THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat your question?

MR. ROSEN: May I ask the reporter to read back?
THE COURT: Question, "Do you have any firsthand knowledge of Ms. Liebreich ever approving any of the multiple Complaints in the wrongful death case?"
THE WITNESS: I do not have first-hand knowledge.
Q. With respect to any decision -- withdraw that. Is the basis of your knowledge on that subject statements that Kennan Dandar made to you?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you ever see any correspondence which would reflect Ms. Liebreich being consulted by Mr. Dandar on any strategic decision, amend a Complaint, take a deposition of so and so, serve interrogatories?
Any of those strategic decisions that lawyers make, did you ever see even a single piece of paper -- letter, e-mail, fax -- from Mr. Dandar to his client soliciting her opinion as to whether to do something?

MR. DANDAR: Outside direct.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Three years, it's a long time, a lot of paper. I don't recall. I don't recall.

Q. Not a single one?

A. I have no recollection of reading a correspondence outlining what

Q. Okay. In the three years that you were Mr. Dandar's - if I may say -- right-hand man in this litigation adventure, was there ever a time in a discussion, whether it be personal or telephone, with Mr. Dandar and the client, Ms. Liebreich, in which decisions on strategy were discussed or made?

A. No.

Q. Never?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q.Well, I would like, Dr. Garko, if you could help us on this point to enlighten us.
You know that there were -- I don’t know -- nine or ten different versions of the Complaint filed at various times in the wrongful death case?

A. I know the Fifth Amended Complaint. That's as far as I've gotten.

Q. Okay. Fifth Amended Complaint.

And you know there were obviously many depositions taken in that case.

A. Scores.
Q. And scores of document requests and interrogatories?

A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And in all of that strategic work that lawyers do, are you telling me that you cannot remember a single decision ever made in which you were present and Ms. Liebreich was present and Mr. Dandar was present to discuss it and agree on it; is that your testimony?

A. That's my recollection.
MR. ROSEN: No further questions, Your Honor.

Q. Dr. Garko, did you ever read my mail to Dell Liebreich?

A. Read your mail to her?

Q. To her.
A. I don't have a specific recollection of doing that. I'm not saying I didn't. I just don't remember doing it.
Q. It wasn't part of your job duties to read my mail to Dell Liebreich or to any other client; was it?

A. No, no.

And was it part of your job duties to sit on the -- or get on the telephone when
I'm talking to Dell Liebreich?

A. No.
Q. So when you say, "I didn't see a letter and I didn't hear him talk to Dell Liebreich," that doesn't mean it never happened, though?

A. No, that doesn't mean that.

I'm sorry. Repeat that -again.
Q. When Mr. Rosen said did you ever see a letter going to Dell Liebreich strategizing about the case, that doesn't mean a letter to Dell Liebreich strategizing about the case never happened.

A. No, it doesn't.
Q. And when you don't recollect me talking to Dell Liebreich on the telephone about the case, that doesn't mean I don't talk to Dell Liebreich on the telephone about the case; does it?

A. No, it doesn't mean that.
Q. Now, did I tell you about the check that Mr. Minton gave me in 2001?

A. Which check?

Q. Any check.

A. In 2001?

Q. Yeah, last year?

A. You may have.

Q. You don't remember?

A. I don't remember.
Q. Did I tell you about the checks before Mr. Minton's -- before May of 2000, did I tell you about the checks that Mr. Minton gave me in the year 2000?

A. I believe so.

Q. How many?
A. I don't recall that, exactly how many. I mean, I don't recall how many.

Q. What about in 1999?
A. I don't recall having a recollection of knowing about checks received by you from him in 1999.

Q. What about 1998?

A. No.
Q. Now, this one drop-in of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you can recollect where you voiced your opinion about adding David Miscavige --

A. Yes.
Q. -- Ms. Brooks said to you, did she not, "Ken, why did you do it?"
A. She said something to the effect, "Why did you add him, Ken?"

Q. So that's past tense; isn't it?

A. That's my recollection of what she said.

Q. One last question: And this one drop-in that you recollect when Ms. Brooks said, "Why did you add him, Ken," there wasn't a decision made at that drop-in/get-together; was there?

A. I don't have a recollection of some decision being made, no.

Q. Without going into content, was I gung ho about adding on David Miscavige?

A. When?

Q. At any time. At any time. Gung ho?

A. I wouldn't characterize it as gung ho.

Q. Did I make a quick decision to add on David Miscavige?

MR. ROSEN: Objection. This witness is not a mindreader.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did it take a period of time for me to come to a decision?

ROSEN: Same objection, Your Honor.

Q. Was there any time involved in the final decision to go forward and add on David Miscavige?

MR. ROSEN: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You've got to lay a predicate. I don't have any idea how long, you know, what the process was or --
MR. DANDAR: See, I don't want to violate work product.
THE COURT: Well, you can't have it both ways; can you?

MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm trying.

THE COURT: I know.
MR. DANDAR: I'm trying to give you a picture, is what I'm trying to do.


MR. DANDAR: That's all I have.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, is your intention to take a lunch break at this point?
THE COURT: My intention was to take a lunch break at noon, you know.
MR. ROSEN: I know you had to accommodate my kidney, as well as the witness.

THE COURT: We will take a break until 1:30.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, can we ask, so we can use the lunchtime productively, who Mr. Dandar's next witness is?

THE COURT: Who are you going to call

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Rosen.
THE COURT: Use it productively.
MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, has the motion -
THE COURT: And we'll deal with it when I come back. Is this witness excused?
(Thereupon, the lunch recess was held.)

THE COURT: Okay. Be seated. Let's continue.

MR. POPE: Your Honor, I had filed a motion to have Mr. Hill admitted pro hac. May I bring an order? I have given the other side copies.
And the other thing is, Your Honor, since it appears that Mr. Dandar is going to be allowed to call Mr. Rosen as a witness, we would request that the Court ask of Mr. Dandar to make a good-faith proffer as to what he hopes to elicit from this witness.
MR. DANDAR: Judge, I'm going to elicit from Mr. Rosen his discussions with Mr. Minton in the New York meeting of March 28th and 29th in Mr. Rosen's office.

THE COURT: this the meeting that was testified to in front of Judge Schaeffer where Mr. Minton testified to and other people that were there testified?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, that's the first two of the many meetings that Mr. Minton had with representatives of the church.
THE COURT: So those have been testified to, so you know what those witnesses said took place, correct?

MR. DANDAR: I know what those witnesses had to say. I don't know what Mr. Rosen has to say. I have Mr. Rosen's notes that were produced, but I didn't have Mr. Rosen's testimony. I have Ms. Yingling’s, which is another attorney for the church.
THE COURT: Do you have some good-faith basis to believe that Mr. Rosen's account of that meeting is going to be any different than what you’ve already heard?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, because Ms. Yingling's notes, which are really good notes - she has even corrected those notes - so Mr. Rosen may have a recollection that is totally different from the notes of Ms. Yingling and her



And Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks already contradicted the testimony of Ms. Yingling as to what transpired at that meeting, so Mr. Rosen is another participant. I don't know what he's going to say.

THE COURT: And the relevance of whatever this testimony is?

MR. DANDAR: The relevance of the testimony is that that meeting two days in Mr. Rosen's office in New York City, Mr. Minton had as his attorney from Boston; Mr. Jonas was present.

When Mr. Minton comes down here, all of the sudden he doesn't have an attorney present at any of the 15, 20 meetings he has with Mr. Shaw and Ms. Yingling, and there are no notes for those meetings.

So the relevance of the meeting in New York starts the process, which I believe is the extortion process, to get Mr. Minton to lie under oath to do whatever he has to do to get the wrongful death case dismissed.

THE COURT: And in any of the notes and


any of the testimony up to this point, has anyone testified that that occurred?

MR. DANDAR: Well, Mr. Minton -- no. Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks and Ms. Yingling deny that he was coerced or told what to do.

THE COURT: Do you have any good faith to believe Mr. Rosen is going to testify any different than that?

MR. DANDAR: I do, because I have no idea --

THE COURT: It's not a matter of what you have any idea of. It's not that you don't know anything. It's that you do know something, because he's the attorney in this case; he's Counsel.
And before you can call him, you need to have a good-faith basis to call him that has some relevance or some significance to what's going on here and not just harassment.

MR. DANDAR: It's not harassment. I’m going to have a good-faith basis to call him --
THE COURT: What is the good-faith basis you have to believe that his testimony is going to be in any way different than the testimony that you've already heard about that meeting?


That's what I need to know.

MR. DANDAR: I have no notes from Mr. Rosen.

THE COURT: You're not answering my question.

MR. DANDAR: I'm trying to. I have no notes from Mr. Rosen except a list of cases that he was adding up the attorney fees that they spent to present to Mr. Minton in New York saying, "This is how much we're going to sue you for under RICO."

I have just those notes. I have Ms. Yingling's notes, which are much more detailed. She ascribes Mr. Rosen as saying certain things at the meeting. She abbreviates them.

And my good-faith belief is that Mr. Rosen will come into court, and he will testify to the full extent to supplement what's missing in her notes.

This goes to the motivation for all of this to happen in this court and Judge Schaeffer's court, and we have case law that the motive for a witness to lie under oath is indeed relevant.


This agreement that they had with Mr. Minton which Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling started in New York City is part of the Mary Carter agreement, which is illegal, unethical, a charade on the court.
They didn't tell you about this agreement until I came forward and started to present evidence and cross-examined on this agreement. Then it all came out.

But in this courtroom back on the 19th and 30th of April, they attempted to preclude this Court from knowing aboui it.

They raised confidentiality. Mr. Minton's lawyer objected. Mr. Rosen said, "Go ahead and talk about if he made Rosen said, "Go ahead and talk about if he made
any promises to you."
What they didn't tell you about was this secret agreement that he had with Mr. Minton.

THE COURT: All right. Here’s the deal. I will let you call him. And at the end of his testimony or at the end of this proceeding, if I find from testimony or evidence that's presented that Mr. Rosen has nothing more to add about this of significance than what you have already heard

from the three other participants that you've already heard, then there will be some sanctions involved.
This is just very extraordinary, and, you know, I think that if there were some real significant, important information that you honestly and in good faith believed he has that is any different from anything that you've heard from the other participants in that meeting, that would be one thing. I just don't think it's there.
MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, now that you've said that, I'm sure Mr. Rosen will testify --
THE COURT: Well, did you think he was going to testify any differently regardless?
MR. DANDAR: Well, I have the notes of Ms. Yingling, which are the only notes I have of any substance. She attributes a little phrase to him. I want him to explain to the Court what is meant by that. That, I don't know.
THE COURT: Well, if that's going to be the be all and end all of this case, let's have it done. Okay?
MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Swear to tell the truth?

MR. ROSEN: I do.

MR. DANDAR: Before today, the last hearing before you on April 30th, Mr. Rosen got up and said they rested.

Today, this morning, that he doesn't want to rest; he wants to bring in more evidence.

I would ask the Court that if you're going to allow him to reopen his case and bring in more evidence that we have Mr. Rosen step down and have them finish their case before I continue with the presentation in my case.
THE COURT: Why would I do that?
MR. DANDAR: It's proper procedure. They need to rest.
THE COURT: You have already put your first witness on. What difference does it make if he finishes his case, you know five minutes from now or an hour from now? I don’t understand what the purpose of that is.
DANDAR: It's just proper.
RT: You've got him up here, you’ve called him. Apparently you want to ask him about some comments that he made in this

meeting. Let's do that. Okay?

SAMUEL DAVID ROSEN, ESQUIRE, called as a witness, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:



Q. Mr. Rosen, when is the first time that you became that Mr. Minton had made an overture to attempt to settle Flag's claim against him in this case with Judge Baird?
A. Early February of this year.

Q. And how did you come to realize that?

A. I learned that from Mr. Pope relating a conversation to me of a telephone call he had had from Mr. Howie.

Q. And what did Mr. Howie say -- what is your understanding of what he said to Mr. Pope in reference-to an overture to settle?

Q. I can only tell you what Mr. Pope told me.
Q. All right.

A. Mr. Pope previously told me that Mr. Howie was appearing for Mr. Minton, and Mr. Pope made some laudatory remarks about Mr. Howie's integrity. And then shortly after that,
Mr. Pope called me and said he got a call from Mr. Howie and Mr. Howie would

like to discuss settlement of the claims against Mr. Minton in this breach case.

Q.Did you have a conversation with Mr. Howie or Mr. Minton after that?
A. Subsequent to that, after getting authorization from the client, there was a three-way telephone conversation between myself, Mr. Howie and Mr. Pope.

Q. And what is the name of the person for your client that you got authorization from to commence discussions?

A. I think it was Mr. Shaw.

Q. Okay. And did you have discussions of settlement with Mr. Howie or did you have it with Mr. Minton?

A. I never had any discussions of settlement with Mr. Minton other than the meetings in my office.

Q. Okay. Did you relate to Mr. Howie that your client was not interested in settling with him in this case with Judge Baird, that global settlement?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Okay. How many conversations did you have with Mr. Howie before your meeting in your office with Mr. Minton and Mr. Jonas?
A. I would think, including the conversation I had m in Judge Baird's anteroom when we appeared in somewhere around mid March, I would think there were

three or four.

Q. During any of those conversations, did you tell Mr. Howie that your client was only interested in a global settlement, rather than just settling with Mr. Minton in this case?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Whose idea was it to meet in your office on March 28th?

A. It was my suggestion that the intended venue be changed from Miami to New York, because it was going to be Mr. Jonas from Boston who was representing Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks in the meeting, rather than Mr. Howie, and I suggested to
Mr. Jonas that rather than everybody hauling down to Florida -- his client was in New Hampshire, he was in Boston, I was in New York -- that I would bring my people up, and New York seemed like a convenient place, so I offered my office as a venue.

Q. Okay. During that meeting -- before you started that meeting, had you seen the UBS check of May 2000 written to me?
A. Not only did I not see it, I didn't know it existed until long after that meeting.
Q. During the meeting of March 28th with Mr. Minton in your office -- with Mr. Jonas and Mr. Minton -
First of all, who were you representing on
March 28th?

A. I was engaged to represent four separate church entities separately incorporated on the basis that there was -- both sides had expressed a desire to at least explore the possibility of a global settlement of all disputes between Mr. Minton and any church entity.

In order to do that, there were four different church entities that had varying ongoing disputes with Mr. Minton; they were the Church of Scientology of
California, the Church of Scientology International, Flag and Religious Technology Center.

And I was engaged in this effort to represent all four to achieve, if it were possible, a global settlement; if not, to negotiate individual items of settlement that may involve one of them but less than all of them.

Q. When did you first learn or come to an understanding that the meeting on March the 28th was going to discuss the global settlement concerning several to discuss the global settlement concerning several different and separate Scientology corporations?

A. In a telephone discussion I had with Steve Jonas sometime between the 15th of March and the date that the meeting occurred.
It was soon after I was told by Mr. Howie that it was going to be Mr. Jonas and not Mr. Howie who would be

representing Mr. In these discussions.

Q. And Monique Yingling, a Washington D.C. attorney, also appeared in your office on March 28th, correct?
A. Yes, she was in the meetings;that's correct.
Q. She’s a tax specialist attorney?

A. I don't have any knowledge of that.

Q. You have no knowledge of her expertise?

A. I have dealt with Ms. Yingling on several matters as co-counsel, but never on a tax matter.
I have dealt with human rights matters with her, alleged violations by foreign nations of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and I’ve dealt with her on some commercial disputes, but I have never dealt with her on any tax matter, if that’s your question.
Q. Are you aware that she was formerly with the Justice Department in their
tax division?
A. No.
Q. Who was she representing at the meeting?

A. She was assisting in the sense of a second person, and I presume that she was - I never discussed it with her directly, but I presumed she was engaged the
same way I was, by four different separate church corporations, to
represent them in this effort to explore whether or not a global settlement was possible.
Q. And Michael Rinder was also there. Who did he


A. He was a representative of CSI, Church of Scientology International.

Q. Did the Church of Scientology International have any claims concerning Mr. Minton?

A. They were in litigation with Mr. Minton.

Q. What case?

A. If you give me my notes -- I'm trying to remember.

Q. Let me hand you what we'll have marked by the Court as Defendant's Exhibit 5, which is also Exhibit 185 of the defendant in the wrongful death case.
Can you identify Exhibit 5, please.

A. Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm sorry. I forgot. Thank you.
MR. POPE: The man's got to see.
THE WITNESS: Exhibit 5 are the notes that I made on the day before the meeting, the 27th of March, on a going-forward basis in terms of these were the things that I was going to present to Mr. Jonas and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, so they're notes of what I intended to say, if that will help you.

Q. All right. So there are 13 different items listed; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No, your question was CSI.
CSI was involved in Roman Numeral 2 which is known as the Wollersheim case in California. That’s my shorthand. I wrote a note to myself, "Wolly." I refer to Wollersheim in my own notes.
And CSI was, I believe, also involved in case Number Roman 8 that's discussed there, and that is Lopez, a case that had been settled just before that.
Item Number 10 is not a case; it's IRS harassment. And I don’t know if CSI was involved in that being a target of Mr. -- a target of the IRS by virtue of Mr. Minton’s statements to them.
This pertains to church people being - church entities who were - Mr. Minton had made allegedly improper statements about to the IRS in an attempt to get the IRS to revoke their tax-exemption status. So CSI may have been involved in that one as well.
I don’t know whether CSI was involved in Number 6, what's called the European cases. There were several litigations between Mr. Minton and church entities in France and Germany, maybe someplace else in Europe too. I wasn't involved in any of those, but I don't know if CSI was a party to any of these.

next previous