Bring in the jury. [Whereupon, the jurors entered the courtroom and resumed their respective seats in the jury box] Good morning, jurors. Please be seated. Let me just tell you this. Remember I told you in the very beginning when I made my opening statements to you usually we call each witness, that we do both direct then the cross-examination. In this case, we decided to suspend Mr. Ross's testimony and we're going to take Mr. Trump at this time. Okay? So with that please call your next witness, Mr. Itkowitz. I call Donald Trump to the witness stand. D O N A L D T R U M P, called as a witness by the Plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Please be seated. Please state your name and address for the record. Donald John Trump, 725 Fifth Avenue, New York. Zip code, please. 10022. Counsel, your witness. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Trump. Good morning. You're familiar with the company ALM? Yes. And in September of 2003, you signed a memorandum of understanding with ALM, correct? That's correct. And that memorandum of understanding provided that if ALM found an acceptable license for you within a certain period of time, ALM would be entitled to a commission. Is that correct? Under terms and conditions that ALM was unable to meet. Your Honor -- Mr. Trump. Yes, ma'am. This is -- you're being cross-examined at this point. And the kinds of questions that you're being asked are questions that can be answered either yes, no or I don't understand the question is perfect. Please refrain from saying anything else other than yes or no. At this time I move to strike that answer. You can strike the answer after the answer is yes. Now, under that memorandum of understanding, if ALM met the criteria set forth in the memorandum of understanding, they would be entitled to a commission correct? If they met the criteria, yes. Now, among those things that they would be entitled to was a 22.5 percent commission of royalties that you would receive under the terms of that agreement, correct? Again, under the criteria if we were to receive the kind of numbers that they said they were going to get, which they didn't, yes, the answer is yes. Your Honor. Please refrain from commenting. Okay? Okay. Now, it also provided, did it not, that if ALM obtained a company to pay you royalties under the memorandum of understanding, if that agreement was renewed, ALM would be entitled to a commission for any renewal period; is that correct? I really don't know. I can't be that specific. But if it says that in the agreement you would agree? Again, the agreement was -- Yes or no? I don't think I can answer it yes or no. I would like the witness to be shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Show Plaintiff's 1 to the witness. [Pause] I would direct your attention, just to move this along, to page 3. Okay. Now, actually before that, if you look at page 4 -- just look at page 4 for a second. That contains your signature, does it not? Yes. You reviewed this document before you signed it, correct? I reviewed it, yes. Now, I'm going to direct your attention to the second full sentence in paragraph three where it says, notwithstanding the foregoing, ALM shall have the right to receive the ALM fee during the term of each acceptable license and any renewal or extension thereof. Do you see that? Yes. So that means, does it not, in plain English that if ALM got you an acceptable license they would be entitled to a commission, not only during the term of the original license but for any renewal period, correct? Objection. I'll allow it. Can we not do the plain English kind of thing, the editorializing? Yes, indeed. Please don't editorialize. Okay? But otherwise overruled. Yes or no, sir? Again, I cannot answer it yes or no. Does it not provide, sir, that if ALM provided you with an acceptable license, they would be entitled to a commission of 22.5 percent of the royalties you received; yes or no? Again, I cannot answer it yes or no because the 22.5 percent is referring to the monies that they said they were going to bring in and they didn't bring them in. Well, sir -- let's go to page 2. Okay. Page 2 defines acceptable license, does it not? Right. And the definition of acceptable license is seven years, a seven year term, correct? Right. Which we didn't get. I move to strike. Come up. [Whereupon, there's a sidebar discussion off the record, out of the hearing of the jury] Mr. Trump, let me try and move this along a little bit. This agreement defines acceptable license as a license that includes -- that's for a term of seven years, provides $25 million, a minimum license for royalty rate of 10 percent and a fee to ALM under those circumstances of 22.5 percent, correct? Absolutely correct. Now, turning to page 3 of this contract, it provides that ALM shall have a right to receive the ALM fee if it gets an acceptable license, and we've just defined that, during the term -- during the initial term of the acceptable license and for any renewal period and extension period, correct? Correct, yes. Now, you made this contract pursuant to an agreement -- pursuant to a discussion you had with a person by the name of Mark Hager, correct? I don't remember Mr. Hager from the early days. I mean it could very well have been but I don't remember him from the early days. Well, Mr. Hager is sitting in the courtroom right here? Yes. You met with him a few times in 2003 and 2004; is that correct? It might be. I don't remember. So you have no recollection of Mr. Haber as you're looking at him right now? I recognize him because he came to my office a couple of years ago but I don't absolutely know, no. Do you recognize him as a person who was affiliated with ALM? I know he is, but you're asking do I recognize him from those days. I don't. I had very little to do with it. But you recognize him now? Yes, I do. Now, Mr. Hager was introduced to you by a person by the name of David Scharf; is that correct? I believe so yes. David Scharf at that time was one of your attorneys? Yes. You used more than one? He was an attorney -- yes, we have more than one. Right. So David Scharf had a personal relationship with you? Personal relationship? He was an attorney. He was an attorney who represented you personally, correct? I -- he was an attorney, he represented me and the organization. So you knew him well? I knew him fairly well, yes. And he suggested that it might be useful for you to meet Mr. Hager, correct? Objection, hearsay. Absolutely. Sustained. Did Mr. Scharf introduce you to Mr. Haber? I believe so. I believe it was Mr. Scharf. You're talking about ten years ago or more. I believe it was Mr. Scharf. And after he introduced you to Mr. Haber that's when you negotiated this agreement called a memorandum of understanding, correct? That's possible. Excuse me? That's possible. I believe the person that negotiated it was Mr. Bernie Diamond who works for me. I didn't negotiate this agreement, the agreement was negotiated by Mr. Diamond. Mr. Diamond works for you? Yes, he's an attorney who works for us, yes. After your attorney negotiated the agreement this agreement was presented to you? Yes. And you read it? I probably read it. I can't read, unfortunately, every agreement that's presented to me, but I certainly got a little recap of it and I signed it. Now, there came a time that you learned that Mr. Hager and Mr. Hager's company, ALM, had hired a man by the name of Jeffrey Danzer; is that correct? Yes, a long time ago. And Jeffrey Danzer was the person who really was -- who really worked on trying to procure you licenses for which you would get royalties, correct? Well, I believe that's true, but there was somebody else earlier on who also was involved. But I didn't ask you about that? You're asking me, I thought -- okay, fine. Now, so Mr. Danzer, you knew Mr. Danzer to be working on procuring licenses for the Trump Organization, correct? Yes. And he did that during the period of February through June of 2004, correct? I can't tell you the exact dates but the answer is probably yes, in that vicinity. Now, this agreement, this memorandum of understanding had an expiration period of March 31, 2004. Correct? If you say so. I assume that's what it says. And then after that another agreement was executed. I'd like the witness to be shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Plaintiff's 2. [Pause] That's correct. There was a second agreement executed by you extending the period of time for which ALM could procure an acceptable license, from March through June 30th, 2004; is that correct? About three months, yes, that's right. And this agreement was presented to you also? Yes, it was. And you signed it, correct? Yes, I did. Now, these agreements plus the original agreement, memorandum of understanding, provided for a three month period after the expiration for ALM to still get a commission on a deal that it was working on during the original period, correct? Yes. On the deal that they were working on. Right. Excuse me, that would mean the seven years, the $25 million and all of the terms in the agreement. Excuse me? I move to strike that because -- I'm going to allow it. Let's go. Mr. Trump, prior to the expiration of the period of June 30th, 2004, there came a time when it was brought to your attention that Mr. Danzer had identified the company called Philip Van Heusen as a candidate interested in paying you royalties on a license; is that correct? I don't know if he identified it. Everybody -- I mean Regis Philbin is the one that first told me about PVH. PVH is the largest shirt manufacturer in the world of shirt and ties, I guess. Regis Philbin is the one who first told me about it because he had a very successful show also. This all happened because of the success of The Apprentice. Regis called me up strongly recommended PVH. Mr. Danzer may have also. Everybody knew about PVH. I knew about PVH even before Regis mentioned it. They have 50 percent of the shirt market in the United States. It wasn't about identifying it. Everybody knew PVH existed. Isn't it a fact, sir, that Mr. Danzer arranged a meeting on June 24th -- is it not a fact that Mr. Danzer arranged a meeting on June 24th, 2004 by which he brought up the representatives, the executives of PVH to your offices to discuss a potential license with you, correct? That's possible. Very possible. I show you what has been -- I'd like the witness to be shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 22. THE COURT OFFICER: I don't have 22. We'll stipulate that there was a meeting on June 24. No, I want to show the witness the document. Okay. This document is in evidence and I'm showing the witness the document. Plaintiff's 22 in evidence. Twenty-two we're talking about? Yes. Twenty-two in evidence. I'd like you to look at page 2 of this document. This document is an agenda for a meeting at your headquarters, correct? That's correct, yes. And it's supposed to have occurred on June 24th, correct? Yes. And at the bottom of it it indicated the people who were going to be attending, correct? Correct. And are you familiar with any of those names? Yes. All of them. You're familiar with all of them? Sure. So this document -- this meeting was organized by Jeffrey Danzer, correct? I mean I don't know, but it's possible. I assume so. Could be. Okay. Mr. Danzer was working on the PVH deal, correct? He was working on it along with our people but he was working on it, yes. Regis Philbin wasn't working on it, was he? Objection. Sustained. Let's go. Mr. Danzer was working on it? Mr. Danzer was working on it, yes. And Mr. Danzer was the person who was speaking to PVH, correct? Well, my people were speaking to them also. But Mr. Danzer was the person who organized it, who created an opportunity for your people to speak to PVH in connection with a potential license from you, correct? Yes. We would have -- just so -- Yes or no, correct? Yes or no? He was working on it, yes. So Mr. Danzer, that was his job, that's what he was doing? Fine, yes. And that meeting occurred on June 24th, correct? It looks like it did, yes. Did you happen to drop into that meeting? I don't think so. If you look -- I was at one of the meetings. I think there were two meetings. I was at one of the meetings, I'm not sure if it was this one. At the top the first item on the agenda it says, Business Overview Donald Trump? I think there were two meetings, I was at one and not the other. I'm not sure which one. We'll talk about the second meeting in a few minutes. Okay. So -- but certainly Mr. Ross, your -- the person who was working on this licensing project was at this meeting? I think so, yes. And it wouldn't surprise you if I told you that yesterday Mr. Ross testified that the essentials of your deal were negotiated at this meeting, would it? Not particularly, no. I mean I don't know. You weren't here? I was not a part of it. But if Mr. Ross said that you would agree to it, correct? Objection. He wasn't at the meeting. Sustained. Did Mr. Ross talk to you after this meeting? I believe he did, yes. Now, it's a fact, is it not, that the acceptable license requirement in the memorandum of understanding was a very hard goal to meet? I don't know. That's what you said. You were the ones that presented this to me. You were the ones that said you were going to get this great wonderful deal and you were unable to do it, so I don't know. I can -- I move to strike it. No, I'm going to allow that. That's the kind of question you asked. All right. So Mr. Trump, I didn't ask you who presented what but this memorandum of understanding was a product of a meeting that you had with Mr. Hager or your lawyer had with Mr. Hager or Mr. Hager's lawyer, correct? Objection, it's compound. Sustained. Rephrase it. Mr. Trump, correct me if I'm wrong, you just testified about this? Excuse me? You just testified about this. You weren't at these negotiations, were you? I don't know. You don't remember? I don't remember. I don't think so. I was at one of them, I don't think it was this meeting. So if you weren't there you really don't know who suggested what, do you? Well, I -- Objection. What meeting; the negotiation for the agreement? You are being very confusing, all right? I'll make it more specific. You just testified, did you not, with respect to the memorandum of understanding? Yes. And you said I wasn't there, Mr. Diamond negotiated the agreement? That is correct. And it was presented to me, and maybe I read it and maybe I didn't, certainly I signed it? I didn't say that. He didn't say that, he said he reviewed it. Sustained. You said you signed the agreement? I said that. You said Mr. Diamond negotiated it? That is correct. You weren't there when Mr. Diamond negotiated it? That is correct. So you don't know who suggested what, do you? As you sit here now since you weren't there -- We're talking about Plaintiff's 1, right? Yes. Fine. Suggested the 25 million, the seven years, all of that. You weren't there? What difference does it make, it was in the agreement that you presented to us to be signed and you didn't fulfill your obligations. I would move to strike that. There's no evidence -- Look, phrase your questions in a manner that actually call for a yes or no. All right? If you want that phrase it that way. 26 You just said you weren't present for the negotiation, correct? That is correct. So if you weren't present -- Which negotiation? The negotiation with respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, the memorandum of understanding? With Bernie Diamond. Correct? That is correct. So you don't know who presented what idea at that meeting, correct? What difference does it make it's in the agreement. Excuse me -- Say yes or no, okay. Okay. I don't know who presented it. So you don't know if the 25 million was suggested by somebody in your organization or by Mr. Hager, correct? I think it was presented -- Excuse me, you don't know, do you? I think it was presented by your people to get us to sign a contract. The answer is either you do know or you don't know. Do you know or not? I'm pretty sure, but I guess I can't say I know. But -- do I know? Your Honor, it's ten years ago, I think I know. I think I know. I'm not asking you to speculate, sir. I'm asking you if you know whether the $25 million target was suggested by somebody on your team or by Mr. Hager? I believe it was presented by your team. I didn't ask you what you believe, I asked you what you know? Your Honor when, a witness is asked -- Wait one second. Sustained. You're asking a question, he's attempting to answer it. Now let him answer it. I believe it was -- Let me ask you this -- Let the witness answer the question. Withdraw your question or don't. I'm going to withdraw my question. Let me ask it this way: You don't have personal knowledge as to whether Mr. Hager suggested 25 million or whether your team suggested 25 million; is that correct? No, I don't think so, no. Now, you knew Mr. Danzer was working hard on your behalf trying to get a license? No. You don't know that? I don't know that he was working hard. What? What does hard mean? I mean he was working on it. He was working. And you approved of his behavior, did you not? His behavior? Yes. No, I didn't approve of his behavior. Object to the form. Sustained. I'll withdraw that question. You liked Mr. Danzer? No, I don't like him or dislike him. I hardly knew him. Well, you met him a number of times, did you not? Maybe twice. Maybe twice? I did like somebody who was fired before Mr. Danzer and I was upset that he was fired, actually, but there was somebody, I believe, that worked for the company that I vaguely remembered, I don't know his name, that I did like and respect. I met him briefly, but he was fired and he was very upset about it. Then Mr. Danzer got involved, but I don't know that man's name. Mr. Danzer, I don't like him or dislike him because I don't really know him. Suppose I were to tell you that only one person -- only one man worked on this project for ALM directly. I want you to accept that for the purposes of this question? Okay. And I want to ask you further to accept the following proposition, which is that the only man who worked directly on the ALM project for you from ALM was a man by the name of Jeffrey Danzer. Okay. Now, you've testified -- remember you had a deposition, correct? Yes, I did. And you testified that you liked the guy from ALM who was working on the project, correct? Yes or no? Yes, I vaguely -- you're talking about ten years ago, a long time ago. I vaguely remember there was somebody that I met that worked for ALM who I liked. It wasn't Mr. Danzer, I thought it was somebody else. Now, I may be wrong and it's not a very important point, but there was somebody and he was terminated. According to you? According to him because -- Excuse me? Can I object and move to strike. He started his question with assuming facts not in evidence then went somewhere else with it, plus, your Honor -- All right. Not a speech. Objection is the word and sustained it is. All right, go ahead, ask questions. Sir, is it not a fact that -- is it not a fact, by the way, that you have no personal knowledge of whether ALM got rid of anybody? This is just a long time ago recollection that there was somebody that was let go who I liked. Now, it may be wrong. Maybe Mr. Danzer -- maybe, frankly, I liked Mr. Danzer, I don't know where Mr. Danzer ended up in this whole thing. I thought there was somebody I liked very early in the process but after we assigned the original memorandum of understanding, that I sort of respected or liked, who all of a sudden wasn't there any longer. Now I may be right or I may be wrong. And I don't think it matters, but he wasn't there any longer. [Continued on next page] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Can I ask my question be read back? No, I can ask you to go on, okay, please. He answered your question. Do you recall being asked this question at your deposition and giving this answer in the deposition. And the deposition is on Friday, April -- excuse me. It's on June 15, 2011, and I direct everybody's intention to page 106, line 22. Hold on. Line 22 going to where? Actually, line -- let's do -- hold on a second. Let's say actually start at line 7 of 105. Line 7 of 105 going to where? Going to line 25 of page 106. 25 to 106? Correct. All right. Please wait. I don't want any of the colloquy read, okay, none of the colloquy. Your Honor, before we read it, if I'm reading what he's representing he's reading, it reference -- If you want to make a comment, come on up. [Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] Go on, please. My associate is going to hand me a Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] document. May I see your exhibits, please? Can I have Exhibit O, please? Exhibit what? O. Defendant's Exhibit O is being requested. O is in evidence. Please show it to the witness. [Document handed to witness] Your Honor, may it please the Court, may I borrow your copy for one second, because it has an exhibit list? Here it is. Exhibit O in evidence. Your Honor, if I may have your copy, the copy of the Examination Before Trial that I handed up to you that has an index list on it and you have my copy. I can substitute it. Just one second. Just one second. All right. I show you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit O for identification -- O in evidence. The witness has it. Oh, he does. Okay. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit O, that was shown to you at your Examination Before Trial, correct? I don't know. I mean, I believe so; perhaps. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Probably. And it's a letter written from George Ross to a person by the name of Jeff, correct? Yes. And I'm just going to direct your attention, to speed this up, to the last four lines of page 106 where it says -- where you stated, "It's written to Jeff; they got rid of him." So Jeff was the guy that you thought? Excuse me. Objection. Wait, wait, wait. That's not appropriate, because you have to go to a question and answer. All right. So the question starts. Can we approach again? Very briefly. Come up. Actually, I have an idea. Bring up that exhibit. [Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] All right. I'm going to ask you briefly if you remember being asked these questions and giving these answers: "QUESTION: I show you what's" -- Where are you? At line 7, 105. And I'm going to eliminate any colloquy. You'd better. Okay, go ahead. I show you what's been marked as Exhibit 22. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Now, do we stipulate that Exhibit 22 is Defendant's O in evidence that's been shown to the witness? Yes. Is that stipulated, Mr. Goldman? Yes. Go ahead. QUESTION: Have you seen that document? ANSWER: No, I haven't. I may have seen it at the time, but I can't -- I can't recognize it. "QUESTION: To your understanding, did George Ross have the authority to sign this letter on your behalf without even showing it to you? "ANSWER: He probably showed it to me. You're talking about many years ago. "QUESTION: I'm not asking whether he probably showed it to you, I'm asking did he have the authority. In April of 2004, did George Ross have the authority to sign this letter on your behalf? "ANSWER: I don't remember. "QUESTION: You don't remember? "ANSWER: I don't remember him asking for the authority. Would he have had the authority, yes, but I don't remember him asking." "QUESTION: Look at the second page" -- withdrawn. Sorry. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] "THE WITNESS: It's written to Jeff." You can't -- QUESTION: So Jeff was the guy that you thought was the -- that's what you have. I didn't get to there yet, Your Honor. But the witness -- you're not doing the colloquy, okay. Fine. QUESTION: Look at the second page. And that's Mr. Ross. QUESTION: So Jeff was the guy that you thought was the -- ANSWER: It sounds like; yes, I think so." Do you recall giving those -- being asked those questions and giving those answers? Yes. So Jeff Danzer was the guy who was working on the deal that you liked, correct? Objection. The question wasn't -- Wait. Objection is sustained. You can't ask that next question you just did. You can ask another question. Is it not true that Jeff Danzer was the person who was working on the deal for ALM at that time? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] I don't know. I mean, I know he was working on the deal at that time, but I meant prior to Jeff Danzer I thought there was somebody else. So I don't really know. And I think my answer -- I think my deposition was accurate and George was -- does have the -- I don't remember him showing this to me, but George Ross did have the authorization or the right to do this; but I just don't remember him showing it to me at the time. Okay. And, by the way, I think Jeff Danzer was fired also so it sort of works the same way. Sustained on that. That was a statement that was made without a question so it's not evidence. Remember what I said to you jurors, question and answer. If somebody just says something, there's no question so therefore there's no evidence. All right. So strike that last portion, please. Now, Mr. Trump, you had no evidence -- excuse me. You have no personal knowledge of whether Jeff Danzer left voluntarily or not, do you? Personal knowledge. Personal knowledge, no. Now, after that meeting in June of -- June 24th at PVH, you were excited by the possibility of doing a deal with PVH, were you not? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] At PVH or at the Trump Organization? At the meeting at the Trump Organization, which was -- You said it was at PVH. -- when George Ross was present on June 24th? Yes. Your organization was pleased with the possibility of doing a deal with PVH, correct? Possibly. Pleased with doing a deal with PVH, but not pleased with the terms, because the terms were much different than the contract that we had signed with ALM. Excuse me. I would move to strike that. Up to not "pleased with the terms of PVH," after that is stricken. Now, in June, at or about June 24th you were aware, were you not, you were aware whether or not that the memorandum of understanding was approaching expiration? I think so, yes. So it was going to expire on June 30th, correct? I believe that's the date, yes. Now, the person who was working at the time of the expiration was the person you liked, correct? Objection. It's been asked and answered. Sustained. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Let me ask you this question: Do you recall being asked this question on your deposition -- Wait one second. You've got to give us the page and number. Page 71, line 12. Going to where? Line -- 71 starting at line 12 going to line 24. QUESTION: Do you recall what the percentage agreement originally was supposed to be for ALM? ANSWER: No, I don't. I recall that they had a very good man that we really liked a lot, and he was either let go or left; and they had a very bad track record or no track record." Wait a second. They had a very bad -- it doesn't say track. Well, it says truck. Okay. Sorry. I think we can all agree it probably meant track. You know, if my eight year old son was here, he would like truck better, but "they had a very bad track record or no track record, but he was really great." It doesn't say "really," it just says "great". But he was great, and he was let go; and that's Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] when I didn't really like ALM any longer. I don't know his name at this time, because it was so many years ago. Your Honor. Do you recall being asked those questions and giving that answer? Yes. Yes, I did. And -- Your Honor, if I may. If you want an objection, come on up and let me know; but otherwise, I don't know why. [Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] Now, you had personal -- during this period of time, let's say June and July of 2004, you had personal interaction was Jeffrey Danzer in connection with the PVH deal, correct? Very little. Very little. Did you have interaction, yes or no? Yes, I did. Now, I show you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 23. Wait a second. You got to come up. There's a problem. I have deposition 23, but if 23 gets marked in evidence it's not the same 23 that you're showing. It's not in evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] I'm asking for Trial Exhibit 23. Trial Exhibit 23 is a document that is that document here, very long? No, I have this. That's deposition 23. Your Honor, may I see what you have? Maybe I can help. Come up. [Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] Go ahead. May I see what the witness has and make sure it's the same? It is. Have had you an opportunity to look at Exhibit 23, sir? Yes. This says 27. No, it's 23. Let me see. It says 27, but it might be 23. No, it's 23. Okay. Now, this is a letter directed to you dated July 26, 2004, correct? Yes, it is. And it's written to you from Jeff Danzer, executive vice president of ALM? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Yes. And he writes on the first paragraph: "It was good speaking to you last Thursday. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to confirm and extend the terms of our business arrangement for either making the introductions or building the Trump Lifestyle brand. I am looking forward to bringing Phillips-Van Heusen back to the table to finalize the deal for Trump Apparel. I am also eager to bring Coty Lancaster to meet with you to discuss putting together a deal for Trump fragrance and skin care products." Do you recall receiving this letter? Vaguely, yes. Okay. Now, you knew at this time or shortly thereafter that Mr. Danzer was negotiating with you as to what the terms of compensation to ALM would be? Objection to the word negotiating. Neutral terms, please. You knew that Mr. Danzer was trying to -- was going to -- was discussing with you in or about July or even early August, August 2004, what the terms of ALM's compensation would be in the event that they obtained an acceptable license for you; is that correct? No, it's not. It's not correct? No, it's not. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] So it's your testimony that ALM never negotiated -- excuse me -- that Jeff Danzer never spoke to you about changing any of the terms of the original memorandum of understanding with respect to whether PVH and Coty would be brought to you as acceptable licensees? No. We were happy with the terms we had. We wished he came through with those terms because, frankly, it was a better deal, much better deal, than we made. But it says right on his letter in the first sentence, "as soon as possible to confirm and extend the terms of our business arrangement." That's the business arrangement; the memorandum of understanding with the seven years, the $25 million. That's the agreement that I wanted. Okay. And it says so right in the letter. I'm sure that's the terms that everybody would have wanted, because everybody would have made more money. Enough already. Just ask questions. Under the terms of the original 25 million threshold and 22.5 percent -- 22.5 percent commission that would have been called, that would have been a win win for everybody, correct? Well, that's the agreement your people signed. Excuse me. Would that have been a win win for everybody? I would have been very happy with it. I wished they Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] came through, but they didn't. Let me ask you something. From '04 to the present, how many apparel licenses has Trump entered into with any apparel company? Objection, relevancy. I'll permit it. You could only testify as to what you know, okay. Well, quite a few. Well, you did -- you ultimately did a deal with PVH, correct? We did a deal with PVH. It wasn't this deal, but we did a deal. You also did a deal with Marcraft, correct? Yes. And that didn't work so well, right? It was fine. I mean, you sued us on that, but you dropped the suit because you had no case. I move to strike. But you did sue us. Stricken. Everything about that answer is stricken. Now -- It worked out fine. We made a deal. Please, Mr. Trump. Let's go over it. Evidence is a question and an answer. It is not just a sua Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] sponte statement or just an ad hominem addition to what your answer should be. Mr. Itkowitz is asking you yes or no questions. Please refrain from everything else. Answer it yes or no. Okay, Your Honor. The Marcraft deal ended in a period of time, did it not? Yes, it did. And it didn't get renewed by you, correct? We went with another company, Peerless. Right, Peerless. And Peerless was a company that Jeff Danzer was pitching to you in 2004; isn't that correct? That I don't remember. Well -- There aren't too many companies in that field, but that I don't remember. Let's see. Go to paragraph 3 of this letter. Just go right down there. Look at the third sentence. That third sentence says, "We pitched the concept to companies like Peerless for tailored clothing, Phillips-Van Heusen for dress shirts and neckties and Coty Lancaster for fragrance and skin care, right? Correct. So in 2004 Mr. Danzer was telling you that you should be doing a deal with Peerless; isn't that correct? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Well -- Yes or no? He's recommending Peerless, but we were with Marcraft. Excuse me. Yes or no? He's recommending Peerless. Right. He recommended Peerless to you in 2004? But we were with Marcraft for many years. Excuse me. Excuse me. Just answer my questions, please. He recommended Peerless. In 2004? Sure. They're a good company and Marcraft is a good company. Excuse me. Excuse me, there's no question. You know what, your counsel is going to have an opportunity to give you a chance to make some speeches. That's okay. Objection, Your Honor. That's enough. Sir -- Excuse me. Can he not raise his voice with the "sir"? Mr. Goldman, please sit down. In 2004, in July, you knew that Mr. Danzer had recommended you go with Peerless, correct; yes or no? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct - [Mr. Itkowit] Yes or no? I mean, perhaps, based on the letter. I don't remember that, but the letter says it; but I don't remember. The letter says it? Yes. So do you think the letter was inaccurate? No. Is that your testimony? Doesn't mean they would have made a deal with Peerless. I mean, they recommended. There aren't too many people that they could have recommended. So he recommended Peerless in 2004, but you went with a company call Marcraft, correct; yes or no? Yes. And after a number of years you didn't continue that deal, correct; yes or no? They were a fine company. You didn't continue the deal; yes or no? We then after years -- Excuse me. Yes or no, did you continue the deal? When? With Marcraft? When? When did it end? We had a deal with Marcraft for years. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct When did it end? I don't know but -- It ended a number of years ago? Excuse me, can he not argue. Sustained. Sit down. We were with Marcraft for many years. There came a time when the Marcraft deal ended? Yes, years later. Excuse me, there came a time when the Marcraft deal ended, yes? Yes, that's true. At the time it ended, rather than make a deal with Marcraft you went with Peerless? We negotiated with Marcraft and Peerless and went with Peerless years later. Years later -- years later, rather than continue with Marcraft you decided to drop them and go with Peerless, correct; yes or no? Objection. Asked and answered. Using the word dropped. He said it ended. Sustained. Go on. Okay. Now, this letter to you on June 26, 2004, that Trump - Plaintiff - Direct states -- July 26. Excuse me, thank you. This dated July 26, 2004, says that ALM was pitching Coty fragrance to you, correct; Coty Lancaster? I vaguely remember that. Do you know who Coty Lancaster is? The Coty company fragrance? Yes. I do know. We didn't go with them, we went with Estee Lauder. Do you know who Coty Lancaster is? I don't know what Lancaster means, I know Coty. What is Coty? A fragrance company, primarily. Is it not a fact that Mr. Danzer got you a proposal from Coty Lancaster -- excuse me, from Coty? Objection, that's not in evidence and that's not the fact. First place you're testifying, and that is out. So did he. Enough already, Mr. Goldman. Enough. I don't want you emulating your client. The only word I want to hear out of you if you have an Trump - Plaintiff - Direct objection is objection. Apart from that everything else you say is gratuitous and it is wrong. I am please asking you to say objection only. I will, your Honor. That should be a standard for both counsel. I agree with you there. I admonish you the same. But he's not objecting. Now, Mr. Danzer ultimately got Coty to give you a proposal, did he not? Objection. No, I'm going to allow it. Yes or no? I don't remember. All right, let's move on. All right. Is it not a fact that you were considering Coty? I told you I don't -- we went with Estee Lauder. It's possible we got something from Coty but we decided to go with Estee Lauder which we got -- which was a much better deal than the Coty deal, I assume, otherwise we would have signed the Coty deal. Isn't it a fact that you used the Coty deal to get a better deal from Estee Lauder? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct Sustained. Objection is sustained. Let's go. I direct your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 100. [Pause] Just look at the first paragraph. Tell me when you're finished. [Pause] It's -- Excuse me, I just -- tell me when you've finished the first paragraph? I finished it. This is a letter from Jeffrey Danzer to you, Donald, correct? Yes. That's what it says, Donald? It says Donald, that's right. It doesn't say Mr. Trump, it says Donald? Objection. It says: Dear Donald. Go on. Okay. "Regarding our deal as it pertains to any licensing deal ALM brings to the Trump Organization Mark and I discussed your offer of 10 percent as well as your Trump - Plaintiff - Direct suggestion to try and get a higher percentage from potential licensees to justify a higher percentage for ALM." Do you see that? Yes. Is it not a fact that at this time, on or about August 3rd or prior to August 3rd, you were having discussions with Jeffrey Danzer about lowering the compensation for a license deal with PVH and Coty, and lowering the threshold that would have to be met for them to get a commission; yes or no? No. No. Number one, I wouldn't have agreed to 10 percent. I never did agree to 10 percent. Excuse me? The answer is no. The question is were you having discussions -- Objection. I will allow it. He answered. The answer is no. You were not having discussions? Not that I remember. I wanted the deal we originally agreed to. That reminds me, I got thrown off track a little bit. I was asking you -- I'm going to back up a little Trump - Plaintiff - Direct bit. So since 2004, you've done apparel deals with Marcraft and Peerless? Right. And PVH, correct? Right. Any other companies? I think so but you'd have to ask Cathy Glosser. As you're sitting here right now on the witness stand, you can't recall the name of any other company that you've had an apparel licensing deal with, correct? Well, we've done -- let me see. I think we did a coat deal with somebody. You'd really have to ask Cathy Glosser as to apparel. I'm asking you what you remember? These are the primary two. Those are the primary three? Peerless Marcraft and PVH, yes. Has any one of those deals ever approached 25 million in a seven year period? Yes or no? I mean they do quite nicely. Excuse me, yes or no? It is a yes or no. I'd have to speak to my accountant so I don't know. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct So you don't know? No. I'd have to speak to my accountant. So it's your testimony then that when Jeff Danzer was proposing a lower percentage for ALM -- excuse me? Withdrawn. This indicates, this -- that you proposed 10 percent to Mr. Danzer? It's false, totally false. I never proposed anything. He was supposed to give us a much better deal. I was upset with them and I never proposed anything to them. So it's your testimony then that at no time in July and August of 2004 did you ever suggest a lower percentage than 22 and a half percent to ALM? That is correct, yes. That's correct. And by the way, the letter is not signed. Excuse me, it's signed by Mr. Danzer? Not signed by me. I didn't suggest that it was. He's asking me to sign it. If I would have agreed I would have signed it and sent it back to him. I didn't sign the letter. Excuse me -- There was no question for you to make that a statement. I move to strike it. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct And it is stricken. Mr. Trump, you're very well and ably represented by a very good attorney. When he gets his chance he's going to ask you and you'll be able to make it under a proper evidentiary format. Okay. Making that statement goes nowhere because, jurors, you must disregard it. You must not take that into account. That is my order to you. Please, those ad hominem bursts are nothing. They are nothing to you whatsoever. That's not the evidence. All right? Now, I'd like to show the witness Trial Exhibit 115. Excuse me, Gary, you never gave me my loose evidence. I had a whole package of documents that were loose. Oh, here they are. Excuse me. Okay. This is an e-mail that Mr. Danzer sent to Cathy Glosser and to George Ross on August 3rd, correct? Yes. Now, going to the third paragraph of this e-mail, it says: Regarding our deal as it pertains to the Coty Trump - Plaintiff - Direct deal, Mark and I discussed Donald's offer of 10 percent, as well as his suggestion to try and get a higher percentage from Coty to justify a higher percentage for ALM. Do you see that? Yes, I do. Now, are you aware -- now going back to Exhibit 100, which was the August 3rd letter to you, and going back to this e-mail dated August 3rd directed to Cathy Glosser and George Ross, are you aware of at any time you or anybody acting on behalf of you wrote back to Jeffrey Danzer and disputed this sentence or the portion of these documents that said you made an offer of 10 percent to them. Yes or no? Well -- Yes or no? I can't answer it yes or no. It's an impossible question to answer yes or no. It's yes, no or I don't know. I can say I never made an offer of 10 percent. That's not the question. Read back the question, please. And please, Mr. Trump, answer it. [Record read] You're using the word "wrote back". Yes. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct I didn't write back. I didn't think you had to write back. So you didn't write back. I did not write back. And nobody -- you're not aware of anybody on your behalf who wrote back, correct? Yes or no? That wrote back? I don't know, you'd have to ask them but I didn't write back. But you're not aware. You're not aware. I'm asking you. I'm not asking anybody else I'm asking you. Did I write back? No. Are you aware of anybody on your behalf who wrote back and said no, that's incorrect? I'm not aware of anybody that wrote back. Now, I direct your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. Plaintiff's 6 is marked into evidence. I'm sorry, I erred. I meant Plaintiff's Exhibit 72, which I think is in evidence. I keep getting mixed up periodically -- Well, that's your problem. I understand that. With the deposition exhibit. All right. Seventy-two. That's Trump - Plaintiff - Direct in evidence also. Take back that other one. [Pause] Tell me when you're finished reading it. I'm finished. This is an e-mail from Jeff Danzer to George Ross and Cathy Glosser, correct? Yes. It's dated August 23, 2004? Yes. Now, George Ross and Cathy Glosser were acting on your behalf in connection with negotiating the PVH deal, correct? Yes. And this is a letter -- excuse me, an e-mail to George stating what Mr. Danzer states are going to be the terms of the financial arrangements between Trump and ALM with respect to any potential deal that will be brought to the table by ALM, correct? Well, it's from Mr. Danzer. Yes. But that's what he's stating he agreed to with Mr. Ross, correct? Yes or no? That's what he's stating. He's stating. That's what I asked you? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct That's what he's stating, yes. Yes. That's what I asked you. Now, that was a week that you actually met with PVH, correct? I'll make it easy for you. I'll show you what's been marked as Trial Exhibit 73 and Trial Exhibit 27. Seventy-three and 74? Seventy-three and 27. I see them. Now, 27 is a meeting agenda for August 26, 2004, correct? Correct. And that's a meeting agenda for meeting at the PVH corporate office? Okay. That's the meeting you attended, correct? I think that is, yes. Well, look down at the bottom where it indicates who's going to be attending. Yes. You attended that meeting, correct? I believe so, yes. And you and your people and Mr. Danzer went up to the PVH offices, correct, on that date? I think that's right. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct Now, turning your attention to Exhibit 73, that's Jeff Danzer writing to George Ross the day before this meeting, correct? The day before this meeting? Yes. The letters or e-mails are the day before? The e-mail to George Ross from Jeff Danzer is the day before. Fine. That's dated August 25th, correct? Correct. The meeting agenda and the day that the meeting occurred is August 26th, correct? It is August 26th, yes. So the e-mail from Mr. Danzer to George Ross stating -- what Mr. Danzer is stating is the understanding between him and Mr. Ross was sent the day before this meeting, correct? Yes or no? Yes. It would look like it. And this is also -- this August 23rd -- excuse me, this August 25th e-mail, Trial Exhibit 73, is another statement by Mr. Danzer. And you can look right there where it says attachment on the front page? Right. It says 10 percent deal August 25th doc. Do you Trump - Plaintiff - Direct see that? On the top reattached. The last line at the top. Yes, I see attached, yes. Says 10 percent deal August 25th doc? Yes, it says that. Attached to the document is a letter dated August 25th, 2004? The second page? Right. I see it. That letter again states Mr. Danzer's statement as to what he had come to an agreement with George Ross about, correct? Well, it's his statement. That's right. Not anybody else's. That's all I asked you. That's his statement to George Ross? Sure. That we've agreed to the following. ALM's fee for any introduction of a potential licensing partner to Donald Trump and/or any other entity associated with Donald Trump which evolves into a licensing deal and any subsequent renewal thereof shall be 10 percent of all royalties or such Trump - Plaintiff - Direct other fees, i.e. advances, sign on bonuses, marketing fees made to Trump, and ALM's fee shall be paid to ALM or any other entity it so chooses within 15 days from when Trump receives payment from the licensing partner. Do you see that? Yes. That was his statement as to what he had agreed to with Mr. Ross, yes or no? That's his statement. Yes. That's what I said? That's his statement. That's the question? Sure, he's writing the statement. He doesn't even have a termination date here. That's the question? That's his statement. Now, are you aware at any time -- excuse me. At or about this time did Mr. Ross discuss this document with you? No. At any time, are you aware of whether anybody from your organization wrote back to Mr. Danzer the day before this meeting or at any other time that, you know what, we're not in agreement about the 10 percent? Wrote. You keep saying wrote. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct That's the question? Perhaps they didn't write. Excuse me, that's the question. Answer the question, please. Okay. I don't know about writing back. Okay. So as you sit here now, you don't know if anybody wrote back to Mr. Danzer disputing this, correct? Asked and answered. It has been asked and answered. Go on. Now, let me ask you something. This case has been going on since 2008 or 2009, correct? Objection. Relevance. Overruled. 2008, 2009? Probably. And it's now 2013? Yes. And there's been -- you're familiar with the concept of discovery in legal proceedings? Yes. Objection. I'll allow it. Yes, I am. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct And in discovery both parties ask each other for documents that may help it in the litigation? Yes. Objection. I'll allow it. And as you sit here now, you knew you were coming in to testify, correct? Yes. You knew you were going to be asked questions about this whole 10 percent issue, do you not? You knew that? Probably, yes. And as you sit here now, you're not aware of one piece of paper with your name on it, written by you or anybody else, disputing that statement by Mr. Danzer, are you? Objection. Your objection is overruled. Please answer. Using the word wrote or paper I am not aware of, no. Thank you. Is this a good place to take a ten minute break? Fine with me. All right, we're taking our Trump - Plaintiff - Direct morning break. It's ten minutes long. Please come back -- make it slightly less minutes, we'll make it nine and a half minutes, so please don't discuss the case among yourselves. Under no condition do you talk about this case. Please keep an open mind. See you back here at 11:12. Okay? [Whereupon, the jury retired from the courtroom] [Recess] Mr. Trump, step back up. [D O N A L D T R U M P, the witness, resumed the witness stand and testified further as follows] Get the jury. Can we approach? [Whereupon, there's a sidebar discussion off the record] Bring in the jury. [Whereupon, the jurors entered the courtroom and resumed their respective seats in the jury box] Please be seated. Thank you very much. Mr. Itkowitz, as quickly as possible. Sure. DIRECT EXAMINATION [Continue] 26 Trump - Plaintiff - Direct Mr. Trump, so you had the meeting on August 26 at PVH headquarters, correct? I believe so, yes. That was a very productive meeting, was it not? Yes. In fact, it was so productive that when you left the meeting or after the meeting, you directed Cathy Glosser and Jeff Danzer to quote/unquote, make the deal happen; isn't that correct? Yes or no? Objection. Can he think for a minute? You know, Mr. Goldman, objection is the only word I want to hear. The next time I'm going to have words with everybody in the back. Enough. Did you or did you not direct Cathy Glosser, your vice president of licensing, and Mr. Danzer, the organizer of the meeting to make the deal happen? I don't know. I show the witness 118. I direct -- First place, do you recognize the handwriting on this? Do I? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct Yes. No, I don't. I'm going to ask you to assume, for the purposes of this question, that this page of handwriting came from the notebook of Cathy Glosser? Okay. And I would direct your attention to 40 percent of the way down the page and to the words as per Donald. And there's an arrow, make the deal happen. Do you think that's an accurate -- I'd accept that. Excuse me? If this is Kathy's writing I would accept that, yes. Now, in the top part there's basic terms -- not terms from a term sheet but indications of what was discussed at the meeting. Do you see that? Yes. And as you sit here now, there was no minimum guarantee that was discussed at that meeting, is there? I don't know. So you don't remember? No. I'm going to direct your attention to -- within two to three weeks after this meeting there was a proposal Trump - Plaintiff - Direct submitted to you by PVH? Perhaps. I'd have to see the proposal. I'm not disputing that, I just don't know. Well, you do recall that -- I direct your attention to Trial Exhibit 3. Trial Exhibit 3 is in evidence. [Pause] He has it. Trial Exhibit 3. It happens to be -- it's from the exhibit from the deposition which it was marked 3A. Do you see it? We have it. This is the agreement that you signed with PVH, correct? Yes. And that was signed on November 29th, 2004? Yes. Now, you had the meeting at PVH on August 26th, correct? Yes. You directed your staff and Mr. Danzer to make the deal happen? Objection. No, I'm going to allow that. You directed your staff and Mr. Danzer to make the Trump - Plaintiff - Direct deal happen? I directed my staff to make the deal happen. You didn't direct Mr. Danzer to make the deal happen? I didn't direct Mr. Danzer. Was Mr. Danzer working on your behalf? He was working on the job but didn't do what they were supposed to do. Was Mr. Danzer working on your behalf, yes or no? As per the agreement, yes. Was Mr. Danzer working on your behalf, yes or no? Objection. I think he answered the question. Sustained. Let's go. So let me understand this. It was clear, at least on -- excuse me, let me back up. Look at Trial Exhibit 3. Yes. You're familiar with that contract? The license agreement, yes. That was what you ultimately agreed to? Yes, it is. And you were happy with that deal, right? Depends on what you're definition of happy is. I would have been happier -- Trump - Plaintiff - Direct I -- I won't say it. You were happy enough to sign the deal, correct? I signed the deal. You were happy enough to sign the deal? I signed the deal. So you signed the deal, okay? And Mr. Danzer worked on getting that deal for you, correct? Well, probably correct. And Mr. Danzer wasn't doing this as a charity endeavor for you, was he? Objection. Sustained. Did you think that Mr. Danzer was doing this for free? Objection. I'll allow that. I thought that Mr. Danzer was trying to get them to pay -- Excuse me. That wasn't the question. Do you think Mr. Danzer was doing this deal for you for free, yes or no? It's a very hard question to answer yes or no. My feeling is that I felt that Trump - Plaintiff - Direct Mr. Danzer wanted to get the commission that he was to be given if we could have gotten that deal from PVH, but we didn't get that deal from PVH. We didn't make the deal that ALM promised us, your Honor, we made a deal that was for substantially less money. But I think that Danzer went right to the end hoping to get that deal. We didn't get that deal, we got a different deal. So it's your testimony now that the $25 million requirement set forth in the memorandum of understanding in August of 2003 was what Mr. Danzer was telling you could be gotten on August 26 of 2004. Is that what you're saying? That's what they told us originally. That's what he tried to get and he was unable to get it. Well, prior to the deal being signed, was it not apparent to you and to ALM that there was going to be no minimum requirement for this license agreement? Yes or no? I can't respond to that. I just don't know. You don't know? I can say that I didn't -- I can say that this is a much different deal than we were told we were going to get from ALM. A much different deal. I understand. And not as good a deal. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] I understand that. But not as good a deal. But they knew it was going to be a much different deal; didn't they? Yeah, but that doesn't mean I have to pay ALM. Excuse me. They knew it was going to be a much different deal; did they not? I don't know. Objection to the form. I don't know what ALM -- I can't speak for ALM, I can only speak for myself. It's not the deal that ALM promised us. So it's your testimony then that from June 24th of 2004 until November 29th of 2004, when you signed this deal, you never had a discussion with anybody from ALM, Jeff Danzer or anybody else, asking you to pay a lower percentage than 22.5 percent as set forth in the memorandum of understanding, because the minimum requirement of $25 million over seven years was not going to be met? We had a discussion, but he also knew he wouldn't get a commission. Okay. So you're now saying that you had a discussion? We had a discussion. You had discussions? But he also knew he wouldn't be getting a commission. So who did you have these discussions with? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Mr. -- I think Mr. Danzer. Okay. So we now know that you had discussions with Mr. Danzer -- Yes. -- about lowering the commission rate because the target rate of 25 million over seven years was not going to be met, correct? Objection. Sustained. Rephrase. Mr. Danzer spoke to you about a lower commission rate and you spoke to him about a lower commission rate from June 24th anytime between -- I'm going to withdraw that. Did there come a time when Mr. Danzer spoke to you about a lower commission rate on this deal at any time from June 24, 2004 to November 29, 2004? I let Mr. Danzer know that I was not happy with the deal relative to what they had agreed to produce. I would move to strike that answer, Your Honor. Stricken. Please read back the question. Please listen to the question and answer it. [Whereupon, the last question was read back by the court reporter] Yes, there was a time. Excuse me? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Yes, there was. Mr. Danzer spoke to me about a commission. How many conversations did you have with Mr. Danzer about lower commission rate in that period from June 24, 2004 to November 29, 2004? He called me I think probably a couple of times, a few times. I think I spoke to him once, but I know he called a few times. On the phone? On the phone, some time after the letter was sent, and I told him I wasn't happy. I never agreed to ten percent. I thought ten percent was ridiculous. Not only ten percent, ten percent without a termination. It's unheard of. So I said no. Again, Mr. Trump -- I move to strike all of these answers. No, not all of these answers. Strike everything after "I spoke to him a number" -- at least once, after that something. Read back the answer for the Court. [Whereupon, the last answer was read back by the court reporter] Everything after "I spoke to him on the phone." Strike everything after that. Jurors, disregard after I spoke to him on the Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] phone. Next question, please. It's your testimony you spoke to him only once on the phone? I think it was once. He called a few times. I think I spoke to him once on the phone. Could have been a little more, but the conversation would have been the same. And I also spoke -- That's all. Okay. All right. Isn't it a fact that he came up to your office on a number of occasions and met with you in your office? Yes or no? I believe that's true, yes. And when he came up and met with you in your office, he also discussed with you a lower commission rate than 22.5 percent? I think that's true, yes. Now, is it your testimony -- excuse me. Prior to your signing this deal -- well, hold on. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 75. 75 in evidence. [Document handed to witness] Okay, I see it. Just the first page? First page? You can look at the second page, too. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Okay. Okay. Now, this is an e-mail from Cathy Glosser to Ken Wyse. You know who Ken Wyse is? Yes, PVH. And he's the president of licensing at PVH? That's correct, I think so. And this e-mail was cc'd to George Ross, Jeff Danzer, Mark Weber, Alan Sirkin and Len Flynn; is that correct? That's correct. And in this e-mail Cathy Glosser was working for you? Welcome law students from Delaware and their professor. Very happy to have you. We're doing a contract case today, and we have a witness on the witness stand that you may recognize. Go ahead. All right. This e-mail was sent on behalf of the Trump Organization from Cathy Glosser to Ken, and it says, "Ken, thank you for your e-mail. Let me start by saying that the Trump Organization is excited about the opportunity to work with PVH." I'm going to skip the next sentence and go on and quote the third sentence or the fourth -- the last sentence of this paragraph, which says -- no. You know, I'll just read it. The reception -- No, you don't need to read it. Excuse me? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] You don't need to read that. Fine. All right. Now, when she said the Trump Organization is excited about the opportunity to work with PVH, was Ms. Glosser being accurate? I believe so, sure. So that means you were excited to work with PVH, correct? No. It's not the deal that I wanted to have with PVH. So you weren't excited? The deal that I wanted to have was the deal -- Excuse me? I wouldn't use the word excited. You said you're not excited. Next question. But Ms. Glosser was excited? It was a nice thing for her to say to PVH. There's nothing in this e-mail that says, you know what, there's no $25 million minimum guarantee? Enough already. Sustained. Now, can you think of any period of time from August 1st of 2004 to November 29th of 2004 when anybody from your organization wrote a document, a letter or an e-mail to anyone at PVH saying, you know what, we'd like to do business with you, but we want a $25 million guarantee over seven years? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] I don't know what they wrote to PVH. I would assume maybe your client might have done it. I don't know what they did. That's what we wanted. That's what, you know, that's what our document with you says we're going to get. Mr. Trump, I move to strike that. Stricken. After -- wait a second. After "I don't know if they" -- "I don't know if they wrote anything," after that it's stricken. Mr. Trump, you are not a shy person, are you? Objection. Really. Enough. Are you a shy person? I'm shyer than people think. It's actually true. In fact, you have -- you've created a public persona of being a person who asks for what he wants, correct? Objection. I'll allow it. I don't know. Excuse me? I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure what my persona is. Well -- Public perception of your persona. That's the problem. You've written a couple of books, haven't you? Yes. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] And one of those books is titled "How to Kick Ass in Business and in Life;" is that correct? Objection. Sustained. Let's go. Please. Now, so you don't have -- you're not aware, as you sit here now -- excuse me. Withdrawn. In preparation for your coming to the witness stand today, did you do any preparation? No, I did not. Didn't look at any documents? No, I did not. Didn't think about whether you wanted to bring anything to the Court's attention in terms of any writings that might support your case? Objection. No. Withdrawn. And you've known about this case for a number of years, correct? Yes. Objection, asked and answered. Let's go. And you're not aware of any writings that anybody on your behalf or from your company wrote anybody at PVH saying we want -- withdrawn. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Are you aware of whether -- are you aware of whether Cathy Glosser sent a copy of this agreement that you signed on November 29th to ALM? I'm not aware. Okay. Now -- She might have. I don't know. Now, there came a time when -- in August of 2005 when you got, your company or you, the Trump Organization, got your first royalty payment from PVH? Objection. It's a compound question. No, it isn't. I'll allow it. I'll allow it. I don't know the date, but we certainly got royalty, yes. I would direct your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 79. 79 in evidence. [Document handed to witness] Take a minute and look at this document. It's a couple of e-mails. Which one do you want me to look at? Take a look at the first page. It starts -- the dates go from the bottom to the top. All right. Let me know when you're finished. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Okay, I got it. Now go to page 2 at the top. Yes. Now, in this series of e-mails Jeff Danzer is stating to Cathy Glosser that he has sent your organization an invoice, correct? Yes, sure. And she writes back to him saying, "Sending an invoice is fine; however, separate from that please send me the ALM Trump executed agreement as well, I never received a copy of that." Correct? Yes or no? Well, the only one that we have is the original agreement. Excuse me. Looking at this e-mail, the second one from the top, Jeff -- Cathy Glosser says, "Sending an invoice is fine. Separate from that, please send me the ALM Trump executed agreement as well, I never received a copy of it. Once I receive that I can move on my side." Do you see she said that? Yes. Now, then he writes back to her, "Dear Kathy, as you know, Trump and ALM entered into a memorandum of understanding dated September 25, 2003 that was extended to June 30, 2004. During the course of the performance of its obligations and Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] services, Mr. Trump requested that ALM continue its efforts past June 30th of 2004 at a reduced rate of ten percent for any licensing deal originated by ALM. In this connection, ALM introduced PVH to the Trump licensing opportunity on May 14, 2004 that resulted in Trump entering into a licensing agreement for dress shirts, tuxedo shirts and neckwear with royalties of eight percent and three percent for closeouts. ALM's agreement to receive a reduced fee of ten percent is set forth in various e-mails dated August 23, 2004, August 25, 2004 and August 30, 2004, which were acknowledged to have been received by Mr. Ross. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know." That's an e-mail that he wrote to Cathy Glosser on August 9, 2005, correct? Yes, correct. Now, let's go to Trial Exhibit 81. [Document handed to witness] Now, turning to the bottom of the second page, that's an e-mail from Jeffrey Danzer to Cathy Glosser. It says, "Hi, Cathy," and that's dated August 22, 2005, correct? You have to look down until you get to August, what, 22nd? August 22, 2005 from Jeff Danzer to Cathy Glosser. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Do you see that, sir, at the very bottom of the page? This one? What page is that on? Page 2. Page 2. From Jeff Danzer to Cathy Glosser, August 22nd at 10:30 a.m. Is that the one? Correct. Then you go to page 3 to look at it. And the text is on page 3. Hi Cathy. Good morning. I haven't heard from you since my last e-mail concerning ALM's first invoice for semi-annual earned commissions on the Trump PVH deal. The payment is now overdue. Please let me know when we can receive payment. When we can expect to receive. Please let me know when we can expect to receive payment. Now, Cathy Glosser writes back to him. On the first page -- Objection. There's no -- can we approach? That's not a question. If you want to, approach. [Wheruepn, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] It's the second e-mail that Mr. Itkowitz is going to be reading. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Now, going to the first page -- going to the first page, Cathy Glosser writes on August 23, 2005 to Jeff Danzer, "Jeff, I have an e-mail, but accounting told me that they need the actual deal in order to process an invoice. I believe George did check his file and that's when he determined that he didn't have a signed paper from ALM. If you think it will be too tricky for your lawyer to quickly draw something up, let me know and I'll ask George." Now. She's referring to George Ross, correct? Yeah. He didn't have a deal. Excuse me. She's referring to George Ross; yes or no? Yeah, I think so. Now, he writes back on September 6th, "Hi Cathy, how are you?" Enough. Just go to the last sentence. Please let me know if your attorney is in the process of drafting an agreement or if I need to have mine do it. Thanks and all the best, Jeff. Then she writes back on September 7, 2005. "Jeff, George is drafting something. I don't know what his timing is, but I will get something to you as soon as I get it." Now, on or about September 7, 2005, did Cathy Glosser or George Ross tell you that they were promising Jeff Danzer that they were going to get him a written document with respect to this transaction? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] No, not me. Okay. Now, just -- I'm going to direct your attention to what's known as Trial Exhibit 122. [Document handed to the witness] Now, if you could see the e-mail, there's an e-mail there from Cathy Glosser dated Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at 10:01, which is about seven minutes after the e-mail I just read to you from Cathy Glosser saying George is drafting something. Do you see that? Yes, I do. This is Cathy Glosser writing to George? George. George Ross? Yes. George Ross, correct? Yes. George, I received yet another e-mail from Jeff Danzer regarding their outstanding payment. I let him know that you were drafting a letter and we will get it to him as soon as we can. I know we briefly discussed a while back that ALM may expect that they should benefit from the sportswear deal. I don't know that he even knows that we did a sportswear deal, but we should probably specify in the letter that they get a percentage of dress shirts and neckwear royalties. Do you see that? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Yes, I do. Now, at that time on September 7th of 2005 or at any time in September of 2005, did Cathy Glosser or George Ross come to you and say that they were concerned that ALM didn't know about a sportswear deal? No, I don't remember that. Okay. And, in fact, your organization did a sportswear deal with PVH subsequent to the deal for dress shirts and neckties? After the contract, yes. Some time later, after that, there was a sportswear deal done. And that was in May of 2005? I don't know the date, but it was after the contract. That was after? After your contract, ALM contract. Yes. After our contract? It had long expired. Excuse me? The answer was "after the contract." Ask the next question. Now, after the contract but prior to September 7, 2005, correct? I don't know when. I don't know the date. I just know it was after. This e-mail written by -- Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] I guess you could say that, yes. -- president of licensing says she's concerned that ALM may also want to get paid for the sportswear deal, correct? Objection. That's not what it says. No, it doesn't say that. It says what it says. Just go ahead. It does not say that. Okay. It says, "I know we briefly discussed a while back that ALM may expect that they should benefit from the sportswear deal." Do you see that? Yes. The sportswear deal was done prior to September 7, 2005, correct? Sportswear deal was done -- I don't know the exact date. I know it was substantially after your contract had expired. But it was done after September 7, 2000 -- excuse me. It was done prior to September 7, 2005? I don't know the date. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. Perhaps. Objection. It's been asked and answered. So you don't know whether the sportswear deal was done before this e-mail or -- Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Objection. Is that your testimony? I will allow that answer one last time. I don't know. Next question, please. Now, there came a time -- by the way, did Cathy Glosser tell you that in July of 2005 she had spoken to George Ross about what commission would be due to ALM? She was telling me that ALM was bugging her for commissions. Did she ever tell you in July of 2005 that ALM was expecting to get ten percent of the first royalty payment; yes or no? I'd have to stand by the answer I gave you previous. We didn't discuss. She just said that ALM was bugging her for a commission of some kind, but she didn't say ten percent. The answer is no, she didn't? So then, no. All right. At any time in July of 2005, did Cathy Glosser or George Ross, for that matter -- excuse me. Withdrawn. At any time in July of 2005, did Cathy Glosser speak to you and tell you that George Ross had directed that she pay ALM a commission on the PVH deal; yes or no? Not that I remember. Not that I remember. At any time from July of 2005 through October of 2005, did Cathy Glosser or George Ross tell you that Cathy Glosser had been directed to arrange with your accounting department to pay ALM a commission of 10 percent on the royalties? No. That happened much later. Not at that time. So at that time nobody told you? That did happen but much later, years later. Now, you have -- you pride yourself, do you not, on being -- of knowing every aspect of your businesses? My business is very big. I can't know -- I'd like to know every aspect. No, I can't know every aspect. I have many executives and people. I can't know every aspect. You can't know everything, but you do have a reputation, do you not, of being on top of everything that's going on, the significant things going on in your company? Objection. Overruled. I hope so. Certainly I hope so. And certainly that's what you expect from the people who appear on your show, your TV show, The Apprentice, right? Objection. The objection is sustained. Again, can we please not have that every ten minutes. Enough already. All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 21. I think it's in. It's also 88. I'm sorry again. Fifty-four. Car 54, where are you? I'm sorry. Trial Exhibit 54. THE COURT OFFICER: Trial Exhibit 54. I direct your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit -- to the second page of this document. Take a look at the second page. Yes, okay. Your Honor, same objection as the other day. I'm going to permit it for the same -- I'm not going to say it. Mr. Trump, this is an invoice from ALM International to the Trump Organization, attention Cathy Glosser, correct? Yes, it is. And it's dated August 8, 2005? Yes. I'm sorry, is it 54? It's 54. Page 2? Page 2. Okay. And in it it states on the top, it says, semi-annual commission to ALM re PVH Trump Apparel license. Do you see that? Yes, I do. And it gives the total PVH Trump sales of 11/05 through 6/30/05, and it indicates those sales amounted to $836,099.25, correct? Okay. And it says the total royalties that you received, that Trump received from the PVH deal for that period of time was $63,708.39, correct? Okay. So that -- and that means in just plain common language that for the period of January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, you received $63,708 for allowing your name to be affixed to shirts and neck ties. Is that correct? Yes. And that was the first royalty payment, correct? Yes, that's right. And so -- By the way, were you aware that Cathy Glosser or anybody from the Trump Organization had sent the royalty statement that you received to ALM so that ALM could send this bill? No, I wasn't aware. Now, this check if you look at -- if we look at the first page, there's a check here, correct? Correct. The check is from Donald J. Trump. That's you, right? Yes, it is. And it's to ALM international care of Jeff Danzer, correct? Correct. And it's made out for $6,370.84, correct? Yes, it is. And that's 10 percent of the royalties that you received as shown on page 2 of this document? Correct. So this shows that on October 7, 2005, you signed a check to ALM -- Correct. -- for 10 percent of the royalties that you received from the first royalty payment you got from PVH, correct? That's correct. Now, before -- this check was submitted to you for signature, obviously, because you couldn't have put your signature on it -- Right. Now, let's talk briefly about the procedure by which your company issues checks. You have many companies, right? Yes, many. But you have one accounting department, right? No, I have actually many accounting departments. I have accounting departments in different companies. Okay. But at 725 Fifth Avenue, for the licensing at least, you have an accounting department? That is located at 725 Fifth Avenue. Right. And how many people work in that accounting department? I'd say 12, 14, something like that. And you have a controller, correct? Yes, I do. And that controller is responsible for making sure that only checks that have been approved by authorized persons are issued by your company, correct? Correct. And there's a procedure for that, right? There is. So when somebody, a vendor starts doing business with the Trump Organization, they have to do certain things, correct? Yes, that's true. One of those things that has to happen before a check can issue is that you have to set up a vendor account, correct? I think they probably did. I don't exactly know but I think they probably did. But that would be the normal course of procedure for a company like yours? It depends on whether or not individual or beyond, but I think they would set up a vendor account. And they would set up a vendor account so they could keep track of income and expenses related to that particular matter, correct? Yes. And in order for a vendor account to be set up a person in authority of your organization has to direct somebody in the controller's office to set up a vendor account, correct? Correct. Before a vendor account can be set up your company in the ordinary course of business requires somebody to submit a tax ID to your company so that your company can keep track of what you were sending to that company for the IRS; isn't that correct? I think so, yes. So when all of that had happened before this check, Trial Exhibit 54, was issued, correct? That's right. And before it got mailed out it was brought to your desk, correct? It was put on my desk. It was put on your desk? Along with thousands of other checks. I move to strike that. Strike that last portion of the answer. Again, disregard, jurors. It was put on his desk is the only answer. Now, when this check was put on your desk there came a time when you signed it, that you looked at it, correct? Yes or no? Probably not. I mean I signed -- I sign -- Excuse me, yes or no? Depends on your definition of look. In order -- you have a signature within a certain -- on the signature line, right? Yes. In order for you to affix your signature on to the signature line you have to look at the check before you write it? Yes, in that respect I do, yes. And when that check is given to you it's given to you with an invoice number -- with an invoice, correct? I don't look at the invoice. That's right. Well, Mr. Trump, it's money, right? It is money. You're concerned about money, are you not? Objection. Sustained. Are you in the habit of writing checks to people who you don't owe money to? Objection. I'll allow that. I sign so many checks and I rely on many executives within the company to put on my desk what they think is the right amount, and I rely on -- I have many, many executives, it's a very big company, but I sign the checks and I rely on those executives. To make a long story short you rely on executives, people you trust to make sure you pay people who are entitled to be paid, correct? That is correct. And if you thought somebody was authorizing checks to be paid by you to somebody who was not entitled to be paid, you'd call them into the board room, wouldn't you? Objection. I'll allow it. I rely on the executives, yes. Excuse me? I do, I rely on executives to make correct decisions. But what I'm saying to you, that if you knew that an executive was authorizing checks to somebody who wasn't entitled to receive those checks, you would call them into the board room, wouldn't you? I would not be happy. So this check was given to you, you signed it and it got sent out, correct? Correct. Now -- Going to direct your attention to Trial Exhibit 55. Now, trial exhibit -- let's go to page 2? Okay. Now, page 2 is again another invoice, correct? Yes. And it says on the top ALM International, care of Jeff Danzer, correct? Yes. That's the same Jeff Danzer who organized the meeting on June 24th, 2004 at the PVH offices, correct? Okay, yes. And this is a invoice and it states: Total PVH Trump sales 1/1/05 to 8/30/05, and it says $1,903 -- excuse me, $1,903,630, correct? Correct. And right below that it says, total royalties to Trump from PVH deal 140,358, -- 140,358.55, correct? Correct. So when one looks at this invoice and the invoice which was appended to Plaintiff's Exhibit 54, we're looking at sales for the period of 11/05 to 6/30/05 on both invoices, correct? Correct, yes. But they are obviously for different items correct, different kinds of items? That I don't know. I just see the amounts. So let's just look at these together. One indicates total PVH Trump sales for 11/05, 6/30/05 for 836,000 and change, correct? Okay. One indicates for the same period of time total PVH Trump sales 1,903,000 et cetera, correct? Okay. You received royalty statements from PVH for both of these amounts, correct? Yes, the company did. Yes. By the way, it's required under your contract with PVH for them to send you royalty statements, correct? Yes, it is. So that you can keep track of what they are getting, so you can understand that you're getting the correct amount? Correct. So with respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit 54, you received one check of 63,000, and with respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit 55 you received 140,000 and change. So basically -- math has never been my strong point, but you received approximately $200,000 for the period -- for total sales for the period 11/5 through 6/30/05 for Philip Van Heusen putting your name on their clothing, correct? Correct. Your company turned around and when you got the second invoice which is shown on Plaintiff's Exhibit 55, this royalty statement was sent by your people, the people you trust, it was sent to ALM so that they could send you a bill, correct? That I don't know. Well, look at the second page of Plaintiff's Exhibit 55. Okay. So Plaintiff's Exhibit 55, page 2, the top is who is billing you, and that's ALM International, correct? Exactly. And the calculation is 10 percent of the total royalties you received from the PVH deal, correct? Correct, yes. And ALM's calculation as to what was due based upon what you received was $14,035.85, correct? Correct. Now, after this invoice was submitted to your accounting department, somebody in your accounting department, a person you trust, people authorized by you issued a check, correct? That's right. And they issued a check from your personal name, Donald J. Trump to ALM International, correct? Correct. And that check was for $14,000? Yes. And that check was placed on your desk? Yes. And it was placed on your desk with the invoice? I think so, yes. And when you signed -- well, isn't it a fact that when you are trusted people put a check on your desk they are required to give you an invoice? Yes. So that you can check, right? That is correct. So at the time that you signed this check and at the time that you signed the first check for 6,000, you had not only a check but an invoice for both, correct? Yes. And had you cared to look right in front of you, where your signature hand was going to be, you could see clearly that you were being invoiced, what you were being invoiced for and there was the check, correct? Well, as I said, I have thousands of checks that I sign a month so it's impossible to look through all of the checks that I sign. Excuse me, was it not right in front of you at the time you signed the check? It's impossible. Physically impossible. That's not the question, sir. Please read back the question. And please answer. [Record read] Yes, it was. If you chose not to look at it that was your choice, right? That's my choice. When you have a check -- That was my choice. When you have a check on your desk and you have an invoice and somebody in your accounting department is saying this is okay to sign, you have a choice, do you not? That's right. You can look at the invoice or you can just sign the check, right? It's my choice. And in this case, you signed the check, correct? Yes. And after it got signed it got sent out to ALM, correct? Correct. Now, I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 56. Directing your attention, this is also two documents here, correct? Plaintiff's Exhibit 56? Yes. And let's look at the second page. Second page an invoice, again from ALM International, care of Jeff Danzer. And it's an invoice to the Trump Organization, and it's dated 1/31/2006, correct? Correct. And that invoice is for the fourth quarter sales for PVH, correct, for 2005? Yes, correct. And that shows for the fourth quarter of 2005, PVH sold $2.9 million of clothing with your name on it, correct? Okay. And underneath that, because of that they sent you royalties in the amount of $245,141, correct? Yes. And then that invoice -- excuse me, that royalty statement was sent to ALM, correct? I don't know. That I don't know. Well -- Perhaps. The information was given to ALM, correct? Yes. And it was given to ALM from your organization, correct? Correct. I think so. And based upon that information ALM generated a bill to you for 10 percent of what you received, correct? Yes. And that was $24,514.16, correct? Okay. Do you see that invoice there in front of you right now? There's a check mark next to it, right? Yes. What does that check mark mean? I don't know. It has an initial next to the 24,514 bill, close to the bottom right. Right. Do you know whose initials that are? Could be George Ross. I don't know. Now, let's go to the first page. The first page is the actual check, correct? Correct. And the check is dated February 10, 2005, correct? Correct. Now, that check -- so that basically means you were billed on January 31st and you made the payment on February 10th, correct? Okay. Now, the fourth quarter for 2005 ended on December 31st, 2005, right? Okay, yes. So let's understand the timing, December 31, 2005, the fourth quarter numbers are tabulated, they are sent to PVH, and within less than a month you had payment from PVH plus a royalty statement, correct? Correct. And then within two weeks of your getting a bill -- within probably about a week -- two weeks of your getting a bill from ALM, you sent 10 percent of those proceeds to ALM, correct? Correct. And when -- again, that check and that invoice was placed on your desk for you to review and for you to sign, correct? Correct. And you did sign the check, correct? Correct. Now, let me direct your attention to Trial Exhibit 57. Now, this is a bill -- excuse me, this is a check and invoice, just like we just discussed, correct? Yes. Now, the invoice directed to you is dated April 27, 2006, correct? Correct. And it also shows fourth quarter sales for PVH for clothing, correct? Yes. And that shows PVH sold 4,300,000 and change in receipts and paid you -- they paid you $344,000 and change on those receipts, correct? That's correct. And then in turn, based upon information that your organization provided ALM, ALM turned around and sent you a bill for 10 percent of that amount or 34,406, correct? Correct. If you look at the bottom of the invoice, at the total bottom right there's a check mark? Yes. Correct. Can we assume that was somebody from your organization that made that check mark? I don't know. It's possible. And you see something in writing, a circle where it says, please make check out to ALM International? Yes. It says -- there's a note that says, please make address change. Thanks, Jeff. Yes. That was approved by organization, right? Yes. And therefore, that address change was reflected on the check that was issued by your organization for you to sign, correct? Correct. And again, on or about June 8, 2006, that check and that invoice was presented to you for you to sign? Correct. And when you got that you had the opportunity to review that invoice and the check before you affixed your signature, correct? Correct. Now, let's go to Trial Exhibit 58? Your Honor, we've already stipulated and for expediency we'll stipulate again, the same answers to the same questions for every check of all 11. I am doing what I'm doing. All right. Thank you for your advice Mr. Goldman, though. I was trying to move things along. You're welcome. 26 Directing your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 58. Look at the invoice. Do you see the invoice? Yes. The invoice shows total royalties to Trump from the PVH deal of $337,417, correct? Okay. And this one has some writing on it, correct? Do you see the writing? Yes. There's a check mark next to that amount? Yes. Is that check mark indicating that somebody was checking that number? I don't know. And underneath that there's a bill, the amount due to ALM from ALM's invoice, right? Okay. That shows $33,741 being due, correct? Yes. And underneath that there's a stamp on this invoice, right? Yes. It says, accounts payable. Do you see that? Yes, I do. That's a stamp from your organization, is it not? Yes. It shows a voucher number and the amount paid correct? That's right. And what's the voucher number? The voucher is 0365 -- No. Why is it that there's a voucher number stamp on -- I don't know, you'd have to ask the accountants. Those are people working for you, right? Yes. And the by indicates that it's going to be signed by you, right; DJT? Yes. Not signed by anybody else, right? Well I sign every check. Nobody else signs my checks. And on the bottom there's a note that says Debra, please give me the check when ready ACC 5001. Do you see that? Yes. Do you know what that note is about? No. Who is Debra? I think she works in accounting. And underneath that is a handwritten notation 10 percent commission first quarter 2006 PVH. Thanks, Shelly. Who is Shelly? I don't know. Somebody who works for you, right? I don't know. Maybe works for Cathy Glosser. I don't know. So somebody working in your organization reiterated how this amount of money due ALM was calculated, correct? Yes? And that was given to you, right? Yes. Along with the check? Correct. And then you signed this check, correct? Yes, I did. Now, I'm going to show you Trial Exhibit 4. [Pause] Okay. This is a renewal of the original license agreement signed on November 29, 2004, is it not? Yes. [Continued on next page] Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] So it says it is hereby -- paragraph 2 it says: "It is hereby agreed that pursuant to Section 2B of the license agreement the license agreement shall be renewed for a renewal term of three years commencing on January 1, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2009." Do you see that? Yes, I do. That renewal agreement was executed by you, correct? Yes. Now, I'm going to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 59. [Document handed to witness] Plaintiff's Exhibit 59 is another invoice from ALM, correct? Okay. It's an invoice to Trump, correct? Yes. And that shows total royalties for a third quarter for 2006, correct? Yes. And shows total royalties to Trump from the PVH deal as being $377,000, correct? That is correct. So that indicates that you got $377,000 from the third quarter of 2006 just for letting PVH put your name on their Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] clothing, correct? That's correct. And ALM was given that information from your organization and turned around and sent you a bill for ten percent of that amount, correct? Correct. And they billed you $37,762.80 correct? Correct. And then there's handwriting on this invoice, ten percent commission, third quarter 2006, PVH? Yes. That was made by your accounting department, correct? Correct. And that was given to you before you signed it, correct? Yes. And that was given to you with a check, correct? That's right. And you signed the check, correct? Yes. Now, let's go to Plaintiff's Exhibit 60. [Document handed to witness] Plaintiff's Exhibit 60 also is an invoice and it's to the Trump Organization? Correct. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] And it's for the fourth quarter of 2006, correct? Yes. And that shows that for the fourth quarter of 2006 Trump got $354,385 for allowing them to put your name on their shirts and neckties, correct? Correct. And consequently that information, again, was given to ALM, ALM sent -- you have a bill for ten percent of that amount, correct? Yes. And you then were presented with an invoice and a check of $35,438.50, correct? Yes. And underneath that, at the bottom of this invoice, it says, "Cathy GL 2/20/07." That's Cathy Glosser, correct? Yes, it is, yes. That's an approval by Cathy Glosser, is it not? It's a what? An approval by Cathy Glosser? I guess, yeah. Could be. Okay. And that approval is right there in black and white for you to see when you got this check, correct? I didn't see it, but it is there. Excuse me. It was available for you to see, was it not? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Yes, absolutely. In plain English? Objection. Excuse me, I'll withdraw that. In plain sight? Yes. And then you were presented with that check, you signed that check, correct? Yes. Let's look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 61. [Document handed to witness] Plaintiff's Exhibit 61 is another invoice from ALM to you. Okay. And this invoice covers the first quarter of 2007, correct? Okay. And that shows, again, total royalties to Trump from the PVH deal of 335,000-- 335,537 dollars, correct? Yes. And based upon that information, which was again provided to ALM, ALM sent you a bill for $33,553.70, correct? Right. And then in handwriting it says DJT account number 58001 on this invoice, correct? Yes. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] That's an internal account number, that's a vendor account number you had assigned -- your company had assigned to ALM, correct? Correct. And underneath that in handwriting it says ten percent commission, first quarter 2007, PVH; do you see that? Yes. That was written by somebody in your accounting department, right? Probably. I don't know. Somebody that works for you, correct? Yes, probably. And then it says, "Return check to me when cut. Thanks, Donna." Who's Donna? Accounting. Okay. Now, I'm going to redirect your attention to the exhibit I just referred to you. I kind of gave it to you a little bit out of order. That's the Trial Exhibit 4. That's the agreement dated November 17, 2006. Yes. The agreement dated November 17, 2006 renewed the term of the contract between you and PVH, right? Yes. So the original term had expired and now it was being renewed for a period of two years, correct? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Yes. And this is the first invoice for the renewal term, correct? Correct. And somebody in your accounting department -- somebody in your accounting department approved that before it was delivered to you, correct? It was not the accounting. Somebody told them to approve it. Somebody authorized in your company? That's right. Got this invoice -- Yeah. -- and said approved; and then it went to accounting; and then accounting issued a check and it came up to your desk with the invoice and with the check ready to be signed, correct? Correct. And when it was given to you to sign, the invoice was there for you to review at any time, correct? Correct. And you looked at the check and you affixed your signature, correct? Correct. Now, let's go to Trial Exhibit 62. In fact, we can go to Trial Exhibit 62, 63 and 64. Okay. All at once. Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] [Exhibits shown to witness] Now, all of these checks had invoices, which are shown on the second page of each one of these exhibits, correct? Yes. All of these had approvals from your accounting department, correct? Correct. All of these were invoices from ALM were based upon royalty statements your organization had given ALM, correct? Correct. All of these calculated a fee due to ALM of ten percent, correct? Yes. So Trial Exhibit 62 and all of these packages -- when I say packages, I mean the check and the invoice -- were all presented to you at different times and they were -- the invoices were available to you to review at the time that you affixed your signature to these checks, correct? Correct. Correct? Yeah, correct. And so, therefore, on 8/27/07 you wrote a check to ALM for $30,278, correct? Yes. On 11/29/01 you signed a check payable to ALM for Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] $35,907? Right. And on 3/19/08 you signed a check for $42,600 -- 42,689.30 to ALM? Correct. All of these checks, these last three checks, in addition to the one prior to that, were all checks issued after the original licensing had expired and after the license had been renewed for the next term, correct? Correct. Now, I show you what's been marked as 84. [Document handed to witness] 84 is a series of royalty fees you received from Phillips-Van Heusen up through the period of 2007; is that correct? Okay. Objection. They're not in evidence. I'm moving them in evidence. I would like the same objection that I had before and the same instructions to the Court that you had given the jurors before. Excuse me, sir, I know my job, okay. You don't have to instruct me. Thank you. I was just -- Thank you. Eighty-four will be placed Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] into evidence subject to relevance. [Whereupon, the above-mentioned document was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 84 in evidence] Now, all of these were royalty statements that were given to you by PVH, correct? Yes. And based upon these royalty statements, as we've discussed, the information on these royalty statements or the royalty statements were sent to ALM so that ALM could send you a bill and so that you could issue the checks which you've just testified about, correct? Yes. Now, did there come a time when -- I show you what's been marked as Trial Exhibit 6. Six. [Document handed to witness] Now, this is an agreement that was a license agreement between Trump Marks Menswear LLC and Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, correct? Yes, yes. And that's dated January 1, 2010? Yes. And this agreement was signed by you? Correct. And this company Trump Marks Menswear LLC, that's Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] completely owned by you, correct? Yes. So at some point you decided or your lawyers decided that you should have -- you should take this contract in an LLC, correct? I don't know, whatever the lawyers do. Excuse me? I don't know, but perhaps it was changed. But this is an LLC, yes. Correct. And you completely control this LLC, correct? Yes, I do. And this provides for continuation of a company you own to receive royalties from the PVH deal, correct? That's correct, yes. And that deal has continued since January 1, 2010, has it not? Yes, it has. And I'll show you what's been marked as Trial Exhibit 97. I'm going to move that into evidence. [Document handed to witness] It's already in evidence. Yes, that was marked in evidence. You don't need to move it. Okay. So Trial Exhibit 97 is an extension of that 2010 agreement, correct? Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] Correct. Now, is it not a fact that the PVH deal continues to this day? Yes. And you continue to receive royalties to this day? Yes. And that all started with a meeting on June 24, 2004 that was organized by Jeff Danzer with George Ross, correct? Objection to the form of the question. I'll allow it. It started with that meeting. Yes. And the meeting that occurred on June -- that occurred August 26th of 2004, that too was organized by Jeff Danzer, correct? That I don't know. But you wouldn't be surprised if that was true, would you? No. Now, there came a time, did there not -- you know what -- Come up. [Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] Jurors, I know that when we started Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] this trial that one of the questions that was raised at the very beginning was what would happen to Friday afternoon, and I told you then that the lawyers had agreed that we would not be working Friday afternoon, and that remains a fact. I know one of you has an appointment with a doctor that has to be kept, and so I understand that. So with that, we're going to have to continue Mr. Trump on Monday; and we haven't discussed timing or anything like that, but this has to be continued. I know there was another question from the jury, don't know which one, I'm not interested to know, asking me how long is this trial going to continue. I know that we originally thought that we would be summing up on Wednesday, but I frankly doubt that we're going to be summing up on Wednesday. I think we're probably going to be summing up, I still hope, on Thursday, although I don't know. I'm going to have to tell you truthfully, this morning I got up and I looked at my crystal ball, I put Windex on it, I shined it up, and I can't tell you the answer to that question. All I could tell you is that I'm trying my best to get this moved along, all right; and that is my job; and that's what I hope to do. But certainly, it's not going to be Wednesday now, it's going to be definitely Thursday. That is my estimated time of getting to you, because there's work to be done in between the last Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] moment we have testimony and the moment that we can actually go to summations and go to my charge to you on the law. So with that, the time has come, I know we could spend another five minutes, but Mr. Itkowitz is starting a new topic and instead of doing two minutes of a new topic, I am going to start the new topic on a new day, all right. So that will be Monday morning. All right. Now you're going to be leaving me, and I have to say that weekends -- this weekend is supposed to be turning out to be -- turning out to be quite nice. So a lot of you are going to meet with family, meet friends; oh, yes, it's going to be a good weekend. In fact, I want you to have a good weekend; and you're going to do all sorts of wonderful things. The first question that everybody is going to be asking you is what happened; Mr. Trump was there, oh, tell me all about it. Of course they're going to ask you that. Of course you're not supposed to tell them Mr. Trump is here, but if you do slip out, well, Mr. Trump came in, please, please don't discuss this case. Remember what I said, the moment you begin articulating anything, you form an opinion. And have you heard the complete testimony yet? No. And we haven't heard Mr. Goldman's cross examination, his cross examination of Mr. Trump. All right. So we haven't heard his examination. Not until it's all done, you don't have the tools necessary Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] for you to actually form an opinion. So with that, please do me the favor of not talking about it; and do me a favor and have a wonderful weekend. And do me another favor, make sure that Saturday and Sunday are nice days and it's not going to rain. All right. That's your job, to make sure that happens. Yes, one second, don't go yet. [Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was held at the bench among the Court and counsel] One other instruction that I didn't find it necessary to tell you before, but it is absolutely necessary now, the press is here in this courtroom today, has heard everything that's gone on this morning and good press, naturally, reports. That's the next thing they do. So in the newspapers -- and I don't know exactly which press are here. I know one press is here, but there may be others that I don't know. I don't recognize their faces. Obviously, if the press is here there's going to be a report to the press and in the press, and that is something that you must make a special effort not to look at. All right. You see Trump or you see anything to do with it, you've got to not read that story. If you want to read it, you'll have the rest of your lives to read it, okay. I assure you there will come a time that this case will be over and then you'll have all the following weekends to read Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] it. You will read it forever. All right. Who knows. It will be an interesting thing to follow-up on, but not now, because even more important how they interpret what was said today and what their comments are is really something that you cannot use and cannot -- it cannot be infected in your decision-making process. So particularly be careful about that. If you see something, turn it away or put it aside and remember you'll be able to do it another day. All right. That's a promise. With that I say thank you very much, and I'll see you back here. Please be in the jury room at 9:15 or 9:10. 9:15. You've been always on time, I'm very appreciative about that. I'll see you back here Monday morning at 9:00. Thank you. [Whereupon, the jury exits the courtroom and the following transpired] Juror No. 6, on the record I'm going to have to go over it. "Your Honor, a few questions. Number one, are we to disregard George Ross's testimony because it was suspended? Two, I observed that Mr. Ross was trying to engage the jury by standing close to us and stating the jurors are young in response to Gary" -- to what? To who? Is that you? THE COURT OFFICER: That would be me. Gary saying to us jurors you can stand Trump - Plaintiff - Direct [Mr. Itkowit] and stretch if you want. Three; on day number one of Cathy Glosser's testimony, I observed her holding one of the court attendee's sitting in the back, the gentleman who has been here for several days. Does that matter? I didn't hear the first part. I know I observed her? On day one of Cathy Glosser's testimony, I observed her holding -- nodding. I'm sorry, nodding. Nodding, not holding. The way he ended it, it could be holding too. It's nodding to one of the court attendees sitting in the back, the gentleman who has been here for several days. Does that matter? Thank you, Juror No. 6." Signed 4/12/13. You could tell Juror No. 6 that I will deal with this question on Monday. All right. Do you have another question? THE COURT OFFICER: No. I thought there was scheduling issues. I'll deal with this on Monday. I'm marking it Court Exhibit II. Thank you. [Whereupon, the above-mentioned juror note was marked as Court Exhibit 6 in evidence] [Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned to Monday, April 15, 2013 at 9:15 a.m]