Chapter 7: Cross-Examination
Grant’s counsel opened the cross-examination with the expected line of attack: that I had remained silent for years, that my sudden appearance served a personal grievance rather than the public interest, and that any use of my name could have been an administrative error rather than a deliberate scheme.
I answered each question inside the same narrow register I had used on direct.
May you like
I had not remained silent about my service; I had continued to perform it. I had not publicized the family rupture because the rupture itself was not a federal matter until the forged identity appeared inside a preferential contracting packet. Administrative error did not explain a complete false discharge document, a reconstructed email account, a hardship narrative built on my erased biography, or the repeated use of that packet across multiple contract cycles. The timeline of the preference filings aligned with Grant’s control of Harbor Shield, not with any action of mine.
Counsel attempted to introduce the possibility that I had authorized the use of my record in some informal capacity. I stated, once, that no such authorization existed. The objection to further speculation was sustained. The cross-examination shortened after that. The documents already in evidence left little room for alternative narratives that required the court to ignore the paper.
