The Lisa McPherson Files

ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER, TAYLOR & EVANS, LLP

February 18, 1997

Sgt. Wayne Andrews
Clearwater Police Department
Clearwater, Florida 33514

Re: Lisa McPherson Investigation

Dear Sgt. Andrews:

We're writing to lodge a strong objection to your contacting a represented witness in this investigation. We understand from John Lauro that last week you contacted, by telephone, his client Suzanne Green. You did this even though you had been put on notice many weeks ago by us and by Mr. Lauro that he represented Mrs. Green. You should be dealing with witnesses that are represented through their attorneys. You have no right to contact directly a represented witness. By your actions, you are running the risk of contaminating further your investigation.

Your actions are particularly troublesome because of your comments to the media and to us about the professed unwillingness of the Church of Scientology to cooperate with you in obtaining the interviews of three former Clearwater staff members, including Mrs. Green. In response to those comments, we provided you with the names and numbers of counsel for each of those witnesses through which you had the ability to arrange for their interviews. After having communicated with Mr. Lauro, you nevertheless contacted Mr. Lauro's client directly, which is improper, unethical and unlawful. Is it your intention to contact the clients of the other lawyers in this case to attempt to conduct interviews outside the presence of their counsel?

We are also advised by Mr. Lauro about your defamatory statements about us as counsel for the Church of Scientology. We are told that you stated that we as counsel are "obstructing your investigation" and "tampering with witnesses" by obtaining

Sgt. Wayne Andrews
Clearwater Police Department
February 18, 1997
Page 2

independent counsel for witnesses. Your statements are outrageous and defamatory.

A witness has a right to independent counsel. If you recall, you complained to us about previous church counsel representing both the witnesses and the church. We advised you that we would be representing only the Church of Scientology and that the individual witnesses (for the most part) would be represented by their own independent counsel. Now, you seem to be complaining about witnesses getting their own independent counsel. You can't have it both ways. Apparently, you are unhappy because independent counsel are seeking to protect the rights of their clients. You have the ability to interview every witness by issuing subpoenas for their testimony. No one is obstructing your investigation. However, we will insist that your investigation be done legally, lawfully and ethically. You and Agent Strope are not exempt from the rules of law in conducting your investigation.

Mr. Lauro also told us that you were concerned about whether the Church of Scientology was paying for legal fees for its staff members and parishioners who are witnesses in the case. As we explained to you and Agent Strope, the Florida Corporation Code allows for the indemnification of officers, directors, employees and agents, (including former employees) for legal fees in criminal and civil cases, including investigations. You should refer to Section 607.0850, Florida Statutes. This law allows corporations to advance legal expenses during criminal investigations and requires corporations to indemnify an employee or former employee at the conclusion of any case which ends in a favorable verdict. Consequently, corporations typically advance legal fees during criminal investigations for their employees and former employees. Responsible corporations will always provide for their employees, particularly in situations like the instant case where the evidence is overwhelming that the witnesses had no reasonable cause to believe that their conduct was unlawful and have a good faith belief that they were doing nothing wrong. It is irresponsible and defamatory for you to suggest that any decision by the Church of Scientology to advance legal fees to its staff members constitutes obstruction of your investigation. You should carefully read the law and consider the consequences of making any further defamatory statements about our actions.

Sgt. Wayne Andrews
Clearwater Police Department
February 18, 1997
Page 3

Lawyers who have been retained to represent the witnesses in this case are for the most part like both of us, former federal or state prosecutors. We believe in the rule of law and in playing by the rules. We will aggressively represent our clients but we will do so in a professional and ethical manner. Because of our law enforcement background, each of us has a high regard for law enforcement. We also expect from law enforcement ethical, professional and responsible conduct. There is no reason why the lawyers in this case and the police investigators cannot maintain a professional relationship. However, comments and actions as outlined above will completely ruin that relationship. That would be unfortunate and can only hinder the conclusion of this matter.

Very truly yours,

[signature]

MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
Florida Bar No. 0486401
Zuckerman, Spaeder, Taylor
& Evans, LLP
401 East Jackson Street
Suite 2525
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tele: (813) 221-1010
Fax. (813) 223-7961

[signature]

LEE FUGATE
Rubin Icot Center, Suite 108
13630 58th Street North
Clearwater, Florida 34620-3734
Tele: (813) 539-6536
Fax: (813) 530-5601

cc: Mark McGarry
Assistant State Attorney