Melvin J. Laney and Carolyn A. Laney - Page 25

                                               - 25 -                                                 

            obvious that Laney is intelligent, perceptive, cautious, and                              
            self-protective to a fault.  He generally refused to concede                              
            anything he thought might be to his disadvantage, no matter how                           
            clear the matter was.  We are convinced that, if Laney understood                         
            that the Department of Justice conceded his entitlement to a                              
            $16.3 million deduction in exchange for his dropping his Court of                         
            Claims suit, then (1) Laney would not have proceeded to drop that                         
            suit unless he had the Department of Justice’s concessions in                             
            writing, (2) Laney would have preserved this writing, and (3)                             
            Laney would have produced this writing for the record in the                              
            instant case.  Petitioners did not present any such written                               
            settlement agreement or any evidence that there ever was a                                
            written settlement agreement.  From the foregoing we infer that                           
            (1) there was not a written settlement agreement, and (2) there                           
            was no oral concession by the Department of Justice that Laney                            
            would be entitled to the claimed deduction in consideration for                           
            dropping his Court of Claims suit.                                                        
                  On the first day of the trial petitioners offered into                              
            evidence an affidavit by Henry.  Laney explained that the                                 
            affidavit was offered as an expert witness report.  The Court                             
            indicated doubt that the affidavit would so qualify but noted                             
            that ordinarily an expert witness report “is admissible if it is                          
            identified [and adopted] by the expert at the trial and the                               
            expert is made available for cross examination.”  The Court                               

Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011