0051 1 providing testimony to the witness. He can 2 respond. 3 MR. HANSEN: Well, if you ask if he 4 knows -- 5 MR. KLAYMAN: Not only as a witness, he's 6 a trained lawyer of many years experience. 7 MR. HANSEN: If you're asking what he 8 knows, you're free to ask that. 9 MR. KLAYMAN: Please do not give 10 testimony to the witness. I warn you not to do 11 that. 12 Certify this. 13 THE WITNESS: To my recollection, no 14 privilege log has been prepared. 15 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 16 Q. Are the documents in one discrete place 17 that were responsive to Request Number 15? 18 A. No, sir, they're not. 19 Q. Where are the documents today? 20 A. The documents are in sealed boxes in my 21 office. 22 Q. What do you mean by "sealed boxes"? Are
0052 1 they under lock and key? 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. In file cabinets? 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. Were any privilege logs prepared with 6 regard to documents withheld from production but 7 which were responsive or arguably responsive for 8 any of the other document requested in the 9 subpoena, which is Exhibit 1 to your deposition? 10 A. I believe the answer to that is no. 11 Q. But there were documents that were 12 responsive to other document requests accepting 13 Request Number 15? 14 MR. HANSEN: Objection, 15 mischaracterization to his prior testimony. 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q. You can respond. 18 A. I'm sorry. Could you just say -- I got a 19 little confused. 20 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 21 Q. You were talking just about Exhibit 15? 22 A. No, response --
0053 1 Q. Document Request 15? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. But there were document requests where 4 there were responsive documents or arguably 5 responsive documents which haven't been produced, 6 correct? 7 A. Yeah, one. One other. 8 Q. And there was no such privilege log 9 prepared for that document? 10 A. Not to my knowledge. 11 Q. Let's turn to document Request Number 2, 12 Copies of any subpoena or voluntary agreement for 13 the documents described in Request 1. Your 14 answer is, "Mr. Lenzner possesses no responsive 15 documents." Again, you searched only what was in 16 your immediate possession, custody, and control, 17 correct? You didn't make a firm wide search for 18 documents in response to Request 2? 19 A. Copies of any subpoena or voluntary 20 agreement for the documents described in Request 21 1. Oh, we did not, again, because I see this is 22 focused on the FBI background investigation files
0054 1 of former Reagan and Bush Administration 2 appointees, which I know are not in any location 3 in our company. 4 Q. But you made no such search? 5 A. We made no search. 6 Q. Request Number 3, "Any and all calendars, 7 desk calendars, appointment books, journals, logs 8 or diaries created or maintained by or for Terry 9 Lenzner." There are documents that are 10 responsive to Request Number 3, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And no privilege log was prepared, 13 correct? 14 A. That's my understanding. 15 Q. Approximately how many documents are 16 responsive or arguably responsive to Request 17 Number 3 that you identified? 18 A. Since there's no -- as I read this, this 19 would encompass a significant number of documents 20 because there's no time limitation, or the time 21 limitation was November of 1992 which means I 22 would have had to go back and get out of storage
0055 1 five years of diaries, desk calendars, 2 appointment books. Probably correspondence would 3 come under this as well, and also we would have 4 to download our LOTUS calendar, appointment 5 calendar, which my assistant keeps for 6 appointments as well. 7 Q. So you didn't search -- 8 A. And, actually, I don't know, actually, if 9 you can even -- if we could -- I haven't searched 10 that far back on the LOTUS calendar because I 11 don't know if it's even accessible. 12 Q. So you didn't search the computer 13 calendars in response to this subpoena? 14 A. We did not. 15 Q. And those computer calendars do exist? 16 A. Actually, I know a current one does and 17 I'm sure last years does. I don't know anything 18 beyond that. I haven't checked. 19 Q. And the language of, "Any and all 20 calendars, desk calendars, appointment books, 21 journals, logs or diaries created or maintained 22 by or for Terry Lenzner," you took that to mean
0056 1 only your calendars, desk calendars, appointment 2 books, journals, logs, or diaries, correct? 3 A. That's the way I read it. 4 Q. When the language is used, "Created or 5 maintained by or for," you read out of this 6 document request the word "or for," correct? 7 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 Q. You didn't consider that to be relevant 10 to this document request? 11 MR. HANSEN: Objection, argumentative. 12 THE WITNESS: Maybe you could explain 13 what you think it means. 14 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 15 Q. Well, you are the head of the company, 16 are you not? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So therefore all calendars books kept in 19 the ordinary course of your company's business 20 are maintained by or for Terry Lenzner, correct? 21 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 22 THE WITNESS: I think that's a stretch.
0057 1 It's think it's pretty farfetched. 2 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 3 Q. I'm talking about calendar books which 4 are kept for actual firm business not for 5 personal dates or anything like that. 6 A. I know, but I've got -- 7 Q. Those are kept by and for you, aren't 8 they, as head of the company? 9 MR. HANSEN: Objection, argumentative. 10 THE WITNESS: I've got eight offices, so 11 under your interpretation, if I understand it 12 correctly, the head of my LA office, for example, 13 makes a notation on a matter that I have no 14 relationship to and may not be directly involved 15 in, and that would come under this request? 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q. Well, let me give you an example. 18 Larry Potts works for you, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. He was with the FBI during the period of 21 the FBI files controversy, correct? 22 A. I think he was on suspension at that
0058 1 time. 2 Q. Nevertheless, he was still associated 3 with the FBI, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you ask Larry Potts to search his 6 desk calendars, diaries, appointments books, 7 journals, or logs with regard to any responsive 8 documents? 9 A. I did not for several reasons, not the 10 least of which was he's out the country and has 11 been for the last two weeks. 12 Q. Does he have a secretary? 13 A. My assistant assists him. 14 Q. Did you ask your assistant to go search 15 his diaries? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Or his logs? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Howard Shapiro. Is Howard Shapiro 20 directly employed by your company or is he work 21 for law firm? 22 A. I believe he's a partner at Wilmer,
0059 1 Cutler & Pickering. 2 Q. Did he have a direct employment 3 relationship with your company? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. Did you ask Mr. Shapiro to check his 6 diaries, logs, calendars, et cetera? 7 A. Absolutely not. 8 Q. Request Number 4, Any and all records, 9 correspondence, notes, communications, or other 10 documents concerning or relating to 11 communications to or from Jane Sherburne 12 concerning or relating to the access to and 13 disclosure of FBI background investigation files 14 or summary reports on former Reagan and Bush 15 Administration appointees and employees, and 16 others. How did you make any such search for 17 those documents? You responded you had none. 18 A. I know to an absolute certainty that the 19 law firm and company have never been in access to 20 or custody or control of investigation files or 21 summary reports of former Reagan and Bush 22 Administration appointees.
0060 1 Q. Do you employ any ex-White House 2 employees at your company? 3 A. We have. 4 Q. In the last three years, have you 5 employed any ex-White House employees or 6 officials? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Who? 9 A. We employed David Miller who was with the 10 National Security Counsel during the Reagan/Bush 11 Administration. 12 Q. Anyone else? 13 A. Not that I know of, no. 14 Q. Do you know whether among the various 15 files that went over from the FBI to the 16 White House as part of the FBI files controversy 17 whether Mr. Miller's file was sent over? 18 A. I have no idea. 19 Q. Did you ever ask him? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Is he currently employed for you? 22 A. No.
0061 1 Q. Any other White House employees or 2 officials currently on your payroll or 3 independent contractor or any way associated with 4 your company? 5 A. Specifically White House, no. 6 Q. Executive Office of the President? 7 A. No. 8 Q. What about FBI agents? 9 A. We have -- 10 Q. And personnel, former FBI agents and 11 personnel? 12 A. We have a former FBI agent in addition to 13 Larry Potts. 14 Q. Who's that? 15 A. His name is Dick Swensen. 16 Q. How is that name spelled? 17 A. S W E N S E N. 18 Q. And where did he work at the FBI? 19 A. He was special agent in charge of 20 New Orleans and then special agent in charge of 21 Boston. 22 Q. Did he ever work out of headquarters in
0062 1 Washington, D.C? 2 A. I'd have to check that, but I don't think 3 so. 4 Q. Did you inquire of him whether he had any 5 documents in response to Request Number 4? 6 A. Well, I don't think he ever worked in 7 headquarters. 8 Q. It calls for yes or no. 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did you ask whether he had any documents 11 in response to any of Judicial Watch's document 12 requests in the subpoena which is Exhibit 1? 13 A. Well, my understanding is that when a 14 Bureau agent retires from the Bureau, they take 15 with them whatever the Bureau rules and 16 regulations require, and I'm confident that the 17 rules were complied with by both Larry Potts and 18 Dick Swensen. 19 Q. So the answer is no? 20 A. Did I ask him whether or not they took 21 any files? 22 Q. Correct.
0063 1 A. No. 2 Q. Are there any other former FBI personnel 3 that work with your firm in any capacity, either 4 as a direct employee, independent contractor, 5 subcontractor? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. Whatever. Who? 8 A. We have subcontractors from -- in 9 virtually every state in the country, and I don't 10 deal with them myself. The case managers deal 11 with them, so I don't even know what their names 12 are. But they -- 13 Q. Do you remember -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. 14 A. They range from -- I'm sure we have 15 former FBI people that are subcontractors. I'm 16 sure we have former DEA people who are 17 subcontractors. I'm sure we have former police 18 that are subcontractors. 19 Q. Let's stick with FBI. Who can -- whose 20 name do you know that you can tell us now other 21 than the people you've just identified? 22 A. I know we just recently asked for some
0064 1 help from two recently retired FBI agents who are 2 specialists in hostage, ransom, and kidnapping. 3 And their last names are Maples and Johnson, and 4 they're in Atlanta. They retired to Atlanta. 5 Q. Do you remember their first names? 6 A. I don't. 7 Q. Did you inquire of them whether they had 8 any FBI -- 9 A. No. No, I did not. 10 Q. -- matter dealing with the files 11 controversy? 12 A. No, no. 13 Q. Did you send any kind of directive out to 14 your various offices saying search for files in 15 response to Judicial Watch's subpoena? 16 A. Well, I concluded that because of the 17 absolute certainty that we had none responsive to 18 the major focus of the inquiry that that would 19 have been futile, and it would have been -- it 20 would have been counterproductive. 21 Q. So the answer is no? 22 A. My answer is my answer.
0065 1 Q. The answer is no, you made no such 2 direction that was sent out to your various 3 offices? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. If I can suggest -- I mean, you can 6 respond, but if you give me the yes or no first, 7 I'll allow you to explain. We can do it that 8 way. 9 Request Number 5, Any and all records, 10 correspondence, notes, communications, or other 11 documents concerning or relating to 12 communications to or from Cheryl Mills concerning 13 or relating to the access to and disclosure of 14 FBI background investigation files or summary 15 reports on Reagan and Bush Administration 16 appointees and employees, or others. Do you know 17 Cheryl Mills? 18 A. I met Cheryl Mills for the first time in 19 my life outside the grand jury room when I was 20 down at the court house, but I had never spoken 21 to her before, and I do not know her. And I just 22 shook hands with her because she was down there.
0066 1 Q. Do you know Bernie Nussbaum? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. How long have you known Bernie Nussbaum? 4 A. I believe I first met Nussbaum when he 5 was in the Southern District of New York U.S. 6 Attorney's Office and I was in the Southern 7 District of New York City U.S. Attorney's Office. 8 And he was in -- I think he was doing organized 9 crime and I was doing organized crime. So I 10 don't think we worked on any cases directly 11 together, but I believe I knew him from that. 12 Q. You've never been employed for 13 Bernie Nussbaum, have you, in any capacity, 14 either individually or as part of your company? 15 A. By? 16 Q. Bernie Nussbaum. 17 A. I don't believe so. We have done work 18 for his law firm, but I don't believe for him 19 directly. 20 Q. You've never done any work on the FBI 21 files matter, have you? 22 A. No, absolutely not.
0067 1 Q. But you have discussed that with him, 2 haven't you? 3 A. No. 4 Q. When was the last time you saw 5 Bernie Nussbaum? 6 A. It's got to be three or four years ago, 7 and I haven't seen him since he left the 8 White House. I haven't talked to him since he 9 left the White House. 10 Q. Have you ever been employed to do any 11 work -- when I say, "you," either you, 12 Mr. Lenzner, or your firm, which is Investigative 13 Group, Inc., with regard to this lawsuit that 14 you're here on today? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you ever -- I'm talking about by 17 anybody, whether it's the White House or whether 18 it's by White House counsel or whatever the case 19 may be? 20 A. Absolutely not. 21 Q. No. Have you ever been employed to do 22 any work? "You," meaning Terry Lenzner or
0068 1 Investigative Group, Inc., with regard to any of 2 the lawyers or witnesses involved in this case? 3 MR. HANSEN: Let me just make an 4 objection here. I want to put this on the record 5 once and then I'll refer back to it, so it's not 6 going to take up too much of your time, 7 Mr. Klayman. Mr. Lenzner is an attorney. I'm 8 going to instruct him not to disclose any 9 information that would constitute privilege, 10 attorney-client communications between himself 11 and his clients under Federal Rule 30(d)(1). I 12 would also instruct Mr. Lenzner to the extent the 13 question calls for the disclosure of information 14 that constitutes attorney-work product, I'm 15 instructing him not to answer under the same 16 rule. 17 Finally, I'm going to instruct him to the 18 extent Mr. Klayman's question calls for the 19 disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential 20 research development or commercial information as 21 provided in Rule 26(c)(7). I'm instructing 22 Mr. Lenzner not to answer pending a motion
0069 1 pursuant to Rule 30(d)(3), and that's -- another 2 reference is 30(d)(1). 3 Subject to those instructions, 4 Mr. Lenzner, you can -- 5 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, you're instructing 6 him not to answer, I thought? 7 MR. HANSEN: I'm just -- as to those, if 8 you can answer the question without -- 9 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 10 Q. The question was simple. I'm not asking 11 for matters such as attorney-client 12 communications or anything else at this time. At 13 this time. I'm asking you whether you've ever 14 been employed by anyone, meaning you, and I'll 15 make that a general instruction, or your firm to 16 investigate any of the lawyers involved with this 17 particular lawsuit that you're here on today or 18 any of the organizations that they're involved 19 with? 20 MR. HANSEN: I'm sorry. Is that a 21 different question? Did you say instruct -- I 22 just didn't follow the question. Is that
0070 1 investigate any of the lawyers involved in this 2 case? 3 MR. KLAYMAN: Yes. 4 MR. HANSEN: Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not even sure I 6 know who all the lawyers are. I mean, you've 7 got -- you're talking about the people sitting 8 around this table here? 9 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Including the government lawyers? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. The answer is -- actually, I don't even 14 know your last name. But I think the answer is 15 no. The answer is no. 16 Q. No. You know what my name is, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. So have you been employed to 19 investigate me or Judicial Watch? 20 A. No, not ever. 21 Q. Have you ever been employed to 22 investigate any judges?
0071 1 A. Ever? 2 Q. Ever. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When was the last time you were employed 5 to investigate judges? 6 A. Sometime in 1997. 7 Q. What judges were you employed to 8 investigate? 9 MR. HANSEN: Let me -- can I repeat my 10 prior objection without going through all the 11 provisions, Mr. Klayman? Do I need to put it all 12 back on the record? 13 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, my question is 14 simple. 15 MR. HANSEN: Well, I -- 16 MR. KLAYMAN: No, you don't need to. If 17 you want to have a continuing objection, that's 18 fine. 19 MR. HANSEN: Right. Okay. Then I'm 20 going to just refer back to my prior objection 21 and instruct Mr. Lenzner not to answer unless he 22 can do so without violating the attorney-client
0072 1 privilege, the work product privilege, or the 2 confidential trade secret protection under Rule 3 26(c)(7). 4 THE WITNESS: I can't. 5 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 6 Q. You can't what? 7 A. I can't answer without violating all 8 three of those strictures. 9 Q. Are you refusing to answer? 10 MR. HANSEN: I'm instructing him not to 11 answer. 12 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it. 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q. So you will not answer the question with 15 regard to any judicial officer; is that correct? 16 A. I will -- I just answered that on 17 occasion we've been asked by clients to determine 18 whether or not certain things have occurred with 19 a judge or an arbitrator and -- but I will not go 20 into any detail on that because it would be a 21 violation of all three of the strictures that 22 Mr. Hansen has asserted.
0073 1 Q. What I'm trying to determine is 2 whether you're refusing to give me the names 3 of the judges that you've been hired to 4 investigate. 5 A. Yes. 6 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it. 7 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 8 Q. Approximately how many judges have you 9 been hired to investigate? 10 MR. HANSEN: Same objection. 11 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 12 Q. In the last -- well, let's say the last 13 five years. 14 A. I wouldn't want to guess. 15 Q. Roughly speaking? 16 A. It would be a guess. 17 Q. You can give me speculation. It may not 18 come into evidence, but I'm asking for your best 19 estimate right now. 20 MR. HANSEN: Objection, calls for 21 speculation. 22 THE WITNESS: I'd say between two and
0074 1 five. Complete speculation. 2 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 3 Q. Are those judges located on the bench in 4 the District of Columbia? 5 MR. HANSEN: Same objection as before. 6 THE WITNESS: I want to answer that 7 question. Can I answer it without -- 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. No. 11 Q. All right. What states are they located 12 in? 13 A. I'm not going to go into that. 14 MR. HANSEN: I'm instructing Mr. Lenzner 15 not to answer any more on this subject. 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q. Are any of those judges on the Federal 18 bench? 19 MR. HANSEN: Same objection. 20 THE WITNESS: I think that would violate 21 the strictures that I -- and, actually, I can't 22 remember, but I think it would still violate the
0075 1 strictures. 2 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it. 3 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 4 Q. As a lawyer, Mr. Lenzner, in your view, 5 is it ethical to investigate judges? 6 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 7 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 8 Q. Based on your experience? 9 A. In my view, if there is an allegation 10 that has been suitably supported that a client 11 brings to my attention that he or she believes 12 acted inappropriately or unethically for 13 inappropriate reasons, the only way to determine 14 whether that has occurred is to make an inquiry 15 into it. And as long as the inquiry is legal and 16 ethical within the canons of ethics of the 17 jurisdictions we operate in, I think it is 18 appropriate. 19 Q. Let's take the District of Columbia. Is 20 it legal and ethical to go through a judge's 21 trash? 22 MR. HANSEN: Objection.
0076 1 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm just trying to get his 2 methodology. And I'm talking about anybody, 3 whether it's a judge or anybody else. 4 MR. HANSEN: I'm going to object and 5 instruct him not to answer as to "methodology" 6 because that goes to trade secrets and other 7 proprietary information. 8 MR. KLAYMAN: That's ridiculous, 9 Mr. Hansen. 10 MR. HANSEN: And, furthermore, your 11 question has no foundation, Mr. Klayman. 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q. Have you ever gone through individual's 14 that you've investigated trash? 15 MR. HANSEN: Objection -- the continuing 16 objection. I'll just say -- can I say continuing 17 objection? 18 MR. KLAYMAN: Are you going to let him 19 answer? 20 MR. HANSEN: Well, Mr. Klayman, first I'm 21 going to ask you a question. To not eat up your 22 deposition, I'm just going to define my prior
0077 1 objection, which was lengthy, as continuing 2 objection, if that's all right with you? 3 MR. KLAYMAN: I already agreed to that. 4 MR. HANSEN: Okay. So I'm just going to 5 say continuing objection. Mr. Lenzner, answer if 6 you can without violating the strictures as 7 previously defined. 8 THE WITNESS: I can't. 9 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it. 10 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 11 Q. When you were hired to investigate 12 judicial officers, did you do so with an 13 understanding that that information would be used 14 to try to influence the decision making of that 15 judge? 16 A. To the best of my recollection the 17 information being sought in those matters, as 18 well as other matters and probably thousands of 19 cases that we are engaged in over a year, is 20 intended to be used in open forum in a legal 21 dispute, and, therefore, the evidence has to be 22 obtained in a way that's legal and ethical so
0078 1 that the lawyers, including myself, can utilize 2 it in an open forum. 3 Q. So the answer is as long as it's able to 4 be utilized in open forum it's not your business 5 what it's used for? 6 MR. HANSEN: Objection, 7 mischaracterization. 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q. Correct? 10 A. No, that's not correct. 11 Q. Information -- based on your experience, 12 information can be used in open forum which could 13 have an impact on the activities of the 14 individual being investigated, correct? 15 A. It could. 16 Q. Now your firm has been retained, has it 17 not, by Williams & Connolly, correct? 18 MR. HANSEN: Objection. Continuing 19 objection. Answer only if you can do so without 20 violating the strictures. 21 MR. KLAYMAN: It's a matter of public 22 record.
0079 1 MR. HANSEN: Well, Mr. Klayman, if it's a 2 matter of record than he can answer it without 3 violating the strictures. I'm just reminding him 4 of the strictures. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q. In fact, a statement was made by 8 Mr. Kendall to that effect recently; is that 9 correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Were you retained on more than one 12 matter, more than one particular issue? 13 MR. HANSEN: I'm going to object. 14 Continuing objection. Instruct you not to 15 answer. 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q. I'm not asking for the particular 18 matters. I'm just asking on more than one issue. 19 A. I think to disclose any details including 20 whether there was one or more matters would be 21 inappropriate under the three strictures that I 22 was instructed about.
0080 1 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it. 2 THE WITNESS: And I can assure you it had 3 nothing to do with the major subject of this 4 controversy. 5 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 6 Q. What's the major subject of this 7 controversy? 8 A. The FBI files. 9 Q. How about the minor subject of this 10 controversy? 11 MR. HANSEN: Continuing objection. 12 Remind you of the three strictures and instruct 13 you not to answer to the extent you'd be 14 divulging privileged and proprietary information. 15 THE WITNESS: I don't even know what the 16 minor subject is. 17 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 18 Q. Have you been retained with regard to any 19 aspect of this controversy? 20 MR. HANSEN: Objection, asked and 21 answered. 22 BY MR. KLAYMAN:
0081 1 Q. Or are you working on any aspect of this 2 controversy? 3 A. Well, I don't know -- you better define 4 "controversy." 5 Q. I'm trying to be polite. Scandal. How's 6 that? 7 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q. The FBI scandal, this lawsuit, anything 10 related to it? 11 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q. In any way? 14 A. And as I understand it, since I have not 15 followed this closely, the matter was the 16 transmission of FBI files from the FBI to the 17 White House; is that correct? 18 Q. Part of it. 19 A. Absolutely not. We're not engaged or 20 involved in any aspect of that. 21 Q. You're not involved with regard to any 22 aspect of this litigation which we're here on
0082 1 today? 2 MR. HANSEN: Mr. Klayman, objection. 3 He's already told you he doesn't know. 4 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm asking the question a 5 different way. I'm entitled to ask. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know all the 7 aspects of this litigation. 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q. Are you in any way retained to do any 10 work with regard to any matter that refers or 11 relates in any way to this lawsuit, Alexander 12 versus FBI? 13 MR. HANSEN: Same continuing objection. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't even know all -- I 15 don't even know all the participants. I don't 16 know -- I haven't even looked at the names of all 17 the defendants. I don't know who's testified 18 here. I can't answer that question. 19 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 20 Q. Is the answer yes or no? 21 A. I can't answer that question. 22 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it.
0083 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q. Have you ever met Jack Quinn, former 3 White House counsel? 4 MR. HANSEN: Objection. Continuing 5 objection on the three privileges I previously 6 expressed. If you can answer without violating 7 those, do so. 8 THE WITNESS: I believe I talked to him 9 on the telephone once. 10 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 11 Q. When was that? 12 A. I believe it was some time in 1997. 13 Q. What was the subject of your 14 conversation? 15 A. I believe that would run a fowl of the 16 communication privilege that we've been 17 discussing here. 18 Q. Were you retained by Jack Quinn at the 19 time? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Were you retained by the White House at 22 the time?
0084 1 MR. HANSEN: Objection. Same prior 2 objection as to the privileges. Instruct you not 3 to answer if it would divulge confidential, 4 proprietary information concerning 5 attorney-client privilege or work product 6 information. 7 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm laying the foundation 8 for challenging your claim. 9 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 10 Q. Were you retained by the White House at 11 the time? 12 MR. HANSEN: Same objection. 13 THE WITNESS: I was retained by the law 14 firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. 15 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 16 Q. Was that retention with regard to the 17 President's Legal Defense Fund? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. During that conversation, did you discuss 20 the FBI files controversy? 21 A. Absolutely not. 22 Q. Were you aware at the time of that
0085 1 conversation that the President's Legal Defense 2 Fund had been sued as not being open as an 3 advisory committee? 4 A. Actually, I was not aware of that. 5 Q. Have you ever met with Louis Freeh or 6 spoken with Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI? 7 A. No. 8 Q. How did you get to know Howard Shapiro? 9 MR. HANSEN: Objection, "get to know." 10 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 11 Q. Evidently you did come to know him. You 12 hired him? 13 A. Two FBI agents arrived at my house in the 14 District one Saturday morning, which was quite 15 startling to my wife. The subject was 16 subpoenaing me to the grand jury. I -- 17 Larry Potts holds the second most senior position 18 in my law firm and company, and I consult with 19 him on any major significant matter. I 20 telephoned him that weekend and he recommended 21 that I meet with Howard Shapiro for the purpose 22 of representation in the grand jury which I think
0086 1 was scheduled for Tuesday of that week. 2 Q. Who recommended Mr. Shapiro? 3 A. Larry Potts. 4 Q. Larry Potts. Larry Potts was already 5 employed for you? 6 A. Yes, he was. 7 Q. You knew of Mr. Shapiro's representation 8 up to that point in time, didn't you, in terms of 9 the ethical matter he had been involved in at the 10 FBI? 11 MR. HANSEN: Objection to the form, 12 argumentative. 13 MR. KLAYMAN: Just trying to get to the 14 point. 15 MR. HANSEN: Same objection. 16 THE WITNESS: Could you state -- 17 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 18 Q. You are aware that Mr. Shapiro had 19 been subject to an office of professional 20 responsibility and investigation for 21 allegedly violating ethical rules in the FBI 22 files matter.
0087 1 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 2 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 3 Q. And other matters before you contacted 4 him to represent you in the grand jury proceeding 5 that you've just identified? 6 MR. HANSEN: Objection, 7 mischaracterization. If you're going to refer to 8 Mr. Shapiro's investigation, you should also 9 refer to the fact that he was exonerated by that 10 investigation, Mr. Klayman. 11 MR. KLAYMAN: He was not exonerated, but 12 I will conceive that it was a rather poor 13 investigation. 14 MR. HANSEN: Well, I'm sure that's your 15 opinion. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: As long as you're making a 17 few remarks on the record. 18 MR. HANSEN: Since you're going to impugn 19 people's character and give the tape to Geraldo, 20 I think you should make clear for the record what 21 the true facts are. 22 MR. KLAYMAN: I think the facts speak for
0088 1 themselves, and if you want, we'll put a copy of 2 the report on the record. 3 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 4 Q. Were you aware that he had that problem 5 at the office of professional responsibility? 6 MR. HANSEN: Objection. "Problem?" Go 7 ahead and answer. 8 THE WITNESS: I remember vaguely 9 Mr. Shapiro's name coming up. I did not know he 10 had had an investigation conducted of him, and 11 I'm not even sure I knew that until you just 12 mentioned it. I had heard of Mr. Shapiro from -- 13 prior to that time heard of him from Phil 14 Heymann, who is a professor of law at Harvard Law 15 School, and had been the deputy -- deputy -- what 16 do you call it? Attorney General. And prior to 17 that, head of the criminal division. 18 And Phil -- I had lectured at his course 19 a couple of times at the Harvard Law School, and 20 during those lectures, Phil mentioned to me that 21 the two best Federal Law Enforcement people he's 22 ever met in his life were Larry Potts and Howard
0089 1 Shapiro. So I was naturally -- when Larry 2 mentioned Shapiro's name to me, that rang a bell, 3 and I was more impressed frankly with remembering 4 what Phil Heymann said than my vague recollection 5 of his involvement. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q. What year did Phil Heymann say that, 8 roughly speaking? 9 A. Well, it would have been -- well, 10 actually, he said it this year because I 11 lectured, and I think it was the fall, and he 12 said it the year before because I lectured at one 13 time in the fall at the law school. And I 14 believe, actually, Larry and Howard are also 15 lecturing at the law school. 16 Q. Currently? 17 A. No, on these requests for invitation from 18 Professor Heymann. 19 Q. But you did take into account 20 Mr. Shapiro's reputation, whatever that may be, 21 before you decided to hire him? 22 A. I did take into account the fact that I
0090 1 had heard absolutely wonderful things about him, 2 yes. 3 Q. And you did know that he had been 4 involved in a controversy over the FBI files when 5 he was general counsel of the FBI? 6 MR. HANSEN: Objection, 7 mischaracterization. 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q. You can respond. 10 A. I had a vague recollection of -- it 11 didn't concern me. If Larry Potts recommended 12 him, that was good enough for me because 13 Larry Potts is probably the most impressive law 14 enforcement agent I've ever met in my life and 15 he's a man of complete integrity and honesty, and 16 he would not have offered me somebody who was not 17 comparably situated. 18 Q. And you are aware that Mr. Shapiro was 19 also involved in a controversy over a book 20 written by Gary Aldrich, correct? 21 A. No, I never heard of that. 22 Q. When did you hire Mr. Potts?
0091 1 A. I believe it was the fall of 1997. I 2 believe that's correct. 3 Q. Before you hired -- what was he hired as? 4 What's his title? 5 A. Executive vice president. 6 Q. What are his duties and responsibilities? 7 A. He, basically, shares the leadership and 8 administration of the entire company with me. He 9 is doing evaluations of various of our 10 investigative resources. He has spoken at 11 different conferences that have invited him to 12 professional conferences. He has introduced us 13 to new clients that we haven't had before. He 14 has helped us reorganize parts of our 15 organization. He's doing an evaluation of our 16 entire subcontractor computer index file and he 17 is involved with me on everything from 18 compensation issues to questions about whether or 19 not we ought to expand and in what directions we 20 might want to expand. So he's, I would have to 21 say, virtually a partner in the running of the 22 company.
0092 1 Q. Is Investigative Group, Inc., a 2 corporation? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Does he own shares of stock in the 5 corporation? 6 A. He does not. 7 Q. But he has management responsibilities 8 which are co-equal to your own? 9 A. I would say that's correct. 10 Q. Who owns -- who currently owns the shares 11 of stock in Investigative Group, Inc.? 12 A. I do. 13 Q. You're the sole owner? 14 A. I am. 15 Q. Has that always been the case? 16 A. No, I had a partner seven or eight years 17 ago, and I bought his shares back. 18 Q. Who was that partner? 19 A. James Mintz, M I N T Z. 20 Q. Do you know where he's located today? 21 A. New York City. 22 Q. Does he have his own company?
0093 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What's that? 3 A. The James Mintz' Group. 4 Q. Before you hired Mr. Potts in this 5 capacity, were you aware that he had been accused 6 of being the one that gave the shoot to kill 7 order at Ruby Ridge? 8 MR. HANSEN: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: I was aware that he was 10 involved in a controversy over Ruby Ridge, but 11 from my discussions with him, I would have to 12 argue with your characterization about him giving 13 the orders to "shoot to kill." 14 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 15 Q. Did you conduct an investigation, "you," 16 meaning Mr. Lenzner or your company, of 17 Larry Potts before you hired him? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was this an internal investigation that 20 you conducted? 21 MR. HANSEN: Objection to the term 22 "internal investigation."
0094 1 THE WITNESS: Can you explain what you 2 mean by "internal"? 3 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 4 Q. Inside your firm or did you contract out 5 to have it done? 6 A. Oh, no, it was internal to the firm. 7 Q. How many people were involved in that 8 investigation? 9 A. Probably half-a-dozen. 10 Q. How would you characterize the 11 investigation? Was it a big one, a small one, 12 medium-sized by your standards? 13 A. I'd say it was a standard self-due 14 diligence. 15 Q. What did you do to do a due diligence? 16 MR. HANSEN: Let me object. 17 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 18 Q. Roughly speaking. I'm not asking for 19 what you learned. I'm asking for exactly what 20 you did in terms of methodology. 21 MR. HANSEN: And I'll instruct you, 22 Mr. Lenzner, to the extent that calls for you to
0095 1 disclose information that constitutes trade 2 secrets or other confidential research 3 development or other commercial information as 4 provided in Rule 26(c)(7), I instruct you not to 5 answer. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, let me see if I can 7 respond within that confines of those strictures. 8 We would have gathered as much publicly available 9 information as there was. We talked to people 10 who were both friends and enemies, and we 11 interviewed Mr. Potts on several occasions. 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q. You weren't concerned because of his 14 prior involvement at Ruby Ridge, I take it? 15 MR. HANSEN: Objection to form. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, we would have done -- 17 we do a comparable investigation for all our 18 personnel, but this would have been slightly more 19 intense because of the knowledge about 20 Ruby Ridge, yes. 21 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 22 Q. Were you concerned that he had been
0096 1 accused of falsifying information and covering up 2 the events of Ruby Ridge while he was with the 3 FBI? 4 MR. HANSEN: Objection to the form. 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q. Why weren't you concerned about that? 8 A. Because he had explained the whole 9 situation to me minute-by-minute and 10 hour-by-hour, and at the end of it, I was 11 convinced that he had done nothing wrong in 12 regard to the question you asked, that there were 13 explanations that exculpated him from all these 14 allegations, and, as I said to him at the time, 15 the only person who could possibly justify the 16 series of events and the tragedy of it would be 17 William Shakespeare. 18 Q. I thought you were going to say 19 William Sessions. Have you ever talked to 20 William Sessions? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you know him?
0097 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did it concern you in hiring Mr. Potts or 3 Mr. Shapiro that they had this kind of background 4 in terms of being involved in the controversies 5 which they were involved in? 6 MR. HANSEN: Objection to form. 7 Objection, asked and answered. 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q. Is that a factor in your deciding whether 10 to hire individuals for your company, baggage 11 that they come with, so to speak? 12 MR. HANSEN: Objection to "hire 13 individuals for your company," as it relates to 14 Mr. Shapiro. 15 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 16 Q. Shapiro and Potts? 17 A. I retained Mr. Shapiro as counsel for a 18 matter that was both urgent, I felt from the 19 information I received about him and the fact 20 that he was a partner at the law firm of Wilmer, 21 Cutler & Pickering, that he had would do and he 22 did a superb job on our behalf.
0098 1 With regard to Mr. Potts, I talked to 2 half-a-dozen senior government officials and 3 former senior government officials and every one 4 of them who had worked with him gave him the 5 highest possible assessment for both efficiency, 6 integrity imagination, creativity, and now that 7 I've known him, I'd say they understated it. 8 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was 9 did it concern you at the time that they had this 10 prior history in the controversy -- 11 A. My answer is that after we did our due 12 diligence, which I just described, it did not 13 concern me. 14 Q. Did it concern you specifically with 15 regard to Mr. Potts that he had been alleged to 16 participate in a coverup of Ruby Ridge? 17 MR. HANSEN: Objection, asked and 18 answered. 19 THE WITNESS: I think I answered that one 20 already. 21 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 22 Q. Did you talk with anyone at the FBI about
0099 1 Mr. Potts or Mr. Shapiro before you hired both of 2 them? 3 A. I think Mr. Swensen had that assignment 4 since he came from the Bureau. 5 Q. Do you know who Mr. Swensen spoke with? 6 A. I don't, but he -- they all came back 7 with rave reviews. 8 Q. Do both of these individuals have 9 employment files at your company, at IGI? 10 MR. HANSEN: When you say, "both these 11 individuals," who are you referring to? 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q. Mr. Potts and Mr. Shapiro? 14 A. Mr. Shapiro doesn't. 15 Q. Does Mr. Potts? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And are these results of this 18 investigation of Mr. Potts in his employment 19 file? 20 A. I'm sure that some of it is. 21 Q. Where would the other part be? 22 A. There may be mental impressions that
0100 1 people communicated to us that are not recorded 2 in the file. I'm sure that -- I'm not sure, 3 but I -- I'm not certain that, for example, 4 the Phil Heymann statement that was made to 5 me two consecutive years would have been 6 recorded. 7 Q. And you don't know whether anyone ever 8 questioned Mr. Potts when you did this due 9 diligence about whether he was involved in the 10 FBI files controversy, do you? 11 A. My recollection is that he spoke about 12 that -- oh, I'm sorry. I withdraw. About this 13 case? The FBI files, no. 14 Q. You don't know whether anyone spoke to 15 him about that or anyone else whether he was 16 involved? 17 A. I don't know. I didn't. I did not. 18 Q. And before you came here today, you 19 did not search his employment file, Mr. Potts' 20 employment file, to see whether there was 21 anything in there that was relevant or 22 which might lead to relevant evidence as