You are on page 1of 46

1543

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

5
Plaintiffs

6
7

vs.

NO. CRIM. 14-263

JOSEPH SIGELMAN,

12

Defendant.
______________________________
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
4TH AND COOPER STREETS
CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08101
JUNE 11, 2015

13

B E F O R E:

10
11

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
A P P E A R A N C E S:

15
16
17

U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE


BY: PATRICK STOKES, ESQUIRE
ZACH INTRATER, ESQUIRE
TAREK HELOU, ESQUIRE
For the Government

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP


BY: PATRICK J. EGAN, ESQUIRE
- And QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
BY: WILLIAM BURCK, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM PRICE, ESQUIRE
JUAN MORILLO, ESQUIRE
BEN O'NEIL, ESQUIRE
VERONICA YEPEZ, ESQUIRE
Counsel for Defendant
Certified as true and correct as required by
Title 28, U.S.C., Section 753.
/S/ Karen Friedlander, CRR, RMR

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1544

1
2

W I T N E S S

I N D E X

WITNESS

PAGE

GREGORY S. WEISMAN

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GREGORY S. WEISMAN BY

MR. PRICE:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1558

1545

E X H I B I T

I N D E X

2
3
4

EXHIBIT NUMBER

PAGE

5
6

DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR

IDENTIFICATION

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1567

1546

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

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

THE COURT:

All rise.

Good morning.

Everybody, please be

seated.

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

that they think favor one side.

them out and put in what they think favors them.

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

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

10
11

Well, we are continuing the battle of both sides.

The other side wants to keep


If it hadn't

of you are going to get away with it.


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

12

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

13

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

14

through a hundred pages?

15

MR. INTRATER:

16

apologize.

17

that you wanted out.

18
19

I'm sorry, Judge, I thought -- I

I thought you had asked for the parts highlighted

THE COURT:

I wanted highlight, but if you gave me

page or --

20

MR. INTRATER:

21

THE COURT:

Sorry, Judge.

Well, anyway, I'm going to make two

22

rulings about this transcript, maybe more than two.

23

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

24

because those are conversations in which Sigelman is not even

25

part of.

No. 1,

This is a reception, coming up, you know, really,

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1547

but everything where the two of them are together.

denying the motion as to all the rest of them.

I'm

How these two people interacted, the subtleties of body

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

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

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

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

Weisman.

evidence again.

That's not cross-examining.


You can't do that.

You're just playing the


I'm not going to allow

10

it.

11

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

12

kinds of things on the tape.

13

play the tape.

14

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

15

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

16

arrangements so they can to do that.

17

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

18

let you read the whole document.

19

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

I'm not going to let you just

In effect, you've offered it in evidence, I'm

But I'm not going to sit

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

that's different.

24

actually crossed on many things.

But if there are things you

25

haven't done yet, you can do it.

But not just play the whole

But you've done that already, you've

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1548

tape.

I'm not going to allow that.

You got that?

MR. PRICE:

I understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

You don't agree, but you understand that?

MR. PRICE:

I hear you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

You got 60 seconds.

MR. PRICE:

It's this.

What is it you want

to say?

It's impossible to

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

demeanor.

10

THE COURT:

Oh, I'm --

11

MR. PRICE:

And --

12

THE COURT:

Why is that?

13
14

People -- people give

testimony about somebody else's demeanor all the time.


MR. PRICE:

Well, the way to impeach him is to say,

15

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

16

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

17

THE COURT:

Well, maybe he's telling the truth.

You

18

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

19

be impeached.

20
21
22

MR. PRICE:

Well, he can be impeached, if the jury

sees the entire tape -THE COURT:

Oh, they will see the tape.

If they want

23

to look at the tape, they can look at it.

24

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

25

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

Sitting here just

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1549

cross-examination.

Playing the whole thing is not

cross-examination.

I've been very generous with you.

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

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

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

cross-examination.

I've

That's

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

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

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

Even

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

cross on it.

16

MR. PRICE:

For -- I'm sorry, I don't want to

17

interrupt.

18

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

19

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

20

opportunity.

21

did not play?

22

For completeness of what has been played, because

For completeness, can we play the excerpts they

THE COURT:

No.

This is cross-examination -- you

23

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

24

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

25

him questions, that's one thing.

That's part of your direct

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1550

case.

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

I'm just not going to allow it.

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

MR. PRICE:

And I'm asking for something smaller than

that.

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

continues with their conversing after that.

For example, they stopped the tape to leave the

THE COURT:

that, question him about it.

10
11

MR. PRICE:

Well, if you want to question him about

And then, I assume I'd be able to play

the tape --

12

THE COURT:

You'll play eight lines of the tape or

13

whatever is needed for the question.

14

cross-examination.

15

in.

Mr. Price, this is

This is not the chance to put your case

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

16

Well, that's my ruling on that.

17

My second -- oh, somebody brought me Starbucks.

18

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

Good.

19

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

20

really encompasses two kinds of things.

21

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

22

was Joseph Sigelman telling the truth, and the witness would

23

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

24
25

Is one, when a

The other type of question was what something meant,


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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1551

1
2

said such and such.

Generally fall on those two categories.

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

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

vouching.

this is a little different.

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

was telling the truth.

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

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

That's

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

But

It's one thing for somebody --

But it's another thing when you ask

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

honest guy.

15

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

16

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

17

asking him to give his version of an interaction they both

18

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

19

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

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

20

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

21

does that mean.

22

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

23

that's proper.

24

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

25

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

That's based on the fact that these two

I think when somebody -- that -- when you ask

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1552

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

based on their -- his personal knowledge.

speculation as to what somebody made.

It's not kind of

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

speculation and both of those is.

up to the Circuit.

me reversed.

me reversed, you two are, so --

MR. INTRATER:

I tried my best.

Take it

In 23 years, you may be the first to get

What can I say?

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. INTRATER:

12

THE COURT:

If anybody is qualified to get

Judge, just the two of them?

What?
What about the other seven?

Well, you know, it's what President

13

Kennedy said when he was addressing a group of Nobel laureates

14

who were having breakfast together.

15

giving them a speech of some kind.

16

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

17

Thomas Jefferson had breakfast by himself.

18

He said, never has there

(Laughter.)

19
20

He was addressing them,

THE COURT:

So, I look at them.

This is like John

Adams and Thomas Jefferson having breakfast.

21

MR. INTRATER:

22

THE COURT:

Fair enough.

So, I am going to admit -- I mean, in a

23

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

24

in.

25

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

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

I'm certainly

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1553

I'm going to provide whatever means of playback.

MR. INTRATER:

Not -- I don't want to have to make

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

other rulings with respect to everything regarding the Vesga

meeting.

So we have to redact out all that Vesga stuff.

THE COURT:

MR. INTRATER:

THE COURT:

All right.

If I -- if that's -- if it conforms with

the ruling I make.

10

MR. INTRATER:

11

THE COURT:

12
13

Just so the record's clear, right?

Yep.

I want somebody to prepare, as I said --

it has a number already, doesn't it?


MR. INTRATER:

Well, Judge, it's -- for

14

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

15

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

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. INTRATER:

18
19

Okay.
-- we will give you -- we'll give you

the proper thing.


THE COURT:

Okay.

I'm going to today admit the whole

20

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

21

first five pages.

22

MR. INTRATER:

23

THE COURT:

Right.

I'm going to admit the whole thing.

24

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

25

important in the jury evaluating.

And

You know, again, this is

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1554

not two strangers.

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

before.

different companies, in effect.

Tiger association, they had a PetroTiger association and then

the follow-up guy.

This is not a guy who's walking in the

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

MR. INTRATER:

THE COURT:

MR. INTRATER:

It was -- they had Office

AGP.

AGP, or something like that.


Yes, Judge.

10

THE COURT:

Okay.

11

MR. PRICE:

Your Honor, we have -- for what goes to

12

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

13

part.

14

THE COURT:

Yeah.

15

MR. PRICE:

Where -- because they're driving around

16

and things like that.

17

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

18

THE COURT:

I assume that if it's in evidence, we

Oh, absolutely.

You can use it in

19

closing.

20

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

21

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

22

narrow point.

23

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

24

way, any legal way you can.

25

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

But once it's in evidence, you can -- in

Absolutely.

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1555

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

electronics necessary to hear it and see it.

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

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

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

this case, as to what we have to do.

Even if I have

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

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

interaction as they can.

Because I think there's subtleties.

10

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

11

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

12

On the other hand, cross-examination is

13

cross-examination.

14

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

15

an extra time.

16

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

17

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

18

you're cross-examining.

19

It's not a time to, in effect, take some

As I say, no more than if you took a 20-page

Can't do that.

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

20

evidence and you see something in there that you think is

21

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

22

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

23

all the time.

24
25

So now I think that covers it.


outstanding other than that?

Do it

Do we have anything

-- oh, juror No. 1, remember,

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1556

she said her mother had gone to the hospital?

2
3

THE DEPUTY CLERK:


part with him.

4
5

THE COURT:

I know we had been told that her mother

died, just died, and --

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

THE COURT:

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

I don't know if we shared that

I don't think that's happened.

What?
The message I got this morning is

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

future.

14

THE COURT:

I just think that's -- I just think

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

MR. BURCK:

20

MR. STOKES:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. INTRATER:

23

RESPONSE:

24

THE COURT:

25

So I

No problem, Your Honor.


No objection.
Everything okay with that?
Yes, Your Honor.

Yes, Your Honor.


Okay.

So we will do that.

Now, actually, I take it back.

Don't put her in seat

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1557

No. 1, put her in seat No. 12.

ones up one.

In other words, move the other

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

Okay.

THE COURT:

No, there's a reason for that.

Okay?

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

it comes to selecting a foreperson.

majority of them, I just take juror No. 1.

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

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

10

In many cases, maybe the


And in the other

various times.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

1.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

jury, both ways have worked.

21

It

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

Okay.

All right.

22

MR. STOKES:

23

THE COURT:

So, you know, that's that.

We still have -- anything else?

Not from the government, Your Honor.


Okay.

Well, all right.

But please,

24

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

25

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1558
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

1
2

MR. STOKES:
that with the defense.

3
4

We will have no problems taking care of

THE COURT:

That won't be a problem, Your Honor.

Okay.

All right.

Weisman at the appointed hour.

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

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

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

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

THE COURT:

10
11

We'll resume with Mr.

All rise.

Good morning, everybody.

Please be

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

12

observed that juror No. 1 is not here.

13

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

14

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

15

can come out of this.

16

thought under the circumstances, that's why we have

17

alternates.

18

the hospital, so that explains why.

19

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

20

one of the alternates.

21

Okay.

Has been replaced.

We all wish them the best.

But I

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


I think you probably all

Mr. Price.

22

MR. PRICE:

Good morning, Mr. Weisman --

23

THE COURT:

And Mr. Weisman, you're still under oath.

24

THE WITNESS:

25

Yes, Your Honor.

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1559
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

PRICE:)

Q.

gentlemen.

A.

Good morning.

Q.

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

told you to continue working at AGP after you began

cooperating with the government, correct?

A.

how long that was for.

Good morning.

Good morning, Your Honor, ladies and

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

10

THE COURT:

Well, how long did you work for AG --

11

MR. PRICE:

AGP.

12

THE COURT:

After December 15th?

13

THE WITNESS:

14

THE COURT:

So you worked with them for three months.

15

MR. PRICE:

Over three months, three months.

16

THE COURT:

Three months, you were functioning as

I believe it was until March or April.

17

general counsel of a company that was controlled and dominated

18

by Joseph Sigelman.

19
20
21
22
23

THE WITNESS:

And there were other shareholders.

don't think he had majority of the company.


THE COURT:

But he was -- he was the CEO, the driving

force behind that company.


THE WITNESS:

Yes, I don't believe -- I don't know

24

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

25

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1560
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

BY MR. PRICE:

Q.

was a government official who told you to stay, continue

working at AGP.

A.

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

they left it up to me.

Q.

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

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

That is not true, is it?

I think I may have misspoken.

I can't remember if it was

I don't recall.

No, I'm dividing it.

First I'm going to talk about


You

10

said previously that the government official told you you

11

should continue working at AGP.

12

is it?

13

A.

I'm not sure.

14

Q.

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

15

two days ago, correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

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

18

false, correct?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

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

21

government official who told you when you should leave.

22

you remember that?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

And that statement, that a government official told you

25

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

That statement is not true,

I don't recall.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

Do

1561
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

was false, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And the real reason you stayed at AGP for those three

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

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

A.

I don't recall.

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

You don't recall why you stayed?


I don't remember why I stayed on for

several months.

10

BY MR. PRICE:

11

Q.

12

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

13

recall, that that is a false statement under oath?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

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

16

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

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And your statement under oath before this jury is that

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

and recorded your conversation.

23

remember why you stayed there that whole time?

24

A.

25

why I left when I did or why I stayed.

Mr. Weisman, you do understand that if you testified

I was continuing to work.

Your testimony is, you don't

It was my job.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

I don't recall

1562
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

Q.

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

you to stay and then told you to leave?

A.

Now, is that testimony as accurate as the testimony you

I had misremembered a couple days ago.

5
6

THE COURT:

Misremembered?

Did you have a

hallucination?

THE WITNESS:

BY MR. PRICE:

Q.

No, I just...

You realize that a lot of your testimony is supported

10

solely by your word, right?

11

A.

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

12

Q.

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

13

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

14

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

15

that's what happened, correct?

16

A.

17

presented that supports it.

18

Q.

19

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

20

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

21

the Hoff payments.

22

A.

Yes.

23

Q.

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

24

supported only by your word, correct?

25

A.

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

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

Do you remember that?

Yes.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1563
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

Q.

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

false testimony, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

By the way, the mediation that you spoke about with

PetroTiger, PetroTiger wasn't even talking with you about

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

A.

Correct.

Q.

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

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

remember that?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And incidentally, you testified about conversations in

16

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

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

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

19

allegation concerning the substance of what happened in that

20

conversation, correct?

21

A.

22

Mr. Hammarskjold sent to me.

23

Q.

24

Sigelman -- is Mr. Sigelman on that?

25

A.

Do you

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

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

No.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1564
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

Q.

you to make where to make a payment, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

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

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

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

have for that is your word, right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

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

Okay.

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

All we

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

25.

14

THE COURT:

That's the shareholder agreement, right?

15

MR. PRICE:

Yes, Your Honor.

16

THE COURT:

Okay.

17

MR. PRICE:

It's page 25, Your Honor.

18

THE COURT:

Okay.

What page?

I'm sorry, what page?

19

BY MR. PRICE:

20

Q.

21

document that you helped draft and that you also signed on

22

behalf of PetroTiger in August of 2009, correct?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

That was a year before this conversation you say you had

25

with Mr. Sigelman in October of 2010, correct?

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1565
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

A.

Yes, over a year before.

Q.

And this document sets forth some of the limitations on

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

A.

executive officer unless it's approved by majority of the

board.

Q.

And you were an executive officer, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

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

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

10

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

11

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

12

of directors, correct?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And executive officer included any executive officer of

15

the company that reported directly to either co-chief

16

executive officer of the company, correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

So that meant any executive officer that reported to Mr.

19

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

20

of directors agreed, right?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

On your direct examination, you spoke about tension

23

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

24

this time, correct?

25

A.

Yes.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1566
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

Q.

showing you documents concerning you making wires to

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

sent concerning members of the board coming in and talking to

employees of PetroTiger.

A.

Yes.

Q.

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

that was -- was it October 12, 2010?

A.

I'm not certain.

10

Q.

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

11

board of directors, correct?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

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

14

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

15

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

16

the board of directors, correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

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

19

Exhibit 2541 for identification, Your Honor.

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

Do you recall that?

20

THE COURT:

Is it D?

21

MR. PRICE:

Yes, Your Honor, D.

22

THE COURT:

2541.

23

MR. PRICE:

It is.

24

THE COURT:

Okay.

25

again?

That's 2541.

This is a new exhibit.

What's the date of that memo

October.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1567
WEISMAN - CROSS - PRICE

MR. PRICE:

The date is October 11, 2010, for the

e-mail.

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

It's on the face.

4
5

THE COURT:

Okay.

The memo is October 12th, 2010,

That's marked for identification.

(DEFENDANT EXHIBIT D-2541 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)

THE COURT:

Thank you.

BY MR. PRICE:

Q.

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

The cover page, do you recognize as the communication

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

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

12

represented you and Mr. Sigelman?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

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

15

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

16

members of the board of directors?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And did you help author this?

19

A.

Yes.

20
21
22

MR. PRICE:

Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2541 in

evidence.
MR. INTRATER:

Your Honor, we would object.

23

just ask for a brief sidebar.

24

THE COURT:

25

(SIDEBAR AS FOLLOWS:)

Okay.

Go over to sidebar.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

We would

1568
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

1
2

MR. STOKES:

Your Honor, I can explain some of the

reasons why we object.

THE COURT:

First, Your Honor --

Can I ask you just a couple of questions?

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

when this was written.

MR. INTRATER:

MR. STOKES:

THE COURT:

9
10

Yes, Your Honor.


Yes.

When this was written, although

apparently they had their lawyer, their civil lawyer was


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

11

MR. STOKES:

12

MR. PRICE:

That's right.

13

THE COURT:

Okay.

14

MR. STOKES:

That's right.

What we believe this is, we don't

15

believe Mr. Weisman actually would know or remember whether

16

this was ever provided to the board or anybody in management

17

at the company.

18

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

19

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

THE COURT:

Why does that make it not admissible,

20

though?

21

correct, that this reflects their joint thinking about

22

something.

23

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

24

other officers of the company.

25

MR. STOKES:

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

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

Let's assume that's correct.

Yes.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1569
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

1
2
3

THE COURT:

Why does that, per se, make it

inadmissible?
MR. STOKES:

Yes, Your Honor, we think it's

inadmissible for evidentiary 403 and the other is 8036.

is not an appropriate business record.

Sigelman cooking up defenses for the future, self-serving

statements.

identify and create his allegations as to why they are

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

This is simply Mr.

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

10

it is that their view of reality is their view.

11

self-serving hearsay.

12

reliable document.

13

This

It's pure

There's no evidence that it's a

It doesn't come in under 8036.

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

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. STOKES:

Say again, defense has -- tee'd -Has tee'd this up in what is a

16

completely specious issue whether or not Mr. Weisman can be

17

fired by Mr. Sigelman.

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. STOKES:

This is not --

Say that again.


This comes at the end of a line of

20

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

21

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

22

Sigelman doesn't have any control over the board.

23

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

24

employment dispute issues.

25

THE COURT:

Whether

I'm not -- he testified in the past -- I

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1570
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

something because he was afraid he was going to be fired

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

been repeated.

MR. STOKES:

THE COURT:

MR. STOKES:

Yes.
In one form or another, many times.
And so this document has nothing

additional to do with this issue, and the employment dispute

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

10

all to do with that issue.

11

trial a number of issues, performance and issues related to

12

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

13

he is.

14

introduce issues in the case that are completely irrelevant to

15

the case and the charges.

16

This is just injecting into the

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

MR. PRICE:

The reason we have to do this is because

17

of what happened on direct.

18

Mr. Intrater questioned Mr. Weisman about the wire to

19

Mr. Duran in October.

On direct examination after

20

THE COURT:

The money wire.

21

MR. PRICE:

The money wire.

And the communications,

22

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

23

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

24

Sigelman complained to the Series A directors that they were

25

coming in and speaking with the people in finance and barred

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1571
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

1
2

them from doing so.


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

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

concerning Mr. Duran.

clear as day that's what they're suggesting.

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

much bigger dispute with the Series A investors.

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

look at financial records, and this document reflects what

10
11

If you look at the transcript, it's


I think we're
There was a
It wasn't

management actually thought at the time.


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

12

with the misimpression that the dispute was all about trying

13

to keep things from the Series A directors concerning payments

14

to Mr. Duran.

15

MR. STOKES:

Your Honor, again, I don't believe the

16

defense can show this document ever went to management.

17

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

18

theories about how the world is out to get him.

19

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

20

repeatedly trying to inject this into the trial.

21

another example of that.

22

at hand.

23

frankly, falsely, without actually testifying.

24

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

25

our case.

This

There are

This is just

It has nothing to do with the issues

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

This is --

1572
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

MR. PRICE:

Well, then I ask, Your Honor, why did

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

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

the board of directors had come and asked questions of the

finance department?

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

can show this gentleman's thoughts.

through this page by page.

We did not put this issue into the

THE COURT:

"His" meaning?

10

MR. PRICE:

Mr. Weisman's.

11
12

I'm not going to go

He said he co-authored

this.
MR. STOKES:

Your Honor, there are many documents

13

directly to the point, direct communications with the board

14

about the very issues Mr. Price just identified.

15

to use those for their communications with the board about the

16

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

17

documents he can point to.

18

this issue.

19

his exemplary leadership of the company into the case.

20

document was never forwarded to the board.

21

If he wants

This document does not relate to

This is simply injecting Mr. Sigelman's views of


The

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

22

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

23

very issues in September, in October, on performance and

24

dispute between management and Mr. Sigelman.

25

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1573
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

issue.

this document is in anticipation of litigation.

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

ever being delivered to management.

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

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

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

9
10

THE COURT:

But

They're

Mr. Weisman, who is

He made a mistake, gives false testimony,

all right.

11
12

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

MR. STOKES:

Well, Your Honor, we -- on that front,

we would ask that the witness --

13

THE COURT:

That's like when I was very heavy, I used

14

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

15

from work every day.

16

MR. STOKES:

17

And, Your Honor, we would also ask for

the --

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. STOKES:

Just a mistake.
That's right.

And we would ask that the

20

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

21

with the defense, so that the jury can properly understand

22

that.

23

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

24

injecting inadmissible hearsay into the trial related to an

25

employment dispute through the back door of, this is related

Because we think that both this and his prior testimony

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1574
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

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

issues that are utterly irrelevant.

THE COURT:

I mean, what's -- clearly, all the other

problems with the company are not particularly relevant to

what's going on here.

MR. PRICE:

They're only relevant because the

prosecution has suggested that the problem was that Mr.

Sigelman was directing board members not to go and talk to

10

finance because he was trying to hide something, and this

11

gentleman knows that that was not the problem.

12

his thoughts.

13
14

And these are

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

I'm not

going to --

15

THE COURT:

How do you deal with that argument,

16

though?

17

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

18

matter, management hates it when directors go down to

19

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

20

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

21

what's -- you brought that up.

22

MR. STOKES:

You chose to make a very minor point.

I mean, that

Your Honor, what we brought up was an

23

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

24

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

25

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1575
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

THE COURT:

But you elicited that, and you brought

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

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

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

MR. STOKES:

THE COURT:

MR. STOKES:

That's -Then why did you elicit it?


Because at that time, Mr. Sigelman and

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

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

10

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

11

from the company.

12

context.

13

So we absolutely brought that up in that

Mr. Price can -THE COURT:

You're going to make an argument --

14

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

15

bribe.

16

MR. STOKES:

17

THE COURT:

18
19
20
21

And Mr. Price -It's bootstrapping in a way, but that's

the argument you're going to make.


MR. STOKES:

No, no, we're not arguing that because

of that, he made a bribe.


THE COURT:

We're arguing --

No, no, but the fact that your position

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

You brought that up.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1576
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

MR. STOKES:

Your Honor, Mr. Price can certainly

question Mr. Weisman about the e-mail.

pertinent.

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

5
6
7
8

What is giving to the board have to do

I'm trying to -MR. STOKES:

Our argument is that this is not a

business record, this is purely --

9
10

The fact that a memo is drafted by management that

THE COURT:
with it?

These issues are not

THE COURT:

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

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

11

MR. STOKES:

And so it's an unreliable statement of

12

Mr. Sigelman simply arguing issues that are not pertinent to

13

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

14

the board to stop interfering and questioning witnesses.

15

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

16

This memo does not address those issues.

17

If

This memo simply imports months and months of dispute

18

about economic and performance issues that have nothing to do

19

with any of these issues.

20

jury.

21

employment dispute and suggest to the jury that something's

22

going on here that's not.

And it's just going to confuse the

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

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. STOKES:

25

MR. PRICE:

This is -- if you --

Go ahead, go ahead.

You finished?

Yes.
I have a suggested solution.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

I mean, we

1577
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

shot.

Management does not like --

THE COURT:

MR. STOKES:

THE COURT:

Wait, I don't, and I'm -- don't take my

silence as agreeing with that.

MR. PRICE:

MR. STOKES:

10

No, I disagree that we agree that that's

a cheap shot.

6
7

Wait.

Okay.

But --

I'm just taking his word to saying we

don't agree.

11

MR. PRICE:

Let's say it's a leap, a leap, to infer

12

from that, that was to hide bribe payments.

13

is, I don't have to get into this.

14

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

And my solution

These are Mr. Weisman's

15

THE COURT:

Yes.

16

MR. PRICE:

Mr. Sigelman's as well, but Mr. Weisman.

17

We keep hearing Mr. Sigelman.

18

if we strike that testimony.

19

THE COURT:

What, tell me --

20

MR. PRICE:

The testimony concerning the e-mail about

I don't need to get into this

21

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

22

employees.

23

point.

24
25

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

THE COURT:

Go back.

Why is that probative of your

case?

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1578
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

MR. STOKES:

THE COURT:

Your Honor, first -What fact in dispute is going to be

proved by that e-mail?

MR. STOKES:

That e-mail is going to establish two

things.

employment dispute and issues related with antagonism between

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

in part for that purpose.

One, in opening, the defense has opened on an

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

10

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

11

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

12

the board from interfering with the company.

13

performance reasons, but because they want the board out of

14

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

15

which includes, among many things --

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. STOKES:

18

that directly.

19

to --

20

Not only for

That's a very powerful inference, though.


Actually -- and Mr. Price can ask about

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

THE COURT:

No, no, no.

But one of his points is --

21

just a minute.

22

the board meddling in their affairs.

23

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

24

factors of the company.

25

There were lots of reasons they didn't want

MR. STOKES:

It had to do with the

I mean, that's -- well, all right.

And we think that point can adequately

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1579
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

be established through cross-examination.

document itself is --

THE COURT:

Very simply, this

Well, I'm going to -- I'm not going to

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

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

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

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

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

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

And
I mean,

10

out that there may be 20 other issues that would have

11

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

12

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

13

prepared, how much Sigelman prepared, how much --

14

Hammarskjold's on this, how much Hammarskjold prepared.

15

just typical vague testimony.

16

It's

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

17

dangerous and -- but not more than that.

18

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

19

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

20

what other issues there were that might --

21

MR. STOKES:

Sure, understood.

But I'm going to let

And the government

22

doesn't object.

23

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

24
25

We just ask that it be tied to October 12th

THE COURT:

Well, you've -- look, we know --

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1580
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

effect, going behind the executive management to get

information from other employees, okay?

that happened.

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

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

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

bribery going on.

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

10

Both sides agree that

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

That is a big-time powerful inference, it

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

11

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

12

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

13

that.

14

And I'm going to let him do that.


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

15

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

16

I don't know who it was delivered to.

17

again --

18

MR. STOKES:

19

THE COURT:

I mean, you know,

Thank you.
It's -- I mean, to me, it's troubling.

20

mean, Weisman can remember details of a particular word that

21

somebody used in a particular conversation five years ago, but

22

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

23

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

24

this.

25

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


MR. PRICE:

I can ask him more questions about that.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1581
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

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

on this, he was copied on this.

And with respect to whether or not the document itself

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

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

were thinking, and if Mr. Stokes thinks --

8
9

THE COURT:

Well, if you want to use it to impeach,

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

10

impeach in a way --

11

MR. PRICE:

I think you can

So, one thing I was going to suggest --

12

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

13

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

14

THE COURT:

I'm sorry?

15

MR. PRICE:

He mentioned that this is Mr. Sigelman's

16

self-serving statements as to how well management did.

17

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

That

18

THE COURT:

Yeah.

19

MR. PRICE:

And that's not at all what I'm trying to

20

accomplish here.

21

redacted.

22

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

23

And I have no objection to that being

All I want to focus on is the tensions between the

THE COURT:

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but Mr.

24

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

25

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1582
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

the board or his upsetedness with the board in dealing

directly with people below the executive management, the

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

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

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

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

million other things.

8
9

MR. STOKES:

And

Judge, I frankly don't remember the

witness's exact words on that testimony.

I think the point

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

and the board are fighting over whether the board should have

14

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

15

ever say --

16

THE COURT:

If he's not allowed to bring out through

17

Weisman what other things they were arguing over, what other

18

issues there were for them --

19

MR. STOKES:

20

way.

21

should be admissible.

22
23

We're not objecting to that in a limited

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

THE COURT:

I've already ruled.

I'm not going to

admit the document, it's marked for identification.

24

MR. STOKES:

25

MR. PRICE:

Understood.
Your Honor, I think the same day, it's

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1583
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

think I should --

THE COURT:

MR. STOKES:

MR. PRICE:

MR. STOKES:

Versions of this document are produced

up through 2012.

Well, you --

Sure.
So this document was not delivered to

anybody on October 12.


THE COURT:

You make the point I delivered -- the

10

issue is not so much delivery to the board.

11

of what his mindset was.

12

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

13

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

14

because he wanted to hide illegal activity.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

MR. STOKES:

22

THE COURT:

It's the question

I mean, to the extent that his

That's a very

Absolutely.
Not to get the thing in evidence, but

23

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

24

you sign onto that memo?

25

agreed with the contents of the memo?

Didn't

Didn't your signing on show that you


I mean, that's a

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1584
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

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

bills on time or whatever it is.

MR. STOKES:

Absolutely.

And, Your Honor, our

request is twofold.

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

document is not coming into evidence.

8
9

One is, and the Court has already ruled

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


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

10

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

11

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

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. STOKES:

14

THE COURT:

15

I'm going to try to control that.


Yes.
I'll try to do the best I can.

You know,

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

16

MR. STOKES:

17

THE COURT:

18

But I think you're underestimating how powerful the

We're not shooting.


He's doing the best he can.

19

inference.

20

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

21

to use, were that board members were going behind the

22

executive management to gather information from employees, was

23

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

24

as, you know, bribing people, whatever.

25

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

You're allowed to put in evidence that the reason

That's a powerful,

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1585
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

1
2

MR. STOKES:

I'm not sure that's the inference we

were actually planning to draw from that, but --

THE COURT:

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

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

no, just a minute.

were going on that may have upset.

employment dispute.

MR. PRICE:

There's a lot of other reasons things that


Even if it relates to an

If I could suggest, because this will

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

10

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

11

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

12

in.

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. STOKES:

Oh, no, he said it was the reason.


Why don't we talk, if we can spend five

15

minutes looking at the transcript, what I think that your

16

suggestion is, could we strike the testimony.

17

MR. PRICE:

Let's strike the testimony.

18

THE COURT:

Do you want me to just send the jury out

19

and give you time?

20
21

MR. PRICE:

Let's do that.

Because I think striking

it --

22

MR. STOKES:

23

MR. PRICE:

It will save us a couple hours.

24

THE COURT:

I will send the jury out for 15 minutes

25

and then you can.

We will take a look at it.

But, right now, at least at this moment, my

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1586
SIDEBAR DISCUSSION

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

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

this reflects the views of Gregory Weisman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Gregory

Didn't

If you can

10

MR. STOKES:

11

THE COURT:

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

12

MR. PRICE:

Okay.

13

THE COURT:

I'll to send the jury out.

14

(END OF SIDEBAR.)

15

THE COURT:

Sure.

Ladies and gentlemen, we still have a

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

while we all try to resolve that issue.

20

So I would appreciate it if you bear with me.

21

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

22

resolved.

I think

23

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

24

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

25

So

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

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

1587

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

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

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

THE COURT:

Okay.

MR. PRICE:

Thank you, Judge.

MR. STOKES:

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

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

All rise.

Folks.

inside.

Thank you, Judge.

All rise.

10

(JURY ENTERS 10:51 a.m.)

11

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

12

THE COURT:

13
14

If you need me, I'm -- I'm

Good morning, everybody.

Please be

seated.
I have news.

I have news.

And the news is this:

The

15

legal matters that the parties have been working on are still

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

know, with little to do.

21

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

22

morning at 8:30, regular time.

23

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

24

participation, your diligence.

25

That's

So what I'm going to do is I'm going

And again, my thanks, and I'm

Please, don't discuss the case among yourselves.

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

Keep

1588

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

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

research on the case.

everything you need to learn here in the court.

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

great weekend and I'll see you Monday.

You'll get your -- you'll learn

THE DEPUTY CLERK:

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

THE COURT:

10

Don't

All rise.

Can I see counsel.

(10:54 a.m.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

United States District Court


Camden, New Jersey

And with my