Exhibit 323. [Whereupon, a document entitled Re-Notice of Taking Deposition was marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 323 for identification] Mr. Trump, have you seen this document before? I don't know. Hold on, let me just see. Not that I know. No. Well, this is your deposition notice. Are you here pursuant to this re-notice of deposition? Yes, I am. Are you here in your individual capacity? Yes. I'm going to direct you to Plaintiff's Exhibit 143 and 142. If you can take a look at these two documents, Mr. Trump. Okay. Yes. These newspaper articles talk about Mr. Donald Trump. Are they talking about you? Yes. I understand your son is also named Donald Trump? Yes. How do we distinguish between you and your son? He's junior. Can we talk a little bit about your background. I'm sure you've talked about your real estate background multiple times in numerous depositions. I'd like to do it for this one. When did you start in real estate, Mr. Donald Trump? I object to the form of the question. I started in real estate when I graduated from college in nineteen -- in the 1970s. Did you start real estate with your father? Yes. What company was that? The Trump Organization. And what did you do when you started real estate with your father? I built buildings and I ran buildings. What kind of buildings? Elizabeth, would it be easier if we just stipulate to his background? We can provide you with a bio. I haven't seen his bio. I can provide you with a bio. We can stipulate -- I can give you his complete bio. I can't stipulate to something I haven't seen. Why didn't you give this to me in advance? If you would like, you can give it to me sometime today and I can get to his background at the end. Great. He has his whole bio there. I understand your attorney will be giving me some document that contains your biography, Mr. Trump -- That's correct. -- later on. Once I admit that into evidence, do you stipulate that all information contained in that document is true? Yes. Okay. Mr. Trump, did you see this newspaper article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 142, before? No. Okay. What is Seabreeze Development, LLC? I don't know. So you wouldn't be able to say whether it's true that Seabreeze Development, LLC is a joint venture between The Trump Organization and Eugene and Stuart Kessler? Objection to form. No, I don't know. I just don't know. You'd have to ask my lawyers. Who are Eugene and Stuart Kessler? I don't know. You never talked to Eugene Kessler or Stuart Kessler? I don't know. I don't know their names. It could be that I did but I just don't know their names. Does The Trump Organization enter into joint ventures with other legal entities? I object to the form of the question. Sometimes. And how does that happen; who makes the decision? Different people in my organization make that decision or I'd make that decision. When you say your organization, do you mean The Trump Organization? Yes. If other people in your organization makes that decision, do they do it with your approval and/or sanction? Generally, yes. Okay. When would that not be the case? I don't know of any case where that's not the case. Okay. This article talks about Trump Las Olas. Right. Does that sound familiar to you? Yes. Can you talk a little bit about that project. Did that project happen? I don't believe that project happened. That was a project that -- a small project in the Fort Lauderdale area that I don't believe happened. Okay. Why didn't it happen? The timing of the project. I think the market crashed prior to development. And the people involved and the entities involved with Fort Lauderdale Trump Las Olas did not anticipate the crash? I object to the form. I don't think anybody anticipates crashes, unfortunately. No, they didn't anticipate the crash. Bayrock Group, LLC, does that sound familiar to you? Yes. Who are they? They're a developer. What is your involvement with Bayrock Group, LLC? I object to the form. Limited involvement. They are a developer, fairly large scale developer, and sometimes they will come to us for like a licensing deal or something on a building that they would develop. That was the case in Fort Lauderdale. Were they also a tenant of yours? They were a tenant for a period of time in one of my buildings. Is that the building located at 725 Fifth Avenue? Yes. They were a tenant for a period of time at 725 Fifth Avenue. Okay. They were a tenant of The Trump Organization? Yes. Well, they were a tenant of the building. Yes. You mentioned that your organization entered into a licensing deal with Bayrock? Yes. What licensing deal was that? I object to the form. Well, I think it was a building that we're talking about, the building in Fort Lauderdale. Trump Fort Lauderdale? Yes. Any others? Yes, we did a licensing deal in SoHo. Okay. Which is a beautiful building, completed, very nice building. We did a licensing deal -- we may have done another one. I'm not sure. I'd have to check my records. I think SoHo and Fort Lauderdale. Phoenix? We looked at Phoenix but the market crashed before the deal ever got built. Okay. But a contract was entered into for Phoenix? I don't know if it was entered into. I know the market was getting bad and then ultimately we didn't do the job. So it may have been entered but we never built the job. You mentioned that you entered into a licensing -- well, SoHo, that's a condo hotel in Manhattan? Yes. How many units does SoHo have? I'd say probably it has around four hundred units. How did your organization get involved with Bayrock? I object to the form. They really called a long time ago about doing some developments together. We are involved with many, many companies. But Bayrock called about doing some developments together and I believe this was the first one, the one in Fort Lauderdale, and we made a deal to do some licensing. They were the developer or they were going to be the developer at the time, but we made a deal to do a license. When you say they, are you talking about Mr. Tevfik Arif I believe his name is? I don't know who owns Bayrock. I've never really understood who owned Bayrock. I know they're a developer that's done quite a bit of work, but I don't know how they have their ownership broken down. Who at Bayrock did The Trump Organization interface with; who did they talk to? I would say it would be Julius or -- mostly Julius. Mr. Julius Schwarz? Yes, mostly Julius. Is your belief, Mr. Trump, that it's Julius Schwarz who's the ultimate decision-maker of Bayrock Group? Objection to form. He's certainly one of them. I mean, we've had a very good relationship with Julius. He's certainly one of their big decision-makers, yes, and he has been for quite a while. Did you ever speak with Mr. Tevfik Arif in your life? Yes, I did. Did you ever travel with him? No. Did you ever speak with Mr. Arif prior to speaking with Mr. Schwarz? I object to form. I don't know. You're talking about many years. I really don't know but it's possible. I don't know him very well, Mr. Arif. I've met him a couple of times. I understand. You mentioned that SoHo was a licensing deal? Yes, SoHo was a licensing deal. What does that mean? I object to the form of the question. We license the building, we license the name Trump -- it's called Trump SoHo -- and we also happen to manage the building. It's a hotel. It's a hotel condominium. We manage the building and they use our name. We didn't develop the building. It was developed by different entities. Are you talking about Bayrock? Bayrock I believe was the primary developer, yes. And other entities also developed it along with Bayrock? Yes, Sapir, the Sapir Organization. Oh, yes. Are there any units at Trump SoHo that are not hotel rooms? I object to the form. I don't believe so. Does your organization currently manage the Trump SoHo Hotel? Yes. How does your organization get paid? I object to the form of the question. We get a management fee. Is that a flat annual fee? I don't think so. It's based on -- I think it's based on gross revenues. I'm not sure. I could check it but I think it's based on gross revenues. I think gross revenues of? Of the hotel. Rooms? Rooms. But I'd have to check. But I think so. Do you manage all the hotel rooms in Trump SoHo? Pretty much, I think. There's no room that a unit owner rents out on their own and doesn't use your company to manage? Not that I know of. I object to the form of the question. If you look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 143, Mr. Trump. Yes. There's a -- have you ever spoken with a gentleman by the name of Felix H. Sater or Satter? Yes. I object to the form of the question. On how many times did you speak with him? Form. For a period of time. Why did you speak with him? Form. He worked for Bayrock. He was an executive with Bayrock. Did you speak with him in connection with Trump SoHo? Form objection. Probably. What about the Fort Lauderdale project? Probably. Okay. There's a quote in Plaintiff's Exhibit 143, Mr. Trump -- I think it's on the second page -- it says here, "Mr. Trump also said he was surprised to learn of Mr. Sater's past" and it quotes you as saying, "we never knew that. We do as much of a background check as we can on the principals. I didn't really know him very well." Is that an accurate quote from you? Objection to the form. Yes. What were you referencing there? I don't know. I don't know him from the past. I would have no knowledge of his past. They wrote a story about him. I didn't know him from the past. I only knew him as a person that worked for Bayrock. So the statements about Mr. Sater in this article, that is what you are referencing when you say we never knew that? I object to the form. I don't know if the statements are true or not, but I didn't know anything about his background. At the time you made the quote? Objection to form. Yes, that's right. Okay. After this article came out, did you continue to work with Mr. Sater? I object to the form. I think he left Bayrock sometime fairly soon after the article came out. You mentioned that Bayrock was a developer of Trump SoHo. The Sapir Group is a developer of the Trump SoHo. And The Trump Organization is a licensor of the Trump SoHo; is that correct? Correct, and the management company, the company that manages the building after it's built. We didn't build the building and we didn't sell the building. We weren't responsibile for building Trump SoHo or selling it. We were only responsible for managing it after it was built, and that's what we do. How do you define building a building? I object to the form. Constructing the building, construction. How do you define that? Form. You must be kidding; right? No. Are you kidding with that question? No. Building the building, putting the concrete up, putting the curtain wall on, building the rooms, completing -- Aren't they done by subcontractors? That's done by general contractors and subcontractors and the developer. As I told you, I'm not the developer. I understand that. You have developed projects before in your life? Yes, I have. Please let me finish my question, Mr. Trump. We want a clear record. I know you're eager to get out of here but so am I. I think they're stupid questions you're asking me. I think you're asking very stupid questions. Well, I'm sorry that you find my questions stupid, but I'd like to get information about this case. Fine. Go ahead. Thank you. Do you need a break, Mr. Trump? No. Do you need a break? No, I don't. You can go. Do you even know what you're doing? Let's go. Ask the questions. Building the building, you mentioned that -- you talked about concrete; right, building bricks? Now, a developer, would you consider a developer a person who manages the contractor? Yes. If a person only manages the contractor, is that person a developer? I object to form. I object to form. Yes. Do we have the same stipulation that an objection of one is for all? That's fine. That's fine. It's part of the development process. And what about selling? What about if a person manages a sales force that does the selling, are they a developer? It's a part of the development process. I just want to make a distinction between actually laying down concrete versus managing a company that lays down the concrete. I object to the form. Is it your testimony, Mr. Trump, that you have to actually lay down the concrete to be a developer? Objection. I object to the form. To be a developer, you have to build the building. Or manage other people that build the building? Correct. How do you define manage? I object to the form. You would supervise the construction of the building. Exercise control? Yes. What was your understanding of the different roles of Bayrock versus Sapir in connection with Trump SoHo? I object to the form. I had no understanding. We were managing the hotel and we licensed the name. We weren't involved with the development. I believe that Bayrock was the developer along with Sapir or separately from Sapir. You'd have to ask them that question. Okay. What was The Trump Organization's role in Trump SoHo? I've told you about four times. We managed the building and we licensed the name. So the role of The Trump Organization and Trump SoHo involved -- let me get this straight, you gave permission for the Trump name to be used? I licensed the name. Under a license agreement? Correct. And then after the building was up and topped off, you then came in and managed the hotel; is that correct? That is correct. Is that the universe of responsibilities which you and your organization had in connection with the Trump SoHo? I object to the form. Pretty much. Okay. What can you tell us about the Trump standards? What are the Trump standards? Do they mean anything? Form. We have a high standard. We have a standard as to kitchen qualities, we have a standard as to windows and quality of windows, quality of construction, quality of sound. If it's a hotel, quality of the furniture, et cetera. We have a standard that's a high standard in accordance with other hotel companies that do similar kinds of things that are high quality. Yes, sir. There's -- I believe you referenced some properties. I believe the Trump developments in the past which you reference in I believe the license agreement but I'm not too sure as setting the standard for meeting the Trump standards. Objection. It's possible. I just don't remember what those properties were, but I believe one was in Chicago. Signature properties. I object to the form. Could you describe some of those signature properties? Can you list them? Objection to form. I don't know what this has to do with our lawsuit, but I certainly will give you a couple. Chicago, New York on Central Park West would be the two primary examples. If a building meets the standard of luxury set by the two examples you gave, would that be meeting the Trump standards? Objection to form. Form. Generally speaking, yes. I'm going to now -- well, they've already been introduced but Exhibits 124, 128, 129, and 130. Go ahead. Have you seen any of these documents before? I don't believe so. For the Trump Fort Lauderdale project, which is the entity that licensed your name from The Trump Organization? I don't know. You'd have to ask my lawyers. Okay. Were these documents created with The Trump Organization's approval? I object to the form. These documents? Yes, sir. I don't know, you'd have to ask my lawyers. I just don't know. Well, sitting here today, do you approve of them? I object to the form. Would you like me to read them all? Yes. They have a lot of pictures. I object to form. Strike the last comment. Motion denied. They look like very -- Counsel, there's no reason for you to act as the court about motion being denied. It's uncalled for. And so let me just put on the record now because again, I haven't been with you at a deposition. Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 30[d][a], it provides that any time during a deposition the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit the deposition on the ground that it's being conducted in bad faith or in a matter that unnecessarily annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or the party. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended to obtain an order. And then finally, as far as for the Southern District local Rule 30.1[a], the paragraph also provides that if questioning unfairly humiliates, intimidates, harasses, or embarrasses the deponent or invades his privacy absent a clear statement otherwise, we can also terminate. So first, I didn't understand any comments to be made that it isn't in the form of a question. I'm not going to do it to you. So I don't understand that. The deponent also indicated he hadn't seen them. You asked him to look at. He was kind enough to do it and then with pictures and comments and again with motion being denied, I just don't know what the reason of that is. If you can just tell me why either of us -- you would be ruling it as a judge. I just don't understand it, counsel. I think you moved to strike which is improper. And you said motion was denied. Look, we can suspend it. All I'm saying to you is I haven't been in the room with you. We're not going to either of us act as the judge. I understand. I note your comments. Can we move on, Mr. Russomanno? If we're going to go by the regular rules of depositions and we won't make comments and we won't act as if either of us are the judge. And if the questions are, in fairness, counsel, to you, if they're related to the lawsuit, certainly that's why Mr. Trump is here. But there seems to be quite a bit unrelated to the lawsuit and it doesn't need to be peppered with comments about whether this is proper or not. We're here to proceed, but we want to cover the questions that the lawsuit entails based upon your second amended complaint. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let's go. Have you looked at these four exhibits before you now, Mr. Trump? Yes. Okay. Sitting here today, do you approve of these documents? I object to the form. I don't know. I didn't see them at the time. I think this was long before the building was built. These documents were issued long before the actual building was built. These are old documents that have nothing to do with your lawsuit that were long before Mr. Stillman came in, Roy Stillman came in as the developer. This was a very much different not only document, it's a very much different building. In fact, the building is almost unrecognizable from what was built. Do you know from when these documents were made? I object the form. I just know it was long before the building was built. It has nothing to do with it. It's a different building, it's a different picture from the building that was built, and it was before Mr. Stillman came in as the developer of the project. Before Mr. Stillman came in as the developer of the project, what was your involvement with the project at that time? Form. We were thinking of being the developer, but it was very preliminary. We were thinking about doing it in conjunction with Bayrock, but that was very preliminary. Ultimately we didn't do it. Bayrock decided to sell the project and the development to, in some form -- you'd have to ask them what that form was -- to Mr. Stillman and our only involvement was licensing. We were licensing and we were going to run the hotel. So for the four exhibits before you, at this point in time The Trump Organization and Bayrock Group I guess were considering being a developer of this project at that time? I think so. You'd have to tell me what the time was because I don't see any date on these papers. But this was long before the ultimate development was developed. Do you know why these documents may have been prepared? Because I think Bayrock was thinking about building this building before a developer came along and purchased the project. Yes. And do you know for whom -- you think these documents were prepared by Bayrock? I object to the form. I think so. Again, it's so long ago that the picture's even different. These are obviously artistic renditions. So you think that Bayrock prepared these documents? Objection to the form. That's not his testimony. I don't know who prepared them. It's possible that Bayrock did it. Do you know why these documents were prepared, who the audience is? Form. I think they were thinking about developing the project and then when Mr. Stillman came along, he took over all of the development. Do you think these were prepared for lenders -- Object to form. -- or construction finance? I don't know, you'd have to ask Bayrock. I don't know. Did you ever see PowerPoints such as the documents before you, not in hard copy but as PowerPoint presentations? I'm not sure. It's a long time ago. Exhibit 133. You've seen this document before; yes? I object to the form of the question. Take a look at it. Yes. This is the operating agreement of Stillman Bayrock Merrimac, LLC; yes? Yes. And that is your signature? Yes. On page thirty-six? Yes. When I see your signature, Mr. Trump, do you personally sign that with your hand or is that sometimes a stamp? I sign it with my hand. Always? Yes. What is Trump Lauderdale Development II, LLC? I believe that's the company that -- Objection to form. -- we used to enter into the agreement with Mr. Stillman and Bayrock -- And the Motwanis? -- for the licensing. I'm not sure what they are. For the licensing of this particular development. This is not the licensing agreement though; is it? I don't know if it is or not. Could you take a look and -- I don't know. Okay. You'd have to ask my lawyers. I don't know. I assumed it was the licensing agreement but maybe it's something else. Mr. Trump, how was you or any organization that you control going to get paid on the Trump International Hotel and Tower project in Fort Lauderdale? I object to the form. You'd have to ask my accountants. Did you get paid? I object to the form. I don't know. I think they paid us something, yeah, up front for the licensing. But I'm not sure what the number is. I'm going to ask you if you can turn to page thirty-three. When The Trump Organization, either directly or through any of its entities, enters into a licensing deal for the project, presumably it negotiates fees for -- Yes. -- somebody else's privilege of using the Trump license; is that correct? Correct. Objection. Who negotiates those terms? Different people. Such as? Ivanka Trump, Don Trump, Eric Trump. Your three children? Yeah. Sometimes myself. It depends on who's doing the deal or what the deal is. And once those terms are hammered out, your attorneys take over and create the documents? Well, documents are created sometimes by the other side, sometimes by us. On page thirty-three it says fees. Right. Did Trump Lauderdale Development II, LLC, were they supposed to get a percentage of all the hard and soft costs associated with construction of the Fort Lauderdale project? I object to the form. I don't know. Who negotiated how The Trump Organization and its legal entities would get paid under the Trump International Hotel and Tower project? I think it was Don Trump, Junior, my son. You don't have any knowledge as to how much money is going to come in from that project? I object to the form. Not a great deal. I mean, I think that my son -- I believe my son, Don Trump, Junior, handled it. There's a schedule of payment. But I believe it was handled by my son. Does it surprise you to read this, as you sit here today, that the class B member shall receive compensation for its services hereunder in an amount equal to one and a half percent of all hard and soft costs of construction of the project? I object to the form of the question. No. What does that mean? I object to the form. What do you understand that to mean? Form. Just what it says. So if -- well, what are hard costs? It's the construction costs, the concrete and the brick and mortar, et cetera. What are soft costs? The financing costs and various other costs. Advertising? Yeah. Legal fees? That would be a soft cost. Was the Trump Lauderdale Development II, LLC paid this one and a half percent of the hard and soft costs? I object to the form of the question. I don't know. You'd have to ask my accountant. Who is your accountant? Allen Weisselberg. Do you know how long he's been with your company? Yes, over thirty years. And he would be able to testify as to what moneys flowed into the Trump Organization and its affiliates -- Yes. -- for this project? Yes. If you go to the next page, which is page thirty-four, it says, "an amount of $960,000 shall be paid to the class B member." Do you know if this amount was paid? I object to the form. I don't know. Didn't I already tell you you'd have to ask my accountant? I just told you you'd have to ask my accountant. Mr. Trump, is it your testimony that you personally don't know if any money was made from the Fort Lauderdale deal by The Trump Organization and/or its affiliates? Objection to form. Relatively very little money. And certainly after everything is finished probably no money. I understand. I read the agreements. What are you asking me the questions for if you understand? You said very little money but I want to know what was paid and what was not paid. I told you you'd have to ask my accountant. I understand that. Exhibit 243. Go ahead. It takes a long time between questions, I'll tell you that. Obviously it's harassment. Court reporter, if you would like, you can note the time in between questions. I have no problems with putting that in the record. You might want to take a look at that document, Mr. Trump. It's very long. I've done it. Elizabeth, do you want this copy? Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Trump, is that your signature on -- Yes. -- 1533? Yes. Do you remember signing this letter? No. Do you know what the letter is? It's a letter to Corus Bank. Okay. I object to the form. Do you know why you signed it? I object to the form. I don't, I don't. You don't recollect signing it? No. I believe was this before Stillman? No, I see his signature everywhere. I'm not asking that question. I'm saying was this letter sent before Stillman entered the partnership? What partnership? Before Stillman entered a partnership with -- a partnership or whatever their relationship with respect to Bayrock. I'm just asking for a point in reference. It's dated December 15, 2006. And when did Stillman enter an agreement with Bayrock? Are you talking about Plaintiff's Exhibit 133? No, I'm just asking that simple question, when did Stillman enter their agreement with Bayrock? I don't know. Okay. But I understand Mr. Stillman -- somebody signed it on behalf of him on page TMP -- That would mean that he had already entered. -- 1535 and that would mean the partnership you referenced earlier was already entered? Correct. Objection to form. You don't know why you signed this? No, I don't. Objection to the form. Mr. Trump, your signature is on more than one occasion in this exhibit. Are they all your signatures? Yes, they are. Exhibit 244. Okay. I have it. Mr. Trump, did you sign this document? Yes. What is it? It's a subordination agreement. And what was the purpose of this document? I object to the form. To subordinate our management contract to the bank. Why? I object to the form. Because the -- in case of trouble, the bank doesn't want to have a management agreement get in their way. They want to be paid first? I don't know about being paid first. They don't want to be stymied by having a management agreement in their way. Why would a management agreement stymie the bank? Objection to form. Because they may want to terminate the agreement. A bank will always ask for lots of rights, they'll always ask for subordination. When you say management agreement, you're talking about the hotel management agreement? Yes, I believe so. I believe this relates mostly to that. If you did not sign this, would the bank, Corus Bank, not give money? Objection to form. I don't know, you'd have to ask Corus Bank. I have no idea. But it's very standard. Was it your understanding that when you signed Plaintiff's Exhibit 244, the project would not get financed unless you did so? I object to form. No, but I think it's very standard language to have this. We're a team player. It's very standard language to sign subordination agreements to banks. In virtually all deals it's done that way. Exhibit 198, 199, and 200. Okay. I'm ready. You've seen this document before; yes? Yes. This is the licensing agreement between yourself and Bayrock Merrimac, LLLP that licenses your name to the Fort Lauderdale project; is that correct? That is correct. And then there's two amendments to this agreement which are the other two exhibits? Right. Okay. Do you remember negotiating how you would get paid under this license agreement? I object to the form. No. Did you negotiate the fees under this agreement and the amendments? I didn't do it personally, no. It was your son? Yes. Don, Junior? I believe it was my son, Don, Junior. Do you remember what the terms were? No. I object to the form. I want to direct your attention to Exhibit B, which is the next to last page of this exhibit, of this agreement. Okay. It says, "license fee." Okay. Is this how you were going to get paid under this license fee? Yes. I object to the form. Mr. Trump, do you -- back when you entered into this license agreement, at that time did you have an understanding of how much per square foot the units at the Trump Fort Lauderdale project would sell for? I object to the form. No. I don't remember that exactly. It was basically -- Florida pricing, I think this was going to be a better building than most of the buildings in Florida, but I don't remember what that number would have been. Would it have -- do you remember if you had an expectation of it being greater than a thousand dollars per square foot or you just don't remember at all? I don't remember at all. I object to form. The next page says retail component incentive, the last page of this exhibit. Okay. Of the first part of it? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Is it your understanding that the project has hotel rooms and retail? It had some retail, yes. And other than hotel rooms and retail, there's no other I guess rooms or portions of the property other than that and the common elements? I object to form. Well, I assume we're including the restaurant in the retail? Yes, sir. No, there would be nothing else. And this is how you would have gotten paid for the rents received for the retail section of the property if they were leased? Whatever the agreement says. What was the purpose of the first amendment to the license agreement? I object to the form. [Reviewing]. It sounds like legal technicalities to me. I'm sorry? It sounds like legal technicalities to me. I don't know. I'd have to read the entire agreement. I wish you asked my lawyer or just read it yourself. It would be a lot easier. Mr. Trump, in order to move things along, do you notice that this is Bates stamped TMP on the bottom? TMP, yes. I'm going to tell you that if it's labeled TMP, it came from your attorneys. Okay. If any document Bates stamped TMP has your signature, can you testify that that is your signature so I don't have to ask you every time? I object to form. Yes. I would love to do that. Are you doing it? We'll stipulate to that. It's been stipulated to and I believe there are questions covered by Mr. Garten yesterday -- I've authenticated all these documents and said that any documents that has the words "TMP" is authentically his signature. And if there is an issue about something that needs to be authenticated, you let me know. We're not taking the position the signature is not his. Let's go. I'm going to direct your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 200. Yeah. On the bottom of the first page it says, "license fee." Is this an amendment to the license fee as listed in Plaintiff's Exhibit 198? I object to the form. Well, without reading everything, it looks like that, yes. Let me ask you this, Mr. Trump. It says a fee, "the additional fee equal to forty percent of licensee's share of income received by licensee pursuant to the rental agreements after payment of all operating expenses and other costs relating thereto which are licensee's responsibility pursuant to the applicable rental agreement." What is your understanding of what that fee is? I object to the form. It sounds like something having to do with some retail or some rental income coming in. What about the hotel rooms? Is this fee associated with managing the hotel rooms? Form. I don't know, you'd have to ask my attorneys. I just don't know. Or your son? Perhaps. Exhibit 245. Mr. Trump, what are estoppel certificates? I object to the form. It's a certificate that everything is basically okay as of the date. Why did you sign this estoppel certificate? I object to the form. It's something a lender needs and wants signed from usually a management company or anybody having any kind of involvement with a project and that there were no defaults, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Who generally signs estoppel certificates? I assume the developer signs an estoppel certificate; right? A management company would sign. People that have any involvement would have to sign an estoppel certificate for a lender. Usually a lender would be asking for it. Okay. I presume though vendors would not be required to sign estoppel certificates? In some cases they would be. What kind of vendors? I object to the form. I don't know. If a vendor is involved heavily in a project, they might be asked to sign by a bank. It depends on what the bank wants. Corus is a bank. It depends on what the bank wants. And you said that estoppel certificates are signed to say that everything is okay? I object to the form. Essentially that you're satisfied and that you've been paid to date, et cetera, et cetera. But signing this agreement you're saying that you were paid as of this date? I object to the form. Well, let's see. What's the date of this agreement? December 15, 2006. It would basically -- an estoppel is the bank wants to know that I'm happy, that everything's happy that going forward things could change but that as of that date you're satisfied with things. Okay. Does a bank require estoppel certificates to be signed as a condition of them giving money? I object to the form. Not always but, generally speaking, I would say yes. Was it in this case? It sounds like it. This is an estoppel. Exhibit 202. Okay. What was this document before? I object to the form. It's a preopening agreement. And why did you sign it? I object to the form. I guess it's a document talking about the opening of the hotels and the various responsibilities. Were you to get paid under this? I object to the form. I don't know. I really don't know. You'd have to ask my attorneys. Mr. Trump, there's a lot of legal entities in this case all with the word "Trump" in it. If a document is entered into by you individually versus a legal entity -- Let me start over. I'm going to direct your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 245, the one right before you, and also two hundred two which is the one right before you. You're going backwards. Both of them. Now, the hotel preopening agreement is entered into by SB Hotel Associates and Trump Florida Management, LLC. Right. What is Trump Florida Management, LLC? I object to form. I believe that's the management company that was going to manage the hotel, which we were prepared to do. If an agreement is entered into by the hotel management company, would it be between the other party and Trump Florida Management, LLC? I object to the form. I have no idea. You'd have to ask my lawyer. I want to ask you, Mr. Trump, the estoppel certificates that were signed, you entered into them -- the estoppel certificates were signed by you in your individual capacity and also on behalf of Trump International Hotels Management, LLC. Did you sign these documents because the bank asked you in your individual capacity and also under these other entities to sign it? I object to the form. As I told you, estoppels are standard for a bank to get. This is a standard agreement that all banks require prior to lending money, for the most part. Is it your belief that the bank asked to sign this estoppel certificate prior to handing out the money because you were the hotel management company or the licensor, both or neither? I object to the form. Perhaps both. Who is SB Hotel Associates, LLC? I think that's Stillman, Roy Stillman. His company? His company, yes. Objection to form. And is it your understanding that SB Hotel Associates, LLC is the developer of that project? That's my understanding, yes. What other developers of that project do you know of? I object to the form. I don't know of any. Just SB Hotel Associates, LLC? I believe that's correct. And what underpins that belief? I object to the form. Why do you think that? General knowledge. General knowledge of the project. I believe that that was the developer. You'd have to speak to my lawyers. But I believe that was the developer of the project. It's a legal -- You'd have to ask that question to my lawyers. What about Bayrock, Bayrock Group, LLC, were they a developer? I don't know if they were a developer of this site or not. I know Roy Stillman's company was the developer and they worked very hard. I don't know whether or not Bayrock was the developer of this site. What is your understanding of their role in this project? Well, they originally wanted to be the developer but ultimately they sold it to Roy Stillman. Is it your belief that they exited out of the project? I object to the form. I don't know. You'd have to ask my lawyers. I don't know. Exhibit 203. Okay. This is an agreement between your company that was to manage the Trump Fort Lauderdale hotel -- Right. -- and SB Hotel Associates; is that right? I object to the form. Yes. Okay. If your company was to get paid for managing the hotel, those terms would be in this agreement before you? I think so, yes. I object to the form. Any other agreement? I don't know, but I think this would be the agreement, unless it was amended. Exhibit 204 and 205. How far back do you go with Mr. Roy Stillman? With who? Mr. Roy Stillman. I don't go back that far. I met him because of this job, so I go back to the time where I was introduced to him through Bayrock. And so it would be about that time. I found him to be a very hardworking man. What are these documents, Mr. Trump? This is the development and services agreement. These were later cancelled and superseded. Do you remember? No, I don't. You don't. Okay. Do you know why you would enter into -- excuse me, Trump Lauderdale Development, LLC would enter into a development and services agreement? I object to the form. No. Do you know what the purpose is of a development and services agreement? Yes. What is it for? To develop and service a job. What job is that? In this case, I would assume it would be the job in Fort Lauderdale. This was before Mr. Stillman, I assume. He ended up taking over this role when he bought this project, I assume. You spoke earlier that you and Bayrock were contemplating becoming the developer for the Fort Lauderdale project? I object to form. I don't know in terms of contemplating. We were thinking about building the job, but we never got there because Mr. Stillman purchased it. And this document -- I think it preceded Mr. Stillman. I may be wrong. You'd have to speak to my lawyers. But this probably was probably a development and services agreement as though we were going to build it but we ultimately didn't do that or I didn't do that certainly. So you entered into this as part of the paperwork that shows that you and Bayrock were contemplating building the building? Correct. I object to the form. Correct. Exhibit 201. Okay. Now, the development and services agreement that I just placed before you, that was dated June 30, 2004; is that correct? Right, terminated by this letter. And this letter -- October 24. This letter references a license agreement? Right. Is that the license agreement, Exhibit 198? I don't know. Probably. Well, let's pull it out. Let's do that. Exhibit 198 and the two amendments. One hundred ninety-eight, one hundred ninety-nine, and two hundred; is that what you want? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Let's go. Are those three, the license agreement and the two amendments that were introduced earlier, is that the license agreement that Plaintiff's Exhibit 201 is referencing on its first page? It sounds like it, but you'd have to ask my lawyer. I object to form. Is there more than one license agreement for the Trump Fort Lauderdale project between you or any of your companies and any other entity? I don't know. I object to the form. Do you remember signing any such document? No, no. I doubt it, but you'd have to ask my lawyers. Mr. Trump, we talked earlier about the Trump standards. Do you recollect? Uh-huh. Are the Trump standards -- do you know if the Trump standards have been reduced to writing? I object to the form. You'd have to ask my son. Which one? Don. Exhibit 214 and 215. Have you ever seen these documents before? I think I have. I've seen them. I haven't gone over them in great detail, but I've seen them. Is this an example of the Trump standards? Yes. And Exhibit 215, this is an example of the Trump standards I guess for food and beverage? Yes. Who at your organization determines how these documents are created? I object to form. Mr. Jim Petrus of The Trump Organization. Is he still with your company? Yes, he is. Do you personally have any input into what goes into the Trump standards, these brochures, these documents before you? Yes. And how is your input solicited? Just overall input; I want location, I want beautiful buildings, I want important buildings, I want things that are basics, and then my people would get into the details. Other than Jim Petrus, who else is involved with securing the Trump standards? Primarily Mr. Petrus. He's the head of the hotel company. Were the Trump standards always -- well, it couldn't have been always. When is the earliest point in time when the Trump standards were put into writing such as in Exhibits 214 and 215? I don't know. You'd have to ask my lawyers. Your lawyers or Mr. Petrus? Mr. Petrus. How long has Mr. Petrus been with your company? Quite a while, four or five years. Do you know if the Trump standards were in writing prior to Mr. Petrus being at your company? We always had high standards. I don't know if it was reduced to writing. Exhibit 248 and 249. Mr. Trump, why did you not develop the project in Fort Lauderdale yourself? I object to form. Because somebody came along that wanted to develop it and basically it was more of a Bayrock thing than us. And Mr. Stillman came along and made an offer I guess to Bayrock and he became the developer of the project. Okay. I never developed the project. I don't know how Bayrock was involved, but I never developed the project. Obviously you've spoken to Bayrock so you know how they were involved, but I can't speak for Bayrock. Exhibit 248 and 249. Have you ever seen this fax in Exhibit 248? Have you ever seen this document before? No. There's a letter here from Mr. Donald Trump, Junior. Why is your son making changes to the floor plans to the project? I object to the form. He's looking for quality. He wants to make sure everything is in beautiful shape in terms of size, in terms of quality, so he may have changed things because he wants them to be according to the standards. The Trump standards? Yeah. Who determines whether or not something is -- rises to the level of a Trump standard? The group, Don Trump, Junior, maybe Mr. Petrus. And that decision is made how? By them. They'd look at the plan. They see a plan they don't like and they'd make it so they do like it. They'll increase the standard. Okay. Plaintiff's Exhibit 249. Yeah. Have you ever seen this document before? Yes, I believe so. It was passed through me but I haven't seen it in a long time. Okay. Who gave it to you to look at? I don't know. I just saw it. And why would you see it? I don't know. It was passed along the chain and I got to see it. Did you see it basically to make sure that you wouldn't issue a disapproval of it? No. I object to the form. No, not at all. I just happened to see it. Pretty standard stuff. The last page of Plaintiff's Exhibit 249, is that your writing? Yes, it is. What is Stiles Construction Company? I don't know. Are you aware of who they are in general? No. I'm not the developer of the site; you remember? I'm not the developer. But you are a developer. I object to the form. I develop other things. I didn't develop this job. Have you ever heard of Stiles Construction before? Not to my recollection, I haven't. That doesn't sound familiar to me. When you develop a job, do you always hire a construction company? I object to the form of the question. Usually you hire a construction company, yes. Okay. And what does the job of a developer entail vis-a-vis the construction company? Objection to form. Repetitious. Asked and answered. Are we going to go through this again? Didn't we go through this before for twenty minutes? You want to go through it again? Exhibit 169, 176, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 186. Okay. I'm ready. Okay. You defaulted Stillman's company? I didn't default. Who defaulted them? You said I defaulted. Yes. No, I didn't default. We sent a default notice to Mr. Stillman's company. Well, there's a difference. Okay. What's the difference? Why don't you ask the question properly? Did I send a default notice to the Stillman company? Yes, we did. Okay. When you say we, you're talking about a company that you control? Yes. That's the distinction that you were making earlier? Yes. Why did a company that you control default Roy Stillman's company? Objection to the form. You mean SB Hotel? Objection to the form. SB Hotel. Because they had failed to do certain things in accordance with our agreement. Do you recollect what they were? No, I don't remember. But they failed to live up to the agreement that we had. The license agreement? The agreement, whatever the agreement was, they were not living up to it. Do you know if the bank was copied on any of that correspondence? I don't know. Do you know if Corus Bank was notified -- I don't know. -- that your company had defaulted SB Hotel Associates, LLC? I don't know. Well, look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 169, please. Okay. This is a letter from your daughter to Corus Bank letting them know that the license agreement -- under the license agreement between Trump Marks Fort Lauderdale, LLC, SB Hotel Associates, LLC has been defaulted; is that correct? Uh-huh, yes. Why was Corus Bank notified; do you know? I object to the form of the question. You'd have to ask my lawyers. They probably have a legal reason why they had to be notified. Do you feel that this may have been somewhat -- copying the bank may have been somewhat destructive of the property? I object to the form of the question. No, I don't think so. I think it's a standard thing. The bank would demand to know. If we didn't copy it, I think it would have been very destructive of the property. I think you have no choice. The bank would have demanded it. And frankly, if you didn't, the developer would have had to send a notice to the bank anyway immediately; otherwise, they wouldn't be showing what's going on. Exhibit 176, this is the notice of default to the Stillman Organization; is that correct? Yeah. Okay. It talks about the Trump standard. Is it your testimony that the reason this notice of default was sent was because the Trump standards were not being met? Objection to form. I think that and other things. You'll have to speak to my attorney but I think that and other things. Well, what other things? Well, it says you have to complete construction, fit out, furnishing of the restaurant and the bar and the kitchen, which wasn't done. So that's not just standards, that's basics. Was it delayed or was it not getting done ever? I object to the form. It was delayed and it looks like it was not going to get done. Do you know if it's done now? I don't know, no. I don't know what happened with it. Does a delay in the project's completion constitute a breach of the license agreement? I object to the form. Probably, but you'd have to ask my attorneys. Do you feel that this notice of default made a bad situation worse? I object to the form of the question. We had no choice. Why not? The building wasn't being completed and we had no choice. Was it your belief at the time that the building would never have been complete? I object to the form of the question. I didn't know what was happening. All I know is we had a management agreement and we have our name on the building and if it's not going to be completed or it's not going to be finished not only in a timely manner but finished period, then we don't want to be involved with it and we have every right to send this and we obviously did send this. If and when that building is finished, is it your position that that building is not entitled to hold the Trump name anywhere? Yes, because we defaulted them. Yes, we took our name off that building. You're talking about finished now? Well, yes. Well, now a new group will own the building and does own the building at some point. I don't know what's happening with the building now. But the building had to be finished and it had to be finished in accordance with what we were doing and with our standards and with our letters and it wasn't finished and it looked like it was quite a bit delayed, to put it mildly. Mr. Trump, if the building, if and when it's finished, if it does meet a certain standard of luxury that will meet the Trump standards, is it still your position that it is not entitled to hold the Trump name anywhere? I object to the form. The new owners would have to come to us and make a deal with us. Start over? I object to the form of the question. Yeah, the new owners of the building would have to come to us to make a deal. Enter into a new license agreement? Yes, a brand-new license agreement. Which may or may not happen? I object to the form of the question. Which may or may not happen, yeah. And that is up to you to decide? Well, and the new owners. Exhibit 181. Go ahead. Do you remember speaking about defaulting the SB Hotel Associates, LLC with your daughter? Yes, I do. Okay. What was the content of that conversation? She was very unhappy with the fact the job wasn't being built in a timely manner, it wasn't being built according to what our hotel representatives felt it should be, and I guess this was the beginning of the letters that was sent. Who hired the hotel staff? Mr. Petrus. Who paid the hotel staff? I don't know. Do you know how payroll at your organization and its affiliated companies work? It's very different for each company. Can employees of your organization and its affiliated companies all -- it's not true that each of your affiliated companies has its own payroll? Would you know that? I object to form. Some do have their own payroll and some don't. This would have had its own payroll. When you're talking about this, you're talking about what? Again, it's not our company. This was this is a company that was owned by somebody else. We're just the manager of the building and the licensee. You're talking about Trump International Hotels Management, LLC? I'm talking about the building in Fort Lauderdale that you're talking about. You're talking about the people who would work at the hotel as its staff would have their own payroll, is what you're saying? I think so. Most likely. Why? Because it's a separate entity and it's not owned by The Trump Organization. When you say it's not owned by The Trump Organization, who would own it? I object to the form of the question. I just told you about fifteen times. This is Mr. Stillman's company. Mr. Stillman is the developer of this site. I don't know what the Bayrock involvement is, whether they were an owner or not. Mr. Stillman is the developer of this site. What about the hotel management company? That's different. You would own that; yes? I object to the form of the question. Yes, but you didn't ask me that. You said who would own the building. We own the management company. Right. As I've said many times. Plaintiff's Exhibit 183. Yes. Go ahead. Do you remember getting this from Mr. Stillman? No. When something is addressed to you -- I remember vaguely. I gave it to my lawyers. Okay. When your company and yourself entered into all these agreements prior to the project beginning, was there an understanding about how the hotel revenues would be divided between an owner of a unit and whoever is managing the unit? I object to the form. I think that would be up to the hotel management people to make sure the distributions were made in accordance with a certain procedure. Hotel management people meaning your company? Mr. Petrus and perhaps Mr. Stillman, working as the owner of the project, you know, the development, they would have to work something out. Does the word "split" mean anything to you, a hotel room split between owner and manager? I object to the form of the question. Yeah, it's a standard phrase. What's the split in SoHo? I don't know. You'd have to ask my accountants. I really don't know what the split is. Exhibit 184. Yes. This is a continuation of your correspondence with Mr. Roy Stillman? Correct. In the dispute over the license agreement? Yes. And Exhibit 186. Yes. This is also a continuation of that correspondence? Yes. Mr. Trump, all the letters that were sent by you or -- By the way, when I talk about Roy Stillman, SB Hotel, as you know, is the developer. Well, yes, I -- I'm talking about SB Hotel which I believe Mr. Stillman owns. But SB Hotel is the developer, not Mr. Stillman. I understand that your position is that SB Hotel Associates, LLC is the developer. Whatever the name of that entity is, just so you can be clear on that. Is it because SB Hotel Associates, LLC built the building; is that why -- Objection to the form of the question. I just told you, that's the name of the entity that's developing the site, SB Hotel. Okay. And how do you determine which entity is the entity that's developing a particular site? I object to the form of the question. They're known as the developer and the legal entity is the developer. How do you determine which legal entity is the developer? You'd have to ask their lawyers and our lawyers. Exhibits 184, 182, 181, 176, and 169, are the contents of these exhibits true? I object to form. I object to the form of the question. I don't know what you mean by true. You mean do I see the exhibits? Yes. Are they true? Yes. These are letters written to me; right? No, sir, they're all sent out on Trump Marks Fort Lauderdale, LLC letterhead. This was written by SB Hotel, they weren't written by us. Exhibit 169 -- Wait a minute, one hundred eighty-six, you said one hundred eighty-six. No, I started over. Well, you didn't do that. You gave us the wrong exhibits. Yes, one hundred sixty-nine is true. All the letters sent out on Trump Marks Fort Lauderdale, LLC -- Yes, that would be true. They are all true? But you didn't ask that question before. You asked about somebody else's letters. Well, let me start over. The letters that were sent out on Trump or like signed by Ivanka Trump, yes, we believe they are true. And they are true today? I object to form. I object to the form. Yes. I mean, I don't know what your definition of today is. You still believe that they're true today? I object to form. I object to form. Yes. Exhibit 324. [Whereupon, a copy of a newspaper article was marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 324 for identification] It's Bates stamped BAY-1TRIL 000179 and 180. Let's go. I'm ready. Did you ever read this article before? No, I haven't. Mr. Trump, why -- adding your name to a building adds value; is that correct? Yes. How much? I don't know. It depends on the location, it depends on the building, but typically it would add value. On the low end and high end do you have numbers per square foot? No. I want to direct your attention to the second page of this article. On the bottom of the middle column it says, "a New York real estate brokerage once estimated Trump's name adds about eighteen percent to prices a condominium tower can charge." Do you disagree with that? I think it's higher, but eighteen percent is substantial. But I think it would be actually much higher in many cases. It also goes on to say, "this gentleman thought Trump could probably tack at least a $200 a foot premium in Fort Lauderdale." Do you agree with that? Yeah, I do. I think that's true. This is also a new exhibit, Exhibit 325. [Whereupon, an e-mail dated May 13, 2009 was marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 325 for identification] And it's Bates stamped CCVPROD 0003086 and 3087. And in conjunction with this one, I also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 326, which is Bates marked CCVPROD 0003097 up to 3100, four pages. [Whereupon, a letter dated June 2, 2009 was marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 326 for identification] Are you ready? Excuse me, I have to see Exhibit 326. They didn't provide me with copies. We'll give him the marked one real quick. Go ahead, Elizabeth. Ask the question. Have you ever seen this e-mail exchange between Mr. Tom Manno and Roy Stillman before? No, I have not. Do you know who Mr. Tom Manno is? No, I do not. Okay. In the first e-mail of Plaintiff's Exhibit 325, Mr. Stillman says, "please understand that the Trumps shot a well-placed torpedo that has had the intended effect. They had every reason to think that their letter would cause a default with the bank and cessation of funding. It did." Do you agree with that? No. I object to the form of that question. Do you know what he's referring to when he talks about a well-placed torpedo? No, I don't. They were in default, they understood they were in default, and that's it. It was a very simple and open process. They were in default. They hadn't lived up to the agreement. And we sent them a letter of default. The license agreement? Yeah. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Stillman regarding the license agreement prior to sending out the letter of default? I believe -- I mean, I had numerous conversations with him saying get going, get going, get it going, get the building going. I had actually heard the bank stopped funding before this, but again that was only hearsay. But there was reasons for default and you see that in the default notice. Is it your position that the default notice is justified even if it turned out that it was not within Mr. Stillman or SB Hotel Associates, LLC or the Stillman Organization's control? I object to the form. Well, he was the developer so he had the control. Join. He was the developer. He had the control. Now, I don't think there's any question about that. As the developer, he had the control. Now, I can't speak to his relationship with his bank. I had heard Corus didn't fund before this, but that's up to Mr. Stillman and his bank. I don't know. Mr. Stillman is the primary person that dealt with the bank? Well, we didn't deal with the bank. I object to the form. Why not? I object to the form. Because as I've said about fifteen times today, we just -- we were the manager. We have a management agreement. Mr. Stillman was the developer. So it wouldn't be -- you wouldn't be interested in knowing about what's going on with the bank? I object to the form of the question. We have to rely on the developer. He's the developer. We relied very heavily on Mr. Stillman as the developer. What about the estoppel certificates that were signed? Standard. Everybody signs them for a bank. You have no choice. That was sent to you via Mr. Stillman, those estoppel certificates? I object to the form. No, I think probably through the bank, actually. Very standard. Other than the estoppel certificates, what other interactions did you or your organization or its affiliates have with Corus Bank? I object to the form. Nothing that I would know of. You mentioned earlier that it was within Mr. Stillman's control. What about the lack of funding that he is referencing, was that within his control? I object to the form. Objection to the form. Yeah, because if the building were built in a timely manner and according to plans and specifications, the bank would have to fund. Are you aware that Corus Bank no longer exists? Yes. What is your response to the statement that funding dried up because Corus Bank was in financial difficulties? I object to the form. That's possible, that's possible. And that would not be Mr. Stillman's fault. Corus Bank is a known troubled bank and I don't even know if it exists any longer. And it was known for quite some time, including the time toward the end of this project. So that's possible. And if that's the case, then Mr. Stillman, he cannot be responsible for a major bank that fails. That was a very big bank. You mentioned earlier -- you referenced a crash in the real estate market? Yes. And in connection with that crash, financing dried up? In connection with -- well, I don't know about this financing but generally speaking financing dried up. Your clients are actually very lucky that they didn't close on their units because their units would be worth about twenty-five percent of what they would have paid. Mr. Trump -- So they're very lucky. So tell your clients they got very lucky. Mr. Trump, they testified under oath that they would still like to close. Oh, I don't think so, I don't think so. Unless they have a death wish. Their units would be worth -- just because of the market, not because of the building. But if you look at the market, the market is much lower right now. So your clients got very lucky that they didn't close. They saved a lot of money and therefore you have absolutely no damages, in my opinion. Mr. Trump, you said the market is bad. Yeah, very bad. The market is bad uniformly? The market is very bad throughout the United States and in large cases throughout the world, yes. All property basically depreciated in value? I object to form. Yes, I would say almost all property depreciated and properties in this area and in Miami and Fort Lauderdale depreciated not just a little bit but tremendous numbers. And as I said before and as I alert my lawyers and your lawyers and everybody else, the fact is that your clients got very lucky that they didn't purchase these units because they saved a tremendous amount of money because their properties would be worth much less right now just because the market conditions. So congratulate your clients. Mr. Trump, if property values plummeted, was your concern with removing your name from the building being associated with a building that would be valued considerably less than what you originally anticipated? I object to form. No, my concern was we wanted to have a nice hotel that would be open and beautiful and, when people came in, it would be an absolutely beautiful building, and unfortunately that wasn't taking place. Whether values went up or down, that wasn't taking place because whether it was Corus Bank or whether it was Mr. Stillman or his company, the building wasn't being completed. We would love to have a hotel there and unfortunately it wasn't getting built and that's too bad. But your clients had no damages because they would have lost a tremendous amount of money, as did all other people that bought apartments or just about all other people at that time because the market crashed. So your clients have no damages. They got very lucky. What about the money they put down? That was much less than they would have lost in terms of the depreciation of their units. What about the money they put down? I object to the form. The money they put down is peanuts compared to the value of depreciation. If you sit down with a piece of paper and a pencil, you'll find that out. Even you will be able to figure that out. You called it peanuts. They're not entitled to those peanuts? I said to you that the money that they put down and the money they got back and have gotten back, will get back, is very little compared to the amount of -- to the loss of value that all people in Florida and many, many other places, California, Arizona, and throughout the United States have lost. If you look at home values where they went down fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, and ninety percent, so they did not -- in other words, had this building been built and had they been forced to close on their units, they would have lost a tremendous amount of money. You mentioned earlier money that they're going to get. I don't know what the situation is, but if they get money back -- What money? I don't know. But if there's money available to be given back, that's fine as far as what I'm concerned. Have you ever seen Plaintiff's Exhibit 326 before? Not that I know of. Are you aware that Stiles Construction placed a lien on the building in an amount of over $2 million? I'm not aware of that, no. Plaintiff's Exhibit 168. Have you ever seen this letter before? It doesn't seen say who he's written to. I didn't black that out. This was produced by your companies. Not by my company. It says TMP on the bottom. I don't know what this letter is. I haven't seen it. I mean, important sections are redacted. Do you know why this says confidential on the bottom, Mr. Trump? No, I have no idea. Okay. Mr. Trump, what was your understanding of the conditions that had to be in place for the hotel to open? I object to the form of the question. It's got to be a completed building. The building wasn't completed. According to the Trump standards? No, it wasn't completed not even according to standards. It wasn't completed. What happens if the building is complete, is there a condition of a certain number of closings that had to happen prior to the hotel opening? I object to the form. I don't know. You'd have to ask my lawyer. I'm going to ask you to look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 168 again, the second page. It says, "opening of hotel." I don't know if you answered this question before, but have you seen this letter before? He answered. I don't remember having seen it. I'm going to tell you Mr. Trump, that this is a closing notice to a buyer of the Fort Lauderdale project. Right. Okay. Did you see a draft of any such letter? I don't believe so, no. Did this letter go out with your approval? Not that I know of. I object to the form. As you sit here today, do you feel that this letter was sent out -- was a proper correspondence? I object to the form. Well, I think Mr. Stillman and SB Hotel did a great service to people because if they closed, as I said, their units would be worth a lot less money. He's just stating the facts. I haven't seen this but he's stating the facts. He's actually being very honorable in sending such a letter. You'd have to speak to the lawyers. But he is stating the facts and, had people actually closed on their unit, they would have lost a lot of money because the unit values have gone down so substantially. When you say honorable, what do you mean? Well, he's stating facts that a lot of people wouldn't state. He talks about the default notice, he talks about other elements, and I think he saved these people from losing a lot of value after they purchased the unit. Mr. Trump, are you basically saying that, because he was honest in this letter, he scared off buyers from closing? I object to the form of the question. He actually saved them a lot of money because the values from the date of this letter have gone down very substantially. That's not 2000. That's not May, 2000. No. I think it's probably 2009. Values have gone down very substantially. If you look at the second page of this letter, Mr. Stillman or SB Hotel Associates, LLC states that, "given the uncharted economic climate," it goes on to say that, "we do not believe that the hotel operation will open if purchasers have closed on fewer fifty percent of the units in the condominium." Do you believe that to be true at the time? I object to form. I object to form. He's stating his opinion. What's your opinion? I object to form. My opinion is that their units would have gone down in value and they're lucky they didn't close. What's your opinion as to the statement that the hotel operation could not open unless fifty percent of the people closed? Objection to the form. I object to the form of the question. That's really up to SB and to Mr. Stillman to say, not to me. I mean, he's the developer, as I've told you before. I'm not the developer. So he would know that number better than us. He was the developer. That was his opinion. I didn't write the letter; he wrote it. Did you or your organization and/or its affiliates have -- did you stay abreast of the closing process -- See abreast? I object to the form. Stay abreast. You mean stay abreast? Well, English is not my first language, Mr. Trump. Okay. Well, that's good. I have great respect for that. I object to form. Thank you. What is your first language? Korean. Okay. Excellent. So go ahead, what's your problem? Could you read back my last question, please. [Whereupon the requested portion was read back by the reporter]. Of the closing process and the sales process. I object to form. We were watching but we were really much more interested in making sure that the hotel -- that the developer completed the hotel. That was our primary interest because we were going to be operating a hotel and unfortunately it wasn't completed. You, The Trump Organization or its affiliates, didn't have an interest in making sure that people closed at certain prices? I object to the form. No, we didn't as I said, we were watching for the completion of the hotel. We were getting ready to manage the hotel. Unfortunately, they couldn't get it completed not only in standards but they couldn't get it completed. So we were certainly interested in seeing that everybody got everything right. By watching the standards, we were trying to make it good for everybody so that when they did buy a unit, if they did buy a unit, they would get a unit that was built to a high standard. What is your understanding of whether or not a buyer can occupy the unit? I object to the form. You mean according to his letter? Well, he references occupy issues. You'll have to ask Mr. Stillman because he wrote the letter, I didn't. What is your understanding of the occupancy? I object to the form. I don't have an understanding. I'm not the developer. All we did was manage the hotel, hopefully. We wanted to manage the hotel. You mentioned earlier that the project was not completed. Objection. At that time when the default letter was sent out? That's correct, yes. What is your definition of completion? I object to the form of the question. When is a project -- Completion as far as we're concerned, because we're the manager of the hotel, was when it was furnished and ready and beautiful and everything was perfect and the elevators were working properly and all of the things that we needed to operate a first class hotel. They weren't done, unfortunately. That's my definition of completed, furnished and beautiful. It has nothing to do with obtaining a certificate of occupancy from the required authorities? I object to the form. Objection to the form. We need more than a certificate of occupancy. We need furniture in the rooms. Again, we're running a hotel. So you can get a certificate of occupancy without having it furnished but in the meantime people bought hotel rooms and they bought hotels. From our standard, I don't know what their closing standard was, but from our standard, in terms of running a first class operation, we needed everything one hundred percent according to Hoyle. We needed furnishings, we needed beautiful elevators, we needed it to be done in a first class manner. Were you aware that a certificate of occupancy was obtained for the building, for the project? Well, there may have been a construction certificate of occupancy, but you needed furnishing and you needed other things. It was not in good shape, as you probably know. Exhibit 327. [Whereupon, an e-mail dated May 13, 2009 was marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 327 for identification] Mr. Trump, the first e-mail of this chain is an e-mail from Mr. Schwarz to Stillman and he states here, "with you on the completion and Trump the direct and proximate cause of the direct default. I guess we can all see where this is heading." And he goes on to say, "was a default under the license agreement a default under the loan." Do you know if a default under the license agreement is a default under the loan? I object to the form of the question. I would think so. Why? Because -- I object to the form. -- they bought a high standard building and unfortunately it wasn't being built. I'm not sure it was even being funded before this was sent because I had heard it wasn't being funded prior to any letters being sent. Obviously the hotel was not at a level that it could have been a hotel and it certainly was at a very low standard. It was not the standard that we had signed onto. We're going to go to the original marketing materials. You can look. There's a number -- Okay. I looked. I'm going to introduce them into the record again. They are Exhibits 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 311, 312, 313, and 314. Okay. Have you seen these before? Yes. They were all manufactured and prepared with your approval? I object to the form. With my representatives' approval, yes. Mr. Petrus would have approved this. All these exhibits -- Go ahead. Off the record for a second. [Discussion held off the record at 12:21 p.m] [Whereupon the deposition resumed at 12:21 p.m] Mr. Trump, there's text in these marketing materials that I just showed you. Okay. Do you feel that that text is accurate? You'd have to show me. I object to the form of the question. Well, do you feel that they overstate your involvement in the project? What are you referring to? Show me. I object to the form of the question. For example, Exhibit 307 states, "the signature development by Donald J. Trump will become a destination for many and a home for the select few." Well, I think that's standard advertising language that frankly we were hoping to have that, absolutely. We have a beautiful site on the water, yes. We were looking to have that. This would have been a signature development or we wouldn't have done it. You have other signature developments; isn't that true? Yes, we do. And your position is that those signature developments are developed by you, you are the developer? In some cases they're developed by me and in some cases they're not. Why does this advertising material not state this signature development or this development by SB Hotel Associates, LLC with Donald Trump as licensor? Well, according to my lawyers, it's all over the documents, it's all over the -- you can't put everything into a small ad. It's all over the documents that I'm not the developer. Well, what about the documents before you with the advertising materials -- You can't put it in advertising materials because there's not enough room. But the documents they signed, it's all over the place that I'm not the developer. What happens if there are statements that contradict each other? I object to the form of the question. I don't see any contradiction. I think it's very simple. It's your testimony that the statement "this signature development by Donald J. Trump" is consistent with the position that Donald J. Trump is not a developer of this project? I object to the form. Absolutely. They've signed documents that say I'm not the developer of the site. Absolutely. What documents are those? My lawyers can show you. If you want him to identify it. Is it your testimony that -- I was going to go through other texts here, and we can do that or I can just ask you -- Go ahead and ask me whatever you'd like. The text in these exhibits, is it your testimony that they don't overstate your involvement with the project? I object to the form of the question. No, my involvement with the project is stated in agreements that everybody signed. This is a very short form ad, mostly pictures, of what the development is going to look like. And you agree with the language contained in these advertisements and marketing materials? I object to the form of the question. I believe it is a signature development, yes. This is a beautiful -- this would have been a beautiful development had they been able to complete it. But it would have been worth a lot less than what the people signed on to buy it for. Any text in these marketing materials, are there any text in these marketing materials that you would disagree with? I object to form. I would have to take them back, read them, and get back to you. Mr. Trump, we can do that right now. This is Plaintiff's Exhibit 306. Is that a letter prepared by you? Yeah, this is an advertising letter. That's your signature; yes? Yes, it is. Do you stand by the statements in that letter? I object to the form. Well, I stand by the legal documents that everybody signed. This is a Trump International Hotel and Tower, it is a magnificent oceanfront resort offering the finest -- this would have happened had the building been completed. Unfortunately the developer wasn't able to complete the building. I understand. Do you stand by the statements in this letter? I object to the form of the question. I stand by the statements that are in the document that everybody signed. But not this letter? I object to the form. I have no problem with that letter. But that's just a quick little advertising piece. But I stand by the statements that are in the document that everybody read and everybody signed and everybody fully understands. And they knew I wasn't the per se developer. I was running it, I was managing it, and we were going to manage it beautifully. Unfortunately it never got completed. Okay. Do you feel that the statements in this letter which starts out with, "it is great pleasure that I present my latest development," this letter is consistent with the documents that the buyers signed? I object to the form. I think it goes along with document. It's not one or the other. It goes along with the document. The document obviously is signed and in great detail and it explains my role. And this letter does not contradict any document that a buyer signed? I object to the form. No, I don't think it contradicts. Exhibits 311, 312, 313, and 314. I didn't mention them earlier. Mr. Trump, is there a difference between being a developer of a project versus a licensor/hotel manager of a project from the building being completed point of view? I object to the form of the question. The developer would build the building, would make sure that the building is completed. The licensor would be licensing the name. If a -- To the developer. Mr. Trump, if a building is developed by you, would the Trump name be removed from that building? Could that happen? I object to the form of the question. If the bank took over the building, it could. If it was unsuccessfully developed, the bank might take the name off the building. Is that decision the bank's decision? I object to the form. It depends. If it was developed by me and if it didn't work out and the bank took it over, I guess the bank could do whatever they wanted with the name. They could leave it or take it off. But that decision would not rest with you; is that correct? I object to the form of the question. You're talking about if a building was developed by me and was taken back by a bank? I'm talking about if a building was developed by you, the way you understand developer to be, you are the developer of a building, would that building lose the Trump name or the logo? Objection. I mean, it's a very simplistic question. It depends under what circumstances. You mean if the building was successful? In any circumstance could it lose it? It depends. It could lose it if it had a mortgage and the bank took back the building. Let's think about all the instances where that building could lose the Trump name. I object to the form of the question. If it loses that name, would, in those instances, that decision rest with you? I object to the form of the question. Not in all instances, no. Mr. Trump, I am told that there's supposed to be a lunch break today -- Why don't we just keep going? Why don't we just finish it up and be done. I'd rather do that. Can we take a one-minute break for the restroom? Yes, of course. I was going to say we take a five to ten-minute break. You have to take a one-minute break? Can we go on and finish this? Let's not take a one-minute break. Your son can take over. Let's go. Well, I have to go to the bathroom. So go to the bathroom. Off the record. Let the record reflect Mr. Trump has left the room. It is not clear whether he will return. Mr. Herman Russomanno has indicated he would like to state something on the record. Let the record reflect Herman Russomanno III on behalf of Donald Trump and Trump Organization. Prior to a short recess, there was an inquiry as to whether we can complete the deposition. Counsel for the plaintiffs initially indicated that yes, they'll work through. My father asked for a bathroom break. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed that she would like a bathroom break. We came back into the room and counsel for the plaintiffs then made a representation that she now needs a one-hour break for medical conditions. As all counsel in this room know, there was never any objections throughout the week for any medical condition break and these medical condition breaks every day up to today took place at 2:30, 3:00. This deposition would have finished prior to and counsel could have had the medical condition. The deposition was terminated, as my father indicated on the record earlier, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30[d][a]. Should Plaintiffs -- because of the annoying, embarrassing, oppressiveness conduct, and bad faith by Plaintiff's counsel in questioning, the deposition has been terminated. Obviously counsel has a right to go back before the court and get a court order to have the deposition to be reconvened. And obviously the defendants will appear and brief an opposition to that motion should one be asserted. Thank you. Let me go on the record to say that, as I said I would, I was checking on whether or not Mr. Schwarz could be available to conclude or to go forward as Plaintiffs have requested on Bayrock for the half hour that you said that you indicated. He will be here Friday at 9:30. Thank you, Mr. Gillman. Thank you, Mr. Russomanno. This is Jared Beck on behalf of all Plaintiffs. First to address Mr. Gillman, we appreciate that accommodation and we will take or continue with Bayrock's deposition at the time indicated. I assume that's going to be before we start the deposition of SB Hotel, I believe it is? I think the SB Hotel is starting tomorrow. You've noticed the deposition of Mr. Stillman individually and as SB and I've advised that Mr. Stillman will be the representative, the designee of it. I expect and understand that there would be no intention to repeat questions from one deposition to the other. Right. Mr. Stillman, when he answers on Thursday, tomorrow, will be answering in both capacities. Obviously to the extent that there's something that doesn't get concluded, we would carry over on Friday. Is that agreed? Let me just say I think maybe we'll be able to clarify this maybe more when the deposition starts. There may be instances where there's a distinction between the two, there may be not, and maybe it's better left tomorrow when we bring out the deposition notice of SB Hotel and we look at those topics and then maybe you can restate that at that time and we can -- our intention certainly is not to keep Mr. Stillman -- The standard procedure, which I assumed we will follow, is that Mr. Stillman will be answering and I'm telling you he'll be answering the questions as designee and as individually. If there's some particular question that you think needs to be differentiated, we can do it at the time. I understand that and we're going to do our best to respect Mr. Stillman's time. And we do appreciate the accommodation on Bayrock. So Julius is going when, Bayrock? Friday. He's unavailable tomorrow. So I appreciate that. Let me now turn to Mr. Russomanno's statement. We strenuously object that any portion of this deposition was harassing or intended to harass or outside the boundary of what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide and the transcript will be quite clear on that. But that's going to be for another date and time and I don't think we need to sit here and argue the merits of that now. As to the issue of Mr. Trump apparently getting up and leaving the room and his attorneys and him terminating this deposition prior to us getting in our entitlement under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I think we ended at, by my account, 12:30 and we began at approximately 10:30. Is there any disagreement to that? None. We were here for about two hours, I agree. We were advised by the law firm of Kramer Levin which we went out of our way to actually shift the deposition from the originally noticed location -- at Mr. Trump's attorneys' request we shifted the deposition to this location at his request and throughout this week we've been in communication with representatives of Kramer Levin law firm who have been coordinating this deposition. We also advised the Russomanno firm in conjunction with the shifting of the location to these offices, the Kramer Levin offices where we're situated, that Ms. Beck, who's also counsel for the plaintiff and was conducting -- counsel for the plaintiffs and was conducting the deposition of Mr. Trump, that she would require a break during the deposition at some point to take care of a medical condition. Now, prior to today's -- and we have been taking those breaks and we have been accommodated in that respect throughout the week. So on Monday we were accommodated in that respect during the deposition of Mr. Schwarz and on Tuesday we were accommodated in that respect during the deposition, corporate deposition, of The Trump Organization. Prior to today's deposition, we were sent e-mails indicating that there was going to be a lunch break during this deposition. We were sent these e-mails by representatives of the Kramer Levin law firm. We were asked if we wanted to order anything for lunch. We were notified that there were lunch reservations for five people and based on those e-mails it was our understanding that the deponent had requested a lunch break to commence at 12:30. Mr. Russomanno has requested that I produce those e-mails to him. I will do so. I'll certainly do so in advance of any motion practice on this issue. But I don't have them in any form that I can produce them now; I have to go back into my e-mails and get those. As such, Ms. Beck scheduled her medical condition treatment around the assumption that there was going to be a break at 12:30 and prepared herself this morning pursuant to what we understood was going to be a break in the deposition. When it came time to 12:30, the break was requested through Mr. Russomanno -- is it Senior? That's fine, Senior. The elder Russomanno. We requested privacy -- the medical condition is somewhat of a sensitive issue. Obviously we didn't want to have an open discussion about it with Mr. Trump seated here. And I also want to reflect for the record that Mr. Trump, from our perspective, behaved in a quite insulting manner throughout the course of the deposition, accusing of us not knowing what we were doing, calling us crazy, and so forth. But be that as it may, we asked Mr. Russomanno, the time having come to 12:30, let's proceed to the break that was scheduled, provided to us was necessary pursuant to the medical breaks we've been taking throughout this week and Mr. Trump appeared to get very animated, agitated, even more hostile at that point, indicating that he would under no circumstances allow for a break of any kind even after he was advised of the medical nature of it, even after he was advised that the Kramer Levin law firm had previously advised us of the necessity or the scheduling, I should say, of a lunch break at 12:30, in fact even had solicited our reservations for lunch this morning. And I believe that was Ms. Merrill. I just don't have -- I believe she's a paralegal at the firm. The bottom line is that Mr. Trump, from our viewpoint, stormed out of this deposition at that point in time. He did so in a completely unjustified manner. There was no basis for terminating this deposition after just two hours of testimony on extremely relevant documents and we believe the record will reflect that. He actually asked -- at one point he said we should just come back to New York in two weeks. Be that as it may, we strenuously disagree with Mr. Trump's conduct in storming out of the deposition. We strenuously disagree with his lawyers' apparently advising him to cease giving testimony, and we believe this is grounds for sanctions. We intend to file a motion for sanctions with the court. We intend to file a motion to reopen the deposition. We intent to seek recovery of our fees and costs for doing so against Mr. Trump and The Trump Organization, and we'll file those motions when we get back to Florida. And I think that covers our position. Ms. Beck, is there anything that you can think of? I would just like to state on the record that we will stay here for the next hour. If Mr. Russomanno, if your client would reconsider coming back and completing the deposition, we remain willing to do so. So we will stay in this conference room for the next hour. You can send me an e-mail or call me. If you can let me know now, if would be appreciated, but perhaps you would like to reserve that option. I don't know the -- I assume that Kramer Levin wouldn't have a problem with us staying here for the next hour under that representation. Is that fair? When you guys are done, let me know. That was more of a question to you. I don't think they'll care. Can you state for certain whether or not your client will come back today? Are you guys done? And then I'll go. In response, we'll let the record speak for itself in terms of the deposition conduct in which the deposition was terminated per the federal rules. As we all know in this room, there was no e-mails exchanged between my law firm, me, and the Beck and Lee firm in regard to lunch today and in regard to what time lunch was being scheduled. There was no agreement that we would take lunch at 12:30. There was no notice prior to the deposition starting that Ms. Lee needed to take a break at 12:30 for one hour. And we'll let the record reflect that. In terms of -- the only thing I want to make clear is that you must have only assumed that we had advised Mr. Trump to leave because you don't know that for a fact. There was no communications here on that. And the deposition was terminated per the federal rules. The only other thing that I would add is that, since Mr. Beck made a comment about the off-record conduct or alleged conduct of Mr. Trump, the record would also like to reflect that it's the defendants' position that there was improper conduct by Ms. Lee, not Mr. Beck who I think is a complete gentleman and a professional. And I'm not going to get into the details of that -- I would like to ask you on the record what conduct you're referring to. If you screaming back and forth with Mr. Trump is the conduct that I'm referring to -- I disagree with your characterization of it. Now is not the time for argument. I usually don't reference to off-the-record conduct, but because Mr. Beck did reference to the off-the-record conduct of Trump, I wanted to mention that. So that's fair. That's all I have to say. I apologize for prolonging this, but I just have to make one more comment since we delved into the territory of off-record conduct. For the record, I typically abide by your practice, Mr. Russomanno, except in situations where we're talking about a potential motion to reopen the deposition. We may have to tell the judge why we believe the deposition was terminated. That may have to -- there may be indications of why -- in the off-record conduct. I have no problem with you putting off-record conduct just as long as I've made my comment, without getting into details which I don't think it necessary. I'd just like to make an amendment to that. Yesterday at around 5:00, by my approximation, we were asked to move this deposition to the Trump headquarters. This had been noticed at Kramer Levin for quite some time. And that request was given to us by Alan Garten, who we understand to be Trump's in-house counsel. It was joined in by Mr. Russomanno, the younger, and the reason given by Mr. Garten was that Mr. Trump had appointments in the morning and for that reason needed to be in his office in order to proceed with the deposition. We disagreed with the proposition to move the deposition. We did not consent to that. And Mr. Garten seemed fairly agitated about our refusal to move the deposition that had long been noticed at Kramer Levin. That said, I just want to make sure that those facts are reflected in the record as well. Well, if you want to mention that, that was a moot issue because the deposition took place at Kramer Levin today at 10:30. Mr. Trump was on time and he was here and we're all here. If you want to address that issue, I don't see the need for it, but if you want to we can let the record reflect that the request to move the deposition by Mr. Garten was rejected by Plaintiff's counsel based upon the fact that Bayrock's deposition allegedly ended early, which obviously had nothing to do with Trump or Trump Org. But I don't think we should waste any more time on this issue because it's a moot issue. The deposition was at Kramer Levin at 10:30, on time, and there was no problem with that after we left. I just want to add a couple of points because you say it's a moot issue. I don't think it's a moot issue. The reason I say that is, first of all, the reason that the request was rejected is because, after the first day of deposition, it became clear to us that our ability to take a seven-hour deposition was going to be somewhat a contested issue in this case and I'll leave it at that. That's why we rejected the request yesterday. In addition, it just simply wasn't convenient for us to move the deposition. It had been noticed here and we are more comfortable in not being in Mr. Trump's offices and certainly after his conduct today I will emphasize that fact. That said, it became -- looking back, putting those facts yesterday in context, the facts today, it is our opinion -- and we will bring this before the court -- that Mr. Trump had no intention of sitting for a seven-hour deposition today and we believe that his terminating the deposition after two hours is a consequence of that. Anybody else? What time are we starting tomorrow? 10:00. [Deposition breaks for the day] [Deposition Begins Next Day] [Witness Sworn In] I do. We'll mark this as Exhibit 414. [Thereupon, Exhibit Number 414 was marked for Identification] Mr. Trump, you are here pursuant to this Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum [Continued] of Donald J. Trump, Pursuant to Rule 30[a], Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- Yes. -- is that correct? Yes. Okay. I'm going to show you documents that have previously been marked as 316 and 317. The building at issue in this lawsuit, I will call the Trump Fort Lauderdale project or The Project, for short. Object to the form. Are these exhibits documents describing an event for the marketing of The Project? I don't know. I've never seen them before. Okay. Is it your understanding that Exhibit 316 is a document that describes a marketing event for The Project? Form. Yes. Okay. It talks about an event on April 14th at the Bonnet House. Did you attend that? I don't remember, but probably I did. Okay. This exhibit, Exhibit 317, talks about Donald and Ivanka confirmed their attendance, an e-mail from Senada Adzem. Does that trigger your recollection of whether or not you attended the event? No, but I probably did. Okay. Is it customary for you to attend such events for The Project? Form. On occasion, I will, for a project. Okay. How many such events did you attend for The Project? I'm not sure. Maybe two. Okay. I'm not sure, but I think more than one. More than five? I don't know. I really don't know. Why did you attend such events? Good for The Project. We licensed the deal. Good for The Project, in terms of sales? Yeah, I think it would help. Okay. All right. This was also previously marked, Exhibit 198. You mentioned at your first deposition and today that the Trump Organization is a licensor or an entity that you control and own is a licensor of The Project; is that correct? Object to the form. Object to the form. I don't know. I licensed the name Trump to The Project. You licensed your name to The Project, yes? Yes. Okay. This is the agreement, the license agreement, whereby you licensed your name to The Project? I believe so, yes. Objection to the form. All right. I'm going to direct your attention to the last two pages of this document, which says, "Exhibit B, License Fee." B? Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Were you paid the $250,000, as listed in Subsection small ai? I don't know, but I assume so. Okay. Any reason to assume otherwise? No. Okay. It then talks about the residential-hotel component incentive. Were you paid anything under that? I don't know. Is it true that you would only be paid under that, if title to 85 percent of the residential and hotel units has closed? Is that your understanding? It looks like that, based on the agreement, yes. So you would not have been paid anything under that as of yet? I don't think so. Okay. What about the retail component incentive, were you paid anything under that? No, not that I know. In order to be paid under the residential-hotel component, it's true that 85 percent of the units must close, yes? I believe so, yes. And, then, what are you paid? Is that Subsection small ci? I don't know. You'd have to ask my lawyer. What is your understanding of this? I don't know. I have no understanding. I really don't know. You don't know how you get paid under your license agreement? This is a legal agreement. You'd have to ask my lawyer. Okay. What is your understanding -- It says here -- it spells it out right here. Okay. So you're basically saying, you get paid pursuant to this document before me? Yes. That's true. Okay. Form. I have one follow-up question to Plaintiff's Exhibit 198. Do you agree, Mr. Trump, that the way this license fee is calculated is for you to share in the profits from the unit sales? Form. Object to the form. Well, this talks about gross sales. Uh-huh. No, I wouldn't really say that. It looks to me like it's more of a gross sales agreement, without reading the agreement. I do many agreements. No, it looks like it's a gross sales agreement, not profits. Okay. They were just a licensee, who initiated an agreement with me. This is a gross sales agreement, it looks like. Okay. So do you agree that the way this license fee is calculated is for him to -- is for you to share in the gross sales from unit sales? Form. Looks like it. Okay. Okay. This is a new exhibit, Exhibit 415. [Thereupon, Exhibit 415 was marked for Identification] You and the Trump Organization was involved in litigation in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; is that correct? Yes. And you were deposed in that case, were you not? I believe so, yes. Okay. This is the deposition transcript from that case; is that correct? I don't know. I mean, it looks like it. Okay. Any reason to think that it's not? No. Okay. Was that case a case where the plaintiffs were pre-construction condominium purchasers? Object to the form. I believe so, yes. Are you aware of any testimony that you gave at your deposition in the Aaron, et al., versus The Trump Organization, et al., case, whereby any of your testimony is inaccurate or needs to be corrected? Object to the form. Not that I know of, no. Was the project in Tampa also a condo-hotel? It was a condo. I don't think it was a hotel. It was a condo. Other than the fact that the building in Tampa was a condominium, can you talk about any other ways the Tampa deal differed from the Fort Lauderdale deal that is at issue in this lawsuit? Object to the form of the question. No, I don't know. I really don't know. Is it also your position that that also was a licensing deal? That was a licensing deal, yes. Okay. What is your position as to who is the developer in that case, in the Aaron case? Object to the form of the question. Well, I don't believe we were the developer in that case. Who is -- who, in your belief, is the developer in that case? Object to the form. A group that was bankrupted. A bankrupted group. I don't know their names. In the Tampa deal, you also were to be compensated, at least partially, by a flat fee; is that correct? I don't know. Object to the form. I think so, yes. Okay. And then there was also a component for payment whereby you would be paid a percentage of the gross sales; is that correct? I don't know. You don't recollect how you were supposed to be paid in the Tampa deal? No, I don't. Every deal is different. Okay. Okay. Going back to The Project, at your last deposition, we talked about the Trump standards. Can you list all the areas that the Trump construction standards govern? For example, does it govern the type of materials that are sourced for a project? Object to the form of the question. We ask that the developer provide high class materials. We look at their plans to make sure the rooms are nice. We look at the different materials. We look at the bathroom fixtures and the kitchen fixtures and the appliances, to make sure of everything, and we ask that they do it in a high quality standard, which they did in this case. So that includes design and layouts, as well? We look at the layout, yes. We want to make sure the layouts are appropriate. Fixtures and furnishings? Yes. What happens if you feel it doesn't reach the level of quality that define the Trump standards? Then we'd ask them to go back and bring us something that does. What if they don't? They do. So in every case, the Trump standards are met? Yeah. Object to the form. Yeah, they'd have to be met or we will not do the deal. We'll get out of the deal, if they're not met. We have the right to do that. Okay. Other than materials, design, layouts, finishings, is there anything else that the Trump construction standards demand from a Trump project, such as the Trump Fort Lauderdale, as The Project was intended? Just general quality. The person who determines whether or not the standard of that general quality is met is yourself and people on your team; is that correct? Correct. At the Trump Organization? Correct. Okay. The Project at issue in this case ran into financing difficulties; is that correct? Objection to the form. I don't know. I wasn't the developer. Well, are you aware that it ran into financing difficulties with its lender, CorusBank? Well, I don't know. I mean, they had a lender named Corus, and I think something happened to the bank, and I'm not sure what the relationship was with the developer and the bank, because we were not involved in that, we were just a licensee. Okay. If you were the developer, would you have been able to finance the completion of The Project? Object to the form of the question. I don't know the answer to that, because the market was so bad at that time. As I told you the last time, these people got lucky, because they bought at the high and then the market went bad, and now they're trying to get back their deposit. The fact is, if they'd closed on the unit, they would have lost a lot of money. So I don't really know the answer to that. I would say that the market was so bad, that I'm not sure anybody could have financed the development at that time. At the time that Corus went bad and at the time that the developer was having problems with the bank, I'm not sure anybody could have financed it. Are you talking about a personal choice or an ability? Object to the form. I'm talking about normal real estate financing for a project like this, I think it would have been very hard to obtain. Nobody was willing to put up their own personal money to finish The Project? Object to the form of the question. You'd have to ask the developer. I'm not the developer. I'm just the licensee. Were you ever asked to do that? No. Not that I remember, no. Do you know if Roy Stillman was ever approached to put up his own personal money to finish The Project? I don't know that. Did you ever approach him? Not that I remember. It's a pretty unusual thing for a developer to do, to put up his own personal fortune to do a job, especially when the market has tanked. Okay. This is a new exhibit, Exhibit 416. [Thereupon, Exhibit 416 was marked for Identification] Have you ever seen this document before? Please take your time. Not that I remember, no. Do you know what it is? No. I've never seen it. To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen it. Okay. If CorusBank prepares a loan presentation, would anybody at the Trump Organization see such documents? I think it would be pretty unlikely, but it's possible somebody sent us one, but we're not the developer, so I think it's unlikely. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to the last paragraph on the first page, CCVPROD2575. Yeah. Okay. It's two sentences. The second sentence says, "According to Stillman, Trump Lauderdale Development - Number 2, LLC's inclusion in the organizational chart serves the purpose of being able to say that Donald Trump is an investor in The Project rather than just a licensor and operator." Do you know what that sentence is talking about? Object to the form. Object to the form. No, because to the best of my knowledge, we didn't make an investment in this project. You know, maybe he wanted me to be an investor, maybe he was suggesting that I would be an investor, but to the best of my knowledge -- I mean, I could check, but I don't think we ever made an investment in this project. I have many projects all over the world, so I'm -- you know, it's probably -- and perhaps you'll have to ask him, but he was possibly saying that he was trying to get me to be an investor. Do you agree with that statement? At one point, I think they asked me whether or not I'd like to be an investor in The Project. Okay. And what was your response? No. How do you define an investor in The Project? Object to the form. Somebody that puts up money. Who are the investors in The Project? I really don't know. Mr. Stillman is the one that I knew. He put up his own money? Object to the form. Objection to the form. You'd have to ask him that question. I really don't know. He's the developer or his company or a company is the developer. I guess it's SB Hotel Association, is really the developer. Mr. Stillman has an interest in SB Hotel; isn't that correct? Object to the form. Object to the form. I really don't know. You'd have to ask Mr. Stillman. Possibly, but you'd have to ask him. And you have an interest in that entity, do you not? Object to the form. I think they gave me something having to do with that as an incentive, some kind of incentive, but it had nothing to do with the development, but I think there might have been some non-voting stock that they gave me, so that I could -- just as an incentive, so that when sales started, we could do a better job, a good job. You don't agree with that statement now? Which one? The second sentence that I read, "According to Stillman," dot, dot, dot, "rather than just a licensor and operator [see below]." Object to the form. Objection to the form. I don't think so. I mean, again, I'd have to check, but I don't think we ever made an investment in The Project, no. Okay. Okay. This is Exhibit 417. [Thereupon, Exhibit 417 was marked for Identification] Okay. Have you ever seen this document before? No, not that I know of. Do you know what it is? No. Do you know who F. Ronald Mastriana is? No. Would it surprise you if I told you that Roy Stillman recorded this deed restriction in connection with The Project? Object to the form. Object to the form. No, I don't know. I don't know who these people are. I know Roy Stillman, but I don't know who Ronald Mastriana is. Okay. Are you aware that Roy Stillman filed such a document in the records? Object to the form. I'm not aware. Maybe my lawyers are, but I'm not aware. Okay. Are you aware that pursuant to this recorded document, all units in The Project had to be managed by a hotel management company, under a unified plan for hotel use, and that there was a restriction on residential use? Object to the form. No. Were you aware of that? No, but that's very standard. Standard in what? In this business, because you do restrictions based on Zoning Codes and based on various variances that you get from the cities and states. So it's very standard in the business to have various restrictions on use. It's called a use restriction. Are you talking about -- when you say, "This business," are you talking about condo-hotels or general real state? Yeah, condo-hotels and real estate, too. Very standard. What is your understanding of the restriction on use imposed on the buyers of The Project had closing occurred? Object to form. I don't know. Are you aware of any such restrictions, as you sit here today, prior to having seen this document -- Object to the form. -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 417? No, I'm not aware of the details. Okay. This is Exhibit 418. [Thereupon, Exhibit Number 418 was marked for Identification] This was sent to us by your attorney, Mr. Alan Garten. Do you stipulate to all the statements in here as true? I haven't read it -- Well, you can read it now. Well -- It's six pages, and it says it's your biography. Why don't you ask me a specific question about it? Okay. The first paragraph, is there anything in the first paragraph that you disagree with or is inaccurate? I think I'm considered to be a very successful person, yes. Okay. There's nothing in there that you would disagree with? No, I don't think so. All right. What about the second paragraph there, everything in there is true and accurate? Yeah. Okay. Now, the third paragraph starts, "In New York City." Is anything there that is inaccurate or untrue? Object to the form. Are we going to do this all day? Well, yes. We have to authenticate this. For what purpose? Because it was given to me by your attorney, but we don't know the accuracy of the statements. We can short-circuit this. Yes, counsel. Mr. Garten indicated that he would provide it to you and he indicated it was stipulated that it's accurate. Mr. Garten, in his deposition, when Mr. Trump was being deposed, he made that statement. We can go to the page. But if you want Mr. Trump to look at it and take a few minutes -- Yes. We can off the record. We can do that for a moment. [Discussion off the record] Back on the record. Mr. Trump, your Florida counsel is telling me that your New York counsel stipulated to this. If you are comfortable with that, do you stipulate to Plaintiff's 418 being true and accurate, in its entirety? Well, I haven't read it for many years, so I'll have to take a look at it. Okay. Then why don't we go off the record. [Discussion off the record] I believe it's accurate. Mr. Trump, Plaintiff's Exhibit 417 is accurate and true, in its entirety? Well, This is 418. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. 418. I believe it is. Okay. Thank you. I just want to briefly go back to Exhibit 417, which is the recorded document. In this project, did you do anything to familiarize yourself with any deed restrictions or occupancy restrictions? Object to the form. No. The lawyers do that. Okay. And you left it entirely to your lawyers? Yes. Okay. And is it customary for you to leave matters pertaining to deed restrictions to your lawyers for your other projects, as well? Yes. Object to the form of the question. Okay. That includes licensing deals that you've entered into? I mean, we will make the basic deal, but the lawyers will put it down and do the restrictions, if any. What about for projects in which you were the developer, in those cases, you also leave it to your lawyers to handle the deed restriction issues? Yes. I think we're done. Fine. Thank you. He's going to read.