From wog_world@yahoo.com Fri Sep 07 19:14:08 2001 [REFORMATTED FOR EASIER READING] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, Plaintiff, -vs- CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., Defendants. _______________________________/ PROCEEDINGS: VIDEO DEPOSITION TERESA SUMMERS DATE: September 5, 2001 BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT BEACH PLACE: Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppell & Burns, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33757-1368 REPORTED BY: Christine V. Ales, CSMR-5144, CVR Notary Public APPEARANCES: KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ. Dandar & Dandar, P.A. 5340 W. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 33609 Attorney for Plaintiff (APPEARANCES: CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) APPEARANCES: JOHN M. MERRETT, ESQ. 2716 Herschel Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 (904) 388-8891 Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff KENDRICK MOXON, ESQ. Moxon & Korbrin 1100 Cleveland Street Suite 900 Clearwater, Florida 33755 (727) 443-5620 MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, ESQ. 740 Broadway - Fifth Floor New York, New York 10003 (212) 982-9870 LEE FUGATE, ESQ. 0170928 Zuckerman, Spaeder, Taylor & Evans, LLP 401 E. Jackson Street Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 221-1010 Attorneys for Defendant Church of Scientology I N D E X WITNESS PAGE TERESA SUMMERS Direct Examination Mr. Moxon 36 Cross-Examination Mr. Merrett 102 Redirect Examination Mr. Moxon 104 E X H I B I T S DESCRIPTION PAGE Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 22 Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 41 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. DANDAR: We're -- we're here on two matters that I know of, and one is for the Court to enter an order concerning production of documents for this coming Friday deposition of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the second one is my motion for stay on behalf of the estate of the Court's order requiring the estate to divulge -- actually produce checks or bank statements, etcetera, concerning any funds in excess of $500 that the estate has directly or indirectly received from Mr. Minton and the Court ordered that production and I filed a motion for stay pending appellate review. I noticed it for this week, but on the other side of the coin, at the hearing the Defendant Church of Scientology said they were only interested in the monies that Mr. Minton has provided me. Well, since that hearing they filed another request to produce, now they want to know anyone else in the world that's given me any money to defray costs in this litigation, which I just served a response on objecting on the same grounds, I added a few more concerning anybody else, and so, I would like to have that heard. It's not noticed yet, but I'd like to have that heard, and if you grant it, I'd like to have a stay entered as well as the one for Mr. Minton's contributions or loans so that I can appeal it all at once. What's your pleasure? JUDGE BEACH: Well, I have no objections to hearing it all today subject to whatever the other side says. They may have an objection as being too quick on that motion, and so it's well-taken and I'll hear just the first part of the motion, that is the stay on -- whatever I've already ruled on. MR. DANDAR: Okay. JUDGE BEACH: So what says -- MR. HERTZBERG: I'll be responding on this whole issue, your Honor. I'd like to just focus on that only, but that's really ripe and present before you which is the original ruling -- JUDGE BEACH: So be it. MR. HERTZBERG: -- on the matters that had already been decided. JUDGE BEACH: Well, let me say one thing. I've gotten several orders through the Court Administrator's office on these rulings that I've made. I just went ahead and signed them because there was no indication that there was any objection to them, so I may have prematurely signed the orders. Not these orders, these orders I just got at home last night, these are proposed orders from Mr. Moxon's office. I haven't signed those, but I signed some other one, and -- and I may have been premature on it, so if I have and you get those orders and they're contrary to what I resolve today then disregard them. But, secondly, before you submit any orders to me on anything I rule on, make sure the other side agrees to them as to form only, not -- not necessarily as to result, but as to form. Do not submit anything to me that has not been agreed to as to what I rule, not necessarily that it was a current rule, and that will -- because a lot of times I sign stuff, I don't remember exactly how I ruled on it or the -- the fine points of the ruling and I'll sign if it doesn't appear there's any objection to it. So I want that cleared with opposition before you send it to me; okay? MR. DANDAR: And if the opposition doesn't agree? JUDGE BEACH: Well, if they don't agree, we'll have a hearing on it. MR. DANDAR: Then we have a hearing? JUDGE BEACH: Yeah. MR. DANDAR: Okay. That's fine. That's the way we do it. JUDGE BEACH: Yeah, that's -- well, that's the way we like to do it, we don't always do it that way. MR. DANDAR: Well, I've -- I've always done it that way, but I've always heard it's that way and that's fine. JUDGE BEACH: I'm just saying what I like. MR. MOXON: What were the orders; do you recall? JUDGE BEACH: No, I don't recall, I just -- they were some orders that -- I get so many orders in, it's really hard to keep track of them, and I just have to rely on the orders to submit the order that I entered and -- and that it's been cleared with the other side, but sometimes I'm overly optimistic. MR. MOXON: Okay. The only orders that I'm aware of that were submitted outside the one that you signed in court was to the motion for contempt that was heard last week. JUDGE BEACH: Well, that may have been it; yeah. That may have been it. It's hard for me to keep track of all the motions that are coming across in this case. I rule on them as they come across and move on. Okay. Let's go ahead on this question of the stay. MR. DANDAR: The Plaintiff -- JUDGE BEACH: Have you filed the appeal? MR. DANDAR: No, because I want -- I want to combine them, so I want -- JUDGE BEACH: You're anticipating I'm going to rule against you on the second one? MR. DANDAR: No, no. But I just -- I don't want to have two appeals basically, so I haven't filed the appeal yet. If you think that's a prerequisite, then, fine, I'll go file the appeal and, hopefully, we can hear all this on Friday. JUDGE BEACH: Well, you're asking for a stay, so it certainly would be a prerequisite because there's nothing to stay at this point. MR. DANDAR: Okay. So let's postpone that and then we'll come back Friday and I'll do that, and I'll have it done by then, and I'll do both of them. JUDGE BEACH: That's fine. MR. DANDAR: The other one is the issue of the -- and that's really Mr. Merrett's issue, although I did take five minutes to type up an order. It's the LMT's production, and I'll let Mr. Merrett do that because I really don't have a dog in it (sic), as they say, except -- except I've always been objecting to these depositions and production of documents for people that have nothing to do with this case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MOXON: Well, I have -- after the order, your Honor, we ordered the transcript expedited and I prepared a proposed order and sent it to Mr. Dandar. I didn't hear -- JUDGE BEACH: This one? MR. MOXON: Yeah. I didn't hear back from him, but in the meantime I guess he came to the deposition on Friday with his own order. I don't know if he gave you my letter of objection. In any event, it appears that we have three different proposed orders as to what happened. I have attached a copy of the transcript of your oral ruling so you can follow that and see that it's -- that it comports with your ruling. I don't -- I know that pursuant to the Rules we don't re-argue a matter now. JUDGE BEACH: Where is the difference? MR. MOXON: Well, there are some subtle differences. I guess the primary one is that they are trying to carve out a number of records by -- through a re-definition of witnesses. Judge Quesada had heard this issue at some length because there was -- there was an attempt back in December and then again in January to tell -- to tell Judge Quesada that the scope of these orders from Judge Moody should be very narrow because there are only a few witnesses, and they didn't consider the people that didn't have personal knowledge with respect to what happened back in 1995 concerning Lisa McPherson were really witnesses. Of course, we always had a defense in the case, an affirmative defense of abuse of process which ultimately became a counter-claim, was transformed into a counter-claim by order of Judge Quesada, and a number of other witnesses and, of course, we had this whole issue of Minton and intimidation of witnesses and payments to witnesses and whatnot. So what Judge Quesada had ruled based on arguments from me and for Mr. Merrett and for Mr. Dandar is that witnesses means the witness list of either party's plus, plus anyone that's a relevant witness. Essentially, what -- what you had ordered last week is that a witness is anyone that may have knowledge of any of the issues in the case, but the starting point, of course, was the -- was the filed witness lists of the parties and I think that's -- that's really the only dispute. They also left out your admonition that there could be -- potentially be an incarceration if the witness didn't comply, if LMT didn't comply, that's why I've added that, but I believe that's the only difference. So my definition of witness, if you'll look at my proposed order, is paragraph six. JUDGE BEACH: Okay. MR. MOXON: And I believe that comports with what you said in court. MR. DANDAR: And I believe it doesn't. What you said in court, and I have the transcript right here for you to read and highlighted, is that you are limiting the scope of the deposition, notwithstanding what may have taken place prior to you getting involved in discovery matters of this case, you as a senior circuit judge has said well, the scope of discovery for all witnesses in this case is any witness that has any fact, directly or indirectly, about this case arose out of the incident that occurred with respect to Lisa McPherson, any witness that has any evidence of any activity with other witness' gathering of information from other witnesses or payments to other witnesses and that's the scope that we're dealing with. And you reserved and said we are not going to get involved in the allegations of the counter-claim because there's still pending a motion to dismiss. And, finally, and I have this from the e-mail from the court reporter of the transcript, where I said what the Church of Scientology's trying to do is they're coming in and they're trying to put witnesses that they have on the witness list of people who don't have facts on the death of Lisa McPherson, and you said well, that's what we're dealing with. That's why I set the scope on this. And so what Mr. Moxon has done is ignored your setting of the scope on this, and I ask you to adopt either Mr. Merrett's proposed order or the Plaintiff's because -- JUDGE BEACH: Let me see his order. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I sent that to you through Judge Gross' office -- JUDGE BEACH: Well -- MR. MERRETT: -- and it may be the one you already signed. JUDGE BEACH: Yeah, it may be and -- and I don't have it, so let me see it. What paragraph is that definition of that scope? MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry, I have to get it back from you because you have all the copies now. Seven of the Plaintiff's proposed order. JUDGE BEACH: Well, I think that the Trust scope is more in compliance with what I ruled on at the hearing than the one under paragraph six of the Scientology order, to tell you the truth. MR. MOXON: I'll show you, your Honor, Mr. Dandar did do a very accurate rendition of what was -- and I didn't want to interrupt him, but this, first of all, is the scope of Judge Quesada's order when he addressed this at some great length. JUDGE BEACH: He seems to be hung up on jerks (sic). I'm not sure that ruling defines the scope of discovery. MR. MERRETT: Judge, if I could, I think we started this by saying that we don't reargue these things -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, I understand that. I'm just trying to find this. MR. MOXON: Here's what you actually said. I mean the point is obviously it starts with witness lists. JUDGE BEACH: Okay. Well -- MR. MOXON: Further order is the -- the order at issue which is the one you -- you said at July 18th is any person ever identified as a witness in this case. JUDGE BEACH: Yeah, and that does not go to the scope, however, of who it is -- qualifies as a witness, that's just a blanket statement, any witness. In order to clarify the point -- MR. MOXON: Here's the further order of July 20th -- JUDGE BEACH: In order to clarify the point, and to the extent it may contradict what Judge Quesada has ruled, I'm going to stick with the definition of what I understand I ruled in the transcript and is contained in -- MR. DANDAR: Plaintiff's -- JUDGE BEACH: -- Plaintiff's proposed order, paragraph seven. I'd like a statement in the order that says that the Court reserves further rulings on the scope of discovery in the event that the motion to dismiss the counter- claim is denied. MR. DANDAR: That's fine. MR. MOXON: So may I see those? JUDGE BEACH: You may. What I'm interested in are the witnesses that have any information, directly or indirectly, concerning the facts surrounding the death of Lisa McPherson and any witnesses that have any information concerning the payments or approach to any witnesses in this case, directly or indirectly, about their testimony to be presented in this case. In so far as the abuse of process is concerned, I reserve judgment on scope of discovery on that until the Court determines whether or not there is a cause of action in this case and that's -- that's the ruling. MR. MOXON: So just to clarify that, is you -- what you indicated so they don't exclude these people, the ones that you refer to that have knowledge of payments or collection of evidence of other witnesses absolutely includes Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks because those are the primary ones -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, I'm not going to rule now until a witness is listed for deposition and there's an objection made to it and then we can have an argument on whether or not the witness fits the definition. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you okay, well, I don't know which witnesses will fly in the future, I think at such time as a witness is listed in which you decide has an objection because it doesn't fall within the scope of discovery, then we'll have a hearing on it. MR. DANDAR: Judge, where can I deliver the revised order? I'll revised my proposed order for you from the language you just said. MR. MOXON: One moment. I just have another issue. I just want to make sure, because we've gone through this issue so many times. I mean Judge Quesada and Judge Moody, of course, already found that those individuals are indeed witnesses and has ordered that their depositions go forward, that's why we're here, so I just want to make sure that come Friday we don't have an argument from Mr. Merrett that based on your ruling today we don't have any documents anymore because none of these people were here when Lisa McPherson was here and -- JUDGE BEACH: There's no guarantee that any of my rulings will avoid any arguments in the future. MR. MOXON: But if you could help to clarify that. I mean, obviously -- I mean that's why we're here. JUDGE BEACH: Well, I would say based on what I've heard so far that Minton be included in that scope of that discovery for deposition. MR. DANDAR: But concerning whether or not he's paid -- made payments to witnesses who know facts or who are going to testify in this case? JUDGE BEACH: Yeah. MR. DANDAR: See, Judge Moody already went through ad nauseam when he was involved in the case in the year 2000 and limited the scope of Stacy Brooks' deposition or the Lisa McPherson Trust deposition to actual real witnesses in the real world of people who have facts about Lisa McPherson or payments to witnesses who are testifying in this case which is what you ordered and was what the transcript that you said last week, it's the same thing, and -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, let me just say this to clarify it. First of all, we're talking about discovery, and Florida has rather wide latitude in discovery calculated to lead to evidence not necessarily admissible, but evidence that might be germane to the case. From what I've heard in this case, the Trust has become so intertwined in the Plaintiff's case in this, it's hard to tell where the -- Lisa McPherson's case leaves off and the Trust starts. The Trust has been very active from what I've heard in all these depositions in the pursuit of this case, and so that being true and Florida being a rather liberal state on discovery, I think that they're entitled to know what estate -- what the Trust interest is in this case. We're always interested in the interest of a witness who testifies in a case, that's part of the jury's evaluation of the witness' credibility, and so because of that fact, that's why -- I may -- my ruling may have enlarged whatever Moody has done, Judge Moody or Judge Quesada. I don't like to be bound by prior judges' orders if I don't think they're correct, and if I'm going to get reversed, I want to get reversed on my ruling not some other judge's ruling, I've done that before. MR. DANDAR: Well, the person sitting in front of you, Teresa Summers, has withdrawn at her own initiative as a witness for the Plaintiff, so she's no longer a witness for Plaintiff because of actions taken by Scientology which will be subject to another hearing. JUDGE BEACH: How does a witness withdraw as a witness for a party? I don't understand that. MR. DANDAR: She just said she doesn't want to be testifying and she doesn't want to be involved -- she was really -- JUDGE BEACH: Most witnesses never want to be involved in a lawsuit, but they are. They are compelled to be -- present themselves as a witness. MR. DANDAR: That's a silly thing for me to have said. JUDGE BEACH: Wouldn't that be nice if all the witnesses elected not to be witnesses? MR. DANDAR: So, anyway -- MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar actually brings up another issue of Jesse Prince. JUDGE BEACH: Well, let him finish, please. MR. DANDAR: That's all I had to say. There's another motion that's going to be coming and I don't want to jump the gun and talk about it. JUDGE BEACH: Well, let's stick with this order. I'm going to incorporate paragraph -- whatever paragraph, seven of that order as the scope of the discovery in this matter. MR. DANDAR: And I'm going to add on about the counter-claim. JUDGE BEACH: And add on about the counter- claim. MR. DANDAR: And where can I deliver that today to you? JUDGE BEACH: At my apartment. MR. MOXON: Let me see it first, Mr. Dandar, don't forget -- JUDGE BEACH: Yeah. Now, we're going to have to have these looked at by both sides before submitted to me, and if there's any objection as to the form of the order, not the contents of the order, but the form of it; in other words, it departs from what you understood my ruling was, then we'll have a hearing. MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm going to submit to the identical proposed order that's in front of you, and I'm going to add on the language the Court reserves for the rulings on the scope of discovery and the motion to dismiss -- if both the motion -- if the motion to dismiss the counter-claim is denied, then the discovery will be enlarged or you will revisit it. JUDGE BEACH: Yeah, we'll -- MR. DANDAR: Revisit it? JUDGE BEACH: Well, revisit it. MR. DANDAR: Right. Okay. MR. MOXON: Again, just to clarify. I hate to do this, but the background here is funny, you'll see that small nuances and Mr. Dandar's comments can have a large effect, but there appears, of course, a -- there's an affirmative defense all the way through here with respect to the intimidation of witnesses and that's not a counter-claim -- while that is a counter-claim issue, it's also an issue in the main case and I'm more concerned with what's going to happen on Friday now that there's going to be a view that now somehow we can exclude a lot of witnesses. I mean obviously Stacy Brooks, Robert Minton, they've been ordered to pay a lot of money because they've refused to appear as witnesses and -- and all the Courts previously have found that they're -- they're necessary witnesses. JUDGE BEACH: I'm not going to rule on the future or any prospective issue that might come up. When the issue comes up, you set it for hearing and I'll rule on it at that point. MR. MOXON: Okay. JUDGE BEACH: But I can't tailor an order that's going to meet every instance that comes up and resolve it in the future. I don't resolve prospective questions. MR. MOXON: So one last thing, then, is we have, of course, these witness lists that were filed back in -- in May of last year where everyone identified and said these people are witnesses, the parties have identified these witnesses, and those witness lists were -- were kind of in stone at that point and that -- that's where a lot of this discovery arose out of, and so notwithstanding other people that might fit under the general number of who is a witness or who might be a witness in the future, those people we know, so -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, it's understood that there's a continuing duty to disclose any witnesses that have any information concerning this case that fit within the scope of the discovery, and if you later discover those witnesses to exist, you have a duty to disclose them to the other side. This is true for both sides. MR. MOXON: Yeah. I'm just referring to the scope of the discovery what they said we have to disclose information with respect to witnesses, that those witnesses that are on the witness lists are known, they are identified and they are witnesses. JUDGE BEACH: Okay. Anything else? MR. DANDAR: No, sir. JUDGE BEACH: Are we ready? MR. MERRETT: I understand the court reporter's got a whole bucket of stuff she has to do before the video depo. MR. HERTZBERG: Just to come back on this whole issue for one moment before Mr. Dandar leaves. I don't believe I'm going to be able to attend on Friday, and I was wondering if -- if we could set up -- if we were able to set up a speakerphone whether I could address the Court on that issue on Friday? JUDGE BEACH: No problem. MR. HERTZBERG: Thank you. JUDGE BEACH: Are you leaving? MR. DANDAR: I don't know. (WHEREUPON BRIEF PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record. COURT REPORTER: This is the case of Dell Liebreich as personal representative of the Estate of Lisa McPherson versus Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Janis Johnson, Alain Kartuzinski and David Houghton, D.D.S. in the Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Civil Division. The date is September 5th, it is approximately 10:35 a.m. Will Counsel please state their appearances for voice identification? MR. DANDAR: Ken Dandar for the Estate of Lisa McPherson. MR. MERRETT: John Merrett for the witness. MR. MOXON: Kendrick Moxon for the Defendant, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. MR. HERTZBERG: Michael Lee Hertzberg for the Defendant, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. MR. FUGATE: Lee Fugate, same. JUDGE BEACH: Robert Beach, senior circuit judge. COURT REPORTER: Okay, ma'am. Would you please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? MS. SUMMERS: Yes. MR. MERRETT: Ms. Summers has been previously deposed and we have a pending motion for protective order set for hearing in front of Judge Schaeffer. I think it's set for the 26th of October, and I have a declaration, I'm giving the original to the court reporter and copies to opposing Counsel, and based on the pendency of the protective order which was filed last week or week before last, we're going to be suspending the deposition pending ruling on that. (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 marked for identification.) MR. MOXON: I've got something to say about that. MR. MERRETT: Interestingly, you don't. JUDGE BEACH: You say there's a protective order or -- MR. MERRETT: There's a hearing on the motion for protective order. JUDGE BEACH: For a protective order? MR. MERRETT: And the Rule specifically provides for suspension pending the bringing and disposition of such a motion and that's what we're doing. MR. MOXON: I disagree with Mr. Merrett. In fact, Mr. Merrett has been sanctioned on this in the past as to Stacy Brooks when she wouldn't appear for a deposition because he filed a motion and Judge Moody sanctioned her, and pursuant to the Handbook of Discovery Practice, I thought he might do this, I brought it with me, specifically says in sum, a motion for protective order does not automatically stay pending discovery. Mr. Merrett and I have had this dispute before and I've showed him this law. JUDGE BEACH: What's that citation? MR. MOXON: Is the Handbook of Discovery Practice, Joint Committee of Trial Lawyers. The motion for protective order you may recall, your Honor, was filed before you last week, and, in fact, Mr. Merrett argued it before you at that hearing last week. He made arguments with respect to Ms. Summers, Mr. Jacobsen, Mr. Keller, and I kept my comments limited to my motion and asked you if at that time you wanted me to elaborate on it, and we didn't have a lot of time so we didn't -- we didn't reach this issue, but this was a motion that was filed before you by Mr. Merrett last week and not decided. Yesterday afternoon, he unilaterally sent me a letter saying I've decided to file this in front of Judge Schaeffer and set it for a hearing in six weeks' time, if I don't hear back from you in an hour or something, we'll just assume that it's okay with you. I wrote back to him and said first of all, this has already -- this matter is already pending in front of Judge Beach, one. And, two, the mere filing of the motion for protective order doesn't stop the deposition of a subpoenaed witness, there's no authority allowing it to. He's got to go and actually get a -- he's got to get an order, a protective order to stop the subpoena, and we all came here for this deposition, we prepared for it. She was subpoenaed on August 1st, he's had lots of time to -- to have a motion heard. If he wants to have it heard now, I certainly don't object. I'm prepared to argue his motion for protective order as to Ms. Summers. Saying I've decided on the day before the deposition to unilaterally put it off for six weeks because I feel like filing a further motion or having it heard by another judge is, I think, pretty clearly an attempt just to evade discovery, and, in fact, what's marked the past year and-a-half in this case and why both Mr. Merrett and his clients have been sanctioned a number of times by Judge Moody and by Judge Quesada. Mr. Merrett has been personally sanctioned three different times by Judge Quesada, jointly and severally because of this sort of thing. Robert Minton didn't show up for his deposition, it was alleged reason, he was sanctioned for that. So if we want to hear the motion now, fine, we can hear it now, but this is - this not a genuine discovery dispute and it's not -- it's certainly not a genuine way to do it. MR. MERRETT: Mr. Moxon has run true to form. This motion was filed some time ago. We tried repeatedly to set it with Judge Schaeffer. I showed up last week because I was told there was going to be something affecting my clients last week. The motion that was heard was a motion regarding the LMT, the Florida Rule specifically provides for suspension of a deposition pending disposition of a protective order and that's what we're doing. MR. MOXON: Which Rule? Mr. Merrett, which -- MR. MERRETT: The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. MR. MOXON: Would you perhaps tell us which one it is? MR. MERRETT: That was the first hearing date we could get. We gave you several dates. MR. MOXON: Mr. Merrett, what's the Rule you're referring to? MR. MERRETT: Do you have a copy of the Rules of Civil Procedure? MR. MOXON: Judge, the case that I'm referring is Momenah versus Ammache, which is 616 So.2nd 121, it's a 2nd DCA case which is completely opposite to your position, and it says, the 2nd DCA stated when a party seeking an order makes its motion as soon as it's become -- to obtain a hearing before the time set for compliance, indulgence should be considered in determining whether its pleading should be stricken and its action dismissed, which is what happened in that case. MR. MERRETT: Well, we're not having the motion now, but -- JUDGE BEACH: Go ahead, finish, please. MR. MOXON: In a similar instance, and -- and the law's clear, this is - is a summary for Florida -- for Florida judges with respect to Florida law and it says that your position is -- is incorrect. I don't know, your Honor, if he's saying he doesn't want to argue it now, if he wants to wait -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, I think the real question before me is whether or not I hear the motion or Judge Schaeffer hears the motion, and as I understand it, discovery motions have been delegated to me and my position is you don't get two bites out of the apple, you don't hear it before me and then if you don't like my decision you go to Judge -- before Judge Schaeffer because if that's the case, then my being here is superfluous. I'll hear the motion on whether or not the stay should be granted. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I need to make something clear. We never attempted to set this in front of you, we attempted to set it in front of Judge Schaeffer without result for a week. JUDGE BEACH: That's fine. MR. MERRETT: Judge Schaeffer said -- JUDGE BEACH: But it should have been before me. MR. MERRETT: Judge Schaeffer came in last week and said no. Judge Schaeffer came in last week and said these matters are not going before you unless everybody is in agreement. That was what she sat in that chair and told us all last week, and -- and we have been attempting for two or three weeks to get it set in front of Judge Schaeffer and have finally succeeded in doing that. JUDGE BEACH: Well, I either hear the discovery motions or I don't. You're not going to be able to pick and choose which motions I hear and which ones I don't. I'm either in or I'm out. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I'm not a party, I haven't picked or chosen anything. There's a judge assigned to this case, I filed a motion, I've set it in front of that judge. JUDGE BEACH: Well, I'm saying it should be set before me, particularly since you're not a party to it, that's the way I understand she set it up, that's the way it's going to be done. MR. FUGATE: Otherwise, there's no point in setting the depositions and having everybody -- JUDGE BEACH: That's correct. MR. MOXON: Just to correct the record, Mr. Merrett already set it in front of you, he noticed it in front of you last week. JUDGE BEACH: Well, I'm hearing it, period. MR. MERRETT: Then we need to set a date for it. JUDGE BEACH: Today's the date. MR. MERRETT: Your Honor, I am not prepared to proceed on that motion today. We set this in front of the judge assigned by random selection to hear the case. JUDGE BEACH: I was the judge appointed to hear the discovery, everybody was aware of that. MR. MERRETT: Judge, that's not what she said last Wednesday. JUDGE BEACH: Well, that's the way it is. That's the way I understand it. My understanding counts; true? MR. MERRETT: Frankly, I'm not sure based on what Judge Schaeffer said last week. JUDGE BEACH: Try me. I'm saying we're going to hear it right now. MR. MERRETT: And I'm objecting strenuously. JUDGE BEACH: That's fine. Your objection's noticed. Let's proceed. MR. MERRETT: This witness has previously been deposed by Scientology for nearly two and-a-half hours. She has certified in her statement that she has no knowledge concerning the facts of the case, that's also contained in the deposition that Mr. Moxon took from her a year ago. She doesn't know anything about the death of Lisa McPherson. The -- she has certified in this declaration that she has no knowledge of statements of any witnesses, and that she has no documents, no unprivileged documents responsive to their demand for discovery, but the principal point is she was subpoenaed by Scientology for deposition a year ago and deposed for over two hours and the -- the Rule that authorizes deposition on oral examination refers to depositions in the singular, not in the plural. She's been deposed once, there is no new information about the death of this girl. She has certified, again, and I'll give you the original of the declaration, that she doesn't have any information about any statements and they're simply not entitled to re-depose at will people who have already been completely deposed. This was not a deposition that was suspended. This was not a deposition where there was any dispute regarding the scope of discovery. They took her deposition a year ago, she didn't know anything, she doesn't know anything now, and so this is simply abusive. MR. MOXON: Ms. Summers' deposition was noticed by the Defendant after she appeared on Plaintiff's witness list as an -- as an alleged fact witness. Her deposition was taken initially in June of 2000, and she indicated that she really had no knowledge of the issues in this case. She apparently was brought in by Mr. Dandar for purposes of -- of attacking the Church. And incidentally, for the record, just to clarify for everyone here, to refer to the Defendant in this case or all the Defendants as, quote, Scientology, such as Mr. Merrett has just indicated, Scientology does, Scientology noticed her deposition, is akin to saying Judaism noticed her deposition or Judaism makes the argument, and it's just -- it's improper, it's a little offensive and I -- and I brought it up before, I just wanted to bring it up again so everyone's sensitive to that. In any event, her deposition was taken and her deposition lasted two hours and 22 minutes and she stated she had no personal knowledge. After her deposition she was hired by LMT, put on their payroll, again paid for by Mr. Minton, paid for by the same funds and the same investor that -- that pays the Plaintiff's Counsel in this case, and he pays for all the witnesses in this case. So the sequence is she's -- she's made a witness, she's not on the payroll then. She testifies and she has lengthy videotaped conversations, by the way, with Mr. Dandar, and we've sought some of that information in discovery and Mr. Dandar has declined to produce it yet, that's going to be the subject of another motion. JUDGE BEACH: This videotape, is this something for TV or -- MR. MOXON: No. It was -- there's a videotaped interview, Mr. Dandar and -- JUDGE BEACH: For what? MR. MERRETT: His trial preparation, Judge. MR. MOXON: Well, we don't know what. He interviewed her. He interviewed her, I guess. MR. DANDAR: That's what it was for. That's why I objected. MR. MOXON: Okay. Let's call it trial preparation. Let's -- let's even call it arguably work product that he was interviewing a potential witness. MR. MERRETT: If I could just interject. They discussed it thoroughly in her deposition. JUDGE BEACH: Let him finish, please. MR. MOXON: And we -- JUDGE BEACH: The way I like to do it is you make an argument, he makes an argument, you make an argument. We don't break them up. It's hard for me follow enough because you assume that I know facts that I don't know, so that's a nice procedure for me. I'm not a quick thinker, so I have to do it that way. MR. MOXON: Anyway, we were unable to get that video of this and she -- the witness actually claimed she had little information about it, so we ended the deposition at that point to see this video, weren't able to get it from Mr. Dandar. That's an issue that may or may not come up, but the key point here is that she thereafter went on and was involved in some of these activities that are of great concern, were of great concern to -- to Judge Moody very early in the case of intimidation of witnesses, payment to witnesses, endeavors to influence the jury pool. Two of the identified witnesses who are Church staff members where the subject of complaints by Ms. Summers while she was working for LMT and while she was being paid by Minton and LMT, two authorities. These were -- these were false complaints, they're -- they're horrible, scurrilous complaints which were rejected ultimately after investigations were done, but she has -- she's been involved in these and creating records and -- and this was an -- this was an area of great concern not only to the Defendants but some of the Defendant's witnesses, this is Marcus Quirino and Leslie Woodcraft, because of these governmental complaints regarding them or regarding their families. She has indicated on her public postings to the Internet on the Internet website that she's got some job where she actually does this. Her job is to collect information about the Church and about the Church members and make complaints about them. This is obviously -- has some potentially large effect on the jury pool and on the -- on the effect of -- of the Defendant in the community here, again, paid for by LMT, paid for by Minton. So to the extent that she's involved in these activities and has knowledge working with the other witnesses such as Ms. Brooks, Gerry Armstrong, etcetera, we want to know about it and we're entitled to -- entitled to discover information with respect to the existence of records and the specific attempts by her as an -- as an employee of LMT to intimidate or harass witnesses in this case. We're only asking questions at this deposition concerning activities that occurred after her last deposition, nothing before. There's a flat cutoff there. MR. MERRETT: And, Judge, the point is that this is not a refresher deposition. What they want to ask her -- this is not a situation as in a personal injury case where you re-depose the doctor to find out if the guy can walk now or if he's going to be able to walk before the trial. This is a situation in which the -- he's just told you that the purpose of this deposition is not to explore anything relating to the death of Lisa McPherson, but simply to explore what it is that she does for a living at the Lisa McPherson Trust. She -- again, you have her declaration before you, she doesn't have any information about any witnesses. She doesn't have any statements from any witnesses. She doesn't know any of this. And if they are correct, then they are quite simply entitled to depose anybody just every two weeks whenever they feel like it, what have you done since then, what have you done since then, what do you know. The fact is, she's been deposed, she doesn't have any information that was in -- that is within the scope of discovery as you've already decided it or even as it's contemplated by the Rules. She's already been here, the deposition wasn't suspended to seek any kind of an order, the deposition was carried through to a conclusion. She was examined by Mr. Moxon and cross-examined by Mr. Dandar and that was the end of the deposition, they told her to go home. MR. MOXON: Very briefly. First, we didn't suspend the deposition because it was over then. Again, we're only asking -- JUDGE BEACH: Okay. Well, here's my ruling. The Defendant can take her testimony concerning any activity that she has engaged in, directly or indirectly, that's designed to influence any witness in this case, or any activity that she's engaged in, directly or indirectly, designed to affect the outcome of this case, specifically if it's anything she's engaged in to create activity, to create animosity towards the Church over this case, then they have a right to make that inquiry, period. Okay. MR. MERRETT: Then when -- when will be the next time they get to do it? JUDGE BEACH: As I've said before, I take them as they come up, I don't rule in the future on prospective questions. Okay? MR. MERRETT: Yeah. VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going to go off the record. (WHEREUPON BRIEF PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. MR. MOXON: Do you want to swear the witness? COURT REPORTER: She's already sworn. MR. MOXON: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MOXON: Q Ms. Summers, you work for the Lisa McPherson Trust? A Yeah. Q What's your position? A Vice president. Q How long have you worked for them? A Since October of -- 16th of 2000. Q Who owns Lisa McPherson Trust? A Who owns it? Q Sure. A I'm not sure who owns it. COURT REPORTER: You're going to have to speak up. THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Did you hear the last one I said? VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, would -- do you want to put the microphone on, too? BY MR. MOXON: Q Are you paid by the Lisa McPherson Trust? A Yes. Q Can you tell me how much you make? A Forty-five hundred dollars a month, gross. Q There is a posting on the Internet by you indicating that you were hired by Ms. Brooks because she liked the work you were doing and making complaints about the Church; is that correct? A No. Not making complaints. For all the work that I had done to get money back from the Church. Q Filing complaints? A Some of it was in filing consumer complaints; yes. Q Okay. A Right. Q That's part of your job function at LMT, isn't it, to file complaints? A No, I don't. Q You don't file any complaints? A No, I don't. Q You don't have any communication with any government agencies with respect to the Church? A Not currently; no. Q Have you as an employee of LMT had any communications with any government agencies concerning the Church? A Yes. I don't know about concerning the Church. Concerning individuals who come and ask us for help. Q Individual Church members? A No. Former Church members, not current -- usually not current Church members. Q Usually not? Sometimes -- A I don't think so, really; no. Q -- about current church -- okay. Well, tell me which current Church members have been the subject of any communications by you with any government agency? A The only one would be Marcus Quirino, and also other members of the Quirino family. That's it. Q Marcus Quirino is known by you to be a witness in this case; is that -- A Well, now I know that. Not until very recently. Q You made a complaint to what agency? A I filed a complaint based on a report I received with Child Protective Services over an 1-800 hotline. Q No written report? MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object at this point, this is privileged under Chapter 39, the reporter can be subpoenaed but nobody can be required disclose whether or not he's the reporter on the abuse hotline or to give any details about it. It's either discoverable directly through public records, or it's not discoverable at all. MR. MOXON: I don't -- I don't know what Mr. Merrett's talking about, but there's a police report that makes reference to her and the filing of a complaint that was rejected -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, there is a privilege attached to people who make reports of child abuse in order to protect them and encourage people to make these reports and I assume that's the basis of his objection, if that's correct. MR. MERRETT: That is. JUDGE BEACH: The objection is sustained. MR. MOXON: Okay. BY MR. MOXON: Q Your -- your complaint was rejected; wasn't it? A No, I -- MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object at this point, Counsel is attempting to sidle through the privilege -- JUDGE BEACH: Okay. Well -- MR. MERRETT: -- by asking her about her complaint. JUDGE BEACH: Yeah. I -- I think you're trying to indirectly what you're prohibited from doing directly, so any discussion about the complaint and the outcome of the complaint -- MR. MOXON: Okay. Well -- JUDGE BEACHER: -- objected to it's sustained. MR. MOXON: Okay. Per the document that we received from the -- from the Clearwater Police Department it indicated her as -- in fact, there was -- there was a complaint made regarding her activities to the police because of reported repeated false complaints that were made to government agencies, and her name is specifically identified in an e-mail that was made public. MR. MERRETT: Judge, in the light that the Police Department may have breached the privilege -- MR. MOXON: I haven't asked my question yet. BY MR. MOXON: Q Did you make -- make public statements with respect to the fact that you were making complaints concerning Marcus Quirino? A No. Absolutely not. Q Okay. Now, I don't know -- I don't -- I don't know if you ruled on this question. My question is, in fact, wasn't there an assertion that you made concerning Marcus Quirino rejected by the police as false, as a false complaint? A No. MR. MERRETT: Same objection. THE WITNESS: No. JUDGE BEACH: Overruled on that. THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. No. MR. MERRETT: Well, then it asserts facts not in evidence. She hasn't said she made a complaint to the police. JUDGE BEACH: She answered in the negative anyway, but your objection's made. BY MR. MOXON: Q We'll mark as an Exhibit -- (Defendant's Exhibit Number 1 marked for identification by the court reporter.) BY MR. MOXON: Q I mark as Exhibit 1 a police report indicating that the complaint was unsubstantiated. Did you in fact send an e-mail to the Clearwater Police Department? A No. Q Did you have any communications with the Clearwater Police Department with respect to Marcus Quirino or his family? A I don't believe so. Q Have you been interviewed by the Clearwater Police Department -- A I -- Q -- with respect to -- A I don't believe so. I -- I was interviewed by a Detective Collins, but I don't -- I -- I thought he was with the Dunedin Sheriff's Office or something. Q Okay. Eric Collins? A Yes. And I basically gave him the information I had reported and that was that. Q Did you give him anything in writing? A I gave him a copy of the complaint, the -- whatever, the thing that was faxed, I believe. Q Oh, there was a fax -- A I think. Or he -- Q Just -- A -- had a copy. Q -- a moment. A I don't remember. I think he had it, actually, and I looked at it. Q Okay. So when you said you made your complaint on 800 hotline, that wasn't accurate; was it? A Yes, it was accurate. MR. MERRETT: I'm would object and ask that Counsel be admonished. He's again trying to go into this report to the abuse hotline. JUDGE BEACH: Yeah. Keep away from the hotline. MR. MOXON: Okay. THE WITNESS: That's what was done. BY MR. MOXON: Q So he had already had a copy of the fax that you had sent in; correct? MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object again, your Honor. Counsel cannot be this obtuse. He's asking her about the report to the abuse hotline, whether by fax or by voice, and you've already told him not to. JUDGE BEACH: Well, he's talking now about the Police Department; is it correct? MR. MOXON: That's correct. JUDGE BEACH: Which is not the hotline. MR. MOXON: That's correct. MR. MERRETT: So the question is did she fax anything to the police department? JUDGE BEACH: That's correct. THE WITNESS: Oh, is that the question? BY MR. MOXON: Q Here's the question. Yeah, let's do that. A Okay. Q Did you make -- did you fax -- make a fax to the Police Department? A No. Q Was there any writing concerning this alleged matter? MR. MERRETT: Objection, privilege. JUDGE BEACH: I think that can be answered with a yes or no. As to the contents of the writing and who it was sent to, I would sustain the objection if it's made. THE WITNESS: The only -- so I should answer this? MR. MERRETT: Yes or no. THE WITNESS: The only writing is -- MR. MERRETT: Yes or no. THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. BY MR. MOXON: Q Okay. What -- what e-mail or fax did Detective Collin of the Clearwater Police Department have? MR. MERRETT: Objection, privilege as to the content of the document. JUDGE BEACH: Go ahead and answer the question. THE WITNESS: Oh. Okay. Here's what he had. The e-mail that was attached to the fax to the 1-800 number which basically reported these that had been attached, it would have been faxed and on the 1-800 number. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I again object. This is obviously now clearly the complaint to the 800 number. JUDGE BEACH: Well, if she makes the complaint known to other sources then she's waived that privilege. Overruled. THE WITNESS: I didn't. MR. MERRETT: But Judge, there's no evidence that she did. They're talking about whether the police turned up with it, whether somebody else breached the privilege has nothing to do with a waiver by her, and she said she didn't send it to the police. JUDGE BEACH: Did you send this report to the police? THE WITNESS: No, I didn't send it to the police. I sent it to 1-800. JUDGE BEACH: Okay. Well, if somebody else has taken it and disclosed it, then I -- I still think she has the privilege. MR. MOXON: Okay. BY MR. MOXON: Q Did you talk to anyone else at LMT about this? A Jesse. Q Jesse Prince? A Prince. Q He's the person identified as Mr. Dandar's expert witness? A I guess; yes. Q Okay. He -- okay. What did you -- did you show Mr. Prince any of the documents about this matter? A Yes. Q What documents did you show Mr. Prince? A The original -- the e-mail report that I had received. Q You received an e-mail report from someone? A Who told me about this incident, this -- this child abuse incident and asked me to report it. Q Okay. Let me -- correct me if I'm wrong. A Okay. Q You received an e-mail from some person who told you something about a witness and you took that information and sent it to some government entity? A Correct. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I'm going to object. MR. MOXON: Let me withdraw the question. BY MR. MOXON: Q All right. Do you still have this e-mail that you received from some person -- A No. Q -- about Mr. Quirino? A No. Q What did you do with it? A I kept it for a short while and then I shredded it and got rid of it. This was months ago. Q Why did you shred it? A I had no reason to keep it. If I kept every e-mail, I'd have stacks of e-mails -- Q You shred -- A -- and I can't do that. Q -- all of your e-mails? A No, because I don't print all of my e-mails. Q Okay. Do you keep your e-mails in your computer? A No. Q What do you do with them? A I either -- I delete them. Generally, I delete them. Q This is -- this is on your computer in LMT? A That's right. Q So your correspondence with respect to Mr. Quirino was deleted off your computer? A Oh, absolutely, months and months ago. Q And you shredded the documents concerning Mr. Quirino also? A Right. Q So you don't keep files of these matters that you deal with in LMT? A No. Q You don't keep any files? A No. No. Not on that sort of thing; no. Q Part of your job to shred the files is the work that you do? A I guess. Is it part of my job? Q I mean -- yeah. Is it part of your job responsibility to shred -- A No, no. Q -- the documents of -- A It's not a job responsibility; no. It's just not necessary for me to keep all of that. Q Do you have a lot of these sorts of things, complaints to government agencies? A No. You confuse me a little. These sorts of things, like -- like a child abuse complaint up to a hotline, that's what we're discussing; right? Q Okay. Do you have a file cabinet? A Yeah, I have a file cabinet. Q Do you keep paper in your file cabinet? A Pardon me? Q Do you keep paper in your file cabinet? A Yes. Q Files? What's the volume of records in your file cabinet? MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object to relevance. JUDGE BEACH: What's the relevancy of this? MR. MERRETT: We're just trying to, you know -- she shredded this report, if there's very little there, it's potential destruction of evidence. JUDGE BEACH: Well, why don't you just ask her if she has any other reports of this nature that she's treated the same way or in her possession. BY MR. MOXON: Q Have you made any other communications to any other government agency outside of Ms. Quirino concerning the Church of Scientology and its members? MR. MERRETT: I'll object to relevance and scope. JUDGE BEACH: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Okay. You're going to have to repeat that again. BY MR. MOXON: Q Have you made any other -- have you had any other communications with any other government agencies concerning the Church of Scientology or its members? A Yes. Q Do you keep those records of those communications? A Well, yes. Q Where do you keep them? A In a digital file. COURT REPORTER: Say that again? THE WITNESS: In a digital file. BY MR. MOXON: Q In your computer? A No, not on my computer. Q What's -- what do you mean by a digital file? A If -- if I need to have a document that I want -- we need to keep or I want to keep, I would scan it and then it goes into a file, a digital scan file and then it's archived for when and if it's ever needed. Q This is LMT's computer system? A Yeah. That I'm -- yes, of course. Q Okay. How many such files have you scanned? A Oh, I don't do. I -- I don't know. I certainly never counted. In the last year? Q Sure. A Geez. I would have to say a couple of hundred, maybe. Maybe not that many. Q Are these -- are these put on a CD or are they on a hard drive? A CD. MR. MERRETT: I'm sorry. Let the witness -- what was your answer, your final answer? THE WITNESS: It's very hard to save that. I changed it and maybe 100. BY MR. MOXON: Q Have you been doing a search for any of these records before you came here? MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object at this point those were deleted from their demand for production. THE WITNESS: Right. MR. MERRETT: And it's -- it's abusive to sit here and pretend to be asking her about her subpoena and ask her about something else, they've removed request for all documents related to Scientology or ex-members. BY MR. MOXON: Q Did you make any search for records before you came today? A Yes. Q The first document on the document request was one; copies of all letters, forms, affidavits, declarations, statements, or any other documents concerning communication with any government agency with respect to any witness or family member of any witness listed on Defendant's witness list, and/or any individual who has knowledge of the facts concerning the Estate of Lisa McPherson versus Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. A Right. Q Did you make a search -- A Yes. Q -- to find such records? A Yes. Q And everything concerning Marcus Quirino or his family was deleted? A Long ago. Q Okay. When? A Long ago. Q Can you give me an estimate when that was? A Of when? Q When that was? A It would be shortly after I was done, you know. I got the information, I reported the information and I was done with it. It happened, I believe, in 2000 so it would probably have been within weeks, a couple of weeks, maybe not even that long. There's -- you know, same time period. Q All right. And as to the Woodcraft family, are there any letters, forms, affidavits, declarations, statements, or any other documents concerning communication with any government agency with respect to the Woodcraft family? A Not with any -- oh, there is one report, a phone report, concerning what Zoe had told me on the phone and that was it. Q Did you have any communications with any government agency with respect to the Woodcraft family? A Only to the extent that I wrote that report and I was concerned again about what she was reporting, and I sent it to the FBI and that was extent of that. Q Do you still have that report? A Yes. Q Do you have it for production today? A Well, no, because I didn't think I was going to be doing this, but I can get that report very easily. Q Did you make any other search using the -- the witness lists of the parties to determine if you had any other documents response to document request number one? A Yeah. Well, yes. I basically looked at the witness list, you know. Q Did you have any communications with respect to Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, Robert Minton or any of the people on the Church witness list of any government agency? A Did I have any communication -- Q Concerning -- I'll give you that again. A Yes. Q Have you had any communication with any government agency with respect to anybody on either of the witness lists? A No. Q Do you remember how many people were on the witness lists? A No. There -- it was a long list, I remember that. Q Did you actually go through the list and search your computers? A No. I looked through the list and any of the names that, you know. I don't work with current Scientologists, you see, I work with the former Scientologists, and that's -- I don't know those people on that list. I'm sorry. Q As I understand your testimony, you have two documents relating to the Woodcraft family and that's all? A I have really one document which is the telephone report from Zoe and that's all. Q And no other writings concerning the Woodcraft -- A Well -- Q -- family? A No other writings? I thought you said no other complaints to government agencies? Q Okay. I've gotten ahead of myself. Let's just keep - - let's keep it to government agencies for now. A Yes. Absolutely no. No. Q Okay. Who in the FDLE did you send this report to about Leslie Woodcraft and her family? A It was not about Leslie Woodcraft, and I'm sure she wasn't mentioned in it, and it was to Lee Strope. Q Lee Strope? When was that? A Oh, gosh, I don't remember. Q That's Mr. Dandar's witness, Lee Strope? A Oh, I don't know that. Q Oh. A Okay. Q When was it? A I don't remember. I need to check my -- I'm sure the date is on that, my telephone report. It would have been -- well, actually, it probably would have been -- excuse me, in December also, I believe, because I think they came to visit us in January, so I think it might have also been in December of 2000 when I initially talked to Zoe on the telephone. Q Okay. A I think so. MR. DANDAR: Judge, for clarification, Zoe Woodcraft is not a witness on the Plaintiff's witness list. JUDGE BEACH: Thank you. BY MR. MOXON: Q So you talked to Mr. Strope by phone and made a report of your phone conversation? A I don't -- no, no, no, no, no. No, no. I talked to Zoe on the phone. Q Did you talk to Mr. Strope by phone? A I don't -- I don't honestly remember if I talked to him by phone. Q Did you talk to him in person? A No. Not at that time; no. Q Did you -- did you make some report to Mr. Strope? A I had taken telephone notes and I just sent them over to him. Q How did -- did you -- did you already know Mr. Strope? A I don't know if I had met Mr. Strope at that point or not to tell you the truth. Q You know him now? A Yes, I have met him. I have met him I think once I have met him. Q You've met with Mr. Strope? A I've met him once; yes. Q Where did you meet him? A In his office. Q So you went to his office for? A An unrelated matter, nothing to do with Zoe. Q Something to do with another Scientologist? A No. Q So you've never had any communication with Detective Strope concerning any Scientologists? A Any -- any current Scientologists; no, I don't believe so. Q So it's former Scientologists? A Yes. Q There's another person that was subpoenaed in this case for which there's a motion for protective order pending which is Mia Pia -- Maria Pia Gardini? A Yeah. Q Now, you -- did you take her to Mr. Strope? A No, I didn't take her. I went with her over there. Several people went over there. Q Who else -- who else went, Mr. Prince? A Yes. Q Ms. Brooks? A Yes. Q And you all met with Mr. Strope? A Right. Q When was that? A I don't know. Well, give me a minute. It would have been, I think, January of this year. Q Is there any records of that meeting? A No. No. Q Did you provide any allegations to Detective Strope concerning Ms. Gardenia? A She's a witness in this case; is that what you told me? Q She's been subpoenaed. A Maria has? MR. MERRETT: Right. Which is a non-answer. They subpoenaed her, she's not a witness. She was in Italy when the girl died, but the question is did you provide any allegations to Mr. Strope. MR. DANDAR: Judge, she's not our witness. THE WITNESS: Concerning what? COURT REPORTER: Wait. Wait. We have to talk one at a time, and you have to speak up, ma'am. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Okay. JUDGE BEACH: Rephrase the question, please. BY MR. MOXON: Q After all the interruptions, I don't remember what it was. Did you have any communications in any written form concerning Ms. Gardenia with Mr. Strope? A I don't believe. Not in any written form, I don't believe so. Q Was any writing provided Mr. Strope or anyone else at FDLE concerning Ms. Gardenia or the Church? A That's -- you know, I can't remember exactly but we just sat and talked with him. Maria had written letters, it's possible he got a copy of that but, I don't really -- I don't think so. I don't believe so. MR. MERRETT: I'm curious, is Ms. Gardenia actually on a witness list, or is this just an investigative fishing expedition? I mean is she on a witness list, I think that's a fair question. MR. DANDAR: She's not on Plaintiff's. THE WITNESS: I don't believe -- JUDGE BEACH: Can you answer that? MR. MOXON: Ms. Gardenia's not, Mr. Strope is. Ms. Gardenia was subpoenaed when she came here and a motion for protective order was filed and then she was sent back out of the country before her deposition was taken and that's still pending. MR. DANDAR: And the -- and the police officer, who -- who Detective Strope is at the FDLE is certainly not a witness retained by the Plaintiff, that is a police officer and ask him what his investigations are would violate ongoing criminal investigation immunity statues, and so when someone goes to a police officer to talk about something, I don't think that should be subject to this case which has, again, certainly nothing to do with Lisa McPherson. THE WITNESS: I think -- JUDGE BEACH: We've got to start off with the question to her is all activities that were designed in any way to influence anybody, either a prospective juror or a prospective witness in the Lisa McPherson case, that's what we're concerned about. MR. MOXON: Well, Lee Strope -- THE COURT: Why are they doing these things within the Lisa McPherson Trust, what's the purpose of it? MR. MOXON: For background, Mr. Strope was one of the people, Detective Strope, that, you know, was involved in this Lisa McPherson investigation and he's had meetings with Mr. Dandar and provide -- they provided documents back-and-forth and he's -- he's the guy that created this whole case. JUDGE BEACH: The question I have and I think is -- this should be in the area of inquiry of this witness is, were these activities in any way designed to have any influence on the Lisa McPherson Trust versus the Scientologists? MR. DANDAR: The Trust is not involved in the case, Judge, it's the estate. JUDGE BEACH: Or the estate, either way. I understand the -- that the Trust is not involved, but if it's engaged in any activity, directly or indirectly, designed to in some way affect the outcome of this case, then I think he has a right to make that inquiry. MR. DANDAR: I would agree with you. I agree with you 100 percent. MR. MERRETT: And, again, since we're providing background, Ms. Gardenia came over from Italy to the Lisa McPherson Trust, when they caught her on their -- their surveillance camera -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, I'm not really -- MR. MERRETT: -- that's when she was listed. That's when she was subpoenaed was after she came to see us, so that's what we're dealing with here. JUDGE BEACH: That's fine. This is a discovery deposition, you make your inquiry, and that's the scope of the inquiry and that's the scope that the witness is to answer. MR. MOXON: Very good. BY MR. MOXON: Q Did -- did LMT pay for Ms. Gardenia to come over here? A Pay -- I believe they paid her flight; yes. Q They did? A Yes. Q Pay for her expenses while she was here? A Probably; yeah. Q Do you think so? A I don't really know. But I -- Q You believe so? A -- I think so probably; yeah. Q You and Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince took her to Lee Strope? A Yes. Q Okay. To provide Mr. Strope information concerning her story or her -- her history in Scientology; something like that? A Yes. Q Okay. Did you take her to the media also? A No. Q Was -- was Ms. Gardenia escorted or accompanied to -- to meet with any media representatives by anyone from LMT? A I don't believe so. Q Are you sure? A I'm not sure, but I don't believe so. I don't think there was any media. Q Remember the article that came out about Ms. Gardenia? A In where? Q St. Petersburg Times. A No. There was a -- I don't remember -- there was a newspaper article -- Q Yeah. A -- about Maria? Q Yeah. A I don't remember. Q With quotes from LMT? A From who in the LMT? Q You don't know -- you're -- you don't know anything about it? A I'm sorry. That, I don't; no, remember that there was any media with Maria. Q As far as you know, there was -- there was no attempt by anyone at LMT to communicate with anyone in the media in Clearwater or in the Clearwater area concerning Ms. Gardenia? A I don't believe so; no. Did I -- MR. MERRETT: You don't have to keep answering just because he keeps staring at you. THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. He keeps looking at me like I'm not making sense and it's like no. JUDGE BEACH: Address your questions to me, or your complaints to me if he's doing something that you feel is interfering with her ability to be a witness in this case, but don't come up with these instructions to her. I'm the one that gives the instructions. MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. BY MR. MOXON: Q Do you know why Detective Strope was chosen as the person to take Ms. Gardenia to? A No. Q Who -- who selected him? A I don't know. Q Is that the only time you met with Detective Strope? A I believe so; yeah. Q There may have been another time? A Yes. I don't think -- no, I think that's probably the only time I ever met with him. Q You're equivocating that, do you -- A Okay. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I'm going to object based on scope that -- as you ruled a few minutes ago. JUDGE BEACH: Well, it's hard to define why -- why these activities took place. That's what -- what -- what is your purpose in the Lisa McPherson Trust to interview people who have complaints against the Scientologists, and is it designed in any way to discredit the Church of Scientology in this case, directly or indirectly, that's the question that is -- that's the reason for the deposition. THE WITNESS: You just want me to tell you now? JUDGE BEACH: Yes, I want you to tell me. THE WITNESS: I have nothing to do with this case at all. What -- I got my position because I left the Church of Scientology after 20 years. I had a lot of money invested there and I was successful in getting it back after much hard work, and -- and there are many other people in that position and I help them. I -- I give them addresses, I say -- you know, I get calls, I have this money, I can't get it back, what do I do. Well, you write the Church and then you do this, there are steps to take. None of it has anything to do with this case, it's -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, I guess the question is why was a Trust created bearing the name of Lisa McPherson -- THE WITNESS: Right. JUDGE BEACH: -- who has a lawsuit against this Church of Scientology, or her estate does, for her death, what is the connection between the death of Lisa McPherson and her lawsuit against the Church and the activity you're engaged in for the Trust? THE WITNESS: Well, there's no connection. JUDGE BEACH: Then why name it the Lisa McPherson Trust? THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know, because I came after it was all put together. I can tell you why I would say that, because she is a well-known victim. She's not the only person that's died at the Fort Harrison. She's not the only person who's had these psychotic breaks. She's certainly not the only one, but I -- I -- and I've never really discussed this with them, but I'm telling you what I -- she -- she has just sort become a symbol -- BY MR. MOXON: Q Okay. So you don't -- A -- you know. Q You don't really don't know why? A You know, I wasn't there when it put together, but to me and to many former Scientologists, that's why. She's the most well-known victim, and she's a symbol of -- there's others. There's many others. But she's just a symbol sort of, you know. I mean we can't list 'em all. JUDGE BEACH: So what are all these activities that you and the Trust are engaged in designed to do to the Church of Scientology? THE WITNESS: It's not designed -- Now, I'm giving you me, what I -- JUDGE BEACH: What you know, that's all we want to know. THE WITNESS: I don't consider it as designed to do anything to the Church of Scientology. You've got people who are involved for years and then they get out and they're having difficulties, and -- and a lot of us share those difficulties, so what I do is I help them -- I help them. It -- there's different things. Sometimes they're suffering depression, I would get them a referral to someone, a cult specialist, psychiatrist, psychologist. Oftentimes I just will give them the names of other Scient -- former Scientologists because they just need to someone to communicate to. BY MR. MOXON: Q Do you keep records of all of this? MR. DANDAR: He keeps interrupting her, Judge. JUDGE BEACH: Let her go on. THE WITNESS: Often they'll have money on account and this is all over the world and all over many different states, and they'll say, okay, I have -- and it's large money. It's often very big, thousands of dollars, and they'll say how do I -- I want it back, can I just -- you know, you see what I'm saying? So there's these different little facets that I -- you know, I do know about because I was in for so long, I got out, and now I know so many, we've -- it's just sort of a connecting and to help them through. And -- and I must say, also, I do think it's a concern. I do think that there is fraud. I do think that there is people who are ill, physically ill, that are told if you buy your OT-III you will get better and they don't, and then they get gravely ill, and they put thousands and thousands of dollars down for auditing and get auditing and remain gravely ill. And -- and then they'll get out or sometimes they get kicked out because they're sick now, and then they get medical help, and then they get better. I mean surgery for tumors, Grawitz's, it's unbelievable. So that's what we're doing, and I never have anything to do with this case. JUDGE BEACH: Does the Trust have a desire that the Church of Scientology lose this case by the Lisa McPherson Estate? THE WITNESS: No. No. JUDGE BEACH: It doesn't care one way or other? THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. I must tell you absolutely not, you know. BY MR. MOXON: Q Do you know -- do you know about the agreement between Mr. Minton and Dell Liebreich that he and the Trust get the proceeds from this case? A I -- MR. DANDAR: Objection. THE WITNESS: -- really don't. MR. DANDAR: Misrepresentation of sworn testimony, that's a total fabrication. BY MR. MOXON: Q Are you aware of the findings by the Court indicating that there's an agreement between Mr. Minton and the Plaintiff that the LMT gets the proceeds from this case? A No. MR. DANDAR: Same objection. BY MR. MOXON: Q Have there -- have there been any discussions in the LMT as to what they're going to do with the money they get from this case? A No. MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, the Plaintiff's Counsel is excusing himself from this deposition because I have better things to. BY MR. MOXON: Q You're aware that there's been a big dispute over the past year or so and discovery disputes with respect to this agreement between Mr. Minton and the LMT and the Plaintiff and Mr. Dandar with respect to the proceeds in this case? A I'm aware of that. Q Okay. Has that been a subject of discussion at the LMT? A No. Not -- not outside of the fact that there's -- it takes a lot of our time away from what we're doing. Q Okay. So -- A Sometimes we get paid. Q -- how much time do you think -- how much time do you think that takes? MR. MERRETT: I object to relevance. JUDGE BEACH: Overruled. THE WITNESS: How much time does all this legal stuff? BY MR. MOXON: Q Yeah. A Well, for me personally it doesn't take a lot of time, but I know it does from Stacy -- well, I guess mainly Stacy. Q And notwithstanding all that time, you've never had any discussions with any of the people at LMT as to -- as to this alleged agreement? A No. No. Q It's not occurred to you to -- to wonder about that? A It's -- no. Well, wonder about it? I -- no. I mean -- Q Okay. I'm just asking. A I don't believe that it exists in the way that you characterize it. Q But you've never asked Mr. Minton about it; have you? A No, I don't believe I ever asked him directly. Q Okay. Have you seen Mr. Dandar at the LMT? Have you ever seen him there? A Sure. Q How often have you seen him there? A Not often. Q How many -- A I think I've seen him four or five times in the year that I've worked there. Q Maybe more? A I don't think so. Q What's he -- A He doesn't come -- Q -- do there? What's he do there? A Well, he doesn't do anything there. You mean all the different times of his visit why was he there? Q Who's he -- who has he met with at the Lisa McPherson Trust when Mr. Dandar's come to your offices? A Well, he hasn't met -- for example, he was -- the first time I saw him was during the vigil, that's the first time I saw him there. The second time was during the Lisa -- the first anniversary, and I'm sure I've only seen him a couple of other times. I saw him -- he was there recently. Q So the last year, you say the last four or five times in the last year that you've been there? A Right. Q Okay. What was he doing there recently? A I -- I knew that you were going to ask that. I -- I should know. I can't remember. I -- I don't know. I -- I just can't remember what it was, why he was there. Q He didn't come to meet with you; did he? A He came to get a copy of something. Maybe -- I don't remember what -- Jesse's trial maybe, he -- because I didn't really talk to him. I saw him and it was like hello, and then he came to get copy of Jessie's -- something to do with Jessie's trial, I believe. Q So you don't -- you don't really know what he was doing there; do you? A I think that's what he was doing there. I think he came for a copy of something, but -- Q Who told you that? A Well, he told me. He came in and I said hello, but I was in the back working, and I, you know, I was like, you know, what do you need, Ken. Q So -- A I need a copy of something, blah-blah-blah, but I don't -- you know, I didn't have a copy of whatever he needed and so that was the size of that. Q He comes over there from time-to-time if there's something he needs? A He doesn't come very frequently. No, that's not common for him to come over there, that was unusual, I hadn't seen him for months. Q Let me give you this again. He comes over from time- to-time to get something he needs? MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object to the leading. JUDGE BEACH: Overruled. THE WITNESS: From time-to-time it -- time- to-time just sounds kind of frequent to me. I would say occasionally. BY MR. MOXON: Q Okay. Who does he usually come see to get what he wants? A I don't know if he comes to see any one person. He'll just walk in and like the receptionist is there and say hi, you know. Q So he can just come in the organization, walk around and see people and -- A Well, sure he can walk around. Q -- ask them -- okay. A Yeah. Q Does he have access to your -- to your records if he wants them? A I don't believe so. Now, I don't know what records you're talking about. Q Do you ever see him at a computer? A No. Q How about Mr. Garko, have you ever seen him there? A Yes. Yes. Q Does Mr. Garko come over to LMT to get information for his use? A I don't think -- I have ever seen Garko do that; no. Q What does he come for? A Well, he came again for the vigil. He came for the anniversary, and I don't believe I've seen him since then. I don't think so. Possibly. Sometimes like we have dinner together. It's possible I've seen him, I -- but he doesn't come in to the documents -- Q Sometimes you have dinner with Mr. Garko? A We've -- well, when it was a big group thing, I'm sure he's been -- it might have just been the anniversary. Q How many times have you had dinner with Mr. Garko? A Twice I think. Which would be the vigil and the anniversary. Q You have dinner with Mr. Dandar sometimes, too? A Twice. Q Does Mr. Garko come over to get any information he needs? A No. Q Are you sure? A Yes. Q Does he only see you when he comes? A Pardon me? Q Does Mr. Garko only see you when he comes? A No. He doesn't come very often. I don't -- he probably hasn't been there for months. Q Okay. When he came, the last time he came was when? A I believe it was for the anniversary party for the Trust. Q Which was when? A January. Q So Mr. Garko hasn't been to your offices since January? A I don't believe so, not that I can recall. Q Was Mr. Dandar there, too, for the anniversary party? MR. MERRETT: Objection, asked and answered. JUDGE BEACH: You did ask that. Where are we going with this question? MR. MOXON: Well, I didn't -- I didn't realize the relation -- you know, Mr. Dandar has been arguing a lot that he's got no relationship at all with these people and now all of a sudden he's coming over there to get information from their files which they won't give to me. That's -- it's kind of a new issue, that I've -- MR. MERRETT: Judge -- MR. MOXON: -- sometimes these things pop up, and that's what's popped up here, that's why I'm asking this. MR. MERRETT: Judge, she testified he came over to get a copy of something from another trial of Mr. Prince, not this fantasy. JUDGE BEACH: Well, it does tend to demonstrate that the attorney for the Plaintiff is having quite a bit of association with the Trust in this case, so it indicates that the Trust has some interest in the outcome of the personal injury case. Overruled. BY MR. MOXON: Q Do you know a Thomas Haverty? A No. Q Never heard of him? A No. That's -- I don't think so. Q Is there a fellow named Tom who's last name you didn't know that's come to the Trust? A Not that I can remember. Q Was anyone else at this meeting with Mr. Strope besides you, Ms. Gardenia, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Prince? A I don't -- I don't think so. I -- I don't -- I don't believe so. It was just us. Q Is there any -- any sort of informal understanding or agreement with anyone that you make a -- a refund request for to the Church that you will get some part of it? MR. MERRETT: Objection, scope and relevance. JUDGE BEACH: I'm not sure I understand the question. MR. MOXON: She said she -- she helps people to make demands for refunds of donations, Church members to make -- BY MR. MOXON: Q Isn't that what you said, sometimes you help people to make requests to the Church for a return of donations they've made? JUDGE BEACH: Okay. She did indicate that was part of the purpose of this Trust. I'm going to allow that question be asked. BY MR. MOXON: Q Okay. And that's part of what you do; right? A Yes. Q Okay. Have -- have any of these people given you money? A No. Q So none of them have paid you for the -- A No. Q Okay. Do you know why Lee Strope was chosen as the person to meet with? A No. Q Just to reiterate, I don't want to beat a dead horse here. You did or did not provide any documents to Mr. Strope with respect to Ms. Gardenia? A I don't believe we did. Q Did you provide Mr. Strope any other documents -- A About what? Q About any other issue? A I think just the report from Zoe. I believe that's all. Q Zoe Woodcraft? A Yes. Zoe Woodcraft; yes. Q Document request number four sought, quote, any and all forms or questionnaires used by any employee, member, or agent of the Lisa McPherson Trust used for compiling information or complaints on any witnesses or family members of any witness listed on Defendant's witness lists and/or any individual who has knowledge of the facts concerning the case, the Estate of Lisa McPherson versus Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. Do you have forms or questionnaires that you send out to people to collect information? A Not as to continue that. Not against any witnesses or anything to do with this case. Q But you do have forms or questionnaires that you send out to people to collect information? A We have questionnaires that we give to people we have worked with. Q They fill out the questionnaires? A Yeah. Q And you -- you keep them in your records? A They're digitalized. Yes. Q Those are concerning Scientology or -- A Their -- Q -- Flag? A -- experiences. Q Concerning Flag? A No. No. Many of them don't concern Flag. Q Some do? A Some do. Q Did you search your questionnaires to see if any of them are responsive? A I didn't have to, I know that's not the part of the questionnaires. Q Well, that's not the point. Did you search the questionnaires to see if any of them concerned in any fashion any of the -- any of the people involved in this case? A No, it wasn't necessary. Q Why? A Because I have very few questions, and none of them concern the people in this case. Q You made form letters -- you sent out form letters to Churches of Scientology, also, didn't you, demanding information from them? A No. Q Did you send out form letters -- did you send a letter or were you involved in a letter sent to the Defendant, Flag Service Organization, demanding financial and tax information? MR. MERRETT: Objection, relevance. JUDGE BEACH: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't involved in that. BY MR. MOXON: Q Who did that? A That was another LMT staff member's project. Q Who? A Jeff. Q Jeff Jacobsen? A Uh-huh. Q The one that we received is signed by Stacy Brooks. A Right. Q But Jeff Jacobsen wrote them? A That's true. You know, I'm not really sure who wrote that letter. I'm not really sure. Q Jeff -- what's his project? A I'm not really clear on that because I didn't work on it. Q His project was to collect financial information concerning the churches? A I don't know, Mr. Moxon. Q What's your understanding of his project? A I don't have any, I just didn't work on it. Q Tell me what you know about what you've identified as his project? A I knew that he was -- he was working on some kind of - - look -- looking at the tax laws for the IRS or something to do with them. And that was about the size of that. Q And it started after LMT was involved and responded to discovery requests from the Church? A I don't know when that was. When? What discovery requests? Aren't there tons of them? Q Mr. Jacobsen's your librarian; right? A Yes. Q His job is to maintain records for LMT? A Books and -- and stuff in the library, not records, I don't think. Q Does he send out complaints, too? A No. Q Did you have any discussions with -- with Mr. Jacobsen or any other LMT employees concerning whether or not these letters would be difficult for the churches to answer or time- consuming? A I didn't. I didn't work on that. Q What do you know about it; anything? MR. MERRETT: I'll object, it's been asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I keep telling you no. JUDGE BEACH: Already answered. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. MOXON: Q Can you tell me if any of your files or any of the paper that you've maintained since you've been at LMT has been shredded in the past several months? A Certainly, I shred it all the time. Q You go through and shred things? A I always have. Q You have? A Right. Q And recently have you shredded any records? A Recently? Yeah. Q When? A I mean I shred stuff -- well, I wouldn't say every day. Probably not even this week. Maybe last week. Q Did you go into your files last week and pull out things to be shredded? A Oh, no, no. I don't maintain files. I don't maintain paper files. Q You have a file cabinet you said; right? A Oh, yeah, but -- oh, yes, but that's -- you know, I have reference materials in there basically is what's in my file cabinet. Q So you take the hard copy and you make -- you scan it and then destroy the hard copy? A Uh-huh. Q Yes? COURT REPORTER: Yes? THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. BY MR. MOXON: Q Those are all in the LMT records, then? A Yes. Q Have -- A Any -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. Q Are there any records you created at LMT you don't consider to be LMT property? A No. Q Have you yourself made statements concerning Scientology in any written form or digital form -- A Only on -- Q -- while you've been at LMT? A I'm sorry? Q While you've been at LMT. A Only on that ARS, which is newsgroup. I've made a few personal statements on there, but other than that; no, I haven't. Q No e-mails? A Oh, to people when I'm talking back-and-forth with them? Q Sure. A Oh. Probably, because I discuss my own experience, so I would -- Q So you write about the Scientology all the time in your e-mails? A Yes. Q Okay. Where are those e-mails now? A Well, I don't maintain them, and I've told you that already before. Q You deleted them all? A Yeah. I have always done that. Q When did you last delete them? A It's -- it's been a few days since I -- I wasn't -- I missed a few -- I was -- you know, I haven't even been in the office for a few days. Q How do you know how to -- how do you know the address to send an e-mail to someone if you delete the e-mails? A Well, I have the address. Q So you keep a file of e-mail addresses? A Yes. Q Has anyone told you in LMT that any of your records are not LMT property? A No. Q Have any of your records been taken off-site, out of the LMT office? A Yes. Q Where? A To New Hampshire. Q To Mr. Minton's home? A Yeah. Q So he's got some of your records? A Well, that's sort of procedure. Q What's the procedure? A The people that I work with, because I have to maintain their confidentiality, they don't -- they beg us to. I don't ever keep their stuff here, it's all scrambled and sent off. Q So some records you put in digital form then scramble it and send it to Mr. Minton in New Hampshire? A Uh-huh. Q How long -- A I'm sorry. Yes. Q How long has this practice been going on? A For, I would have to say, some months. Q And you don't consider the records up there to be LMT property? A I-- I don't know. Do I? I would think so. Q Do the other LMT employees follow that same practice? A I -- I don't think that it's necessary. I don't really know because I -- no one else really -- oh, Jesse would. But just the people that we work with that we have to maintain their confidentiality, you know. Q Jesse sends files up to Mr. Minton also -- A Uh-huh. Q -- in scrambled form? A You know, I think so. I don't-- he does mostly just phone stuff, so I don't really know. I think so. I'm not sure. I'm not sure if it's called for. Q Have you deleted any of your electronic communications since August 1st concerning Scientology? A Since August 1st? Q Right. A I think I did. Q Was Ms. Brooks aware that you had received a subpoena? A Yes. Q Did you let her know that the day that you received it? A Yeah. Q Was Mr. Minton aware that you had received a subpoena? A I assume. Q The day that you received it? A I don't know about the day I received it. I mean I didn't tell him. Q I mean Mr. Minton is very closely involved in the running of LMT; isn't he? A No. He works with Stacy a lot, and -- and I talk to him sometimes about my guys, but -- Q Did you participate in any discussions regarding Ursula Caberta opening an LMT office in Germany? A No. Q You've met with Ursula Caberta in Germany; didn't you? A I met her. Q Okay. Are you aware of her discussions with Minton opening an LMT office in Germany? A No. Q Never heard of that? A Actually, no, I never heard of that until you just said that. Q Okay. Are you aware of Mr. Minton giving money to Ms. Caberta? A Well, just in the context that I believe there's -- well, yes. I've heard of that; yes. Q Who told you that? A Probably Stacy. Q Do you know how much money Mr. Minton gave Ms. Caberta? A No. Q What did Stacy tell you? A That she -- Ursula had borrowed money or something from Bob and that there was some kind of -- there's a problem about it, but that's really the extent. Q Did Ms. Caberta pay the money back to Mr. Minton? A I don't know. I don't know. Q Does Ms. Caberta call in to LMT? A No. Q By the way, do you know the source of the funds that came in to LMT earlier this year, $800,000? A No. Q Ms. Brooks never mentioned that to you? A (Shaking head negative.) Q You're the vice president of the corporation; correct? A Correct. I don't deal with funds. Q Do you know what this -- do you have an understanding of what the source is of the funding for the corporation? A Donations. Q From Mr. Minton? A No. I -- you know, just that we operate off of donations. Q So you don't really know? A I don't really know. Q There's a fellow named Andreas Heldal-Lund; do you know of him? A I know of him. Q He has this thing he calls Operation Clam Bake? A Yes. Q Do you know if he's given money to your -- your company? A Well, according to Stacy's deposition he has. Q You read her deposition? A I read her deposition. Q Where did you get that? A She had a copy of it. Q She gave you her deposition to read recently? A Yeah, it was at the office. Q Did you coordinate with Ms. Brooks in your own deposition? A Did I coordinate -- Q Well, let me clarify it. I'll withdraw that question. Did you talk to Ms. Brooks about your deposition? A Today? Q Yeah. A No. Q Or prior to today, did you talk to her about this deposition you're having today? A Well, just that it was scheduled. She's been out of town until last night so, basically, just that it was scheduled and I was working with John. Q Did you talk to Ms. Brooks last night or today about the scope of the deposition? A Scope of it? I don't think we talked about that except for -- to make sure that he had it under -- you know, under control; that sort of thing. Q Okay. So you're saying you didn't talk to her, then, about what was going to be asked of you? A I don't believe so. We got together last night and we discussed the fact of the deposition and, you know, the fact that John had -- to make sure that John had talked to me and I felt comfortable and that was really it. Q But you -- you say you don't believe you talked to her about the scope -- A No. You know, we talked about a lot of things. I don't think we went over the whole thing; no. Q I didn't ask you whether you went over the whole thing. Let me give you -- A When you say the -- Q -- the full question. A -- scope of it, what do you mean? Maybe I'm not quite -- you mean -- Q Let me ask you the question. A Okay. Q Did you or didn't you talk to Ms. Brooks about what would be brought up in the deposition today? A Well, we -- about what was listed on the subpoena and what you asked me about; yes. Yes. Q Did you talk to her about any questions that could be asked of you? A Oh, no. You mean by you? Oh, no. Q Do you know if Mr. Minton paid for Ms. Brooks' house? A I have no idea. Q Do you know if he paid for her car? A No, I don't know. Q Do you know if Mr. Bunker took any documents or videotapes home with him over the past month? A No. Q How about Jacobsen? A No. Q Do you know if LMT hired a commercial shredder, shredding company to shred documents? A Yes, we did once. Q When was that? A It was -- I don't know. It was prior to all of this, I know that. Q How much was given to the company to shred? A I don't know. Q Who dealt with it? A Jesse. Q Jesse Prince? A Yes. Q Have you -- when was it that the shredder came -- shredding company came to shred these documents? A I don't remember. Q Was it was within the last three days? A No, no. It would be weeks ago. Q Several weeks ago? A Yes. Q Like three weeks ago? A I would say more. I think it was more than three weeks ago. Q Four weeks ago? MR. MERRETT: Judge, I'm going to object, the witness just said she doesn't know when it was. JUDGE BEACH: Sustained. BY MR. MOXON: Q Why did you have to bring an outside shredder -- shredding company in? A Well, we have received a -- something from, I believe, Sandy Rosen and here's what it was. It was a -- I think, and I'm not real clear on this, but this is what I think it was. A copy of an injunction that had been filed in a Fact-Net case and it -- I can't remember what it said, but I remember Stacy received this and she said okay, here's what they're trying to do. They're trying to say the LMT is a successor corporation to Fact-Net which was some previous name, I don't know what it was, they all worked on, and they're going to come in and raid us is what's going to happen. She was very upset about this, so she said I want any -- I don't want any copyrighted material -- okay. We don't post copyrighting material, but I guess that's what the whole Fact-Net thing was all about, so she wanted to make sure we had no copyrighted anything hanging around, and, you know, we did, because people have sent us junk and, you know, we went and got rid of all of that, and that's what that was all about. Q So you went through your files to find material that you thought -- A Any kind of -- Q -- might be -- A -- copyright material. Q -- seized in a raid? A Yes, I guess. It had something to do with copyrighted materials; yes. Q How many boxes of material was this? A Well, they weren't boxes of material. You know, everyone does just -- in their own areas, and I actually had a lot of it that I didn't realize I had, you know, but it wasn't in boxes. I had this closet and there was junk in there, I didn't even know it was in there, you know, so I just - - just went through and looked, got rid of it. Q What was the volume of material that was shredded? A Well, don't know. I don't really know. Q Do you have a lot of paper in your closet? A No. JUDGE BEACH: The court reporter's inquiring about lunch break or just a plain break. MR. MOXON: I'm almost done. JUDGE BEACH: Okay. That answer your question? BY MR. MOXON: Q Was there -- was there a search done through all of your files last week by Ms. Brooks or by your offices to find records? A Last week? No. Q Did you -- did you participate in any big search through your office for a records response to any subpoenas last week or the week before? A No. Not last week or the week before; no. Q Okay. Do you now have your own shredder? A I've always had my own shredder. Q But this was insufficient to shred all the material? A No. I have the same shredder I've always had. Q And it was insufficient to shred all the material that needed to be shredded? A I -- I don't know. I guess I don't know why -- why that was decided, yeah, to get that shredder. Q Do you know if Ms. Gardenia ever made any kind of claim that she knew Lisa McPherson? A No. Q Are you aware of anything like that? A No. Q Did you shred any documents relating to the Woodcraft family? A No. Q You know that Leslie Woodcraft's a witness in this case; right? A Now I do. Q When did you -- how did you find out she was a witness in this case? A I think her name was on your witness list. Q Where are the records concerning the Woodcrafts, are you producing them? A The records concerning her? Q Yeah. A Oh, the FDLE report? I can produce that. Q Okay. And any other documents you have concerning the Woodcrafts? MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object, they were not demanded. JUDGE BEACH: Overruled. MR. MERRETT: Then let me just make it clear for the record we're not producing anything that wasn't requested in the subpoena as later redacted. BY MR. MOXON: Q You're not producing anything today; right? A No, I don't have anything today. Q But you do have some documents concerning Mr. Quirino and you do have some documents concerning the Woodcraft family? A I don't think there's -- I don't -- there's one, you know, it's the copy of the 800. MR. MERRETT: Then let me interpose the objection again. Any documents pertaining to Mr. Quirino are privileged. THE WITNESS: That's all I have. I do have the notes I took from the Zoe Woodcraft telephone call that I gave to Lee Strope, I have a copy of that that you can have. MR. MOXON: On this affidavit that you filed, there's a number of privileges asserted for documents so you don't have -- BY MR. MOXON: Q Request number seven is any and all documents concerning communications about or with Marcus Quirino, Ashley Woodcraft, Lawrence Woodcraft, Zoe Woodcraft. A Okay. MR. MERRETT: Actually, I believe that was redacted. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. MOXON: This is so hard to do this if you all interrupt me. MR. MERRETT: Excuse me. MR. MOXON: It's just impossible to ask her a question. JUDGE BEACH: You make your question, don't answer it, he'll make his objection. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. MOXON: Q Document request number seven sought any and all documents concerning communications about or with Marcus Quirino, Ashley Woodcraft, Lawrence Woodcraft, and Zoe Woodcraft, and in your affidavit that you filed today you say you have no documents responsive to number seven except those which are available on your Web page or which are privileged. So what documents do you claim are privileged that you're not producing? MR. MERRETT: The privilege is claimed as to the -- any documents relating to -- MR. MOXON: I object. MR. MERRETT: -- which can be asserted by an attorney on her behalf, a privilege is asserted as to any reporting materials over the 800 number, no privilege is asserted as to any other materials in response to that request. JUDGE BEACH: Okay. Now, the procedure is since he's made that type of an objection as to -- to require a production of those documents for an in-camera inspection by the Court to determine whether in fact the objection is well-taken, that it is covered by a privilege. MR. MOXON: If we could just have them listed with a privilege log and identify every document then we could look at them and see if we need to put you through that. JUDGE BEACH: Well, identification may in fact violate the privilege to describe it, and so all I can suggest to you is that if you want to see those documents or discuss those documents with this witness that you set a subsequent hearing requesting that they produce the documents for an in-camera inspection by me and we have -- if I grant the motion for the in-camera inspection, on another date or maybe at the same time we have the hearing, I will personally inspect the documents to see if in fact they fall within the privilege. If they do fall within the privilege, you don't get to see them, you don't get to ask your questions about them. If I find they don't fall within the privilege, you do get to ask questions, you do get to see them. MR. MOXON: Okay. BY MR. MOXON: Q Are these documents that you're claiming to be privilege different than the ones that you put on your Web page? A Yes. Q Who created these documents? MR. MERRETT: Judge, at this point I'm going to object with -- same objection. I just said that the only way -- JUDGE BEACH: Are you directing your questions to the -- the documents they claim that are privilege? MR. MOXON: No, I'm not asking for information about them except for what -- who -- who created them, are they prepared by you or somebody else? THE WITNESS: Which -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, that may lead to a disclosure which -- which violates the privilege so do not discuss any of the documents that are claimed to be privilege. MR. MERRETT: Judge, I may be able to short- circuit it. I don't mind just sending you under seal the documents that are claimed to be privilege. JUDGE BEACH: No. We're going to have a hearing, I'm going to inspect them with everybody present. I'm not going to do it in the privacy of my home. MR. MOXON: Obviously, the reason why we're here is because these complaints were made to the police and they said it was, you know, absolutely baseless but it's -- it's -- it's a problem with all these complaints flying around the government agencies and the media even though this witness -- JUDGE BEACH: Well, I've told you the procedure to utilize if you want to get into that. MR. MOXON: Okay. Can we just take a break for two minutes, and then I'll be able to wrap this up. (WHEREUPON A BRIEF PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. BY MR. MOXON: Q Do you know whether you or anyone else at the LMT has had any communications with an organization called Wellspring? A Yes. Q Can you tell me when? A I can't tell you when. Q In the last month? A In the last month? I don't know. Not me personally; no. I don't -- I don't know if anyone has in the last month. Q Who's been communicating with Wellspring from LMT? A Okay. There have been communications I know in the past. I don't know about anything recent. I know Stacy has communicated with one of the counselors over there. I do know that. Q Tell me when -- when's the last time you heard there was a communication from Wellspring with Stacy or any other employee at LMT? A I would say maybe two or three months. Q Ago? A Yeah. Q That was between Stacy and who at Wellspring? A David, I think his -- I really don't know. I don't know those guys very well. Q Do you know them somewhat? A No. I'm sorry. I don't know them. I've never I don't think spoken to anyone at Wellsprings. Q Have you had any written communication with Wellspring? A No. Q Do you know if Stacy has been coordinating with Wellspring the discovery issues in this case? A Oh, no. Q You don't know? A No. Q Do you know if there's been any written communication from Wellspring? A No. Q Or its counselor? A No. Q Has Dell Liebreich been at the LMT? A Once. Q You've seen her there? A At the vigil. Q She's a board member; isn't she? A Not anymore. Q She resigned? A I believe so. Q When? A Recently. Q When? A I'd say a week or so ago. Q Why? A I don't know. Q How do you know? A Because I saw a letter on Stacy's desk. Stacy was out of town and I saw a letter on her desk from Dell that said she resigned. Q Did you talk to anyone about it? A Did I? No, I haven't had a chance to talk to Stacy at all, and I didn't -- I didn't talk to anyone else about it; no. Q Have you ever had any communications with Dell Liebreich yourself? A No. MR. MOXON: Okay. Pending resolution of the document requests, the deposition is concluded. JUDGE BEACH: Any questions? MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir. I just have a couple to clarify one issue. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MERRETT: Q With respect to the commercial shredding you testified about that, is it correct that materials that were shredded were limited to copyright materials that had been sent in to the LMT by other people? MR. MOXON: I do object to -- although I can ask a leading question of this witness, Mr. Merrett, I object as to leading question. JUDGE BEACH: It is leading. MR. MERRETT: It's cross-examination. JUDGE BEACH: Well, I understand, but there's a case in Florida that says even though you come back on cross-exam, if it's your client, you're not permitted to lead. BY MR. MERRETT: Q All right. Well, I'll ask you this. Were there any documents other than copyrighted documents sent in to the LMT by others that were shredded with the commercial shredder that you know of? A Sent in? Well, I would have to say not that I know of. Q Okay. And -- A I don't even like that answer. Clarifying it as sent in, I --- Q Okay. Let me reask the question, then. As far as you know, was the commercial shredding limited to copyrighted material? A Yes. Q Okay. A That's what that was all about. MR. MERRETT: Okay. I don't have anything further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MOXON: Q Who was the company? A Oh, I don't know. I don't know. MR. MOXON: Okay. That's it. Thank you. JUDGE BEACH: All right. Thank you very much. MR. MERRETT: Thanks, Judge. May we be excused? JUDGE BEACH: You may. (WHEREUPON VIDEO DEPOSITION CONCLUDED.) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) I, Christine V. Ales, certify that I was authorized to and did verbatim report the foregoing proceedings and videotaped deposition, and that the transcript is a true and complete record. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this ____ day of ________________, 2001. ______________________________________ Christine V. Ales, CSMR-5144, CVR Notary Public - Court Reporter 1 Kanabay Court Reporting St. Pete/Clearwater *** (727) 821-3320 --0-541072534-999809939=:3074--