or it's more than two dozen or less than 2,000? Anything that would help us?

A. When Complaints were amended, I would discuss with him those Complaints.

Q. Okay.

A. To give you an exact number would be very -­

Q. No, I don't want an exact number. I want your best approximation of how many conversations you had with Mr. Dandar on the subject of amending pleadings at various times.

A. Quantitatively speaking, I could just say to you quite a few.

Q. Okay. This meeting -- excuse me. I keep saying the word meeting and I need to correct myself.

The conversation that occurred that you've described with Minton and Brooks and you on the subject of adding Mr. Miscavige -- I didn't hear you mention it -- was Dell Liebreich at this meeting?

A. No.

Q. Was she participating by telephone?

A. No.

Q. After the meeting, did you and Mr. Dandar get on the phone with Ms. Liebreich and get her consent to do this?
A. No.


Q. Did you ever participate - I assume that Mr. Dandar certainly must have had conversations with Ms. Liebreich outside your presence, right?

A. I assume that.

Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Ms. Liebreich outside Mr. Dandar's presence?

A. Not with respect to the strategies of the case.

Q. Let me see if I understand this conversation. The subject is whether to add Mr. Miscavige. You've told us the opinion you expressed and why. You've told us Ms. Brooks was very much pushing this.

A. Yes.

Q. What was Mr. Minton's position at this meeting?

A. He didn't say too much.

Q. Did he express in any way to you of yes, no, maybe, on the subject of adding Mr. Miscavige that you can recall?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. What did Mr. Dandar say? Did he express any view of yes, no or maybe?

A. My recollection is that we debated that issue. I don't recall specifically where he came down at that point in time.

Q. But we know at some point in time he decided to file that motion to add Mr. Miscavige, right?


A. That's correct.

Q. Dr. Garko, from your testimony, I'm getting an -- and please tell me if I am correct or not - that you, indeed, were the closest advisor working basis, hand in glove, to Mr. Kenean Dandar in with the McPherson matters, right?
A. I would be one of those people that worked with him on a daily basis, yes.

Q. Wait a minute. Not one of these people. I'm asking you if anybody was closer to him by way of an advisor, almost, as you've described, on a daily basis.
Were you the number-one advisor to him?

A. From a trial and jury consultant's perspective, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, after this meeting, did you participate in any discussion with Ms. Liebreich and Mr. Dandar on the subject of filing the motion to add Mr. Miscavige?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any knowledge on the subject of whether Ms. Liebreich ever approved that motion?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether Ms. Liebreich even knew that Mr. Dandar filed it?

A. No. Repeat your question again. I'm sorry.


Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether Ms. Liebreich
even knew that Mr. Dandar had filed this motion?
A. I didn't have direct knowledge. I presumed it.
Q. You presumed it.
A. I presumed it.
Q. All right. I don't want you to assume. And when I ask you do you have any knowledge, it means did somebody ever say anything to you --
A. No.

Q. -- or did you see a letter or something.

A. No, I did not.
Q. Did Mr. Dandar ever represent to you that he had spoken with Ms. Liebreich and she instructed him to file the motion to amend?
MR. DANDAR: Objection, work product, what conversations he had with me alone.
MR. ROSEN: I don't believe so. This is crime fraud, if it's anything.
MR. DANDAR: I don't understand crime fraud.
We're talking about whether Mr. Minton perjured or was asked to perjure himself, not about my conversations with anybody else.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Q. Now, if I understand correctly, you, in daily contact as Mr. Dandar's advisor, spoke out not only against but rather forcefully against adding Mr. Miscavige, right?

A. That's true.

Q. And you gave Mr Dandar the three -- I don't want to comment, but it sounds pretty coherent reasons for your position, right?

A. I thought it was a good argument.

Q. Okay. Now, we know that Mr. Dandar ultimately filed the motion. Did you have any discussion with him as to why he went and did that in the face of your recommendation?
MR. DANDAR: Objection, Judge. This occurred after the alleged that brings us to your courtroom. This concerns after October the 8th that he's talking about. And for for him to ask him what Mr. Dandar thought or why he did something is also
work product.

MR. SCRIVEN: Judge, I would join the work product objection.

THE COURT: I will sustain that.

Q. At the time that Ms. Brooks participated in this conversation, who was Ms.Brooks employed by? LMT?

A. I'm not sure, Mr. Rosen. I don't know.


Q. Well, who did you understand her to be an agent of, if anyone? Whose interests was she serving?
A. I thought she was a consultant for Mr. Dandar at the time. That's my recollection.
Q. Did you have an impression that whe was being paid by Mr. Dandar?
A. My understanding is that she was not being paid.
Q. Now, you have -- you're aware that one of the issues in this case involved two Swiss bank checks?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Dandar ever indicate to you in any way, shape or fomr that he had received these checks, either one?

A. If these are the two checks for the amounts of
$500,000 and the other for $250,000 -­
Q. That’s correct, sir.
A. -- no.
Q. In fact, sir, did there come a time when Mr. Dandar told you he could not continue your retainer because he didn’t have any money?

A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us when that was, sir?
A. That was in September of 2002.
Q. No. We're in August of 2002 now.
A. I beg your pardon. I'm sorry.

Q. I'm going to give you a hint. It's not September 2002.

A. I beg your pardon. It was in September of 2001.
Q. At that time, you were still on the monthly retainer with him, right?

A. I was.

Q. And Mr. Dandar told you he had to discontinue that monthly retainer because he didn’t have any money?

A. That's what he told me, yes.

Q. Did he ever resume paying that monthly retainer?

A. Never did.

Q. Did he ever pay you anything after he cut you off in September of 2001?

A. Nope.

Q. Now, I want to make sure we understand something. You're aware now that on or about the 7th of March of 2002 Mr. Dandar received a check for $250,000, a Swiss bank check from Mr. Minton.

A. I am now aware of that.

Q. You weren't aware of it at the time that Mr. Dandar was telling you he didn't have any money to pay you, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Are you aware of the amount of money in the aggregate, an estimate -- and I'm not asking for any kind


of breakdowns -- the amount of money that you folks spent in costs and expenses, experts, depositions and the like?
MR. DANDAR: Objection, privileged. Violates the Second District Court's opinion.
MR. ROSEN: It's not privileged and it doesn't violate the opinion. We went through this last time.
THE COURT: Why is it relevant?
MR. ROSEN: Because we're showing that With respect to this money, Your Honor knows our position is that Mr. Dandar stole it, and he was hiding it from even Dr. Garko and telling him, "I don't have the money to pay you."
MR. DANDAR: Judge, it's not relevant because there's no issue of whether or not I stole money. That was my money.
This Church of Scientology has no standing to come into this Court to say I stole money that doesn't belong to them, and they had no interest in when I had the money.
THE COURT: We're getting far afield here.
MR. ROSEN: All right, Your Honor. I will move on.
THE COURT: His testimony was, at least

from my notes, that Dandar told him he wasn't going to tell him.
MR. ROSEN: He wasn't going to tell him what?
THE COURT: That Dandar told him he didn't want to tell Garko about the checks.
MR. ROSEN: Right. And that goes to the credibility.
THE COURT: And Garko said he didn't know about the check, so I don't know why we need to go into how much money was spent.
MR. ROSEN: Okay. I will move on.

Q. In the questioning of you by Mr. Dandar you alluded to some discussion with Mr. Lirot on the day that Mr. Minton had first testified here.

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you were in some trial with Mr. Dandar in Tampa?

A. That's true.

Q. Do you recall that date to be April 9th?

A. That's what I recall.
Q. Now, Mr. Lirot came up to where you folks were in Tampa and gave you a report of what Mr. Minton had said?

A. Yes, he did.
Q. And can you tell us what that -- I'm not suggesting you give us chapter and verse, line by line, but could you give us the substance of what Mr. Lirot said?

MR. DANDAR: Work product, priveleged That's my attorney talking to me and my trial consultant.

MR. ROSEN: Okay. I will lay a foundation.

Q. You mentioned there was some other person there, an expert witness in the case you were trying?

A. I did.

Q. That person is not one of Mr. Dandar's many consultants in this case, is he?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. He's not one of Mr. Dandar's supposed consultants in the wrongful death case, is he?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. And he sat there and listened to this conversation?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. Tell me what Mr. Lirot said.

A. He summarized the hearing. He summarized specifically Mr. Minton's testimony, and he said -- and these are the items I remember; they stand out in my

mind -- one, that Mr. Minton testified that Mr. Dandar had asked him to lie, that is, to suborn perjury.
Two, that Mr. Dandar had concealed from me the monies that Mr. Minton had given to him, one check for $500,000 and one check for $250,000, is my recollection.
That he's talked about David Miscavige and the adding of David Miscavige, and he made some points about that.
The things that caught my attention were the suborning of perjury and Mr. Lirot talked about misappropriation of funds, I believe. That was the topic. Those two things caught my attention.

Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Dandar say?
A. He said a number of things. One of the things I remember --
MR. DANDAR: I just want to object and make sure we're restricting it only to this conference room where one of my expert witnesses were present.
THE COURT: I don't know-what we're restricting it to. Yeah, this is where this other person was present.
THE WITNESS: One thing I do remember him saying -- and it's a quote; it's exactly what he said -- quote, "I wish I would have listened
to Michael," end quote. And that was in -­
Q. In the context in which you said that, you're Michael.

A. I'm Michael.
Q. In the context in which that was said, can you please explain what Mr. Dandar said that he should have listened to you?
A. That was with respect to the adding of David Miscavige. Not to add David Miscavige was my advice, and he wished he would have listened to that.
Q. The advice you already testified to that you gave as to the reasons why he shouldn't be doing it.
A. Exactly.
Q. And Mr. Dandar said, "I wish I would have listened to Michael in terms of not adding him."
A. Correct.
Q. Did Mr. Dandar make any statements saying, in words or substance, Minton is a liar, this never happened, the money was mine, anything about any of the content of what Mr. Lirot was relating?

A. I don't recall him saying that.
Q. Well, did Mr. Lirot relate that Mr. Minton had just come off the witness stand and testified that Mr. Dandar stole the money?


A. That's what I -­

MR. DANDAR: Objection. That's a mischaracterization of Mr. Minton's testimony on April 9th.

MR. ROSEN: Excuse me. Mr. Minton's testimony.


Q. Is that the substance of what Mr. Lirot related in that meeting in Tampa as to what Mr. Minton had said?

A. That's an inference that I drew from what Mr. Lirot said.

Q. And at that moment when first confronted with that acquisition by his counsel, Mr. Lirot, did Mr. Dandar deny it?

A. I don't recall him denying it.

Q. When Mr. Lirot reported that Mr. Minton's testimony here in court included that the money was supposed to be used for the estate's expenses in wrongful death and not a personal loan to Mr. Dandar, when Mr. Lirot reported that testimony, when first being told about this acquisition, did Mr. Dandar deny it?

MR. DANDAR: Same objection, Judge. in the April 9th testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Dandar listened to

Q. My question is: Did he say anything --

A. No.
Q. Did he say that's not true?
A. No, he didn't say that directly.
Q. And was part of Mr. Lirot's report on April 9th of Mr. Minton's testimony, did it include the event of Mr. Dandar telling Mr. -- allegedly telling Mr. Minton not to disclose Swiss bank checks because -- in
deposition -- because you didn't sign them, they didn't have your name on them, or words to that effect?

A. I don't recall that. I don't recall it.
Q. Do you recall a discussion that Mr. Lirot reported that Mr. Minton had testified, in words or substance, that Mr. Dandar had told him not to disclose these Swiss bank checks?

A. I do recall that.
Q. And what -- at the instant that he was first confronted with that accusation, what was Mr. Dandar's statement? Did he deny it?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, this person who was in the room was an expert engaged, I assume, by Mr. Dandar in that other case you were trying in Tampa?

A. That's correct.

Q. Well, Mr. Dandar knew that person was in the room, He wasn't hiding or anything.

A. That's right.

Q. Okay. So he knew that that -- I think you said he was a psychologist.

A. Yeah, I think he's a psychologist.

Q. Mr. Dandar knew that that psychologist in that room was not part of his work -- withdraw that -- had nothing to do with any McPherson case; he knew that, right?

MR. DANDAR: Objection as to what counsel knew.

Q. Did you know it, Dr. Garko?

A. I never perceived that particular expert witness to be involved in the wrongful death case.

MR. DANDAR: I would object, Judge. I don't know how to do this, because actually that expert witness was involved in the wrongful death case.

MR. ROSEN: Well, you're going to have to get on the stand and testify to that, sir.

Q. Was anybody else present at this meeting, by the way, in Tampa where Mr. Lirot is reporting the events?
A. Patricia Greenway, I believe, was there, Ms. Greenway.
Q. Ms. Greenway, okay. Is Ms. Greenway another one of Mr. Dandar's supposed consultants?
A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know.
Q. Do you have any idea how many fact witnesses Mr. Dandar has designated as, quote, consultants who may not be deposed, either in this case or in the wrongful death case? Do you have any idea?

MR. DANDAR: Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Now, you said that you weren't certain -- respecting --
Going back to the meeting in Mr. Dandar's new office -- Minton, Brooks you and Dandar -- you were asked whether Mr. Prince was present, and you said you didn't remember that to be the case. I want to see if I can understand your testimony, Doctor.
Are you saying that he wasn't there or are you saying it is possible he was there, but you just don't recall it as you sit here today?

A. I don't recall him being there.
Q. But you wouldn't say under oath that he was not there; is that right? Or if you would, then say it.

A. I just -- I don't recall him being there because he was present at other times, and one interaction starts to blur into another, and I just don't have a clear recollection of him being there.

Q. Okay, if that's your best recollection.
Now, Mr. Dandar also asked you about a gentleman named Haney.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a -- can you tell us yes or no whether Mr. Haney was present at this meeting?

A. He was not present at that meeting.
Q. That one, you're sure of.
A. I'm positive on that.
Q. Okay. This conversation, did it take place in a conference room?
A. It did.
Q It did?
A. It did.
Q. And so all participants were there in that conference room together?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a telephone in that conference room?

A. There was.

Q. Does that telephone have a speaker component?

A. It does.

Q. Did anybody, including Mr. Dandar, let's get Dell on the phone to discuss this?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Now, you s aid in response to a question by Mr. Dandar that Ms. Liebreich, the client, controlled the case, and I want to go back and just ask you about this.
Do you have any firsthand knowledge of Ms. Liebreich ever approving any of the multiple complaints in the wrongful death case?

DANDAR: Objection, work product.

ROSEN: He waived it. He asked the question. Ms. Liebreich was in charge; she was calling the shots.

DANDAR: Now he's asking for specific details of my client’s communication with me, and that’s work product.

THE COURT: How can he test the general questions that you asked if not by specific questions?

MR. DANDAR: Because I didn't ask for content. It's like asking a yes or no

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

next previous