07/12 11:21
00:00:07 We're back on record, folks.
00:00:08 3 a.m.
00:00:09 20-08622Civil Kroenke and Treasure chest and Elliott.
00:00:13 Ready to proceed, Mr. Brzezinski?
00:00:15 Yes, I am, of course.
00:00:15 Okay.
00:00:16 Mr. Clark, do you want to grab the jury?
00:00:38 Thank you for watching
00:01:21 Oh, that's better.
00:01:23 I appreciate it.
00:01:31 Let's do that.
00:01:34 Unplug yourself.
00:01:35 And that's working, right?
00:01:37 Yes, sir.
00:01:38 Perfect.
00:01:41 So we're going to have a cluster moment.
00:01:45 Well, we kept sabotaging this stuff.
00:01:51 The next thing you know, you're getting arrested for flashing a helicopter in a plane.
00:02:23 Okay, welcome back, everybody.
00:02:24 Please have a seat.
00:02:31 So we are ready to begin cross-examination for Mr. Elliott and Mr. Brzezinski, when you're ready.
00:02:36 Thank you.
00:02:39 Mr. Elliott, Mr. Campion had you look at Exhibit 16, which were a number of text messages.
00:02:45 So I'd like to revisit that, if you don't mind.
00:02:50 Okay.
00:02:52 Now, can we agree that text messages, like most things in life, are better with context?
00:03:01 They are better with context.
00:03:03 And completeness is better than partial?
00:03:06 Correct.
00:03:07 Okay.
00:03:08 Well, you said, if I remember correctly, and feel free to correct me, that when you heard of Kevin Clark telling you about the expenses, you were shocked.
00:03:19 I was.
00:03:21 Okay.
00:03:22 Well, let's look at that exchange.
00:03:25 And I believe that's the part that Mr. Campion had you look at?
00:03:29 Yeah, but this isn't with Kevin.
00:03:34 No, I understand.
00:03:35 I'm speaking to Seth Kroenke.
00:03:36 Seth, that's correct.
00:03:37 But you were shocked when you saw the numbers that Kevin showed, right?
00:03:40 I was.
00:03:41 Okay.
00:03:42 So let's scroll down a little bit to the next page and let's look at your response.
00:03:45 Your response is, could you read that starting with okay?
00:03:48 Okay.
00:03:50 I said, okay, this needs a meeting and not a typist because the text is inadequate.
00:03:56 Sure, go ahead.
00:03:56 I said, bring your expenses and I'll see what I can do about them.
00:03:59 We have 23 ounces of production and I have my own list.
00:04:03 Okay.
00:04:06 So you said, okay.
00:04:07 You didn't say, I'm shocked, I'm appalled, I can't believe this.
00:04:10 You just said, okay, right?
00:04:11 How many times would you say you're shocked?
00:04:13 Once is good.
00:04:14 Did you say once shocked or did you say okay?
00:04:17 Well, no, I wouldn't text that.
00:04:19 You wouldn't text the word shocked?
00:04:20 Why?
00:04:21 Conveys a better meaning than okay, doesn't it?
00:04:23 Well, yes, but it's text, and I was shocked, but I was still typing.
00:04:26 Very good.
00:04:27 Let's move on to your next statement.
00:04:36 And bear with us while we scroll.
00:04:37 It is a very live document that everybody will have.
00:04:46 Okay.
00:04:47 Mr. Campion had you read the U-Guarantee payment of 225 by October 1st.
00:04:54 That's right?
00:04:54 You remember that?
00:04:55 I remember that.
00:04:56 Okay.
00:04:57 Well, let's go above that, and let's have completeness.
00:05:01 So, and if I'm misreading it, please correct me, and I'm sure the jury can see that as well.
00:05:09 I think the response from Mr. Kroenke reads, at this point, there are two options that I see them in.
00:05:14 Is that correct?
00:05:15 Correct.
00:05:15 Okay.
00:05:16 And the number one
00:05:17 option that he provides for you is what?
00:05:20 Could you read that for us?
00:05:21 He says, let us conduct our 30-day test with the plant that we built in the location that we stripped.
00:05:27 This option in no way interferes with the FUBAR operation.
00:05:31 Okay.
00:05:33 So here, Mr. Kroenke isn't threatening you with a lawsuit.
00:05:37 He's just asking you to allow him to use the plant that he built at the location that he stripped
00:05:45 for another 30 days.
00:05:46 Can we agree on that?
00:05:47 That's correct.
00:05:48 Okay.
00:05:48 Let's go to page 59.
00:05:51 Oh, 56.
00:05:51 I'm sorry.
00:05:56 Mr. Bettinger is way sharper than I am.
00:06:09 Okay.
00:06:11 Why don't you read the third paragraph that starts with, if we are able.
00:06:20 If we are able to successfully move forward with a written path today, then I do believe that we can both come out of this in a reasonable position that still has potential.
00:06:31 And that sounds like he's trying to work this out with you, right?
00:06:34 Sounds like he wants to modify our agreement.
00:06:36 Okay.
00:06:38 And let's go to page 59.
00:06:50 Okay.
00:06:51 Now let me direct you to another portion of the text message that you were addressing earlier.
00:06:57 Let's look at the paragraph that starts with, at every juncture.
00:07:01 At every juncture that we have found a piece that is ready to mind, you have come up with reasons why we can't, or you have unilaterally redirected my crew.
00:07:10 This has been going on for months.
00:07:16 I think that statement speaks for itself.
00:07:25 Mr. Elliott, you purchased your mine from Jim Tallman, right?
00:07:29 I did.
00:07:30 And you did so in 2010, right?
00:07:32 Correct.
00:07:32 Okay.
00:07:33 And you purchased that mine for someplace between $1.5 and $2.4 million, right?
00:07:39 That's correct.
00:07:40 Okay.
00:07:42 And as you said, back in 2020, you and Deborah Whittem ran a market analysis of the value of the mine, and you came up with about $11 million, right?
00:07:53 That's what I wanted for it.
00:07:55 Okay.
00:07:56 And that's the analysis that she performed with you and that's the number you guys came up with?
00:07:59 That's correct.
00:08:03 Okay.
00:08:03 In 2023, you stated that the value of the mine was someplace between $40 and $50 million, right?
00:08:09 That's correct.
00:08:14 You have a couple of different crews mining on the property, right?
00:08:17 No.
00:08:19 In 2020?
00:08:19 I have no crews mining on the property.
00:08:21 There's a contractor there.
00:08:23 in 2020 there were two operations and there was FUBAR there okay so FUBAR was in 2020 you mean or 2023 what are we talking 2020 in 2020 FUBAR worked with me they all worked represented and in the past you've leased property to the Dallas mining brothers right I have okay and that was back in 2017-2022 era that's correct okay
00:08:48 And you and the Dallas Mining Brothers entered and executed a written contract, right?
00:08:53 We did.
00:08:53 Okay.
00:08:55 And that contract was 15 pages long, right?
00:08:57 They drew it up.
00:08:58 Okay.
00:08:59 But you agree with me, it was a 15-page contract.
00:09:01 I don't remember how long.
00:09:02 If I show you the contract, will that help you?
00:09:04 Yeah, I won't dispute that.
00:09:05 Okay.
00:09:06 Yeah.
00:09:08 So you also mentioned that back in 2020, FUBAR was working there with you, right?
00:09:13 FUBAR was working with me.
00:09:14 Okay.
00:09:15 And Joe Ward is part of FUBAR.
00:09:17 Joe Ward is her son.
00:09:19 Who's that?
00:09:19 Raquel Luna.
00:09:20 And he's part of FUBAR?
00:09:21 He's part of FUBAR.
00:09:22 Okay.
00:09:24 And you have a contract with Joe Ward?
00:09:26 I do now.
00:09:26 Okay.
00:09:27 And that contract's 15 pages long.
00:09:30 And if you'd like to see it, I have a copy.
00:09:31 Yes.
00:09:32 No dispute.
00:09:33 Okay.
00:09:35 In the opening statements, Mr. Campion, your attorney said that you do business on handshake agreements, right?
00:09:41 I do.
00:09:42 But yet you have 15 and 16 page contracts, right?
00:09:44 That's correct.
00:09:45 Okay.
00:09:49 50 and 16 page contracts are the opposite end of the spectrum of a handshake agreement.
00:09:54 That's correct.
00:09:58 Before meeting Seth, you were looking to sell your mine, right?
00:10:01 I still am.
00:10:05 And as you stated, you really wanted to sell it.
00:10:07 It seemed really appropriate that year.
00:10:11 And Seth was a good potential customer.
00:10:16 That's what I thought.
00:10:19 And that was based on his experience in construction and land development as well as access to capital.
00:10:27 It was more based on his access to capital.
00:10:28 This is not land development that we're doing.
00:10:32 And as you said earlier, you wanted Seth to conduct testing.
00:10:38 Absolutely.
00:10:39 And you said you wouldn't even sell him the mine unless he conducted testing.
00:10:43 That is correct.
00:10:45 And you will agree that from the time you met Mr. Kroenke,
00:10:51 At first, you offered six acres to Mr. Kroenke for $1.4 million.
00:11:06 Is that right?
00:11:09 I don't know if it's six acres.
00:11:10 It's a four-acre piece that's mineable.
00:11:19 And you said he had a chance to purchase that acreage at that price on June 1st?
00:11:26 Correct.
00:11:30 So Seth had just about a month and a little bit less to determine whether $1.4 million was a fair price.
00:11:36 That's correct.
00:11:39 So you were both in a terrible hurry to get out there because the river was coming up, is that correct?
00:11:47 To do the testing, yes.
00:11:50 So you and Seth signed a contract that we've seen a number of times on May 5th, right?
00:11:55 Correct.
00:11:58 And that contract was the result of several hours of conversation.
00:12:03 Two different meetings, at least four hours of conversation.
00:12:06 And several times you pointed out that Seth typed it.
00:12:12 Seth did type it.
00:12:16 During those conversations, it was an exchange of ideas, right?
00:12:19 That's very true.
00:12:20 You said what you needed, right?
00:12:22 Yes.
00:12:23 Seth said what he needed, right?
00:12:26 Well, Seth told me that he had investors.
00:12:28 I don't know what else he would need.
00:12:29 That's just that.
00:12:31 You were discussing what goes in that contract at several meetings, right?
00:12:35 Yes.
00:12:39 Okay.
00:12:39 And that contract that you signed on May 5, 2020, you made zero changes to, right?
00:12:44 I made zero changes to that.
00:12:47 No one prevented you from making any changes, right?
00:12:49 That's correct.
00:12:53 And you stated, in your own words, that it wasn't detailed enough, but it definitely captured what I was trying to do, right?
00:13:00 That's correct.
00:13:04 Under that contract, Seth was to provide equipment, right?
00:13:09 What was in his yard, I don't remember.
00:13:11 I can read it.
00:13:26 Over your left shoulder, sir.
00:13:28 Thank you.
00:13:30 Seth will provide.
00:13:32 Yes.
00:13:32 So Seth was to provide two Stuart Stephenson dump trucks, right?
00:13:35 Correct.
00:13:39 And did he provide those trucks?
00:13:40 He did.
00:13:41 Those trucks were fully operational, right?
00:13:44 Yes.
00:13:44 High-quality trucks.
00:13:48 Cast-off military trucks.
00:13:50 They worked, didn't they?
00:13:51 They work.
00:13:53 Seth was to provide a Sani 135 excavator right the new one yep and Seth was to provide Frank's trommel is that correct yes they did and he did so he did so now do you recall let me back up a little bit you stated that Seth is it in-house counsel
00:14:24 as attorneys, but in fact you have two attorneys, right?
00:14:28 When are we talking about?
00:14:30 Right now?
00:14:31 Right now.
00:14:31 You have two attorneys.
00:14:32 I have one attorney right now.
00:14:34 Is it your testimony that Mr. Albert Lawrence Albert is no longer your attorney?
00:14:39 Mr. Albert is no longer my attorney.
00:14:41 Mr. Albert withdrew from this case?
00:14:43 He did.
00:14:44 Well, I don't know that.
00:14:48 This is office work.
00:14:50 You really think I'm going to know?
00:14:52 I don't pay him anymore.
00:14:53 He doesn't work for me.
00:14:55 Mr. Albert was your attorney.
00:14:57 He was initially, yes.
00:14:59 Has Mr. Albert withdrawn from this case?
00:15:01 Objection, Your Honor.
00:15:01 May we approach?
00:15:02 I don't know.
00:15:02 Objection.
00:15:09 Withdrawal is a technical legal term.
00:15:12 Mr. Albert is not present.
00:15:13 Mr. Kelly has testified that he's not paying him any longer.
00:15:16 He's not representing him in this case.
00:15:20 What is the relevance of this line of questioning?
00:15:25 But what's the relevance of that to any point that's in dispute?
00:16:03 Well, let's be clear.
00:16:05 I mean, the question about I have lawyers on staff came out of an email that was sent four years ago, not what's going on here right now.
00:16:18 The fact that both sides have lawyers here right now is of no relevance whatsoever to the court.
00:16:23 I'll move on.
00:16:29 Back in 2020, or 2021, you were represented by Mr. Albert at that time.
00:16:36 That's correct.
00:16:37 And Mr. Albert spoke for you at that time, right?
00:16:40 He would have, yes.
00:16:41 Yes.
00:16:46 Do you recall, so today you stated that Seth provided Frank's trommel, right?
00:16:53 Yes, he did, yes.
00:16:56 On October 27th, 2021, did you make a different statement?
00:17:01 I don't remember.
00:17:02 If I show you that statement, will it help to refresh your recollection?
00:17:06 Of course.
00:17:06 Sure.
00:17:18 Your Honor, may we approach again, please?
00:17:20 Sure.
00:17:30 I objected to publishing before the jury a prior statement.
00:17:33 He's been given an opportunity to review it to see if it reflects his recollection before it's published to the jury.
00:17:38 It's an exhibit that's not been admitted.
00:17:39 I don't know what exhibit they're looking at, but it shouldn't be pre-published to the jury until it's admitted.
00:17:44 Yeah, that's... What's your intention?
00:17:47 The document is his responses to requests for admission.
00:17:52 And so we're not refreshing his recollection.
00:17:55 He's just testified to something or an impeachment of that prior contestant.
00:17:59 Right.
00:18:00 You can do that, but you ask him about the statement.
00:18:02 You don't publish the statement to the jury.
00:18:04 You're not admitting the statement, right?
00:18:05 No, no.
00:18:06 I asked him if that would help him refresh his recollection.
00:18:10 He said yes.
00:18:11 Okay.
00:18:12 So, what's your intention?
00:18:13 There's two different theories I'm doing.
00:18:15 One's impeachment, one's refreshing recollection.
00:18:17 Well, it's ultimate, right?
00:18:20 He doesn't even, the person says he didn't know that he refreshed his recollection or impeachment.
00:18:27 I haven't heard anybody just don't put it up on the screen absolutely jury doesn't jury doesn't look at it unless it's an admitted piece you can you can ask him questions about the statement but you've got to walk him through the statement and say did you make a statement in October of 2021 you started down that path which you can do and
00:18:52 Ask him whether he gave a discovery response in October of 2021 and ask him to look at it.
00:18:58 But it doesn't, unless you're going to ask the document to be admitted as an exhibit, it doesn't go up on the screen.
00:19:07 Okay.
00:19:07 That would take much longer to have on screen.
00:19:11 Wouldn't that just be a democracy vote?
00:19:14 No, you're talking about a different...
00:19:18 Seth kroenke v Treasure
00:19:48 Mr. Elliott, you have several binders in front of you.
00:19:51 Would you mind going to Exhibit 17?
00:19:54 It's in the other one.
00:19:57 Sorry, I misdirected you.
00:19:58 It's in the larger one.
00:20:03 And if you could go to page 7 of 162.
00:20:22 Can you tell me exactly what I'm looking for here?
00:20:24 Yes, sir.
00:20:25 You're on page 7 of 162.
00:20:26 I'm in the text messages.
00:20:37 They're not tabbed.
00:20:39 On the bottom it should be stamped Exhibit 17, page 7.
00:20:45 There you go.
00:20:47 Thank you.
00:20:47 Couldn't figure it out.
00:20:50 17 page 7 page 7 sir request for admission number 15 request for admission okay which one number 15 number 15 admit that Kroenke provided Frank's trommel for use on the project and could you read your response deny part of your response Mr. Elliott please first be given the opportunity to read it to himself before he publishes it to the jury yes
00:21:38 Is your statement different in 2021 than it is today?
00:21:42 It's not different today.
00:21:44 Today you said that he provided you
00:21:47 with Frank Strum.
00:21:47 Is that correct?
00:21:48 Yes.
00:21:49 And what was your first word in the response?
00:21:52 It's denied.
00:21:53 Let me turn your attention to Seth was supposed to provide a sleeping conics under the contract.
00:22:02 Is that correct?
00:22:03 Yes.
00:22:04 Well, no.
00:22:04 It doesn't say anything about that in the contract.
00:22:08 Did he provide a sleeping conics?
00:22:10 For his crew, yes.
00:22:16 We're going to put the contract back on the screen for you.
00:22:20 I'm sorry?
00:22:22 The contract is back on the screen for you.
00:22:24 Sorry.
00:22:24 So we're going to be shifting back and forth between the screen.
00:22:27 I apologize.
00:22:27 No problem at all.
00:22:29 You can imagine how many times I read that.
00:22:30 I missed that.
00:22:31 Okay.
00:22:32 Can I turn your attention to Seth will provide, and the second to last line, a sleeping condom.
00:22:40 Is that correct?
00:22:41 Correct.
00:22:41 So that he was supposed to provide a sleeping condom.
00:22:43 And he did.
00:22:44 And he did.
00:22:45 Excellent.
00:22:56 If I can get you to turn back to that binder?
00:22:58 Sure.
00:23:39 Also, Seth was to provide quality personnel, is that correct?
00:23:44 That's correct, qualified personnel.
00:23:46 And according to your own statements, Travis is one of the best fabricators you've met, is that correct?
00:23:52 That's correct.
00:23:53 And you also stated that he is almost like an extension of your mind, is that correct?
00:23:58 Very true.
00:24:00 And if you want him to do something, you can build it, is that correct?
00:24:03 He can build it in steel.
00:24:05 And we agree that Travis is highly qualified.
00:24:08 Travis is more than qualified Seth was to prove now Frank is also very well qualified very no doubt so in your own words you said Frank knew what he was doing Frank knows as much about it as I do you got my next question
00:24:37 So we can agree that Seth provided two highly qualified people.
00:24:41 I do agree.
00:24:45 And I believe you stated in your own words, plaster mining is really simple.
00:24:50 You just dump the gravel and put water on it.
00:24:52 Does that sound like your words?
00:24:55 Who would be listening?
00:24:58 I would be.
00:24:59 I just told the jury it's super simple.
00:25:01 Okay.
00:25:01 But it's not.
00:25:04 Were these your words?
00:25:05 Placer mining is really simple.
00:25:07 You just dump gravel and put water on it.
00:25:10 Exactly right.
00:25:10 Okay.
00:25:14 You agreed to provide two 400-class excavators.
00:25:17 Is that correct?
00:25:18 That's correct.
00:25:19 And as you've testified, and you will just use your own words, your equipment is junk.
00:25:25 My equipment started as junk, and it's still living in junk.
00:25:28 Okay.
00:25:30 And as you testified, these excavators had numerous mechanical issues.
00:25:34 They all do.
00:25:37 And these excavators needed repairing before they could be put to work.
00:25:41 They do, including the Sani.
00:25:45 And we can agree that Travis spent time repairing your excavators.
00:25:51 I wouldn't agree with that.
00:25:54 Your testimony is that Travis did not spend any time.
00:25:56 No, I didn't say any time.
00:25:59 Spent time repairing our excavators.
00:26:02 You know, he must have.
00:26:04 He must have.
00:26:05 So we agree.
00:26:08 In fact, Seth purchased another excavator during that season.
00:26:13 Two of them.
00:26:17 He purchased the 336 for $150,000?
00:26:18 I don't know about the details, yes.
00:26:19 We can agree that
00:26:28 Frank built roads at your mine, right?
00:26:32 Frank?
00:26:33 Frank.
00:26:37 I have a question for you.
00:26:39 If there's an existing road with a slide on it and you clear the slide, is that building the road or opening the road?
00:26:45 Did Frank build any roads at your mine?
00:26:47 Not that I know of.
00:26:51 Did Frank maintain or improve any roads in your property?
00:26:55 He did maintain and improve the road up the valley.
00:26:59 So we can agree that those roads, the work that he did, was an improvement?
00:27:05 It was maintenance, so yes.
00:27:07 It's an improvement?
00:27:08 Well, it's maintenance.
00:27:10 Really?
00:27:11 And then we can agree that the road access was improved?
00:27:16 He maintained the road access that was existing.
00:27:19 Did he not improve it?
00:27:21 He didn't improve it.
00:27:21 It's the same Road, just no slide.
00:27:29 Can you admit that the roads that Seth improved and built benefited your property?
00:27:38 I can admit that his maintenance allowed them to test.
00:27:42 So the work that Frank did, did not improve your property.
00:27:47 That's your testimony.
00:27:49 He maintained an existing road.
00:27:52 He didn't build any new roads?
00:27:56 No, actually no.
00:28:01 Did Frank build dikes at Dan Creek?
00:28:05 He filled in a ditch next to the creek.
00:28:11 Did he build a dike?
00:28:14 My crew brought all the rocks, Frank ran the excavator to cover them.
00:28:17 So Frank built the dike?
00:28:19 I don't know, not just Frank.
00:28:20 How would I say that?
00:28:28 The dikes that Frank helped build benefited the Dan Creek property, right?
00:28:33 Definitely benefited my security.
00:28:36 And therefore benefited the property.
00:28:39 Well, they're gone now.
00:28:40 I mean, what would you say?
00:28:42 At the time he built them, were there a benefit to the property?
00:28:45 Yeah, they were like a seatbelt.
00:28:46 We needed it.
00:28:46 I'm not asking if it's a seatbelt, an airbag, or a bumper.
00:28:51 Okay, it benefited that year.
00:28:53 Okay.
00:29:00 Let's go ahead and look at the binders you have in front of you.
00:29:39 Could you take a look at number 52?
00:29:40 52?
00:29:41 Yeah, read it to yourself, refresh your recollection, make sure it's correct.
00:29:46 So you have a record.
00:29:47 It should be clear what exhibit and what page number.
00:29:50 We're still in the same exhibit.
00:29:52 Exhibit 17, page 19, admission 52.
00:29:53 17, page 19?
00:29:53 Page 19 of 162, correct.
00:30:16 I need a page turner.
00:30:23 Okay, I'm on 17, page 19.
00:30:28 Please look at admission number 52.
00:30:32 Admission number 52.
00:30:34 Admission, again, read it to himself before he reads it to the jury.
00:30:38 Thank you.
00:30:42 Okay.
00:30:44 And there your answer to my question was?
00:30:48 52 Admit the streams Kroenke diked Benefited the property Denied Okay You don't believe that they've benefited the property?
00:30:55 No Okay Can we agree that you gave Seth Kroenke instructions?
00:31:10 Yes, of course Okay And you told them where to go and what to do?
00:31:14 especially in the beginning.
00:31:16 And you did that almost on a daily basis, is that correct?
00:31:19 Two times a week, three times a week.
00:31:28 You signed a second contract on 6-7-2020, right?
00:31:31 Correct.
00:31:34 And once again, you said Seth typed it?
00:31:37 Seth typed it.
00:31:39 And you had ample time to discuss all the provisions, right?
00:31:42 We spent hours.
00:31:44 And of course in that case, like in the first one, no one prevented you from changing anything.
00:31:49 That's correct.
00:31:51 I did change it, but no one prevented me.
00:31:53 No one prevented you.
00:31:53 No one prevented you from crossing out anything objectionable.
00:31:57 That's correct.
00:31:59 And obviously you were free to make changes.
00:32:01 And I did.
00:32:03 And you were free to make any additions.
00:32:06 And I did.
00:32:08 And as you testified, you did make an addition.
00:32:10 I did.
00:32:12 And that addition
00:32:14 was the word anecdotal, is that correct?
00:32:16 That is correct.
00:32:18 And you inserted that word anecdotal into the paragraph dealing with expenses, is that right?
00:32:24 That's correct.
00:32:29 And you would agree with me that the word anecdotal according to Oxford Dictionary means it's just a lie?
00:32:35 I don't agree.
00:32:38 You don't agree that the word means a lie?
00:32:41 I don't agree that it means a lie.
00:32:57 So you couldn't have meant that people could just lie about expenses, right?
00:33:01 That's exactly right.
00:33:02 I did not mean that.
00:33:58 So you would agree with me that anecdotal means something that is not necessarily true or reliable, right?
00:34:05 I do not agree with that.
00:34:09 Do you have a copy of your deposition transcript in front of you?
00:34:14 I don't, but where is it?
00:34:16 Exhibit 26.
00:34:16 It's 15.
00:34:27 Exhibit 21.
00:34:28 Okay, it's Exhibit 26.
00:34:31 Yes, so I don't have Exhibit 26 up here.
00:34:34 There's a third binder.
00:34:35 There it is.
00:34:44 May I, Judge?
00:34:45 Thank you very much.
00:34:46 There we go.
00:34:59 Exhibit 26 in there.
00:35:00 I know it's a big binder and if you could turn to page 80 of 203 Okay And take a look at line 10 Line line 10.
00:35:06 Go ahead.
00:35:12 Can you just read that for us?
00:35:29 Can we agree that anecdotal... I object, Your Honor.
00:35:30 I'd like him to read it to himself.
00:35:32 He's trying to impeach Mr. Elliott.
00:35:33 He has a chance to read it and explain or deny it before it's published to the jury.
00:35:38 Go ahead and read it to yourself.
00:35:39 Can we agree that the anecdotal means... Mr. Elliott, please read it to yourself.
00:35:43 Oh, I'm sorry.
00:35:44 I'm not supposed to read it.
00:35:46 Sorry.
00:35:58 Okay.
00:35:59 Can we agree that the word anecdotal means something that is not necessarily true or reliable according to dictionary?
00:36:10 Okay?
00:36:10 I mean, it does in the dictionary.
00:36:12 It does in dictionary.
00:36:13 It's one of the definitions.
00:36:14 Okay.
00:36:14 Yeah.
00:36:14 Okay.
00:36:15 So now we agree.
00:36:16 Okay.
00:36:19 That's what I said, the definition and the dictionary.
00:36:24 We can agree that the definition of an anecdote
00:36:28 It's telling how big a fish was, right?
00:36:31 That's right.
00:36:34 We all know that.
00:36:40 So there's got to be, for expenses to be real, there's got to be more than just the person saying they spent money, right?
00:36:48 There has to be a fish.
00:36:50 Okay.
00:36:52 So my question is, in order for the expenses to be real,
00:36:58 There has to be more than just a store.
00:37:01 That's correct.
00:37:03 Now Seth provided you with itemized expense, is that correct?
00:37:06 That's correct.
00:37:10 Hundreds of pages.
00:37:12 That's correct.
00:37:14 Hundreds is correct.
00:37:18 And you sir didn't provide a single receipt for your expense, is that correct?
00:37:30 actually don't think I ever even provided any expense you did not provide a single single receipt under the course of the lawsuit but not before November what you did I guess I need a little definition once you guys were doing the depositions and that we had to provide something and we did I did then it's your testimony today that you provided receipts and
00:38:00 No receipts.
00:38:01 No receipts.
00:38:01 So you did not provide receipts.
00:38:03 I did not provide any receipts.
00:38:04 Okay.
00:38:05 You did not provide any invoices.
00:38:08 There are no invoices.
00:38:09 Okay.
00:38:11 You did not provide a single credit card statement.
00:38:13 That's correct.
00:38:16 You did not provide a single copy of a canceled check.
00:38:21 No.
00:38:22 You didn't provide a copy of a check written to somebody else.
00:38:28 No.
00:38:29 You didn't provide a single bank statement showing payments for expenses, is that right?
00:38:35 That's correct.
00:38:37 You did not provide a single screenshot of an electronic payment.
00:38:41 That's right.
00:38:43 You didn't even provide a handwritten receipt, did you?
00:38:47 That's right.
00:38:49 In fact, you didn't even provide a napkin with a note about expenses, right?
00:38:53 Not even a napkin.
00:38:56 And you didn't even provide a photo of anything at all resembling a statement or a receipt.
00:39:06 No.
00:39:07 Statement or receipt.
00:39:07 You didn't provide a single bill.
00:39:11 Okay, so a bill?
00:39:13 A bill for payment.
00:39:15 Like a bill that I gave to him?
00:39:17 Yes.
00:39:18 For payment?
00:39:19 Not till the lawsuit.
00:39:19 Okay.
00:39:25 So to summarize all that, you didn't provide a single document or record that supports any expense whatsoever.
00:39:35 Oh, that's correct.
00:39:36 Okay.
00:39:39 When you reach a moment.
00:39:41 Fine.
00:39:41 That was as good as any.
00:39:42 I was just looking at you, Judge, exactly for that reason.
00:39:45 All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've reached the end of our day because it's a Friday.
00:39:49 We end at noon.
00:39:51 So I think we're still moving along.
00:39:55 at a relatively good clip, but we'll pick back up again Monday morning.
00:39:59 Just a reminder, please, no social media, no doing investigation.
00:40:04 I know everybody's curious about Dan Creek, but we're going to give you all the information we can here, so no investigation on your own.
00:40:12 Enjoy the weekend.
00:40:13 We'll see you all back here at 8.30 Monday morning.
00:40:17 And leave your notepads on the chairs, and we'll take care of those.
00:40:47 Have a seat folks.
00:40:48 Two questions.
00:41:19 question one in this says for our Elliott please define your understanding of the words testing and mining and the second question is what is the common commercial definition of quote evaluation close quote in regards to mining
00:41:49 It sounds to me like those are issues that will likely be covered on Monday in questioning.
00:42:05 Anything we need to address before we... I would, Your Honor, just for scheduling.
00:42:08 Sure.
00:42:08 Do you have a moment or two here?
00:42:11 Master Clerk, are you okay for a few minutes?
00:42:13 Okay, so Mr. Brzezinski and I obviously are conferring a lot about scheduling and I think especially seeing the cross-examination, I think it's a good likelihood we'll be done, Mr. Elliott, relatively early on Monday.
00:42:25 have two witnesses.
00:42:27 Mr. Brzezinski and I think those are witnesses that shouldn't take more than an hour total together.
00:42:31 So there's a world on which we could close this case on Monday.
00:42:35 And so my question is, do you think that's reasonable?
00:42:38 And is there any flexibility in your schedule if it went past 1.30 to get the case to the jury?
00:42:43 Because that would certainly be our preference.
00:42:45 To get the case to the jury on Monday?
00:42:47 Yeah, to charge them and close.
00:42:50 I don't disagree with Mr. Campion at all.
00:42:53 However, we have not decided if we're going to have any rebuttal witnesses.
00:42:56 So if we do not do rebuttal, I think that may be in the light most favorable to this case.
00:43:04 Yes, it could be possible.
00:43:05 If we do rebuttal, then I think we'll have to go through Tuesday, sir.
00:43:09 I've got an afternoon calendar on Monday.
00:43:11 I mean, I can slip it over a little bit.
00:43:14 Personally, I think Tuesday.
00:43:20 unless we tell the jury because of where they are they're expecting 1.30 I think it would be better even if you get done with the evidence on Monday to bring them back do closing and give them the case on Tuesday that seems like a more realistic schedule to me that's absolutely fine sir if I may request an hour hour and ten minutes for closing Mr. Campion I don't need that much but that's fine he's done better and speaks faster so he needs less time
00:43:50 More words per minute, I understand.
00:43:51 I think he's paid by the way.
00:43:55 I was anticipating probably about an hour for closing.
00:43:58 I'm not going to put a stopwatch on you, Mr. Brzezinski.
00:44:01 Thank you, sir.
00:44:02 You all have been reasonable with your time.
00:44:04 There's no gong or buzzer that you're going to... And no hook.
00:44:08 Thank you, sir.
00:44:09 I appreciate that.
00:44:12 Anything else that we need to address?
00:44:13 No, sir.
00:44:15 Again, I'm going to take a look over the weekend at your jury instructions and make sure
00:44:20 given where we are that I think we're ready to go I'll make sure that I've got a set of those if there's any procedural instructions that I think need to be added I'll address that if you've got that one instruction that you wanted Mr.
00:44:34 If you could get that to my JA either this afternoon or Monday morning, that'd be helpful.
00:44:43 I can do that.
00:44:44 Or if you all have come up with anything else over the weekend, so get those to me by Monday.
00:44:48 Thank you.
00:44:48 Okay.
00:44:49 Thank you.
00:44:49 Thank you, sir.
00:44:53 Clint, if you're going to be at your computer, I'll send you that instruction first so we can try to rerun it.
00:44:57 Which one is this?
00:44:58 I can't see.