Zane Seipler Sanctions Motion Defense – Part 4

Blake Horwitz

The testimony of Rose Seipler attorney John Nelson moved next to his questioning by Keith Nygren attorney James Sotos’ associate Elizabeth Ekl.

She asked if it Zane Seipler attorney would have acted unethically, if he has represented both Zane and his wife in his wife’s deposition.

“I’m unsure,” Nelson replied. “It would be unethical if there were a known conflict.”

Nelson said his first representation was in October, 2010.

“[Would it have been] inappropriate for Mr. Horwitz to file a response in her behalf?

Judge Frederick Kapala’s ears picked up on the inference and he asked,

“Did he?”

“I believe he did,” Ekl replied.

“I have no interest,” Nelson said. “I have not interest in waiting hours to be called. I have no stake in this game.”

Ekl pointed to Document Exhibit 114, a filing on Rose Seipler’s behalf.

[At that point, I wrote, “Gotcha,” on my legal paid.]

Nelson explained that the date of the Horwitz filing was “one or two days after I filed my motion. It should have been captioned, ‘Now comes Mr. Seipler,” not ‘Mrs. Seipler.'”

Ekl pointed out this was the second time Horwitz represented Mrs. Seipler [the first being the deposition].

“Anything unethical for him to serve you a subpoena for her deposition?” Ekl asked.


My notes of who was asking questions at this point is a bit ambiguous, but I think the following identifications were put into the record by Ekl:

  • October 17 memo filed by Nelson – Doc 103.
  • October 18 memo filed by Horwitz – Doc 104.

Now, I have an “H” referring to Horwitz in the margin.

He asks about the facts in the two petitions.

“You incorporated very similar facts in your supplemental brief,” Nelson observed.

Horwitz points to page 45, line 6 [in the Rose Seipler deposition, I think], referring to Sotos associate Liz Barton mentioning the existence of a conflict.

Asking Nelson if he has a recollection after reading the reference elicited this comment from Judge Kapala:

“I don’t think he has any recollection of the deposition because he wasn’t there.”

One from the Sotos team objects suggesting, “Why not admit the deposition?”

Horwitz wasn’t ready to do that without reviewing the deposition with reference to what effect its being in the record might have on others parts of the case.

“He’s not going to testify to anything other than what he read in the deposition,” Judge Kapala observed.

At this point Horwitz went back to the hearsay objection that was upheld.  He referenced some “prior consistent statement” exception.

“I will do it up with her testimony,” he said.

“The defense is trying to allege collusion,” Horwitz said right before Sotos said, “They put this whole thing together after [the sanctions motion].”

“Did I ask you for information about what she (Rose Seipler) said?” Horwitz inquired.

“Yes,” Nelson replied.

“For my part I told you Mrs. Seipler wouldn’t be speaking to anyone.”

At this point, Nelson apparently realized he had misspoken on something, but my notes don’t indicate what.

John Nelson

He did, however, come up with two classics:

  • “It was probably age and infirmity.
  • “It’s much more difficult to be a witness than standing out there.”

At this point Rose Seipler and her current attorney Dennis Giovannnini re-entered the courtroom.

“Did it come time for Mrs. Seipler to have a conversation?”

The date referenced was October 26, 2011.

“What did she tell you?” Horwitz asked.

“No objection,” Giovannnini said.

“Step out, please,” Judge Kapala said.

More tomorrow.

= = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.