Motion For Oral Argument Regarding Bruce Wisan's Ability To Manage The UEP Trust in Light of His Relationship With A Prostitute August 4 2014

Michael A.
Worel (12741)
Alan W. Mortensen (6616)
Lance L. Milne (14879)
DEWSNUP, KING & OLSEN
36 South State Street, Ste. 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone (801) 533-0400
Facsimile (801) 363-4218
mworel@dkolaw.com
amort@dkolaw.com
lmilne@dkolaw.com

Attorneys for Elissa Wall

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SALT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF UTAH

IN THE MATTER OF
THE UNITED EFFORT PLAN TRUST,
TRUSTEES I THROUGH IX

(Dated November 9, 1942, Amended April 10,
1946, and Amended and Restated on
November 3, 1998); and its, TRUSTEES,
including known trustees TRUMAN
BARLOW, WARREN JEFFS, LEROY
JEFFS, WINSTON BLACKMORE, JAMES
ZITTING and WILLIAM E. JESSOP a/k/a
WILLIAM E. TIMPSON and DOE

BENEFICIARY ELISSA WALLS
RENEWED MOTION FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT ON
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT
WITH WILLIE R. JESSOP

Civil No. 053900848

Judge: Denise P. Lindberg

Beneficiary Elissa Wall, by and through counsel of record, hereby provides the following
renewed motion for oral argument in support of her motion to reconsider this Courts order
approving the United Effort Plan Trusts (UEP) motion to approve a settlement between the
UEP and Willie R. Jessop.
2

Beneficiary Elissa Wall filed a motion with this Court to reconsider approving the Willie
Jessop Sweetheart Deal because the transaction made no sense. Beneficiary Wall filed a
request for oral argument. This Court summarily denied the motion to reconsider without
providing any notice or advising plaintiffs counsel that this Court was going to rule on the
motion at a July 18, 1014 hearing.
1

Of critical importance, Mr. Wisans deposition was taken on July 30, 2014 in the MJ case
to conduct discovery on UEP Trust assets, liabilities and future obligations. Given the
transaction with Willie Jessop, Beneficiary Walls counsel had grave concerns that Willie Jessop
had sold additional information to Mr. Wisan, or that Mr. Wisan felt pressure from Willie Jessop
to enter into the $400,000 land grant because he ( Mr. Jessop) may have had information on Mr.
Wisan that did not reflect well on Mr. Wisan. If Willie Jessop had information or an
investigative file on Mr. Wisan, such information not only affects the value of the UEP Trust, but
could also call into question Mr. Jessops actions of potential extortion and bribery, and Mr.
Wisans abilities to act as a true fiduciary
2
for the UEP Trust beneficiaries.
In short, Ms. Wall wanted to determine whether any other UEP Trust assets were going
to be used to buy the cooperation, or yet worse, the silence, of witnesses, which would further
reduce the UEP Trust assets.

1
See Exhibit 8 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
Black's Law Dictionary defines self-dealing as [p]articipation in a transaction that benefits oneself
instead of another who is owed a fiduciary duty. In the trustee context, we have said that a trustee
engages in self-dealing if he place[s] himself in a position where it would be for his own benefit to
violate his duty to the beneficiaries. Eagar v. Burrows, 131 P.3d 9, 16 (Utah 2008).
3

The Attorney General of Utah appeared at the deposition and lodged no objections to any
of the proceedings or questions asked by Elissa Walls counsel. The UEP Trusts counsel agreed
that questioning Mr. Wisan about potential extortion by Mr. Jessop was fair inquiry and never
instructed Mr. Wisan not to answer any questions posed by plaintiffs counsel.
3

At Mr. Wisans deposition, it was learned that what he did not tell this Court at the July
18, 2014 hearing, was that he was under subpoena to appear at the exact same time in a
prostitution trial in Taylorsville City in the case of Taylorsville v. Marissa Ann Payne.
4
Mr.
Wisan is a witness in that case for a charge of prostitution against Ms. Payne, from an event that
happened on March 22, 2013.
Mr. Wisan met Ms. Payne on the internet webpage called Backpages.com.
5
He knew that
Ms. Payne was a prostitute and went to her hotel room on at least two occasions. He gave her
hundreds of dollars. He claimed that he felt sorry for her and was trying to help her out by
giving her food and money. However, when asked if he paid her for prostitution services,
Mr. Wisan refused to answer and then finally claimed the Fifth Amendment.
6

3
See Wisan depo. at p. 95, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Despite agreeing that such questioning was
appropriate, the UEP Trusts counsel then accused Elissa Walls counsel of asking about potential
extortion by Willie Jessop of Bruce Wisan after you got all the dirt in. It was a remarkable admission
by counsel for the UEP Trust that there was dirt regarding Mr. Wisans involvement with a prostitute.
Ms. Walls counsel gave counsel for the UEP Trust the opportunity to explain on the record what was
inappropriate about the questioning of Mr. Wisan and he declined to do such.
4
See Wisan depo. at p. 39.
5
See Wisan depo. at p. 40.
6
See Wisan depo. at p. 43-44.
4

However, the police report obtained after the deposition tells a very different story. Mr.
Wisan admitted to police that he took a shower with Ms. Payne, while Ms. Payne admitted to
police that she provided oral sex to Mr. Wisan.
7

Mr. Wisan was then asked whether Willie Jessop knew about the prostitution events and
sold the information to the UEP Trust as part of the $400,000 land grant. Mr. Wisan does not
know whether Willie Jessop knows of the prostitution events, but does deny that Willie Jessop
used it against him in procuring a $400,000 land grant.
8
However, given the significant criminal
implications of an extortion payment to Willie Jessop, plus the misrepresentations about the true
value of the UEP Trust by Mr. Wisan and his attorneys, coupled with Mr. Wisan pleading the
Fifth Amendment Privilege on whether Mr. Wisan engaged Ms. Payne for prostitution services,
and the overlay of the propensity for Willie Jessop to change his testimony for his financial
benefit, the credibility of Mr. Wisan as to all issues regarding UEP Trust assets, value, deals,
and intentions is clearly suspect and not trustworthy.
What is even more troubling is that Special Fiduciary believes that the administration of
the UEP Trust by him is a governmental function, in as much as it was the State of Utah that
petitioned the Court to take control of the UEP Trust and preserve assets for the benefit of the
Trust beneficiaries.
9
The Utah State Attorney General has an interest in ensuring that the UEP

7
See Police Report, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
8
See Wisan depo. at p. 45-46.
9
Id. at p. 11.
5

Trust is enforced in a consistent, lawful manner.
10
The State Attorney General, by admission of
Special Fiduciary Wisan, is vested with ensuring that the agreements entered into by the Special
Fiduciary are valid and enforceable.
11
The Special Fiduciary believes that he acts under the
judicial supervision of this Court.
12

However, Mr. Wisan never informed this Court of his involvement with the prostitution
case of Taylorsville v. Marissa Ann Payne.
13
Rather than appear at the prostitution trial, Mr.
Wisan appeared before this Court without telling the Court of the prostitution trial and urged the
Court to judicially sanction the sale of properties, many of them to Willie Jessop
14
, the funds
from which Mr. Wisan is going to use to pay himself and his attorneys.
Mr. Wisan never told the Utah Attorney General of his involvement with the prostitution
case
15
either, despite the fact that he knew the AG has an obligation to ensure that the UEP Trust
is enforced in a consistent, lawful manner, and that the AG must review all agreements entered
into by the Special Fiduciary. Fortuitously, Mr. Wisan sought the AGs intervention into the
M.J. case to investigate alleged criminal conduct by the parties. The Deputy Attorney General,
David Wolf, was a party to Mr. Wisans deposition and witnessed the potential criminal

10
Id. at p. 10.
11
Id. at pp. 9-10.
12
Id. at p. 11.
13
Id. at p. 48.
14
See Order, See Exhibit 17 to Wisan depo. attached hereto as Exhibit D.
15
Id. at pp. 47-48.
6

implications arising from Mr. Wisans invoking of the Fifth Amendment
16
on whether he
engaged the services of prostitute. Mr. Wisans failure to comply with the Taylorsville City
prosecutors subpoenas is also troubling.
Given the additional information recently obtained about the Special Fiduciary, Bruce
Wisan, petitioner and beneficiary Elissa Wall moves this Court to have oral argument in open
court, with notice, on her motion to reconsider the settlement agreement with Willie Jessop.
DATED this 4
th
day of August, 2014.
/s/ Alan W. Mortensen
Alan W. Mortensen

16
The court is allowed to infer criminal behavior when the Fifth Amendment is invoked in a civil
proceeding. See Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416, 426 n. 4 (Utah 2005); Gerard v. Young, 432 P.2d 343,
343, 34647 (1967).
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 4th day of August, 2014, I caused to be served a true and
correct copy of BENEFICIARY ELISSA WALLS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT WITH WILLIE R. JESSOP by the Courts Electronic Delivery System. This
document was served via First Class Mail & Electronic Mail to:

William G. Walker
WILLIAM G. WALKER, P.C.
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, AZ 85701

Joni J. Jones
David N. Wolf
Sean D. Reyes
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor
P.O. Box 140856
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856

/s/Alan W. Mortensen
Alan W. Mortensen

EXHIBIT
A
EXHIBIT
B
BRUCE R. WISAN July30,2014
AMBER PARK -- DEPOMAXMERIT REPORTERS (801) 328-1188 Page 1 to 4
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
* * *
M. J.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARREN JEFFS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________
UNITED EFFORT PLAN TRUST,
by Bruce R. Wisan, as the
Court-appointed Special
Fiduciary,
Third-Party Complainant,
v.
ALLEN STEED, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 070916524
Deposition of:
BRUCE R. WISAN
* * *
July 30, 2014
9:07 a.m.
36 South State Street
Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
* * *
Amber Park
- Certified Shorthand Reporter -
- Registered Professional Reporter -
A P P E A R A N C E S 1
For the Plaintiff: 2
ALAN W. MORTENSEN
LANCE L. MILNE 3
36 South State Street 4
Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 5
6
For the Defendants:
JEFFREY L. SHIELDS 7
CALLISTER NEBEKER & MCCULLOUGH
10 East South Temple 8
Suite 900
10
For State of Utah:
DAVID N. WOLF 11
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
160 East 300 South 12
6th Floor
Also present: 14
Max Nelson (Videographer)
15
* * *
16
I N D E X
17
EXAMINATION PAGE
18
Examination by Mr. Mortensen 4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E X H I B I T S 1
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Response to Plaintiff's Second Set of 4 2
Interrogatories and Fifth Set of
Requests for Production of Documents 3
2 Order Re: Preliminary Injunction 5
Appointing a Special Fiduciary and 4
Suspending the Trustees
3 Utah Attorney General Mark L. 9 5
Shurtleff's Motion to Intervene
6
4 Notice of Submission of Annual Report 10
United Effort Plan Trust 7
5 Contract for Purchase of Real Property 22
and Release Agreement 8
6 Declaration of Beneficiaries 26
7 Prosecution for Hire PowerPoint 32 9
8 Minutes of Auction Review Hearing 33
9 Minutes of Hearing 39 10
10 Back Page Internet Documents 40
11 Marissa Ann Payne Mugshot 42 11
12 Information on Misdemeanor Charge 43
13 Color Photograph 49 12
14 Color Photograph 49
15 Color Photograph 50 13
16 Notice of Submission of Annual Report of 51
United Effort Plan Trust 14
17 Order Approving Auction Sales of Real 55
Property 15
18 United Effort Plan Trust Utah Land 55
Parcels 16
19 United Effort Plan Trust Arizona Land 57
Parcels 17
20 Plat Maps 59
21 Memorandum in Support of Fiduciary's 71 18
Motion to Approve Sales of Real Property
22 Map of Hildale and Colorado City 75 19
23 Water Rights 82
24 Map of Colorado City 84 20
25 Colored Map 84
26 Verdicts in Cooke Case 87 21
27 Writ of Execution 87
28 Special Verdict 88 22
29 Plaintiff Intervenor State of Arizona's 90
Motion for Leave to Re-open the 23
Evidentiary Record
24

25
Page 3
Wednesday, July 30, 2014: 9:07 a.m. 1
(Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was 2
marked for identification.)
P R O C E E D I N G S 3
BRUCE R. WISAN, 4
called as a witness, having been duly sworn, 5
was examined and testified as follows:
6
EXAMINATION
7
BY MR. MORTENSEN: 8
Sir, it's my understanding -- I know 9 Q
you've had your deposition taken several times so we 10
can -- we can skip past the instructions and move into 11
the heart of the matter. 12
You're Bruce Wisan, the special fiduciary 13
that's been appointed for the UEP Trust, correct? 14
Yes. 15 A
And you've been handed what's been marked 16 Q
as Exhibit 1 to your deposition, which is identified 17
as a response to plaintiff's second set of 18
interrogatories and fifth set of requests for 19
production of documents to Bruce Wisan, as special 20
fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust. On that 21
document your signature appears on page 9, correct? 22
Yes. 23 A
You had an opportunity to review these 24 Q
responses to interrogatories for their accuracy? 25
Page 4
Well, I did when I signed it, yes. 1 A
And did you review the documents to verify 2 Q
that they were true and accurate documents? 3
Most of the documents. Some of the tax 4 A
assessment notices were so voluminous, I mean, I 5
didn't review every single one. I had a former 6
chairman of the State Tax Commission put that together 7
for me and I kind of looked at them. 8
Okay. 9 Q
But for all intents and purposes, yes. 10 A
And it's my understanding that -- we're 11 Q
here for a 30(b)(6) deposition, which is a legal term 12
that you would be the person most knowledgeable about 13
the dealings and transactions of the United Effort 14
Plan Trust since you took over as the fiduciary, is 15
that correct? 16
Yes. 17 A
And since its reformation, correct? 18 Q
Yes. 19 A
marked for identification.) 21
(BY MR. MORTENSEN) 22
Sir, you've been handed what's been marked 23 Q
as Exhibit 2. It's a order regarding a preliminary 24
injunction appointing the special fiduciary and 25
Page 5
suspending the trustees signed by Judge Deno Himonas 1
back on the 16th of June of 2005. Is that your 2
understanding is when you were appointed to be the 3
special fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust? 4
No. 5 A
When were you appointed? 6 Q
Judge -- I'm going to say Roger or 7 A
Robert -- Atkins appointed me May 27, 2005. 8
And then it got moved to Judge Himonas's 9 Q
court, correct? 10
Temporary -- for one hearing or for a 11 A
brief period of time to Judge Himonas, yes. 12
And Mark Shurtleff, the Attorney General 13 Q
at the time, was the one who nominated you to be the 14
special fiduciary, correct? 15
That was my understanding. 16 A
Why did he select you to be the special 17 Q
fiduciary? 18
Tim Bodily was the individual in the 19 A
Attorney General's office that was assigned to the 20
case. I have, over the years as a CPA, been an 21
accountant for bankruptcy trustees for several 22
standing trustees, Kim Mosier, Roger Segal, among 23
others, have interfaced with Joel Marker, and it came 24
a point where I was well enough known that I was then 25
Page 6
occasionally appointed bankruptcy trustee when they 1
didn't want the standing trustee for some particular 2
situation. I also then in various and sundry became a 3
receiver in a couple of cases, several cases, over 4
business properties. 5
And so Tim Bodily called me in two 6
thousand -- I believe it was 2002, 2003 on a case 7
that -- where a tax payer had gotten sideways with the 8
State Tax Commission and Tim Bodily was representing 9
the Tax Commission and appointed me a receiver of this 10
business. And it was a hostile takeover and there was 11
a -- I can't remember, share for some marshall or 12
somebody that -- with a badge and gun. And we went in 13
and took over the business and I ran it for 14
approximately a year, I believe. And there was arson, 15
there was all kinds of stuff, a lot of stuff went on, 16
and I handled it without a lot of fuss and muss. And 17
Tim liked the way I handled it and he said, "Well, 18
I'll keep you in mind if something comes up." 19
Two years later he was asked to get 20
involved in the UEP case and I came to mind and he 21
called me and asked me if I would be interested, and 22
if not, if I knew somebody that would be interested. 23
And they had an attorney or a law firm that they would 24
recommend if I took the case, Kesler and Rust I 25
Page 7
believe was the name of the firm, and so on and such 1
forth. And I thought about it and talked to a couple 2
of other people, I talked to some people at Callister 3
Nebeker & McCollough and decided to take the case. 4
And so Tim said, "Okay. We'll recommend 5
you." 6
I did not ever -- I had not met Mark 7
Shurtleff or didn't meet him until maybe a year -- at 8
least a year-and-a-half, maybe two years later. 9
Long -- sorry for the long answer, but that's what it 10
was. 11
So you had no preexisting friendship or 12 Q
relationship with Mark Shurtleff? 13
No. In fact, when I -- I was very 14 A
specific in asking Tim Bodily, "Well how did you get 15
my name?" 16
And he said, "I don't know. It just came 17
up." 18
And then the same question with regard to 19 Q
John Swallow, you had no friendship -- 20
No. 21 A
-- or relationship with him? 22 Q
No. 23 A
Did you know someone at Kesler and Rust? 24 Q
No. 25 A
Page 8
as Deposition Exhibit 3. And then it's an 5
intervention that was made -- or a motion for 6
intervention into the Arizona case of Colorado City 7
versus the UEP. In it, it states, "Intervener Utah 8
Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, by and through his 9
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of 10
Civil Procedure 24 and local rule 7.2, hereby 11
respectfully moves the Court to intervene in this 12
action on the grounds that he has (1) an interest in 13
protecting the interest of the beneficiaries of the 14
United Effort Plan Trust; (2) ensuring the Trust is 15
enforced in a consistent, lawful manner; and (3) 16
ensuring agreements entered into by the special 17
fiduciary of the UEP Trust are valid and enforceable." 18
Do you agree with that statement that was 19
made in this motion? 20
That it has an interest in those issues? 21 A
Yes. 22
So you would agree that the Attorney 23 Q
General has an interest in protecting the 24
beneficiaries of the UEP Trust? 25
Page 9
Yes. 1 A
And that the Attorney General of the State 2 Q
of Utah has an interest ensuring that the Trust is 3
enforced in a consistent, lawful manner, correct? 4
Certainly. 5 A
And that the UEP Trust also -- or that the 6 Q
Attorney General has an interest in ensuring that 7
agreements entered into by the special fiduciary -- 8
which would be you -- are valid and enforceable, 9
correct? 10
I would assume so, yes. 11 A
Sir, I've handed you what's been marked as 15 Q
Exhibit 4 to your deposition. And it is a notice of 16
submission of annual report United Effort Plan Trust 17
that was filed in a court of law here in the state of 18
Utah on March 30th of 2012. 19
MR. SHIELDS: Is this number 4, Counsel? 20
MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, Exhibit Number 4. 21
Could you turn to page 6 -- first of all, 22 Q
let me ask you, do you recognize this document? 23
Well, I prepared it. I haven't read it 24 A
for a couple of years so -- but I prepared it. 25
Page 10
But on page 23 that's your signature? 1 Q
Yes. 2 A
And so you would have read and agreed with 3 Q
this when this was filed with the Court, correct? 4
Yes. 5 A
So on page 6 under paragraph 10 where it 6 Q
says, "The fiduciary believes the administration of 7
the Trust is essentially a government function, 8
inasmuch as it was the State Government that 9
petitioned the Court to take control of the Trust and 10
preserve assets for the benefit of the Trust 11
beneficiaries." 12
Do you agree with that statement? 13
Yes. 14 A
So you believe that in acting as the 15 Q
fiduciary for the administration of the Trust you were 16
acting essentially in a government function, correct? 17
Well, I'm functioning under the judicial 18 A
supervision of Judge Lindberg and she's a State Judge 19
so that -- following that chain, yes. 20
Well, here it says the administration of 21 Q
the Trust is essentially a governmental function. Do 22
you agree with that? 23
In the manner that I just stated, that I 24 A
report to and am directed by a State Court. 25
Page 11
And then the Attorney General also is 1 Q
involved in oversight of any decisions that you make, 2
correct? 3
MR. WOLF: Objection. Lacks foundation. 4
THE WITNESS: I don't know that oversight 5
is a correct term there, Counselor. The Attorney 6
General's offices of Arizona and Utah are parties of 7
interest, but they don't give me instructions, the 8
judge does. And I report to the judge and I do not 9
report to either of the two AG's. 10
But it's the Attorney General's job, as 12 Q
stated in Exhibit 3, to ensure the Trust is enforced 13
in a consistent and lawful manner, correct? 14
That's their interest. They have an 15 A
interest in is the way that reads and -- yes, they 16
have an interest in that, and I'm sure if they have 17
some umbrage or a disagreement with the Trust, then 18
they would bring it up to the judge governing the 19
Trust. 20
So you do agree back on Exhibit 4 with the 21 Q
statement that "the administration of the Trust is 22
essentially a government function inasmuch as it was 23
the State Government that petitioned the Court to take 24
control of the Trust and preserve assets for the 25
Page 12
benefit of the Trust beneficiaries"? 1
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Asked and 2
answered twice. 3
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe I've already 4
answered that question. I am under the auspices of a 5
State Judge in Third District Court. 6
And you understand that when you file 8 Q
these reports that Judge Lindberg and the State of 9
Utah needs them to be as accurate as possible, 10
correct? 11
Well, again, I report to Judge Lindberg 12 A
and I try to have them as accurate as possible, yeah. 13
On page 17, on paragraph 51, it states 14 Q
that, "The fiduciary continues to look for property 15
that belongs to the Trust that has been diverted to 16
other organizations. The water rights that are so 17
critical to the operations of the community have been 18
a major focus of the fiduciary's efforts. Legal 19
investigations have been conducted into the removal of 20
water rights valued at several millions of dollars 21
from a dba of the UEP Trust, known as Southside 22
Irrigation Company, into a private entity, known as 23
Southside Irrigation Company, LLC. The transfer was 24
made by Willie Jessop while he was still adhering to 25
Page 13
the control group." 1
It's your understanding Willie Jessop was 2
the one who transferred UEP water rights into the 3
Southside Irrigation, LLC? 4
Well, his signature's on the documents so 5 A
that was my understanding, yes. 6
And so that would be transferring water 7 Q
rights away from the UEP Trust into an LLC not in 8
control by the UEP Trust? 9
Yes. 10 A
And that was illegal and improper? 11 Q
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for a 12
legal conclusion. 13
THE WITNESS: Yeah, in my understanding it 14
was improper, and in my opinion it was illegal, but 15
that had not been adjudicated. 16
So in your opinion it was illegal and 18 Q
improper? 19
In my opinion. 20 A
Was it fraudulent? 21 Q
I'm a simple CPA. I refuse -- 22 A
Well, you know what fraud is. You're a 23 Q
CPA. 24
Well, yeah, but I don't know the pure 25 A
Page 14
definition of fraud and -- 1
Give me your CPA definition of fraud. Do 2 Q
you think it's fraudulent? 3
Well, fraud is an intentional act to 4 A
illegally transfer assets -- to illegally transfer 5
assets. Let's leave it at that. 6
Okay. So do you think his transfer of 7 Q
assets from the UEP into this Southside Irrigation was 8
fraudulent? 9
I don't know what his intent was. I think 10 A
fraud -- again, I'm not an attorney, but I think fraud 11
has an aspect of intent and I'm not exactly sure what 12
his intent was, but I don't think it was -- it 13
certainly wasn't beneficial to the Trust and may well 14
have been fraud. 15
Well, did you take any actions to have it 16 Q
undone under -- as being a fraudulent transfer? 17
I did not. 18 A
But you had undone other property 19 Q
transfers based upon fraudulent transfers? 20
Early on, yes. 21 A
So you know what a fraudulent transfer is? 22 Q
In a weak sense. Again, as a CPA. 23 A
And then Willie Jessop gave -- got those 24 Q
water rights back to the UEP, correct? 25
Page 15
Well, he helped us get those back, yes. 1 A
What did he do to help? 2 Q
He went to the state -- and I'm not 3 A
exactly sure which department, but I would assume some 4
business regulation -- and his allegation when he was 5
working with us is that he was improperly removed from 6
being the manager of Southside Irrigation and he went 7
to the state, removed who they had replaced him, put 8
himself back in to that position that he felt he 9
should have been in, and then did a transfer of the 10
water rights out of that entity to the UEP Trust. 11
And -- I'm not sure now -- there was a deed and I'm 12
not sure whether that was a warranty deed or what kind 13
of a deed it was, but he -- with a deed he transferred 14
that to the UEP and that was taken to the state 15
engineer's office and they recorded that -- those 16
water rights in the name of the UEP Trust, which is 17
where they are now. 18
And as part of that transfer of the water 19 Q
rights back to the UEP Trust, Willie Jessop was sold a 20
piece of property at a much reduced value, correct? 21
Well, you have the motion. There were 22 A
several property transactions, and if you're talking 23
about the property across the street probably south of 24
the so-called Warren Jeffs compound, no, that was not 25
Page 16
a substantial discount. That was pretty much at 1
apprised value. 2
Wasn't he sold a piece of property that 3 Q
was sold to him for about $400,000 under the appraised 4
value? 5
No. 6 A
Wasn't there a request made to -- he was 7 Q
sold several parcels of property under the appraised 8
value that Judge Lindberg approved at a recent 9
hearing, correct? 10
Yes. 11 A
And what was the appraised value of those 12 Q
parcels? 13
I don't have those numbers in front of me, 14 A
but if we had all the documents here we could look at 15
that. I would assume you've got all the documents. I 16
didn't bring any documents. Every time I come to a 17
deposition I bring documents and never need them 18
because you guys always furnish them, the attorneys 19
all do that. 20
As part of the appraised -- as part of the 21 Q
sale of those properties, that included -- part of the 22
consideration for that was transferring the water 23
rights back into the UEP Trust, correct? 24
Yes. 25 A
Page 17
So if I understand correctly, Willie 1 Q
Jessop was sold a piece of property under value that 2
was originally owned by the UEP Trust, illegally, as 3
you stated, removed from the UEP Trust, and then 4
deeded back to the UEP Trust, and in consideration for 5
that he was rewarded with sales of property under 6
value? 7
That was part of the consideration to 8 A
Willie -- 9
And the -- 10 Q
That was part of the consideration to 11 A
Willie. And the value that Willie gave was not that 12
he got the water rights back to the Trust. The Trust 13
would have gotten those water rights back under -- 14
with litigation. What Willie saved the Trust, in my 15
opinion, was the litigation cost of doing that and by 16
cooperating. And he took the extra step of kind of -- 17
of undoing what he did, but then the extra step of 18
then making sure that it was properly recorded in the 19
state engineer's office. 20
And he also took the extra step of 21 Q
cooperating with you in the litigation against my 22
client Elissa Wall, correct? 23
Yes. 24 A
And that was -- actually that cooperation 25 Q
Page 18
was reduced to writing, correct? 1
We have a motion or a court order that was 2 A
submitted to the Judge and signed and that's -- that 3
was the only writing that it was reduced to. 4
And has that been presented -- well, you 5 Q
have a meeting in Hildale on the 9th of August, don't 6
you? 7
It's a town meeting to answer questions, 8 A
yes. 9
Are you going to tell them that? At the 10 Q
time that you gave Willie Jessop a good deal on 11
properties that they used to own that he took away and 12
put into a private company and then gave back? 13
Again, Counselor, that wasn't the only 14 A
issue, but that was -- that particular issue was 15
discussed in open court previously. 16
That wasn't my question. Are you going to 17 Q
tell the people of Hildale you did that? 18
If that comes up in the question and 19 A
answers, yes. I'm going to explain the nature of -- 20
the status of the MJ case. 21
That's not -- I'm not talking about the MJ 22 Q
case. 23
Yeah, I'm -- 24 A
I'm talking about the water rights. Are 25 Q
Page 19
you going to tell them about the water rights? 1
Yeah. 2 A
Is that on the agenda? 3 Q
No. 4 A
I haven't seen it. 5 Q
No, it wasn't on the agenda. 6 A
Why not? 7 Q
Because it's already been discussed in 8 A
open court. 9
The MJ case is on the agenda. Why isn't 10 Q
the water rights? 11
I'm not going down there discussing the 12 A
whole -- I've got four things that I'm planning on 13
discussing, and then if people have questions, yes. 14
But that -- why should the water rights be a separate 15
item on my agenda? 16
Well, if you're a beneficiary wouldn't you 17 Q
want to know if someone was given water rights or 18
given -- given reduced consideration for property that 19
they were a beneficiary of in exchange for something 20
that they did illegally in the first place? 21
MR. SHIELDS: Objection to the relevance 22
and the argumentative nature of this line of 23
questioning. 24
THE WITNESS: You know, I've already 25
Page 20
explained that that wasn't the full agreement with 1
Willie Jessop. And you keep talking about the 2
property that was way under -- given to him way under 3
value and so on and such forth. Turns out in the open 4
auction that the price Willie received for the GAP 5
properties was approximately the price that it was 6
sold under to independent third parties for. And so 7
it wasn't substantially under. And the other property 8
that he received was at appraised value. The only 9
real benefit, if you will, was his house and that 10
surrounding property. 11
And what was that worth? 13 Q
I don't know. 14 A
Well, was it 70 percent -- were the values 15 Q
of the properties that he got -- did he pay 70 percent 16
of the value of those properties? 17
I haven't calculated that. 18 A
So you're aware Judge Lindberg entered an 19 Q
order saying that she would approve property sales 20
where someone makes a 70 percent value offer, correct? 21
Yes. 22 A
But you haven't made that evaluation? 23 Q
No. And she orally approved the agreement 24 A
with Willie Jessop. I don't believe it's been signed 25
Page 21
yet but she orally approved that so it is what it is. 1
MR. SHIELDS: This deposition is 2
restricted to the security that Judge Kelly ordered. 3
This is not an attempt to relitigate Willie's 4
settlement agreement or Willie's standing, so I think 5
we ought to get on -- 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Well -- 7
MR. SHIELDS: We're leaving here at noon. 8
This is a three-hour deposition so -- 9
MR. MORTENSEN: You can leave -- 10
MR. SHIELDS: -- if you want to spend your 11
time on that, that's fine, but I think we ought to get 12
on to the issue, which is the bond. 13
MR. MORTENSEN: And my concern is that the 14
Trust corpus is being depleted at a unacceptable rate 15
by witnesses. So I get to find out what witnesses 16
have received consideration so... 17
as Deposition Exhibit 5. And this would be the 22
contract for purchase of real estate and release 23
agreement, correct? With Willie Jessop? 24
Yes. 25 A
Page 22
Okay. And on page 8 there's a buyer's 1 Q
cooperation clause. Do you see where I'm looking at? 2
8.2? 3
Yes. 4 A
It says there, "As an essential covenant 5 Q
required by seller to enter into this agreement and to 6
consummate the transaction described herein, buyer 7
hereby agrees to cooperate with seller in every 8
reasonable and timely manner, supplying accurate and 9
truthful information and documents that buyer in good 10
faith believes to be accurate and truthful for 11
seller's consideration and possible use in seller's 12
defense in all pending litigation, including that 13
certain matter entitled MJ, aka Elissa Wall vs. Warren 14
Jeffs, et al., pending in the Third Judicial District 15
Court in Salt Lake County." Do you see where it says 16
that? 17
Yes. 18 A
So basically Willie Jessop agrees to be 19 Q
accurate and truthful in anything that will be -- 20
could be used by the seller in the defense of all 21
pending litigation against Elissa Wall, correct? 22
Yes. 23 A
What about being accurate and truthful in 24 Q
anything that might hurt the defense? It doesn't say 25
Page 23
anything about him being truthful and accurate about 1
that, does it? 2
No, I think just being truthful and 3 A
accurate -- 4
MR. SHIELDS: Just a minute. Objection. 5
You're trying to go into stuff that you believe -- 6
MR. MORTENSEN: I don't want a speaking 7
objection. If you want to object to my question -- 8
MR. SHIELDS: Irrelevant. 9
MR. MORTENSEN: -- you can object and 10
then -- I'm not going to allow speaking objections, 11
Jeff. 12
MR. SHIELDS: Irrelevant objection. 13
Outside the scope of what Judge Kelly ordered. This 14
deposition is for the bond. I know you don't like the 15
Willie Jessop settlement, but this is not the place to 16
be litigating that. 17
MR. MORTENSEN: Go ahead and answer the 18
question. 19
THE WITNESS: Well, it says to be truthful 20
and accurate. Whether that's -- whether that's pro or 21
con for the trust's benefit, it's truthful and 22
accurate. That's what he's supposed to be doing. 23
"Truthful and accurate for the possible 25 Q
Page 24
use in seller's defense in all" -- 1
Okay. 2 A
-- "pending litigation." 3 Q
Truthful and accurate. 4 A
Don't you agree it can be read to say that 5 Q
he only has to be truthful and accurate on information 6
that would help the seller's defense in the pending 7
litigation? 8
No. I think truthful and accurate means 9 A
whether -- it is what it is. Truthful and accurate 10
speaks for itself. That may or may not help the 11
Trust. 12
All right. And then also you gave Willie 13 Q
Jessop an unconditional release from any liability to 14
the UEP Trust, correct? 15
Yes. 16 A
So the UEP Trust can't sue him anymore, 17 Q
correct? 18
That's right. 19 A
Despite the fact that he did something you 20 Q
thought was illegal by stealing water rights? 21
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Mr. Wisan never 22
said "steal water rights." 23
THE WITNESS: We -- 24
MR. MORTENSEN: That wasn't my -- I'm 25
Page 25
asking the question. 1
THE WITNESS: Okay. We -- the answer to 2
the question is that we agreed not to sue him for any 3
prior actions against the Trust, whatever they may be. 4
What if you found out he had been 6 Q
dishonest in the information he provided about Elissa 7
Wall? Could you sue him for that? 8
I don't know. I'm not an attorney. I'd 9 A
have to ask my attorneys. 10
All right. 11 Q
Deposition Exhibit 6. This is the declaration of the 16
beneficiaries. Have you seen this document before? 17
Not this particular -- like an exhibit, 18 A
but I've seen the declaration of beneficiaries. It's 19
many, many pages and I've glanced at it before. 20
Do you see Willie Jessop's signature 21 Q
there? 22
I do. Number 2. 23 A
And there he signed saying that he agreed 24 Q
that -- number 4, "The special fiduciary has a 25
Page 26
conflict of interest because he is pursuing payment 1
for himself at the expense of my interests as a 2
beneficiary, the best interests of the church and the 3
UEP and the intentions of the settlors." 4
MR. SHIELDS: What paragraph are you 5
reading, Counsel? 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Paragraph 4. 7
THE WITNESS: Number 4. 8
"The special fiduciary has made 10 Q
misrepresentations to the Court about his transactions 11
in order to pay himself at the expense of protecting 12
the interest of the beneficiaries." Do you see where 13
I'm referring to? 14
Yes. 15 A
And you see that Willie Jessop signed 16 Q
that? 17
Yes. 18 A
And he in fact expressed to you that he 19 Q
thought you did have a conflict of interest by paying 20
yourself through UEP assets, correct? 21
I don't ever remember him saying that to 22 A
me. 23
Okay. But you don't disagree that he 24 Q
signed this stating that? 25
Page 27
He signed that document, yes. 1 A
And isn't it true that a settlement was 2 Q
just approved where he received UEP assets? 3
Yes. 4 A
At a reduced value? 5 Q
Again, the house was the -- was probably 6 A
the only asset that was at some reduced value. And 7
the judge has not signed the order pending some kind 8
of transfer fee that he and others would have to make. 9
Do you know -- and I apologize, I only 10 Q
have one copy of this. It's Exhibit 7 to Willie 11
Jessop's deposition in this case. It's "Prosecution 12
for hire." Have you seen this document? 13
Willie has presented several documents to 14 A
my attorneys. I have not reviewed them specifically. 15
I've been present when he's given documents to 16
attorneys and so have I seen that? Perhaps. Have I 17
read it? No. 18
It looks similar to other PowerPoints he's 19 Q
prepared, does it not? 20
Okay. 21 A
Okay. So on one of the slides -- and this 22 Q
is -- again, it's called "Prosecution for hire. 23
Taking out the FLDS." One of the slides it says, 24
"Spun out again. Utah/Arizona AG's only claim is 25
Page 28
underage marriage. Even then no victims." Do you see 1
that? 2
Uh-huh. 3 A
Has Willie Jessop -- 4 Q
Yes. 5 A
-- ever expressed to you that there's no 6 Q
victims in underage marriage? 7
No. In fact to the opposite, he's 8 A
indicated that there are numerous victims and he was 9
appalled, and that's why he no longer supports Warren 10
Jeffs and the supporters of Warren Jeffs. 11
Has he ever married anyone to your 12 Q
knowledge that was underage? 13
Not to my knowledge. 14 A
Have you asked him? 15 Q
No. 16 A
Would that have mattered on whether or not 17 Q
you would have entered into the agreement you entered 18
into with him if he had had sex with underage girls? 19
MR. SHIELDS: Let me object again. 20
Counsel, the case is stayed as to everything but the 21
bond. You're trying to do discovery on the main case 22
in the context of this bond deposition. I'm going on 23
object to this line of questioning. I object to any 24
of these answers being used in the main case. This is 25
Page 29
only for the bond. 1
MR. MORTENSEN: I understand. And we're 2
going to be getting to the bond here because I think 3
that there's a problem here that I want to talk about 4
as far as the bond. 5
MR. SHIELDS: This is a deposition. 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Right. 7
MR. SHIELDS: And you're supposed you ask 8
questions. You're not supposed to talk about it. You 9
ask your questions -- 10
MR. MORTENSEN: You just -- Jeff, you just 11
gave a speaking objection and so I'm responding to it. 12
So if you want to object like the rules require, I'll 13
respond appropriately. But if you're going to do 14
speaking objections, I'm going to respond. 15
Would you have entered into the -- 16 Q
Just as background, as a matter of course 17 A
in my dealing with people in the community, I have not 18
inquired about marital status, marital relations, with 19
individuals with whom I come in contact. And I 20
haven't done that with Willie Jessop. I haven't done 21
that with any other people down in the community with 22
whom I've come in contact. 23
I guess there would be a -- it would have 24
to be a facts and circumstances situation in terms of 25
Page 30
the answering to your question, would that have 1
affected me or affected the relationship or whatever, 2
and my response is it's facts and circumstances and 3
that's my answer. 4
So could you see any circumstances wherein 5 Q
you would have entered into an agreement with anybody 6
to provide cooperation in a case against MJ if you 7
knew that he was a pedophile? 8
Well, being a pedophile by definition and 9 A
having a church-sanctioned marriage that may have been 10
illegal I think are two different things. 11
Isn't church-sanctioned marriage to an 12 Q
underage woman basically church-sanctioned pedophilia? 13
You know, I don't know what the legal 14 A
definition of pedophilia is. 15
So you haven't answered my question. 16 Q
Because I don't know how to answer that. 17 A
Would you have entered into any type of 18 Q
agreement like you did with Willie Jessop where you 19
gave him reduced value property of the UEP Trust if 20
you knew that that person was having sex or had sex 21
with an underage girl? 22
I don't know. 23 A
And you didn't make any inquiry as part 24 Q
of -- I mean, you're cloaked with the color of the 25
Page 31
State of Utah and Judge Lindberg, but you didn't make 1
any inquiry as to whether or not Willie Jessop was a 2
pedophile, did you? 3
No. 4 A
MR. MORTENSEN: Let's actually mark this 5
again as Exhibit 7 because I want it attached to this. 6
MR. SHIELDS: Can I get a copy of what you 9
referred to as Exhibit 7? 10
MR. MORTENSEN: Sure. Make a copy of... 11
MR. SHIELDS: So are you taking Exhibit 7 12
off this one? 13
MR. MORTENSEN: No. 14
MR. SHIELDS: Because it's marked Exhibit 15
7. 16
MR. MORTENSEN: It's marked Exhibit 7 to 17
Willie's depo but I'm also marking it as Exhibit 7 to 18
this deposition. 19
MR. SHIELDS: Okay. And I thought you 20
said you were going to mark this as Exhibit 7. 21
MR. MORTENSEN: That's the only copy I 22
have and so I've marked it as Exhibit 7. 23
MR. MILNE: Do you want a copy of it now? 24
Is that what you're saying? 25
Page 32
MR. SHIELDS: Just before we end it. Are 1
you going to refer to this more? 2
MR. SHIELDS: Okay. Just before we leave 4
I would like to get a copy of this because I don't 5
have one. 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. 7
as Exhibit 8. This is some minutes from the auction 12
review hearing that was held. You were present for 13
that, correct? 14
Yes. 15 A
And that was held on July 18th of 2014? 16 Q
I believe so. 17 A
And in it, it states that, "The Court 18 Q
addresses Counsel regarding the Elissa Wall's motion 19
for reconsideration of the order approving settlement. 20
The Court declines oral argument and denies the motion 21
for reconsideration." Do you recall the Judge making 22
that ruling? 23
Yes. 24 A
And then it says, "at 10:05 Willie Jessop 25 Q
Page 33
addresses the Court directly." Do you recall 1
Mr. Jessop addressing the Court directly? 2
I do. 3 A
What did he say? 4 Q
He was wanting -- and I didn't have all of 5 A
the details, I'm not sure I understood all the 6
details, but he had submitted several bids, and 7
apparently some of the bids were higher than the 8
70 percent limitation that the Judge had -- at that 9
hearing had established, and he wanted the Trust 10
and/or the Court to take all -- some of all of his 11
bids and compare them, and if that were to be done 12
then his comment was that as a lump sum they would 13
exceed the 70 percent. And so even though some of his 14
bids failed to meet the 70 percent test, he wanted all 15
of his bids accepted because in lump sum they all 16
totalled 70 percent. That's the comment I remember 17
him making. 18
And is there anything else that you recall 19 Q
about Mr. Jessop's comments to the Court? 20
That's all I recall. 21 A
Did Judge Lindberg -- do you recall Judge 22 Q
Lindberg ever asking Willie Jessop why he needed to 23
receive a discounted property sale in order to 24
cooperate with the Trust? 25
Page 34
I don't. 1 A
Why did he? 2 Q
Why did he what? 3 A
Why did he require such to do what he was 4 Q
supposed to do legally? 5
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Assumes facts 6
and precedent is not accurate. 7
THE WITNESS: Willie requested assistance 8
in obtaining some property and the Trust -- I in 9
council with my attorneys -- felt that it was in the 10
best interest of the Trust to work with Willie in that 11
regard. 12
Do you know if Willie's been given 14 Q
immunity from the Federal Government? 15
I haven't had any direct confirmation but 16 A
I've heard through the grapevine that he had. 17
Has he been given immunity from the State 18 Q
of Utah? 19
MR. WOLF: Objection. Lacks foundation. 20
THE WITNESS: I don't know. 21
And then you -- it looks like you also 23 Q
addressed the Court at 10:17. Do you recall 24
addressing the Court? 25
Page 35
Well, I recall that she asked me to step 1 A
to the podium, yes. 2
Okay. And do you recall what Judge 3 Q
Lindberg asked you about these sales? 4
She asked me about the status of the D&O 5 A
insurance, director and officer's insurance, for the 6
potential board of trustees, and I gave her a report 7
on that. In conjunction with that I -- oh, she asked 8
me also about occupancy fees and that apparently some 9
of her -- some of the applicants of the board of 10
trustees that she was favorably inclined towards had 11
not fully paid the Trust for occupancy fees and may 12
not have been current with their property taxes and 13
asked off the cuff what I would recommend in that 14
particular situation, and I gave her an off the cuff 15
response. I believe those are the two major issues 16
that I testified about. 17
And you've seen in the filings that based 18 Q
upon information that -- well, let me first of all ask 19
you, have you seen what has been marked as Deposition 20
Exhibit 2 to Willie Jessop's deposition, which is the 21
file that he compiled with regard to Elissa Wall? 22
Take a look at it if you want. 23
MR. SHIELDS: Are you going to mark this 24
as an exhibit? 25
Page 36
THE WITNESS: Is this a PowerPoint or 2
something that he prepared? 3
MR. MORTENSEN: It's just his file on 4
Elissa. 5
THE WITNESS: I've been in meetings when 6
he presented various facts about Elissa. I don't know 7
that I've seen that particular file or whatever. But 8
he's explained some of the issues there listed, yes. 9
Okay. And has he also talked to you about 11 Q
other potential witnesses? 12
Well, when you say me, I'm not in some of 13 A
the meetings with the attorneys on your client's case. 14
They don't really affect me and so I'm not present. 15
So the answer to that, maybe with counsel, and I've 16
heard discussion about a witness or two from Willie, 17
but how extensive those discussions are outside of my 18
presence I don't know. 19
What witnesses has he talked to you about? 20 Q
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Outside the 21
scope of the deposition. 22
MR. MORTENSEN: I want to know what he 23
bought. 24
THE WITNESS: Jane Blackmore is the 25
Page 37
primary one. 1
MR. SHIELDS: Counsel, can I just have a 2
standing objection that this line of questioning is 3
outside the scope so I don't have to say it after 4
every question? 5
MR. MORTENSEN: Sure. 6
THE WITNESS: I believe one of her sisters 7
and I don't recall the name. 8
Did he ever -- what did he say about Jane 10 Q
Blackmore? 11
I mean, what do you mean "what did he 12 A
say?" He said there's a story there that needs to be 13
told that would be beneficial to the Trust and he 14
thought he could -- Jane is apparently not real 15
willing to voluntarily act as a witness and he thought 16
that he could maybe persuade her to be a witness. 17
Has he given the Trust any types of files 18 Q
in exchange for this agreement that was entered into 19
where he got -- where he was released from all 20
liability to the UEP? Has he given you files from 21
other people? 22
I don't know. There have been meetings 23 A
with him and my counsel that, as I've stated before, 24
where I am not -- where I was not present and so I 25
Page 38
don't know what files, if any, he's given. 1
Does he have a file on you? 2 Q
I don't know. 3 A
Have you ever asked him? 4 Q
No. 5 A
Now we'll mark this as Exhibit 9. 6 Q
You were also supposed to be in court in 10 Q
Taylorsville at the same time that you were in court 11
with Judge Lindberg, were you not? 12
Yes. 13 A
And you had Miss Cleveland, your attorney, 14 Q
present? 15
Yes. 16 A
And that was in a case of Taylorsville 17 Q
City vs. Marissa Ann Payne? 18
Yes. 19 A
And that's for prostitution? 20 Q
She was charged with that I believe. 21 A
And you had been subpoenaed to testify -- 22 Q
to appear as a witness, correct? 23
Yes. 24 A
And what is your involvement with the 25 Q
Page 39
Marissa Ann Payne matter? 1
I was trying to help her. 2 A
How were you trying to help her? 3 Q
At that particular time I was taking her 4 A
food and probably going to give her money. 5
Taking her food to her apartment? 6 Q
To where she was staying, yes. 7 A
And she was staying at, like, a weekly 8 Q
hotel place? 9
Yeah, I think so. 10 A
And are you related to her? 11 Q
No. 12 A
How do you know her? 13 Q
I met her on the Internet. 14 A
On back pages? 15 Q
I don't recall, but something like that. 16 A
You realize she's a prostitute? 17 Q
Oh, I knew that. 18 A
MR. SHIELDS: Again, this is a new line of 21
questioning. I object to this line of questioning and 22
would ask that none of this be used in accordance with 23
the -- it is outside the scope of Judge Kelly's order. 24
Can you explain some relevance here, Counsel? 25
Page 40
Sure. Did Willie Jessop know about 2 Q
Marissa Ann Payne? 3
No. 4 A
How do you know? 5 Q
I don't know. 6 A
Did he ever approach you about Marissa Ann 7 Q
Payne when he wanted a sweetheart deal on his 8
property? 9
No. 10 A
Do you know if he had a file on you where 11 Q
Marissa Ann Payne was included? 12
No. 13 A
Marissa Payne, excuse me. I ask that the 14 Q
record be corrected. 15
You don't know whether Willie knows about 16
this? 17
No. 18 A
MR. WOLF: Alan, was this Exhibit 10? 19
This backpage Internet document, did you mark this as 20
Exhibit 10? 21
Yeah. Let me ask you, these pictures on 23 Q
Exhibit 10, are these pictures of Marissa Payne? 24
You know, I can't answer that. I don't 25 A
Page 41
know. It's been so long. I -- I've helped a number 1
of people monetarily. She's one. 2
THE WITNESS: If she walked in the room 5
right now I wouldn't recognize her. 6
You've been handed what's been marked as 8 Q
Exhibit 11. 9
Uh-huh. 10 A
Does that refresh your memory at all as to 11 Q
what Marissa Ann Payne may look like? 12
It does not. 13 A
And when you were providing her food and 14 Q
money did you know she was a prostitute? 15
Yes. 16 A
Did you ever engage her services as a 17 Q
prostitute? 18
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Irrelevant. 19
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm not going to 20
answer that question. That was not the intent of my 21
visit with her. That was not the intent of the 22
relationship and I'm not going to answer that 23
question. 24
Page 42
Under what grounds? 1 Q
I'm just not going to answer that 2 A
question. 3
Are you pleading the Fifth? 4 Q
I'm just not going to answer that 5 A
question. 6
Okay. Well, I'm going to sit here until I 7 Q
get an answer. 8
Okay. Then -- 9 A
MR. SHIELDS: If you want to spend your 10
three hours on this -- 11
THE WITNESS: Then I'll -- 12
MR. MORTENSEN: I will spend my three 13
hours because -- 14
THE WITNESS: Then I'll plead the Fifth 15
then. 16
MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. 17
And just so I'm clear, the question was 18 Q
you're pleading the Fifth to the question of whether 19
you engaged Marissa Ann Payne for prostitution 20
services? 21
Yes. 22 A
And are you -- go ahead and mark this. 23 Q
Page 43
Exhibit 12. 3
Okay. 4 A
This is the information that was filed in 5 Q
this case where, "Count 1: Prostitution," it's the 6
affidavit of probable cause signed by Detective -- 7
looks like a Johnson. It says that, "On or about 8
March -- 20th of March 2013 in responding to a call 9
regarding an altercation between two men at 10
approximately 5683 South Redwood Road, it was found 11
that Marissa Payne had been engaging in sexual acts 12
for a fee with one of the men." 13
Do you have any -- were you involved in 14
that altercation? 15
No. And I was not involved in any sexual 16 A
acts with her and I was not anticipating and not even 17
planning. 18
So were you there on March 20th, 2013? 19 Q
I don't know what day it was, but it was 20 A
the day she was arrested. 21
So you were at her hotel the day she was 22 Q
arrested for prostitution? 23
Yeah. I'd taken her some food and she had 24 A
contacted me and was desperate for money and I was 25
Page 44
going to give her some money. 1
And you had -- how did she get your phone 2 Q
number? 3
I gave it to her. I can't recall exactly 4 A
when. 5
And have you -- are you scheduled to 6 Q
testify in her trial? 7
If there is a trial. 8 A
And just so the record's clear, you have 9 Q
not been approached by Willie Jessop at all about any 10
knowledge he may have about this event? 11
No. 12 A
answered. 14
THE WITNESS: Yeah, no. 15
Have you been approached by anybody else 17 Q
regarding UEP matters about this matter? 18
No. 19 A
And just so the record's clear, Mr. Jessop 20 Q
didn't use this information at all in negotiating a 21
complete release and the purchase of property that 22
we've already marked as an exhibit? 23
answered. 25
Page 45
THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. 1
That would be highly improper, correct? 3 Q
Yes, it would. 4 A
That would be extortion, correct? 5 Q
Well, I don't know what's -- 6 A
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for a 7
legal conclusion. 8
THE WITNESS: I don't know what the legal 9
response would be, but it would be wrong, yes. 10
Well, in the pleadings that your attorneys 12 Q
have filed, they've claimed that the settlement 13
agreement between Elissa Wall and Allen Steed involves 14
extortion. 15
If Willie Jessop had come to you and said, 16
"Hey, I've got this information on you. This is the 17
deal I want," that would be extortion, would it not? 18
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for legal 19
conclusion. 20
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I've already answered 21
that. It would seem like it but I'm not an expert on 22
that. 23
Have you told -- have you told the 25 Q
Page 46
Attorney General about the fact that you're a witness 1
in the Marissa Ann Payne case? 2
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Irrelevant. 3
THE WITNESS: No. 4
Have you told Judge Lindberg? 6 Q
No. 7 A
Have you told any of the beneficiaries of 8 Q
the Trust? 9
No. 10 A
Are you going to tell them on the meeting 11 Q
on the 9th of August? 12
Not planning on it. 13 A
Is Miss Payne a beneficiary of the UEP 14 Q
Trust? 15
No. 16 A
Is she affiliated at all with the Creek? 17 Q
No. 18 A
Do you have her number in your cell phone? 19 Q
No. 20 A
How many meetings did you have with her? 21 Q
At least two. 22 A
Were they both at her hotel? 23 Q
Yes. 24 A
And you have no knowledge as to where 25 Q
Page 47
she's at right now? 1
No. 2 A
And I believe you said you gave her money? 3 Q
Yes. 4 A
Did you ever use a credit card or a check? 5 Q
No. 6 A
MR. MORTENSEN: We've been going an hour. 7
Why don't we take a five-minute break. 8
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 9
Mr. Wisan, how much money did you give 11 Q
Marissa? 12
Well, the date where I'm to be a witness, 13 A
none. We just sat and chatted, I gave her some food. 14
I was planning on 2- or $300 to give her. 15
You were planning to give her 2- or $300 16 Q
before the police arrived? 17
Yes, uh-huh. 18 A
And how about previous to that how much 19 Q
money had you given her? 20
Probably 4- or $500 total. 21 A
And that was for sex? 22 Q
No. 23 A
What was it for? 24 Q
To help her out. 25 A
Page 48
But you did meet her on the Internet? 1 Q
I did. 2 A
Exhibit 13. Does that appear to be a picture of the 7
Extended Stay America where Marissa worked? 8
You know, I can't remember exactly where 9 A
it was. 10
Let me just have you look at the 14 Q
Exhibit 13. It says 5683 and the information in the 15
case said that the -- it was based on an altercation 16
between two men at 5683 South Redwood Road. Is that 17
basically the location of the Extended Stay America? 18
You know, again, I can't remember. It was 19 A
somewhere out in Murray. 20
Was it on Redwood Road? 21 Q
Probably, yeah. 22 A
Okay. And Exhibit 14 doesn't refresh your 23 Q
memory? 24
No. 25 A
Page 49
How about Exhibit 15? 1 Q
THE WITNESS: No. 4
And after this time that you had gone to 6 Q
see her have you seen her since? 7
No. 8 A
Have you heard from her since? 9 Q
No. 10 A
Have you heard from any family members? 11 Q
No. 12 A
Do you know if there's been any kind of 13 Q
warrant out for your arrest to appear as a witness in 14
the case? 15
No. 16 A
Have you been called by the Taylorsville 17 Q
prosecutor to appear as a witness? 18
No. 19 A
You haven't gotten a subpoena? 20 Q
Oh, I received a subpoena. 21 A
And where did you receive that at? 22 Q
One time at home and one time at my 23 A
office. 24
So you've been subpoenaed to appear as a 25 Q
Page 50
witness twice? 1
Yes. 2 A
And as of yet you have not appeared? 3 Q
No. 4 A
I've handed you, sir, what's been marked 8 Q
as Exhibit 16. It's a notice of submission of annual 9
report of the United Effort Plan Trust dated -- filed 10
with the Court on March 27th of 2014. Is this a true 11
and accurate copy -- strike that. Did you prepare 12
this report? 13
Either prepared it or under my 14 A
jurisdiction. 15
Okay. So you agree with the statements in 16 Q
this report? 17
Yes. 18 A
On page 5, paragraph 6, it says, "There is 19 Q
still polarization in the community and controversy 20
over the occupation and management of the property 21
still exists. With stronger legal authority after the 22
recent favorable Court decisions, the fiduciary has 23
started to assert increasing authority over the 24
management of the property. The fiduciary has also 25
Page 51
been successful in selling some nonresidential 1
property to help pay debts of the Trust. However, 2
there are still many residents that continue to 3
exhibit hostile behaviors towards the Trust 4
administration." 5
List for me the nonresidential properties 6
that you have been able to sell in the time period 7
between March 2014 and March 2013. 8
The schools were sold, two schools, and -- 9 A
to the school district -- and we'd sold -- I believe 10
in that time period we'd sold the block 45, which is 11
referred to as the CMC property. 12
What does CMC stand for? 13 Q
Community mercantile co-op or something of 14 A
that nature. I'm not exactly sure. 15
Let me have you turn to -- 16 Q
In addition I sold -- if that is the case 17 A
in addition I sold some property in Skunk Canyon, the 18
two schools and the block 45. And I'm not sure if 19
we're talking also about the sale of the Berry Knoll. 20
When was the Berry Knoll sold? 21 Q
I can't remember but I think it was -- 22 A
Okay. I think we'll get into that in some 23 Q
documents. 24
-- probably within that time frame. 25 A
Page 52
Can you turn back to Exhibit 4, which is 1 Q
the 2012 report. I apologize. It should be there in 2
your stack. On page 10, paragraph 27, it states, 3
"Subdividing the Trust property is critical to the 4
fiduciary for two reasons; (1) to enable the fiduciary 5
to transfer the property to beneficiaries of the Trust 6
by giving them deeds to the property" -- you would 7
agree with that, would you not? 8
Yes. 9 A
So really one of the purposes of the Trust 10 Q
is to deplete its assets? 11
I'd like to reduce the footprint of the 12 A
Trust, yes. 13
And then, "(2) to facilitate the payment 14 Q
of property tax by giving assurance to the occupants 15
of the Trust property that if they pay the tax, their 16
efforts will be recognized and the property will not 17
be lost to a tax sale." 18
How are you -- how is the Trust doing with 19
regard to paragraph 2? 20
Paragraph 2? 21 A
Assuring the property -- 22 Q
MR. SHIELDS: You mean subpart 2? 23
MR. MORTENSEN: Subpart 2, yeah. Thank 24
you. 25
Page 53
THE WITNESS: Subpart 2, that they pay 1
their tax? Yeah, well, it's -- I mean, it hasn't 2
happened. 3
There's still huge tax delinquencies, 5 Q
correct? 6
Yeah. Utah is -- almost all the 7 A
properties in Utah are delinquent. Many properties -- 8
at least a year or a year. Many properties in 9
Colorado City are delinquent more than a year. Even 10
though the Supreme Court has approved the subdivision, 11
and the subdivision plats have been recorded, that 12
hasn't translated yet into any viable process of 13
collecting property taxes from individual homeowners. 14
We have to have a -- the delinquent taxes, we're going 15
to have a meeting with the county officials to 16
allocate the back taxes to the various properties in 17
Hildale that are delinquent, and of course Colorado 18
City has not been subdivided. So there's -- it's same 19
old same old there. 20
Has there been any threats of any tax 21 Q
sales or does that have to wait until the subdivision 22
process is finalized? 23
No. No tax sales. 24 A
Has there been any threat of it? 25 Q
Page 54
Oh yes. 1 A
Is that in Utah or Arizona or both? 2 Q
Both. 3 A
Okay. Do you know how much property would 4 Q
need to be sold in the Utah side to satisfy the tax 5
debt of the UEP Trust? 6
No. 7 A
Do you know how much the current water 8 Q
rights are worth? 9
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Vague and 10
ambiguous. Which water rights? 11
MR. MORTENSEN: That's a good objection. 12
Let me strike that. I'm going to start going through 13
some documents to see if I can get to the bottom of 14
this. 15
MR. MORTENSEN: You've been handed what's 18
been marked as Deposition Exhibit 17. And it's the 19
order approving auction sales of real property that 20
was entered on July 28th of 2014 by Judge Lindberg. 21
THE WITNESS: You've handed me 17. Do you 24
want me to put that down? 25
Page 55
I'm going to try to correlate some things 2 Q
from 17 with 18 if I can. 3
On Exhibit 17 there's a list of, like, lot 4
1A, 1B, 152 acres and who it's sold to. Do you know, 5
does that list correlate at all with the Utah land 6
parcels that are listed on Exhibit 18? Let me strike 7
that. 8
If you go to, like -- on page 3 of 9
Exhibit 17 under 1C, for example -- or let's go 1B. 10
It says, "Lot 1B; 152 acres," and then it has in 11
parenthesis, "HD-03-29-220." What does the 12
"HD-03-29-220" mean? 13
I have no idea. It's a county 14 A
designation. HD is Hildale. 15
Hildale. And then if you come over on 16 Q
Exhibit 18, it looks like under account number 148042 17
there's a listing for HD-0-3-29-220. Do you see where 18
I'm referring to? 19
Yes. 20 A
So would that line item on Exhibit 18 21 Q
correspond with the listing on 1B on Exhibit 17? 22
Yes. 23 A
Turning to Exhibit -- let me ask you, are 24 Q
all of the properties that are listed on Exhibit 17 25
Page 56
listed on Exhibit 18? 1
No. 2 A
Are the ones that have HD -- would those 3 Q
be the ones that are in Hildale? 4
Yes. 5 A
And then the ones that say -- have a 6 Q
number of 404 dash whatever the number, would those be 7
listed on the Arizona land parcels? 8
Yes. 9 A
MR. SHIELDS: What number is this, 12
Counsel? 13
MR. MORTENSEN: Actually, I think I gave 14
you my Exhibit 17 with my notes. Sorry. 15
THE WITNESS: You did. 16
MR. MORTENSEN: We can switch that out. 17
THE WITNESS: I like to read your notes. 18
MR. SHIELDS: Was the Arizona land parcel, 19
19? 20
So if I go through the -- on Exhibit 18 I 22 Q
will be able to determine what properties have been 23
sold by reference to the court order on Exhibit 17, 24
correct? 25
Page 57
Well, you should. I'm not exactly sure 1 A
where you got this information but it looks like from 2
a county web page on 18 and 19. 3
And let me represent to you they were 4 Q
provided by your counsel. 5
Okay. 6 A
So -- and then if I wanted to determine 7 Q
what Arizona properties were sold I could look at 8
Exhibit 19 and match up the number -- 404 number with 9
the listing of those properties, correct? 10
Well, I think 17 is the order approving 11 A
auction sales, so if you want to find out what has 12
been sold at auction, 17 is the document. 18 and 19 13
are just county assessor -- county assessor's values 14
of the properties in Hildale and Colorado City. 15
Okay. And on 18 it has the assessor's 16 Q
value. On 19 it has full cash value. Do you know how 17
that full cash value number is derived? 18
No. 19 A
Are you able to determine by looking at 20 Q
Exhibit 18 or 19 what parcels are residential or what 21
parcels are commercial? 22
No. 23 A
And how would I go about looking at 24 Q
Exhibit 18 and 19 and determining whether it's 25
Page 58
commercial or residential? 1
I don't believe that's possible. 2 A
I've handed you what's been marked as 6 Q
Deposition Exhibit 20 and it looks like it's the 7
subdivision of Hildale that -- the subdivision plats 8
or map, is that correct? 9
Yes. There should be 14 -- yes. 10 A
There should be 14 of these? 11 Q
Plats. There are 14 plats. 12 A
Okay. I got lucky. I have 14 so... 13 Q
How would I take Exhibit 18 and match up 14
the parcel number with this plat map? 15
I'm not sure that you would be able to do 16 A
that. The county in Washington County had the parcels 17
listed and we had submitted the plats for -- as stated 18
on Exhibit 18 -- we had submitted the plats 1 through 19
14 a year-and-a-half, two years ago. It looks like 20
sometime in August of '13 perhaps that we had 21
submitted those -- maybe earlier -- in fact, it was 22
probably earlier. The county had approved -- in fact, 23
let's see, date submitted looks like 7/15/10 maybe. 24
And I'm reading from plat one. 25
Page 59
Plat one of Exhibit 20? 1 Q
Yes. Uh-huh. And plat 2, 8/19/13 -- this 2 A
might have been the date of review. Anyway, they were 3
submitted at least a year, maybe two years prior to 4
the time that the Supreme Court allowed the 5
subdivision to be recorded and then they were 6
recorded. The county hasn't updated its web page to 7
reflect all of the various -- there are no large plats 8
now of properties that have like 80 or 40 or whatever 9
acres in them. They've all been -- most of these then 10
have been subdivided, and to my knowledge the county 11
hasn't updated its numbering system to account for 12
each and every individual plat. So I don't think 13
there's any way that you could take the plats and -- 14
as subdivided and go to Exhibit 18 and figure out 15
which is which. 16
Okay. How -- and how would I go -- for 17 Q
example, on Exhibit 18, if I went to -- let's say 18
66400, the sixth one down where it says 40 acres for 19
the assessor's value 4,974,300, how would I find out 20
where that property is? 21
Okay. You would have to -- you couldn't 22 A
use the plats, the subdivision plats. You would have 23
to go to a map of the county parcels as they were at 24
the time before the subdivision occurred. 25
Page 60
Okay. So if I went to -- for example, 1 Q
account 66400 that had an assessed value at 4,974,300 2
at 40 acres, that's likely been subdivided? 3
Probably. 4 A
And so -- 5 Q
There were some parcels in Hildale that 6 A
were not subdivided. Some of the first ones that you 7
looked at on Exhibit 17 to Richard Holm, lot 1A and 8
lot 1B, I don't think, for example, those were 9
subdivided. The others, lots 1C and 2 I think were 10
subdivided. 11
So the values that are reflected on 12 Q
Exhibit 18 have likely been subdivided also, correct? 13
Well, I think I just said that not all of 14 A
them were. So 40 -- 418692, which is 0-3-32-110 with 15
124 acres, that has not -- I don't believe that has 16
been subdivided. 17
But it's been sold? 18 Q
But it's been sold. 19 A
Okay. 20 Q
So I would say the majority of 18, 21 A
Exhibit 18, has been subdivided, but not all. 22
And there's no way to make a determination 23 Q
what parcels are commercial? 24
No. 25 A
Page 61
How would I get an accurate value of 1 Q
really what the UEP Utah land parcels after the sale 2
that happened and the subdivision, how would I get an 3
accurate value of really what the UEP Utah land 4
parcels are worth? 5
Well, when you say "worth," are you going 6 A
by assessor's value? 7
Or appraised value. 8 Q
We only appraised certain properties 9 A
that -- before the auction where people had an 10
interest. We didn't appraise everything. 11
Okay. 12 Q
So -- 13 A
Are all the appraised properties on the -- 14 Q
on Exhibit 17? 15
No, I'm sure there were properties that 16 A
were not appraised that are on Exhibit 17. The 17
.3 acres, for example, the 1.5 sold to Willie, the 18
1.22, the 1.31 on G, H, I, J on Exhibit 17, I don't 19
think any of those were appraised. I believe K was 20
appraised, sold to David Stubbs. 21
When you say K -- 22 Q
On Exhibit 17, page 3. But I don't think 23 A
the G, H, I, and J on Exhibit 17 were appraised. But 24
there was assessed values. 25
Page 62
How was the assessed value made? 1 Q
I'm sorry? 2 A
How was the assessed value made? Is 3 Q
that -- 4
That's the county. 5 A
The county assessor? 6 Q
Yeah. So the total assessed value of, 7 A
let's say, 124 million, and the total value of the 8
assessed properties sold in the auction, the net 9
proceeds to the Trust is going to be about a million. 10
Let's assume that the assessed value was -- and I 11
haven't added up what the assessed value of the 12
property sold was, but it might be a million 3, might 13
be a million 4. So not a significant amount. 14
And then Judge Lindberg has invited people 15 Q
that have made bids that were not -- that were 16
rejected to make a bid that's no less than 70 percent 17
and within your discretion you can accept it? 18
She did. 19 A
And on Exhibit 17 who -- on the rejected 20 Q
provisional auction sales, has anyone come and made 21
any offers? 22
Orally they've indicated to counsel that 23 A
they were going to. Counsel has sent out a written 24
request to -- that I've signed that they then need to 25
Page 63
countersign on the value of the rejected bids that 1
they are going to increase to a certain amount to 2
obtain Court acceptance. And so whether they sign 3
those are not, those have just gone out. 4
And what have you done that with? 5 Q
All of the bids that were rejected. 6 A
So under subsection 3 of Exhibit 17, A 7 Q
through L, all of those bids an offer has gone out by 8
you to the prospective buyer or has an offer come from 9
the prospective buyer to you? 10
No. The offer has gone out from us to the 11 A
rejected bidder indicating that the Court set a 12
70 percent limitation and calculated what that 13
limitation -- the difference between the limitation 14
and what their bid was and what they would have to pay 15
in addition in order to obtain that property. 16
So turning to 18 on the 35,284,000, the 17 Q
assessed value for the Hildale parcels, you have 18
discretion to sell these parcels at 70 percent of that 19
assessed value, correct? 20
Yes. 21 A
And so the first 5 million is probably not 22 Q
an accurate reflection of what the value of the 23
property is if people know they can buy it at 24
70 percent, correct? 25
Page 64
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for 1
speculation. 2
THE WITNESS: It's just in this auction. 3
That doesn't translate to all of the property. 4
Has it been your experience that if 6 Q
property's selling at 70 percent of the value -- of 7
the assessed value, that people are willing to pay 8
more than that if they know that they can get it for 9
70 percent? 10
Well, the 70 percent is just recent so I 11 A
have no experience. 12
How much commercial property is available 13 Q
in Hildale? 14
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Vague. 15
THE WITNESS: You know, I don't have a 16
number for commercial property in Hildale or Colorado 17
City. 18
Do you have an estimate? 20 Q
Well, if the Trust is worth 124 million, I 21 A
would think at least 10 million -- 10 to 15 million 22
would be commercial, maybe more. 23
That hasn't been sold? That is 24 Q
retained -- 25
Page 65
That has not been sold. 1 A
Okay. And tell me what properties you 2 Q
know of as you sit here today fall within that 10 to 3
$15 million value. 4
You want me to start listing? 5 A
I do. The judge has asked me to do that 6 Q
so we can get an appropriate bond. 7
Well, I mean, we have fire stations. 8 A
Okay. 9 Q
At least two fire stations. We have 10 A
schools, we have a clinic -- 11
A medical clinic? 12 Q
Actually, we have two clinics, one in 13 A
Colorado City and one in Hildale. 14
And when you're talking about the 10 to 15 15 Q
million of commercial, you're talking about Hildale or 16
are you talking about Hildale and Colorado City? 17
Both. 18 A
I want you to talk -- I want to limit it 19 Q
just to Hildale, the Utah side. 20
Okay. Well, there's not as much 21 A
commercial property in Hildale. There's a dental 22
office, there's some structures there on the highway, 23
various little businesses and kind of a little mall, 24
there would be a construction company office there on 25
Page 66
the Maxwell Canyon Road, there would be -- there would 1
be a printing building there on Utah Avenue. There's 2
not very much in Hildale that I can recall that's 3
commercial. 4
What would the value of the commercial be 5 Q
in Hildale? 6
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for 7
speculation. 8
THE WITNESS: Let's see, I mentioned the 9
clinic -- maybe 1 to 2 million. 10
And so of the 10 to 15 million you 12 Q
mentioned, the rest would be in Colorado City? 13
Yes. 14 A
Okay. Tell me -- you mentioned the fire 15 Q
stations, the schools, the clinic, what other 16
properties -- 17
Well, in Hildale there is no fire station. 18 A
Now I'm moving to Colorado City -- 19 Q
Well, wait, wait, wait. I take that back. 20 A
There is a fire station. There is a fire station in 21
Hildale, yeah. Okay. Next to the city offices I 22
believe there's one. So -- yeah, okay. 23
Most of the commercial property has been 24 Q
sold off, correct? 25
Page 67
No. 1 A
Most of the commercial property in Hildale 2 Q
has been sold off? 3
No. None of the properties that I 4 A
mentioned have been sold off. 5
That you've just mentioned, but in the 6 Q
last two years most of the commercial property in 7
Hildale has been sold off? 8
answered. 10
THE WITNESS: I don't think any commercial 11
property in Hildale has been sold. 12
In the last two years? 14 Q
In the last two years. 15 A
So the lot 1A, 115 acres that was sold 16 Q
to -- for 172,000 to Richard Holm, was that 17
residential? 18
Lot -- I'm sorry, say that -- is this in 19 A
the auction that you're talking about? 20
Yeah, Exhibit 17. 21 Q
No. It's agricultural. I mean, I look at 22 A
property being residential, commercial, or 23
agricultural. 24
Okay. That's a good distinction. How 25 Q
Page 68
much agricultural land does the UEP Trust own on the 1
Utah side of the creek? 2
Maybe close to a million. 3 A
So between agricultural land and 4 Q
commercial property there's maybe 2- to $3 million? 5
Okay. Rough estimate. 6 A
Okay. So the lot 1A that was sold to 7 Q
Richard Holm in Exhibit 17, that was agriculture? 8
Yes. 9 A
And lot 1B for 152 acres, was that 10 Q
agricultural? 11
Yes. 12 A
And 1C, the 30 acres to Willie Jessop, was 13 Q
that ag? 14
Yes. 15 A
And lot 2, 128 that was sold to Richard 16 Q
Holm? 17
Yes, agriculture. 18 A
Is that ag? Okay. And lot 3, the 89.5 19 Q
sold to Benjamin Zitting? 20
I'm not sure how you would classify that. 21 A
It's maybe potential -- it's raw ground. It's raw 22
land and it's not ag land, it's not commercial land, 23
it's probably potential residential. 24
Do you know if it's zoned that it could be 25 Q
Page 69
developed commercially? 1
I don't think they have zoning there in 2 A
the community. 3
And then the combined lots 10, 11 and 12, 4 Q
314 acres sold to SLI Ventures, is that ag? 5
Probably. It's out in the GAP. There are 6 A
some little ranches out there. Willie has a ranch out 7
there and there may -- I'm trying to think if there 8
are any houses -- there are no houses on any of that 9
land. I'm not sure there could even be houses on the 10
land. So I'm going to maybe call it agricultural, but 11
it's very poor agricultural, it's certainly not 12
commercial, and I don't think it's very residential 13
either. 14
Not worth very much? 15 Q
No. 16 A
How much acreage is left in the GAP that 17 Q
the UEP holds? 18
I don't think any. 19 A
And then lot 19, .3 acres, $2,000 to 20 Q
Willie Jessop. Is that residential? 21
Commercial. 22 A
And so .3 acre of commercial land in 23 Q
Hildale -- 24
That particular is in Colorado City. 25 A
Page 70
Oh, that's -- okay. I see -- you're 1 Q
right. And lot 20 -- 2
Is Colorado City. 3 A
And is that commercial or residential? 4 Q
I don't recall the location of that 5 A
particular property. 6
Lot 23? 7 Q
That would be residential. 8 A
So on lot 404-21-502 for $50,000 to Willie 9 Q
Jessop it says the "Colorado City impound yard; 10
parking with minimal improvements." 11
Oh, okay. If it's the impound yard then 12 A
that would be commercial. 13
Commercial? 14 Q
And then the lot 27, the 1.31 acres? 15
Residential. 16 A
And then the $45,000 sale to David Stubbs, 17 Q
lot 31? 18
Classify that as commercial. 19 A
The vacant lot on the corner of University 20 Q
and Colvin. 21
Well, there's a paint shed on it. 22 A
Okay. 23 Q
Page 71
Exhibit 21. I probably should have started with this. 3
I apologize. So Exhibit A shows the auction results, 4
correct? 5
Yes. 6 A
And so it shows the high bid that was made 7 Q
on each parcel, is that correct? 8
Yes. 9 A
And then what the assessed value was? 10 Q
Yes. 11 A
And the assessed value came from the tax 12 Q
value? 13
That's the assessor's value from the 14 A
county. 15
Okay. And then the next line we show the 16 Q
percent of the assessed value -- 17
Percent of the bid as compared to the 18 A
assessed value. 19
Right. And then the appraised value, how 20 Q
was that arrived at? 21
Morley and McConkie prepared appraisals 22 A
for various properties. 23
And then the next line shows what the 24 Q
percentage of the appraised value was? 25
Page 72
Compared to the bid. 1 A
Okay. And then the line items that say 2 Q
not applicable, it means that there was no appraisal 3
done on that property, is that correct? 4
Yes. 5 A
And then it states whether or not you 6 Q
recommended the auction sale, is that correct? 7
Yes. 8 A
And did you find this to be fairly 9 Q
reflective of what people are willing to pay for 10
property out in the Creek? 11
Well, when you say -- that's an ambiguous 12 A
question. "Fairly reflective." I don't know what you 13
mean. 14
Well, Judge Lindberg gave you discretion 15 Q
to accept an offer of 70 percent or above, is that 16
correct? 17
Yes. 18 A
And is that -- how was that magic number 19 Q
of 70 percent arrived at? 20
Ask Judge Lindberg. 21 A
Is that something you recommended? 22 Q
No. 23 A
So is it fair to say that you don't have a 24 Q
true and accurate estimate of the value of UEP 25
Page 73
property apart from the assessed value in the Creek? 1
Well, I have appraisals on some of the 2 A
property that are different than the assessed value. 3
And the auction showed values ranging from -- I mean, 4
there's -- on parcel number 2 it's 258 percent of 5
appraised value, 187 percent on 1C, 130 percent on 6
another one, 97 percent, 97 percent, 62 percent, 57, 7
67, 72. I mean, Counselor, they ranged all over the 8
board. So I don't know that I could say that there's 9
an absolute percentage or what that number would be 10
other than, you know, we have an assessor's value and 11
the range of bids from independent third parties 12
ranged from very small to several times or a couple of 13
times what the assessed value was. 14
Of the commercial property that's located 15 Q
in Colorado City that's owned by the UEP, are you 16
trying to sell that? 17
The only property I was trying to sell is 18 A
property that had an independent parcel because 19
otherwise property would have to be subdivided in 20
Colorado City in order to sell it, and I'm not able to 21
subdivide in Colorado City. So the short answer is 22
no, I'm not trying to sell anything other than what 23
was listed in the auction. There are a couple of 24
ag -- there are several -- there are two or three ag 25
Page 74
pieces that were listed that we pulled off because of 1
water issues, but in terms of commercial properties, 2
no. 3
Exhibit 22. And I will admit that it's a very poor 8
quality map of Hildale and Colorado City. Can you 9
tell me what color would designate the commercial 10
properties? 11
UEP -- no. There is no color that I can 12 A
tell. The UEP owns yellow and the poor quality map 13
was furnished -- that's the map that I had and I gave 14
it to you, and I could not read the legends. I know 15
that the purple is not UEP property. I know the 16
yellow is and I can't differentiate -- I think some of 17
the other colors are independently owned properties 18
that have no designation between commercial, 19
residential or ag. 20
My recollection of this map in a blown up 21
version that's somewhere, is that the yellow was UEP 22
property and the other colors represented other 23
ownership. There was no designation between 24
commercial or residential. 25
Page 75
MR. MORTENSEN: All right. I understand 1
our tape is almost out so why don't we take a 2
five-minute break and reconvene. 3
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 4
MR. SHIELDS: Alan, let me just make a 5
statement. I'm going to hold you to the 12 o'clock 6
hour because I have an appointment, and I think you 7
wasted about an hour and 15 minutes on irrelevant 8
stuff. So I'm just telling you I want to be finished 9
by noon. 10
Okay. Exhibit -- sir, would you look at 12 Q
Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18. On page 3 of Exhibit 17 13
under the 1B it lists HD-03-29-220 for $228,000 to 14
Richard Holm, 152 acres. Do you see where I'm 15
referring to? 16
Yes. 17 A
On Exhibit 18, if you look at that same 18 Q
parcel it says that it is 160 acres there in the 19
middle of the page. Do you see where I'm referring 20
to? 21
Yes. 22 A
Do you know why there's a discrepancy 23 Q
between the 160 and the 152 acres? 24
Yes. 25 A
Page 76
And what's the discrepancy? 1 Q
It was subdivided and the -- when it 2 A
was -- when it was assessed and -- by the county, it 3
was assessed as one parcel. Subsequent to putting it 4
into the auction the property was approved for 5
subdivision, and when that subdivision is done on that 6
property, eight acres of that is streets and you can't 7
sell streets. And so any of the discrepancies where 8
the actual property is -- in terms of acreage is a 9
little less than what we have on the -- say on 18, it 10
would be because the property's been subdivided and 11
the difference is in streets. 12
Okay. So that would hold true for 13 Q
subsection C where HD-03-28-330 -- where it says 14
30 acres, and then on Exhibit 18 it says 40 acres? 15
The additional ten acres would be streets? 16
Yes. 17 A
Okay. And that would hold true for any 18 Q
other discrepancies? 19
On acreage, yes. 20 A
On acreage. All right. 21 Q
Now, Judge Kelly has indicated that he 22
would like -- or he wants us to brief him on a bond 23
in -- pending interlocutory appeal. As the fiduciary 24
do you prefer a monetary bond or would you prefer a 25
Page 77
property bond? 1
A property bond. 2 A
Isn't it true -- do you have Exhibit 16 in 3 Q
front of you? 4
Okay. 5 A
Exhibit B, the UEP Trust vendor balance 6 Q
summary on -- it's the last page. 7
Okay. 8 A
There it lists a vendor balance of 9 Q
$5,596,896. Do you see where I'm referring to? 10
Yes. 11 A
Do you know what the current vendor 12 Q
balance is for the UEP Trust? 13
Yes. I believe we submitted that to you. 14 A
What is it? 15 Q
I don't have that document in front of me. 16 A
I can't give you the number. 17
All right. You've been able -- 18 Q
Look at the interrogatories. It was 19 A
attached as an exhibit. I believe it was 2 million 20
some odd. 21
2 million -- so the -- your outstanding 22 Q
vendor fees right now are a little bit over 23
$2 million? 24
You know, I think we ought to look at the 25 A
Page 78
interrogatory, get the right number. 1
MR. SHIELDS: It's Exhibit 1. 2
THE WITNESS: Exhibit 1, page 4. 3
MR. SHIELDS: And 5. 4
So Exhibit 1, page 4 where it lists 6 Q
$2,408,000, is that correct? 7
That's the attorney fees. Fiduciary is 8 A
487 on the next page. 9
And the sale of properties that occurred 10 Q
in the last month that was just approved by Judge 11
Lindberg, the proceeds are going to be used to pay 12
some of these outstanding fees and costs, is that 13
correct? 14
Yes. 15 A
But there's still going to be a 16 Q
significant outstanding fee and balance, is there not, 17
after payment from -- 18
Still be between 1 and 2 million. 19 A
And is it your intent to sell additional 20 Q
commercial properties to pay the outstanding fees and 21
costs? 22
I think there are some agricultural 23 A
properties that can be sold. 24
That would cover that -- the outstanding 25 Q
Page 79
fees and costs of the Trust? 1
Would put a dent in it. 2 A
How much of a dent? 3 Q
I suspect maybe somewhere between 700 and 4 A
a million two. 5
If all of the commercial -- 6 Q
Could be derived from the sale of 7 A
agricultural. 8
If all of the commercial -- if all of the 9 Q
commercial property and agricultural property were 10
sold in Hildale and Colorado City, that still would 11
not cover the outstanding fees and costs of the Trust, 12
would it? 13
Oh, absolutely. There's -- in Colorado 14 A
City there's millions of dollars of commercial 15
property. 16
And it's all -- millions of dollars -- 17 Q
It hasn't been subdivided. 18 A
Right. 19 Q
So I can't sell it. 20 A
Millions of dollars of commercial 21 Q
property? 22
Yes. And probably a million of 23 A
agricultural, give or take. 750 to a million and a 24
half of agricultural probably. 25
Page 80
If you sold all of the ag and all of the 1 Q
commercial on the Utah side of the creek, you would 2
not be able to pay any of the outstanding -- you would 3
not be able to pay all of the outstanding fees and 4
costs of the UEP Trust, correct? 5
It would be close. I don't think I would 6 A
be able to in Utah, no. 7
So if you were required to obtain payment 8 Q
from the Utah side, you would have to start selling 9
residential property, correct? 10
Not necessarily. 11 A
What would you do so you wouldn't have to? 12 Q
Pardon? 13 A
What would you do so you wouldn't have to 14 Q
sell residential property? 15
Water rights. 16 A
Turning to Exhibit 1, in answer to 17 Q
interrogatory number 3 it says that the Trust owns 18
approximately 2290 -- 2290 shares of water rights at 19
$6,000 per share. How much of those water rights are 20
in Utah? 21
They -- the interrogatory question is, 22 A
"State the net worth of the water rights or interests 23
received by the UEP from Willie Jessop." So that's 24
only a portion of the water rights. 25
Page 81
Okay. In response to some discovery -- 1 Q
our discovery requests MJ 011663 and 011665 it lists 2
the Arizona water rights at $5.5 million, a little bit 3
over it -- it looks like there's 6,000 shares -- and 4
the Utah water rights at about 17,203,812. Is that 5
accurate? 6
Yes. But that's not 6,000 shares I don't 7 A
believe. That's $6,000 value per share. 8
Okay. And the shares, are they listed 9 Q
here in this far column? 10
MR. SHIELDS: What are you looking to? 11
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you're 12
reading at. 13
MR. SHIELDS: Is that an exhibit? 14
MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I'll mark it as an 15
exhibit. Is this -- 16
THE WITNESS: So what's your question? 17
Where are the shares shown? 19 Q
The shares are shown right here. 20 A
Okay. So it's the second column? 21 Q
Yes. 22 A
All right. Let's mark that as 23. 23 Q
Page 82
MR. SHIELDS: Have you got a copy of 23? 1
If you were asked by Judge Kelly to issue 3 Q
a $10 million property bond on the UEP Trust how would 4
you do that? 5
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Speculation. 6
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not exactly sure 7
how a property bond works. You put up a certain 8
amount of property as a lien then? Is that what 9
you're saying? 10
Property that you have to -- you can't do 12 Q
anything with until -- 13
That you can't sell? 14 A
Right. 15 Q
I would do the water rights. 16 A
If you took -- would there be enough 17 Q
commercial property to put up a $10 million property 18
bond? 19
Yeah, but that's a lot more complicated in 20 A
the sense that in order to establish values, the Trust 21
would have to go and have all kinds of appraisal work 22
done. We could maybe use assessed value. We would 23
certainly be able to do that. 24
What about -- have you appraised the water 25 Q
Page 83
right values? 1
Just informally. 2 A
How do you know what they're worth? 3 Q
A water engineer. 4 A
Exhibit 24. This was provided to us as part of the 9
discovery responses. It's a map of Colorado City. 10
Does this show what properties would be owned by the 11
UEP Trust? 12
No. I think the next schedules of that -- 13 A
this was sort of an overview, and then I think that 14
there's some maps underneath that -- in the 15
interrogatories that have yellow designations 16
indicating Colorado City property that's owned by the 17
UEP Trust. They may be where your left hand is right 18
there. 19
Okay. 20 Q
So this was just kind of an overview and 21 A
then those are specific maps. 22
Page 84
So 25 would be the specific map of 1 Q
Colorado? 2
MR. SHIELDS: Excuse me, do you have a 3
copy of Exhibit 25? 4
Here you go. I'm sorry. Exhibit 25 would 6 Q
be the map of Colorado City -- 7
Yeah, that would be part of the map. And 8 A
I think there are two -- aren't there not -- are 9
there -- is there not another map, colored map, or 10
not? 11
If there is I didn't pick it up. 12 Q
Well, maybe -- this is fairly complete, 13 A
yeah. Okay. So this -- that's just an overview. 14
This is the map then that designates with yellow which 15
is UEP property. 16
And is there any designation on here that 17 Q
would show what commercial property there is? 18
No. 19 A
And does this map reflect the property 20 Q
that was sold at the recent auction? 21
The property sold at auction has not been 22 A
removed from any of the schedules that I've given you. 23
Okay. So could I go using this number on 24 Q
Exhibit 25 and match it up with Exhibit 17 to find out 25
Page 85
which properties were sold at the auction? 1
It would be difficult because -- I mean, 2 A
the theory is there, but I don't think you can read 3
the numbers from this map. 4
Do you have a better copy of this map? 5 Q
No. 6 A
Okay. 7 Q
You might be able to read some of the 8 A
numbers. Some of the individual lots that I know, for 9
example, I can see they're not even listed on this map 10
as far as their parcel number. 11
Okay. Is there a more complete map 12 Q
somewhere? 13
I've given you what I have. There may be 14 A
in the engineer's offices or someplace some large 15
maps, but I'm not aware of any that have parcel 16
designations down to the individual lots that we're 17
talking about. The single lots for 8500 that were 18
sold for 8500 or sold for 10,000 or whatever. Those 19
are -- I believe are right there and, you know, 20
they're just too small to have the parcel designation 21
typed in. 22
Okay. 23 Q
I don't have anything. And you keep going 24 A
back to commercial and, no, we don't have anything 25
Page 86
anywhere that breaks out commercial from residential. 1
Exhibit 26. And it's a verdict form that I took off 6
the PACER court filing system from -- sorry -- from 7
the Cooke v. Town of Colorado City case. You were 8
actually listed as a potential witness in that case. 9
Did you testify at all? 10
No. 11 A
You're aware of this verdict? 12 Q
I'm not aware of what it finally settled 13 A
for. I'm aware of the general verdict and I 14
understand there's been a settlement discussion since 15
that's confidential. 16
You're aware of the amount of this 17 Q
verdict? 18
5.2 million in total. 19 A
And it was for discrimination by the 20 Q
cities of Colorado City and Hildale in providing 21
services to the Cookes, is that correct? 22
It's my understanding. 23 A
Page 87
Exhibit 27 and I would ask you, are you aware of a 3
judgment Willie Jessop and his company obtained 4
against the Twin City Improvement Association, Warren 5
Jeffs, and Lyle Jeffs for $26 million? 6
Well, I've heard of a judgment. I thought 7 A
it was even larger than that. 8
So you're aware of this? 9 Q
In a informal way. 10 A
Have you done any research on any type 11 Q
of -- and I don't want you to tell me what your 12
attorneys have told you. I just want to know if you 13
have done any independent research on verdicts in 14
clergy sexual abuse cases? 15
No. 16 A
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Has nothing to 17
do with the bond. 18
THE WITNESS: No. 19
MR. MORTENSEN: Sure it does. 20
MR. SHIELDS: I take it back. I withdraw. 21
You're right. Withdraw the objection. 22
MR. MORTENSEN: Mark that as 28. 23
Page 88
Deposition Exhibit 28. And I just want to -- I think 3
I know the answer, but you're not aware of this 4
verdict, are you? 5
No. 6 A
Now, are you aware that Billy Walker took 7 Q
Willie Jessop's deposition in the case of -- in the 8
Cooke case? 9
Yes. 10 A
Have you seen a copy of that deposition? 11 Q
I'm not sure. I've read a deposition of 12 A
Willie and I don't remember whether that -- I probably 13
have. Yeah, I probably have. I've read a -- I know 14
he's had several depositions but I believe that was 15
the one that I've read. 16
And do you know if he was friendly towards 17 Q
the Cookes or against the Cookes in that case? 18
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Ambiguous. 19
MR. MORTENSEN: To the best you know. 20
THE WITNESS: I think it went kind of both 21
ways in terms of his deposition, but he ended up being 22
more favorable than not. 23
To the Cookes? 25 Q
Page 89
To the Cookes. 1 A
And you were -- from a personal standpoint 2 Q
and as the fiduciary you were hopeful that the Cookes 3
would prevail to help assert some law and order in 4
that town, correct? 5
Yes. 6 A
MR. SHIELDS: Counsel, I'm showing about 9
two minutes to 12. 10
MR. MORTENSEN: I'm finishing up here. 11
MR. SHIELDS: Okay. 12
Exhibit 29. And it's a pleading that, again, I pulled 15
from the Cooke case that your attorney is involved 16
with. And are you aware that there's been some -- I 17
want to make sure I get this right -- that Helaman 18
Barlow has admitted to lying under oath? 19
Yes. 20 A
And is that part of the problem that you 21 Q
have trying to -- trying to administer the Trust is 22
that law enforcement officials are willing to lie 23
under oath to do what it takes to protect the FLDS 24
Church? 25
Page 90
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Relevance. 1
THE WITNESS: That's a small part of the 2
problem. Their actions against the Trust are probably 3
more important. Their testimony hasn't been as 4
critical as their actions and their lack of actions 5
against the Trust. 6
Just in conclusion, have you considered 8 Q
selling any of the beneficiaries' homes to pay your 9
legal fees and your bills? 10
Selling beneficiaries' homes to whom? To 11 A
the beneficiaries? In other words, distributing 12
houses to beneficiaries? 13
In auction? 14 Q
No. 15 A
You haven't considered putting the 16 Q
houses -- any of the residential properties up for 17
sale for the -- for purchase by the highest offer? 18
No. 19 A
Do you have any plans to do that? 20 Q
No. 21 A
And if the Trust were to continue to sell 22 Q
the ag and commercial properties and the water and 23
divest itself of ownership of those, the only thing 24
left in the UEP Trust would be residential properties, 25
Page 91
correct? 1
Well, if all of the commercial, all of the 2 A
ag, all of the water were sold, that only leaves 3
residential. There are only four classes of assets, 4
Counselor, and if you sell all three, that remains -- 5
residential is what remains. 6
Have you told any of the beneficiaries 7 Q
that Elissa Wall -- if she obtains judgment in this 8
case that they'll be forced to sell their home to 9
satisfy it? 10
I haven't said that. Counselor made the 11 A
comment in court about 30 to 40 million, and I don't 12
think there's 30 to 40 million of nonresidential, and 13
so, yeah, it could be -- the residential could be at 14
risk if you're talking about 30 to 40 million. 15
And you've told both the press and the 16 Q
beneficiaries the 30 to 40 million number that was 17
mentioned in court, correct? 18
I haven't talked -- I don't know that I've 19 A
talked to the press. In a town meeting that came up, 20
yeah. 21
And did you tell them that that was not in 22 Q
discussing the value of the judgment but in discussing 23
what a prejudgment writ would be to protect Elissa in 24
the event -- to make sure that there were sufficient 25
Page 92
assets if she went to trial? 1
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Compound 2
question and ambiguous. 3
THE WITNESS: Well, first of all, in the 4
town meeting Jeff -- Zach Shields was present, he's 5
the one that discussed the case. So when you say me, 6
me through my agent maybe, Zach, and I don't know 7
whether he used the term prejudgment or anything. But 8
I -- I did not discuss other than peripherally, and 9
Zach was there primarily to discuss the MJ case. 10
And Zach is an attorney? 12 Q
Yeah. He's Jeff -- yeah. 13 A
And he's the one that told the 14 Q
beneficiaries that they could lose their homes if MJ 15
obtains a judgment? 16
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Mischaracterizes 17
testimony. 18
THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know that 19
he said that. I don't recall him saying that. He 20
just -- he discussed the case. 21
Did he -- in the meeting on August 9th do 23 Q
you plan to tell the beneficiaries that they could 24
lose their homes if Elissa obtains a large judgment? 25
Page 93
Well, depending upon the size of judgment 1 A
it could put their homes -- it could put some homes at 2
risk, yes. If that comes up with the -- now my 3
purpose is to discuss the status of the case. If 4
somebody asks, "Well, what could happen," that's maybe 5
what could happen. 6
Has anyone ever conveyed to you that 7 Q
Elissa doesn't want to take residential -- any 8
residential properties? 9
We haven't had any direct communication 10 A
with Elissa so I don't know what her -- I've never 11
heard one way or the other. 12
What do you think the bond should be in 13 Q
this case? 14
5 million. 15 A
MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you. That's all the 16
questions I have. 17
MR. SHIELDS: Thanks, guys. If you want 18
to get back to me on that water -- are we still on the 19
record? Let me say something first. 20
I move to strike anything that relates to 21
Willie Jessop, the prostitute, I think that's 22
irrelevant to this case, it was inappropriately gone 23
into. We let you ask the questions but we move to 24
strike it and we certainly will not authorize the use 25
Page 94
of that deposition beyond the bond questions. 1
MR. MORTENSEN: And I'm going to respond 2
to that on the record in that Willie Jessop was given 3
a sweetheart deal, and I'm entitled to find out 4
whether he had information on Mr. Wisan that he used 5
to his benefit. 6
MR. SHIELDS: You didn't ask that 7
question. 8
MR. MORTENSEN: Oh, yeah, I did. 9
MR. SHIELDS: You did after you got all 10
the dirt in. 11
MR. MORTENSEN: Oh, absolutely. 12
MR. SHIELDS: You could have asked him 13
right up front, "Did you do any deal with Willie 14
Jessop?" 15
MR. MORTENSEN: And I did and he said no. 16
You didn't know about the prostitution 17
before, did you. 18
MR. SHIELDS: I'm not going to fight with 19
you, Counsel -- 20
MR. MORTENSEN: You didn't know, did you? 21
MR. SHIELDS: I'm moving -- 22
MR. MORTENSEN: Because you've made an 23
allegation that I did something improper and unethical 24
and I take that serious. So I want to you to explain 25
Page 95
on the record -- keep the tape on -- on the record 1
what I did wrong. Because I don't think I did 2
anything wrong and I think you have a compromised 3
witness. You've got a big problem that you're going 4
to have to fix. 5
MR. SHIELDS: This deposition's over. 6
MR. MORTENSEN: So tell me what I did 7
wrong. 8
MR. SHIELDS: I'm not being deposed here, 9
Counsel. I made my objection. I made my motion to 10
strike. 11
MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. I gave you your 12
chance. 13
MR. SHIELDS: If you want to depose me, 14
send a notice of deposition. 15
MR. MORTENSEN: Probably what we're going 16
to do given the dirt that's come out, because if you 17
knew about it, that's a problem too. 18
MR. SHIELDS: If you want to talk about 19
the water, which is what I proposed two weeks ago and 20
you said, "We don't want to talk until after we have 21
done this deposition discovery." We've now done that. 22
My question to you was, "Do you want to talk about the 23
water? If you do, give me a call." 24
MR. MORTENSEN: I wanted to have a 25
Page 96
mediation on the 9th and you guys are having a meeting 1
to slam our client. 2
(Deposition concluded at 12:04 p.m.) 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 97
C E R T I F I C A T E 1
STATE OF UTAH ) 2
COUNTY OF _________ ) 3
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have read the 5
foregoing testimony and the same is a true and correct 6
transcription of said testimony with the exception of 7
the following corrections listed below giving my 8
reasons therefor. 9
10
11
12
_____________________________ 13
BRUCE R. WISAN 14
15
Subscribed and sworn to at __________________, 16
17
this ____________ day of _________________, 2014. 18
19
_________________________________ 20
NOTARY PUBLIC 21
My commission expires:
22
_______________________
23
24
25
Page 98
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
Page 99
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF UTAH )
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the deposition of
BRUCE R. WISAN was taken before me, AMBER PARK, a
Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of
Utah.
That the said witness was by me, before
examination, duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in said cause.
That the testimony was reported by me in
Stenotype and thereafter transcribed by computer under
my supervision, and that a full, true, and correct
transcription is set forth in the foregoing pages.
I further certify that I am not of kin or
otherwise associated with any of the parties to said
cause of action, and that I am not interested in the
event thereof.
WITNESS MY HAND on August 1, 2014.
EXHIBIT
C
EXHIBIT
D

Motion For Oral Argument Regarding Bruce Wisan's Ability To Manage The UEP Trust in Light of His Relationship With A Prostitute August 4 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Oral Argument Regarding Bruce Wisan's Ability To Manage The UEP Trust in Light of His Relationship With A Prostitute August 4 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael A.

You might also like