Skip to content

The Neverland Five and their Victor Gutierrez Inspiration

June 5, 2011

I was watching Martin Bashir’s second mocumentary “Michael Jacksons Secret World” the other day and Diane Dimond is being interviewed about the photos matching from the search. In it she confronts the issue that Michael Jackson was not arrested when the photos were taken if they were supposedly a match. Her statement is that without an adult eyewitness what could they do? After reading the testimony of the Neverland Five witnesses it would seem that there was an adult eyewitness to the allegations. If there was an adult eyewitness, Michael would have been arrested and the rest would have been history. However there seems to be a big discrepancy in the former statements of Ralph Chacon, who was the guard that was an eyewitness to the alleged abuse and the 2005 testimony of that guard. It seems, according to his 2005 testimony, that in 1994 he identified the wrong boy, alleging that “they looked identical”.

In June of 1994, Thomas Sneddon, Lauren Weiss and 2 Detectives (one from SBSD and the other from LAPD) flew to Melbourne Australia. They flew there with the intent of interviewing Brett Christopher Barnes. The law enforcement officials had “new” evidence that Brett had been molested by Michael Jackson. According to their informants (guards), Michael had allegedly M***** Brett Barnes.

Well, according to court documents and testimony in the 2005 trial, this information was from Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool and Adrian McManus. These three, along with two others (Melanie Bagnall and Sandy Domz) would become known as the Neverland Five. The Neverland Five were a group of former employees of Michael Jackson that sued him for sixteen million dollars, stating that they were wrongfully terminated because of what they knew about him and young boys. That was one of the charges, as well as  other charges relating alleged threats by Michael Jackson’s personal security officers, and even an allegation of sexual harassment against one of the personal security officers.

On May 5th 1994 five months after the Chandler suit had settled, and three months before the investigation came to a close on September 22nd 1994, Detective Russell Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department met secretly with Kassim Abdool and Ralph Chacon at a secluded location at a Gaviota rest stop. Kassim Abdool called Detective Birchim after he had served him with a subpoena to appear before the Los Angeles Grand Jury investigating the allegations against Michael Jackson.  Kassim Abdool met and discussed with Detective Birchim a hypothetical situation regarding the allegations. Apparently in the next 2 days after the original meeting, Ralph Chacon joined Kassim Abdool in a meeting with Detective Birchim, Detective Monk and Tom Sneddon. That is where Ralph Chacon gave a sworn statement to the Grand Jury but was not asked questions! Normally in a Grand Jury proceeding a person would answer questions from the Grand Jury, not just give a statement without Grand Jury examination. So in essence Tom Sneddon’s investigative Grand Jury was not even allowed to investigate, despite his claims that the grand jury was convened “for investigative purposes only”! (That claim was totally debunked in this post.)

Addendum to the post: 6/8/11

In the last few days since completing this post I have discovered this article From CNN about the disbanding of the 1994 Santa Barbara Grand Jury. If you note the date of the article it clearly states May 2nd 1994 as the end of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury proceedings in 1994. Ralph Chacon met with Detective Birchim on May 5th 1994 and again with Detective Birchim and DA Sneddon on May 6th 1994. However in the testimony of Ralph Chacon he states that he did not go to the Los Angeles Grand Jury but instead gave a statement and was sworn in on May 10th, 1994 and this is corroborated by the prosecution. The testimony on this particular point is confusing if you know that the Santa Barbara Grand Jury was disbanded on May 2nd, 1994 ? Apparently he made his statement to an empty room of  Grand Jurors from a disbanded Grand Jury? Then we have this from an article in The LA Times about when the investigation was complete and this is what Sneddon said and confused me even more when Jordan lived right in Santa Monica?

“In addition, they said their investigation–an enormous undertaking that took 13 months, involved two grand juries and relied upon interviews with more than 400 people–had turned up two more children who said Jackson had molested them, but they too were unwilling to take the stand. One of those alleged victims is outside the country and thus outside of court jurisdiction, Sneddon said. In addition, Sneddon said, that child had previously made comments generally denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, which would have complicated a prosecution based on his statements even if he had been willing to testify.”

Fast Forward to 2004 according to court documents submitted by the prosecution for admission of the 1108 evidence in the 2005 trial, Ralph Chacon would testify as an adult eyewitness of the alleged abuse of Jordan Chandler, and Brett Barnes.

In the original 1108 People’s brief they have a list of “eyewitnesses” to the alleged abuse of Wade Robson, Macauley Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck, Jonathan Spence, Brett Barnes, and Jordan Chandler. The list of witnesses to these alleged events was Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Mark Quindoy, Phillipe Le Marque, Orietta Murdoch, ( Orietta Murdoch and Mark Quindoy were not called by the prosecution; they removed them from the witness list themselves), Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus (who did testify that she saw Michael kiss Brett on his cheek and had a hand on his butt), and June Chandler. In the original 1108 evidence people’s brief Kassim Abdool is not mentioned. The original was filed in December of 2004, several objections to it and replies were made, and finally on April 15th the people wanted to call Kassim Abdool to, I guess, bolster a lost cause. That is when they wanted to introduce the infamous Vaseline story from MJWML by Abdool but the judge denied that ( they were no longer alleging that these events happened to Brett barnes and the original statments named him). He did say that he could be called to testify to “verify” that Ralph Chacon had told him what he had seen in regard to Jordan Chandler. Suddenly, there was no adult eye witness to the allegations that these people had made against Michael in regard to Brett Barnes because they were all about Jordan Chandler!

Here is an excerpt from Ralph Chacon’s testimony when he is identifying Jordan as the boy he saw from the photos provided.

MR. SNEDDON: Okay. All right. You can

take that down.

I have three more photographs, I’ve shown

them to counsel, that have been marked as 793, 794,

and 795 for identification purposes. I’d like to

show them to the witness.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Chacon, I’m going to

show you the photograph marked as 793. You’ve seen

that photograph before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recognize the person that you 5184 

believe that that photograph depicts?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is that?

A. Jordie.

Q. Is that a depiction of the child as you

recall him back in those days?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And with regard to 794, it has two

photographs on it, one at the top and one at the

bottom. The one at the top is a singular photograph

of an individual, and the one at the bottom has four

people in that. Do you recognize the people in that

photograph?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And again, who is that?

A. Jordie.

Q. And in the photograph at the bottom, there

are a number of people depicted. Which of them do

you recognize as Jordie?

A. This one here.

Q. Would you please take that black pen and

just put an arrow towards — start on the white,

down below. Okay. Thank you.

And with regard to 795, do you recognize

that?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And again, there are a number of people

depicted in that photograph, correct? 5185

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recognize anybody in that

photograph?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Who would that be?

A. That’s Jordie.

Q. By “that” you mean who, in terms of —

there’s one, two, three, four, five people depicted.

A. The fifth one.

Q. All the way over to the left?

A. All the way over to the left.

Q. Are these accurate depictions of the child

as you recall him back in those days?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. SNEDDON: Move that they be admitted

into evidence, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

Mr. Mesereau did not object to the photos being entered into evidence because they were photos of Jordan Chandler. If the photos had been of Brett Barnes, then Mesereau would have had to object to the incorrect identification, after all it was like a photo line- up, so one can assume that the photos are of Jordan and that is who Ralph Chacon  is now alleging that  he saw in a sexual situation with Michael Jackson. Is anyone questioning yet why Tom Sneddon, Lauren Weiss, William Hodgeman, Russ Birchim and Glen Monk went to Australia in the first place? In the press release from September of 1994, the two District Attorneys stated that there were 3 boys that were victims of Michael Jackson. The primary would not testify as was his right, one was undergoing therapy and did not want to testify, and one was out of the jurisdiction and had issued a general denial. The boy out of the jurisdiction that issued a general denial was Brett Barnes.

In this video from 2005, Mesereau describes to Jay Leno how Sneddon literally flew all over the world to find “victims” of Michael Jackson!

During the cross examination Ralph Chacon was asked about the lawsuit he and the others had filed against Michael Jackson. Of course, running true to the form of the other witnesses, he had a very selective memory. He could not remember suing Michael for 16 million dollars or telling a therapist that he would rather get a million dollars from Michael Jackson instead of working again. Also he could not remember that he had stolen twenty five thousand dollars’ worth of goods (among them a watch) from him or owed him over a million dollars in legal fees. Of course no amount of showing him the documents can refresh a selective memory like that.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. MESEREAU:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Chacon.

A. Good morning, sir.

Q. Mr. Chacon, my name is Tom Mesereau, and I

speak for Mr. Jackson.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I’d like to ask you a few questions about

that lawsuit you lost. That was the longest civil

trial in the history of Santa Maria, right?

A. I don’t know, sir.

Q. It went about six months, didn’t it?

A. I believe so, yes, sir.

Q. You sued Mr. Jackson and you wanted $16

million, right?

A. Well, I don’t know about the 16 million.

Q. You wanted millions, true?

18 A. No, sir.

Q. Really?

A. Well, I don’t know, sir. Whatever our

attorney was — he’s the one who was speaking for

us.

Q. Okay. We’ll get into that.

You sued Mr. Jackson claiming you were

wrongfully terminated, right?

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. He sued you claiming you had stolen property

from him, true? 5202

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. The jury found you were not wrongfully

terminated by Mr. Jackson, correct?

A. But we were, sir.

Q. Answer my question, please. Did the Santa

Maria jury find you were not wrongfully terminated

by Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they also found you had stolen property

from Mr. Jackson, correct?

A. But I didn’t, sir.

Q. Did the Santa Maria jury find you had stolen

property from Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A judgment was entered against you, Mr.

Chacon, for $25,000, the value of what you had

stolen, correct?

A. For candy bars, sir?

Q. A judgment was entered against you for

$25,000, the value of what the Court found you had

stolen, correct?

A. Well, if a candy bar is worth that much,

yes, sir.

Q. That’s not all you owe Mr. Jackson

currently, is it?

A. No, sir. I don’t owe him.

Q. In fact, Judge Zel Canter of this court,

entered a judgment against you and your 5203

co-defendants for $1,473,117.61, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He ordered you pay all of Mr. Jackson’s

legal fees and costs, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you ever paid any of that judgment, Mr.

Chacon?

A. No, sir. I filed bankruptcy.

Q. Now, the jury found you not only stole from

Mr. Jackson, but you acted maliciously, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did a judge find you had acted with malice?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is there a judgment against you for acting

with fraud against Mr. Jackson?

A. That I know of, no, sir.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look

at the judgment?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Oh, it’s there, sir. I didn’t know. Yes,

sir.

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

look at that judgment, Mr. Chacon?

A. Do you mean right now?

Q. Yes. 5204

A. Yes, sir.

As you can plainly read Ralph Chacon did have a judgment against him for owing Michael a great deal of money. The former employees filed suit on February 5th, 1995. They had actually had their attorney ready to file suit on December 2nd , 1994 but they needed money to start the suit. In need of ready cash their attorney Michael Ring arranged a meeting with Peter Burt of Splash News, a broker that sold stories to tabloids. Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus sold their story to Star Magazine and were on Inside Edition. In the meeting with their lawyer was an Author by the name of Victor Gutierrez.

Q. Who was Sandy Domz?

A. She was one of the secretaries at Neverland

Ranch.

Q. Okay. Do you recall Sandy Domz ever 5229

approaching a tabloid?

A. No, sir.

Q. Don’t know anything about it?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

author named Gutierrez?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

book author named Gutierrez?

A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

the date or the time.

Here is more testimony about the change in his story.

Q. Okay. That was to fund the lawsuit where

you sought millions from Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Well, that was the lawsuit, sir.

Q. That was the lawsuit you were trying to fund

by selling stories to tabloids, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. No?

A. I really don’t understand your question.

Q. Sure, I’ll rephrase.

You were taking money from tabloids and

using it to fund costs of your lawsuit against Mr.

Jackson?

A. Oh. Yes, sir. I’m sorry.

Q. And before you went to Mr. Ring, you had

told various people that you never saw anything

inappropriate at Neverland, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. You told various people you’d never seen

Michael Jackson molest anybody, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. So if anybody comes into court and says

that, they’re just not telling the truth, right?

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. Okay. When you first met with

representatives of the sheriff’s department, did you

tell them everything that you have said today about

Mr. Jackson allegedly molesting young men? 5239

A. Um, when you mean a sheriff, a certain

sheriff, or at the sheriff’s department, or — I

don’t understand.

Q. Let me rephrase.

When you first spoke to a sheriff from Santa

Barbara, did you tell that sheriff everything you’ve

said today in court?

A. No, sir.

Q. The story has changed considerably since

your first meeting with a sheriff, true?

MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

object to the use of the word “considerably” as

argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would you agree that with

each interview you do, you add more lurid facts

about Mr. Jackson?

A. No, sir.

Q. You would agree your story about what you

20 claim he did has changed through the years, has it

not?

A. No, sir.

Q. Didn’t you just meet with Mr. Sneddon the

other day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Didn’t you tell Mr. Sneddon you had new

facts that you forgot in 1993?

MR. SNEDDON: Well, wait a minute. I’m 5240

going to object to that question. Your Honor,

that’s not asked in good faith with regard to the —

I can’t do it without a speaking objection, but if

we could approach the bench, because this is not

right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

The question was, “Did you tell Mr. Sneddon

you had new facts that you had forgot in 1993?”

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You told Mr. Sneddon that

you forgot to say certain things in 1993 about Mr.

Jackson allegedly molesting young men, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But now you remembered them in 2005, right?

A. Vaguely, yes, sir.

Q. And you said the person that remembered them

with you is Kassim Abdool, true?

A. I haven’t talked to Kassim in years.

If you are reading or have read the testimony it does not look good for Ralph Chacon. His testimony is not going according to the above prosecutions motion for 1108 evidence at all. At one point he even states that he says things just to say them! Well the prosecution had to try to recover some of the testimony, so they questioned him again in redirect. They asked him about the suit and if he was telling the truth, and if he felt Michael Jackson still owed him money.

28 Q. Did you legit — did you feel, yourself, 5278

 

that you were entitled to some money from Mr.

 

Jackson because of the way you were treated on the

 

ranch?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. Do you still feel that way?

 

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;

relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.

That sounds like motive to me; like a motive for money and revenge! They added some details about their meeting and how he was treated by the awful OSS. Tom Sneddon specifically asked him about the author Victor Gutierrez.

Q. And Sergeant — or Commander Birchim was

there during that entire time?

  1. A. Yes, he was.

Q. Mr. Mesereau mentioned something about an

individual called Victor Gutierrez. Do you remember

that?

  1. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you ever paid any money by Mr.

Gutierrez?

  1. No, sir. 5277

Q. Did you ever give him a statement at all?

A. No, sir.

If Ralph Chacon had never given him a statement, then how did all of those lovely quotes end up in that book? He is all over the book MJWML, being quoted about everything from enemas and tampons, to dead baby bones found on Neverland! The saddest part of all is his lie in 1994 about Brett and then changing it to Jordan when it was widely known that Brett had denied it. He of course says that he could not tell them apart, they looked identical.

The reason I say it is sad is that Tom Sneddon believed it for 10 years and even looked for a way to help him perpetuate that same lie by allowing him to change his original statement in 1994 from Brett Barnes to Jordan Chandler! I don’t even know if anyone could possibly be aware that the original child he identified was Brett. If any of them had been adult eyewitnesses to the allegations that had been brought by the Chandler’s in 1993 history would have been rewritten because Jordan would not have had to testify because he had adult corroboration and an adult can be forced to testify. They could have arrested and tried Michael on their testimony alone. There would have been no trip to Australia and Brett never would have been named as a “victim”.

Another thing that we know from the FBI files that the prosecution knew in September 2004 that Jordan refused to testify and even threatened them with legal action if they pursued it.  Well, this is what the prosecution added as a footnote regarding the possibility of Jordan testifying in the trial. The 1108 people’s brief was written on December 10th and filed on December 20th of 2004.

There is additional evidence of defendant’s prior sexual offenses against Jordan Chandler in 1993. Defendant is well aware of that evidence. Mr. Chandler was a child of 13 years at the time. Now, as then, he has a statutory right to decline to testify in a proceeding such as this against the person who molested him. As matters presently stand, the People are uncertain as to whether Mr. Chandler will waive that statutory right. Mr. Chandler’s name is on the witness list to be provided the Court and the defense on December 6, 2004. The People have deferred incorporating Mr. Chandler’s proposed testimony into this motion because of the uncertainty surrounding a waiver.

The evidence that the defendant was well aware of was of course the photos, Tom Sneddon was always hot to use those photos.

When the prosecution added that note it was deliberately misleading the Defense and the Court. That is Prosecutorial misconduct of two different kinds. One is called testilying and the other is allowing false testimony. He allowed false testimony when he allowed Ralph Chacon to get in front of a jury and claim he was identifying Jordan Chandler. That, along with the falsifying of the fingerprints during the Grand Jury, and a few other things I will show you in a few days, makes me wonder why the good people of Santa Barbara County allow this man to have his name on a courthouse. That is a travesty of justice!

I am going to kill two birds with one stone here so this is just a brief aside from Ralph Chacon and his “Jordan and Brett looked identical” BS. According to prosecution’s 1108 brief, in June Chandler’s statement she said on the second weekend they went to Disneyland but Brett did not go. That is not what happened, according to the story of Victor and the Chandler’s, now is it? In their story Michael is observed by June to be “kissing and cuddling” with Brett Barnes (either in the front seat or the back seat of the limo depending on the teller of the story) because he was “testing” her to see if she would react.

June Chandler is the mother of Jordan Chandler. Jordan’s father is named Evan Chandler. At the time that her son, Jordan Chandler, met Michael Jackson, she had divorced Evan and had married but was separated from David Schwartz. David Schwartz runs a rental car agency called Rent-A-Wreck. Evan Chandler had remarried and his then wife was Natalie Chandler.

Michael Jackson first met Jordan and June Chandler in 1992 when his limousine broke down in Malibu. Mr. Schwartz’s business was nearby and he provided Jackson with a car. Jordan was present and exchanged telephone numbers with Jackson. Between two to four weeks later, in either August or September of 1992, Jackson called Jordan at Mrs. Chandler’s Lorenzo Street home in Santa Monica, California. Mrs. Chandler remembers the first conversation as being fairly short and involving some discussions about video games. After a series of telephone conversations, Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler began to develop a friendship that resulted in Jackson inviting Jordan and Mrs. Chandler to visit him at Neverland Valley Ranch. The first visit occurred around February 12, 1993. It lasted two days. During the second day, Jackson took Jordan and his sister Lily to a Toys-R-Us store. The visit occurred after hours when the store was closed. The children were allowed to pick out anything they wanted and Jackson paid for it. On Sunday afternoon around 1:00 p.m., they left Neverland Ranch.

Two days later Jackson called again. They were invited to return to the ranch on Friday, February 19, 1993. They were picked up in a limousine and spent the weekend at the ranch. When they were picked up in the limo for the trip to the ranch on Friday the 19th. Also in the limo were Brett Barnes and a friend of his, and Jackson and Jordan Chandler. They spent the weekend at the ranch. On Sunday, when they were returning in the limo to Los Angeles, instead of going to their Santa Monica home, they went to Disneyland. Brett Barnes did not accompany them.


To show you how much Brett and Jordan do not look alike here is a photo. Just when you think someone is going to get away with one tiny little lie along comes a pesky person with a picture to show you different. I will also add a photo of the friend of Brett’s that was at Neverland that weekend. A young German Prince named Albert von Thurn und Taxis, at the time the richest boy in the world. Victor and the Chandler’s went out of their way in their books to discredit Brett’s mother and anyone else that could say that none of those things happened. This was probably why they added the bit about the German mother calling them and why Victor tried to say that it was Marie Barnes that stole things from Neverland when in fact it was Adrian McManus and her trophy room full of stolen property (court testimony Francine Contreras) instead of empty enema bottles that were mentioned in Victor Gutierrez’ MJWML.  (The story of a German mother calling Evan Chandler about her son being abused by MJ is totally debunked in this post. There were major discrepancies in the stories given by Diane Dimond and Ray Chandler!)

 

I will now add a couple of Photos to end all that silly stuff about the Rubba’s from Blanca Francia’s testimony on several occasions that Ernie Rizzo liked to talk about. Allow me to introduce the Rubba’s.

Funny how the 2005 testimony changed in small ways to exclude any testimony from Brett about specifics isn’t it? In fact it changed to the point that he was not even identified as the boy he had seen in 1992-1993 (he did not even get the year right). There was no identification of him as an alleged “victim” during any testimony in 2005! The only places he is named is in 1994 and in the books by the Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez!

In Adrian McManus’s testimony she is asked if Jordan was well behaved and about Brett’s behavior. Her testimony said that Brett was polite, but Jordan was demanding and rude. I wonder if that sweet innocent beautiful boy was actually all those things. The way I understand Brett’s testimony he had met him and so had Frank, Eddie and Dominic Cascio. I wonder what they remember about Jordan?

I am inclined to agree with the defense when they say that it was a bunch of disgruntled former employees and paid tabloid informants that backed up the 1993 allegations. But as all of Michael’s detractors will attempt to tell you the only truth is that which is paid for. All of those people that deny the allegations without monetary compensation could not possibly be telling the truth for free. All of  Michael Jacksons friends that would not speak out in his defense at the time were in fact obeying the Courts Protective order regarding witnesses; they were all waiting to testify for him.  However, Ralph Chacon probably said it best when asked why he said something during recross examination.

Q. And you wanted money because you said Mr.

Jackson stared at you on occasion, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Why did you say it?

A. Just to say it.

Advertisements
299 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink*
    October 29, 2012 10:34 pm

    Shelly I would love to have the documents that you have too if I could.They did have a different lawyer first and I think that was his name Matthews. I can’t wait to read them. I love that word obstructionist because it is the way all of them testified in the 2005 trial too. Obstructionist.that’s them.

  2. lynande51 permalink*
    October 29, 2012 5:32 am

    The unspeakable tragedy in Michael’s life is that Sneddon was so consumed with being right that he believed these people and put them on the stand to testify. Why didn’t he at least look for this because not even the court of appeals believed them and sanctioned their appeal.

  3. lynande51 permalink*
    February 7, 2012 9:55 am

    I also just reviewed the People Motion for prior acts and there is where they changed it from Brett to Jordan except there is something wrong with that and his testimony. He says that he saw this, he identifies Jordan in the photos because if he hadn’t Tome Mesereau would have objested because it misstated the evidence, and he says in both the document from the prosecution and his testimony that it happened in 1992. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that. Michael met Jordan in May of 1992 for the first time at Rent a Wreck. Then he went on tour. When he got back the first time that Jordan and his Mom and Lily went to Neverland was in February of 1993. they really shouldn’t make the lie so blatant if they want people to belive it right?

    • February 7, 2012 4:07 pm

      “I also just reviewed the People Motion for prior acts and there is where they changed it from Brett to Jordan except there is something wrong with that and his testimony. He says that he saw this, he identifies Jordan in the photos, and he says in both the document from the prosecution and his testimony that it happened in 1992. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that. Michael met Jordan in May of 1992 for the first time at Rent a Wreck. Then he went on tour. When he got back the first time that Jordan and his Mom and Lily went to Neverland was in February of 1993. They really shouldn’t make the lie so blatant if they want people to believe it right?”

      Lynette, I’ve been thinking about this discrepancy in the bodyguards’ testimony too. For those who didn’t follow it let us review the case.

      Ralph Chacon said that he had witnessed a shower scene between Michael and a boy in late 1992. Initially he was saying that it was Brett. But Brett and his family vehemently denied it and supported Michael. Then in accordance with the prosecution’s agenda the same Ralph Chacon changed the “victim” to Jordan Chandler. However after that a new obstacle arose – Chacon said it was in 1992 while Jordan came to Neverland only in February 1993, and not only didn’t he “shower” with Michael, but he was constantly under his mother’s care at the time (he never once even stayed in Michael’s room!). According to Jordan “things got out of hand” only in May 1993 when they were in Monaco.

      In view of all these discrepancies Michael haters now returned to the original version that it was Brett and not Jordan. It doesn’t actually matter to them who was allegedly “molested” – it is the “fact” that at least someone was which they want to prove.

      Up till now we’ve have only two arguments against it – Brett’s vehement insistence that his friendship with MJ was completely innocent AND Victor Gutierrez’s book where he quotes Jordan saying something like “MJ did not go as far with others (including Brett) as he did with me”. This automatically means that the whole scene described by Ralph Chacon is out of the question (because it was much worse than anything Jordan ever said).

      But now – in addition to the previous arguments – we also have a testimony from police detective Russell Birchim who says that neither of the guards ever told the police anything when they were first interviewed by them. In fact they said they had never witnessed any criminal activity in Neverland. It took those guys quite a time to “recall” the “molestation scene” and the recollection took place only after they tried to find out what they would get from the Prosecution if they spoke about it.

      Unfortunately I cannot find Russell Birchim’s testimony in my usual sources. Can anyone give me a link to his testimony, please?

  4. lynande51 permalink*
    February 7, 2012 3:53 am

    Shelly yes that is what I was trying to point out in the article that I wrote. Ralph Chacon was the one that reported to Russ Birchim and then signed a statement to the police that it was Brett that he saw in 1993 or 1992. That is why they went to Australia in June of 1994 to tell the Barnes family what was reported to them.According to them it was that Brett was seen by Chacon being abused by Michael. Then in 2005 it changed from Brett to Jordan when the prosecution found out that Brett and his family would be coming to defend Michael and deny the allegations. It shows more just how disingenuous the prosecution was in this case because before that they said that the reason that Michael wasn’t charged was because there was no other corraborating witness or evidence. So how does that work with the description too? Wasn’t that proof? All they would have had to do if it was a match is submit it to the jury along with the photos and Chacons testimony and Jordan wouldn’t even have to be cross examined or he could have given his testimony from a remote room and not have to face Michael in the courtroom. How do they explain that one? The boys looked alike? There is a photo of Brett and Jordan together with Michael at Disneyland in the article what do you think? Then It never even occured to Chacon until about a month before he testifies that he was mistaken for 10 years. Give me a break.

    • February 7, 2012 11:57 am

      “According to them it was that Brett was seen by Chacon being abused by Michael. Then in 2005 it changed from Brett to Jordan when the prosecution found out that Brett and his family would be coming to defend Michael”

      Lynette, for Michael’s haters it is not important who the bodyguards saw – it is the fact that they saw “some boy” in that compromising situation which matters. It only gives them a chance to say that there were a “lot of boys” there. But from what the MJEOL site says about Russell Birchim’s testimony it becomes clear that neither of the bodyguards saw any boy there – neither Brett, nor Chandler, nor ANYONE AT ALL!

      Let me repeat it:

      the defense asked Birchim, “”When you first approached Chacon and Abdool, they didn’t say they saw criminal activity at Neverland, did they?”” To which Birchim responded, “”No, they didn’t”.”

      I haven’t read Russell Birchim’s testimony yet, but it seems there is a lot to dig up there.

    • vulcan permalink
      August 17, 2015 11:19 am

      “Ralph Chacon was the one that reported to Russ Birchim and then signed a statement to the police that it was Brett that he saw in 1993 or 1992. ”

      What’s the proof of this? I don’t say it’s not true I would just like to see the evidence that he in fact talked about Brett in 1994. Was that reported by any media in 1994?

      I find it stunning that Tom didn’t use the biggest weapon against Chacon:
      he said that he saw MJ and Jordan naked in late 92 or early 93 and he saw MJ perform oral s.x on Jordan during that period.

      But the first time Jordan was in Neverland was in 93 Feb right after the Oprah interview and he himself claimed that the first time he saw MJ naked was in Monaco in May 1993 and there was no oral s.x or any s.x before that at all!

      When your enemies cannot reconcile their lies it’s a sure thing you are innocent.

      • lynande51 permalink*
        August 18, 2015 12:56 am

        Right here in this document is where they swear that they told Marie Barnes that a security guard had witnessed MJ molesting Brett. From the testimony and the Statement of Declination issued in September of 1994 by Gil Garcetti and Sneddon you can tell that they are talking about Brett because they say that one is out of the jurisdiction.
        http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/050405pltmotlimexcl1994.pdf

        If Chacon had said Jordan in 1993 instead of Brett they could have tried Michael on his testimony alone without Jordan testifying. If you read through the first part of Chacon’s testimony they are asking him who is who in the photographs and he is allowed to say that they looked almost identical. The other thing is that he could not have seen Jordan because he said he saw it happen in 1992 which was before Michael met Jordan.

  5. February 7, 2012 3:09 am

    That part of article is interesting

    “Also called by the defense was Russ Birchim. Birchim, sort of a hostile witness, was called to establish that prosecution witnesses Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool never approached him about any illegal activity when the 1993 investigation began. Unlike the wishful thinking from some pro-prosecution pundits, Birchim clearly established that it was only after Abdool and Chacon weighed their options about selling stories to the tabloids and getting police protection that they came up with their stories back in 1994. Birchim admitted that Chacon and Abdool told him they could make a lot of money by selling their story to the tabloids; something both of them did by the way, and reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars for doing so. Reportedly, the defense asked Birchim, “When you first approached Chacon and Abdool, they didn’t say they saw criminal activity at Neverland, did they?” To which Birchim responded, “No, they didn’t

    Chacon and Abdool also reportedly asked the police what they could get from them if they made allegations of criminal activity at Neverland. These points alone cast Chacon and Abdool’s testimony even more into doubt regardless of how Birchim wanted to protect the prosecution. What’s worse is that through Birchim, the defense made it clear there was a huge chunk of time between when they claim to have seen untoward behavior and when they actually made an allegation to the D.A..

    He is scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow to which the prosecution may try to delve into the 1993 allegations. The defense, however, isn’t shying away from the 1993 allegations at all and may be prepared to allow the prosecution to walk through a door they opened so that they can continue to blast away at the stale, uncharged, and unfounded 1993 allegation that started all of this mess to begin with. Stay tuned. -MJEOL ”

    http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/defense-witnesses-tear-through-testimony-from-pros.-witnesses-%c2%96-mb-266.html

  6. October 4, 2011 8:56 pm

    I think Francia was using Gutierrez to blackmail MJ

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-01-26/gossip/17968446_1_blanca-francia-jackson-lawyer-howard-weitzman-victor-gutierrez

    Gutierrez was a source of Tina Weaver who was the editor of Today.

  7. October 4, 2011 3:05 am

    I think they never prosecute him for what they claimed because they knew it was bullshit.

  8. Teva permalink
    October 4, 2011 2:57 am

    “when you are up against somebody like Jackson, the burden of proof in the criminal courts is so great, it’s incredibly tough to convict a celebrity.” Christopher Anderson

    I wish someone had told this to Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart, Bernie Madoff, T.I, Lindsay Lohan.

  9. October 3, 2011 9:14 pm

    From Sanger on April 21st

    “Mr. Abdool’s testimony and whether or not it’s been

    10 refuted by his own words, which I can indicate to

    11 the Court it has been,”

  10. October 3, 2011 8:46 pm

    DIMOND: Yes, this is one of the group that I call the “Neverland Five.” His name is Kassim Abdool. I heard this Vaseline story many years ago. He is also important to the state because he was the supervisor to Ralph Chacon. Chacon was a security guard who came here not long ago and told the jury that he saw a sex act performed by Michael Jackson on a ’93 accuser, and it’s my understanding, he went immediately to his supervisor, Kassim Abdool — Abdool Kassim, rather — and told him the story and brought him back to the location and showed him some evidence. So, that witness is important for a couple reasons for the state.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/20/lkl.01.html

  11. October 3, 2011 4:47 pm

    She also said it took the Neverland Five 5 months to find Michael Ring.

  12. October 3, 2011 4:35 pm

    She also said she did an interview with Orietta Murdoch in January 1994. Murdoch was a Gutierrez source.

  13. October 3, 2011 4:25 pm

    I just read Christopher Andersen book, in the chapter about the Neverland Five lawsuit, he cited an investigator who told him that the reasons why MJ was never criminally charged for witness intimidation, perjury etc… was because
    “it was better handled in the civil courts. when you are up against somebody like Jackson, the burden of proof in the criminal courts is so great, it’s incredibly tough to convict a celebrity.”

    i think they knew it was bullshit.

  14. October 3, 2011 4:06 pm

    I am just reading Dimond’s book and she said about Abdool on page 175

    “Long before he was ever called to the grand jury, Abdool recalled the night he received a walkie talkie call from Michael Jackson while on duty at the ranch. Jackson requested a jar of Vaseline be delivered to his bedroom suite immediatly, Abdool said….”

    From what I understand, it means that he was talking to the media way before he spoke to the DA.

  15. October 3, 2011 1:11 pm

    It’s from Mc Manus cross exam. I don’t understand why Mesereau asked her that

    Q. Now, in that lawsuit, you were suing Mr.

    5 Jackson for a number of different claims, and one of

    6 the claims talked about you having appeared at a

    7 deposition taken by Larry Feldman, and the claim

    8 said that you were a potential material witness

    9 against Jackson in both the civil suit and a

    10 criminal investigation, right?

    11 A. I believe so.

    12 Q. And what that really meant was, by filing

    13 that Complaint with that language, you were

    14 essentially threatening Mr. Jackson that you would

    15 change your testimony unless you were paid, right?

    16 A. I’m not familiar with a lot of attorney

    17 language, so I really don’t know how to answer that.

    She filed her civil suit after the end of the Chandler investigation.

  16. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:51 am

    Here is what I want to know. Were they 2 books? VG published MJWML in 1996/7, but is this the finish product of his earlier work, or was there an another/abandoned unfinished manuscript?

  17. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:46 am

    “It was resolved 2 or 3 years later, but the original complaint was not about the book.”

    I know it wasn’t about the book, but about the fabricated tape story. I was making the point that at the time N5 sued MJ they were giving interviews to VG for his book, and the judge in the civil suit found them to be ridiculous, hence the book is ridiculous.

  18. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 5:22 am

    Yes, I know that Lynande. But at the time MJ filed his lawsuit the book wasn’t published and there was no statement from VG that MJ was a pedo except for the tape.

  19. lynande51 permalink*
    September 14, 2011 5:13 am

    @ Shelly you can not sue a book, a radio program or a video tape. You have to sue the person that made the remark,spoke in the interview,or wrote the book. You can not sue an object for slander it must be the person that you sue for slander. You can sue them for slander and if they are found to be slanderous in a comment, a book, or an interview it is the person that is slanderous. You can also then because they were found to slander you reasonably know that anything they could write or say would be slander against that person.

  20. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 4:00 am

    It was resolved 2 or 3 years later, but the original complaint was not about the book.

  21. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 3:37 am

    @Shelly,

    “In fact, I am not sure about the book because MJ’s lawyers obviously discovered that the Neverland five did interviews with him in 1996, the lawsuit was filed in 1995.”

    It fits perfectly the book was published in ether 96/97. Correct me if I am wrong. Also the lawsuit was filed in 1995, but it was not resolved in 1995.

  22. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:31 am

    Jury Issues $2.7 Million Defamation Verdict to Michael Jackson

    A jury in Los Angeles found Victor Gutierrez liable for defamation after he refused to provide evidence that he had a tape of Michael Jackson having sex with a young boy. The TV show Hard Copy, which broadcast the allegation, and producers at ABC TV and Paramount were dismissed prior to trial. Gutierrez had earlier authored a book, entitled, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, for which he was unable to find a publisher. The defense was based on California’s shield law protecting journalists who refuse to divulge their sources. Jackson sued for $100 million, but said he was content with $2.7 million in compensatories. (Reuters, April 9, 1998)

  23. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:26 am

    @Teva,

    I don’t think it’s really important if the book was included in it. It’s so obvious that he was a very big liar, if I remember well he said Garcetti knew there was a tape.

    In fact, I am not sure about the book because MJ’s lawyers obviously discovered that the Neverland five did interviews with him in 1996, the lawsuit was filed in 1995.

  24. Teva permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:05 am

    @lynande51

    I don’t know about the book being allowed in, unless he made the same claims in the book. Wasn’t he being sued for what he said on Hard copy? In addition was the book even published in the USA? I don’t think so.

  25. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2011 2:02 am

    Another thing I noticed, Abdool is nowhere listed in that document even though he testified in 1994 and could corroborate what Chacon said. I am not speaking about the Vaseline story and that he forgot to tell that to the grand jury in 1994 but remember it very well when he had extensive discussion with Gutierrez.

  26. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 10:44 pm

    I think we also need docs about the Hayvenhurst Five trials.

  27. lynande51 permalink*
    September 13, 2011 6:42 pm

    So do I. I think they would have more information about when he started writing the book. What most people don’t get about that situation is that thebook would have been included as evidence of his slander. It was VG that was found to be slanderous,not a video tape, a tape can’t be sued or be slanderous. He was also found to be acting with fraud and malice as well.Once he had been found slanderous that would have included anything he said or wrote. The tape story is just one exampel of his slander. Once he was found guilty of slander the public could actually assume and rightfully so that he did not and does not tell the truth. At one point he even named Elizabeth Taylor and I think Brooke Shield or Marlon Brando as his source for the tape story so just imagine how big his lies have been over the years.

  28. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 11:22 am

    For Gutierrez, I think it would be very interesting to have the documents from his trial.

  29. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 11:20 am

    I think those documents confirmed what mesereau said about the Neverland 5 trials, the judge was very pissed off by them. He apparently said to their lawyers several times to “stop their nonsense”.

  30. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 10:40 am

    No, unfortunately no. If I understand well, they discovered that they talked to him during the trial. I send you the rest of the documents via email. I think it’s obivous that the judge didn’t like them.

  31. lynande51 permalink*
    September 13, 2011 3:27 am

    Shelly does this say somewhere when they met with Gutierrez?

  32. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 1:57 am

    This is the document I was using

    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    1997 WL 33801664
    Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
    Appellate Brief

    1997 WL 33801664 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)
    Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    v.
    Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    No. B104055.
    April 7, 1997.
    Santa Barbara Superior Court No. SM 89344
    Consolidated with SBSC No. SM 91416
    On Appeal from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court The Honorable Zel Canter, Judge Presiding
    Respondents’ Brief

    Katten Muchin & Zavi, Steve Cochran (Bar No. 105541), 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, California 90067-6042, (310) 788-4400.

    Sanger & Swysen, Robert M. Sanger (Bar No. 58214), Deborah J. Bishop (Bar No. 176201), Charles E. Tillage (Bar No.177983), 233 E. Carrillo St., Ste. C, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, (805) 962-4887, Attorneys for Respondents.

    *i Table of Contents

    Table of Contents … i

    Table of Authorities … iii

    Statement of the Case … 1

    The Standard of Review on Appeal … 2

    Appealability … 2

    Statement of Facts … 3

    I. The Sanctions for Failure to Produce Documents … 3

    II. The Sanctions for the Deposition of Adrian McManus … 7

    A. The Court Reopened the McManus Deposition … 7

    B. The Morning Session … 9

    C. The Afternoon Session … 11

    D. The Hearing … 12

    Argument … 13

    III. The Sanctions Order Entered on May 24, 1996, For $2,000 is not Appealable … 13

    IV. Appellants were Properly sanctioned $2,000 for Lying About Evidence and for the Failure to Produce ubpoenaed Documents … 15

    A. The Subpoenas were Properly Issued … 15

    B. Even if the Subpoenas Were Defective, Appellants Were Sanctioned for Lying to the Court and Counsel About the Existence of Documents … 17

    V. Sanctions for The McManus Deposition Were Just and Proper … 18

    A. The Waste of Time and Money Caused by Appellants’ Tactics in the Morning Session … 20

    B. The Impropriety of Appellants in the Afternoon Session … 21

    C. Appellants and/or Their Counsel Should Bear the Expense for Time lost, This Motion and Further Depositions of McManus … 21

    *ii D. The Trial Court’s Award of $8,970.50 Sanctions is Amply Supported by the Record … 22

    VI. Appellate Sanctions are Warranted on the Grounds That The Appeal is Totally and Completely Without Merit and is Prosecuted Solely for the Purpose of harassment and Delay is, Therefore, Frivolous … 24

    A. An Appeal is Frivolous When the Appeal Lacks Merit … 24

    B. An Appeal is Frivolous if Prosecuted For An Improper Notice … 24

    C. Sanctions Are Warranted Under the Facts of this Case … 25

    Conclusion … 25
    *iii Table of Authorities

    Case Law

    Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App. 3d 1 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233] … 2, 23

    Ballard v. Taylor (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1736 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 384 … 3

    Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501] … 20

    Hedley v. Rechti (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1553 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151] … 2, 23

    In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 [183 Cal.Rptr. 508] … 23, 24

    Rail-Transport Employees v. Union Pacific Motor Freight (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 [54 Cal.Rptr. 713] … 3, 14

    Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579 [272 Cal.Rptr. 541] … 17

    Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Coml. Corp. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 520 [94 Cal.Rptr. 857] … 2

    Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153 [252 Cal.Rptr. 115] … 23, 24

    Statutes

    California Code of Civil Procedure 904.1 … 7, 13, 14

    California Code of Civil Procedure 907 … 24

    California Code of Civil Procedure 1985.3(a)(1) … 15, 16

    California Rule of Court 10(c) … 1

    California Rule of Court 5.1(i)(1) … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 5.1 (i)(2) … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 5.1 (j) … 7

    California Rule of Court 13 … 1, 2

    California RuLe of Court 15 … 1, 2

    California Rule of Court 26(a) … 24
    *1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    Appellants are the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the trial court below. Respondents are the Defendants and Respondent Michael Jackson is also a Cross-Complainant below.
    This appeal is apparently taken from two orders imposing monetary sanctions on Appellants (Appellants’ Opening Brief, hereinafter A.O.B., ¶1) although. Appellants have not filed or presented the orders to this Court[FN1]:
    FN1. Appellants have failed to comply with numerous California Rules of Court, including 10(c), 5.1(i)(1) and (2), 13 and 15. They have also made blatant misrepresentations to this Court. These matters are the subject of the Omnibus Motion for Dismissal of Appeal filed concurrently herewith.
    1. An order of May 24, 1996, imposing sanctions in the amount of $2,000 against Appellants for lying about the existence of, and failing to produce documents pursuant to, a subpoena, compliance with which had been ordered on March 25, 1996;
    2. An order of July 23, 1996, imposing sanctions in the amount of $8,970.50, plus additional court reporter fees and costs in an amount to be established, for “obstructionist” tactics during the court ordered re-opened deposition of Adrian McManus[FN2].
    FN2. Thereafter, prior to trial and during trial, Appellants were sanctioned several additional times for lying to the court, perjury by each of the Appellants, collusion by their lawyers, destruction and spoliation of evidence, failure to make discovery and for violation of court orders.
    There are three additional appeals presently pending, B105480, B106880, B108051 and one recently filed that has not been assigned a number as of this writing. In addition, the jury returned a verdict on March 16, 1997, for Respondents. We respecfully ask this court to take judicial notice of said matters.
    A Notice of Appeal was filed on July 23, 1996, and a Notice to Proceed under California Rule of Court 5.1 was filed on August 2, 1996. (Appellants’ Appendix, hereinafter “AA,” 651 and 654)

    *2 THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL

    The standard of review of sanction orders is whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion. ( Hedley v. Ruchti (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1601 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151].) The Appellant has the burden of showing that the lower court abused its discretion. ( Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233]; citing Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Coml. Corp. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 520, 524 [94 Cal.Rptr. 857].) In reviewing discovery sanctions, the appellate court will reverse only when it is shown that the trial court’s decision was “ ‘arbitrary, capricious or whimsical…’ ” ( Hedley v. Ruchti, supra, at 1601; quoting Alliance Bank v. Murray, supra, at 10.)

    APPEALABILITY

    Appellants appeal from two separate sanctions orders. The first discovery sanctions order in the amount of $2,000.00 was issued from the bench on May 24, 1996. (Reporter’s Transcript, hereinafter “R.T.,”, 92.) This first order was based on Appellants’ lying about and failure to comply with the trial court’s orders compelling Appellants’ counsel to produce documents pursuant to the subpoenas duces tecum served on Appellants Barber and Gray and Ring. (AA, Vol. I, 186-195; Vol. I, 270, ¶ 2) The order was entered on May 24, 1996[FN3] and payment was stayed until July 12, 1996. (AA, Vol. III, 585-586.) This order is non *3 appealable under Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1(a)(12) since it is for less than $5,000. Rail-Transport Employees Assoc. v. Union Pacific Motor Freight, (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 [54 Cal.Rptr. 713] (under § 904.1(a)(12) only discovery sanctions orders in excess of $5,000 are appealable); Ballard v. Taylor, (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1736 [25 Cal.Rptr. 384] (prior to amendment of § 904.1, all discovery sanctions were non-appealable).
    FN3. Appellants have failed to comply with California Rules of Court 5.1, 13 and 15 and have not submitted a copy of this order. They have also omitted from the Reporter’s Transcript any reference to the actual findings and orders of the trial court. The context of the Reporter’s Transcript submitted makes it clear that the actual orders were made before the transcribed portion begins. (See, R.T. 83-94)
    The second discovery sanctions order is in the amount of $8,970.50 which was issued from the bench on July 23, 1996. (R.T., 180-185.) That sanction order does come within the exception to the code. The appeal from the $2,000 sanction order should be dismissed and sanctions should be assessed against appellants for their frivolous appeal of that order.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    I. THE SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS.
    On January 30, 1996, the Respondents in this case learned that the Star Magazine had published in its February 6, 1996 issue an article entitled “Michael Jackson’s Bizarre Marriage: What Really Went On Behind Closed Doors” based on an interview of the five Appellants in this case and featuring their pictures. (AA, 211.)
    Respondents immediately brought the Star article to the attention of the Court on January 31, 1996, at a hearing on Respondents’ motion to compel deposition of Kassim Abdool and Timothy McManus. (AA, 211.) The Court indicated that discovery about the Star article and media contacts was a permissible area of discovery. (AA, 211.)
    On February 7, 1996, the tabloid television magazine “Inside Edition” featured an interview of Sandi Domz covering the same *4 matters as the Star Article. (AA, 211-212.) Sandi Domz was interviewed at the Santa Barbara Courthouse and at her counsel’s office. (AA, 222.)
    Respondents conducted discovery relating to the Star article and any other media contacts as soon as practicable. They utilized all available means of discovery out of an abundance of caution. However, Appellants stonewalled every effort to obtain discovery in this area. (AA, 212.)
    On February 9, 1996, Respondent Michael Jackson propounded a Demand for Production of Documents on Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus and Sandi Domz asking for the production of certain publications. Respondent Jackson also propounded special interrogatories covering the same subject matter, on each individual Appellants. Appellants served their response to the Requests for Production of Documents on March 4, 1996, and their Responses to the Special Interrogatories on March 14, 1996. These responses contained only objections. In addition to boiler plate objections, Appellants objected on the ground that
    “… it calls for the production, identification and/or disclosure of any documents after the date set for the discovery cut-off in this action.” (AA, 202-203,)
    It was revealed during depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up the interview for the Star article and Inside Edition. (AA, 239.) Therefore, on February 15, 1996, Respondents served two subpoenas for the Production of Business Records on the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and on the Law Offices of Barber & Gray, respectively. (AA, 186-195.) Said subpoenas ordered the two law offices to produce a *5 series of documents pertaining either to the Star article, the Inside Edition interview or any other media contact. The documents requested were to be produced on March 1, 1996, to the deposition officer, the U.S. Photocopy Service. (AA, 186, 191.)
    On or about March 2, 1996, the day after that designated for the production of the subpoenaed records, the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and the Law Offices of Barber & Gray mailed to the deposition officer, but not on Respondents, two pleadings entitled “Objections of Custodian of Records of Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates” and “Objections of Custodian of Records of Law Offices of Barber & Gray”. (AA, 242-247) The envelopes containing the papers were postmarked March 2, 1996 and the papers were received by U.S. Photocopy Service on March 4, 1996. (AA, 244, 247). The two law offices objected to the subpoenas on the ground that they were defective for failure to check the boxes under item 1 and for failure to comply with the consumer notice requirements.
    Meanwhile, Respondents attempted to elicit information about the Star Articld, the Inside Edition segment and any other contact with the media during the depositions of Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall and Sandi Domz. (AA, 212.) Respondents encountered an extraordinary amount of resistance on the part of the deponents. (AA, 212.) The testimony of the Appellants was interrupted by countless conferences between Appellants’ counsel and Appellants. (AA, 212.) In addition, all of the Appellants deposed claimed they could not recall any specifics. (AA, 214-241.)
    On March 13, 1996, Appellants filed a “brief” regarding the subpoenas duces tecum. (AA, 175-200.) Respondents filed their *6 opposition on March 25, 1996. (AA, 201-267.) On March 25, 1996, the Court heard argument and ordered that Appellants’ counsel comply with the subpoenas issued to them relating to transactions with the news and entertainment media and further ordered that all materials be hand delivered by March 29, 1996. (AA, 270.) The documents delivered pursuant to the order were obviously incomplete. (AA, 27-273.)
    Appellants continued to deny that there were any other documents. Appellants faxed two letters claiming that all documents in their possession had been produced. (AA, 280-282.) On April 5, 1996, Respondents made a further ex parte application for compelling compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum, and sought $1,500 in sanctions. (AA, 268-276.) Appellant Ring even filed a declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents had been produced. (AA, 277-279.)
    By May 17, 1996, Respondents had obtained concrete evidence that Appellants had lied about possessing additional documents. On that day, Respondents filed a supplemental declaration in support of the motion to compel compliance by Appellants’ counsel with the subpoenas duces tecum. (AA, 283-344.) The supplemental declaration disclosed evidence that Appellants’ counsel had withheld numerous documents concerning correspondence with members of the tabloid media. (AA, 283-286.) Included in these withheld documents was at least one sketch of Elvis Presley by Michael Jackson, which Appellants Adrian McManus had stolen from Mr. Jackson. (AA, 287.) The motion to compel included a request for $5,000 in sanctions for attorney’s fees on the motion to compel. (AA, 286.)
    *7 On May 24, 1996, the Court heard Respondents’ motion to compel. (R.T., 83-92.)[FN4] The Court granted the motion and awarded $2,000 in sanctions, which were stayed until July 12, 1996. (R.T., 92.)
    FN4. Again, however, Appellants omitted the portion of the transcript during which the trial court made its findings and rulings on Respondents’ motion. Since it was granted, the record before this Court can only leave the conclusion that the trial court made adverse findings, that is that Appellants lied and perjured themselves when denying that they had any additional documents.
    Respondents have sought leave of this Court under California Rule of Court 5.1(j) for the preparation of additional transcripts which will bear this assumption out.
    II. THE SANCTIONS FOR THE DEPOSITION OF ADRIAN MCMANUS.
    A. THE COURT REOPENED THE MCMANUS DEPOSITION
    At the May 24, 1996 hearing, the Court also re-opened discovery .to permit Respondents to take the deposition of Adrian McManus. (R.T., 89.; AA 345-381.) Respondents’ motion to reopen pertained to two areas: (1) discovery of materials stolen from Respondents by Appellants; and (2) contacts with the tabloid media. These two areas were opened up because Respondents had caught Appellants lying about a particular sketch and a particular contact with one tabloid media broker. It was not the intention of themotion or the trial court to limit the questioning to the precise purloined sketch and one conversation which Respondents already knew about and which formed the basis for further inquiry.
    The necessity to reopen McManus’ deposition became apparent during the deposition of tabloid media broker Gary Morgan. Mr. Morgan revealed that Ms. McManus provided him with an original (stolen) sketch of Elvis Presley, drawn by Mr. Jackson, which appeared in a tabloid magazine. (AA, 320) In addition, Mr. Morgan *8 testified that the February 6, 1996 Star tabloid magazine article contains quotes from McManus that were not obtained by him. (AA, 364) Peter Burt wrote the February 6, 1996 article and based upon Morgan’s testimony, spoke directly with McManus or completely made up certain quotes attributed to McManus in the article. (AA, 371) In any case, the need to question both Appellant McManus and Burt became evident.
    Respondents filed a motion with the Court for permission to depose McManus and Burt. (AA, 345-387) No opposition was submitted by the Appellants. The Court granted the motion during the day-long session on May 24, 1996. (R.T., 89.)
    Appellants’ counsel asked the Court to order that Respondents not be allowed to examine McManus about “everything under the sun.” The Court stated that the deposition would be limited and defense counsel agreed. (R.T., 89.) Although the Court did not specify the limitations of McManus’ further deposition, a review of the hearing transcript and Respondents’ moving papers indicates that the trial court meant to restrict examination to discovery previously thwarted by appellants’ lies and deception including documents not turned over and contacts with the tabloid media.
    Pursuant to the Court’s order, Appellant McManus’ continued deposition occurred on Monday, June 24, 1996 at 10:00 am in Santa Barbara. Before that date Respondents learned about other tabloid media contacts by the Appellants. Appellant McManus (as well as Appellants Abdool, Bagnall and Chacon) had extensive conversations with Victor Gutierrez, a so-called journalist Who intended to self-publish a book full of “gossip” about Michael Jackson. Mr. Gutierrez’s book, which was published in Spanish before the McManus *9 deposition, was replete with verbatim quotes attributed to the Appellants. Appellant McManus, herself, is quoted on the dust jacket of the book. (AA, 469)
    Appellants’ counsel, Mr. Ring and Mr. Francis, obstructed the deposition and attempted to limit the questioning to two questions: (1) Did McManus have any contact with Peter Burt; and (2) How did McManus obtain the one sketch that was already discovered?
    B. THE MORNING SESSION
    Kelly Francis represented McManus during the morning session of her deposition on June 24, 1997. He began the morning session by claiming that the deposition was limited to two issues: (1) the Elvis Presley sketch, and (2) her contacts with Peter Burt. To no avail, Respondents attempted several times to meet and confer with Mr. Francis to resolve the dispute. (AA, 419.)
    Appellant McManus refused upon instruction of counsel to answer approximately 78 questions during the morning session of her deposition. McManus testified that she had no contact with Peter Burt. (AA, 419-420.) Mr. Francis then effectively shut down the questioning, refusing to allow questions regarding her denial of contact with Peter Burt, her recollection of other quotes and of the existence of the Morgan-interview transcript, that her counsel claimed he destroyed. Several times, Mr. Francis stated that the Peter Burt issue was over, and if Respondents wanted to question Ms. McManus about the sketch, to go ahead. Tellingly, this is what happened when defense counsel attempted to question McManus about the stolen sketch:
    “Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Where is the sketch you took from the ranch?
    *10 MR. FRANCIS: Are you referring to the sketch given to Mr. Morgan? Is that what you are referring to?
    MR. COCHRAN: If there are others, I want to know about them, too.
    MR. FRANCIS: I don’t know. Which one are you referring to when you say “the sketch”?
    MR. COCHRAN: How many sketches do you have?
    MR. FRANCIS: What was your question?
    MR. SANGER: Mr. Francis, you are incredibly obstructionist here. You just told us that this was — you told us that this was limited to finding out about the sketch. Mr. Cochran just asked about the sketch. Would you like us to go back to Judge Canter and ask him to tell us what sketch we are talking about?
    MR. FRANCIS: Do you know which sketch they’re talking about?
    MR. COCHRAN: Sure she does, man. She was in court that day.
    Q. You know what sketch we’re talking about, right?
    MR. FRANCIS: The sketch purportedly of Elvis, purportedly drawn by Mr. Jackson? Yes or no?
    Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what sketch we’re talking about?
    A. The sketch I found in the trash.
    Q. Is that the only sketch there is?
    A. That’s what I found in the trash.
    Q. Do you have any other sketches?
    MR. FRANCIS: Objection; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery as allowed by the Court. Instruct the witness not to answer.” (AA, 427.)
    *11 Shortly before noon, Mr. Francis asked to break for lunch early. (AA, 437)
    C. THE AFTERNOON SESSION
    During the afternoon session, Appellant Ring appeared for the deposition. Mr. Francis did not return for the remainder of the deposition. Appellant Ring said at first that he was altering Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, and that McManus could respond to some of the 78 questions she previously refused to answer. Mr. Ring stated that Respondents could ask McManus about statements she made in all of the articles that Gary Morgan had produced. Respondents then requested that Appellants pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session and to continue the deposition to that Wednesday, so that all of those questions could be asked again. Appellant Ring refused.
    Despite the purported offer to cooperate, Appellant Ring instructed Appellant McManus to refuse to answer at least sixteen more questions including questions about Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez of which Respondents had just learned.[FN5] Then, after being prompted by Appellant Ring, McManus ended the deposition early (before 4:00 pm) stating that “Enough’s enough. Time to go home,” and “I’m tired and I’m hungry. I want to go home. My back hurts, too.” (AA, 469.)[FN6]
    FN5. Most of these questions included the circumstances surrounding her interviews with Gary Morgan; whether she thought about the confidentiality agreement when she submitted to interviews by Gary Morgan; some questions regarding her contacts and other Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez and, any discussions with her lawyer/agent about selling her story. (See: e.g., AA, 449-50, 455-457, 463, 465.)
    FN6. For approximately twenty minutes after the questioning of McManus, counsel attempted to meet and confer regarding the issues raised during this deposition and with regard to continuing McManus’ deposition. Mr. Ring stated that he stood by Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, would not agree to pay for the cost of an expedited transcript from the morning session and would not agree to continue McManus’ deposition to dates that were acceptable to Respondents. Thus, Mr. Ring and his client, McManus shut down her deposition without resolving the issues.
    *12 D. THE HEARING
    On July 12, 1996, the parties appeared in court to discuss the conduct of the McManus deposition, among other issues. The Court viewed a videotape of two brief portions of the deposition (quoted above).[FN7] After viewing the first segment, the Court exclaimed in exasperation, “I don’t need to hear any more. Done.” (R.T., 99.) The Court viewed the second clip, and stated, “I’ve heard enough. This is — I’m going to tell you now this is clearly obstructionist. I don’t even want to hear argument. I’m going to impose sanctions on you. (R.T., 99-100.)
    FN7. The videotape is the subject of respondents’ concurrent motion to augment the record pursuant to California Rule of Court 12(a) and case law.
    The Court directed respondents to submit a cost bill to support an award of sanctions, including attorneys’ fees. (R.T., 100.) The cost bill was filed July 19, 1996, seeking $11,482 in fees and costs related to the McManus deposition. (AA, Vol. III, 589-594.)
    On July 23, 1996, the Court held a hearing on the amount of sanctions. Appellants’ counsel, Michael Ring, apologized to the Court for the conduct of his associate, Mr. Francis, at the McManus deposition, stating “He’s got a lot to learn.” (R.T., 145-146, 152-153.) Even though Appellant Ring did not accept responsibility or and blamed Mr. Francis, the trial court accepted Mr. Ring’s *13 statement as an apology. (R.T., 158-159.) At the conclusion of the argument, the Court stated:
    “I believe, from what I saw on the video and from what I’ve heard in argument, and what little I have read of the exhibits that have been set before me, that it was — Mr. Kelly Francis is just going to have to learn. If it’s at your expense, it’s at your expense. This isn’t the first time that he’s blocked the proceedings and caused a great deal of commotion.” (R.T., 180.)
    The Court addressed each element of fees and costs in the cost bill, refused to award some of the requested costs, and ultimately awarded sanction in the amount of $8,970.50. (R.T., 180-185.)

    ARGUMENT

    III. THE SANCTIONS ORDER ENTERED ON MAY 24, 1996 FOR $2,000 IS NOT APPEALABLE.
    Appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in sanctions by the Honorable Zel Canter on May 24, 1996. (R.T., 83-92) They seek to appeal this as well as the $8,970.50 sanctions order which was entered on July 23, 1996 for different obstructionist conduct.
    Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12):
    “An appeal may be taken from a Superior Court in the following case: … (12) from an order directing payment of monetary sanctions by a party or an attorney for a party if the amount exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000).”
    In Rail-Transport Employees Association v. Union Pacific Motor Freight[FN8] (1996)46 Cal.App.4th 469, 473 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 716] the court analyzed the legislative history of California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 and concluded that appeals from *14 sanctions orders for less than five thousand dollars may only be taken upon the conclusion of the case as part of an appeal on the merits of the action or by way of extraordinary writ. The Court stated: “That is, the vast majority of discovery sanctions will not reach the $5,000 threshold and therefore are unappealable. However, those cases involving misuse of the discovery process which result in sanctions exceeding $5,000 are reviewable by direct appeal.” Id. at 475. Thus, only sanctions orders for $5,000 or more may be taken by way of direct appeal.
    FN8. Appellants cite this case and misrepresent to this Court the proposition for which it stands. (A.O.B., Page 2).
    The appeal from the sanctions order of $2,000 entered by the Honorable Zel Canter on May 24, 1996, must be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12)and well settled case law.
    IV. APPELLANTS WERE PROPERLY SANCTIONED $2,000 FOR LYING ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FOR THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.
    A. THE SUBPOENAS WERE PROPERLY ISSUED
    In their subpoenas, Respondents sought the production of records relating to an article in the tabloid magazine The Star, to an interview by the tabloid television magazine Inside Edition and possibly contacts with other publications and media for the sale of information regarding Michael Jackson. These subpoenas were served because Respondents discovered on January 31, 1996 and thereafter that the Appellants sold information about Michael J. Jackson to at least The Star and Inside Edition and possibly other media organizations. The subpoenas sought records specifically from the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and Barber & Gray because some of the Appellants revealed during their depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up *15 the interviews for the Star article and Inside Edition in an attempt to raise funds for the litigation. (AA, 473.)
    Special procedures are required for the production of personal records of a consumer to protect the consumer’s right to privacy by giving him or her the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena before the production of the records. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3(e)). However, before the special procedures apply to a particular case, the records sought must be “personal records” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1983.5(a)(1). The records requested here were not personal records within that definition.
    Personal records means records pertaining to a “consumer” maintained by an individual listed in 1985.3(a)(1). Attorneys are listed, however, in the present case, the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and of Barber & Gray were not acting as attorneys for the Appellants but as a party to the transaction and/or business agent for the Appellants. The lawyers were parties to the transaction and received money to cover expenses related to this litigation that they would otherwise have had to cover themselves.
    It also appears that Appellants’ counsel were acting as business agent for the Appellants to obtain on their behalf the lucrative interviews we know of and possibly others. Business agents and parties to a transaction are not covered by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3(a)(1). Records belonging to a lawyer who makes a media contract to his own benefit are not attorney/client and therefore not personal to the erstwhile clients. Since the records sought were not attorney/client *16 records, no notice to consumer was necessary and the subpoenas were not defective.
    In addition, the Consumer Notice would have required an idle act since the attorneys were presently representing these clients in the very action in which the subpoenas were issued. In fact, the need for the subpoenas at all was occasioned by the bad faith failure to make discovery by Appellants and their counsel at that time.
    Further, in the event that the trial court found that a notice to consumer was necessary in this case, Respondents requested that the court exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1985.3(h) and either waive the notice requirement altogether or shorten the time for reservice of the deposition subpoenas.
    “Upon good cause shown and provided that the rights of witnesses and consumers are preserved, a subpoenaing party shall be entitled to obtain an order shortening time for service of subpoena duces tecum or waiving the requirements of subdivision (b) where due diligence by the subpoenaing party has been shown.”
    B. EVEN IF THE SUBPOENA WERE DEFECTIVE, APPELLANTS WERE SANCTIONED FOR LYING TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL ABOUT THE iEXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS
    The Court ultimately did order production of the documents pursuant to the subpoenas, as it was permitted to do by law and under its discretion. Appellants were properly sanctioned for failing to comply with that order. See, Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co., (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1583 [272 Cal.Rptr. 541] (court has authority to impose monetary sanctions if party *17 disobeys a court order to respond to a request for production of documents).
    Even if the trial court erred in ruling that Appellants Ring, Barber and Francis were obligated to comply with the subpoenas due to the lack of a consumer notice, it is no defense to the $2,000 sanctions imposed. Appellants have no right to lie and commit perjury in resistance to a direct court order whether or not that court order is technically correct.
    Here, the $2,000 sanctions were imposed after Appellants maintained through correspondence, including letters containing “Rambo” type language, and a declaration under penalty of perjury that they had provided Respondents with copies of all documents required by the subpoena (Respondents’ Appendix, passim; AA, 277-282)[FN9]. Appellants now cite the same self-serving perjurious documents in their Opening Brief to mislead this Court. Appellants fail to apprize this Court of the fact that the trial court found those very statements to be false and perjurious and fail to include or cite to the record wherein the court made such findings. Appellants also continue to make those same self-serving assertions in their brief despite the fact that it was well known by the time of the filing of the brief that they had been caught at withholding the Michael Jackson sketches and notes and the nineteen page single-spaced transcripts by the media broker and handwritten notes by Appellants thereon.
    FN9. A Respondents’ Appendix was necessary because Appellants intentionally omitted key Exhibits from Respondents’ moving papers in Appellants’ Appendix.
    V. SANCTIONS FOR THE MCMANUS’S DEPOSITION WERE JUST AND PROPER
    *18 Respondents requested that McManus’ deposition be reopened because she had talked of people.from the tabloid press. She had made reckless statements about Michael Jackson’s personal life and about the Neverland Valley Ranch, according to the press. She either did or did not have a copy of a transcript of what she told one tabloid media broker (Gary Morgan). She either did or did not have items which she took from the Ranch. Respondents were allowed to find out about all of it. That is what the Court ordered.
    However, at the re-opened deposition of Ms. McManus, her counsel, Mr. Francis, would not even allow Respondents to ask McManus about her denial of contacts with Peter Burt. Mr. Francis simply cut off the questioning after McManus denied speaking with Burt.[FN10] Likewise, Appellant Ring arbitrarily limited examination on probative matters. However, Appellant Ring and Appellant McManus simply shut down the deposition. This total refusal to proceed is what caused Respondents to ask the court for an order compelling her to continue.
    FN10. McManus’ denial created a discrepancy between McManus’ testimony and Mr. Morgan’s, and made her recollection of the other quotes, and the transcript (which Appellants’ counsel threw away) all relevant. Mr. Burt’s attorney did not corroborate McManus’ denial of contact with Mr. Burt. Instead, he invoked the shield law and attempted to prevent Respondents’ from taking Mr. Burt’s deposition. (AA, 476-492.)
    At the May 24, 1996 hearing, the Court ruled that it was necessary to continue the deposition of McManus because statements she made to the media were relevant, at the very least to show Appellants’ bias, prejudice and motives to bring this lawsuit, per Evidence Code § 780. (R.T., 1-94) Respondents also wished to depose McManus to discover any violations of the protective order. *19 The Court did not restrict the deposition to two basic areas, i.e., whether McManus had contact with Burt, and whether she stole the sketch of Elvis Presley. According to the Appellants’ interpretation of the Court’s order, the Respondents would have to seek relief from the Court to question McManus about every media contact discovered between the hearing of the application and McManus’ deposition. This is not what the Court intended.
    The Court intended this deposition to cover all of McManus’ relevant media contacts. These contacts include her conversations with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Burt; others of whom Respondents have recently learned; and any others whom Respondents do not know about yet. The Court indicated that it was concerned about the effect these media contacts will have on Respondents’ ability to have a fair trial, i.e., the effect on the jury pool. The Court said repeatedly that the Appellants’ media contacts were relevant. Thus, Respondents were entitled to follow up on these contacts through discovery in order to have a fair trial.
    Appellants misquote the law. Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 [24 Cal.Rptr. 501] does stand for the proposition that “discovery sanctions under the discovery statute are reasonable if they include costs incurred in preparing a motion and attending the hearing, but that further sanctions are unreasonable.”. (A.O.B. 18) In fact, the court in Ghanooni holds that an amount levied as a pure punitive measure is improper but that (under Code of Civil Procedure 2023) “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by *20 anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Emphasis added.) That is all the trial court did here. The reasonable expenses included attorneys fees and wasted time at multiple deposition sessions which would have concluded long ago had the Appellants and their counsel just told the truth.
    A. The Waste of Time and Money Caused by Appellants’ Tactics in the Morning Session
    Respondents arranged for the court reporter, a videographer, and at least one of the Respondents traveled from Los Angeles to attend this deposition. Mr. Cochran traveled from Los Angeles to take this deposition.
    Mr. Francis’ tactic of unilaterally limiting the scope of the deposition, and instructing his client not to answer 78 questions, resulted in an enormous waste of time and money and violates the letter and spirit of the Discovery Act.
    B. The Impropriety of Appellants’ Position During the Afternoon Session
    Appellant Ring started the afternoon session by stating that Appellant could answer some of the questions from the morning session, but could not identify specific questions. Since Mr. Francis was not present in the afternoon, he could not assist with this endeavor. Nor would Mr. Ring agree to pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session so that the questions McManus asked in the morning could be asked again. Instead, he arbitrarily limited examination, then ended the deposition early, before 4:00 pm.
    *21 C. Appellants’ And/or Their Counsel Should Bear the Expense for Time Lost, this Motion and Further Deposition Sessions of Ms. Mcmanus
    Appellants and their counsel were properly held to pay the price for their obstructionist tactics. Appellants and their counsel will properly be held to bear the cost of the court reporter, the videographer, the original transcript for the wasted day of deposition on May 24, 1996, as well as for all additional sessions of Appellant McManus’ deposition now required as a result of her improper refusal to answer nearly one hundred questions. (R.T., 134, 194) Appellants also were properly held to bear a portion of Respondents’ costs of coming to seek relief. Respondents gave notice during the deposition that such sanctions would be sought. (AA, 482.)
    The Court carefully considered the costs to Respondents as a result of the obstructionist tactics and awarded an appropriate amount of sanctions. Appellants cannot be heard to complain — in direct contradiction to the record — that the sanctions were punitive. On the contrary, each and every element of the sanctions award was reviewed and considered by the court: $428.50 for the videographer (R.T., 180-181, AA 590); $1,570.50 for the court reporter’s expedited transcript (R.T., 181, AA 590); $3,282.50 for attorney’s fees attending the deposition (R.T., 181-182, AA 590); $2,340 for reviewing the deposition (R.T., 183-184, AA 590); $1,000 for attending the hearing (R.T., 184, AA 590); $140 service fee (R.T., 185, AA 591); $14 filing fee (R.T., 185, AA 590); $195 for preparing cost bill (R.T., 185, AA 591). On several of these *22 elements e.g. reviewing deposition and preparing the cost bill, the Court taxed costs and refused to award the requested amounts.
    Appellants were sanctioned for the direct costs of their obstructionist behavior. The Court was well within its discretion to award such costs as sanctions.
    D. The Trial Court’s Award of the $8,790.50 Sanctions Is Amply Supported by the Record
    Appellants argue that the trial court’s sanction order was a penalty for their “obstructionist” conduct and acts as a “windfall” for Respondents. (App. Brf., p. 19.) The sanctions were for “obstructionist” behavior, which is just what sanctions are designed to deter. However, the amount was based soley on the cost to Respondent of havin to deal with that behavior. (RT, 95-192.) There was no “windfall,” in fact, to the contrary, Appellants’ behavior cost Respondents considerably more that they were awarded. (AA, 589-594.)
    Trial court discovery sanctions will be upheld on appeal when the facts support the ruling. ( Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153, 159 [252 Cal.Rptr. 115].) And the discovery sanction orders will only be disturbed on appeal when they are arrived at from “arbitrary, capricious, and whimisical action.” ( Hedley v. Ruchti, supra, at 1601 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151]; quoting Alliance Bank v. Murray, supra, at 10 [207 Cal.Rptr. 233]) Here, Judge Canter’s order imposing sanctions was arrived at after a careful review of the discovery abuses, is amply supported by the record, and was correct under any standard of review.
    *23 IV. APPELLATE SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPEAL IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT AND IS PROSECUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSMENT AND DELAY AND IS, THEREFORE, FRIVOLOUS.
    A. An Appeal Is Frivolous When The Appeal Lacks Merit
    An appeal lacks merit when the appeal is viewed by any reasonable attorney as totally and completely lacking merit. (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650, [183 Cal.Rptr. 508].) Appellants’ appeal from the $2,000.00 and $8,970.50 sanction orders is totally and completely without merit. The entire appela is prepared in a haphazard fashion, the Rules have not been followed, there is deliberate deception on the part of Appellants on this Court, and the sanctions were more than deserved in the first place.
    B. An Appeal Is Frivolous If Prosecuted For An Improper Motive
    An improper motive is found when the Appellants are seeking to harass the Respondents or delay the effect of an adverse judgment. ( In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, at 650.) Appellants’ motive is to delay the day of reckoning.
    C. Sanctions Are Warranted Under the Facts of This Case
    Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 907 and California Rule of Court 26(a), the appellate court can and should order sanctions against the Appellants for filing such a blatantly frivolous appeal. Appellate courts have found it quite appropriate to impose appellate sanctions where counsel is frivolous in *24 appealing trial court sanctions. ( Zimmerman v. Drexel, Burnharm & Lambert, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 153, [252 Cal.Rptr. 115].)
    Kassim ABDOOL, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Melanie Bagnall, Sandi Domz, Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Assoc., and Law Offices of Barber & Gray Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael J. JACKSON, James Van Norman, Tony Coleman, Marcus Johnson, Bill Bray, Bettye Bailey, and Andrew Merritt Defendants and Respondents.
    1997 WL 33801664 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (Appellate Brief)

    END OF DOCUMENT

    • sanemjfan permalink
      October 29, 2012 2:53 am

      Shelly, can you email me a copy of this document? You can use the “contact us” form to send it. I’ll need this document for a future post. Thanks!

    • shellywebstere permalink
      October 29, 2012 10:06 pm

      I have more documents. In one of them you have one of the lawyer, a guy name Matthews, in trouble because of his Dimond interview.

  33. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2011 1:54 am

    “During the afternoon session, Appellant Ring appeared for the deposition. Mr. Francis did not return for the remainder of the deposition. Appellant Ring said at first that he was altering Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, and that McManus could respond to some of the 78 questions she previously refused to answer. Mr. Ring stated that Respondents could ask McManus about statements she made in all of the articles that Gary Morgan had produced. Respondents then requested that Appellants pay for an expedited transcript of the morning session and to continue the deposition to that Wednesday, so that all of those questions could be asked again. Appellant Ring refused.
    Despite the purported offer to cooperate, Appellant Ring instructed Appellant McManus to refuse to answer at least sixteen more questions including questions about Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez of which Respondents had just learned.[FN5] Then, after being prompted by Appellant Ring, McManus ended the deposition early (before 4:00 pm) stating that “Enough’s enough. Time to go home,” and “I’m tired and I’m hungry. I want to go home. My back hurts, too.” (AA, 469.)[FN6]”

    lol again

Trackbacks

  1. April 7th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Ralph Chacon (Direct & Cross Examination), Adrian McManus (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 5 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. April 7th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Ralph Chacon (Direct & Cross Examination), Adrian McManus (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 1 of 5 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: