Including information about his associates
page 386
1 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
3 DIVISION ONE
4 ______________________________
)
5 LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF )
FREEDOM, INC., ) DCA. NO. DO27959
6 )
PLAINTIFF AND ) FROM SAN DIEGO COUNTY
7 RESPONDENT, )
) HON. RUNSTON G. MAINO
8 VS. )
)
9 WILLIS CARTO, HENRY FISCHER, )
VIBET, INC., LIBERTY LOBBY, )
10 INC., ET. AL., )
)
11 DEFENDANTS AND )
APPELLANTS. )
12 ______________________________)
13
REPORTER’s APPEAL TRANSCRIPT
14
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
15
VOLUME 4
16
PAGES 386-538
17
18
APPEARANCES:
19
FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND JACQUES BEUGELMANS AND
20 RESPONDENT: THOMAS MUSSELMAN
1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS
21 CENTURY CITY, CA 90067
22 FOR THE DEFENDANTS AND PETER J. PFUND
APPELLANTS: 2382 S.E. BRISTOL
23 SUITE A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
24
25
26
BARBARA J. SCHULTZ, CSR, RPR
27 CSR NO. 8021
OFFICIAL REPORTER
28 VISTA, CALIFORNIA
page 387
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
3 DEPARTMENT 11 HON. RUNSTON G. MAINO
4
_____________________________
5 )
LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF )
6 FREEDOM, INC., )
)
7 PLAINTIFF, ) NO. N64584
)
8 VS. )
)
9 WILLIS CARTO, HENRY FISCHER, )
VIBET, INC., LIBERTY LOBBY )
10 INC., ET. AL., )
)
11 DEFENDANTS. )
_____________________________)
12
13 REPORTER’s TRANSCRIPT
14 NOVEMBER 5, 1996
15
APPEARANCES:
16
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: JACQUES BEUGELMANS AND
17 THOMAS MUSSELMAN
1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS
18 CENTURY CITY, CA 90067
19
20 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: WAIER AND URTNOWSKI
BY: RANDALL S. WAIER
21 1301 DOVE STREET
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
22
23
FOR THE DEFENDANT MARK LANE
24 LIBERTY LOBBY, INC.: 300 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, S.E.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
25
26
BARBARA J. SCHULTZ, CSR, RPR
27 CSR NO. 8021
OFFICIAL REPORTER
28 VISTA, CALIFORNIA
page 388 1 VISTA, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER 5, 1996, DEPARTMENT 11: 2 3 THE COURT: ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES ARE PRESENT. 4 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, FIRST, I APPRECIATE THE 5 INDULGENCE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW US TO DO OUR CIVIC DUTY AND 6 VOTE. I WANTED TO RAISE WITH THE COURT AT THE OUTSET A VERY 7 DISTURBING CIRCUMSTANCE. YESTERDAY, MR. BEUGELMANS 8 TESTIFIED HE SPOKE WITH TOM KERR, TOLD THIS COURT THIS 9 CONCERNING HIS AVAILABILITY. HE ALSO TOLD THAT MR. WEBER 10 HAD DIRECTLY SPOKE WITH MR. KERR CONCERNING HIS 11 AVAILABILITY. I SPOKE WITH TOM KERR LAST NIGHT CONSISTENT 12 WITH WHAT I TOLD THIS COURT I WOULD DO. NOT ONLY WAS I 13 INFORMED MR. BEUGELMANS NEVER SPOKE TO HIM, MR. WEBER NEVER 14 SPOKE TO HIM. THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE HE RECEIVED WAS BY 15 GREG RAVEN BY LETTER TELLING HIM TO BE HERE, INSTEAD OF LAST 16 WEDNESDAY, TO BE HERE ON FRIDAY. 17 MORE IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE PROOF OF 18 SERVICE, THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUBPOENA FOR TRIAL ON 19 TOM KERR. TOM KERR STATES HE WAS NEVER PERSONALLY SERVED 20 WITH A SUBPOENA FOR TRIAL. INDEED, WHAT HE RECEIVED WAS 21 SOMETHING BY WAY OF A LETTER FROM MR. BEUGELMANS, WHICH HE 22 SENT BACK A CHECK TO MR. BEUGELMANS AND — SENT BACK THE 23 CHECK WHERE MR. BEUGELMANS REQUESTED HIM TO BE HERE. 24 APPARENTLY MAY HAVE BEEN A LETTER — SUBPOENA IN THE 25 LETTER. THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PERSONAL SERVICE. 26 THEREFORE, THE REPRESENTATIONS, FROM MY 27 UNDERSTANDING, THAT WERE MADE YESTERDAY ARE COMPLETELY 28 FALSE, NOT ONLY FROM THE FACT MR. BEUGELMANS NEVER SPOKE TO
page 389 1 HIM, BUT NEITHER DID MR. WEBER OVER THE LAST WEEK CONCERNING 2 HIS AVAILABILITY FOR TRIAL. 3 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I BE HEARD? 4 THE COURT: OF COURSE. 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, EVERYTHING THAT MR. WAIER 6 SAYS IS A LIE. I HAVE HERE PROOF OF SERVICE ON MR. KERR. I 7 WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE NEXT EXHIBIT FOR THE COURT. 8 MR. WAIER: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. 9 MR. BEUGELMANS: YES. 10 I ALSO HAVE A LETTER DATED APRIL 30, 1996, 11 CERTIFIED LETTER SIGNED BY MR. KERR. 12 THE COURT: SLOWER. 13 MR. BEUGELMANS: I ALSO HAVE, YOUR HONOR, A — HE WAS 14 FIRST SUBPOENAED FOR TRIAL WHEN IT WAS SET FOR APRIL 22, 15 1996, SERVED WITH A — I HAVE THE PROOF OF SERVICE FROM 16 DIVERSIFIED LEGAL SERVICES, INC. ON APRIL 30, I GOT A CALL 17 FROM MR. KERR. HE TOLD ME HE WAS NOT FEELING WELL. HE 18 ASKED TO BE PUT ON CALL. I SENT HIM A LETTER TELLING HIM TO 19 BE ON CALL AND STAY IN TOUCH WITH HIM; WHEN AND AS NEEDED, 20 HE WOULD COME. THAT’s APRIL 30, 1996. 21 I'M SORRY. HE CALLED ME APRIL 18. AND I SENT A 22 LETTER BACK SAYING WE WOULD PUT HIM ON CALL. THAT WOULD BE 23 EXHIBIT -- 24 THE CLERK: NEXT WOULD BE 187. 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: 187 WILL BE THE PROOF OF SERVICE. 26 188 WILL BE MY LETTER OF APRIL 18, 1996, TO 27 MR. KERR. 189 WILL BE MY LETTER OF OCTOBER 24. ONE WILL BE 28 A LETTER OF APRIL 30, THE CERTIFIED LETTER WHICH HE SENT
page 390 1 BACK SAYING HE WOULD BE ON CALL. NEXT, THERE’s ANOTHER 2 LETTER I SENT HIM A FEW WEEKS AGO, IF I COULD HAVE A SECOND 3 TO GET THAT FROM THE FILE. 4 THE COURT: WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, IS MR. KERR 5 HERE? 6 MR. BEUGELMANS: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN OFFER OF 7 PROOF. I SENT A LETTER TO MR. KERR WHEN THE CASE WAS 8 CONTINUED AGAIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO TELLING HIM TO BE HERE 9 ON THE DATE OF TRIAL, OCTOBER 28. WHEN THE CASE WAS 10 CONTINUED, I REQUESTED HIM TO BE HERE NOVEMBER 1ST. AND 11 THEREAFTER, MR. RAVEN SENT A FAX — MR. RAVEN, WHO IS 12 CURRENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGION, SENT HIM A FAX 13 TELLING HIM TO BE ON CALL. AND IN RETURN, HE SENT A FAX 14 BACK TO THE LEGION SAYING HE WAS RECOVERING FROM 15 NEUROSURGERY; HE’s NOT FEELING WELL. 16 ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE ATTACHED AS NEXT IN ORDER 17 IF WE COULD MARK THEM. 18 NOW, YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, 19 YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, WE REQUESTED THAT MR. KERR BE HERE 20 TODAY 10:30. MR. WAIER SAID HE WOULD CONTACT MR. KERR AND 21 HAVE MR. KERR HERE. MR. KERR IS NOT HERE. MR. WEBER CAN 22 TESTIFY UNDER OATH HE CALLED MR. KERR, THAT MR. KERR SPOKE 23 NOT WITH MR. WAIER, BUT MR. CARTO, WHO TOLD MR. KERR HE NEED 24 NOT BE HERE TODAY. AND YOUR HONOR, I RELY ON THE GOOD FAITH 25 OF THE DEFENDANT. THEY HAVE THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE 26 DEPOSITION. IT HASN'T BEEN LODGED WITH THE COURT. THEY'RE 27 DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO PREVENT MR. KERR FROM 28 TESTIFYING.
page 391 1 I SUGGEST, IN ORDER TO BE HERE 10:30 THIS MORNING 2 IS A TOTAL AND UTTER WASTE OF TIME. I WOULD HAVE CALLED HIM 3 MYSELF, BUT I RELIED UPON MR. WAIER’s REPRESENTATION HE 4 CALLED HIM AND WOULD HAVE HIM HERE THIS MORNING. 5 MR. WAIER: I CAN GIVE YOU MR. KERR’s NUMBER. I SPOKE 6 WITH HIM THIS MORNING FROM MY CAR PHONE. THIS VERY MORNING, 7 I SPOKE WITH HIM. AND BY THE WAY, WHAT MR. — AND WHAT 8 MR. BEUGELMANS SAID ON THE RECORD YESTERDAY WAS THAT HE 9 SPOKE WITH HIM BY WAY OF PHONE AND MR. WEBER SPOKE WITH HIM 10 BY WAY OF PHONE. THAT’s ON THE RECORD AND WE CAN HAVE THAT 11 TRANSCRIPT READ BACK. THAT NEVER OCCURRED. 12 SECOND -- 13 THE COURT: WAIT A SECOND. LET’s STOP GETTING SO 14 EXCITED HERE. IS MR. KERR GOING TO BE HERE OR NOT? 15 MR. WAIER: I SPOKE WITH HIM THIS MORNING. HE SAID HE 16 COULD BE HERE ON THURSDAY. THAT IS THE ISSUE. HE'LL BE 17 HERE FIRST THING THURSDAY MORNING. 18 MR. BEUGELMANS: HE’s ON CALL TO ME. I SUBPOENAED 19 HIM. I WANT TO PUT HIM ON NOW. I WANTED HIM TO BE HERE AT 20 THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME. HE’s A SUBPOENAED WITNESS. I 21 BELIEVE THAT WE WILL REST BEFORE THURSDAY. I DON'T WANT TO 22 TAKE HIM OUT OF ORDER. 23 THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT NOT TAKING HIM OUT OF 24 ORDER. WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL CONDITION? 25 MR. WAIER: HE DOES HAVE A DIFFICULTY IN WALKING, BUT 26 HE IS LUCID AND HE CAN TESTIFY. HE TOLD ME THIS MORNING HE 27 CAN TESTIFY. AND — BUT HE REQUESTED IF HE COULD COME HERE 28 ON THURSDAY MORNING. THAT’s WHAT HE REQUESTED. THAT’s WHAT
page 392 1 I WAS GOING TO REPORT TO THE COURT. 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR -- 3 THE COURT: LET HIM FINISH. IS THERE SOME REASON HE 4 CAN'T BE HERE TODAY? 5 MR. WAIER: I DIDN'T GET INTO THAT. HE JUST ASKED IF 6 HE COULD BE HERE THURSDAY MORNING. 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: PUT MR. WEBER UNDER OATH ON THE 8 STAND. HE CAN BE HERE TODAY. MR. KERR TOLD — MR. WEBER 9 CALLED MR. KERR AT (619) 463-9161 WITHIN THE LAST 15 10 MINUTES. MR. KERR SAID HE COULD BE HERE. 11 THE COURT: ONE REASON THIS CASE IS EIGHT VOLUMES IS 12 BECAUSE OF THIS SORT OF THING THAT’s BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE 13 CASE WAS FILED. IT’s BEEN CONSTANT PICKING AT EACH OTHER. 14 ARE YOU GOING TO BE DONE BY THURSDAY OR NOT? 15 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, I ANTICIPATE, IF THE 16 WITNESSES WOULD BE HERE WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, I WOULD BE 17 DONE — THIS CASE WOULD BE DONE YESTERDAY IF IT WEREN'T FOR 18 JUST GAME PLAYING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT. THERE’s NO 19 REASON FOR MR. KERR NOT TO BE HERE OR FLY MR. TAYLOR FROM 20 SACRAMENTO OR WHY THERE’s SO MANY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 21 THEY PRESENTED THEMSELVES DURING THE COURSE OF DISCOVERY. 22 IT’s SILLY, YOUR HONOR. 23 THE COURT: YES. ARE YOU GOING TO BE DONE BY 24 THURSDAY? I DON'T MIND TAKING WITNESSES OUT OF ORDER. I 25 KNOW YOU HAVE A WAY TO PRESENT IT. I KEEP TRACK OF THIS. 26 IF HE HAS A PHYSICAL REASON -- 27 MR. WAIER: I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT IT. HE ASKED ME IF 28 HE CAME IN THURSDAY. I WILL CALL HIM TO SEE IF HE CAN COME
page 393 1 ON WEDNESDAY. FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING, IF THAT’s -- 2 THE COURT: WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF TIME. YOU ARE LATE 3 AND WE GET INVOLVED IN THIS, SO WE WASTE A LOT OF TIME. 4 WHAT ABOUT IF YOU USE THE PHONE RIGHT NOW, EITHER MY PHONE 5 OR THE BAILIFF’s PHONE, CALL HIM AND SEE IF HE CAN COME IN, 6 IF THERE’s A REASON HE CAN'T COME IN THIS AFTERNOON. 7 MR. WAIER: I KNOW SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO PICK HIM UP TO 8 BRING HIM IN. 9 MR. BEUGELMANS: I WOULD PICK HIM UP MYSELF TO BRING 10 HIM HERE. 11 MR. WAIER: HE’s REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. YOU KNOW THAT 12 THAT’s ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THE STATE BAR, YOUR GUY 13 COMMUNICATING WITH SOMEBODY HE KNOWS IS REPRESENTED BY 14 COUNSEL. 15 THE COURT: HOLD OFF, COUNSEL. YOU ARE GETTING ALL 16 EXCITED AND START THROWING MUD AT EACH OTHER. I'M ASKING A 17 QUESTION. 18 MR. WAIER: I'LL CALL HIM NOW. 19 THE COURT: SEE IF HE CAN COME IN AT 1:30. IF HE CAN'T, 20 SEE IF HE CAN COME IN TOMORROW MORNING. IF HE CAN'T, HAVE 21 HIM GIVE US A REASON WHY. 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: 619 -- 23 THE COURT: BE OFF THE RECORD. 24 25 (OFF-THE-RECORD.) 26 27 MR. WAIER: HE'LL BE HERE AT 11:30. 28 MR. BEUGELMANS: 1:30.
page 394 1 THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. HOW ABOUT MR. WEBER? 2 WE HAVE HIM BACK. 3 MR. BEUGELMANS: YES, IT MAKES HIS TESTIMONY VERY 4 CHOPPY. THAT’s THE PROBLEM. 5 THE COURT: STORY OF MY LIFE. 6 7 MARK WEBER, 8 CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN 9 PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 10 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 12 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 13 Q MR. WEBER, WHEN WE BROKE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, I 14 WAS ASKING QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MEETING YOU HAD WITH 15 STAFF AND WITH WILLIS CARTO SOMETIME IN APRIL 1993. DO YOU 16 RECALL THAT, SIR? 17 A YES, I DO. 18 Q AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD A DISPUTE WITH 19 MR. CARTO CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE I.H.R. JOURNAL; IS 20 THAT CORRECT? 21 A THAT’s CORRECT. 22 Q WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT THE I.H.R. JOURNAL 23 IS, SIR. 24 A THE JOURNAL IS PUBLISHED — FOUNDED IN — FIRST 25 PUBLISHED IN 1980. THERE WAS AN INTERRUPTION OF ONE YEAR. 26 IT WAS A QUARTERLY FOR MANY YEARS, NOW IS PUBLISHED SIX 27 TIMES A YEAR. IT’s A JOURNAL THAT TRIES TO PRESENT RELEVANT 28 ASPECTS OF HISTORY, ESPECIALLY MODERN HISTORY, IN A WAY
page 395 1 THAT’s BOTH SCHOLARLY AND ACCESSIBLE TO EDUCATED LAYMEN. 2 Q WHAT PERSONALLY WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY WITH 3 RESPECT TO THE I.H.R. AS OF APRIL 1993? 4 A I WAS THE EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL. I WORKED WITH 5 TED O’Keefe. HE WAS THE ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL AT 6 THAT TIME. IT WAS MY JOB, ALONG WITH — IN CONSULTATION 7 WITH TED O’Keefe AND OTHERS, TO DECIDE THE CONTENTS, EDIT 8 THE ARTICLES, MAINTAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTRIBUTORS TO 9 THE JOURNAL. 10 Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT IT WAS THAT MR. CARTO PROPOSED 11 IN TERMS OF CHANGING THE CONTENT OF THE I.H.R. JOURNAL WITH 12 WHICH YOU TOOK EXCEPTION? 13 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS TO TIME. 14 15 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 16 Q APRIL 1993. 17 A DURING THIS TIME, THERE WAS A LOT OF ACRIMONIOUS 18 DISCUSSION BETWEEN MYSELF AND WILLIS CARTO ABOUT THE 19 EDITORIAL CONTENT OF THE JOURNAL. THIS WAS ESPECIALLY 20 DISTRESSING BECAUSE CARTO HAD EARLY PLEDGED HE WOULD NOT 21 INTERFERE WITH THE EDITORIAL CONTENT OF THE JOURNAL. 22 THERE WERE TWO ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM. ONE WAS 23 Carto’s INSISTENCE, BY THE END OF 1993, ALL CONTENT RELATING 24 TO THE HOLOCAUST ISSUE WOULD BE REDUCED TO NO MORE THAN 10 25 PERCENT OF THE CONTENTS, AND THAT AFTER THE END OF 1993, 26 HOLOCAUST-RELATED MATERIALS WOULD BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY. 27 THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM WAS Carto’s 28 INSISTENCE THAT OTHER MATERIAL BE OF A NATURE THAT NOT ONLY
page 396 1 I, BUT THE OTHER STAFF AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS OF THE JOURNAL 2 FELT WAS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SCHOLARLY 3 OR WELL FOUNDED. 4 Q DID MR. CARTO MAKE ANY PROPOSALS AS TO CONTENT FOR 5 FUTURE ARTICLES WHICH YOU FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE? 6 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. 7 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 8 9 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 10 Q DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SUGGESTIONS THAT 11 WILLIS CARTO WAS MAKING TO THE CONTENT OF THE JOURNAL MIGHT 12 IMPAIR THE LEGITIMACY OF THE LEGION? 13 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. 14 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 15 THE WITNESS: NOT ONLY I, BUT OTHER CONTRIBUTORS. 16 MR. WAIER: MOVE TO STRIKE AS NOW CALLING FOR HEARSAY 17 AS TO OTHER CONTRIBUTORS. 18 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 19 20 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 21 Q JUST YOURSELF. 22 A I WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD DRASTICALLY 23 JEOPARDIZE THE SCHOLARLY NATURE OF THE JOURNAL. 24 Q PRIOR TO LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR RESIGNING IN 25 SEPTEMBER 1993, HAD YOU EVER SEEN ANY MINUTES OF THE 26 MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? 27 A I DON'T RECALL. IT’s POSSIBLE THAT I SAW ONE OR 28 TWO, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS I DID NOT SEE ANY MINUTES OF
page 397 1 PURPORTED MEETINGS OF THE BOARD UNTIL AFTER THAT TIME. 2 Q SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 1993, WHERE DID YOU OBTAIN 3 THE MINUTES YOU REVIEWED? 4 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS. 5 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 6 THE WITNESS: I RECALL THAT TO THE BEST OF MY 7 RECOLLECTION, THAT WE FIRST OBTAINED MINUTES OF BOARD 8 MEETINGS AS PART OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS IN THE CARTO 9 VERSUS LEGION CASE THAT CAME TO TRIAL IN DECEMBER 1993. 10 11 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 12 Q AND WHO PROVIDED THE MINUTES THAT YOU REVIEWED? 13 A THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE. 14 Q WHO WERE THE PLAINTIFFS IN THAT CASE? 15 A TOM KERR AND ELISABETH CARTO. 16 Q IS IT THEN, SIR, THAT YOU FIRST SAW MINUTES 17 REFLECTING THE FACT THAT YOU ALLEGEDLY HAVE BEEN A DIRECTOR 18 AT SOME POINT IN TIME BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1993? 19 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LEADING. 20 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 21 THE WITNESS: THAT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, 22 YES. 23 24 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 25 Q THE MINUTES THAT YOU SAW, SIR, WHEN DID THEY 26 IDENTIFY YOU AS HAVING BEEN A DIRECTOR? 27 A THERE’s A PURPORTED MINUTE THAT SHOWS ME HAVING 28 BEEN ELECTED AT A MEETING IN MARCH 1986.
page 398 1 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. NOT THE BEST 2 EVIDENCE. THE MINUTES THEMSELVES ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE. 3 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 4 THE WITNESS: ALSO, A MINUTE OF PURPORTING TO BE A 5 MEETING OF MARCH 1987 ACCORDS ME AS THE DIRECTOR BUT BEING 6 ABSENT AT THE MEETING. 7 8 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 9 Q WERE YOU IN FACT A DIRECTOR ON THOSE DATES? 10 A IN A WAY, IT’s DIFFICULT TO SAY. I WAS NEVER -- 11 I NEVER PARTICIPATED IN ANY MEETINGS. I WAS NEVER CONTACTED 12 BY ANYONE REGARDING ANY MEETINGS. I WAS NEVER INFORMED OF 13 ANY CORPORATE BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES, I WAS A 14 DIRECTOR, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT I KNOW THAT 15 SHOWS THAT I WAS A DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME. 16 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU, SIR — STRIKE THAT. 17 DO YOU RECALL THE DATE OF THE MINUTE, THE FIRST 18 MINUTE WHICH REFLECTED THE FACT THAT YOU ALLEGEDLY WERE THE 19 DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION? 20 A YES, I BELIEVE IT’s DATED MARCH 5 — SOMETIME IN 21 MARCH 1986. 22 Q TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, TAKE A LOOK AT 23 EXHIBIT 13. 24 A YES. 25 Q IS THAT A DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED IN DISCOVERY FROM 26 ELISABETH CARTO AND TOM KERR? 27 A IT WAS RECEIVED IN DISCOVERY FROM, I BELIEVE, 28 Carto’s ATTORNEY EITHER IN THAT CASE OR A SUBSEQUENT ONE
page 399 1 THAT IS AFTER SEPTEMBER 1993. 2 Q IS THIS THE FIRST MINUTE THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF 3 THAT IDENTIFIES YOU AS A DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION? 4 A THAT’s CORRECT. 5 Q AND SIR, WAS THERE ANOTHER MINUTE THAT YOU RECALL 6 THAT IDENTIFIED YOU AS A DIRECTOR? 7 A YES. 8 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, CORRECT? 9 A YES. 10 Q DO YOU RECALL THE DATE OF THAT SUBSEQUENT MINUTE 11 BEFORE 1993? 12 A IT’s DATED MARCH 3RD, 1987. 13 Q AND AT THAT TIME, DID YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A 14 DIRECTOR? 15 MR. WAIER: MAY WE UNDERSTAND WHAT DOCUMENT HE'S 16 REFERRING TO? HE’s LOOKING AT A DOCUMENT. 17 MR. BEUGELMANS: EXHIBIT 21. 18 THE WITNESS: WHEN YOU SAYAT THAT TIME,YOU MEAN 19 1987 OR 1993? 20 21 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 22 Q 1987, DID YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A DIRECTOR? 23 A NO. 24 Q EITHER 1986 OR 1987, DID YOU EVER ATTEND A MEETING 25 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION? 26 A NO. 27 Q IN 1986 OR 1987, DID YOU EVER RECEIVE NOTICE OF A 28 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION?
page 400 1 A NO. 2 Q 1986 OR 1987, DID YOU EVER PARTICIPATE 3 TELEPHONICALLY IN A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 4 LEGION? 5 A NO. 6 Q IN EITHER 1986 OR 1987, DID YOU EVER REVIEW 7 MINUTES OF ALLEGED MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 8 LEGION? 9 A NO. 10 Q SIR, PRIOR TO — STRIKE THAT. 11 AT SOME POINT IN TIME, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO 12 REVIEW MINUTES OF THE LEGION DATING BACK TO THE 1960'S? 13 A YES. 14 Q AND WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THE MINUTES? 15 A WELL, A COLLECTION OF ALL OF THESE MINUTES SORT OF 16 CAME IN DRIBS AND DRABS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER 17 SEPTEMBER 1993 AS PART OF THE DISCOVERY IN THE LITIGATION 18 THAT WAS GOING ON BETWEEN OURSELVES AND CARTO. 19 Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN PURPORTED MINUTES OF THE BOARD 20 OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION DATED MARCH 25, 1966? 21 A YES. 22 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU EXHIBIT 5, SIR. IS 23 EXHIBIT 5 A DOCUMENT WHICH YOU RECEIVED IN DISCOVERY 24 INVOLVING ELISABETH CARTO? 25 A IT WAS RECEIVED, AS I RECALL, IN DISCOVERY EITHER 26 IN THE ELISABETH CARTO, TOM KERR VERSUS L.S.F. CASE, OR THE 27 OTHER CASES ABOUT OR AFTER THAT TIME. I DON'T REMEMBER 28 WHICH CASE IT WAS.
page 401 1 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE OF WILLIS CARTO, 2 PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 5? 3 A YES, I DID. 4 Q DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO REVIEW BYLAWS OF THE 5 LEGION? 6 A YES, ON MANY OCCASIONS. 7 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, HOW MANY SETS OF BYLAWS 8 HAD YOU SEEN FOR THE LEGION? 9 A I THINK I SAW A SET OF THE 1966 BYLAWS FOR THE 10 FIRST TIME PROBABLY IN SPRING OR SUMMER OF '93. AS I 11 RECALL — WELL, THERE WAS A COPY OF EITHER THAT OR THE 12 CHARTER IN THE VERY THIN L.S.F. FILE AT THE OFFICE. 13 Q DO YOU RECALL THE DATE OF THE BYLAWS THAT YOU SAW? 14 A AS I RECALL, 1966, JUNE. 15 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU EXHIBIT 3, SIR. ARE 16 THESE THE BYLAWS THAT YOU REVIEWED AFTER SEPTEMBER -- 17 STRIKE THAT, SOME TIME IN THE SUMMER 1993? 18 A AS I RECALL. 19 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LEADING. 20 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 21 THE WITNESS: YES, AS I RECALL. 22 23 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 24 Q PRIOR TO THAT TIME, HAD YOU SEEN OTHER BYLAWS FOR 25 THE LEGION? 26 A NO. 27 Q AT PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 3, DO YOU SEE THE SIGNATURE 28 OF WILLIS CARTO?
page 402 1 A YES. 2 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT SIGNATURE? 3 A YES. 4 Q AND DO YOU SEE THE SIGNATURE OF LAVONNE FURR? 5 A YES. 6 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT SIGNATURE? 7 A YES. 8 Q AT SOME POINT IN TIME, SIR, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION 9 TO REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. HOOPER, AN ATTORNEY OR A 10 SOLICITOR OF BIDDLE AND COMPANY IN LONDON? 11 A WELL, I — I ENGAGED IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH 12 MR. HOOPER. 13 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU FIRST ATTEMPTED OR SENT A 14 CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. HOOPER? 15 A IT WAS IN 1994, PROBABLY MAY. PERHAPS APRIL. 16 Q DID MR. HOOPER EVER RESPOND TO YOUR 17 CORRESPONDENCE? 18 A YES. 19 Q DID YOU RECEIVE FROM MR. HOOPER COPIES OF ANY 20 LETTERS THAT HAD BEEN SENT OR FAXED TO MR. WILLIS CARTO? 21 A YES, I DID. 22 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU EXHIBIT NUMBER 38. IS 23 EXHIBIT 38 A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF A DOCUMENT THAT WAS 24 SENT TO YOU FROM MR. HOOPER AT BIDDLE AND COMPANY? 25 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY. 26 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 27 THE WITNESS: YES, IT IS. 28 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD ON THAT POINT
page 403 1 BRIEFLY? 2 THE COURT: JUST TOLD US IT WAS A COPY, COUNSEL. YES, 3 BRIEFLY. 4 MR. WAIER: HE STATED THIS IS A CORRESPONDENCE, 5 ALTHOUGH STATED MR. WILLIS’s CORRESPONDENCE OF WHAT WAS SENT 6 TO HIM BY MR. HOOPER. THAT’s A COMMUNICATION FROM 7 MR. HOOPER. HE’s TESTIFYING TO A COMMUNICATION FROM 8 MR. HOOPER, WHICH IS HEARSAY. THERE’s NO EXCEPTION TO IT. 9 THE COURT: THAT’s RIGHT. HE’s DONE EXACTLY THAT, 10 COUNSEL. YOU ARE RIGHT. IT’s A COPY FROM MR. HOOPER. 11 THAT’s ALL IT IS. THAT’s ALL HE IDENTIFIED. HE HASN'T TOLD 12 US WHAT IS IN IT. HE TOLD US IT’s A COPY FROM MR. HOOPER. 13 14 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 15 Q MR. WEBER, LOOK AT EXHIBIT 39. 16 A YES. 17 Q IS EXHIBIT 39 A DOCUMENT WHICH YOU RECEIVED FROM 18 MR. HOOPER AT BIDDLE AND COMPANY? 19 A IT’s A COPY OF A LETTER, AND THAT WAS RECEIVED 20 FROM MR. HOOPER, BIDDLE AND COMPANY, BY ME IN JUNE OF 1994. 21 Q IS IT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF A DOCUMENT YOU 22 RECEIVED FROM MR. HOOPER’s OFFICE? 23 A YES. 24 Q WILL YOU PLEASE LOOK AT EXHIBIT 40, SIR. 25 A YES. 26 Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT OR A COPY OF THAT 27 DOCUMENT PRIOR TO TODAY? 28 A WELL, IT APPEARS TO BE --
page 404 1 Q JUST HAVE YOU RECEIVED — SEEN IT, SIR? 2 A I THINK SO, YES. 3 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN THE FIRST TIME IT IS THAT YOU 4 SAW EXHIBIT 40? 5 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. 6 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 7 THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT’s ANOTHER ONE OF THE 8 COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS I RECEIVED IN JUNE 1994 FROM 9 ATTORNEY DAVID HOOPER. 10 MR. WAIER: MOVE TO STRIKE AS CALLING FOR SPECULATION 11 BY THE TERMI BELIEVE.12 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 13 14 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 15 Q IS IT A TRUE COPY OF A DOCUMENT WHICH YOU RECEIVED 16 FROM MR. HOOPER? 17 A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, IT IS. 18 Q SIR, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT 44, SIR. 19 HAVE YOU SEEN EXHIBIT 44 BEFORE? 20 A YES. 21 Q AND DO YOU RECALL, SIR — STRIKE THAT. 22 IS THAT A DOCUMENT WHICH YOU RECEIVED FROM 23 MR. HOOPER OF BIDDLE AND COMPANY? 24 A THAT APPEARS TO BE YET ANOTHER ONE OF THE 25 DOCUMENTS IN THE COLLECTION I RECEIVED FROM MR. HOOPER. 26 Q IS IT A TRUE COPY OF AN ORIGINAL — STRIKE THAT. 27 IS IT A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED 28 FROM MR. HOOPER?
page 405 1 A YES, IT APPEARS TO BE. 2 Q PLEASE LOOK AT EXHIBIT 46. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS 3 DOCUMENT BEFORE? 4 A YES. 5 Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THE DOCUMENT? 6 A THAT’s PART OF THE SAME COLLECTION OF MORE THAN A 7 DOZEN DOCUMENTS I RECEIVED IN JUNE 1994 FROM MR. HOOPER. 8 Q IS IT A TRUE COPY OF A DOCUMENT WHICH YOU RECEIVED 9 FROM MR. HOOPER? 10 A IT APPEARS TO BE, YES. 11 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, WERE YOU PERSONALLY AWARE 12 THAT MR. CARTO WAS CONTENDING THAT HE HAD MADE A DEAL WITH 13 THE LEGION PURSUANT TO WHICH HE WAS TO HAVE CONTROL OF THE 14 FARREL PROCEEDS THAT WERE RECOVERED ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION? 15 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME. RELEVANCY AS 16 TO THIS WITNESS. 17 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 18 THE WITNESS: NO. 19 20 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 21 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU HAVE ANY 22 KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER AS TO THE AMOUNT THAT WAS RECOVERED 23 FROM THE FARREL ESTATE ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION/CARTO? 24 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS. RELEVANCY. 25 VAGUE AS TO TIME. HEARSAY. 26 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 27 THE WITNESS: AS I RECALL, IN EARLY 1992, I HAD SEEN 28 SOME NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, WHICH GAVE A FIGURE OF THE AMOUNT OF
page 406 1 MONEY INVOLVED. AND WHEN I, AT THAT TIME, ASKED CARTO ABOUT 2 IT, HE TOLD ME THAT THE AMOUNT WAS MUCH LESS THAN THAT, BUT 3 HE WOULDN'T GIVE ANY SPECIFIC FIGURE. AND I DIDN'T KNOW -- 4 I HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT THE FIGURE REALLY WAS. 5 6 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 7 Q NOW, THE FIGURE THAT YOU SAW IN THE NEWSPAPER 8 ARTICLES ON OR ABOUT 1992, WERE THOSE FIGURES CONSISTING OF 9 ESTIMATES AS TO THE GROSS VALUE OF NECA, OR DID YOU SEE, 10 ACTUALLY SEE, A NEWSPAPER, ONE OR MORE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES 11 THAT DISCUSSED THE 45 PERCENT SHARE THAT WENT TO THE LEGION 12 FROM THE SETTLEMENT? 13 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LEADING. COMPOUND. ALSO 14 HEARSAY. 15 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 16 THE WITNESS: I REALLY RECALL A BRIEF ARTICLE, I THINK 17 IT WAS NO MORE THAN A FEW INCHES IN LENGTH, WHICH JUST 18 REFERRED TO THE LEGION OR I.H.R. OR CARTO FROM THE FARREL 19 ESTATE GETTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND IT WAS AN ARTICLE 20 THAT PROVIDED NO REAL DETAILS ABOUT NECA OR BREAKDOWN OR 21 EXACTLY WHO WAS GETTING THE MONEY. 22 23 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 24 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, WERE YOU PERSONALLY AWARE 25 THAT THE LEGION VERSUS ALTHAUS LITIGATION HAD SETTLED WITH A 26 45/55 PERCENT SPLIT OF THE NECA ASSETS? 27 A NO. 28 Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT, SIR?
page 407 1 A I FIRST LEARNED THAT FROM THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED 2 BY ATTORNEY HOOPER IN JUNE 1994. 3 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF 4 THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALLEGED BAHAMIAN ENTITY OF SOME SORT 5 CALLED THE INTERNATIONAL LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, 6 INC.? 7 A IT’s POSSIBLE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST 8 HEARD THAT. 9 Q WHEN YOU FIRST HEARD OF THAT SO-CALLED ENTITY, 10 WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT IT WAS? 11 A IT IS — AS I RECALL, ACTUALLY, I PROBABLY SAW 12 THIS SOMETIME IN 1993. WHEN I SAYTHIS,I MEAN A COPY OF 13 THE LETTER THAT CARTO HAD WRITTEN TO FRITZ BERG REFERRING TO 14 THIS OFFSHORE ENTITY. I THINK TED O’Keefe BROUGHT IT TO MY 15 ATTENTION. I WAS MYSTIFIED BY IT. I DIDN'T GIVE IT A GREAT 16 DEAL OF THOUGHT AT THAT TIME. 17 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER ASK 18 WILLIS CARTO WHAT THE SO-CALLED INTERNATIONAL LEGION FOR THE 19 SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., WAS? 20 A NO. 21 Q WHY NOT? 22 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. 23 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 24 THE WITNESS: BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ANY STRONG ENOUGH 25 INTEREST IN IT, I GUESS. 26 27 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 28 Q DID YOU EVER ASK ELISABETH CARTO WHAT THE
page 408 1 INTERNATIONAL LEGION WAS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993? 2 A NO. 3 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993 — STRIKE THAT. 4 PRIOR TO APRIL 1993, DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY 5 DISCUSSIONS, EITHER IN PERSON OR TELEPHONICALLY, WITH 6 LEWIS FURR? 7 A PRIOR TO APRIL 1993? 8 Q YES. 9 A NO, I DID NOT. 10 Q AND PRIOR TO THAT DATE, DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY 11 DISCUSSIONS, EITHER IN PERSON OR TELEPHONICALLY, WITH 12 LAVONNE FURR? 13 A NO, I DID NOT. 14 Q PRIOR TO APRIL 1993, DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE 15 WHATSOEVER AS TO WHO THE DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION WERE, 16 ALLEGED DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION WERE OTHER THAN LEWIS AND 17 LAVONNE FURR? 18 A NO, I DID NOT. 19 Q DID YOU UNDERSTAND THEY WERE THE ONLY DIRECTORS, 20 OR DID YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHO THE DIRECTORS WERE? 21 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LEADING. 22 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 23 THE WITNESS: I HAD A SENSE THAT LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR 24 WERE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF 25 THERE WERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OR IF 26 THERE WERE, WHO THEY WERE. 27 28
page 409 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q AT SOME TIME, SIR, DID YOU EVER SEE DOCUMENTS 3 PURPORTING TO BE THE ARTICLES OF MERGER BETWEEN THE LEGION 4 FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., AND THE COMMITTEE FOR 5 RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED? 6 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF? 8 THE COURT: YES. 9 MR. BEUGELMANS: THE RELEVANCY IS FROM AND AFTER THE 10 TIME OF THE MERGER, THE BYLAWS OF JUNE 1966 APPLIED AND 11 PRIOR BYLAWS BECAME MOOT. A NEW MERGED ENTITY, YOUR HONOR. 12 THE COURT: OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. 13 THE WITNESS: BEFORE GOING ON, I WANT TO AMEND AN 14 ANSWER I GAVE EARLIER. 15 MR. BEUGELMANS: PLEASE DO. 16 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. NO QUESTION PENDING. 17 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 18 19 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 20 Q SIR, DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE ALLEGED 21 ARTICLES OF MERGER BETWEEN THE LEGION AND THE COMMITTEE FOR 22 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, INC.? 23 A NO. 24 Q DO YOU KNOW IF YOU SAW THAT PRIOR TO THE FURRS' 25 RESIGNATION? 26 A I'M PRETTY SURE I SAW IT AFTER THE RESIGNATION OF 27 THE FURRS. 28 Q WHERE DID YOU OBTAIN THE ARTICLES OF MERGER
page 410 1 BETWEEN THE LEGION AND THE COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS 2 DEVELOPMENT FROM? 3 A AS I RECALL, THAT WAS ALSO PRODUCED BY Carto’s 4 ATTORNEY IN DISCOVERY. 5 Q THAT’s DISCOVERY BETWEEN THE LEGION AND MR. CARTO? 6 A IT’s IN EITHER THE POLIS MATTER OR ONE OF THE 7 OTHER LAWSUITS THAT WERE — THAT AROSE DURING THAT PERIOD OF 8 TIME AFTER SEPTEMBER 1993. 9 Q THANK YOU, SIR. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A COPY 10 OF EXHIBIT 4, SIR. IS THIS A COPY OF THE PURPORTED ARTICLES 11 OF MERGER? 12 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. 13 THE COURT: WHAT NUMBER IS THAT, PLEASE? 14 MR. BEUGELMANS: EXHIBIT 4, YOUR HONOR. 15 THE WITNESS: YES. 16 17 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 18 Q TURNING TO PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 4, DO YOU RECOGNIZE 19 ANY SIGNATURES? 20 A YES, I DO. 21 Q WHAT SIGNATURES DO YOU RECOGNIZE? 22 A I RECOGNIZE WILLIS CARTO AND LAVONNE FURR'S 23 SIGNATURES. 24 IS THIS A POINT I CAN AMEND SOMETHING I SAID 25 EARLIER? 26 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. MOVE TO STRIKE. 27 THE COURT: HE’s ASKED A QUESTION, COUNSEL. DO YOU 28 WANT TO STRIKE THE QUESTION?
page 411 1 MR. WAIER: I DIDN'T KNOW A WITNESS FROM THE WITNESS 2 STAND COULD ASK QUESTIONS. 3 THE COURT: WELL -- 4 MR. WAIER: MAYBE THE ROLES HAVE BEEN REVERSED IN THE 5 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE. 6 THE COURT: WHAT WAS YOUR OBJECTION? TELL ME WHAT IT 7 WAS. 8 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. MOVE TO STRIKE. NO QUESTION 9 PENDING. 10 THE COURT: WELL, MOVE TO STRIKE THE STATEMENT HE WANTS 11 TO ADD SOMETHING. NO, I WON'T ALLOW HIM TO JUST ASK 12 QUESTIONS, THAT’s TRUE. 13 14 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 15 Q SIR, MR. WEBER, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, HAD YOU 16 EVER SEEN A DOCUMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO BE A WILL OF JEAN 17 EDISON-FARREL? 18 A I DID NOT SEE ANY SUCH WILL UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE. 19 Q AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE WILL OR THE 20 WILLS THAT YOU SAW WAS OBTAINED? 21 A THAT WAS ALSO OBTAINED IN DISCOVERY AND WAS 22 PROVIDED BY Carto’s ATTORNEY -- 23 Q WHEN YOU SAY Carto’s ATTORNEY -- 24 A — AS I RECALL. 25 Q Carto’s ATTORNEY, WHO DO YOU MEAN? 26 A RANDY WAIER. 27 Q THE GENTLEMAN AT COUNSEL TABLE? 28 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION. I NEVER SENT
page 412 1 ANYTHING TO THIS MAN. 2 THE WITNESS: OKAY. 3 THE COURT: COUNSEL, ARE YOU TESTIFYING? WOULD YOU 4 LIKE TO TAKE THE OATH? 5 MR. WAIER: THAT’s THE OFFER OF PROOF. LACKS 6 FOUNDATION. NO FOUNDATION HE EVER COMMUNICATED TO ME. 7 THE COURT: SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE 8 TO TESTIFY, CERTAINLY YOU CAN TAKE THE OATH AND TESTIFY. 9 THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. 10 MR. BEUGELMANS: NO QUESTION, SIR. 11 12 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 13 Q LET ME SHOW YOU A COPY OF EXHIBIT 7, WHICH IS THE 14 WILL OF — ALLEGEDLY THE WILL OF JEAN FARREL WRITTEN IN 15 FRENCH. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT DOCUMENT, SIR? 16 A YES. 17 Q IS THAT A DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO YOU IN DISCOVERY 18 LITIGATION WITH THE ADVERSE PARTIES? 19 A I DON'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS OBTAINED IN 20 DISCOVERY. I THINK IT WAS OBTAINED IN DISCOVERY. MY 21 RECOLLECTION OF THAT IS VAGUE. 22 Q AND EXHIBIT 8, SIR, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT BEFORE? 23 A YES. 24 Q WHAT IS EXHIBIT 8 HERE? 25 A THAT’s A TRANSLATION OF THE WILL. 26 Q AND DO YOU RECALL THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THIS 27 TRANSLATION CAME? 28 A I BELIEVE ALSO OBTAINED IN DISCOVERY.
page 413 1 Q NOW, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER OF 1993, HAD YOU EVER 2 SPOKEN WITH A MR. BRUCE HOLMAN? 3 A NO. 4 Q HAD YOU EVER SPOKEN WITH A MR. WEEMS, W-E-E-M-S? 5 A NO. 6 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT WHICH WE HAVE 7 MARKED AS EXHIBIT 10. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT BEFORE, SIR? 8 A YES, I HAVE. 9 Q AND WHAT DOES EXHIBIT 10 PURPORT TO BE? 10 A MINUTES OF A BOARD MEETING, DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 11 1985. 12 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE OF PAGE 2 OF 13 EXHIBIT 10? 14 A YES, I DO. 15 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 16 A LAVONNE FURR. 17 Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW EXHIBIT 10? 18 A THAT WAS PROBABLY 1994. AND IT WAS A DOCUMENT 19 OBTAINED, AS I RECALL, DURING DISCOVERY. 20 Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN EXHIBIT 12, SIR? 21 A YES, I HAVE. 22 Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW EXHIBIT 12? 23 A PROBABLY IN 1994. 24 Q WHAT WAS THE SOURCE FROM WHICH EXHIBIT 12 WAS MADE 25 AVAILABLE TO YOU? 26 A I THINK THAT WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO US BY AN 27 ATTORNEY FOR WILLIS CARTO DURING DISCOVERY IN ONE OF THE 28 CASES THAT WERE — WE WERE INVOLVED WITH, WITH HIM.
page 414 1 MR. WAIER: WHAT EXHIBIT? 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: 12. 3 4 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 5 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE OF EXHIBIT 12? 6 A YES. 7 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 8 A LAVONNE FURR. 9 Q THANK YOU. MR. WEBER, DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN 10 YOU SENT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 11 OF JUSTICE CONCERNING THE LITIGATION WHICH IS BEFORE THE 12 COURT IN THIS MATTER? 13 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. 14 THE COURT: YES, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCY? 15 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS 16 FOR THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION IS A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY 17 GENERAL BOTH TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA, TO ALLOW 18 THEM TO INTERVIEW IF HE WISHES TO PURSUE IT. IT’s A 19 PREREQUISITE TO US COMING TO COURT TODAY. 20 THE COURT: I KNOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN INTERVENE 21 IN THIS TYPE OF A SUIT AND EVIDENTLY HASN'T. 22 MR. MUSSELMAN: I HAVE THE CITE TO THE STATUTE. 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: IT IS A REQUIREMENT. WE WANT TO TOUCH 24 BASE FOR THE RECORD. 25 THE COURT: OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. I'M NOT SO SURE IT 26 IS. 27 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR -- 28 THE COURT: JUST THEY BE NOTIFIED.
page 415 1 MR. WAIER: I'M GOING TO REQUEST AT THIS TIME, THIS 2 DOCUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVIDED TO US THROUGH DISCOVERY, 3 THIS PARTICULAR LETTER FROM MR. WEBER. IT’s NEVER BEEN 4 PROVIDED IN ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. WE WOULD OBJECT ON THAT 5 GROUND, THAT THIS DOCUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN PRODUCED IN 6 DISCOVERY. AND WE ASKED — WE CAN SHOW YOU ALL THE 7 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUESTS, INCLUDING THE ONE OF 8 MR. WEBER’s DEPOSITION. 9 THE COURT: THE QUESTION WAS DID HE WRITE A LETTER. HE 10 CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WHETHER THE DOCUMENT COMES IN OR 11 NOT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT I'LL LISTEN TO IF THEY TRY TO 12 GET IT IN. 13 THE WITNESS: I WROTE A LETTER TO THE — I RECALL THE 14 ATTORNEY GENERAL’s OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND POSSIBLY 15 THE SECRETARY OF STATE’s OFFICE AS WELL. 16 17 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 18 Q DID YOU ADVISE THOSE OFFICES THAT THIS LITIGATION 19 WAS PENDING? 20 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. NOW HE’s ASKING TO SPEAK FROM A 21 DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THERE’s NO WAY FOR US TO 22 CROSS-EXAMINE WITHOUT THAT DOCUMENT. WE'VE NEVER BEEN 23 PROVIDED THAT DOCUMENT. 24 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 25 THE WITNESS: YES, I DID. 26 27 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 28 Q MAY I SHOW YOU, PLEASE, EXHIBIT 75. DID YOU EVER
page 416 1 RECEIVE EXHIBIT 75 BEFORE? 2 A YES. 3 Q DID YOU SIGN EXHIBIT 75? 4 A YES, I DID. 5 Q AND TO WHOM IS EXHIBIT 75 ADDRESSED. 6 A TO VITO MODUGNO OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’s OFFICE 7 BRANCH IN LOS ANGELES. 8 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE 9 THIS — I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD. THIS HAS BEEN MISFILED 10 IN JULY 1994. THIS LETTER IS DATED JANUARY 9, 1996. THE 11 ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE ADVISED OF THE LITIGATION 12 AT THE ONSET, ACCORDING TO THE CODE AS I READ THE CODE. 13 THIS WAS NOT DONE. THIS LETTER COULD NOT CONSTITUTE THAT AS 14 A NOTICE WITH RESPECT TO THIS LITIGATION. THEREFORE, IT'S 15 IRRELEVANT. 16 THE COURT: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? 17 MR. MUSSELMAN: CORPORATIONS CODE 5142. BEFORE YOUR 18 HONOR CAN ISSUE AN INJUNCTION OR OTHER RELIEF, SIMPLY 19 REQUIRES A NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THAT’s ALL. 20 THE COURT: I'LL READ THE SECTION. I DON'T HAVE THE 21 CORPORATIONS CODE HERE. BUT I DID GO OVER THE 55000 OVER 22 THE WEEKEND. 23 MR. MUSSELMAN: DOESN'T SPECIFY IT HAS TO BE PROVIDED 24 PRIOR TO FILING. 25 THE COURT: THAT’s WHAT I THOUGHT. 26 27 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 28 Q SIR, DID YOU EVER SEND A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY
page 417 1 GENERAL FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS ADVISING THE ATTORNEY 2 GENERAL OF TEXAS OF THE PENDENCY OF THIS LAWSUIT? 3 A YES, I DID. I MIGHT MENTION THAT’s -- 4 Q NO QUESTION PENDING. 5 A ALL RIGHT. 6 Q DO YOU RECALL THE DATE THAT YOU SENT THE LETTER TO 7 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN TEXAS? 8 A NO. 9 Q TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, WOULD YOU PLEASE 10 TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 74. 11 A YES, I RECOGNIZE THE LETTER. 12 Q AND WHAT IS THE DATE OF EXHIBIT 74? 13 A FIRST OF FEBRUARY, 1995. 14 Q IS IT YOUR SIGNATURE AT THE LAST PAGE OF 15 EXHIBIT 74 — PAGE 4, I'M SORRY. DID YOU SIGN THAT LETTER 16 BEFORE SENDING IT? 17 A YES, I DID. 18 Q DID YOU DEPOSIT IT IN THE MAIL, THE U.S. MAIL? 19 A YES, I DID. 20 Q AND THE LETTER THAT WE SAW BEFORE, EXHIBIT NUMBER 21 75, DID YOU DEPOSIT IT IN THE U.S. MAIL? 22 A WELL, I DIDN'T PERSONALLY, BUT OUR SHIPPING CLERK 23 DID. 24 Q IS IT THE POLICY OF THE LEGION 1994, 1995 TO HAVE 25 THE SHIPPING CLERK DEPOSIT THE MAIL INTO THE UNITED STATES 26 MAIL? 27 A THAT WAS OUR ROUTINE, YES. 28 Q WAS IT THE ROUTINE OF THE LEGION TO HAVE THE
page 418 1 SHIPPING CLERK AFFIX THE POSTAGE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE? 2 A THAT’s CORRECT. 3 Q DID EITHER EXHIBIT 74 OR EXHIBIT 75 — STRIKE 4 THAT. 5 WERE EITHER EXHIBIT 74, 75, RETURNED TO THE LEGION 6 BECAUSE THE ADDRESS WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE OR FOR ANY OTHER 7 REASON? 8 A NO. 9 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE IT’s GOING 10 SLOWLY, BUT MY NOTES ARE IN THE CAR. I DIDN'T THINK I HAD 11 TO TAKE MR. WEBER THIS MORNING. 12 THE COURT: THAT’s ALL RIGHT. 13 14 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 15 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU EXHIBIT 21, PURPORTED 16 MINUTES OF THE LEGION, DATED MARCH 3, 1987. HAVE YOU EVER 17 SEEN EXHIBIT 21 BEFORE, SIR? 18 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. 19 THE COURT: I DON'T HAVE MY EXHIBIT BOOK HERE. I DON'T 20 KNOW. 21 MR. WAIER: THE MINUTES HE CLAIMED HE WAS ABSENT. HE 22 SAID HE WAS ABSENT FROM THE MEETING MARCH 1987, SAW THE 23 MINUTES AND SAID HE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE MEETING. 24 HE’s ALREADY GONE -- 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: I'M SORRY. WITHDRAW IT. I DID GO 26 OVER IT. 27 THE COURT: CORRECT. 28 MR. BEUGELMANS: I APOLOGIZE. IF I HAD MY NOTES, I
page 419 1 WOULD GO FASTER. 2 3 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 4 Q TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 23. HAVE YOU RECEIVED 5 EXHIBIT 23 BEFORE? 6 A YES, I HAVE. 7 Q AND WHAT WAS — WHAT DATE — STRIKE THAT. 8 DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU SAW EXHIBIT 23 FOR THE 9 FIRST TIME? 10 A WELL, PROBABLY IN LATE 1993 OR 1994 SOMETIME. 11 Q AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVED 12 EXHIBIT NUMBER 23? 13 A I RECALL THIS WAS ANOTHER DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN THE 14 DISCOVERY PROCESS, ONE OF THE CASES WE WERE INVOLVED IN. 15 Q WHO WERE THE ADVERSE PARTIES IN THAT CASE IN WHICH 16 YOU RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT? 17 A IT WAS EITHER LITIGATION HERE IN CALIFORNIA OR MAY 18 HAVE BEEN ALSO LITIGATION IN TEXAS, IN WHICH THAT WAS 19 PROVIDED BY ONE OF THE CODEFENDANTS IN THAT CASE. 20 Q LITIGATION INVOLVING WILLIS CARTO? 21 A YES. 22 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON EXHIBIT 23 NUMBER 23? 24 A YES, I DO. 25 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 26 A LAVONNE FURR. 27 Q EXHIBIT 27, SIR, IS A DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE 28 MINUTES OF THE LEGION, DATED MARCH 7, 1989. DO YOU SEE
page 420 1 THAT, SIR? 2 A YES. 3 Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT BEFORE? 4 MR. WAIER: WHAT EXHIBIT? 5 6 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 7 Q 27. 8 A YES, I HAVE. 9 Q IS THAT ALSO A DOCUMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED IN 10 RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY SENT TO MR. CARTO IN ONE OF THE 11 VARIOUS LITIGATIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE SEPTEMBER 1993? 12 A YES, IT IS. 13 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON EXHIBIT 23? 14 A YES, I DO. 15 Q I'M SORRY, EXHIBIT 27. 16 A YES, I DO. 17 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 18 A LAVONNE FURR. 19 Q SIR, YOU ARE NOW LOOKING AT EXHIBIT 28. HAVE YOU 20 EVER SEEN THAT BEFORE? 21 A YES, I HAVE. 22 MR. WAIER: I DON'T HAVE EXHIBIT 28, YOUR HONOR. 23 24 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 25 Q HAVE YOU EVER SEEN EXHIBIT 28 BEFORE? 26 A YES. 27 Q WHAT WAS THE SOURCE FROM WHICH EXHIBIT 28 WAS 28 RECEIVED?
page 421 1 A AS I RECALL -- 2 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY. LACKS 3 FOUNDATION, UNLESS HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WHERE IT CAME 4 FROM. 5 THE COURT: SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. IF HE KNOWS 6 PERSONALLY, SURE. 7 8 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 9 Q IF I MAY, MR. WEBER, SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 1993 10 UP TO TODAY, HAVE YOU BEEN AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE 11 LEGION? 12 A YES. 13 Q HAVE YOU BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THE LEGION 14 AGAINST MR. CARTO BOTH IN CALIFORNIA AND IN TEXAS? 15 A YES, I HAVE. 16 Q AND THAT’s LITIGATION THAT HAS BEEN FILED BY 17 MR. CARTO AND OTHER PLAINTIFFS ASSOCIATED WITH HIM AGAINST 18 THE LEGION, CORRECT? 19 A THAT’s CORRECT. 20 Q IN CONNECTION WITH THAT, THE VARIOUS LITIGATIONS, 21 HAVE YOU RECEIVED DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS, SIR? 22 A YES. 23 Q IS EXHIBIT 28 ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS -- 24 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION AS TO WHO HE 25 RECEIVED IT FROM. IF IT’s FROM HIS ATTORNEY. 26 THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU LET HIM FINISH THE QUESTION. 27 I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. 28
page 422 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q IS EXHIBIT 28, SIR, A DOCUMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED 3 IN RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY PROPOUNDED TO MR. CARTO IN ONE OF 4 THE LITIGATIONS? 5 A YES, IT IS. 6 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, THAT’s THE BASIS OF THE 7 OBJECTION. IT LACKS FOUNDATION FOR WHOM HE RECEIVED IT. IF 8 IT WAS FROM HIS ATTORNEY, THEN HE'S, I GUESS, WAIVED THE 9 ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THESE 10 MATERIALS. IF HE RECEIVED IT DIRECTLY FROM COUNSEL, WHO 11 SENT IT DIRECTLY TO MR. WEBER, THAT’s ANOTHER STORY. HE'S 12 NOT LAID THAT FOUNDATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. 13 MR. BEUGELMANS: I'LL LAY A FOUNDATION. 14 15 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 16 Q MR. WEBER, HAVE I PROVIDED, ME PERSONALLY, MY 17 OFFICE, HAVE I PROVIDED YOU WITH COPIES OF ALL DISCOVERY 18 WHICH I RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENDANTS IN THE INSTANT 19 LITIGATION BEFORE JUDGE MAINO? 20 A MR. — I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE I RECEIVED COPIES OF 21 ALL DOCUMENTS. YOU PROVIDED AN AWFUL LOT OF THEM. 22 Q DID YOU EVER MAKE A REQUEST TO MR. MUSSELMAN TO 23 PROVIDE YOU WITH COPIES OF DOCUMENTS AS THEY WERE RECEIVED? 24 A YES. 25 MR. WAIER: I INDICATE THAT CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THE 26 ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. 27 THE COURT: I'M SURE YOU WILL GIVE ME LAW. I DON'T 28 THINK THAT RECEIVING A DOCUMENT FROM THE ATTORNEY WAIVES THE
page 423 1 ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. 2 MR. WAIER: WHEN HE SAYS DID YOU MAKE A REQUEST OF ME 3 FOR THE DOCUMENTS, THAT DEFINITELY IS ATTORNEY/CLIENT 4 COMMUNICATION. 5 THE COURT: WELL, HE’s WAIVED IT AS TO MAYBE MAKING THE 6 REQUEST, YES. IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A COMPLETE WAIVER, 7 NO, I DON'T THINK IT’s A COMPLETE WAIVER. 8 9 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 10 Q SIR, WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 36. 11 A YES. 12 Q DID YOU EVER SEE EXHIBIT 36 PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 13 1993? 14 A NO, I DID NOT. 15 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON EXHIBIT 36? 16 A YES, I DO. 17 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 18 A LAVONNE FURR. 19 Q SIR, PLEASE LOOK AT EXHIBIT 37. 20 A YES. 21 Q DID YOU RECEIVE THAT EXHIBIT PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 22 1993? 23 A NO, I DID NOT. 24 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON EXHIBIT 37? 25 A YES, I DO. 26 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 27 A LAVONNE FURR AND HENRY FISCHER. 28 Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE LAVONNE FURR’s SIGNATURE?
page 424 1 A YES. 2 Q MR. WEBER, I HAVE BEFORE YOU EXHIBIT NUMBER 51. 3 IT’s PURPORTED MINUTES OF THE LEGION, DATED MARCH 2, 1993. 4 HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT BEFORE? 5 A YES, I HAVE. 6 Q AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE? 7 A YES. 8 Q WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? 9 A LAVONNE FURR. 10 Q MR. WEBER, BETWEEN APRIL 1993 AND SEPTEMBER OF 11 1993, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY WITH 12 MR. WILLIS CARTO CONCERNING THE FARREL ESTATE? 13 A I DON'T RECALL. 14 Q DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, DID YOU HAVE ANY 15 CONVERSATIONS WITH ELISABETH CARTO CONCERNING THE FARREL 16 ESTATE? 17 A I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 18 Q DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU PERSONALLY 19 CONTACTED OR — STRIKE THAT. 20 DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU PERSONALLY 21 ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT LAVONNE FURR TO DISCUSS CORPORATE 22 AFFAIRS WITH HER? 23 A IN THE SENSE THAT I WROTE A LETTER TO LAVONNE AND 24 LEWIS FURR IN, I BELIEVE, AUGUST 1993 AND I SIGNED, ALONG 25 WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, ONE OR MORE LETTERS TO 26 LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR AT OR ABOUT THAT SAME TIME. 27 Q IN RESPONSE TO THE FURRS' LETTER, LETTER IN AUGUST 28 1993, DID YOU EVER GET A RETURN CORRESPONDENCE FROM
page 425 1 LAVONNE FURR? 2 A NO. 3 Q DID LAVONNE FURR EVER CALL IN RESPONSE TO THE 4 FIRST LETTER IN AUGUST 1993? 5 A WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER HOW I KNOW THIS. I SPOKE 6 WITH LEWIS FURR ON THE PHONE. HE CONFIRMED HE RECEIVED -- 7 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. MOVE TO STRIKE. 8 NONRESPONSIVE. 9 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 10 11 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 12 Q I'M TALKING ABOUT LAVONNE. 13 A I DON'T RECALL. 14 Q DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU — STRIKE THAT. 15 PRIOR TO LAVONNE FURR RESIGNING AS A DIRECTOR IN 16 SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU HAVE ANY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION 17 PERSONALLY WITH LAVONNE DURING WHICH YOU DISCUSSED LEGION 18 AFFAIRS? 19 A NO. 20 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU HAVE ANY 21 CONVERSATION WITH LEWIS FURR DURING WHICH YOU AND MR. FURR 22 DISCUSSED CORPORATE AFFAIRS? 23 A YES. 24 Q DO YOU RECALL THE APPROXIMATE DATE OF THE FIRST 25 SUCH CONVERSATION? 26 A THERE WAS ONLY ONE AND I THINK IT WAS IN EARLY 27 SEPTEMBER 1993. 28 Q DO YOU RECALL THAT CONVERSATION?
page 426 1 A YES, I DO. 2 Q APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG DID THAT CONVERSATION TAKE? 3 A OH, 30, 40 MINUTES. 4 Q DURING THE COURSE OF THAT CONVERSATION, DID YOU 5 HAVE OCCASION TO INQUIRE OF MR. FURR CONCERNING THE NATURE 6 OF WILLIS Carto’s AUTHORITY WITH THE LEGION? 7 A YES, I DID. 8 Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU ASKED HIM? 9 A YES. 10 Q WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM? 11 A I ASKED HIM WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 12 CORPORATION. 13 Q WHAT DID HE RESPOND, IF ANYTHING? 14 A HE SAID THAT HE HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY, HE AND HIS 15 WIFE HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY, AND WILLIS CARTO HAD THE 16 AUTHORITY. I SAID WILLIS CARTO SAYS THAT YOU HAVE THE 17 AUTHORITY AND THE STATE FILING SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE THE 18 AUTHORITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. I SAID THAT 19 WE'RE VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE NO ONE SEEMS WILLING TO TAKE 20 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORPORATION. THIS BECAME VERY 21 ACRIMONIOUS. HE INSISTED HE DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH 22 THE CORPORATION. HE SAID THAT, AND EMPHASIZED STRONGLY, HE 23 DIDN'T WANT ANY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORPORATION. 24 Q DURING THE COURSE OF THAT COMMUNICATION, WAS THERE 25 ANY DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOURSELF AND MR. FURR CONCERNING THE 26 FARREL ESTATE? 27 A I DON'T THINK SO. 28 Q AT THE TIME YOU SPOKE WITH MR. FURR SOMETIME IN
page 427 1 SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE 2 LITIGATION BETWEEN ALTHAUS AND THE LEGION HAD BEEN SETTLED? 3 A NO, I DID NOT. 4 MR. BEUGELMANS: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. 5 THE COURT: VERY WELL. YOU MAY CROSS-EXAMINE. 6 MR. WAIER: THANK YOU. IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING, I'LL 7 START MY CROSS. WHEN MR. KERR COMES HERE, HE'LL TESTIFY? 8 THE COURT: YES. 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. WAIER: 11 Q GOOD MORNING, MR. WEBER. 12 A GOOD MORNING. 13 Q WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. 14 A YES, WE HAVE. 15 Q SIR, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, YOU WEREN'T AN 16 OFFICER OF THE LEGION, WERE YOU? 17 A NO, I WAS NOT. 18 Q AND IN FACT, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, YOU WEREN'T 19 A DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 20 A THAT’s ALSO CORRECT. 21 Q IN FACT, YOU WERE A MERE EMPLOYEE OF THE LEGION 22 FROM PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 23 A THAT IS NOT CORRECT, I WOULD SAY. 24 Q WELL, DID YOU RECEIVE A SALARY? 25 A YES, I DID. 26 Q DID YOU RECEIVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF COMPENSATION? 27 A NO. 28 Q BUT YOU CERTAINLY WEREN'T AN OFFICER; ISN'T THAT
page 428 1 CORRECT? 2 A THAT’s CORRECT. 3 Q YOU WEREN'T A DIRECTOR? 4 A THAT’s CORRECT. 5 Q YOU WEREN'T AN INCORPORATOR? 6 A THAT’s ALSO CORRECT. 7 Q SO YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE? 8 A I WAS AN EMPLOYEE. 9 Q AND YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE FROM APPROXIMATELY WHAT 10 PERIOD OF TIME? 11 A JANUARY 1991. 12 Q UNTIL WHEN? 13 A TO THE PRESENT. 14 Q AND PART OF YOUR DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE WAS AS 15 EDITOR OF THE I.H.R.; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 16 A THAT WAS ONE OF MY DUTIES, YES. 17 Q YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY DUTIES CONCERNING THE FINANCES 18 OF THE COMPANY, DID YOU? 19 A WHAT PERIOD OF TIME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, 20 MR. WAIER? 21 Q I'M TALKING ABOUT FROM THE TIME YOU WERE AN 22 EMPLOYEE FROM JANUARY — WAS IT JANUARY 1991 YOU STARTED AS 23 AN EMPLOYEE? 24 A YES. 25 Q UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1993, YOU HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN 26 THE DAY-TO-DAY FINANCES OF THE COMPANY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 27 A THAT’s CORRECT. 28 Q IN FACT, THAT WAS HANDLED BY TOM MARCELLUS; ISN'T
page 429 1 THAT TRUE? 2 A YES. 3 Q WHO DID YOU REPORT TO, BY THE WAY, FROM JANUARY 4 1991 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19- — ACTUALLY, UNTIL JULY 1993? 5 A I REPORTED TO TOM MARCELLUS. 6 Q AND WHO DID YOU UNDERSTAND TOM MARCELLUS TO BE 7 REPORTING TO? 8 A WELL, WHEN YOU SAY REPORT TO, I ALSO IN A SENSE 9 REPORTED OR DISCUSSED MY DUTIES ALSO WITH WILLIS CARTO. BUT 10 I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT TOM MARCELLUS ALSO — HE REPORTED TO 11 WILLIS CARTO. 12 Q SO AS PART OF YOUR DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE, YOU HAD 13 NO OCCASION DURING SEPTEMBER 1991 TO JULY 1993 TO EVEN LOOK 14 AT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION; 15 ISN'T THAT TRUE? 16 A WELL, AS I TESTIFIED, I THINK I SAW PERHAPS ONE OR 17 TWO COPIES OF MINUTES PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993. 18 Q BUT — I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU HAD NO OCCASION 19 WHILE YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE MINUTES FOR 20 ANY PURPOSES OF YOUR DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE; ISN'T THAT 21 CORRECT? 22 A WELL, WHEN YOU SAYOCCASION,WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 23 THAT? THE OCCASION — YES, I DID HAVE AN OCCASION, I DID 24 IT. BUT WHETHER — I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 25 Q WHEN YOU SAY YOU DID IT, WHEN DID YOU FIRST DO IT? 26 A PROBABLY 1993, EARLY 1993. 27 Q AND THAT WAS AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE QUESTIONING 28 MR. Carto’s AUTHORITY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
page 430 1 A WELL, YES. 2 Q AND YOU DID THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE FEARFUL 3 MR. CARTO WOULD FIRE YOU; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 4 A NO. 5 Q THEN WHY DID YOU AT THAT POINT IN TIME QUESTION 6 MR. Carto’s AUTHORITY? 7 A BECAUSE MR. CARTO CLAIMED TO HAVE AUTHORITY FROM A 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY 9 INFORMATION ABOUT AND THAT WE HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT OR 10 ONLY LIMITED INFORMATION. 11 Q AND THAT WAS SOMETIME IN JANUARY 1993? 12 A WHEN YOU SAY THAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? 13 Q TALKING ABOUT MR. CARTO WAS TELLING YOU HE HAD 14 AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 15 A WELL, MR. CARTO CLAIMED TO HAVE AUTHORITY FROM THE 16 BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS IN JANUARY 1993 17 AND APRIL 1993 AND SO FORTH. 18 Q BUT YOU FIRST STARTED QUESTIONING THAT IN JANUARY 19 1993; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 20 A I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY, BUT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 21 JANUARY. CERTAINLY BY APRIL, I QUESTIONED IT, YES. 22 Q YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO CONTACT LEWIS AND LAVONNE 23 FURR FROM JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1993, DID YOU, TO FIND OUT 24 WHAT AUTHORITY MR. CARTO HAD; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 25 A DURING THE PERIOD OF JANUARY TO APRIL 1993? 26 Q YES. 27 A NO, I DID NOT. 28 Q AND YOU KNEW AT THAT POINT IN TIME — AS YOUR
page 431 1 PRIOR TESTIMONY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU SUSPECTED THEY WERE 2 DIRECTORS; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 3 A THAT’s CORRECT. 4 Q WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE EASIEST THING TO DO WOULD 5 BE CONTACT LEWIS AND LAVONNE FURR TO DETERMINE WHAT 6 AUTHORITY MR. CARTO HAD? 7 A NO. 8 Q IN FACT, YOU WERE FEARFUL TO CONTACT LEWIS AND 9 LAVONNE FURR. YOU WERE AFRAID THEY WOULD TELL MR. CARTO, 10 WHO WOULD THEN FIRE YOU. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 11 A THAT’s NOT CORRECT. 12 Q YOU REMEMBER YOU ARE UNDER OATH. 13 THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU HAVE DONE THIS WITH 14 WITNESSES. THE WITNESSES ARE NOT TO BE REMINDED THEY'RE 15 UNDER OATH. IF THAT’s NEEDED, I'LL DO IT. I ASSUME 16 EVERYONE KNOWS THEY'RE UNDER OATH. IF THEY LIE, THEY WILL 17 BE PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY. 18 19 BY MR. WAIER: 20 Q NOW, MR. WEBER, YOU TALKED ABOUT A CONVERSATION 21 THAT YOU HAD WITH LEWIS AND LAVONNE FURR. I BELIEVE YOU 22 STATED THAT OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER OF 1993? 23 A THAT’s NOT CORRECT. 24 Q YOU ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH LEWIS FURR? 25 A THAT’s CORRECT. 26 Q YOU STATE YOU DIDN'T — YOU NEVER HAD A 27 CONVERSATION WITH LAVONNE FURR AT THIS TIME; IS THAT 28 CORRECT?
page 432 1 A THAT’s CORRECT. 2 Q AND YOU WERE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT THAT 3 CONVERSATION SAID, AS I RECALL IN YOUR TESTIMONY; IS THAT 4 RIGHT? 5 A YES. 6 Q AND DO YOU RECALL THE EXACT DATE OF THAT TELEPHONE 7 CONVERSATION? 8 A WELL, I MADE A MEMORANDUM ABOUT IT, AND I THINK IT 9 WAS SEPTEMBER 4. MY MEMORANDUM WOULD REFRESH MY MEMORY. 10 Q DO YOU RECALL MAKING A DECLARATION IN ANOTHER 11 LEGAL PROCEEDING? 12 A VAGUELY, YES. 13 Q AND IN THAT PARTICULAR DECLARATION, DO YOU RECALL 14 SAYING THAT YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT -- 15 STRIKE THAT. 16 DO YOU RECALL EVERYTHING THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO AS 17 TO YOUR CONVERSATION WITH LEWIS FURR THAT YOU PLACED IN THIS 18 DECLARATION? 19 A NO, I DON'T RECALL AT ALL. I DON'T RECALL 20 EVERYTHING. 21 Q SO I'M CLEAR, WHAT DID MR. FURR TELL YOU ABOUT 22 MR. CARTO IN THAT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION? 23 A HE SAID THAT WILLIS CARTO WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE 24 FOR THE CORPORATION. 25 Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT HE ONLY HAD 26 THE VAGUEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGION? 27 A HE ONLY — HE HAD THE VAGUEST UNDERSTANDING OF 28 WHAT THE LEGION WAS UP TO OR DOING.
page 433 1 Q SO HE TOLD YOU THAT IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION? 2 A HE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THOSE WORDS. WHEN I 3 QUESTIONED ABOUT SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF LEGION BUSINESS AND THE 4 I.H.R. AND THE JOURNAL AND SO FORTH, HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW 5 AND HE DIDN'T CARE TO. 6 Q WELL, SIR, WHY DID YOU CALL HIM ON — IN 7 SEPTEMBER 1993 FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, AS OPPOSED TO APRIL 8 1993 OR IN JANUARY 1993, WHEN YOU QUESTIONED MR. Carto’s 9 AUTHORITY? 10 A THE REASON FOR THAT, MR. WAIER, WAS THAT I HAD 11 NEVER MET EITHER OF THE FURRS. TOM MARCELLUS HAD, AND WE 12 DECIDED THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS MOST APPROPRIATE OF OUR 13 GROUP TO SPEAK WITH THE FURRS WOULD BE TOM MARCELLUS BECAUSE 14 HE KNEW THEM BOTH PERSONALLY. AND SO HE WAS THE ONE THAT 15 CARRIED OUT MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 16 WITH THE FURRS AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME. THE CONVERSATION 17 THAT I HAD WITH LEWIS FURR WAS ON THE TAIL OF A CONVERSATION 18 EARLIER THAT DAY THAT HE HAD HAD WITH TOM MARCELLUS, AS I 19 RECALL. I WAS SORT OF FOLLOWING UP. 20 Q IN FACT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET 21 LEWIS AND LAVONNE FURR TO EITHER OUST CARTO PERSONALLY OR TO 22 RESIGN FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION? 23 A QUITE UNTRUE, MR. WAIER. 24 Q YOU NEVER MENTIONED THAT TO LEWIS FURR IN THAT 25 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION? 26 A I MAY — EITHER ON THAT OCCASION OR IN LETTERS, I 27 AND OTHERS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED MR. FURR TO TAKE 28 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORPORATION. BUT AT NO TIME DID I
page 434 1 ASK OR URGE OR SUGGEST THAT THE FURRS SHOULD RESIGN. 2 Q WELL, DURING THAT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH 3 MR. FURR, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED YOU NEVER MENTIONED 4 ANYTHING ABOUT THE FARREL ESTATE, DID YOU? 5 A NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION, NO. 6 Q AND IN FACT, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU WERE 7 CONCERNED ABOUT THE FARREL ESTATE, WEREN'T YOU? 8 A NOT PARTICULARLY, NO. 9 Q SIR, HADN'T YOU BEEN ADVISED OF A $100,000 10 TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE BANQUE CONTRADE TO ANOTHER 11 ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN THE LEGION? 12 A YES. 13 Q DIDN'T THAT CONCERN YOU? 14 A A LITTLE BIT. 15 Q WHY DIDN'T YOU MENTION THAT TO MR. FURR AT THE 16 TIME? 17 A THAT WAS NOT MY MAIN CONCERN. 18 Q WHAT WAS YOUR MAIN CONCERN? 19 A MY MAIN CONCERN WAS THE INTEGRITY FOR THE 20 INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL REVIEW AND THE JOURNAL. 21 Q YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE AND THAT CONCERNED YOU? 22 A I WAS EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL. THAT CONCERNED ME 23 VERY MUCH. 24 Q YOU WERE CONCERNED, YOU WANTED YOUR EDITORIAL 25 VIEWS TO CONTINUE, AS OPPOSED TO MR. Carto’s; ISN'T THAT 26 CORRECT? 27 A WRONG. THAT’s NOT TRUE. 28 Q ISN'T IT TRUE MR. CARTO, PRIOR TO THAT TIME, HAD
page 435 1 THE FINAL AUTHORITY AS TO WHAT ARTICLES AND HOW THEY WOULD 2 BE PUBLISHED IN THE I.H.R. BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED? 3 A UNTIL JANUARY 1993, CARTO ABIDED BY HIS PLEDGE TO 4 ME THAT HE WOULD NOT INTERFERE IN THE EDITORIAL CONTENT OF 5 THE JOURNAL. IT WAS ONLY AT THE END OF 1992, EARLY 1993 6 THAT CARTO BROKE THAT PLEDGE AND BEGAN INTERFERING, AT FIRST 7 A LITTLE BIT, THEN EVER MORE STEADILY IN THE EDITORIAL 8 CONTENT OF THE JOURNAL. 9 Q ISN'T IT TRUE EVEN PRIOR TO THAT TIME, YOU WOULD 10 SUBMIT TO MR. CARTO FOR HIS REVIEW AND APPROVAL ARTICLES TO 11 BE PUBLISHED IN THE I.H.R.? 12 A TO THE CONTRARY. I THINK WHAT HAPPENED — IN 13 FACT, WE HAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT THIS OCCASIONALLY — CARTO 14 WOULD SUGGEST ARTICLES. SOMETIMES I WOULD APPROVE HIS 15 SUGGESTIONS, BUT CARTO CONSTANTLY COMPLAINED THAT I IGNORED 16 HIS SUGGESTIONS. THAT’s NOT QUITE TRUE EITHER, BUT IT WAS 17 JUST THE OPPOSITE. HE WOULD MAKE SUGGESTIONS TO ME. 18 Q WELL, SIR, LISTEN TO MY QUESTION VERY CAREFULLY. 19 ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1993, YOU ROUTINELY 20 EITHER FAXED OR SENT OVER TO MR. CARTO PROPOSED COPIES OF 21 THE I.H.R. FOR HIS ARTICLES TO GO INTO THE I.H.R., FOR HIS 22 APPROVAL AND REVIEW? 23 A WELL, CARTO WOULD TAKE A LOOK OFTEN AT WHAT WAS IN 24 THE JOURNAL, BUT I DID NOT — NOT THE WAY YOU PHRASED IT, 25 NO, THAT’s NOT CORRECT. 26 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO STOP. 27 1:30. 28 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED.)
page 436 1 THE COURT: WE WERE GOING TO INTERRUPT THE TESTIMONY OF 2 MR. WEBER AND TAKE THE TESTIMONY OF MR. KERR; IS THAT 3 CORRECT? 4 MR. BEUGELMANS: YES. 5 THE COURT: IS HE HERE? 6 MR. BEUGELMANS: YES. 7 THE COURT: GOOD. IF HE CAN COME FORWARD. IF HE 8 CAN'T, WE CAN TAKE HIS TESTIMONY FROM A SEAT IN THE JURY 9 SEAT. 10 MR. WAIER: HE CAN. 11 THE COURT: MR. KERR, ARE YOU THERE? 12 THE WITNESS: RIGHT. 13 THE COURT: GOOD MORNING — OR GOOD AFTERNOON. COULD 14 YOU COME FORWARD TO TAKE THE OATH AND HAVE YOU TESTIFY. 15 16 THOMAS KERR, 17 CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN 18 FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 19 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 THE CLERK: WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND SPELL 22 YOUR LAST FOR THE RECORD. 23 THE WITNESS: THOMAS WILLIAM KERR, K-E, DOUBLE R. 24 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I PROCEED, MAY I 25 INQUIRE OF MR. KERR IF HE’s BROUGHT THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT 26 OF HIS DEPOSITION TAKEN IN THIS MATTER ON OCTOBER 13, 1994? 27 THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T. 28 MR. WAIER: I HAVE THE ORIGINAL HERE.
page 437 1 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I LODGE IT WITH THE COURT? 2 MR. WAIER: I NEED IT. THIS IS MY ONLY COPY. I DON'T 3 MIND LODGING IT. I NEED TO REFER TO IT. I WILL BE HAPPY 4 TO. 5 THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE LET COUNSEL KEEP THAT COPY, 6 USE IT, AND THEN WE'LL SEE LATER ON WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE 7 COURT RECORD OR NOT. 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: THANK YOU. MAY I HAND THE COURT A 9 COMPRESSED TRANSCRIPT OF THE DEPOSITION IF THE COURT WANTS 10 TO LOOK ALONG. 11 MR. WAIER, HAS THAT BEEN SIGNED, PLEASE? 12 MR. WAIER: I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS. IT MAY HAVE. YES, 13 IT HAS. 14 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT MR. KERR 15 SIGNED THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT ON 25 OCTOBER 1994. 16 COUNSEL, ANY CHANGES TO THE DEPOSITION? 17 MR. WAIER: YES, THERE ARE. YOU WILL NOTICE THERE ARE 18 CHANGES ON THE SIDE OF THE DEPOSITION WHERE HE PHYSICALLY 19 INTERLINEATED OR MADE TYPOS AND INITIALED HIS NAME. 20 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I SEE THE ORIGINALS, SIR. 21 MR. WAIER: SURE. 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: THANK YOU. 23 24 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 25 Q MR. KERR, ARE YOU CURRENTLY A DIRECTOR FOR THE 26 LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC.? 27 A NO, I'M NOT. 28 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST
page 438 1 BEFORE THEN, WERE YOU A DIRECTOR? 2 A YES, I WAS. 3 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU FIRST BECAME A DIRECTOR, 4 SIR? 5 A NO, I DON'T. 6 Q FOR HOW MANY YEARS WERE YOU A DIRECTOR OF THE 7 LEGION PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993? 8 A I DON'T HONESTLY KNOW. 9 Q WOULD IT HELP YOU, SIR, TO REFRESH YOUR 10 RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT YOUR DEPOSITION? 11 A I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WOULD OR NOT. THAT WAS 12 TWO YEARS AND FOUR HOLES IN MY HEAD AGO. 13 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I APPROACH? 14 THE COURT: SURE. 15 16 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 17 Q MR. KERR, YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN IN THIS ACTION 18 ON OCTOBER 13, 1994. AND PAGE 10, STARTING LINE 19, I ASKED 19 YOU SOME QUESTIONS. TAKE A LOOK AT PAGE 10, LINE 19. 20 A HERE? 21 Q YES, ALL THE WAY THROUGH PAGE 11, LINE 7. 22 MR. WAIER: WHAT LINES ARE YOU ASKING TO LOOK AT 23 AGAIN? 24 MR. BEUGELMANS: PAGE 10, LINE 19, TO PAGE 11, LINE 3 25 IS FINE. 26 THE WITNESS: WELL -- 27 28
page 439 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, SIR? 3 A BASICALLY THAT’s WHAT I BELIEVE, WHAT I THINK. 4 YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY CLEAR MEMORY WHEN I BECAME A 5 MEMBER OF THE BOARD. 6 Q AND IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT YOU BECAME A 7 DIRECTOR ABOUT 8 TO 10 YEARS PRIOR TO 1984? 8 A I THINK SO. I'M JUST GUESSING. I DON'T REALLY 9 KNOW. IT’s A LONG TIME AGO. I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS 10 EVER ANY — ANY REASON TO PUT A DATE ON IT AT THE TIME IT 11 HAPPENED. 12 Q SIR, YOU WERE APPROACHED BY WILLIS CARTO, WHO 13 ASKED YOU IF YOU WANTED TO BE A DIRECTOR, CORRECT? 14 A HE CALLED ME ON THE TELEPHONE AND ASKED ME IF I 15 WOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, IF I WOULD BE A DIRECTOR. 16 Q THAT WAS ABOUT 8 TO 10 YEARS AGO? 17 A APPARENTLY. 18 Q YOU AGREED; IS THAT CORRECT? 19 A YES. I SAID TO HIM IF IT WON'T CAUSE ME ANY 20 TROUBLE OR TAKE ANY OF MY TIME. 21 Q NOW, SIR, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE 22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEGION AND THE I.H.R.? 23 A MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LEGION IS THE PARENT 24 ORGANIZATION. 25 Q AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE I.H.R.? 26 A THE I.H.R. IS TO BRING HISTORY IN ACCORDANCE WITH 27 THE FACTS. 28 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER ATTEND --
page 440 1 DID YOU EVER PERSONALLY ATTEND, PHYSICALLY ATTEND A MEETING 2 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF 3 FREEDOM? 4 A NOT THAT I RECALL. 5 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER 6 TELEPHONICALLY ATTEND A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 7 THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC.? 8 A WELL, I HAD TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH WILLIS 9 VERY FREQUENTLY. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC MEMORY OF HIS 10 SAYING THIS IS A BOARD MEETING. I THINK HE SIMPLY KEPT ME 11 INFORMED OF WHAT THE I.H.R. WAS DOING. AS LONG AS HE WAS 12 DOING FOR THE I.H.R. WHAT I FELT SHOULD BE DONE, WHY, I 13 WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE MUCH TO DO 14 WITH IT. 15 Q LET ME ASK YOU THIS WAY: PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 24, 16 1993, WERE YOU EVER A PARTY TO A CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE 17 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION, IN A 18 MEETING OF THE LEGION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? 19 A I DON'T RECALL. 20 Q I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOUR DEPOSITION, PAGE 14, 21 STARTING LINE 20 THROUGH 24. 22 MR. WAIER: STARTING WHAT LINE? 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: LINE 19 WITH THE WORDPRIOR.24 MR. WAIER: STARTING WITH LINE 19? 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: LINE 20, THROUGH LINE 24. 26 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, I NEED A -- 27 MR. BEUGELMANS: PAGE 14, THERE’s NO OBJECTION TO 28 THAT?
page 441 1 MR. WAIER: NO. BUT FOR CLARITY, YOUR HONOR, ON 2 LINE — ON PAGE 14, THERE WAS A PROVISO WE ENTERED INTO 3 PRIOR TO WHICH REFERRED TO MEETINGS AND THAT WAS WHAT WE 4 AGREED TO EARLIER ON. AND I INDICATED WITH RESPECT TO 5 VARIOUS QUESTIONS CONCERNING MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF 6 DIRECTORS, HE WOULD ANSWER BASED ON THIS PROVISO. AND THAT 7 IS THROUGH LINES 4 THROUGH 13. SO TO UNDERSTAND THE 8 QUESTION AND THE ANSWER PROPERLY, THAT PROVISO SHOULD BE 9 READ. 10 THE COURT: IF YOUR OBJECTION IS YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO 11 ANSWER THE QUESTION AT ALL, I'LL OVERRULE IT, AND IN YOUR 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU CAN BRING THAT OUT. 13 MR. WAIER: OKAY. 14 15 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 16 QQUESTION: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, PRIOR TO 17 SEPTEMBER 24, 1993, WERE YOU EVER A PARTY TO A CONFERENCE 18 CALL WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS OF 19 THE LEGION IN A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS?20 A NO, I SAY I DON'T RECALL EVER HAVING BEEN AT 21 SUCH — TAKEN PART IN SUCH A CONFERENCE. 22 Q THE ANSWER AT LINE 24 IS NO. 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THERE BE AN 24 INSTRUCTION TO STRIKE THE STATEMENT MADE BY MR. KERR? I WAS 25 READING THE RECORD AT THIS POINT. 26 THE COURT: YES. 27 MR. BEUGELMANS: THANK YOU. 28
page 442 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER PERSONALLY 3 MEET LAVONNE FURR? 4 A NO. 5 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER PERSONALLY 6 MEET LEWIS FURR? 7 A NO. 8 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER HAVE A PHONE 9 CALL WITH LAVONNE FURR? 10 A NO. 11 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER HAVE A PHONE 12 CALL WITH LEWIS FURR? 13 A I DON'T THINK SO. NO. 14 Q MR. KERR, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY YOUR INVOLVEMENT 15 IN DECISION MAKING FOR THE LEGION PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 16 1993, WAS RESTRICTED TO COMMUNICATIONS YOU HAD WITH 17 MR. WILLIS CARTO? 18 A YES. I HAD NO PART IN DECISIONS OTHER THAN 19 TELLING ME WHAT WAS GOING ON. 20 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER SIGN MINUTES 21 OF THE LEGION — STRIKE THAT, MINUTES OF ALLEGED MEETINGS 22 WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION? 23 A I DON'T THINK SO. 24 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS. LACKS 25 FOUNDATION. DIRECTORS DON'T SIGN MINUTES. 26 THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER MAY STAND. 27 28
page 443 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q MR. KERR, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, HAD YOU EVER 3 REVIEWED ANY ALLEGED MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF 4 DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION? 5 A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. 6 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU OCCASIONALLY 7 RECEIVE MEMORANDA FROM WILLIS CARTO CONCERNING THE LEGION 8 AFFAIRS? 9 A PROBABLY. I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER. HE WAS ON THE 10 TELEPHONE TO ME. WE HAD TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS THROUGHOUT 11 THAT PERIOD, I SUPPOSE. FROM ABOUT 1984 ON, I WAS 12 TRANSLATING FOR THE I.H.R. FROM BEGINNING OF 1984, WE HAD 13 FREQUENT TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. I CERTAINLY DON'T RECALL 14 SPECIFIC DETAILS, WHAT WE DISCUSSED. 15 MR. BEUGELMANS: MOVE TO STRIKE. NONRESPONSIVE. 16 THE COURT: OVERRULED. I WILL LET IT STAND. I THINK 17 IT’s NONRESPONSIVE. YOU SHOULD OBJECT BEFORE YOU GET THE 18 FULL ANSWER. 19 MR. BEUGELMANS: RIGHT. 20 21 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 22 Q MR. KERR, I'M ASKING YOU IF — STRIKE THAT. 23 MR. KERR, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, WOULD WILLIS 24 CARTO OCCASIONALLY SEND YOU WRITTEN MEMORANDA CONCERNING THE 25 LEGION AFFAIRS? 26 A I DON'T REMEMBER ANY. 27 Q I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM YOUR DEPOSITION, SIR, 28 PAGE 17, STARTING LINE 5 THROUGH LINE 14.
page 444 1 MR. WAIER: I WANT TO READ THE QUESTION, TOO, FIRST. 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: I'LL READ THE QUESTION, ALSO. 3 I DON'T THINK IT’s RELEVANT. START LINE 2. 4 5 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 6 QQUESTION: PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, HAD YOU 7 EVER SEEN A DOCUMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO BE THE MINUTES OF A 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE LEGION?9ANSWER: TO THE BEST OF MY MEMORY, I HAD 10 MEMORANDA FROM WILLIS CARTO TELLING ME WHAT HE WAS DOING. I 11 DON'T — I REALLY AM COMPLETELY INDIFFERENT TO THIS SORT OF 12 THING, TO RUNNING THINGS THAT WAY. AND WILLIS MAY HAVE TOLD 13 ME,QUOTE,THESE ARE,CLOSED QUOTE, DASH, END QUOTE, 14WHICH IS MINUTES OF THE RECORD OF WHAT WE'RE DOING,15 CLOSED QUOTE,BUT I'M SIMPLY NOT AWARE OF HAVING SEEN A 16 PIECE OF PAPER THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID MINUTES OF A MEETING 17 AT SUCH-AND-SUCH TIME. IF I SAW ANY, I PROBABLY DISREGARDED 18 IT AS I DISREGARD MOST OF THE JUNK MAIL THAT COMES TO MY 19 HOUSE.20 PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, DID WILLIS CARTO EVER 21 DISCUSS THE FARREL BEQUEST WITH YOU? 22 A I DON'T THINK SO, HE MAY HAVE, BUT BECAUSE I SAY 23 WE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS. BUT I DON'T SPECIFICALLY 24 REMEMBER. 25 Q READING FROM THE DEPOSITION, PAGE 18, LINES 1 26 THROUGH 3: 27 “QUESTION: PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, DID 28 MR. WILLIS CARTO EVER DISCUSS THAT, THE JEAN FARREL BEQUEST
page 445 1 WITH YOU?” 2ANSWER: NO.3 PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER DISCUSS 4 LEGION AFFAIRS WITH ELISABETH CARTO? 5 A POSSIBLY. I DON'T RECALL. I DON'T THINK SO. I 6 MAY HAVE. 7 Q READING FROM YOUR DEPOSITION, SIR, PAGE 17, LINES 8 15 THROUGH 17: 9QUESTION: PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, DID YOU 10 EVER DISCUSS THE AFFAIRS OF THE LEGION WITH ELISABETH 11 CARTO?12ANSWER: NO.13 MR. KERR, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER 14 SIGN ANY DOCUMENTS GIVING MR. WILLIS CARTO OR ANYONE ELSE 15 AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF 16 FREEDOM, INC., WITH RESPECT TO THE FARREL ESTATE? 17 A NOT AS FAR AS I CAN REMEMBER. 18 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU EVER DISCUSS THE 19 FARREL ESTATE WITH ANYONE? 20 A NO. AT LEAST I DON'T THINK SO. 21 Q DID YOU ATTEND A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 22 OF THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., IN PERSON 23 ON MARCH 5, 1991? 24 A NO. 25 Q DID YOU TELEPHONICALLY ATTEND A MEETING OF THE 26 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION AT WHICH OTHER DIRECTORS 27 WERE ON THE LINE AND THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL ON 28 MARCH 5, 1991?
page 446 1 A I DON'T THINK SO. 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. 3 THE COURT: YOU MAY CROSS-EXAMINE. 4 MR. WAIER: THANK YOU. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. WAIER: 8 Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. KERR. TOM, YOU RECENTLY WENT 9 THROUGH AN OPERATION? 10 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION TO FAMILIARITY WITH THE 11 WITNESS, CALLING HIM BY THE FIRST NAME. 12 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 13 14 BY MR. WAIER: 15 Q MR. KERR -- 16 MR. WAIER: IS THERE A PROPER OBJECTION TO THAT? 17 THE COURT: YES, THERE IS, COUNSEL. OTHER THAN 18 JUVENILES, WHO I DEFINE AS THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF 14, OR 16, 19 DEPENDING ON IT, I THINK IT’s APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO ALL 20 WITNESSES BY THEIR CORRECT TITLE, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS 21 MR. KERR AND NOT TOM. I THINK THAT’s BEEN LONG STANDING OF 22 THIS COURT AND ANY COURT I HAVE EVER BEEN IN. 23 24 BY MR. WAIER: 25 Q ANYWAY, MR. KERR, YOU RECENTLY WENT THROUGH SOME 26 SURGERY? 27 A YES. 28 Q COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT WHAT THAT SURGERY
page 447 1 WAS? 2 A I HAD NEUROSURGERY ON THE 16TH OF MAY FOR -- 3 THE COURT: SIR, THERE’s SOME KLEENEX. 4 THE WITNESS: I HAD A MASSIVE SUBDURAL HEMATOMA ON BOTH 5 SIDES OF MY BRAIN AS THE RESULT OF A FALL I HAD. 6 7 BY MR. WAIER: 8 Q WOULD YOU LIKE SOME WATER? 9 A NO, NO. I'M ALL RIGHT. I JUST — PART OF THE -- 10 PART OF THE THING OF THIS IS I HAVE A — AN EXAGGERATED 11 EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO ANY DAMN THING IN THE WORLD. 12 Q I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE 13 OF THAT. HAS THAT INFLUENCED, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR MEMORY? 14 A YES, I'M AFRAID SO. I DON'T — I FIND MYSELF 15 FORGETTING THINGS ONCE IN A WHILE. I THINK IT’s COMING 16 BACK. I THINK I'M GRADUALLY GETTING BETTER. 17 Q I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. 18 LET ME GO BACK FOR A SECOND. YOU INDICATED THAT 19 YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE LEGION SINCE APPROXIMATELY 20 1984, SOMETIME AROUND THERE? 21 A WELL, I KNOW I HAVE BEEN TRANSLATING FOR THE 22 I.H.R. SINCE 1984. I THINK I ATTENDED I.H.R. CONFERENCES 23 BEFORE THAT, BUT I DON'T HONESTLY REMEMBER WHEN IT STARTED. 24 Q DO YOU RECALL AN ARSON OR A FIRE AT THE LEGION 25 OFFICES SOMETIME? 26 A YES. THAT WAS, I THINK, ON THE 4TH OF JULY, 27 1984. I REMEMBER IT BECAUSE I WAS UP AT MY RANCH IN OREGON 28 AND I WAS DOING TRANSLATION THERE FOR THE I.H.R. AT THAT
page 448 1 TIME. WHEN I WENT INTO TOWN TO DO SOME SHOPPING, I SAW THE 2 HEADLINES IN THE LOCAL PAPER. 3 Q DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE IN THE 4 LEGION AT THAT TIME CONCERNING THE ARSON? 5 A NO. I WAS MILES AWAY. I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH 6 THEM AFTER I CAME BACK. 7 Q WHO WAS THAT THAT YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH? 8 A OH, I WOULD SAY PRIMARILY TOM MARCELLUS. I 9 PROBABLY SAW HIM MORE FREQUENTLY THAN ANYBODY ELSE. AND 10 WILLIS, I SAW HIM WHEN I WENT TO THE OFFICE. 11 Q YOU SAIDTHE OFFICE.THE OFFICES OF THE LEGION? 12 A NO. THIS WAS THE I.H.R. OFFICE. 13 Q WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? 14 A I THINK AT THAT TIME IT WAS IN TORRANCE. I DON'T 15 REMEMBER THE ADDRESS, OF COURSE. 16 Q NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WENT TO I.H.R. 17 CONFERENCES. WHAT WAS THE FREQUENCY YOU WENT TO THE 18 CONFERENCES? 19 A WELL, I WENT EVERY YEAR. 20 Q FROM WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU GO EVERY YEAR? 21 A I DON'T RECALL WHEN IT STARTED. I DON'T REMEMBER 22 WHAT WAS THE EARLIEST CONFERENCE I WENT TO, BUT EVERY 23 CONFERENCE FROM, ANYWAY, 1984 ON, PROBABLY MAYBE BEFORE 24 THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE. 25 Q AT THOSE CONFERENCES — DID YOU GO FROM 1984 ON 26 UP TO 1993? 27 A YES. 28 Q AT THE CONFERENCES, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE
page 449 1 WILLIS CARTO? 2 A OH, YES. 3 Q DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH WILLIS CARTO AT 4 THE MEETINGS? 5 A SURELY. 6 Q DO YOU RECALL, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, SPECIFICALLY 7 ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH WILLIS CARTO AT THE 8 CONFERENCES? 9 A NO. WE TALKED ABOUT -- 10 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. HE STATED NO. 11 12 BY MR. WAIER: 13 Q DO YOU RECALL GENERALLY WHAT YOU DISCUSSED? 14 A I DIDN'T SAY NO. I DIDN'T SAY I HADN'T TALKED TO 15 WILLIS CARTO, DID I? 16 THE COURT: OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. I THINK UNDER THE 17 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WITNESS SHOULD BE ALLOWED SOME LEEWAY TO 18 ANSWER THINGS. 19 THE WITNESS: I PLAINLY SAID YES, I TALKED TO WILLIS 20 CARTO AT THE CONFERENCES. 21 22 BY MR. WAIER: 23 Q DO YOU RECALL GENERALLY WHAT YOU SPOKE WITH WILLIS 24 CARTO AT THE CONFERENCES ABOUT? 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. THIS WITNESS IS A WITNESS 26 AFFILIATED WITH THE DEFENDANTS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT 27 HEARSAY CAN BE BROUGHT IN BY AN ADVERSE PARTY. MR. CARTO IS 28 AVAILABLE AND PRESENT IN COURT. ALTHOUGH WE, AS PLAINTIFFS,
page 450 1 CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO BRING OUT HEARSAY STATEMENTS, I BELIEVE 2 IT’s IMPROPER — I'M NOT HEADING FOR 770 OR 771. I BELIEVE 3 IT’s IMPROPER FOR THE DEFENSE TO ELICIT HEARSAY FROM THEIR 4 OWN WITNESS. 5 THE COURT: IT’s HARD TO KNOW WHETHER IT’s HEARSAY OR 6 NOT UNTIL I HEAR THE ANSWER. IF IT’s HEARSAY, I'M NOT GOING 7 TO REGARD IT, OR IF I DO, IT WON'T CARRY MUCH WEIGHT. I'M 8 GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. 9 10 BY MR. WAIER: 11 Q WHAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE CONFERENCES WITH 12 WILLIS CARTO AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL? 13 A OBVIOUSLY, WE DISCUSSED THE SPEAKERS AT THE 14 MEETING AND WHAT THE I.H.R. WAS TRYING TO DO AND THE BOOKS 15 THAT WERE BEING PUBLISHED AND THE WORK I WAS DOING FOR THE 16 I.H.R., THE TRANSLATION I WAS DOING FOR THEM. 17 Q WERE YOU INVITED TO THE CONFERENCES EACH YEAR? 18 A OH, YES. SURELY. 19 Q WHO INVITED YOU? 20 A I WOULD GET A LETTER FROM THE I.H.R. I DON'T 21 REMEMBER WHO SIGNED IT. PROBABLY MARCELLUS, SINCE HE WAS 22 THE DIRECTOR DURING MOST OF THAT PERIOD. 23 Q WHEN YOU SAYDIRECTOR,MANAGING OFFICER? 24 A YES. 25 Q DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING CORRESPONDENCE FROM WILLIS 26 CONCERNING THESE CONFERENCES? 27 A I DON'T RECALL. NO. I MAY HAVE. 28 Q AT ANY OF THE CONFERENCES, DO YOU RECALL ANY
page 451 1 DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 2 A I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY. 3 Q BUT YOU DID INDICATE THAT WILLIS DISCUSSED WITH 4 YOU THE GENERAL BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE I.H.R. AT THIS TIME? 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. 6 THE COURT: OVERRULED, IN VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS MR. KERR 7 MAY HAVE. 8 THE WITNESS: WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T REALLY KNOW 9 WHAT YOU MEAN BY BUSINESS. WE DISCUSSED WHAT THE I.H.R. WAS 10 ALL ABOUT AND WHAT IT WAS DOING AND WHAT THE AIMS WERE AND 11 WHAT LITTLE VICTORIES WE HAD AND WHAT SETBACKS WE HAD. 12 13 BY MR. WAIER: 14 Q DO YOU RECALL A CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH A 15 GENTLEMEN BY THE NAME OF MR. DICKSON? 16 A SAM DICKSON. 17 Q SAM DICKSON. IN 1993. 18 A YES. 19 Q WHO DID YOU UNDERSTAND MR. DICKSON TO BE? 20 A WELL, HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE I.H.R. HE WAS A 21 MEMBER OF THE LEGION BOARD AND HE WAS SOMEONE THAT I HAD MET 22 AT — AT CONFERENCES AND KNEW HIM TO BE A WELL-KNOWN 23 ATTORNEY IN THE SOUTH. 24 Q AND DO YOU RECALL THE REASON WHY YOU CALLED 25 MR. DICKSON? 26 A YES, I CALLED MR. DICKSON BECAUSE I HAD BEEN -- 27 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR. 28 THE COURT: OVERRULED.
page 452 1 THE WITNESS: I CALLED MR. DICKSON BECAUSE I HAD COME 2 TO HAVE GRAVE SUSPICIONS ABOUT WHAT THE DIRECTORS — WHAT 3 TOM MARCELLUS AND THE OTHER PEOPLE, MARK WEBER AND 4 TED O’Keefe, WERE TELLING ME ABOUT THE STATE OF THE LEGION. 5 AND SPECIFICALLY, THEY HAD TOLD ME THAT WITH THE RESIGNATION 6 OF — OF THE FURRS, THAT I WAS THE SOLE REMAINING MEMBER OF 7 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THAT I HAD TO — TO ACT TO 8 APPOINT NEW DIRECTORS TO KEEP THE I.H.R. FROM COLLAPSING. 9 FROM VARIOUS THINGS THAT THEY HAD TOLD ME, I BEGAN 10 TO GET SUSPICIOUS. SO I KNEW AND I SAID TO THEM, I SAID 11 ISN'T — WHEN I GOT — THE FURRS SENT A LETTER TO ME 12 TELLING ME THAT — THAT THEY WERE RESIGNING AND THAT THE 13 BOTTOM OF THE LETTER, IT SHOWED THEY WERE SENDING COPIES TO 14 HARVEY TAYLOR AND SAM DICKSON. SO I SAID IF I ASSUME THAT 15 HARVEY TAYLOR AND SAM DICKSON ARE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD -- 16 NO, NO, THEY SAID THEY'RE NOT, YOU ARE THE ONLY MEMBER. SO 17 I CALLED SAM DICKSON AFTER TALKING TO MRS. FURR. 18 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT. THIS IS HEARSAY. 19 MR. DICKSON IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION. WHATEVER 20 MR. DICKSON SAID OR DIDN'T SAY IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. 21 THE COURT: I THINK IT IS. 22 MR. WAIER: IT GOES TO THE STATE OF MIND, TO THE 23 PURPOSE OF, REASON WHY HE CALLED SAM DICKSON. 24 THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW THAT IT’s THAT RELEVANT. I 25 WILL LET IT IN BECAUSE YOU MAY TIE IT UP LATER. I WANT TO 26 GIVE YOU EVERY OPPORTUNITY. 27 THE WITNESS: OKAY. SO I CALLED SAM DICKSON. HE TOLD 28 ME THAT — HE TOLD ME THAT THE I.H.R. HAD CALLED HIM — I
page 453 1 THINK MARK WEBER SAID HE HAD CALLED HIM AND I'M NOT CERTAIN 2 ABOUT THAT. HE SAID THEY CALLED HIM AND MADE THE SAME 3 PROPOSITION TO HIM THAT THEY HAD MADE TO ME, THAT THEY 4 WANTED HIM TO APPOINT NEW MEMBERS TO THE BOARD. AND HE 5 WASN'T HAVING ANY PART OF IT. AT ANY RATE, ON THE BASIS OF 6 WHAT HE TOLD ME, I REALIZED — I CONCLUDED THAT I WAS BEING 7 LIED TO FROM START TO FINISH AND — AND I HAD A TOTALLY 8 DIFFERENT ATTITUDE ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. 9 10 BY MR. WAIER: 11 Q PRIOR TO THIS TIME -- 12 MR. BEUGELMANS: MOVE TO STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY ON THE 13 GROUND OF RELEVANCE, HEARSAY, AND MOREOVER, YOUR HONOR, THIS 14 ISSUE HAS BEEN LITIGATED BEFORE IN THE POLIS CASE, THE CASE 15 BEFORE POLIS. THAT CASE IS FINAL. THE COURT OF APPEALS 16 ISSUED THE REMITTITUR, AND WE'RE GOING OVER TERRITORY THAT 17 HAS BEEN PLOWED AD NAUSEAM IN PRIOR ACTIONS. I THINK ITS 18 RES JUDICATA. I HAVE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL DECISION 19 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN WHICH ALL THE ISSUES WERE 20 ADDRESSED. 21 THE COURT: IT MAY BE. I THINK I STILL AM GOING TO 22 OVERRULE IT. IF YOU CAN TIE THIS TESTIMONY INTO SOME 23 DEFENSE THAT YOU ARE COMING UP WITH, I'LL CONSIDER. 24 25 BY MR. WAIER: 26 Q PRIOR TO THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. DICKSON, DID 27 YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEBER? 28 A I HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. WEBER OVER THE
page 454 1 YEARS. 2 Q AT ANY ONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, DID HE MENTION 3 TO YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 4 A NO, NOT PRIOR TO, I THINK, SEPTEMBER 23 OF '93. 5 Q SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, DID HE MENTION ANYTHING TO YOU 6 ABOUT THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 7 A I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY. I 8 KNEW THAT — I KNEW THAT PART OF THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT 9 THEY FELT WILLIS WAS — WAS USING MONEY THAT BELONGED TO 10 THEM, TO THE I.H.R. AND THE LEGION, FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. 11 BUT I REALLY HADN'T ANY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ESTATE AT ALL 12 PRIOR TO THAT TIME. 13 Q AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME, AFTER SEPTEMBER 1993, 14 DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIS WHERE YOU 15 BROUGHT UP THE ACCUSATIONS? 16 A YES. I ASKED WILLIS WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT, AND HE 17 TOLD ME -- 18 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT AGAIN. THIS IS 19 HEARSAY. THEY'RE TRYING TO BRING OUT HEARSAY STATEMENTS 20 FROM THEIR OWN WITNESSES. MR. CARTO IS PRESENT IN COURT. 21 THIS VIOLATES THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. 22 THE COURT: IT MAY BE, BUT I'M COGNIZANT OF THE FACT 23 YOU MAY CALL MR. CARTO BACK AND YOU MAY TRY TO CALL THIS 24 WITNESS BACK. SO IT’s A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT. I WANT 25 TO ARRANGE IT THAT THIS WITNESS, BECAUSE OF THE MEDICAL 26 CONDITION, ONLY TESTIFIES ONCE. THAT’s THE REASON I'M 27 LIBERAL HERE. 28 THE WITNESS: I ASKED WILLIS FLAT OUT ABOUT THE --
page 455 1 ABOUT THE ESTATE, BECAUSE I HAD — HAD BEEN TOLD ALL THE 2 WICKED THINGS HE HAD DONE. AND I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE FARREL 3 ESTATE AND HOW IT WAS HANDLED, WHO WAS THE MONEY GIVEN TO, 4 SO ON. AND HE GAVE ME HIS VERSION OF IT. 5 6 BY MR. WAIER: 7 Q WERE YOU A DIRECTOR AT THAT POINT IN TIME? 8 A YES, I THINK SO. 9 Q THIS WAS SHORTLY AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION 10 WITH MR. WEBER SEPTEMBER 1993? 11 A YES. 12 Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH EITHER LEWIS 13 OR LAVONNE FURR AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH MR. WEBER IN SEPTEMBER 14 1993? 15 A YES. AS I SAY, WHEN I BEGAN TO FEEL THAT 16 SOMETHING WAS NOT QUITE RIGHT ABOUT WHAT I WAS BEING TOLD, I 17 CALLED THE FURRS AND TALKED TO MRS. FURR AND FOUND ON THE 18 BASIS OF WHAT SHE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD — HAD BEEN 19 HOUNDING HER FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS TO — TO RESIGN, TO DO 20 WHAT THEY WANTED DONE. I REALIZE, AS I SAY, THAT IT WASN'T 21 AS SIMPLE AS IT WAS BEING PRESENTED TO ME. 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. HEARSAY. MOVE TO STRIKE. 23 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 24 MR. WAIER: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. 25 THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT? 26 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 27 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 28 Q MR. KERR, WAS YOUR MEMORY BETTER AT THE TIME OF
page 456 1 YOUR DEPOSITION IN THIS ACTION ON OCTOBER 13, 1994, THAN IT 2 IS TODAY? 3 A PROBABLY. 4 Q AND SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR DEPOSITION BEING TAKEN ON 5 OCTOBER 13, 1994, YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH THE ORIGINAL 6 TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR DEPOSITION AND YOU READ THROUGH IT, 7 CORRECT? 8 A YES, I WAS. 9 Q AND DID YOU MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO YOUR 10 DEPOSITION TESTIMONY? 11 A I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER. I 12 KNOW THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT I LINED IN, THAT I WROTE 13 IN, BUT I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER. IT’s BEEN A LONG TIME 14 AGO. 15 Q SIR, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR 16 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT. IT’s BRIEF, ONLY ABOUT 20 PAGES. 17 THUMB THROUGH IT AND SEE IF YOU MADE ANY CHANGES OF 18 SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN GRAMMATICAL AND SPELLING CORRECTIONS. 19 A OF COURSE, I HAVE TO — WE MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION 20 OF WHAT WAS SUBSTANCE AND WHAT WASN'T. I DON'T THINK I MADE 21 ANY IMPORTANT CHANGES AT ALL. 22 Q TAKE YOUR TIME. 23 A OF COURSE, THIS ISN'T MY COPY. I DON'T KNOW 24 WHETHER ANYTHING I WROTE IN WOULD BE IN MR. WAIER’s COPY OR 25 NOT. I HAVEN'T RUN INTO ANYTHING YET. 26 Q LET ME REPRESENT THIS IS MR. WAIER’s COPY. 27 A HERE I OBVIOUSLY CROSSED OUT ANSTHAT WAS -- 28 Q IN OTHER WORDS,SCHOOL?
page 457 1 A YES. 2 Q ANYTHING ELSE YOU SEE? 3 A NOT SO FAR. JUST A TYPO, I GUESS. AND HERE I 4 WROTE INSUPPOSEDLY.5 Q PAGE 26, LINE? 6 A PAGE 26, LINE 2. 7 Q THAT’s YOUR HANDWRITING? 8 A YES. I THINK SO. LOOKS LIKE MY HANDWRITING. I 9 CAN'T WRITE THAT SMALL ANYMORE. BEFORE MY HEAD WAS BORED 10 INTO, I COULD WRITE A TINY HAND. I SEE HERE ON PAGE 31, I 11 SAID — I PUT IN WHERE IT SAYS -- 12 Q LINE? 13 A LINE 20. I INSERTED -- 14 Q WORDAT LEAST? 15 AAT LEASTAND I CROSSED OUT — I CROSSED OUT A 16 MISSPELLING OFPRINCIPLE.IT WAS SPELLED 17 P-R-I-N-C-I-P-A-L. IT WAS MEANT TO BEPRINCIPLE,18 P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E. AND HERE ON PAGE 32, I CROSSED OUT A 19DOESAND WROTE INIS.20 Q IS THAT YOUR INITIALS? 21 A THAT’s MY INITIALS, YES. HOW DID IT GET ON 22 MR. WAIER’s COPY? I SUPPOSE I MUST HAVE. HERE IS ANOTHER. 23 THIS IS JUST A TYPO WHERE -- 24 QTRIALIS SPELLED? 25 A IT’s SPELLEDTRAIL.I DID THAT. 26 Q SIR, YOU COME TO THE LAST PAGE, PAGE 38. DO YOU 27 SEE YOUR SIGNATURE, PAGE 38? 28 A YES, I DO. BEAUTIFUL, ISN'T IT?
page 458 1 Q DID YOU WRITE IN THE DATE ABOVE IT? 2 A YES, 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1994. 3 Q AND IS THAT THE DATE IN WHICH YOU SIGNED THE 4 ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT? 5 A I ASSUME SO. 6 Q AND FOR THE RECORD, SIR, DOES THE COPY, THE 7 TRANSCRIPT IN FRONT OF YOU, HAVE A NOTATION IN THE 8 RIGHT-HAND CORNER,ORIGINAL? DO YOU SEE THAT, SIR? 9 A YES. UH-HUH. 10 MR. BEUGELMANS: I ASK THAT THE TRANSCRIPT BE LODGED 11 WITH THE COURT. 12 MR. WAIER: I HAVE NO OBJECTION WITH IT BEING LODGED 13 WITH THE COURT. 14 THE COURT: VERY WELL. 15 16 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 17 Q MR. KERR, YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO HOW THE 18 SHARE OF THE FARREL ESTATE THAT WAS RECOVERED ON BEHALF OF 19 THE LEGION HAS BEEN SPENT, DO YOU? 20 A NO, NOT REALLY. 21 Q AND YOU ARE PERSONAL FRIENDS WITH WILLIS CARTO, 22 AREN'T YOU? 23 A YES, I WOULD SAY SO. 24 Q YOU HAVE BEEN HIS FRIEND SINCE THE MID '60S? 25 A SINCE WHEN? 26 Q MID '60S. 27 A WELL, YES, I GUESS. I DON'T THINK I WAS REALLY 28 HIS FRIEND. I KNEW HIM. I DIDN'T KNOW HIM WELL ENOUGH, I
page 459 1 GUESS, TO CALL HIM A FRIEND. 2 Q YOU HAVE BEEN TO HIS HOUSE, CORRECT? 3 A I HAVE BEEN TO HIS HOUSE, BUT I WAS NEVER AT HIS 4 HOUSE PRIOR TO THE — THIS MESS WITH THE I.H.R. 5 Q I UNDERSTAND. AND HE KNOWS YOUR WIFE, CORRECT? 6 A YES. 7 Q YOU KNOW HIS WIFE? 8 A YES. 9 Q SOMETIME IN SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU AND THE STAFF 10 AT THE LEGION COME UP WITH A PLAN TO PULL WILLIS' TEETH? 11 A I THINK THAT WAS THEIR IDEA. YES. 12 MR. WAIER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR, AS BEING 13 OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. 14 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 15 16 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 17 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU, SIR, A ONE-PAGE LETTER 18 DATED SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 193. 19 THE COURT: COUNSEL, MAY I HAVE THE DATE AGAIN. 20 MR. BEUGELMANS: SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25. THERE’s NO YEAR 21 ON IT. 22 MR. WAIER: I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR. 23 IS IT ONE OF YOUR EXHIBITS? 24 MR. BEUGELMANS: NO. 25 26 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 27 Q MR. KERR, TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 193, SIR. 28 MR. KERR, HAVE YOU READ EXHIBIT 193?
page 460 1 A YES, I HAVE. 2 Q DID YOU WRITE EXHIBIT 193? 3 A YES. 4 Q DID YOU SUBSCRIBE YOUR NAME ON THE BOTTOM OF IT? 5 A YES, THAT’s MY NAME. SHOULD BE MR. KERR, THOUGH, 6 SHOULDN'T IT? THAT WAS IN THE HONEYMOON PERIOD WHEN I 7 BELIEVED THEM. 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: MOVE TO STRIKE. NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR 9 HONOR. 10 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 11 12 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 13 Q MR. KERR, ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE 14 CONCERNING THE FARREL ESTATE YOU HAVE LEARNED FROM 15 WILLIS CARTO; IS THAT TRUE? 16 A WELL, YOU SAY INFORMATION. I GOT A BATHTUB FULL 17 OF INFORMATION FROM THE — FROM MARCELLUS AND COMPANY THAT 18 PURPORTED TO BE ABOUT THE FARREL ESTATE. AND I ASKED WILLIS 19 HIS SIDE OF IT, WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT, AND HE TOLD ME — HE 20 TOLD ME HOW HE UNDERSTOOD THE THING, TOLD ME HIS VERSION OF 21 IT. 22 Q MR. KERR, ON OCTOBER 13, 1994, YOU WERE NO LONGER 23 ON A HONEYMOON RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. MARCELLUS OR MR. WEBER 24 OR ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO, AT THAT TIME, WERE RUNNING THE 25 I.H.R., WERE YOU? 26 MR. WAIER: OBJECT. ASSUMES FACTS. USING TESTIMONY 27 THAT’s BEEN STRICKEN BY HIS OWN MOTION. 28 THE COURT: OVERRULED.
page 461 1 MR. WAIER: VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. 2 THE WITNESS: YOU ARE SAYING 1994? 3 4 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 5 Q YES, OCTOBER 1994. 6 A I THINK I RESIGNED IN MARCH OF '94, SOMEWHERE IN 7 THERE. I HAD NO CONCERN AT ALL WITH THE LEGION IN OCTOBER 8 OF '94. 9 Q LET ME TRY TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION, SIR. 10 I BELIEVE THAT YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A 11 PERIOD OF TIME WHERE YOU SIDED WITH MARCELLUS AND WEBER AND 12 THEN YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND AND SIDED AGAIN WITH 13 WILLIS CARTO; IS THAT CORRECT? 14 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. MISSTATES HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY. 15 THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN TELL US IN HIS OWN WORDS 16 IF THAT’s THE SITUATION. LET’s GET ON WITH IT. YOU KNOW 17 WHY I'M HERE, TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE CONVERTED ABOUT 730 TO 18 700 — OR $7,300,000. THIS IS ALL INTERESTING INTERFIGHTING 19 BETWEEN THE VARIOUS GROUPS, BUT I'M NOT SO SURE IT'S 20 RELEVANT TO EITHER SIDE. 21 22 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 23 Q WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. MAY I ASK ONE MORE 24 QUESTION? I'LL BE DONE. 25 IN OCTOBER OF 1994, WHEN YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN 26 IN THIS ACTION, MR. KERR, WAS IT TRUE AT THAT TIME THAT THE 27 ONLY INFORMATION YOU HAD CONCERNING JEAN FARREL’s INTENT WAS 28 WHAT WILLIS CARTO TOLD YOU?
page 462 1 A YES. 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. 3 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE? 4 MR. WAIER: NO. 5 THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. KERR. THERE’s A STEP 6 THERE. BE CAREFUL IF YOU STEP DOWN YOU DON'T FALL. YOU ARE 7 WELCOME TO STAY OR LEAVE. 8 THE WITNESS: OKAY. 9 MR. WAIER: WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN, GREG RAVEN, A 10 DESIGNATED OFFICER FOR THE LEGION. MR. WEBER — MR. RAVEN 11 IS A PERCIPIENT WITNESS SITTING IN THE COURT, AGAIN IN 12 VIOLATION OF YOUR ORDER, AND MR. BEUGELMANS KNOWS THE 13 ORDER. 14 THE COURT: I THINK THAT WAS THE IDEA, WASN'T IT? WE 15 WOULD HAVE ONE BOARD MEMBER -- 16 MR. BEUGELMANS: I WASN'T AWARE MR. RAVEN WAS HERE. I 17 ASK THAT HE STAY DURING MR. WEBER’s EXAMINATION. WE HAVE A 18 DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO ASSIST MR. -- 19 MR. WAIER: HE’s ALREADY HAD THE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY 20 MR. BEUGELMANS, YOUR HONOR. 21 THE COURT: I THINK WE CAN HAVE MR. RAVEN WAIT 22 OUTSIDE. GO TO THE NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE. 23 MR. WAIER: MR. WEBER WAS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. 24 THE COURT: IF, FOR SOME REASON, YOU NEED TO CONSULT 25 WITH MR. RAVEN, I'LL TAKE A BREAK. 26 MR. BEUGELMANS: I WOULD LIKE TO STATE HE’s THE 27 DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO SIT WITH ME AND WITH MY 28 COCOUNSEL.
page 463 1 MARK WEBER, 2 CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN 3 PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 6 BY MR. WAIER: 7 Q WE'RE BACK ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. WEBER. 8 MR. WEBER, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID 9 MR. MARCELLUS EVER TELL YOU THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ANY MONIES 10 FROM THE BANQUE CONTRADE? 11 A I DON'T RECALL. 12 Q DID HE OR DID HE NOT? 13 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. THE WITNESS STATED HE 14 DIDN'T RECALL. 15 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 16 17 BY MR. WAIER: 18 Q WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL, THAT MEANS HE COULD 19 HAVE TOLD YOU, BUT YOU DON'T RECALL IT? 20 A YES. 21 Q WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT CONCERNED 22 YOU? 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. 24 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 25 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, I'M TRYING -- 26 THE COURT: SUSTAINED, COUNSEL. MOVE ON WITH THIS 27 CASE. I'M GOING TO START PUSHING BOTH OF YOU. I WANT THE 28 CASE TO GET GOING ON THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF ME. READ THE
page 464 1 COMPLAINT, AND THAT’s WHAT IT’s ALL ABOUT, NOT ABOUT A LOT 2 OF OTHER THINGS. GET TO IT. 3 4 BY MR. WAIER: 5 Q NOW, YOU INDICATED IN YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT 6 YOU RECOGNIZED WILLIS Carto’s SIGNATURE ON A NUMBER OF 7 MINUTES. DO YOU RECALL THAT? 8 A YES, I DO. 9 Q DO YOU HAVE THE EXHIBIT BOOK IN FRONT OF YOU? 10 A NO, I DON'T. 11 Q I HAVE BEFORE YOU EXHIBIT 20. 12 A YES. 13 Q CALLED A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT. 14 A YES. 15 Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THAT AGREEMENT, 16 MR. WEBER? 17 A JUNE 1994. 18 Q THAT WAS AS A RESULT OF SOMEONE SENDING YOU THAT 19 AGREEMENT? 20 A THAT WAS ONE OF THE COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS SENT 21 TO ME BY ATTORNEY DAVID HOOPER FROM ENGLAND. 22 Q ISN'T THAT ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE LEGION IS 23 RELYING UPON TO — AS A RESULT OF ITS RIGHT TO ANY PORTION 24 OF THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR LEGAL 26 CONCLUSION. 27 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 28
page 465 1 BY MR. WAIER: 2 Q DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT DOCUMENT THERE PROVIDES 3 THE LEGION WITH A 45 PERCENT SHARE OF THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON 4 ESTATE? 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. COMPETENCE. 6 THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN TELL US WHAT THEY THINK 7 IT PROVIDES FOR. 8 THE WITNESS: I THINK THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS ONE OF A 9 NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS 45 PERCENT 10 OF THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE WAS TO GO PROPERLY TO THE 11 LEGION. 12 13 BY MR. WAIER: 14 Q DO YOU BELIEVE MR. CARTO HAD AUTHORITY BY THE 15 LEGION TO ENTER INTO THAT AGREEMENT? 16 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR LEGAL 17 CONCLUSION. 18 THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN TELL US WHAT HE THINKS. 19 THE WITNESS: I THINK HE DID, YES. 20 21 BY MR. WAIER: 22 Q WELL, LET’s TAKE A LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE OF THAT 23 AGREEMENT, WILL YOU, PLEASE. DO YOU HAVE THE LAST PAGE IN 24 FRONT OF YOU? 25 A YES. 26 Q DOES IT LOOK SIMILAR TO THE BLOWUP I HAVE? 27 A YES, IT DOES. 28 Q SIR, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU RECOGNIZE
page 466 1 WILLIS Carto’s SIGNATURE BEFORE ON A NUMBER OF MINUTES. DO 2 YOU RECOGNIZE HIS SIGNATURE ANYWHERE ON THAT DOCUMENT? 3 A WELL, I RECOGNIZE THE SCRAWL ON — ABOVE OR BELOW 4 HIS NAME. THAT APPEARS NOT TO BE HIS USUAL SIGNATURE. 5 Q DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT HE ACTUALLY 6 SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION OR HIMSELF? 7 A WELL, I HAVE NO -- 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT APPEARS 9 THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY 10 ACCORDING TO MR. Carto’s OWN TESTIMONY EARLIER. THIS IS 11 JUST AN ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE THE WITNESS. 12 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, HE NEVER TESTIFIED TO THAT. 13 THE COURT: THAT’s TRUE, HE HASN'T, NOT THAT I REMEMBER 14 ANYWAY. 15 THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE. 16 17 BY MR. WAIER: 18 Q WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE — STRIKE THAT. 19 MR. WAIER: COULD YOU READ THE QUESTION. 20 (THE RECORD WAS READ.) 21 THE WITNESS: I HAVE INFORMATION FROM A STATEMENT BY 22 WILLIS CARTO UNDER OATH, EITHER IN A DEPOSITION OR UNDER -- 23 IN COURT THAT I WITNESSED, IN WHICH HE SAID THAT HE DID NOT 24 SIGN THIS DOCUMENT. 25 26 BY MR. WAIER: 27 Q SIR, DID YOU EVER TELL ANYBODY THAT THE WILL OF 28 JEAN FARREL-EDISON BEQUEATHED HER ESTATE TO THE LEGION?
page 467 1 A I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT. 2 Q IN FACT, YOU KNOW BETTER IT DID NOT; ISN'T THAT 3 CORRECT? 4 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. 5 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 6 7 BY MR. WAIER: 8 Q YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE WILL OF JEAN FARREL-EDISON 9 DIDN'T BEQUEATH ANYTHING TO THE LEGION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 10 A MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING 11 WILLS OR THERE WERE TWO CONFLICTING WILLS. THERE’s ONE WE 12 DISCUSSED EARLIER AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE IN WHICH, 13 SUPPOSEDLY, I THINK SHE LEFT MONEY TO JOAN ALTHAUS AND IT 14 WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE SWISS AUTHORITIES OR COURTS TO DECIDE 15 THE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE CONFLICTING WILLS. 16 Q WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION? 17 A I DON'T REMEMBER. 18 Q SIR, TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT — COUNSEL SHOWED 19 THIS, EXHIBIT 7, WHICH YOU INDICATED WAS — I BELIEVE YOU 20 SAID WAS SENT TO YOU BY MR. HOOPER. 21 A NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. 22 Q WHERE DID YOU EVER SEE A COPY OF THIS, WHICH 23 PURPORTS TO BE -- 24 A WHERE DID I SEE A COPY OF THIS? 25 Q YES. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW A COPY OF 26 EXHIBIT 7? 27 A WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT OR WHERE? 28 Q WHEN.
page 468 1 A PROBABLY IN 1995, AS I RECALL. 2 Q OTHER THAN THIS WILL THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU 3 AND EXHIBIT 8, WHICH PURPORTS TO BE A TRANSLATION OF THAT 4 WILL, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS OTHER WILL? 5 ATHIS OTHER WILLMEANING THE WILL THAT I REFERRED 6 TO LEAVING MONEY TO JOAN ALTHAUS? 7 Q YES. 8 A I DON'T RECALL. 9 Q WHEN YOU SAW THIS WILL YOU HAD, DID YOU HAVE ANY 10 CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. HOOPER ABOUT THIS WILL? 11 A NO, I DID NOT. 12 Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYBODY ABOUT 13 THE WILL WHEN YOU SAW IT IN 1995? 14 A I THINK I DID. 15 Q WHO DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH? 16 A OH, I MIGHT HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH TOM MARCELLUS. 17 I MIGHT HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH GREG RAVEN. I MIGHT HAVE 18 DISCUSSED IT WITH ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTS THE 19 I.H.R., L.S.F. I DON'T RECALL. 20 Q IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT PRIOR TO HER DEATH, JOAN 21 ALTHAUS HAD MADE REPRESENTATIONS TO MR. CARTO SHE WAS GOING 22 TO BE LEAVING HER ESTATE, INCLUDING THE NECA 23 CERTIFICATES -- 24 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. RELEVANT. 25 MR. WAIER: I HAVEN'T FINISHED THE QUESTION. 26 I WISH HE WOULD WAIT UNTIL I FINISH THE QUESTION 27 BEFORE HE RAISES AN OBJECTION. 28 THE COURT: YES, IF HE COULD, PLEASE.
page 469 1 BY MR. WAIER: 2 Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS — STRIKE THAT. 3 IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT THE ESTATE OF JEAN 4 FARREL-EDISON — STRIKE THAT. 5 IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT JEAN FARREL-EDISON HAD MADE 6 REPRESENTATIONS TO WILLIS CARTO PRIOR TO HER DEATH THAT SHE 7 WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING HER ESTATE TO THE LEGION? 8 A YES, IT IS. 9 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. IT’s IRRELEVANT. IT CALLS 10 FOR HEARSAY STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE DECEDENT. 11 WE'RE NOT CONTESTING HER WILL IN THIS ACTION, YOUR HONOR. 12 THE COURT: OVERRULED. AGAIN, I ASSUME YOU ARE GOING 13 TO SOMEHOW TIE THIS IN WITH SOME SORT OF A -- 14 MR. WAIER: YES. 15 THE COURT: — DEFENSE. 16 MR. WAIER: YES, I AM, YOUR HONOR. 17 18 BY MR. WAIER: 19 Q WELL, WHEN YOU HAD THE CONVERSATIONS WITH 20 MR. MARCELLUS ABOUT JEAN FARREL-EDISON’s WILL, DID YOU 21 DISCUSS WITH HIM THE PROVISION WHERE IT SAID THAT SHE 22 REVOKES ALL PREVIOUS TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS AND INTENDS 23 TO — AND INTENDS TO SUBMIT THE EXECUTION OF MY TESTAMENT TO 24 THE COLUMBIAN LAW? 25 DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT? 26 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION TO RELEVANCE PRIOR TO 1995 27 CONCERNING THE WILL. 28 THE COURT: I'M LETTING YOU GO FAR AFIELD. WHAT IS THE
page 470 1 RELEVANCE OF THIS? 2 MR. WAIER: THE RELEVANCE IS RELATES TO THE FACT OF 3 ONE’s KNOWLEDGE, REFRESHES THE RECOLLECTION WHAT 4 MR. MARCELLUS TESTIFIED. THEY'RE TESTIFYING THAT THE LEGION 5 IS ENTITLED TO — WAS ENTITLED TO THE MONEY AT THE DEATH OF 6 JEAN FARREL-EDISON. IT’s BEEN OUR CONTENTION, OUR DEFENSE 7 THAT THE LEGION WASN'T ENTITLED TO ANYTHING AT THE TIME OF 8 HER DEATH. IN FACT, THAT IS THE WHOLE ISSUE. IN TALKING 9 ABOUT THE RISKINESS OF THE LITIGATION, YOU REMEMBER WE'RE 10 TALKING ABOUT TWO AREAS OF TIME NOW. 11 THE COURT: THIS IS A MOST UNUSUAL DEFENSE. I'M GOING 12 TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. YOU CAN DEVELOP IT IF YOU WANT. 13 VERY STRANGE, THOUGH. 14 THE WITNESS: REPEAT THE QUESTION. 15 16 BY MR. WAIER: 17 Q DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MARCELLUS 18 CONCERNING WHAT JEAN FARREL HAD PUT INTO HER WILL WHERE SHE 19 HAD REVOKED ALL PREVIOUS TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION? 20 A I DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH CONVERSATION WITH 21 MR. MARCELLUS. 22 Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH ANY OF THE 23 DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION CONCERNING THAT -- 24 A CONCERNING THAT ASPECT OF THE -- 25 Q YES. 26 A I DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH CONVERSATION. 27 Q YOU WERE AWARE, THOUGH, THAT PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 28 1993, THE LEGION HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN FUNDS THAT ORIGINATED
page 471 1 FROM THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 2 MR. MUSSELMAN: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME WHEN YOU 3 WERE AWARE. 4 THE COURT: WHO’s GOING TO BE MAKING THE OBJECTIONS? 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: I WILL. I APOLOGIZE. 6 MR. MUSSELMAN: SORRY, YOUR HONOR. 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: I JOIN IN MY COLLEAGUE’s OBJECTION. 8 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 9 THE WITNESS: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PERIOD YOU ARE 10 TALKING ABOUT, MR. WAIER. 11 12 BY MR. WAIER: 13 Q AT ANY POINT IN TIME, DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT 14 THE LEGION HAD RECEIVED FUNDS WHICH ORIGINATED FROM THE JEAN 15 FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 16 A YES, I DID BECOME AWARE OF THAT. 17 Q WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT? 18 A I'M NOT SURE. MAYBE IN 1993, PERHAPS 1994. 19 Q DID YOU REVIEW THE COMPLAINT THAT THE LEGION FILED 20 IN THIS MATTER BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY FILED? 21 A YES. 22 Q AND AT THE TIME YOU REVIEWED THE COMPLAINT AND ITS 23 ALLEGATIONS, DID YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS 24 TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT? 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR. 26 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 27 THE WITNESS: I CAN'T RECALL WITHOUT SEEING THE ENTIRE 28 COMPLAINT AND GOING THROUGH IT CAREFULLY.
page 472 1 BY MR. WAIER: 2 Q BUT AT THE TIME, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING — CAN YOU 3 RECALL ANYTHING THAT YOU FELT WAS INCORRECT WITH THAT? 4 A I CAN'T RECALL WITHOUT SEEING IT. 5 Q DO YOU RECALL ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE WHERE 6 YOU SAID THAT THE FIRST — THAT THE COMPLAINT ITSELF IS -- 7 THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT AREN'T TRUE? 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, 9 YOUR HONOR. 10 11 BY MR. WAIER: 12 Q OTHER THAN COUNSEL? 13 A I DON'T RECALL. 14 Q NOW, WHEN DID YOU — YOU SAID — YOU INDICATED, 15 THEN, APPROXIMATELY SEPTEMBER 1993, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 16 LEGION HAD RECEIVED SOME MONIES WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD WERE 17 ORIGINATED FROM THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE; IS THAT 18 CORRECT? 19 A I DID LEARN, I BELIEVE, IN 1993, 1994 THAT SOME 20 MONEY FROM THE FARREL ESTATE HAD GONE TO THE LEGION, YES. 21 Q WHO DID YOU LEARN THAT FROM? 22 A I DON'T RECALL. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BASED ON 23 DOCUMENTS OBTAINED IN DISCOVERY. I DON'T RECALL. 24 Q DO YOU RECALL HOW MUCH MONEY WENT TO THE LEGION? 25 A I RECALL THAT ALSO TOM MARCELLUS TOLD ME THAT AT 26 SOME POINT, THAT THE LEGION RECEIVED MONEY FROM THE FARREL 27 ESTATE. AND I RECALL ALSO THAT AT SOME POINT, WILLIS CARTO, 28 EITHER IN THE SPOTLIGHT NEWSPAPER OR IN MAILINGS, THAT HE
page 473 1 CLAIMED THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS WENT TO THE 2 LEGION. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I THOUGHT WAS EXACTLY THE 3 FIGURE OR WHEN I FIRST LEARNED THESE THINGS. 4 Q AT ANY POINT IN TIME, DID MR. MARCELLUS TELL YOU 5 HE HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION FROM FUNDS THAT ORIGINATED FROM 6 THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 7 A I THINK I LEARNED THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE TOLD 8 ME DIRECT OR IT WAS TOLD TO ME. I DON'T RECALL THE TIME. I 9 KNOW THAT’s BEEN DISCUSSED IN THIS COURT. 10 Q DO YOU RECALL THAT — DID MR. MARCELLUS BRING 11 THAT UP TO YOU? 12 A HE MIGHT HAVE. I DON'T RECALL. 13 Q AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN HE BROUGHT IT UP, IF YOU 14 RECALL, DID YOU ASK HIM ON WHAT BASIS HE WAS TO — HE WAS 15 RECEIVING FUNDS FROM THAT ORIGINATED FROM THE JEAN 16 FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 17 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. 18 ARGUMENTATIVE. HE SAYS HE DOESN'T RECALL MR. MARCELLUS 19 MENTIONING THAT. 20 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 21 THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL. 22 23 BY MR. WAIER: 24 Q DID MR. MARCELLUS EVER RAISE THE ISSUE THAT AN 25 ORGANIZATION INVOLVED WITH SCIENTOLOGY HAD RECEIVED MONEY 26 FROM THE — ORIGINATED FROM THE JEAN FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 27 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. 28 THE COURT: OVERRULED.
page 474 1 THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. 2 3 BY MR. WAIER: 4 Q DID MR. MARCELLUS AT ANY POINT IN TIME EVER 5 DISCUSS WITH YOU THAT AN ENTITY AFFILIATED WITH SCIENTOLOGY 6 HAD RECEIVED SOME MONEYS FROM THE ESTATE OR WHICHEVER 7 ORIGINATED FROM THE ESTATE OF JEAN FARREL-EDISON? 8 A I RECALL DISCUSSING THAT AT SOME POINT WITH 9 TOM MARCELLUS. I DON'T REMEMBER IF HE ORIGINATED THE 10 CONVERSATION OR I DID. I DO RECALL DISCUSSING IT WITH HIM. 11 Q DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS ILLEGAL? 12 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. 13 14 BY MR. WAIER: 15 Q I'M SORRY. LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION. 16 DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS IMPROPER WHEN YOU 17 HEARD IT? 18 A I'M NOT SURE. I DIDN'T — I DON'T THINK SO. I 19 DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I THOUGHT AT THE TIME. 20 Q NOW, YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT THAT YOU HAD A 21 CONVERSATION WITH MR. WILLIS CARTO SOMETIME IN 1993, EARLY 22 ON, WHERE YOU ASKED HIM WHO THE DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION 23 WERE. 24 A I TESTIFIED THAT AT A MEETING IN APRIL 1993, 25 EITHER I OR SOMEONE ELSE AT THE MEETING ASKED HIM WHO ARE 26 THE DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION OF THE CORPORATION. YES. I 27 DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS I OR SOMEONE ELSE. 28 Q AND YOU INDICATED HIS RESPONSE?
page 475 1 A HE SAID — HIS ANSWER WAS,YOU DON'T NEED TO 2 KNOW THAT.AND HE WAS PRESSED ON THAT MATTER, AND HE 3 REFUSED TO SAY WHO ANY OF THE DIRECTORS WERE. 4 Q AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU HAD ACCESS TO KNOW WHO 5 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE, DID YOU NOT? 6 A NO. 7 Q SIR, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LEGION WAS A TEXAS 8 CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AT THAT TIME? 9 A THAT’s CORRECT. 10 Q YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM MR. MARCELLUS, DID YOU NOT, 11 THAT EACH YEAR, THE LEGION FILED A STATEMENT OF FOREIGN 12 CORPORATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF 13 CALIFORNIA; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 14 A YES, THAT’s CORRECT. 15 Q AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THAT STATEMENT OF FOREIGN 16 CORPORATION LISTS THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS? 17 A NO. I THINK THAT CALIFORNIA FILING LISTS THE 18 OFFICERS AND THE TEXAS FILING LISTS THE DIRECTORS, AS I 19 RECALL. 20 Q DID YOU KNOW IT WAS ALSO BEING — THAT THE LEGION 21 WAS FILING DOCUMENTS WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS? 22 A IT WAS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THAT MEETING THAT THE 23 NEXT DAY WE HAD, THAT IS, TOM MARCELLUS, GREG RAVEN, 24 TED O’Keefe AND I, HAD A MEETING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE. 25 AND I BELIEVE IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THAT TED O’Keefe DID 26 OBTAIN COPIES OF THE FILINGS WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT 27 DID SHOW WHO THE PURPORTED DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION 28 WERE. AT THAT TIME, THAT IS, AT THE TIME OF THE
page 476 1 MEETING THAT YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT IN WHICH I DESCRIBED, WE 2 DID NOT SEE, HAD NOT SEEN THE TEXAS FILINGS SHOWING WHO THE 3 DIRECTORS WERE. 4 Q ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 5 1993, THAT YOU NEVER HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH WILLIS CARTO 6 CONCERNING THE FARREL-EDISON ESTATE? 7 A THAT’s NOT TRUE. 8 Q SIR, ISN'T IT TRUE — ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU HAD 9 NO KNOWLEDGE WHO THE DIRECTORS WERE OF THE LEGION PRIOR TO 10 SOMETIME IN APRIL 1993? 11 A NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID MY — TO THE BEST 12 OF MY KNOWLEDGE, LEWIS AND LAVONNE FURR WERE DIRECTORS, BUT 13 I DID NOT KNOW WHO THE OTHER DIRECTORS WERE OR IF THERE WERE 14 OTHER DIRECTORS. 15 Q SIR, YOU WERE AWARE OF THE MERMELSTEIN LITIGATION; 16 ISN'T THAT TRUE? 17 A THAT’s CORRECT. 18 Q AND FROM THE TIME THAT YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE IN 19 JANUARY OF 1991, YOU WERE PROVIDED, WERE YOU NOT, WITH 20 COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN THE 21 MERMELSTEIN LITIGATION? 22 A I MAY HAVE BEEN, YES. 23 Q YOU CERTAINLY HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS 24 BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE LEGION; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 25 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. OVERBROAD. ALL 26 DOCUMENTS? 27 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 28
page 477 1 BY MR. WAIER: 2 Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IN THE MERMELSTEIN LITIGATION, 3 THAT THERE WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEGION 4 INDICATING WHO THE DIRECTORS WERE? 5 A THAT’s CORRECT. 6 Q IN FACT, YOU HAD ACCESS TO THAT DOCUMENT, DID YOU 7 NOT? 8 A I HAD SEEN THAT DOCUMENT, YES. 9 Q YOU HAD SEEN IT PRIOR TO APRIL OF 1993? 10 A POSSIBLY. 11 Q AND YOU KNEW THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEGION IN 12 CONNECTION WITH THAT LITIGATION; ISN'T THAT TRUE? 13 A WELL, MR. WAIER, THERE -- 14 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE NONRESPONSIVE. IT ASKS 15 FOR AYESORNOANSWER. 16 THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK HE CAN EXPLAIN IT. 17 THE WITNESS: I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT 18 IT CONSISTS OF IS A TYPED LIST BY WILLIS CARTO. IT’s NOT A 19 DOCUMENT OF ANY KIND OF FILING OR OFFICIAL NATURE. IT'S 20 NEITHER A MINUTE OF THE BOARD MEETING, NOR IS IT A FILING 21 WITH ANY STATE AUTHORITY. IT’s A LIST OF PURPORTED 22 DIRECTORS. I'M ON THAT LIST. AND I KNEW FROM MY OWN 23 EXPERIENCE THAT ALTHOUGH I HAD — HAD BEEN APPROACHED BY 24 WILLIS CARTO AS A DIRECTOR, I HAD NEVER PARTICIPATED IN ANY 25 BOARD MEETINGS. I HAD NO INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF THE 26 VALIDITY OF THAT LIST. AND THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE 27 WHO LEGALLY, NOT WHO WILLIS CARTO SAID, WHO LEGALLY WERE IN 28 FACT DIRECTORS.
page 478 1 BY MR. WAIER: 2 Q SO ARE YOU SAYING, SO I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WILLIS 3 CARTO SUBMITTED THAT LIST IN THAT COURT PROCEEDING, SOMEHOW 4 IT WAS INVALID? 5 A I DIDN'T SAY THEREFORE IT WAS INVALID. I SAID WE 6 WANTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS VALID. 7 Q WELL, DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THE FILING OF THAT 8 DOCUMENT BY THE LEGION IN THE MERMELSTEIN CASE WAS 9 UNAUTHORIZED? 10 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. 11 THE COURT: IT’s NOT RELEVANT WHAT HE THINKS ON THAT 12 ISSUE. 13 14 BY MR. WAIER: 15 Q ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT’s YOUR BELIEF THAT ANYTHING 16 THAT WILLIS CARTO SUBMITS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, YOU HAVE TO 17 QUESTION? 18 A WELL, MR. WAIER, I KNOW THAT WILLIS CARTO HAS MADE 19 CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS AT VARIOUS TIMES, EVEN IN THIS 20 COURSE OF LITIGATION, SINCE SEPTEMBER 1993. AND I THINK I 21 BELIEVE VERY MUCH THAT HIS STATEMENTS, BECAUSE HE HAS A VERY 22 STRONG PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE CASE, SHOULD BE CHECKED FOR 23 THEIR ACCURACY. 24 Q WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE NORTH CAROLINA LITIGATION? 25 A THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE NORTH CAROLINA LITIGATION. 26 Q NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU SAW 27 PRIOR TO APRIL 1993 THAT WAS FILED IN THE MERMELSTEIN CASE 28 WAS A LIST OF ALL PAST AND PRESENT DIRECTORS?
page 479 1 A WELL, I'M NOT SURE. I'D HAVE TO SEE THE DOCUMENT 2 TO REFRESH MY MEMORY, MR. WAIER. 3 Q DO YOU RECALL THAT, THAT IT WAS A -- 4 A IT WAS A LIST OF NAMES. I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT 5 WAS PAST DIRECTORS OR ALSO CURRENT ONES. IT WAS A LIST OF 6 NAMES, PURPORTED DIRECTORS. 7 Q DO YOU RECALL THAT LIST, TO REFRESH YOUR 8 RECOLLECTION TO WHICH DATES, AND THERE WERE SOME INCLUSIVE 9 DATES FROM ONE DATE TO ANOTHER DATE AND OTHERS WERE NOT 10 INCLUSIVE, IT HAD A START DATE? 11 MR. BEUGELMANS: IMPROPER ATTEMPT TO REFRESH THE 12 RECOLLECTION BY TESTIMONY. IF THERE’s A DOCUMENT, SHOW IT 13 TO THE WITNESS AND LET HIM REFRESH THE RECOLLECTION FROM THE 14 DOCUMENT. 15 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 16 MR. WAIER: I'M ENTITLED TO REFRESH THE RECOLLECTION 17 EVEN IF WITH A FLY ON THE WALL. 18 THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT THE FLY ON THE WALL 19 WHILE YOU ARE DOING IT, SO SHOW HIM THE DOCUMENT. I'M NOT 20 GOING TO SIT HERE WHILE YOU GO THROUGH DISCOVERY. 21 MR. WAIER: I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT HERE. 22 THE COURT: THEN GET ON WITH IT. I'M GOING TO TAKE A 23 BREAK AT 3:00. 24 25 BY MR. WAIER: 26 Q DOES THE LEGION CONTEND IN THIS LITIGATION THAT 27 MR. CARTO WAS UNAUTHORIZED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN 28 RECOVERING THE FARREL ESTATE?
page 480 1 A MY UNDERSTANDING, JUST THE OPPOSITE, THAT HE WAS 2 AUTHORIZED AND HE DID ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION TO HELP 3 RECOVER THE FARREL ESTATE. 4 Q NOW, CAN YOU TELL US WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME IN 5 YOUR KNOWLEDGE WHEN ANYONE CHALLENGED MR. Carto’s RIGHT TO 6 ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN THE RECOVERY OF THE FARREL 7 ESTATE? 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THERE’s BEEN NO 9 CONTENTION ANYONE HAS CHALLENGED MR. Carto’s AUTHORITY AS AN 10 AGENT TO RECOVER ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION. THAT ALLEGATION 11 HAS NOT BEEN MADE, YOUR HONOR. 12 THE COURT: I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT THIS WITNESS 13 THINKS ON THAT ISSUE. I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. IT’s NOT 14 RELEVANT. IF HE CHALLENGED HIM, FINE. WHAT HE THINKS 15 SOMEONE ELSE DID OR WHEN IT OCCURRED, I'M NOT INTERESTED 16 FROM THIS WITNESS. 17 MR. WAIER: OKAY. 18 19 BY MR. WAIER: 20 Q DOES THE LEGION CONTEND THAT MR. CARTO DID NOT 21 HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSETS FOR THE FARREL 22 ESTATE? 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT’s WITHIN 24 THE PLEADING I FILED IN THE ACTION. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS 25 WITNESS CAN TESTIFY TO THAT ISSUE. 26 THE COURT: AGAIN, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT HE THINKS 27 THE ALLEGATION -- 28 MR. WAIER: IT’s AN ADMISSION — SORRY.
page 481 1 THE COURT: GO AHEAD. 2 MR. WAIER: I'M SORRY. IT’s AN ADMISSION ON HIS PART 3 BECAUSE — THERE IS AN ADMISSION ON HIS PART AS TO THEY 4 CONTEND HE DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF IT IN THE WAY 5 HE DID. IF HE STATES SPECIFICALLY, AS THE PRESIDENT AND AS 6 A DIRECTOR, THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THEN IT’s AN 7 ADMISSION ON THEIR PART. 8 THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. 9 10 BY MR. WAIER: 11 Q DO YOU RECALL BEING DEPOSED IN THIS MATTER? 12 A YES, I DO. 13 Q DO YOU RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT 14 IT’s NOT THE CONTENTION THAT HE'S, REFERRING TO CARTO 15 NECESSARILY, NEVER HAD ANY RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE ESTATE OR 16 ASSETS, BUT IT’s THE CONTENTION THAT THE CORPORATION OF THE 17 CORPORATION — IT’s THE CONTENTION OF THE CORPORATION HE 18 DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW? 19 A I MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL IT. 20 Q LET ME SHOW YOU YOUR DEPOSITION. DO YOU RECALL 21 YOUR DEPOSITION BEING TAKEN? 22 A YES, I DO. 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS MR. WAIER COULD 24 SIMPLY READ FROM THE DEPOSITION CERTAIN PAGES TO IMPEACH THE 25 WITNESS AND MOVE ON. 26 THE COURT: YES. 27 28
page 482 1 BY MR. WAIER: 2 Q LET ME READ FROM THE DEPOSITION OF MR. MARK 3 WEBER. I BELIEVE IT WAS TAKEN ON 9-16-94. LET ME START ON 4 PAGE — STARTING PAGE 149, LINE 3, TO PAGE 150, LINE 21. 5 A WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT, MR. WAIER, IF I 6 COULD. I DON'T RECALL MY DEPOSITION STATING THAT. 7 Q I'LL READ IT. 8QUESTION: AFTER SEPTEMBER 25, 1993, HAD ANY 9 DIRECTORS ADVISED YOU THAT MR. CARTO HAD NEVER BEEN 10 AUTHORIZED AT ANY TIME TO ACT AS AN AGENT FOR THE 11 CORPORATION?12ANSWER: I SUPPOSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO DIRECTORS 13 AFTER SEPTEMBER 25.14WELL, MR. MUSSELMAN, YOU ARE REFERRING TO PEOPLE 15 WHO WERE DIRECTORS BEFORE AND MAKING THE COMMENTS AFTER.16 THIS IS BY MY PARTNER, MR. URTNOWSKI. 17QUESTION: IT CAN BE ANY DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME 18 JUST AFTER THAT DATE.19ANSWER: WELL, THE UNDERSTANDING GENERALLY WAS BY 20 THE FURRS, BY TOM KERR AND BY MYSELF AND OTHER DIRECTORS 21 THAT SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 25, THAT CARTO HAD ON OCCASION 22 ACTED AS AN AGENT FOR THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF 23 FREEDOM. WHAT EXACTLY THE AUTHORITY ENTAILED WAS UNCLEAR TO 24 THE — NO ONE SEEMED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTHORITY 25 ENTAILED. CARTO SEEMED TO THINK IT WAS OPEN ENDED, THAT 26 THERE WERE NO LIMITS ON HIS AUTHORITY. BUT HE HAD ON 27 OCCASION WROTE SAYING QUITE THE OPPOSITE, EXACTLY TO THE 28 CONTRARY.
page 483 1QUESTION: HOW DID YOU ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE THE 2 FURRS— I'M SORRY. STRIKE THAT. I MISSED IT. WHERE IS 3 IT? I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I'M SORRY, YOUR 4 HONOR. 5 ALSO ON PAGE 152, LINES 20 THROUGH THE END OF PAGE 6 153, LINES 1 THROUGH 25. 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I STAND NEXT TO MR. WAIER? I 8 DIDN'T BRING THAT VOLUME. 9 THE COURT: CERTAINLY. 10 11 BY MR. WAIER: 12 QQUESTION: DOES THE LEGION CONTEND MR. CARTO WAS 13 AUTHORIZED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN RECOVERING THE 14 FARREL ESTATE?15 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE WORD WAS 16UNAUTHORIZED.17 MR. WAIER: EXCUSE ME. 18 19 BY MR. WAIER: 20 QDOES THE LEGION CONTEND MR. CARTO WAS 21 UNAUTHORIZED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN RECOVERING 22 THE FARREL ESTATE?23ANSWER: NO. IT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT.24QUESTION: DOES THE LEGION CONTEND MR. CARTO IS 25 AUTHORIZED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN THE RECOVERY -- 26 IN RECOVERING THE FARREL ESTATE?27ANSWER: I BELIEVE SO, YES, OR AT LEAST THAT HE 28 DID ACT IN THAT WAY.
page 484 1QUESTION: WELL, THAT’s QUITE A DISTINCTION NOW. 2 WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT IT IS.3ANSWER: BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT PRECISELY THE 4 BASIS OF HIS AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN THE 5 FARREL ESTATE WAS.6QUESTION: TELL ME, WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME, TO 7 YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ANYONE CHALLENGED MR. Carto’s RIGHT TO ACT 8 ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN THE RECOVERY OF THE FARREL 9 ESTATE?10MR. MUSSELMAN: I DON'T THINK THERE’s BEEN ANY 11 TESTIMONY THAT ANYONE HAS EVER CHALLENGED HIS RIGHT TO 12 RECOVER FOR THE LEGION.13 BY MR. URTNOWSKI,QUESTION: HAS ANYONE EVER 14 CHALLENGED THAT?15ANSWER: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.16QUESTION: IS THAT A CONTENTION OF THIS LAWSUIT?17ANSWER: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.18QUESTION: DOES IT INSTEAD CONTEND THAT MR. CARTO 19 DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSETS OF THE 20 FARREL ESTATE?21ANSWER: NO, NOT NECESSARILY. IT’s THE 22 CONTENTION THAT HE IS NOW WITHHOLDING THEM IMPROPERLY. IT'S 23 NOT THE CONTENTION THAT HE NECESSARILY NEVER HAD ANY RIGHT 24 TO DISPOSE OF THE ESTATE OF ASSETS, BUT IT’s THE CONTENTION 25 OF THE CORPORATION THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW.26 DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? 27 A FRANKLY, I DON'T REALLY RECALL SAYING THAT. NO. 28 BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD THAT I DID.
page 485 1 Q AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO READ ON FROM 2 PAGE 154, LINES 1 THROUGH PAGE 155, 1 THROUGH 6. 3QUESTION: WHAT IS THAT CONTENTION BASED ON?4ANSWER: IT’s BASED UPON THE TERMINATION OF HIS 5 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORPORATION IN SEPTEMBER 1993.6QUESTION: UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1993, IT WOULD HAVE 7 BEEN PROPER FOR MR. CARTO TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSETS OF THE 8 FARREL ESTATE?9ANSWER: WE'RE NOT SURE. WE CAN'T BE SURE OF 10 THAT. MR. CARTO HAS, TO THE BEST OF OUR INVESTIGATION OR 11 KNOWLEDGE, NOT GIVEN AN ACCOUNTING TO ANYONE THAT WE KNOW OF 12 ABOUT HOW THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN DISBURSED. IT’s POSSIBLE 13 THAT HE DISBURSED THEM QUITE PROPERLY UP TO THE PERIOD OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1993. BUT WE HAVE FEARS THAT HE HAS NOT DISBURSED 15 THEM PROPERLY, AND WE HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED MR. CARTO TO 16 PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING FOR THE DISBURSEMENTS OF THESE FUNDS 17 AND HE HAS REFUSED TO DO SO.18QUESTION: WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 19 WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A PROPER DISBURSEMENT OF THE FUNDS?20ANSWER: IT’s HARD TO SAY SPECIFICALLY. FOR 21 EXAMPLE, IT’s QUITE PROPER, I WOULD THINK, FOR LEGITIMATE 22 ATTORNEY’s FEES INVOLVED IN THE RECOVERY OF ASSETS TO BE 23 PAID. IT SEEMS QUITE PROPER AND LEGITIMATE FOR ANY TAXES OR 24 FEES THAT A GOVERNMENT AS ONE KIND OR ANOTHER MIGHT LEVY TO 25 BE PAID FROM THE ESTATE IF THAT’s LEGALLY CALLED FOR. IT 26 SEEMS PERFECTLY PROPER THAT INCIDENTAL EXPENSES OF ANY KIND 27 THAT WERE LEGITIMATE IN RECOVERING THESE ASSETS BE PAID OUT 28 OF THE ASSETS, I WOULD THINK.
page 486 1BUT BY AND LARGE, IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME AND TO 2 THE REST OF US IN THE CORPORATION THAT THE MONEY FROM THE 3 FARREL-EDISON ESTATE THAT WAS LEFT BY JEAN FARREL FOR THE 4 LEGION WAS MEANT TO FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE LEGION AND 5 SPECIFICALLY THE WORK OF THE INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL 6 REVIEW, AND THAT THE DISBURSING OF FUNDS SHOULD BE PRIMARILY 7 AIMED IN THAT DIRECTION.8 NOW, SIR, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE GOALS OF THE 9 LEGION WERE THE SAME GOALS THAT MR. CARTO — STRIKE THAT. 10 WERE THEY THE SAME GOALS AS SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS 11 LIBERTY LOBBY AND FOUNDATION TO DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT? 12 A NOT TRUE. 13 Q SIR, DIDN'T THEY ALSO PROFESS ARTICLES WITH 14 RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT? 15 A WELL, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE CHARTER OR 16 THE PURPOSE OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS 17 ACCORDING TO ITS BYLAWS OR ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. 18 I'M NOT VERY SURE WHAT LEGALLY THE PURPOSE OF LIBERTY LOBBY 19 IS. BUT I KNOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF LIBERTY LOBBY AND THE 20 FOUNDATION TO DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT EVEN MORE SO IS 21 VERY DIFFERENT THAN THAT FROM THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL 22 REVIEW AND THE LEGION. 23 Q SIR, ISN'T ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE INSTITUTE OF 24 HISTORICAL REVIEW AND THE LEGION IS TO PROMOTE THE 25 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FREEDOM OF 26 SPEECH? 27 A IT’s TO PROMOTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THAT’s ONE 28 OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGION, YES.
page 487 1 Q ISN'T IT TRUE THOSE ARE THE PURPOSES OF THE 2 LIBERTY LOBBY AND FOUNDATION TO DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT? 3 A AS I SAID, I DON'T KNOW PARTICULARLY WHAT THE 4 PURPOSE OF THE F.D.F.A. IS. I KNOW IT ONLY FROM THE 5 PROMOTIONAL MAILINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OUT FROM ARTICLES 6 THAT APPEARED IN THE SPOTLIGHT NEWSPAPER. 7 Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THOSE ARTICLES IN OTHER 8 PAMPHLETS AND OTHER ARTICLES THAT YOU HAVE SEEN, BOTH OF 9 THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ARE FOR THE PROMOTION OF FREE SPEECH 10 UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT? 11 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. SPOTLIGHT, SIR. 12 MR. WAIER: I'M TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE ARTICLES AND 13 OTHER — OTHER PAMPHLETS AND PERIODICALS HE RECEIVED FROM 14 LIBERTY LOBBY. 15 THE WITNESS: I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT LIBERTY LOBBY AND THE 16 SPOTLIGHT TO KNOW ITS PURPOSE IS A VERY BROAD ONE, AND THAT 17 ITS PURPOSE AND THE ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFERENT THAN 18 THAT OF THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL REVIEW AND THE LEGION. 19 TO SAY THAT THE F.D.F.A. AND LIBERTY LOBBY AND LEGION FOR 20 THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM ARE ALL INTERESTED OR SUPPORT THE 21 FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE MIGHT BE SOME OVERLAP LIKE THAT, BUT 22 THAT THE PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIES OF THESE, AT LEAST OF THE 23 LIBERTY LOBBY AND THE I.H.R., ARE VERY DISSIMILAR. 24 25 BY MR. WAIER: 26 Q SIR, ISN'T IT TRUE LIBERTY LOBBY AND THE LEGION 27 WERE BOTH NAMED AS CODEFENDANTS IN THE MERMELSTEIN 28 LITIGATION FOR THE VERY SAME ACCUSATIONS AS WITH RESPECT TO
page 488 1 THE PURPOSES? 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. RELEVANCE. 3 MR. WAIER: WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. NOTHING FURTHER. 4 THE COURT: NO OTHER QUESTIONS? 5 MR. LANE: I HAVE SOME. 6 THE COURT: MR. LANE. 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. LANE: 10 Q GOOD AFTERNOON. 11 A GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. LANE. 12 Q WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION WITH THE LEGION ON 13 SEPTEMBER 11, 1995? 14 A I WAS SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION. I WAS NAMED 15 AS A DIRECTOR, I THINK, OF — PRIOR TO THAT DATE, SO I 16 THINK I WAS A DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME AS WELL. 17 Q DID YOU CONCEDE IN A LETTER WHICH YOU WROTE TO 18 ANDREW GRAY ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 1995, THAT IT MIGHT BE THAT 19 WILLIS CARTO WAS IN FACT ENTITLED TO THE FARREL ESTATE 20 MONEY? 21 A I DON'T RECALL. 22 Q DID YOU — DO YOU KNOW WHO ANDREW GRAY IS? 23 A YES. 24 Q WHO IS HE? 25 A HE’s AN ACQUAINTANCE WHO LIVES IN WASHINGTON, 26 D.C. HE DOES PROOFREADING FOR THE — FOR A PERIODICAL 27 CALLED THE BARNE’s REVIEW. I STAYED AT HIS HOUSE. I KNOW 28 HIM REASONABLY WELL.
page 489 1 Q AND DID YOU WRITE TO HIM AND SAY THAT EVEN IF 2 WILLIS CARTO WAS ENTITLED TO THE FARREL ESTATE MONEY, HE'S 3 OBLIGED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF AN ACCOUNTING ABOUT WHAT HE DID 4 WITH IT? 5 A I MIGHT HAVE, BUT I DON'T RECALL THAT. 6 Q AND DID YOU WRITE TO MR. GRAY AND SET FORTH WHAT 7 YOU THOUGHT — JUST A YEAR AGO, SEPTEMBER 1995, WHAT YOU 8 THOUGHT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE BESTOWAL OF THE FARREL 9 ESTATE, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THAT MONEY? 10 A I DON'T RECALL. 11 Q DID YOU WRITE TO MR. GRAY AND SAY THAT THE FARREL 12 ESTATE MONEY WAS MEANT FOR A CHARITABLE PUBLIC PURPOSE AND 13 ANY CITIZEN THAT’s LEGALLY ENTITLED TO A FULL ACCOUNTING OF 14 THE DISPOSITION? 15 A I MAY — I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL THAT 16 SPECIFICALLY. 17 Q LET ME SHOW YOU A LETTER WHICH PURPORTS TO BE A 18 LETTER FROM YOU TO MR. GRAY, DATED 11 SEPTEMBER 1995, 19 BEARING YOUR SIGNATURE. 20 THE COURT: MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE IT MARKED. 21 MR. LANE: THANK YOU. 22 THE CLERK: THAT WOULD BE EXHIBIT 194. 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: ALL RIGHT. 24 25 BY MR. LANE: 26 Q SHOW YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 194. AND 27 TAKE YOUR TIME AND READ IT, IF YOU LIKE, AND CHECK THE LAST 28 PAGE TO SEE IF IT HAS YOUR SIGNATURE.
page 490 1 A I RECOGNIZE THE LETTER AND I RECOGNIZE MY 2 SIGNATURE. 3 Q DID YOU WRITE THAT LETTER? 4 A YES, I DID. 5 Q ON PAGE 2 OF THAT LETTER, DID YOU SAY,EVEN IF 6 CARTO WAS SOMEHOW ENTITLED TO THE FARREL ESTATE MONEY, HE IS 7 OBLIGATED BY LAW AND ETHICS TO PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING OF THE 8 DISPOSITION OF IT.9 A THAT’s CORRECT. 10 Q AND DID YOU ALSO SAY TO MR. GRAY IN THE LETTER, 11BECAUSE THE FARREL ESTATE MONEY WAS MEANT FOR A CHARITABLE 12 PUBLIC PURPOSE, ANY CITIZEN IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DEMAND A 13 FULL ACCOUNTING OF THE DISPOSITION.IS THAT CORRECT? 14 A I DID WRITE THAT. 15 Q AND WERE YOU SAYING, IN ESSENCE, TO MR. GRAY WHAT 16 YOU WANTED TO KNOW IS DID WILLIS MEET THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE 17 FARREL ESTATE BY GIVING THIS TO CHARITABLE PUBLIC PURPOSE 18 ORGANIZATIONS OR DID HE KEEP IT HIMSELF? THAT’s WHAT YOU 19 ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW? 20 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. BEST EVIDENCE. DOCUMENT 21 SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 22 THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN EXPLAIN. 23 THE WITNESS: THAT’s NOT WHAT I MEANT. WHAT I MEANT 24 WAS -- 25 26 BY MR. LANE: 27 Q THE ANSWER IS NOT WHAT YOU MEANT. 28 A REPEAT THE QUESTION.
page 491 1 Q WERE YOU SAYING TO MR. GRAY THAT THE QUESTION 2 WHICH YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT WAS DID WILLIS CARTO KEEP 3 THIS MONEY FOR HIMSELF OR DID HE MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR A 4 PUBLIC CHARITABLE PURPOSE? DID YOU SAY THAT IN THE LETTER? 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR 6 ITSELF. 7 MR. LANE: WE HAVE A RULING ON THAT. THANK YOU. 8 THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN SAYYESORNO,AND 9 THEN HE CAN EXPLAIN IT. 10 THE WITNESS: WHAT I MEANT BY THAT WAS THAT THE MONEY 11 OR THE 45 PERCENT OF THE FARREL ESTATE WAS MEANT FOR THE 12 LEGION. THE LEGION IS A PUBLIC, NOT-FOR-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL 13 CHARITABLE CORPORATION, AND HOW IT SPENDS ITS MONEY, HOW IT 14 USES THE MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 15 CITIZENS ARE TO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THAT. 16 THAT BECAUSE IT WAS MEANT FOR THE LEGION, WHATEVER 17 HAPPENED TO IT, CARTO, OR WHOEVER WAS IN CONTROL OF THE 18 MONEY, HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO LET MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, 19 ANYONE, KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY. THAT’s WHAT I 20 MEANT BY THAT. 21 THE COURT: THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO TAKE THE AFTERNOON 22 BREAK. SEE YOU AT 15 AFTER. 23 24 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED.) 25 26 THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. 27 MR. LANE: MAY I PROCEED? 28 THE COURT: YES, SIR.
page 492 1 BY MR. LANE: 2 Q NOW, BEFORE THE RECESS, MR. WEBER, I ASKED YOU THE 3 QUESTION IF, WHEN YOU SAID THAT ALL YOU — IN ESSENCE, TO 4 MR. GRAY IN THIS LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1995, THAT 5 MR. CARTO WAS OBLIGATED TO MAKE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO A 6 CHARITABLE AND PUBLIC PURPOSE, YOU SAID THAT WASN'T — YOU 7 DIDN'T MEAN BY THAT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE KEPT IT FOR HIMSELF? 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. 9 THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS CAN EXPLAIN 10 ANYTHING HE WISHES TO. 11 12 BY MR. LANE: 13 Q ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAID? 14 A I MEANT WHAT I WROTE. 15 Q OKAY. LET’s SEE WHAT YOU WROTE. TAKE 16 PARAGRAPH — THIRD FULL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2. DID YOU 17 WRITE: 18Carto’s POSITION THESE DAYS — AS LAID OUT IN A 19 15 AUGUST COURT DECLARATION — IS THAT HE TOOK THE FARREL 20 ESTATE MONEY AND HAS SPENT IT TO FUND VARIOUS UNSPECIFIED,21 QUOTE,GOOD CAUSES,CLOSED QUOTE.THE ONLY EVIDENCE 22 CARTO OFFERS FOR WHAT LITTLE INFORMATION HE PROVIDES ABOUT 23 HIS DISPOSITION OF THIS MONEY IS HIS SAY SO. HE CLAIMS, FOR 24 EXAMPLE, THAT HE’s NOT TAKEN ANY OF THE MONEY FOR HIS OWN 25 PERSONAL USE, BUT PROVIDES NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO 26 SUBSTANTIATE THIS ASSERTION. HE EXPECTS EVERYONE TO SIMPLY 27 TAKE HIS WORD FOR WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT THIS.28 DID YOU WRITE THAT?
page 493 1 A YES, I DID. 2 Q THEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH, THE FOLLOWING 3 PARAGRAPH, DID YOU TALK ABOUT MR. FISCHER GIVING THE SIMILAR 4 EXPLANATION? 5 A WELL, I WROTE WHAT I WROTE. 6 Q ALL RIGHT. WE'LL READ IT, THEN. YOU DON'T WANT 7 TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 8EVEN THOUGH HENRY FISCHER WAS GIVEN PRECISELY THE 9 SAME—THE SAME LEGAL AUTHORITY AS CARTO TO TAKE CONTROL 10 OF FARREL ESTATE MONEY, NEITHER CARTO NOR FISCHER WILL 11 PROVIDE ANY ACCOUNTING OF FISCHER’s DISPOSITION OF FARREL 12 ESTATE FUNDS.13 DID YOU WRITE THAT? 14 A YES, I DID. 15 Q AND THEN IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, YOU TALK ABOUT THE 16 COSTA MESA POLICE INVESTIGATING; IS THAT RIGHT? 17 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR 18 ITSELF. INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND ARGUE IT LATER. 19 THE WITNESS: AMONG OTHER THINGS, YES. 20 THE COURT: OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. 21 22 BY MR. LANE: 23 Q AND THEN DID YOU SAY IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, 24 PICKING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PARAGRAPH,EVEN IF CARTO 25 WAS SOMEHOW ENTITLED TO THE FARREL ESTATE MONEY, HE IS 26 OBLIGED BY LAW AND ETHICS TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF ACCOUNTING 27 OF HIS DISPOSITION OF IT? 28 A YES.
page 494 1 Q DID YOU WRITE THAT? 2 A YES. 3 Q YOU KNEW AT THAT TIME THE FUND HAD NOT GONE TO THE 4 LEGION, DIDN'T YOU? 5 A IN SUBSTANCE, YES. 6 Q AND YOU WERE SAYING EVEN THOUGH THE MONEY DID NOT 7 GO TO THE LEGION, WE THINK THAT MR. CARTO HAS TO TELL WHAT 8 HE DID WITH THE MONEY TO SEE THAT IT WENT TO THE GOOD 9 CAUSES, NOT THAT HE KEPT IT HIMSELF? ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU 10 WROTE? 11 A NO, THAT’s WHAT I WROTE, BUT THAT’s — YOU ARE 12 ASKING FOR MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I WROTE, AREN'T YOU? 13 Q NO, I'M ASKING WHAT YOU WROTE. 14 A WHAT I WROTE IS THERE. 15 Q AND THEN YOU SAYBECAUSE THE FARREL ESTATE WAS 16 MEANT FOR A CHARITABLE, PUBLIC PURPOSE, ANY CITIZEN IS 17 LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DEMAND A FULL ACCOUNTING OF ITS 18 DISPOSITION.19 IS THAT CORRECT? 20 A YES. 21 Q DID YOU MENTION THIS LETTER TO MR. GRAY — AFTER 22 TALKING ABOUT THIS, DID YOU MENTION THE FACT THAT THE MONEY 23 HAD TO GO TO THE LEGION AND NO PLACE ELSE? 24 A WELL, I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT. BUT I HAVE TO 25 READ THROUGH THE WHOLE LETTER. 26 Q TAKE YOUR TIME. 27 A I DON'T THINK I MENTIONED THE POINT SPECIFICALLY 28 THAT YOU ARE RAISING, MR. LANE.
page 495 1 Q THANK YOU. NOW, DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS A -- 2 THAT THERE WERE MINUTES OF A BOARD MEETING OF THE LEGION ON 3 MARCH 5, 1991, SIGNED BY LAVONNE FURR WHICH TALKED ABOUT 4 WHERE THE FUNDS SHOULD GO? 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, WOULD MR. LANE PLEASE SHOW 6 THE WITNESS THE EXHIBIT. 7 THE COURT: IT’s IN THE STACK THERE. I DON'T THINK HE 8 HAS TO SHOW IT TO HIM IF THE WITNESS CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION 9 WITHOUT SHOWING IT TO HIM. 10 THE WITNESS: I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MINUTES OF TWO 11 PURPORTED BOARD MEETINGS TAKING PLACE AT THE SAME DAY AND AT 12 THE SAME TIME. EACH OF THE MINUTES PURPORT TO BE MINUTES OF 13 BOARD MEETINGS TAKING PLACE ON THAT DAY. 14 15 BY MR. LANE: 16 Q MARCH 5, 1991? 17 A YES. 18 Q TAKE A LOOK AT ONE OF THEM, EXHIBIT 42. WOULD YOU 19 TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 42 AND TELL ME IF YOU HAVE EVER SEEN 20 THE TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT BEFORE. 21 A YES, I HAVE. 22 Q AND SECOND PAGE IS SIGNED BY LAVONNE FURR? 23 A IT HAS HER SIGNATURE ON IT, YES. 24 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. EXHIBIT 41, IS THAT WHAT 25 THE WITNESS IS LOOKING AT? 26 MR. WAIER: I'M SORRY, IT IS EXHIBIT 41. EXCUSE ME. 27 THE COURT: 42, BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 41. 41 IS A 28 TWO-PAGE EXHIBIT; EXHIBIT 42 IS A ONE-PAGE EXHIBIT.
page 496 1 BY MR. LANE: 2 Q IT HAS LAVONNE FURR’s SIGNATURE? 3 A YES. 4 Q IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 1 OF THIS EXHIBIT, PARAGRAPH 5 NO. 2, DOES IT READ:RESOLVED, THAT THE FUNDS FROM THE 6 ESTATE OF MISS JEAN FARREL NOT BE ACCEPTED INTO THE 7 CORPORATION BUT INSTEAD DIRECTED TO A SUITABLE INDEPENDENT 8 ORGANIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A GENERAL 9 NONPROFIT ADVERTISING, PUBLISHING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS 10 BUSINESS THROUGH THE MEDIA OF BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, MAGAZINES, 11 RADIO, TELEVISION, NEWSLETTERS, NEWSPAPERS, AUDIO AND VIDEO 12 CASSETTES AND ANY OTHER MEDIUM TO AID AND ASSIST IN THE 13 PROMOTION AND PRESERVATION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND FREEDOM 14 OF SPEECH IN THE AREAS OF GOVERNMENT, RELIGION, SCIENCE, 15 HISTORY, THE ARTS, MEDICINE, PHILOSOPHY, THE PRESS AND THE 16 WRITTEN AND SPOKEN WORD; TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE OF ALL 17 COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, IN THE CREATIVE 18 PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY UNDER LAW.19 IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS? 20 A THAT’s WHAT IT SAYS. 21 Q DID YOU READ THIS BEFORE YOU WROTE YOUR LETTER TO 22 MR. GRAY OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1995? 23 A PROBABLY. YES. 24 Q AND WAS YOUR LETTER TO MR. GRAY IN CONFORMITY WITH 25 THE MINUTES WHEN YOU WERE SAYING TO MR. GRAY, IN ESSENCE, WE 26 WANT TO FIND OUT IF WILLIS CARTO KEPT THE MONEY OR USED IT 27 FOR GOOD CAUSES FOR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS? 28 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
page 497 1 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 2 THE WITNESS: REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE. 3 (THE RECORD WAS READ.) 4 THE WITNESS: MR. LANE, IT’s A COMPOUND QUESTION. AND 5 THERE — IT’s OBSCURE WHAT IS MEANT BY CONFORMITY. I 6 DIDN'T THINK IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH HAVING READ THESE 7 PURPORTED MINUTES. AND IT’s SO COMPOUND, IT’s DIFFICULT FOR 8 ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. 9 10 BY MR. LANE: 11 Q IF IT’s TOO DIFFICULT, WE'LL SKIP IT. 12 NOW, DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOU THOUGHT WILLIS 13 CARTO MIGHT FIRE YOU? 14 A THERE CAME A TIME IN 1993, I BELIEVE IT WAS, WHEN 15 I LEARNED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO REPLACE ME WITH ANOTHER 16 EDITOR. 17 Q WHEN WAS THAT? 18 A I SAID 1993. I DON'T REMEMBER, THOUGH. 19 Q YOU SAID 1993? 20 A I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHEN. 21 Q IN APRIL OF 1993, DID YOU WRITE A MEMORANDUM IN 22 WHICH YOU WERE DISCUSSING WHETHER WILLIS CARTO WAS GOING TO 23 FIRE YOU? 24 A I MIGHT HAVE. I DON'T RECALL. 25 Q AND DID YOU COMPLAIN IN LETTERS, IN MEMORANDA THAT 26 WILLIS CARTO WAS RUDE TO YOU? 27 A I THINK I WROTE THAT IN THE LETTER TO LAVONNE AND 28 LEWIS FURR. I RECALL WRITING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, YEAH.
page 498 1 Q DID YOU WRITE LETTERS TO — MANY LETTERS TO 2 LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR? 3 A I WROTE ONE LETTER ON MY OWN, I THINK, TO LAVONNE 4 AND LEWIS FURR. AND THEN I WROTE OR SIGNED THE LETTERS, ONE 5 OR MORE LETTERS WRITTEN BY SEVERAL OF US TO LAVONNE AND 6 LEWIS FURR. 7 Q DID YOU EVER THREATEN THEM WITH UNPLEASANT 8 CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DIDN'T DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM 9 MR. CARTO AND JOIN YOUR SIDE? 10 A I DID NOT THREATEN THEM. I DID EXPRESS THE FEAR 11 THAT UNLESS THEY ACTED IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY, THERE COULD BE 12 SORRY CONSEQUENCES FOR THEM. 13 Q WHAT CONSEQUENCES DID YOU PREDICT MIGHT BEFALL 14 THEM IF THEY DIDN'T DO WHAT YOU ASKED THEM TO DO? 15 A I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. I THINK YOU WILL FIND 16 THAT IN THE LETTER THAT I WROTE TO THE FURRS OR THAT I 17 SIGNED. 18 Q AND DID YOU ASK THEM TO SIGN MINUTES OF A 19 DIRECTORS MEETING APPOINTING NEW DIRECTORS? 20 A WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I DID PERSONALLY, BUT I 21 THINK IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHERS, I MAY HAVE, YES. 22 Q YOU SENT THEM A FORM, TOLD THEM TO SIGN IT AND GET 23 IT NOTARIZED? 24 A I THINK SO. MY MEMORY IS VAGUE ON THAT. I 25 RECALL. 26 Q WHO DRAFTED THAT MINUTES OF A DIRECTORS MEETING 27 THAT YOU WANTED THEM TO SIGN? 28 A I DON'T RECALL.
page 499 1 Q DID YOU DRAFT IT? 2 A I MIGHT HAVE. 3 Q SO YOU MIGHT HAVE DRAFTED MINUTES WHICH YOU SENT 4 TO LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR AND TOLD THEM THEY BETTER SIGN IT 5 AND GET IT NOTARIZED OR THERE COULD BE DIRE CONSEQUENCES; IS 6 THAT RIGHT? 7 A I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT EXACTLY. I DON'T 8 RECALL. 9 Q YOU DON'T REMEMBER IF YOU SAID WHAT? 10 A MR. LANE, WHY DON'T YOU CITE THE LETTER? I DON'T 11 REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT I SAID OR WROTE. 12 Q DID YOU WRITE TO THEM SAYING THAT A LAWSUIT WILL 13 INEVITABLY MEAN THAT THIS ENTIRE MATTER WOULD BECOME PUBLIC 14 OR YOUR FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE 15 LEGACIES, TAXES AND SO FORTH, WILL COME UNDER PUBLIC 16 SCRUTINY? 17 A I MAY HAVE. 18 Q AND DID YOU WRITE SAYING:POWERFUL AND HOSTILE 19 ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE, ADL, AND 20 THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER, ARE LIKELY TO TAKE A KEEN 21 INTEREST IN THIS CASE? 22 A I MIGHT HAVE. 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECT TO THE LINE OF QUESTIONING. 24 THIS IS THE SAME SUBJECT THAT WAS GONE INTO IN THE POLIS 25 LITIGATION, THE KERR VERSUS LEGION. IT’s BEEN RULED ON BY 26 THE COURT OF APPEAL. I HAVE IT WITH ME. 27 THE COURT: THAT MAY BE TRUE. I THINK HE CAN IMPEACH A 28 WITNESS SHOWING BIAS, INTEREST, MOTIVE, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW
page 500 1 WHAT JUDGE POLIS SAID IN THIS STATEMENT OF DECISION. I 2 THINK HE CAN USE THIS INFORMATION FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE 3 USED FOR THAT. 4 5 BY MR. LANE: 6 Q HOW OLD WAS LEWIS FURR IN 1993? 7 A I DON'T KNOW. 8 Q ABOUT HOW OLD, DO YOU KNOW? 9 A I SUPPOSE HE WAS IN HIS 70'S. 10 Q HOW ABOUT LAVONNE FURR? 11 A I ASSUME ABOUT THE SAME AGE. I HAD NOT MET THEM 12 AT THE TIME. 13 Q DID YOU SAY TO THEM THAT IT’s LIKELY THAT CARTO 14 WILL ABANDON YOU, WASHING HIS HANDS OF THE LEGION AND YOU 15 HAVE NO SUCH OPTION? 16 A I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL, MR. LANE. 17 Q NOW, DID YOU GIVE A DECLARATION IN THIS — DID 18 YOU OFFER A DECLARATION ON NOVEMBER 28, 1993? 19 A I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL GIVING A DECLARATION 20 ON THAT PRECISE DATE. 21 Q DID YOU DESCRIBE LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR AS AN 22 ELDERLY RETIRED COUPLE? 23 A I MAY HAVE. PROBABLY. 24 Q WHEN YOU WROTE TO THE ELDERLY RETIRED COUPLE, DID 25 YOU TELL THEM THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THE DIFFICULTIES WAS TO 26 SIGN MINUTES ABOUT A MEETING WHICH NEVER TOOK PLACE; 27 OTHERWISE — AND HAVE IT NOTARIZED; OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD 28 BE IN TROUBLE?
page 501 1 A I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. BUT MR. LANE, IF I DID, 2 IF YOU HAVE A LETTER SHOWING THAT AND I RECOGNIZE IT, I'LL 3 ACKNOWLEDGE IT. 4 THE CLERK: THAT WILL BE EXHIBIT 195. 5 6 BY MR. LANE: 7 Q I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A THREE-PAGE LETTER AND A 8 ONE-PAGE ATTACHMENT. LETTER IS DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1993, 9 AND ASK IF YOUR SIGNATURE APPEARS ON PAGE 3 OF THAT LETTER. 10 MR. BEUGELMANS: MAY I SEE THE DOCUMENT. 11 MR. LANE: I THOUGHT YOU HAVE SEEN IT. I'M SORRY. 12 13 BY MR. LANE: 14 Q IS THAT YOUR SIGNATURE ON PAGE 3, MR. WEBER? 15 A YES. YES. 16 Q AND DID YOU WRITE THIS LETTER? 17 A WELL, IT’s SIGNED BY FOUR OF US. AND I DON'T 18 REMEMBER WHO DRAFTED IT OR WHO ALL INVOLVED WAS WRITING IT. 19 BUT I PROBABLY HAD A ROLE IN WRITING IT. 20 Q YOU SIGNED IT? 21 A YES, I DID. 22 Q DID YOU SEND THIS FOURTH PAGE ALONG ENTITLED 23MINUTES OF DIRECTORS MEETING? 24 A I DON'T REMEMBER IF I PERSONALLY DID, BUT I 25 REMEMBER THE LETTER AND I REMEMBER THE ATTACHMENT YOU ARE 26 DESCRIBING. 27 Q WHO PREPARED THAT ATTACHMENT ENTITLEDMINUTES? 28 A I DON'T RECALL.
page 502 1 Q WAS IT DONE BY LAVONNE AND LEWIS FURR? 2 A NO, IT WASN'T. 3 Q WAS THERE EVER SUCH A MEETING THAT YOU WANTED THEM 4 TO SIGN A STATEMENT SAYING IT TOOK PLACE? 5 A SINCE THEY DIDN'T ACT ON IT, IT’s ONLY A 6 SUGGESTION OR A PROPOSAL OF A MEETING. THE MEETING DID NOT 7 TAKE PLACE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 8 Q IN OTHER WORDS, THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING WERE 9 WRITTEN BEFORE THE MEETING TOOK PLACE; IS THAT RIGHT? 10 A IT’s A DRAFT. YES. 11 Q AND YOU SAY IT WAS A SUGGESTION? 12 A WELL, MORE THAN A SUGGESTION. 13 Q WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? 14 A IT’s URGING THEM TO HOLD A MEETING AS LAID OUT IN 15 THAT PROPOSED MINUTES. 16 Q AND YOU TOLD THEM THEY WOULD BE IN GREAT 17 DIFFICULTY IF THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT? 18 A WE WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIME LIMIT THAT 19 WAS COMING UP AT THAT TIME, THAT WE WANTED THEM TO ACT 20 QUICKLY. WE HAD HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM PRIOR 21 TO THAT TIME. THEY HAD NEITHER RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST, 22 NOR HAD THEY CONTACTED ANYONE TO GET COUNSEL ON WHAT TO DO. 23 WE WERE VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE PRESS OF TIME, AND WE WANTED 24 THEM TO ACT QUICKLY. 25 Q DO YOU REMEMBER MY QUESTION? 26 A COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE. 27 MR. LANE: READ BACK THE QUESTION. 28 (THE RECORD WAS READ.)
page 503 1 BY MR. LANE: 2 Q IS THAT TRUE? 3 A PROBABLY. I HAVE TO READ THE LETTER CAREFULLY TO 4 REFRESH MY MEMORY ABOUT THAT. 5 Q READ IT. 6 A WELL, I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE IT WITH THE WORDS 7 YOU USED, MR. LANE. I THINK THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 8 Q IT’s NOT A THREAT? 9 A I DON'T CONSIDER IT A THREAT, NO. 10 Q AND THIS WAS, YOU SAY, NOT THE FIRST DOCUMENT 11 WHICH WAS SENT TO THEM FROM YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES; IS THAT 12 CORRECT? 13 A WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS. AGAIN, I'M A BIT 14 UNSURE ABOUT THE TIME OF WHEN VARIOUS LETTERS WERE SENT. 15 THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL. 16 Q DIDN'T YOU JUST TESTIFY IT WAS BECAUSE THEY DID 17 NOT ANSWER YOUR PREVIOUS LETTERS? 18 A NO. 19 Q BECAUSE THEY DID NOT RESPOND, THAT YOU SENT 20 EXHIBIT 195 TO THEM? DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY TO THAT? 21 A THEY DID NOT ACT UPON THE PREVIOUS LETTERS. THEY 22 DID NOT RESPOND WITH ANY KIND OF ACTION ONE WAY OR THE 23 OTHER. 24 Q THAT’s WHY YOU SENT THIS LETTER, 195? 25 A AS I RECALL, YES. 26 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MAKE SURE YOU DON'T OVERRIDE 27 EACH OTHER. IT’s DIFFICULT. 28 MR. LANE: YES. THANK YOU.
page 504 1 THE COURT: JUST DID IT. 2 MR. LANE: TRY TO BE MORE CAREFUL, YOUR HONOR. 3 4 BY MR. LANE: 5 Q WHY DID YOU TELL THIS ELDERLY RETIRED COUPLE THAT 6 THEY WOULD BE SUED AND EVERYTHING, INCLUDING POSSIBLE 7 LEGACIES AND TAXES WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC? WHY DID YOU TELL 8 THEM THAT? 9 A WELL, IT’s A COMPOUND QUESTION, MR. LANE. I DID 10 NOT TELL THEM THEY WOULD BE SUED, AS I RECALL. I THINK 11 I — WE OR I EXPRESSED THE BELIEF OR THE CONCERN THAT THEY 12 MIGHT BE OR COULD BE SUED. BUT TO GET TO THE HEART OF YOUR 13 QUESTION, WE WROTE TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HELD LEGALLY -- 14 IMPORTANT LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY THAT THEY, AT 15 THE SAME TIME, DISAVOWED, AND THAT THIS LEGAL AUTHORITY AND 16 RESPONSIBILITY INVOLVED THE INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW 17 FOR WHICH I WAS IN LARGE PART PUBLICLY RESPONSIBLE. 18 Q YOU JUST TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT TELL THEM THAT 19 THEY WOULD BE SUED; IS THAT RIGHT? 20 A I SAID I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE 21 SUED. I MIGHT HAVE, BUT I DON'T RECALL THAT. 22 Q DID YOU SAY IF YOU DO NOT — THAT IS, FILL OUT 23 THE FORMS OF A MEETING WHICH NEVER TOOK PLACE, IF YOU DID 24 NOT DO THAT AND GET IT NOTARIZED, WE WOULD HAVE NO 25 ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SERVE YOU WITH LEGAL PAPERS? DID YOU 26 WRITE THAT? 27 A POSSIBLY. 28 Q TAKE A LOOK HERE.
page 505 1 A YES. WELL, I SIGNED THE LETTER, YES. 2 Q THAT’s WHAT THE LETTER SAYS? 3 A THAT’s CORRECT. 4 QNO ALTERNATIVEMEANS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SUE 5 THEM; IS THAT CORRECT? 6 A NO. IT SAYS SERVE WITH LEGAL PAPERS. 7 Q WHAT LEGAL PAPERS DID YOU HAVE IN MIND? 8 A I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN A LAWSUIT, SOME SORT OF 9 ACTION. I DON'T — IT WAS — WE DIDN'T HAVE IN MIND — I 10 DIDN'T HAVE IN MIND A SPECIFIC ACTION, SOMETHING LEGALLY TO 11 BE DONE. 12 Q SO YOU THREATENED THEM WITH LEGAL ACTION AND YOU 13 DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AT THAT POINT, IS YOUR TESTIMONY? 14 A MY TESTIMONY IS THAT THE PRECISE NATURE OF WHAT 15 LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN WAS NOT CERTAIN AT THAT TIME. 16 Q WHAT DID YOU MEAN THAT THE LEGACIES AND TAXES 17 WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC, SINCE YOU HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO 18 SERVE LEGAL PAPERS? 19 A THE REASON FOR MENTIONING LEGACIES AND TAXES WAS 20 BECAUSE LAVONNE FURR HAD TOLD TOM MARCELLUS — THIS IS 21 HEARSAY, BUT HAD TOLD TOM MARCELLUS -- 22 Q I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT, THEN. 23 OBJECT. 24 A ARE YOU ASKING FOR WHY I WROTE THAT OR WHY THIS IS 25 THERE, MR. LANE? 26 Q I SAID WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY LEGACY — WHAT DID 27 YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID THE LEGACIES WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC? 28 A WELL, I'M NOT SURE. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I MEANT
page 506 1 AT THE TIME BY THAT. 2 Q WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID YOUR TAXES WILL BE 3 MADE PUBLIC? 4 A WELL, WHEN YOU SAYWHAT DO YOU MEAN— THE 5 REASON THIS CAME UP IS BECAUSE -- 6 Q I'M NOT ASKING WHAT ANYBODY TOLD YOU. I'M ASKING 7 WHAT YOU MEANT TO CONVEY TO THEM. 8 A WHAT I MEANT TO CONVEY WAS TO REMIND THEM OF THE 9 CONSEQUENCES THAT LAVONNE FURR HAD ALREADY EXPRESSED WITH 10 REGARD TO ANOTHER LEGAL MATTER, AN IMBROGLIO SHE HAD BEEN 11 INVOLVED IN WITH WILLIS CARTO. 12 Q IN OTHER WORDS, SHE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE 13 INFORMATION AND YOU WROTE A THREE-PAGE LETTER TO REMIND HER 14 WHAT SHE SAID; IS THAT RIGHT? 15 A NO, THAT’s NOT — IT’s AN INACCURATE 16 CHARACTERIZATION. 17 Q AND DID YOU WRITE THAT LETTER TO MR. AND MRS. FURR 18 ABOUT A WEEK AFTER YOU HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO LEWIS FURR IN 19 WHICH YOU CONCEDED THAT THEY JUST WANTED TO BE LEFT IN 20 PEACE? 21 A I MIGHT HAVE. 22 THE CLERK: THIS WILL BE EXHIBIT 196. 23 24 BY MR. LANE: 25 Q I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT PURPORTS TO BE A LETTER 26 FROM YOU ALONE, SIGNED MARK WEBER, EDITOR, TO LEWIS FURR, 27 AND ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE. 28 A I RECALL THIS LETTER, YES.
page 507 1 Q AND DID YOU CONCEDE IN THERE THAT YOU NOW REACHED 2 THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY JUST WANT TO BE LEFT IN PEACE? 3 A WELL, I WROTE, AS YOU CAN READ, MR. LANE: 4APPARENTLY YOU AND LAVONNE FURR WISH TO BE LEFT IN PEACE 5 AND HAVE NOTHING MORE TO DO WITH THE LEGION AND ITS 6 PROBLEMS.SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 7 Q AND THE LETTER — YOU SENT THEM EXHIBIT 195, 8 RIGHT? 9 A THAT’s CORRECT. 10 Q HAD YOU, SIX DAYS BEFORE THEN, SENT A LETTER WITH 11 YOUR COLLEAGUES TO MR. AND MRS. FURR? 12 A I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. 13 THE CLERK: THIS WILL BE EXHIBIT 197. 14 15 BY MR. LANE: 16 Q WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 1993. 17 NOW, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT LETTER BEFORE, MR. WEBER? 18 A I BELIEVE SO. YES. 19 Q DID YOU SIGN IT? 20 A WELL, IT’s A LITTLE ODD IN THAT IT’s A 21 BACK-TO-BACK COPY AND I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT NO LETTER WAS 22 SENT IN THIS FORM. IT APPEARS TO BE A COPY, AND IN AN ODD 23 WAY, OF THE TWO-PAGE LETTER I SIGNED AND SENT. 24 Q IS THAT YOUR SIGNATURE? 25 A YES, IT IS. 26 Q WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS, THE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 27 1993 -- 28 A WELL, I THINK THE PURPOSE IS EVIDENT FROM THE
page 508 1 LETTER ITSELF. 2 Q WE'RE NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL INTO THE RECORD. 3 PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP US WITH A SENTENCE OR TWO. 4 A WELL, IT WAS ANOTHER LETTER TO STRONGLY URGE THE 5 FURRS TO ACT BOTH IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND IN ACCORD WITH 6 THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ON BEHALF OF THE L.S.F. AND THE 7 I.H.R. 8 Q DID YOU TELL THE FURRS IN THE LETTER WILLIS CARTO 9 CANNOT HELP THEM, ONLY YOU CAN HELP THEM, YOU AND YOUR 10 LAWYER? 11 A WELL, YES. 12 Q WHAT POSITION DID THE FURRS HAVE WITH THE LEGION, 13 IF ANY, ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1993? 14 A I BELIEVE THEY WERE DIRECTORS -- 15 Q AND -- 16 A — AND OFFICERS. 17 Q HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS? 18 A FOR SOME YEARS. 19 THE CLERK: THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE 198. 20 21 BY MR. LANE: 22 Q AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM EXHIBIT 195, I THINK IT IS, 23 YOU WANTED THE FURRS TO SIGN MINUTES OF A BOARD MEETING. 24 AND YOU SENT SOME LETTERS TO THEM ABOUT THAT, IS THAT 25 CORRECT, STRONGLY URGING THEM TO DO THAT? 26 A YES. 27 Q THAT’s BECAUSE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? 28 A YES.
page 509 1 Q OFFICERS? 2 A YES. 3 Q AND ON AUGUST 21ST, 1994, DID YOU WRITE TO THEM 4 SAYING THAT THEY WERE MAINTAINING A FRAUD THAT THEY SOMEHOW 5 REPRESENTED THE CORPORATION? 6 A I DON'T -- 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: '94? 8 MR. LANE: YES. 9 THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THAT. I MIGHT HAVE. I 10 DON'T RECALL THAT. 11 12 BY MR. LANE: 13 Q LET ME SHOW YOU THIS LETTER. 14 A 1994? 15 Q THAT’s WHAT I SAID. 16 A YES, I MAY HAVE WRITTEN — SAID THAT. 17 Q WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT EXHIBIT. 18 A YES, I RECOGNIZE THIS. 19 Q DID YOU SIGN THAT LETTER? 20 A YES, I DID. 21 Q AND DID YOU TELL MR. AND MRS. FURR ON AUGUST 21, 22 1994, THAT IT WAS IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS TO ACT TO 23 PROTECT THEMSELVES? 24 A I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL THAT SPECIFICALLY, 25 MR. LANE. 26 Q PAGE 2, DID YOU SAY THAT? 27 A YES. 28 Q AND DID YOU TELL THEM THEY WERE INVOLVED IN FRAUD
page 510 1 BY CLAIMING TO SOMEHOW REPRESENT THE CORPORATION? 2 A YES, I DID. 3 Q DID YOU TELL THEM THAT MIGHT PUT THEM IN SERIOUS 4 LEGAL JEOPARDY? 5 A I MIGHT HAVE. 6 Q OH? 7 A MAY PUT YOU IN SERIOUS LEGAL JEOPARDY, YES, I DID 8 WRITE THAT. 9 Q DID YOU SAY THE MORE THEY PERSIST IN THAT 10 MISREPRESENTATION, THE MORE THEY MAY PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK? 11 A THE MORE YOU MAY PUT YOURSELF AT RISK, I WROTE 12 THAT, YES. 13 Q NOW, HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN ANY ARTICLES ABOUT THIS 14 LITIGATION? 15 A YES, I HAVE. WELL, I'VE WRITTEN ARTICLES ABOUT 16 THIS WHOLE — THIS CONFLICT, INCLUDING THIS LITIGATION. 17 Q IN THAT — IN AN ARTICLE THAT YOU WROTE, DID YOU 18 MAKE REFERENCE TO ME? 19 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR. 20 THE COURT: WHAT RELEVANCE IS IT IF HE LIKES YOU OR 21 DISLIKES OR ANYTHING ELSE? 22 MR. LANE: IF HE LIKES OR DISLIKES ME IS NOT RELEVANT. 23 I WASN'T ASKING FOR THAT PURPOSE. 24 THE COURT: OKAY. GIVE ME AN OFFER OF PROOF. 25 MR. LANE: HE REFERRED TO ME AS AN EAST COAST JEWISH 26 ATTORNEY, MARK LANE. NOT A QUESTION WHETHER HE LIKES ME, 27 YOUR HONOR. IT’s A QUESTION WHETHER HE, WHO MADE STATEMENTS 28 ABOUT MR. CARTO BEING A RACIST, HAS MADE THIS STATEMENT.
page 511 1 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT’s NOT 2 RELEVANT. AND IN THE ESSENCE OF THE LITIGATION MR. WAIER 3 AND I WOULD PRESENT IN COURT, WE WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO 4 INTERJECT THE PARTIES' VIEWS, CRACKPOT OR OTHERWISE, IN THIS 5 LITIGATION. 6 MR. LANE: IF THEY'RE CRACKPOT VIEWS, I'LL WITHDRAW THE 7 QUESTION. 8 THE COURT: SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. I SEE THIS AND I'VE 9 ALWAYS SEEN THIS AS A BUSINESS CASE. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF 10 THESE ORGANIZATIONS IN FRONT OF ME ARE THE A.C.L.U. AND 11 HANDGUN CONTROL OR WHATEVER. IT DOESN'T MATTER. 12 MR. LANE: SINCE THAT WAS MY LAST QUESTION, NO MORE 13 QUESTIONS. 14 THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT? 15 MR. BEUGELMANS: BRIEFLY. 16 THE COURT: REMEMBER, THE PURPOSE OF REDIRECT AND 17 RECROSS IS NOT TO GET THE LAST WORD IN. DO SOMETHING NEW. 18 MR. BEUGELMANS: I UNDERSTAND. IT WILL BE BRIEF. 19 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 22 Q SIR, THE COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION WAS FILED IN 23 JULY OF 1994. DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN? 24 A IT WAS IN SEPTEMBER 1995. I DON'T REMEMBER. IN 25 '94. I DON'T REMEMBER. 26 MR. BEUGELMANS: COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT THAT 27 YOU READ FROM? 28 MR. WAIER: YOU CAN USE YOUR OWN. MINE IS MARKED UP
page 512 1 WITH MY OWN -- 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: SEE THE COVERS FOR THE DATE OF THE 3 DEPOSITION. 4 MR. WAIER: I BELIEVE IT MAY BE MARKED UP. 5 MR. LANE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1994. 6 7 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 8 Q 1994, CORRECT? 9 A THAT’s ONLY PART OF IT. IT WAS OVER SEVERAL DAYS. 10 Q IT BEGAN SEPTEMBER 16, 1994, THEREABOUTS? 11 A THEREABOUTS, YES. 12 Q AT THAT TIME, DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL 13 INFORMATION CONCERNING FACTS OF THIS CASE OTHER THAN WHAT 14 WAS IN THE COMPLAINT? 15 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. HEARSAY. 16 LACKS FOUNDATION. 17 THE COURT: MY GOODNESS. 18 MR. WAIER: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. 19 THE COURT: SHOTGUN OBJECTIONS. I THINK IT’s ASKED AND 20 ANSWERED, REALLY. I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. 21 22 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 23 Q AS OF THE TIME YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN IN THE 24 ACTION, HAD YOU EVER SEEN THE ACCOUNTING PREPARED BY WILLIS 25 CARTO OR ON BEHALF OF WILLIS CARTO TO WHAT BECAME OF THE 26 FARREL BEQUEATH? 27 A NO. 28 Q HAVE YOU SEEN SUCH AN ACCOUNTING?
page 513 1 A NOT A COMPLETE ACCOUNTING, NO. 2 Q AT THE TIME YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN IN SEPTEMBER 3 1994, DID YOU KNOW THAT $1,657,000 HAD BEEN BORROWED BY 4 LIBERTY LOBBY FROM THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY LIBERTY LOBBY 5 AT BANQUE CONTRADE LAUSANNE? 6 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION AND ALSO LEADING. 8 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 9 THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC FIGURES OR 10 AMOUNTS. AT THE TIME MY DEPOSITION WAS GIVEN, I WAS NOT AS 11 AWARE AS I BECAME LATER ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY WAS MOVED 12 AROUND AND BY WHOM AND WHERE. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, I FIRST 13 LEARNED THAT FAIRLY SPECIFIC — FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS 14 OF MONEY GOING -- 15 MR. WAIER: MOVE TO STRIKE AS NONRESPONSIVE AND OUTSIDE 16 THE SCOPE OF THE QUESTION. 17 THE COURT: SUSTAINED ON BEING NONRESPONSIVE. 18 19 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 20 Q SIR, WHEN YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN IN THIS 21 ACTION, DID YOU KNOW WHAT VIBET, INC., WAS? 22 A NO. 23 Q DID YOU KNOW WHO SET UP VIBET, INC.? 24 A NO. 25 Q HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGION OF THE 26 SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., WHEN THE DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN? 27 A I HEARD OF IT. 28 Q DO YOU KNOW WHO SET IT UP?
page 514 1 A NO. 2 Q DID YOU KNOW WHO CONTROLS IT? 3 A NO. 4 Q AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU KNOW WHO CONTROLS 5 VIBET, INC.? 6 A NO. 7 Q AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU KNOW WHO CONTROLS 8 THE INTERNATIONAL LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC.? 9 A NOT FOR SURE. 10 Q NOW, MR. LANE HAS PRESENTED YOU WITH A SERIES OF 11 LETTERS BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 1 — I'M SORRY, BEGINNING 12 AUGUST 21 AND EXTENDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 1993, TO LEWIS 13 AND LAVONNE FURR. 14 A YES. 15 Q IS THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE YOU 16 SENT TO LEWIS AND LAVONNE FURR DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME? 17 A NO. 18 Q WERE THERE OTHER CORRESPONDENCE? 19 A YES. 20 Q IN YOUR OTHER CORRESPONDENCE — STRIKE THAT. 21 IN SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT IS BEFORE YOU, 22 SIR, THAT’s EXHIBIT 195, 196, 197 AND 198, YOU SUGGESTED 23 THAT TO THE FURRS, THEY SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE. 24 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 25 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 26 MR. LANE: MAY I SUGGEST THE QUESTION IS 27 UNINTELLIGIBLE. HE ASKED ABOUT FOUR DOCUMENTS AND HE'S 28 ASKING ABOUT ONE SENTENCE.
page 515 1 MR. BEUGELMANS: I'LL REPHRASE THE QUESTION. 2 3 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 4 Q MR. WEBER, IN THE PERIOD OF TIME IN QUESTION, 5 FROM, LET’s SAY, MID AUGUST THROUGH LATE SEPTEMBER 1993, DID 6 YOU EVER SEND A LETTER TO THE FURRS IN WHICH YOU SUGGESTED 7 THEY SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE? 8 A YES. 9 Q DID YOU MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THEM THAT SUGGESTS 10 TO THEM — STRIKE THAT. 11 DID YOU MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THE FURRS ON MORE 12 THAN ONE OCCASION? 13 A I THINK SO. I CAN'T RECALL FOR SURE. 14 Q I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A LETTER DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 4, 1993, TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT, WHICH WE'LL MARK AS 16 EXHIBIT -- 17 MR. LANE: MAY WE SEE THAT ONE? 18 MR. BEUGELMANS: EXHIBIT 200, IS THAT NEXT, OR 199? 19 THE CLERK: 199. 20 21 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 22 Q SHOW YOU A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1993. 23 MR. WAIER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS LETTER AS BEING 24 NOT FOR IMPEACHMENT. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO 25 US IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE. IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE 26 EXHIBIT LIST. THEY'RE NOW BRINGING A DOCUMENT IN MAYBE FOR 27 PURPOSES OF REHABILITATION. THE ONLY TIME A DOCUMENT DOES 28 NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED IS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
page 516 1 THE COURT: WHAT IS THE DOCUMENT GOING TO SAY? 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: ANOTHER LETTER THAT URGES THE FURRS TO 3 SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL AND CONFIRMS THEY HAVE SOUGHT 4 COUNSEL. 5 THE COURT: FRANKLY, I ALREADY HAVE TESTIMONY ON THAT. 6 I DON'T NEED TO SEE A LETTER ABOUT IT. 7 8 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 9 Q AT THE TIME, SIR, THAT YOU AND MR. MARCELLUS, 10 MR. RAVEN AND O’Keefe WERE CORRESPONDING WITH THE FURRS IN 11 AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1993, WERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO DISCOVER 12 WHO HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LEGION? 13 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LEADING. 14 THE COURT: SUSTAIN IT ON ASKED AND ANSWERED. 15 16 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 17 Q THE DRAFT MINUTES THAT WERE ENCLOSED IN ONE OF THE 18 CORRESPONDENCE BEFORE YOU, SIR, WAS THE DRAFT MINUTE DATED? 19 A NO, IT WAS NOT. 20 Q AND DID YOU SUGGEST TO THE FURRS THEY SHOULD 21 BACKDATE MINUTES? 22 A NO. 23 Q DID YOU, IN FACT, SUGGEST TO THE FURRS THEY ASK 24 THE LEGITIMATE DIRECTORS SHOULD HOLD A MEETING OF THE BOARD? 25 A YES. 26 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 27 LACKS FOUNDATION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR 28 ITSELF.
page 517 1 THE COURT: COUNSEL, I APPRECIATE THE SHOTGUN 2 OBJECTIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY DON'T DO IT. YOU DON'T 3 HAVE TO GIVE ME TWO BLASTS,DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF4 TWICE. 5 MR. WAIER: I'M SORRY. 6 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 7 THE WITNESS: THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE. 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: QUESTION BACK, PLEASE. 9 (THE RECORD WAS READ.) 10 MR. WAIER: DID I SAY LEADING OR IS THIS A DOUBLE 11 BLAST? 12 THE COURT: YOU DIDN'T SAY LEADING. 13 MR. WAIER: I OBJECT TO LEADING. 14 THE COURT: IT IS LEADING. I'M GOING TO OVERRULE AND 15 ALLOW YOU TO LEAD IN CERTAIN AREAS, JUST TO GET TO IT. 16 THE WITNESS: ANSWER, YES. 17 18 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 19 Q MR. WEBER, FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU CORRESPOND 20 WITH THE FURRS IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1993? 21 A THE PURPOSE, AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, WAS TO 22 ENCOURAGE THEM -- 23 MR. WAIER: OBJECT. IT’s NOW BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. 24 THE COURT: SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. ALTHOUGH IT’s ASKED 25 AND ANSWERED, I KNOW WHY HE CONFERRED WITH THEM. 26 27 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 28 Q ONE LAST QUESTION, SIR. IN SEPTEMBER OF 1993, DID
page 518 1 LEWIS FURR TELL YOU THAT IT WAS WILLIS CARTO AND NOT HE, 2 LEWIS FURR, AND LAVONNE FURR, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE -- 3 LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEGION? 4 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION. HEARSAY AND ASKED AND ANSWERED. 6 THE COURT: IT’s BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. 8 THE COURT: ANY RECROSS? 9 MR. LANE: YES. VERY, VERY BRIEF. 10 11 RECROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. LANE: 13 Q NOW, YOU TOLD YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. WEBER, WHAT YOU 14 DIDN'T KNOW IN SEPTEMBER 1994, RIGHT? 15 A A LITTLE BIT, YES. 16 Q A LITTLE BIT WHAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT. 17 LET’s SEE WHAT YOU DID KNOW. YOU DID KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN 18 ESTATE OF SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS, RIGHT? 19 A THAT’s CORRECT. 20 Q AND YOU DID BELIEVE THAT THAT HAD BEEN LEFT TO THE 21 LEGION; IS THAT CORRECT? 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF 23 REDIRECT. 24 MR. LANE: NO. 25 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 26 MR. LANE: IT’s DIRECTLY WHAT HE WENT INTO, YOUR HONOR. 27 THE COURT: I SUSTAINED. 28
page 519 1 BY MR. LANE: 2 Q YOU DID KNOW THAT SOME OF THE FUNDS HAD BEEN 3 DISBURSED TO YOUR FRIEND, TOM MARCELLUS, FROM THE ESTATE, 4 DIDN'T YOU? 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF 6 REDIRECT. 7 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 8 9 BY MR. LANE: 10 Q YOU DID SWEAR A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU NEVER HEARD OF 11 VIBET IN SEPTEMBER 1994, DIDN'T YOU? 12 A I DON'T THINK I SWORE I NEVER HEARD OF IT. I SAID 13 I SWORE — I THINK I TESTIFIED THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS 14 RESPONSIBLE FOR IT OR WHAT IT WAS. 15 Q VIBET IS A DEFENDANT — WAS A DEFENDANT IN THIS 16 CASE; IS THAT CORRECT? 17 MR. BEUGELMANS: OBJECTION. RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. 18 THE COURT: PRETTY RELEVANT IF IT’s A DEFENDANT. 19 THE WITNESS: MR. LANE. 20 THE COURT: OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. 21 22 BY MR. LANE: 23 Q IS VIBET A DEFENDANT? 24 A A CODEFENDANT IN THE CASE. 25 Q OH. AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU READ THE COMPLAINT 26 BEFORE IT WAS SERVED? 27 A THAT’s CORRECT. 28 Q AND VIBET APPEARS IN THE CAPTION, DOESN'T IT?
page 520 1 A THAT’s RIGHT. 2 Q THERE’s A PARAGRAPH DESCRIBING VIBET, PARAGRAPH 3 NUMBER 7; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 4 A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. 5 Q AND IT TELLS WHERE THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS 6 IS? 7 A I DON'T RECALL THAT, BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR 8 IT. 9 Q IT TELLS WHO WAS A PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDER OR 10 MEMBER? 11 MR. BEUGELMANS: THE COMPLAINT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 12 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 13 14 BY MR. LANE: 15 Q THERE’s A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION ABOUT VIBET IN 16 THE COMPLAINT; IS THAT NOT CORRECT? 17 A THAT’s CORRECT. 18 MR. LANE: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 19 THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. YOU BE 20 SURE YOU REMEMBER THE STEPS. WE HAVE A HALF HOUR. CAN WE 21 CALL ANOTHER WITNESS? 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: AT THIS POINT, THE PLAINTIFF WILL READ 23 SOME OF THE DEPOSITION OF LAVONNE FURR INTO THE RECORD. 24 THE COURT: IS THAT GOING TO BE OBJECTED TO? 25 MR. WAIER: YES, IT IS OBJECTED TO. DEFAULT WAS TAKEN 26 ON LAVONNE FURR. SHE’s NOT MADE AN APPEARANCE IN THE 27 ACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IS NOT OF A 28 PARTY PRESENTLY IN THE LITIGATION. MORE IMPORTANTLY,
page 521 1 THERE’s BEEN NO UNDERLYING FOUNDATION THEY ATTEMPTED TO 2 BRING LAVONNE FURR HERE. INDEED, THEY HAVE BEEN IN 3 COMMUNICATION WITH HER IN THE PAST IN THAT THEY ACTUALLY 4 TOOK A DEPOSITION OF HER AND THEY NOTICED THE DEPOSITION IN 5 WHICH SHE APPEARED AT IN ARKANSAS. THERE’s BEEN NO 6 THRESHOLD WITH RESPECT TO THE READING OF HER DEPOSITION. 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, MR. WAIER 8 NOTICED THE DEPOSITION OF LEWIS AND LAVONNE FURR TAKEN IN 9 ARKANSAS IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, NOT MY OFFICE. SECONDLY, HE 10 RESIDES IN ARKANSAS. WE HAVE THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. I 11 DO NOT HAVE SUBPOENA POWER OUTSIDE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 12 THEY WERE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE DEPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN IN 13 THIS ACTION. 14 THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU MADE SOME 15 EFFORT TO GET THEM HERE AND YOU DIDN'T GET THEM HERE, AND 16 THEREFORE, THEY'RE UNAVAILABLE. 17 MR. BEUGELMANS: WELL, THEY'RE NOT — THEY'RE ADVERSE 18 WITNESSES. THEY'RE NOT FRIENDLY. THEY'RE NOT ON 19 PLAINTIFFS' SIDE OF THIS CASE. THEY'RE DEFENDANTS IN THE 20 ACTION. THE DEPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN IN ARKANSAS. I HAVE NO 21 WAY OF MAKING THEM COME HERE. I CAN'T SUBPOENA THE FURRS 22 FROM ARKANSAS TO COME TO CALIFORNIA. 23 THE COURT: THERE ARE WAYS OF GETTING AN OUT-OF-STATE 24 WITNESS HERE. THERE’s A PROCEDURE TO GO THROUGH. I DON'T 25 KNOW IF YOU WENT THROUGH THE PROCEDURE AND THEY REFUSED TO 26 COME; YOU TENDERED THEM MONEY AND THIS SORT OF THING. 27 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE TO RESEARCH IT. I 28 HAVEN'T HAD THE SITUATION ARISE BEFORE. I REPRESENT TO THE
page 522 1 COURT THEY RESIDE IN ARKANSAS. I HAD NO COMMUNICATION WITH 2 THEM OTHER THAN THE TIME THE DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN. 3 THE COURT: IF THEY DEFAULTED, THEY WOULDN'T BE LIKELY 4 TO SHOW UP FOR TRIAL, I CAN ASSURE YOU OF THAT. I'M NOT 5 SURE THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM. DO YOU HAVE A WITNESS WE CAN 6 PUT ON THE STAND HERE? 7 MR. BEUGELMANS: NOT AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE -- 8 MR. TAYLOR HOPEFULLY WILL BE HERE TOMORROW MORNING. HE HAS 9 THE FLU, AND MR. WEBER SPOKE TO HIM LAST NIGHT AND WAS 10 SUPPOSED TO CALL TO SEE IF HE WILL FLY DOWN. HOPEFULLY, 11 HE'LL BE DOWN. BESIDES THAT -- 12 THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD? 13 IS HE GOING TO BE A WITNESS? 14 MR. BEUGELMANS: PROBABLY NOT. I THINK IT WOULD BE 15 REDUNDANT AND REPETITIVE FOR THE COURT. 16 THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES YOU CAN CALL SO 17 WE DON'T WASTE TIME? 18 MR. WAIER: I KNOW THE COURT’s CONCERN ABOUT NOT 19 WASTING TIME. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE 20 NOT GOING TO CALL THE WITNESSES UNTIL AFTER WE'VE HEARD 21 EVERYTHING THEY BRING UP. I THINK THAT’s ONLY FAIR, SO WE 22 CAN PROVIDE THE — LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATIONS. 23 MR. BEUGELMANS: THERE IS MAYBE A COUPLE OF POINTS TO 24 BRING UP. HENRY FISCHER IS A DEFENDANT IN THE ACTION. WE 25 HAVE GIVEN NOTICE OF TRIAL. MR. FISCHER HASN'T SHOWED UP AT 26 THIS POINT. MAYBE IF THE DEFENDANT — MR. WAIER IS THE 27 ATTORNEY — CAN ASK FOR MR. FISCHER TO BE PRESENT TOMORROW 28 MORNING.
page 523 1 MR. WAIER: HE HAS TO MAKE A DEMAND BY WAY OF A NOTICE 2 TO ATTEND TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTY. HE’s NEVER DONE 3 THAT. THEREFORE, MR. FISCHER DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW UP HERE 4 UNLESS THERE’s A NOTICE TO APPEAR. JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A 5 DEFENDANT DOESN'T MAKE — DOESN'T MAKE YOU REQUIRED TO DO 6 SO. AND HE HAS NOT DONE THAT. AND MR. FISCHER — I WILL 7 NOT ASK MR. FISCHER TO BE HERE. IF I NEED TO CALL HIM IN MY 8 CASE, FINE. 9 THE COURT: BY THE WAY, WHO ARE STILL IN THIS CASE? WE 10 HAD SOME DEFAULTS THAT WERE TAKEN, BUT THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY 11 DONE, I REMEMBER. 12 MR. BEUGELMANS: THE ONLY DEFAULTS AT THIS POINT ARE OF 13 VIBET, INC., LEWIS FURR, AND LAVONNE FURR. THE PLAINTIFF 14 HAS ATTEMPTED TO SECURE JUDGMENTS ON THE DEFAULT, AND JUDGE 15 MURPHY TOLD US TO WAIT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE TO 16 ENTER THE JUDGMENTS. 17 THE COURT: MR. FISCHER IS A DEFENDANT, LIBERTY LOBBY 18 IS A DEFENDANT, AND MR. AND MRS. CARTO ARE? 19 MR. BEUGELMANS: CORRECT. 20 MR. WAIER: AND THE FOUNDATION TO DEFEND THE FIRST 21 AMENDMENT IS ALSO A DEFENDANT BY WAY OF A DOE. 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: NO. ACTUALLY, THEY WERE A DEFENDANT 23 AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE DISMISSED FROM THE CASE. 24 MR. WAIER: WE MOVED TO QUASH. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL ON 25 THE MOTION TO REMOVE — TO QUASH. I TAKE THAT BACK. YOU 26 WERE RIGHT. 27 THE COURT: IT’s GOOD TO KNOW WHO THE PLAYERS ARE. 28 MR. WAIER: WE FILED A MOTION TO QUASH AND WE WERE
page 524 1 SUCCESSFUL. 2 MR. LANE: THE FIRST ONE HE’s WON. THAT’s WHY IT’s SO 3 SURPRISING. 4 THE COURT: DO THIS, THEN -- 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: BUT, YOUR HONOR, POINT OF LAW. I 6 BELIEVE THAT UNTIL THE TIME THE FURRS' JUDGMENTS ARE ENTERED 7 AGAINST THE FURRS, THEY ARE PARTIES DEFENDANT IN THIS 8 ACTION. I THINK THAT’s A POINT OF LAW THAT MAKES A 9 DIFFERENCE HERE. 10 MR. WAIER: THAT’s UNTRUE. THEY DID NOT APPEAR IN THE 11 ACTION AND DEFAULT HAS BEEN TAKEN. THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED 12 A PARTY. 13 THE COURT: I THOUGHT WHAT HAPPENED IS A DEFAULT WAS 14 TAKEN AND THEN JUDGE MURPHY SAID WAIT UNTIL TRIAL UNTIL YOU 15 COME UP WITH THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS. 16 MR. BEUGELMANS: WHAT HAPPENED IS AS FOLLOWS: THE 17 DEFAULT WAS ENTERED. COUNSEL MADE A MOTION TO SET THE 18 DEFAULT ASIDE. JUDGE GUY-SCHALL DENIED THE MOTION. WE THEN 19 ATTEMPTED ON TWO OCCASIONS TO HAVE JUDGMENTS ENTERED. THE 20 TRIAL WAS CONTINUED ON DEFENSE COUNSEL REQUEST ON TWO 21 OCCASIONS. WE'RE HERE WITH ALL THE PAPERWORK FOR THE 22 DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO THE FURRS AND VIBET. 23 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, THE REASON WHY — AND PURSUANT 24 TO BOTH THE LOCAL RULE AND UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THE REASON 25 WHY A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANNOT BE ENTERED AGAINST THE FURRS 26 UNDER LIABILITY, THE LIABILITY IS COLLATERAL TO THE 27 LIABILITY OF WILLIS CARTO, ELISABETH CARTO, LIBERTY LOBBY. 28 UNTIL LIABILITY CAN BE ESTABLISHED WITH RESPECT TO
page 525 1 THESE INDIVIDUALS, LIABILITY CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED TO THE 2 FURRS. THEY WERE BROUGHT IN AS DOE DEFENDANTS. THAT’s THE 3 REASON, NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. THE FACT THAT UNDER 4 CALIFORNIA LAW WHERE LIABILITY FOR THE DEFAULT IS DEPENDENT 5 ON LIABILITY TO THE NAMED DEFENDANTS WHO ARE IN THE ACTION, 6 YOU CANNOT TAKE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT. IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT. 7 THE COURT: THAT’s CORRECT. 8 MR. BEUGELMANS: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD BE HEARD ON 9 THAT POINT. THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED IN THE ACTION. 10 THESE DEFENDANTS ARE JOINTLY LIABLE, AND THE COURT HAS FULL 11 AUTHORITY TO ENTER SEPARATE JUDGMENTS ON JOINT LIABILITY 12 DEFENDANTS. THAT ISSUE IS FULLY BRIEFED. JUDGE MURPHY 13 REVIEWED IT. WHAT JUDGE MURPHY TOLD THE PARTIES IS 14 GENTLEMEN, WAIT UNTIL THE TRIAL JUDGE HEARD THE EVIDENCE. 15 THERE’s NO RULING IN THE RECORD THAT THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE 16 AUTHORITY AT ANY TIME TO ENTER JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE FURRS 17 OR AGAINST VIBET. 18 MR. WAIER: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. 19 HE ACTUALLY — I ASKED -- 20 THE COURT: I HEARD ENOUGH ARGUMENT. I'LL TAKE A LOOK 21 AT THE FILE. I THINK IT’s IN THERE. 22 MR. WAIER: AND THE PAPERWORK IS ON THAT JOINT AND 23 SEVERAL ISSUE, TOO. 24 THE COURT: I'M SURE IT IS. IN THE EIGHT VOLUMES, I'M 25 SURE THERE’s PAPERWORK ON LOTS OF THINGS. GO OFF THE 26 RECORD. 27 (OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION.) 28 THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. WOULD THE PLAINTIFF
page 526 1 LIKE TO CALL A WITNESS AT THIS TIME? 2 MR. BEUGELMANS: PLAINTIFF WOULD CALL ELISABETH CARTO 3 TO THE STAND. 4 5 ELISABETH CARTO, 6 CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN 7 FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 8 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 THE CLERK: WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND SPELL 11 YOUR LAST FOR THE RECORD. 12 THE WITNESS: ELISABETH CARTO, C-A-R-T-O. 13 14 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 15 Q MRS. CARTO, DO YOU CONTEND YOU ARE CURRENTLY A 16 DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC.? 17 A YES. 18 Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME A DIRECTOR OF THE 19 LEGION? 20 A EARLY 1980’s ORIGINALLY. 21 Q YOU CONTEND YOU HAVE BEEN A DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION 22 CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1980 UP TO AND INCLUDING TODAY? 23 A NO. 24 Q BETWEEN 1984 AND TODAY, WAS THERE A PERIOD OF TIME 25 THAT YOU WERE NOT A DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION? 26 A YES. 27 Q WHEN WAS THAT? 28 A I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES. I CANNOT
page 527 1 TELL THE DATES. 2 Q DO YOU CONTEND YOU WERE A DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION 3 ON OR ABOUT MARCH 5, 1991? 4 A NO, I DON'T THINK SO. 5 Q DO YOU CONTEND YOU WERE DIRECTOR OF THE LEGION ON 6 OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 5, 1985? 7 A I MAY HAVE BEEN. I DON'T KNOW. 8 Q DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION OR UNDER YOUR 9 CONTROL A SET OF WHAT PURPORTS TO BE THE MINUTES OF THE 10 LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., GOING BACK TO 11 1985? 12 A NO. 13 Q WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU LOOKED AT A 14 COMPLETE SET OF WHAT YOU CONTEND ARE THE MEETINGS OF THE 15 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION — THE MINUTES OF THE 16 MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION? 17 A THE BOARD THAT I'M A MEMBER OF, THOSE MINUTES I 18 LOOKED AT AFTER THE LAST BOARD MEETING WHEN THEY WERE 19 SIGNED. 20 Q PRIOR TO TODAY, HAVE YOU EVER READ WHAT PURPORTS 21 TO BE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE LEGION THAT 22 WERE PREPARED FOR THAT PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1985, UP 23 TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1993? 24 A I'M NOT REALLY — I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR 25 QUESTION. 26 Q DID THE BOARD — STRIKE THAT. 27 DID THE LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., 28 HAVE A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING BETWEEN JANUARY 1, '85,
page 528 1 AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1993? 2 A YES. 3 Q DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, WERE YOU DIRECTOR 4 DURING ANY OF THOSE YEARS? 5 A I MIGHT HAVE BEEN LATE '85, EARLY '86. 6 Q DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE DIRECTOR IN '85 TO 7 1986, DID YOU REVIEW ANY MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION? 9 A YES. 10 Q DID YOU SIGN ANY SUCH MINUTES? 11 A I THINK SO. I'M NOT SURE, THOUGH. 12 Q DID ANY OF THE MINUTES YOU REVIEWED FROM 1985 OR 13 1986 ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF ABANDONING THE LEGION’s SHARE OF 14 ANY RECOVERY FROM THE FARREL ESTATE TO WILLIS CARTO? 15 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. NOT THE BEST EVIDENCE. 16 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 17 THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. 18 19 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 20 Q IN PREPARATION FOR THIS TRIAL, HAVE YOU REVIEWED 21 ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH CLAIM TO BE MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF THE 22 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION FOR THAT PERIOD BETWEEN 23 JANUARY 1, '85, AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1993? 24 MR. WAIER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF 25 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO THE 26 EXTENT THAT IT DOESN'T INVOLVE THAT ASPECT, IF SHE DID IT 27 INDEPENDENTLY OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL. 28 THE COURT: SUSTAIN ANY — AN OBJECTION TO ANY
page 529 1 COMMENTS SHE MIGHT MAKE TO AN ATTORNEY LEGALLY OR 2 OTHERWISE. OTHER THAN THAT, I WON'T SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. 3 THE WITNESS: WOULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. I 4 FORGOT. 5 6 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 7 Q IN PREPARING FOR THIS TRIAL, HAVE YOU REVIEWED 8 DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF THE 9 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION FOR THAT PERIOD BETWEEN 10 JANUARY '85 AND SEPTEMBER '93? 11 MR. WAIER: OBJECT AS BASED ON MY PRIOR OBJECTION, AS 12 WELL AS RELEVANCY. 13 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 14 THE WITNESS: I HAVE NOT. 15 16 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 17 Q DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE DIRECTOR OF THE 18 LEGION IN 1985 AND 1986, WERE YOU PRESENT AT ANY MEETINGS OF 19 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHERE ALL THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE 20 PRESENT IN ONE ROOM? 21 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE PRIOR TESTIMONY. 22 SHE MAY HAVE BEEN A DIRECTOR. 23 THE COURT: I REALIZE THAT. AND I REALIZE THAT NO 24 QUESTION BY AN ATTORNEY IS EVIDENCE. OVERRULE THE 25 OBJECTION. 26 THE WITNESS: I DON'T REMEMBER. 27 28
page 530 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1993, DID YOU 3 EVER ATTEND A MEETING OF WHAT WAS CLAIMED TO BE THE 4 DIRECTORS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION AT WHICH 5 ALL OF THE DIRECTORS WERE PRESENT IN ONE ROOM? 6 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS TO THE TERM 7CLAIM.BY WHOM? 8 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 9 THE WITNESS: NOT IN ONE ROOM, BUT ON THE TELEPHONE. 10 11 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 12 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1993, DID YOU EVER ATTEND A 13 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGION FOR THE 14 SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., AT WHICH ALL THE MEMBERS WERE 15 PRESENT ON A TELEPHONE CALL AT THE SAME TIME? 16 A YES. 17 Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST SUCH CONFERENCE CALL TYPE 18 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT YOU CAN RECALL BEING 19 PRESENT TELEPHONICALLY? 20 A EARLY '80S. 21 Q IN THE EARLY '80S, WERE YOU A DIRECTOR OF THE 22 LEGION? 23 A I HAVE TO CHECK THE DATES. IT’s BEEN A LONG 24 TIME. MAYBE MID '85 WHEN I HAD THE FIRST THAT I RECALL. I 25 HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DATES. 26 Q HOW MANY SUCH MEETINGS DID YOU ATTEND? 27 A THE TELEPHONE MEETINGS? 28 Q YES.
page 531 1 A NUMEROUS. 2 Q AND THESE WERE MEETINGS AT WHICH ALL OF THE 3 DIRECTORS WERE PRESENT ON A CONFERENCE CALL? 4 A YES. 5 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN THE LAST TIME WAS PRIOR TO 6 SEPTEMBER 1993 THAT YOU ATTENDED SUCH A MEETING? 7 A IF I WAS A DIRECTOR IN '85, '86, IT MUST HAVE BEEN 8 THE MEETING LIKE THAT. 9 Q MRS. CARTO, WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HEARD 10 OF VIBET, INC.? 11 A 1991. 12 Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF ENTITY VIBET, INC., IS? 13 IS IT A CORPORATION OR TRUST OR SOME OTHER KIND OF ENTITY? 14 A THAT, I DON'T KNOW. 15 Q DO YOU KNOW THE IDENTITY OF ANY PEOPLE WHO EVER 16 HAD SIGNATORY POWER ON ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY VIBET, INC.? 17 A NO, I DON'T. 18 Q HAVE YOU EVER REVIEWED BANK ACCOUNTS, STATEMENTS 19 FOR ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY VIBET, INC.? 20 A NO. 21 Q DO YOU KNOW WHERE VIBET, INC., HAS KEPT ITS FUNDS 22 FROM 1991 UP TO AND INCLUDING THE PRESENT TIME? 23 A THE BANQUE CONTRADE, I SUPPOSE. 24 Q DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS AT ANY 25 TIME IN THE PAST? 26 A NO. 27 Q DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE NET RECOVERY FROM THE 28 SETTLEMENT OF THE FARREL ESTATE — STRIKE THAT.
page 532 1 DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WAS LEFT FROM THE 45 2 PERCENT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE FARREL ESTATE LITIGATION 3 AFTER PAYMENT OF TAXES, ATTORNEY’s FEES, MISCELLANEOUS TYPE 4 EXPENSES? 5 A NO. 6 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS — LET ME OBJECT. LACKS 7 FOUNDATION. POTENTIAL HEARSAY. 8 THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WASNO,I BELIEVE. 9 THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. YES. 10 11 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 12 Q MRS. CARTO, DO YOU KNOW IF THE INTERNATIONAL 13 LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., HAS MAINTAINED ANY 14 BANK ACCOUNTS? 15 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR 16 HEARSAY. 17 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 18 THE WITNESS: NO. 19 20 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 21 Q NO, IT HASN'T, OR YOU DON'T KNOW? 22 A I DON'T KNOW. 23 Q DO YOU KNOW WHO CURRENTLY CONTROLS VIBET, INC.? 24 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR 25 HEARSAY. 26 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 27 THE WITNESS: NO. 28
page 533 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q DO YOU KNOW WHO CURRENTLY CONTROLS THE 3 INTERNATIONAL LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC.? 4 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR 5 HEARSAY. 6 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 7 THE WITNESS: NO. 8 9 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 10 Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER VIBET, INC., CURRENTLY HAS ANY 11 FUNDS ON ACCOUNT? 12 A NO. 13 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. LACKS FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR 14 HEARSAY. NOT THE BEST EVIDENCE. 15 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 16 THE WITNESS: NO. 17 18 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 19 Q MRS. CARTO, BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1985, AND 20 SEPTEMBER 1, 1993, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO ACT AS TREASURER 21 FOR THE LEGION? 22 A I HAVE TO CHECK THE RECORD. I WAS A TREASURER, 23 I'M NOT SURE OF THE YEARS. 24 Q CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR BEST ESTIMATE TO WHAT YEARS 25 YOU WERE THE TREASURER OF THE LEGION? 26 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. NOT A 27 PROPER QUESTION. 28 THE COURT: OVERRULED.
page 534 1 THE WITNESS: I CAN'T. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE 2 PAPERWORK. 3 4 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 5 Q DO YOU HAVE ANY SUCH PAPERWORK IN YOUR POSSESSION? 6 A NONE WHATSOEVER. 7 Q IN MARCH 1995, WAS YOUR HOME RAIDED BY POLICE AND 8 SHERIFF’s DEPARTMENT OFFICERS? 9 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. 10 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 11 THE WITNESS: YES, AND SWAT TEAM. 12 13 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 14 Q AT THE TIME OF THE RAID, WERE CORPORATE RECORDS OF 15 THE LEGION PRESENT AT YOUR HOUSE? 16 A I BELIEVE SO. 17 Q AND ISN'T IT TRUE THE RECORDS HAVE BEEN RETURNED 18 TO YOU AND MR. CARTO? 19 A NO. 20 Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS HAVE 21 MADE COPIES OF ALL RECORDS AND RETURNED THEM TO YOU AND YOUR 22 HUSBAND? 23 A NO. 24 Q WHICH RECORDS WERE TAKEN — STRIKE THAT. 25 WHICH LEGION RECORDS WERE SEIZED BY POLICE 26 AUTHORITIES IN MARCH 1995 THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED TO 27 YOU, EITHER AS AN ORIGINAL OR A COPY? 28 A NONE OF THEM, I DON'T BELIEVE, HAVE BEEN
page 535 1 RETURNED. 2 Q WHAT WERE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A TREASURER OF 3 THE LEGION? 4 A AT WHAT POINT IN TIME? 5 Q PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1993, WHEN YOU WERE A 6 TREASURER, WHAT WERE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES? 7 A I SIGNED SOME OF THE — OF THE CHECKING ACCOUNTS, 8 I WOULD MAKE OUT BILLS, PAY BILLS. I WOULD SEE THAT THE 9 PROPER FILINGS WERE MADE WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL 10 AUTHORITY, TAXES AND GENERAL — ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICES AND 11 JUST GENERALLY KEEPING UP WITH THE PAPERWORK THAT WAS 12 REQUIRED. 13 Q DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE TREASURER OF THE 14 LEGION, WOULD YOU REVIEW INCOME TAX STATEMENTS, FEDERAL 15 INCOME TAX STATEMENTS FILED BY THE LEGION? 16 A YES. 17 Q WOULD YOU SPEAK WITH MR. RADNOVICH CONCERNING THE 18 PREPARATION OF THOSE RETURNS? 19 A WHEN HE WAS THE ACCOUNTANT, YES. 20 Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DISPUTE THE CONTENTS OF 21 INCOME TAX RETURNS PREPARED BY MR. RADNOVICH DURING THE TIME 22 YOU WERE TREASURER OF THE LEGION? 23 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AND 24 RELEVANCY. 25 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 26 THE WITNESS: NO. 27 28
page 536 1 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 2 Q NOW, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1993, DID YOU HAVE 3 OCCASION TO NOTE AN ALLEGED LOAN FROM VIBET TO THE LEGION ON 4 THE BOOKS OF THE LEGION? 5 A YES, I BELIEVE SO. 6 Q WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF THAT ALLEGED LOAN? 7 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS BY THE TERM 8ALLEGED.9 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 10 THE WITNESS: IT WAS A LOAN FOR $250,000 ON THE BOOKS. 11 12 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 13 Q DO YOU RECALL THE DATE THAT PURPORTED LOAN WAS 14 MADE BY VIBET TO THE LEGION? 15 A NO, I DON'T RECALL THE DATE. IT WAS IN 1991, I 16 BELIEVE. AT LEAST PART OF THE LOAN. 17 Q AND IT’s WILLIS CARTO WHO TOLD YOU THAT THE LOAN 18 SHOULD BE PUT ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE LEGION, 19 CORRECT? 20 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE. 21 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. 22 MR. BEUGELMANS: IF I COULD MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF, THE 23 FRAUD EXCEPTION. I WON'T PUSH IT. 24 THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THERE’s A FRAUD EXCEPTION. 25 MAYBE THERE IS. IF THERE IS, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I WOULD BE 26 INTERESTED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, LIKE THE LAW I'M BEING TOLD 27 IS CORRECT FROM THE DEFENSE. ALL NEW TO ME. 28 MR. WAIER: WE PROVIDED OUR LAW IN THE TRIAL BRIEF.
page 537 1 THE COURT: I AM SURE YOU HAVE. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO 2 LOCATE IT. 3 MR. WAIER: I CITED CASES. 4 THE COURT: EXCELLENT. 5 6 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 7 Q MRS. FURR -- 8 MR. WAIER: MRS. FURR? 9 10 BY MR. BEUGELMANS: 11 Q CARTO. I'M SORRY. SINCE JANUARY 1, 1994, HAS THE 12 ENTITY WHICH YOU CLAIM TO BE A MEMBER OF, THE BOARD OF THIS 13 LEGION FOR SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INC., THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE A 14 MEMBER OF, HAS IT MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNTS? 15 MR. WAIER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCY. LACKS FOUNDATION. 16 THE COURT: OVERRULED. 17 MR. WAIER: MAY I BE HEARD BRIEFLY ON THAT? FIRST OF 18 ALL, ANY CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO ANY ORGANIZATION OR ANYTHING 19 RELATIVE TO AFTER THE DATE OF THE COMPLAINT, JULY 22, 1994, 20 IS NOT RELEVANT. IF THEY ARE TRYING TO CLAIM THERE’s NOT 21 ACTION TAKEN BY THIS NEW BOARD OR NEW LEGION AFTER THAT 22 POINT IN TIME IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. IT’s — THE CLAIMS 23 ARE SET AS OF THE DATE OF THE COMPLAINT. 24 MR. BEUGELMANS: YES, THERE IS A CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE 25 RELIEF. WE CONTEND ANY FUNDS RAISED FOR THE LEGION SHOULD 26 PROPERLY BELONG TO THE TRUE AND CORRECT LEGION OR SHOULD BE 27 VESTED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 28 UNDER THE CYPRES, C-Y-P-R-E-S, DOCTRINE.
page 538 1 MR. WAIER: THAT’s A NEW ONE ON ME. 2 THE COURT: OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. 3 THE WITNESS: YES, IT HAS MAINTAINED A CHECKING 4 ACCOUNT. 5 MR. BEUGELMANS: NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. 6 THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS NOW OR WAIT 7 UNTIL YOU MAY CALL YOUR CLIENT DURING THE CASE? 8 MR. WAIER: WAIT. 9 THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES WE 10 CAN CALL? 11 MR. BEUGELMANS: NOT AT THIS POINT. 12 MR. MUSSELMAN: I'M SORRY, I WAS SPEAKING TO MY CLIENT 13 DURING THAT EXCHANGE. I WAS GOING TO TELL COUNSEL A 14 QUESTION TO ASK HER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU STATED HE WAS 15 FINISHED, COMPLETE ALREADY FOR THE DAY. 16 THE COURT: IF YOU WANT TO REOPEN, I'LL LET YOU DO 17 THAT. MAKE SURE IT’s IMPORTANT. 18 MR. BEUGELMANS: THAT’s FINE. THANK YOU. 19 THE COURT: ANY MORE WITNESSES TODAY? 20 MR. BEUGELMANS: AT THIS POINT, WE MAY — BASED UPON 21 MRS. Carto’s TESTIMONY, WE MAY CALL A REPRESENTATIVE EITHER 22 OF THE SHERIFF’s DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY ATTORNEY’s OFFICE ON 23 THE ISSUE OF RETURNED DOCUMENTS TO MRS. CARTO. WE WOULD 24 LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST REVIEW THE LAW ON LAVONNE AND 25 LEWIS FURR, IF WE RESERVE THAT TO TOMORROW MORNING. 26 THE COURT: NO PROBLEM. ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO THIS 27 AFTERNOON WITH YOU ALL? OFF THE RECORD. 28 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED.)