1 is that all right?
2 A. Sure.
3 Q. Let’s begin with the very first letter on
4 this collection of documents that is marked 903.
5 And this letter is dated March 26th, 2003. Is this
6 a letter that you authored?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Is this a letter that you sent to Mr.
9 Dickerman -- excuse me, Mr. Geragos?
10 A. I had it messengered to Mr. Geragos.
11 Q. All right. And explain what you mean by
12 having had a messenger deliver it.
13 A. I or my secretary phoned Allstar Messenger
14 Service, which is the attorney service/messenger
15 service I’ve been using for about 15 years, put in
16 an order, filled out a form, had them come over,
17 told them to deliver it to Mr. Geragos, and they
18 took it.
19 Q. All right. In this particular letter dated
20 March 26th, 2003, do you refer to the passports and
21 visas belonging to your clients, the Arvizos?
22 A. Yes, in paragraph two at the bottom of the
23 first page.
24 Q. And the delivery service that you use and
25 have been using for 15 years, is it your experience
26 that they are reliable and responsible in delivering
27 letters?
28 A. I don’t think I’ve had a problem with them 12280
1 in delivering anything in 15 years, whether it’s
2 court documents or letters or anything else.
3 Q. Let’s please go to the next document on
4 here, and that’s the one -- it’s about four pages
5 in. It begins with “Allstar Messenger” is the
6 heading on the top. That, plus the next page after
7 that, what are those two documents?
8 A. The first document is my copy of the form
9 that was filled out and given to the messenger
10 service, along with the letter to be sent. So there
11 are, I believe, three pages of it. The first one
12 they take, and the last one is a pink copy. I have
13 the original here, and that is what I kept for my
14 files.
15 Q. And that also is dated March 26th, ‘03?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The second page is what, please?
18 A. The second page is the invoice from Allstar
19 Messenger Service for that delivery, reflecting that
20 I owe them $14.75 for delivering the letter to
21 Geragos & Geragos.
22 Q. All right. Move to the next page, if you
23 would, please. Is this a letter to Mr. Geragos as
24 well?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And is the date on this April 3rd, 2003?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. All right. In this letter, do you reference 12281
1 a prior letter that you sent him?
2 A. Yes, I referenced the March 26th letter that
3 I just testified about.
4 Q. And how was this letter, the April 3rd
5 letter, delivered to Mr. Geragos?
6 A. That was by fax. On my fax machine to his
7 fax machine.
8 Q. All right. Now, if you’ll turn to the next
9 page, the page right after the April 3rd, 2003,
10 letter, is that a facsimile transaction report?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Explain what that is, please.
13 A. Every time a fax is sent from my office, I
14 get a report showing that the fax was received or it
15 wasn’t received, and the reason if it wasn’t
16 received.
17 Q. All right. Is this generated by your fax
18 machine?
19 A. Yes, it is. It’s a machine that I had -- I
20 no longer have, but I had it for 10, 12 years.
21 Q. All right. Was it your experience that when
22 this machine tells you a fax has been transmitted,
23 that it actually had been?
24 A. Always.
25 Q. Did you ever have an occasion where the
26 machine told you the facsimile had been transmitted
27 and in fact it hadn’t?
28 A. Never. 12282
1 Q. Does this piece of paper now, and we’re
2 dealing with the one that says April -- April 3 at
3 6:16 p.m., does this indicate that the fax that you
4 had sent to Mr. Geragos on the 3rd of April in fact
5 had been transmitted?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And at what time of the day was that?
8 A. It says 6:16. The fax machine always ran a
9 couple minutes off, so it could have been 6:14 or
10 6:12, something like that.
11 Q. Go to the next page, please. Is the next
12 page a cover letter from Geragos & Geragos, a fax
13 cover sheet?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Does that contain Mr. Geragos’s fax number?
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. All right. Is that in fact the same fax
18 number that you sent the prior communication to?
19 A. Yes. It says that right on the transaction
20 report.
21 Q. All right. And in fact, all of your
22 communications sent to Mr. Geragos were sent to that
23 same fax number; is that correct?
24 A. Yes. That’s correct.
25 Q. Let’s move to the next page. Is the next
26 page a letter from Mr. Geragos dated April 6th,
27 2003?
28 A. Yes, it is. 12283
1 Q. All right. Now, that’s two sentences, is it
2 not?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would you read it out loud to us?
5 A. “Dear Mr. Dickerman: Thanks for your letter
6 of April 3, 2003” --
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay. The
8 letter -- the document speaks for itself.
9 THE COURT: It is speaking for itself. He’s
10 just reading it.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
12 THE COURT: That’s how it talks.
13 (Laughter.)
14 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.
15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Go ahead and please read it.
16 A. “Thanks for your letter of April 3, 2003.
17 Please give me a call so that we can make
18 arrangements.”
19 Q. Now, in your experience as an attorney, when
20 you get a letter back from somebody else who thanks
21 you for a letter dated a particular date, that tends
22 to suggest that they got that letter; is that right?
23 A. In my experience, always.
24 Q. All right. Now, going back to your letter
25 of April 3rd, 2003, let’s turn back a few pages, the
26 letter that he acknowledges that you received --
27 A. That I -- oh, sorry.
28 Q. Do you have it in front of you? 12284
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The letter of April 3rd, 2003, that he
3 acknowledges that you received, what -- in the first
4 sentence, what do you say in that letter?
5 A. “Dear Mr. Geragos: On March 26th, 2003, I
6 wrote you and asked that you deliver certain items
7 to my office by April 1.”
8 Q. You don’t have to go any further than that.
9 That letter that he acknowledged receiving
10 referred to the March 26th, 2003, letter, the one
11 that demanded the passports and the visas; is that
12 correct?
13 A. It’s the only letter I wrote on March 26th.
14 Q. All right. Now, let’s move on.
15 We left off with Mr. Geragos’s letter to you
16 that’s dated April 6th, 2003. Go to the next page,
17 please. Is that next page a letter from you to Mr.
18 Geragos dated April 8, 2003?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you refer to passports, visas and birth
21 certificates in that letter?
22 A. Yes. In the third paragraph.
23 Q. All right. How is this letter communicated
24 to Mr. Geragos?
25 A. By fax machine to the same number as the
26 others that I had faxed.
27 Q. And did you in fact keep a transaction
28 report from your fax machine indicating whether it 12285
1 had been successfully faxed?
2 A. Yes. That’s the next document.
3 Q. And that’s the next page; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That transaction report indicates what?
6 A. That on April 8th at 7:18 p.m., I faxed two
7 pages to Mr. Geragos’s fax number, and that it was
8 received.
9 Q. Okay. Let’s move on, please, to the next
10 page. The next page is a letter from you dated
11 April 9, 2003; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This is also a letter to Mark Geragos; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Was this letter faxed to him?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was that letter received by him, or at least
19 was it -- did your fax machine indicate that it went
20 through?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. In that letter of April 9, 2003,
23 do you reference passports, visas and birth
24 certificates?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Actually, you demand their return to your
27 client; is that correct?
28 A. Yes, I asked that he, quote, “immediately 12286
1 deliver to me,” along with the documents you just
2 mentioned, some other items.
3 Q. Now, the next page again, as we acknowledge,
4 was the transaction report on the fax machine?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Please now go to April 11, 2003. Is that
7 the next page?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is that a letter from you to Mr. Geragos?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was that faxed to him as well?
12 A. Yes. At the same number.
13 Q. And the transaction report indicates that
14 that letter was processed as well?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Please move to the next one. We now have a
17 letter from Mr. Geragos to you, April 15, 2003; is
18 that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And that is a letter from Mr. Geragos
21 that appears to be one sentence?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. What does that sentence read?
24 A. “We have retrieved various items from
25 storage and would appreciate your advising us as to
26 where they should be delivered.”
27 Q. Did Mr. Geragos up to this point, either by
28 telephone or in any other communication, indicate to 12287
1 you anything about passports belonging to your
2 clients, the Arvizos?
3 A. He -- in one conversation, I think it was on
4 March 31st, I asked him about passports and visas,
5 following up on the letter that -- well, when he
6 called me, because he wanted additional time to
7 respond to the March 26th letter, we talked about it
8 briefly. He didn’t exactly know what I was talking
9 about. I think he said that there were -- there
10 were passports around that he had heard of, but he
11 didn’t know what it was -- what that was about.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. I understood he was going to find out and
14 get back to me. He never did.
15 Q. Did he ever?
16 A. He never got back to me on that. He never
17 responded to any of my letters asking for any of
18 these items, except for items in the storage unit.
19 Q. Okay. Moving on to the next page, a letter
20 dated April 22, 2003 --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- is that a letter that you sent to Mark
23 Geragos?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And this letter is dated April 22nd, 2003.
26 Do you once again demand the return of their
27 possessions, including their passports?
28 A. Yes. 12288
1 Q. Was this letter delivered in some fashion to
2 Geragos & Geragos?
3 A. It was faxed at about 2:17 p.m. to the same
4 fax number as I previously stated, and it indicates
5 that it was received.
6 Q. Okay. Move on to the next page, a letter
7 dated May 12, 2003, from you to Mr. Geragos; is that
8 correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. All right. In this letter, do you fax this
11 letter to him?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did your fax report, the next page in
14 these documents, indicate that it was received?
15 A. Same as all the others, yes.
16 Q. Next letter, please, the next page. Is this
17 a letter from Geragos & Geragos, from Mark Geragos
18 to you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the date is May 15, 2003; is that
21 correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. In this letter, does he
24 acknowledge receipt of a prior letter from you?
25 A. Yes, my letter dated May 12th.
26 Q. Does he refer to passports at all?
27 A. No.
28 Q. Move to the next one, please. May 15, 2003. 12289
1 Is this a letter from you to Mr. Geragos?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in this letter, do you once again ask
4 him to return immediately your clients’ passports
5 and birth certificates?
6 A. Yes. And the last sentence of the second
7 paragraph, and you can see my frustration, because I
8 underlined “immediately,” and I had been getting no
9 response, so I was quite disturbed.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.
11 THE COURT: I’ll strike the -- after “Yes.”
12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: But the word “immediately”
13 is, in fact, underlined; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Now, did you send this by
16 facsimile?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you have a transaction report that
19 indicates it was, in fact, processed?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Can you tell us when this letter
22 was processed?
23 A. It says 4:33 p.m., May 15, to the same fax
24 number.
25 Q. I’m sorry?
26 A. To the same fax number.
27 Q. Okay. The next page is a fax cover sheet
28 from Mr. Geragos; is that correct? 12290
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the next page after that is a letter
3 from Mr. Geragos back to you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, the letter is dated, from Mr. Geragos
6 to you, May 17, 2003; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Please read to us the first sentence of that
9 letter.
10 A. “Thank you for your histrionic letter dated
11 May 15, 2003.”
12 Q. Are communications getting a little testy at
13 this point?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. But he acknowledges receiving the May
16 15, 2003, letter?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the May 15, 2003, letter specifically
19 demands the immediate return of your clients’
20 passports and birth certificates; is that true?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Let’s move on to the next, a letter from you
23 dated May 20, 2003. You sent that to Mr. Geragos?
24 A. Yes, by fax.
25 Q. By fax. Again, the same fax number?
26 A. Identical.
27 Q. All of these are to the same identical fax
28 number? 12291
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you, once again, have a transaction
3 report indicating that that letter was properly
4 processed.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. May 29, 2003, another letter from you to
7 Mr. Dick -- from you to Mr. Geragos; is that
8 correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Properly faxed that same day, May 29.
11 The next page is a letter from Mr. -- the
12 cover sheet of a fax from Mr. Geragos to you; is
13 that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And then the next page after that is a
16 letter from Mr. Geragos to you dated June 2nd, 2003?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. It references your letter of
19 May 29, 2003; is that correct?
20 A. In the first sentence.
21 Q. All right. Does not mention anything about
22 passports, does it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And finally, the last page of that is a
25 document that appears to be a fax to you from
26 Bradley Miller; is that correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And that’s dated June 12th, 2003; is that 12292
1 correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Up until this facsimile was sent to you by
4 Brad Miller, did they ever tell you where your
5 clients’ possessions were?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did Mr. Geragos or anybody from his office
8 ever acknowledge the fact that there were passports
9 that belonged to your client and were in his
10 possession?
11 A. No.
12 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.
13 I will move to admit -- excuse me. One more
14 second.
15 Q. Mr. Dickerman, the documents -- the copies
16 that you have before you that are the collection,
17 a complete -- let me do that one more time.
18 Exhibit 809 -- 803 --
19 A. 903.
20 Q. 903. It’s Friday, isn’t it? Thursday.
21 I’ll start again.
22 Exhibit No. 903, a collection of documents
23 that are, in fact, communications between you and
24 Mark Geragos, is this a complete collection of the
25 letters that were sent by you to Mr. Geragos and
26 returned from Mr. Geragos to you?
27 A. As far as I know, yes.
28 Q. And this is an accurate copy of each of 12293
1 these documents; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. ZONEN: I would move to introduce into
4 evidence Exhibit No. 903.
5 MR. MESEREAU: No objection.
6 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
7
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. MESEREAU:
10 Q. Mr. Dickerman, I’d like to refer you to
11 your letter which purports to be dated March 26th,
12 2003. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that letter signed?
15 A. This document does not bear a signature.
16 Q. Do you have a copy of a signed letter of
17 March 26th?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you normally sign letters that you send
20 as a lawyer?
21 A. Always.
22 Q. Why didn’t you sign this one?
23 A. I did sign the letter. This is a copy.
24 Q. Does anyone know where it is, a copy of the
25 signed letter?
26 A. I didn’t -- apparently I didn’t sign -- I
27 didn’t copy the signed letter. I probably ran a
28 duplicate from the printer. And I usually do not 12294
1 copy my signature because it’s easier to run a copy
2 from the printer than to go to the Xerox machine.
3 Q. Let’s look at your letter of April 3rd,
4 2003. Does that have a signature of you?
5 A. It does, because that was a document that
6 was faxed. That’s the exact copy of what was faxed.
7 Q. You’re suggesting that when you messenger
8 copies of your letters you don’t sign them, but when
9 you fax copies of your letters you do sign them?
10 A. No.
11 Q. What are you suggesting?
12 A. A document that is faxed is the exact
13 document with the signature. I made -- I have an
14 original of a letter that I mail or messenger, and
15 the original would be signed, and very often I don’t
16 copy the signature, but I run a second copy out of
17 the printer.
18 Q. Have you been in touch with the prosecutor
19 about these letters before you testified today?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did he ask you to look in your file to get
22 copies of your letters?
23 A. I’m not sure. But I told him I had copies
24 of my letters.
25 Q. Did he ask you to look in your file and look
26 at the copies of the letters you claim you sent to
27 Mark Geragos?
28 A. I don’t remember specifically. 12295
1 Q. So far, there is no copy you’ve been able to
2 find of a March 26th letter that you actually
3 signed, true?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Yet, we have other letters in this package
6 that you did sign, right?
7 A. That’s right. And as I explained, they are
8 copies of precisely the document that I faxed. I
9 would not fax a document without my signature.
10 However, I did messenger the document with my
11 signature.
12 Q. How do you know that if you don’t have a
13 copy of the signed letter?
14 A. Because I sign my letters before they go
15 out.
16 Q. Where is the copy?
17 A. I didn’t make a copy of my signature.
18 There’s no reason to make a copy of my signature.
19 The -- these copies are of faxes that were sent that
20 were faxed. They are faxed, obviously, with my
21 signature.
22 Q. When you make a demand letter like the
23 letter of March 26th on behalf of a client, do you
24 routinely sign the letter?
25 A. Always.
26 Q. Where is the signed copy?
27 MR. ZONEN: That’s argumentative.
28 THE COURT: Sustained. 12296
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t have a signed
2 copy, do you?
3 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me refer you to the
6 first page of your March 26th, 2003, letter. I’d
7 like to refer you to the last paragraph. It’s
8 number two. Do you see that?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. You say as follows: “The Arvizos demand
11 that Jackson immediately return to them,” and I want
12 you to look at Item B, “The papers they have signed,
13 including passport, visa applications, school
14 documents, documents in connection with the legal
15 action in Britain concerning ‘Living with Michael
16 Jackson.’” Do you see those words?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. Isn’t it true that later, after you sent
19 this letter, assuming you sent it, your client,
20 Janet Arvizo, denied ever authorizing a legal action
21 in Great Britain?
22 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as compound
23 and vague and exceeding the scope of the direct
24 examination.
25 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Microphone’s off.
26 MR. MESEREAU: He introduced it into
27 evidence, Your Honor.
28 MR. ZONEN: This letter’s been in evidence. 12297
1 THE COURT: Sustained. Exceeds the scope of
2 direct.
3 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
4 Q. Let me go to the next page, number four.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You asked for copies of any model release
7 your client, Janet Arvizo, signed involving footage,
8 right?
9 A. Can you point me to the line?
10 Q. Sure. Paragraph number four. One, two,
11 three, four, five -- I’d say at 5, 6 -- lines 5, 6
12 and 7 in paragraph number four.
13 A. Where it says, “Titled “This Model
14 Release’”?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Now, did you have a copy of a model release
18 when you wrote the letter?
19 A. I don’t remember.
20 Q. Did Janet Arvizo tell you she had negotiated
21 and signed a model release?
22 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of
23 the direct examination.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let’s go to the letter you
26 claim you sent to Mr. Geragos on April 8, 2003. Do
27 you see that?
28 A. Okay. 12298
1 Q. Let’s look at the first paragraph. One,
2 two, three -- well, the first complete sentence.
3 Excuse me, I’m sorry. The second complete sentence.
4 Could you please read that sentence to yourself?
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. You say in your letter to Mr. Geragos,
7 referring to the apartment, “She tells me that,
8 contrary to what you said about there being a
9 truckload, she had very few possessions, since she
10 lived in a bachelor apartment. She does not believe
11 that much, if any, furniture was removed.”
12 Was that what Janet Arvizo told you about
13 her address at Soto Street?
14 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of
15 the direct examination.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In that paragraph, are you
18 referring to the Soto Street address in East Los
19 Angeles?
20 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of
21 the direct examination.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me refer you to a
24 letter of April 11, 2003, that purports to be to
25 Mr. Geragos from you. Do you see that letter?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And in the second letter, you write, “My
28 clients have also learned that Mr. Jackson has 12299
1 produced or is producing and that FOX will broadcast
2 a program involving home videos or home movies.”
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did your client tell you that?
6 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of
7 the direct examination.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let’s move to a letter
10 from Mr. Geragos to you, which is signed and faxed
11 on April 15th, 2003. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Geragos says to you, “We have retrieved
14 various items from storage and would appreciate your
15 advising us as to where they should be delivered,”
16 right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you immediately advise him where to
19 deliver the items?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. Well, if you go back to previous letters,
23 and I don’t know which exactly they are without
24 going through and reading them, I had requested, on
25 numerous occasions, I believe, that Mr. Geragos give
26 us a list of what there was, and to tell us where it
27 was. And I had told him that what we were most
28 interested in were passports, visas, birth 12300
1 certificates and these other things that are
2 included in the March 26th letter that apparently he
3 says he didn’t receive, but that he acknowledges
4 having received in phone conversation and refers to
5 in subsequent letters.
6 It was obvious to me that he was skirting
7 the issue and trying to make the issue different
8 from what it was, which was to get back these items.
9 And we were not talking about the items in storage.
10 We were talking really about the passports, visas,
11 items of clothing that apparently were taken at
12 Neverland, and the other documents and tapes and
13 whatnot that was mentioned very specifically in
14 March 26th -- in the March 26th letter.
15 Q. Let me ask you the question again. You may
16 not have understood.
17 Mr. Geragos, on April 15th, says to you,
18 “We have retrieved various items in storage and
19 would appreciate your advising us as to where they
20 should be delivered.”
21 My question is, why didn’t you tell him
22 where to deliver them?
23 A. I’m just referring to these letters, because
24 I know there is voluminous correspondence here about
25 this specific issue.
26 Well, if you look at the April 22nd letter,
27 you’ll see I wrote, quote, “Your April 15” -- yes, I
28 had asked for these items to be delivered 12301
1 immediately. There was no reason for there to be
2 any discussion, any movement, any mailing, any
3 anything to get back the passports, visas, birth
4 certificates and those other materials.
5 Mr. Geragos never referred to those, except
6 in this one conversation that I referred to. He
7 never responded in these letters, and it was clear
8 he was dodging the issue. And I kept on writing to
9 him saying, “These are the things that we want,” and
10 I didn’t want him skirting the issue by dealing with
11 things that were not at issue.
12 And I wrote in that letter on April 22nd,
13 quote, “Your April 15 letter,” that’s the one you
14 just referred to, “ignores the specific requests and
15 refers simply to,” quote, “’various items,’” period,
16 close quote. “As to those referred to above, you
17 already have my instructions for delivery. I
18 demand, for the fourth time, that you comply with my
19 request,” period, close quote.
20 And then the second paragraph, here’s the
21 more specific answer to your question: Quote, “As
22 for any other items,” and that’s referring to, I
23 guess, the items that he was referring to in the
24 April 15 letter, “I repeat my request of March 26th
25 that,” quote, “’Jackson immediately provide a list
26 of all” -- “of all,” bracket, “my clients’,” closed
27 bracket, “personal property that he possesses or
28 controls or stored, whether it was left at 12302
1 Neverland, removed from my clients’ apartment, or
2 obtained in any other way. They also demand to know
3 the precise location of all such property, and the
4 identity, address and phone number of each person
5 with access and/or a key to any place where the
6 property is located.’”
7 And that’s a close quote, because I’m
8 quoting the March 26th letter.
9 And I continue, “In order to know what to do
10 with items other than those I have asked you
11 repeatedly to deliver to me,” and there I’m
12 referring to the passports, visas, birth
13 certificates and items of clothing, “my clients need
14 to know what and where it is. They have a right to
15 know, too,” period, close quote.
16 And then I go on to discuss something else.
17 Q. I understand --
18 A. Did that answer your question?
19 Q. No, it doesn’t. I understand all the
20 legalese in your letters. What I’m asking you is,
21 where do you tell them where to deliver the
22 material? Show me some place.
23 A. I didn’t tell them where to deliver the
24 materials.
25 Q. So he asked you where to deliver it, and you
26 would not respond?
27 MR. ZONEN: I believe the witness was
28 interrupted. 12303
1 THE COURT: It’s asked and answered.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did your client tell you
3 that no furniture was stored on her behalf? And I’m
4 referring to Janet Arvizo.
5 A. I don’t remember specifically, but if it’s
6 in the letter, then that’s what happened.
7 Q. Well, in your letter of May 12th, you still
8 haven’t told them where to deliver it, right?
9 A. As of May 12, he still hadn’t told us what
10 there was, where it was stored and who had stored
11 it. I asked him very specific questions since March
12 26th. I asked him for a list of what there was, who
13 had possession of it, where it was. They had a
14 right to know those things. And his intention to
15 just dump whatever he felt like dumping was not what
16 we were about. It was quite easy for him to tell us
17 where the stuff was. That’s what I wanted to know.
18 My client wanted to go out there and retrieve the
19 items, not to have them delivered, actually,
20 anywhere.
21 What I wanted delivered and what I told him
22 repeatedly, over and over and over again, was
23 deliver the passports, birth certificate, visas,
24 clothing, to my office.
25 Yes, he knew exactly where to send those
26 materials.
27 Q. And when you didn’t respond to his letter of
28 April 15th asking you where he should deliver the 12304
1 possessions, you knew exactly what you were doing,
2 didn’t you?
3 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You and your client were
6 trying to set up Mr. Jackson for a lawsuit, true?
7 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you have your
10 profit-sharing arrangement with Larry Feldman at
11 this time?
12 MR. ZONEN: Objection; argumentative.
13 THE COURT: Beyond the scope.
14 THE WITNESS: Could I respond to that?
15 THE COURT: No. It’s beyond the scope. Next
16 question.
17 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, could I correct a
18 statement that I made in previous testimony?
19 Because it seems to make a big difference here to
20 Mr. Mesereau.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I think, with all
22 due respect to the witness --
23 THE COURT: Next question.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. All right.
25 Q. Now, I’d like to refer you to Mr. Geragos’s
26 letter to you of May 15th, 2003. Do you have that
27 in front of you?
28 A. May 15th? 12305
1 Q. Yes. 2003.
2 A. Got it.
3 Q. And I’m referring you to -- excuse me, let
4 me start off -- let me withdraw the question.
5 First, Mr. Geragos indicates that your
6 landlord refused delivery of items, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it is true that your landlord did refuse
9 to accept items Mr. Geragos had arranged to deliver
10 to your office, correct?
11 A. Mr. Geragos had not arranged to deliver
12 anything to me at any time, any place. The
13 landlord -- well, I don’t know, “landlord.”
14 Landlord’s representative, the person that I deal
15 with at the property, left me a phone message about
16 some -- some things being attempted to be dropped
17 off. I got that at home, as I was observing -- or
18 at the end of observing a religious holiday, which
19 Mr. Geragos full well knew I was doing, because it
20 was on my answering machine, and told me that these
21 items were attempted to be delivered.
22 And I came back to the office the next day,
23 saw an e-mail, I believe -- I forget who it was
24 between, and I wrote an e-mail back to the office
25 manager named Salome Ahadi and told her -- she was
26 expressing some pique about this having happened
27 because no arrangements were made.
28 And I said to her, and I’m almost quoting, 12306
1 “I would apologize if I had any idea what this was
2 about.” And I said, “I knew nothing about it, made
3 no arrangements, made no agreement, have no
4 knowledge about it whatsoever.”
5 Q. Let me refer to your letter of May 12th,
6 2003, to Mr. Geragos.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Don’t you confirm in the first paragraph
9 that Mr. Geragos sent movers to your office with
10 furniture?
11 A. Yes, according to what the office manager
12 had told me. I don’t know for sure whether there
13 was furniture or what was involved.
14 Q. You didn’t know for sure?
15 A. I wasn’t there. I wasn’t there. As I say,
16 I got this phone message --
17 Q. Right --
18 A. -- and that’s it.
19 Q. Don’t you write the following, Mr.
20 Dickerman: “This then will serve to confirm that on
21 April 24th at about 9:30 a.m., you sent purported
22 movers to my office laden with a huge amount of
23 furniture and possibly other items that the movers
24 told the receptionist and building services
25 representatives I had directed and arranged to be
26 delivered”?
27 You confirm that an attempted delivery was
28 made of items and furniture, correct? 12307
1 A. It wasn’t from my personal knowledge, but
2 that’s what it says. That’s based on what I was
3 told at the office. I have no reason to believe
4 that that’s not correct.
5 And I go on, if you want to keep this in
6 context --
7 Q. Sir, I’ll --
8 A. -- to state that there was no such --
9 Q. I’ll ask the questions.
10 A. -- arrangement.
11 Q. I’ll ask the questions.
12 A. Well, if you want to get to the truth here,
13 Mr. Mesereau, instead of playing games --
14 Q. Mr. Dickerman --
15 A. -- I’ll be happy to explain all of this, and
16 then we can have a reasonable trial where the facts
17 come out instead of implications.
18 THE COURT: Just a minute, Counsel. You’re
19 not an advocate here. You’re a witness.
20 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Everyone understands what
22 position Mr. Mesereau is in and what position you’re
23 in. Now, I want you to listen to the questions and
24 answer the questions.
25 THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor.
26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Dickerman, when you
27 wrote these letters on behalf of Janet Arvizo, did
28 you think it was her right to decide what materials 12308
1 would stay in storage, paid by someone else, and
2 what materials you would accept when you felt like
3 accepting them?
4 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative and
5 compound.
6 THE COURT: You may answer the question. Do
7 you want it read back?
8 THE WITNESS: No, but I’m not willing to
9 waive the attorney work-product privilege. He’s
10 asking for my thoughts, and those are out of bounds,
11 as he well knows.
12 THE COURT: I think you need to listen to the
13 question.
14 Have the question read back.
15 (Record read.)
16 THE WITNESS: He’s asking for my thoughts.
17 My thoughts are my work-product. I’m not willing to
18 waive the privilege.
19 THE COURT: The work-product privilege
20 doesn’t apply in criminal cases. I know you’re a
21 civil attorney, so I’ll give you a little leeway
22 here.
23 THE WITNESS: I am. All right.
24 I’m sorry, could you read it back one more
25 time?
26 THE COURT: What I’m going to do, though, is
27 ask you to rephrase it so that I know the question
28 you’re attempting to ask. 12309
1 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Dickerman, in one of your earlier
3 letters to Mr. Geragos, you confirm your belief that
4 although there may be little furniture stored for
5 Janet Arvizo, there in fact may be some, correct?
6 A. You’d have to point me to the letter. I --
7 Q. Sure.
8 A. I don’t have the letters memorized.
9 Q. Okay. Let me refer you to your letter of
10 April 8th, 2003.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. In that first paragraph, referring to your
13 client, Janet Arvizo, you say that, “She does not
14 believe that much, if any, furniture was removed.”
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, did she tell you she did not believe
19 that much, if any, furniture was removed?
20 A. She must have, or I wouldn’t have put it in
21 the letter.
22 Q. Did you ever confirm whether or not any
23 furniture was removed from the Soto Street
24 apartment?
25 A. I’m not sure what the Soto Street apartment
26 is, so I guess the answer would be no.
27 Q. Wasn’t that the apartment that Janet
28 purported to live in? 12310
1 A. I don’t know about the address. I don’t
2 know the street name.
3 Q. Well, what -- what apartment are you
4 referring to in your letter?
5 A. An apartment that they lived in. I don’t
6 know that she ever referred to the address.
7 Q. And Janet Arvizo never told you where the
8 materials were taken from?
9 A. She told me they were taken from her
10 apartment, but I don’t know that there was any
11 reason to tell me an address, a street number or a
12 street name. Or maybe she did and I just don’t
13 recall it. The name of the street was not
14 important.
15 Q. Was the purported home of Janet Arvizo,
16 where materials were taken, allegedly, against her
17 will, important to you?
18 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
19 argumentative and irrelevant.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you saying under oath
22 you didn’t know what the address was of the
23 apartment where possessions were supposedly taken
24 from?
25 A. I may have known then. I don’t remember
26 now. The name is not familiar to me.
27 Q. Did you review your file before you agreed
28 to testify today for the prosecution? 12311
1 A. I didn’t review my file. I made copies of
2 the documents that have been put in evidence.
3 Q. How many meetings have you had with any
4 representative of the prosecution before testifying
5 today?
6 A. I don’t know what you mean by “meeting.”
7 I was upstairs in the room awaiting testimony. And
8 Mr. Zonen came up and I gave him these documents.
9 If that’s a meeting, I don’t know. One today and
10 one before the last time I testified. And I
11 testified to Mr. Sneddon -- meeting Mr. Sneddon,
12 gosh, I don’t know, two years ago, or a year and a
13 half ago.
14 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as to irrelevant,
15 anything beyond the prior testimony, and asked and
16 answered.
17 THE COURT: Overruled. You interrupted the
18 witness.
19 I’m not sure you had completed your answer.
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don’t know what you
21 mean by a “meeting.” A meeting can be defined as
22 two people in the same room together.
23 I never had a meeting for the purpose of
24 discussing testimony or reviewing documents.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t know how to
26 define the word “meeting”?
27 A. As I said, a meet -- you define it and I’ll
28 tell you whether I had them. 12312
1 As I said, I was with Mr. Zonen for a couple
2 of minutes upstairs. If that’s a meeting, then,
3 yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Zonen today. And I
4 had a meeting with him the time -- before I
5 testified last time.
6 And I met with Mr. Sneddon long before there
7 was a case, I guess. But a long, long time ago.
8 Just an introductory meeting, you know. I -- I
9 think that’s it.
10 Q. Well, Mr. Dickerman, in this series of
11 correspondence with Mr. Geragos, you were
12 threatening to sue Mr. Jackson on behalf of the
13 Arvizos for a number of things, including
14 withholding possessions from Ms. Arvizo that were
15 taken from an apartment, correct?
16 A. You’d have to point me to that.
17 Q. Well --
18 A. I don’t know that I ever threatened to sue
19 Mr. Jackson on behalf of the Arvizos for anything.
20 Q. Let’s go to your first letter, then, on the
21 26th. Do you see that letter, the one that you
22 didn’t sign?
23 A. I signed it.
24 Q. Okay. You just don’t have a copy. The one
25 you claim you signed, but there is no copy, correct?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. Okay. Let’s look at the last paragraph. It
28 says, “The Arvizos expect Jackson to comply with the 12313
1 demand to cease contacting and intimidating them
2 immediately. His failure to heed this demand will
3 force my clients to seek a civil restraining order
4 and perhaps to vindicate their rights in other
5 ways.”
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You’re not threatening a lawsuit?
8 A. Well, when you say “a lawsuit,” I think of
9 actually a civil -- a full-blown civil action. To
10 get a restraining order is -- I guess technically
11 it’s a lawsuit, but it’s a quick thing. You go down
12 to court, you put in a declaration, perhaps have
13 some testimony, and it’s done really quickly.
14 Q. But, sir, it says, “They may seek a civil
15 restraining order and perhaps to vindicate their
16 rights in other legal ways,” right?
17 A. That’s correct. And it’s purposefully vague
18 there. I didn’t threaten a lawsuit. “Other legal
19 ways” meaning anything that we can legally do is a
20 possibility, sure.
21 Q. Like what, for example?
22 A. Well, there --
23 Q. That isn’t a lawsuit?
24 A. There’s a writ of possession. You can’t do
25 anything without actually filing a Complaint or a
26 Petition. In order to get a court order, as you
27 well know, having practiced civil law yourself, you
28 need to file some kind of an action. You can call 12314
1 that a lawsuit. You can call it an action. You can
2 call it -- I believe the civil procedure refers to a
3 number -- I think the Code of Civil Procedure refers
4 to a number of different kinds of action.
5 So as I say, when I refer to a lawsuit, when
6 I ask somebody, “Do you want to file suit?” I’m
7 talking about a full-blown civil action with causes
8 of action that you eventually go to trial on to
9 recover, usually, damages for your client.
10 Saying various other legal ways could have
11 been, as I say, a writ of possession, which is, yes,
12 you have to file some kind of a Complaint or a
13 Petition, or whatever else there was.
14 There was no decision made here as to what
15 was going to be done, so to say “other legal ways”
16 leaves open anything that my clients decided to do.
17 Q. Including lawsuits, true?
18 A. Sure.
19 Q. That’s your first letter, right?
20 A. My first letter to Geragos.
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Was that the first letter you ever wrote to
24 anyone on behalf of Janet Arvizo?
25 A. I think so.
26 MR. ZONEN: I will object as exceeding the
27 scope of the direct.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in. 12315
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, when you first met
2 your client, Janet Arvizo, you didn’t ask about the
3 address of the apartment that she was complaining
4 about?
5 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, let me refer you to a
8 letter from Mark Geragos to you of May 15th, 2003.
9 Do you see that letter?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Mr. Geragos writes the following to you:
12 “Since it appears that you are not equipped nor
13 willing to receive the property at your office, we
14 suggest that a simple matter in which to resolve
15 this situation is for your client to assume the $100
16 a month charge for the rental units in which the
17 property is being stored.” Do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you agree to that in your next letter?
20 A. You’re referring to the May 15 letter in
21 which I say, quote, “You seem to believe that if
22 you repeat or imply a falsehood often enough it will
23 be believed.” Is that --
24 Q. That’s correct. Did you think it was false
25 that he said the unit cost $100 a month?
26 A. No. What I was referring to was his
27 statement that we had somehow agreed, or that he was
28 acting properly in having these materials deposited, 12316
1 or he tried to deposit them at my office, when there
2 was no arrangement, when he knew that I was out for
3 a religious holiday, and we had no agreement
4 whatsoever, and he had never responded to any of the
5 requests to know what there was, where it was, who
6 had possession of it.
7 Q. Now, the day you learned that Mr. Geragos
8 had a mover appear at your office, did you call him
9 back and say, “I’m back in the office. Let’s
10 arrange to deliver it at a certain location”?
11 A. No. What I did was carry on correspondence
12 with Mr. Geragos. I believe at one point, and I
13 think there’s a letter here, that when it turned out
14 that he was being totally deceitful and dodging and
15 not responding, I believe I told him that we should
16 have no further communications orally, but that
17 everything should be in writing.
18 The reason these things are in writing,
19 which I usually -- I just never had an experience
20 with anybody where there’s this series of letters to
21 get an answer to a question.
22 The reason for this writing is just to
23 document the impossibility of getting him to do what
24 I had asked him to do so many times, which was a
25 simple request: Give us the passports, the visas,
26 the birth certificates. In fact, the other
27 materials were not that critical. What my clients
28 wanted were the passports, birth certificates, 12317
1 visas, the other documents that were very specific.
2 Q. Did your client prefer that someone else
3 continue to store the furniture at their own
4 expense?
5 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered
6 and argumentative.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In any of these letters,
9 do you tell Mr. Geragos where to deliver the
10 furniture?
11 THE COURT: Counsel, that’s asked and
12 answered.
13 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
14 Q. Let me refer you again to the paragraph on
15 the Geragos letter to you of May 15th, 2003. He
16 asked you on that date --
17 A. I’m sorry, what date?
18 Q. I’m sorry, May 15th, 2003.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Mr. Geragos says, “Since we have not been
21 able to resolve this,” he asks if your client will
22 assume the $100 a month charge for the rental units,
23 right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what was your response to that?
26 A. Well, that same day I responded to him
27 detailing his lie about having had an arrangement to
28 drop off those materials. 12318
1 And then I said, in the next paragraph,
2 quote, “I will consider your suggested resolution
3 once you comply with my previous requests that you
4 provide a list of all items you intend to,” quote,
5 “deliver,” period, close quote.
6 “I was told there was a massive amount of
7 furniture in your,” quote, “’delivery,’” close
8 quote, “while my clients, who lived in a bachelor
9 apartment, had very few possessions and little, if
10 any, furniture. Your client, thorough deception,
11 makes mine understandably reluctant to take his or
12 your word for anything. I’d also like you to
13 deliver immediately,” underlined, “my clients’
14 passports, birth certificates, and the clothing
15 items previously described.”
16 And there, in the final paragraph, is my
17 request that he not communicate with me in any way
18 but writing, because I did not want any more -- I
19 hate to say this about another lawyer. I did not
20 want any more lies. And if they were in writing,
21 I didn’t think that he was going to lie, although he
22 continued to do so.
23 Q. I understand. Let me reask my question
24 again.
25 In your response to Mr. Geragos, Mr.
26 Dickerman, do you ever tell him, one, where to
27 deliver the items, or two, that your client will
28 assume the cost of representing the unit? Anywhere 12319
1 in all your verbiage, do you say anything about
2 either of those issues?
3 A. Yeah. I said once he complies with my
4 previous requests -- I don’t know if there’s a
5 problem. Is the microphone on? Maybe you’re not
6 hearing me. It says -- well, now it’s not. Oop, is
7 it on now?
8 It says that once he complies with my
9 previous requests made over a period of, let’s see,
10 March, April, May, almost two months, that I would
11 be happy to do what he wanted.
12 Again, my clients’ immediate concern was not
13 to get the items back from the vault. That was not
14 the big deal.
15 Q. And does your client care about who paid to
16 store them?
17 A. My client agreed subsequently to pick up the
18 tab once they knew where the items were, absolutely.
19 Q. Months later, correct?
20 A. I don’t believe so.
21 Q. Well, let’s keep going, okay?
22 A. Excuse me, just to complete the answer --
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. -- the final paragraph of that May 15 letter
25 says, quote, “Finally, your blatant dishonesty
26 regrettably compels me to instruct you to act only
27 on my written authorization, instruction or
28 agreement.” 12320
1 Q. I understand all the words.
2 What I’m trying to find out is, two months
3 after your March 26th letter, you’ve never told him
4 where to deliver the items and you’ve never agreed
5 to have your client pay the costs of storage, true?
6 A. Well, he asked about the cost of storage
7 later on, and --
8 Q. Can you answer my question?
9 A. Yeah, of course.
10 Q. Please do.
11 A. The letters say what they say. But to make
12 it sound like I was dodging --
13 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as
14 nonresponsive to the question.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, let’s go -- let’s
17 keep going and see if you ever tell him where to
18 deliver the material, okay?
19 We’ve got a letter that you sent him on
20 May 20th, 2003, right? Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That’s approximately two months since your
23 first letter of March 26th, 2003, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Have you still told him where to deliver
26 anything?
27 A. You’re referring to the letter in which I
28 say, “My clients are willing to assume payment for 12321
1 storage of their possessions”?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. And the one where I say, “I ask that you
4 provide the precise location of all such property,
5 and the identity, address and phone number of each
6 person with access and/or a key to any place where
7 the property is located”?
8 Is this the letter that says, “You have
9 never responded to that more than reasonable
10 request”? And the one where I go on to say, “If my
11 clients are to,” quote, “assume payment on the two
12 storage lockers,” close quote, “as you requested
13 they do, they will obviously need that information,
14 as well as any agreements that are to be assumed. I
15 look forward to receiving all such information at
16 once.”
17 Q. It wasn’t until two months later that you
18 agreed to pay the costs on behalf of your client,
19 true?
20 A. Not two months after -- two months after
21 what?
22 Q. Well, from March 26th to May 20th, you went
23 back and forth with all this verbiage, and it wasn’t
24 till May 20th that you ever agreed to assume the
25 costs of the storage facility, true?
26 A. No, that’s false. And you know it’s false,
27 because there was no vault discussed by Mr. Geragos
28 or even acknowledged early on. So to say it’s two 12322
1 months from the date when I asked for items that
2 were never responded to, you know that’s false.
3 So, no, it was not two months.
4 Q. Did your client ever assume the costs of the
5 storage locker?
6 A. I don’t know whether they did or not.
7 Q. You don’t know till today? You don’t know
8 at all?
9 A. I understood that -- well, I know that they
10 told me that they would do so, and I transmitted
11 that information to -- it was either Geragos or
12 Miller, sure.
13 Q. Well, let’s look at Miller’s fax to you of
14 June 12th, 2003. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It’s the last document in this package,
17 right?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. Brad Miller sends you a message: “Dear Mr.
20 Dickerman: Sorry I was not able to get back to you
21 yesterday. My office manager, Karen, let me know
22 you called this morning.”
23 So, in fact, you’re not just reducing
24 everything to writing. You’re making phone calls,
25 aren’t you?
26 A. My comment about writing was to Geragos. I
27 have no understanding of a connection between
28 Geragos and Miller except that Miller’s doing 12323
1 something on his behalf.
2 Q. What does that mean? What does that mean?
3 A. I didn’t have a problem with Mr. Miller.
4 Q. Please explain what you mean by that. He’s
5 doing something on his behalf, but you don’t think
6 he has anything to do with him?
7 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative --
8 THE WITNESS: I knew nothing about --
9 MR. ZONEN: -- and exceeding the scope of
10 the direct examination.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let’s look further at Mr.
13 Miller’s fax to you, Mr. Dickerman, on June 12th.
14 It says, “Janet’s belongings were packed and loaded
15 by Dino’s Moving & Storage, 12641 Saticoy Street
16 South, North Hollywood, California. They then
17 placed the items in storage at their facility where
18 they have remained since, occupying, I believe, two
19 vaults. I just sent a check to Dino’s for storage
20 payment May and June. Please call John at Dino’s,
21 (818) 503-3999, and make whatever arrangements are
22 necessary to transfer the storage from myself to
23 either you or your client. Tell Dino’s they can fax
24 whatever paperwork is necessary for me to sign,” and
25 it gives the fax number. “Thank you, Brad,” with a
26 cc to Mark Geragos.
27 You didn’t know he had a connection with
28 Geragos when you got that fax? 12324
1 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative and
2 exceeding the scope of the direct.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know exactly what
5 you mean by “connection.” Obviously they had
6 something to do with each other, yeah. But I had no
7 problem with Miller, when you talk about putting
8 things in writing. I --
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, you got this fax of
10 June 12th, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What did you do about it on behalf of your
13 client, Janet Arvizo?
14 A. I’m pretty sure I called my client, and told
15 them that we had now located the items, and I
16 believe I asked them whether they wanted to assume
17 the cost, and I think Janet Arvizo said she did.
18 Q. Did she?
19 A. I don’t know. I don’t know what happened
20 after that.
21 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
22
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. ZONEN:
25 Q. The last letter that Mr. Geragos -- that
26 Mr. Mesereau asked you about dated June 12th, 2003,
27 that identifies Dino’s Moving & Storage, is that the
28 first communication you had from anybody identifying 12325
1 where your clients’ property was stored?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did Mr. Geragos ever tell you where the
4 property was stored?
5 A. Never.
6 Q. Did Mr. Geragos ever tell you that he had
7 the passports that belonged to your client?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Let’s go back to the letter that’s dated
10 May 12th, 2003. That’s the one where you wanted to
11 move on a little bit, and let’s go back to the
12 beginning of this letter.
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.
14 THE COURT: Stricken.
15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: May 12th, 2003, your letter
16 to Mr. Geragos, do you have that in front of you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Read -- the first two sentences end with the
19 words “to be delivered.” If you’d read those out
20 loud, please.
21 A. “Dear Mr. Geragos: I thought I had
22 previously memorialized by letter your April 24th
23 stunt with the movers, but I find I did not. This
24 then will serve to confirm that on April 24, at
25 about 9:30 a.m., you sent purported movers to my
26 office laden with a huge amount of furniture and
27 possibly other items that the movers told the
28 receptionist and building service representatives I 12326
1 had directed and arranged to be delivered.”
2 Q. Stop right there.
3 That was the part that Mr. Geragos read to
4 you -- that Mr. Mesereau read to you; is that
5 correct?
6 A. Yeah. At least part of it, yeah.
7 Q. Go ahead, now, and read the next sentence
8 that you wrote.
9 A. “As you know, and knew then, and as my
10 correspondence reflected, there was no such
11 arrangement. In fact, much to the contrary, I asked
12 you on numerous occasions to deliver just the
13 passports and certain other documents and a few
14 items of Gavin Arvizo’s clothing. Not only did you
15 never deliver those items, you never even
16 acknowledged any intention or interest in doing so.”
17 Q. Now, this is actually another letter I had
18 not pointed out to you earlier where you refer to
19 the passports again; is that right?
20 A. That’s right.
21 Q. So this is the May 12th letter that refers
22 to your clients’ passports?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And previously I identified five different
25 letters. That’s actually May 6th; is that correct?
26 A. I haven’t been counting.
27 Q. All right. Now, did you know in advance, at
28 the time of the delivery of the contents of your 12327
1 clients’ apartment to your office building, that Mr.
2 Geragos was going to do that?
3 A. I’m sorry, did I know whether -- did I have
4 any advance notice that he was going to do it?
5 Q. Yes. Yes.
6 A. None.
7 Q. Did he ever call you and say, “We’re going
8 to just go ahead and deliver your clients’ property
9 to your office”?
10 A. Never.
11 Q. Are you a sole practitioner?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How large is your office?
14 A. One, sometimes two.
15 Q. All right.
16 A. Well, and sometimes other attorneys that I
17 associate in on cases. But as a regular matter, one
18 and a secretary.
19 Q. Okay. And do you have room to store a
20 refrigerator and possessions from even a small or
21 modest studio apartment?
22 A. I have no storage whatsoever except for some
23 files. I keep everything off site. I would
24 never -- I could never store anything in the
25 building. I have no agreement with them to do so.
26 Q. If you had been asked in advance to accept
27 possession of the Arvizo family residence at your
28 office, would you have agreed? 12328
1 A. No, I --
2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for
3 speculation.
4 THE WITNESS: It doesn’t call for
5 speculation. I certainly wouldn’t have. I couldn’t
6 have.
7 THE COURT: Just --
8 MR. ZONEN: Mr. Dickerman, you can’t do
9 that, okay? Please, just answer the question.
10 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
11 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Would you have agreed to
13 that?
14 THE COURT: Read the question back.
15 (Record read.)
16 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. And nobody
18 contacted you from Mr. Geragos’s office in advance;
19 is that correct?
20 A. That’s correct.
21 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.
22
23 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. MESEREAU:
25 Q. Mr. Dickerman, isn’t it true that at one
26 point Mr. Geragos was so frustrated because you
27 would not let him know where to deliver --
28 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as to 12329
1 whether or not Mr. Geragos --
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: -- your client’s property
3 that --
4 MR. ZONEN: -- was frustrated as exceeding
5 the scope, and --
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: -- that he had to write
7 you a letter --
8 THE COURT: Just a moment.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: He wrote you a letter
10 threatening to auction it off if you didn’t tell him
11 where to deliver it or accept responsibility for
12 storage, right?
13 THE COURT: Just a moment. You’re going to
14 have to start over. The question is garbled by
15 interruption.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I’m sorry.
17 Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Dickerman, that at one
18 point Mr. Geragos was so frustrated at your
19 unwillingness to tell him where to deliver the items
20 in storage, that he told you if you don’t tell him
21 where to deliver it, he’s going to possibly let it
22 be subject to auction by the owner of the storage
23 facility, right?
24 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as speculative as to
25 whether or not he was frustrated.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you have the May 17th
28 letter from Mr. Geragos to you? 12330
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Let me just go through that letter with you.
3 “Dear Mr. Dickerman: Thank you for your
4 histrionic letter dated May 15, 2003. Beyond your
5 bluster and personal attacks, please remember that
6 you have a duty to resolve this matter in the most
7 efficient manner possible. In that regard, please
8 advise us as to whether your clients will accept our
9 offer that they assume payment on the two storage
10 lockers.”
11 Next paragraph: “As to your request for an
12 inventory of the property, our offer allows your
13 clients immediate possession of all their property,”
14 period. “We will waste no further time or resources
15 of our client. You have caused us the unnecessary
16 expense of one delivery attempt and we will not
17 waste additional funds for the sole purpose of
18 placating you.”
19 “Lastly, please be advised, in the event
20 your clients, one, refuse to assume the payments on
21 the storage lockers, or two, fail to promptly remove
22 the property therein, the property may ultimately be
23 subject to auction by the storage facility. Govern
24 yourself accordingly. Very truly yours, Mark
25 Geragos.”
26 You wrote him back and still didn’t tell him
27 where to deliver it, right?
28 A. You’re referring to the letter where I tell 12331
1 him that we’re willing to assume payment and take
2 delivery once he complies with the request I’ve been
3 making since March 26th, for almost two months.
4 Q. So your --
5 A. Is that the one?
6 Q. -- your position was, “Give me what I want,
7 and you keep storing what I don’t want at your
8 expense”?
9 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Argumentative and
10 asked and answered.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
13 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.
14 THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
15 We’ll take our break.
16 (Recess taken.)
17
18 (The following proceedings were held in
19 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
20 jury:)
21
22 THE COURT: Excuse me, I just stepped in
23 quickly because I understand there’s -- you want to
24 put a stipulation on the record; is that right?
25 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: Okay.
27 MR. ZONEN: Do we already have this exhibit
28 identified? We do. We turned it in to the Court. 12332
1 THE COURT: Yes, I just handed it back to the
2 clerk. It’s 901.
3 MR. ZONEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 Exhibit 901 we’re going to stipulate can be
5 admitted into evidence subject to the stipulation
6 that these are from Brad Miller’s computer. They
7 are e-mail communications between Brad Miller and
8 Mark Geragos, and that the deletions that are in
9 here, the deletions are done with Court approval,
10 directed by Mr. Geragos, and they delete sections
11 that refer to other clients.
12 THE COURT: All right. Do you agree with
13 that stipulation?
14 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: I’ll approve that stipulation,
16 and that relieves the necessity of Mr. Geragos’
17 appearance tomorrow; is that correct?
18 MR. ZONEN: I believe so, yes.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Yes. My understanding is he
20 would like to fly out of town --
21 THE BAILIFF: Microphone.
22 MR. MESEREAU: My understanding is Mark
23 Geragos would like to fly out of town tomorrow, and
24 we have no objection to that, but I would not want
25 to tell him to do so until the Court approves.
26 THE COURT: I’m asking you. Do either of
27 you -- do either of you have any need for Mr.
28 Geragos to appear tomorrow? 12333
1 MR. MESEREAU: No, Your Honor.
2 MR. ZONEN: No.
3 THE COURT: So we can release him to go
4 where he wants to go?
5 MR. ZONEN: Yes.
6 THE COURT: All right. That will be fine.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
8
9 (The following proceedings were held in
10 open court in the presence and hearing of the
11 jury:)
12
13 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel
14 table.)
15 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Would you face the clerk and
17 raise your right hand, please.
18
19 CHRISTINE CAUSER
20 Having been sworn, testified as follows:
21
22 THE WITNESS: I do.
23 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and
24 spell your name for the record.
25 THE WITNESS: Christine --
26 BAILIFF CORTEZ: Ma’am, be seated first.
27 THE WITNESS: Christine Causer.
28 C-h-r-i-s-t-i-n-e, C-a-u-s-e-r. 12334
1 THE CLERK: Thank you.
2 THE COURT: Counsel, before you ask a
3 question, there’s -- can you give us an indication
4 of -- I’m speaking to all of you -- are we going to
5 have a full day tomorrow on evidence? Does that
6 seem to be the situation?
7 MR. MESEREAU: I think we might, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Counsel.
9 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you.
10
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. SNEDDON:
13 Q. Mrs. Causer?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mrs. Causer, you’re going to have to lean
16 into the --
17 A. Right here?
18 Q. The other one.
19 A. Oh. Okay.
20 Q. There we go. Thank you very much.
21 Mrs. Causer, you live in the Los Angeles
22 area?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what is your current occupation?
25 A. I work as a visitation -- visitation
26 services at a mortuary.
27 Q. That’s at Rose Hills?
28 A. Yes, it is. 12335