This is the deposition of Norman Weistuch. Comments are in red and are preceded by an asterisk (*) for ease of searching. The names (of the parties and some others) involved have been changed. This web page will be updated later as time permits.

Supreme Court of New Jersey - Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516 (1994):

Opinions -

“opinion statements, in contrast, are generally not capable of proof of truth or falsity because they reflect person's state of mind; hence, opinion statements generally receive substantial protection under law. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.”
In my opinion, Weistuch is absolutely incompetent, stupid, easily manipulated, and unprofessional. He should not be used by any attorney nor appointed by any court.

“True statements are absolutely protected under First Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.”

“In sum, speech that is true cannot be defamation, as the interests in communicating truth outweigh any indiviidual’s interest in his or her reputation”

I will let the reader determine the facts after reading the below.

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION - FAMILY PART

2 MERCER COUNTY

DOCKET NO. FM-23-11-06-D

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

THOMAS SMITH,

Plaintiff, DEPOSITION OF:

6 vs.

NORMAN WEISTUCH,Ph.D.

7 SALLY SMITH,

8 Defendant.

9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

11 --------------------

JANUARY 17, 2006

12 --------------------

14 Oral depositions were taken at the

15 law offices of DAVID PERRY DAVIS, ESQ., 112 West

16 Franklin Avenue, Pennington, New Jersey, before KIM A.

17 GHILARDI, License No. XI00765, a Notary Public,

18 Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of New

19 Jersey and Registered Professional Reporter, on the

20 above date, commencing at 10:00 a.m.

22 TWIN COURT REPORTING, INC.

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS

23 11 JENNINGS DRIVE

ALLENTOWN, NEW JERSEY 08501

24 609-259-1228

(e-mail: foxtwincsr@aol.com)

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

4 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PERRY DAVIS

112 West Franklin Avenue

5 Pennington, New Jersey 08534

BY: DAVID PERRY DAVIS, ESQ.

6 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

TEICH GROH

8 109 Franklin Corner Road

Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648

9 BY: CAROL OSWALD, ESQ.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

16 TWIN COURT REPORTING, INC.

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS

17 11 JENNINGS DRIVE

ALLENTOWN, NEW JERSEY 08501

18 609-259-1228

(e-mail: foxtwincsr@aol.com)

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 4

1 N O R M A N W E I S T U C H, Ph.D., 194

2 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey, having been

3 first duly sworn according to law, testifies as

4 follows:

5 EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIS:

6 Q Good morning. This is the deposition of

7 Dr. Norman Weistuch in relationship to Smith

8 versus Smith, which is FM-11-23-06-D. As you

9 know, my name is David Perry Davis. I represent

10 Thomas Smith in these proceedings. Let's start

11 at the beginning. Could you state for the record your

12 profession, please?

13 A Psychologist.

14 Q And are you a licensed clinical

15 psychologist?

16 A I'm a licensed psychologist.

17 Q Have you ever been deposed before?

18 A Yes.

* You be the judge.

Dr. Weistuch testifies that he cannot recall a single name of any case he's ever been involved with. Not one. Is it credible or is it perjury?

19 Q Can you think of any cases in which you

20 have been deposed?

21 A Not off the top of my head.

22 Q You can't recall a single case in which

23 you were deposed?

24 A Not off the top of my head.

25 Q Do you recall whether it was -- whether

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 5

1 there were attorneys, the names of the attorneys that

2 were deposing you?

3 A Not off the top of my head.

4 Q Okay. Have you ever been cross-examined

5 in court before?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Can you think of any of the case names

8 in which you were --

9 A Not off the top of my head. You've been

10 warned about this, about my having to do research if

11 you were going to go here.

12 Q How many times have you been deposed?

13 A I don't recall.

14 Q How many cases have you testified in?

15 A About four or five.

16 Q Four or five times you have testified in

17 court?

18 A Something like that.

19 Q What counties have you testified in?

20 A I can't recall off the top of my head.

21 Q Okay. Have you testified in Mercer

22 County?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Have you testified before Judge LeWinn?

25 A No.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 6

1 Q Have you testified before Judge Ostrer?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Have you testified before Judge Grall?

4 A No.

5 Q Have you testified before Judge Ocurso

6 (ph)?

7 A No.

8 Q Have you testified before Judge

9 Blackburn?

10 A No.

11 Q Have you testified before Judge Kelly?

12 A No.

13 Q Have you testified before Judge Council?

14 A No.

15 Q Have you testified in Somerset County?

16 A Yes.

17 Q Have you testified before Judge Dilts?

18 A Not that I can recall.

19 Q Have you testified before Judge

20 Bartlett?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Have you testified before Judge Marino?

23 A No.

24 Q Have you testified before Judge Kumpf?

25 A No.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 7

1 Q Have you testified in Middlesex County?

2 A Not that I can recall.

3 Q Have you testified in Hunterdon County?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And do you recall what judges you

6 testified before?

7 A I just remember it was the judge before

8 Judge Herr.

9 Q Are you saying it was before Judge Herr

10 that you testified?

11 A Correct.

12 Q And you don't remember any of the case

13 names?

14 A No, not that I can recall.

15 Q And where did you go to college,

16 undergraduate?

17 A City College of New York.

18 Q Which location?

19 A Which location?

20 Q There are several, aren't there?

21 A Yes. Uptown. But actually it's not

22 called City College of New York any other place any

23 longer, if you want to be that specific.

24 Q What was your undergraduate major?

25 A Psychology.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 8

1 Q Were you employed when you were in

2 college?

3 A No.

4 Q All right. When did you graduate,

5 undergraduate?

6 A 1974.

7 Q And when did you begin graduate school?

8 A 1975.

9 Q And what is the degree that you were

10 awarded out of graduate school?

11 A Well, I have a degree that is an MSDC,

12 Master of Science in Education from City College of

13 New York and my Ph.D. from Penn State University.

14 Q Showing you a document I'm going to ask

15 to be marked for identification P-1, your curriculum

16 vitae.

17 (Curriculum vitae marked as Exhibit P-1

18 for Identification.)

19 Q Do you recognize this document to be

20 your curriculum vitae?

21 A Vitae, yes.

22 Q Now, your degree was as a school

23 psychologist?

24 A Correct.

25 Q And what is the difference between a

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 9

1 school psychologist and clinical psychologist?

2 A There is a framework that is based on

3 schools and evaluation as well as work with children

4 and it used to be at the times that I was studying for

5 my degree, there was completely limited programs in

6 child clinical psychology and for those people who

7 were working with children and families, the

8 preferable road to go was school psychology.

9 Q Okay. Was it more of a focus on

10 academic issues?

11 A Absolutely no. It was an

12 interdisciplinary program and the focus was based on

13 certainly psychological assessment but the framework

14 of working with children and families allowed you to

15 take courses in a variety of different disciplines.

16 Q Did you graduate with any kind of

17 honors, magna cum laude, summa cum laude?

18 A To my knowledge, they don't have such a

19 framework when you graduate graduate school. Were my

20 grades within that range? Yes.

21 Q And what was the first employment after

22 you graduated?

23 A I was involved, well, when you say

24 graduation, that's a little bit vague.

25 Q Let me back up for a second. When did

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 10

1 you complete your classes for your doctorate?

2 A My classes were completed in 1980. And

3 the first job I held required an internship, that's a

4 doctoral level internship working for Carbon Lehigh

5 Intermediate Unit in Lehigh County. Actually, Carbon

6 and Lehigh Counties in Pennsylvania.

7 Q Carbon Lehigh Intermediate Unit?

8 A Um-hum.

9 Q Obviously your C.V. doesn't reflect

10 that.

11 A I have two C.V.s since I do matrimonial

12 work as well as work in the schools and I keyed in to

13 be specific to the things that are related to whatever

14 it is I am doing.

15 Q Did you write a dissertation for your

16 doctorate?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And when was your doctorate degree?

19 A 1987.

20 Q So it was seven years between completing

21 the classes and having a degree awarded?

22 A Um-hum. Which is not uncommon.

23 Q What was the topic of your dissertation?

24 A It was the role of school psychologists

25 and history of special education in the Commonwealth

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 11

1 of Pennsylvania.

2 Q And that would be also the name of it, I

3 assume?

4 A That was the name of it.

5 Q Now, when were you licensed in the State

6 of New Jersey?

7 A 1990.

8 Q Just to clarify, I'm talking about

9 licensed as a psychologist.

10 A Yes.

11 Q And what organizations license you? Is

12 it the state?

13 A Um-hum.

14 Q Are you licensed by any other

15 organization?

16 A No. I mean, when you say license, no.

17 There is a certification as a school psychologist

18 which is also by the State of New Jersey.

19 Q And you also hold that certification?

20 A That is correct.

21 Q Have there been any complaints filed

22 against you?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And how were they resolved?

25 A Every single one was dismissed. As you

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 12

1 are, I am sure, aware, there is a high degree of that

2 in matrimonial work in this state.

3 Q About how many complaints were

4 dismissed?

5 A I believe it was five.

6 Q Do you recall the names of any of the

7 people that filed the complaints?

8 A No, I do not. Not without research.

9 Q So you went through the entire Complaint

10 procedure, a Complaint was filed and served on you and

11 you answered the Complaint?

12 A Yes.

13 Q You defended yourself?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Did you defend yourself without an

16 attorney?

17 A No. On a couple of occasions yes and

18 most occasions, no.

19 Q Who was the attorney that you used?

20 A I don't see the relevance of this.

21 Q Who is the attorney that you used,

22 please?

23 A It was Christopher Barbrack (ph) but I

24 don't see the relevance of this.

25 Q And you don't recall after going through

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 13

1 the entire process any of the names of any of the

2 complainants?

3 A No, I do not.

4 Q Are you a member of the American

5 Psychological Association?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And the New Jersey Psychological

8 Association?

9 A Yes.

10 Q How long have you been a member of each,

11 first the American?

12 A I can't recall the date.

13 Q Year?

14 A I can't recall the year. It's been a

15 long time.

16 Q When you say a long time, five year, ten

17 years?

18 A No, it is about since the time I was

19 licensed, give or take.

20 Q Now, you indicate on your C.V. that

21 you're a school psychologist part-time for the Midland

22 School?

23 A In the past.

24 Q Okay. And when was the last time you

25 did any work for them?

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 14

1 A It says it right on the C.V., 1992.

2 Q And that was from 1989 to 1992?

3 A That's what it says.

4 Q And is that a yes?

5 A That's a yes.

6 Q And why did you stop working for the

7 Midland School?

8 A Because they had full-time employment to

9 be offered and I needed a part-time position.

10 Q Were there any complaints filed against

11 you while you were working for the Midland School?

12 A Complaints as in what context?

13 Q Complaint to the American Psychological

14 Association.

15 A Why would there complaints to the

16 American Psychological Association? It's not a body

17 that processes complaints and there are no complaints

18 before licensure. Please have your facts straight

19 before you ask questions. You are wasting time and I

20 don't have it to give beyond a certain point. I'm

21 making that perfectly clear. This is over at 11:30

22 regardless of how far you proceed.

23 Q Sir, you're under subpoena for the day.

24 Are you aware of that?

25 A I'm under subpoena but it is with a

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 15

1 reasonable expectation and I set up a time frame and I

2 have other things to do in the day. Two hours is a

3 reasonable time for a deposition.

4 Q You received $800, isn't that correct?

5 A That's correct.

6 Q That's four hours of your time.

7 A That's four hours of my time. Not four

8 hours of my time exactly. Part of it was for

9 reproduction expenses which you received a bill for

10 yesterday which is almost $200. One hour was spent

11 plus reading the report and this report which you were

12 not kind enough to send to me and that's where we are

13 at. There are two hours left on the retainer and

14 that's what's been paid for and that's what I will do.

15 Q And if we were to give you additional

16 funds this morning?

17 A It depends on the level of time you are

18 asking for and I will see if that fits into the

19 remainder of my schedule. Otherwise, we will have to

20 set it up for another day.

21 Q We will call Judge LeWinn either way.

22 A You can do that.

23 Q You then worked for -- okay. You also

24 worked for Matheny school?

25 A Yes.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 16

1 Q Now, this is preceding the Midland

2 School?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And what were your duties there?

5 A I was a psychologist.

6 Q And what do you as a psychologist for

7 these schools?

8 A I mostly did counseling.

9 Q And prior to this, you worked full-time

10 for the Clinton Township public schools?

11 A Yes, I did.

12 Q Same duties?

13 A Assessment, predominantly.

14 Q And why did you leave your employment

15 with the Clinton Township public schools?

16 A Because during the process of going for

17 tenure, they can offer you contracts or not offer you

18 a contract. It's a very poor school district and I

19 stand on my ethics and that was uncomfortable for them

20 and I would have gone to proceedings with the union

21 because of their inappropriate way of proceeding and

22 as a result of the situation, since I was invited into

23 private practice, I was told it was pointless to

24 continue and I agreed with that.

25 Q Okay. You said that you stand on your

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 17

1 ethics. Was there some kind of a conflict?

2 A Yes. They do totally improper

3 responding to kids who are in special education, which

4 happens in some very poor school districts and that

5 was a constant battle in the school district because

6 they were very poor at what they did.

7 Q Was there any litigation connected with

8 your employment in Clinton Township public schools?

9 A Absolutely not.

10 Q You were not sued?

11 A No.

12 Q You didn't sue them?

13 A No.

14 Q You next list you were a consultant,

15 Comprehensive Habilitation Services. Where is that

16 located?

17 A It was as a framework of consultation

18 contracts around the State of New Jersey. The main

19 parent organization in New Jersey was Barnard (ph)

20 Hospital in Paterson, and there was consultant

21 abilities for work in a variety of Association for

22 Retarded Citizens, sheltered workshops and day

23 programs around the State of New Jersey.

24 Q And so this was actually a parent

25 organization that farmed out consulting services to

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 18

1 different organizations?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And when was the last time you did any

4 work for them?

5 A I can't recall the day.

6 Q Year?

7 A I can't recall exactly the year. It was

8 in early mid-1990s. I am sorry.

9 Q And to your knowledge is Comprehensive

10 Habilitation Services still a viable organization?

11 A No, they are not.

12 Q Joslin Center for Diabetes, what did you

13 do for them?

14 A Predominantly counseling.

15 Q Counseling of?

16 A Diabetics.

17 Q Psychological counseling of diabetics?

18 A Correct.

19 Q And where is the Joslin Center for

20 Diabetics located?

21 A The original center is located in

22 conjunction with Harvard Medical School in

23 Massachusetts. It has an international reputation.

24 The parent organization in the State of New Jersey was

25 St. Barnabas Hospital.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 19

1 Q Was that the same parent organization it

2 was for or did you say Barnard?

3 A Barnard.

4 Q And this is St. Barnabas?

5 A Correct.

6 Q And is the Joslin Center for Diabetes

7 still a viable organization?

8 A I am not sure. The organization that I

9 was connected with in Princeton is not.

10 Q Okay. And when was the last time you

11 did any work for them?

12 A I can't recall the date. There's too

13 many things on my resume to recall every day of when I

14 had a consultant contract or not.

15 Q Can you give me an approximation? You

16 said early 1990s?

17 MS. OSWALD: Objection. He said

18 mid-'90s for comprehensive.

19 A And it was probably mid-'90s for Joslin

20 Center for Diabetes.

21 Q So approximately 10 years?

22 A Give or take.

23 Q Catholic Charities of Warren County,

24 what services did you provide for them?

25 A And still providing for them.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 20

1 Q Okay.

2 A It's forensic evaluation of clients who

3 are referred under services related to a DYFS

4 contract.

5 Q You have a contract with DYFS?

6 A No. I have a contract with Catholic

7 Charities.

8 Q And they sort of subcontract, DYFS would

9 contract them?

10 A They have a grant and I fulfill the

11 consulting psychologist position.

12 Q And when was the last time you did any

13 work for them?

14 A I just said it is in the present.

15 Q Bonnie Brae is a school, I understand?

16 A It is a residential school for

17 emotionally disturbed youngsters.

18 Q And you were a psychologist for them as

19 well as treating children?

20 A Correct.

21 Q When was the last time you did any work

22 for them?

* The good doctor's resume lists several organziations under "consulting" and several "consortiums founded." He neglets to mention that he hasn't consulted for these origanizations in over a decade and that the "consortiums founded" are now completely defunct and had no dues paying members.

23 A I can't remember exactly. It was

24 probably also around the middle of the '90s.

25 Q Princeton Educational Resources, what is

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 21

1 this organization?

2 A It is an organization that was involved

3 in testing and tutoring school age youngsters.

4 Q And is this still a viable organization?

5 A I believe so.

6 Q When was the last time you did any work

7 for them?

8 A Probably ending in the early 1990s.

9 Q Same questions for Ewing Residential

10 Treatment Center, what sort of residents are at the

11 Ewing Residential Treatment Center?

12 A It is a residential treatment center for

13 emotionally disturbed youngsters and it's a DYFS

14 facility.

15 Q And are you currently providing services

16 to them?

17 A No.

18 Q When was the last time you provided them

19 any services?

20 A I can't remember. Probably early '90s,

21 late '80s, something like that.

22 Q Late '80s. And to your knowledge, does

23 Ewing Residential Treatment Center still exist?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Would that be what they call the JINS,

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 22

1 Juveniles In Need of Supervision?

2 A Nothing close.

3 Q Trenton Head Start, what services do you

4 provide for them?

5 A Evaluation and counseling.

6 Q Okay. And when was the last time you

7 provided them with any services?

8 A Probably in the early '90s.

9 Q And finally, the Contemporary Psychology

10 Institute, where is this organization located?

11 A It's no longer viable. It was located

12 in Montgomery Township.

13 Q On Tamarack Circle, I think?

14 A Yes.

15 Q When was the last time you provided them

16 with any services?

17 A 1991 before I opened my own office.

18 Q Okay. So your C.V. you list, one, two,

19 three, four, five, six, seven, eight areas or eight

20 organizations to which you are a consultant, correct?

21 A Over a period of time.

22 Q Okay. In fact, of the eight that you

23 list, the only one you are currently providing

24 services for is Catholic Charities of Warren County

25 and the remainder are all early 1990 to mid-1990s?

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 23

1 A Basically.

2 Q Next you list professional consortiums

3 founded. What is the Psych Health Network?

4 A It was a consortium that I founded.

5 Q Is it still a viable enterprise?

6 A No, it is not.

7 Q How many members were there?

8 A Six or seven, I believe.

9 Q And the Parent Reeducation Program?

10 A That was a program that was started

11 specifically for interface with high conflict divorce

12 families through the courts.

13 Q And is that still a viable organization?

14 A No, it's not. It wasn't an

15 organization. It was a program.

16 Q And it is no longer viable?

17 A Correct.

18 Q How many members were there of that?

19 A Three.

20 Q Okay. And Pinnacle, what was Pinnacle?

21 Jillian

22 A Pinnacle still exists. Pinnacle is a

23 consortium of professionals that are not acting as a

24 group but it groups together services, making it

25 easier for families of children with special needs to

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 24

1 access services in the community.

2 Q So it is sort of a clearinghouse for --

3 A Clearinghouse is a terrible word. It is

4 meant as a professional organization of top flight

5 professionals who do work with children related to

6 academic issues, psychiatric issues, et cetera.

7 Q And how many members are there?

8 A Let me see. I believe there's five.

9 Q And are the members attorneys, other

10 psychologists?

11 A There's one other psychologist, an

12 academic coach, psychiatrist and educational

13 consultant.

14 Q And they pay dues?

15 A No. There's no dues.

16 Q So would you describe it as a referral

17 network then if not a clearinghouse?

18 A I would describe it closer to a referral

19 network but it is not a referral network per se

20 because it is not like there is a central body that

21 receives referrals, there's an a phone line, the

22 people who are involved in the service would receive

23 some contact with one of the organizations, either

24 through the line or through their involvement with

25 referral to that individual and then there is a

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 25

1 framework of the individuals working closely together

2 to access needed services.

3 Q Okay. Pinnacle incorporated in the

4 state of New Jersey?

5 A No it is not a corporation in any way.

6 Q So as far as does it have a bank

7 account?

8 A There is no bank account. It is not a

9 structure in that sense of the word.

10 Q Does it have a web-site?

11 A No. It's purely a brochure we put

12 together and a group of professionals trying to make

13 it easier for parents to have contact with the

14 professionals that they might need.

15 Q Now, moving to page two of your C.V.,

16 you indicate that you worked with doctor Wendy

17 Matthews?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And do you still work with her?

20 A Not really. (

21 Q The second half of paragraph you cite

22 Ann Bartlett esquire who is now Judge Bartlett?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Did you ask Ms. Bartlett if it was okay

25 with her for you to use her name in your C.V.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 26

1 A It may have come up in conversation. I

2 don't remember.

3 Q So you don't know whether she has

4 authorized this?

5 MS. OSWALD: Objection to the form of

6 the question. What is the basis for presuming that

7 authority is needed to cite to a prior employment.

8 Q All objections will be reserved for the

9 time of trial except as to the form of the question.

10 Is that a relevance objection?

11 MS. OSWALD: No it is a form of question

12 objection. Your question presumes that authority is

13 needed when the question is did you receive her

14 authority.

15 Q Okay. Did you receive her permission?

16 MS. OSWALD: Same objection.

17 Q Did you receive her permission to use

18 her name?

19 MS. OSWALD: Same objection.

20 A If you are working under the framework

21 of organizations and you are stating organizations

22 that you have worked with, it is the same framework in

23 private practice if you are working with individuals

24 on the basis of how the work is established, the work

25 that I do is established in conjunction with people

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 27

1 that delineates to the public the kinds of people that

2 I have been involved with in the work that I conduct

3 and that's purely it in a nutshell.

4 Q Okay. Would you agree that there is an

5 implication that you have authorization to use

6 someone's name when their name appears in your C.V.

7 A No there is no implication it means I

8 have been associated with them. It means just as you

9 might do to check out who the people are and who my

10 associations are it gives people that opportunity and

11 it is purely all that it means as far as I'm

12 concerned.

13 Q Now, you indicate by which way of a

14 chronology here you opened an office in Hunterdon for

15 a period of two years 198919992000 why did it close?

16 A It was expensive to maintain and the

17 numbers of referrals that were promised from a variety

18 of referral sources were not forthcoming.

19 Q What were the referral sources?

20 A One referral source was the Hunterdon

21 county courts which they made clear in order for me to

22 receive referrals, I would have to have an office

23 space in Hunterdon county. Secondly, I have a

24 framework of involvement with another eminent

25 professional, doctor Sharon Ryan Montgomery and we had

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 28

1 professional differences about the nature of if work I

2 was advocating because my first allegiance was to

3 doctor Guerney in her program than was the basis of th

4 parent reeducation program. She wanted me to violate

5 that for her own needs and I fell uncomfortable with

6 that procedure so we parted way.

7 Q How did she want you to violate that?

8 A She wanted to change the construct so it

9 would more effectively fit her needs and I found out

10 as I proceeded that it involved a whole framework of

11 the fact that she is more psychoanalytic in her

12 orientation I found that out after the fact it is not

13 workable even though I spend $2,000 of my own money to

14 do a presentation for professionals that were

15 associated with her in Morris County and the business

16 I was in addition to supervising these people and the

17 parent reeducation program that there in if a there

18 would be a basis of referrals so the work would be

19 supervised properly as well as offered to a variety of

20 counties in the state and that never happened.

21 Q So do you think that the number of

22 referrals that you received being insufficient to keep

23 the office open was the result of this conflict

24 with --

25 A Well, I think that made one of the

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 29

1 referral sources that was intended on the basis of our

2 initial contract not viable and as a result of that,

3 it was more office space than I needed to run program.

4 Plus, Hunterdon county by the very nature of its size

5 does not have the level of concentration of clients

6 like it would in Mercer and upon realizing that, you

7 know, even though I was informed there would be more

8 than enough work, their relative standard of that and

9 mine was quite different in keeping a second office

10 running and it just wasn't viable.

11 Q How much was you said it was $2,000 to

12 set it up?

13 A No. $2,000 to offer a training program

14 through the filial program and their clinical director

15 was the most important piece, we did a three day

16 workshop for a variety of professionals on the filial

17 model and a how it applied to the framework of dealing

18 with high conflict divorce and the largest piece of

19 that money was spent on consultant fees to have him

20 coming down here and do the workshop with me. He is

21 the clinical director of the national institute of

22 relationship enhancement which is the Guerneys

23 organization.

24 Q And how many people attended the

25 conference?

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 30

1 A I believe it was about 10.

2 Q And do you recall how much your rent was

3 in Hunterdon county?

4 A No I do not.

5 Q You don't remember with a what the

6 overhead was?

7 A No I do not. I was too expensive to

8 keep an office open so I closed it. It happens all

9 the time.

* The good doctor lists a series of attorneys on his c.v., saying he has "worked closely with..." In fact, none of these attorneys had any idea their name appeared on his c.v., the doctor confirms that he never sought their permission to use their names.

10 Q All right. Now, in the next paragraph,

11 you list a whole series of attorneys, Mark Segal,

12 Albert Cooper, Marilyn Kline, Patricia Slane-Voorhees

13 Voorhees, Dale Console and others.

14 A Right.

15 Q Did you discuss with these people using

16 their names?

17 A Here we go again with the same question

18 and it is the same framework. No, not to my

19 knowledge. I am offering that as information where

20 you can check with those people if anybody found that

21 was objectionable they can inform it but to me that

22 happens all the time. It is sort of like a

23 verification of your work. Do I have a framework from

24 these people except for one at this point, as to their

25 understanding that I would use them for a reference?

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 31

1 Yes. And is that also true of the Ann Bartlett, yes.

2 And these people aware of the fact that I think that

3 they would verify that I offer good work, yes.

4 Q So these people would verify that you

5 offer good work?

6 A Yes.

7 Q You believe that?

8 A Except for one at this point.

9 Q You think Albert Cooper?

10 A No. Absolutely. The only person on

11 that list because of his agreed use behavior recently

12 is Mark Segal anyone else on that list you would be

13 welcome to contact and they would have all have good

14 things to say.

* Oh, doctor, I beg to differ. Unless (for the majority of those listed) "good things" has a definition that George Orwell would be proud of. And Dr. Weistuch again lights into anyone who had the audacity to question him or his opinions (Dr. Cooke, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Ostrow, Dr. Martinson, me, other attorneys, etc) -

15 Q You are currently involved in a somewhat

16 contentious case with Mark Segal?

17 A No I removed myself from a contentious

18 case with Mark Segal because he was asking me to do

19 something inappropriate and I found out his true

20 colors at that point in time and will no longer work

21 for him in the future.

22 Q What were his true colors?

23 A He is a lawyer much like yourself. He

24 is a person that goes at people with no regard for the

25 effect it has on families. Sorry.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 32

1 Q And what is name of that case?

2 MS. OSWALD: Objection. I think that's

3 privileged.

4 A I don't have to give you that

5 information.

6 Q Were you treating somebody involved?

7 A I don't have to give you that

8 information. I am no longer involved in the case it

9 is quite frankly none of your business.

10 Q We have time we will call Judge LeWinn

11 on that?

12 MS. OSWALD: You can call Mark Segal.

13 A You are welcome to call.

14 Q What is the basis you would assert as

15 privilege for that where does the privilege relate?

16 MS. OSWALD: I think it's covered under

17 attorney work product first of all. I don't know that

18 he has Mr. Segal's permission because he just said he

19 was employed by Mr. Segal. I don't know that he has

20 Mr. Segal's permission to disclose the name of the

21 client to whom they both owe confidentiality.

22 A And after a falling out, I owe no

23 allegiance except to keep the confidentiality of that

24 information because it was never produced to the

25 court.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 33

1 Q So Albert Cooper based on what you said

2 would give you a reference?

3 A Without doubt.

4 Q Marilyn Kline?

5 A Absolutely every single other person on

6 the list.

* Dr. Wesituch claims on his c.v. that he has "worked closely with..." the attorneys listed. Apparently, his "close work" was so "close" that he cannot recall anything about the case - the case name, why he was hired, what he recomended, etc.

7 Q Specifically with Marilyn Kline how many

8 cases have you had with her?

9 A I believe it was one.

10 Q And was that was a post-judgment case I

11 believe?

12 A I don't recall.

13 Q You were hired to do an evaluation do

14 you recall that?

15 A I don't recall. I've given you an

16 answer to your question. I don't recall.

17 Q You would be surprised if Marilyn Kline

18 did not know that you were using her name and would

19 not authorize you to use her name?

20 A I don't recall. Why would I know that?

21 If that was to be ever discussed and she had objection

22 I would be happy to remove her name. She is one of

23 the attorneys that I have had work with in the past.

24 Q And Dale Console?

25 A Absolutely.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 34

1 Q When was the last time you spoke to Dale

2 Console?

3 A It is been a long time.

4 Q Several years?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Would you be surprised if she was

7 unaware that her name appears on here?

8 A Not necessarily. But it is a question

9 as to whether or not she would attest to my

10 qualifications.

11 Q And so you agree that you're implying

12 that the people on this list with the exception of

13 Mr. Segal would attest to your qualifications?

14 A I believe so yes.

15 Q And would recommend you?

16 A I believe so. And if I found out

17 otherwise I would take them off the list.

18 Q But you didn't check with them first and

19 say --

20 A I don't think that it is necessary to

21 do.

22 Q Do you think that you're implying an

23 endorsement by these people when --

24 A I'm implying that I have work with

25 several other attorneys around the state and that is

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 35

1 exactly what it says in this C.V.. That's all that it

2 says.

3 Q You then indicate that you participated

4 in an ICLE conference are you licensed as a presenter

5 under ICLE as a psychologist?

6 A I was asked to do that particular

7 presentation and did so.

8 Q When was that presentation?

9 A I can't remember the date.

10 Q Can you give me the year?

11 A I can't remember the year. It is been a

12 long time.

13 Q Decade was it in the '90s?

14 A Probably in the '90s.

15 Q So are you asserting that you are listed

16 by ICLE an one?

17 A No. I'm saying that I participated in

18 ICLE conference where I was asked to present about

19 doing child custody evaluations to paralegals. That

20 is what it states and that is what it means.

21 Q And did you participate in this

22 conference?

23 A Yes, I did.

24 Q Now professional affiliations on the

25 third page of your C.V., you list the American

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 36

1 psychological association?

2 A Yes.

3 Q The national association of

4 psychologists?

5 A Yes.

6 Q New Jersey association of school

7 psychologists?

8 A Yes.

9 Q You have two other associations that are

10 underlined or blacked through. Are they blacked

11 through strike out or is that an underline?

12 A At this point in time is up and down as

13 to whether or not I continue to pay my dues for these

14 organizations because dues get to be very expensive.

15 Q How much are the dues for American --

16 A I can't recall the nature with the dues

17 structure of the organizations I participate in.

18 Q Are you or are you not affiliated with

19 the say association of family conciliation courts?

20 A I cannot remember the last time I paid

21 the dues and it's struck out for a reason.

22 Q It is a strike out not an underline?

23 A That is correct.

24 Q For both of those?

25 A That is correct.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 37

1 Q I might ask asked you this already but

2 about how many evaluations -- how many custody

3 evaluations have you --

4 A I cannot recall the number.

5 Q Can you give me a ball park, 20, 30?

6 A I can't recall. It was probably more in

7 the nature of 30 or 50 somewhere in that range.

8 Q And you don't remember a single name of

9 any other case that you have ever worked on --

10 A I am sorry. I do not -- I can research

11 it as you are well aware.

12 Q For $200 an hour you will research it?

13 A I need to get back into my files and yes

14 it would cost me my time, absolutely.

15 Q And without say looking on your hard

16 drive for a few minute or jogging your memory looking

17 at a calendar there is no way you can remember?

18 A I cannot remember without researching my

19 files.

20 Q You can't remember a single name?

21 A No I am sorry.

22 MS. OSWALD: For the record, I recall

23 there was an exchange of correspondence and I think I

24 was copied on all of it.

25 A Absolutely.

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 38

1 MS. OSWALD: Between counsel and

2 Dr. Weistuch regarding his need for 30 days to prepare

3 for this deposition and then some pressure placed on

4 the doctor to do the evaluation, to do this deposition

5 sooner and I think the record should reflect that the

6 doctor originally asked for 30 days to review records.

7 Q And for the record, this request was

8 originally made in November and we were told for the

9 record that we needed a formal discovery request or we

10 would not get anything?

11 MS. OSWALD: I believe that was my

12 suggestion, that your informal request on which I was

13 not copied to Dr. Weistuch initially, I objected to

14 that form of discovery and I thought a more formal

15 method of discovery in light of the rancor in this

16 case was appropriate so the record should reflect that

17 that was not Dr. Weistuch objecting to the informal

18 request, that was my objection as an attorney.

19 Q Dr. Weistuch you did receive an informal

20 request in November for copies of all of your records

21 regarding this case?

22 A I believe so yes.

23 Q And a copy of requests original of a

24 request for all other cases in which you have

25 testified or acted an as expert?

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 39

1 A Yes.

2 Q And that was in November?

3 A And it was inappropriate. And that was

4 the bottom line.

5 Q All right. Let's move on. Do you

6 follow the American American psychological association

7 guidelines for custody evaluations in divorce

8 proceedings?

9 A I would work more closely with the

10 guidelines by the State of New Jersey.

11 Q Okay. And but adhere to those

12 guidelines?

13 A Absolutely.

14 Q And how do those guidelines differ from

15 the APA standard guidelines?

16 A I couldn't give you chapter and verse.

17 I don't think that that's a reasonable question.

18 Q When you're conducting an evaluation do

19 you know the guidelines under which you are operating?

20 A There is a difference between knowing

21 the guidelines and reading chapter and verse if you

22 want to give me a specific question I will be happy to

23 refer to a specific paragraph that you are trying to

24 ask information about.

25 Q The first one the primary purpose of an

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 40

1 evaluation is to assess the best psychological

2 interest of the child?

3 MS. OSWALD: Can I ask what counsel is

4 referring to.

5 Q I am reading from the American

6 psychological associations guidelines for child

7 custody evaluations in divorce proceedings?

8 MS. OSWALD: Despite the fact that

9 Dr. Weistuch just indicated that is not the guidelines

10 that he complies with.

11 Q That's what I was asking him whether

12 that would be a guideline he would comply with and

13 whether it differs from the New Jersey guidelines?

14 MS. OSWALD: Okay.

15 Q You hear heard the question?

16 A Okay.

17 Q Do you follow the guideline of the

18 primary purpose of an evaluation being to assess the

19 best psychological interests of the child or children?

20 A Right. There would be no question about

21 that.

22 Q That would be under bet the APA

23 guidelines and the New Jersey guidelines?

24 A Yes it would.

25 Q Okay. Do you believe that the childs

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 41

1 interests and well being are paramount would that be a

2 guideline that would be under the APA and New Jersey

3 guidelines?

4 A Right.

5 Q Focus of an evaluation is on parenting

6 capacity the psychological and development needs of

7 the child and the resulting fit?

8 A Yes.

9 Q For general guidelines repairing for a

10 child custody evaluation, let me read the guidelines

11 and you tell me whether or not they differ from either

12 the New Jersey guidelines or your general practice:

13 Those were the first three that I already read to you

14 so the record will be more clear. Number four, the

15 role of the psychologist is that of a professional

16 expert who strives to maintain an objective impartial

17 stance?

18 A Yes.

19 MS. OSWALD: If we are referring to this

20 document at length can we have it marked.

21 Q I don't have another copy?

22 MS. OSWALD: We can mark that one.

23 (APA guidelines marked P-2 for

24 Identification.)

25 Q Number five the psychologist gains

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 42

1 specialized competence. Do you agree that that

2 applies?

3 A Yes.

4 MS. OSWALD: Are we still referring to

5 the guidelines for preparing an evaluation.

6 Q Yes. Number six the psychologist is

7 aware of personal and societal biases and engages in

8 none discriminatory practice?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Are you familiar with the commentary

11 generally that discusses what these rules means? I

12 don't want to read the entire guidelines into the

13 record?

14 A I know generally what practices and

15 procedures need to be followed if that's the question.

16 Q Okay. Number seven the psychologist

17 avoids multiple relationships?

18 A Yes.

19 Q What would that one mean?

20 A It basically means that the relationship

21 has to be singular to the purpose of which you are

22 referring and my letter this morning references

23 exactly that point to the judge and to you and to

24 Ms. Oswald.

25 Q Okay. Multiple relationship what would

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 43

1 be a violation of the multiple relationships rule?

2 A The violation of the rule would be

3 essentially the situation that happened with why am I

4 drawing a blank on her name right now.

5 Q Joan Johnson?

6 A That's a violation of multiple

7 relationships, clearly, regardless of Dr. Cooke's

8 opinion.

9 Q Okay. Now, would treating someone and

10 then acting as an expert be a violation of that?

11 A Yes, it would.

12 Q I may refer back to these as we move on

13 but I think it's probably use of time. All right.

14 Can you describe briefly what your relationship to the

15 parties was? When was the first time you ever heard

16 of the case of Smith versus Smith?

17 A As I pointed out in the letter during

18 the weekend of Labor Day.

19 Q The weekend of Labor Day was the first

20 time. And how were you contacted? Who contacted you?

21 A I was contacted first by Ms. Steinberg I

22 believe.

23 Q Do you have any idea where she got your

24 name did she give a referral source?

25 A I think you would be more clear about

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 44

1 the process than I would as to what took place in

2 court. I clearly made it stated in that letter that

3 the way I heard about the information is this was an

4 ongoing court process and as I understood it, the

5 court was clearly in line with the idea that I would

6 be doing an evaluation of this family. Clearly as

7 stated in that letter, the circumstances created by

8 you and Mr. Smith made this evaluation off balance

9 and I worked within the context of creating a

10 situation that was fair.

11 Q There is a very simple question pending.

12 Do you have any idea how the parties came to Norman

13 Weistuch? Any idea where they got their name?

14 A Through the court.

15 Q Through the court?

16 A The framework under which it was being

17 discussed at that point. Originally Ms. Steinberg

18 heard my name from Gaeta Iseicz.

19 Q Have you done any previous evaluations

20 for Sally Steinberg or any case she was involved in?

21 A No. Not at all.

22 Q And when did you first speak to anyone

23 it was Labor Day weekend you are saying?

24 A Yes.

25 Q All right. And that was Sally that you

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 45

1 spoke with first?

2 A After speaking with Sally Steinberg yes

3 that is correct.

4 Q So did you speak with Sally on Labor

5 Day?

6 A I believe it was the weekend or the

7 Friday just before that, something to that nature. I

8 can't remember exactly.

9 Q Okay. And do you usually work on Labor

10 Day?

11 A No. And the extreme nature of the

12 circumstances is why I worked on Labor Day.

13 Q What led you to believe there was an

14 extreme nature of circumstances?

15 A I think it's perfectly clear when two

16 people get together and have a person removed from

17 their home that's an extreme set of circumstances.

18 Q How did you learn those were the

19 circumstances?

20 A I learned that from Ms. Steinberg and

21 Mrs. Smith and certainly there is no question that

22 that's confirmable through the court process.

23 Q All right. Now you have referred

24 several times to a letter. Why don't we mark that as

25 P-3 this would be a letter dated January 17, 2006

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 46

1 written by you to Judge LeWinn?

2 A That is correct.

3 Q Do you have that letter in front of you

4 do you have a copy of it?

5 A I certainly have the original.

6 (Marked P-3)

7 Q This has been marked P-3 for

8 Identification. On page two of this letter, about

9 halfway down your second paragraph I made it clear to

10 -- well, I am not going to read the entire phrase here

11 that Ms. Smith had been removed from her home as

12 part of the a negotiation with her husband and

13 Mr. Davis under what in my mind were questionable

14 circumstances?

15 A Absolutely.

16 Q And so you say in what in my mind were

17 questionable circumstances. You formed this opinion

18 before you met with her?

19 A I formed the opinion upon hearing one

20 side of the question that the circumstances were

21 questionable as the case unfolded it's clear to me at

22 this point in time that they were questionable.

23 Q All right. So you met with her and in a

24 emergency session on Labor Day?

25 A As part of a process where I was willing

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 47

1 to engage the family in a child custody evaluation.

2 Q Do you remember approximately what time

3 that meeting began?

4 A No I do not.

5 Q Morning, afternoon, evening?

6 A I don't remember. It was sometime

7 during the day.

8 Q All right. And approximately how long

9 did you meet with her?

10 A It was probably about three hours,

11 somewhere in that nature.

12 Q Okay. Could it have been four hours?

13 A I don't think so. I think it was 3.5 if

14 it is exact.

15 Q Now is 3.5 hours the average amount of

16 time you would spend with someone?

17 A No it is not.

18 Q Jumping back to your letter again, you

19 indicated that the only way I could form a proper

20 relationship with Ms. Smith and get a clear sense

21 about her as a person was to calm her down?

22 A That is correct.

23 Q What methods did you use to calm her

24 down?

25 A Mostly listening to a person framework,

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 48

1 their plight, their situation and when there is a high

2 level of anxiety, despite Dr. Cookes reference to the

3 contrary, balance is based on dealing with the

4 individual on the basis of the individuals needs and

5 there is no time clock on that.

6 Q Did you feel that she was calmed down at

7 the end of your three or four hours with her?

8 A Not really but it was a step in the

9 right direction?

10 A So there were steps made?

11 A I think so.

12 Q Okay. Would you agree that -- strike

13 that. So you then go on in your letter to say that

14 there is a difference between showing humanity which

15 it primary and following the letter of global

16 standards established by professional organizations?

17 A Absolutely.

18 Q But would you agree that that is an

19 admission that you didn't follow the letter of the

20 global standards?

21 A No. It's not an admission of anything.

22 Q What is that --

23 A It's a framework that means that you

24 have to utilize discretion. The point of Dr. Cooke's

25 report is clearly about the fact that there was a

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 49

1 violation in the nature of the relationship. If I am

2 to meet with Ms. Smith with the understanding that

3 an order would follow and I do not violate that

4 procedure in any way until the next time I meet with

5 somebody, which is the balance he is referring to is

6 Mr. Smith, there is absolutely in my mind no

7 framework about that procedure that's in error. I

8 made it perfectly clear to Ms. Smith if we start

9 at that point, because of her level of upset, until I

10 have a court order and proceeded next with her husband

11 we could not proceed any further and that is clearly

12 what was stated.

13 Q During the three and a half hours that

14 were you with her did you review any documents?

15 A I don't believe so.

16 Q Yesterday in with the information you

17 gave me oh he yesterday in with the documents you gave

18 me were a set of your notes did you provide me with

19 all the notes that you have compiled?

20 A Everything in my file.

21 Q Okay. Now, this was a large file and I

22 have had very little time to go through it. But can

23 you show me where there are notes from 9/5/05 from

24 your meeting with Sally?

25 A I can't without looking at every piece

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 50

1 of paper.

2 Q I'm handing you the pieces of paper. Is

3 it possible that there are no notes from 9/5/05?

4 A It is a possibility but here's the note

5 with Sally Smith for 9/5/05.

6 Q And how long is that? That's one page?

7 A Yes.

8 Q So you met with her for three and a half

9 hours and wrote one page of notes?

10 A Um-hum. Because a lot of it is dealing

11 with the anxiety which I'm stating is the whole

12 framework of calming her down. Absolutely.

13 Q In treating her anxiety and calming her

14 down --

15 A You are using a very bad word there

16 because it is not treatment. It is a part of a

17 custody evaluation which was clearly established under

18 the rules under which you engage Ms. Smith.

19 Q Do you calm people down as part of an

20 evaluation?

21 A Absolutely. And I recent to the

22 framework of not understanding the process well enough

23 by not being a psychologist if you would no understand

24 that and that's what I object to?

25 Q You disagree that providing treatment in

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

ROUGH DRAFT ONLY 51

1 calming someone down -- no?

2 A I disagree that this is any form of

3 treatment. I disagree that this is not standard

4 procedure for a custody evaluation who is doing a

5 proper job and as to whether or not that applies to

6 Dr. Cooke unless I see his credentials in front of me

7 I cannot say whether or not Dr. Cooke is a proper

8 custody evaluator and had 25 years of experience so I

9 have no way as a psychologist of assessing his

10 credentials.

11 Q You are not used to having your opinions

12 questioned are you?

13 A I think that's completely outside of