From: Case 2:15-cv-00828-DN-EJF Document 256-14 Filed 11/17/17
( Neldon Johnson's deposition)
**** Quote start ****
11 Q. All right. In the e-mail that starts off
12 Plaintiff's Exhibit 357, the second paragraph,
13 Mr. Clement says:
14 "These are the same drawings that
15 were submitted to the Feds for the
16 1603 grant program that they were
17 approved for."
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Uh-huh.
20 Q. Couple questions: Number 1, how did
21 Mr. Clement get these technical drawings that he
22 attached to Kirton & McConkie?
23 A. He probably asked them, and I gave them
24 to him, yeah. There was nothing wrong with that.
25 Q. Then my next question is: What's your
1 recollection of the 1603 grant program that he's
2 talking about here?
3 A. Well, the 1603 grant program was given
4 out by Obama in place of the 30 percent tax credits.
5 Q. And you know what, sorry. Let me ask a
6 slightly different question.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. When, if at all, did any entity that
9 we've talked about today apply for the 1603 grant
10 program?
11 A. I don't remember the dates, but I know
12 that they were applied for with Dave Nelson as the
13 attorney acting in behalf of the company, and they
14 were all -- they were all given to us.
15 Q. I'm sorry. Did you say you were approved
16 for the 1603 grant program?
17 A. Yes, we were.
18 Q. Do you have any documentation reflecting
19 that?
20 A. I don't know. Dave -- Dave Nelson would
21 have it. I don't have any.
22 Q. So then how do you know you were approved
23 for that?
24 A. Well, he told me. He said it was
25 approved.
1 Q. Who told you?
2 A. Dave Nelson. So it was just something
3 that we got and we got back and we approved it.
4 Q. So what happened after you were approved
5 for the grant? Did you get federal grant money?
6 A. No. We decided we didn't want to do it
7 that way. So we felt like that we would do it some
8 other way, and so we didn't. But we were approved.
9 We weren't rejected in any fashion that I did -- that
10 I know of.
11 Q. How -- okay.
12 So your only source for knowledge that
13 you were approved for the 1603 grant program was a
14 statement from David Nelson?
15 A. Yeah. It -- in letter format I think
16 that he showed me. He said that they were approved.
17 There was a lot of money. Actually, $500 million, I
18 think.
19 Q. And you decided to say no thank you?
20 A. Well, we just -- I want to do some
21 different things again, and so it wasn't -- it
22 wouldn't fit in what I was doing, so we didn't do it.
23 We could have done it, but we didn't.
24 Would have taken away from what I was doing in another
25 way, and I didn't want to jeopardize what I'd already
1 done.
2 Q. If you have that letter from David
3 Nelson, will you produce it?
4 A. Yeah, fine. We can ask him about it.
5 Get it to him, I guess.
6 Q. I'll show you what's been marked as
7 Plaintiff's Exhibit 514.
8 (Exhibit 514 was marked for identification.)
9 Q. BY MS. HEALY-GALLAGHER: Take a look at
10 that and let me know when you're ready to answer
11 questions.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. Is this the statement that you recall
14 from Mr. Nelson?
15 A. No, this isn't it. This was just they
16 wanted more information, I think.
17 Q. Okay. So you have a different statement
18 from Mr. Nelson that you were -- you or an entity that
19 you're in charge of was approved for a 1603 grant?
20 A. Yeah, I -- I -- this could be the letter,
21 I don't know. But I know they gave me something, you
22 know, that if we -- if we completed it that they would
23 probably -- they gave it to us.
24 Q. So is your recollection now that you were
25 not approved for the grant?
1 A. No, no, as far as I -- we weren't
2 approved for the grant until -- until after we
3 produced the product.
4 Q. Okay. Because he says in this e-mail --
5 A. But that's what --
6 Q. Hang on.
7 A. We were approved to start the project.
8 Q. He says in this e-mail:
9 "It looks like this is the
10 confirmation until we get the project
11 in service."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Right. Did you ever -- did you ever get
15 the project in service?
16 A. No, we never even -- we never went beyond
17 just putting out the -- the -- the metal structures.
18 We didn't put any lenses in place.
19 Q. Okay. So in fact --
20 A. We were building the structure out.
21 Q. In fact, there was no approval for a 1603
22 grant to you or any entity that you control?
23 A. Well, no, there was -- it was approved
24 that we could do it.
25 Q. No, sir. That's not what that e-mail
1 says. That's not what that e-mail says.
2 A. Well, you can read it the way you want
3 and I'll read it the way I want.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. I interpreted it meant that if I did the
6 job, that they would evaluate it and they would give
7 me the credit.
8 Q. If you have any other statement from
9 Mr. Nelson on that topic, please produce it to the
10 United States.
11 A. Okay. But, yeah, that's -- I don't know
12 that this is the letter, but he gave me something. So
13 as far as I was concerned, he told me if I produced
14 the product, I would get it, so there you go.
15 Of course, I'm not a legal mind, so I
16 read it from the standpoint what the words meant to me
17 and my terms, you know.
**** Quote end ****
Anybody who hasn't done so yet really should read the entire deposition.
And, those who have already read it, should read it again.
Neldon's live testimony should be quite interesting.
I'd like to know when he will be called to testify. Before or after Greg Shepard is called to testify?
Who will throw who under the bus?
That's the same question I asked MaddDawg (RIP) way back in November of 2008. Almost TEN YEARS AGO.
IMO, Shepard has a case against Neldon for not sharing pertinent information (according to Shepard). So, Shepard might benefit from blaming it all on Neldon.
On the other hand, Shepard claims he never asked Neldon for status information (according to Shepard's deposition), so Neldon could say it was all Shepard's fault for not being diligent enough to follow through.
So, there you have it. It's all up in the air.
Did to!
Did not!
Of course, the judge might decide everything was above board, and shame on the IRS/DOJ for questioning any of it.
I'm thinking that's an unlikely scenario.
Sure is a pretty day.
TED
AI
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
