http://www.gulfkeystone.com/ The firms exploration programme in Algeria is going well and "the shares look good value", say the Investors Chronicle. Your comments please. goal.

Some people love to tempt fate... it's going down... good short for me.

Nothing worse than holding a stock and having two fuckwits continually posting negative crap.

Miss Hlyeo is one of the biggest muppets on £AM, getting most of her calls wrong and then crawling off into the woodwork never to post on the same thread again. Never gives a reason for any opinion other than the hysterical sell, sell, sell, or buy, buy, buy, or perhaps a copy and paste from someone who might actually know what they're talking about. Even caught her talking to her alias, Justyi, on one occasion in some pathetic exercise to ramp a share - now that was amusing.

Talking of desperate rampers, then there's, Proselenes, the BB troll, who ramps the arse of a stock, sells up at a loss and then returns to trash it non stop. Of course he won't be able to read this so his nasty little mate, grannyboy will have to reply on his behalf, lol.

You just can't beat these boards for entertainment that's for sure!

For the record, I have no position in GKP, but wish holders the best of luck.

hi peter .... good to hear from you again ..... for myself with GKP, i'll just sit and wait .... imo, GKP is more likely to win the day in court, though they may make a "commercial settlement" for peace and quiet - very much what excalibur would like, i am sure ..... once that is cleared away, the market will decide what shaikan and thus GKP is worth ..... meanwhile P's ramblings (or even my own), and hyleo's unsupported rubbish (probably no true position anyway) have no effect at all, whether or not subsequently proven right or wrong with regard to sp itself

Good luck with it Richard, the only thing hlyeo is short on is brainpower!

By the way I still owe you a round of golf, so once the weather settles down, I'll get in touch.

GKP still rolling downhill... looking good 4 me.

Probably to do with the Russia/Iraq arms deal.

That swings the power back to Baghdad and massively increases the risk for any company working in Kurdistan on "illegal" licences (as defined by the Iraqi government).

Shorters getting burnt here, up 2%.,.

apparently the iraqis were gazumped .... the russians pulled that arms deal as the israelis offered a better price .... i have it on the best authority

No real burn... just be patient.

Theres only one way this is going.,.

Haven't bothered of late(little point) and just catching up,here's a account from
a respected poster,who was in cpurt on tuesday.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GKP's barrister began by saying that Excalibur's claim is that the
SOLE REASON for the failure by Rex to get funding is because GKP had
failed to provide Excalibur with a document which Excalibur now say
was essential. The barrister explained that Rex had sent Todd a letter
(it was on the Court PCs...I was sitting behind Rex and I was close
enough to just be able to read the PC screens!) to which two drafts
were attached. Rex wanted GKP to work one of these two drafts into a
formal document, so that Excalibur and GKP could both sign it. The
drafts were:

(a) a letter of acknowledgement that Excalibur had introduced GKP and
TKI to the Kurdish Government, in consideration for a 24% stake in
Shaikan

(b) as for (a), but expanded to include "in addition, a 30% stake in
Uzbekistan and Africa or other International opportunities introduced
by Excalibur"

(note: the 24% of Shaikan was the 30% of the 80% i.e. excluding the
KRG 20%, and these drafts clearly post-date the original 30/70
agreement because Shaikan was not under discussion at that earlier
time, and in any case Adnan Samarrai wanted Sangaw and not Shaikan)

The GKP barrister emphasised that Excalibur were saying that GKP's
failure to provide this formal document was the ONLY REASON for
Excalibur not getting funding. (note: the GKP barrister's line of
argument obviously being that, if GKP can show that there was no
requirement to provide such a document, or if it was in any case
irrelevant, the Judge must rule that the Excalibur claim falls)

He then developed two lines of argument to demolish Excalibur's argument.

The first was to show that there was no obligation upon GKP to provide
any such document:

* if GKP was not party to the original Excalibur/TKI agreement, it was
under no obligation to provide anything

* "on any view, the idea that Excalibur had gained 30% was
hypothetical and might not be true. Terms were not mentioned. It might
not be agreed despite good faith on both sides" (note: I think he
meant KRG and GKP) "GKP cannot be expected to sign something that it
was not confident could be delivered"

* "if it WAS clear (the position on the agreement) then Excalibur
could demonstrate its 30% by showing its Collabroration Agreement. But
there is no evidence that it did". (note: the barrister then pursues
this further, see below)

The second line of argument:

* "no basis in factual or expert evidence that a letter in the terms
sought by Excalibur would have no impact" (note: this is what my notes
say...I am not certain what he was implying...he may have said the
opposite to what he meant, or I may have misheard him). "No potential
funder ever asked for such a letter"

* "Investors initially ASSUME that such a document does exist, and
would deal with it" (note: its existence or not) "at Due Diligence
(after Non Disclosure Agreement). These investors would need a more
formal document than the draft. The expert's opinion on the letter
required by Excalibur is that it is 'Unnecessary and Irrelevant'"

* "Rex Wempen wanted the latter as 'credentials' for having 'done a
big deal' ". The GKP barrister then mentioned an email from Eric
Wempen to Rex Wempen, dated 24 November (note: must be 2007, see
below) in which Eric Wempen said: "Think of your future first. So try
to get your Origination letter from Kozel"

* The GKP barrister said that this request for such a document
represented a "False Claim from Wempen in November 2007. But this
claim is still remarkably being made in these (note: High Court,
obviously) proceedings"

* "there was not a hint of suggestion that this was referred to in
contemporaneous documents" (the GKP barrister made some reference to
this being an overarching point and he then goes on further about
this, see below)

* "in any event it fails on the facts"

He then went on to say that, in terms of an Indirect Interest,
Excalibur never raised this until November 2007. Emails in following
weeks were "in language of supplication not denial". Rex Wempen had
said to Eric Wempen "there were countless ways of doing it" i.e. all
kinds of possibilities. The barrister said that "Lack of definition
leads to Excalibur's problem in this case"

He said "there is nothing wrong in Excalibur being flexible BUT they
cannot now say that GKP was wrong in not having provided one of six
possible ways" i.e. six possible ways by which this matter might have
been addressed/dealt with at the time. There was then a short exchange
with the Judge:

Judge: "which one?"
GKP barrister: "you will decide"
Judge: "yes I will" (followed by laughter in the Court)

The GKP barrister then explained that "Excalibur had failed to pay a
large amount of signature bonus and imposed on GKP a liability to
pay." He said "Why should GKP agree anything until Excalibur agreed to
pay?"

He then said that, if an Indirect Interest were given to Excalibur via
equity in GKP "A shareholders' agreement would have taken months. But
the clock was ticking" i.e. on the Shaikan licence award with the KRG.
"Not GKP's fault"

He then said "should at 3.12.07 GKP have given a confirmed agreement?
But Rex Wempen abandoned the 30% claim in exchange for a buy-out by
GKP (and probably MOL)"

In May 2008, "Eric Wempen picked up on GKP's seismic being positive on
Shaikan. Excalibur wrote on 26 June 2008" (note: I think to GKP's
lawyers?) "But it was too late because of the PSC duration time of 90
days"

The GKP barrister then said that *if* GKP were requited to follow the
agreement (Note: I assume the original Excalibur/TKI one, but it might
be the non-existent Excalibur/GKP one...he was covering so many
angles) *then* they were NOT required to do so if Excalibur had paid
no money. He then said:

1. "what are the "dependent covenants" on Excalibur?". He said there
was an obligation to tender the sums due from them for the Shaikan
sigature bonus. (note: I was told in the coffee bar that the Shaikan
signature bonus was $25m)

2. "there is no evidence that the absence of the level of
documentation put off any potential investors. In those rare cases
where Excalibur got to the stage of submitting a 'teaser', Excalibur
claimed a "participatory ownership".

He then said "Let's look at the teaser sent to UBS and others. Wempen
called it an NDA. It claimed 'A unique opportunity to invest alongside
three competent international partners, one UK based, one a US
Independent, and one a European state oil company' "

He explained that Excalibur had said "a 10% OWNERSHIP of the field is
available in return for a $40 million payment to Excalibur who
initiated the deal"

(note: this was news to me! So having purportedly got a 30% stake in
Shaikan for no cost at that time, i.e. having not paid anything to
GKP, Excalibur were then seeking to dispose of one-third of that
purported stake for $40 million, thereby valuing the 80% non-KRG
percentage of Shaikan as 8 x $40m = $320 million, though GKP had paid
only $25 million for it. No such calculations were given in Court)

The GKP barrister then said "The notion that Excalibur UNDERSOLD its
title, when it OVERSOLD on everything else, is seriously open to
question". He then quoted the expert evidence from Mr. Wilkinson that
an Indirect Interest would be much less interesting to an investor
than a Direct Interest.

He said that "My last point is to remind his Lordship that it is wrong
for Excalibur to claim that this (note: referring to the alleged
failure to provide the requested document) was the ONLY obstacle to
not getting funding. GKP claims that Excalibur could not get funding
for other reasons"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was then some discussion, in closing the business for the day,
between the two barristers about expert reports.

BUT as part of that, there (was my notes indicate coming from
Excalibur's barrister) a statement that in one of the two reports
provided by the expert Mr. Wilkinson, Credit Suisse is mentioned as
having provided some funding to Excalibur. What this funding was about
was left unexplained.

Excalibur's barrister said to the Judge "Something of a barrage of
information has been coming our way" and he said "there was an
important discovery last Friday. Memery Crystal wrote to Clifford
Chance about it and they need a reply. I am mentioning it now"

(note: I assume that this refers to the emails that GKP/TKI have
apparently successfully forced out of someone...the GKP team have
apparently been working through the weekend on this matter, and wrote
a letter (the above mentioned one?) to Clifford Chance at about 11pm
last night)

The Judge said "I am going to go away and read the material. I hope to
start the case again on Monday"

According to my notes, the last material statement was from the
Excalibur barrister, who said "If these questions result in
disclosure, it will involve release of documents already in Clifford
Chance's possession" and he added that "they relate to UBS".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but in my humble opinion, do your own research etc. as always

pinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/26/lawrence-solomon-oil-majors-back-kurdistan/

Tuesday the next day in court.

Not much feed back from thr CC,this is i've come across.



Wempen on stand. Getting hammered for being vague and long-winded. Going back in after short break now. Showing that Excalibur had no employees bar brief spell in 2004 and no salaries paid. More later

17:43
My thoughts
chantry chanters
24UP

I was only able to attend court upto the lunch break due to work however I would like to just put down my thoughts. I know other members of the BB will put their own thougths down and Im certain they will do so in more detail.

Rex took the stand around 10.40 after the first 40 minutes was taken up with a request for a small number of files (around 100) which may or not be relavent to the case along with our QC saying how a technical report which had been promised to the court for today would now not be available until the 5th November. Exc QC apologised for the lateness (2200 on Monday night) that it would not be available but the author of the piece had a very busy schedule. The judge was not impressed and made an order that it was to be available my the 5th Nov.

After a harty slap on the back to his brother, Rex too the stand. Once his QC took him through the rigours of confirming his name, address and signatures on witness statments Our man took over.

He asked Rex when he left the service and the circumstances of his leaving. He then went
of to ask what were the cercumstances of his leaving the reserves. On both occasions Rex stated that he resigned. I got the distinct impression from our QC that this is not necessarily the whole answer but for the moment he moved on.

Our man then went on to discuss Exc management. He must have spent 10 minutes trying
to get Rex to tell him if Exc had shares or a unit whereby it could be shown who owned what.
Rex went into a long story about how it was a family kinda run thing and that his mother had a share until her death and then his brother had a share but he could not remember exactly what the company structure was. . It was so wishy woshy as to be as clear as mud what the whole situation was. Throughout the morning Rex failed to respond to simple questions and on one particular occasion our QC who showed amazing patience said I have asked this question four times and still dont have an answer.. Let me try one last time. I must say I thought the judge also showed great patience and only after Rex had had plenty of time to get to the point did he jump in to stop the record and reset Rex on track.

I believe I understood that Exc had not produced financial reports from 2004 onwards as it had not made any money. Im sure someone will pick up more on this.

As stated our man spent the morning showing that not only did Exc, Rex and his brother have any real money to invest Rex himself thought he would be unable to raise 10,000 (I presume dollers) or £6,200 on a personal credit card.

Rex loves to name drop, this would have been ideal for Hello Magazine but in answer to simple questions just showed him a real life walter mittly. Rex found it particularly hard to differentiate between what is true and what is a fact .... Having 100 million to invest NOW and perhaps the potential to raise 100 million to invest.. What is fact and what you would LIKE to be the facts.

Closing I would like to say that this is just my simple impression of the morning session. I was partly disapointed that Rex was not the nemesis I was expecting to see but just a chancer who tried to have his fingers in lots of pies in the hope that something could come good.

carpetbaggers!

Here goes with the caveats:
Everything I report on below is subject to my own fallibility. Taking notes, whilst listening and not being legally trained could lead to any number of mistakes in my account below both in the essence and my understanding of the events in court today. Where it’s my own opinion I’ve included this in asterisks. I’ve also tried to include some exchanges word for word verbatim to give you a flavour of proceedings – again these may not be exactly correct, only the court transcript could be used for that purpose. I have also made no attempt to capture absolutely everything covered – particularly the afternoon session, I listened much more than I wrote. Finally, a lot of it I have documented ‘as it happened’ rather than my reflections from the day – hopefully some rich material to pick over.

Anyway, I hope that the notes are helpful for the majority of shareholders who weren’t present today. I’ve really appreciated all of the notes shared to date from other posters and hope that this spirit of sharing is continued for the rest of the trial. I've posted this on the uvva board as well (stormyrider)

Court 15, Tuesday October 30th

Chantry Chanters (post 17.43 iii) captured very well the first section of court time this morning about delays in a report from Clifford Chance. Only thing to add is that the judge suggested that if the report was not available by 5th November he may consider it as non-admissible.
*The judge noted that there had been a lot of delays and suggested that he was keen to avoid more*
I think it was Simon Pickens who suggested that the broad timeline for the next few weeks was:
- 10 days of cross-examination of Wempens which in reality would take 3 weeks (*I assume due to days off from court each week*)
- Further 3 weeks of cross-examination of *TKI/GKP/Todd etc.*
- Then on to expert witnesses

Rex took to the stand giving a big strong theatrical pat on his brothers back. It was established he left the army in 1999 resigning to pursue his MBA. He then joined a joint military reserve unit. His reserve career ended when he resigned in 2002. Voluntarily.

Jonathan Gaisman (JG) “That’s the whole truth is it”
Rex Wempen (RW) “Yes”
JG “We’ll come back to that later”

A number of exchanges took place to try to establish if Excalibur had shares or membership units. Rex seemed evasive or ignorant about the set-up. Regardless JG pursued it as the distinction seemed not important to establish.
Rex had been the original manager/owner. Then Eric came in. Then Eric switched with their mother and finally Eric came back in.

The structure was (RW) “Not that of a Fortune 500 Company. It was informal. Changed up a bit”
JG: “Was Eric a shareholder Oct-Dec 2007?”
RW: “Mother had just passed away so not sure at that point” “Paperwork may not have caught up until Jan 2008”
JG: “Was Eric always regarded as your partner?”
RW: “Yes. Always”
JG: “Could Eric have ever rightly been referred by you *Rex* as ‘Outside Counsel’”?

*Rex then got a bit of a telling off over very convoluted answers, dropping all sorts of names along the way. This was a bit of a theme throughout the day.*

JG made a couple of points:
- Lack of corporate records for Excalibur
- No formal management team
- No investment team
RW stated that they had planned to bring in an investment bank to raise funds for our part of the venture.

*It took about 15 minutes to get Rex to agree to what seemed to me some pretty incontrovertible and simple points*:
1. Excalibur had no Board of Directors
2. Excalibur had no investment Team.

JG only got RW to concede this when he was shown his own (RWs) witness statement!*

Excalibur’s company constitution was then shown and discussed, particularly the point that unaudited accounts should be provided each year. This was being questioned as there were no accounts available or provided since 2004. RW did suggest that many records were lost and had to be abandoned in Baghdad.

JG pursued the question as to why accounts hadn’t been provided since 2004:
JG: “Why hasn’t this been done?” “One reason there’s no accounts since 2004 is because there’s been no income since 2004”
RW: “Used other entities, consultant to the Pentagon…”
RW: “Yes, no income since 2004, possibly some income into spring 2005”
JG summarised that Excalibur had started off as a consultancy business…

RW was told off again comprising his modest income to that of a CEO Aim listed company.
JG suggested that he concentrate on the questions rather than these kinds of comparisons that “don’t help anyone”

RW finally agreed that there was “No cash” and “No working capital” in Excalibur. JG stated that you could summarise and say that the assets of the company were “effectively non-existent”. RW replied that he agreed that they were negligible. When looking at the accounts JG pointed out that expenses out-stripped income from consultancy and that the trading loss was $6000 for the period of accounts.

JG then made the point that there was no provision for salaries in the accounts.
RW “In 2004 we had 100 employees for the National Economic Survey of Iraq”
JG made the distinction between employees and contractors.
RW argued that it was informal, country under occupation etc. *so effectively normal distinctions don’t come into play* “We treated them as employees”
JG “Leaving that aside there were no salaries, and no employees then”
RW: “2 drivers, 4 Peshmerga bodyguards, 2 secretaries
JG: “All in 2004”
JG established this was a one off for the National Economic Survey of Iraq in 2004.

JG then stated that as there were no accounts since 2004, the next glimpse was in 2006. JG checked that his assumption that Excalibur had no income from 2006 with Rex who confirmed that to be the case although he stated he had income from the Pentagon

JG took a moment to point out that he was not asking questions to belittle him, that there was “no shame in not having any money”. JG explained that he wanted to establish the lack of assets in Excalibur as it was important for many elements of this case.

JG referred to an email that suggested Excalibur may not pay their lawyers back in 2006 but thought it best to keep them on side in case we sue Gulf *GKP*. RW stated he didn’t know what the problem was as they were “paid in full”.

April 2008:
JG made a point that Maxim Private Equity had wanted Excalibur to put in $1.3m to help raise a total of $10m for a ‘River Resources’ investment idea. RW & Dan Franchie (sp?) could only raise $100,000 themselves. *Looked like conditioning for a point that JG will make later in the trial*. JG: “Financier needed 13% contribution” thus showing that Excalibur couldn’t partake due to funding.

JG made some points that no investment bank had signed a non-disclosure agreement. RW agreed and stated that this was as Excalibur didn’t have an equity stake they weren’t interested.
*I assume they were talking about TK/GKP at this stage but may be mistaken*

JG then pointed out a number of funds that Excalibur had proposed at various stages but had never launched: “Excalibur 1”, “Iraq Recovery Fund”, and “Thames Chesapeake”. All funds that Excal. Had wanted to launch but never did.
They then examined the Iraq Recovery Fund Executive Summary.

RW “Yes we were quite ambitious”
JG: “It was castles in the air if you understand the expression”
RW “We were not experts in any of these areas but felt we could bring in project teams of experts”
JG “Making statements about Excalibur that purported to show expertise or funding that Excal didn’t have…”
JG “…Paint rosier pictures of things than are justified…”
JG “…frequently sold yourself in a far more positive light than was appropriate”
JG “Going to be a theme of the cross-examination”
...
JG “You were black-listed by Iraq”
RW “Not true...can only assume that the confusion was due to fog-of-war. I was not blacklisted and still hold security clearance to this day.”
JG “We’ll come back to that”
RW “Sure we will”
.......
JG pointed to an email that suggested Excalibur were involved in too many different projects. Summarised by industry: Telecoms & Infrastructure, Oil revenue securitisation, sugar trading transaction (late 2004), Import Wheat (Had introduced a company to the ministry of agriculture – they were unsuccessful), Power plant projects (Algeria, Jordan), Data Network, and Tuna (RW: “Simply a side show” – didn’t work)
…
JG “Can’t you see the difference between stating something as a fact and something that you will hope come about?”
RW “I’m not sure I’m comfortable agreeing with some kind of negative connotation…”
JG “I’m asking a general question”
RW “Can you repeat
JG repeats
RW started to reply and was interrupted by the judge as went off topic.
Judge repeated the question
RW “I can see the difference”
……….
Relating to the Iraq Recovery Fund, a letter stated that
“Kellogg-Brown are the lead contractor”. JG pointed out that they weren’t even a contractor.

“Excalibur Ventures, a worldwide developer of IPP projects” in letter for Algerian 500 MW IPP project.
JG “Completely untrue wasn’t it”
RW “Matter of interpretation”
JG “Thoroughly misleading in any normal use of English”
JG “Sheer variety and number of projects proposed to KRG was seen as too many”
RW “[They} Suggested focussed on most…”
JG “Ministers of KRG are not stupid were they”
RW “No”
JG “They could tell the difference between someone who just talked the talk vs. manpower, resources, skills”. “We will examine the letters in more detail in due course”

…
RW “We brought partners in” *and then finally agreed that “Agree no resources, funding or track record”

Afternoon Session
Document shared “Excalibur Ventures Corporate Profile – Petroleum June 2005”
Document or content in it was confirmed to be used with third parties.
RW agreed that “Excalibur was not a petroleum company”
RW “We brought in experienced professionals…”
JG “We’ll come back to what ‘brought in’ means”
…
Judge interrupted another long to and fro over a small point between RW and JG to clarify that “Expertise was not in Excalibur IE RW, EW or mother”
Mike Farrell was used as an example of one of the professionals ‘brought in’. Letter from Mike Farrell showed how this assertion was dubious at best and how this was:
JG “All talk and no results approach to business”
RW “Got a good result at Shaikan”
JG “Any others you care to draw to the court’s attention?”
RW “That’s sufficient”
JG “Is that a ‘no’?”
RW “That’s a ‘no’”
….
JG “If you and Mr Franchie agreed that he be referred to as CFO [in correspondence to third parties] then it’s as misleading to a third party as if you had had no agreement”
RW “Well people were free to ask questions if they had any” *this sounded like a very weak answer and there were some muted gasps from the well behaved public gallery*
JG ”In a letter to Dr George Yaku in June 2005 you mentioned the ‘Excalibur Board of Directors’”… “There is no Board of Directors”
RW “Dr Yaku knew us…”
JG “Did he know that you didn’t have a Board of Directors”
JG then got RW to agree he probably wouldn’t have told him verbally as this wouldn’t have been the best way to sell himself but that due to how well they got to know each other Dr Yaku would have known. RW said that they had spent a week together in the ‘palace’ in Kurdistan.

Lots of letters back from the KRG probing Excalibur’s expertise according to JG. Multiple emails then shown to try to demonstrate that RW thought there was a lot of country & geological risk in Kurdistan. *IE that Oil may well not be there, or there may not be much of it*
The KRG letter to Excalibur in July 2005 went unanswered until Feb 2006. It took a long time to get an American company back to Kurdistan.
…
RW referred to “my friend Todd Kozel” several times. “I liked him when I first met him”
RW agreed that he was disappointed that GKP was not a US firm as that’s what was wanted by the KRG.

Some of the final bit was vague for me as I think I lost some of the context in a post-lunch dip in concentration (!):
Lots of focus around OPIC Insurance (Overseas Private Investment Corporation – A US Government Agency) and whether in RW’s opinion this would be suitable for an oil drilling project even in non-US led consortium situations. RW thought it was.
RW argued that Todd had control of the TKI/GKP split involvement.
RW quote from witness statement “The involvement of Texas was purely cosmetic”
Cue lots of discussion of “in what way cosmetic or ‘optical’”. I think this line of enquiry will be concluded tomorrow.

Some more from testerday,


I hope Slow Eddie on 3eye won't mind me re-posting his account of part of the RW cross-examination today.
--------------------------------

My favourite bit was when Rex was being questioned about the " Optics" as his brother had called it.

The apparent illusion that Rex had brought in an American Company ie. Texas Keystone as the KRG had demanded rather than GKP ( not American). The apparent fact that this was in fact only a tiny percentage of the whole that could be called American not seeming to matter as long as the illusion the "Optic" of it being American was there.
The QC tried to work out who this illusion was actually for... over quite a long time ...as Rex insisted that the KRG was fully aware of the reality... ie that GKP was not American. " So who was this illusion or Optic as Eric called it actually for?"
... till finally

Rex ( exasperated):"Look as for this Optics... I have a masters in Business Admin from Cornell University (or somewhere), I have a degree in (something) from (some other college), and I have a third degree from (yet some other college)
...but I do NOT have a degree in English!

A long pause.

Judge: ( drily) But it IS a language that you speak?

Laughter in court

and today,


From iii:--

11:52
Court
Dingledangle
48UP

Unfortunately I could only stay for an hour, but RW under heavy cross examination from JG.
JG quotes to RW "you're making this up aren't you?"
"That's not an answer"
"Untruthful"
"Empty boast"
RW in response saying it was "positive salesmanship"
And the judge at one point saying to RW
"You don't need to tell us the Republicans are a political party in the United States"
-------------------

Rudy09 on iii

-------

I have just come out. The judge has not suggested he is losing patience as a whole, but did have to intervene a couple of times when RW had taken us round the houses a dozen times by not giving a straight answer.

JG is excellent, and is giving RW the feeling like patience is running out, but he would, he wants to win the case.

That said, RW's responses were IMO, embarrassing, farcical, evasive, vague, non-sensical, and disjointed, and on a scale of 1-10 if Todd were only half as evasive (not suggesting or expecting that he will be at all) when he takes the stand then we will be in very good shape, as Todd will be a 5.

It was fascinating watching the body language and postage notes being handed back and forth, and I will certainly be returning. I was in awe of Judge Christopher Clarke, who is of senior years but is the sharpest of tools.

Will certainly be going back for TK's shift. Can't be missed in fact....