NOTE: Any hypertext links to other documents contained within this
web page were added by Fredric L. Rice.
September 18th & 19th, 2001 - During the deposition in the
McPherson
case
Robert Minton invoked his
5th Amendment right on almost every
question concerning his finances. He based his refusal to answer these
questions upon the fact that the Church of Scientology in Germany had
previously filed a criminal complaint for bribery against Hamburg city
official Ursula Caberta for having accepted a loan from Minton.
At the beginning of the deposition Minton declared that he had
destroyed all his financial records, despite the subpoena from May
2000 and the subsequent court orders to have certain documents
preserved and produced, which would show his financial contributions
to attorney Dandar and witnesses in the case [Exh. No. 115]:
[ ] Moxon: "All right. At your last deposition you indicated you
were going to conduct a search at that time, and you would be
producing documents at the next deposition. Have you conducted a
search of your home and any offices in New England?"
Minton: "Yes."
Q: "Do you have any documents to produce?"
A: "I don't."
Q: "Did you search your bank records?"
A: "I don't have any bank records." [ ]
Q: "You don't have any in your possession?"
A: "That's right."
Q: "How many bank accounts do you have?"
A: "Eight."
Q: "Where are the records for your bank accounts?"
A: "I just get rid of them. I don't have any desire to keep them."
Q: "So you shredded all the records for your bank accounts?"
A: "Shred, burn, thrown in the trash. Whatever."
Q: "When did you do that?"
A: "More or less as they come in."
Q: "Bank statements too?"
A: "Yes." [ ]
Q: "And since your last deposition, you've destroyed all the bank
records that had come in since that time?"
A: "You know, pretty much, they come in, I throw them out." [ ]
Q: "Please identify all bank accounts you've used to transfer money to
the Lisa McPherson Trust."
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer that
question."
Q: "Identify any foreign banking institutions you've utilized to wire
money to the Lisa McPherson Trust."
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "Identify any bank accounts or financial institutions you have
utilized to provide funds to Stacy Brooks."
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "Have you transferred any money to LMT other than through wires,
bank wires?"
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege." [ ]
Q: "Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since January of 1998?"
A: "I believe I have." [ ]
Q: "All right. You've given him money during the year 200, didn't
you?"
A: "I think so." [ ]
Q: " And is it your -- just want to understand. Your testimony is you
don't remember whether or not you gave Mr. Dandar any money during the
year 2000?"
A: "I probably did. I don't remember it." [ ]
Q: "And in May of 2000, you said you gave him over a million dollars,
right?"
A: "That's right." [ ]
Q: "What bank or financial institution in Switzerland have you
utilized for the purpose of causing funds to be transferred to the
Lisa McPherson Trust?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment."
Q: "Have you gone to any banks or financial institutions outside of
Switzerland, Germany, or the United States for the purpose of
acquiring funds to transfer to the Lisa McPherson Trust?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [
]
Q: "Did you withdraw any funds from any other financial institution in
Europe for the purpose of transferring that money to the Lisa
McPherson Trust for payment back to you?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment."
Q: "Did you transfer any funds through the Lisa McPherson Trust from
Europe, for the purpose of avoiding the payment of taxes?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [
]
Q: "Ms. Brooks indicated in her deposition that there were funds from
a German bank that were sent to LMT. Do you remember that?"
A: "Yes, I do."
Q: "Do you have any knowledge of that?"
A: "I do."
Q: "What knowledge do you have?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [
]
Q: "Were the funds that were sent to the LMT actually your money from
Germany?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [
]
Q: "Do you know what the source of funds were that were transferred
from Mr. Heldal-Lund to LMT?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment."
September 28th, 2001 - Following the deposition on September 18th and
19th the Church of Scientology moved to let the court overrule
Minton's self-incrimination claims and to compel him to respond to all
the questions, which he had refused to answer [Exh. No. 116].
October 11th & 12th, 2001 - On these days Minton's deposition in the
"breach of contract" case took place. Likewise as during his
deposition in September, Minton refused to answer all questions by
Scientology attorney
Samuel Rosen
that concerned his financial
payments to the LMT and the estate's attorney Kennan Dandar [Exh. No.
117]:
[ ] Rosen: " [ ] Am I correct, sir, that you've - in connection
with these payments to Mr. Dandar or his firm, am I correct that you
have not committed any crime?"
Minton: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "Do you believe that you have committed any crime by the payments
to Mr. Dandar?"
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege." [ ]
Q: "Mr. Minton, did you testify previously in deposition that as of
May of 2000 you had given Mr. Dandar or his firm the aggregate amount
of $ 1,050,000?"
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "The question is did you testify to that earlier. You cannot assert
privileges to something you've already testified to, sir." [ ]
Q: "Do you stand on your Fifth Amendment invocation of that?"
A: "I do." [ ]
November 19th, 2001 - In the McPherson case judge Schaeffer granted
Scientology's previous motion to overrule Minton's invocation of his
Fifth Amendment privilege to the majority of the questions he had
refused to answer during the deposition in September [Exh. No. 118]:
" [ ] The Court finds that Mr. Minton has waived his asserted Fifth
Amendment Privilege as matters involving direct or indirect payment of
money or otherwise by him to the Lisa McPherson Trust, to Kennan
Dandar, to any fact or expert witness involved in this case, or to any
representative or family member of Lisa McPherson. [ ] "
December 7th, 2001 - Following the ruling by judge Schaeffer the
Church of Scientology moved for an immediate compliance with the order
from November 19th. In its motion Scientology's attorney Kendrick
Moxon stated [Exh. No. 119]:
" [ ] Mr. Minton has neither filed a writ or any motion to stay the
Court's Order, the time for which has now passed. Because counsel for
Mr. Minton has procrastinated and stalled on his deposition literally
since May of 2000, and during which time four orders have issued
requiring his appearance; because Mr. Minton has admitted that he
destroyed considerable evidence in the interim; and because arranging
for a hearing near the holidays will be difficult; defendant requests
that Mr. Minton be ordered to appear forthwith, and to comply with
Court's ruling. [ ] "
December 18th, 2001 - The court issued a new order, which granted the
motion from December 7th by the Church of Scientology and compelled
Minton to appear for deposition on January 23rd 2002 [Exh. No. 120].
Minton's attorney John Merrett subsequently filed a motion for a
protective order in the McPherson case and in the "breach of contract"
case.
January 4th, 2002 - The Church of Scientology responded to the
protective order in the "breach of contract" case with a motion to
hold Minton in civil contempt. It also moved for an imposition of
sanctions on Minton [Exh. No. 121]:
" [ ] Plaintiff Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization
(`the Church') hereby moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Rules
1.380 and 1.410 (f) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: (1)
finding Mr. Minton in civil contempt for his knowing and intentional
destruction of documents subject to subpoenas lawfully issued herein;
(2) an OSC why Minton should not be held in criminal contempt; and (3)
imposing appropriate penalties for Mr. Minton's contempt, including
incarceration, fines, and compensation to the Church for its expenses
arising from Mr. Minton's contempt.
"Notwithstanding numerous orders to Robert Minton to provide
discovery, and notwithstanding the several sanctions for his failure
to obey court orders and failure to provide discovery, Robert Minton
has continuously refused to comply. Worse, Mr. Minton has admitted
that he intentionally engaged in destruction of documents that were
within his control and were responsive to the subpoenas that were
served upon him.
"Mr. Minton's document productions are essential to the issues raised
in the counterclaim. Minton has provided at least $ 1.3 million in
funding to plaintiff's attorney. He has stated that he expects a $ 100
million judgment in this case, and that he or the Lisa McPherson
Trust, Inc., (`LMT'), a for-profit corporation that he established in
Clearwater, would receive the bulk of any proceeds from his investment
in that anticipated result.
"Mr. Minton has also supported plaintiff's efforts by funding of LMT
for several million more, much of which has been used to pay witnesses
and consultants for plaintiff's attorney; and Mr. Minton has provided
even more support directly to plaintiff's witnesses by giving them
large sums of money. He also operated LMT, in part, to generate
adverse media in the community where all of the jurors live, and paid
for large and inflammatory "demonstrations" on busy thoroughfares
outside the Church, seen by thousands of potential jurors and their
families. Mr. Minton's coordination of these matters is thus important
evidence both in the main action and the counterclaim.
"Since the Church's original subpoena was served on Mr. Minton on
April 21, 2000, Minton, through his attorneys, has filed nineteen
motions for protective orders, appeals, petitions for writs of
certiorari, and motions for stay in the unsuccessful attempt to
prevent his deposition from being taken and documents produced. Judges
Moody and Quesada have issued ten Orders requiring Mr. Minton's
appearance, and Judge Quesada issued two orders in late 2000 and
January 2001, sanctioning Mr. Minton for his discovery obstruction.
When Mr. Minton finally appeared on September 18 and 19, 2001 for the
continuation of his deposition, his testimony revealed that there were
numerous documents responsive to the subpoenas issued to him in April
and May 2000, that he had destroyed during the time that he was
stonewalling discovery and seeking protection of the courts.
"Some of the destroyed documents were the only copies in existence.
The Church therefore requests that Mr. Minton be held in indirect
criminal contempt for his destruction of those records. Further,
appropriate sanctions for those contempts [sic] should be imposed,
including incarceration, fines, compensation to the Church for its
expenses herein, and compensation for other losses which could result
from these acts. [ ] "
Mid-March of 2002 - A hearing was held in the "breach of contract"
case. A continuation of Minton's deposition from October 11th & 12th
was ordered for April 9th to give Minton the chance to purge himself
from contempt.
At this point Minton's attempts to conceal his financial activities
from the opposing party in the lawsuits finally came to a halt. It
followed a series of surprising moves by Minton that culminated in a
telephone call on March 29th by Minton's Boston attorney Stephen Jonas
to the estate's lawyer Kennan Dandar informing Dandar about settlement
negotiations between Minton and Church of Scientology representatives.
April 1st, 2002 - Following another telephone call on March 30th,
attorney Jonas sent Dandar a letter, stating that the discussions
between Minton and the Church of Scientology were confidential and
that he could not provide any details about them [Exh. No. 122].
April 5th, 2002 - At a contempt hearing in the McPherson civil case
Minton's attorney Bruce Howie stated that a deposition of Minton was
scheduled for April 8th and that Minton would answer all the questions
regarding his finances truthfully. As a consequence judge Schaeffer
then waived to hold Minton in contempt of court.
April 8th, 2002 - A deposition of Minton was held in preparation of a
contempt hearing before judge Beard in the "breach of contract" case.
The questions by Scientology attorney Samuel Rosen dealt mostly with
Minton's financial contributions to the now defunct LMT. Close to the
end of the deposition Rosen inquired about Minton's knowledge of the
two donations to the LMT from Europe and two payments in the amount of
$ 200,000 involving the ex-Scientologist and Canadian citizen
Gerald Armstrong [Exh. No. 123]:
[ ] Rosen: "During the period of time that LMT was in existence and
functioning before it started winding down its affairs soon after July
of 2001, other than the monies you contributed to LMT for its
operating costs, if you will, are you aware of anybody else who
contributed monies to LMT?"
Minton: "Yes."
Q: "Can you tell me who they are?"
A: "Well [ ] [Andreas Heldal-Lund] from Operation Clambake in
Norway."
Q: "How much did he contribute?"
A: "$ 300,000."
Q: "As far as you know that was his money or Operation Clambake's
money, right?"
A: "No. I believe he got it from someone else."
Q: "Anyone else?"
A: "Yes, but I don't know who it was."
Q: "What does that mean, it was an anonymous contribution?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "How much was that?"
A: "500,000."
Q: "How did that anonymous contribution come to LMT?"
A: "In the form of a bank wire."
Q: "An anonymous bank wire of five hundred grand from some third
party?"
A: "Well, yeah."
Q: "Any other contributions, any other persons who have made
contributions to LMT?"
A: "Jerry Armstrong."
Q: "How much?"
A: "I think it was 100,000."
Q: "Any idea where Mr. Armstrong got his hands on a hundred grand?"
A: "No."
Q: "Was this before or after you loaned him the money to engage Mr.
Abbott to bring suit? Before or after that?"
A: "It was after, sometime in 2001, I believe."
Q: "So let me see if I got the sequence correct. Mr. Armstrong was in
need of money to pay Mr. Abbott to bring a lawsuit against some
Scientology entities in Nevada and you loaned him a hundred grand?"
A: "Right. Well, wait a minute now. You're - you know he didn't make
it exactly clear what he was doing with this money at the beginning."
Q: "Let me withdraw the question. At some point in time Mr. Armstrong
asked you for a loan of $ 100,000?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "At his request you sent that money to Mr. Abbott, the attorney in
Nevada?"
A: "Well, I think the first thing I did is I sent Gerry Armstrong some
of the money in one year and then towards right at the end of the year
and sometime in the early part of the next year, he asked me to send -
I don't know whether it was 75,000 or 90,000 to this Abbott guy."
Q: "Can you tell me what year that was that you sent the money to Mr.
Abbott?"
A: "I think it was 2000 -- well, yeah I think the money to Armstrong
was in '99, I think."
Q: "And the money to Abbott in 2000?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "The money to Armstrong in '99. Did he ever repay any part of it to
you?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "All of it?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "Some of it?"
A: "All of it."
Q: "When?"
A: "Sometime mid 2001." [ ]
1 Jan 2003
The name "Scientology"® is trademarked to the Scientology organized crime syndicate. Neither this web page, nor this web site, nor any of the individuals mentioned herein assisting to educate the public about the dangers of the Scientology criminal enterprise are members of or representitives of the Scientology organization.
The use of any trademarks which may appear within this web page conforms to U. S. Title 15, section 1125, subsection (c). The use of any quoted text which may appear within this web page conforms to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates. If you don't agree, send e-mail to Fred Rice with a specific complaint -- with my thanks.
Trademark usage at the Martin Ottmann Documents web site
Return to the Martin Ottmann Documents main Index page.
Click HERE for more information about the Scientology crime syndicate