Skip to content

April 27th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Hamid Moslehi, Terry Paulsen, Gabrel Dominguez, Anne Marie Sims, Joseph Shebroe, Jeanne Mulcahy, Debbie Rowe, Part 1 of 4

January 18, 2014

Mesereau’ cross examination of Hamid Moslehi continued today, and he continued on the subject of Moslehi’s $2,000 dollar loan to Janet Arvizo on February 19th, 2003, which he offered to her on his own volition because he felt sorry for her. The check was given to her after the rebuttal video was filmed, and one of the motivating factors for Moslehi was Janet’s comments about being “spit upon and abused”. Mesereau used this information to discredit Janet’s claims of being poor by asking Moslehi if Janet told him that she was living with and receiving financial support from Major Jay Jackson, and if she told him about her $152,000 dollar J.C. Penney settlement, among other facts.

As you would imagine, Janet never revealed to Moslehi the true state of her finances!





20 Q. Good morning.


21 A. Good morning.


22 Q. Mr. Moslehi, yesterday you mentioned that


23 you had decided to give Janet Arvizo a $2,000 loan


24 on approximately February 19th, 2003, right?


25 A. That’s correct.


26 Q. And you said you did that based upon a phone


27 conversation with Ms. Arvizo that lasted about 25


28 minutes, right? 7752


1 A. That’s correct.


2 Q. You didn’t give her the actual check till


3 the next day after you had filmed the Arvizo family


4 in what is often referred to as the rebuttal


5 portion, right?


6 A. Towards the end of it, after the interview,


7 yes.


8 Q. Yes. Now, obviously, if you were filming


9 the Arvizo family in that tape, you heard what Janet


10 was saying, correct?


11 A. Oftentimes I wasn’t paying fully attention


12 to what she was saying because I was mostly


13 concerned about, you know, lighting, camera, that


14 kind of stuff. But, yeah, I heard some.


15 Q. But you heard a number of the things that


16 Janet Arvizo said in that footage, correct?


17 A. Some, yes.


18 Q. And did you hear her saying words to the


19 effect that her family had been spat upon and abused


20 and not treated properly by various people?


21 A. I believe so.


22 Q. And would it be accurate to say that your


23 phone conversation with her the previous day plus


24 what you heard her say in that tape-recording


25 influenced you to give her $2,000?


26 A. In some effect, yes.


27 Q. Okay. Now, in your phone conversation with


28 Ms. Arvizo on February 19th, 2003, did she ever tell 7753


1 you that she was living with and being supported by


2 a Major Jay Jackson?


3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as assumes


4 facts not in evidence. Compound, as well.


5 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it if the Court


6 would like.


7 THE COURT: All right.


8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When Ms. Arvizo on the


9 19th of February 2003 in your approximately


10 25-minute phone conversation discussed her financial


11 situation, did she ever tell you she was living with


12 Major Jay Jackson?


13 A. I don’t remember her making a comment as far


14 as where she lives and who she lives with.


15 Q. In that conversation, did she ever tell you


16 that she was being supported by a Major Jay Jackson?


17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as assuming


18 facts not in evidence.


19 MR. MESEREAU: Strictly a question.


20 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.


21 You may answer.


22 THE WITNESS: Um, did she mention whether she


23 lives or being supported by Jay Jackson?


24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: My first question was, did


25 Janet Arvizo in your phone conversation on February


26 19th, 2003, ever mention to you that she was living


27 with a Major Jay Jackson, and I believe you said,


28 “No.” 7754


1 A. I believe — I don’t remember having that


2 conversation.


3 Q. My next question is, in that same phone


4 conversation did Janet Arvizo ever mention that she


5 was receiving any financial support from a Major Jay


6 Jackson?


7 A. I don’t remember having that conversation.


8 Q. In that phone conversation, did Ms. Arvizo


9 ever mention that her family had obtained an


10 approximately $152,000 settlement from J.C. Penney?


11 A. No.


12 Q. In that phone conversation, did Miss Arvizo


13 ever mention that her family had received any money


14 from fund-raisers at The Laugh Factory?


15 A. No.


16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to


17 strike, as to the last question, as vague as to


18 time.


19 THE COURT: Overruled.


20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In that phone conversation


21 of February 19th, 2003, did Ms. Arvizo ever mention


22 that any celebrities had at any time given her


23 family money?


24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague as to


25 time.


26 THE COURT: Overruled.


27 THE WITNESS: Do I answer? No.


28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And in your phone 7755


1 conversation on February 19th, 2003, did Ms. Arvizo


2 ever mention that she had set up a bank account for


3 the benefit of her son Gavin from which she withdrew


4 thousands of dollars?


5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts


6 not in evidence.


7 THE COURT: Sustained.


8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In that phone conversation


9 on February 19th, 2003, did Ms. Arvizo ever mention


10 that she had set up a bank account for the benefit


11 of her son Gavin?


12 A. No.


13 Q. And in that same phone conversation, did she


14 ever mention that her family had ever obtained any


15 vehicle from Michael Jackson?


16 A. No.


17 Q. Did she ever say in that phone conversation


18 any benefits, financial or otherwise, that she or


19 her family had received from Michael Jackson?


20 A. No.


21 Q. Did she ever say anything about someone


22 named Louise Palanker giving the family $20,000?


23 A. No.


24 Q. Did she ever say anything about Fritz


25 Coleman, a newscaster in Los Angeles, trying to


26 raise money for the family?


27 A. No.


28 Q. Did she ever say anything about Chris Tucker 7756


1 giving $2,000 to the family?


2 A. No.


3 Q. Did she ever say anything about Chris Tucker


4 giving the family the use of a vehicle at any time?


5 A. No.

Next, Moslehi was questioned about the process of picking up Davellin, Gavin, and Star from Neverland, so that they could be taken to his home to shoot the rebuttal video.

6 Q. Now, you indicated that when you went to


7 Neverland to pick up the family — excuse me.


8 Pardon me. Let me rephrase that. Poor question.


9 You indicated that you drove to Neverland


10 for the purpose of filming the family at Neverland,


11 right?


12 A. That’s correct.


13 Q. And you indicated that when you got there,


14 to your knowledge, the children were there but Janet


15 Arvizo was not, correct?


16 A. That’s correct.


17 Q. And I believe you said you spoke to Joe


18 Marcus about your desire to take the children to Los


19 Angeles to do the filming, correct?


20 A. After Janet not being there, there was a


21 decision made that the interview will take place in


22 L.A.


23 Q. Okay.


24 A. And I informed Joe Marcus about that


25 decision.


26 Q. And to your knowledge, who was Joe Marcus?


27 A. Joe Marcus is Neverland Valley property


28 manager. 7757


1 Q. And had you met him before?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. And was it your understanding he had worked


4 at Neverland for a long period of time?


5 A. That’s correct.


6 Q. And your understanding from Mr. Marcus was


7 that he didn’t have the authorization to let the


8 children get in your car and drive off to Los


9 Angeles, correct?


10 A. What I remember is that I told him about the


11 plan of taking the kids to Los Angeles for an


12 interview, and if I remember correctly, he said that


13 they’re not allowed to leave the property.


14 Q. And at some point, he came back to you and


15 said he had the authority to let you drive the kids


16 to L.A., correct?


17 A. If I remember correctly, it just happened


18 that I took the kids and I don’t remember having any


19 more conversation. But he was aware of me taking


20 the kids with me.


21 Q. Okay. So did you assume at the time that


22 Mr. Marcus knew the children were on the property,


23 without the mother, and that Mr. Marcus needed some


24 type of authorization to just let them go off with


25 you?


26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; requires


27 speculation.


28 THE COURT: Sustained. 7758


1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How much time elapsed


2 between Mr. Marcus telling you that he didn’t have


3 authority to let the kids go and your actually


4 taking the kids with you?


5 A. Approximately 30 minutes.


6 Q. Okay. And did you assume that within that


7 30-minute period Mr. Marcus telephoned someone to


8 find out if he could let these children leave the


9 property?


10 A. I assume that’s what he did, yes.


11 Q. Okay. And you then, approximately 30


12 minutes later, put the three children in your car


13 and drove them to Los Angeles, right?


14 A. That’s correct.


15 Q. Had you ever had those three children in


16 your car before?


17 A. No.


18 Q. Now, when you went to Mr. Marcus and told


19 him you wanted to take the three children to Los


20 Angeles, did he ask you if you had the authority to


21 do so?


22 A. I don’t remember.


23 Q. Did you tell him you had the mother’s


24 permission to put her three children in your car and


25 drive them to Los Angeles?


26 A. I don’t remember.


27 Q. Okay. But I assume at some point you


28 thought you had the mother’s permission to do that, 7759


1 correct?


2 A. That’s correct.


3 Q. Okay. And at some point in time, you


4 learned that Janet Arvizo did not want to return to

5 Neverland for the filming, right?


6 A. That’s correct.


7 Q. You learned that Janet Arvizo wanted the


8 filming to take place somewhere in Los Angeles


9 County, correct?


10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.


11 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection as


12 vague.


13 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.


14 Q. At some point before you put the three


15 children into your automobile and drove them to your


16 home, was it your understanding that the mother


17 approved your doing that?


18 A. Yes.


19 Q. And I gather you then drove the children


20 directly to your home; is that right?


21 A. That’s correct.


22 Q. When you got to your home, was Janet Arvizo


23 there?


24 A. No.


25 Q. At some point after you arrived at your home


26 with the three children, did Janet Arvizo arrive?


27 A. That’s correct.


28 Q. Okay. And as you testified, the filming 7760


1 then took place at your home, right?


2 A. That’s correct.


3 Q. Now, you indicated that an investigator


4 named Brad Miller was there, right?


5 A. That’s correct.


6 Q. And did you learn that he was working for


7 Attorney Mark Geragos?


8 A. I did not know who he was working for.


9 Q. Okay. Did you assume he was investigating


10 somebody?


11 A. I didn’t know why he’s there.


12 Q. Okay. Did he ever explain to you why he was


13 there?


14 A. No.


15 Q. Okay. But he must have identified himself


16 as a private investigator, right?


17 A. No. What happened is I asked one of the


18 gentlemen of Marc Schaffel’s people who this guy is,


19 and they said he’s a private investigator.


20 Q. Okay. But you never really knew if he was


21 investigating the Arvizos, or Schaffel, or you, or


22 anybody, right?


23 A. I didn’t know.

Mesereau segued into the topic of Brad Miller, who was present at the shooting of the rebuttal video, although Moslehi did not know at that time that he was working for Jackson’s then attorney Mark Geragos, nor did Moslehi know that he himself was subsequently surveilled by Miller. Mesereau questioned Moslehi about Miller’s surveillance footage of him that the prosecution seized during their raid on his office.

23 A. I didn’t know.


24 Q. Okay. Now, you’ve been interviewed by


25 representatives of the District Attorney’s Office,


26 correct?


27 A. That’s correct.


28 Q. And have they ever discussed with you who 7761


1 Mr. Miller is in those interviews?


2 A. On November 18, 2003, I was served with a


3 search warrant. On that search warrant, it says


4 that any document that could show any relationship


5 between me and Brad Miller.


6 Q. Okay.


7 A. And there were some other questions about


8 that.


9 Q. And other than him being at your house that


10 night, you really had no relationship with him,


11 right?


12 A. No.


13 Q. And if he was putting anyone under


14 surveillance, you weren’t aware of it, right?


15 A. No.


16 Q. Okay. And at some time you learned that he


17 had actually done a few minutes of surveillance on


18 you, right?


19 A. Recently I learned that.


20 Q. You learned that from the prosecution,


21 correct?


22 A. That’s correct.


23 Q. Okay. Now, obviously yesterday, the


24 prosecutor played that little bit of footage, and


25 you identified yourself and your automobile, right?


26 A. That’s correct.


27 Q. And where did that footage take place, if


28 you know? 7762


1 A. That’s what I was wondering yesterday. I


2 don’t —


3 Q. It was not at your home, right?


4 A. No.


5 Q. It was somewhere else?


6 A. That’s correct.


7 Q. It appeared that you were going to a parked


8 vehicle that you owned?


9 A. I believe so.


10 Q. But you’re not sure where that was?


11 A. No.


12 Q. Okay. Okay. Did you ever see Investigator


13 Brad Miller after that evening you filmed the Arvizo


14 family?


15 A. Did I see him again?


16 Q. Yes.


17 A. No.


18 Q. So that was the first and only time you’ve


19 ever seen the guy?


20 A. That was the first and the last time I ever


21 saw him.


22 Q. Did he ever call you after that and ask you


23 anything, to your knowledge?


24 A. No.


25 Q. Okay. But you’re saying Marc Schaffel told


26 you he was a private investigator?


27 A. One of his guys.


28 Q. Okay. Not Schaffel himself? 7763


1 A. Not Schaffel himself.


2 Q. Okay. Okay. But whoever told you that


3 didn’t tell you that he was employed by Attorney


4 Geragos, correct?


5 A. No.


6 Q. All right. Did you learn that at some


7 point, that Mr. Miller was a private investigator


8 hired by Attorney Mark Geragos?


9 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and


10 answered.


11 THE COURT: Overruled.


12 You may answer.


13 THE WITNESS: I heard on the T.V.


14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. All right.

In this excerpt, Moslehi explained that he withheld possession of the rebuttal tape from Jackson because the deadline to submit it for the documentary had already passed, and he wanted to make his own personal copies of it. He also spoke about the work that he put in to get the “Take Two” rebuttal finished, the money that he was promised by Konitzer and Weisner, and the legal action that he took to secure his payment.

15 Let me get back to the financial disagreement you


16 had regarding your filming the Arvizo family, okay?


17 A. I’m sorry, repeat that, please.


18 Q. The concerns you had about being properly


19 compensated for the work that you had done, okay?


20 A. Unpaid invoices?


21 Q. Yes. I want to ask you some questions about


22 that.


23 At the time you filmed the Arvizo family for


24 purposes of the rebuttal documentary, did you know


25 when the documentary was supposed to air on


26 television?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. And what was your understanding about when 7764


1 that rebuttal documentary with Maury Povich was


2 supposed to air on television?


3 A. February 20th of 2003.


4 Q. That didn’t give you much time to get the


5 footage you filmed to the network that was going to


6 actually air the show, did it?


7 A. No. In fact, we missed the deadline.


8 Q. Yes. Originally, was the plan for you to


9 film the family, get immediately paid and get it to


10 the network? Was that the initial plan?


11 A. The initial plan was to finish this rebuttal


12 documentary by midnight of 19 — February 19 of


13 2003, to be aired for the 20th. And the day after


14 it’s aired I was supposed to get paid in full.


15 Q. Okay. And I believe you testified that you


16 withheld the footage because you hadn’t been


17 immediately paid, correct?


18 A. Well, I held the footage because of other


19 reasons. I had to make a copy of it. And also,


20 since we missed the deadline, there was no reason to


21 rush to deliver these tapes anyway.


22 Q. But by withholding the footage, it was clear


23 to you that it could never be on the televised


24 documentary, right?


25 A. Sorry, say that again?


26 Q. By withholding the footage the way you did


27 for the reasons you’ve expressed, it was obvious to


28 you that it could never appear on the documentary, 7765


1 right?


2 A. Well, as I said, we missed the deadline


3 anyway, so there was no way that those footage could

4 have been used in the rebuttal documentary.


5 Q. But your understanding about why you were to


6 film the family was that there was a desire to


7 possibly use that footage in the T.V. documentary,


8 correct?


9 A. Well, originally we were supposed to shoot


10 this on 19, February 19, to be delivered by midnight


11 to the production company. Since we passed that


12 deadline, I knew that it’s not going to be used for


13 the rebuttal documentary.


14 Q. Now, yesterday, you testified that Dieter


15 and Konitzer had promised you a profit participation


16 in the televised documentary, correct?


17 A. A percentage of the revenue.


18 Q. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, I think


19 yesterday you used the firm — used the term, excuse


20 me, a percentage of gross profits; was that true?


21 A. Yeah, gross profit.


22 Q. Okay. Because there is documentation that


23 talks about your claim that you had a net profits


24 interest as opposed to a gross profits interest?


25 A. Well, maybe I’m not qualified to distinguish


26 the difference between the two, but there was an


27 agreement that once — once this documentary is


28 aired, there would be a percentage of the sales, 7766


1 amount of the gross sales, to me for my work.


2 Q. And was that percentage of gross sales


3 supposed to include gross sales all over the world?


4 A. That’s correct.


5 Q. And in your mind, that could be many


6 millions of dollars potentially, right?


7 A. At the time, I didn’t know what was the


8 sales.


9 Q. Okay. And you’re saying that Dieter and


10 Konitzer gave you an oral agreement to that effect,


11 right?


12 A. That’s correct.


13 Q. There was nothing ever reduced to writing


14 about your having a percentage interest in profits


15 associated with that show, right?


16 A. They promised me that they will put this in


17 writing, but they never did.


18 Q. Okay. Now, in light of the fact that the


19 footage of the Arvizo family could not appear in


20 that documentary, did you still think you were


21 entitled to that percentage interest?


22 A. Sure.


23 Q. In light of the fact that the footage could


24 not appear in that documentary, did you still feel


25 you were entitled to your normal fees and costs?


26 A. Well, the Arvizo family footage was not the


27 only one, the only footage to be used in that


28 rebuttal documentary. There was some other footage 7767


1 created by me that was supposed to be used in there.


2 Q. And an example of that footage was your own


3 personal interview, right?


4 A. As far as profit goes?


5 Q. Yes.


6 A. Could you be more specific?


7 Q. Sure. Sure. Let’s talk about all the work


8 you did on the rebuttal show that was hosted by


9 Maury Povich, okay?


10 A. Okay.


11 Q. The work you did was a personal interview,


12 right?


13 A. Personal interview of —


14 Q. You.


15 A. I did not do that myself.


16 Q. But you spoke yesterday about a personal


17 interview —


18 A. No, I did not shoot that interview. In


19 other words, I did not shoot myself to be


20 interviewed. Somebody else shot me.


21 Q. Yes. But certainly you did grant an


22 interview that somebody else shot for purposes of


23 that documentary, right?


24 A. That’s correct.


25 Q. And you also obviously did a shoot of the


26 Arvizo family for the purposes of that documentary,


27 right?


28 A. Sure. 7768

1 Q. What else did you do for the purposes of


2 preparing that documentary?


3 A. As I remember correctly, I put 250 hours in


4 a matter of 11 days, 250 hours in a matter of 11


5 days, oftentimes 20 — 20 hours a day to finish this


6 rebuttal documentary.


7 Q. And that included footage of other family


8 members of the Jackson family, correct?


9 A. The Jacksons’ family members interview,


10 other footage that I provided, and edited for —


11 Q. Right.


12 A. — for the purpose of this documentary.


13 Q. All right. Now, other than the Arvizo


14 footage, did you provide the other footage you did


15 to the network?


16 A. Other footage of?


17 Q. Family members. Did you provide that in a


18 timely fashion so it could be used in the


19 documentary?


20 A. When you say “family members,” are you


21 talking about Mr. Jackson’s family members?


22 Q. Yes.


23 A. Okay.


24 Q. So that was given in time to be included in


25 the documentary, correct?


26 A. That’s correct.


27 Q. The only footage you did that was not


28 provided in time to include in the documentary was 7769


1 the footage of the Arvizo family, right?


2 A. The only footage that was not provided?


3 Q. Well, let me — I’m probably confusing you.


4 Don’t intend to.


5 The Arvizo family footage never got there in


6 time, right?


7 A. That’s correct.


8 Q. The other footage you did did get there in


9 time, right?


10 A. That’s correct.


11 Q. Okay. If you knew that the footage of the


12 Arvizo family was not going to get there in time,


13 why did you continue to do it?


14 A. Well, since we set up all the equipment and


15 everything, might as well shoot it.


16 Q. Okay. And your position after you shot it


17 was, “I want to make a copy of it, and I’m not


18 handing it over to anybody till I’m properly


19 compensated,” right?


20 A. No, first my thought was I’m making a copy


21 of it, just for insurance. In case something


22 happens to the tapes, there’s a copy of it.


23 But the morning after when Ronald and Dieter


24 and other of Mr. Jackson’s agents refused to talk to


25 me about this unpaid invoices issue, I decided that


26 I’m not going to do anything until I get paid.


27 Q. Uh-huh. Okay. Your position was you


28 weren’t going to do anything until you got paid your 7770


1 normal fees and costs that were owed, plus you had a


2 documented percentage interest in profits coming


3 from the show, right?


4 A. All the unpaid invoices and the percentage


5 that they promised me.


6 Q. Yes. Okay.


7 Now, your lawyers at Greenberg Traurig, the


8 law firm you retained, wrote a letter to David


9 LeGrand on March 5th, 2003, that I showed you


10 yesterday, okay?


11 A. I don’t think you showed me a letter of my


12 lawyer.


13 Q. Oh, may I — would it refresh your


14 recollection if I just show it to you?


15 A. Sure.


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


17 THE COURT: No, you haven’t asked him a


18 question that requires any refreshing of memory.


19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall a


20 letter from your lawyers that was written to David


21 LeGrand on March 5th, 2003?


22 A. There was a lot of letters wrote. I don’t


23 recall which one you are referring to.


24 Q. Do you recall one written on March 5th,


25 2003?


26 A. I don’t remember a specific date.


27 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just


28 show you a copy of that letter? 7771


1 A. Sure.


2 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?


3 THE COURT: No. You haven’t asked him a


4 question that requires refreshing of memory.


5 MR. MESEREAU: I thought — he doesn’t know


6 the date, Your Honor. I was just going to refresh


7 him on that. All right.


8 Q. How long after you completed the footage of

9 the Arvizo family did you retain a law firm to


10 represent you?


11 A. Could you repeat that again?


12 Q. Yes. You filmed the Arvizo family on the


13 20th, right?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. You withheld the footage – okay? – for


16 various reasons that you’ve identified?


17 A. Sure.


18 Q. And you went to a law firm to represent you


19 shortly after that, correct?


20 A. What do you mean “shortly after”?


21 Q. Well, within a couple of weeks, true?


22 A. Approximately.


23 Q. The law firm was a firm by the name of


24 Greenberg Traurig, correct?


25 A. That’s correct.


26 Q. And Greenberg Traurig wrote a letter to


27 Attorney David LeGrand, who you have spoken about


28 before. They wrote him a letter on March 5th, 2003, 7772


1 identifying your position on compensation, right?


2 A. I believe so.


3 Q. Okay. Do you know for sure?


4 A. Well, again, I don’t have my records here,


5 so I don’t know what — what letter you’re referring


6 to.


7 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if


8 I show that to you?


9 A. Sure.


10 MR. MESEREAU: The letter of March 5th, is


11 that permitted, Your Honor?


12 THE COURT: Yes.


13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So what number?




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


16 look at that document?


17 A. Well, my lawyer was in touch with Mr.


18 LeGrand, so most of the communications were between


19 my lawyer and Mr. LeGrand.


20 Q. But you’ve looked at that document I showed


21 you, right?


22 A. Right now I looked at it.


23 Q. And you see a date of March 5th, 2003?


24 A. It says March 5th.


25 Q. Okay. Do you know approximately when you


26 hired a lawyer to represent you on this particular


27 issue?


28 A. I don’t remember. 7773


1 Q. Okay. It was shortly after you filmed the


2 Arvizo family, correct?


3 A. When you say “shortly,” what do you mean?


4 Q. Within a couple weeks? Within two weeks?


5 A. Approximately.


6 Q. And had you made any verbal requests to


7 Dieter and Konitzer to fulfill what you say their


8 promises were before you went to a lawyer?


9 A. I’m sorry, say that again?


10 Q. Had you spoken to Dieter and Konitzer


11 between the filming of the Arvizo family and the


12 time you retained the law firm of Greenberg Traurig?


13 A. Yes, I spoke with them.


14 Q. Did you try to get things resolved with


15 them?


16 A. Yes, I did.


17 Q. And I gather you could not do that?


18 A. Negative.


19 Q. Okay. Now, you were asking to be


20 compensated for projects you had done since 1999,


21 right?


22 A. There were unpaid invoices —


23 Q. Yes.


24 A. — from .99, 2001, and I believe 2002 and


25 2003.


26 Q. Right. One of them had to do with your


27 filming the Air Force visiting Neverland, correct?


28 A. I don’t have my records, but it could be. 7774


1 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just


2 show you your outstanding — a record of your


3 outstanding invoice?


4 A. Is that one of the outstanding?


5 Q. Yes.


6 A. It is, for sure? Okay. I mean, I don’t


7 have my records. I do have records that shows what


8 has been paid, what has not been paid.


9 Q. Okay.


10 A. But right now I don’t have nothing in front


11 of me to be able to tell you whether that specific


12 invoice has been paid or not.


13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just


14 show you a record of your invoices?


15 A. Please.


16 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?


17 THE COURT: Yes.


18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What number, Counsel?


19 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to this one?


20 Okay.


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


22 look at that document?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about your


25 outstanding invoices at that time?


26 A. What you showed me, it’s a summary of all


27 the unpaid invoices at the time.


28 Q. Okay. And some of the work you had done you 7775

1 had provided and some of it you had withheld pending


2 payment, true?


3 A. I don’t remember.


4 Q. Well, the — you had done an interview with


5 Michael Jackson, correct?


6 A. I did an interview with Michael Jackson?


7 Q. Well, you, in your invoices, refer to the


8 Bashir interview with Michael Jackson in Florida,


9 correct?


10 A. Okay.


11 Q. You had filmed that interview yourself,


12 right?


13 A. That’s correct.


14 Q. And you were withholding that footage until


15 you were paid, correct?


16 A. No.


17 Q. Well, the schedule your lawyer provided


18 indicated that, didn’t it?


19 A. Well, this footage that you’re talking


20 about, it’s been aired already. So that means I


21 have provided that.


22 Q. Okay. Do you recall your lawyer saying you


23 were going to withhold that footage until you were


24 paid on March 5th, 2003?


25 A. Do I recall if my lawyer were saying that


26 I’m going to withhold —


27 Q. Yes.


28 A. — the footage until I get paid? 7776


1 Q. Yes.


2 A. That footage was not withheld.


3 Q. Okay.


4 A. Because it was aired already on February


5 20th —


6 Q. So that —


7 A. — by FOX.


8 Q. So you weren’t withholding anything in that


9 regard?


10 A. Well, that footage, no.


11 Q. The only footage you say you’re withholding


12 is the footage of the Arvizo family?


13 A. Again, I don’t have my records, but if you


14 tell me, I’ll take your word.


15 Q. Do you recall filming in London, in New


16 York, some footage dealing with Sony?


17 A. I do remember that.


18 Q. And were you withholding that footage until


19 you were paid?


20 A. Again, I don’t have my records to tell you


21 whether I have turned over those footage or not.


22 Q. I’m talking about March 5th, 2003. Do you


23 recall whether your position was you were going to


24 withhold footage dealing with Sony in New York and


25 London until you were paid?


26 A. I don’t understand your question.


27 Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it.


28 As of March 5th, 2003 – 7777


1 A. Okay.


2 Q. — the Arvizo footage that you have


3 described was not the only footage you were refusing


4 to deliver until you were properly paid, right?


5 A. Well, I mean, I — can you refresh my memory


6 by making an example of it?


7 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look


8 at this summary of invoices your lawyer sent?


9 A. Sure.


10 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?


11 THE COURT: Yes.


12 THE WITNESS: When it says, “No,” not


13 necessarily means nothing has been turned over.

14 Maybe not like the original copy, but there has been


15 copies that has been delivered already.


16 In fact, if you look at that summary, you’ll


17 see under the Martin Bashir footage, it says, “No,”


18 but it was provided, a copy of that footage anyway.


19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay.


20 A. Because it was aired on February 20th.


21 Q. Okay. Do you recall any money ever being


22 wired to you in partial payment of what you felt you


23 were owed for the work you did?


24 A. There was one payment made after — I


25 believe a month after what they promised me.


26 Q. Do you know how much that was?


27 A. 200,000.


28 Q. Okay. Who wired you the 200,000; if you 7778


1 know?


2 A. I believe it was from David LeGrand’s


3 office.


4 Q. Okay. And do you recall how much you felt


5 you were still owed after you received the 200,000?


6 A. I believe my invoices were over $300,000.


7 Q. Okay.


8 A. For a period of a year and a half, which


9 200,000 was paid.


10 Q. Okay. And you, to this day, never turned


11 over the Arvizo footage to anyone, correct?


12 A. Correct.


13 Q. The Arvizo footage was seized by sheriffs


14 representatives when they did a search of your home,


15 right?


16 A. That’s correct.


17 Q. Now, when did you last talk to Janet Arvizo?


18 A. February 20th of 2003.


19 Q. Okay. So that was the last day you saw her


20 or spoke to her, right?


21 A. As I remember, that’s correct.


22 Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken to any of her


23 three children since that day?


24 A. No.

Next, Moslehi was questioned about the orders he received from Konitzer and Weisner to not call Jackson or his assistant Evvy, because they were going to begin managing Jackson:

25 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you


26 questions about Dieter and Konitzer claiming they


27 managed Mr. Jackson’s affairs, right?


28 A. I was informed by Mr. Ronald and Dieter, 7779


1 Konitzer and Weizner, that sometime in probably


2 approximately December of 2002, they going to take


3 over the management of Mr. Jackson.


4 Q. And you were instructed by Konitzer not to


5 call Michael Jackson, right?


6 A. At one point, yes.


7 Q. He asked you to only call him and not call


8 Michael Jackson or Evvy, correct?


9 A. That’s correct.


10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.


11 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, it’s in response


12 to the doors opened by the prosecution on that


13 issue.


14 THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.


15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Approximately when did


16 Konitzer tell you, “Don’t speak to Michael Jackson


17 or Evvy”?


18 A. I believe was like approximately February


19 21st.


20 Q. Okay.


21 A. Late February, I mean of 2003.


22 Q. And did he do that in person or on the


23 phone?


24 A. I believe there was an e-mail and a phone.


25 Q. Okay. And he told you that he was going to


26 clean up the mismanagement in Mr. Jackson’s business


27 affairs, right?


28 A. That’s correct. 7780


1 Q. He told you he was in charge of all


2 restructuring, right?


3 A. They told me that they going to take over,


4 and, you know, make things smoother.


5 Q. Right.


6 A. Operation.


7 Q. And did you honor his request that you not


8 contact Mr. Jackson?


9 A. Um, I don’t remember.


10 Q. Okay. Do you remember whether or not you


11 ever telephoned Mr. Jackson after Mr. Konitzer told


12 you, “Don’t call him; just talk to me”?


13 A. I believe I spoke to Mr. Jackson.


14 Q. Okay. And do you know when that was?


15 A. I believe it was February 21st of 2003.


16 Q. Okay.


17 A. I believe.


18 Q. And you think that was after Konitzer told


19 you, “Don’t ever call Mr. Jackson; just contact


20 me”?


21 A. Could have been.


22 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Konitzer after he made


23 that request?


24 A. Yes, I believe I did.


25 Q. Okay. Did you ever see him in person after


26 he made that request to you?


27 A. I believe I did.


28 Q. Okay. Do you know where that was? 7781


1 A. In Santa Monica in a hotel.


2 Q. Okay. Now, at some point did you learn that


3 Weizner and Konitzer had been fired?


4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Assumes facts;


5 hearsay; foundation.


6 THE COURT: Sustained on assumes facts.


7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn whether


8 or not Ron Konitzer continued to be involved in Mr.


9 Jackson’s affairs?


10 A. After —


11 Q. The 20th.


12 A. Yeah. That was my belief, that he still


13 continued.


14 Q. And did you ever learn from him at any point


15 that he was no longer involved with Mr. Jackson’s


16 affairs?


17 A. Not from him.


18 Q. Did you learn from someone else?


19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.


20 THE COURT: Sustained.


21 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

Prior to the shooting of Bashir’s documentary, Moslehi met Bashir and told him that he wanted to obtain copies of his footage, and Bashir initially obliged verbally, but as we all know he reneged on that promise!

22 Q. Do you recall a lawsuit in England that was


23 filed by attorneys representing Mr. Jackson over the


24 Bashir documentary?


25 A. I have heard about it, but I’ve never seen


26 the lawsuit itself.


27 Q. Was it true that after Bashir did his


28 footage, you asked him to provide you copies of his 7782


1 footage?


2 A. Repeat that question one more time?


3 Q. Yes, I’m sorry if it’s unclear.


4 Did you ever ask Bashir or any agent of


5 Bashir to provide you copies of Bashir’s footage?


6 A. Yes, I did.


7 Q. And when did you do that?


8 A. The very first day I met him.


9 Q. Okay. Now, it was understood that you were


10 going to do your own footage at the same time,


11 right?


12 A. That’s — well, the first day.


13 Q. But you were also asking Bashir to give you


14 some of his footage, right?


15 A. All his footage.


16 Q. All right. And did he respond to you?


17 A. He said — he promised he will.


18 Q. Did he ever do that?


19 A. No.


20 Q. Did you ask him verbally or in writing; do


21 you know?


22 A. Verbally.


23 Q. And that was face to face?


24 A. That was face to face.


25 Q. All right. And was that at Neverland?


26 A. That’s correct.


27 Q. Okay. And was that before any of the


28 filming began? 7783


1 A. That’s correct.


2 Q. Now, he never objected to you doing your


3 filming, correct?


4 A. He wasn’t happy, but he had no choice.


5 Q. Okay. How much of Bashir’s footage —


6 excuse me, let me rephrase that.


7 How much of the material that Bashir filmed


8 did you film as well? Did you film everything that


9 he filmed?


10 A. No.


11 Q. Okay. What did you actually film yourself?


12 A. Two interviews and one sightseeing at


13 Neverland.


14 Q. To your knowledge, what did Bashir film that


15 you didn’t film yourself?


16 A. Well, since I was not present at all the


17 sessions that Mr. Bashir did, I really don’t know


18 how much he shot.


19 Q. Okay. But other than your request that he


20 give you some of his footage, you didn’t participate


21 in any litigation involving Bashir, right?


22 A. Legal litigation?


23 Q. Yes.


24 A. No.


25 Q. Okay. And you knew litigation was going on


26 in England, did you not?


27 A. I have heard from Mr. Jackson’s personal


28 assistant that there’s going to be a lawsuit against 7784


1 Martin Bashir and Granada T.V. in regard to this


2 documentary.

Here is Moslehi’s recollection of the shooting of the rebuttal video with the Arvizos; he testified that there was a questionnaire that Christian Robinson used to ask questions to Janet, and there was no “script”, as she and the prosecution asserted during her testimony, nor did they attempt to memorize any answers.

3 Q. Okay. During the filming of the Arvizo


4 family at your home, you said you were sort of in


5 and out of the room where the filming was being


6 done?


7 A. While I was setting up, yeah, I was going


8 from garage to the place where the interview was


9 supposed to take place.


10 Q. But while the interview was actually


11 conducted, were you present at all times?


12 A. During the filming, yes.


13 Q. Okay. And approximately how long did that


14 filming last, if you know?


15 A. Approximately an hour.


16 Q. How long were the children at your house


17 before the filming actually began, approximately?


18 A. Two to three hours.


19 Q. And how long was Janet Arvizo at your house


20 before the filming actually began?


21 A. Approximately one hour.

22 Q. Who did the questioning during the


23 interview?


24 A. Christian Robinson.


25 Q. Had you worked with him before?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. Okay. How many times had you worked with


28 Christian Robinson before? 7785


1 A. On one project.


2 Q. All right. And was it your understanding


3 that he had a list of questions he was going to ask


4 during the interview?


5 A. I saw him having a list of questionnaire,


6 yes.


7 Q. And was it your understanding that he was


8 asking questions from the questionnaire?


9 A. I believe so.


10 Q. Okay. And you observed the Arvizo family


11 responding to those questions, true?


12 A. That’s correct.


13 Q. Before the filming began, did you see Mr.


14 Robinson meet with any member of the Arvizo family?


15 A. I’m sure he did. But I did not observe


16 that.


17 Q. Did you see him going over the questions


18 with any member of the Arvizo family?


19 A. Could have been.


20 Q. You’re not sure?


21 A. I’m not sure.


22 Q. Okay. Typically when you film an interview


23 like this, the person doing the interview has a list


24 of questions, correct?


25 A. Most of the time.


26 Q. And you’ve filmed numerous interviews like


27 this in your career, right?


28 A. That’s correct. 7786

1 Q. Okay. During the two to three hours that


2 the Arvizo children were at your home before the


3 interview, you never watched them memorizing


4 anything, did you?


5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; requires


6 speculation.


7 THE COURT: Overruled.


8 You may answer.


9 THE WITNESS: Repeat that again.


10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yes. During the two to


11 three hours that the Arvizo children were at your


12 home prior to the start of the interview, you never


13 saw them memorizing words, did you?


14 A. No.


15 Q. In fact, what you saw them doing was mostly


16 playing and having fun, right?


17 A. As I remember.


18 Q. Before Janet Arvizo started the interview,


19 you didn’t watch her memorizing words, did you?


20 A. No, I didn’t.


21 Q. You said that Janet was there for about an


22 hour, right —


23 A. Approximately.


24 Q. — before the taping began, okay?


25 And I think you said that she was in a


26 discussion about some type of contract, right?


27 A. I believe there was a release that she had


28 to sign. 7787


1 Q. Okay. And was she talking to someone about


2 that release?


3 A. Yeah.


4 Q. Who was she talking to, if you know?


5 A. I think she was talking to a few people.


6 Vinnie, Christian Robinson, and possibly Paul.


7 There’s a gentleman by the name of Paul, I believe


8 it’s Hugo or something like that. I don’t know his


9 last name, but —


10 Q. And did you see a document that you thought


11 was a contract or a release?


12 A. I saw a document, but I never looked at it.


13 Q. Okay. And did it appear that Janet and


14 these other individuals were discussing the


15 document?


16 A. Yes. They were discussing the document.


17 Q. Did you actually hear Janet and these


18 individuals discussing this document?


19 A. Did I hear or see?


20 Q. Yes. Well — excuse me, let me rephrase.


21 Did you hear what you believed was a


22 discussion between Janet and these individuals about


23 that document?


24 A. Yeah.


25 Q. Okay. Did you see Janet and these


26 individuals discussing that document?


27 A. I believe I saw some.


28 Q. Okay. Did you ever see Janet on the phone 7788


1 during that period of time?


2 A. Could have been. I’m not sure.


3 Q. Okay. At some point, did you watch Janet


4 sign that document?


5 A. I don’t remember seeing her signing it. But


6 it was towards the end of the interview, and I — my


7 understanding was that she signed it.


8 Q. Okay. And correct me if I’m wrong, but did


9 you say something yesterday about there being


10 changes made to the document?


11 A. I believe there was some changes being made


12 to the document.


13 Q. And what made you believe that?


14 A. Because Vinnie asked me to use my fax


15 machine so he can fax some documents back and forth


16 I believe with Schaffel.


17 Q. Okay. And why did you think Janet at some


18 point signed the document?


19 A. Because there was no other discussion about


20 it.


21 Q. Okay. Did you see — but you never saw


22 anybody actually sign it, true?


23 A. I didn’t see her sign it.


24 Q. Okay. Now, did you say at some point


25 Schaffel told you he didn’t want the Arvizos to know


26 where he lived?


27 A. That’s correct.


28 Q. Did he tell you he was suspicious of the 7789


1 Arvizos?


2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.


3 THE COURT: Sustained.

Moslehi’s knowledge of Brad Miller was questioned in this next excerpt; Mesereau wanted to dispel the prosecution’s assertion that Miller (among many others) attended the shooting of the rebuttal video to intimidate the Arvizos into going along with the script and praise Jackson against their will. Miller stood behind the scenes and observed everything, but did not actively participate in the filming. Moslehi was told that Miller was a private investigator, and just assumed that he was with Marc Schaffel, but didn’t know that he worked for Mark Geragos. 

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Schaffel ever discuss


5 with you why Investigator Brad Miller was there?


6 A. Schaffel himself?


7 Q. Yes.


8 A. No.


9 Q. Did anyone else there ever tell you that the


10 investigator was investigating the Arvizo family?


11 A. No.


12 Q. What did you see Brad Miller doing while the


13 taping went on?


14 A. Well, during the taping I was paying


15 attention to, you know, my work. But before that,


16 he was walking around my house.


17 Q. Okay. Did he appear to be taking notes at


18 all, to your knowledge?


19 A. During the filming?


20 Q. Let me start again.


21 At some point Miller arrived at your house,


22 right?


23 A. Correct.


24 Q. And did he knock on the door?


25 A. Yes, he did.


26 Q. And did you answer the door?


27 A. Yes, I did.


28 Q. And did he identify who he was at that 7790

1 point?


2 A. I said, “Who are you?” And he said, “I’m


3 for the interview.”


4 Q. Okay. Did he say he was a private


5 investigator?


6 A. No, he did not.


7 Q. Did he give you his card?


8 A. No, he did not.


9 Q. Okay. And why did you let him in?


10 A. Um, because I — why did I let him in? Um,


11 I thought he was with Marc Schaffel’s people, and


12 since they were there already, I thought they were


13 expecting him. Maybe it’s delivering something


14 or — I don’t know. But being kind and polite, I


15 let him in.


16 Q. Yes. Okay. So he was there the whole time,


17 as far as you know?


18 A. Yes.


19 Q. Do you know when he left?


20 A. At the end of the interview.


21 Q. Okay. Do you know if he left with anybody?


22 A. I did not see him leaving with who — with


23 anybody.

24 Q. Did you ever see him recording anything in


25 your house?


26 A. No, I did not see him recording anything.


27 Q. Did you ever see him writing anything down?


28 A. I did not. Could have been. I don’t know. 7791


1 Q. And did you ever see him photographing


2 anything while he was in your house, to your


3 knowledge?


4 A. Not to my knowledge.

Going back to Janet’s actions during the shooting, Moslehi testified that nobody coached her or her children on what to say, and Janet willingly signed a three page nondisclosure agreement from Schaffel.

5 Q. Okay. Now, when Janet — excuse me.


6 Before Janet Arvizo was filmed, she used


7 your rest room and began to apply her own makeup,


8 right?


9 A. She used my —


10 Q. Rest room —


11 A. Yeah.


12 Q. — and applied her own makeup for the


13 filming, correct?


14 A. I believe so.


15 Q. And you never saw anybody coaching Janet on


16 what to say, correct?


17 A. No, I did not.


18 Q. You never saw anyone coaching the children


19 on what to say in the interview, right?


20 A. I did not see anything.


21 Q. I believe you testified yesterday that, in


22 your opinion, Janet Arvizo had a problem with a


23 draft contract, right?


24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection to the use of


25 the word “contract.”


26 MR. MESEREAU: Well, I’ll change the — I’ll


27 rephrase it.


28 Q. You recall Janet looking at a three-page 7792

1 nondisclosure contract, right?


2 A. I never —


3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll make the same


4 objection.


5 THE COURT: Sustained.


6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever tell a


7 representative of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s


8 Department during an interview that Vinnie brought a


9 three-page nondisclosure contract for Janet to sign?


10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Calls for a legal opinion.


11 THE COURT: No, he’s asking if he told the


12 sheriff that, so the objection is overruled.


13 You may answer.


14 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember being so


15 specific about “three-page” or “nondisclosure


16 agreement.” If I had said anything about that,


17 about that document, it would have been a release.


18 I don’t remember saying that it was a three-page


19 confidentiality or some sort of title for the


20 document.


21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your


22 recollection to just show you a police report


23 summary of your interview?


24 A. Sure.


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


26 THE COURT: Yes.


27 THE WITNESS: Um, I don’t —


28 MR. MESEREAU: I have to first ask you a 7793


1 question.


2 Q. Have you had a chance to review that


3 document?


4 A. No, I never have, that document.


5 Q. Have you had a chance to review the document


6 that I just showed you?


7 A. No, I did not, I never obtained that


8 document that you just showed me.


9 Q. Okay. Did you just look at that document?


10 A. I looked at that document. I do not


11 remember saying three pages nonconfidentiality


12 contract.


13 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, Vinnie at some point


14 asked you to sign a document, did he not?


15 A. I believe so.


16 Q. And you refused to sign a document presented


17 to you by Vinnie, correct?


18 A. That’s correct.


19 Q. Okay. Do you know what that document


20 concerned?


21 A. That was a three-page non — a


22 confidentiality document, which he left it at the


23 house.

To be continued:

2 Comments leave one →
  1. Nan permalink
    January 19, 2014 12:12 am

    This is interesting, how he is adamantly saying he wouldn’t refer to a specific document , they wanted Janet to sign,as a 3 page confidentiality agreement,…………… maybe as a release

    14 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember being so

    15 specific about “three-page” or “nondisclosure

    16 agreement.” If I had said anything about that,

    17 about that document, it would have been a release.

    18 I don’t remember saying that it was a three-page

    19 confidentiality or some sort of title for the

    20 document.
    then very shortly later , in his testimony , he says it again….but then says he , was. , also approached to sign something, that he refused to sign , he says:

    10 A. I looked at that document. I do not

    11 remember saying three pages nonconfidentiality

    12 contract.

    13 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, Vinnie at some point

    14 asked you to sign a document, did he not?

    15 A. I believe so.

    16 Q. And you refused to sign a document presented

    17 to you by Vinnie, correct?

    18 A. That’s correct.

    19 Q. Okay. Do you know what that document

    20 concerned?

    21 A. That was a three-page non — a

    22 confidentiality document, which he left it at the

    23 house.


    Doesnt he think they are asking all parties to sign a three page confidentuality agreement?
    And I would say his testimony flies in the face of Janet saying she had to memorize all these questions for hours ( I guess, when she is applying her own makeup.).!!
    Those prosecutors ahould be ashamed of themselves..They couldnt have possible believed these people..


  1. April 26th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Cynthia Montgomery, Jeff Klapakis, and Hamid Moslehi, Part 4 of 4 | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: