Woodstock Nation Foundation website is generously donated by
Presiding is Judge Albert Fimognari.
Lawyer for the defendants (Abigail Storm, Daniel Eggink, Cynthis Jewel Eggink, Joe Anderson, Jay and Joy Debberman) is Richard Newberg
Lawyer representing the plaintiffs (Alan Gerry and Gelish Realty) is Joey Drillings Assistant District Attorney , Sullivan New York.
Newberg- Here's the relevance of it. There was a transfer from June Gelish, to Gelish Realty, LLC. All the documents of record show that Gelish Realty, LLC is owned by June Gelish. It lists the address of Gelish Realty, LLC as her address. It's a transfer. If you'll look at this document, your honor. It's a transfer. One of the buyers is also the seller, checked off there. It's a transfer for no consideration. This gentleman is saying that he represents companies that own Gelish Realty, LLC. Yet, the documents of record show that the transfer was from June Gelish to June Gelish, her own company. It says it right there, signed by her, and that it was for no money. If that's not evidence that they don't own Gelish Realty, LLC, I don't know what is. And I'd like an opportunity to be able to show it.
Drillings- Judge, and if I may be heard. Mr. Newberg makes a great witness, an unsworn great witness, who wasn't able to prove this in the court where it's supposed to be proven. Now, he's bullying around this court with stuff he's not supposed to be testifying to, putting it in the record. And it's not relevant to this case, Judge. And it's starting to get annoying, because he keeps doing it over and over again and it has nothing to do with the trespass case, Judge.
Judge- I'm gonna ask you to change your line of questioning. Leave this deed, this property is owned by whoever's under that name and that's it.
Newberg- I just wanna establish who that person is.
Judge- Just a moment. This gentleman is an officer of June Gelish, LLC.
Newberg- So he says.
Drillings- Judge, he's a sworn witness. Now Mr.New.....
Judge- Do you wanna see my test that I passed to prove that I'm the judge.
Newberg- I want an opportunity to cross-examine him, Judge.
Judge- If you wanna know whether I'm a judge or not, then I can show you.
Newberg- I want, yes, I don't have, I don't know that, I don't have to need that, Judge, because I can go look at your certificate. I wanna inquire and see what documents he's got, to see what he says. I want an opportunity to cross examine him, you're not giving me that opportunity.
Judge- You want him to show you a piece of paper that he's an officer of that company or a card or something.
Newberg- Your honor I wanna see if he has certificates, membership certificates. I don't wanna see a card I wanna see the legal documents.
Drillings -Judge, does Mr.Newberg have a legal document to say that he's a lawyer for Newberg and Newberg. Do I have a document to say that I'm Assistant District Attorney for the DA's office?
Newberg- No, but I have a deed to my house, your honor. With my name on it. And my address.
Drillings- But you're not a corporation.
Newberg- And I paid the transfer tax when I bought it.
Drillings- Judge, I see soap boxes lined up all across the courtroom at this point, but what I would ask is that Mr. Newberg not be allowed to testify. That he be allowed to question the witness.
Newberg- I'd like to ask a question.
Judge- Mr.Newberg, get on another line of questioning.
Newberg- Your Honor, please note my exception, because I feel this is certainly reversible error.
Judge- I did. It's right here.
Newberg- You're not giving me an opportunity to ask about ownership of the property?
Judge- You should have enough according to what you said.
Newberg- So, your honor will not let me inquire into the, whether or not that deed conveyed the property to Mr. Supak's company?
Judge- No, because it's got nothing to do with this. If he's lying on the stand that he's an officer of that company, that's another thing.
Newberg- I can't. I want an opportunity to establish, to try and see whether he's lying or not, or mistaken, I won't say he's lying.
Judge- He told you he is. He has a business card here if you wanna see it. I'll accept it as gospel. If you don't, that's up to you.
Newberg- Mr. Supak, I can't ask you any questions with regard to ownership. Let's move onto another subject...In your capacity as officers of the various companies that you say you're officer of ......
Judge- (to defendant, Joy Debberman) Excuse me, do you have a pacifier for the baby or a bottle or something.
Newberg- Is it okay for this defendant to go outside your honor?
Drillings- If she waives her right to be here, the people don't object...Note that for the record that she did, if she does wave the right to be here.
Newberg- Your Honor, if I could ask to move on, now.
Judge- Yes, please.
Newberg- In your capacity, in whatever offices you are, whatever companies, do you participate in the day to day... did you participate in the day to day planning, operation, of whatever operation there was, formulation of rules, with regard to the Woodstock site for this past July and August?
Supak- Yes.
Newberg- And are you familiar at all... you're familiar with the Woodstock site?
Supak- Yes, I am.
Newberg- And, is it correct to say that it's an open vacant field, only containing a monument?
Judge- That question has been asked and answered counselor. Let's get on with it.
Newberg- Of another witness, your honor.
Judge- This witness right here.
Drillings- No, Judge. That was Mr.Ruth.
Judge- It was another witness ?...I apologize. I was wrong, again. I'm not perfect.
Newberg- None of us are. That's why they put erasers on pencils. An open vacant field is how you'd describe it? Not fenced, and no structures on it, other than a monument?
Supak- There are no structures.
Newberg- Do you know what that monument is for?
Supak- Well, I, yeah.
Newberg- What's it for?
Supak- It's a commemorative stone placed there by Mrs. Gelish and Louis Nicky.
Newberg- To commemorate the Woodstock Festival in 1969?
Supak- That's what it says on it.
Newberg- To your knowledge, were people invited to come on the property, to view the monument over the last, now going back a few years.
Supak- I can't comment going back a few years. I can only comment what the policy was prior to that particular time and I think it was stated on our press release and on our sign.
Newberg- So, you allowed people to view the monument, walk on the property?
Supak- During daylight hours, and visitation.
Newberg- Other than your press releases, were there any other published rules or regulations prior to the arrests of my clients?
Supak- Published? We have...
Newberg- Written documents?
Supak- None that I'm aware of. I mean, there's been a lot that's been written by the press.
Newberg- Mr. Supak, didn't you tell the press in essence, that you wouldn't have anybody arrested? That the enforcement of any ordinances would be up to the police?
Supak- That I would not have anybody arrested?
Newberg- Yes.
Supak- That's kind of like asking me what I had for lunch six weeks ago, I mean, I remember I had lunch, what exactly was said? I don't really know.
Newberg- I'm talking about a statement to the press.
Supak- I believe that I said that the.. You know, it's like, I said, it's like asking me what I had for lunch, I know I had lunch.
Newberg- If I could read...............Did you state to the Times Herald Record that some Granite employees would probably be at the site during August 15th through 17th to ask people to respect the law but that the enforcement of any ordinances would be left up to the State Police and the Sheriff's department?
Supak- That's what it says in the Times Herald Record. And I can tell you there's many times that I've said things to the Times Herald Record, that didn't come out exactly like I said 'em.
Newberg- Did you say that?
Supak- Like, I said... I did not... I can't say I exactly said that. I would not be surprised if that was not exactly what was said, because, like I've said, there've been many misquotes about what I've said to the Times Herald Record. And a lot of quotes out of context.
Newberg- Well, is this the substance of what you said?
Supak- You know, if what you're saying there is that I said I wasn't gonna arrest anybody that's not what it says.
Newberg- Well, it says that Granite employees would probably be at the site during August 15th through the 17th to ask people to respect the law, but that the enforcement of any ordinances would be left up to the State Police and the Sheriff's Department.
Supak- So, what does that have to do with ordinances?
Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object, being, last I heard, neither Mr. Supak nor his company can arrest anybody. That's left up the the Sheriff's department and the police of this area.
Judge- Of course. It's always up to the police, enforcement is not up to the individuals. He could call the state police, I want these people off my land then they would enforce the law.
Newberg- That's right your honor, that's right. He'd have to sign... complaints would have to be signed. So, affirmative action would have to be taken by the owner of the property to have them arrested.
Judge- Correct. And that's what they did.
Newberg- I'm asking him whether the substance of this statement is correct, that you would be there, that people, that your employees would be there to ask people to respect the law, but enforcement of the ordinances would be left up to the police and sheriff's department.
Supak- I mean you know, I don't recall if those exact words were used. And, like I said, I don't always... the quotes don't always come out verbatim.
Newberg- Is this wrong? Is this the substance of what you said?
Supak- Are we talking about that article?
Newberg- Yes.
Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object. It's in the paper, a quote in the paper. Take it for what it is, Judge. But, I have a different definition of enforcement than Mr. Newberg does. I'm gonna object to specifically making him say that these exact words were the words he used. He stated that he made.
Judge- I think the witness did say that he's not sure exactly what was said. He doesn't know if that's the true quote or not.
Newberg- I'm asking him the substance of what he said, not the exact.
Supak- What I said is that we would not personally be arresting people.
Newberg- And, in effect... yet you did arrest people? You did file a complaint?
Supak- We didn't arrest people. I interpret arrest as going out and arresting people. That was, to my knowledge, done by the State Police. They did the arresting...Maybe we have a difference in, in you know, definitions here.
Newberg- So, when you made that statement to the press, you meant that, we're not physically gonna arrest em and put em in handcuffs, but we still may call the State Police?
Supak- That was my understanding... is that, we would, if we had a problem, notify the appropriate authorities.
Newberg- That's not what this article says.
Supak- I can't help what the article says, sir.
Judge- Okay, okay. I think we cleared that up, let's go on.
Newberg- Now, Mr. Supak, do you claim that this site is private land?
Supak- I claim exactly what I've said. It's the property of Gelish Realty, LLC, and that the members of that particular company are Granite Associates, LP, and Gelish Realty, and that they are the managing members of that company.
Newberg- But this land is, even if we can see it on a limited basis, open to the public, isn't it?..by you?
Supak- No, it's not necessarily open to the public.
Newberg- Well, didn't you invite people?
Supak- We did at a particular time. That doesn't mean it's open to the public right now. It's not public land.
Newberg- I'm not saying it's public land, but it is private land that's open to the public, on occasion, isn't it?
Supak- It has been open for visitation for certain periods of time.
Newberg- And, in fact, you opened it for visitation for certain periods of time, didn't you?
Supak- That's correct.
Newberg- Now, when you claimed you purchased this property, were you aware that there was a temporary restraining order filed in King's County Surrogate Court and ...
Drillings- I'm gonna object to this Judge.
Newberg- Let me finish the question..
Drillings- He covered enough for me to object to it this time.
Judge- It's just the start of the questio... almost gives us a conclusion.
Drillings- Judge, if there's a certified document for the court that Mr. Newberg would like to introduce, that's fine but this has nothing to do with this case.
Newberg- Okay, good idea.
Drillings- And, I'll be objecting to that document as being irrelevant, Judge. Because another court dealing with the property here has no validity, another court's decision.
Newberg- Your honor, I'm gonna offer two certified copies of temporary restraining orders, dated March 6th, 1991 and one dated March 4th, 1994.
Drillings- Judge, then my next question is?
Newberg- Can I just finish.
Drillings- I'm objecting before he even gets to that because it doesn't cover the dates that were in question here, Judge.
Newberg- Which documents, your honor. A temporary restraining order prohibiting the transfer of the property...?
Drillings- Judge.. ?
Newberg- Until further order of the court?
Judge- You don't have to...I don't want any of that brought into this case today. If you wanna take it to another court you may take it to another court. if you wanna take it to another justice court, you may take it to another justice court. But, I will not entertain any of that right now.
Newberg- Please note my exception, and, I believe, that is reversible..
Judge- I'll make a note right now.
Newberg- While we're doing that, I would also offer, your honor, into evidence, certified copies of a verified petition, in an action titled, Application of Helen Necketopolous (widow of Louis Nicky), to discover real and personal property withheld and belonging to decedent, which is certified, and filed in... certified by the Sullivan County Clerk, and filed in the Sullivan County Clerk's Office on June 3rd, 1997, which petition I would like to inquire, if certain knowledge contained in this petition is within, whether or not Mr. Supak had knowledge of this prior to purchasing the property .
Judge- Tell me this, Mr. Newberg, who owns that property. Do you know who owns it?
Newberg- You don't either, nobody does.
Drillings- Thank you, Judge, he's not testifying?
Newberg- Nope, nobody owns it. The Judge asked me a question and I'm answering his question. We don't know who owns the property. And that's what I'm trying to establish.
Judge- I've been a real estate broker for forty-five, forty-seven years. When I see a deed that's certified, I take it as gospel that that's who owns that property.
Newberg- What about a forged deed?
Judge- Oh, a forged deed? I've never run across any.
Newberg- Well, in this verified petition, if I may answer, or ,at least say something in this case...
Drillings- Judge,..Mr. Newberg is making some very serious claims here. If he'd like to show documentation in this court, we'll be happy to arrest somebody for forgery, Judge. But he's making very nice blanket statements covering everybody, implicating anybody but himself and his clients, who are nice and perfect and haven't done anything wrong, and Judge, and it's getting sickening to the point where he's claiming everybody else has violated the law, everybody else is doing forgery, everybody else is perjuring themselves, but, there's no evidence and there's no documentation that I've seen and until he's able to show that, I take offense to his remarks about these people, Judge.
Newberg- Well, you can take all the offense you want, I am being deprived of the opportunity to establish what I'm saying. The judge is not letting me do it.
Judge- And, I told you what your right is.
Drillings- Judge, I'd ask to hold him in contempt because he's being combative with the court, telling the court that it doesn't know what it's doing.
Newberg- Your Honor, have I always been a gentleman in this court? Am I abiding by your rules? You're telling me I can't ask questions. I'm not. I have a right to offer evidence. If you rule against it, fine.
Judge- You abide by my ruling, but then you keep asking the questions anyway...
Newberg- I ask different questions.
Judge- It was the same subject, counselor. You're not fooling me.
Newberg- Your honor, this is not the same subject. This has to do..
Judge- Why don't you get these people... why don't you have them found not guilty?
Newberg- That's what I'm doing.
Judge- Don't fight to see who owns the land.
Newberg- Your honor, one of the elements to get them found not guilty is ownership.
Judge- I know who owns the land. You don't even know it.
Newberg- That's right.
Judge- But, I'm showing you who owns it. I'm accepting this as gospel.
Newberg- And you're not allowing me to cross-examine this witness?
Drillings- Judge?
Judge- Just pertaining to the ownership of the land.
Newberg- Okay.
Drillings- Judge I would just ask that, you're allowing him to cross-examine who owns the land, it's just, the amount of money, the technicalities, it's irrelevant.
Newberg- Not only the amount of money, your honor. Ownership. Who Gelish Realty, LLC is.
Judge- That's what started the whole thing. How much did you pay for it?
Newberg- That's right.
Judge- You wanted to know if they paid that million, and if they say, if he said, yes, would that convince you that they own it?
Newberg- No. Because, then I'll ask him, why he didn't he pay the transfer tax on the million, your honor?
Drilling- Judge he's getting into things that........property.....
Judge- Oh, come on. Then this deed here would mean nothing.
Newberg- That deed probably does mean nothing .
Judge- I said it would mean nothing if they paid a million dollars and there's no transfer tax.
Newberg- That's one piece of evidence.
Drillings- Judge,......?
Newberg- You're not gonna let me cross-examine him as to ownership. Is that correct?
Judge- Now, listen. You can cross examine him on anything but ownership of this land. As far as he knows his employers own it.
Drillings- Judge, I would just ask that the court not state, and Mr. Newberg not state that he's not being allowed to cross-examine him on ownership, because he's cross-examining him on ownership.... but particulars are irrelevant to this case.
Judge- I know what he's....
Drillings- Because the general statement that he's not allowed to cross-examine him on ownership, isn't what's going on here. It's specifics to this case that are irrelevant to this case..That's what I would ask, the price, the things that we've discussed .
Judge- Is there any other questions you wanna ask him other than ownership of the land, go right ahead.
Newberg- Thank you your honor, note my exception.
Judge- I have three exceptions already .
Newberg- Now, .........can I see that document ?
Judge- Which one do you want?
Newberg- Let me show you people's "Exhibit one" in evidence, and ask you if you've ever seen it?
Supak- Yes, I have.
Newberg- When's the first time you saw it?
Supak- I can't recall.
Newberg- A year ago?
Supak- No, it was before the anniversary weekend. I don't know exactly what date I first saw it.
Newberg- Did you have anything to do with the formulation of the words that are on it?
Supak- Yes, I had input.
Newberg- And who else had input, do you know?
Supak- There were members of our company that had input on it.
Newberg- And, did you, do you acknowledge that my clients had a license or privilege to go on the property ?
Drillings- Objection, Judge.
Newberg- You know, your honor, I don't understand that?
Judge- What sort of privilege would they have? Would they have something in writing saying they're allowed to go on there.
Newberg- Any license, any license or privilege, oral, written.
Drillings- Judge, my next objection is...
Judge- Do they have any?
Newberg- Right, just because they're members of the public. That's what I asked.
Judge- I'm asking you, did they have any? Do they have any license or privilege?
Newberg- I don't wanna be accused of testifying, your honor.
Drillings- Judge, that'll be, I believe, have to be testified to by their witnesses. My question.....is .....could he please specify.
Newberg- Whether or not they had a license or privilege to go on the property?
Drillings- When?
Newberg- At any time prior to their arrest.
Judge- Where would they get that?
Drillings- So, from 1969 until the current date.
Newberg- If he has any knowledge of it.
Judge- Where would they get that license or privilege, from whom, the owner?
Newberg- Judge, I don't wanna testify here. I 'd just like to ask some questions.
Judge- You don't have to testify here. Just answer my question.
Newberg- They could get it... they could have it because they're members of the public. They could have it because they have a property right in the property. They could have it because this gentleman's companies gave it to them.
Judge- Okay.
Supak- So, what is your question?
Newberg- My question is, do you know whether my clients had a license or privilege, prior to their arrest...at anytime, prior to their arrest, to go onto the property?
Supak- I think we articulated..
Drillings- Judge, my objection is, when are we talking, at night? Are we talking during the day? Are we talking with tents. Are we talking... I would just ask you to specify, that's a very over-broad question.
Newberg- I'm allowed to ask broad questions, your honor,....
Drillings- .....I say they're over broad, Judge. Let's get some dates, because this gentleman has only been employed for four months, is that correct?
Supak- No....
Judge- That was the other fellow?
Supak- Yes.
Judge- Give us some dates so that he can answer the question properly.
Newberg- Would you testify my clients had a license or privilege, to your knowledge, to go on the property anytime before their arrest?.. starting June 1, 1997?
Judge- (to Supak)To your knowledge.
Supak- No direct license to enter on the property.
Newberg- Then, can I ask you why, in this notice, it says Gelish Realty, LL, through its duly authorized representative, hereby advises you that any license or privilege you may have to enter has been revoked?
Supak- I think the question is, may.
Newberg- Why would you even put in here, ready reference to a license or privilege, if you didn't think they had one?
Supak- You're an attorney. You answer it.
Newberg- Well, you... I didn't write this. You did.
Supak- Well, I think the reason we put it in there is exactly for the purposes that it stated there, any that you may have are revoked. That doesn't imply that we gave them any.
Newberg- No, but they may have had?
Supak- This would imply if they had some at that particular time, we revoked it as the authority.
Newberg- And when they got this, they were already on the site, correct?
Supak- That's correct.
Newberg- Now, do you know whether or not... do you know when the signs were put up, the date?
Supak- I can't recall .
Newberg- And, so, you don't know whether it was before the arrest or after the arrest?
Supak- It was before the arrest.
Newberg- Before the arrest?
Drillings- Judge, Mr. Newberg's probably gonna read the same comment that he read before, and I would note my same objections that I said before that this is hearsay, a newspaper article, unless he's gonna have....
Newberg- I just wanna use this to try and refresh his recollection.
Drillings- Judge, unless he's gonna have Alan Wechsler come in and testify, then it's hearsay.
Newberg- Im just, I'm not offering this into evidence, I just wanna read something from the newspaper to try and refresh his recollection .
Judge- Why don't you let him read it. If you don't agree with what's written there, please let us know. If you do agree, the same thing.
Newberg- Having read that, and, I'll read it so it's in the record, "After the arrest, workmen from the site, site owner, Granite Associates, came by to install two signs at the main entrance explaining camping and vehicular traffic were prohibited." After reading that, I'll ask you the question again. Do you know when the signs were put up?
Supak- No. I don't recall. But that doesn't mean they weren't put there and then taken down and then they were put back up.
Newberg- That's correct. But it was your testimony, and is it still your testimony, that signs were put up prior to the arrests?
Supak- That's my recollection.
Newberg- But you could be wrong?
Supak- Yeah .
Newberg- Well, you don't know the dates the signs were put up?
Supak- No.
Newberg- What did the signs say? Didn't they say, "Welcome to the...
Supak- I think the press release had the wording of the sign there.
Newberg- What was the wording?
Supak- I don't know.... It said that you were allowed to visit the site during daylight hours but no overnight camping, no open fires, no vehicular traffic on it.
Newberg- So, you were still, even after you put the signs up, you're still welcoming people to the site in daylight hours, right?
Supak Yes.
Newberg- Were you... were you present at the Woodstock Site from August 1 through the last day of the festival, the 15th through the 16th?
Supak- Okay, was I physically present?
Newberg- Yeah......
Supak- Not continuously. I was there a couple times.
Newberg- When were you there during that period?
Supak- I was there on the Friday of the anniversary weekend, in the morning. And I was there one other time prior to that, during that particular time.
Newberg- Do you remember when that was?
Supak- I don't remember the specific date.
Newberg- So, other than the anniversary, when the... that anniversary weekend I think was the fifteenth sixteenth and seventeenth... so, I think you were there on the fifteenth... so, prior to that time, you were only there one other time?
Supak- Maybe one other time, but I do remember, specifically, one other time.
Newberg- Do you recall what time of day it was?
Supak- No.
Newberg- Was it during the daylight or nighttime?
Supak- It was during the daylight hours.
Newberg- So, you never observed the defendants on the property during the nighttime hours?
Supak- Did I personally observe them? No .
Newberg- No...? Did you ever observe any of the defendants drive a vehicle on the property?
Supak- No.
Newberg- Did you ever observe the defendants on the property?
Supak- Yes.
Newberg- But during the daylight hours?
Supak- Yes.
Newberg- Which defendants?
Supak- I noticed Abigail and Daniel Eggink.
Newberg- There are four other defendants, did you ever notice any of them?
Supak- Not on the site.
Newberg- You claim you've owned the property for over a year? Again, you're gonna have to answer.
Supak- Yes.
Newberg- And did you... are you aware that the site is a destination on one of the tours in the Sullivan County Travel Guide?
Drillings- Objection Judge, irrelevant.
Judge- Sustained.
Newberg- Your honor, if I can be heard.
Judge- I don't see where the revelance is.
Newberg- They're inviting people to the property, your honor.
Judge- The county invited them, is that what you're saying?
Newberg- I'm not saying the county, I'm just asking him if he's aware that...
Judge- You said it's on their brochure, then they must be inviting them.
Newberg- I don't know who must, that's what I'm gonna try and find out.
Judge- (to Supak) Did you invite 'em?
Supak- I'm not aware of that brochure, to answer your question.
Newberg- You weren't aware that that was in the brochure?
Supak- No.
Newberg- Telling people that they can go on the tour? And if I tell you it's in this year's brochure...
Drillings- Objection, Judge.
Newberg- I haven't finished the question. Would you have any objection to it being in here?
Supak- I have not seen this brochure.
Newberg- Can I show it to you?
Drillings- Judge, I'm trying to object. This is irrelevant.
Judge- Counselor, I don't wanna see it either. I don't see the revelance.
Newberg- Your honor...?
Judge- The county puts something out, they put in golf courses and hotels and everything else, but what has that got to do with the trial right here today?
Newberg- Because, your honor, in regard to the violation of trespass, there is a different standard when a private property is open to the public, not open, even for a limited... even if it's limited, as opposed to private property that may be somebody's house where the right of privacy might be involved.
Judge- Is that brochure telling people that they can visit that site? What right do they have. What right does the county have to do that?
Newberg- Well, if we have enough time, I could give you the reason, but I don't think you want it .
Judge- Hold on , I'm sure you have the time, but I don't. I'm not going on for four days.
Drillings- Judge, I'll make this simple. Mr. Supak says he doesn't know anything about it, if it's in the brochure then it's in the brochure.
Judge- That's right. That's all.
Newberg- Do you have any objection to it being in the brochure?
Supak- I'd like to.. you know, see more about the information before I make a statement like that.
Newberg- Can I... Can I show it to you?
Supak- I'm not gonna make a decision whether or not it should be involved in a brochure. That's a company policy, and as a matter of company practice, I wouldn't do something like that.
Newberg- Since the Woodstock Festival, are you still allowing people to come on the site?
Supak- As I recall, the signs have been taken down, so it's not something that we've made a public statement about.
Newberg- Well, are you allowing people to come on?....I'll rephrase it a different way, are you prohibiting people?
Supak- We're not prohibiting people so long as they behave themselves, and so long as they follow the rules.
Newberg- Do you have a copy of those rules?
Supak- Well, I think you got town laws, don't you? I don't have copies, no.
Newberg- So, you mean as long as they abide by the law,.. they can come on the property, correct?
Supak- We are, as a minimum... we are not going to tolerate any visitation more than what we had during this particular event.
Newberg- But you're still allowing people to come on the property, correct?
Supak- We haven't disallowed it. I think there's a difference there.
Newberg- I have nothing further.
Judge- Any redirect, Mr. Drillings?
Drillings- Judge, if I could have just one quick second..... Nothing further.
Judge- You may step down. Thank you very much..... Do you have any other witnesses?
Drillings- At this time the people rest their case as to purposes of this trial.
Judge- Are you gonna have any witnesses?
Newberg- Yes, your honor .
Judge- How many witnesses are you gonna have?
Newberg- I have three witnesses.
Judge- Are they gonna be long?
Newberg- I don't think so, your honor. I will prove that none of my clients have violated section 140.05 of the penal law, and that ownership of the property has not been established, that my clients, as was clear from the testimony of the people's case, that my clients entered the property lawfully. There's been no showing that they had an unlawful intent to be there. They weren't demonstrating. They weren't destroying anything. The people have been unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that trespass has been committed.. Your Honor knows trespass. There must be a criminal intent and they must have entered or remained unlawfully.
Judge- Mr. Drillings.
Drillings- Judge, I would just state that the people have shown notice on numerous occasions They've shown that notice occurred from an authorized individual and an authorized individual stated he had these people turned over to the state police who then believed that an arrest needed to be made which was for trespass. They were on the property unlawfully, which is the testimony of ownership, or at least possessory interest is shown by the employee. I believe we've shown every element needed. It was in the town of Bethel. I believe we've proven a verdict at this point .
Judge- Motion to dismiss is denied.
Woodstock Nation Foundation website is generously donated by