We asked for all the details regarding the transaction. All we got was a summary, three paragraphs financial terms of how much money he got for it. We got nothing about what it was used for. We have no idea what it was used for. We asked for all the income expenses information, we didn't get it. All we had was the net worth, and the coin from the autographs, and things like that.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, they asked for the Corner Stone document. That is what we spoke of yesterday. What I did was because of the various confidentiality agreements, there's a summary with the declaration of Skip Taft which itemized the number and how the money was allotted. Then because of the confidentiality agreements, we got agreements between the three other confidential parties, had Mr. Gelblum reviewed the document, and subsequent escrow instructions. That's what they asked for. That's what we complied with. This was a little bit convoluted because of the confidentiality provisions, but eventually access was given so he could look at those documents. And this is what we discussed yesterday, when it was brought up, and I said, yes, he's seen it, it's subject to a confidentiality provision. You ordered me to bring it into Court and it is in Court. But he has seen it.
KEY QUOTEI don't know what happened to the proceeds. I was told what he got. That's fine. I don't mind him talking about that. But what he did with it.
MR. P. BAKER: He didn't ask that.
Your Honor, I will agree not to ask him what he did with the proceeds to anything if they're not going to ask him on cross-examination. All I'm trying to do is to get out, if they think that he's hiding any assets, I want him to tell them where they went. They've been accusing us of hiding assets and manipulating assets. And I assure you --
I was agreeing to Mr. Baker's suggestion, which is, he won't ask about what was done with any of the proceeds if I don't ask about it. That's fine.
If he doesn't want what was done with any of the proceeds on direct, I won't ask about what was done with the proceeds on cross-examination.
I'll agree to that. If you're not going make an accusation that O.J. Simpson has somehow maneuvered assets and hidden assets, if they agree to make no such accusation, I would agree to that. But if they're going to get up here and tell this jury we've hidden assets, I want to go through where it all went.
KEY QUOTEI think we are going to argue, based on the testimony that was heard this morning from Mr. Freeman, there are revenues that came in, we don't know what was done. The reason we don't know what was done, we weren't given any of the information. It's not fair to now hear this on the stand the first time, when we haven't had access to it. That's what it boils down to. It's that simple.
Excuse me. Was there a request for information regarding the disposition of the proceeds?
And they got it. You can trace it back. You can --they got the general ledger, Your Honor. They can trace back every item.
All it shows is income; it doesn't show -- there's nothing on any of those that show where -- this money coming in, this money is not on the general ledger at all. All the general ledger has is things from third-party vendors.
We asked for all the details regarding the transaction. All we got was a summary, three paragraphs financial terms of how much money he got for it. We got nothing about what it was used for.
If you're not going make an accusation that O.J. Simpson has somehow maneuvered assets and hidden assets, if they agree to make no such accusation, I would agree to that. But if they're going to get up here and tell this jury we've hidden assets, I want to go through where it all went.
This money coming in, this money is not on the general ledger at all. All the general ledger has is things from third-party vendors.