Source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/dc020830.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:25:01+00:00

Document:
to this Court as an excuse for his inability to attend here.
2) Commingling his personal funds and the funds of D & D with client trust funds.
admitted that the Church's allegations – and Minton's testimony – are true.
motive to, and would receive, the benefit of the fabrications.
to provide his damning testimony here against Dandar.
additional, compelling grounds to disqualify him and D & D.
1.  Whose money is it anyway?  Strings or no strings?
$2,050,000 provided by Minton is all one transaction subject to only one agreement.
Court to determine how much of the Minton money was attributable to each transaction.
"no strings" loan to Dandar.
litigating the wrongful death case.
case.  Do you remember that testimony?
A. Well, from the beginning that's always been the understanding.
Dandar in October of 1997?
the wrongful death case through trial. (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 73).
Church of Scientology for the death of Lisa McPherson.
to reimburse him if sufficient recovery in this case.
anything except repay loans used for the express purpose of funding the litigation.
(Pl. Hrg. Ex. 94, February 26, 2001, Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim with Prejudice, p.
the benefit of the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
himself some personal item; is that correct?
The testimony of Dandar's trial consultant, Dr. Michael Garko is equally emphatic.  Dr.
years as a loan to me or a loan to the estate?
A.   I never heard him use the word loan.
Q.   Did he ever say who the money was going to?
THE WITNESS:  The money was going to the estate.
various points in time over the three years.
Q.   Can you recall for us specifically where this conversation took place?
A.   It wasn't just one conversation, Mr. Dandar.  When we did speak with Mr.
some trust account, and to be used to fund this case.  That was my understanding.
Q.   But what were the words of Mr. Minton?
my [mind] as I sit here today testifying under oath.
accused me of.  But -- I could do anything I wanted to with that money.
intended to use some of those proceeds to front the expenses on a contingent fee case.
benefit, but a "no strings" loan to Dandar.
million plus interest, all by neglecting to document the terms of the loan.
memo or a note to his own brother and law partner, Thomas.
each of his subsequent checks including right through his last one in May 2001 (Pl. Hrg.
Ex. 1) – that the funds were "Re Lisa McPherson Scientology case," or "for McPherson."
him to "correct" these errors or otherwise.
his "its my money, no strings" story.
retainer agreement with the Estate to advance the costs of the wrongful death action (Ex.
(Ex. 6, April 19, 2002, pp. 346-348), which to this day, Dandar has failed to produce.
Dandar's August 2, 2002, filing of an accounting with the probate court. That filing (Pl.
defendants in the wrongful death case and the disposition of the settlement proceeds.
Second, respecting the letters Dandar wrote to Minton acknowledging his "donations"
us is a loan to you, you thank him for his, quote, donation?
call that a, quote, donation, right? We would call it a loan, right?
exactly how Mr. Minton correctly identified it in his deposition.
A. No, it's the Estate.
the representative of the client?
Q. She's the one who said, I consent and I'm appreciative, right?
somebody making a personal loan to you, Mr. Dandar?
A. That's what the Florida Bar said.
not Dandar – will decide whether and how much to repay Minton. (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 21, Tr.
that the Estate and only the Estate would get the benefit of the money – not Dandar.
losing the wrongful death case.
required attorneys' fees the Church gets in this case, all of which must be paid.
recovery is a major financial setback for both Dandar and the Estate.
Dandar at net $0 for all his time and effort as an attorney.
million recovery results in a net loss for Dandar.
non-recourse and need not be paid back if the Estate loses the wrongful death case. (Ex.
these depositions, but now tells this Court that they were all incorrect.
court. (Pl. Hrg. Ex. 95).
now claims he employed because it is simpler than a one-step payment method.
death case, when Minton announced that he would provide no more money (Def. Hrg.
Ex. 1, e-mail, August 24, 2001), Dandar first made a public plea for funds (Pl. Hrg. Ex.
93, Internet Posting), had Ms. Liebreich make a public plea for donations (Pl. Hrg Ex.
client in telling her he was running out of the money needed to try her case.
money to complete the case.
purpose to either Ken Dandar or the firm of Dandar & Dandar?
Q. Will you tell us, please, what you did?
check for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars I caused to be issued to Mr.
personal account and signed by you?
Q. What kind of checks were these?
A. These were checks that were issued by Union Bank of Switzerland.
Q. The New York office of that bank?
Bank of Switzerland New York.
it like Robert Minton, but have the name of the bank?
thousand, were made out to whom, sir?
A. I believe they were both made out to Ken Dandar.
He mentioned several reasons why he didn't want it to appear to come from me.
because of my financial contributions to the case.
He mentioned specifically Michael Garko and Tom Haverty where I think Mr.
them in order to conserve money to continue the case.
should not disclose these payments?
these payments to the Court and you shouldn't reveal them to the Court.
another or caused to be issued another bank check to Mr. Dandar?
A. Sorry. Just one second. Did you say February 2002?
Q. I'm sorry, March of 2000.
A. It was March, yes.
A. Just one second. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us -- tell the Court what that is.
Switzerland dated March 7th, 2002.
A. Drawn on Chase Manhattan Bank in New York.
Q. -- by Union Bank of Switzerland?
was there any conversation which led up to this between you and Mr. Dandar?
you know, soliciting funds for the case.
that meeting to give money, give any further money. And so Mr. Dandar and Mr.
of his own personal retirement account this case.
referring to friends of mine in Europe who might be able to help.
-- he would say, you know, is Fred going to do anything or not?
Q. Fred meaning his pet name for you?
Q. Meaning -- but that source was you?
anyone – not even Dandar's mythical, mysterious, benefactor.
that he needed more money.
When the case is over and there was money to pay back I would call Mr.
Minton and say, Who do I write the check to?
check funds were also for the exclusive use of the Estate regardless of the source.
corroborate any part of his story that the Swiss bank checks were from some third party.
whom he is indebted for fees for past services as a trial consultant (Ex. 13, Garko, Tr.
about them to anyone else, e.g., Dr. Garko.
funds, a breach of this duty is regarded by the bar as a serious offense.
commingled those personal funds with his clients' money in October, 1997.
funds with his firm's general funds, at best.
is again guilty of at least commingling, if not worse.
that Dandar is guilty of at least commingling, if not outright theft.
name where it could earn the same interest.
Minton not be permitted to have any say in the conduct of the wrongful death case. (Ex.
necessary that the third-party's conduct rise to that level of "control"; mere "interference"
the concerns of others."  Black's Law Dictionary, p. 329 (6th Ed. 1990).
ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion) as a party defendant there.
Minton, Ms. Brooks (who worked for Minton and was paid with his money), and Dr.
participated in this strategy session (apparently to the exclusion of Dandar's "client," Ms.
the decision to file the motion to amend on December 3, 1999.
perjury in depositions and to deny and never disclose the strategy meeting with Dandar.
See, infra.   Dandar has not denied this under oath before this Court.
Sometime prior to my deposition. I don't know exactly when.... Mr.
no. And he said that's the correct answer.
provided, I testified falsely and omitted this $500,000 check.
his law firm.  Mr. Dandar told me not to produce this check for $500,000.
lie to conceal the Swiss bank check payments.
that both like fables emanated from one single source – Dandar.
Q    And [Mr. Dandar's] response was, what?
Q    Has he since told you that he discussed it with Ms. Liebreich?
Q    What did he say?
A    He said she agreed to do just that.
Q    When did he tell you this?
A    I think the 5th of December ."
bulk of any money that you get out of this case to a cult awareness group?
Q.  Has that been discussed with your other siblings?
Q.  And have they agreed to that?
Q.  What cult awareness group?
A.  Memorial.  It's to help other people."
awareness or an anti-Scientology group?
Lisa McPherson Cult Memorial Fund.
McPherson, to prevent things like this happening to anyone else.
anyone else, do you remember testifying to that under oath?
referring to when you gave that testimony?
case to an anticult group?
formed. You say December of '99?
Q.  December of '99, beginning of 2000, that period of time.
told you that the Estate had agreed to that?
court, in deposition that this agreement was basically in place.
enlisted Minton to commit perjury denying that the agreement ever existed.
Dandar now denies; and not once did he correct them, not once did he "cross-examine"
perjury when he denied such an agreement ever existed.
with statements he has or will make to other courts.
through plaintiff's counsel to defray the costs of the wrongful death lawsuit"); (Pl. Hrg.
Estate of Lisa McPherson") and the testimony of Dandar's trial consultant, Dr. Garko.
need to justify his conversion of client funds to his own use, addressed infra.
now judicially estopped to assert "no strings" before this Court.
inconsistent position in order to seek further recovery....").
2.Dandar has commingled the Estate's funds with his own and with D & D's.
Either of these requires disqualification.
to his client and the absence of any document memorializing the "it's mine, no strings"
story, Dandar's testimony before this Court is an unbroken quilt of fabrications.
he was referring to some other, unidentified – and unproduced-retainer agreement.
whether it was even plausible, let alone truthful.
should find perjury by Dandar.
particularly on the witness stand, is so offensive.
would prevail upon his client to perjure herself.
his client, elicited contradictory and knowingly false testimony.
Q.  Did he give any money ever to the estate?
attorney's duty to protect his client.
explanation for an "I don't remember" response is deliberate perjury.
could offer was "I don't recall."  That is perjury – pure and simple.  But it gets worse.
On, July 26, 2002, Dandar filed a pleading in the wrongful death case, on behalf of Ms.
antics, we offer only a brief discussion of the more memorable instances.
serendepitous flick of Minton's pen that determined the depository.
Dandar also made frivolous testimonial objections to stop damaging testimony from Dr.
with Dr. Garko and Dandar to give them a debrief of Minton's testimony.  (Ex. 13, Tr.
Minton's depositions in this case, (id., at 106), (2) that Dandar had concealed from Dr.
facts, (id., at 108-110), something an innocent person would certainly be expected to do.
indefensible conduct.  That display is unworthy of an attorney arguing a cause, unsworn.
extorted Minton into bearing false testimony against Dandar.
Court's attention from the real issues.
attorney, a Church representative and two attorneys for the Church, Ms. Yingling and Mr.
notes of those meetings, but that was not enough to satisfy Dandar's ulterior motive.
not Dandar, who apparently sees distraction as his last line of defense.
Mr. Rosen would be Dandar's first witness when these hearings resumed.  When Mr.
disposition of the proceeds of the wrongful death case, etc., etc.
against the Church and its counsel.
barred from participating in other cases.
This distinction was clearly recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in Burns v.
conduct in the appropriate disciplinary proceedings authorized by this Court . . . .
for the criminal defendant . . . .
justice."  State Farm v. K.A.W., supra, at 638.
A.  	Theft of client's monies.
to be the appropriate punishment."  The Florida Bar v. Travis, 765 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla.
$100,000 or more, it is a felony of the first degree.  Fla. Stat. § 812.014.
that outweighs any possible countervailing reason why counsel would be kept on a case.
among those acts that do the greatest damage to the public trust.); The Florida Bar v.
most serious offenses a lawyer can commit.").
contradictory and false testimony as to the nature of the funds and their intended purpose.
should be permitted to remain as counsel.
situated or elsewhere with the consent of the client or third person . . .
greater diligence and caution than he does his own.
Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co. of America, 769 So.2d 399, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), rev.
Florida Bar v. Ruskin, 126 So.2d 142, 143 (Fla. 1961).
public suspicion created by his actions.
unethical, improper and warrants disqualification.
addition, they require an attorney to "make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation"
sanctions against "counsel advising the conduct" that necessitates a motion to compel.
783 So.2d 1057, 1060 (Fla. 2001).
disqualification is required.  See Point I supra.
Minton, April 9, pp. 16-20 (re meeting to add David Miscavige as party to case.).
requested the person to do so).
F.       Dandar's Misrepresentations to the Courts.
therefore, warrants disqualification from this case.
conduct before the Court cannot be tolerated, and Florida's courts do not tolerate it.
"deliberate misrepresentations of material fact" regarding existence of documents).
Because They are Now Party Defendants in this Action.
now that they are parties in this matter and Dandar's testimony will be necessary.
Incurred in Discovery Here as a Result of Dandar's Misconduct.
attorney for bad faith misconduct.  Moakley v. Smallwood, 2002 WL 276466, 27 Fla.L.
filed without a factual basis and solely to delay the proceedings); David S. Nunes, P.A. v.
did not have to attend).
is established, and is in addition to the remedy of disqualification.  See Knox, 933 F.Supp.
Cir. 1985), 751 F.2d at 1210 (ordering disqualification and award of attorneys' fees).
1.380(d) do not require a finding of bad faith.  Rather, the court "shall require the party . .
Dept. of Law Enforcement v. Ortega, 508 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
awarded can be calculated after the Court determines an entitlement.
to Thomas John Dandar, Esq. and Kennan G. Dandar, Esq., Dandar & Dandar, P.A., P.O.
B, Tampa, FL 3360, this 30th day of August, 2002.
BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A.
and marked at the disqualification hearings are denominated Plaintiff's Hearing Exhibit or "Pl.
part of the record of this case, are merely denominated, "Ex."
Ex. 3, Deposition and Hearing Transcript, January 10, 2001, p. 49.
Ex. 4, Order dated January 10, 2002.
Thomas appeared for the previously scheduled March 14, 2002 hearing before this Court. (Ex.
lawyer owes the highest duty of candor to the courts. See, Argument, Point 3, infra.
See, Argument, Point 3, infra.
Liebreich here.  See, Argument, Point 4, infra.
changed to Dandar's "it's my money, no strings" version.
may have different page numbers.
12   Ex. 7, Dandar, Tr. April 30, 2002, p. 177.
2002 (Pl. Hrg. Exs. 9, 11 and 12) do not show copies to Liebreich.
any client is less than half of this amount.  (Ex. 8, Dandar Depo., January 25, 2001, p. 50.).
Dandar told this court were the terms of the loan.
to the interests of their clients.
(Pl. Hrg Exs. 5, 6, 58A, 59) was hidden in Dandar's Massachusetts personal mutual fund.
after Minton received Dandar's letter.
liabilities under United States tax law.
Minton changed to the "it's a personal loan to me, no strings" story.  See discussion infra.
See, Pl. Hrg. Ex. 82, at  4.
commingling but was an act of theft.
and that Dandar nevertheless deposited them into a non-client-trust account.
the wrongful death case to a cult awareness group, right?
Q. Well, sir, was there such an agreement?
A. Among the family members there was.
to be contributed to an anticult group?
Q. There was no such agreement?
A.  No, because that was truthful testimony."
mistaken in your radio statement and your Internet announcement?
Did you backtrack and say there was no agreement?
A.  It was a pretty uncomfortable deposition, yes.
that you had to backtrack because it was hurting the case?
wanted me to sign and I had to backtrack at that point."
the court knowing it was false.
Scarano v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 203 F.2d 510 (3rd Cir.  1953).
also took the earnings/interest and may have violated a Florida Bar rule by keeping it.  Fla. R.
regarding attorney candor toward the Court.  Rule 4-3.3 .
can't sit here and say, oh, yeah, I remember this.  I can't do it.
telling the truth, then you'll admit it?
consented to Mr. Minton providing money for the estate?
A.  I did.  I said I thought it was great.
Q.  So Mr. Dandar asked you if you consent to the money coming to the estate?
Q.  And you said that was great?
A.  Right.  I said I can't believe somebody is doing that but I think it's wonderful.
obstructing discovery); see also Burns v. Huffstetler, 433 So.2d 964, 964-965, 966 (Fla.
Thomas is a partner in the D & D firm (Ex. 6, Tr. April 19, p. 241.).
money was intended to be used exclusively for the Estate's expenses in the wrongful death case.
Estate with repaying the Minton money he had misappropriated.
See the Church's Bench Memorandum handed up on August 29.
appearance of impropriety, aspirational goal 1.1 of the "Ideals and Goals of Professionalism"
avoid the appearance of impropriety."
maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the attorney-client relation.
substantial additional burdens being placed on both the courts and litigants.
under a specific trust document.
presumption was written into the disbarment rule.
remain in trust until the dispute is resolved.  Rule 4-1.15(c), Fla. R. Prof. Conduct.
above in Point 1 and Point D.  See The Florida Bar v. Forrester, 818 So.2d 477, 481-482 (Fla.
violation of Bar rule prohibiting concealing of relevant evidence).

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 812
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.