Source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/dc020913b.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:10:59+00:00

Document:
debut the bulk of his evidence.
evidentiary objections addressed in detail below.
§ 90.804(1), something he has made no effort to do.
§ 804.1, at pp. 859-860.
reasonable steps to procure the witness's attendance."); Rivera v.
declarant if he appeared in court).
he had made the requisite efforts to procure that witness's attendance.
to lay the proper foundation for availing himself of this exception.
witness or its contents disclosed to him.
Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence (2002), § 608.4, at p. 478 (emphasis added).
to admit any testimony from anyone not a witness in this hearing.
declarant be "subject to cross-examination concerning the statement."
longer subject to cross-examination, this rule can be of no use to him.
statements may come in as admissions of a party, as per § 90.803(18).
for two related but distinct reasons.
proceeding, despite his involvement in the substantive, underlying case.
the contempt proceeding, a matter solely between Minton and plaintiff.
to subsidiary lis pendens proceeding).
position in this hearing "against" which they might be set.
as an adverse witness and questioned him on any relevant issue.
Irons, 498 So.2d at 954-60.
hearing that he never confronted Minton or Rosen with in this hearing.
-- testified unequivocally that there were no "threats", no "coercion,"
matters is entirely inadmissible for other reason, as listed below.
is no basis for offering any of her testimony as an "admission."
that Dandar offers here constitutes any "declaration against interest"
appeared and testified before Judge Schaeffer at Dandar's request.
court's subpoena power (Ex. 10, August 29 Tr., pp. 209-210, 285-286; Ex.
Dandar asked them to do so.
Protection Program vitiated any claim to "witness unavailability").
imported from the wrongful death case, but as part of its "fairness"
the hearing of the 9th. That is when I learned the meat on the bones.
David Miscavige.	o Hearsay.o No foundation for impeachment.
Prince was not there, as alleged in Mr. -- in Mr. Minton's affidavit.
meetings, as you define meetings, with Mr. Minton to discuss the case.
pp. 9-10; Ex. 14, Dandar testimony before Judge Schaeffer, 6/4/02, pp.
not attend any meetings relating to adding David Miscavige as a party.
there.  (Ex. 15, Prince testimony before Judge Schaeffer, 7/9/02, pp.
requested.  (Ex. 16, Prince testimony before Judge Baird, 8/30/02, pp.
dismissed. 	o Triple hearsay.  o No foundation for impeachment.
also "predicted" Minton "would take over a situation and commandeer it".
Minton, and one for Stacy Brooks.	o Hearsay.
had made on this subject.  (Ex. 23, Minton Deposition, 5/24/00, pp.
case.	o Hearsay.o No foundation for impeachment.
regarding the agreement were with Dandar, not directly with the family.
o Hearsay.o No foundation for impeachment.
Merrett's unawareness is irrelevant.o Goes to a collateral issue.
foundation for impeachment.o Goes to a collateral issue.
was his affidavit, where he said the conversation was in August 2001.
53	Prince testimony before Judge Schaeffer, 7/8/02, Appendix 6, pp.
could get a copy!"	o Hearsay.o No personal knowledge.
54	Garko testimony before Judge Schaeffer, 6/11/02, Appendix 1, pp.
"generally perhaps people from Europe might be able to fund the case - "
testimony on the discussions of money in New Hampshire.
Designation:At the end of the 4/8/02 deposition a break was taken.
Ex. 29, 5/24/02, pp. 1085-1086, 1132-1133; Ex. 5, 5/28/02, pp.
Comments of the court are not evidence.o Irrelevant and immaterial.
4, 46:20-24, 47:1-9. Q My question is: Was this $100,000 a loan to Mr.
estate of Mr. Dandar. That's it.Q Advanced to the estate for Mr.
Dandar?A No, to Mr. Dandar for - to prosecute the case of the estate.
Minton's money to buy properties.			o Hearsay.
to Minton and Minton said Dandar could use the money any way he wanted.
o The testimony is not included in the Appendix.o Hearsay.
Hearsay.o Not authenticated. o Not introduced.
Minton's lawyer, Jonas, said would be for the planned RICO case.
200:25-202:5.Jesse Prince testifies regarding "noisy investigations."
knowledge.o Witness not qualified to offer interpretation.
8/29 Tr. at 221-223).o Irrelevant and immaterial.o Hearsay.
(Ex. 10, 8/29 Tr. at 221-223).o Irrelevant and immaterial.o Hearsay.
221-223).o Irrelevant and immaterial.o Hearsay.
told about in 1985 regarding alleged investigations of specific persons.
substantially outweighed by prejudice.o  "Other crimes, wrongs or acts"
admitted, not offered.o Irrelevant and immaterial.
testified that Minton called him and said he was "going to jail"
hearsay. o No foundation for impeachment.
18.	o Hearsay.o Not authenticated.o Not introduced.
and reported what was going to be "created and done" against Dandar.
115	"Court order" for deposition of Therese Minton in Liebreich v.
Switzerland, there is a new judge. They had a hearing about me."
comments to mean is speculation.
himself would be on Dandar's hands.	o Hearsay.
made about RICO.	o Double hearsay.Completeness Designation:Ms.
worrying him.	o Double hearsay.o No foundation for impeachment.
the United States.	o Hearsay.
partner, Jeff Schmidt.	o Hearsay.
o Double hearsay.o No personal knowledge.
testimony regarding the alleged harassment of Minton.	o Hearsay.
Stacy Young, 12/14/94.	o Hearsay.o Irrelevant and immaterial.
"Other crimes, wrongs or acts" do not relate to plaintiff.
plaintiff.o Goes to collateral matter.o Statement quoted not submitted.
recantation affidavit filed in this case as the basis to attack Mr.
doing this.	o Hearsay.o Irrelevant and immaterial.
four jurisdictions for everything from contempt of court to defamation.
included in Dandar's appendix is not the referenced article.
October 1970, Issue III (Ex. 31 hereto).
offered.o Not authenticated.o Not admitted.o Excluded (Ex. 10, 8/29 Tr.
about committing perjury on behalf of Scientology."	o Hearsay.

References: § 90

§ 804
 v.

 § 608
 § 90
 v.