR. HOWIE: And we request 24 hours in 6 which to do that. 7 THE COURT: You have it and if you -- 8 I'll come out with a new written order and 9 get the attachments and I will sign it today 10 in both cases. And also -- now, wait a 11 minute. There's another one I've got to do. 12 That's all with you all. Thank you very 13 much. Yes, Mr. Minton? 14 MR. MINTON: You asked if there was a 15 comment to make -- 16 THE COURT: Yeah. 17 MR. MINTON: In the interest of the 18 Court and it does have to do with a very 19 heated argument I had a couple nights ago 20 with Mr. Merrett on the injunction itself and 21 rather than go and drawing anything, I'll 22 just say -- 23 THE COURT: What's your question? 24 MR. MINTON: With regard to the four 25 corners at the intersection of Cleveland and 1550 1 Ft. Harrison Avenue. 2 THE COURT: Yeah. 3 MR. MINTON: The southeast corner is the 4 only orange zone. Obviously, the northeast 5 corner of the Clearwater Bank Building is a 6 prohibited picketing area. 7 THE COURT: Right. 8 MR. MINTON: But my contention based on 9 the injunction before the clarification that 10 you made was that the northwest corner and 11 the southwest corner were, because they're 12 not around Scientology buildings that those 13 are permitted picketing areas and that's what 14 I'm asking you for at least minor 15 clarification from the Court on because those 16 areas that are not around Scientology 17 buildings that do appear in some form or 18 fashion on these maps due to the second 19 clarification of the injunction has now cause 20 some additional confusion. 21 THE COURT: Those are open zones. 22 MR. MINTON: Right. 23 THE COURT: Probably Mr. Merrett is 24 going to say, but Judge, you didn't stick by 25 me, but quite frankly when I drew those up I 1551 1 saw that and I knew but what would apply 2 there is ten feet away from everybody. 3 Now, I don't know, then you get into the 4 King of the Mountain routine that if you're 5 there first and then they come and want to 6 cross, do you have to back up ten feet or do 7 they have to back up ten feet and I'm not 8 prepared to answer that right now. 9 That's one of the dilemmas we've got and 10 they've got to be able to get from the Bank 11 of Clearwater Building to the Church and you 12 got to be able to get from the Church or 13 from your building back and forth. 14 MR. MINTON: Right. Obviously, my 15 question in that respect and I appreciate 16 that comment that you made, was that by 17 positioning someone on the southwest corner 18 and somebody -- no, not the southwest, the -- 19 THE COURT: Southeast corner. 20 MR. MINTON: Southeast corner and the 21 northwest corner you would be playing games 22 by putting people there and I understand 23 that. 24 THE COURT: I realized when I drew this 25 up and I looked at that and I thought, you 1552 1 know, if you read all those abortion clinic 2 cases and I don't give you one street corner 3 somewhere, I don't think the appellate courts 4 would back me up. And I looked at one where 5 there was no entrance way or anything else 6 and I gave you a street corner and that was 7 the southeast street corner. 8 MR. MINTON: Right. 9 THE COURT: Now, that's enough. 10 MR. MINTON: Yes, sir, and I think that, 11 you know, judging from what you said 12 extending that to the north side of Pierce 13 Street which I believe is the one that runs 14 along the side of the Ft. Harrison that 15 wouldn't be prohibited there when it's 16 obviously prohibited on the south side or 17 permitted on the south side. 18 THE COURT: Well, you know, what do you 19 do walking across that block from Pierce up 20 to, up there where you -- the south side of 21 the Coachman Building, the parking lot. And 22 quite frankly, you know, like I said, I can't 23 cover everything. And you've been given a 24 big picket area and from the numbers I've 25 seen so far, you can't -- there's not even 1553 1 any way that there is going to be any 2 crowding or so many people in those areas 3 there that you need the other area. That's 4 all I can say. 5 MR. MINTON: Right, and then one final 6 point on this and a very important point I 7 think that you made is you haven't seen in 8 these videos a message to the general public. 9 Now, the reality of that is that the message 10 is -- 11 THE COURT: Bear in mind, I'm not asking 12 for a message to the general public. 13 MR. MINTON: Right. 14 THE COURT: I'm just telling you -- 15 MR. MINTON: You haven't see it. 16 THE COURT: -- that this is between you 17 all. 18 MR. MINTON: Right. 19 THE COURT: But you're tying the public 20 up. 21 MR. MINTON: Well, I understand that and 22 I appreciate that the Court has spent 23 considerable time over the last 12 or 14 24 days. 25 THE COURT: Not just the court, but when 1554 1 I look out there and I think of all the 2 off-duty policemen and the on-duty policemen, 3 I won't ever forget that one video where I 4 counted 11 police cruisers suddenly called 5 and then the police get out with their 6 videographers. I mean what did that cost the 7 taxpayers? 8 MR. MINTON: Yes. Well, the reason that 9 you don't see any videos with the message 10 that we are trying to get to the general 11 public is because those protests are 12 perfectly straightforward and normal and 13 there are plenty of videos of those events. 14 THE COURT: I'm not sure that's your 15 mission either. I'm not asking -- I'm just 16 saying that I think -- I guess what I was 17 trying to say is that I feel the mission is 18 different here. It is a very, very unique 19 situation. 20 MR. MINTON: Yes, sir. 21 THE COURT: This does not fall purely 22 into the abortion clinic mold. 23 MR. MINTON: Right, and I can honestly 24 say, Your Honor, that you know, I am the 25 guiltiest party of -- 1555 1 THE COURT: Maybe you better talk to 2 your attorney here. 3 MR. MINTON: I mean in terms of sort of 4 getting out there and being a little bit 5 aggressive, too aggressive and you know. 6 THE COURT: Well, I put you on probation 7 for six months. I don't know why, but 8 Mr. Minton, am I going to see you again in 9 six months? Good-bye. That's enough. Thank 10 you. 11 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, excuse me. 12 (Whereupon, the Judge left the bench and 13 then after a moment returned.) 14 THE COURT: Mr. Merrett? 15 MR. MERRETT: Yes, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: In regards to the spy camera 17 thing, I made my comment earlier. 18 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. 19 THE COURT: But I find you not guilty. 20 MR. MERRETT: Thank you. 21 THE COURT: And I find Mr. Merrett not 22 guilty. 23 MR. MERRETT: Mr. Minton, as well. 24 THE COURT: Or Mr. Minton. 25 MR. MERRETT: Thank you. Your Honor, 1556 1 one matter I wanted to address. 2 THE COURT: Sit down everybody. 3 MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, I assumed that 4 counsel, both for Mr. Minton and for 5 Scientology would stipulate that in the event 6 that an appeal is taken the Threep itself is 7 not a necessary item for review by the 8 appellate court. 9 I would ask ore tenus that the court 10 release it and if I should fail to pick it 11 up by five o'clock this afternoon, dispose 12 of it in some appropriate manner. 13 THE COURT: Okay, and what I will do is 14 request that for the purposes of the file put 15 a photograph of it in there or so that there 16 is at least in the file. 17 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. 18 THE COURT: And I guess I'm already on 19 the record previously as saying that boy, I 20 see a future there for somebody if they can 21 figure out the law on whether that's an 22 extension of the body or not for other 23 situations. 24 MR. MERRETT: As I say, Your Honor, I 25 would be gratified if the Court would 1557 1 undertake to dispose of it should I fail to 2 retrieve it this afternoon. 3 THE COURT: I understand what you're 4 saying and let the record be clear on that. 5 I'll come around the room. Let me get 6 Mr. Pope first. 7 MR. POPE: I had the impression that 8 with regard to Ms. Bezazian there was an open 9 issue about that blocking of the parking lot. 10 THE COURT: Yes, and I found her not 11 guilty there. 12 MR. POPE: Okay. 13 THE COURT: And I'll tell you why. Let 14 me tell you what shot you down big time; UPS. 15 MR. POPE: All right. 16 THE COURT: Hey, if you can't drive your 17 van through a space that a UPS truck gets 18 through, what's blocked? 19 MR. POPE: Okay. 20 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 21 MR. SURETTE: Your Honor, may I address 22 the Court on behalf the Clearwater Police 23 Department? 24 THE COURT: Sure. Yeah, I asked you to 25 come. Go ahead, yes, sir. 1558 1 MR. SURETTE: It's really my concern 2 based on the videotape that Mr. Bunker -- 3 THE COURT: No, now let me make 4 something real clear on that. I recognize 5 that videotape for what it is, biased 6 propaganda. 7 Now, when I go look at these over here 8 with footage galore of Clearwater police 9 officers telling these people what they can 10 and can't do and some of the other 11 instances, it doesn't take a rocket 12 scientist to know what's going on. 13 Now, you want to address that, that's 14 fine. Don't talk to me about that video. 15 That's junk. Sorry, Mark, but that as far 16 as in a court of law, that's exactly what it 17 is. 18 MR. SURETTE: May I approach, Your 19 Honor. I just wanted to make sure that the 20 court has a complete view of some of the 21 background leading up to that videotape and 22 basically -- 23 THE COURT: That videotape? 24 MR. SURETTE: That videotape. 25 THE COURT: You can talk all you want, 1559 1 but I ain't going to sit and listen to it. 2 MR. SURETTE: Well, it's -- 3 THE COURT: I told you, I don't have 4 anything to do with that videotape. Well, 5 wait a minute. I'll tell you what I will do. 6 I did allow them the show it. I'll give a 7 forum, but I want the record clear that I'm 8 not -- I'm more concerned about other 9 matters. 10 MR. SURETTE: Well, I think the 11 videotape, however, is a representation of 12 those concerns and that is the number of 13 off-duty -- 14 THE COURT: That's their concern. 15 MR. MERRETT: -- who have been working, 16 and what I wanted to do, Your Honor, Chief 17 Klein after he received a copy of 18 Mr. Bunker's videotape and again I would 19 mention that as a representation of the 20 concerns that you've expressed in a memo 21 dated November 9, which I've included in the 22 packet of information, prior to the 23 November 9 memo, the Chief shared that 24 videotape with all the members of his command 25 staff which I was attending the monthly 1560 1 meeting. 2 Subsequent to that videotape, the Chief 3 went ahead and sent a copy of that videotape 4 to the City Manager and all of the 5 commissioners as well as the press and in 6 that letter he expressed his, basically some 7 of the concerns regarding the videotape and 8 again stated that he recognized that there 9 was friction and confrontations that had 10 been basically continuing, seemingly 11 indefinitely, between the two parties and 12 believed it was in the best interest of the 13 Clearwater citizens and taxpayers to 14 continue allowing off-duty officers to work 15 to maintain the public peace and order. 16 The proverbial rock and the hard place 17 the Clearwater police have found themselves 18 in is trying to deal with two contentious 19 sides that in the past were repeating 20 calling police officers were on duty out to 21 respond to the confrontations. 22 Usually that necessitated a sergeant to 23 respond to the scene and then subsequently 24 the lieutenant, tying up at least three 25 officers from important calls, serious calls 1561 1 that taxpayers and the citizens of this 2 community -- 3 THE COURT: Let that record be real 4 clear that's why I started holding these 5 hearings on the weekend, which cost money to 6 the sheriff's office, because of the 7 shenanigans that are going on here and I was 8 also scheduled to start last week a four to 9 eight week trial, the second known as Son of 10 Pipeline and you know what that means in this 11 county, which had to do with the pipeline 12 bringing water to everybody in this circuit 13 or at least in Pinellas County and my concern 14 was to get this heard. And when my regular 15 trial calendar was such that I could move 16 some of those jury trials and do this, I gave 17 you number one attention to get this taken 18 care of for the good of the policemen and 19 Clearwater. 20 Now, I'm trying to tell you that what I 21 saw on some of this other stuff, it appears 22 that some of your officers are being duped. 23 And if they don't understand exactly how the 24 ordinances or how the junction applies, you, 25 as their attorney, ask for a court hearing. 1562 1 Now, I know in the past when Mr. Merrett 2 entered the scene there were telephone 3 conferences or question and things were 4 worked out with Paul Johnson, etcetera and 5 Mr. Pope. That was lacking this time. You 6 know it as well as I do. 7 MR. SURETTE: Your Honor, subsequent to 8 the presentations of that tape I had two 9 telephone conversations with Mr. Merrett in 10 which I expressed to him on behalf of Chief 11 Klein the Chief's basic sensitivity to the 12 representations and the allegation that were 13 contained in Mr. Bunker's tape and my 14 specific words were the intent of the 15 telephone call was to open the door, that the 16 Chief did not want numerous officers working 17 off-duty. 18 The Chief already found himself in a 19 position where he provided such services to 20 numerous other churches, Sears and Roebuck, 21 other organizations that he had an 22 obligation to taxpayers, an obligation to 23 treat the Church as he would treat any other 24 organization, however if there was something 25 what Mr. Minton and his organization could 1563 1 do to limit the activities that were 2 occurring out there that necessitated police 3 response, Chief Klein was prepared to 4 withdraw all of those officers immediately. 5 Now, I presented a packet, Your Honor, 6 and the only purpose of that was to try to 7 demonstrate that there has been an 8 extraordinary effort on behalf of the Chief 9 of Police to ensure the officers acted 10 impartially. 11 There is a training bulletin that I 12 included in the packet, one of which by the 13 way was triggered by the incident contained 14 on that videotape regarding a incident 15 involving an Officer Kelly who told a 16 videographer to go ahead and turn off that 17 and had some confusion regarding 18 interception of oral commmunications, 19 etcetera. 20 The police department is willing to work 21 with both sides in some way to extricating 22 the officers from that situation. It is a 23 no-win situation and I just -- 24 THE COURT: I've already put that in the 25 record. 1564 1 MR. SURETTE: And you're suggesting, 2 Your Honor, that you made regarding attorneys 3 should meet trying to work out some sort of 4 agreement whereby the officers could reduce 5 their presence out there. I think it's an 6 extremely conducive and constructive 7 suggestion. 8 I'm more than willing to meet with both 9 sides and try to work out some solution to 10 reduce the presence of it. But the only 11 purpose of my being here, Your Honor, was to 12 try to ensure that any adverse impression 13 you got based on the representations 14 contained in those tapes in not a complete 15 picture. 16 The officers who work out there -- 17 THE COURT: Well, let the record be real 18 clear. I've had both sides telling with 19 these tapes and they've been showing where 20 they're been spliced, doctored, put together 21 upside down, sideways and everything else. 22 So, you know, I fully understand what you're 23 telling me. And I had to deal with them with 24 what they showed and snippets from here and 25 snippets from there and the record is 1565 1 replete, nine days, where's the whole tape; 2 where's this, where that, but the thing that 3 I am deeply concerned about is that last time 4 things were worked out there seemed to be 5 more of a -- if there was a question, and I 6 mean I went to great lengths to color code 7 this thing and to personally Xerox each copy 8 of my home -- my own cost. 9 Let this record be clear, so that your 10 people in the trenches wouldn't have any 11 questions as far as the designated color 12 areas. And make it clear, but the phone 13 calls and the cooperation that was existent 14 last year was nonexistent this year. And I 15 was here ready willing and able that answer 16 any questions and nobody asked me. Thank 17 you all very much. 18 (Thereupon, the proceedings were 19 concluded.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 1566 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 4 I, JACKIE L. OSTROM, in and for the 5 Sixth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida: 6 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing 7 proceedings were had at the time and place 8 set forth in the caption thereof; that I was 9 authorized to and did stenographically 10 report the said proceedings and that the 11 foregoing pages, numbered 1 through 1566 12 inclusive, is a true and correct 13 transcription of said stenographic report. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 15 affixed my official signature and seal of 16 office this 30th of March, 2001 at 17 Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. 18 19 20 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� JACKIE L. OSTROM 21 Notary Public, State of Florida, at Large 22 23 24 25