please don't select what you want people to read :
1 Q. How did you begin to represent Mr. Jackson?
2 A. I was introduced to Mr. Jackson through a
3 gentleman named Ronald Konitzer.
4 Q. Had you known Mr. Konitzer for some time?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When did you meet Mr. Konitzer,
7 approximately?
8 A. I’m not sure. It was sometime in the early
9 to mid-1990s.
10 Q. And had you done any legal work for him?
11 A. Yes. I represented a company he was
12 associated with.
13 Q. And which company was that?
14 A. Hi-Tec America, I think was the name.
15 Q. And how long did you represent Hi-Tec
16 America?
17 A. You know, it was a couple of years off and
18 on. And then the -- I really hadn’t heard from
19 Ronald for a couple of years. We might have
20 exchanged Christmas cards, but I wasn’t actively
21 providing legal service to him in -- you know, when
22 he contacted me, I think it was in 2002.
23 Q. Now, did you represent Mr. Jackson
24 personally?
25 A. Eventually, yes.
26 Q. And what do you mean by that?
27 A. Well, the engagement with Mr. Jackson was
28 for -- with him, yes, in January, I think it was 9977
1 January ‘03.
2 Q. And did you represent any companies
3 associated with Mr. Jackson?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Which companies were they?
6 A. Well, there was MJJ Productions. I believe
7 there’s a company associated with the ranch.
8 There’s another company that I can’t remember the
9 name that has to do with some of his creative work.
10 I really don’t remember the names of all the
11 companies, but there were two -- you know, three or
12 four.
13 Q. And at the time you were representing Mr.
14 Jackson and companies associated with Mr. Jackson,
15 did you consider yourself his primary transactional
16 attorney?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Why is that?
19 A. At the time I was engaged, part of the
20 conversation and plan was to basically bring in a
21 new team to represent Mr. Jackson. Part of that
22 process involved terminating some of the
23 representation of people that had been providing
24 legal service to him and bringing, you know, fresh
25 blood to the representation.
26 Q. And you mentioned January of 2003. Was that
27 the approximate time this activity was going on?
28 A. Well, that’s when it began. I mean, it -- 9978
1 this process took time.
2 Q. So approximately January of 2003 efforts
3 were made to bring in a new team to represent Mr.
4 Jackson; is that what you’re saying?
5 A. Yes. A new set of lawyers, accountants and
6 professionals.
7 Q. Now, was this your idea?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Whose idea was it?
10 A. It was communicated to me by --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
12 foundation.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 You may answer.
15 THE WITNESS: It was communicated to me by
16 both Mr. Konitzer and by Mr. Jackson.
another part :
4 Q. And were you communicating with Mr. Konitzer
5 in this regard?
6 A. Oh, yes.
7 Q. Were you communicating with Mr. Weizner in
8 this regard?
9 A. Less so, but yes.
10 Q. And was it your impression that Mr. Konitzer
11 and Mr. Weizner were trying to take over the
12 management of Mr. Jackson’s business?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was it your impression that they wanted Mr.
15 Jackson kept out of a lot of the day-to-day
16 discussions?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you consider Mr.
20 Jackson to be very sophisticated in financial or
21 legal matters?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you have daily
25 discussions with Konitzer?
26 A. During the time period from the end of
27 January until, I would say, mid-March there were
28 probably a few days that I did not have a 10005
1 conversation with Mr. Konitzer.
2 Q. And do you recall Mr. Konitzer communicating
3 that no one was to contact Mr. Jackson directly but
4 him?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 THE WITNESS: No. I was never instructed by
8 Mr. Konitzer that I could not contact Mr. Jackson.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall Mr. Konitzer
10 sending memos around basically saying Mr. Jackson is
11 to be kept out of the daily detail?
12 A. Not specifically. I just remember that Mr.
13 Konitzer wanted to be --
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; not responsive.
15 MR. MESEREAU: I think it is responsive.
16 THE COURT: Sustained. I’ll strike after,
17 “Not specifically.”
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What were Mr. Konitzer’s
19 directives to you with respect to whether or not Mr.
20 Jackson was to be involved in the detail of
21 management?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Konitzer wanted to serve
25 Mr. Jackson as the overall manager of business
26 affairs for Mr. Jackson, and that Mr. Jackson would
27 have ultimate authority and decision-making, but
28 that Mr. Konitzer would serve as, you know, the 10006
1 day-to-day manager, and that was my understanding.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And did you discuss legal
3 matters involving Mr. Jackson with Mr. Konitzer?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And how often during that period of time do
6 you think you did that?
7 A. There were legal matters discussed. There
8 were financial matters discussed. There were
9 business considerations discussed. Sometimes, you
10 know, that would be two or three times a day.
11 Sometimes we would have meetings. And, you know,
12 there were a few days where I did not speak to Mr.
13 Konitzer during this couple of months of somewhat
14 frenzied activity.
15 Q. Now, at some point in time did you become
16 suspicious of Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Well, move to
19 strike. Leading.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 MR. MESEREAU: I can’t recall if there was
22 an answer, Your Honor. I apologize. Could I --
23 THE COURT: The answer was, “Yes.”
24 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
25 Q. Why did you become suspicious of Konitzer
26 and Weizner?
27 A. I became concerned that they were in a
28 position to divert funds. I was concerned about 10007
1 the -- having appropriate documentation for tax
2 purposes for Mr. Jackson and his companies. And in
3 general, I -- I began to disagree with some of Mr.
4 Konitzer’s decisions on matters and felt that he was
5 making bad decisions, I guess is the way to say it.
6 So I -- I became suspicious of his motives and
7 actions.
8 Q. Could you please explain what you were
9 suspicious of?
10 A. I was --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and
12 answered.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You mentioned you were
15 suspicious of financial matters involving Konitzer,
16 right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Please explain.
19 A. Well, ultimately there was another attorney
20 involved who was serving as the escrow agent for
21 some funds, and I asked him for an accounting in
22 order to get Allan Whitman up to speed on some
23 disbursements, payments, payables, et cetera.
24 And that accounting came from this attorney,
25 and it indicated that there had been about $900,000 --
26 I don’t remember the exact number, but it was many
27 hundreds of thousands of dollars that had been
28 disbursed to Ronald Konitzer or Dieter Weizner. I 10008
1 mean, the combination was in hundreds of thousands
2 of dollars.
3 And I then -- I spoke to a couple of the
4 lawyers that, you know, were providing
5 representation, and I ultimately wrote a letter
6 within, you know, a couple of days of learning of
7 this. I wrote a letter to Mr. Konitzer asking him
8 to account for this money.
9 Q. Was the amount you were concerned about
10 approximately $965,000?
11 A. Yeah, without seeing it today. But that
12 sounds like approximately the right number, yes.
13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
14 you your letter?
15 A. Yes, it would.
16 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I see what you’ve got
19 there, Counsel?
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. LeGrand, have you had
21 a chance to review that document?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about your
24 concerns involving Mr. Konitzer?
25 A. Yes, the amount -- the aggregate amount of
26 disbursements that I set forth in that letter was
27 $965,000.
another part :
28 Q. Why did you think Konitzer and Weizner had 10011
1 stolen $965,000 from Mr. Jackson?
2 A. Well, because --
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as misstates
4 the evidence in terms of the word “stolen.”
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you think Konitzer
7 and Weizner had diverted $965,000 from Mr. Jackson?
8 A. Because the report I got from this other
9 lawyer showed those disbursements.
10 Q. And when you saw the record of those
11 disbursements, what did you do?
12 A. I spoke to several of the other lawyers that
13 were representing Mr. Jackson, and agreed that I
14 should write a letter to Mr. Konitzer asking him to
15 account.
16 Q. Did you ever find out what he had done with
17 the money?
18 A. No, I was terminated by Mr. Jackson as
19 counsel within, I don’t know, two weeks, maybe, of
20 that letter to Mr. Konitzer.
21 Q. Did you ever have Konitzer, Weizner --
22 excuse me. Let me start with something else.
23 Do you know who someone named Marc Schaffel
24 is?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And who is Marc Schaffel, to your knowledge?
27 A. Marc Schaffel is an independent producer.
28 He had worked on one of Mr. Jackson’s albums at one 10012
1 point. He was involved in working with Brad Lachman
2 Productions to create the “Take 2” video.
3 Q. At some point, did you have Schaffel,
4 Konitzer and Weizner investigated?
5 A. I -- again, on behalf of Mr. Jackson, I
6 engaged an independent private investigative
7 company, and asked them to investigate the
8 backgrounds of Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weizner and
9 Mr. Schaffel.
10 Q. Why?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; improper
12 opinion.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: Because I was suspicious of
15 their motives, and some of their statements didn’t
16 quite seem to add up.
another part :
17 Q. Do you remember your firm issuing a letter
18 to the team suggesting that no business proposals
19 were to go directly to Mr. Jackson?
20 A. I don’t specifically recall that letter, no.
21 Q. Do you recall a draft letter to come from
22 your firm to someone named Meskin?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you recall the letter said no
25 proposals are to go directly to Mr. Jackson?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And why was that?
28 A. Mr. Meskin was one of the people present at 10043
1 the dinner party at Director Robert Evans’ house,
2 and I was not impressed with his approach. I did
3 not think the terms he was suggesting to Howard
4 Fishman and I were anything that Mr. Jackson should
5 consider.
6 And I was concerned, because during that
7 dinner party, Mr. Meskin and Mr. Evans managed to
8 take Mr. Jackson off, away from Mr. Fishman and I,
9 for a short period, 20 minutes, half an hour. And I
10 found out later that they tried to get him to sign --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you find out in that
14 regard that efforts were made to get Mr. Jackson to
15 sign documents?
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
17 leading.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember, when you
20 were brought in to represent Mr. Jackson, Konitzer
21 and Weizner telling you they intended to gain
22 control of Mr. Jackson’s financial affairs?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you remember at that time Konitzer and
25 Weizner telling you they wanted to gain control of
26 Mr. Jackson’s records, documents, and agreements?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 10044
1 You may answer.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember, when you
4 were brought on board, Konitzer and Weizner telling
5 you they wanted to gain control of anything
6 belonging to Mr. Jackson?
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll make the same
8 objection. And leading.
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 THE WITNESS: In general, Mr. Konitzer and
11 Mr. Weizner wanted to take over management, overall
12 management, of Michael Jackson’s business affairs,
13 financial affairs, and implement a new business plan
14 for Mr. Jackson.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And they essentially told
16 you in writing they wanted to control everything Mr.
17 Jackson owned, right?
18 A. For the benefit of Mr. Jackson, yes.
19 Q. Well, you then concluded they were doing it
20 for their own benefit, didn’t you?
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
22 leading; misstates the evidence.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were retained in
25 approximately January of 2003, right?
26 A. End of January, yes.
27 Q. And how long did it take you to grow
28 suspicious of what Konitzer and Weizner were doing 10045
1 to Mr. Jackson?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
3 leading; and asked and answered.
4 THE COURT: Overruled.
5 You may answer.
6 THE WITNESS: Weeks. I mean, whether it was
7 four weeks or six weeks, I’m not sure. But
8 certainly by the end of February, early March
9 period, I was very suspicious, and I’m not sure of
10 the time frame. The first investigative report that
11 I got just increased my degree of suspicion.
12 But at the same time that some of this was
13 going on with respect to my concerns about Mr.
14 Konitzer and Mr. Weizner, Mr. Malnik had entered the
15 scene and was asserting --
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; narrative.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who is Mr. Malnik?
19 A. He’s a -- well, he’s an individual who lives
20 in Florida.
21 Q. And were you suspicious of anything he was
22 doing involving Mr. Jackson?
23 A. Because I did not know Mr. Malnik, I was
24 suspicious of him. I mean, I --
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to an
26 improper opinion; no foundation.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 THE WITNESS: I became -- you know, I became 10046
1 suspicious of everybody. It seems that everybody
2 wanted to try to benefit from Mr. Jackson one way or
3 another. But I did eventually cause the
4 investigative service to give us some background on
5 Mr. Malnik. But he is -- the report indicated he’s
6 a very wealthy man.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You grew suspicious of
10 what Marc Schaffel was doing to Mr. Jackson at some
11 point, correct?
12 A. I grew suspicious that Mr. Schaffel was
13 seeking to benefit from Mr. Jackson or being -- in
14 relationship to Mr. Jackson. My suspicion of Mr.
15 Schaffel was different than my suspicion of Mr.
16 Konitzer or Mr. Weizner.
17 Q. Did you have much involvement with Mr.
18 Schaffel in your work?
19 A. I had a fair amount of involvement with Mr.
20 Schaffel at the very beginning of the development of
21 the “Take 2” production. And I was constantly
22 trying to get Marc Schaffel out of the loop. I was
23 trying to avoid his involvement or minimize his
24 involvement in Mr. Jackson’s affairs, and it was a
25 struggle.
Konitzer , weisner and Schaffel , who stole from him was convincing him Branca was conspiring against him , so MJ would hire him and fire Branca , eventually that's what happened and MJ was in a financial mess , and I have to say , the trial was kind of a 'bless' because MJ would have sold everything within one year .
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You’re aware Mr.
27 Jackson had just cleaned house by firing a number of
28 his associates and close employees, correct, you’ve 10167
1 testified to that?
2 A. No, I don’t think I did. What employees
3 were terminated?
4 Q. Well, people that worked for Mr. Jackson. I
5 don’t mean to quibble about semantics.
6 Mr. Branca was fired, correct?
7 A. I’m not aware he was ever an employee of Mr.
8 Jackson. I believe he’s an attorney who was
9 providing services to Mr. Jackson. Yes, his
10 services were terminated during this process.
13 A. I believe the Ziffren law firm received
14 compensation from Mr. Jackson for legal services,
15 yes.
16 Q. Do you think Mr. Branca ever received any of
17 those moneys for work that he performed?
18 A. I believe Mr. Branca was paid by his firm,
19 yes.
20 Q. All right. And Mr. Jackson (sic) was one of
21 the people he fired when he was cleaning house,
22 true?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As was Trudi Green?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Okay. So we went through the list. I don’t
27 need to go through it again.
28 But wasn’t it your desire, in preparing this 10169
1 investigative report or ordering this investigative
2 report on Mr. Jackson’s inner circle, to become a
3 trusted associate of Mr. Jackson to the exclusion of
4 the people that you were having investigated?
5 A. I don’t believe that was my intent. It was
6 my intent to gain knowledge about the people who
7 were involved. For example, with respect to Mr.
8 Malnik, I had no intent to eliminate him from Mr.
9 Jackson’s circle.
10 I had much greater concerns about Mr.
11 Konitzer and Mr. Weizner than, say, for example, Mr.
12 Malnik. But at the same time, I felt it
13 appropriate, granted the history, to have greater
14 knowledge about these people. You know, there’s an
15 aphorism, knowledge is power. And I felt it
16 appropriate, and my colleagues, Mr. Joss, my
17 partner, Mr. Gibson, concurred in those iterations.
13 investigation into an offshore bank account?
14 A. It’s kind of the other way around. We asked
15 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca. They indicated
16 to us that --
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object based
18 on hearsay.
19 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of
22 mind when you investigated the possibility that an
23 offshore account had been formed by various people
24 to defraud Michael Jackson?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as
26 leading.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of 10212
1 mind when you investigated the formation of an
2 offshore bank account?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you investigate the
6 existence of an offshore bank account?
7 A. We requested Interfor to look into that
8 possibility, yes.
9 Q. Why?
10 A. Because there was a --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object based on
12 hearsay.
13 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind.
14 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
15 You may complete your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Because we had -- we, the
17 lawyers, had been given information from a source
18 that appeared to have some credibility that such an
19 account existed.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And why did you want to
21 investigate that account?
22 A. Be -- well, to me, that’s kind of obvious.
23 But if, in fact, there was an offshore account in
24 which money was being deposited for the benefit of
25 Mr. Branca or others, that would indicate very
26 serious violations of Mr. Branca’s responsibilities
27 to Mr. Jackson.
28 Q. Did you think at one point that Sony was 10213
1 paying Mr. Branca money to sell out Mr. Jackson?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
3 opinion; leading.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did your investigation
6 involve anyone you thought was involved in
7 transferring money to that bank account?
8 A. The best way I can answer that is to say we
9 asked the investigators to do as complete a job as
10 they could with the financial resources we had
11 available for them. And I didn’t delineate who they
12 should or shouldn’t look into with respect to such
13 an account.
14 Q. But at your direction, they looked into the
15 existence of that account, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it was your direction that they look
18 into that account because you were concerned that
19 Michael Jackson’s attorney and Sony were putting
20 money in that account so Mr. Jackson’s lawyer would
21 essentially sell him out, right?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
23 argumentative.
24 THE COURT: Sustained; foundation.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where was the offshore
26 account, if you know?
27 A. I’m sorry, I don’t recall. I believe it was
28 in the Caribbean. 10214
1 Q. Okay. And did your investigation get far
2 enough to establish that, in fact, this lawyer was a
3 signatory on that account?
4 A. I don’t believe so, no.
5 Q. But the investigation did indicate he was
6 somehow involved in the account, correct?
7 A. The investigator’s report so indicated.
8 Q. And the investigator’s report indicated it
9 appeared that Sony was involved in that account,
10 right?
11 A. The investigator’s report indicated that
12 Sony had transferred money to the account.
13 Q. Sony had transferred money to that account
14 for the benefit of Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, right?
15 A. That’s what was indicated in the report.
16 It -- I need to be very clear here that that
17 was not verified, with a reasonable degree of
18 certainty, that I would have acted upon that
19 information. And Mr. Branca’s a fine lawyer. And,
20 you know, there is no -- I have no proof of these
21 statements.
13 Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla
14 investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any
15 evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged
16 in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
17 A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered
18 with that report to substantiate those claims.
19 Q. And in fact, that report only indicate that
20 Sony was depositing money in some offshore account,
21 apparently for Mr. -- on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, true?
22 A. I’m not sure about the “Mr. Jackson’s
23 behalf.” I would need to see the report.
24 Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe
25 that any funds transferred to an offshore account by
26 Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds
27 were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
28 A. I was given no credible evidence to support 10235
1 those charges. I would be doing Mr. Branca and Mr.
2 Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.
