UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

CHERYL LINDSEY SEELHOFF, a married woman, Plaintiff, Tacoma, Washington vs. PAT and SUE WELCH, husband and wife, Defendants.

Docket No. C97-5383FDB Tacoma, Washington September 1, 1998 Trial Volume 2

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a Jury.

APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff:	BARBARA J. DUFFY GWENDOLYN PAYTON KLEIN Lane Powell Spears Lubersky 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2338
For the Defendants:	RUDY R. LACHENMEIER LORI DeDOBBELAERE Lachenmeier, Enloe & Rall 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway Portland, Oregon 97219
Court Reporter:	Teri Hendrix Union Station Courthouse, Room 3100 1717 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 (253) 593-6545

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by Reporter on computer.

Excerpt from transcripts Volume 2 September 1, 1998 Pages 210-445


How to use these documents.

A complete copy of the transcript are availble on an independent web site.
http://members.aol.com/Hsingcase/index.html
(Link provide by permission)

Documents can be ordered by writing to:

US District Court
Western District of Washington
P.O. Box 1935
Tacoma, Washington 98401

406

1  Q.  So you are saying that you might not-have done the right
2  thing in disclosing this information to Michael Boutot; is that
3  right?
4  A.  Well, Michael Boutot obviously don't think I did the right
5  thing, because he felt I should have told him.
6  As I look back at it, maybe I should have told him. But at
7  the time I didn't think I needed to tell him. I think it was
8  something between her pastor, me and her, and it shouldn't go
9  any further. I didn't think he had to know at the time.
10  Q.  You also mentioned someone called Michael Farris, that you
11  and I talked about earlier.
12  And Michael Farris was an attorney; is that right?
13  A.  That's right.
14  Q.  And that was Sue Welch's attorney; correct?
15  A.  I don't know.
16  Q.  Sue Welch was the one who directed you to call Michael
17  Farris?
18  A.  I think so, yes.
19  Q.  What did you have to talk to Michael Farris about?
20  A.  Well, the letter, the church discipline letter. I wanted to
21  see if there was anything in the letter that would come back
22  later on to haunt me if I read it. I don't know, to get his
23  opinion.
24  I read it to him. He said it was all right. He didn't see
25  anything that was wrong with it. He didn't see any legality,

407

1  anything that I could get in trouble with by it.
2  Q.  What were you worried about with the letter?
3  Other than Sue Welch telling you to call Michael Farris,
4  what would have concerned you enough to consult a lawyer about
5  this letter?
6  A.  Well, I don't know law that much and sometimes things can be
7  misconstrued. And I wanted to get another opinion. She said
8  she knew this attorney.
9  I don't know if he called me or I called him. But I wanted
10  some advice. I had never been through this before.
11  Q.  And so Sue Welch recommended to you that you call this
12  attorney to get advice?
13      MR. LACHENMEIER: Asked and answered.
14      THE COURT: You may answer.
15  A.  Yes.
16  BY MS. KLEIN:
17  Q.  Is there anything else that Michael Farris told you about
18  the situation when you consulted with him?
19  A.  No, not that I recall.
20  Q.  You also testified when Mr. Lachenmeier was talking to you
21  that one of the proofs of repentance that you placed upon Cheryl
22  Lindsey was that she never be alone; that is, she always have
23  somebody with her, is that right?
24  A.  I don't think I said never be alone, but for a time she
25  shouldn't be alone. I don't know how I worded that. That's