Sustained. You've already established that at the first part of the trial. You don't have to reestablish it at this part.
And the reason -- this -- it is foundational. The reason you happen to be with Mr. Simpson that day on June 13, 1994, to observe --
I think you've already established whatever you're going to establish in that regard at the first phase of the trial. We don't have to go through this again. You may argue it at the time of your closing argument. We don't need it now.
(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Taft, your professional life -- much of your professional life of the past 30 years has been devoted to protecting and enhancing Mr. Simpson's financial interest, correct?
Well, I wouldn't say most of it, but a large percentage maybe 50, 60 percent, consumed my personal time related to Mr. Simpson's matters, business matters.
Well, I certainly wouldn't do it by negligence or intention. But if you're suggesting I would lie for him, no, I wouldn't lie for him.
KEY QUOTE(BY MR. GELBLUM) Well, Mr. Taft, you would do everything in your power to make sure Mr. Simpson does not go broke, wouldn't you?
No. Okay. Have you been working pretty hard for him for the past 12 months or so to try to make money for him?
That's another video? I don't mean to interrupt. That's another video that did get produced by Mr. Hoffman?
And, you know, other similar projects in regard to any opportunities such as personal appearances -- excuse me, personal appearances -- personal appearances both in the context of sports shows and with respect to autographs, and attempting to sell sports memorabilia and --
-- I would say within the past 12 months, Mr. Gelblum, that is probably the three areas that we tried to focus on. It didn't produce little if any income. That's the areas I've been working hard on. You asked if I was working hard. Yes, I'm working hard.
How many hours do you think you spent over the last 12 months trying to make money for Mr. Simpson?
I don't know. I would say probably 20 hours a week on that, and maybe 20 hours on all the other business management of his -- all of his finances.
Pretty much. That may be is a little high 'cause that's right, I am in general practice, so I do other work. But it's been my major consumption of my work for last 12 months.
So you work 5,000 a month at 325 an hour and once you've worked whatever that is, 15 hours or so in the month, then you bill at $325 for the rest?
It's well over a hundred thousand dollars in the last 12 months that you've rung up charges for him, right?
And by the way, the Bentley wasn't listed on the financial statements he produced, were they?
If he -- well, he has the ability to sell that Bentley at any time and he would get the proceeds, right?
Okay. So he's got the Bentley, and he's got the Suburban, and you, and Mr. Goodfriend, and the bodyguard. And he's got gardeners?
You've been paying his bills. You told us yesterday you're the one that writes all the checks.
Well, in fact about five years ago when his mortgage was less than half that much, and cost him about over $20,000 a month to maintain Rockingham, right?
I think's he entitled to explain that. Every other witness seems to be entitled to explain things.
(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, in addition to wherever he's getting the money to pay for all these expenses, he took in about $3 million last year just from two years; million and three quarters from insurance policies and a million and a quarter from Pigskins?
Very, very little. Probably just some monies that we owed to the experts that were still unpaid in the criminal matter that we were going to use in the civil matter.
That's right. By the way, you were here in court yesterday when we put up an exhibit about the money that Mr. Simpson has earned on account of the murders. It listed about $2.8 million. You saw that, right?
Do you have that exhibit? 2414. We're going to try to do this without Mr. Foster. If it doesn't work out in one second, I'll show it to Mr. Taft. Hey, nice work (indicating to Elmo). Bring it down and zoom in. (Ms. Molinaro complies)
Okay. Very good. Very good. Now, you had some input in connection with -- (Steve Foster arrives.)
Like to just put some of these up on the Elmo. This one -- this is a summary of it from Puck records computerized records been -- highlighted this the one for Team O.J. Justice For All. You see that?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) You're listed as the filing correspondent there. That's your name and address?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) This is an application for a trademark for the mark Team O.J. Justice For All; is that right?
And these -- for the goods listed there, jewelry, paper goods, clothing, toys and sporting goods?
Meaning Mr. Simpson has not previously used this trademark for any of these goods, but as of April, 1996, when he signed this application under penalty of perjury, he intended to use that mark for these goods, right?
Well, you weren't in the habit of taking -- spending your time on futile gestures, were you?
Go down to the bottom of that, Steve, with Mr. Taft's name. (Mr. Foster complies)
Yes. Mr. Berman was the trademark attorney and I was signing on behalf of an officer of Orenthal Productions.
Can you tell the jury the difference between an actual use trademark and an intent to use trademark?
Well, it's -- it's I think self-evident. If you're actually using the name of -- the mark on a product and you're out selling it in the stream of commerce, I think that's considered an actual use. If you have an idea about maybe using a particular mark for future merchandising of the product, it's an intent to use.
Just whether as of the time of the application it's already been used; is that in a nutshell what it is?
Okay. And this was May 8 of 1995. That's during the criminal trial, correct, while Mr. Simpson was in jail?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) And this was for jewelry, paper goods, printed matter, adhesives, games, toys, cutlery, et cetera, as the jury can see there?
Go to the next one. This is the fourth one. This one again is for O.J. Simpson, the name, and this is for additional materials; is that right?
This is five weeks later, right, you filed this application with the trademark office to trademark Mr. Simpson's name on an intent to use basis? You can see that one under the status heading intent to use. Do you see that?
So five weeks after the murders, you filed this application to protect Mr. Simpson's name with the idea that you would go ahead and help him make some money by selling these kinds of goods with his name on them?
Absolutely. Because he was in jail and otherwise couldn't perform personal services so we were trying to sell his name.
KEY QUOTE(BY MR. GELBLUM) This is again the same kinds of goods but for a different mark; instead of O.J. Simpson, this is for Juice, right?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) And again, certainly when you filed these applications the goal was -- and not just the goal, but your belief was that you would be able to make money by exploiting these trademarks, correct?
Mr. Simpson has generated millions and millions of dollars through his name and likeness over the years, hasn't he?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) Go ahead, Mr. Taft. You were talking about the year he made $2 and a half million.
That was a very unusual year. That was a case of, I believe -- if I could see that again. There was a book. For about a year during the time he was incarcerated --
(BY MR. GELBLUM) I'm not talking about the year -- the money he made off the murders, the 2.8 we showed. I'm talking about the year -- you told Mr. Baker just a few minutes ago he made $2 and a half million in one of his good years before the murders.
Yes. And that was primarily, Mr. Gelblum, primarily, maybe 95 percent from three contracts, the Hertz contract, the NBC contract and motion picture contract, such as Naked Gun. He did three Naked Guns during the last seven or eight years.
Okay. And because he had all those sources of income, the NBC contract, the Hertz contract, the movie contracts, there really wasn't much need for him to try to market his autograph and memorabilia?
Right now he's got lots of time to do that because he doesn't have those kind of contracts anymore?
That's what you keep telling us. I know. You familiar with the publications Mr. Roesler was talking about that list the market -- about various athletes?
Trade magazines mean nothing, mean nothing. It's what the dollars -- show me, the money. That's the deal. There's nobody there, Mr. Gelblum, to buy the product.
KEY QUOTEMy question was are you familiar with the publications that people who work in that industry use to gauge the value of autographs?
Okay. And you would agree, wouldn't you, that those publications show Mr. Simpson to have one of the highest per autograph value today, not before the murders, but today, of any living athlete?
I am familiar with it but I haven't seen that. I heard Mr. Roesler testify that it was $60.
Okay. And that before -- and that's for an 8-by-10 signed autograph, right? And that before, before the murders, it was $25?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) You're not disputing, are you, sir, that Mr. -- the value of Mr. Simpson's autograph as published in these magazines used by people in the trade tripled after he was arrested for the murders and has kept that value to today?
Yeah, I'm disputing that it went -- I could have answered yes for the first 12 months after the June 12 murders of 1994, but since then it's gone -- really dried up to virtually nothing.
That's what that's based on -- my opinion is based upon. I'm there, sitting there, waiting for the offers.
Well, you're more than sitting. You're running up bills of over $100,000 a year trying to make money?
Yes, I'm working at it, trying, but I'm -- doing everything else to -- but yes, I'm conducting and I'm using other people to try to find business.
(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, when you negotiate -- you've been negotiating deals for 30 years, your whole professional life?
When you're trying to sell something to somebody like Mr. Simpson, like when you're trying to sell Mr. Simpson, and somebody says no, one rational and typical response is to lower your asking price, right?
And if people will pay a certain price, you can charge it; if they won't, you have to lower your price?
Okay. And so if these -- if people who are offering Mr. Simpson's autograph for sale keep offering it at the same price, $60, $75, they must be getting it, right?
(BY MR. GELBLUM) One page is May, 1996. You see Mr. Simpson -- and these are somebody who's selling autographs; is that right?
Okay. And one is May 1996, and that shows Mr. Simpson's autograph being offered for sale at $75?
Then the next one is February 1997, and that shows Mr. Simpson's autograph still being offered at $75?
No, it doesn't mean that he's getting it; that's what somebody out there -- that's what a trade promoter is trying to get for it.
Well, I don't work for that promoter. I don't know what he's doing or not doing. But, you know, you just can't say that because a property's listed and at that price, that's what you're going to get.
Well, it was a market -- I misspoke myself. It's real marketing failure. The product was fine as far as the production company's opinion; it was fine.
Do you consider something that generates $300,000 for Mr. Simpson in less than a year to be a commercial failure for Mr. Simpson?
Okay. You mentioned just -- Mr. Baker's testimony that -- or Mr. Baker questioning that the two complaints that Mr. Roesler talked about that were filed on behalf of Mr. Simpson against Mr. -- people selling his name and likeness had been dismissed?
In fact, in one of them, even when Mr. Simpson was the one who sued, Mr. Simpson ended up paying one of the people he had sued, didn't he?
Well, it was an award for attorney fees. As the prevailing party, under a dismissal with prejudice, the other side is entitled to attorney fees under a certain code section, CC 33 -- 3344.
Well, not wins the case, just is considered the prevailing parties because of the dismissal with prejudice.
Yeah, the big one. (Mr. Foster placed on the display easel, Exhibit 753, page 1.)
(BY MR. GELBLUM) I've put up before the jury the enlargements -- the enlarged board of 753, that first page. Now, in response to Mr. Baker's questions on the first adjustment that's listed in the middle column, this $265,000 -- can you see it from where you are, sir?
All right. Now, you testified that the reason you put down one dollar was because the liability of Orenthal Productions exceeded the assets, right?
Now, that was your same excuse for putting that at one dollar on the balance sheet for February 15, 1996, right?
Okay. And February 15, '96, the amount owed by Orenthal Productions to Mr. Simpson was over a million dollars, right?
Do you remember it was substantially more than a $265,000 that's listed there? Do you remember that, sir?
Yes, you can. This is Orenthal Productions balance sheet from February 15, 1996. You can retake your seat, sir.
Yes. The Orenthal Productions balance sheet as of February 15, 1996 shows a current liability due to Mr. Simpson of $1,043,091.
So you're putting down at one dollar on February 15 turned out not to be true, because, in fact, that money, a substantial amount, was repaid so that wasn't an accurate characterization, was it?
Well, it all depended on the cash flow. It was our opinion in February of '96 that -- that there wouldn't be sufficient cash flow.
Okay. Now, the next adjustment is the Apollo residence, where Mr. Simpson's mother lives. That's $250,000, right? That's the value of that house, right?
And you carried on that -- carried that house at that value right through to February 15, 1996 financial statement, in fact, that you prepared for giving to us in this litigation, right?
Okay. And you've included the liability for that residence in Mr. Simpson's current net worth statement, right?
If your -- Mr. Baker wants you to explain, he'll ask you to explain. You listed down there at the bottom here, certain accounts payable for mostly the criminal defense litigation?
And some of those fees, in fact, were not even for representation of Mr. Simpson, were they?
You've included fees in there for Mr. Kardashian's lawyers and Ms. Barbieri's lawyers, haven't you, sir?
I certainly wouldn't do it by negligence or intention. But if you're suggesting I would lie for him, no, I wouldn't lie for him.
You lied for him before on the stand. Didn't you?
Absolutely. Because he was in jail and otherwise couldn't perform personal services so we were trying to sell his name.
Yeah. We expected a lot more.
Trade magazines mean nothing, mean nothing. It's what the dollars -- show me, the money. That's the deal. There's nobody there, Mr. Gelblum, to buy the product.