Pace said:
Didn't Thomas Mesereau (or maybe I am getting this mixed up with someone else, not sure) state that Neverland was searched something like an 80 cruel times?? That they came back again and again and again. And conveniently the expenditure that day included video from helicopters etc.- talk about a waste of tax payer's money. Filming the flower beds at the train station= way to go!
I think he said that "normally" they managed to "knock on the door" in no grand fashion- but that one was staged big time.
Somebody was talking about how this raid was done very purposefully, showing cops with drawn weapons behind bathroom doors- yeah, sure. :no:
Wouldn't be surprised if "One More Chance" was sabotaged in a very dirty way.
That's like repeated home invasion by robbers- again and again and again. What a nightmare. To create trauma on purpose. Disgusting. That's psychological warfare- and they called him "frail". What a joke. The guy survived literal media lynch mobs and intimidation attempts by a local government. Of course now retirement and waiting it out in darkness for those who pulled the strings.
There were 100? search warrants. I just watched my video & it brought it all back. And it reminded me of Schaffel & Frank. I am going to rewatch it again.
This is from Jacksonaction, but its really from MJJF- I recognise all their nics. They are all my cyber friends:
2006-08-09 Source
Jul 10 2006, 05:42 AM
Tommy Mottolla was the instigater, he had a motive, and he did make that comment " One day 93 will come back and haunt Michael". Bashir's brother was Mottolla's driver, so in comes Bashir who knew he could get to Michael through Uri.
By the time Bashir starts filming at Neverland the Arviso's had already been sent away, and Schaffel though fired was still working at NVE as was Backerman, and they were planning at this point to write a book.
Konitzer who we believe to be a Sony plant and had power of attorney was in constant touch with NVE office as was Dieter Wiezner, Konitzer was also a good friend of Mottolla.
Bashir tells Michael that he wants to film him with some kids he had helped. Bashir filmed the boy who was burned by his father. So with the Arvisos gone means somebody told Bashir about this family and conveniently Bashir wanted to film them.
Schaffel all this time wanted to get back with Michael and Somehow according to Evvy he ended up in Germany at the Bambi Awards, "between Germany and the release of LWMJ I dont know where Schaffel was other than at NVE schemeing." but its clear he had time to become acquainted with Bashir.
On January 24th 03 the transcripts for LWMJ were delivered to Schaffel by Kathryn Milofsky from Granada TV UK. She said it would be very damaging to Michael.
Schaffel called Wiezner who was at Neverland Ranch to let Michael know about the transcript.
This was the chance Schaffel needed to get back in with Mike. Schaffel told Michael the Arviso's could ruin your career, they could blackmail you. It was Schaffel, Konitzer and Wiezner's idea for the rebutal video.
As well as Michael being stuck once more with the Arviso's LWMJ was aired in the UK then in US. We all know what happened from here. Michael was set up big time by all the above mentioned, but I believe Mottolla was the main player.
Additions and updates:
By Jaydom7:
To followup with Rita Gibson's post, don't forget during this time 2002 Michael was calling Tommy a racist and that Invincible was sabatoged, and that he was parting with Sony.. This is when the mess really got deep.. Tommy got revenge, and Michael had no idea that Konitzer and company were in on it.. I think Michael now knows the real deal
By Mello1:
Sony Execs. unnamed
who saw an opportunity to snatch the ATV cat for themselves by
forcing MJ to default by having MJ run up a huge bill on the Invin.
project, manipulating the royalty accounts. If MJ had been convicted
in the criminal case and thrown into jail, his ability to protect his assets
would have been dwarfed.
Mottola, Sony Exec.
who MJ called a 'racist' for sabotaging the Invincible project and
demanding that he be fired. *** Jackson called Mottola racist for other reason.
Mottola
not used to an artist, especially one like MJ talking about him this
way, sought revenge.
Bashit's Brother
connected to Bashit and Mottola. My guess is that Mottola already
knew Bashit and wanted to use his media connection for a bigger
purpose.
Uri Geller
someone who MJ trusted. He was approached by either Sony ops.
or Bashit requesting to 'meet' MJ.
Dieter Wiesner
friend of Mottola's, associate of Konitzer and Schaffel. Infiltrates
MJ's inner circle and has assess to his accounts. Mottola, Wiesner
and company opens Cayman Isle account with millions of MJ's
money.
Konitzer
Associate of Wiesner and Schaffel and infiltrates MJ's innercircle.
Marc Schaffel
Was brought in by the Germans and his background and past was
covered up and kept from MJ until others under his employ were told
of his past. He was fired, but brought back in by the Germans and Marc's
fancy talking. Must have convinced MJ that the WMCIG project could be
saved by going to Jive. Power of attorney is somehow gotten (possible forged
signature) to access accounts and make deals and side deals.
The Arvizos
on a separate track towards collision or were they a plant? JaNUT
is shown to be a professional swindler, looking for celeb suckers. They
are revealed to be the hustles that they are to MJ by Chris Tucker. MJ
moves to separate himself from them, but were brought back -- by
Schaffel and the Germans to be used in the 'rebuttal' tape. G-boy puts
on a performance because mommy dearest tells him too...
But who told her? She was researching MJ as a target long before
she had even met him.
Thomas Sneddon
Out for revenge from 93. Pushes a bad case with the Arvizos. Why?
Goes WAY beyond the boundaries of proper conduct to push an investigation.
DCFS were called in to investigate MJ and found nothing. Yet they
charge MJ thru a Grand Jury proceeding after they had issued charges,
a highly improper thing to do. He got the indictments and sought the
arrest.
But why did he push such an obvious loser case?
Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Roger Friedman, Jim Moret, New York Post
Tellum PR Firm/Entertainment Tonight
All has spun and is still spinning an image of MJ being a bizarre, wacked out
drugged out, broke individual with a procivility towards young boys. Who is
common demominator connection with all of these people and why?
By redhanded jill:
Mello, great post. However, you forgot to add John Branca to the offshore accounts thing. Wasn't it revealed during the trial that he and Mottola had an offshore account as well or have I mixed something up?
By jrsfan:
Sony knew that Schaffel was a porn producer after the fact, when Paul Barresi spread the "word" far & wide about Mark Schaffel. He probably instantly recognized his name as they were both in the same porn business. For Barresi it was a way to make money, he would publicize Schaffel's past & then "help solve the problem". If you look at DD piece on Schaffel, in part 2 Barresi talks about it. Barresi plays the tape from Jackson's or Zia Modabber's PI, Eric Mason how Schaffel's being distanced & Barresi rec'd a copy of a letter from Zia Modabber's law firm about Schaffel being terminated. Why would they even talk to him, especially since they would have to know that he was involved with the LeMarques as it was on Frontline documentary. MJ talked I think about seeing video of Mark Schaffel working on the job which I would bet is the same as was shown in DD piece which I am sure was supplied by Paul Barresi.
In this piece Barresi talks about working both sides in the 93 MJ case, first trying to help the LeMarques, then discrediting them. He says he contacted Pellicano about the tapes too, which was part for revenge to the LeMarques since they were cutting him out of their deal. It is in the 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 paragraphs.
http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/archiv...he_bagman.phtml
QUOTE(redhanded jill @ Jul 9 2006, 08:28 PM)
Does anyone know if Jaime Masada (connected to the Arvizo's) was any relation to the Masada mentioned in the Dr. Sandram(sp) tape?
We do not know that for certain, but it is an unusual name, and one helluva coincidence.
by Elusive Moonwalker:
i beleive this was talked about at the time and it was shown that they were not releated. or at least they were different races.sundaram talked about who he was.
By TSCM:
Jul 10 2006, 09:08 AM
You know, one name which never seems to get mentioned when discussing all the people potentially involved in this whole mess would be that of Paul Hugo. I'm not even sure how many have even heard of him because his name doesn't come up hardly ever, but that doesn't mean he wasn't at least connected to some of the key issues coming up in court now .
Hugo was one of Marc Schaffel's close friends and associates through-out the entire period when Schaffel was working with Michael. Hugo and Schaffel not only co-owned a porn business together (and potentially several online porn sites), but they both also wound up working at the "Neverland Valley Entertainment" divison together - the firm which now plays a key role in the Schaffel trial.
Both of these guys had also worked on the "What More Can I Give" production together, and Hugo may have had an involvement in the filming of the rebuttal tapes in 2003. Back in 2001, Hugo and Schaffel hired out a third party producer to shoot the WMCIG video and the bill came to over 100 grand. But suddenly in October of 2001 right as everything was about to go forward (and after the film company had already spent tens of thousands in preparation), both Schaffel and Hugo up and vanished from the scene. This was weeks before any revelation came in regards to Schaffel's checkered past. Even more concerning is that this film studio had absolutely no contract with Michael himself, everything was done through Schaffel and Hugo, so when they decided to drop out of the deal at last minute the third party company was pretty much screwed (and in turn very angry with MJ himself who may not have had anything to do with it).
Just thought I'd throw this out there since all of this conspiracy discussion has come up.
By jrsfan:
Do you know if the third party producer is Joe Becker? All I have found on Paul is that he co-owns a gay nightclub in Florida. Wasnt there testimony about him?
By TSCM:
Yep, it was Joe Becker's studio and thus the reason why he is one of the dozen or more people claiming to have been defrauded by Schaffel. There was only brief testimony about him last trial, once when Sneddon went on about phone calls which were coming from Brazil apparently from Paul Hugo, but it was actually Schaffel who had borrowed Hugo's phone (for an extended period of time) and was making the calls from Brazil and surrounding areas. Nothing too in-depth.
By redhanded jill:
Also, mello1, how could we forget to add Vanity Fair (Maureen Orth) to the list of media who are intent on passing off lies and distortions about MJ. She always seems have some sort of expose concerning Michael at the same time he's putting out a CD.
By rita.gibson:
Jul 10 2006, 09:15 PM
I just want to make another point regarding Motolla.
The Offshore account in the Caribbean "that Mello mentioned" was owned by Branca and Motolla.
Branca was an attorney in Los Angeles doing music work for Michael.
Branca was a partner at the Ziffren law firm in LA. That firm also represented Sony.
Sony paid money into the offshore account for Branca with the intent for Branca to sell out Michael.
Bear in mind that in this time period, Michael was in conference talks with Sony concerning both of their interests in the catalog.
Here is one question put to LeGrand by Mr Mesereau.
Q: Was it your belief when you started this investigation that Al Malnik, Tommy Motolla, John Branca and people at Sony were trying to find a way to get Mr Jacksons interest in that Music Catalog.
A: I'm not sure that I would include Al Malnic in that group, but certainly was concerned that Branca and Motolla in particular, had set the stage so to speak, for Sony to be able to obtain Michaels interest in the Sony/ATV joint venture.
By pinkhouse:
yes, but marc was fired and there should have been a paper trail concerning that. if an executive is fired from his company, his expense account is closed, he can't use his company card, and any checks that he writes on any account that are received after his termination regardless of their date, are (or should be considered) fraudulent and flat out embezzlement. his authority to write checks ended with his termination and he knew that. and once the firm found out he did that, they should have led the charge to get him nailed for embezzlement.
so i (and i think whisper) am questioning how marc was able to get away with this, and the answer comes down to laxness at least and perhaps criminal neglience at worst. at least one person had to be responsible for overseeing that particular account at the firm or the bank, and they were doing a crappy job. i don't think it's conspiratorial at all, considering there was testimony at the trial last year about this firm clearly trying to press mj into selling off interest in the catalog. and not just half of his 50%, ALL OF IT. why weren't they trying to find him another deal? things that make you go, hmmmm........
you can say i'm consipiratorial, i won't take offense. i'm just not willing to cut them slack.
By DenisRS:
QUOTE(AllTheLovelyFlowers (Jul 10 2006 @ 03:46 AM))
I keep asking myself why Michael kept on working with Marc. But I think it was because he didn't know about Marc's past.
Actually Michael completely answered this. He said he did not personally re-hire Schaffel after he discovered in 2001 that Schaffel was pornographer; Dieter re-hired Schaffel and it probably happened by the end of 2002 when he arranged Michael's visit to Bambi awards in Germany and WMCIG showcase there. Please remember that "masters" and much of video matterials on the song stayed with Schaffel ever since 2001 and Michael Jackson did not have other way to get the video and arrangements for his charity project other than doing it through Schaffel. Notice that there is no other subject other than WMCIG and there is no "I love you" phrases in those later messages from Michael.
On how Schaffel was introduced to Deborah Rowe and how he participated in Take Two:
QUOTE
In The Courtroom With MJJF: Exclusive
Startling Setback For Prosecution: Rowe Flips
April 27, 2005 Santa Maria, Ca -- In a startling setback to the prosecution, Michael Jackson's
ex-wife took the stand at his child molestation trial Wednesday and said through tears how she was never scripted or rehearsed to say positive things about him to rebut a damaging TV documentary.
On Wednesday, April 27, 2005, Mr. Zonen called Deborah Rowe to the stand, and she was sworn in, stating her name as Deborah Rowe Jackson. Mr. Zonen asked if she went by the name "Miss Rowe", to which she said that she did.
In discussing how she knew Mr. Jackson, she stated that, "We've been friends and we were married from 1997 to 1999." She further stated that she had known him "probably 20 years or more" prior to their marriage.
It was established that Ms. Rowe is the mother of Michael Jackson's two children and that, during the time of their marriage, they did not share a home or an apartment. It was further established that, at the time the marriage was dissolved, it was agreed that Mr. Jackson would have custody of the children and that Ms. Rowe would have visitation every 45 days for 8 hours.
When asked if she, in fact, did see the two children every 45 days for 8 hours, she said, "I tried", but that there were difficulties in that, "There were times that the children and Michael would be out of the country, and I was working at the time, and if they were in South Africa, I would not have enough time to fly to where they were and then return home in time to be at work." She stated that she believed the custody arrangement continued for "a year and a half".
Ms. Rowe said that she voluntarily agreed to give up parental rights to the two children in 2001 because, "The visitations were not comfortable. We were hooked up at a hotel. I was -- when I would bring things to do, finger-painting, coloring or whatever, the nanny was always very concerned with the children getting dirty. I would bring T-shirts or something to put over their clothes, and the environment was very sterile. It wasn't a quality relationship." Ms. Rowe stated that she asked to have more time with the kids, but her request was not granted. She said that the last time she saw the children was, "Two and a half, three years ago. I'm not sure. I don't remember the dates."
Mr. Zonen then asked, "Did you receive a call from anybody in the early part of February of 2003 requesting your assistance on behalf of Michael Jackson?" Ms. Rowe said, "Yes. Originally my former boss's partner called me and said that I needed to call my old boss; that he needed to speak with me; that Michael needed my help with something."
It was then established that the old boss she was referring to was Arnold Klein, who was a dermatologist for whom she had been an assistant from 1979 through 2000 or 2001.
Ms. Rowe stated that she did call Dr. Klein who wanted her to speak with Marc Schaffel. She had never spoken to Mr. Schaffel previously and had never heard his name prior to that day. She said, "Dr. Klein arranged the conversation. I did not feel comfortable with a three-way, and told Mr. Schaffel that I would call him if he gave me his number." Ms. Rowe recalled that the conversation with Mr. Schaffel took place, "Early in February, in the morning." She stated that, prior to the conversation, she was not aware of a documentary that was titled "Living with Michael Jackson", nor was she aware of a person by the name of Martin Bashir.
As a consequence of this conversation with Marc Schaffel, she then had a conversation with Mr. Jackson. This was about 30 minutes after her conversation with Mr. Schaffel. At that time, Marc Schaffel and Ronald Konitzer called her. She stated she spoke with Mr. Konitzer, "For a brief moment. Michael was with him."
She then spoke with Mr. Jackson, stating, "He told me there was a video coming out, and it was full of lies, and would I help. And I said, as always, yes. I asked him if he was okay. I was very upset." She further stated that the last time she had spoken with Mr. Jackson was the day of their divorce, October 12, 1999.
Mr. Zonen asked, "Now, he asked you for some kind of assistance; is that correct? What exactly did he ask you to do, if anything?"
Ms. Rowe replied, "He asked if I would work with Ronald and Dieter to help him, and I said yes. And I asked him how he was. I asked him how the children were. And I asked if I could see them when everything settled down. He said yes."
It was established that, in the preceding period of time, she did not have any communication with Mr. Jackson with regards to the children, nor had she sent any letters to him at all requesting that she be able to see them at some point in time. Though when asked if she wanted to see the children, she said, "Very much."
Ms. Rowe stated that her conversation with Mr. Jackson lasted approximately "two and a half minutes, maybe", and that she was at home at the time. In describing the conversation, she said he told her that, "There was a bad video coming out. He didn't go into any more detail about that. When -- when -- I said, "Are you" -- "Are you okay? Are the children okay?" And he said, "Yeah, we're okay." And I said, "Can I see you when everything -- and the children when everything is over with?" And he said, "Yes.""
Mr. Zonen asked, "Did you want to see Mr. Jackson and the children?" Ms. Rowe replied, "Absolutely." Mr. Zonen further inquired, "Did he give you any other direction as to when that might be?" She replied, "No."
Mr. Zonen asked, "Now, he asked you for some assistance; is that correct? And did he describe to you in any detail or particularity what it was he wanted you to do?" Ms. Rowe stated that he did not. Mr. Zonen then asked, "Did he tell you to follow anybody's direction?" Ms. Rowe said, " He asked me to work with Ronald, Dieter and Marc. I told Marc Schaffel, Dieter and Ronald that I needed a release of confidentiality, and that until that was done, I wouldn't be able to do anything."
Mr. Zonen asked, "What was explained by Ronald thereafter?" Ms. Rowe said, "That they were going to do a special - I don't know if they used the word "rebuttal" - to counter whatever this video was", and she was asked if she would help. "
Mr. Zonen asked, "What did Mr. Schaffel want you to do?" Ms. Rowe stated, "Nothing specific. I couldn't discuss anything at that point. We needed to agree on a confidentiality release between Michael and myself."
It was then established that, at the time of their divorce, Mr. Jackson and Ms. Rowe entered into a confidentiality agreement that stated she "could not speak with the press, public, anyone, regarding Michael or the children or our lives together." It was further established that her attorney, Iris Joan Finsilver, worked on getting an exemption from that agreement.
After the exemption was executed, Ms. Rowe said Mr. Schaffel told her that, "We would be doing an interview. He said that it would probably be at his home in Calabasas and within two or three days of when everything was settled."
When asked if she was aware as to when or if the screening of "Living with Michael Jackson" ever actually aired in the United States, Ms. Rowe said, "I know that it aired. I don't know when it aired. I didn't watch it." Mr. Zonen asked, "Do you know when, relative to the airing of that production, your interview took place?" She stated, "I know in relation to when it took place in Europe, but not here. The day before I gave my interview."
It was established that Ms. Rowe's interview took place at Mr. Schaffel's residence. Present during that interview were "Hamid, who is Michael's photographer; Rudy; Christian; Marc; Stuart Backerman, who I think was Michael's PR person; and Iris came with me."
Mr. Zonen then inquired about any benefit Ms. Rowe may have been promised.
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT:
MR. ZONEN: Up until the time that you arrived at Mr. Schaffel's home to do this, had Mr. Schaffel told you that you would get any benefit from doing this interview?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and hearsay.
MR. ZONEN: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. ZONEN: Were you going to be paid for this interview?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN: Were any promises made at all?
MS. ROWE: Just that I --
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MESEREAU: And vague.
THE COURT: Hearsay, sustained. Hearsay.
MR. ZONEN: On hearsay. We would offer it again as to tending to explain her actions and her response, and not for the truth of the matter stated.
THE COURT: The objection's sustained.
MR. ZONEN: Did anybody offer you anything in response to your doing this?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
MS. ROWE: Do you mean quid pro quo?
MR. ZONEN: Yes.
MS. ROWE: No, I was excited to see Michael and the children when all this was over.
MR. ZONEN: Why did you do this interview?
MS. ROWE: I promised him that I would always be there for him and the children.
MR. ZONEN: Did anybody mention your children in the course of either doing this interview or leading up to the interview?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and answered and leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ZONEN: You can answer that question.
MS. ROWE: Can you explain what you mean?
MR. ZONEN: Did anybody mention anything about your children with regards to -- relative to this interview --
MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
MR. ZONEN: -- leading up to the interview or during the course of the interview?
MR. MESEREAU: Vague; compound; and leading and foundation.
THE COURT: Rephrase. It's an extended question now.
MR. ZONEN: All right. Specifically, you had conversations with Mr. Schaffel, did you not --
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: -- prior to the interview?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: Did you have a number of conversations prior to the interview?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN: How many conversations did you have with him prior to the interview?
MS. ROWE: One to set up the day and time, and one for directions on how to get to his house.
MR. ZONEN: All right. Prior to actually arriving at his house, did he talk to you about your children at all?
MS. ROWE: He said the kids were fine; that Michael was going to be okay.
MR. ZONEN: All right. Did he make any representations to you about visitation?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; foundation; hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
MS. ROWE: When I expressed excitement for seeing the children and for seeing Michael again and possibly reconnecting, he seemed to be very happy.
MR. ZONEN: All right. During the course of your being at the house conducting this interview, did you talk with Mr. Schaffel any further about your children?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: All right. What did he say with regards to your children while you were at his house?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
MR. ZONEN: Same exception. I will add also it's a statement in furtherance.
THE COURT: I reject that as a reason, but let me look. All right. I'll allow the question for the limited purpose of explaining her action after that. Do you want the question read back?
MS. ROWE: I can't see that far, yes, please.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Record read.)
MS. ROWE: That they were fine; that Michael was going to be okay; that it was -- he was happy for me that we were all going to get to see each other again, and how big the kids have gotten, and how beautiful they were, and how strong-headed Paris is and -- about like me.
MR. ZONEN: What was your expectation with regards to your children in terms of your completing this interview?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. ZONEN: Did you have any expectations with regard to your kids at all?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: What was that? What were your expectations?
MS. ROWE: To be reintroduced to them and to be reacquainted with their dad.
MR. ZONEN: You wanted to be reacquainted with Mr. Jackson as well?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: Why?
MS. ROWE: He's my friend.
END OF EXCERPT
At this time, Mr. Zonen asked about the interview itself. It was established that Ms. Rowe was at Mr. Schaffel's home for about ten and one half hours but the taping lasted nine hours. Ms. Rowe's attorney was in the house at the time, but at some times she was not with Ms. Rowe.
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTs:
MR. ZONEN: All right. Now, prior to the start of this interview, had you talked with anybody about the content of this interview, in other words, what was going to be asked of you?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, leading and foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you want the question read back?
MR. ZONEN: Did you know what it was you were going to be saying?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN: Did you know what it was -- the questions, what questions would be asked of you?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN: Did you know whether or not it had anything to do with this video or this television show?
MS. ROWE: All I knew, it was whatever was being put out about Michael could be hurtful to him and the children, and I don't know if I was supposed to run interference. I don't know what the basis was for my interview.
MR. ZONEN: Did you ask him about the content of the television show?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN
id you ask anybody about the content of the questions that would be put to you?
MS. ROWE: Absolutely not.
MR. ZONEN: Did you know that it would be questions put to you? In other words, it would be in the format of an interview?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN:Who had told you that?
MS. ROWE: Mr. Schaffel.
MR. ZONEN: Who was present at the time when this interview commenced?
MS. ROWE: Iris. Stuart. Rudy. Christian was in and out. It was either Christian or Rudy that was in and out. Marc. Myself. And Ian Drew.
MR. ZONEN: Iris is Iris Finsilver, your attorney?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: Stuart is who?
MS. ROWE: Stuart Backerman, I was told, was a spokesperson for Michael.
MR. ZONEN: Had you ever seen Mr. Backerman prior to that day?
MS. ROWE: No.
--------------------------
MR. ZONEN: You said Rudy. Who is Rudy?
MS. ROWE: He was Marc's go-fer boy.
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ZONEN: Go-fer? Somebody who did things for Mr. Schaffel?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: Was Christian somebody you knew prior to that day?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN: Who is Ian Drew?
MS. ROWE: He was someone that was going to interview me.
MR. ZONEN: Did you have any preliminary conversation with him prior to the commencement of this interview?
MS. ROWE: Absolutely not.
MR. ZONEN:Was that by your choice?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: And why is that? Why was that?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; 352; leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
MS. ROWE: Because I didn't want anyone to be able to come back to me and say that my interview was rehearsed, that someone told me what to say. Mr. Jackson knows no one can tell me what to say. I tend to speak my own mind, and I didn't want the interview to be construed as something other than what it was, which was a cold interview.
MR. ZONEN: At some point in time, were you given any kind of a list of questions?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. ROWE: It was offered to me and I declined it.
MR. ZONEN: All right. Who offered you the list?
MS. ROWE: Ian Drew.
MR. ZONEN: Why did you decline it?
MS. ROWE: Again, it was a cold interview, and I wanted to keep it that way.
MR. ZONEN: Was anyone else in the room during the course of the interview?
MS. ROWE: Everyone was. Rudy and Christian were in and out, but the main people who were there was Hamid, Iris, Stuart, Marc and myself. And Ian.
---------------------------
MR. ZONEN: Miss Rowe, in the course of the interview that took place, I think you said over about the next nine hours --
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: -- were you truthful in the answers that you gave?
MS. ROWE: Can you rephrase that?
MR. ZONEN: Did you tell the truth? Did you answer all those questions truthfully and honestly?
MS. ROWE: No.
MR. ZONEN: All right. Why is that?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; opinion; relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
MR. ZONEN: Why is that?
MS. ROWE: Because my personal life is my personal life and no one's business. And it pretty much doesn't matter. I could call something black. In the media, it will be called white.
MR. ZONEN: Do you remember the questions that you were asked?
MS. ROWE: Not all of them.
---------------------------------
MR. ZONEN: Were you asked questions about Mr. Jackson?
MS. ROWE: Yes, I was.
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ZONEN: What questions that were asked of you about Mr. Jackson did you not give honest answers to?
MS. ROWE: Can you be more specific?
MR. ZONEN: I can. Did he ask -- were you asked questions about Mr. Jackson and his parenting of your two children?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. ROWE: Yes, I was asked the question.
MR. ZONEN: Were those the questions, or among the questions, that you did not answer honestly?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: When was the last time you had actually seen Mr. Jackson related to your two oldest children?
MS. ROWE: The day that we signed our divorce papers.
MR. ZONEN: Did you have any information at all about his parenting skills with your children?
MS. ROWE: Just -- yes, I did. I -- when I was seeing the children, I spoke with the nannies before we divorced. I saw him with the children. I've seen him with the kids the whole time I've known him.
END OF EXCERPTS
At this time, Judge Melville declared the court in recess until the following morning at 8:30 a.m. Court was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
14 May 2004
Allegations against DA arise
14th of May
The following commentary is by K.C. Arceneaux of therawstory:
On April 30, 2004, the indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him. Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.
The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts. Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts.
On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA’s office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio. Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he operated.
Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram’s wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA’s office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.
Sundaram’s allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA’s office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated. Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to “get Michael Jackson out of the county” were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.
Sundaram’s allegations are not an isolated instance. There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA’s office. The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called “stacking charges.” In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004, Dunlap gave his opinion that “stacking charges” was a common practice of the DA’s office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.
Sneddon had charged and prosecuted Dunlap on twenty-two counts. After being acquitted on all counts, Dunlap is currently suing Sneddon and others in the DA’s office for $10 million for malicious prosecution, and multiple other alleged offenses, including civil rights violations. Dunlap said, ”. . . I mean, it’s one thing to be charged with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the district attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something.”
The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of court, at tax-payer’s expense. There is the example of George Beeghly, whose case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.
This information reveals a new side to the Michael Jackson child-molestation case. The extent of the law suits for false arrests, false imprisonments, condoning of excessive force by the police, tampering with evidence, and multiple civil rights violations suggests a culture of corruption among Santa Barbara law-enforcement. The taxpayers of Santa Barbara have paid substantial settlements in these cases.
DA Tom Sneddon’s public relation’s firm, Tellem Worldwide, was contacted and, citing a protective order as prohibiting their ability to respond, has declined to comment. It remains unclear how the allegations made by Dr. Sundaram and the cases involving Beeghly and Dunlap are affected by the protective order issued in the Jackson case.
When Gary Dunlap was asked, in his interview, to comment on the Jackson case, he said that he had no opinion one way or another on the case. However, he went on to say, ”. . . the very fact that he’s being prosecuted by Sneddon’s office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he’s guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney’s office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis.” If Dunlap’s allegations are true, then an investigation of the DA’s office might shed new light on the Jackson case.
K. C. Arceneaux, North American Serial Rights, May, 2004.
Bert Fields, Antony Pellicano's part/role in the 1993 case:
The story as told by Bert Fields himself in the July 24th 2006 New Yorker article is that MJ hired Bert, who brought in Antony Pelicano. They did the investigation and were absolutely sure that MJ was innocent and wanted to go to trial which is what MJ wanted as well. Anyways during the investigation Bert brought in Howard Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran who were experts in criminal defense. As soon as Howard and Johnnie came in though they started having disagreements (big ego's and all), Bert was pushing for the trial, Pelicano had the proof and MJ was intent on proving himself innocent. Johnnie and Howards undermining of Bert Fields made him so angry so he quit the case and of course Pelicano quit too.
MJ was out of the country on tour when all this drama was unfolding, he ended up in rehab for pain medicine then returned to the US and only then did he grasp how bad it was in the media. The frenzy was in overdrive, the stories growing wilder.
At this point Sony was pushing for a settlement and Johnnie and Howard were agreeing with Sony. They wanted to end the circus and save their dollars MJ was Sony's biggest money maker at that time and besides its the insurance that was going to pay. Johnnie and Howard talked MJ into settling pointing out that the media frenzy was too much, the trial could take long and all the while the stories won't die etc so MJ gave in (remember he wasn't going to pay its the insurance that was paying).
Bert and Pelicano to this day regrets the fact that the 1993 case was settled. Bert maintains he knew then that with a settlement the stories would never end and MJ would always be under a cloud and in fact it would start to ruin his career. With hindsight now, Bert intuition was right, the stories lingered on for years and infact the Arvisos took advantage of that to come forward and lie for money. Bert still holds MJ in the highest regard.
Bert Fields and Pelicano are embroiled in the wire tapping scandal right now.
National Action Network-New York speech about racism –
All Michael wants is for everyone to be treated fairly.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceoWYoRpKk
Sharpton, Cochran form group to protect recording artists; Michael Jackson named first member -
National Report - Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cochran form Recording Artists Coalition - Brief Article
Jet, July 1, 2002
King of Pop Michael Jackson, considered among the best-compensated artists in the recording business, has become the latest star to call for "justice" in the way music labels treat their artists.
Jackson was named the first member of a coalition formed by the Rev. Al Sharpton and Atty. Johnnie Cochran to investigate whether record companies are financially exploiting artists.
"Record companies have to start treating their artists with respect, honor and financial justice," Jackson said in a statement. "Therefore, I am proud to join this coalition which represents all artists."
Sharpton said too many artists end up bankrupt after years of making millions for record labels.
"It is our intention to break up the kinds of indentured servant-type of arrangement that many in the record industry now have with record companies," he said. "We hope that this initiative would make it possible where one day the artist on the CD is as big as the companies that put out the CD."
The pair said they have been contacted by several artists who have complained about record label practices, including policies that force stars to pay for promotional costs such as videos.
"How would it be if Derek Jeter had to pay for his bats and balls and glove to go out and play for the Yankees?" Cochran asked. "It's unfair."
Cochran and Sharpton said they would be willing to work with the Recording Artists Coalition, which is demanding new relationships with record labels, including fairer contracts and more oversight of accounting practices.
Operating under Sharpton's civil liberties organization, the National Action Network, the new coalition also plans to fight for health care and free agency for artists.
Jackson is considered to have one of the most lucrative contracts in the record business. Jackson's involvement in the Sharpton-Cochran coalition comes as he battles with his longtime record label, Sony Music.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/....88582468
According to Japanese business press reports from spring 1991, Michael has unique 25% interest from gross revenue. This means that the net profit Jackson got for the figures I presented in the research: 25% ($400 million) = $100 million - 40% = $60 million (approximated). Of course, MSG concerts from 2001 and other projects like Fox TV programs are not included here (totally about $20-30 million), as well as net income from S/ATV MP.
Michael has no right to buy out Sony's half of S/ATV MP until the latter decides voluntarily sell it -- what will hardly ever happen until Jackson or other company would offer highly overcharged buying offer price (like $1 billion, for example).
According to latest reports, Michael's net income from S/ATV MP could be up to $24 million. In silent years, such as 2003-2006, Jackson usually sells about 2.5 million copies of albums plus about 1 million of videos. This makes net revenues for him like up about $12 million - 40% (videos bear more profit than audio) = $7 plus airplay and videoplay fees and other music income (maybe a million or a couple).
</td></tr> <tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Same Greedy Bunch</td></tr> </tbody></table>
