I

0 [S ~ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VI middot middotmiddotA ~EC 9 2015

DOCKET NO 15- iJOO ~I RORY l PERRY U CL_Ii~

SUPREf1E COllRT OF PPEAlS or WESTlIROWA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex reI SCOTT H KAMINSKI

Petitioner

v

THE HONORABLE THOMAS C EVANS III Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of Jackson County West Virginia AIO HOLDINGS LLC and THOMAS TMARTIN

Respondents

SUMMARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Counsellor Respondent AJO Holdings LLC

Robert L Greer (WV State Bar 5852) Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg West Virginia 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1

ARGUMENT 1-3

I A10 Holdings LLC as a corporate client is the sole holder of the attomeyshyclient privilege and the only individual with authority to create or waive the privilege is its corporate representative Gregory Anastas 1-2

II Kaminski cannot assert the attorney-client privilege because he has not provided evidence that the privilege exists in all its elements as required under West Virginia law 2-3

CONCLUSION 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4-5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A CASES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v Weintrab 471 US 343 (1985) 1

State v Burton 163 WVa 40 (1979) 2

State ex rei USF amp G v Canady 194 WVa 431 (1995) 2

Upjohn Co v United States 449 US 383 (1981) 1

i

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Gregory Anastas is the sole member and corporate representative ofALO Holdings LLC

because ALOs sole member is Advantage Investments of which he is the only member l There

are no employees Further Mr Anastas did not learn about the lawsuit at issue until 2011 During

the years preceding ALOs even becoming aware of the lawsuit individuals purporting to act on

ALOs behalf conducted this lawsuit and answered discovery in ALOs name Petitioner Mr

Kaminski allegedly communicated with an individual named Todd Pilcher who apparently held

himself out as being affiliated with ALO During Mr Anastas deposition in September 2011 Mr

Anastas confirmed that not only was ALO unaware of an ongoing lawsuit until sometime in

2011 2 he did not authorize individuals to act on ALOs behalf In fact Mr Anastas testified that

he did not even know Todd Pilcher3 or who retained Mr Kaminski as counse14 The only individual

with authority to act on behalf of ALO including answering discovery and waiving attorneyshy

client privilege is and always has been Gregory Anastas

ARGUMENT

I AIO Holdings LLC as a corporate client is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege and the only individual with authority to create or waive the privilege is its corporate representative Gregory Anastas

It is a well-established principle that the corporation holds the attorney-client privilege

Upjohn Co v United States 449 US 383 389 (1981) Further it is also well-known that the

power to waive the privilege is normally exercised by a corporations officers and directors

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v Weintrab 471 US 343 348 (1985) Throughout the

I Deposition ofGregory Anastas attached herein as Exhibit 1 at 10 2 Exhibit 1 at 18 3 Exhibit 1 at 31 4 Exhibit 1 at 18

1

Petitioners brief Kaminski states that individuals acted on behalfofALO However this is not

factually consistent with the evidence of record Mr Anastas the sole member and corporate

representative of ALO did not authorize any individuals to conduct a lawsuit on ALO s behalf

a lawsuit about which ALO did not even have knowledge until years after its inception5

Irrespective of assertions to the contrary no individual other than Gregory Anastas has the ability

to create or waive an attorney-client privilege on behalf of ALO

II Kaminski cannot assert the attorney-client privilege because he has not provided evidence that the privilege exists in all its elements as required under West Virginia law

In order to assert the attorney-client privilege in West Virginia three requirements as

outlined in State v Burton 163 WVa 40 (1979) must be met They are as follows 1) Both parties

must contemplate that the attorney-client privilege does or will exists 2) the advice must be sought

by the client from that attorney in their capacity as legal advisor and 3) the communication

between the attorney and the client must be identified to be confidential Syl pt 2 Id The burden

of establishing the attorney-client privilege or the work product exception in all their elements

always rests upon the person asserting it (emphasis added) Syl pt 4 State ex reI USF amp G v

Canady 194 WVa 431 (1995) Thus because Kaminski is the person asserting the privilege the

burden of establishing its existence rests with him However rather than provide such evidence

Kaminski attempts to flip the burden ofproofby claiming that Respondents must provide evidence

that both parties did not contemplate such a relationship to exist Petitioners Briefat 6 Without

such evidence Kaminski fails to positively establish the existence of any attorney-client privilege

in all their elements as it pertains to any individual allegedly acting on behalfofALO Put simply

5 Exhibit 1 at 18

2

Kaminskis analysis is not in accordance with West Virginia law and should therefore be

disregarded

CONCLUSION

AIO is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege irrespective of the protestations of

others claiming to act on its behalf In that regard ALO is entitled to waive any attorney-client

privilege as to itself and those claiming to act on its behalf As such ALO respectfully requests

this Honorable Court find that its disclosure of documents to be an affirmative and proper waiver

of the attorney-client privilege as it is ALOs sole right to do so

Respectfully Submitted

ALO Holdings Inc

By Counsel

J) ) ~J V I ~6~ ~fQL-~(j~tJ~z vZS18

Robert L Greer WV Bar 5 52 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A CASES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v Weintrab 471 US 343 (1985) 1

State v Burton 163 WVa 40 (1979) 2

State ex rei USF amp G v Canady 194 WVa 431 (1995) 2

Upjohn Co v United States 449 US 383 (1981) 1

i

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Gregory Anastas is the sole member and corporate representative ofALO Holdings LLC

because ALOs sole member is Advantage Investments of which he is the only member l There

are no employees Further Mr Anastas did not learn about the lawsuit at issue until 2011 During

the years preceding ALOs even becoming aware of the lawsuit individuals purporting to act on

ALOs behalf conducted this lawsuit and answered discovery in ALOs name Petitioner Mr

Kaminski allegedly communicated with an individual named Todd Pilcher who apparently held

himself out as being affiliated with ALO During Mr Anastas deposition in September 2011 Mr

Anastas confirmed that not only was ALO unaware of an ongoing lawsuit until sometime in

2011 2 he did not authorize individuals to act on ALOs behalf In fact Mr Anastas testified that

he did not even know Todd Pilcher3 or who retained Mr Kaminski as counse14 The only individual

with authority to act on behalf of ALO including answering discovery and waiving attorneyshy

client privilege is and always has been Gregory Anastas

ARGUMENT

I AIO Holdings LLC as a corporate client is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege and the only individual with authority to create or waive the privilege is its corporate representative Gregory Anastas

It is a well-established principle that the corporation holds the attorney-client privilege

Upjohn Co v United States 449 US 383 389 (1981) Further it is also well-known that the

power to waive the privilege is normally exercised by a corporations officers and directors

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v Weintrab 471 US 343 348 (1985) Throughout the

I Deposition ofGregory Anastas attached herein as Exhibit 1 at 10 2 Exhibit 1 at 18 3 Exhibit 1 at 31 4 Exhibit 1 at 18

1

Petitioners brief Kaminski states that individuals acted on behalfofALO However this is not

factually consistent with the evidence of record Mr Anastas the sole member and corporate

representative of ALO did not authorize any individuals to conduct a lawsuit on ALO s behalf

a lawsuit about which ALO did not even have knowledge until years after its inception5

Irrespective of assertions to the contrary no individual other than Gregory Anastas has the ability

to create or waive an attorney-client privilege on behalf of ALO

II Kaminski cannot assert the attorney-client privilege because he has not provided evidence that the privilege exists in all its elements as required under West Virginia law

In order to assert the attorney-client privilege in West Virginia three requirements as

outlined in State v Burton 163 WVa 40 (1979) must be met They are as follows 1) Both parties

must contemplate that the attorney-client privilege does or will exists 2) the advice must be sought

by the client from that attorney in their capacity as legal advisor and 3) the communication

between the attorney and the client must be identified to be confidential Syl pt 2 Id The burden

of establishing the attorney-client privilege or the work product exception in all their elements

always rests upon the person asserting it (emphasis added) Syl pt 4 State ex reI USF amp G v

Canady 194 WVa 431 (1995) Thus because Kaminski is the person asserting the privilege the

burden of establishing its existence rests with him However rather than provide such evidence

Kaminski attempts to flip the burden ofproofby claiming that Respondents must provide evidence

that both parties did not contemplate such a relationship to exist Petitioners Briefat 6 Without

such evidence Kaminski fails to positively establish the existence of any attorney-client privilege

in all their elements as it pertains to any individual allegedly acting on behalfofALO Put simply

5 Exhibit 1 at 18

2

Kaminskis analysis is not in accordance with West Virginia law and should therefore be

disregarded

CONCLUSION

AIO is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege irrespective of the protestations of

others claiming to act on its behalf In that regard ALO is entitled to waive any attorney-client

privilege as to itself and those claiming to act on its behalf As such ALO respectfully requests

this Honorable Court find that its disclosure of documents to be an affirmative and proper waiver

of the attorney-client privilege as it is ALOs sole right to do so

Respectfully Submitted

ALO Holdings Inc

By Counsel

J) ) ~J V I ~6~ ~fQL-~(j~tJ~z vZS18

Robert L Greer WV Bar 5 52 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Gregory Anastas is the sole member and corporate representative ofALO Holdings LLC

because ALOs sole member is Advantage Investments of which he is the only member l There

are no employees Further Mr Anastas did not learn about the lawsuit at issue until 2011 During

the years preceding ALOs even becoming aware of the lawsuit individuals purporting to act on

ALOs behalf conducted this lawsuit and answered discovery in ALOs name Petitioner Mr

Kaminski allegedly communicated with an individual named Todd Pilcher who apparently held

himself out as being affiliated with ALO During Mr Anastas deposition in September 2011 Mr

Anastas confirmed that not only was ALO unaware of an ongoing lawsuit until sometime in

2011 2 he did not authorize individuals to act on ALOs behalf In fact Mr Anastas testified that

he did not even know Todd Pilcher3 or who retained Mr Kaminski as counse14 The only individual

with authority to act on behalf of ALO including answering discovery and waiving attorneyshy

client privilege is and always has been Gregory Anastas

ARGUMENT

I AIO Holdings LLC as a corporate client is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege and the only individual with authority to create or waive the privilege is its corporate representative Gregory Anastas

It is a well-established principle that the corporation holds the attorney-client privilege

Upjohn Co v United States 449 US 383 389 (1981) Further it is also well-known that the

power to waive the privilege is normally exercised by a corporations officers and directors

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v Weintrab 471 US 343 348 (1985) Throughout the

I Deposition ofGregory Anastas attached herein as Exhibit 1 at 10 2 Exhibit 1 at 18 3 Exhibit 1 at 31 4 Exhibit 1 at 18

1

Petitioners brief Kaminski states that individuals acted on behalfofALO However this is not

factually consistent with the evidence of record Mr Anastas the sole member and corporate

representative of ALO did not authorize any individuals to conduct a lawsuit on ALO s behalf

a lawsuit about which ALO did not even have knowledge until years after its inception5

Irrespective of assertions to the contrary no individual other than Gregory Anastas has the ability

to create or waive an attorney-client privilege on behalf of ALO

II Kaminski cannot assert the attorney-client privilege because he has not provided evidence that the privilege exists in all its elements as required under West Virginia law

In order to assert the attorney-client privilege in West Virginia three requirements as

outlined in State v Burton 163 WVa 40 (1979) must be met They are as follows 1) Both parties

must contemplate that the attorney-client privilege does or will exists 2) the advice must be sought

by the client from that attorney in their capacity as legal advisor and 3) the communication

between the attorney and the client must be identified to be confidential Syl pt 2 Id The burden

of establishing the attorney-client privilege or the work product exception in all their elements

always rests upon the person asserting it (emphasis added) Syl pt 4 State ex reI USF amp G v

Canady 194 WVa 431 (1995) Thus because Kaminski is the person asserting the privilege the

burden of establishing its existence rests with him However rather than provide such evidence

Kaminski attempts to flip the burden ofproofby claiming that Respondents must provide evidence

that both parties did not contemplate such a relationship to exist Petitioners Briefat 6 Without

such evidence Kaminski fails to positively establish the existence of any attorney-client privilege

in all their elements as it pertains to any individual allegedly acting on behalfofALO Put simply

5 Exhibit 1 at 18

2

Kaminskis analysis is not in accordance with West Virginia law and should therefore be

disregarded

CONCLUSION

AIO is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege irrespective of the protestations of

others claiming to act on its behalf In that regard ALO is entitled to waive any attorney-client

privilege as to itself and those claiming to act on its behalf As such ALO respectfully requests

this Honorable Court find that its disclosure of documents to be an affirmative and proper waiver

of the attorney-client privilege as it is ALOs sole right to do so

Respectfully Submitted

ALO Holdings Inc

By Counsel

J) ) ~J V I ~6~ ~fQL-~(j~tJ~z vZS18

Robert L Greer WV Bar 5 52 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom

3

Petitioners brief Kaminski states that individuals acted on behalfofALO However this is not

factually consistent with the evidence of record Mr Anastas the sole member and corporate

representative of ALO did not authorize any individuals to conduct a lawsuit on ALO s behalf

a lawsuit about which ALO did not even have knowledge until years after its inception5

Irrespective of assertions to the contrary no individual other than Gregory Anastas has the ability

to create or waive an attorney-client privilege on behalf of ALO

II Kaminski cannot assert the attorney-client privilege because he has not provided evidence that the privilege exists in all its elements as required under West Virginia law

In order to assert the attorney-client privilege in West Virginia three requirements as

outlined in State v Burton 163 WVa 40 (1979) must be met They are as follows 1) Both parties

must contemplate that the attorney-client privilege does or will exists 2) the advice must be sought

by the client from that attorney in their capacity as legal advisor and 3) the communication

between the attorney and the client must be identified to be confidential Syl pt 2 Id The burden

of establishing the attorney-client privilege or the work product exception in all their elements

always rests upon the person asserting it (emphasis added) Syl pt 4 State ex reI USF amp G v

Canady 194 WVa 431 (1995) Thus because Kaminski is the person asserting the privilege the

burden of establishing its existence rests with him However rather than provide such evidence

Kaminski attempts to flip the burden ofproofby claiming that Respondents must provide evidence

that both parties did not contemplate such a relationship to exist Petitioners Briefat 6 Without

such evidence Kaminski fails to positively establish the existence of any attorney-client privilege

in all their elements as it pertains to any individual allegedly acting on behalfofALO Put simply

5 Exhibit 1 at 18

2

Kaminskis analysis is not in accordance with West Virginia law and should therefore be

disregarded

CONCLUSION

AIO is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege irrespective of the protestations of

others claiming to act on its behalf In that regard ALO is entitled to waive any attorney-client

privilege as to itself and those claiming to act on its behalf As such ALO respectfully requests

this Honorable Court find that its disclosure of documents to be an affirmative and proper waiver

of the attorney-client privilege as it is ALOs sole right to do so

Respectfully Submitted

ALO Holdings Inc

By Counsel

J) ) ~J V I ~6~ ~fQL-~(j~tJ~z vZS18

Robert L Greer WV Bar 5 52 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom

3

Kaminskis analysis is not in accordance with West Virginia law and should therefore be

disregarded

CONCLUSION

AIO is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege irrespective of the protestations of

others claiming to act on its behalf In that regard ALO is entitled to waive any attorney-client

privilege as to itself and those claiming to act on its behalf As such ALO respectfully requests

this Honorable Court find that its disclosure of documents to be an affirmative and proper waiver

of the attorney-client privilege as it is ALOs sole right to do so

Respectfully Submitted

ALO Holdings Inc

By Counsel

J) ) ~J V I ~6~ ~fQL-~(j~tJ~z vZS18

Robert L Greer WV Bar 5 52 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom

3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

DOCKET NO 15- 1 Q()

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex reI SCOTT H KAMINSKI

Petitioner

v

THE HONORABLE THOMAS C EVANS III Judge ofthe Fifth Judicial Circuit of Jackson County West Virginia AIO HOLDINGS LLC and THOMAS T MARTIN

Respondents

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I Robert L Greer counsel for Respondent AIO Holdings LLC do hereby certify that

on the 9th day ofDecember 2015 I have served true and exact copies of the foregoing Summary

Response to Petition for Writ of Prohibition thereto upon the parties and counsel of record

listed below by placing the same in the United States mail postage prepaid addressed as follows

Nicholas S Preservati Esquire The Honorable Thomas C Evans III Preservati Law Offices PLLC Fifth Judicial Circuit Post Office Box 1431 PO Box 800 Charleston WV 25325 Ripley WV 25271

Respondent

David K Hendrickson Raj A Shah Hendrickson amp Long PLLC 214 Capitol Street Charleston WV 25301

4

tl4etlL~is3((Robert t Greer WVBar 5852 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom Counsel for Respondent ALO Holdings LLC

5

tl4etlL~is3((Robert t Greer WVBar 5852 Greer Law Offices PLLC PO Box 4338 Clarksburg WV 26302 Telephone (304) 842-8090 Facsimile (304) 842-8091 rgreergreerlawofficescom Counsel for Respondent ALO Holdings LLC

5

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 _ Sheet 1 Page 1 N HE CIRCUE COURT 0 JACKSON COUNTY NEST VRGHI1~

riOmiddot1AS T HiRTn er u

Fl ilnti ffs

v CItiIL ACTION ~middotiO j9-C-31

A~O GLDINGS LiC e~ a1

[)efendans

tJeuro v~middotiec deccsitm cf GREGORY P ANA5TPS was taken pUfSlHn1 0 no 12 in t~ abcve-enitled actlon en thc ~4r1 cay cf SeptEmber ~Ol cOJllen~ing a 900 a~ and =cn=ludng at 1000 a~ at the law firm of Nihlas 5 PreserJati 3 Kana~ha Solelard ~es S1iteuro ~2 Charesto~ W~st Vi~ginia befoeuro Pamela Wcod Cerif euroc ourt Rep0tE and Notary uolie pursant to rhe esC ~~lrgiilia Rules ~f Ci v11 roc~du~e

DeMuth Co~rt Reporting L~C AIEll WOOD CCR Fos Office Bo 01

Dunbar leuros~ Viqinla 25064 3D4 -166-8108

r-- Page 3 memiddotEX

A tness Eaminaion

RepcrterS Cert~f~cate aqe 39

Erraa Shees Pages 41)-4

r-- Page 2

tC~OLAS iR5EmiddotA~I E~lpound

PRESE~VAr LAW OFCES PLC 13 ~ANiJHA 50ULE~AR[ XT SUITE CHhRLESTON iEST VIRGil

JOSEli C BLi~~ ESQjRpound ~~ONES ~ PsSOCIATES POST ~FFIC~ ao~ 989 CitRLESTcn

S~T H EAMr~Kl ~S(RF aLGO ( -middot-pound1S-1

r-- Page 4

Seoterrber l~ 201~

2 3 ~rasras is being Lake~ on Seperrber ~e -1 --I

beginning at 905 a~1 Styec in a C5se p~~a~~ 3~~ - j styled Thorra~ T middot~i et 1] V5 ~~L ~2_~~S

ELtC Et c~ 1 Defeid3~ The Cmiddotmiddoti1 ~J -ir~ s 9shy Iv- jl

vijecgap~e is LUSE~ J~g~ 4 inrci~ce themse ~~~ ~e~ ~e 15 SWe3 in t~e witness 16 ~~ be~alf ~f the Flaint~~f M~ ~a~ 18 he cepcs~ior ths aer~80~ 19 ~middot~R BJi~n Je Bun =I~ c-c~s~_ ~~ 2S Jones ~ Associates 21 ~~R KA~ENSKI ~a Sec ~2-is ~ __ CE

bull ~s I~ reesent~g 0 u()11ntr ~ ~ bullbullbullF_=__Y2L ~l l~ n t t avv~ bullbull j __ __

23 Whness 5IOI1)

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 _ Sheet 3 Page 9 _ Page 10

1 Q 0 n ~ Kay i~l you go nroug yo~r emplO~lnen~ 1 Q = Califoria L Hstory stamng ~iltn your current OSltO arn ate rre 3 bac~ JrLl iOU wee wth esc

A Car Ie beer an entrepreneur mas of ill c 1 j lre ~ AI I~IS the sores ~et~ee~ ~e 3e5 ~~~ ~S6 Q Okay Wharfs yOU curren positio~ 6 ~ey ake up mosr of -ny tirE ~e ~~~~ ~~~

~ ~u TO a- ch-~no~~ middot_t~o~___ s~oregt~ bullIr TOisJJ ~_ 1_11e throuj~ AIO I~S ~eer a ~o~g l~~ ~~ = J~~

Q O~2Y AiC middot~at I 5 he name 0 nat chaij 8 ~ecal eacy the G6te ~1a tr~ I h3~ Smiddot-~ ~~~~ q 3er~ ~ reI~e ~ __~c v-~J _ ~ bull1 bull l~ ~~~~ji~~mo~C~o~~~~iqIl~~n~t~~~1 re ce ~~~i~~

-v Q O~ay JO you on na~ cy YCJrSel or ~~I

~l oher eoole ~ J Lets g rtc IO imiddotJ~cis l2 A~ 2y rryself i2 Okaj 13 Q ~ow long have VO] oi-iled tha Whats OJI ~osition ~ e~arjs t~ 2 11 ~ I star~eci ir 2eOe 1in~ i Ias 2)00 -shy5 ~ebruary of 2005 ~) A dO~ recal e~5I~ pC5~~ ~~e 16 Q And beore that when you were n Ca~ior~ia 6 decisions fo~ the cC~9ar~ = I s middoteci t~middot jmiddot~=middot~e 7 did 8U haiie any venures there 17 nvestments 1Q - 1 T c r1 T~aa ~IO 1~ cuo r 5middot05 here r ar shy - 14 _ ~ L _ 1 w _ 8 Q Okay ~nd are jCJ ITer~cer Jpound ~Jmiddotac~s 9 onPQ 11 1- hc r lnr -e WP ngtri -n ~mortf v 7 l 1 d c u _ ~ ~ 11 -amp _ ~ t -oatV- 19 Invessents dl

20 DUSlness And then wne l orglnally noved 0 20 I a 21 Louis1ille lie stared a Ial order bsiness there 21 ~ Yino are a~ he ITe[le~s J ~Qia~tQe

22 Q W~at liiiS the name of the wae~oses 22 nesmens 23 A It was Beverage Wa~eho1Jse as e~l 23 1 ~e alone

- Page 11 r-- Page 12

1 Oamiddot i~ha ~olj-g~ -- oes I ~cmiddot__ ~~ ~ ~n ~~~ ~nl~1~ ~L ~~ec__ ~ ~_~g~

3 Q Did vou star it 3 t yi~~li no has i 4 ~ - aonr r~a~l ongt ~ t-hirl T til Al t~fl _ 1 Ie _ i~l ~irbull ut bull _Ie Q O~a~middot Coes it ~a~e a[y ~J25 ~~~ ~~~~

5 begirning i was re ad y brother broler and siste~

6 or some(hing Its changed ownerships in o~r amily 6 7 OCIgt or ~I~r

y SU( T

-(-01

-IS Of aure

~ ~ire

ago IIgt

~ had Q note ~~ AC~ - - -

H een t ~p n ~ wnegt r J And whats ~~ ~Gte ~or

9 () no 1-0 - 0 nomiddot T llay h 1rher- t- ~ ~ - _ ~ nink i 135 ih 0 ~o~ e~~ _~ 1) 1 v ill v - ~

oJ il - -C-me vomiddotdcv 9 ~ - shy

10 Hasa~ phoneic 10 it 11 A Year 12 Q Was ne a me-~er 0 -shyl3 A O~ ne Iriight hase bee~l for a brief tire J beha~f of

fl (la amphar IS Thgt ~poe omiddot Aaan ge 14 A Okay O1e rr~re -e 15 nlesiens 15 C m scrmiddotmiddot ~ IT COfI1Sec K~e = sec Oi 14 ~ vt 111 - _ ~

i I 1 middotr I ~h )~r-~r 7 ~ r~ 1~ I middotIr-c6 A 5 a ro~diq coopany 0 jOl na an] nv egt L 0 __ 1 ILS bull l~Oj ~~ ~_

~7 Q fJld what does ra mea r 17 Inestrrents f you said -shymiddot_ll A ~~t -~s mnev ot ~o ri~ Cerpnt ent-es-r l _ J~ _vC IU j 1_ ~~ ~l~ 18 A No i~ jus goes to ~IO 0 I lhe~p foe~ ~ ce~ ~~ one -Yo- 11 bull v ~ l to) J 1 1 bull ~9 Q O~ii So Advantage rvesCeraesr I 20 A =tsgot~en rom iOS_Y melrtr-e pas 20 a lote -shyd Q Ana 15 tat rro yor persona flnance 21 A With Martin T~ist

22 holdings 22 Q -- witt ~ar~ wis ani i joes~ ~~~e ~

I 23 A Yes 23 note with AIC Eoldi~gs

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708

13 J

(

2 I

A

--

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 _ Sheet 5 Page 17

A = -- yeah 2 Q And tren tlrouahou h5 process O~ be~a~f of 3 rhtl om ~o middot~1ri ~Vfl Ivde he de~sio1l~ h(c~ - o i tI 1vJ_U IO ~ iO ~ vl~ v 0

~ viould have aended he rediaic1 r hs case 5previously 6 MR KAiDSK To he exe ~a[ trat caEs for any corlers2oS bewee1 cOJ1se~ youre not to 9 di1ulge a~y discussons you have had vlith me 0 any 3 o~er ator1eys re~3[ive [0 [hat question

10 BY ~j~ PRESERVFTI ~l Q Yeah And let me ~larify Im go~g to go l2 intO a couple of qles~io~s here And your consel is 3 absolutely rigrt I dont middotart 0 b10 anthirg that 4 was said beeen yCJ and you~ attoney 15 A l6 Q 17 were done 18 A 19 O ~~ nn~ nrv a j~ c _ ~

1L A 22 Q 23 l

r- Page 19

~~ 1 f1L

Okay lim goig to as~ you quesio~s on when thirgs

Right -- Ott not tlho saa tr~err itn3t iaS said CI

l ~ e middotmiddotnmiddot Ola)~ 0 c bull t

0 _~01 c~ thees a questlo~ ~e~l go into it SJre

dont knOtl ) 0 -- ne 0 ha-i any ~nlohempr ~nLI~ 1 bull c y 1 J bull I 1 v 7middotmiddot shy

3 ansvlenna tne InterroaatOrIes recues 0 aCiITlts and - J bull

4 request ror procJctor doccmens n trns case A I re~embe he las one is all

~hlgt ~P1emlgtnr 1 respln~e~ ~6 Q 7 p- ~~ amp V

7 ~ _think so doni reeal exactv what it 8 was bu yeah 9 QU right VieJ go through that i1 a rrnLite

0 Do you know Iho answered the initial interrogatories or 11 the company 12 A No _ - ~ne~el- middot0 E~middotp~oees I~ -nvo~e ~nolea1j Ql bull v 0 e _

1 tr TOp1a~~vSr~ Ol~- hpTnla- n I i~ ] 0I middot-Umiddot rile0e W_ II u~ l1ol~ei ~_

15 anybody else answe~ed the inerrogatories 16 A I have no cea 17 Q l~erl middotmiddot~~e ndt- middotmiddotnlre lt ~ emiddot~onl inbull I jvl1 CnJ_ 1 il u OL_ _

8 ths case over a year aqo 19 ~ = vias not ~n Q ric Oll uthoy -e nbo1 0 g 0 tmiddotnmiddot ~L ~ i -Igt 1 - -- Ci ~ 1 V ~L

21 medatio1 22 A I ad no I dont ecall hat 3 Q SO you didnt ahorie Todd Pletcher to go

r- Page 18

~ B~I Id i~e 0 de~ve i~ 3 ~~ t~ ~ ~~ 2 YCli oecame a~Jare of n5 ~asu a~d ~e ~~middoto~~ee 3 re ~a~suit aEd re Ci2Cisi01S t~a ~ee ~3~e

Whe~ did yu fiSI be~e axare c~ ~~5

6 ~ denl recal ~ middotOU dJn~ -eccl I de middotia~ = middotc~~e~5

3 or ~e subsance of ne cor~iu~ic~~J~ b ~e c~ ~ 9 frs COrr[lU11cae i~ ~middotr ~crris~ e~-~g s

10 laws 11- 12 Q Sc yOJ krow if i ~a5 i~ the ~a5 s~ ~~~ 13 O~ ~J years age l~ ~ middot1ajte middotjhir Irc ~as 5 ~12r~5 - ~

15 pee~t sure 16 ~ ~is case f=s be~~ gorr~ c- ~~ sce ~~ f-Jh middot~s rr~~T~ cr ei-- ii (+ rc -- rf ~s -~ fl101 if ill ~_ bullbull j ~ JJ C_J _ ll

18 managi~g t~e laws~i 19 ~ I dont kno~

20 ~ So (iher ee here co~ middot1515 II~ ~ ~ - bullbull ~r 1 ~ ri I 1I bullL _e ~na p~eLU~sj yO_ 0 ~ ~ ~lil

22 A I haie ro idea

- __ _

~ c~ fmiddot~ shy~ v

_ Page 20

0 ne ]ediaia1 Ki~ 3~t~ori c 5e C~ l A ~~o = co I [ knJ~li ~~~ ~a ~s

~ is ba5ica~ly 0 f~d rrcre~ to ~art ~~

5 6 or

~ 001 SC then ~2~ dec-ic cae sq~re~middot 8 fre jo 0 fu~d a=tn ard oc ~i -e -~e~middot 9 ~ Yeah

10 Q vhat docureers were dc~e ~s 03 c ~C

21 ansaction ~2 A ~hereso 1ce - 2Jdhl~middot e~jr i3 ~~S~f 1 ec~se 0lt lt ril~ omiddot~ t-- --pe- shy~ IJ ~ L 11a~ umiddot l ~ _ l~j dl~ ~J - ~ ~

11 lna 1 can I2all S 12re s ~ aJC1~~e~ c ~ ~ ~c

15 Marn signed on cehaf of ~rsel = ~~i~~ 3~j ~~ ~5 6 eites for rre to loar re rc~E 11 n A -middot0 ~ 11middot shy

I _v fV s - J w

~8 A de = Olc Jea~ 9 ~ Can ~ie ge a ~o~i cf ~a eamiddot~5~ 2J seen a copy of ta oe

~ 15middote~

) ~ A( shy

22 23 ha~ tle reques her~ tat I s 2l~ -0

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 _ Sheet 3 Page 9 _ Page 10

1 Q 0 n ~ Kay i~l you go nroug yo~r emplO~lnen~ 1 Q = Califoria L Hstory stamng ~iltn your current OSltO arn ate rre 3 bac~ JrLl iOU wee wth esc

A Car Ie beer an entrepreneur mas of ill c 1 j lre ~ AI I~IS the sores ~et~ee~ ~e 3e5 ~~~ ~S6 Q Okay Wharfs yOU curren positio~ 6 ~ey ake up mosr of -ny tirE ~e ~~~~ ~~~

~ ~u TO a- ch-~no~~ middot_t~o~___ s~oregt~ bullIr TOisJJ ~_ 1_11e throuj~ AIO I~S ~eer a ~o~g l~~ ~~ = J~~

Q O~2Y AiC middot~at I 5 he name 0 nat chaij 8 ~ecal eacy the G6te ~1a tr~ I h3~ Smiddot-~ ~~~~ q 3er~ ~ reI~e ~ __~c v-~J _ ~ bull1 bull l~ ~~~~ji~~mo~C~o~~~~iqIl~~n~t~~~1 re ce ~~~i~~

-v Q O~ay JO you on na~ cy YCJrSel or ~~I

~l oher eoole ~ J Lets g rtc IO imiddotJ~cis l2 A~ 2y rryself i2 Okaj 13 Q ~ow long have VO] oi-iled tha Whats OJI ~osition ~ e~arjs t~ 2 11 ~ I star~eci ir 2eOe 1in~ i Ias 2)00 -shy5 ~ebruary of 2005 ~) A dO~ recal e~5I~ pC5~~ ~~e 16 Q And beore that when you were n Ca~ior~ia 6 decisions fo~ the cC~9ar~ = I s middoteci t~middot jmiddot~=middot~e 7 did 8U haiie any venures there 17 nvestments 1Q - 1 T c r1 T~aa ~IO 1~ cuo r 5middot05 here r ar shy - 14 _ ~ L _ 1 w _ 8 Q Okay ~nd are jCJ ITer~cer Jpound ~Jmiddotac~s 9 onPQ 11 1- hc r lnr -e WP ngtri -n ~mortf v 7 l 1 d c u _ ~ ~ 11 -amp _ ~ t -oatV- 19 Invessents dl

20 DUSlness And then wne l orglnally noved 0 20 I a 21 Louis1ille lie stared a Ial order bsiness there 21 ~ Yino are a~ he ITe[le~s J ~Qia~tQe

22 Q W~at liiiS the name of the wae~oses 22 nesmens 23 A It was Beverage Wa~eho1Jse as e~l 23 1 ~e alone

- Page 11 r-- Page 12

1 Oamiddot i~ha ~olj-g~ -- oes I ~cmiddot__ ~~ ~ ~n ~~~ ~nl~1~ ~L ~~ec__ ~ ~_~g~

3 Q Did vou star it 3 t yi~~li no has i 4 ~ - aonr r~a~l ongt ~ t-hirl T til Al t~fl _ 1 Ie _ i~l ~irbull ut bull _Ie Q O~a~middot Coes it ~a~e a[y ~J25 ~~~ ~~~~

5 begirning i was re ad y brother broler and siste~

6 or some(hing Its changed ownerships in o~r amily 6 7 OCIgt or ~I~r

y SU( T

-(-01

-IS Of aure

~ ~ire

ago IIgt

~ had Q note ~~ AC~ - - -

H een t ~p n ~ wnegt r J And whats ~~ ~Gte ~or

9 () no 1-0 - 0 nomiddot T llay h 1rher- t- ~ ~ - _ ~ nink i 135 ih 0 ~o~ e~~ _~ 1) 1 v ill v - ~

oJ il - -C-me vomiddotdcv 9 ~ - shy

10 Hasa~ phoneic 10 it 11 A Year 12 Q Was ne a me-~er 0 -shyl3 A O~ ne Iriight hase bee~l for a brief tire J beha~f of

fl (la amphar IS Thgt ~poe omiddot Aaan ge 14 A Okay O1e rr~re -e 15 nlesiens 15 C m scrmiddotmiddot ~ IT COfI1Sec K~e = sec Oi 14 ~ vt 111 - _ ~

i I 1 middotr I ~h )~r-~r 7 ~ r~ 1~ I middotIr-c6 A 5 a ro~diq coopany 0 jOl na an] nv egt L 0 __ 1 ILS bull l~Oj ~~ ~_

~7 Q fJld what does ra mea r 17 Inestrrents f you said -shymiddot_ll A ~~t -~s mnev ot ~o ri~ Cerpnt ent-es-r l _ J~ _vC IU j 1_ ~~ ~l~ 18 A No i~ jus goes to ~IO 0 I lhe~p foe~ ~ ce~ ~~ one -Yo- 11 bull v ~ l to) J 1 1 bull ~9 Q O~ii So Advantage rvesCeraesr I 20 A =tsgot~en rom iOS_Y melrtr-e pas 20 a lote -shyd Q Ana 15 tat rro yor persona flnance 21 A With Martin T~ist

22 holdings 22 Q -- witt ~ar~ wis ani i joes~ ~~~e ~

I 23 A Yes 23 note with AIC Eoldi~gs

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708

13 J

(

2 I

A

--

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 _ Sheet 5 Page 17

A = -- yeah 2 Q And tren tlrouahou h5 process O~ be~a~f of 3 rhtl om ~o middot~1ri ~Vfl Ivde he de~sio1l~ h(c~ - o i tI 1vJ_U IO ~ iO ~ vl~ v 0

~ viould have aended he rediaic1 r hs case 5previously 6 MR KAiDSK To he exe ~a[ trat caEs for any corlers2oS bewee1 cOJ1se~ youre not to 9 di1ulge a~y discussons you have had vlith me 0 any 3 o~er ator1eys re~3[ive [0 [hat question

10 BY ~j~ PRESERVFTI ~l Q Yeah And let me ~larify Im go~g to go l2 intO a couple of qles~io~s here And your consel is 3 absolutely rigrt I dont middotart 0 b10 anthirg that 4 was said beeen yCJ and you~ attoney 15 A l6 Q 17 were done 18 A 19 O ~~ nn~ nrv a j~ c _ ~

1L A 22 Q 23 l

r- Page 19

~~ 1 f1L

Okay lim goig to as~ you quesio~s on when thirgs

Right -- Ott not tlho saa tr~err itn3t iaS said CI

l ~ e middotmiddotnmiddot Ola)~ 0 c bull t

0 _~01 c~ thees a questlo~ ~e~l go into it SJre

dont knOtl ) 0 -- ne 0 ha-i any ~nlohempr ~nLI~ 1 bull c y 1 J bull I 1 v 7middotmiddot shy

3 ansvlenna tne InterroaatOrIes recues 0 aCiITlts and - J bull

4 request ror procJctor doccmens n trns case A I re~embe he las one is all

~hlgt ~P1emlgtnr 1 respln~e~ ~6 Q 7 p- ~~ amp V

7 ~ _think so doni reeal exactv what it 8 was bu yeah 9 QU right VieJ go through that i1 a rrnLite

0 Do you know Iho answered the initial interrogatories or 11 the company 12 A No _ - ~ne~el- middot0 E~middotp~oees I~ -nvo~e ~nolea1j Ql bull v 0 e _

1 tr TOp1a~~vSr~ Ol~- hpTnla- n I i~ ] 0I middot-Umiddot rile0e W_ II u~ l1ol~ei ~_

15 anybody else answe~ed the inerrogatories 16 A I have no cea 17 Q l~erl middotmiddot~~e ndt- middotmiddotnlre lt ~ emiddot~onl inbull I jvl1 CnJ_ 1 il u OL_ _

8 ths case over a year aqo 19 ~ = vias not ~n Q ric Oll uthoy -e nbo1 0 g 0 tmiddotnmiddot ~L ~ i -Igt 1 - -- Ci ~ 1 V ~L

21 medatio1 22 A I ad no I dont ecall hat 3 Q SO you didnt ahorie Todd Pletcher to go

r- Page 18

~ B~I Id i~e 0 de~ve i~ 3 ~~ t~ ~ ~~ 2 YCli oecame a~Jare of n5 ~asu a~d ~e ~~middoto~~ee 3 re ~a~suit aEd re Ci2Cisi01S t~a ~ee ~3~e

Whe~ did yu fiSI be~e axare c~ ~~5

6 ~ denl recal ~ middotOU dJn~ -eccl I de middotia~ = middotc~~e~5

3 or ~e subsance of ne cor~iu~ic~~J~ b ~e c~ ~ 9 frs COrr[lU11cae i~ ~middotr ~crris~ e~-~g s

10 laws 11- 12 Q Sc yOJ krow if i ~a5 i~ the ~a5 s~ ~~~ 13 O~ ~J years age l~ ~ middot1ajte middotjhir Irc ~as 5 ~12r~5 - ~

15 pee~t sure 16 ~ ~is case f=s be~~ gorr~ c- ~~ sce ~~ f-Jh middot~s rr~~T~ cr ei-- ii (+ rc -- rf ~s -~ fl101 if ill ~_ bullbull j ~ JJ C_J _ ll

18 managi~g t~e laws~i 19 ~ I dont kno~

20 ~ So (iher ee here co~ middot1515 II~ ~ ~ - bullbull ~r 1 ~ ri I 1I bullL _e ~na p~eLU~sj yO_ 0 ~ ~ ~lil

22 A I haie ro idea

- __ _

~ c~ fmiddot~ shy~ v

_ Page 20

0 ne ]ediaia1 Ki~ 3~t~ori c 5e C~ l A ~~o = co I [ knJ~li ~~~ ~a ~s

~ is ba5ica~ly 0 f~d rrcre~ to ~art ~~

5 6 or

~ 001 SC then ~2~ dec-ic cae sq~re~middot 8 fre jo 0 fu~d a=tn ard oc ~i -e -~e~middot 9 ~ Yeah

10 Q vhat docureers were dc~e ~s 03 c ~C

21 ansaction ~2 A ~hereso 1ce - 2Jdhl~middot e~jr i3 ~~S~f 1 ec~se 0lt lt ril~ omiddot~ t-- --pe- shy~ IJ ~ L 11a~ umiddot l ~ _ l~j dl~ ~J - ~ ~

11 lna 1 can I2all S 12re s ~ aJC1~~e~ c ~ ~ ~c

15 Marn signed on cehaf of ~rsel = ~~i~~ 3~j ~~ ~5 6 eites for rre to loar re rc~E 11 n A -middot0 ~ 11middot shy

I _v fV s - J w

~8 A de = Olc Jea~ 9 ~ Can ~ie ge a ~o~i cf ~a eamiddot~5~ 2J seen a copy of ta oe

~ 15middote~

) ~ A( shy

22 23 ha~ tle reques her~ tat I s 2l~ -0

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708

--

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 _ Sheet 5 Page 17

A = -- yeah 2 Q And tren tlrouahou h5 process O~ be~a~f of 3 rhtl om ~o middot~1ri ~Vfl Ivde he de~sio1l~ h(c~ - o i tI 1vJ_U IO ~ iO ~ vl~ v 0

~ viould have aended he rediaic1 r hs case 5previously 6 MR KAiDSK To he exe ~a[ trat caEs for any corlers2oS bewee1 cOJ1se~ youre not to 9 di1ulge a~y discussons you have had vlith me 0 any 3 o~er ator1eys re~3[ive [0 [hat question

10 BY ~j~ PRESERVFTI ~l Q Yeah And let me ~larify Im go~g to go l2 intO a couple of qles~io~s here And your consel is 3 absolutely rigrt I dont middotart 0 b10 anthirg that 4 was said beeen yCJ and you~ attoney 15 A l6 Q 17 were done 18 A 19 O ~~ nn~ nrv a j~ c _ ~

1L A 22 Q 23 l

r- Page 19

~~ 1 f1L

Okay lim goig to as~ you quesio~s on when thirgs

Right -- Ott not tlho saa tr~err itn3t iaS said CI

l ~ e middotmiddotnmiddot Ola)~ 0 c bull t

0 _~01 c~ thees a questlo~ ~e~l go into it SJre

dont knOtl ) 0 -- ne 0 ha-i any ~nlohempr ~nLI~ 1 bull c y 1 J bull I 1 v 7middotmiddot shy

3 ansvlenna tne InterroaatOrIes recues 0 aCiITlts and - J bull

4 request ror procJctor doccmens n trns case A I re~embe he las one is all

~hlgt ~P1emlgtnr 1 respln~e~ ~6 Q 7 p- ~~ amp V

7 ~ _think so doni reeal exactv what it 8 was bu yeah 9 QU right VieJ go through that i1 a rrnLite

0 Do you know Iho answered the initial interrogatories or 11 the company 12 A No _ - ~ne~el- middot0 E~middotp~oees I~ -nvo~e ~nolea1j Ql bull v 0 e _

1 tr TOp1a~~vSr~ Ol~- hpTnla- n I i~ ] 0I middot-Umiddot rile0e W_ II u~ l1ol~ei ~_

15 anybody else answe~ed the inerrogatories 16 A I have no cea 17 Q l~erl middotmiddot~~e ndt- middotmiddotnlre lt ~ emiddot~onl inbull I jvl1 CnJ_ 1 il u OL_ _

8 ths case over a year aqo 19 ~ = vias not ~n Q ric Oll uthoy -e nbo1 0 g 0 tmiddotnmiddot ~L ~ i -Igt 1 - -- Ci ~ 1 V ~L

21 medatio1 22 A I ad no I dont ecall hat 3 Q SO you didnt ahorie Todd Pletcher to go

r- Page 18

~ B~I Id i~e 0 de~ve i~ 3 ~~ t~ ~ ~~ 2 YCli oecame a~Jare of n5 ~asu a~d ~e ~~middoto~~ee 3 re ~a~suit aEd re Ci2Cisi01S t~a ~ee ~3~e

Whe~ did yu fiSI be~e axare c~ ~~5

6 ~ denl recal ~ middotOU dJn~ -eccl I de middotia~ = middotc~~e~5

3 or ~e subsance of ne cor~iu~ic~~J~ b ~e c~ ~ 9 frs COrr[lU11cae i~ ~middotr ~crris~ e~-~g s

10 laws 11- 12 Q Sc yOJ krow if i ~a5 i~ the ~a5 s~ ~~~ 13 O~ ~J years age l~ ~ middot1ajte middotjhir Irc ~as 5 ~12r~5 - ~

15 pee~t sure 16 ~ ~is case f=s be~~ gorr~ c- ~~ sce ~~ f-Jh middot~s rr~~T~ cr ei-- ii (+ rc -- rf ~s -~ fl101 if ill ~_ bullbull j ~ JJ C_J _ ll

18 managi~g t~e laws~i 19 ~ I dont kno~

20 ~ So (iher ee here co~ middot1515 II~ ~ ~ - bullbull ~r 1 ~ ri I 1I bullL _e ~na p~eLU~sj yO_ 0 ~ ~ ~lil

22 A I haie ro idea

- __ _

~ c~ fmiddot~ shy~ v

_ Page 20

0 ne ]ediaia1 Ki~ 3~t~ori c 5e C~ l A ~~o = co I [ knJ~li ~~~ ~a ~s

~ is ba5ica~ly 0 f~d rrcre~ to ~art ~~

5 6 or

~ 001 SC then ~2~ dec-ic cae sq~re~middot 8 fre jo 0 fu~d a=tn ard oc ~i -e -~e~middot 9 ~ Yeah

10 Q vhat docureers were dc~e ~s 03 c ~C

21 ansaction ~2 A ~hereso 1ce - 2Jdhl~middot e~jr i3 ~~S~f 1 ec~se 0lt lt ril~ omiddot~ t-- --pe- shy~ IJ ~ L 11a~ umiddot l ~ _ l~j dl~ ~J - ~ ~

11 lna 1 can I2all S 12re s ~ aJC1~~e~ c ~ ~ ~c

15 Marn signed on cehaf of ~rsel = ~~i~~ 3~j ~~ ~5 6 eites for rre to loar re rc~E 11 n A -middot0 ~ 11middot shy

I _v fV s - J w

~8 A de = Olc Jea~ 9 ~ Can ~ie ge a ~o~i cf ~a eamiddot~5~ 2J seen a copy of ta oe

~ 15middote~

) ~ A( shy

22 23 ha~ tle reques her~ tat I s 2l~ -0

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708

THOMAS T MARTIN VS AIO HOLDINGS LLC ET AL THE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF GREGORY P ANASTAS

SEPTEMBER 142011 __ Sheet 8 Page 29 r- Page 30

i ) y Ii-- ~ T ~ bull shy1 aareec idament ~ta was enteed in leffesor Ccuny as - Co 1l_ oj ~eurot ~e as ~l 5 =~ I~- ) YO ~~lt If Fr~ ffr~f( nf1 fj ~ ~ bullbull ~ (l~Y~ ~ s~ __ v_ W _~_~IVs_ ~ 0 JVlA cVlO m____ v av__ O_ 2 yo~ jae ~a =5 a rESJ~ cf ~5 ~dgs~ -2 5 ~ ~oa to MarL ~~lst 3 e~e~c ~~ Ke~~ck~1 ha ~~~ c~~~~ed s~~ ~e25 ~

~ the [middoti2rin I~rbe ~ ~ 3~~ ~-Lr~er 5~J ~2 ~~~A ~~g~tmiddotr ~rT ~ ~ ~ n- i ~nhiQ tdp~_SJ~ L tn ~ J~age -~ jVw o~_c_ ed ~ 5 Nurtber ~ g~s ~iells

r Q6 interest ] al~ ~e 01 ard cas ieases lsec nere

7 ~~cl~d~ng ]~liple wels the Mart~~ i t~e ~a=t~c 2 and C~~5Ea is = ~areuro 2no~e ~~~s~ gc~~~ ~2E i~~~ r~ 8 he Magi~ 4 gas wels Sj~~~ tc aach t~c3e wels O~ g~i~ J~~srs~~ Ge 9 A Okay 9 [~ose wel~s I den[ k~Ci ~ow c 55~ ~ ~~e~~5~

10 Q Sc I f~8n his OOClmeDI yo~ are nO1 ~~e CflJer iJ Q _ guess ~y q~esc~ IS ~ee ~~ ~~~e ~~ l~ of hose ~eases ~ lC~ ere g~aned c~eshp of ~~83e e~ls c ~ ~lt

1 1 Okav ~= ~ I den ~[OW specif~ca~j 2ea~Seuro _Q~5 Q - n he ~a=ti~ ~e~s hals in disote he=e ~3 i~e ti~ese c ]E al ~3 s[~~

14 A Oiay ~ ~ ~ So yc~ ~Je en I a~i~re

15 Q 1ere yo c~Jare c~ trat 1 1

j ~R Kk~lNSKI Before ~ou arstier 1e me just 16 Im [0

7 object on the record to ~ie e~~ent ha Mr Prastas is 7 docurren K r n -tmiddotw~p -r tn-middot r n~~ ~ egt a~mprtl~t1 v L G __ vJy j~A I It _ gtj i v l8 C~aJ

r1Q (orbr ~s ~ ~ersr he ~i~ ~r~pr as -oSr ~e middotn1 v Jmiddot y J v I 1 Ii _ J _ v 19 I I 1 j~St askirg jC~ persor2~ ~I_ ~~~-

0 r~

LJ IeI yeu Lv r Yea~ I a5 no ala~euro 1 bull ~ bull

InE IlTNESS Im a litle CO~Jsec l guess L_ ~ ~C un_ y~~ ca~e l~ ~~re ~G3~ ~~ ~ ~

22 I I If ccnftsed 2 k~ow ha AIC Ecldi~gs as 8~e cf ~5 ~~~d~~5 ~~E 23 BY tR PRESERVA~I 23 t~e ~as wel~s on ~ ~a~ins ~pe~~

r-- Page 31 r-- Page 32

~ ~Jr yon - ~or ro ~t 1 tod~middotymiddotl ~_~1 bull c I _ VJ 1bullbullbull 1 Jl 1 u

Q ~c tha I1jld ~it~~~r why yo~ have fC day-o-J f~V 0rmiddotOV~10n fr1~~f ~ -fere r wolle ) Jo j t v - 1 1 1 ___ Q ~3~]e yoe sdegre emiddot~cti2ci er5~o~~~ ~ _middotv

A Rght ~ behaf cf AIO Ecld~[gs a~y ~~t3C ~c ~e ~~~~ ~ Q ~o 01 m~r0P f 0 ere r4 middotv Ye rlf 1-~rJ - y ~ o~ -~ i_ Y j I ~ alc v_ l~O~ gas rro~g~ he ~1srit t~umDer ~~e ci~ ~j~b~ ~~ 6 t~ec you ~us toot O~ a lot of my questo~s 6 the ~arin ~middot~trbe~ 4 gas we~ls 1104~Je 1 VI Ee r rn e bullbullrome rIoac_ p epr[ero11 ~ _

8 A Neer i ~as J~IC H~dilas e-~ 2el~ ~ C-~E~ J bullbullbull

9 Q Have you ever heard he nae jOi2tna~ Reager 9 inasoeVeuroI for ~hescosc~e or ~OrEr8r ~c ~2 53_S ~ (phoreic) ~Q ~as fron ~he ~a~~ middotjneer 1 ~~a[~~ ~middot~~s = r middot_s_~

Never ~~ N~2be 4 gas ~middotje~ls 12 r~R KAE=lSK= I right be pronojced Reager ~3 2ave you ee heara that ame 3 Q~J ~O1 nC~i syrlrg c~-~ ~E r~ ~--~~~ I_1 TH2 W=TNESS No ~ ~ (rtir lLrrbe= 2 c= ~a~i i-le ~ gas ie~~~

~R KJM=NSKI Sorry 15 F k 6 BY NR PRESERV~7 16 Q SO as ~u si~ ~ee oaay en be~ ~ 0

01middotP Y Pifer anho cea lrIne T Dr tor ~Q v 0 __ v v 1 v_ 11 Eoldigs ]01 can I t speak at a~~ bt~ [roe ~~~ ~=5 ~8 maintain the statts 0 the r-artin Number 1 ~he Martin 19 prcd~ced fcm the lta~i N~rrbe= 1 middotic~ middot~rt 19 Numbe~ 2 or he Xartin N~rnDer 4 gas ~el 9 ~middot~art~n ~umber ~ els

20 A No 2) h 0 0 1~ r 1 ~~ 1 ~hlmiddotltf fJ~21 Q nave vu ere au_nV~l ea Vi ena~_ 0 fllv 2 Q Can ~cJ speak a a re t~e Oi~~ ~a~~e~

I bullbull d ~ I

(I nol ngs aryone to ee ion I or tre prodtcon or gas LL tlac Iere rale 0 oea tl0S~ ~= __ S 23 that I 5 gone hrough t~e l~arin Number 1 he ~arti1 Z3 n 0

PAMELA I WOOD CCR DEMUTH COURT REPORTING

304-766-8708