US v Sigelman Trial Transcript

8/21/2019 US v Sigelman Trial Transcript

1/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

United States District Court

Camden, New Jersey

1543

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs

vs. NO. CRIM. 14-263

JOSEPH SIGELMAN,

Defendant.

______________________________ UNITED STATES COURTHOUSEONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA4TH AND COOPER STREETSCAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08101JUNE 11, 2015

B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S:

U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICEBY: PATRICK STOKES, ESQUIREZACH INTRATER, ESQUIRETAREK HELOU, ESQUIRE

For the Government

FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLPBY: PATRICK J. EGAN, ESQUIRE

- And -QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

BY: WILLIAM BURCK, ESQUIREWILLIAM PRICE, ESQUIRE

JUAN MORILLO, ESQUIREBEN O'NEIL, ESQUIREVERONICA YEPEZ, ESQUIRE

Counsel for Defendant

Certified as true and correct as required byTitle 28, U.S.C., Section 753.

/S/ Karen Friedlander, CRR, RMR


2/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1544

W I T N E S S I N D E X

WITNESS PAGE

GREGORY S. WEISMAN

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY

MR. PRICE:

1558


3/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1545

E X H I B I T I N D E X

EXHIBIT NUMBER PAGE

DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR

IDENTIFICATION

1567


4/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1546

(OPEN COURT, June 11, 2015, 8:08 a.m.)

THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.

THE COURT: Good morning. Everybody, please be

seated. Well, we are continuing the battle of both sides.

Each one wants to put in the December 15th transcript parts

that they think favor one side. The other side wants to keep

them out and put in what they think favors them. If it hadn't

gotten so blatant that that's what you were both doing, one or

the other of you might have gotten away with it, but neither

of you are going to get away with it.

And, government, if you give me a transcript of the

things you want out, don't you think you could give me an

index and put some page and line and things, than make me go

through a hundred pages?

MR. INTRATER: I'm sorry, Judge, I thought -- I

apologize. I thought you had asked for the parts highlighted

that you wanted out.

THE COURT: I wanted highlight, but if you gave me

page or --

MR. INTRATER: Sorry, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, anyway, I'm going to make two

rulings about this transcript, maybe more than two. No. 1,

I'm going to take out Page 1, Line 1, through Page 5, Line 14,

because those are conversations in which Sigelman is not even

part of. This is a reception, coming up, you know, really,


5/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1547

but everything where the two of them are together. I'm

denying the motion as to all the rest of them.

How these two people interacted, the subtleties of body

language and everything, I think the jury is entitled to see,

and I'm going to let -- I'm going to let it in.

No. 2, Mr. Price, I'm not going to let you just play

the tape now on the guise that you are cross-examining

Weisman. That's not cross-examining. You're just playing the

evidence again. You can't do that. I'm not going to allow

it. You've had now two or two and-a-half days of

cross-examining Weisman, you've cross-examined him on all

kinds of things on the tape. I'm not going to let you just

play the tape. In effect, you've offered it in evidence, I'm

going to admit it in evidence, and if the jury wants to listen

to it and play the whole tape, we're going to make

arrangements so they can to do that. But I'm not going to sit

here, take a peek -- no more than I would take a document and

let you read the whole document.

This is cross-examination, and I'm not going to -- I'm

not going to just let you play a bit of evidence once again.

As I say, if there's particular sentences -- if there's

particular parts that you want to really cross-examine on,

that's different. But you've done that already, you've

actually crossed on many things. But if there are things you

haven't done yet, you can do it. But not just play the whole


6/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1548

tape. I'm not going to allow that. You got that?

MR. PRICE: I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You don't agree, but you understand that?

MR. PRICE: I hear you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You got 60 seconds. What is it you want

to say?

MR. PRICE: It's this. It's impossible to

cross-examine him on his perception of Mr. Sigelman's

demeanor.

THE COURT: Oh, I'm --

MR. PRICE: And --

THE COURT: Why is that? People -- people give

testimony about somebody else's demeanor all the time.

MR. PRICE: Well, the way to impeach him is to say,

you say his demeanor was nervous and that he was tense and, et

cetera, the only way to impeach him on that --

THE COURT: Well, maybe he's telling the truth. You

know, every witness you're cross-examining can't necessarily

be impeached.

MR. PRICE: Well, he can be impeached, if the jury

sees the entire tape --

THE COURT: Oh, they will see the tape. If they want

to look at the tape, they can look at it. Sitting here just

in the middle -- now, if there's some particular segment you

want to a play and ask a question on, that's


7/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1549

cross-examination. Playing the whole thing is not

cross-examination. I've been very generous with you. I've

given you -- I mean, we've been two, three days just on cross.

As I say, if there's pieces of questions you want to ask, on a

particular segment of the tape, that's one thing. That's

cross-examination.

Just playing the whole tape for two and-a-half hours,

or however long it is, is just like -- it's like taking one of

these 10-, 20-page documents and reading it, you know. Even

though the document will go into evidence and the jury can see

it, if they want to -- and that's the way I feel about this.

This is -- I'm just not going to let you sit here and play it.

If you want to really cross-examine, and there's something

that you haven't yet cross-examined on, so be it, you can

cross on it.

MR. PRICE: For -- I'm sorry, I don't want to

interrupt. For completeness of what has been played, because

we did not -- we did not play excerpts for completeness during

the direct because we -- we knew we were going to get that

opportunity. For completeness, can we play the excerpts they

did not play?

THE COURT: No. This is cross-examination -- you

want to put Sigelman on the stand and then play the tape and

ask him a bunch of questions, or play the whole thing and ask

him questions, that's one thing. That's part of your direct


8/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1550

case. This is cross-examination, and I'm simply not going to

let you just play, for two and-a-half hours play the tape.

I'm just not going to allow it.

MR. PRICE: And I'm asking for something smaller than

that. For example, they stopped the tape to leave the

impression that Mr. Sigelman said, I'm going to go, and it

continues with their conversing after that.

THE COURT: Well, if you want to question him about

that, question him about it.

MR. PRICE: And then, I assume I'd be able to play

the tape --

THE COURT: You'll play eight lines of the tape or

whatever is needed for the question. Mr. Price, this is

cross-examination. This is not the chance to put your case

in. You'll get that chance, if you want to.

Well, that's my ruling on that.

My second -- oh, somebody brought me Starbucks. Good.

My second ruling is this, I got a motion this morning,

it's to strike certain testimony of Gregory Weisman, and it

really encompasses two kinds of things. Is one, when a

question was asked or many -- several times, you know, was JS,

was Joseph Sigelman telling the truth, and the witness would

say no, you know, that's one type of question.

The other type of question was what something meant,

you know, what do you think Sigelman was referring to when he


9/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1551

said such and such. Generally fall on those two categories.

I absolutely agree that a witness can't get on the

stand and say, in my opinion, he's telling the truth. That's

vouching. A lawyer can't do it, a witness can't do it. But

this is a little different. It's one thing for somebody --

for a witness to get on the stand and say, yeah, I think he

was telling the truth. But it's another thing when you ask

him whether you think he was truthful or not, it was really an

in-artful way of asking the question, but you're really asking

him about something he knows about, about an interaction, a

set of facts that he knows about, and that's different.

That's not basing, you know, whether you got a

reputation for truthfulness or not, or in your opinion he's an

honest guy. That's testimony, and you can read it in the

text, it's very clear, that when he says, he wasn't telling

the truth, in the instances where I let it in, he was really

asking him to give his version of an interaction they both

had, and so to the extent -- I'm denying that motion.

Now, I -- and I really have the same point as to the

other point, you know, when he said, what does this mean, what

does that mean. That's based on the fact that these two

interacted in the past, and I don't, you know -- I think

that's proper. I think when somebody -- that -- when you ask

one of the participants in the conversation, what do you think

he meant when he said, the meeting we had at Christmastime --


10/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1552

he says, oh, that was the meeting we had at such -- but that's

based on their -- his personal knowledge. It's not kind of

speculation as to what somebody made.

Now, sometimes that's a hard line to draw, when one is

speculation and both of those is. I tried my best. Take it

up to the Circuit. In 23 years, you may be the first to get

me reversed. What can I say? If anybody is qualified to get

me reversed, you two are, so --

MR. INTRATER: Judge, just the two of them?

THE COURT: What?

MR. INTRATER: What about the other seven?

THE COURT: Well, you know, it's what President

Kennedy said when he was addressing a group of Nobel laureates

who were having breakfast together. He was addressing them,

giving them a speech of some kind. He said, never has there

been such an agglomeration of talent in one room, except when

Thomas Jefferson had breakfast by himself.

(Laughter.)

THE COURT: So, I look at them. This is like John

Adams and Thomas Jefferson having breakfast.

MR. INTRATER: Fair enough.

THE COURT: So, I am going to admit -- I mean, in a

sense, by asking me to play it, he's moving to have this tape

in. I'm going to admit it, the whole thing. I'm certainly

going to offer the jury a chance to listen to the whole thing.


11/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1553

I'm going to provide whatever means of playback.

MR. INTRATER: Not -- I don't want to have to make

their point for them, but just subject to all of the -- your

other rulings with respect to everything regarding the Vesga

meeting. So we have to redact out all that Vesga stuff.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. INTRATER: Just so the record's clear, right?

THE COURT: If I -- if that's -- if it conforms with

the ruling I make.

MR. INTRATER: Yep.

THE COURT: I want somebody to prepare, as I said --

it has a number already, doesn't it?

MR. INTRATER: Well, Judge, it's -- for

identification, we marked it as 900 of the video and 901 as

the transcript, but we're working on it and --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. INTRATER: -- we will give you -- we'll give you

the proper thing.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to today admit the whole

-- subject to whatever, like, the redaction I made in the

first five pages.

MR. INTRATER: Right.

THE COURT: I'm going to admit the whole thing. And

again, I think that my -- that how they interact is very

important in the jury evaluating. You know, again, this is


12/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1554

not two strangers. This is not a guy who's walking in the

street, you know, and speaking to somebody he's never seen

before. These are two people who were, well, it was three

different companies, in effect. It was -- they had Office

Tiger association, they had a PetroTiger association and then

the follow-up guy.

MR. INTRATER: AGP.

THE COURT: AGP, or something like that.

MR. INTRATER: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PRICE: Your Honor, we have -- for what goes to

the jury, we don't have an objection to taking out that first

part.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PRICE: Where -- because they're driving around

and things like that. I assume that if it's in evidence, we

get to -- we get to use it in closing.

THE COURT: Oh, absolutely. You can use it in

closing. I mean, it's just like one thing in the guise of

cross to take a document and read the whole document, even

though the witness has only been crossed on, you know, some

narrow point. But once it's in evidence, you can -- in

argument, not cross-examination, argument, you can use it any

way, any legal way you can. Absolutely.

As I say, I will make known to the jury that you will


13/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1555

provide them with the mechanical, whatever you want -- the

electronics necessary to hear it and see it. Even if I have

to bring them out here and let them see it on -- I mean, I

don't know what I can do, but -- because I don't know the

electronics at this point, but we'll solve that by the end of

this case, as to what we have to do.

I mean, I feel very, very strongly, subject to the

rulings I've made, that they should see as much of this

interaction as they can. Because I think there's subtleties.

I mean, I know I'm always amazed at what juries pick up that

even lawyers don't pick up or the judge doesn't pick up.

On the other hand, cross-examination is

cross-examination. It's not a time to, in effect, take some

evidence that you like and put it in so the jury can hear it

an extra time. As I say, no more than if you took a 20-page

document that you would cross-examine on four lines of and

then just read the whole thing to the jury, in the guise that

you're cross-examining. Can't do that.

On the other hand, closing argument, if it's in

evidence and you see something in there that you think is

dynamite, you know, to your case, or not even dynamite, you

just think is relevant to your case, you can use it. Do it

all the time.

So now I think that covers it. Do we have anything

outstanding other than that? -- oh, juror No. 1, remember,


14/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1556

she said her mother had gone to the hospital?

THE DEPUTY CLERK: I don't know if we shared that

part with him.

THE COURT: I know we had been told that her mother

died, just died, and --

THE DEPUTY CLERK: I don't think that's happened.

THE COURT: What?

THE DEPUTY CLERK: The message I got this morning is

that the mother is still in the hospital and still not doing

well but has -- the stress of dealing with that and, I guess,

coming here or not has made the juror herself sick and she

won't be able to make it today, and wasn't sure about in the

future.

THE COURT: I just think that's -- I just think

that's a lot of -- a lot of baggage for the juror. So I

propose to dismiss her -- she's not here, but, I mean, to

dismiss her and take the first of the four alternates, whoever

that is, and put them in seat No. 1.

MR. BURCK: No problem, Your Honor.

MR. STOKES: No objection.

THE COURT: Everything okay with that?

MR. INTRATER: Yes, Your Honor.

RESPONSE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So we will do that.

Now, actually, I take it back. Don't put her in seat


15/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1557

No. 1, put her in seat No. 12. In other words, move the other

ones up one.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay? No, there's a reason for that.

Over the years, I have done two different contrary things when

it comes to selecting a foreperson. In many cases, maybe the

majority of them, I just take juror No. 1. And in the other

case -- and I know the argument goes both ways, I just send

them into elect who they want, and I use both of those at

various times.

And I'm going to give you, both sides, a lot of input

on this issue and so -- and for some reason, you both agree to

do it, or I rule that juror No. 1 should be the foreman. It

shouldn't be the last alternate, it should be -- or the first

alternate, it should be -- juror No. 2 should become juror No.

1. So it's not the question of musical chairs, it's just a

question of the way I instruct them to pick a foreperson.

As I say, I've used both of them, and since I have

rarely, if ever, I can't even think of a case, had a hung

jury, both ways have worked. So, you know, that's that.

Okay. All right. We still have -- anything else?

MR. STOKES: Not from the government, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, all right. But please,

somewhere along the line, let's get this in evidence -- I

mean, it's in evidence, but subject to the redactions that --


16/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE


Camden, New Jersey

1558

MR. STOKES: We will have no problems taking care of

that with the defense. That won't be a problem, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll resume with Mr.

Weisman at the appointed hour.

(RECESS TAKEN; 8:25 a.m.)


(JURY ENTERS; 8:37 a.m.)

(OPEN COURT; 8:39 a.m.)

THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be

seated.

Ladies and gentlemen, before we start, I'm sure you

observed that juror No. 1 is not here. Has been replaced.

Her mother is grievously ill in the hospital, very, very ill,

and I know we all wish both her and her mother whatever good

can come out of this. We all wish them the best. But I

thought under the circumstances, that's why we have

alternates. It was only fair to let her be with her mother in

the hospital, so that explains why. I think you probably all

knew that already, but that explains why we impaneled, now,

one of the alternates.

Okay. Mr. Price.

MR. PRICE: Good morning, Mr. Weisman --

THE COURT: And Mr. Weisman, you're still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

(CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY MR.


17/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1559

PRICE:)

Q. Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor, ladies and

gentlemen.

A. Good morning.

Q. Mr. Weisman, it is not true that anyone at the government

told you to continue working at AGP after you began

cooperating with the government, correct?

A. I believe for the initial period of time, I'm not certain

how long that was for.

THE COURT: Well, how long did you work for AG --

MR. PRICE: AGP.

THE COURT: After December 15th?

THE WITNESS: I believe it was until March or April.

THE COURT: So you worked with them for three months.

MR. PRICE: Over three months, three months.

THE COURT: Three months, you were functioning as

general counsel of a company that was controlled and dominated

by Joseph Sigelman.

THE WITNESS: And there were other shareholders. I

don't think he had majority of the company.

THE COURT: But he was -- he was the CEO, the driving

force behind that company.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't believe -- I don't know

whether he was -- had the title of CEO, but he was, yes, the

main -- he was -- yeah, the main person behind the company.


18/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1560

BY MR. PRICE:

Q. Now, Mr. Weisman, a couple days ago you said that there

was a government official who told you to stay, continue

working at AGP. That is not true, is it?

A. I think I may have misspoken. I can't remember if it was

a short period of time they said I should remain there, or if

they left it up to me. I don't recall.

Q. No, I'm dividing it. First I'm going to talk about

whether you were instructed to stay there, at all, okay? You

said previously that the government official told you you

should continue working at AGP. That statement is not true,

is it?

A. I'm not sure. I don't recall.

Q. But that is, in fact, what you told the jury under oath

two days ago, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So what you said to the jury two days ago under oath was

false, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told the jury a couple days ago that there was a

government official who told you when you should leave. Do

you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And that statement, that a government official told you

when you should leave, that statement that you made under oath


19/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1561

was false, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the real reason you stayed at AGP for those three

months, when you had this ethical conflict, was, you were

looking out for yourself and wanted to get money, right?

A. I don't recall.

THE COURT: You don't recall why you stayed?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember why I stayed on for

several months.

BY MR. PRICE:

Q. Mr. Weisman, you do understand that if you testified

under oath that you don't recall, when you, in fact, you do

recall, that that is a false statement under oath?

A. Yes.

Q. You do realize that that also is perjury, if you say you

don't recall when, in fact, you do recall, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your statement under oath before this jury is that

you don't remember why you decided to stay as the chief

counsel of AGP, a company that was run by Mr. Sigelman, for

three months after you met with Mr. Sigelman on December 15th

and recorded your conversation. Your testimony is, you don't

remember why you stayed there that whole time?

A. I was continuing to work. It was my job. I don't recall

why I left when I did or why I stayed.


20/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1562

Q. Now, is that testimony as accurate as the testimony you

gave us a couple days ago, that a government official had told

you to stay and then told you to leave?

A. I had misremembered a couple days ago.

THE COURT: Misremembered? Did you have a

hallucination?

THE WITNESS: No, I just...

BY MR. PRICE:

Q. You realize that a lot of your testimony is supported

solely by your word, right?

A. I think there's a lot of support that's been presented.

Q. But you know that a lot of your testimony, such as, Mr.

Sigelman told you to take the side letter out of the closing

binders, that a lot of that is supported solely by you saying

that's what happened, correct?

A. Again, I think there's a lot of evidence that's been

presented that supports it.

Q. Well, another example, you said that in a mediation with

-- with PetroTiger, that Mr. Sigelman said to you, alone in a

room, that no one else could hear, that he couldn't explain

the Hoff payments. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, that's another example of a statement that's

supported only by your word, correct?

A. Yes.


21/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1563

Q. And you've told us that in this courtroom when you have

given your word under oath before this jury, you have given

false testimony, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, the mediation that you spoke about with

PetroTiger, PetroTiger wasn't even talking with you about

anything to do with payments from Dr. Hoff, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Let me start up, then, where we left off yesterday, and

we were talking about your statement to the jury under oath,

that in October of 2010, you were afraid that you would be

fired if you did not send the payment to Mr. Duran. Do you

remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And incidentally, you testified about conversations in

October that were just between you and Mr. Sigelman, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And there's no e-mail or document which supports your

allegation concerning the substance of what happened in that

conversation, correct?

A. There's the follow-up e-mail that Mr. Sigelman had --

Mr. Hammarskjold sent to me.

Q. Well, there's an e-mail from Mr. Hammarskjold that Mr.

Sigelman -- is Mr. Sigelman on that?

A. No.


22/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1564

Q. Okay. There's an e-mail from Mr. Hammarskjold directing

you to make where to make a payment, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But your testimony that Mr. Sigelman said the company is,

I think the way you put it, screwed, that the company is going

to go out of business if you don't send this wire. All we

have for that is your word, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So looking at that statement, your word, about what Mr.

Sigelman said and what you thought, we were talking about your

-- your belief, your terrified belief that you would be fired,

and we were looking at Exhibit 2264, and in particular, Page

25.

THE COURT: That's the shareholder agreement, right?

MR. PRICE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. What page? I'm sorry, what page?

MR. PRICE: It's page 25, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. PRICE:

Q. And we were looking at paragraph 5.6, and this is a

document that you helped draft and that you also signed on

behalf of PetroTiger in August of 2009, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That was a year before this conversation you say you had

with Mr. Sigelman in October of 2010, correct?


23/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1565

A. Yes, over a year before.

Q. And this document sets forth some of the limitations on

Mr. Sigelman's powers as the CEO, correct?

A. Yeah, in general, the company cannot hire or terminate an

executive officer unless it's approved by majority of the

board.

Q. And you were an executive officer, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so what this says is that for you, an executive

officer, to be terminated, to be fired, that would have to be

approved by at least the majority of the members of the board

of directors, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And executive officer included any executive officer of

the company that reported directly to either co-chief

executive officer of the company, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that meant any executive officer that reported to Mr.

Sigelman could not be fired by Mr. Sigelman unless the board

of directors agreed, right?

A. Yes.

Q. On your direct examination, you spoke about tension

between members of the board of directors and Mr. Sigelman, at

this time, correct?

A. Yes.


24/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1566

Q. And, in fact, Mr. Intrater showed you an e-mail -- after

showing you documents concerning you making wires to

Mr. Duran's account, he showed you an e-mail that had been

sent concerning members of the board coming in and talking to

employees of PetroTiger. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, around this time -- but you recall that the date of

that was -- was it October 12, 2010?

A. I'm not certain.

Q. Around this time, there were a lot of issues with the

board of directors, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, you and Mr. Sigelman co-authored a memo on

October 12th, 2010, kind of setting forth your views,

management's views, of the issues that were percolating with

the board of directors, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if we could show -- I'll show you what we'll mark as

Exhibit 2541 for identification, Your Honor. That's 2541.

THE COURT: Is it D?

MR. PRICE: Yes, Your Honor, D.

THE COURT: 2541. This is a new exhibit.

MR. PRICE: It is.

THE COURT: Okay. What's the date of that memo

again? October.


25/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Camden, New Jersey

1567

MR. PRICE: The date is October 11, 2010, for the

e-mail. It's on the face. The memo is October 12th, 2010,

but the date on the face of the document is October 11th.

THE COURT: Okay. That's marked for identification.

(DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. PRICE:

Q. The cover page, do you recognize as the communication

between -- from Mr. Sigelman, copying you, to Eric Levine?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Levine was an attorney, a civil attorney, that

represented you and Mr. Sigelman?

A. Yes.

Q. And attached, you see, is a -- looks like a memorandum

from you, Mr. Sigelman, Mr. Hammarskjold, to the Series A

members of the board of directors?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you help author this?

A. Yes.

MR. PRICE: Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2541 in

evidence.

MR. INTRATER: Your Honor, we would object. We would

just ask for a brief sidebar.

THE COURT: Okay. Go over to sidebar.

(SIDEBAR AS FOLLOWS:)


26/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1568

MR. STOKES: Your Honor, I can explain some of the

reasons why we object. First, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Can I ask you just a couple of questions?

Mr. Weisman and Mr. Sigelman were still employed by PetroTiger

when this was written.

MR. INTRATER: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. STOKES: Yes.

THE COURT: When this was written, although

apparently they had their lawyer, their civil lawyer was

already on board, even though they hadn't yet been fired.

MR. STOKES: That's right.

MR. PRICE: That's right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STOKES: What we believe this is, we don't

believe Mr. Weisman actually would know or remember whether

this was ever provided to the board or anybody in management

at the company. This is just an e-mail between Mr. Sigelman,

Mr. Weisman and their personal lawyer, Mr. --

THE COURT: Why does that make it not admissible,

though? Let's assume you are correct, let's assume you are

correct, that this reflects their joint thinking about

something. And let's assume for argument's sake, I don't know

yet, but that it was not provided to other board members or

other officers of the company. Let's assume that's correct.

MR. STOKES: Yes.


27/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1569

THE COURT: Why does that, per se, make it

inadmissible?

MR. STOKES: Yes, Your Honor, we think it's

inadmissible for evidentiary 403 and the other is 8036. This

is not an appropriate business record. This is simply Mr.

Sigelman cooking up defenses for the future, self-serving

statements. It's pure hearsay by Mr. Sigelman in order to

identify and create his allegations as to why they are

performing well, why it is that they should not be fired, why

it is that their view of reality is their view. It's pure

self-serving hearsay. There's no evidence that it's a

reliable document. It doesn't come in under 8036.

It's also, Your Honor, defense's tee'd this up --

THE COURT: Say again, defense has -- tee'd --

MR. STOKES: Has tee'd this up in what is a

completely specious issue whether or not Mr. Weisman can be

fired by Mr. Sigelman. This is not --

THE COURT: Say that again.

MR. STOKES: This comes at the end of a line of

questioning as to whether Mr. Weisman thinks he can be fired

by Mr. Sigelman, and now we're entering into -- well, Mr.

Sigelman doesn't have any control over the board. Whether

that's true or not, the witness is now entering into

employment dispute issues.

THE COURT: I'm not -- he testified in the past -- I


28/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1570

mean, not in the past, two minutes ago, that he was -- he did

something because he was afraid he was going to be fired

and -- he's testified to that yesterday and that testimony has

been repeated.

MR. STOKES: Yes.

THE COURT: In one form or another, many times.

MR. STOKES: And so this document has nothing

additional to do with this issue, and the employment dispute

between Mr. Sigelman and the board of directors has nothing at

all to do with that issue. This is just injecting into the

trial a number of issues, performance and issues related to

Mr. Sigelman at the trial and his trumpeting what a great CEO

he is. It's coming in here is a Trojan horse, Your Honor, to

introduce issues in the case that are completely irrelevant to

the case and the charges.

MR. PRICE: The reason we have to do this is because

of what happened on direct. On direct examination after

Mr. Intrater questioned Mr. Weisman about the wire to

Mr. Duran in October.

THE COURT: The money wire.

MR. PRICE: The money wire. And the communications,

he then made a point, that on the very same day that happened,

put it in an e-mail, the very same day that happened, that Mr.

Sigelman complained to the Series A directors that they were

coming in and speaking with the people in finance and barred


29/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1571

them from doing so.

And the clear import of that is that Mr. Sigelman did

that because he didn't want what he was doing to be discovered

concerning Mr. Duran. If you look at the transcript, it's

clear as day that's what they're suggesting. I think we're

entitled to say, no, that was not the dispute. There was a

much bigger dispute with the Series A investors. It wasn't

that Mr. Sigelman was trying to prevent them from coming in to

look at financial records, and this document reflects what

management actually thought at the time.

If we can't do this, then the jury is going to be left

with the misimpression that the dispute was all about trying

to keep things from the Series A directors concerning payments

to Mr. Duran.

MR. STOKES: Your Honor, again, I don't believe the

defense can show this document ever went to management. This

is simply Mr. Sigelman's musings that relate to his conspiracy

theories about how the world is out to get him. There are

dozens of documents of this nature, and the defense has been

repeatedly trying to inject this into the trial. This is just

another example of that. It has nothing to do with the issues

at hand. It's allowing Mr. Sigelman to speak in the trial,

frankly, falsely, without actually testifying. This is --

these are issues that have nothing to do with our charges in

our case.


30/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1572

MR. PRICE: Well, then I ask, Your Honor, why did

Mr. Intrater put in that e-mail, the date was October 12th, I

believe, saying that Mr. Sigelman was upset that members of

the board of directors had come and asked questions of the

finance department? We did not put this issue into the

record, and that's the only reason I'm putting this in, so we

can show this gentleman's thoughts. I'm not going to go

through this page by page.

THE COURT: "His" meaning?

MR. PRICE: Mr. Weisman's. He said he co-authored

this.

MR. STOKES: Your Honor, there are many documents

directly to the point, direct communications with the board

about the very issues Mr. Price just identified. If he wants

to use those for their communications with the board about the

October 12th issue, he certainly is -- there are many

documents he can point to. This document does not relate to

this issue. This is simply injecting Mr. Sigelman's views of

his exemplary leadership of the company into the case. The

document was never forwarded to the board.

There are documents he can put in, in which the board

and Mr. Sigelman, around this time, are talking about these

very issues in September, in October, on performance and

dispute between management and Mr. Sigelman.

We've also argued that this whole entire area should be


31/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1573

-- should be excluded because it's just an employment dispute

issue. It has nothing to do with -- with the bribing. But

this document is in anticipation of litigation. They're

preparing it for their lawyer and there's no evidence of this

ever being delivered to management. Mr. Weisman, who is

easily led around on cross, and has now been led to state that

he's made false testimony, when, in fact, what he really said

is, he made a mistake, is now being questioned --

THE COURT: He made a mistake, gives false testimony,

all right.

MR. STOKES: Well, Your Honor, we -- on that front,

we would ask that the witness --

THE COURT: That's like when I was very heavy, I used

to tell my wife, I didn't go to Dairy Queen on the way home

from work every day.

MR. STOKES: And, Your Honor, we would also ask for

the --

THE COURT: Just a mistake.

MR. STOKES: That's right. And we would ask that the

jury be able to develop -- we be able to develop this evidence

with the defense, so that the jury can properly understand

that. Because we think that both this and his prior testimony

are all areas that are fair for the jury, but -- but,

injecting inadmissible hearsay into the trial related to an

employment dispute through the back door of, this is related


32/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1574

to a bribe payment, when it doesn't address the bribe payment

in any way, shape or form, is opening this case to a series of

issues that are utterly irrelevant.

THE COURT: I mean, what's -- clearly, all the other

problems with the company are not particularly relevant to

what's going on here.

MR. PRICE: They're only relevant because the

prosecution has suggested that the problem was that Mr.

Sigelman was directing board members not to go and talk to

finance because he was trying to hide something, and this

gentleman knows that that was not the problem. And these are

his thoughts.

Now, I'm not going to go into this in detail. I'm not

going to --

THE COURT: How do you deal with that argument,

though? You chose to make a very minor point. I mean, that

the reason he was angry, although I know as a practical

matter, management hates it when directors go down to

employees and -- I've been in personal situations where that

happens, but -- I mean, when I was practicing law, and -- but

what's -- you brought that up.

MR. STOKES: Your Honor, what we brought up was an

e-mail, and Mr. Weisman explained an e-mail in which there was

a dispute, in which Mr. Sigelman directed the board members

not to talk to management, and Mr. Weisman explained --


33/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1575

THE COURT: But you elicited that, and you brought

that out, as clearly you're going to argue that that's the

reason that he didn't like that, he was afraid they would find

out, the directors would find out about his alleged --

MR. STOKES: That's --

THE COURT: Then why did you elicit it?

MR. STOKES: Because at that time, Mr. Sigelman and

the board are -- the very day that Mr. Weisman and Mr.

Sigelman are paying the bribe, around the time of the paying

of bribes, Mr. Sigelman is directing the board to stay away

from the company. So we absolutely brought that up in that

context. Mr. Price can --

THE COURT: You're going to make an argument --

you're going to argue that's proof, in fact, that he made a

bribe.

MR. STOKES: And Mr. Price --

THE COURT: It's bootstrapping in a way, but that's

the argument you're going to make.

MR. STOKES: No, no, we're not arguing that because

of that, he made a bribe. We're arguing --

THE COURT: No, no, but the fact that your position

is, he wouldn't have had any problem with the board if he

hadn't been paying a bribe, but because he had paid a bribe,

he didn't want the board to be, in effect, investigating it.

You brought that up.


34/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1576

MR. STOKES: Your Honor, Mr. Price can certainly

question Mr. Weisman about the e-mail. These issues are not

pertinent. The fact that a memo is drafted by management that

is not given to the board on that same day --

THE COURT: What is giving to the board have to do

with it? I'm trying to --

MR. STOKES: Our argument is that this is not a

business record, this is purely --

THE COURT: Oh, no, it's not, I agree with that.

They haven't argued it's a business record.

MR. STOKES: And so it's an unreliable statement of

Mr. Sigelman simply arguing issues that are not pertinent to

the dispute at issue on October 12, where Mr. Sigelman tells

the board to stop interfering and questioning witnesses. If

Mr. Price wants to ask about that, he can certainly do that.

This memo does not address those issues.

This memo simply imports months and months of dispute

about economic and performance issues that have nothing to do

with any of these issues. And it's just going to confuse the

jury. It's just going to be used to turn this trial into an

employment dispute and suggest to the jury that something's

going on here that's not. This is -- if you --

THE COURT: Go ahead, go ahead. You finished?

MR. STOKES: Yes.

MR. PRICE: I have a suggested solution. I mean, we


35/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1577

all know that that e-mail that he put in was sort of a cheap

shot. Management does not like --

THE COURT: Wait.

MR. STOKES: No, I disagree that we agree that that's

a cheap shot.

THE COURT: Wait, I don't, and I'm -- don't take my

silence as agreeing with that.

MR. PRICE: Okay. But --

MR. STOKES: I'm just taking his word to saying we

don't agree.

MR. PRICE: Let's say it's a leap, a leap, to infer

from that, that was to hide bribe payments. And my solution

is, I don't have to get into this. These are Mr. Weisman's

thoughts, by the way, not Mr. Sigelman's.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Sigelman's as well, but Mr. Weisman.

We keep hearing Mr. Sigelman. I don't need to get into this

if we strike that testimony.

THE COURT: What, tell me --

MR. PRICE: The testimony concerning the e-mail about

telling the board not to start -- not to be talking to their

employees. Identify the number of the e-mail, it is a small

point.

THE COURT: Go back. Why is that probative of your

case?


36/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1578

MR. STOKES: Your Honor, first --

THE COURT: What fact in dispute is going to be

proved by that e-mail?

MR. STOKES: That e-mail is going to establish two

things. One, in opening, the defense has opened on an

employment dispute and issues related with antagonism between

the board and Mr. Sigelman, and so we introduced that e-mail

in part for that purpose.

But also in part to show that at the very time they're

paying bribes, Mr. Sigelman, Mr. Weisman, Mr. Hammarskjold,

that they are in a dispute with the board and trying to keep

the board from interfering with the company. Not only for

performance reasons, but because they want the board out of

their business so that they can go on and do their business,

which includes, among many things --

THE COURT: That's a very powerful inference, though.

MR. STOKES: Actually -- and Mr. Price can ask about

that directly. And Mr. Price -- we're not, we're not going

to --

THE COURT: No, no, no. But one of his points is --

just a minute. There were lots of reasons they didn't want

the board meddling in their affairs. It had to do with the

way the company was being operated, I'll call them operational

factors of the company. I mean, that's -- well, all right.

MR. STOKES: And we think that point can adequately


37/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1579

be established through cross-examination. Very simply, this

document itself is --

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to -- I'm not going to

let the document in, but I'm going to allow him to

cross-examine as to what was going on at the company. And

this is a source of information, at the very least. I mean,

again if on cross-examination you would have a rational basis,

but that's not a requirement, again you can't ask a question

out of the clear blue sky, but this is a basis for pointing

out that there may be 20 other issues that would have

justified -- I'm a little afraid of this because they have

this thing, we don't know, he can't remember how much he

prepared, how much Sigelman prepared, how much --

Hammarskjold's on this, how much Hammarskjold prepared. It's

just typical vague testimony.

He knows, you know, he knows enough just to be

dangerous and -- but not more than that. But I'm going to let

him, without reference to this document, although he can get

information from it, but I'm going to let him cross-examine on

what other issues there were that might --

MR. STOKES: Sure, understood. And the government

doesn't object. We just ask that it be tied to October 12th

and the issue of keeping Mr. Sigelman, keeping the board --

THE COURT: Well, you've -- look, we know --

apparently it's not even disputed, in a way, that the board


38/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1580

was, and I hate to use the word interfering, the board was, in

effect, going behind the executive management to get

information from other employees, okay? Both sides agree that

that happened. I mean, nobody denies that, and you've tried

to draw the inference that the reason they didn't want, you

know, they wanted them to keep their noses out of their

affairs is that they didn't want them to know that there was

bribery going on. That is a big-time powerful inference, it

really is, for something as slender, factually, as that.

And I think he's entitled to show that there are lots

of issues going on, where there was the meddling by the board

with the employees, they would have a reason for not wanting

that. And I'm going to let him do that.

What I'm not going to let him do is put this in because

I don't even have clear testimony of who authored this thing.

I don't know who it was delivered to. I mean, you know,

again --

MR. STOKES: Thank you.

THE COURT: It's -- I mean, to me, it's troubling. I

mean, Weisman can remember details of a particular word that

somebody used in a particular conversation five years ago, but

some bigger picture thing, he suddenly doesn't remember and --

I really haven't gotten clear testimony what role he played in

this. Just saying, I had input, doesn't tell me anything.

MR. PRICE: I can ask him more questions about that.


39/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1581

I certainly would like to impeach him with this, if he says

this wasn't -- something wasn't an issue, since his name was

on this, he was copied on this.

And with respect to whether or not the document itself

should come in, I think it should come in for his state of

mind, because that's what we're talking about, is what they

were thinking, and if Mr. Stokes thinks --

THE COURT: Well, if you want to use it to impeach,

I'm going to deal with that if it comes up. I think you can

impeach in a way --

MR. PRICE: So, one thing I was going to suggest --

it seems that one of the things Mr. Stokes is worried about is

sort of the bragging as to how Mr. Sigelman did as a manager.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. PRICE: He mentioned that this is Mr. Sigelman's

self-serving statements as to how well management did. That

goes through Page 6 of -- the middle of Page 6.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PRICE: And that's not at all what I'm trying to

accomplish here. And I have no objection to that being

redacted. All I want to focus on is the tensions between the

board and Mr. Sigelman, and I'd like to do it --

THE COURT: Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but Mr.

Stokes, look, when you drew the inference, you know, and very

expressly put it in that you wanted them to tie his anger at


40/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1582

the board or his upsetedness with the board in dealing

directly with people below the executive management, the

inference you want them to draw is that he didn't want them to

uncover skulduggery -- the bribes, or the alleged bribes. And

as I said, that's a very powerful inference, and I think he's

entitled to say, hey, no, there's just a million -- there's a

million other things.

MR. STOKES: Judge, I frankly don't remember the

witness's exact words on that testimony. I think the point

we've really established in the statement they're paying

bribes, that management is -- that the relationship with the

board has soured, and certainly, that is -- and Mr. Sigelman

and the board are fighting over whether the board should have

access to employees, not that they're -- I don't believe we

ever say --

THE COURT: If he's not allowed to bring out through

Weisman what other things they were arguing over, what other

issues there were for them --

MR. STOKES: We're not objecting to that in a limited

way. What we're saying is, this document, we don't think,

should be admissible.

THE COURT: I've already ruled. I'm not going to

admit the document, it's marked for identification.

MR. STOKES: Understood.

MR. PRICE: Your Honor, I think the same day, it's


41/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1583

October 12th, you know, they're making a time issue, so I

think I should --

THE COURT: Well, you --

MR. STOKES: Versions of this document are produced

up through 2012.

MR. PRICE: Sure.

MR. STOKES: So this document was not delivered to

anybody on October 12.

THE COURT: You make the point I delivered -- the

issue is not so much delivery to the board. It's the question

of what his mindset was. I mean, to the extent that his

testimony up to now is used as a basis for arguing that they

were -- that Sigelman was upset with this behind back door,

because he wanted to hide illegal activity. That's a very

powerful inference, and I think he's entitled to show although

there's all kinds of other reasons that -- if he denies, it

isn't true that you were having trouble, you know, paying

expense -- whatever it is, something unrelated to that, and he

says, no, that's not an issue, and yet this thing says -- I

think he's entitled to show that it says that.

MR. STOKES: Absolutely.

THE COURT: Not to get the thing in evidence, but

say, wasn't it -- memo, we've already identified it. Didn't

you sign onto that memo? Didn't your signing on show that you

agreed with the contents of the memo? I mean, that's a


42/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1584

legitimate question, and didn't you say in this memo, yeah,

what other problems we were having, we weren't paying our

bills on time or whatever it is.

MR. STOKES: Absolutely. And, Your Honor, our

request is twofold. One is, and the Court has already ruled

on one of them, the first issue, as the Court ruled, this

document is not coming into evidence.

The second is, we're alerting the Court that we believe

that this is a way of opening this case to a gigantic

employment dispute, and we're simply saying that we think for

403 reasons -- and that would come up as questions are asked.

THE COURT: I'm going to try to control that.

MR. STOKES: Yes.

THE COURT: I'll try to do the best I can. You know,

the sign in the old western bar, don't shoot the piano player.

MR. STOKES: We're not shooting.

THE COURT: He's doing the best he can.

But I think you're underestimating how powerful the

inference. You're allowed to put in evidence that the reason

Sigelman was angry or upset, or whatever right words you want

to use, were that board members were going behind the

executive management to gather information from employees, was

because he didn't want them to uncover he was doing anything

as, you know, bribing people, whatever. That's a powerful,

powerful inference, and I think he's entitled to --


43/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1585

MR. STOKES: I'm not sure that's the inference we

were actually planning to draw from that, but --

THE COURT: I know, but he's -- of course, it is.

There's no secret to that point, but he's entitled to show --

no, just a minute. There's a lot of other reasons things that

were going on that may have upset. Even if it relates to an

employment dispute.

MR. PRICE: If I could suggest, because this will

save hours, hours of time, if I have to go through all this

and do what Mr. Stokes suggested, I think he's just said he

doesn't think that that was the reason they put the document

in.

THE COURT: Oh, no, he said it was the reason.

MR. STOKES: Why don't we talk, if we can spend five

minutes looking at the transcript, what I think that your

suggestion is, could we strike the testimony.

MR. PRICE: Let's strike the testimony.

THE COURT: Do you want me to just send the jury out

and give you time?

MR. PRICE: Let's do that. Because I think striking

it --

MR. STOKES: We will take a look at it.

MR. PRICE: It will save us a couple hours.

THE COURT: I will send the jury out for 15 minutes

and then you can. But, right now, at least at this moment, my


44/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SIDEBAR DISCUSSION


Camden, New Jersey

1586

ruling is, this is not admitted into evidence, but the -- to

the extent that he can establish, which I think he can, that

this reflects the views of Gregory Weisman. If Gregory

Weisman contradicts, like, there's a paragraph, you know, the

impression is, oh, no, I don't agree with that, I think he can

impeach him, and say, didn't you participate in this. Didn't

you agree that this was an accurate statement, and to impeach

him in that -- that's my ruling up to this point. If you can

agree on what to strike, maybe that would save more time.

MR. STOKES: Sure.

THE COURT: But up to this point, that's my ruling.

MR. PRICE: Okay.

THE COURT: I'll to send the jury out.

(END OF SIDEBAR.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we still have a

legal issue we have to resolve over the next few minutes. So

rather than have you just sit here and cool your heels, we're

going to send you out for 15 minutes to relax while they --

while we all try to resolve that issue.

So I would appreciate it if you bear with me. I think

we may save lots and lots of time if we get this thing

resolved.

So with that, I'm excusing you for 15 minutes.

Please, again, do not -- A, don't speculate on what

we're discussing, and don't discuss the case among yourselves.


45/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Camden, New Jersey

1587

Keep an open mind until you've heard all the evidence.


(JURY EXITS; 9:19 a.m.)

THE COURT: Okay. Folks. If you need me, I'm -- I'm

inside.

MR. PRICE: Thank you, Judge.

MR. STOKES: Thank you, Judge.

(RECESS TAKEN; 9:20 a.m.)


(JURY ENTERS 10:51 a.m.)

(OPEN COURT; 10:52 a.m.)

THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be

seated.

I have news. I have news. And the news is this: The

legal matters that the parties have been working on are still

not resolved and I can't predict in my meaningful way whether

it's going to take a half hour, an hour, two hours and I don't

want you at the end of the week sitting in that room. That's

a lovely room, I know that, but sitting in that room, you

know, with little to do. So what I'm going to do is I'm going

to send you home for the weekend and we will resume Monday

morning at 8:30, regular time. And again, my thanks, and I'm

sure the thanks of all counsel, as well, for your

participation, your diligence.

Please, don't discuss the case among yourselves. Keep


46/46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1588

an open mind until you've heard all the evidence. Don't

discuss the case with your family, friends or loved ones, no

research on the case. You'll get your -- you'll learn

everything you need to learn here in the court. And with my

extraordinary profound thanks, have a safe trip home, have a

great weekend and I'll see you Monday.


(JURY EXITS; 10:53 a.m.)

THE COURT: Can I see counsel.

(10:54 a.m.)

US v Sigelman Trial Transcript

Documents

Transcript of US v Sigelman Trial Transcript