IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs Case No: 99-21857 MMANO-E ROBERT S. MINTON, Defendant. ___________________________________________________/ PROCEEDINGS: Trial for Charge of Battery BEFORE: Hon. Robert J. Morris County Court Judge DATE: May 22, 2000 PLACE: Criminal Justice Center 14250 49th Street North Clearwater, Florida 33762 REPORTED BY: Pamela Jenkins, VR Court Reporter KANABAY COURT REPORTER5 TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOT HOTEL (813) 224-9500 ST. PETERSBURG - CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320 -2- APPEARANCES: WILLIAM JOSEPH TYSON, ESQUIRE Assistant State Attorney Criminal Justice Center Clearwater, Florida 22762 DENIS N. DE VLAMING, ESQUIRE and DOUGLAS M. DE VLAMING, ESQUIRE KYM B. RIVELLINI, ESQUIRE 1101 Turner Street Clearwater, Florida 22756 Attorneys for the Defendant CONTENTS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS FRANK OLIVER 14 25,45 57 61 RICHARD HOWD 210 226 258 260 MARK BEAUDETTE 264 269 -- -- -3- EXHIBITS For ID In Evidence State's Exhibit No. 1 215 216 (sign) State's Exhibit No. 2 220 220 (Photograph) State's Exhibit No. 3 222 225 (video) State's Exhibit No. 4 222 225 (video) State's Exhibit No. 5 223 225 (video) State's Exhibit No. 6 224 225 (video) -4- PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: Let's talk a little bit before we start a proffer, because in the motion we talked about a lot of things. And you all touched on some of these things. The reason that I reserved ruling on them is because we really did not with specificity identify them. It may be that each of you can identify these things, tell me what they are, and some of them I can rule on with what you tell me they are, others I may say, no, I need to hear witnesses. Why don't we do that? Who would like to go first? MR. TYSON: Judge, I filed a motion in limine, I am not sure what they are going to come forward with. MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I think our witness, Frank Oliver, will the person testifying to the bulk of the policies and procedures, and beliefs that might be relevant in this trial. Not every belief involving Scientology, obviously, that is not relevant and that would take too long. The policies that we did not specifically identify and did not go into depth about go a little bit beyond "Fair Game". As a matter of fact, Frank Oliver has with him some credentials that show he was a member of Scientology. He was in the Office of Special Affairs, which you will hear referred -5- to as OSA, and was involved for a number of years. He went through numerous training activities and then actually practiced these beliefs and these policies. So we plan on putting on Mr. Oliver for you and firming up his -- THE COURT: I will probably need to hear from him. We will probably need to hear about that. MS. RIVELLINI: Okay. We planned on introducing some of his certificates of completion of those classes that teach the policies that we would be getting into under the Office of Special Affairs. You heard a little bit about "Fair Game", and we actually have it delineated for you. It's actually in writing, and it was published by L. Ron Hubbard, "Fair Game" being a suppressive person order on how to treat the enemy. "Fair Game, may be deprived of property, or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, or lied to, or destroyed." That was what was referred to as "Fair Game" on how to treat the enemy. Now, the actual "Fair Game Policy", the written policy was very quickly thereafter canceled. When they canceled that policy what they said in the cancellation of "Fair Game" is, "The practice of declaring people "Fair Game" will cease. "Fair Game" may -6- not appear in on any ethics order. It causes bad public relations. This policy letter does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of a treatment of a suppressive person." So, although the State's witnesses may testify that they don't know what "Fair Game" is and they don't implement it, the cancellation order clearly shows that the policy of treatment is still in place, they just don't say anything about it. And Mr. Oliver will testify about that. We told you and you ruled upon it in your order on the motion in limine about our posture that the entire policy per Scientologist and their treatment of critics is to prove them up to be a criminal. We found a lot of that documented in the Scientology paperwork and in their books. We brought with us some books written by L. Ron Hubbard, that are relied upon by Scientologists, and by people in OSA. We have paperwork that shows how critics of Scientology are to be treated. What they state is that every time they have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology we have found crimes for which that person agreed to be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. Over and over we have proved this. If you oppose -6- Scientology we will promptly look up and will find and expose your crimes. If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. All of these beliefs and policies are what the Scientologists follow to expose someone who is against them, as a criminal, and goes to our theory of defense, which is this was set up so that they could therefore call Mr. Minton a criminal. There is some documentation in their Department of Governmental Affairs books that talk about how to manufacture threats, use the court system to harass, and to threaten. There is some paperwork on how to stop attacks and how their belief is to attack, attack, attack. There is more documentation on suppressive persons, and "Fair Game". "Outright or covert acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant by acts suppressive of Scientology or Scientologists." It goes to the theory that Mr. Minton is the main suppressive person right now targeted by Scientology. That their goal is to create him into a criminal and quiet him. Along another line, we talked about why Mr. Howd would have done this in the first place, why he would have had good motive to invent this situation. And then why he would have motive to not be truthful with -8- your Honor under oath while giving testimony. We told you that because of the reward and punishment system laid out by Scientology he would have a motive other than to tell the truth. There is documentation to that as well that Mr. Oliver can testify to. He learned when he was acting with Scientology and it's what the entire religion is based on. Now, again we are not going to get into the religious aspects, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, but the fact that it exists, the point system. It talks about you get points for attacking, one point for a local attack, five points for a regional attack. You will hear about what they call stats, statistics, which is when you do something that considered positive by Scientology, your statistics goes up. If you do something that is frowned upon they drop and you receive punishment by they way you are made to dress, what privileges you have, what doors you can enter, and so forth. Mr. Oliver will testify that upon his leaving the church he was declared a suppressive person, and he has been the target of such attacks as well. There is actually a Department of Special Affairs, this OSA Department that Mr. Howd is a member of. Check lists on how to carry out such drills as targeting someone, -9- turning them into a criminal, and creating an engagement upon which they can rely for their propaganda. You will hear him testify about how a twin was used, and you will actually see this in the videos. Where you see two females together, that is actually part of their tactics on using a twin. You will hear him testify about the way everybody had scanned outside, be a witness, assumed the action took place, and then turned around. That this is not all coincidental, it's part of their tactics. They are actually taught this and they rehearse this. Mr. Oliver will testify to that. As far as Mr. Howd's reasons for not being honest in court, you will find that there was a non disclosure bond and release form that he was made to sign, and that if he were to ever say anything negative about Scientology that he would be fined in the amount of one million dollars, and punished by the church. There is also numerous checks lists on how to create these episodes, how to practice them, the drills and so forth. And that would be the bulk of his testimony. We are going to keep it tailored as closely as possible to your Honor's ruling. THE COURT: Okay. Well, we are probably going to proffer his testimony. Is that the only area that you want to proffer? -10- MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: No, your Honor, we also have a witness, Jesse Prince, who is a former member of the Church of Scientology. He also was a member of OSA, the Office of Special Affairs. He has personal first-hand knowledge on how the Office of Special Affairs worked, and how they target individuals. And we did supply the Court with a copy of the September 10, 1998 Boston incident. And he intends to explain how the tactics that he was taught were used against Mr. Minton in that particular incident. THE COURT: Anybody else? Is that it? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes. THE COURT: Yes, that's it? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's it, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, we probably need to hear from both of these witnesses, but I am going to tell you right now, you all have opened the scope far beyond anything that I had in my mind when I wrote that order. Okay. But I am going to listen to your witnesses with a mind of trying to figure out what part of this comes in and what part of it doesn't. It sounds like you plan to bring far beyond what I envisioned in my ruling. I am going to tell you right now. So, who do you want to call right now? -11- MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, we would start with Mr. Oliver. We can either start from scratch, or you want to clarify which issues you thought were beyond the scope? THE COURT: Well, I had ruled on the "Fair Game Policy." I expected there to be a succinct explanation of what that is, and how it was connected to this incident. I am not sure that I expected to have a two-part witness, long explanation of it. I ruled on the -- said that the Boston, Massachusetts incident was admissible, but I did not intend to make that a feature of this trial. It merely comes in for the purposes for which you addressed and argued in your motion, and which I addressed in writing my order. We are not trying the Boston incident here today. MS. RIVELLINI: That's correct, Judge. What we intend on tailoring it to was the fact that it was set up and it could be proven so based on Mr. Oliver's experience in the church and that he was taught to do this. We really did try to tailor it down as closely as possible to those issues to what would affect Mr. Minton's state mind. THE COURT: That really is the issue, right? MS. RIVELLINI: Correct. And what would -12- go towards Mr. Howd's manufacturing of this incident and that it was not an intentional touching on Mr. Minton's part, but in fact, an invited touching by Mr. Howd for the purpose of declaring him a criminal. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TYSON: May I address you on the issue, Judge? THE COURT: Yes, of course. MR. TYSON: While you listen to the witnesses I would like you take into account, obviously relevance; number one. THE COURT: Yes. MR. TYSON: Number two; state of mind is an issue on self-defense of the case. I would like to remind you on the videos Mr. Minton is heard telling the police that this was an accident, Mr. Howd walked into the sign. So state of mind relevancy is a pretty big hurdle for him to shift gears, and it would be an inconsistent defense. It's allowed under the law, but you can't have a defense of bad faith. There is a difference. THE COURT: I understand. MR. TYSON: I would like you take that into account when you are considering the testimony. THE COURT: Before we get underway, I in -13- reviewing my own order I may not have been completely clear on one point, and if you all were confused, you would have a reason to be, and that addresses the video taken by Mr. Minton and someone with him of the Slaughter home in Largo. That's in. I don't know if you all understood that from my ruling, but my intention was the predicate can be laid. I expect that it can from what I heard. That's in. Let me ask a question about the July Clearwater segment of the video. I ruled on that understanding that it was Mr. Minton who was the videoer? Am I correct about that? MR. TYSON: Judge, if we look we confused, it is because we have so many videos right now. THE COURT: I know that, I understand. Let me explain it, the videos that I saw -- MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: The -- THE COURT: Forget that one, I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the video that starts with an incident in California that doesn't have anything to do with either of these parties, and it is very actually hard to follow it, but it 'looks like it breaks to a Clearwater incident. I had understood that that July Clearwater incident Mr. Minton was either the videoer or was present for it. Am I correct about that, -14- or not? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Present, you can see him in the video. THE COURT: I don't recall that you do. MS. RIVELLINI: Not the taken -- THE COURT: I don't recall seeing him in that segment. We might want to look at that one again, because I ruled that that comes in with the understanding that he was there. Okay, and if I am confused about that I want to make sure that we clear that up. Okay. So the Slaughter video comes in, the Slaughter part of the Clearwater incident, and I ruled and said that all of those come in, but I wasn't specific about that part of it, and that was made an issue in that hearing. My intention is that it happened that day, it's part and parcel, it goes to state of mind, it comes in. It is relevant. Okay. I want to make sure that you all are clear on that point, because I was not sufficiently clear in my order. Okay. All right, well, let's hear from Mr. Oliver. I think that is where we go. MS. RIVELLINI: It is, Judge. The only issue that we have not had time to address because we didn't know that you would let us proffer this early is I have some documentation that I would asking Mr. Oliver to identify and perhaps introduce. So I have not had time -15- to get those pre-marked. THE COURT: That's fine. That's okay. This is a proffer. The jury is not here. I'd rather hear it all so that I can determine what part of this should be a part of this trial, and what part shouldn't. So don't worry about that. Don't worry about that, I understand. MS. RIVELLINI: The defense would call Mr. Oliver. (Whereupon, the witness was sworn.) THE WITNESS: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning, sir. Please proceed. MS. RIVELLINI: Thank you, Judge. Whereupon, FRANK OLIVER, a witness, was called for examination by counsel for the Defendant, and having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Would you state your name please? A Frank Oliver. Q Mr. Oliver, how old are you? A I am thirty-seven years old. -16- Q What city do you live in? A I live in Miami, Florida. Q When did you move there? A 1979. Q What do you do for a living? A I am a graphic designer. Q How long have you been doing that? A I have been doing graphics for about ten years. Q Were you also a member of the Church of Scientology? A Yes, I was. Q When was that? A I joined the Church of Scientology in June of 1986. I left the Church of Scientology officially in 1992, I believe, November. Q Did you leave on general good terms or bad terms? A I left on what would be considered by the church on bad terms. Q Do you know that reason? A I was given a document by the Church of Scientology, which is called a "Declare", which states that I can no longer be a Scientologist because of some type of offense that they believe I committed. Q Okay. Did you actually receive a document -17- stating so? A Yes, I did. Q What was the nature of the offense that they said that you committed? A According to the Church of Scientology my of fense was that I had secretly made plans to leave the Church of Scientology. Q Okay. Were you not allowed to just leave? A Under Scientology's rules and policies you don't secretly make plans to leave. It has to be something that has to be done by a certain procedure. had been following that procedure, so it came as a shock to me when I received a document when it said that I had done something, when, in fact, it was done very much in the open. Q How did you receive that order declaring you a suppressive person? A It was handed to me by Eric Arnet, who is the Director of Inspections and Reports at the Church of Scientology in Miami. MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, may I approach? THE COURT: You may. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Mr. Oliver, we haven't had a chance to pre-mark these exhibits, but I am going to show you something. -18- Can you tell me if you recognize it? A Yes, that is the Suppressive Person Declare on me. Q This has a seal on it, and this is photocopy? MR. TYSON: Judge, if I could have one second. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TYSON: Ms. Rivellini has given me all of these documents, if she could just show me. THE COURT: Ms. Rivellini, the jury is not here so move about the courtroom as you feel the need to. Don't ask, just move. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Mr. Oliver, this has a seal on it, but this has a seal on it. Can you just take a look and tell me if this is substantially the same situation as the original? A Yes. Q A suppressive person that this declares you as, what is that? A A suppressive person means that I am suppressive to the aims and goals of the Church of Scientology, and to mankind in general as well. Q Is that what they call an enemy of Scientology? A Yes, I am now considered an enemy of Scientology, actually as of that date. -19- Q Okay. Now when you were with Scientology did you actually have identification cards? A I was issued an identification card when I was sent to Los Angeles to work in the Office of Special Affairs in the CAN Unit. Q CAN being? A Cult Awareness Network Unit. It was a unit established, that I was brought in to help establish for the Church of Scientology to help destroy the Cult Awareness Network. Q Okay. And I am going to show you three photo copies of identification cards. Can you just tell me if you recognize them? A Yes. This is the one that I was issued in California that allowed me access to secured areas of the building. This is a card that I received in 1987, it was a temporary card that I was given for being a member of the International Association of Scientologists. Q And keep in mind that the court reporter has to repeat each and every word that you say. A I'm sorry. And this last card was issued to me MR. TYSON: Judge, if it will speed matters up, I am not going to dispute that he was a member of Scientology. -20- THE COURT: Okay. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q While you were in Scientology did you actually have to take some courses? A Yes. The purpose of the indoctrination of Scientology is all based on the person taking certain courses and acquiring information that way. It is not a lecture type of indoctrination. Q Do you actually receive certificates for these courses? A Yes, for every course that you complete you receive a certificate. Q About how many courses would you say that you have completed? A Over the course of seven years in Scientology it is probably over a dozen courses I did. Q Do you have a sample of some of these certificates here, and are these copies of them? A Yes, these are photocopies of the originals that I do still have in my possession. Q Okay. Does it take quite a bit of studying to obtain these certificates? A Yes, some of these courses, depending on whether you are full-time or whether you have a job, and go there on a part-time basis, do take -- some courses -20- people have been on for several years. Q Okay. Other than reading materials does it require any other specialized training or knowledge? A You have to listen to video tapes and actually demonstrate that you have understood the materials that you have listened to to show your confidence in that particular area of what ever course that you have done. Q Okay, and you did that? A Yes, I did. Q When you are part of Scientology and you take these classes, and you receive these certificates do you move up, what I will call a ladder? A Yes. The structure of Scientology is two-fold. On the one side is what they refer to as processing, which is their type of spiritual counseling, and you move up different levels. They call this a bridge. The other side is the training side, which trains you in the processes and techniques, and that the other side of the bridge where you receive -- you go up different levels there. Q Did you essentially move up the ladder in both? A Different individuals move more or less on different sides, depending on what your side is. Because I was in an administrative position I moved up on the counseling side, if you will. But the training I -22- received was specific to the areas that I worked in. Q So you were higher up on the hierarchy? A On one side I was what is known as clear, and on the other side my training was in an administrative capacity, and I was considered a Status II, which is what is called in Scientology when you are a fully trained staff member. Then you take an additional course in your particular area of expertise, for example mine was in the Office of Special Affairs. So I was an investigations officer, and I took a course on being an investigations officer, and any related course to that I had to take. Q Do you actually have some documentation on what the Office of Special Affairs is, and how it is run? A Yes. Q Could you just briefly explain what this packet contains? A Every course in Scientology, if you will, a curriculum, and it identifies the different materials that are required for study in order to achieve the certificate in that area. This is a check-sheet, and this check sheet is for the Office of Special Affairs. They call it a HAT check sheet. Q Is a HAT essentially the job that you have? A Yes, exactly. What this does, it explains what it is that the objective to the course that you are -23- completing. It delineates the materials that need to be covered, what you need to know and understand, what you need to read. There are different things you have to do here. For example, in order to have a full understanding you may be asked to demonstrate something you have learned here on a table made of clay using figures, just so that you can explain to someone else that you do have a full understanding of it. So, that it is very clear that you when you complete the course you are considered an expert, or qualified in that area. Q And you did that? A I completed probably two-thirds of this course here before I left Scientology. Q So Scientology themselves would have considered you an expert in the areas that you completed? A I was already doing the job while I was taking the course. They don't have you finish the course and then start doing the work. You immediately start doing the work. They do something called a Mini-HAT, which is basically a smaller version of this that you complete, and then you immediately are put in so that you can start producing for the organization. Q Okay. Do you have to learn these materials very thoroughly? -24- A Absolutely. Q And do you have repeat them back on a consistent basis? A You are constantly being drilled on different things. If there is a particular area that you show some kind of weakness on they send you to a specialist, who is called a cramming officer. What they do is they go any materials or any deficiency that you might have in any area. Q Okay. Now, you left the Church of Scientology in what year? A 1992. Q Have you continued to follow news and occurrence that deal with the Church of Scientology? A From '92 until '94 I limited my exposure to what was going on because of the way in which I left, and how I felt about the organization, and why I left. I became more involved after '94. Because of the Internet's proliferation of information in the current scene, and I have kept very much up to date on what is going on. .. Q Have you talked to people who have left the Church of Scientology to keep up on what goes on inside the church? A I have- -25- MR. TYSON: I'm going to object on the hearsay. I know it is a proffer, but I just want you consider that. THE COURT: I understand. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Yes, I have talked to individuals who are still in, and individuals who have recently left. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Are you involved with any litigation involving the Church of Scientology? A I am personally not involved in any litigation. Q Do you follow it and keep up to date on it? A Yes, I do. MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, at this time I would ask that Mr. Frank Oliver be declared an expert in the field of Scientology based on his training. THE COURT: Mr. Tyson? MR. TYSON: Judge, may I voir dire the witness? THE COURT: Yes, please. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. TYSON: Q Mr. Oliver, when did you leave Scientology? A 1992. Q When were you in OSA? -26- A I was in OSA -- I started doing things for OSA out of the Church of Scientology in Coral Gables in late 1989. I was officially brought into the department in 1990. Q Okay, and you left in 1992 you said? A Correct. Q Can you show me any documents you have post- 1992, post-1992 showing any of the policies and practices of OSA? A No, I can't. I wouldn't need to. Q You wouldn't need to, that's your opinion, correct? A Yes. Q So if you don't have anything, then you don't know if anything has changed there, do you? A I do know one thing, that since the founder of Scientology passed, no document or policy of the Church of Scientology can be changed by any individual other than L. Ron Hubbard. That is in policy. So it would be some kind internal Scientology crime for someone to change the written word of L. Ron Hubbard. Q So in perpetuity no more doctrines or memos can ever come out, according to your knowledge? A No more policy letters can be issued, other than L. Ron Hubbard, yes. -27- Q Things change over time, don't they, Mr. Oliver? A I believe things do change. Q Policies change over time, don't they? A No, they don't. Q Any that you're aware of? A I have never seen a policy change since L. Ron Hubbard passed. Q Now, you are on the outside, right? A Even when I was. Hubbard died in 1985, I believe. Q Mr. Oliver, that is not my question. You are on the outside looking in from 1992 to the year 2000. In those eight years you haven't been involved in the internal workings or policy decisions of the Church of Scientology? A No, I have not. MR. TYSON: That's all I have, Judge. Judge, I'd ask that he not be declared an expert. It has been eight years since he has had any dealing with the internal policies at work with Scientology. THE COURT: Ms. Rivellini, do you want to respond to that? MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, based on Mr.Oliver's answer to the prosecutor's question that -28- policies cannot change, the testimony that he can offer is still relevant as to what was going on when he was there as to what is going on here. Also, Judge, you will have enough evidence before you in the form of testimony and video tapes to show that what he can testify to is still consistently carried out. So he is not testifying necessarily in theories, but he is going to tailor down his testimony to explain why what you see on video happened, and the fact that it is so consistent with what he testifies to in the written policies at the time that there will be no question about the relevance. THE COURT: But his testimony will consist of the fact that he was a member of the Church of Scientology from some period of time. That he knows what the "Fair Game Policy" is. He is going to explain how he knows what the "Fair Game Policy" is. And then is going to explain what the policy is, right? MS. RIVELLINI: Correct. THE COURT: And that is really all he is going to testify to, is that it in a nutshell? MS. RIVELLINI: Well, not quite, Judge. I asked that he be declared as an expert so that I can move into my next area of questioning. THE COURT: And I guess my question is, why does he need to be an expert for purposes of the -29- testimony that I have just hit on? MS. RIVELLINI: I am going to ask him to rely on some documentation in order to give his testimony, and rely on documents, and to give some opinions as to what he thinks is going on the video, and why. He will also give specific testimony about the Office of Special Affairs, which Mr. Howd is a member of. Mr. Howd has given previous testimony that he has never heard of "Fair Game". That he was never directed to go out and do the things that he did, and this witness could testify that that could never happen based on the way the office is run. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. de Vlaming? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, I don't mean to interrupt. Maybe I can shortcut this. Based on what you just said when you laid out what our purpose is, you are real close to the mark on what we intend to use this witness for. If the hangup of the Court is as to whether or not we need to declare him an expert so that when you look to the tape we can use the "Fair Game Policy" as he knows and what he was taught to say, "You see when they went in there, you see when this happened, this is all part of the policy." Then I don't need to declare him an expert. If however, Mr. Tyson jumps up and says, "Objection, opinion." Then of course we are back into -30- this area. THE COURT: I am reluctant to cloak him with the mantle of being an expert based on what I have heard. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's what I understand. THE COURT: So I am going to be real ginger in this area. If you would like to continue to question him I will reserve ruling on that until I have heard everything that you would like him to say. Then I will go back and address the notion of whether he is an expert or not. MS. RIVELLINI: Okay, Judge, and keeping in mind that it is hard to be an expert that you just do everyday. I know Mr. de Vlaming himself has been declared an expert in the practice of defense law, and it is along the same lines that we are asking that he be declared an expert. He was entrenched in the study of it. He actually did study and rely on treatises, and for that purpose we are asking that he be declared an expert. MR. TYSON: May I address that? THE COURT: Yes, go ahead. MR. TYSON: Mr. de Vlaming is here everyday. Mr. de Vlaming has been continually involved in the practice of the law. You have eight years on the -31- outside. Judge, one other thing I would like to point out before we move on, is the intent to argue that their actions are consistent with the "Fair Game Policy" you have seen enough of these videos now, and have been educated enough to know that this is both sides of the street working here. They may be inflamed because of what Mr. Minton or any other anti-Scientologists are doing. So if they are inflamed, they get these people are worked up, and then the argument would be invoking "Fair Game" when it is a two-way street. I want you to understand that. THE COURT: I am acutely aware of that. Please proceed. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Mr. Oliver, you said that you were involved with the Office of Special Affairs? A Yes, I was. Q In a nutshell, what are the duties of someone involved in the Office of Special Affairs, you said that it was to carry out investigations? A Yes. That is one of the functions of the Office of Special Affairs, yes. Q What does that mean, to carry out an investigation? A Anyone that is identified by the Church of -32- Scientology as an enemy, or someone that is a potential threat to the Church of Scientology is investigated. This investigation is carried out one of several ways. It can be carried out using legal methods of obtaining information on an individual, or illegal methods of obtaining information on an individual. Q This is something that you were actually trained to do, and told how to do by policy? A Yes. Q Is that an actual written policy that teaches you how to do that? A The legal things are written, the illegal acts are told to us by seniors. Q Do you actually have check lists that you follow to make sure that are doing them to the plan of Scientology? A Yes, if the project is to obtain information on an individual there is a program or a project that is written out, and it delineates all the steps that need to be taken to arrange for whether it is a surveillance, whether the person is to be investigated, followed from where ever they go, followed from work, from home, investigate their friends, talk to neighbors. Whatever is part of the program are what we have to accomplish. All this information is then sent up lines in Scientology -32- to higher level individuals within in the department for analysis for implementation of another part of the program, or for orders to be sent back down for additional investigation to be done. Q What kind of discretion was there on your part to carry out these plans? Could you just come up with your own plan on how to do an investigation? A No, no. Q Was everything delineated out specifically? A Yes, and one of the steps in the check sheet was for certain actions to be side-checked by the legal division of Scientology. Q Are you saying there are random acts in the course of an investigation? A Not unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences of whether your random act is unsuccessful. Q Let's talk about dealing with the consequences. How are you rated in Scientology? And keeping in mind that we don't want to get into what the whole religion is about, just specifically is there a point system, or some system that you are rewarded by in the Church? A Like in any job, you are measured by what you can actually accomplish. In Scientology if someone is a counselor they are measured by how many hours of counseling they give for example. If you are in the -34- Office of Special Affairs and you work in intelligence investigation there are about ten specific things that are used to measure your performance. If your job is to combat the enemy or keep negative things to be written about the organization, then those are things that they have identified, using their own terminology as to how to get the points that you need. Everything is graphed and the statistical analysis determines what your particular condition is. If your statistics are down you are given you are told that your statistics are in emergency, for example, which means that you need to get your statistics up. If your statistics are up, then you are regarded as being a better Scientologist almost. You are paid actually more. Q How important is this on a daily basis? A In some cases it is important on an hourly basis, when things are extremely critical, whatever project that you are working on they want to monitor what your progress is, sometimes every hour, sometimes every fifteen minutes. What have you done? What have you got? They are just on top of you to make sure that you are achieving the projected goals, whatever that program or project is. Q So you are either rewarded or punished on a constant basis, and is that the most important that goes -35- on in Scientology? A That is the most important thing in Scientology. Q You said that they actually keep graphs and reports on this? A On everything. Q If somebody fails, I call it a mission, if somebody fails a task, what are some of the consequences that can happen, and do they ever get to serious levels? A Depending on where you are within the organization, for example I was originally based in what is called a Class Five Organization in the church, and the penalties there are you can be downgraded in your particular position in the organization. You can be denied your auditing or counseling that you receive. You can be sent -- they can have you washing the toilets if you fail on a mission. Q Do they actually ever send you away? A In well -- in different areas of the organization, if you were for example a member of the Sea Organization, which is their own internal fraternal organization, if you will, of Scientology that actually runs Scientology, there the penalties are more harsh, because those people actually live there, work there, they don't have any life outside of the organization. It -36- is basically like being interned in the organization. Q Is that what we have here in Clearwater? A Yes, this is one of the main centers of the Sea Organization. Q What is the punishment if you fail a task in the Sea Organization? A Depending on what the severity is you could lose certificates, you could lose privileges, you could be subject to doing manual labor. They could have you out picking weeds. I have heard cases where it has been much worse than that. Q Did they ever send you off? MR. TYSON: Judge, I am going to object to the hearsay, and ask you to consider that. THE COURT: Okay, that is an ongoing objection, and I understand that has been your objection. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Did they ever send you away to what I call the equivalent of a boot camp? A Within the Sea Organization the most extreme level of punishment is called the RPF, which stands for Rehabilitation Project Force. What they feel that the individual going there will somehow redeem himself by doing the most menial grueling labor that they can subject the individual to. Much more than just physical -37- duress, it is the emotional and mental duress that the people are put under when they are sent to the RPF. Q When somebody is a member of the Office of Special Affairs is one of their jobs to handle critics? A Yes. Q Is there a policy that is known to the members of the Office of Special Affairs on what a critic is and how to handle them? A There are several policies that delineate critics, attacks on Scientology and who the defined enemies are of Scientology. There are many policy letters. Q Have you heard of something called the "Fair Game Policy"? A Yes, I have. Q What is that? A That was a policy that was originally written by Hubbard and it delineated that anyone that is identified as a member of Scientology that has committed any of these acts, or someone that is suppressive, or someone that is harmful to the organization they can be lied, cheated, tricked, sued, anything can be done to the individual without that individual -- without you suffering any kind of penalty for having done these things to someone else. -38- Q Okay. At some point was that "Fair Game Policy" canceled? A There is an issue that cancels the term "Fair Game". The policy itself, from my understanding was never canceled, because the things are still done to this day. So had the policy been completely canceled these things wouldn't be done. I wouldn't have done the things that I did when I was in the organization had that policy truly been canceled, because I wouldn't have been ordered to do it. Q Was that policy issued and then canceled by L. Ron Hubbard? A Yes. Q And that policy insofar as it practices was even carried out in the '80's and '90's when you were there? A Yes. Q What kind of things did you do to carry out that policy? A We investigated individuals using legal, and depending on which individual was needed, illegal, credit reports were drawn on individuals by use of suitable guises. Their phone numbers and the phone records were obtained by us. We had private investigators going through people's garbage. -39- Q Are people consistently followed? A Yes. I myself was on a surveillance of two subjects for three days non-stop while I was in California. Q When somebody is followed are they given one of those check lists on exactly what to carry out? A The lead person, whoever is handling the investigation on the individual is the one that runs the program out in the field and they actually at that particular time are telling people what they have to do. For example, when we were on a surveillance in California we were three teams of private investigators and we spent three days outside of a home surveilling two subjects that were identified as suppressive persons by the Church of Scientology. Q Okay. You have had a chance to review some video tapes depicting Mr. Minton picketing on several occasions, is that correct? A Yes, I have. Q Could you tell from watching those videos what was going on as far as by the members of Scientology? A Because there is such a potential for litigation anything that has to do with the type of activities Mr. Minton is involved in, such as picketing the organization, the members themselves don't make any -40- decisions whether they are going to go out there, or whether they are going to show outrage. Everything is handled in that area by the Office of Special Affairs. They have overriding control of the situation. So they determine everything that goes on. Any interaction that there may be between the potential attacker and the organization. No one acts independently on their own. Everything goes through OSA. If someone were to show up to picket one of the organizations and there might be members outside OSA immediately comes on the scene and takes control. Members are told to go inside. OSA handles the operation from that point on. There is no individual action by anyone. Q Okay, how can OSA ensure that what goes on outside is consistent with what they want to go on? A They have a policy where they never defend and they always attack. If someone comes at the organization they will attack. They don't defend, they don't go out there and try to talk to someone or talk them out of doing what they are doing. They are on the attack, because the only way to defend, according to the Doctrine of Scientology, is to attack. Q How can members high up in OSA ensure that it is going to be carried out in manner they want it to, do they actually practice these exercises? -41- A Absolutely. Anything that is done to an individual, or anything that is done by the organization, if they want to ensure that they are going to obtain the desired result it is drilled, what we call drilling. I am sure that term is used in the military as well. Where something is gone over by individuals to ensure that they both have an understanding of what they are going to do. Q Is each person on the scene given a specific task? A If there are multiple individuals that are needed for a particular thing, yes. Anybody that is going to be a part of any particular action has to be there and present because they need to recreate the scene exactly as it is going to be implemented, or carried out. Q And does the Church of Scientology have a policy or a belief that if anybody is a critic of Scientology they must also have committed crimes? A That's a known fact, and is reiterated over and over when you are in Scientology. Only criminals attack Scientology because they feel it is the savior for mankind. Q Is there any motivation for Scientology to expose a critic as a criminal? A The motivation is to ensure that their dogma is correct, they have to be right, so they will do whatever -42- they have to do to maintain the fact that they are right. Q If the church were to investigate what they call a critic and look into his history for years and years and not come up with a known crime? A They will and have been known to go so far as to manufacture something to pin on the individual. Q Would someone be rewarded for doing so? A If that is the project, if that is acquired result and that is what is done, and they obtain the acquired result, naturally they are rewarded. They have obtained their objective. Q If someone were -- let me back up. When you became a member of the Church of Scientology did you have to fill out a form of non-disclosure? A Not when I was a member, only when I joined the Office of Special Affairs. Q Okay, and tell us about that non-disclosure form, what was the purpose of it? And what did you understand the purpose to be? A I was told that I had to sign the form. The only way that I was going to continue in what I was doing was to sign this form. They told me because of the sensitive nature of what I was going to be dealing with that they had to have some kind of protection. Based on the fact that I was trying to move up in the organization -43- the only way I was going to move up or stay in was to sign this form, because that was the particular department that I was in at the time. Q And what were you essentially promising not to disclose? A Any of the information about any of the inner- workings of Scientology in the area that I was in. Q Now, if you were still a member of OSA having signed that form would you be able to testify to the things that you are telling us today? A Absolutely no. Q What if you were under oath in a courtroom? A Well, that again is up to the individual. Q What would the church tell you to do? A Whatever they wanted me to do. If they wanted me to say something then that is what I would have to say. Q So it wouldn't be up to you as to what you disclose? A No, because I would have to put the organization first. Q Does that disclosure form set out punishments if you do disclose what goes on in OSA? A Yes, breaches of a million dollars, or more. Q Would there also be ramifications within the -44- church, and your position there? A Absolutely, they wouldn't be pleasant. Q Have you actually seen for yourself people who have been disciplined by the church? A Yes, I have talked to individuals who have been disciplined by the organization. Q Is there an understanding on how the law and the court system is to be used by Scientology? A It's just another tool that is used to harass individuals, and if the individual doesn't have money and you really want to get somebody you can bankrupt somebody in a court. Q Is that commonly done? A Yes, it is. Q What about the criminal law system? A Anything they have to do. Q And that's actually taught to you? A Yes. MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, if I can have a moment. THE COURT: You may. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q Mr. Oliver, I asked you previously if you had a chance to watch the films and see the pickets that Mr. Minton was involved in? -45- A Yes. Q Were you able to form an opinion about what was going on as the Scientologists actions versus Mr. Minton's actions? A Yes. Q What is that opinion? A The opinion is that Mr. Minton is identified as their largest critic, their most dangerous threat, and so they need to really do something about it. What I was able to see in the tape is a particular series of events were staged to ensure that their objective was gotten. Q What did it look like the objective was? A To get Mr. Minton arrested. MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, that is what I have for purposes of the proffer. THE COURT: Mr. Tyson? MR. TYSON: Thank you, Judge. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TYSON: Q How are you doing, Mr. Oliver? A Very good, sir. Q I am Bill Tyson. I should have introduced myself before. I'm sorry. Mr. Oliver, you talk almost as fast as I do. A Sorry -46- Q Not a problem because I talk fast too. So I was only able to write down as fast I could get. If I misunderstand something correct me now. A Okay. Q Did I understand you to say that when they thought you were leaving, they threw you out of Scientology? A No, that wasn't exactly it. Q Okay. Can you explain that again? A When I returned back from Los Angeles having been working with hierarchy of the Church of Scientology I was very disillusioned at what I had discovered there working there in the Office of Special Affairs. At that time I had made a decision to make my exit from Scientology, however still fearing the repercussions of my action of doing such a -- what is considered a drastic thing in Scientology after being having been in the position of trust that I was in, I had to be very cautious on how I left. In late '91 I made the decision to go to the Ethics Officer, which is a particular post within the organization and make my intention known that I wanted to leave the organization. I wanted to try and leave using the appropriate policies and procedures of the organization for someone leaving. There is a particular -47- check list that a person does when leaving the organization, it is called "Leaving Staff Routing Form". Once you make this declaration that you want to leave the organization the Ethics Officer acknowledges it and puts you on this form. So then you become something that they have to do. So they are put on notice basically that you want to leave. It is the proper and correct way to leave per the policy. Once I made this known I was stripped of my keys to the building, and I was told that I would now need to report to the Ethics Office in the organization to follow the procedures of this particular check list. It took many months for me to come into the organization on a weekly basis. Sometimes I would go, sometimes I wouldn't. I really wanted to get through this, and they were putting up road blocks to have me complete this procedural exit. In '92 -- it took probably six months for me to get out of the organization. In '92 I went in one of these times and I was handed by the Director of Inspections and Reports, Eric Arnet, I was handed this document which she showed me, which I provided her copies of, which is my "Suppressive Person Declare." I was basically being expelled from the organization. The reason listed troubled me because it said I was leaving because I had made secret plans to leave the organization, when in fact, there was never a secret plan to made. I was very much in the open, and in fact, they had acknowledged that I was leaving -48- because I had made secret plans to leave the organization, when in fact, there was never a secret plan to made. I was very much in the open, and in fact, they had acknowledged that I was leaving already. So it surprised me that they would expel me for something that I didn't commit. However, since I had not committed any infraction within the organization they needed something to expel me for, and they chose to say that I was leaving in secret, when, in fact, I wasn't. Q Sounds like someone trying to get out of the U.S. military? A Something like that. Q You say that you are not personally involved in litigation. Are you a witness at all in the Lisa McPherson case? A I am a trial consultant in the Lisa McPherson case. Q Which side are you with? A Lisa McPherson's. Q Okay. So you are against the Scientologists? A Yes, sir. Q Now you said that involvement with Scientology, if I got this right, were for you to carry on investigations on anybody that is identified as an enemy -49- or a threat. Would it be fair to say that U.S. military does that too, don't they? A From what I know, yes. Q And actually companies -- you are a business man, right? A Yes, sir. Q Do you compete with other companies? A Yes, well, I am in a similar business -- my field is so broad there is not that kind of competition you see between AT&T and Sprint. It's not like that. Q The bottom line though, you need to keep ahead of the competition to make a profit, don't you? Q So you have got to keep an eye on what the competition is doing, don't you? A Sure. Q So it is not unusual to check out what anybody else is doing, investigate what they are up to, is it? A Not to the extreme level that I carried out when I was in Scientology though. But, yeah. Q But that begs the question, what type of military or company experience do you have on how they conduct their investigations? A On how- Q You said not the to the extreme level, you know -50- that they don't go to the extreme level that Scientology does. How extreme does the military go, are you even able to testify to that? A How the military investigates? Q Yes. A No, I have never been in the military. Q Okay, so it is difficult for you to make that comparison. You said that you don't know anybody that goes to the level that Scientologists do. You really don't know if that is true or not? A Not businesses, sir. You asked me about business. Q Oh, really, is that a fact? What business experience do you have on their investigations? A On Scientology investigations? Q Businesses investigating other businesses, corporate spying, what do you know about that? A I have read some articles on it. Q Do you consider yourself an expert on that? A No, not at all. Q So obviously you can't testify on what exactly they do, can you? A No, not what a corporation does. No, I have never done that type of work. Q If I understand your testimony you said that -51- they had documents telling you the legal methods to investigate? A Correct. Q Okay. And the illegal methods were told you verbally by a senior person? A Yes. Q So there is nothing in writing on the illegal methods? A No, nothing in writing, but there is plenty of documentation to substantiate it. Q Okay. It's fair to say that it would be some rogue supervisor who wants to get ahead in the organization having you do illegal activities, wouldn't it be fair to say? A No, I don't think that would be fair say at all, sir. There are too many people in the chain of command that see all the data that is gathered. Even the attorneys. Q It also begs the questions, you had no problem performing illegal activities, did you? A I never performed an illegal activity when I was a member of the Church of Scientology. Q You did not? A No, sir, I did not. Q You said that your position in Scientology is -52- measured by work product performance? A Correct. Q Isn't it true that a lot places do that? A Sure. Q Isn't it true that just about any place does that? A As far as I know you are measured by what you actually get done. Q So that's not unusual for them to do that, is it? A It's not unusual for them to do it. I found it unusual that I was being rated on -- certain things that I was being rated on like identifying enemies, and number of attacks that I committed on individuals. Q Well, you said attacks. Were these legal attacks, or illegal attacks? A It depends on what you mean by legal, or illegal. Q Is that true the meaning of the word, is is? A Is is. Q You just told me a minute ago that you didn't do anything illegal. A I never did anything illegal. Q Okay, I don't quite understand your last answer. -53- A Well, I am sure that someone is measured by the number of illegal acts that they commit. I, however, was measured by the number of legal things that I did. Q And you said that there are penalties you fail a task, right? A Correct. Q And it would be fair to say that there are penalties pretty much everywhere if you fail a task? If I don't do my job, and I don't come to work, then I would get fired? A Correct. Q She is a business woman, and she is selling a product and she doesn't perform, she may lose her job? A As far as I know that is correct, sir. Q You said as far as handling critics, they may sue them? A Correct. Q Have you ever heard of false advertising, one company defames another company's products and they get sued? A Yes, I have. Q So that is really not that unusual, is it? A If they have got a legitimate reason for it, I guess it is not that unusual. Q But your opinion is it is illegitimate? -54- A It depends on the circumstance, sir. Q Now the video tapes, you said that you watched them? A That's correct. Q You watched the four that we have of the scene? A Excuse me? Q You watched the four that we have at the scene of the Fort Harrison, or you have the Boston incident and some other tapes? A I watched the four video tapes. I have also seen the Boston tape, but I have seen the four video tapes. Q I guess my question to you, is your expertise on video based on the four that you saw at the Fort Harrison, and the Boston one, or all the other ones that we all have? Because we have tons of these things? A No, I didn't see all the video tapes that you all have. Q Okay, but what you see on that video tape would be in your opinion "Fair Game", what they are doing? A I know what an operation looks like, sir. Q Okay. So if I was a Scientologist and you were peacefully picketing and I was to come up to you and say that I had sex with your mother, but I wouldn't say it that way, if I got up in your face and did that, would -55- that be an example of "Fair Game"? A Sure, I guess that would be an example of "Fair Game." Q You talk about they have been known to manufacture crimes against people. I need you tell me when, where, and we need to know who that innocent person was? A Have you ever heard of something called "Operation Snow White", it's well documented? Q When, where, and who is the person sitting in jail that shouldn't be? A Well, fortunately she was exonerated, but the woman's name was Paulette Cooper. It happened sometime I believe in the late '70's. She was set up by Scientology. This was later found to be true when the Church of Scientology were raided by the FBI. They obtained copies of the operation on how they were going to set her up. Ms. Cooper was subjected to two polygraph tests to try to prove her innocence. Eventually, she was completely exonerated when they found the documentation after they raided the Churches of Scientology. That is one specific example. Q This is 1970, so that would be at least six years before you were there? A Excuse me? -56- Q At least six years before you were even there, so we are talking -- A You didn't ask me -- Q So this would be at least twenty years ago? A Sure. But it did happen. Q And you know that from first-hand knowledge? A No, I know that from reading the documentation. Q From who? A It's available on the Internet, it's in court records. It was published in major news records. It was published in national magazines. Q You had signed a non-disclosure form? A Correct. Q Under penalty of a million dollars? A Uh-huh. Q Have you ever heard of signing an agreement to not release trade secrets under penalty of a suit? A Yes, I have heard of that. Q Have you ever heard of signing an agreement with the military to keep certain things secret under penalty of imprisonment? A I think I have heard of that also. Q So this policy is not that unusual, is it? A I thought it was unusual because I was a member of what I thought at the time to be a church. -57- Q How old are you? A Thirty-seven. Q How old were you in 1986? A I've got to do math. I was in my twenties. was in my twenties. MR. TYSON: Judge, I have no further questions. THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Rivellini anything further? MS. RIVELLINI: Just very briefly. THE COURT: Okay. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MS. RIVELLINI: Q Mr. Oliver, the prosecutor asked you about whether it was unusual for companies to sue other companies legitimately? A Yes, he did. Q Do you remember when he asked you that? A Yes. Q And you tried to make the distinction between legitimate suits and non-legitimate suits? A Correct. Q I want to show the cover of a pamphlet called "Ability, the Scientologists, a manual on the dissemination of material, by L. Ron Hubbard." Do you -58- recognize what that material is? A Yes, I do. Q Is that something that you studied and relied upon as a Scientologists? A Not that particular pamphlet, no, but the contents are used in different things. They are presented to us in different ways. In Scientology you could hear them as a transcript, you could hear them as a separate issue. They take the information and pull it apart and use it for specific things. Q In this pamphlet I notice that you have had time to look through it and make some highlights. Did you notice anything that talked about the purpose of filing suits? A Yes. Q Can you just read what you have highlighted down here, what the purpose of suit is? A "The purpose of a suit is to harass and to discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass. And enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge, while knowing that he is not authorized will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." Q Did you find that to be a little different than -59- what you consider to be a legitimate suit, or a legitimate lawsuit? A Yes. Q Have you also had a chance to rely on some book by L. Ron Hubbard and the following of Scientology? A Yes. Q I am going to show you two volumes here, the Organization Executive Course. HCM Division I and VII by L. Ron Hubbard, do you recognize these? MR. TYSON: Short stack or big stack? MS. RIVELLINI: Actually both volumes. BY MS. RIVELLINI: Q These books, Mr. Oliver, do they set policies and procedures for the organization? A Yes, those two books are part of a larger volume of books that are used to run and administer the policies of the organization. Q Okay, this book, Rules and Regulations on how to carry out anything from being a member of the Sea Org. to, how to open up mail? A Yes, they -- Scientology is very bureaucratic in that there is a policy for just about everything. Q So not much is left to individual discretion? A No, not much is left to individual discretion. Q Mr. Tyson also asked you about the way an -60- investigation is carried out, and do a lot of agencies do that, and you said that you didn't necessarily know what the military and other companies do, is that correct? A Yes. Q But you do find that some of the investigations tactics going a little bit over the edge? A Yes. Q Okay, in fact, you were listed as a witness for Mr. Minton just several days ago, is that correct? A That is correct. Q And since that time have you learned that certain people have been contacted in your family and prior employment? A Yes, as soon my -- as soon as I was notified that my name had been put on the witness list, my ex-wife and my landlord were contacted by a private investigator. Q Any prior employers? A Not that I know of thus far, not since Wednesday. But I haven't talked to any prior employers yet. I am sure I will be hearing. If that did, in fact, happen I will be hearing about it when I get back home. Q Okay, do you recognize those tactics? A Absolutely. MS. RIVELLINI: Just a moment, Judge. BY MS. RIVELLINI: -61- Q Individual tactics are expressed by higher-ups? A What do you mean? Q Check lists? A Oh, yeah, all that is issued from senior management. Q Okay, and that is derived from the policies that are still in place? A Yes. Q And those can't be changed? A No. MR. TYSON: Judge, I have just one follow up question since this is a proffer, I would be allowed to go back and go outside the scope of the redirect a little bit, if you will allow me? THE COURT: No problem, go ahead. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TYSON: Q If you were filming me right now and I was putting a little laser pen-light right in your face while you are filming me, do you know what I am talking about? A Uh-huh, Q Do you know what a laser pen is? A Yes, sir. Q Would that be "Fair Game"? A No. -62- Q Even though you are the one that did it, right? A I don't see how it would be "Fair Game". I am not lying, cheating, suing, or tricking you. Q Neither is someone when they said that they had sex with your mother? A Yeah. THE COURT: Anything further? MS. RIVELLINI: No, Judge. THE COURT: We are going to take fifteen minutes. We are adjourned. (Brief break) THE COURT: Mr. Oliver has been tendered as an expert by this court, I have listened to his testimony and both sides in their examination of him. I think as we all know as to whether or not someone is to be qualified as an expert is in the sound discretion of the trial court. And really the question is whether or not he meets the appropriate criteria, would assist the trier of fact in any way, whether he has got specialized knowledge to support an opinion. Well, let's take this one at a time. First of all, we heard the testimony and that Mr. Oliver is clearly not detached. He is not impartial. He is not what we typically, of an expert, someone who comes in who has no axe to grind, had no -63- interest in the outcome of the case. He does not fall into that category. His training and expertise is not common, not readily understood, or ascertainable. Moreover, we have the unusual situation in this case, we don't have one video, we don't have two videos, we don't have three videos. We have four videos of the incident itself. The question is how much help can he give the trier of fact who is going to be able to watch four videos. So I find him not to be an expert. And do not allow him to testify in his opinions in that regard. Now, as far as I am concerned what I have heard is that his testimony could be and would be, he was a member of the Church of Scientology, he knows that there was a "Fair Game Policy". He will testify as to his personal knowledge as to how he knows, and not hearsay knowledge. What it is, and what penalties there may be for violation of it. Period, that's all. While I am on this area let me make it really clear here, because I think there is some confusion in this courtroom. The Church of Scientology is not on trial here today and will not be on trial here today. This is a battery. That is all it is going to be. Those things that relate to this are strictly relevant insofar as they may explain some of the actors behaviors, period. We are not going to digress onto what -64- the Church of Scientology does, what it doesn't do, what it believes, what it doesn't believe. I hope that I am clear on that, because I opened the door a crack and it sounds like we are trying to drive a platoon through it, and it's not going to happen. Okay. Who would you like me to hear next? MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, as previously mentioned Jesse Prince who is present here in the courtroom. He was present during the videotaping. The Court has already agreed with it coming in and that's the September 10th incident of the Boston. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: He is a former member of the church. He was the number two person in the church and his title was Deputy Inspector General and External, meaning all external press. He was responsible for the Religious Tech Center, which is the highest Ecclesiastical Organization within Scientology. He reported directly to David Miscavige who is the leader of Scientology at the present time. He has firsthand knowledge of capers that were organized by him and others and participated in them and would be able to testify that what went on in the Boston video was not an accident, but it was a well orchestrated caper as referred to in the world of Scientology. He was actually -65- present at the Boston incident. THE COURT: But the Boston video was submitted and argued that it should be admissible, and was ruled on as being admissible to show Mr. Minton's state of mind as to why he believed certain things would occur and were relative to his various defensive theories, which include, but are not limited to self-defense. So help me understand what you just told me is relevant, and if so how it is probative value is not offset by any prejudicial impacts it is going to have, because I am having a hard time seeing it. MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, as you mentioned there are going to be numerous videos shown in this particular case. The October 31st video shows Mr. Minton picketing and it shows two members of the Church of Scientology filming him. Also, there is the July 9th video tape, and also a video tape taken earlier that day at the church. Mr. Minton -- THE COURT: Hang on, stop just a minute. Do you mean earlier that day at the church? MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: No. THE COURT: At the Slaughter house? MR. TYSON: Judge, maybe I can help. If you think I am planning on playing that, I'm not, because there is nothing really unusual about that. -66- MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: I think the point I am trying to make here, Judge, it is clear in these video tapes that Mr. Minton is being agitated by the fact that the camera is being stuck in his face. It was no accident that on October 3 1st, the evening of there were two videographers present. One, to capture to what was going on and to document the event. The other one, to do nothing but to harass Mr. Minton by placing the video camera in his face. That is part of what we consider the "Fair Game Policy", what Mr. Prince would certainly testify to was going on at that particular time. What went on in Boston in the form of somebody getting up and intimidating him by screaming in his ear, and putting spittle on his face. THE COURT: But isn't that obvious from the video? One can watch the video and come to all those conclusions. MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: But, Judge, if it is an orchestrated event we believe we are entitled to show that that is the policy of the Office of Special Affairs of Scientology and this was a directed course of conduct which invited the conduct of Mr. Minton. That is a pivotal portion of our defense. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: We believe that -67- if we are not entitled to go into what the "Fair Game Policy" is, and how it works -- THE COURT: Well, I said that you could do that. I have said that you could do that. We are in that threshold. Now whether or not we need some analysis of the Boston video, other than to see it, that is the issue that I guess you are offering Jesse Prince for? MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Right, that this was no accident. THE COURT: Well, it doesn't really look like an accident when you view it. But you are thinking that you need somebody to tell people -- is that what I am understanding? MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Yes, your Honor, why this is an orchestrated event, and why it is the actions of the church to attack their critics and use the criminal justice system in an effort to silence their critics. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TYSON: Judge, may I be heard? THE COURT: Yes, sir, of course. MR. TYSON: Judge, you have heard my argument on that, the Boston video is two years ago. It is 1,500 miles away, different victim, a different set of circumstances. I think that it is irrelevant. In other -68- words when start talking bringing in -- number one, the video is narrated, which I have a huge problem with, but you have already watched it. They narrate their side of the story. Mr. Bunker who is in the courtroom narrates it and plays it back the clips that he wants. It hurts bad enough getting that in, much less having another person come in. You have got the play by play, and you have the person doing the analysis of the game, and that's what they want here. I think just have the videos put in, I respect the Court's ruling and will abide by that, but I think they want the whole thing here. I think it's getting to the point that there is going to be a side show just at that video and they are going to spring back around and put the religion on trial again THE COURT: I agree. The video itself I think speaks for itself. It is abundantly clear what it is and what it isn't. Any testimony in that regard is cumulative and not relevant and take the focus off of this incident and put the focus on that incident. I don't think it is appropriate. MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, may I be heard? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, I don't think it is going to out the focus on that incident. -69- It's going to help explain to the jury what was going on on October 31st. It is no accident that it happened in a similar way, and if it goes to showing to why the incident ended the way it did. And there are other things that will help explain that as well, but I think that it is very important that we be allowed to get into that area. THE COURT: I think what you want to do with Jesse Prince is cumulative, not relevant. It will take the focus off of this incident and make that Boston incident a feature of this trial, it should not be. That video is appropriate to explain the behavior, what was in Mr. Minton's mind on the day in question. And I think beyond that it goes farther than is necessary is go. What else do we need to do? MR. TYSON: Judge, as far as October 31st, the afternoon video. I hadn't planned on playing it, mainly because it is a picket like they always do. THE COURT: The afternoon video? MR. TYSON: Yes, the afternoon of October 31st Mr. Minton was in front of the Church of Scientology picketing. THE COURT: I don't think that I have seen that one. MR. TYSON: You haven't? -70- THE COURT: Everything I have seen was at night. MR. TYSON: They picket all the time. THE COURT: But it is on the day in question, is that correct? MR. TYSON: Yes, it is earlier in the day. I hadn't planned on playing that one. I'm not sure where we are going with that. THE COURT: Is there any intention of anybody using that video? It sounds like you are not going to use it. Do you all intend to use it? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, first of all it is not inflammatory, so I don't think it is the kind of one that you are going to see right away. THE COURT: It is also the day in question between the parties, so I think it is a relatively easy call. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's exactly right. So I don't want to be committed right now. Right now I don't plan on playing it, but I don't want to be committed. THE COURT: That's fine. Then let's not address it unless it becomes and issue and then we will address it then. What then do we need to do? -71- MR. TYSON: Before we pick a jury, determine as far as opening statements what we can use and can't use, Judge. THE COURT: We have kind of done that, I thought. But tell me what else we need to talk about. MR. TYSON: I'm not sure. We still haven't talked about whether the coming to Mr. Minton's house is relevant. The order says -- THE COURT: Again, I have reserved ruling on those things, and unless and until you want me to -- because I don't have enough specificity to know what is involved in those things. You have merely mentioned them in a very cursory fashion at the last hearing. MR. TYSON: My theory is that they are going to bring that up until you realize that it is not relevant. And it is quite frankly -- MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: This might shortcut this. I am not going bring in the fact that they went to Minton's house, opening statement is not going to into that. Anything else? MR. TYSON: That's it. THE COURT: Okay. It sounds like we are where we need to be. It sounds like we are ready to bring a panel and start the jury selection process. I am going to go off the bench. We are going to seat the -72- panel. I will go back on the bench and we will get started. We are adjourned until the panel is seated. (Brief break) (Whereupon, the jury panel was sworn and seated.) THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am Judge Robert Morris. I will presiding over the trial of this case today. As you have been told this is the State of Florida versus Robert Minton. This is a criminal trial, the charge is battery. Before we get underway I want to cover a few things with you. First of all, I want to welcome you all here. I recognize that many of you may have never sat on a jury before, you may have never been part of a judicial proceeding before. In fact, you may have never been in this building before. Consequently, I realize that these surroundings and these proceedings may be very unfamiliar to you and you might be nervous about that. Please don't be. Part of my responsibility as a judge is to make sure that you have the information you need to perform function, and I will try to make sure that I give you that information as we go along. I also understand that all of you gave up something to be here today. All of you would be at work, you would be attending to family matters or business -73- matters, or things that are very important to each and every one of you, and it was a sacrifice to be here. We recognize that. We appreciate that. We will try not to inconvenience you any more than is necessary. But it is important that you realize that it is Monday morning across all of America today and that in every jurisdiction in this nation people like you were summoned to the courthouses in the big cities and the small towns to sit in a courtroom to talk to a judge like me. And this is one of the unique things about our system of justice. We are unique in the world about the way we resolve disputes. You, like all of these other citizens, are going to be asked questions by the Court, by each of the sides, so that there can be an opinion developed on your ability to fair and impartial in a case like this. Because that is the way that we decide disputes in America. Juries of the peers, the parties are impaneled to listen to the evidence and make these determinations. We are unique in the world in this regard. So your involvement in this process is vital. If you didn't come here today, if people you all didn't come to the courthouses as they did today the judicial branch of government couldn't function, because it is an important ingredient in what we do. So we -74- appreciate you being here. Now, as we go forward I want to explain a couple things that are going to occur here. The lady in the middle of the courtroom here, speaking into what looks like a mask, she is the court reporter. She basically is responsible to make a record of these entire proceedings. She will take down everything that is said. When I am speaking now she i~ taking it down. When you speak she is taking it down. When the lawyers speak she is taking it down. It is important for us to be mindful of that when we have an opportunity to speak, we need to speak loudly, slowly, clearly so that she can understand what we say. Please be sensitive to that when you have an opportunity to speak. Speak so that she can hear you, so that she doesn't have to say, sir, ma'am, I can't hear you. Also understand that she can't take down shakes of the head or nods. She has to have an oral articulation of a response. Be sensitive to that. We humans communicate in a variety of different ways, and it's not always orally, but we need to communicate for that purpose. Because she will take down these entire proceedings we will do things from time to time, or say things that may appear obvious to you, but we will have to say them so the record will reflect who is in and out of the courtroom, for example, and what -75- is going on. I am going to do one of those things right now. One of the things that I have to do is confirm that both sides are ready to proceed to trial. So I am going to do that now. Counsel for the State, are you ready to proceed? MR. TYSON: That's correct, Judge. THE COURT: Counsel for the defense, are you ready to proceed? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We are ready, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Now, as you all know from viewing the material down in the central jury room, the purpose of the jury selection is for us to try to select six jurors who can fairly and impartially try the issues in this case. Understand that we need to ask you questions in order to that. No one is going to ask you questions to try to embarrass you, or pry into your personal lives, or put you on the spot in any way. But we have to ask you questions so that an opinion can be developed as to your ability to be fair and impartial relative to the people seated around you. Please understand, and you know this, life is a collection of experiences, how we view the world, how we make decisions, who we are is largely a product of -76- where we have been. Because of that no human is uniquely situated to be fair and impartial in every type of situation. There may be things in your background that would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial in certain situations. That is why we have to ask you questions. If you are not asked to sit on this jury no one has said anything bad about you. Your integrity has not been impugned in any way. Merely a decision has been made about you in a relatively short period of time, with a relatively small amount of information about your ability to be fair and impartial with the people seated around you. The fact of the matter is, we might even be wrong. But that is what our effort is, is to try to give both sides a fair trial here today. That's all both sides are asking for here today. We need to try to select a jury that can give them that opportunity. Now, what I am going to do, I want to go through is have you identify yourselves for us. We have questionnaires on you. We know who you are. We know some important things about you. It's important that we are able to put names with faces, and I do that for a lot of reasons. First of all, I'd like to try to identify the names and faces. Second of all, some of you have -77- difficult to pronounce names. So I view it as my job to mispronounce your name first to save the lawyers the embarrassment of having to do it. So bear with me as we sort of go forward and do this. What I am going to do is ask each of you to stand in place and briefly tell us your name. Tell us where you live in the county. We don't need to know your address, just generally what part of the county you live in. What you do for a living. If you are retired, what you used to do. What your significant other does, if that person is retired, what they used to do. If you have grown children, what they do. The reason that we want to do that is to try to understand the expertise in your immediate circle, and these are the things that you might draw on in your decision making process, and it is helpful for us to know that. I am going to go from my left to right, first row, second row, et cetera. So, Mr. Donald X, that makes you first, sir, and I appreciate you doing that for me. MR. FULLER: No problem. My name is Don X. I live in Clearwater near Countryside Mall. I work for the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration. My wife does accounting type work, -78- accounts payable, accounts receivable. No children. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mary x? MS. X: My name is Marianne X. I live in X and I have been in the real estate title business for a long time. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. X: Deborah X. I live in Clearwater. We have our own family business. My grown child works in the family business and goes to school. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X? MR. X: My name s James X. I live in Clearwater. I do quality assurance for a technology company. I have four children. THE COURT: Do I know you, sir? MR. X: I don't believe so. THE COURT: Ms. X? MS. X Yes, sir. THE COURT: Not even close? MS. X: Beautiful. Rose Marie X, X. Retired school teacher and educational service employee. My husband is deceased. Grown children. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. X: Katrina X. I work as a claim's administrator. I live here in Pinellas -79- County. My husband is a air conditioning technician, and I have three step-sons and one son. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X? MR. X: Scott X. I am a service technician for X First, a Division F Huffy Corporation. My wife is a marketing manager for AAA Auto Club South. I have three children, thirteen, ten and two. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. XMR. X: My name is Felix X. live in X and I a barber. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. X? MS. BALDWIN: My name is Paula X. live in Northeast (inaudible). My husband is retired. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X? MR. X: My name is Aaron X I work at a restaurant as a waiter. I live in PX. No kids, no wife. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. X? MS. X: June X. I am a CNA. I have three grown married children, one teenage son, and six grandchildren. MR. DENIS DEVLAMING: What city? MS. X: Clearwater. THE COURT: Ms. X? -80- MS. X: Stephanie , I live in Clearwater. I am not married. No children. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. X: My name is Tina X. I live in X. I am a server at X, and a hairdresser. I am a single parent, and I have a sixteen year old daughter. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. X: I am Melissa X. I work X Equity Group in the law department. I am a single parent with three children in a daycare situation. THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. Mr.X? MR. X: My name is Don X. I live in Clearwater. I work at X College. I am an advisor there. My wife also works at the college as a secretary. We have four children, all grown. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr.X? MR. X: My name is Michael X. I am a director of construction for a local construction company. I have a wife, and two adult children. My wife is a managing supervisor for an -81- insurance benefits organization. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X? MR. X: My name is Leroy X. I live in X. I work for Pinellas County. My wife also works for Pinellas County. We have four grown children. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X? MR. X: My name is Gerald X. live out in X. I am the owner of an air conditioning wholesale company. My wife is a housewife. My son works with me in the business. My daughter is a student. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X? MR. BAKER: George X. I work as an electrician. My wife is retired. We have three grown children. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. MR. DENIS DEVLAMING: City please? THE COURT: Where do you live, sir? MR. BAKER: X THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X, Ms. X, excuse me. MS. X: Sharon X. I live in Clearwater. I am a technical support person for a research company. (Inaudible.) No kids. -82- THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. GREEN: My name is Joyce X. I live in St. Pete. No kids. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. X: Hi, my name is Josefine X. I own and operate an auto repair shop with my son, and have two daughters, which are both married. live in X. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X? MS. X: Maria X. I am employee of X. Corporation. At this time my husband is unemployed. He is an entrepreneur. I have three Stepchildren, twenty-five, twenty-three, and nineteen. I reside in X. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X? MR. X: My name is Peter X. I reside in Largo. I retired from X aircraft. worked on a government contract for military engines. do volunteer work for X Police Department. I have two grown children. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Now that you have had an opportunity to introduce yourselves I am going to ask the parties to introduce themselves. I will start with counsel for the State, if you would. MR. TYSON: Thank you, Judge. My name is -83- Bill Tyson. I work for the State Attorney's Office. THE COURT: Counsel, for the Defendant please introduce yourselves and your client. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes, my name is Denis de Vlaming. This is Douglas de Viaming, my brother; and an associate in my law office, Kym Rivellini. We are here with the Defendant, Robert Minton, here to my left. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, at this time we would like to try to understand who might know each other in the courtroom. My first question to you as a group is, do any of you know each other? (No response) THE COURT: Are we all strangers back there? There should be twenty-four of you, and everybody is a total stranger? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. It's not bad that you all would know each other. We would just need to know that if you did. Okay. The next question is, do any of you know any of us? And sometimes we don't need to recognize each other. Yes, sir, Mr. X? MR. X: I served on a jury before you -84- about a year ago. THE COURT: Okay, you know me because you were a juror before, is that right? MR. X: Correct. THE COURT: Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. MS. X: I had a client here. You were filling in for Judge Ramsberger. I had a client here. THE COURT: So you know me again in a professional capacity? MS. BURKE: Yes. THE COURT: Any one else? (No response) THE COURT: Okay, so we are all strangers here, and that is perfectly fine. What I want to do is try to understand a little bit about you and I am going to ask some general questions of the group. I am going to ask you to raise your hands in you have information to give me in response to my questions. You will get the hang of this as we go along. Some of my questions might involve a lot of hands coming up, so bear with me. I will go through the first row, then the second row, then the third row, and I will start from my left or right. So if you initially raise your hand you might want to just put it down until I start getting close to you and then you raise it again. Okay, so you will get the hang -85- of this as we go along. What I want to try to understand first, how many of you have ever been on a jury before? Okay, a lot of hands. Mr. X, I know about you. So I am not going to ask you any questions about it. Ms. X, yes, ma'am. Was it a criminal or civil jury that you were on? MS. X: It was petty theft. THE COURT: Was it here in this jurisdiction? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: Was it in this courthouse? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: And how long ago would it be? MS. X: Quite a while ago. THE COURT: Anything about that you think might make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No, I don't think so. THE COURT: I just thought I would ask. wasn't there, and I don't know. And you all are going to have to bear with me a little bit because that is the question of the morning. And you are going to hear this over and over again. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial -86- here today? That's really what we need to know. So I will probably follow almost every question up that I ask with that question, and when I am through beating that to death the lawyers will probably do something similar. But that is what we need to know. Is there anybody else in the first row with hands that I need to identify? (No response) THE COURT: Nobody else has been on a jury in the first row. Second row? Yes, Ms. X, tell me, was it civil or criminal? MS. X: Criminal. THE COURT: Was it here? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: Was it recently? MS. X: A while ago. THE COURT: What kind of case was it, do you remember? MS. X: (Inaudible) THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am, that is Ms. X. -87- MS. X: Criminal, it was about two years ago. THE COURT: What kind of charge was it? MS. X: Criminal. THE COURT: And you don't remember the specific charge? MS. X: No. THE COURT: That's okay. That's fine. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Anybody else in the second row? Ma'am, I missed you in the first row. Ms. X, yes, tell me about your experience. MS. X: It was in New Jersey quite a while ago. THE COURT: Anything about your previous New Jersey experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. And that was a criminal case? MS. X: Civil. THE COURT: It was civil. Thank you. I appreciate that. I have found my first civil juror. Do -88- you understand that the burden of proof in a civil trial is different than it is in a criminal trial? In a civil trial the Plaintiff must prove their case a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial the State must prove their beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Do you understand that there is a difference there? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: Okay, because you have civil experience will you be able to set that civil experience aside and listen to the criminal instructions that you will hear at the end of this case? MS. X: I believe so. THE COURT: I think I got everybody in the first row. I am jumping back to the second row. And then, Mr. X, are you next? MR. X: Yes. I was in a criminal case in Escambia County. THE COURT: How long ago was that. MR. X: About twelve years ago probably. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: (Shaking head) -89- THE COURT: And you shook your head, you did what we all do a lot, but this lady can't take down shakes of the head. MR. X: No. THE COURT: Thank you, sir, I appreciate using you as an example here for all of us. Anybody else in the second row. Yes, sir, Mr. X? MR. X: Yes, it was a criminal case. It was a burglary. THE COURT: Here in this county? MR. X: Yes, it was. THE COURT: How long ago, sir? MR. X: About twenty years ago. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Third row. Anybody? Mr. X, yes, sir, tell me about your experience. MR. X: It was a homicide case. THE COURT: Was it in this county? MR. X: It in Clearwater about seventeen years ago. THE COURT: Seventeen years ago. Anything -90- about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr.X, did I see your hand? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Mr. X? I thought I saw another hand in that area. Mr. X? MR. X: I believe mine was civil. It was a condemnation case down in St. Pete. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: And you heard my discussion with Ms. X about the difference between a criminal burden of proof and a civil burden of proof, didn't you? MR. X: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Did you understand what I was trying to explain to her? MR. X: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the third row? Yes, sir, Mr. X? MR. X: Yes, about twenty/thirty -91- years ago in Connecticut, civil. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X No. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Next question is similar but not exactly the same. I asked you about your prior jury experience. My next question s, have any of you ever been involved in a judicial proceeding of any type, in any capacity, whether it is a witness, a party, whether it is a traffic matter, a military matter, a domestic matter, a civil matter, criminal matter? I just want to know those among you have had any exposure to this process at all in any way, shape or form. I am going to go through the same process, first row first. Ms. X, yes, ma'am? MS. X: I was involved in a case where I was defrauded of a considerable sum of money. THE COURT: So you were the victim? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: Was that a civil case or a criminal case? MS. X: I'm not sure that I understand the difference. THE COURT: A civil case is usually -92- an action between private individuals and the result that is sought is money. A criminal case that is brought by the State to enforce criminal laws of the given jurisdiction. MS. X: It was civil then. THE COURT: It was which one? MS. X: Civil. THE COURT: Civil, okay. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: Other than it was a horrible experience. THE COURT: Okay, but are you going to hold that against either the parties here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: I'm sorry that I have to ask these questions, but I do. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else in the first row have an experience we need to know about? (No response) THE COURT: Nobody else in the first row has ever been involved, even gotten a speeding ticket and went down to court to challenge it? Yes, ma'am, you are Ms. X? MS. X: It was a criminal case, I was the Plaintiff, and I don't wish to discuss the -93- details. THE COURT: That's fine. It was a criminal case, and you said that you were the Plaintiff, which maybe means that you were a victim? MS.X: Yes. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: I don't think so. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay, everybody in the first row I got. I'm sorry, Mr. X? MR. X: I don't know if this relates, but it was a very nasty divorce and there were a lot of accusations. THE COURT: That's kind of what we are talking about. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Thank you. And, Mr. X, that brought a memory or something? MR. X: Yeah, a long time ago I was called as a witness, it actually didn't go to court, but I had to go before the State Attorney and give a deposition on a case up in Illinois. -94- THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Okay, thank you, sir. Second row. I will start with Mr. X I think you are first. MR. X: I was pulled over and harassed by a cop. He gave me a paraphernalia charge. had to go to court, at that time it was thrown out. THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. STEWART: No. THE COURT: Okay. Ms. X? MS. X: Criminal case against a member of my family. THE COURT: Were you a witness in that criminal case? MS. X: (Shaking head) THE COURT: You were just aware of it, it was in your immediate family circle, so you had knowledge of it, right? MS. X: (Nodding head) THE COURT: Ma'am, you have got to speak -95- for this young lady. You are nodding, and we all do that, but I have to remind you. MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, Ms. X? MS. X: I had a speeding ticket that I took to court in Hillsborough County. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: So you think that you can put that aside, and it's not going to be a problem? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Sometimes these little matters have a tendency to incur our ire more than bigger matters, and that's why we ask about things like traffic matters. Anybody else on this side of the room? Yes, ma'am, Ms. X? MS. X: Just traffic court. THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair -96- and impartial here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, Ms. X? MS. X: A civil matter down in St. Pete, also a divorce. THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Okay, same question, you are okay with both of those things, they are not going to get in your way of your ability to just listen to the evidence and make the decision today? MS. X: I don't think so. THE COURT: Anybody else? Did I get everybody else? Mr. X? MR. X: Yes, it is a criminal case, and it is still ongoing. THE COURT: Are you a witness? MR. X: No, I am not a witness. It deals with a family member, and yes, it is bothering me. THE COURT: So it is a family member and you are not a witness, and you are not a party, but it's inside your immediate family circle, and you are -97- disturbed by it? MR. X: Yes, I am. THE COURT: Are you disturbed to the point where you could not give both sides a fair and impartial trial? MR. MCALLISTER: That's correct, I surely am. THE COURT: I appreciate knowing that. I'm sorry that you are going through that, but I appreciate you sharing that with us because we need to know these things. Last row, anybody have something that they need to tell me about? Yes, Mr. X? MR. X: I was in the military police in the service. There were several uncomfortable situations. THE COURT: So, these are previous experiences that you have had. I guess the question is, are any of these experiences going to make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial here today? MR. X: Some of these experiences bother me, and they tend to stay with me. THE COURT: So you are concerned about them, is that right? MR. X: Yes. -98- THE COURT: I don't mean to probe, and I'm not trying to do that, but I need to get the $64,000 question answered, and that is, whether these things are going to be impacting on your ability to sit here and listen to the evidence, and give both sides a fair trial this morning? MR. X: It's a possibility. THE COURT: I appreciate that. That's probably the best answer that you can give me, and I appreciate that. Anybody else in the back row that I need to -- yes, sir, Mr. X, tell me about experience? MR. X: Divorce and a motorcycle accident. A woman pulled out in front of me, and I had nowhere to go. I was injured and that went to court. A parking citation that my partner had issued and the person brought it to court and I was there as a witness. THE COURT: Okay. Anything about any of those experiences that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Did I get everyone? I didn't get everybody. MS. X: Right now I am involved in a lawsuit regarding a car accident. -99- THE COURT: Okay. Is that going to be a problem for you to be fair and impartial here today? MS. X: It could possibly be, yes, sir. THE COURT: And that is a civil matter, though, isn't it? MS. X: Well, right now it is in mediation -- it was in mediation. It is scheduled to go to trial. THE COURT: It is weighing on your mind though, and you are not sure that you can listen to the evidence and give both sides a fair trial, is that what I am hearing? MS. X: Quite possibly, yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay, did I get everybody? Next question. Anybody here have anybody with a close friend, or in their close family circle who make their living in the judicial system? I am going to expansively include in that police officers, sheriff's deputies, lawyers, court clerks, judges, things of that nature. Do you understand my question? I just need to go through this process and identify you all and these relationships. Mr. X? MR. X: I have an uncle who is a -100- sheriff up in Iowa. THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today? MR. X: No. THE COURT: The thing that we worry about in these situations, there is somebody in your close circle of friends, and you get asked to sit on this jury, when you are thinking about this case things start creeping into your mind and say, Boy, I better make the right decision because when I see so and so, my close friend, or my brother, or my father-in-law, who is a sheriff's deputy, judge, or the lawyer I don't want them to say boy, you did something stupid here. Do you understand my point? I don't want anybody sitting here and have somebody outside this courtroom who is going impact on this decision. We worry about relationships like this that could be so close, and so strong that you would feel that you would be searching your mind to make sure that you did what they thought you should do. We don't want that to occur. So that is why we ask these questions. All right. Anybody else in the first row? Yes, Ms. X? MS. X: I work with a lot of attorneys in my dealings with real estate title. I also -101- have several clients in the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department. THE COURT: Anything about those relationships that would be so strong that we should be concerned about what I just explained? MS. X: I don't think it would. I am honestly not sure. THE COURT: Okay, as we go along we are going to ask a lot of questions. And some of you may have answers like this from time to time. We certainly understand that. Sometimes you have got to search your mind a little bit. I understand that. When, Ms. X, in your case in particular and others of you in general, if you have a situation like this I only ask that you consider it while we are asking questions. And don't rely on us to come back to you. If you get to a point in this question and answer process where all of the sudden it becomes real clear in your mind, you have had a change to think about it, and you can now clearly take a position on it, would you just raise your hand and say, "You know, I have thought about that question that you asked me and this is really how it is." Okay? And for those of you that have these soul searching kind of responses please do that for us. There is a lot of you, and we would not want to inadvertently -102- not get back to you and give you a chance to really take a firm position. Okay? MS. x: Okay. THE COURT: Anybody else in the first row? Yes, ma'am, Ms. X? MS. X: I have a distant family member who is detective in Clearwater, and also a close friend who is police officer in Clearwater. THE COURT: Anything about those relationship that is going to be difficult in the areas that I have described? MS. X: I don't believe so. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am, Ms. X? MS. X: My father-in-law is a retired police officer and my sister-in-law is an active police officer, and I don't think that it will have any bearing. THE COURT: Any of them agencies in this county? MS. X: My father-in-law retired from the St. Petersburg Police Department several years ago. THE COURT: And you don't think it will have anything to do with your ability to be fair and -103- impartial, is that correct? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else in the first row? Did I get everyone? Second row, does anybody have something that they need to tell me? Yes, ma'am, Ms. X? MS. X: My brother is retired from the Sheriff's Department in Pasco County. THE COURT: Which county? MS. X: Pasco. THE COURT: Pasco. Anything about that will make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial? MS. X: (Shaking head) THE COURT: Thank you. Anybody else second row? Yes, sir, Mr. X? MR. X: I have a son who is employed by Escambia County Sheriff's Department. He is a corrections officer. THE COURT: Anything about that is going to make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Did I get everybody in the second row? Third row, please. Does anybody have any of these relationships that we need to discuss? I don't see any hands on this side of the room, -104- and I think the first hand that I see is Ms. X? Yes, ma'am? MS. X: I have a good friend who is a bailiff in Pinellas County in civil court. THE COURT: In civil court, okay. Anything about that relationship that is going to make it difficult to be fair and impartial? MS. X: I do not believe so. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X? MR. X: I have a cousin who is an attorney in Connecticut, and two nephews who are police officers in Connecticut. THE COURT: Any problems in this area? MR. X: No. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Did I get everybody? Okay. Other questions that I am now going to shift to are really designed to give you some information that you need to help you understand this process a little bit. What I would like to do, you will get the hang of this as we go along. It would be helpful -- or it is important that you give me an audible response as a group. And you will see how this works as we go forward. Okay. Okay, Do each of you understand that the defendant in every criminal case is presumed to be -105- innocent unless, and until the State proves each material allegation of the charge, and that guilt is established the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond every reasonable doubt? Do all of you understand that? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you understand that the Defendant's presumption of innocence stays with the Defendant throughout all stages of the trial until this burden has been met? Do you understand that? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you understand that if you are chosen as members of this jury you will be the sole judges of the weight, and sufficiency of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses? Do you understand that that is the juries functions? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: You are the sole judges of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses? Everybody understands that? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you understand that in determining the believability, and the credibility of the witnesses you may properly consider the demeanor of the witnesses, the frankness of the witness, the intelligence -106- of the witness, any interest that the witness may have in the outcome of the case, the means and opportunity of the witness to know the matters about which they are testifying, the ability of the witness to remember about which they are testifying, and the reasonableness of the testimony considered in light of all the other evidence in the case. Do you understand that these are some things that you should consider in performing your function? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you also understand that if you are chosen members of this jury you must disregard the consequences of any verdict that you may render? Do you understand that the consequences are not the province of the jury? That is what the Court does. Does everybody understand that? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you also understand that you must lay aside any personal of sympathy, bias, or prejudice and that those things play no role in an American court? Do you understand that? -107- (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: You lay aside all feelings and sympathy, bias, or prejudice, they play no role in this process. Everybody understands that? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you understand that at no time in the United States of America is a defendant in a criminal case required to prove his or her innocence, or to furnish any evidence whatsoever, and that this right is guaranteed to everyone under our constitution? Does everybody understand that? (Jury panel responded yes.) THE COURT: Do you promise that if you are chosen as members of this jury you will follow the instructions on the law that the Court gives you at the end of the trial, and that you will follow and apply this law, even if you don't like the law, even if you don't agree with the law? The Court tells you that that is the law applies to this case that you will follow it. Will anyone have any difficulty in doing that? (Jury panel responded no.) THE COURT: Everybody understand that law is not made in the judicial branch of government, it is made in the legislative branch of government. What we do here is interpret and apply the law, and if we tell you that is what the law is, you must use the law. Is anyone going to have a problem with that. (Jury panel responded no.) THE COURT: Let's cover now our schedules, -108- because there are some things that we need to understand here. Counsel, is it fair to tell this panel that this case will not be concluded today? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes. THE COURT: Everybody agrees with that. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes, Judge, and I think Mr. Tyson might agree it might be wise for the Court to inquire, it might even spill into Wednesday. THE COURT: That's what I thought. So we need to understand your schedules and the impact that this trial could have on it. You just heard that we expect that it is possible that this could be a three day trial. Is anybody going to have a problem with that? Let's identify those of you now, and let's go through them. I am going to have it discuss it with you, so bear with me with your hands. Mr. X, as always you are first, sir. Tell me what your problem is. MR. X: In my position at work I have three days a month in which a report has be generated for Tallahassee, and that starts tomorrow and it has to be completed by Thursday. THE COURT: And there is no one who could cover you and do that? MR. X: No. I am the only one who has the security to do that. THE COURT: No way that could be postponed? MR. X: No. THE COURT: It has absolutely got to be done tomorrow, and you are the only person that can do it? MR. X: It has to be finished by Thursday and I am the only one there who has -109- the security clearance to do that report. THE COURT: And you couldn't do it on Thursday? I don't mean to pressure you, but I have got to ask these questions. MR. X: Not in one day, no. If I was on the jury I would have to work at night to finish it. That would be a problem. THE COURT: Okay. Who was the next hand? Mr. X? MR. X: My wife and children were involved in an accident on Friday where they had to Bay flighted out and they are basically -- they got released and they are home now, but they are pretty much bedridden. THE COURT: So they need you to care for them? -110- MR. X: Pretty much. THE COURT: Who is there now? MR. X: One of my friends is there now until I get back. They had to take off work to get there. THE COURT: And that couldn't continue three days? MR. X: No, definitely not. THE COURT: All right. Did I skip anybody? I thought I saw a hand. Yes, Ms. X? MS. X: I am in the process of closing down a business and right now I am the only one there. It would be difficult, not impossible. But it would be difficult to be away three days. THE COURT: And you are closing a business? Is the business not open right now? MS. X: In my business you don't just stop. It takes months to close it down. And I am in the process of that. THE COURT: And three days would just be a real undue hardship, is that what I am understanding? MS. X: It would difficult, not impossible. THE COURT: I appreciate your candor. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the front row? -111- Ms.X, tell me what you are worried about? MS. X: My things are medical. THE COURT: So for medical reasons being here three days is a bad thing for you? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: Is it a serious thing? MS. X: I wont' know until the tests. THE COURT: I see, you have tests that you are waiting to hear about? MS. X: No, I am having the tests Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and the results of that depends on surgery scheduled on the 31st. THE COURT: I see, thank you. Who else? Ms. X? MS. X: I work for a small entrepreneurial company. I am the only one that does my specific job. And it would be a major hinder to business for me to be out for three days. One day they can work around. THE COURT: Three days is going to be a hardship in the people that you work for? MS. X: Yes, it's going to be a hardship on my company. THE COURT: Okay. Who else? Mr. X? -112- MR. X: Financial-wise I have three children to support. The job that I am in is paid piece work, that would be three days that I would be out of work without pay. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the first row? Second row? Ms. X? MS. X: I work for hospice and I do long-term care. People who I take care of are at the end stages and they would have a very difficult time to find anyone to replace me. THE COURT: Three days is too much? MS. X: It's difficult for them. They get very upset. They are in the end stages, and it is difficult for them if someone else has to come in. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Who else? Ms. X? MS. X: I am a single parent. I need to get my daughter to school and work. THE COURT: And you can't be covered at work? MS. X: Not my work, her work. THE COURT: So when do you pick her up and take her? MS. X: I take her to school in the morning, she goes to school in Largo. -113- THE COURT: What time is that though? What time of day are we talking about? MS. X: 7:00. THE COURT: So that doesn't sound like it would be a problem at that end. It must be the other end that is the problem. MS. X: I pick her up at 12:30and I take her to work, and then I pick her up at night after work. THE COURT: There is no one else that can do that? MS. X: I have no family here. THE COURT: How old is your daughter? MS. X: Sixteen. THE COURT: She does not drive herself? MS. X: No. THE COURT: Anybody else? Ms. X? MS. X: I am also a single parent. My children -- I don't know if it will have any bearing on the court, my children have to be picked up at 6:00 at night. I am the only one, I have no family here. Also, I have two herniated discs which makes sitting very difficult, I have a doctor's note that says that I cannot sit for any length of time over thirty minutes. -114- THE COURT: At any time that you want to stand, please do that, you are not going to upset anybody here. I don't want you be in any discomfort. I wish you had told me that right away. You have been sitting longer than thirty minutes. MS. X: Yeah, I know. THE COURT: You can stand right now if you want to. Thank you. And you can stay standing as long as you would like. Please don't feel the need to sit down if your comfort level is enhanced by that. Anybody else in the second row? Mr. X? MR. X: Yes, sir. It would impact on my responsibility as the director of construction for our company. One of my duties is, I am charged with the responsibility for out of town work. I have a number of projects that are out of town, and they are not receiving my attention as I sit here today. And then for the next two or three days would be an even greater burden. I don't have anybody that is able to take over my position at the moment. The only other people that would be available would the president and vice-president of the company, and each of those individuals have tasks that involve the operations in their side of the house. So based on that I feel that that is a burden on me right now. -115- THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Sheriff, we have a padded chair for Ms. X. We can pull that up next to Ms. X, and I know she would be more comfortable in it. So why don't we do that. MS. X: Thank you. THE COURT: Third row please. Those of you who have problems with being here for three days. Anybody in the third row please? No hands in the third row. Yes? MS. X: I would just like to get approval of my employer, I think it would be okay. THE COURT: So, you think it would okay, but you just need to clear it? MS. X: I think it would be okay, I just want to make sure. THE COURT: So you need to make a phone call. All right, did I get everybody? Thank you. You heard it will be three days. Sometimes we go into the evening, it's difficult to anticipate how late we would go. A trial like this I would try to break it around the 6:00 hour, but we like to break logically. As evidence is being presented sometime we might run beyond that. But I would try not to let it be egregiously beyond that. Is there anyone who would have difficulty with that who -116- has not already said they can't be here for the three days? And you are Ms. X? MS. X: Are you saying that the trial would go on after 6:00? THE COURT: It is possible that it might, but it's not my intention to let it go well beyond 6:00. Just once in a while it may be the wrong time to break because we are in the middle of something that should finish before we break. Okay. Is 6:00 a concern for you? MS. X: Yes, because I catch the bus out here. THE COURT: When is the last bus, do you know? MS. X: I think about 5:00 or 6:00. THE COURT: Does anybody know? Nobody knows. THE SHERIFF: We have the schedule downstairs. THE COURT: We will figure that out, ma'am. I appreciate you telling me that. Anybody else that we need to hear from on these issues? Ms. X brought a very good point. We brought you down here, we are going to ask you to sit here for three days. I sure hate to do that and torture somebody -117- unintentionally because they had some physical thing that if I had known about I could have accommodated. Is there anybody here who has anything like that makes it difficult to sit in these hard benches, you don't hear well, you don't see well? Do you have something about you that if I knew I could be sensitive to and make it easier for you to be here? Does anybody have anything like that? I asked that question once of a panel and we tried the case well into the night, about 9:00 at night two jurors let me know then that they were diabetic and because they hadn't eaten that this was a problem. I said, I asked you these questions, tell me these things. I don't want anybody to be in that situation. Yes, sir, Mr. X? MR. X: I am a diabetic. THE COURT: So you just need to eat in regular intervals? Is that right. MR. X: It is at the point now where they are controlling it with a special diet at home that I take and three prescriptions that I do take. I have to monitor my blood sugar three or four times a week. From what the doctor tells me it is kind of important that I eat about the same time everyday, not to vary too much from it. -118- THE COURT: Okay. I am glad to know these things. I appreciate you telling me. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am? Well, you have kind of told us, right? Unless you want to add to that, but you don't necessarily have to. You have explained to me that you have some health concerns. Is that right? MS. X: And I tried to express them prior to coming here. THE COURT: You raised these before in hopes that you wouldn't have to come, and then it didn't work out, is that right? MS. X: Yes. THE COURT: I appreciate it, ladies and gentlemen. I just ask counsel to approach the bench briefly. I don't need the court reporter at this time. (Whereupon, a bench conference was held out of the hearing of the jury panel that was not reported at this time.) THE COURT: What I want to do is read a list of potential witnesses. I don't know if some or all of these people are going to testify, but this is a list of people who could. I read this because if you know any of these people we need to know that. So, please listen carefully. -119- I am going to butcher these names too, so please forgive me. I will spell them when I am not sure. Officer Mark Beaudette, Clearwater Police. Officer Ron Heck, Clearwater Police. Officer James Moore, Clearwater Police. Officer Michael Stewart, Clearwater Police. Richard Howd. Stacy Brooks. Jessica Burns. Philip Dellar. Ken Kramer. Jesse Prince. Frank Oliver. John Lenz. Ray Emmons. Does anyone know any of these people? (Jury panel responded no.) THE COURT: What I would like to do is give you all a momentary opportunity to stretch your legs, go to the restroom, get a drink of water. But I am going to ask the Deputy Sheriff make sure that there is no one else out there so that you might accidentally bump into a witness, and have an improper conversation. Okay. If there are witnesses in the area I need them to go into the witness rooms so that members of the panel can do this very briefly. This is going to take about ten minutes. It will give you chance to stretch a little bit before we proceed to the next process. Are we all clear? All of the witnesses are in a room somewhere? Okay. The only people that are going to leave the courtroom are members of the panel. Everyone else is here who is not on this panel will remain here with us, so we don't have any intermingling of the panel with anybody else. Okay. Thank you. You are excused for about ten minutes. -120- Please stay close by because we will need you right back. (Jury panel was excused for a brief break) THE SHERIFF: The panel is out of hearing of the Court, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, Sheriff. Counsel, ordinarily what I would do is turn it over to the State to ask their questions and then Defense could do it. Is there any reason any of you would like to discuss cause challenges now though, and if not we will proceed to the next stage. MR. TYSON: If you would like we can do it now. If you want to use the time. THE COURT: Do you want to do them now? MR TYSON: We can do some of them if you like, Judge. It would seem to me that there are some clear, and we agree there is no sense in keeping them here, and belaboring the point. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's a good idea. Let's use the time. THE COURT: If the other side wants to go first, if you heard somebody? MR. TYSON: Judge, I wrote down what they said. I guess it's up to you to make a decision. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We might be in agreement, go ahead. -121- MR. TYSON: Number one, the first guy, a problem with his work, Mr. X. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: He has got a problem, does he? I say cause him. THE COURT: Everybody agrees, Mr. X is stricken for cause. What I will do, and again, let's talk about how we handle this, when they come back my intention is to announce that to them right now, and let them ago, unless you all would like me not to do that. MR. TYSON: No use wasting their time, Judge. THE COURT: That's what I am thinking. MR. TYSON: Judge, I believe Ms. X, I'm not sure how you pronounce her name, closing down her business. She is the only one there. It's extremely difficult, but not impossible. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Cause, good, I mean if we are in agreement about -- there is no sense in us arguing. MR. TYSON: Yeah. THE COURT: Agreed, if everybody agrees no point in beating it to death. She had two good reasons and that was one of them. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes. THE COURT: What else? -122- MR. TYSON: Judge, I believe the gentleman number four was saying that his wife and children were Bay-flighted Friday. THE COURT: Mr. de Vlaming, do you agree? MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I agree, cause. THE COURT: Number four is gone for cause. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, Judge. THE COURT: She has tried repeatedly to get out of it. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Well, not only that, I think she should get out. MR. TYSON: I agree. THE COURT: I agree. Everybody agrees, Ms. X is gone, number five. Who is next? MR. TYSON: Ms. X is saying that there is a hindrance to her business. It is a small company. I am not sure where we will go on that one. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you have a problem with excusing her? MR. TYSON: I am not sure we are going to get a panel, that's my problem. THE COURT: Does everybody agree, is she gone or not? MR. TYSON: Judge, can we hold off on that -123- one at this point in time? THE COURT: That's fine. Who is next? MR. TYSON: Mr. X says it is a financial burden. I'm not sure that rises to the level of cause. MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: It probably doesn't. We might hold a little bit on him. W