Deja Vu--Bankruptcy Trial: Day One
When I was 11 years old, I had my first babysitting job. As was the case with my own child when she was the same age, my mother, who was a few blocks away and available by telephone and car, backed me up. The real difference was that, by the time my daughter was growing up, she had taken a Red Cross course in babysitting and knew all the things she needed to do to protect both herself and her charges and deal properly with the parents. I had no such class.
I was propelled unexpectedly into a bizarre situation. The parents were known to but not really friends of my mother. They lived around 6 blocks north and slightly west of us, in a development now engulfed by growth in Tucson, Arizona. Neither of us had ever seen their child--which should have sent up a red flag but didn't. I seem to remember that I was driven to their house by my mother, who saw me in and then returned home.
The parents greeted me warmly, said their child was asleep and all I had to do was to sit in the living room, and hastened away. I don't remember whether they even gave me any contact numbers or information. I placidly settled down for the evening, reading or watching TV--or both. I was alerted by a scream from the child's bedroom.
Navigating by the noise emitted, I discovered the child's bedroom and the child. Remember that I was 11 years old and not particularly large for my age having not reached my full height at 5 feet, 6 inches. The child, clad in a diaper and pajamas, was standing up in his crib and bouncing, rattling the furniture and brushing the wall next to it. In his crib he towered above me so that my head only reached about to his waist. I estimated that he was about as old as I was but quickly reckoned that his emotional and intellectual age was about 1-1/2 to 2 years.
I had had no warning of this but had to restrain my panic. I was afraid he would destroy the crib and with it his ability to lie down and sleep. My first job seemed to me to be to soothe him. I remember talking gently to him. I may have patted him. Fortunately for me, he was just agitated and not violent. He lay back down, scrunching himself up to fit in the baby-size crib, and went back to sleep. Further disturbances were minor compared to that frightening apparition that had greeted me when I first went into his room. It's a wonder I ever babysat again.
When I last saw Samuel D. Rosen, L.L.P., New York litigation partner in Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker he was towering over a podium in the court of Judge Whyte in San Jose, California, just as he did last Friday. But the connection between him and that long-ago child whose care I undertook didn't really strike me the way it did today, in Judge Weissbrodt's court. I suddenly realized that, like that unfortunately age-mismatched boy I had seen in my own childhood, Rosen is the biggest baby I have ever seen.
He sulks when he doesn't get his way. He becomes petulant and bullying, then denies it. He indulges in passive-aggressive behavior, striking out volubly or physically in minor ways (for his bulk), giving only a hint of the tantrum power lurking just beneath the folds of skin on his massive frame. When he is attempting to restrain himself, he wheezes audibly, breathing unevenly and loudly, occasionally indulging in an overblown sigh. He allows his voice to take on that querulous tone every parent knows.
Unlike my childhood charge, he can shift rapidly from cantankerous child to professional lawyer to indignant ethnic at lightning speed, displaying an unnerving instability that contributes to the sensation that the courtroom has filled with flammable gas and somebody is taking out a match.
Amazingly, the judge retains his sanity and usually his professionalism. Sometimes, as the day and all of us wear on, I think he has the patience of a saint. There are only two of us (Stan Zlotoff, Keith's attorney, and me), and 6 of them, 3 OSA, 3 attorneys, with one of the attorneys (Kobrin) also an OSA staffer. The judge seldom complains of our conduct. Their team: OSA--Darlene Bright, Helena Kobrin, Samuel Rosen, local bankruptcy attorney Elaine Seid & 2 unidentified males (to myself, I distinguish them as "Fishface" and "Fuzzhead"). Rosen counts for 2 in first-class seats, and here his wheezing bulk makes its presence felt doubly. Kobrin is by comparison a calming influence.
Zlotoff only loses his patience once, off the record, when a frequently petulant Rosen takes him to task for causing a break in proceedings so that he could go back to his office (less than a block away) to see if the 4 boxes of exhibits really did contain a videotape that they suddenly, and without notice, insist on playing.
It was the judge's idea, not Zlotoff's, this break, and it is another half hour before the video equipment arrives, then another several minutes to set it up, so Rosen's attitude is hardly justified. But then neither is any other 2-year-old's. Zlotoff brings back another 2 boxes of records. According to their usual practice--following on Rosen's experience as a tobacco attorney--they have "papered" us once again, and there are 280-some exhibits that Rosen insists on "walking" the judge "through" after his opening statement.
But I'm not starting at the beginning.
I get here so early that I can't find anyone here except the security guards downstairs and the earlier case in the courtroom that apparently started at 8:15. I try Zlotoff's office twice, hoping for some shelter that isn't a bench in the court building. No luck. Finally I return to find Fishface just ahead of me with the massive paper luggage he is in charge of toting, as he was last week for the hearing in Judge Whyte's court.
He takes quite some time to empty his pockets. By now I've been through security a couple of times and know to take off my hair clip, but unsure about the pin that holds my two small roses (white and red for Die Weisse Rose and for love) on my blazer. I forget that I've put my old cell phone that is my only reliable clock into my blazer pocket, so I still set off the alarm in the frame that looks so much like a stage doorway from the wings.
I finally remember and place the ex-phone into a plastic box. They don't ask for my ID--at least not again till after lunch when another shift comes on, because I've been through before and am familiar by now. They tell me I don't need to take off my pin.
I have brought a large binder of papers from the year 1997, that I think might be helpful, as well as my large purse into which I've placed magazines and papers and a pad that proves to be entirely inadequate for note-taking, along with papers Zlotoff sent me to review. I have forgotten most of my breakfast and my lunch, left in the car back at the Mountain View light-rail station. Thank goodness it's a cloudy, cool day.
By the time I get upstairs, Fishface is just passing Kobrin, sitting on a bench. The rest of the gang is in attendance by time Zlotoff arrives, carrying only some of the paper in the case. I show him the binder, a newspaper issue with a man on the cover who was a prospective buyer for our home, who had proffered what we believed to be a firm offer but then withdrew it when he encountered problems with zoning.
I also give him a copy of a letter I've brought from a group in Canada (a trip to British Columbia when our daughter was a small child) thanking him for a fireworks display he put on for the community. Zlotoff smiles contemplating the fact that this is the sort of explosives Keith is accused of handling.
The judge arrives ("All rise . . . please be seated, ladies and gentlemen") quite flustered by $-ology's belated request to play a videotape. "I understand you need special equipment. First of all those have to be ordered in advance and set up." They say they have brought their own equipment. Judge Weissbrodt looks to Zlotoff for an objection. Did he receive the videotape? Zlotoff isn't sure. There is simply too much material for him to get through. (RTC counts on this.) There is some discussion of the videotape, the equipment. Zlotoff asks me what the videotape is about?
I tell him it is a doctored version of a deposition taken of Keith in the copyright case that they drop in to poison the well in every one of Keith's case's, and is pure character assassination in which they provoked him to say such silly stuff as that the costs of litigation came "out of his recreation budget," and so on. For years, Keith tried to get any of these people to laugh, not realizing that the sense of humor is the first thing to be surgically removed from any $-ologist and any agent they use. There are, according to Rosen, actually 3 videotapes in the exhibits, but they will play only one (most likely the most damaging).
During the microphone set up, Rosen tells his well-worn story about Judge Feinberg's court in which he was supposedly told that he didn't "need a microphone." The judge reminds him that he knows Feinberg and that he has heard the story before.
At this point it seems that Zlotoff will be allowed to look for the video at lunch break.
Rosen asks for 30 seconds to argue for presenting RTC's case first. Zlotoff says he doesn't care. Rosen reads the judge law quite a few times during the day. "Under 1307 . . . you must either dismiss the petition or convert it to a 7 . . . ," and tries to argue that if, after presentation of his case, the judge does what he should do, Zlotoff's case "becomes moot."
He fulminates for a long time in his usual pompous and agitated fashion, managing to use the microphone only when he is sighing, wheezing or reminded by the judge, otherwise standing and booming out his arguments. The only time he purposely sits at the microphone is when he is manipulating the heavy binders of exhibits and "walking" the judge through them. Rosen's 30 seconds start at 9:18 and are up at 9:25. There must be something wrong with my clock.
Basically, RTC is trying to have Keith's "Chapter 13" bankruptcy dismissed, or at least converted to a "Chapter 7" bankruptcy, in which there is some controversy over whether the judgments against Keith could be "discharged" or not payable. They are claiming "bad faith" in preparation of the bankruptcy schedules and Keith's subsequent behavior. Rosen is also claiming that because Zlotoff filed a brief after a deadline the judge declared that he is in violation of an order and the judge must sanction him.
The judge points out that he didn't promise that he would sanction anybody, just that he might. He says it was his discretion. Rosen argues indignantly throughout the day that the judge "must" sanction Zlotoff. This is despite the fact that Weissbrodt actually told them that he wouldn't accept any arguments past a certain date because he knew that RTC would paper him if he didn't cut them off.
Zlotoff makes a technical point: "RTC didn't file a brief either . . . [but a] 2-page statement . . . a list of items . . . that's not responsive to the trial court either . . . ." Rosen argues with Zlotoff, and Weissbrodt has to break them up. The judge is already frustrated, like a mother with 2 tussling siblings. "None of this is briefed," he declares, "so--it's a problem."
At 9:31, Rosen begs another "30 seconds," saying "We have killed I don't know how many trees," a statement that grates since I know too much about forest management for this to be a simple thing with me. This time it's about RTC's being "both secured" (by a possibly illegal lien on our home) "and unsecured" (because they claim many hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the original copyright judgment--half a million dollars in "unsecured" attorneys fees, etc.).
At this point Zlotoff is told that the court will break and he should go look for the videotape. When he comes back at 9:55, the court is still in recess. Rosen complains that Zlotoff has "just wasted all of our time" taking the 15 minute break. This is the one and only time that Zlotoff becomes visibly angry with Rosen. He takes the opportunity, off the record, to be snippy back to Rosen. "You want to be an ass, I'll be an ass right back to you." Zlotoff motions me out of the courtroom, and as I get up to follow him, he comments under his breath, "$600 an hour!" I correct him (from last Friday's testimony by Rosen), "615!"
The judge has to sign some emergency orders, he says, returning briefly several times to the courtroom without his robe and begging us not to "rise" to acknowledge the presence of the court. With frequent glances back into the courtroom to check for the presence of the judge,
Zlotoff quizzes me. What did I know and when did I know it? Did I know it of my own knowledge or did Keith or someone else tell me? The judge's emergency orders and the equipment entry hold things up for some time. In the corridor Stan comments about Seid (whose name he reminds me Rosen mispronounced as "Side" last Friday) "She's just on the gravy train" (being paid by $-ology).
Back in the courtroom, Zlotoff asks how the tape could be relevant, when it is dated 1996, and the bankruptcy case dates from 1998. There are some relevancy arguments, but in the end, the judge says, "If you want to show the video I'll let you do it" and then rule later on its relevancy.
After this ruling, Rosen says, "I'll proceed to my opening statement on the motion to dismiss . . . ." He rehashes the dates of the first bankruptcy petition and its dismissal, then the date the dismissal was "vacated." Blah blah. He promises to do this briefly. The judge comments, "Suppose you do it in about an hour and a half; that'll be fine." (This would take us to noon and lunch.)
Rosen says that since the judge "prefers" California cases he has tried to find such citations. The judge interrupts to explain that it is not "preference" but rather a matter of whether decisions are "binding on me" or just advisory from other jurisdictions. It is now 11:08 and Rosen is still in his "opening statement." There has been talk of finishing today. I don't think so.
"The plan," according to Rosen, "was to taunt and abase the scientology religion, . . . not for profit but, as the evidence will show, just the fun of taunting a religion." He refers to the fictional "ARSCC" that "gives out awards [to] . . . who can cause the most pain . . . [in an] ongoing scheme of harassment for no reason other than amusement." He says that Keith claimed that he could "go out and buy a ream of paper once in a while and [cause scientology to spend thousands of dollars] "out of pure malice."
This he claims, "is the underpinning of the entire proceedings," that the bankruptcy was filed "for the stated purpose of derailing the trial of the copyright case." The bombast becomes amazing: "From his lair outside this country he continues to re*vel* [as pronounced] in . . . causing discomfort." He refers to the latest contempt conviction, the sealed September 26 order from Judge Whyte. Henson is "malicious," according to him. He is described as if he were Gollum in his cave, plotting violence to the poor hobbits.
It is clear from what Rosen says that we were expected to sell our home in order to pay the judgment debt. Zlotoff makes the point later on that there is nothing in the bankruptcy law that assumes that a debtor is expected to sell a primary residence to pay a legal judgment.
Rosen belabors his point that the bankruptcy filing was, according to him, for the "sole purpose of derailing the [copyright] trial." He claims that he requested that the bankruptcy be dismissed when "it no longer served any purpose." I decide that I can't listen to this ugly peroration. I try to read. But I pay attention when the claim is made that Keith admitted to burning documents, that he "stonewalled" the discovery process. Rosen claims that Keith said in his "2004 examination" (bankruptcy deposition), "You want me to leave you alone--give me $5,000,000!" (The grain of truth here is that Keith asked them to offer him $5 million--so he could refuse it.)
Rosen claims that the inclusion of Judge March's order (limiting our daughter's examination by him to one hour and sanctioning RTC $1,000 for the trouble we went to in trying to limit that examination) is "sanctionable" because, he claims, the order was later rescinded on appeal. (Not true--only the sanction was rescinded, and we had requested that it be lifted because it would have cost us tens of thousands or more to collect it.)
Rosen specifically reserves a right of appeal on the judge's decision. Judge Weissbrodt erupts in a brief explosion of indignation. He reminds Rosen that the right of appeal is always there and that he is familiar with Rosen's strategy in specifically reserving it. "It's a bullying tactic," he warns. Rosen recoils in his familiar enactment of wounded dignity. "I don't bully judges," he exclaims. Right. And the Pope isn't Catholic, and bears do not defecate in the woods.
There is some discussion of whether the judge has the "index" to the 4 fat binders of documents sitting on the table where I will later sit as witness. Rosen says that the exhibits help to elucidate "the overarching enterprise . . . of intention to harm the Church of Scientology." That it illustrates "misuse [of the bankruptcy laws and is] . . . part of his ongoing enterprise to attack," "mens rea," "just for amusement and stature to attack RTC," "false statements in his schedules and the like . . . purpose of derailing a state court litigation," "'recreation budget'" . . . his sole purpose is to taunt scientology." "I've seen cases where . . . I have never seen . . . where [the defendant claimed that] the reason I infringed was to taunt the copyright owner . . ."
Rosen wants to file Whyte's order holding Keith in contempt (again), but it's sealed, from what I hear not for any substance but just to avoid embarrassing the judge. How convenient. And how like the judge's sealing his "minutes" in Hemet (and they are trying to seal the whole transcript!)
Sealing seems, in this topsy-turvy Alice-in-Wonderland legal system, to have been transmuted into "con-cealing." It doesn't seem to be done for any real reason except to keep it off the Internet. What Keith does that irritates everyone is to make everything into a public record except what may really hurt individuals who are not public office holders with a responsibility to the public.
At first I try to keep track of the exhibits, which Keith has not received except as they have been used over and over again in every case against him. He states whether the document is presented "for the truth" or not. There is some acronym called "TOMA" as to whether an exhibit "goes to the truth" or is presented for some other reason, such as to document that a reply was sent or received, etc. Without "walking" the reader through the documents, I will summarize what they include and some of the discussion about them.
The first is supposed to show "bad faith" in preparation of the bankruptcy petition. The second is minutes from a court that "enjoined him from physical assault" (quite laughable, since the only physical assault that was not in self-defense was assault--including attempted murder--on him).
There are motions (including "in limine motions" kept secret), rulings, orders of the court, exhibits purporting to prove obstruction, transcripts, responses to orders, "admissions" contained in depositions and letters, Keith's resume, Keith's picket logs, papers relating to our daughter's belongings, appraisals of our house from the years 2000 and 2002, selected Internet postings from Keith, document production.
There are so many and they have been put together so hurriedly that there are repetitions, redundant documents, and some have been omitted for reasons not stated. So there are empty numbers, and throughout the day Rosen rises to request that exhibit # so and so be omitted.
There is confusion as to whether Zlotoff should object during this "walk-through" or only at the end. It is decided that he will object after the request for introduction of the exhibits, but not before there have been some specific objections and some specific rulings about hearsay, etc.
Throughout his description of the documents, Rosen uses the time to vilify Keith. When I first heard these lies, I was outraged. Now I'm just used to them. Rosen probably defames Keith in his sleep. Several times, the judge asks him to stop arguing and just list briefly why the exhibits are included--to what point they are introduced.
At one point, he introduces a telephone bill, and his bombast becomes florid about how "Mr. Henson had in his . . . [bankruptcy schedule] projected expenses of telephone charges . . . [that were] . . . an order of magnitude [less than the bill showed]. "The bulk of this bill is long distance telephone calls [not having to do with Keith's business but with events in Clearwater, Florida]."
At this point, Zlotoff objects, "It's amazing what Mr. Rosen can make of a little telephone bill." The judge agrees: "Look," he tells Rosen, "if you do it more I'm going to sanction you . . . . This is presentation of evidence. . . . We're separating it out." It is now 11:41, and the trial, due to start at 9, has been entirely devoted to RTC's arguments, delays, etc., except for a few minutes of fast walking and desperate searching on Zlotoff's part.
For the remainder of his listing of exhibits, Rosen's voice is that of a small child who has just been told he has to eat his spinach. He continues, using a shorthand way of referring to documents that includes "unitary plan," that is, an exhibit that is being recommended as an illustration of what Rosen calls Keith's "plan" to "taunt" the "Church" of Scientology.
Email, a copy of the deed for our home, more postings, orders from Judge Whyte, documents pertaining to Keith's cryonics insurance, declarations, letters, reports. As he reaches 200, Rosen calls it "2000," and continues with "2001" until the judge corrects him. Rosen jokes about being punch-drunk from the number of exhibits. Is this someone else's fault there are this many exhibits?
Rosen alludes darkly to "Henson's intentional underemployment," a continuing complaint that is laughable in its irony, since of course OSA did its best to make sure he was not employed by anyone at all and was responsible for the time he had available to picket Scientology. He also claims that a reference in a deposition by Keith referred to what he calls "destruction of documents."
When the judge asks whether the destruction took place before or after subpoenas requesting documents, Rosen replies that he is sure it occurred after. When the judge asks for specifics, Rosen promises them. (When I ask Keith later about this part of the deposition, he explains that he said that we used our fireplace to destroy documents--but not any that were specifically requested.
Throughout the winters we used old papers to light fires, and in the summers we burned papers that contained addresses and phone numbers of friends, neighbors, relatives and others whom OSA might have harassed. RTC's document requests were so open-ended that they implied that we should have turned over to them any and all financial documents of any sort from the beginning of time.)
Time for the videotape. Fishface is asked to move the VCR/TV combination machine so that people can see it. He picks up the large and obviously heavy TV unit until all the other OSA people tell him to put it back on the cart and move the cart. Fishface is an unfortunate example of how, even when you use cold water, washing a brain always shrinks it.
McShane and Fuzzhead fiddle with the VCR. During the break I hear Rosen boom out "We may have to adjourn to get these witnesses." (Witnesses?)
I note that Kobrin looks actually in better shape today than Rosen does. He is agitated and gray of face. Kobrin moves easily compared to last Friday. Her color is better and she appears less exhausted.
Seid and Rosen go to sit in the jury box to watch the TV, which has been set up not far from where Kobrin was sitting, so she has the task of fiddling with the VCR. The videotape has been so badly edited that the questions to which Keith is responding aren't shown, and the judge asks for it to be rewound so he can try to understand what is going on. At one point Kobrin fast-forwards the tape instead of rewinding it. I wonder if she has access to TV. I don't
After lunch, Zlotoff gets a chance to present his objections to the exhibits. There is been continuing discussion about the objections, and finally the judge says that there will have to be post-trial briefs about them--particularly all those Zlotoff says go to "relevancy." Some of Zlotoff's objections are quite specific and provoke argument between him and Rosen.
Judge Weissbrodt has repeatedly asked Rosen to address his remarks to the bench instead of to Mr. Zlotoff. He requests the same of Zlotoff, who has a hard time not replying directly to Rosen when confronted and attacked from the side. Zlotoff objects to Rosen's remarks that the copyright judgment would not be dischargeable under Chapter 7 rules, because Keith's alleged copyright violation was "specifically defined as reckless, not just willful," and Judge Whyte's ruling was "not the right standard."
At this point Rosen hunches down in his chair like a little boy who has just been denied a privilege and puts his hand over the ear nearest Zlotoff as if he just can't stand to hear him. By this time Rosen is so agitated that I'm hoping he will explode. He objects. Judge Weissbrodt says, "No, please don't!" but Rosen goes ahead anyway and noisily decries anyone's law but his.
A discussion ensues about which US Code ("USC") applies to the awarding of attorney's fees in this instance, and Rosen doesn't member and neither does the judge. Kobrin whispers something. Rosen rebukes her. The judge asks what Rosen has said, and this time (for a change) he repeats accurately what he has said, believing that his comment will be appreciated. He said, "Don't guess!" to Kobrin. The judge says, "That all right, Ms. Kobrin, you can guess." She "guesses" it is USC 503-505.
On exhibit 209, the issue of whether the lien filed against our home is "secured" versus "unsecured," Zlotoff complains that RTC "kept us in the dark all these years" as to the existence of the lien. It was apparently filed in a gray area between the dismissal of the original bankruptcy filing (for which Keith had only brief advice from Graham Berry, who was having his own troubles and could not represent Keith) and its refilling by Bluer and Zlotoff, the firm to which Zlotoff succeeded at the death of his partner (with whom Keith--with me in attendance--had made his initial arrangements).
(I will always believe that it was my comment to Bluer that clinched his representation by Bluer and Zlotoff--for which Zlotoff probably would not forgive me if it were true, given that it got him into all this. There was a bit of discussion about how the Germans had a better attitude toward the $-ologists than we do in this country, and I said that I was really proud of the German people because they had learned to recognize and deal with totalitarianism, had learned their lesson. I think that Bluer may have been Jewish. I know that he stopped and looked at me keenly. And took Keith's case.)
The attorneys work out the plan for presentation following the end of the exhibits. Rosen presents his "evidence" in the form of the exhibits in a formal way. He also objects to Zlotoff's earlier claim that there was an "amended plan" for the bankruptcy. This forces Zlotoff to apologize and explain that he misspoke. There is not an amended plan--yet. But there will be one.
Rosen objects to my testifying for Keith's defense. He hefts (as the judge points out for the tape) 5 inches of paper, including a yellow pad, that he says he will use to cross-examine me, and demands a "proffer" from Zlotoff, which he says is "here's what I intend to prove with this witness." There is more rancor over this point.
Finally it is my turn to testify. I cannot take anything with me, and can't take notes. I ask to affirm rather than swear, and this is accomplished. The judge greets me, "Good afternoon, Ms. Lucas." I return the greeting.
Zlotoff begins with some exhibits of his own to which he refers me. As soon as more than my name and address and a few indisputable facts are given, Rosen rises to his feet with an objection after each of Zlotoff's questions. One thing to which he objects is the manner of my testimony.
The judge asks Rosen to give him a copy of the papers, which he has consulted about the rules of testimony.
Rosen argues with the judge, and the judge, having threatened to sanction him once before, again lays down the law. Rosen offers to have his people copy the papers, but the judge says to please give it to his clerk to copy. Suddenly the 2-year-old again, Rosen almost stamps up to the clerk, throws the papers onto her desk, makes an aggrieved about-face and returns to his seat. The judge declares a recess, leaving me on the witness stand. I ask Zlotoff if I may step down. He says yes, and I pass back through the privileged lawyer's realm.
When the judge returns, I return to the witness stand, but the first order of business is the judge's scolding of Rosen for his behavior. He says that his clerk complained to him that Rosen had thrown the papers onto her desk. Rosen goes into his "who me?" soft shoe, looking around to see if someone else might be guilty of bad behavior. Surely not him!?!
The judge tells Rosen that such behavior won't be tolerated in his courtroom. Rosen is bewildered, astounded at the malice of such an accusation. "I state for the record that I didn't do it," he complains with as much dignity as he can muster. The judge declares how testimony will be carried out.
The questions and their accompanying objections do not continue long. It is 4:15 and the judge says the courtroom must be vacated. With me still in the witness stand, they discuss the schedule for Monday. The trial will continue at 10:30 a.m., and Zlotoff has something else he must do Monday afternoon, at 2 I think.
Rosen again demands to know how long Zlotoff intends to question me. Zlotoff had briefly snickered at this request before, because Rosen had just taken twice the time to object that Zlotoff had taken to question me, and then the question of procedure had come up. Now the demand is made again, and Zlotoff says he is planning 1-1/2 hours. Rosen had apparently only wanted the opportunity to reiterate that he needs 4 hours to cross-examine me, once again indicating the stack of papers prominent on his table.
I cannot see why this is done except to intimidate me. I don't flinch. I have been through the fire before, last deposed ("2004 examination") on Bruno Day. I am no longer frightened of his big baby. In the moments when I have allowed myself to pity him, I've been moved to tears by the spectacle of the story told by his body of a life unloved, unlovable and unloving. I can no longer fear him.
The court is adjourned until Monday.
I stop to put my things together in the hall, and Zlotoff, laden with paper, comes to talk with me. I point out that one objection in which Rosen said I could not testify as to what Keith was doing or where he was working in February 1998 because I had said at later 2004 examination that I didn't know where he was working.
I pointed out that this was a later addition to our routine when it became clear that employers were being picketed and harassed. When we arrive outside finally, Rosen, Kobrin and the troops are laying for him. They accost him and I go ahead toward the streetcar.