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


 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 --


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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,


 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.


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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.


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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?


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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.


 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:


 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


 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.


 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?


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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?


 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.


 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?


 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."


 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


 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


 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?


 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.


 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


 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


 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
Previous Section / Next Section
of this deposition