Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2022 DEPOSITION | FROM Page 11 what he told him and that he didn’t have any notes to back it up. “And in fact – Mr. Cornelio never told you, Joshua Resnek, that the mayor ever pressured him into giving money to him, correct?” asked Atty. Jeff rey Robbins. “Correct,” replied Resnek. Estes, in the same email, tells Resnek that Cornelio was expected to call her later, but her editors wanted her to get the story published before the primary, asking Resnek, “Do you think Carlo will win?” Robbins asked him if his plan was to have The Globe reporter write a story about the mayor before the primary in which DeMaria was seeking reelection; Resnek stated that it would have been an “optimum situation,” adding, “Yes.” When asked if he had any formal training in journalism or was familiar with any guidelines for ethical journalism, Resnek replied he wasn’t and had not received any formal training but was mentored by Andrew Quigley, Sr., father of his former partner, Steven Quigley of the Everett Independent. Robbins asked Resnek if he agreed that it was dishonest to fabricate quotes or to publish as fact something which is actually speculation. Resnek agreed despite admitting to having no evidence, proof or notes to justify his articles from Sept. 8 and 15, 2021. When questioning focused on a story Resnek wrote in March 2022 titled “Irish Humiliated in Racist Email and Text Threads Shared by Mayor, Others,” Resnek’s Attorney, Bernie Guekguezian, instructed Resnek not to answer any questions related to anything after Sept. 2021, until it was decided by the judge. Robbins continued to ask Resnek about the story, quoting passages with derogatory statements, and then asking Resnek if he fabricated any parts of the story. Resnek refused to answer on the advice of counsel. When the questions moved to Philbin’s fi nancials and real estate holdings in Everett, particularly the rooming houses and multifamily units, Resnek was asked if the Philbins had sought favorable treatment from the City of Everett on various occasions in the past; Resnek replied in the affi rmative. Resnek also agreed that the Philbins stopped receiving favorable treatment once DeMaria was elected mayor and the Philbins weren’t very happy about it. Robbins then asked if it was wrong to ascribe statements to the wrong person and to knowingly tell readers that person X has said something when person X had not said that, and that it would be false; Resnek agreed. “That would be reckless journalism, correct?” asked Robbins. “Not necessarily,” replied Resnek. “If you knew the mayor hasn’t said something and you tell readers that it’s the mayor that said something, that would be reckless, right?” asked Robbins. “Yes,” replied Resnek. Resuming after lunch, Robbins asked Resnek if owner Matthew Philbin was a journalist or had any background in journalism. Resnek stated that other than owning the newspaper, Philbin did not. Resnek admitted that he had never seen any notes by Philbin of any conversations that Philbin claims he had with Cornelio for Resnek stories. When asked if the newspaper had any policies in place with respect to reporting, Resnek stated he did, and that was to “always tell the truth or as close to the truth as we feel it can be.” In a paltry attempt to justify his articles, Resnek was questioned on his journalistic ethics. When asked if he believed it was wrong to mislead readers, misquote or present as fact information which is speculation, Resnek replied that it was. “You will admit that it would be reckless to disregard those fundamental journalistic principals, correct?” asked Robbins. “Without meaning any disrespect, it depends on who you’re writing about,” stated Resnek. When asked by Robbins if he thought it was okay to falsify information about certain people, Resnek, despite objection from counsel, stated that if the person was heinous and his actions are detrimental to our freedom and free speech and a wide variety of things…someone needs to stand up. But when asked if it was okay to falsify information about certain people, Resnek replied that it was not. “And would it be dishonest of your newspaper to falsify information about Mr. DeMaria, correct?” Resnek replied, “Yes.” Robbins questioned Resnek on Matthew Philbin’s dislike for the mayor, asking him if he believed Philbin felt that the mayor was unfavorable to his business interests. Resnek agreed. “And you understood that when you were publishing these articles about the mayor, correct?” asked Robbins. “I understood that long before,” he replied, including admitting to Philbin’s personal animosity towards the mayor. The focus then centered on Resnek’s Sept. 11, 2019, article “Eye on Everett” where Resnek writes asking the then U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Andrew Lelling, to “take a closer look at the obvious, Kickback Carlo in his tenth year of organized, obscene, uniquely disguised municipal threat and greed.” Robbins points out and Resnek admits to calling the mayor “Kickback Carlo” 11 times in the article – again in a December 2019 article approximately 20 times – despite admitting that he had no evidence that the mayor had ever taken a kickback. Instead, Resnek claimed to have heard it from a person named Gary DiCicco, a real estate developer Resnek claimed owned the land purchased by Wynn for the casino “So, you knew what the stakes were, correct? You knew that you were being accused of having fabricated quotes, correct?” asked Atty. Robbins. “I thought I had defamed the mayor,” replied Resnek. license. When asked by Robbins if DiCicco provided any proof, Resnek replied, “He just alluded to it very strongly.” “Was there proof?” asked Robbins. “I can’t provide you with any proof,” replied Resnek. Resnek claimed he read an FBI report, a lawsuit, yet did not attend any trial or read any documents that claimed the mayor had taken kickbacks – which he stated in his articles on multiple occasions leading up to the elections. As in the majority of his articles written about the mayor, Resnek admitted to having no notes of any kind to back up any of the allegations written in his articles. Resnek was then asked about his claim he made at the end of his article promising the readers of a “fellow I know well has promised to tell in the near future – a bad development for Kickback Carlo.” When asked to reveal the “fellow,” Resnek stated it would be DiCicco, but, three years later, DiCicco failed to show. Resnek then admitted he made no preparations before he wrote the article, including making notes or documentary evidence which provided information that would support his allegation. Again the questioning turned to the “Blue Suit” columns; Resnek, in previous testimony, established that the Blue Suit was fi ctional, but was also a “conversation” between him and the suit. In a July 1, 2021, column leading up to the elections, Resnek would again promise the readers that “before Sept. 7, everything dark and ugly about Carlo’s background is going to come out.” Resnek admitted he did make that promise but stated his “timing was way off .” Sticking to his ending narratives of his Blue Suit columns, the “journalist” fell short of his goal. Robbins then asked Resnek about his notebook, a leatherbound BU notebook his daughter gave him which he carried on August 25, 2021, the day he went to the City Clerk’s Offi ce to deliver his newspapers. When asked about his routine prior to sending his stories to print, Resnek was asked if he called up anyone to verify his quotes, such as Cornelio, of which his Sept. 8 story was about. Resnek said Mr. Philbin despite Philbin not being quoted in the article. Resnek said that Mr. Philbin is the Leader Herald and the Leader Herald is quoted in the article. When asked if he called up anyone who was quoted in the articles to ask them if they were quoted correctly, Resnek replied he did not. Resnek is then questioned on the notes he had taken regarding the Corey Street property deal and exactly where in the notebook they were written. After reading small missives in quotations such as “sexual harassment”, “Big issue”, and “Mayor extorts 96,000 from Cornelio – promises to ruin Cornelio, mother”, Resnek is asked if these notes were related to any conversation and with who. “I believe they were from Mark Puleo,” said Resnek. “He’s one of our sources.” Resnek stated that Puleo works for a national polling company – “and that he’s big into issues.” Resnek went on to say that Puleo told him that Sergio had been coerced and that there were councillors planning to throw him out of offi ce and that the mayor had taken away some of his money that goes with the City Clerk’s Offi ce. Resnek also claimed that Puleo said that Sergio was anxiety-ridden and that Cory Street was an issue and that the mayor had demanded $96,000. When Resnek was asked what personal knowledge Puleo had of the circumstances of Corey Street, Resnek replied, “He’s married to a school committee member.” Resnek was asked again if Puleo had any personal knowledge of the Corey Street transaction; Resnek replied, “He told it to me that way.” Resnek then attempted to dance his way around the question, claiming Puleo’s standing in the community, as well as redefi ning journalistic standards that apply to only Everett. “Now, did Mr. Puleo tell you that he had seen any of the documentation relating to Corey Street?” asked Robbins. “No,” said Resnek. “Did he tell you that he was present during any conversation between Mr. Cornelio and Mr. DeMaria?” asked Robbins. “No,” replied Resnek. Resnek said he wasn’t shown any notes of any conversations except what Puleo had said he heard from Cornelio. “Is there anything in your notes that refl ect that Mr. Puleo had ever spoken to Cornelio?” asked the attorney. “No,” said Resnek. Questioning continued on the leather-bound BU notebook Resnek claimed to have with him during his seven-minute meeting with Cornelio at the City Clerk’s Office. Robbins asks Resnek to elaborate on when he had taken any notes pertaining to the Corey Street deal, particularly after the lawsuit was fi led against him. Resnek claimed he was attempting to establish a timeline and instead, testifi ed that he wrote in the wrong dates after the fact. “So, you knew what the stakes were, correct? You knew that you were being accused of having fabricated quotes, correct?” asked Robbins. “I thought I had defamed the mayor,” replied Resnek. “Yeah, and you knew – and you knew that you were being also accused of having fabricated quotes, correct?’ “Okay,” said Resnek. “And after being – after knowing that you were accused of having fabricated quotes – you go back into your notebook and you write in information in the notebook that actually wasn't there on the day when you actually took the notes, correct? “Yes,” stated Resnek. Despite all his eff orts to establish a timeline in his notebook, Resnek wrote in the wrong date of the Cornelio City Clerk’s Offi ce interview, writing, “Sept. 14th Sergio in offi ce at city hall, September delivery”, “Wednesday, September 2nd 11:30”, “September 7th , ”, and September 11th ”, when, in fact, Resnek claimed that it was August 27. Resnek then states that the quotes in his notebook, such as “He wants my job,” were given to him by Philbin, but he has nothing written attributed to Philbin making that statement or the date the statement was made. “It’s hard to put dates onto things after the fact,” stated Resnek. “It sure is, isn’t it?” replied the attorney. Robbins has Resnek read quotes from his notebook and asks who spoke those words; Resnek refuses to answer due to confi dentiality. Resnek also claimed that Philbin off ered him quotes from Cornelio which read in his articles which emanated from a “7-hour interview sitdown” with Cornelio and his parents at Cornelio’s home. When asked if the quotes were from Philbin as said to him by Cornelio, Resnek replied they were but had trouble giving the date of the meeting, saying August 25 or 27. Resnek then claimed that Philbin met with Cornelio on the same day he was delivering newspapers but couldn’t recall the date, stating it could have been the night after Philbin met with his parents. In either instance, the intrepid reporter couldn’t guess when both dates occurred. Resnek was then asked to highlight in diff erent colored markers which quotes were attributed to who – blue for Philbin statements made to him by Cornelio when he was asked for the dates of the meetings between the two. In a surprise twist, Resnek then stated that he may have the dates in a notebook he has at his Lynn home. Robbins asked if there are notes at his home that may show the date in which Philbin told him of certain statements made by Cornelio; Resnek said, “Yes, absolutely.” Robbins would continue his questioning, centering around, once again, remarks in the notebook, claimed by Resnek to be made by Sergio, as told to him by Matthew Philbin. But again, Resnek stated that there aren’t any notes made by either himself or Philbin, who Resnek claimed to have had a seven-hour interview with Cornelio and his parents at the Cornelio home. Next week: Resnek Blue Suit starts unraveling – again.
15 Publizr Home