April 13th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Cross Examination) and Janet Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 5
The next prosecution witness was Janet Arvizo, the wife of Major Jay Jackson, and the mother of Gavin, Star, and Davellin.
Before getting to Janet’s testimony, I want to take a moment to summarize a series of legal pleadings by the prosecution and defense regarding Janet’s mental illness, previous litigation, and other legal issues regarding her character and fitness to testify. I also want to be sure that readers have a full and complete picture of the history of Janet Arvizo’s grifting activities against celebrities, as well as the emotional abuse that she suffered in her marriage, and brought upon her own children.
First, I’d like to tackle the biggest and most important example of Janet’s conniving ways, and that is her scam of the department store chain J.C. Penney in 1998. In this legal document from February 28th, 2005 titled “MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE USE OF J.C. PENNEY ISSUES IN DEENSE OPENING STATEMENT”, a summary of an October 2004 interview with Janet’s ex-husband David Arvizo and Mesereau’s private investigator Scott Ross in included on pages 7-25, and in this interview David thoroughly lays out what happened on that fateful day. Here’s the timeline of the incident, as well as other examples of Janet’s outrageous behavior:
1. On 1998, Janet was inside of Oshman’s Sporting Goods store filling out paperwork for a job there, while David, Star, and Gavin were shopping inside J.C. Penney, which was next door. While in J.C. Penney, Gavin grabbed a handful of clothes and ran outside to the family van. David and Star followed Gavin in order to make him return the stolen clothing, but they were all apprehended by security while in the parking lot, but before they reached their vehicle.
2. Janet, while exiting Oshman’s, saw David being apprehended by security, and ran outside to intervene by physically removing David from the security guards. David was eventually escorted back inside by security, where he explained that he was only trying to get the stolen merchandise back from Gavin, and that he had no intention of keeping it for himself, and as a result no criminal charges were filed against the Arvizos by J.C. Penney.
3. However, Janet decided that she wanted to sue J.C. Penney for “battery, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress”, and on July 22nd, 1999 a $3 million dollar lawsuit was filed. According to David, Janet’s knowledge of the loss prevention industry played a part in her decision to sue.
4. Janet asked David and the boys to write out their version of events, and then typed up her own version of events that only included the best parts of everyone else’s version. She then gave her typed version events to the boys in order for them to memorize it and know what to say under oath. They were required to read and study this script on a daily basis for at least a year before they were deposed under oath, and Janet actively coached them in order to help them learn what to say and how to act.
5. After the incident, Janet checked herself into an outpatient center for addicts and depression in order to demonstrate how the altercation with the J.C. Penney security guards negatively affected her mental health and brought stress to her life. Also, she never worked at Oshman’s (I’m assuming that David Arvizo insinuated that a job offer was made to Janet by Oshman’s and Janet rejected it) in order to bolster her claim that she was physically unable to work due to the “injuries” she sustained in the altercation.
6. On June 29th, 2000 Janet amended the complaint against J.C. Penney in order to allege that she was “sexually assaulted” by a security officer. According to the amended lawsuit, Janet claimed that her breasts were fondled, her nipple was squeezed”10 to 20 times” (how on earth could she keep count?), she was punched in the face with a closed fist, she was fondled in her vaginal area, and she was called racial slurs.
7. Gavin was deposed during the peak of his illness while he was still in the hospital in order to make him a more sympathetic figure to the jury, and force J.C. Penney to settle (which they inevitably did.) Janet instructed a nurse to give Gavin medication and told Gavin to “act” tired and fatigued during his questioning. According to David, Gavin’s deposition took place on one of his “better days” in which he was awake, alert, and feeling energetic.
8. Mary Holzer was a paralegal for the law firm that represented the Arvizos in their lawsuit against J.C. Penney. She gave an interview to Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen and Sgt. Steve Robel on February 26th, 2005 (the transcript of this interviewed is included on pages 27-72), and she testified for the defense on May 25th, 2005. Holzer witnessed many bizarre and devious acts by Janet, including her throwing herself on the driveway, kicking and screaming, in the medical center where Gavin was being treated, enrolling her kids in acting classes in order to prepare them for their depositions, and threatening to have Holzer killed if she told anyone that she was scamming J.C. Penney! (Janet admitted to Holzer that she was lying about the entire episode.)
9. J.C. Penney settled the case in 2001 for $152k. A mediator had been brought in to help with the settlement negotiations, and J.C. Penney initially offered the Arivzos $300k, but Janet rejected this offer and demanded both $500k AND a chance for her kids to star in a commercial for J.C. Penney! Here’s a breakdown of the settlement: Janet received $26k, Star received $28k, Gavin received $32k, and David received $5k.
Here is some additional info about Janet Arvizo, according to David Arvizo:
10. David did not believe a word that Janet said regarding the allegations of child abuse against Gavin due to Janet’s history of lying. He described her as being a victim of physical and verbal abuse herself during her childhood. Janet’s parents would lock her behind a door and sit outside telling her stories that scared her, and held her under water for periods of time. Also, a female cousin of Janet claimed that she was sexually and physically abused by Janet when they were both young children.
11. After the allegations became public, Janet’s brother David Antonio Ventura Jr. told David Arvizo that Janet was “insane”, was not fit to raise her children, and that he would gladly testify against her. David Arvizo also claimed that Janet physically assaulted him and the children regularly. Davellin once confided in David that when she was a small child, Janet held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her and her brothers. In another strange twist, David described how Janet once removed the key from the ignition of the car they were riding in as they were stopped at a red light. Janet then took off and left David stranded at the intersection!
12. David suggested that the defense should contact the nurses and doctors who cared for Gavin throughout his sickness so that they could attest to Janet’s crazy and bizarre behavior. He gave an example of how she refused to allow the doctors to use donated blood from the hospital’s blood supply for a transfusion that Gavin needed, and instead wanted to have a “celebrity blood drive”. And while David was on a leave from work to be with Gavin, Janet insisted that he apply for disability, even though the family was receiving donated money to help care for Gavin. He eventually received disability checks, and Janet took the checks and cashed them for herself.
13. In 2000, Janet began working as a waitress in a hotel restaurant, and when she applied for the job she lied and said she didn’t have any children because she thought that she wouldn’t be hired if they knew she had 3 small children. While there, she began having an affair with member of the California Highway Patrol named Michael Haynes, who was later convicted of child molestation. Janet was interviewed by the prosecution for that case. However, David didn’t believe that his children were victims of Haynes because it would be out of their nature to allow themselves to be molested and not fight back or immediately report it. (This is yet another reason why he didn’t believe the allegations against Michael Jackson.)
14. Just as the Arvizo family praised Michael Jackson during the filming of the rebuttal video, David Arvizo also praised Jackson and gave him credit for helping Gavin beat cancer. According to David, Jackson walked with Gavin, prayed with him, and kept him going when he was constantly throwing up from chemotherapy. In fact, David said that Jackson taught him how to act with the children so as not to scare them about the disease!
15. David was adamant about the fact that he didn’t believe that the family had been “held captive” at Neverland because it was a known fact that guests had to request a ride out of the ranch at least one day in advance so that arrangements could be made for a limo to bring them home (if they didn’t have their own transportation).
16. Finally, David mentioned the fact that Janet had accepted a $100k advance from a publisher to write a book after the trial (which, as we all know, was never released due to Jackson’s acquittal, which seriously damaged the profitability of the book).
Now, here is a summary of the most important legal pleadings regarding Janet Arvizo, in chronological order:
July 23, 2004: “NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUES TO JANET VENTURA, WILLIAM DICKERMAN, AND STAN KATZ ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT” On July 18th, 2004 (and in the days thereafter) Janet Arvizo, her attorney William Dickerman, and psychologist Dr. Stanley Katz were served with a subpoena from the defense in order for them to testify at a pretrial hearing scheduled for July 27th, 2004 regarding the illegal break-in and search of Brad Miller’s office. The prosecution objected to this subpoena, and wanted it quashed for the following reasons:
- 1. Neither Janet, Dickerman, nor Dr. Katz were present at the raid of Miller’s office.
- 2 Many of the documents that Mesereau requested that Dr. Katz and Dickerman bring with them to the hearing were privileged. Also, the hearing was scheduled to take place on the Jewish holiday of Tisha b’Av, and as an observant Jew Dickerman couldn’t attend.
- 3. Janet was 9 months pregnant at the time, and was expected to give birth shortly before July 27th, 2004.
I wanted to highlight this document because it shows the lengths that the prosecution was willing to go to cover for Janet Arvizo and keep her out of the courtroom as much as possible during the numerous pre-trial hearings that took place throughout 2004. You can read the declarations of Sneddon, Zonen, Dickermand, and Dr. Katz near the end of the document to see what they had to say in their own words.
On July 26th, 2004 the defense countered with “OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO JANET VENTURA, WILLIAM DICKERMAN, AND STANLY KATZ”, in which they argued that Sneddon made a false allegation in his declaration by stating some BS (my words, not his!) “it was not known that Mr. Miller was employed by a lawyer retained by the defendant when the search was initiated”. Sneddon knew damn well that Miller was working for Geragos when the raid was conducted! Mesereau also stated that the date of the hearing was pushed back to August 16, 2004, and that the witnesses were properly served their subpoenas.
Be sure to read the declarations of Michael Volarich and Tiffany Pavelic (beginning on pages 11 and 15, respectively). They wrote about what they experienced as they attempted to deliver the subpoenas to the Arvizos and William Dickerman, respectively. Both Janet and William Dickerman were caught by surprise, and lied to Volarich and Pavelic about their identities in order to fool them into thinking that they were someone else. It’s very ironic that Dickerman would “play the religion card” and use the Jewish holiday as an excuse to miss the pretrial hearing, yet he had no problems lying to the investigator’s face about his identity!
On July 27th, 2004 Sneddon replied with the “PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO OUR MOTIONTO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR JANET VENTURA, WILLIAM DICKERMAN, AND STAN KATZ”, in which he stated additional reasons why their subpoenas should be quashed, including the ridiculous theory that they lived too far away from the courthouse, and it would place an undue burden on them to appear in court.
On October 14, 2004 Mesereau submitted the “NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 1424”, in which he laid out the reasons why “relief is sought under Penal Code section 1424 for the recusal of District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, and Deputy District Attorneys Ronald Zonen, Gordon Auchincloss, and Gerald Franklin in the alternative, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.” According to Mesereau, “the prosecutors have an actual conflict of interest with the prosecution of defendant Michael Jackson that is so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial.”
I will briefly summarize the main points of contention that Mesereau raised throughout the document, but I must say that this is definitely one document that EVERYONE should bookmark and read for themselves in its entirety! It’s not one of those documents that you merely skim through once or twice because it has so many examples of Sneddon’s egregious and outrageous prosecutorial misconduct, and it’s something that you certainly would want to show to anyone who is skeptical of Sneddon’s overzealous desire to maliciously prosecute Jackson.
Here are just a few examples of Sneddon’s unprofessional behavior:
- After Sneddon’s own sheriff’s department concluded that there were no evidence of any wrongdoing by Jackson in April 2003, the case was closed, only to be reopened once the Arvizos retracted their initial denials and confessed to being abused to Dr. Katz and Larry Feldman in May 2003.
- Sneddon himself conducted surveillance on Brad Miller’s office in Beverly Hills (which in and of itself proves that he KNEW that Miller was working with Jackson and Geragos!), despite the fact that he could have assigned an investigator to perform that task. He also met with Janet Arvizo in the parking lot of a federal building to give her an application for a victim’s compensation fund that she requested. He also questioned her WITHOUT recording the interview, and had her identify individuals under investigation from a photo array. Thus, Sneddon essentially abandoned his position as an impartial prosecutor and assumed the role of lead investigator!
- During the Grand Jury hearing, Sneddon asked numerous misleading questions that were both pro-prosecution and anti-defense, and bullied witnesses who had anything exculpatory to say in defense of Jackson, thus prejudicing the grand jurors. This misconduct alone warrant recusal.
- Former Sheriff Jim Thomas intentionally leaked sensitive and private facts about the current and 1993 investigations to the media, with the tacit approval of Sneddon.
On October 20th, 2004 Sneddon submitted a rebuttal titled “PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE”, in which he argued that “having an intense desire to seek justice is not grounds for the recusal of a prosecutor”. Essentially, he argued that Mesereau didn’t present any substantive facts that would warrant his removal from the case, that Jackson settled the Chandler case because he knew he was guilty, that the results of the initial investigation of the Arvizo case from February through April 2003 was irrelevant because Gavin subsequently made claims of molestation in May 2003, his surveillance of Brad Miller’s office and subsequent interview with Janet Arvizo was a “peripheral issue”, and many other reasons that can be read in the document.
Mesereau’s rebuttal, titled “REPLY TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 1424”, which was filed on November 4th, 2004, in which he stood firmed and reiterated everything he said in his original complaint against Sneddon. He also rebutted Sneddon’s claims, including the nonsense about the two grand juries being “investigative only”, and that being the reason why they were never “asked” to indict Jackson. Mesereau argued that Sneddon was using a “post hoc” rationalization (for more examples of fallacies that Jackson haters use to demonize him, read this series beginning with Part 1) to justify his refusal to seek an indictment, and he specifically stated that “with the resources of two counties at his disposal, and without defense counsel for Mr. Jackson present, the District attorney was unable to convince either grand jury that probable cause existed to indict Mr. Jackson. The fact that neither grand jury was asked to indict anyone suggests that even the prosecutors were aware of the weak nature of their case. A grand jury does not become investigative when the District Attorney realizes that it would be futile to ask for an indictment”.
Next, on November 17th, 2004, Mesereau submitted a massive 96 page motion titled “MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO ROTHSTEIN & FELDMAN AND ADLER’S MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER”, in which he laid out the reasons why documents from the JC Penney lawsuit should not be barred from court. Janet Arvizo’s attorneys argued that, due to attorney client privilege, those documents shouldn’t be admissible in court, but Mesereau argued that Janet Arvizo waived that privilege on December 18th, 2003. On November 8th, 2004 Jackson’s attorney Brian Oxman called the attorneys who represented the Arvizos against JC Penney, and was told that the attorney client privilege was still in effect, despite Oxman’s explanation of Janet’s previous waiver. However, Janet’s attorney argued that David Arvizo didn’t waive his privilege, and without his waiver he couldn’t reproduce the documents that Oxman had requested, and he was unable to separate documents that pertained to Janet and David.
On top of that, Janet Arvizo concealed from her attorneys and the judge her waiver of attorney client privilege in her April 16th, 2004 opposition filed in the marital dissolution court! And, according to Mesereau, Deputy District Attorney Gerald McC. Franklin also concealed the existence of this waiver! (You can read Janet’s waiver of her privilege on page 72.)
Mesereau and his team wanted access to JC Penney’s canceled checks showing the payment of the $152k settlement to the Arvizos so that Jackson could use it as proof that the Arvizos misrepresented themselves as being “poor” in order to earn his sympathy.
On November 24th, 2004 Sneddon filed the motion titled “PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATIONS FOR JANET ARVIZO, GAVIN ARVIZO, AND STAR ARVIZO”. Prior to this filing, Mesereau requested that the Court order a mental examination on Janet Arvizo because “the prosecution opened the door to permit a mental examination of the complaining witnesses by offering its own mental examination and expert testimony concerning their mental condition”, and because “Mr. Jackson cannot cross-examine and confront expert witness psychologist Stanley Katz unless he is permitted equal access to the subject matter of the expert’s mental examination”. However, Sneddon argued that Mesereau wanted to get a mental examination of Janet Arvizo in order to use it to impeach her credibility, and use the exam as evidence of Janet’s mental illness. California Penal Code Section 1112 prohibits any witness in a sexual assault or child molestation prosecution to submit to a psychiatric or psychological examination for the purpose of assessing his or her credibility.
Also, Mesereau mentioned Dr. Katz’s testimony during the Grand Jury proceedings, in which he said that Gavin and Star’s stories were “credible”, but Sneddon clarified that Dr. Katz’s position was that they were credible as far as being believable enough to be reported to authorities because, as a psychologist, he is a mandatory reporter.
Finally, Sneddon argued that there is a difference between an incredible defendant and an incompetent defendant, and that the defense must prove that Janet is “incompetent” in order to prevent her from testifying in court. If the Arvizos were considered “competent”, then there is no reason for them to be submitted to a mental examination. However, it’s highly unlikely that the defense EVER intended on keeping her out of court; if anything, they wanted nothing more than for her to testify, and they got their wish!
You can read Mesereau’s request for a mental examination here, but be warned that it’s nearly impossible to decipher exactly what he requested because the prosecution literally obliterated it with all of their redactions!
Here is a November 30th, 2004 article from the Santa Barbara News-Press (republished on the MJEOL fansite) about the defense’s request to have Janet submitted to an psychological evaluation. Pay close attention to what Dr. Hochman (who was hired by JC Penney and diagnosed Janet as schizophrenic) had to say about the Arvizo’s story!
Jackson defense loses bid to conduct mental testing of accuser, family
November 30, 2004 12:00 AM
NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
A judge denied a request Monday by Michael Jackson’s defense team to conduct mental testing of the entertainer’s young accuser and his family, but is allowing the lawyers to subpoena existing psychological, medical, financial and military records about them.
The defense probe into these areas indicates the lawyers are compiling information in an attempt to attack the credibility of the accuser’s mother — who they claim made up the child molestation accusations against their client and allegedly used similar techniques for financial gain in the past.
During Monday’s pretrial hearing in Santa Maria, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen objected to defense subpoenas for such documents, claiming the requests were an “undue invasion of privacy, confidentiality and privilege.”
However, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville noted the prosecutor is not an attorney for the family and, therefore, cannot claim that those documents should remain confidential.
Judge Melville ruled the defense may subpoena such documents but must notify the subjects of the records that they have five days to file an objection, which he would then consider before releasing the papers.
The high-stakes legal wrangling is in preparation for the trial, scheduled to begin Jan. 31. Mr. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to all charges. A gag order prohibits attorneys from discussing the case.
Prosecutors have maintained the alleged victim’s family is not after money and that there is plenty of evidence to support the allegations.
The documents sought by the defense are believed to include confidential psychiatric reports linked to a civil lawsuit filed by the accuser’s mother against J.C. Penney Co. after her son was detained for alleged shoplifting in 1998. The reports, obtained by the News-Press and NBC, are from a 2001 psychological evaluation of the mother, the boy and his brother by a psychiatrist hired by J.C. Penney. The reports describe her as delusional and state that she may have made up allegations that a J.C. Penney Co. security guard attacked her and her children and then sexually molested her.
During Monday’s pretrial hearing, Mr. Zonen noted that defense lawyers were seeking the mother’s gynecological records, which he said “constituted harassment.”
In response, defense co-counsel Robert Sanger said, “I don’t want to take cheap shots at the sound bites about gynecological records, but there’s very good reason for those that I don’t want to go into right now.”
In response to the alleged 1998 J.C. Penney incident, the mother filed a $3 million lawsuit against the company, which dropped the shoplifting charges against her son and paid $137,000 to the family. The documents obtained by the News-Press and NBC were compiled by Dr. John Hochman, identified as an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at UCLA. It was noted in court Monday that the family’s civil attorney, Larry Feldman, filed an objection to the defense subpoena of medical records; however, it’s unclear if these are the Hochman records.
Quoting the mother, Dr. Hochman said that after the J.C. Penney incident, she “saw a gynecologist due to irregularities in her menstruating and she was this way because her body was traumatized and ‘every hormone in her body was being released.’ . . . There is no evidence confirming (the mother’s) testimony she had to get her hormones straightened out due to the mall episode.”
The family complained to the psychiatrist of headaches and nightmares after the incident. The children were also fearful “the bad people from J.C. Penneys” would come to their house and hurt them, Dr. Hochman said in the report.
Dr. Hochman noted that the mother did not want to answer questions and frequently claimed memory loss about her life before the incident. “She said she didn’t want to remember anything about her prior psychiatric treatment. . . . She didn’t remember where (her son) took dancing lessons.”
She frequently buried her head in her hands. “She was far more upset talking about the mall episode than about her son’s bout with cancer. Her general demeanor alternated between a blunted state and tearful hysteria.”
The boy indicated the incident was “more frightening” than the year he battled cancer, and his brother said it was “worse,” Dr. Hochman’s report stated.
The psychiatrist noted that he thought the interviews with the boy and his brother were rehearsed. He also noted “doubtful aspects” of the testimony by the family, including that it was “impossible” for all family members to have “identical stories years later.”
The police, the doctor stated, saw no injuries and heard no complaints of sexual abuse. Those charges were added to the complaint two years later.
The mother insisted that “prior to the mall incident she was living an ideal and extraordinarily virtuous life,” Dr. Hochman stated.
Defense lawyers also appear to be gearing up for an attack on the grand jury process. In response to their requests, Judge Melville on Monday ordered that the defense be given transcripts of the grand jury selection process and of written communications between grand jurors and prosecutors during the secret proceedings. The News-Press learned that the defense also subpoenaed materials the county jury commissioner used to select grand jurors. The jury selection process here is now under review by the state Supreme Court.
Next, Mesereau submitted the motion titled “EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER PERMITTING INTERVIEW OF PASSPORT OFFICE EMPLOYEES” on November 29th, 2004, in which he requested that his investigator, Scott Ross, be granted permission by the court to interview the employees at the Passport Office who served the Arvizos on February 25th, 2003. They witnessed weird and bizarre behavior from Janet, who demanded special treatment (like being able to cut people in line) because she “knew” who Michael Jackson was, and claimed to be his “personal assistant”. They also stated that she and her kids expressed their desire to travel outside of the USA, which is contrary to their claims of being “forced” to travel to Brazil under duress. For more details of what the employees witnessed, read pages 4-13.
On December 8th, 2004 the prosecution submitted the motion “PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE SUBPOENA OF PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS, AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF MEDICAL AND MILITARY RECORDS” in order to object to the defense’s issuance of a subpoena for Janet’s psychiatric records, and to have the court limit the scope of Jay Jackson’s subpoena for his military records, as well as all of the banking institutions used by the Arvizos throughout the years. They argued that “the defendant has abused the process of the court in issuing subpoenas duces tecum in this case, both by seeking information that could not possibly lead to evidence relevant to his defense and by violating the constitutional right of privacy of the individuals whose records are demanded and by securing records that are privileged.”
Here’s an interesting tidbit that was mentioned on page 7: Janet scheduled the C-section delivery of her baby to take place on the SAME DAY that she was subpoenaed to testify in a pre-trial hearing, and Ron Zonen ADMITTED this!
“The court continued Jane Doe’s testimony seven weeks after receiving a letter from her obstetrician (Dr. Carol Archie) attesting to the fact that Jane Doe was then pregnant and that a C-section delivery was anticipated on August 27, 2004, the very day Jane Doe was subpoenaed to appear in Santa Maria.”
Un-FREAKING-believable! The lengths that the prosecution went to in order to enable the Arvizos is just breathtaking!
On December 15th, 2004 Jackson attorney Brian Oxman submitted the “DECLARATION OF BRIAN OXMAN IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENAS”, in which he made the following arguments:
- The prosecution represents the people of their district, and NOT the Arvizos, so they had NO LEGAL STANDING to file an objection to the defense’s subpoena of the Arvizo’s medical and financial records.
- The prosecution’s cited authorities do NOT support their position (they referenced several court cases to support their position that they had the right to object to the defense’s subpoena, but Oxman argued that they twisted the rulings of those cases in order to make them “fit” their agenda.)
- Janet Arvizo waived all of their privileges to their Kaiser Mental Health records during her JC Penney lawsuit, so they are now public records. As a result, privileged information previously disclosed in a public forum may no longer be claimed as privileged. (In fact, they were reviewed by Dr. John Hochman, the psychologist for JC Penney.)
- The defense’s request for urine and blood samples, as well as Janet’s gynecological records, was relevant and material because Janet Arvizo is a paranoid schizophrenic with a proclivity to make up stories that originate from her delusions, and she and her children abuse drugs and alcohol. The records would also show the non-use of any prescription drugs that she claimed to be using to cope with the “hormone imbalances” that resulted from the “trauma” she received during the JC Penney incident.
- Janet’s financial records were relevant because of her fraudulent history of scamming JC Penney, as well as many celebrities and other good Samaritans who donated money to her to help Gavin fight his cancer, despite the fact that he was covered by insurance. She defrauded Michael Jackson with the same misrepresentations of her need for money, and her medical bills would show that she did not use any of the thousands of dollars she received from strangers to pay those bills.
- Jackson’s right to a fair trial outweighed Janet’s right for privacy for her medical records. Oxman stated that it was improper for Janet to offer a doctor’s report to the court stating that she was unable to attend a pretrial hearing due to a physical impairment (and the use of narcotics in treatment for that impairment), and then attempt to hide those medical records when they were requested by the defense.
Oxman saved the best for last by describing Maj. Jay Jackson’s fraudulent past, which certainly explains why he was so attracted to Janet Arvizo! Birds of a feather stick together!
According to the defense, Major Jay Jackson has committed “systematic fraud” against both the U.S. Government and the County of Los Angles, and that severely hurts his credibility as a “confidential reliable government informant” for at least 6 search warrants that were executed by the prosecution during their investigation. The government “has vouched for his history of trustworthiness, voracity, and credibility”. The defense argued that the prosecution’s act of rendering Maj. Jackson as “reliable and trustworthy” renders all of his background, training, and employment records as relevant to the case. Here are a few examples of his shady past:
- Jay Jackson testified in pretrial hearings about his 22 years of experience as a military officer, and that he was in contact with Janet Arvizo “at all times” during the period when the Arvizo family was being “falsely imprisoned”, yet despite his military background he did NOTHING to secure the Arvizo’s release from Neverland, and as a result his military background, training, and capabilities are open to scrutiny in this case. According to the defense, “no United States Army Officer, let alone a Major, would have stood idly by while his soon to be wife and family were repeatedly abducted in front of his eyes or coerced to do interviews in his own home. This scenario smacks of absurd. Jay Jackson’s military training and personal history is relevant to his proceeding.
- Maj. Jackson conducted surveillance of Brad Miller’s office prior to the execution of the prosecution’s search warrant on November 18th, 2003, with FULL KNOWLEDGE that Miller was employed by Jackson’s attorney Mark Geragos. Maj. Jackson knew that Miller worked for Geragos because he was present during Miller’s interview with Janet Arvizo at his apartment in February 2003, in which Miller openly disclosed that he worked for Geragos. However, Maj. Jackson concealed his knowledge of Miller’s employment to Geragos during his pretrial testimonies, which showed a lack of honesty and integrity on his part, and is unbecoming of a military officer.
- On November 10th, 1998 Maj. Jackson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, claiming that, as the part owner of a nutrition company, his TOTAL income from employment for the previous 3 years was $27,400, $30,300, and $18.091, respectively. He received his bankruptcy discharge on February 18th, 1999. However, on August 19th, 2004 Maj. Jackson testified during a pretrial hearing that he had been in the military for 22 years, which means that either he lied to the court about his military service (which he obviously did not), or he committed bankruptcy fraud and lied during his bankruptcy filings by EXCLUDING his military income in order to misrepresent his financial situation to his benefit (which he obviously DID!). This would be considered a crime of “moral turpitude” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he could have been severely punished (including a bad conduct discharge) by the military.
- Maj. Jackson assisted Janet Arvizo in her welfare fraud by laundering her welfare checks into his bank account, in which he also received his $8,000 dollar a month salary. In fact, he made a deposit into his account on February 24th, 2003, right in the middle of the so-called “false imprisonment, child abduction, and extortion” of the Arvizos! As a result of this fraud, the defense felt that they were entitled this financial records in order to demonstrate to the court that the laundering of welfare payments that they were not even entitled to!
- As an informant for the government who assisted in surveillance during the criminal investigation, Maj. Jackson waived any claims of privacy to his employment records, and when he laundered Janet Arvizo’s welfare checks through his bank account, he lost any claims of privacy of his military background and pay records.
On December 15th, 2004 Sneddon filed the “PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION”, in which he argued that Jackson’s claims of vindictive and malicious prosecution were baseless, and that the complexity of the case warranted the vast number of search warrants that were executed (over 100), many of which were for the business records in the custody of third parties.
Next, on January 7th, 2005 Mesereau submitted “MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH VENTURE AND BANK OF THE WEST SUBPOENAS AND DECLARATION OF BRIAN OXMAN”, in which he objected to the request of Janet’s parents (Maria and David Ventura) that their subpoenas be quashed because he believed that they actively engaged in a systematic fraud by laundering Janet’s money through their bank account in order to help her appear poor and gain sympathy from Jackson and others. On December 22nd, 2004 the defense served Janet’s parents with a subpoena, which sought to discover all monies that Janet had laundered through their bank accounts. They were FULL PARTICIPANTS in Janet’s fraudulent schemes to bilk unsuspecting people out of thousands of dollars through false claims of non-existent medical bills. David and Maria’s bank was also served with a subpoena for their bank records, including cancelled checks.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Maj. Jay Jackson fraudulently listed Janet’s parent’s home address AS HIS OWN ADDRESS! He utilized their residence as a “depository” for his credit cards and other secret financial transactions to collect cash payments that he sought to conceal from the defense.
Here is an article that was included in that document on pages 60-61 from December 2001 that describes the kindness and generosity that was shown to the Arvizo family from their local police department:
On December 30th, 2004 David and Maria filed a motion to quash Jackson’s subpoenas “to the extent they seek the Ventura’s banking and other financial records”, but Mesereau argued that their rights to privacy were relinquished when they engaged in fraud. Be sure to read Brian Oxman’s declaration on pages 11-14 (and this separate declaration) for more information and a detailed timeline of the defense’s allegations against Janet’s parents.
Next, on January 18th, 2005 Mesereau submitted “MR. JACKSON’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT UNCHARGED CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS”, which was intended to ask the court to prove the alleged conspiracy INDEPENDENT of uncharged conspirator hearsay statements. Basically, what Mesereau was arguing in this pleading is that the prosecution should be forced to prove that there was a conspiracy to abduct and kidnap them WITHOUT having to rely on “a long recital of hearsay statements from the complaining witness”. He also stated that “the inherent untrustworthiness of hearsay should alarm this court as to the nature of these clams and the mental condition, including paranoid schizophrenia with delusions, of the person making the claims”.
Mesereau wanted Judge Melville to require that Sneddon present to him independent evidence to allow him to determine that a reasonable jury could conclude, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that a conspiracy existed before Sneddon is permitted to present proof of UNCHARGED conspirator hearsay. Remember, the only “proof” that the prosecution had of any “conspiracy” were the ever changing stories of the Arvizo family, and obviously the defense knew that there was NO EVIDENCE of any conspiracy because THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY!
On January 24th, 2005 Sneddon responded with “PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT UNCHARGED CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY”, in which he stated that he would make a “formal offer of proof” concerning the evidence that demonstrates the existence of a conspiracy independent of statements by one or more of the five alleged unindicted co-conspirators that don’t come within other exception of the hearsay rule (which he described in the brief).
On January 26th, 2005 the defense countered with “MR. JACKSON’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT UNCHARGED CONSPIRATOR HEARSAY AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS”, in which they offered additional reasons for their earlier request regarding the prosecution’s hearsay evidence.
Next, in a desperate and pathetic attempt to, once again, cover for the Arvizos, Sneddon submitted the “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIMIT INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE DOE FAMILY”, in which he literally LIED for the Arvizos and vouched for their version of events regarding the JC Penney incident, and argued that the details of the lawsuit shouldn’t be allowed to be used by the defense to attack the integrity of the Arvizos. You’ve got to read Sneddon’s explanation for the Arvizos to even believe it. He explicitly states that JC Penney settled the case because they knew that they were “guilty”, and that the Arvizo family was telling the truth. Yep, he said that alright!
A few days later on January 31st, 2005 the prosecution submitted the “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ANY ALLEGED EXTRA-MARITAL SEXUAL CONDUCT BY JANE DOE”, Sneddon asked the court to prevent the defense from bringing up the subject of any of Janet Arvizo’s alleged extra-marital affairs during cross examination. The defense felt that Janet’s alleged affairs “relate directly to her fraudulent activities. Her mode of operation, during the time she was attempting to get money and favors from Michael Jackson, was to also manipulate other men and obtain their money and favors.” However, Sneddon argued that they were irrelevant to the case.
On February 4th, 2005 the defense countered with “OPPOSITION TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ANY ALLEGED EXTRA-MARITAL SEXUAL CONDUCT BY JANE DOE”, in which they explained that they had no desire to go into areas of Janet Arvizo’s sexual history that was not relevant to the current case, but wanted the court to allow them to question Janet about how the romantic affairs were related to her previous fraudulent activities. For example, the defense claimed that they had evidence that Janet had an affair with an LAPD officer before, during, and after the time period during which she claimed to be held “captive” at Neverland. Also, in a police report from February 2004, it was stated that Janet “made passes” at Vincent Amen, a friend of Frank Cascio and one of the five unindicted co-conspirators, as well as other employees at Neverland.
On February 9th, 2005 Sneddon submitted “PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIMIT INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE DOE FAMILY”, in which he continued apologizing for the Arvizos and proclaiming JC Penney’s guilt in the incident being the deciding factor in their decision to settle the case.
Here’s a very important pleading by the defense that I have already referenced numerous times before during this series; it’s titled “NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”, which was submitted on March 1st, 2005. It details the sexual and other forms of misbehavior exhibited by Gavin and Star at Neverland during their “imprisonment”, including being caught masturbating, watching porn, sneaking their own pornographic magazines into Neverland, asking Jackson’s young cousin to strip naked, drinking alcohol, defacing property, throwing rocks and spitting at Neverland employees, and other deviant behavior. The most damning evidence against the Arvizos in this document is the interview with Carol Lamere, a friend of the Arvizo family. On page 27, she describes how in 2000 she became aware that Janet Arvizo tried to blackmail Michael Jackson after her daughter Davellin confessed the following to her:
In 2000, Davellin lived with Lamere because Davellin was not getting along with Janet, who was dating a police officer rumored to be a pedophile. “Davellin hated being with Janet, she cried whenever she was on the phone with Janet”, Lamere commented. Davellin told Lamere that Janet would wake her up in the idle of the night, would hit her and demand that she do things like clean the house or run to the store. Davellin also complained to Quai about Janet’s abusive behavior. Lamere noticed that when Davellin came over, she smelled and was not bathing.
At this time, Davellin told Lamere that Michael was going to buy her family a big house. After questioning Davellin about what she meant, Lamere figured out that Davellin was implying that Janet was going to blackmail Michael, forcing him to buy the family a house. The plan was to accuse the client of showing the children how to log on to adult websites. Davellin acted as if she did not know how to use the internet until she met the client. Lamere became upset and told Davellin that it was wrong to falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing. Davellin became flustered and scared and then said she was joking. Shortly thereafter, Lamere called Evi Tavaschi and told her to “get Michael away from the Arvizo kids.”
That excerpt shows that Janet intended from the very beginning, and if her original extortion plot had come to fruition, Sneddon would have done everything in his power to bring the phony case to trial in 2000, just as he did in 2005! And the media would have crucified Jackson, and declared him guilty until proven innocent, regardless of whether or not Gavin and Star slept in Jackson’s bedroom during their first visit to Neverland!
Next, on March 2nd, 2005 the defense submitted the pleading titled “MR. JACKSON’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO DR. GEORGE SUN”, in which they argued that there was no physician-patient privilege in criminal cases, and that they were entitled to Janet’s medical records because she made her medical history an issue in her case against Jackson. She was shot in the leg with a BB gun by Gavin, and claimed that Michael Jackson’s abuse of Gavin is what triggered that event. The defense also wanted to prove that in 2001 Janet defrauded Jackson by using money that he helped raise for Gavin’s medical treatment to instead have elective plastic surgery on herself! (A tummy tuck and a breast enhancement.)
Finally, on April 20th 2005 the defense submitted “MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR MANUEL RAMIREZ; DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. SANGER”, in which asked the court to allow Neverland employee Angel Vivanco to testify that Davellin made several exculpatory statements to him during and after her “imprisonment” at Neverland (during which time they were in a brief “relationship” or whatever). According to Vivanco, Davellin stated that Janet was “planning something big” regarding Michael Jackson, and that she didn’t want to participate in that plan. Davellin also made similar statements to her new boyfriend Manuel Ramirez, and she moved in with him to due to unwillingness to participate in Janet’s plot.
All of those motions that I have just summarized will give you a clear picture of the totality of the person that is Janet Arvizo. Beginning with the next post, I will begin to summarize her testimony.