Source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/dc020913a.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:13:03+00:00

Document:
in this case, but to Judge Schaeffer in the wrongful death case.
the trial of Dandar's disqualification in this case, before this court.
this or any other court.
Dandar's brief offers his own prior testimony before Judge Schaeffer.
including at the beginning of these hearings and on August 29th.
to this court in an obvious attempt to avoid cross-examination.
statement that Minton's testimony is wrong. (Def. Brf., pp. 79-80).
volumes of "testimony," exhibits and argument on this very subject.
"evidence" as fast as he can file it.
which therefore has not been received into evidence in this case (Def.
disqualified,   separate and apart from other sanctions.
deny that this meeting ever occurred (Ex. A, April 9, pp. 19-20).
didn't do it," "I did not tell Minton to lie," or "Minton is lying."
not on April 9, indicating that he knew full well that he was guilty.
3)  unspecified  portions of Minton's and Brooks' testimony.
was made of any exhibits or of any prior deposition testimony.
court exclude all such evidence for the reasons set forth therein.
to add parties in the wrongful death case." (Def. Brf., pp. 3-4).
oft-cited phrase turned by Judge Connor in American Home Prod. Corp. v.
compass needed to distinguish proper advocacy from pure fabrication.
agreement included specific provisions for its repayment."  (Def.
to the success of the case." (Id., pp. 74-75).
obligation to pay me back." (Minton, January 13, 1998, Depo., pp.
before Minton could get a copy!" (Id., p. 53).
physically handed to him by Minton. (Id., Dandar, April 19, pp. 264).
THE WITNESS: Well, now I know that is right.
bank checks, when Mr. Minton couldn't.
the exact opposite.  The way we got the Swiss bank checks was after Mr.
- or the client did -  I didn't personally - we need copies of them.
cancelled check with your monthly statement.
wanted the fronts of them and the backs of them.
that went to the bank and said, "They're my checks, give me copies."
them at the hearing on April 9th.
produced the fronts.  Tell him to go back and get the other photostats.
the UBS bank, to get them.  We didn't have to.  Mr. Minton got them.
(Ex. B, Rosen, August 29, 2002, pp. 201-203).
Dandar flatly asserts, "There has not been any commingling or theft.
personal accounts. (Pl. Hrg. Exs. 5, 58A, 6, 59, 8-11, 13-15, 81).
business accounts, and thereafter wrote checks to experts therefrom.
been commingled between a trust account and other accounts.
respect for the law." (Def. Brf., p. 73).
was earmarked solely for one particular case.
the Estate in this case. (Id., p. 36).
was accurate. (Ex. G, Dandar, April 30, pp. 143-144).
"counter-counterclaim" in which he pleads a "contractual relationship"
strings." (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 82).
into any other avenue of income for Dandar." (Def. Closing Brf., p. 72).
state of Florida." (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 6 and 59; Ex.  G, April 30, p.
the affidavit. (Def. Brf., pp. 32-36).
evidence, but is also supported by testimony of Dandar and Liebreich.
with the Plaintiff and its counsel to "change sides."
need you to dismiss these cases.  To what do we owe this 180?
papers represented to you to be a suit charging you with racketeering?
(Ex. D, Minton, April 19, pp. 131-133).
April 19, pp. 147-148, 153-154, 158-159).
not directly, but through his girlfriend who read a letter from Mr.
threatened me and he threatened top people in Scientology.
in the Radisson Hotel. Mr. Prince was drunk before he got to the hotel.
vulgar words in front of that.
person whose name I can't remember.
upsetting thing, the way Mr. Prince acted toward Ms. Brooks and myself.
He said, you know, that you've never done anything for me.
I'm not going to let you go and do anything with Scientology.
(Ex. D, Minton, April 19, pp. 149-152).
Minton before his testimony that if Minton got on the stand and "lied"
the courtroom. (Ex. C, Prince, August 30, pp. 409-419).
previously set for the continuation of the hearings in this case.
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and (b) Fla. Bar Code of Prof.
[the lawyer's] continued participation as counsel.
brief offers no explanation or defense for this inappropriate conduct.
Rosen's testimony before this court the day before, August 29th.
explanation for his violation of this court's order.
Q.   How much was it?
for services that you were to perform, right?
engagement, have they included anything other than, quote, research?
Q.   What else did they include?
A.   Well, I wrote an affidavit or two.
THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  What was that?
THE WITNESS:  I authored an affidavit or two.
(Ex. C, Prince, August 30, p. 367).
actually dated May 1st of 2002?
(Ex. C, Prince, August 30, pp. 487-488).
Prince he posed immediately after the break.
provide different answers than those he provided on cross-examination.
Judge Schaeffer rather than testimony elicited before this court.
law and would have no basis to have heard of Mary Carter.  Nevertheless.
voluntarily offering the Mary Carter tale.
non-exhaustive selection of Dandar's misrepresentations.
"[T]he threats to put Minton's wife in jail..." (Def. Brf, p. 117).
necessary."  (Def Brf, p. 2).	There is simply nothing in Ms.
produced, but "If you're willing to and if it's helpful, that's fine.
It is not precedent."  (Ex. H, June 12, 2002, pp. 47-48).
in this case to Robert Minton or the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc." (Def.
one of his depositions," he denied any agreement. (Def. Brf, p. 36).
said that Dell Liebreich was in agreement.  (Ex. G, Dandar, April 30, p.
"was very excited about it"; Ex. G, Dandar, April 30, pp. 149-151). Ms.
Trust." (Minton, May 24, 2000 Depo., pp. 391-392, cited in Def Brf, pp.
Hearing, May 24, pp. 934-935, 1079-1080).
were Minton's to attempt to create his "blackmail" and "extortion"
there has not been any evidence of commingling or conversion." (Def.
Dandar's personal account and transferred between them.  (Pl. Hrg. Exs.
further financial records on the basis of the orders of the Second DCA.
paid.  (Ex. D, Dandar, April 19, pp. 197-198, 200, 205-206).
secret meetings to distance himself from Dandar:" (Def. Brf, p. 78).
nothing about being lied to.  Nor does Minton refer to "secret"
meetings.  These are entirely Dandar's mischaracterizations.
"no" to both questions.  (Ex. D, Minton, April 19, p. 133).
government acknowledged Scientology's illegal practices and "Fair Game"
court opinion, United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1988).
was disallowed by the lower court and affirmed by the appellate court.
with physical as well as economic harm."
Scientology's worldwide operations."  He was not.
meeting in the first place.
discretion of Ken Dandar, not Minton or Dell Liebreich.  (Def. Brf. p.
"Dandar is solely responsible for advancing costs in the death case.
letter to Dell Liebreich disclosing who is responsible for costs."
that the Estate would pay - not Liebreich or her sisters.  (Def. Hrg.
finding.  The truth of the fact itself is not established by the notice.
C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 204.2, at pp. 70-71 (2002).
Evidence Code § 452; Sosinsky v. Grant, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 552, 563-64 (Cal.
allegation is false, factually unsupported, and legally unsupportable.
liability of the other co-defendants.
Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla.1993), quoting Ward v.
as against public policy." Id., at 247-48.
magazine article) must be disregarded.
before this Court.  See, infra, pp. 34-38.
involvement.   See, infra, pp. 44-48.
testimony he gave and suborned did not rise to the level of perjury.
ignored by Dandar, is Beiny v. Wynard, 522 N.Y.S.2d 511 (N.Y. 1987).
misconduct with which we were confronted.
Beiny, 522 N.Y.S.2d at 523-24 (emphasis added); see also Henriquez v.
stated test for disqualification, "the appearance of impropriety."
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630, 633-634 (Fla.
bar and the integrity of the judicial process.
Case Can Lead to Disqualification is Wrong.
discredit to the bar and the administration of justice"); Rentclub, Inc.
integrity of the judicial process . . .").
it and has broad discretion in deciding motions for disqualification . .
integrity of the judicial process when Prince is a witness in this case.
of its source, threatens to impugn it and the administration of justice.
context of the wrongful death case.  Cf., infra, pp. 44-48.
the case.  (Ex. A, April 9, p. 19).
happened" - thus suborning perjury. (Ex. A, April 9, pp. 19-20).
adding Mr. Miscavige as a party to the wrongful death case.  (Pl. Hrg.
told Minton to backtrack about the agreement. (Ex. D, April 19, pp.
existence of the agreement with the estate on the bulk of the proceeds.
payments in the wrongful death case and to stop discovery. (Pl. Hrg.
in the instant case. (Pl. Hrg. Exs. 88 & 90).
was the result of questions from Dandar. (Ex. M, Depo. pp. 628).
from Dandar. (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 57; Pl. Hrg. Ex. 33).
produce information on Minton's payments in the wrongful death case.
discovery in the instant case.   (Pl. Hrg. Exs. 88 & 90).
April 9, pp. 9, 20-22).
$500,000.00. (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 27, p. 44).
his office occurred after the first, unsuccessful attempt to add Mr.
second breach, not at issue in this case, is irrelevant.  This is wrong.
one that is in dispute in this case.
involvement by Minton, Brooks, etc.
to breach the first time.
the administration of justice," without any reference to materiality.
that she knew the husband because she had done bookkeeping for him.
one who suggested the fraud in the first instance.
which the alleged misconduct occurred.  Thus, in The Florida Bar v.
ordered him to attend a pretrial conference.  Lathe, 774 So.2d at 676.
tribunal.  Lathe, 774 So.2d at 677.
this case and agreement to receive the proceeds thereof.
in acquiring documentary evidence in violation of a court order).
counsel in particularly egregious cases.  See Fla. R. Civ. P.
the proper administration of justice . . .").
ethical improprieties that may be unrelated to the merits of the case.
counsel" arising out the misconduct therein.  Id. at 966.
ethics law in disqualifying a law firm for serious misconduct.
disqualification was necessary because "the appearance of impropriety .
at 1210); see also Knox v. Hayes, 933 F.Supp. 1573, 1585-86 (S.D. Ga.
in the jails, thereby creating a security risk).
actually put any of his client's funds to personal use is of no moment.
378 So.2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1979).
type of offense even though no client is injured.
misappropriating client funds, even though no client is injured.").
threatening to discredit the bar and the administration of justice.
it had left to spend in that case was unfair.
strings" deal was made in 1998.

References: v.

 v. 
 § 204
 § 452
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.