HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011451.jpg

10 fd. 12 [3 14 15 16 i) 18 wife) 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 H3vlgiu2 but it certainly is not anything that there is going to be any real evidence about in this case. The next two LiButti factors, the next one relates to any interest in the outcome of the litigation. Again, Mr. Cassell has to manufacture some interest here. These folks are not defendants in this case, these witnesses. They have no financial interest. They have no ties. There is no joint defense agreement. There is no indemnification agreement. There is nothing. They have absolutely no dog in this fight, again, which is no interest in the litigation. There's just really nothing that would allow any adverse inference in this case one way or the other. Finally, your Honor -- well, two final points. The questioning, you know, the kind of questions that were posed to these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. These are not technical objections. It serves no legitimate evidentiary purpose for a lawyer to come in and simply ask a very bunch of highly charged, leading questions to which they know the witness is going to say, "I take the Fifth." There is no evidentiary ball advanced with those questions, because it's just lawyer argument that doesn't do anything for anybody. So both sides could ask a hundred questions, they could both be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011451