- 71 -
tioner’s witnesses was such that the Court reminded petitioner’s
counsel on a number of occasions that the leading nature of the
questions asked impacted the Court’s evaluation of the testimony
of such witnesses.
The Testimony of Ms. Rodegeb,
Ms. Martin, and Mr. Oliveras
We found Ms. Rodegeb, Ms. Martin, and Mr. Oliveras to be
credible.
Petitioner’s Testimony
Based on our observation of petitioner both at the trial and
at the further trial, including our observation of his demeanor,
we did not find him to be credible. In addition, we found
petitioner’s testimony to be general, vague, conclusory, implau-
sible, inconsistent, and/or evasive in certain material respects.
Mr. DiBernardo’s Testimony
We found the testimony of Mr. DiBernardo to be largely
irrelevant to our resolving any of the issues in this case.
Mr. Jordan’s Testimony
The testimony of Mr. Jordan, a certified public accountant
who we concluded qualified as an accounting expert on behalf of
petitioner, consisted of his direct testimony, including his
expert report and an addendum to that report,23 and his testimony
23In violation of the Court’s March 31, 2000 Order, peti-
tioner did not proffer the addendum to Mr. Jordan’s expert report
to the Court until Aug. 21, 2000, the first day of the further
trial in this case, and did not provide a copy of that addendum
to respondent until about 5 minutes before that addendum was
marked for identification at that further trial. Mr. Jordan
(continued...)
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011