Deposition in the homicide of Lisa McPherson

                            Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
                              Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
                            Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

 3                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
                DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
            7   Representative of the ESTATE OF
                LISA McPHERSON,
 9             Plaintiff,
10   vs.                                     VOLUME 1
                and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
17   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                                    Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
                CONTENTS:           Testimony of Robert Vaughn Young.
                DATE:               June 17, 2002, morning session.
                PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
           21                       St. Petersburg, Florida.
22   BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
                                    Circuit Judge.
                REPORTED BY:        Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR,
           24                       Deputy Official Court Reporter,
                                    Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
                DANDAR & DANDAR
            3   5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
                Tampa, FL 33602
            4   Attorneys for Plaintiff.
                LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
            6   112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
                Tampa, FL 33602-4108
            7   Attorney for Plaintiff
 8   MR. LEE FUGATE and
                MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
            9   ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
                101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
           10   Tampa, FL 33602-5147
                Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
           11   Organization.
           13   740 Broadway at Astor Place
                New York, NY 10003-9518
           14   Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
 2                                                  PAGE   LINE
 3   ROBERT VAUGHN YOUNG                             21     10
                DIRECT              Mr. Dandar                  21     13
            4   Recess                                          42     23
                Recess                                          73      9
            5   Recess                                         114     21
                Reporter's Certificate                         115      1
 1              (The proceedings resumed at 9:07 a.m.)
 2             THE COURT:  Apparently they just turned the air
 3        conditioning on so if you all think it's rather
 4        stuffy, it is.
 5             Okay.  Let's review where we are.  I told Sue
 6        to check this out for me this morning.
 7             I guess this noise will just be a continuous
 8        problem from now on.  We're going to work this week
 9        Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.  Thursday and Friday,
10        no.  I'm leaving Thursday afternoon, and I've
11        decided I need to get my office, since I'm going to
12        be gone for a couple of weeks, in order.  So I'm
13        going to take all of Thursday.
14             Unless we should be within one hour of
15        finishing the whole hearing, in which case I'll
16        finish.  But assuming we're not, we're not working
17        Thursday and Friday.
18             Then the following week and the following week,
19        you all are free to do whatever you need to do.  I
20        presume you're going to be taking depositions and
21        whatever.  But or whatever -- I'm not going to be
22        here.  One of those weeks I'm going to be in Naples,
23        the balance of the first week, and then I'm taking
24        vacation the second week, okay?  So I'm out.
25             Now, I'm going to assume that I have senior
 1        judge coverage for the following week.  If I don't,
 2        I'm going to ask for it.  I should, because I should
 3        be in trial.  So I should have it, but things change
 4        whenever you're not in trial.  So I'm going to
 5        assume that we're going to come back and go Monday
 6        through Friday of that week, unless I find out from
 7        Sue that I've got some hearing set.
 8             MR. FUGATE:  Is that July 8th?
 9             THE COURT:  I don't know.  I know it's not the
10        week of July 4th 'cause that week I'm off.
11             So I'm going to assume that we're going to be
12        going all that week, and I'm going to hope that
13        we're going to finish that week.  So that's as far
14        as I want to go right now.
15             Obviously, my plans are to go until we finish.
16        So if we're not finished, we'll just keep going.
17             So with that, let's hope with eight more days,
18        that that's enough to finish this off.  We ought to
19        hope that's more than enough.
20             I have decided that the closing arguments are
21        going to be essential.  I mean, in other words,
22        there's no way in the world that I can remember
23        everything that's been said.  Even though I have the
24        transcripts and I appreciate it, and I'll certainly
25        go from your briefs or your closings to those
 1        transcripts to look.  I just need you all to pull it
 2        together from your perspective sides so that I don't
 3        have to think like both sides and then decide what
 4        I'm going to do.  So I can tell already that this is
 5        not something that I'm going to be able to just rule
 6        on when you're done.  I mean, it's going to require
 7        some thought and attention, and so I need you all to
 8        write a closing.
 9             This is your burden, yours meaning the church,
10        so this'll be one of those where you will go first.
11             You ought to be working on this.  In other
12        words, I don't know -- I mean, granted, you don't
13        have it all, but you've put your case on, so you
14        know what it looks like from your perspective and
15        what you think you've proven, you know.
16             So you know, we -- I need to rule on this as
17        quickly as possible if I'm going to ask you all for
18        closings in writing.  I'm not going to rule until I
19        get them, but I don't want to delay this thing where
20        I might normally, where I have no time limits.  So
21        what I'm going to suggest is that when this is up,
22        maybe you can give me something within 10 days, and
23        that you all can give me something then within five
24        days.  And if you want to respond, I'm going to give
25        you like three days.  In other words, we're just
 1        going to have to make some escalated --
 2             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Are those real days or working
 3        days?
 4             THE COURT:  I don't know.  We'll look at a
 5        calendar when I see when we're done.  But for now,
 6        just kind of get it in your mind that you all ought
 7        not to wait; you ought to be working on this.
 8             You had said to me, Mr. Dandar, that you had
 9        planned to respond to their -- I presume -- their --
10        not their little short motion, 'cause I think you
11        did respond to that, but the long -- the memo with
12        the amendments.  I thought you said one time that
13        you were working night and day trying to get a
14        response in.
15             MR. DANDAR:  I'm still working night and day.
16        I'm on 30 pages now.
17             THE COURT:  Well, what is it?  I mean, what's
18        this responding to?
19             MR. DANDAR:  It's a response to the omnibus
20        motion for termination --
21             THE COURT:  Okay.
22             MR. DANDAR:  -- sanctions and motion to
23        disqualify.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.  And you filed a short paper,
25        already, right?
 1             MR. DANDAR:  Did I?
 2             MR. LIROT:  Yes.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  I did.
 4             THE COURT:  So that's why I said they had a
 5        short presentation.  And I presume your short one is
 6        in response sort of to that.  And then they had the
 7        long one, and I'm assuming you --
 8             But I mean, you need to get that done.
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
10             THE COURT:  And you also have got to get done
11        their response to their summary judgment.
12             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
13             THE COURT:  That all goes hand in hand.  So
14        you're going to have to file your affidavits or --
15             You ought to really have that done --
16             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  I will.
17             THE COURT:  -- okay?
18             MR. WEINBERG:  So you don't contemplate any
19        oral argument as far as the closing --
20             THE COURT:  I really don't.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
22             THE COURT:  Because I can pretty well know
23        where you all are going.  I mean, I can tell from
24        the presentations.  I think it's really a matter of
25        proof.  What do you think you've proved?  Show me
 1        how you think you've proved it.  From the other
 2        perspective, what you don't think they've proved.
 3        And then, you know, you've given me some law, but
 4        now put it in --
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Mix it together, so when the
 6        evidence is over, it's over, and then we're going to
 7        submit our final argument.
 8             THE COURT:  Yes.  So I don't expect an oral
 9        presentation.
10             Even on the -- even on the idea as to whether
11        or not I should consider the opinions or whatever we
12        want to call them of the ex-Scientologists regarding
13        their -- their interpretation of the bulletins and
14        this type of thing, that ought to be addressed.  In
15        other words, it ought to be addressed -- it can be
16        addressed briefly, that if -- if I don't consider
17        them, well, then X.  If I do, then you better have
18        that in your proof.  'Cause I don't know -- I mean,
19        I've got to decide that too.
20             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Let me ask a logistical
21        question as to how you prefer -- for example, on
22        this question of admissibility and rule 404 and rule
23        406, we've given you a memo to that.  Do you want me
24        to merely refer to that or incorporate all the
25        arguments in --
 1             THE COURT:  I would just refer to it.
 2             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Okay.
 3             THE COURT:  In other words, you've given me a
 4        memo on -- on why you don't think -- I think you've
 5        laid it out in several points --
 6             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
 7             THE COURT:  -- why you don't think --
 8             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
 9             THE COURT:  -- it's admissible at all.  I think
10        if I were you, however, if I were making a closing
11        argument, I would state "Without it, this is what
12        you have."
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
14             THE COURT:  "And with it, this is what you
15        have."  Because I have to make some decision on it.
16             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Exactly.
17             THE COURT:  Because I'm not sure -- and
18        obviously, I'm not sure here -- there may be a
19        difference, for example, in a -- in a decision and
20        on what I would hear here on a claim of fraud on the
21        court, false pleadings, what a lawyer, for example,
22        knew or --
23             In other words, a lawyer is entitled to rely on
24        a consultant --
25             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
 1             THE COURT:  -- even if the consultant is giving
 2        him his or her opinions on things, whether or not
 3        they're admissible, in my mind.  In other words, I
 4        don't have to sit, when I'm hearing from an
 5        investigator or consultant, and say, "Gee, I'm not
 6        sure if that's admissible under the First
 7        Amendment."  So there may be a difference in the
 8        decisions as to what I will consider relevant to
 9        this hearing versus what I might allow at a trial,
10        for example.
11             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes, I understand.
12             THE COURT:  So if I were you, on this hearing,
13        I will make an argument with it and without it.
14             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.  I understand.
15             THE COURT:  And then I think that if you all --
16             Oh, this is terrible.  This is awful.
17             If you don't prevail on your motion, that I
18        would think that you would at some point in time
19        want to reargue that, as to how much if any of that
20        is admissible before a jury.
21             That's what is awkward.  It's awkward maybe on
22        your summary judgment.
23             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.  I think --
24             I'm sorry.
25             I think under summary judgment, you can only
 1        consider admissible evidence.
 2             THE COURT:  Right.  So you might -- you might
 3        want to argue on the summary judgment versus on the
 4        motion itself.  And maybe -- there may be a
 5        difference.  I don't know.  But in my mind, I would
 6        think that, as a lawyer, I would be entitled to rely
 7        on certain things without having to worry about
 8        admissibility when I decided to file a complaint.
 9        So you might want to discuss it both ways.
10             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.  And I'll discuss that
11        issue too.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  While I think you're entitled
14        to rely on something more, I think you still have to
15        have, as we -- you know, argued to you, you have to
16        have some concrete evidence.
17             THE COURT:  Well, you -- you -- make your
18        argument.
19             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
20             THE COURT:  As far as your First Amendment, as
21        such, you know, if you don't prevail on that in this
22        hearing, it doesn't mean you might not necessarily
23        prevail on the summary judgment or trial or
24        something like that.
25             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I understand.
 1             THE COURT:  I don't think you will either, but
 2        I can see some distinctions rolling around this --
 3        this addled brain of mine.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  But the break will give us an
 5        opportunity to really work on this, try to start
 6        pulling together this closing argument, I think.
 7        And there is obviously a lot that's gone on in
 8        this --
 9             THE COURT:  I don't know what you all want to
10        use it for.  Right now I've got a trial date set.
11        Somebody said they needed to take 10 depositions.  I
12        would assume that two weeks would be a good time to
13        take some depositions.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  Those will take a little
15        while to schedule because they're all out-of-staters
16        and they're experts.
17             THE COURT:  Well, you know, I would assume that
18        if I needed to take them, I'd be giving you all some
19        dates or asking you for some dates now, so --
20             But I mean, I'm not saying that you should take
21        two weeks and work on this written closing argument.
22        I'm saying you need to -- both sides need to presume
23        this case is set for trial until I say otherwise.
24        It's going.  So you ought to get prepared for it.
25        Whatever it is you need to do to make that
 1        preparation, that's what you ought to do, okay?
 2             All right.  You may call your next witness.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  I had one thing that I wanted to
 4        put in.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  I already talked to Mr. Lirot
 7        about this.
 8             Plaintiff's Exhibit 79 was one of these
 9        Google -- one of these Internet e-mail things with a
10        bunch of affidavits attached.  It didn't have the
11        executed affidavits but had the -- you know, had
12        the -- from the Internet affidavit and the affidavit
13        from a woman named Vicki Aznaran.  And we had the
14        executed affidavit, so we wanted to put in the
15        actual affidavits to complement Plaintiff's Exhibit
16        79, which had -- I don't know whether they were
17        accurate or not -- but had on the Internet the three
18        affidavits.
19             So that's what --
20             THE COURT:  Any objection?
21             MR. DANDAR:  Well, I'd like to compare the
22        two --
23             THE COURT:  Sure.
24             MR. DANDAR:  -- three affidavits before I would
25        say yes or no, but I'm going to assume that they're
 1        the same affidavits.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Yeah.  They are.
 3             THE COURT:  All right.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  That's fine.
 5             THE COURT:  Then I'm going to let them in.  You
 6        take your copies and you make your comparison at
 7        night or whenever you want to do that.  And if you
 8        have a problem, you raise it with me, okay?
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Thank you.
10             THE COURT:  Just like Ms. Brooks.  I mean, I
11        think that those things went in.  It was assumed
12        they were the same.  She wanted to see them.  So
13        they went in.  Presumably she's looked at them, and
14        they must be the same because they haven't asked to
15        remove them.
16             MR. DANDAR:  I gave her the signed, notarized
17        copies --
18             THE COURT:  Right.
19             MR. DANDAR:  -- which I haven't substituted
20        yet, and I need to do that this week.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  So this will be Defense Exhibit
23        200-A, B and C, which are three affidavits -- three
24        declarations of Vicki Aznaran, all executed on the
25        same date, May 19th, 1994.  And they are the three
 1        affidavits that are referred to in the plaintiff's
 2        exhibit, which is the Bob Minton posting.
 3             THE COURT:  And what number was that?
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay, the -- the plaintiff's
 5        exhibit was 79.
 6             And here is a copy for your review, your Honor.
 7             THE COURT:  Thank you.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  I think they ought to file with
 9        the court the settlement agreement that resulted in
10        these three affidavits.
11             THE COURT:  Well, do you have it?
12             MR. DANDAR:  No.  It's confidential.  But she
13        completely changed her testimony from her prior
14        declaration after she settled with the Church of
15        Scientology.
16             THE COURT:  Well, if it's something you want --
17        you know -- I mean, I can't demand that they file
18        things, you know.  So if you want it, make a request
19        for it.
20             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  See what they have to say.
22             So what did you tell me -- Number 79?
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 79
24        was the exhibit, was a Bob Minton posting --
25             THE COURT:  And it had all three of those in
 1        it?
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  It had all three of those in it,
 3        among other things.
 4             THE COURT:  Okay.  Mr. Dandar, you may call
 5        your next witness.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Plaintiff calls Robert Vaughn
 7        Young.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  While Mr. Young is making his
 9        way, for the record, we have the same objection that
10        we had with -- I assume it's a standing objection.
11        I just want the record --
12             THE COURT:  Just a second.
13                     (The witness was sworn.)
14             MR. WEINBERG:  We have the same objection to
15        Mr. Young's testimony as we did to Mr. Franks'
16        testimony, as more specifically referred to in the
17        memo that we filed on 404 and 406.  And in addition,
18        in this case, Mr. Young has already given trial
19        testimony.  And we -- we have fully explored the
20        areas that he said he had any expertise in, none of
21        which we believe had anything to do with this
22        hearing.
23             So those are our objections.
24             I'll try to -- if I have a standing objection,
25        I will not -- I'll try not to reassert that and try
 1        to just limit my objections to things like hearsay
 2        and stuff --
 3             THE COURT:  What are the objections that you
 4        have a standing on?  You said sections 40 --
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  404, which is pattern and
 6        practice --
 7             THE COURT:  Right.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  -- 406, which is similar --
 9        which is -- which is routine.  And generally -- you
10        know, generally as to relevance in this case.
11        Because Mr. Young left -- you'll find out, left the
12        church in 1989, and has no personal knowledge --
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  -- as to any of this
15        information.
16             THE COURT:  As to the trial testimony that has
17        already been taken, you don't need to go over all of
18        it.  Just what's -- would be relevant to this
19        hearing.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  And of course, the First
21        Amendment argument.
22             THE COURT:  Right.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  We would argue that.
24             THE COURT:  So your objections would be
25        preserved, and you need only really object to the --
 1        anything additional.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
 3             THE COURT:  I'm going to -- I'm going to have
 4        to go out and see if the chief judge is here,
 5        because we can't have court like that.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  We can't hear anything back
 7        here.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  It's hard to hear.
 9             Is the microphone on?
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Even if it's on, it's really
11        hard back here to hear it.
12             THE COURT:  I'm going to take a minute here to
13        see if we're going to have this all day, and what
14        the deal is.
15              (There was a pause in the proceedings;
16        Judge Schaeffer left the courtroom and returned.)
17             THE COURT:  The chief says they had said they
18        would not do jackhammers during the day.  He sees
19        that they're not paying any attention to him.  He
20        has just called to get Carl Baron on the phone.  So
21        we'll see who -- we'll see what happens.
22             But he agrees that that really is very
23        difficult to work with that, and he thought he had
24        an understanding with the county that they would not
25        use the jackhammers.
 1             You could not do a trial.  I mean, I would not
 2        want to do a trial with that.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  I'm sitting here --
 4             THE COURT:  Well, I know.  Just like when you
 5        think you're going to express something and it
 6        starts, you're going to lose your train.
 7             So we'll try to work through it and see what
 8        happens.
 9             _______________________________________
10                       ROBERT VAUGHN YOUNG,
11   the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined
12   and testified as follows:
13                        DIRECT EXAMINATION
15        Q    Please state your full name.
16        A    Robert Vaughn Young.
17        Q    And spell your last name.
18        A    Y-o-u-n-g.
19        Q    What is your date of birth?
20        A    April 21st, 1938.
21        Q    Can you give the court a brief background of your
22   formal education and work history before joining with the
23   Church of Scientology?
24        A    I was -- my early education was in southern
25   California.  I went to Long Beach State College, Orange
 1   Coast College, and then in 1961 went to what was then called
 2   San Francisco State College, in 1961, and received my
 3   bachelor of arts from them, I believe in 1963.
 4             Prior to that, I was in the United States Marine
 5   Corps, from 1956 to 1959, and served with the Third Marine
 6   Division overseas.
 7             After San Francisco State and the BA, I worked for
 8   a year with the California Democratic Central Committee,
 9   working professional -- professional and political
10   campaigns.  And after that, then I went back and started my
11   graduate studies.
12             And in 1967 -- I'm sorry.  Earlier than that,
13   something like '65, I went to the University of California
14   Davis where I was teaching philosophy, introduction to
15   philosophy, and working on my PhD.  And I dropped out of the
16   PhD program in 1969 when I entered Scientology.
17        Q    Okay.  And could you give the court a brief
18   background --
19             THE COURT:  Did you ever get a master's or did
20        you bypass the master's and work strictly for the
21        PhD?
22             THE WITNESS:  It was one of those
23        bypass-the-master's and work straight on to PhD.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.  So you have some of your
25        course work, but you don't have your PhD, is that --
 1             THE WITNESS:  I was about a year and a half
 2        away from --
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 4             THE WITNESS:  I was two years at University of
 5        California Davis.
 6             THE COURT:  And I'm sorry.  Your BS -- or BA
 7        was what?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Philosophy.
 9             THE COURT:  Thank you.
10             THE WITNESS:  And my PhD was being done in
11        philosophy but with an emphasis in certain fields:
12        Philosophy of behavior, philosophy of mind.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.
15        Q    And give the court a brief background of your
16   Scientology experience.
17        A    I began studying Scientology in 1968 with some
18   books when I was introduced to it by a gentleman who passed
19   through Davis.  And he came to Davis in the summer of 1969
20   to start what was then called a franchise, which was a unit
21   that could offer --
22             THE WITNESS:  That noise really is bad.
23             THE COURT:  It really is.
24             Do you want to wait or do you want to just see
25        if they're going to turn it off or what?
 1             MR. DANDAR:  I know a couple of bailiffs who
 2        could get them to turn it off real quick.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Or if we could get his
 4        microphone on or --
 5             THE WITNESS:  Oh, that's much better.  Makes a
 6        difference if you turn it on.
 7             THE COURT:  It does.  It does indeed.
 8             Where is my bailiff?
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  He was here right before you
10        walked in, so --
11             THE COURT:  Okay.
12        A    I was up to 1969.
14        Q    All right.  What did you do --
15             You said a franchise of the Church of Scientology?
16        A    They were called franchises then, which was a -- a
17   unit section that somebody could set up to offer
18   introductory courses.  And I went on staff there after my
19   initial training, and was at staff at the Davis franchise
20   from 1969 until '71.
21             THE COURT:  Excuse me, Mr. Young.  Pardon me
22        for interrupting.  It's awfully early in the day for
23        me to interrupt.
24             But you said you began study in 1968.  Does
25        that mean you joined in 1968 or just began studying
 1        the religion [sic] and joined later?
 2             THE WITNESS:  I would have considered myself a
 3        Scientologist from the time I started working with
 4        the books and started --
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.  Go ahead.
 7        Q    All right.  And then after 1971, from Davis
 8   franchise, what did you do?
 9        A    Well, because of the work that I was doing in
10   Davis, I started to do some public relations work as well as
11   some other staff positions there, meeting the media.  I was
12   also running a program in Vacaville Prison, which is a
13   medical facility that's just west of Sacramento -- happens
14   to be the one where Charlie Manson was kept for a long
15   time -- that I would go in every -- you know, every week and
16   hold a class in Scientology.
17             Because of this -- this work, I was recognized,
18   what I was doing, and I was asked to join Department 20 [GO/OSA] at
19   the San Francisco organization in 1971.  And so I joined
20   Department 20 in 1971, and worked at public relations there,
21   which handled public relations media/government for all of
22   northern California, and did that until 1973.
23             In 1973, I was promoted to the national offices in
24   Los Angeles, and worked there in Department 20, in the
25   public relations bureau.  And during that time, I served as
 1   everything from the national spokesman, being quoted in the
 2   New York Times; I was a speaker at national fund-raising
 3   events; I testified before a senate subcommittee in 1975 as
 4   a representative of the Scientology organization; I was on
 5   national TV.  And I -- I worked on that up through 1982, at
 6   which point then I was promoted again and moved into a
 7   different unit.
 8        Q    In 1975, did you obtain letters of recognition as
 9   a tax exempt or --
10             Well, tell us what happened --
11             In 1975, you received the letters from the State
12   Department, the Air Force and the Department of Labor.  What
13   did that involve?
14        A    I was directly responsible in a good part of -- I
15   had meetings with representatives of the U.S. State
16   Department, U.S. Air Force and the Department of Labor with
17   regard to their recognition, according to their regulations
18   in those agencies, if you want to call the Air Force an
19   agency; recognition of Scientology as a religion.  And when
20   they gave the recognition, the letters were addressed to the
21   "Church of Scientology" -- were addressed to me.
22             I just failed -- I have -- I have a copy of one or
23   two of them that I just failed to bring with me, still.
24             But those were -- those were addressed to me to
25   just simply show that I was directly involved in some of the
 1   highest echelons at the time.
 2        Q    Now, what happened after 1975 in your history?
 3        A    Well, in 1977, three Scientology offices, one in
 4   Washington, D.C. and two in Los Angeles, were the target of
 5   what was then the largest raid in the history of the FBI,
 6   and they were targeting the very program that I was working
 7   on at the time, but they were hitting the intelligence
 8   bureaus.  And that was in -- I believe in July, '77.
 9             And I became the national spokesman on that day.
10   I held a press conference in Los Angeles, and I was the
11   national spokesman for the churches [sic] in the United States for
12   months.  So if the media had questions about the raid and
13   the indictments that came down -- L. Ron Hubbard's wife,
14   Mary Sue, and 10 others, executives all the way down to
15   low-level operatives, were indicted, and documents were
16   coming out.  So I was the person that the media would call
17   up for the interpretation on this.
18             After -- after the raid, we were pretty much
19   decimated as to our functions, and so it was a struggle
20   for -- for a number of years after that, to just sort of
21   keep things together.
22        Q    What was the name of Department 20 at that time?
23        A    At that time, it was the called the Guardian's
24   Office.  And then in 1981, we renamed it the Office of
25   Special Affairs.
 1        Q    Was there any difference in function between
 2   Department 20, known as the Guardian's Office, and
 3   Department 20, known as the Office of Special Affairs?
 4        A    No.  I was there for the change-over.  The
 5   policies remained the same, the directives remained the
 6   same.  People who were indicted were asked to step down and
 7   leave, but that was something like four years after the
 8   raid.
 9             THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  What was the year when
10        the office was changed or the name was changed?
11             THE WITNESS:  In 1981 was when we were doing
12        the change-over.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
14             Boy, it's peaceful when it's not going, isn't
15        it?
16             MR. FUGATE:  Only when there are no questions.
17             THE COURT:  Yeah.
18        A    Should I continue?
20        Q    Just a minute.
21             Let me show you what I have marked as Plaintiff's
22   Exhibit 98.  Do you recognize this?
23        A    This appears to be a portion of a policy letter
24   establishing the Department of Special Affairs and
25   Department 20.  This is prior to it being called the
 1   Guardian's Office.  It went through basically three phases.
 2   The Guardian's Office was actually created in 1966.  And so
 3   this is -- this is what the area was being called prior to
 4   that.  So it went through different name changes.
 5        Q    Well, when it was called The Guardian's Office,
 6   and then when it -- the name was changed to the Office of
 7   Special Affairs, as this document says, "The Department of
 8   Special Affairs not only helps the org by protecting it; it
 9   also creates and maintains excellent public relations with
10   the community and media; it carries out public relations
11   programs and actions that create an acceptance and goodwill
12   for the org and Scientology as a whole."  Was that the
13   function of the Guardian's Office and then later the Office
14   of Special Affairs?
15        A    One of the functions.  It expanded quite a bit
16   beyond that, because other bureaus came about in 1966:  The
17   finance bureau, the intelligence bureau and the legal bureau
18   and the public relations bureau were the first four.  And
19   they had wide-ranging powers given in 1966, as to what could
20   be done as far as the handling of money, the handling of
21   organizations.  So this -- this was the start of it.  But it
22   expanded quite a bit in 1966.
23             And I'm sorry, I don't -- I don't remember the
24   date of this particular policy.
25        Q    The bottom of this exhibit says that, "The final
 1   product is handled situations which result in the total
 2   acceptance of Scientology and its founder throughout the
 3   area."  Was that also the final product of the Guardian's
 4   Office and later The Office of Special Affairs?
 5        A    Well, it also got developed, but you could say
 6   that that would be pretty much the nexus -- I mean, the crux
 7   of it, following through on it.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Like to move Exhibit 98 into
 9        evidence.
10             THE COURT:  Any objection?
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  Because I don't know what
12        it is.  I mean, even Mr. Young says he doesn't --
13        he's not quite sure what it was.  He thinks it
14        predates 1966.  But they don't have any heading on
15        this.  I don't know where it came from.  It's not
16        that there's anything controversial about it; it's
17        just that I don't know what it is.  I don't think
18        it's been authenticated.
19             THE COURT:  I have a little bit of a problem
20        with that too.
21             Are you -- do you know whether or not this is
22        part of a bulletin or part of -- or are you just
23        guessing that it looks like it?
24             THE WITNESS:  No.  I -- I can recognize it,
25        ma'am.  Because this material was always kept in
 1        packs of materials that we had to study and restudy.
 2        And you get to certain -- like recognizing music or
 3        portions of a book, you get to recognize, "Oh, yes.
 4        That's it."  But I -- I can't attest to the year
 5        because I don't know the specific year, but I'm sure
 6        that --
 7             THE COURT:  But it predated the Guardian --
 8        when it was called the Guardian's Office.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  This predates 1966.
10             THE COURT:  I'm going to let it in as -- as --
11        for whatever it is; basically just -- I think it's
12        being let in for the purpose that the Guardian's
13        Office, Office of Special Affairs, whatever it
14        was -- department -- has gone through some name
15        changes.  And as far as -- I guess this only deals
16        with public relations, that part of it that it
17        apparently has -- sort of been consistently in this
18        department.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  That's why I'm saying -- I'm not
20        kicking and screaming; it's just --
21             THE COURT:  Right.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  -- I don't know what it -- I
23        don't know where it came from.
25        Q    That document, that one page, that was -- when you
 1   were in the Office of Special Affairs -- that document was
 2   still part of the pack that people in the office had to
 3   study and know, correct?
 4        A    This document that you just gave me?
 5        Q    Yes.
 6        A    Yes.  That would have been there.
 7             Because whenever these are written, even though
 8   they're -- they may be superseded by further developments,
 9   all of this material had to be retained, because you -- it
10   also gave you the history of it.  So even though they might
11   change the function of a department, you learned that by
12   reading the second one.
13             It's sort of like, you know, court cases get
14   modified, courts modify cases, and so attorneys learn the
15   history.
16             Well, you have to know this.  And so even though
17   it could be superseded by -- by a change, the material was
18   kept there so you could study it.
19             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  And Judge, what I'm going
20        to offer is something that we only had one page to
21        the last time, and this is the complete document.
22             THE COURT:  What was it?  Was it already
23        introduced?
24             MR. DANDAR:  No.  Because -- I don't think it
25        was, because it was only the first page.
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2             MR. DANDAR:  This is now 99.
 4        Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 99.  Can you
 5   identify that?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    What is it?
 8        A    This is a policy letter written by L. Ron Hubbard.
 9             THE COURT:  What does the HCO mean?  I know I
10        should know, but I can't think.
11             THE WITNESS:  Hubbard Communications Office.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.
13             THE WITNESS:  It was a standard prefix to
14        policy letters.
15             THE COURT:  Right.  I've seen it before.  I
16        just couldn't remember what it stood for.  Hubbard
17        Communication --
18             THE WITNESS:  Office.
19             And that's right across the top, ma'am.
20             THE COURT:  Oh, thank you.  Maybe that's why I
21        didn't have to ask that stupid question before.
22             THE WITNESS:  Even though the policy letters
23        came out from, say, different locations, that was
24        always kept there as designating the type of
25        directive or issue that it was.  And so they just
 1        became known as HCO PLs, HCO policy letters, policy
 2        letters, or PLs; various ways to call them.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 5        Q    And these were found in the books that are printed
 6   by the Church of Scientology, correct?  This particular one?
 7        A    Yes.  These are now kept in bound volumes.
 8        Q    Okay.  All right.
 9        A    This -- this particular one in 1965 is considered
10   probably the most important policy letter in Scientology,
11   because it was by the directive of Hubbard and -- and has
12   been kept there -- that it is to be at the front and the top
13   and the first item in every pack of materials that a
14   Scientologist studies, no matter what.
15             There's something called a hat, which is simply
16   the function that you have, the job you have in the
17   organization.  And every hat has a pack of materials that
18   you study.  Every course you go on has a pack of materials
19   that you study.  And that they're required to put this
20   policy letter as the very first policy letter in there,
21   every single pack of material.
22             In the bound volumes that you have, what they call
23   volume zero, it is also the first policy.  So this is the
24   policy letter that is probably read more times by
25   Scientologists than any other policy, and it's just hammered
 1   in constantly as the most important one.  Because -- and you
 2   can see the title.  It's called Keeping Scientology Working.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  Now, let's have this one
 4        marked as 100.
 5             THE COURT:  Are you introducing this?
 6             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  I'm moving it into evidence.
 7             THE COURT:  Any objection?
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  No.
 9             THE COURT:  It'll be received.
11        Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 100.  Can you
12   identify this?
13        A    Yes.  This is another policy letter called
14   Technical Degrades.  This is the second policy that always
15   follows the first one.  And again, in every hat pack, just
16   about, that you can find, this one will follow the first
17   one.
18             And basically, what these things combined, will
19   hammer to say, is there's only one way to do Scientology,
20   and that's by following the policies and directives of L.
21   Ron Hubbard.  Everything that he says in the first one that
22   you showed me, everything that was ever written or said,
23   continues to be true.  You cannot cancel it.  You can't say
24   it's old.  You can't say it's not used.  And it's basically
25   to tell Scientologists that there's no other way to do
 1   Scientology than by the book.  And the book is L. Ron
 2   Hubbard, everything that he wrote.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  I'd like to move 100 into
 4        evidence.
 5             THE COURT:  Any objection?
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  No, your Honor.
 7             THE COURT:  It'll be received.
 9        Q    Is there a policy written by Mr. Hubbard that
10   says, "I'd rather have you dead than incapable"?
11        A    That's in the first one that you gave me, Keeping
12   Scientology Working, Plaintiff's Exhibit 99.  And that
13   statement would be found on the last page that, in this
14   particular exhibit, has at the bottom page 13, because it
15   was copied out of one of the volumes.  And at the upper
16   portion of page 13, at the bottom of the thick paragraph, if
17   I could just give it the context, he says, "The proper
18   attitude is, you're here so you're a Scientologist.  Now
19   we're going to make you an expert auditor no matter what
20   happens.  We'd rather have you dead than incapable."
21             THE COURT:  Tell me where you were reading from
22        again.
23             THE WITNESS:  It's at the last page of the
24        exhibit, ma'am.
25             THE COURT:  The last page.  Okay.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Go to the top of the page, that
 2        long paragraph at the top.
 3             THE COURT:  Yes.
 4             THE WITNESS:  And you go to the last few lines
 5        of that long paragraph.
 6             THE COURT:  I see.  Okay.  Thank you.
 7             THE WITNESS:  He says, "We'd rather have you
 8        dead than incapable."
 9             THE COURT:  Thank you.
11        Q    In your experience in the Church of Scientology,
12   is that last statement by Mr. Hubbard something that's
13   subject to interpretation?
14        A    Nothing is subject to interpretation that
15   Mr. Hubbard wrote.  And that's what this policy letter is
16   about.  You don't make interpretations, you don't give your
17   opinions; you simply study it.  You, what they say,
18   duplicate it.
19             And this policy letter, as I say, is crucial.
20   It's -- you -- it's right there on the second page.  You
21   hammer this in and you hammer anything else out of
22   existence.
23             So there's no interpretation, ever, of policy.
24   And that's according to this policy.
25        Q    When he writes "rather dead than incapable," what
 1   does he mean by dead?
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me, your Honor.
 3        Mr. Young just said -- my objection is -- nothing is
 4        subject to interpretation, and now Mr. Dandar is
 5        asking him to interpret what Mr. Hubbard meant.  I
 6        object.
 7             THE COURT:  Yeah.  It would seem like that is
 8        carrying things to a bit of extreme.  You're asking
 9        him what did Mr. Hubbard mean.  Maybe if he talked
10        to Mr. Hubbard he can tell us, but I don't know that
11        he can tell us what Mr. Hubbard meant.
13        Q    Okay.  What was your understanding, within the
14   organization, of what that meant?
15             MR. WEINBERG:  I have the same objection.  I
16        mean, he stands here --
17             THE COURT:  Well, I agree.  I mean, I think the
18        word speaks for itself.  I know what the word "dead"
19        means.  So unless --
20             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  -- there is some other
22        interpretation put on it by somebody in the church,
23        I know what it means.
25        Q    So do you know if there was ever any
 1   interpretation put on that phrase by the Church of
 2   Scientology in your 20 years plus?
 3        A    No.  It was -- it was always in the context that
 4   what it means is the technology, the organization, are --
 5   are senior and the most important, so that you have to do
 6   everything you can to keep it pure.  And besides, we -- we
 7   believe that we were reincarnated, and we had lived millions
 8   of times, so the idea that you could keep going through
 9   other lives was dependent upon your ability to follow the
10   technology.
11        Q    Okay.  Now, you said you left the San Francisco
12   org as --
13             THE COURT:  Don't -- don't misunderstand me, by
14        the way, when I said I know what the word "dead"
15        means.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
17             THE COURT:  I didn't think that meant that, you
18        know, somehow this meant that -- that if somebody
19        was incapable, somebody was going to shoot them or
20        something like that.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  And don't misunderstand my not
22        getting up and screaming for the same reason.  I
23        don't -- I think it's patently obvious --
24             THE COURT:  Right.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  -- I just object to the process.
 1             THE COURT:  Well, you know, I got to thinking
 2        about something that somebody had said once last
 3        week or whatever.  You know, those folks who study
 4        the Christian religion know that the Bible has gone
 5        through, certainly, while the words don't change,
 6        certainly, what it says, does.  And -- anyway, I
 7        don't know that I'd have some objection to somebody
 8        coming in and saying they thought what it meant.
 9             But in any event, you've registered your
10        objection and we'll move on.
11             As I said, I just don't want you to think --
12        when I saw that, what I said then, that if somebody
13        was incapable -- which I know what that means too --
14        that somebody was going to line up a bunch of folks
15        and shoot them or anything like that.  That is not
16        what I meant when I said I know what the word means.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
19        Q    Tell us -- you talked about you were in the Los
20   Angeles org in 1977 during the FBI raid?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    All right.  And what -- you were still with
23   Department 20 as the public relations person?
24        A    Well, not the republic relations person.  I was in
25   the public relations bureau.
 1        Q    But you were the --
 2        A    There was somebody in charge of the public
 3   relations bureau.  So if you were to ever say the PR
 4   person --
 5             It's sort of a sloppy phrase, let me put it that
 6   way.
 7        Q    All right.  You were -- you were designated as the
 8   national spokesperson?
 9        A    Yes.  That was a function that I took on on that
10   day of the raid.
11             We were hit at about 6 a.m. because the D.C.
12   offices had -- the raid had to be coordinated to D.C.  And
13   they were hit, I think, at 9.  And so I arrived at work at
14   9.  The raid was under way.  And I was giving my press
15   conference I think about four hours later, down at the Los
16   Angeles Press Club.
17             So they said, "Hey, Young, you're going to hold a
18   press conference.  You're going to be the national
19   spokesperson."  So it's just an assignment that I took.  But
20   it lasted for several months.
21        Q    Were you in the Los Angeles org when Mr. Bill
22   Franks was the COB ED Int for life?
23        A    I was in Los Angeles but I don't know the exact
24   tenure of his office.  I was in a different position while
25   he was ED.  I was in two different positions while he was --
 1             THE COURT:  Bailiff, come here a minute, would
 2        you?
 3             Keep going.  We're just --
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  I imagine a well-drafted order
 5        from the court might have some impact.
 6             THE COURT:  When I was the chief judge, it used
 7        to annoy me to death when I had made some
 8        arrangement and some judge would interfere with
 9        something I had worked out very carefully.  So I'm
10        trying to be very careful not to step on --
11             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't mean by you --
12             THE COURT:  Right.  He seemed to be perturbed.
13        He's trying to hold a meeting in there.  So maybe
14        we'll find out what success he's had.
16        Q    During the late '70s did Mr. Hubbard announce what
17   he considered to be the two most effective arms of
18   Scientology?
19             THE BAILIFF:  He wants to see you a minute.
20             THE COURT:  Let's see if he wants to see if we
21        can go on with this.  I'm going to tell him no.  I
22        mean, we can't -- all day, we'll all be lunatics.
23                      (A recess was taken.)
24             THE COURT:  He's working on it.  He's got
25        Mr. Baron's coming down, and there's a call in from
 1        our court counsel to the county attorney.  But I
 2        guess the problem is, is it's not just that easy,
 3        because there's probably a contract in place, and
 4        the question would be whether or not the contractor
 5        has the right to do this or not.  So he's
 6        frustrated -- when I say frustrated, he thought he
 7        had an understanding on Friday that they would not
 8        do this.  Obviously he didn't.  So he's working on
 9        it.  But he -- I said what we need to know is
10        whether it's going to continue, for how many days.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Are they in the building or out
12        of the building?  Where are they?
13             THE COURT:  They're outside.
14             MR. LIEBERMAN:  What about the doctrine of
15        force majeure?
16             THE COURT:  What is that?
17             MR. LIEBERMAN:  What about the doctrine of
18        force majeure?
19             THE COURT:  Well, I remember when they built
20        the criminal justice center, I was in charge out
21        there as criminal administrator, and we had some
22        difficulties, but we usually had our way.  As long
23        as we were reasonable.
24             But I mean, on the other hand, if they got to
25        do this and they can't do it at night, you've got to
 1        let them do it.  But what they need to do is tell
 2        us -- give us a date.  "We're going to do jackhammer
 3        work from this date to this date," so all of us
 4        would say, "We're not going to hold a hearing."
 5             So anyway, continue on.
 6             I'm sorry, Mr. Young.  This is not the way
 7        things usually are here.
 9        Q    Okay.  So did Mr. Hubbard ever express or --
10   express the two most effective arms of Scientology?
11        A    He said the two most effective arms of Scientology
12   were the Guardian's Office and the Sea Organization.  And
13   that was -- we considered that pretty much true.
14        Q    The Guardian's Office was part of -- of what, in
15   the Church of Scientology or the Scientology structure?
16        A    Until 1981 --
17             I'm sorry.  I was just pausing because some of
18   these are really rough.
19             THE COURT:  I know.  Would you like to --
20             Okay.
21             MR. DANDAR:  Now.  Go.
22             THE WITNESS:  Feels sort of like a root canal.
23             THE COURT:  It really does.  I feel like I'm in
24        my dentist's office.  I'm sure we all do.  This is
25        conjuring up -- speaking of --
 2        Q    Anyway --
 3             THE COURT:  -- auditing and conjuring up bad
 4        memories, why, this is not a good one for me.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  It's that reactive mind.
 6             THE COURT:  That reactive mind.
 7        A    The Guardian's Office was an independent network.
 8   It did not answer to any other network.  It went straight up
 9   through its own command channels up to Hubbard's wife, Mary
10   Sue Hubbard.  And it had its own authorities over the
11   organization.
12             The Sea Organization was a separate arm that
13   started on the Apollo, the ship Apollo, where Hubbard was
14   residing in the Mediterranean.  And that extended down into
15   a few organizations which were namely deemed advanced
16   organizations, or the organizations which took care of what
17   was called the upper level materials.  And so that would
18   have been the advanced organization Los Angeles, the one in
19   Denmark, the one in the United Kingdom, and of course, the
20   flagship Apollo.
21             So they were kept very separate.  Members of the
22   Guardian's Office were not members of the Sea Org.  Except
23   on the flagship Apollo.  And this was to keep a tension
24   between us.  Because we had very different functions.  Their
25   function was very much of an internal function, and the
 1   Guardian's Office or Department 20 was totally an external
 2   function.
 4        Q    And there would come a point in time when the Sea
 5   Org took over the Guardian's Office.
 6        A    That was the change in 1981.
 7        Q    What gave the Sea Org the power to do that?
 8        A    Well, sort of like asking what gives an 800-pound
 9   gorilla the power to decide where it wants to sleep.  It
10   just sleeps where it wants.
11             The -- Mary Sue had gone -- Mary Sue Hubbard had
12   gone to jail.  A lot of the executive leadership of the
13   Guardian's Office had gone to jail.  We were in a great deal
14   of disarray.  And so what was called a mission, which is
15   basically a project, team of people, was sent in from the
16   headquarters out at the -- the base at Gilman Hot Springs.
17   And basically there was -- it was just taken over.
18             I was -- I was witness to screaming, nose-to-nose
19   arguments between, say, Bill Franks, who was the executive
20   director, and Jane Kember, who was the guardian worldwide,
21   who was in Los Angeles, as the struggle ensued.  And Jane
22   Kember was removed from office.  And so we agreed, everybody
23   just agreed.  And we became a Sea Organization unit and we
24   signed Sea Organization contracts.
25             And at that point, the Guardian's Office was no
 1   longer an independent network; it -- it began to answer to
 2   other people other than just its own -- Mary Sue Hubbard,
 3   who was gone.
 4        Q    And you were part of the Guardian office people
 5   who stayed on and became a Sea Org member.
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    All right.
 8        A    I stayed on until early 1982 when I was promoted
 9   out to another project that became -- where I was employed,
10   until like, you know, for another seven years.
11             THE COURT:  Was it in '81 when this takeover,
12        as you call it, took place, that the Guardian's
13        Office was renamed to the Office of Special Affairs?
14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  We were -- we were
15        informed that that was to be the new name.  There
16        was a press release issued on it and we were being
17        told that we just had the new name, so we just took
18        on the new name.
20        Q    You were still Department 20.
21        A    But it's still Department 20.  Everything else,
22   all the policies, the directives that -- the packs and
23   materials that you studied, the bureaus, everything else --
24             Well, there was one other thing.  The intelligence
25   bureau was renamed the information bureau, because it was a
 1   bit of an embarrassment to call it intelligence because it
 2   sounded like CIA.  Which it was.  That's why we got raided.
 3             THE COURT:  And the -- when this happened and
 4        they -- they said, "Okay.  Everybody in this office
 5        is going to become a Sea Org member," I take it if
 6        you didn't want to be a Sea Org member, you just
 7        were out of the office.
 8             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.  That was one of
 9        the ways it was decided who would stay on.  If you
10        didn't want to sign a contract, you went to another
11        organization.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.
14        Q    Now, who -- was there a highest-ranking officer of
15   the Sea Org at the time the Sea Org took over the Guardian's
16   Office?
17        A    Until she disappeared, it would have been L. Ron
18   Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, because they held the highest
19   ranks at that time.  The chain of command for the Sea
20   Organization went out to the flagship Apollo and it stayed
21   through that until Mary Sue went to jail and until the
22   Apollo was basically -- I don't know how you describe it.
23   Just -- it was ended.  It was beached.
24             And that's when they actually -- actually came
25   into Clearwater, when -- to set up the Flag -- what's called
 1   the Flag land base.  Carried the name of the Apollo Flag.
 2   And at that point the command structure changed over, but
 3   that was a number of years later.
 4             THE COURT:  Excuse me just a second.
 5             They do not need to get up and down when I exit
 6        and enter.
 7              (There was a pause in the proceedings;
 8        Judge Schaeffer left the courtroom and returned.)
 9             THE COURT:  Well, apparently the order is being
10        given for them to stop, so we'll see how that works.
11        I don't know if that order has filtered down to
12        whoever is on the jackhammer just yet, but
13        presumably it will stop.  I hope.
15        Q    After the change when the Sea Org took over The
16   Guardian's Office, what happened to you?
17        A    In -- I believe it was February of 1982, I was
18   contacted by a unit that I was already familiar with, which
19   was called Special Project.  Special Project was a group of
20   Sea Org missionaires -- project personnel, if you will --
21   who had come into Los Angeles to primarily, as far as we
22   could tell, deal with the litigation that had ensued over
23   the years previous, that was naming L. Ron Hubbard as one of
24   the defendants or parties to the suits.  And Special
25   Project's primary function was to take over the litigation,
 1   because Department 20 had not been able to clear those cases
 2   or get them dismissed.  And so they were coming in and
 3   running these units, which was called an all-clear unit, and
 4   things like this.
 5             Well, I was contacted by Special Project and
 6   informed that they wanted me to join the special project.
 7   And this is all I knew about it.  It was just a special
 8   project.  And in charge of Special Project was a young man
 9   by the name of David Miscavige.  And at first they -- they
10   wanted me to be -- I won't get technical what the title was,
11   but the post -- title changed, the name of it, after a few
12   weeks.  But then they decided they wanted me to be the
13   Special Project PR, the public relations for Special
14   Project.  And I -- my name was submitted, and came back
15   about -- a few weeks later, and I was told that I had been
16   approved by Hubbard himself.  I later saw the dispatch from
17   him.
18             And so I joined the Special Project.  After I
19   joined Special Project, then I was informed what Special
20   Project really was.  It was Office Services, Inc., which was
21   a for-profit corporation that had been formed in 1981.  And
22   we couldn't name ourselves as that because we were residing
23   on church property; we were conducting our operations
24   covertly, because we had to have everything set up.  But
25   about six or seven months later, we got offices down on
 1   Sunset Boulevard and we moved out.  But until that time, we
 2   just stayed there.
 3             And as I said, I thought I was joining Special
 4   Project but then I found out I was joining Office Services.
 5        Q    So did you end up leaving Department 20?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    And why was Mr. Hubbard being sued back then, that
 8   this -- this Special Project had to come in and get the
 9   cases dismissed?
10        A    There was so many cases and so many reasons going
11   down, but primarily he was being named because he was the
12   author of the materials and he was on the command line many
13   times.  And many times, people who were issuing the suits
14   were former staff members and so they were familiar with the
15   command channels; they were familiar with the command lines;
16   they knew how he issued commands down.  And so he was -- he
17   was included because of the policies and because of the
18   management by him until -- until I'd say the late '70s.
19        Q    What -- what are -- when you say command lines,
20   what are you talking about?
21        A    Well, Scientology organizations are pretty much
22   built on a pyramid model.  And the easiest way that you can
23   understand it is through a military model.  Which is also
24   why uniforms are worn, military jargon or technical terms
25   are used.
 1             And so you have a command channel the same way you
 2   have command channels in the military.  You have somebody at
 3   the top and then you have units underneath, and somebody's
 4   in charge of each unit.  And so commands go down what we
 5   even knew as the chain of command.  And those were orders.
 6   And there's seniors and there's juniors.  And then
 7   compliances are sent back up this chain of command.
 8             And so when I described a while ago the Guardian's
 9   Office had its own chain of command, that's exactly what I
10   meant.  We had our own chain of command that went up,
11   independently of everybody else.
12        Q    Now, when you said Mr. Hubbard was being sued by
13   staff and they knew these command lines and channels --
14        A    I -- I meant to -- if I didn't say, I should have
15   said former staff, because if -- if a staff -- a staff
16   member would never sue --
17             I just scraped myself.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.  Is that water fresh?
19             THE BAILIFF:  Yes, ma'am.
20             THE COURT:  Okay.
21        A    No.  These were people who were former staff.
23        Q    Okay.  And so was Mr. Hubbard's name then on these
24   directives or commands and that's how they could prove that
25   he was involved?
 1        A    That's -- that's how the federal government was
 2   able to name him as an unindicted co-conspirator.
 3             And quite frankly, when we saw the material, we
 4   were shaken up that he came within an inch of being indicted
 5   along with the other 11, including his wife, because his
 6   name was on the materials and his name were on orders.  And
 7   it's just that he was just -- just by the skin of his teeth,
 8   he was not indicted.  But he was named as an unindicted
 9   co-conspirator.
10        Q    Did something change to hide the fact that he was
11   in charge?
12        A    Well --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection as to -- I've been
14        quiet.  But objection as to the relevance of this
15        entire line:  Unindicted co-conspirator; did
16        something change as to whether Mr. Hubbard was in
17        charge --
18             We're in -- we're in 2002.  Ms. McPherson died
19        in 1995 and we're talking about something in 1977.
20        Mr. Hubbard died in 1986.
21             THE COURT:  I tend to agree.
22             Are you going to bring this up to date?
23             MR. DANDAR:  That's what I'm trying to get to,
24        bring it up to date.
25             THE COURT:  It's taking an awful long time.  I
 1        mean -- I mean, Mr. Hubbard's dead, for heaven's
 2        sake.
 3             MR. DANDAR:  Well, somebody took his place,
 4        Judge.
 5             THE COURT:  Well, I understand that --
 6             MR. DANDAR:  And that's in paragraph 34, and
 7        that's in Stacy Brooks' testimony.  That's what
 8        we're getting to.
 9             THE COURT:  All right.
10             MR. DANDAR:  Well -- all right.
12        Q    So did there come a time when Mr. Hubbard's name
13   didn't appear on orders coming down through the command
14   channels?
15        A    Yes.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Did or did not?  I couldn't
17        hear.
18             MR. DANDAR:  Did not appear.
19             THE WITNESS:  Did not appear.
20        A    Not only that, but we -- we followed the same
21   thing.  Procedures went in that continued thereafter.
22             Which was when you were issuing orders that may be
23   subject to inspection by outside agencies, authorities, et
24   cetera, that you always had to hide it.  The lesson was
25   learned.  The only reason that those people were indicted
 1   and went to jail was because their names were on orders
 2   going down, talking about illegal activities.  And so the
 3   government had, right in there, notes about burglary, notes
 4   about eavesdropping, reports going back up.  Here's the
 5   notes about the wiretap we put into the IRS office.  So they
 6   were just basically like signed confessions as to their
 7   culpability.
 8             And so the one lesson we learned real fast, and
 9   put in, besides some corporate reorganization, was to make
10   sure that nothing was ever put into writing that could ever
11   make you or the organization culpable for anything,
12   including giving orders from one organization to another.
13   And that went in hard and fast.
15        Q    This young man you first met, named David
16   Miscavige, on the Special Project, the missionaires that
17   came from the -- headed into Los Angeles, did you see him
18   rise in power while you were a member of the Church of
19   Scientology?
20        A    Yes, I did.
21        Q    And tell us how he did that.
22        A    It was an amazing process.  Because he began as
23   just a missionaire and it ended up becoming like the tail
24   wagging the dog.
25             Because what Special Project was, was a little
 1   project sent into Los Angeles to handle a particular thing,
 2   that grew to became the dominant organization in the entire
 3   Scientology hierarchy.  And this was done -- well, I -- I
 4   just -- it's -- it's really complex.  But it was done
 5   primarily, to keep it short, through -- in Scientology,
 6   power resides to whoever was the closest to Hubbard and
 7   where the orders came from.  If you were an aide of
 8   Hubbard's directly, on the ship, for example, that made you
 9   more powerful than somebody out in the field.  So just
10   proximity to power gave you power.
11             In 1982 we were set up to be the receipt point of
12   Hubbard's new communications, because he had moved away
13   because of all the subpoenas flying, and couldn't be found.
14   No one knew where he was.  We didn't know where he was.
15   Nobody knew.  Not even his wife knew, from what I gathered.
16   And so in 1982, we were set up to be the receipt point of
17   the new communications so we could now start issuing orders
18   back in, keep in touch.  And by that, we became the most
19   powerful.
20             And at that point was when David Miscavige, being
21   in charge of Special Project and being in charge of ASI --
22   the power just shifted.
23             As well as a number of takeovers.  I know that
24   Bill Franks was removed and a number of other people were
25   removed from different echelons.  So that any opposition was
 1   just gone.  It was -- it was sort of like a political purge.
 2        Q    So the ASI was a for-profit corporation.  David
 3   Miscavige was the head.  And from there, the rest of the
 4   Scientology organizations were controlled?
 5        A    That's -- that's what I finally learned was to be
 6   our function.  Because the flagship Apollo was gone.  And
 7   even though the name of it moved ashore, you know, Flag land
 8   base; even though there was the former headquarters in
 9   England, there was no command structure to bring it all
10   together.  Everything shattered.  And so it was our job to
11   bring it together and to be the top of the pyramid.
12             So our function was to -- even though we were
13   for-profit, even though we had functions that he had
14   announced to the world that are true, we had this other
15   function of running the organizations, setting up other
16   organizations.  And we did that for a number of years.
17        Q    Okay.  Was Mr. Miscavige -- did he become the
18   chairman of the board of ASI?
19        A    That's how I knew him.
20        Q    And what -- was there RTC in existence then?
21        A    Religious Technology Center was incorporated, I
22   believe, in 1981, but it wasn't functional when -- when we
23   were being set up.  ASI sort of came out of the closet first
24   and then RTC was set up behind it.  ASI and RTC, as well as
25   another organization called The Church of Spiritual
 1   Technology, CST, which is another one that's in the
 2   background -- these are all set up at the time as corporate
 3   protections.  And we were briefed on this and we knew about
 4   this.
 5             Because before the FBI raid, it was just this, you
 6   know, chain of command, and nobody really paid attention to
 7   it.  But the fact that the federal government was able to
 8   indict, convict -- well, they didn't convict.  They had a
 9   stipulation of evidence and they avoided trial -- this chain
10   of command from a low-level operative, who was going in and
11   stealing documents, right up to Hubbard's wife on the ship,
12   showed that not only was the chain of command vulnerable,
13   but there was no corporate protection; there was no
14   corporate walls.  You know, they just went straight through.
15             And of course, that's how we operated.  We didn't
16   pay attention to corporations.  Half the time you never knew
17   what corporation you were part of.  You were just part of
18   the San Francisco org; you were just part of a -- ask a
19   staff member what corporation you were a part of, we didn't
20   know.  We didn't care.  We were just Scientology units
21   getting our job done.
22             So after -- after that mistake was realized, then
23   all these different corporate entities started to be setting
24   up, and licensing agreements started to be set up, and an
25   entire restructuring of our orders were given, and how
 1   dispatches were written were all changed to avoid this ever
 2   happening again, because it was such a close call that
 3   Hubbard was nearly indicted.
 4             So RTC was set up, ASI was set up.  And as I said,
 5   RTC came up later, after ASI was fully functional.
 6        Q    In the -- were all these new corporations and --
 7   and ASI run by the Sea Organization?
 8        A    Yes.  At that time everybody was Sea Organization.
 9        Q    Did Mr. Miscavige rise in ranks within the Sea
10   Organization?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    And --
13             THE COURT:  What do you mean, everybody was Sea
14        Organization?  You mean every single person who
15        belonged to Scientology?
16             THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am.  I meant the staff
17        members.  Anybody above the franchise level or the
18        lower levels, any organization -- any org, what we'd
19        call an org -- Philadelphia, Seattle, et cetera --
20             THE COURT:  Okay.
21             THE WITNESS:  -- organizational members.  And
22        anything higher than that would have been Sea
23        Organization.
25        Q    And did Mr. Miscavige -- did his rank in the Sea
 1   Org rise when he assumed, like, the COB ASI position?
 2        A    Yes.  Somewhere he became captain.
 3        Q    Do you know how he became captain?
 4        A    No, I don't.  It -- the title just -- rank just
 5   appeared.  Because I know he was something like, at best, a
 6   lieutenant early on, and there were people that outranked
 7   him.
 8             But we -- see, at ASI and -- especially, we didn't
 9   go by Sea Org rank.  You go by your post, by your position,
10   by your job.  And that's what gave you the authority to get
11   it done so I could -- even though I had a bottom rank in the
12   Sea Org myself, it was by my position in the organization
13   that gave me the authority to order somebody in another
14   organization what to do.
15        Q    And in Scientology, in the Sea Organization, are
16   there things known as brevet ranks?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    And could you explain the difference, if there's a
19   captain who's a brevet-rank captain versus a captain who's
20   an earned-rank captain?
21        A    The Sea Organization has its own ranks.  And those
22   you gained through what's called an officer selection board.
23   And your name might be submitted to the officer selection
24   board.  And every organization can have its own officer
25   selection board.  And so you can be promoted through that
 1   process.
 2             And so you begin as -- they're all naval ranks,
 3   you know, petty officers, warrant officers, lieutenants,
 4   right on up through the -- the ranks.
 5             But the problem was that sometimes the head of an
 6   organization, who was given the -- he might be the executive
 7   director or the commanding officer of an organization, his
 8   Sea Org rank -- his or her Sea Org rank might be lower in
 9   actual fact, the actual rank, lower than his juniors.  So
10   that person was given what was called a brevet rank,
11   B-r-e-v-e-t.  A brevet rank was basically a temporary rank
12   that was to reflect the position of that job that they had.
13   So even though I was a petty officer, say, if I were made
14   the head of the San Francisco organization, I would be given
15   the brevet rank of captain.  But when I left that position,
16   the brevet rank would fall away, and I would just carry the
17   other one.
18             So you actually carried two ranks when you assumed
19   certain positions in the organizations.
20        Q    Did you -- when people were promoted up in rank,
21   did everyone else know about that?
22        A    Oh, yeah.  Very much so.  It's -- it was -- you
23   know, people took it with great pride.  You -- the issues
24   would come out, the officer selection board promotions, and
25   you get to see, "Joe made lieutenant," you know, and you get
 1   to say, "Congratulations, Joe.  Buy me a drink," or
 2   something like that.  It was -- you know, people took a
 3   great deal of pride in it.  So these were widely
 4   distributed.
 5             And you liked to gain rank.  You know, it was just
 6   a point of personal pride.  You didn't make any more money
 7   but it was -- you know --
 8        Q    Did you ever --
 9        A    -- you had more rank.
10        Q    Did you ever -- did you ever see Mr. Miscavige,
11   officer -- whatever you call it, board -- promote him to
12   captain, nonbrevet-rank captain?
13        A    No.
14        Q    And is there a difference between his rank of
15   captain and the other captains within the organization?
16        A    Most definitely.  It's -- a brevet rank -- you
17   know, there will be captains of the Scientology
18   organizations located in Clearwater, for example, but
19   they're all brevet.  They're -- the only one that has ever
20   been designated an actual rank of captain was David
21   Miscavige.  There's other captains, but it's captain in name
22   only.  It's -- it's like saying, "I'm the president of the
23   rotary club."  Well, that doesn't make me the president of
24   the United States.
25             THE COURT:  I guess I'm having trouble with
 1        this.
 2             A brevet rank is -- is -- are you saying that
 3        Mr. Miscavige is, actual rank, the only captain or
 4        the captain?
 5             THE WITNESS:  He's the only one that has actual
 6        rank, captain.  All other captains would be honorary
 7        ranks.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  And my objection to all of this
 9        is -- is that Mr. Young left the church in 1989.  I
10        don't know how he could possibly say that as of
11        2002.
12             THE COURT:  But you have that objection --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
14             THE COURT:  -- throughout so you don't need to
15        make that again.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
17             THE COURT:  All -- I understand that.  But I
18        thought you also implied, at least, that the brevet
19        rank was the rank of position, which in essence, in
20        an individual org, was more important than your
21        actual rank, if you had a high brevet rank; that you
22        could run that organization, order people with
23        higher actual ranks around, because you held the
24        brevet rank higher than -- than someone else there.
25             THE WITNESS:  That's true.  But the authority
 1        stems from the position that you have in the
 2        organization and not even from the rank.
 3             THE COURT:  So the actual rank of
 4        Mr. Miscavige, if in fact he is the captain -- I
 5        kind of get this -- actual rank isn't as important
 6        as the brevet rank.
 7             THE WITNESS:  The actual rank is more important
 8        within the Scientology -- I'm sorry -- the Sea
 9        Organization command structure.  Within the
10        organizations, it's the position you have.
11             If I am the commanding officer of the Los
12        Angeles organization, that position allows me to
13        give any orders I want to anybody within my
14        organization.  And so I suppose --
15             That's why I say you have to follow a military
16        model on this.  That --
17             But -- however, when I was at a higher echelon,
18        it was my position in the echelon that gave me the
19        authority to issue orders to lower echelons.
20             THE COURT:  Your brevet rank.
21             THE WITNESS:  Just --
22             Well, I wasn't given a brevet rank.
23             THE COURT:  Oh, okay.
24             THE WITNESS:  Like I said, my position --
25             THE COURT:  So your position wasn't
 1        necessarily --
 2             See, again, I wrote this down, and I thought I
 3        understood it, but apparently not.
 4             I thought you said the brevet rank was a
 5        temporary rank that reflects your position at -- in
 6        a staff.  And when you leave the position, you lose
 7        the brevet rank, and might get another one depending
 8        on where you go and where you rank.  But that you
 9        always kept your actual rank.  So --
10             THE WITNESS:  That -- that is true.  But it
11        wasn't applied to everybody within the organization.
12        It was pretty much reserved for those that were --
13        that were in command.
14             And you could say it would be sort of like
15        crazy to say a first lieutenant working for the
16        chief of staff in the Pentagon is able to give an
17        order to a colonel out at some military division
18        because he works in the Pentagon.  Well, I don't
19        know.  But that's how we did it.  That even though I
20        might have a lower position in the Sea Org, if I'm
21        at a higher echelon, that echelon is what gives me
22        the authority to --
23             THE COURT:  So maybe it isn't the brevet rank;
24        maybe it's just the position.
25             THE WITNESS:  It is actually more the position
 1        than anything else, yes, ma'am.
 2             THE COURT:  So the brevet rank -- I don't know
 3        what that means, but the brevet rank may not be as
 4        important as the position you hold in a particular
 5        org.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  I have marked as Exhibit 101.  I'd
 9        like to show the witness --
10             THE COURT:  Oh, dear.
11             MR. DANDAR:  That's a heavy one.
13        Q    Can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit 101?
14        A    This is a declaration that I wrote in, I believe,
15   October of '99, that was filed in the Wollersheim case, I
16   believe the following month, that Mr. Leipold, who was the
17   attorney of record for the case, asked me if I could draw up
18   and show how the command structure of Scientology works.  He
19   asked me, "Would you be able to show it using their own
20   documents," and I said, "Yes."
21             And that's why this is so thick, is because I was
22   to show --
23             THE WITNESS:  A bit what I was just talking
24        about, your Honor.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.
 1             THE WITNESS:  In fact there's one document in
 2        here I can refer to, to explain what I was talking
 3        about.
 5        Q    Could you point out that document, tell us what
 6   the exhibit number is?
 7        A    Give me just one second.
 8             THE COURT:  Wow.  I think we haven't had a
 9        battering out there in a while, so it must have
10        stopped.
11             MR. DANDAR:  Someone has the power.
12        A    Okay.  I found it.
13             Oh, how do I refer you to it?
15        Q    Well, that's a good question.
16        A    Okay.  Best way is sort of like page size.  One of
17   the pages sticking out, one of the 8-and-a-half-by-14
18   sticking out says across the bottom in, like, the top of a
19   newspaper, "International News, Scientology"?  It's about
20   the third or fourth 8-and-a-half-by-14 page sticking out.
21             THE COURT:  It look like this?
22             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  Looks like this.
23             THE COURT:  All right.  I have it.
24             Do you all see what he's talking about?  Looks
25        like this?
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  I have that.
 2             THE COURT:  Okay.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  If you go just previous to
 4        that, one of the 8-and-a-half-by-11 pages, go up
 5        four pages -- I'm sorry -- two pages, you'll see
 6        something down at the bottom that says, "SCI PROD,
 7        P-R-O-D, 11-4-93," looks like a Bates number 153819.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  I see that.
 9             THE WITNESS:  You have that, your Honor?
10             THE COURT:  Yes, I do.
11             THE WITNESS:  What this page is, this is a
12        portion of the application for tax exemption that
13        Scientology had filed with the IRS to get their
14        exemption in the '90s.  And this was filed under, of
15        course, penalty of perjury.  And I happened to find
16        this in D.C.  And there's, of course, a few other
17        pages from it.  And so this is what they told the
18        IRS in this particular document.
19             And it explains it right there above all the
20        names.  There's a paragraph in the middle.  It says,
21        "Brevet ranks are assigned to certain positions
22        within the church and have the purpose of equating
23        rank and ecclesiastical authority.  One holds the
24        brevet rank so long as one holds the rank to which
25        the brevet rank applies."
 1             Next paragraph, "The highest ranking officers
 2        in the Sea Organization are as follows."  And then
 3        it gives a column of named rank, earned rank.  And
 4        you notice at the top it says, "David Miscavige,
 5        captain, rank; earned rank, captain."  And then
 6        you'll notice there's a whole series of names, other
 7        captains.  There's commanders.  And all of them have
 8        the word "brevet" after their rank.
 9             In fact, if you go down you'll notice at the
10        bottom, Barbara Widmore, W-i-d-m-o-r-e, she's a
11        petty officer third class, and yet she's been given
12        the brevet rank of commander, which is the second
13        highest officer rank within the Sea Organization.
14        Well, that doesn't mean that she is an actual
15        commander.  This is brevet.
16             But what's interesting is that David Miscavige
17        is the only one that the Church of Scientology told
18        the IRS -- so this is why this was important,
19        because this is not based upon my experience; this
20        is based upon what they told the IRS -- David
21        Miscavige is the only one that holds an actual rank
22        of captain within the Sea Organization.
23             THE COURT:  This -- by the way, this document,
24        I have seen before, this is already in evidence.
25             MR. DANDAR:  That particular page is.
 1             THE COURT:  Right.  And so this is -- this is
 2        what I was referring to when I said I didn't exactly
 3        understand.  So I've seen this before.  But now that
 4        you've explained it, I think that perhaps it's --
 5        it's a little more helpful.
 6             I suppose that if -- if one of these folks over
 7        here that is in a high position ecclesiastically
 8        fell from grace, so to speak, or whatever, that they
 9        would be removed from their brevet rank.
10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
11             THE COURT:  But would maintain, as long as they
12        stayed in the church, their actual rank?
13             THE WITNESS:  Their earned rank.
14             THE COURT:  Their earned rank.  Okay.
15             Also, I don't know -- ensign up here,
16        Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Ingberg -- ensign isn't a very
17        high rank either, is it?
18             THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am.  It's -- it's sort of
19        the bottom of the officer's scale.
20             THE COURT:  Okay.
21        A    And also, part of this -- this was drawn up
22   because part of this declaration contained affidavits from
23   Scientology in the Wollersheim case, which they were trying
24   to represent that Mr. Miscavige was just one of many
25   captains.  And I was trying to point out, as far as I was
 1   concerned, that was false testimony; that according to their
 2   own documents what they told the IRS was a different matter.
 3   And so there's other documents in here to further
 4   substantiate it.
 5             The purpose in the Wollersheim case was because
 6   they were claiming that one corporation alone was involved,
 7   and Mr. Leipold was trying to show that there was a senior
 8   corporation, a senior command structure that would also be
 9   responsible, as far as what he was trying to put forward.
10   And when he asked me about it, I said, "Well, of course
11   that's how it works.  This is how the --"
12             In fact what's the irony about this, is the Sea
13   Organization is very proud of this.  We never hid this
14   internally.  We're very proud that we were what we were.  It
15   was just when it came to external authorities, governmental
16   agencies asking about it, that's when you came up with
17   another story.  "Oh no, no.  We're just a fraternal
18   organization.  We're loose-knit.  We just sit around like a
19   bunch of Shriners and have fun, you know; crank back and
20   have a couple of beers."  You try to make it seem very
21   benign, when really, internally, we --
22             Hubbard said and he built the thing, and that was
23   our attitude -- we got things done.  We had the ability to
24   go into any organization, send in, remove people, put new
25   people in, take over bank accounts.  But that was to get the
 1   job done.  Internally, we were very proud of this.
 2             And so some of the material that's attached to
 3   this is -- are portions of Sea Org publications where they
 4   boasted about this.  You know, "We went into the Munich
 5   organization and we turned it around and got them back and
 6   going."  So it was always a point of pride -- and you'll see
 7   this in some of the attachments -- a big point of pride.
 8             But as soon as -- as soon as somebody else from
 9   the outside says, "Well, is this --"  "Oh, no.  No, no."
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, would it be possible
11        to have questions and answers rather than just a
12        narrative here?
13             THE COURT:  True.
14             As a matter of fact, I know that we have had
15        little breaks as I've gone in and out.  Would this
16        be a good time to take a morning break?
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
18             MR. DANDAR:  That would be fine.
19             THE COURT:  We're going to go ahead and be in
20        recess for 15 minutes.
21             Sir, I should tell you that while you're on the
22        stand, the whole time that you're on the stand, you
23        really can't talk to anybody about your testimony,
24        including the lawyers --
25             THE WITNESS:  No.
 1             THE COURT:  -- for either side.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Mr. Dandar has already instructed
 3        me, your Honor.
 4             THE COURT:  You can talk about other things,
 5        but you can't talk about what's happening here,
 6        okay?
 7             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Thank you, your
 8        Honor.
 9                (A recess was taken at 10:33 a.m.)
10           (The proceedings were resumed at 11:04 a.m.)
11             THE COURT:  You may continue.
13        Q    The declaration in the Wollersheim case that is
14   Exhibit for the plaintiff 101 -- that was filed in the
15   Wollersheim case?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    And what you state in your declaration is
18   truthful, or is there anything where it's exaggerated?
19        A    No.  It's -- it's truthful, and most of it relies
20   upon quoting from the attachments.
21        Q    Okay.  And the attachments are the documents from
22   the Church of Scientology?
23        A    Either from -- directly from Scientology
24   documents -- as I said, there's an IRS document and there's
25   also magazines of the Sea Organization.
 1        Q    There's an exhibit attached to your declaration,
 2   X-99, that says, "The Command Channels of Scientology."  Can
 3   you turn to that?
 4             Or let me just ask you this question:  What is
 5   the -- what is that publication?
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Where exactly?
 7             MR. DANDAR:  X-99.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Just one X?
 9             THE COURT:  Yeah.  I'm not sure that I -- mine
10        go from --
11             MR. WEINBERG:  I've got double numbers.
12             THE COURT:  I've got double numbers too.  I've
13        got an L, Exhibit L-99, and then all of a sudden I
14        go to something called FF-99.
15             MR. DANDAR:  It is set up that way, Judge.  I
16        can't explain why.
17             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, where --
18             MR. DANDAR:  It's this far from the -- from the
19        back.
20             I should have tabbed it.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.  I'll keep looking.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Want me to do it for you?
23             THE COURT:  Yes.
24             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.  Did you find it?
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  No, I didn't.
 2             THE COURT:  Do you want to show them where it
 3        is too?
 4             Did you find it, Mr. Young?
 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
 6             THE COURT:  Okay.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  We all have it.
 9        Q    What is the purpose of this booklet called The
10   Command Channels of Scientology?
11        A    Well, it's -- it's stated in there to show the
12   relationships of the various organizations and the command
13   channels.
14             But it really wasn't intended as purely an
15   internal publication, because we had all the policies that
16   are being cited in it.  The actual audience for this was
17   external, that could be used with governmental agencies and
18   the courts and bring it all together in one place where they
19   could make their presentation as to how the organizations
20   fit together.
21             And I -- I say it wasn't for internal because it
22   quotes -- just as my declaration quotes from a lot of their
23   material, the command channels booklet quotes from all of
24   their materials.  So it was just trying to bring together
25   these things to try to present this for other people.
 1        Q    Are there for-profit organizations or corporations
 2   of Scientology that are part of this booklet, the command
 3   channels?
 4        A    Yes.
 5             And I need to clarify.  This is the -- it says The
 6   Command Channels of Scientology, not the Command Channels of
 7   the Church of Scientology.  And there is a difference.
 8   Because inside the booklet, there are for-profit
 9   corporations which are not part of any Church of Scientology
10   entity, such as WISE, W-I-S-E, World Institute of
11   Scientology Enterprises.  That is a -- not part of the
12   Church of Scientology, but you'll find it in The Command
13   Channels of Scientology.
14        Q    Okay.  Now, when David Miscavige became captain of
15   the Sea Org, was he at Office Services, Inc. or somewhere
16   else?
17        A    First time I recall him assuming the rank of
18   captain, he was with Religious Technology Center.
19        Q    Okay.  And what was his position at Religious
20   Technology Center?
21        A    Chairman of the board.  Same sort of title as with
22   ASI.  Otherwise we just knew him as COB.
23        Q    And within your experience in Scientology, how did
24   David Miscavige exert his power or influence?
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Object to that question.  I
 1        think that's a fairly open-ended -- what's that --
 2        what is -- what is he seek -- how did he exert his
 3        power?
 4             THE COURT:  Yeah.  Over what?
 6        Q    How did he exert his power over the entire -- all
 7   the organizations of the Church of Scientology?
 8        A    Pretty much the way most --
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, excuse me.  The -- first
10        I'd like to establish -- I'd like at least to
11        establish what it is -- when it was that Mr. Young
12        believes that he became the chairman of the board
13        and what Mr. Young's exposure to Mr. -- you know, to
14        RTC at that point was, if anything.  Because I
15        didn't hear him say that he was in RTC.
16             THE COURT:  All right.
17             MR. DANDAR:  All right.  We'll go back a little
18        bit in history then.
20        Q    You started reading books in 1968 and you joined
21   in '69.  When did you leave the Church of Scientology?
22        A    1989.
23             THE COURT:  When did RTC come into effect?
24             THE WITNESS:  It was incorporated in 1981, and
25        I believe it was starting to be active, actually,
 1        more in 1983, was when it started to make its
 2        presence known.  And I -- I heard the name Vicki
 3        Aznaran, from affidavits filed just before I took
 4        the stand, and she was the first one, if I recall
 5        right, to be the head of RTC.
 7        Q    And were you in the Church of Scientology when
 8   Mr. Miscavige became the chairman of the board of RTC?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    And how many years were you in Scientology while
11   he remained chairman of the board of RTC?
12        A    Well, he was chairman of the board of RTC until
13   the time I left, so that would -- it would include my entire
14   tenure while he was -- he and I knew each other.
15        Q    Okay.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, could we just establish
17        when he became the chairman of the board as it
18        related to when you left?
19             MR. DANDAR:  I think he answered that question.
21        Q    But go ahead and do that again.
22             When did Mr. Miscavige become chairman of the
23   board of RTC?
24        A    Officially I can't say.  Because the way it worked
25   was one just -- he was the source of authority.  So wherever
 1   he resided was where the authority was.
 2             He began to work both RTC and ASI, started in
 3   1983, and slowly began to move over and spending more time
 4   with RTC, until finally he was pretty much operating out of
 5   RTC, out of the RTC headquarters full-time, I would say,
 6   1980 -- probably 1984.
 7        Q    And when Mr. Miscavige was chairman of the board
 8   of ASI, was ASI the -- have the most authority in all of
 9   Scientology?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    And when Mr. Miscavige moved himself over into
12   RTC, did ASI lose its authoritative position?
13        A    Yes.  As well as some functions.  The -- RTC took
14   on -- we used to run -- even -- even the Department 20
15   activities, down through the organizations, lawsuits and
16   things like that out of the ASI.  But those functions moved
17   into RTC with him so he could concentrate more on just the
18   organizations and making money.
19             THE COURT:  I'm going to allow his answer to be
20        given, so go ahead --
21             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
22             THE COURT:  -- back to your question, whatever
23        it was.
25        Q    Up until the time when you left in 1989, who was
 1   the -- was there any one person that had the most power in
 2   all of Scientology after Mr. Hubbard died?
 3        A    Except for the short hiatus while there was this
 4   power struggle going on, finally it emerged that it was
 5   Mr. Miscavige.
 6        Q    And have you kept up with the -- how the
 7   organization -- the Scientology organization -- all the
 8   organizations -- run since you left in 1989?
 9        A    That's what I tried to show in this declaration
10   that -- that was presented all the way through IRS filings,
11   et cetera, so that you could see how it operates.
12        Q    So Mr. Miscavige, when he exerts any authority,
13   starts, you know -- based upon your experience and what
14   documents you've reviewed, does he exert it because he's the
15   chairman of the board or does he exert it because he's the
16   only captain, earned rank, of the Sea Org?
17        A    It's sort of both.  Because it's -- in the same
18   military model, if somebody doesn't follow orders, they're
19   removed and replaced with somebody that will follow orders
20   and get it done.  And so just by a process of elimination,
21   you finally get the people that you want, that will follow
22   orders.  And so that's why people are removed, dismissed,
23   disappear.  You know, they're just not around that org
24   anymore, because they've been assigned to another org.
25             And so that's what -- 1982, 1983, and then when
 1   Hubbard died, again, until finally he had what he wanted:
 2   Aides who he trusted who would get it done.
 3        Q    When Mr. Miscavige was chairman of the board of
 4   ASI, was there a chairman of the board of RTC?
 5        A    I don't know really.
 6        Q    Okay.
 7             THE COURT:  Didn't you say Vicki Aznaran was?
 8             THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am.  Her title was
 9        inspector general --
10             THE COURT:  Oh.
11             THE WITNESS:  -- which was the designated title
12        that was used internally and externally.
14        Q    In your 20-plus years as a Scientologist, did you
15   ever come across references to the tech that Mr. Hubbard
16   wrote being referred to as scripture?
17        A    No.  This was a term that came up later on for
18   litigation purposes.  It never appears in his own writings,
19   the word.
20        Q    While you were a --
21             THE COURT:  What word?  The word "scriptures"?
22             THE WITNESS:  Scriptures.
24        Q    While you were a Scientologist, did you ever hear
25   anyone, including Mr. Hubbard, call himself or herself the
 1   ecclesiastical leader?
 2        A    I don't think he ever used the word
 3   "ecclesiastical," and I would challenge anybody to ever find
 4   it used by him.  Ecclesiastical was a term we began to
 5   assume later on in litigation purposes.
 6        Q    And in your experience, PC folders, which I
 7   believe the court is well familiar with what that means --
 8   PC folders -- were they ever considered priest-penitent?
 9        A    That designation came up after the FBI raid of
10   '77.  It was never used before then.  After the FBI raid, we
11   had orders to label all folders and all files considering --
12   containing folders priest-penitent formulary and always
13   represent them as that.  The name had never appeared before.
14   So it was -- you did this as a -- as a legal stance to see
15   if we could gain protection, trying to learn from the
16   mistakes.
17        Q    And in your experience, could anyone destroy
18   records that is in a person's PC folder?
19        A    No.  Not -- not really.
20             I need to qualify that, if I may.
21        Q    Yes.
22        A    If there was any files that were just inviolate,
23   it would be the PC folders, because everything needs to be
24   put in there.  And Hubbard even said when in doubt, file
25   things in the PC folder so we know everything about this
 1   person; you know, if they got, you know, a rash from eating
 2   strawberries.
 3             But there were times when certain sections were
 4   authorized to go in and delete things from folders and
 5   destroy records.  And I was personally involved in that
 6   myself.
 7        Q    For what reason?
 8        A    Confidentiality.  To hide evidence.
 9             Incident that I was involved in was a woman in the
10   San Francisco organization who had been assigned to the
11   intelligence bureau in Los Angeles, and so she was going to
12   become an operative.  Marsha -- I can't remember her last
13   name.  And I had orders to basically start going in and
14   finding certain things, and just destroy them to -- to not
15   have any trace of her.  I destroyed not only her records in
16   the organization, I made sure her name was never on any
17   payroll receipts.  I -- we also had orders to go in and
18   check the PC files to make sure certain things were not
19   there so she couldn't be traced.
20             But that was -- again, as I say, this was -- this
21   was extremely rare.  But it was only done as a -- like a
22   defensive measure to protect yourself, that she could be
23   arrested and picked up, and you'd want to be able to have
24   plausible denial:  "I don't know who she is.  I don't have
25   any records."
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, could Mr. Young date
 2        that, please?
 3             THE COURT:  Yes.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  What his post was at that time?
 5             THE WITNESS:  This was in 1972 in San
 6        Francisco.
 8        Q    Now --
 9             THE WITNESS:  Possibly 1971.
11        Q    And you were in Department 20?
12        A    Department 20, yes.
13        Q    Now, the organization board of all of Scientology
14   has all these lines.  Are those called the command lines,
15   connecting one department to another, one division to
16   another?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    And then RTC just kind of sits up at the top where
19   there's no lines running to it, is that right?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    Why is --
22        A    That's -- that's the diagram.  I showed the
23   diagram.
24        Q    Why -- why is that?
25             THE COURT:  What diagram are you talking to?
 1        In the command channels?
 2             MR. DANDAR:  It's in the command channels or --
 3        I mean, I have one here that's in the back of this
 4        book.
 6        Q    RTC just kind of sits up there at the top.
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    Why aren't there any lines connected to RTC?
 9        A    Because RTC operates, as the most senior
10   network -- and following what we learned back in '77, you
11   don't want to show, like you're doing right now in a court,
12   that there are command lines coming out, even though that's
13   how it operates.
14        Q    So even though it's not in writing, it operates
15   with command lines coming out.
16        A    Oh, definitely.  RTC was set up to be the most
17   senior command organization.
18             THE COURT:  When you say because of what they
19        learned, what we learned -- I don't remember how you
20        referred to it -- you're speaking now of the fact
21        that -- what you told us before, about the
22        indictments and how they were able to link some of
23        the folks higher up with certain actions that were,
24        I guess, perceived to be criminal actions, by these
25        command lines?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  The documents that
 2        had been seized in the raid, as well as --
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.  I don't need all of that.
 4             But I guess what I'm trying to say is when you
 5        said, "Because of what we learned," it's that
 6        episode that you're speaking of.
 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  The indictment and
 8        the -- of --
 9             THE COURT:  The jailing of the --
10             THE WITNESS:  Well, the jailing followed.  But
11        the indictment, it -- that involved Hubbard's wife,
12        who worked right next to him, all the way down to
13        the lowest-level operative; the fact that they could
14        climb through so many organizations and link them
15        all with our own documents at the time.  That was
16        what had to be prevented from ever happening again.
17             THE COURT:  Okay.
19        Q    Now, you left in 1989, the organization, correct?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    What was your -- where were you working at the
22   time?  What was your post?
23        A    At the time I left, I was actually out at Gilman
24   Hot Springs, which is the actual international headquarters.
25   But at the time I was still staff at Office Services.
 1        Q    Okay.
 2        A    Paid staff at Office Services.
 3        Q    And what were you doing at Gilman Hot Springs?
 4        A    I had said I wanted to what we call route out,
 5   which means you would like to leave your position and just
 6   cease working for the organization.  And there's a procedure
 7   to be followed.
 8             And so they sent me out to Gilman to sort things
 9   out, so to speak.  And I was to stay out there and sort of
10   get rest and recuperation and come to my senses.
11             So finally I realized -- I asked, and they weren't
12   going to allow me to route out, so I just said, "Okay," and
13   I took it upon my own and left.
14        Q    And since leaving the Church of Scientology in
15   1989, have you become involved in any manner in assisting
16   people or their attorneys who are in litigation with the
17   Church of Scientology?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Can you tell us how that first came about?
20        A    I -- I believe it was in 1994.  I don't recall
21   exactly.  I was contacted by Dan Leipold, whose name I just
22   mentioned a while ago.  And he was the attorney of record in
23   the Wollersheim case.  And said that he understood that I
24   had a lot of years -- and my wife at that time, Stacy -- we
25   had a lot of years in.  Would -- could he meet with him --
 1   could we meet with him?
 2             And so we did.  Met at his office, along with
 3   other attorney, Graham Berry.  And we spent -- I don't know,
 4   maybe five, six hours -- as they sought to find out how much
 5   I knew; what did I understand; finding out that I knew the
 6   vocabulary, the language.  I'd been in virtually every
 7   echelon, so I had this experience.
 8             And so they -- he said, you know, "We have
 9   litigation going and we don't understand the terminology.
10   We don't understand all these bulletins, these policies.  We
11   ask questions," like, "What's HCO," like was just asked.
12   And it's -- more than anything else, it's the vocabulary.
13        Q    So you -- you didn't go out on the Internet and
14   have a Web site saying, you know, "Come hire me.  I'm a
15   former Scientologist," or advertise or send letters to the
16   lawyers who were suing Scientology or defending --
17        A    Not at all.  I hadn't been in contact with hardly
18   anybody, just about two people, with regard to my past
19   experiences; just personal friends.
20             They contacted me.
21        Q    Well -- well, when is the first time -- since
22   Mr. Leipold contacted you in '94, when is the first time you
23   started preparing as a consultant in reference to
24   Scientology matters?
25        A    That would have been actually 1982.
 1        Q    While you were still a Scientologist?
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    And explain that.
 4        A    There was a court case in Los Angeles, in Los
 5   Angeles Superior Court, where -- I forget which Scientology
 6   entity.  I think the Scientology International -- as well as
 7   Mary Sue Hubbard at that time, who came in -- I forget how
 8   it was that her name was added -- were suing Gerry
 9   Armstrong.  Gerry Armstrong had been an archivist who had
10   basically left with thousands and thousands and thousands of
11   documents.  And so he was being taken to court.
12             I was with Office Services at the time.  And since
13   I knew about those documents, and worked with them, they
14   told me that I needed to go off and work on this for a few
15   months, put this stuff together as evidence that could be
16   used against Gerry.  So I produced documents, worked for
17   other people, put together packs for attorneys, advised
18   them, and then I was called as a witness in the court case
19   and spent a few hours on the stand testifying according to
20   my, at that time, expertise and knowledge about the
21   materials.
22        Q    And this is at -- you're testifying for a Church
23   of Scientology entity, and you're an employee for a
24   for-profit corporation, ASI?
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    All right.  And then the next time you got
 2   involved in litigation, is that with Mr. Leipold?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Okay.  And did you have any -- did you file any
 5   declarations for Mr. Leipold in that Wollersheim case back
 6   then?
 7        A    No.
 8        Q    Did you file any declarations for Mr. Berry?
 9        A    Mr. Berry asked us to come work for him.  I didn't
10   start to do any work for Mr. Leipold for quite a while.
11             And as I told you, he was in the room asking
12   questions.  And he had litigation going as defense counsel
13   for a suit being -- that was brought against two individuals
14   based upon the 1991 Time Magazine case, for statements made
15   in the magazine, and asked if we could come on as
16   consultants for that case.
17        Q    So you and your wife then, Stacy, did not seek out
18   Mr. Berry?
19        A    No.
20        Q    He sought you out.
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    And the Time Magazine case, what two individuals
23   was he representing?
24        A    Dr. Geertz, which is, I believe, G-e-e-r-t-z, and
25   Steve Fishman, F-i-s-h-m-a-n.  Dr. Geertz was the
 1   psychiatrist of Steve Fishman.  And statements were made in
 2   the Time Magazine article for which they were being sued.
 3        Q    Is that something that has to do with Mr. Fishman
 4   being ordered to kill his psychiatrist?
 5        A    Yes.  That was the context.
 6        Q    And did Mr. Berry tell you or your wife, Stacy,
 7   what he wanted you to write in your declaration?
 8        A    Never.
 9        Q    What was the purpose of your --
10        A    No.  When you said -- I'm sorry.  I think you said
11   me or Stacy?
12        Q    Right.
13        A    You know, I was there for, I think, just about
14   every time when she was doing hers, so -- I'm trying not to
15   speak for her.
16        Q    Right.
17        A    But no, I had never had any evidence or any
18   conversations from her telling me or while I was there with
19   him telling her.  But he certainly never told me.
20        Q    So did you write a declaration?
21        A    I wrote a number of declarations.
22        Q    For that case, the Fishman case?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    And did Stacy write a number of declarations?
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    Do you know, as you sit here today, whether any of
 2   those declarations included anything that was not true?
 3        A    No.  I read hers and I knew about mine, and I
 4   never found anything that was false.
 5             THE COURT:  This is for what I have referred to
 6        in this courtroom periodically as the Fishman case?
 7             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 8             THE COURT:  Okay.
 9             MR. DANDAR:  Which apparently is included in
10        the Time Magazine case.  Somehow.
11        A    Well, it stemmed from the Time Magazine article.
12   And originally the defendant -- plaintiff had gotten the
13   case -- whatever you call it -- bifurcated.  The cases were
14   almost together -- because there was cases being run out of
15   New York as well.  Time Magazine was being sued in New York.
16   And so --
18        Q    Oh.
19             THE COURT:  It really doesn't matter.
20             THE WITNESS:  I'm just trying to stay --
21             THE COURT:  Right.  I just need to know -- it's
22        been referred to here as, I've heard --
23             THE WITNESS:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  -- the Wollersheim case, the
25        Fishman case, and this case, the Armstrong case.
 1             So I take it this is the Fishman case.
 2             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 5        Q    Did you do any -- did anyone contact you on the
 6   Time Magazine case?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    Who?
 9        A    A representative from the office of Floyd Abrams.
10   I don't know Mr. Abrams -- the name of Mr. Abrams' office,
11   but he's well known as probably the most prominent First
12   Amendment attorney in the United States.
13             I was contacted --
14             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  There's a gesture I
15        missed.
16             MR. DANDAR:  I thought Mr. Lirot was.
17             THE COURT:  And I always thought it was George
18        Rahdert.  And I can see that counsel sitting over
19        here is taking exception to that.
20             MR. DANDAR:  I thought it was Mr. Lieberman.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  I knew it was not me so --
22             THE COURT:  Right.
24        Q    But did you go --
25             THE WITNESS:  Mr. Abrams is the one that's
 1        always quoted on CNN when they want a talking head.
 3        Q    So did you go meet with Mr. Abrams at his law
 4   firm?
 5        A    Yes.  They asked me to come meet with them.  And I
 6   flew out to New York, and we spent the day, Mr. Abrams and a
 7   number of his counsel, going over it.  They wanted to find
 8   out what I knew about this, because they were having
 9   trouble, again, understanding the jargon, understanding the
10   materials.  You know, "I can't read this stuff.  What does
11   this organizational chart mean?"
12             THE COURT:  Who is Mr. Abrams again?
13             MR. DANDAR:  Floyd Abrams is a well-known First
14        Amendment lawyer from New York City.
15             THE COURT:  But I mean, who was he
16        representing?
17             MR. DANDAR:  Time Magazine.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.
19             THE WITNESS:  He was representing Time
20        Magazine, yes.
22        Q    And again, you did not solicit Mr. Abrams?
23        A    No.
24        Q    Okay.
25        A    And to mention -- he was defense counsel for Time
 1   Magazine.  This wasn't a suit being brought by them, but he
 2   was defense counsel.
 3             So after that, I went back.  And then I was
 4   notified that they wanted to retain me.
 5             This was a case that Stacy did not work on.  We
 6   often worked together, but I just worked on this one myself.
 7             THE COURT:  Who is they again, please?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Mr. -- for Mr. Abrams' firm.
10        Q    Did you ever -- were you ever approached by
11   Mr. Rinder after you filed declaration for Mr. Berry in the
12   Fishman case?
13        A    I was approached by Mike Rinder after the case was
14   done.  They had withdrawn their suit and the case was over.
15   And I don't recall how long after that it was that he
16   contacted me.
17        Q    The Church of Scientology dismissed its suit
18   against Mr. Fishman?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    And where were you living when Mr. Rinder
21   contacted you?
22        A    Newport Beach, which is maybe 50 miles south of
23   Los Angeles.
24        Q    And did Mr. Rinder tell you why he wanted to see
25   you?
 1        A    Yeah.  He said he wanted to just work things out,
 2   you know, and settle some differences.  And could we meet
 3   and talk it over?
 4        Q    And did you meet?
 5        A    I said, "I really am not interested.  I don't have
 6   anything to work out.  No thank you," and hung up the phone.
 7        Q    What happened next?
 8        A    A couple of days later he called me again, and he
 9   made the request again, you know, saying, "Come on.  Let's
10   just work things out, sort it out here; sort out our
11   difference."  And I said, "I have got nothing to sort out,"
12   and hung up on him again.
13        Q    And then?
14        A    And then a few days later, Stacy called me.  She
15   was living in Seattle.  We had separated for a while.  She
16   wanted to just -- she was sick of the work.  You know, it
17   had been intensive.  We had been doing this for a year and a
18   half, and sometimes seven days a week.  And she wanted to
19   just get away from everything.  So she was up in Seattle,
20   and she called and said, "Mike Rinder called me.  He wants
21   to meet and just work things out."  So she urged me to do
22   it.  I said I didn't think it was a great idea, but since
23   she requested, I said, "Okay."
24             So I flew up to Seattle -- I told her, "Go ahead,
25   set up the meeting."  And I flew up to Seattle to her place,
 1   and we -- we met with Mike Rinder and Mike Sutter.
 2        Q    Who's Mike Sutter?
 3        A    Mike Sutter was one of Mr. Miscavige's aides.  I
 4   don't know what his position was at that time, but he was --
 5   had always been one of Mr. -- Mr. Miscavige's aides.
 6        Q    And in '94, what was Mr. Rinder's position?
 7        A    He was -- he was OSA at that time also.
 8             THE COURT:  He was what?
 9             THE WITNESS:  He was OSA at that time,
10        Department 20.
11             THE COURT:  I mean, but what?  Was he in charge
12        of it or --
13             THE WITNESS:  I believe he was, yes.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  I do take it from the last --
15             Could I ask --
16             Is it 1994?  Is that the -- circa the time
17        period that we're talking about here?
18             THE WITNESS:  Maybe -- no.  Maybe a little bit
19        later than that.  I don't recall.  I'm sorry.
21        Q    You mean '94 or '95 --
22        A    It was after the Fishman case was done, so -- I'm
23   trying to remember --
24             No, it wasn't '94.  It was more like '96.
25        Q    Okay.  And OSA -- Mr. Rinder being the head of
 1   OSA, do you know what corporation OSA was in?
 2        A    Well, the last I knew it was just part of the
 3   Church of Scientology California or International.  They
 4   could have moved it at that time.  I don't know.
 5        Q    Okay.  So what did Mr. Rinder tell you when you
 6   met with him finally?
 7        A    Well, you know, the first part of it, since we had
 8   been on opposite sides of the litigation and philosophical
 9   fence, so to speak, the front end was just social for a
10   while.  And then he just said he wanted to sort things out
11   and work things out with us.  And this was -- this went on
12   for a number of hours.
13             And I should say the meetings went -- extended
14   across six days.  And it took -- it took about -- a couple
15   of days before we got around to more what they really wanted
16   to do.
17        Q    All right.  Let me interrupt you for a minute.
18             During the six-day period of neg- -- or meeting
19   with him, were you involved in any case?
20        A    No.
21             Well, I can't say that right away, because there
22   was some times, like -- like the Time case, where it might
23   be ongoing and you were just hanging back and you might -- I
24   might get a call and say, "Listen, can you show us where
25   policy such and such is?"
 1             So I don't recall if there was anything just
 2   hanging out there.  But I know it was pretty quiet.
 3        Q    Well, let me make it clearer.
 4             When you met with Mr. Rinder in Seattle, and
 5   Mr. Sutter, had you filed any declarations in any case in
 6   addition to the Fishman case?
 7        A    I may have.  I wouldn't want to stand by it
 8   because I don't have it really nailed down.
 9        Q    All right.
10        A    There became, finally, so many cases I kind of
11   lose track of them.
12        Q    Now, the Fishman case was a defense case.  You
13   were -- he was being sued by Scientology, correct?
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    And Time Magazine was a defense case.  He was
16   being -- they were being sued by Scientology.
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    And we'll get back to the negot- -- or the
19   meetings with Mr. Rinder.
20             But when was the first time you were approached by
21   a plaintiff's lawyer wanting you to do work for the
22   plaintiff's side to sue Scientology?
23        A    That would have been you.
24        Q    In the McPherson case.
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    All right.  Let's go back to '94.  Mr. Rinder's in
 2   Seattle.  You finally hear him as to what he wants you to
 3   do.  And what is that?
 4        A    Well, that came, finally, at the last day of the
 5   meetings.  And I can fill in the front end later if you
 6   want.
 7             But we met at their hotel, the Doubletree, which
 8   is close to the Seattle airport.  And he had two sets of
 9   documents that he wanted me to -- he wanted us to sign.  And
10   he said they were just drafts and we could talk about it.
11   And he showed us these two documents.  They were both more
12   than one page.  I don't remember how many.  One document was
13   to be private, to be used just between us, keep confidential
14   and secret, and the other one was to be able to then be used
15   publicly.
16             The secret one had an amount of money that we were
17   to be paid which came to -- I've never been able to remember
18   exactly -- some odd figure, like 280,000, 240,000.  Which
19   you can ask me or I can say later how that figure came out.
20        Q    Well, what was the money for?
21        A    The -- they wanted us -- well, this is what all
22   the documents were for.  The discussions had come up of --
23   they wanted us to get out of the consultation business.
24             During the meetings prior to that last day, they
25   said, you know, "Isn't there another line of work you'd
 1   really like to do?"  And they knew something about us then.
 2   They knew that I liked the Internet, you know, and desktop
 3   publishing.  I had been a writer from -- ever since the
 4   sixth grade.
 5             "Isn't there other things you'd like to do?"
 6   "Well, there are a lot of things we'd like to do."
 7             And this is how we were sort of brought along.
 8             "Wouldn't you like to travel?"  And, "What would
 9   it take to do this?  What would it take?"  "Well, if I did
10   this, I would need new computer systems."  "What would that
11   cost?"  "Oh, I don't know.  $20,000," you know.  And, "What
12   would it take for such and such or another --"  "Don't you
13   guys have some debts?"  "Yeah."  Well, how many debts have
14   you got?"  And that's how this figure came up, you know.
15   And, "How long would it take you to -- to get this going?"
16   "Oh, about five years."  "Well, what do you think you would
17   need for an annual income in that time?"  "Oh, I don't know.
18   Such and such."
19             And so this is how this odd figure, I realized
20   later, came -- came up:  That if we accepted this amount,
21   then all we had to do was we had to retract and recant all
22   of our declarations and our testimony and say that we had
23   perjured ourselves, and that we had to implicate Mr. Berry,
24   and said that he had instructed us to do this, and we had
25   written declarations at his instructions.
 1             And when I saw this, first of all, my -- my
 2   stomach just fell.  I was sick at my stomach.
 3             And I said to him -- I said, "Well, first of all,
 4   he never told me to write anything."  And Mr. Rinder said,
 5   "Oh, we can work this out.  Remember, this is just a draft.
 6   We'll work this out."  It was always this, you know, "We'll
 7   sort this out."
 8             And I said something else.  'Cause I just looked
 9   at this --
10             And -- and then we went into -- Stacy and I went
11   into the other room.  And I said, "No way."  I had never --
12   you know, I didn't like it from the start.  She was the one
13   that wanted to do it.  I went -- I said, "I'm not going to
14   sign this.  This is a piece of crap.  This is -- this is --
15   they're asking me to say I'm a perjurer and to implicate
16   people, and they're going to give me 200 and whatever
17   thousand dollars."
18             Oh, also a gag order.  I couldn't talk about
19   Scientology publicly.  I couldn't assist in any -- anybody
20   else in litigation.  I couldn't assist in any other way.
21   And I also -- the agreement also required that I would have
22   to turn over all my files.  All -- or both of us would turn
23   all of our files and records to them.  So we basically just
24   expunge everything we have, admit -- you know, confess that
25   we're a bunch of perjurers, implicate Graham Berry, and they
 1   give us money and we could walk.  And that's how we were
 2   going to get -- that's how we were going to sort it out.
 3             So I came back in, after telling Stacy, "No way,"
 4   and I just threw the papers on the table and said, you know,
 5   "Forget it."
 6        Q    The papers, were they declarations for you to
 7   sign?
 8        A    They were in the form of declarations but they
 9   were not as you might recognize them, because they were
10   drafts.  They were 8-and-a-half-by-11 paper, and they were
11   not in a form that you might present to the court, because
12   we were going to work out the wording.  So they weren't
13   ready for our signatures at that time.  But they were in the
14   wording of a declaration, you know, with even paragraphs
15   that were numbered.
16        Q    What was Stacy's position on all this?
17        A    She agreed with me to not -- not to do it.
18             As I said, prior to that, she -- she wanted it.
19   She said, "Listen, I --" she wanted out of it.  Says, "If
20   we're going to get out of it, let's just see if we can get
21   out of it and start a new life."
22        Q    Was she willing to sign the declarations where she
23   admitted that she was a perjurer and Graham Berry made her
24   lie under oath?
25        A    No.  When I said, "I'm not going to sign this,"
 1   she says, "Okay.  I'm with you."
 2        Q    Okay.  But before you said you weren't going to
 3   sign it, did she express her opinion as to what she wanted
 4   to do?
 5        A    No.  Because when we walked back into the
 6   bathroom, I didn't even ask her opinion.  I just said, "This
 7   is a bunch of crap."
 8        Q    All right.  And when you came out and said to
 9   Mr. Rinder, "No thanks," did he make any other offers, like,
10   "You don't have to recant," or, "You don't have to go after
11   Mr. Berry," or anything like that?
12        A    No.  Just his first reaction was, "Well, come on.
13   Let's talk about this."  And I said, "I've got nothing to
14   talk about.  I've seen what you're trying to do, and there's
15   no way that this is negotiable.  And I don't want to hear
16   from you again."  And his last words were, you know, "If you
17   walk out of here, you know, we can destroy you."
18        Q    Did you reply to that?
19        A    I said, "Go for it."
20        Q    And what happened after you walked out?
21        A    We left the hotel, went back to her place, which
22   is maybe 25 minutes away.  And there was a message waiting
23   on the phone from Mr. Rinder, which was suddenly a change of
24   mood; no longer, you know, a threat or anything.  Just like,
25   "Hey, guys, I know things got a little out of hand.  You
 1   know, things are a little heated.  Come on, let's just sit
 2   down and, you know, work this out," and a lot of this, you
 3   know, blah, blah, blah.  So that message was on the phone.
 4        Q    And did you ever get back with Mr. Rinder?
 5        A    No.  We went out to dinner.  And I told her,
 6   "Let's --" no way were we going to call him back.  So we
 7   just went out to dinner.  I stayed over.
 8             And the next day, he called again and left another
 9   message, and I didn't call back.  And I flew back to Newport
10   Beach at that time.
11             And two days later, after I got back to Newport
12   Beach, he called me, and I picked up the phone, and he says,
13   "Hey, come on.  We'll just -- we'll sort this out."  I said,
14   "I have nothing to sort out with you," and, "Don't you ever
15   call me again," and hung up the phone.  And that was the end
16   of that.
17        Q    There came -- was there ever anything that
18   happened to you afterwards, where you thought that
19   Mr. Rinder had gone forward to complete his original threat?
20        A    No.  There was harassment, you know, but it -- I
21   haven't been destroyed, so whatever.
22        Q    What type of harassment --
23        A    I know -- I know that he filed the declaration in
24   another case which is totally contrary to this, saying that
25   I was supposedly -- we were extorting them for money.  Which
 1   I always thought was funny, because I'm going to fly to
 2   Seattle, and he and another person are going to fly to
 3   Seattle so I can spend six days trying to extort them on
 4   money?  It's sort of like to me, on the surface, ridiculous,
 5   but that's their story.
 6        Q    Well, was Mr. Rinder's affidavit -- we talked
 7   about this -- have you seen that?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    And is it truthful?
10        A    Well, there's elements of truth in it.  You know,
11   we met in Seattle and this sort of stuff.  But as far as the
12   motive, as to who contacted whom, no.  You know, he
13   contacted me and he contacted her and they offered us money
14   and they offered us two -- you know, two --
15             THE COURT:  This is fairly -- a fairly poor
16        way, Mr. Dandar, to say, is it -- is it true, is it
17        false; and this man who doesn't even have the
18        affidavit in front of him is trying to say what's
19        true and what's not?
20             MR. DANDAR:  Right.  You're right.
22        Q    Did any harassment continue after you told --
23   declined Mr. Rinder's office --
24        A    Yes.
25        Q    -- offer?
 1        A    Yes.
 2        Q    And tell us what that is.
 3        A    Oh, boy.
 4             THE COURT:  I mean, we really don't have to
 5        have it.  Because obviously, he has stated what
 6        happened.  We've seen the affidavit.
 7             I just don't like it when I see people -- call
 8        it suborning perjury, committing perjury, and what
 9        have it; being allowed to ramble under oath about an
10        affidavit and what's true and what isn't.
11             MR. DANDAR:  I'm trying to find --
12             THE COURT:  I won't have it.
13             MR. DANDAR:  I'm trying to find the affidavit.
14             THE COURT:  I don't know that I need it.
15             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
16             THE COURT:  I don't think you need to go there.
17             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
18             THE COURT:  I don't think it's being fair to
19        this witness, in light of the allegations that are
20        made in this particular motion, that you should let
21        this witness just kind of guess at what's true and
22        what isn't.
23             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I believe it's marked as an
24        exhibit.  And I have a copy that's not marked as an
25        exhibit.  Can I just show him the copy I have?
 1             THE COURT:  Sure.
 3        Q    And it's dated and signed by Mr. Rinder
 4   October 27th, 1994 in Los Angeles.
 5             MR. DANDAR:  But I'm going to actually skip
 6        over this question now, 'cause that's a pretty
 7        long --
 8             THE COURT:  Well, it is.  And I know that there
 9        is some evidence in here that the other side has
10        gotten in about what Stacy has presumably said.  I
11        don't know that she said it, but I -- seems as if
12        there's some hearsay statements as to what she said.
13        So there may be some relevance to having him comment
14        on it.  But I think it's just poor form to have him
15        kind of guess what an old affidavit says.
16             MR. DANDAR:  It is and --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  And for the record, since
18        Mr. Young has that affidavit in front of him, could
19        we -- you or somebody had asked -- it might have
20        been me -- the dates of these meetings, would that
21        indicate the meetings were in '94 and not '96?
22             THE WITNESS:  I see here that says in, "July,
23        '94, Michael Sutter and I spent several days in
24        Seattle --" well, it was actually six.
25             But this seems accurate to me.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  So it would be '94.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I think I said that earlier
 3        when I was asked the date, and I believe it was '94,
 4        and I think that's right.
 5             MR. DANDAR:  I think I'll ask him to look at it
 6        over the lunchtime, because it's a pretty long --
 8        Q    I'll ask another question:
 9             Just generally tell us, did any harassment take
10   place since July of '94 while you and -- against you or
11   Stacy?
12        A    Yes.  We -- you know, things from being picketed,
13   the neighborhood being leafletted, making accusations
14   against us, anonymous leaflets; neighbors were visited by
15   people asking questions about us.  But it was more -- you
16   know -- You know, "I have some questions about the Youngs.
17   Is it true they still use drugs?"  It's really like a
18   question that is embedded with an accusation.  This went
19   on -- this type of stuff, of -- went on even when we were --
20   changed locations and moved to different locations.
21        Q    Did Stacy start a cat sanctuary in Seattle?
22             THE COURT:  Let me ask you a question,
23        Mr. Young.
24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, your Honor.
25             THE COURT:  Are you able to -- or I should say,
 1        are you, were you, able to establish other than by
 2        what you've surmised or what you think, that this
 3        was in fact either members of the Church of
 4        Scientology or people hired by the Church of
 5        Scientology who were responsible for this
 6        harassment?
 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  There was -- because
 8        my field had been public relations.  I knew how to
 9        work with the media.  And I contacted the Seattle
10        Times when we were getting picketed there in west
11        Seattle, and told them about it.  The paper
12        contacted them, and they admitted that they were the
13        ones that were picketing.  And the story appeared in
14        the Seattle Times, on the front page, about this.
15        So this was a direct public admission that they were
16        sending people in on us.
17             THE COURT:  The -- the people -- the pickets,
18        whatever they were, admitted they were connected or
19        affiliated with the Church of Scientology?
20             THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am.  The woman in the
21        Office of Special Affairs -- I believe -- I believe
22        it was --
23             THE COURT:  The newspaper contacted the person
24        in the Office of Special Affairs and she admitted
25        they were people that she had sent out there?
 1             THE WITNESS:  I believe that was her position,
 2        ma'am, but it was --
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 4             THE WITNESS:  -- somebody speaking for the
 5        Seattle organization that said, "Yes, those are
 6        Scientologists."
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.
 9        Q    Besides picketing and contacting your neighbors,
10   did they contact any governmental authorities to come out to
11   your house?
12        A    Because of the number of cats we had in the house,
13   we started getting strange visits.  You know, the Department
14   of Health, Animal Control; a social worker came out who
15   says, "I understand there's a crazy woman living in this
16   house who keeps cats."  So we started having all these --
17   these visits and inspections.  They were starting to show up
18   quite a bit.
19        Q    And --
20             THE COURT:  This was a part of what you --
21        you're calling the harassment; it was all this
22        occurring at the same time?
23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
24             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2        Q    How -- what period of time did this occur over?
 3        A    Well, it was the most intense up in Seattle -- I'd
 4   say '90 -- it increased.  And the picketing was '96, '97, in
 5   that -- in that venue somewhere.  They came out a number of
 6   times over a period of time so I can't really give it a
 7   specific date.
 8        Q    Did it -- did it start getting more intense
 9   after --
10             Well, did you file any declarations in any case
11   that you can relate to when it started to get more intense?
12        A    No.  It was only after we turned down the -- the
13   offer to sort things out.  Because until that time, the
14   harassment was actually pretty minimal.  You know, somebody
15   pounding on my door, throwing things through my window.
16   While the window was open, you know.  It was -- it was -- it
17   was not nearly to the degree of this intensity until we had
18   finally said we didn't want to settle.
19        Q    When is the first time you filed another
20   declaration, after the Fishman declaration?
21        A    Oh, gee, I -- that's a tough one.  Because I know
22   I started some work for Mr. Leipold for some lawsuits that
23   were being filed that he was the defense counsel for.  I --
24   I really don't remember.
25             Along with the Time Magazine, I also worked for --
 1   the Sally Jesse Raphael Show was sued, and so the Metro
 2   Media Group that owned the show contacted me, and I did the
 3   same thing where I was consulting for them, because they
 4   were being sued by -- by a Scientologist for a Scientology
 5   show.  So I really can't put them into an order --
 6        Q    Okay.
 7        A    -- at this time.
 8        Q    All right.  Let me ask you a general question on
 9   Scientology.  Can anyone change the policies written by
10   Mr. Hubbard?
11        A    No.  That's -- and that's one of the first
12   purposes of that first document that you introduced, Keeping
13   Scientology Working.  It was to -- it was completely
14   forbidden to change them.  Other than make a -- you know, a
15   typo or removing a wrong comma someplace, no, you cannot --
16   you are forbidden from changing them, saying that they're
17   old, omitting them, telling people, "You can't do this
18   anymore because it's old."  No.
19        Q    What would happen if someone changed the policies
20   written by Mr. Hubbard?
21        A    You were in serious trouble.  You were -- for
22   example, you could be removed from your -- your position;
23   you could be demoted; you could be in trouble in one way or
24   the other.
25        Q    Do you know of any situation where a staff member
 1   could ignore the policies of Mr. Hubbard?
 2        A    Again, you do it at your own risk.
 3             THE COURT:  You tell me when you're at a good
 4        stopping point.
 5             I think that clock is wrong.  It says noon, but
 6        I've got 10 till.  Is my clock wrong?
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  Yours is wrong.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  I've got two till.
 9             THE COURT:  It's two minutes till.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  It's about 11:57, something like
11        that.
12             THE COURT:  You tell me when you want to --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Or thereabouts.
14             THE COURT:  Is this a good time to stop?
15             MR. DANDAR:  It can be.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Yeah.
17             THE COURT:  Let's stop.  We're going -- since
18        we don't have much time this week, and since
19        sometimes on my breaks I'm having to take longer,
20        let's just go for an hour.  We'll be back at 1.
21                (A recess was taken at 11:58 p.m.)
 2                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 4   STATE OF FLORIDA         )
 6             I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was
                authorized to and did stenographically report the
            7   proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and
                complete record of my stenographic notes.
                          I further certify that I am not a relative,
            9   employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
                I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
           10   counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
                interested in the action.
12   WITNESS my hand and official seal this 17th day of June,
13   2002.
15                             ______________________________
                                          DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR


To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index


                            Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
                              Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
                            Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500


                                  CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
     DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5    Representative of the ESTATE OF
7              Plaintiff,
8    vs.                                     VOLUME 2
     and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
15    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                          Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
      CONTENTS:           Testimony of Vaughn Young.
      DATE:               June 17, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
      PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19                        St. Petersburg, Florida.
20    BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
                          Circuit Judge.
      REPORTED BY:        Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22                        Deputy Official Court Reporter,
                          Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.


     5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
4    Tampa, FL 33602
     Attorney for Plaintiff.
7    112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
     Tampa, FL 33602-4108
8    Attorney for Plaintiff
      1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
11    Clearwater, FL 33755
      Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
12    Organization.
15    101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
      Tampa, FL 33602-5147
16    Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
19    740 Broadway at Astor Place
      New York, NY 10003-9518
20    Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service


1                       INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS
3    Direct Examination (resumed) - Mr. Dandar         121
4    Cross-Examination - Mr. Weinberg                  217


1              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, could I bring up
2         something before the witness gets back on?
3              THE COURT:  Sure.
4              MR. MOXON:  I think you have in your office now
5         the list from Mr. Keane of the summaries of these
6         videotapes from LMT.
7              You can sit down, Mr. Young.
8              So --
9              THE COURT:  I don't know if I do or not.  I
10         haven't seen them.
11              MR. MOXON:  I saw the courier come a little
12         while ago.  And I spoke to Mr. Keane this morning
13         and he said he was finally wrapping that up.
14              So just to let you know you have that, and to
15         refresh everybody's recollection of what I believe
16         was the procedure, you were going to take a look at
17         the summaries and determine which ones we get or are
18         available for the parties and which not.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.
20              MR. MOXON:  And I understand from him what he
21         did, he summarized them in a form of saying which
22         witnesses have statements on the videos and which
23         ones are considered to be private, just Mr. Bunker's
24         family or whatever.
25              THE COURT:  Okay.


1              MR. MOXON:  Obviously we don't want that.  So
2         we have, you know, a list --
3              THE COURT:  Did you-all get a copy of whatever
4         it is he --
5              MR. MOXON:  No, he said he was making the list
6         itself just to the Court.
7              THE COURT:  Oh, okay.
8              MR. MOXON:  He said he had a cover filing which
9         I haven't received, which hasn't been served yet,
10         but I assume we'll get today, which was just kind of
11         a summary of what he had been doing.
12              But the list he said he would not serve on
13         anyone, it would just go to you because he
14         understood your instructions.
15              THE COURT:  Okay, I'll try to take a look at
16         it, probably not until tonight, but I'll take a look
17         at it tonight.
18              MR. MOXON:  Fine.  If you could let us know in
19         the morning.
20              THE COURT:  I'll try.
21              MR. MOXON:  We are keeping you hopping.
22              THE COURT:  Yes, don't forget I'm trying to buy
23         and sell a house at the same time, as well as chair
24         reading, and as well as be on the panel, and as well
25         as handle this.


1              So, yes, everybody is keeping me hopping.
2              MR. MOXON:  Okay.
3             (A discussion was held off the record.)
4              MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, if you do -- even if
5         you don't finish, if you find some available and
6         they can be released --
7              THE COURT:  Mr. Moxon, I'll get to it as fast
8         as I can, and as soon as I can release anything to
9         you, I will do so.
10              MR. MOXON:  Thank you, your Honor.
11              THE COURT:  You may continue, Mr. Dandar.
12              MR. DANDAR:  May we make copies of this Rinder
13         affidavit while I question the witness?
14              THE COURT:  Sure.
15              MR. DANDAR:  And if it is too much noise, then
16         I'll stop.
17              THE COURT:  We all have it, though.
18              MR. DANDAR:  I haven't been able to find an
19         exhibit number.
20              THE WITNESS:  I left my copy on the bench.
21              MR. DANDAR:  But have we used this before?
22              THE COURT:  I believe so, but maybe not.
23              MR. DANDAR:  '94 Rinder affidavit.
24              THE COURT:  My clerk had some problem with some
25         child in school so she's not here to help us.


1              MR. WEINBERG:  I have learned in my employment
2         I have to be somewhat careful of that, of those
3         things.
4              THE COURT:  We'll have to get that straightened
5         out before the trial.  I don't know about these home
6         problems, they just don't exist when we get to
7         trial, so --
8              MR. WEINBERG:  I agree.
9              We're checking the list of exhibits to see if
10         it is because, frankly, I don't remember one way or
11         another.
12              THE COURT:  Well, I certainly remember having
13         it referred to, because I remember Ms. Young
14         testifying about it, I remember Ms. Yingling
15         testifying she saw it.  I remember Mr. Minton
16         testifying about it.  But Ms. Young, I think,
17         actually saw it.  That is when I think I actually
18         saw it.  I think it might have been introduced.
19              It doesn't matter.  Proceed on.
20                    DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    Mr. -- Mr. Young, in Scientology, were you
23    familiar with something called a routing form?
24         A    Yes.
25         Q    And what is a routing form?


1         A    A routing form is used when a person starts a
2    new -- what could be referred to -- as a service which could
3    be counseling or a course.  And your name is at the top.
4    The name of the service is there, the date.  And then it is
5    numbered with sequences, that you then go through a series
6    of sequences to route onto the course, which means you pay
7    your money, materials.  And they are not very long, usually.
8         Q    Is there any service or action in Scientology that
9    is not governed by a routing form?
10         A    There shouldn't be.  It's -- it's pretty much
11    standard.  There is policy that covers anything that you do,
12    you should have a routing form.
13         Q    Can a staff member, for instance, just wander
14    around the organization and choose what he or she is going
15    to do for the day?
16         A    No.
17         Q    Can a Sea Org member perform any activity or
18    provide a service without being ordered or delegated by his
19    or her senior?
20         A    Other than the position that you hold, no.
21         Q    Now, in Scientology, is there -- are you familiar
22    with the phrase a PR flap?
23         A    Yes.
24         Q    And why are you familiar with that phrase?
25         A    It was a phrase that we used quite often.  Ever


1    since I moved into the PR bureau, I heard it.
2         Q    And can you tell us what a PR flap is?
3         A    It's an adverse PR situation that would produce a
4    media story, article, print or electronic, that one might
5    deem to be critical of the organization practices.
6              And you can also have a PR flap with your
7    landlord.  Say you are behind on your rent and the landlord
8    is upset.  So that could be a PR flap.  I don't want to
9    restrict it to just media, but any situation that could be
10    bad public relations.
11         Q    Who steps in to handle PR flaps?
12         A    Supposed to be a trained PR person is the people
13    that always should be stepping into it to handle it.
14              There is policy that Hubbard wrote that said
15    public relations persons handle the PR, so that would
16    include a PR flap.
17         Q    Are PR flaps handled by any special department?
18         A    If it's an external PR flap, then it would be in
19    Department 20.  It would be a trained person in Department
20    20 PR.
21         Q    To a Scientologist -- and for the entire
22    organization of all of Scientology -- what does the
23    Clearwater's Flag Land Base signify?
24         A    Well, from the time that it became known as
25    that -- because there was a period of time when it wasn't


1    known as that, it was something else -- it became three
2    things.
3              First of all, it carried the name Flag.  And that
4    was a word that was reserved only for the ship Apollo where
5    Hubbard resided.  He borrowed the name from the Navy.  So
6    the Flag ship was the ship that the commandeer of a fleet --
7    where that commander was.  Regardless of which ship, it
8    always became the Flag ship.
9              So Apollo was the Flag ship.  So when the Apollo
10    was basically put to rest and the Flag Land Base came, it
11    acquired the name Flag.  So this is a very revered word.
12    It's the only organization that carries that in its name.
13              The second thing is that -- well, actually there
14    is more than what I just said, three.  It was also sort of,
15    in a way, Hubbard's legacy from the Apollo.  So, again, it
16    is very revered.
17              Thirdly, it's called the mecca of tech, which
18    means you just get almost any service there.  There is some
19    that are given at the new ship they have acquired.  But you
20    can get anything there.  So that was important.
21              And the last thing that was important was it was
22    in Clearwater.  And just because of the history, it became
23    very important.
24         Q    What do you mean, it was important because it's in
25    Clearwater?  What do you mean by that?


1         A    Well, the records are quite clear from -- after
2    the FBI raid of '77, what came pouring out of the files was
3    a series of covert ops being run against the mayor of
4    Clearwater.  There was intimidation, there was laws being
5    broken, fake hit-and-run accidents, records being stolen.
6              And this was in the middle of the long history of
7    conflict that had been going on between Scientology and the
8    City of Clearwater.  And so when that came pouring out, it
9    became evident what had been going on quietly behind the
10    scenes while they denied it.  So it became just a serious
11    confrontation.
12              And executives, because of it being Flag and
13    because of what it was, there was no way that they're going
14    to leave Clearwater.
15              THE COURT:  That thing of yours is about as bad
16         as the tap tap tap.
17              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  While he's doing that, my
19         objection is I think at the beginning of his
20         testimony, your Honor, you said you didn't want to
21         repeat the trial testimony or -- really most of what
22         we've heard today, my recollection is, is part of
23         trial testimony.
24              So my objection is based on what you said
25         earlier, I hope that we can limit what has already


1         been testified to in his deposition that took place
2         two years ago during his trial testimony.
3              THE COURT:  I agree.  But, you know, I don't
4         know exactly where Mr. Dandar is going with this.
5         If we're talking about Clearwater, that is of
6         benefit.
7              MR. DANDAR:  We have three pages to go.  Could
8         we finish it?
9              THE COURT:  Okay.  Yes.
10              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
11              THE COURT:  But remind me in the future when
12         you say could we just run something, if it is more
13         than just one page, the answer is no.
14              MR. DANDAR:  I'll take it out in the hallway
15         next time.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  By the way, we found the exhibit
17         number, it is 15V -- as in Victor -- Plaintiff's.
18         That is Mr. Rinder's.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.  So it is in evidence?
20              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, what I don't know, if it's
21         in evidence.  I assume it is, but the exhibit number
22         is 15V --
23              THE COURT:  Okay.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  -- as in Victor.
25              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.


1              THE COURT:  I don't remember anything from
2         plaintiff having anything A through V.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  I don't, either.
4              MR. DANDAR:  Anyway --
5              MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sure it's in that stack over
6         there.
8         Q    Were you involved in any of these overt or covert
9    operations?
10         A    No -- wait a minute.  You mean in Clearwater?
11         Q    In Clearwater.
12         A    No.
13         Q    Were you involved in overt or covert operations
14    anywhere else?
15         A    Well, overt operations.  I was a PR.
16         Q    Okay.  Within your experience in Department 20,
17    were there times when private investigators were retained to
18    follow people in open so the person knows they are being
19    followed?
20         A    Yes.  That -- that is -- I'm familiar with that.
21         Q    Is that called something in Scientology or in
22    Department 20?
23         A    Not in particular.
24              THE COURT:  What does that have to do with this
25         motion?


1              MR. DANDAR:  It has to do with Mr. Minton's
2         harassment time line.
3              THE COURT:  Okay.
5         Q    What was that -- what was the purpose of following
6    somebody but letting them know the PI was obvious to the
7    person being followed?
8         A    Just to harass them, to make them feel that
9    they're being watched.  A lot of people get very
10    uncomfortable with that, to have a tail on them, to be
11    sitting across the street, somebody knocking at your door.
12              Private investigators weren't used until after the
13    raid.  Prior to that, the Intelligence Bureau did it.  But
14    private investigators were later on used.
15         Q    Okay.  When you left in 1989, who was the head of
16    Sea Org?
17         A    Well, that would have been Mr. Miscavige.
18         Q    And if Mr. Miscavige, in 1995, November/December
19    of 1995, was still the captain, earned rank captain, the
20    only one of the Sea Org, who would be the head of the Sea
21    Org?
22         A    He would still be the head of the Sea Org.
23         Q    How much control does the Office of Special
24    Affairs Department 20 have over staff?
25              MR. WEINBERG:  I object.  This man was never in


1         the Office of Special Affairs.  He was in the
2         Guardian's Office prior to 1982, according to his
3         testimony.  But now Mr. Dandar is asking him about
4         the Office of Special Affairs, which is -- you know,
5         as of 2002.  So I object to his competence to
6         testify --
7              THE COURT:  During what period of time are you
8         asking about?
9              MR. DANDAR:  Well --
10    BY MR. DANDAR:
11         Q    Were you ever in the Office of Special Affairs?
12         A    I was in it during the change-over.  Then while I
13    was in Office Services, I directed other activities in the
14    Office of Special Affairs.  So I still knew about it because
15    we gave orders.
16         Q    What type of orders would you, in a for-profit
17    corporation, ASI, give to the Office of Special Affairs?
18         A    With regard to media, with regard to PR flaps,
19    with regard to their liaisoning with other sections that had
20    public relations functions besides just them, such as a
21    public relations agency, a public relations agency was hired
22    early on to try to help with the PR.  So we had to work out
23    that coordination.
24         Q    How would you -- what function would you play in
25    ASI to Department 20, the Office of Special Affairs, to


1    handle PR flaps?
2              THE COURT:  My biggest problem here is,
3         Counselor, ASI didn't even exist in 1995.  It was
4         gone.
5              MR. DANDAR:  It was.
6              THE COURT:  So this man is talking about
7         something he did from one department that didn't
8         even exist at the relevant time of this proceeding
9         to an agency -- or to an organization that he never
10         belonged to.
11              You'll just have to bring it up to present day
12         and time.  And I don't think he's competent to do
13         that.
14              MR. DANDAR:  I'll do that right now.
15              THE WITNESS:  Could I correct one thing?
16              THE COURT:  Sure.
17              THE WITNESS:  ASI continued to exist.  It did
18         not cease existence.  You may be thinking of another
19         organization.
20              THE COURT:  No I'm thinking of ASI.
21              THE WITNESS:  Office Services continued, and
22         continues today.
23              THE COURT:  Well, that testimony differs from
24         other testimony, so --


2         Q    What was it about ASI, when you were in ASI, no
3    longer Department 20, that gave you the power to send orders
4    over to Department 20, Office of Special Affairs?
5         A    Because we acquired the power through David
6    Miscavige.  And that was because we were the ones that
7    controlled the communications of L. Ron Hubbard into the
8    rest of Scientology.
9              David Miscavige picked these things up from the
10    courier, from Mr. Hubbard.  We distributed them.  And the
11    same way it went back to the traditional Flag, whoever
12    distributes the orders and command intentions, as we called
13    it, of L. Ron Hubbard had that power.
14         Q    What about after Mr. Hubbard's death?
15         A    Then there was a power struggle between
16    Mr. Hubbard's aide, Pat Broeker, and David Miscavige, Vicki
17    Aznaran, a number of others, until finally the dust settled
18    and Mr. Miscavige was the only one left in power.
19         Q    And you, of course, were still in Scientology when
20    the dust settled?
21         A    Yes.
22         Q    And after the dust settled, were you still at ASI?
23         A    Yes.
24         Q    And was ASI -- did ASI still have that power it
25    had before Mr. Hubbard died?


1         A    By that time, especially afterwards, Mr. Miscavige
2    established himself with RTC, so the power moved over to
3    RTC.
4         Q    And did you move to RTC with Mr. Miscavige?
5         A    No.
6         Q    You stayed at ASI?
7         A    Yes.
8         Q    Did you -- after Mr. Miscavige moved over to RTC,
9    did you still have the power to give orders to the Office of
10    Special Affairs?
11         A    No.
12         Q    Did the Office of Special Affairs work inside of
13    RTC, or outside of RTC, after Mr. Miscavige went over?
14         A    It was -- you mean geographically?
15         Q    No, command line-wise.
16         A    Even command line-wise, it has what is called the
17    international office in Los Angeles is geographically quite
18    separate from the body of RTC itself.
19         Q    Okay.  And the Office of Special Affairs, before
20    you left in '89, did it have any control or power over staff
21    of other organizations?
22         A    If it fell within the domain of, you know, public
23    relations, a legal threat, something that involved some
24    external matter -- when I say external, I really mean
25    outside the body of the organization, landlord, media,


1    lawsuit -- then they can take control.  They're expected to
2    take control.
3         Q    Have you ever heard of a condition in Scientology
4    called danger condition?
5         A    Yes.  Every staff member knows that one.
6         Q    What does that mean?
7         A    To make it simple, it means that your senior is
8    going to go around you, the term was bypass, and they're
9    going to get the job done because you can't handle it.  So
10    let me give you an example.
11              You were just xeroxing something -- your associate
12    was xeroxing something and she's having trouble, so you go
13    over and you say, "Step aside, I have got to do this."
14              Well, that is a bypass when you come in and start
15    handling it yourself.  That is a danger condition.
16         Q    And within your 20 years of being a Scientologist,
17    did you ever encounter a danger condition where either
18    Department 20 steps in, even if it's not part of that
19    corporation, and takes over?
20         A    Oh, yes.
21         Q    Under what types of circumstances?
22         A    Well, for example, when I gave the example of -- a
23    while ago when I was preparing for the Gerry Armstrong case
24    to testify, that organization wasn't able to do it so we
25    went ahead and handled it.  That would be a clear bypass


1    condition right there.
2              But most of them end up being done through the Sea
3    Organization, more than through the OSA.
4         Q    Now, in Scientology there is something called an
5    org board, right?
6         A    Yes.
7         Q    And in an org board, you remember all of the
8    different divisions that are listed?
9         A    Well, you can try me.
10         Q    Are there -- are there just a lot of different
11    divisions?
12         A    There is a history of org boards and it is just
13    nothing more than an organizational chart.  And there are
14    seven divisions.  And when you see it represented, the
15    seventh division is over on the far left, and then after 7,
16    it starts 1 through 6, and each of the different divisions
17    has three departments.  And so it is broken down.  And each
18    of the divisions have basic functions, like the technical
19    division, the public division, treasury, which handles the
20    finance, which going back to that word we used, HCO.  There
21    is an HCO division.  Division 7 was the executive division.
22    And that is where Department 20 was.  There are 21
23    departments.  So Department 20 was at the very end of
24    Division 7.
25         Q    When you left in '89, is that how the organization


1    board was, I mean, established?
2         A    Yes.  And it has been true in later issues I have
3    seen such as the one you have there that has been published
4    since.
5         Q    So in 1995 was the organization board the same as
6    when you left in 1989?
7         A    According to their publications, they are.
8         Q    Now, in reference to a senior case supervisor, a
9    senior case supervisor, say, at Flag, are you aware of who
10    would be senior to the senior case supervisor?
11         A    That would be the senior CS Int.  The "Int" stands
12    for international.
13         Q    That is in California, right?
14         A    Correct.
15         Q    Can you tell us if there is any circumstance where
16    the senior CS would have a senior at Flag?
17         A    If there is an organization that has some
18    organizations within it -- and in Clearwater they might have
19    changed it around a bit -- but there has always been several
20    organizations in the Clearwater section.
21              If there is different CSs and each of the CSs
22    would be known as a senior CS, you could find it under an
23    umbrella locally where there would be a senior CS over them,
24    and then that person would report to the CS Int.
25         Q    Do you know who would be senior to the senior CS


1    Int?
2         A    That would be somebody in RTC.
3         Q    Does the Sea Organization have power over regular
4    staff, staff who are not part of the Sea Org?
5         A    It's pretty much now what they call the Class 4
6    organizations, which is, you know, like San Francisco
7    organization, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta have been converted
8    into what they call Sea Org orgs, which means a sea
9    organization.
10              The only ones that have been pretty much left out
11    of the loop have been much lower organizations.  So they
12    would have -- they would all be Sea Org orgs.
13         Q    Where does the Flag Service Organization here in
14    Clearwater rank among other Scientology organizations?
15         A    It pretty much has its own rank.  The command
16    channels, you can see, it has its own rank and position.
17    It's not over the same category as Class 4 orgs.  It's not
18    in any other category.  It pretty much has its own rank.
19         Q    Is that a higher, or lower, rank?
20         A    It's a high rank, but -- I mean, it's just a high
21    rank.
22         Q    And in the command channels in the org board does
23    everybody who is a member follow that?
24         A    Yes.
25         Q    Why is that?


1         A    But you have to understand that is a reflection of
2    already existing policy.  They don't follow the command
3    channels booklet; they follow the policies under which the
4    command channels booklet was drawn up.
5         Q    Do you know of any instance where a staff or a Sea
6    Org member does not have a senior?
7         A    David Miscavige.
8         Q    He's the only one that does not have a senior?
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    Do you know what a success letter is?
11         A    You may be referring to a success story.
12         Q    Okay.  Do you know what that is?
13         A    A success story, yes.
14         Q    Can you tell us?
15         A    After you finish what in our slang we might call
16    an action, which is auditing, counseling, a course, and you
17    finish it and what they call you attest to it that you
18    completed it, then you write a success story.
19              And a success story basically is just, you know,
20    whatever you want to say.  You just are given a blank piece
21    of paper.  Sometimes it has a success story printed on the
22    top, maybe just a blank piece of paper, and you write what
23    is called your wins, just how you feel about it.
24              And it can also be used for just ordinary things,
25    "Hey, I'm having a great time today."


1              "Well, go write a success story."  It is not
2    attached only to an action counseling or auditing or
3    training; it could be for any reason.
4         Q    What if you are required to write a success story
5    and you don't write it in a positive tone?
6         A    Then a number of things can happen.  But --
7    they'll send you back -- basically, the point is if you
8    don't have a success story, then something went wrong and
9    we've got to get it fixed until you write a good success
10    story.
11         Q    Have you heard the term "acceptable truth" in
12    Scientology?
13         A    Yes.
14         Q    What does that mean?
15         A    That was a phrase that Hubbard used in one of the
16    policy letters where he said a PR should never lie but you
17    can tell an acceptable truth.
18              What that means is -- basically we see it every
19    day on television with politicians, you know, they're going
20    to wiggle out from a tough question, and they'll tell you
21    something that is true enough to get by and they're not
22    going to lie.  It is hardly something that Hubbard dreamed
23    up.  He just gave it a name.
24              So that is what you do is you -- somebody asks you
25    a really tough question, you say something else and you


1    divert it away.
2              MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, could I ask, when he
3         said PR, did he mean this was for public relations
4         people?  Was that the --
5              THE WITNESS:  The policy letter was written for
6         public relations people.  And it is part of a PR
7         series.  But it's used for other people as well,
8         other than just to train PRs.
10         Q    Now, would someone who is mentally unstable,
11    psychotic, be a PR flap?
12         A    It could be.
13         Q    And, of course, in your review of the Lisa
14    McPherson case, did you have an opinion whether or not she
15    would have been a PR flap?
16         A    She would have been a serious PR flap from the
17    moment the accident happened.
18         Q    Why is that?
19         A    First of all, she's out on a public street.
20    Second, she takes off her clothes.  Thirdly, she's in
21    Clearwater, which has, what now, 15 years of battling with
22    the authorities and media and everything else as to their
23    presence.
24              Next, it's with Flag Land Base, which is
25    considered quite senior.


1              So the point is PR flaps have degrees.  You know,
2    I'm sorry to put it this way, but if the young lady has an
3    accident and takes off her clothes in Boise, Idaho, it is
4    not the same thing as Clearwater.  Clearwater has a history
5    of problems, and it is one of these, "We don't need a
6    problem."  So this would be a serious PR flap.
7         Q    Would this condition known as danger come into
8    play at all with Lisa McPherson?
9         A    Probably.  You have got to remember, danger occurs
10    if you don't like the first response.  As they said, you are
11    doing this and you don't feel it should happen so you jump
12    in, but you could also consider it enough of an immediate
13    threat that you jump in immediately and start giving orders.
14         Q    Can you explain why OSA, the local OSA office
15    person, Mr. Fontana, appeared at the ER where Lisa McPherson
16    was taken following the accident at Morton Plant?
17         A    That is --
18              MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me, speculation.  He's
19         asking for an opinion based, to some event, on what
20         happened six years or so after he left the Church of
21         Scientology.
22              THE COURT:  Overruled.
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    Go ahead.
25         A    That is his job.  By definition Department 20


1    handles external affairs.  External situations.  The PR
2    handles PR flaps.
3              You don't send in the senior CS or anything else.
4    You have to send in policy -- the policy is you send in a
5    trained PR, so the trained PR has to be there on the scene
6    of a PR flap.
7         Q    And based upon what you know about the Lisa
8    McPherson circumstances, would only the local OSA office be
9    involved in this?
10         A    No.
11         Q    Why is that?
12         A    Well, you have several factors going.  Not only
13    was there a PR flap of somebody going crazy or taking off
14    their clothes, but you have whatever degree you consider it,
15    you have got an accident in a city and the authorities can
16    be called in.  So you have the possibility of a legal
17    threat.
18              On top of that, you have someone going -- has the
19    word -- has the word PTS 3 been used here?
20              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
21              THE COURT:  Many times.  Really, when I asked
22         you that question about what was HCO, frankly, it
23         was simply because I hadn't looked at the top.
24         Everything else you explained to me, everything I
25         have heard and understand better than I ever dreamt


1         I would have to.
2              THE WITNESS:  That makes it very easy.  Thank
3         you.
4              THE COURT:  Okay.
5         A    Somebody that is PTS 3, well, you have the
6    technical people that are going to become involved in it but
7    not right away.
8              First, you contain the PR flap.  Then you check
9    out the legal threat.  And then you'll have to deal with
10    this on a technical level, so there is more than just OSA
11    can handle.
12              When you go into the technical area, Department 20
13    doesn't handle technical.  That is on a different command
14    level.
15    BY MR. DANDAR:
16         Q    Well, does Department 20 take over all of the Lisa
17    McPherson circumstances even if it involves a technical
18    division because of the PR flap?
19         A    It can, because the PR and legal threats are a
20    direct -- you have to understand they are a direct threat to
21    the organization.  The survival of the organization and the
22    technology is senior.
23              So if it's necessary, they can give the orders in.
24         Q    Would reports about Lisa McPherson taking off her
25    clothes and going to the ER be sent up lines?


1         A    They would be knowledge reports.  They could be
2    part of your weekly report.  First of all, any person
3    involved in a situation would have written up a report.
4         Q    How do you know that?  You weren't there.
5         A    This is -- this is per policy.  And if they are
6    not doing it, then it's not per policy.  And going back to
7    the first policy letter, this is how it's done and you do it
8    no other way.  And that is RTC's role.  And it is stated
9    constantly, they're there to make sure you do it exactly
10    that way.
11              THE COURT:  The knowledge reports and weekly
12         reports going up line, in your opinion, would have
13         gone up line in what fashion?
14              THE WITNESS:  For this, the first thing would
15         have been, you know, you even get on the phone
16         before you even write anything to see what is going
17         on.  But it would go -- it would go by electronic
18         means through E-Mail.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.  I guess what I'm suggesting
20         is if it went to -- a knowledge report, for example,
21         who would write it?
22              THE WITNESS:  As I said, each person involved
23         would write a knowledge report.  But the senior over
24         the area who was in command of it, who is taking
25         command -- in this case it would probably be the


1         commanding officer of the OSA for the local unit --
2         would do this because it's legal and PR, and that
3         person is over it.  So that person would send it to
4         the OSA International.
5              THE COURT:  To whom?
6              THE WITNESS:  That would be Mike Rinder.
7              THE COURT:  But they send it directly to him?
8              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And CC's would then go to
9         the relevant departments so they are advised.
10              THE COURT:  What if local OSA didn't take over;
11         what if, as it was suggested, that it was an
12         ecclesiastical function and, therefore, it was the
13         senior case supervisor who was in charge,
14         Mr. Kartuzinski, where would he send anything?
15              THE WITNESS:  I just got lost on ecclesiastical
16         function.
17              THE COURT:  Ecclesiastical function which would
18         be an introspection rundown, which is --
19              THE WITNESS:  Oh.
20              THE COURT:  -- an ecclesiastical function of
21         the Church, according to certain testimony.
22              THE WITNESS:  Ecclesiastical is not a word they
23         use internally.  You cannot find it in the volumes.
24              If it is a technical matter that will come
25         secondarily when she goes back and is taken over by


1         the technical people, but first you have to deal --
2         it's sort of like a person in an accident.  First
3         you handle the tourniquet and do that, then you go
4         for the rest of the care later.  So PR and legal
5         comes first, and then they'll move her out of there,
6         then take care of the rest of it later.
7              So Mr. Kartuzinski would have reported to
8         senior CS Int and RTC and would have CC'd some other
9         people, too.
10    BY MR. DANDAR:
11         Q    Would Mr. Kartuzinski be out policy if he didn't
12    write a report to the senior case supervisor international
13    in California about Lisa McPherson?
14         A    He could lose his position in the organization if
15    he didn't do that, because it's that serious.
16         Q    And in order to lose your position in the
17    organization, wouldn't that require a Committee of Evidence?
18         A    Usually.  But there are people that are also just
19    removed by somebody saying, "You are removed."  I have seen
20    that.  And it's happened.  It's in the evidence -- evidence
21    of that is in the documents I presented, the Wollersheim
22    declaration.  But usually the procedure is a Committee of
23    Evidence.  But if it is serious, you just say, "You are out,
24    you are in, let's go."
25         Q    And that person, of course, being taken out of


1    position would know about it, right?
2         A    Sometimes.
3         Q    I mean, when they're no longer the senior CS, they
4    would understand why they're no longer the senior CS?
5         A    Oh, in that sense of the word, definitely.
6         Q    How long would OSA Int be involved in the Lisa
7    McPherson matter?
8         A    They'll continue until it goes away.  Because
9    it's -- it's a lawsuit, it's legal and PR.
10         Q    And is that because you are speculating, or is it
11    because of something else?
12         A    It's according to the policies of L. Ron Hubbard,
13    it is an external matter, all external matters, legal, PR
14    threats, are Department 20.
15              THE COURT:  When Mr. Rinder as OSA -- is he OSA
16         Int, is that his title?
17              THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
18              THE COURT:  When Mr. Rinder, assuming
19         Mr. Rinder got this OSA Int, what does he do with
20         it?
21              THE WITNESS:  He reports up further.  And --
22         but he just doesn't sit and report.  He has to be
23         taking action.  There was always a form that you
24         report such things.  It was called situation
25         handling.  Situation -- it's like -- situation,


1         there is a fire going on in the hall, handling it.
2         We put it out.
3              You just don't report a situation.  You report
4         the situation and what you are doing, you handle it.
5         So he would be required to report up what is
6         happening and what actions are being taken and then
7         also what he's proposing for the future.
8              So you just -- you just don't report a flap.
9         You report it only when you can report a handling.
10              THE COURT:  When he sends it back -- when he
11         sends it downline, who --
12              THE WITNESS:  You do know the language, don't
13         you?
14              THE COURT:  Yes, I do, actually.
15              When he sent it downline, who would he send it
16         to?  Would he send it to -- assuming that -- that
17         Ms. McPherson is at the hotel, she's in a fairly
18         paranoid state, and this is being reported up and
19         downline, who actually is Mr. Rinder going to report
20         back to and tell them how to handle it?
21              THE WITNESS:  The same thing.  Once -- there
22         would have come a point when she was in the hotel
23         being taken care of, as we might say, technically,
24         that the OSA will move their attention more to the
25         prospect of what might come out of this.  You know,


1         is there any authorities involved, any police
2         reports, et cetera.
3              And the bulk of the work will move over to the
4         technical people.  OSA will monitor, because it
5         could have been a serious flap and it might turn
6         into -- to be one again, so they'll closely monitor.
7         But the bulk of the work and the attention will move
8         over to the more technical people.
9              THE COURT:  I'm sorry, maybe when I said
10         ecclesiastical I was in error, it could have been
11         technical.  But, in any event, assuming the way to
12         handle it was to perform an introspection rundown,
13         "perform" may be the wrong word, but --
14              THE WITNESS:  Right.
15              THE COURT:  -- but to start that process, that
16         will then move over to the technical people, such as
17         Mr. Kartuzinski?
18              THE WITNESS:  Yes, that would not be the domain
19         of OSA because it is no longer an external matter.
20         She's out on the street, she's at the ER, she's in a
21         hospital, wherever else.  It's externally.
22              Once the person is brought in physically and is
23         being handled by the internal personnel, that part
24         of it is no longer an OSA Department 20 matter
25         because it's not external.  It was, but it's been


1         brought inside, so you just monitor to make sure she
2         doesn't, say, run out of the Ft. Harrison naked and
3         we have another problem.  As long as it is contained
4         internally, then Department 20 simply monitors.
5              THE COURT:  So now those people watching over
6         her would send their reports to the senior case
7         supervisors?
8              THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
9              THE COURT:  What does he do with it?
10              THE WITNESS:  He will send it on up to RTC.
11         And he might also be asked to be --
12              THE COURT:  IRTC?
13              THE WITNESS:  Religious Technology Center.
14              THE COURT:  To RTC?
15              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16              THE COURT:  Okay.
17              THE WITNESS:  He might also be asked to keep
18         Department 20 apprised of how it's going so they can
19         get an estimate that we may not have a situation on
20         our hands.
21              THE COURT:  Would that be local?  Would he then
22         advise the local Department 20?  Or would he advise
23         Mr. Rinder at the international level?
24              THE WITNESS:  No, he would be advising locally,
25         then local would report back up.


1              THE COURT:  Would report back up?  Okay.
2              THE WITNESS:  You try to hold the chain of
3         command in those command channels as much as
4         possible.  Or if you haven't been able to hold them
5         at the time it happens, you try to bring them back
6         to some sort of normalcy where everybody has their
7         echelons and we're sort of back on the track.
8              THE COURT:  Okay.
10         Q    Now, you said OSA Int would monitor if she's at
11    the Ft. Harrison Hotel after leaving the hospital.  Right?
12         A    Yes.
13         Q    Now, if someone needed to make a decision while
14    OSA Int is monitoring her, per policy, who would be the ones
15    making the decision to decide we're going to take her back
16    to the emergency room if she needed to go back?
17         A    Well, first of all, in your hypothetical it would
18    be a technical matter not related to an OSA matter.  They're
19    the ones that would propose it.  I can't imagine them
20    proposing it.  But they would be the ones that would propose
21    it.  And they would have to get -- per the policies, they
22    would have to have senior okay on this.
23              THE COURT:  A senior okay?
24              THE WITNESS:  From the senior CS Int or someone
25         else.  They just can't decide this locally because


1         it was a situation.
2              See, until you know that everything is fully
3         handled and we're out of the woods and there is no
4         possibility of any further threat, everybody just
5         sort of stays on a minor alert and everybody has to
6         continue to be appraised, because this could blow up
7         at any time.  So they can't just say, "Oh, well,
8         let's take her back to the ER," you know, "Or let's
9         do something else."  They can't without serious
10         emergency.  Somebody could fall down in the Ft.
11         Harrison and break a leg, you run them to emergency.
12         You don't need to ask RTC for that.
13              I was just talking about, as the normal course
14         of events going along as the days following the
15         accident, that is how it would have been done.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    What about Lisa McPherson, though, her
18    specifically?  Who would be the ones who would make a
19    decision, if a decision needed to be made, to take her to a
20    hospital, who --
21              THE COURT:  He already told us it would depend
22         whether it was an emergency or whether it was just
23         sort of in the normal course of things.  Different
24         people make that decision based on whether it is an
25         urgent emergency.


1              MR. DANDAR:  I think he was speaking generally.
2         I need to make sure --
3              THE COURT:  No, I think he was talking
4         generally.  And I think he was talking specifically
5         as to this case.
6              And it would, once again, depend on whether the
7         situation was as you and your experts think it was,
8         or was it a situation where the Church and their
9         experts think it was, it seems to me.
10              MR. DANDAR:  Could I ask that?
11              THE COURT:  Yes, you can, but I think he
12         already answered that.
13              THE WITNESS:  Could I make a request?  Could I
14         have a short break, please?  I only need about five
15         minutes.
16              THE COURT:  All right, we'll take a five-minute
17         break.
18      (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 1:48 to 2:03 p.m.)
19                __________________________________
20              THE COURT:  Okay.  Let's continue.  Is this
21         101?  Did he move this into evidence?
22              MR. FUGATE:  No.
23              MR. DANDAR:  No.  I move it into evidence.
24              THE COURT:  I'm getting tired of telling you
25         this.  If you don't want something into evidence,


1         fine.  But I never know.  I just sit here and hold
2         it and wonder what in the world it is.
3              Is 99 in evidence?
4              MR. WEINBERG:  What is that?
5              THE CLERK:  Yes.
6              THE COURT:  99, 98 and 100 are in evidence?
7              THE CLERK:  No.
8              MR. DANDAR:  I move them into evidence.
9              THE COURT:  Any objection?
10              MR. WEINBERG:  I do object.  It is Mr. Young's
11         declaration.  Is it to bolster his testimony?  If
12         he's not impeached he can -- based on that, I don't
13         understand why he'll put some prior affidavit in.
14              THE COURT:  I think probably this is
15         information Mr. Dandar had and relied on.  Is that
16         right?
17              MR. DANDAR:  Part of it.  Most of it is, but it
18         is nice and concise and all together, and that is
19         why I'm moving it into evidence.
20              MR. WEINBERG:  But, your Honor, I mean, it was
21         written in December of '99 -- December 7 of '99.  So
22         he's -- that is --
23              THE COURT:  Part of the problem is -- and part
24         of why I think -- some of this information is going
25         to be admissible if it's not barred by the First


1         Amendment -- is because there is no information here
2         to suggest that things change from day to day.  So,
3         I mean, I don't know how much of it is relevant and
4         how much isn't.  I just don't have time to read it.
5              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I haven't read it.
6              THE COURT:  I haven't either, so I'm going to
7         let it in.  If there is anything relevant in it
8         we'll use it.  If there isn't, we won't.
9              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
10              THE COURT:  I mean, I think what I heard was
11         that that had to do with the chain of command and
12         those types of things which are at issue here, I
13         suppose.
14              MR. DANDAR:  Well, they are because of
15         Paragraph 34 in their motion.
16              THE COURT:  Well, yes.
17              MR. DANDAR:  I didn't make it an issue.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    Now, Mr. Young, in the case of Lisa McPherson, if
21    it became --
22              THE COURT:  By the way, for whatever it is
23         worth, I don't have any doubt at the time you wrote
24         your complaint that you had a good faith basis to
25         believe that David Miscavige knew about the


1         situation.  I mean, that is obvious from all your
2         witnesses.  Whether it is true or not doesn't
3         matter.  What matters is whether your complaint was
4         false or whether you had a good faith basis for it.
5         I think you did.  So, frankly, that you don't have
6         to beat into the ground anymore.
7              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
8              THE COURT:  But what we really ought to be
9         talking about here, more so than that, is whether or
10         not there was any information or any basis upon
11         which the rest of that paragraph was -- in other
12         words, I think you had a basis upon which -- that
13         you could believe that he had some information about
14         what was going on.
15              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
16              THE COURT:  All right?
17              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  All right.
18    BY MR. DANDAR:
19         Q    All right.  Mr. Young, in reference to Lisa
20    McPherson then, if it came to be that the people who were
21    watching her saw her physically decline as Heather Hof says,
22    and she wrote reports to the senior CS, Kartuzinski, and she
23    stated to the police under oath she was frantic there was a
24    physical decline, Lisa was not eating or drinking enough to
25    survive, those words that she said under oath to the police,


1    and Mr. Kartuzinski did not respond to any of these reports,
2    number one, do you have an opinion, based upon your
3    experience, who would be the one in charge of making the
4    decision what to do with Lisa McPherson during the last days
5    as she was at wherever she was, the Ft. Harrison Hotel?
6              MR. WEINBERG:  Objection as to the form because
7         in the question he said things that I don't think
8         there is any factual basis for.
9              It is also not important to the question, which
10         is completely different than this premise to the
11         question, which was all this evidence that
12         supposedly happened.  He's asking about -- I suppose
13         if he has some idea about who was in charge.
14              THE COURT:  Well, I assume he has some evidence
15         from a police report that Heather Hof said she was
16         frantic, nothing else -- nothing was happening.
17              MR. WEINBERG:  I would like to know where that
18         was.
19              MR. DANDAR:  It was marked as an exhibit in her
20         deposition.
21              THE COURT:  I presume he had some evidence to
22         support that.  I assume there is certainly evidence
23         in the report to support the fact that nothing
24         happened because nothing, in fact, did happen.  And
25         so, therefore, I have to assume unless


1         Mr. Kartuzinski says to the contrary that he said
2         take her to the hospital, nobody paid any attention
3         to him, that, therefore, that part of what he said
4         is true and factual.
5              So as far as your objection it's not based on
6         facts, that is overruled.
7              You know, assuming there is something in the
8         record that says Ms. Hof said this.
9              MR. DANDAR:  All right.  And now I'm telling
10         the Court that that is in the record.
11              THE COURT:  Okay.
12              MR. DANDAR:  And I'll make sure you get a copy
13         of that and her statements to the police.
14              THE COURT:  All right.
15    BY MR. DANDAR:
16         Q    So, Mr. Young, who would be the person making the
17    decision in the final days as to whether or not Lisa
18    McPherson leaves the property of the Church of Scientology
19    and goes to a public facility like an emergency room?
20         A    Since she was in -- she was a very serious
21    potential PR flap, possible legal threat, that would not be
22    a local decision, because the person leaving the premises,
23    you lose control over the situation.  So that would have
24    been -- involved more than just local people.
25         Q    Who would it involve?


1         A    It would involve both the OSA Int level, as well
2    as the RTC level.
3         Q    The fact that you know and worked with David
4    Miscavige while you were inside Scientology, do you have an
5    opinion as to whether or not David Miscavige, number one, as
6    captain of the Sea Org, would have known about Lisa
7    McPherson in the beginning when she had the car accident and
8    went to the emergency room, and knew about her throughout
9    her seventeen days until she died?
10         A    I worked with him seven years, and this was his
11    pattern.  He insisted upon knowing anything that could be a
12    serious threat.  Media threat, legal threat, were the two
13    most important things.  And he insisted on being -- knowing
14    about this.
15              Either he's told immediately by the locals, or he
16    could be told by his immediate juniors.
17         Q    Mr. Young, we're going to get to -- we're going
18    back to when I first discovered you and met with you and
19    Stacy in Seattle.
20              But right now, since we're on this topic, let me
21    ask you just to stay with us on this point.  In the
22    summer -- August of 1999 we filed a motion to add parties.
23              And I believe in October of 1999 you filed a
24    declaration in this case.  And part of that declaration
25    which the Court has is in your statement by you under oath,


1    I believe it is an under-oath affidavit, stating that you
2    reviewed the August '99 declaration of Jesse Prince in this
3    case about his experience and why he believed Lisa McPherson
4    died.
5              Do you recall that?
6         A    Yes.
7              THE COURT:  Do I -- do I understand you have
8         that?  Are you sure I have that?
9              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
10              THE COURT:  If you say so, then fine.  But I
11         don't remember whether I do or not.
12              MR. DANDAR:  It is part of the -- it is part of
13         the defendant's notice of additional authorities
14         filed in October of '99 in the first -- when we had
15         a motion to set aside the agreement not to add on
16         parties.
17              MR. WEINBERG:  You mean the plaintiffs?
18              MR. DANDAR:  It is part of the plaintiff's
19         package of materials of additional authorities that
20         includes Stacy Young's declarations, Vicki Aznaran's
21         declarations --
22              THE COURT:  I don't know if I have that or
23         whether that is something filed with Judge Moody.
24              MR. DANDAR:  I think it is both.  But I'm going
25         to make sure --


1              THE COURT:  You make sure I have it then.
2              MS. WEST:  We gave it to Judge Schaeffer.
3              MR. DANDAR:  We did notice of judicial --
4         request to take judicial notice of what we
5         previously filed with Judge Moody.
6              THE COURT:  Somewhere in this hearing?
7              MR. DANDAR:  Somewhere in this hearing we gave
8         it to you.
9              THE COURT:  Okay.
10              MR. DANDAR:  But we'll doublecheck with Sue to
11         make sure --
12              THE COURT:  Doublecheck it with the clerk to
13         make sure I have it in my booklet.
14              MR. DANDAR:  Okay, we'll do that, too.
15    BY MR. DANDAR:
16         Q    Do you recall what you concluded, your comments,
17    concerning Jesse Prince's affidavit?
18         A    I believe I said that based on my 21 years and
19    everything that I have learned through all of the policies
20    and books, even in the years following, that I couldn't find
21    anything in there that I considered to be contrary to my
22    personal experiences, my familiarity with policy.
23         Q    Now, do you have an opinion, sir, based on your
24    21-plus years, as to whether or not -- well, I want you
25    first to assume that the pathologists for the estate have


1    testified Lisa died as a result of intentional medical
2    neglect.  And I believe Dr. Spitz and Dr. Bandt both say
3    that the watchers of Lisa McPherson watched her die, in so
4    many words.  I'm paraphrasing.
5              Do you have an opinion, if those doctors are
6    correct, as to why Lisa McPherson -- why the watchers
7    watched her die?
8              MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Competence.
9         Objection as to the form, as well.
10              THE COURT:  Mmm --
11              MR. WEINBERG:  Does he have an opinion based
12         on, what?  In his trial testimony he said he has no
13         personal knowledge of what occurred in Clearwater.
14              THE COURT:  I don't know about his trial
15         testimony.  This isn't a trial.  This is his hearing
16         and he's here --
17              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I understand.  But we do
18         have some basis in this case.  He was offered before
19         as to certain issues.  This was not one of them.
20         But he made clear in this testimony before he had no
21         personal knowledge of what happened.
22              THE COURT:  There is no one who has been
23         excluded by me from this hearing.  Therefore, I
24         don't care what evidence you have anyplace else in
25         existence for anything.  For this hearing --


1              MR. WEINBERG:  It's no agreement.
2              THE COURT:  Right.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  It is part of the discovery in
4         this case.  Mr. Dandar had to identify what the
5         issues were that Mr. Young was going to testify
6         about.  We took his deposition, and then Mr. Dandar
7         took his trial testimony.
8              THE COURT:  He didn't know at that time you
9         were going to accuse him of perjury and suborning
10         perjury and filing false and -- and perpetrating
11         fraud on the Court and all that sort of stuff.  That
12         is different.
13              Your objection is overruled.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  I understand -- well, okay.
15              THE COURT:  You move on, Mr. Dandar.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Do you have an opinion, Mr. Young --
18         A    I just didn't hear that question.  What?
19         Q    Do you have an opinion as to why, if the estate's
20    pathologists are correct that they watched her die, do you
21    have an opinion how that --
22              THE COURT:  I have read those pathologists'
23         depositions.  And I don't think that -- with the
24         exception perhaps of Dr. Spitz -- that Dr. Bandt
25         says that.  I mean, he may say gross negligence.  He


1         may have a lot of things he does say.  But I don't
2         think that he says they stood around and watched her
3         die.
4              MR. DANDAR:  Dr. Bandt said intentional medical
5         neglect, homicide, and --
6              THE COURT:  He said homicide of a manslaughter
7         nature, doesn't he?
8              MR. DANDAR:  Well, homicide -- well, based on
9         Minnesota -- his understanding of Minnesota law, it
10         is not first degree murder, it would be second
11         degree homicide based upon intentional medical
12         neglect, not simple negligence or gross negligence.
13         It is a higher level than just manslaughter.
14              THE COURT:  Well, intentional medical neglect
15         could mean standing around watching somebody die.
16         It could mean that you are so reckless and you are
17         so grossly negligent that you don't see something
18         that should be obvious to any person that it rises
19         to the level of intentional even though it isn't
20         intentional.
21              So I don't know that they have said that those
22         workers stood around and watched her die.  The only
23         person that I saw that said he didn't believe the
24         workers was Dr. Spitz.
25              MR. DANDAR:  Okay, Dr. Bandt does specifically


1         say he doesn't believe -- in fact, he used the
2         phrase "pure fantasy" to talk about how
3         Ms. Arrunada, the person who has the medical degree
4         from Mexico, unlicensed, what she described the last
5         two days of Lisa McPherson.
6              THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, then it's your
7         hypothetical.  If your hypothetical turns out not to
8         be based on any facts, then it is worthless.
9              So I was trying to suggest the way you might
10         put it in a fashion that I know is factual.  But if
11         you are pretty sure it is factual, go ahead.
12              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
13    BY MR. DANDAR:
14         Q    If Dr. -- let's just go with Dr. Spitz.  If
15    Dr. Spitz is correct that they stood around and watched her
16    die and, as you say, the orders to do anything had to come
17    from the senior CS Int in California, can you tell us, based
18    upon what you know about Scientology, why that would happen?
19         A    Well, first of all, from my recall of reviewing
20    the records such as the notes being kept by the watchers, as
21    well as what I know, first of all, they weren't medically --
22    medically trained to be able to recognize a condition.
23              So what that means, you have been assigned a job
24    so you follow orders of people who know better than you.
25    That is what you are always taught.


1              So you don't act without being told what to do.
2    And that is what they did.  They -- those people sitting
3    right there needed orders to rush her to an ER, say.  Or to
4    do something else, unless there was just a -- what is called
5    a standing order, which is make sure she gets liquids, and
6    so you do that every day, you don't need to be told that
7    every day.  But if anything changes, you need to be told
8    what to do, because you are protected.
9         Q    Assuming that the order never came in after Janis
10    Johnson, the formerly licensed anesthesiologist, now on
11    staff in the MLO at Flag, she testified that on December 5
12    Lisa was majorly dehydrated and she recognized that, and she
13    called Dr. Minkoff and asked for penicillin, and he said,
14    "No, take her to ER, and if you don't take her to the local
15    ER, then you can bring her up here, but I'm not going to
16    give you a penicillin prescription over the phone."
17         A    He's telling it to the wrong person.  She has no
18    control over her.  The watchers don't have control over her.
19         Q    Even someone who has a medical degree?
20         A    You need a post or position.  Just because you
21    have a degree and you are walking around the Ft. Harrison or
22    in this court doesn't mean you can just sort of assume and
23    take a person on as a patient.  There is positions.  There
24    is command channels.  There is a structure of the
25    organization.  It has to be followed.  That is always


1    senior.  And that is hammered in, hammered in, hammered.
2              So those people needed orders, regardless of what
3    they may have been trained to do as a doctor or
4    anesthesiologist.
5         Q    Well, assume the workers were writing reports,
6    including the ones that are missing, that this situation is
7    not good and, in fact, Heather Hof testified that she wrote
8    that something needed to be changed, and that was on
9    Saturday, December 2nd, but she gets no reply.
10              Do you have an opinion as to why these workers --
11    and as she said she was frantic -- why these workers would
12    not get a reply from OSA Int or the senior CS Int?
13         A    It's -- it's a shock to me, too.  Because my
14    experience was when you feel you have a situation, you
15    respond quickly.  You respond in a matter of hours.  You
16    have to respond within 24 hours.
17              And it's -- the only time, in all of my years, et
18    cetera, the only time that went quiet and you didn't hear
19    back was somebody was up there trying to decide what to do.
20    Or maybe the mail got lost.  But that is the only way.
21              But normally people would move fast.  So that not
22    hearing, when you are being told something is wrong, is
23    unusual.
24         Q    Well, do you have an opinion as to what policies
25    the Church of Scientology would be following if they decided


1    not to do anything?
2         A    There is -- there is nothing that just says don't
3    do anything.  First of all, to clarify that.  What you do
4    sometimes is you just say continue to do the same thing.
5    It's like a presidential pocket veto.  You don't say veto;
6    you just leave it alone and it dies.  I didn't mean to use
7    that word like that.
8              So just by leaving the action alone and giving you
9    orders, it means you continue to do what you have been
10    doing.
11              THE COURT:  Mr. Dandar, I remember, in reading
12         Mr. Kartuzinski's deposition, that Mr. Kartuzinski
13         said he did call David -- not David Miscavige, he
14         did call Dr. Minkoff himself.
15              MR. DANDAR:  He did call Dr. Minkoff several
16         times during the 17 days.
17              THE COURT:  I'm talking at the end.  That he --
18         did he call Dr. Minkoff and asked him to see her,
19         not Janis Johnson?  I mean, she may have, too.  But,
20         I mean, it did seem as if, at that point, it was the
21         upper level at the Church -- or at Flag that was
22         making some decisions there.  Janis Johnson went to
23         her senior who was Mr. Kartuzinski, right?
24              MR. DANDAR:  No.
25              THE COURT:  No?


1              THE WITNESS:  May I offer something?
3         Q    Is there anyone at Flag that could call
4    Dr. Minkoff?
5         A    Say -- ask that again, please?
6         Q    Is there anyone at Flag that could have called
7    Dr. Minkoff, per policy?
8         A    Let me distinguish here something, if I may
9    explain it.
10              If this was a young woman at the Ft. Harrison who
11    had taken deathly ill and she'd not been out there in an
12    automobile accident and taken off her clothes, there is
13    complete local control and they could have called the doctor
14    and said, "Hey, can we bring her over?"
15              "Come on over and see her."
16              It is very normal, even if she was yelling in the
17    Ft. Harrison Hotel, you know, and they are calming her down.
18              The fact she was in an automobile accident, and
19    authorities were there, and you have this serious PR
20    situation and a legal threat, you lose local control until
21    that is completely gone.
22              So, yes, he could call Minkoff.  But he does not
23    have the authority, because OSA Department 20 is watching.
24    We have -- we're in Clearwater.  We have been at war with
25    this city for 15, 20 years.  You just don't rush the person


1    who was -- might get us all in trouble again and do this
2    and, you know, this.  So he could not just make it a local
3    decision as if she had been somebody not involved in an
4    automobile accident, taken off her clothes.  That changes
5    the matter.
6              As soon as it goes to Department 20, you lose some
7    control.  You do, until that situation is fully gone.
8         Q    And is there any policies in Scientology where
9    this Department 20 PR flap situation that you discussed
10    would be paramount over the life of Lisa McPherson?
11         A    You will never see something worded like that.
12    No.  I'll say that flat out.
13         Q    Okay.
14         A    But you are always taught, the first thing that
15    came in, the most important thing -- it's not just you are
16    saying the life of a person is unimportant.  But the most
17    important thing is the organization, the technology.  Then
18    you take your priorities from there.
19              So you always have to judge it from that.  It's
20    not somebody says Scientology is more important than the
21    life of a person.  You'll never see that stated, et cetera.
22    But you are just told what is important.  Because if that is
23    not preserved, then other people can't be helped.
24         Q    Where does the individual rank on the scale of
25    importance, starting with the Scientology and the tech at


1    the top?
2         A    Well, you -- the individual is of the least
3    importance.  And even Hubbard said groups are more important
4    than individuals.  And so it builds up from there, sort of
5    like, you know, building a pyramid.  And so you judge your
6    priorities from there.
7              The maxim that everybody works by, one of the most
8    important maxims in Scientology, is the greatest good for
9    the greatest number.  And it's just a utilitarian -- Hubbard
10    didn't think of it.  It was a principle, utilitarian
11    principle, John Stewart Mills.
12              So you have to take into consideration who will be
13    hurt the most and decide from there.
14         Q    Okay.
15              THE COURT:  Mr. Dandar gave you a hypothetical
16         that seems to be expressed in somewhat of, what
17         shall I say, a passive form.  So let me see if I
18         understood it.
19              You indicated if I had your affidavit, which I
20         believe has been filed, and I think after I heard
21         something about it I may have seen it.  But he said
22         in October of '99 you filed a declaration saying you
23         had read Mr. Prince's affidavit and you couldn't
24         find anything or say anything contrary to what he
25         had concluded or something like that, I'm not sure


1         exactly what your testimony was.  Is that what your
2         affidavit said?
3              In other words, did it say you agreed with him?
4         Or did it just say you couldn't find anything wrong
5         with his affidavit?
6              THE WITNESS:  I couldn't find -- well, first of
7         all, let me clarify that.  I did not have all of the
8         empirical personal knowledge Mr. Prince did.  We
9         worked in two different sectors.
10              But my familiarity with what I knew and the way
11         he described it, there was nothing that he said in
12         there that I considered to be false according to my
13         personal experiences and my familiarity with the
14         directives of Scientology.
15              But I could also -- I -- there were certain
16         things he said I knew were true that I could say,
17         oh, yes, that is very correct.  But I could not at
18         the same time -- since I couldn't attest to the
19         veracity of every statement, all I could say is as
20         to the rest there was nothing else I found contrary
21         to my personal experiences or my familiarity with
22         the directives.
23              THE COURT:  Again, from what you have testified
24         to and what other persons, Mr. Franks included, have
25         testified to, and I haven't heard from Mr. Prince


1         yet, but -- and I have heard from Ms. Brooks, too,
2         who is an ex-Scientologist that has some familiarity
3         with the Church and its policy, it is inconceivable
4         to me, thinking about a PR flap and how the Church
5         would want to avoid that at all costs, certainly
6         here in Clearwater -- you have stated that, true?
7              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
8              THE COURT:  It is inconceivable to me that
9         Mr. Prince says that -- says that obviously the word
10         came down just to let her die because, otherwise, it
11         would have been too big of a PR flap so, therefore,
12         an end cycle was put out -- you have read it so you
13         know what it is he said.  I can't imagine anything
14         that would create a bigger PR flap.
15              And the fact it did create a big, huge PR flap
16         and a huge lawsuit, all of which Department 20 is
17         supposedly geared up to -- to stop or -- or
18         hopefully stop, why any such order could ever have
19         come down from anybody in any position of
20         responsibility or authority, it just wouldn't make
21         any -- in other words, his statements and what you
22         have testified to and others who have been in the
23         Church have testified to don't seem to coexist.
24              THE WITNESS:  Well, can I correct one thing,
25         your Honor?


1              THE COURT:  Yes.
2              THE WITNESS:  If I may, first?  It was not a PR
3         flap when she died.  It was not known.  It was
4         quiet.  It took a while before this actually came up
5         as a lawsuit.  In fact, it was -- it was -- I don't
6         even know how long it took.  But I know it went out
7         through the Internet when people started digging
8         into it and finding out about it.  So she died and
9         there wasn't a flap.
10              Secondly, even though that may sound
11         incredulous that a person could die and you don't
12         have a flap, that is because you have got somebody
13         like a Minkoff that you can go to who is
14         sympathetic, he's a loyal Scientologist, he will
15         give you the proper response.  You can trust him to
16         do this because he's OT8.  Can I use that here?
17              THE COURT:  Sure.  We know what that is.
18              THE WITNESS:  He's an OT8.  He has gone all of
19         the way.  He has been on the ship, the Free Winds.
20         He's loyal.  He's keeping Scientology working.
21         He'll help us.  It is like saying we have friends in
22         high places.
23              So I'm saying just because the person can say,
24         yes, that could go wrong, well, except if you have
25         friends in high places, meaning in that case, a


1         doctor, and, secondly, when she died, it wasn't a PR
2         flap.  It was quite quiet.  It took a while before
3         this ever came up.  Now it's a flap.  But it wasn't
4         when she died.
5              THE COURT:  It then came up pretty quickly
6         after she died.  I mean, you would know if a -- a
7         doctor would absolutely have to, no matter what is
8         said to the contrary, a doctor who did not have
9         someone under his care who died, as Lisa McPherson
10         died, would have to turn that over to the medical
11         examiner.
12              THE WITNESS:  True.
13              THE COURT:  A medical examiner was not, is not,
14         never has been, I don't believe, a Scientologist.
15              THE WITNESS:  True.
16              THE COURT:  Dr. Minkoff would have known that.
17              THE WITNESS:  That is correct.
18              THE COURT:  So there could -- would have been
19         no one thinking in their right mind that wouldn't
20         have known if, in fact, she was dehydrated and they
21         stood back and watched her die in a dehydrated
22         state, that the medical examiner wouldn't pick up on
23         that and it would cause them, A, to perhaps be
24         charged with murder, or manslaughter, or practicing
25         medicine without a license, and on and on it goes,


1         and be sued for a lot of money.
2              I have to assume that these people like
3         Mr. Rinder and Mr. Miscavige are people of some
4         intellect.  I mean, unless they are just fools, they
5         would realize that that could not be the answer or
6         the choice that they made and avoid a PR flap.
7              THE WITNESS:  I understand how you are looking
8         at this, your Honor.  I do.
9              THE COURT:  Okay.  So, I mean, that is why I'm
10         saying you were asked in a very oddball way, which
11         is you couldn't find anything contrary to what he
12         said.  That is -- I don't know what that means.
13         Does that mean that you think that Mr. Miscavige put
14         out an end cycle and said let her die?
15              THE WITNESS:  I don't have any personal
16         knowledge that he did, your Honor.
17              THE COURT:  Well, do you have any way you would
18         want to render an opinion in this court that you
19         think that is true?
20              THE WITNESS:  Let me put it this way.
21              THE COURT:  You have as much knowledge as Jesse
22         Prince has.
23              THE WITNESS:  I --
24              THE COURT:  As far as I know -- I don't know
25         what he's going to tell us when he comes in here.


1         But as far as what I know, he doesn't have any more
2         knowledge about this case -- I'm talking about the
3         Lisa McPherson case -- than you have.
4              THE WITNESS:  Okay.
5              THE COURT:  Okay?  So I may be wrong, I haven't
6         heard from him.  But let's assume that.  Okay?
7              Do you have any basis upon which you could make
8         that statement?
9              THE WITNESS:  The statement again was, your
10         Honor?
11              THE COURT:  The statement was that
12         Mr. Miscavige, to avoid a PR flap, entered an end
13         cycle order.  I heard it called drop the body, end
14         cycle, different sundry things, to avoid -- I mean,
15         this is the magic to me, or this is the -- this is
16         the part I'm having trouble with -- to avoid a PR
17         flap, that Mr. Miscavige entered an order that said
18         let her die, in essence.
19              THE WITNESS:  I don't believe he would have
20         issued an order directly with that wording.  I -- I
21         know Mr. Miscavige well enough in my years, nobody
22         ever issues those types of orders that may have
23         legal ramifications.  We learned that back in '77.
24         So, no, you don't do that.
25              Whatever you say, you mask it, you put it into


1         a euphemism, maybe even don't even put it in
2         writing; you put it on the phone and just say,
3         "Never mind, let it go," something which basically
4         washes your hands of the situation.
5              I have seen it enough times that -- serious --
6         serious situations where the person simply absolves
7         themselves and lets it evolve back to the junior,
8         let the junior take the heat.  And sometimes by just
9         lack of issuing an order, that is an order.  I have
10         been in those situations where no order was an
11         order.  You were just left there and then if it went
12         well, then the senior takes the credit.  If it goes
13         back, then you catch the heat.
14              THE COURT:  Well, let's assume then that is
15         what happened for -- just to carry this thing
16         through to what I assume is something else you'll be
17         happy to tell us about, which is Mr. Miscavige just
18         decided, "Well, I'll do nothing and let the junior
19         take the heat."
20              Again, he would have to know that that decision
21         was going to bring on a huge amount of bad PR
22         because he would have to know that Dr. Minkoff would
23         have to call the medical examiner.
24              THE WITNESS:  I don't think so, your Honor.
25         I -- when -- when it is called senior management,


1         you may imagine the lower units, but you are not
2         that familiar with how local authorities work
3         because you are only dealing with your personnel.
4         So I could sit up there and -- well, I don't know
5         how a local court works --
6              THE COURT:  Don't you ask?
7              THE WITNESS:  Yes, you need to be advised on
8         this.
9              THE COURT:  Right.
10              THE WITNESS:  That is why --
11              THE COURT:  And if Mr. Miscavige is at the head
12         of the Church, one would assume or hope that he
13         would make a decision based on some knowledge, "What
14         will happen if this lady dies in my hotel down
15         there?"
16              THE WITNESS:  That is why you end up hiring
17         local counsels who will advise, and sometimes
18         they'll advise directly to upper management, you
19         know.  Right here -- an attorney right here could
20         end up speaking to him to advise because he wants to
21         know straight from the horse's mouth.  And I think
22         that is always a wise move.
23              THE COURT:  He would have been told, if that
24         happened, "Gee whiz, get her to a hospital quickly,
25         because if she's dehydrated and she's dying and she


1         dies, she'll go to the medical examiner, they have a
2         halfway decent medical examiner down there that will
3         pick up on this, well, the Church is going to be
4         indicted again."
5              THE WITNESS:  Also --
6              THE COURT:  "We'll get sued for a whole bunch
7         of money.  This is a very bad choice.  Do
8         something."
9              THE WITNESS:  That is why I think we're missing
10         the last four days of the records.  The last four
11         days of the record is like the 18-minute gap in the
12         Watergate tapes.  What went down, what went down
13         those last four days?  That is really crucial --
14              THE COURT:  I'm not sure it is four days.  I
15         think it is like two and a half.
16              MR. DANDAR:  It ended Sunday afternoon around
17         three.  But that is just one of the caretakers --
18              THE COURT:  But the records that were
19         missing -- the records that were missing are not
20         records from up, coming down.  What were missing are
21         the lowest echelon here, the workers.  They wouldn't
22         know anything about anything you and I are talking
23         about or anything going on in this lawsuit.
24              They would just simply say, "Seems to be
25         getting worse.  Looks like she's dehydrated."


1              And it is -- in its worst scenario this would
2         be, "This is really bad.  This is getting worse.
3         Help."
4              I mean, that is the worst that you would see on
5         the records that were missing.
6              THE WITNESS:  On their records.  But their
7         records can also reflect what they're being told to
8         do.
9              For example, there is medications.  They talked
10         to somebody and there is medications.  That can
11         reflect something other than just, "Gave her a glass
12         of water today."
13              THE COURT:  Well, I think the last record on
14         anything relevant to this case was she had two
15         liters of water -- or two liters of -- upon waking
16         up, I think that was the order from Janis Johnson.
17              THE WITNESS:  Right.  But what I'm saying,
18         those records, when I studied them, they reflected
19         more than what was going on in the room.  It showed
20         liaison outside, contact with others, what was being
21         said, what was being reported; so one could get some
22         sense, just from those internal reports inside the
23         room, as to what was being -- transpiring outside
24         the room.
25              THE COURT:  You don't think anyone would have


1         written down, "Gee, David Miscavige told us to end
2         cycle on Lisa McPherson," would they?
3              THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am, because they wouldn't
4         even have heard his name.
5              THE COURT:  So those records -- that aspect of
6         those records wouldn't help that aspect of
7         Mr. Dandar's case at all.
8              THE WITNESS:  No, not in that sense.
9         Mr. Miscavige speaks only to other people who will
10         execute orders.  That would be either through the
11         Office of Special Affairs, or possibly he might talk
12         to somebody -- I think it is unlikely -- in the
13         senior CSN office.  He would get somebody else to
14         talk to those people.  He always uses an
15         intermediary as much as possible.
16              THE COURT:  So you have no basis to tell us
17         whether there is any -- any truth to that assertion
18         or not?
19              THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am, I don't have any
20         empirical evidence.
21              THE COURT:  Okay.
22              THE WITNESS:  And that is why I think it is --
23         it is regrettable that those last few days are
24         missing, because we might have.


2         Q    Well, do you have an opinion, without the
3    records -- do you have an opinion as to why -- why she died
4    if, in fact, it was noticeable that she was in physical
5    decline?
6         A    Well, one thing --
7              THE COURT:  Surely you are not asking him to
8         render a medical opinion.
9              MR. DANDAR:  No, not medical.  Scientology
10         reason.
11              THE WITNESS:  Scientology reason as to why she
12         died?
13    BY MR. DANDAR:
14         Q    Yes.  Why wasn't she taken a minute down the road
15    to Morton Plant Hospital instead of 50 minutes up to
16    Minkoff?
17         A    Because Minkoff is OT8.  It's -- it's a very
18    incestuous relationship at times.  You always try to do
19    business with other Scientologists.  You always try to give
20    a Scientologist the job, you know, to paint your house or
21    anything else.  So you do this.
22              But in this case Minkoff, he's an OT8 and
23    Scientologist, so that is where you go, that is where you
24    are going to get your best chance.
25         Q    Best chance meaning like Dr. Minkoff tried and


1    wrote letters to the medical examiner saying that Lisa
2    McPherson died from sepsis?
3         A    No, I didn't mean your best medical chance, your
4    best PR chance.
5         Q    Do you think Dr. Minkoff's letter to the medical
6    examiner saying she died of sepsis, rather than anything
7    else, was his attempt to squelch the PR flap?
8              MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.
9         A    First of all, I'm not a --
10              THE COURT:  That objection will be sustained so
11         you don't get to answer at all.
12              THE WITNESS:  Okay.
13              Your Honor, may I make a special request for
14         two minutes while I make a run, if nobody leaves the
15         room?  My apologies.  It is a prostate thing.
16              Thank you.
17              (Whereupon, the witness is excused from the
18         stand for a brief period.)
19              THE COURT:  While they are gone, do you want to
20         make sure I have that package?
21              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
22              THE COURT:  I'm talking now about the package
23         you submitted to Judge Moody that had all of these
24         affidavits.
25              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  I'm going to make sure.


1              THE COURT:  When did the State Attorney begin
2         their investigation in the case?
3              MR. WEINBERG:  The Clearwater Police began on
4         the night of the death.  And when the State Attorney
5         got involved, I'm not quite sure but it was sometime
6         in the fall of 1996, I think, or early 1997.  So the
7         Clearwater Police did the investigation up until,
8         you know, Joan Wood went on TV, which was in late
9         '96, early '97, then the State Attorney did its
10         first interviews, as I remember correctly, early
11         '97.
12              THE COURT:  Did the Clearwater Police
13         Department ever shut down their investigation?  In
14         other words, they took it to the State Attorney
15         eventually, then they picked it up?
16              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  What happened, they
17         started the night -- the night of the death.  And
18         then, if I remember correctly, because of all of the
19         publicity, the State Attorney sort of got involved
20         in early 1997.  And at that point it was sort of in
21         conjunction with one another.
22              THE COURT:  Okay.
23              (WHEREUPON, the witness returns to the
24         courtroom and to the witness stand.)
25              THE WITNESS:  Thank you, your Honor.


1              THE COURT:  You are welcome.
2              MR. DANDAR:  Judge, we did file request for
3         judicial notice on May 15, 2002 which attached the
4         notice of the following affidavits, and what I think
5         is I handed the clerk just this and I think I handed
6         you the whole stack.  But I'll get you another copy.
7              THE COURT:  I have a feeling -- I don't think I
8         have ever seen this request for judicial notice.
9              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
10              THE COURT:  Maybe I have.  But if what you --
11         if what you asked me to take judicial notice of is
12         the notice of filing affidavits and other documents
13         in support of a motion, I may well have said fine,
14         I'll take judicial notice of it.  If I did, I don't
15         remember seeing it until just now.
16              I don't mind taking judicial notice of part of
17         a court file, but I don't think I got it.  The
18         reason I think that is because I think I have seen
19         Ms. -- Ms. Brooks' affidavit which I didn't even
20         really understand until somewhere midway in this
21         hearing that it was an affidavit from someplace else
22         that was attached.  I don't know that I have ever
23         seen Mr. Young's affidavit to date.
24              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
25              THE COURT:  And if there was any others, I


1         think I just heard you say there were others, I
2         don't think I even know who they are, let alone have
3         I seen them.
4              MR. DANDAR:  I'll have another copy tomorrow.
5              THE COURT:  You don't have any objection to me
6         taking judicial notice of whatever part of the file
7         it is he's having me take judicial notice?
8              MR. WEINBERG:  I don't.  I just want to know
9         what it is.  I don't think any of his affidavits are
10         in evidence.
11              THE COURT:  I don't, either.  First day you
12         gave me two requests to take judicial notice, and I
13         don't think it is either of those.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  All I remember as to Mr. Young
15         is that I think that in evidence is the motion to
16         add parties in September of '99, and I think the
17         supplemental filing by Mr. Dandar before the
18         October 8 hearing, which would have included
19         Mr. Young's affidavit.  I think that was put in
20         evidence in this case.
21              But I don't -- I'm not even sure of that.
22              THE COURT:  So you better get that to me,
23         Counselor.  Okay?
24              MR. DANDAR:  I will.  I'll have that to you.


2         Q    Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and 9.  It
3    is already in evidence.
4              First of all, can you tell us what Exhibit 8 is,
5    please?
6              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, can you --
7         A    Exhibit 8 is a photocopy of a policy letter
8    written in 1967 entitled "Penalties for Lower Conditions."
9    And it is written by L. Ron Hubbard.
10              MR. WEINBERG:  It is very confusing to us but
11         our 89 has to do with the first amended complaint.
12              THE COURT:  This is the clerk's exhibit.
13              MR. DANDAR:  It says Plaintiff's Exhibit 8,
14         5/7/02.
15    BY MR. DANDAR:
16         Q    And Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 in the bottom under
17    the -- is the bottom the "worst condition" or the "worst"
18    something?  What is the word?
19         A    Well, condition -- should I explain conditions?
20    Or not?
21         Q    Does that have anything to do with conditions?
22         A    Yes.  These were conditions that are called lower
23    conditions as of 1967.
24         Q    What is meant by conditions?
25         A    Mmm, Hubbard built many things in layers and


1    hierarchies of things.  It seemed like floors on a
2    skyscraper going up and down.
3              And ethics was basically, to keep it in simple
4    terms, morals, how you behaved, how well you are doing.  And
5    lower conditions meant you were doing very badly.
6              And at the bottom here in this one was a condition
7    of enemy.  You can't go any further than a condition of
8    enemy.  And so he describes what this condition of enemy is.
9              And then sometimes these gave advice as to what
10    the person needs to do.  But in this case it just says what
11    needs to be done to them.
12         Q    Is that called fair game?
13         A    This was called fair game.  It says right here:
14    "Enemy.  SP order."  And "SP" stands for suppressive person.
15              And the second sentence says:  "Fair game.  May be
16    deprived of property or injured by means by any
17    Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.
18    May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
19         Q    Was that policy canceled?
20         A    This was amended because there was different
21    conditions that came out.  But the policy itself remained
22    because there is information here.
23         Q    What about Exhibit 9 -- what do you mean, there is
24    information here?
25         A    Well, let me put it this way.  There is very


1    seldom Mr. Hubbard canceled a policy.  He would amend a
2    policy.  He would update it.
3              And in this case this was updated.  So that
4    different things were said in the lines of these conditions.
5              But you don't just cancel them and throw them away
6    because this is a valuable document.  He never just simply
7    got rid of policy.
8         Q    What is Exhibit 9 then?
9         A    Exhibit 9 is -- is a page with two policy letters
10    on it.  Because they're both short.  This is one from one of
11    the volumes, the same pages.  You printed more than one of
12    them to a page.
13              Number one is entitled "Cancelation of Fair Game"
14    written in 1968 by Hubbard.
15         Q    So did that cancel Number 8, Exhibit 8?
16         A    No.  This was -- this is one of the most -- more
17    controversial policy letters.  It is often cited by
18    Scientology to say fair game was canceled, here is the
19    policy, see this cancelation of fair game.
20              When I was a PR working with media, governmental
21    authorities, I did that.  I pulled it out and I said, "See,
22    fair game was canceled."
23              And that is because the person didn't understand
24    the rest of it.  Because it says here, "This PL," meaning
25    policy letter, "does not cancel any policy on the treatment


1    or handling of an SP."
2              Well, this other one that we have here was "How
3    you handle an SP.  May be sued, tricked or lied."
4              What he's saying here, and it says it clearly -- I
5    mean, I hate to say it says what it says, but this has gone
6    into courts, government, media, government agencies and they
7    haven't caught on, so pardon me if I said -- point out he
8    says fair game may not appear on any ethics order.
9              In other words, the words "fair game" may not
10    appear on any ethics order because it is bad public
11    relations.
12              The next sentence, "This does not change any
13    policy on how to handle SPs."
14              So all we stopped doing is we stopped using the
15    words "Fair game," but everything else he wrote about how to
16    destroy an SP, you do it, fair game policy was not canceled,
17    just the use of the words.
18         Q    Okay.  How did I meet you?
19         A    You called me.
20         Q    And do you know how I found your name and phone
21    number?
22         A    I don't remember right now.
23         Q    Do you know when I did that?
24         A    Mmm, it was earlier in 1997, if I recall.  Around
25    maybe April or somewhere in the spring.


1         Q    Did I come up to see you?
2         A    You spoke on the phone and asked if you could come
3    up to talk.
4         Q    And was it you who I was talking to?
5         A    Yes.
6         Q    So did I fly to Seattle?
7         A    Yes.
8         Q    And I met with you and Stacy, correct?
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    And you and Stacy were married at the time.
11    Correct?
12         A    Yes.
13              THE COURT:  When was this, please?
14              THE WITNESS:  1997, earlier part.
15              THE COURT:  Early 1997?
16              THE WITNESS:  Spring, early somewhere,
17         somewhere around there.
18    BY MR. DANDAR:
19         Q    March, April, I believe.
20         A    Yes.  As I said, around my birthday in April.
21         Q    Okay.  And what did we talk about?
22         A    Well, you explained that you were counsel for this
23    case down in Florida, and that -- and you just wanted to
24    know pretty much the way I described it to Leipold and
25    Graham Berry.  You were involved in litigation involving


1    Scientology, it is complex, you were having trouble with the
2    language, structures, policies, vocabulary, knowing which
3    organization fits with what, and you just wanted to see what
4    we might know.
5         Q    Did I -- what did I ask you to do?
6         A    Well, you wanted help with the case.
7         Q    Okay.  And what was your response?
8         A    I don't remember how quickly I responded.  But I
9    agreed.
10         Q    What about Stacy's response?
11         A    She was a little -- she was a little slower on it
12    at the time.  But she finally -- you know, she agreed.
13         Q    Okay.  And what did you do to consult with me or
14    help me?
15         A    Well, after you got back, then you sent me some
16    materials so I could catch up on it, because at that time
17    all I knew was what you had given to me orally by describing
18    the case.  And you sent -- I believe you sent the complaint
19    and maybe a couple of other papers.
20              And then you said you would get more material to
21    me.
22         Q    Did I -- did I talk about adding on parties at
23    that first meeting, outside of Flag?
24         A    No, I don't recall that at all.
25              THE COURT:  Just a minute.  Is this what you're


1         talking about (indicating)?
2              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
3              THE COURT:  Is that it?
4              MR. DANDAR:  That is it.
5              THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, I do have that.
6              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  That is the whole thing.
7              THE COURT:  All right.  For some reason, I'm
8         not sure if I ever took this -- this may have ended
9         up over here, never to be seen again.  So I'm glad I
10         saw it.  Okay.
11              MR. DANDAR:  I'm glad you saw it, too.
12              THE COURT:  So you do not need to give this to
13         me again.
14              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
15              MR. WEINBERG:  Just for the record, what is the
16         title of that thing?
17              THE COURT:  "Notice of Filing Affidavits and
18         Other Documents in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to
19         Add Parties."
20              This is a --
21              MR. WEINBERG:  That is what I was referring to.
22         That is the supplemental filing in October of '99?
23              THE COURT:  It is a filing in the -- on the 7th
24         of October of '99.
25              MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I would like that to be


1         part of the evidence of the plaintiff.  And if you
2         want me to file another copy with the clerk, I'll do
3         that.
4              THE COURT:  You can't have this because this is
5         mine.  I told you I like to write on mine, so --
6              MR. DANDAR:  That is why I did a notice to take
7         judicial notice request, so we don't keep filing the
8         same things over and over.
9              THE COURT:  Right.  So I have taken judicial
10         notice of it.  But if you want it to be evidence in
11         this hearing, you're going to have to mark it.
12              MR. DANDAR:  Then we'll do that.
13              THE COURT:  And have the clerk accept it.
14              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
15              THE COURT:  And on and on.
16              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
17              THE COURT:  And I do not object to that if you
18         want to do that.
19              MR. DANDAR:  All right, we'll do that.  And
20         I'll do it tomorrow.
21    BY MR. DANDAR:
22         Q    All right, Mr. Young, did there come a point in
23    time when I talked about David Miscavige or -- or his name
24    came up somehow?
25         A    I'm sure it did.  I'm just saying I don't recall


1    exactly at what point.
2         Q    Okay.  And do you recall helping me or offering
3    suggestions for allegations of the -- what was going to be
4    the first amended complaint?
5         A    Yes.
6         Q    And how did that process take place where you
7    suggested factual allegations concerning the history of
8    Scientology?
9              THE COURT:  Give us a date here because this
10         could be important.
11              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
12         A    This was probably -- I'm still talking April/May
13    because I got the complaint just a matter of days after he
14    returned to --
15              THE COURT:  This was a draft of the first
16         amended complaint?  Or was this an actual copy of
17         the complaint that had been filed?
18              THE WITNESS:  I believe there was an actual
19         copy of the filed complaint.
20              THE COURT:  Okay.  Was this the one that has
21         been referred to as kind of the simple wrongful
22         death complaint?
23              THE WITNESS:  I wasn't here for that
24         description, your Honor.  I don't know.
25              THE COURT:  Okay.  And I can understand why you


1         would not know necessarily what that meant.
3         Q    Let me -- it is already in evidence but let me
4    just show you the original complaint and see if that helps.
5              THE COURT:  There are five of them, so -- or
6         more, so don't just assume it is the one you saw by
7         reading the first few lines because they're probably
8         all the same.
9              MR. WEINBERG:  I think the date may have more
10         bearing than anything.
11              THE COURT:  Pardon me?
12              MR. WEINBERG:  I think the date may have more
13         bearing than anything.
14              THE WITNESS:  That seems to be it.  I know it
15         was identified as the first -- the original
16         complaint that was filed.
17    BY MR. DANDAR:
18         Q    It only names Flag as a defendant, correct?
19         A    Mmm, I guess so.  I would have to look at it more
20    closely.
21              THE COURT:  He probably doesn't even know --
22         A    Oh, okay, up there, "Scientology, d/b/a FSO."
23    BY MR. DANDAR:
24         Q    Now, turn to the first amended complaint and see
25    where there is added parties.  Could you see if there is any


1    paragraphs that you recognize that you helped create?
2         A    Well, most of the stuff talking about the
3    background, history of Scientology and -- I don't mean to be
4    blunt but you didn't know that much about it.  You were
5    fairly typical of attorneys that are dealing with
6    Scientology litigation; you didn't know the language, you
7    didn't know the structure, you didn't know if A was
8    underneath B or -- et cetera.
9              And I remember reading the original complaint just
10    thinking, no, no, this is -- I didn't know the facts of the
11    case right then, but I did know enough about the structure
12    of the organization and language to see that this -- this
13    didn't reflect the situation.
14              So my task was to first of all advise you of that.
15    I did not know any of the facts of the case yet.  I hadn't
16    been given that material.  I just wanted to advise you as to
17    the vocabulary, structure, language of the organization.
18         Q    Well, could you look at the first amended
19    complaint and tell us what paragraph, by looking at the
20    number, you believe that you contributed to writing?
21         A    Well, for example, Paragraph 4, which says "The
22    Church of Scientology was created in the early 1950s by
23    science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and --"
24              THE COURT:  Don't -- when you read -- everybody
25         does this, tends to read so fast, and that court


1         reporter still has to take it down.  So please don't
2         read it at the speed level --
3              THE WITNESS:  I shall.  Thank you.
5         Q    All right.
6         A    So, I mean, you didn't know any of this stuff
7    about the background and the history.  And there is -- there
8    were points in here that I knew enough about, without even
9    knowing the facts of the case, but just knowing what the
10    suit was about, that I could advise you on, which was such
11    as what a situation was in Scientology, which is we were
12    using the word "PR flap" and "situations" is in quotes.
13    Knowing that a person who would take off their clothes and
14    run around the streets, we have a situation here.
15              So I was trying to put this into the body of the
16    vocabulary, sort of like I was trying to do in my testimony
17    this morning.
18         Q    Okay.  And do you know when I was meeting with
19    you -- how many times did I meet with you in Seattle?
20         A    Mmm, I believe it was twice.
21         Q    Okay.  Do you know if you or Stacy were advising
22    me --
23              MR. DANDAR:  Here I go again, I have to
24         watch -- we still have the -- the stipulation of
25         privilege that if I talk -- start talking about what


1         they are advising me, the privilege is waived just
2         for that conversation and not for anything else?
3              THE COURT:  I think so.
4              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
5              THE COURT:  Do you agree with that?  I think
6         that is kind of what we've been doing throughout.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  I think what we've been hearing
8         is a lot of conversation.  So I assume it has been
9         waived as to the questions we just had.
10              MR. DANDAR:  Right.  Right.
11    BY MR. DANDAR:
12         Q    All right, so do you recall you or Stacy or me
13    being gung-ho to add David Miscavige as a defendant in the
14    first amended complaint?
15         A    No.
16         Q    Do you recall me talking to you about the role of
17    David Miscavige?
18         A    Well, you couldn't have talked to me about it
19    because you didn't know his role either way.
20         Q    Let me show you what is marked as the Church of
21    Scientology's Exhibit 73.  Let's see if you can recognize
22    that.
23         A    I vaguely remember this.
24              THE COURT:  What are you showing him?
25              MR. DANDAR:  I'm showing him the May '97 letter


1         that Ms. Brooks handed over to the Church of
2         Scientology.
3              THE COURT:  All right.
4              MR. DANDAR:  This letter is May 2nd, '97.
6         Q    Do you know if you and I or your wife Stacy talked
7    about adding David Miscavige on as the managing agent for
8    all of Scientology?
9         A    I believe she did.
10         Q    Okay.  And this letter that is May 2nd of '97, is
11    that a letter that I sent to you -- did you respond to that
12    at all, if you recall?
13         A    I don't believe so.
14         Q    Okay.  Do you know if Stacy did?
15         A    No, she -- she wouldn't have done that.  I would
16    have carried on the correspondence.
17         Q    Because you and I were the only ones in contact
18    with each other.  Correct?
19         A    Early on, yes.
20         Q    Okay.  When did that change, if at all?
21         A    I can't say exactly.  But early on all we had was
22    just -- all I had was just the facts of this lady,
23    automobile accident, died under mysterious circumstances,
24    da-da-da.  I had no other information.
25              I don't think I even knew the introspection


1    rundown was involved at that time.  It wasn't until you
2    provided further information, documents, so that the case
3    could be better understood, that is when Stacy came in.
4              Stacy's role, quite often, with us working as a
5    team, was that she took care of the technical side.  She had
6    much more technical training than I did, whereas I had more,
7    you know, public relations, legal organization externally
8    training and experience than she did.  So we sort of
9    complimented each other inside and outside.
10              So I know that as we became more acquainted with
11    what I might say is the medical side of this case, that she
12    got interested because of the things like PTS 3 and
13    introspection rundown.
14              THE COURT:  Let me see what it was you were
15         showing him.  I'm still not sure if I know.  Let me
16         see it.
17              And is what you are indicating you would have
18         responded to that part that is in yellow here that,
19         "Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of
20         those in isolation and their condition," is that
21         what you are saying you would have responded to?
22              THE WITNESS:  He would have asked about that.
23         Obviously, he wanted to ask me.
24              THE COURT:  This is in a letter sent to you?
25              THE WITNESS:  Yes.


1              THE COURT:  I take it what you are saying is
2         you would have responded to this?
3              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
4              THE COURT:  I take it over the telephone or --
5              THE WITNESS:  Well, he's indicating he wants to
6         meet and talk about it.
7              THE COURT:  Okay.  To your knowledge, you did
8         not respond to this in writing?
9              THE WITNESS:  That is correct.
10              THE COURT:  So it either would have been over
11         the phone or in person or something like that?
12              THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13              THE COURT:  Okay.  Shall I give this back to
14         the clerk?
15              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
16              THE COURT:  Madam Clerk.
17              THE WITNESS:  Could I explain one point on
18         that, Mr. Dandar?
19    BY MR. DANDAR:
20         Q    Yes.  Go ahead.
21         A    My experience, having worked with some attorneys
22    before I met you, is that when they don't know about the
23    Scientology language and the structure, they can write me a
24    letter like that.  And half the time I might even disregard
25    it because they don't even know what they're asking for.


1              So that is why we have to sit down and talk until
2    they understand what it is that they're really looking for.
3         Q    Well, let me show you Paragraph 12 of the first
4    amended complaint.  Take a look at Paragraph 12 and see if
5    you recognize anything in there that you may have
6    contributed to in the formulation of the paragraph.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  Is the question whether he
8         actually wrote it or drafted it or something?  Is
9         that --
10              MR. DANDAR:  Contributed.
11              THE COURT:  I think so.
12              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
13         A    I don't recognize it as my style of writing, as
14    having written it.  But I know I advised you on the various
15    informations and the content that went into it.  But if I
16    would have written it, I wouldn't have written it like that.
17    BY MR. DANDAR:
18         Q    All right.
19         A    So obviously you or somebody took the information
20    that I provided and then wrote the paragraph.
21         Q    All right.  Let me jump and -- well, first off,
22    let me hand you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit
23    102.  And this is only one page of a multipage document.
24    I'm trying to -- 102 doesn't look very good on that one.
25              Do you recognize this document?


1         A    Yes.
2         Q    Which is only the first page of October 25, or 26,
3    1971, it's a Flag Order 3057.
4         A    Yes.
5         Q    Is there -- this is called "Shore Flaps."  Is
6    there a difference between a shore flap and a PR flap?
7         A    No, it is basically the same.  Shore flap is just
8    because this was dealing with the ship and it would dock at
9    certain ports, and so it was a shore flap.  But a shore flap
10    and PR flap would be pretty much equivalent.
11              MR. DANDAR:  I would like to move that into
12         evidence.
13              MR. WEINBERG:  I object, and I don't think we
14         should put part of the policy in.
15              MR. DANDAR:  Well, I have the whole thing.
16         I'll copy it during a break and put it in.
17              THE COURT:  All right.
18              MR. DANDAR:  And I'll substitute the one page
19         and I'll add on the other two pages.
20              MR. WEINBERG:  But I would like to see the rest
21         of it to see what the relevance of all this is.
22              MR. DANDAR:  Here.
23              THE WITNESS:  Do I leave these up here with
24         these?
25              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.


2         Q    Okay, I want to jump back to Mr. Rinder's
3    approaching you and your wife back in 1994.
4              First of all, you had already turned Mr. Rinder
5    down a few times before Stacy called you and asked you to
6    come to Seattle and meet with Mr. Rinder, correct?
7         A    A few times, yes.
8         Q    What was it Stacy said to you that finally
9    persuaded you to meet with Mr. Rinder?
10              MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Hearsay as to
11         conversations like that.  He has already gone over
12         the subject matter once.
13              THE COURT:  I don't think he has gone over with
14         him why it was he changed his mind.  I don't know
15         what the hearsay would be.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  His conversation with Stacy as
17         to hearsay.  He said, "What did Ms. Brooks tell you
18         that caused you to change your mind?"
19              THE COURT:  Oh.  Technically, what she said to
20         him is hearsay.
21              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
22              THE COURT:  However, if it is being used to
23         impeach what she said, then it is not hearsay.  I
24         don't remember -- I have absolutely no idea what she
25         said about this, and I certainly don't know what


1         he's going to say.  So you'll have to be the judge
2         of that.
4         Q    All right.  How did she persuade you to come up
5    there and meet with Mr. Rinder?
6         A    In her estimation, she had withdrawn from the
7    consultation work.  So the way she put it was, "As long as
8    we are out of this," and I never understood why she made it
9    "we," that "maybe there is a way that we could just extract
10    ourselves and get something out of this," whatever that
11    meant.  And that she thought it wouldn't hurt to do it.
12              It wasn't that what she said was persuasive to me
13    as much as I was trying to give her as much support as
14    possible.  And if she wanted to do it, it is almost like
15    saying, "Okay, I'll let you do it because you have asked for
16    it."  It wasn't a case of what she said as much as she
17    simply asked for it.
18         Q    Okay.  Do you have your copy of Mr. Rinder's
19    declaration?
20         A    No.
21         Q    Maybe I --
22         A    I wasn't given back that copy.
23         Q    It is actually marked, Mr. Weinberg is right, as
24    Plaintiff's Exhibit 15V as in Victor.
25              THE COURT:  Okay.


1              MR. DANDAR:  I'll hand the Court another copy
2         just for convenience.
3              THE COURT:  Thank you.
4              MR. DANDAR:  Since we already made all that
5         noise copying it.  I don't remember using letters
6         but I guess I did.
8         Q    Did you have a chance, during lunch, to read this
9    affidavit?
10         A    Yes.
11         Q    And are there any statements made by Mr. Rinder in
12    this affidavit that are not true?
13         A    It would be a lot faster if I pointed out to you
14    what was true.  It's -- it's such an amazing fabrication of
15    events and descriptions.
16              I had seen this once before, but I only looked it
17    over lightly just to see he was contesting.  This is the
18    first time I seriously read it.  And it is just staggering
19    with what is being said in here.
20         Q    Okay, what is true then?
21         A    Well, I didn't mark them.  But the fact that he
22    came -- you know, even saying I spent several days in
23    Seattle.  Six days.  Not several.  You know, so like Seattle
24    is true, but the several days is not.
25              And the fact that Mike Soter came along.  But


1    after that, it just wanders off into some other land that
2    just makes me wonder what he's smoking.
3         Q    Well, let me ask you a point-blank question, all
4    right?  Paragraph 4 at the bottom says, "Their --" talking
5    about you and Stacy, "Their professed guilt about the
6    dishonest quality of their sworn statements could not
7    overpower their craving for money."
8         A    And they say I spin things?  It's -- first of all,
9    there was no -- there was no guilt.  In fact, somewhere in
10    here he says this -- now what I'm doing with you is going to
11    damage me as far as my work.  Well, I continued to do the
12    work for another couple of years.  There was no -- there was
13    no guilt.
14              And trying to put it on the point of money, I
15    mean -- but, see, he says right after that, "Thus we
16    resolved nothing in these talks."
17              Well, nothing was resolved because I said no.  And
18    it's -- I found it amazing that he says they are offering me
19    close to half a million dollars and I turned it down.  And
20    yet I brought him up to Seattle to get the money.  And yet I
21    am asking for half a million dollars.
22              But I -- I -- to me, if somebody just carefully
23    reads it, even not knowing that "he said she said," because
24    we've just got differences of opinions here, can see it just
25    doesn't fit together.


1         Q    Paragraph 4 he says that you and Stacy were
2    manipulating the facts to attack and embarrass their former
3    religion.
4              Were you manipulating facts in your declarations
5    that you had filed in the Fishman case?
6         A    No.  I have always constantly tried to rely upon
7    their documents, as I did with the Wollersheim declaration
8    that I gave to the Court.  I tried to minimize my personal
9    experience except to show that I had 21 years and knew the
10    vocabulary and I could find the material.  My job was to
11    present documents of the organizations and not my personal
12    experience.
13              The Wollersheim declaration is so thick that we
14    gave to the Court.  It is thick because that is their
15    documents.  I'm not trying to say I did the following.  In
16    fact, you'll find in there just a minimum of my talking
17    about my experience, only to give the context I knew.  So
18    that is what I did in the Fishman case.
19              So me spinning lies, obviously he doesn't say
20    what.  I was providing the documents.  They can characterize
21    it as they want, but I always relied on the organization's
22    documents.
23         Q    Do you recall Mr. Rinder, at this meeting, asking
24    you that he was only there to either set the record straight
25    or get the record set straight?


1         A    Yes.  He uses that phrase in here.  That is what
2    he told me, he just wants to set the record straight.
3         Q    Do you recall Stacy telling Mr. Rinder, look at
4    Paragraph 9, "Stacy said she had me willing to say under
5    oath whatever Barry wanted her to say if it would result in
6    getting paid."  Is there truth to that?
7         A    I -- I have no basis as to what he would say that
8    for.  I never saw, never heard once Graham Berry say to her
9    or to me what should be in a declaration as far as the way
10    you word it.
11              He -- he might ask for a declaration, as
12    Mr. Leipold asked for a declaration, could I show the
13    command channels of Scientology.  Yes, I can show that.  But
14    at that point the attorney's role drops away.  That is the
15    way Mr. Berry operated.
16              She -- I watched her write her declarations.  I
17    read her declarations.  I have -- this is completely false.
18    He had no input on this.
19         Q    Did you ever tell Mr. Rinder, as he says in
20    Paragraph 11, that you and Stacy were lying as a way of
21    life?
22         A    It's just an accusation.  I always stood by my
23    declarations and what were attached.  And if people want to
24    argue with my declarations, they can argue with the
25    attachments.


1         Q    Do you recall at any time you or Stacy saying to
2    anyone, even to yourselves, "What we put in that declaration
3    is not true"?
4         A    Never.
5         Q    Or it's -- or it's a -- in any way a fabrication?
6         A    Not at all.  In fact, after the meeting with
7    Rinder, she and I talked about that, "Isn't it amazing that
8    they want us to characterize our declarations, as well as
9    anything else being said, as -- as perjurious?"  And it just
10    stunned us that we would be asked to do something that was
11    so incredulous to us.
12              THE COURT:  It really isn't going to help us
13         much for him to go down and say Mr. Rinder is lying,
14         and if we could have Mr. Rinder here he would say he
15         was lying, and Ms. Brooks now says she filed a false
16         affidavit.
17              But the truth of the matter is that his
18         affidavit would reflect better what was said than
19         her affidavit, which I assume is true, but -- I
20         mean, this is all very --
21              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
22              THE COURT:  -- convoluted.  I assume, sir, you
23         stand by your testimony in court today that you have
24         stated under oath as to what happened in that
25         meeting between you and Mr. Rinder?


1              THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
2              THE COURT:  And anything he has said in the
3         affidavit or otherwise to the contrary in your
4         opinion is false, is that true?
5              THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.  And if I may say,
6         that is why I -- when he asked the possibility of my
7         testifying here, he said he could -- he knew that
8         travel for me is very difficult and very tiring,
9         sometimes painful and exhausting.
10              And I said, "I want to be in court.  I want the
11         Court to look in my eye.  I want them to hear my
12         voice.  I want no video between me," because I knew
13         that my credibility as a witness and what I have
14         done with all my work for all these years would be
15         challenged and put into question.  "And I want to be
16         here when that challenge is made so you can hear me
17         and look at me so you can decide.  I don't want
18         video."
19              THE COURT:  So really there is no point in him
20         going through here -- there may be a lot of things
21         in here he hasn't testified to, and we'll just
22         assume that is because they may not be relevant at
23         this hearing.  There may be some disagreements
24         between this witness and Mr. Rinder as far as what
25         occurred during that conversation.


1              MR. DANDAR:  I would like to -- we have been
2         going almost 1 hour and 15 minutes.  I would like a
3         break and then I think I would be finished.  I just
4         want to look over notes and then be sure.
5              THE WITNESS:  Could I make one comment that is
6         not a "he said she said."
7              THE COURT:  I don't know.  This is unusual.
8         What is it you want to say?
9              THE WITNESS:  On Page 13 Mr. Rinder said that
10         we turned down -- we decided to withdraw our
11         extortion attempt, I guess, because we had been
12         given legal advice -- right in the middle of the
13         page -- that if they were to correct the
14         declarations, the insurance company could sue them
15         for breach of contract.
16              My position is that right there is the
17         falsehood.  The case was over, all expenses had been
18         paid.  There was no breach of contract that anybody
19         could ever do.  And I think just right there I can
20         say anybody that knows how the court cases work and
21         insurance companies knows that would be false.
22              THE COURT:  I don't even see a Page 13.
23              MR. DANDAR:  It is Paragraph 33.
24              THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
25              THE COURT:  Paragraph 33?


1              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
2              THE WITNESS:  Thank you, your Honor.
3              THE COURT:  All right.  You want to take a
4         break, did you say?
5              MR. DANDAR:  Yes, please.
6              THE COURT:  All right.  You want to take a
7         break until 3:30?
8              MR. DANDAR:  That is fine.  Well, it is -- wow,
9         it is quarter after 3?
10              THE COURT:  Right.
11              MR. DANDAR:  All right.  Sorry.  I thought it
12         was quarter after 2.
13     (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:15 to 3:30 p.m.)
14             _______________________________________
15              THE COURT:  You may proceed.
16    BY MR. DANDAR:
17         Q    Mr. Young, since you and your wife Stacy divorced,
18    have you been in contact with her over the years?
19         A    Yes.
20         Q    Were you in contact with her while she ran the
21    Lisa McPherson Trust?
22         A    Occasionally.
23         Q    And did she ever tell you what the Lisa McPherson
24    Trust was all about?
25              MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Hearsay, your Honor.


1              THE COURT:  Sustained, unless it is for
2         impeachment or something like that.
3              MR. DANDAR:  It is for impeachment of her and
4         Bob Minton.
5              THE COURT:  All right.
6         A    Not -- not immediately.  It was -- it was quite a
7    ways into it before she talked about it.  I don't even know
8    when it was formed.
10         Q    Okay.  When is the first time she talked to you,
11    and what did she say?
12              THE COURT:  Well, this is awfully -- this is --
13         I mean, about what?
14    BY MR. DANDAR:
15         Q    The purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust?
16         A    Well, she took a great deal of pride in helping
17    other people.  It was supposed to be a way to provide
18    information on the Internet, to collect testimony, not in
19    the sense of sworn testimony, but the stories of people that
20    they could put up, to be a resource to families.  Education,
21    not only of families, but of -- say, of any government
22    agencies, I mean, as simple as local or otherwise, that
23    would want to know about the organization, how it operates.
24              THE COURT:  I don't need to hear all this.
25              Did she ever tell you part of the basis of the


1         Lisa McPherson Trust was to provide a stable of
2         witnesses for the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?
3              THE WITNESS:  Never.
4              THE COURT:  Did she ever tell you that the LMT
5         was going to be forever endowed because of an
6         agreement between Mr. Minton and the family of Lisa
7         McPherson?
8              THE WITNESS:  Nothing even close to that
9         subject was ever discussed.
10              THE COURT:  Those are the things you need to
11         ask him.
12              MR. DANDAR:  They were leading questions.  I
13         didn't hear an objection.  I am trying --
14              THE COURT:  That is not a leading question.
15         That can be answered yes or no.
16              MR. DANDAR:  All right.
17              THE COURT:  When you say, "Isn't it true that
18         she told you," that is a leading question.
19              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
20    BY MR. DANDAR:
21         Q    The last question I have on -- back to Mike Rinder
22    in 1994, the last question, as part of his proposal to you
23    and Stacy, did Mr. Rinder tell you that he wanted you and
24    Stacy to be available to testify or file declarations in
25    other cases?


1         A    Yes.  I just remembered that.  Yes.  Mmm, it was
2    part of the secret agreement that was to be between us that
3    we each would be available to provide declarations,
4    affidavits, and to testify with regard to any matters
5    involved in the public document, which meant repudiation of
6    our sworn testimony, Graham Berry had told us to lie, et
7    cetera.
8              So while we couldn't speak publicly about
9    Scientology, they could require us -- oh, and one more
10    thing.
11              There was also penalty clauses, I think it was
12    $10,000 or something per item, which meant anytime we
13    violated the agreement, we had to pay money.  And that
14    clearly included if I were to refuse to provide a
15    declaration, then I would be in violation of the agreement.
16              MR. DANDAR:  That is all I have.
17              THE COURT:  You may inquire.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  Thank you, your Honor.
19                        CROSS-EXAMINATION
21         Q    Good afternoon, Mr. Young.
22         A    Good afternoon.
23         Q    You -- your background, as far as the post or job
24    you had in the Church of Scientology, was essentially a PR
25    background.  Correct?


1         A    In the widest sense of the word, which includes
2    writing.  But essentially in the public relations field.
3         Q    Well, I mean, as a public relations person,
4    whether it is in the Church of Scientology or for some
5    political candidate or for some organization, part of that
6    function of being in PR is to spin things in favor of the
7    person you were working for.  Correct?
8         A    We didn't have the word "spin" back then.  But I
9    suppose that is the current word.  But you are to best
10    represent your client as you can.
11         Q    Right.  And -- and you carried that function over,
12    once you left the Church of Scientology and began to write
13    declarations for lawyers, you took advantage of that
14    training, when you were writing those declarations in cases
15    against the Church of Scientology, to spin things in favor
16    of the side that you were writing the declaration for,
17    didn't you?
18         A    No.
19         Q    Now, when you wrote the declarations, you would --
20    you would write them on occasion and leave inferences,
21    without actually having a factual basis for those
22    inferences, didn't you?
23         A    I -- I don't understand the question.
24         Q    Well, the question that was asked by Mr. Dandar is
25    whether you ever manipulated the facts when you wrote a


1    declaration.  Do you remember being asked that question?
2         A    Basically, yes.
3         Q    And from time to time, you would write
4    declarations that would leave inferences that were not
5    supported in any fact, didn't you?
6         A    I tried not to.  That is why I relied upon
7    documentation as attachments.
8         Q    Well, do you remember in the declaration that you
9    wrote -- I suppose it is your first declaration -- is the
10    declaration in the Fishman case the first declaration that
11    you ever -- is that the first declaration that you ever did
12    after you left the Church?
13         A    The first declaration in the Fishman -- you would
14    have to show me.
15         Q    Okay, I will.  I'll get a copy of it for you.
16              MR. WEINBERG:  If I could approach.
17              THE COURT:  You may.
18              MR. WEINBERG:  Just for the record, we'll put
19         an exhibit number on it.  I don't know if I will
20         offer this exhibit, but since I'm showing it to him,
21         I'll put a number on it.  It is Defendant's --
22              THE CLERK:  201.
23              MR. WEINBERG:  -- 201.
25         Q    If you go to the last page of that --


1         A    Excuse me, the last page?
2         Q    Yes, the signature page, in other words.
3         A    Yes?
4         Q    That is a declaration that you executed on
5    December 10, 1993.  Is that right?
6         A    Yes.
7         Q    And was that for this Fishman case?  Go to the
8    first paragraph.
9         A    Yes.  It appears it is, yes.
10         Q    Is it your recollection this is the first
11    declaration you did as a consultant for lawyers that were in
12    litigation against the Church of Scientology?
13         A    No.  They were not in litigation against the
14    Church.  They were defending litigation brought by the
15    Church.
16         Q    What I said was is this the first affidavit or
17    declaration you remember doing for lawyers that were in
18    litigation with the Church of Scientology?
19         A    Mmm, it -- it could be, sir.  I really hate to
20    swear to it without knowing the chronology.  But I will
21    assume for the moment that is correct.
22         Q    If you'll go to Page -- actually to Paragraph 28,
23    it looks like at the bottom Page 683.
24         A    Okay.
25         Q    And -- and at the bottom of that paragraph, there


1    is a sentence that says:  "Weapons were hidden but quickly
2    available."
3              Then on the next page you say:  "Mr. Miscavige has
4    a penchant for guns and is known to shoot at pictures of his
5    critics."
6              Then you drop a footnote.  The footnote says:
7    "Mr. Miscavige's behavior was overlooked in the
8    investigation of the death of his mother-in-law, Mary
9    Florence Barnett.  She died in Carson, California in 1985
10    from three shots to the chest and one to the temple from a
11    .22 rifle.  It was reported to me that she was about to
12    defect and talk to the wrong people.  The incident was known
13    to only a few in Scientology because Mr. Miscavige ordered a
14    lid on the matter."
15              My question to you, was it your purpose, in
16    dropping that footnote, to leave the inference to the
17    reader, whether it was a judge or someone else, that
18    Mr. Miscavige somehow had been responsible for the death of
19    his mother-in-law?  Was that the purpose of dropping that
20    footnote?
21         A    No.
22         Q    So -- and -- and did you have any factual basis
23    for believing, at that time or any later time, that
24    Mr. Miscavige had anything to do with the death of his
25    mother-in-law?


1         A    No.
2         Q    And -- and, in fact, subsequently, you learned
3    that -- you might have known at the time you put that
4    footnote, that the coroner, the medical examiner, had
5    already determined it was a suicide, didn't you?
6         A    I either knew before or later, yes, it was indeed
7    a suicide.
8         Q    Do you think it is just possible that you might
9    have been manipulating the facts in that declaration, when
10    you dropped that footnote about Mr. Miscavige, who at the
11    time you wrote this declaration you knew to be the
12    ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology?
13         A    No.  It was -- to be quite frank, it was my
14    ignorance.  As you say, it was my first one.  I later
15    learned you should not even do footnotes in declarations.  I
16    didn't really -- to tell you the truth, sir, I didn't know
17    how to put together a well-written declaration.  And if I
18    were to have done this today, I wouldn't have footnotes in
19    here.
20         Q    Well, did the lawyer that you were writing this
21    for tell you it would be useful to suggest in a footnote
22    that Mr. Miscavige had something to do with the death of his
23    mother-in-law under suspicious circumstances?
24         A    Not at all.
25         Q    Now, do you remember that you filed other


1    declarations in the Fishman case?
2         A    I did file other declarations.  Yes.
3         Q    Do you remember there was a declaration where you
4    suggested that there was something suspicious about the
5    death of the witness?  Do you remember that?
6         A    No, I don't.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  May I approach, your Honor?
8              THE COURT:  You may.
9              MR. WEINBERG:  This will be marked as 202.
11         Q    Now, 202 is an affidavit -- is another affidavit
12    that you -- or I guess they are called declarations in
13    California -- that you filed in the Fishman case.  Is that
14    right?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    And at this time Graham Berry was one of the
17    lawyers?
18         A    He was the lead counsel for the case.
19         Q    Was he the lead counsel at the time you filed the
20    first one, as well?
21         A    Yes.
22         Q    And this one, if I'm reading this correctly --
23    well, I am -- on Page 9 you filed this as of -- or you
24    executed this on January 3, 1994.  Correct?
25         A    Yes.


1         Q    This is a month after the first one that we looked
2    at.  Right?
3         A    Approximately.
4         Q    Okay.  Now, if you turn to Page 4, Paragraph 11,
5    you say, "In that vein, I call to the Court's attention two
6    events that occurred in Florida --"
7              THE COURT:  Well, where are you again?
8              MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sorry, Page 4.
9              THE COURT:  Okay.
10              MR. WEINBERG:  Paragraph 11, at the bottom.
11              THE COURT:  Okay.
13         Q    Do you see that, Mr. Young?
14         A    Paragraph 11, Page 4.  Yes.
15         Q    Okay.  And you say, "In that vein, I call to the
16    Court's attention two events that occurred in Florida on
17    December 30, 1993.
18              "One, a key witness in this case was fired from
19    his job when information provided by him in this case was
20    given to his employers.
21              "And, two, the wife of one of the defendants was
22    killed."
23              Do you see that?
24         A    Yes.
25         Q    Now, were you trying to leave the inference in


1    this declaration that somehow the Church of Scientology had
2    to do with a witness being killed?
3         A    No.
4         Q    Was that the inference that you were trying to
5    leave?
6         A    No.  Never crossed my mind.
7         Q    Well, do you understand that people reading this
8    might have gotten -- might have drawn the inference, because
9    you said other fairly uncharitable things about the Church,
10    that what you were suggesting was the Church had something
11    to do with the death of a witness?
12         A    Well, they can draw what they want.  But that was
13    not my intention.
14         Q    And the truth is in this case this witness was run
15    over by a car and it had nothing to do with the Church,
16    correct?
17         A    I don't recall exactly right now.
18         Q    Well, you remember that is the case, don't you?
19         A    I just said I don't remember the exact instances.
20    It is 1994.
21         Q    And were you trying to manipulate the facts when
22    you suggested -- when you wrote that in Paragraph 11 that --
23         A    No.
24         Q    -- that a witness was killed?
25         A    No.


1         Q    Was this some spin you were putting on this for
2    the lawyer, Mr. Berry?
3         A    No.
4         Q    You do remember that you were deposed about this
5    declaration?  You remember that, don't you?
6         A    About this particular declaration, I don't
7    remember that.
8         Q    Well, do you remember that when you were
9    deposed -- let me just ask you this.
10              Do you remember that you said you had no
11    information about the death but that it had been an
12    automobile accident?
13         A    No.  I remember being asked about David
14    Miscavige's mother.  My saying to you -- to your question at
15    that time -- that I had no evidence he was directly
16    responsible for her death.  I don't remember testifying to
17    the other point.
18         Q    Okay.  Now, let's talk about Mr. -- Mr. Dandar
19    brought up this Fishman case.  You remember that the
20    allegations in the Fishman case were that -- that Mr. --
21    that Mr. Fishman had been given an order to kill himself,
22    basically to commit suicide, and to kill his psychiatrist.
23    That was the allegation.  Do you remember that?
24         A    That was basically it, yes.
25         Q    All right.  And that the Church had sued with


1    regard to that because -- for libel or whatever?  I mean, is
2    that what the suit was about?
3         A    Yes.
4         Q    Okay.  Now, Mr. Fishman, as it turns out, had
5    concocted a scheme to try to set up the Church of
6    Scientology with regard to these allegations.  Correct?
7         A    That was the defense -- or that they were
8    putting -- they were putting forward.
9         Q    Don't you remember that the FBI caught Mr. Fishman
10    and caught him in having a person try to make a call
11    indicating that there was some kind of order to commit
12    suicide, and that this was -- and that this was caught by
13    the FBI, and that Mr. Fishman was prosecuted, Mr. Fishman
14    was convicted, and Mr. Fishman went to jail for a long time?
15    Do you remember --
16              MR. DANDAR:  Objection.  Form.
17              THE COURT:  Sustained.
19         Q    Do you remember that?
20              THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, was that sustained?
21              THE COURT:  It was sustained because it is kind
22         of multiple.  Break it down a little bit.
23              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
25         Q    Do you remember that Mr. Fishman was prosecuted by


1    the federal authorities for -- for cooking up this phony
2    scheme to try to set up the Church of Scientology in this
3    allegation concerning his suicide and the death of his
4    psychiatrist?  Do you remember that he was arrested for
5    that?
6         A    I can't agree to that way that you form it because
7    I don't remember the details.
8              My job was not to deal with Mr. Fishman's
9    background in that way but to advise with regard to the
10    structure and vocabulary of Scientology.
11         Q    Well, do you remember -- do you recall that
12    Mr. Fishman was prosecuted?
13         A    Somewhere there was a prosecution.  But I don't
14    remember for what.
15         Q    Do you recall that Mr. Fishman was convicted?
16         A    No.
17         Q    And so you don't recall that Mr. Fishman went to
18    jail for a long time, is that right?
19         A    That is true.
20         Q    You don't remember Mr. Berry or any of the lawyers
21    telling you about that?
22         A    No, I don't.
23         Q    Would it help to refresh your recollection to see
24    the minutes of his sentencing in front of the Honorable
25    Judge Lowell Jensen in the Northern District of California?


1         A    I'm not going to question what you are saying
2    happened to him.  I'm saying I did not have any real
3    information what happened to him.
4              THE COURT:  So then the answer is seeing the
5         notes would not be of any help to you?
6              THE WITNESS:  No.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
9         Q    Now, the declarations in the Fishman case are just
10    two of a number of declarations that you executed over the
11    years from when you first got involved in these Scientology
12    cases in 1993.  Correct?
13         A    Yes.
14         Q    Am I right that you have executed 21 declarations
15    for lawyers in cases involving the Church of Scientology
16    since 1993?
17         A    I don't have a count.  But I won't challenge it.
18         Q    Let me show you what we'll have the reporter mark
19    as the next -- I'm sorry, the clerk mark as the next
20    exhibit.
21              THE CLERK:  203.
22              THE COURT:  Do you have any other copies?  Or
23         is this it?
24              MR. WEINBERG:  I will, your Honor, offer
25         Defendant's 201, which is the 1993 declaration in


1         the Fishman case, and Defendant's 202, which is the
2         early 1994 declaration in the Fishman case.
3              THE COURT:  Any objection?
4              MR. DANDAR:  No objection.
5              THE COURT:  All right.
6              MR. WEINBERG:  This is the only copy that I
7         have, if I could stand up here.  And I'll give this
8         to --
9              MR. DANDAR:  What?
10              MR. WEINBERG:  I'll show Mr. Dandar a copy
11         before I use it.
12              MR. DANDAR:  Could I have a copy?
13              MR. WEINBERG:  That is the only copy I have.
14              THE WITNESS:  Do you want to make a copy?
15              MR. WEINBERG:  No.  I just want to stand up
16         here for a minute.
18         Q    This is a list of 21 declarations --
19              THE COURT:  Well, let Mr. Dandar see it.  That
20         little machine can probably make a copy in about 20
21         seconds.
22              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
23              MR. DANDAR:  Do I have your permission, Judge?
24              THE COURT:  You do.  That is one page.
25         Remember, I said that is all right.


1              THE WITNESS:  But two copies.
2              THE COURT:  Yes, two copies.  That would be two
3         pages.  That is all right.
4             (A discussion was held off the record.)
6         Q    Now, I have shown you a list of declarations with
7    dates from September of '93 in the Sterling versus Cann
8    (phonetic) case, through December 7 of 1999, which I think
9    is the one that Mr. Dandar just showed you a few minutes ago
10    in the Wollersheim case.
11         A    Yes.
12         Q    And does this -- do you believe this accurately
13    reflects the declarations that you have done at the request
14    of lawyers in Scientology cases?
15         A    I wouldn't want to attest to it, but it certainly
16    seems accurate enough for the purpose of your question.
17         Q    Now, you were being paid by the lawyers who asked
18    you to prepare these declarations.  Correct?
19         A    I was being paid to consult and advise.  And if
20    the time was spent to gather information, write a
21    declaration, yes.  But I wasn't -- I have always resented,
22    you know, "you are being paid to write an affidavit" sounds
23    like a hired gun.
24         Q    Well, to a certain extent you and several other
25    former Scientologists were hired guns in the '90s to work on


1    these cases with this stable of lawyers like Mr. Leipold and
2    Mr. Greene and Mr. Berry, correct?
3         A    No.  It was Scientology bringing the litigation.
4    We were asked to consult.  I didn't go out and seek the
5    cases.
6         Q    Well, were you being paid to consult?
7         A    Yes.
8         Q    And am I correct -- I mean, I remember talking to
9    you about this in your -- in your depo in this case, from
10    1993 on the principal means of support for you was working
11    as a consultant in these Scientology cases.  Correct?
12         A    Yes.  It has been both of our full-time jobs.
13         Q    Both of our?  You mean Ms. Young's, as well?
14         A    Yes.
15              THE COURT:  I think, Counselor, what he was
16         indicating was he doesn't object to you saying he
17         was paid as a consultant.  He objects to you saying
18         he was paid to write an affidavit.  He was given a
19         certain amount and he wrote an affidavit.  He didn't
20         get extra for the affidavit.
21              MR. WEINBERG:  I understood that is what he was
22         saying.
24         Q    Can you estimate the amount of money that you have
25    been paid since that first case, the Sterling case, to be a


1    consultant in cases involving Scientology?
2         A    Me individually?
3         Q    Yes, you individually.
4         A    Because Stacy and I worked as a team.  And the
5    rates were for two people.  So if I do this like a joint
6    return versus a single return, I would have to cut the money
7    in half.
8              THE COURT:  That is fine.  Whatever it is you
9         need to do.  He asked you a question, how much did
10         you get paid?
11         A    Just taking my half of it, from the time of '93 to
12    '99, over six years, perhaps $30,000, $40,000 over 6 years,
13    which comes out to, what, $7,000 a year.
15         Q    And Ms. Brooks got $30,000 or $40,000 over 6
16    years, as well?
17         A    No.  There were cases I worked on, like the Time
18    Magazine case, that -- where she didn't work on it.  So --
19         Q    So --
20         A    -- she was not involved in those.
21         Q    So you support -- so she got something less than
22    $30,000 or $40,000?
23         A    If we were to divide the rates where we were paid
24    mutually and then just add -- divide that by 2, then if I
25    was to throw on what I did in separate cases, I would have


1    made more money than her.  Yes.
2         Q    But the bottom line is that you are saying you are
3    testifying that you altogether received somewhere short of
4    $100,000 over the 6 or 7 years?
5         A    No.  Not that much.
6         Q    Less than that?
7         A    Yes.  I said mine was 35 to 40.  Hers would have
8    been much less than that.
9         Q    And you were able to -- and this was your
10    principal means of support for those 6 or 7 years?
11         A    It was my full-time job.  Yes.
12         Q    Well, do you remember -- were you involved in a
13    case involving Steve Keller?
14         A    Steve Keller?
15         Q    Child custody case that had to do with
16    Scientology?
17         A    Oh, Steve Keller -- Mmm, I remember working with
18    him.  I don't recall what I did on it.  I know I spent a lot
19    of time just talking to him.
20         Q    Were you paid in excess of $100,000 in that case?
21         A    No.  I would remember $100,000.
22         Q    Well, in the -- in the Fishman case -- weren't you
23    and Stacy Brooks paid over $30,000 for your work in the
24    Fishman case for all these affidavits?  I mean, there were 6
25    or 7 -- I'm not saying -- you know, for the work that went


1    into the Fishman case, weren't you paid over $30,000 for
2    that alone?
3         A    The two of us, for something like a year and a
4    half of full-time work, 30,000?  Probably.  That would have
5    been $20,000, then $10,000 maybe.  But, again, I would have
6    to divide it in half for the two of us.
7         Q    Do you remember testifying in the Bridge
8    Publications versus FACTNet case?
9         A    Yes.  That was in Denver where I testified.
10         Q    Well, the testimony was in L.A., right?
11         A    No, the testimony --
12         Q    The depo --
13         A    The testimony -- I appeared before Judge Lane, I
14    think his name was, and gave testimony there.
15         Q    Is there a deposition where Mr. Dandar was your
16    lawyer?
17         A    No.  I didn't have counsel when I testified in
18    Denver.  It was before the Court like I'm doing right now.
19         Q    Do you remember being asked how much you were paid
20    by --
21         A    I wasn't asked --
22         Q    -- Mr. Keller and saying it was $300,000?
23         A    This boggles the mind that somebody thinks I made
24    $300,000 anywhere.  I have no idea where that figure is
25    coming from.


1              MR. DANDAR:  I ask the witness --
2         A    There are too many zeroes on that thing.
3              MR. DANDAR:  I ask the witness be shown a
4         deposition so we can see where Mr. Weinberg is
5         referring to.
6              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I can approach.
7              THE COURT:  All right.
9         Q    I am referring you to -- this is the cover page
10    which indicates, for whatever it is worth, L.A. on
11    November 5, 1997.
12         A    Okay.
13              THE COURT:  Is that his deposition?
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
15              THE COURT:  Okay.
17         Q    Then I'm referring to Page 871.  If you start at
18    Line 8 of 871, and go to Line 14 on 872, if you just look at
19    that.
20         A    And on the second page it says that I am
21    responding that over the year and a half, he paid me
22    300,000?  That is -- well, if I missed that in the
23    correction thing, that is totally false.  I never received
24    $300,000.  I would have gone off and lived in the Caribbean
25    if I would have made that money.


1         Q    All right.  So you think this transcript is wrong?
2         A    It is completely wrong.
3              MR. DANDAR:  Could I see it?
4         A    Maybe $3,000.  But that -- I'm stunned that I --
5    that you would get -- so many zeroes would be added.  It is
6    completely out of the question.
8         Q    Now, you and your wife -- your ex-wife now -- but
9    Stacy Young at the time -- in the fall of 1997 Robert Minton
10    bought a house for approximately $250,000 for you-all to
11    live in, in Seattle.  Correct?
12         A    No.
13         Q    That is not correct?
14         A    That is not correct.
15         Q    What is incorrect about that?
16         A    Mr. and Mrs. Minton -- we did this in the depo.
17    Mr. and Mrs. Minton were the owners on the bill of sale.
18         Q    So what was incorrect about my question was -- is
19    that Mr. and Mrs. Minton were on the bill of sale and not
20    just Mr. Minton.  Right?
21         A    That is one half of one.
22         Q    Was my question right it was a $250,000 house and
23    that it was for you and Ms. Young?
24         A    No.
25         Q    That isn't right?


1         A    No.
2         Q    What is wrong with what I just said?
3         A    It was to be an animal sanctuary.  And we lived --
4    a boarder, because we had the animals that we were in
5    trouble with in Seattle, which is why we needed a place to
6    build the kennels and the yard.  So the house was for the
7    sanctuary and I so testified before in my deposition of
8    that.
9         Q    But you were able to live in the house?
10         A    Yes.
11         Q    Along with Ms. Young, right?
12         A    Yes.
13         Q    And during that same period of time, Mr. Minton
14    gave you and Ms. Young $50,000 in cash or checks.  Correct?
15         A    No.
16         Q    What is wrong about what I just said?
17         A    He never gave me any money.
18         Q    Oh, so he just gave it to Ms. Young and not you?
19         A    If he gave some money to her, he didn't give any
20    money to me.  And we covered this, also, in the deposition.
21         Q    Now, you said something about a power struggle
22    after L. Ron Hubbard died.  Did I hear you say that?
23         A    I don't know if I used those words, but that would
24    be accurate.
25         Q    And I think you said that after L. Ron Hubbard


1    died, that at the end of the day when the dust all cleared,
2    that David Miscavige was standing and that -- that other
3    folks like Pat Broeker were gone.  Didn't you say something
4    like that?
5         A    Something like that, yes.
6         Q    All right.  And at least the implication was there
7    was a power struggle between Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Broeker.
8    Correct?
9         A    Yes.
10         Q    And -- and, in fact, what occurred is that there
11    were three people that -- in addition to Mr. Broeker that
12    were caught up in that power struggle, that was, Mr. Prince,
13    Vicki Aznaran and you, correct?
14         A    We three.  And there might have been some others.
15    But I know we three were caught up in it, yes.
16         Q    Right.  In other words, you and Mr. Prince and
17    Ms. Aznaran sided with Pat Broeker after L. Ron Hubbard
18    died.  Correct?
19         A    It was perceived as that.
20         Q    And as a result, you lost and Mr. Prince lost and
21    Ms. Aznaran lost their posts?
22         A    Yes.
23         Q    And as a result, you blame Mr. Miscavige for you
24    having been demoted from your post in the Church of
25    Scientology, don't you?


1         A    No.  In fact, I corresponded about this while --
2    long after that happened.  That struggle was in 1986/87, and
3    I stayed around for two more years.
4              THE COURT:  Mr. Bailiff, do me a favor and ask
5         my judicial assistant to come in here.  I don't
6         think I have seen whatever it was Mr. Moxon was
7         referring to earlier, so I'm going to have my
8         secretary come in, before I forget it and she leaves
9         for the day and I don't have it.
10              MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.  I'm not sure if he's
11         here anymore, but it doesn't matter.
12              THE COURT:  Well, I just haven't seen it.  She
13         may have put it somewhere.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Give me one moment, your Honor.
15              THE COURT:  You may.
17         Q    Okay, you do not have good feelings toward David
18    Miscavige, do you?
19         A    I don't understand your question.  I mean, good
20    feelings --
21         Q    Well -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
22         A    No.  Go ahead and ask your questions.
23         Q    You believe you were mistreated by David
24    Miscavige, don't you?
25         A    No.


1         Q    Well, if you look at that affidavit, which was the
2    second affidavit from the Fishman case, up in front of you
3    dated January of 1994 --
4              THE COURT:  Excuse me just a second.
5              MR. WEINBERG:  Sure.
6              THE COURT:  It is there.  She'll leave it for
7         me.  Go ahead.
8              MR. WEINBERG:  That was Defendant's Exhibit
9         202.
11         Q    Do you have that affidavit?
12         A    Yes.
13         Q    If you turn to Page 6, Paragraph 17 -- Paragraph
14    numbered 17 --
15         A    Okay.
16         Q    -- do you see how you say in that paragraph,
17    "Sometimes people are physically beaten in Scientology until
18    they comply"?
19         A    Yes.
20         Q    "This happened to me, and it has happened to
21    others, where one is simply physically assaulted and beaten
22    because of a refusal to obey"?
23         A    Yes.
24         Q    "The person who has done this the most is David
25    Miscavige, the head of the Scientology empire.  He has


1    beaten me.  I have seen him assault others.  And others have
2    told me of beatings he gave them.  These psychotic assaults
3    (Miscavige literally goes into a psychotic rage, screaming,
4    frothing at the mouth) have been witnessed by many people
5    who know if they were ever to tell the authorities that they
6    would be beaten or even worse."
7              Do you see that?
8         A    Yes, I do.
9         Q    Now, is that manipulating the facts?
10         A    That is perfectly true.  I used to be sprayed with
11    spit when he came after me.
12         Q    Well, but did he beat you up?  Did he physically
13    beat you up?
14         A    Yes.
15         Q    That is what it says.
16         A    Yes.  I was assaulted one time in his office when
17    I said something that he didn't like.
18         Q    So he -- so he hit you is what you are saying?
19         A    He came over and he grabbed me and he took a
20    swing, and I ducked, and he caught me underneath the throat,
21    which threw me against the wall, and then I was told to get
22    the you-know-what out of there.
23         Q    Now, was this before, or after, you lost your
24    position in the power struggle?
25         A    This is before.


1         Q    All right.  And -- and you didn't hold any
2    personal grudge or -- or animus toward Mr. Miscavige for,
3    purporting in your affidavit here, personally assaulting
4    you?
5         A    No.  At the time you are sort of -- like I was in
6    the Marine Corps, you are a loyal Marine.  He was my senior.
7    He may have gone crazy, but I'm going to try to do better so
8    I don't get into trouble again.  So I didn't -- I may have
9    been bruised, but I wasn't going to hold a grudge.
10         Q    Well, you have gone on the Internet and made
11    postings that were very nasty as to David Miscavige, haven't
12    you?
13         A    I wouldn't characterize them as that.  But if you
14    have something to show me, I'll be happy to look.
15         Q    I'm asking for your recollection.  Have you been
16    on this ARS -- alt.religion.scientology site and
17    participated in -- what do you call it -- chats with the
18    people?
19         A    Well, they are called postings where you post a
20    message.
21         Q    And have you done that?
22         A    I have done that.
23         Q    And have you done that while you were a consultant
24    for Mr. Dandar?
25         A    I don't recall which ones I made over what period


1    of time.  It is possible, but I don't recall exact
2    chronologies.
3         Q    And do you recall that when you did that you said
4    some very unfavorable or unkind things about Mr. Miscavige
5    and Scientology?
6         A    Well, see, that is always the characterization
7    anything that is critical is considered to be an attack.
8         Q    Can you answer my question?
9         A    No, I don't think it was nasty.  I think it was
10    very, very relevant and has always been true.
11              MR. WEINBERG:  If I could approach, your Honor?
12              THE COURT:  You may.
13              MR. WEINBERG:  Normally I'm not like this, but
14         I don't have copies of these.
15              THE COURT:  All right.
17         Q    Let me show you this and ask you if this is a
18    posting that you made.
19              MR. DANDAR:  You don't have a copy?
20         A    It appears to be.
22         Q    And did you go by the name of Eskimo North?
23         A    No.  Eskimo North is the -- it's the equivalent of
24    AOL.  It's the service you use for service and access to the
25    Internet.


1              So Eskimo North was the service I was subscribing
2    to.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  If I could approach the witness,
4         your Honor.
6         Q    Your -- whatever it is -- what do you call this,
7    your E-Mail address?
8         A    My E-Mail address was [email protected]
9         Q    Okay.  So this would be a posting you would have
10    made to this alt.religion.scientology site on or about
11    January 3, 1998?
12         A    It appears to be.  Yes.
13         Q    This was after you were a consultant for
14    Mr. Dandar.  Right?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    And, I mean, the thing -- the posting sort of
17    speaks for itself, but you would not consider this
18    particularly kind to Scientology or Mr. Miscavige, which is
19    "DM," would you?
20         A    Well, what I'm saying about the publication is not
21    kind.  But there is nothing about DM.  I just say in there
22    about DM, he gives an order and it is passed on.
23              And the only one word I use, they get the drones
24    working.  And drones is like worker drones for bees, but I'm
25    not speaking bad about him in there.


1         Q    But you say things like masturbation, whacko,
2    things like that.  Those were obscene implications, correct?
3         A    In the context I was saying that internal
4    publications are similar to masturbation, they're just to
5    make everybody happy.
6         Q    Do you remember doing a posting in which you -- at
7    or about the same time you posted about Mr. Rinder's baby
8    and how Mr. Rinder's baby had died?  Do you remember doing
9    that?
10         A    No, I don't.
11         Q    I'm showing you what I have marked for
12    identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 204.
13              Is this another one of your postings to ARS?
14         A    Yes --
15         Q    I mean, it is Defense Exhibit 204.  I'm sorry.
16         A    It appears to be.
17         Q    And this is also -- this is on February 3, 1998?
18         A    Yes.
19         Q    And does this refresh your recollection that you
20    went on the Internet and talked about how Mike Rinder's
21    child died from what is usually called crib death, "which is
22    merely the still-unexplained phenomenon of newborns or very
23    young babies suddenly dying for no reason.  What may not be
24    known is Rinder was in L.A.  When his child died in Florida,
25    he requested a leave to go to his wife.  DM," that is David


1    Miscavige, "refused it and Rinder was told to stay at work.
2    He did, and he rightfully carries the memory to this day of
3    how DM treated the death of his child."
4              Do you see that?
5         A    Yes.
6         Q    Was that intended to be somewhat inflammatory when
7    you put that on as it related to David Miscavige?
8         A    No.  It was -- it was intended to be -- reflect
9    that so many instances that I knew that you could have a
10    death in the family and you can't be approved to go
11    somewhere.
12              I wasn't speaking of Rinder; it was a case of --
13    and Mike Rinder and I spoke about this years ago, how much
14    he was hurt that he couldn't do what he wanted to.  It was
15    just a comment about the structure of the organization, and
16    not directed toward any particular person.
17         Q    Now, you came to court voluntarily, correct?
18         A    Yes.
19         Q    No one subpoenaed you to come down here, right?
20         A    That is correct.
21         Q    Mr. Dandar asked you to come down, but no one --
22    no one could have because you live in -- where?  Columbus,
23    Ohio?
24         A    Cincinnati.
25         Q    No one could have forced you to come down here.


1    Do you understand that?
2         A    I understand that.
3         Q    I mean, you weren't scared or intimidated or
4    anything like that as a result of your relationship with
5    Scientology, both as a Scientologist and as someone that has
6    filed 21 declarations and participated in a number of cases
7    since 1993, is that right?
8         A    I'm sorry, that was way too long.  Could you
9    shorten that?
10         Q    Well, you didn't feel intimidated or threatened
11    when you came down today, I take it, right?
12         A    I have never felt intimidated and threatened, even
13    when I was intimidated and threatened.
14         Q    Okay.  Now, prior to this meeting that you have
15    talked about in 1994 with --
16              THE COURT:  Are you -- are you -- I'll ask the
17         same thing.  Are you introducing 203 and 204, or
18         not?
19              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes, we are.
20              THE COURT:  Any objection?
21              MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
22              THE COURT:  What?
23              MR. DANDAR:  I'm not sure what it is introduced
24         for.
25              THE COURT:  It is introduced to show bias,


1         obviously, against Mr. Miscavige.
2              MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  No objection.
3              THE COURT:  All right.
5         Q    Now, prior to this meeting in 1994 with Mr. Rinder
6    that you have testified about, you said over six days, he
7    said several days, in Seattle, prior to that time a lawyer
8    in your behalf, i.e., Graham Berry, had made a demand on the
9    Church of Scientology for $3 million as it related to you
10    and Stacy Brooks, correct -- Stacy Young?
11         A    Yes, that was something I found out about after it
12    was made.  And I have so testified about that earlier.
13         Q    And Mr. Berry was, as you understood it, acting as
14    your lawyer when he made a demand on the Church of
15    Scientology for $3 million as it --
16         A    No, he wasn't.
17         Q    -- related to you and Ms. Young?
18         A    No, he wasn't.
19         Q    He was just acting on his own?
20         A    It was a letter that, after I saw it was made, was
21    what was often called the global settlement.  There were a
22    number of parties involved, and me and Stacy and I think a
23    dozen other people were all thrown together.  Figures were
24    thrown on each one.
25              I never approved the letter.  I never approved the


1    request.  And he was not my counsel at the time.
2         Q    So he has never been your counsel?
3         A    He may have represented me in a deposition, but
4    never in any other capacity.
5              MR. WEINBERG:  I'll have the reporter mark as
6         our next exhibit a February 16, 1994 letter, and
7         that would be Exhibit 205.  Defense Exhibit 205.
9         Q    Now, Defense Exhibit 205 you recognize as a
10    February 16, 1994 letter to an attorney Jonathan Lubell, who
11    you knew -- or you know was an attorney that represented the
12    Church of Scientology.  Correct?
13         A    Yes.
14         Q    And this is a letter from Graham Berry dated
15    February 16, 1994.  Correct?
16         A    Yes.
17         Q    And you go to Page 3 of that letter --
18              THE COURT:  How is it that if he says he didn't
19         approve of this and he didn't know anything about
20         it, you are going to get this in?
21              And if you can't get it in, how is he going to
22         read from it?
23              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I mean, it seems to me a
24         bit -- he's suggested and Mr. Dandar suggested
25         somehow the Church of Scientology was trying to do


1         whatever in the summer or fall of 1994 by meeting
2         with the Youngs.
3              And this letter clearly indicates that Graham
4         Berry, on behalf of Mr. Young, Ms. Young and a lot
5         of other people, have made a demand on the Church of
6         Scientology for a lot of money, including $3 million
7         for the Youngs.
8              THE COURT:  I understand that.  But I think
9         what he said, he didn't know anything about this, he
10         didn't authorize it, and when he saw it, it just
11         wasn't -- I mean, I don't know how you quite get it
12         in unless he acknowledges there is some truth to it
13         or he authorized it or something like that.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  Well, let me try --
16         Q    You knew about this letter before Mr. Rinder ever
17    met with you in the fall of 1994.  Correct?
18         A    Mmm, I'm trying to remember, because I -- the
19    first time I may have seen this letter was when it came up
20    in a deposition to impugn me, such as you are doing right
21    now, because I certainly didn't see it when it was sent, I
22    gave no approval, Graham Berry didn't show it to me after he
23    sent it.
24              And I haven't looked at it closely, but I don't
25    think you can even find in here where he said he was


1    representing me.  He says in here something else about he is
2    thinking of adding other people to the lawsuits and includes
3    my name.  So there is nothing here saying he's representing
4    me.
5              And I don't even know when I finally saw this.
6    And I was surprised when I saw the letter.
7         Q    Well, if you look at Page 2, the bottom paragraph,
8    certainly the implication is, is that you and Stacy, among
9    others, are part of the group of people that he's trying to
10    get a global settlement for.  Correct?
11         A    Paragraph 2?
12         Q    No, the last paragraph on Page 2.
13         A    No, it says quite the opposite, actually.  He
14    says -- Graham Berry said, "During that meeting you told
15    Gordon Calhoun and myself you now wished to settle not only
16    the Geertz case," then he goes on, "but additionally the
17    following," then my name is included.  It is quite the
18    opposite of what you say.
19         Q    Okay.  And did you ever write to Mr. Berry and ask
20    him to withdraw this demand on the Church of Scientology for
21    the $3 million?
22         A    No.  It just -- as far as I can tell, it just died
23    and then ended up showing up in hearings like this.  The
24    horse was far out of the barn.  There is no reason to do
25    anything.


1         Q    Was it your experience that Mr. Berry did things
2    like this, sent letters on behalf of people that he didn't
3    represent?
4         A    No.
5              THE COURT:  Isn't this a lawyer you-all have
6         introduced evidence -- or at least some statement --
7         he was disbarred?
8              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
9              THE COURT:  Well, I don't know why he was
10         disbarred.  But, I mean, if he was disbarred, he was
11         disbarred.
12              MR. WEINBERG:  Actually, I do know why.  As it
13         turns out, there is a notice, June 17, 2002, the
14         Daily Journal -- L.A. Daily Journal, which is the
15         equivalent of the Florida Bar News.
16              And it explains -- it is a notice on Mr. Berry
17         and it explains what the basis of his disbarment
18         was.
19              MR. DANDAR:  My understanding, he was
20         suspended, not disbarred.
21              MR. WEINBERG:  It indicates cases involving --
22              THE COURT:  Yes, suspended.
23              MR. WEINBERG:  -- a Church.  And I assume the
24         Church is the Church of Scientology.
25              MR. DANDAR:  That was for failing to comply


1         with a court order.  That has nothing to do with
2         suing the Church of Scientology.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  You have to read the whole
4         thing, Ken.
5              THE COURT:  This is just for my information, I
6         take it?
7              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  Just for your information.
8              THE COURT:  I'll take a look at it later.  I'll
9         let you go ahead and refer to this letter, but I
10         think you have to understand that as far as -- as
11         long as this witness's testimony is he didn't
12         authorize this letter, that he didn't ask Mr. Berry
13         to write this letter on behalf of him, it only has a
14         certain --
15              MR. WEINBERG:  I think Ms. Brooks already
16         testified about it.  And, frankly, I asked all of
17         the questions I want to ask about it.
18              THE COURT:  I don't know what she said about
19         it.  We'll let it in, but as I say, it may not have
20         any evidentiary value.  I don't know.
21              MR. WEINBERG:  And I'm not going to even
22         venture to recall exactly what was said.
23              THE COURT:  Thank you.  I won't either.  I
24         think if we were to go back and look at how many
25         things we let in that really weren't authenticated,


1         we would all be flabbergasted, because I'm sure
2         there are a lot of them, so --
3              MR. DANDAR:  I'll object for the plaintiff
4         because it wasn't his attorney and he had no
5         authority to send it.
6              THE COURT:  Exactly.  And don't misunderstand,
7         I'm not going to use this letter as any basis for
8         any ruling in this case.
9              You know, as I said, a lot of stuff that really
10         maybe hasn't been authenticated are in the record.
11         If they are not authenticated, and based on what he
12         said about this letter, it will probably have no
13         evidentiary value.
14              MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.  Except there has
15         been this implication somehow apparently Mr. Rinder
16         appeared out of the blue in December.
17              THE COURT:  That is his testimony.  If you want
18         to refute that, you will have to bring Mr. Rinder.
19              MR. WEINBERG:  I think this letter would
20         indicate otherwise.  And I think Ms. Young indicated
21         otherwise.  But I'll go on.
22              THE COURT:  And she may have.  As I said, I
23         don't know what she has said.  It's been so long.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.


2         Q    By the way, just to close the loop on the power
3    struggle, the allegation was that what Mr. Broeker had
4    attempted to do -- is his name Broeker?
5         A    Broeker.  B-R-O-E-K-E-R.
6         Q    Okay.  That Mr. Broeker had, in essence, attempted
7    to change the tech.  That is what he attempted to do.
8    Correct?
9         A    No.  He was attempting to take control of -- with
10    the help of Vicki Aznaran with the Religious Technology
11    Center, and Jesse Prince was directly involved in that.  I
12    just heard stories about him.
13         Q    Well, do you remember writing to Mr. Broeker in
14    June of 1988 and essentially telling him that he had done
15    wrong and that you'd gotten caught up in it?
16         A    Yes.  That was the letter that I was required to
17    send if I was to be able to continue.  So I -- I agreed to
18    send it.
19         Q    It was true, correct?
20         A    No.
21         Q    So you sent a false letter?
22         A    No.  It was one of those acceptable truths.  And I
23    was trained at that time to be able to do it.  So I wanted
24    to continue, so I sent it.  And I later, you know, regretted
25    it.


1         Q    You regretted it?  Why?
2         A    Sending that letter, because it was really
3    needless.
4         Q    Now, you testified about fair game.  Do you
5    remember that?
6         A    Yes.
7         Q    And Mr. Dandar showed you Plaintiff's Exhibit 8
8    and Plaintiff's Exhibit 9; Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 being
9    penalties for lower conditions, and Plaintiff's Exhibit 9
10    being the cancelation of fair game.
11              Do you remember that?
12         A    Yes.
13         Q    Now, fair game -- the cancelation of fair game was
14    something issued by Mr. Hubbard, right?
15         A    Written by him, yes.
16         Q    Right.  He canceled it?
17         A    No.  He canceled the use of the words.  He -- he
18    specifically said the policies stay in place.  We just don't
19    use the words anymore.
20         Q    Do you remember that this became an issue in
21    litigation -- this is before you left the Church -- that
22    fair game is something -- this policy that had been created
23    in the '60s, canceled -- cancelation was 1968, that it had
24    become an issue that was used against the Church of
25    Scientology, right?


1         A    Which part?  I lost your question.
2         Q    Fair game, the concept, it was being used against
3    the Church by opponents of the Church?
4         A    No.  The first time it was being used was in the
5    early '60s in the Australian inquiry in the state of
6    Victoria.  That was one of the primary things that the state
7    of Victoria came out with when they were writing the reports
8    about Scientology.  And that is actually the history of why
9    that issue came out was because, as Hubbard says, it causes
10    bad PR.
11         Q    And do you remember that Mr. Hubbard, on
12    March 22nd of 1976, actually executed an affidavit
13    explaining fair game and explaining the reasons why he
14    canceled fair game, and affirming that, in fact, fair game
15    had been canceled and wasn't to be used?  Do you remember
16    that?
17         A    Right.  And I point out to you that affidavit is
18    not policy of the Church.  That was never given out to any
19    of the people of the Church of Scientology.
20         Q    You didn't write that affidavit, did you?
21         A    No.
22              MR. WEINBERG:  I marked as 206, your Honor --
24         Q    Do you -- do you recognize Defendant's 206 to be
25    an affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard, and a copy -- a copy of a


1    real affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard dated March 22, 1976,
2    explaining fair game and cancelation of it?
3         A    This appears to be, yes.
4         Q    This is true, isn't it?  This is Mr. Hubbard
5    speaking and explaining exactly what fair game was and
6    exactly what the cancelation was, correct?
7         A    This is not policy and was never given to anybody
8    in the Church of Scientology.  Therefore, this has no
9    standing with regard to Scientology.  He may have given it
10    to a court but it has absolutely no standing within
11    Scientology.
12         Q    Well, let me show you what I marked as --
13              MR. WEINBERG:  By the way, I offer 206 into
14         evidence as Mr. Hubbard's affidavit of March of
15         1976.
16              THE COURT:  Any objection?
17              MR. DANDAR:  It's not authenticated as official
18         Church policy.  It is total hearsay.  It is not
19         authenticated.  We object.
20              THE COURT:  That is true.
21              MR. WEINBERG:  So he can -- so Mr. Dandar has
22         stood here and put in policy after policy and
23         writing after writing --
24              THE COURT:  Well, it is policy.
25              MR. WEINBERG:  And so this is -- this is an


1         affidavit by L. Ron Hubbard who no longer is alive
2         where he -- where he addresses the issue that
3         Mr. Young has been waxing eloquent with regard to
4         suggesting that when Mr. Hubbard canceled it he
5         didn't really cancel it and he submits an affidavit
6         on it?
7              THE COURT:  I mean, I'm going to let it in.
8         But from everything I have seen and everything I
9         know about this case, this witness is absolutely
10         correct in what he just said.
11              This affidavit may have been submitted in a
12         court -- I have no idea where it was submitted --
13         but if it isn't policy of the Church of Scientology,
14         it isn't policy.
15              The policy is what is fair game and what is
16         fair game cancelation.
17              MR. WEINBERG:  Right, except he did
18         authenticate the affidavit.  He recognized the
19         affidavit.  I'm not offering it as policy.  I'm
20         offering it as evidence in this case.
21              MR. DANDAR:  He said --
22              THE WITNESS:  It doesn't change the policy.
23              THE COURT:  I'm going to let it in for whatever
24         it is you want to argue about it.  I am telling you
25         that an affidavit, I would suggest, is not policy of


1         the Church.  Maybe it is.  I mean, I don't know.
2              But nothing has been admitted yet to tell me
3         this would have any basis on which to determine what
4         is a policy of the Church of Scientology.
5              MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.  So Exhibit 207 is
6         in front of you.  Do you see that?
7              THE COURT:  Yes.
9         Q    Mr. Young?
10         A    Yes, I do.
11         Q    And -- and this is policy of the Church of
12    Scientology.  Correct?
13         A    Yes.
14         Q    This is Mr. Hubbard's policy.  Right?
15         A    No.
16         Q    Well, what do you call this?
17         A    This is a policy letter from the boards of
18    directors, not from Mr. Hubbard.
19         Q    All right.  So this doesn't count, either?
20         A    No.  You asked me if this was Hubbard's policy.  I
21    said, no, it is not.
22         Q    Well, you count this as part of the policy of the
23    Church of Scientology, correct?
24         A    This is part of the policy of the Church of
25    Scientology.  Yes.


1         Q    All right.  And Mr. Hubbard was alive when this
2    was issued.  Correct?
3         A    Yes.
4         Q    July 22nd, 1980?
5         A    Yes.  But he wouldn't have seen it.
6              THE COURT:  Who wouldn't have seen it?
7              THE WITNESS:  Mr. Hubbard.  He wouldn't have
8         seen this.
9              THE COURT:  What do you mean?  I thought he
10         wrote it.
11              THE WITNESS:  No, ma'am, he didn't.  At the
12         bottom of the second page you see it just said
13         "Boards of Directors of the Church of Scientology."
14         He's not the author.
16         Q    Well, you are not suggesting that anybody in the
17    Church of Scientology issued a policy that counter -- that
18    contradicted something that Mr. Hubbard did while he was
19    alive, are you?
20         A    Oh, that -- that happened quite often, and those
21    policies had to be canceled, and he quite often found those,
22    and he would say so and so wrote a policy letter that is
23    contrary to and has been canceled.  That -- that happened
24    quite often.
25         Q    All right.  So -- and was this canceled -- this


1    explanation of fair game, was this canceled?
2         A    I don't have any information that it was.
3         Q    Well, on the second page under "Reason for
4    cancelation of fair game," you see it says, "Fair game was
5    canceled and has remained canceled because it was found that
6    it could be misinterpreted by those anti -- anti --
7    antipathetic to Scientology --"
8         A    Antipathetic.
9         Q    All right "-- to Scientology to authorize justice
10    actions of a more severe nature than expulsion.  There was
11    no reason to retain it as part of our justice system if
12    there was any possibility of it being interpreted in that
13    way."
14              Do you see that?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    And that accurately reflects where fair game was,
17    in other words, that it had been canceled long before and
18    was not in existence as of 1980, correct?
19         A    That is incorrect.  I point out to you, if you
20    read this carefully, they're not saying anything contrary to
21    the other policy letter.  They're not saying the other
22    policy letters on the application.  They're saying fair
23    game, in quote, was canceled because it could be
24    misinterpreted.
25              What they're saying is actually consistent with


1    Hubbard.  The application of it, how you treat people, there
2    is nothing in here that cancels the other policy letters.
3    It just says don't use the words "fair game" but it says it
4    more cleverly.
5         Q    There is policy from Mr. Hubbard that you are
6    supposed to follow the laws of the land, comply with the
7    law, correct?
8         A    Well, yeah, until he found -- you know --
9         Q    Just answer that question.
10         A    Yes.
11         Q    Let me show you, have the reporter mark the next
12    exhibit.
13              Do you recognize Exhibit 208 to be -- to be a
14    policy issued by Mr. Hubbard?
15         A    I don't have this marked as Exhibit 208, so if you
16    can just identify it.
17         Q    Okay, it says "Sea Organization Flag Order 3395."
18         A    Yes.  I have that.
19         Q    All right.  And this is something issued by
20    Mr. Hubbard himself, correct?
21         A    Yes.  1973.
22         Q    Right.  And what it says at the beginning of it
23    is, "A country has laws and regulations to coordinate its
24    activities.  One does not seek to get around these or avoid
25    these or find loopholes in them.  That is complicated and


1    dishonest.  It is much simpler just to know and obey them."
2    Correct?
3         A    That is what it says.
4         Q    That is his policy?
5         A    Until -- until it came out with what we were doing
6    in Clearwater and what we did with the break-ins of the
7    federal government.  I'm afraid that the facts of his own
8    indictment of his wife --
9              THE COURT:  Well, you know what?  What you are
10         doing is you seem to just want to alter things to
11         suit your own purpose, what have you.
12              The question simply was this is policy.
13         Whether it was followed or whether it wasn't or
14         whether some other policy was followed or whether it
15         wasn't may be subject to some other day.
16              This is what he wrote.  This, therefore, is the
17         policy, right?
18              THE WITNESS:  That is correct, your Honor.
19              THE COURT:  All right.  That was the question.
21         Q    Right.  Do you know of any policy written after
22    1968 which even mentions fair game other than to indicate
23    that it is canceled?
24         A    After -- I would have to go through the volumes.
25    Possibly not fair game.  No.


1         Q    Now, Judge Schaeffer asked you a number of --
2              THE COURT:  I thought you were getting ready to
3         ask me a question.
4              MR. WEINBERG:  No.  I'm sorry.
5              MR. LIEBERMAN:  I would have objected, your
6         Honor.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  I'm not that bold.
9         Q    Judge Schaeffer asked you a number of questions
10    about the affidavit that you filed in this case,
11    particularly that part of the affidavit where --
12              MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me, your Honor, I have
13         some ringing in my ear.  Can you hold on one second?
14              THE COURT:  Sure.
15              MR. WEINBERG:  It sounds like --
16              THE COURT:  Maybe it is from the jackhammers.
17              MR. WEINBERG:  I don't know what it is but it
18         is hard --
19              THE WITNESS:  Maybe it is call waiting.
20              MR. WEINBERG:  Huh?  Maybe it is call waiting?
22         Q    Judge Schaeffer asked you, you know, a number of
23    questions about the affidavit, particularly that aspect of
24    the affidavit where you said something to the effect that
25    there was nothing that you disagreed or really could


1    disagree with or whatever in Jesse Prince's affidavit.  Do
2    you remember that?
3         A    Yes.
4         Q    Now, what Mr. Prince opined to in his affidavit,
5    among other things, was that David Miscavige had ordered
6    Lisa McPherson to die, to be allowed to die.
7              Now, you didn't mean, by filing your affidavit,
8    that you had any basis for supporting that opinion set forth
9    by Mr. Prince, did you?
10         A    I believe I answered that when the Court asked
11    that question that I didn't have any firsthand knowledge to
12    substantiate those portions.  I just didn't find anything
13    being said from my own experience and policies of the
14    organization to say they were false.
15         Q    Well, in -- in -- in -- you don't -- you were
16    asked some questions about various technical aspects of
17    Scientology.  You were reluctant to refer to those as
18    religious or ecclesiastical, you kept calling them
19    technical, correct?
20         A    Yes.
21         Q    And that is because you have testified in this
22    case and other cases that you don't believe that Scientology
23    is a religion, correct?
24         A    My personal belief is that it isn't.
25         Q    Right.  But the technical part, which is the


1    religious or ecclesiastical part, you are not an expert in,
2    are you?
3         A    Depends upon how we define expert.  But as I said,
4    I have less knowledge than -- maybe I didn't -- but I have
5    much less knowledge than Jesse Prince and I have less
6    knowledge about the technical side than Stacy.
7         Q    Right.  In other words, when you were interviewed
8    by the police officers in Clearwater in 1997, when they came
9    out to Seattle, Sergeant Andrews and FDLE Agent Strope, they
10    asked you about the introspection rundown.  And you told
11    them you really had to go look it up, you really didn't know
12    anything about it?
13         A    I didn't know if that was my characterization.
14    But I would have said I wasn't that familiar with it.  Stacy
15    was at the meeting.  She was the one that spoke up about it.
16         Q    Well, do you remember testifying in this case,
17    when -- when you were asked about your conversations with
18    Mr. Dandar, that when Mr. Dandar asked you about your
19    opinions concerning Lisa McPherson's physical condition and
20    possible ways that she was being treated, that you told
21    Mr. Dandar that you weren't a technical person and you
22    couldn't respond to that.
23              Do you remember saying that?
24         A    No.  If you were to put that question now, I would
25    put it more in terms of medical because you gave medical


1    conditions.  I'm not a medical person.  I couldn't testify
2    to that.
3              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, can I approach, your
4         Honor, to show --
5              THE COURT:  Sure.
7         Q    I'm going to show you Page 210 from your
8    deposition of -- Volume 2 of your deposition of December 21
9    and 22, in this case, of 1999.  And specifically on Page 210
10    the question that begins on Line 3 and the answer that ends
11    on Line 13.
12         A    Would you like me to read this for the record?
13         Q    Just read it to yourself.
14         A    Okay.  Okay.
15         Q    Does that refresh your recollection that -- that
16    in response to Mr. Dandar's questions to you out in Seattle
17    about Lisa McPherson's physical condition and how she was
18    treated, that you told him that was really a technical or a
19    religious or ecclesiastical matter and you couldn't respond
20    to that?
21         A    It was a case I wouldn't respond because I always
22    deferred to Stacy on the technical matters.
23         Q    So that is what you meant when you gave that
24    answer?
25         A    Yes.  And it says it further down the page, that


1    Stacy is the one to speak on that.
2         Q    Now, you don't -- you don't have personal
3    knowledge of the introspection rundown, do you?  When you
4    were in the Church, you never --
5              THE COURT:  Let him answer the question.
6              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
7              THE COURT:  You asked him a question, then
8         apparently he didn't answer it fast enough for you
9         and you went right on.
10              MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.
11         A    When you say personal knowledge --
12              THE COURT:  Personal knowledge means have you
13         ever been there, have you ever participated and do
14         you know anything about it?
15              THE WITNESS:  I have never personally
16         participated in one, no.
18         Q    Now, Mr. Dandar asked you a number of questions
19    about -- about your contact with him in the spring, summer
20    and fall of 1997 in this case.
21              My question to you is do you remember that there
22    were two visits that Mr. Dandar had with you in Seattle in
23    1997?
24         A    I believe there were two.  Yes.
25         Q    Okay.  And he asked you about your --


1              THE COURT:  Do you mean to introduce 206 -- I
2         mean, you got 206 in.  207 and 208?
3              MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  I want to offer 207 and
4         208.
5              THE COURT:  Any objection to 207 and 208?
6              MR. DANDAR:  No objection.
7              THE COURT:  Okay.  Madam Clerk, I need these
8         files before I leave.  I want to ask you to give me
9         everything filed today.  And if they are not filed,
10         you have part of them filed and not filed, so
11         whatever it is you are doing, get that done for me.
12         And we've got five minutes.
13              THE CLERK:  I'm filing them right now.
14              THE COURT:  Well, I have a whole bunch of them
15         up here right now.  If you can't file them, don't
16         file them.  Give them back to me.  And I'll give
17         them to you tomorrow.  Okay?
18              THE CLERK:  Okay.
19              THE COURT:  Forget the originals, give me my
20         copies, and give it to me back.  Take my books and
21         give them back to me, everything introduced today.
22              Continue.
24         Q    Now, he asked you about participation in the first
25    amended complaint.  Do you remember those questions?


1         A    Yes.
2         Q    And is it your testimony that you assisted
3    Mr. Dandar with regard to the first amended complaint in
4    this case?
5         A    That is a little bit too over-generalized.  I
6    advised him with regard to policy and structure and
7    suggested things to him, but I didn't write it.
8         Q    Well, did you see a draft of the first amended --
9    or -- draft -- a draft or drafts of the first amended
10    complaint before it was filed in December of 1997?
11         A    To tell you the truth, I don't recall if I did.
12         Q    Well, did Mr. Dandar call you up and -- and review
13    with you or in his meetings with you review with you
14    paragraphs in a proposed first amended complaint?
15         A    No.  We had a number of meetings.  We mainly
16    exchanged E-Mail.
17         Q    Well, but in these two meetings that you had with
18    Mr. Dandar in 1997, did -- did he go over with you proposed
19    amended complaints or language with regard to proposed
20    amended complaints?
21         A    No.  This was carried on basically via E-Mail and
22    perhaps a phone call or two.
23              THE COURT:  Do you know, I think maybe he
24         doesn't know what -- you looked at a document from
25         Mr. Dandar and he asked you whether or not you


1         participated in assisting him in drafting some of
2         these paragraphs -- not drafting them but giving him
3         information.
4              And I thought your testimony was yes, you had
5         had to help him with these -- with the lingo and you
6         had to help him with understanding and what have
7         you.
8              Now he's asking you the same thing.  I mean, is
9         your testimony different from what it was this
10         morning?
11              THE WITNESS:  No, I think I mainly
12         misunderstood his questions because I -- it was the
13         same.
14              I had provided him with information, such as
15         the paragraph I saw which I said, well, obviously
16         this is based on information I provided, but I
17         didn't write it.  So my testimony does stand from
18         earlier.  I just didn't understand the question.
19              THE COURT:  Okay.
21         Q    Well, was part of your assignment or consulting
22    work to assist Mr. Dandar in the preparation and ultimately
23    the filing of an amended complaint in 1997?
24         A    He said he was going to do that.  But I didn't
25    really know what he was going to use the information for.  I


1    was basically trying to educate him, but we were talking
2    about the complaint.  I did not know I was actually working
3    on a first amended complaint, to tell you the truth.
4         Q    Well --
5         A    I never worked on amended complaints before.
6         Q    Do you still have up there Defense Exhibit 73,
7    which was that May 1997 letter?
8         A    Which?
9         Q    Mr. Dandar showed that to you, the May 2, 1997
10    letter Mr. Dandar sent to you and Stacy.
11         A    It should be up here.
12              No, I think you took it back.
13              THE COURT:  He did.  I gave it to her.  Lord
14         only knows where it is.
15              MR. WEINBERG:  Here it is, right here.
17         Q    I'm going to hand this to you again.
18         A    No, it is not here.
19         Q    Here.  Now, this is a letter that was sent by
20    Mr. Dandar to you and Stacy on May 2, 1997.  Is that right?
21         A    Yes.
22         Q    And is this the first correspondence that you and
23    your wife got from Mr. Dandar?
24         A    If you mean hard copy, yes.
25         Q    That is what I mean.


1              And do you see in the third paragraph of the
2    letter he says, "I'm also enclosing a copy of the proposed
3    amended complaint.  I intend to sue David Miscavige as
4    managing agent.  Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge
5    of those in isolation and their condition?"
6              Do you see that?
7         A    Yes.
8         Q    Now, do you remember getting a copy of a proposed
9    amended complaint as early as May of 1997?
10         A    I remember seeing the original, but I don't
11    remember seeing the amended.  But I'm not contesting that it
12    didn't arrive.
13         Q    And do you know, after May 2nd of 1997, prior to
14    when a proposed -- when the first amended complaint was
15    filed, which is in December of 1997, if you and your wife
16    got other copies of proposed amended complaints?
17         A    No.  And --
18         Q    No, you didn't?  Or, no, you don't remember?
19         A    No, we didn't.  And I would like to point out, if
20    the amended complaint was filed in December and this was
21    May, we're talking six, seven months.
22              And if he did include an amended complaint, it was
23    probably just as badly garbled as the original so the
24    purpose of our meeting was for me to educate him.  And
25    obviously it took a while.


1         Q    Now, do you remember that in your deposition in --
2    in December of 1999 that I took -- do you remember that I
3    took your depo?
4         A    How could I forget it?
5         Q    Okay.  And do you remember that the reason that
6    the depo was taken in December of '99 is that Mr. Dandar had
7    made a request that you be -- because of your health, that
8    you be able to give your trial testimony?  Do you
9    remember --
10         A    I don't know exactly how he represented it to you
11    but -- you are asking me what he told you.
12         Q    Well, I mean, is that your understanding --
13              THE COURT:  That really isn't important.  He
14         took a deposition.  What is it you want to know from
15         it or about it?
17         Q    Okay, do you remember that you were asked a lot of
18    questions about what, if any, participation you had in an
19    amended complaint, in a proposed amended complaint, in
20    discussions concerning David Miscavige, whether you had ever
21    received any correspondence concerning David Miscavige,
22    whether you had any discussions regarding David.  Do you
23    remember being asked those questions?
24         A    Probably so, if it went -- it went on for days,
25    it's a bit of a blur.


1         Q    Well, do you remember denying -- do you remember
2    denying that you had -- had any participation in the amended
3    complaint, that you had any conversations concerning David
4    Miscavige, that you had received any correspondence, that
5    you had anything --
6              THE COURT:  That is an awfully long -- first of
7         all, that is a very unusual way to go about dealing
8         with a deposition.
9              But if you are going to do it that way, at the
10         very least break it up into bits.
11              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  What I would like to do
12         is we have -- we have a video clip of these
13         questions and answers, you know, which is -- I mean,
14         the other way to do is actually put the
15         transcript --
16              THE COURT:  You'll have to put the transcript
17         in because I'm not going to let you play a part --
18              MR. WEINBERG:  No, I'm going to put the
19         transcript in.  But we have a video clip of -- I
20         don't know, it takes what, a minute, two minutes --
21         a couple of minutes, which are these questions and
22         answers.
23              THE COURT:  Well, I have to hear his answer.
24         If he said yes, he said that, then you don't need to
25         even play it.


1              MR. WEINBERG:  I think he said he didn't
2         remember.
3              THE COURT:  I said, I stopped you, said you
4         didn't ask a witness about this.  "Isn't it true you
5         didn't say anything about this, anything about
6         that."  You just can't do that.
8         Q    Do you remember being asked questions concerning
9    your participation, if any, in -- in a proposed amended
10    complaint?  Do you remember questions about that?
11         A    Not really.  I'm sorry, I don't.
12         Q    So you don't remember any -- what your responses
13    to that were, is that right?
14         A    That is true.  I would have to see the transcript.
15    All I can say in my defense, sir, I was about one month into
16    my diagnosis and it was a tough time, so I don't remember
17    what went down for those few days.
18         Q    Well, do you remember being asked questions about
19    whether you had received -- or had any conversations
20    concerning adding David Miscavige to the complaint?
21         A    In the context of the deposition, no, I don't
22    remember that.
23         Q    And do you remember being asked any questions
24    about whether you had received any correspondence concerning
25    any amended complaints in this case or proposed amended


1    complaints?
2         A    No, sir.  I mean, I would have to see a
3    transcript, if you could.
4              THE COURT:  Of course if he said in his
5         deposition that he didn't remember getting any
6         correspondence, we know now he was inaccurate, so
7         you can't very well impeach him, try to pretend that
8         letter doesn't exist, it is introduced into
9         evidence.
10              MR. WEINBERG:  No, your Honor, his testimony is
11         180 degrees from Mr. Dandar's of his participation,
12         proposed participation in the amended complaint,
13         180 degrees.
14              And I would like to offer that.  I'm going to
15         offer his deposition and offer that particular part,
16         A, to impeach him but, B, to impeach Mr. Dandar.
17              THE COURT:  From his testimony today?
18              MR. WEINBERG:  No, from his testimony back
19         in -- well, his testimony today --
20              THE COURT:  You cannot use his testimony from
21         his deposition to impeach Mr. Dandar's testimony.
22         You could use his testimony from today, and you can
23         impeach his testimony with his deposition.  You
24         cannot impeach Mr. Dandar's testimony with his
25         deposition.


1              MR. WEINBERG:  We'll offer it to impeach his
2         testimony today, because it is 180 degrees from what
3         he said today, as well.
4              THE COURT:  Go ahead and play it, although, as
5         I said, it is rather unique because you know that
6         testimony you are trying to play to impeach him is
7         inaccurate based on evidence that has been
8         introduced in this hearing.
9              MR. DANDAR:  So we object.
10              THE COURT:  Well, we're going to let it be
11         played.
12              Let me see that letter.
13              Please don't leave here with any evidence from
14         this case.  Okay?  Defendant's Exhibit Number 73 is
15         a document that you introduced?
16              MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
17              THE COURT:  That says, in fact, "I'm enclosing
18         a copy of the amended complaint."
19              MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
20              THE COURT:  I don't care what it said in his
21         deposition.
22              MR. WEINBERG:  But that is not the part of the
23         deposition that I'm using to impeach him with.
24              THE COURT:  Oh, I thought you just asked him a
25         question as to whether or not he had anything to do


1         with the amended complaint, and he indicated he did,
2         and you said you were going to play the deposition
3         to show that his testimony today was 180 degrees
4         different --
5              MR. WEINBERG:  Well, he went on --
6              THE COURT:  -- than what it was in the
7         deposition.
8              MR. WEINBERG:  He went on and on in the
9         deposition about how he had nothing to do with the
10         amended complaint.
11              THE COURT:  He was obviously wrong because of
12         evidence you introduced in your own case which says,
13         "I am enclosing a copy of the amended complaint."
14              MR. WEINBERG:  That would be one example of how
15         he's wrong.  But he said to Mr. Dandar and -- and
16         Mr. Dandar indicated that there were lots of
17         discussions about an amended complaint.  And I had
18         those -- I asked those questions to Mr. Young, and
19         for whatever reason --
20              THE COURT:  All right.  Play them, would you?
21         It is five until five and I plan to get out of here
22         at 5 o'clock.  You said you had two minutes.  Play
23         them.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
25              MR. DANDAR:  What is the date and page number?


1              MR. WEINBERG:  Do we have the transcripts?  I'm
2         sorry, he gave me the multiple copies.  I need to
3         separate these.
4              ________________________________________
5              (WHEREUPON, the videotape was played.)
6         Q    Tell me about the next conversations that you
7    remember that you had with Mr. Dandar?
8         A    Well, he first -- he came -- he flew up to see us
9    and met with us.
10         Q    He flew to Seattle?
11         A    Yes.
12         Q    Was anybody with him?
13         A    No.
14         Q    Did he send anything before he came?
15         A    No.
16         Q    Did he send you a copy of the complaint?
17         A    No.
18         Q    Did he send you a copy of any proposed amendments
19    to the complaint?
20         A    No.
21         Q    Excuse me?
22         A    No.
23         Q    Did he send you any records that -- from the case?
24         A    No.
25         Q    Did he give you any discovery from the case?


1         A    No.
2         Q    When he came to Seattle, did he show you a copy of
3    the complaint?
4         A    No.
5         Q    Did he review with you any documents from the
6    case?
7         A    No.
8         Q    Did he review with you any proposed amendments to
9    the complaint?
10         A    No.
11              _____________________________________
12         Q    Do you remember receiving -- ever receiving any
13    written correspondence or communication from Ken Dandar,
14    ever?
15         A    Yes.
16         Q    What was that?
17         A    It was a cover letter with some documents that he
18    sent me to look at.
19         Q    And when was that?
20         A    Oh, maybe a month or so after the Seattle meeting
21    or when he decided to take us on.
22         Q    Are you sure it wasn't a month or so before the
23    Seattle meeting?
24         A    I'm sure.
25         Q    All right.  Did you ever see a copy -- back three


1    years or so ago when you first got involved, did you ever
2    see a copy of a proposed amended complaint?  Did you ever
3    see one?
4         A    No.
5         Q    Did you ever see a copy of a proposed amendment
6    that would add David Miscavige as a party defendant to the
7    case?
8         A    No.
9         Q    As far as you know, did -- I'm talking about back
10    when you and Stacy were in Washington and whenever that was
11    back in that time period we're talking about, as far as you
12    know did Stacy?
13         A    As far as I know, no.
14         Q    What was the nature of the documents that -- that
15    you got?
16         A    They were exhibits that had been filed in the
17    case.  They had Bates stamps in the corner.  Mmm, they were
18    dealing with -- Mmm -- her stay at the Ft. Harrison, you
19    know, records.
20         Q    They were discovery, in other words?
21         A    Yes.
22         Q    And in addition to discovery that had Bates stamps
23    on it, were there any other category of documents that you
24    got?
25         A    No.


1         Q    You never got a copy of the complaint itself?
2         A    I -- I -- I believe he sent me a copy of the
3    amended complaint with a stamp after it had been filed that
4    said, here, this has been filed.
5         Q    But that was an amended complaint that didn't have
6    David Miscavige as a defendant, correct?
7         A    I don't recall it.  Your question to me was did I
8    see a proposed one.
9         Q    Right.
10         A    He just said here, you might want to -- I'm
11    sending you this.  Okay?
12         Q    Well, did you work on a proposed amended
13    complaint?  Was that part of your assignment?
14         A    No, I did not.
15              ___________________________________
16         Q    Did you review and revise submissions?
17         A    No.
18         Q    Did you work on any amendments to the complaint?
19         A    No.
20              (WHEREUPON, this concludes the playing of the
21    videotape.)
22              _____________________________________
23              MR. WEINBERG:  One second, your Honor.
24              THE COURT:  How close do you think you are to
25         finishing?


1              MR. WEINBERG:  Oh, that is what I was sort of
2         doing downstairs before I got up here, and I was
3         trying to collect my thoughts and -- I hadn't really
4         done that.  I'm not sure.  I think I'm pretty close
5         but --
6              THE COURT:  Okay.
7              MR. WEINBERG:  But I had some notes.  That is
8         what I was trying to figure out.
10         Q    You had talked about -- you had -- Mr. Dandar had
11    shown you part of a document which you said you had gotten
12    from the IRS as it related to the submission by the Church
13    of Scientology for tax-exempt status.  Do you remember that?
14         A    Yes.
15         Q    But --
16              THE COURT:  Mr. Young, are you planning on
17         being here tomorrow?
18              THE WITNESS:  Yes, ma'am.
19              THE COURT:  Then we're going to quit for the
20         night and finish it in the morning.
21              MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
22              THE WITNESS:  Thank you, your Honor.
23              THE COURT:  Yes, sir.
24              MR. WEINBERG:  I'll get organized.
25              THE COURT:  What is that?


1              MR. WEINBERG:  I said I'll get organized, and I
2         don't think it will be that long.
3              (WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 5:10 p.m.)
4              _____________________________________


1                      REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3    STATE OF FLORIDA         )
5              I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter,
                certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically
           6    report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is
                a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
                          I further certify that I am not a relative,
           8    employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
                am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
           9    attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
                financially interested in the action.
11              DATED this 17th day of June, 2002.
14                              ______________________________
                                              LYNNE J. IDE, RMR


To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index


3                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
7   Representative of the ESTATE OF
9             Plaintiff,
10   vs.                                     VOLUME 3
17   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
CONTENTS:           Testimony of Robert Vaughn Young.
DATE:               June 18, 2002, morning session.
PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
21                       St. Petersburg, Florida.
22   BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
REPORTED BY:        Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR,
24                       Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.


3   5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
4   Attorneys for Plaintiff.
6   112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
7   Attorney for Plaintiff
9   1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
10   Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
13   101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
14   Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
740 Broadway at Astor Place
17   New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
18   Organization.
20   150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
21   Attorney for LMT.


2                                                  PAGE   LINE
3   REDIRECT            Mr. Dandar                 317     17
CROSS               Mr. Weinberg               343      2
4   Recess                                         354     24
Reporter's Certificate                         355      1


1           (The proceedings were resumed at 9:03 a.m.)
2             THE COURT:  Good morning.  The videotapes -- I
3        have gone through them.  Most of them I've made a
4        decision on.  Some of them I have not.  To resolve
5        it during the first break or this afternoon's break,
6        I'm going to need to meet with lead counsel for the
7        church, for the defense -- I mean for the estate,
8        and the lawyer for LMT.  So if he could be
9        available?  We'll just go in chambers.  There are a
10        few of them I just can't determine from my
11        knowledge.  Or I may have some -- some where I'm not
12        sure.  We'll see if we can get some agreement.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  And you want to do that during
14        the lunch break?
15             THE COURT:  No.  I really want to do it during
16        a morning or an afternoon break.  We'll just take
17        about a half-hour break and get it done.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  We need to call Mr. McGowan.
19             THE COURT:  Yes.  I don't want to do it without
20        him since technically he is -- as attorney for LMT
21        or I guess -- Mr. Bunker?  Is that his name?
22             MR. WEINBERG:  Both, yes.
23             THE COURT:  May have some input on this.  So as
24        soon as that can be done.  I can turn them over.
25        I'll have to do an order, but I think that can come


1        after the fact.
3             Now, Mr. Dandar, you had indicated you wouldn't
4        have time to go look at these, but I presume you
5        want a copy of them.
6             MR. DANDAR:  I'd like to have a copy of the
7        summary. And I think --
8             THE COURT:  No.  You can't have a copy of the
9        summary --
10             MR. DANDAR:  Oh.
11             THE COURT:  -- because I'm not giving everybody
12        all of that.
13             MR. DANDAR:  I --
14             THE COURT:  That's going to be sealed.
15             MR. DANDAR:  I sent a letter to Mr. Keane, I
16        believe, asking for any and all videos of, and then
17        I've listed Jesse Prince, Teresa Summers, myself, my
18        clients.  I'm not interested in anybody else.
19             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, he's not going -- I
20        can tell you this, he's not going to turn them over
21        to you.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  So --
23             THE COURT:  Because he's going to turn them
24        over to me and he's going to do whatever I tell him.
25             MR. DANDAR:  Whatever procedure you set up


1        I'll -- I'd like to be there and --
2             THE COURT:  What I'm going to do is order them
3        to be released.  If you want a copy of them you'll
4        get a copy of them.
5             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  All right.
6             THE COURT:  Okay?
7             MR. DANDAR:  You're going to order -- I missed
8        something.  You're going to order to be released,
9        what?
10             THE COURT:  Probably about 150 tapes.
11             MR. DANDAR:  I don't want 150 tapes, no.
12             THE COURT:  Well, then you'll have to I guess
13        figure out how you're going to do it, because I
14        don't know that I'm going to tell you all exactly
15        what I'm releasing.
16             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
17             THE COURT:  You know, I guess what you can do
18        is tell Mr. Keane what it is you want, and then if
19        they're part of whatever part of the tapes that I've
20        ordered him to release, he'll release those.
21             MR. DANDAR:  That's how I'll do it.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.
23             Mr. Young, you want to resume the stand,
24        please?
25             Madam Clerk, I've had a chance to read these


1        and so these can be filed in my book.  I didn't get
2        through all of them.  The ones that I hadn't gotten
3        through I'll have to bring them back tomorrow.
4             Madam Clerk, how are you coming on books down
5        there?
6             THE CLERK:  I'm going to need a couple -- at
7        least three more.
8             THE COURT:  At least three more?  I may be
9        running out of notebooks.  I'm probably not, but I'm
10        running out of those that I can throw the stuff out
11        to give her the notebooks.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  (Inaudible.)
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
14             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I'm handling to the clerk
15        the request for judicial notice that contains all of
16        the notice of filing additional documents in support
17        of the plaintiff's motion to add parties.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.
19             MR. DANDAR:  What you found over there --
20             THE COURT:  Yes.
21             MR. DANDAR:  It's right there.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
23             MR. DANDAR:  And I'd like to mark that as our
24        next exhibit.
25             THE CLERK:  Number 103.


1             MR. DANDAR:  And move it into evidence.
2             THE COURT:  All right.
3             MR. WEINBERG:  That's fine.  We don't have any
4        objection.
5             THE COURT:  That's plaintiff's, right?
6             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
7             And then just from yesterday, Exhibit 203,
8        which was the list of Vaughn Young's affidavits or
9        declarations, and I just hadn't offered them.
10             MR. DANDAR:  I have no objection.
11             THE COURT:  Number 203?  Is that this page
12        right here?
13             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
15             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I'd also like to let you
16        know on the record that Mr. Young advised me this
17        morning that yesterday late afternoon after 4 was
18        very difficult for him.  He's in excruciating pain.
19        He took three Tylenols which helped.  But this
20        morning he's nauseated and doesn't feel too well.
21        But he wants to get this finished.
22             THE COURT:  All right.  I'm hoping that --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't have many questions, so
24        it's up to him.
25             THE COURT:  All right.  You're done?


1             MR. DANDAR:  Oh, you're done?
2             MR. WEINBERG:  No, I said I don't have many
3        questions.
4             THE COURT:  Many questions, all right.
5             MR. WEINBERG:  Can I proceed?
6             THE COURT:  You may.
7             MR. WEINBERG:  Thank you.
8             THE COURT:  Good morning, Mr. Young.
9             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, your Honor.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Good morning, Mr. Young.
11             THE COURT:  What day is today?  Does anybody --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  It's Tuesday.
13             THE COURT:  By that I mean what number date?
14        Number eight?
15             MR. LIROT:  No, no, no.  You're talking about
16        hearing date?
17             THE COURT:  Yes.
18             MR. LIROT:  25.
19             THE CLERK:  18th.
20             MR. LIROT:  But the 18th of June.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.  Go ahead.
23        Q    A few cleanup matters, Mr. Young.  Yesterday
24   Mr. Dandar showed you some pages that you said you had
25   copied from the public IRS file concerning the church's


1   submission to get the tax exemption?
2        A    Yes.
3        Q    Do you remember that?
4             What I want to hand up to you and have the -- and
5   you remember it was part of a section of the submission but
6   not the whole part of the section.
7        A    Yes.
8        Q    Okay.  I want to hand you up the whole part of the
9   section and have you look at it and identify it so that we
10   can have the whole part and not just a couple pages.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Just mark this the next exhibit,
12        please.
13             THE COURT:  What is this?  I'm sorry.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  This is the church's response in
15        the tax-exempt submission to the question about the
16        Sea Org to the IRS that Mr. Young put in a couple of
17        pages from that response yesterday, and this is the
18        whole response.
19             THE COURT:  All right.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  This is 209.  The whole response
21        to that question.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  That would be 209.
25        Q    If you could just look at Exhibit 209, tell us if


1   that appears to be the full response to question 3A, which
2   is the -- from which you drew the -- I think you'll
3   recognize them -- the page 3-5 which had the ranks of the
4   Sea Org people?
5        A    I'm looking at it now.
6        Q    Okay.
7        A    All right.  I've looked at it.  And your question?
8        Q    My question is, is -- this is what you saw in the
9   file at the IRS, correct?  This entire response?
10        A    Yes.  It does appear to be that.
11        Q    All right.  And what you did in your declaration
12   is you just took a page or two from this answer, is that
13   right?
14        A    Yes.  It was just what was relevant to the
15   declaration I was making, which was just to the point of
16   brevet rank.
17        Q    I couldn't hear that last part.
18        A    I'm sorry.  My voice isn't very good this morning.
19             I took just the point that was relevant to the
20   declaration, which was -- which I was addressing brevet
21   rank.
22        Q    I see.  But in this declaration, the Church of
23   Scientology, for example, on the last page, describes that
24   the Sea Org is not incorporated nor is it an unincorporated
25   association, and then goes on to talk about the fact that it


1   doesn't have a structure and things like that, correct?
2        A    It does say that.
3             MR. WEINBERG:  I offer Exhibit 209 into
4        evidence, your Honor.
5             THE COURT:  Any objection?
6             MR. DANDAR:  No.  Except that I object to the
7        form of the question because Mr. Weinberg is asking
8        him does it say that, he's saying correct that's
9        what it says, but the record should not reflect that
10        he's agreeing with what it says --
11             THE COURT:  That's true.  I mean, I'm sure
12        Mr. Weinberg understands that --
13             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
15        Q    All right.  Now, you can put that down, Mr. Young.
16   Secondly, I asked you yesterday with regard to -- I showed
17   you a couple of pages from a deposition, if you remember, a
18   deposition that was taken in Los Angeles in Bridge
19   Publications versus FACTNet.  Do you remember that?
20        A    If it was in the last hour of yesterday --
21        Q    Well, I think it was toward the beginning, but
22   remember you thought it was in Colorado and I showed you
23   that the transcript said --
24        A    Oh.
25        Q    -- it was Los Angeles?


1        A    Yes.  I remember that now.
2        Q    And November 5th, 1997?  And I also said isn't
3   this a deposition that Mr. Dandar represented you at?  And I
4   think your response was you didn't remember.
5             I want to show you the full transcript, if I can,
6   and have you --
7             MR. WEINBERG:  I've got the quotes, your Honor.
8             MR. DANDAR:  And Judge, I would like the full
9        transcript filed in this court, and I'd like to be
10        able to see if my May, '97 letter was produced at
11        that deposition as Ms. Yingling alluded to in her
12        deposition -- her testimony before this court.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I don't know if that's the
14        deposition that she was talking about, but -- but
15        all right -- in any event -- I don't think
16        Ms. Yingling said anything like that, but whatever.
18        Q    Let me hand you this.  And we'll -- we'll mark
19   this particular transcript.
20             THE COURT:  What was the name of the case?
21             MR. WEINBERG:  It's Bridge Publications, which
22        is a Church of Scientology -- is it an organization?
23             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Publication -- it's a religious
24        publishing company.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  It's a religious publishing


1        company.
2             Versus FACTNet.  And Mr. Dandar wants this
3        marked, so we'll mark this as an Exhibit 210.
4             THE COURT:  All right.
6        Q    And all I'm going to ask you, Mr. Young, is to
7   look at the first page, which indicates -- if you -- if you
8   go to -- to -- if you turn the first page and look at the
9   back and look at the bottom of page 676, do you see that?
10        A    I hope so.  Go ahead.
11        Q    Mr. Dandar says, "Ken Dandar, representing
12   Mr. Young."  Do you see that?
13        A    Yes, I do.
14        Q    And Mr. Rosen says, "Mr. Dandar, you're not
15   representing parties to this case; you're just
16   representing -- you're just appearing as counsel for the
17   witness."  "Mr. Dandar:  Yes."
18             Now, does that refresh your recollection
19   Mr. Dandar served as your counsel in November of 1997 in a
20   deposition in the FACTNet case?
21        A    I don't remember the particular deposition, but I
22   accept this record as being accurate.
23        Q    And my question to you is, this is just a month
24   after Mr. Minton purchased the house for you and Stacy to
25   live in and the cats, you said yesterday, correct?


1             MR. DANDAR:  Objection to the form.  That's not
2        the evidence from yesterday.
3             MR. WEINBERG:  What's the evidence?
4             THE COURT:  Well --
5             THE WITNESS:  I testified --
6             THE COURT:  I don't remember what he testified
7        to exactly, but whatever it was he said yesterday.
8             THE WITNESS:  I -- I've always objected to the
9        form of Mr. Dandar bought us a house.  I --
10             THE COURT:  Mr. Minton, you mean?
11             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  Mr. Minton, when I
12        explained yesterday that he and his wife were the
13        ones on the bill of sale and agreed to that.
15        Q    Oh.  But in any event, it's about a month after
16   Mr. and Mrs. Minton were on a bill of sale buying a house
17   for you and -- $250,000 house for you and your then-wife
18   Stacy to live in, is that right?
19        A    As a sanctuary.  As long as that's clear, yes.
20        Q    Okay.  Now, did you pay Mr. Dandar to appear in
21   your behalf in Los Angeles in November of 1997?
22        A    I don't recall if I did.  I may not have.  There
23   may have been one of those single daughter transactions but
24   possibly not.
25        Q    Well, did somebody like Mr. Minton pay Mr. Dandar


1   to be at your side in that deposition?
2        A    I don't know.
3        Q    Do you know who paid the expenses of Mr. Dandar to
4   go out to California?
5        A    No.
6        Q    You didn't, though, did you?
7        A    No.
8        Q    No, being yes, you did not.
9        A    I did not.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Now, let me have the reporter
11        (sic) mark one more document.
12             THE COURT:  The reporter?
13             MR. WEINBERG:  The clerk.
14             THE COURT:  All right.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  It's the 25th day.
16             THE COURT:  That's right.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  211.
18             THE COURT:  Who is your next witness,
19        Mr. Dandar?
20             MR. DANDAR:  Jesse Prince.
21             THE COURT:  And is he available?  Because I
22        suspect he's not going to be much longer.
23             MR. DANDAR:  I asked him last night to be
24        available as soon as I called him.
25             THE COURT:  Well, why don't you call him.


1             MR. WEINBERG:  This is literally the last
2        thing.
3             MR. DANDAR:  And if Jesse Prince is going to be
4        more than a day, I do have Brian Haney flying in
5        from Ohio, so he can testify tomorrow morning.  And
6        I'd like to put him on out of turn because he won't
7        be available when we come back on July 8th.
8             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, you can put him on
9        tomorrow.
10             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
11             THE COURT:  I don't know how long Mr. Prince
12        will be.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Can I go ahead and call Mr. Prince
14        then?
15             THE COURT:  Yes.  Let's just take a few minutes
16        for him to do that.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  That's fine.
18             THE COURT:  So we don't have to have an undue
19        delay.
20             Would somebody -- Mr. Fugate, perhaps, if you
21        could call Mr. McGowan and see when he's available
22        for us?  Because maybe while we're waiting for
23        Mr. Prince we could get that done.
24             MR. MOXON:  I just called him, your Honor.  He
25        said he's going to try to come over here around


1        10:15.
2             THE COURT:  Okay.  You want to call him and see
3        if he's available now?
4             MR. MOXON:  Sure.  I'll try.
5             THE COURT:  Ask him how long he's going to be,
6        if he has to dress and all that.
7                 (Mr. Dandar making phone call.)
8             MR. DANDAR:  30 minutes?  40.  Okay.
9             THE COURT:  Okay.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Shall I proceed?
11             THE COURT:  Yes.
13        Q    I've shown you an e-mail and ask you to identify
14   this as an e-mail --
15             THE COURT:  I'm sorry, before you go on, I
16        just -- did you -- you did mark this as an exhibit;
17        this was the transcript with Mr. Dandar?
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Mr. Dandar asked that that be
19        marked --
20             THE COURT:  Right.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  -- so I did.  It's 210.
22             MR. DANDAR:  It's only volume 2, though.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
24             THE COURT:  The -- you wanted -- you wanted it
25        for one purpose; he wanted the whole thing for


1        another purpose.
2             MR. WEINBERG:  I wasn't going to put it in.  I
3        just wanted to show them the transcript --
4             THE COURT:  Oh.
5             MR. WEINBERG:  -- to refresh his recollection
6        that Mr. Dandar was his lawyer there.
7             THE COURT:  Okay. So you have not introduced
8        this.
9             MR. WEINBERG:  I didn't, but he wanted it, and
10        I don't object to it.
11             THE COURT:  Okay You want it in?
12             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
13             THE COURT:  All right.  Then it'll go in.
14        Since it's been marked as Defendant's 210, it'll go
15        in as Defendant's exhibit.  Madam Clerk.
16             THE CLERK:  Yes.
17             THE COURT:  Oh, I better keep that.  I won't
18        have read that, may not read it.  Go ahead.
20        Q    Okay.  I have shown you what's been marked as
21   Defendant's 211.  Can you identify this as an e-mail that
22   you received from Ken Dandar on April 2nd, 1998?
23             MR. DANDAR:  Objection.  Work product.  This is
24        a letter from me to Mr. Vaughn.
25             THE COURT:  Let me look at it.


1             MR. WEINBERG:  This was turned over to us by
2        Mr. Keane from the Lisa McPherson Trust -- what do
3        you call it -- hard drives.
4             MR. DANDAR:  Well, isn't that interesting?
5        This is a work product letter again.
6             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, maybe you can explain why
7        it's on the Lisa McPherson Trust hard drive?
8             MR. DANDAR:  I can always -- when -- when did
9        it get put up there?
10             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't know.
11             MR. DANDAR:  And -- and if it's on the Lisa
12        McPherson hard drive, when did the Church of
13        Scientology obtain a copy of the hard drive when
14        they were only supposed to obtain copies of witness
15        statements?  This is definitely not a witness's
16        statement.
17             MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, this was turned over
18        yesterday.  Mr. McGowan went through some of the
19        things that were printed out by Mr. Keane and --
20             THE COURT:  Mr. McGowan turned this over?
21             MR. MOXON:  Yes.
22             THE COURT:  Well, now, Mr. McGowan really ought
23        not be turning over things off of the hard drive.
24        Mr. Keane ought to be doing this.
25             MR. MOXON:  Well, it was turned over by


1        Mr. Keane.  Mr. McGowan approved it and Mr. Keane
2        turned it over and said this was -- approved as of
3        yesterday afternoon.
4             MR. DANDAR:  This is not contained in any
5        order.
6             THE COURT:  Yes.  This is not material that
7        should have been turned over.
8             MR. DANDAR:  I object to it and I object to any
9        questions being asked about it.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, you know, once Mr. Young,
11        if I may, your Honor, was offered as an expert
12        witness, a trial-testifying expert witness,
13        Mr. Dandar was supposed to have turned over all of
14        the communications that he had with Mr. Young.  And
15        we went through that during Mr. Dandar's cross.
16             And this is one that obviously Mr. Dandar, like
17        the May, '97 letter, overlooked or didn't produce.
18        But it should have been produced because Mr. Young
19        has already been offered as a trial expert; he's
20        testified and we were entitled to the correspondence
21        between Mr. Young and Mr. Dandar as a result of
22        that, as we -- both sides have with all the experts
23        that have been offered as trial witnesses in this
24        case.
25             MR. DANDAR:  I've told the court that the May,


1        '97 letter that the Church of Scientology produced
2        at this hearing is nowhere to be found in my office.
3        Now, Ms. Brooks apparently turned it over as part of
4        her deal.  And here is something else that they say
5        came from the Lisa McPherson Trust hard drive, yet
6        Mr. Young, who this letter's addressed to, was never
7        part of the Lisa McPherson Trust.  So apparently it
8        was another attempt to -- to obtain my work product.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
11             MR. DANDAR:  And this is --
12             THE COURT:  What are you doing writing stuff on
13        the LMT hard drive?
14             MR. DANDAR:  I'm not.
15             THE COURT:  The LMT computer.
16             MR. DANDAR:  I'm not.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, it's dated April 25th, '98
18        is when it appeared on the Lisa notes in the
19        computer.
20             MR. DANDAR:  And April the 25th, '98 the Lisa
21        McPherson Trust wasn't even thought of, wasn't
22        even --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  What is Lisa --
24             MR. DANDAR:  -- in place until October of '99.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, what is Lisa notes?


1             MR. DANDAR:  Looks like -- it looks like it's
2        either Stacy's internal notes when she was
3        consulting with me or Mr. Vaughn Young's internal
4        notes that she obtained or someone obtained, and now
5        if it's on a hard drive of the Lisa McPherson Trust,
6        allegedly.
7             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, it's not allegedly.
8        Mr. Keane turned it over.
9             THE COURT:  Get Mr. Keane down here.
10        Mr. Bailiff, go see my secretary -- well, I don't
11        want to call him out of his office.  That's not
12        fair.  I'll have Mr. Keane down here.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Mr. Young is indicating he might
14        be able to explain this.  I don't know.
15             THE COURT:  Okay.
16             THE WITNESS:  Not to explain it, but just to
17        say that I never turned this over to anyone.  And
18        just for the technology of this, in this long line
19        here that -- where it says "full path" and it starts
20        with "quantum," what's interesting at the end of it,
21        you'll see the letters JPG.  JPG means that this is
22        an image.  When you see images on the Internet,
23        that's a designation of one type of image, like a
24        photograph.  So this is not a message transmission.
25        What this is, is this has been copied and then made


1        into an image.
2             So this is not a copy of an e-mail on a hard
3        drive; this is a copy of a Xerox or a photograph of
4        a printout of this that has then been put on the
5        hard drive.
6             And I just want to clarify this 'cause it might
7        explain how it might have been acquired since I gave
8        it to no one.
9             It's a photograph.  As if you were to copy
10        this.  You can make it into a JPG file and then you
11        can put it onto a hard drive.  It's not text.  It's
12        an image.  And that may be complex, but I think it's
13        an interesting point to recognize how -- what form
14        this was on the hard drive.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  It's over my head.
16             THE COURT:  Mine too.  I'm still -- I'm still
17        trying to read this.  For some reason I'm not able
18        to get through it.  Just a minute.  Let me read it.
19             Well, to tell you the truth as I read this, I
20        can't -- this doesn't look like a full -- I mean, it
21        just looks like something taken from something.  It
22        doesn't even make sense.  It looks like something
23        that's been pulled out from something that must have
24        been bigger.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  What it appears to me is, is


1        that this is some interaction between Mr. Dandar and
2        Mr. Young about language in -- in a complaint, or
3        draft complaint, and that's all it is.
4             But I don't understand how Mr. Dandar can say
5        this is work product in light of the fact that, A,
6        he's testified about all the work that Mr. Young
7        supposedly did with regard to an amended complaint,
8        and B, he asked Mr. Young a lot of questions about
9        that yesterday.  And all this is, or appears to be,
10        some communication in April of 1998 where Mr. Young,
11        contrary to his trial testimony, was apparently
12        giving advice as to changes that could be made on --
13        on the complaint or language in a -- in a complaint.
14        That's all I was going to do.
15             MR. DANDAR:  Mr. Young testified that he didn't
16        write the complaints; he gave me information to put
17        in the complaints.
18             THE COURT:  Well, this -- this just doesn't
19        make sense to me.  I'm not sure what it is because
20        it doesn't make sense that it's a full transmittal.
21        It -- it -- just kind of in the middle of something.
22             MR. DANDAR:  It does look that way.
23             THE COURT:  So consequently I don't know what
24        it is.  Number two, I don't know that even if you
25        said communications between an attorney and their


1        expert -- yeah, you get communications between an
2        attorney and their expert, but if somebody is a
3        consultant, I'm not sure this would qualify or
4        whether it wouldn't.
5             I am concerned, however, that the information
6        is being provided to one side.  Certainly it wasn't
7        provided to both sides.  That is clearly something
8        that I would be very surprised if Mr. Keane would
9        do.  So consequently I'm going to have to get
10        Mr. Keane in here and see what's going on.
11             If there's anything else that you've gotten --
12        Mr. Moxon, what else did you get yesterday?
13             MR. MOXON:  We got a number of pages, about a
14        hundred pages of stuff that was provided to --
15        Mr. Keane provided to McGowan that had been printed
16        off from some of the materials that are produced by
17        LMT, and Mr. McGowan reviewed them to see if they
18        could -- there was any -- any reason not to produce
19        them, and he cleared them.  And I was provided a
20        copy --
21             THE COURT:  Who cleared them?  Mr. McGowan?
22             MR. MOXON:  Well, they're LMT's records.  Yeah.
23        Mr. McGowan's LMT's counsel.  Mr. McGowan went
24        through them in accordance with, you know --
25        Mr. Keane obviously -- Mr. McGowan had to approve


1        them; they're his materials.  They're produced by
2        Mr. McGowan, and a copy was made for me by
3        Mr. Keane.
4             MR. DANDAR:  This is ex parte production.
5             THE COURT:  Yeah.  I -- I find this --
6             MR. MOXON:  They're available, of course, to
7        Mr. Dandar.
8             THE COURT:  Well, that isn't the way that an
9        agent of the court does things.  So consequently
10        whatever you're doing with those hundred pages you
11        are to cease and you are to stop and you are to put
12        them aside until such time as I can see why it is
13        that one side is getting materials from supposedly
14        an operation that is tied, if the church's side is
15        to be believed, to the plaintiff.  And the plaintiff
16        isn't getting them.
17             That's -- I don't know what's going on.  It's
18        another one of those very unusual things.  I'll get
19        to the bottom of it.  Put it aside.  Don't read it.
20        Whoever you have copying them, tell them to stop.
21             MR. MOXON:  Understood.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Could we have them produced to the
23        court?
24             THE COURT:  Sure.
25             MR. MOXON:  Of course, yeah.


1             THE COURT:  Make me a copy of everything you've
2        got.
3             MR. MOXON:  Very good.
4             THE COURT:  And --
5             MR. DANDAR:  And then could I have a copy of
6        everything they have as well?
7             THE COURT:  Well, yes, you can.
8             In the meantime, I'm not sure what this is.  Do
9        you have an objection to his asking a question about
10        it without waiving it since he's here?
11             MR. DANDAR:  Since he's here, no, go ahead.
12        Without waiving it, that's fine.
13             THE COURT:  All right.  That way we get
14        whatever it is.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  I really had very few -- I
16        mean --
18        Q    Does -- do you remember that in April of 1998 you
19   were giving advice as to some other iteration of the
20   complaint in this case as to what it ought to look like and
21   read like?
22        A    No.  And I don't recall ever seeing this e-mail or
23   this supposed e-mail.
24        Q    All right.  When I read paragraph 92 and 103 --
25   oh, you don't remember any response to this that you might


1   have sent to Mr. Dandar, is that right?
2        A    I don't remember seeing this as --
3        Q    All right.
4        A    -- e-mail to me, let alone a response.
5        Q    Just for the record, the [email protected] would
6   be your e-mail address, right?
7        A    Yes.
8        Q    Okay.
9        A    It was my address.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Those are all my questions, your
11        Honor.
12             THE COURT:  All right.  Cross examine?
13             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
14             THE COURT:  Or I'm sorry.  Redirect.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Redirect.
16             THE COURT:  Redirect.
17                       REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19        Q    Does the exhibit of the Defense 202 jog your
20   memory at all as to the type of consulting and expert work
21   you were doing for me since -- in '97 and '98, that e-mail?
22        A    Well, this -- this would be representative --
23             THE COURT:  Are you talking about this e-mail?
24             MR. WEINBERG:  It's 211.
25             THE COURT:  It's 211.


1             MR. DANDAR:  211.  I'm sorry.
2        A    Without agreeing that you either sent it to me or
3   I responded or this is accurate, just taking this as a
4   hypothetical example, this would be representative of
5   something that you would put together, the type -- an
6   example of what you would put together, and I'd say, "Yeah,
7   that reads okay.  That's accurate."
9        Q    Okay.  And so you didn't actually draft full
10   paragraphs of the first amended complaint or any other
11   amended complaint.
12        A    No.  As I -- as I said, this would be an example
13   of what would happen.  You would write something or have me
14   check it for accuracy.
15        Q    If I e-mailed you something back in '97 or '98, at
16   [email protected], who -- who had the code to access that
17   e-mail?
18        A    Only me.
19        Q    And where did you store it?  If you did store it.
20   Apparently something got stored.
21        A    Well, even temporarily, before I might erase --
22   you know, 'cause e-mails are easily erased and you just get
23   rid of them 'cause they clutter up -- it would be stored on
24   my hard drive and -- and sort of anticipating the question,
25   this was a different computer and hard drive than Stacy had.


1        Q    And did Stacy have access to your hard drive?
2        A    Well, she would have access.  She could go look at
3   it.  But I had never any instance that she ever did.  And in
4   '98 -- let me just think for a second here.  I was just
5   trying to remember, geographically, where I was in April of
6   '98.  I don't remember because I was traveling a lot.
7        Q    Okay.  Was your hard drive on a laptop or a
8   stationary computer?
9        A    It was a stationary computer.
10        Q    Did Stacy also store things in there?
11        A    No.  We had separate computers.
12        Q    Did you give anyone permission to go into your
13   hard drive and copy anything that I may have sent you?
14        A    No.
15        Q    Do you still have that hard drive?
16        A    No.
17        Q    What happened to it?
18        A    It was erased, wiped out, when I left Seattle, and
19   then she just did whatever she wanted with the computer.
20   She did then what she wanted with the computer.
21        Q    Who erased it?
22        A    I did.
23        Q    What software did you use to do that?
24        A    There's a software called PGP, which has -- Oliver
25   North discovered when you erase something from a hard drive


1   you don't really erase it.  You have to put something over
2   top of it, other text on top, so that it fills the empty
3   spaces.  And so that's how I did it.
4             THE COURT:  So if you erased your hard drive
5        and nobody had access to your computer, well, what
6        do we have here?  I mean either you didn't erase
7        your hard drive very well or something.  I mean, I
8        don't understand it.
9             THE WITNESS:  My --
10             THE COURT:  Because as I said, this is a very
11        unusual thing to me.  It's got number 92, and the
12        next thing you see is 103.  And it just doesn't seem
13        as if it in any way, shape or form is a complete
14        statement.
15             THE WITNESS:  My --
16             THE COURT:  But apparently it came off of
17        something that belonged to you.
18             THE WITNESS:  Not necessarily, ma'am.  It's
19        very easy to forge something like this.  I'm not
20        proposing it is.  But all I have is just text
21        written out that supposedly is e-mail from
22        Mr. Dandar that was on a hard drive.  I can't verify
23        that this ever came to me; I can't verify anything
24        about it.  And so at that point I would question
25        even its authenticity.


1             THE COURT:  Well, boy, if somebody were going
2        to forge something, I guess they would forge
3        something better than this because I don't even
4        understand it.
5             THE WITNESS:  I do --
6             THE COURT:  So one would hope if they'd go to
7        that elaborate of a scheme it would be some smoking
8        gun or something.
9             THE WITNESS:  I tend to agree, your Honor,
10        because otherwise it's pretty benign.
11             THE COURT:  Right.
13        Q    When did you erase your hard drive?
14             THE COURT:  Not that I know what a smoking gun
15        would be, but --
16             MR. WEINBERG:  I learned yesterday when reading
17        a Watergate story that it came from Watergate.
18             THE COURT:  Yes.  I saw that too.  I have a
19        feeling that that probably was an expression that
20        was used before Watergate.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  I do too.
22             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Gunsmoke.
23        A    Just give me just a second.  I'm trying to back up
24   here.
25             It might have been after this, a couple of months


1   after this, that I erased the hard drive.
3        Q    Couple months after April 2nd of 1998?
4        A    Yes.  I'm not certain about that -- about that
5   time period.  But it would have -- would -- might have been
6   afterwards.
7        Q    Were you -- when you erased it, were you and Stacy
8   still married?
9        A    Well, no.  We were -- we were divorced at that
10   time.  But we were going through the divorce to make it
11   final.  But I was still in Seattle.
12        Q    Okay.  Was she still in Seattle?
13        A    Sometimes.
14        Q    She had already taken up -- I don't know what
15   other word to use -- with Mr. Minton?
16        A    Well, I -- I think she might even have moved to
17   Florida at that point.  I don't remember.  I know that she
18   was traveling around a lot.  There was different conferences
19   and she would come in and out of Seattle.
20        Q    Okay.  All right.  We -- Mr. Weinberg showed you a
21   video clip of your '99, December, discovery deposition,
22   where you talked about -- or answered questions concerning
23   whether or not you had any input or -- let's see -- helping
24   to author the first amended complaint or any other amended
25   complaint.  Do you recall that?


1        A    Yes.
2        Q    Okay.  Can you tell the court what physical
3   condition you were in in December, '99 during your
4   deposition?
5        A    I had been diagnosed with terminal cancer one
6   month before and I was in a lot of pain.
7        Q    And how are you doing today?
8        A    It was a rough video to watch, to go back to that
9   time and -- and --
10             I'm sorry.  It's --
11        Q    Are you in remission today?
12        A    I'm sorry.
13        Q    Is it worse than it was then?
14        A    According to the tests, it -- the cancer's
15   doubling every three weeks.
16        Q    Okay.  Now, Mr. Young, have you been subjected, as
17   far as you understand the term "fair game," to fair game
18   since leaving the Church of Scientology?
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Beyond the scope.  I
20        didn't ask him about harassment; I didn't ask him
21        about that on my -- Mr. Dandar did on direct, I
22        didn't on cross.  This is beyond the scope.
23             THE COURT:  Sustained.
24             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, Mr. Weinberg asked
25        Mr. Young about fair game and cancellation of fair


1        game and produced Mr. Hubbard's alleged affidavit --
2             THE COURT:  All right.  You're right.
3             MR. WEINBERG:  But that's different -- I mean,
4        a policy is one thing, the -- his experience after
5        he left the church, is --
6             THE COURT:  I understand it, but if -- if --
7        the issue was whether or not fair game still exists
8        or whether it doesn't, then I suppose he can tell us
9        about his experience if he thinks it would be fair
10        game, whatever fair game is.
12        Q    After you turned down Mr. Rinder's office to
13   perjure yourself, were you harassed?
14        A    I believe I stated so yesterday, that -- yes.
15        Q    And how long did that harassment continue?
16        A    Over the next couple of years, it's sort of hard
17   to put a time frame to it, but it continued all the way
18   through Vashon Island where we were picketed and the island
19   was leafletted, and --
20             THE COURT:  I think he did testify about this
21        yesterday.
23        Q    Did the -- Mr. Weinberg asked you about Mr. and
24   Mrs. Minton buying a house for the cat sanctuary on Vashon
25   Island.  Why did he need to do that?


1        A    Well, I had put a note onto the Internet -- and I
2   don't remember the date exactly.  It was something like in
3   October of -- of '97, late '97 -- onto
4   alt.religion.scientology.  And it was just basically a long
5   statement by me that what was going on, how bad the
6   harassment was; that there was a number of -- of -- of what
7   I considered to be assaults on the cat sanctuary, attempts
8   to try to close us down, picketing, leafletting.
9             And it was just a statement.  It was -- it was
10   nothing else.  I just wanted it on the record.  And I -- I
11   think I even said in there, of course, there's so much you
12   can't prove.
13             And it was after that that Mr. Minton called
14   and -- and mainly spoke to Stacy about it.  And the point we
15   made that he was asking, he says, "Do you need help with the
16   sanctuary?"  And I said yes because it wasn't a case of us
17   needing personal help; we needed it to protect the cats.
18   And so that's how it came about.
19        Q    So --
20        A    Until that point I never had spoken with him; I
21   didn't know who he was.  You know, I didn't know who he was.
22        Q    So when you and Stacy and the cats moved to Vashon
23   Island did the harassment stop?
24        A    No.  It continued.  It -- it actually got worse.
25        Q    How?


1        A    Well, there was, you know, pickets; there was --
2   Vashon Island has a newspaper, a weekly newspaper, and they
3   did a large story on it because there were people in -- in
4   the parking lot of the shopping -- shopping center passing
5   out leaflets, and they had determined that the people who
6   were doing it were not from Vashon Island.  And they
7   identified a private detective -- I can't remember his name
8   right now.  Private investigator.  Just his name escapes me
9   right now -- who was, turns out, had worked for the Church
10   of Scientology.  That was one person that was -- that was
11   doing this.
12             And it just -- it just continued.
13        Q    You have any -- experience any damage to your cat
14   sanctuary on Vashon Island?
15        A    Not directly to the sanctuary itself, not physical
16   damage.
17        Q    Any damage to your dogs or your cats?
18             THE COURT:  Didn't Stacy talk about this quite
19        a bit?
20             MR. DANDAR:  Not this last question.
21             THE COURT:  All right.
22             MR. DANDAR:  It's my last question.
23        A    One day I had let my dog out for about 20 minutes
24   and went out to pick her up -- pick him up.  His name was
25   Mac.  And he wasn't around.  And I went -- he never leaves


1   the property.  And -- but an hour and a half later, about a
2   little under an hour and a half, we got a call from the vet.
3   And the vet on the island is about oh, five miles north of
4   us.  And the vet said, "We have your dog here and he's in
5   bad shape."
6             And I went and picked him up and he was -- his
7   face was bloody and his back had been beaten.  And -- and I
8   could tell it wasn't -- and he had been found by somebody
9   walking south towards the house, north of the vet.  And I
10   knew that in one hour's time he couldn't have gotten up
11   there.  Somebody had to have transported him.
12             And he -- he had -- they beat him really bad, and
13   they -- he was quite a broken dog for a number of months
14   from that.  And the only thing I knew was that somebody had
15   grabbed him and beat him.
16             And I took it to be a warning.  You know, it's --
17   it's just that -- it's this warning that you always get.
18   And that's what I've always understood fair game to be.
19   It's -- it's the shot across the bow.  It's you are
20   vulnerable.  And it's -- that's what fair game is.  And I
21   just understand it.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  I have -- almost done,
23        Judge.  Have this marked as an exhibit, please.
24        Oops.  I didn't make enough copies.
25             THE COURT:  What are you doing?


1             MR. DANDAR:  I've got some exhibits I want to
2        show him.
4        Q    Mr. Young, let me hand to you what's been marked
5   as Plaintiff's Exhibit 104, 105 and 106.
6             MR. DANDAR:  I hand the court the court's copy.
7        104, 105 and 106.
9        Q    Mr. Weinberg asked you yesterday about whether or
10   not, when you left the Church of Scientology, you were mad
11   at David Miscavige or the church.  Can you identify as a
12   follow-up to that question the documents 104, 105 and 106?
13        A    Document 104 is a letter from David Miscavige to
14   me dated 11 July, 1998, with a subject line "Your request
15   for a B of R," which I'll explain.  Exhibit 105 is a letter
16   to me from -- signed by Greg, and at the top it says
17   "Inspector general."  That is the from line.  Greg is Greg
18   Wilhere, W-i-l-h-e-r-e, who is the inspector general, dated
19   29 August, 1988.
20        Q    What's the date of that letter, 105?
21        A    29 August of '88.
22             And Exhibit 106 is another letter from Greg
23   Wilhere as inspector general, to me, dated 24 August, 1988.
24        Q    And the one from Dave is dated what date?  104?
25        A    The one from David Miscavige is dated 11 July,


1   1988.
2        Q    Okay.  And he signs it "Dave," correct?
3        A    The from line says "COB RTC," and the signature
4   line there is an abbreviation there just above his
5   signature, which is how we often used to sign the
6   dispatches.  It says -- it's signed M-L-O-V-E, which is a
7   shortening for much love.  And it's signed, "Much love,
8   Dave."
9        Q    Now, what was this all about, these three letters?
10        A    At the time I was on the RPF.  Has that been
11   brought up here?
12             THE COURT:  Yes.
13             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  I was on the RPF and
14        then --
15             THE COURT:  In different ways, I might suggest.
16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, ma'am.
18        Q    Because you had not supported Mr. Miscavige in his
19   takeover of the Church of Scientology?
20        A    Yes.  And the assignment -- the reason that had
21   been given that I was sent to the RPF was for other reasons,
22   and I had been protesting this heavily.  And in Scientology,
23   the -- it's a maxim that you can't make progress if
24   something is false.  So I was protesting my assignment as
25   false.


1             So finally, he did say this in this 11 July
2   statement, and it's at the bottom of the first page.  In
3   the -- actually the thick large paragraph there, where he
4   says that -- let me see.  Give me a second here.  Oh, it'll
5   have to be in combination with Greg Wilhere's letter.  But
6   he said that -- the bottom paragraph, "It is true that
7   Norman --" and he's referring to Norman Starkey, who was the
8   head of ASI at the time -- "and myself told you that our
9   reasons for letting this action take its own course and you
10   going into the RPF was due to your involvement with
11   Broeker."
12             In other words, this was putting to a -- saying
13   that my statements had been correct.  I'd gone to the RPF
14   because of my association with Broeker and not because I was
15   some screw-up.  So this was an admission that basically it
16   was a political purge.
17             In the letter which was the following month from
18   Greg Wilhere, the inspector general --
19             THE COURT:  I mean, I -- why is this relevant
20        to this?
21             MR. DANDAR:  Because Mr. Weinberg brought it up
22        in cross examination.
23             THE COURT:  Well --
24             MR. DANDAR:  Of alleged bias against David
25        Miscavige and Scientology.


1             THE COURT:  And so a letter from Greg has what
2        to do with whether he likes Mr. Miscavige or
3        Mr. Miscavige likes him or --
4             MR. DANDAR:  Well, actually the primary
5        evidence is 104, the letter from Mr. Miscavige.
6             THE COURT:  Okay.  And he's explained that.
7        So --
8             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
9             THE COURT:  If the others have something to do
10        with 104, then they can just go along with it, but
11        we don't really need an explanation of it.
12             MR. DANDAR:  That's fine.  All right.
14        Q    Now, Mr. Young, the Lisa McPherson death, you said
15   yesterday, was the death would have been less of a PR flap
16   than --
17             THE COURT:  What happened here?
18             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I just banged my knee on his
19        chair.  I'm sorry, your Honor.
20             THE COURT:  I wasn't sure if Mr. Shaw --
21             MR. WEINBERG:  I thought Mr. Shaw had hit him,
22        that's what I thought.
23             THE COURT:  That's what I thought too.
24             All right.  Excuse me.
25             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Nothing worse than being


1        kneecapped, your Honor.
2             THE COURT:  Go ahead.
4        Q    How is it that the death of Lisa McPherson dying
5   could be less than a PR flap than going back to Morton Plant
6   Hospital while she's alive?
7             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Beyond the scope.  I
8        didn't ask him about PR flaps.  I didn't.
9             You did.
10             THE COURT:  I did.  So I'll allow it.
11             THE WITNESS:  Am I allowed to respond?
12             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
13             THE COURT:  Yes.
14        A    Well, I still contend I was trying to touch on it
15   yesterday -- that in effect, it wasn't a PR flap when she
16   died because it was a good year --
17             THE COURT:  This is a repeat of testimony from
18        yesterday and I don't need to hear it again.
19             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  All right.
20             THE COURT:  Unless there's something new.
21             MR. DANDAR:  Well, I don't think he talked
22        about -- see, it follows up the questions you were
23        asking him.  He didn't talk about why it was not a
24        PR flap.
25             THE COURT:  Well, he did.  He told us that


1        yesterday.  That nothing happened for quite
2        sometime.
3             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
4             THE COURT:  That's exactly what he said.
5             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
6             THE COURT:  It took a while.
7             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
8             THE COURT:  What are you looking at,
9        Mr. Dandar?
10             MR. DANDAR:  I'm looking at notes that I made
11        during his testimony yesterday when I was --
12             THE COURT:  On a little piece of paper that
13        looks like a tape from a --
14             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
15             THE COURT:  -- a --
16             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
17             No, actually, guess what?  If you just give me
18        a second --
19             THE COURT:  All right.
20             MR. DANDAR:  -- I think I'm done.
22        Q    Oh.  Mr. Weinberg asked you about this e-mail
23   concerning Mr. Rinder which is Defendant's Exhibit 204?  You
24   recall that?
25        A    Yes.


1        Q    Where did you get the information from that talked
2   about Mr. Rinder not being allowed to go -- to be with his
3   wife when his infant child died from crib death?
4        A    He had mentioned it to me, but it was actually
5   common knowledge within that echelon that it happened.
6   Because first of all, when he -- he lost his -- his child,
7   that was the first piece of knowledge.  And that's -- you
8   know, it's the sort of thing people just talk about.  And
9   then when he wasn't able to go down, that was one of those
10   things that people just know about.
11        Q    And in Exhibit Defense 203, the 21 declarations
12   totalling apparently 358 pages that Mr. Weinberg asked you
13   about --
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    -- in any of those declarations did you slant the
16   truth or try to sway it so it fit the attorney's theory of
17   the case?
18        A    No.  I just tried to tell it like it was.
19        Q    Did you ever hear Stacy say that in any of the
20   times that you and she were -- or she was writing a
21   declaration, that she wanted to fabricate a scenario or
22   slant it so it fit the -- what the attorney needed?
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection.  Beyond the scope.  I
24        didn't ask him about Stacy.
25             THE COURT:  I'm going to allow it.


1        A    No.  I never heard that.
3        Q    Now, recently have you been talking to Stacy?
4             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection to that, your Honor.
5        We really didn't get into that.  It's a whole new
6        area.
7             THE COURT:  True.  Sustained.
8             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.  Just one second and I think
9        I'm about done.
10             Oh, yeah.  I'm sorry.  I've got one last
11        exhibit here.
12             I'd like to move the three letters into
13        evidence.  104, 105 and 106.
14             THE COURT:  Well, I'm going to let them in.  As
15        to -- especially the letter from Mr. -- identified
16        as coming from Mr. Miscavige.  I don't know exactly
17        what the other two letters have to do with, but I
18        suppose if it relates to the same thing, we'll just
19        let them in.  They're authenticated.  I don't know
20        what they have to do with this case.  This hearing,
21        I should say.
22             MR. DANDAR:  Only because Mr. Weinberg brought
23        it up, your Honor.
25        Q    Let me show you 107.


1        A    There was one --
2        Q    There's a point?
3             MR. DANDAR:  Could he explain something that he
4        wants to tell you about one of the letters from Greg
5        Wilhere?
6             THE WITNESS:  There was a line in one of the
7        letters, your Honor, which is, I believe, relevant.
8             THE COURT:  All right.  Which line is it?
9             THE WITNESS:  It's Exhibit 106, the letter
10        which the date at the top is 24 August, 1998.
11             THE COURT:  Yes.
12             THE WITNESS:  Second page.  What he's referring
13        to here is a new directive would be put out with
14        regard to my assignment to the RPF.  And I bring
15        your attention to the last sentence of the top
16        paragraph.  It says, "This issue will also bring to
17        light that you were held at high esteem and
18        trusted."  And it's just relevant to my position at
19        the time.
20             THE COURT:  All right.
22        Q    Now, Mr. Young --
23             THE COURT:  Who is this Mr. Greg -- who is
24        Mr. -- who is Greg?
25             THE WITNESS:  Greg Wilhere was the inspector


1        general at the time.  He replaced Vicki Aznaran.
2             THE COURT:  Inspector general of --of RTC?
3             THE WITNESS:  Of RTC.
5        Q    That's while Mr. Miscavige was COB -- chairman of
6   the board of RTC?
7        A    Yes.
8        Q    All right.  Now, just this morning Mr. Weinberg
9   asked you questions about Defendant's Exhibit 209 and
10   introduced into evidence the -- what's purported to be the
11   full IRS response to what the Sea Organization is from the
12   Church of Scientology.
13             And then in the -- page 3 of 1, the second
14   highlighted paragraph says -- tries to relate the Sea
15   Organization to other common religious orders, and says that
16   unlike the other religious orders of other churches --
17        A    Can you give me a moment to find it?
18        Q    Okay.
19        A    What page is it?
20        Q    3 of 1.
21        A    3-1?  Okay.  All right.
22        Q    "Other religious orders have property, assets and
23   considerable personnel whose full-time job has to do with
24   administration of the order.  The Sea Org has none of this."
25             Is that a true statement as far as you know, and


1   in your experience?
2        A    Well, I know for one thing that there is a --
3   there's financial assets, large financial assets, that was
4   created by Hubbard and continued on, as far as I know, that
5   were called the Sea Org reserves.  And this is money that is
6   made by the Sea Org when they send a project out to an
7   organization and the organization is billed for it.  And
8   Mr. Hubbard wrote about that, and that's how they make their
9   money.  And the last I knew there was millions and millions
10   of dollars in those assets.
11        Q    Well, look at the Plaintiff's Exhibit 107 from the
12   Modern Management Technology Defined.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, I object because
14        Mr. Young left in 1989.  This was submitted in 1993.
15        And -- and what -- what Mr. Dandar's trying to get
16        him to do is to testify as to the state of the Sea
17        Org reserves in 1993 which he's not competent to do.
18             THE COURT:  That's true.
19             MR. DANDAR:  Well, not the amount.
20             THE COURT:  Well, what difference does it make?
21             MR. WEINBERG:  The existence --
22             MR. DANDAR:  Because this document that they
23        just had entered into evidence contains --
24             THE COURT:  When did they enter it into
25        evidence?


1             MR. DANDAR:  -- contains lies.
2             This is the document --
3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, excuse me for a second.
4             MR. DANDAR:  -- that they --
5             MR. WEINBERG:  Are you testifying?
6             THE COURT:  Just a second.  I'm asking him,
7        what is he talking about.
8             MR. DANDAR:  Defendant's Exhibit 209, which
9        Mr. Weinberg said is the complete copy of the
10        questions -- the answers from the Church of
11        Scientology to answer question 3A from the IRS about
12        the role of the Sea Org.  And here it says on page 3
13        of 1 the Sea Org has no assets.  It has no
14        administrative function.  It doesn't have a
15        property.
16             And then Mr. Hubbard's own dictionary, which I
17        just introduced as -- part of the dictionary -- as
18        Plaintiff's Exhibit 107, has a definition of Sea Org
19        reserves, and it talks about how the Sea Org does
20        have property and assets.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  It's a 1976 dictionary.  This is
22        a 1992 submission to the IRS.
23             MR. DANDAR:  So I guess they can put on
24        rebuttal and show us that this dictionary's been
25        altered by someone.


1             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, what's that have to do
2        with the case?
3             THE COURT:  I have no idea what it has to do
4        with the case, but apparently you brought it up.  So
5        go on, Mr. Dandar, get it done.
6             MR. WEINBERG:  Just for the record, I did not
7        bring it up.  Mr. Young -- Mr. Dandar put in two
8        pages from a five or six page submission.
9             THE COURT:  But then you had him read from it.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  No, I didn't have him read from
11        it.
12             THE COURT:  Well, actually you did.  At least
13        that's my recollection.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  No, I didn't.  He -- he -- I
15        didn't ask him any questions about it other than
16        this is -- I had him look at it, "Is this the full
17        answer to the question that you took two pages out
18        of," and he said yes and that's it.  That's all I
19        did.
20             THE COURT:  What was it that he read from where
21        we had to go through this explanation from
22        Mr. Dandar that he wasn't admitting that it was true
23        but it was just that that's what it said.  What was
24        that?
25             MR. DANDAR:  Captain and brevet captain.


1             MR. WEINBERG:  That was from the page he put
2        in.
3             THE COURT:  Well, this was this morning.
4             Look, I don't care.
5             MR. DANDAR:  This is my last question.
6             THE COURT:  I'm going to let it in.
7             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
8             THE COURT:  Thank you.  Go on ahead.
10        Q    So Mr. Young, in the Exhibit 107, the Hubbard
11   Dictionary of Administration and Management written by L.
12   Ron Hubbard, turn to page -- beginning at 464.  Does it not
13   start to define the Sea Org and then have many definitions
14   afterward concerning things like the Sea Org central bureau,
15   Sea Org org board, the Sea Org estates captain, things like
16   that?
17        A    There's a number of definitions that -- where Sea
18   Org is the preface phrase to the definition, yes.
19        Q    And turn to page 466.  The definition of Sea Org
20   reserves, talking about the amount of money collected for
21   the corporation over and above expenses.
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Do you know whether or not, in 1989 when you left,
24   that Mr. Hubbard's dictionary, after he died in '86, was
25   changed?


1        A    I don't know of it being changed.
2        Q    Do you know if there -- if it was -- if just
3   hypothetically if it was changed, was there any written
4   policy or directives from Mr. Hubbard that would permit the
5   definition of Sea Org and Sea Org reserves to be changed
6   after his death?
7        A    No.
8             MR. DANDAR:  That's all I have.
9             And I move 107 into evidence.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Object for the reason I said
11        before.  It's a 1976 dictionary.
12             THE COURT:  Well --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Even before -- I mean, there's
14        been -- Mr. Dandar listed --
15             THE COURT:  If it's been changed, you surely
16        have somebody you can call.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  It has been changed.
18             THE COURT:  Well, then call a witness.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  But --
20             THE COURT:  He says it hasn't, it wouldn't be
21        and it couldn't be.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  But I have a
23        different question to ask --
24             THE COURT:  All right.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  -- which I think will clear --


1                        CROSS EXAMINATION
3        Q    The Sea Org reserves, you know that when you look
4   at this definition, they're not talking about a bank account
5   of the Sea Org; they're talking about bank accounts of
6   various corporations and organizations in the Church of
7   Scientology, like the Church of Scientology California or
8   CSI or something like that, correct?  That's what this is
9   talking about.
10        A    Could you -- could you rephrase that?  I lost you
11   in that question.
12        Q    You just -- Mr. Dandar just had you look at this
13   definition of Sea Org reserves.  Do you see that?
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    And the definition says, "Often miscalled Flag
16   reserves or management reserves, which they are not.  Sea
17   Org reserves are --" and it says -- "the amount of money
18   collected for the corporation over and above expenses that
19   is sent by various units to the corporation's banks."
20             And when they're talking about the corporations,
21   they're not talking about the Sea Org; they're talking about
22   corporations like the church corporations, Church of
23   Scientology California, the church corporation in -- in New
24   York or Boston or -- or now if there was one, CSI or
25   something like that.  That's what they're talking about,


1   correct?
2        A    The corporation, yes.
3        Q    They're not talking about the Sea Org has a bank
4   account somewhere, are they?
5        A    That's not what it says.  They were just set --
6   you know -- I -- I don't need to explain that.
7        Q    All right.  Now, you -- you got emotional and told
8   this story about your dog, and the purpose was to leave the
9   impression at this hearing that the Church of Scientology
10   had something to do with your dog getting beaten up.  That's
11   the impression that you left, and you even said that's part
12   of fair game, right?
13        A    Yes, I said fair game, but I'm not going to
14   concede to the front end of your statement.
15        Q    You're not?
16        A    That I -- my purpose was to sway someone.  It was
17   an emotional event for me.
18        Q    But you don't -- as you sit here today, and back
19   then, you don't have and you didn't have back then a shred
20   of evidence that the Church of Scientology or anybody
21   connected with the Church of Scientology had anything to do
22   with your dog getting hurt that you found at the vet.  You
23   didn't have any evidence of that, did you?
24        A    No.
25        Q    It's sort of like when you wrote the affidavit and


1   you dropped the footnote about David Miscavige's mother?  Is
2   that what you're trying to do today?
3        A    Please, Mr. Weinberg, I really --
4        Q    Or mother-in-law?
5        A    If you want to equate my dog being beaten with my
6   testimony, I really can't respond to that.
7             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't have any further
8        questions.
9             THE COURT:  Anything further?
10             MR. DANDAR:  No, your Honor.
11             THE COURT:  Thank you, sir, for coming.  You
12        may stand down and you may be excused.
13             THE WITNESS:  Thank you for your courtesy, your
14        Honor.
15             THE COURT:  You're very welcome.
16             All right.  Is Mr. Prince here?
17             MR. DANDAR:  I will check.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  We have Mr. McGowan.
19             THE COURT:  I know.  I want to see if
20        Mr. Prince was here first, and then I thought if he
21        wasn't, we could --
22             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sorry.
23             MR. DANDAR:  No, he's not here.
24             THE COURT:  All right.  We're going to go ahead
25        and take a recess, and I'll have Mr. Weinberg and


1        Mr. McGowan and Mr. Dandar and we will go -- I don't
2        think we need a court reporter at this time -- to my
3        chambers.  You all take five minutes, then you come
4        to my chambers.  You'll give me 10 minutes.
5             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  And I may bring a cup of
6        coffee?
7             THE COURT:  You may bring a cup of coffee.
8        We're going to be on break for at least 20 minutes,
9        maybe 30.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Thank you.
11             THE COURT:  Maybe 40.  I don't know how long
12        it'll take us to get through this.
13             You all be lurking about say after 10:30,
14        10:35.
15             I'll tell you what.  Let's just try for 10:45.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  To go to your chambers?
17             THE COURT:  No, no, dear; to be back in court.
18        You be in my chambers in 10 minutes.
19               (A recess was taken at 10:11 a.m.)
20         (The proceedings were reconvened at 11:25 a.m.)
21             THE COURT:  Where are our good friends from the
22        defense side?
23             Okay.  Mr. Dandar, you indicated that you had
24        not seen this list.  According to Mr. Keane's
25        certificate of service, this was furnished by mail


1        to you on the 17th.  Was that yesterday?
2             MR. DANDAR:  Yesterday, yes.
3             MS. WEST:  That's why we don't have it.
4             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, presumably it will
5        come today.  What I suggest we do is that you get
6        it -- I mean, you can see mine if you want.
7             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't think I have that
8        either --
9             THE COURT:  Okay.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  -- to tell you the truth.
11             THE COURT:  So what we're going to have to do
12        is just wait till you all get this, see if you
13        object to this and what part you object to, and then
14        we'll just have to try and resolve it.
15             MR. DANDAR:  You talking about the search list?
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Do you have any of your notes on
17        that?
18             THE COURT:  Any what?
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Do you have any of your notes on
20        this?
21             THE COURT:  On the list?
22             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  On the -- whatever he
23        submitted to you or what's he's submitted to you --
24        or if he's sent it to everybody maybe somebody could
25        make a copy and then we could look at it at lunch


1        and maybe talk about it when we get back.
2             THE COURT:  Oh, you mean do I have --
3             No, this is the original.  So no I do not.
4             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, maybe somebody can make a
5        copy of that, give one to us and one to Ken and
6        maybe at lunchtime we could look at it and talk
7        afterwards.
8             THE COURT:  Okay.  Maybe somebody can.
9             MR. WEINBERG:  I mean, if you give it to us, we
10        can make a copy of it.
11             THE COURT:  There's what I have here, is the
12        original.  It has a very poor page 2, but I can
13        pretty well make out who it is.  I think you all can
14        too.  Somebody want to take it, make a copy of that?
15             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.  I'll do that.
16             THE COURT:  Don't make it on that machine of
17        yours.
18             MR. DANDAR:  At lunchtime.
19             THE COURT:  Okay.  At lunchtime you can do
20        that.
21             In any event, we'll have to address this after
22        lunch.  What we'll do is we'll go through -- I've
23        now gone through this list with counsel.  And as far
24        as those that I did not have -- hadn't made a
25        decision on, we went through -- I think we agreed on


1        everything.
2             Did you find out anything about Judge Penick's
3        courtroom?
4             MR. McGOWAN:  Yes, I did.  I just talked to
5        Judge Penick.  And in fact, he allowed the LMT to
6        come in and film or videotape the proceedings, along
7        with some French group.  So there were two cameras
8        in that courtroom.
9             THE COURT:  So they were in there legitimately.
10             MR. McGOWAN:  They were in there legitimately.
11             THE COURT:  Okay.  And in that case, you all
12        don't want them, correct?
13             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  We don't want them.
14             THE COURT:  Okay.  So I'm going to strike
15        through those question marks and put "no's" on all
16        of those.
17             And Mr. Dandar objects to some of these, but
18        before I just start with the ones I know he objects
19        to, I'm going to need you to take a look at the --
20             Oh, here's -- I need you to look and see if
21        there's anybody you object to on there that you
22        haven't seen, okay?
23             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
24             THE COURT:  And Counselor, I think you can go
25        ahead and be excused.


1             MR. McGOWAN:  Thank you, your Honor.
2             THE COURT:  Thank you for coming.
3                (Mr. McGowan left the courtroom.)
4             MR. WEINBERG:  You going to make us a copy too?
5             MR. DANDAR:  Yeah.
6             Judge, I'm filing request to produce Vicki
7        Aznaran settlement documents, since her declarations
8        were entered subsequent to that settlement or as
9        part of that settlement.  I don't know if you want a
10        copy of this or not.
11             THE COURT:  I don't know.  What is this?  A
12        request to produce?
13             MR. DANDAR:  To the defendant, yes.
14             THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, I'll just deal with it
15        when we see if they produce it.  Then I don't even
16        need to see it.  If they don't --
17             MR. DANDAR:  All right.  That's fine.
18             THE COURT:  -- why then you can give it to me
19        at that time.
20             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  Here's one that I didn't go over
22        with you all.  December of '99, a cult workshop.
23        Anybody know what that is?
24             MR. DANDAR:  Well, it -- it's a meeting of
25        people who want to talk about cults.


1             But again, I would object to -- it doesn't have
2        anything to do with this case or this hearing.
3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
4             THE COURT:  It's hard to say, because there are
5        witnesses here.  I have no idea.  But this is one of
6        those ones where there are some witnesses that are
7        clear witnesses and there are some that aren't.  And
8        Mr. Dandar, this is one where you are listed as a
9        witness so we'll have to deal with it anyway.  I
10        mean, you're listed as a party who was there.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I would certainly think
12        that would be relevant.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Except I'm not a witness.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  But there's nothing privileged
15        about it.  And that's part of what we say was
16        happening in December of 1999.
17             THE COURT:  Remember what I'm saying here is
18        that you -- this -- as I understand, all these
19        discovery orders were produced pursuant to a trial,
20        not pursuant to this hearing.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  They were produced --
22             THE COURT:  So we're going to have Mr. Dandar
23        be able to look at this and then we're going to have
24        an argument on this --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.


1             THE COURT:  -- as to whether or not anything
2        that Mr. Dandar is a participant in is something
3        that is to be released.
4             MR. DANDAR:  May I look at that during lunch
5        or --
6             THE COURT:  What, this?
7             No, you may not look at this.
8             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
9             THE COURT:  That's private.  Neither of you get
10        to see this.
11             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
12             THE COURT:  This was sent to me.  I'll seal it
13        back up just like I got it, and it'll be --
14             No, you may not.
15             I will go through those that have you listed in
16        the event I decide that somehow you qualify as a
17        witness, and tell you which ones that they are so
18        you can be heard on each and every one of them.  I
19        think there are about five of them.  And there's an
20        awful lot of tapes here.
21             Okay.  It's 11:30.  It's about lunchtime.  You
22        want to get started?
23             MR. DANDAR:  We could start or take an early
24        lunch.  I'll leave it up to the court.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  I sort of suggest we take an


1        early lunch and come back.
2             THE COURT:  All right.  If we do that, what I
3        suggest we do is that, Mr. Dandar, you make your
4        copy of that and give it to counsel, and you show me
5        and tell me what people you don't think are
6        witnesses.
7             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
8             THE COURT:  I'm going to have to try to get
9        Mr. Keane here to see how he got this list, because
10        his -- his order says that it --
11             Please.  That's an original.  Don't be messing
12        it up.  I mean, if you don't have a staple remover,
13        for heaven sake --
14             MR. LIROT:  Judge, I'm a master at that and it
15        will come out perfect.
16             I apologize.
17             THE COURT:  Okay.  We'll go ahead and be in
18        recess until -- might as well make it -- well, we'll
19        say quarter to 1.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  Do you want to be heard?  Was this
22        211, which is this document that you had some
23        objection to 'cause you said it was work product,
24        was that ever introduced?
25             MR. WEINBERG:  We didn't introduce it.


1             THE COURT:  Okay.
2             MR. WEINBERG:  I didn't, because of the --
3             THE COURT:  Possible problem?
4             MR. WEINBERG:  -- circumstances.
5             THE COURT:  Okay.
6             MR. WEINBERG:  So -- you know, so once that's
7        cleared up, I probably will introduce it.
8             THE COURT:  Okay.  How about -- I've got here
9        what appears to be Plaintiff's 104, -5 and -6.
10        Those were introduced, weren't they?
11             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes, they were.
13             THE COURT:  And then there's one --
14             I guess that's it.
15             MR. FUGATE:  103, I think, was that notice
16        of -- judicial notice on the affidavits that you
17        gave her earlier?  Is that what that is?
18             THE COURT:  Yeah.
19             MR. DANDAR:  There's some I haven't moved into
20        evidence yet, Judge, that Mr. Young identified.
21             THE COURT:  Well, look, we're done for the
22        morning, so I'm not doing any more record business.
23        We just took a lunch break.
24                (A recess was taken at 11:25 a.m.)


2                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
4   STATE OF FLORIDA         )
6             I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
7   proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and
complete record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not a relative,
9   employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
10   counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
interested in the action.
12   WITNESS my hand and official seal this 18th day of June,
13   2002.
15                             ______________________________