This report is reprinted here with the permission of John Dowd. The contents are Copyright 1989, 1999 by John M. Dowd, Esq. and the Baseball Archive. Any public or commercial use, distribution or duplication of these materials without written permission from The Baseball Archive is a violation of federal copyright law. Use of this site constitutes agreement with these terms. III. Results of Investigation E. The Rose-Janszen Debt Dispute As previously noted, Pete Rose owed Paul Janszen money because Janszen used his personal funds to pay off some of Rose's gambling debts.[334] Janszen estimated that when Rose's betting with Peters stopped in July 1987, Rose owed Janszen approximately $44,000.[335] Rose told Janszen he could get this money by collecting it from Peters.[336] Janszen stated that:
Subsequently, Peters recognized Rose's debt to Janszen, but only paid Janszen approximately $6,000 -- the difference between Rose's $34,000 debt and his $40,000 winnings.[338] In March 1988, Janszen attempted to get Rose to pay him the money still owed to him.[339] He and Marcum had a meeting with Reuven Katz, Rose's attorney.[340] Janszen told Katz that he was in trouble and he needed money to hire a defense lawyer.[341] Janszen said that Katz recommended several lawyers to Janszen.[342] Janszen told Katz he needed some of the money he loaned Rose. Janszen told Katz about the gambling he had done for Rose, including betting on the Reds.[343] According to Janszen, Katz did not question Janszen's account.[344] Janszen said that Katz merely put his head down, made a gesture with his hands and said, "That's it; it's over."[345] Janszen said that Katz did not accuse Janszen of lying about this matter.[346] Janszen's meeting with Katz took place about a week after Janszen was first contacted by the Federal Bureau of investigation.[347] The FBI was not aware that Janszen was going to meet with Katz.[348] In the meeting with Katz, Janszen volunteered that he would "protect" Rose with the federal authorities.[349] Janszen testified that Katz replied, "I [Janszen] had to do what I felt I had to do."[350] Janszen said that Katz told him he would talk to Rose about the matter while in Florida.[351] According to Janszen, Katz later instructed Janszen to go to an accountant's office where there would be a check waiting for him;[352] Janszen did so and picked up a $10,000 check drawn on Rose's account, payable to Paul Janszen, dated March 18, 1988.[353] The check bears the notation "For loan.''[354] Janszen testified that Katz said, "We can just make it look like it's a loan.''[355] However, according to Janszen, Katz never asked Janszen to sign a promissory note for the $10,000, and Janszen never considered it to be a loan.[356] We inquired of counsel for Rose whether Mr. Katz would be available to be interviewed. Counsel for Rose responded that Katz was available to answer questions on a non-privileged basis. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between privileged and non-privileged information, we decided, out of prudence and respect for the attorney-client privilege between Rose and Katz, to pursue the information from non-privileged sources. If you should decide to send this report to Rose and his counsel, Katz may wish to take the opportunity to respond to the statements of Janszen. Rose testified that the $10,000 check was issued to Janszen because "Paul asked me to loan him some money because he needed a lawyer."[357] When asked whether Janszen called him to discuss the request, Rose stated that Janszen called Reuven Katz, not Rose.[358] Rose testified Katz called him and told him Janszen wanted $20,000. Rose told Katz he would loan Janszen half that amount because he did not know if Janszen had enough money to pay back $20,000.[359] Katz told Rose that Janszen needed the money for a lawyer. When Rose asked Katz why Janszen needed a lawyer, Katz told Rose, "I don't know.''[360] When Rose was asked whether Katz told him that Janszen had claimed Rose owed him money, Rose testified, "I don't remember that.''[361] Rose did not ask Janszen to sign a promissory note for the $10,000 because he thought Janszen was a friend.[362] Rose also said that the check was as good as a note because it contained the notation "loan.''[363] On January 20, 1989, Paul Janszen wrote a letter to Reuven Katz which referred to their meeting the previous year about the money Rose owed Janszen.[364] In the letter, Janszen states that he has the feeling that Katz and Rose are taking a "non-committal stance" regarding the money owed Janszen because they thought it would "discourage" him and he would "dry up and blow away.''[365] Janszen went on to write:
When shown Janszen's letter during his deposition, Rose's first comment about it was, "We felt that to be kind of amusing, the stuff he said in there.'['367] Rose's attorney, Robert Pitcairn, then interjected that he did not find anything in Janszen's letter amusing.368/ When asked what he found amusing in the letter, Rose responded that he found amusing such things as Janszen's statements in the letter that he, Janszen, "spent hundreds of hours working" in Rose's house; that Janszen had built a play area; and that Rose had borrowed money from Janszen.[369] The response to Janszen's letter was written by Katz's partner, Robert Pitcairn, to Janszen's attorney, Merlyn Shiverdecker.[370] Pitcairn requested specifics about "the alleged loan, the purpose of the loan, and the amount [Janszen] believes is owed." Pitcairn promised Shiverdecker that if provided the "particulars of the transaction" he would "analyze it" and respond "promptly.''[371] Janszen's attorney Shiverdecker replied to Robert Pitcairn by letter on March 2, 1989, requesting Pete Rose to pay Janszen the balance due him of $33,850 "which Paul paid to others on Pete's behalf and at Pete's direction in May and June of 1987.."[372] Shiverdecker added that "[t]he details of these expenditures are obviously as well known to Pete as they are to Paul." Shiverdecker asked to be advised of Rose's position at Pitcairn's earliest convenience.[373] Janszen does not believe that Pitcairn ever responded to this letter.[374] Rose testified that the assertion that Janszen paid $33,000 on Rose's behalf, for which Rose is responsible, is "ridiculous" and Janszen was "dreaming."[375] Rose went on to recite various debts which he claimed Janszen owed to him: $10,000 for the March 1988 check which Rose claimed was a loan to Janszen; $5,000 for a check which he says Janszen gave him at the end of 1988 for autographing baseballs and bats, which check Rose said bounced; and $25,000 for signing other baseballs and pictures.[376] Janszen stated that in 1988 it became clear that Rose would not pay him anything other than the March 1988 check for $10,000. Therefore, Janszen tried to minimize his losses by getting Rose to autograph as many baseball bats, balls, and other items as possible which Janszen planned to sell through his memorabilia business. Janszen has never received a demand to repay the $10,000 he received in March 1988, which Rose testified was a loan.[377] Rose's testimony that he does not owe Janszen any money is contradicted by Mike Bertolini in his telephone conversation with Paul Janszen of April 4, 1988. In the conversation Bertolini acknowledges Rose's debt and asks whether Rose has paid any of it:
Rose testified that with regard to the entire investigation, "The whole thing started with Paul Janszen."[379] Rose said that Janszen "sort of resented the fact that I didn't want to hang around with him any more after I found out he was in drugs.''[380] Rose said that, "People have a tendency to say things they really don't -- that really aren't true when their ass is on the chopping block.'[381] Rose said that Janszen is trying to "blackmail" him and ruin his name in Cincinnati.[382] Rose said we should talk to Charles Sotto and Charlotte Jacobs, who can provide more information about Janszen in this regard.[383] Sotto was interviewed and stated he had no knowledge of sports betting by Pete Rose. Regarding Janszen, Sotto told us that Janszen had told him of his visit to Reuven Katz; that Janszen needed money to pay an attorney; and that Janszen had cooperated with the FBI.[384] Jacobs was interviewed and she confirmed that Janszen called her and was very upset about Danita Marcum being kicked out of Rose's house. Jacobs had no knowledge of Pete Rose's betting activities.[385] Rose summed up his opinion regarding people who have said he bet on baseball with the following comment:
Rose added that "I'm guilty of one thing in this whole mess, and that's I was a horse shit selector of friends.''[387] On March 21, 1989, Mark Stowe, the Assistant Clubhouse Manager of the Reds, told the investigators that he is acquainted with Paul Janszen and Danita Marcum and last saw them when they had lunch together during the summer of 1988.[388] Stove stated that during the lunch, Janszen said that Rose owed him money and that Rose bet on baseball.[389] Stove also stated that in the spring of 1989, when Pete Rose returned from his meeting at the Commissioner's office, Rose told Stowe that Janszen was saying Rose owed him money, when it was Janszen's "bookie" who owed money to Janszen. Rose told Stowe that he was betting through Janszen, and when Rose won, the "bookie" would not pay Janszen.[399] Rose told Stowe that if it were Rose's "bookie" it would be different, but since it was not his "bookie," he does not owe Janszen anything.[391] Rose also said that Janszen was claiming that Rose bet on baseball, but that he, Rose, did not.[392] Rose's admission to the Reds Assistant Clubhouse Manager in March 1989 that he was indeed placing bets with Paul Janszen contradicts Rose's repeated assertions in his deposition that he never bet with Janszen and was not aware of any betting by Janszen. Footnotes: 334) Janszen Dep. at 58-59. 335) Janszen Interview, February 24-25, 1989, at 112. 336) Janszen Interview, February 24-25, 1989, at 57. 337) Janszen Interview, February 24-25, 1989, at 57-58. 338) Peters Dep. at 27-28. 339) Janszen Dep. at 71, 73. 340) Janszen Dep. at 74. 341) Janszen Dep. at 74. 342) Janszen contacted the lawyers Katz suggested but did not retain any of them. Janszen Dep. at 74. 343) Janszen Dep. at 75-76. 344) Janszen Dep. at 76. 345) Janszen Dep. at 76. 346) Janszen Dep. at 76. 347) Janszen Dep. at 77. 348) Janszen Dep. at 77. 349) Janszen Dep. at 76-77. 350) Janszen Dep. at 76-77. Late in 1988 Janszen began to cooperate with the government in its continuing drug and tax investigation As part of this cooperation, Janszen agreed to wear a hidden microphone in a meeting with Ron Peters. This transaction lead to Peters' being charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Needless to say, since that time, Peters has not considered Janszen a friend. Paul Janszen Interview, February 26, 1989, at 2. 351) Janszen Dep. at 78. 352) Janszen Dep. at 78. 353) Janszen Dep. at 78-79; see also Pete Rose Personal Check #296, dated March 18, 1988.See Exhibit 59. 354) See Exhibit 59. 355) Janszen Dep. at 78-79. 356) Janszen Dep. at 79. 357) Rose Dep. at 287. 358) Rose Dep. at 287-288. 359) Rose Dep. at 288. 360) Rose Dep. at 288. 361) Rose Dep. at 291. 362) Rose Dep. at 291. 363) Rose Dep. at 292. 364) Janszen voluntarily provided a copy of this letter to the investigators. Letter to Reuven Katz from Paul Janszen, January 20, 1989. See Exhibit 60. 365) Letter to Reuven Katz from Paul Janszen, January 20, 1989, at 1. See Exhibit 60. 366) Letter-to Reuven Katz from Paul Janszen, January 20, 1989, at 1-2. 367) Rose Dep. at 293. 368) Rose Dep. at 294. 369) Rose Dep. at 294-295. 370) Letter to Merlyn Shiverdecker from Robert Pitcairn, January 25, 1989. See Exhibit 61. 371) Letter to Merlyn Shiverdecker from Robert Pitcairn, January 25, 1989. 372) Letter to Robert Pitcairn from Merlyn Shiverdecker, March 2, 1989. See Exhibit 62. 373) Letter to Robert Pitcairn from Merlyn Shiverdecker, March 2,1989. 374) Janszen Dep. at 80. 375) Rose Dep. at 298. 376) Rose Dep. at 298, 282-286. 377) Janszen Dep. at 80. Rose testified that Danita Marcum, not Janszen, took the bats over to his house to be autographed. Rose said that "Paul Janszen has never looked me in the eye and said I owe him anything." Rose also said that Marcum once "barged" into his house to get bats signed and his wife told her to get out. Rose Dep. at 306-307. Rose said Janszen "went crazy" and made threatening statements to Charlotte Jacobs (Carol Rose's friend) about Rose's family. Rose Dep. at 307. Janszen has acknowledged that when his girlfriend, Danita Marcum, was thrown out of Rose's house, he became enraged. Janszen has stated several times that he feels Pete Rose used him. Janszen made no attempt to hide the fact that this incident involving his girlfriend caused him to lose his temper. 378) Janszen-Bertolini Conversation at 7-8. 379) Rose Dep. at 302-303. 380) Rose Dep. at ;303. 381) Rose Dep. at 309. 382) Rose Dep. at 302-304. 383) Rose Dep. at 302. 384) Charles Sotto Interview, May 5, 1989. See Exhibit 80. 385) Charlotte Jacobs Interview, April 24, 1989, at 1-3. See Exhibit 63. In the interview, Jacobs corroborated an incident also related to us by Janszen which occurred when Rose and Janszen went to a baseball card show in Cleveland in February 1988. The incident involved Carol Rose's and Danita Marcum's suspicions about a third woman traveling with Janszen and Rose. As a result of this incident, Carol Rose would not allow Janszen, or Marcum, to come into the Rose home. Jacobs Interview at 1-2. 386) Rose Dep. at 309. 387) Rose Dep. at 307. 388) Mark Stove Interview, March 21, 1989. See Exhibit 64. 389) Stowe Interview at 1. 390) Stowe Interview at 1. 391) Stowe Interview at 1. 392) Stowe Interview at 1. On April 27, 1989, Stowe was again contacted and was read the memorandum prepared regarding his March 21, 1989 interview. Stowe stated that to the best of his memory it was correct. The next day, April 28, 1989, Stowe contacted investigator Joseph Daly, and told Daly that the statement in the memorandum regarding what Rose said about betting with Janszen "sorta" sounds like what he heard Rose say. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation with Mark Stowe, April 28, 1989. See Exhibit 65. [ Previous Page ] [ Next Page ] |
