Willis Carto archive

Including information about his associates

Legion v Carto, Trial transcript, Volume 4


Previous | Next

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 SAY “AT 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 TERM “I 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 SAY “THIS,” 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 SAY “OCCASION,” 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 WORD “PRIOR."
 
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       Q   “QUESTION:  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       Q   “QUESTION:  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?
 
 9            “ANSWER:  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,
 
14  “'WHICH 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?
 
 2            “ANSWER:  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:
 
 9            “QUESTION:  PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, DID YOU
 
10  EVER DISCUSS THE AFFAIRS OF THE LEGION WITH ELISABETH
 
11  CARTO?
 
12            “ANSWER:  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 SAID “THE 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 SAY “DIRECTOR,” 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 AN “S” THAT 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 IN “SUPPOSEDLY."
 
 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    WORD “AT LEAST"?
 
15       A    “AT LEAST” AND I CROSSED OUT — I CROSSED OUT A
 
16  MISSPELLING OF “PRINCIPLE.”  IT WAS SPELLED
 
17  P-R-I-N-C-I-P-A-L.  IT WAS MEANT TO BE “PRINCIPLE,"
 
18  P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E.  AND HERE ON PAGE 32, I CROSSED OUT A
 
19  “DOES” AND WROTE IN “IS."
 
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       Q    “TRIAL” IS SPELLED?
 
25       A    IT’s SPELLED “TRAIL.”  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       A    “THIS OTHER WILL” MEANING 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 A “YES” OR “NO” ANSWER.
 
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.
 
 8            “QUESTION:  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?
 
12            “ANSWER:  I SUPPOSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO DIRECTORS
 
13  AFTER SEPTEMBER 25.
 
14            “WELL, 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.
 
17            “QUESTION:  IT CAN BE ANY DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME
 
18  JUST AFTER THAT DATE.
 
19            “ANSWER:  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
 
 
 
 1            “QUESTION:  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       Q   “QUESTION:  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
 
16  “UNAUTHORIZED."
 
17       MR. WAIER:  EXCUSE ME.
 
18
 
19  BY MR. WAIER:
 
20       Q    “DOES THE LEGION CONTEND MR. CARTO WAS
 
21  UNAUTHORIZED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LEGION IN RECOVERING
 
22  THE FARREL ESTATE?
 
23            “ANSWER:  NO.  IT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT.
 
24            “QUESTION:  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?
 
27            “ANSWER:  I BELIEVE SO, YES, OR AT LEAST THAT HE
 
28  DID ACT IN THAT WAY.
			
			
page 484
 
 
 
 1            “QUESTION:  WELL, THAT’s QUITE A DISTINCTION NOW.
 
 2  WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT IT IS.
 
 3            “ANSWER:  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.
 
 6            “QUESTION:  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?
 
10            “MR. 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?
 
15            “ANSWER:  NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
 
16            “QUESTION:  IS THAT A CONTENTION OF THIS LAWSUIT?
 
17            “ANSWER:  I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
 
18            “QUESTION:  DOES IT INSTEAD CONTEND THAT MR. CARTO
 
19  DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSETS OF THE
 
20  FARREL ESTATE?
 
21            “ANSWER:  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.
 
 3            “QUESTION:  WHAT IS THAT CONTENTION BASED ON?
 
 4            “ANSWER:  IT’s BASED UPON THE TERMINATION OF HIS
 
 5  RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORPORATION IN SEPTEMBER 1993.
 
 6            “QUESTION:  UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1993, IT WOULD HAVE
 
 7  BEEN PROPER FOR MR. CARTO TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSETS OF THE
 
 8  FARREL ESTATE?
 
 9            “ANSWER:  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.
 
18            “QUESTION:  WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
 
19  WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A PROPER DISBURSEMENT OF THE FUNDS?
 
20            “ANSWER:  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
 
 
 
 1            “BUT 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,
 
11  “BECAUSE 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 SAY “YES” OR “NO,” 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:
 
18            “Carto’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.
 
 8            “EVEN 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 SAY “BECAUSE 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
 
23  “MINUTES 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 ENTITLED “MINUTES"?
 
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       Q    “NO ALTERNATIVE” MEANS 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 SAY “WHAT 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:
 
 4  “APPARENTLY 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 ITSELF"
 
 4  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
 
 7  “CLAIM.”  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 WAS “NO,” 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
 
 8  “ALLEGED."
 
 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.)
			
			

Previous | Next