Free Affidavit - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD
JERRY ZUCKER

Document 97-21

Filed 07/17/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NO. 05-231-T

JZ BUCKINGHAM INVESTMENTS, LLC, as TAX MATTERS PARTNERS of JBJZ PARTNERS, a SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff,

vs .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF JERRY ZUCKER Friday, June 8 , 2007
9:00

AM to 5 : 0 0

PM

North Charleston, South Carolina

Reported by:

Jane G. LaPorte

HG LITIGATION SERVICES 1-888-656-DEPO

Case 1:05-cv-00231-EJD
JERRY ZUCKER

Document 97-21

Filed 07/17/2007

Page 2 of 2

Page 2 6 6
1

'

Page 2 6 8

2
3

4

5 6
7

8 9

10
11

12 13
14 15

16 17 18
19

20 21
22

23
24

25

It was the week of the 13th through 16th, 17th it was week following some of the points that we discussed earlier that we had the Dominion -MR. CROUCH: Answer he question. The question to you was: Where were you? A. I believe I was in Charleston. MR. CROUCH: That's all you need to tell him. Q. Now, is that your Social Security number on line seven? A. Line seven 26784 -- know it's 9834. Q. Is this the first time -A. Two numbers transposed. Q. Did you ever, prior to this date, realize that the numbers were transposed on the SS4 that yor signed on November I 8 of 1999? A. Other than the fact that it was mentioned to me yesterday by counsel, no. Q. If you would turn to DOJ -THE WITh'ESS: I haven't given up any privilege by having said that. MR. CROUCH: No, you have not. Q. If you turn DOJ 0414081, and this is what is under tab number six, and this is the SS4 for JBJZ Partners.
Page 2 6 7

1 2 3 4

5
6
7

8

9

10
11 12 13

14

15 16 17
18 19

20
21

22
23
24

25

Security number -- it says Jerry Zuckei, and it's got every digit right except a couple transposed when they entered the system, one wouldn't match the other. So, hopefully it would just throw it out. MR. CROUCH: Just answer his question. Q. Would you take a look at what is at -the signature page -- of what is under tab I 1 from the beginning to the end, it appears to be entitled -A. Give me a number. MR. CROUCH: What document? MR. LIhDQUIST: It's DOJ 041498 through to DO1 041500. Q. And is that your signature on the end? A. Let me first look at the document. Q. Certainly. A. lfyou don't mind. Okay. Q. Now, this is -- has typed in a date two days earlier than the prior signatures that we just looked at. It has November 16 of 1999. And my question is: Do you recall whether you had a package of documents that you, in fact, signed two days earlier on November 16 of 1999?
Page 2 6 9

1 A. Bottom number is 041481? 2 Q. Yes, sir. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. And is that your signature dated November 5 18of1999?

1

2
3 4

5

6 A. It appears to be. 7 7 Q. And is your Social Security number 8 8 transposed here, as well? 9 9 A. "Here," you're talking about line seven? 10 10 Q. Yes, sir. 11 11 A. Zone in on it. My eyes aren't focusing. 12 12 The same two digits that were transposed 1 3 on the prior page are transposed here; it's 9834 and 1 3 14 1 4 the 8 and the 3 a e transposed. r 15 15 If you would take a look at what is under Q. 16 1 6 tab eight at DOJ 041490. 17 17 A. 041490? Okay. 18 18 Q. And is that your signature at the bottom 19 1 9 dated November 18 of 1999? 20 20 A. It is. And if you are going make the 21 2 1 same point, they are still transposed on this one. 22 22 I would imagine whoever prepared the 2 3 documents got it wrong and was consistent in getting 2 3 24 2 4 it wrong. 25 25 But, you know, obviously, my Social - . .,... . . .. .~.. . , .., .:..., . . . . z . . .: :.-~....."....,~....*.*,.,a
~

6

Or is this possibly a backdated document? MR. CROUCH: Objection; vague and ambiguous "backdated document." A. The implications, what you're saying, sounds sinister. I have no recollection of, you know, of that particular date and documents, you know, I don't have particular recollection of the timing of the dates. These documents were prepared on my behalf, and likely, I signed the documents without, you know, detailed review; but 1 don't have a specific recollection. Q. Who had prepared this particular document on your behalf? A. Gosh, does it indicate somewhere on here whodid? 1 would presume, based on everything else that's preceded me today, that it was probably Jenkens and Gilchrist. That's my presumption, based on the line of questions and the documents you have shown me. Q. The reason why I am asking the question is, you previously indicated that you did not understand that Jenkens and Gilchrist was involved
%.

.

2

A.

.

.. --

-

~,

..

. .

. . ..

68

(Pages 2 6 6 to 2 6 9 )
HG LITIGATION SERVICES 1-888-656-DEPO