There's no mystery about that.
MR. DANDAR: But when they're objecting, they're saying it's outside the issues. If I violated the canons of ethics, they haven't stated until maybe two days ago where they're coming from on that.
THE COURT: Well, I think it's fairly obvious.

MR. ROSEN: Your Honor --

MR. DANDAR: It's not obvious to me.

THE COURT: Maybe you ought to read that again.

MR. DANDAR: If you're ruling that those are the issues --
THE COURT: I'm not ruling anything. You said you don't know where they're coming from. They've said where they're coming from, so it's no mystery.
If you want to address that, fine. If you want to address something where they're not coming from, I don't know why you would want to do that.
MR. DANDAR: I'm trying to be very cautious because this is a very serious allegation. It's a broad allegation against me

THE COURT: Well, I think that in terms of the issues, I think that they have self-restricted the issues down to the ones that they set out in the document that I received a few days ago, and it seems to me that if that's what they think the issues are and the ones that they are going to be hanging their hat on, maybe those are the ones you ought to address rather than some issue that they don't think is relevant.

MR. DANDAR: That's fine.
The reason why I'm being so cautious -- the next reason I'm being so cautious is because I don't want Dr. Garko to leave the stand and they say, well, here's another issue you can use, Judge, and then I don't have any testimony. That's all. So I will go with that statement by the Court.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, if I may just say a word, just to remind Mr. Dandar -- he's apparently forgotten something -- our original Motion to Disqualify Mr. Dandar, which I believe was served on April 8th and 9th, when we came to the hearing Your Honor indicated on

objection by Mr. Dandar that that was insufficient because given the gravity of the circumstances, Mr. Dandar was entitled to something much more by way of specification of what the misconduct was.
And Mr. Pope, I remember, jumping up and saying, "Your Honor, you're absolutely right; he's entitled to know precisely what the specifications are, almost like an indictment, you know, here are the specifications of misconduct, et cetera, and we will do that."
And apparently Mr. Dandar has forgotten that before we resumed before you on April 19th we served them and filed them and he has had it all of this time.

MR. DANDAR: So just for the record, I'm looking at the Statement of Issues, service date of August 14th, 2002, which was six issues, and I'm also looking at an August 28th, 2002 bench memorandum which seems to raise six issues, some of which are not the same as the ones on August 14th. So should I address my witnesses both of these Statements of issues?


MR. DANDAR: All right.

Q. Dr. Garko, were you ever involved in conversations with anyone concerning how much money I was borrowing from Mr. Minton?
MR. ROSEN: Objection to the leading nature of the question. This is his witness, judge.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's also hearsay.
Q. Okay. Dr. Garko, did you have any conversations with Mr. Minton as to the status of the money he was giving me?

MR. ROSEN: Objection. That's hearsay.
THE COURT: I think it's vague. I don't know whether it's hearsay or not because it's a little too vague. Can you be a little more specific?

Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Minton classify the money he gave me as either a loan to me or to the estate?
MR. ROSEN: Objection. That's hearsay, what Mr. Minton said.
THE COURT: I have already ruled that it's an admission. You can answer.

THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question, please.

Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Minton classify the money that he gave me over the years as a loan to me or a loan to the estate?

A. My understanding was that -­

THE COURT: Your understanding is not what we're talking about. What we’re talking about What we're talking about
is conversations that you heard from Mr. Minton, statements that he made, not your understanding or your belief or anything else, okay, so be very careful about that. careful about that.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I never heard him use the word loan.

Q. Did he ever say who the money was going to?

MR. ROSEN: I'm going to object. That's vague, who the money was going to.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: The money was going to the estate.


Q. Did you see checks to the estate?

MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that


Q. Did you see checks by Mr. Minton to the estate?
A. I never saw any checks. I never saw checks.
Q. So are you recollecting a conversation and statement made by Mr. Minton over the years that he was giving money to the estate?
MR. ROSEN: I object to this. This is improper.
MR. DANDAR: I need to pinpoint the witness down as to what he's referring to.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask him what he heard and when he heard it. Then you can pin it down that way, what that may be. BY MR. DANDAR:
Q. When did you hear Mr. Minton make any statement concerning who the money is going to?
A. Over the years -- over the two or three years, the three years that I was working as the trial consultant on the case, we had conversations with Mr. Minton, you and I -- and I can't remember the exact times or places, but it
was clear to me that when we did talk about the money, that the money was going to the estate to fund the litigation -- that is, the Lisa McPherson wrongful death


case -- that was my understanding based on conversations that you and I had with Mr. Minton at various points in time over the three years.

Q. You sat with me at the deposition of Mr. Minton in May of 2000?

A. I believe I did.
Q. And John Merrett was representing Mr. Minton?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall in that deposition, did you try to correct anything that Mr. Minton said in that deposition about where the money was going to?

MR. ROSEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. The deposition speaks for itself.

MR. DANDAR: I'm not asking what the deposition transcript is. I'm asking him if he tried to correct anything that Mr. Minton said in that deposition concerning where the money was going to.

MR. ROSEN: How could he correct it? He's not the witness and he's not an attorney. I don't understand the question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah, you need to rephrase.
Q. Can you recall for us specifically where this


conversation took place?

A. It wasn't just one conversation, Mr. Dandar. When we did speak with Mr. Minton about funding in the case, it was clear to me that he intened the money to be channelled -- or funneled or whatever, directed - to the estate to be put in trust, some trust account, and to be used to fund this case. That was my understanding. I mean -­
Q. But what were the words of Mr. Minton?

A. I don’t remember his exact words, but I can tell you what I didn’t hear him say. I didn’t hear him say, "Here's some money, go have a good time.” I mean, that’s not what he said. I inferred - it was implied - I concluded - from our
Conversations with him, even as recently as 2002 when we went up to New Hamphsire, the the money was to be used to fund the litigation. That was my understanding.
I mean, that's as simple as it is for me. I mean, that's what it was, and that's what it is in my mind as I sit here today testifying under oath.
Q. Did Mr. Minton attach any strings to this money he gave me?
A. I never heard Mr. Minton -

MR. ROSEN: Objection to the question, "That he gave me."



Q. I will rephrase it. Did you ever hear Mr. Minton attach any strings to the money that I received?

A. Only that the money was to be used to fund - to support the costs incurred in the litigation of the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case. In terms of any other kinds of conditions or conditions, I never heard him say that -- say anything like that.

Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Minton say that I had to amend the Complaint and sue David Miscavige?

MR. ROSEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. This is leading. You know, if he's got statements that he heard Mr. Minton say regarding some issue, maybe ask him about those statements, but, you know, you can't just lead him into yes or no answers. You know, that's not testimony.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I apologize for not saying this earlier. Dr. Garko is an adverse witness.
Dr. Garko used to be a defendant in this case. And I'm going to get into that now, and maybe I should get into it right now.
He certainly is not a witness for me or the estate. He's an adverse witness.

And I don't think you know about any of this -- and, see, I'm coming from Judge Schaeffer. This all came out. So let me go down there and establish that first, okay?
THE COURT: All right.
Q. Dr. Garko, you and I have not talked to each other since the hearing of April the 9th, that day, April the 9th; is that right?

A. No. That's not true.

Q. When did we last talk?
A. We spoke on the day that I testified in Judge Schaeffer's court.
Q. Okay. All right. Other than the day that you testified in Judge Schaeffer's courtroom, is that the only time you and I have talked since April the 9th?
MR. ROSEN: I object. If Mr. Dandar is trying to lay a foundation that this witness has a reason -- as a, quote, adverse witness - has a reason to lie, the fact that he used to work for Mr. Dandar and does no longer plainly fails.
If he's got some animosity he wants to bring out through the witness, it is not “I haven't talked to you."

I haven't talked to my son in three months either. It doesn't mean that he's an adverse witness for me.
THE COURT: Well, what's the basis that you're claiming he's an adverse witness, just because he has testimony that's not favorable to you?
MR. DANDAR: No, I'm trying to establish that now. I mean, that was just one of many questions that I had to establish that.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, can I ask for a proffer outside the presence of the witness so we don't waste all day with this as to what Mr. Dandar will proffer to you as a factual basis this witness will testify to which makes him adverse under the code?
Q. Dr. Garko, did you meet in private with your attorney, Mr. Scrivens, with Mr. Weinberg representing the Church of Scientology?
MR. ROSEN: Objection. The fact that he meets with his attorney with an attorney for the church makes him adverse?

THE COURT: Nothing is determined yet,

Mr. Rosen, and it never will be if he never gets to answer the questions, so let's, you know, wait until he's finished with what he claims to be the proffer and then -- or the basis for the foundation -- and then we'll hear what you've got to say about it.

Q. Did you meet with Mr. Weinberg?
A. You used the word in private. What do you -- can you be specific? What do you mean by in private?
Q. Did you meet with Mr. Weinberg at your attorney's office with your attorney present?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Did you have that meeting the afternoon before you came in and testified for the Church of Scientology?
A. No.
Q. When did you have that conversation, that meeting?
A. I testified in Judge Schaeffer's court it was the day before.
Q. I thought that's what I said. I’m sorry.
A. Maybe I misunderstood you.
Q. Okay. And before you met with Mr. Weinberg, he sent you a letter -- he sent you a letter saying that the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization was going
to dismiss you from this case before Judge Baird because they had no evidence against you; is that right?
A. Yeah, that's correct.
MR. DANDAR: I would like to have this marked as the defense exhibit. Who marks it? Should I just mark it?


MR. ROSEN: Mr. Dandar, can I have a copy?

MR. DANDAR: You most certainly may.

THE COURT: Which exhibit is this?

MR. DANDAR: I believe it will be Number 1.

MR. ROSEN: No. It's Number 3. It's Defendant's 3.
Q. Take a look at Defendant's 3 for identification. Did you receive this letter?
A. My attorney did.
Q. Did you see this letter?
A. I did.

Q. Do you have any idea why this letter was sent to you on Friday, June 8th before you met with Mr. Weinberg on the following Monday?

MR. ROSEN: Objection. Calls for

speculation, "Do you have any idea why an attorney did this"?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Did you know that you were about to receive this letter before your attorney got it on June 8th?
A. No, I didn't.
MR. DANDAR: I would like to move this Defendant's 3 in evidence.
MR. ROSEN: My objection is only relevance, Judge.
THE COURT: It will be received.


Q. Let me show you what we'll mark -- in Judge Schaeffer's courtroom it was Exhibit 190: in this courtroom it will be Defendant's 4. I'm handing you Defendant's 4 marked by the Court. Have you seen that before?
A. I have.
Q. And what is it?
A. It's a release agreement and covenant not to sue.
Q. Is that signed by Mr. Ben Shaw?
A. It is.
Q. Was Ben Shaw present when Mr. Weinberg met you and your attorney?
A. No, he wasn't.

Q. And who drew up this covenant and release agreement?

A. I believe it was my attorney, Mr. Scrivener.
Q. In the first paragraph of the release agreement and covenant not to sue, Defendant's 4, it states that the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization is releasing you for valuable consideration, quote, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, closed quote.
What consideration did the Church of Scientology receive to release you from any and all claims?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Now, before you testified before Judge Schaeffer, did you tell Mr. Weinberg anything differently than what you said under oath in the hearing before Judge Schaeffer?
MR. ROSEN: Objection. We're not trying the wrongful death case before Judge Schaeffer here. I don't understand this question, and it certainly doesn't go to the premise of this witness is adverse.
THE COURT: It's a little too vague.
Q. Okay. After the hearing of April 9th, Mr. Lirot who attended that hearing, did you meet with him at the courthouse in Tampa?

to me in

A. I did, along with you, Mr. Lirot, Patricia Greenway, and an expert witness we were using in a case that we were trying that day. They were also present.

Q. When you say we were trying that day, I was the attorney in a trial
in Tampa?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And after that day in court and after you heard Mr. Lirot said about the hearing on April 9th, did you and I have a discussion?

A. We did.

Q. And did we have a discussion both in the meeting room in the courthouse as well as in the parking lot next to the courthouse?

A. We had a conversation in a waiting room, witness waiting room, I believe it was. We had a conversation in the hallway of the courthouse going to the elevator. We had a conversation in the elevator. We had a conversation down the elevator, out through the courthouse, down the elevator, out through the courthouse, down the street, into the parking lot.

Q. And would you agree that those conversations were - you were very upset with me?
A. I was very concerned about what I had heard from Mr. Lirot and upset with you. Upset, disappointed.
Q. Did you threaten me that you were -- did you state to me in the parking lot that you were going to go hire a


A. No, that's not what I said, Mr. Dandar. To give that context --

Q. I just asked you that question.

A. No, that's not what I said.
Q. Okay. Now, since that time, and excluding Judge Schaeffer's hearing where you appeared to testify for the church, did you have any conversations with me?

MR. ROSEN: Objection. It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Repeat your question, please.
Q. Since that day on April the 9th when we parted in the parking lot until you testified before Judge Schaeffer, did you have any conversations with me?

A.ot with you but with your attorney.

Q. Mr. Lirot?

A. That's right.
Q. Okay. And during that time-from April 9th to the time we met at the courthouse and when you testified, did you have any conversations with Mr. Minton?

A. I had a conversation -- yes.
Q. Did you go to see Mr. Minton when he was staying on the beach during the pendency or after he testified on

April the 9th?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you recall what date that was?

A. I don't remember the exact date. It was the first Sunday following April 9th.

Q. Okay. And when you went to see Mr. Minton, did he have any conversation with you concerning him meeting with you, me, Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks in my office to discuss adding on David Miscavige?

MR. ROSEN: Objection, two grounds. This not only calls for hearsay, but this again has nothing to do with the premise this is an adverse witness.

MR. DANDAR: It's not a leading question.

MR. ROSEN: I would object to the solicitation of what other people in this meeting said.

And I remind the Court of a comment I made earlier. This witness has now testified that this meeting occurred on the Sunday after April 9th. That would have been April 14th. Mr. Minton was on the stand in this court on April 19th and cross-examined.

MR. DANDAR: We11, that's another question. I will get there.


Q. Not telling us what the conversation with Mr. Minton was, did you ever tell me that you met with Mr. Minton?

A. Did I ever tell you?

Q. Yeah, before you testified before Judge Schaeffer?

A. I never spoke with you, Mr. Dandar.
Q. Right. And contrary to Mr. Rosen's comments to the Court this morning, were you sitting here as my jury trial consultant on April 19th?
A. I don't think I was.
Q. In fact, the last time you served as my jury trial consultant on any case was April the 9th, correct?
A. That's my recollection.
MR. ROSEN: I stand corrected.
Q. Now, did Mr. Minton tell you about this meeting where you're present, I'm present, Jesse Prince was present and Stacy Brooks are present discussing the addition of Mr. Miscavige as a defendant in the wrongful death case?
MR. ROSEN: Objection, same objection, calling for hearsay.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, you already said it's admissible under 9802.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Are you talking about when I met with Mr. Minton -
Q. Yes.
A. -- on Sunday, April 14th, is that what you're talking about?
Q. Yes.
A. What did he tell me about that meeting?
Q. Yes.
A. He told me that he was present, you were present, I was there, Jesse was there and Stacy was there.
He mentioned to me the position that I took regarding the adding of David Miscavige. He talked about that. He talked about a conversation he had with you, I believe, in an elevator subsequent to the meeting, in which you were to have said to him something to the effect of this -- no one is to know about this conversation or this meeting is to be kept quiet or something to that effect, in essence that this was not for public consumption. I don't know the exact quote, but something like that.
He talked about my position regarding the adding of David Miscavige to the wrongful death case.
He recalled that -- you asked me what he talked about, and some of this may be inane to you, but he talked about the weather. He said, I remember, that it was very

hot. He talked about it being -- the meeting taking place in your new office.

Q. Which office?
A. The one on -- which one was it now -- the second one, the one -- I think it was on Kennedy. Is it on Kennedy?

Q. Kennedy, okay.
A. He talked about there was clutter in conference room because you had just moved in there.
Q. You had an office there too, didn't you?
A. Yeah, yes, I did, at least for a while. He -- that's all I can recall at the moment.
Something may come to me as we go along here, but that's all I can remember at this moment about what he said regarding that meeting. That's all I remember at the moment, Mr. Dandar.

Q. Did you have a reply to that?

A. Well, I did. About the meeting?

Q. Yeah.
MR. ROSEN: I'm confused; Your Honor. Are we talking about the meeting on Sunday the 14th?
Q. Yeah. Did you have a reply to Mr. Minton on April the 14th when he told you about this meeting that he


said took place in my office on Kennedy Boulevard?
A. I did. I replied to his general conversation about that. I reiterated my position regarding that meeting, and I told him that it was my position in that meeting, it was my position prior to that meeting, and it was my position even on that day of April 14th, that David Miscavige should not have been added to the wrongful death case, and I gave him three reasons.
And I said, "If you recall, Bob, I gave somewhat of a speech about the adding of David Miscavige and why he shouldn't be added. From a jury trial consultant's perspective, I thought it was imprudent."
And I said, number one, David Miscavige shouldn't be added because -- I used the metaphor of a smoking gun -- I said there's no smoking gun to support the claim in the Fifth Amended Complaint that David Miscavige knew about Lisa McPherson being in the Ft. Harrison Hotel and giving the order to, quote, let her die, end quote.
I said, "There's no e-mail, there is no letter, there is no witness, there is no smoking gun."
And I reminded him, I said, and the second reason I gave in that meeting as to why David Miscavige should not be added to the Complaint was that you had struck -- I said Ken had struck a -- not a deal -- but had signed a contract or an agreement with Scientology not to
add parties.

I said, admittedly, I'm not a lawyer, but I told Mr. Dandar -- I told Ken as I said to him -- I told Ken that you have a legal hurdle to jump here.
And I'm not an attorney and I don't know how or in what ways such a contract or agreement could be legally or ethically circumvented; I just felt it was problematic for you to deal with, and quite frankly a big distraction.
And the third reason I gave, which is, I felt, a practical reason, is I said nobody is ever going to be able to serve David Miscavige a document, a subpoena, or any other document to put this kind of decision into process. You're not going to be able to serve him.
And I reminded Mr. Minton, I said, and as it turns out, I was right on all three points. And I explained that to him, and he said I recall you making that argument.

Q. Dr. Garko, my question was: Did you agree with Mr. Minton that a meeting took place between you and me, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince and Mr. Minton as outlined in
Mr. Minton's recantation affidavit in my office on Kennedy Boulevard?
A. That wasn't your question. Your question is what did I say to him in response to his discussion about the adding of David Miscavige, and I just answered your

Q. Okay. I'm sorry. So my next question is, did you correct -- did you have any reply to Mr. Minton when he said that a meeting took place between you and I, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince and he in my office on Kennedy Boulevard discussing the addition of Mr. Miscavige as a defendant?

A. I did talk to him about that, and I said that I did not view it as a formal meeting. I tried to explain to him my perception of what went on that day when I was in the room with you, him and Stacy Brooks.
Q. So Jesse Prince wasn't there?
A. I don't have a recollection of that.
Q. You've read the affidavit of Mr. Minton where he describes this meeting, that he flew into Tampa especially for the meeting to come to my office with an elevator, to discuss adding on David Miscavige with all of those individuals.

A. I read his affidavit, yes.

Q. And did you reply to Mr. Minton on April 145h that that meeting that he described never took place?
A. What I said to him was that it was not a formal meeting. I viewed it as, for lack of a better term, a conversation.
I mean, he and Stacy -- my recollection is that

previous next