To: scion who wrote (552 ) 10/24/2002 6:12:12 PM From: scion Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1136 The continuing saga – Part 9 Reformatted for easier reading – errors in the ‘original’ have not been corrected. Q I want to know what information you have in your possession, sir. So can you tell me how these documents support your assertion that Mr. Marchese is a member of or is affiliated with organized crime? A Sure. Do you want to go through each one of these. Ask your questions. Ask away. Q I just asked you a question. A Ask the question again. BY MR. ARGENTAR: Q Can you repeat the question? (Record read as requested.) THE WITNESS: Sure. We can go through these. Mr. Marchese's post right here. I mean, I don't know what you want me to say about it. It speaks for itself; fact, Richard Marchese said in his declaration filed in California vs. Tony McWell that Deak-Perera is his family business, and he the owner/operator, even though he told the court here he's unemployed. He said he's the owner/operator of Deak-Perera Capital Markets. And Deak-Perera Access Trade One, GMKT's 11/99 10(s)(b) SEC filing, the beneficial owners of access trade one, which Joseph Piterra is Deak-Perera Capital Markets is Deak-Perera Capital Markets signature entertainment whose president is Marchese's wife Christina Christianson, fact, Marchese's father. And Marchese is barred from the securities industry. So Marchese's Deak-Perera Capital Markets, according to this SEC filing, is supposed to be in London at the Picadelli address. It isn't. Joseph Piterra said in court that Deak-Perera Capital Markets is access trade one. Access trade one -- the reason to be for access trade one was to be a 24-hour a day offshore trading porthole whose owner/operator is barred from the securities industry. The owner, according to Richard Marchese of the URL for accesstradeone.com is Elton Johnson, who is sanctioned and censors by the NASD, and Amerivet's brokers were indicted for manipulating stocks for the Columbo family, Columbo crime family -- Is this too much of an answer? Should I go on or -- MR. RICHTER: Well, I -- that's up to you. THE WITNESS: I mean, I don't know how much you want to -- MR. RICHTER: Well, let me just make one observation here. You know, David if you want to make an objection to the manner in which the documents were produced as not being identified as relating to a specific issue, that's -- that's one thing, and that seems to be part of -- of what you're driving at here, that you want documents sorted out by issue, and that may be a legitimate objection to the form of the document production. And then -- but then you certainly also have a right to ask about, you know, evidence that relates to specific allegations of the case. But I think you're kind of commingling your question when you say look at all of these documents and tell me which relate to particular issue. That's really sort of an objection to the form of the response to the document production and it is soliciting this kind of an answer. MR. ARGENTAR: Well -- MR. RICHTER: And, you know -- and I'm -- this is really just an observation and we can proceed however you see fit, but I think that you're mixing two things here. If you want to ask about specific documents -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. RICHTER: -- (continuing) that may be a more appropriate way to proceed with the deposition, but it's entirely up to you.