DEPOSITION OF ROSEMARY STEWART VOL. II 1 MR. MCALEER : Objection; calls for speculation on the witness's part. THE WITNESS: Any information could have been provided to the press by others who had it lawfully, other regulators, other people that appropriately would have shared it with the Bank Board. Q. (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. 15 Q. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) - December 19th, 22 23 24 25 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 specifically of any dissemination of information 17 MR. MCALEER: 18 19 THE WITNESS: deterioration in a few instances prior to this. 25 A. I can remember a couple of institutions in Texas that were at the point of refusing to STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. 9. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Well, let me ask you again then. Wasn't it in your view yelling? No. Didn't rise to that level? 2. Let me Rove on. 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. No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Keating. 23 24 25 I want to know about comments you have ever heard from anybody, I don't care if you heard them 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 MR. MCALEER: Objection. MR. MURPHY: I assume your broad question is at least restricted to things she has heard, STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. rather than to things she has read? MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, yes. MR. MCALEER: Could I have the question read back, please. (The portion requested was read by the court reporter.) 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 try. 17 18 19 20 21 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, then do so. But the breadth of the question is 1 2 3 4 DEPOSITION OF ROSEMARY STEWART VOL. II with respect to personal animosity were from 9. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) It's improper for a federal agency to exercise their investigative powers to conduct fishing expeditions, correct? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) Let me refer you to page 23 of your testimony, if you would MR. 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. 2. (BY MR. GALLAGHER) I'm about midway towards the bottom of the first paragraph. 16 17 18 19 20 MR. MCALEER: Also object to the form of What page are you on? GALLAGHER: 23. THE WITNESS: There has to be a valid civil purpose for conducting an investigation by an STICKLEY & SCHUTZMAN, INC. 330 |