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
Subject: May 12, 2005 
Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:26 pm
