0122
 1                     IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
                       11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
 2                     MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
 3                     GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
 4                     CASE NO.  02-29149 CA 11
 5   GAUMUR, e.h.f., an Icelandic
     corporation,
 6   
 7                     Plaintiff,
 8   vs.
 9   JON GERALD SULLENBERGER,
     individually, and NEW VIKING,
10   INC., a Delaware corporation,
11                     Defendants.
     _____________________________________/
12                      Miami, Florida
                        April 15, 2003
13   
          The above-entitled case came on for hearing
14   before the Honorable John Farrell, General Master
     of the above-styled court, at the Miami-Dade County
15   Courthouse, commencing at 9:09 a.m.
16   APPEARANCES:
17      Amanda Jason, Esq.
        of the firm of GENOVESE,
18      JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A.
        on behalf of the Plaintiff
19   
        Benjamin H. Green, Esq., and
20      Karlene J. Rogers, Esq.,
        of the firm of EMMET, MARVIN & MARTIN, LLP
21      on behalf of the Plaintiff
22      Jonathan Goodman, Esq., and
        Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.,
23      of the firm of AKERMAN SENTERFITT
        on behalf of the Defendants
24   
                      LANCE W. STEINBEISSER,
25                    Registered Professional Reporter
0123
 1                        I N D E X
 2   
 3   
 4   WITNESS           EXAMINATION                PAGE
 5   JOHANNES JONSSON
 6                       BY MR. GOODMAN          125
                         BY MR. GREEN            196
 7                       BY MR. GOODMAN          235
 8   
 9   JON ASGEIR JOHANNESSON
10                       BY MR. GOODMAN          262
11   
12   
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
0124
 1              (In open court:)
 2              THE COURT:  Good morning.  Shall we
 3         proceed.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.  To
 5         follow up on yesterday, this morning we're
 6         going to be proceeding on the issue
 7         concerning the lis pendens and the lien and
 8         our motion to dissolve it or to require a
 9         bond.
10              THE COURT:  Yes.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  And with that
12         in mind, we would call back to the stand,
13         again, Johannes Jonsson to question him on
14         those issues.
15              THE COURT:  All right, sir.
16              Mr. Jonsson.
17              You may proceed.  The witness is already
18         under oath.
19              MR. GOODMAN:  Thank you, Your Honor.
20         With the court's permission, I would like to
21         give the witness the same binder we were
22         referring to yesterday, Exhibit A, and I
23         believe Your Honor still has his binder as
24         well.
25              THE COURT:  That is correct.
0125
 1             DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)
 2   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 3         Q.   All right.  One follow-up question from
 4   yesterday, Mr. Jonsson, and then I'll get right
 5   into the issue of the claim and the lien concerning
 6   your ability to understand English.
 7              Do you remember yesterday I asked you
 8   about Jim Schaefer?
 9              You have to answer out loud, sir.
10         A.   Yes.
11         Q.   All right.  And Jim Schaefer was a
12   businessman with whom you had business dealings?
13         A.   Yes.
14         Q.   And you took business trips with him?
15         A.   Yes, to Denmark.
16         Q.   All right.  And then I think I asked you
17   how frequently you spoke to Mr. Schaefer and I
18   think you said not every day; correct?
19         A.   That is correct.
20         Q.   All right.  Mr. Jonsson, isn't it true,
21   sir, that for a period of three months you lived in
22   Mr. Schaefer's apartment in Iceland?
23              MR. GREEN:  Objection.
24              What's the relevance, Your Honor?
25              THE COURT:  What is the relevancy?
0126
 1              MR. GOODMAN:  His claim that he does not
 2         speak English.
 3              THE COURT:  All right.  Overruled.
 4         A.   That is incorrect.
 5         Q.   Did you not live in this man's
 6   apartment?
 7         A.   (The witness in English)  One week.
 8              (The interpreter)  I'm sorry.  For one
 9   week.  I'm sorry.  It's morning.  I lived there,
10   stayed there for one week.
11         Q.   Let's turn, sir, to the Gaumur claim
12   that it has an interest in the vessel THEE VIKING
13   and that Gaumur has an interest in the shares of
14   the corporation New Viking.
15              Now, as I understand it, Gaumur has
16   taken the position that it is entitled to shares of
17   stock in New Viking; is that correct?
18         A.   Yes, that is correct.
19         Q.   And Gaumur claims a lien or phrased
20   differently an ownership interest in the vessel
21   THEE VIKING; is that correct?
22         A.   Gaumur's principal claim is to be
23   reimbursed moneys advanced to the boat, and this is
24   the only way Gaumur can protect its interest --
25   interests.
0127
 1         Q.   Yes, sir.
 2              And so no in order to protect your
 3   ability to get reimbursement, Gaumur is claiming an
 4   ownership interest or a lien in the boat; is that
 5   correct?
 6         A.   That is correct.
 7         Q.   All right.  And as I understand it, the
 8   basis for that claim is three factors, and if I'm
 9   wrong, please tell me.
10              The first factor to support your claim
11   or your lis pendens is that Gaumur lent money to
12   New Viking to purchase the yacht THEE VIKING; is
13   that right?
14         A.   The amount totals $340,000.
15         Q.   Regardless of the amount of money, sir,
16   am I correct in saying that one of the reasons why
17   Gaumur says it has a lis pendens or a lien on the
18   boat is that it paid money toward the purchase of
19   the yacht?
20         A.   Because of the purchase of the boats --
21   for the purchase of the boats, the money was
22   advanced.
23         Q.   Of boats, plural, more than one boat?
24         A.   There were three boats.
25         Q.   Well, let's see if we can't be clear
0128
 1   here, sir.
 2              Is it your position that Gaumur's claim,
 3   Gaumur's alleged lien, Gaumur's lis pendens on the
 4   vessel THEE VIKING is based on money that you paid
 5   in connection with other boats?
 6         A.   More expensive boats and more valuable
 7   boats were being purchased, and we advanced money
 8   to these purchases.
 9         Q.   Sir, as far as I know, the only lien
10   that you are claiming, the only lis pendens that
11   has been filed, the only resulting trust that you
12   are asserting is against the yacht THEE VIKING; am
13   I correct?
14         A.   Yes, that's the only asset that we can
15   focus on.
16         Q.   Because the other two boats have already
17   been traded in and sold?
18         A.   The equity of the first two boats was
19   used for the third one.
20         Q.   All right, sir.  My question is is
21   Gaumur's lis pendens, is Gaumur's notice of lien
22   concerning the third boat, concerning THEE VIKING
23   based on moneys that Gaumur paid for other boats?
24              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  It's been asked
25         and answered, Your Honor.
0129
 1              THE COURT:  Sustained.
 2         Q.   The second reason why Gaumur claims a
 3   lien is that you say Mr. Sullenberger promised to
 4   issue shares of stock in New Viking to Gaumur; is
 5   that correct?
 6         A.   That is correct.
 7         Q.   All right.  And the third reason to
 8   support your lis pendens or your lien is that
 9   Gaumur paid for maintenance and expenses for the
10   third boat; is that right?
11         A.   Yes.
12         Q.   All right.  Now, concerning the first
13   basis of your lis pendens claim and the third
14   basis; namely, payments of money; those claims are
15   proven, according to you, by the 106 pieces of
16   paper which were attached to your affidavit?
17              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  It misstates
18         what is in the affidavit, Your Honor.
19              THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain it.
20         Q.   Sir, is it your position that your claim
21   that Gaumur paid for the vessel THEE VIKING is
22   proven by the 106 pieces of paper which you
23   attached to your affidavit?
24              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  Your Honor, I
25         don't --
0130
 1              THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain the
 2         objection.  Basically you're asking him to
 3         make a legal commitment to what proofs are
 4         intended to be presented in connection with
 5         the case, I believe, and that's not his role.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll phrase my question
 7         differently, Your Honor.
 8   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 9         Q.   Do the 106 pieces of paper attached to
10   the affidavit reflect payments by Gaumur toward the
11   vessel THEE VIKING?
12              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, in fairness,
13         could Mr. Jonsson have the -- I don't know
14         whether he has the exhibits in front of him.
15              MR. GOODMAN:  He does.  They're in the
16         binder.
17              MR. GREEN:  I'm sorry.  I apologize.
18         A.   Yes.
19         Q.   All right.  Now, you would agree with
20   me, Mr. Jonsson, that none of those 106 pieces of
21   paper prove in any way that Mr. Sullenberger made a
22   promise to issue shares of stock in New Viking to
23   Gaumur; correct?
24              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.
25              THE COURT:  Ground?
0131
 1              MR. GREEN:  Well, you're asking him to
 2         speculate on what is competent proof as to a
 3         particular issue with the lawsuit.  The
 4         appropriate question, I think, would be
 5         whether there is -- whether any of the
 6         documents reflect, you know, or express his
 7         agreement.  It would be very difficult for
 8         him to testify as to what --
 9              THE COURT:  I'm going to overrule your
10         objection, Mr. Green, but I make this
11         observation.  Unless you would direct the
12         witness' attention to the fact that you are
13         going to make inquiries in the next series of
14         questions directed to the 106 documents and
15         thus give him a chance to ripple through them
16         and see exactly what the 106 documents are,
17         because I have no way of knowing whether he's
18         looked at those in two weeks or three weeks
19         or what.
20              I think it's the only fair way to
21         approach it, and then when he's aware of what
22         the 106 documents are, then I think that line
23         of inquiry is perfectly appropriate.  I just
24         want him to know what it is that is involved
25         in that 106 pieces of paper.
0132
 1   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 2         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, have you understood what
 3   His Honor, Master Farrell, has just explained?
 4         A.   Yes.
 5         Q.   You have reviewed the 106 pieces of
 6   paper that were attached to your affidavit, haven't
 7   you?
 8         A.   Yes.
 9         Q.   All right.  And you have also reviewed
10   them within the past couple of days in order to
11   prepare for your testimony here today, haven't you?
12         A.   Yes.
13         Q.   All right.  And you would agree with me,
14   sir, that based on your recent review of those
15   documents that there's not one piece of paper in
16   there that would evidence or prove
17   Mr. Sullenberger's alleged promise to issue shares
18   of stock in New Viking to Gaumur; correct?
19              MR. GREEN:  The same objection, Your
20         Honor.
21              THE COURT:  Overruled.
22         A.   It may not be on paper in the referred
23   to documents; however, on many, many occasions have
24   there been discussions on this -- on this being
25   done and based on trust.
0133
 1         Q.   I appreciate that additional
 2   information, sir, but you'd agree with me that that
 3   so-called agreement isn't in any of these 106
 4   pieces of paper; right?
 5         A.   That is correct, sir; however, oral
 6   agreements in Iceland are -- have the same meaning
 7   as written agreements.
 8         Q.   As I understand Gaumur's position, sir,
 9   and if I'm wrong, please tell me and please tell
10   the judge, these 106 pieces of paper are the entire
11   universe of documents available to Gaumur in
12   connection with your claims in this case?
13              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, just objection,
14         excluding, of course, documents produced by
15         Mr. Sullenberger's --
16              THE COURT:  Overruled.
17         Q.   I'm sorry.  The answer is?
18         A.   My answer to this question is that what
19   we present here are the documents that we work
20   according to.
21         Q.   Sir, there is not any other piece of
22   paper anywhere in the world that you say you have
23   access to which would relate to your claims for a
24   lis pendens or a lien; am I right?
25         A.   No, there's -- that is correct, there
0134
 1   are no documents to that effect, as everything was
 2   based on trust.
 3         Q.   Now, these 106 pieces of paper, to the
 4   extent that they in any way support your lis
 5   pendens claim or your lien claim, where did the
 6   documents come from, sir?
 7         A.   From the offices of Gaumur.
 8         Q.   Who was involved, sir, in finding those
 9   documents and making them available?
10         A.   The offices of Gaumur.
11         Q.   Yes, sir, but an office is not a person.
12   An office is a building or a space.  So I'm trying
13   to find out, sir, which person, which human being
14   was involved in finding these documents.
15         A.   I cannot recall the name of the person
16   who did that.
17         Q.   Was it you, sir?
18         A.   No.
19         Q.   It was not you?
20         A.   No.
21         Q.   How many employees, sir, does Gaumur
22   have?
23         A.   (The witness in English)  They are six.
24              (The interpreter)  Six.
25         Q.   Six?
0135
 1         A.   Six employees.
 2         Q.   Are they all full-time employees?
 3         A.   (The witness in English)  Yes.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Let the record reflect,
 5         Your Honor, again the witness has answered in
 6         English before the question was interpreted
 7         by the interpreter.
 8              THE COURT:  Let me just make the
 9         observation, it has been established, I think
10         beyond any serious question, that the witness
11         does understand a certain amount of English.
12         He's acknowledged that under oath in
13         testimony and otherwise.  Consequently, I'm
14         not sure that your comments are all
15         appropriate.
16              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, I understand
17         the point that you're making, but you may
18         recall in his affidavit that he swore that
19         his ability to understand English was limited
20         and the questions that I'm asking him here
21         are not elementary school, basic questions.
22         We're in a court of law asking --
23              THE COURT:  It's not my role to argue
24         with you, Mr. Goodman.
25              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.
0136
 1              THE COURT:  You understand my point, I
 2         hope.
 3              MR. GOODMAN:  I did.
 4              THE COURT:  I would have him reread the
 5         question that you wanted an underscoring to,
 6         and I don't think you'll find it was very
 7         complicated English grammatical presentation.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  Let me make this
 9         suggestion.  I will not, Your Honor, for the
10         remainder of the hearing, unless I slip,
11         point out the fact that the witness has
12         answered in English.  I'll simply let that
13         remain for whatever interest or lack of
14         interest it may have.  Fair enough?
15              THE COURT:  Everything I do I intend to
16         be fair, so I don't get involved in fair
17         enough rhetoric.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Well, that is
19         what my intent will be for the rest of the
20         hearing, Your Honor.
21   BY MR. GOODMAN:
22         Q.   When you say, sir, six employees, are
23   they full-time employees of Gaumur?
24              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, may I voice an
25         objection to this line of questioning.  I
0137
 1         thought today we were focusing on the issue
 2         of the lis pendens.
 3              THE COURT:  That's where I believe --
 4         that's what we're focused on, yes.
 5              MR. GREEN:  I don't understand how this
 6         line of questioning gets to the basis of the
 7         lis pendens.
 8              THE COURT:  The objection is relevancy,
 9         I believe.
10              MR. GREEN:  Yes, it is.
11              THE COURT:  Would you please address
12         that, Mr. Goodman.
13              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.
14              To the extent that their claim has any
15         documentary support, it's in these 106 pieces
16         of paper.
17              THE COURT:  I believe you've established
18         that.
19              MR. GOODMAN:  And I'm trying to find out
20         if he has any personal knowledge as to these
21         documents, and if not, where they came from.
22         He's told us --
23              THE COURT:  Mr. Goodman, then you're
24         repetitious because I'm not trying to review
25         the evidence for any other purpose other than
0138
 1         to share with you that you've established
 2         there's 106 documents that he's aware of,
 3         that they came from Gaumur, that he doesn't
 4         know what person put them together and that
 5         he didn't do it.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Let --
 7              THE COURT:  Now, what's the further
 8         purpose of it?  I don't understand.  I really
 9         don't understand the relevancy.  If you can
10         give me some sort of clue, it would be
11         helpful.
12              MR. GOODMAN:  Well, I don't mean to be
13         provocative, Your Honor, but I think I have
14         made my position known as to my assessment of
15         the reliability of the representation that
16         there are no other documents available to
17         Gaumur.
18              THE COURT:  So?
19              MR. GOODMAN:  And so some of these
20         questions are relating to that point.
21              THE COURT:  Well, I think that -- I'm
22         going to sustain the objection on the grounds
23         of relevancy and suggest that you move in a
24         direction that is more directed to the
25         specific issues that confront us.  I
0139
 1         understand the point of a 106 documents, I
 2         believe.
 3   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 4         Q.   Would you agree with me, sir, that to
 5   the extent these 106 pieces of paper support
 6   Gaumur's claim of a lien or a lis pendens based on
 7   the payment of money, that the accuracy of Gaumur's
 8   documents is important?
 9         A.   Yes, sir.
10         Q.   Would you also agree with me, sir, that
11   Gaumur -- Gaumur is not entitled to a percentage of
12   shares in the New Viking corporation if
13   Mr. Sullenberger's agreement to issue shares was an
14   agreement to issue shares to another company other
15   than Gaumur?
16              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.  I
17         don't believe that that is actually a fair
18         question of law or an accurate pronouncement
19         of law.  There are certainly other
20         situations.  There could be again.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, this is a
22         speaking objection.
23              MR. GREEN:  I do not want to -- can we
24         have a sidebar?
25              THE COURT:  I'm going to overrule the
0140
 1         objection.  I know what he's trying to do
 2         which sure is going around Robin Hood's barn
 3         hauling coals to Newcastle or some classic
 4         cliche like that.  Why don't you just ask him
 5         a question straight-out.
 6   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 7         Q.   Sir, this alleged agreement by
 8   Mr. Sullenberger to issue shares of stock to New
 9   Viking, to whom was this promise made, sir?
10         A.   The promise was given to me, among
11   others.
12         Q.   You personally?
13         A.   Yes, sir.
14         Q.   Where were you, sir, when
15   Mr. Sullenberger made this promise?
16         A.   This was discussed frequently.
17         Q.   Where were these things discussed
18   frequently, sir?
19         A.   Both here in Miami as well as in
20   Iceland.
21         Q.   How many times, sir, do you claim that
22   Mr. Sullenberger promised you that he would issue
23   shares of stocks in New Viking to Gaumur?
24         A.   I do not recount the number of
25   conversations I had with friends.
0141
 1         Q.   Well, sir, I'm not asking you now about
 2   just conversations in general about the subject.
 3   I'm asking about the very important topic of when
 4   you say it was that Mr. Sullenberger actually and
 5   affirmatively agreed to issue shares of stock in
 6   New Viking to Gaumur.
 7         A.   How often?  You are asking me how often?
 8         Q.   Yes.
 9         A.   Since the promise was made?
10         Q.   Yes.
11         A.   Ten -- is that what you want from me?
12         Q.   I'd like a number, sir.
13         A.   11 times.
14         Q.   That's it, particularly you have a
15   specific recollection it was 11 times precisely?
16         A.   Yes.
17         Q.   All right, sir.  Where were these 11
18   separate times?  Where did they take place when
19   Mr. Sullenberger allegedly promised to issue shares
20   of stock in New Viking to Gaumur?
21         A.   In Iceland and in Miami.  I do not have
22   the dates.
23         Q.   I didn't ask you for the dates, sir.
24   Where?  Where?  Iceland?  Where in Miami?
25              Why are you laughing, sir?
0142
 1         A.   For example, on board the boat.
 2         Q.   Well, when you say, for example, was
 3   that one of the 11 times when this promise was
 4   allegedly made?
 5         A.   Six times.
 6         Q.   Are you just picking a number, sir, off
 7   the top of your head, or are you specifically
 8   telling me six times on the boat this promise was
 9   made?
10         A.   How can I answer your questions
11   differently?
12         Q.   Are you telling me, sir, that it was
13   specifically six times on the boat, or did you just
14   sort of throw out a number --
15         A.   At least six times.
16         Q.   At least six times on the boat?
17         A.   Yes, sir.  Yes, we frequently discussed
18   matters there.
19         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, I want to make sure that
20   I'm not misunderstanding you.
21              I'm not asking you whether or not you
22   had a discussion about things with
23   Mr. Sullenberger --
24         A.   These things.
25         Q.   And by these things, you mean a specific
0143
 1   promise to transfer shares of the corporation to
 2   Gaumur?
 3         A.   Yes, that is what I mean.
 4         Q.   All right.  So you told me that
 5   Mr. Sullenberger made this promise 11 times?
 6         A.   (The witness in English)  At least.
 7              (The interpreter)  At least.
 8         Q.   Well, is it specifically 11 or maybe
 9   more than 11?
10         A.   Definitely on more occasions.
11         Q.   How many more times, sir?
12         A.   (The witness in English)  I can't
13   answer.
14              (The interpreter)  I can't answer such a
15   question.
16         Q.   Why not?
17         A.   Because I didn't count the number of
18   occasions.
19         Q.   Well, you told me that the locations
20   where this promise was allegedly made was Miami and
21   Iceland.  Now, did Mr. Sullenberger make this
22   alleged promise in Miami in any other location
23   besides the boat?
24         A.   We discussed this matter frequently and
25   at various locations.
0144
 1         Q.   Where else other than on the boat did
 2   Mr. Sullenberger promise to you, sir, to transfer
 3   shares of New Viking to Gaumur?
 4         A.   I'm unable to answer your question, sir.
 5         Q.   Why is that?
 6         A.   Because I don't remember.
 7         Q.   So the only place you remember here in
 8   Miami is on the boat?
 9         A.   Yes.
10         Q.   All right.  Now, let's switch over to
11   Iceland.  How many times in Iceland did
12   Mr. Sullenberger allegedly promise to you to
13   transfer shares of New Viking to Gaumur?
14         A.   I can't answer that question.
15         Q.   Can you give me one location in Iceland
16   where this promise was allegedly made?
17         A.   No.
18         Q.   Has Mr. Sullenberger, sir, ever promised
19   or agreed to issue shares of New Viking to a
20   company other than Gaumur?
21         A.   No.
22         Q.   Hasn't Mr. Sullenberger, sir, offered to
23   issue shares of New Viking to a company called
24   Miramar?
25         A.   No.
0145
 1         Q.   You've heard of a company called
 2   Miramar, haven't you, sir?
 3         A.   Yes.  This company was established;
 4   however, it was not in operation, and because there
 5   was never any reason to have it in operation.
 6         Q.   Regardless of whether it does any
 7   business, Miramar is in fact a Bahamian corporation
 8   which was formed in the Bahamas; isn't that right?
 9         A.   That is correct, sir.
10         Q.   And you know that Miramar was formed in
11   the Bahamas because you personally flew to the
12   Bahamas in order to see that that happened, didn't
13   you, sir?
14         A.   That is correct.
15         Q.   And when you flew to the Bahamas, you
16   went there with Mr. Sullenberger?  Yes?
17         A.   He came there, yes.
18         Q.   And with you on that trip was your son
19   Jon Johannesson?
20         A.   Yes.
21         Q.   And also with you was the chief
22   financial officer of Baugur, Tryggvi Jonsson;
23   correct?
24         A.   That is correct.
25         Q.   And you also went over to the offices of
0146
 1   KPMG?
 2         A.   Yes.
 3         Q.   So that you and your family could obtain
 4   control of the shares of Miramar; right?
 5         A.   This -- this -- the company was -- it
 6   was only established on the grounds of business
 7   opportunities that could have existed at the time.
 8   I wish to point out that the company had nothing to
 9   do with the boat.
10         Q.   Your testimony, sir, is that Miramar had
11   nothing to do with THEE VIKING?
12         A.   Yes, that is my testimony.
13         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, isn't it true that the only
14   promise that Mr. Sullenberger ever made concerning
15   transferring some of the shares of New Viking was
16   to transfer it to Miramar?
17         A.   That is not correct.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  May I have a minute, Your
19         Honor.
20   BY MR. GOODMAN:
21         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, I'm going to show you in a
22   minute what I'd like to have marked as Defendants'
23   Exhibit B, and I have a courtesy copy here for
24   Mr. Green, even though we produced it in discovery,
25   and a courtesy copy for Your Honor.
0147
 1              THE COURT:  Thank you, sir.  So it's
 2         going to be for identification at the present
 3         time until it's offered.  We'll mark this.
 4   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 5         Q.   Now, Mr. Jonsson, you'll see that the
 6   first page of this exhibit is three paragraphs of
 7   typed language in Icelandic, a fourth paragraph in
 8   handwritten language, a chart and then a
 9   translation on pages three and four.  Do you see
10   that?  Are you with me, sir?
11         A.   I do not recognize this.
12         Q.   Sir, you'll see -- let me ask you this.
13              Are you telling us, sir, that you have
14   never seen this exhibit before?
15         A.   I have never seen this document before.
16         Q.   This minute is the very first time
17   you've ever seen it?
18         A.   To the best of my recollection.
19         Q.   You haven't seen it in the past couple
20   of days, sir?
21         A.   No.
22         Q.   Sir, Tryggvi Jonsson was the chief
23   financial officer of Baugur, wasn't he?
24         A.   That is correct.
25         Q.   And you worked closely with Tryggvi
0148
 1   Jonsson in connection with your role with Baugur;
 2   am I right?
 3              THE INTERPRETER:  Can you repeat?  The
 4         interpreter didn't hear the second part of
 5         question.
 6         Q.   Sure.
 7              You worked closely with Tryggvi Jonsson
 8   in connection with your role with Baugur; correct?
 9         A.   Tryggvi Jonsson carried out his duties
10   very good as expected.  We were there but we
11   weren't working that closely together.  We were --
12   we were friends, are friends.
13         Q.   In addition to being friends, you were
14   an executive of the company that Mr. Jonsson was
15   chief financial officer of; right?
16         A.   That is correct.
17         Q.   All right, sir.  And since Mr. Jonsson
18   is your friend and the chief or was the chief
19   financial officer of Baugur, do you recognize the
20   handwriting, sir, in numbered Paragraph 4 as the
21   handwriting of Tryggvi Jonsson?
22         A.   I -- I can't say.  He hasn't been
23   writing letters to me.
24         Q.   You can't say one way or the other?
25         A.   I can't say.
0149
 1         Q.   All right, sir.  Regardless of whether
 2   you have seen this document before, has Tryggvi
 3   Jonsson ever said to you that he instructed
 4   Mr. Sullenberger to, quote, have a lawyer in
 5   Delaware prepare a title for 70 to 75 percent
 6   ownership in THEE VIKING for Miramar?
 7         A.   No.
 8         Q.   Did you ever have any discussions with
 9   Mr. Jonsson concerning his discussions with
10   Mr. Sullenberger about transferring some shares of
11   stock in New Viking to Miramar?
12         A.   No, to Gaumur.
13         Q.   Have you had any discussions, sir, with
14   your son Jon Johannesson about arranging for shares
15   of stock in New Viking to be transferred to
16   Miramar?
17         A.   (The witness in English)  No, to Gaumur.
18              (The interpreter)  No, have not, to
19   Gaumur, discussed in connection with Gaumur.
20              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, I'll have to
21         introduce this document through another
22         witness since --
23              THE COURT:  It's been marked for
24         identification.
25              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, if I could have your
0150
 1         copy, sir.  You have the identification
 2         version.
 3              THE COURT:  Yes, we do.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll leave it with your
 5         deputy.
 6              MR. GREEN:  I just want to make sure I
 7         have it.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  Feel free to double-check,
 9         sir.
10              COURT CLERK:  Mr. Goodman, how you would
11         you like me to identify this on the exhibit
12         list, since I don't read Icelandic either?
13              MR. GOODMAN:  Well, there's a
14         translation underneath.
15              COURT CLERK:  Is it all right if I
16         reversed it so we --
17              MR. GOODMAN:  Of course.
18              COURT CLERK:  I was out of the room.
19   BY MR. GOODMAN:
20         Q.   Now, sir, in connection with these at
21   least six times that you say Mr. Sullenberger
22   promised to transfer shares of New Viking to Gaumur
23   and he said this while on the boat in Miami --
24         A.   We haven't, however, figured out the
25   percentage of ownership because he still had to
0151
 1   provide proof for his contribution to the boat.
 2         Q.   Thank you for that information, sir.  I
 3   haven't asked you a question yet though.
 4              My question was going to be concerning
 5   these at least six times on the boat when the
 6   promise was made, tell me and tell the court the
 7   names of the persons who were there to witness this
 8   alleged promise.
 9         A.   This -- these were conversations between
10   him and me.
11         Q.   Is that another way of saying there were
12   no witnesses, sir?
13         A.   Yes.
14         Q.   And I know you told us that you don't
15   know or don't remember where in Iceland
16   Mr. Sullenberger was when he promised to transfer
17   shares of New Viking to Gaumur, but regardless of
18   where those promises allegedly were made, can you
19   tell the court what other witnesses heard these
20   alleged promises in Iceland?
21         A.   No.
22         Q.   Were there any other witnesses there,
23   sir, besides you and Mr. Sullenberger?
24         A.   This was a private matter between him
25   and myself, and we did not discuss it in the
0152
 1   presence of others.
 2         Q.   Now, if I heard you correctly, as we sit
 3   here today on April -- is it tax day today?
 4              THE COURT:  It sure is.
 5              MR. GOODMAN:  No wonder everybody is a
 6         little grumpy.
 7         Q.   So as we sit here today, sir, on
 8   April 15th, 2003, several months after you filed
 9   this lawsuit, after Gaumur filed the lawsuit, are
10   you able to tell His Honor, General Master Farrell,
11   the specific percentage interest of stock in New
12   Viking that you claim Gaumur is entitled to?
13         A.   No, I'm not.
14         Q.   Well, sir, in connection with Gaumur's
15   claim that it's entitled to a lis pendens on the
16   yacht THEE VIKING and in connection with Gaumur's
17   claim that it has a lien, a claim of lien on the
18   yacht THEE VIKING, tell the court the specific
19   amount of dollars that Gaumur claims for the lien.
20         A.   $465,000 and there are 340,000 in cash.
21         Q.   Yes.  And the rest?
22         A.   And various costs and operation of the
23   boat.
24         Q.   Now, when you mean cash, sir, you don't
25   mean actual greenback, dollar bills, do you?
0153
 1         A.   No, in check and wire transfers.
 2         Q.   All right.  And the $340,000 which you
 3   say is the money or the amount of money which
 4   Gaumur is entitled to on its lien for what you
 5   called the cash payments, is all of that $340,000
 6   money for the third boat THEE VIKING, or is some of
 7   that $340,000 payment for the other two boats?
 8              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  It's a compound
 9         question, Your Honor.
10              THE COURT:  Overruled.
11         A.   This amount is based -- has been based
12   on payments -- advancement of money to all of the
13   three boats.
14         Q.   All right.  And so I assume that the
15   total amount of money that you mentioned, the
16   $465,000, which you say is the amount of money or
17   the amount of your lien, would also be payments
18   made for all three boats instead of just the final
19   yacht THEE VIKING?
20         A.   That is correct.
21         Q.   Can you tell the court, Mr. Jonsson,
22   what specific portion of the $465,000 was paid for
23   either the purchase or maintenance or expenses for
24   THEE VIKING as opposed to the earlier two boats?
25         A.   No.  I regard this as one package.
0154
 1         Q.   I take it from your answer, sir, that
 2   you don't know how much of that is for New Viking
 3   and how much was for the second boat and how much
 4   was for the first boat?
 5         A.   One should be able to determine the
 6   proportion from the dates of the documents.
 7         Q.   Well, that may be, sir.  You've had
 8   several months since you filed the lawsuit to make
 9   that calculation.  Have you made that calculation?
10         A.   No, I have been occupied in other
11   duties.
12         Q.   Well, as far as you know, sir, has
13   anybody else from Gaumur whether -- go ahead.
14         A.   This is the overall package.
15         Q.   Sir, has anybody else from Gaumur, as
16   far as you know, up through and including today
17   ever made the calculation as to what amounts of
18   money from the $465,000 which you say is the amount
19   of Gaumur's lien was for payments concerning the
20   third boat as opposed to the first two boats?
21         A.   No.
22         Q.   But even though you haven't divided up
23   the total package to show the judge how much is for
24   the final boat, you're confident that the total
25   amount of all three boats is $465,000; is that
0155
 1   right?
 2         A.   Yes, that is correct.
 3         Q.   I'm going to show you, sir, what we're
 4   going to ask the court to mark at this point for
 5   identification as Defendants' Exhibit C.  And
 6   here's an extra copy for you, sir.
 7              Mr. Jonsson, I'm showing you --
 8              MR. GREEN:  Counsel, may I?
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  I just have a third copy.
10              MR. GREEN:  At least explain what it is.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  It's your own pleading.
12              MR. GREEN:  Which pleading?
13              MR. GOODMAN:  It's called Notice of
14         Claim of Lien.
15   BY MR. GOODMAN:
16         Q.   Sir, this is a document entitled Notice
17   of Claim of Lien filed in this case by your
18   attorney Judith Sullivan under oath on
19   March 10th, 2003.  And you see, sir, there on the
20   second page where it says the total amount of lien
21   claimed, $560,000?  Do you see that, sir?
22         A.   Yes.
23         Q.   Is 560 --
24              THE COURT:  We're not going to go into
25         the document's contents and substance until
0156
 1         it's in evidence.
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  We would offer
 3         this into evidence as Defendants' Exhibit C
 4         filed as a matter of record in this court.
 5              THE COURT:  Do you have any objection?
 6              MR. GREEN:  I have no objection.
 7              THE COURT:  Proceed.  You may proceed.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 9   BY MR. GOODMAN:
10         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, given the fact that you've
11   just testified that the total amount of Gaumur's
12   lien is precisely $460,000, do you have an
13   explanation for Master Farrell as to why your
14   lawyer filed a claim under oath under penalty of
15   perjury filed with this court saying that the
16   amount of the lien was $560,000?
17         A.   I cannot explain that.
18         Q.   When was it, sir -- and right now I'm
19   not necessarily asking about that document.  When
20   was it, sir, that Mr. Sullenberger, the first time
21   that Mr. Sullenberger promised you that he would
22   transfer shares of stock to New Viking?
23         A.   A few years ago.
24         Q.   Well, can you give me a specific year,
25   sir?
0157
 1         A.   I can't be more specific.
 2         Q.   Now, concerning Gaumur's lis pendens and
 3   Gaumur's claim of lien, Gaumur has selected you as
 4   the person to sign the first affidavit and also the
 5   person to sign the second affidavit.  Are you in
 6   fact the person at Gaumur that knows the most about
 7   the circumstances supporting Gaumur's lis pendens
 8   and claim?
 9         A.   Not necessarily so.
10         Q.   Well, if it's not you, who would it be,
11   sir?  I mean are you saying it might be you?
12         A.   My son would know, for instance.
13         Q.   Let me phrase it differently.
14   Regardless of the fact that your son may have some
15   knowledge of the facts and circumstances, can you
16   tell us whether you or your son or somebody else is
17   the person who is most familiar with the facts and
18   circumstances surrounding Gaumur's lis pendens and
19   claim of lien?
20              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  What's the
21         relevance of this, Your Honor?
22              THE COURT:  Pardon me.  You know, I just
23         slipped off the board.  Would you read the
24         question back, please.
25              (The above-requested portion was read
0158
 1         back by the Court Reporter.)
 2              THE COURT:  Overruled.
 3         A.   I am not clear.  If I might have the
 4   question read to me again, please.  If you could
 5   ask me that question again, please.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.
 7              Lance, would you please help us out and
 8         please read that back.
 9              (The above-requested portion was read
10         back by the Court Reporter.)
11         A.   My son.
12   BY MR. GOODMAN:
13         Q.   Now, would I be correct, sir, in saying
14   that the claim of lien and the lis pendens is in
15   part based on Gaumur's claim that it paid money or
16   lent money for the purchase of THEE VIKING?
17         A.   Yes --
18         Q.   All right.
19         A.   -- for the boats.
20         Q.   Turn, sir, if you would, to your
21   affidavit, which is in your binder, page two,
22   numbered Paragraph 4.
23         A.   I would like to point out, Mr. Goodman,
24   that this is the old affidavit.
25         Q.   You told us yesterday, sir, that
0159
 1   everything in this affidavit was true, didn't you?
 2         A.   Yes.
 3         Q.   All right, sir.  And therefore, whatever
 4   factual representations are in this affidavit
 5   concerning the factual basis for your lien would be
 6   truthful and correct; isn't that right?
 7         A.   Yes.
 8         Q.   All right, sir.  Now, if you take a
 9   look, sir --
10              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, may I now
11         request that the second affidavit be placed
12         in front of Mr. Jonsson.  The fact of the
13         matter is the second affidavit which --
14              THE COURT:  The answer is no.
15              MR. GREEN:  It's very --
16              THE COURT:  Your motion is denied.
17              MR. GREEN:  Can we have a sidebar?
18              (The following occurred at sidebar:)
19              MR. GREEN:  The only thing that I
20         suggest is the substance of -- the
21         affidavit's allegations are contained in both
22         the affidavits, and the second time it was
23         translated verbatim, and I thought it might
24         assist the witness in terms of being able to
25         answer more quickly.  That's all.
0160
 1              THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, motion denied.
 2              (In open court:)
 3   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 4         Q.   Sir, Page 2, numbered Paragraph 4, in or
 5   around the spring of 1999, Sullenberger decided to
 6   buy an even larger yacht.  To that end, Gaumur
 7   again lent Sullenberger the funds to purchase the
 8   yacht.
 9              Let's talk about that phrase the funds.
10   How much money, sir, do you say that Gaumur lent
11   Mr. Sullenberger to purchase the yacht, the third
12   boat THEE VIKING?
13         A.   I don't remember.
14         Q.   Did you ever know, sir?
15         A.   I know that the total money advanced it
16   was $340,000 for this project.
17         Q.   Do you know or did you ever know the
18   specific amount of money that you say Gaumur lent
19   Mr. Sullenberger to pay for the boat which now
20   forms in part the basis of your alleged lien?
21         A.   No, I can't say that I do.
22         Q.   Sir, isn't it actually true that Gaumur
23   did not lend any money at all for the purchase of
24   the third vessel THEE VIKING?
25         A.   I do not remember and refer to our total
0161
 1   claim.
 2         Q.   Well, sir, this affidavit which you now
 3   have reaffirmed as being truthful and correct says
 4   that Gaumur lent Sullenberger the funds to purchase
 5   the yacht, and we're talking about the third yacht,
 6   the third boat THEE VIKING.  We're talking about
 7   the boat upon which you have asserted a lis
 8   pendens.  We're talking about the boat upon which
 9   you filed a notice of a claim of lien, and this
10   statement under oath says Gaumur again lent
11   Sullenberger the funds to purchase the yacht?
12              THE COURT:  Where is that?
13              MR. GOODMAN:  Numbered Paragraph 4,
14         Page 2.
15              THE COURT:  Okay.
16   BY MR. GOODMAN:
17         Q.   Do you see that, sir?
18         A.   I do.
19         Q.   Are you now telling us that actually you
20   don't know whether or not Gaumur actually lent
21   money toward the purchase of the boat upon which
22   you are now asserting a lien and a lis pendens?
23         A.   Yes, I knew that money was advanced for
24   this boat.
25         Q.   How much, sir?
0162
 1         A.   (The witness in English) I'm not sure.
 2              (The interpreter)  I'm not sure.
 3         Q.   What was the purchase price, sir, of the
 4   yacht THEE VIKING upon which Gaumur is now
 5   asserting a lis pendens?
 6         A.   The purchase price was rather unclear
 7   because Boat No. 2 was used as equity for the
 8   purchase of Boat No. 3.
 9         Q.   Well, sir, by that you simply mean that
10   the second boat was traded in and a credit was
11   given towards the purchase; right?
12         A.   Yes.
13         Q.   But there's still a total purchase price
14   for the boat; right?
15         A.   Yes.  The figure discussed was a million
16   dollars or $1.1 million.
17         Q.   All right, sir.  And when you say the
18   figure discussed, are you saying that the purchase
19   price was in fact 1 million or $1.1 million, or
20   that's simply a guess?
21         A.   As described by Jon Sullenberger, this
22   was the price range, a million dollars,
23   $1.1 million.
24              THE INTERPRETER:  Excuse me.  Could we
25         get some water, please.
0163
 1              THE COURT:  Yes.  As a matter of fact,
 2         this might be a good time to take a little
 3         break.  We've been at it for an hour and 15
 4         minutes.  So we'll take a little break.
 5              THE INTERPRETER:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 6              THE COURT:  Sure.
 7              (A break was taken.)
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 9   BY MR. GOODMAN:
10         Q.   Now, Mr. Jonsson, concerning your
11   statement in numbered Paragraph 4 of the affidavit
12   that Gaumur lent Sullenberger funds to purchase the
13   yacht THEE VIKING, isn't it true, sir, that you
14   have absolutely no idea whether Gaumur in fact lent
15   any money toward the purchase of the third boat?
16         A.   Gaumur has advanced a total of 350 --
17   340 -- advanced 340 towards the purchase of these
18   boats through the years.
19         Q.   Sir, did --
20              MR. GREEN:  Excuse me.  Can I have that
21         question --
22              THE COURT:  Excuse me.
23         Q.   Did you realize that Baugur --
24              MR. GREEN:  I did not hear the answer.
25         Could I have the answer read back?
0164
 1              THE COURT:  Would you read the answer
 2         back, please, so that counsel will know what
 3         the witness said.
 4              (The above-requested portion was read
 5         back by the Court Reporter.)
 6   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 7         Q.   Sir, did you say Gaumur or Baugur?  I
 8   heard you say Baugur.
 9         A.   I said Gaumur which is Galmer
10   (phonetic), as you pronounce it, sir.  Gaumur is
11   the Icelandic pronunciation.
12         Q.   All right.  Maybe I misheard you.
13              In any event, sir, are you aware that
14   the purchase of this third boat, sir, involved a
15   trade-in of $495,000, a credit of $495,000 and a
16   check from Union Planters Bank in the amount of
17   $610,333 constituting the entire purchase price of
18   the yacht?
19              Your answer, sir?
20         A.   I can't really comment on the breakup of
21   the figures.  The main emphasis that I'm putting
22   here is that we have advanced a total of $340,000
23   towards the purchase of these three boats.
24         Q.   I appreciate the additional information,
25   sir, but my question is are you aware that the
0165
 1   official closing statement for the yacht shows a
 2   trade-in value of $495,000; in other words, the
 3   second boat's traded in, a check from Union
 4   Planters Bank made payable to Hideaway Yacht Sales
 5   in the amount of $610,333 --
 6              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, at this point
 7         I'm going to --
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  Excuse me.  I haven't
 9         finished my question yet.
10         Q.   -- for a total price of the boat
11   $1,105,333?
12              THE COURT:  What is the objection?
13              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  Counsel is
14         reading from documents that aren't in
15         evidence.
16              THE COURT:  It doesn't matter.  He's
17         asking if he's aware of these numbers, not
18         necessarily whether he's aware of the closing
19         statement.
20         A.   No, I do not.
21         Q.   Were you at the closing, sir?
22         A.   I wasn't -- I don't recall having been
23   present physically at the very closing even though
24   I was on the site, to the best of my recollection.
25   It was Jon Sullenberger who finalized the purchase.
0166
 1         Q.   When you mean that you were at the site,
 2   you mean you were at the marina, the Hideaway Yacht
 3   Group Marina?
 4         A.   To the best of my recollection.
 5         Q.   All right, sir, and you say
 6   Mr. Sullenberger was the one who handled the
 7   closing of the purchase of the yacht THEE VIKING?
 8         A.   Yes.  It was in his name.
 9         Q.   Well, actually, sir, wasn't the boat
10   purchased in the name of New Viking, Inc., not in
11   Mr. Sullenberger?
12         A.   I anticipate that to be true.
13         Q.   Well, do you know one way or the other
14   whether the boat was titled in the name of
15   Mr. Sullenberger individually or the name of New
16   Viking?
17         A.   I can't really say.  New Viking is the
18   private company of Jon Sullenberger.
19         Q.   All right.  So as we sit here today, you
20   can't say one way or the other whether the vessel
21   THEE VIKING was purchased in the name of
22   Mr. Sullenberger or the company New Viking, Inc.?
23         A.   That is correct.
24         Q.   Sir, take a look at your affidavit,
25   Page 2, numbered Paragraph 9.  Do you see, sir,
0167
 1   where it says in or around September 1999 utilizing
 2   funds loaned to Sullenberger by Gaumur, New Viking
 3   by and through its sole officer, director and
 4   shareholder Sullenberger purchased a 1999 Sunseeker
 5   named THEE VIKING?  And do you see the very next
 6   sentence of your affidavit, sir, where it says THEE
 7   VIKING was titled in the name of New Viking?
 8         A.   Um-hum.
 9         Q.   So when you swore out that affidavit and
10   again affirmed its truth here in court, did you
11   know those representations to be true?
12         A.   I regarded this as the private company
13   of Jon Sullenberger.
14         Q.   Let me show you what I'm going to have
15   the court mark for identification at this point
16   Defendants' Exhibit D.
17              And for your purposes, Mr. Green, this
18   document was produced with Bates numbers JS00199
19   and JS00201.
20              Mr. Jonsson, this is a closing statement
21   from the Hideaway Yacht Group and a photocopy of
22   the check from Union Planters Bank concerning the
23   purchase of the boat upon which Gaumur has filed a
24   lis pendens and is making a claim.
25              Have you seen either of these two pages
0168
 1   before, sir?
 2         A.   No, sir.
 3              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Your Honor,
 4         I'll introduce it later through another
 5         witness.
 6              THE COURT:  Okay.
 7         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, concerning the money that
 8   you say Gaumur lent for the purchase of the third
 9   boat, was there a written loan agreement, sir?
10         A.   No, not that I know of.
11         Q.   Did Mr. Sullenberger sign a promissory
12   note, sir?
13         A.   I'm -- I'm not sure.  There may be some
14   paper in the books of -- of -- of Gaumur.
15         Q.   Well, that may be, sir, but as we sit
16   here today, April 15th, are you aware of any
17   promissory note that Mr. Sullenberger or New Viking
18   signed in favor of Gaumur?
19         A.   Not that I know of.
20         Q.   And the money that you say Gaumur lent
21   to Mr. Sullenberger or to New Viking for the
22   purchase of the boat upon which you filed a lis
23   pendens, was there any interest rate associated
24   with this alleged loan?
25              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  Your Honor, this
0169
 1         was asked and answered yesterday.
 2              THE COURT:  It was.  It was asked and
 3         answered, but I'm going to allow it.
 4              Go ahead.
 5         A.   No, there was no interest on the loan.
 6              THE COURT:  The same answer as
 7         yesterday.
 8   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 9         Q.   When was it, sir, that Mr. Sullenberger
10   or New Viking was supposed to repay this alleged
11   loan from Gaumur?
12         A.   The money was to go -- be paid in the
13   form of shares in the company when realized.
14         Q.   That was the only form of repayment, the
15   issuance of shares?
16         A.   That is correct.
17         Q.   When was it, sir, that Mr. Sullenberger
18   or New Viking, according to you, was supposed to be
19   issuing shares in New Viking, Inc. to Gaumur?
20         A.   I think about a year ago.
21         Q.   Was there a specific agreement, sir, as
22   to when the shares were supposed to be issued to
23   Gaumur?
24         A.   No.  We first had to figure out the
25   proportion of shares divided between us.
0170
 1         Q.   You mean the percentage of shares that
 2   were supposed to go to Gaumur?
 3         A.   That is correct.
 4         Q.   And so according to you, once the
 5   percentage of shares was figured out, that's when
 6   Mr. Sullenberger was supposed to transfer shares of
 7   New Viking to Gaumur?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9         Q.   And that would be based on the amount of
10   money that Gaumur paid for the purchase of the
11   boat, if it indeed sent money for the purchase of
12   the boat, and for expenses and maintenance?
13         A.   Yes.
14         Q.   And if Mr. Sullenberger or his company
15   Nordica had made any payments for the boats, then
16   that would be part of the calculation, wouldn't it?
17         A.   Certainly, that would have been his
18   share.
19         Q.   All right.  So there would need to be
20   some sort of an accounting or a reconciliation to
21   see how much Mr. Sullenberger paid and how much
22   Gaumur paid in order to see who got what amount of
23   shares?
24         A.   Yes.
25         Q.   All right.  And you say that the shares,
0171
 1   you think, were supposed to have been issued to
 2   Gaumur, I think you said, about a year ago?
 3         A.   Yeah, that is correct.
 4         Q.   Well, sir, you'd agree with me that
 5   about a year ago nobody had figured out yet what
 6   percentage interest Gaumur had and what percentage
 7   interest Mr. Sullenberger had; right?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9         Q.   And so since you hadn't figured that
10   out, obviously Mr. Sullenberger wouldn't have been
11   able to issue shares to Gaumur because nobody knew
12   the amount of shares?
13         A.   Work was taking place.  The cal -- to
14   calculate this percentage.
15         Q.   Yes, sir.
16              But the calculations had not been
17   finished; right?
18         A.   That is correct.
19         Q.   And since the calculations had not been
20   finished, you cannot fault Mr. Sullenberger for not
21   issuing Gaumur shares in a particular percentage
22   when nobody had figured out yet what that
23   percentage was; correct?
24         A.   The reason for this was that Jon
25   Sullenberger -- he was not in the clear.  Things
0172
 1   weren't ready from his side whereas we were ready
 2   from our side.
 3         Q.   Sir, had you ever made a particular
 4   demand to Mr. Sullenberger from your side, from
 5   Gaumur's side, as to a particular percentage of the
 6   stock ownership that you claimed you were entitled
 7   to?
 8         A.   I can't say that -- I don't recall as
 9   having done that.  We needed information from him.
10         Q.   Up until this lawsuit was filed in
11   November of 2002, Mr. Jonsson, had Gaumur ever made
12   a written demand to Mr. Sullenberger to issue
13   shares of stock in New Viking to Gaumur?
14         A.   As I said before, we've been talking
15   about this through the years.
16         Q.   I appreciate that answer, sir.  Could
17   you answer my question though, which is did you
18   ever send a written demand to Mr. Sullenberger to
19   issue shares of stock to Gaumur in a particular
20   percentage?
21         A.   Not -- to the best of my knowledge, no
22   written demand was made.
23         Q.   Well, sir, had you ever made an oral
24   demand of Mr. Sullenberger to issue shares of stock
25   in New Viking to Gaumur in a particular percentage
0173
 1   or a specific number of shares?
 2         A.   I don't recall having done that myself.
 3         Q.   Do you know, sir, if anybody else did?
 4         A.   I anticipate someone did.
 5         Q.   Who?
 6         A.   My daughter.
 7         Q.   Who else?
 8         A.   Or my son Jon Asgeir.
 9         Q.   Well, when you say your daughter or your
10   son, that suggests to me that you're not sure which
11   of them or both of them or neither of them made
12   that oral demand.  Do you know, sir?
13         A.   I can't say that I have; however, we
14   have discussed this between us and I anticipate
15   that the message was conveyed to Mr. Sullenberger.
16         Q.   Can you tell this court whether anybody
17   on behalf of Gaumur ever made an oral demand for
18   issuance of shares of stock in a particular
19   percentage which you know of and can tell us about
20   today, sir?
21         A.   No.
22         Q.   Now, since the amount of the shares
23   which you say you're entitled to and which is in
24   part the basis of your lien was based on the amount
25   of money that Gaumur paid and Sullenberger's shares
0174
 1   were based on the amount that he paid, the amount
 2   of Mr. Sullenberger's interest has been increasing
 3   each and every time he has made a payment toward
 4   the vessel, isn't that right, sir?  Correct?
 5         A.   That must be true.  That must be deemed
 6   as fair.
 7         Q.   Now, as I understand it, Gaumur stopped
 8   making payments in connection with THEE VIKING in
 9   approximately May or June of 2002; right?
10         A.   Yes.  I'm -- I -- on second thought, I
11   can't really say.  I don't know.
12         Q.   Do you know when the last time was that
13   Gaumur made any payments concerning maintenance
14   expenses or -- well, maintenance or expenses or
15   other payments concerning the yacht THEE VIKING?
16         A.   No, I do not.
17         Q.   Do you know whether or not it was in the
18   year 2003?
19         A.   Sorry.  I didn't hear.  2003?
20         Q.   Yes.
21              Do you know whether Gaumur has made any
22   payments toward the boat in the year 2003?
23         A.   Not to my knowledge.
24         Q.   All right.  And although, sir, you may
25   not be able to tell me specifically, is it your
0175
 1   understanding that at some point in 2002 Gaumur
 2   stopped making payments toward New Viking?
 3         A.   I find that -- I find that likely.
 4         Q.   All right.  I assume, sir, that since
 5   this lawsuit was filed in November, certainly
 6   Gaumur hasn't made any payments toward the boat?
 7         A.   Yeah.  I guess everyone felt that the
 8   limit had been reached.
 9         Q.   And so if Mr. Sullenberger has been
10   making payments toward New Viking for repayment of
11   the loan, for maintenance, for expenses, for
12   insurance and other similar items since the time
13   Gaumur stopped making payments, then
14   Mr. Sullenberger's entitlement to shares of stock
15   in New Viking would increase as a result of this
16   additional money that he has paid; isn't that
17   right?
18              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, I'm going to
19         object.  This is repetitive and irrelevant.
20         This would go far beyond anything that's at
21         issue.
22              THE COURT:  I don't know if it's
23         irrelevant, but it's beginning to become
24         exhausting.  I don't know if that's the legal
25         basis.  But -- overruled.
0176
 1              THE INTERPRETER:  May the interpreter
 2         repeat the question for the witness?
 3              THE COURT:  Please.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.
 5         A.   Well, Sullenberger owns the boat.
 6         Q.   Yes.
 7              And?
 8         A.   And the only thing that we want and the
 9   reason we're here, we want our $340,000 back.
10              THE COURT:  That's not responsive in any
11         way, manner, fashion or form to the question
12         that was asked.
13         A.   If a company were to be established
14   today, Mr. Sullenberger's contribution would be
15   calculated fairly in the same manner as we
16   anticipate our contribution or advancement to the
17   same company being calculated.
18         Q.   Who is the chief operating officer of
19   Gaumur, sir?
20         A.   My daughter is the CEO of Gaumur.  She
21   doesn't have a COO.
22         Q.   Thank you, sir.
23              Your daughter Kristen is the CEO of the
24   plaintiff, Gaumur?
25         A.   That is correct.
0177
 1         Q.   Does your daughter Kristen, sir, know
 2   any of the facts and circumstances which would
 3   support your lis pendens and your notice of claim?
 4              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.  This
 5         is going into discovery now.
 6              THE COURT:  Sustain that on the grounds
 7         of the statement.
 8   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 9         Q.   Let me ask you, sir, to please turn in
10   the binder to Page 55.  There are numbers at the
11   bottom of each page.
12              MR. GREEN:  Counsel, may I see what page
13         you're referring to?  I don't have a binder
14         and I don't have a numbered --
15              MR. GOODMAN:  This is your production,
16         sir.
17              MR. GREEN:  But it is not numbered,
18         counsel.
19              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, it is.  I got it from
20         you, Mr. Green.  Amanda Jason produced
21         documents to me Bates numbered 55.
22              MR. GREEN:  I thought this was the
23         affidavit.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  I'm turning to the
25         exhibit, sir, in the binder, No. 55, part of
0178
 1         the 106 pages that you have produced.
 2         Miss Jason, again, produced them to us the
 3         other day with Bates numbers on them.
 4              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, may I take a
 5         look at the documents.  I do not have a copy
 6         of --
 7              THE COURT:  Be my guest.  Take this one.
 8         It's the court's copy.
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  Let me see if I may have
10         an extra copy, Your Honor.
11              THE COURT:  That's all right.  That's
12         all right.  That will keep me alert.  Go
13         ahead.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  Bear with me just a
15         moment.
16              Your Honor, if I may, I would -- I have
17         an extra courtesy copy for Mr. Green; that
18         way you can look at it.  This is a copy of
19         the very documents that Miss Jason sent to me
20         under a cover letter dated April 9th, 2003.
21              MR. GREEN:  Appreciate that.  Thank you.
22   BY MR. GOODMAN:
23         Q.   All right.  There you go, sir.
24              Now, I can represent to you, sir, that
25   this is one of the 106 pieces of paper which Gaumur
0179
 1   filed with the court and, therefore, which --
 2   withdrawn.
 3              You'll notice, sir, that at the top of
 4   the page it says August 30th, 2002 and then
 5   underneath that it says Erla, E-R-L-A.  Do you see
 6   that, sir, up in the upper right-hand corner,
 7   Mr. Jonsson, Erla?
 8         A.   Yes, I do.
 9         Q.   Now, you know Erla, don't you?
10         A.   Yes, I do.
11         Q.   Erla is an employee of Bonus?  Yes?
12         A.   Yes.
13         Q.   She works in the accounting department,
14   doesn't she, sir?
15         A.   Yes, that is correct.
16         Q.   And so one of the pieces of paper that
17   you have produced here was produced by a Bonus
18   employee, Erla, some sort of computer-accounting
19   entry; am I right?
20         A.   That is correct.
21         Q.   All right, sir.  And you'll notice on
22   the date that it says, August 30th, 2002; that is
23   just a couple of days after the Icelandic police
24   raided Baugur; isn't that right, sir?
25              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.
0180
 1              THE COURT:  Gentlemen.
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  If you'll give me a little
 3         leeway.
 4              THE COURT:  It's going to be very, very
 5         little leeway because you're getting into
 6         matters that involve accusations only, to the
 7         best of my knowledge.  I'm not going to
 8         permit a lot of that.
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  As you'll see, Your Honor,
10         my question is going to be limited to this
11         document.
12              THE COURT:  I'm going to be very careful
13         with this.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.
15              THE COURT:  Overruled for the time
16         being.
17   BY MR. GOODMAN:
18         Q.   So just in connection with timing, sir,
19   this August 30th, 2002, computer printout
20   prepared by Erla at Bonus was a few days after the
21   police raid; correct?
22         A.   That is correct.
23         Q.   Now, this document, sir, isn't it true,
24   sir, that this document which shows transactions
25   from 1999 through 2001, some of which in the middle
0181
 1   of the page list Nordica, Mr. Sullenberger's
 2   company, are accounting entries which are changing,
 3   reversing or creating new entries concerning
 4   payments made in connection with these boats?
 5              THE COURT:  If there's an objection to
 6         that question, I would have to sustain it
 7         because I don't understand the question
 8         myself.  It at least had three heads, and I'm
 9         not sure I could identify effectively.
10              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, I would have
11         called it compound; however, I've lost on two
12         or three of those objections, so I was
13         holding back.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll break it up, Your
15         Honor.
16   BY MR. GOODMAN:
17         Q.   Page 55, sir, this accounting printout
18   prepared by Erla on August 30th, 2002, among
19   other things, has accounting entries for Nordica,
20   U.S.A., doesn't it, right in the middle of page,
21   sir?
22         A.   That's correct.
23         Q.   And Nordica, as we all know, is
24   Mr. Sullenberger's import/export company here in
25   Florida?
0182
 1         A.   That is correct.
 2         Q.   And you know, sir, that many of the
 3   invoices upon which either Gaumur or Bonus or
 4   Baugur paid for these boats were sent by Nordica;
 5   isn't that true, sir?
 6         A.   It's quite possible that the invoices
 7   were sent to Bonus, even Baugur; but I was to
 8   emphasize that all of the invoices were paid by
 9   Gaumur.
10         Q.   My question for right now, sir, is,
11   simply, isn't it true that some of the payments
12   which you say were made in this case and upon which
13   you are relying for your claim and your lis pendens
14   were based on invoices sent by Nordica; isn't that
15   true, sir?
16         A.   That is correct.
17         Q.   All right.  And isn't it also true, sir,
18   that Page 55 is a computer printout in which Erla
19   at Bonus is attempting to change the identity of
20   the company who paid the Nordica invoices?
21         A.   I don't recognize that to be the case.
22         Q.   Well, are you denying that, sir?
23         A.   I said I do not know.
24         Q.   Some of the invoices, sir, upon which
25   you are basing your claim are for expenses which
0183
 1   have absolutely nothing to do with these boats;
 2   isn't that true, sir?
 3         A.   I think that the -- that the money
 4   you're talking about has been deducted in respect
 5   of the claim.
 6         Q.   Sir, right now I'm not looking at
 7   Page 55, and your answer with all due respect was
 8   not responsive.  So try to focus on --
 9              MR. GREEN:  Objection.
10              THE COURT:  I think he misunderstood.
11         His attention, he thought, was directed to
12         Page 55.
13              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  And I said
14         with all due respect, I'm not making --
15              THE COURT:  You said that after he
16         responded to your question which unintendedly
17         had him misled.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  All right, Your Honor.
19   BY MR. GOODMAN:
20         Q.   Sir, my next question is not related to
21   that piece of paper in front of you.
22              My question is, sir, isn't it true that
23   some of the expenses which you say were paid by
24   Gaumur and upon which you are relying for your lis
25   pendens and your claim of lien, meaning the lien on
0184
 1   the boat THEE VIKING, have absolutely nothing to do
 2   with any of the three boats?
 3         A.   Everything that you're referring to
 4   would have been deducted from the total amount of
 5   the claim.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, would you
 7         instruct the witness to answer my question.
 8              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, I believe he has
 9         answered your question.
10              THE COURT:  Well, in a roundabout way he
11         answered it, but it wasn't very -- if you
12         would instruct the witness on my behalf,
13         Ms. Interpreter, that when a question is
14         asked of the witness which may be responded
15         to by either yes or no, that question should
16         be answered directly either yes or no.  And
17         then if the witness feels that it is
18         necessary to make a further explanation in
19         order for the antecedent response to be
20         complete and full, that explanation may then
21         be made briefly.
22              But the order of response should be
23         first to respond directly and precisely and
24         followed by, if necessary, a very brief
25         amplification, if required.  Does the witness
0185
 1         understand?
 2              THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honor.
 3              THE COURT:  All right.  Good.
 4   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 5         Q.   All right.  So my question, sir, right
 6   now has nothing to do whether entries were
 7   deducted, subtracted or entered in any other way in
 8   the books and records of any company.  My question
 9   is this, sir.
10              Isn't it true that some of the payments
11   upon which Gaumur is relying for its lis pendens
12   and its claim of lien have absolutely nothing to do
13   with payments in connection with any of the boats?
14         A.   Some of them.
15         Q.   So, for example, sir, would you please
16   turn to Page P98.  Again, sir, P98 is one of the
17   106 pieces of paper which you have submitted in
18   support of your claim and you'll notice, sir, that,
19   for example, the first item for $862.50 is for
20   something called AA Astor Ent 1.
21              You're not suggesting, sir, that that's
22   a payment that should entitle you to a claim of
23   lien on a boat because it has nothing to do with
24   the boat, right, sir?
25         A.   I do not know.
0186
 1         Q.   What about the entry there, sir, for
 2   $600 luxury car rental?  You're not suggesting,
 3   sir, that you're entitled to a lis pendens or a
 4   claim of lien on the boat for money spent to rent a
 5   luxury car, are you, sir?
 6         A.   I'm sure that this must have been
 7   deducted.
 8         Q.   So we're clear, sir, your testimony
 9   unequivocal, you are 100 percent confident, sir,
10   that even though these expenses are listed in the
11   invoices which you submitted, you can tell Master
12   Farrell under oath that that expense, for example,
13   for a luxury car has in fact been deducted?  Can
14   you tell us that under oath, sir?
15         A.   I can't claim it.  I can't say with full
16   certainty.
17         Q.   And what about the item there, sir, for
18   example, China Grill Restaurant $540?  You don't
19   know whether or not that is part of the claim that
20   you are seeking, do you, sir?
21         A.   I do not know.
22         Q.   Page 85, sir, just for one more example
23   and then I'll move on.  There's a $179 entry there
24   for Toys R Us.  You can't tell us one way or the
25   other whether or not your claim of lien and lis
0187
 1   pendens includes this Toys R Us expense or not, can
 2   you, sir?
 3         A.   I'm sure that it is not a part of the
 4   claim.
 5         Q.   You're absolutely sure and you can tell
 6   us --
 7         A.   I don't know.
 8         Q.   All right.  So you don't know?
 9         A.   That is correct.
10         Q.   Now, as I understand Gaumur's position
11   on your lis pendens and the claim of lien, some of
12   the lien is based upon payments made for the first
13   two boats; right?
14         A.   That is correct.
15         Q.   All right.  And therefore, sir, in order
16   to be even arguably entitled -- withdrawn.
17              You would agree with me, sir, that
18   Gaumur would not be entitled to a claim of lien or
19   a lis pendens for a payment made by another entity;
20   right?
21         A.   Counsel, please repeat the question.  I
22   do not understand it.
23         Q.   Sure.
24              You're not telling His Honor, Master
25   Farrell, that Gaumur would be entitled to a claim
0188
 1   of lien or a lis pendens based on moneys paid by a
 2   company other than Gaumur, are you?
 3              MR. GREEN:  Objection to the extent that
 4         you're asking him to --
 5              THE COURT:  Just --
 6         A.   He said we're not doing this --
 7              THE COURT:  Hold it.
 8              MR. GREEN:  To the extent you're asking
 9         him to opine on a legal matter, to the extent
10         you're asking him as a layman, I have no
11         problem with it.  But again, there are issues
12         under law which might make those
13         circumstances unknown to him.
14              THE COURT:  You know what he's talking
15         about and I do, too, from a legal standpoint.
16              MR. GOODMAN:  I'm not asking this --
17              THE COURT:  And I don't want to get
18         involved in the discourse of this because of
19         the presence of the witness.  I'm going to
20         sustain the question and ask you to approach.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll phrase it
22         differently, Your Honor.
23              THE COURT:  Yes.
24   BY MR. GOODMAN:
25         Q.   Are any of the payments, sir, that form
0189
 1   the basis of your claim of lien or lis pendens
 2   based on payments made by companies other than
 3   Gaumur?
 4         A.   No.
 5         Q.   You're sure?
 6         A.   Yes.
 7         Q.   Sir, are you aware that many of the
 8   invoices which were paid in this case were invoices
 9   sent to Bonus and Baugur, companies other than
10   Gaumur?
11         A.   But paid by Gaumur.
12         Q.   Take a look, sir, for example, Page 39,
13   P39 in your binder.  This is a document, sir, a
14   bank document reflecting a payment to Nordica from
15   Bonus; isn't that right, sir?
16         A.   That is correct.
17         Q.   And this is one of the 106 pieces of
18   paper that you submitted in support of your claim
19   that Gaumur is entitled to a lien; isn't that
20   right, sir?
21         A.   These are invoices that Gaumur paid.
22         Q.   Take a look, sir, page 45, P45.  This is
23   a document reflecting a payment to Nordica by a
24   company called Isaldi, I-S-A-L-D-I; isn't that
25   right, sir?
0190
 1         A.   Yes.
 2         Q.   And if you would, I just have one or two
 3   more for illustrative purposes and then I'll move
 4   on.
 5              Take a look, sir, Page 2, P2.
 6         A.   P2?
 7         Q.   Yes.
 8              Again, this is one of the documents that
 9   Gaumur submitted in support of your claim of lien
10   and your lis pendens, sir.  Doesn't this document
11   reflect a payment being made by another entity
12   called Bonus, sir?
13         A.   That is correct.
14         Q.   And by the way, you can put the binder
15   down because this next question doesn't concern a
16   document in that binder.  But you can look, if you
17   like.
18              Sir, you're aware, aren't you, that a
19   significant amount of the payments made for the
20   boat or the reimbursements paid for the boat were
21   paid to Mr. Sullenberger's corporate bank account
22   in the name of Nordica; correct?
23         A.   Yes.
24         Q.   And you're aware, sir, that in this case
25   Mr. Sullenberger and New Viking have produced to
0191
 1   you documents from Union Planters Bank where
 2   Mr. Sullenberger's corporation had its bank
 3   account; right?
 4         A.   Yes.
 5         Q.   You've seen those documents, haven't you
 6   Mr. Jonsson?
 7         A.   Yes.
 8         Q.   And you're aware, sir, that those Union
 9   Planters documents show wire transfers coming into
10   Mr. Sullenberger's Nordica account from Baugur;
11   isn't that right, sir?
12              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  What's the
13         relevance?
14              THE COURT:  Overruled.
15              THE INTERPRETER:  May I repeat the
16         question because I was interpreting the
17         objection.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, I know, but I heard
19         you say nine, nine, nine, nine (phonetic)
20         which to me sounded like you were telling the
21         witness not to speak.
22              THE INTERPRETER:  I did nothing of the
23         sort, Mr. Goodman.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  Okay.  Then please
25         rephrase the question.
0192
 1              THE INTERPRETER:  Would you repeat the
 2         question because I was interpreting
 3         Mr. Green's objection to the witness.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Okay.  Just so I have an
 5         understanding and I don't mean to --
 6              THE COURT:  Why don't you just have the
 7         question read back to the witness, please.
 8              (The above-requested portion was read
 9         back by the Court Reporter.)
10              THE COURT:  Now, wait a minute.  I had
11         ruled on the objection, but I'm not sure that
12         I made the correct ruling.  What documents
13         are you referring to?  You said those
14         documents.
15              MR. GOODMAN:  We have produced to the
16         plaintiff in this case Union Planters
17         documents from Mr. Sullenberger's --
18              THE COURT:  I don't question that, but
19         it's too generic, it's too broad, it lacks
20         sufficient identification for the witness to
21         answer it.  So in that case I will reverse my
22         ruling, which I will sustain it.
23              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  I'll get at it
24         a different way.
25              THE COURT:  If you would.
0193
 1   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 2         Q.   In the past several days, Mr. Jonsson,
 3   in preparation for your testimony, have you
 4   reviewed documents which Mr. Sullenberger has
 5   produced to your company through its lawyers?
 6         A.   I have reviewed documents that have been
 7   presented to us, yes.
 8         Q.   Documents other than the 106 pages that
 9   your company produced?
10         A.   No, I do not recall.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll do this through
12         another witness, Your Honor.
13              THE COURT:  All right.
14   BY MR. GOODMAN:
15         Q.   Sir, wasn't Bonus and Baugur paying
16   personal expenses of you and your son which have
17   absolutely nothing to do with these boats but for
18   which you are seeking reimbursement or which form
19   the basis of your claim?
20              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  Two, one --
21              THE COURT:  Sustained.  It's a complex,
22         compound question.
23   BY MR. GOODMAN:
24         Q.   Turn, if you would, sir, to Page 7, P7
25   that's in your binder, sir.
0194
 1              THE COURT:  What page?
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  Seven, Your Honor, P7.
 3              THE COURT:  P7.
 4         Q.   And I don't mean to confuse you,
 5   Mr. Jonsson.  So once again, we're dealing with a
 6   piece of paper that's part of the 106 pieces of
 7   paper that your company submitted in support of its
 8   claim.  Now, you'll notice, sir, that this is an
 9   invoice --
10              MR. GREEN:  I apologize to the court,
11         Your Honor.
12         Q.   -- addressed to Bonus on Nordica
13   letterhead, and among other things on this invoice
14   is a charge for a Sportster 683 Blue, parts.  I
15   think that's what it says.
16              Do you see that, sir?
17         A.   Yes, I do.
18         Q.   Now, that charge relates to a motorcycle
19   that belongs to your son; isn't that right, sir?
20         A.   I -- I don't recognize this.  I can't
21   analyze this document.
22         Q.   Your son has a motorcycle, a Sportster
23   motorcycle, doesn't he, sir?
24         A.   I know he has a motorcycle, yes.
25         Q.   And therefore, sir, isn't part of the
0195
 1   expenses for which you're seeking a claim and a
 2   lien on a boat based on expenses such as your son's
 3   personal motorcycle expenses which have absolutely
 4   nothing to do with the boats?
 5         A.   No.  This must have been deducted.
 6         Q.   Are you telling us, sir, again,
 7   obviously under oath, that you are 100 percent
 8   confident that this particular motorcycle charge
 9   has in fact been deducted from the amount of money
10   that you're claiming?
11         A.   As our staff or employees have prepared
12   these documents, this says further instructions.
13         Q.   That may be, sir.
14              Can you tell us for sure one way or the
15   other whether or not this motorcycle expense on an
16   invoice that Gaumur submitted in this case has in
17   fact actually been deducted?
18         A.   I can't say that with full certainty.
19              MR. GOODMAN:  May I have just a moment,
20         Your Honor, to consult with my colleagues.
21              THE COURT:  Yes.
22              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, if the court
23         would indulge me, we don't need to take a
24         break, but if you would allow me perhaps one
25         minute to review my notes, and I may then be
0196
 1         able to provide the court and counsel with
 2         the good news that I would have no more
 3         questions at this time from this witness.
 4              (Pause)
 5              THE COURT:  Time's up.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  Then I have no further
 7         questions at this time, Your Honor.
 8              THE COURT:  Do you have any examination?
 9              MR. GREEN:  Yes, I do, Your Honor.  Just
10         one moment.  The interpreter had mentioned to
11         me at the last break that she thought she was
12         the hardest working person in the courtroom,
13         and she probably is, and I just wonder if she
14         might need five minutes to rest her voice.
15              THE INTERPRETER:  If Your Honor would
16         allow it.
17              THE COURT:  Certainly, by all means.
18              (A break was taken.)
19              THE COURT:  Mr. Green.
20              MR. GREEN:  Thank you, Your Honor.
21                    CROSS-EXAMINATION
22   BY MR. GREEN:
23         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, we've heard a lot the last
24   couple of days about Gaumur.  Could you just
25   describe for us what is the business of Gaumur?
0197
 1         A.   Gaumur is a holding company.
 2         Q.   And who are the owners of Gaumur?
 3         A.   (The witness in English)  I am and my
 4   family.
 5              (The interpreter)  I am and my family
 6   are the owners.
 7         Q.   Do you recall when Gaumur was created?
 8         A.   Gaumur's predecessor was established in
 9   1989, and the company continued with the same
10   national ID number and the same bank accounts
11   onwards to this very day.
12         Q.   And what was the name of that
13   predecessor company or that company?
14         A.   First the name was Isaldi followed by
15   Bonus Isaldi.
16              THE COURT:  How do you spell that?
17              THE INTERPRETER:  I-S-A-L-D-I, Your
18         Honor.
19              THE COURT:  I-S-A-L-D-I.
20              THE INTERPRETER:  Correct, with an
21         accent over the first I.
22   BY MR. GREEN:
23         Q.   And to your knowledge, does the company
24   that was known as Isaldi exist today other than as
25   Gaumur?
0198
 1         A.   No.
 2         Q.   Could you tell us what kinds of
 3   businesses that Gaumur holds interest in?
 4              THE COURT:  Very briefly, counsel,
 5         because I don't see what this has to do with
 6         the cross-examination.
 7              MR. GREEN:  I will.
 8         A.   It owns a large portion of Baugur.
 9         Q.   Maybe I can shorten it for the court.
10              Other than Baugur, does it hold any
11   other interests?
12         A.   Yes, sir.
13         Q.   Now, could you tell me how you came to
14   know Jon Gerald Sullenberger?
15         A.   I met him through my son Jon Asgeir
16   through family relations, I believe, were in effect
17   at that time.
18         Q.   And approximately how many years ago was
19   it that you first came to know him?
20         A.   I'd say about ten, 12 years.
21         Q.   And other than the last two years, could
22   you describe your relationship with
23   Mr. Sullenberger?
24         A.   I came here, for example, and stayed on
25   board the boats maybe eight times.  And Jon Gerald
0199
 1   came to Iceland to sell items to us from here.
 2         Q.   And when you say to us, who specifically
 3   was Mr. Sullenberger selling to?  Was it Gaumur?
 4         A.   He was selling to Bonus and to Baugur.
 5         Q.   Are you finished?  I'm sorry, sir.
 6              Would you describe yourself as being a
 7   friend of Mr. Sullenberger up till the last couple
 8   of years?
 9         A.   Yes, I would.
10         Q.   Now, did there come a time, sir, when
11   you understood or you discussed with
12   Mr. Sullenberger the possibility of acquiring a
13   boat, the first boat?
14         A.   To the best of my recollection, it was
15   my son and Jon Gerald who discussed this first.
16         Q.   Was it your understanding at the time
17   that the boat would be used both by your family and
18   by Mr. Sullenberger?
19         A.   Yes, that was my understanding.
20         Q.   And I believe you testified that there
21   was some amount of money that was advanced by
22   Gaumur or Isaldi for the purchase of that boat; is
23   that correct?
24              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection to the form of
25         the question.
0200
 1              MR. GREEN:  This is just --
 2              THE COURT:  Sustained.  Basically you're
 3         on direct.
 4              MR. GREEN:  I understand that, Your
 5         Honor.  I thought this was just a preliminary
 6         matter.
 7              THE COURT:  Okay.  He's objected and
 8         he's correct; it's leading.  It's sustained.
 9   BY MR. GREEN:
10         Q.   What, if any, understanding did you have
11   as to what you would receive in return for any
12   money advanced in connection with the first boat?
13         A.   It was discussed the whole time that we
14   would at a certain point in time have ownership
15   interests.
16         Q.   And did there come a time that there was
17   a discussion of buying the larger boat?
18         A.   You mean, sir, until this one was
19   purchased or are you referring to the second one?
20         Q.   The second boat.
21              And how did you come to learn of that?
22         A.   Jon Gerald told me.
23         Q.   And what, if anything, did you discuss
24   with Mr. Sullenberger about any funds -- or was
25   there a discussion regarding money to be advanced
0201
 1   by Gaumur or Isaldi for the boat?
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection to the form of
 3         the question, Your Honor.  Compound.  He's
 4         saying Gaumur or Isaldi.  That's sort of part
 5         of the whole issue.
 6              THE COURT:  Sustained.
 7   BY MR. GREEN:
 8         Q.   Was there any discussion as to whether
 9   Isaldi would contribute any money?
10         A.   Yes, there were discussions that we
11   would have to advance money.  This is why we're
12   here making the claims that we're making for
13   $340,000.
14         Q.   To your recollection, was any amounts of
15   money advanced to Mr. Sullenberger in connection
16   with the purchase of the second boat?
17         A.   Yes.
18         Q.   How much?
19         A.   (The witness in English)  $200,000.
20              (The interpreter)  $200,000.
21              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, at this time I'd
22         like to have marked as Exhibit A -- this is a
23         binder -- Exhibit 1, I'm sorry.  This is a
24         binder which contains the invoices and
25         payment records appended to
0202
 1         Mr. Sullenberger's -- both affidavits in
 2         chronological order relating -- organized by
 3         payment with a compendium of -- basically a
 4         spreadsheet that identifies each payment so
 5         that it's easy to refer to.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, first of all,
 7         I believe Mr. Green misspoke.  He said
 8         attached to Mr. Sullenberger's two
 9         affidavits.
10              MR. GREEN:  I did.  I'm sorry, Your
11         Honor.
12              MR. GOODMAN:  I think you mean
13         Mr. Jonsson's affidavits.  But once we have
14         cleared up that problem, although I don't
15         object if this is the 106 pages --
16              THE COURT:  That's what I understood him
17         to say.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  -- but he also said a
19         separate sheet which I have never seen
20         before, which has never been produced before,
21         and so I would object to that.
22              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, all it is -- and
23         it is Tab 1 of the document, and Mr. Goodman
24         can look at it.  It is nothing more than an
25         identification of each of the invoices and
0203
 1         the amount there.  It is nothing more than a
 2         summary of documents which actually are
 3         already in evidence, Your Honor.
 4              THE COURT:  Well, you just ran into the
 5         brick wall of summaries under the Rules of
 6         Evidence.  You have to give notice,
 7         et cetera, none of which apparently has been
 8         done.
 9              Now, it's four minutes until 12:00 and
10         it's about time for us to take a bite of
11         lunch.  That will give you time to take a
12         look at this and see if you want to maintain
13         your objection to this, making the assumption
14         that I do, based upon what Mr. Green has told
15         me, that the documents in this binder
16         represent no more than a reorganization
17         perhaps chronologically of a 106 documents
18         that have been so frequently referred to,
19         plus some sort of a summary sheet at the
20         onset.
21              So you take a look at that, if you wish,
22         during the lunch and we'll see whether or not
23         there's an objection that can be absolved or
24         whether you just want to stand on the
25         objection when we get back.
0204
 1              MR. GOODMAN:  We'll look at it during
 2         lunch, Your Honor.
 3              THE COURT:  All right.  So we'll mark it
 4         as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for ID.
 5              MR. GREEN:  Thank you.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  And Your Honor, since the
 7         witness is currently on examination, I think
 8         it would be appropriate to --
 9              THE COURT:  It is appropriate that there
10         should be no discussion of his testimony
11         during the lunch break.
12              All right.  Thank you.
13                        - - - - -
14              A luncheon recess is taken at 11:59 a.m.
15                        - - - - -
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
0205
 1                    Afternoon Session
 2                     April 15, 2003
 3                        1:49 p.m.
 4                        - - - - -
 5              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, before we
 6         commence, I just wanted Miss Rogers to make
 7         two changes to the binder I had marked.
 8         There apparently were two documents that had
 9         been inadvertently been left out.  I have
10         already provided copies to Mr. Goodman.
11              THE COURT:  Mr. Goodman's objected to
12         it.  Does your objection stand?
13              MR. GOODMAN:  It does, Your Honor.  I'm
14         prepared to argue it further, if you'd like.
15              THE COURT:  I'd be interested, yes.
16              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Your Honor, we
17         are referring to Florida Statute 90.956.
18              THE COURT:  Are you going to tell me
19         about summaries and notice in advance and so
20         forth?
21              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.
22              THE COURT:  I am familiar with that; I
23         mentioned that before.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  You did.  I just wanted to
25         impress you that I knew the specific number.
0206
 1         But in addition to the issue of notice, Your
 2         Honor, I have some other objections.
 3              THE COURT:  Go ahead.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, this statute
 5         basically permits a party to use a summary in
 6         court in lieu of the documents, and it says
 7         when it is not convenient to examine
 8         voluminous documents in court, a party may
 9         present them in a form of a chart, summary,
10         et cetera.  And what Mr. Green is seeking to
11         do, as I understand it, is introduce both the
12         documents themselves, the so-called
13         voluminous documents of 106 pages which are
14         already in evidence and which we've already
15         been talking about, and now in addition he
16         wants to add the summary.
17              I don't think that that's the purpose
18         for which the rule is intended.  But beyond
19         that, in order to take advantage of this
20         rule, the party must give timely written
21         notice; you mentioned that --
22              THE COURT:  Right.
23              MR. GOODMAN:  -- but you also must
24         introduce this by calling a qualified
25         witness, and I haven't had the opportunity to
0207
 1         voir dire this particular witness --
 2              THE COURT:  See if I can shorten your
 3         problem up.  If you take the first page or
 4         the first two and a half pages, which
 5         purportedly I haven't seen it, but
 6         purportedly that constitutes the summary, out
 7         of the folder, then you would have no
 8         objection because it's a duplicate of
 9         information that you've already introduced
10         into evidence.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, simply rearranged
12         chronologically.  I would not object on that.
13              THE COURT:  Mr. Green.
14              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, in the first
15         place, I too would like to point the court to
16         the fact that indeed the provision that
17         requires notices in those situations where
18         one is going to be presenting a compilation
19         or a summary in lieu of the document because
20         they are too voluminous.  This is nothing
21         more than an aid to presentation and,
22         therefore, is not really a summary as
23         contemplated under 9. --
24              THE COURT:  90.
25              MR. GREEN:  90.56.  I would also like to
0208
 1         point out to the court that there are several
 2         cases which hold that it is not error, that
 3         it is within the court's discretion to permit
 4         use of such a summary where in fact the
 5         underlying documents have been available to
 6         the adversary for some time.  And in this
 7         case we're talking about several months.
 8         Specifically we have --
 9              THE COURT:  Direct its attention
10         particularly to the summary statute?
11              MR. GREEN:  Yes, it does, Your Honor.
12              THE COURT:  Tell me about the case
13         because I'm not familiar with it.
14              MR. GREEN:  Two cases that have been
15         called to my attention is Bomar Instrument
16         Corporation versus Fidelity Electronics, 466
17         So.2d, 344.  It's a Third District, District
18         Court of Appeal of Florida decision.  And the
19         second case is -- well, I'm sorry, Your
20         Honor, it's the same case.  That's one of the
21         cases.
22              The other one, Your Honor, is Cornriche
23         and Sons, Inc. versus Titon Agencies, Inc.,
24         423 So.2d, 940, and in each case is a
25         summary.  The court permitted the summary to
0209
 1         come in, even though there was not compliance
 2         specifically with the letter of the notice
 3         provision under the statute because as the
 4         court's -- the court indicated that in fact
 5         they had the underlying documents for some
 6         time, they had an ability --
 7              THE COURT:  May I see the cases, if you
 8         have them there.
 9              MR. GREEN:  Yes.
10              THE COURT:  Are you familiar with these,
11         Mr. Goodman?
12              MR. GOODMAN:  I am not.  Mr. Green did
13         not provide them to me.
14              THE COURT:  Why don't you hand Cornriche
15         to Mr. Goodman and hand Bomar to me.
16              MR. GREEN:  We actually have copies of
17         each, Your Honor.  I'm sorry.
18              THE COURT:  If you wait just a second.
19              Well, if I very quickly read Bomar, it's
20         a harmless error case as opposed to no error,
21         although the language they use is, therefore,
22         over a technical violation of Section 90.956
23         occurred when the appellee's failure to give
24         written notice of their intention to use the
25         summary, that violation caused no substantial
0210
 1         harm to the appellant.
 2              I read that to be a computation of the
 3         Harmless Error Doctrine and not a validation
 4         of the technique employed.
 5              MR. GREEN:  Well, I was -- I don't think
 6         I was seeking absolution, Your Honor, merely
 7         an exercise of discretion based upon the fact
 8         that I thought it was -- I would argue to
 9         that in this case --
10              THE COURT:  I'm not hearing confessions
11         until Saturday anyway.
12              MR. GREEN:  I'm busy Saturday.  I'm
13         sorry.
14              THE COURT:  All right.  Let me hear what
15         this one says.
16              Well, it says about the same thing, on
17         these facts we cannot agree that the
18         technical violation of 90.956(1) was harmful.
19              Not withstanding, I think you're
20         probably at an end.  I probably wouldn't be
21         in any trouble.  But when something is called
22         to my attention and counsel is well apprised
23         to do that, I try to respect the matters that
24         they've prepared themselves on.
25              So consequently I'm going to disallow
0211
 1         the introduction of the book as tendered with
 2         the provision, however, that if you'd like to
 3         take out that little summary sheet in the
 4         front, then there would be nothing at all
 5         offensive about the document as you've
 6         rearranged the pages.
 7              MR. GREEN:  We're happy to do that, Your
 8         Honor.
 9              THE COURT:  So if you take the so-called
10         summary sheets out, then we'll mark those
11         separately as what?
12              COURT CLERK:  You want them introduced
13         separate, the summary sheets themselves?
14              THE COURT:  No, marked for
15         identification.  Counsel is right.
16              COURT CLERK:  They will be E for ID.
17              MR. GREEN:  Two.
18              COURT CLERK:  Sorry.  Wrong guy.  Two
19         for ID.
20              THE COURT:  The summary sheet is 2 for
21         ID, and the balance of the book is allowed as
22         2.  I really got it backwards but --
23              COURT CLERK:  Well, excuse me.  The book
24         is 1.
25              THE COURT:  Oh, I beg your pardon.  The
0212
 1         book -- I thought he already had something
 2         in.
 3              COURT CLERK:  He already had the book
 4         marked for ID.
 5              THE COURT:  Okay.  Let me correct that.
 6         The book briefly had been marked for ID.  The
 7         book will be admitted as 1 and the summary
 8         sheets excised from the book will be
 9         separately marked for identification as 1A.
10         Okay?  Everybody sufficiently confused?
11              MR. GREEN:  Sufficiently.
12              THE COURT:  Okay.  So I guess I
13         Solomon-ized another one; right?
14              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.
15              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, the other matter
16         was that there were two documents that were
17         deleted out of the copies.  One was a --
18         actually was a page that bore one of my
19         handwritten notations.  I would like to
20         substitute just the copy --
21              THE COURT:  The vanilla.
22              MR. GREEN:  -- unmarked one, and the
23         other one was apparently not included, and I
24         have provided that to Mr. Goodman.
25              THE COURT:  Fine.  Thank you,
0213
 1         Ms. Rogers.  Batter up.
 2              CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued)
 3   BY MR. GREEN:
 4         Q.   Now, Mr. Jonsson, when we broke we were
 5   speaking about the $200,000; do you recall that,
 6   sir?
 7         A.   Yes.
 8         Q.   Do you recall, sir, yesterday you
 9   indicated that that $200,000 was contributed in
10   connection with the first boat, not the second; do
11   you recall that, sir?
12         A.   Yes, sir.
13         Q.   As you sit here today, is it your
14   recollection that in fact -- whether the check was
15   or the $200,000 payment was in connection with the
16   first or the second boat?
17         A.   Second boat.
18         Q.   Sir, I'd like you to take a look at Tab
19   No. 6.  Do you have that in front of you, sir?
20         A.   Do not.
21         Q.   It's that black looseleaf.  If you go to
22   Tab No. 6 and the documents behind that.
23              Do you have that in front of you, sir?
24         A.   This is the wrong one.  They have
25   theirs.  Where is our Tab 6?
0214
 1         Q.   I'm handing the witness a copy of
 2   Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 without the first two pages,
 3   which were Tab 1 of that document.
 4              Sir, would you turn to Tab 6.  Do you
 5   have that in front of you?
 6         A.   Yes, sir.
 7         Q.   And the first page, sir, could you tell
 8   us what that is?
 9         A.   This is a photocopy of a check.
10         Q.   And in what amount, sir?
11         A.   $200,000.
12         Q.   And what, if any, connection, sir, does
13   this check bear to any of the boats which have been
14   the subject of discussion today?
15         A.   It connects to Boat No. 2.
16         Q.   Now, I believe earlier this morning you
17   actually testified that you brought a check to the
18   United States in the amount of $200,000.  Is the
19   check on the first page of Tab 2 a copy of the
20   check you brought?
21         A.   Yes.
22         Q.   Now, on top of that, sir, on the first
23   page of Tab 6, could you tell us what that is?
24         A.   This is a bank receipt for the purchase
25   of a check.
0215
 1         Q.   And does that relate to the check that's
 2   also on that page?
 3         A.   Yes.
 4         Q.   And that's for $200,000 U.S. Dollars?
 5         A.   Yes.
 6         Q.   What was the charge for it in Icelandic
 7   Kroners, sir?
 8         A.   14,110,200 Icelandic Kroners.
 9         Q.   Now, this, sir, indicates that at least
10   the top document on the first tab related to Bonus,
11   S.F.?
12         A.   (The witness in English)  Yes.
13         Q.   Is that correct, the Bonus, S.F.
14   account?
15         A.   Yes.
16         Q.   Now I would like you to go to the very
17   last page of Tab 6.  Do you have that in front of
18   you, sir?
19         A.   Yes, we have it.
20         Q.   Could you tell us what this document is,
21   sir?
22         A.   This is a bank overview.
23         Q.   Now, what do you mean by a bank
24   overview, sir?
25         A.   This is -- this is an overview of two
0216
 1   weeks of withdrawals from an account.
 2         Q.   What does this relate to, sir?
 3         A.   This is account No. 1099.
 4         Q.   And at the time who was the owner of
 5   Account 1099?
 6         A.   Isaldi.
 7         Q.   And that's the same Isaldi you testified
 8   to earlier this morning; is that correct?
 9         A.   Yes.
10         Q.   Now, I'd also like you to just, if you
11   would, point to us where on this document the third
12   page of Tab 6 you see an indication of the number
13   1099.
14         A.   I have -- at the top right corner.
15         Q.   And could you tell me if there is an
16   entry about halfway down the list of activity on
17   this document indicate a payment of 14,110,200
18   Kroners; do you see that?
19         A.   Yes, I do.
20         Q.   And could you tell me what that refers
21   to, sir?
22         A.   This is the withdrawal for the purchase
23   of the check that was issued to the name of
24   Nordica.
25         Q.   So the funds to pay for the check issued
0217
 1   to Nordica which is the first page of Tab 6 came
 2   out of the account of Isaldi; is that correct, sir?
 3         A.   (The witness in English)  Yes.
 4              (The interpreter)  Yes.
 5         Q.   Could you tell us what your
 6   understanding was of what you were to receive in
 7   return for the $200,000 payment, sir?
 8         A.   Ownership interest in the boat.
 9         Q.   And that would be the second boat, sir?
10         A.   Yes.
11         Q.   And did you use the second boat, sir?
12         A.   To my -- to the best of my recollection,
13   I came there maybe three, maybe four times.
14         Q.   Did any other members of your family use
15   that boat, sir?
16         A.   My son.
17              THE COURT:  You know, I didn't hear the
18         answer to the first question what were you to
19         receive for the $200,000 investment before --
20         before I got an answer or heard the answer,
21         you went to the time you were there.  Was
22         there an answer?
23              MR. GREEN:  Yes, there was, Your Honor.
24              Could we have that read back.
25              (The above-requested portion was read
0218
 1         back by the Court Reporter.)
 2   BY MR. GREEN:
 3         Q.   Now, sir, did there come a time when you
 4   began or were aware of discussions regarding the
 5   possibility of purchasing a third boat?
 6         A.   Yes.
 7         Q.   And at the time are you aware, sir, that
 8   there was any kind of mortgage with regard to the
 9   second boat?
10         A.   I really don't remember.
11         Q.   Now, with regard to this third boat, do
12   you have a recollection as to how that boat was
13   going to be paid for?
14         A.   It was to be paid for by using the
15   equity of Boat 2 and then to take out a mortgage to
16   cover the difference.
17         Q.   I'd like you to take a look now, sir, at
18   another document which is part of our -- the
19   compendium, sir, the tabs and that specifically,
20   sir, is No. 19.
21              Sir, there are two documents that have
22   been tabbed 19; do you see that, sir?
23         A.   Yes.
24         Q.   The first one is in Icelandic.  Could
25   you tell us what that is, sir?
0219
 1         A.   This is a bank withdrawal amounting to a
 2   $140,000.
 3         Q.   And out of whose account was this
 4   withdrawal?
 5         A.   (The witness in English)  Gaumur's.
 6              THE COURT:  Whose?
 7              MR. GREEN:  Gaumur, Your Honor.
 8              THE COURT:  It was from Gaumur.
 9              THE WITNESS:  Gaumur.
10              THE COURT:  Excuse me.  Could you do
11         something about that fan over there, please.
12         I have to confess I'm a little bit deaf to
13         start with, and that just about blanks me
14         out.
15   BY MR. GREEN:
16         Q.   And sir, this indicates a payment to
17   Nordica; is that correct?
18         A.   That is correct.
19         Q.   And do you know what the purpose of this
20   payment was for, sir?
21         A.   This was because of the purchase of a
22   boat.
23         Q.   Do you know which boat, sir?
24         A.   I presume this was for Boat No. 2.
25              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection.  Move to
0220
 1         strike.  Speculation.
 2              THE COURT:  Sustained.  Struck.
 3   BY MR. GREEN:
 4         Q.   Sir, regardless of whether it was to
 5   which boat, is it your testimony, sir, that this
 6   was money that was contributed with regard to one
 7   of the three boats?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9         Q.   So as of this point, we've seen $340,000
10   advanced by Gaumur or Isaldi in connection with the
11   boat.  Could you tell us, sir, with the boats,
12   you've testified earlier that there was no interest
13   to be paid by Mr. Sullenberger with regard to these
14   payments; is that correct?
15         A.   That is correct.
16         Q.   What, if anything, were you to receive
17   in exchange for the payments by Isaldi and Gaumur
18   in the amount of $340,000?
19         A.   Ownership interest in the boat.
20         Q.   And when the New Viking was acquired,
21   what happened to the second boat, sir?
22         A.   It was used as equity for the purchase
23   of the third one.
24         Q.   So the equity that was in the second
25   boat was used as part of the trade-in to purchase
0221
 1   the New Viking; is that correct, or THEE VIKING?
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection.  Leading.
 3              THE COURT:  Sustained.  Leading.
 4   BY MR. GREEN:
 5         Q.   When the second boat was sold, did
 6   Gaumur receive any payment or return of any of the
 7   money that was advanced up to that date?
 8         A.   No.
 9         Q.   And what happened to that money?
10         A.   The money was invested in Boat No. 2
11   which was traded in for the purchase of Boat No. 3.
12         Q.   And what, if any, discussions did you
13   have with Mr. Sullenberger as to how ownership in
14   the third boat, the New Viking, was to be evidenced
15   as among the parties?
16              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection.  Cumulative.
17         Asked and answered.  I think I went over that
18         for about ten or 15 minutes this morning,
19         Your Honor.  That was the six or 11 different
20         conversations that he mentioned.
21              THE COURT:  That's precisely the point.
22         You went over it.  Overruled.
23              THE INTERPRETER:  Would you repeat the
24         question, Mr. Green.
25              MR. GREEN:  Can I have the question read
0222
 1         back, please.
 2              THE INTERPRETER:  For interpretation
 3         purposes.
 4              (The above-requested portion was read
 5         back by the Court Reporter.)
 6         A.   Yes, there were discussions.
 7   BY MR. GREEN:
 8         Q.   And could you tell us the substance of
 9   those discussions, sir?
10         A.   We discussed owning the boat together,
11   but no decision had been made on the proportion of
12   the share of ownership because we -- it remained
13   getting information from Mr. Sullenberger as to
14   what he had advanced to the purchase.
15         Q.   In your conversations with
16   Mr. Sullenberger, was the name Gaumur ever
17   mentioned?
18         A.   It was Gaumur that had advanced the
19   money for the purchase and it is a private company.
20   It's our private company.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection.  Nonresponsive.
22         Move to strike, Your Honor.
23              THE COURT:  Overruled.
24   BY MR. GREEN:
25         Q.   And was that articulated by you to
0223
 1   Mr. Sullenberger?
 2         A.   It was not necessary to explain it.  He
 3   knew it was Gaumur that was participating in this
 4   deal.
 5         Q.   Now, with regard to Gaumur, I'd like you
 6   to take a look at tabs -- if you look at Tab 21 --
 7   Tab 20, first.  Do you have that in front of you,
 8   sir?
 9         A.   Yes.
10         Q.   And could you tell me whose invoice is
11   contained on the second page or reflected on the
12   second page of Tab 20?
13         A.   I do -- I do not know this invoice
14   personally but point out that it's addressed to my
15   son Jon Asgeir.
16         Q.   And was it issued by -- it bears the
17   name Nordica on it, does it not?
18              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection, Your Honor.
19         The witness says he has no knowledge of this
20         invoice.
21              MR. GREEN:  It's in evidence.  He can
22         indicate --
23              THE COURT:  You don't ask him what
24         appears on the face of the document, I
25         believe.  It's a question of publishing a
0224
 1         document or portions of it that's already in
 2         evidence, and it's certainly permissible.
 3         Consequently the motion is denied or
 4         objection overruled, as the case may be.
 5         A.   Nordica, Inc. at the left top corner.
 6         Q.   And Nordica, Inc. is Mr. Sullenberger's
 7   company; is that correct?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9         Q.   And the items that appear on this
10   invoice, many of them relate to the boat, do they
11   not?
12              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection, Your Honor.
13              THE COURT:  Relate to what?
14              MR. GREEN:  The boat.
15              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, all of
16         Mr. Green's questions are leading.
17              THE COURT:  They are particularly so.
18         That's A and B.  The next question you ask,
19         taking the leading quality out of it, is
20         going to be objected to on the grounds that
21         the man says he's not familiar with the
22         content of the document, and he's going to
23         object on that grounds, and I'm going to
24         sustain it.  So go to the third question.
25   
0225
 1   BY MR. GREEN:
 2         Q.   Mr. Jonsson, if you look at what is
 3   listed on the document, on the invoice -- do you
 4   see that, sir?
 5         A.   Yes, I do.
 6         Q.   And the first entry is marina Miami
 7   rent; correct?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9         Q.   And then there's also dock rent, sir.
10   What, if any --
11         A.   Dock rent.
12         Q.   -- of what these charges would relate
13   to?
14         A.   They relate to the boat.
15         Q.   And sir, to what company is this bill
16   addressed to, sir?
17         A.   Gaumur.
18         Q.   And if we went to Tab 21 of Exhibit 1,
19   do you see that, sir?
20         A.   Yes.
21         Q.   And do you see, sir, similar entries
22   relating to the boat on there?
23         A.   Yes.
24         Q.   And who is that addressed to, sir?
25         A.   Gaumur.
0226
 1         Q.   And sir, if we went to Tab 22, to whom,
 2   sir, is that document addressed to?  Who is that
 3   invoice addressed to?
 4         A.   Gaumur.
 5         Q.   Now, if we go to Exhibit Tab 23, sir --
 6   sir, do you recognize this document?
 7         A.   Not in particular.  I can't recall it.
 8         Q.   Okay.  Do you see there, sir, any
 9   charges which in your mind would relate to the
10   boat?
11              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection, Your Honor.
12         Lack of predicate, lack of foundation.
13              THE COURT:  I'm not sure I follow that.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  Well, if I heard
15         correctly, Mr. Green's first question
16         about --
17              THE COURT:  Drew his attention to 23,
18         okay.
19              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.  He asked the witness
20         are you familiar with this document, and if I
21         heard the witness correctly, he said not
22         really.
23              MR. GREEN:  And my next --
24              THE COURT:  I don't --
25              MR. GREEN:  He did say that, Your Honor,
0227
 1         and my next question.
 2              THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  I missed it
 3         again.
 4              MR. GREEN:  And my next question was
 5         simply whether in reviewing the face of the
 6         document whether he sees any types of charges
 7         which he believes or he would recognize as
 8         relating to the boat just by reading the
 9         document.
10              THE COURT:  And Mr. Goodman objected to
11         that, and I'd sustain it.  I hope I'm not
12         missing as much as it seems all of a sudden.
13         Keep reminding me if I am.  I'm awake.  I'm
14         just not here, you know.  I don't know why.
15   BY MR. GREEN:
16         Q.   Sir, on Tab 23, do you see that there is
17   an entry there for dock charges; do you see that,
18   sir?
19         A.   Yeah.
20              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection, Your Honor.
21         Q.   Does Gaumur --
22              THE COURT:  He's entitled to draw his
23         attention to it.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  I may have
25         jumped the gun a nanosecond.
0228
 1              THE COURT:  All right.
 2   BY MR. GREEN:
 3         Q.   Did Gaumur own any other boats with
 4   Mr. Sullenberger or involved with Mr. Sullenberger
 5   that would support an invoice from Nordica?
 6         A.   No.
 7         Q.   Now, sir, if you see that there are --
 8   at the bottom of that document, the last entry
 9   relates to law office; do you see that, sir?
10         A.   (The witness in English)  Yeah.
11         Q.   Do you know what those law office
12   services relate to, sir?
13         A.   No, I do not know.
14         Q.   Now, sir, did there come a time when you
15   found out that you learned that Mr. Sullenberger
16   had put THEE VIKING up for sale?
17              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection, Your Honor.
18         Beyond the scope of the examination.  That
19         question relates to another motion which is,
20         I guess, their motion to reinstate the
21         injunction which is part of a hearing that we
22         have not yet started, and I object.
23              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, this goes
24         directly to the reason for the importance of
25         the lis pendens; that is, we've already
0229
 1         established that -- we believe, Your Honor,
 2         and you will, of course, find one way or the
 3         other.
 4              We have elicited evidence that my client
 5         has contributed a substantial amount of money
 6         to acquisition of these boats or an ownership
 7         interest in these boats.  I am now bringing
 8         out that in fact attempts were made to sell
 9         this boat my without my client's knowledge
10         which would justify the --
11              THE COURT:  I'm going to overrule the
12         objection.  This is not a wide open door.
13              MR. GREEN:  I understand.
14              THE COURT:  Just swing a little bit.
15              MR. GREEN:  Could you repeat the
16         question.
17              (The above-requested portion was read
18         back by the Court Reporter.)
19         A.   Yes, I heard of it last fall.
20         Q.   And had you at any time been contacted
21   or communicated with by Mr. Sullenberger to be
22   informed that the boat was for sale?
23         A.   (The witness in English)  No.
24              (The interpreter)  No.
25         Q.   Are you aware, sir, whether anybody else
0230
 1   in your family was consulted by Mr. Sullenberger
 2   before this boat was put up for sale?
 3         A.   Not to my knowledge.
 4         Q.   Now, sir, we have talked about this
 5   number 1099.  To what bank --
 6              THE COURT:  I'm going to have to live
 7         with that noise because it's hot in here.
 8         Sorry.  It is hot in here.
 9              THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Green, may I ask
10         you to raise your voice a little because it's
11         right going straight into my ears.
12         Q.   The No. 1099 is a number referring to a
13   bank account in Iceland; is that correct?
14         A.   That is -- that is correct, at two
15   banks.
16         Q.   Who are which are those banks, sir?
17         A.   The Reykjavik Savings Bank and
18   IslandsBanki, Ice Bank.
19         Q.   Now, if you just go for a moment to
20   tabs -- Tab 8, sir -- do you have that in front of
21   you, sir?
22         A.   Yes.
23         Q.   And this is a Nordica invoice that is
24   addressed to Bonus, H.F.; correct?
25         A.   Addressed to?
0231
 1         Q.   Bonus, H.F.
 2         A.   Yes.
 3         Q.   Now, if you go to the next page, sir,
 4   could you tell me what that document is, sir?
 5         A.   This is a receipt for the purchase of
 6   foreign currency.
 7         Q.   And that receipt is on whose bank
 8   account?
 9         A.   This is our bank account, the same that
10   we've been using since 1989.
11         Q.   When you say our, which company, sir?
12         A.   Gaumur, Isaldi, or Bonus, S.F.
13              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection, Your Honor.
14         Move to strike.  Lack of specificity.  He
15         said Gaumur or Bonus or Baugur.
16              THE COURT:  I didn't hear the Baugur.
17              MR. GOODMAN:  I'm sorry.  Perhaps I
18         misheard, but he gave a possibility of three
19         different corporations.
20              THE COURT:  I thought there were two.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  Even if he gave a
22         possibility of two, I would still be
23         objecting.
24              THE COURT:  I'm going to overrule it
25         because I don't think it indicated a lack of
0232
 1         information but rather the potential of
 2         follow on of the same bank account number by
 3         two different names.  I don't know whether I
 4         expressed that well enough for you.  That's
 5         the way I understood it anyway.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll follow up on cross,
 7         Your Honor.
 8              THE COURT:  All right.
 9   BY MR. GREEN:
10         Q.   Sir, at what point can you tell me what
11   the full name of --
12              THE INTERPRETER:  Sorry.
13         Q.   At some point can you tell me what the
14   full name of Isaldi was?
15              THE COURT:  Why don't you bring that
16         thing forward.  Mr. Goodman will be able to
17         see you and hear you better.  I hope you
18         didn't eat onions.
19              THE INTERPRETER:  Your Honor, I beg your
20         indulgence.  It's going straight into my
21         ears.
22              THE COURT:  You're doing a fine job.
23         I'm the one having a problem, please.
24              THE INTERPRETER:  Thank you.  Repeat the
25         question, please.
0233
 1   BY MR. GREEN:
 2         Q.   Did Isaldi during its history have more
 3   than one name?
 4         A.   Yes, it was Bonus Isaldi.
 5         Q.   And then it became Isaldi?
 6         A.   (The witness in English)  First Isaldi.
 7              First it was Isaldi, then it became
 8   Bonus Isaldi and then it became Gaumur under the
 9   same national identification number or Social
10   Security number for the entire period with the same
11   bank accounts.
12         Q.   The document that we're looking at at
13   page two of Tab 8 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, that
14   indicates, sir, that this payment, this payment
15   came out of whose bank account, sir?
16         A.   Our Bank Account 1099 at the Reykajavik
17   Savings Bank.
18         Q.   And again, when you say our, you're
19   referring to?
20         A.   Bonus Isaldi or Gaumur.
21         Q.   And if you look at the first page, sir,
22   page -- the first page of Tab 8 refers to
23   $6,674.30; do you see that, sir?
24         A.   6,000 -- sorry, Mr. Green.
25         Q.   $674.30 at the bottom right-hand --
0234
 1         A.   I see it, yes.
 2         Q.   And that's the same amount that appears
 3   at the top of the second page of Tab 8; is that
 4   correct?
 5         A.   That is correct.
 6              MR. GREEN:  May I have a moment, Your
 7         Honor.  I may be done.
 8              THE COURT:  All right.
 9              MR. GREEN:  I have no further questions,
10         Your Honor.
11              For the record, Your Honor, I just want
12         to be clear.
13              THE COURT:  Sure.
14              MR. GREEN:  We are not -- we haven't --
15              THE COURT:  I understand very well.
16         Your participation does not exclude your
17         right to call the same gentleman, the same
18         witness as a witness in your direct
19         presentation.
20              MR. GREEN:  I was thinking in terms if
21         Your Honor should at some point continue the
22         motion to strike, I might have to recall him,
23         but I did not want to do that this morning.
24              THE COURT:  I understand.  I understand.
25         I hope I've made the --
0235
 1                  REDIRECT EXAMINATION
 2   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 3         Q.   Mr. Green questioned you this
 4   afternoon --
 5              THE COURT:  Go ahead.  I thought you
 6         were addressing the witness.
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  No.
 8         Q.   Mr. Green questioned you a little
 9   earlier about your current understanding about the
10   circumstances surrounding the $200,000 check.
11         A.   That is correct.
12         Q.   And you've told us this afternoon that
13   the $200,000 check was in connection with the
14   second boat?
15         A.   Yes, sir.
16         Q.   But earlier this morning or yesterday
17   you testified that that $200,000 was paid in
18   connection with a different boat, didn't you?
19         A.   That is correct, sir.
20         Q.   And so when Mr. Green phrased his
21   question and said your recollection was incorrect,
22   you'll remember, sir, that I questioned you several
23   times and asked you if you were absolutely sure
24   that that $200,000 check was for the second boat.
25   And your testimony was that it was for a different
0236
 1   boat?
 2              MR. GREEN:  I'm going to object.  That's
 3         not my recollection of his testimony.
 4              THE COURT:  Well, it's pretty -- see if
 5         you can just ask him a specific question.
 6         Sustain the objection.
 7              MR. GREEN:  Judge, I'm not bothering you
 8         from being here, am I?
 9   BY MR. GOODMAN:
10         Q.   You've explained, sir, that there's been
11   a progression of corporations, Bonus, Bonus Isaldi,
12   and then into Gaumur?
13              THE COURT:  Actually you've got it
14         wrong.
15         Q.   All right.  Isaldi, Bonus and then
16   Gaumur.  My pronunciation is not very good, but
17   that was the last summary; is that correct?
18         A.   (The witness in English)  Yes.
19              THE COURT:  And I don't believe he said
20         there was a succession of corporations.  I
21         inferred it was largely a change of name,
22         although he did not specifically say either a
23         change of name or a succession of
24         corporations, but the commonalities suggested
25         merely changes.  You may clarify that for all
0237
 1         of us.
 2   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 3         Q.   Sir, Gaumur --
 4         A.   (The witness in English)  Yeah.
 5         Q.   -- is a corporation, isn't it?
 6         A.   That is correct.
 7         Q.   It's a separate corporation?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  Objection to the form of
10         the question.
11              THE COURT:  Overruled.
12         Q.   And Bonus is a corporation; correct?
13         A.   No, Bonus is the name of a chain in
14   Baugur today.
15         Q.   Let me phrase it differently.
16              Bonus used to be a corporation; correct?
17         A.   That is correct.  It was a joint
18   ownership company.
19         Q.   All right.  So Bonus is or was one
20   corporation, Gaumur is a different corporation; am
21   I right so far?
22         A.   Continuation of the other.
23         Q.   Well, sir, when you're talking about a
24   continuation, you would agree that it's simply not
25   a change of name if you have separate corporate
0238
 1   entities; correct?
 2         A.   This is a continuation of the same
 3   company.  This is a development.  The name was
 4   changed.
 5         Q.   I appreciate the fact, sir, that the
 6   name has changed?
 7              THE COURT:  Excuse me.  I think he's
 8         told you that the tax number, whatever they
 9         call it, continued from the inception through
10         the whole thing.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  I heard him say that and
12         we're going to get into that in just a
13         minute, Your Honor.
14              THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  Forgive me.  I
15         didn't mean to --
16              MR. GOODMAN:  That was flagged on my
17         notes but thank you.
18   BY MR. GOODMAN:
19         Q.   But as long as we're talking about that,
20   as long as His Honor suggested it, let's talk about
21   it, sir.  And I want to be clear.
22              Are you telling us that Isaldi, Bonus
23   and Gaumur all have the same federal Icelandic
24   identification number?
25         A.   Yes.
0239
 1         Q.   Take a look at the binder, sir, that
 2   Mr. Green gave to you, the one with the 45 tabs,
 3   and I'd like you, Mr. Jonsson, to turn to Tab 8.
 4   And I want you to look, sir, at page two, right
 5   behind Tab 8.  All right?
 6              Do you see where it says in the lower
 7   right-hand corner Bonus and then underneath it says
 8   KT670892-2479?
 9         A.   Yes.
10         Q.   And also, in the lower right-hand corner
11   of that same box in handwriting that same number
12   appears, 670892-2479?
13         A.   Yes.
14         Q.   That is the Icelandic federal
15   identification number for Bonus; correct?
16         A.   Yes.
17         Q.   Sorry.
18         A.   Yes, sorry.  Yes, sir.
19         Q.   Now, take a look, sir, at Tab No. 10,
20   page two.  Are you with me, sir?
21         A.   Yes.
22         Q.   And there's a box in the lower
23   right-hand corner and it says Isaldi and in the
24   lower right-hand corner of that box is the
25   identification, the Icelandic identification number
0240
 1   for that company and it's 560389-17.  That, sir, is
 2   obviously a different identification number than
 3   the identification number for Bonus in Tab No. 8;
 4   isn't that right, sir?
 5         A.   Yes, I -- I also see that bank account
 6   numbers which -- which are the same.
 7         Q.   Appreciate that extra information, sir,
 8   but we're talking about your testimony that all of
 9   these corporations continued with the same
10   Icelandic identification number.
11              Take a look at Tab 10, page four.
12   There's another reference there to Isaldi and in
13   the box where the identification number there's a
14   number which again, sir, is very, very different
15   than the identification number for Bonus in Tab 8;
16   isn't that right, sir?
17         A.   Yes.  I do not have an explanation for
18   this.
19         Q.   Just a minute, sir.  Bear with me.
20              Take a look, if you would, sir, at
21   Tab 12, page two.  There's a stamp there with Bonus
22   and then there's an identification number
23   underneath, 670392-2479 and then in the right-hand
24   corner written in hand, there's another
25   identification number 500389-1409.
0241
 1         A.   I do not have an explanation for this.
 2              THE COURT:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  That's
 3         exactly the same number appearing in exactly
 4         the same place as the previous document.  In
 5         fact, if you look -- I'm not trying to run
 6         this, but if you look at that document you
 7         showed earlier under Tab 10 where it says
 8         Isaldi, H.F., the number is 560389-1409, and
 9         then the number you most recently referred to
10         in exactly the same spot here with Bonus,
11         it's got exactly the same number,
12         560389-1409.
13              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.
14              THE COURT:  And in both of the instances
15         the number to the left or the numbers that I
16         just referred to consistently are
17         1157-26-1099.  I'm not trying to get involved
18         in your case.  But on the other hand, it's my
19         responsibility to try to understand what's
20         going on because I have to make findings.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  I understand, Your Honor.
22              THE COURT:  And I'm getting a little bit
23         confused here.  That's why I'm putting my
24         finger in here.
25              MR. GOODMAN:  I appreciate that because
0242
 1         candidly I'm confused, too, because it
 2         doesn't make any sense to me either, Your
 3         Honor, because although those two --
 4              THE COURT:  Let me tell you how we can
 5         start.  We can start by having the
 6         interpreter translate the Icelandic language
 7         down here so that may give us a tip as to
 8         what is intended to be placed in the blank.
 9              So could you do that for our benefit,
10         please.
11              THE INTERPRETER:  Yes, Your Honor.
12              THE COURT:  The lower right-hand corner
13         is the word that starts with K-A-U-P-A-N-E-I.
14         Would you read the Icelandic print.
15              THE INTERPRETER:  Are you talking about
16         in the lower right corner of the box?
17              THE COURT:  The whole box.
18              THE INTERPRETER:  Okay.  The whole box,
19         the headline above the box says the buyer of
20         foreign currency, the following line name,
21         the line below there, address, and where the
22         stamp is.
23              THE COURT:  Is that S-T-A-V-U-R?
24              THE INTERPRETER:  No, that's above it.
25         Address and then.
0243
 1              THE COURT:  Address.
 2              THE INTERPRETER:  And that's where the
 3         Bonus stamp is, and then the following box
 4         below S-T-A-V-U-R means venue, and then if
 5         you move to the right, it is telephone and
 6         the --
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  I'm sorry for
 8         interrupting, ma'am --
 9              THE INTERPRETER:  And H is home.  V is
10         work telephone -- I'm sorry, Mr. Goodman.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  I just want the record to
12         be clear.  When you're talking about what a
13         word means, it will be helpful to me anyway
14         if you would just spell the Icelandic word so
15         we know what you're talking about, and I
16         think what you just meant for phone number is
17         S-I-M-I, is that --
18              THE INTERPRETER:  That is correct.
19              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.
20              THE INTERPRETER:  Would you like me to
21         begin again, Your Honor.
22              THE COURT:  No, the last one is
23         O-S-K-A-S-E.
24              THE INTERPRETER:  Request to be
25         withdrawn from account number.  That is the
0244
 1         box on the left.
 2              THE COURT:  All right.
 3              THE INTERPRETER:  And the box on the
 4         right lower side is national identification
 5         number which is the equivalent to your Social
 6         Security number.
 7              THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  That
 8         helps me a great deal.  Now, I don't know
 9         whether it helps you.
10              MR. GOODMAN:  It does help me, Your
11         Honor.
12              THE COURT:  I don't know why we didn't
13         do it earlier.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  I've only been practicing
15         20 years and where you have a little bit of a
16         leg up on me.
17   BY MR. GOODMAN:
18         Q.   So Mr. Jonsson, if you look at Tab 8,
19   the second page, even though it shows account
20   No. 1157 --
21              THE INTERPRETER:  Just a second.
22         Q.   Yes.  Let me wait until you get to that
23   page, sir.
24         A.   Repeat the question.
25         Q.   Sure.
0245
 1              Let's make sure we're all on the same
 2   page, Tab 8, Page 2.
 3         A.   Yes.
 4         Q.   Even though the account number in the
 5   lower left-hand corner says 115726-1099, the
 6   account -- I'm sorry, the national identification
 7   number 670892-2479 is for Bonus; correct?
 8         A.   That is correct.
 9         Q.   And we know that because there's a stamp
10   right above it that says Bonus with the tax
11   identification number preprinted?
12              THE COURT:  Actually, what we have is a
13         complete state of confusion.  Because if
14         you'll look at the same location behind
15         Exhibit 12, they have a different federal
16         identification number for Bonus.
17              MR. GOODMAN:  That's my point.  That
18         is --
19              THE COURT:  I'm not sure what your point
20         is because here you have a different federal
21         identification number for Bonus in two
22         places, and yet at another place Isaldi has
23         the same federal identification number as
24         Bonus.  So somewhere in here there's a
25         mistake of some sort, it would appear.
0246
 1              MR. GOODMAN:  I don't know.  All I know
 2         is these are not my documents and I'm trying
 3         to make sense of them.
 4              THE COURT:  Let me ask you what your is
 5         point here.  What are you trying to prove by
 6         what we have now found and which appears to
 7         be at least at this point irreconcilably a
 8         mistake of some type?
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  What I'm trying to
10         demonstrate, Your Honor, is that the
11         explanation that this witness has provided as
12         to the money being paid from different
13         entities, money first coming from Isaldi,
14         even though his affidavit said it was from
15         Gaumur, and now they're trying to explain
16         well, it's actually an earlier entity or a
17         later entity.
18              THE COURT:  Well, there is consistency
19         with the account number presumably from which
20         the funds were withdrawn.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  I'm not disagreeing with
22         that.  That's right.
23              THE COURT:  Okay.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  And to me, these documents
25         generate some confusion as to the explanation
0247
 1         about the differences between the bank
 2         accounts, the separation of the corporations,
 3         and I'm going to try to ask a couple of
 4         additional questions in the effort to clear
 5         it up.
 6   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 7         Q.   Sir, when you look at this particular
 8   bank account number, 115726-1099, is that a bank
 9   account number that at different times has been
10   used by Gaumur?
11         A.   This is our bank number at -- or account
12   number at two different banks.
13         Q.   Yes, but when you say our, that's where
14   I'm trying to --
15         A.   (The witness in English)  That's Gaumur.
16   That's our family companies.
17              (The interpreter)  It's Gaumur.
18         Q.   All right.  Let me break it down, sir, a
19   question at a time.  That account number at certain
20   times has been used by Gaumur; is that correct?
21         A.   That is correct.
22         Q.   All right.  And at other times that
23   account number has been used by Bonus; is that
24   correct?
25         A.   This is possible when Bonus was a
0248
 1   private enterprise.
 2         Q.   All right, sir.  When Bonus was a
 3   private enterprise, did it use this account number
 4   at the bank?
 5         A.   I don't remember that far back,
 6   actually.  But this is our bank number.
 7         Q.   And at other times, sir, has that bank
 8   account number, 115726-1099, been used by Isaldi?
 9         A.   Yes, to the best of my recollection.
10         Q.   And at other times, sir, has that same
11   account number been used by Baugur?
12         A.   No.
13         Q.   Now, when you were talking about Isaldi,
14   did Isaldi exist as a separate corporation before
15   it became part of Gaumur?
16         A.   That is correct, it did, yes.
17         Q.   All right.  So when you have told us,
18   sir, in your affidavit that payments, for example,
19   for the first boat came from Gaumur, it may well be
20   that the payments actually came from Isaldi; is
21   that right?
22         A.   I don't remember, but it is the same
23   company.  It is paid from the account of this
24   company.
25              THE COURT:  Aren't you glad you don't
0249
 1         have a jury here?
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  Actually, no.  I would
 3         like to have a jury.
 4   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 5         Q.   You were talking when Mr. Green was
 6   questioning you about Tab 19, and if you would turn
 7   to that -- I'm sorry, I misspoke.  I meant -- I
 8   meant Tab 20.  Are you there at Tab 20, sir?
 9         A.   Yes, sir.
10         Q.   I'm looking now in particular at page
11   two.
12              And you will remember that you told
13   Mr. Green that the charge there for the marina
14   Miami rent and the dock rent was in connection with
15   the boat?
16         A.   That is correct.
17         Q.   Well, sir, if we look at some of these
18   other entries such as American Express Corporation,
19   those were not charges concerning the boat.  They
20   were charges for your son's personal credit card,
21   weren't they, sir?
22         A.   I only responded to these two items.
23         Q.   Yes, but now I'm asking you about the
24   other items that you weren't asked about.
25              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, in that case,
0250
 1         I'm going to object because it's beyond the
 2         scope of the cross.
 3              THE COURT:  Sustained.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, may I be given
 5         an opportunity to ask you to reconsider that
 6         ruling?
 7              THE COURT:  Yes.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  I appreciate that.
 9              Mr. Green asked the witness to look at
10         this document and elicited from him by
11         looking at this document his testimony that
12         two of the items on here were in fact
13         boat-related.  I believe I have the right to
14         explore whether or not other items on this
15         very same invoice upon which they are seeking
16         payment are in fact not related to the boat.
17              THE COURT:  Then why don't you ask him,
18         if you don't mind doing it this way, about
19         other items and is that boat-related, if you
20         know.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  That was going to be my
22         question.
23              THE COURT:  Okay.  And then ask him if
24         that is boat-related, if you know.
25              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, we spent most of
0251
 1         the morning doing that.
 2              THE COURT:  We spent a lot of time.  I
 3         see we are not going to get through a lot
 4         today.
 5              MR. GREEN:  We spent a lot of time doing
 6         precisely this.  And Mr. Goodman had all of
 7         these invoices before him.  The only thing I
 8         directed was to the boat-related documents in
 9         an attempt to establish that the money came
10         from Gaumur.  To go and to start now to
11         permit Mr. Goodman to reopen and to cover the
12         same ground again that we spent a lot of time
13         this morning, I think, Your Honor --
14              THE COURT:  Well, we'll do a little of
15         it, Mr. Green.
16              MR. GREEN:  Thank you.
17              THE COURT:  But let me assure you in
18         advance that this is not intended to reopen
19         again the whole concept as to reduce it to on
20         redirect.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  I fully understand, Your
22         Honor.  I specifically noted the particular
23         invoices --
24              THE COURT:  Okay.
25              MR. GOODMAN:  -- that Mr. Green
0252
 1         questioned him about, and I'm not even going
 2         to go into all of those.  I'm going to reduce
 3         the universe of Green documents.
 4              THE COURT:  Well, you know, you can turn
 5         that around and say the things he asked him
 6         about you're not going to ask him about, and
 7         that would almost ipso facto exclude it from
 8         the area not covered on the antecedent
 9         examination.
10   BY MR. GOODMAN:
11         Q.   All right.  Let me just --
12              MR. GREEN:  I like that.
13         Q.   -- try to move forward, and in the
14   interest of saving time, sir, focusing your
15   attention on this very same invoice, Tab 20, page
16   two, there are one, two, three, four, five, six,
17   seven, eight separate charges on that bill.
18              Do you see that, sir?
19         A.   I do.
20         Q.   You told Mr. Green that two of those
21   eight charges were boat-related?
22         A.   Yes, looking at this very quickly at
23   that time, I saw these two items are boat-related,
24   yes.
25         Q.   All right.
0253
 1         A.   But I also pointed out that my son Jon
 2   Asgeir is better in a position to explain this than
 3   I.
 4         Q.   Can you say, sir, whether or not these
 5   other six charges are boat-related?
 6         A.   I have already pointed out that I can
 7   see looking, quickly at this invoice, that two
 8   items are boat-related.  However, I repeat what I
 9   said earlier that my son Jon Asgeir is in a better
10   position to clarify as to whether these items
11   aren't.
12         Q.   In the interest of saving time, which I
13   know we all would be in favor of, every single
14   invoice, sir, that Mr. Green called your attention
15   to, to the extent that you testified that some of
16   the entries were related to the boat, are we to
17   assume that you cannot say either way whether all
18   the other charges on those invoices are
19   boat-related because your son is the one who would
20   know about that?
21              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  The question is
22         somewhat compound.  It's --
23              THE COURT:  It is and I'll allow it
24         because I have a feeling that we're heading
25         toward home.
0254
 1              MR. GREEN:  From your mouth to God's
 2         ears.
 3              THE INTERPRETER:  May the interpreter
 4         repeat the question.
 5              MR. GOODMAN:  You can do whatever you
 6         believe is appropriate to help us move along.
 7              THE INTERPRETER:  Okay, sir.
 8         A.   In answer to your question as to whether
 9   the witness' son may be in a better position to
10   answer the question, yes, I expect so.
11   BY MR. GOODMAN:
12         Q.   You told Mr. Green that you heard that
13   Mr. Sullenberger was going to put the vessel THEE
14   VIKING up for sale.  You first heard about that,
15   sir, in June of 2002, didn't you?
16         A.   (The witness in English)  No, I said
17   November.
18              (The interpreter)  I said in November.
19         Q.   You heard in November, sir?
20         A.   Yes.
21         Q.   Have you ever seen any documents, sir,
22   showing that Mr. Sullenberger intended to sell the
23   boat before that?
24         A.   Not that I remember.
25         Q.   Are you aware, sir, that Mr. Tryggvi
0255
 1   Jonsson, the chief financial officer of Baugur,
 2   sent a memorandum to Mr. Sullenberger in June of
 3   2002 pointing out that he knew the vessel was for
 4   sale in June of 2002?
 5         A.   I do not remember this.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  Excuse me just a moment.
 7   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 8         Q.   Turn to my binder, sir, your affidavit,
 9   sir, page three, numbered Paragraph 13, sir.
10              In or around September 2002, Gaumur
11   learned that New Viking's sole asset, THEE VIKING,
12   has been placed for sale; do you see that, sir?
13         A.   Yes, I do.  I made a mistake in terms of
14   the month, which month it was.
15         Q.   All right, sir.  So are we clear that
16   the earliest that you knew was September, not
17   November?
18         A.   (The witness in English)  Yes.
19              (The interpreter)  Yes, sir.
20         Q.   All right.  And so you knew in
21   September, you knew in October, you knew in
22   November, but it wasn't until late November or
23   mid-November that you decided to seek an
24   injunction; is that right?
25         A.   Yes, that is correct.
0256
 1         Q.   Did you speak to Mr. Sullenberger, sir,
 2   about his so-called intent to sell the vessel THEE
 3   VIKING before your company filed this lawsuit and
 4   sought an exparte temporary injunction?
 5              THE INTERPRETER:  I'm sorry.  I got
 6         lost.  The interpreter apologizes.  Would you
 7         repeat the question.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.  Lance, if you would
 9         help us out, please.
10              (The above-requested portion was read
11         back by the Court Reporter.)
12         A.   No.
13   BY MR. GOODMAN:
14         Q.   Then, in that case, sir, take a look at
15   numbered Paragraph 15 of your affidavit.  It is my
16   understanding and belief that Sullenberger intends
17   to use the proceeds from the sale of THEE VIKING to
18   pay off the debts of Nordica, Inc., an unrelated
19   export company controlled by Sullenberger.
20              Where, sir, did you get the information
21   to support your understanding that Mr. Sullenberger
22   was going to keep the proceeds of the sale of the
23   boat for his own company, Nordica?
24         A.   It was because, sir, we had learned that
25   Mr. Sullenberger owed a great deal of money both to
0257
 1   Wal-Mart and another company whose name I cannot
 2   recall at the moment.
 3              THE COURT:  I'll let the question stand,
 4         but you got the answer.  You've gone past the
 5         scope of the antecedent examination.  I'm
 6         starting to say it when you asked the
 7         question and let you get the answer.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  All right, Your Honor.
 9         Then at that point we have no further
10         questions of Mr. Jonsson.
11              THE COURT:  All right.  And you have no
12         further.
13              MR. GREEN:  May I have a moment, Your
14         Honor.  I just need a moment to confer on a
15         fine point.
16              I have no further questions, Your Honor.
17              THE COURT:  All right.  The witness may
18         step down.  Thank you.
19              (The witness was excused.)
20              THE INTERPRETER:  Is the witness
21         expected to take these binders?
22              MR. GREEN:  No -- I'm sorry.  That's
23         your province.
24              THE COURT:  Would you like to take a
25         brief recess before you start your next
0258
 1         witness?
 2              MR. GOODMAN:  Sure.
 3              THE COURT:  All right.
 4              (A break was taken.)
 5              THE COURT:  All right.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  Jon Johannesson.
 7              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, at the beginning
 8         of these proceedings you had invoked the
 9         rule.  As much as Mr. Jonsson has already
10         testified, would it be possible that he could
11         remain in court to observe the rest of the
12         proceedings?
13              MR. GOODMAN:  I didn't hear that, Your
14         Honor.  I'm sorry.
15              MR. GREEN:  I was requesting that
16         inasmuch as Mr. Jonsson has already
17         testified, I would request that he be
18         permitted to watch the rest of the
19         proceedings.  I don't think he's going to be
20         recalled today and the -- his testimony is
21         already a matter of record.
22              MR. GOODMAN:  If you intend to call,
23         sir, Mr. Jonsson again as a witness, then I
24         would ask that the witness sequestration rule
25         be applied.  I don't want him in here hearing
0259
 1         what his son has to say before he testifies
 2         again.
 3              THE COURT:  You mean in connection with
 4         this particular motion?
 5              MR. GOODMAN:  That's right.
 6              MR. GREEN:  In connection with this
 7         particular motion, Your Honor, I have
 8         absolutely no intention of calling
 9         Mr. Jonsson again.
10              THE COURT:  Well, in an abundance of
11         care and caution, I'm going to allow the rule
12         to remain invoked rather than trying to make
13         exemptions to it.
14              COURT CLERK:  Mr. Johannesson, will you
15         raise your right hand.
16   Thereupon--
17                 JON ASGEIR JOHANNESSON
18   was called as a witness and, after having been
19   first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
20   follows:
21                        - - - - -
22              THE INTERPRETER:  Your Honor, if I might
23         before we proceed, Mr. Johannesson.  I will
24         not be interpreting the questions for
25         Mr. Johannesson.  However, he wishes to
0260
 1         respond in Icelandic.  Does that --
 2              THE COURT:  That doesn't make any sense
 3         at all.  Who would that help besides him
 4         hearing his own voice?
 5              THE INTERPRETER:  What I mean is that
 6         Mr. Johannesson wishes to hear the questions
 7         in English instead of me going on and
 8         interpreting to him, as his understanding of
 9         English is significantly better than that of
10         his father so as not to --
11              THE COURT:  Is the bottom line -- no
12         offense to anybody intended that he does not
13         require an interpreter.
14              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, if I may be
15         heard on this.
16              THE COURT:  Yeah.
17              MR. GREEN:  This goes against my client.
18         I would strongly suggest that the entire
19         proceedings be through the interpreter.  I
20         know Mr. Johannesson's English.  It is
21         serviceable.  It is certainly better than my
22         Icelandic and my French, but I don't think
23         that it is of the caliber that would serve
24         him in terms of responding to questions.
25              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, having an
0261
 1         interpreter in effect more than doubles the
 2         length of any examination.  And this witness
 3         in fact can understand and speak English, as
 4         I think he's indicated by saying he'll answer
 5         the questions in English.
 6              THE INTERPRETER:  In Icelandic.
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  I mean he will hear the
 8         questions in English, unless this witness is
 9         prepared to testify that he in fact does not
10         speak English well enough.  I think it makes
11         more sense to just move on but it's --
12         it's --
13              THE COURT:  I'm not going to change this
14         thing around.  If he wants to handle the
15         whole thing in English, questions and
16         answers, with the opportunity to turn to the
17         interpreter if there is a word or a phrase
18         that he needs a clarification upon, I'll do
19         that.  Short of that, we're going to proceed
20         through the interpreter.
21              THE WITNESS:  Full interpretation
22         required, sir.
23              THE COURT:  Good, fine.
24   
25   
0262
 1                   DIRECT EXAMINATION
 2   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 3         Q.   Sir, are you an executive of Gaumur?
 4              THE COURT:  Let's --
 5              COURT CLERK:  I did.
 6              THE COURT:  All right.  Then let's get
 7         his name.
 8   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 9         Q.   Yes.  Tell us your full name, sir.
10         A.   For the record, Jon Asgeir Johannesson
11   spelled J-O-N, space, A-S-G-E-I-R, space,
12   J-O-H-A-N-N-E-S-S-O-N.
13         Q.   Are you an executive, sir, with Gaumur?
14         A.   I'm on the board of directors.
15         Q.   And are you an executive with Baugur?
16         A.   I'm the chief executive officer of
17   Baugur.
18              THE COURT:  We have what.
19              THE INTERPRETER:  Chief executive
20         officer.
21              THE COURT:  Of what company?
22              THE INTERPRETER:  Of Baugur,
23         B-A-U-G-U-R.
24              THE COURT:  Thank you.  Thank you very
25         much.
0263
 1              THE INTERPRETER:  You're welcome, sir.
 2   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 3         Q.   And were you also an executive with
 4   Bonus?
 5         A.   Yes.
 6         Q.   Now, let me see, sir, if you could help
 7   us clear up some potential confusion.  Is there a
 8   difference between Bonus, Bonus Isaldi, Bonus,
 9   S.F., and Bonus, H.F.?
10         A.   Yes.
11         Q.   Tell us about that, sir.
12         A.   Bonus and Bonus Isaldi is one in the
13   same enterprise and Bonus, S.F. is a joint
14   partnership of Isaldi.  It's -- it's not an
15   independent taxpayer as an entity.  In terms of the
16   authorities, it is the responsibility of Isaldi.
17         Q.   Sir, you have issued a statement in both
18   English and Icelandic on the Baugur web page
19   stating that Baugur had nothing to do with these
20   three boats; isn't that right?
21         A.   That is correct.
22         Q.   You have issued that statement on the
23   web page?
24         A.   Yes, on Baugur's web page.
25         Q.   That's not true, is it, sir?
0264
 1         A.   That is correct, what I stated.
 2         Q.   The claim here, sir, that
 3   Mr. Sullenberger promised to issue shares of stock
 4   in New Viking to Gaumur, that's not true, is it,
 5   sir?
 6         A.   It is correct.
 7         Q.   Did Mr. Sullenberger make that promise
 8   to you, sir?
 9         A.   Yes.
10         Q.   Isn't it true, sir, that whatever
11   discussions were had concerning the issuance of
12   shares were concerning a transfer to your family's
13   Bahamas corporation called Miramar?
14         A.   No.
15         Q.   You went to the Bahamas with
16   Mr. Sullenberger and your father and Tryggvi
17   Jonsson in order to obtain control of Miramar,
18   didn't you, sir?
19         A.   Yes.
20         Q.   And Tryggvi Jonsson during the year 2000
21   and 1999 and 2001 was an executive with Baugur, was
22   he not?
23         A.   Yes.
24         Q.   Mr. Jonsson was involved in business
25   activities on behalf of Baugur; correct?
0265
 1         A.   That is correct.
 2         Q.   And Mr. Tryggvi Jonsson had discussions
 3   and sent e-mails and received e-mails from
 4   Mr. Sullenberger on your behalf concerning these
 5   boats; isn't that right?
 6              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  It's a complex,
 7         compound question.
 8              THE COURT:  Overruled.  If you can
 9         understand it, then answer it.
10              THE WITNESS:  Can you repeat?
11              THE INTERPRETER:  Would you repeat the
12         question.
13   BY MR. GOODMAN:
14         Q.   Sure.
15              Didn't Tryggvi Jonsson send and receive
16   e-mails to Jon Sullenberger on your behalf and your
17   father's behalf concerning these boats?
18         A.   Are you talking about the first, second
19   or all of the boats?
20         Q.   Any of the boats, sir.
21         A.   It's -- it is possible that there was
22   some communication.  He was our certified
23   accountant at the time.  I can't really assert with
24   any certainty.
25         Q.   You're aware, sir, that Tryggvi Jonsson
0266
 1   on your behalf and your father's behalf instructed
 2   Mr. Sullenberger to issue shares of stock in New
 3   Viking to Miramar, aren't you, sir?
 4         A.   No.
 5         Q.   Have no idea about that at all; right?
 6         A.   Miramar was not used at all.  So this is
 7   incorrect.
 8         Q.   Regardless of whether Miramar was used
 9   or not, sir, my question is isn't it true that
10   Tryggvi Jonsson on your behalf and your father's
11   behalf directed Mr. Sullenberger to issue shares of
12   stock in New Viking to Miramar?
13         A.   This is not correct.
14         Q.   Let me show you what I'm going to ask
15   the court to mark for identification purposes as
16   Defendants' Exhibit E.
17              THE COURT:  It's already been marked for
18         ID already, hasn't it?
19              MR. GREEN:  I believe so, Your Honor.
20              THE COURT:  This four-page document.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.
22              THE COURT:  I thought it had already
23         been marked.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  It may well have been, but
25         I have an extra copy here.  If it has already
0267
 1         been marked --
 2              COURT CLERK:  B for ID.
 3              MR. GOODMAN:  B for boy as for ID.
 4              THE COURT:  First of all, do you want to
 5         reverse the order of the pages?
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  You're absolutely right,
 7         Your Honor.
 8   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 9         Q.   Do you have the court version marked for
10   identification?  Thank you.
11              Sir, take a look here, copy of what's
12   been marked for ID as Exhibit B.  The first two
13   pages, sir, are in Icelandic and then the next two
14   pages is the English translation translated in fact
15   by the woman we have here with us today in court.
16              Now, you've seen this before, haven't
17   you, sir?
18         A.   This document has been brought to my
19   attention before, yes.
20         Q.   And when was the first time you saw this
21   document, sir?
22         A.   During questioning by the Reykjavik
23   Police.
24         Q.   And when was that, sir?
25         A.   In August 2002, presented by Jon
0268
 1   Sullenberger.
 2         Q.   Well, you weren't being questioned by
 3   Mr. Sullenberger, were you?
 4         A.   No, I wasn't.
 5         Q.   All right.  And you'll see here on the
 6   first page there's some handwriting --
 7              THE COURT:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  We don't
 8         have it in evidence yet.
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  I would
10         introduce Defendants' Exhibit B.
11              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, there's no
12         foundation for this document to come in
13         through this witness.  All he's testified to
14         is that it was brought to his attention by
15         somebody in Reykjavik in August of 2002.  We
16         have no evidence here, no foundation evidence
17         as to who prepared it, where it came from and
18         there's no basis.
19              THE COURT:  Is it correct?
20              MR. GOODMAN:  It is.
21              THE COURT:  The objection is sustained.
22              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Then in that
23         case when we're done here, I'll just, if I
24         can with the Court's permission, reserve the
25         ability to recall this witness after
0269
 1         Mr. Sullenberger authenticates this document.
 2              THE COURT:  I don't normally do that,
 3         but we'll address that issue, if you want, at
 4         a later time.
 5              MR. GOODMAN:  Your Honor, let me ask
 6         this question.  Without going into the
 7         contents of the document, I'd like to ask
 8         this witness if he simply can identify the
 9         handwriting in numbered Paragraph 4.
10              THE COURT:  I see nothing wrong with
11         that.
12              Mr. Green.
13              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, I have no
14         objection to that, that inquiry.
15              THE COURT:  All right.
16   BY MR. GOODMAN:
17         Q.   Do you recognize the handwriting, sir,
18   on the first page in numbered Paragraph 4?
19         A.   I do not.
20         Q.   Can you tell us one way or the other
21   whether or not that is the handwriting of Tryggvi
22   Jonsson?
23              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.
24              THE COURT:  Sustained.  He's answered
25         your question.
0270
 1              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Let me
 2         retrieve this exhibit, Your Honor.
 3   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 4         Q.   As far as you know, sir, has Tryggvi
 5   Jonsson ever had discussions with Mr. Sullenberger
 6   about the boats on your behalf and on your father's
 7   behalf without your permission?
 8              MR. GREEN:  Objection as compound.
 9         A.   How can I know?
10              THE COURT:  It is compound.  I'm going
11         to require you to restate that because it
12         requires a preliminary question be answered
13         before you reach the second part of the
14         question.  Have you ever had discussions with
15         so and so --
16              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.
17              THE COURT:  -- and then on --
18   BY MR. GOODMAN:
19         Q.   Do you know, sir, whether Tryggvi
20   Jonsson has had discussions with Mr. Sullenberger
21   on your behalf --
22              THE COURT:  All right.
23         Q.   -- about the boat?
24              THE COURT:  Right.
25         A.   About what regarding the boat?
0271
 1         Q.   Anything about the boat, sir.
 2         A.   Possibly.
 3         Q.   Do you know whether Tryggvi Jonsson has
 4   sent e-mails to Mr. Sullenberger on your behalf
 5   about any of these three boats?
 6              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  Wasn't that
 7         asked and answered, I thought?
 8              THE COURT:  Overruled.
 9         A.   I think he may have sent the -- some
10   e-mails to Sullenberger -- Mr. Sullenberger, but I
11   think also that he was primarily assisting
12   Sullenberger out of -- to work out his problems
13   rather than acting on our behalf.
14         Q.   Are you aware, sir, of Mr. Jonsson
15   having discussions with Mr. Sullenberger about the
16   boats, acting outside of his scope or
17   responsibility for your father or for you?
18              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.
19              THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain the
20         objection.
21   BY MR. GOODMAN:
22         Q.   You have sent e-mails to
23   Mr. Sullenberger about the boats, haven't you, sir?
24         A.   Some e-mails.
25         Q.   And you've received e-mails from
0272
 1   Mr. Sullenberger about these boats?
 2         A.   Yes, sir, I have.
 3         Q.   And when you sent these e-mails to
 4   Mr. Sullenberger about the boats, those e-mails
 5   were sent from Baugur, weren't they?
 6         A.   Of course, considering that my work
 7   venue or work is Baugur.
 8         Q.   They were sent from your web page
 9   internet address at Baugur, weren't they, sir?
10         A.   Of course.  This is my workplace.
11         Q.   Now, isn't it also true, sir, that
12   Tryggvi Jonsson provided instructions to
13   Mr. Sullenberger on your behalf about how the
14   invoices for the boats should be phrased?
15         A.   No, that is not correct.
16         Q.   Isn't true, sir, that you told Tryggvi
17   Jonsson to tell Mr. Sullenberger to create phony,
18   false invoices so that boat expenses would be paid
19   by a public corporation?
20         A.   This is not correct.
21         Q.   Isn't it true, sir, that Mr. Jonsson on
22   your behalf authorized the payment of invoices for
23   expenses other than expenses for the boat?
24              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, at this time I'd
25         object.  We've gone far beyond the field.
0273
 1         Now we're talking about expenses unrelated to
 2         the boat.  He's inquiring into an area which
 3         is under investigation in Iceland and is
 4         irrelevant to any issue before the court.
 5              THE COURT:  Well, I'll allow it very
 6         briefly, Mr. Green, because of the various
 7         and sundry items that have appeared in some
 8         of the documents among the purported 106
 9         documents that the previous witness basically
10         referred off to this witness.
11   BY MR. GOODMAN:
12         Q.   Sir.
13         A.   (The witness in English)  Repeat.
14              (The interpreter)  Would you kindly
15   repeat the question, sir.
16         Q.   Isn't it true that Tryggvi Jonsson on
17   your behalf and on your father's behalf told
18   Mr. Sullenberger to create phony invoices with
19   incorrect descriptions so that those expenses could
20   be paid by a public corporation?
21              THE COURT:  Let me -- before he answers
22         the question, let me make sure that you
23         understand my ruling on Mr. Green's objection
24         so -- because you may have said this earlier
25         and I missed it.  I missed a lot.
0274
 1              But you threw in here on your behalf and
 2         on your father's behalf.  Now, if you want to
 3         ask him on his behalf, then the question, as
 4         far as I'm concerned, is okay.  But I would
 5         exclude the matter and on somebody else's
 6         behalf.
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  Let me rephrase it.
 8              THE COURT:  Please.
 9   BY MR. GOODMAN:
10         Q.   Mr. Johannesson, isn't it true that
11   Tryggvi Jonsson on your behalf instructed
12   Mr. Sullenberger to prepare invoices with false
13   descriptions so that those expenses could be paid
14   by a public corporation?
15         A.   Which expenses are you referring to,
16   sir?  Are you regarding the boat?
17         Q.   Are you unable to answer the question
18   yes or no, sir?
19         A.   Are you -- I'm asking you, sir, are you
20   referring to expenses pertaining to the boat or
21   not.  I didn't realize that I was testifying in a
22   hearing regarding invoices sent to Baugur, and this
23   case has nothing to do with that.
24         Q.   Well, sir, are you aware that some of
25   the 106 pages that your company submitted in this
0275
 1   case are invoices sent to Baugur?
 2         A.   If you know about business accounts --
 3   if you know about business accounts -- if an
 4   invoice has been paid which belongs to Gaumur paid
 5   by Baugur, it would have gone into Gaumur's
 6   business account and then paid by Gaumur.
 7         Q.   I appreciate that brief lesson in
 8   business accounting, sir.
 9              My question, however, is this:  Isn't it
10   true, sir, that Tryggvi Jonsson on your behalf
11   instructed Mr. Sullenberger to submit invoices with
12   false descriptions?  Yes or no, and then you may
13   explain.
14         A.   No.
15         Q.   Never?  Never?
16         A.   Regarding the boat or any false
17   information, my answer is no.
18         Q.   Well, did Mr. Tryggvi Jonsson instruct
19   Mr. Sullenberger to prepare invoices with false
20   descriptions concerning other items, part of the
21   106 pages?
22              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, again, we're
23         getting far afield from what was -- what is
24         at issue here.  We're talking about a lis
25         pendens.
0276
 1              THE COURT:  That is exactly what I was
 2         going to say, Mr. Goodman.  We're here on the
 3         motion to dissolve a lis pendens, and I'm
 4         supposed to be looking for a fair nexus,
 5         whatever that is.  I take it to be something
 6         like an obscenity.  You can't really tell
 7         what it is but you normally can see it.  I
 8         haven't been able to find a particularized
 9         definition for fair nexus, but I do think
10         this gets, however interesting it may be,
11         away from the issues that I'm confronting on
12         this motion.
13              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Then let me
14         get to the issue of the other ground for the
15         notice of claim, Your Honor, and the lis
16         pendens, namely, the claim that
17         Mr. Sullenberger was supposed to issue shares
18         of New Viking to Gaumur.  That's the subject
19         matter of my next question, sir.
20   BY MR. GOODMAN:
21         Q.   Isn't it true, Mr. Johannesson, that
22   Tryggvi Jonsson on your behalf prepared a
23   memorandum which he sent to Mr. Sullenberger in
24   which there was a specific agreement to pay off the
25   debt on the boat and to pay Mr. Sullenberger
0277
 1   additional money above and beyond the loan to the
 2   bank?
 3         A.   Which agreement are you referring to,
 4   sir?
 5         Q.   Was there more than one, sir?
 6         A.   You mentioned the phrase a term
 7   agreement.  I would like to see that agreement.
 8         Q.   Well, I'm going to show you that
 9   agreement in just a minute, sir, but before I do,
10   I'd like to find out whether you're aware of the
11   agreement.  Was there such an agreement?
12         A.   A written agreement, no.
13         Q.   Was there a memorandum, sir, that
14   Tryggvi Jonsson sent to Mr. Sullenberger on your
15   behalf in which there was an agreement to pay off
16   the lien on the boat and give Mr. Sullenberger
17   additional money, yes or no?
18         A.   No.
19         Q.   Did Mr. Tryggvi Jonsson ever, sir, on
20   your behalf send Mr. Sullenberger a memorandum
21   concerning a settlement as to how the boat and the
22   proceeds from a sale of a boat were to be
23   distributed?
24         A.   If -- if this were the case,
25   Mr. Goodman, the memorandum would have been cc'd to
0278
 1   me, and I do not recall there having been such a
 2   document.
 3              MR. GOODMAN:  May I have just a moment,
 4         Your Honor.
 5              I'm going to show you what I will ask
 6         the court to mark for identification purposes
 7         as Defendants' Exhibit E.
 8              THE COURT:  E for ID.
 9              MR. GREEN:  Counsel, what document is
10         this?
11              MR. GOODMAN:  This was produced to you,
12         I believe, on Saturday as part of the
13         supplemental production.
14              MR. GREEN:  Is there a Bates stamp
15         number or something?
16              MR. GOODMAN:  There is.
17              MR. GREEN:  May I have it?
18              MR. GOODMAN:  Pam, do you know offhand
19         what that is in the supplemental production?
20         It's in the box on the floor there in the
21         folder called Supplemental Production.
22              MS. LEVINSON:  Can I see the document?
23         Okay.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  May 13th.
25              If you give me just a minute, Mr. Green,
0279
 1         I should have that Bates number for you
 2         shortly.
 3              MR. GREEN:  Okay.  Thank you.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  It begins, sir, JS011 --
 5         yes, JS01121, sir, and then on from there.
 6              MR. GREEN:  Thank you.
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  Sure.
 8   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 9         Q.   Sir, I'd like you to take a moment or
10   two to look at this e-mail, both the Icelandic
11   version of it and then the English translation.
12              MR. GREEN:  Counsel, what is this?
13         A.   I have seen this.  This was presented as
14   an investigative document.
15              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, may I -- before
16         we do.  I haven't seen the -- the -- the
17         mistranslation was not produced as part of
18         what was in my packet, and maybe you have a
19         number designation that would be --
20              MR. GOODMAN:  Well, I know for sure
21         that -- well, I can't say for sure.  I
22         believe it was also provided to you many,
23         many weeks ago as an exhibit to one of our
24         memorandums.
25   
0280
 1   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 2         Q.   This particular e-mail, sir, the first
 3   one --
 4              THE COURT:  Let's hold it a second and
 5         see if counsel can reconcile his problem.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.
 7              THE INTERPRETER:  Your Honor, would it
 8         be permissible to turn on the air-conditioner
 9         again.
10              THE COURT:  Certainly.  We will just
11         turn it on and off as often as we have to.
12              A little air, please.
13              MR. GREEN:  Counsel, I have a document
14         which you produced as JS00132 through 139.
15         Is that the translation?  Maybe if you could
16         just show me what it is.  It may be the same
17         thing.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  Sure.  Yes, it is.  Yes.
19              MR. GREEN:  Then I have it, Your Honor.
20              THE COURT:  All right.  Fine.  So it's
21         been marked for identification.
22              MR. GOODMAN:  And only identification?
23              THE COURT:  Correct.
24              MR. GREEN:  For the record, is the
25         translation a part of the exhibit?
0281
 1              THE COURT:  Yes, it is.  There is a
 2         translation.
 3   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 4         Q.   Now, Mr. Johannesson, the e-mail dated
 5   May 13th, 2002 from Tryggvi Jonsson at
 6   tryggvi@baugur.is to Mr. Sullenberger; have you
 7   seen that before today, sir?
 8         A.   As I touched on earlier, this was a part
 9   of the documents, investigative documents.
10         Q.   That you were questioned about by the
11   Icelandic Police?
12         A.   That is correct.
13         Q.   In addition to being questioned about
14   this e-mail by the Icelandic Police, have you
15   discussed its contents with Tryggvi Jonsson?
16         A.   Yes, I have, and he does not recognize
17   its contents.
18         Q.   Are you familiar with this e-mail, sir,
19   before it was shown to you by the Icelandic Police?
20         A.   No.
21         Q.   Did you ever agree that --
22              THE COURT:  We're not going to go into
23         the content of the documents.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  Regardless of whether it's
25         in this document, I'm simply asking him
0282
 1         otherwise --
 2              THE COURT:  Apart from the document.
 3              MR. GOODMAN:  Yes, and we can set the
 4         document aside.  I'm not seeking to introduce
 5         it at this time, Your Honor.
 6              THE COURT:  All right.
 7   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 8         Q.   Mr. Johannesson, did you ever agree with
 9   Mr. Sullenberger to have the lien on THEE VIKING
10   paid off by either Gaumur or Baugur or Bonus, pay
11   Mr. Sullenberger 350,000 --
12              THE INTERPRETER:  Sorry.  Did you say
13         315 or 350.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  $350,000.
15         Q.   -- in order --
16         A.   Is it in these documents?
17         Q.   I don't know if the judge wants --
18              THE COURT:  Tell the witness that you're
19         not reading something from the document.  If
20         you -- if it avoids confusion to you, just
21         put it down.
22   BY MR. GOODMAN:
23         Q.   All right.  Setting aside what may or
24   may not be in any document, sir, I'm simply asking
25   you as a factual matter, did you ever agree with
0283
 1   Mr. Sullenberger to pay off the loan on THEE
 2   VIKING, pay him an additional 350,000 in order to
 3   reach an understanding between Mr. Sullenberger and
 4   you and your father?
 5         A.   I would -- I would like clarification.
 6   Are you -- are you asserting, in other words, that
 7   we have offered to pay the 670,000 on the boat,
 8   plus 130,000 as well as.
 9              (The witness in English)  Plus what we
10   have put forward.
11              (The interpreter)  Plus what we have
12   advanced.  If that is your question, the answer is
13   no.
14              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, it also strikes
15         me that we are getting into now what -- what
16         appears to be, and although I have no
17         knowledge of this, some kind of settlement
18         discussions which would not be admissible
19         recorded anywhere.
20              THE COURT:  I agree.
21              MR. GOODMAN:  Well, Your Honor, if I may
22         just have an opportunity to visit that issue.
23              THE COURT:  Yes.
24              MR. GOODMAN:  As I understand the rule
25         of evidence, settlement --
0284
 1              THE COURT:  This requires us to discuss
 2         the matter outside the presence of the
 3         participant.
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  Let's just move on to a
 5         different area.
 6              THE COURT:  All right.
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  I believe I have an answer
 8         from the witness already.  And if necessary,
 9         we can address it at some other time.
10              THE COURT:  That would be probably a
11         good idea.  I think Mr. Green's suggestion
12         may have merit.  It would be getting into a
13         sensitive area, at least one we ought to
14         discuss whether or not to go into before we
15         do go into it.
16              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Then let me
17         retrieve from you, sir, this exhibit that
18         we've marked for identification, and you
19         still have the one that's been marked for ID.
20              THE COURT:  Yes, sir.
21   BY MR. GOODMAN:
22         Q.   Mr. Johannesson, some of the invoices
23   that have been submitted by Gaumur, you would
24   agree, concern payment for expenses which have
25   absolutely nothing to do with any of the three
0285
 1   boats; isn't that right?
 2         A.   That is correct.
 3         Q.   And nevertheless, those nonboat-related
 4   payments form a part of the amount of money which
 5   you are claiming here in this case; isn't that
 6   right?
 7              THE COURT:  Now, you know, you said
 8         submitted by Gaumur.  Didn't you say
 9         submitted to Gaumur?
10              MR. GOODMAN:  No, no, I said submitted
11         by Gaumur as pleadings and exhibits in this
12         case.
13              THE COURT:  Okay.  Then ask it in this
14         case.
15   BY MR. GOODMAN:
16         Q.   Yes, in this case.
17         A.   As I said before, I had -- I went over
18   these invoices yesterday.  I haven't seen them for
19   quite a long time.  And obviously there were
20   expenses that had nothing to do with the boats.
21         Q.   Right.
22              For example, there might be expenses
23   which were paid relating to your motorcycle?
24         A.   Yes.
25         Q.   Might be expenses relating to the
0286
 1   renting of a limousine?
 2         A.   Yes.
 3         Q.   Might be payment of your cellular
 4   telephone calls?
 5         A.   Yes.
 6         Q.   Payment of your hotel and restaurant
 7   bills?
 8         A.   Yes.
 9         Q.   And these -- go ahead.
10         A.   The principal here, as I see it, are
11   $340,000 --
12              THE COURT:  Excuse me.  There's no
13         question outstanding.
14         Q.   Sir, wouldn't you agree with me that
15   those items which we've just discussed which are
16   not relating to the boat such as, for example,
17   renting a limousine, your motorcycle, your credit
18   cards, your cellphone, those should not be part of
19   the amount of the claim that Gaumur is making in
20   this case; isn't that right?
21         A.   (The witness in English)  Correct.
22              (The interpreter)  That is correct.
23         Q.   But it is in fact the part of the amount
24   of money that you're seeking in this case, isn't
25   it, sir?
0287
 1              MR. GREEN:  Object.
 2              THE COURT:  Grounds?
 3              MR. GREEN:  Grounds, it actually
 4         comments on issues that are outside the
 5         issues presented.  And if I could have either
 6         a sidebar or an out-of-court --
 7              (The following occurred at sidebar:)
 8              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, the fact of the
 9         matter is there has been no evidence
10         elicited --
11              COURT CLERK:  But don't talk to your
12         dad.
13              THE COURT:  That's right.
14              (The witness and interpreter exited the
15         courtroom.)
16              MR. GREEN:  There is no evidence that
17         indeed Gaumur is seeking reimbursement for
18         every one of the expenses on those invoices.
19         Indeed --
20              THE COURT:  Mr. Goodman, that's the way
21         I understood it.  Because you've made the
22         inquiries of the preceding witness and
23         disavowed that they were trying to collect a
24         lot of things.  I think unintendedly your
25         question suggested that they were trying to
0288
 1         recover every item that appeared on every
 2         invoice, and I don't think you intended to
 3         carry them down that primrose path, but
 4         that's --
 5              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, one of the
 6         issues or one of the things that one would
 7         see on that summary is that the amount -- if
 8         you add up all the invoices of greater than
 9         the amount that we are seeking --
10              THE COURT:  Well, we don't have the
11         summaries.
12              MR. GREEN:  What I'm saying is there is
13         no evidence that we are in fact making that
14         claim.
15              THE COURT:  Well, you see you're
16         interested in the point.
17              MR. GOODMAN:  I do, and may I have the
18         opportunity to respond?
19              THE COURT:  Yes, indeed.
20              MR. GOODMAN:  I do my best --
21              THE COURT:  You do a marvelous job.
22              MR. GOODMAN:  -- to have a good faith
23         basis to ask any question.
24              So here's my good faith basis for asking
25         that question.  Despite what Mr. Green just
0289
 1         told you, he may not realize it but his
 2         client is in fact seeking large amounts of
 3         reimbursement for matters that have
 4         absolutely nothing to do with the boat.  And
 5         you know how I know that, Your Honor, is
 6         because when they gave us the binder and they
 7         had their summary sheet on it, one went
 8         through on the lunch break on an item by
 9         item, invoice by invoice basis and they did
10         not -- contrary to what Mr. Jonsson said
11         where he thought they might have reduced it
12         or eliminated or discounted it, they did not
13         do that.
14              So I suggest to you that Mr. Green,
15         although he probably didn't mean to make a
16         misstatement, they are in fact seeking
17         reimbursement for all of the amounts of money
18         or almost all of the amounts on the invoices.
19         And just by way of example --
20              THE COURT:  Well, that can't be true
21         because first of all, you went through with
22         the preceding witness a certain list of items
23         which appeared on the invoice, and he said no
24         we're not claiming that, that was excluded or
25         should have been excluded.  And now you've
0290
 1         just gone over a series with this present
 2         witness such as motorcycle stuff, and he said
 3         no, we're not trying to claim that, and
 4         limousine, no we're not trying to claim.
 5              So obviously they're not -- at least
 6         they think that they're not trying to claim
 7         it all.  Now, maybe mathematically they are
 8         in error.  But a bigger question is how is
 9         this carrying toward the never never land of
10         fair nexus?  Am I just not getting bogged
11         down in the quagmire of details in this?
12              MR. GOODMAN:  My point is --
13              THE COURT:  My point is the more
14         important one, quite frankly, because that's
15         the route and the heart and the gut of this
16         entire motion of yours, is it not?
17              MR. GOODMAN:  That's right, Your Honor,
18         and if there is no excess, then they're not
19         entitled to the lis pendens and the claim.
20              THE COURT:  Precisely, which is why I'm
21         saying I'm going for the nexus rather than
22         the collateral detail.
23              MR. GOODMAN:  And if they are
24         representing to the court now, Your Honor,
25         that their summary, their two-page summary
0291
 1         which was not introduced into evidence is
 2         wrong and they're not seeking --
 3              THE COURT:  Which is not received into
 4         evidence.  It was introduced.  It was
 5         offered.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  If they're representing to
 7         the court that they are not seeking any
 8         reimbursement for the items on these invoices
 9         like limousines, credit cards, cellphones,
10         et cetera, then I will accept that
11         stipulation and we can move on.
12              THE COURT:  Let me tell you that is
13         completely and hopelessly irrelevant because
14         I'm not trying the sum of money that they're
15         trying to recover today by no means.  It's
16         perfectly clear I wouldn't in any event.  But
17         I'm not trying to establish the sum of money
18         that they're trying to recover; that is not
19         even a part of my undertaking, as I
20         understand it, in connection with your motion
21         to dissolve or vacate the lis pendens and/or
22         to post a bond for the purpose of that.
23              I don't see how trying to refine this to
24         the detail of exactly what their claim is is
25         part of my job.  Now, a part of moving toward
0292
 1         the happy land of fair nexus, it seems to
 2         me -- and you've done a more than credible
 3         job about is do they really know what they
 4         are entitled to without trying to get into
 5         the detail.  I mean there's a book written
 6         by -- the name is Herman Wouck.
 7              MR. GOODMAN:  The "Winds of War"?
 8              THE COURT:  Actually, that's another
 9         one.
10              And it was "Youngblood Hawk", and there
11         was a character in that book named Frieda
12         Winter, and I don't mean to offend you, but
13         there's a great line, I'm telling you,
14         because it stuck with me.
15              Miss Winter was the kind of person that
16         drove every nail to the board, and I think
17         I'm getting myself in the position that --
18         you know, I don't profess to be a genius.
19         Lord knows I don't have that.  But I begin to
20         get a sense of what is intended without
21         having to hammer me to the wall on it, you
22         know.
23              MR. GOODMAN:  I will take the court's
24         comments to heart, Your Honor.
25              THE COURT:  And I just think you're a
0293
 1         marvelous lawyer doing a marvelous job, but I
 2         just don't think we have to hammer everything
 3         to --
 4              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  I will put my
 5         tool belt away.  And if we could agree, Your
 6         Honor, to have Lance type up that page saying
 7         I'm a wonderful lawyer and blow it up to a
 8         poster size --
 9              THE COURT:  I would say it anywhere on
10         the courthouse steps.  I've told you that in
11         the past and expect to in the future.
12              MR. GOODMAN:  All right.  Thank you,
13         judge.
14              THE COURT:  My basic point is the detail
15         on the specific amounts and things like that,
16         it seems to me not relevant at this time in
17         connection with this motion; am I wrong on
18         that?
19              MR. GOODMAN:  Capisce.  I understand on
20         that.
21              THE COURT:  I have to get a translator
22         for that.
23              MR. GOODMAN:  You understand what
24         capisce means, Your Honor.
25              THE COURT:  All right.
0294
 1              (The witness and interpreter re-entered
 2         the courtroom.)
 3              (In open court:)
 4   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 5         Q.   Mr. Johannesson, as we sit here today,
 6   are you able to explain to His Honor, Master
 7   Farrell, which expenses which your company paid
 8   went in connection for the first boat, which went
 9   in connection with the second boat and which were
10   paid in connection with the third boat?
11         A.   It was somewhere in the region of 17 to
12   $15,000 pertaining to the first boat, a total of
13   $200,000 in Boat No. 2, relating to Boat No. 2, and
14   then we advanced $140,000 to lift a lien to pay the
15   mortgage on Boat No. 2 in order to be able to
16   purchase Boat No. 3.
17         Q.   And so how much money, sir, do you say
18   Gaumur paid for the purchase of the third boat,
19   THEE VIKING?
20         A.   No.
21         Q.   Meaning no money?
22         A.   Gaumur paid the loan on Boat No. 2 in
23   order to facilitate that the purchase of Boat No. 3
24   could be realized.
25         Q.   Sir, what was the purchase price for
0295
 1   Boat No. 3?
 2         A.   It was stated earlier this morning
 3   eleven hundred and five thousand dollars.
 4         Q.   Do you mean $1,105,000?
 5         A.   That is correct.
 6         Q.   All right.  And that purchase of the
 7   third boat was accomplished through the trade-in of
 8   the second boat and a loan from Union Planters
 9   Bank; isn't that right?
10         A.   Yes, as stated this morning --
11         Q.   You've --
12         A.   -- by you.
13         Q.   Let me ask you were you at the closing?
14         A.   I was at least present when he received
15   the boat.
16         Q.   So in connection with the third boat,
17   Gaumur at that point at the closing did not reach
18   into its pocket and pay money for the purchase of
19   that third boat; right?
20         A.   Had Gaumur not assisted in lifting the
21   mortgage of Boat No. 3 and thereby assisting
22   Mr. Sullenberger in increasing his share of
23   ownership in the Boat No. 3.
24         Q.   You may have misspoken --
25         A.   That is equity.
0296
 1         Q.   Sorry.  I think you may have misspoken.
 2   I think you mean Boat No. 2.  Lifting the mortgage
 3   off of Boat No. 2.
 4         A.   Of Boat No. 2.  I wish to repeat again.
 5              In order for the business taking place,
 6   facilitating the business taking place, the
 7   purchase of Boat No. 3, the -- the shareholding had
 8   to be increased.  This was -- this was done by
 9   paying the loan on Boat No. 2 which was then traded
10   into the purchase of Boat No. 3.
11         Q.   And when was the loan on Boat No. 2
12   paid, sir?
13         A.   I do not remember.
14         Q.   Who paid the loan or who paid off the
15   loan on Boat No. 2, sir?
16         A.   Gaumur.
17         Q.   How?
18         A.   I -- I guess it must have been done by
19   means of wire transfer to Mr. Sullenberger.
20         Q.   Well, I'm focusing on the word that you
21   used, sir, "guess."  Do you know so you're
22   comfortable testifying about it under oath?
23         A.   Not a hundred percent sure.
24         Q.   When did Gaumur stop paying money for
25   the maintenance, expenses, insurance, bank loan,
0297
 1   et cetera, concerning the third boat?
 2         A.   Some costs were paid in 1999 and 2000.
 3         Q.   My question, sir, is when did Gaumur
 4   stop making payments in connection with the third
 5   boat, THEE VIKING?
 6         A.   I think it must have been in the year
 7   2000.
 8         Q.   All right, sir.  And to the extent that
 9   Mr. Sullenberger made payments on THEE VIKING or
10   his company Nordica made payments on THEE VIKING,
11   then Mr. Sullenberger's ownership interest in the
12   shares of New Viking would increase; right?
13         A.   That is correct.
14         Q.   All right.  Can you tell us, sir, what
15   specific percentage of the shares of New Viking you
16   say Gaumur is entitled to?
17         A.   No, because I do not know what
18   Mr. Sullenberger has advanced to the boat.  But it
19   was clear in 1999/2000 that Gaumur would not
20   advance more funds to the boat until it could be
21   cleared, the division of the percentages of
22   ownership interest in -- in New Viking?  In New
23   Viking.
24         Q.   Do you know the specific amount of money
25   which you say Gaumur paid toward the expenses and
0298
 1   maintenance for the third boat?
 2         A.   I do not.
 3         Q.   What was Tryggvi Jonsson's specific
 4   title with Baugur in May of 2002?
 5         A.   The question is when in May, because it
 6   changed in May of that year.
 7         Q.   How did it change?
 8         A.   From being COO to being CEO.
 9         Q.   When did it change?
10         A.   (The witness in English)  Late May.
11              (The interpreter)  In late May.
12         Q.   So on May 13th what was Mr. Tryggvi
13   Jonsson's title with Baugur?
14         A.   COO.
15         Q.   All right.  And sir -- withdrawn.
16              Let me ask you to turn to the binder
17   that Mr. Green was asking you about.
18              THE INTERPRETER:  Do you mean this one,
19         Mr. --
20         Q.   The one with the 45 or 47 tabs, not the
21   one you're holding now.  The one that the
22   translater is handing to you now.
23         A.   (The witness in English)  Tab number?
24         Q.   Now, turn, if you would, please, to Tab
25   No. 8, the second page.  I'd like for you to
0299
 1   explain to us what type of form this is.  Right now
 2   I'm not asking about any of the specific writing on
 3   the document but just tell us what this form is.
 4         A.   This is some kind of a form for foreign
 5   currency transactions.
 6         Q.   Right.
 7              And is it typically filled out by an
 8   account holder at a bank and then submitted to a
 9   bank?
10         A.   There are various ways of doing this,
11   sir.
12         Q.   Well, let's talk about the way this one
13   was done.  Do you know whether the writing on this
14   document was put on here by the bank or by somebody
15   else?
16         A.   I do not know.
17         Q.   And would that also be true, meaning
18   that you don't know about any of the other similar
19   forms in your binder?  For example, Tab 10, page
20   two, there's a similar form; right?  Tab 10, page
21   two is the same form as Tab 8, page two?
22         A.   This is a very common form for foreign
23   currency transactions.
24         Q.   All right.  That may be, but you'd agree
25   that the form is the same?
0300
 1         A.   Yes, I agree.
 2         Q.   All right.  Now, you'll notice, sir, the
 3   handwriting on Tab 8, page two appears to be
 4   identical to the handwriting of Tab 10, page two;
 5   wouldn't you agree?
 6              MR. GREEN:  Objection.  Objection only
 7         to the extent --
 8              THE COURT:  You're asking him for a
 9         handwriting expert --
10         A.   I'm not a handwriting expert,
11   Mr. Goodman.
12         Q.   Does it appear to you, just as somebody
13   who is familiar with this form, that the
14   handwriting appears to be similar?
15              MR. GREEN:  The same objection, Your
16         Honor.
17              THE COURT:  Sustained.
18   BY MR. GOODMAN:
19         Q.   Do you know, sir, whose handwriting is
20   on Tab 8, page two?
21         A.   I do not.
22         Q.   Do you know whose handwriting is on Tab
23   10, page two.
24         A.   Do not.
25         Q.   Or Tab 10, Page 4?
0301
 1         A.   Do not.
 2         Q.   And you do not know whether the
 3   handwriting belongs to somebody working for the
 4   bank, somebody working for Bonus, somebody working
 5   for Baugur, somebody working for Isaldi or some
 6   other company?
 7              MR. GREEN:  Objection, Your Honor.  He's
 8         asking about 15 questions.
 9              THE COURT:  I'll just let it rattle on.
10              MR. GOODMAN:  I think, Lance, he said
11         right along.
12              THE COURT:  Rattle.
13              MR. GOODMAN:  Oh, you said rattle?
14         Maybe the air-conditioning is a little high.
15   BY MR. GOODMAN:
16         Q.   Your answer, sir?
17         A.   No, I do not recognize this handwriting,
18   but then again, you don't see much handwriting
19   nowadays.
20         Q.   Turn, if you would, sir, to Tab 24.
21              Are you there?
22         A.   Yes.
23         Q.   Okay.  First page, what is this
24   document, sir?  Just generally describe what it is.
25         A.   This is a bank overview balance sheet.
0302
 1         Q.   I'm sorry.  Would you say that again,
 2   please.
 3         A.   A bank overview.
 4         Q.   All right.  Sort of like a monthly bank
 5   statement?
 6         A.   This is not a monthly statement with
 7   the -- there are certain -- certain transfers here
 8   dated.  It's not a monthly statement.
 9         Q.   All right.  It's a summary of
10   transactions at this bank between September 15th
11   and September 30th, if I'm reading it correctly.
12              THE COURT:  Well, you're testifying
13         correctly anyway.
14   BY MR. GOODMAN:
15         Q.   Is that what it is, sir?
16         A.   That is correct.
17         Q.   Now, this is a bank summary statement
18   for an account held by Gaumur, H.F.; is that right?
19         A.   Yes.
20         Q.   And there's a box to the right-hand
21   side, and there is the Icelandic word kennitala,
22   K-E-N-N-I-T-A-L-A, which if my memory serves me
23   correctly, the interpreter has told us it means
24   federal identification number.
25              THE INTERPRETER:  National ID number.
0303
 1         Q.   National ID number.
 2              Is that understanding yours as well,
 3   sir?
 4         A.   That is correct.
 5         Q.   All right.  So on this document, sir,
 6   Tab 24, a bank summary for Gaumur, H.F., the
 7   national ID number is 560389-1409?
 8         A.   Correctly read.
 9         Q.   Is that the national ID number for any
10   other corporation?
11         A.   Not at this point in time.
12         Q.   What about back at the time that this
13   bank statement or bank summary was created?
14         A.   No, it's quite clear that this national
15   ID number applies to this particular entity at this
16   particular point in time.
17         Q.   Did you speak to Mr. Sullenberger before
18   Gaumur filed this lawsuit concerning
19   Mr. Sullenberger's efforts to sell the vessel THEE
20   VIKING?
21              MR. GREEN:  I'm sorry, Your Honor.  May
22         I have that read back.
23              THE COURT:  Would you read it back,
24         please.
25              (The above-requested portion was read
0304
 1         back by the Court Reporter.)
 2         A.   No.
 3   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 4         Q.   When was the first --
 5         A.   I did try, however, by way of sending an
 6   e-mail to have him sit down with me for a
 7   discussion.
 8         Q.   What did that e-mail say, sir?
 9         A.   (The witness in English)  I don't recall
10   but --
11              (The interpreter)  I don't recall
12   exactly, but this e-mail was written in
13   continuation of Mr. Sullenberger's threat to take
14   my life.
15         Q.   When was the e-mail sent, sir?
16         A.   I guess it must have been at the end --
17   by the end of June.
18         Q.   And from where did you send this e-mail,
19   sir?
20         A.   From Baugur.
21         Q.   From Baugur.
22              Where is that e-mail, sir?  Have you
23   produced it in this case?
24         A.   No, not that I know of.
25         Q.   What other e-mails did you send to
0305
 1   Mr. Sullenberger in 2002 concerning THEE VIKING and
 2   discussions on how to resolve the ownership
 3   interest in THEE VIKING?
 4              THE COURT:  Mr. Goodman, how does this
 5         get me to a fair nexus to make a
 6         determination whether or not your motion to
 7         dissolve is well taken or not, please.
 8              MR. GOODMAN:  This particular line is to
 9         follow up on Mr. Green's questioning
10         concerning whether or not -- their allegation
11         that Mr. Sullenberger was going to sell the
12         boat and keep the proceeds for himself and
13         that that is the basis for their lis pendens,
14         their fear that that would happen.
15              THE COURT:  I don't think that's
16         relevant to the particular matter here, is
17         it?
18              MR. GOODMAN:  Well, I'm not necessarily
19         sure that it is, but since that's a point of
20         Mr. Green's --
21              THE COURT:  Between you and me, I have
22         to make a decision.  I'm going to decide it's
23         not relevant.  So please move away from it.
24         If you have something further to go into.
25   
0306
 1   BY MR. GOODMAN:
 2         Q.   Have you told Icelandic law enforcement
 3   officials anything different about these boats than
 4   what you have told His Honor, Master Farrell, here
 5   today?
 6              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, at this point
 7         I'm going to object.  I --
 8              THE COURT:  Sustained.
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  May I have just a moment,
10         Your Honor.
11              THE COURT:  Yes.
12              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll tender the witness to
13         Mr. Green, Your Honor.
14              THE COURT:  Mr. Green.
15              MR. GREEN:  Thank you, Your Honor.  May
16         I just a moment just to organize my --
17              THE COURT:  You might bear in mind that
18         there's no necessity for you to have
19         cross-examination here because you'll have an
20         opportunity to present your own side of this
21         case in which event you can call this person
22         in that case.
23              MR. GREEN:  I understand, Your Honor.
24         I'm -- I suppose maybe the inquiry --
25              THE COURT:  It's just an observation.
0307
 1              MR. GREEN:  The inquiry is whether
 2         Mr. Senterfitt is resting after this witness
 3         on this particular motion.  If I can save
 4         the --
 5              THE COURT:  I will just make that
 6         observation.
 7              MR. GREEN:  Are you resting or will
 8         there be another witness?
 9              MR. GOODMAN:  I'm honored to be called
10         Mr. Senterfitt.
11              MR. GREEN:  I'm sorry.  Mr. Goodman.
12              MR. GOODMAN:  I'll mention that to the
13         compensation committee when we meet later.
14              MR. GREEN:  It's been a long day.  I
15         would like to be a named partner in my firm
16         as well, although they're all dead so that
17         doesn't say much.
18              MR. GOODMAN:  I believe Mr. Senterfitt
19         has moved on as well.
20              I am calling another witness after
21         Mr. Johannesson.
22              MR. GREEN:  Okay.  Your Honor, under
23         those circumstances, I would just reserve the
24         right to call Mr. Johannesson.
25              THE COURT:  You have the right to call
0308
 1         him in your case.
 2              MR. GREEN:  Thank you.  I have no
 3         questions at this time.
 4              THE COURT:  I understand.
 5              Mr. Goodman, it's a quarter to 5:00.
 6              MR. GOODMAN:  It is.
 7              THE COURT:  Is there something that we
 8         could gainfully accomplish between now and
 9         5:00 o'clock?  I'm going to put that in your
10         good hands.
11              MR. GOODMAN:  I was planning on calling
12         Mr. Sullenberger.  I can candidly tell you
13         that I wasn't going to finish that in 15
14         minutes.
15              THE COURT:  And I candidly respond that
16         there probably will be cross-examination.
17              MR. GOODMAN:  I suspect.
18              THE COURT:  If we could, again, do
19         something that could wind it up by 5:15 or
20         5:30, I would say that's okay, but that is
21         not going to be the case, so I see no reason
22         to tax ourselves unnecessarily.  So we will
23         just recess until such time as we have an
24         opportunity to continue these entire matters.
25              MR. GREEN:  Your Honor, again, I don't
0309
 1         understand -- I don't know what the procedure
 2         is for scheduling.  Is there any point for
 3         counsel --
 4              THE COURT:  What you do is you go to the
 5         boss.  That's the boss.
 6              MR. GREEN:  Don't leave town.
 7              THE COURT:  She handles all of the
 8         scheduling.
 9              COURT CLERK:  I don't have a plane
10         waiting for me.
11              THE COURT:  And if she has time readily
12         available, it will be my pleasure to be with
13         you.
14              MR. GOODMAN:  All right, Your Honor.
15         Thank you for your patience and your time.  I
16         appreciate it.
17              THE COURT:  Glad to be with you.
18              MR. GREEN:  Thank you.
19              THE INTERPRETER:  Your Honor, can we be
20         excused?
21              THE COURT:  Thank you.  Indeed.  I would
22         like to thank you.  You did a fine job,
23         Miss Interpreter.
24              THE INTERPRETER:  Thank you very much,
25         Your Honor.  Thank you.
0310
 1              (At 4:47 p.m. the proceedings were
 2         adjourned sine die.)
 3   
 4                 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
 5   
 6   
 7   STATE OF FLORIDA       :
 8                          :  SS.
 9   COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE   :
10   
11   
12              I, LANCE W. STEINBEISSER, Registered
13         Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that
14         I was authorized to and did stenographically
15         report the foregoing proceedings and that the
16         transcript is a true and complete record of
17         my stenographic notes.
18   
19              Dated this 23rd day of April, 2003.
20   
21                     _______________________________
22                     LANCE W. STEINBEISSER
                       Registered Professional Reporter
23                     Certified Court Reporter (Texas)
24   
25