[first four pages are exact replacements of deleted text, with
possible format or line number changes. Please
notify David Busch of any errata. Remainder of transcript by:
Beta Reporting, (202) 638-2400/(800) 522-2382/(703) 684-2382]
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
DAVID BUSCH, et al.,
Plaintiffs, : C. A. No. 135895 VOLUME 2
v.
NORML, et al.,
Defendants.
Washington, D.C.
Friday, November 10, 1995
Deposition of RICHARD CLARENCE COWAN
a witness, called for examination by counsel for
the Plaintiffs, pursuant to notice of counsel,
held at the law offices of Miles & Stockbridge,
1450 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., beginning
at 10:00 a.m., before Shari R. Broussard,
a notary public in and for the District of Columbia, when
were present on behalf of the respective parties:
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of Plaintiffs:
CARLOS M. SANDOVAL, ESQUIRE
Grossman & Sandoval, P.L.C.
1401 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 300
McLean, VA 22101
(703) 448-8100
on behalf of Defendants:
MARK J. DISKIN, ESQUIRE
Copilevitz & Canter
3 Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, N.W., Suite 330
Washington, D.C. 20036-3308
(202) 861-0740
ALSO PRESENT:
RICHARD L. THOMPSON II, ESQUIRE
Grossman & Sandoval
* * * * *
C 0 N T E N T S
EXAMINATION BY:
Counsel for Plaintiffs
COWAN DEPOSITION EXHIBITS:
No. 20 - ECMC Check Nos. 1014 and 1019
No. 21 - ECMC Check Nos. 1001-1004
No. 22 - ECMC Check Nos. 1005-1008, 1021, 1022
No. 23 - ECMC Check Nos. 1011 and 1013
No. 24 - ECMC Check Nos. 1010 and 1012
No. 25 - ECMC Check Nos. 1024 and 1025
No. 26 - ECMC Check Nos. 1015 and 1016
No. 27 - Notice of Insufficient Funds
No. 28 - 35 Various notices of insufficient funds or overdrawn
account drawn on the NationsBank of Tennessee account
No. 36 - 56 Various notices of insufficient funds or overdrawn
account drawn on the First Union National Bank of Washington account
No. 57 - Memo from Cowan - August 17, 1993
No. 58 - Memo from Viets - September 9, 1994
No. 59 - Artist's Agreement with Bristol College
No. 60 - Ball State University Services Contract
No. 61 - Brown University Student Organization Contract
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
Whereupon,
RICHARD CLARENCE COWAN
was recalled as the witness and, having been
previously duly sworn, was examined and testified
further as follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q This is a continuation of the deposition
of Richard Cowan. Please state your full name for
the record.
A Richard Clarence Cowan.
Q Please state your place of employment.
A I am currently not -- self-employed.
Q What is your occupation?
A Writer.
Q Do you maintain offices?
A I'm still officing at the NORML office,
1001 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1010, Washington,
D.C. 20036.
Where do you reside, Mr. Cowan?
A As established previously, at 1255 New
1 Hampshire Avenue, Suite 811, Washington, D.C. I
don't remember the ZIP there. New Hampshire
Avenue, Northwest.
Q Have you discussed the testimony that
you're about to give today with any other
individuals?
A Yes.
Q Who have you discussed it with?
A I have discussed it with Keith Strom,
Dr. Grinspoon and Allen St. Pierre.
Q What is Dr. -- state who Dr. Grinspoon
is.
A Dr. Lester Grinspoon is the Chairman of
the Board of NORML.
Q Thank you. And who else?
A I think I probably discussed it briefly
with Donnegal Pierce.
Q What were the nature of these
discussions?
A Well, I told them that what a total
waste of time it was. I told them how your firm
had four lawyers here, two of which did nothing
during the entire time.
I told them how terribly disorganized it
was and that you didn't have track -- proper track
of the documents. I told them that there was a --
it was going to be continued while you went
through our office records, at which -- and then I
want at this time to bring -- express my utter
contempt for your behavior in our office, sir.
Q I have a question pending. Have you
heard of an organization called ECMC?
A Yes, I have.
Q What does ECMC stand for?
A Emergency Coalition for Medical
Cannabis.
Q Where are the offices of ECMC?
A ECMC is, basically, an organization that
is, for intents and purposes, a subsidiary of
NORML and it offices at NORML.
Q When you say subsidiary, describe the
ownership of ECMC.
MR. DISKIN: If he knows. It's calling
for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: I do not know the legal
status of ECMC.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Is it a for-profit corporation or a
nonprofit --
A No, it's a - it is, as I said, it was --
in effect, it was created for NORML to deal with
the medical access issue separately.
Q Who are the directors of ECMC?
A I don't know.
MR. DISKIN: Objection. It hasn't been
established that it's a corporation.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Is that nonprofit entity, as you have
testified, is it a corporation?
A Sir, I don't recall whether it was
incorporated or not.
Q Does ECMC have a bank account?
A It may. I have forgotten whether we set
up a separate bank account for them.
Q Do you know who has check writing
authority for ECMC?
A Sir, I just said I don't know whether it
has -- I'm not even certain it has an account. If
it has one, I assume that the check writing
authority would be the same as it is for NORML.
Q And the check writing authority for
NORML is?
A At this point is Keith Strom and Allen
St. Pierre, I believe.
Q At the time that ECMC was formed --
A It would have -- the check writing
authority was with Allen St. Pierre and myself.
MR. DISKIN: I'll object that there has
been no establishment that there even is a bank
account.
MR. SANDOVAL: Why don't we mark these
as our first exhibits to the deposition.
(Cowan Deposition Exhibit Nos. 20
through 22 were marked for
identification.)
MR. SANDOVAL: Mark these four, but I
want to keep those for now.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. SANDOVAL: Mr. Diskin, are you
representing Mr. Cowan in this deposition?
MR. DISKIN: No.
MR. SANDOVAL: I would prefer that you
not confer with him while he is examining
exhibits.
MR. DISKIN: Mr. Cowan was just showing
me the exhibits, sir.
THE WITNESS: I was not conferring with
him. I was showing him these things. These are
NORML checks and he is counsel for NORML.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Well, let's just examine that point.
Why don't you turn to what has been
marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 20 first.
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me what that is?
A Yes, it's a check, two checks actually,
written on February 17th for $950, and May 2nd of
-- that's both of 1994, on the Emergency Coalition
for Medical Cannabis account at the NationsBank in
D.C., each of them for $950. Both of them
marked -- signed by Allen St. Pierre and marked
transfer.
Q Do you recognize Allen St. Pierre's
signature?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you turn to the second page of
that exhibit?
A Yes. The back -- the back of the
checks.
Q Does the back of the check indicate --
let's start with the back of check 10/14.
A Yes.
Q Does it indicate what account that was
deposited in?
MR. DISKIN: Let me object that it's
impossible to tell from page two as to the back of
which check you're referring to, and let me
further object that, whatever the documents say
they say. I don't think there's any reason to
have Mr. Cowan recite into the record whatever
notations are made on the backs of these checks.
THE WITNESS: I --
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Do you recognize that deposit stamp?
A Oh, this is -- yes, I have seen this
deposit stamp millions of time. I don't, I mean,
to recognize a deposit stamp, sir -- it has NORML.
It says that. I mean --
Q Have you ever seen the NORML deposit
stamp before?
A Of course I have.
Q Is that --
A It looks an awful lot like it.
Q Do you recognize the signature on the
back of the other --
A It looks like -- it says Donnegal S.
Pierce.
Q Do you --
A Look, we're in the business of wasting
Skippy's money, so let him waste Skippy's money
and go ahead here.
I don't know where you're going with all
this, but what do you want to know?
Q Do you recognize that signature on the
back?
A Donnegal S. Pierce. It looks familiar
to me. I am not a handwriting expert.
Q Have you seen it before?
A Of course.
Q Any reason to believe that it's not a --
A Sir --
Q -- genuine signature?
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: This is -- oh, God.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Is there any reason to believe --
A I have absolutely no idea of -- all of
these may be clever forgeries for all I know, sir.
I don't know. I mean, all of these look quite
authentic to me. They appear to be ECMC checks on
an account -- things that were -- checks that were
written in 1993 and '94, and some of them are
signed by me, some of them are signed by Allen.
They are all marked "fund transfers" and
they are all -- or except for postage and they
are, as I -- as I said, basically, where we were
operating the ECMC effectively as a subsidiary of
NORML and transferred money from the ECMC account
to the NORML account.
I do not remember these, because this is
over a year and a half old since the last one. I
do not know the current status of whether there is
an ECMC account now or not at all. Now, if
there's anything you're trying to establish out of
this --
Q What are these transfers for?
A I have no idea other than the one that's
marked postage.
Q I turn your attention to Exhibit No. 21,
check number 1003.
A Yes, 1003.
Q This is a check signed by you?
A Yes, on July 26th of 1993.
Q What was that fund transfer for?
MR. DISKIN: If you know.
THE WITNESS: Well, that's the dumbest
thing. Sir, how in the world would I have any way
of knowing here, today, on November 10th of 1994,
what a check I wrote for -- or signed on July 26,
1993, was for? It's marked for "fund transfer."
It was signed by me. The check was not made out
by me, but it was signed by me in keeping the
standard of office practice there.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Do you know --
A I would assume that it was used for
NORML operating expenses.
Q Is that the reason why funds were being
transferred from ECMC to NORML, to fund operating
expenses?
A Yes.
Q When you testified that ECMC is a
nonprofit, do you mean that it has 501(c)(3)
status?
A Sir, I --
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I did not testify to that
effect.
MR. DISKIN: Objection. Mr. Cowan
stated at least three times he does not know the
legal status of the entity.
(Cowan Deposition Exhibits No. 23
through 27 were marked for
identification.)
THE WITNESS: Now, then, as I said --
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Wait. I have a question pending.
Please take a look at Deposition Exhibit Nos. 23,
24, 25 and 26.
Can you identify those?
A These all are as the others were,
Emergency Coalition for Medical Cannabis checks
from -- well, let's see. The last one here I see
is in March of this year. Let's see. All of the
-- they date back, otherwise, until '94 and so on.
Q Is it fair to say that, since your
signature and Allen St. Pierre's signature appear
on virtually all of these checks, that you had
signature authority on this account?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. It's calling
for a legal conclusion. You've already asked him
that question. It has been asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: That is my signature, sir.
The bank cleared the checks. I had -- it appeared
that I had signatory authority on them, yes; you
have managed to --
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q What were these checks for cash for?
A Dated -- well, this one says "pizza" and
I have absolutely no idea what -- the other one
says for $50. It says "advance." But this one
says for pizza. Pizza is a large, round pie.
Q What is that advance for?
A Sir, I have no idea.
Q But --
A It's a $50 check dated in April of last
year, or this year, rather. Yeah, April, a $50
check.
Q April of this year?
A Yeah. I have no idea what it was for.
Q You don't know what it was used for?
A I have no idea.
Q I'm handing you what has been marked as
Deposition Exhibit No. 27.
A Yes.
Q You've previously testified that some
$2500 payments were made to the Internal Revenue
Service?
A Yes.
Q Is this one of those payments?
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, this isn't one of
those payments.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q What is that document?
A This is an NSF -- this is a Department
of the Treasury, Internal Revenue check, not
accepted by bank from, National Organization for
Marijuana Laws, insufficient funds, and the -- it
-- the amount -- it says total amount due is
$2477.14, so this was not a $2500 check.
MR. DISKIN: Let me object that this
document has not been authenticated by Mr. Cowan.
THE WITNESS: But, you know, what's your
question?
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Have you ever seen this slip before?
A No.
Q Were you aware that NORML was bouncing
checks to the Internal Revenue Service?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. There has been
no foundation that that has occurred.
MR. SANDOVAL: That's not a proper
objection for a deposition, Mr. Diskin.
MR. DISKIN: My objection still stands,
sir. I can object to the form of the question.
THE WITNESS: Was I aware that NORML was
bouncing checks to the Internal Revenue Service?
That is -- I also object to the form of the
question, because if you ask me, was I aware that
-- if you want to rephrase the question, may I be
helpful to you and suggest that you ask me, did I
know that a check to the Internal Revenue Service
had been returned for insufficient funds. The
answer to that is yes.
By asking the question -- formulating it
the way you did implied that it's a regular
practice.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q How many checks were returned for
insufficient funds?
A I believe two.
MR. SANDOVAL: Mark this one as the next
exhibit.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Cowan Deposition Exhibit Nos. 28
through 56 were marked for
identification.)
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Have you had a chance to review
Deposition Exhibits 28 through 56?
A I have seen them, yes.
Q Do you know what they are?
A What they appear to be are forms from
First Union National Bank of Washington, D.C.
They are computer printouts of, basically, having
to do with payments of NORML checks that were paid
-- it appears that most of them were paid anyway,
which created an overdraft -- this was an
automatic computer printout overdraft report,
otherwise, it's simply the evidence of the damage
done to NORML by this abuse of the judicial
process.
I have not seen those forms, but I've
certainly seen lots of other evidence of damage.
Q Are all of them --
MR. DISKIN: I will have an objection.
I would like to interject an objection that --
MR. SANDOVAL: Excuse me. I have a
question.
MR. DISKIN: -- Mr. Cowan cannot
authenticate the document.
MR. SANDOVAL: I have a question
pending.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Are all of them from First Union Bank,
or are some of them from NationsBank of Tennessee?
MR. DISKIN: I'll object. Mr. Cowan is
not a representative of either of those banks, and
to ask him to identify these documents based on
what they say is objectionable.
THE WITNESS: Well, some of them say
NationsBank, I see here. Yes, these do say
NationsBank. The first -- the last batch I saw
all had --
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q First Union?
A -- First Union. These do say
NationsBank, yes.
Q During your tenure, was there an account
at NationsBank in Tennessee?
A That was previously established, yes.
Q But there was existing an account in
Tennessee?
A That has been previously established.
MR. DISKIN: Objection. It has been
asked and answered.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Do you know what that account was
called?
A It was the -- was it called the NORMAL
Special Account or something like that? You've
got the checks there. I don't remember right now.
I think it was the NORML Special Account.
Yeah, it says right here NORML Special
Account. Yes, by golly.
(Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Isn't it true that Deposition Exhibits
28 through 56 indicate NORML's inability to pay
its bills in a timely fashion?
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q So all of these notices for insufficient
funds are, to you, an indication of the financial
strength of the organization?
A No.
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I mean, if you -- are you
trying to be sarcastic or smart, or do you want to
elicit information?
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm asking a
question, sir.
A You're not excused, sir, and if you ask
me --
Q I'm asking a question. I'm asking a
question.
A -- an intelligent, coherent question,
I'll answer it.
Q Mr. Cowan, do Exhibits 28 through 56
indicate that NORML's operating accounts are
physically sound?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. It's calling
for his opinion from documents that haven't been
authenticated.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Can you answer that question?
A No. They do not indicate that NORML is
physically sound.
Q They do not indicate that NORML is
physically sound?
A No, they don't indicate that NORML
wasn't physically sound. I mean --
Q Well, do they indicate that the checks
that were written in each of these occasions in
Exhibits 28 through 56 were paid?
A Are these -- are these the --
Q These are all insufficient fund notices.
A Well, then they -- were the checks paid?
Q I'm asking you.
A Were they? I don't -- which -- what are
you talking about here? If it says the check was
paid, it was paid. If it says the check was
returned, it wasn't paid. That's the standard
operating procedure at banks.
Q I would like you to take a look at
Exhibits 28 through 56, and tell me if these are
return notices.
MR. DISKIN: Objection. The documents
state what they state. They cannot be
authenticated by Mr. Cowan, and it serves no
purpose to have Mr. Cowan recite into the record
what these documents state.
THE WITNESS: 28 through -- what was it?
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q 56. It includes these as well
(indicating).
A As well. Some of them were paid, some
of them were returned.
Q What are the ones that were paid? Can
you direct my attention to those?
MR. DISKIN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Sir, it says "paid." It
says -- some say "paid," some say "returned."
This one says "returned," this one says "paid,"
this one says "returned."
Let me see. I have one here that says
"paid."
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q I'm sorry. The witness was referencing
Deposition Exhibit No. 36?
A Yes.
Q Would you direct your attention to
Deposition Exhibit No. 36?
A Right here it says -- yeah, it says
"paid."
Q Go to the far left-hand side of the
page, the check number?
A Yes, 1073, yes.
Q What was that check amount?
A $12.69 it says right here.
Q What was the available balance at the
time?
A $44.55 overdraft it says right here.
Q So it's a negative $44.55?
A Yes, yes.
Q Okay.
A And the check was paid. You know, and
some of these forms here -- this one here says
"paid," this one here says "returned."
Q Excuse me.
Let me take a look at these as well.
A Please do. P-a-i-d is paid. Oh, Jesus.
Q Let the record reflect that the witness
pointed to a document that states Notice of
Insufficient Funds dated 4/7/95, account number
011 --
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q -- 273-106-2. It says two items were
presented against a book balance of negative
$2,868.92, and it says your new net account
balance is negative $3,051.92.
MR. DISKIN: Objection. I object to
counsel reading from a document.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q And it's your testimony today, Mr.
Cowan, this indicates that these checks were paid?
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Notice of Insufficient Funds?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. I object to
counsel reading into the record documents that
haven't been authenticated, documents that are
hearsay, and I will object to it.
MR. SANDOVAL: Mr. Diskin, we'll
recognize a standing objection to avoid your
speaking objections during this deposition.
THE WITNESS: Sir, it is my testimony
here today that these documents say what they say,
what they -- whether or not they are accurate,
whether or not they have any relevance to any of
this, escapes me entirely.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Is it your testimony that they are not
accurate?
A It is my testimony, sir, that I have no
idea, and there is no way I would have any idea.
I've never seen these before. They -- you know,
they are computer printouts from a bank. The odds
are, they are probably right. I would -- you
know, and you got them -- if these are --
Q Mr. Cowan, is it the practice --
MR. DISKIN: Well, let him finish.
THE WITNESS: That's all right. Go
ahead.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Mr. Cowan, is it the practice of NORML
to not allow you to see these sorts of documents?
A No.
Q Isn't it true that Donnegal Pierce
showed you these documents when they arrived at
the NORML office?
A No.
Q He did not show you these documents?
MR. DISKIN: Asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Did he conceal these documents from you?
A No.
Q Were you ever made aware of their
content?
A First off, this is not one document.
These are forms that come in through the mail over
an extensive period of time that -- there was no
effort in the office, obviously, to keep it from
me; but, no, I did not open the mail every day. I
did not go in on a daily basis and determine
whether or not -- what -- what the bank balance
was.
So, you know, I don't -- otherwise I
don't -- I'm trying to give you an answer -- a
coherent answer to an incoherent question, because
I don't know what it is the hell you think you're
trying to prove.
Q You were asked, were you ever made aware
of the contents of these documents.
A And what -- and the problem with that
question, sir, is that the -- if you were assuming
that -- if you're talking about all of it at once,
the answer is no. If I was ever aware that there
was one of these or more of these at different
times, the answer to that is, quite possibly, yes.
Q Was the person that made you aware of
the contents of these documents Donnegal Pierce?
A I don't recall. I may have -- I may
have seen it in the mail myself. There were
occasions on which I -- I saw the mail before
anyone else did. I usually didn't, but sometimes
I did.
Q On the times that you didn't see the
mail before anybody else did, did Donnegal Pierce
make you aware of the contents of these documents?
A Again, sir, you are lumping all of these
together, whether Donnegal at any particular time
on any one of these occasions told me that we had
a check returned or not, I can't speak to that.
But I -- you cannot say, you know, refer to these
documents as they -- as though it were all one
piece at one time. This is something that is
over, you know, you've accumulated from several --
over a long period of time.
Q Mr. Cowan, you've previously testified
that sometimes you open the mail and sometimes you
saw some of these documents. We understand that.
Let's deal with the times that you
didn't open the mail and you didn't directly --
A Did someone come in and rush in and tell
me "Oh, oh, we have an overdraft, Mr. Cowan," no.
Q Were you ever made aware of the fact
that there was an overdraft?
A I may have been at any -- at a
particular point in time.
Q Isn't it true that Donnegal Pierce made
regular financial reports to you concerning the
financial condition of NORML?
A Regular financial reports?
MR. DISKIN: What do you mean by
"regular"?
THE WITNESS: Define that, sir.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Didn't he come to you at least on a
monthly basis and explain the financial situation?
A He gave me the same reports on a monthly
basis that he gave to the board of directors and
everyone else.
Q So he did not give you a report outside
of a board of directors meeting; is that --
A I did not say that, sir. I said --
MR. DISKIN: Counsel, you're
misrepresenting his testimony.
THE WITNESS: What I said was that he
gave me the same reports that he gave to the board
of directors that he gave monthly.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q When were these reports made?
A Sir, generated, generally, on a monthly
basis.
Q Do you recall what week of the month
they were given?
A No.
Q What did he provide the board when he
gave you these reports? Did he give you these
reports in writing? Did he give you these reports
-- how did he give you these month-end reports?
A Sir, you're the one who has been
rummaging through our files. I haven't been
through looking back at the documentation --
MR. DISKIN: Objection to the form of
the question.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q How did he give you the monthly reports?
A They were in writing.
Q And did he transmit these writings to
other people?
A I suppose he gave them to the members of
the board of directors.
Q Are you sure?
A No.
Q So, is it possible that he did not give
those writings to the members of the board of
directors?
MR. DISKIN: Objection to the question
of what Mr. Cowan knows of what possible things
that Donnegal Pierce may have done.
MR. SANDOVAL: Mr. Cowan has testified
that he received the same reports as the board of
directors. I want to find out how he knows that.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q How do you know that?
MR. DISKIN: Well, you're asking for
possibilities, and anything is possible. I object
to the form of the question.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q How do you know that? How do you know
that the board of directors received the same
report that you did?
A I saw on occasions that members of the
board, for example, at board meetings, would have
copies of the reports that had been -- that had
been provided to them. Did I go to each of their
houses and hand-deliver the reports on a monthly
basis --
Q That wasn't the question, sir.
A Well, that's the only way, sir, you
know, your question could be answered. That is
the only way that I could have knowledge, certain
that they had done it, is if we had sent it by
certified mail or if I had hand-delivered them
myself. And we did not do either.
Q At any time during your tenure, were you
given monthly reports in oral fashion rather than
written?
A Of course, in the sense that, would
someone come in and tell me something -- excuse
me. Monthly reports, no. That is -- that would
not be correct. But on any given time I may have
been told something that was not written down.
But as far as the monthly reports go, they're all
in writing. There wouldn't be any -- I mean, no
one could deliver a monthly report on this that
wasn't in writing.
Q Were these monthly reports maintained?
A Were they maintained?
MR. DISKIN: What does that mean?
THE WITNESS: What does that mean?
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Were they maintained in a separate file
or a separate maintenance system, a separate
accounting system? Where were they maintained?
A I don't know.
MR. DISKIN: Objection. It's a compound
question.
THE WITNESS: The answer to your
question is, I don't know where they were. I
didn't do the filing. You have been in the files
since I have.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Did you retain copies of the reports
that were given to you?
A Not separately. There wouldn't be any
need for me to maintain separate files.
Q And by "separately" you mean separate
and apart from the organization?
A Yes.
Q So what did you do with the written
reports after you had received them?
A I either handed them back to Donnegal or
gave them to someone for filing.
Q And that someone was anybody around that
was an assistant or --
A Well, it could have been Peggy Monica.
It could have been Carolyn Debunyoe. It could
have been somebody else.
Q And those individuals were your
assistants?
A Or just whoever was doing it, yeah.
Q Where was the general file kept?
A I don't know.
Q So after you saw it, you gave it to
somebody to --
A I didn't need it again.
Q You didn't need it again at that point?
A No. If I needed it, I would ask
Donnegal for it.
Q And, to your knowledge, Donnegal
maintained those somewhere in the office?
A Yes, I'd assume so.
Q Let me go back briefly to the ECMC
checks that are represented in Deposition Exhibits
20 through 26.
Were there any other payment documents
or transfer documents that were generated
contemporaneously with the check when those funds
were transferred?
A I don't know.
Q Who, generally, prepared the writing of
those checks?
A Generally, Donnegal did.
Q Did you ever see any other documentation
documenting the transfer of funds from ECMC to
NORML's operating account?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. I don't
understand the question. You mean other than the
checks?
MR. SANDOVAL: Mr. Diskin, you don't
have to understand the question.
MR. DISKIN: Then I will raise an
objection that it is an unclear, confusing
question.
THE WITNESS: I -- you're going to have
to explain what you mean in terms of --
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Was there any other documentation
produced within NORML, documenting, other than the
check itself, the transfer of funds from ECMC to
NORML?
A I don't know.
Q Did ECMC maintain business ledgers?
A I don't know.
Q Was there ever a balance sheet, or cash
flow documents, or anything documenting the
transfer of funds from ECMC to NORML? Were any of
those documents ever produced?
A I don't know. There were not a lot of
-- obviously not a lot of transactions, not a lot
of money involved overall in the ECMC accounts
over a period of a year and a half.
Q What were the ECMC funds that were
transferred used for?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. Asked and
answered.
THE WITNESS: I already established I
don't know that.
MR. SANDOVAL: Why don't you mark this
exhibit and hold on to it for a second.
(Cowan Deposition Exhibit No. 57
was marked for identification.)
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Were you present during a board of
directors meeting after the September 11th
meeting, when the board dissolved itself,
purportedly; were you present at a board of
directors meeting where Donnegal Pierce filed a
financial report and spread copies to all of the
new board members indicating that the IRS tax debt
was over 160,000?
MR. DISKIN: Objection to the form of
the question. It is compound, it contains no
foundation, its factual predicate has not been
established.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Were you present at that board meeting?
A You haven't established the date of the
board meeting. I have not seen the form. I do
not recall the form.
Q Were you ever informed by Donnegal
Pierce that there was an IRS tax debt in excess of
a $160,000?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. Same objection.
There's no foundation for that question.
THE WITNESS: To answer your -- I do --
I do not recall having been so informed.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Do you recall ever making a statement,
or providing correspondence to the new board of
directors, basically, attributing the bulk of the
tax debt to the board prior to September 11th, to
the old board?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. There's no
foundation and no establishment of the factual
predicate for the question.
MR. SANDOVAL: Foundation is not a
proper objection for a deposition.
MR. DISKIN: My objection stands.
THE WITNESS: Do you have such a
document?
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q I'm asking you if you made a statement
or transmitted information.
What you're paraphrasing -- sir, what
you're doing is, you're paraphrasing something
from something or another that you're saying that
I said a year ago, and the answer to your question
-- I can't answer that question as it's phrased.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Did you make a statement to members of
the new board that the bulk of the tax debt owed
by NORML to the Internal Revenue Service was
attributable to the old board?
MR. DISKIN: Same objection.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Did you make a statement or any
correspondence, or transmit that message in any
way?
A Sir, you know, I am not going to answer
a question that is -- that, you know --
Q Are you refusing to answer that
question?
MR. DISKIN: No, he's refusing --
THE WITNESS: I'm telling you that I
cannot answer a question that is formulated in
that way. If you want to -- if you want to show
me something that I wrote and ask me to
authenticate it, I will be happy to do so.
But if you're, you know, asking me
questions, general questions about a paraphrase of
something that you said that I said, and I don't
-- you know, without knowing what it means and the
way you interpret things, I can't answer that.
MR. DISKIN: This might go faster if you
just ask Mr. Cowan what he said to some people at
a particular time.
MR. SANDOVAL: Mr. Diskin --
THE WITNESS: He's not in a hurry.
MR. SANDOVAL: Mr. Diskin, you're not
representing Mr. Cowan.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q I'm going to ask you again, Mr. Cowan,
did you make a statement, either orally --
A Sir, I have answered that question the
only way I know how.
Q -- either orally or in writing that
attributed the tax debt owed by NORML to the old
board?
MR. DISKIN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: And I have the same
answer, I cannot answer a question like that that
-- if you -- you know, in the way that you phrase
it like -- like that.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q So your testimony is that you don't know
whether or not you made a statement, either orally
or in writing?
MR. DISKIN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Did I make statements
orally or in writing? Yes, I made statements
orally or in writing. But what did the -- what
did they say? I am not going to answer a question
based on your paraphrase of something totally
taken out of context, because I don't know how to
answer that question.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q There's nothing taken out of context.
A Well, there was --
Q I'm asking if you made a statement. Did
you make the statement or didn't you?
MR. DISKIN: But -- objection --
THE WITNESS: I don't know how long you
want to do this. I guess you're probably prepared
to do it all day as long as -- until Skippy runs
out of money. But I'm -- I will again say, if you
will give me a copy of something that I said, then
I will -- that has, you know, has it there, then I
will either authenticate it or not. That, if I
said something, that -- you know, there that has a
particular context, that has a particular meaning,
then I will tell you what it is.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Did you make a statement? Yes or no?
MR. DISKIN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: I am not going to -- I
cannot answer that question, sir. It's, you
know --
MR. SANDOVAL: Let the record reflect
that the witness refuses to answer the question.
THE WITNESS: No, let the record reflect
that I have not been asked a coherent question
this morning.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Did you make a statement? Yes or no?
A Yes or no.
MR. SANDOVAL: Let the record reflect
the witness refuses to answer a question. Let's
take five minutes.
Off the record for five minutes.
(Recess)
(Cowan Deposition Exhibit Nos. 58
through 61 were marked for
identification.)
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Let's go back on the record. It is
10:55. Mr. Cowan, I'm handing you what has been
marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 57.
Do you recognize that document?
A It's dated August 17 of '93.
Q Do you recognize that document, Mr.
Cowan?
A Well, I think this thing is misdated.
It says August of '93, but I -- first off, it
wouldn't make any sense for that date. I wonder
if it shouldn't have had an August '94 date on it,
if that was an error. Actually -- yeah, clearly
this is misdated. This should have been August of
'94.
Q What is that document?
A Well, it says it's to the board of
directors from Dick Cowan and I -- I think that it
was probably prepared by John Gettman, although
under my name.
Q Is there anything in that document to
indicate that it was prepared by John Gettman?
A No.
Q Does he have a signature block on that
document?
A I just said there's nothing here to
indicate that it was prepared by him, but given
the content of this thing, I would assume that it
was.
Q Did that document, in fact, go out under
your signature?
A Well, actually, no, it went as is,
without a signature.
Q Did you send that document out?
A Frankly, sir, this, as I say, at this
point is still -- I'm sorry. Excuse me, I stand
corrected.
This is correctly dated '93. I was
thinking about -- I don't know why I was thinking
about '92. This is -- so this is correctly dated
August of '93. And the answer to your question
is, frankly, I don't recall this, but it's -- and
I -- given its content and everything else, I
assume that it was prepared by John Gettman. But
it did go out over my signature and probably --
and I -- I would be virtually certain it went out
with my approval.
When I say not -- it went out without my
signature, but it went out under my name and I'm
sure it would have went out with my approval. But
I don't, frankly, recall it.
Q I'm handing you what has been marked
Deposition Exhibit 58. Did you ever receive a
copy of that document?
A Yes, I have seen this before.
Q Did you read that document when you
received it?
A I would -- I would assume that I did.
Do you have a question about it?
Q I'm waiting until you finish looking at
it.
A Okay.
Q Thank you.
I would like to direct your attention to
page 2 of this document in which Dan Viets
discusses the IRS tax debt prior to your tenure in
the second or third paragraph.
A Uh-huh.
Q Do you know where he got access to that
information?
A Well, he is -- he's citing Allen St.
Pierre as a source in this paragraph. "Allen
estimates that we --"
Q So he received the information from
Allen St. Pierre?
MR. DISKIN: Objection.
If you know.
THE WITNESS: I don't know. He cites
Allen as saying that.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q Can you tell me the date of that
document?
A September 9, 1994.
Q Approximately, when did you receive it?
A I have no -- if -- it was faxed out; so
I probably got it either that day or the next.
Q Prior to receipt of that document, did
Dan Viets request any information from the NORML
office?
A I have no way of knowing that, sir.
Q Did he discuss the tax situation with
you?
A No, not that I recall.
Q Did he discuss the financial condition
of NORML with you?
A Again, that's over a year ago. I have
no idea what he discussed at that particular time.
Q Did Allen St. Pierre ever indicate to
you that Dan Viets discussed the financial
condition of NORML with him?
A No, there wouldn't have been any reason
for him to. He should feel free to discuss it
with Dan at any time without telling me.
Q Did Allen St. Pierre ever indicate that
he transmitted any of the monthly reports that you
testified about earlier to Dan Viets prior to the
writing of that document?
A We did not discuss anything about
transmission of anything to anyone prior to -- I
mean, about this document. I mean, that would
have -- or wouldn't have.
I can't imagine we did, and I don't have
any recollection of it. We wouldn't recall it,
probably, if we had done so.
Q Is there any reason for you to doubt the
authenticity of the numbers that are contained in
that document?
MR. DISKIN: The authenticity? You mean
the accuracy?
MR. SANDOVAL: The accuracy. Thank you,
Counsel.
MR. DISKIN: If he knows. Objection.
THE WITNESS: I have no reason to doubt
the -- the accuracy of the numbers, but I don't --
because I don't have the records from the time.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
But, with those records, you would be
able to make a statement as to the accuracy?
MR. DISKIN: Objection. He's not an
accountant or auditor.
BY MR. SANDOVAL:
Q I'm asking if you would be able to look
at the records and determine --
A No, no. If I went through them with an
accountant and if they were fully reviewed, then
I, you know, I would have confidence, I think, in
the certified public accountant's analysis of
numbers.
Q But you couldn't add them yourself?
A Perhaps your associate would be more
successful explaining to me how to operate a
calculator than he was explaining to you how to
run a calculator, but that's not my job.
Q I'm about to hand you what has been
marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 59.
Do you recognize that document?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me what it is?
A It's a Bristol Community College
artist's fee agreement, between me and this
Bristol Community college. I spoke up there at --
what is it? March of last year. No -- let's see.
Is that what day that was? No -- what time?
Yeah, May. It was May 3rd of last year, yes.
Q Do you recognize on that document that
there have been handwritten changes?
A Uh-huh.
Q Did you make those changes?
A Yeah.
Q Just for clarity of the record, under
"Artist" you scratched out Richard Cowan and wrote
in NORML, and under "Payment by college check to"
you scratched out Richard Cowan and put NORML?
A Yes.
Q And is that NORML's tax I.D.?
A I don't know. I can't answer that.
Q Did you write that in?
A I -- that could be my handwriting.
Probably is, but I --
Q And it is your signature at the bottom
of the page?
A Yes.
Q And after this speaking engagement,
Bristol Community College made a check out to
NORML, pursuant to your speaking?
A I have no idea. I would assume they
did. That was -- that was the deal.
Q The "deal" meaning that was --
A They were supposed to pay NORML for my
speaking there. That was what had happened -- I
mean, I spoke -- actually, all the various
campuses I spoke on, NORML got the funds.
Q I'm going to hand you what has been
marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 60.
A Ball State University. This is a
similar contract for my speaking appearance there.
Q Who executed this contract on behalf of
NORML?
A Looks like Rob Kampia did.
Q Did you speak at that speaking
engagement?
A Yes, I did.
Q And, to your knowledge, were payments
made to NORML by Ball State?
A I have no reason to doubt that they --
that they were. I don't -- I don't think I
personally collected and delivered the check.
It's interesting to note that your
client, Mr. Byrne and Ms. Mathre, raised strong
objection claiming that all of the contracts were
in NORML's -- speaking contracts were in NORML's
name --
Q Let the record --
A -- and, in point of fact, it shows that
this was in my name and I crossed it out and made
it to NORML so that NORML would get paid.
Q Let the record reflect that the witness
was reviewing document 59, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 59,
during his testimony.
I'm about to hand you what has been
marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 61.
A This is a speaking agreement with Brown
University. I spoke up at Providence to Brown on
April 16th of last year.
Q And who is the check to be made payable
to?
A It says here check made payable to
NORML.
Q May I review the exhibit a moment?
A (Passing document to counsel.)
Q And can you tell me who signed this
contract on behalf of NORML?
A Rob Kampia did.
Q And you recognize his signature?
A Well, it looks like his handwriting.
Q You've seen it before?
A Yeah. I couldn't authenticate it,
because that's not my area of expertise; but I
have no reason to doubt that it is authentic.
MR. SANDOVAL: At this point we're going
to close the record for today, pending the
providing of documents by Mr. Diskin, the receipts
and payment records for Mr. Cowan. At that point
the deposition will be continued. We'll hold this
deposition open and, as for today, the record will
be closed.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the
deposition of RICHARD CLARENCE
COWAN was adjourned sine die.)
