Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

America Speaks Out: Are Military Tribunals Too Unsavory for American Tastes?

Aired November 28, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOIE CHEN, HOST: On the docket...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our military guys who are at risk over there are subject to military tribunals. And I think it ought to be good enough for Mr. bin Laden, as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: But, are military tribunals too unsavory for American tastes?

Also, a Georgia couple allegedly tries to cash in on the World Trade Center tragedy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

To me, it's reprehensible. If this person turns out to be guilty, he would not want me to be the judge in this case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Find out what this couple is accused of doing, and how they got caught. And then take a turn at playing judge: decide which man gets to keep Barry Bonds' record-breaking home run ball.

(APPLAUSE)

CHEN: We're going to toss the ball out here at TALKBACK LIVE a little bit later in the program. Good afternoon and welcome. Thanks for joining us on TALKBACK LIVE: "America Speaks Out." I'm Joie Chen.

First up on our plate today, an issue that's brought together some unusual partners -- even some Democrats and Republicans seeing very eye-to-eye on this. Bob Barr and Maxine Waters agree -- who could have thought of that? The subject is military tribunals.

And with us to talk about it, Michael Zeldin, former federal prosecutor and independent counsel. Also with us, an old friend to us here at CNN, Catherine Crier, now of "Court TV" and a former Texas state judge. Thank you both for being with us. I want to start off just setting the stage with both of you, about what you believe. Why or why not, on the military tribunals? Catherine, start out by explaining to us why a military tribunal can be useful.

CATHERINE CRIER, "COURT TV": Well, I think you had a sound bite that's very important. In fact, if our own soldiers come under the articles of war and can be tried and punished by the death penalty, appropriately in front of a military commission, we're going to say that doesn't apply to someone like Osama bin Laden?

The Constitution very specifically, and interpreted by the Supreme Court as recently as 1942, makes provisions. Not all cases are triable in front of a jury. Not all cases have to be indicted. Not all fall under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. And in fact, this is one of those.

The president has the authority to order a military tribunal, and in fact it may well be appropriate in this case.

CHEN: Michael, appropriate, not?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it may be appropriate in this case. I wouldn't want to remove that weapon from the arsenal that the president has. The question is, under what circumstances will he exercise those prerogatives?

And it seems to me that they should be sparingly used, and especially not used in trials on United States territory, pursuant to extradition requests by some of these accomplices to the September 11th events.

CHEN: So I guess I'm left with, you think there is a circumstance in which they might be useful, but you just don't want a blanket. So you still want the president's order to stand, the ability of prosecutors to use it. You just want it to be judicious. But isn't that part of the issue?

I mean, who gets to decide what merits this kind of treatment, and what should be handled through a more traditional proceeding?

ZELDIN: That's the purpose, I think, of this whole debate. I think it's to the president's credit that he announced this intention to use as an option early on, so we can discuss the parameters under which it will be used, and inform him of what is sort of the collective consciousness of the country, about when it should be used.

And Catherine and I may not disagree, with respect to trying Taliban military leaders under an act of war, but trying the Spanish accomplices, or somebody under arrest in Ireland who is subject to extradition and trial in the United States, with full due process rights, I just don't think in a military trial there it would be appropriate. Especially since we're not at war against a government, like we were during the second world war.

CRIER: Well, Michael makes a very important distinction, because when we're talking about unlawful belligerence, such as the hijackers who came in, even under visa, and attacked this country, or an Osama bin Laden, who has set up a worldwide organization to accomplish those specific means, I think it would be incumbent to establish, before a military tribunal had any jurisdiction over these individuals, that they were part and parcel -- they were a defined member of al Qaeda, for example, that they did fall under this war-like organization that has designated the U.S. as its major target.

If they do not, they may come under traditional criminal statutes that provide for trial by jury.

CHEN: Right, and there were some limitations applied by the president's order: reason to believe, engaging in, abetting, or conspiring or preparing to do so.

Carl is here in our audience with a thought favoring the military tribunals, or at least the option to use them.

CARL: Yes, I favor it, because we've had presidents so far, and they have worked out in the past. I also believe that since there is a time limit on it, and these are special times, that they require special means. Therefore, for this particular instance, I agree.

CHEN: Michael, extreme times call for extreme measures?

ZELDIN: Sometimes, yes. The trial of the World Trade bombers a few years back, I think it was a successful trial, affording those defendants full due process rights, where the death penalty was available to the prosecutors. And proved that the system, with all privileges we enjoy as U.S. citizens, can work to effectively try, prosecute, convict and if necessary, execute terrorists.

So it seems to me that you have just as many examples of the system working in exigent circumstances, as not working. And therefore, I would want to circumscribe its use to extra-territorial applications...

CHEN: Starting to talk like a lawyer.

OK, we're going to try to get you to speak to us in English in a minute here, Michael. OK, let's talk to some folks in the audience. This is Vicky, from here in Georgia, one of the high school students with us, with a very smart comment or question.

VICKY: I think that America is better than that. I think that our laws will work. People have the right to disagree with the American government. I mean, we have right to disagree. We have right to protest.

I think that the military tribunals are just a way to try and facilitate something that's going to happen anyway, so you might as well make it legitimate in the eyes of the people, for all time to come. Even right now, public opinion says that we should go out and we should try these guys in any way possible, and possibly execute them. But how is the world going to judge us in 20 or 40 years, when they look back... CHEN: Or even immediately -- Catherine.

CRIER: Joie, we need to be careful. And people might want to go back, who are really interested, and literally read the Constitution, read the articles of war. This is not something that has been conjured up for this particular moment. 1780 was the earliest trial I could find, where George Washington ordered an enemy belligerent to be tried by military tribunal.

CHEN: But under a declared war situation, right?

CRIER: Well, there are declared wars, but we also have a situation where, when we tried the terrorists for the '93 bombings -- we describe them as terrorists yet, but we didn't have, I don't think, the cumulative evidence that this is an organization, sort of analogous to the Mafia, if you will, that has been set up specifically to target this country, as an act of war under the law of nations, the common law of nations. Their behavior fits that perfectly.

CHEN: We're going to have to make that the last word on this subject. We're taking a break, here. Michael Zeldin, we thank you for joining us. Catherine, though, is going to hang with us through the break. Maybe she can put her judge's robe back on, to talk with us. And Judge Mathis, from TV, as well, about the slimy crime.

Then later this hour, a judgment call from you: the tussle over Barry Bonds' record-setting home run baseball. Who should get it, the guy who caught it first, or the guy who picked it up in the skirmish afterwards? Cast your ballot at the TALKBACK LIVE on-line viewer vote, cnn.com/talkback. AOL keyword is CNN. Send us an e-mail while you're there. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHEN: Justice on the TV this hour. Let's take a look at a couple of cases that might be good fare for TV judges. Helping us out today is Greg Mathis. He is a Michigan judge. He has his own TV show and it's called "Judge Mathis." Also, we continue to have Catherine Cried standing by with us, as well.

First up, though: A Georgia couple, police say, tried to scam their insurance company after the 9-11 attacks. Authorities say that Charles Gavett of Concord, Georgia, reported that his wife was missing after the World Trade Center attack. He allegedly claimed that his wife had a morning appointment there on the morning of September 11th, 9:00 in the morning. And their 14-year-old daughter even signed a statement swearing her mother was dead.

This scheme came apart when the insurance company contacted the local sheriff, who just happened to know the family -- all of them, including the wife, alive and well. According to New York authorities, there are quite a few of these fraud cases now under investigation.

Judge Mathis, can you talk to us about what might be appropriate punishment in a case like this? JUDGE GREG MATHIS, "JUDGE MATHIS": Yes. First of all, if found guilty, I think that they will have proven to be scoundrels of the worst time. And trying to come up with a punishment for these types -- I mean, it's almost as if prison is too good for them. You know what I mean? You put them in prison, they get three meals and a squat. Who wants to send them to prison? You know what I mean? They need something worse than prison. And they'll go to prison and learn how to be sicker and slicker, and come out to be better criminals.

CHEN: So what do you do with them, Judge?

MATHIS: I'd like some creative sentencing. In fact, I'd send them to Ground Zero, there in New York, and have them dig -- no, I wouldn't even have them dig for the bodies, because that's too honorable. That's an honorable duty.

I'd have sit around and maybe carry the dirt, so they can smell that and get it in their clothes, and have them do it until we remove every body there, and then continue in having them perhaps facilitate some of the counseling for the victims of the families. And sit in on those counseling sessions that they're going to need, those families that have been traumatized. Perhaps that will rehabilitate them and change their hearts.

CHEN: Audience, yes, no, maybe?

(APPLAUSE)

CHEN: All right. Catherine, put yourself back in the judge's role, here. Can you make a decision based on a crime being extra slimy, about a penalty?

CRIER: Oh, I think so. Absolutely. I mean, we've seen cases that have stood up on appeal, where judges have ordered everything from bumper stickers placed on a car, to somebody wearing a sandwich board, signs in their front yards...

CHEN: Scarlet letter...

CRIER: Unfortunately, it's analogous to that, but I think Judge Mathis is right. What's the point of putting them in jail? Send them down there and put them to work. If that were to be upheld on appeal, I think it would be very appropriate.

CHEN: Amanda is out in our audience with a different view. Amanda, you were explaining that to us during the break.

AMANDA: I think what they did is terrible and it was wrong. But I also think that you are punishing them for the crime of the fraud, and you can't punish them any differently from anyone else, than you would.

CRIER: Each case has to be taken on its own merits, because if you say that, then every murder is alike, every shoplifting is alike, every theft is alike. You know, it's the old "Les Miserables." The guy stole a loaf of bread to feed his kids. We're not going to treat him differently than someone who stole for himself, or to aggrandize? Of course you've got to treat each crime and each defendant separately.

CHEN: You know, Judge Mathis, I have to ask you. Shouldn't it be charged as well with, like, stupid behavior? I mean, after all, they didn't report this woman missing in New York. They sent an e- mail to the insurance company saying, "oh, well, she's missing." They had -- actually, I understand from some of the local reporting today, that they even invited a local sheriff's deputy to Thanksgiving dinner at their house. So when the insurance company called, the sheriff's department said, hey, is this woman missing? And they said no, she had dinner with the sheriff's deputy.

Shouldn't there be a charge for stupid, too?

MATHIS: The fact is, any person who is convicted of a crime is usually inferred that they have been charged and convicted with stupidity as well. I have never met a smart, convicted criminal. Most of them are stupid, even myself when I was a kid convicted of minor crimes, I was a stupid kid being convicted and getting in trouble.

But on the other observation that was just made by your audience members that they should be convicted and sentenced in the same way as others, see, I am a different believer in sentencing. When you sentence someone to prison time it this case, once again, it does it no good, they are just being punished.

And we need punishment and rehabilitation because clearly, this person is sick, their whole family, or at least the wife and the husband are both sick and they need treatment and the best treatment is for them to sit there and experience the trauma and sit there and experience the pain that those families are going to have to experience.

CHEN: The real pain. All right, and bear in mind, these people have not been convicted yet so we should sign on on that.

Aaron is here in our audience with a thought.

AARON: Well, if this is a federal crime and I think it should be, since it takes place here and in New York, then federal laws mandate certain punishments and these people should receive the punishment that is mandated by lay. And that should be the maximum punishment allowable. There shouldn't be any extra punishment or extraneous circumstances. This was a horrible crime and they should receive the maximum punishment, but no worse than what is mandated by law.

CHEN: Catherine, you know, you are hearing from some young people here who say, hey, it is the punishment that is supposed to fit the crime, whatever the methodology of the crime was.

CRIER: But in fact, the judge, even with determinative sentencing, where you are given a narrow range rather than two-to-life sort of thing, there is still discretion on the part of the court in every case. There is not a specific sentence that applies to X behavior.

So you have got an option to consider the crime, the defendant, all of these sorts of things and you are -- Judge Mathis said it right -- you are not exercising your role as a judge if you don't take that experience and that information into play, and would these young people rather spend ten years in a penitentiary, let me tell you, ain't no pretty place, or would you rather spend a year doing work at ground zero?

CHEN: We have on the telephone line for us, Donna. She is in Alabama.

Donna, how are you doing this afternoon?

CALLER: Pretty good.

CHEN: Your comment.

CALLER: People like this don't just defraud the insurance company. They take away the trust that we have...

CHEN: Hang on a second, Donna, we have some developing news. right now. We will go to the newsroom. Donna Kelley is there.

(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF A LIVE EVENT)

CHEN: Hey, welcome back. That was a surprise, getting back to us here. But we are welcoming our guest for the next segment. We do have to tell you that our guests from the last segment, Catherine Crier, Judge Mathis had to leave us. We thank them both for joining us today.

We want to move on to another opportunity for you and our audience to be the judge today. That record-breaking ball that Barry Bonds hit for his 73rd home run, it could be worth, by some collectors' estimates, a million bucks, maybe more than that. No wonder the fight over ownership has gone all the way to court, of course.

That is the video of it happening. Alex Popov is the man who caught it first, but then it was Patrick Hiashi (ph) who emerged from an ensuing fan scuffle with the ball in his hands. The court judge says he can't decide, so he has put the ball in lock up until trial.

Alex Popov and his attorney, Martin Triano (ph), join us today from San Francisco.

Alex, can you talk to us a little bit about that scene? We saw a little bit of video of it and I know our viewers want to see a little bit more, so they can get a better idea of what happened. Can you talk a little bit about the scene and the moments when the ball came towards you?

ALEX POPOV, PLAINTIFF: Well, certainly. It was the bottom of the first inning. I lined myself up where Barry Bonds hit number 500, back in April, and when Barry hit it, it was hit very, very high and it came right to me. I didn't have to move at all. I am a little bit over 6 foot tall. I have about a 9 foot reach. I reached up and I caught the ball cleanly in the air. It went right into the back of my glove and it was a dream come true.

I played a lot of little league and here it was the moment and then I was tackled and thrown to the cement, so this exhilaration that I felt and experienced, all of sudden turned to fear, because of the weight that was piling on top of me. Everybody grabbing at me. I was screaming for help...

CHEN: How long did you actually have it in you hand, do you know?

POPOV: ... other people screaming.

CHEN: Alex, how long did you actually have control of the ball, as they say?

POPOV: Well I caught it and I brought it to my torso as I was being thrown to the cement. And I actually landed on top of my glove and the ball, and I estimate anywhere from 45 seconds to a minute and a half, so it was in my position. I owned it. And you could hear everybody on the videotape saying, let him get up, let him get up, because everybody saw that I caught it.

And let's be clear here. We have numerous witnesses. We have statements from 14 people that were right next to me when this all happened and they came to me after security took the ball away and said that was wrong. You caught that ball. This is something that should not have happened. Here is my name and number. Call me if you need to. I think you should go forward with this.

I picked myself up together, my glasses were broken. My elbows were scraped. And there was a lot of injured people. It was really an unfortunate scene that that many people did experience such a riot there in the stands.

CHEN: Martin is your lawyer with you today. How many people do you have now as witnesses on behalf of your client?

MARTIN F. TRIANO, ATTORNEY FOR ALEX POPOV: Well yesterday we had a hearing on the preliminary injunction. And one of the tests that we had to do is to show the likelihood that we would prevail on merits. And to do that, we also added 14 declarations by witnesses, who stated under penalty of perjury that they saw Alex catch the ball, hold on to it, and do everything he could before he got mugged.

CHEN: OK, we want to ask in the audience here, who actually caught that ball. Nathan, who caught the ball?

NATHAN: I think Mr. Popov should get it because if he caught it and then it was wrested away from him, then it should be his. I know we live in a cut-throat capitalist society, but shouldn't that not interfere with social decency? Does might make right?

CHEN: I do want to read the statement from Patrick Hiashi (ph), the guy who I guess has technical custody of the ball, although it is now locked up in a vault. Let's take a look at this. The statement from him. "I'm still shocked that I am being sued over a ball that both Major League Baseball and the San Francisco Giants gave to me. I am lucky enough to be part of baseball history. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) makes this legal nightmare," as he calls it, are," what he describes as "attacks by Mr. Popov on me reputation, accusations that we have shown to be false. I have been asked many time about a settlement, but it is difficult to make friends with a school yard bully."

Alex, is it possible for him to cut a deal with you?

POPOV: Let's be clear here too, we don't think that Major League Baseball or the Giants have said that Patrick Hiashi is the owner of that baseball. Major League Baseball and the giants are saying that, in fact, they did authenticate that the ball they recovered was Barry's 73rd home run ball.

And I asked you, why isn't Mr. Hiashi talking to people from the press? He is releasing these statements and we don't even know if he is releasing them. Maybe they are his PR people trying to put the right spin on it.

CHEN: We did ask if he or his folks would like to appear, they did not want to. Let's get out in the audience here. Kennard is from Georgia. Get up there, Kennard. Who's ball is it?

KENNARD: I think that it is kind of like a fumble in a football game. Whoever gets up with the ball is the winner. I can see how he thinks that it is his ball. But usually in baseball games, whoever stands up with the ball, the ball is basically his.

CHEN: OK, a couple of experts voices here. Steve Malzberg from WABC in New York is with us. Hey, Steve, how are you doing? And also with us here on the set is Mike Bell from Sportstalk 790, "The Zone" here in Atlanta.

Mike, I will start with you on that. Who's ball is it anyway? Is it like football or is it like baseball? Am I not supposed to be able to make a catch.

MIKE BELL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, Alex is talking about this and he says, talking about Mr. Popov, that he played little league. And one thing, Alex, they told you in little league is, two hands. You have to get two hands on the baseball.

And when you say, you got elbows scraped and you were mugged...

POPOV: I did.

BELL: Big guy, $3 million went to Mark McGuire's number 70 home run, what did you think this was going to be -- no, you take it, I'll take it -- it was a scrum. It is 30 guys out there. It is kill or be killed. This is a baseball that is going to fetch about $3 million...

CHEN: Now it is $3 million? BELL: Up wards of 2 to 3 million dollars. Alex, you have to hold on to the baseball, big buy. It's tough, but it is finders keepers. Possession is 9/10 of the law. I don't know what is more pathetic: You whining about this, or your lawyer taking the case.

CHEN: Oh, wait, let's let Steve in on that too.

STEVE MALZBERG, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The fact is, I can't tell a lot from that video. Alex says he had the ball for 45 seconds. I mean, the video itself isn't that long, so I'd have to see the whole thing. Now if a judge couldn't tell what to do after seeing the video and hearing the witnesses, I don't know why he was unable to make that decision.

But let me say this, if Alex had it, and it was clear that he had it and then subsequently it was knocked out of his hands or he was attacked, that doesn't make possession 9/10 of the law. That means, if it is taken from you illegally it should be given back to you.

But I think there needs to be a compromise here. I think what we need to do is maybe Barry Bonds coughs up a million bucks, gives $500,000 to each of them and he gets the ball back, or maybe the judge says, if you guys can't come to a decision, I am going to make sure that the ball gets sent to the hall of fame. And that is where it is going to stay. It will be donated by the two of you, but nobody is going to get money out of it.

CHEN: Nobody gets money out if it. I have control of the ball. I have to take a break. I got control, we will take a break. Alex, when we come back, you get to respond. Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ETHAN: I'm Ethan (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from the University of Southern California and I believe the Barry Bonds ball belongs to the guy who originally caught it. The people in the scrum knew that it is worth of lot of money and it was obviously taken from the guy who originally caught it. He deserves the ball. Give it to him.

CHEN: We got the ball. Let's give Alex Popov the ball, at least not the ball that is locked up, in the point of issue, but Mike here came out with some strong words for you, Alex. You are going to have to respond to that. Could you have controlled this ball any better?

POPOV: Well, I did control it. I caught it, possessed it. I went to the ground with it. The witnesses that were there actually testified under oath that that is what actually happened. The crowd there was really violent. It was unfortunately that it got that violent, and if you look at Barry Bonds' number 70, 71, and 72 homeruns, this did not happen. So, to imply that this is a normal thing, that it was not anything out of the ordinary is false.

People were really hurt in that pile. To refer to my little league years, I didn't have people jumping me in right field when I caught a ball. But I did catch the ball, I possessed it, and it is one of those things that Major League Baseball and the Giants actually do want fan and family friendly parks. I am confident that we will succeed and with respect to the actual mugging...

BELL: Alex, it is not a mugging. Guys are going for the baseball.

POPOV: Judge Garcia, ruled yesterday that he felt that we had a strong enough argument...

CHEN: Troy is on the telephone line -- Troy is on the telephone line from Minnesota, he is standing up for you, Alex. Hang on a second, let's listen to Troy -- Troy.

CALLER: Hi, I appreciate you taking my call. I can't believe that Mike says that what you should do is not prepare to catch the ball, but be prepared to take it away from the guy who does.

CHEN: Maybe you should bring your own baseball bat to fight off somebody who is coming after you.

BELL: What Alex just said, he didn't expect it -- I can't believe this -- all of this going after a baseball. Alex, what do you think happens out there when they have guys in little floating boats. They have dogs to catch the baseball. What do you think is going to happen to the ball that could be the last of the...

POPOV: I don't know how the ball parks...

BELL: ... be prepared for the melee.

CHEN: Mike, Chelsea out here says you guys are being much too savage. Come on, Chelsea.

CHELSEA: Well position is not 9/10 of the law as long as it is in your possession. It is 9/10 of the law all of the time. And if the ball was in his possession, it should be his ball. So, just because someone took it away from him doesn't make it their ball.

CHEN: So if he had made out into the parking lot with the ball, on his way home getting into the car on his way home and then Mike came by and mugged him for the ball, it would be no different to you?

MALZBERG: Mike would probably say it's OK, he should have expected that, he should have hired a security guard to walk him to his car. Because all is fair in this game or war, that's crazy.

BELL: Hey, Steve, I like your point earlier about splitting the baseball. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that this is out in California, maybe the judge will see through and maybe have visitation rights for Mr. Popov and Mr. Hiashi, and we can all go home happy.

CHEN: All right, Aaron in our audience here -- Aaron.

AARON: We haven't seen the whole video but if it is inconclusive and the judge can't tell and no one can tell who owns it, then you have to go to the next source, which is all these witnesses, which Mr. Popov has, who said he had the ball, and what the other guy did is no different than a purse snatcher who stole someone's purse in public.

There's witnesses who say that it was stolen from him, and so the ball should be returned to him. And the other guy should be charged with petty theft.

CHEN: Gordon has an idea. Gordon says go to another sport for an answer.

GORDON: Maybe they should jump ball.

CHEN: Jump ball for the ball there, Alex. What do you think?

BELL: I'll take that.

MALZBERG: Mike, what if Alex had a broken arm, or a fractured jaw in the melee? You would say, hey, you have to expect that, right?

BELL: Well, no, his attorney would turn around and sue the Giants and Major League Baseball for $3 million.

MALZBERG: Would he have a case -- would he have a case, in your view?

TRIANO: Wait a minute. Because the issue there is, keep it mind, I don't think the Giants or Major League Baseball want the stands at PacBell Park turned into a European soccer riot. My client went to this game with a dream in his eye -- let me finish, let me finish, please, give me that courtesy.

My client went to this game with a dream in his eye. He reached up and caught the ball. He should have been able to enjoy it. That is what happened on number 70 and 71.

CHEN: Wait, Alex, weren't you going to sell the ball anyway?

(CROSSTALK)

POPOV: Let's be clear. I am not, Mr. Triano came to me through a personal friend. He is not on a contingency basis here. It is an hourly agreement that I have with Mr. Triano. So, I don't know Mr. Hiashi is paying his attorneys. But this is all about me wanting to get my ball back. I caught it. I possessed it. It's my ball. I want my ball back.

CHEN: What are you going to do with it if you get it back, Alex? Are you going to sell it?

POPOV: First think I am going to do is bring it back to San Francisco. Barry Bonds hit it here. I caught it here. It belongs here. San Francisco is a wonderful city. We got a new ballpark. The ball belongs here in San Francisco. For some reason Mr. Hiashi took it out of this town. It belongs here. That is where I want to bring it back first, and I want to enjoy it and it's a dream come true. (CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why haven't we heard from Barry Bonds? Where is Barry Bonds in all this?

CHEN: I also have to tell you that on our on-line viewer vote, I have to tell you, Alex, that 40 percent of the folks in our vote here say that you should get the ball; 22 percent say that neither of you should get the ball. And 26 percent say you should sell it, and split the money. Would that work for you, Alex? Would you be happy with that?

POPOV: Let me ask you this: What percentage actually says that Mr. Hiashi should get the ball?

CHEN: Uh, 12 percent. That is why I am saying, you do win in this poll, but they are not the folks that get to decide as a jury.

POPOV: I have heard a number of those polls and ultimately this is a ball that I want to own, and in terms of, I caught it, it was my ball.

The only people that are pushing to sell this the ball and talking about value are Mr. Hiashi and his attorneys. They are the ones that hired the agent to sell the ball. That is why we had to start the legal proceedings. I actually called Mr. Hiashi and left him voice mail and said, let's go have a beer and talk about this. He refused to return my phone calls, so we had to take other action.

CHEN: We will see what happens here. All right, gotta go here. Sorry. We are to go here. We are all going to practice until Ken Griffey goes and breaks the record and then there will be another ball people will be fighting over. That is it for us today. Thanks to all of our guests. Thanks to those of you in the studio. We will see you tomorrow afternoon, 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com