Testimony of Nathaniel Berkowitz

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE BRANCH

RICHARD BOZULICH,

Plaintiff,
-vs- CASE NO. C-95 20678 RMW
Related to No. C-95 20679
ISHI PRESS INTERNATIONAL, et al.
Defendants.
___________________________/

ISHI PRESS INTERNATIONAL; a California Corporation, ELWYN BERLEKAMP, an individual, NATHANIEL BERKOWITZ, an individual, HARTLAND SNYDER, an individual,
Counter-claimants,
vs.
RICHARD BOZULICH, individually, and THE ISHI PRESS INC., a Japanese Corp., SAMUEL SLOAN, aka ISMAIL SLOAN, an individual,

Counter-defendants.
_____________________________________/

DEPOSITION OF NATHANIEL BERKOWITZ
JANUARY 10, 1997

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BY JILLANNE STEPHENSON, CSR #8563
________________________________________________________

CLARK REPORTING
2161 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 201
BERKELEY, CA 94704

(510) 486-0700

A P P E A R A N C E S:

For the Plaintiff: CRAIG MAR
ATTORNEY AT LAW
73 WALKER AVENUE
OAKLAND, CA 94610

For the Defendant: STEVEN S. MIYAKE
OF COUNSEL
NEAL & ASSOCIATES
6200 ANTIOCH STREET, STE. 202
OAKLAND, CA 94611
For the Defendant: HOWARD NEAL
NEAL & ASSOCIATES
6200 ANTIOCH STREET, STE. 202
OAKLAND, CA 94611

ALSO PRESENT:

SAM SLOAN, 2420 Atherton, Berkeley, California.

DEPOSITION OF NATHANIEL BERKOWITZ

INDEX OF EXAMINATION

Examination by: Mr. Mar

E X H I B I T S

09-19-95 IPI Confession of Judgment; 1 pg.
09-19-95 Judgment Pursuant to Confession; 2 pgs.
Keith Carr Complaint for Damages; 5 pgs.
07-7-95 Snyder letter to Judge Flaherty; 3 pgs.
10-23-91 Promissory Note by James Connelley; 1 pg.
09-23-91 Promissory Note by James Connelley; 1 pg.
09-14-94 to IPI from Nathaniel Berkowitz; 1 pg.
09-14-94 statement by Nathaniel Berkowitz; 1 pg.
12-23-93 to "Tarode" from Berkowitz; 1 pg.
01-27-94 Promissory Note, unsigned; 1 pg.
IPI Berkowitz shares certificate for 158,397; 1 pg.

DEPOSITION OF NATHANIEL BERKOWITZ

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE DEPONENT: I refuse to speak as long as Sam Sloan sits at the table and looks in as an observer, as I did on Wednesday. But this man has given me great troubles. I have been awakened in the middle of the night fearing that this man is like another great white whale in Moby Dick. He personifies evil. He has done terrible things and has caused me great, great amounts of mental disturbance. I feel very, very bad. My voice is very emotional now and I feel very, very upset to see this man in my presence. Let the record show this and ask him to be removed; otherwise, I don't talk. I would also like to take a picture of both Mr. Mar and Mr. Sloan at this time.
(Picture taken)
MR. MIYAKE: So the upshot is that Mr. Berkowitz is not going to say anything unless Mr. Sloan just relocates himself just to the side here.
MR. MAR: No, I'm afraid not.
MR. MIYAKE: You're not going to do that?
MR. MAR: You want him to sit on the other side of the room?
MR. MIYAKE: Yeah, just on the side of the room. I mean, there is no big deal.
MR. MAR: No.
MR. MIYAKE: Are we on the record? Mr. Berkowitz has made a statement about his professed dissatisfaction with Mr. Sloan sitting at the same table. He has offered to continue this deposition and go forward if Mr. Sloan merely relocates himself a distance of maybe five feet away from the table to place himself in the same position that Mr. Berkowitz was in yesterday when he attended Mr. Berlekamp's deposition. Let the record reflect Mr. Mar has refused to accede to this kind of arrangement and has insisted Mr. Sloan sit at the table. Moving to another matter, this deposition also is subject to the same admonition that we gave to Mr. Mar at the beginning of Mr. Berlekamp's deposition, that if we see Mr. Sloan pass any questions or notes over to Mr. Mar, this deposition will be terminated.
MR. NEAL: Further, we also provided notice that we're going to object to any testimony by Mr. Sloan as a witness at trial on the grounds that he has sat through depositions of other witnesses, and as a party we're entitled to request that any witness be excluded. We've given that notice to Mr. Mar at the beginning of Mr. Berlekamp's deposition. He chose to allow Mr. Sloan to remain, and we're repeating that notice at the commencement of Mr. Berkowitz's deposition because we intend to make the same motion to exclude any testimony by Mr. Sloan insofar as he sits in on this deposition or any other deposition. (Off the record).
MR. MAR: Are we ready?
MR. NEAL: Well, subject to the statements that were made on the record.
MR. MAR:
Q. What's your name?
THE DEPONENT: I refuse to answer.
MR. MAR: What is your address?
THE DEPONENT: I refuse to answer.
MR. MAR: Okay. Do you refuse to answer the rest of my questions today?
THE DEPONENT: Can I ask you a question?
MR. MAR: Sure.
THE DEPONENT: Did you prepare those questions or did Mr. Sloan?
MR. MAR: I did.
THE DEPONENT: By yourself?
MR. MAR: Yes. But he may have helped me prepare a few questions.
THE DEPONENT: Can I ask you another question?
MR. MAR: Sure. THE DEPONENT: Do you think Mr. Sloan is practicing law without a license as you understand the statute?
MR. MAR: I don't know.
THE DEPONENT: You're an attorney?
MR. MAR: Yes.
THE DEPONENT: Do you have a bar license?
MR. MAR: Yes.
THE DEPONENT: And you're utilizing the help of a convicted felon and you did not do any proper investigation?
MR. MAR: I refuse to answer that under the Fifth Amendment.
THE DEPONENT: I believe you're entitled to that. It's a criminal act, as I understand.
MR. MAR: Okay, Sam, would you like to say anything in your defense?
THE DEPONENT: He's not being deposed.
MR. MAR: Let's go off the record then. (Off the record).
MR. NEAL: Back on the record to note that we've been off the record for approximately fifteen minutes, that we've attempted to reach some kind of accommodation with Mr. Mar. He's indicated he's not going to accommodate Mr. Berkowitz's concerns. These concerns are quite serious. There's a long history of violence and actions by Mr. Sloan that give Mr. Berkowitz serious concern. He's made a very minimal request of Mr. Sloan while present in the room, simply sit away from the table, and apparently Mr. Mar is unwilling to go along with that request. If that's the case, Mr. Berkowitz feels he can not proceed with the deposition and we're going to leave the deposition unless some accommodation is made. Do you want to add anything?
MR. MIYAKE: Just between me and you, Mr. Mar, we've talked a lot on the phone, and I asked you as a professional favor to instruct Mr. Sloan just to remove himself from the table and sit about five feet away. You know there's serious concerns on Mr. Berkowitz's part that Mr. Sloan not be at the same table he's sitting. It causes him great confusion. He's not able to answer your questions in the manner in which they should be considered and answered in a deposition setting such as this one. On the other hand, there's no reason why you shouldn't insist Mr. Sloan remain at the table. He's still in the room. He can still observe Mr. Berkowitz's demeanor as he responds to your questions, and he's still -- on your breaks, you can discuss whatever you want to discuss. So there's no reason why you shouldn't accede to our reasonable request, and there's every reason why the request was made. And I ask you just personally to accede to the request.
MR. NEAL: Let me also note that this is not a refusal to give discovery in any way, shape or form. Mr. Berkowitz is here. He's here from San Francisco at an inconvenience to him and his business. He's ready to answer your questions, to give deposition testimony, and he's making a simple, reasonable request to accommodate his serious concerns in order to go forward. I might note for the record, during the off-the-record discussion, Mr. Sloan accused Mr. Berkowitz of being a wicked man. These are the kinds of things Mr. Berkowitz is dealing with to be here to answer your questions. If you can't accommodate that concern, we really have no choice but to leave.
MR. MAR: Where do you want Sam to sit?
MR. MIYAKE: Just right there.
MR. MAR: Here or here or what?
MR. NEAL: Mr. Berkowitz has asked he sit in a chair away from the table.
MR. MAR: Okay. Mr. Berkowitz, where?
THE DEPONENT: Where I sat, over there. I'm not -- I just don't want him at the table. This man is known for violence and I fear for my existence. I'm afraid to let him know where I live because for fear he'll come after me. He's come after some of the other plaintffs, and this man is not to be one I want to be associated with. I told him that in October of 1993 when he barged into my office uninvited and threatened with lawsuits in '93. And for the record, this man is a provakator and I'm afraid he's got a bomb. I don't know what he's got.
MR. MAR: He's got?
THE DEPONENT: A bomb, b-o-m-b. I don't know what he could do, but he scares me, and I've never been frightened of anything in my life. And I've done hard merchant seaman's work; I've been over parts all over the world; thrown over the -- I've been thrown overboard, and I've never been as afraid as I am of Sam Sloan because of his irrationality and being in close proximity to him. I believe the Biblical quote says, "Ishmael's hands will be against every man," and I feel that he is personally against me. This isn't a civil matter. At this time I have criminal fears for this man. He's desperate. He's bankrupt. There is no way in which I could feel at ease being around him. My recollection that Bozulich once told me that he only was using Sloan because he knew what a loose cannon he was.
MR. MAR: Okay. Mr. Berkowitz, will you answer questions if he moves, say, two feet away from the table?
THE DEPONENT: Make it five. I'll give you a tape.
MR. MAR: I'm not sure if we can accommodate five feet from this point. It would be out here.
THE DEPONENT: That would be a good place. He can hear me. He may not be able to hear you; he can hear me, because I speak loud and clear, because I have nothing to be afraid of. When I speak the truth, it's easy to speak loud and clear.
MR. MAR: How about here?
THE DEPONENT: No. I'll compromise between the two. Just get him off the table.
MR. MAR: How about here?
THE DEPONENT: That's fine.
MR. MAR: Okay. You agree to that, Sam? Let's go off. (Off the record).
---O0O---
BE IT REMEMBERED, that NATHANIEL BERKOWITZ, called as a witness, being first duly sworn to tell the truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, was thereupon examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.
---o0o---
EXAMINATION BY MR. MAR:
Q. What is your name?
A. Nathaniel Berkowitz.
Q. And what is your address?
A. My business address is 1095 Market Street.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I'm a business consultant and I presently manage a real estate building.
Q. What is your education?
A. Good.
Q. What college did you go to?
A. Harvard college.
Q. And did you graduate?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your major at Harvard?
A. Economics.
Q. Did you go to graduate school?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the name of the graduate school?
A. The London School of Economics.
Q. Did you get a master's degree at that school?
A. I have an MSC.
Q. In what?
A. In economics.
Q. When were you elected as a director at Ishi Press International?
A. I believe sometime in '94.
Q. Do you remember the month?
A. No.
Q. Do you know a man named John Torode?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you buy notes from him?
A. Would you speak louder, please?
Q. Did you buy notes from him?
A. Yes.
Q. On what date did you buy these notes from him?
A. In the end of '93, right before year end.
Q. How much did you pay John Torode to buy these notes?
A. $500.
Q. Did you make the offer to buy Torode's notes?
A. I don't remember.
Q. From whom did you learn Torode was selling his notes?
A. I don't know.
Q. Were you aware that the Torode notes were in default?
A. Yes.
Q. To which company did Torode originally loan about $40,000 to?
A. Ishi UK, whatever the proper name is.
Q. Do you remember what the interest rate was on Torode's notes?
A. It hadn't been paid, so I don't remember.
Q. Do you believe that the Torode notes were guaranteed by Ishi Press International of California?
MR. MIYAKE: It falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, what his belief was. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome, calls for a legal conclusion from a lay witness. It's vague and ambiguous as to the time frame we are speaking of as well. You know, he might have had a different belief in October of '94, September of '94 as he did at the end of 1993.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) When you bought the notes in '93, did you believe that the --
A. Louder, please.
Q. When you bought the notes in '93, did you believe that the Torode notes were guaranteed by Ishi Press International?
A. No.
Q. Did you find out that they were guaranteed at a point after that?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember that date?
A. No.
Q. What does the phrase "guaranteed by a company" mean to you?
MR. MIYAKE: Wait, wait, wait. That's objectionable. First of all, he didn't write the note, so that's not his language. Second of all, it calls for a legal conclusion from a lay witness; calls for expert testimony from a lay witness; lacks foundation; assumes facts not in evidence; vague and ambiguous; and it falls outside the scope of permissible discovery. The witness is instructed not to answer.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you ever demand payment of the notes from Ishi Press International Limited?
A. Is that the English company?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Were they able to pay off the notes?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember the date you demanded payment of the notes from Ishi Press of UK?
A. No.
Q. Was there a board meeting --
A. Louder, please.
Q. Was there a board meeting of Ishi Press International which approved of and ratified your purchase of Torode's notes?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember the date that this board meeting took place?
A. Excuse me. I'd like to retract that. The question again was what? Louder.
MR. MAR: What was the question, Jill? (Reporter reads record).
THE DEPONENT: I would like to go back and change that. My answer is no. I don't know.
MR. MIYAKE: So your answer was you don't know?
THE DEPONENT: I don't know.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you tell any other directors of Ishi Press International that you were going to buy Torode's notes?
MR. NEAL: Objection; lacks foundation; assumes that he was a director.
MR. MAR: What would you like to do?
THE DEPONENT: Repeat the question louder.
MR. MAR: Jill. (Reporter reads record).
MR. MIYAKE: Also vague and ambiguous when you use the term "any other director." It assumes facts not in evidence.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you tell Mr. Berlekamp that you were going to buy Torode's notes?
MR. NEAL: At what time? The question is vague and ambiguous. There is no time frame specified.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) '93.
A. Yes.
Q. Who issued you 158,397 shares in 1994?
A. Ishi US
Q. Did Jim Connelley issue you one --
A. Louder, please. And I can't hear you, and if you force me -- I don't want to ask you "louder" each time. Please speak up.
Q. Did Jim Connelley issue you 158,397 shares in 1994?
MR. MIYAKE: Craig, the question is objectionable. It's asked and answered. You asked him who issued you the 158,397 shares in Ishi Press California, and Mr. Berkowitz responded Ishi Press USA did so. That question you now asked has been asked and answered.
MR. MAR: No, I think it's distinct.
MR. MIYAKE: Plus, it's vague and ambiguous because he just responded Ishi Press US issued him the 158,397. Now you're asking him whether Jim Connelley did so, and you're using the term "issue" in the same sense of the term that you used in the prior questions. So that's asked and answered.
MR. MAR: What do you want to do?
MR. NEAL: Well, either rephrase your question or the objection stands. We'll instruct him not to answer.
MR. MAR: So are you instructing him not to answer?
MR. MIYAKE: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) In January of 1994, were you the holder of a note for $50,000?
MR. MIYAKE: From Ishi Press International?
MR. MAR: Right.
THE DEPONENT: I don't know.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) In January 26, 1994, did you pay Bozulich $50,000?
A. I don't remember when the transaction was made, whether it was in January or February. But it was early in 1994; that I do know.
Q. Did Bozulich make a shipment of goods to Ishi UK in '92 that wasn't paid for?
A. I don't know.
MR. MIYAKE: Well, okay. I wanted to object that it lacks foundation; assumes facts not in evidence; vague and ambiguous; overbroad and burdensome. But subject to those objections, the witness has already responded.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did Jim Connelley issue you a $50,000 note in '94?
A. Jim Connelley did not issue me a note. Ishi Press USA issued me a note for $50,000 as the quid pro quo for the $50,000 that was dispatched to your client, Mr. Bozulich, personally.
Q. Was this $50,000 note ratified by the board or shareholders of Ishi Press International?
A. I believe so.
Q. Do you remember the date that it was ratified by the board?
A. I do not, but Mr. Bozulich does.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Bozulich about the $50,000 --
A. Louder, please.
Q. Did you tell Bozulich about the $50,000 note of 1994?
A. Hell, it was for him.
Q. Did Ishi Press International ever pay off the $50,000 note that you held?
A. No.
Q. Did you sue Ishi Press International over this $50,000 note?
MR. MIYAKE: Well, it's vague and ambiguous because it doesn't have a time frame as to when, if anything, or when the suit was brought, if the suit was brought at all. With respect to the obligations --
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Around '95.
A. Yes.
Q. How much was the judgment for?
A. My best recollection is $56,000 that was principle and interest which had never been paid.
Q. On January 27, 1994, did you still own all of some part of Ishi Press UK?
MR. MIYAKE: Did you still own? Is that what you said?
MR. MAR: Yes.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
MR. MIYAKE: Wait, assumes facts not in evidence; lacks foundation; vague and ambiguous; overbroad and burdensome.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you own any part of Ishi Press UK on December 23rd, 1993?
A. Technical answer. I believe I offered to acquire Torode's note on the 23rd of December. I don't know when the actual sale date would be, so therefore I can not answer your question.
MR. MIYAKE: No, I think --
THE DEPONENT: Of '93 he's talking about.
MR. MIYAKE: But that's not his question.
MR. MAR: Will you try again there? Jill, what was the question?
MR. MIYAKE: Whether he owned as of December 23rd, 1993, whether he owned any part of Ishi Press UK -- oh, I see what you mean. Okay.
THE DEPONENT: My answer stands.
MR. MIYAKE: Yeah.
THE DEPONENT: I don't know when the transaction date was. When you buy -- I'm not here to educate you.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you buy some or all of Ishi Press UK from Mr. Berlekamp?
A. Yes. Should have asked when though.
Q. Okay, when?
A. In 1993.
Q. Do you remember the month in 1993?
A. The end of the year.
Q. Did Mr. Berlekamp own Ishi Press UK before you did?
A. I don't know.
MR. MIYAKE: I'm sorry. I got to use the bathroom real bad.
MR. MAR: Okay. Let's take a break. (Off the record).
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Do you still own any part of Ishi Press UK?
A. I don't know -- the answer is no.
Q. In 1995, did you sell all your stock of Ishi Press to Hartland Snyder?
MR. MIYAKE: You're talking Ishi Press UK or Ishi Press International?
MR. MAR: International.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) How many shares did you sell to Hartland Snyder at that time?
A. I would guess around 170,000 shares and any other rights and title I had to shares like it in the UK.
Q. Did you tell any other shareholders about this transaction with Snyder?
A. Yes.
Q. Were any other shareholders offered to buy your stock at the same price Snyder did?
A. Yes, but not Bozulich.
Q. Was one of those Lowenstein?
A. No.
Q. Was one of those shareholders Berlekamp?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you resign as a director of Ishi Press at about this time?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did you first become an investor in Ishi Press International?
A. 1991.
Q. Who asked you to invest this money?
A. I don't remember.
Q. How many shares of stock at Ishi Press International did you buy at the beginning?
A. "Of Ishi Press," you mean?
MR. MAR: Yeah.
MR. MIYAKE: Vague and ambiguous.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Ishi Press International.
A. I believe 10,000.
MR. MIYAKE: Well, no. The question assumes facts not in evidence; lacks foundation. Ishi Press began in 1986. There is no testimony he ever invested in 1986.
MR. MAR: Did he say that he invested in 1991?
MR. MIYAKE: Yeah, okay. You can use that time frame.
THE DEPONENT: Repeat the question.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) How many shares of Ishi Press International stock did you first buy?
A. I believe 10,000 shares.
Q. How much did you pay for these 10,000 shares?
A. I don't remember, but it was around $15,000.
Q. How long have you known Mr. Berlekamp?
MR. MIYAKE: As of today you mean?
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
THE DEPONENT: Seventeen to 20 years.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) When did you first become the chairman of Ishi Press International?
A. It was after Bozulich made a death threat to Yeun, and that had to be sometime in '94. So early in '94.
Q. Do you remember the month?
A. February or March.
Q. Were you ever the chairman of InFerGene Company?
A. Yes.
Q. What year was that?
MR. MIYAKE: Okay, this is going pretty far afield. It exceeds the scope of permissible discovery; vague and ambiguous; overbroad and burdensome; possibly invades right of privacy. There is no allegations in the complaint alleging that he reached these -- Berkowitz breached his fiduciary duty to Ishi Press International because he was a chairman and otherwise involved in InFerGene. In fact, there's nothing in the complaint that raises any allegations of wrongdoing with respect to any participation Berkowitz had in the corporation called InFerGene. I would ask counsel make an offer of proof as to why he's proceeding along this line of questioning. Also, invades the deponent's right of privacy guaranteed under the California constitution. So what issue raised by the complaint would this line of questioning go to?
MR. MAR: Well, it could have evidentiary value.
MR. MIYAKE: For what?
MR. NEAL: It only has evidentiary value if it relates to any issue raised in the pleadings.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) How do you choose to respond?
MR. MIYAKE: Well, make the offer of proof. All you've said is it has evidentiary value, but you haven't said why.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) So how do you want to respond to the question?
MR. MIYAKE: I'm asking you to make an offer of proof. It's very far afield from the pleadings as far as I'm concerned, as far as I know of the complaint. And it's just a fishing expedition into Mr. Berkowitz's private affairs, looking for dirty laundry as it were, to possibly assassinate his character, credibility at the time of trial.
MR. MAR: Isn't that admissible evidence?
MR. MIYAKE: Why?
MR. MAR: Because you can inquire into past acts.
MR. MIYAKE: No, no, no. You are going to say because he did something bad in the past, he did something bad now? Is that the use of --
MR. MAR: Maybe it goes to credibility.
MR. MIYAKE: Why? Is there something that has been raised in this pleading or any other pleadings that have placed Berkowitz's credibility at issue?
MR. MAR: If he takes the stand, his credibility will be mentioned.
MR. MIYAKE: No, because there's nothing he said thus far in this litigation that has become an issue of Berkowitz's credibility. Plus, you're wrong about the law about relying on past acts. Again, in civil cases you can not -- you can not try past acts of wrongdoings of a party to support or prove liability for a present act you say he did in the context of this pleading. There's certain exceptions, but the complaint certainly hasn't raised any exceptions. It's called character evidence. That's the issue, and in criminal acts, criminal trials, character evidence sometimes becomes an issue and sometimes can be admitted, but there's always a big fight about it. And in civil cases, it's almost never admitted unless they're subject to the exemption.
MR. MAR: So what would you like to do?
MR. MIYAKE: What I'd like to do is ask you to give me an offer of proof as to why you are considering this line of questioning.
MR. MAR: Could go to credibility, and that's my offer of proof.
MR. MIYAKE: Well, Mr. Berkowitz's credibility is not at issue at this point. You haven't shown in this deposition that anything he said has been contradicted by anything and, you know, a document that's already been produced between the parties or even by other testimony from other defendants.
MR. MAR: So what would you like to do?
MR. MIYAKE: Again, I would like you to give me an offer of proof. If the full extent of your offer of proof is it could go to his credibility, that's not sufficient. Give me -- let me know the issue besides credibility that you've raised in the complaint.
MR. MAR: Well, possibly credibility is an issue apart from the complaint.
MR. NEAL: Then it's irrelevant to this proceeding.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Are you going to answer or not?
MR. MIYAKE: He has a California right of privacy that allows him not to answer that kind of question unless you have something pertinent or relevant to this complaint, to this lawsuit.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) So are you refusing to answer the question?
MR. MIYAKE: We interpose the deponent's right of privacy against that question. That's privileged.
MR. MAR: Okay. So you are refusing to answer the question?
MR. MIYAKE: Well, I'm instructing him not to answer the -- I'm invoking his privilege under the California right of privacy. It's like invoking an attorney-client privilege. We'd also like to invoke the --
MR. NEAL: It's similar to Mr. Mar invoking the Fifth Amendment when we asked whether or not Mr. Sloan was working with him as an attorney without a license.
MR. MAR: So you're instructing him not to answer?
MR. NEAL: I think the record is clear at this point.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you ever work for a company called Taga? (phonetic)
A. No.
Q. Did you ever work for a company called InFerGene? (Attorney/witness conferring).
THE DEPONENT: No.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Have you ever been criminally charged?
MR. MIYAKE: With what kind of violation? I mean, traffic ticket? Jaywalking?
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Have you ever been criminally charged with a felony?
MR. MIYAKE: What kind of felony?
MR. MAR: Any felony.
MR. MIYAKE: Not all felonies are admissible in a civil case to impeach credibility.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Any felony.
MR. MIYAKE: Well, that's -- it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery; lacks foundation; assumes facts not in evidence; and invades the deponent's right of privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution. He doesn't have to answer the question, and I instruct him not to answer unless you further qualify the question.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Have you ever been criminally charged with contaminating the environment?
MR. NEAL: Objection, irrelevant.
MR. MIYAKE: Also, outside the scope of permissible discovery. I mean, even if he was, you know, first of all, it's not a conviction. Second of all, it doesn't have anything to do with this case. This case doesn't have any allegations that any of the defendants contaminated the environment and subjected Bozulich to liability for it.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) How would you like to answer the question?
MR. MIYAKE: I instruct the witness not to answer.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did Sam Sloan file a small claims lawsuit against Ishi Press International?
MR. MIYAKE: If you know. Object; vague and ambiguous as to time.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did Sam Sloan file a small claims suit in 1995?
MR. MIYAKE: If you know.
THE DEPONENT: I don't think it was in '95. (Attorney/witness conferring).
MR. MAR: Mr. Miyake has whispered in the ear of Mr. Berkowitz.
THE DEPONENT: After Mr. Berkowitz whispered in the ear of Mr. Miyake stating "I don't believe it was in 1995." So therefore, the answer is "I don't know."
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did Sam Sloan file a small claims suit in 1994?
A. It is possible -- yes, Sam Sloan filed a lawsuit against Ishi sometime after the meeting he had in my office where he threatened to file lawsuits and harass Ishi unmercifully, which he has done, let the record so show. And I might also add that his mentor, his cohort, Bozulich, stated that the debt was truly a debt between Sloan and Ishi Japan but they played a game, a deceptive game on the small claims court and won a decision.
Q. Did you file third party claim against Sam Sloan in a suit?
MR. MIYAKE: In a small claims action in 1994?
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) How many of those claims did you file?
A. Several.
Q. Did the court rule that they were valid third party claims?
A. I believe in one case they did, but I'm not for sure. I don't know.
Q. Was Hartland Snyder also involved in the suit with Sam Sloan in '94?
MR. NEAL: Objection, vague and ambiguous; unintelligible. You can answer if you understand the question.
MR. MIYAKE: You mean was Hartland Snyder a named defendant or a named party? Is that the way you mean the question? How do you mean "involved"?
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Was he in court with Sloan in '94?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay, changing topics. How did you find out that Torode's notes were guaranteed?
A. I read them.
Q. You read them?
A. Yes. I can read English.
Q. In 1991, were you working for Ishi Press International?
A. No.
Q. In 1991, what company were you working for?
MR. MIYAKE: Objection, exceeds the scope of permissible discovery, but go ahead and answer.
THE DEPONENT: N. C. Berkowitz & Company.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you do any work for Ishi Press International in 1991?
MR. MIYAKE: Vague and ambiguous when you use the term "work." He already testified in response to your question that he wasn't working for Ishi Press International in 1991. Why is that not asked and answered? How else were you using the term "work"?
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you do any contracting work in 1992 for Ishi Press International?
MR. MIYAKE: 1992 now? It's a different question, right?
MR. MAR: Yes.
THE DEPONENT: I don't think so. I never got paid by Ishi Press International at any time. In fact, I never even got my reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses, which probably total another two or $3,000, several thousand. But I do recollect making Bozulich buy me lunch one time -- dinner one evening.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Were you ever sued by a man named Keith Carr, C-a-r-r?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you a director at Ishi Press International in 1993?
MR. NEAL: Objection, asked and answered.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) In 1993, did you ever attend any board meetings at Ishi Press International?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Berlekamp how much you paid John Torode to buy his notes?
MR. MIYAKE: At what point in time?
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Right after you bought Torode's notes.
A. First, it's "Dr." Berlekamp or "Professor" Berlekamp, not "Mister." Second, yes.
Q. Did you ever tell James Connelley how much you paid for Torode's notes?
A. I don't know.
Q. What was the day you were issued 158,397 shares of Ishi Press stock?
A. You have the documents. You know the date. I will tell you it was sometime in the fall of 1994.
Q. Do you remember the exact date?
A. No.
Q. Was the shares certificate mailed to you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. What was the face value of Torode's notes when you first bought them?
A. They were pounds --
MR. MIYAKE: Objection, vague and ambiguous by the use of the term "face value"; lacks foundation; assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to those objections, go ahead.
THE DEPONENT: One was 17,000-some-odd pounds and the other was I think about 5 or 6,000 totaled, about 22,000 pounds. That's English pounds, sterling.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you have an option of the note holder -- speaking of the Torode notes -- to convert the notes to cash or stock?
A. Bad question.
MR. MIYAKE: Vague and ambiguous. The document speaks for itself. The document sets forth what kind of rights the note holder has.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Who first told you about Ishi Press International?
A. Dr. Berlekamp.
Q. About what year was this?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you talk to Sam Sloan in the middle of October of 1994?
A. Sam Sloan invaded my office in the middle of October 1994, and as I testified earlier, he threatened me, he harassed me and he was a very vulgar person.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Sloan in October of '94 that you only owned 10,000 shares of Ishi Press International?
A. No, 'cuz I talked to him about the note and tried to explain to him and educate him -- which was an unfortunate experience on my part -- the difference between debts that have to be repaid and those that you -- as stock or equity. Both he and Mr. Bozulich failed to recognize the import of debts. If I borrow money from you, I expect it to be repaid. Apparently neither Mr. Bozulich nor Mr. Sloan have that fundamental concept in their head.
Q. Did you fax Richard Bozulich a shareholders list in October of '94? (Attorney/witness conferring).
THE DEPONENT: I don't recall what I faxed Richard Bozulich, but I did send him several letters, faxes and pieces of information. Faxing seemed to be the only way to communicate with him.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did James Connelley make any representation about Ishi Press International to try to get you to invest in the company?
A. When?
Q. '91.
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did Professor Berlekamp make any representations about the -- about Ishi Press International Company around '91?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of representations did Dr. Berlekamp make?
A. He said that Go was a very interesting game, did I know anything about it? My response was, "no." He then said that this little company existed because it was a very clever chap in Japan who was a Berkeley graduate and had gone on to Japan and spent a life in the Go parlors, the Go community and was capable of producing Go material, Go literature. He thought that. Connelley was a MBA, and it was a good partnership of two dissimilar type people.
Q. Did you ever make a demand on James Connelley to pay you the value of the notes you had bought from Torode?
MR. MIYAKE: This is upon James Connelley, right?
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
THE DEPONENT: Personally, I did not owe the money. The money was owed by a company, a limited company, by the way. See, you guys are falling in the trap of confusing people and companies. This was Bozulich's whole major downfall, is he failed to distinguish between what was a company, a corporate company, Ishi Press and James -- or whatever his name is, Bozulich, as an individual. For example, the $50,000 we sent to him went to Bozulich personally. What he did with it, we don't know; he never would tell me. And you're making the same mistake, is that you fail to recognize corporate law. Sorry for the speech.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you ever see the share register book of Ishi Press International?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether it still exists?
A. No.
Q. Who gave you the share certificate for 158,397 shares?
MR. MIYAKE: That question has been asked and answered. You mean who physically gave it to him?
MR. MAR: Yes.
MR. MIYAKE: The objection is asked and answered. (Reporter reads record).
MR. MIYAKE: And then my clarification is who first -- do you mean who physically gave you the share certificates?
MR. MAR: Yes.
THE DEPONENT: I don't know. Ishi Press USA gave it to me. That's my answer.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you notify Richard Bozulich around the fall of '94 that you had acquired 158,397 shares?
A. I believe he knew it.
Q. Who told him about it?
A. He may have seen it in some of the work papers which we were working on together. He may have seen it -- heard it -- known about it from Sam Sloan. He may have known about it from any number of people.
Q. On what date did he know about it?
MR. NEAL: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE DEPONENT: Stupid question.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) On what date did Bozulich know about this?
MR. NEAL: Same objection.
THE DEPONENT: Same response, stupid question.
MR. MAR: What was the question again, Jill?
MR. MIYAKE: On what date did he know about it.
MR. NEAL: On what date did Mr. Bozulich know about it? How can this witness be expected to know what came into someone else's mind? I instruct him not to answer. Calls for complete speculation.
MR. MAR: He said he knew that Bozulich knew about this, so I'm asking what date did he know that he knew about it.
MR. NEAL: Same objection.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) What would you like to do? What would you like to do?
MR. NEAL: If he has any knowledge, subject to the objection, he can answer.
THE DEPONENT: Well, I know I sent him a spread sheet that had been worked on jointly between Connelley, Snyder and I believe Bozulich laying out what the ownership of Ishi Press was, USA, and that was -- you have a copy of the fax, so you could pull it out of your file and we'll look at what the date was. But my recollection is that was sometime in mid October.
MR. MIYAKE: 1994?
THE DEPONENT: '94.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) On what day did you notify Berlekamp that you had acquired 158,397 shares?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you ever tell James Connelley that you acquired 158,397 shares?
A. That's a bad question because you've already asked did Connelley issue the shares, and I stated it was issued by Ishi Press and he was the president of Ishi Press. So draw conclusions from there.
Q. Did Connelley issue you this stock --
MR. MIYAKE: It's asked and answered. It was subject to our objection and instruction not to respond because you asked before; that question was asked previously. You also asked the question did Ishi Press International issue this stock. I made the objection that he already answered Ishi Press did issue the stock, and now you're saying did James Connelley issue the stock. He testified a number of times Ishi Press International issued the stock, not Jim Connelley personally.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Do you remember which individual issued you 158,397 shares of stock?
A. Is that that question?
Q. Yes. Ask it again, spoken properly so I can hear it.
MR. MIYAKE: Object to the same objection because Ishi Press International issued the stock.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Do you remember which individual at Ishi Press International issued you 158,397 shares of stock?
MR. MIYAKE: Same objection. It's been asked and answered a number of times in this deposition. It's been subject to a number of objections. And you also asked him who gave you the certificate; he said he doesn't recall. Plus, the question is not sensical. How can an individual issue certificates of shares?
MR. MAR: I don't know.
MR. MIYAKE: Then why did you ask the question?
MR. MAR: Oh, curiosity, I guess.
THE DEPONENT: You're wasting everyone's time, because this is amateur hour.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you consult any lawyers as to whether your purchase of Torode's notes was valid?
A. No.
Q. Was the law firm of Tomlinson, Zisco, Morosoli and Maser retained at the time by Ishi Press International?
MR. MIYAKE: Retained at the time of what?
MR. MAR: '94.
MR. NEAL: The question is whether this law firm was retained by the company in 1994 for any purpose whatsoever?
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
MR. NEAL: If you know.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) In 1993, did you attend any board meetings of Ishi Press International?
MR. MIYAKE: Vague and ambiguous; overbroad and burdensome; lacks foundation; assumes facts not in evidence; plus --
MR. NEAL: It was asked and answered.
MR. MIYAKE: -- it was asked and answered.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) In 1993, did you work with the board of directors of Ishi Press International?
MR. NEAL: Objection, vague.
MR. MIYAKE: In any capacity? Janitor? Maintenance man?
MR. MAR: In any capacity.
MR. MIYAKE: 1993, you said?
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) And what was that capacity?
A. I discussed it with Dr. Berlekamp. He was beginning to get -- I discussed it with Dr. Berlekamp.
Q. Did you have any discussions with Richard Bozulich in 1993?
A. I may have, but I don't remember what the timing was when I first met Bozulich.
Q. In '93 did you consult with Ishi Press International?
MR. MIYAKE: You mean was he hired as consultant?
MR. MAR: Yes.
THE DEPONENT: As I explained before, it's been asked and answered. I explained before I never received any pay from Ishi Press International, period.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Around the time of 1992, did Richard Bozulich make a shipment of goods from his company in Japan to Ishi London which wasn't paid for?
MR. MIYAKE: You already asked that. I mean, I know you already asked that. I know you already asked that. That's been answered already.
MR. MAR: Can we go back?
THE DEPONENT: Don't waste the time. This is stupid.
MR. MIYAKE: I tell you it's already been asked.
MR. MAR: Okay. What was the question again?
MR. MIYAKE: In 1992, did Richard Bozulich or Ishi Press Japan make any shipments to Ishi Press London or Ishi Press UK that wasn't paid for. (Reporter reads record).
MR. NEAL: No. Look how much time we wasted.
THE DEPONENT: Another ten minutes. Amateur hour is very expensive.
MR. MAR: That it is.
THE DEPONENT: And you guys have no wherewithal. Can't even afford a coat to come to the deposition in.
MR. MAR: Let's take it easy.
THE DEPONENT: Why?
MR. NEAL: He's stating the truth; let's move on.
THE DEPONENT: If you think I'm slandering you -- you have the appropriate tools. But the truth of the matter speaks for itself. This is why it's a criminal offense to practice law without a license, and you barely qualify.
MR. MAR: Okay. I'm going to take a lunch break right now and come back in about an hour.
MR. MIYAKE: About an hour?
MR. MAR: Yes.
MR. NEAL: We'd like to know what time you intend to resume.
MR. MAR: What time is it?
MR. MIYAKE: 11:40.
MR. MAR: How about 1:00 o'clock?
MR. MIYAKE: All right. (Off the record).
Q. (By Mr. Mar) How many years have you known Hartland Snyder?
A. Six or seven.
Q. Did Hartland Snyder ever do work for you?
A. Are you asking did I ever pay Hartland Snyder to do work for me?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Snyder ever work for Dr. Berlekamp?
A. I don't know.
Q. In '94, did you sell off your interest in Ishi Press UK?
A. I don't know. It was '94 or '95?
Q. Yes.
A. No. The answer is it may have been '95, but I don't think it was in '94.
Q. Do you know who owns Ishi Press of UK currently?
MR. NEAL: If you know.
THE DEPONENT: I don't know what company he's asking about. There was two Ishi Presses in UK once; one, an old Ishi and the other is a new Ishi. The old Ishi was allowed to quit trading, which is what it did, and the new Ishi was then formed subsequently by a different group of people. So I don't know which one he's talking about.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) The new Ishi.
MR. NEAL: What's the question with regard to the new Ishi?
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Who owns that currently?
MR. NEAL: Again, if you know.
THE DEPONENT: I don't know. Oh, he's dealing from the bottom of the deck. Be aware of card players like that.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Have you seen this document before?
A. Are you referring to the one you just put in front of my nose?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Look at the signature of Hartland Snyder in the middle of the document. Do you recognize that as Hartland Snyder's signature?
A. I have no idea. I profess no knowledge of signature comparison.
Q. Was Arlo Smith counsel for the defendant Ishi Press International in this case?
A. The document speaks.
Q. And you won a judgment for $56,000 in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this a true and correct copy of the original?
A. I don't know.
MR. NEAL: Just a question, Mr. Mar. Have these all been marked?
MR. MAR: Yes.
MR. NEAL: Do you know how many?
THE REPORTER: Eleven? Ten or 11.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Is this a correct copy of the complaint which Keith Carr filed against you?
A. I can't tell whether this is a correct copy or not. I don't know. It is a copy of a complaint, but I can't tell you that this is the correct copy. Stupid question.
Q. Have you ever seen this particular copy?
MR. NEAL: You mean any time other than when you just handed it to him?
MR. MAR: Yeah.
THE DEPONENT: Again, you're specifically describing this copy and again I answer, I can't tell you whether I saw this copy or one similar to it. But I'll make it easier for you: I've seen a copy that looks about like this.
MR. NEAL: By the way, we're referring to Exhibit 3?
MR. MAR: Yes, we're referring to Exhibit 3.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) On Page 2, Paragraph 4, it said that: "On or about September 20th, 1994, plaintiff entered into the premises of 1095 Market Street Suites 606, 607 and 608." Is that true?
A. I recollect that's about correct. I'm not sure about the date, but he did occupy 607, 8 and 9, which doesn't show.
Q. At that particular time, was the Jack in the Box restaurant operating on the ground level of this building?
A. Yes.
Q. On Page 3, Paragraph 6: "On or about December '94, this Jack in the Box restaurant ceased its operations and vacated the premises." Is that true?
A. I'd like to go back and make a correction. September 20th, '94, the plaintiff had already been there for two or three years prior to that. He did not just lease it in '94. He had leased it in 1990, early, and this was a renewal of an old lease. You now maybe can go back and ask the other question.
Q. It said in Paragraph 6 that: "Defendants immediately placed eight wooden boards or planks over the windows on the premises of Jack in the Box restaurant." Is that true?
A. When?
Q. On or about December '94.
A. Not true. It was done January 2nd or 3rd of 1995 because they terminated their lease and left on January 1st of that year, of I guess '94.
MR. NEAL: You referred to January. Did you mean December 31st?
THE DEPONENT: No. They continued to occupy the premises until December 31, 1994 and we put plywood, not wooden board. There was plywood over the windows at the corner of 7th and Market on the day after New Year's, which should make it the 2nd or 3rd of January 1995. Is this relevant to this discussion?
MR. NEAL: That's a good question.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did you know that Jack in the Box restaurant would vacate the premises on or about September 20, 1994?
MR. NEAL: Objection. Mr. Mar, this is a complaint in another case -- we don't even know if this case still even exists. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason why we're here today. We let you ask some questions about it. I thought maybe you'd get to some point. But to ask him to respond to allegations in someone else's complaint file in pro per in February '95 is outside the issues in this case completely, and totally irrelevant. I'll instruct him not to answer the question.
MR. MAR: What was the question, Jill?
MR. NEAL: He's been instructed not to answer. (Reporter reads record).
MR. NEAL: To save time, I'd suggest you ask him whether or not this is even still pending. Otherwise, I have no understanding why this would have any bearing on this case. Perhaps you're wondering if it will interfere with him appearing on another date. I don't know. So far, it makes no sense.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Were you sued for fraud by Keith Carr?
MR. MIYAKE: The question calls for a legal conclusion, but go ahead.
THE DEPONENT: The document speaks. Did Carr win; that's another question.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Did he win?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
A. No.
Q. Let's look at the second to the last paragraph to the bottom of the first page. It says here that? "Mr. Berkowitz represents that the $50,000 was a wire transfer from United Exporters, 1095 Market Street, to Mr. Bozulich's bank in Japan." Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. It says, the last sentence, second to the last sentence of this paragraph, that: "In December of 1993, Mr. Berkowitz also acquired Mr. Berlekamp's interest in Ishi UK which he had acquired in that previous summer." Is that true?
A. No. It's a bad sentence. Grammatically imperfect.
Q. In December of 1993, did you acquire Mr. Berlekamp's interest in Ishi UK?
A. Yes, but not in the previous summer.
Q. Let's look at the last sentence of the first page: "Berkowitz's acquisition of Ishi UK included the acquisition of Mr. Torode's interest, which was largely two notes totalling $40,000 and convertible into IPI stock per documentation." Is that true?
A. Well, as I testified earlier, it was 22,000 pounds, approximately, sterling. Whether 22,000 pounds equals $40,000, I don't know. And on the face of the document, it said it was not convertible. It was guaranteed in stock of IPI at 26 pence per share.
Q. Let's look at the second page there, at the top paragraph, third sentence: "We know it happened in the expectation that Mr. Berkowitz would become Chairman to IPI, and according to Mr. Berkowitz and Berlekamp it was consummated for the sum of $500." Was it consummated for the sum of $500?
MR. NEAL: Objection; vague and ambiguous; unintelligible. I have no idea what it refers to. I don't think it's clear from the sentence or the document.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Was your purchase of Mr. Torrode's notes consummated for the sum of $500?
MR. MIYAKE: Objection, asked and answered. I instruct him not to answer.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Let's look at the final page there. (Interruption in the proceedings). (Off the record).
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Let's look at the shares now owned, July 1st, 1995. For Mr. Berkowitz, it says 158,397 shares. Is that accurate?
A. It's approximately correct. I don't know what the accurate number was.
Q. Mr. Berlekamp's shares show 586,564. Is that correct?
A. I don't know.
Q. Mr. Bozulich's shares show 197,000. Is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Bozulich's shares were all held by Berlekamp as collateral for a $50,000 personal loan from Berlekamp made to Mr. Bozulich in several years prior. Bozulich had refused to pay any interest on it and the shares were held as collateral, plus some pictures, Go pictures that Bozulich had given to Dr. Berlekamp as collateral for this personal loan needed to pay for some kind of financial mess.
Q. Here it has Mr. Connelley listed as owning 120,000 shares. Is that correct?
A. I don't know, and I don't know whether Bozulich actually had 197 or 97 or one, but I do know that he did not have any shares. (sic)
Q. Have you read the document?
A. I will read it now if you ask me to.
Q. Okay.
MR. NEAL: For the record, we're referring to Exhibit 5.
THE DEPONENT: Yes, I have read it.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Have you ever seen this document before?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the document that you used to obtain 158,397 shares?
A. No.
Q. Is this a correct copy of the original document?
A. Yes. Let's cut through all this mustard. Give me the second document and that will equal 158,000. This does not.
Q. So you used this document and the document you're referring to added together equals 158,397 shares?
A. You're putting words into my mouth, but not quite correct. I said there was a second document. This was a note for 5,000 pounds. There is another note for $17,000. If you add 17 plus five, it add up to 22 pounds sterling. And 22,000 sterling in those days, I don't know what it was valued, but it also said you could convert it at 26 pence per share into shock Ishi US
A. And that's the calculation that eventually got to 158,000 shares. Clear?
Q. (Nods head up and down).
A. "Clear" has a question mark.
Q. Have you seen this document?
MR. NEAL: "This," referring to Exhibit 6?
MR. MAR: We're referring to Exhibit 6.
THE DEPONENT: Yes, this is the one I just referred to.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) And is this a correct copy of the original?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you recognize the signature of James Connelley there?
A. I recognize no signatures. That's not my expertise. You could have signed this, for all I know.
Q. Have you ever seen Connelley's signature?
A. Probably. Let the record show the attorney asked for his paper back by motion with his fingers, thumb and fingers. "Pay more."
Q. Have you read the document?
A. Yes.
MR. NEAL: "The document," being Exhibit 7?
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Let's look at the paragraph near the top which said, "As holder in due course of two promissory notes," did you write that paragraph?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's look at the printing near the bottom there.
A. Where it says Exhibit 1-10-97?
Q. No.
A. That's near the bottom.
Q. It says: "Ishi Press International, Ltd. is unable to pay this demand."
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make a demand on him?
A. The document speaks.
Q. And you recognize the signature that's near the bottom there?
A. I repeat, I am not an authority on signatures. I see it says "managing director of Ishi Press International Limited." That, I can read.
Q. Do you know who the managing director was of --
A. It was Connelley, but I make the same comment, it could be years ago. I can't tell whether that was his official -- I worked under the assumption this is.
Q. Let's look at the date there up at the top, September 14, 1994. Is that the date you wrote this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you send this letter to Ishi Press International Limited?
A. I don't remember. I probably gave it to Connelley since he was the managing director.
Q. Have you read the document?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature down there?
A. Yes. I can identify my own signature.
MR. NEAL: Again, this is referring to Exhibit 8, correct.
MR. MAR: (Nods head up and down).
Q. (By Mr. Mar) It says here: "As holder in due course of two promissory notes dated September 23, 1991 and october 23, 1991 issued by Ishi Press International, Ltd. (London) and guaranteed by Ishi Press International, this is a formal demand for payment of principle amount of 17,212 (pounds) plus accrued interest and 5,819 (pounds) plus accrued interest or conversion." Is that true?
A. The document speaks, and you read well.
Q. As per the terms of the guarantee, the sums. Okay, that will be converted into the common shock of Ishi Press International at the agreed upon price of .26 pounds per share?
A. What?
Q. Point -- isn't that .26 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- pound per share?
A. You omitted to read "If payment cannot be made."
Q. Yes.
A. Is that intentional?
Q. No, no, no. Sorry: "If payment cannot be made, then as per the terms of the guarantee, the sums owing shall be converted into the common stock of Ishi Press International at the agreed upon price of 0.26 (pounds) per share." Were they able to make payment?
A. No.
Q. Do you know how much 26 pounds per share would convert into US equivalent?
A. When?
MR. NEAL: Objection, vague and ambiguous.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Let's say on the date listed here on the top, September 14.
A. I don't recollect, but it would be calculable. If you want me to guess, I'll say around 40 cents a share.
Q. Have you read and looked at the document?
A. Yes.
Q. And let's just look at the letter on the top there. Was this written to John Torode on December 23rd, 1993 or thereabouts?
A. That's what the document says. As Dr. Berlekamp pointed out on Wednesday, I misspelled John's name.
Q. How should it have been spelled?
A. With an "O."
Q. Let's look at the bottom of this check. Is that your signature down there?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this a correct copy of the original?
A. I believe so.
Q. And did you pay Mr. Torode $500 approximately around December 22nd, 1993?
A. Well, I wrote the check December 22nd and sent the letter on the 23rd, so obviously I had to have -- he didn't get the check until he got the letter and we don't know when he got the letter. And I'd like to point out to you it said for Ishi UK Limited interests. (Whereupon, Mr. Miyake enters the deposition room).
Q. (By Mr. Mar) At the top it says, "N. C. Berkowitz and Company, 1095 Market." Do you own that company?
A. Yes. Can I ask you a question?
Q. What?
A. Do you know what a company is? There are several forms of company organization, and I'll give you a lesson. You can have a company like this, which is a personal company; you can have a corporation; you can have a limited liability corporation; you can do it as a limited partnership, et cetera. And there are other forms in other states. Can you ask me any questions? You got the lesson in corporate finance, company organization.
Q. Have you read the document?
A. Yes.
MR. NEAL: Exhibit 10?
MR. MAR: Exhibit 10.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Have you ever seen this document before?
A. Yes. A copy of this document -- or the original of this document. This is a copy.
Q. Are these the terms of the original agreement, that Ishi Press International promises to pay to Nathaniel Berkowitz the sum of $50,000 with interest on the date hereof at a rate of equal to eight percent per annum paid quarterly?
A. What is the question?
Q. Are those the terms of the original agreement?
A. Yes. I'd like to point out, however, you should read the last paragraph. It says: "This note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, to the extent not preempted by federal law, and may be superceded by a more comprehensive note with which obligor guarantees to effect replacement.". Now, the reason for this is very important. Bozulich was crying for money. He was desperate and he was -- in order to get him some money quickly, which we attempted to do, this note was prepared. And to be thanked for this kind of service to Richard Bozulich is what makes part of this case so very difficult. We gave him money and now he's suing us because he didn't get more money. Terrible. There's the wicked man.
Q. Have you seen this document before?
A. Looks like a stock certificate to me, out of a form book.
MR. NEAL: We are looking at Exhibit 11.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Is this a true and correct copy?
A. I would have to compare the original with this and I don't have the original. But I would say on the face of it, my name is spelled correctly; it says there's 158,397 shares; and Connelley signed it. It was Certificate No. 60. Yeah, it should be correct, but I can't verify that this is a correct copy. That's not my job.
MR. MIYAKE: Mr. Mar, the original has writings on the back side as well conveying the securities legends and this copy does not.
Q. (By Mr. Mar) Does the date here, September 14, 1994, is that the date that you received this share certificate?
A. I don't know. I think that was the date which the deal was consummated though.
Q. Did you receive the share certificate by mail?
A. I don't remember.
MR. MAR: Okay. That's it.
MR. MIYAKE: Thank you.
(The deposition of Nathaniel Berkowtiz was adjourned at 1:48 p.m.
-o0o-
_______________________________
Nathaniel Berkowtiz
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )
I, JILLANNE STEPHENSON, Certified Shorthand Reporter #8563 in and for the State of California, hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing deposition, Nathaniel Berkowtiz, was by me duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled cause, that the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings had at the taking of said deposition to the best of my ability. Date:_________________, 1997
_______________________________
JILLANNE STEPHENSON, No. 8563
January 23, 1997
Nathaniel Berkowitz
C/O STEVEN S. MIYAKE OF COUNSEL
NEAL & ASSOCIATES
6200 ANTIOCH STREET, STE. 202
OAKLAND, CA 94611

Dear Deponent,
Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, please be advised that the original transcript of your deposition taken on 1-10-97 is ready for your review, and corrections, if necessary. Please review the copy that your attorney has been provided. If a copy has not been so ordered, you may make an appointment to review the original of the deposition, will be held in the possession of Clark Reporting at 2161 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 201, Berkeley, California for a period of 30 days, after which time it will be forwarded to the noticing attorney's office of the City of Berkeley. Reading, correcting and signing of depositions is an option and is not mandatory. IF CHANGES ARE NECESSARY, please do so on the correction sheet provided. DO NOT CORRECT PUNCTUATION unless it changes the actual meaning of an answer. If there is a spelling of a name that comes up repetitively that needs to be changed, please note the change on the correction sheet only once, rather than making numerous entries regarding the same change. Thank you, **A copy of this notice was sent to witness' attorney.**

Here are links:
My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com