CASE NO. 99-7430-CI-08

                      IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
                          PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

                           CASE NO. 99-7430-CI-08

           ORGANIZATION, INC., a Florida           :
           corporation,                            :
                               Petitioner,         :
           vs.                                     :
           ROBERT S. MINTON, JR., ET AL.,          :
                               Respondents.        :

                 BEFORE:       The Honorable THOMAS E. PENICK, JR.

                 PLACE:        Pinellas County Judicial Building
                               545 First Avenue North
                               St. Petersburg, Florida

                 DATE:         February 13, 2001

                 TIME:         Commencing at 9:00 A.M.

                 REPORTED BY:  JACKIE L. OSTROM
                               Court Reporter

                            ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE
                                               Pages 664 - 795
                                               Volume VI

                      ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES
                                P.O. BOX 35
                            CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
                               (727) 443-0992



           The Honorable THOMAS E. PENICK, JR.

           911 Chestnut
           Clearwater, Florida

           3055 Whilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
           Los Angeles, California  90010

           Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Ship

           2716 Herschel Street
           Jacksonville, Florida  32205

           5720 Central Avenue
           St. Petersburg, Florida  33707

           Attorneys for Robert Minton and
           Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc.

.                                                                666

       1                        PROCEEDINGS

       2            THE COURT:  Mr. Howie, are your ready to

       3       proceed?

       4            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, Your Honor, I am.

       5            THE COURT:  Okay.  You're up.

       6            MR. HOWIE:  Thank you very much.  Your

       7       Honor, this is a judgment of acquittal

       8       argument in a criminal matter under 3.840.

       9       And as such I think we need to treat these

      10       documents as analogous to documents that we

      11       would have in a criminal proceeding.

      12            The order to show cause quite obviously

      13        is the charging document and the injunction

      14        is the applicable law in the case.  And both

      15        of them set forth elements which the

      16        prosecutor in this case, the petitioner, is

      17        required to prove.

      18            They have to establish at least some

      19        evidence of a prime facie showing of guilt

      20        as to each one of the elements and each one

      21        of the allegations.

      22            I'm going to, as far as Mr. Minton is

      23        concerned, I'm going to treat each

      24        allegation in the order to show cause as a

      25        criminal count and I'm going to treat the

.                                                                667

       1        injunction as defining the elements of each

       2        offense and I want to utilize Mr. Merrett's

       3        chart over here on the board to show the

       4        court that basically there are five kinds of

       5        criminal charges so to speak that are

       6        applicable here.

       7            Coming within ten feet of a member of

       8        the Church of Scientology; second, blocking

       9        the path of any member or church motor

      10        vehicle; third, physically preventing

      11        anyone, whether church member or a member of

      12        the public, from entering or leaving Church

      13        properties; fourth, acts of harassment or

      14        violence against any member of Scientology.

      15            Obviously, that excludes mere annoyance

      16        in the exercise or caused by the exercise of

      17        First Amendment rights and fifth, picketing

      18        or protesting only in the designated areas

      19        in this case, the so-called orange areas.

      20            I would also note that there is an

      21        intent obviously behind the injunction which

      22        is the general purpose to keep both sides

      23        away from each other and to allow for the

      24        unobstructed flow of traffic and movement,

      25        not only of the petitioners, not only of the

.                                                                668

       1        respondents, but of members of the public.

       2            Having said that, nothing else can be

       3        considered outside of the injunction, just

       4        as in criminal law nothing can be considered

       5        outside the criminal laws which the court

       6        knows under Chapter 736 much be strictly

       7        construed in favor of the defendant.

       8            I'm asking for the same approach in this

       9        case in strictly construing the injunction

      10        as the law of the case.

      11            I would point out that the orders to

      12        show cause, two orders to show cause in this

      13        case issued by the court in January, state

      14        in their preamble that we are here simply to

      15        determine if the injunction was violated.

      16        Not that criminal laws were violated, not if

      17        some rule of decorum was violated or some

      18        understanding was violated, but whether the

      19        injunction itself in all its elements, in

      20        all its prohibitions was violated.

      21            Now, before I go into this I would also

      22        point out that it has been the law in the

      23        State of Florida for at least the past 45

      24        years that equity, that is an injunctive

      25        remedy, cannot be employed either to enjoin

.                                                                669

       1        the commission of criminal offenses or to

       2        enforce the criminal laws.

       3            I've already supplied case law on that

       4        to the petitioner and it's Winer v. Kelly at

       5        82 So. 2d. 155.  That is Florida Supreme

       6        Court Case from 1955.  If I may approach

       7        I'll supply the court with that.

       8            THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.

       9            MR. HOWIE:  And I'm going to be raising

      10       that case law repeatedly in this case because

      11       what I find here is that the petitioner is

      12       attempting to get this court to do what they

      13       could not get the police of Clearwater to do,

      14       which is to find that the respondents,

      15       particularly Mr. Minton, were somehow

      16       criminally liable and therefore are subject

      17       to the injunction and the order to show cause

      18       that by being guilty of criminal offense

      19       somehow they should be punished for contempt

      20       pursuant to the injunction.  The law says you

      21       can't do that.

      22            The only remedy for a violation of the

      23        law is to call a police officer, get someone

      24        arrested, bring charges and ultimately get a

      25        conviction all by due process of law.

.                                                                670

       1            Now, in this case according to my own

       2        count, there are a total of seven counts

       3        against Mr. Minton.  Most of them carefully

       4        delineated in the orders to show cause,

       5        however some of them are a little bit fudgy

       6        and they have to be separated one from

       7        another, but my count there are seven

       8        separate instances the petitioner is citing

       9        as grounds for the orders to show cause, as

      10        grounds for finding he violated the

      11        injunction.

      12            We are going to allege here that in all

      13        seven counts the evidence has not

      14        established a prima facie case of guilt

      15        against Mr. Minton.  I will go through those

      16        counts one at a time.

      17            Before I do that I would advise the

      18        court that if I failed to mention this with

      19        each count, I would be adopting all

      20        arguments made by Mr. Merrett yesterday in

      21        support of this motion for judgment of

      22        acquittal which do pertain to Robert Minton.

      23            One point, I wish to adopt from

      24        Mr. Merrett's argument from yesterday is the

      25        lack of identification testimony in this

.                                                                671

       1        case.  Clearly if we were to go through a

       2        criminal case in which the state attorney

       3        failed to ask the witness in the case, the

       4        eye-witness in the case, do you see the man

       5        anywhere in this courtroom, I would have my

       6        JOA for lack of identification from this

       7        court.

       8            In this case, not a single witness for

       9        the petitioner took the stand and was asked

      10        to point out Mr. Minton as the person who

      11        committed each one of these seven alleged

      12        offenses.

      13            So, on the grounds of identification

      14        alone, I move for a judgment of acquittal as

      15        to all seven counts and in support of that I

      16        would also adopt Mr. Merrett's arguments.

      17            The failure to prove identification or

      18        rather identification is an essential

      19        element and the failure to prove

      20        identification is fatal to all seven counts.

      21            Now, let me go through the counts one at

      22        a time and I'm calling them counts.  I'm

      23        trying to designate them specifically in

      24        reference to the two orders to show cause.

      25            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.  Let

.                                                                672

       1       me catch up with you.

       2            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir.

       3             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       4        place.)

       5            THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.

       6            MR. HOWIE:  There are two orders to show

       7       cause, one dated January 4, and the other

       8       January 10.  There is only one count against

       9       Mr. Minton in the January 4 order to show

      10       cause and that is the incident alleged to

      11       have occurred on December 4.

      12            The allegation actually appears in

      13        Paragraph Three, Sub A and Sub B which are

      14        located on pages three and four of the

      15        January 4 order to show cause.

      16            Now, I refer to this in shorthand as the

      17        spy camera incident.  I understand someone

      18        might take exception to me referring to this

      19        as the spy camera.  Quite frankly, I think

      20        that two lipstick cameras tucked away in

      21        what appears to be a junction box is meant

      22        to be a surreptitious effort to surveillance

      23        and that's why I refer to them as spy

      24        cameras.

      25            As the court is well aware under the

.                                                                673

       1        military theory of deterrence, you deter

       2        people by making it obvious what you are up

       3        to and what the sanctions for a violation of

       4        certain restrictions.

       5            Here clearly that was not the intent of

       6        the installer of these cameras.  The intent

       7        was to hide them away, tuck them away.  This

       8        is especially true when the court notes that

       9        above and to the left of this spy camera

      10        there was in fact a standard surveillance

      11        camera, obviously meant to deter from doing

      12        the immediate vicinity.

      13            Now, a specific allegation against

      14        Mr. Minton is that, and you it saw on the

      15        videotape, after Mr. Merrett had climbed the

      16        stepladder and looked and observed the spy

      17        camera, he came off the ladder and

      18        Mr. Minton climbed the ladder.

      19            Mr. Minton moved the hidden camera a few

      20        inches, got a good angle on it and proceeded

      21        to take photographs from two different

      22        angles, moving the ladder in between.

      23            The allegations in Paragraph Three Sub A

      24        and Sub B, there are basically four

      25        allegations or elements alleged:  One,

.                                                                674

       1        Mr. Minton, along with Mr. Merrett, set up

       2        the ladder; two, Mr. Minton twisted the box

       3        the cameras were hidden in; three,

       4        Mr. Minton stood lest than ten feet from

       5        Church staff and four, Mr. Minton blocked

       6        the ingress and egress from the delivery

       7        entrance.

       8            Now, turning from the allegations to the

       9        actual evidence.  The evidence through both

      10        testimony and video show that yes,

      11        Mr. Minton set up the ladder and yes,

      12        Mr. Minton put his hand on the box and moved

      13        it.

      14            However, absolutely no evidence was

      15        presented of any kind that he either moved

      16        within ten feet of a Church member or

      17        blocked any entrance to the Scientology

      18        property.

      19            I would point out that no one, including

      20        Mr. Avila, who took the video can say that a

      21        Scientologist came within ten feet of

      22        Mr. Minton.  If there was some inference

      23        that a Scientology member wandered within

      24        ten feet of Mr. Minton, I would submit to

      25        the court that Minton, stationary on his ten

.                                                                675

       1        foot ladder and unable to move quickly for

       2        obvious reasons, would not have committed a

       3        willful violation if a church member were to

       4        step with ten feet of him.  Quite the

       5        contrary, I think the violator. would have

       6        been that Church member.

       7            Concerning the blocking of any entrance,

       8        it is quite clear from the videotape that at

       9        least one delivery man with a handcart

      10        stacked up with plastic boxes, presumably

      11        delivering bread, had absolutely no problem

      12        moving quickly into and out of the door that

      13        was several feet away from the ladder where

      14        Mr. Minton was seated.

      15            That's in the pictures.  The court saw

      16        that they were able to complete their

      17        delivery, stack plastic boxes up in the back

      18        of the truck and go on their way unimpeded

      19        without any complaint.

      20            I would also point out that setting up

      21        the ladder itself was not a violation.

      22        Mr. Merrett argued that very well yesterday.

      23        And I would point out that there is nothing

      24        wrong, there is certainly no violation of an

      25        injunction for setting up a ladder on the

.                                                                676

       1        sidewalk and then climbing up that ladder.

       2            There is the allegation that Mr. Minton

       3        moved the camera box by rotating it on its

       4        conduit.  It is clear from the video and

       5        from the testimony that the court has heard

       6        that in fact this spy camera or the spy

       7        cameras I should say, inside the junction

       8        box, were easily moved from the wall without

       9        destroying or damaging anything; that the

      10        conduit itself allowed the box to pivot

      11        outward and in fact that's what they

      12        succeeded in doing.

      13            There was no competence evidence

      14        presented to the court that Mr. Minton broke

      15        anything by doing that.  There is indirect

      16        evidence, presumably hearsay or otherwise

      17        incompetent evidence, to the extent, I would

      18        say to the extent that is carries no weight

      19        at all in the court, that the camera somehow

      20        had to be refocussed.

      21            Now, we didn't hear from the refocusser.

      22        We didn't hear to what extent it needed to

      23        be refocused or repositioned.  But I want to

      24        point out that the petitioners' own evidence

      25        in this case suggests that what was really

.                                                                677

       1        going on with this so-called refocussing,

       2        was, in fact, a repositioning of the box for

       3        the purpose of taking a self-serving

       4        photograph of the location of the box

       5        several hours later to intimate that at the

       6        time of this incident with the ladder

       7        occurred this box was entirely on

       8        Scientology property.  When in fact the

       9        photographs taken by Mr. Minton from the

      10        ladder as the court saw in the video clearly

      11        show that this box was on the so-called

      12        neutral business, the rat bait building, and

      13        that if the allegation is that somehow he

      14        was intruding on to Scientology property,

      15        that allegation is not supported by the

      16        evidence.

      17            Let me also point of course that we

      18        don't care where the box is, because

      19        touching the side of the building or

      20        touching that box would not constitute a

      21        violation of the injunction.

      22            Now, let's assume the worst.  Let's

      23        suggest the worst here.  Let's say

      24        Mr. Minton actually somehow damaged or broke

      25        that camera.  The court is well aware of the

.                                                                678

       1        law concerning criminal mischief.

       2            If you so much as let the air out of

       3        someone's tire you have committed the act of

       4        criminal mischief.

       5            Let's say that Mr. Minton actually

       6        committed the act of criminal mischief right

       7        in front of the Clearwater police officer.

       8        Criminal mischief under Section 806.13 is a

       9        misdemeanor, a crime in the State of

      10        Florida.

      11            Again citing to Winer versus Kelly, the

      12        criminal law cannot be enforced by

      13        injunction nor can the commission of a crime

      14        be enjoined by injunction.

      15            So, if he committed the act of criminal

      16        mischief, the act is not enforceable at this

      17        hearing.  I would also point out that the

      18        Clearwater police officer scrutinizing the

      19        event from just a few feet away did not see

      20        probable cause to charge or allege an act of

      21        criminal mischief.

      22            For these reasons I ask the court find

      23        that there is no prima facie showing of

      24        guilt based on the evidence in this incident

      25        and I ask that the court grant an acquittal

.                                                                679

       1        of Minton as to the December 4 incident.

       2            Turning next to the order to show

       3        cause --

       4            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.

       5            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir.

       6             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       7        place.)

       8            THE COURT:  Okay.

       9            MR. HOWIE:  Turning next to the

      10       injunction dated January 10, 2001, for the

      11       other six counts alleged against Mr. Minton.

      12            I wish to refer in chronological order

      13        next to the incident occurring on

      14        January 5, 2001 which is Paragraph 1B on

      15        page two of this order to show cause.

      16            The allegation there is that

      17        Mr. Minton --

      18            THE COURT:  Just a minute.  Let me get

      19       to that one, okay.

      20            MR. HOWIE:  Okay.

      21            THE COURT:  I've go the orders to show

      22       cause here.

      23            MR. HOWIE:  Page two, Paragraph B.

      24            THE COURT:  Yeah, I've got it.  That's

      25       January 5, okay.  I'm with you, sir.

.                                                                680

       1            MR. HOWIE:  Thank you.  That's where

       2       Mr. Minton saw the process server coming at

       3       him with the papers hidden behind her left

       4       leg, that he made the statement you come

       5       within ten feet of me and you guys are going

       6       to get killed.  He turned and ran from the

       7       woman.  She chased him.  She threw the paper

       8       at him through the closing door of the Lisa

       9       McPherson Trust and it's alleged that he

      10       threw the papers back at her.

      11            Now, the specific allegations are that

      12        he specifically said you come within ten

      13        feet of me and you guys are going to get

      14        killed, I would first ask the court to note

      15        that this is stated in the plural, you guys,

      16        referring presumably not only to the process

      17        server but also to the cameraman Mr. Colton

      18        who stood behind her doing the filming.

      19            I would also note that even though she

      20        approached him, despite this deadly fatal

      21        threat that she was going to get killed if

      22        she approached him, she none the less did

      23        so, and I would also notice that rather than

      24        kill her, Mr. Minton turned and ran away.

      25        And even went so far as to seek refuge in

.                                                                681

       1        the Lisa McPherson Trust.

       2            Now, clearly Mr. Minton's actions

       3        coupled by his words indicate that he was

       4        engaging in a bit of hyperbole there or

       5        exaggeration to turn a phrase, so to speak,

       6        just as a mother admonishes a child you

       7        know, do what I say or I'll kill you.

       8            Clearly, his actions, combined with his

       9        words, did not amount to a threat and as the

      10        court well knows in criminal law, to

      11        determine intent we look at actions as well

      12        as words.

      13            He was hardly effective in killing her

      14        by turning, running and barricading himself.

      15            The evidence further shows that she

      16        dropped the papers inside the door.  That's

      17        the way she puts it.  Whether she threw them

      18        at Mr. Minton or dropped the papers inside

      19        the door hardly matters and then it's

      20        alleged that he threw the papers back at

      21        her.

      22            Now, I am baffled by thi count.  I don't

      23        even know why it is alleged here.  Because

      24        clearly on its face these allegations, even

      25        if all of them are true in the light most

.                                                                682

       1        favorable to the petitioner and to

       2        Ms. Colton who testified to these incidents,

       3        clearly on its face does not constitute a

       4        violation of the injunction.

       5            I don't even know why they bothered to

       6        put it into the order to show cause because

       7        this was a process server and the petitioner

       8        insists ad infinitum that a process server

       9        is not a member of the Church of

      10        Scientology, that a process server works

      11        only for the court, that a process server is

      12        not the agent of Scientology, a process

      13        server is not an employee of the Church of

      14        Scientology, the process server has nothing

      15        to do with the Church of Scientology.  He or

      16        she is merely an agent of the court involved

      17        in court's business and no one else's

      18        business.

      19            That's why I say I'm baffled that we

      20        even have this count in all these

      21        allegations.  This was certainly not an

      22        action against a member of the Church of

      23        Scientology unless for some reason the

      24        petitioner wants to change their tune and

      25        say, okay, all process servers are now

.                                                                683

       1        members of the Church of Scientology or

       2        agents and employees and therefore covered

       3        by the injunction.

       4            She is clearly not covered by the

       5        injunction anymore than any given number of

       6        the public is covered by this injunction.

       7            The video further shows and I've seen

       8        some clipped versions of the video on this

       9        point, but I think the video that was

      10        actually put into evidence clearly shows

      11        this.

      12            THE COURT:  Wait a minute.  Mr. Howie,

      13       you've seen what, sir?

      14            MR. HOWIE:  I saying that the video

      15       provided to me in discovery did not clearly

      16       show what I'm about to relate, but the video

      17       offered in evidence to the court did.

      18            That video shows that Mr. Minton, far

      19        from throwing the papers at the process

      20        server whistling by her ear as she fled his

      21        intent to kill her, in fact these papers

      22        wound up in a heap on the sidewalk right

      23        next to a car parked directly in front of

      24        the front door of Lisa McPherson Trust.

      25            In short, the papers went east as she

.                                                                684

       1        went south.  And the papers came nowhere

       2        near her.  The video will clearly show that.

       3            I ask the court to pay special attention

       4        to the last one or two seconds where the

       5        camera pans down to show all these papers in

       6        a heap, perhaps six, seven feet from

       7        Mr. Minton's feet, east of him while she s

       8        clearly 20, perhaps even 30 feet south of

       9        him.

      10            Finally, Ms. Colton, by her own

      11        testimony indicated that she was not

      12        battered, harmed or physically touched in

      13        any way during this entire incident.

      14            Now, again, this is not a violation of

      15        the injunction in any way.  She's not a

      16        Church of Scientology member, and no amount

      17        of harassment or threats of death against a

      18        process server would ever violate this

      19        injunction.

      20            During this entire incident Mr. Minton

      21        did not get within ten feet of a member of

      22        the Church of Scientology.  He did not walk

      23        in anybody's path.  He did not inhibit any

      24        entrance or exit from Church property.  He

      25        did not harass or commit violence against a

.                                                                685

       1        member of the Church of Scientology and he

       2        certainly wasn't picketing or protesting in

       3        a prohibited zone.

       4            So for all those reasons, that's why I

       5        say again I'm baffled why we are even

       6        looking at this allegation.

       7            Now, there is a suggestion made that the

       8        process server momentarily became an agent

       9        of the Church of Scientology and there is

      10        the suggestion made that Mr. Minton's

      11        believing that the process server was an

      12        agent of the Church of Scientology is itself

      13        some sort of provocation on Mr. Minton's

      14        part which results in a violation of the

      15        injunction.

      16            That is to say that repeatedly in these

      17        orders to show cause the petitioner seems

      18        upset every time one of the respondents made

      19        some statement that they say is a

      20        misinterpretation of the injunction.  I

      21        point for example to the incident involving

      22        Tory Bezazian where she tells Antonio behind

      23        the camera that he is in violation of

      24        injunction.

      25            The petitioner says not only is this or

.                                                                686

       1        suggests that not only is this a

       2        misinterpretation of the injunction, it is a

       3        perversion so severe of the injunction that

       4        it itself amounts to a violation of the

       5        injunction.

       6            That is simply not the case.  If

       7        Mr. Minton in an abundance of caution

       8        misinterprets the injunction as opined to

       9        process servers and even Clearwater police

      10        officers, he is allowed to do so, so long as

      11        he's not actually violating the injunction.

      12        And I would suggest that it's better for

      13        Mr. Minton to be overly cautious in obeying

      14        the injunction rather than to violate the

      15        injunction.

      16            Any suggestion that here he somehow

      17        violated the injunction by insisting the

      18        process server should not come within ten

      19        feet of him is simply not a basis for a

      20        violation of the injunction.

      21            Now, they've also argued using

      22        Thompson v. State previously cited in the

      23        court, 398 So. 2d. 914, the court already

      24        has the case law on that, that this is an

      25        obstruction under Thompson v, State which is

.                                                                687

       1        punishable and equitable and that argument

       2        is totally off.  It's totally off as that

       3        whole allegation is.

       4            First of all, Thompson v. State involved

       5        an attorney failing to appear for the call

       6        of the trial calendar in front of the

       7        circuit court.  And it was alleged in that

       8        case that that amounted to an obstruction.

       9            The petitioner has presented absolutely

      10        no legal theory by which the process server

      11        can be obstructed in violation of this

      12        injunction.

      13            Now, I know that they have cited a

      14        provision of Chapter of 843 which says that

      15        obstruction, either misdemeanor or felony

      16        obstruction, can occur against law

      17        enforcement officer, parole agent, probation

      18        officer, members of Department of Children

      19        and Families, Florida Highway Patrolmen and

      20        people who are authorized to serve process.

      21            Well, that's fine.  If they think that

      22        the crime of obstruction occurred, then they

      23        should pick up the phone, call the

      24        Clearwater Police Department and do their a

      25        civic duty and report a crime.

.                                                                688

       1            If this is a crime, it is enforceable in

       2        equity again citing Winer versus Kelly.

       3        There is nothing in this list of admonitions

       4        in the injunction that says if you run away

       5        from a process server I'm going to hold you

       6        in contempt of court.

       7            Nor, is there anything that says that

       8        this court can hold a person who runs away

       9        from a process server in contempt of court

      10        because that amounts to a criminal offense

      11        by their own theory.  And if it's a criminal

      12        offense, then charge the person with

      13        obstruction, but I would also point out that

      14        in 22 years of practicing criminal law in

      15        this county, not once have I heard either

      16        Jimmy Russell or Bernie McCabe or any member

      17        of their office ever even suggest that

      18        avoiding service of process amount to the

      19        misdemeanor of obstruction or opposing an

      20        officer under Chapter 843.  And if it did,

      21        believe me, I'd be many times more busy than

      22        I am already given the number of clients

      23        that I've had who have deliberately avoided

      24        that despite the admonitions of their own

      25        attorney.

.                                                                689

       1            I would also point out that Thompson v.

       2        State says that intent is an essential

       3        element of contempt.  If they are suggesting

       4        that the court should find Mr. Minton in

       5        contempt of court for avoiding the process

       6        server, I again ask the court to review the

       7        video to see what Mr. Minton's intent was.

       8            It is clear repeatedly throughout all of

       9        these videos, whether it be dealings with

      10        the Clearwater police of process servers or

      11        anybody else whether he has his Threep in

      12        hand or not, he is intent, Mr. Minton is

      13        intent on keeping people ten feet away from

      14        him that he believes are covered by the

      15        injunction.

      16            Is his interpretation correct?  Maybe it

      17        is, maybe it isn't, but the point is that

      18        the court should look at his intent in doing

      19        what he did and his intent was to avoid a

      20        violation of this injunction by a person

      21        that he felt was covered by those provisions

      22        of the injunction that prevent members of

      23        the Church of Scientology from getting

      24        within ten feet of Mr. Minton.

      25            His intent is appropriate and his intent

.                                                                690

       1        does not show an effort to violate the

       2        injunction.  Quite the contrary, it shows an

       3        effort on Mr. Minton's part to enforce the

       4        injunction.  Yet, they are trying to use

       5        these actions to suggest that this is a

       6        violation of the injunction.

       7            I ask the court to consider the facts

       8        that Ms. Colton in fact hid the process from

       9        Mr. Minton behind her left leg as she

      10        approached as consideration of Mr. Minton's

      11        intent.

      12            If they deliberately tried to hide their

      13        own intent in approaching him, he in turn

      14        cannot be held to blame for trying to avoid

      15        her.

      16            I would point out that the court can

      17        take notice that in evidence previously

      18        presented to the court, Ms. Colton was a

      19        familiar face to all parties in this case

      20        since her face appeared prominently in

      21        videotapes previously submitted in evidence

      22        to the court in response.

      23            Now, it's the petitioner's argument that

      24        every time they hire either directly or

      25        indirectly, a process server to serve

.                                                                691

       1        anything on one of the respondents,

       2        Mr. Minton or anybody else, they have the

       3        absolute right to do that.  And woe be to

       4        the respondent that fails to stand fast and

       5        extend their hand and accept the papers

       6        being given to them by a process server.

       7            The petitioner takes offense at the

       8        respondents who fail to obey their process

       9        server and to cooperate with process

      10        servers.

      11            I ask the court to consider the

      12        petitioner's position.  If Mr. Minton were

      13        to go out and hire say half-a-dozen process

      14        servers, hand them each 20 copies of the

      15        injunction and said go into that hotel on

      16        Ft. Harrison and serve everybody you see, I

      17        would really be interested in knowing what

      18        the petitioner's reactions would be.  We

      19        know what the petitioner's reaction would

      20        be.

      21            You can't do that.  This is harassment.

      22        This is a violation of the injunction.

      23        Would they be right?  Perhaps they would be

      24        right.  But you can bet that if the shoe

      25        were on the other foot in this instance they

.                                                                692

       1        would be claiming that it was the

       2        respondent, that is was Mr. Minton, who was

       3        violating the injunction.

       4            They would be baffled if we, in response

       5        to that are to say you're in violation of

       6        the injunction, you won't let our process

       7        servers walk right up to every member of the

       8        Church of Scientology and hand them a copy

       9        of the injunction regardless of where they

      10        stand.

      11            These are just process servers.  We

      12        didn't send them.  They're not our agents.

      13        They're not our employees.  They are

      14        authorized representatives of the court and

      15        by running away from our process servers you

      16        are in violation of the injunction.  They

      17        would tell me I'm being ridiculous.

      18            I want to move next to the allegation in

      19        Paragraph 1C on page two of the same order

      20        to show cause.  This is an incident or

      21        allegation alleged to have occurred on

      22        January 6, 2001 and that is the hanging the

      23        Threep, a ten foot pole, so that the end of

      24        it intruded over the property line of church

      25        property.

.                                                                693

       1            Now, again, I will point out the five

       2        ways in which the respondents, including

       3        Mr. Minton can violate the injunction.

       4        Nowhere on that list is there anything that

       5        talks about extending a ten foot pole on

       6        property or even generally about a trespass

       7        on church property.

       8            The allegation is that Mr. Minton had

       9        the Threep, the ten foot pole with a Nerf

      10        ball at the end, in his hands, and although

      11        Mr. Minton never stood on Church property

      12        himself, it is alleged that the end of the

      13        pole broke the close of Church property.

      14            Specifically, it's alleged that this

      15        occurred either along Park Street or along

      16        Ft. Harrison in the vicinity of the parking

      17        lot south of the Coachman Building.  And the

      18        allegation is that the Nerf ball on the end

      19        of the pole manstrated over the plane of

      20        their property line while he was actually

      21        standing in a permitted orange area on Park

      22        or Ft. Harrison.

      23            Now I rely on Mr. Merrett's argument

      24        concerning Trespass Quare Clausum Friget.

      25        Trespass again, as he argued is not

.                                                                694

       1        encompassed by this injunction and, if in

       2        fact a trespass on property other than a

       3        structure or conveyance occurred, it would

       4        constitute a first degree misdemeanor under

       5        Chapter 810 and as a criminal charge would

       6        not be enforceable by injunction.

       7            There is no competent evidence, there

       8        was no competent evidence presented to the

       9        court either by testimony or by video that

      10        in fact the end of the Threep, the Nerf ball

      11        on the end of the pole, actually went across

      12        the plane of a property line either along

      13        Park Street or Ft. Harrison and on that

      14        point alone I would request a judgment of

      15        acquittal.

      16            There is also the allegation that he

      17        honked a loud horn.  The horn is now in

      18        evidence with the court.

      19            Clearly, the court is able to honk the

      20        horn itself to test the loudness.  There is

      21        no showing that any Scientology member was

      22        harassed by the honking of this horn.  There

      23        is no showing of disorderly conduct, which

      24        itself would be a violation of criminal law,

      25        which is not enforceable in equity.  And

.                                                                695

       1        there is insufficient evidence to support

       2        this allegation that somehow he broke the

       3        close with the end of the pole.

       4            Because there is no specific provision

       5        of the injunction that was violated, because

       6        there was no competent evidence of breaking

       7        the close with the pole, we would move for a

       8        judgment acquittal as to that count.

       9             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      10        place.)

      11            THE COURT:  Okay.

      12            MR. HOWIE:  Mr. Merrett has just

      13       indicated to me that there is a sign on the

      14       outside of the doors indicating the courtroom

      15       continued to be sealed and it's resulting in

      16       some confusing.

      17            THE COURT:  Okay.  I'll take care of it.

      18       We can correct the problem.  Let's do this,

      19       too.  Mr. Bailiff, that front door is

      20       unlocked, isn't it?

      21            THE BAILIFF:  It's still locked.

      22            THE COURT:  It's still locked?

      23            THE BAILIFF:  Right.  Yes, sir.

      24            THE COURT:  Yeah, we did that yesterday

      25       so we wouldn't have a needless flow -- we

.                                                                696

       1       were at limits and I didn't want a lot of

       2       banging on the doors and interruptions and

       3       curiosity seekers.  I mean the side doors

       4       were open.  They weren't prohibited from

       5       coming in, but today the numbers of

       6       prospective jurors are down and the halls are

       7       relatively empty so we open that.  Let's go

       8       ahead.

       9            THE BAILIFF:  Yes, sir.

      10            MR. HOWIE:  May I, Your Honor?

      11            THE COURT:  Yeah, proceed.

      12            MR. HOWIE:  The first count in this

      13       matter is the use of megaphones is permitted

      14       orange areas.  I am limiting my comments to

      15       the allegation made in Paragraphs D 1D and 1E

      16       on pages two and three of the January 10

      17       order to show cause.

      18            THE COURT:  I'm sorry.

      19            MR. HOWIE:  Paragraphs 1D and 1E, pages

      20       two and three.

      21            THE COURT:  I got you, sir.

      22            MR. HOWIE:  This is an allegation again

      23       alleged on January 6, 2001 and the allegation

      24       is that Mr. Minton used a megaphone to

      25       repeatedly yell at parishioners and staff of

.                                                                697

       1       Scientology, both along Park Street and

       2       Ft. Harrison and again I'm limiting my

       3       comments to those instances where Mr. Minton

       4       is standing in orange zones.

       5            Now, the evidence shows clearly from the

       6        videotapes and there is no evidence to the

       7        contrary that during these times they were

       8        in fact in the permitted orange areas.

       9        There was no showing, there was no evidence

      10        presented to the court to show that any

      11        member of the Church of Scientology was

      12        either harassed, obstructed, or barricaded

      13        or blocked or inhibited in any way as a

      14        result of the use of the megaphones.

      15            I would point out that the evidence also

      16        shows that Mr. Minton was not merely

      17        addressing members of the Church, but he was

      18        addressing the general public as they drove

      19        by on Ft. Harrison.

      20            Now, there was absolutely no evidence

      21        that any of the admonitions and prohibitions

      22        in the injunction were violated.  If

      23        anything occurred through the use of this

      24        megaphone and incidentally I would point out

      25        for the record that when we refer to a

.                                                                698

       1        megaphone we're not talking about a bullhorn

       2        or an amp or any kind of electronic

       3        amplification.  We're talking about a

       4        cheerleader style megaphone made out of

       5        cardboard.  That if, in fact, the use of

       6        megaphone constituted disorderly conduct of

       7        any kind, it wouldn't be a violation of the

       8        injunction, nor would it be enforceable in

       9        equity because again it would constitute a

      10        violation of the criminal statute on

      11        disorderly conduct.

      12            The petitioner is suggesting that an act

      13        of disorderly conduct is a violation of the

      14        injunction and cannot be enforced as such

      15        and for that reason and I would point out as

      16        well that during this time Mr. Minton was in

      17        a zone where he was permitted to

      18        demonstrate.  Demonstration is not merely

      19        the silent walking back and forth with a

      20        picket sign.  Mr. Minton is allowed to

      21        address people in such a way that does not

      22        violate either the injunction or the law.

      23            For those reasons I would request a

      24        judgment of acquittal as to that allegation

      25        as well.

.                                                                699

       1            Next, again on January 6 there is the

       2        allegation of demonstrating, of Mr. Minton

       3        demonstrating while walking across the

       4        driveway of the Coachman parking lot.  I

       5        believe this again is at either Sub D or

       6        Sub E or both of paragraph one of this

       7        particular order to show cause.

       8            The allegation is that Mr. Minton, while

       9        walking from one orange area on Ft. Harrison

      10        south of the driveway to another orange area

      11        just north of the driveway along the east

      12        side of Ft. Harrison, that Mr. Minton

      13        continued his demonstration activities while

      14        crossing the driveway.

      15            Now, the court has a video of this

      16        incident and the video is our best evidence

      17        that shows that in fact this did not happen.

      18            I believe it was shown to the court with

      19        the sound off.  I would ask the court to

      20        turn the sound up in viewing this particular

      21        segment of the video, because what will be

      22        shown on that video is that the so-called

      23        demonstration.  The so-called demonstration

      24        by Mr. Minton is actually Mr. Minton taking

      25        the Threep, the ten foot pole, pointing it

.                                                                700

       1        directly at Mr. Avila who was operating the

       2        video camera, who was known instantly to

       3        Mr. Minton as a member of the Church of

       4        Scientology and warning Mr. Avila at the

       5        point of an injunction that the injunction

       6        require Mr. Avila to stay ten feet away.

       7            Mr. Minton simultaneously has the

       8        megaphone raised to his lips and you will

       9        hear Mr. Minton say, stay ten feet away,

      10        buddy.  He refers to the injunction and

      11        admonishes Mr. Avila to obey the law.

      12            He continues in that vein as he takes a

      13        few steps across the driveway to the orange

      14        area north of the driveway.  Although the

      15        court needs to be conscious of content

      16        neutrality in restricting the First

      17        Amendment right of anybody, I would point

      18        out that in this particular instance the

      19        allegation that Mr. Minton was continuing

      20        his demonstration across the driveway is

      21        simply not supported by the evidence.

      22            Mr. Minton's words were addressed solely

      23        to Mr. Avila to obey the injunction.  It did

      24        not constitute a demonstration, a picketing

      25        or a protest.

.                                                                701

       1            If Mr. Minton had been silent in all

       2        respects until he got to the driveway and

       3        Mr. Avila had approached him or come close

       4        to him and he had admonished Mr. Avila to

       5        stay ten feet away as Mr. Minton crossed the

       6        driveway, it clearly would not be a

       7        violation of the injunction.  It's not a

       8        violation of the injunction here.

       9            I point out and again I would cite to

      10        Mr. Merrett's argument yesterday in support

      11        of this, there was nothing in the injunction

      12        to prevent Mr. Minton from being in the

      13        driveway as long as he was not blocking any

      14        traffic.

      15            Clearly he was walking across the

      16        driveway at a reasonable speed.  There is no

      17        evidence or inclination that he blocked

      18        anybody or any motor vehicle while doing so

      19        and it is clear that there is nothing wrong

      20        with Mr. Minton passing across that

      21        driveway.  He is allowed to do so even under

      22        the injunction.

      23            I would also point out and I suppose I

      24        should have pointed this repeatedly in all

      25        of this that Mr. Minton takes pains to make

.                                                                702

       1        sure that everybody that he believes to be a

       2        member or an agent or employee of the Church

       3        stay ten feet away from him and that he

       4        informs others of the injunction and that

       5        asked people to obey the injunction while

       6        interestingly enough, none of the evidence

       7        presented to the court shows that members if

       8        the Church of Scientology are equally

       9        sincere about enforcing the ten foot rule.

      10            Not once did you hear any member of the

      11        Church of Scientology on any videotape or

      12        from the witness stand say to any of the

      13        respondents, hey, stay ten feet away from

      14        me.  Hey, don't come any closer.  Hey,

      15        you're violating the ten foot rule.

      16            I think that's very telling.  And I

      17        think it's telling because it shows that the

      18        respondents who are being accused here of

      19        violation of the injunction have a more

      20        sincere and emphatic desire to have this

      21        court's injunction upheld, particularly as

      22        to the ten foot rule than any member of the

      23        Church of Scientology, especially when

      24        wholesale they hire process servers to walk

      25        straight up to people and either hand them

.                                                                703

       1        or hurl down copies of your injunction.

       2            I think that's a very telling point and

       3        I think it's ironic that here we have

       4        Mr. Minton trying to enforce the injunction

       5        by instruction others on it, only to be

       6        accused of a violation of the injunction

       7        when does so.

       8            We have not done that to their process

       9        servers or any member of the petitioner's

      10        church.  And I question their legal right to

      11        do so in this case.

      12            For that reason, for all those reasons

      13        I'm asking this court grant a judgement of

      14        acquittal as to this count concerning

      15        walking across the driveway.

      16            THE COURT:  Hold on.

      17             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      18        place.)

      19            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir.

      20            THE COURT:  Okay.

      21            MR. HOWIE:  So number six, Your Honor,

      22       again occurring on January 6, 2001, the

      23       allegation made in Paragraph 1F on page three

      24       of the order to show cause, that Mr. Minton

      25       walked past the east side of the Clearwater

.                                                                704

       1       Bank Building --

       2            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.

       3       That's paragraph --

       4            MR. HOWIE:  1F.

       5            THE COURT:  1F?

       6            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir.

       7            THE COURT:  Page three and is of the

       8       January 10 order to show cause.

       9            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir.

      10            THE COURT:  Okay.  This alleged event

      11       happened when?  I don't see it in

      12       Paragraph F.  What's the date of that?

      13            MR. HOWIE:  Well, it doesn't state the

      14       date but it says shortly afterward, later

      15       afternoon.

      16            THE COURT:  I see.

      17            MR. HOWIE:  The court may recall that.

      18            THE COURT:  That says on the afternoon

      19       of January 6?

      20            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir.  The court may

      21       recall Mr. Avila testified that after the

      22       incident with the Threep around the Coachman

      23       parking lot property and then the

      24       demonstration down across the street from the

      25       Ft. Harrison, the group then walked back to

.                                                                705

       1       the Lisa McPherson Trust and at the end of

       2       their walk this incident is alleged to have

       3       occurred and it appears on videotape and the

       4       allegation is that Mr. Minton was in a

       5       permitted orange zone along the east side of

       6       Watterson Street as he approached the Lisa

       7       McPherson Trust Building, he had a megaphone

       8       in his hand and in his other hand he had the

       9       Threep with the injunction at the end of the

      10       pole.

      11            The video would show that Watterson was

      12        nearly empty except for the respondents or

      13        people with the respondents.  The video

      14        shows Mr. Minton speaking through the

      15        megaphone, the cardboard megaphone.

      16            Although the video pans away briefly at

      17        the this moment, Mr. Minton handed the

      18        megaphone off to Arnie Lerma, at least

      19        that's who I identified on the videotape,

      20        but another individual and when the camera

      21        pans back on them the court will notice in

      22        reviewing the tape that Mr. Minton no longer

      23        has the megaphone in his hand, but Arnie

      24        Lerma who did not have a megaphone now has a

      25        megaphone in his hand.

.                                                                706

       1            I believe the inference is clear.  In

       2        any event the video then shows Mr. Minton

       3        walking diagonally across Watterson as he

       4        proceeds north from the east side of

       5        Watterson to the west side of Watterson,

       6        clearly in a direct line to the door of the

       7        Lisa McPherson Trust Building, but he gets

       8        to the east sidewalk short of the Lisa

       9        McPherson Trust Building at which time he is

      10        holding the pole straight up in the air and

      11        the pole being ten feet tall permits him to

      12        pass the injunction along the line of the

      13        second floor windows of the Clearwater Bank

      14        Building and that is the allegation and the

      15        evidence that has been presented to the

      16        court.

      17            However, I would point out that no

      18        evidence has been presented to the court

      19        either by Mr. Avila, who was there, or by

      20        anybody else, that any member of the Church

      21        of Scientology felt themselves to be

      22        violated through a breaking of the ten foot

      23        rule, walking in anybody's path, inhibiting

      24        entry or exit from the building, harassing

      25        or offering violence to any members, or

.                                                                707

       1        finally picketing or protesting.

       2            And let me address myself to the last

       3        point.  If the court carefully reviews the

       4        video, although you may hear voices or even

       5        shouting on the video, none those are

       6        ascribed to Mr. Minton.

       7            The actions by Mr. Minton at that point

       8        is that he does not have a picket sign in

       9        his hand, he does not have a megaphone in

      10        his hand.  All he has is a Threep with the

      11        copy of this court's injunction on the end

      12        of it.  The court is well aware of the

      13        contents of that injunction.

      14            By walking in a non-orange zone next to

      15        the Clearwater Bank Building, the petitioner

      16        alleges that merely by being in possession

      17        of the injunction and flailing it in the air

      18        at the end of a ten foot pole constitutes a

      19        violation of the injunction; that it

      20        constitutes an act of demonstrating in a

      21        non-permitted zone.

      22            I would point out that Mr. Minton is

      23        guilty of no more than what a member of the

      24        Church of Scientology would be guilty of if

      25        they held a copy of your injunction in their

.                                                                708

       1        hand and happened to walk through an orange

       2        zone silently and it's the old show on the

       3        other foot kind of argument.

       4            If we were --

       5            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute and

       6       I'll let you make that shoe in the wrong hand

       7       argument in just a minute.  Let me catch up

       8       with you.

       9            MR. HOWIE:  Okay.

      10             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      11        place.)

      12            THE COURT:  Mr. Howie, we've been going

      13       over an hour.  Let's take ten minutes.

      14            MR. HOWIE:  Thank you.

      15             (A short recess took place after which the

      16        proceedings continued.)

      17            THE COURT:  Mr. Howie, ready to proceed?

      18            MR. HOWIE:  Your Honor, before

      19       proceeding with my argument where I left off,

      20       in support of my argument for the first count

      21       concerning the December 4 incident involving

      22       the camera, I am reminded that I referred to

      23       photographs taken by Mr. Minton of the spy

      24       camera itself in its box while he was up on

      25       the ladder.

.                                                                709

       1            For the court's information, those

       2        photographs were filed that same day,

       3        December 4, as exhibit attachments to

       4        Mr. Merrett's motion for order to show cause

       5        which is in the court file for that date,

       6        Volume Eight I believe, for December 4.

       7            THE COURT:  I'm not following you.  Say

       8       that again.

       9            MR. HOWIE:  The photographs that

      10       Mr. Minton took while sitting on top of the

      11       ladder of the spy camera were attached as

      12       exhibits to Mr. Merrett's order to show cause

      13       which was filed that same day, December 4,

      14       2000, so if the court wanted to refer to the

      15       photographs that I was referring to in my

      16       argument showing that the box was on the side

      17       of the rat bait building, the court can look

      18       at the photographs in the court file which is

      19       marked with a rubber band and which is

      20       presently on the bench.

      21            I would point out that the court can

      22        take notice of the filings, the clerk's

      23        filing stamp showing that it was filed that

      24        same day the photographs were taken,

      25        December 4, 2000.  As opposed to

.                                                                710

       1        exhibits --

       2            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, I would point out

       3       that that has not been introduced as evidence

       4       in this proceeding, however it is a part of

       5       the court file and it is my belief that you

       6       can refer to any matter that's in the court

       7       file.

       8            THE COURT:  Okay.  Hold on just a

       9       minute.

      10            MR. MERRETT:  If I may make it clear,

      11       Your Honor, on the behalf of that parties

      12       that I'm representing that I do not believe

      13       that you are entitled as the trier of fact to

      14       make reference to anything in the court file

      15       for evidentiary purposes.  In other words,

      16       I'm not stipulating to that principle.

      17            MR. HOWIE:  It's just that I made

      18       reference to the photographs that Mr. Minton

      19       took and those were the ones that were in the

      20       court file filed December 4.

      21            THE COURT:  Okay.  Hold on.

      22            MR. HOWIE:  Amending what it was that I

      23       said.

      24            THE COURT:  Hold on.


.                                                                711

       1             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       2        place.)

       3            MR. HOWIE:  Your Honor, resuming my

       4       argument as to Count Six, I was using the

       5       phrase that if the shoe were on the other

       6       foot, what I meant by that was if we had a

       7       situation where a member, agent or employee

       8       of the Church of Scientology were to walk

       9       within an orange zone or a neutral zone with

      10       a copy of the court's injunction suspended

      11       from the end of the a, whether the pole was

      12       two feet ten feet in length, and there as no

      13       evidence that in so doing this member of the

      14       Church harassed or blocked anybody or

      15       inhibited any entrance or egress or in fact

      16       committed any kind of act of picketing or

      17       protesting against the Lisa McPherson Trust

      18       or any of the respondents, and if further we

      19       came running to this court with a motion for

      20       order show cause alleging that this action by

      21       the Church of Scientology constituted a

      22       violation of this injunction, I can guarantee

      23       you that the petitioner would hoot us out of

      24       court and perhaps alleged that we were being

      25       frivolous in or efforts to enforce the

.                                                                712

       1       injunction.

       2            Likewise, when Mr. Minton enters into a

       3        nondesignated area with a copy of the

       4        injunction suspended from a ten foot pole

       5        and there is no allegation that he violated

       6        the ten foot rule, blocked the paths of

       7        anybody, inhibited entry or egress, harassed

       8        or committed violence or picketed or

       9        protested in that area.

      10            I think that the allegation made by the

      11        petitioner is equally without support in the

      12        evidence and we would ask for a judgment of

      13        acquittal as to that count.

      14            Finally, Your Honor, as to the last

      15        count I'll refer to as Count Seven, this is

      16        the incident alleged to occur on the evening

      17        of January 7, 2001 as delineated in

      18        paragraph 1H of the January 10 order to show

      19        cause on page four that document.

      20            This is the argument with police on

      21        Watterson Avenue.  The allegation

      22        specifically is that Mr. Minton walked into

      23        Watterson Street and was told by the police

      24        to get back on the sidewalk, that Mr. Minton

      25        then yelled and cursed at the officers.

.                                                                713

       1            Now the evidence that was presented to

       2        the court in fact shows on the video that

       3        Mr. Minton was on the east side sidewalk of

       4        Watterson Avenue walking south along

       5        Watterson Avenue as he approached two

       6        officers, Officer Harbert and Officer

       7        Correa, on the east sidewalk.

       8            As he approached them again in an effort

       9        to abide by the terms and conditions of the

      10        injunction as he so cautiously held them to

      11        be, Mr. Minton perceiving these off duty

      12        Clearwater police officers as agents of

      13        employees of the Church of Scientology,

      14        quite deliberately walked away from them in

      15        a semicircular path in order to stay ten

      16        feet away from these two officers.

      17            At the same time he admonished the

      18        officers and you hear on the videotape that

      19        by standing there in the orange zone he felt

      20        that they were in violation of the

      21        injunction whereas he was making every

      22        either to avoid violation of the injunction

      23        by changing his path.

      24            Now, the allegation apparently against

      25        Mr. Minton is that at that point by changing

.                                                                714

       1        his path and by walking out into Watterson

       2        he was in violation of the injunction.

       3            Again, there is no evidence that he

       4        violated the ten foot rule, that he blocked

       5        any paths, that he inhibited entry or exit

       6        from any building, that he harassed or

       7        caused violence to any member of the Church

       8        or that he was exercising First Amendment

       9        rights in area that he was not allowed to.

      10            The officers then approached Mr. Minton

      11        and if Mr. Minton's interpretation of the

      12        injunction is correct, in violation of the

      13        injunction they approaching him.

      14            The petitioner holds that this was not a

      15        violation.

      16            THE COURT:  Whoa.  Wait a minute.

      17       What's the interpretation there?

      18            MR. HOWIE:  Your Honor, I'm not saying

      19       the interpretation is correct.

      20            THE COURT:  I didn't even understand the

      21       interpretation.  What is it you're saying?

      22       Where is the confusion?

      23            MR. HOWIE:  The confusion, if there is

      24       such, is by Mr. Minton in holding to the

      25       cautious position that even members of the

.                                                                715

       1       Clearwater Police Department who were off

       2       duty and in the employ of the Church of

       3       Scientology through a subcontracting

       4       arrangement could conceivably be under the

       5       injunction.

       6            That is not the position I'm taking

       7        today with the court.  I'm merely speaking

       8        of Mr. Minton's intent at the time of the

       9        cause to be out in the street.

      10            THE COURT:  Let me see if I understand

      11       that.  You're not taking that position, but

      12       your client took that position?

      13            MR. HOWIE:  It's apparent from the video

      14       that he did take that position.  Now, again

      15       this is an example where the petitioner is

      16       insisting that Mr. Minton's taking that

      17       position is somehow a violation of the

      18       injunction.  That is a perversion of the

      19       injunction and the spirit behind the

      20       injunction.

      21            If Mr. Minton is being doubly cautious

      22        to avoid any violation of the injunction by

      23        regarding members of the Clearwater Police

      24        Department as covered by the injunction, he

      25        has every right to do so.  He has a right to

.                                                                716

       1        that misinterpretation if a

       2        misinterpretation it is.  And I find it

       3        ironic, even perverse, that the petitioner

       4        takes the position that this interpretation

       5        is itself a violation of your injunction.

       6        It's not.

       7            There is nothing in these admonitions

       8        and prohibitions that says, oh, by the way,

       9        Mr. Minton, if you mistakenly interpret this

      10        injunction to say that it includes people

      11        that it doesn't include, I'm going to find

      12        you in contempt of court.  It doesn't say

      13        that.  The petitioner is suggesting that it

      14        does say that or should say that.  It does

      15        not.

      16            Mr. Minton found himself in Watterson

      17        Street because he was trying to avoid these

      18        police officers.  And clearly this did not

      19        amount to a willful intent to violate the

      20        terms of the injunction, but contrary it

      21        shows willful intent to obey them.

      22            The officers as you see on the video

      23        approached Mr. Minton in Watterson.  They

      24        asked Mr. Minton to resume the east sidewalk

      25        on Watterson, resume his position on the

.                                                                717

       1        east sidewalk of Watterson and Mr. Minton

       2        promptly did so.

       3            He was not pleasant about it.  The

       4        cursing clearly comes across on the video,

       5        but I do not see anything in the injunction,

       6        the court's injunction that suggests that

       7        Mr. Minton in cursing the police officers

       8        violated this injunction.  Unless, of

       9        course, the petitioner wishes to change

      10        tunes in mid stream and say now these

      11        officers re employees and agents and now

      12        these officers are covered by the

      13        injunction.

      14            They are implying two different things

      15        here, that there are times when the officers

      16        employed by the Church are in fact the

      17        agents or the employees of the Church.

      18        That's an unattainable position and they

      19        should not be allowed to take it even by

      20        some inference.

      21            Therefore, if these officers were not

      22        agents of the Church of Scientology,

      23        themselves subject to the injunction, then

      24        this was not harassment of Scientology

      25        members and there is no evidence that any

.                                                                718

       1        members of the Church or members of the

       2        public were harassed or obstructed or

       3        blocked in any way.

       4            Now, if the petitioner somehow by some

       5        sort of inference of implication is

       6        suggesting that the language used by

       7        Mr. Minton against the police officers is

       8        some sort of obstruction or violation of

       9        Chapter 843 of the Florida Statutes, then

      10        again under Whiner versus Kelly this is a

      11        violation of the come.

      12            THE COURT:  Hold on.  Have you cited

      13       that earlier?

      14            MR. HOWIE:  Yes, sir, which I have

      15       provided to the court.

      16            THE COURT:  Okay.  Yes, you did, let the

      17       record reflect.

      18            MR. HOWIE:  That under Whiner versus

      19       Kelly the injunction doesn't reach the

      20       enforcement of criminal laws of the State of

      21       Florida, nor does it prohibit violation of

      22       the criminal laws of the State of Florida.

      23            The same would be true if this was

      24        alleged to be some form of disorderly

      25        conduct.  If the officers thought that they

.                                                                719

       1        were being subjected to obstruction or that

       2        an act of disorderly conduct was taking

       3        place before them, they could have acted

       4        accordingly under the powers of Chapter 901

       5        and they could have arrested Mr. Minton.

       6        They did not do so, nor are any of his

       7        actions enforceable by the court's

       8        injunction.

       9            Once again, Mr. Minton's actions in this

      10        case show a deliberate effort by Mr. Minton

      11        to see that the injunction is upheld.  It

      12        shows that Mr. Minton, as well as the other

      13        respondents, take the injunction very

      14        seriously and in fact the evidence taken as

      15        a whole shows that the respondents in this

      16        case were far more serious about upholding

      17        provisions of this injunction than any

      18        member of the Church was as depicted on

      19        videos.

      20            For that reason, Your Honor, I ask for a

      21        judgment of acquittal as to this Count Seven

      22        and I ask for a judgment of acquittal as to

      23        all seven counts.  Thank you.

      24            THE COURT:  Okay.  Hold on.


.                                                                720

       1             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       2        place.)

       3            All right.  Thank you, Mr. Howie.

       4            MR. HOWIE:  Thank you, Your Honor.

       5            THE COURT:  Mr. Pope.

       6            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, may it please the

       7       court, we have now had about five hours of

       8       argument on the motions for judgment of

       9       acquittal.  I am, I believe that I can give

      10       my response in 20 minutes, maybe a couple

      11       minutes beyond that, so, if the court is

      12       ready I'll begin.

      13            THE COURT:  I'm ready, sir.

      14            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, we're dealing

      15       here with a claim of contempt based upon a

      16       couple of different things.  One is violation

      17       of provisions of your injunction and the

      18       other is dealing with the standards set out

      19       in Thompson versus State, copies of which I

      20       have already provided to the court and

      21       counsel and I have more, which defines

      22       contempt as an act which is calculated to

      23       embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in the

      24       administration of justice or which is

      25       calculated to lessen its authority or

.                                                                721

       1       dignity.  That's what constitutes a contempt

       2       in addition to violation of a provision of

       3       the injunction.

       4            And on the question of obstruction of

       5        service process, it is such black letter law

       6        that this statement appears in Fla. Jur.

       7        Contempt, Section Ten.  11 Fla. Jur. says

       8        generally the intentional hinderance of

       9        service of process constitutes contempt

      10        regardless of the means by which the

      11        hinderance is accomplished.

      12            Now, yesterday Mr. Merrett went on for

      13        three hours and 25 minutes and I don't

      14        believe he cited to you a single case.  He

      15        purported to try out some legal principles

      16        but he didn't try out a single case.

      17            Mr. Howie has cited a couple cases to

      18        you, but I can assure you we're not trying

      19        to use the court's injunctive power to

      20        restrain criminal acts.  We are in here on a

      21        criminal proceeding under the criminal rule,

      22        although it is indirect criminal contempt

      23        and it does arise out of a civil proceeding,

      24        which makes it a little bit different from

      25        your run of the mill criminal prosecution.

.                                                                722

       1            Now, on the question of an attorney's

       2        duty, Your Honor, the case Kleinfeld versus

       3        State, 270 So. 2d. 22, Third District 1972

       4        says that this is the duty on the lawyer.

       5        Any breach of an attorney's duty to maintain

       6        the respect due by him to the court is a

       7        contempt of court.  That is an additional

       8        duty on a lawyer, an addition to the

       9        standard set forth in Thompson versus State.

      10            Now, Your Honor, in addition to the

      11        court's inherent power to punish for

      12        contempt for violating a term or for doing

      13        these other things in derogation of the

      14        court's authority, the Florida legislature

      15        has deemed it important enough to pass two

      16        laws dealing with obstruction of service and

      17        obstruction of an officer in trying to

      18        perform his legal duties and we are not

      19        contending, Your Honor, that these statutes

      20        are what has been violated that is before

      21        the court today.  That's not the point, but

      22        these statutes basically set out for the

      23        State of Florida the same kind of rule, the

      24        same kind of standard that this court

      25        inherently has to punish certain criminal

.                                                                723

       1        acts or criminal contempt.

       2            In each case, Your Honor, this statute

       3        says whoever knowingly and willfully

       4        resists, obstructs or opposes any officer

       5        and then it goes on to say in the execution

       6        of legal process or in the lawful execution

       7        of any legal duty by offering or doing

       8        violence to the person, it's guilty of a

       9        third degree felony.

      10            THE COURT:  What are you citing?

      11            MR. POPE:  843.01.

      12            THE COURT:  843.01?

      13            MR. POPE:  Right.

      14            THE COURT:  Yes, sir.

      15            MR. POPE:  And 843.02 says the very same

      16       thing except that it has to do with

      17       resistance by means other than violence.  And

      18       I'm going to -- if I can get the bailiff's

      19       assistance, I'll ask him to pass copies of

      20       these out to both the court and to counsel.

      21             (Whispered conversation between Mr. Pope

      22        and the bailiff took place.)

      23            Excuse me.  The bailiff tells me he

      24        can't do it, so I'll do it, Your Honor.

      25        First time I ever heard that the bailiff

.                                                                724

       1        couldn't do that, Your Honor.

       2            Now, let me point out one other thing,

       3        Your Honor, with respect to standards of an

       4        attorney.  You know when we all take the

       5        oath of office as lawyers to be admitted to

       6        the Bar, the first thing we do is pledge our

       7        fealty to the constitutions of Florida and

       8        United States.  The very next thing we say

       9        and that is I will maintain the respect due

      10        to courts of justice and judicial officers.

      11            Now, let's focus on one of the phrases

      12        in the court's injunction.  It's says that

      13        defendants are enjoined from committing any

      14        acts of harassment against any member of the

      15        Church.  What is harassment?  Let's start

      16        with the dictionary definition.

      17            Harass means to irritate or torment

      18        persistently.  The synonyms for harassment

      19        are harass, harry, hound, badger, pester,

      20        play and bait.

      21            Now, there is a definition of harassment

      22        in Black's Law Dictionary, Your Honor.  This

      23        says harassment:  Used in a variety of legal

      24        contexts to describe words, gestures and

      25        actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse

.                                                                725

       1        verbally another person.  A person commits a

       2        petty misdemeanor, and this is from the

       3        model penal code which defines harassment:

       4        If the purpose to harass another he makes a

       5        telephone call without purpose of legitimate

       6        communication, insults, taunts or challenges

       7        another in a manner likely to provoke

       8        violent or disorderly response, makes

       9        repeated communications anonymously or at

      10        extremely inconvenient hours or in

      11        offensively course language, subjects

      12        another to an offense of touching,

      13        engaging --

      14            THE COURT:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Sorry.

      15            MR. POPE:  I'm going to give you a copy.

      16            THE COURT:  And I'm sure she's doing a

      17       good job and she prides herself that she

      18       probably had every word down, but give me a

      19       break.

      20            MR. POPE:  All right.

      21            THE COURT:  Slow down.

      22            MR. POPE:  I will.  May I give you a

      23       copy?

      24            THE COURT:  Yeah.  Ian, come up here,

      25       please.  Let me see the bailiffs.  I want a

.                                                                726

       1       break.  Let me see my bailiffs.

       2             (A short recess took place after which the

       3        proceedings continued.)

       4            THE COURT:  I've asked my legal

       5       assistant to take care of passing papers back

       6       and forth to the attorneys and all.  Due to

       7       the nature of this case and you know we had

       8       to relax the ten foot rule as to attorneys

       9       and we've had to sort of work our way through

      10       this.

      11            I'm going to have my assistant do that,

      12        my staff attorney, and I want the record

      13        absolutely crystal clear that due to a

      14        misunderstanding by a substitute bailiff

      15        that had come into the courtroom and not

      16        gotten a briefing on what was really go on

      17        was asking some of the defendants who -- we

      18        have so many defendants that can't all crowd

      19        around two attorneys and certainly from the

      20        very beginning I had allowed defendants to

      21        come communicate with their lawyers or pass

      22        papers or somehow so that they certainly had

      23        a right and access to their attorneys

      24        throughout this proceeding.  And I want it

      25        absolutely clear on the record that any

.                                                                727

       1        action that was taken by that bailiff to

       2        tell one of you defendants to stay seated

       3        was wrong.  You have a right to communicate.

       4        You have a right to communicate.  We will

       5        proceed like we've always done and if you

       6        need to come and talk to your client, do it.

       7            I want the record clear I wasn't aware

       8        that was happening until I caught it there

       9        at the time end.  That was now from this

      10        judge.  I want my record.

      11            MR. MERRETT:  Your Honor, may I

      12       supplement the Court's remarks simply by

      13       pointing that no one was actually precluded

      14       from communicating with me and the bailiff

      15       was at all times courteous and professional

      16       in dealing with us.

      17            THE COURT:  Okay, but that shouldn't

      18       have even happened without talking do me.

      19            MR. MERRETT:  I understand, Your Honor.

      20            THE COURT:  And from the Judge, I

      21       apologize to any of you if you felt you were

      22       denied a right to communicate.

      23            Mr. Pope, I apologize to you, sir.

      24            MR. POPE:  No apology needed, Your

      25       Honor.  Are you ready for me to resume?

.                                                                728

       1            THE COURT:  Yes, please.

       2            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, I had just, was

       3       in the process of passing out the dictionary

       4       and Black's Law Dictionary definition of

       5       harass and harassment and I would like to ask

       6       your aide to hand that up to you for your

       7       reference.

       8            THE COURT:  Okay, thank you.

       9            MR. POPE:  Now, the first thing I wanted

      10       to do was define harassment, because that's a

      11       key word in your injunction.

      12            The second thing I want to do is there

      13        is a key phrase in your injunction that's

      14        called in active concert or participation

      15        with them and you know that that comes right

      16        out of Rule 1.610 that says that an

      17        injunction is binding on the parties and all

      18        persons in active concert or participation

      19        with them, so the question arises what does

      20        that mean, in active concert or

      21        participation with them.

      22            Well, we do have a little help on that

      23        and there is a difference between concert

      24        and participation.  Concert is defined in

      25        Black's Law Dictionary as a person is deemed

.                                                                729

       1        to act in concert when he acts with another

       2        to bring about some preconceived result.  So

       3        concert seems to suggest preplanning,

       4        getting together, planning a course of

       5        action and going out and carrying it out.

       6            Participation, on the other hand, or

       7        participate, is defined both Black's and on

       8        the dictionary.  The dictionary definition

       9        of participate is to take part in something

      10        or to share in something.  It lacks the

      11        preplanning, that part that in concert does.

      12        And in Black's Law Dictionary it says

      13        participate is to receive or have a part or

      14        share of, to partake of, experience in

      15        common with others.

      16            So that if somebody, so if somebody

      17        organizes a parade and someone decides that

      18        they would like to march in it and just

      19        jumps in from the side and walks, they

      20        weren't acting in concert with the planners

      21        of it, but they were participating with it.

      22        There is a bit of a difference between

      23        acting in concert or in participation with

      24        and I would like to give the court these

      25        definitions as well as counsel.  Here's the

.                                                                730

       1        dictionary and these or the two Black's.

       2            You can just give them one of each and

       3        if there is one left over, bring it back to

       4        me.

       5             Now, Your Honor --

       6            THE COURT:  Just a minute.  Let him get

       7       them distributed.

       8            MR. POPE:  I agreed with Mr. Howie's

       9       delineation of the various provisions that

      10       are in the text of the injunction that

      11       contained the prohibitory language, however

      12       he left something out.

      13            You also had some commands on the

      14        exhibits and particularly on the Coachman

      15        Building exhibit and others, the command

      16        written in your own hand is stay ten feet

      17        back from entranceways.  That's just as big

      18        a command as the text of it and it doesn't

      19        say stay ten feet back from entranceways

      20        when you're picketing.

      21            It says stay ten fee back and that

      22        connects with your desire, your clear intent

      23        to keep these entranceways free of

      24        obstruction.  So there is a clear command

      25        with respect to that parking entrance there,

.                                                                731

       1        stay ten feet back from entranceways.

       2            Now, Your Honor, you remember when the

       3        court entered the injunction in the first

       4        instance you relied on a lot of these, what

       5        we call the abortion cases that have gone

       6        all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and

       7        you also relied in part upon a Cornell Law

       8        Review article dealing with injunctions and

       9        religions and one of the things that you

      10        learned from looking at the abortion cases

      11        is that when you've got two constitutional

      12        rights in collision, some of them have to

      13        bend, and what the U.S. Supreme Court did

      14        was it tried to reach a compromise between a

      15        person's first amendment right to protest

      16        and picket and express herself and the

      17        constitutional right to abortion.

      18            Well, in this case we've got two

      19        competing constitutional rights.  We've got

      20        the right of religious freedom.  We're

      21        dealing with a church here.  And we've got

      22        the right of free speech to protest and all

      23        that and so as a consequence, you carefully

      24        crafted an injunction that does in fact

      25        legitimately impinge to some extent on their

.                                                                732

       1        First Amendment rights because it restricts

       2        them to certain areas and it also tells them

       3        they can't engage in conduct that would be

       4        defined as harassment.  That is a

       5        restriction to some extent on their First

       6        Amendment rights and it has been upheld by

       7        the U.S. Supreme Court.

       8            Now, let's take a look also while I'm

       9        laying what I hope to be the legal ground

      10        work for my argument, at the case of

      11        Doe versus Watson.  Doe versus Watson is at

      12        507 So. 2d. 1164, Fifth District case, 1987.

      13            Under headnote one in the text this was

      14        a case in which I'll quote:  Petitioners

      15        argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to

      16        hold them in contempt because they are not

      17        parties to the proceeding below.  We reject

      18        this position since clearly a court has

      19        inherent contempt power to punish persons

      20        other than parties for violating a valid

      21        order citing a case.

      22            One who is not a party to an action but

      23        who has knowingly interfered with a court

      24        order may be held in contempt.

      25            That is a court holding that really

.                                                                733

       1        parallels Rule 1.610 that basically says

       2        that all persons acting in concert or

       3        participation with them, including their

       4        officers, agents and attorneys, are bound by

       5        the terms of the court's injunction.

       6            THE COURT:  Hold on and just let me look

       7       at this.

       8             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       9        place.)

      10            Okay.

      11            MR. POPE:  The next case, Your Honor,

      12       that I wish to bring to the court's attention

      13       is the case of Persoff versus Persoff and

      14       while he's passing that out, this is a case

      15       from the Fourth District Court of Appeal from

      16       1991, 589 So. 2d. 1007.

      17            This case deals with the subject of what

      18        the defendants have termed as in-court

      19        identification.

      20            I've got a couple of cases for you on

      21        this subject, but this is the first one.

      22        They contend that there no in court

      23        identification and therefore all this must

      24        fail.

      25            This is an indirect criminal contempt

.                                                                734

       1        matter, Your Honor, and the courts do not

       2        treat this quite the same way as they do

       3        where you haul a stranger off the street or

       4        you arrest somebody and you have some

       5        stranger trying to identify them in court as

       6        a traditional criminal proceeding.

       7            In the Persoff case and I would point

       8        out that neither Mr. Howie nor Mr. Merrett

       9        cited a single case for this principle that

      10        there had been a failure of identification

      11        in this case.

      12            In the Persoff case a wife was, a former

      13        wife was found in contempt for violating a

      14        court order.  Contrary to the order she

      15        stated a derogatory matter about her former

      16        husband at a cocktail party and he was a

      17        physician and she spread all sorts of stuff

      18        about medical malpractice suits, his sexual

      19        habits and the ex-husband's new wife,

      20        clearly contrary to a court order.

      21            No order to show cause was entered.  The

      22        parties even waived an order to show cause

      23        under criminal rule 3.840.

      24            This was an indirect criminal contempt

      25        proceeding.  She argued on appeal that

.                                                                735

       1        identification was lacking.  She had not

       2        been identified in the court held on appeal

       3        she argue that identification was lacking at

       4        the hearing.  The trial court found that it

       5        was indeed the former wife who made the

       6        statements about her former husband and we

       7        will not substitute our judgement or that of

       8        the trial court.

       9            The next case on this same --

      10            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.  Let

      11       me look at that.

      12             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      13        place.)

      14            Okay.

      15            MR. POPE:  The next case, Your Honor, is

      16       Barbarosa Fernandez versus the State.  It's

      17       Third District Court of Appeal case at

      18       585 So. 2d. 1134.  It's decided in 1991.

      19            In this case an order was entered

      20        prohibiting someone from making harassing

      21        phone calls.  The person apparently made

      22        harassing phone calls, an indirect criminal

      23        contempt proceeding was instituted and the

      24        sole basis of identification in this matter

      25        was that she recognized the voice.  It was a

.                                                                736

       1        voice identification and the court upheld

       2        the conviction based upon a voice

       3        identification.

       4            Now, let's take a look a what we have in

       5        this case relative to identification.  Every

       6        single witness on this side of the table

       7        identified the parties by name and by image

       8        on the videos and every single one of the

       9        defendants stood up, stated their name and

      10        entered a plea.

      11            There is absolutely no question about

      12        identification in this case.  These people

      13        have also been completely identified.

      14            Mr. Antonio Avila identified every

      15        single one of them.  Mr. Bussard said he

      16        knew them on a first name basis.  Lindsey

      17        Colton had served enough of them to know

      18        them on a first name basis.

      19            Through all of these witnesses, every

      20        single one of these people has been

      21        appropriately identified and, Your Honor,

      22        all of parties to this action as

      23        distinguished from the people who are

      24        nonparties who are subject to an order to

      25        show cause have been in that case from the

.                                                                737

       1        get go and are well known to the court and

       2        to everybody involved in the case.  So this

       3        identification thing is simply a red herring

       4        that the court should deny.

       5            There has been no case cited saying that

       6        the method of identification used in case is

       7        faulty or inappropriate.

       8            In fact, the rule, Your Honor, of

       9        criminal, indirect criminal contempt, allows

      10        you, as the judge, to initiate the matter

      11        and prosecute it yourself.  You can just do

      12        it on your own.

      13            You don't have to have a prosecutor.  I

      14        mean we do in this case because all this

      15        stuff occurred outside of the hearing of the

      16        court.

      17            Now, having laid down this sort of law,

      18        Your Honor, and the legal framework, let me

      19        talk just a little bit about each set of

      20        facts.

      21            With regard to Ms. Bezazian, Officer

      22        Butterfield testified --

      23            THE COURT:  Mr. Pope, hold on a minute.

      24       You all are talking so fast that I'm running

      25       out of ink.  I've already burned up two pens

.                                                                738

       1       today.  They were the tail end from the past

       2       couple days.  Hold on.  I'll be right back.

       3             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       4        place.)

       5            THE COURT:  Okay.  Let's go.

       6            MR. POPE:  All right, sir.  Your Honor,

       7       I had just started on the --

       8            THE COURT:  Indirect criminal contempt,

       9       the court on it's own can prosecute.

      10            MR. POPE:  Absolutely, and I had

      11       finished that and I was moving to

      12       Ms. Bezazian.

      13            We called Officer Butterfield who

      14        testified that he had spoken to her on the

      15        at least five different occasions and that

      16        they had gone over a copy of the injunction

      17        together.  Remember he said in effect, we're

      18        going to learn this together.  Neither one

      19        of us know much about this to begin with.

      20        We're going to learn this thing together and

      21        so they did.

      22            And he told her when she had a picket on

      23        her, all she had to do to avoid violating

      24        the injunction was put it down and stop

      25        picketing.  Instead of carrying it up in the

.                                                                739

       1        air, just put it down.

       2            That's the whole answer to Mr. Merrett's

       3        argument about how are they suppose to get

       4        around, levitate?  No, they just put the

       5        picket down and walk.  She didn't do that.

       6        She wouldn't do that.

       7            In fact, the first video we showed that

       8        ever showed her walking, picketing with two

       9        pickets way up in the air coming right down

      10        the Ft. Harrison side of the Bank of

      11        Clearwater Building, all the way down to a

      12        zone that she's not supposed to picket in.

      13            The next video of her was of blocking

      14        the parking lot of the entranceway to the

      15        Coachman Building parking lot.  Now, that

      16        violated two of the provisions.

      17            One provision, in the text of the

      18        injunction says don't block the driveway.

      19        She stopped a car there blocking the

      20        driveway and one of the vans came up behind

      21        it and it was way out in the road until the

      22        car got by.  Any way you cut it, she blocked

      23        the driveway.

      24            Furthermore, she didn't do what the

      25        clear command was, stay ten feet back from

.                                                                740

       1        the entranceway, so she violated two

       2        provisions of the injunction, not one.

       3            She then went and this is the one about

       4        the Santa Claus chair.  She went up --

       5            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.  I'm

       6       trying to think the best way for me to -- I'm

       7       trying to figure how to merit up your

       8       arguments with the way they presented theirs.

       9            MR. POPE:  I'm going down the same way,

      10       I think, Judge, that they did it.

      11            THE COURT:  All right.  Let me go back

      12       here just a minute.  Let's back up.  The

      13       first injunction was on --

      14            MR. POPE:  First order to show cause?

      15            THE COURT:  Yeah.

      16            MR. POPE:  Amended and consolidated

      17       order to show cause.

      18            THE COURT:  Okay, that was 4, January.

      19            MR. POPE:  Yes, sir.

      20            THE COURT:  It starts out --

      21            MR. POPE:  With B.

      22            THE COURT:  Okay, so you're at 1A?

      23            MR. POPE:  I'm at 1A.

      24            THE COURT:  All right.  We'll go that

      25       way and let's go.

.                                                                741

       1            MR. POPE:  All right.  The last event

       2       with respect to Ms. Bezazian is that she went

       3       up into the entranceway of the Bank of

       4       Clearwater Building.

       5            The officer went up and told her that he

       6        thought she might be violating the

       7        injunction and asked her to move, which I

       8        think she ultimately did.  But on this

       9        subject I think it's important to note at

      10        this point Paragraph 11 of your order.

      11            Paragraph 11 of your order says --

      12            THE COURT:  Now, you talking about the

      13       Santa Claus thing?

      14            MR. POPE:  I'm talking about your

      15       injunction and I'm still on the entranceway

      16       of the Bank of Clearwater episode, sitting in

      17       the Santa Claus chair at the entranceway at

      18       the Bank of Clearwater Building.

      19            THE COURT:  Okay.  Yes, sir.

      20            MR. POPE:  What I'm pointing out, Your

      21       Honor, is Paragraph 11 of your injunction,

      22       the last paragraph and it says:  Any sworn

      23       law enforcement officer may assist in the

      24       execution or service of this injunction.

      25            The evidence from the law enforcement

.                                                                742

       1        officers and the videotape shows that when

       2        they are on duty out there, they are in

       3        uniform, they are performing the role of

       4        police officer and they are authorized by

       5        your order to be your agent in enforcing

       6        this injunction.  You clothed them with that

       7        authority in your injunction.

       8            Now, let me move on to Mr. Henson, if I

       9        may.  Mr. Henson was served with an

      10        injunction by both Lindsey Colton and Steve

      11        Bellavigna.  Lindsey Colton served him in

      12        the morning of December 1, Mr. Bellavigna in

      13        the afternoon.  Of course, he refused to

      14        accept it, but it was left at his feet, but

      15        he was served.

      16            Now, why was he served?  Because he is a

      17        nonparty, Your Honor.  But he is bound by

      18        the injunction as one acting in concert or

      19        participation with the other defendants.

      20            When Ms. Colton -- I think this is

      21        pretty telling, when Ms. Colton went to him

      22        on the December 1, that morning, to give him

      23        a copy of the injunction so he would have

      24        fair notice of the terms, he said in

      25        substance don't come close to me.  You're

.                                                                743

       1        violating the ten foot rule.  So Mr. Henson

       2        was invoking the benefit of the court's ten

       3        foot rule.

       4            If he's going to invoke the benefit of

       5        it, Your Honor, it seems to me like he has

       6        to invoke the obligations of it as well.

       7        You can't just have the benefit of the ten

       8        foot rule without having the obligation that

       9        the injunction imposes on all the picketers.

      10        It's almost as if some estoppel ought to be

      11        at work there to estop him from denying that

      12        he's bound by the injunction.

      13            In his letter to the court which is

      14        admitted into evidence, Mr. Henson says in

      15        the middle of the letter, I made my choices

      16        of where and when to picket over the

      17        objection of Mr. Merrett who was at the LMT

      18        at that time and suggested that I abide by

      19        the terms of the injunction.  It was pretty

      20        clear from Mr. Henson's own words had he

      21        understood that there was an injunction out

      22        there and that at least Mr. Merrett had told

      23        him that he should abide by those terms and

      24        that there is a clear implication in that he

      25        decided he wasn't going to.

.                                                                744

       1            So, what Mr. Henson did was he

       2        repeatedly picketed for 45 minutes-plus at a

       3        time on numerous occasions directly in front

       4        of the Ft. Harrison.  He came to town and

       5        was picketing along with all of the other

       6        protesters.

       7            I can't honestly say that we've got any

       8        evidence that he planned with these people

       9        in advance to do this, however he certainly

      10        was acting in participation with them.

      11        There is no question about that at all and

      12        we do have that photograph that they want to

      13        pass off as a joke of Mr. Minton handing

      14        Mr. Henson money on the day before, on

      15        November 30.

      16            Pretty clearly, Your Honor, Mr. Henson

      17        had notice of the injunction.  He was acting

      18        at least in participation with the other

      19        defendants.  He pretty clearly violated its

      20        terms.  He's bound by it.

      21            The next episode, Your Honor, is the

      22        camera tampering episode which is the third

      23        one on that order.

      24            Your order enjoins the defendants and

      25        those acting in concert or participation

.                                                                745

       1        with them, from committing any acts of

       2        harassment against any member of the Church.

       3            THE COURT:  Hold just a minute.  Let me

       4       go up here.  You're talking about now this is

       5       paragraph three that's on pages three and

       6       four and you're talking about Paragraph 3A;

       7       is that correct?

       8            MR. POPE:  Yes, sir, the camera

       9       tampering episode.

      10            THE COURT:  Okay.  Slow down just a

      11       minute.

      12             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      13        place.)

      14            Okay.  Go ahead.

      15            MR. POPE:  I was pointing out that the

      16       court enjoined acts of harassment.  That

      17       security camera was put there for the

      18       protection of the Church members.  It was

      19       being monitored by a Church member security

      20       guard.

      21            Using self-help, coming be out of the

      22        LMT Building and using self-help to tamper

      23        with it, was, I suggest to court, an act of

      24        harassment against the person monitoring it

      25        and an act of harassment against every

.                                                                746

       1        Church member that it was designed to

       2        protect and it was basically a part of a

       3        fairly broad pattern of harassing activities

       4        which has been laid before the court.

       5            Mr. Merrett and Mr. Minton were the

       6        principle movers and they wound up leaving

       7        the camera out of focus and it had to be

       8        repositioned, so the tampering with it had a

       9        consequence.

      10            The others were in active concert or

      11        participation with them helping support the

      12        ladder and hanging around and offering

      13        whatever encouragement they were offering,

      14        the other names in that paragraph were

      15        clearly part of this activity.  And the

      16        existing record in the case is replete with

      17        evidence of the relationship between these

      18        individuals and the LMT Corporation.

      19            Now let's talk about the fourth item.

      20            THE COURT:  Okay.  Just a minute.  Let

      21       me get this one up to date.

      22             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      23        place.)

      24            Go ahead, sir.

      25            MR. POPE:  The fourth item is

.                                                                747

       1       Mr. Merrett's obstruction of the service of

       2       process.  Mr. Bussard, a process server,

       3       testified that Mr. Merrett physically blocked

       4       him from serving process in the Steak and Ale

       5       Restaurant.  This is unrefuted.

       6            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.  Now,

       7       you passed over Rod Keller?

       8            MR. POPE:  I did, Your Honor.  I did not

       9       offer evidence.

      10            THE COURT:  I think that's out.

      11            MR. POPE:  It's out.

      12            THE COURT:  Now, let me --

      13             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      14        place.)

      15            Okay, Paragraph, this would be 3D on

      16        page five.

      17            MR. POPE:  Dealing with Mr. Merrett's

      18       obstruction of process.

      19            THE COURT:  Okay.

      20            MR. POPE:  Mr. Bussard testified that

      21       Mr. Merrett physically blocked him from

      22       serving process in the Steak and Ale

      23       Restaurant in Clearwater.  This is unrefuted.

      24       Derrick Kronschnabl, a process server --

      25       Mr. Bussard is also a process server,

.                                                                748

       1       testified that Mr. Merrett shoved him three

       2       times and shoved him out of the LMT Building.

       3       This is unrefuted.

       4            The Thompson case says that an act

       5        calculated to hinder or obstruct a court in

       6        the administration of justice is contempt.

       7        The court has ruled that these process

       8        servers are agents of the court.  An act

       9        directed against a process server an

      10        obstruction of service process as stated is

      11        contemptuous as the black letter law in Fla.

      12        Jur. said and is a separate criminal offense

      13        against the state as 843.01 and .02 say.

      14            Where is the law?  Mr. Merrett said he

      15        had no right to be there in this business

      16        that had its door open.  Where is the law

      17        that says this process server had no right

      18        to be there?  If he had no right to be

      19        there, where is the law that says

      20        Mr. Merrett has the right to shove him out

      21        in the street?

      22            Let me share with the court the case of

      23        Francis versus state.

      24            THE COURT:  Just a minute.

      25             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

.                                                                749

       1        place.)

       2            All right, sir.

       3            MR. POPE:  I have presented to the court

       4       the case of Francis versus State.  Francis

       5       versus State is not a contempt --

       6            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.

       7       Cite.

       8            MR. POPE:  Francis versus State is at

       9       736 So. 2d. 97.  It's Fourth District Court,

      10       1999.

      11            THE COURT:  Proceed.

      12            MR. POPE:  In this case, this is not a

      13       contempt case, but it is under the analogous

      14       criminal statute dealing with obstruction of

      15       an officer trying to perform a landlord duty.

      16            In this case a Broward sheriff's deputy

      17        was called to the house of Nelly Francis who

      18        happened also to be a Broward sheriff's

      19        deputy.

      20            The deputy was called there because of a

      21        call to 911 claiming that or maybe it wasn't

      22        to 911.  Yeah, it was to 911, claiming that

      23        the stepfather was beating the stuffing out

      24        of a kid.

      25            The deputy arrives and Nelly, the other

.                                                                750

       1        deputy, Francis, blocks his path, identifies

       2        herself as a sheriff's deputy and asks him

       3        not to go further into the investigation.

       4            He saw that there was a problem with the

       5        child and he finally got around her and got

       6        in and gave the child some assistance.

       7            She was prosecuted for resisting an

       8        officer trying to do his duty without

       9        violence.  She was convicted for a momentary

      10        obstruction of the officer.

      11            She claimed it didn't matter because he

      12        finally got around me.  But this is an

      13        example of resisting without violence, Your

      14        Honor, without touching and I think it's

      15        pertinent to the case because it should give

      16        you some guidance about the whole notion of

      17        obstruction.

      18            Your Honor, once you finish with that

      19        I'm ready to move over to the second motion.

      20             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      21        place.)

      22            THE COURT:  All right.

      23            MR. POPE:  The first person on the

      24       second motion is Mr. Enerson.

      25            THE COURT:  Let me get to there just a

.                                                                751

       1       minute.  Okay, sir.

       2            MR. POPE:  Mr. Enerson, the evidence

       3       shows, the he was picketing in front of the

       4       Bank of Clearwater Building which is not one

       5       of the allowed areas.  All he had to do was

       6       lower his picket sign and he could move

       7       through.  That's all he had the do.

       8            The next item in that area is --

       9            THE COURT:  Just a minute, Mr. Pope.

      10       I'm sorry.

      11            MR. POPE:  All right.

      12             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      13        place.)

      14            THE COURT:  We've go so many defendants

      15       and we've got so many different instances, we

      16       got two different documents, I'm just trying

      17       to keep all this straight so someone doesn't

      18       get blamed for something somebody else did or

      19       somebody got blamed for something they didn't

      20       do, so be patient with me.

      21            MR. POPE:  I'm patient.

      22            THE COURT:  Okay.  Otherwise the

      23       simplest way to do it is just sit back, put

      24       my feet up on the bench and ask you all to

      25       pay for an expedited transcript and I'm

.                                                                752

       1       trying to save you a little money here.  I

       2       know that some of you don't think so, but

       3       these are things we take into consideration.

       4            MR. POPE:  I'm with you, Judge.

       5            THE COURT:  Okay.  I'll do the work

       6       myself.

       7            MR. POPE:  All right.  Tell me what you

       8       want me to move to the next one.

       9             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      10        place.)

      11            THE COURT:  All right.  Now, I'm ready

      12       to go to Paragraph 1B.

      13            MR. POPE:  That is the episode involving

      14       Mr. Minton and an obstruction of a duly

      15       appointed process server.  As I have already

      16       pointed out, this conduct constitutes a

      17       contempt of court and it can constitute a

      18       violation of the criminal statute.  The

      19       violation of the criminal statute is not

      20       before the court today but it would seem to

      21       me that the standard is about the same.

      22            Essentially, the court made it clear

      23        that process servers were agents of the

      24        court in carrying out the court's business.

      25        You can't do business, Your Honor, as a

.                                                                753

       1        judicial system without process servers.

       2        That's how the writs get served.  That's how

       3        fair notice is given to everybody.

       4            That's why it's so important that these

       5        process servers are protected by criminal

       6        statutes saying that you can't fool with

       7        them.

       8            That's why the court its own inherent

       9        power to deal with as a contempt an

      10        interference with a process server.  That is

      11        what and it violated that part of the

      12        injunction that said the ten foot rule

      13        doesn't apply to process servers.

      14            It was an act calculated to obstruct a

      15        court in the administration of justice.

      16        Mrs. Colton was a court's agent during the

      17        court's business on January 5, 2001 when she

      18        tried to serve Mr. Minton and he swore at

      19        her, charged back at and balled the process

      20        and threw it.  They say threw it on the

      21        sidewalk.  She said he threw it at her.  I

      22        suggest you look at the video and decide

      23        yourself, Your Honor.

      24            The next item is Paragraphs 3C and D.

      25            THE COURT:  Just a minute.

.                                                                754


       2             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       3        place.)

       4            THE COURT:  C and D?

       5            MR. POPE:  Yes, sir.  I believe that's

       6       it.

       7            THE COURT:  Okay.

       8            MR. POPE:  This one involved Mr. Minton,

       9       Mr. Enerson and Mr. Lerma.  It involves a lot

      10       of honking and yelling with megaphones.

      11            I will suggest to you, Your Honor, that

      12        that honking and yelling towards the Church

      13        members and the Church buildings with the

      14        members in them can only constitute

      15        harassment within the meaning of your

      16        injunction.

      17            Furthermore, when they were doing this

      18        south of the Coachman Building they

      19        disregarded that part of your injunction

      20        that says stay ten feet back from

      21        entranceways.

      22            THE COURT:  Okay.

      23            MR. POPE:  I would point out, Your

      24       Honor, that Anita Gogolla was also involved

      25       in that and I omitted her name.

.                                                                755

       1            THE COURT:  Well, wait a minute.

       2             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       3        place.)

       4            I see, it's over here on page -- oh,

       5        okay.

       6            MR. POPE:  The next one is

       7       Subparagraph E, Your Honor, which involves

       8       Minton, Enerson and Lerma.  They were across

       9       the street, I believe, in front of the

      10       Ft. Harrison.  They were in an orange zone.

      11            We're not complaining that they didn't

      12        have a right to peacefully picket there.

      13        They weren't peacefully picketing.  They

      14        were harassing.  They were harassing with

      15        what we now know as the Penick Picket Pole

      16        that has a loud horn on it which they were

      17        directing over toward the Ft. Harrison

      18        Church Building and they had megaphones in

      19        which they were yelling and screaming across

      20        the street over there and I would suggest to

      21        you that although they had a right to

      22        peacefully picket there, they did not have a

      23        right to harass and exactly what they were

      24        doing.

      25            THE COURT:  Now, you're saying that they

.                                                                756

       1       were in the orange zone, but the noise and

       2       all, you're coming in under the sentence on

       3       harassment.

       4            MR. POPE:  Harassment, excessive noise.

       5            THE COURT:  Now, just a minute now,

       6       please.

       7             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       8        place.)

       9            Okay.

      10            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, let me share with

      11       you Black's Law Dictionary definition of

      12       peaceable picketing.

      13            THE COURT:  Whose dictionary?

      14            MR. POPE:  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth

      15       Edition.

      16            THE COURT:  Okay.

      17            MR. POPE:  Peaceable picketing in which

      18       laboring men and woman have right to

      19       participate during labor dispute means

      20       tranquil conduct, conduct devoid of noise or

      21       tumult, the absence of a quarrelsome demeanor

      22       and a course of conduct that does not violate

      23       or disturb the public peace.

      24            THE COURT:  Just a minute now.

      25             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

.                                                                757

       1        place.)

       2            THE COURT:  Okay.

       3            MR. POPE:  Let me, before I make my next

       4       point, refresh the court's memory on the

       5       Thompson standard of contempt.  A

       6       contemptuous act is one which is calculated

       7       to embarrass the court, to lessen its

       8       authority or dignity.  Embarrass, lessen its

       9       authority or dignity.

      10            THE COURT:  Hold on just a minute.  When

      11       you say Thompson, you're talking about --

      12            MR. POPE:  The first case I gave you.

      13            THE COURT:  Yeah, 398 So. 2d. 514,

      14       Second DCA, 81.

      15            MR. POPE:  Yes, sir.

      16            THE COURT:  Okay.

      17            MR. POPE:  I can't conceive of any

      18       purpose of the Penick Picket Pole other than

      19       to embarrass, make a mockery of the authority

      20       of the court and the dignity of the court.

      21       That's what it does.

      22            MR. MERRETT:  I'm going to have to

      23       object.  Is there a charge relating to

      24       possession or operation of the Threep?

      25            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, the so-called

.                                                                758

       1       Threep is named in our order to show cause

       2       and is a part of our case.

       3            THE COURT:  Proceed.

       4            MR. POPE:  Yesterday, Your Honor, when

       5       the Penick Picket Pole was presented to you

       6       and came into evidence there was pretty

       7       substantial laughter over here on this side

       8       and I think that just tells it all.  That

       9       tells us how seriously these folks take this

      10       court and this court's injunction.

      11            Somehow they've been lulled into

      12        believing that the court really doesn't mean

      13        it.

      14            I'm ready to go to Subparagraph F when

      15        you are, Your Honor.

      16            THE COURT:  Just a second.

      17             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      18        place.)

      19            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, before I move to

      20       that.

      21            THE COURT:  Before you what?

      22            MR. POPE:  Move to Subparagraph F, I

      23       would like to point out one other matter.

      24            THE COURT:  Hold on just a second.

      25             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

.                                                                759

       1        place.)

       2            THE COURT:  I'm trying to get as much

       3       into these notes because when you're looking

       4       at them at in one, two o'clock in the

       5       morning, you sort of forget what has been

       6       said.  Been there and done that and it's not

       7       fun.  Okay, sir.

       8            MR. POPE:  I do want to point out to the

       9       court and give copies to counsel.

      10            THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Brewster will do

      11       that.

      12            MR. POPE:  Yes, sir.  The City of

      13       Clearwater in its community development code

      14       does have a noise ordinance and I'm not

      15       contending and we're not here today

      16       prosecuting the noise ordinance, but I'm

      17       giving you this for guidance of the court

      18       because we do claim that the noise level

      19       constitutes harassment.  Prohibited generally

      20       it says, it shall be unlawful for any person

      21       to willfully make, continue or cause to be

      22       made or continue be a loud and raucous noise

      23       which term shall mean any sound which because

      24       of the volume level, duration and character,

      25       a noise disturbs injures or endangers the

.                                                                760

       1       comfort, health, peace or safety of

       2       reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities

       3       within the limits of the city.

       4            And it goes on to deal with a whole host

       5        of specific items including noises heard

       6        within schools, public buildings, churches,

       7        hospitals and prohibits that.

       8            Again, we're not contending or this

       9        isn't a prosecution of the noise ordinance,

      10        but it does relate to the noise as

      11        harassment issue.

      12             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

      13        place.)

      14            THE COURT:  All right.  Go ahead,

      15       Mr. Pope.

      16            MR. POPE:  Subparagraph F, Your Honor,

      17       this as to do with Mr. Minton and

      18       Mr. Merrett.  They were walking down the east

      19       side of the Watterson where they were allowed

      20       to walk and Mr. Minton had the Penick Picket

      21       Pole in his hand and as they got down just

      22       past the white line they decided to cross

      23       over, gets right next to the Bank of

      24       Clearwater Building and Mr. Minton held up

      25       this pole so that the injunction on the top

.                                                                761

       1       of it --

       2            THE COURT:  Just a minute.  For the

       3       purposes of the record, I believe I

       4       understand what you're talking about and I

       5       did see videos and I have been out there at

       6       the agreement of all the parties, when I say

       7       out there previously under the prior

       8       injunction, temporary injunction, to the

       9       unloading where they go in to eat at the Bank

      10       of Clearwater Building.  When you say the

      11       white line, the City of Clearwater police

      12       department painted a zone or an area in the

      13       road where they could load and unload and

      14       sort of stay out of zone if I'm not mistaken.

      15            MR. POPE:  Right.

      16            THE COURT:  That's the white line you're

      17       talking about?

      18            MR. POPE:  That would be it, just for

      19       point of reference as to where they crossed

      20       over from the east side to the west side.

      21            THE COURT:  Now, the first white line or

      22       the second one.

      23            MR. POPE:  I think it was past both

      24       white lines.

      25            THE COURT:  So that would be the

.                                                                762

       1       northern, one then?

       2            MR. POPE:  I was just using that as a

       3       point of reference, not that there was

       4       anything wrong with that aspect of it.

       5            THE COURT:  Okay.

       6            MR. POPE:  When they got past the white

       7       lines they crossed over and got right next to

       8       the Bank of Clearwater Building, Mr. Minton

       9       has his Penick Picket Pole all the way

      10       extended with the injunction on the tip of it

      11       and sort of dangling it in front of the

      12       windows of the second story of the building

      13       and I believe that if you listen to the video

      14       you can hear him shouting things like no OTs

      15       here.  Render, stick your head out the

      16       window.  Render, no OTs there, no OTs there.

      17       Walk tech works, things of that nature.  So

      18       they were pretty clearly conducting some form

      19       of protest again, an area in which the court

      20       had told them not to do it.

      21            THE COURT:  Okay.

      22            MR. POPE:  And again, as far as I'm

      23       concerned and we'll just leave that up to the

      24       court, use of the Penick Picket Pole was

      25       making a mockery of the court, its authority

.                                                                763

       1       and its injunction.

       2            Subparagraph G --

       3            THE COURT:  Are you contending there was

       4       harassment?

       5            MR. POPE:  On this last one?

       6            THE COURT:  Picketing and mockery.

       7            MR. POPE:  Picketing and protesting and

       8       making a mockery of the court.  Protesting in

       9       a zone they weren't allowed in for that

      10       purpose and making a mockery of the court.

      11            THE COURT:  Okay.

      12            MR. POPE:  Subparagraph G deals with

      13       Lerma, Bezazian and Enerson.  This is where

      14       they were in an authorized zone on Pierce

      15       Street right next to the north edge of the

      16       Ft. Harrison Hotel.  They had megaphones and

      17       they were yelling.  They had their megaphones

      18       elevated so that they were yelling and making

      19       a lot of racket right into the Ft. Harrison

      20       area there.  The enclosed areas of

      21       Ft. Harrison in a loud and raucous fashion.

      22       And Ms. Bezazian, if you look at the video on

      23       this, mocked the authority and dignity of the

      24       court by yelling through the mega phone that

      25       the injunction was stupid.

.                                                                764

       1             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       2        place.)

       3            THE COURT:  Are you alleging or are you

       4       saying this was harassment?

       5            MR. POPE:  I'm saying it's harassment

       6       and mocking the court.

       7            THE COURT:  Okay.

       8            MR. POPE:  Subparagraph H has to do with

       9       Mr. Minton he was going along Watterson on

      10       the proper side, yelling through a megaphone.

      11            Of course, this is one of the times when

      12        he claims that the police officers on duty

      13        out there are bound by the ten foot rule, so

      14        he's hollering at them about their violation

      15        of the ten foot rule.

      16            He goes on to Watterson Street at a time

      17        when the buses are coming in and unloading

      18        people for the evening dinner hour.

      19            The police order him off the street.

      20        The police, in addition to having their

      21        general powers, were clothed with the power

      22        to assist in the execution of your

      23        injunction by Paragraph 11.

      24            In doing so they are this court's

      25        agents.  Mr. Minton resisted them profanely;

.                                                                765

       1        called them some pretty nasty names.  In

       2        fact they were supremely restrained in not

       3        doing something to him.  They didn't.  They

       4        exercised restraint.  He didn't.  But they

       5        circulate, resisted the officers, he

       6        resisted an officer of this court.

       7            It was an obstruction of justice either

       8        under this court's contempt power which is

       9        all we have before you at this moment and

      10        it's certainly an obstruction of justice

      11        under the Florida criminal statute.  They

      12        were carrying out the court's business when

      13        they ordered him off the street.

      14            THE COURT:  Okay.

      15            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, I wish to

      16       conclude with this general observation.

      17       Mr. Howie used a phrase that I liked.  He

      18       used it against us.

      19            He said that we had engaged in a

      20        perversion of the spirit behind the

      21        injunction.  I couldn't have dreamed up a

      22        better phrase to describe the conduct of the

      23        defendants and those acting in concert and

      24        participation with them.

      25            Here is how they have complied with the

.                                                                766

       1        spirit of the injunction.  They have twisted

       2        the meaning of the ten foot rule around to

       3        use it as an offensive game playing weapon

       4        against process servers and police officers

       5        and they were insisting on here in the

       6        courtroom, as well.

       7            They have mocked the court's authority

       8        with the Penick Picket Pole.  They have

       9        obstructed process servers who were acting

      10        as agents of this court.  They have harassed

      11        these people with excessive yelling and

      12        noise and horn honking and obscene comments.

      13        They have blocked and cursed police

      14        officers.

      15            I would say, Your Honor, that that's a

      16        perversion of the spirt behind the

      17        injunction.  I would suggest to you that

      18        there has been absolutely no good faith

      19        effort and compliance with this injunction

      20        by the defendants.

      21            What there has been instead is game

      22        playing, having a wonderful time.  This is

      23        just a piece of paper, it really doesn't

      24        mean anything.

      25            Your Honor, I think it means something

.                                                                767

       1        and I would conclude this with my favorite

       2        quotation from Felix Frankfurter:  Fragile

       3        as reason is and limited as law is as the

       4        institutionalized medium of reason, that's

       5        all we have standing between us and the

       6        tyranny of mere will and the cruelty of

       7        unbridled, undisciplined feeling.  The law

       8        is all we have, Judge.  We either have the

       9        law or we have the mob.

      10            I'd like us to have the law in this

      11        community.  And I would like you to tell

      12        these folks they need to tow the line on

      13        your injunction.  Thank you.

      14            THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Pope.  All

      15       right.  Let's do this.  Let me see the

      16       attorneys in my chambers please, Madam Court

      17       Reporter.

      18             (Thereupon, the following proceedings were

      19        had out of the presence of the audience:)

      20            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, I failed

      21       miserably this morning to introduce Helena

      22       Kobrin who is a member of Florida Bar.

      23            Mr. Hertzberg had to go to New York on a

      24        matter he couldn't avoid yesterday and she

      25        has come to be with me and give me a hand in

.                                                                768

       1        this matter.

       2            THE COURT:  Okay.  Do you have a card?

       3            MR. POPE:  She filed her notice of

       4       appearance about a week ago, I believe, in

       5       this case.

       6            THE COURT:  Okay.

       7            MS. KOBRIN:  I have a card in the

       8       courtroom.

       9            THE COURT:  Okay.  Give me your name

      10       again.

      11            MS. KOBRIN:  Helena, H-E-L-E-N-A.

      12            THE COURT:  Uh-huh.

      13            MS. KOBRIN:  Kobrin, K-O-B-R-I-N.

      14            THE COURT:  Okay.

      15            MR. POPE:  I have a request if I could

      16       make it, Your Honor.  My daughter is in town.

      17       I haven't seen her in two years.

      18            THE COURT:  Here's what I'm going to do

      19       so you all know.  That's why I brought you

      20       all in here.

      21            MR. POPE:  All right.

      22            THE COURT:  I want this off the record

      23       just a minute.

      24             (Discussion was had off the record.)


.                                                                769

       1             (Thereupon, the sidebar conference was

       2        concluded and a short recess took place after

       3        which the proceedings continued.)

       4            THE COURT:  All right.  At this time we

       5       will go to rebuttal on the judgment of

       6       acquittal argument.  Mr. Merrett, sir, I will

       7       allow you to go first, please.

       8            MR. MERRETT:  Thank you, Your Honor.

       9       Your Honor, you closed with a quote from

      10       Felix Frankfurter.

      11            THE COURT:  I did?

      12            MR. MERRETT:  You didn't, we did.

      13            THE COURT:  Okay.

      14            MR. MERRETT:  And I will open rebuttal

      15       with a quote from Felix Unger from the Odd

      16       Couple to wit, I can't believe you're going

      17       to eat that.

      18            The argument that has been presented to

      19        you is simply why, why, why?

      20            THE COURT:  I'm sorry, Felix who?

      21            MR. MERRETT:  Felix Unger, the character

      22       from the Odd Couple.  The fussy one.

      23            THE COURT:  Okay.

      24            MR. MERRETT:  The argument is wide of

      25       the mark, very wide of the mark and I

.                                                                770

       1       promised the court that I would be brief in

       2       responding and I will do that.

       3            First off, analytically at least,

       4        Mr. Pope claims that we are before the court

       5        on any generalized allegation of contempt of

       6        court however framed or founded.

       7            In your amended and consolidated order

       8        to show cause, that's the longer one, I

       9        think what has been dealt with first in all

      10        of these?

      11            THE COURT:  Would that be the January 4

      12       one?

      13            MR. MERRETT:  Yes, sir.  In the initial

      14       paragraph you make it clear that all you're

      15       doing is reissuing the prior orders to show

      16       cause and you say all of which orders

      17       concerned allege violations of this court's

      18       injunction of November 30 as clarified and

      19       corrected, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera and

      20       then commands reappearance, so that one is

      21       concerned solely with violations of the

      22       injunction as for the antecedent orders to

      23       show cause that were rolled into it.

      24            Secondly, the other order to show cause,

      25        the January 10 order specifically commands

.                                                                771

       1        Mr. Minton, Mr. Lerma, Mr. Enerson,

       2        Ms. Bezazian, and Ms. Gogolla to show cause

       3        why they should not be held in contempt for

       4        having violated the court's injunction of

       5        November 30, 2000.  So the issue before the

       6        court is whether or not the conduct charged

       7        represents a violation of the injunction,

       8        not whether it is generically contempt of

       9        court.

      10            Now, the first point that I want to

      11        touch beyond that is the argument regarding

      12        the authority of police officers to enforce

      13        and execute your injunction.

      14            In the first place, and I guess I'm

      15        working backwards chronologically on the

      16        January 7 incident when Mr. Minton was in

      17        the street, it is very clear that there was

      18        absolutely no evidence that there was

      19        anybody there other than Mr. Minton and his

      20        companions, the police officers and

      21        Mr. Avila who was also standing in the

      22        street at the time.

      23            The testimony of Mr. Avila was that this

      24        occurred during the hours at which people or

      25        rather buses normally come and go.  There is

.                                                                772

       1        no traffic shown on the videotape.  There

       2        was no testimony of any traffic.  There are

       3        no people on the videotape other than the

       4        police officers, Mr. Minton and Mr. Minton's

       5        companions and by inference, Mr. Avila

       6        standing behind the camera so there is

       7        absolutely no way at all there is any

       8        evidence that ordering Mr. Minton out of

       9        street could have been in furtherance of any

      10        enforcement of your injunction assuming that

      11        that's what that provision means.

      12            If that revision actually meant that

      13        they were entitled to enforce your civil

      14        injunction, that would mean that they were

      15        entitled to arrest people for violations of

      16        it and they're not.

      17            Now, an interesting, just the position

      18        between the conduct of Scientology and the

      19        conduct that they're claiming is criminal on

      20        the part of persons critical of Scientology

      21        is this.

      22            Mr. Henson, they argued to you that

      23        handling the camera that was hanging next to

      24        the rat bait building or on the rait bait

      25        building constituted harassment in a

.                                                                773

       1        genuinely absurd light of rhetoric,

       2        harassment of every member of the Church it

       3        is suppose to protect and as Mr. Elkamel who

       4        was sitting 500 yards away somewhere in a

       5        bunker in the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

       6            Now, the first point is this.  If that

       7        was harassment, then clearly, clearly

       8        Antonio Avila walking into the orange area

       9        on Pierce Street north of the Ft. Harrison

      10        Hotel for the purpose of using the camera

      11        was harassment, but he's not here charged

      12        with that because that's ridiculous.

      13            Now, secondly, in that connection I want

      14        to look at the legal definition of

      15        harassment and I suspect that the principle

      16        reason that we were favored with Black's Law

      17        Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary rather

      18        than statutes or case law was that statutes

      19        or case law make it clear that what happened

      20        there was not harassment.

      21            May I approach the court?

      22            THE COURT:  All right.

      23            MR. MERRETT:  I'll go through these

      24       briefly.  What I have prepared for the court

      25       is a number of statutory and judicial

.                                                                774

       1       definitions of harassment in various

       2       contexts.

       3            The first one that you have before you

       4        is Section 784.048 Florida Statutes in

       5        paragraph 1A defines harassment saying to

       6        harass means to engage in a course of

       7        conduct directed at a specific person to

       8        cause it substantial emotional distress in

       9        such person and serve no legitimate purpose.

      10            Moving into the next document that you

      11        have, that is a copy of Section 817.568

      12        Florida Statute and in Paragraph 1C it

      13        defines harass this way.  It means to engage

      14        in conduct directed at a specific person

      15        that is intended to cause substantial

      16        emotional distress to such persons and serve

      17        no legitimate purpose.  Harass does not mean

      18        to use personal identification, etcetera.

      19        The term does not include constitutionally

      20        protected conduct such as organized

      21        protests.

      22            The next document, Section 914.24

      23        Florida Statutes on the third page of

      24        the --

      25            THE COURT:  Hold on.  Just stop.  Just a

.                                                                775

       1       minute.  I'm getting too far behind.

       2            MR. MERRETT:  Okay.

       3             (Whereupon, a pause in the proceedings took

       4        place.)

       5            THE COURT:  I'm sorry, which document

       6       are you at now?

       7            MR. MERRETT:  We're now on the third one

       8       which is Section 914.24 and the last page of

       9       that copy that you have.

      10            THE COURT:  I've got it, sir.

      11            MR. MERRETT:  Subparagraph 3A.

      12            THE COURT:  Yes, sir.

      13            MR. MERRETT:  Contains the same

      14       definition of harassment directed to the

      15       specific person causing emotional distress

      16       and serving no legitimate purpose.

      17            THE COURT:  Okay.

      18            MR. MERRETT:  The next document that you

      19       have is a case out of the Second District

      20       Court of Appeal Rouse verses Rouse, 595 So.

      21       2d. 1013, Second District, 1992.  And at the

      22       third and last page of that opinion the court

      23       adopts Webster's New World Dictionary

      24       definition of harassment saying that harass

      25       is to trouble, worry, or torment as with

.                                                                776

       1       cares, death, repeated questions, etcetera.

       2            And then in the next document that you

       3        have which is State versus Miranda, another

       4        Second District case, 644 So. 2d. 342, that

       5        involved a violation of injunction for

       6        protection which prohibited, among other

       7        things, harassment of the petitioner.

       8            On the second page of that opinion you

       9        see at footnote three which because this

      10        came off the computer instead of out of a

      11        book it's in the middle of the page,

      12        footnote three tells you what the language

      13        of the injunction was and then footnote four

      14        refers to the definition found in section

      15        784.048 defining harassment as the same way

      16        that it occurred and specifically excluding

      17        picketing and other organized protests.

      18            The most compelling flaw, however in

      19        Mr. Pope's argument is this.  He says they

      20        were in an area where they had a right to

      21        picket these various occasions and they were

      22        picketing, however, they were being loud,

      23        they were being annoying.

      24            Harassment according to the definition

      25        he presented to you included annoyance,

.                                                                777

       1        therefore your injunction prohibits people

       2        from doing anything annoying even in the

       3        context of protected First Amendment

       4        activity.

       5            Now, again as I mentioned yesterday the

       6        court is aware because the case came out of

       7        St. Petersburg that speech is never a breach

       8        of the peace unless it is fighting words or

       9        involves a false warning of physical danger.

      10            Jumping next to the issues involving the

      11        process servers.

      12            THE COURT:  Yes, sir.

      13            MR. MERRETT:  I would simply remind the

      14       court, number one, as of November 30 your

      15       injunction had not been modified at all and

      16       prima facie prohibited anybody working for

      17       Scientology which presumably includes anybody

      18       getting intelligence information from Judy

      19       Ross about where people are going to dinner

      20       when they walk out their back door from

      21       coming within ten feet of any of the

      22       respondents in the injunction.

      23            Additionally, there is no evidence that

      24        the modification was entered or served prior

      25        to the time of the incident with

.                                                                778

       1        Mr. Kronschnabl.

       2            In other words the injunction that was

       3        in place at that time prima facie prohibited

       4        anybody who was an agent from coming within

       5        ten feet.

       6            The other thing that you have to

       7        remember is this.  To the extent that it is

       8        true and of course as to the extent the

       9        process server they come out of executive

      10        department, not the judiciary, but to the

      11        extent that it is true that these process

      12        servers are agents of any branch of

      13        government, the Fourth Amendment applies to

      14        all of their activities.

      15            That is an indisputable constitutional

      16        fact which means that absent a recognized

      17        exception, a warrant is required to enter or

      18        remain on private property in furtherance of

      19        public business.

      20            You don't have to let the police in your

      21        house unless they got a warrant.  You don't

      22        have to let anybody in your house unless it

      23        is an officer carrying a warrant that

      24        authorizes entry.

      25            Mr. Pope asked you specifically and I'll

.                                                                779

       1        just give you the citations and a real brief

       2        synopsis of what it says.  What the law that

       3        says Mr. Kronschnabl can't be there?  It's

       4        Section 810.08.

       5            THE COURT:  Section what, sir?

       6            MR. MERRETT:  810.08 Florida Statute.

       7            THE COURT:  Yes, sir.

       8            MR. MERRETT:  Which says anybody that

       9       enters a structure or dwelling without being

      10       authorized or remains after being instructed

      11       to leave is guilty of the crime of trespass.

      12       That's the one that says he didn't have a

      13       right to be there.

      14            Then it says any person.  The statute

      15        that authorized me to put my hands on him is

      16        section 776.03, you believe it's 031.  It

      17        may be 039.

      18            THE COURT:  776.

      19            MR. MERRETT:  03, I think it -- it may

      20       just be 03.  I don't know look.

      21            THE COURT:  All right.

      22            MR. MERRETT:  Anyway, it's use of force

      23       in defense of self or others and it

      24       specifically provides that a person who has a

      25       right to occupy property is entitled to use

.                                                                780

       1       any force short of deadly force to terminate

       2       the trespass of another person on that

       3       property.

       4            Lastly, I would direct the court's

       5        attention to section 901.19, which

       6        provides --

       7            THE COURT:  901.09?

       8            MR. MERRETT:  Yes, sir.

       9            THE COURT:  Okay.

      10            MR. MERRETT:  Which provides specific

      11       authority for an officer, for a police

      12       officer or deputy sheriff, a law enforcement

      13       officer who carries a warrant to break into a

      14       building or container or home if he is armed

      15       with a warrant and denied entry.

      16            What I'm actually referring the court to

      17        is the doctrine Expressio Unius Es Exclusio

      18        which means to say one thing is to exclude

      19        all others.  There is no corollary statute

      20        giving a process server the right to enter

      21        or remain over the objection of the property

      22        holder.  If there was, Judge, you would have

      23        seen it.

      24            I mean we have heard Mr. Kronshnabl say

      25        that, but there is no law that allows them

.                                                                781

       1        again, gynecologist office, proctologist

       2        office, church, dinner, anywhere.

       3            Now, if Mr. Pope is right about

       4        Mr. Minton running from the process server

       5        being -- forget it's clearly not a violation

       6        of the injunction but largely because she

       7        told you she was serving papers other than

       8        papers for this court and the exception

       9        applied only to agents, to process servers

      10        serving process of your court is what it

      11        says.

      12            She told him that she had a bunch of

      13        paper, so many she couldn't remember them

      14        and she admitted that some of them were from

      15        another case and this is only case you've

      16        got involving Mr. Minton.

      17            But beyond that, Mr. Pope is right in

      18        anybody who refuses to go --

      19            THE COURT:  Hold on a minute.  I was

      20       having trouble hearing you.  I'm sorry.

      21            MR. MERRETT:  If Mr. Pope is correct and

      22       Mr. Minton running away from the process

      23       server is a violation of the injunction or if

      24       it were cognizable in this proceeding to

      25       stand alone contempt of court that anybody

.                                                                782

       1       that refuses to come to the door when a

       2       process server is on the porch is guilty of a

       3       crime.

       4            Take a look, if you would, Judge, at the

       5        diagram of the Coachman Building.  You will

       6        see there is not a driveway on the south

       7        side that's covered by your injunction.

       8            The driveway is on the east of the

       9        building.  There is an alley, but the

      10        driveway is off of the alley.  The sidewalk

      11        extends all the way down the property line

      12        on the south side of the Coachman Building,

      13        which means that they couldn't have been

      14        walking back and forth across the driveway

      15        in the parking lot, because he said that at

      16        all times they were side of the Coachman

      17        Building.  They were on that sidewalk on the

      18        south side.

      19            That sidewalk stops, picks up again on

      20        the other side of alley and the entrance is

      21        around the corner.

      22            Lastly, coming into the home stretch,

      23        Your Honor, Mr. Pope seems to have failed to

      24        check the legal definition of embarrassment.

      25        It's not things that make the court blush.

.                                                                783

       1            It means to hinder or to prohibit in the

       2        carrying out of duty.  And this is the real

       3        end of it.

       4            Mr. Pope has described for you the

       5        civilization that Scientology is trying to

       6        build and it's not one that any American

       7        government or any American law has ever

       8        permitted.

       9            He wants you to find people in contempt.

      10        Assume it's true that people are making fun

      11        of the judge.  I'll be direct.  Assume that

      12        people are making fun of you.

      13            People have a right to do that, Judge.

      14        People have a right to criticize judges just

      15        like they have a right to criticize the

      16        President and I realize that under

      17        Scientology's rules that's punishable as a

      18        crime, but that's not punishable in the

      19        United States of America.

      20            Embarrassing a judge by criticizing his

      21        decision is not a violation of anything.  It

      22        is an absolute constitutional right.

      23            Mr. Pope talks about the spirit of the

      24        injunction.  This is a criminal proceeding.

      25        People cannot be convicted for violating the

.                                                                784

       1        spirit of anything.

       2            As for Ms. Bezazian, if you will listen

       3        to the tape she is talking to the OSA

       4        operatives, to Mr. Avila and to whoever

       5        Mr. Shaw, Mr. Render, whoever is going to

       6        end up viewing the tape and saying this is

       7        your doing.  This is your stupid injunction

       8        and it says we have a right to be here.

       9        OSA, you did it again.  You make your own

      10        enemies.

      11            But in any event, Judge, the bottom line

      12        is and I know the court knows this because

      13        you've dealt with the press before and with

      14        First Amendment issues and in prominent ways

      15        people have a right to criticize the

      16        judiciary just like any other.

      17            Now, nobody has the right to stand in

      18        here and criticize you, but people have the

      19        right to stand on the courthouse steps.  I

      20        mean you see them all time in different

      21        parts of the country saying that, you know,

      22        that the judiciary as a whole is this, that

      23        and the other.  People have a right to do

      24        it.

      25            The bottom line is this.  The reason

.                                                                785

       1        that we're here is because Mr. Pope,

       2        Mr. Shaw, Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Render are

       3        upset that you didn't prohibit picketing;

       4        that you followed the law.

       5            That's why we're here because you

       6        followed the law and because these people

       7        are following your injunction.  Thank you.

       8            Judge, I apologize.  I stole five

       9        minutes of Mr. Howie's time.

      10            THE COURT:  I'll give to him.  I'll just

      11       take it off your next time.  I'm kidding.  Go

      12       ahead.

      13            MR. HOWIE:  Thank you.  May it please

      14       the court, in the interest of time I will

      15       adopt Mr. Merrett's arguments as to

      16       Mr. Minton but I would like to make a couple

      17       of other observations.

      18            Mr. Pope, again argued in the camera

      19        incident that this constituted harassment

      20        because the camera was being used by a

      21        Church member monitoring it and therefore

      22        that member was harassed.  Not withstanding

      23        whether that member would have been within

      24        five thousand feet of the incident, I would

      25        point out that in my cross-examination of

.                                                                786

       1        Mr. Avila he provided absolutely no evidence

       2        whatsoever that the camera was even in use

       3        at the time.  He certainly indicated that he

       4        was not aware of any video through that

       5        camera at the time.

       6            I submit there is absolutely no evidence

       7        that that camera was even operable or was in

       8        use at that time.  There is no evidentiary

       9        basis for Mr. Pope's argument on that point.

      10            Next, I would point out that Mr. Pope is

      11        relying very heavily on this court's order

      12        of December 1, 2000 in which you modify the

      13        injunction by saying it doesn't extend to

      14        process servers, but what the court really

      15        said in that case in the last paragraph of

      16        that order, such process server would be an

      17        agent of this court for the purpose of

      18        serving process.  And we know what the

      19        definition of serving process is.

      20            Mr. Minton had already been served

      21        process in this matter some time before.

      22        What was in the process server's hands taken

      23        in the light most favorable to the

      24        petitioner in this matter are pleadings that

      25        should have been served properly through the

.                                                                787

       1        rules of civil procedure, on the attorney

       2        who had filed his notice of appearance in

       3        this case, namely me, by mail.  And there

       4        was no purpose served in sending that

       5        process server out.

       6            And if he is suggesting that somehow

       7        it's a contempt of this court's December 1

       8        order, I would submit that that order was

       9        issued by this court without benefit of

      10        hearing of prior notice to Mr. Minton.

      11            So, I hardly think that the petitioner

      12        can rely on this court's December 1 order

      13        for purposes the finding Mr. Minton in

      14        contempt for turning and running from a

      15        process server.

      16            Your Honor, I would also point out that

      17        in the course of the last 22 years I've

      18        probably represented between 50 and 100

      19        people charged with obstruction or opposing,

      20        either a felony or misdemeanor level and I

      21        have yet to hear a judge say by the way, not

      22        only am I going to find you guilty of

      23        obstructing and opposing, I'm going to hold

      24        you in contempt of court.  That is not what

      25        we use that law for.

.                                                                788

       1            Again, it's an attempt to enforce the

       2        criminal law through the use of an

       3        injunction.

       4            I would rely on Mr. Merrett's arguments

       5        concerning harassment.  I would only take it

       6        one step further and say with all the

       7        honking, all the yelling, all the

       8        megaphoning that went on here, not once did

       9        they present any competent evidence that a

      10        member of the Church as indicated here in

      11        admonition number four, harassment of

      12        violence against members of the Church, that

      13        any member of the Church was in fact

      14        harassed by the noise as harassment is

      15        defined under the law as Mr. Merrett

      16        presented it.  So it was a complete failure

      17        of any evidence to show harassment.  That

      18        is, the causing of emotional distress

      19        without any legitimate purpose.

      20            And again, I would point out that such

      21        an interpretation would result in the court

      22        stating that Mr. Minton and others were not

      23        allowed to exercise their First Amendment

      24        rights in a place where they have a right to

      25        do so.

.                                                                789

       1            I would also point out that your

       2        injunction does not specify the noise level.

       3        It only says again you are not to harass

       4        members of the Church Scientology.

       5            Unless they present evidence that there

       6        was actually harassment, all the evidence in

       7        the world about noise levels does not

       8        constitute a violation of the injunction.

       9            It was suggested that the Threep is a

      10        mockery of the court's order.  Apart from

      11        the argument that this is a total misuse of

      12        the term "embarrass" which means to impede

      13        or hinder the court as Mr. Merrett pointed

      14        out, it is clear that the purpose of the

      15        Threep being a ten foot pole is in

      16        conjunction with the court's ten foot rule

      17        that people stand ten feet away.

      18            The purpose of the Threep is clear.  It

      19        serves two purposes; keep members of the

      20        Church subject to the injunction and

      21        obedience to the injunction while at the

      22        same time informing them that there is an

      23        injunction in existence in case they hadn't

      24        heard.

      25            Now, it's been argued that this is

.                                                                790

       1        somehow a mockery of the injunction.  It is

       2        not.  It is an enforcement of the

       3        injunction.  And I would point out that

       4        notwithstanding their arguments at least

       5        Mr. Minton and others didn't hurl this

       6        court's injunction at the feet of the

       7        opposing side in an effort to get compliance

       8        with the injunction.

       9            Concerning the incident at the

      10        Clearwater Bank, the petitioner argues that

      11        Mr. Minton was the one shouting no OTs there

      12        and stick your head out the window.  I would

      13        point out that if the court listens closely

      14        to the tape you will see which individual

      15        had the megaphone that day and the person

      16        with the megaphone was standing in the

      17        orange area which allowed him to make

      18        whatever legitimate demonstration he wanted

      19        to while Mr. Minton walked by the bank

      20        building.

      21            My point is that there is again no way

      22        to describe Mr. Minton, the shouting that

      23        was going on across the street.

      24            Finally, concerning the incident on

      25        Watterson involving the two police officers.

.                                                                791

       1        There has been no connection made, either in

       2        the evidence or under the law between police

       3        on the beat and the proper functioning of

       4        this court.

       5            When a person has an argument with a

       6        police officer on a street corner it does

       7        not go to the proper function of the court,

       8        does not embarrass the court in its efforts

       9        to function.

      10            It is handled through the criminal law

      11        if it rises to either the level of

      12        disorderly conduct or an obstruction of a

      13        police officer.

      14            There is nothing in this injunction that

      15        prohibited what Mr. Minton is shown doing on

      16        the video that night.  It does not act to

      17        interfere with the spirt of this injunction.

      18            No connection has been made between that

      19        activity, this injunction and the court's

      20        power to find people in contempt of court.

      21            Again, I request that the court grant

      22        the judgment of acquittal as to all seven

      23        counts as to Mr. Minton.

      24            THE COURT:  Mr. Howie, I thank you very

      25       much, sir.  Attorneys I thank you.  Well

.                                                                792

       1       argued on behalf of your respective clients

       2       and now the ball is my court.

       3            I'll see you all Thursday morning, nine

       4        o'clock here and at that time I will let you

       5        know on my ruling on the JOA and in the

       6        cases -- let's just be ready to go and if yo

       7        don't have do to something you won't have to

       8        worry about.

       9            MR. MERRETT:  Judge, you I have one

      10       housekeeping matter.  Mr. Henson has asked me

      11       to request of the court that you swear him in

      12       and give him leave to return to California to

      13       work and --

      14            THE COURT:  Mr. Henson, yeah.  That's

      15       fine.  Come forward to the rostrum.

      16   Thereupon:

      17                        KEITH HENSON

      18   was called as a witness and having been duly sworn, was

      19   examined and testified as follows:

      20            THE COURT:  Thank you, sir.  State your

      21       name for the record.

      22            MR. HENSON:  Keith Henson, Howard Keith

      23       Henson.

      24            THE COURT:  You over the age of 18?

      25            MR. HENSON:  Yes, I I'm.

.                                                                793

       1            THE COURT:  Okay.  And you are the Keith

       2       Henson that the show cause in this case has

       3       been issued against?

       4            MR. HENSON:  Yes, Your Honor.

       5            THE COURT:  Okay.  And you understand

       6       that you have a constitutional right to be

       7       present at all times during these

       8       proceedings, you have a right to testify on

       9       your behalf, you have a right to present

      10       witnesses, you have right to have witnesses

      11       compelled to come testify on your behalf if

      12       they won't come voluntarily and you also have

      13       a right to remain silent.  You don't have to

      14       say too, you understand all that?

      15            MR. HENSON:  Yes, Your Honor.

      16            THE COURT:  One of things, you do a have

      17       right to be here.

      18            MR. HENSON:  Yes, Your Honor.

      19            THE COURT:  Okay.  Now, you can also

      20       waive any of those rights, you can waive the

      21       right to be here.  Now, the case will go

      22       forward and Mr. Merrett told me that he

      23       represents you and you have a right to

      24       communicate with him, stay in communications

      25       with him and if you wanted to testify you can

.                                                                794

       1       testify by video camera.  That has been

       2       allowed in criminal cases.

       3            Now, do you understand all that?

       4            MR. HENSON:  I understand that, Your

       5       Honor.  Could I also testify by telephone?

       6            MR. POPE:  Your Honor, I --

       7            THE COURT:  No, that's a problem in a

       8       problem in criminal case, sir.  The problem

       9       there is that the opposition certainly has a

      10       right to see you person and view credibility

      11       in a criminal case.

      12            MR. HENSON:  If they have an objection

      13       Your Honor, I suppose I'll have to either

      14       testify by video or stay here.

      15            MR. POPE:  I want to be able to see this

      16       man if he's going to testify either on video

      17       or in person.

      18            THE COURT:  All right.  Let the record

      19       so reflect.

      20            MR. HENSON:  Never mind, Your Honor.

      21       I'll stay.

      22            THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you very

      23       much.

      24            Now, ladies and gentlemen, we'll start

      25        at nine o'clock Thursday morning.  We will

.                                                                795

       1        secure the courtroom again if you want to

       2        leave stuff here.  And thank you all for

       3        everything so far and we look forward to

       4        picking it up and going ahead at

       5        nine o'clock Thursday, the 15th day of

       6        February, 2001, here in this courthouse in

       7        this courtroom.  Thank you.

       8             (Thereupon, the trial was adjourned to

       9        reconvene at 9:00 AM on February 15, 2001.)



      12                      End of Volume VI