[VAR]"REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
December 11, 2001
(WHEREUPON, PURSUANT TO THE LUNCHEON RECESS COURT RECONVENED, PROCEEDINGS WERE
HAD AND THEN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED?
POPPE: YES, YOUR HONOR.
WIDMANN: YES.
FALCON: YES, YOUR HONOR.
HERMLE: YES.
THE COURT: THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST UNUSUAL CASES THAT I'VE HEARD REQUESTING AN
INJUNCTION COMPLAINING OF CONDUCT. WE HAVE SOME EXTRAORDINARILY INTELLIGENT AND BRIGHT,
VERY CAPABLE PEOPLE HERE INCLUDING THE DEFENDANTS. AND FRANKLY, I'M AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT WOULD REALLY MOTIVATE MR. DELFINO AND MS. DAY FROM ENGAGING IN THE COURSE OF
CONDUCT THAT THEY'VE ENGAGED IN. I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR BEING ANGRY.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR BEING UNHAPPY. I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR DISAGREEING WITH WHAT THEIR
EMPLOYER DID. I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR DISAGREEING WITH THE BASIS FOR THEIR TERMINATION. BUT I
CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW THAT TYPE OF DISAGREEMENT COULD POSSIBLY ESCALATE INTO THE COURSE
OF TENUOUS, REPETITIVE ATTACKS ON PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY HAVE NO FURTHER CONTACT. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THAT.
THERE ARE WAYS OF LITIGATING ISSUES OF DISAGREEMENT. WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM THAT TRIES TO
TAKE THESE MATTERS OFF THE STREETS AND PUT THEM INTO THE COURT ROOMS SO PEOPLE CAN RESOLVE
THEIR DISPUTES IN A JUDICIOUS AND PROPER WAY OF DOING IT. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE AS
INTELLIGENT AND TALENTED AS THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ARE DOING WHAT THEY DID.
BUT I CERTAINLY FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VERY SERIOUS DEFAMATION, A VERY SERIOUS
HARASSMENT IN THIS CASE BY THE DEFENDANTS, BY BOTH OF THEM.
IT IS WITHOUT REMORSE OR REPENTENCE. THERE'S A PROMISE AND A COMMITMENT TO DO IT UNTIL
THEY'RE DEAD AS THEY BOTH SAID BOTH ON THE MESSAGES THAT WERE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS
WELL AS FROM THE STAND UNDER OATH. AND I TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.
AND IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE JURY MAY DO REGARDING THE DAMAGES I THINK BECAUSE OF THE
REPETITIVE NATURE OF THEIR CONDUCT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS AS WELL AS THEIR COMMITMENT TO
CONTINUE THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT THAT THE COURT HAS NO ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN TO ENJOIN
IMPROPER CONDUCT BY THEM IN THE FUTURE.
I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH AS IT'S SPECIFIED IN BOTH THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION. AND I THINK THAT THEY
ARE TO BE HONORED IN EVERY WAY THAT WE CAN, AND THAT THE FREE SPEECH SHOULD BE LIMITED ONLY
WHEN IT CONSTITUTES SOMETHING THAT IS VERY AKIN TO A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER WHICH AT ONE
TIME WAS A STANDARD THAT WAS USED.
THE RIGHT IS NOT EASILY DEFINED, BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT DEFAMATION VIOLATES FREE SPEECH. AND
WHEN PEOPLE DEFAME OTHERS BY UNTRUE STATEMENTS, THAT CLEARLY DISHONORS FREE SPEECH,
DEFAMES IT AS WELL AS DEFAMES THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THE OBJECT OF THE DEFAMATION. AND THAT'S
MOST UNFORTUNATE. AND THAT'S WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
SO I'M GOING TO AT THE OUTSET ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER DEFAMATION WHETHER IT BE ON
THE WEB SITE POSTINGS OR OTHERWISE OF ANY WEB SITE.
AND THAT INCLUDES THE MOBETA WEB SITE WHICH I HAVE FOUND IN EFFECT IS IN THE NATURE OF A
PUBLIC JOURNAL. YOU CAN'T DEFAME SOMEBODY IN THE NEWSPAPER, YOU CAN'T DEFAME SOMEBODY IN A
PUBLIC JOURNAL, YOU CAN'T DEFAME THEM WITH IMPUNITY ON ANY WEB SITE. I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING
TO TELL PEOPLE THEY CANNOT POST WHATEVER THEY WISH TO POST WHICH IS NOT DEFAMATORY.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO GIVE YOU SOME AREAS THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE FALSE
STATEMENTS THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE POSTED IN THE PAST. AND I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM
CONTINUING TO POST THOSE STATEMENTS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM ON THE INTERNET OR OTHERWISE.
FIRST I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM CALLING THE PLAINTIFFS, THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS, LIARS OR
CHRONIC LIARS. THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY NOT A TRUE STATEMENT. IT IS FALSE AND DEFAMATORY.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ACCUSING THEM OF ADULTERY OR HAVING HAD EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS
OR SEXUAL PROMISCUITY. THOSE ARE FALSE STATEMENTS, DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, BASED UPON THE
EVIDENCE THAT I'VE HEARD.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ACCUSING THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS FROM BEING A DANGER TO
CHILDREN. THAT IS A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ACCUSATION. THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THAT,
OPINION OR OTHERWISE THAT WAS OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ACCUSING THE PLAINTIFFS FROM VIDEOTAPING CHILDREN OR OTHER
PERSONS INSIDE A PUBLIC OR EMPLOYER RESTROOM, BATHROOM, OR SIMILAR PLACE. THAT HAS BEEN A
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ACCUSATION.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THEM FROM LIBELING FORMER EMPLOYEE JAMES FAIR -- I'M SORRY -- FROM
LABELING FORMER EMPLOYEE JAMES FAIR A HOMOSEXUAL OR USING ANY PLAY ON HIS NAME TO IMPLY
THE SAME. THAT IS A DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE STATEMENT.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE PLAINTIFF -- THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING THE NAMES OF EITHER PLAINTIFF OR
ANY OTHER VARIAN EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE AS AN ALIAS ON THE INTERNET OR OTHERWISE
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SUCH EMPLOYEES. AND THAT INCLUDES, AMONG
OTHERS, MS. FELCH, MR. ZDASIUK, MR. FAIR, MR. AURELIO, MR. LEVY, MR. POWELL, MR. HENNESSY
(PHONETIC) AND ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE OR WHOSE NAME HAS
BEEN REFERRED TO AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEE OF VARIAN.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM LABELING SUSAN FELCH AS MENTALLY UNSTABLE OR
MENTALLY ILL OR AS A PERSON SUFFERING FROM HALLUCINATIONS.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM POSTING THAT SUSAN FELCH SABOTAGED A PLAD
EXPERIMENT OR PROCESS OR ANY OTHER EXPERIMENT OR PROCESS AT HER EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT
FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAME.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM POSTING THAT SUSAN FELCH HAD A SEMEN STAIN ON HER
DRESS. I'M GOING TO FURTHER ENJOIN THEM FROM POSTING THAT MEGAN GRAY SAID THAT SUSAN FELCH
HAD A SEMEN STAIN ON HER DRESS. BOTH OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE FALSE, DEMONSTRABLY FALSE,
ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM POSTING THAT SUSAN FELCH STALKS OTHERS, ESPECIALLY
INCLUDING THE DEFENDANTS. THAT'S AS TO BOTH GEORGE ZDASIUK AND SUSAN FELCH.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM POSTING OR STATING IN ANY WAY THAT GEORGE ZDASIUK IS
HOMOPHOBIC OR THAT HE DISCRIMINATES ON THE BASIS OF GENDER OR THAT IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT HE REGULARLY STARES AT FEMALE EMPLOYEES' BREASTS OR CHESTS.
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM POSTING BASED UPON PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THAT VARIAN
PERMITS PORNOGRAPHY TO BE POSTED OR TO BE DOWNLOADED ON ITS COMPUTERS FROM THE INTERNET
OR THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF VARIAN MEDICAL OR VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR COMMIT
PERJURY OR ARE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR HAVING COMMITTED PERJURY UNLESS THERE IS A FACTUAL
BASIS, NOT A SUSPICION BUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR SUCH POSTING.
NOW THOSE ARE WHAT I BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS CLEARLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS AND POSTED ON THE YAHOO INTERNET. THERE'S A BROAD RANGE OF OPINION
THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR STOCKHOLDERS AND OTHERS TO COMMENT ON, ABOUT A COMPANY. AND THAT
BROAD RANGE IS NOT ALWAYS FACTUAL. IT CAN BE HYPERBOLE, IT CAN BE APOCRYPHAL, IT CAN BE
OPINION, IT CAN BE BELIEFS. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO STATING SOMETHING AS A FACT THAT IS
DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE, THAT IS SUBJECT TO BEING ENJOINED. AND IT IS SUBJECT TO BEING SUED OVER
AND DAMAGES SOUGHT FOR IT. AND THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT VERY CLEARLY THE COURT IS ABLE TO
ENJOIN. AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT PER SE DEFAMATORY THAT I BELIEVE THAT
THE COURT HAS THE DUTY WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE FACTS TO ENJOIN CERTAIN CONDUCT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE POSTING ON A WEB SITE JUXTAPOSITION TO A STATEMENT ABOUT WEALTH, OF THE
LOCATION OF THE PERSON WHO HAS THE WEALTH IN TERMS OF HIS OR HER ADDRESS, THE NAMES OF THE
SPOUSE OF THAT PERSON, WHERE THEY CAN BE SEEN PRESENTS A DANGER TO THE INDIVIDUALS. AND I
THINK THAT IS SUBJECT TO BEING ENJOINED. SO I THINK IN ORDER TO PHRASE THIS AS SPECIFICALLY AS I
CAN I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM POSTING STATEMENTS ABOUT WEALTH OF INDIVIDUAL
OFFICERS AT THE SAME PLACE WHERE THEY POST LOCATIONS OF THEIR RESIDENCE OR WHERE THEIR
RESIDENCE ADDRESS CAN BE FOUND AS WELL AS THE NAMES OF CHILDREN AND WHERE THOSE CHILDREN
CAN BE LOCATED. I THINK THAT PRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER IN THIS DAY AND AGE TO THE
FAMILIES OF THESE INDIVIDUALS. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WHAT A PERSON EARNS WHEN HE WORKS
FOR A CORPORATION AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS OF PUBLIC RECORD, AND IT'S AVAILABLE TO
ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO FIND IT. BUT PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION ALONG WITH INFORMATION
ABOUT THE ADDRESS, THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL I THINK CREATES A REAL DANGER.
AND I THINK THAT'S WRONG. AND I THINK IT'S WRONG LEGALLY, AND I THINK IT'S WRONG MORALLY. AND
I'M GOING TO ENJOIN THAT.
I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY HARASSMENT TO REPETITIVELY NAME FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE CASE OR THE CASE THAT HAS BEEN COMPLAINED ABOUT. I'M NOT SURE THAT NAMING THEM
ONCE IS PARTICULARLY A PROBLEM BUT WHEN YOU REPETITIVELY DO IT, MAKE REFERENCE TO THE
CHILDREN IN A PEJORATIVE FASHION, ESPOUSE IT IN A PEJORATIVE FASHION, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH
HARASSMENT. THAT'S NOT PROTECTED SPEECH. AND IT'S CERTAINLY SUBJECT TO -- IF IT WERE NOT BEING
POSTED ON THE INTERNET WEB SITE, THEN THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT YOU COULD STOP
SOMEBODY FROM SAYING THOSE KINDS OF THINGS IN A PUBLIC AREA; THERE'S NO APPARENT PURPOSE FOR
DOING IT. AND WHETHER IT RISES TO THE LEVEL THAT THE COURT CAN ISSUE AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT
THAT TYPE OF POSTING, I'M NOT SURE. I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE I MAKE A FINAL ORDER
ABOUT THE HARASSMENT ASPECTS OF THIS CASE.
CERTAINLY THE ORDERS THAT I'VE MADE CONCERNING THE DEFAMATION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUALS,
BECAUSE THIS ALL OCCURS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS AT VARIAN, IT ATTACKS THEIR BUSINESS
AND IS PUT IN THE CONTEXT AT LEAST ON THE MOBETA WEB SITE AS BEING IN SUPPORT OF THEIR BUSINESS
BUT NOT SO ON THE YAHOO WEB SITE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT THIS IS ENJOINED UNDER SECTION 17200. AND I'M GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT BEFORE I
MAKE ANY DECISION ABOUT THAT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE AVAILABLE AS I'VE INDICATED TO YOU
PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INSTRUCTIONS AS TO BOTH THE YAHOO STOCK-TALK
AND OTHER STOCK RELATED WEB SITES AND THE MOBETA WEB SITE WHICH REQUIRES THAT IT BE A
REPORT OF LITIGATION, THAT IT BE A FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORT OF THE LITIGATION. SO THAT THINGS
SAID IN THE LITIGATION CAN BE POSTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. BUT THEY CAN'T BE POSTED AS FACT, THEY
HAVE TO BE POSTED AS A STATEMENT OF WHAT THE LITIGATION WAS AND WHAT WAS SAID DURING THE
LITIGATION. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE FAILURES THAT I THINK HAS OCCURRED ON THE MOBETA WEB SITE.
BECAUSE -- WELL, I WON'T GO INTO THAT AT THIS POINT. BUT I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE
HARASSMENT ISSUES,AND I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE 17200 ISSUES IN ORDER TO EVALUATE HOW
EXTENSIVE AN INJUNCTION, IF ANY, I MIGHT ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THOSE. BUT I'M GIVING YOU A
STATEMENT OF INTENDED DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE DEFAMATION ASPECTS OF THE REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
HERMLE: MAY I BE HEARD ON JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL ISSUES WHICH FIT INTO THIS PORTION?
THE COURT: YES.
HERMLE: YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM STATING THAT SUSAN FELCH
IS MENTALLY ILL OR UNSTABLE OR HALLUCINATES. AND WE'D REQUEST IN LIGHT OF THE POSTINGS THAT
LABEL MR. ZDASIUK AS "SICK," "WHAT A SICKY" AND SIMILAR COMMENTS THAT YOU ENLARGE THAT
PORTION TO INCLUDE NO POSTINGS ALLEGING THAT MR. ZDASIUK IS MENTALLY ILL OR DISTURBED OR
SICK. THERE ARE NO FACTS WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THOSE. AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS THE
POSTINGS THAT HARASS THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OR
TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THEIR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, THAT WOULD NOT FALL NECESSARILY WITHIN THE
DEFAMATION ASPECTS OF YOUR ORDER BUT -- ALTHOUGH THEY DO CLEARLY IMPLY MENTAL ILLNESS BUT
THEY ALSO WOULD FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE HARASSMENT PORTIONS OF YOUR ORDER WHICH I
UNDERSTAND ARE NOT YET FINALIZED. THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT A HARASSING PURPOSE FOR
THOSE WHICH IS CRYSTAL CLEAR IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENDANTS BROUGHT THEM IN TO A DEPOSITION, THEIR CLIENTS WERE THERE, HE ASKED THEM FOR
THEIR TESTIMONY, THEY PROVIDED IT AND THEY WERE TAUNTED AND TORMENTED FROM THAT DAY
FORWARD WITH POSTINGS IMPLYING NOT ONLY THAT MS. FELCH WAS AGAIN SLEEPING WITH MR. AURELIO
OR OTHERS BUT ALL KINDS OF TAUNTS ABOUT THE DISTRESS.
IN ADDITION TO THE PORNOGRAPHY AS YOU PRESENTED IT WE REQUEST THAT YOU BROADEN THAT
SLIGHTLY TO INCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT MR. POWELL FORCED PORNOGRAPHY ON A SUBORDINATE
BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF POSTINGS AND THAT IS ALSO CLEARLY A LIE AND FALSE IN
LIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBIT AS WELL.
IN ADDITION, WITH RESPECT TO MR. FAIR WE ASK THAT YOU BROADEN YOUR DEFAMATION POSTING ABOUT
MR. FAIR TO INCLUDE THOSE WHICH SUGGEST THAT HE IS A DANGER TO CHILDREN OR OTHERWISE STALKS
PEOPLE. AND YOU MAY RECALL THE POSTING THAT CAME OUT THAT SUGGESTED THAT PEOPLE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE AWARE, THAT SOME KNEW THAT MR. FAIR WAS A DANGER TO OTHERS.
AND BEYOND -- I'D LIKE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. THOSE INITIALLY
COME TO MIND.
THE COURT: THIS IS A STATEMENT OF INTENDED DECISION. AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO FINAL
FORM. BUT THAT'S WHAT MY INTENDED IS AT THIS TIME. AND I WOULD INCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT MR.
FAIR IS A DANGER TO CHILDREN OR OTHERS.
WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THE C.E.O. OR VICE-PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION, THERE IS SOME
LEEWAY PERMITTED TO CHARACTERIZE DECISIONS MADE BY THE C.E.O. THAT DO NOT RELATE TO A FACT
WHICH ARE EXPRESSED OPINIONS. SO IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION MAKES A DECISION TO DO
SOMETHING OR NOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE CORPORATION AND AN EMPLOYEE OR FORMER
EMPLOYEE OR A COMPETITOR OR WHATEVER SAYS "THAT'S JUST SICK," THAT IS NOT PER SE DEFAMATORY,
CERTAINLY NOT DEFAMATORY ON ITS FACE. AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ENJOIN THAT TYPE OF
STATEMENT BY SOMEBODY EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE UNCIVIL, IT MAY BE DONE WITH THE WORST OF
MOTIVES, BUT IT IS NOT DEFAMATORY. IT'S NOT DEFAMATORY AND CANNOT BE ENJOINED ON THAT BASIS.
NOW, IF THERE WAS ANOTHER BASIS FOR ENJOINING IT, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE AND THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT I REALLY -- I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT, THE HARASSMENT AND THE 17200 AND FOLLOWING ISSUES.
AND I WILL TELL YOU EVER SO RELUCTANTLY THAT I EVER PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM SAYING
SOMETHING. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO TREAD VERY CAREFULLY ON. I THINK
THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE COURT BE RESPECTFUL OF DIVERSE OPINIONS. BUT WHEN OPINIONS
EXCEED TRUTH AND THEY'RE DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE, THEN THE COURT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO DO
WHATEVER IT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO DO. SO I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE REST. I MIGHT WELL ASK FOR
FURTHER ARGUMENT I'M NOT SURE, WITH REGARD TO THE HARASSMENT AND OTHER ISSUES. I ULTIMATELY
WILL WANT INPUT FROM ALL COUNSEL IN TERMS OF THE FORM OF THE INJUNCTION EVEN THOUGH YOU
MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBSTANCE. I THINK THAT AS WITH ANY OTHER ORDERS OF COURT IT REALLY
HAS TO BE CONSIDERED APPROVED AS TO FORM. WITH THAT WE STILL HAVE A JURY DELIBERATING. I'M
GOING TO RECESS AT THIS TIME AND WE WILL TALK FURTHER ABOUT BOTH THE FORM OF THE ORDER AS
WELL AS THESE OTHER TWO AREAS.
(WHEREUPON, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ENSUED THIS DAY, NOT TRANSCRIBED AT THIS TIME.)"
geocities.com |
