...... Resteiner told by Bowen's lawyer:
It was a dramatic scene last Wednesday at a prison in Boston where international con-man Eric Resteiner, who is an economic citizen of Grenada is being held awaiting sentence on multi-million dollar wire and fraud charges.
Restiener was being cross-examined by attorney-at-law, Mr.
SHARKANSKY on behalf of oil tycoon, Jack Grynberg now at the centre of an oil and gas agreement row with the Keith Mitchell-led government in St. George's.
Grynberg is trying to enforce an order obtained in a U.S court for Restiener to hand over to him a video-tape allegedly depicting a US$500, 000.00 bribery payment to Prime Minister Mitchell in 2000.
The hearing was attended by a lawyer representing Grenada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy, Gregory Bowen who is facing a separate bribery charge in a U.S court that was filed by Grynberg.
During the hearing, Bowen's attorney Christopher Johnson urged Resteiner not to co-operate with the proceedings, not to answer any questions about the video-tape and to remain silent by taking the Fifth Amendment.
GRENADA TODAY was able to obtain transcripts of the deposition involving Resteiner at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Boston.
PROCEEDINGS - ERIC RESTEINER
DIRECT EXAMINATION
SHARKANSKY: Mr. Resteiner, you understand that right now we're on the record?
Resteiner: Yes, sir.
SHARKANSKY: Everything you say is going to be recorded, that is, everything that I say as well as Mr. (Charles) Johnson (Lawyer for Gregory Bowen), okay?
Resteiner: Yes.
SHARKANSKY: You understand that I'm here. I represent a gentleman by the name of Jack Grynberg as well as some related companies, Grynberg Petroleum Company and RSM Production CoRporation.
Resteiner: Yes.
(Attorney Hertzberg enters the room)
MR. SHARKANSKY: I understand you're here without counsel today?
Resteiner: Yes.
MR. SHARKANSKY: You're here without counsel today, correct?
Resteiner: Yes.
MR. SHARKANSKY: Am I correct that you do not have any counsel with regards to this civil action that I'm here and for which you received a subpoena?
Resteiner: Yeah. Just came all of a sudden. Yes; that is correct.
MR. SHARKANSKY: However, you are -- we are at the Plymouth County correctional facility. You're being held on a criminal matter out of Federal Court; is that correct?
Resteiner: Yes..
MR. SHARKANSKY: You have an attorney that represents you in that criminal matter?
Resteiner: Yes.
MR. SHARKANSKY: His name is John Amabile; is that correct?
Resteiner: Yes.
MR. SHARKANSKY: Now, you understand, as far as I'm concerned, you're here on a civil matter that's unrelated to the criminal matter on which you're being held?
Resteiner: I disagree with that narrow position.
MR. SHARKANSKY: I intend to ask you some questions about a subpoena that you received requesting a videotape. Do you understand that? Yes or no.
Resteiner: I have no intention of answering any questions unless I'm provided a witness protection program or adequate funds to create my own.
MR. SHARKANSKY: Okay.
Resteiner: I take the Fifth Amendment.
MR. SHARKANSKY: Okay. Is that going to be your response to every question that I ask you?
Resteiner: I haven't heard the other questions. I don't know.
MR. SHARKANSKY: I want to be clear that I don't intend to ask you any questions about the matters for which you are now awaiting sentencing.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, just a minute. I have an objection at this stage. This deposition was convened pursuant to a subpoena for testimony by Mr. Sharkansky's client, Mr. Grynberg, and the other two plaintiffs in the action.
I am here because I have a right to be here representing a party (Gregory Bowen) to this deposition, so I'm here in that capacity. I understand that the witness has an attorney, Mr. Amabile, in his criminal case, which is pending, which is the reason --
Resteiner: There is an obvious cross-pollinization (sic) between the two cases.
MR. JOHNSON: He has an attorney in the criminal case, which is pending in Federal Court in Massachusetts. I was informed, off the record, prior to the start of this deposition, that even though Mr. Grynberg's attorneys have had conversations with Mr. Amabile about the subpoena and about the production of the tape, they did not inform Mr. Amabile of the fact that they intended to take testimony from his client today here, which I find stunning and misleading and something that I have a hard time believing, given the fact that they've informed Judge Cote of communications with him, to now learn that Mr. Amabile does not know about this deposition today is stunning.
I will also add that I, on two occasions, tried to call his (Amabile) law office to inform him of this deposition. I did not receive a return phone call. And it is my position that if -- and this is for the record, for the benefit of the witness -- it is my position that if he answers any questions from Mr. Grynberg's attorney about anything of substance, I'm entitled to cross examine and ask him about anything that bears upon witness credibility, including the events underlying his guilty plea in Federal Court.
That is my position. I believe I have a right to cross-examine the witness on that subject. And I strongly recommend that the witness have an attorney present for this examination.
And I'm stunned to learn that Plaintiffs attorneys who convened this deposition did not inform Mr. Amabile that they were taking testimony from his client here today, even though they've had communications with him about a hearing in court tomorrow and about the fact of the subpoena.
So I am stunned to learn that Mr. Amabile apparently does not know about this deposition here today at one o'clock.
I do not accept the notion that simply because Plaintiffs' attorneys want to question the witness only about the events leading up to the tape, that I have to accept the same limitations.
I don't accept the same limitations. I'm entitled, as a matter of the rules of evidence, to cross-examine the witness on anything bearing upon his credibility. That is my position.
If the witness answers any questions of substance, he should be advised that I intend to ask him about a variety of subjects, including the events that led to his guilty plea.
It's up to the witness to decide whether the wants to invoke his constitutional rights here today. It's my understanding they are not waivable. I do not represent you. Do you understand that?
Resteiner: Absolutely
MR. JOHNSON: But I feel, as a member of the bar, that I have an obligation to advise you that you have a right to an attorney present there for this deposition and you have a right to take the Fifth Amendment in response to any question.
Resteiner: Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
MR. SHARKANSKY: For the record, Mr. Amabile is aware that subpoenas have been served and haven't been complied with and that motions to compel have been filed.
Mr. Amabile told me in no ambiguous terms that he did not represent Mr. Resteiner in this civil action. He was appointed by the government to represent him in the criminal action, but does not take a position as an attorney in this civil case.
However, counsel having stated his position and what his intent is here today and it's not my intent to ask you any questions that would cause you problems in this criminal action. It never had been.
And the fact you already expressed to me you intend to rely upon your right to the Fifth Amendment -- if you feel there is any crossover between my questions about the production of videotape and the situation you find yourself in with regard to a criminal case that is pending, I will not ask any questions.
Do you feel there is a crossover between my request for production of this videotape, yes or no?
Resteiner: I don't answer questions yes or no. That's manipulative. I answer questions truthfully. If you can't take a truthful answer, don't ask me any questions.
MR. SHARKANSKY: I'm really just trying to help you.
Resteiner: Well, I know you are, but why is my lawyer there tomorrow if there is no cross-pollinisation? Why is he going there?
MR. SHARKANSKY: Okay. Given that answer, I would give notice of this: As you're aware, there is a hearing tomorrow at three o'clock in the Federal Court on a motion to compel.
At that point you'll be free to along with apparently Attorney Amabile, if he appears to answer questions from the judge as to why this videotape shouldn't be produced. And I'm going to further ask why you shouldn't answer questions about that videotape and......
Resteiner: How could he possibly answer questions on my behalf if he doesn't represent me?
MR. SHARKANSKY: That will be an issue he'll have to take up, I guess, with Judge Zobel.
Resteiner: Well, the issue is still alive then, isn't it? So it's inappropriate for you to insinuate that the attorney isn't representing me.
MR. SHARKANSKY: I'm only telling you what the attorney reported to me, that he doesn't represent you in the civil action.
Resteiner: Illogical. I'm sorry.
MR. SHARKANSKY: All right. Do you have any follow-up questions that you want to ask Mr. Resteiner?
MR. HERTZBERG. NO thank you.
(Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at 1:28 p.m.)
