Return to the blog of cornwell-trial-documents
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
by Dan Hajidah
Among the documents held at the US Department of Justice regarding criminal acts of the lawyers involved with Patricia Cornwell, in her long attacks on the dissident journalist Dr Les (Leslie) Sachs, is a remarkable court transcript of 8 May 2003, when Sachs made one last brave stand inside the United States, risking his life to try and mount a defense of the US Constitution, and to confront and expose evidence of criminal acts by Thomas H. Roberts.
US Department of Justice sources say Thomas 'Tom' Roberts is a Virginia lawyer who was fraudulently posing as lawyer for Sachs, while actually receiving money from Patricia Cornwell, and threatening to have Sachs jailed and tortured to death if Sachs dared to speak about the fraud. With Sachs already having his freedom of speech banned by US Federal Judge Robert Payne - a personal friend of Roberts - the ability of Roberts and Cornwell to have Sachs instantly jailed, and perhaps murdered in jail, was certainly realistic.
DOJ itself notes that this court transcript is striking, first that it exists at all, and secondly, in the way that it demonstrates both the bravery and skill of Dr Sachs in difficult circumstances, and the way that, according to DOJ, it thoroughly exposes Patricia Cornwell case lawyer Thomas Roberts as a criminal, with Roberts committing multiple counts of felony perjury under cross-examination by Sachs.
The court transcript exists because Roberts and the Patricia Cornwell gang, were too dim to realise that Sachs was prepared to escape out of the USA with his proof files of the crimes implicating Patricia Cornwell and her lawyers and the US federal judges.
This transcript from 2003 is that of a court hearing that was held in a local (not federal) Virginia courtroom, where Thomas Roberts is trying to collect part of the several hundred thousand dollars plus 18 per cent interest (!) that he claimed he was owed by Sachs, for Roberts' so-called 'legal work' in having Dr Sachs' freedom of speech banned and his career destroyed, but where Sachs is supposed to pay money to Roberts for the rest of his life, for the favour of not being murdered.
According to DOJ sources, the Cornwell group was actually planning to have Sachs jailed and possibly murdered shortly after this court hearing, shortly after Sachs' bank account and assets are seized for the benefit of Thomas Roberts and Judge Robert Payne.
What Roberts didn't know is that Sachs already had an escape path planned to Canada, with the help of brave Canadians. Roberts also didn't know that there was nothing remaining in Sachs' US bank accounts, they were just an empty shell, and the savings of Sachs had already been secretly transferred to a bank in Switzerland. - Sachs had briefly earned a great deal of money, hoping to hire a brave lawyer who would fight the Patricia Cornwell group, but no US lawyer ever had enough bravery.
The Cornwell case lawyer Thomas H. Roberts, did not realise that by going through a 'court proceeding' to seize Dr Les Sachs' property and bank accounts, Roberts was not only wasting his time - with Sachs' bank accounts already in Switzerland, and Sachs ready to instantly disappear and head to Europe to join them - but that Roberts was outwitted by Sachs, into leaving a court transcript proving multiple felony crimes by Roberts himself, and by the whole group of lawyers working for Patricia Cornwell.
If the President Obama government actually does criminally prosecute the Cornwell group, that transcript is one of the pieces to bring down the whole gang, according to the DOJ sources who would like to see Patricia Cornwell and her lawyers in prison.
There was actually no self-interested reason for Sachs to stay there in Virgina and confront Roberts, and risk his life further by exposing Roberts' crimes before a local Virginia judge. The safe and 'smart' thing to do was for Sachs to simply disappear without confronting and exposing the crimes of Roberts, as Sachs already had enough proof of the crimes and extortion, to secure political asylum for himself in Europe.
But Dr Les Sachs nonetheless chose to risk his life, to battle for the sake of the human rights of the US people, whom he would shortly be forced to leave forever. - And Sachs did this, despite the fact that Dr Les Sachs had been abandoned by thousands of US lawyers, all afraid to confront what DOJ sources acknowledge are the proven crimes of extortion and fraud involving Patricia Cornwell and a US federal judge.
Some lawyers had told Dr Les Sachs, that if he could manage to win a victory in this one legal hearing by himself, alone without a lawyer, in a courtroom with a local Virginia judge, then the lawyers might start to be brave enough to start representing Sachs in wider court proceedings, to begin to nullify the illegal orders banning his freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and win a major national victory for independent journalists human rights under the US Constitution.
But the Virginia lawyers were too frightened to start to fight for Dr Les Sachs in court, unless Sachs could somehow start having some small court victories on his own, without any lawyers. In other words, Sachs had to by himself find some judges who were willing to give decisions against the powerful Bush friend Patricia Cornwell, before any of those lawyers would dare to fight against Cornwell and her 'friends' the federal judges.
So Sachs risked his life to go into a courtroom, alone, and show a local judge the files of proof of crimes by the Patricia Cornwell case lawyers, in the hope of being able to at last inspire some US lawyers to be brave enough to fight along with him.
According to Department of Justice sources and to US federal court filings, two Virginia lawyers, James 'Jim' Magner, and Scott S Ives, both defrauded Sachs out of thousands of dollars. Both of those lawyers promised to take legal action against Roberts and his fraudulent 'Foundation', and to defend Sachs in this hearing, but both Magner and Ives just cashed the checks of Sachs, and both abandoned Sachs to be jailed and murdered, while keeping some of Sachs' money.
So, abandoned by US lawyers who would only defraud him, and never stand by his side, Sachs gambled his life on 8 May 2003, a dissident making one last stand for freedom, one last fight for the Bill of Rights under the US Constitution.
Secretly advised by the Virginia lawyers who were too afraid to stand with him in the courtroom, but who were tipping him off about the danger to his life, Dr Les Sachs gambled that Roberts and the Cornwell group would wait until after all his assets were seized before moving in to jail and murder him. Sachs gambled on Roberts' own greed, that Roberts would be too eager to take Sachs' bank accounts for himself - a procedure which would give Sachs the few days of breathing room to escape over the US border to Canada, and from there on to Europe.
According to DOJ sources, the brave banned journalist Dr Les Sachs, all by himself, confronted the criminal Thomas Roberts, along with another Virginia lawyer, F J Murphy Pepper, who was trying to help Roberts extort money from Sachs under the threats that Sachs would be jailed and killed if he didn't pay.
In a dramatic couple of hours witnessed by a Canadian observer, Sachs spoke with great emotion, in courtroom that was nearly empty - because the ban on Sachs' freedom of speech, blocked him from calling media to see him. In the court, Sachs methodically showed proof documents and established conclusively, according to DOJ, that the lawyer Thomas Roberts, is a criminal with a fraudulent 'Freedom Foundation' who had threatened to torture Sachs to death on behalf of Patricia Cornwell.
DOJ notes are, that this transcript shows Roberts confirming his relationship of criminal collusion with Judge Robert Payne; that Roberts confirms that he threatened to murder Sachs and torture him to death, and that Roberts jokes and laughs about this; that Roberts confirms the fraudulent and illegal nature of his bogus 'Freedom Foundation', a fraud which Roberts and Tim Schulte and Judge Payne had perpetrated, to help commit acts of racist terrorism; that Roberts commits multiple counts of felony perjury, including perjury claiming he had never seen the Cornwell-Rudell book-burning extortion letter, even though it is at the centre of the legal files in the original Patricia Cornwell 'legal case'; and that Roberts also commits felony perjury about the sticker on Sachs' book, which of course was about P Cornwell's threats to burn the books of a Jewish author, and not as the perjury told by Roberts under oath, Roberts choosing to try and spread the 'plagiarism story' hoax instead. (See other postings of Patricia Cornwell Court Trial Documents to view these items.)
According to DOJ sources, this court transcript of 8 May 2003, is sufficient to jail Thomas Roberts for the rest of his life, and to lead to the indictments of all the other lawyers and judges and parties who joined Patricia Cornwell's criminal scheme to have Sachs banned and murdered. - According to DOJ sources, it is only the Patricia Cornwell bribery of the President George Bush family, and the consequent political influence on the Attorneys-General of the USA during the Bush Presidency, along with the general US impulse to cover up for bribed USA federal judges, that has blocked the criminal charges against Roberts and the Cornwell group.
However, on that day in 2003, with Sachs alone in a courtroom, and not able to obtain media because of the ban on his freedom of speech, the local judge watching Sachs expose the crimes of Thomas Roberts, is a black female named Judge Joi or 'J.J.' Taylor, who sadly seems to want to curry favour with Virginia's white establishment - although she listened and watched with some curiosity as Sachs exposed the crimes of Thomas Roberts, and Sachs showed the files proving those crimes.
Regrettably, it seems Judge Joi Taylor could not rise above her reflex to support a scheme of bribery and extortion involving a fellow judge, even though Judge Robert Payne has a reputation for jailing innocent black people, and Judge Taylor herself is black.
According to DOJ sources, Judge Taylor watches Sachs expose how Roberts is a criminal engaged in fraud and extortion, and then without any comment, she simply declares that Sachs must pay Roberts all the money he wants, and that Roberts can begin to seize Sachs' assets and bank accounts. This seems yet further proof that there is little honesty or integrity among US judges. It seems that with the mafia of US judges, citizens and independent journalists must not only submit to extortion and threats of murder, but must pay money for the rest of their lives to the 'friends of judges' who are threatening to kill them.
Here is the transcript, Dr Les (Leslie) Sachs gambling his life, to make one last brave stand inside the USA, facing down one of the men whom DOJ confirms as threatening to murder him on behalf of Patricia Cornwell:
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
1
1 VIRGINIA:
2 IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
3 JOHN MARSHALL COURTS BUILDING
________________________________
4 :
ROBERTS PROFESSIONAL LAW, :
5 Plaintiff, :
:
6 vs. CASE NO: GV02030639-00
:
7 LESLIE R. SACHS, :
Defendant. :
8 ________________________________:
9
10
11
12 Complete transcript of the
13 testimony and other incidents of the HEARING in the
14 above-styled matter, when heard on the 8th day of
15 May, 2003, before the Honorable, J.J. TAYLOR, Judge.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 CRANE-SNEAD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4914 Fitzhugh Avenue, Suite 203
23 Richmond, Virginia 23230
Tel. No. (804) 355-4335
24
25
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3
4
5 Mr. F.J. Murphy Pepper, Esq.
ROBERTS PROFESSIONAL LAW
6 Richmond, Virginia 23219
Counsel for the Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 I N D E X
____________________________________________________
2
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3
4 THOMAS ROBERTS 15 81
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
1 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
2 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I would
3 move to exclude witnesses.
4 THE COURT: Any person who
5 intends to testify and is a witness in the
6 matter and not a party, please step out in
7 the hall way. Is there such a person?
8 MR. SACHS: Pardon me. I didn't
9 quite follow, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Are you going to
11 testify, ma'am?
12 MR. SACHS: No, she is just an
13 observer.
14 MR. PEPPER: I would ask that she
15 not sit at the counsel table, Your Honor.
16 MR. SACHS: She is undergoing
17 muscle spasms today and may need
18 assistance, sand I would ask the Court's
19 indulgence.
20 THE COURT: And, Mr. Sachs, I
21 understand you have a motion.
22 MR. SACHS: Yes, Your Honor, I
23 would please move the Court for a
24 continuance of this case to allow me to
25 complete the process of securing counsel
5
1 for this matter, which is a very crucial
2 matter in my life.
3 In the last recent days I have
4 connected with two law firms Kesner and
5 Associates in Richmond, and John Francis in
6 Northern Virginia, who have an expertise in
7 the white colar misconduct area.
8 They are interested if they have
9 the time to develop an adequate defense to
10 defend me and to file the counter suites
11 that are needed here, but they need the
12 time to do so.
13 I have an expert witness too
14 lining up, Ms. Lordan Daniels, to deal with
15 this.
16 This is the first continuance
17 that I have asked for in this case because
18 I had the attorney Scott Ives who told me
19 he was abandoning me and arranged for a
20 continuance.
21 And I had --obviously, there is
22 great political difficulty for attorneys to
23 get involved in the matter because of the
24 seriousness of the issues of attorney
25 misconduct being involved.
6
1 And I also had the incident with
2 Mr. Magner, who cashed my checks and said
3 he wouldn't honor the contract he accepted
4 from me. And I still have not even gotten
5 a refund from that.
6 Obviously, it has been very
7 difficult for me to get counsel. I am not
8 far away from doing it. I have spent
9 thousands of dollars on lawyers and on
10 advertising for attorneys. I'm on the
11 verge of putting together the counsel who
12 don't feel the political pressure to --that
13 they would be afraid of exposing the wrong
14 doing of another attorney.
15 And I would ask the Court's
16 indulgence. This is a very key matter of
17 my life. And I ask, please that, and many
18 people around the country, they wish me
19 well and wish me to have an attorney here.
20 And I would ask, please, that,
21 Your Honor, grant me the time and give me
22 the time to have an attorney represent me
23 here.
24 THE COURT: All right. So the
25 case was continued in October. What have
7
1 you been doing since then?
2 MR. SACHS: The attorney Scott
3 Ives was in place until February, and he
4 e-mailed me in February before the court
5 date then that he was going to abandon me.
6 Scott Ives had gotten very
7 uncomfortable with the issues involved in
8 confronting another attorney.
9 I have been advertising and
10 talking to lawyers about it. And I've been
11 running advertisements.
12 The Virginia Bar is refusing to
13 provide me with the names of lawyers on
14 this matter, and so that has made it more
15 difficult. But I have much correspondence
16 with many attorneys around it, and many say
17 they wish they could help. Some say they
18 are afraid for their careers if they go too
19 strongly in opposing another attorney's
20 wrong doing. I am not far away though.
21 I believe, Your Honor, because of
22 all of the issues, the attorneys would like
23 to feel they have enough time because it
24 would be not only a defense in this matter,
25 but part of that would be filing the
8
1 counter suites for breech of fraud.
2 THE COURT: We are beyond filing
3 counter suits. We are in the middle of the
4 trial.
5 MR. SACHS: As I understand it,
6 it would not be a counter suit in this
7 court, but it would be a large scale
8 Circuit Court suit. And then there would
9 be a request to combine this with that
10 because of all of the issues being involved
11 in it.
12 THE COURT: All right. Sir,
13 thank you, Mr. Sachs. Mr. Pepper.
14 MR. PEPPER: May it please the
15 Court. This is my partner with the missing
16 jacket. Please pardon the missing jacket.
17 I would like to respond for the request for
18 the continuance.
19 First, there are not any letters
20 from any of these firms that are allegedly
21 interested.
22 Ordinarily, the procedure for a
23 firm that does represent or would like to
24 represent Ms. Sachs, they would send a
25 letter saying we represent him now, please
9
1 give us a continuance here on our available
2 dates.
3 There has been no letter
4 indicating representation as would be the
5 custom in any situation in any case.
6 Second, white color crime
7 attorneys would not really be the
8 appropriate attorneys for this matter.
9 This is a contract claim, and as
10 you pointed out, the time for filing a
11 counter claim is expired in any court.
12 There cannot be a counter claim even in
13 circuit court. It simply cannot be done.
14 Next, this warrant in debt was
15 filed over a year ago now, Your Honor. It
16 has been over three months since Mr. Ives
17 left Mr. Sachs' employ.
18 I also find it hard to believe
19 that Mr. Sachs can't find an attorney. Let
20 me rephrase that. That more time would get
21 Mr. Sachs an attorney. He has been
22 pursuing an attorney since at least and
23 perhaps earlier than this, but September
24 24, 2001.
25 I have a letter that I could show
10
1 the Court in which Mr. Sachs indicates an
2 intent to file a lawsuit against Tom
3 Roberts. It is dated September 24, 2001.
4 He has been looking for a lawyer
5 since September 24, 2001. The fear that
6 these attorneys have of representing
7 Mr. Sachs is none other than from Mr. Sachs
8 himself. Any attorney would gladly come
9 in here and testify to that.
10 The 30 page motion for a
11 continuance that you received twice now
12 would more than demonstrate to any attorney
13 the dangers of representing Mr. Sachs.
14 Next, you know to respond to one
15 item mentioned in the brief by Mr. Sachs,
16 there is no constitutional right to counsel
17 in these types of cases.
18 Mr. Sachs has tried, and he has
19 failed to find counsel to be here today.
20 Finally, the time has come to put
21 these allegations that Mr. Sachs has
22 presented to me and to Tom Roberts and to
23 this Court, it is time to put them to bed.
24 It is time to put them to rest.
25 And I would add one more thing.
11
1 I suppose another reason, other than fear
2 of Mr. Sachs, attorneys would fear
3 representing Mr. Sachs would be their fear
4 of sanctions.
5 The types of claims Mr. Sachs has
6 alleged in his motions and letters to me
7 and Mr. Roberts, are the types of claims
8 that would give rise, if not
9 unsubstantiated 801.271.1 sanctions.
10 Attorneys do not want to get in
11 trouble for bringing up counter suits. You
12 know, the time is expired for even bringing
13 up those sorts of issues in court for the
14 fear of being sanctioned and properly so.
15 THE COURT: Whatever the cause
16 for the attorneys unwillingness to serve
17 Mr. Sachs, since we are in the middle of
18 the trial, sir, I understand that Mr. Ives
19 withdrew some time in February, it has been
20 quite some time.
21 So I think it would be, I don't
22 want to say unfair. I don't think it is
23 proper at this point for the Court to grant
24 your motion to continue.
25 So I am going to deny the motion
12
1 to continue, and we shall proceed with the
2 trial of the matter.
3 Now, Mr. Pepper, I'm going to ask
4 you, sir, to refresh the Court's
5 recollection of where we stood when we
6 adjourned the last time.
7 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, we were
8 in the middle of Mr. Ives'
9 cross-examination of Mr. Roberts, and I
10 think it can be done quickly.
11 I think it would serve for the
12 purposes of understanding the case to bring
13 Mr. Roberts up here and introduce or
14 reintroduce the exhibits again and go
15 through it from the start.
16 THE COURT: Also refresh my
17 recollection. The matter was recorded the
18 last time we were here; is that right?
19 There was a court reporter.
20 MR. PEPPER: There was a court
21 reporter.
22 THE COURT: Was a record made of
23 that hearing?
24 MR. PEPPER: We did not order a
25 transcript.
13
1 THE COURT: I see. Did you order
2 a transcript of the hearing?
3 MR. SACHS: Yes, one was done,
4 Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: But you don't have
6 one available with you today?
7 MR. SACHS: I do have it, but I
8 only have the one copy of it, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: May I take a look at
10 that please. Madame bailiff.
11 Mr. Pepper, I don't believe,
12 sir, it is necessary to reintroduce the
13 exhibits. I have a file of the exhibits.
14 The plaintiff offered or proffered on its
15 direct examination of Mr. Roberts.
16 What I think I'm going to do at
17 this point, is ask Mr. Sachs or Mr. Roberts
18 to take the stand, and we will begin with
19 the cross-examination.
20 MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your
21 Honor.
22 THE COURT: And, Mr. Sachs, if
23 you need to, sir, I will return this
24 document back to you so you may use it
25 during your cross if you care to.
14
1 All right. Sir, raise your right
2 hand to be sworn. Mr. Sachs, your
3 questions please on cross.
4 MR. SACHS: Yes, Your Honor.
5
6
7
8
9
10 - - -
11 THOMAS ROBERTS, called on behalf
12 of the Plaintiff, first having been duly sworn, was
13 examined and testified as follows:
14 - - -
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. SACHS:
17 Q Mr. Roberts is the Plaintiff's
18 Exhibit No. 1 that you have given to the Court, isn't
19 it true, Mr. Roberts, that--
20 MR. PEPPER: We would just like
21 to take a look at that.
22 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
23 in your Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, you commit the
24 offense of what is known as fraudulent inducement
25 with your contract by on page 2 in the third and
15
1 fourth line you mention a so called non-profit
2 charity the Freedom Works Foundation, which actually
3 at that time did not exist?
4 In fact, it was a fiction and a
5 fraud because a foundation to be legitimate under the
6 law must be registered with the Internal Revenue
7 Service on the non-profit organization under the
8 various--
9 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
10 Mr. Sachs is testifying. I would like him
11 to simplify the question for Mr. Roberts.
12 THE COURT: You are asking a
13 compound question, several questions within
14 a question.
15 If you could, sir, just simplify
16 your question for Mr. Roberts. All right,
17 sir.
18
19 BY MR. SACHS:
20 Q Isn't it true that this Freedom
21 Works Foundation that you allude to in your contract
22 had no registration or legitimacy as a foundation
23 with the IRS or any other federal or state agency?
24 A No.
25 Q You are saying it did not have
16
1 any registration?
2 A No. No, I am not saying that.
3 Q So, you are saying it was
4 registered with the Internal Revenue Service?
5 A No.
6 Q You are refusing to answer as to
7 whether it was or was not registered with the
8 Internal Revenue Service?
9 A No.
10 Q It was registered with the
11 Internal Revenue Service?
12 A No.
13 MR. PEPPER: Mr. Roberts has
14 answered. He is now becoming
15 argumentative.
16 THE COURT: He has answered.
17 There may be a foundation question that you
18 are leaving out.
19 Is the organization required to
20 file?
21 THE WITNESS: Ultimately, Freedom
22 Works Foundation would be required to file.
23 Freedom Works Foundation was a foundation
24 that was started that was in the process of
25 being formed at the time.
17
1 THE COURT: All right. Next
2 question please on cross.
3
4 BY MR. SACHS:
5 Q And so therefore, isn't your
6 description in this contract of a foundation that
7 could possibly support someone when actually it was
8 illegal for such a foundation to even raise funds,
9 isn't this an act of fraudulent inducement?
10 A No.
11 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, you
12 painted a phoney picture to me on the very first day
13 that you claimed to be representing me in that you
14 would be instrumentmental in getting a foundation
15 that may have been contributing, in your words, up to
16 40 or 50 thousand dollars towards my legal expenses
17 in this case?
18 A No.
19 Q And why is a foundation which
20 never, which never to that date had helped anybody
21 and was not authorized to raise money as a foundation
22 under any government group, why is it in this
23 contract?
24 A Which part of the question do you
25 want me to respond to? It is compound.
18
1 Q Why do you mention a fictional
2 and non-existent foundation in this contract?
3 A Your question contains a
4 statement of fact that is not true. So I would not
5 be able to answer your question as stated, sir.
6 Q Isn't it true that a foundation
7 without IRS registration, that it is actually illegal
8 to make use of the name of said foundation for a
9 commercial and business purpose as you are doing?
10 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I object
11 to the question. It assumes a certain
12 amount of complete legal understanding of
13 what it would take to operate such a
14 foundation.
15 THE COURT: Mr. Sachs, would you
16 establish a foundation please for
17 Mr. Roberts' knowledge on that particular
18 issue.
19
20 BY MR. SACHS:
21 Q Mr. Roberts, you are an attorney?
22 A I am, sir.
23 Q And this foundation, was there
24 anyone else involved in it, other than yourself?
25 A This foundation, Freedom Works
19
1 Foundation, was started sometime before you came to
2 our office.
3 The purpose of the foundation was
4 to promote freedoms guaranteed under the constitution
5 and also to promote the basis for those freedoms as
6 recognized by the founding fathers, which essentially
7 states that those freedoms are the result of --they
8 are inalienable because they are God given.
9 So the foundations purpose was to
10 promote an understanding and knowledge of those
11 freedoms and to protect them. The foundation did
12 not, had not solicited funds simply because it had
13 not completed all of the necessary paperwork in order
14 to do that.
15 The foundation was connected with
16 prior litigation in the matter of Fairfax, not
17 Fairfax, but Powhatan Fellowship of Christian
18 Athletes versus, I think it was called a Fellowship
19 of Christian Athletes Powhatan or Powhatan Chapter or
20 something like versus the various school officials in
21 Powhatan.
22 It was involved in the education
23 process and publicity process and was used in
24 connection, I think even on the pleadings it
25 suggested that our firm was associated with that
20
1 foundation.
2 Q Did this foundation ever provide
3 financial assistance to anyone?
4 A The first, the paragraph that you
5 referenced on about support, doesn't say financial,
6 and the support that Freedom Works Foundation
7 provided in the FVA litigation was one to lend its
8 name to the litigation and the cause in that case
9 which was a successful First Amendment case before
10 Judge Payne.
11 In fact, that probably was the
12 basis for which Judge Payne contacted our office and
13 requested that our office represent you.
14 So, immediately in response to
15 your question, I believe that the foundation's same
16 connection with our firm and its prior litigation in
17 federal court provided support to you by way of
18 providing a contact by which Judge Payne would ask us
19 to represent you given the fact that you had nobody
20 to represent you in that matter.
21 Q So you are saying the only
22 support this foundation provided was a name?
23 A No, that is not what I said, I
24 think my answer.
25 Q Is there any other support, other
21
1 than use of name of this foundation provided for
2 anyone?
3 A I believe I indicated publicity
4 as well.
5 Q Name and publicity. Was there
6 anyone else involved in this foundation except for
7 you?
8 A I would say, indirectly, yes. A
9 former associate Tim Schulte, who was a part of the
10 firm, and the foundation's purpose and direction had
11 been discussed with him.
12 Q And so but as far as this
13 foundation's incorporation, its legal frame work,
14 there is no other name, other than yourself?
15 A You are asking whether the papers
16 filed with the state corporation commission have
17 anybody's name other than mine listed? No, I think
18 that is a matter of public record.
19 Q So this foundation is really just
20 you, there is no other individual involved in it?
21 A I would not agree with you by
22 saying the foundation is me. The foundation is an
23 idea, and I would certainly own up to being the
24 person who thought of the foundation.
25 And it is matters like this that
22
1 have probably caused the foundation to slow down
2 because you know it takes a certain amount of time to
3 pursue that, and that's not been available.
4 Q Does this foundation exist any
5 longer?
6 A It certainly does.
7 Q Is there any other filing, any
8 other government filing of any type regarding its
9 existence, other than a corporate name registration
10 with the corporate commission?
11 In other words, to this date
12 there, there is still no IRS or filings with the
13 department?
14 A The foundation has not completed
15 a 501C3 application which would be necessary for the,
16 for any funds were that, were donated to the
17 organization would be treated as charitable
18 contributions.
19 I believe you asked whether or
20 not it could receive moneys without that 501C3
21 application, and the answer to that is: In fact,
22 yes, upon reflection because what happens is people
23 might donate to a foundation if they cared to.
24 However, they would risk that if
25 the 501C3 application were not granted, they would
23
1 not obtain the charitable contribution that they
2 might have hoped for.
3 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
4 you are actually more knowledgable of the law in this
5 area?
6 Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
7 you, yourself, spoke to me that it is, in fact,
8 illegal for a foundation to accept money until there
9 is a provisional filing? Did you tell me that
10 yourself?
11 MR. PEPPER: Objection.
12 A No, I didn't tell you that, and I
13 wouldn't have.
14 I might add it is not. It has no
15 bearing to this case since the foundation has not
16 received any money.
17 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, on
18 the day you were selling me service as a lawyer, you
19 painted a false and phoney picture of a foundation
20 independent of yourself, which had financial assets
21 which would very likely be making financial
22 contributions to my legal costs because I don't have
23 a connection to the foundation?
24 You, on my great First Amendment
25 matter, you said they would be giving me possibly
24
1 over 40 to 50 thousand dollars in the course of the
2 several years of litigation to come?
3 A No, it is not, Mr. Sachs. You
4 were for the most part a charitable case. We were
5 not trying to sell our services to you.
6 You were begging for our
7 services, and we provided the services according to
8 the foundation at a tremendously reduced rate.
9 Q If a car dealer put in the car
10 dealer contract that there was a car payment
11 assistance foundation that might be helping me with
12 car payments, and upon investigation, you found that
13 there were no assets in the car dealer assistance
14 foundation and it was simply a registered corporate
15 name in the car dealership owner's name, wouldn't you
16 consider filing a suit on behalf of the client that
17 the car dealer had committed fraud against the client
18 who had bought the car?
19 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, that
20 calls for speculation.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22
23 Q Mr. Roberts, there is a great
24 deal of effort in this contract talking about
25 contingency fees 35 percent of recovery on
25
1 contingency fees on counter suits. Isn't it true
2 that you promised me there will be counter suits
3 against Patricia Cornwell and her collaborators?
4 A No, that is not true.
5 Q Why is this such a substantial
6 portion of your contract, if you had no intention of
7 filing counter suits on my behalf?
8 A We had to begin at the first
9 paragraph of the representation agreement, it talks
10 about us representing you regarding the defense of
11 claims by Patricia Cornwell. That was number one.
12 There is no question about there
13 being claims by Patricia Cornwell against you.
14 And on the other hand, keeping in
15 mind that you were already knee deep in litigation at
16 the time you came to our office. As an attorney one
17 of things that I would look for in any case is
18 whether or not there are counter claims that could be
19 brought. And that is something that may not be
20 developed in the case until discovery begins.
21 And I had an opportunity to
22 discuss with you the furtherance of the case and to
23 look into it under federal rules. Rule 11, I have a
24 duty to look to make sure that the time that I filed
25 the pleading, the snap shot of the facts existing at
26
1 that time as well as the law, would support a counter
2 claim.
3 And as we got into this case, it
4 was abundantly clear that there was no counter claim
5 to be made in this case. So the provisions dealing
6 with counter claims, simply did not come into play.
7 However, I will add that one of
8 the things that as an attorney, you are or at least
9 I'm concerned about once I undertake representation
10 to go back to you and say, well, now, you know, that
11 there are facts and the law supports a counter claim,
12 so how are we going to do this. Our fee agreement
13 does not cover that. Well, then I would have to
14 negotiate with you for some compensation for that
15 representation.
16 However, at that time, the
17 situation would be changed because now I would be
18 representing him, and I would not be in that arm's
19 length negotiating position to enter into a
20 representation agreement.
21 In fact, the Court at that time
22 would say that there was presumption that any
23 agreement we made was unfair, given my
24 representation. So I would have to go and have him
25 go get independent counsel and represent that he was
27
1 not relying on me.
2 It is so much easier to
3 incorporate it in the beginning and reference if we
4 have any counter claims, and there were none in this
5 case.
6 Q You called this agreement in your
7 documents a contingency agreement; is that correct?
8 A You would have to show me that
9 there are, there is certainly a contingent component
10 to it because as you can see the vast majority of the
11 fees were deferred pending being paid from my
12 proceeds that we might be able to get in the case,
13 and there were none. So in that regard those are
14 contingent.
15 However, the fee, I mean, the fee
16 agreement speaks for itself.
17 Q Do you remember telling me that
18 you would kick Cornwell's teeth in with counter
19 suits?
20 A No, I don't. But I think with
21 all due respect to Ms. Cornwell, we did a darn fine
22 job, and she is probably looking for dentures in this
23 case. I say that with a little tongue and cheek, but
24 I say that given the fact --it was an interesting
25 case though from a First Amendment standpoint.
28
1 And but for Mr. Sachs providing
2 them with all of the evidence that they needed, he
3 would have had a chance in this case to escape on the
4 First Amendment basis.
5 But, if you read Judge Payne's
6 opinion, I don't know if that was made an exhibit
7 last time or not, the problem that we had in this
8 case is Mr. Sachs' letters, which in my opinion, now
9 bordered on paranoia.
10 They went over the line, and they
11 said I am going to, and I'm paraphrasing. I'm going
12 to use your name to market my book. It was not I'm
13 going to use your name in discussing the issues that
14 were a matter of public importance, which would have
15 been covered by the First Amendment.
16 He had a raw non-First Amendment
17 issue ultimately, is the way Judge Payne ruled. It
18 was solely to market his self-published book by
19 riding on Patricia Cornwell's coat tails.
20 And the problem with the case was
21 that Mr. Sachs destroyed any chance that he had by
22 his letters in which he confessed to using her name
23 for his own commercial purpose, and not First
24 Amendment issues.
25 Q Mr. Roberts, if now you are
29
1 calling this a confession, why is it that in the
2 court record itself, you talked greatly about my
3 satiric nature.
4 You talked about my book on the
5 auto industry that was full of satires.
6 MR. PEPPER: Irrelevant, Your
7 Honor.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9
10 Q You talked about--
11 A As an advocate for you,
12 Mr. Sachs, I tried to paint, and I believe as you
13 just now said, I did, in fact, paint the evidence as
14 best I could in your favor.
15 The problem is, despite all of my
16 advocacy I could not overcome what you wrote in your
17 letters. I mean, that is the bottom line.
18 And I might add, you know, we
19 appealed Judge Payne's decision. We took a, as I
20 recall, an interlocutory appeal since there was an
21 --I believe we did that. My memory is a little fuzzy
22 on that part.
23 I believe we went to an
24 interlocutory appeal, because there was an
25 injunction. So we were on our road to the Fourth
30
1 Circuit. And we were passionately pursuing the claim
2 trying to argue that despite all of his confessions
3 that there was still a grain of First Amendment that
4 shouldn't prevent this to go forward. But settlement
5 negotiations took place.
6 And ultimately, in the settlement
7 negotiations, the offer came that they would drop the
8 monetary claims as well by now the substantial, and
9 you know one can only imagine how substantial the
10 fees were that Mr. Shoeman and I and his law firm
11 would have been able to collect or take a judgment
12 for Mr. Sachs because of the law providing for
13 attorney's fees.
14 So, I saw no reason Judge Payne
15 would not have granted the attorney's fees in this
16 case. They would have been substantial. So an offer
17 was presented to you that--
18 MR. SACHS: May I get back to my
19 cross-examination, Your Honor?
20 THE COURT: Yes, sir. Go right
21 ahead. Cross.
22
23 Q Mr. Roberts, is it true that in
24 this contract of your's, so there is a 25 dollar an
25 hour rate for your time, there is a 35 to 40 percent
31
1 contingency recovery on counter suits, which you
2 increase in that paragraph to 40 percent depending on
3 when the recovery takes place?
4 Then and along with that, isn't
5 it true that you also in this contract, then claim in
6 case there isn't a contingency recovery you claim a
7 lien on half of my literature, literary work of books
8 I have written and books I have yet to write?
9 Isn't this what would be called
10 an unconscionable contract? Where you have a lien on
11 things that I may do in the future that don't even
12 exist. Doesn't this unethically put your interest
13 ahead of mine?
14 A I think that the short answer is:
15 No. I think in this circumstance, you clearly
16 benefitted from the arrangement that we reached.
17 Q We will deal with that in a
18 little bit, Mr. Roberts.
19 A May I finish answering the
20 question?
21 THE COURT: You responded, sir.
22 Q Mr. Roberts, in this case you're
23 asking for attorney's fees as well as on top of the
24 money you claim I owe you, isn't it unethical for
25 attorney's to collect attorney's fee?
32
1 A No. There is no reason that when
2 I engage counsel that counsel should not be paid.
3 Q Isn't it unethical for you to
4 demand 18 percent interest in the contract, which
5 when that is twice the judgment rate in the courts?
6 A No, I'm not a banker.
7 Q And, Mr. Roberts, isn't it true
8 that when I objected to these terms in the contract,
9 you said you have no choice, you either take it like
10 it is or you have no lawyer?
11 A No.
12 Q Mr. Roberts, you said that you
13 couldn't find any counter claims, correct?
14 A I believe that that is a fair
15 statement.
16 Q You couldn't find any counter
17 claims against Cornwell or anyone connected with her?
18 A I don't know that I said that.
19 But what is your next question?
20 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
21 you hid from the entire court record the substantial
22 grounds of counter claim and counter suit for the
23 false article printed in the Times Dispatch, which
24 the Times Dispatch did not deny was put there to set
25 up a lawsuit by the Cornwell lawyers?
33
1 MR. SACHS: And here is one copy
2 for Her Honor and one copy for Mr. Roberts'
3 counsel.
4
5 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
6 these documents which I was finally able to photo
7 copy in October from the legal files in your
8 possession, a very substantial set of letters that I
9 had written beginning within hours after an article
10 was written in the Times Dispatch showing that the
11 articles were false--
12 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, may I
13 ask for a clarification. I'm not sure if
14 this is meant to be introduced as an
15 exhibit, if so I object.
16 THE COURT: All right.
17 Mr. Sachs, what is the reason that you are
18 providing these documents, sir?
19 MR. SACHS: These are evidence
20 that there was grounds for a counter claim
21 and counter suit in the case.
22 THE COURT: And did you wish for
23 Mr. Roberts to review the recordings to
24 identify them?
25 MR. PEPPER: He may review them,
34
1 Your Honor, but they should not be
2 admitted.
3 THE COURT: He has not offered
4 them.
5 MR. PEPPER: I'm sorry.
6 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, I'm not
7 familiar with the procedure or if there was
8 a different time that I should have offered
9 them.
10 THE COURT: You went from asking
11 Mr. Roberts to identify the documents?
12
13 BY MR. SACHS:
14 Q Mr. Roberts, would you please
15 identify documents.
16 A I've looked at them. I can't say
17 that I recognize them.
18 Q And they are documents --you
19 don't recognize them from your legal files that have
20 been in your possession for the last couple of years,
21 and which you would not release them to me until I
22 got them in October of 2002?
23 A Which question do you want me to
24 answer?
25 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, asked
35
1 and answered.
2 THE COURT: Cross. Continue.
3
4 Q Mr. Roberts, isn't it true that
5 in the Patricia Cornwell deposition she indicated
6 that the reason she filed a lawsuit against me was
7 because of an article in the Times Dispatch that
8 greatly offended her; isn't that true?
9 A That is not my recollection.
10 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
11 you hid from the Court and from Patricia Cornwell,
12 herself, that the article, which enabled Patricia
13 Cornwell's lawyer to earn a likely several hundred
14 thousand dollars in legal fees, was planted by her
15 own lawyers contacting the Times Dispatch, given that
16 the Times Dispatch acknowledged I did not contact
17 them to set up that article; and that you, yourself,
18 said they were contacted by Patricia Cornwell's own
19 people, via her lawyers and Michael McKia of the
20 Patricia Cornwell enterprises?
21 A Which question do you want me to
22 answer?
23 Q Mr. Roberts, isn't it true that
24 you hid from the Court, from the court record and
25 from Patricia Cornwell, herself, that the article in
36
1 the Times Dispatch, which induced Patricia Cornwell
2 to spend an estimated half million dollars suing me,
3 was planted by her own legal team?
4 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I'm not
5 sure exactly how Patricia Cornwell could
6 --how Mr. Roberts can provide something to
7 her that she already knew or not provide
8 anything that she knew.
9 THE COURT: Respond to the
10 question again.
11 MR. PEPPER: I object to
12 illogical of the question.
13 THE COURT: Could you rephrase,
14 Mr. Sachs.
15 MR. SACHS: I will have to break
16 it down.
17
18 BY MR. SACHS:
19 Q Mr. Roberts, you never pursued or
20 investigated the source of the Times Dispatch article
21 in the case at all, did you?
22 You never took a deposition, and
23 never sent any interrogatory to Bill McKelway, the
24 Times Dispatch or Media General?
25 A I did not take a deposition from
37
1 anybody at the Times Dispatch.
2 Q How many depositions on my behalf
3 did you take in the case, Mr. Roberts?
4 Or let me rephrase that. Did you
5 ever depose anybody after that partial deposition of
6 Patricia Cornwell in the great First Amendment legal
7 battle in which you now claim I have $120,000.00
8 legal bill with you including the 18 percent
9 interest?
10 A Would you read the question back,
11 please.
12 Q Mr. Roberts, did you ever take,
13 you claim you have a legal bill that at its full rate
14 and which you claim to be able to collect against my
15 book proceeds is some 80 odd thousand dollars,
16 correct; and you are suing me for 10 percent of that
17 here?
18 But you claim your legal bill is
19 1,300 hours of work, correct? That is what is in
20 your court filings, a bill of $80,000.00 of which you
21 are trying to collect 10 percent, plus 18 percent
22 interest?
23 A I have to review the record.
24 Q Your bill of particulars that you
25 filed with this court?
38
1 A Do you have a copy?
2 Q And admittedly your legal bill is
3 somewhat incomprehensible, but you claim to have a
4 legal bill, I believe of some eight thousand dollars
5 at a 25 dollar rate?
6 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I'm
7 waiting for a question from Mr. Sachs.
8 THE COURT: Are you suing for 10
9 percent of your fee?
10 THE WITNESS: No. I'm suing for
11 313.3 hours of the $25.00 an hour rate is
12 7,832.50 minus the cost expended at this
13 litigation 1,479.20 payment applied.
14 THE COURT: I'm sorry.
15 THE WITNESS: It's 1,479.20 and
16 payments that were applied to the cost of
17 advance fees was $2,424.92. Leaving a
18 balance of $6,886.78 before interest or
19 attorney's fees. That's what I'm suing
20 for.
21 THE COURT: All right.
22 THE WITNESS: I have no idea
23 whether because you have not disclosed to
24 me whether there are any proceeds from book
25 sales with the rights and a like at a rate
39
1 of 50 percent until the fee is paid, so I
2 have not.
3
4 BY MR. SACHS:
5 Q In other words, Mr. Roberts, from
6 your contract your Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, your
7 claim is that if I tomorrow get a half million dollar
8 book contract for my forthcoming biography of
9 Patricia Cornwell, called Patricia Cornwell American
10 Writer, Crazy Right Wing Lesbian, and if I'm going to
11 get a half million dollars, you are claiming that I
12 will owe you half of those book proceeds until a bill
13 of approximately $80,000.00 of 313 hours; is that
14 correct? At 250 dollars an hour; isn't that what
15 your contract says? That would be $78,250.00 of
16 legal work?
17 A No, that is not what it says.
18 MR. PEPPER: Next question, Your
19 Honor?
20 A I believe because there are
21 various rates to various attorneys and staff at my
22 firm, they would not all be billed at the $250.00 an
23 hour rate. And it does, I did not come prepared to
24 go over the, what the full bill would be based upon
25 the hourly break downs, because we are not asking for
40
1 that right now.
2 But I believe it is around, in
3 the neighborhood of $63,00.00.
4 Q Okay. Mr. Roberts, taking your
5 figure of the $63,000.00 of legal work you claim to
6 have done for me plus I give 18 percent interest
7 running for three years, correct?
8 A I think, I'm not sure that I
9 agree to that, Mr. Sachs. The payment, let's see you
10 sell a book for a dollar, and the day you sell a book
11 for a dollar 50 cent of that would then become due on
12 the noon the deferred fees so I think 18 percent
13 would begin on the day that you fail to meet your
14 financial obligation and send me that check.
15 Q You are saying if I get a book
16 contract tomorrow for a half million dollars worth of
17 books, I owe you $60,000.00?
18 MR. PEPPER: We are going over
19 the contract now as if this were almost
20 negotiations. This has already been
21 negotiated.
22 THE COURT: The contract speaks
23 for itself. So the objection is sustained.
24
25 Q Mr. Roberts forgetting your
41
1 $63,000.00 plus of legal work, how many witnesses did
2 you depose on my behalf?
3 A We took a lengthy deposition of
4 Patricia Cornwell. You referenced earlier as partial
5 deposition. My recollection is that we completed
6 that.
7 Q That was only one day with
8 Patricia Cornwell, correct?
9 A The federal rules provide that, I
10 think we are limited to eight hours. So the next
11 thing is we.
12 Q Did you ever depose anybody else?
13 A I'm not done.
14 Q In fact, isn't it true, Mr.
15 Roberts, that you never deposed anyone else?
16 THE COURT: Was there more than
17 one deposition?
18 THE WITNESS: I defended the
19 deposition of Mr. Sachs, and we noticed a
20 deposition for one or two people in New
21 York.
22
23 Q You canceled those depositions,
24 didn't you, sir?
25 THE COURT: Just a moment, sir.
42
1 MR. SACHS: Pardon me.
2 THE WITNESS: And those
3 depositions were after discussing the
4 letter with Mr. Sachs, and we did not take
5 those depositions.
6 I'm sure if I had enough time to
7 think about it, I could tell you what the
8 rational for not pursuing those depositions
9 were but I'm sure at the time it was a part
10 of the cross strike that that we decided we
11 did not want them or need them.
12 I probably figured that it was
13 either not worth the expansion or more than
14 likely that the information received would
15 be damming to Mr. Sachs and be used against
16 his interest in a summary judgment
17 proceeding.
18
19 Q Mr. Roberts, you only deposed one
20 witness for $63,000.00 worth of legal work that you
21 would say you hope to collect from me if I have
22 books, and you never deposed anyone at the Times
23 Dispatch to find out how the Cornwell lawyers
24 planted, the lawyers to set up the lawsuit by me; you
25 did not depose the people in New York?
43
1 A May I have a pen and paper?
2 MR. PEPPER: So far it is asked
3 and answer.
4 THE COURT: I will allow your
5 question. Go ahead.
6 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
7 you did not depose anyone from the Times Dispatch to
8 discover, you never deposed or sent interrogatories
9 to anyone at the Times Dispatch or Media General with
10 regards to discovering whether the Times Dispatch
11 article which was one of the chief pieces of evidence
12 in banning my freedom of speech; isn't it true you
13 never deposed or took interrogatories of anyone from
14 that paper?
15 THE COURT: Mr. Roberts?
16 THE WITNESS: Okay. The answers
17 are, yes, I did not depose anybody from
18 Times Dispatch.
19 No, I could not send
20 interrogatories to the Times Dispatch
21 because they are not a party. And, no,
22 that was not the chief evidence in your
23 case.
24 I think I covered all of the
25 questions.
44
1 BY MR. SACHS:
2 Q So even though the Times Dispatch
3 article and even though Patricia Cornwell, herself,
4 said that that was something that led her to spend
5 the money to file that suit; you didn't pursue that
6 at all?
7 A No, I don't remember Patricia
8 Cornwell testifying as you are now seeking to have
9 her testify, and I think I already answered your
10 question about the former.
11 Q You know, Mr. Roberts, that I am
12 partially a Jew, and Jews died in Nazi Germany where
13 they destroyed books; you are aware of that?
14 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
15 irrelevant.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 A I'm aware of it.
18 Q Isn't it true that the principal
19 public criticism of Patricia Cornwell was that her
20 authorized agents made threats to destroy my books?
21 A No.
22 Q Isn't it true that the words
23 destroy and books are in a document, and I will be
24 entering that document into evidence in the court,
25 that those words were in a very threatening letter I
45
1 got from Patricia Cornwell's lawyer Michael Rudell
2 faxed to me on February 1, 2000?
3 MR. PEPPER: I need a little
4 background as to why this is relevant to
5 this contract?
6 THE COURT: Mr. Sachs, can you
7 address that issue, sir.
8 MR. SACHS: Mr. Roberts never
9 pursued the principal factors that were
10 involved in the denial of my First
11 Amendment Rights.
12 The key things in my case, the
13 key things that I was saying, Mr. Roberts
14 never pursued these people.
15 He canceled the depositions of
16 them without good cause. He claims to have
17 done a great deal of legal work, but yet
18 the key elements of the case, the Times
19 Dispatch article, the threatening letter I
20 got from the Cornwell people, there was no
21 pursuit of them.
22
23 BY MR. SACHS:
24 Q Isn't that right, Mr. Roberts,
25 you didn't interrogate these people, you didn't
46
1 make--
2 MR. PEPPER: I think we were in
3 the middle of the objection.
4 THE COURT: Well, your objection
5 is sustained.
6 If you could, sir, just narrow
7 the focus of your cross on the billing
8 itself, the claim that is being made today
9 that is. I heard the testimony about the
10 6,800.00 dollars or so.
11 MR. SACHS: Yes.
12
13 Q And, Mr. Roberts, with regard to
14 the money that you are suing for is representing you
15 say 300 plus hours of legal work?
16 MR. PEPPER: Asked and answered.
17 THE COURT: Respond to the
18 question please.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 A I believe that, I believe that is
21 313.3 hours.
22 Q And in 313.3 hours of legal work
23 of over a space of 90 days or so that the case
24 lasted, correct about 90 to 105 days or something
25 like that, and you only deposed one witness?
47
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2
3 Q And how many court pleadings did
4 you file in that?
5 Isn't it true that there were
6 only two court pleadings, two rather thin documents
7 of significance? Two rather thin documents that
8 constitute the bulk of the alleged 300 plus hours?
9 The response to lawsuit and the brief before the
10 hearing that the order was given to band my speech.
11 Isn't it true that these two
12 rather thin court pleadings are the substance of your
13 work product for your 300 plus hours of your work?
14 A I'm not sure I can answer all of
15 the questions. But, no, all of the pleadings that
16 we filed on your behalf were substantial. And, no, I
17 don't believe they were thin.
18 And I'm not sure I remember the
19 rest of your questions.
20 Q Mr. Roberts, in court didn't you,
21 yourself, say that the loss of freedom was worth
22 approximately one million dollars?
23 A I--
24 Q The loss of freedom to speech to
25 be correct, didn't you say in court that that was
48
1 worth approximately one million dollars?
2 A I think that would cheapen speech
3 to suggest that men and women who have died to
4 prospect our liberties are only worth a million
5 dollars.
6 Q Right now under the court order
7 that you signed partially banning my speech, if I
8 issued an edition of my book and talked about the
9 threats in Michael Rudell's letter, I would be
10 jailed, correct?
11 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, this is
12 not what we are here for.
13 THE COURT: Speculation.
14 Sustained.
15
16 Q Mr. Roberts, of your 313 hours,
17 how many hours do you feel, do you claim I paid you
18 for?
19 MR. ROBERTS: Do the court
20 records have the spread sheet?
21 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23
24 A The answer then is that you have
25 paid us, there is actually a smaller spread sheet.
49
1 Unless it is attached. That is it.
2 THE COURT: Can I also get the
3 contract as Exhibit No. 1.
4 A Referring to what was previously
5 introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2, there were
6 payments of $2,424.92 applied. And then after the
7 conclusion of the case it looks like you paid an
8 additional three payments of $150.00 a piece. The
9 first on 3-5. Second on 4-5. And then the third on
10 5-5. And then I believe you stopped paying.
11 Q Isn't it actually true that I
12 paid you $4,150.00?
13 A I believe that the answer to that
14 is: No, with clarification needed.
15 It is somewhere in a letter dated
16 February 2, 2001, we provided to you information
17 related to the payments to confirm some of those
18 moneys went directly into trusts and were disbursed
19 from trust, and the amounts that I'm referring to
20 were payments that were made that went into our
21 general account to cover the costs expended for
22 advanced, the fees earned, so.
23 Q So do you know how much I paid
24 you or you are not sure of how much I paid you?
25 A I would have to refresh my
50
1 recollection by looking at the ledger, which I think
2 the Court had up there. It is another exhibit.
3 The simple answer is what you
4 paid me for costs and fees is $2,424.92, plus
5 whatever three times 150 is.
6 Q Introducing to this Court
7 documentary proof that I paid you $4,150.00, how many
8 hours of legal work would that represent to you?
9 A I just answered your question.
10 Some of the moneys that you paid went into the firm
11 trust account and were paid directly to four things,
12 like I would assume the court reporter's transcript
13 fees.
14 So those moneys do not represent
15 --they don't represent any of my expenses.
16 Q Your figure for total expenses,
17 please?
18 A Those that were not paid directly
19 from the trust were $1,479.20. That had not been
20 paid for on excuse me February 20, 2001.
21 You would have to look at the
22 client ledger to determine whether or not there were
23 other expenditures that you had previously paid for.
24 Q But you are not sure of the
25 expenses right now?
51
1 A Not without going through the
2 records right now.
3 Q If your figure of $1,479.00 and
4 expenses were correct, and if the Court were
5 satisfied with the documentary proof of $4,150.00
6 paid to you by me--
7 A Could you start over please.
8 Q That would leave, I believe
9 $2,671.00, and at your $25 an hour rate?
10 A Mr. Sachs, if you could start
11 over I would follow you please.
12 Q Your guess about expenses so far
13 is $1,479.00. You are not sure, but that is the
14 closest figure you have at the moment?
15 MR. PEPPER: That is the amount
16 outstanding.
17 THE WITNESS: Correct.
18 MR. SACHS: Thank you.
19
20 Q So you are saying that if that
21 figure and with showing you that I paid you 4,150,
22 and if we subtract the 1,479 with the 2,671
23 remaining, that would represent well over 100 hours
24 of legal work, correct?
25 A No. You got it all wrong. I've
52
1 already explained it to you.
2 Q How would that be wrong?
3 A All right. Well, 313.3 hours
4 times the $25 an hour non-deferred rate is a total of
5 $7,832.50 cost expended and not paid for by you was
6 $1,479.20.
7 The payments that were applied to
8 the firm for costs advancing fees was $2,424.92. The
9 balance due is $6,886.78 plus interest and Court
10 costs and attorney's fees.
11 The additional moneys over and
12 above the $2,424.92 that you paid to us excluding the
13 three $150 checks, would have been paid for, would
14 have been applied directly from the trust to expenses
15 incurred.
16 Q Do you have proof of these
17 claimed expenses that you have submitted to the
18 Court?
19 A Sure. We have our ledgers of it.
20 Q Do you have receipts showing the
21 expenses? The reason I ask, Mr. Roberts, is my
22 receipts that I have seen only add up to $1,344.23 in
23 expenses?
24 A What one thousand what?
25 Q I have $1,344.23 in expenses.
53
1 Those are the only receipts that I have seen.
2 A So you have seen receipts for
3 those, and now if I go through the ledger, let me do
4 that. Hold on we will start with postage on 2.09 on
5 April 27, 2000. That would be noted in the
6 secretaries log that she spent 2.09 on your postage
7 on that date for that month. That is usually the way
8 it is done though.
9 And then the next expense is
10 copies on May 1, 2000. And it does, it looks like it
11 is 1,900 copies at .10 a piece 190. And I doubt
12 there is a receipt for that because that is the
13 charge that the firm charges for copies.
14 I think the court charges .25 or
15 maybe a dollar per page, but we only charge .10 per
16 copy.
17 Q So you made them on the firm's
18 copier, and there is no receipt of these?
19 A That is correct.
20 Q You, Mr. Roberts, you testified
21 that there was a settlement in the case?
22 A Yes, you authorized a settlement.
23 Q Your claim that I authorized a
24 settlement, isn't it true that that's a lie?
25 A No, that is not true.
54
1 Q The settlement that you claim I
2 agreed to a banning of my speech, I agreed to a court
3 order, according to you, where I can be jailed for
4 speaking my opinions, for reporting on my experiences
5 regarding Patricia Cornwell, you are claiming that I
6 agreed to this?
7 A Mr. Sachs, I'm not willing to
8 give you any legal advice anymore.
9 The consent decree states as
10 follows: Leslie Raymond Sachs individually trading
11 as Pussy Cat Press, is permanently enjoined from,
12 one, placing any stickers on copies of the Virginia
13 Ghost Murders, which sticker uses Patricia D.
14 Cornwell's name or any description designed to
15 identify Patricia Cornwell.
16 And, two, using Patricia D.
17 Cornwell's name or any description designed to
18 identify Patricia Cornwell for the purpose of
19 advertising his book the Virginia Ghost Murders.
20 B, Leslie Raymond Sachs
21 individually and trading as Pussy Cat Press, is
22 hereby ordered to, one, communicate to all book
23 sellers to whom Sachs has sold copies to Virginia
24 Ghost Murders to which Sachs affixed stickers or had
25 them affixed and instructs said book sellers that use
55
1 of the stickers has been enjoyed and requests them to
2 remove the stickers or to obliterate the text of the
3 stickers.
4 And, two, purge his web site
5 WWW.VAGHOST.Com of Patricia D. Cornwell's name or any
6 description designed to identify Patricia D.
7 Cornwell.
8 Three, refrain from using the
9 name of Patricia D. Cornwell in any way for
10 advertising, marketing, or promoting his book The
11 Virginia Ghost Murders.
12 C, the bond posted by Plaintiff
13 is null and void.
14 D, the Plaintiff is awarded no
15 damages. Each party shall be responsible for its own
16 attorney's fees and cost.
17 And, E, the case is dismissed
18 subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to
19 enforce the terms and conditions of this consent
20 decree for the permanent conjunction.
21 That is the order, and I'm not
22 giving you advice unless you are willing to pay, and
23 I would not even give it to you even if you are
24 willing to pay, unless the Court ordered me to do it
25 I suppose. But that is what your enjoying period.
56
1 Q Under that court order I can be
2 jailed for saying things, correct?
3 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I don't
4 think it is relevant to this.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6
7 Q Tell me, Mr. Roberts, what was
8 the benefit of this so called settlement that you
9 alleged to me?
10 A What was what?
11 MR. PEPPER: Again, Your Honor,
12 irrelevant.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14
15 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, to
16 the best of your knowledge at the time, I supposedly
17 agreed to the settlement, I had no money at all,
18 other than pocket money weekly cash flow, I was a
19 paycheck to paycheck person; is that right?
20 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
21 irrelevant.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23
24 Q So you are saying, Mr. Roberts,
25 that on this settlement I agreed to this order, I
57
1 agreed to --I was in a position where I would be
2 paying you 60 thousand dollars plus if my writing
3 career should continue; and that I did this to avoid
4 getting a financial judgment against me? You are
5 claiming I did this?
6 A Mr. Sachs, I can only tell you
7 what you did. You agreed to the settlement.
8 Q Isn't it true that the way you
9 got the settlement, Mr. Roberts, was by calling me up
10 at my place of employment, which was when I was a
11 carpet sale's man at the Richmond Dump?
12 You called me up at work, and you
13 told me a story that Judge Payne was very angry with
14 me?
15 Isn't it true that you told me a
16 story that I faced jail under his court order if I
17 did not submit to the terms; isn't that true, Mr.
18 Roberts?
19 A No, that is not true.
20 Q Isn't it true that in written
21 correspondence to you in days afterwards, I actually
22 talked about your extortion threats?
23 Within the next few days after
24 your phone call to me, that there is written
25 correspondence received by your fax machine by my fax
58
1 machine talking about your extortion threats?
2 A Mr. Sachs, you would have to
3 --the correspondence from your office goes on and on
4 with really insane accusations. So if you can show
5 me a letter that you are referring to, I would be
6 happy to look at it.
7 You know that you freely and
8 voluntarily entered into a settlement, and the
9 settlement is a great settlement under the
10 circumstances that Judge Payne--
11 Q What makes it great? Pardon me.
12 A That Judge Payne had already
13 overruled essentially your only defense in the case.
14 The matter was up on appeal, and
15 you provided me two letters apologizing to Patricia
16 Cornwell, and they dropped their suit against you and
17 had the injunction, the portion of which I read to
18 the Court, was entered. And that was the end of the
19 case.
20 And immediately thereafter, you
21 were very happy. You brought me a bottle of wine.
22 You said thank you, thank you, thank you. And you
23 started paying on the bill, and then three months
24 later you stopped.
25 Now, I don't know why you
59
1 stopped. Okay. That is all I know.
2 Q Mr. Roberts, isn't it true that
3 the bottle of wine I gave you was, in fact, a satiric
4 reference of you speaking of how you looked forward
5 to having a bottle of wine at Patricia Cornwell's
6 house?
7 And how you spoke of how you
8 thought she had very fine wine, and isn't it true
9 that you understood that to be another satiric
10 reference to your own collusion with the Cornwell
11 forces?
12 A No. I think the reference was
13 given the ardent of advocacy that I provided to you
14 that it was highly unlikely that I would ever be
15 invited to a party by Patricia Cornwell.
16 Q You call it ardent advocacy with
17 only having taken one deposition?
18 MR. PEPPER: Objection, Your
19 Honor. Argumentative and answered.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21
22 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
23 when you made your call telling me I would be jailed
24 if I didn't submit to your settlement, that I
25 submitted to you by saying congratulations on a
60
1 successful extortion?
2 A I don't remember what you may
3 have said. I do know, Mr. Sachs, that you provided
4 the letters on your letterhead signed by you to
5 Patricia Cornwell. And that if you did not want to
6 settle the case, you didn't have to settle the case.
7 Q Wasn't that also a part of your
8 threats to me that I would be jailed?
9 A No, sir. I think in the course
10 of representing you I made it very clear that if you
11 violated the injunction that Judge Payne entered,
12 that you stood the risk of being held in contempt by
13 the Court and part of those contempt powers included
14 the power to jail you.
15 Q Isn't it true that in light of
16 the fact that a false article was printed in the
17 Times Dispatch by a reporter I never met put words in
18 my mouth, that I could be easily jailed under false
19 evidence under your settlement that you arranged?
20 MR. PEPPER: Irrelevant, Your
21 Honor.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 MR. PEPPER: And I want to ask
24 the Court to direct Mr. Sachs to ask
25 questions bearing on what we are here for
61
1 today.
2 THE COURT: I've done so
3 repeatedly. Continue with your cross, sir.
4
5 Q Mr. Roberts, isn't it true that a
6 lot of the hours that you are billing me for are
7 actually, there's in the legal papers there is a set
8 of papers there where you are being charged with
9 possible sanctions by the Court, and you're billing
10 me for that; is that correct?
11 A I don't recall that. I would
12 have to see that. Why don't you show me that and
13 refresh my recollection.
14 MR. SACHS: Is this a proper
15 time to share that, Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Yes, sir, if you have
17 it.
18
19 Q Here is a set of documents
20 involving Mr. Roberts being charged with sanctions
21 for that.
22 A What documents are you testifying
23 to? Is this a question?
24 Q Aren't these the documents saying
25 that having to do with the time that you spent on the
62
1 case dealing with a potential sanctions charge?
2 A Let me review it. Okay. Now,
3 what is the question please?
4 Q Mr. Roberts, so isn't it true
5 that a certain substantial amount of your time in
6 that case was dealing with an issue of personal
7 sanctions possibly against yourself?
8 A No.
9 Q Is it fair, Mr. Roberts, that you
10 would bill me for this time that you spent on
11 avoiding personal sanctions?
12 A Yes.
13 Q So you think that is fair? Don't
14 you agree too that these documents show that you
15 canceled the depositions?
16 A These documents show that there
17 is a two page response to a motion for sanctions.
18 It states the hours of defense of
19 counsel being consoled in light of the allegations
20 counsel entered and an appearance on behalf of
21 Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff's emergency motion
22 for a preliminary injunction. Based on upon the
23 allegations it initially appeared that the deposition
24 of Waddell G. Jonty and Juan would be required.
25 Defense counsel refused to
63
1 produce Juan at the deposition of Cornwell and upon
2 further search and consideration it was determined
3 that these depositions were not necessary.
4 Upon that determination the
5 defense counsel drafted and typed and directed the
6 staff to immediately fax Plaintiff's counsel a letter
7 advising him of the same. Defense counsel was
8 immersed in pulling together a defense for staff
9 engaged in the regular practice of law that the firm
10 was engaged.
11 On April 28, 2000, the firm filed
12 its opening brief and another matter with the Court
13 of Appeals with the Fourth Circuit.
14 On May 2, 2000, Thomas Roberts
15 argued before the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
16 Circuit yet another matter. Nevertheless between
17 April 18, 2000, and May 3, 2000, the defense firm
18 expensed $25,000.00 preparing a response for this
19 emergency.
20 At no time had plaintiff's
21 counsel even suggested a need to visit in person and
22 coach to prepare to well established attorneys
23 Wendell and Jonty for the depositions.
24 Particularly, given the more
25 confirming limits Plaintiff's counsel had indicated
64
1 would be placed on those depositions. There are--
2 MR. SACHS: If he can stop
3 reading.
4 THE COURT: That's enough,
5 Mr. Roberts. Next question.
6
7 Q Do you recognize these letters,
8 Mr. Roberts?
9 THE COURT: Go ahead, sir, you
10 may approach.
11 Q Do you recognize these letters,
12 Mr. Roberts?
13 A No, not yet. I have not seen
14 them. First, I only see one letter.
15 Q Yes. I'm sorry. There is one
16 letter and a selection from a transcript there.
17 A Not off of the top of my head, I
18 don't recall this.
19 Q Okay.
20 A Would you like me to read it in
21 detail?
22 Q There is a particular phrase I
23 would like you to catch the second page of the letter
24 in the second paragraph, the fourth line and start,
25 if you would, read just that line.
65
1 A Where, please again?
2 Q It is page 2 of the letter second
3 paragraph, fourth line, and if you would, just read
4 that line.
5 A I'm sorry, I lost you.
6 MR. PEPPER: First full
7 paragraph?
8 A Thank you.
9 Q Okay. And it says and, that,
10 please read it, Mr. Roberts.
11 A Could you show me where you are
12 referring to?
13 MR. PEPPER: Page 2, Tom.
14 A Okay. Okay. I've read it.
15 Q And would you please read it out
16 loud the word that begins with D and following that?
17 A Are you talking about the hearsay
18 there?
19 Q Please begin reading with the
20 word D.
21 THE COURT: Is there a document
22 that you recognize?
23 MR. ROBERTS: I don't recognize
24 this. I'm not copied on it.
25 THE COURT: The objection is
66
1 sustained.
2 THE WITNESS: I'm referring to
3 the letter there is an attachment to the
4 deposition.
5
6 BY MR. SACHS:
7 Q Michael Rudell was Cornwell's
8 lawyer?
9 A That rings a bell. One of them.
10 He was not involved directly in the litigation, but
11 the matter that we handled for you though.
12 Q Michael Rudell, in so far as
13 Michael Rudell threatened to destroy my books on
14 behalf of Patricia Cornwell, wasn't it important to
15 depose him as ardent defense of my First Amendment
16 rights?
17 A Mr. Sachs, a short answer to that
18 is: No, given the matter that was pending before
19 Judge Payne.
20 Q The sticker on my book that was
21 banned by the court order, what did the sticker say?
22 A Mr. Sachs, the injunction that I
23 read to you in court today indicated there is nothing
24 in there, there is nothing banning your stuff.
25 It is unlikely anybody is going
67
1 to read it or few will read it, but the question is:
2 Is it a book? Yes, it is a book.
3 Q And did anybody take your book
4 away?
5 A There is no evidence to that.
6 What they have is a sticker. And the injunction said
7 you can't use Patricia Cornwell's name. Putting it
8 on a sticker on your book in hopes to gain a
9 financial advantage using her coat tails.
10 Q Could you please recall what was
11 on the sticker that was banned?
12 A I couldn't recall specifically.
13 Generally speaking the allegation, I believe you made
14 on the sticker was that Patricia Cornwell in a book
15 that she had yet to publish stole your ideas.
16 Q Aren't you speaking inaccurately,
17 Mr. Roberts? Didn't it talk about--
18 A Why don't you show it to me then?
19 MR. PEPPER: Objection.
20 THE COURT: How is this relevant
21 for what we are here today for, Mr. Sachs?
22 MR. SACHS: It is that
23 Mr. Roberts didn't act as my lawyer in the
24 case.
25 Mr. Roberts served the interest
68
1 of the Cornwell lawyer's by not pursuing
2 the key elements of the case.
3 He avoided the truth. He did not
4 pursue the witnesses that would have been
5 pursued as a part of the First Amendment
6 defense of my freedom, which he claims to
7 have done.
8 Mr. Roberts cheated me. He
9 defrauded me. He committed extortion
10 against me. He was not my lawyer in that
11 case.
12 THE COURT: I will give you a
13 chance to bring that up on your direct on
14 your defense of the case, but I don't see
15 how the continuation of all of the
16 questions that are what I consider issues
17 outside of why we are here today is
18 necessary.
19 So I'm going to sustain the
20 objection.
21
22 BY MR. SACHS:
23 Q Do you recognize these checks?
24 The front and back copies of these canceled checks?
25 A I can't say that I recognize
69
1 them, Mr. Sachs. I do know that my records reflect
2 the moneys that you paid to our firm.
3 Q These are front and backs of
4 canceled checks and there aren't very many, Mr.
5 Roberts. Don't these total $4,150.00?
6 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, it is
7 irrelevant. Mr. Roberts has stated that
8 $4,150.00 was paid.
9 If there is some debate as to how
10 it was applied.
11 THE COURT: I agree with that.
12 Mr. Sachs, there is no contest or dispute
13 concerning the payments that you have made,
14 sir, $4,150.00 has been acknowledged by
15 Mr. Roberts.
16 Are you trying to allege, sir,
17 that you have not received credit for
18 something you paid?
19 MR. SACHS: It had appeared to
20 me from what Mr. Roberts was saying that he
21 wasn't sure about how much I had paid him.
22 THE WITNESS: May I have a minute
23 to make sure that is correct, the 4,150?
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25
70
1 Q And do you recognize these
2 documents, Mr. Roberts?
3 THE COURT: Do you recognize the
4 document, Mr. Roberts?
5 THE WITNESS: I believe I do.
6 THE COURT: Next question.
7 Q And, Mr. Roberts, didn't you hand
8 me the Thomas Moore document for the purpose of
9 terrorizing me with how Thomas Moore had been killed
10 by the government for his views?
11 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
12 irrelevant.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE COURT: Did you give him this
15 letter, sir?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I
17 would have to review it. I don't recall
18 doing that.
19 THE COURT: Next question.
20
21 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, in
22 the meeting after I sent you that fax that you spoke
23 to me of how there's a lot of rape in jail, and you
24 did so because of your lawyer's knowledge of how I
25 had been raped by my stepfather as a child; and that
71
1 you terrorized me with the imagine of being raped in
2 jail to win the settlement that you extorted against
3 my wishes.
4 A No, that is not true, Mr. Sachs.
5 THE COURT: There is no question
6 before you Mr. Roberts.
7 Q Mr. Roberts, do you recognize
8 these two pleadings?
9 A Yes, I do.
10 Q Were there any other pleadings
11 filed in that case by you?
12 A Yes, there were.
13 Q Of what approximate length and
14 substance were the other pleadings?
15 A There are various motions for
16 notices to take depositions. There were numerous
17 discovery, the discovery that was not filed.
18 Q Not counting motions and notices,
19 Mr. Roberts, any other significant pleadings?
20 A They were all significant, sir.
21 Q But aside from motions and
22 notices and these two?
23 A I think that these two would
24 represent the ones that went directly to the merits
25 of the case. Unless we filed, and I don't see it
72
1 here. Unless we filed a 12V6. I don't know if we
2 did or not.
3 Q Isn't it true--
4 A That is a separate pleading.
5 Q Mr. Roberts, isn't it true,
6 Mr. Roberts, these two major pleadings here actually
7 date from the first few weeks of the case?
8 The first being the answer that
9 you filed within, I forget three weeks or so of the
10 initial lawsuit, and the second issue before the
11 injunction hearing that banned my speech.
12 They are fairly early in the
13 three or four month periods, correct?
14 A The dates are on the documents,
15 Mr. Sachs. The first went out on the 2nd day of May
16 2000. And the second went out on the 5th day of May
17 2000.
18 And let's see here. And then, of
19 course, there was a hearing, so.
20 Q Mr. Roberts, the Patricia
21 Cornwell deposition was also taken very early in the
22 case, your only deposition was actually taken within
23 a few days of when you represented me; is that
24 correct? After you began to allegedly represent me?
25 Or perhaps let me refresh your memory with a
73
1 document.
2 A What is the question please?
3 Q Isn't it true that the Patricia
4 Cornwell deposition, your only deposition that you
5 took also dates from a very early point in the case?
6 A According to the billing records
7 it does look like the deposition of Patricia
8 Cornwell.
9 Q April 26th?
10 A April 26, 2000.
11 Q If I may show you the cover page
12 of the deposition and a page from it.
13 THE COURT: And what is the point
14 of that, sir?
15 MR. SACHS: Your Honor, there
16 was very little legal work done by Mr.
17 Roberts after.
18 THE COURT: He acknowledges that
19 he took the deposition of Patricia
20 Cornwell.
21 MR. SACHS: And there is
22 something on a page from the deposition
23 there too that shows that Patricia
24 Cornwell, herself, was very emotional about
25 the subject of Nazi book burning threats,
74
1 and she, herself, may deserve some
2 punishment.
3 THE COURT: And where does that
4 get us, sir, in the obligation of your
5 attorney's fees?
6 MR. SACHS: That Mr. Roberts did
7 not act as an attorney who would have been
8 representing me. He did very little work.
9 THE COURT: I'm trying to connect
10 the statement that you said Ms. Cornwell
11 made to Mr. Roberts.
12 MR. SACHS: Mr. Roberts did not
13 ever pursue that.
14 THE COURT: I think you have
15 established that, sir. I don't think we
16 need to beat the dead horse. Let's move
17 on.
18 THE WITNESS: Judge, if I could
19 on the Thomas Moore statement.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Roberts, there is
21 no question before you.
22 THE WITNESS: Could I correct my
23 testimony?
24 THE COURT: No, sir. Go ahead,
25 Mr. Sachs.
75
1 BY MR. SACHS:
2 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
3 at that deposition with Patricia Cornwell on April
4 26th on the video tape that you have, and that you
5 refused to give to me; isn't it true that Patricia
6 Cornwell began to shriek somewhat hysterically when
7 you talked about the issue of counter suing her?
8 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
9 irrelevant.
10 A The first question is false. You
11 have been provided with everything in the file
12 including video tapes.
13 The second question I forgot, was
14 what?
15 Q Isn't it true that Ms. Cornwell
16 began to get very emotional upset and began to shriek
17 hysterically as you spoke to her about counter suing
18 her?
19 A I don't recall.
20 THE COURT: First of all, did you
21 speak to her about counter suing?
22 THE WITNESS: I would have to
23 --it was an eight hour deposition, Judge.
24 THE COURT: You don't recall?
25 THE WITNESS: I don't recall
76
1 that.
2 THE COURT: Next question.
3
4 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
5 after that deposition of Patricia Cornwell, you and
6 your partner, Tim Schulte exalted that you had won
7 the case for me because Patricia Cornwell was so
8 crazy and stupid, in your words, that you had never
9 seen a witness so bad as her?
10 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, this is
11 irrelevant.
12 THE COURT: Sustained. Next
13 question.
14 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
15 after that initial period the case changed radically?
16 It was after that Patricia
17 Cornwell deposition that you canceled all of the
18 other depositions, and you never took another
19 significant step to--
20 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, asked
21 and answered.
22 THE COURT: He has already
23 answered that, Mr. Sachs.
24 Over and over he has indicated
25 that he consulted with you concerning
77
1 further depositions. That was as a part of
2 the trial strategy.
3
4 Q And, Mr. Roberts, at the end of
5 the case didn't you say to me that you were afraid
6 the Cornwell case, and your role in it, would haunt
7 you some day?
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I don't
10 believe the defendant has anymore relevant
11 questions or it would appear that way.
12 THE COURT: I don't know, sir.
13 I'm going to give him a chance to complete
14 his cross.
15
16 Q Mr. Roberts, didn't you also
17 speak to me of the way that, because in your and our
18 joint opinion, Ms. Cornwell appeared to be somewhat
19 under the influence of narcotics at her deposition,
20 that you also used that as a claim that Patricia
21 Cornwell's influence with people in the drug
22 community could also lead me to be killed in jail if
23 I was jailed under the court order?
24 MR. PEPPER: Objection.
25 THE COURT: Sustained. Next
78
1 question.
2 Q Isn't it?
3 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I
4 believe that Mr. Sachs is trying to flush
5 out his motions to this Court, his 30 page
6 motion to this Court as far as the
7 allegations he is making against Mr.
8 Roberts, whether or not Mr. Roberts' answer
9 is not Mr. Sachs' intention here, he wants
10 the Court to be aware of all of his
11 opinions about Mr. Roberts.
12 I'm not sure how many irrelevant
13 questions it is going to take before he is
14 in contempt or done with questions.
15 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Sachs.
16
17 BY MR. SACHS:
18 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, that
19 is First Amendment attorney in New York, Dorothy
20 Webber, contacted your office offering free legal
21 assistance for my First Amendment rights?
22 A I don't recall that. I would be
23 happy to review my records to see if I can find her
24 name and refresh my memory.
25 Q And isn't it true that you did
79
1 not make use of such assistance?
2 THE COURT: He says he didn't
3 recall, sir. Next question.
4
5 Q Isn't it true?
6 A If I could go back. I would like
7 my recollection refreshed and answer by saying on
8 July 20, 2000, I received a telephone call from
9 Dorothy Webber. She received Mr. Sachs' letter and
10 was very interested in the case.
11 She is with the firm Showcone,
12 Payford and Webber. And as a member of the First
13 Amendment Lawyer's Association, she will give a talk
14 on topic of trade mark protection and First Amendment
15 and might write and an amicus brief.
16 She gave me her Fed Ex number for
17 copies and mailings. And that appears to have been
18 Tim Schulte who spoke with her. And my recollection
19 is we probably sent her the pleadings, and we never
20 heard back from her.
21 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Roberts, there
22 were also offers of amicus brief filings offered by
23 the Publisher's Association on my behalf?
24 A I think the amicus brief is what
25 I just referenced then and there.
80
1 Q By the Publisher's Association,
2 not Ms. Webber?
3 A I can tell you, Mr. Sachs, nobody
4 came forward to do such a thing, and we would have
5 invited anybody to file an amicus brief and that
6 would go back.
7 THE COURT: Mr. Roberts, you
8 know, unless those are briefs are them
9 agreeing to pay his attorney's fees, I
10 don't think we need to hear anymore
11 testimony.
12 Mr. Sachs, do you have any
13 further questions for Mr. Roberts?
14 MR. SACHS: Nothing further on
15 the cross-examination.
16 THE COURT: Very good. Any
17 redirect examination?
18 MR. PEPPER: I have one question
19 on redirect.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21
22
23
24
25
81
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. PEPPER:
3 Q Mr. Roberts, you were asked about
4 this Thomas Moore letter. Would you care to explain
5 if you sent it or if you did what it meant?
6 A Yes. The letter. By reviewing
7 the records in time on July, excuse me, August 7th of
8 I believe that is 2000, we had a conference, I had a
9 conference with Mr. Sachs related to the settlement,
10 and I did discuss with him Thomas Moore and the
11 impact of false confessions.
12 We discussed the analogy of
13 saying school-yard bullying versus recanting issues
14 of faith. He agreed Ms. Cornwell was more like a
15 bully than attempt to pronounce any issues of faith.
16 So we reviewed Judge Payne's
17 order, and I impressed upon him the seriousness of
18 any violation of the order. And I discussed with him
19 a specific limitations of that order.
20 And so, in short, having
21 refreshed my recollection, the issue was, you know,
22 one, of how important were the issues in front of
23 him. Do you have somebody who is just pressing sort
24 of the school-yard bully or is it a matter of
25 significant importance like Mr. Moore. Apparently
82
1 Mr. Moore--
2 THE COURT: Was this before or
3 after the order was entered by Judge Payne?
4 THE WITNESS: This was when we
5 were discussing the settlement, and I
6 believe the sketch order that he agreed to.
7 You know, which had a very narrow
8 injunctive relief that I read to the Court
9 earlier.
10 It just dealt with the sticker on
11 the book as it related to him marketing it
12 through Ms. Cornwell.
13 THE COURT: Thank you.
14
15 Q Did Mr. Sachs compare
16 Ms. Cornwell to a bully?
17 A As opposed to, you know, a matter
18 where somebody by force was pressing somebody to give
19 up a matter of faith and a matter of faith was one of
20 those things you are willing to die for.
21 And he agreed that this issue was
22 not one that he was willing to press that far, like a
23 matter of faith. It was not, the sticker on the book
24 ultimately was not that important, given the fact
25 that the restraint was not on his speech. It only
83
1 had to do with marketing the book with Ms. Cornwell's
2 name.
3 You know, the world of First
4 Amendment might not crumble with this case
5 particularly given the facts of this case.
6 THE COURT: Any further redirect
7 examination?
8 THE WITNESS: Just because I
9 don't think either of us remember the
10 exhibits. Were the billing records in
11 there?
12 THE COURT: Yes, sir. The
13 billing records are in the Court's file or
14 at least you may have some of them with
15 you. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5, I believe
16 is still with you.
17 THE WITNESS: All right. Yes, 3,
18 4, and 5. Do you think it is here? Here
19 it is. No.
20 THE COURT: I believe you have
21 the summary and the detailed billing.
22 Actually you have No. 3.
23 THE WITNESS: Is that it?
24 THE COURT: Yes, sir, that is
25 all.
84
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.
2 THE COURT: Any further redirect
3 examination?
4 MR. PEPPER: I don't have
5 anything further.
6 THE COURT: All right. Sir, you
7 may step down. Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Sachs, are you ready for your defense,
9 sir?
10 MR. SACHS: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Go right ahead.
12 MR. SACHS: Your Honor, this is
13 not a bill correction case.
14 If Mr. Roberts had been my
15 lawyer, I would have been glad to pay him
16 to be.
17 This was a terrible crime that
18 this man committed against me. I'm a
19 writer. I've never made money until
20 recently, now, suddenly I have.
21 Of course, I've given up my
22 writing career because of the order banning
23 my speech and because of how easily I can
24 be jailed under the order.
25 The order is very vague. It says
85
1 I can be, I am in contempt if I do anything
2 to market my books that mention Cornwell.
3 And the Judge made it clear, in his 50 page
4 order, banning my speech --the order is
5 about 50 pages long.
6 The Judge made it clear that he
7 thought my opinions of Cornwell were false
8 opinions. So when I objected to, for
9 example, the book burning, the book burning
10 threats, and threats from her lawyers. The
11 Judge said it was false for me to object to
12 that and if I publicized that.
13 Mr. Roberts advised me it was
14 dangerous for me to stay a publisher and
15 writer, because I could be very easily
16 jailed. And I do see how dangerous it is.
17 And other lawyers advised me of that great
18 danger too.
19 There was no settlement in that
20 case. I would not have signed away my
21 right to speak. The only way that they
22 could get me to do that, they knew I wanted
23 to have that order voided and appealed.
24 The only way they won was by that threat to
25 jail me.
86
1 Mr. Roberts knew I had been raped
2 as a child, and he used that. They told me
3 I would be raped in jail like Chuck
4 Richardson and jailed like he was on
5 contempt of court. And how they couldn't
6 get Mr. Richardson out for 18 months.
7 And that the big political power
8 people, Mr. Roberts called Judge Payne a
9 crooked southern judge. And Judge Payne
10 had been appointed by senators who got
11 campaign contributions from Patricia
12 Cornwell.
13 I wanted to fight, but they ended
14 the case. And there was no reason to
15 settle that case. I'm a writer. That's
16 everything. I have nothing to lose. I had
17 no money. I had no assets. I never made
18 money in my life. I was a sales's man in
19 the carpet store with a bunch of credit
20 card bills.
21 Filing bankruptcy would have been
22 a help to me, because I had 30 or 40
23 thousand in credit card bills. Whatever
24 money I had, I gave to Roberts. At the
25 time, I was just the paycheck to paycheck
87
1 kind of person, week to week.
2 There was no settlement there.
3 Mr. Roberts noted to deceive me from the
4 very beginning. He told me what a great
5 First Amendment lawyer he was. How he was
6 connected with First Amendment lawyers
7 across the country.
8 How Rodney Sola of the University
9 of Richmond, the First Amendment scholar,
10 would be helping to have him win the case
11 against Cornwell.
12 He assured me my speech would
13 never be banned. It was to ridiculous to
14 conceive. There would be no order banning
15 my speech.
16 Mr. Roberts told about this
17 foundation he was connected with which
18 would help my legal fees, and that there
19 would be counter suits against Cornwell,
20 including possible racketeering charges
21 because of the obliviousness with which the
22 false article in the Times Dispatch, which
23 set up the lawsuit.
24 In the Cornwell court papers the
25 Times Dispatch article was the big show
88
1 piece of why my speech should be banned.
2 It said something different than
3 I was saying. My sticker on the book
4 talked about the book burning threats,
5 which were deeply offensive to me.
6 I'm part many ethnic heritages,
7 but I'm a little Jewish. And I used to
8 teach a course at Harvard on Nazi Germany
9 along with other graduate students.
10 In Nazi Germany they destroyed
11 books. When I got that letter that I have
12 handed to him about how they threatened to
13 destroy my books, it set off my upsetness
14 as someone who identified with the Jews who
15 died in Nazi Germany. And that's what I
16 publicized.
17 A reporter who never met me, made
18 a phoney article in the paper saying that I
19 was accusing Patricia Cornwell of
20 plagiarism with regard to a book that she
21 had already changed around. And then they
22 got an order banning my speech using that
23 article.
24 Mr. Roberts had promised me
25 likely recofilings against the Cornwell
89
1 gang for putting false evidence into
2 federal court, and that's why the
3 depositions of the lawyers in New York were
4 scheduled, because the lawyer in New York
5 had faxed the extortion letter from the
6 Cornwell gang.
7 And Mr. Roberts said I would have
8 kicked Cornwell's teeth in with counter
9 suits. And the first few days he really
10 did seem to act like a lawyer. He was very
11 aggressive at the Cornwell deposition. But
12 Cornwell got very upset when she heard
13 counter suits.
14 I thought this case is over. It
15 is going to be over tomorrow as soon as
16 Roberts let's them know he is going to file
17 counter suits.
18 Roberts approached me a few days
19 afterwards with a story that First
20 Amendment scholar Rodney Sola and all the
21 other First Amendment experts that he was
22 consulting with around the country and the
23 Freedom Works Foundation, had determined it
24 was impossible to file counter suits
25 against Patricia Cornwell.
90
1 Roberts snowed me. I didn't
2 realize he was until the end in July one
3 day Mr. Roberts' former partner, Tim
4 Schulte, asked for a bribe from the
5 Cornwell lawyers right in front of me to
6 settle the case. He said, well, how much
7 of our legal fees are you going to you pay.
8 I was flabbergasted. I said you
9 are asking for a bribe to give away my
10 First Amendment Rights. Mr. Roberts'
11 partner said we didn't take this case to
12 defend your freedom. We took this case to
13 make money, and since the Judge has
14 destroyed your publishing career, we can't
15 get our money from you, we have to get it
16 from Cornwell.
17 And with Roberts having painted
18 the picture of how I would be jailed, and
19 the only thing keeping me out of jail was
20 his presence on the case. And since the
21 judge had introduced Mr. Roberts to me, and
22 I had no money. The Times Dispatch printed
23 false evidence. I was totally surrounded.
24 When he called me at work with
25 that extortion phone call, I thought of
91
1 letting them put me in jail, but I thought
2 of the Jews who died in Nazi Germany. And
3 they had a thought to live to tell this
4 story another day.
5 But there was no reason for me to
6 settle that case. I had no money. I had
7 everything to win by appealing that order,
8 and that order, that would have been
9 reversed by the Court of Appeals, because
10 that order bans me from responding to that
11 article in the Times Dispatch.
12 I can't respond on my web site.
13 A false article by a billion dollar news
14 paper, and if I respond to it, I'm put in
15 jail. And so my publishing career, I don't
16 write or publish.
17 It was the only thing that meant
18 anything to me. And I have tried now.
19 I've got a career making money. I'm a
20 mortgage loan officer helping people with
21 bad credit. And now I'm making a hundred
22 thousand a year. I don't care about money.
23 It is all to win back my freedom against
24 this man, and against these lawyers.
25 It is not Cornwell, herself. She
92
1 is a cooky rich person. But it was the
2 lawyers who set it up, because Cornwell,
3 herself, said it was that article in the
4 Times Dispatch. They planted that article,
5 so they could tap Patricia Cornwell for a
6 quarter or half million in legal fees or
7 whatever it was.
8 Cornwell, on the witness stand,
9 they cross-examined her. Roberts didn't
10 cross-examine Cornwell when she said, she
11 said she never threatened to destroy my
12 books, and yet destroy and books were right
13 in that extortion letter that her lawyers
14 faxed.
15 I asked Roberts why didn't you
16 cross-examine her. She lied on the witness
17 stand. You could have ripped her to
18 pieces. Roberts said, oh, no,
19 cross-examining Cornwell, that would have
20 just made the judge angry. He might have
21 jailed you on the spot.
22 And, Your Honor, I pay people my
23 debts. This isn't about debt. This is
24 about my freedom.
25 With the lawyers I am lining up
93
1 now, I'm going to go into federal court and
2 ask that that order be declared null and
3 void because of Thomas Roberts extortion.
4 And if that doesn't succeed, two
5 or three years from now, I'm going to be
6 living in another country because so I
7 don't have to live with a fear of being
8 jailed that I have lived with every day
9 since this man destroyed my life three
10 years ago.
11 This isn't about money, Your
12 Honor. I don't --I've spent thousands of
13 dollars. I will spend everything to get my
14 freedom back. If I have to leave the
15 country, it will be because of this man's
16 extortion.
17 There was no settlement. He
18 didn't do any legal work. That phoney
19 charitable foundation. You can tell he is
20 a fraud from the first day there. And
21 there was no legal work done on this case.
22 When I finally got hold of those
23 files in October, you don't see any notes
24 preparing for trial. He is just, he's
25 just, he's just marking time.
94
1 They couldn't let that order get
2 appealed, because Cornwell would have been
3 mad at her own lawyers then, and that was
4 the fount of money. And Roberts played
5 their game. That's what happened, Your
6 Honor.
7 THE COURT: All right, sir.
8 Thank you. Any cross.
9 MR. PEPPER: No.
10 THE COURT: All right, sir.
11 Thank you.
12 Mr. Pepper, exactly how much is
13 the claim, sir? Is it the $6,888.00 as
14 reference by Mr. Roberts on the stand or is
15 it the 8,365?
16 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, we have
17 a new figure that includes the interest,
18 but the principal balance is $8,365.98 has
19 not changed.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21 MR. PEPPER: We prepared a spread
22 sheet that shows.
23 THE COURT: So actually I have an
24 --I've reviewed some of the documents
25 concerning that figure, but I noted on the
95
1 stand that Mr. Roberts indicated that the
2 amount was $6,886.78 with the interest
3 accruing of February 20th of '01.
4 I don't know if that actually
5 breaks down to $8,365.98 or not, giving
6 credit to Mr. Sachs for the 2,424. It was
7 7,832 down from the 9,370.
8 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I can
9 show you how it adds up on the spread
10 sheet.
11 THE COURT: Let me see if it is
12 different than what I have. Is that
13 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2? It doesn't look
14 like it is the same.
15 MR. PEPPER: It is updated, Your
16 Honor.
17 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
18 MR. PEPPER: Until today, if you
19 go along the top, if this were all put
20 together, the top bar would be to the left
21 of the middle bar, which would be to the
22 left of the bottom bar.
23 It is meant to be horizontal,
24 Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: All right. So in
96
1 other words, this is the beginning.
2 MR. PEPPER: This is the middle.
3 THE COURT: And it keeps going.
4 MR. PEPPER: Well, yes, as far as
5 the different columns the 7,832 that you
6 see towards the right hand at the top, is
7 the same 7,832.50 you see on the letter
8 dated February 2, 2001.
9 And you can see the additional
10 costs there.
11 THE COURT: Is that with the
12 credit that was reflected by today's
13 testimony the 2,424.92?
14 MR. PEPPER: It has not been
15 applied yet.
16 THE COURT: With the 9,311.70
17 that is when it comes down to that?
18 MR. PEPPER: The 7,832 goes to
19 9,311. Your Honor, it appears that there
20 is a duplicate line if you look at the top.
21 THE COURT: I'm just going by the
22 testimony that there was 313.3 hours times
23 the 25 dollars. The total billing of
24 7,832.50. I'm adding to that the 1,479.20
25 of expenses that were not taken care of. I
97
1 get, well.
2 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, it is
3 correct that it should be 6,886.78 with
4 interest accruing from 8-22-2000. The date
5 that the payment was applied.
6 THE COURT: And that shall be the
7 Court's judgment.
8 I find that there is sufficient
9 evidence in favor of Roberts Professional
10 Law for the provision of attorney's fees.
11 MR. PEPPER: You Honor, there is
12 $450.00 credit after that figure.
13 THE COURT: So it should be
14 6,886.78 with a credit of 450.
15 MR. PEPPER: Yes, ma'am.
16 THE COURT: All right. The court
17 finds that there is sufficient evidence to
18 find that Roberts Professional Law provided
19 services, legal services to Leslie Raymond
20 Sachs to the tune of $6,436.78, applying
21 all credits made by Mr. Sachs.
22 The interest will be 8 percent
23 from August 22, 2000, $30.00 court costs,
24 attorney's fees $1,609.19.
25 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, I think
98
1 it should be 18 percent.
2 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
3 MR. PEPPER: I believe you said 8
4 percent.
5 THE COURT: Well, if I did, I
6 correct myself. It should be 18 percent
7 pursuant to the agreement from 8-22-2000,
8 attorney's fees on the principal amount of
9 $1,609.19. Thank you very much.
10 MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, thank
11 you.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
2
3 I, PATRICIA R. RAY, hereby
4 certify that I, having been duly sworn, was
5 the Court Reporter in the General District
6 Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia on
7 the 8th day of May, 2003, at the time of
8 the HEARING herein.
9 I further certify that the
10 foregoing transcript is a true and accurate
11 record of the testimony and other incidents
12 of the HEARING herein.
13 Given under my hand this 5th day
14 of July, 2004.
15
16
17
18
19 PATRICIA R. RAY
COURT REPORTER
20
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
Share