Skip to content

April 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jeff Klapakis (Cross Examination), Jack Green, Larry Feldman, and Jesus Salas (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 4

November 3, 2012

Here is Feldman’s description of Jordan Chandler in 1993; notice how Mesereau was able to get Feldman’s complimentary and unprofessional remarks stricken!

24 Q. Okay. Now, before we get too far down the


25 road with Mr. Dickerman, I neglected to show you a


26 photograph.


27 Your Honor, I’ve had a photograph marked as


28 7-76, 776 for identification purposes. I’m 4503


1 approaching the witness. I’ve shown it to counsel.


2 Mr. Feldman, do you recognize the person


3 depicted in that photograph?


4 A. I do.


5 Q. Who is that?


6 A. Jordie Chandler.


7 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what Jordie


8 Chandler looked like?


9 A. He was much better looking, I can tell you,


10 at that age. He was adorable. That’s kind of


11 blurry.


12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike the


13 gratuitous remarks.


14 THE COURT: Stricken.


15 MR. SNEDDON: Move that 776 be admitted into


16 evidence, Your Honor.


17 MR. MESEREAU: No objection, Your Honor.


18 THE COURT: The answer was stricken to the


19 question as to whether or not it was an accurate


20 picture of Jordan Chandler. That hasn’t been


21 answered.


22 MR. SNEDDON: I thought you were just


23 striking the last part.


24 THE COURT: I struck the whole thing.


25 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Is that photograph, 776, an


26 accurate depiction of Jordan Chandler at or about


27 the time that you knew him?


28 A. Yes. 4504


1 THE COURT: All right. It’s admitted.


2 MR. SNEDDON: May I publish it, Your Honor?


3 THE BAILIFF: “Input 4,” Your Honor.




5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Mr. Feldman,


6 the exhibit that is on the Elmo there, 776, that’s


7 the one you just identified as the individual


8 depicted as Jordan Chandler, correct?


9 A. That’s correct.

Next, Feldman explained his relationship with William Dickerman, the referral agreement between the two that guaranteed that Dickerman would receive a percentage of any settlement that Feldman won on behalf of the Arvizos, and just how the referral of the Arvizos came about:


10 Q. All right. Thank you very much.


11 Now, let’s get back to Mr. Dickerman. You


12 indicated that you had at least one prior referral


13 from him that you recall. Now, let’s just talk


14 about something in general.


15 You say you get a referral. Is there


16 ordinarily, in the practice of law when somebody


17 refers you a case, an agreement called a referral


18 agreement?


19 A. Yeah. Depending on what kind of case,


20 obviously, that’s being referred, but the answer is


21 yes.


22 Q. Could you explain to the ladies and


23 gentlemen of the jury how that referral agreement


24 usually works, in general terms?


25 A. Yeah, sure. If — there are two ways,


26 generally, lawyers make their money. One is a


27 contingent fee agreement, where they only receive


28 payment if they are successful. And if they’re not 4505


1 successful, they don’t get paid. The second is just


2 a straight hourly kind of payment where you get paid


3 for every hour that you work.


4 In the contingent field, when a lawyer


5 referrs another lawyer in the contingent field, some


6 lawyers, not all, want to participate in some


7 fashion, some way, and they then request the


8 referral fee. And the State Bar rules say that’s


9 legal and you can do that, as long as you tell the


10 client in advance and the client consents to that


11 referral agreement.


12 Q. Now —


13 A. And it’s traditionally done. Not


14 “traditionally,” but depends where the case is


15 coming from and who the lawyer is, and, you know,


16 it’s a whole variety of things.


17 Q. In 2003, did Mr. Dickerman refer you a case?


18 A. He did.


19 Q. And with regard to that particular case, was


20 there one of these referral agreements formed


21 between you and he?


22 A. Ultimately, yes. Not right at the


23 beginning. But ultimately, yes.


24 Q. As part of the referral process, did you


25 have a conversation with Mr. Dickerman?


26 A. Yeah, I’m sure I did. I must have.


27 Q. The first contact was by phone?


28 A. Oh, yeah. The first contact with Mr. 4506


1 Dickerman clearly was by phone.


2 Q. And did you eventually have an in-person


3 conversation with him?


4 A. In general. You’re not talking about the


5 referral fee now. You’re talking about just —


6 Q. Yeah, I’m talking about —


7 A. In general, yeah, sure. I mean, he called


8 me. He told me stuff. He then wanted to come in


9 and talk to me.


10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; move to


11 strike.


12 THE COURT: Sustained.


13 THE WITNESS: I’m not going to say what he


14 said.


15 MR. SNEDDON: I know, and you didn’t.


16 Q. Okay. So he had a telephone conversation


17 with you, and he told you some things over the


18 phone?


19 A. That’s right.


20 Q. All right. As a result of that telephone


21 call, did you then have an in-person meeting with


22 Mr. Dickerman?


23 A. As a result of that, I had an in-person


24 meeting, yes.


25 Q. Do you recall whether or not, at the time


26 that you had the first in-person meeting with Mr.


27 Dickerman or the first meeting in person – the


28 sentence the other way was bad – with Mr. 4507


1 Dickerman —


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. — do you recall whether or not the clients


4 that he was referring to you were present?


5 A. I don’t think they were in the first


6 meeting.


7 Q. Now, at some point after that, then, did you


8 meet the individuals that were the subject of the


9 case referred to you by Mr. Dickerman?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. And with regard to those — the clients, do


12 you recall their names?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Who were they?


15 A. Janet Arvizo, her daughter Davellin, her son


16 Gavin, and her son Star.

Next, Feldman describes the actions that he took on behalf of the Arvizos; his initial issue was to research whether or not Martin Bashir and ABC had exploited the Arvizo family by airing footage of them without their consent:

17 Q. Now, let me go back. I neglected to ask you


18 one other question about referral agreements.


19 Does the fact that you take a referral


20 agreement from another lawyer obligate you to


21 continue that case to a point of filing a cause of


22 action or taking some form of action?


23 A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.


24 Q. You had a meeting involving the family where


25 you met them?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. Do you recall whether Mr. Dickerman was


28 present or not? 4508


1 A. My guess is he was, because I assume he


2 brought them to me and brought them to my office,


3 and he had contact, a lot of contact, with them

4 before he came to me, so I’m assuming he did. I’m


5 almost sure he was there. I would never have met


6 with them without him being there.


7 Q. And do you recall where the meeting took


8 place?


9 A. In my office. This is when I was at Fogel,


10 Feldman. This is not my new job, but when I had my


11 old law firm.


12 Q. Where was that office located?


13 A. In Santa Monica.


14 Q. Now, as a result of that first conversation


15 with the Arvizo family, did you decide to take a


16 form of — a course of action of any kind?


17 A. Well, sure, of some kind.


18 Q. All right.


19 A. I mean —


20 Q. What would you categorize, in terms of the


21 way you handle cases, as the process that you felt


22 was going on at this point?


23 A. The process that I follow in my law office


24 at all times is people come in, they tell a — the


25 factual story. We then — depends on the case, but


26 generally speaking we then will do research, legal


27 research, especially in a case like this, to see and


28 try to understand what the law is. 4509


1 And because of the nature of the potential


2 defendants at that time, which was ABC, this Martin


3 Bashir, whatever his company was called, it involved


4 Michael Jackson, we were going to make sure we knew


5 what we were doing before we started. And so after


6 we sort of heard this version of the facts, of some


7 facts anyway, that’s the next step that we did.


8 We also I think got — we were shown


9 letters. Mr. Dickerman had letters that he had


10 written to the BBC in England, and he wrote letters


11 to Mark Geragos, and Geragos to him, I can’t recall


12 which way they went, but — so we had those, and we


13 were trying to make heads or tails in a legal sense,


14 which nobody had done up to that point in time, to


15 try to focus on what is this about and where — are


16 we interested in taking any more steps.


17 Q. Now, with regard to the legal research that


18 you did, what was the research that you did?


19 A. We had to research — the fundamental issue


20 was that Martin Bashir had done a tape at Mr.


21 Jackson’s house that Ms. Arvizo had told us —


22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it


23 calls for hearsay, as well as narrative.


24 THE COURT: Sustained.


25 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just what are the issues


26 that you were researching as a result of your


27 conversation with the Arvizo family?


28 A. Well, the — whether or not Martin Bashir or 4510


1 ABC had to have consent to put the children on


2 television.

Sneddon then tried to question Feldman about any other issues that he felt were worthy of his attention and research, and Mesereau objected but was overruled. However, Judge Melville surely didn’t appreciate the way that Sneddon looked at him, and he gave Sneddon a stern admonishment in front of the court room! Sneddon had tried to argue that under Section 1250 of the Evidence Code he could ask Feldman what his exact thoughts were regarding his motivations for referring the Arvizos to Dr. Stan Katz, but Judge Melville wouldn’t allow it.

Based on this line of questioning, it’s a fair assumption that Star and Gavin insinuated that they had been abused somehow, and this is what aroused Feldman’s suspicions:

3 Q. Now, with regard to other aspects of the


4 information provided to you by the Arvizo family in


5 this meeting, did you decide on another course of


6 action that you felt you needed to do to determine


7 whether you were going to represent this family?


8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. That’s leading;


9 move to strike.


10 THE COURT: Overruled.


11 You may answer.




13 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And what did you do in that


14 connection?


15 A. I decided at some point in time that I had


16 to make some heads or tails out of what was being


17 told to me by Mrs. Arvizo, by Star, the young boy,


18 and Gavin. And I concluded that I wasn’t going to


19 be able to do —


20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;


21 impermissible opinion; no foundation; relevance;


22 hearsay.


23 MR. SNEDDON: Judge —


24 THE COURT: The question, though, was what


25 did he do next, so he answered that. So his


26 thoughts aren’t being called for at this point.


27 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I believe under 1250 of


28 the Evidence Code – 4511


1 THE COURT: This just relates to the question


2 and answer, Counsel. The question didn’t call for


3 his thoughts. Don’t look at me like that.


4 MR. SNEDDON: I — Judge, I was thinking of


5 the next question I was going to ask. If you took


6 it the wrong way, I’m sorry, but I wasn’t —


7 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.


8 MR. SNEDDON: I mean, it’s —


9 Q. All right. So you — you decided on a


10 course of action?


11 A. I did.


12 Q. As a result of the information given to you?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. And what was that course of action?


15 A. The course of action was to allow an expert,


16 which I was not, to spend some time with all three


17 of them. Davellin wasn’t really the issue, but


18 Janet, Star and Gavin, and let some expert figure


19 out, if he could, what was happening.


20 Q. All right. Did you contact somebody to help


21 you make that evaluation?


22 A. I did.


23 Q. And who was that?


24 A. Dr. Stanley Katz.


25 Q. And are you familiar — were you familiar


26 with Dr. Katz prior to the time that you decided to


27 use him in the case —


28 A. Yes. 4512


1 Q. — involving the case that Mr. Dickerman had


2 referred to you?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. And what was your prior contact with Dr.


5 Katz?


6 A. In 1987, I was defending a family who had


7 been wrongfully accused of abusing a child, and the


8 court so found, but — and Dr. Katz, the first time


9 I met him, was an expert that we hired for the


10 defense to assist in that trial, and he testified in


11 that case.


12 Q. Did you hire Dr. Katz or did he participate


13 in the case of Chandler versus Jackson?


14 A. Yeah, in Chandler versus — well,


15 “participate.” Chandler versus Jackson moved very


16 quickly, because he was a minor.


17 Q. Did you retain him?


18 A. So I retained him, yes.


19 Q. And did he play any role in the case itself?


20 It never went to trial, correct?


21 A. The case never went to trial. We never got


22 that —


23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and


24 answered.


25 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll move on, Your Honor.

26 It’s not a problem.


27 THE COURT: All right.


28 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of your 4513


1 contacts with Dr. Katz, did you decide to send the


2 Arvizo family to Dr. Katz?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. In 2003?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. Okay. Now, do you recall when that was,


7 approximately, what month it was?


8 A. Either May or June, in that time frame, of


9 2003.


10 Q. At some point in time, did you receive a


11 report back from Dr. Katz about his initial contacts


12 with the family?


13 A. Oral. I got an oral — I had an oral


14 conversation with him.


15 Q. Do you recall whether it was in person or


16 over the phone?


17 A. I think it was in person, quite frankly. I


18 think he came to my office.


19 Q. Now, after you received this report, did you


20 do anything?


21 A. Yes.


22 Q. What did you do?


23 A. I called the Arvizo family, Mrs. Arvizo and


24 the three children, back into my office for a


25 meeting.


26 Q. All right. And in that meeting, what was


27 the topic discussed?


28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it 4514


1 calls for hearsay.


2 MR. SNEDDON: All right.


3 THE COURT: Overruled. The subject matter


4 only.


5 THE WITNESS: The subject matter only. The


6 subject matter was the options — well, what Dr.


7 Katz had told me, and their — the options that


8 existed at that point for that family. Different


9 courses of action that were available to them at


10 that point in time.

Next, Sneddon asked Judge Melville to allow him to ask questions that are admissible under Evidence Code 1250 in order to establish Feldman’s and the Arvizo’s state of mind to the jury, but once again the judge sustained Mesereau’s hearsay objection. However, Sneddon was able to question Feldman about his next course of action after the Arvizo’s initial visit with Dr. Katz, and that was to send them back to see Dr. Katz, since they wanted to go and see him again anyway. After the second meeting with Dr. Katz, Feldman reported the alleged abuse to the head of the Department of Children and Family Services:

11 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, at this point I


12 would ask the Court to be able to have the witness


13 be able to recount those, and that it would be


14 admissible under 1250 of the Evidence Code not only


15 as to this witness’s state of mind, but also as to


16 the state of mind and actions of the Arvizo family.


17 MR. MESEREAU: And I object. Hearsay,


18 foundation; relevance; and calls for improper


19 conclusion; and 352.


20 THE COURT: Whose statements are you offering


21 for the state of mind only?


22 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, both. I mean,


23 you’re asking me, so I guess I can go beyond —


24 THE COURT: Just give me names.


25 MR. SNEDDON: All right. This witness, Mr.


26 Feldman, with regard to his state of mind with


27 regard to what the future of any lawsuit may be at


28 this point; and secondly with regard to the Arvizos, 4515


1 any decision that they would have made regarding any


2 lawsuits against any individuals at this point in


3 time, which I believe is an issue in this case.


4 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.


5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of your


6 conversation with the Arvizos on this particular


7 day, what was the next step that you took in


8 evaluating this case?


9 A. Well, the next step I took was, after — I


10 won’t say what I said. I understand the ruling.


11 They went back and saw Dr. Katz again. And I then


12 went to the head of the —


13 Q. Let’s just stop there for just a second, Mr.


14 Feldman.


15 A. All right.


16 Q. So as a result of the conversations that you


17 had with the Arvizos, there was a decision to go


18 back to see Dr. Katz with the family again, correct?


19 A. Their decision to; that they wanted to go


20 back and see him again.


21 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, did that


22 happen?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. And to your knowledge, did you then find out


25 the results of Dr. Katz’ subsequent conversations


26 with the family?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. And as a result of those conversations with 4516


1 Dr. Katz, did you decide on a further course of


2 conduct that you felt needed to be done?


3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.


4 THE COURT: Overruled.




6 THE COURT: You may answer.


7 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What did you do?


8 A. I then believed that — Dr. Katz believed he


9 had a report, and I then went to the head of —


10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;


11 hearsay.


12 THE COURT: His belief is stricken. The


13 question is, “What did you do?”


14 THE WITNESS: I went to the head of the


15 Department of Children Services, Los Angeles County,


16 a fellow by the name of David Saunders, who was the


17 head of the Department of Children & Family


18 Services.


19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And did you contact him


20 prior to going down to the department?


21 A. I did.


22 Q. By what form?


23 A. Well, that’s a good question. I contacted


24 him first between the meeting where I called the


25 Arvizos into my office after Dr. Katz talked to me


26 and before they went back. I talked to him and


27 alerted him to a possibility that I might need to


28 talk to him. 4517


1 Q. And then after that?


2 A. And what I can’t remember is if I saw him at


3 a social gathering where we were both at, or did


4 that by phone. I just — it was one or the other,


5 but I definitely met with him or talked to him and


6 told him that — I didn’t tell him what it involved.


7 I just told him it was a high-profile thing, and if


8 it happened, I needed to have secrecy.


9 Q. All right. Now, with regard to after your


10 second conversation with Dr. Katz, did you actually


11 go down to the Los Angeles County Department of


12 Child & Family Services?


13 A. Yeah, well, I did then definitely call him


14 and talk to him again.


15 Q. Before you went down there?


16 A. Before I went down, and then after talking


17 to him and telling him what it was —


18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;


19 asked and answered.


20 THE COURT: Sustained. Well, not asked and

21 answered, but it’s not responsive.


22 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: So you had a telephone call


23 with him?


24 A. I did have a telephone call.


25 Q. And after that telephone call, did you go


26 down there, and with whom?


27 A. I went down there with a colleague of mine


28 from my office and Dr. Katz. 4518


1 Q. And what was the purpose for the three of


2 you going down to the L.A. County Department of


3 Child & Family Services?


4 A. I wanted to get absolute assurance from the


5 head of the department that there would be no leaks


6 of anything that they decided to do or not do in


7 connection with the report that Dr. Katz was going


8 to make.


9 Q. Now, are you familiar with the law in the


10 State of California that requires certain


11 psychologists or psychiatrists to make a mandatory


12 report —


13 A. I am.


14 Q. — when they suspect child abuse or child —


15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to


16 strike.


17 THE COURT: Overruled.


18 THE WITNESS: I am aware of that.


19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And was this the purpose


20 for the three of you going down to the L.A.


21 department?


22 A. The purpose was for him to report, but he


23 could have done it on a hotline like was done in


24 ‘93. This time it was to have it guaranteed it was


25 never going to leak out to the press.


26 Q. Okay. Now, as a result of this


27 conversation, were you directed to another agency?


28 A. Well, he directed me into a room with two 4519


1 people. That’s where he directed me.


2 Q. You had a conversation with those people?


3 A. I had a conversation with those people.


4 Q. And as a result of that conversation, were


5 you directed to another agency? Let me put it this


6 way: Did they take the report?


7 A. They didn’t take the report, and they didn’t


8 direct us to another agency. They —


9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; move to


10 strike.


11 THE COURT: Overruled.

Next, Feldman testified that he contacted Sneddon, and then was contacted by a sheriff from the SBPD. Feldman stated that he told Sneddon that he would not file a civil lawsuit on behalf of the Arvizos, but would instead allow the police to conduct and complete a criminal investigation first, but that simply isn’t true! After the excerpt below, I will present proof that Feldman indeed had plans of filing a lawsuit!

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, after you left the


13 agency, did you decide on a course of action?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. And was this regarding and connected with


16 Dr. Katz’ responsibility as a mandated reporter?


17 A. Yes, because I felt he still hadn’t reported


18 because they didn’t take the report.


19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection. Move


20 to strike; nonresponsive.


21 THE COURT: After “Yes” is stricken.


22 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Who did you


23 call?


24 A. I called you.


25 Q. Okay. And as a result of that conversation,


26 were you eventually contacted by somebody else?


27 A. My recollection is that I was contacted by a


28 police officer. Or he may have been a sheriff. I 4520


1 don’t know what he was, but he was some law


2 enforcement person.


3 Q. Now, during the course of the conversation


4 between you and I, did the subject of a civil


5 lawsuit against Michael Jackson in connection with


6 the substance of the mandated report come up?


7 A. Yes.


8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.


9 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,


10 “Yes.”


11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And in that connection, was


12 there a representation made by you to me concerning


13 a civil lawsuit?


14 A. Yes.


15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.


16 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,


17 “Yes.”


18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And with regard to that


19 representation – and, Your Honor, I’m offering this


20 under 1250 – what was said by you to me?


21 A. No lawsuit. I would not file a lawsuit.


22 And there was no plans to file a lawsuit. And that


23 you would investigate it and make up your own mind.


24 Not you, but the police.


25 Q. Now, do you currently — at some point in


26 time did you feel you represented the Arvizo family


27 in some kind of litigation?


28 A. That’s a great question. I’ve thought about 4521


1 it. Yeah, I mean — yes, I guess — I don’t know


2 about some litigation. I certainly represented them


3 in everything I did, because I’m a lawyer and I was


4 doing it as a lawyer. So, yes. The answer is yes.


5 Q. With regard to the information and the


6 substance of the original conversation with the


7 Arvizo family, did you feel that you represented


8 them at least at some point with regard to the


9 exploration of the issues involving the Bashir tape


10 and things of that nature?


11 A. Yes. For sure.


12 Q. And was there a certain point in time where


13 that representation ended?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. And when was that?


16 A. Approximately — I terminated them, my


17 relationship with them sometime in October, I think,


18 if not sooner. I think effectively it was August or


19 September, somewhere in that time, of ‘03, and then


20 shortly thereafter I wrote a letter terminating my


21 relationship, confirming that I was not their lawyer


22 and that I wasn’t going to proceed with anything.


23 Q. And at any point in time from the time you


24 first met the Arvizo family and to the time you


25 wrote the letter saying you were not going to


26 represent them, which would have been somewhere


27 around October of 2003, did you ever file an action


28 on their behalf? 4522


1 A. No, never have.

Here’s the proof that Feldman and the Arvizos had plans of filing a lawsuit in the beginning: on March 30th, 2005 Dr. Stan Katz stated that he believed that the Arvizos were planning on filing a lawsuit, based on conversations he had with Feldman. Here’s an excerpt from his direct examination:

17 Q. Okay. Was it not unexpected because you had


18 already contacted authorities yourself?


19 A. I had contacted Department of Children &


20 Family Services in this face-to-face meeting. And


21 because I felt obliged to make this report, I told


22 Mr. Feldman that I had to report this to Santa


23 Barbara County authorities. And he told me that he


24 would find out which authority to report this to,


25 because he wanted to be sure it was confidential.


26 And so I then heard from — excuse me, I then heard


27 from Detective Paul Zelis, who called me. And I


28 returned the call. 4258


1 Q. Do you remember telling Detective Zelis that


2 the Arvizos came to you in this lawsuit?

3 A. Yes.


4 Q. Do you remember referring to the lawsuit


5 more than once?


6 A. Probably so.


7 Q. You’re not sure?


8 A. Well, I think I referred to it more than


9 once, yes.


10 Q. Okay. Your belief that there was a lawsuit


11 came from Attorney Larry Feldman, true?


12 A. No.


13 Q. He’s the only attorney you had spoken to


14 about the Arvizos at that point, correct?


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. You’re not a lawyer, correct?


17 A. That’s correct.


18 Q. It was your belief, when you talked to the


19 Santa Barbara sheriff, that Mr. Feldman was filing a


20 lawsuit for the Arvizos, correct?


21 A. It was my belief that he was thinking about


22 filing a lawsuit, yes.



For more information on the lawsuit that Feldman and the Arvizos were planning on filing, please read this post from the Vindicate MJ blog.

Here is Feldman’s description of the work that he did for the Arvizos in 2004, and also described the legal action that he took against the DCFS for leaking their summary of their interview with the Arvizos in February 2003, in which they cleared Jackson of any wrongdoing. Pay attention to the cheap shot that he took at Jackson by stating that he “had to” take action so that the DCFS wouldn’t repeat their actions with “the next kid” (which implies that Jackson was a serial pedophile):

2 Q. Now, subsequently, in the year 2004, you did


3 some legal work for the Arvizo family, correct?


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. And you — and you have made appearances in


6 court on representing the family; is that correct?


7 A. Well, I haven’t physically made any


8 appearance, but I have occasionally done things,


9 very limited, for them.


10 Q. And have you done that for other clients


11 before?


12 A. Oh, yeah. I was —


13 Q. Is there a term in the legal profession that


14 we call that?


15 A. Yes.


16 Q. What’s it called?


17 A. Dumb.


18 Q. That wasn’t exactly the one I had in mind.


19 A. Pro bono. Pro bono. Stupid.


20 Q. And do you consider what you did with the


21 Arvizos after the point that you were no longer


22 officially their lawyer to be pro bono work for the


23 family?


24 A. Yeah. Absolutely. I never expected to get


25 paid, and I’ve done very limited stuff, and the


26 stuff that I’ve done is just stuff that I felt that


27 I should do. That nobody was going to do it for


28 them, and I got this thing rolling and I ought to do 4523


1 it, and I have very limitedly done things.


2 Q. Is one of the things that you did for them


3 was to file a claim with the Los Angeles County


4 Department of Child & Family Services?


5 A. That I did for both of us, because of


6 again, because I was upset that the county did that,


7 so we filed a claim.


8 Q. Why did you file a claim against Los Angeles


9 County on behalf of Janet Arvizo?


10 A. Because the County of Los Angeles has a


11 sworn obligation to protect children. And here,


12 they swore — I went to the head to get this thing


13 protected, and the minute Mr. Jackson gets arrested,


14 the first thing that happens is that county leaks


15 out a report that was created and written after he


16 was arrested, a memo. It comes out, it quickly gets


17 on the news, and quickly blasts this family. And I


18 thought, of all the things that I’ve seen as a


19 lawyer —


20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;


21 nonresponsive; giving a narrative; impermissible


22 opinion.


23 THE COURT: It is responsive, but it is a


24 narrative answer. So I’ll sustain the objection.


25 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. So with regard


26 to this particular claim that you filed, it’s not a


27 lawsuit, right?


28 A. It was a claim. 4524


1 Q. And that’s required when you sue a


2 governmental agency, to file a claim first?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. And then what is the — we’ve heard this


5 term thrown around in the courtroom in relationship


6 to other things, what’s the “statute of limitations”


7 for an individual to actually bring the lawsuit once


8 the claim is filed?


9 A. You have 180 days to file the claim from the


10 event. And then — so you have to have a claim on


11 file if you were ever going to do anything. And


12 then once they deny the claim, you have another 180


13 days, essentially, to bring a lawsuit once it’s


14 denied.


15 Q. And as a result of that claim that you filed


16 on behalf of Janet Arvizo, has the second 180 days


17 elapsed?


18 A. It has as to Janet, and it has as to


19 Davellin. I don’t think it has, frankly, as to the


20 minors. But it certainly has as to — Janet


21 couldn’t file a lawsuit today and her daughter


22 couldn’t file a lawsuit today.


23 Q. And that’s because they have a certain


24 number of years after they reach the age of


25 majority, 18, to file a claim or a lawsuit?


26 A. That’s my understanding. Once they file a


27 claim it protects their rights, I think. You know,


28 I really — this was a claim that asked for an 4525


1 apology.


2 Q. So they were never seeking monetary damages?


3 A. Well, who knows? But, I mean, there


4 really —


5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.


6 THE WITNESS: I don’t know what —


7 THE COURT: Just a moment.


8 The objection is sustained. Any answer is


9 stricken.


10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: At the time that you made


11 the written claim to the County of Los Angeles, did


12 you demand monetary damages?


13 A. It had — it probably said words in there,


14 whatever the damages are. It didn’t have a number,


15 I can tell you that. And it had — I mean, you


16 can’t file a lawsuit without the claim. I mean,


17 there’s no such thing as a lawsuit for an apology.


18 So it said some — if I saw it, if you had it, I


19 could tell you, but it was really to conduct a —


20 get the county to do something, for the next kid.


21 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike the gratuitous


22 remarks at the end; nonresponsive; impermissible


23 opinion.


24 THE COURT: I’ll strike the last sentence.

Feldman goes on to claim that he had never been asked to file any lawsuit against Jackson by the Arvizo, and that ended his direct examination by Sneddon:

25 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: During the time that you —


26 since you first met Janet Arvizo —


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. — and the Arvizo family, were you ever 4526


1 asked to file a lawsuit against Michael Jackson?


2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;


3 calls for inadmissible hearsay; no foundation.


4 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.


5 You may answer.


6 THE WITNESS: I have never been asked to


7 file any lawsuit against Michael Jackson.


8 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further, Your Honor.


9 MR. MESEREAU: May I take just a second, Your


10 Honor? I have to get some materials.

Here is an excerpt of Mesereau’s opening statement from March 1st, 2003, in which he described a statements made by Janet Arvizo to , describing how much money she hoped to get from Jackson; these statements will be discussed in further detail later on in the trial:

12 Now, Mr. Sneddon, the prosecutor, said to

13 you, “Janet Arvizo doesn’t want money. She’s not

14 doing this for money.”

15 Well, we will prove to you the following:

16 As I said yesterday, when she allegedly learned of

17 these molestation claims, she didn’t go to the

18 police, she went to a lawyer. And I just mentioned

19 to you that she was in touch with various members of

20 the Los Angeles Police Department during this period

21 of so-called false imprisonment, this period of a

22 so-called conspiracy by Michael Jackson and his

23 associates.

24 One of those police officers will testify

25 that Janet said to him, “Something big is happening,

26 and I got a lawyer.” That’s number one.

27 Number two, as I said to you yesterday, she

28 realized at some point that going to a lawyer first 182

1 doesn’t look too good. And that’s when she began to

2 claim that she learned about it from the police, not

3 the lawyers. The problem is, that the lawyers are

4 the ones who eventually went to the police. So

5 you’ll have to figure that one out.

6 Janet Arvizo told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs

7 in one of her interviews, “You know, my kids have

8 till the age of 18 to file civil suits.” And she

9 was correct, because someone underage who has a

10 claim is not held to what is called a statute of

11 limitations the way adults are.


Under cross examination, Mesereau asked Feldman to confirm exactly what Star and Gavin’s options were regarding a future sexual molestation lawsuit. The defense has asserted since the beginning that the criminal prosecution of Jackson was a quid pro quo between Sneddon, Larry Feldman,  and the Arvizos, which went like this: the prosecution exploited the Arvizo family’s story to bring Jackson to trial (something they tried and failed to do in 1993), and the Arvizo’s went along with it in order to use a possible criminal conviction as a stepping stone to a multi-million dollar civil suit (with Feldman getting his fair share of the settlement, as he did in 1993). Feldman confirmed that a felony criminal conviction would essentially ensure an automatic win in civil court with a parallel civil suit:





14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Feldman.


15 A. Good morning, sir.


16 Q. Mr. Feldman, if Gavin Arvizo decided at some


17 point in the future to sue Mr. Jackson for alleged


18 sexual abuse, how much time would he have to file


19 that action?


20 A. I think he’d have till his 20th birthday.


21 Q. If Star Arvizo decided in the future to sue


22 Mr. Jackson for alleged sexual abuse, how much time


23 would he have to file that lawsuit?


24 A. I think the answer’s the same. 20.


25 Q. If, at the end of this trial, they were to


26 decide, you know, “We’d like to sue,” they’d have


27 plenty of time to do it, wouldn’t they?


28 A. “They” meaning the boy – 4527


1 Q. Gavin.


2 A. Not Janet.


3 Q. Gavin and Star.


4 A. The two boys?


5 Q. Yes.


6 A. If they wanted to at the end of the trial,


7 they could sue, sure.


8 Q. Isn’t it true that a judgment of conviction


9 in a criminal case for anything related to child


10 molestation could be dispositive in a parallel civil


11 suit alleged for the same facts?


12 A. As long as it’s a felony conviction, that’s


13 right.


14 Q. In other words, if Mr. Jackson were


15 convicted of felony child molestation in this case,


16 either Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo could use that


17 conviction to essentially win a civil case regarding


18 similar alleged facts against Mr. Jackson?


19 A. That’s correct.


20 Q. If there were a conviction for felony child


21 molestation in this case, and if Star or Gavin


22 elected to sue in a civil case based on the similar


23 alleged facts of sexual abuse, essentially the only


24 issue remaining would be how much money you get,


25 correct?


26 A. Probably. I think that’s — it’s close


27 enough. I mean, nothing is that simple, as just


28 stated. You know it as well as I. But essentially 4528


1 I think that’s what would happen.


2 Q. Well, you would have to follow certain civil


3 procedures in civil court, but essentially, Mr.


4 Feldman, you could take the judgment of conviction,


5 you could walk into civil court, you could lodge it


6 with the court, you could ask a judge to determine


7 that liability has been established, true?


8 A. Yes. You get these problems with appeals,


9 and the impact of appeals, and it’s a complicated


10 thing, but the answer is ultimately yes.


11 Q. And one of the reasons for that is that the


12 burden of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a


13 reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a civil


14 case is preponderance of the evidence, and if you


15 have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you


16 automatically have proof by a preponderance of the


17 evidence, as you would need to have it in civil


18 court, true?


19 A. That’s the theory.


20 Q. Well, that’s correct, right?


21 A. Yeah, that’s the theory behind it.


22 Q. All right. Now, let’s assume there was a


23 conviction in this case and that Mr. Jackson were


24 convicted of felony child molestation, and let’s


25 assume that Gavin and Star then decided, “We want to


26 file a civil suit for millions of dollars in civil


27 court,” okay?


28 A. Yeah. 4529


1 Q. On similar alleged facts. And let’s assume


2 the process you’ve just identified, where you walk


3 into civil court, you follow rules, and you


4 essentially establish to a civil court judge that


5 liability exists.


6 If that were to happen, whoever the civil


7 lawyer was representing the Arvizos would have


8 avoided costs of investigation, experts,


9 depositions, filing fees, messenger fees, all sorts


10 of legal fees, right?


11 A. Well, look, I don’t want to open that


12 hypothetical. You’d have to be nuts to do that,


13 what you’re saying, as a civil lawyer.


14 Q. Sir —


15 A. You’d have to be nuts.


16 Q. Sir, did you tell a grand jury in Santa


17 Barbara County that you had incurred tremendous


18 costs of expenses during your lawsuit against Mr.


19 Jackson in 1993?


20 A. I did. And it was true.


21 Q. And if liability were established through a


22 criminal conviction, a civil litigator could avoid


23 most of those costs, correct?


24 A. Some of those costs. Not most. Some. I


25 mean, certainly some you would avoid.


26 Q. You could avoid of lot of investigative


27 costs, correct?


28 A. You know, it’s — can I – 4530


1 Q. Just answer my question, if you would,


2 please.


3 A. I can’t answer it that way. If I could


4 explain to you why. You know, I’ll tell you why I


5 can’t, and you can ask me the next question and you


6 can get to the answer.


7 Q. Is your answer you would not avoid


8 investigative costs?


9 A. No, it’s the amount of investigative costs


10 we’re talking about.


11 Q. Okay. Did you tell the jury today that when


12 you were in front of the grand jury you mentioned


13 the enormous amount of expenses and legal fees you


14 had incurred in 1993 litigating that case until it


15 settled?


16 MR. SNEDDON: Object. Asked and answered,


17 Your Honor.


18 THE COURT: I’m not — I’ll sustain the


19 objection if you’re asking him what he previously


20 testified to —




22 THE COURT: — today. I mean, you’re saying,


23 “What did you just testify to on direct?”


24 MR. MESEREAU: I couldn’t — to be honest,


25 Your Honor, I couldn’t tell if he had actually


26 addressed that issue. It’s a long answer.


27 THE WITNESS: I’m happy to — the legal fees


28 wouldn’t change. The costs would change. We’re 4531


1 just debating how much those costs change. But the


2 costs would change. The legal fees would be the


3 same. If you’re on a contingent fee, you don’t get


4 paid any more if you work a lot or work a little.


5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But if you were to gauge


6 your legal fees at hours, sir, and you didn’t have


7 to prove liability, you would save a tremendous


8 amount in legal fees, wouldn’t you?


9 A. Well, sir, I keep trying to tell you, that


10 ain’t the way it works, and you want to keep saying


11 it is. Now, I can tell you how it works, and then


12 you can get to what you want to get.


13 Q. If you had to try a civil case on liability,


14 Mr. Feldman, it could go months, couldn’t it?


15 A. Sure.


16 Q. If you have a judgment of felony conviction


17 in a criminal case and you walk into civil court and


18 establish it, you don’t have a trial in civil court


19 for months on liability, correct?


20 A. You have to —


21 Q. Yes or no?


22 A. You could, if you — you know, you could. I


23 can’t answer it the way you want me to answer. I’m


24 happy to explain it to you, and maybe we can get to


25 the answer.


26 Q. Would a judgment of felony conviction in


27 criminal court possibly eliminate a trial on


28 liability in civil court for similarly alleged 4532


1 facts? Yes or no.


2 A. Do you count punitive damages in


3 “liability,” or not?


4 Q. Sir, I’m asking you to answer my question.


5 A. Well, I can’t — I can’t answer it this way.


6 Liability has a lot of aspects to it, sir, and one


7 of the things is the finding of malice.


8 Q. Okay.


9 A. And that’s separate from what you’re talking


10 about.


11 Q. In other words, if you could avoid the


12 liability phase of a civil case, you wouldn’t save


13 some time in legal fees?


14 A. Of course you would save some time, and you


15 would save some money. We’re just talking about how


16 much. You keep saying it’s — there’s — it would


17 be a total saving, and I’m trying to explain to you


18 that’s not what would happen. It wouldn’t go down


19 that way.


20 Q. You wouldn’t have to prove liability,


21 because it would have been proven in a criminal


22 court, correct, or not?


23 A. You’d have to prove malice, though.


24 Q. Correct or not, Mr. Feldman?


25 A. Well, how many times can I go through this


26 with you?


27 Q. Are you saying if you get a judgment of


28 conviction in criminal court for felony child 4533


1 molestation and you then walk into civil court with


2 civil allegations based on the same facts, you still


3 have to establish liability? Is that what you’re


4 saying?


5 A. Not liability as to that aspect. But for


6 malice, you would still have to prove it.


7 Q. Okay. All right. Now, what is the statute


8 of limitations for civil fraud?


9 A. Civil fraud?


10 Q. Yes.


11 A. Three years from discovery.


12 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Attorney William


13 Dickerman wrote letters on behalf of Janet Arvizo


14 to Attorney Mark Geragos alleging fraud?


15 A. Not sitting here. I thought it was over


16 their belongings, or something, that he wrote


17 letters.


18 Q. You thought the letters were only about


19 belongings?


20 A. You know what? I don’t know. I’m guessing.


21 Show me the letters and maybe it will refresh my


22 memory. I remember there was letters to Mark


23 Geragos, and that’s what was significant to me.


24 What was in them, I can’t remember, unless you show


25 me the letters.


26 Q. Do you recall at some point during your


27 relationship with Prosecutor Sneddon, Mr. Sneddon


28 spoke to the media and said, “If they’re going to 4534


1 sue, I hope they don’t do it until after the


2 criminal case is done”?


3 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the


4 word “relationship.”


5 THE WITNESS: I don’t even remember it


6 happening.


7 THE COURT: Just a moment.


8 You’re asking him what Mr. Sneddon said, if


9 he —


10 MR. MESEREAU: If he was aware of it.


11 THE COURT: That’s not how you phrased it.




13 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.

Next, Mesereau questioned Feldman about his statements under direct testimony where he said that Jordan Chandler received a confession of judgment in 1993. Feldman was forced to define the term and clear up the misconception that the settlement was a sign of guilt, and was imposed upon Jackson by the civil court. The confession of judgment was meant to ensure that Jackson’s insurance carrier (who negotiated and paid the settlement) would be forced to make their annual payments without the need for the Chandlers to file a second lawsuit for breach of contract in the event of a default of payments! If the payments weren’t made, Jackson’s assets could be seized in lieu of the payments!

Notice how Feldman reacted with sheer surprise and shock when he was asked about his knowledge of Jackson’s cross complaint for extortion against the Chandlers!

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Feldman, Prosecutor


15 Sneddon asked you about a technical term in civil


16 litigation called “confession of judgment”?


17 A. Yes.


18 Q. Right?


19 A. Right.


20 Q. Now, in the civil case where you represented


21 Mr. Chandler and his parents against Mr. Jackson,


22 there was a cross-complaint, was there not?


23 A. There was?


24 Q. Mr. Jackson sued for extortion, didn’t he?


25 A. I don’t know. I know he claimed — I know


26 that his investigator, Mr. Pellicano, claimed


27 extortion.


28 Q. You don’t recall? 4535


1 A. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I just


2 don’t recall.


3 Q. Okay. And typically, in a settlement like

4 the one described by Prosecutor Sneddon, if someone


5 agrees to pay money to the other side, the other


6 side would like the payment of that money secured by


7 what is called a confession of judgment, correct?


8 A. That’s right. When it’s paid over time,


9 that’s correct.


10 Q. Okay. And the purpose of a confession of


11 judgment is that if the paying party stops paying,


12 you can run into civil court and obtain what is


13 called a certified judgment so you can then collect


14 on their assets?


15 A. Correct.


16 Q. Right?


17 A. That’s right.


18 Q. And if you didn’t have that confession of


19 judgment, your only remedy would be to then file


20 another lawsuit for breach of contract, correct?


21 A. That’s right.


22 Q. So what Mr. Sneddon was talking to you about


23 was ways that you have to collect money that you’re


24 owed in a settlement, true?


25 A. I don’t know what he was talking to me


26 about. He asked me questions, and I answered the


27 best I could. What you’ve said is true, and that’s


28 what I thought I just said. 4536


1 Q. And typically in a civil settlement, and


2 you’ve done many of them, obviously, there is a


3 provision in the settlement agreement which says


4 that neither side admits liability, or words to that


5 effect, correct?


6 A. Generally. Not every one, but generally


7 that’s true.


8 Q. And essentially what that means is neither


9 side admits wrongdoing, correct?


10 A. Correct.


11 Q. And the confession of judgment has nothing


12 to do with an admission of wrongdoing or liability?


13 A. Well, it would have the same impact if you


14 had to file it. It would be a judgment for that


15 amount. I don’t know what impact it’s going to


16 later be. I’ve never handled a case where you filed


17 a confession of judgment, and then somebody tried to


18 use that in another case to say you admitted


19 something. I frankly don’t know the answer.


20 Q. It’s never used to say someone admitted


21 something. It’s simply used to collect the money


22 you’re owed, right?


23 A. Sir, I just told you, I’ve never researched


24 that issue, and — so you can’t — you got the wrong


25 person. I’ve never had someone where I had to go


26 use it.


27 I didn’t have to use it with Mr. Jackson, so


28 I can’t tell you the answer. I know it’s — it 4537


1 is — my concern was the making sure, if the money


2 wasn’t paid by Mr. Jackson, we could go into court


3 and start seizing his assets. That didn’t happen.


4 He paid. It never happened.


5 Q. Would you agree that in many civil


6 settlements of civil cases, you will have both the


7 provision that says neither side admits wrongdoing


8 or liability as well as a confession of judgment?


9 A. It’s rare you get a confession of judgment.


10 It is very — typical that you get neither party


11 admits wrongdoing in a release. It’s typical. You


12 don’t need the confession, because you usually


13 exchange the release and the money at the same time.


14 So there isn’t that issue.


15 Q. But you need a confession of judgment if you


16 want to secure payments to be made in the future,


17 right?


18 A. That you need. That’s right. And that’s


19 what we got.


20 Q. And if payments are to be made in the future


21 by any settling party, you would almost be foolish


22 not to have a confession of judgment, correct?


23 A. I don’t know. We’ll let somebody else worry


24 about who’s foolish. We did it. We thought it was


25 the appropriate thing. We demanded it. We got it.


26 Q. Please answer my question, Mr. Feldman.


27 A. I don’t know what’s foolish for lawyers to


28 do. I mean, I haven’t thought about it. It’s a 4538


1 good practice – I did it – to get it. I mean, I


2 demand to get it for my clients. That’s all I can


3 tell you.


4 Q. You demand to get it for your clients


5 because if payments were to stop, you would have a


6 faster way —


7 A. Sure.


8 Q. — to obtain that value than you would if


9 you had to sue for breach of a settlement agreement,


10 right?


11 A. Yes. That’s what I think I’m saying.


12 Q. And when you have your clients get a


13 confession of judgment in a settlement agreement in


14 a civil case, typically there also is a provision


15 where neither side admits any wrongdoing to each


16 other, right?


17 A. The settlement agreement will say that,


18 that’s correct.


19 Q. And that’s what you had in 1993 in the


20 Chandler case, correct?


21 A. We had the settlement language that said


22 that, and we had a confession of judgment.


23 Q. You had settlement language that said


24 neither side admits wrongdoing to the other, and you


25 also had the confession of judgment you just


26 described, true?


27 A. True.

Mesereau next begins to question Feldman about his law firm’s representation of the Arvizos well in to 2005, primarily regarding a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles for the leak of the details of the confidential DCFS interview from February 20th, 2003, and his relationship with William Dickerman.

Pay close attention to Feldman’s statement that he was sure that Dickerman wanted money! Mesereau tricked Feldman by asking if Dickerman “also” wanted money, and Feldman fell for it hook, line, and sinker!

28 Q. Now, did I hear you say, in response to the 4539


1 prosecutor’s questions, you stopped representing


2 Janet Arvizo in the fall of 2003?


3 A. The first time.


4 Q. Pardon me?


5 A. The first time.


6 Q. That’s the first time you stopped?


7 A. That’s the first time I stopped.


8 Q. Okay. Now, as I look at pleadings filed by


9 your law firm in this case, I count no less than


10 four lawyers representing the Arvizos well into


11 2005, correct?


12 A. That’s why I answered the question the way I


13 did. I said that’s the first time that I terminated


14 the relationship with Ms. Arvizo.


15 Q. And in 2005, you have represented the


16 Arvizos in documents filed in this particular


17 criminal case, correct?


18 A. Correct.


19 Q. A lawyer named Julian Brew from your firm


20 has also represented the Arvizos in documents filed


21 in this criminal case in 2005, correct?


22 A. Well, my law firm, because of me, has done


23 this for the — Miss Arvizo, we’ve done it for her


24 parents, we’ve — and for the newborn baby. I think


25 those are the three people. But I may be wrong.


26 Q. Let me rephrase the question.


27 A. Mr. Brew works for me. I mean, I don’t want


28 to demean him. I mean, he works with me. 4540


1 Q. Mr. Brew is a lawyer with your law firm,


2 correct?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. He has represented the Arvizos in the year


5 2005, correct?


6 A. The law firm has represented her, and he’s


7 one of the people, to be technical.


8 Q. Sir, you work for or your partner with


9 approximately a 600-person law firm, correct?


10 A. He’s one of the lawyers that worked on this


11 case. That’s what I said.


12 Q. That’s Julian Brew, correct?


13 A. Yeah.


14 Q. A lawyer named Theodore Maya has also worked


15 for the Arvizos in the year 2005 in this case, true?


16 A. True.


17 Q. A lawyer named Robert Turner has also worked


18 for the Arvizos —


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. — in this case, correct?


21 A. Correct.


22 Q. Those are four lawyers with your 600-plus


23 law firm, true?


24 A. True.


25 THE COURT: All right. It’s break time.


26 (Recess taken.)


27 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.


28 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor. 4541


1 Q. Mr. Feldman, you’ve testified that you had


2 filed, as a lawyer for the Arvizos, a Notice of


3 Claim against Los Angeles County, correct?


4 A. Correct.


5 Q. And the purpose of filing that notice of


6 claim was to preserve the right to sue in the future


7 if you desire to, correct?


8 A. Correct.


9 Q. And you told the jury that at this point, in


10 your opinion, Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo still


11 have time to file a lawsuit against Los Angeles


12 County, correct?


13 A. I believe that’s right.


14 Q. The lawsuit you’re referring to, if it ever


15 occurred, would be separate and apart, or could be


16 separate and apart from any lawsuit against Mr.


17 Jackson in the future, true?


18 A. I think it would have to be separate and


19 apart. I don’t think you could join the two. But


20 it would be — I think the simple question is — the


21 simple answer is yes.


22 Q. And as we speak, then, those two young men


23 still have a right to sue Mr. Jackson, and they


24 still have a right to sue Los Angeles County in a


25 separate action, true?


26 A. True.


27 Q. And by filing your Notice of Claim, you


28 preserved that right for them, true? 4542


1 A. That’s what I did. Against the county.


2 Q. Against the County of Los Angeles?


3 A. Yeah. It had nothing to do with Mr.


4 Jackson.


5 Q. Okay. Now, you’ve indicated you know —


6 excuse me, let me rephrase that.


7 How long have you known Attorney William


8 Dickerman?


9 A. Well, certainly since 2003. He tells me


10 that he brought a case to me that I rejected, and I


11 can’t tell you when that happened. I sort of


12 vaguely remember it happening, but I can’t place it.


13 I never met him till he walked into my office. I


14 think that’s the first time I ever saw him.


15 Q. Did you testify this morning that you have


16 or had a referral arrangement with him with respect


17 to the Arvizos?


18 A. You know, loosely. I think there was an


19 agreement with the Arvizos that he was a party to.


20 You need the consent — under the State Bar rules,


21 you have to have a client’s consent to have — and


22 he was in that agreement, and exactly what we said


23 about him I don’t know. But I know he expected, if


24 there was money, to get money for — from me, from


25 her, I don’t know where. I can’t remember the


26 details of it, but —


27 Q. Do you recall him having what is called a


28 joint legal services agreement with you? 4543


1 A. Vis-a-vis the Arvizos?


2 Q. Yes.


3 A. He could have. I mean, I don’t know what he


4 had. He had — he wanted to be involved if I was


5 going to bring a case. And how those financial


6 terms were worked out with him, I don’t know. And


7 what — he was — he wanted to be involved with the


8 family, because he said he had this great


9 relationship with the family, so I was there to do


10 the legal work, and it never went anyplace.


11 Q. He also wanted money, true?


12 A. He wanted money, I’m sure of that. I’m sure


13 of that.


14 Q. You had a lot of communications with him


15 after he referred the Arvizos to you, true?


16 A. Well, we certainly had some. I don’t know


17 about “a lot.” I certainly had some with him.


18 Q. There were faxes and letters going back and


19 forth from his office to you for many months after


20 he referred the Arvizos to you, right?


21 A. Could be. We certainly were trying to get


22 his file and what he had in his file from the time


23 he had the case till the time we were done with it


24 initially.


25 Q. And just to clarify what you just said, are


26 you saying you’re not sure if Attorney William


27 Dickerman had a legal services agreement with you?


28 A. What do you mean by “a legal services 4544


1 agreement”?


2 Q. Well, let me get —


3 A. That I pay him to do legal services for me?


4 Q. He does legal work with you for the Arvizos.


5 A. I don’t know — is there something I’m


6 missing about what I’m saying and you’re asking?


7 Q. I don’t think so.


8 A. I thought he wanted to get paid for the work


9 he thought I would let him do in the Arvizo case.


10 If I took the Arvizo case – I don’t want to break


11 his heart – he wasn’t going to do very much work if


12 I was the lawyer on the case, but he wanted to get


13 paid. That’s the point. And how we memorialized


14 that, I don’t remember. It was in the agreement,


15 and she consented to however we memorialized what he


16 would get if there was money to be had.


17 Q. But Prosecutor Sneddon asked you questions


18 about a referral agreement between lawyers, correct?


19 A. He asked me questions about a referral fee,


20 yes.


21 Q. And what you’re describing now is not a


22 simple referral fee arrangement, true?


23 A. Well, I’m describing — I don’t remember the


24 way this worked. If you showed it to me, I could.

25 But I don’t think it mattered. I was going to be


26 the lead lawyer, and he was — I guess if we gave


27 him a task to do, he would do it.


28 Q. And just to clarify things, that’s something 4545


1 different from a strict referral fee arrangement,


2 true?


3 A. It can or cannot be, frankly. You can do it


4 both ways. I mean, I don’t think the form it


5 takes — I think what’s important is that the two


6 lawyers have to decide how they are going to divide


7 fees, and on what basis, and that the — the most


8 important thing is the client consents to whatever


9 the arrangement is.


10 Q. And your typical referral fee arrangement


11 involves one lawyer referring a case to another


12 lawyer, and if the lawyer who gets the case makes


13 any money on it, that lawyer gives a percentage to


14 the lawyer that referred the case to him or her,


15 correct?


16 A. That certainly happens frequently.


17 Q. That’s your typical referral arrangement,


18 isn’t it?


19 A. That was at one time my typical — are you


20 asking me now personally, or just in general?


21 Q. Just generally speaking.


22 A. Generally, I think that is the way lawyers


23 get a case. They send it to somebody else and they


24 get a referral fee, and they don’t have to do any


25 work.


26 Q. Now, in Los Angeles County, you’re known as


27 one of the most successful plaintiffs’ lawyers,


28 correct? 4546


1 A. Say it again for the press. I want to —


2 that’s the nicest thing anybody’s said about me in


3 this case.


4 Q. Is that true?


5 A. I think so.


6 Q. You’ve had numerous multi-million-dollar


7 awards that you have obtained for your clients,


8 correct?


9 A. I have.


10 Q. You have numerous multi-million-dollar


11 settlements you’ve obtained for your clients,


12 correct?


13 A. I have.


14 Q. And in most of those situations, you had


15 what is called a contingency fee arrangement,


16 correct?


17 A. Oh, I’m sure. Yeah. Over the life of my


18 legal career, that’s absolutely right.


19 Q. And generally speaking, in a contingency fee


20 arrangement, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in these cases,


21 namely you, get a percentage of whatever is


22 recovered for the client, true?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. And in a strict contingency fee arrangement,


25 if the lawyer doesn’t obtain any money for the


26 client, the lawyer might not get paid anything,


27 correct?


28 A. Correct. 4547


1 Q. So there’s an incentive for that lawyer to


2 get as big a recovery as possible, because the


3 bigger the recovery for the client, the bigger the


4 fee for the lawyer, correct?


5 A. That’s the theory.


6 Q. And you have a fairly standard contingency


7 fee arrangement that you’ve used through the years,


8 correct?


9 A. I — I have.

In this excerpt, Mesereau began to question Feldman about his involvement in the 1993 case. When Feldman mentions how Jackson’s defense team wanted Jordan Chandler’s parents to get a portion of the settlement, it’s because they wanted to be sure that they wouldn’t be tempted to write a book or sell interviews to the tabloids, so by making them bound by the confidentiality agreement, they were also barred from speaking to the media (but not law enforcement!):

10 Q. In the Chandler case, the parents, who


11 you’ve described as divorced, both signed your fee


12 agreement, true?


13 A. They did. Well, I mean, you’re saying that.


14 I — it looks like you’re looking at something. If


15 you tell me — I hope they did. I don’t remember.


16 Q. Would it refresh your —


17 A. But it would have been smart on my part to


18 get both of them to sign it.


19 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if you


20 looked at your fee agreement?


21 A. Sure.


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


23 THE COURT: Yes.


24 THE WITNESS: Is that all of it?


25 MR. MESEREAU: (Nods head up and down.)


26 Q. Mr. Feldman, have you had a chance to look


27 at that fee agreement?


28 A. I have. 4548


1 Q. Is it true that June Chandler and Evan


2 Chandler signed that agreement?


3 A. They did.


4 Q. They retained your services, correct?


5 A. They did on behalf of their son. I —


6 Q. Now, to your knowledge, the father had been


7 divorced from the mother since 1986, correct?


8 A. I don’t know the date, but they were — the


9 parents were divorced. The father was remarried.


10 Q. The mother remarried also, true?


11 A. Yeah, I think that is right. Except I think


12 they were separated at the time. The mother was


13 separated from her husband. She could have been


14 divorced, but she did — I think she remarried.


15 Q. Now, the father had not only been divorced


16 for a number of years from the mother, he had given


17 up all custody to the mother at that time, true?


18 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as


19 irrelevant.


20 MR. MESEREAU: I believe the prosecutor


21 raised these issues, Your Honor.


22 THE COURT: What’s the relevancy?


23 MR. MESEREAU: Who he’s really representing,


24 and what their influence is on the litigation, what


25 their influence is on the settlement and what their


26 motives are, and what example it sets to everyone


27 else.


28 THE COURT: All right. The objection is 4549


1 sustained.


2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You represented both


3 parents on behalf of the minor, Mr. Chandler,


4 correct?


5 A. My memory is both parents were the guardian


6 ad litems for the minor. I don’t remember if —


7 representing the parents separately and apart in a


8 separate lawsuit against anybody. I — I think we


9 only had them as guardian ad litems because the


10 young minor can’t bring a lawsuit. It has to be


11 done through someone. And originally it was done


12 through the parents and then ultimately through a


13 judge, retired judge became the guardian.


14 Q. And you had in that particular case ethical


15 obligations to both the parents and the minor in


16 your representation, true?


17 A. I suspect at some level there was — I


18 certainly had an attorney-client privilege with


19 them.


20 Q. Well, without going into the amount of any

21 settlement, isn’t it true that both parents wanted


22 money for themselves as well?


23 A. They didn’t want it. The defense wanted


24 them to have it, and they accepted it, because the


25 defendant — that was the defendant’s idea.


26 Q. Did the parents — without going into the


27 amounts —


28 A. Sure. 4550


1 Q. — did the parents for Mr. Chandler accept


2 money in the settlement?


3 A. They did accept money. That’s a fair


4 statement.


5 Q. Okay. That would include a father who


6 didn’t even have the legal right to see the child,


7 right?


8 A. I’m not sure that’s right, you know, because


9 he had the child. At that time that I came in the


10 case, the child was living with the father, so you


11 may be right in some — there may be an order out


12 there, but at the time I came in the case, the


13 father — the boy lived with his dad and his dad’s


14 wife, as I recall.


15 Q. Okay. Now, at some point — excuse me, let


16 me rephrase that. The mother’s name is June


17 Chandler, correct?


18 A. Correct. Or at least it was.


19 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, has it changed?


20 A. No. But I don’t know.


21 Q. Okay. At some point she married someone


22 named David Schwartz, correct?


23 A. Sometime she married David Schwartz.


24 Q. When you were representing June Chandler,


25 she was either married to or living with David


26 Schwartz, true?


27 A. I’m not sure, you know, what the situation


28 was. I don’t think — their relationship was 4551


1 strained, I can tell you that —


2 Q. Okay.


3 A. — at that point in time. I have a


4 recollection he wasn’t living in the house at the


5 time I met her, but there was still a relationship,


6 because I can picture him in my office with her,


7 with Evan Chandler, and with Evan Chandler’s wife,


8 and Jordie.


9 Q. Now, at some point when it became clear that


10 you were seeking money from Mr. Jackson, David


11 Schwartz then filed his own suit against Mr.


12 Jackson, right?


13 A. I think that’s right. I think he did. I


14 don’t know when that happened, but now that you


15 mentioned — not by me. I wasn’t — somebody else.


16 Q. And you were in communication with that


17 attorney representing David Schwartz, correct?


18 A. Who was the lawyer? I don’t remember. Who


19 was the lawyer in that —


20 Q. I’m questioning you. So I’m just asking


21 you.


22 A. Oh, you don’t want to answer my questions.


23 It’s not so much fun. Okay.


24 Q. Do you recall that June Chandler’s


25 ex-husband then tried to sue Michael Jackson as


26 well?


27 A. I wouldn’t have remembered it, but now that


28 you’ve said it, I kind of remember that he did. 4552


1 And I almost remember the name of the lawyer who had


2 it, because he was a guy I used to litigate against.


3 But I may be wrong.


4 Q. In response to Prosecutor Sneddon’s


5 questions, you indicated that the case was referred


6 to you by a lawyer for the Chandler family, correct?


7 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object, Your


8 Honor.




10 MR. SNEDDON: It’s vague as to what case.


11 MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase it. If it’s


12 vague, I’ll rephrase.


13 THE COURT: All right.


14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Regarding your


15 representation of Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Chandler, and


16 their son, did you say, in response to the


17 prosecutor’s questions, that that case was referred


18 to you by another lawyer for the family?


19 A. What I want to correct is, if you take the


20 “family” part out of it, I can answer it. Yes, it


21 was referred to me by a lawyer, but that lawyer who


22 referred it to me wasn’t representing the family,


23 per se.


24 Q. Was representing the father?


25 A. He was representing the father.


26 Q. His name was Barry Rothman, correct?


27 A. No, no, no, no. No.


28 Q. Who referred the case to you? 4553


1 A. The guy that referred to me was a criminal


2 defense lawyer, who was Bob Shapiro, who was


3 defending the father where these — long before I


4 ever got in the case, there was these charges of


5 extortion going back and forth between the father


6 and the Jackson camp, and it was long before I got


7 in the case.


8 In that case there was a criminal defense


9 lawyer representing the father, and that criminal


10 defense lawyer brought the family to me. But he was


11 only representing the father, and he was only


12 representing him criminally.


13 Q. Okay. Now, and Robert Shapiro, of course,


14 is the Robert Shapiro who defended O.J. Simpson,


15 correct?


16 A. That’s correct.


17 Q. He was defending the father against claims


18 that the father had tried to extort money from Mr.


19 Jackson, correct?


20 A. Time out. I think that’s wrong. Let me go


21 back. He may have been the lawyer not for the


22 father, but for — now I got — I think he


23 represented Rothman, the lawyer, the lawyer who was


24 in the case before I ever got in the case. I think


25 he, too, was accused of extortion by someone on the


26 Jackson side.


27 Q. Okay.


28 A. And I think he — one of them — and I think 4554


1 Richard Hirsch, who was also a criminal defense


2 lawyer, represented the father, or — that’s what I


3 think really happened. But somehow Shapiro and


4 Richard Hirsch, who are two criminal defense


5 lawyers, advised the family that they had the wrong


6 civil lawyer and they should come see me. And


7 that’s basically how I got there.


8 Q. They advised the family that Gloria Allred


9 was the wrong lawyer and they should come to you,


10 correct?


11 A. That’s what I understand.


12 Q. Okay. Now, there was a lawyer named Barry


13 Rothman involved, correct?


14 A. Before Gloria Allred.


15 Q. And Barry Rothman represented the father,


16 true?


17 A. Well, that’s a good question, who he


18 represented. I thought he — he represented

19 probably the father and Jordie, I suspect. I mean,


20 it’s unclear to me, that whole deal.


21 Q. And Rothman is a lawyer that was accused of


22 extortion by people associated with Mr. Jackson as


23 well, correct?


24 A. I think both Rothman and Jackson — I mean,


25 “Rothman and Jackson,” I’m sorry.


26 Rothman and Evan Chandler were accused of


27 extortion by the Jackson side. I don’t know who on


28 the Jackson side. 4555


1 Q. And Attorney Barry Rothman has since been


2 disbarred, correct?


3 A. I don’t know. Has he?


4 Q. Yes.


5 A. I didn’t know him before, I don’t know him


6 now. And if he is, he is. I don’t know.


7 Q. So you don’t know him at all?


8 A. I don’t know Barry Rothman.


9 Q. You had various meetings with him during


10 this litigation, did you not?


11 A. No.


12 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object as


13 immaterial and irrelevant.


14 THE COURT: Sustained.


15 THE WITNESS: No, I — well, it — oh, it


16 was sustained, so….

Here is information on Dave Schwartz’s  lawsuit against Jackson from Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ artice:

In what may turn out to be the never-ending case, this past August, both Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz (two principal players left out of the settlement) filed civil suits against Jackson. Schwartz maintains that the singer broke up his family. Rothman’s lawsuit claims defamation and slander on the part of Jackson, as well as his original defense team— Fields, Pellicano and Weitzman— for the allegations of extortion. “The charge of [extortion],” says Rothman attorney Aitken, “is totally untrue. Mr. Rothman has been held up for public ridicule, was the subject of a criminal investigation and suffered loss of income.” (Presumably, some of Rothman’s lost income is the hefty fee he would have received had he been able to continue as Chandler’s attorney through the settlement phase.)

To be continued:

33 Comments leave one →
  1. Suzy permalink
    July 26, 2014 4:44 pm

    Did you guys notice that there are three different versions about how and when Janet Arvizo found out about the alleged abuse of her son. Two are on the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause (November 17, 2003) document:

    1) In her initial interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 6-7, 2003 Janet Arvizo claimed that their sons disclosed to her the alleged abuse after February or March, 2003:

    “These disclosures were made to her after February or March of this year [2003]. She explained that she would interrupt and tell Star and Gavin to “forgive and forget”. She did this because she thought she was doing the right thing. She wanted Star and Gavin to make the disclosures to a priest or someone else. She has since learned that this was wrong of her to do.” (page 23)

    2) The very same prosecution document later contains a totally different version of how and when Janet Arvizo learnt about the alleged molestation of her son:

    “It is important to note that during the course of the two interviews detailed in this affidavit, Mrs. Arvizo was not aware that Gavin has been molested. She believed the focus of our investigation was the family’s having been held against their wishes at the Neverland Ranch upon their return from Miami and their escape in March. Mrs. Arviso (sic) told your Affiant she had contacted an attorney to help get their possessions back and to set up contacts with law enforcement to report what had happened to them. She emphasized she was not interested in money.

    Your affiant is aware through a conversation with Sgt. Robel that around 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2003, that Sgt. Robel, Lt. Klapakis and District Attorney Tom Sneddon met with Mrs. Arvizo and her family in a Los Angeles hotel and informed her that our conversations with her children had established that Gavin had been molested. This was the first time she was aware of the nature of her children’s disclosures to law enforcement.” (page 64)

    3) And then the third version is in Feldman’s testimony. He claims that after Katz came back with his report he gathered the family to his office, told them about Katz’s findings and discussed with them their options:

    Q. At some point in time, did you receive a report back from Dr. Katz about his initial contacts with the family?
    A. Oral. I got an oral — I had an oral conversation with him.
    Q. Do you recall whether it was in person or over the phone?
    A. I think it was in person, quite frankly. I think he came to my office.
    Q. Now, after you received this report, did you do anything?
    A. Yes.
    Q. What did you do?
    A. I called the Arvizo family, Mrs. Arvizo and the three children, back into my office for a meeting.
    Q. All right. And in that meeting, what was the topic discussed?
    MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it calls for hearsay.
    MR. SNEDDON: All right.
    THE COURT: Overruled. The subject matter only.
    THE WITNESS: The subject matter only. The subject matter was the options — well, what Dr. Katz had told me, and their — the options that existed at that point for that family. Different courses of action that were available to them at that point in time.

    • sanemjfan permalink
      July 26, 2014 6:47 pm

      Thanks Suzy! Great analysis!

  2. November 6, 2012 2:51 pm

    No and according to the Grand Jury Testimony of Star Michael had them watch it 3 times because it was his favorite movie so if that was true you would think he would have had a copy of it.Michael’s favorite movies were the 3 Stooges. I also read part of the Grand Jury testimony about his giving alcohol to Marie Nichole and Aldo Cascio then saying to Marie Nichole ” You look fine, you look good , I would like to fuck you in the back”. That is a direct quote from Star Arvizo.Do you think the Cascio’s know what those kids said about them.

    • shellywebstere permalink
      November 6, 2012 3:39 pm

      “You look fine, you look good , I would like to fuck you in the back”
      It was not in the 2005 trial and I wonder why?

    • shellywebstere permalink
      November 6, 2012 3:42 pm

      By the way, according to them, Frank Cascio and Eddy Cascio are very strange people: they saw Barnes being molested, were probably molested themselves, left their younger sister and brother with MJ, Frank was part of a plan to kidnap the Arvizos to protect MJ.

  3. November 6, 2012 12:58 pm

    Actually it was brought up in cross examination. The thing is if they called it a scary movie and it isn’t that just proves THEY didn’t see it.And therefore that proves Michael didn’t show it to them and they did not see Michael naked did they?It also proves they were following some kind of a script that was taken either from the declaration or the book by VG. I think they had the Spanish version of it and went by that to make up their own story.

  4. November 5, 2012 11:49 pm

    Here is an excerpt From the article that was on ABC News announcing the Primetime Story on the Grand Jury testimony in 2005. They were selectively leaked by someone to show only the prosecution’s side of the story. Here is where they talk about Star’s testimony that was about Michael walking into the bedroom naked.

    Accuser’s Younger Brother’s Account of Jackson’s Alleged Behavior While Watching a Horror Movie Called ‘The Devil’s Backbone’ While at Neverland Ranch
    Prosecutor: Did you see Michael walk into the room while you were watching the movie?
    Accuser’s younger brother: Yes
    Prosecutor: How was he dressed?
    Accuser’s younger brother: He was nude … he started to tell us it was natural … it’s just normal …
    Prosecutor: Could you tell whether or not his penis was erect? …
    Accuser’s younger brother: It was. It was. He had [an erection].

    • nannorris permalink
      November 6, 2012 10:05 am

      were the detectives looking for that video when they searched Neverland?..because I dont imagine it was on tv, and the video itself was not brought up in court as i recall..It really does make you think VG had spoken to this family…like how JC was talking about the Exorcist ..

    • shellywebstere permalink
      November 6, 2012 11:22 am

      That video was not brought up in court as far as I know, and they didn’t need to have VG around them to speak about that movie. That movie is famous outside the US and in the Chandler declaration which was leaked in February 2003 Jordan spoke about the Exorcist.

      Another thing you need to know about the Devil’s backbone is it’s not really an horror movie, it’s more a drama with some horror in it. It’s about an orphan kid in an orphanage during the Spanis civil war and there is ghost of another kid.

      The movie was rated R in the US but 12 in France.

  5. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 5:44 pm

    whoops–I thought you meant the Chandlers, sorry.

  6. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 5, 2012 5:43 pm

    @ Shelly

    According to G. Hughes, Feldman was around at least by August. This from her account of Schwartz vs. Chandler: “Mr. Schwartz further asserted that once again while at Mr. Feldman’s office in August, 1993, there was another altercation in which Dr. Chandler punched Mr. Schwartz in his temple, causing him to lose consciousness.” (136)

  7. shellywebstere permalink
    November 5, 2012 4:21 pm

    Do we know when Feldman became involved with the Arvizos?

    • November 5, 2012 7:26 pm

      The first meeting he had with the Arvizo family was APril 16th, 2003.

  8. nannorris permalink
    November 5, 2012 3:04 pm

    I was thinking about this part:, in Mesereau cross of Feldman talking about Dickerman and fees

    19 A. He asked me questions about a referral fee,

    20 yes.

    21 Q. And what you’re describing now is not a

    22 simple referral fee arrangement, true?

    23 A. Well, I’m describing — I don’t remember the

    24 way this worked. If you showed it to me, I could.

    25 But I don’t think it mattered. I was going to be

    26 the lead lawyer, and he was — I guess if we gave

    27 him a task to do, he would do it.

    28 Q. And just to clarify things, that’s something 4545

    1 different from a strict referral fee arrangement,

    2 true?
    seems , at least to me , that Mesereau is saying this guy Dickerman wanted to be part of the team during the civil trial also, not just to get money , but so he could put it on his resume..
    If you look at Feldmans lawfirm stuff, he mentions the Michael Jackson settlement , like it is a trophy , and it gives him prestige …
    this guy wanted to put the same thing on his lawfirm resume, rather then just take a referral…..
    That is why Feldman is saying he would have been the lead atty and he would have gotten some little task..
    SO Dickerman could share the glory , prestige and publicity..
    That is a lot details worked out regarding how a supposedly IMAGINARY civil suit was going to go….
    These people are horrible …Meseraeu is as sharp as they come, thank God..

    • nannorris permalink
      November 5, 2012 3:07 pm

      Otherwise Dickerman would have just got the referral fee, and would have been told to scram….He was insisting that part of the deal be , that he got to co chair…

  9. November 4, 2012 11:56 pm

    I think this is the redacted version of the emails between Dickerman and Geragos. Here is the link. Even if it is the wrong one it will be a good read. It is important for everyone to know that from the beginning the Arvizos were saying that Michael had a pair of Gavin’s underwear. That’s right it is from these emails that Geragos knew what the Arvizo’s were up to. Because after all why would they be so concerned about one pair of supposedly left behind underwear when Frank and Vinnie took them shopping to buy many pairs from the Jockey store.The other thing that is improtant is that if you look at the dates of some of those letters the Arvizo’s were already talking to Katz and Feldman by that time. They first went ot Feldman in late April of 2003. What does that say about them when they were already consulting the same lawyer that “won” the 1993 case without letting Mark Geragos resolve any kind of problem they had about their belongings.

    • shellywebstere permalink
      November 5, 2012 2:20 am

      Thank you. They had the adress of the storage in June.

    • nannorris permalink
      November 5, 2012 5:40 pm

      So they start these demands on Mar 26?.And all this back and forht and no mention of meeting with Feldman…
      Is that why he made the effort to drop the stuff off the last day of Passover? Geragos seemed pleased that Dickerman had acknowledged that they had made the attempt in writing..It is almost like Geragos is telling him he knows what they are up to.That something shady is going on..
      And Sneddon doing nighttime surveillance on Brad Millers office …unbelievable..
      I notice when he met Janet in the parking lot to give her the welfare paperwork, she gave him the black jacket MJ gave Gavin…Is that the one they asked for back after the trial…???

  10. November 4, 2012 11:06 pm

    I thought that Feldman calling pro bono work “dumb” was a slam to Tom Mesereau. Tom Mesereau spends a good part of his life in the deep south doing pro bono work for death row inmates. Feldman would never consider doing such a thing. No, his idea of a pro bono work is filing a couple of motions to keep the defense from finding out what Janet Arvizo did with her JC Penney money and all the other “donations” that she solicited from various sources.

    • nannorris permalink
      November 6, 2012 9:51 am

      When Feldman does Pro Bono, there is always something in it for him….That could be that he was slamming Mesereau , I had just thought he was trying to appear humble..,which he isnt..He is an arroganr slimeball….I so wish this trial was televised ..They had the feed going to another room for the media..It is too bad they didnt record it

  11. shellywebstere permalink
    November 4, 2012 6:04 pm

    Here if you read that document p7, it said, Gavin talked about the 1993 allegations in the Rebuttal tape

    Was it the rebuttal from the Bashir interview?

    • November 4, 2012 11:12 pm

      Yes that would be the rebuttal video that they were talking about. I think Hamid still owns that video if I am not mistaken but it is part of the evidence from the trial so I don’t know if it can be released or not.

  12. shellywebstere permalink
    November 4, 2012 1:51 pm

    That part is so funny, it looks like what Carrie Fisher said about Evan.

    “Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what Jordie

    8 Chandler looked like?

    9 A. He was much better looking, I can tell you,”

    • November 4, 2012 11:10 pm

      Yes it is just as gross to hear his lawyer say that to a court as it was to find out that his father said it about him . Sorry but that is just plain gross and disgusting and shows just where there heads were at. As if that were to somehow play a part in it.

  13. November 4, 2012 8:44 am

    The other thing that stands out about Feldman is his playing to the press. The part where he jokingly says on the stand “say it again for the press”. What part of that trial did he think was funny? It was his attitude to the whole thing that says what he is all about. Money and Glory is all that matters to that man.
    Through the whole thing he is being deliberately obtuse. Then two years ago at the Frozen in Time Seminar he says that the trial only happened because of Sneddon? I think he underestimates his part in it.

    • shellywebstere permalink
      November 4, 2012 11:13 am

      At least, he almost said what lots offrant people thing, the Arvizos were only there for the money.

      By the way, do you have the link where Gratos told Janet where her belongings were. I thing it was in à list of emails to Dickerman, but I don’t remember in which docs it was.

    • nannorris permalink
      November 4, 2012 4:44 pm

      How about the part where Feldman is asked by Sneddon what it is called when he says he did some work for free for the Arvizos and he says it is called” stupid” and then he says Pro Bono… he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart ,……for free….. but doesnt want to take credit for it..When obviously it is to further his future attempts of a civil judgement…
      It is amazing how arrogant and smug these people are…They all think everybody is stupid..

  14. nannorris permalink
    November 4, 2012 1:12 am

    Another great job David

    10 If I took the Arvizo case – I don’t want to break

    11 his heart – he wasn’t going to do very much work if

    12 I was the lawyer on the case, but he wanted to get

    13 paid. That’s the point. And how we memorialized

    14 that, I don’t remember. It was in the agreement,

    15 and she consented to however we memorialized what he

    16 would get if there was money to be had.
    well they certainly worked out their fee agreement and even ran it by Janet Arviso and she agreed to it…for people who have no plans to sue..they certainly took care of the money part up front..Especially since Janet is portraying herself as someone who never even considered a lawsuit..pft
    It is pretty sickening how Katz gets blocked by childrens services , so Feldman calls Sneddon to get the ball going..Must have really upset them , when childrens services closed the case…..

  15. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 3, 2012 11:05 pm

    Feldman is just awful as a witness–rambling, can’t answer, combative, uninformed, evasive. I don’t know why he wasn’t just held in contempt of court. What a slimeball man he is. I am so glad to hear Rothman was disbarred, Yes!

    As far as the ‘next kid’ comment, I don’t see that as specifically referring to Michael. How come after this visit from Katz, Feldman, the DCFS didn’t make their own report? How come they didn’t investigate? Just wondering.

    About Feldman saying Jordan was ‘adorable”–that is so sleazy. Just trying to insinuate that he was irresistible and that he, Feldman, was right to take the civil case and do what he did to get a settlement. About the settlement, was it Michael that paid? I think several statements have indicated that he paid (his last payment was in 99) even though the insurance pushed the settlement.

  16. November 3, 2012 10:45 pm

    Okay so somehow we are supposed to believe that when there is a written agreement between Dickerman and Feldman for a fee , and Janet Arvizo had to agree to it, that the Arvizo’s weren’t looking for money. Why would there need to be an agreement for him to get money and for Janet to agree to it if there wasn’t going to be any money?
    That is the most convuluted testimony there is if you ask me. Here is the bottom line. She was sent there by Dickerman because she wanted money and Dickerman wanted some of that money that she wanted.
    Oh for heavens sake here is the simple part. She went to Dickerman and to Feldman to get money. There is no other reason for it. She didn’t go there to find out where here belongings were because Geragos had already told them where they were and how to get them.
    See, just like the two attorney’s it is hard to keep up with that nut. Feldman sent her to Katz because he couldn’t make any sense of the bullshit story she was telling him either.To be honest nobody can.

  17. shellywebstere permalink
    November 3, 2012 8:21 pm

    It’s funny how what Feldman said seems different from what he said 2 years ago. 2 years ago, he said the case went to trial only because of Tom Sneddon.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: