DEPOSITION OF ROSEMARY STEWART VOL. II 1 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 speculation on the witness's part. THE WITNESS: Any information could have been provided to the press by others who had it Board. 8. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Would have shared it with the Bank Board? A. That we would have shared it with. Q. As you sit here today, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Black's delivery of the September 19th, 1986 MR. MILLIGAN: December. Q. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Go ahead. Sorry. Q. As you sit here today, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Black's dissemination of information to a Mr. Yang with The Wall Street Journal in December of 1986 was STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. 319 THE WITNESS: I do not. 2. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Do you know specifically of any dissemination of information 17 25 Q. Which other instances? A. I can remember a couple of institutions in Texas that were at the point of refusing to STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. 5 Objection. THE WITNESS: Raised his voice; I believe that's what we said yesterday. 9. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Well, let me ask 11 12 13 14 One area I got sidetracked on, you were going to tell me about some comments you heard, and then we got bogged down on how events after April of '89 led to confusion. 15 16 17 18 19 I want to know about comments you have ever heard from anybody, I don't care if you heard then last night, any comments you have ever heard from anybody to the effect that there was personal animosity on behalf of anybody connected with the Bank Board in Washington or San Francisco against Lincoln, ACC or Charlie 20 21 22 Keating. is at least restricted to things she has heard, STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. MR. WHITE: I am going to object to the question. I think that has been thoroughly asked and answered throughout yesterday's testimony. MR. MURPHY: So do I. I think it's really unfair to a witness, after taking her through all the conversations yesterday to try to come up with one big catch-all question that then uses phrase such as personal animosity. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 try. But I mean, if you can answer, you may MR. MCALEER: I would like to join in the objections which have already been made, and also say that I think the question is grossly overbroad in nature. If you want to address it to any specific persons with regard to specific issues, clearly objectionable. THE WITNESS: STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. The only comments I recall DEPOSITION OF ROSEMARY STEWART VOL. II 2 3 4 with respect to personal animosity were from 2. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) It's improper for a federal agency to exercise their investigative powers to conduct fishing expeditions, correct? Q. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Let me refer you to page 23 of your testimony, if you would NR. MURPHY : Why don't we, if you have a particular point or place, it will be helpful to look at it, so she could understand the content. MR. GALLAGHER : All right. It was simply prefatory to a question I was going to ask her. MR. MCALEER: I have a continuing objection to this line of questioning concerning plaintiff's Exhibit 53. 9. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) I'm about midway towards the bottom of the first paragraph. MR. MCALEER : Also object to the form of 19 20 21 that question. 22 MR. WHITE: What page are you on? 23 MR. GALLAGHER: 23. THE WITNESS: There has to be a valid civil purpose for conducting an investigation by an STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. 330 |