|
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH Plaintiff, vs. Case No. OQ?5G82?C1 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE
TO
"Liebreich and Dandar have also misused process by purchasing testimony of fact witnesses ....effectively money laundering ...engaged in activities calculated to infect the jury pool .... to harass and intimidate witnesses ...forced defendants to relinquish their rights . encumber valuable properties (of SCIENTOLOGY) ...." ' 2. All of the above is absolutely false. Discovery on these baseless allegations has shown it to be absolutely false, yet Moxon and SCIENTOLOGY continue to assert them and now demand that they be MADE A FINDING OF FACT BY COURT ORDER! 'See page 27?28 of
current SCIENTOLOGY'S Motion for coercive sanctions against LMT, et al,
litigant, it must reign in this Defendant 3. This is not the
first time SCIENTOLOGY has abused the court system. In Woteu urteparty to:o
o:owuitconiinuouxly and unaucct:rsftrlly axes the litigation process to
bludgeon (lie opponent into Stlt111115Ji0i1, Mo." actions trltrst
tic closely scrutiovized too, consfitutionall ht)p1icsitioars. Church
of Scientology of California v.Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 41h 628. 49 Cal.
Rplr 2d li?t) (1996). 4. Another court
also found that the Church of Scientology organization had been playing
"fast and loose with the judicial system" and levied $2.9 million
in sanctions against it for "destruction and concealment of documents,
refusal to comply with many court orders, needless delay, and multiplication
of the proceedings by the Church of Scientology] and [its] fillings of
frivolous motions and of offensive and unreasonable motions." Religious
Technology Center v. Church of the New Civilization), No. 94?55781, slip
op. et 13, 1996 WL 111443 (9th Cir. April 11, 1996). 5. In RTC v. Scott, 82 F.3rd 423 (9th Cir. 1996), the court held that since RTC, part of the nominal corporate structure of the Scientology enterprise, failed and refused to produce documents dismissal was affirmed. In aaotf, the court remarked that RTC had "After carefully
examining the record and attempting to understand the nominal corporate
structure of Scientology, it is apparent to the court that it is something
of a deceptise visas. Real control is exercised less formally, but less
tangibly, through an unincorporated association, the SEA Organization,
more commonly referred to as the SEA ORG "Church of Spiritual Technology
v. U. S,, 26 CL. CT. 713, 7113 (1992) destroyed documents and refused
to comply with court orders to produce documents and repeatedly filed
multiple motions which were offensive and unreasonable. 6. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal held that the Church of Scientology intended to defraud the IRS. United States v. Zofin, 905 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 199()) cert. denied 113 L Ed.2d 244 (1991). The court held that the Church of Scientology lied to the court in reference to whether or not it had tapes which implicated the Church in tax fraud CSI, RTG and CST are "management churches." Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., at 717 CST is "inextricably linked to other Scientology Organizations." Church of Spiritual Tt'chnoloqy v. U. S., at 731. CST is linked by a cat's cradle of connections to RTC, CSI, and through them, to the rest of Scientology, thereby deleting its claim of disinterest in the activities of other organisations. Church of Spiritual:rochnotoqy.,v. U.S. at 732. CST is nothing but a way to shelter income from taxation? At 737. WHEREFORE. Plaintiff requests coercive sanctions for this abuse, including the striking of all pleadings of this Defendant, quashing the Pro Hac Vice order for Moxon, costs, and attorney fees to the ESTATE, and other relief deemed proper lay the court.
II. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE
TO SCIENTOLOGY'S MOTION FOR SANCTtONS 1. Although the SCIENTOLOGY
Motion per se is not directed toward the ESTATE, the Motion contains outrageous
misrepresentations of fact to which the ESTATE is compelled to respond.
The accusations against the ES'T'ATE and its counsel for Misconduct are
also outrageous misrepresentation of the facts. This is simply another
attempt to create smoke, hide the dead body of Lisa McPherson inside the
Fort Harrison Hotel and distract the court from the issues of this case. 2 This Motion, similar
to most recent motions and pleadings filed by SCIENTOLOGY is violative
of the good faith requirement contained in Rule 1.10, FIa.R.Civ.P. arid
§57.105, Florida Statutes, requiring pleadings be made in good faith. 3 The Lisa McPherson
Trust, Inc. was not "incorporated as a for profit company by Plaintiff's
counsel." P'laintiff's counsel is not an incorporator of the Lisa
McPherson Trust, Plaintiffs counsel simply, at the request of Robert Minton,
forwarded the incorporation papers to the Secretary of State. Robert Minton
was the sole incorporator of the Lisa McPherson Trust as evidenced by
the public record. 4 Furthermore, the
Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc, was not incorporated by Mr Minton "as
the proposed recipient of the hoped for proceeds of this case." The
truth of the matter is that the ultimate beneficiaries, i.e., the uncles
and aunts of Lisa McPherson, have stated repeatedly in their depositions
that they wilt be donating the proceeds of this case to a non-profit organization.
Since Mr. Minton has formed a for profit corporation, it would therefore
be excluded from any consideration. 5 It was not the words of Mr. Minton who classified his loan to Plaintiff's counsel as his "piece of the litigation" as SCIENTOLOGY attests in its Statement of Facts on page 3 of its Motion. Quite to the contrary, it was Mr. Weinberg who used the phrase "piece of the litigation." See Exhibit 4 to the Motion, i e , the deposition of Robert Minion, elated January 13, 1998.
1. SCI ENTOLCUGY spins the testimony of Mr. Minton and concludes at the first paragraph that Mr. Minton worked out a deal with Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff, citing u64?65 of Minion's deposition, January 13, 1998. Looking at those two pages, it is obvious chat there is no deal between Plaintiff , Plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Minion. Quite to the contrary. Mr. Minton states that Plaintiff had agreed to give the bulk of any proceeds of this case to a cult awareness type organization. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust. In reviewing Plaintiff's deposition, any organization receiving any proceeds must be a non profit organization. The LMT is for profit. Therefore, the continuation of argument that Mr. Minton has an investment plan far this litigation is absolutely baseless, scandalous and a total fabrication. It is time for the court to reign in counsel for SCIENTOLOGY and stop this unnecessary pleading, especially pleadings based upon outright lies, 9. The first order of May 15, 2000, restricted discovery of the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc. to produce financial records regarding the payment to any person identified at any time as a witness m this case and produce videos in the custody or control of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and any statements of any person identified presently as a witness in this case.
11. More particularly,
V4 of that order restricted and prohibited deposition questions Concerning
"dealings with or knowledge concerning persons who have not been
identified by a party as his own expert witness and who do not have knowledge,cipscribed
in the most recent complaint filed herein." Neither this order nor
the May 15, 2000 order has been rescinded. 12. The question
goes to who is a witness in this case, SCIENTOLOGY is using the death
case of Lisa McPherson to conduct overt investigation of its critics.
The court clarified what is a witness in this case by its May 23, 2000
order limiting it to only persons who have "facts of this case." 13. As it does in
this case and all other litigation involving Scientology, SCIENTOLOGY
has abused the discovery process and has requested information and has
engaged in scheduling depositions of people who do not have personal knowledge
of the facts of this case. This is nothing more than an exploratory expedition
of SCIENTOLOGY through its investigative arm, the Office of Special Affairs
(OSA), operated locally by Ben Shaw, who attends every deposition in this
case. 14. Plaintiff demands
the court to reign in this discovery abuse and limit discovery to relevant
facts of the death of Lisa McPherson and nothing more. Contrary to the
assertions of SCIENTOLOGY on p6 of its current motion, Ken Dandar has
not represented the Lisa McPherson Trust. Inc. During the first deposition
of LMT, Inc., Mr. Leipold represented LMT. Moxon extensively questioned
Mr. Leipold as to who he represented Moxon knew the truth then as he does
now, but he misrepresents the truth to At the first hearing
concerning SCIENTOLOGY's Motion io Compel. LMT was not represented at
the hearing but Plaintiffs counsel agreed to relay the order of the court
to LMT. Contrary to the assertions of SCIENTOLOGY, Plaintiff s counsel
never procrastinated in setting depositions. 15 The last spin
by SCIENTOLOGY counsel is contained on p14 of their motion alleging that
Plaintiff's counsel sought to intervene to stop the discovery by filing
a new motion for Protective Order before Judge Shaeffer. The oral argument
was heard on August 19, 2001. The truth of the matter is counsel for the
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions due to the recalcitrant SCIENTOLOGY
counsel. Kendrick Moxon's scheduling of depositions which were in direct
conflict to other depositions scheduled in the case, notably of expert
witnesses. This Motion for Sanctions was granted. Judge Schaeffer recognized
what was transpiring, as stated on p 14, but not as SCIENTOLOGY's counsel
suggests. Rather, what was going on is that counsel for SCIENTOLOGY was
ignoring the Local Rules in setting of depositions when counsel for Plaintiff
and counsel for third parties had given Mr Moxon, counsel for SCIENTOLOGY,
several dates in which to conduct his discovery depositions of these "witnesses"
who have absolutely no personal knowledge of the facts concerning this
case. 16. It is only within the imagination of counsel for SCIENTOLOGY, Kendrick Moxon, who is able to conclude that LMT did not produce all available videos. Testimony at deposition was that all of the videos of which LMT has custody or control were produced. LMT also produced all the financial records of all the employees and disclosed the source of funds received for operating expenses even though it was not a requirement of any court order. 17. Plaintiff brings
this response to the motion since it is the apparent intent of SCIENTOLOGY
to distract the trier of fact, as well as this court from the true issues
of this case and this abuse of discovery is expending valuable time for
the ESTATE and its counsel, running up expenses to the ESTATE for the
litigation of this case, The court needs to reign in SCIENTOLOGY and stop
this abuse of discovery. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON by and through the personal Representative, DELL LIEBREiCH, respectfully request sanctions in the form of attorney fees and costs be entered against the Defendant, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., and its counsel pursuant to §57.105, FIa.Stat. for the continuing abuse of the discovery process. l HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by FAX this 29th day at August, 2001, to the attached service list. KENNAN G DANDAR ,
ESQ. |