Ms. Brooks and the litigation of this case and that particular issue, among other issues.
Formal meetings, you want to call them meetings, I don't know. I do recall her advising, making arguments, about these kinds of issues.
Q. I want to read for you from Page 93 of your testimony before Judge Schaeffer on that question.

A. Right.

Q. And the testimony is from June 11th, 2002.

A. Right.
Q. On Line 19, question, "Did we ever have a meeting with her where we sat down and strategized on the case of we need to add on more parties, for some reason, without telling us what the meeting was about?"
Answer, Line 23, "I don't have a recollection of that."

A. That's right.
MR. ROSEN: Objection, Your Honor. What is the purpose of reading this? That's not impeachment. That's exactly what the witness just said.
MR. DANDAR: I don't think that's what he said. I wanted to clarify that with the Court.
THE COURT: Well, it sounded to me like it was exactly the same question and exactly the

same answer.
Apparently there were various conversations, but apparently there was no meeting regarding the issue of adding parties.
Q. Dr. Garko, is Stacy Brooks a trial consultant on the wrongful death case?
A. My understanding was that she was at certain times, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. You said trial consultant, Mr. Dandar?
Q. Not like you, but a consultant on Scientology, a consultant in the case.
A. Yes, I understood her to be a consultant with respect to Scientology matters, yes.
Q. You were the only jury trial consultant, correct?
A. That I know of on the case, yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Garko, do you recall Mr. Minton asking me to go to his house in New Hampshire in February of 2002?
MR. ROSEN: Objection. Is this going for hearsay, "Do you recall Mr. Minton asking me?"
MR. DANDAR: Technically I'm a party too, I guess. I'm just trying to lay a foundation for my next question.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I do recall.

Q. Okay. And do you know the purpose of that trip --

MR. ROSEN: Continuing objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You know, I'm not sure -

MR. DANDAR: I will withdraw that question.
Q. During the weekend trip to Mr. Minton's house in New Hampshire, did he mention anything about --
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Did he go on the trip?
THE COURT: I don't know that. You know lot about this that I don't, so try to explain it to somebody who hasn't heard it before, okay?
MR. DANDAR: Okay. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Did you go on a trip with Mr. Dandar up to Mr. Minton's house in Connecticut?
MR. ROSEN: I think you misspoke. It's New Hampshire, not Connecticut.


THE COURT: It's all the same to me.

MR. ROSEN: Someplace up north.

THE COURT: When did this trip take place?
THE WITNESS: It took place prior to -- I don't have the exact date, Your Honor. Sometime, I think, in February, I believe.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. What was your question about this trip?

MR. ROSEN: February of what year?

MR. ROSEN: Thank you. I'm sorry.
Q. And during this weekend at Mr. Minton's farmhouse in New Hampshire in 2002, was there a discussion about funding the case?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. And what did Mr. Minton say about funding the case?

A. I can talk a long time about that. I mean, that's a very open-ended question.

Q. Well, I don't want you to talk a long time.
THE COURT: That's true. Do you want him to just go on about it or do you have a specific question?

Q. Yes. Did Mr. Minton in your presence say that he was going to continue to fund the case?

A. He didn't say that.

Q. Did Mr. Minton say, in your presence, that he was not going to fund the case anymore?

A. He did say that.

Q. Did Mr. Minton say in your presence, however, he had friends in Europe who were interested in funding the case?

A. I don't know if he said it exactly that way.

Q. Well, put it in your words of how you remember it.

THE COURT: Put it in his words. That would be better.

THE WITNESS: I recall Mr. Minton saying something like he was not going to fund the case, and then we queried him on did he know anybody else that would be inclined to do that. He said he might know some people in Europe.
That's what I recall him saying.

MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I need to object and move to strike this. This is precisely the Queen's Bench type -- what I referred to as the Rule of Queen's Bench.

Mr. Minton was on the stand. Mr. Dandar was obviously at this meeting. He wasn't asked
about this. I don't understand how he could not ask Mr. Minton, let him leave the witness stand and now bring in a witness to testify as to this where Mr. Minton is being denied of his -- and not only him, but us -- denied of his ability to have Mr. Minton's testimony on this subject?
MR. DANDAR: Judge, it goes to -- and I believe -- I mean, I will go look it up, but I think this was brought up when Mr. Minton testified before you.
And, yes, I'm operating here at somewhat of a disadvantage because I spent 35 days with Judge Schaeffer, so you're right; I've got all of this in my mind, and I believe -- that's all I can say -- that on April 19th Mr. Minton talked about this. I will go and double check.
But it is part of one of their issues that they raise about the concealment of a May 2000 check.

THE COURT: May 2002.
MR. DANDAR: No. Actually, their issue Number 6 is a May --
THE COURT: Oh, right, right, May 2000, right. That's Exhibit Number 5.


MR. ROSEN: May 2000.

MR. DANDAR: May 2000 concealment of a UBS check in his May 24th, 2000 deposition.
Of course, they also argued to you on April 9th on questioning Mr. Minton that he concealed a March 2002 check from the Switzerland bank, but I don't know how he did that since that wasn't part of any deposition question.

THE COURT: I thought we were talking about a conversation in February of 2002.

MR. DANDAR: We are.

THE COURT: Okay. So what's the May 2000 check got to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: I don't want to say it in front of the witness, unless you want to have a side bar.

I just wanted to ask the witness a follow-up question on Mr. Minton's comments about getting money from friends in Europe. That's all.


MR. DANDAR: I'm told that on Page 881, Line 22 of Mr. Minton's testimony, he talks about -

MR. ROSEN: Whose testimony?


MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. That's Judge Schaeffer's courtroom. That's irrelevant. I will try not to do that again.
MR. DANDAR: Dr. Garko -- no, that's not an issue. I'm sorry.

MR. ROSEN: I can't hear.

MR. DANDAR: That's not an issue. I'm not going to ask the question.
Q. Dr. Garko, you already said that you attended the Robert Minton deposition of May 24th, 2000.
A. That's my recollection, yes.
Q. Are you aware of any moment in time when I met with Mr. Minton or talked to Mr. Minton about preparing him for that deposition?
A. My recollection is I don't have a recollection of meeting met with Mr. Minton prior to his deposition, that you met with him. I don't have a recollection of that. I didn't see it. I wasn't in attendance.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the reason I asked for the proffer, Mr. Minton testified that Mr. Dandar made a statement to him between the two of them. He's going into that deposition. Mr. Minton didn't testify that

Dr. Garko was there.
THE COURT: I think Dr. Garko just said he wasn't there either.
MR. ROSEN: But my question. is what's the purpose of even eliciting that he wasn't there?
THE COURT: Well, I don't know, but we're somewhere, I guess.

Q. Dr. Garko, were you or were you not at the May 24th, 2000 deposition of Mr. --
THE COURT: That isn't the question. You asked whether or not he had met with Minton and you prior to the deposition to prepare for the
deposition. That's what you asked. And he said, no, he didn't remember being with him prior to, to prepare for the deposition.
MR. DANDAR: Okay. I'm sorry.
Q. Did you observe any conversation that I had with Mr. Minton the day of the deposition before the deposition started on May 24th, 2000?

A. You talked to him, yes.

Q. Were you present?

A. My recollection is I think we stood in the hall

and chatted before the deposition, during the deposition -- I mean, after the deposition.

Q. Was there any conversation from me to Mr. Minton for him to lie or conceal the UBS check?

A. No conversation ever took place where you asked Mr. Minton to perjure himself, not in front of me.

Q. In all of the years that you have known me, Dr. Garko, have you ever known me to ask any witness to lie?

MR. ROSEN: Objection. Character witness?

THE COURT: Sustained. That's not the issue.

MR. DANDAR: Well, they have placed my character in issue. They're calling me a perjurer.

THE COURT: No, no one has placed your character in issue, okay? We're talking about professionalism here. We're talking about your duty as a lawyer.
We're not talking about whether you kicked the dog or were bad to your kids, okay? That's not what it's about. It's about whether or not you violated your duty as a lawyer and whether or not you suborned perjury.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I believe the


question -- and he's known me since '98.

THE COURT: It doesn't matter if he had seen you do it any number of times. It would still be irrelevant, okay? We're talking about this circumstance. We're not talking about some other.

Q. Dr. Garko, are you aware of any time where I've prepared an affidavit for Mr. Minton to sign stating that there was no agreement between the estate and he or the LMT to receive hoped-for proceeds from the wrongful death case?

A. Out of an abundance of caution, I don't have a clear recollection of that. For some reason in my mind, there's some memory of that, but I don't have a clear recollection of that, so I just -- I'm not clear on that. I really don't remember.

Q. All right. I think I'm just about done. Let me just check.
Okay. For the record, Mr. Minton was questioned on April 19th commencing at Page 55 concerning the New Hampshire trip at the end of February 2002 and the UBS checks.
My question to you, Dr. Garko, is: In the New Hampshire trip at Mr. Minton's house, did you ever hear Mr. Minton say that Ken Dandar wanted un-traceable money to
assist in continuing the case?
A. I never heard him say that.

Q. Okay.

MR. ROSEN: If Mr. Dandar has a lot longer, I've got a nature call. I can hold it for a bit if he's close to the end.

THE COURT: I've got a lunch call.

Q. One question: Did I ever represent Mr. Minton?
A. I don't think so. I don’t recall you representing him as an attorney.

Q. We talked about the May 24th, 2000 deposition. Are you aware if I met or talked with Mr. Minton to prepare him for his September 2001 deposition or his October 2001 deposition?

A. I don't have any knowledge of that or a recollection of that.

MR. DANDAR: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Do you intend to cross-examine this witness ?

MR. ROSEN: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you think that it's going to be a lengthy cross-examination?

MR. ROSEN: No. I believe if I can take a nature break, my cross-examination will be less

than a half an hour, maybe even shorter than that. Let me be safe and say a half an hour. I don't want to disappoint you, Judge.
THE COURT: You're not going to disappoint me. The thing that disappoints me is that it's noon and it's time to take a lunch break, so I hate to keep him here, especially keep his attorney here, but I think we're going to have to do that.
MR. ROSEN: If you will just give me a couple minutes to mosey on down to the men's room, we can come back, and I'm sure I will be done by 12:30 if that's okay with you, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. Five minutes.
(Thereupon, a brief recess was held.)
Q. Dr. Garko, you describe yourself as a jury trial consultant, but, in fact, you perform far greater services than a typical jury consultant who helps select jurors and looks for demographics, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I mean, most jury trial consultants don't attend depositions and court hearings and the like as you have; is that right?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay. You said you signed on to be a jury consultant -- a trial consultant -­with Mr. Dandar in 1998, beginning of '99, around that area?

A. My recollection is the end of '98, beginning of '99, somewhere in there.

Q. What was your financial arrangement? Were you being paid by the hour or a flat rate?

MR. DANDAR: Relevance, privileged.

THE COURT: Privileged?

MR. DANDAR: It's a personal business matter between me and Dr. Garko. It's not an issue in this case.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Initially I was hired and I received a retainer, a monthly retainer, that would -- plus my billable hours, you know, but billable hours would certainly
amount to more than the retainer, but there was a monthly retainer that I was paid.

Q. All right. So you were paid X number of dollars flat per month for your services?

A. That's right.

Q. And did that arrangement continue throughout the


period of your relationship with Mr. Dandar in this case, wrongful death case? The concept of retainer?
A. The concept of retainer?
Q. Yeah.
A. Yes.
Q. Did the retainer increase or -- I'm not interested in that. I'm only interested in was the basis of the payment retainer as opposed to hours?
A. I received a retainer. I worked on the basis of a retainer --

Q. Okay.

A. -- throughout my involvement in the case.
Q. Okay. And when was it that you began to office on Mr. Dandar's premises?

A. I'm not sure about that.

Q. Approximately.
A. Gosh, maybe a year into the case; six months, a year into the case, something like that. It was when he moved over into his new office on Kennedy, from O'Brien to Kennedy.

Q. Somewhere around November of '99, in that area?

A. Yes, yes. There was an office there and...
Q. Okay. So you just moved in -- you started officing on his premises, and I presume you paid no rent, right?


A. I don't know what you mean by officing.

Q. You maintained an office.
A. He maintained an office. I didn't have an office.

Q. And you had an office in his suite for your use.
A. There was an office there that was used for the Lisa McPherson Trust, and I used that office.
Q. Okay. And did you go to that office fairly regularly?

A. I went to the offices regularly. I was there.
Q. How frequently would you say you had conversations with Mr. Dandar on strategy issues, either in the wrongful death case or this case, whether they be adding a party, should we take this deposition, should we serve these interrogatories, anything involving what lawyers do in terms of strategy, if you can understand my broad question. And I'm just asking you for your best estimate. Did that happen once a day? Three times a week? Four times a month? Whatever it may be.
A. All the time. That was part of my function as a trial and jury consultant, was to provide counsel on strategies.
Q. And that counsel included being involved in questions to be asked of witnesses in depositions that Mr. Dandar was taking?

A. Do you mean in preparing witnesses?

Q. No, no, no, suggesting to Mr. Dandar what he might ask a witness in deposition.
A. I think from time to time I did that.
Q. Okay. You testified that you were hired by Mr. Dandar as a consultant in the wrongful death case.

Did there come a time when you were also -- your employment was broadened, let's say, to be his consultant in this breach case?
A. The breach case in Florida?
Q. This case before Judge Baird in this courtroom.
A. Not necessarily. I mean, specifically, I was assisting him in matters related to Scientology. To me it all sort of blended together.
Q. Okay. Well, fair enough. In your mind, your services included services in this case, this breach case, right?
A. Yes, I suspect that's true.
Q. And you, in fact, have attended depositions held in the breach case including of Mr. Minton, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've attended court hearings -
A. Sure.
Q. -- in this case?
A. Yes.

Q. And I misspoke. On April 19th you weren't sitting
at counsel table; you were a witness designated by Mr. Dandar.

A. That's correct.

Q. So you were under the judge's sequestration rule; you were outside.

A. That's correct.

Q. And after April 19th, after you had ceased to perform services designated for Mr. Dandar, Mr. Dandar is the one who designated you as a witness, right?

A. That's true.

Q. Okay. This meeting that occurred -- excuse me. I'll strike the word meeting.
I understand what you mean.
A conversation that occurred on the subject of whether to add Mr. Miscavige, as you've described it -- I'm not going to take you through it again -- that conversation, now that you know the sequence of the first motion, the second motion and when Mr. Dandar moved his offices, does that help place in time when this conversation occurred?

A. It really doesn't. I mean, it really doesn't.

Q. Let me see if I can perhaps refresh your recollection.
I believe you testified that there was conversation on the subject of, quote, whether to add Mr. Miscavige, and you spoke out that it would be a bad

idea for the following reasons.
Now, I don’t want to be too literal with you, Dr. Garko, but I took your words, "Whether to add," as indicating that this conversation occurred before the second motion to add Mr. Miscavige. Am I understanding your testimony correctly?
A. I did say, "Whether to add."

Q. Am I understanding your testimony correctly?
A. Understanding it to mean that the meeting took place between the two hearings?
Q. Yeah, before the second motion, the motion before Judge Moody, to add Mr. Miscavige as a defendant.

A. My recollection is I was making an argument not to do it.

Q. Okay. Now, this is one of how many different conversations you had with Mr. Dandar -- forget Minton or Brooks -- on strategies in terms of amending complaints, you know, the five or nine amended complaints that
Mr. Dandar filed throughout the wrongful death case - what is your estimate as to how many conversations you had over the years with Mr. Dandar on the subject of amending his pleadings in the wrongful death case?
A. Mr. Rosen, it would be very difficult to give you a number.

Q. Could you tell me, is it somewhere between X and Y

next previous