EXCERPTS FROM
Superior Court No. CV-95-118
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH HAYWOOD June 28, 1995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HAYWOOD; ANNE MARIE HAYWOOD, and the
FLAGSTAFF DOOR CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH,
An unincorporated association.
Plaintiffs,
Vs.
STEVEN RONALD SCHONER; DAVID CHARLES DIVER;
MARK FREEMAN;J DAVE OTTEMAN; MARK WORKMAN;
LOUIS P. MUCCITELLI; and JOHN and MARY DOES 1-X
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
DAVID PALMER, Attorney at Law (For plaintiffs)
MURPHY, LUTEY, SCHMIDT & BECK
By Thelton D. BECK, Attorney at Law (For defendant Schoner)
ASPEY, WATKINS & Diesel, P.L.L.C.
By James E. Ledbetter, Attorney at Law (For defendant Otteman)
RICHARD GRIMSRUD, Attorney at Law. (For defendant David C. Diver)
LOUIS P. MUCCITELLI (Appearing pro-per)
Also present:
Brent Haviland
Steve Schoner
Lou Muccitelli
Dave Otteman
Holly Karris
Mike Denius
Kim Miles
Pursuant to Notice and the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, and the deposition of KENNETH L. Haywood, called by Defendant David Otteman, was taken on Wednesday, June 28th, 1995, commencing at 904 a.m. at 123 North San Francisco Street, Suite 300, Flagstaff, Arizona, before Naola C Timesch, as Registered Professional Reporter, Superior Court Certified Reporter in Arizona, Certified Shorthand Reporter in California, Nevada, and Kansas, and a Notary Public in and for the State of Arizona.
INDEX
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH L. HAYWOOD:
EXAMINED BY:
Mr. Ledbetter p 4
Mr. BECK p.88
EXHIBITS (none)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS
KENNETH L. HAYWOOD
Being first duly sworn by the Notary in the above cause, was examined and testified as follows.
EXAMINATION
( This file is very long, and you are welcome to download it so as to view it offline. As stated on pages 1 through 9 Mr. Ledbetter asks general work related questions regarding how Mr. Haywood came to Prescott and then to Flagstaff. Mr Haywood stated that before coming to Flagstaff in July of 1994 he worked in animal control, then as a title officer for several title companies. On page 9 of the transcript, Mr Haywood is questioned about his involvement with Wayman Mitchell, head of CFM, with regards to the "Door Church in Flagstaff)
If you have not read it, see: Haywood's perjury of 06/06/1995
(ALL OF SCHONER'S OUT OF COURT COMMENTS AND RECOLLECTIONS WILL BE IN BLUE)
PAGE 9
LEDBETTER, Q: What was your tilte when you transferred back to Transamerican Title?
HAYWOOD A:. Commercial industrial title officer.
LEDBETTER Q: Up, down, or sideways in terms of career enhancement at First American Title?
HAYWOOD A: Upwards in position, downwards in salary.
LEDBETTER Q: So you took a pay cut to come back to Coconino County?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, I did.
LEDBETTER Q: I believe you previously testified it was in January of 1994 that you indicated to Wayman Mitchell that you would start a church in Flagstaff?
( This question leads from the previous Haywood court perjury on June 6th, 1995 where he states "no affiliation" to Wayman Mitchell and his Potters House in Prescott, AZ.)
HAYWOOD A: That is true.
LEDBETTER Q: And that direction or conversation occurred in Los Angeles; fair?
HAYWOOD A: After I accepted the position here.
LEDBETTER Q: When did you accept the position here?
HAYWOOD A: It was June of 1994.
LEDBETTER Q: Did Wayman Mitchell contact you or did you contact him?
HAYWOOD A: Contacted him.
LEDBETTER Q In Prescott?
HAYWOOD A, In Prescott.
LEDBETTER Q,. When did you first begin attending a Pottersă House Church?
(Mr. Palmer and the deponent (Haywood) conferred off the record.)
HAYWOOD A: WhenÓ
PALMER [Attorney for Haywood interrupts]: Iăm going to-- we need to get something straight real quick, Jim. [Ledbetter]. You know, Iăve previously filed a motion for protective order about my clientăs religious beliefs, and practices. Those are not an issue in this case. We have a previously granted protective order. You know, my client is not going to answer question of that nature.
(Judge Flournoy, granted Haywood protection from "written interogatories" earlier, but not from the deposition process of discovery which was underway on June 28th, 1995. Mr. Palmer has erroneously assumed that that previous court order was for this deposition, and he had been previously warned by Judge Flournoy that the order was not to be construed to render protection from discovery processes. Palmer also sensed that this line of questioning would further demonstrate Mr. Haywoodăs previous perjury in the June 6th, 1995 Status Hearing.)
LEDBETTER: [In response] So it is your position that I canăt inquire as to the doctrine status of your client and compare it to any doctrinal status of any Potters House establishment or movement?
PALMER: Absolutely
LEDBETTER; And it is also your position that the defendants are picketing the wrong organization?
(Mr. Denius entered the room)
PALMER: What you can inquire into is the fact that my client has a church in Flagstaff, whether that is a legally independent church and his affiliation with that church and his status. His-- any spiritual or religious affiliations or connections of any spiritual or religious nature are not going to be addressed at this deposition.
BECK [interjects]: No. We can inquire into anything that we believe to be relevant, material, or likely to be-- lead to discoverable evidence. You can instruct him not to answer, and do that under the rules.
PALMER: Thatăs fine. Thatăs what I intend to do. Just so thereăs no misunderstand at this point.
LEDBETTER: Well--- and I want to be clear. Your position is to affiliation, for example, includes any doctrinal consistencies; fair?
PALMER: I donăt understand your question.
LEDBETTER: Let me ask it--- let me phrase it this way: It seems to be your position is that if these defendants wanted to protest Catholicism that they need to fly to Rome. Now, if they want--- youăve heard yesterday all this testimony about matters of conscience. If they want to protest the Pottersăs House movement, what I at least hear coming form you is that they shouldnăt be protesting Ken Haywood, true?
PALMER: I still donăt understand your question (Palmer is being purposely dense here, perhaps hoping that the issue that he raised will go away)
LEDBETTER: Well, I think youăre trying to curtail the First Amendment activities of these defendants, quite candidly.
PALMER: No, Weăre not trying to curtail anything other than their abusive activity in abusing this church.
BECK : We donăt accomplish anything by putting the blabberings of counsel on record. Letăs proceed.
LEDBETTER: My inclination at this time is to go ahead and see if Flournoy has any time today for the judge to hear this issue and then resolve it. And that is where Iăd like to go with this. You donăt have any objection to that, do you Ted [Thelton Beck, attorney for Schoner]
BECK: None at all. During our --
LEDBETTER: Letăs take a five-minute break. I am going to call his [Flournoyăs] secretary and see if he has 10 minutes or so during the day, and there's certainly other matters we can probe during that interim time so we donăt waste time.
PALMER: Fine.
(Recessed from 9:17 a.m. to 9:22 a.m.)
(Ledbetter makes the call and everyone returns to continue with Haywoodăs deposition)
LEDBETTER: Heăs going to call back in a few minutes with the time, or his secretary is. Thatăs who I spoke to, and theyăll buzz her through right in here.
Q: By LEDBETTER (to Haywood): Does your church have any sort of doctrinal statement?
PALMER: [interjects]: I would object. Instruct my client not to answer on the grounds that this is privileged confidential information, protected by the First Amendment, and that the court has no jurisdiction over my clientăs spiritual status, and my client does not intend to put his spiritual status before you at this time.
LEDBETTER Q: What theological training do you have?
PALMER [interjects]: I µm going to state the same objection as the previous question and instruct my client not answer.
LEDBETTER Q: [to Haywood]: Youăre ordained by Wayman Mitchell?
HAYWOOD A. Yes, I was.
PALMER [interjects]: Iăm going to instruct my client not to answer on the basis of the same objection as previously stated.
LEDBETTER [to Palmer]: Heăs already testified to this at the order to show cause hearing, Counsel. But it is your contention ităs not waived
(This question was brought up in prior testimony, on June 6th, 1995, Haywood admitted, after saying that there was no affiliation to Potters House, that he was ordained by Wayman Mitchell. And as you will see, Ledbetter focuses on this to further show Haywoodăs perjury)
PALMER [to Ledbetter] I objected at that time and I will continue to object. [Palmer turns to Haywood] Donăt answer until Iăve had a chance to state my objection.
LEDBETTER Q: Ităs your testimony that your church is not affiliated with the Pottersăs House movement, true?
PALMER: Object to the form of the question. My client has not stated any such thing, and if you wish to inquire as to any legal connection between my client and the Pottersăs House, please feel free to do so.
LEDBETTER [to Palmer]: So, youăre clear, Counsel. Iăm using his actual testimony form the hearing (June 6th, 1995, where Haywood committed perjury from the witness stand in court)
Q by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: Ităs your testimony that your church is solely independent of the Pottersăs House; is that true?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Do you mean legally independent?
Q by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: You can answer.
HAYWOOD A: Do you mean legally independent or--
LEDBETTER Q: Would it be your testimony the church is solely independent of the Potterăs House?
PALMER [interjects] Object to the form of the question. Ităs ambiguous. My client has stated that he wished to have the question clarified for him.
Q: by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: Is your church a part of any larger church?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Ităs ambiguous. Iăll state again, if you want to inquire as to--- if youăre referring to some sort of legal connection, my client will answer.
LEDBETTER [to Palmer]: I need your client-- your own question from page 6, line 17, of the transcript from the last hearing--- (June 6th, 1995 hearing)
PALMER: Mr. Ledbetter, youăre going to waste everybodyăs time here. You know, my client is not going to answer questions of a spiritual nature.
LEDBETTER: Well, I just want to make it clear, and weăll create a record on this.
PALMER: Your question has spiritual connotations. Iăll restate my objection for the record and continue to do so.
Q: by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: Do you have any legal affiliation with any other church or entity?
HAYWOOD A: N, I do not.
LEDBETTER Q: What is the current legal affiliation of your church?
HAYWOOD A: There is no current legal affiliation. It is solely independent (Haywood lies again, restating the lie that he initially said in the first hearing. Barring the fact that everyone there on the opening night, Aug 27th, 1994 were in the "impact team" from Wayman Mithcell's church, in Prescott, there is "no affiliation" as Haywood said?)
:LEDBETTER: Q: What is the legal status of your church?
HAYWOOD: A: An unincorporated association.
LEDBETTER Q: Does it have any officer, directors, et cetera?
HAYWOOD A: It would have. Ităs only governing body, if the defendants here didnăt have a conspiracy to stop it from going--
BECK [interjects]: I move to strike that answer as being non-responsive and would let the record reflect that the answer was given before I had any opportunity to object to the unresponsive nature of the answer
.LEDBETTER: And I join.
Q: by LEDBETTER: What is the governing body of your legal affiliation?
HAYWOOD A: generally speaking, my past experience, when a church gets to a certain size, you--- the church elects a treasurer and a secretary. This church as never been allowed to get to that size.
LEDBETTER A: You have a church membership of five?
HAYWOOD A: Thatăs correct.
LEDBETTER Q: And those five again, are you, your wife, Ken Pomorene and who else?
HAYWOOD A: Mike Sepeta and Randall Begay.
LEDBETTER Q: No others?
HAYWOOD A: No other formal members
LEDBETTER Q: .How many regular attenders are there?
HAYWOOD A: I had 19 Sunday morning.
LEDBETTER Q: is it your contention that the actions of the defendants have in any way impeded the growth of your church?
HAYWOOD A: Absolutely.
(At this point I will present all of the areas of Haywoods testimony interrupted by Palmer that would later be brought up by our attorneys in the hearing called for by Ledbetter regarding Palmer's objections)
PAGE 22 of official transcript:
LEDBETTER Q: Other than with your counsel, did you discuss this matter with others before you brought suit?
HAYWOOD A: With others as in?
LEDBETTER Q: People other than you and your wife.
HAYWOOD A: No.
LEDBETTER Q: There was no collective meeting of your church body to discern if this suit should be brought?
HAYWOOD A: No.
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the previous question. Ask that the answer be stricken on the basis that it's seeking privileged, confidential information, some of which is attorney-client privilege.
(This objection betrays the hidden events behind it. The lawsuit that Haywood launched in 1994 was discussed with Wayman Mitchell, and possibly David Palmer before hand. I have an inside source that overheard a conversation with Wayman Mitchell and one of those at the Flagstaff Potters House, where Mitchell said "Win or lose, in this lawsuit we will destroy the Flagstaff gang, [picketers] with legal fees." This is the reason for Palmer's objection, because we were exposing this in this deposition, or would have if we could have continued. Attorney-client privilege will be revisited in Judge Flournoy's hearing regarding Palmer's stonewalling later that day.)
Q: by LEDBETTER: The question to retain counsel for this suit was entirely yours and your wife's, correct?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Instruct my client not to answer as the inquiry on the basis of attorney-client privilege.
Q: by LEDBETTER: What's an impact team?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Instruct my client not to answer as to the inquiry had now gone into the area of spiritual matters and practices.
LEDBETTER [interjects} And so the record's clear, I'm just not going to make comment on them until the time we review them with the judge later today.
PALMER [interjects]: Jim, if I might, I might make some suggestion that might save some time. As a way of resolving the issue, I suggest what might be appropriate--
(Briref interruption. Judge Flournoy's office called. Session recessed from 9:36 a.m. to 9:39 a.m)
LEDBETTER [interjects after the call} He [Flournoy] can see us aft 11.45. I'm sorry (to Palmer) you said maybe there was a suggestion to resolve this?
PALMER: Well, our position is going to be before Judge Flournoy that, you know, each of these questions you're asking about spiritual beliefs and spiritual practices is different. You know, it's our position that some may be relevant, such as the status of his church here in Flagstaff. It's when you get afield in what goes on in a particular church.. So, you know, we can't say that we're going to object to every question you ask because our research has indicated that if it's in a particular reference, you know, there are situations where it may be relevant, you know, if it's relevant with t respect to a particular secular issue. It's very difficult for us to know where you're going in this. You know, our position is going to be that if you want to ask these types of questions, we're probably going to object to every one, and it might save time to doi, instead of by deposition, by written questions because some of them we may not object to. The one's we can, you know, we can object to those.
(The statement that Palmer has just made is bogus, because on June 6th, 1995, Flournoy had granted Palmer his motion prohibiting "written interogatories" in other words, a written deposition. And that, written questions, is what Palmer wants now? He cannot have it both ways, and Flournoy will bring that up in the hearing later that morning, chiding Palmer harshly. On June 6th when the motion against written interogatories was granted Flournoy advised that he would grant it, but that the motion could not protect Haywood from the process of discovery, of which the deposition was part of that process.)
You know, we're not going to object to what-- you know, he's going to go ahead and all the--- you know, and answer all of your questions in terms of what happened at the church, but everything having to do or most everything having to do with the Potter's House is going to be a problem.
BECK [interrupts]: With all due respect for your attempt to save us time, David, you didn't save us any time. Without regard for Mr. Ledbetter, that's totally unacceptable to me. I'm not prepared to take your deposition. I want to take the deposition of Mr. and Mrs. Haywood, so we are going to do it orally. Whatever time it takes.
(BECK has in this disputed Palmer's demand for written questions rather than oral ones. Judge Flournoy already gave Palmer a motion against written questions, and now Palmer insists that oral question are not allowed.)
LEDBETTER: And I am in agreement. I'm going to proceed with the deposition.
PALMER: Well, our position is going to be, when we go over there, I going to tell him [Flournoy] we can't anticipate, you know our objections to every question you're going to ask because we don't know every question you're going to ask. And just because you make a ruling in general, you know, that's not going to solve the problem.
BECK: Well, you've told us you're going to fight us every step of the way. It now sounds like you're going to make us get a court order every question, every step of the way.
PALMER: Every question that clearly gets into inadmissible evidence If you've read my brief, you know, the courts have no jurisdiction over religious or spiritual matters. You are inquiring into an area that is clearly improper and we're not going to give on that issue.
LEDBETTER: We, you've read my brief on this issue, and we just respectively disagree.
PALMER: Yes. You've lost on this once and we want the opportunity to be fully heard and fully brief on each question if you're going to continue to press this issue.
Q: by LEDBETTER: Let's move on.
(On pages 27 Ledbetter asks Haywood if the term "cult" is offensive, Haywood responds "yes" and that the term has hurt his church which according to his personal experience should be for the length of time spent in Flagstaff about 35 to 50 people.)
On page 27
LEDBETTER Q: And what do you base that notion of 35 to 50 upon?
HAYWOOD A: Past experience.
LEDBETTER: Q: Where?
HAYWOOD: A: Lancaster, California. Yarnell, Arizona
LEDBETTER Q: In Lancaster, California, were you involved with some church organization there?
HAYWOOD A: It was an independent church. (He lies again, with this blatant evasion of the question)
LEDBETTER Q: What was the name of it?
HAYWOOD A: The Potters House
LEDBETTER Q: The church that you've referenced in Glendale, California, what was the name of it?
HAYWOOD: A: The Potter's House
LEDBETTER: Q: And the church in Yarnell, Arizona, what was the name of it?
HAYWOOD A: The Potters House
LEDBETTER Q: And so the experience that you've--- strike that. You're analysis that there should be 35 to 50 members currently within your Flagstaff church is based upon your experience in those other three churches, true?
HAYWOOD A: That's true.
LEDBETTER Q: Any other basis for determining that you should be at 35 to 50 members?
HAYWOOD A: I have several friends who are pastors, and that's been their experience as well.
(Take note of the namesÓ All CFM pastors, and solely affiliated to Wayman Mitchell.)
LEDBETTER Q: Who are they?
HAYWOOD A: A list? Eric Kramer.
LEDBETTER Q: Who else?
HAYWOOD A: Crea Copeland.
(skip a few lines regarding questions of the spelling)
LEDBETTER Q: Who else, if any?
HAYWOOD A: Richard Cox. Gordon Porter. I could go on. How far do you want me to go?
LEDBETTER Q: Well, are these all persons that have helped you reach your conclusion that you should have a larger church at this juncture?
HAYWOOD A: These are all persons that have pastored churches, and their churches are at this juncture that are at the same stages that I'm saying.
LEDBETTER Q: If there are more, please tell me.
HAYWOOD A: I'm drawing a mental blank here. Give me just a second. Mark Tozer, Mark Olson, Peter Olson, Mark Hurlow, Dan Atherton, Roger Fisher. I can produce a lot better list for you. I just at this particular juncture in time that'sÓ
LEDBETTER Q: These individuals are the ones you can think of at this time?
HAYWOOD A: Right.
LEDBETTER Q: Eric Kramer, what's the name of his church, if you know?
HAYWOOD A: The Potter's House
LEDBETTER Q: Crea Copeland, what's the name of his church?
HAYWOOD A: He's not pastoring at this time.
LEDBETTER Q: The experience that you're drawing upon, what type-- what was the name of the church that he was pastor of? (Notice that Ledbetter uses the word "experience" in the phrase as in "you're drawing upon. " This word will come up again at which point Palmer will render an objection as Ledbetter attempts to further pin down Haywood in his perjury)
HAYWOOD A: The Potter's House.
LEDBETTER Q: Richard Cox, same question?
HAYWOOD A; The Potters House
LEDBETTER Q: Gordon Porter, same question?
HAYWOOD A: The Potters House
LEDBETTER A: Mark Tozer, same question?
HAYWOOD A: The Door.
LEDBETTER Q Mark Olsen, same question?
HAYWOOD A: Victory Chapel
LEDBETTER Q: Peter Olson?.
HAYWOOD A: The Door.
LEDBETTER Q: Mark Hurley
HAYWOOD A: The Door.
LEDBETTER Q: Roger Fisher
HAYWOOD A: The Potter's House.
LEDBETTER Q: Dan Atherton.
HAYWOOD A: He's not pastoring at this time.
LEDBETTER Q: Based upon the experience that you're drawing upon, what was the name of the church that he was pastoring?
HAYWOOD A: Victory Chapel. (sensing a problem of affiliation in all of his answers thus far he adds) All independent churches.
LEDBETTER Q: Does your church keep records of people who do visit?
HAYWOOD A: Sometimes if they fill out a visitor card.
LEDBETTER Q: Visitor cards are available somewhere in the church?
HAYWOOD A: Yes they are.
LEDBETTER Q: Is it encouraged from the pulpit for people to sign or complete a visitor's card?
PALMER [interjects] Again, I'm going to object on the basis of you're now intruding into religious practices and instruct my client not to answer.
Q: by LEDBETTER: Is there any-- strike that. Is there any documentary evidence or written materials which would help us to contact people who have visited who for some reason or another have not subsequently returned to your church?
HAYWOOD A: Not a very complete thing because it's not something that I even ask anybody to do soÓ
LEDBETTER Q: Well, tell me of what the incomplete record is of a visitor's attendance, if any.
HAYWOOD A: I would have to go through the records. I couldn't tell you that.
LEDBETTER Q: And the best source of this information would be these visitor's cards that you described?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, it would.
(The reason that Mr. Ledbetter focused on membership cards and names was that he intended to subpoena these people as impartial witnesses as to our conduct as picketers and contrast what they observed and what Mr Haywood alleged in his lawsuit)
LEDBETTER then turns to Palmer. Q: So I'm clear, Counsel, you're instructing him not to answer any questions on ordination or training?
PALMER: I'll read to you from the Am. Jur. That covers my objection.
LEDBETTER: (sharply) I don't what you to read to me. I'm just want you to tell me, if I probe ordination and training, you're not going to instruct him not to answer, right?
PALMER: Yes.
(The issue of ordination by Wayman Mitchell was asked in the June 6th, hearing. And for whatever reason that Palmer sees fit, it cannot be probed in this deposition under "spiritual practices" as defined by Palmer)
The record continues for several pages, After questions and answers from Haywood regarding his role as Potter's House pastor in Glendale, California and Yarnell Arizona, and his relationship to Coney Orasco, a Potters House pastor, Ledbetter on page 38 continues:
LEDBETTER Q: Are thee any other contexts in which you've met or discussed anything with Conrad Orosco?
HAYWOOD A: He was the pastor of the Flagstaff church when I met him. I met on two separate occasions. I was introduced to him. That's about the extent of it.
LEDBETTER Q: Where were you when you met him?
HAYWOOD A: At the Prescott International Bible Conference.
(skip two lines)
LEDBETTER Q: I don't know what--- I don't want to know the nature of your training, but have you received training at the International Bible Conference? (Notice that Ledbetter was clear in stating that he did not want to know the nature of the training, but only wanted to know if such training was provided at the Prescott Conference. An affirmation would affirm affiliation, which Haywood has repeatedly denied.)
PALMER: Again, I'm going to object on the basis that you're now inquiring into religious beliefs and practices, and so I'm instructing him not to answer on the basis of First Amendment religious privilege.
(Over the next six pages Ledbetter asks questions regarding State record requirements, Mark Workman and Rick Ross, and a CFM dossier of "crimes" on both. Haywood was asked how he came to know of that, and he stated that he came to know about it as a member of the Prescott Church Potters House church, pastored by Wayman Mitchell, further establishing affiliation that Haywood denied.)
On page 47:
LEDBETTER Q: I don't want to know the substance of it, but does your church practice in something called the shepherding doctrine?
PALMER [interjects] Again, I object. My question again addresses my client's religious beliefs and practices, and instruct him not to answer on the basis of First Amendment religious privilege and confidentiality.
Q: by LEDBETTER: Same question with respect o the headship doctrine.
PALMER: Same objection as stated to the last question.
(These two subjects were on our picket signs, they were also issues in our protest of all CFM churches. Whenever these subjects are brought up in questioning Palmer purposely objects. And this will be addressed in the meeting slated later that day
Over the next 9 pages Ledbetter asks specific medical questions that Haywood raised regarding a "heart attack" that he said was the result of "stress" he endured from our picketing. He stated that he had the medical records to prove it. So do I, as they were subpoenaed in by our lawyers in the course of this litigation. They reveal that Haywood, aged 30 at the time DID NOT have a heart attack. Yet he included that alleged heart attack in his lawsuit. Ledbetter then focuses on Ron Berell [sic Berl]. )
Continued on page 56
LEDBETTER Q: Berl. [sic Ron Berell]
HAYWOOD A: I have-- I've never even met the man. I have no idea.
LEDBETTER Q: At least according to the testimony yesterday, a potential pastor for the Potter's House Church, Ron Berl?
HAYWOOD A: I think he was removed for moral indiscretion several years ago before I was ever on the scene.
LEDBETTER Q: By whom; do you know?
HAYWOOD: A: I wouldn't have any idea.
LEDBETTER Q: Are you subject in any way to removal for--
HAYWOOD A: I could lose my ordination.
PALMER [interjects]: Again, I'm going to object to the question as probing into the area of religious practices and organization, and assert the First Amendment religious privilege and confidentiality and instruct my client not to answer.
LEDBETTER: And you'll instruct him not answer any further question regarding removal or ordination?
PALMER: Yes.
(This is crucial point in the deposition. The subjects of ordination, and who it was that ordained Haywood, (Wayman Mitchell) is a point that the plaintiffs brought up, all the while saying that there is "no affiliation" Simply stated: Ordination establishes affiliation to the head body of the churchÓ any church. And Palmer is doing his best to avoid having Haywood answer that question.)
Q: by LEDBETTER: Have you spoken to Wayman Mitchell regarding this litigation?
{Haywood pauses, turns to Palmer)
PALMER: You can go ahead and answer.
HAYWOOD A: Yes I have.
LEDBETTER Q: What did you and he discuss about this?
HAYWOOD A: Generalities. Hoping that the litigation would end and we've been going through and we're able to build a church.
LEDBETTER Q: Did you discuss this with Mr. Mitchell before you brought the suit?
HAYWOOD A: I don't believe I did, but I may have.
( A very evasive answerÓ From my inside source, I was told that Haywood in the weeks before did discuss this with Mitchell, and both agreed to launch the lawsuit. As it was reported to me, by an inside source that Mitchell said, "Win or lose, we will destroy the Flagstaff Gang with legal fees")
LEDBETTER Q: Just average, how often do you speak with Wayman Mitchell?
HAYWOOD A: Every other month or so. Maybe--- Maybe once a month.
LEDBETTER Q:. And are there regular meeting set with him?
HAYWOOD A: No, there is not.
LEDBETTER Q: Do you report to him in any manner with respect to the running of your church?
PALMER [interjects] Again, I am going to object that the questions now obviously are directed to a religious organization, to a religious organizational focus which is protected by the First Amendment, and I'll instruct my client not to answer.
(And that question that Palmer is objecting to is instrumental in proving affiliation that Haywood has denied. He has tried to separate himself from Mitchell, but this question regarding whether Mitchell has any input into how Haywood's church is run is telling. The fact that Palmer does not want him to answer is very revealing and a move to avert perjury. For it is widely known that Mitchell has complete control of each and every one of his subsidiary churches and their pastors.)
Q: By LEDBETTER: Regarding this litigation, have you discussed any particular picketing incidents with Mr. Mitchell?
HAYWOOD A: I don't--- I can't recall any specific time. I'm not sure.
(Mr. Palmer and the deponent conferred of the record) (They whispered to each other, for this was a sensitive question)
LEDBETTER: In fact, let's go ahead and take care of this. You don't mind, have any objection to marking this as an exhibit. We'll make that collectively 1. (Ledbetter took from Palmer, and presented to the court, Dr. Howley's report of Haywood's alleged "heart attack.")
LEDBETTER Q: So that I'm clear with respect to your medical history, other than the records that you've produced today, you don't know of any other physician involvement with regard to your heart?
HAYWOOD A: No.
LEDBETTER Q: And that was a bad question. Let me ask it this way: There is no other physician other than Dr. Howley, right?
HAYWOOD A: Right.
LEDBETTER Q: And to your knowledge there are no other records other than what you've produced today?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
(Ledbetter over the next two pages questioned Haywood regarding the pickets at the Prescott conferences)
On Page 60 Ledbetter asks about the signs:
LEDBETTER Q: You've seen the word "sucks" on these signs?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, I have.
LEDBETTER Q: And I believe it's your testimony that that's offensive to you?
HAYWOOD A: Highly.
LEDBETTER Q: Highly offensive? (Ledbetter said this with a great deal of skepticism)
HAYWOOD A: Yes.
LEDBETTER Q: What does the term mean to you?
HAYWOOD A: It has definite sexual connotations.
LEDBETTER Q: Even in the context it's used in your opinion, it's highly offensive?
(the sign referred to said " THIS CULT $UCK$" with the S in dollar signs)
HAYWOOD A: I don't think you can change the word.
LEDBETTER Q: So, to you it would be highly offensive regardless of the context it's used?
HAYWOOD A: Absolutely.
LEDBETTER Q: So, if you're driving home today hypothetically and you see a sign that says, "Racism sucks," you would find that offensive?
HAYWOOD A: I would find the word offensive in any context it's used.
LEDBETTER Q: If you see a sign that says, "KKK sucks," you would find that highly offensive?
HAYWOOD A: I wouldn't find what they stand for offensive but I would find the word offensive no matter what context it's use in.
LEDBETTER Q: And you have brought this litigation with respect to the word "sucks" to prevent it being used in front of your congregation?
HAYWOOD A: Among man, many other things.
LEDBETTER Q: Fair? I want to focus on the word sucks for just a moment. Regardless of the context it's used, it would be inappropriate to be used in front of your congregation?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
LEDBETTER Q: And that is one of the aspects for which you brought this suit?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
LEDBETTER Q: On the times you've seen this word "sucks" on the plaque cards or signs carried in front of your church, the S's have all been dollar signs, correct?
HAYWOOD A: I believe that is true.
LEDBETTER Q: So if someone were carrying the sign that says, "Jim and Tammy Baker sucks" and the S being a dollar sign, that would be offensive to you?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, it would.
LEDBETTER Q: If someone carried a sign that said, "The PTL sucks" and the S being a dollar sign, that would be offensive to you?
HAYWOOD A: Regardless of the truth of their message, it would be an offensive slogan.
LEDBETTER Q: One you think the government should prevent?
HAYWOOD A: In a certain context.
LEDBETTER Q: In the PTL context?
HAYWOOD A: If they're around children, absolutely.
LEDBETTER Q: IN the Jim and Tammy Baker example?
HAYWOOD A: I have no respect for them, but, yeah, because of the word, yes.
(The above I find very interesting, as did our attorney's, for in the local paper on the front page was an article that said in bold "Smoking Sucks" Haywood's argument against us using it with dollar signs instead of an S they would find offensive because they got the intent, which was money)
Ledbetter asks specific questions in the deposition regarding David Otteman, Mark Workman and Lou Muccitelli, and there alleged actions in picking Haywood's church. Haywood, as usual, states that they were shouting and blocking the entrances to the chruch on Murdock and at Rose Street. Rick Ross is also mentioned by Haywood as a "convicted child molester." The fact is that Rick Ross WAS NOT convicted of that crime. Rick Ross was, however convicted of a jewel robbery when in his twenties. He did his time, and did extensive community service afterwards. But he as never a "convicted child molester" as Haywood states. For the rest of the Haywood deposition, Palmer does not lob any objections until Page 84.
On page 84
LEDBETTER Q: What is a discipleship meeting?
HAYWOOD A: It's a--
PALMER [interjects] Object to the form of the question, and I'm going to instruct my client not to answer if it refers to his church. If you want to ask him anything that was said about this--- if he has anything that was said about this-- if he has any information about this incident that was discussed yesterday with respect to Mr. Diver and Mr. Muccitelli, I don't have a problem with that. But with respect to Ken's church I am going to instruct him not to answer and invoke the First Amendment privilege.
LEDBETTER [retorts angrily] We'll I'll be asking both.
Q: LEDBETTER: Let's start first with do you have any knowledge with a discipleship meeting as testified to yesterday by Mr. Diver or Mr. Schoner or Mr. Muccitelli?
HAYWOOD A: If it involved discipleship meeting that transpired in Prescott when I was a member of that church, I probably would have been present, but I can't tell you which one it would have been. I have no knowledge of it.
LEDBETTER Q: Do you recall these defendants ever being mentioned in any discipleship meeting?
HAYWOOD A: Never. That's unheard of to mention somebody's mane over the pulpit. That's a horrible violation.
(A "horrible violation" ? How about Wayman calling Rick Ross by name over the pulpit when he said "And that faggot, Rick Ross" I have it on video tape, as Wayman struts behind the pulpit hummÓ and we were not mentioned at any time over the pulpit either"? By the strength of Haywood's denial, I think otherwise . Ledbetter caught the strength of Haywood's "horrible violation" answer)
LEDBETTER Q: A horrible violation of what?
PALMER [interjects] I'm going to object to the form of the question. You're now into religious practice.
LEDBETTER (angry) Your client brought it up, Counsel.
PALMER: I'm instruction him that he has the right to assert his First Amendment privilege and that he is not require dot answer.
LEDBETTER Q: Does your church encourage street preaching?
PALMER [interjects] Object to the question on the grounds of First Amendment privilege and confidentiality and advise my client that he's not required to answer.
LEDBETTER Q: Do you have any belief as to whether the defendants are Christian?
HAYWOOD A: I have no opinion
LEDBETTER Q: Do you have reason to believe that defendants are not Christian?
HAYWOOD A: I have no opinion. I don't know any of them to make that kind of judgement.
(Would have been nice to have had a tape recorder to record what he said to us when we were picketing from Aug 27th, 1994 and on. Haywood's "opinion" then, before this deposition was "Devils" "Children of Satan" "backsliders" "Rick Ross's faggots" and I certainly wish I had my recorder when he asked me on Aug 27th, "You are a faggot, arenăt you" and also other not very Christian names)
LEDBETTER Q Do you as a Christian feel there's any prohibition to one Christian suing another?
HAYWOOD A: Do I feel--
PALMER [interjects] Again, I'm going to object to the question in that it calls for a religious belief and advise my client that he's not required to express his religious beliefs or practice because there is a First Amendment privilege.
(1 Cor. Ch. 6. V. 1-7Ó Paul's exhortation regarding Christians sewing Christians sheds light on this topic)
LEDBETTER Q: Assume for a moment that somebody within the congregation felt that a church was ripping somebody off. Do you think that the congregation al member should speak out on that?
HAYWOOD A; I believe they should probably approach their pastor or their council member s and mat that request-- make that known to them.
LEDBETTER Q: Assume that the persons they approached in the local congregation took no action. What should they do then?
HAYWOOD A: This is hypothetical?
LEDBETTER Q: Sure.
PALMER [interjects] Are you asking in a religious sense or in a secular sense? Because if you're asking in a religious sense, I'm going to instruct my client not to answer. He may answer with respect to any secular action that he might take.
Q by LEDBETTER: Answer it in the a secular sense.
HAYWOOD A: I suppose you'd get an attorney and work it through in the legal system.
LEDBETTER Q: And that would be the secular approach?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
LEDBETTER Q: I think you answered this question a little earlier. You believe it's appropriate to call the police any time these picketers come, solely because the police told you to do so? That's your testimony?
HAYWOOD A: Not solely because the police told me to do so, Because I certainly feel threatened.
LEDBETTER Q: Have you ever told these defendants that you would have them arrested?
HAYWOOD A: Have I personally ever told them that?
LEDBETTER Q: Yes.
HAYWOOD A: Not to my recollection. (This is a blatant lie. He did threaten to have us arrested from day one, Aug 27th, 1994 and on. Each time we picketed he called the police to make his wish to have us arrested known to them and to us)
LEDBETTER Q: Have you ever heard anyone in your church tell them that?
HAYWOOD A: Not to my recollection.
LEDBETTER: Let me review my notes for a few minutes. Mr. BECK, you want to proceed?
BECK" I will.
END of EXCERPTS
COMMENTARY
BECK proceeded the deposition of Haywood with no further interruptions from Palmer, and continued for several more pages before Judge Flournoy called for the deposition hearings regarding Palmer's objections.
What is noteworthy in this is that Palmer uses not the Fifth Amendment, but the First Amendment, which he invokes at least 35 times, and construes to impart to him in this lawsuit that Potters House launched, special privileges and religious protection.
What is telling in his objections is the direction of the questions that promoted Palmer's objections. Ledbetter hammered key points of affiliation, ordination, church practice, and the fact that all the names of those "solely independent" churches were by Christian Fellowship pastors, all ordained and answerable only to Wayman Mitchell in Prescott, AZ. The fact that Palmer did not want questions into those areas was not for his, or even Judge Flournoy's notion of "religious protection" but to protect his client, Ken Haywood from further perjury. And Palmer will be "dressed down" by Judge Flournoy for stymieing our deposition of his client in the next hearing.
According to Lou Muccitelli, who was there in that hearing as pro-per, Flournoy shouted his final statement out at Palmer. The words recorded were not as pallid as the transcript reads. I was outside the courtroom for Flournoy wanted no defendants other than their attorney's present. Lou Muccitelli was allowed in that hearing, for Flournoy had no other choice but to allow him in as he was representing himself in the action. And though I did not see what was transpiring, I heard it outside the courtroom as Flournoy shouted at Palmer.
When it was over, Lou came out of the courtroom with a big smile, and gave me a thumbs up. As we were returning to the Aspy building to continue the deposition, he and our attorneys said that Palmer got a real dressing down, and that we should be open to settling the case, rather than seeing it go to trial.
And that is what Palmer wanted to do, rather than get back into the deposition room. Our lawyers thought we were on the top, and the fact that Flournoy hammered Palmer, to settle, and from this they construed that Flournoy was siding with us.
Wrong!
After six months of further hearings over a settlement, we all finally agreed that we would adhere to Flournoy's injunction that allowed our picketing out at a distance of no closer than 130 yards, and that we admitted to none of the charges that Haywood leveled at us in his lawsuit, and Haywood retracted the charges.
Flournoy then unjustly slapped us with all of Palmer's attorney fees, $27,500, after wards--- as if we were guilty, which was not the case, nor had it ever been proven in a court of law before a jury.
Flournoy did the unexpected, and we reacted based on his terrible record:
See:
http://recall-flournoy.tripod.com/
He is no longer a Judge.
The entire document of the short hearing:
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Hearing re Request for Protective Order
Re Deposition Questions
June, 28th, 1995