he and Stacy Brooks stopped by the office, they did go into the conference room, we did go in there, and we were sitting around talking.

I didn't view it as a driven -- an agenda-driven meeting. I just didn't see it that way. I saw it as a meeting, call it.

Q. Was Jesse Prince there?

A. I don't have a recollection of Jesse Prince being there.

Q. And was Brian Haney there?

A. I don't have any recollection of Brian Haney being there either.

Q. Did this take place in my old office on O'Brien, the one you're talking about?

A. No, no, no, I'm talking about -- no. The meeting that I'm thinking about - no. The meeting that I’m thinking about are the -- this event, whatever you want to call it, took place in your other office where there's an elevator. I think that's Kennedy Boulevard.
Q. And do you recall when I moved into that office?
A. I think I do. I helped you move.
Q. Do you remember?
A. I don't have a real clear memory of that.

Q. Okay. Well, isn't it true that the meeting that you're talking about that's not a meeting -- just dropped in out of the blue and said hi kind of a meeting, get together -- didn't that occur after the October 8th '99 hearing with Judge Moody where he upheld the stipulation?

A. I'm unclear as to when it happened. My recollection is that we had been
before Judge Moody on this issue at least twice. I remember you filed a motion to add David Miscavige as a party, and I believe Judge Moody denied that motion and you went back.
Again, this conversation with Mr. Minton and you and Ms. Brooks and myself
occurred either between those two hearings or subsequent to the second ruling by Judge Moody. I'm unclear as to exactly when.

Q. And do you remember the second ruling by Judge Moody?

A. I do remember that.

Q. He permitted us to add him on?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. Now, let me see if I can help you out on dates.
The hearing with Judge Moody the first time where he upheld the stipulation was October the 8th of '99.

MR. ROSEN: Objection, leading.

Mr. Dandar testified as to when it happened.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.


Q. I moved into my office on November 1st of '99. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. The second hearing with Judge Moody is in the middle of December --

A. Okay.
Q. -- '99. Does that help refresh your memory as to when Mr. Minton dropped in out of the blue to talk to us and say hi?
A. I really don't remember. I'm not clear.
Q. Okay. All right. So when you told Mr. Minton that this so-called special meeting that he describes in this recantation affidavit did not take place the way he described it, the people weren't there as the way he described it, people being there like Jesse Prince, did he have a reply to that?
MR. ROSEN: That question is complete with testimony by Mr. Dandar. Can we just stick to questions, Your Honor?
Mr. Dandar is testifying about some affidavit that's not even before the Court as to whether Mr. Prince is in this meeting.
THE COURT: Would you restate the question?


MR. DANDAR: I will.

Q. This drop-in by Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks --
MR. ROSEN: Objection to the characterization of the drop-in.
THE COURT: I think I know what he's talking about.
Q.-- that you described, present at that meeting or the drop-in, whatever you want to call it, was me, you, Minton and Brooks.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar is testifying.
THE COURT: He's asking a question. I believe that's the testimony, but I'm not sure, so I would like to hear the answer, okay?

THE WITNESS: My recollection is --
THE COURT: Who was present at that meeting?
That's kind of the way you ask a question, you know?
THE WITNESS: I was present, Your Honor. Mr. Dandar was present, Mr. Minton was present and Ms. Brooks was present. I don't have a


recollection of --
THE COURT: So you don't recall anyone else other than those four?

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Move on.
Q. Now, at that meeting that you just described for the Judge --

A. Yes.
Q. -- did Ms. Brooks make any statement about the addition of David Miscavige?
A. I mean, she made several comments along the way. Could you be more specific as to --
Q. Did she say something that caused you or shocked you about her position on adding David Miscavige?
A. After I made the argument as to why I believed David Miscavige should not have been added or be added as a defendant in the wrongful death case, she looked over at you and said, "And so why did you add him, Ken," something to that effect. That's my recollection, "So why did you add him, Ken?"
And I was surprised by that.

Q. Why were you surprised by that?

A. Because I knew that she was the person who came up with that idea, that she was the creator of it, the architect of it, whatever term you want to use. It was her idea.
And when she responded that way, it just sounded odd to me. It was like -- I mean, she was encouraging you to do that. She was the one who was making that argument. I was opposed to it, as you know.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. If you will give me a minute, I will get the right one. There's like five recantation affidavits in here.
MR. ROSEN: I can't hear you. Your Honor, can I ask Mr. Dandar to speak up? I simply cannot hear him.
THE COURT: I think he's just mumbling to himself at this point.
MR. ROSEN: Okay.
Q. All right. Dr. Garko, you did review the recantation affidavits of Mr. Minton?
A. I did.
Q. And -- well, you know what, I will just come back to that. Okay.
THE COURT: While we've got a short break here, why don't you either -- you or Mr. Rosen -- can

explain to me procedurally how this Miscavige motion in front of me went. My understanding is that you moved to amend the Complaint to add him as a party.
MR. DANDAR: Him and two corporations and two other individuals.
THE COURT: All right. And then there was a hearing, and that was denied.

THE COURT: And then there was another hearing and it was granted.
MR. DANDAR: I will explain how it happened.
THE COURT: No. There was an order saying you may add him as a party.

THE COURT: Okay. And then how did they finally get removed as a party?
MR. ROSEN: What happened is this: Mr. Dandar's first motion to amend which was filed in September of 1999 was a motion to add five defendants, including Mr. Miscavige. Judge Moody said no.

That motion that was filed is the subject

of the breach case. That was the breach of the agreement not to add parties.
After Judge Moody said no, Mr. Dandar came back in December with a second motion, this one only to add Mr. Miscavige, not the other four.
And he did it on the eve of the statute of limitations running out. Judge Moody said, "You want to do this, you act at your peril. This may be a breach of this contract, but you want to add him, you're telling me the statute is running out," he had an immediate hearing and he said go ahead and add him.
That was the second breach that resulted in the judgment in Texas that was before you on domestication.
Mr. Dandar then purported to serve Mr. Miscavige as a defendant in the wrongful death case.
I was brought in to represent Mr. Miscavige; that's my appearance in the wrongful death case. I argued a series of motions before Judge Moody. One was the service was no good. Two was the motion to dismiss. Three was summary judgment.

Judge Moody then ruled that the service

was insufficient, the service is quashed; and in view of that determination, I don't have to address the other issues that you raised. So service is no good; Mr. Miscavige is not presently in.
Mr. Dandar then told -- I think it was Judge Quesada who at that time took over from Judge Moody on the wrongful death case -- we're not going to try to re-serve him. So he was stricken from the caption.
The only consequence of the second one, of the second motion, which was successful before Judge Moody, is, as I said, it resulted in a breach case in Texas which is now the judgment is back before you.

MR. DANDAR: Would you like to see the order?
THE COURT: No, I just wanted to understand it.
MR. DANDAR: Well, what he said isn't exactly correct, but...

THE COURT: Well, it's not that important.

MR. DANDAR: It isn't?

THE COURT: No. I only understood about

the one regarding the, you know, related organizations.
I presume that that was the difference, that there was a difference between an individual or a related organization in terms of the agreement or at least that was the argument.
MR. ROSEN: No. The first one was to name two churches and three individuals, including Mr. Miscavige.
The second one was -- Mr. Dandar's position was we're adding Mr. Miscavige not as the head of RTC, but we claim he acted in some other capacity, and therefore the agreement not to add the churches or their executives does not cover actions taken ultra vires by an executive.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand.
Q. During your years as my jury trial consultant, Dr. Garko, did you ever see Mr. Minton interfere with the conduct of the wrongful death case?
MR. ROSEN: Objection. Calls for a conclusion under the canons. It's a conclusion of law.


THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Could you explain what you mean, give me more specificity? What do you mean by interfere with the conduct?
Q. Interfere by saying do this and don't do that, things like that.
A. I recall him saying on a number of occasions that you needed to use Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince more.

Q. In which way, use them more how?
A. That you needed to follow their advice about issues that were related to the religion of Scientology and to include that component or that issue in the wrongful death case, that to make it more of a Scientology case than a wrongful death case.
Q. Isn't it true, Dr. Garko, that throughout the time that you were my jury trial consultant you saw Mr. Minton having no involvement in the wrongful death case, that he was aloof, as you put it, in the wrongful death case?
MR. ROSEN: Object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I have characterized him as being aloof. I wouldn't say that he was never involved in the case. I mean, he was involved.

He was concerned. He demonstrated that concern.
He was enthusiastic about the case, and he demonstrated that in a number of different times and places and contexts, situations, if I understood your question.
Q. Did you ever see me follow his advice and make the wrongful death case more focused on the Scientology aspects?
A. His advice?
Q. Yeah.

A. I was never present in any conversation where I heard Mr. Minton say, Ken, you should do X, Y or Z and then you went and did X, Y or Z.
If that's what you're asking me, I never heard those kinds of conversations.

Q. All right. Now, I want to show you what's already in the court record.
MR. DANDAR: And, Judge, if you need a copy of this, I can give it to you. It's a recantation affidavit number two of Mr. Minton filed by Mr. Howie, his attorney, on April 29th, 2002, and I want to show this to the witness.

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


MR. DANDAR: I don't have an extra copy.

MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry?

MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry?

MR. ROSEN: May I see it before you show it to the witness?

MR. DANDAR: I'm going to show him Paragraph 17, beginning on Page 6.

MR. ROSEN: I just want to see the affidavit.
Your Honor, I object to this. This is an affidavit that was filed, the recanting for purposes of the perjury statute.
And the reason -- this is an appropriate example of why I asked for a proffer. I believe that what Mr. Dandar is now going to do is to try to impeach a witness, Mr. Minton; by asking this witness if the statements in the affidavit are true. I think that's improper.

MR. DANDAR: That's not what I'm going to ask.

THE COURT: I don't know what he's going to do. I guess we'll wait and see.
Q. Read out loud Paragraph 17.
A. Paragraph 17?

Q. Yes.
A. On Pages 6 of 20 and 7 of 20?
Q. Yes.
A. "In the fall of 1999, I flew to Tampa Airport and was picked up by Ms. Brooks and taken to Mr. Dandar's new office on Kennedy Boulevard in Tampa for a meeting concerning whether Mr. Dandar should add David Miscavige as a defendant in the wrongful death case.
"Attending that meeting in Mr. Dandar's new conference room were Ms. Brooks, Mr. Prince, Dr. Garko, Mr. Dandar and myself.
"The focus of the discussion was not -- was not what the facts were concerning Mr. Miscavige, but how to pressure him."
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Minton about that allegation that you just read in his affidavit?
MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry. What's the date of the affidavit?
MR. DANDAR: I previously said it's April 29th, 2002.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, the witness testified to a conversation with Mr. Minton on Sunday, April 14th. I don't understand the
question. Did he have a conversation with him at that meeting about an affidavit that was


filed two weeks later?

Q. Did you have a conversation on that subject matter with Mr. Minton after April 9th?.
A. April 9th of 2002?
Q. This year, right.
A. A conversation with him about the meeting?
Q. Yeah. Did you have a conversation about -­
A. Yes, I did. I had a conversation with him about the meeting.
Q. And did you tell Mr. Minton that that meeting did not take place as he described in his affidavit?
MR. ROSEN: Objection. How can he tell him on April 14th that a meeting described in an affidavit of April 29th didn't take place?
MR. DANDAR: I didn't ask him about April 14th. I asked him after April 9th, did he have a conversation with Mr. Minton about his
statement in that affidavit?
MR. ROSEN: Could we establish when that was?
THE COURT: All right. Well, if it was about the statement in the affidavit, then it would have had to have been after the affidavit, correct?


THE COURT: All right. So let's ask him that first.
Did you have a conversation with Mr. Minton after -- what was that, the 29th?



THE COURT: -- the 29th of April regarding statements that he made in that affidavit?

THE WITNESS: I don't believe I did, Your Honor.

Q. Is the first time that you are aware that Mr. Minton was claiming that a meeting took place with me and you, Brooks, Prince and him in my Kennedy Boulevard office with an elevator, was that on April 14th?

A. No.

Q. When was it?

A. It was the day Mr. Lirot came to the courthouse in Hillsborough County with Ms. Greenway and summarized the hearing in Judge Baird's court that day, and that was the first time I learned about a number of different things. But, I mean, he talked about, you know, this meeting. And I think he testified. I think that's my recollection of one of the things Mr. Lirot summarized.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, is it your recollection that that meeting took place or did it not take place? And we probably went over this. I don’t know.
A. I objected to the characterization of it as being
a meeting. I'm trained in such a way when somebody says
you're going to have a meeting, the first thing that comes to my mind is I ask what’s the agenda, you know.
It's true, there are impromptu meetings, but I just didn't see it as a meeting where -­ if he had an agenda, I didn't know about it. I just thought he was coming by the office with Ms Brooks. I went into a conference room, I sat down, we talked about various things.
And this business about pressuring Mr. Miscavige came up, and I tried once again to voice my concern that we shouldn't do this, and that’s the context of why I gave my argument.
So the pressuring business that I just read is what prompted me to give my speech about why this was an imprudent thing to do.

Q. And Mr. Prince was not present at the meeting or the get-together or whatever it's called that you're referring to?

A. I don't recall him being there.

Q. And neither was Mr. Haney?


A. I don't recall him being there.
Q. Okay. And Dr. Garko, are you aware of any agreement by the Estate of Lisa McPherson to give Mr. Minton or the Lisa McPherson Trust the bulk of any
hoped-for proceeds from the wrongful death case?
A. Written agreement? Oral agreement?
Q. Either.
A. I'm not aware of any formal, oral or written, agreement to do such a thing.

Q. Are you aware of the beneficiaries, the ultimate beneficiaries, the aunts and uncle of Lisa McPherson, having any plans to use the hoped-for proceeds of the wrongful death case for any cause?

MR. ROSEN: Objection, Your Honor. Among other things, calls for a legal conclusion by this witness, a non-attorney, as to who the beneficiaries are of an estate.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I just recall from depositions that were taken in Texas of the family, of the Lisa McPherson family, Lisa McPherson's family, there were questions about that issue, and I recall family members talking about that there was a potential to use any monies that were awarded in this case to fight


Scientology or some such notion. recollection of that.

Q. Now, whenever I would receive any money from Mr. Minton, Dr. Garko, were you aware of that?

MR. ROSEN: Objection. There's no foundation. How could this witness possibly answer that question?

MR. DANDAR: Well, it's a question to establish if there's a foundation. If he says no, then I agree with Mr. Rosen.

Q. Are you aware of when Mr. Minton would give me any money?

A. Apparently on some occasions I was aware, and on other occasions I was not aware.

Q. Okay. Dr. Garko, did you ever tell me that you were going to or that you did, in fact, meet with Mr. Weinberg in Mr.Scriven's office?

A. Did I ever tell you that I was going to do that?
Q. Yes.
A. No. My attorney tried to contact you, but I never talked to you.

Q. Do you know if you or your attorney ever told my attorney, Mr. Lirot, that you were going to meet with

Mr. Weinberg to prepare for your testimony as a witness for the Church of Scientology?
A. I don't know what Mr. Scriven may have communicated to Mr. Lirot.
Q. All right. Have you met with anyone associated with the Church of Scientology since you testified before Judge Schaeffer?

A. No, I haven't.
Q. Have you talked to anyone associated with the Church of Scientology?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Are you aware of any meeting with Bob Minton in attendance where it was discussed in front of him to add on David Miscavige in the wrongful death case before we first went to court for the very first time in October to request the addition of Mr. Miscavige and to set aside the 1997 agreement not to add on further parties?
MR. ROSEN: Objection to the testimony and to the question. There was no going to court to set aside any agreement.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just can't -- I have to give you this order because that's a bold face misrepresentation to the Court.
MR. ROSEN: It was filed after the motion was filed, and Mr. Dandar forgot to tell Judge

Moody that there was this agreement.
When he got caught submitting a motion without disclosing a prior agreement, that's when he filed a declaratory motion that the agreement is no good. You don't file that as part of the motion. He never disclosed it. In fact, he accused us of breaching confidentiality --
THE COURT: So your motion that you originally filed with Judge Moody was to add parties and to set aside the agreement?
MR. DANDAR: The first motion was to add parties. The second motion was to set aside the agreement. Mr. Fugate representing Flag brought it to my attention --
THE COURT: Oh, you had forgotten about it? He had to bring it to your attention?
MR. DANDAR: No. He wrote me a letter warning me that there was an agreement, so I filed this motion to set aside the agreement which was the first thing heard before Judge Moody, and the order of October 22nd --
THE COURT: So we've got it straight, you filed a motion, you didn't say anything to Judge Moody about the existence of an agreement

saying you wouldn't do such a thing, then Lee Fugate calls you, and so you file an amended motion that does say something about it, right?

MR. DANDAR: It came up in the very first hearing before the October 8th hearing, and we didn't argue the motion at that time because there was no time left, and so then I filed a motion to set aside the agreement.

THE COURT: Okay. I understand the process. So what's your question to him?

Q. Was there ever a meeting before we went in before Judge Moody in October where Mr. Minton was present and we discussed in front of him to add on David Miscavige in the wrongful death case?

A. I never attended any such meeting.

Q. Did we -- you and I - ever have a meeting where we sat down with Stacy Brooks where we sat down strategized on the case of how we needed to add on more parties, for any reason?
Without telling us any of the substance of the discussions, my question was: Was there any such meeting where we sat down with Stacy Brooks to strategize on adding more parties?

A. My recollection was that there were various conversations at different points in time involving

next previous