Direct examination:

Q: Did you say something to Mr. Kaminski about "We don't need any more cops in RAC"?

A: Well, what the discussion was as-I was congratulating Vince, because it's really--quite honestly, it's a little unusual for the commercial guys to be so supportive of someone who is a PhD in mathematics. It's just­ sometimes that doesn't happen. And so, he was-I was telling Vince, "This is great. You know, you are really in demand within the company. They want you in North America." And I was, basically, saying "Congratulations that you have such support within the company."

And then we talked some about RAC. And he said, "Well, will we be able to support RAC?" I said, "Yes, because RAC could continue to draw on their services as necessary." He said, "Is that a problem?" And I said-I said, "I don't think so because we have plenty of cops in the RAC group,"because the RAC group, at that point, was a very big organization and had -including analysts and associates had a couple hundred of people in that organization. So, I told Vince he didn't have to worry, "We have plenty of cops in-house to protect the company."

Q: Were you in any way, shape, or form demoting Mr. Kaminski?

A: No. Vince was pleased. I think he was happy to move.

Cross-examination by Sean Berkowitz:

Q: Sir, 24680 is a check [to Ms. Bender] dated March 3 of 1998, Number 276; correct?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: The next one is dated [sic] 277 for $10,000 to Ms. Bender; correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: The next one in sequence, March 2nd, 1998, $10,000 to Ms. Bender?

A: That's correct.

Q: The next one, 279April 10th of 1998, $55,000 to the IRS?

A: That's correct.

Q: Sir, is it your testimony that you did not backdate that Check Number 277?

A: I don't recall.

Q: Can you explain to the jury, sir, why it is that Check 277 has a date of December 28, 1997?

A: No, I can't, Mr. Berkowitz. And if it’s – if you believe that this is somehow a violation of a tax laws. I'd be happy to sit down and talk to you about it, because it's not...

Q: And, sir, is it your testimony that your relationship-that the personal nature of your relationship with Ms. Bender ended in 1998?

A: I'm sorry.

Q: Is it your testimony that the personal nature of your relationship with Ms. Bender ended in 1998?

A: Oh, no. We stayed friends. We're friends. I haven’t talked to her in awhile, but we may have occasionally dated some subsequent to that.

Q: But your romantic relationship with her ended in 1997 or 1998?

A: We stayed friends after that.

Q: That's not my question.

A: You'd have to define – what – what does this have to do with fraud at Enron Corporation, just out of curiosity?

Q: Can you answer my question or not, Mr. Skilling?

A: We continued to have a relationship, yes....


Donate to Famous-Trials.com: With your help, Famous-Trials.com can expand and update its library of landmark cases and, at the same time, support the next generation of legal minds from UMKC School of Law.

Donate Now