|
Friday, May 13, 2005 - Testimony from former Michael Jackson attorney David LeGrande continued Friday in the singer’s child molestation trial.
LeGrande was questioned by assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss about his investigations into certain members of Jackson’s “inner circle” at the time. These included Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos, his personal assistant and a number of the unindicted co-conspirators.
LeGrande’s role in the singer’s “Take 2” rebuttal video also came under scrutiny. The payments for the video, which appeared on the Fox Network, were received into a limited liability corporation – LLC Fire Mountain.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Was that corporation formed to conceal assets from Mr. Jackson's creditors?
MR. LEGRANDE: There were multiple concerns with regard to the "Take 2" video at the inception of the process. There was a letter from Granada basically demanding that no footage of Martin Bashir be utilized without
Granada's permission, so we had significant concerns about potential liabilities associated with Fire Mountain. There were also concerns, not so much about trade creditors in general, but, rather, that the mounting financial demands of the lawyers, the accountants, the production people be met, and we had not yet -- there was -- we had not yet accomplished a complete transition of money management affairs and open --
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I'm going to object at this time as nonresponsive.
MR. LEGRANDE: Okay.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. I'll allow him to complete his answer.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
MR. LEGRANDE: I opened a dialogue with Bank of America and discussed with the bank representatives the relationship of Fire Mountain with Fox, and to my knowledge, there was never a demand of default made by Bank of America with respect to any of their credit protection provisions.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question was, was that Fire Mountain, Limited Liability Corporation, formed in any way to conceal assets from Mr. Jackson's creditors? And my question goes beyond the Bank of America.
MR. LEGRANDE: Yeah. It was not my intent to conceal. It was my intent to protect the cash flows being received in order to address the financial needs of my client, Mr. Jackson.
Auchincloss questioned LeGrande about lawsuits at the time pertaining to alleged outstanding bills owed to Jackson’s creditors. LeGrande said that as far as he was aware there had been two pending lawsuits – those of Marcel Avram and Myung Ho Lee.
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't know that those gentlemen were creditors at that time, because I don't remember seeing them listed in the payables listings. There was a subsequent lawsuit -- I mean, there was a lawsuit filed somewhere, hmm, I'm not sure if it was late February or early March, filed by an auction house in New York with respect to a painting.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would that be Sotheby's?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes. Yes, that was Sotheby's.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that dealt with a painting Mr. Jackson purchased but never paid for; is that correct?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes.
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. But in effect, the Fire Mountain Corporation would prevent any of these creditors from getting their hands on the money, the proceedings from the FOX production, true? I'd like a "yes" or "no" question – answer to that question.
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't know how it would prevent creditors from getting to it. I mean, if a creditor took a judgment debtor exam of someone and found that this subsidiary of MJJ had these funds, the question is creditor of whom, I guess? I mean, the goal of Fire Mountain was to serve as a subsidiary to MJJ
Productions.
When questioned about who he had spoken to the previous night, LeGrande said he spoke to his wife and to Al Malnik, whom he described as a friend of Michael Jackson. He said Malnik would review all documents that required the singer’s signature – this was at the request of Jackson himself. He said a similar instruction had been given to both Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Wiezner.
He described a meeting between himself and Konitzer, possibly attended by Jackson.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And the purpose of that meeting was what?
MR. LEGRANDE: To discuss the overall positions, to discuss the -- to discuss how or whether we would continue the various relationships, because Ronald was upset with me for having pointed the finger at him with respect to the $965,000. We were attempting in that meeting to construct a framework under which we would – you know, Ronald and Dieter would remain involved in -- as, you know, consultants, advisors to Mr. Jackson. But Mr. Malnik essentially emerged, in my opinion, as the primary person with Michael Jackson's trust and confidence for business decisions.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Malnik was one of the people you had investigated?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes, he is.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And you voiced those suspicions to Mr. Jackson, didn't you?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes.
LeGrande testified that he also had suspicions regarding Konitzer, Weizner, Jackson’s personal assistant Evelyn Tavasci and former defense attorney Mark Geragos. He said he was also suspicious of attorney Zia Modabber, Edgar Gross, Dr. Armen Kazanchian and business manager Trudi Green.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In effect, you had investigated everybody who was within Michael Jackson's inner circle; isn't that true?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't know, because I don't know your definition of "inner circle." I investigated people that I viewed as being close to Michael or having the potential to do harm to Michael as I saw it at the time.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And you were suspicious of them all, correct?
MR. LEGRANDE: Um, I was -- I was cautious. I was becoming more cautious as time went on.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, didn't you testify that you had everybody investigated that you found suspicious?
MR. LEGRANDE: I'm not sure those were my exact words, sir.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, was that true or not?
MR. LEGRANDE: No. I did not have everybody investigated whom I found suspicious. There were certainly people who I had concerns about, but who did not have a position such that I was overly -- sufficiently concerned to spend money.
Auchincloss continued questioning about the alleged embezzlement of $900,000 by Konitzer and Weizner. LeGrande conceded that he had no hard evidence to prove there was an attempt to conceal the disbursements from Jackson’s accounts. However he testified that “Mr. Konitzer was unhappy that Mr. Finkelstein gave me that accounting.”
Questions about Wiezner’s plans to revitalise Jackson’s career and finances followed. Auchincloss said “MJ Universe” was purportedly a plan put together to “remake [Jackson’s] image and career.” LeGrande said the plan involved using elements of Jackson’s trademarks, image and likeness to gain revenue.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is it true that the plan was designed to make everyone, including Michael Jackson and yourself, a lot of money?
MR. LEGRANDE: The intent of the plan was to make money, yes.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Everybody around Michael Jackson was interested in profiting; is that accurate? That was your opinion?
MR. LEGRANDE: Many people, yes.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you see something wrong with that, with people profiting who worked for Michael Jackson?
MR. LEGRANDE: I see nothing wrong with people earning appropriate income from providing services. I got concerned about where it appeared people wanted to have excessive amounts of money in relation to their contribution.
LeGrande said that Konitzer knew he could make money from Jackson, but that he still appeared sincere.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If this plan took off, Mr. Konitzer had a very legitimate hope of earning millions and millions of dollars, true?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes. But I'll also tell you that both Mr. Malnik and I were very sceptical about Mr. Konitzer's plan.
Auchincloss questioned LeGrande about his own motives in conducting investigations into those around Jackson. He asked whether LeGrande was merely hoping to become one of Jackson’s most trusted advisors.
“I don't believe that was my intent. It was my intent to gain knowledge about the people who were involved,” he testified. “I felt it appropriate, granted the history, to have greater knowledge about these people.”
“I was consistently, daily communicating with a number of lawyers who, as a group, were providing services to Mr. Jackson. And the decision to have those investigations done was not my unilateral decision.”
While discussing the production of Michael Jackson’s “Private Home Movies,” LeGrande said he had hoped to minimise the role of producer Marc Schaffel, partly because of his involvement in the pornography industry.
He was again questioned about his motivations for working for the singer. He denied he was hoping to profit from Jackson but said the job was “exciting” and that he enjoyed working in a different environment.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And as early as February 11th, you had expressed that concern to Mr. Konitzer that you wanted to be paid?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes. And when we say "I," my firm.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your firm.
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That's fair. And Mr. Konitzer asked you to calm down about that, didn't he?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes, he did.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And he said, "Don't worry, you'll be first in line," true?
10 A. Yes, he did.
Questioning turned to the employment of Jackson’s former defense attorney, Mark Geragos. LeGrande told jurors that “the press outcry was such that -- and the calls for investigation, calls for removal of his children were such that I and the other lawyers agreed it was appropriate to have a criminal attorney in California to address any possibilities of that kind.”
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know what Mr. Geragos was tasked with at the time he was retained, what he was asked to do?
MR. LEGRANDE: I know that we asked him to attempt to ascertain if any criminal investigation had been commenced, and if there was any child custody removal efforts being commenced.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That would be a family law matter, wouldn't it?
MR. LEGRANDE: I guess it's more family than criminal, yes.
LeGrande was questioned about Bradley Miller, a private detective hired by Geragos. He said he may have previously met Miller in Geragos’ office.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know what Brad Miller was retained by Mr. Geragos to do?
MR. LEGRANDE: Not really. I know that it had to do with the Arvizos, but I really don't know in detail what Brad Miller was asked to do.
Auchincloss returned to the matter of the “Take 2” rebuttal video and the preparation of “release” documents for the participants in the production. He said a release had initially been prepared for Jackson’s ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, and that they subsequently realised they should prepare releases for others appearing in the video.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: But you knew that the plan was to have the Arvizo family filmed for the "Take 2" video, correct?
MR. LEGRANDE: I knew there was a desire to have some footage of the Arvizo family for possible inclusion in the "Take 2" video, yes.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And that was the reason why these consent forms were prepared?
MR. LEGRANDE: Yes.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And you sent those consent forms to Ann Gabriel, true?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't know. I might have.
A faxed document containing the releases for the family was introduced as evidence. LeGrande said the documents were prepared by an associate, Ann-Marie Levy, who was no longer employed by his firm.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. LeGrande, at the top of those consent and release forms is the logo for MJJ Productions, correct?
MR. LEGRANDE: On some of them, yes.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you place that logo there? Did you direct, I should say, the placement of that logo at the top of those appearance consent and release forms?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't believe I did. I have no recollection of so instructing.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And then at the back, a couple of pages, that logo appears to have been removed. Did you direct that appearance consent and release forms for the Arvizos be provided without the MJJ Productions logo?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't recall instructing that they be presented in one form or the other.
--------
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you also send the same consent forms to Hamid Moslehi?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't know. I'm pretty sure that my firm sent appearance and consent forms to Hamid Moslehi, but I don't know exactly when or if they were absolutely identical. But -- because I'm not sure we knew where the Arvizos were in order to get the documents executed, and since Hamid was supposed to do the videography, it would not surprise me that we sent them to Hamid.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, that's a good point. They were different, weren't they? They weren't the same as the ones you sent to Neverland, correct?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't know.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: But you agree that your associate sent those to Hamid at your direction?
MR. LEGRANDE: I don't recall making that instruction today.
MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Would you agree that your associate would not send those to Hamid on her own without some direction from you?
MR. LEGRANDE: I -- it's certainly possible that she would have. I mean, she can have been instructed by Mr. Konitzer directly to do so. It's possible she would have sent them or that she would have interpreted my instruction to prepare and get the consents out as, you know, a broad mandate. |
狗仔卡
发表于 2005-5-14 19:29:40
显身卡
楼主
发表于 2005-5-14 19:49:59
发表于 2005-5-14 19:59:43