MAY 12, 2005

9953

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION

4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE

5

6

7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

8 CALIFORNIA, )

9 Plaintiff, )

10 -vs- ) No. 1133603

11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

12 Defendant. )

13

14

15

16

17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

18

19 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005

20

21 8:30 A.M.

22

23 (PAGES 9953 THROUGH 9999)

24

25

26

27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 BY: Official Court Reporter 9953

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2

3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,

4 District Attorney -and-

5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,

7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney 1112 Santa Barbara Street

8 Santa Barbara, California 93101

9

10

11 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU BY: THOMAS A.
MESEREAU, JR., ESQ.

12 -and- SUSAN C. YU, ESQ.

13 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90067

14 -and-

15 SANGER & SWYSEN

16 BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ. 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C

17 Santa Barbara, California 93101

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9954

1 I N D E X

2

3 Note:Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index.

4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index.

5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index. Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index.

6 Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index.

7

8

9 DEFENDANT’S

10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

11 VELASCO, Carlos 9965-SA 9969-A 9971-SA

12 LEGRAND,

13 David G. 9972-M

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9955

1 Santa Maria, California

2 Thursday, May 12, 2005

3 8:30 a.m.

4

5 (The following proceedings were held in

6 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

7 jury:)

8

9 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.

10 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)

11 Good morning, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: According to the information I

13 have, you intend to call Mr. Velasco next; is that

14 right?

15 MR. SANGER: Your Honor — whoa. Let me go

16 to this one, Your Honor. I think I just destroyed

17 government property. I’m sorry.

18 We have a few minutes left of this tape. I

19 thought it was four or five. The District Attorney

20 thought maybe there was ten left. Whatever it is,

21 there’s not much more.

22 We have the tape, and then Mr. Velasco next,

23 and following that we’re seeking to call Mr. LeGrand

24 and Mr. Robinson. That’s our proposed procedure.

25 Now, we received something on Mr. Robinson.

26 Mr. Mesereau would respond to Mr. LeGrand. And if

27 the Court permits, I would respond to what was just

28 filed regarding Mr. Robinson. 9956

1 THE COURT: Your next witness is Velasco,

2 right?

3 MR. SANGER: Velasco. There’s no issue with

4 Mr. Velasco. It’s going to be very brief.

5 THE COURT: Is that correct, District

6 Attorney?

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, Your Honor.

8 I believe he will be a very brief witness.

9 THE COURT: You’ve worked that out.

10 MR. SANGER: I don’t think there was ever an

11 issue with regard to Mr. Velasco. You’re thinking

12 of Vivanco.

13 THE COURT: That’s a different person.

14 MR. SANGER: That’s a different person. We

15 had agreed with I think the thrust of their motion.

16 We filed a response this morning. Did you receive

17 that, Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Yes, it upsets me greatly.

19 MR. SANGER: Oh, I’m sorry.

20 THE COURT: No.

21 MR. SANGER: I’m kind of surprised. I don’t

22 know why, which probably makes it even worse. I’m

23 sorry. Okay.

24 THE COURT: You just stop and think about it.

25 MR. ZONEN: We haven’t received anything

26 this morning.

27 MR. SANGER: Okay. That it’s this morning?

28 Okay. I’ll have to think about it some more. 9957

1 THE COURT: Yes, you better.

2 MR. SANGER: Vivanco is not for this

3 morning. We were possibly, depending on what else

4 happens, going to try to call him as early as this

5 afternoon. But I’ll have to — I’ll have to look

6 back at the response and see what it is that upset

7 the Court. And I apologize. I honestly don’t know.

8 But Velasco is okay. And we have Robinson

9 and LeGrand. Those are the issues I think we have

10 to address, if that’s all right.

11 THE COURT: All right. Take up the issue on

12 Robinson.

13 MR. SANGER: Yes. I think there is a

14 failure to communicate or something. We went back

15 and forth with e-mails. As I pointed out, we had

16 discovered — I’m talking like Mr. Auchincloss. We

17 had provided in discovery a copy of the report. We

18 have a Bates stamp number. We’ve shown it to

19 counsel. It was, in fact, turned over —

20 Was it February?

21 MS. YU: 3rd.

22 MR. SANGER: 3rd. It was turned over in a

23 timely fashion. He was, in fact, their witness. He

24 was called before the grand jury and they also have

25 tape-recorded statements of him.

26 Our statement, as I told Mr. Auchincloss,

27 pretty much says that he says the same thing that he

28 said to them and he said under oath. So there’s a 9958

1 question of whether it would have to be turned over

2 or not at all, but we did turn it over on February

3 the 3rd. For some reason, they have some

4 handwritten notes that were turned over at the same

5 time, but Mr. Auchincloss said he wasn’t able to

6 locate the other. However, it was Bates stamped in

7 the ordinary sequence and it was turned over. So I

8 think we’re fine on Robinson.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That is correct, Your

10 Honor. We did have discovery of the Robinson

11 report. Our clerks went through the files, the

12 40,000 pages that have been provided, and did not

13 locate it. I just pointed out — it was pointed out

14 to me this morning the exact Bates stamp number.

15 I’ve reviewed our database, and we do have a report

16 on Christian Robinson, which I’ve just read.

17 We also — I would just mention that the

18 report does have several material facts or additions

19 that were never mentioned in the transcript of the

20 grand jury and the testimony of the grand jury or in

21 the interviews with the police. So there are some

22 new developments there. So I’m trying to get up to

23 speed on Mr. Robinson right now.

24 If you’d like, I can address Mr.

25 LeGrand’s — the issue concerning Mr. LeGrand.

26 Counsel has just provided me with a LeGrand

27 exhibit book, which I’ve had no opportunity to look

28 at. I asked Mr. Mesereau if he intended to 9959

1 introduce these exhibits and he said yes, for the

2 most part, he did intend to introduce most of them.

3 Mr. LeGrand. We’ve received hundreds and

4 hundreds of pages of legal documents, many of them

5 similar to what appears in this binder, but we have

6 no idea where they came from, whether they represent

7 complete files, partial files. Basic authentication

8 issues. But I don’t think those are of any

9 particularly great moment.

10 We also know that Mr. LeGrand has had

11 communications, or it appears from these very

12 documents that he’s had communication with Mr.

13 Cochran and Mr. Geragos, former counsel, and yet

14 there are no reports. So if counsel insists that

15 they have never talked to Mr. LeGrand, we’d at least

16 be entitled to find out how they obtained these

17 documents and the chain of custody of them.

18 He’s going to be a complicated witness. And

19 it will probably take more than a day to cover his

20 testimony. I anticipate that we’ll have him on

21 cross for quite some period of time given the

22 defense exhibits. I anticipate the same from the

23 defendant, so we are not prepared to go forward with

24 Mr. LeGrand today.

25 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

26 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

27 Your Honor, I produced in December every

28 document involving Mr. LeGrand that was in my 9960

1 possession. We had decided in December to waive the

2 attorney-client privilege. Mr. Auchincloss has had

3 all of these documents, including the ones in the

4 binder, since December. He has known that we are

5 waiving the privilege since December.

6 My approach, and I think it was the correct

7 one, was that once we waived the privilege, all of

8 Mr. LeGrand’s correspondence, drafts, memorandum,

9 documents in his possession that had been cc’d to

10 him were statements, in effect. So I turned them

11 over to the prosecution as what I believe were

12 witness statements.

13 They have more witness statements from this

14 particular witness than any witness that’s going to

15 appear in the case. And my examination of Mr.

16 LeGrand is going to not differ or vary from what is

17 contained in all of those witness statements. So I

18 am rather shocked at the prosecutor’s position,

19 because he’s had these things since last December,

20 and he got probably ten binders’ worth of documents.

21 The issues they cover are very clear.

22 Everything from the Bashir litigation, to Dieter and

23 Konitzer, to financial issues. In fact, as the

24 Court may recall, when Mr. Auchincloss put an expert

25 on the stand to deal with financial issues, some of

26 the documents Mr. Auchincloss had him review and

27 refer to were David LeGrand documents, so how he can

28 possibly say he’s not prepared, I don’t understand. 9961

1 Every document in this binder that he has, he has

2 had since last December. And as I say, I think if

3 you take the position that these are all witness

4 statements, he has more witness statements than any

5 other witness in the case. There’s nothing to

6 surprise him about. In fact, my cross-examination

7 of his financial expert had to do with LeGrand

8 documents that Mr. Auchincloss acknowledged he had.

9 So I don’t see — after we decided to waive the

10 privilege, everything was given to him, or given to

11 the prosecution.

12 THE COURT: Counsel?

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just one remark.

14 We’re entitled to more than just exhibits.

15 We’re entitled to statements. If they have talked

16 to Mr. LeGrand, we’re entitled to discovery of what

17 he said to the defense, and what he provided them,

18 even in the transference of these documents.

19 So to simply state that they can dump this

20 box full of documents in our lap and give us no

21 indication of where they came from or how they were

22 produced or no indication of what they intend to

23 adduce during the testimony of Mr. LeGrand, that

24 we’re just supposed to divine what his testimony

25 will be from his complete files, is certainly not in

26 accord with the discovery statutes. Particularly

27 when they’ve had communications with him. Those

28 communications are statements. They have to be 9962

1 documented, they have to be turned over, and that

2 hasn’t happened.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?

4 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

5 I have not discussed his testimony with him.

6 I have had discussions about flight arrangements.

7 And he’s prepared to testify to that.

8 Since I decided to waive the privilege,

9 we’ve given him everything we had. And as I say, he

10 has more witness statements than with anybody. And

11 I don’t think we’re required to sit down with the

12 prosecutors and fulfill their every desire to go

13 through every document and tell them where they came

14 from. The reality is virtually every document has a

15 law firm name on it or an indication of where it

16 came from, and the date, and the signature. I don’t

17 understand the objection.

18 THE COURT: All right. We’ll go forward with

19 the testimony. And based on that representation, if

20 it appears during the course of the testimony that

21 that’s not accurate, we’ll take it up then again.

22 All right. We’ll bring in the jury now.

23 MR. SANGER: Before you do that, can we just

24 approach on one procedural matter?

25 Do you want — do you want me to do it?

26 Okay. One procedural matter?

27 THE COURT: All right. Do you want to ask

28 someone to come up, Mr. Sneddon? 9963

1 MR. SNEDDON: I’m coming.

2 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)

3 THE COURT: All right. We’ll have the jury

4 come in.

5

6 (The following proceedings were held in

7 open court in the presence and hearing of the

8 jury:)

9

10 THE COURT: Good morning.

11 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.

12 THE COURT: I hear you’re getting special

13 treats this week.

14 A JUROR: Yes.

15 THE COURT: Pretty good. Pretty good.

16 All right. Counsel, you ready to proceed?

17 MR. SANGER: Yes. I always say that with

18 some trepidation when I’m going to push a button

19 here, but, I believe we left off at Exhibit 5009-C.

20 And we left off at counter 58:27, so I have it at

21 58:20. So there will be a repeat of seven seconds,

22 and then we should finish the tape.

23 THE COURT: All right.

24 MR. SANGER: If I may.

25 (Whereupon, a portion of a DVD, Defendant’s

26 Exhibit 5009-C, was played for the Court and jury.)

27 MR. SANGER: That is the end.

28 THE COURT: All right. Call your next 9964

1 witness.

2 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor. We’ll call

3 Carlos Velasco, if we may, please.

4 While he’s getting there, I’ll give this to

5 the clerk. More precisely is, returning Exhibit

6 5009 to the clerk.

7 THE COURT: You may remain standing. Face

8 the clerk. Raise your right hand.

9

10 CARLOS VELASCO

11 Having been sworn, testified as follows:

12

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and

15 spell your name for the record.

16 THE WITNESS: Carlos Velasco. Last name,

17 V-e-l-a-s-c-o.

18 THE COURT: Can’t hear him.

19

20 DIRECT EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. SANGER:

22 Q. Okay, Mr. Velasco. Oh. It’s real important

23 to sit very close to the microphone. It’s just the

24 way it is in this courtroom. It’s very hard to do.

25 Every witness has a problem doing that.

26 A. Okay.

27 Q. Okay. Mr. Velasco, do you know the

28 gentleman seated right there? 9965

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Who is that?

3 A. Michael Jackson.

4 Q. How do you know Michael Jackson?

5 A. My father worked for him for a long period

6 of time. Still works for him. And I used to go to

7 Family Day once a year.

8 Q. Okay.

9 BAILIFF CORTEZ: I’m sorry, sir. You’re

10 going to have —

11 Q. BY MR. SANGER: You have a soft voice. You

12 have to speak even louder and right in the

13 microphone, okay?

14 So your father — you say your father worked

15 for Mr. Jackson?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you have occasion to go to Neverland

18 Ranch yourself?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And on what occasions did you go to

21 Neverland Ranch?

22 A. Family Day. I worked there twice. And

23 that’s basically it.

24 Q. Okay. So I heard you say “Family Day,” and

25 we’ve heard about that. That’s where the employees

26 can invite family members; is that right?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And so you went, spent the day, had a good 9966

1 time?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. About how many times did you do that?

4 A. Around 20.

5 Q. Okay. And did I hear you say you were

6 employed there?

7 A. Yeah.

8 Q. You just have to really speak up a little

9 more. I know it’s hard.

10 And what did you do while you were employed

11 there?

12 A. I did groundskeeping.

13 Q. And roughly when was that that you were

14 employed there?

15 A. About ‘97, ‘98. 1998.

16 Q. Okay. During the course of the time that

17 you were employed at Neverland Ranch — let me

18 withdraw that. During the course of the time that

19 you had contact with Neverland Ranch, as a guest,

20 did you have occasion to meet a young man named

21 Jason Francia?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Did you meet him at the ranch for the first

24 time or did you meet him someplace else?

25 A. It was at the ranch.

26 Q. And on how many occasions did you see Jason

27 Francia at the ranch?

28 A. Quite a few. I mean, especially during 9967

1 Family Day. Probably about four times.

2 Q. All right. And did you also get to know

3 Jason Francia outside of Neverland?

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. And how was that?

6 A. Went to high school together.

7 Q. What high school was that?

8 A. Santa Maria High School.

9 Q. All right. Now, during the time that you

10 spent with Jason Francia at the ranch, did you ever

11 see Mr. Jackson there at the same time that you and

12 Jason were there?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Jackson interact with

15 Jason Francia in any inappropriate way whatsoever?

16 A. No.

17 Q. What kind of a relationship did Mr. Francia

18 seem to have — and at that time I guess he was

19 younger, but we’ll call him “Jason.”

20 What kind of relationship did Jason have

21 with Mr. Jackson, as far as you could tell?

22 A. Just a normal one. I mean —

23 Q. What kind of relationship did you have with

24 Mr. Jackson?

25 A. Just a normal one.

26 Q. So was your relationship any different, as

27 far as you could tell, from that of Mr. Francia?

28 A. No, it wasn’t. 9968

1 Q. All right. Now, during the time you were

2 with Mr. Francia at the ranch and thereafter

3 throughout high school in Santa Maria, did you ever

4 hear Mr. Francia mention in any way anything

5 inappropriate happening with Mr. Jackson?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And during high school, did you — did you

8 consider yourself friends with Jason?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you hang around with the same circle of

11 friends?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. SANGER: Okay. No further questions.

14 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

15

16 CROSS-EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

18 Q. Mr. Velasco, have you ever slept with Mr.

19 Jackson?

20 A. No, I haven’t.

21 Q. Has that ever occurred to you, to sleep with

22 Mr. Jackson?

23 A. Never.

24 Q. Did you ever want to sleep with Mr. Jackson?

25 A. No.

26 Q. Do you believe child molest victims normally

27 broadcast the fact that they’re victims to their

28 high school peers? 9969

1 MR. SANGER: Objection. Beyond the scope of

2 direct and no foundation.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your testimony is that

5 you never heard that Jason Francia — or Jason

6 Francia never told you that he was molested by Mr.

7 Jackson?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. You have seen Mr. Jackson interact with

10 Jason Francia, true?

11 A. Well, he talked to all of us. It wasn’t

12 just specifically him.

13 Q. Okay. My question was, have you seen Jason

14 Francia interact with Michael Jackson?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Jason Francia was friend of Mr. Jackson’s,

17 true?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And do you have any idea whatsoever whether

20 Jason Francia was molested by Michael Jackson?

21 MR. SANGER: Objection. Calls for an

22 opinion without foundation; beyond the scope of

23 direct.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25 You may answer.

26 THE WITNESS: No.

27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You have no idea?

28 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 9970

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. No further

2 questions.

3

4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. SANGER:

6 Q. All right. Did you see or hear anything

7 that suggested to you in any way that Jason Francia

8 was molested by Michael Jackson?

9 A. Never.

10 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. No further

11 questions.

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No questions.

13 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may

14 step down.

15 Call your next witness.

16 MR. MESEREAU: The defense is going to call

17 David LeGrand, Your Honor.

18 While we’re getting ready, I have an exhibit

19 book for the Court as well as the witness. If I may

20 approach.

21 THE COURT: You may.

22 Are these marked?

23 MR. MESEREAU: They are not.

24 THE COURT: How are you going to proceed?

25 MR. MESEREAU: I was going to take the

26 witness through the exhibits and then mark them

27 appropriately as the Court would like to do.

28 THE COURT: You’ll need to mark them when 9971

1 you show him the exhibits so that the record

2 accurately reflects what you’re showing.

3 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

4 THE COURT: Come forward, sir.

5 MR. MESEREAU: Pardon me.

6 THE COURT: When you get to the witness

7 stand, please remain standing.

8 Face the clerk here and raise your right

9 hand.

10

11 DAVID G. LEGRAND

12 Having been sworn, testified as follows:

13

14 THE WITNESS: I do.

15 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and

16 spell your name for the record.

17 THE WITNESS: My name is David G. LeGrand.

18 It’s L-e, capital G-r-a-n-d.

19 THE CLERK: Thank you.

20

21 DIRECT EXAMINATION

22 BY MR. MESEREAU:

23 Q. Good morning, Mr. LeGrand.

24 A. Good morning.

25 Q. You are an attorney, correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And you practice in Las Vegas, Nevada,

28 right? 9972

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. At one point you were an attorney for

3 Michael Jackson, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And for the record, Mr. Jackson is the

6 fellow sitting at counsel table, right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. When did you begin representing Mr. Jackson?

9 A. I think it was late January 2002, I believe.

10 Q. And approximately when did you cease

11 representing Mr. Jackson, just approximately?

12 A. Well, my services were terminated on about

13 March 28th of that year. I think it’s ‘02. I’ve

14 lost track of time. It may have been ‘03. I think

15 it was ‘03, actually. And then I was re-engaged for

16 one specific case that I continued to manage on his

17 behalf until around September of ‘04.

18 Q. And you still are a practicing attorney,

19 right?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Would you please give a summary of your

22 educational background?

23 A. I’m a — I have a bachelor of arts degree

24 from Duke University and a JD from the Ohio State

25 University College of Law.

26 Q. Would you please just summarize your career

27 as an attorney?

28 A. Following graduation from law school, I was 9973

1 employed at the Ohio Division of Securities as an

2 enforcement attorney for the State of Ohio

3 Department of Commerce, Division of Securities, for

4 about two years. And then for about a year I was

5 counsel to the commissioner of the Ohio Division of

6 Securities. I subsequently entered private practice

7 in 1982.

8 Q. Now, you said you were an enforcement

9 attorney. Would you please explain what that means?

10 A. I was responsible for investigating

11 complaints with regards to violations of state

12 securities law and preparing appropriate

13 recommendations to the Attorney General for civil

14 and/or criminal action. Criminal action would be

15 through a state prosecutor.

16 Q. Now, were you in effect a prosecutor

17 yourself?

18 A. Actually, I — for a time I was sworn as an

19 assistant county prosecutor in Franklin County,

20 Ohio, working with the white-collar crime division.

21 Q. What kind of cases were you prosecuting

22 in — when you had that job?

23 A. Securities fraud.

24 Q. Okay. And what is securities fraud?

25 A. Securities fraud is — a typical example

26 would be where money is raised by promoters for

27 investments where the disclosures by the promoters

28 are less than accurate. You know, deceptive, 9974

1 fraudulent misrepresentations for the purpose of

2 obtaining money from others.

3 Q. You’re talking about prosecuting primarily

4 financial-related crimes, correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you indicated you did some investigating

7 work in one of the prosecuting offices; is that

8 true?

9 A. Well, my role as an enforcement attorney was

10 to do investigatory work. And then typically we

11 would hand the case over to the Attorney General’s

12 Office for civil action or a county prosecutor for

13 criminal action. And then being sworn as an

14 assistant county prosecutor, I was able to assist

15 the prosecutor’s office in making the grand jury

16 presentations.

17 Q. What — could you give some examples of some

18 of the cases you were involved in prosecuting?

19 A. The most significant case I was involved in

20 involved oil and gas promotion, and we obtained a

21 plea on six felony counts of misrepresentations in

22 connection with the sale of securities.

23 I was also involved in a case involving some

24 art tax shelters. And I worked with a federal task

25 force on a coal mine fraud out of West Virginia,

26 where there were victims in Ohio.

27 Q. And how long were you a prosecuting

28 attorney? 9975

1 A. Well, I was sworn as an assistant county

2 prosecutor in Franklin County I believe for about a

3 year. It might have been a year and a half. I’m

4 really not sure today. It’s been, you know, more

5 than 20 years ago.

6 Q. And how long were you associated with any

7 prosecuting office?

8 A. It would have been the same time period.

9 Q. After you were a prosecutor prosecuting

10 financial-related crimes, what did you do next?

11 A. I entered private practice in 1982.

12 Q. And have you been in private practice ever

13 since?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. When you were representing Michael Jackson,

16 were you associated with any law firm?

17 A. Yes. I was with the firm of Hale Lane Peek

18 Dennison and Howard in Las Vegas, Nevada.

19 Q. And did you have a specialty?

20 A. We don’t use the term “specialty.” The

21 Nevada Supreme Court frowns upon that type of

22 terminology. My practice emphasizes corporate and

23 transactional work. But I don’t claim to be a

24 specialist.

25 Q. All right. And when you were representing

26 Mr. Jackson, was the work you did primarily

27 corporate and transactional work?

28 A. Yes. 9976

1 Q. How did you begin to represent Mr. Jackson?

2 A. I was introduced to Mr. Jackson through a

3 gentleman named Ronald Konitzer.

4 Q. Had you known Mr. Konitzer for some time?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. When did you meet Mr. Konitzer,

7 approximately?

8 A. I’m not sure. It was sometime in the early

9 to mid-1990s.

10 Q. And had you done any legal work for him?

11 A. Yes. I represented a company he was

12 associated with.

13 Q. And which company was that?

14 A. Hi-Tec America, I think was the name.

15 Q. And how long did you represent Hi-Tec

16 America?

17 A. You know, it was a couple of years off and

18 on. And then the — I really hadn’t heard from

19 Ronald for a couple of years. We might have

20 exchanged Christmas cards, but I wasn’t actively

21 providing legal service to him in — you know, when

22 he contacted me, I think it was in 2002.

23 Q. Now, did you represent Mr. Jackson

24 personally?

25 A. Eventually, yes.

26 Q. And what do you mean by that?

27 A. Well, the engagement with Mr. Jackson was

28 for — with him, yes, in January, I think it was 9977

1 January ‘03.

2 Q. And did you represent any companies

3 associated with Mr. Jackson?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Which companies were they?

6 A. Well, there was MJJ Productions. I believe

7 there’s a company associated with the ranch.

8 There’s another company that I can’t remember the

9 name that has to do with some of his creative work.

10 I really don’t remember the names of all the

11 companies, but there were two — you know, three or

12 four.

13 Q. And at the time you were representing Mr.

14 Jackson and companies associated with Mr. Jackson,

15 did you consider yourself his primary transactional

16 attorney?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Why is that?

19 A. At the time I was engaged, part of the

20 conversation and plan was to basically bring in a

21 new team to represent Mr. Jackson. Part of that

22 process involved terminating some of the

23 representation of people that had been providing

24 legal service to him and bringing, you know, fresh

25 blood to the representation.

26 Q. And you mentioned January of 2003. Was that

27 the approximate time this activity was going on?

28 A. Well, that’s when it began. I mean, it — 9978

1 this process took time.

2 Q. So approximately January of 2003 efforts

3 were made to bring in a new team to represent Mr.

4 Jackson; is that what you’re saying?

5 A. Yes. A new set of lawyers, accountants and

6 professionals.

7 Q. Now, was this your idea?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Whose idea was it?

10 A. It was communicated to me by —

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;

12 foundation.

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 You may answer.

15 THE WITNESS: It was communicated to me by

16 both Mr. Konitzer and by Mr. Jackson.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And when you began to

18 bring in a new team to represent Mr. Jackson, what

19 is the first thing you did?

20 A. The initial focus was to assemble a group of

21 lawyers to respond to the pending presentation of

22 the Martin Bashir video in the UK. I spoke to a

23 number of different lawyers, including partners in

24 my firm, and within, oh, a day or two, we — I had

25 Mr. Jackson on a teleconference with lawyers in the

26 United Kingdom, as well as the United States, to

27 discuss the possibilities of responding to the

28 pending production in the UK by Martin Bashir and 9979

1 Granada.

2 Q. What was the concern about the Bashir

3 documentary, as far as you were concerned?

4 A. That no one, from Mr. Jackson’s perspective,

5 had been given the opportunity to review the final

6 edited production work. That was a concern. We had

7 no idea what was going to be presented in the UK.

8 There were clips that were being broadcast as

9 promotion, but the substance of the program was an

10 unknown.

11 Q. Now, how did you become aware of these clips

12 that were being used to promote the documentary?

13 A. I’m not sure today. There were people —

14 friends of Michael in the UK, I’m sure, who saw

15 them. I really don’t know.

16 Q. Well, are you saying that there was a

17 concern about what was going to be in the Bashir

18 documentary before it actually aired?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. And there was news — I remember there was

22 news press in the United States about these clips

23 and there was a lot of buzz being generated

24 nationally and internationally about this.

25 Q. This is still in January of 2003; is that

26 right?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Okay. And what did you see your job as 9980

1 being when it came to responding to these

2 promotional clips? What exactly were you trying to

3 do?

4 A. Well, my — first, you know, as an attorney

5 seeking to represent my client, I engaged

6 professionals with knowledge of, you know, copyright

7 law, contract law, to analyze the agreements and to

8 try to put together a plan of action and

9 alternatives, try to identify the costs associated

10 with taking action, trying to figure out who would

11 be appropriate to contact at Granada to discuss the

12 concerns, and try to take positive action on behalf

13 of Mr. Jackson and his family.

14 Q. And was there a concern that the promotional

15 clips indicated that there was going to be a

16 documentary before Mr. Jackson or anyone associated

17 with Mr. Jackson had a chance to look at it?

18 A. Yes. That was clearly a concern.

19 Q. Okay. What did you do in response?

20 A. Well, I worked with the Paul Hastings law

21 firm out of Los Angeles, and their firm in the UK.

22 We engaged a barrister, a noted barrister in the UK,

23 Sir Andrew Hochhousler I believe is his name. We

24 engaged a solicitor in the UK. We had several

25 attorneys here in the U.S., Mr. Genga from the Paul

26 Hastings firm, Mr. Joss from the Paul Hastings firm.

27 We reviewed what documents — the few — very few

28 documents that existed with respect to Mr. Jackson 9981

1 and Mr. Bashir. We discussed the events that led to

2 the filming with Mr. Jackson.

3 We ultimately decided upon a course of

4 action that resulted in a lawsuit being filed in the

5 UK against Granada and Mr. Bashir on behalf of Mr.

6 Jackson. And in connection with that lawsuit,

7 Granada entered into a court order agreeing to a

8 number of terms that we had sought that — you know,

9 that group of lawyers had sought, including that

10 there would be no DVDs produced of the televisual

11 production. There would be no VHS. That they would

12 not use the outtakes to create a second program. I

13 mean, these sorts of things were negotiated over a

14 period of weeks and ultimately agreed to and put

15 into the form of a court order in the United

16 Kingdom.

17 Q. Now, you mentioned someone named Granada.

18 Who is that?

19 A. The only person that I recall associated

20 with Granada was Martin Bashir, and I’m not sure if

21 he was an employee or independent contractor at that

22 time.

23 Q. Maybe my question was poor. What is

24 Granada?

25 A. Oh. My understanding, Granada is a very

26 large broadcasting company. It’s like an ABC or

27 CBS, in the UK. They own and generate television

28 productions in both UK and I believe in, you know, 9982

1 Europe.

2 Q. Now, the lawsuit was filed in England; is

3 that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And it was filed on behalf of Mr. Jackson,

6 right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you mentioned that there were very few

9 documents involving the Bashir documentary. What do

10 you mean?

11 A. The only — there were only two pieces of

12 paper that Mr. Jackson provided to the lawyers with

13 respect to the Martin Bashir broadcast. They were

14 basically two separate pieces of paper signed at two

15 different times, consisting of a little over a

16 paragraph on each piece of paper, and that

17 apparently represented the total contractual

18 arrangement with respect to the production of the

19 Bashir/Granada video.

20 Q. Did it appear that Mr. Jackson had gotten

21 any legal advice before he entered into this project

22 with Bashir?

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Speculation;

24 foundation.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your understanding

27 that Mr. Jackson had had any legal representation

28 when he entered into any arrangement with Mr. 9983

1 Bashir?

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or

5 not, before Mr. Jackson did the Bashir documentary,

6 any lawyer had represented him?

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same — same

8 objection.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 You may answer that “yes” or “no.” If you

11 can’t answer that “yes” or “no,” tell me.

12 THE WITNESS: It’s difficult to answer “yes”

13 or “no,” Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll sustain the

15 objection to the question.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Had you yourself

17 documented any transactions involving television

18 documentaries in your career before representing Mr.

19 Jackson?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Did you have any understanding of what kind

22 of documents one would typically execute and sign

23 before doing a T.V. documentary at that time?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what was your understanding about the

26 typical types of documents one executes before doing

27 a television documentary?

28 A. There are typically fairly extensive 9984

1 agreements that would document ownership of

2 copyright, licensing, you know, national,

3 international royalties, you know, method — there’s

4 just a host of issues that would typically be

5 addressed with a persona of the magnitude of Mr.

6 Jackson and a production of this type.

7 Q. And when you began to represent Mr. Jackson

8 and when you started looking into the circumstances

9 surrounding the Bashir documentary, did you see any

10 of those documents you just described?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you form an opinion about the kinds of

13 documents Mr. Jackson had signed before he did the

14 Bashir documentary?

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; calls for a

16 conclusion.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 You may answer.

19 THE WITNESS: The two documents reflecting

20 Mr. Jackson’s agreement with Granada were terrible

21 contracts. They were vague. They lacked, you know,

22 precision, detail. There were numerous provisions

23 that simply were not addressed. They were very

24 simple, you know, one-paragraph documents.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever determine who

26 had drafted those documents?

27 A. I believe Martin Bashir drafted them.

28 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Bashir — 9985

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to

2 strike. Lack of foundation.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No personal knowledge.

5 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn who had

7 drafted those documents?

8 A. I honestly don’t recall today.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. I’m sorry.

11 Q. You reviewed — was it two documents?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what were those two documents?

14 A. They were one-page — they each consisted of

15 one piece of paper, one page each, and they, you

16 know, to my recollection, were one, maybe two

17 paragraphs. They were very short. And they

18 basically granted the rights to Granada to make a

19 televisual production based on the life of Mr.

20 Jackson as he knew it.

21 Q. Did it appear to you that Mr. Jackson had

22 been taken advantage of by Mr. Bashir?

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper

24 opinion; calls for a conclusion.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you looked at these

27 documents and you learned about the circumstances

28 surrounding the development of the Bashir 9986

1 documentary, did you form any conclusion about

2 whether or not Mr. Jackson understood what he was

3 doing?

4 A. I found it hard to believe that this — that

5 these two pieces —

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object to the answer

7 being more than “yes” or “no.”

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You spoke to Mr. Jackson

10 at one point about the making of the Bashir

11 documentary, right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You spoke to lawyers in England about the

14 legality surrounding that documentary, true?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You hired lawyers in America to explore what

17 had happened in the making of that documentary,

18 correct?

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Is that true?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Was it one of the most poorly documented

24 television transactions you’d ever seen?

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;

26 calls for a conclusion.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. 9987

1 THE WITNESS: I really had no background, you

2 know, adequate to assess that. However, Mr. Genga

3 from the Paul Hastings firm and — was, I would say,

4 shocked by the —

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object. Move

6 to strike; hearsay.

7 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your legal

9 position in the lawsuit that was filed in England on

10 behalf of Mr. Jackson?

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 You may answer.

14 THE WITNESS: I was primarily responsible

15 for managing, coordinating and facilitating the

16 trial lawyers, the solicitors, the U.S. and UK

17 components of the — of the lawyers. We also had a

18 firm in the UK called Bell Yard that was a public

19 relations firm that was hired through, I believe,

20 one of the UK solicitors.

21 And my primary role was to assist in

22 formulating a plan, tactics, coordinating the

23 delivery of the legal services by the different

24 components. We needed witness statements. We

25 needed, you know, background material. We needed

26 research. I would — my primary role was really a

27 facilitator or manager of the other lawyers.

28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what was Mr. Jackson’s 9988

1 legal position, as you understood it, in the lawsuit

2 filed in England?

3 A. Well, this has been a few years. The claims

4 were that Mr. Bashir, and through Mr. Bashir

5 Granada, misrepresented to Mr. Jackson what they

6 were going to accomplish in this production.

7 Mr. Jackson had told me that Mr. Bashir had

8 promised him the right to screen and edit the final

9 production before it went on to — you know, on the

10 air.

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object and

12 move to strike that last sentence as hearsay.

13 THE COURT: Sustained. It’s nonresponsive.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: I’m just asking you to

15 testify, as best you can recall, the legal position

16 lawyers took on behalf of Mr. Jackson in that suit

17 in England against Bashir.

18 A. Well, we took the position that Granada did

19 not own the copyright. We asserted that they had a

20 license, rather than ownership. We were seeking

21 custody and ownership of all the video. We were

22 seeking to limit the after-market production, you

23 know, VHS or DVDs. And seek damages from Granada

24 for breach of their agreement with Mr. Jackson.

25 Q. And was most of the agreement you were

26 claiming was breached oral understandings, as

27 opposed to written?

28 A. Well, certainly some. 9989

1 Q. When you looked at what you described as a

2 few documents that Mr. Jackson had signed involving

3 the Bashir documentary, do you recall seeing

4 anything about compensation?

5 A. I’m not sure if it was in the document or

6 not. Mr. Jackson did not seek compensation for the

7 production. But he did expect a significant

8 donation to a charity.

9 Q. So basically Mr. Jackson worked with Mr.

10 Bashir for free, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And Mr. Bashir and his company were standing

13 to make millions on this show, true?

14 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

15 Q. To your knowledge, was this documentary

16 distributed around the world?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. To your knowledge, did Mr. Jackson get

19 anything financially from this distribution around

20 the world?

21 A. No.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

23 answered.

24 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in.

25 Next question.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said you were

27 monitoring the lawyers who litigated the case in

28 England, right? 9990

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And in the course of monitoring those

3 lawyers, what were you doing?

4 A. I was reviewing draft documents, pleadings,

5 serving as, you know, a facilitator of the

6 conference calls that we were having on a fairly

7 frequent basis, especially in about the first four

8 to six weeks of dealing with Granada. These were

9 extensive conferences where we would discuss the

10 legal position. There was kind of a letter campaign

11 going on back and forth between the UK lawyers and

12 the lawyers for Granada, and we would review, as a

13 group, those letters and assess responses, circulate

14 responses, collaboratively edit and ultimately issue

15 responsive documents.

16 Q. Was there a lot of media attention devoted

17 to this lawsuit in England?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Was there media attention in the United

20 States devoted to Mr. Jackson’s lawsuit against

21 Bashir?

22 A. Yes, though I would say not quite as much as

23 in the UK. But, yes.

24 Q. And how long did this litigation last, if

25 you remember?

26 A. It is still going on today. It is on hold.

27 But it is still a record case in England, as far as

28 I know. 9991

1 Q. And are you still involved in that case in

2 any way?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Okay. So you’re the one who hired the

5 lawyers who represented Mr. Jackson in that suit,

6 correct?

7 A. I would say Mr. Jackson hired the lawyers.

8 I was the facilitator in suggesting that these

9 particular lawyers be engaged for this purpose.

10 Q. And who contacted the lawyers for possible

11 engagement?

12 A. I did. Well, I did. I had an acquaintance

13 over a number of years with Mr. Eric Joss from the

14 Paul Hastings law firm here — well, in Los Angeles.

15 And so I asked Eric Joss if his firm would be able

16 to provide representation. He then also spoke to

17 lawyers. I mean, it wasn’t — this wasn’t all me.

18 This was a number of lawyers on two continents. And

19 so I relied upon, you know — we all relied upon

20 each other as counsel to Mr. Jackson to

21 collaboratively assess and assemble a group of

22 lawyers that had, you know, the skill and background

23 to be appropriate for this type of litigation.

24 Q. Do you recall what Bashir’s position was in

25 that lawsuit? What was he claiming?

26 A. Well, I don’t know about Bashir. I know

27 that Granada claimed that they owned the copyright.

28 They ultimately did agree not to use the outtakes 9992

1 for a second production. They agreed to veil the

2 faces of the children, to do some blurring in the

3 airing of the video to protect Mr. Jackson’s family.

4 So there were concessions made by Granada. Their

5 basic position was they owned the copyright and they

6 had the unequivocal right to produce the production

7 without any input or editing from Mr. Jackson.

8 Q. And without paying Mr. Jackson a penny,

9 right?

10 A. Correct.

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

12 answered.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You mentioned a concern

15 about his children’s — excuse me. Let me rephrase

16 that.

17 You mentioned a concern about Michael

18 Jackson’s children’s faces being on the show. What

19 are you referring to?

20 A. Part of the film that Mr. Bashir had

21 included filming of Mr. Jackson’s children. That’s

22 what I meant.

23 Q. Was Mr. Jackson upset about that?

24 A. He was concerned about their visual image

25 being shown worldwide without, you know, blurring or

26 some other technique to obscure their faces.

27 Q. Do you know why?

28 A. Well, he’s concerned about their safety and 9993

1 security.

2 Q. And was blurring their faces one of the

3 issues that was heavily litigated in England in that

4 suit?

5 A. I’m not sure I would use the term “heavily

6 litigated.” But it was a significant point in the

7 discussions with Granada and ultimately one of the

8 terms that Granada agreed to.

9 Q. Was it Mr. Jackson’s position in that

10 lawsuit that Bashir had agreed to not display Mr.

11 Jackson’s children’s faces before it aired, to your

12 knowledge?

13 A. I remember statements to that effect. I’m

14 not sure exactly when or where in the context.

15 Q. The overall thrust of the case was that

16 Bashir had completely hoodwinked Mr. Jackson, right?

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Leading.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was the thrust of the

21 lawsuit that Mr. Bashir had made numerous

22 misrepresentations to Mr. Jackson about the show?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What else did you do personally in that

25 litigation, other than what you’ve described?

26 A. I’m not sure, Mr. Mesereau, what you mean by

27 that.

28 Q. Do you recall who the parties were in the 9994

1 case?

2 A. I know we had Mr. Jackson. Simultaneous to

3 the lawsuit there was — there were complaints

4 filed. The same UK lawyers also indicated there was

5 the potential to file complaints with I believe it’s

6 the British Broadcasting Board. There’s a board

7 that oversees televisual broadcasts in the UK.

8 And the recommendation was, and ultimately

9 there were filed, several complaints with the

10 broadcasting board. Those complaints were filed on

11 behalf of Mr. Jackson and also on behalf of, I

12 believe it was, the Arvizo children, and I’m not

13 sure if Mrs. Arvizo was included or not. But there

14 were — there was a complaint filed on behalf of

15 them. There was also discussion at least of filing

16 a complaint on behalf of Mr. Moslehi, Hamid, because

17 I believe he appeared without consent as well.

18 There was issues over consent to the appearance of

19 various people and so there were complaints filed

20 with the Broadcasting Standards Board.

21 Q. When you say “Broadcasting Standards Board”

22 in England, are you referring to an administrative

23 agency that regulates television production?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And is that an agency that monitors to see

26 whether or not ethical standards are met in

27 television production in England?

28 A. That was my understanding, yes, sir. 9995

1 Q. And when you say complaints were filed with

2 that agency, about what Bashir had done?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And they were filed on behalf of the Arvizo

5 family as well as Mr. Jackson?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. There was considerable publicity surrounding

8 those complaints, wasn’t there?

9 A. Yes, I believe so.

10 Q. And there were media reports on the Arvizos

11 when those complaints were made, correct?

12 A. I’m sure there were.

13 Q. This is in January of 2003?

14 A. Well, we’re probably well into February now.

15 Q. Okay. Certainly it was a media event that

16 Mr. Jackson and the Arvizos had sued Granada and

17 Bashir and filed complaints against Granada and

18 Bashir, correct?

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes. The media seems to be

22 fascinated with Mr. Jackson and those complaints

23 were the subject of some media attention.

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall

25 yourself being contacted by representatives of the

26 media in this litigation?

27 A. I was contacted by members of the media on a

28 repeated basis with respect to Mr. Jackson, whether 9996

1 it was as to the litigation or otherwise. There was

2 seemingly significant interest by the media in

3 seeking statements from me or anyone associated with

4 me.

5 Q. Was this media attention that you

6 experienced — this happened throughout your

7 representation of Mr. Jackson?

8 A. It tailed off. It was especially acute

9 during the — I’d say the, I don’t know, three, four

10 weeks of February when we were moving forward with

11 the Granada action, and negotiating with FOX over

12 the “Take 2” type of video.

13 Q. So would it be correct to state that in

14 February of 2003, because of the litigation you were

15 involved in and the complaints that had been filed

16 against Bashir, there was tremendous media attention

17 on Mr. Jackson?

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object. Leading.

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 You may answer.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you involved in

23 efforts to respond to this media attention on behalf

24 of Mr. Jackson?

25 A. As I indicated, I worked with, you know, Mr.

26 Jackson to engage a number of lawyers and

27 professionals to respond to the Granada broadcast,

28 to respond to the media attention. There was a PR 9997

1 firm in the UK, Bell Yard, that was hired to work

2 on, you know, media pieces. So, yeah, I was

3 involved, but that was not my — you know, I’m a

4 lawyer. My primary focus was not dealing with the

5 media.

6 Q. Did you hire Bell Yard?

7 A. Well, I didn’t. But they were hired through

8 the solicitors in the UK.

9 Q. And what is a solicitor?

10 A. As I understand it, in the United Kingdom,

11 there are two types of lawyers. Barristers who go

12 to trial and solicitors who do documents and

13 transactions and business-type dealings. So it

14 takes — you kind of need both in anything complex

15 that involves the potential of trial. Barristers

16 actually appear in court.

17 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take our

18 break.

19 (Recess taken.)

20 –o0o–

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9998

1 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

2

3

4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

5 OF CALIFORNIA, )

6 Plaintiff, )

7 -vs- ) No. 1133603

8 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

9 Defendant. )

10

11

12 I, MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR,

13 CSR #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby

14 certify:

15 That the foregoing pages 9956 through 9998

16 contain a true and correct transcript of the

17 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled

18 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at

19 said proceedings on May 12, 2005, and thereafter

20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided

21 transcription under my direction.

22 DATED: Santa Maria, California,

23 May 12, 2005.

24

25

26

27 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 9999

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION

4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE

5

6

7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

8 CALIFORNIA, )

9 Plaintiff, )

10 -vs- ) No. 1133603

11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

12 Defendant. )

13

14

15

16

17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

18

19 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005

20

21 8:30 A.M.

22

23 (PAGES 10000 THROUGH 10144)

24

25

26

27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 BY: Official Court Reporter 10000

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2

3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR.,

4 District Attorney -and-

5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney

6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS,

7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney 1112 Santa Barbara Street

8 Santa Barbara, California 93101

9

10

11 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU BY: THOMAS A.
MESEREAU, JR., ESQ.

12 -and- SUSAN C. YU, ESQ.

13 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90067

14 -and-

15 SANGER & SWYSEN

16 BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ. 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C

17 Santa Barbara, California 93101

18

19

20 For Witness LAW OFFICES OF GERAGOS & GERAGOS Mark Geragos: BY:
SHEPARD S. KOPP, ESQ.

21 350 South Grand Avenue 39th Floor

22 Los Angeles, California 90071

23

24

25

26

27

28 10001

1 I N D E X

2

3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index.

4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index.

5 Mr. Nicola is listed as “N” on index. Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index.

6 Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index. Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index.

7

8

9

10 DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

11 LEGRAND,

12 David G. 10062-A

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10002

1 E X H I B I T S

2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

3 898 Trust listing re Fire

4 Mountain, LLC 10101 10102

5

6

7

8

9

10 DEFENDANT’S NO.

11 5037 Book containing charts, diagrams and text

12 outlining business structure for Michael

13 Jackson 10055

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10003

1 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 Q. Mr. LeGrand, you mentioned that a new

4 management team was being formed to manage Mr.

5 Jackson’s affairs around the time you began to

6 represent Mr. Jackson, right?

7 A. Part of my direction from Mr. Jackson and

8 Mr. Konitzer was to assist them in developing a new

9 team for cash management, accounting, bookkeeping,

10 and new lawyers with respect to creative elements.

11 Q. Did you have a lot of contact with Mr.

12 Jackson?

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as vague.

14 THE COURT: Overruled.

15 THE WITNESS: At different times during the

16 three or four months that I was most active in

17 representation, it would vary. I mean, when we were

18 focused on the Granada pieces, you know, we had some

19 telephone conferences. The first conference was a

20 couple of hours. At other times my communication

21 with Mr. Jackson was much more brief.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And who was ultimately

23 part of the new management team?

24 A. Well, the cash management — initially a

25 company – and I don’t remember the name, but the

26 principals were Ed Grossman and Michael Stern – were

27 selected to cake over cash management from Barry

28 Siegel. That ultimately was changed in a few weeks. 10004

1 And the firm of — it’s — well, it’s Allan Whitman.

2 I’m not sure of the firm name. It’s Fox, Marty Fox,

3 Whitman, and another couple partners.

4 Q. And were you communicating with Mr. Konitzer

5 in this regard?

6 A. Oh, yes.

7 Q. Were you communicating with Mr. Weizner in

8 this regard?

9 A. Less so, but yes.

10 Q. And was it your impression that Mr. Konitzer

11 and Mr. Weizner were trying to take over the

12 management of Mr. Jackson’s business?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Was it your impression that they wanted Mr.

15 Jackson kept out of a lot of the day-to-day

16 discussions?

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you consider Mr.

20 Jackson to be very sophisticated in financial or

21 legal matters?

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you have daily

25 discussions with Konitzer?

26 A. During the time period from the end of

27 January until, I would say, mid-March there were

28 probably a few days that I did not have a 10005

1 conversation with Mr. Konitzer.

2 Q. And do you recall Mr. Konitzer communicating

3 that no one was to contact Mr. Jackson directly but

4 him?

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

6 THE COURT: Overruled.

7 THE WITNESS: No. I was never instructed by

8 Mr. Konitzer that I could not contact Mr. Jackson.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall Mr. Konitzer

10 sending memos around basically saying Mr. Jackson is

11 to be kept out of the daily detail?

12 A. Not specifically. I just remember that Mr.

13 Konitzer wanted to be —

14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; not responsive.

15 MR. MESEREAU: I think it is responsive.

16 THE COURT: Sustained. I’ll strike after,

17 “Not specifically.”

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What were Mr. Konitzer’s

19 directives to you with respect to whether or not Mr.

20 Jackson was to be involved in the detail of

21 management?

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

23 THE COURT: Overruled.

24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Konitzer wanted to serve

25 Mr. Jackson as the overall manager of business

26 affairs for Mr. Jackson, and that Mr. Jackson would

27 have ultimate authority and decision-making, but

28 that Mr. Konitzer would serve as, you know, the 10006

1 day-to-day manager, and that was my understanding.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And did you discuss legal

3 matters involving Mr. Jackson with Mr. Konitzer?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And how often during that period of time do

6 you think you did that?

7 A. There were legal matters discussed. There

8 were financial matters discussed. There were

9 business considerations discussed. Sometimes, you

10 know, that would be two or three times a day.

11 Sometimes we would have meetings. And, you know,

12 there were a few days where I did not speak to Mr.

13 Konitzer during this couple of months of somewhat

14 frenzied activity.

15 Q. Now, at some point in time did you become

16 suspicious of Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Well, move to

19 strike. Leading.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 MR. MESEREAU: I can’t recall if there was

22 an answer, Your Honor. I apologize. Could I —

23 THE COURT: The answer was, “Yes.”

24 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

25 Q. Why did you become suspicious of Konitzer

26 and Weizner?

27 A. I became concerned that they were in a

28 position to divert funds. I was concerned about 10007

1 the — having appropriate documentation for tax

2 purposes for Mr. Jackson and his companies. And in

3 general, I — I began to disagree with some of Mr.

4 Konitzer’s decisions on matters and felt that he was

5 making bad decisions, I guess is the way to say it.

6 So I — I became suspicious of his motives and

7 actions.

8 Q. Could you please explain what you were

9 suspicious of?

10 A. I was —

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

12 answered.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You mentioned you were

15 suspicious of financial matters involving Konitzer,

16 right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Please explain.

19 A. Well, ultimately there was another attorney

20 involved who was serving as the escrow agent for

21 some funds, and I asked him for an accounting in

22 order to get Allan Whitman up to speed on some

23 disbursements, payments, payables, et cetera.

24 And that accounting came from this attorney,

25 and it indicated that there had been about $900,000 —

26 I don’t remember the exact number, but it was many

27 hundreds of thousands of dollars that had been

28 disbursed to Ronald Konitzer or Dieter Weizner. I 10008

1 mean, the combination was in hundreds of thousands

2 of dollars.

3 And I then — I spoke to a couple of the

4 lawyers that, you know, were providing

5 representation, and I ultimately wrote a letter

6 within, you know, a couple of days of learning of

7 this. I wrote a letter to Mr. Konitzer asking him

8 to account for this money.

9 Q. Was the amount you were concerned about

10 approximately $965,000?

11 A. Yeah, without seeing it today. But that

12 sounds like approximately the right number, yes.

13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

14 you your letter?

15 A. Yes, it would.

16 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

17 THE COURT: Yes.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I see what you’ve got

19 there, Counsel?

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. LeGrand, have you had

21 a chance to review that document?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about your

24 concerns involving Mr. Konitzer?

25 A. Yes, the amount — the aggregate amount of

26 disbursements that I set forth in that letter was

27 $965,000.

28 Q. And where did that amount come from, if you 10009

1 remember?

2 A. I believe the source of that funds was the

3 FOX — some of the FOX payments with regard to the

4 “Take 2” video production.

5 Q. Did you ever get a response to your

6 expression of concern?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What was it?

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;

10 foundation.

11 THE COURT: I think the question is vague.

12 I can’t rule on the objection.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

14 Q. You mentioned the rebuttal show, correct?

15 A. “Take 2,” yes.

16 Q. Please explain what “Take 2” was.

17 A. “Take 2” was a video production produced in

18 collaboration with FOX. Brad Lachman Productions

19 produced — was primary — they were FOX’s primary

20 representatives for the production. Maury Povich

21 was the narrator.

22 It largely consisted of video of Debbie Rowe

23 from her interview with, I think it was Ian Drew at

24 The Globe, and video of — shot by Hamid Moslehi.

25 I’m not sure how to pronounce his name. But it was

26 video shot by Hamid that was outtakes, so to speak,

27 or video shot of Bashir with Michael. Some of it

28 was video of Martin Bashir filming Michael Jackson, 10010

1 or filming at Neverland, or, you know, but that was

2 — two primary components was those two sets of

3 video.

4 Q. And were you involved in the production of

5 that product?

6 A. Well, you know, I’m a lawyer. I’m not a

7 videographer, editor or a graphic artist. We — I

8 facilitated — again, I brought in — I hired a law

9 firm to do copyright work with respect to that

10 video. One of my associates in the firm, a lady

11 named Ann-Marie Levy, was coordinating most of the

12 copyright work between this other firm and Brad

13 Lachman’s in-house lawyer on copyrights and the FOX

14 people.

15 I ultimately negotiated the contract with

16 FOX. I believe it was — Marisa Fermin was the

17 vice-president of FOX that I worked with to get a

18 contract for that production.

19 Q. And was it your understanding that Konitzer

20 and Weizner had a role in that production?

21 A. They were involved in the discussions as to

22 the contract, the terms of the contract. At least

23 Ronald Konitzer reviewed the draft agreements, and I

24 discussed them with him. I’m not sure — well, I

25 don’t know what all his involvement was. I mean,

26 Mr. Konitzer had things he did that didn’t directly

27 involve me, so —

28 Q. Why did you think Konitzer and Weizner had 10011

1 stolen $965,000 from Mr. Jackson?

2 A. Well, because —

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as misstates

4 the evidence in terms of the word “stolen.”

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you think Konitzer

7 and Weizner had diverted $965,000 from Mr. Jackson?

8 A. Because the report I got from this other

9 lawyer showed those disbursements.

10 Q. And when you saw the record of those

11 disbursements, what did you do?

12 A. I spoke to several of the other lawyers that

13 were representing Mr. Jackson, and agreed that I

14 should write a letter to Mr. Konitzer asking him to

15 account.

16 Q. Did you ever find out what he had done with

17 the money?

18 A. No, I was terminated by Mr. Jackson as

19 counsel within, I don’t know, two weeks, maybe, of

20 that letter to Mr. Konitzer.

21 Q. Did you ever have Konitzer, Weizner —

22 excuse me. Let me start with something else.

23 Do you know who someone named Marc Schaffel

24 is?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And who is Marc Schaffel, to your knowledge?

27 A. Marc Schaffel is an independent producer.

28 He had worked on one of Mr. Jackson’s albums at one 10012

1 point. He was involved in working with Brad Lachman

2 Productions to create the “Take 2” video.

3 Q. At some point, did you have Schaffel,

4 Konitzer and Weizner investigated?

5 A. I — again, on behalf of Mr. Jackson, I

6 engaged an independent private investigative

7 company, and asked them to investigate the

8 backgrounds of Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner and

9 Mr. Schaffel.

10 Q. Why?

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; improper

12 opinion.

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 THE WITNESS: Because I was suspicious of

15 their motives, and some of their statements didn’t

16 quite seem to add up.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you think they were

18 stealing from Mr. Jackson?

19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper

20 opinion; no foundation.

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What did you do to have

23 Schaffel, Konitzer and Weizner investigated?

24 A. Working with one of my partners at Hale Lane

25 who had the — he’s a former U.S. Assistant

26 Prosecutor and had good relationships with a couple

27 of private investigating firms, we selected a firm,

28 got them a retainer and asked them to do background 10013

1 checks and let us know what they found.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you say your partner

3 was an assistant prosecutor. What do you mean?

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You hired an investigative

7 firm, correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. To start investigating these people, right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And others involving Mr. Jackson, right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You were doing it on behalf of Mr. Jackson,

14 correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

17 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in.

18 Next question.

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you doing this to

20 protect Mr. Jackson?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Are you the one who arranged for the

23 investigative firm to do this investigation?

24 A. My partner Mr. Gibson and I did, yes.

25 Q. Okay.

26 A. He actually had the primary contact with the

27 investigative firm.

28 Q. Did you know whether or not Konitzer or 10014

1 Weizner had managed to sign documents for Mr.

2 Jackson?

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know what a power

6 of attorney is?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What is a power of attorney?

9 A. A power of attorney is a legal document

10 authorizing one person to act in the place and stead

11 of another.

12 Q. And does a power of attorney allow one to

13 sign on behalf of someone else?

14 A. It can.

15 Q. Did you ever learn whether or not Mr.

16 Jackson had given a power of attorney to either of

17 these two people?

18 A. Yes, I believe he did.

19 Q. Did that concern you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Why?

22 A. I was concerned that they could abuse that

23 power or exceed the authority of the power.

24 Q. Did you do anything about that?

25 A. Yes. I spoke to some of the other lawyers

26 that were representing Mr. Jackson, and we agreed

27 that we would ask Mr. Jackson to revoke the power of

28 attorney. 10015

1 Q. Was that done?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, at some point, you learned that

4 Konitzer had arranged to have you terminated, right?

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;

6 leading.

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was the investigation

9 going on when your duties were terminated?

10 A. I’m not sure of the exact timing. I’m just

11 not sure today. It’s been a couple years.

12 Q. Okay. Now, your former partner and you were

13 both former prosecutors, correct?

14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

15 answered.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was the investigation into

18 Konitzer, Weizner and Schaffel conducted by you and

19 your partner?

20 A. Mr. Gibson, my partner, and I discussed the

21 need for some investigative background material. We

22 agreed it was appropriate, and we engaged the

23 investigative firm on behalf of Mr. Jackson.

24 Q. And when your services were terminated, do

25 you know if that investigation was still going on?

26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

27 answered.

28 THE COURT: Sustained. 10016

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who chose the

2 investigative firm?

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

4 answered.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where was the

7 investigative firm located?

8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; relevancy.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 THE WITNESS: Again, recollection, I believe

11 they were based in New York.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever meet Janet

13 Arvizo?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you know approximately when that was?

16 A. I was at Neverland in early February of

17 2003, the day the 60 Minutes film crew was there.

18 And I met Janet Arvizo during that day. I was there

19 for most of a Saturday at the ranch.

20 Q. Did you have much contact with her that day?

21 A. Not much. I mean, we spoke. You know,

22 introduced ourselves. There were a lot of people in

23 and out of the ranch that day. We had an entire

24 film crew. There was — Mr. Geragos was there with

25 one of his associate lawyers. Mr. Konitzer was

26 there. Mr. Weizner was — I think Mr. Weizner was

27 there. I’m not sure anymore. It was quite a zoo,

28 so to speak. 10017

1 Q. And what were your impressions of Ms. Arvizo

2 on that particular day?

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you see Mrs. Arvizo at

6 Neverland on that particular day?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you speak to her?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you speak to her at length?

11 A. I don’t think so.

12 Q. Did you see her throughout the day?

13 A. Saw her off and on.

14 Q. Okay. Did she appear upset to you?

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you observe her

18 demeanor on that particular day?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What were your observations?

21 A. She seemed satisfied with being there. She

22 expressed support for Mr. Jackson. That was pretty

23 much what I recall.

24 Q. Did you see any other members of her family

25 at Neverland on that particular day?

26 A. I saw Gavin Arvizo and a young lady, I think

27 her name is Star. And then there was I believe

28 Gavin’s brother, but I don’t recall his name. They 10018

1 were just kind of running around. I mean,

2 literally. They’d be boisterous kids running

3 through the house, and then burst out a door and go

4 somewhere.

5 Gavin indicated he had been riding bumper

6 cars and having a pretty good time that morning.

7 Q. Do you recall whether or not you discussed

8 the lawsuit in England with Mrs. Arvizo?

9 A. I really don’t recall that. I’m just not

10 sure where we were in the lawsuit time frame. There

11 was so much going on.

12 Q. Were there any representatives of the media

13 at Neverland on that particular day?

14 A. Oh, just Ed Bradley and the entire film crew

15 for 60 Minutes.

16 Q. And did Mrs. Arvizo appear to be in the

17 proximity of Ed Bradley and the 60 Minutes crew?

18 A. Oh, yes. I mean, I remember at one point we

19 were kind of seated near the kitchen. There’s a

20 video screen/T.V. on the wall. Nickelodeon was

21 playing. And Mrs. Arvizo was sitting on the couch,

22 and I think it was Michael — I think it was Michael

23 Rodesky. I’m not sure of the exact name, but he was

24 like a real production-type guy, and his assistant,

25 a woman, they were sitting on the couch.

26 And I was kind of — I was there for just a

27 few minutes, and then I left the room. But I

28 know — I saw them later. They were all still 10019

1 sitting there, so —

2 Q. Did you have any communication with Ms.

3 Arvizo after that date?

4 A. I’m not sure. There was some phone calls

5 later, a few weeks later. There was some phone

6 calls about the execution of some releases that I

7 had drafted, and I’m not sure if I spoke to Mrs.

8 Arvizo or not.

9 Q. Do you recall —

10 A. It was like, you know, ten or eleven o’clock

11 at night, I believe. 10:00 at night. And I’d had,

12 you know — I was living at that point on about four

13 or five hours of sleep for about six weeks and I’m

14 just not sure.

15 Q. You say you drafted some releases. What are

16 you referring to?

17 A. Video consents. We were trying to — again,

18 this is all relating to the “Take 2” video. My

19 assistant, Ann-Marie Levy, had drafted a form of

20 video consent/release/authorization for a person’s

21 image to be used in a televisual broadcast. It’s a

22 pretty standard Hollywood-type form, and we were

23 seeking those from anybody who might appear in

24 “Take 2.”

25 Q. Now, was it your understanding that the

26 Arvizo family was going to be involved in “Take 2”?

27 A. The answer is, I’m not sure whether they

28 were or weren’t going to be. The idea was to shoot 10020

1 footage and then work with FOX, Brad Lachman

2 Productions, and edit that footage to create a

3 decent program. It wasn’t my decision what footage

4 would get used, but — but there was a desire to

5 include them, to get some footage of them. Whether

6 or not it would get used, I don’t know.

7 Q. And you say you drafted these releases,

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And then what did you do with them?

11 A. Gosh, we distributed releases to — I’m

12 pretty sure we gave them to Brad Lachman

13 Productions. You know, my assistant, Ann-Marie

14 Levy, was really the primary person handling that.

15 I know she had communications with the Brad Lachman

16 folks. I’m fairly sure she would have sent them to

17 Marc Schaffel, because he had some people who were

18 involved. He was helping coordinate Hamid Moslehi,

19 who was actually doing some of the video.

20 Ann-Marie, under my direction, had been coordinating

21 the documents with Attorney Iris Finsilver on behalf

22 of Debbie Rowe for her appearance.

23 So a number of people would have gotten

24 those forms.

25 Q. Do you recall your being in contact with

26 various companies involving the production of

27 “Take 2”?

28 A. I’m not sure what you mean by “various 10021

1 companies.” I worked with, you know, Marisa Fermin

2 at FOX. We had a lot of dialogue with Brad Lachman.

3 We hired, you know, a law firm in Las Vegas to

4 assist with copyrights. We had discussions with

5 Schaffel. I’m not sure who else. I don’t know if I

6 talked — I’m pretty sure I talked to Hamid at one

7 point in that whole process.

8 Q. Who is Brad Lachman?

9 A. Brad is the — I think he’s — well, Brad

10 Lachman Productions is an independent film company

11 that was hired — was selected by FOX to produce the

12 “Take 2” video.

13 Q. And were you communicating with lawyers on

14 behalf of Brad Lachman Productions?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Why?

17 A. We needed to have releases from anybody who

18 would appear — whose image would appear in the

19 video. There was music being selected. A lot of

20 Mr. Jackson’s music was to accompany the video. We

21 had to get the appropriate copyright releases

22 executed, and there’s money involved in making

23 payments for a number of these sorts of things.

24 And my role again, as an attorney, I was,

25 you know, trying to facilitate that process and make

26 sure that we had appropriate lawyers carrying out

27 those processes, and from time to time make sure —

28 I would have direct conversation to make sure there 10022

1 weren’t glitches, to understand where any hold-ups

2 were, and try to motivate everyone to be effective

3 and get the job done.

4 Q. And I believe you said you were in contact

5 with people associated with FOX, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what were you doing with them?

8 A. Primarily negotiating the contract for

9 payment for the production.

10 Q. Did you have a lot of contact with

11 representatives of FOX in that regard?

12 A. I had a lot of contact with Marisa Fermin

13 during that period. She was really the

14 representative of FOX I dealt with.

15 Q. Now, you said you were getting four or five

16 hours of sleep a night during this period, right?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Why was that?

19 A. The combination of tasks that I was

20 propelled into was pretty overwhelming. We would

21 typically start the day with a teleconference with

22 the United Kingdom, because of the time difference,

23 and then by the end of — so the middle of my day,

24 late day, would be U.S. work. And then fairly often

25 I would be back on the phone with the United Kingdom

26 at night, you know, sometimes 11:00, 12:00, one

27 o’clock, because that’s morning in the UK. It’s the

28 next day already. So sleeping became problematic. 10023

1 Plus, quite honestly, my mind was just full.

2 There was so much content coming to me on a daily

3 basis, it just — I couldn’t sleep. I’d just lay

4 there and have things going through my head and make

5 little to-do lists in my mind.

6 Q. Now, you talked about the concept of

7 copyright. What do you mean?

8 A. Well, copyright is a statutory right in the

9 United States. There is — I believe there’s some

10 common law associated with copyright. But

11 copyright — there’s a federal copyright act, and

12 copyright provides protection for creations,

13 artwork, books, media. It’s not like patents. You

14 can’t copyright a concept. You can copyright a

15 creative work.

16 Q. And what were you doing for Mr. Jackson in

17 the area of copyrighting?

18 A. I’m not a copyright lawyer by trade, but I

19 understand enough to know that copyright is very

20 important with respect to televisual production.

21 And so, you know, I engaged appropriate lawyers

22 having expertise, you know, patent/trademark lawyers

23 who work regularly in the copyright field, to help

24 make sure that copyright was preserved for Mr.

25 Jackson, or where other persons’ copyright —

26 copyrighted work would be used, that we had the

27 appropriate release and authority, because copyright

28 can carry — copyright infringement can carry pretty 10024

1 significant penalties under the statutes.

2 Q. Were you involved at all in issues involving

3 licensing?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What were you doing?

6 A. I — I interviewed and ultimately

7 recommended that Michael Jackson, MJJ Productions,

8 et cetera, hire Haber International, I think is the

9 name of the company, to do international

10 distribution of the “Take 2” video under license.

11 The contract with FOX specifically provided that

12 basically Michael Jackson preserved the right to

13 distribute internationally.

14 Q. Mr. LeGrand, there was no secret around the

15 world that the “Take 2” show was being developed,

16 right?

17 A. It certainly — I’m not aware of it being a

18 secret, no.

19 Q. I mean, it was well publicized that a

20 “Take 2” production was being developed, right?

21 A. I don’t know if it was well publicized or

22 not, but there certainly was some publicity.

23 Q. And lawyers for various entities were

24 working around the clock to help get the “Take 2”

25 production completed, right?

26 A. Well, I would say a number of people were

27 working very, very hard, including lawyers, to get

28 that production done quickly. And the pressure was 10025

1 FOX wanted the production for sweeps week.

2 Q. What do you mean by that?

3 A. In the television world, there’s what — as

4 I understand it, sweeps week is when the rating

5 companies analyze the viewers for — and this is

6 real important for pricing of commercials, and it

7 really determines a value of T.V. shows and such.

8 So sweeps week is ratings week, and it’s

9 something that’s very important to the various

10 networks to have high ratings during sweeps week.

11 Q. And how did you learn that FOX was concerned

12 about that time pressure?

13 A. Well, Marisa Fermin told me they wanted the

14 show for that purpose.

15 Q. During this period of time when you were

16 getting four to five hours of sleep a night, how

17 much of your day was devoted to the development of

18 the “Take 2” project?

19 A. It would vary day-to-day. That was not my

20 primary focus in representing Mr. Jackson and trying

21 to coordinate all the lawyers. We had — during

22 that same time frame, we had — the decision had

23 been made to replace Barry Siegel as money manager

24 with Ed Grossman and Michael Stern’s company.

25 That — ultimately, Ed Grossman and Michael Stern

26 decided they really could not handle the business,

27 and then we transitioned to Mr. Whitman. That was

28 extremely time-consuming. Took a significant part 10026

1 of my time and effort.

2 There were other matters that came up. I’m

3 not sure exactly when. There was — there was — I

4 had to communicate with, I think it’s Brian Wolf at

5 the Lavely Singer firm about some litigation,

6 minor — you know, fairly minor litigation cases

7 that were going on at the time. I had the entire

8 UK — you know, U.S./UK litigation in pretty much

9 full gear.

10 There were just a host of issues that needed

11 attention.

12 Q. Were you dealing with other countries

13 besides England when it came to licensing any

14 footage involving the “Take 2” show?

15 A. Yes. Haber International was doing the

16 primary negotiation, but Fred would — Fred and/or

17 his associate, George Scanlon, would contact me with

18 respect to approvals of — or seeking approvals for

19 various licensing deals. At some point, we had

20 some, you know, fairly significant discussions.

21 I remember in particular Sky Broadcasting.

22 We had several conference calls and some extensive

23 correspondence with Sky Broadcasting over the

24 licensing for “Take 2.” They’re overseas. I’m not

25 even sure where. I don’t know whether it was UK. I

26 think it was the UK itself. I’m not sure.

27 Q. Do you recall whether or not you were

28 involved in any contacts with the media at this 10027

1 period of time involving the development of the

2 “Take 2” show?

3 A. I had e-mails, phone calls, personal visits

4 from various networks and shows expressing interest

5 in “Take 2” before we ended up contracting with FOX.

6 There was — and I won’t call it a bidding war, but

7 there was certainly interest by several parties, and

8 proposals were being submitted to me.

9 Q. To your knowledge, was the development of

10 the “Take 2” program part of a conspiracy to kidnap

11 the Arvizo family?

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;

13 calls for a conclusion.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was the work you were

16 doing, as far as you’re concerned, part of any

17 conspiracy to violate the rights of the Arvizos?

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever conspire to

21 violate the rights of the Arvizo family in the

22 development of the “Take 2” show?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Were you aware of any efforts during the

25 production of this show to falsely imprison the

26 Arvizo family at Neverland?

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. No foundation.

28 Also calls for a legal conclusion. 10028

1 THE COURT: I think the problem is with the

2 word “falsely imprison.” I’ll sustain the

3 objection.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: While you were doing all

5 of the work that you described around the world,

6 various law firms, with the distribution company,

7 with FOX, with Haber, was it ever your understanding

8 that, as part of that project, the Arvizos were to

9 be held against their will?

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection as to calls

11 for a conclusion and no foundation. Also hearsay.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 You may answer.

14 THE WITNESS: No, I have no knowledge that

15 the Arvizos were to be held or being held against

16 their will.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During this frantic time

18 period that you have described, did you have any

19 knowledge of whether or not the media was focusing

20 their attention on Mr. Jackson?

21 A. Yes. There was significant media attention

22 throughout the world following the initial broadcast

23 of the Bashir video in the UK.

24 Q. And would that media attention have gone on

25 through January, February and March of 2003, to your

26 knowledge?

27 A. I’m not sure about — well, it was — I’m

28 not sure of the exact dates. It was very late 10029

1 January that — or first of February that the

2 broadcast was in the UK. It was that — right at

3 that time frame was the first broadcast. So the

4 media started, you know, when the clips were being

5 produced and the Granada broadcast was being

6 publicized in the UK.

7 The broadcast in the UK kind of started a

8 significant amount of publicity. And then within a

9 few days, the program was broadcast in the U.S., so

10 the — how long that continued — I mean, was it

11 still at that level of media in March? I think it

12 was tailing off some compared to what it was in

13 those first couple weeks of February.

14 Q. Now, you’ve indicated that you had some

15 involvement in Mr. Jackson’s financial affairs,

16 right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And please describe what your involvement

19 was.

20 A. Mr. Konitzer, Mr. Jackson asked me to assist

21 in replacing Barry Siegel as the cash manager for

22 Mr. Jackson. We also looked at the possibility of

23 replacing his tax team. The accountants had

24 actually prepared tax returns. Mr. Siegel did not

25 prepare tax returns. Ultimately that decision was

26 made not to change that accounting firm.

27 As part of that process, initially Mr.

28 Grossman/Mr. Stern’s company was hired, and I would 10030

1 communicate with them on, you know, often a daily

2 or, you know, sometimes hourly, certainly quite

3 often with regard to financial matters.

4 Also, during the same time, I would have —

5 people like Evvy Tavasci would call and say that

6 Michael needed money for something and would ask me

7 to facilitate that.

8 So I also was in the process of reviewing

9 the various loan documents. I was trying to get a

10 firm grasp of Mr. Jackson’s financial affairs, try

11 to understand, ascertain his assets, his

12 liabilities, and that was all wrapped up in this

13 transitioning of trying to put a new team into

14 place.

15 Q. Do you recall doing any work involving the

16 Sony/ATV music catalog?

17 A. Well, I looked — I got a copy of the

18 Sony/ATV documents.

19 I had one of my commercial associates

20 analyze those documents and generate a report

21 summarizing the content. These are very voluminous,

22 detailed, complex documents, and I had an associate

23 review them and analyze them and I believe produce a

24 report to me.

25 Q. And what was — or, excuse me. What is the

26 Sony/ATV music catalog?

27 A. Well, Sony/ATV is a joint venture where Mr.

28 Jackson and Sony own — have ownership in the 10031

1 company that owns a variety of copyrights and rights

2 to music, and basically is, as I recall, the — Mr.

3 Jackson contributed his ownership of The Beatles

4 catalog and other music that he had acquired rights

5 to. He contributed that into the joint venture.

6 Sony put some of its music licensing rights into the

7 joint venture. And then Sony continued to, as a

8 manager of the joint venture, acquire additional

9 rights to music.

10 Q. And why were you concerned about the

11 Sony/ATV music catalog?

12 A. Well, the Sony/ATV joint venture represented

13 a significant portion of Mr. Jackson’s assets. His

14 ownership interest in that entity was a very

15 considerable portion. And I was somewhat surprised

16 to find that Mr. Jackson really did not have a

17 diversified portfolio of investments that, you know,

18 I’m somewhat used to in the more nonHollywood

19 commercial world that I’ve worked in.

20 Q. Did you feel he had been poorly advised in

21 the past?

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;

23 hearsay.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Once you analyzed what the

26 Sony/ATV music catalog was, what did you do?

27 A. Well, at this time — by the time I had that

28 analysis — well, a couple things happened. One, I 10032

1 spoke to Mr. Konitzer and expressed to him that this

2 was a much more complex set of documents than Mr.

3 Konitzer had earlier indicated to me. He really did

4 not understand the depth and complexity, the rights

5 Mr. Jackson had and the limitations on Mr. Jackson’s

6 ability to, you know, sell any interest in that

7 particular asset.

8 I found out, you know, that there were

9 loans — Bank of America, in particular, had a loan

10 portfolio that was involved in this whole Sony/ATV

11 joint venture, as Mr. Jackson’s interest was

12 collateral, and his financial affairs were, you

13 know, fairly complex, and there wasn’t a lot of

14 liquidity there.

15 Q. Now, at some point, you made some

16 suggestions to Mr. Jackson about how to restructure

17 his financial affairs, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And why did you do that?

20 A. Within the first, I’d say, maybe three weeks

21 or so, four weeks of representing Mr. Jackson, I

22 learned that his current payables mid-February were

23 in the range of $10 million. There was insufficient

24 cash available to pay those payables on a current,

25 timely basis.

26 I came to understand that essentially most

27 of his income primarily went to pay down a credit

28 line and then he was allowed to draw, I think it was 10033

1 $2 million a month on the credit line. But there

2 were significant constraints on his ability to draw

3 against those credit funds, and his — the bulk of

4 his assets were pledged for these credit lines.

5 There was — actually, I think there’s two different

6 loans. But anyway, he was highly illiquid.

7 Q. At one point, you suggested he consider

8 selling his interest in the catalog, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And it was your belief that if he did that,

11 he could end up with $200 million after taxes,

12 right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And that would be exclusive of royalty

15 income, right?

16 A. Yes. I want to — can I redress that?

17 I wasn’t sure about the tax consequences.

18 At that point I really was not — I can’t say I was

19 up to speed on the tax history of his portfolio, his

20 interest in the joint venture. There’s — that’s

21 all fairly complex.

22 So my analysis was based on some

23 assumptions, and qualified, to a degree. So the

24 $200 million number, you know, this — this was not

25 meant to be precise. I was not in a position to

26 give precision at that point in that analysis.

27 Q. Did you talk to any financial experts before

28 you gave that advice? 10034

1 A. Well, I spoke to Allan Whitman, the CPA who

2 was managing — I think by that time was managing

3 Mr. Jackson’s money.

4 I spoke with another lawyer who was working

5 with Mr. Jackson, a Mr. Malnik in Florida. I’m not

6 sure — I’m fairly sure I — he’s not a financial

7 expert. I’m pretty sure I talked to Eric Joss at

8 Paul Hastings about my analysis.

9 Q. And you had suggested that Mr. Jackson

10 restructure his financial affairs, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you made suggestions as to how he could

13 do that and avoid bankruptcy, right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And your conclusion was that there was a way

16 to end up worth $200 million after taxes and

17 excluding music royalties, correct?

18 A. That was my analysis, yes.

19 Q. Okay. Now, during the time that you

20 represented Mr. Jackson, were you involved in any

21 business opportunities involving Mr. Jackson?

22 A. Well, the FOX negotiations were a business

23 opportunity. I know there were subsequent

24 discussions with FOX for additional programs. There

25 were — I had discussions with Jack Sussman, I think

26 he’s at CBS, with regards to possible programs.

27 We — I — Mr. Jackson indicated a desire to

28 maybe do some film work. And I brought — I 10035

1 arranged an introduction to a law firm in Hollywood

2 that really practices representing talent in the

3 film and music arena. A young man named Howard

4 Fishman, an attorney, was brought in.

5 There were discussions with the movie

6 director Bob Evans about producing a biography of

7 Mr. Jackson’s life. There were — you know, those

8 are the ones I remember. I’m sure there were more,

9 but those were the primary discussions I recall.

10 Q. And do you recall any discussions about

11 marketing any products involving Mr. Jackson?

12 A. Oh, yeah. I’m sorry. One of the things

13 that — one of the items that came to my attention

14 during this couple of months was there had been a

15 contract entered into sometime before – I’m not sure

16 whether it was a year or two years – that allowed

17 Mr. Jackson to buy out a company that had acquired

18 the rights to merchandise a variety of goods under

19 his name, I guess is the best way to say it.

20 They had the right to produce, you know,

21 Jackson perfume, for example, or various goods with

22 the “Jackson” name associated with it. And that

23 contract needed to be paid off. There was a balance

24 due to — on an installment payment arrangement.

25 There was a balance due for him to reacquire those

26 rights. We actually — I did facilitate the payment

27 being made so that those rights came back to Mr.

28 Jackson. 10036

1 And there were a couple of negotiations, one

2 I think was a perfume. I know there was something

3 else, but I can’t remember what it was. It wasn’t

4 big money. It was like $20- or $40,000. But there

5 were other instances of opportunities for revenue

6 for Mr. Jackson.

7 Q. Do you recall, in February of 2003, Sony/ATV

8 offering to pay $10 million to purchase a Christmas

9 song from Mr. Jackson?

10 A. You know, that sounds familiar. But I

11 really don’t have a specific recollection of that.

12 It — it rings a bell with me, but….

13 Q. Might it refresh your recollection if I show

14 you a letter in that regard?

15 A. Sure.

16 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

17 THE COURT: Yes.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

19 look at that document?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about that

22 issue?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What do you recall about that?

25 A. I recall receiving the letter, a copy of the

26 letter from Mr. Branca. And I remember I spoke to

27 Mr. Konitzer. And I’m not sure what the ultimate

28 outcome was. I believe Mr. Branca was told to 10037

1 pursue the discussions.

2 Q. Do you remember any projects involving games

3 relating to Mr. Jackson, video games, anything of

4 that sort?

5 A. There were several discussions about the

6 possibility of seeking license money, royalty money,

7 for gaming machines in Nevada in particular. There

8 were some suggestions that one or more of the major

9 manufacturers might be interested in a Michael

10 Jackson slot machine of some sort.

11 Q. Now, you mentioned your discussions with a

12 producer about a movie about Mr. Jackson’s life?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Would you please explain what you’re talking

15 about?

16 A. Well, Mr. Fishman and I attended a dinner

17 one night at the residence of movie director Bob

18 Evans, I think is his name. Robert Evans. And Mr.

19 Evans was very enthusiastic about the possibility of

20 producing a movie based on the life of Michael

21 Jackson. And he wanted to negotiate for those

22 rights.

23 Q. Would it be accurate to say that while you

24 were representing Michael Jackson in January,

25 February, March of 2003, there was a constant swarm

26 of business proposals from various parts of the

27 world involving Mr. Jackson?

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading and 10038

1 vague —

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: — as to “swarm of

4 business proposals.”

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it part of your

6 responsibilities to involve yourself in potential

7 business opportunities involving Mr. Jackson?

8 A. Well, for that short time, I really was one

9 of the primary facilitators for business

10 transactions for Mr. Jackson, and several people

11 brought proposals to me or informed me that there

12 were proposals of various kinds.

13 I’m not sure how much was my responsibility.

14 As a lawyer, when clients ask for assistance, I give

15 them assistance. Sometimes I was in the position

16 where, you know, somebody would say to me, “Gee, do

17 you think this would be of interest?” Or another

18 lawyer, you know, would send me the contract, a

19 proposal. I think the perfume contract actually

20 came from Brian Wolf’s law firm. So, a lot of this

21 came to me, but I’m not sure how much of it was my

22 responsibility.

23 Q. Now, you’re not a specialist in music law,

24 right?

25 A. No.

26 Q. During the time you were doing all of this

27 work for Mr. Jackson, he also had a law firm doing

28 his music legal work, correct? 10039

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So all of the business opportunities or

3 projects you’re talking about are really separate

4 and apart from the music business, right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And was it your understanding that business

7 opportunities in the music area were going to

8 another law firm at this point in time?

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and

10 answered.

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, while

13 you were representing Mr. Jackson, how many law

14 firms were involved in his affairs?

15 A. Well, the Katten Muchin firm was providing

16 representation in a couple pieces of litigation.

17 The Ziffren firm, John Branca in particular, was the

18 primary music counsel. Lavely Singer was providing

19 representation on a variety of matters, mostly

20 litigation-related. There was my firm. There was

21 Paul Hastings law firm. There was Mark Geragos.

22 There was the solicitors in the United Kingdom, the

23 barrister in the United Kingdom.

24 I know I’m missing somebody.

25 Oh, and I had another law firm in Las Vegas

26 that was assisting on copyright work as well. So I

27 don’t know how many that is, but it’s quite a few

28 lawyers. 10040

1 Q. Do you remember, in March of 2003,

2 discussions about a proposed television special

3 involving Michael Jackson and Marlon Brando?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What do you remember about that?

6 A. You know, not much. There was discussion

7 about that possibility, of combining those two into

8 a production. I never had direct contact with

9 Marlon — or maybe I did. Well, I ultimately did

10 speak to Marlon Brando and his counsel about putting

11 together some sort of program. But it never got off

12 the ground, as far as I know.

13 Q. You were doing work for Mr. Jackson in the

14 area of international trademarks, correct?

15 A. Some of the trademark paperwork came to me

16 and I tried to route it to someone appropriate. I

17 am not an expert in trademark work.

18 Q. But what were you doing in that area for Mr.

19 Jackson during January, February and March of 2003?

20 A. Well, I was really just trying to coordinate

21 and make sure that — if something came to me, I

22 tried to make sure that it went to a lawyer that

23 could appropriately handle it.

24 Q. And to your knowledge, what was going on in

25 that area, as far as lawyers are concerned?

26 A. Yeah, I really don’t remember. That was a

27 very minor part of the overall scope of what I was

28 dealing with. 10041

1 Q. Were you referring trademark issues for Mr.

2 Jackson to other law firms?

3 A. I think so, yes.

4 Q. And was it your understanding that trademark

5 issues were constantly coming up around the world

6 involving Mr. Jackson?

7 A. Yes. There were — there was some things on

8 the Internet that involved his likeness that were

9 being offered for sale, I think. There were some —

10 there was a couple different — I’m not sure what to

11 call them. I don’t know that they were games or

12 not, but they were interactive elements on the

13 Internet that used his image and likeness.

14 I actually — the day I was fired, the — in

15 March, I was having lunch with Allan Whitman and

16 Brian Wolf from the Lavely Singer firm to talk about

17 what kind of actions could be taken and what kind of

18 costs would be associated with taking action to

19 protect Mr. Jackson’s image and likeness.

20 Q. And was that a concern involving only the

21 United States, or elsewhere?

22 A. Oh, no. It was worldwide in scope. The Net

23 knows no boundaries.

24 Q. To handle those issues worldwide, what did

25 you have to do?

26 A. Well, I’m not sure. I mean, my approach was

27 to find a qualified law firm like Lavely Singer,

28 Brian Wolf and Marty Singer, and, you know, have 10042

1 them engauge the appropriate talent, as needed,

2 around the world.

3 Q. And to your knowledge, was that done?

4 A. I don’t know.

5 Q. Do you recall a project proposal involving

6 Apple computer during this period of time?

7 A. I remember some discussion about Apple

8 computer, and that Steve Jobs and Michael had a

9 personal relationship, and that there might be some

10 commercial opportunity with Apple, but I don’t

11 recall the details of any proposal.

12 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge to date, Mr.

13 Jackson has never gone bankrupt, has he?

14 A. I’m not aware of Mr. Jackson filing a

15 petition in a federal bankruptcy court for relief,

16 no.

17 Q. Do you remember your firm issuing a letter

18 to the team suggesting that no business proposals

19 were to go directly to Mr. Jackson?

20 A. I don’t specifically recall that letter, no.

21 Q. Do you recall a draft letter to come from

22 your firm to someone named Meskin?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And do you recall the letter said no

25 proposals are to go directly to Mr. Jackson?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And why was that?

28 A. Mr. Meskin was one of the people present at 10043

1 the dinner party at Director Robert Evans’ house,

2 and I was not impressed with his approach. I did

3 not think the terms he was suggesting to Howard

4 Fishman and I were anything that Mr. Jackson should

5 consider.

6 And I was concerned, because during that

7 dinner party, Mr. Meskin and Mr. Evans managed to

8 take Mr. Jackson off, away from Mr. Fishman and I,

9 for a short period, 20 minutes, half an hour. And I

10 found out later that they tried to get him to sign —

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you find out in that

14 regard that efforts were made to get Mr. Jackson to

15 sign documents?

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;

17 leading.

18 THE COURT: Sustained.

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember, when you

20 were brought in to represent Mr. Jackson, Konitzer

21 and Weizner telling you they intended to gain

22 control of Mr. Jackson’s financial affairs?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you remember at that time Konitzer and

25 Weizner telling you they wanted to gain control of

26 Mr. Jackson’s records, documents, and agreements?

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 10044

1 You may answer.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember, when you

4 were brought on board, Konitzer and Weizner telling

5 you they wanted to gain control of anything

6 belonging to Mr. Jackson?

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll make the same

8 objection. And leading.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 THE WITNESS: In general, Mr. Konitzer and

11 Mr. Weizner wanted to take over management, overall

12 management, of Michael Jackson’s business affairs,

13 financial affairs, and implement a new business plan

14 for Mr. Jackson.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And they essentially told

16 you in writing they wanted to control everything Mr.

17 Jackson owned, right?

18 A. For the benefit of Mr. Jackson, yes.

19 Q. Well, you then concluded they were doing it

20 for their own benefit, didn’t you?

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;

22 leading; misstates the evidence.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were retained in

25 approximately January of 2003, right?

26 A. End of January, yes.

27 Q. And how long did it take you to grow

28 suspicious of what Konitzer and Weizner were doing 10045

1 to Mr. Jackson?

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;

3 leading; and asked and answered.

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

5 You may answer.

6 THE WITNESS: Weeks. I mean, whether it was

7 four weeks or six weeks, I’m not sure. But

8 certainly by the end of February, early March

9 period, I was very suspicious, and I’m not sure of

10 the time frame. The first investigative report that

11 I got just increased my degree of suspicion.

12 But at the same time that some of this was

13 going on with respect to my concerns about Mr.

14 Konitzer and Mr. Weizner, Mr. Malnik had entered the

15 scene and was asserting —

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; narrative.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who is Mr. Malnik?

19 A. He’s a — well, he’s an individual who lives

20 in Florida.

21 Q. And were you suspicious of anything he was

22 doing involving Mr. Jackson?

23 A. Because I did not know Mr. Malnik, I was

24 suspicious of him. I mean, I —

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to an

26 improper opinion; no foundation.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 THE WITNESS: I became — you know, I became 10046

1 suspicious of everybody. It seems that everybody

2 wanted to try to benefit from Mr. Jackson one way or

3 another. But I did eventually cause the

4 investigative service to give us some background on

5 Mr. Malnik. But he is — the report indicated he’s

6 a very wealthy man.

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You grew suspicious of

10 what Marc Schaffel was doing to Mr. Jackson at some

11 point, correct?

12 A. I grew suspicious that Mr. Schaffel was

13 seeking to benefit from Mr. Jackson or being — in

14 relationship to Mr. Jackson. My suspicion of Mr.

15 Schaffel was different than my suspicion of Mr.

16 Konitzer or Mr. Weizner.

17 Q. Did you have much involvement with Mr.

18 Schaffel in your work?

19 A. I had a fair amount of involvement with Mr.

20 Schaffel at the very beginning of the development of

21 the “Take 2” production. And I was constantly

22 trying to get Marc Schaffel out of the loop. I was

23 trying to avoid his involvement or minimize his

24 involvement in Mr. Jackson’s affairs, and it was a

25 struggle.

26 Q. But did you ever meet Schaffel?

27 A. Yeah.

28 Q. Where did you meet him? 10047

1 A. I think I met him at his house the Friday

2 night before the 60 Minutes Saturday at Neverland.

3 Q. And why were you at Schaffel’s home?

4 A. To — because he had had conversations with

5 Jack Sussman about CBS purchasing some of the rights

6 to the footage. At that time, there wasn’t a

7 “Take 2,” but we had footage. And so I met with

8 Marc for that purpose, to discuss the — and also, I

9 think I looked at some of the footage at that time.

10 I actually — they had some of it on a screen, and I

11 was able to watch some of the footage of Martin

12 Bashir and Michael.

13 Q. And approximately when was this, do you

14 think?

15 A. I think it was the first weeked in February

16 of 2003. I’m not sure whether that’s the 7th, 8th

17 or 9th, but it was around that first full weekend in

18 February.

19 Q. And was it your understanding that Schaffel

20 was involved in the production of the “Take 2”

21 program?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And how did you learn that?

24 A. I guess one answer is to say Marc Schaffel

25 told me, but he’s the one who had — well, I believe

26 he’s the one that worked to arrange the Ian Drew

27 interview with Debbie Rowe and coordinate Hamid from

28 I Films to film that interview. 10048

1 Q. And were you involved in anything involving

2 the Debbie Rowe interview?

3 A. Well, yes. We were involved with the

4 preparation and exchange of documents to allow

5 Debbie Rowe to engage in the interview and allow her

6 image to be broadcast.

7 Q. And did you draft those documents?

8 A. Well, I participated in them. Actually, my

9 assistant, my associate, Ann-Marie Levy, really did

10 most of the work on that with Iris Finsilver.

11 I did speak to Iris Finsilver, you know, a

12 couple times, I think. She was the counsel for

13 Debbie Rowe.

14 Q. And were your relations with her very

15 professional?

16 A. Well, I think so.

17 Q. Did there seem to be any objection on this

18 lawyer’s part to Debbie Rowe being interviewed?

19 A. She didn’t express any objection to me.

20 Q. Were you there when Debbie Rowe was

21 interviewed?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Did you learn about it at some point?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. How did you learn about it?

26 A. I’m not sure today who told me. It was

27 probably Schaffel. Might have been Konitzer.

28 Q. Were you involved in any of the filming of 10049

1 the Arvizo family for purposes of “Take 2”?

2 A. No. I was never present during any filming

3 of anybody for “Take 2.”

4 Q. Do you recall talking to anyone who spoke on

5 behalf of the Arvizos when it came to their being

6 filmed as part of the “Take 2” project?

7 A. I don’t recall.

8 Q. Is your meeting — excuse me.

9 Is the time I described, where you saw Janet

10 at Neverland, the only time you recall ever

11 physically seeing her?

12 A. I think that’s right. I might have seen her

13 again somewhere else, but I really don’t have a

14 specific recollection.

15 Q. Do you remember ever talking to Janet Arvizo

16 on the phone?

17 A. As I indicated earlier, I’m not sure if I

18 actually spoke with her or if I was speaking to one

19 of the people working with Schaffel. There were a

20 couple people that were working on various pieces of

21 that filming. And I just — I’m sorry, I don’t

22 remember specifically whether I spoke with Mrs.

23 Arvizo or not.

24 Q. Do you recall, in your discussions with

25 representatives of FOX television regarding the

26 “Take 2” project, whether or not the name “Arvizo”

27 ever came up?

28 A. Yeah, I’m pretty sure it did. Because we 10050

1 needed — again, anybody who’s going to be in, you

2 know, a televisual production needs to sign a

3 consent, a release for the use of their image. And

4 if — if the Arvizos were going to have any footage

5 included, there had to be a release.

6 Q. Do you recall, in your discussions with the

7 distribution company, Lachman Productions, the name

8 “Arvizo” ever coming up?

9 A. Well, I think it did, again in the context

10 of we needed appearance consents and releases from

11 everybody, because we had footage that had a lot of

12 people in it. We were concerned — there was one

13 set of footage that had a bunch of kids at

14 Neverland, and we were concerned about those

15 appearance consents.

16 Q. You mentioned an individual named Haber,

17 correct?

18 A. Yep. Fred Haber.

19 Q. Do you remember ever discussing the Arvizos

20 with Mr. Haber?

21 A. I’m just not sure.

22 Q. As far as you’re concerned, given all of the

23 communications you had with all of these parties

24 about the “Take 2” project, was it any secret that

25 the Arvizos were going to possibly participate?

26 A. I’m not aware of any secret about it, no.

27 Q. In fact, the possibility of the Arvizos

28 participating in the “Take 2” project was something 10051

1 that was discussed constantly, right?

2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, was

5 anyone that you spoke with trying to keep the fact

6 that the Arvizos might participate in the “Take 2”

7 project a secret?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Approximately when do you think you first

10 learned that there might be a possibility of the

11 Arvizos participating in this television documentary

12 involving Maury Povich?

13 A. Oh, I’m not sure. I mean, early February.

14 Mid-February. Some — sometime in that time frame.

15 This all went very quickly. I think the production

16 aired by the end of February, so this was a very

17 short time frame.

18 Q. But certainly your discussions with

19 representatives of FOX television indicated that

20 people at FOX thought the Arvizos might participate,

21 right?

22 A. I don’t know about FOX. I think Brad

23 Lachman Productions, but I don’t remember talking

24 about it with Marisa Fermin.

25 Q. Did you learn at some point that the Arvizo

26 family had participated in an interview for purposes

27 of the “Take 2” project?

28 A. I believe some footage did get shot, yes. 10052

1 Q. Did you ever see it?

2 A. I never saw that footage, no.

3 Q. Okay. Do you remember learning from someone

4 that they had participated in an interview?

5 A. Yes. I’m just not sure when.

6 Q. Do you know if you were at Schaffel’s home

7 before or after you learned the Arvizos had been

8 interviewed?

9 A. Oh, I’m pretty sure it was before,

10 because — yeah, I’m pretty sure it was before.

11 Q. Now, at the period of time you’re talking

12 about, when this “Take 2” project is being produced,

13 to your knowledge, are the Arvizos still parties to

14 the lawsuit in England?

15 A. No, they’re not. No, they’re not. And I

16 believe the complaint with the Standards Board on

17 their behalf was also withdrawn, but I’m not sure

18 about that.

19 Q. At some point, did you learn the Arvizos had

20 hired a lawyer in Los Angeles?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know approximately when you learned

23 the Arvizos had gone to a lawyer in Los Angeles?

24 A. I think it was the spring of 2004 that I was

25 contacted by a lawyer who stated he represented the

26 Arvizos. I’m not sure, you know, whether that was

27 February, March, April, but I think it was the

28 spring of ‘04. 10053

1 Q. Do you remember ever hearing from a lawyer

2 named Dickerman?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. And did you learn at some point that

5 a lawyer named Dickerman in Los Angeles was

6 representing the Arvizos?

7 A. Yeah, Mr. Dickerman contacted me in that —

8 I think it was spring of ‘04.

9 Q. And did you ever learn that at some point in

10 time after they hired Attorney Dickerman, they hired

11 Attorney Larry Feldman?

12 A. I never had any contact with Mr. Feldman.

13 I think if I know that, it’s only from the press.

14 Q. Did you ever speak to Dickerman directly —

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. — involving the Arvizos?

17 How many times do you think you did that?

18 A. Two, maybe three times did I speak with him.

19 We exchanged some letters.

20 Q. And at some point, he made a request that

21 the Arvizos no longer participate in the British

22 litigation, true?

23 A. Yes. Well, you have to excuse me. There’s

24 the litigation and there’s the Broadcasting

25 Standards Board complaints, and I’d really want to

26 review the document.

27 When I say “yes,” it’s — I know he wanted

28 them — he wanted the Broadcasting Standards Board 10054

1 complaint process terminated with respect to the

2 Arvizos. I’m just not sure that they were parties

3 to the litigation against Granada. I just — it’s

4 been a long time.

5 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take our break.

6 (Recess taken.)

7 THE COURT: Counsel?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 Q. Mr. LeGrand, you have an exhibit book in

10 front of you. Would you please turn to Tab 36.

11 Your Honor, I believe the next exhibit,

12 defense exhibit, would be No. 5037, which would be

13 this document.

14 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. LeGrand, please take a

16 look at that document, if you would.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Have you seen that document before?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And please describe that document.

21 A. It’s charts and diagrams and text outlining

22 kind of a business structure for Michael Jackson.

23 Q. And it appears that you faxed that document

24 to various individuals on March 14th, 2003, correct?

25 A. Yeah. Well, it appears that it was faxed to

26 Mr. Al Malnik.

27 Q. But you appear to be the — it appears to

28 have been faxed from your office, right? 10055

1 A. Oh, yes.

2 Q. All right. Now, when did you first see that

3 document?

4 A. I’m not sure. I think I saw an iteration of

5 this document in late 2002. This was a business

6 plan outline that Mr. Konitzer had been working on

7 for some time.

8 Q. And was it your understanding that Konitzer

9 put this document together?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And what is your understanding based on?

12 A. He sent this to me. Mr. Konitzer gave this

13 to me.

14 Q. And approximately when do you think he did

15 that?

16 A. Well, again, this iteration I’m going to say

17 happened in probably February, but this is — again,

18 this was a document that got edited over time. But

19 I think this generation, because of some references

20 in it, time references, I think show late February,

21 maybe early March.

22 Q. Did Mr. Konitzer tell you he was developing

23 this document?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Approximately when was that?

26 A. I’m guessing. You know, sometime February,

27 early March of ‘03.

28 Q. And correct me if I’m wrong, the document 10056

1 appears to be a business plan for Mr. Jackson,

2 right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And if you look through the document, it

5 appears to have what is referred to as a diagram of

6 a business structure, right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. It talks about Mr. Jackson and his family,

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as leading.

12 And hearsay as far as the document is concerned.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 THE BAILIFF: You need to turn your

15 microphone on as well.

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah.

17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. LeGrand, please look

18 at what appears to be the third page of that

19 document, okay? The Bates stamp number appears to

20 be MJ020806. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And it says, “How to protect MJ from

23 business infection.” Do you see that?

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay and

25 leading.

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall reading this

28 document when you received it? 10057

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And why did you read it?

3 A. Because it was given to me for my review,

4 and it affected my client, Michael Jackson.

5 Q. And this is the — a copy of the actual

6 document that Konitzer sent you, correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And after you read it, did you discuss it

9 with Mr. Konitzer?

10 A. I don’t recall a specific conversation about

11 this document, no.

12 Q. Do you recall that one of the plans Mr.

13 Konitzer had for Mr. Jackson was to isolate him from

14 involvement?

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay and

16 leading.

17 THE COURT: The hearsay is sustained.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Please turn to page —

19 Bates stamp MJ020810, if you would.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And it’s entitled, “Michael’s involvement,”

22 correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;

25 leading.

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember having any

28 discussions with Mr. Konitzer about Michael 10058

1 Jackson’s involvement in the new business plan?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Were there any discussions about whether or

4 not Michael Jackson should be involved in briefings,

5 formalities, procedures, et cetera?

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;

7 leading.

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not

10 you had any discussions with Mr. Konitzer about

11 whether Michael Jackson needed to be involved in

12 daily briefings?

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You’ve seen that document

16 before, right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you recall any discussions with Mr.

19 Konitzer about how involved Mr. Jackson should be in

20 the new business?

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever say anything

24 to Mr. Konitzer about to what extent Mr. Jackson

25 should be involved in the new business plan?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. What did you say?

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay. 10059

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Mr. Konitzer’s plan,

3 to the best of your knowledge, involve any

4 considerations about how much Mr. Jackson should be

5 involved in his own business dealings?

6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. LeGrand, Konitzer

9 didn’t want Michael Jackson involved at all in the

10 details of his business, did he?

11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection. Ask

12 counsel to move off this subject. Ask the Court to

13 admonish counsel.

14 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Your microphone’s off, sir.

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry.

16 Same objection and ask the Court to admonish

17 counsel to move off of this subject.

18 THE COURT: I think that question was asked

19 and answered earlier this morning, so I’ll sustain

20 it on that ground.

21 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

22 Q. Is the document in front of you that’s been

23 identified as Exhibit 5037 prepared in the normal

24 course of business, to your knowledge?

25 A. As normal as business was, yes.

26 Q. And you faxed it off to Mr. Malnik, correct?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And why did you do that? 10060

1 A. Because I thought Mr. Malnik at that point

2 was advising Mr. Jackson on business matters. And I

3 thought it very much appropriate for Mr. Malnik to

4 see this document.

5 Q. Is Exhibit 5037 the actual document you

6 faxed to Mr. Malnik on March 14th, 2003?

7 A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

8 Q. Did you discuss the document with Mr. Malnik

9 at any point?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Approximately when was that, do you think?

12 A. I would guess within a day or two of this

13 fax. Maybe that day, but I don’t know for sure.

14 Q. Do you recall discussing Exhibit 5037 with

15 anyone besides Mr. Malnik and Mr. Konitzer?

16 A. Oh, I’m — I believe I discussed this with

17 my partner, Pete Gibson.

18 Q. And why did you do that?

19 A. I found this document to be somewhat

20 disturbing. It seems amateurish. You know, I

21 already had misgivings about Mr. Konitzer’s

22 sophistication and capabilities, and this document

23 simply reinforced those concerns.

24 Q. After you read the document, what were you

25 concerned about?

26 A. Well —

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object that

28 this is going to be a commentary of what’s enclosed 10061

1 within the document.

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions at this

4 time, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6

7 CROSS-EXAMINATION

8 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

9 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. LeGrand.

10 A. Good afternoon. We made it to the

11 afternoon.

12 Q. Just barely.

13 So tell me, how is it that you became

14 employed by Michael Jackson?

15 A. Mr. Konitzer had talked to me about whether

16 I would be interested in assisting with the

17 implementation of this new business plan for Mr.

18 Jackson, and then Mr. Konitzer called me and asked

19 me to come to Florida and meet Mr. Jackson to

20 discuss representation.

21 Q. And you knew Mr. Konitzer through a company

22 named Hi-Tec?

23 A. Hi-Tec America.

24 Q. And what is Hi-Tec America?

25 A. I don’t know what it is. A few years ago it

26 was a company Mr. Konitzer had that was involved in

27 developing a manufactured building process.

28 Q. And is that company based in Canada? 10062

1 A. Yeah, Mr. Konitzer lives in Canada, and the

2 manufacturing company was in Canada, but Mr.

3 Konitzer was interested in developing business in

4 the United States when I first met him.

5 Q. And how is it that he came to employ your

6 services for Hi-Tec America?

7 A. He was introduced to me by another person

8 that I knew in Florida. And we discussed, you know,

9 what his needs were, and I — at the time I was with

10 a law firm and we agreed to represent him.

11 Q. What were you doing in Florida at the time?

12 A. I really wasn’t in Florida. I had done a

13 transaction with some people in Florida, and one of

14 those people subsequently introduced Mr. Konitzer to

15 me.

16 Q. And at some point Mr. Konitzer called you

17 and informed you that he’d like you to work on

18 behalf of Mr. Jackson?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And did he introduce you to Michael Jackson?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Where did that introduction take place?

23 A. At the — I think it’s the Turnberry Hotel

24 project in Florida.

25 Q. And did that introduction take place in

26 February of 2003?

27 A. Yes. No, I think it was January.

28 Q. January of 2003? 10063

1 A. Yeah. I don’t think it was quite February.

2 I think it was the last weekend in January.

3 Q. And when Mr. Konitzer contacted you with

4 regard to your services, exactly what did he inform

5 you of in terms of what the expectation would be of

6 your duties, what duties you’d perform for Mr.

7 Jackson?

8 A. The phone call that precipitated my going to

9 meet Mr. Jackson at the Turnberry was focused on the

10 Bashir broadcast. And what Mr. Konitzer said to me

11 was that Michael’s lawyers had told him there was

12 nothing they could do to help him deal with Granada

13 or Martin Bashir, and he asked me to come and meet

14 Michael and see if there was anything that I could

15 do or suggest to assist Mr. Jackson.

16 Q. So in January. Do you have any recollection

17 of the exact date we’re talking about?

18 A. I just know that I flew to Florida just

19 before the last weekend in January. I’m not sure if

20 that’s the 27th or the 29th. But it was the last

21 week of January.

22 Q. So it would have been immediately before.

23 Do you mean like a Friday, a Thursday? Do you have

24 an idea?

25 A. Yeah, I think I arrived there either

26 Wednesday night or Thursday. I’m not sure exactly.

27 Q. Okay. And you met Mr. Jackson. Where did

28 that meeting take place? 10064

1 A. At the Turnberry. He had a suite at the

2 Turnberry.

3 Q. In his suite?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Was Mr. Konitzer there?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Was Mr. Weizner at that meeting?

8 A. I believe he was there for the initial

9 meeting, yes.

10 Q. What do you mean by that? Did he leave at

11 some point?

12 A. That first day, I think I had two meetings

13 with Mr. Jackson. And I’m not sure that Mr. Weizner

14 was present at both. I think there were two

15 meetings.

16 Q. How many days did you stay at the Turnberry?

17 A. I didn’t stay at the Turnberry.

18 Q. How many days did you stay in Florida?

19 A. It was four or five. I returned to Las

20 Vegas that Sunday, the last Sunday in January of

21 ‘03.

22 Q. And in those four or five days, how many

23 meetings did you have with Mr. Jackson?

24 A. Hmm.

25 Q. You mentioned two so far, I guess, the first

26 day.

27 A. Three or four. I’m really not exactly sure.

28 One of them was the lengthy telephone conference 10065

1 day.

2 Q. Tell me about that. What day did the

3 telephone conference take place?

4 A. I’m not sure if it was Friday or Saturday,

5 with the solicitor and the barristers in the UK.

6 Q. Do you know — do you know if Hamid Moslehi

7 was in Florida at the time you were there?

8 A. I don’t know.

9 Q. Do you know if the Arvizo family was in

10 Florida at the time you were there?

11 A. I don’t know. I don’t believe so, but I

12 don’t know.

13 Q. Did you ever meet Ian Drew?

14 A. I think I eventually met Ian Drew, but I’m

15 not sure when. I don’t believe I met him in

16 Florida, though.

17 Q. Okay. So tell me about this conference call

18 day. You said it involved the professionals in

19 England?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Were you in a room where a conference

22 call — the conference call phone was?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Who else was present in that room?

25 A. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Konitzer. I just don’t

26 remember if Mr. Weizner was present or not.

27 Q. Anybody else?

28 A. There were other people who came in and out. 10066

1 I mean, there was a bodyguard. Mike — I just knew

2 him as Mike. I really wasn’t focused on anybody

3 else. We had a table with a phone, and we spent

4 close to two hours going over the Granada documents

5 and the issues associated with going after Granada.

6 Q. Did you discuss the public relations aspect

7 of the Bashir documentary on Mr. Jackson?

8 A. There was some discussion that there was,

9 you know, likely to be, you know, increased PR, and

10 the solicitor/barrister team in the UK wanted to

11 engage a PR firm.

12 Q. So was Bell Yard employed at that time?

13 A. I don’t think so. I think this was

14 preliminary discussion. The UK folks weren’t even

15 100 percent sure that they would follow through with

16 taking any action. They really — this was — it

17 was a very significant conversation, but it was also

18 exploratory on their part.

19 Q. And was Mr. Jackson concerned about the

20 fallout in a public relations sense from the Martin

21 Bashir film?

22 A. I don’t recall Mr. Jackson making a specific

23 statement about being concerned about the fallout

24 from the Bashir film. He seemed very concerned

25 about the — blurring the images of his children, of

26 wanting to enforce his agreement with Mr. Bashir to

27 edit — to screen the video and edit the video

28 before it was aired. 10067

1 Q. Let’s talk about the agreements that you

2 reviewed concerning the Bashir film. You expressed

3 some concern after reviewing those agreements, true?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you discuss those concerns with Mr.

6 Jackson?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, you were employed as Mr. Jackson’s

9 attorney, correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Your fiduciary responsibility was to him?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. To him alone?

14 A. To him and his affiliated companies, yes.

15 Q. Okay. So you owed no responsibility to Mr.

16 Konitzer or Mr. Weizner?

17 A. As part of our representation of Mr.

18 Jackson, we specifically disclosed to Mr. Konitzer

19 that we would no longer, you know, provide any

20 representation to him, and we just had a conflict

21 disclosure document.

22 Q. To avoid a conflict of interest?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. And do you have any sense of why Mr.

25 Konitzer chose you to become a part of this team?

26 A. He stated to me that he appreciated that I

27 had a perspective more of a businessman than a

28 lawyer in some of our discussions, and that he 10068

1 wanted the kind of breadth of experience that I

2 brought. That was what he expressed to me.

3 Q. Did you have a sense that he liked you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you like Mr. Konitzer at the time?

6 A. Yes. I found Ronald to be pleasant and

7 engaging.

8 Q. Now, did you ever have a discussion with

9 Mr. — I’ll back up.

10 I think you did mention that you had a

11 discussion with Mr. Jackson about entering into the

12 agreement to do the Bashir interview.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did Mr. Jackson tell you that Martin Bashir

15 was responsible for the Princess Diana documentary?

16 A. I don’t think Mr. Jackson told me that, but

17 somebody else did. I’m not sure who, but I did know

18 that.

19 Q. Did Mr. Jackson inform you that doing an

20 interview with Mr. Bashir could be something that

21 could reignite or renew his career?

22 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation.

23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m asking if Mr. Jackson

24 informed him of that.

25 THE WITNESS: No, Mr. Jackson never made such

26 a statement.

27 THE COURT: I’m sorry, there’s an objection

28 pending. 10069

1 You need to rephrase the question, please.

2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, did

3 Mr. Jackson ever inform you that he did the Martin

4 Bashir interview because he perceived it to be a

5 positive public relations opportunity to help renew

6 his career?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever indicate that Martin

9 Bashir was unwilling to do the interview in a

10 fashion in which Mr. Jackson would be paid?

11 A. I don’t believe Mr. Jackson ever made that

12 statement to me. He did confirm to me that he did

13 not expect money from — you know, payment for the

14 production; that he had agreed to do that without a

15 fee. He —

16 Q. Okay. And you mentioned you had some

17 experience in business aspects of preparation of

18 legal documents and such for these types of

19 documentaries?

20 A. No. I indicated that I really had not had

21 substantive experience in entertainment law.

22 Q. Well, then, how is it that you were able to

23 form an opinion that these documents were

24 inadequate?

25 A. Because, from my experience in general

26 commercial business, a vague, one-paragraph

27 agreement is simply inadequate under any

28 circumstance for just about any transaction, let 10070

1 alone something of this type.

2 Secondly, I very quickly consulted with the

3 Paul Hastings firm and had Mr. John Genga review the

4 documents and discussed with him the agreements.

5 Q. Now, are you aware that Mr. Jackson has

6 engaged in numerous enterprises similar to this one

7 that he engaged in with Mr. Bashir?

8 A. I’m really not aware of the scope of Mr.

9 Jackson’s enterprises.

10 Q. You’re aware he’s an entertainer, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And that he engages in numerous contracts

13 and business negotiations involving entertainment?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you realize that this particular

16 documentary was a form of entertainment intended to

17 be broadcast internationally on televisions,

18 correct?

19 A. Yeah. I’m not sure about “entertainment,”

20 but, yes, I agree it was a production for broadcast.

21 Q. Okay. And are you aware of the — any

22 policy or custom among journalists not to pay for

23 interviews of this type?

24 A. Yes. I am aware that journalists

25 generally — that’s why I questioned the word

26 “entertainment,” because my experience and

27 understanding is that entertainment, they do pay.

28 When it’s news, documentary, interview, there is not 10071

1 payment customarily.

2 Q. All right. Fair enough.

3 Now, during the discussions with Mr.

4 Jackson — I want to get back to this perception.

5 Did Mr. Jackson in any way perceive this

6 documentary to present him in a positive light?

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for

8 speculation.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll rephrase that.

10 That’s fair.

11 Q. Did he ever indicate that to you, that he

12 perceived that this production was going to portray

13 him in a positive light?

14 A. Mr. Jackson expressed to me the language in

15 the one — in these agreements that Mr. Bashir was

16 to — and I’m paraphrasing. Mr. Bashir was to

17 produce a documentary reflective of Mr. Jackson’s

18 life as Mr. Jackson knew it.

19 Mr. Jackson’s statement to me was that he

20 felt very comfortable with Martin Bashir during the

21 production of the — you know, the various filmings,

22 and that he expected Mr. Bashir to honor Mr.

23 Bashir’s agreement to allow Mr. Jackson to review

24 the final footage and have some input to the final

25 footage.

26 We, the various lawyers, asked Mr. Jackson

27 several times to explain what he meant by, you know,

28 “faithful to his life as he knew it,” and Mr. 10072

1 Jackson didn’t use the word “positive.” He expected

2 accuracy, sincerity in this documentary.

3 Q. Okay. But is it safe to say that he saw

4 this as a public relations opportunity?

5 A. I don’t know what he saw it as.

6 Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever expressed to you the

7 public relations maxim that there is no such thing

8 as bad publicity?

9 A. Mr. Jackson never made such a statement to

10 me.

11 Q. And in terms of the interview with Mr.

12 Jackson, did you, as the lawyer, as Mr. Jackson’s

13 lawyer — you said you saw this particular

14 production, correct?

15 A. I did eventually see it later. I think it

16 was like, you know, the week later, but yes.

17 Q. And you certainly had a front row seat for

18 the repercussions that ensued; fair to say?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And would you agree that this production was

21 a public relations disaster for Mr. Jackson?

22 A. I don’t have a lot to judge by on the scale

23 of PR events, but clearly this had a lot of negative

24 aspects from the press. The initial press in the UK

25 was very negative about Mr. Jackson. The initial

26 press in the United States was, you know, very

27 negative. There were, you know, what I would call

28 talking heads, various people clamoring for an 10073

1 investigation of Mr. Jackson. There were people

2 saying his children should be removed from his

3 custody. I mean, so it was very negative. I mean,

4 you know —

5 Q. Does that fit your definition of a disaster?

6 A. It comes pretty darned close.

7 Q. You yourself used the word “a media frenzy.”

8 Is that what you described it as?

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. And that everything was frantic?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And it was all negative, true?

13 A. Yeah. There were certainly some people who

14 were standing up for Mr. Jackson, and there were

15 certainly people who were highly negative of Martin

16 Bashir’s voiceovers, the editing. There was —

17 largely negative. But there were certainly some

18 people saying, “Hey, wait a minute. This was a

19 hatchet job.”

20 Q. Let me just rephrase it.

21 I’m not talking about the people who were

22 reacting to — maybe reacting negatively towards Mr.

23 Bashir. I’m talking about the people’s reaction to

24 this film. The people who saw this film or reacting

25 to this film had a negative impression of Mr.

26 Jackson?

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

28 answered. 10074

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll strike that.

2 Q. Now, you just said it was a hatchet job.

3 Was it a hatchet job — let’s back up a moment.

4 Isn’t it a fact that the media frenzy, the

5 bulk of this negative public relations disaster or

6 whatever comes close to a disaster, dealt with Mr.

7 Jackson’s admission to the world that he liked to

8 sleep with little boys? That was one of the major

9 outcries; isn’t that fair to say?

10 A. I think that’s fair to say.

11 Q. And Martin Bashir did not misrepresent that,

12 did he? Michael Jackson actually said that, and he

13 repeated it, didn’t he?

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for

15 speculation.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: There’s no confusion

19 over what Michael Jackson likes to do with young

20 boys, and that’s what upset the world; fair to say?

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative;

22 misstates the evidence.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll strike it.

25 Q. And there was also a tremendous amount of

26 negative public attention towards the fact that Mr.

27 Jackson hung his child out over the balcony; isn’t

28 that true? 10075

1 A. That’s true.

2 Q. Mr. Jackson actually did that, didn’t he?

3 A. As far as I know.

4 Q. I mean, Martin Bashir didn’t make that

5 happen, did he?

6 A. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see it, but

7 certainly that’s what I’ve seen on the video.

8 Q. So there’s nothing unfair about Martin

9 Bashir’s commentary regarding that?

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for —

11 excuse me. Argumentative.

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: There was also a

14 tremendous amount of negative attention given to Mr.

15 Jackson’s remarks about surgeries that he’s had, and

16 just people not believing he was being honest about

17 that, isn’t that true, one of the things that people

18 were concerned about?

19 A. You know, I find it difficult to answer

20 about — questions about what people thought. I

21 mean, what I know is what I saw reported in the

22 press.

23 Q. And that’s where —

24 A. It’s hard for me to say what’s in people’s

25 minds. But I did see printed articles questioning

26 the veracity of Mr. Jackson with respect to the

27 number of surgeries.

28 Q. And there was concern about the issues 10076

1 dealing with his children and keeping them from

2 their mother, or not having a mother for his

3 children, whether that was a good thing?

4 A. There were certainly some commentators who

5 wrote about that issue.

6 Q. And there was concern about the issue

7 dealing with the kids at the zoo, the threat to the

8 safety of his children when they went to the zoo and

9 there was somewhat of a media frenzy at that

10 location?

11 A. Yeah, I remember some commentators

12 questioning the propriety of that zoo trip.

13 Q. And weren’t these the very things that the

14 media was most focused on in terms of this media

15 frenzy? I mean, this list that I’ve given you?

16 There are probably others, but —

17 A. If you’re asking me for my assessment of the

18 media, I’d say you fairly well categorized the bulk

19 of what was the uproar at that time, yes.

20 Q. Okay. Now, do you know how long Mr.

21 Jackson’s relationship with Dieter Weizner, how far

22 it preexisted your involvement with Michael Jackson?

23 A. No, I don’t. I mean, I don’t know when that

24 relationship began.

25 Q. What about Mr. Konitzer?

26 A. Mr. Konitzer told me that he met Mr. Jackson

27 through Mr. Weizner, and I believe that was in early

28 2002. But it could have been late ‘01, but it was 10077

1 that time frame. It was not, you know, back in the

2 1990s.

3 Q. Do you know why there was a decision to

4 clean house at this particular juncture in Mr.

5 Jackson’s — Mr. Jackson’s business?

6 A. Well, I know what Mr. Jackson told me. And

7 I know what Mr. Konitzer told me.

8 Q. All right. Why don’t you just tell me what

9 Mr. Jackson told you.

10 A. Mr. Jackson told me that he no longer had

11 confidence in John Branca. He was not pleased with

12 Barry Siegel’s handling of funds. And he was very

13 interested and enthusiastic about the Konitzer

14 ten-year MJ universe business plan.

15 Q. The MJ business plan was largely a plan to

16 try and reinvent Mr. Jackson as a superstar, wasn’t

17 it?

18 A. To a degree, yes. I mean, originally the

19 plan was premised upon acquiring a controlling

20 interest in Marvel.

21 Q. I’m sorry? Marvel?

22 A. Marvel. Spiderman.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. Fantastic Four, et cetera.

25 Q. And there was — part of this was to market

26 Michael Jackson’s name and image in various other

27 products? Was that part of the MJ universe scheme

28 of things? 10078

1 A. Yes, that was part of it.

2 Q. And Dieter Weizner had been involved in

3 marketing Michael Jackson products for a long period

4 of time; isn’t that true?

5 A. Yeah. I don’t know for how long, but, yes,

6 he was certainly involved, especially in Germany, in

7 distribution of products.

8 Q. And Michael Jackson had a long business

9 relationship with Mr. Weizner, didn’t he?

10 A. Yeah. Again, I don’t know how long, but

11 it — from the paperwork I saw later, it was

12 certainly a couple of years.

13 Q. And based upon what you saw, you understood

14 that Michael Jackson trusted Mr. Weizner based upon

15 a long-standing business relationship, correct?

16 A. Again, I don’t know how long-standing.

17 Certainly Mr. Jackson seemed to have a good

18 relationship with Mr. Weizner.

19 Q. All right. And Mr. Konitzer certainly had a

20 longer relationship with Mr. Jackson than you did;

21 fair to say?

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. And in part of this cleaning of house, Mr.

24 Jackson decided to personally fire his attorney who

25 he had been with for more than a decade?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And he wrote a letter dismissing that

28 attorney, didn’t he? 10079

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. He decided to personally fire his business

3 manager at the time?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And he personally took care of that as well?

6 A. He executed documents that I delivered on

7 his behalf, yes.

8 Q. And you did that because that’s what he told

9 you he wanted to do?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. He personally fired his entertainment

12 manager?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Again, part of the cleaning house; part of

15 what he wanted you to do?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then a month after hiring you, he

18 personally fired you?

19 A. Yes. Well, two months, three months. But

20 yes, two months.

21 Q. Okay. And in — sometime in January, or

22 before that time, he decided — Mr. Jackson decided

23 that he wanted to put Ronald Konitzer and Dieter

24 Weizner in charge of his enterprises?

25 A. Yes. That’s what he told me.

26 Q. Yes. That was his decision, correct?

27 A. As far as I know.

28 Q. I mean, that’s what Mr. Jackson told you, 10080

1 right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And as his attorney, you mentioned that you

4 had a fiduciary duty to him, and part of that

5 fiduciary duty is to keep him informed of

6 everything, correct?

7 A. I’m not sure what “everything” is.

8 Q. Everything that is material, everything that

9 is important, everything that is necessary for him

10 to make informed decisions, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. All right. So the month of February comes,

13 and the Michael Jackson/Martin Bashir documentary

14 airs. You said that things became frantic. Is that

15 when things started to get frantic?

16 A. The pace picked up immediately when I

17 returned to Las Vegas from Florida and we began

18 interviewing for the replacement of the money

19 manager.

20 Q. And ultimately you settled on Ed Gross?

21 A. I think it’s Ed Grossman.

22 Q. Ed Grossman?

23 Was that Michael Jackson’s decision, based

24 upon your advice, to choose Ed Grossman?

25 A. It was Ronald Konitzer. We discussed it.

26 I know we had a phone call with Mr. Jackson; asked

27 him if he wanted us to go ahead with that

28 recommendation. 10081

1 Q. Did you inform him of all the particulars

2 regarding that decision in hiring Ed Grossman?

3 A. Well, he had already told me, when I was in

4 Florida, that he wanted to —

5 Q. I’m sorry. Who —

6 A. Mr. Jackson had told me, when he was in

7 Florida, that he wanted Barry Siegel to go and

8 someone else to be engaged.

9 Q. So did he —

10 A. And he told us to find somebody, you know,

11 appropriate.

12 Q. Okay. And did he ultimately okay or make

13 the decision to go with Ed Grossman?

14 A. I don’t remember a specific, “Yes, go with

15 Ed Grossman” conversation. I know that Ed Grossman

16 met with Barry Siegel. Barry Siegel requested

17 authority from Mr. Jackson for transferring, and we

18 provided that authority in the form of a document

19 signed by Mr. Jackson to Mr. Siegel instructing him

20 to transfer.

21 Q. Okay. So Mr. Jackson signed a document

22 basically instructing that the transfer of his

23 business management interests were going to Ed

24 Grossman?

25 A. Well, the cash management.

26 Q. Yeah. The cash management.

27 Ed Grossman is International Business

28 Management, correct? 10082

1 A. I think so, yes.

2 Q. IBM, right?

3 So that transaction can’t occur without Mr.

4 Jackson’s permission, correct?

5 A. Well, Mr. Konitzer and Dieter Weizner had a

6 limited power of attorney. I’m not sure, as I sit

7 here, whether that was within the scope of power or

8 not, whether they could have done that. But my

9 belief is, my recollection is that Mr. Jackson

10 authorized the transfer to Ed Grossman,

11 International Business Management.

12 Q. Did you prepare that limited power of

13 attorney?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. And you have no recollection of whether it

16 gives him — gives Ronald Konitzer the authority to

17 make that transfer on his own?

18 A. I know there were some limitations on what

19 the authority was, but I don’t remember the

20 specifics. I haven’t looked at that document now

21 for a very long time.

22 Q. And do you recall who directed you as to

23 what limitations were to be placed on Mr. Konitzer

24 regarding that power of attorney?

25 A. Actually, I was the one who created

26 limitations, and I specifically consulted with Mr.

27 Jackson about that.

28 Q. Do you consider Mr. Jackson to be 10083

1 intelligent, an intelligent person?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. When he had business discussions with you,

4 would he ask intelligent questions?

5 A. Some times more than others. But, yes.

6 Q. So we go into the month of February. Did

7 this public relations frenzy get better, or worse,

8 or stay the same? You tell me.

9 A. I’m not sure that I can characterize it. It

10 was certainly bad. And as the program aired in the

11 U.S., you know, there was continued press. I’m not

12 sure how long that press, that — you know, that

13 continued.

14 Q. At some point you brought Ann Gabriel on?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That was your decision?

17 A. Not mine alone. I —

18 Q. Who else participated in that?

19 A. Mr. Konitzer.

20 Q. Did you recommend Ann Gabriel?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And she was to help out with the U.S. public

23 relations end of things; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And we’re talking about crisis management

26 here, aren’t we, in terms of public relations?

27 Public relations crisis management?

28 A. Yes. 10084

1 Q. And eventually — was Bell Yard hired before

2 Ann Gabriel came on?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And Bell Yard is a crisis management public

5 relations outfit, correct?

6 A. It’s certainly among their qualifications.

7 They do a variety of PR work.

8 Q. Have you ever seen their letterhead?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And their letterhead says “Crisis

11 Management” —

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. — doesn’t it?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. So this was a public relations

16 crisis, true?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And Mr. Jackson was certainly aware of that?

19 A. I believe so, yes.

20 Q. Okay. So at some point Ann Gabriel felt

21 that the public relations end of things was being

22 mishandled in the United States; isn’t that true?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. She told you or basically she informed you

25 about the idea that Mr. Jackson should be more

26 proactive?

27 A. Yes. That was her position.

28 Q. And there was a sentiment among Mr. 10085

1 Jackson’s people that this should be — that they

2 should not be proactive and that they should hunker

3 down and weather this storm out?

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s probably true. I’m

6 not specific enough.

7 Q. Was there a consensus among anybody in

8 Michael Jackson’s inner circle that this storm

9 should be weathered by hunkering down and avoiding

10 the spotlight?

11 A. I’m not sure there was consensus. There was

12 certainly voices, you know, on all sides of how to

13 address the PR aspects.

14 Q. But hunkering down was viewed as a

15 legitimate PR strategy; is that true?

16 A. Yeah —

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

18 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 You may answer.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I mean, subsequently Mr.

22 Dezenhall was engaged, and his advice consistently

23 was to, as you say, hunker down.

24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And he was the man who

25 replaced Ann Gabriel, correct?

26 A. I’m not sure I would use the word

27 “replaced.” But Eric was certainly engaged to

28 shoulder a significant portion of the PR strategy 10086

1 responsibility.

2 Q. Now, as the month of February went on, were

3 there other public relations issues that added to

4 the media frenzy?

5 A. I don’t recall. Do you have an example?

6 Q. Well, let’s talk about the 60 Minutes

7 interview, the planned 60 Minutes interview at

8 Neverland. Do you remember about the date that that

9 was to take place?

10 A. I think it was the first full weekend in

11 February.

12 Q. And would you agree that it’s a bad idea

13 from a public relations standpoint to agree to have

14 60 Minutes interview you, have them come out, set

15 up, bring their whole staff out to the West Coast,

16 Ed Bradley, and then not show up for the interview?

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

18 argumentative.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. I’ll back up a

21 little bit.

22 Q. Mr. Jackson didn’t show up to the 60 Minutes

23 interview, did he?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You were there when

27 60 Minutes was preparing to shoot an interview with

28 Michael Jackson, correct? 10087

1 A. I was at Neverland at that time, yes.

2 Q. Okay. Did 60 Minutes ever shoot that

3 interview featuring Ed Bradley and Michael Jackson?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And the reason for that is because Michael

6 Jackson didn’t show up for the interview, correct?

7 A. You can’t shoot an interview if the

8 interviewee is not cooperative.

9 Q. Yes. And he decided to change his mind and

10 not do that interview?

11 A. That’s my understanding, yes.

12 Q. And one of the reasons for that was because

13 the Complaint regarding the Jordie Chandler case had

14 just come out on The Smoking Gun; isn’t that true?

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fair.

19 Q. Do you know — well, let me start over

20 again.

21 The Jordie Chandler Complaint had just been

22 published on The Smoking Gun, the Internet source

23 for various documents; isn’t that true?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Are you aware if there

27 was a publication of Mr. Jackson’s — or I should

28 say Jordie Chandler’s Complaint against Michael 10088

1 Jackson on The Smoking Gun at that time?

2 A. I remember that there was some publication

3 on The Smoking Gun of some Chandler-related

4 materials, but I’m not sure that I knew of that when

5 I was at Neverland on that Saturday or not. I’m not

6 sure when I learned of that in relation to that day.

7 I may have known it. I just don’t remember.

8 Q. Were there also prominent articles regarding

9 Mr. Jackson’s distressed financial condition during

10 the month of February 2003 that contributed to this

11 media frenzy?

12 A. I’m not sure whether “contributed” is the

13 right word. I think they were part of the media

14 attention to Mr. Jackson and his affairs, and yes, I

15 remember some — some postings and articles about

16 his financial affairs.

17 Q. Let’s talk a little bit about Mr. Jackson’s

18 financial affairs.

19 You said you’d done quite a bit of research

20 into this area?

21 A. I’m not sure I said “research.” But I

22 certainly exerted — a considerable amount of my

23 effort and attention went to getting a grasp of Mr.

24 Jackson’s financial situation and financial affairs.

25 Q. Okay. So what would you call that?

26 A. Well, I mean, “research” to me is — you

27 know, as a lawyer, “research” is kind of technical.

28 You go to LexisNexis and such. 10089

1 But, you know, clearly I was trying to get

2 up to speed and obtain knowledge in order to

3 properly advise Mr. Jackson.

4 Q. And you became aware that Mr. Jackson had a

5 $200 million loan with the Bank of America that

6 encumbered or was pledged against his ATV catalog

7 with Sony?

8 A. Yeah. I think it’s the other way around,

9 though.

10 Q. The catalog —

11 A. Mr. Jackson had pledged his ownership

12 interest in the Sony/ATV joint venture. That’s the

13 pledge of the collateral to Bank of America.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. He had a $70 million loan for which he had

17 pledged his interest in the MIJAC catalog with the

18 Bank of America?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you were aware that Mr. Jackson had

21 accrued this enormous debt to finance — help

22 finance his very expensive lifestyle?

23 A. I’m not sure what I knew about how the debt

24 accrued. And that’s the only piece. I knew he

25 accrued the debt and I knew he didn’t have a lot of

26 assets to show for the money that had been spent

27 from those loans.

28 Q. Well, didn’t you write a letter to Mr. 10090

1 Jackson telling him that he’s spending approximately

2 $20,000 more every year than he makes, or I should

3 say $20 million more every year than he makes?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I have a hard time saying that.

6 A. Yeah, I did write a letter. My analysis was

7 more current. I just mean I didn’t review his

8 expenses going back for, you know, how the entire

9 200 million of debt came into existence. That’s all

10 I meant.

11 Q. All right.

12 A. Clearly I was concerned about his current

13 rate of expenditure versus the money he had

14 available to cover those expenses.

15 Q. And you mentioned in that letter that you

16 perceived Mr. Jackson to be on the verge of

17 bankruptcy unless some action was taken, true?

18 A. Yes, that’s true.

19 Q. You also talk a little bit about the fact

20 that he has $10 million in unpaid vendors, correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Some of those bills go back years; is that

23 fair to say?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; Court order.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And as far as your

27 testimony about the value of this ATV catalog, you

28 said that you are not an expert in this area; isn’t 10091

1 that accurate?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. You really have no idea about what Mr.

4 Jackson’s interest is in the ATV catalog, correct?

5 A. I certainly have an idea. I can’t say I’m a

6 qualified business appraiser capable of fully

7 evaluating that asset, no.

8 Q. Well, are you aware that Bank of America at

9 the time had a right of first refusal on that asset?

10 A. I did find that out. I’m not sure exactly

11 when. You know, these were a lot of documents that

12 we had to digest, so this took a few weeks. But

13 eventually I did come to learn that. But I’m not

14 sure — actually, I’m not so sure that the bank —

15 Q. I’m sorry. I’m sorry, I misspoke.

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s cutting off

17 the witness.

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You can finish your

19 answer.

20 A. I don’t think the bank had the right. I

21 think Sony actually — whether it was Sony or

22 Sony/ATV itself had a first right on Mr. Jackson’s

23 interests.

24 Q. You’re correct. I think I misspoke. I

25 meant to say Sony.

26 So Sony had a right of first refusal on that

27 catalog?

28 A. Yes. 10092

1 Q. So he didn’t have the right to sell it

2 without Sony’s permission, correct, or without

3 giving Sony the right to buy it first?

4 A. Yes, that’s correct.

5 Q. Okay. And as far as your general knowledge

6 of this — I’m just looking back at some of the

7 words you said. You said you’re not up to speed on

8 his interest in this catalog so you don’t really

9 know what it’s worth.

10 A. I looked at some of the public, you know,

11 materials available about Sony and Sony/ATV. I did

12 talk to a couple of people in the industry, just in

13 general, about, you know, what do these catalogs

14 sell for, what kind of value.

15 At the time, this was during — you know, I

16 was very concerned about the value, though, because

17 at the time we had the rise of the Internet and, you

18 know, pirating of material, and so there was concern

19 over the future of revenue streams to be derived

20 from some of these large catalogs because of the

21 piracy that was rampant.

22 Q. And that concerned these catalogs?

23 A. So that affects catalog values. The right

24 to first refusal affect catalog values. I mean,

25 because it’s not just the underlying asset. It

26 wasn’t that simple. You know, as most dealings

27 involving hundreds of millions dollars are not

28 simple. And so to say to someone, “Oh, you can 10093

1 write a check and buy this for X dollars,” it just

2 wasn’t that easy.

3 Q. And those concerns that you had were

4 concerns that the catalog really wasn’t worth what

5 it had been previously appraised at, true?

6 A. Well, I didn’t know that. Let me put it

7 this way: I believe that a best — you know, a

8 good, strong scenario existed to get to the numbers

9 that I posited, that 200 million. But those were

10 not meant to be precise. They were meant to be an

11 illustration of what could be achieved.

12 Sony had bought additional assets into that

13 catalog. I had no way of knowing exactly at that

14 moment in time what Sony had paid, what debts the

15 catalog had to repay Sony for any of that

16 investment. Sony was funding the enhancement of the

17 catalog. They continued to put money in and

18 purchase more assets. I have to believe that Sony

19 were good businesspeople and that they were buying

20 assets that had good value and would continue to

21 have value.

22 So — but ultimately to work with the

23 financial elements of something like this, you would

24 have to have, you know, a Goldman Sachs or some sort

25 of investment banking firm come in and do analysis,

26 review.

27 And it’s been widely reported in the press

28 that that happened in the last few months, six 10094

1 months or whatever.

2 Q. So you didn’t consider the fact that — or

3 you didn’t factor in, in your analysis, the fact

4 that Sony had been depositing copyrights into this

5 catalog over a period of years, Mr. Jackson had

6 deposited no additional copyrights into this

7 catalog, thereby decreasing Mr. Jackson’s relative

8 interest in the ATV catalog? You didn’t factor that

9 into your analysis, did you? “Yes” or “no.”

10 A. I’m not sure that’s a correct statement.

11 Q. Well, didn’t you factor in that Mr. Jackson

12 just had a half interest in whatever the catalog was

13 worth? Isn’t that what your simple dynamic was?

14 A. My dynamic view rested on that. I did not

15 take into account whether or not there was a right

16 on Sony’s part to get paid back for invested dollars

17 first. I did not consider that possibility at that

18 time.

19 Q. And you didn’t consider it to be a

20 possibility that Sony was going to gift Mr. Jackson

21 interest in those copyrights that they were

22 depositing over those years, did you?

23 A. I don’t expect Sony to gift much of anything

24 to anybody. But it wasn’t about gifting the

25 copyrights. Mr. Jackson owned half of the entity

26 that owned the copyrights.

27 Q. Right. But owning half of the entity

28 doesn’t mean his financial interest is 50/50, does 10095

1 it?

2 A. No. From a legal perspective, those two are

3 readily separable.

4 Q. Okay. And I want to talk about his

5 financial interest in that catalog, so I want to

6 focus on your knowledge about those facts.

7 Were you aware that Mr. Jackson had been

8 receiving guaranteed payments on the royalties from

9 that catalog that in effect reduced his financial

10 interest in the ATV catalog substantially over a

11 number of years? Were you aware of that?

12 A. At the time I wrote that letter, no. I

13 actually became aware of that later in a

14 conversation with Mr. Malnik.

15 Q. So you know now that his interest in that

16 catalog is not worth half of whatever its market

17 value is?

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And if a financial

21 expert who had considered all these dynamics came

22 into court and testified that Mr. Jackson’s interest

23 in that catalog is, at most, $200 million total, you

24 would have no reason to quibble with that, would

25 you?

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; improper question.

27 THE COURT: Sustained.

28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, let me just 10096

1 summarize that you really didn’t consider all the

2 factors to ascertain exactly what Mr. Jackson’s

3 financial interest is in the ATV catalog, correct?

4 A. I did not consider all of the possible

5 factors, correct.

6 Q. So you cannot tell us — you really don’t

7 have an idea of how much Mr. Jackson’s financial

8 interest is worth in the ATV catalog, true?

9 A. I never pretended to really know, as a

10 qualified business appraiser, what the value of Mr.

11 Jackson’s interest in that catalog was.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. I was merely trying to suggest a course of

14 action that could determine that value and hopefully

15 produce a positive economic outcome for Mr. Jackson.

16 Q. Who is Fire Mountain?

17 A. Fire Mountain is a limited liability company

18 that was formed in Nevada, and it is a

19 hundred-percent-owned subsidiary, I believe, of MJJ

20 Productions.

21 Q. Are you aware of covenants and conditions in

22 the Bank of America loans that prevent Mr. Jackson

23 from encumbering the ATV catalog or the MIJAC

24 catalog in any way additionally, additionally

25 encumbering those assets?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Okay. And are you aware that the covenants

28 and conditions of the Bank of America loan have some 10097

1 very rigorous guidelines about income for Mr.

2 Jackson?

3 A. I eventually obtained those loan documents

4 and became better acquainted with the provisions in

5 those documents.

6 Q. And one of the reasons for those covenants

7 and conditions is because if Mr. Jackson was to come

8 into any additional wealth, Bank of America was to

9 be informed of it so that they could get in line to

10 help pay for interest, pay for — pay down those

11 loans; isn’t that true?

12 A. I’m not sure I — I’d like to defer to the

13 language of the document.

14 There is no question that Bank of America

15 replenished the credit line note through, I believe

16 it’s the MIJAC catalog. Revenues would be deposited

17 to replenish that credit line.

18 Q. Do you know if the formation — let me back

19 up a moment.

20 What was the purpose of Fire Mountain LLC?

21 A. It was to isolate liability, any liabilities

22 associated with the production of the “Take 2”

23 video.

24 Q. Was it also designed to be used to isolate

25 liabilities in association with other FOX releases,

26 like the home movies, anything of that nature?

27 A. Not initially.

28 Q. But it developed into that? 10098

1 A. There was — I believe that eventually did

2 result. But that wasn’t the initial — that concept

3 didn’t exist at the time of the formation of Fire

4 Mountain.

5 Q. Did Ann Gabriel express a concern about

6 making the “Take 2” documentary a money-making

7 enterprise?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. She perceived that to be negative in terms

10 of public relations; that this should be done

11 without any profit motive or any profit on behalf of

12 Mr. Jackson, didn’t she?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And that advice was not heeded, was it?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And the reason for that is because Mr.

17 Jackson was in severe financial distress, true?

18 A. He had payables of about ten million, and

19 cash in the tens of thousands.

20 Q. About 30,000 in cash?

21 A. Whether it was 30 or 40 I don’t recall, but

22 it was not near enough to pay for his payables.

23 Q. In addition, it was not nearly enough to pay

24 for Mr. Jackson’s current lifestyle. I mean, he

25 didn’t have the funds to pay for his current

26 lifestyle, assuming a spending rate that he had

27 exhibited in the past?

28 A. Clearly the payables accumulated to the 10099

1 ten-million-dollar level because the bills had not

2 been paid previously.

3 Q. Okay. When you say that the LLC, limited

4 liability corporation, Fire Mountain, was designed

5 to limit or isolate liability, what do you mean by

6 that?

7 A. Generally, it’s my understanding that the

8 members of a limited liability company are not

9 directly liable for the obligations of the company.

10 So it has the kind of limited liability that a

11 corporation would have.

12 Q. And you set that up?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Who was authorized to sign on behalf of Fire

15 Mountain LLC?

16 A. For a while I was.

17 Q. Was Mr. Jackson also — is he also somebody

18 who could sign on behalf of Fire Mountain?

19 A. We ultimately delivered documents that MJJ

20 Productions was the member and had the authorization

21 to sign. And I believe Mr. Jackson was the

22 principal officer of MJJ Productions.

23 Q. And the proceeds from the “Take 2”

24 production, or the rebuttal film, all of the

25 proceeds for that video or film went into Fire

26 Mountain; is that correct?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And there was a trust account established 10100

1 for Fire Mountain; isn’t that true?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And didn’t you set up that trust account?

4 A. I set up a trust account for a while. And

5 ultimately that trust account was transferred to

6 another attorney.

7 Q. Okay. But during the month of February

8 2003, you were in control of that trust account,

9 weren’t you?

10 A. My firm had that trust account, yes.

11 Q. Okay. And $3 million came in from FOX for

12 the “Take 2” production, correct?

13 A. I think that’s right, in the aggregate. It

14 didn’t all come in at one time.

15 Q. But it came in in installments during the

16 month of February 2003?

17 A. I’m not sure of the timing. But certainly

18 some of it was in February. It might have been all

19 in February. I’m really not sure.

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. If I could

21 just have a moment.

22 Come on. I’m about to give up on this

23 backing.

24 Q. I’m going to show you a document which I

25 intend to mark as People’s Exhibit 898, and I’m

26 doing so at this time. It appears to be a five-page

27 document with a Hale Lane fax as the first page.

28 Would you identify that for me, sir? 10101

1 A. This looks like the trust listings from Hale

2 Lane.

3 Q. And did you send that document to Michael

4 Jackson at Neverland Ranch?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. On what date?

7 A. April 1st, 2003.

8 Q. And did you do that as part of your duties

9 as his attorney to keep him aware of financial

10 matters regarding Fire Mountain LLC?

11 A. I did this as part of the wrapping-up

12 process of my responsibility for matters for Mr.

13 Jackson other than the Granada litigation.

14 Q. Yes. But my question is, was that

15 communication made to inform Mr. Jackson of

16 financial matters regarding the Fire Mountain LLC?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. It’s an accounting, isn’t it?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’d ask to move People’s

21 Exhibit 898 into evidence at this time.

22 MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

23 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And if we could have the

25 Elmo.

26 Q. Mr. LeGrand, in terms of the proceeds from

27 the FOX production — sorry — the “Take 2”

28 production, you were essentially — let me just — 10102

1 sorry about that.

2 You were in charge of disbursement of funds,

3 correct?

4 A. Well, in my view, the funds belonged to Mr.

5 Jackson, and Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner had

6 authority —

7 BAILIFF CORTEZ: I’m sorry, sir. You need

8 to talk into the —

9 THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry.

10 The funds belonged to — ultimately to Mr.

11 Jackson through his company. And Mr. Konitzer and

12 Mr. Weizner had the power to direct expenditures.

13 So I didn’t.

14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Weizner had the

15 power to direct expenditures?

16 A. Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner had authority

17 from Mr. Jackson, pursuant to the power of attorney,

18 to direct expenditures.

19 Q. Did Mr. Weizner and Mr. Konitzer have powers

20 of attorney?

21 A. There was one power that was joint.

22 Q. Okay. And Mr. Jackson signs many powers of

23 attorneys, doesn’t he?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You have prepared more

27 than one power of attorney for Mr. Jackson, have you

28 not? 10103

1 A. I don’t recall more than the one power

2 getting executed. There may have been more than one

3 draft of a power, but I don’t remember more than one

4 power actually getting executed.

5 Q. You have seen a number of powers of

6 attorneys that have been executed by Michael

7 Jackson, have you not?

8 A. I’m not sure.

9 Q. All right. I’ll come back to that.

10 Let’s go down this list.

11 The very first entry that we have here shows

12 an incoming wire from FOX Broadcasting Company of

13 $750,000.

14 Was that part payment for the “Take 2”

15 production?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. There is a disbursement to

18 Stuart Backerman, right here on the second line,

19 2-13-2003, $6,000.

20 Who’s Stuart Backerman?

21 A. Mr. Backerman was a PR person.

22 Q. Okay. And he was part of this — maybe on

23 the outer fringes of this team —

24 A. Um —

25 Q. — addressing the media crisis?

26 A. He was engaged in providing media services

27 for Mr. Jackson, yes.

28 Q. So there’s — on 2-13, there’s a 10104

1 disbursement of, I believe that’s $50,000 — I’m

2 sorry, so you can see that, I believe that’s $80,000

3 to Hale Lane.

4 Is that $80,000 to pay for your legal fees?

5 A. That was to the firm to pay for legal

6 services, yes.

7 Q. So that paid for your services.

8 And then there’s an $11,000 cash

9 disbursement. Do you know where that went, on 2-13?

10 A. It went in a wire, that’s reflective of the

11 wire to Katrin Konitzer, I believe.

12 Q. Now, there’s funds sent Western Union,

13 $2,000 to Katrin Konitzer.

14 Are you saying this $11,000 figure is

15 related to Katrin Konitzer?

16 A. I’m not sure. The 11,000 — there’s the

17 next entry of distribution of 11,000 cash to

18 purchase.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. And I think that the 11,000 is composed of

21 the 2,000 to Kathryn, the 4500 to Sandra, and the

22 4500 — anyway, the 4500, 4500 and 2,000 equal the

23 11.

24 Q. Do you know who Sandra Hawk is?

25 A. I believe she’s an assistant to Mr.

26 Konitzer. That’s what I was told.

27 Q. Somebody who worked for Mr. Konitzer?

28 A. Yes. 10105

1 Q. And what about Canon Kasikci?

2 A. I believe that — I was told that was a

3 consultant working with Mr. Konitzer.

4 Q. Okay. On Mr. Jackson’s behalf?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you know what type of consultant?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Next we have, on the same date, $150,000

9 going out to Neverland Valley Entertainment.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You sent that?

12 A. My firm wired that money, yes.

13 Q. Did you have anything to do with it?

14 A. I’m sure I did.

15 Q. Okay. That’s my question.

16 So you were involved in sending out $150,000

17 to Neverland Valley Entertainment; is that fair to

18 say?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. I take it that went to your client, Mr.

21 Jackson?

22 A. It went to Neverland Valley Entertainment.

23 Q. I’m sorry, I’m misspeaking. Neverland

24 Valley Entertainment is not Mr. Jackson, is it?

25 A. I believe that’s a corporation that is — I

26 believe that’s not owned by Mr. Jackson.

27 Q. Okay. It’s not owned by Mr. Jackson? Only

28 tell me if you know. 10106

1 A. There were some confusing names. I’m not

2 sure — I’m really not sure today. I’m sorry.

3 Q. Under whose direction did you send that

4 $150,000 out to Neverland Valley Entertainment?

5 A. Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner.

6 Q. Okay. Next you sent out a wire for Mr.

7 Konitzer, $90,000, correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Mr. Konitzer’s direction.

10 $10,000 for Gabriel Media. That would be

11 Ann Gabriel?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Whose direction was that?

14 A. Ronald Konitzer’s.

15 Q. Okay. Dieter Weizner got 110,000. I’m

16 assuming that was Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner’s

17 directive?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Joseph Marcus, $35,000.

20 Who told you to send Joseph Marcus $35,000?

21 A. Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner.

22 Q. Okay. Do you know who Joseph Marcus is?

23 A. I believe he’s the — I’m not sure what his

24 title is. He helps run Neverland for Mr. Jackson.

25 Q. All right.

26 THE COURT: Let’s take our break.

27 (Recess taken.)

28 THE COURT: Go ahead. 10107

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.

2 Could we have the — yeah, thank you.

3 Q. All right. Mr. LeGrand, where we left off,

4 we were talking about Joe Marcus.

5 Now, I’m not going to go through all of

6 these, but did you ever talk to Mr. Jackson about

7 this trust account?

8 A. I don’t recall a specific conversation with

9 Mr. Jackson about this trust account. I do recall

10 telling Mr. Jackson about what we were doing; that

11 is, what I and the other lawyers were doing, and how

12 we were using proceeds from the FOX video to help

13 pay for the various legal and other services.

14 Q. So Mr. Jackson was being kept apprised about

15 these expenditures?

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the

17 evidence.

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

19 You may answer.

20 THE WITNESS: Not in detail, line by line.

21 This was a conversation that, “We are utilizing

22 these proceeds in this fashion.”

23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So certainly, when you

24 made a major expenditure, you got some clearance

25 from Mr. Jackson; is that fair to say?

26 A. I don’t recall getting a specific authority

27 from Mr. Jackson for any particular expenditure.

28 Q. Okay. 10108

1 A. He indicated to me he was satisfied with the

2 way things were being handled, that he had

3 confidence in Mr. Konitzer, Mr. Weizner, and the

4 lawyers, and the people that were working at this

5 time, and he wanted us to continue working.

6 Q. All right. Moving down the list just a

7 little bit, I’ll point out the — let’s see. There

8 appears to be another $750,000. Maybe that’s the

9 first — let me pull this down a little bit.

10 Okay. So we’ve got an incoming wire from

11 FOX for 750,000. We had another incoming wire from

12 FOX for $750,000.

13 Was that also on the “Michael Jackson “Take

14 2””

15 video?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then, finally, we had another incoming

18 wire for one-million-five on 2-22-03.

19 Was that also from the “Take 2” video?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So this trust account essentially controlled

22 the income and cash outflows for the FOX video, the

23 “Michael Jackson 2”; is that fair to say?

24 I mean, this trust account reflects income

25 and expenses for the FOX video that’s known as

26 “Michael Jackson “Take 2””?

27 A. It reflects the money coming in from FOX.

28 It reflects expenditures going out, some of which 10109

1 were expenses relating to “”Take 2”,” some of which

2 were expenses relating to, you know, the Granada

3 litigation, the engagement of Mr. Geragos, et

4 cetera. So it’s not all expenses relating to

5 “”Take 2”.”

6 Q. Okay. Moving down a little bit, we see,

7 let’s see here, an outgoing wire to Ken H.

8 Finkelstein, $560,000.

9 What was that for?

10 A. That was at the instruction of Mr. Konitzer

11 and Mr. Weizner.

12 Q. What was it for?

13 A. Mr. Finkelstein, as an attorney, was going

14 to assume the primary responsibility for the rest of

15 these proceeds.

16 Q. Okay. And did you talk to Mr. Finkelstein?

17 A. I believe the answer is yes. I don’t

18 remember the specific conversation, but I know I did

19 have a conversation or two with Mr. Finkelstein.

20 Q. Okay. Did you ever meet Mr. Finkelstein?

21 A. No.

22 Q. There’s another outgoing wire here, 3-25,

23 1,400,000 for Mr. Finkelstein.

24 Do you know what that was for?

25 A. Same as the 560.

26 Q. So it was the understanding that Mr.

27 Finkelstein was going to undertake the management of

28 this $560,000 disbursement and $1,400,000 10110

1 disbursement on behalf of your client, correct?

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

3 evidence; foundation.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m asking if that’s the

5 case.

6 THE WITNESS: That’s the way I understood it

7 from Mr. Konitzer.

8 THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.

9 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And we have — moving

11 down, we also have, just as an example, another

12 sizeable incoming wire, 566,000, from Alfred Haber.

13 Mr. Haber is the foreign rights distributor

14 for the “Take 2” video; isn’t that true?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So there was $3 million from FOX, plus

17 additional hundreds of thousands of dollars that

18 came in from foreign sources, correct?

19 A. Ultimately, yes. It came from Haber.

20 Q. Marketing the video overseas?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And everything’s accountable. In other

23 words, I should say everything is accounted for – is

24 that fair to say – in your basic accounting here, in

25 terms of dollars and cents.

26 A. I think the numbers add up, yes.

27 Q. And you sent this to Mr. Jackson?

28 A. Yes. 10111

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: We no longer need the

2 Elmo, Your Honor. Thank you.

3 Q. Mr. LeGrand, are you aware of whether or not

4 the covenants and conditions of the Bank of America

5 loan allow Mr. Jackson to funnel moneys such as

6 these that were held in the Fire Mountain account in

7 the manner in which they were disbursed?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

9 relevance.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: He said he reviewed these

11 documents.

12 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you review the

14 covenants and conditions of the Bank of America

15 loans?

16 A. Eventually, yes.

17 Q. And those loans prevent Mr. Jackson from

18 having a company like Fire Mountain, LLC, which

19 would effectively conceal funds coming into his

20 possession, profits. Those covenants and conditions

21 are in violation of that loan, aren’t they?

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

23 relevance; Court order.

24 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

25 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know if the

26 covenants and conditions of the Bank of America loan

27 has a proscription, a rule against Mr. Jackson

28 engaging in a company, starting an LCC like Fire 10112

1 Mountain as a profit enterprise? Do you know of

2 that?

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

4 relevance.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 You may answer.

7 THE WITNESS: I don’t know today. I would

8 have to look at the loan covenants. They were

9 pretty detailed.

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You have no

11 recollection of whether there’s a loan covenant that

12 prevents that?

13 A. The company in question was a subsidiary of

14 MJJ Productions. It was not a new company started

15 by Michael Jackson.

16 It’s really a complex question, sir, and I

17 would need — to give you a proper answer, I would

18 need to review the document.

19 Q. Did you form Fire Mountain, LLC, to hide

20 funds from the Bank of America?

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;

22 relevance.

23 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Tell me,

25 who is Royalty Advance Funding?

26 A. I’m not sure who Royalty Advance Funding is.

27 But I met a person who I believe was associated with

28 Royalty Advance Funding and discussed a proposal for 10113

1 a pledge of royalties, just as the name suggests, a

2 pledge of royalties in exchange for a loan.

3 Q. And that individual’s name was Parviz?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. All right.

6 A. That’s right.

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may approach, Your

8 Honor.

9 THE COURT: Yes.

10 Q. Mr. LeGrand, I show you People’s Exhibit No.

11 422 in a notebook. It appears to have multiple

12 pages.

13 Have you ever seen the letterhead that is

14 depicted on the first page of that group of

15 documents?

16 A. I have no specific recollection of this

17 letterhead. It’s possible I’ve seen it, but I don’t —

18 Q. Okay. I’m showing you page two of that

19 document. There appears to be a signature in the

20 lower right-hand corner. Do you recognize that

21 signature?

22 A. Looks like Michael Jackson’s signature.

23 Q. Are you familiar with Michael Jackson’s

24 signature?

25 A. Not extensively. But I’ve seen him sign

26 documents, yes.

27 Q. On numerous occasions?

28 A. Reasonably often. 10114

1 Q. Looking at the third page, there appears to

2 be a signature at the bottom of the page. Does that

3 appear to be Michael Jackson’s signature?

4 MR. MESEREAU: No foundation, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you feel that you

7 can recognize Michael Jackson’s signature when you

8 see it? I’m not asking you as an expert. I’m just

9 asking you for a personal opinion.

10 A. I think so.

11 Q. How many times have you seen Mr. Jackson

12 sign documents?

13 A. Half dozen to a dozen maybe.

14 Q. How many documents have you seen with

15 Michael Jackson’s signature on them?

16 A. More than a dozen.

17 Q. A hundred?

18 A. I would say shy of 100, sir.

19 Q. Something close to 100; would that be fair?

20 A. It could be. We had many, many documents

21 that I looked at over a period of time.

22 Q. All right. I’ll resubmit the same question

23 to you. On page three, the lower right-hand corner,

24 does that appear to be Michael Joe Jackson’s

25 signature?

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. 10115

1 THE WITNESS: It appears to be his signature.

2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. The next

3 page, also Mr. Jackson’s signature?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. There are initials on the following page.

6 Have you ever seen Mr. Jackson’s initials?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do those appear to be his initials?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Foundation.

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

12 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: The following page,

13 another signature.

14 Does that appear to be Michael Jackson’s

15 signature?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I’m skipping ahead one page.

18 Does that appear to be Michael Jackson’s

19 signature on that page?

20 A. It certainly could be. It’s somewhat

21 different than the others, though.

22 Q. Does he often sign his name a little

23 differently?

24 A. I’ve seen documents that vary somewhat in

25 the size of the signature. I’ve seen it, you know,

26 take up a third of a page, and the loops are

27 sometimes a little different. I’m not an expert in

28 handwriting, sir. 10116

1 Q. In reviewing Mr. Jackson’s financial

2 condition, did it come to your attention that he

3 ever possessed or loaned — was loaned money by

4 Royalty Advance Funding?

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope;

6 relevance; Court order.

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You said that you were

9 thinking about obtaining a loan or there was some

10 discussion with Mr. Parviz about obtaining a loan on

11 Mr. Jackson’s behalf from Royalty Advance Funding?

12 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Relevance;

13 Court order.

14 THE COURT: Sustained.

15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If Mr. Jackson had

16 obtained a loan — I’ll move on. I’ll move on.

17 All right. Let’s talk about some of the

18 parties.

19 Did you meet — I’m sorry, I believe you

20 mentioned that you met Marc Schaffel?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And where was — where did you first meet

23 Marc Schaffel?

24 A. At his residence in Calabasas.

25 Q. Okay. Did you ever have a discussion with

26 Marc Schaffel about releases?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Did you ever have a discussion with Marc 10117

1 Schaffel about a script of questions that was to be

2 asked the Arvizo family, or the Arvizos?

3 A. I don’t remember a script discussion.

4 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Schaffel

5 matters over the phone?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you ever have a phone conversation with

8 Mr. Schaffel where you discussed questions which

9 might be propounded to the Arvizo family during

10 their filming for the “Take 2” video?

11 A. I don’t remember a conversation with Marc

12 Schaffel where I enumerated a list of questions or

13 we discussed specific questions that should or

14 shouldn’t be asked of the Arvizos.

15 I — we had — Mr. Jackson — we had engaged

16 Mark Geragos to deal with anything that had

17 relevance to potential criminal inquiries or

18 inquiries with regards to, you know, custody of

19 children, because in that original spout of

20 publicity there were people saying, you know, his

21 children should be removed from his custody, et

22 cetera.

23 And, you know, I’m a corporate lawyer. So

24 my primary mission was to engage Mr. Geragos — or a

25 part of the mission was to engage someone like Mr.

26 Geragos to provide advice and assistance with

27 respect to those types of matters. And to me,

28 largely, the matters relating to what the — whether 10118

1 the Arvizos should be in a video or anything of that

2 sort was more Mr. Geragos’s venue than mine.

3 Q. Okay. My question is, did you ever — well,

4 maybe we should start it this way: Did you ever

5 have a discussion with Marc Schaffel about the

6 Arvizos?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. How many times did you discuss the Arvizos

9 with Marc Schaffel?

10 A. I don’t know. I mean, several.

11 Q. More than five?

12 A. Hmm. I’m not sure.

13 Q. You previously testified that the concern

14 from the media about Michael Jackson sleeping with

15 young boys was one of the major concerns; is that a

16 fair paraphrasing of your testimony?

17 A. I don’t know. It was certainly significant.

18 Q. And was it also a subject of great interest

19 with the media, the subject of Gavin Arvizo in

20 particular?

21 A. I’m not sure that I can summarize what the

22 media’s — you know, where their attention was or

23 wasn’t focused at that time.

24 Q. You never had a discussion with any member

25 of the PR team that said, “Gavin Arvizo is somebody

26 everybody wants to know about,” something along

27 those lines?

28 A. It’s possible, but I don’t recall that 10119

1 specific conversation.

2 Q. Well, you saw the “Take 2” video, right?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. Was it obvious to you that the world would

5 want to know who this young boy is?

6 A. In the “Take 2” video?

7 Q. I’m sorry. I’m misspeaking. In the Martin

8 Bashir video. Was it obvious to you that the young

9 boy in that video, Gavin Arvizo, was going to be the

10 subject of inquiry by the media? Was that obvious

11 to you?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you said you had these discussions with

14 Mr. Schaffel, several, regarding the Arvizos. What

15 did you talk to Mr. Schaffel about the Arvizos?

16 A. I expressed to Mr. Schaffel my concern that

17 we needed, on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, to find a way to

18 wean the Arvizos away from Mr. Jackson.

19 Q. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr.

20 Schaffel about the Arvizos appearing in the “Take 2”

21 video?

22 A. I know I spoke to Mr. Schaffel about doing

23 some videotaping, but as to whether or not that

24 would ultimately be included in the “”Take 2”,” no,

25 I was not part of the editing. I played no role in

26 the editing of the film for the “Take 2” video.

27 Q. But you did talk to Mr. Schaffel about it,

28 correct? 10120

1 A. In general terms, yes.

2 Q. Did you ever talk to Mark Geragos about it?

3 A. I know I had conversations with Mark Geragos

4 about the “Take 2” video, the rebuttal footage that

5 was being included.

6 I don’t know that I specifically had a

7 conversation with Marc about the Arvizos being

8 included or not in that video.

9 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Jackson about the

10 “Take 2” video?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you ever talk to him about the Arvizos

13 being included in it?

14 A. No.

15 Q. You were aware that the Arvizos were

16 perceived as key players in the rehabilitation of

17 Michael Jackson in the “Take 2” video, weren’t you?

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Misstates the

19 evidence; no foundation.

20 THE COURT: Sustained.

21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Weren’t you aware that

22 the Arvizos could play a critical role in the “Take

23 2”?

24 video?

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; misstates the

26 evidence.

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s a question. I’m

28 not — 10121

1 MR. MESEREAU: They weren’t in it, Your

2 Honor.

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

4 Do you understand the question? Do you want

5 it read back?

6 THE WITNESS: Please.

7 (Record read.)

8 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember that we —

9 that I or other members of the legal team and the PR

10 team — I don’t remember a discussion where it was

11 said, “These are critical people and we have to have

12 them included in the video.”

13 Our focus — my focus in terms of the “Take

14 2” was the Bashir outtakes that Hamid had, because I

15 believe, as presented in “”Take 2”,” that those

16 revealed Martin Bashir to have been deceptive and

17 perhaps at least less than forthcoming in his

18 characterization in the Granada piece. That, to me,

19 was really the critical element of “”Take 2”.”

20 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: But that isn’t what the

21 media was upset about, was it? They were upset

22 about Gavin Arvizo and sleeping with children, true?

23 A. It’s hard for me to answer questions about

24 what the media was upset about, I’m sorry.

25 Q. Didn’t you read the newspapers at that time?

26 A. Sure, I read some newspapers at that time.

27 Q. Did you follow the Internet at that time?

28 A. When I had time, I tried to follow what was 10122

1 being put out by the media.

2 Q. Okay. And one of the things that the media

3 was clamoring about is Gavin Arvizo, and Michael

4 Jackson sleeping with boys, true?

5 A. I don’t — I don’t remember how much of it

6 was about Gavin Arvizo. There was certainly a lot

7 of fuss about the sleeping with boys.

8 Q. You’re aware that there was a press release

9 which indicated Janet Arvizo was going to be in the

10 “Take 2” video, weren’t you?

11 A. I might have been. I don’t recall that

12 press release today.

13 Q. Well, you’re aware that Brad Lachman

14 Productions expected Janet Arvizo to be in that

15 video, aren’t you?

16 A. I don’t know what Brad Lachman Productions

17 expected or did not expect.

18 Q. Did you provide your file on Michael Jackson

19 to anybody involved in this case?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Who?

22 A. I delivered my files to the then defense

23 attorneys back in — last year, to the Katten Muchin

24 law firm in particular.

25 Q. Okay. Did you meet with Steve Cochran?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Did you have a conversation with him?

28 A. Yes. 10123

1 Q. Did you converse about the facts as far as

2 your involvement in this part of Michael Jackson’s

3 life, your capacity as an attorney?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, there was a

6 period of privilege and then it was waived.

7 THE COURT: I’m sorry, I don’t understand

8 what you’re saying.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Yeah, okay. There was a

10 period where his communications were privileged and

11 then we waived it.

12 THE COURT: I understand.

13 MR. MESEREAU: So I can’t speak for Mr.

14 Cochran, but I can speak for myself.

15 THE COURT: Maybe I’m not getting the

16 significance. Do you want to approach and —

17 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.

18 THE COURT: I hear what you’re saying, but

19 I’m not understanding it.

20 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)

21 THE COURT: Go ahead.

22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.

23 Q. How many meetings did you have with Mr.

24 Cochran?

25 A. I think it was two. It might have been

26 three. But I think it was two.

27 Q. And did you turn over your complete files?

28 A. Best of my knowledge, yes. 10124

1 Q. Did you remove any documents from those

2 files?

3 A. I don’t recall removing any documents, no,

4 sir.

5 Q. Is it possible you removed some files, some

6 of those documents?

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for

8 speculation.

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll strike that.

10 Q. Did the documents that you turned over to

11 Mr. Cochran include billing statements?

12 A. I don’t know.

13 Q. Did it include your personal notes?

14 A. I don’t know. I mean, I turned over, I

15 think it was, five boxes. It was multiple boxes of

16 documents.

17 Q. Well, is it fair — go ahead and finish.

18 A. Yeah, I’m not sure what all was in there.

19 Q. Is it fair to say those documents in their

20 complete form would contain a number of pages of

21 personal notes that you took during your

22 representation of Mr. Jackson?

23 A. I don’t know. I’d have to look through the

24 boxes and see what’s in there. We had files in

25 numerous places. I had lawyers — sometimes we had

26 six different lawyers in my firm working on

27 Michael-Jackson-related matters.

28 Q. I’m asking about your personal notes. You 10125

1 do write personal notes when you’re representing a

2 client, correct?

3 A. Often.

4 Q. And you also have phone logs, true?

5 A. I’m not sure what you mean by a phone log,

6 sir.

7 Q. Well, don’t you charge by the hour?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So you have billable hours, right?

10 A. Yeah. I keep time sheets, yes, sir.

11 Q. When you’re on the phone dealing with the

12 client’s matters you’re billing for it, correct?

13 A. Generally, yes.

14 Q. So you keep notes of that?

15 A. Yeah. I keep time sheets, yes.

16 Q. So otherwise, you can’t bill for it?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And your complete files should include all

19 those time sheets, correct?

20 A. I don’t remember whether the time sheets

21 were included or not. My time sheets generally are

22 converted into an electronic billing statement. And

23 so I don’t generally keep the — my handwritten — I

24 don’t even know where they go sometimes. I give

25 them to a secretary.

26 Q. When you talk to your client over the phone,

27 isn’t it part of an attorney’s duties to keep

28 detailed notes of what his client is informing him 10126

1 to do so he can go back and refer to those notes in

2 case there is some kind of conflict?

3 A. Yeah. No, it’s prudent practice to keep

4 notes, and I do keep notes. I just don’t know

5 whether the notes were — ended up in what was

6 delivered to Mr. Cochran’s law firm or not.

7 Q. Okay. I guess my next question is, where

8 are your notes?

9 A. I don’t know. I moved from Hale Lane, and

10 I — I — I honestly don’t know where those notes

11 are. I’d have to go to Las Vegas and look.

12 Q. You have no idea where your notes are

13 concerning personal conversations that you had with

14 Michael Jackson when you represented him?

15 A. No, I’m really not. I think — I know I

16 have — some of my notes are in a couple of boxes

17 that I have because files moved with me to my new

18 law firm.

19 Q. So are you saying that the files that you

20 provided to Steve Cochran are incomplete and that

21 you withheld some of the documents, including

22 personal notes?

23 A. They — I don’t know whether they include my

24 personal notes or not. I would be pleased to look

25 through what Mr. Cochran has and make that

26 assessment. I don’t know today. That was close to,

27 you know, nine months ago.

28 Q. Did you just testify that you have in your 10127

1 possession some personal notes in your new office?

2 A. Yes, I have some of my notes.

3 Q. From the Michael Jackson case?

4 A. Oh, I don’t know whether they’re from the

5 Michael Jackson case or not.

6 Q. Did you ever perceive the Arvizo family as a

7 liability to Michael Jackson?

8 A. I perceived the Arvizo family as a potential

9 liability to Mr. Jackson.

10 Q. And Mr. Jackson engaged in a lawsuit against

11 Granada, correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you desired to have the Arvizos join in

14 that matter; isn’t that true?

15 A. It was not my personal decision and desire

16 that they be included. I had, you know, engaged

17 some very prominent, reputable barristers,

18 solicitors, lawyers, to evaluate the best approach

19 to suing Granada, and there was certainly

20 consideration that the claims against Granada could

21 be enhanced if the Arvizos were included as

22 complainants.

23 Q. No release was ever obtained for Gavin

24 Arvizo in the Martin Bashir film, was there?

25 A. I don’t believe so. I agree with you, and

26 that’s my belief. There was never a release to

27 Granada.

28 Q. And are you aware that Michael Jackson 10128

1 arranged to have Gavin, Star, and his sister come to

2 Neverland Ranch without their mother to film that

3 segment of the Martin Bashir video?

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Are you aware that

7 Gavin was filmed as part of the Martin Bashir video?

8 A. Yes. I’ve seen the Martin Bashir video and

9 Gavin was in it.

10 Q. And Martin Bashir filmed Gavin talking about

11 his cancer, correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And as far as you know, his mother never

14 authorized Mr. — or Gavin Arvizo to appear in that

15 video?

16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Isn’t that what you

19 litigated with Granada, the fact that — one of the

20 facts that you were litigating involved Gavin’s —

21 or the failure to obtain a release from Gavin or his

22 mother? Isn’t that one of the issues that you

23 sought to bring to bear on Granada concerning this

24 lawsuit?

25 A. Again, I have trouble with the lawsuit and

26 the complaints before the Standards Board, the

27 Broadcasting Board. I know for certain that was a

28 concern and a claim made in the complaint to the 10129

1 Broadcasting Standards Board. I just don’t remember

2 whether that was also in the litigation. It’s —

3 Q. Did Michael Jackson express any concern

4 about having Gavin’s face blanked out before the

5 airing of the Martin Bashir video?

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Beyond the scope;

7 relevance.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 You may answer.

10 THE WITNESS: Michael generally was

11 concerned about the images of the children, not just

12 his children, but the children.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m asking you if he

14 ever expressed specifically a concern about having

15 Michael — about having Gavin Arvizo’s face blanked

16 out in that film.

17 A. I don’t recall that — Mr. Jackson making

18 such a specific statement to me.

19 Q. Was it something you attempted to negotiate

20 with Granada?

21 A. I don’t know.

22 Q. Did it occur to you when you saw that video

23 that Gavin’s appearance in that video could be quite

24 traumatic to a 13-year-old boy?

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

26 THE COURT: Sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you have any

28 concern about Gavin Arvizo in terms of having his 10130

1 face blotted out on the Martin Bashir video?

2 A. I think the subject — and I’m not certain.

3 I think the subject came up in one of the

4 teleconferences with the UK team. We were on a very

5 short timeline to present a demand to Granada. The

6 film was supposed to air on Monday, and we were

7 trying to organize ourselves as the legal

8 representatives over that weekend —

9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to the

10 narrative.

11 THE WITNESS: Sorry

12 THE COURT: All right. Sustained.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: At some time in your

14 attempts to keep the Arvizo family on board with

15 this lawsuit, did you offer Janet Arvizo money?

16 A. I don’t know. I don’t — I don’t — I don’t

17 remember offering her money. I only spoke with her

18 once or twice. But I remember there were

19 discussions about providing money for the Arvizos.

20 And it wasn’t just, you know, for the video. It was

21 goodwill and —

22 Q. Janet Arvizo was never paid a dime for the

23 video; isn’t that true?

24 A. What video?

25 Q. The video that she made, that was taken of

26 her by Hamid and Schaffel.

27 A. I don’t know.

28 Q. Okay. You know — 10131

1 A. I’m not aware of anything.

2 Q. Okay. There was never any intention to give

3 her money, as far as you know, for her appearance in

4 that video; is that fair to say?

5 A. There was — I had a conversation with Mark

6 Geragos at one point about doing something

7 economically to help the Arvizos. Whether it was

8 getting them an apartment with, you know, prepaid

9 rent, some sort of economic accommodation to them.

10 Q. I’m talking about the video.

11 A. I do not recall any specific conversation of

12 a payment for the appearance in the video.

13 Q. And did you not offer Janet Arvizo, through

14 her attorney, Mr. Dickerman, $25,000 to stay on as

15 plaintiffs in the Granada lawsuit?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. You do recall that now?

18 A. I do recall that, yeah.

19 Q. You also offered to take care of all the

20 attorney’s fees in terms of litigating that lawsuit,

21 in addition to giving her $25,000; isn’t that true?

22 A. Yeah. I’m not sure it was the lawsuit. I

23 think that was the Broadcasting Standards Board

24 complaint.

25 Q. Okay.

26 A. Okay.

27 Q. These were both litigations over some kind

28 of money damages; is that fair to say? 10132

1 A. No, it’s not fair to say. The Broadcasting

2 Standards Board complaint process is not an economic

3 reward process. That is, if you are successful in

4 the complaint, there is no damage award.

5 Q. What’s the outcome?

6 A. Granada gets a — if a complaint is upheld,

7 the broadcaster is censured, or I believe there’s a

8 potential for fines, but it’s very rare.

9 Q. Okay. So you offered Janet Arvizo money

10 because you wanted Granada censured; is that true?

11 A. We wanted to — as a strategic matter, we

12 wanted to maintain both complaints before the

13 Broadcasting Standards Board, because we viewed that

14 as positive leverage in the lawsuit.

15 Q. Okay. And all positive leverage aside,

16 Janet Arvizo did not want Michael Jackson’s money,

17 did she?

18 A. I don’t know what Janet Arvizo did or didn’t

19 want.

20 Q. It was turned down. Your offer was turned

21 down; isn’t that true?

22 A. Well, that’s true.

23 Q. Okay. Would it be positive leverage to keep

24 Gavin, I guess, and Janet, the Arvizo family, in

25 that lawsuit because they were perceived as people

26 who were wronged in the filming of that video?

27 Isn’t that fair to say?

28 A. It was leverage because it was a good, 10133

1 strong, colorable claim in front of the Broadcasting

2 Standards Board.

3 Q. Do you disagree with what I said, that they

4 were perceived to be people who were wronged by that

5 action?

6 A. I don’t know how they were perceived. I

7 know we crafted a complaint and filed a complaint

8 that made allegations to that effect. I just — I

9 can’t answer about perceptions. I’m sorry.

10 Q. Well, you perceived it to be a situation

11 where the Arvizos had leverage, additional leverage

12 in this lawsuit because they suffered from it; isn’t

13 that true? Or do you disagree with that?

14 A. It was — again, I don’t — I don’t recall

15 their participation in the lawsuit. This was a

16 complaint before the Broadcasting Standards Board.

17 And there were two complaints filed. Originally

18 there was one complaint filed, and the Broadcasting

19 Standards Board said, “No, this is wrongly pled, and

20 the Arvizos’ complaint has to be a separate and

21 distinct complaint from Mr. Jackson’s complaint.”

22 So we filed a complaint — the UK lawyers filed a

23 complaint on behalf of the Arvizos before the

24 Broadcasting Standards Board.

25 Parallel, there is a lawsuit going on in a

26 court in England.

27 Q. I’m going to object to the narrative.

28 I would just ask you — I don’t want to 10134

1 quibble about lawsuits versus complaints, okay?

2 It’s the semantics. I want to know —

3 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike counsel’s

4 comments.

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Just trying to express my

6 question.

7 THE COURT: It’s stricken.

8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. I just want to

9 know that when an individual files a complaint with

10 the Broadcasting Standards Commission — is that the

11 name?

12 A. I think it’s a board.

13 Q. Okay. They don’t have a complaint unless

14 they’ve been wronged in some fashion; am I right in

15 that or am I wrong?

16 A. The complaint alleged that Granada acted

17 wrongly towards the Arvizos.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. Okay. Now, as far as Mr. Konitzer and Mr.

21 Weizner’s involvement with Mr. Jackson, you were

22 concerned about 960,000, you said, that was —

23 A. I think it’s —

24 Q. — that was disbursed to these two

25 gentlemen, correct?

26 A. Yes. I think it was 965, yes.

27 Q. Okay. 965. And you informed Mr. Jackson of

28 that, true? 10135

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And after you informed him of that, Mr.

3 Jackson fired you; is that true?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And one of the things that you did on your

6 own was to get — was to investigate all of the

7 people in Mr. Jackson’s inner circle?

8 A. Yeah, I don’t know about “all,” but —

9 Q. Some of the people?

10 A. Quite a few people, yes.

11 Q. Okay. And you informed Mr. Jackson of that

12 conduct, that you did that on your own, didn’t you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Well, actually, I think we — my partner,

16 Mr. Gibson and I, I think we informed Mr. Jackson

17 that we wanted to conduct background investigations

18 on various people. I’m not sure we gave him an

19 entire list, but we got general approval to engage

20 an investigative team and conduct some background

21 investigations.

22 Q. Okay. And he didn’t fire any of the people

23 that you did the background checks on, did he?

24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

25 THE COURT: Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know if he fired

27 any of the people that he did the background checks

28 on? That you did the background checks on, excuse 10136

1 me.

2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know if he fired

5 any of the people that you did the background checks

6 on within, say, a couple of months after you did the

7 background checks, or after you delivered that

8 information to Mr. Jackson?

9 A. I’m not aware that anyone was fired as a

10 result of the investigative reports.

11 Q. Okay. And —

12 THE COURT: Counsel, I’m — we have an issue

13 we have to take up. I’m just wondering how much

14 longer you have with this witness.

15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I don’t think I’m going to

16 finish this afternoon. I don’t have a lot left, but

17 it’s — it’s more than eight minutes.

18 THE COURT: All right. Then we’ll stop now.

19 So we’ll take up the other issue.

20 You may step down.

21 And the jury, I’ll excuse you until tomorrow

22 morning. I’ll see you at 8:30. Remember the

23 admonition.

24

25 (The following proceedings were held in

26 open court outside the presence and hearing of the

27 jury:)

28 10137

1 THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I’ve been

2 told there’s an issue you wish to take up.

3 MR. SANGER: There is. Could we ask —

4 Mr. Kopp is a lawyer who’s waiting outside. Could

5 we ask that he be —

6 THE BAILIFF: What’s his name?

7 MR. SANGER: Kopp. Shep Kopp.

8 With the Court’s permission, I’ll wait until

9 he gets in here so he can hear everything.

10 Your Honor, Mr. Kopp is with Mr. Geragos’s

11 law firm and he is here representing Mr. Geragos, my

12 understanding.

13 I have given to the bailiff an original

14 subpoena and return thereon, showing that Mr.

15 Geragos was subpoenaed to appear tomorrow. And I

16 would point out to the Court that we had earlier

17 subpoenaed him and had hoped to call him today.

18 “Today” being Thursday.

19 It turns out that he is in a jury trial.

20 The jury trial goes Monday through Thursday. He

21 indicated that the judge was not willing to let him

22 off for the purpose of being here today, and so

23 therefore we resubpoenaed him for tomorrow. That’s

24 the subpoena that the Court will have momentarily.

25 I think your clerk or your secretary is being kind

26 enough to make an extra copy for us.

27 Mr. Geragos has been struggling with the

28 duty to appear because, being in trial, he scheduled 10138

1 a number of things, including a preliminary hearing

2 tomorrow in another court. I had asked him to

3 please clear that and indicated that we would inform

4 this Court of his need to be here in case the judges

5 wanted to call Your Honor, or vice versa, in order

6 to clear that.

7 Thank you.

8 And I’ll just file the original, if we

9 could, please, with the clerk.

10 Thank you.

11 And a copy to counsel. And another copy for

12 Mr. Kopp.

13 To cut through all the nonsense and get

14 right down to the bottom line, we really need him

15 tomorrow at 8:30 or we need him Monday at 8:30. We

16 really cannot put it off any longer.

17 Mr. Kopp has indicated that — and, in fact,

18 Mr. Geragos told me on the phone this morning that

19 he would rather come on the 26th, or June

20 something-or-other. It does not work. And we’ve

21 tried to accommodate him, and I understand his

22 situation, but we just need to do something.

23 I believe that if this Court specifically

24 orders him to be here absolutely on Monday, that

25 that may help him clear his calendar. Or you could

26 order him tomorrow. But we are asking to enforce

27 the subpoena for either tomorrow or Monday. And I

28 gather what Mr. Kopp will tell you is that probably 10139

1 Monday is better than tomorrow, but we’re — we’ll

2 live with that. But we do need to enforce it

3 somehow or another.

4 I thought we should bring it to your

5 attention. We do not want to be here having to have

6 a body attachment issued and go through all that

7 unnecessarily. And if this Court’s order are

8 specific instructions to Mr. Kopp or a call to a

9 judge or willingness to receive a call to clear this

10 up, we would appreciate it.

11 Thank you.

12 THE COURT: Do you want to say anything, Mr.

13 Kopp?

14 MR. KOPP: I suppose I should, Your Honor.

15 I thought maybe we could resolve this maybe

16 through a phone call from Your Honor to the trial

17 court in Orange County.

18 THE COURT: They can’t hear you. You have to

19 speak into a microphone.

20 MR. KOPP: I’m sorry.

21 Good afternoon, Your Honor.

22 I thought maybe this could be resolved by

23 way of a phone call from Your Honor to the trial

24 court in Orange County, and I have those phone

25 numbers, and maybe this can all be worked out.

26 We’re doing our best to accommodate the

27 Court. The subpoena was just served yesterday.

28 Obviously there are many other matters scheduled, so 10140

1 we’re trying to comply.

2 THE COURT: Let me see the subpoena.

3 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I’d point out this

4 is our second subpoena.

5 THE COURT: As I understand, the subpoena is

6 for tomorrow. So I’ll order him to appear here at

7 8:30 a.m. tomorrow morning in accordance with the

8 subpoena.

9 MR. KOPP: Well, may I — if that is what

10 the Court is going to do, I mean, I guess I would

11 like to be heard on that and just make it known that

12 Mr. Geragos did have — there was two matters

13 scheduled in Van Nuys, one of which is a custody

14 matter. Those matters have been put over numerous

15 times. And there’s a preliminary hearing scheduled —

16 THE COURT: Now you know how citizens feel

17 in this community and every community in the state

18 when they’re called away from their employment by

19 attorneys in courts.

20 MR. KOPP: I —

21 THE COURT: Now we have a lawyer who wants

22 special accommodation. The answer is no. He’s been

23 subpoenaed. There’s no motion to quash. I expect

24 him here at 8:30 tomorrow morning.

25 MR. KOPP: Your Honor —

26 THE COURT: That will give me time to get the

27 warrant out when he doesn’t appear so he’ll be here

28 Monday for sure. Because I expect him to be here 10141

1 tomorrow morning.

2 MR. KOPP: Well, I — I don’t mean to ask

3 for special treatment, Your Honor, but what I do

4 want to ask for is professional courtesy. And I

5 think subpoenaing somebody two days before they’re

6 scheduled to appear is not sufficient notice,

7 particularly given the fact that everyone in this

8 courtroom, I believe, is aware of the fact that Mr.

9 Geragos has been in this trial and has numerous

10 matters scheduled. So I’m not — I don’t mean —

11 THE COURT: We’re aware, you know, that he’s

12 a very busy attorney. It’s the same with any

13 citizen who’s subpoenaed. It’s the same with the

14 jurors that are called to testify.

15 Now, the question is, does the present

16 employment of the person overcome the immediacy of

17 the subpoena? And it’s always the immediacy of the

18 subpoena that overcomes. It doesn’t — it’s no

19 different than if we subpoenaed a deputy sheriff or

20 a mechanic, or a child victim. You know, this is a

21 subpoena he has to obey.

22 And, you know, I’m sure you’d be delighted

23 if you were the attorney asking your subpoena to be

24 enforced. So….

25 MR. KOPP: Well, if I was the attorney, I

26 would have served it more than two days before the

27 court date, but I’m not the attorney.

28 But that being said, I will convey the 10142

1 Court’s order to Mr. Geragos.

2 THE COURT: Thank you.

3 All right. I do want to see two of the

4 attorneys in chambers for a moment, that would be

5 Mr. Mesereau and Mr. Sneddon, with the court

6 reporter.

7 THE BAILIFF: Judge, do you plan to come

8 back out?

9 THE COURT: No, I’m not going to come back

10 out.

11 THE BAILIFF: Thank you.

12 THE COURT: This will just take a minute.

13 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

14 –o0o–

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10143

1 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

2

3

4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

5 OF CALIFORNIA, )

6 Plaintiff, )

7 -vs- ) No. 1133603

8 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, )

9 Defendant. )

10

11

12 I, MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR,

13 CSR #3304, Official Court Reporter, do hereby

14 certify:

15 That the foregoing pages 10004 through 10143

16 contain a true and correct transcript of the

17 proceedings had in the within and above-entitled

18 matter as by me taken down in shorthand writing at

19 said proceedings on May 12, 2005, and thereafter

20 reduced to typewriting by computer-aided

21 transcription under my direction.

22 DATED: Santa Maria, California,

23 May 12, 2005.

24

25

26

27 MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304

28 10144

Advertisements