JACKSON V AEG LIVE JULY 11

TH
2013 Please support us to provide you future transcripts
Tariano "Taj" Jackson
(Michael Jackson's Nephew) Plaintiffs' Witness.
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good morning.
(Several comments of "good morning" were heard)
Judge: Would counsel make your appearances?
Mr. Panish: Yes. Good morning, your honor. Brian Panish for Plaintiffs.
Ms. Chang: Deborah Chang for the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Stebbins: Jessica Bina Stebbins for the Defendants.
Mr. Putnam: Marvin Putnam for the Defendants.

Ms. Cahan: And Kathryn Cahan for the Defendants. Good morning, your honor.
Judge: Thank you. The Plaintiffs have presented a written brief concerning the admissibility of
handwritten notes as evidence of a relationship between Michael Jackson and his children. Initially that
came up earlier in the trial. I believe there were notes to Paris Jackson; correct?
Ms. Chang: Yes. One was from Paris Jackson, your honor. That's 50-16. And one was a note recorded
by Mr. Jackson about words uttered by his 6-year-old son, Blanket Jackson.
Judge: Okay. Right. Right. The only concern I have about this is, I don't mind reading this and
attempting to analyze this on the fly, but the Defendants didn't get this until this morning --
Mr. Panish: that's true.
Judge: -- and my understanding is -- at least the communication from the clerk is that they haven't had
time to really analyze it. And while I might try to analyze it on the fly, I don't think they want to do that.
At least that's what's been communicated.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we've had about 10 minutes with it. But based on that, and what we
understand the one case to say they're going to reply upon, we don't think that there's anything different
than the argument on the 27th when this issue first came up. So we're happy to discuss it now, if that's
your honor's preference.
Judge: Okay. Well, if you feel comfortable.
Ms. Cahan: Sure.
Judge: All right.
Ms. Chang: Your honor, since I brought it up to the court's attention before, and I guess the reason
why I am persisting so strongly on this issue --
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Chang: -- is that I have taken four bar exams and passed them, I want you to know, throughout
the country, and this issue was on two of my bar exams -- one in the multi-state and one in an essay --
and so I feel very strongly about this issue. But what I do know in every jurisdiction that I practice in,
is there is a version of California evidence code section 1250, both in the state and federal courts. And
basically it states that: Evidence of a statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind or emotion
is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when the evidence is offered to prove the declarant's state
of mind, emotion or physical sensation at that time or any other time when it is itself an issue in the
action. And in this case, when we argued it before, we all analyzed the words "I love you," and your
honor stated that it does seem like it's being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, not only the "I
love you," but Blanket's name and his age. And in essence, the law is, well settled, that when a person
who's part of a relationship that is at issue in a wrongful-death case makes a direct statement about or
reflecting the nature of their relationship or feelings of affection/emotion, it qualifies under section
1250, even if it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. And in fact, it has been held to be a
reversible error in wrongful-death cases when statements of the attitudes and feelings of a person who
was part of a relationship at issue are excluded. And that's the Benwell vs. Dean case, 249 Cal.App.2d

345 at 353.
Judge: Is that the one case that you're referring to?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Ms. Chang: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: It doesn't support that. I'm sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt you.
Ms. Chang: Did you want me to finish? Your honor, I think that what is -- all the cases go back to this
as the case that really forms the basis of the wrongful-death kind of analysis. And it is evidence that is
good or bad in relationships is reflective of the type of relationship when it is reflecting the nature of
the relationship. And often it is the emotions or -- the statements of attitude or the feelings and
emotions are exactly what is admissible in these wrongful-death cases. And any of the other statements
that are contained in there, like such as the date, or whether "I'll see you tomorrow" or whether Blanket
uttered it, it's not received for the truth of the matter asserted, but it is circumstantial evidence of a state
of mind. With respect to the "Blanket document", the very fact that Michael Jackson was the type of
father who, in his busy schedule, made the notation that he thought his son at six, whether he is or not,
was so cute to say something that he wanted to record it for posterity, shows the nature and reflection of
that relationship. Likewise, the fact that Blanket, at whatever age he was, discussed that his -- at such a
young age, that his favorite letters just happened to be in ones that started "God" and "Daddy" is
reflective of his feelings of that relationship, and the fact that he recorded it is something that is typical
in these types of cases. And if the opposite was true -- for example, if Blanket was older and wrote "I
hate my father" or "My father is horrible to me," that would be equally admissible and reflective of
emotion and feelings and the nature of the relationship. So we believe, your honor, that it was
important enough to set this forth in writing and to set forth a record on it, because I think the case law
and section 1250 make it very clear that this is exactly the scenario that --
Judge: Is 1250 the state of mind? Is that what --
Ms. Chang: It's -- the full text is found in 1250, and it is state of mind, but it also states "evidence of
statements of declarant's existing state of mind and emotion," and I'm really emphasizing the "emotion"
part of it, because "I love you" is state of emotion and -- as well as state of mind. And it doesn't matter
if it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted; it is not made inadmissible when it's offered to prove
the declarant's -- whether it be Paris or Michael Jackson -- their state of mind, emotion or physical
sensation at that time when it is itself an issue in the action in a wrongful-death case. What Benwell
stands for is that attitude and feelings of a person in a relationship in a wrongful-death case is always
relevant and that it is prejudicial error to exclude those statements.
Ms. Cahan: May I, your honor?
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: So as you remember, we last dealt with this issue on June 27th when Mr. Taj Jackson was
on the stand on direct. At that time Ms. Chang said that she would meet and confer with us about
whether there were particular pages of the notes that we would agree to come in. Rather than do that,
the next day in court, she informed me that they had -- Plaintiffs had developed a theory by which they
thought all of the notes could be brought into evidence as a group, and declined to explain that to me.

And in the intervening two weeks, we've not discussed this issue at all, and then we get this brief this
morning.
Judge: Well, if you want time to consider it --
Ms. Cahan: No, that's fine.
Judge: -- I'll give it to you. But that argument you have to set aside if you're not going to take the time
that I'm willing to offer you.
Ms. Cahan: Right, your honor. And where I was going, your honor, is that we discussed sections -- so
the two things, essentially, that are in this brief that are actually involved here today are section 1250
hearsay argument and the Benwell case. And we discussed section 1250 quite extensively when we
argued this issue before, including this theory that it was evidence of the state of mind of Paris, Blanket
and Michael Jackson. And your honor rejected those arguments, and I don't see anything in the brief
that's new, and your honor concluded -- and this is at page 8924 of the transcript: "I think the most
you're going to be able to do without impeachment, it sounds like, is for him to say he found these
notes; that his uncle frequently kept notes and that this is his uncle's handwriting. That's the most you're
going to be able to do without impeachment, which I think is fine, and it's going to be up to you to
argue later what that means." and that's where we left it at that time. I don't see anything new about the
focus of the arguments. I don't think there's any basis for your honor to deviate from her prior ruling in
this regard. And as we said then, we're willing to stipulate that both Paris and Blanket Jackson loved
their father; their father loved them. And these are, importantly, the two notes we're talking about -- the
note that Paris wrote to her father, and the note that Michael wrote recording what Blanket had said to
him -- are both not statements of the decedent, both are Plaintiffs in the case, both could come and
testify. We've certainly not objected to testimony by third parties about their observations of the
relationship between Mr. Jackson, his children, and there's been quite a bit of testimony in that regard.
And, your honor, that brings me to why Benwell is in apposite. Benwell is the case where the Plaintiff
-- it was a wrongful-death case. The Plaintiff was the decedent's wife. And the statements -- the hearsay
statements at issue that were addressed by the appellate court were statements that the decedent had
made in a writing saying he intended to leave his wife. And they were introduced by the Defendant to
rebut the contention that there was a happy, loving relationship to combat the damages and claims
made by Plaintiff. That is a completely different situation. We have consistently said that we should, as
the Defendants, be able to introduce statements of the decedent. And, again, your honor, here we're not
talking about statements of the decedent. So Benwell has no application here whatsoever. And, again,
your honor, you know, the issues raised in this brief are 1250.
Judge: Normally, the Plaintiffs offering the statements of the Plaintiff are hearsay. Your offering your
statements; they're hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: Right.
Judge: But what they're saying is that it's evidence of the state of mind, they loved their father. What
about that?
Ms. Cahan: Right. We have no objection to either stipulating to that or having Mr. Jackson --
Judge: They haven't accepted to -- do they have to accept your stipulation, or can they go on and show
proof to give some sort of context and meaning to that?

Ms. Chang: If I could address that, your honor. I think it's easy to say, "Oh, he loved his children."
Judge: Right.
Ms. Chang: I love my father, and my father loved me. And I can tell your honor with certainty, I never
wrote a letter to my dad like that, and my dad has never noted something that I wrote down. I think it
shows the nature and quality of that love, and I think it was unique and special, and I think we're
entitled to show that. I think it's very generic to say, "Oh, the father loved his daughter, and the
daughter loved her father." It's very different than having evidence such as this.
Judge: Let me ask, because I don't know if this is the case: Do the Plaintiffs have to show somehow
that the declarant is unavailable under this section?
Ms. Chang: No.
Judge: In other words, as part of what the Defendants are saying is, "well, the kids can be called, and
they can testify as to the notes themselves."
Ms. Chang: In the case law, your honor, 1250 is an "equal opportunity" section. It's not only for
Defendants, and it's not only for Plaintiffs. And what's great about it is for both defense and Plaintiffs,
whether the evidence is good or bad, it comes in, when in a wrongful-death lawsuit, to be reflective of
the nature of the relationship. So she is exactly right. In that case, when a wife is a Plaintiff bringing a
wrongful-death case, and they have evidence that the husband was going to leave her, that is bad
evidence that reflects his state of the emotions and the feelings and attitudes towards his wife. This is
the converse. This is "I love you, Daddy. I can't wait to see you again tomorrow." This is "Words of
my son Blanket, age 6. What's your favorite letters?" I mean, this is a very unique kind of relationship
--
Judge: Doesn't matter who is offering it?
Ms. Chang: It doesn't matter who is offering it, as we can see from the plain language of evidence
code 1250.
Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, it is prejudicial to us here because they've stated their intent. The
Plaintiffs are not being called to testify; they're pressing us very hard not to be called to testify in our
case. And yet they want to have their cake and eat it, too, so to speak, to have these statements come in.
And when we discussed it last time, we discussed the fact that section 1250 is about intent, plans,
motives, feeling pain; it's not about this idea of, you know, generally --
Judge: What it says is: "Evidence of a statement of declarant's then existing state of mind, emotions or
physical sensation, including a statement of intent."
Ms. Cahan: But it's offered to prove the state of mind at the time when that state of mind at that time
is in issue in the action. Now, again, your honor, this brings us back to the point that we don't have any
foundation for when these notes were written. Blanket's is apparently at some point when he was six
years old. You know, this is -- there's really tangential relevance, if any relevance, and there's certainly
been a slew of evidence that's been introduced so far about the nature of the relationship between
parent and children, and there will be additional testimony. Mr. Jackson, as you may remember, lived

with Michael and his children for -- Mr. Taj Jackson lived with Michael and his children for six months
at hayvenhurst, at Neverland. He visited with them when they were living in the bel air hotel in 2008.
He has percipient knowledge about the relationship and he can, and I'm sure will, testify to that on
direct. But that doesn't mean that these notes and statements can be brought in, in lieu of live -- you
know, if they want to have the Plaintiffs testify and come in and say that, that's one thing. But this
hearsay exception is not meant for notes of "I love you, dad." It's meant for physical sensations, you
know, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feelings, pain or bodily health. And
importantly, your honor, there's no case cited --
Judge: But it says "including," it's not --
Mr. Panish: Limited to.
Judge: -- limited to only those circumstances.
Ms. Cahan: Right. The Plaintiffs have not cited any case law saying that it's applicable to a general
statement of how you feel about your parent or your child. And I would expect in the two intervening
weeks since we've last dealt with this issue, since it's so important to them, if there was such case law,
that they would have brought it forward. And if your honor wants to give us time to find those cases,
we can. But my suspicion is that they don't exist; otherwise, they would bring them.
Ms. Chang: Well, your honor, because 1250 takes care of the entire issue, and a lot of the cases, it's
self-evident. And Benwell, basically, is making that very clear. And --
Judge: Have you read the use notes? I was tempted to briefly look at the use notes to see if there's
anything in them. Well, they call them "comments"; I call them "use notes."
Ms. Chang: And I just want to state, while we're looking at -- well, Mr. Panish knows the code like
almost by heart. I'm surprised he doesn't have them memorized.
Mr. Panish: There's no use note on this.
Judge: Well, they're called "comments."
Ms. Chang: But just for the record, to respond to what Ms. Cahan was saying about we won't know
when they were written. We all know the date of birth of the children, and he was six when he moved
in in December at Carolwood, and he turned seven in february. So, you know, he was seven when his
father died. It's not so remote in time that it makes it prejudicial or inapplicable or irrelevant. This is
precisely the time period that was there. The family only lived in Carolwood from December to June of
-- December of 2008 to June of 2009, and Taj Jackson was in charge of storage of everything that came
from other places. This is found in the Carolwood house. So I think it's also reflective that even in that
short time period, probably what everyone could agree is it was one of the busiest time periods of Mr.
Jackson's life. These notes were passed and collected, and notations of cute things his son said was
noted. And I think there will be evidence later on from people who may not have collected these notes
as Mr. Jackson did that Mr. Michael Jackson typically loved to say, "We have to write that down,
they're so cute," you know, and he loved to do that. And meanwhile Mr. Panish is researching.
Mr. Panish: There's nothing that I see, your honor, in the comments either way.

Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, hearsay statements are -- the hearsay exceptions are generally construed
fairly narrowly because of the -- they are an exception to the general rule that the statements are
inadmissible. And so absent any authority that they should come in, I don't see why we would stretch
the rule here where there's certainly no prejudice to Plaintiffs. There are plenty of other statements and
observations and information they can bring forth, including the testimony of these Plaintiffs as to the
relationship with their father. And just on the point that Ms. Chang made about the time frame of the
notes being establishable, that's not -- we deposed Taj Jackson. He said he had custody for three storage
facilities of which there were several that Mr. Jackson had. He didn't say he had any involvement with
Mr. Jackson's move from las vegas to los angeles or the move either into the bel air hotel or out of the
bel air hotel into the Carolwood house. So I don't think there's foundation to believe that we can pin
down -- setting aside the year that Blanket was six years old, I don't think there's any foundation to pin
down when these notes were written. And that's -- the two --
Judge: Well, children don't know how to write until they're six or seven.
Ms. Cahan: Right. And Paris Jackson was 11 when her father passed away.
Judge: I mean, in terms of Blanket.
Ms. Cahan: He didn't write it.
Ms. Chang: Right. It's Michael Jackson that's writing it.
Judge: Oh, yeah.
Ms. Chang: But he does know his letters. You know, he's saying G and D are his favorite letters: G for
God and D for Daddy. And I just want to say that the law that I'm citing is California evidence code
section 1250. I don't know anything that is any clearer. The words cannot be more clear. And Benwell
extends that and makes it clear that it is for a -- what Benwell stands for, in a wrongful-death case, is it
is always at issue, the state of mind or the emotion, in this type of situation. You need to assess the
quality of the relationship between, in this case, father and child. And what Benwell stands for is, yes,
in a wrongful-death case, good or bad, it reflects it. And so --
Judge: When reading the note, it looks like what is really what they're concerned about is to make sure
that a statement is not being offered to prove a past event, which I don't think the statements are being
offered to prove a past event. It really is just being offered to prove a state of mind.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor --
Judge: There's no event that they're trying to prove, and that seems to be the -- if you look at the use
notes, or comments, the fourth paragraph where it begins: "Section 1250(b) does not permit a statement
of memory or belief to be used to prove the fact remembered or believed. This limitation is necessary to
preserve the hearsay rule. Any statement of a past event is, of course, a statement of the declarant's
existing state of mind, memory, or belief concerning the past event."
Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, it's our belief, based on what Ms. Chang has argued and Plaintiffs' brief
says, that's exactly what they're trying to do here.
Judge: What event, though? What event?

Ms. Cahan: That Michael Jackson wrote notes of cute things his kids said, and that's indicative of the
love he had for them and the special quality of their relationship and that Paris Jackson would write
love notes to her father to -- as a demonstration of the unique and special relationship and love that she
had for him. And I've read those notes as well, and I've read them as that's exactly what they're trying to
do here.
Ms. Chang: Your honor, that's state of mind and emotion. I think that would be "I love you, Daddy"
more so than "At the tragic collision I experienced yesterday." That would be an event. There is no
event in love or reflection or a reflection of feelings of love or emotion. And 1250 is for the feelings,
and the event is expressing a specific event.
Judge: Okay. Well, all right. I'm going to reverse my decision and allow the notes in.
Ms. Chang: Thank you, your honor.
Mr. Panish: And can I ask a question? I know Neli told us that you weren't prepared to discuss the
Taylor thing today.
Judge: Maybe in the afternoon, I might.
Mr. Panish: Okay. That's fine. I understand that. I -- maybe if you could just tell us when might be a
good time we could do that. Not now, later.
Judge: Maybe this afternoon after lunch.
Mr. Panish: Okay. And there was something else I wanted to ask you. I forgot. I'll remember later.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, just to make sure the record is clear, your ruling is that these two notes, the
note written by Paris Jackson to her father --
Judge: Right.
Ms. Cahan: -- and the note that Michael Jackson wrote recounting statements that Blanket Jackson
had made are going to be allowed in as a hearsay exception under 1250?
Judge: 1250.
Ms. Cahan: And this is not pertaining to the other 200-odd pages of notes?
Ms. Chang: Your honor, she does raise an excellent point. And that's part two of my brief.
Judge: Oh, all right.
Ms. Chang: I don't know if you want to go through that now. And I do apologize to Ms. Cahan and the
court. And I do recall saying that I would email her and say, can we go through any of these. And so
much as happened during the last couple of weeks that I neglected to do that. So I apologize to both the
court and Ms. Cahan. There was conversation at the table that maybe it wouldn't be that fruitful, but I,
nonetheless, promised I would try. In any event, I apologize for that. I don't want to take up the time to

in front of the jury or go to sidebars --

Judge: Why don't you take the time now?
Ms. Chang: Sure.
Judge: If they're similar, then --
Ms. Cahan: They're not.
Mr. Panish: I mean, you know how they are.
Ms. Chang: Okay. I'm going to show them all to her now.
Judge: I'm getting off the bench.
Ms. Chang: Ms. Cahan is just shaking her head.
Ms. Cahan: Well, your honor, to be honest, I'm just really frustrated, because they were supposed to
do this outside of court hours. And when we came in the following day, I said, "Ms. Chang, I didn't
hear from you. What are we doing?"
Judge: And I was supposed to do the Robert Taylor motion, and I didn't do it. It happens when you're
in trial. Things happen.
Ms. Chang: And I apologize sincerely, and she's fully --
Judge: It happens. Just --
Ms. Chang: She has every right to be frustrated.
Ms. Cahan: We'll talk now. That's fine.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.
(A recess was taken)
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Chang: Well, what we're ready for argument on, there's a category of documents that were found
at the house. Mr. Jackson will talk about how Mr. Michael Jackson had a habit and custom of taking
notes that can fit in three categories: One is based on the "law of attraction" inspirational; one is
keepsakes we talked about this morning; and the third is like a business, talking points, to-do list kind
of thing. And we can categorize each document into each category. He can authenticate the
handwriting; having taken part in numerous meetings, receiving letters from his --
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Chang: -- recognizing his uncle's handwriting, and even taking part of doing these types of notes

before. And we believe that all of -- we're just going to show -- there's like 124 documents, but we only
picked a small selection of them. And we believe they all fit under 1250, the purpose, plan, motive,
inspiration, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but he had these aspirations, goals, plans, "No AEG
unless movies," the -- like we can show --
Mr. Boyle: Why don't we talk about one?
Ms. Chang: Let's show 50-1 (indicating). This would fit under the category, what he would call
category 3, which is actually --
Mr. Boyle: It could fit under a couple. Your honor, just for example, Mr. Michael Jackson wrote in the
middle of it "MJ musical now"; right? That shows that he had an intent or a plan, something he wanted
to do in the future. It's obviously not being offered to say, oh, a Michael Jackson musical would have
happened as a matter of fact. It's just the intent, motive, plan, so it's a hearsay exception under 1250.
And then there's a lot of notes like this where he was writing down his intent and plan. And then there's
also things to-do list on the right, "Call Turkle." It's not really -- I mean, it's not really relevant to any
issue in the case, but it's just that he had a plan to call Ms. Faye, because she's "Turkle." So that's what
-- these are kind of like to-do lists, plan lists, motive. That's what these things are.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we had this exact discussion last time. And what's happening here, and the
problem with this -- the primary problem with this is Plaintiffs are going to have Taj Jackson, who
wasn't there when these notes were written, offer an interpretation of what they mean.
Ms. Chang: No.
Ms. Cahan: There's no foundation for the date of these. You know, there's been testimony that he first
spoke with -- Mr. Jackson first spoke with AEG or considered AEG back in 2007. You know, these
notes could be from 2007, they could be from 2008, they could be from 2009. It's our understanding
that Taj Jackson was not there when they were written.
Judge: He's not going to interpret them.
Ms. Chang: He will not interpret them.
Mr. Boyle: No.
Ms. Chang: He doesn't have to. He just has to recognize it as his handwriting.
Judge: His handwriting.
Ms. Chang: And he's going to read it because he's familiar --
Judge: He can do that.
Ms. Chang: He's not going to interpret it at all.
Mr. Boyle: Right. No. We think some of them are subject to multiple interpretations, and that's for the
jury to decide. That's just evidence we're putting in.

Ms. Cahan: We don't contest Mr. Taj Jackson's ability to authenticate the handwriting on this
document, but that doesn't make it admissible, because the relevance can't be shown without some
interpretation of what this means, some context being provided for it. And he simply doesn't have any
factual knowledge to give a context for it. And when we discussed this previously, what your honor
ruled -- and I think it was correct -- was they can have him authenticate the handwriting, but it's up to
them to argue in closing what this means --
Ms. Chang: Right.
Ms. Cahan: -- and try to introduce an interpretation. And what they said is they want to have him read
it, to publish it to the jury, read it to the jury, show it to the jury, which would be asserting it as relevant,
which I don't think that they can do with this witness because he wasn't there --
Judge: Well --
Ms. Cahan: -- and can't interpret these notes.
Mr. Boyle: Again, your honor, he is not going to be interpreting them at all.
Judge: He can't interpret them. He can probably say "The note says, 'No AEG unless films are
involved. Develop for a'" --
Ms. Chang: "2 a year for 6 years."
Judge: That's what the note says, but he can't interpret what that means.
Mr. Boyle: Right.
Judge: That's for them to do in closing and then for the jury to decide, and you can have a different
interpretation of what it means.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, and the only reason that this would be relevant at all, even arguably relevant,
is for their damages claims.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: And this is something that I believe Ms. Strong will be addressing with respect to Mr.
Erk's anticipated testimony. But the film issues are entirely speculative, and so we think that would be
kept out. They're not relevant, and even to the extent they would be marginally relevant, they would be
excluded under 352. And, you know, they're going to be categorizing these documents as, you know,
these are "to-do" -- there's this category -- they've shown a category 3 called "to-do topics" to cover
during meetings to have others do. That's -- just putting this into that category and saying this is 1250,
and a note, they prepared a demonstrative about this, that alone is interpreting it.
Ms. Chang: We can delete the categorization.
Mr. Boyle: No. And there's a slide or something? Yeah, that's fine. But the document itself, again, he's
not going to be interpreting it. It's offered for many reasons. Could you put up 50-9, for example?

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, these are notes found in Michael Jackson's house. They're all hearsay on
their face unless they can be shown to be an exception. This witness doesn't have the ability to show
there's an exception because all he can say is, "I found them in my uncle's house; they are in his
handwriting." Whether they fall into some kind of hearsay exception, it's a legal question. It's not for
the witness to say, "This is a to-do list" and "this is a keepsake" because he doesn't know when they
were created, how they were created, or which category they go into. All he has firsthand knowledge to
say is, "I found them in the house." And even if they get interpreted to the jury in closing depends on
showing what they mean, that they're relevant, that Mr. Jackson created them with intent, as opposed to
just, you know, jotting down daydreams or -- there are many ways these documents can be created.
Ms. Cahan: This is a typical example, your honor, we discussed last time, and you ruled that Mr. Taj
Jackson could authenticate the handwriting only with respect to the document, because it's hearsay, and
he can't interpret it. And it was at page 8924 of the transcript -- I'm sorry, 8923, lines --
Judge: So you can't use the contents of the document itself to prove that it's intent of a future plan?
Ms. Stebbins: There may be some cases where you can do that. I don't think you can do that for all
124 documents. And I don't think this is something --
Judge: I'm agreeing with you. The witness can't say that this means Michael Jackson was intending to
do X, Y and Z.
Mr. Boyle: No, he's not going to say that. He's just going to say, "this is his handwriting. I found these
at his house. And in working with him, he had a custom and habit of writing down notes." I mean, that's
it. For example, this is Randy Phillips. This is arguably, you know, one interpretation, he was writing
this down because he was writing notes for himself for a conversation with Randy Phillips where he
was going to tell Randy he needed representation, an accountant, a lawyer --
Ms. Chang: A manager.
Judge: This is all argument.
Mr. Boyle: Right.
Ms. Chang: Which is not what we're going to use it for.
Judge: Right.
Ms. Chang: He's just going to show it and say "This is my uncle's handwriting," which is all you need
to get it in.
Ms. Stebbins: No.
Ms. Chang: He doesn't need to know the circumstances. He doesn't need to know anything. He just
needs to authenticate the handwriting. And then he can read it to show he knows this thing, but not --
and stop there. No interpretation, nothing.
Ms. Cahan: And --

Ms. Chang: The contrary would mean that no one would ever be able to prove intent, plan, or have an
argument for anything. The code is clear, and the law is clear that all you have to do to get a
handwriting is in four steps, and authentication is one of the four ways.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, what they're doing here is trying to inflate authentication and admissibility.
We don't dispute that --
Judge: What I'm trying to figure out is, is you're saying it's not relevant, even though it's got the name
"Randy Phillips" on it --
Ms. Stebbins: It's hearsay.
Judge: "Need representation, accountant, lawyer," and it's not relevant?
Ms. Stebbins: Here's the problem, your honor: There's no foundation when this document was created
and how.
Judge: I mean, when would it be created other than --
Mr. Boyle: Before he died.
Judge: Is there some other time frame when he was dealing with Randy Phillips other than this time
frame?
Mr. Boyle: No.
Ms. Stebbins: Certainly, your honor, it was created during this time frame, but hear me out for a
second.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Stebbins: In order to show that it is intent, plan or motive, normally you have to have someone
who is actually present who heard the statement made. Normally you're not getting hearsay documents
in. So, for instance, if Taj Jackson had been speaking with Mr. Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson
had told him, "I spoke to Randy Phillips" -- "I'm going to speak to Randy Phillips and tell him I need
an accountant and a lawyer," that might fall into a statement of intent, plan or motive. Here, however,
you have a note. This note could be a reflection of a call that Mr. Jackson had with someone else,
maybe somebody advised him, "Talk to Randy Philips about this." maybe he wrote "Need
representation, accountant, lawyer, invest with Phil" and then called Randy and wrote Randy's name
afterwards. There's no foundation as to what order these words were written on this paper. And Randy
Phillips might have told him, "you need representation and a lawyer and an accountant." there's 10,000
interpretations of that document.
Judge: And one could be that.
Ms. Stebbins: One could be that.
Judge: You have your own interpretation of what it could mean.

Ms. Chang: And they can argue that.

Ms. Stebbins: Hold on a second. Your honor, it's only admissible if it can be shown to be a statement
of intent. They have to lay a foundation that it is that. They can't just say "Here's everything Michael
ever wrote. You interpret it." that's classic hearsay. There has to be a foundation that there's an
exception. A lot of these documents have bits and pieces written at different times. They make very
little sense. They have scrawls here, scrawls there. There may be some of them where foundation can
be laid either through another witness or through the document itself where, if it's more coherent in
some way other than this. But having no foundation when it was created -- we don't know if it was
created in June of 2008 or June of 2009, which makes a big difference. Because this case is about the
hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray. This document on its face has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'm
assuming they're planning on arguing that "Invest with Phil" has something to do with damages. But
it's very nebulous, your honor, and there's no clear indication that this was a statement of plan, intent or
motive, which is the only way it can be shown to the jury. There has to be a foundation that it was that,
not just, here's a handwritten note that the jury could interpret as intent or could interpret as something
else. Otherwise, every hearsay exception that could be -- any hearsay statement that could be subject to
10,000 interpretations but has no foundation could come in.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I mean, unfortunately, we can't have Mr. Jackson testify exactly what was
happening when he wrote this note. If an interpretation of it is -- fits within 1250, which it clearly
seems to, it can come in.
Ms. Chang: It can be argued later; not for him to comment on.
Mr. Boyle: Right. He can say, "This is the handwriting." that is it. And, you know, the funny thing is
here, there are two of these notes that they are going to use. Yeah, they're going to use two of these
notes that they want to use also, so --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I suggest this, since we've already wasted a lot of time with the jury. Why
don't we have the witness authenticate the documents without showing them to the jury? And then
since there's 124 of them, we can brief or argue them individually in terms of whether they're
statements of plan, intent, or motive or not. Because some of them are clearly not going to fall into that
category. And that way, they're authenticated; there's no issue with them later being shown in closing if
the court finds that's acceptable. But there's no need to show them to the jury today since Mr. Jackson is
not going to be interpreting them. He can say, "These are all in my uncle's handwriting." they can be
authenticated, and then they can argue later about admissibility rather than wasting more time today.
Ms. Cahan: Right. And since Mr. Taj Jackson doesn't have percipient knowledge to these documents,
he won't have to be called back to testify again about the documents. This would be an efficient way of
handling them.
Ms. Stebbins: And he can still testify that his uncle had a custom of various things, and that these
notes were found in his house or at his location, which is all the witness can testify to anyway.
Judge:. Okay.
Mr. Boyle: How can we ever show them to the jury?
Judge: You can show them. You can show them to the jury.

Ms. Cahan: Perhaps with the damages expert, or if there's some relevance.
Ms. Stebbins: We'll brief the issue of the 124 individually. We can come to some agreement.
Ms. Chang: I don't want all 124. I've only asked for a selective.
Mr. Boyle: And Mr. Erk, who is our entertainment earnings expert, who is going on this afternoon,
relies on some of these notes, so we're there right now. I don't know what else needs to be briefed on it.
It's either --
Ms. Chang: Either showing intention, plan or purpose, or it doesn't.
Mr. Boyle: And as far as authenticity, I mean, the easiest way for authenticity would be if they just
stipulate to -- in Mr. Taj Jackson's depo, to every one he authenticated in his depo.
Judge: Well, I don't think authenticity is the issue.
Mr. Putnam: No.
Ms. Cahan: And, again, as has been discussed many times now, experts can rely on hearsay, you just
can't publish hearsay because they're experts. And, your honor, I also just want to flag for you, I was
just handed a document that's labeled exhibit 760. This was not previously produced --
Ms. Chang: I said I withdraw it.
Ms. Cahan: It was not -- I'm sorry. This was not previously produced in discovery, and I was told that
Plaintiffs produced about 430 pages in discovery, total. And I was told this by Ms. Chang that this is a
document that is a -- in family lore. It is written by Michael Jackson. It's directly responsive to our
discovery request, something the family has had and cherished for a long time. They were intending, I
guess, as of this morning to use it with Taj Jackson. The fact that this was not produced, and this is like
a treasured family document written by Michael Jackson, which is directly responsive to our discovery
request, is a big problem, and we will be briefing that issue, your honor.
Judge: Well, if they're withdrawing it, why are you briefing it?
Ms. Cahan: The document was never produced in discovery that we claim --
Ms. Chang: Can I answer, because there's some charges? This is -- was on "60 Minutes" recently. This
is when we first found out about it. And I asked Taj about it. We never had it --
Judge: Taj.
Ms. Chang: Jackson. Mr. Jackson. And in fact he didn't have it, but they all knew it. What it is, very
famous story. When Mr. Michael Jackson was 21 years old, he wrote on the back of a touring exhibit
schedule: "at 21 I'm going to be known as MJ. I'm going to be the greatest entertainer. I'm going to not
be known as 'the Jackson 5.' I'm going to be a perfectionist. I'll create magic." and "60 Minutes" just did
a show on this saying, "We just found this in the bowels of storage," and they showed all the cars and
everything he had, and they unearthed this treasure. All the family knew about it, but they never had it

because it's all stored in these humongous storage things.

Judge: Right.
Ms. Chang: But they all know about it because everything on that list came true. He is a true believer,
and he taught Taj the same thing from the "Law of Attraction," Napoleon Hill, "The Secret," all of that
stuff. He's a true believer, and that's why he wrote it all over his mirror and on post-its. It's a prime
example of why he was such a believer of it. If we had it, we would truly have produced it.
Mr. Boyle: The Estate had it.
Ms. Chang: The Estate had it. We did not have it.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, our discovery request, as is typical, asked that anything that once existed that
they no longer had access to what they knew was responsive to our discovery request be identified.
Judge: What's the issue? Are you offering it?
Ms. Chang: No.
Ms. Cahan: I just wanted to flag for your honor that we're going to be briefing this issue.
Ms. Chang: When she raised this issue, I said, "That's fair, I will withdraw it," when she raised it with
me.
Mr. Boyle: If they want to go down the road of things not produced in discovery, we have a lot we can
talk about for them as well.
Ms. Chang: I thought she raised a good point, and I withdrew it.
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, one final point. Mr. Boyle just mentioned it. It's come to our understanding
that they have obtained the Dileo documents. They have obtained the computer. And what I would like
is, I would like us to have equal access to the material since it's so relevant. I ask that we have equal
access, and not be something they disclose from them to us.
Mr. Boyle: That's already been arranged. Mr. Buckner from their office --
Mr. Putnam: Right.
Mr. Boyle: -- we received his email, and it's all being transferred to him, too.
Mr. Putnam: All right.
Mr. Panish: Just on that issue --
Ms. Chang: A voice from the back.
Mr. Panish: The judge in Ohio has made various rulings on the production to advise the court. Ms.
Dileo, Brenda Dileo and Linda Dileo, were held in contempt of court. They had refused -- this is the

clients of Mr. Putnam.

Mr. Putnam: They're not my clients.
Mr. Panish: They were his clients.
Mr. Putnam: She was never my client. Is this relevant?
Mr. Panish: Yeah. You brought it up. Linda Dileo, Mr. Putnam's client on the issue of the protective
order in Ohio, the motion to quash which he appeared at --
Mr. Putnam: I didn't appear.
Mr. Panish: Can I finish, Mr. --
Mr. Putnam: I was just trying to correct the misstatements.
Mr. Panish: Well, who he represented, and we had the lawyer on the phone who finally told him he no
longer was representing the client. She was held in contempt for refusing to produce the documents that
we had requested from Mr. Putnam initially; the computer, and two phones. That was on July 3rd. She
refused to answer questions at deposition. The judge gave an order to do it. She refused to answer
again. We produced the subpoenaed documents, which, on july -- monday, I believe it was, they were
produced.
Mr. Putnam: The 8th.
Mr. Panish: The 8th, they were produced. The contempt order is still out there. We have a computer
expert --
Judge: The contempt order is still out there because there's something outstanding?
Mr. Panish: Well, there's an issue --
Mr. Boyle: It's going to be determined if there was any tampering done by anyone.
Judge: Oh, I see.
Mr. Boyle: Once we say it's okay, the judge will release them.
Mr. Panish: And so --
Mr. Putnam: What happened, actually, our client was not found in contempt. Her daughter was asked
at her daughter's deposition if she would provide the name of who the computer was provided to, and
apparently she refused to do so, so she was held in contempt for refusing to provide the name. And then
what occurred, your honor, is they went out and got the person to provide the computer. And so that
computer, we understand, has been provided. And what we're asking for is, since this has now been
provided, we would like to have equal access.
Mr. Panish: Well, I believe I have an order here. Are you saying that Mrs. Dileo was not held in

contempt in Ohio?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure whether she was or not, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Well, she was.
Ms. Stebbins: It's a computer that was given away months before we came into our short
representation.
Mr. Panish: That's not true.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't believe it's necessary to talk about it at this point. All we're asking for is, now
that apparently the documents have been provided and produced, both sides should be able to review
them.
Judge: There first should be a determination by somebody that the documents are being preserved or
the computer --
Mr. Putnam: That's what we want.
Ms. Stebbins: It's been sent to a computer expert retained by Plaintiffs who is looking into that issue.
All we want is, as documents are found, that they be produced to both sides, for obvious reasons.
Mr. Panish: Your honor --
Mr. Boyle: We're doing more than that. We are giving them the full mirror image --
Mr. Putnam: That's what we want.
Mr. Boyle: Okay. Separate and apart, the estate has required us to pull out what they say is privileged.
So we're giving you a full mirror image except for what the Estate is --
Ms. Stebbins: Right.
Mr. Panish: Just to clarify the record of what Mr. Putnam said, on July 5th, 2013, in the Court of
Coma Police, Columbiana county, Ohio, Mrs. Linda Dileo was held in contempt of court by the judge
-- I have the order right here, Mr. Putnam, which Mr. Buckner from his office appeared at and has been
representing AEG in the Ohio proceeding. So for Mr. Putnam to say his former client, Ms. Dileo, was
never held in contempt is not, I believe, an accurate representation. Have you read the order?
Mr. Putnam: It is an accurate representation. As you well know, Mr. Panish, despite your repeated
assertions to the contrary that we represented her at this time or at the time of the computer when it was
relevant here, I would have hoped, Mr. Panish, that they had found a document and/or found the
computer, and therefore, you have access to it, you have access to the computer, as well as the
documents, and we would like equal access. My understanding is we're going to get that. That's what's
relevant.
Mr. Panish: It's Judge Scott Washam is the one that held Ms. Dileo in contempt. He just said his client
was never held in contempt. And we believe those documents were requested in the possession and

control of O'Melveny & Myers when they were representing Ms. Dileo, who has now been held in
contempt of court -- and we're going to get to that issue, since they just brought it up -- regarding the
deposition testimony in playing these other testimonies to show the track of what happened with the
documents that were in the possession and control of their client when they represented them. And the
whole proceeding took place in ohio.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I don't think we need to deal with any of this now.
Mr. Panish: Well, he brought it up.
Mr. Putnam: I asked for equal access to the documents they have. That's what I asked for.
Judge: Okay. I'd like to get the jury in here. It's 11:00.
Mr. Panish: Let's go.
Judge: But we need to finish up with this issue.
Ms. Stebbins: For today, your honor, I think it would be fine to have him authenticate it, not show it to
the jury. Allow us an opportunity to brief. While we don't think certain of the documents Ms. Chang
has put forward are covered by the hearsay exception --
Judge: Did you identify which -- are you saying all of them? Because I'm going to allow --
Ms. Chang: That's their position, your honor. All of them.
Ms. Stebbins: No.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, that's not true. There are specific ones -- so 50-60 and 50-10 we've agreed
can be shown with the phone number redacted of Randy Phillips's contact information. We discussed
that previously. And then there's a number of them we think can be authenticated. We've agreed Taj
Jackson authenticated them at his deposition, but not shown to the jury, and those are the ones we'd like
to brief. And it's just a handful. 50-9 --
Judge: I don't know -- the numbers mean nothing to me. If you can describe what the document is.
Ms. Chang: We can put it up. 50-9. Here's one, 50-2.
Mr. Boyle: Put up 50-2. 50-2 is a great example, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: Rather than one by one, your honor, we can be here all day on this. I think it does make
sense for us --
Mr. Boyle: I'll read this one, your honor: "Tohme away from my money now. No contract. Where is
my house? Phillips is conflict. Where is money for 50 shows?" Seems very relevant.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, there's no foundation as to what this is. We'd like the opportunity to brief it
since Ms. Chang didn't meet and confer with us on this issue which she promised --

Judge: Okay. This is what I'm going to do: The kids' notes or things relating to the kids, that's in.
Ms. Chang: Okay.
Judge: These notes concerning Mr. Jackson's future plans, let's put those aside.
Ms. Chang: Okay. I'll just tell him that he found them, that he saved them, that he produced them at
his deposition, and that he authenticated them --
Judge: Right. Michael Jackson's handwriting.
Ms. Chang: Right.
Judge: Mr. Jackson had a habit of writing down notes. I don't know how you're going to do that, but
you can do that.
Ms. Chang: Okay.
Ms. Stebbins: And then mark them for identification and --
Mr. Boyle: And if they would just stipulate the ones he authenticated in his deposition, if they would
stipulate that those are authentic, then we can save a little bit of time on that.
Ms. Cahan: There were about -- there were a couple hundred pages that were gone through at his
deposition. I'm not sure our list would match up with theirs. There's one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, nine specific ones Ms. Chang brought up with me this morning we agreed were properly
authenticated in the deposition. I can read those into the record now, we can deal with them as a
package, and that would be probably the most efficient.
Judge: Okay. Ms. Chang, or whoever is going to handle this witness, in terms of authentication, give
him a stack and just say "Look at these" --
Ms. Chang: Can your honor give me a moment to pull them out, and then I will just hand it to him
when the time comes?
Judge: I will. "Is this his handwriting?"
Ms. Chang: Right.
Judge: "Are these documents you found in his personal effects?" Whatever. I mean, I don't know. I
don't want to do the work for you.
Ms. Chang: Right.
Judge: I'm just telling you, you can hand him a stack. That way you don't have to deal with the
authenticity and handwriting issue later.
Ms. Cahan: And the ones Ms. Chang and I discussed off the bench, your honor, we'll stipulate to those
being properly authenticated as Mr. Jackson's handwriting, so we don't have to even go through them

all.
Judge: Well, if you're not stipulating to all of the ones they want, they're going to have to go through
them.
Ms. Cahan: All the ones that we specifically discussed, we are stipulating to the authenticity of
handwriting. We're not stipulating to the packet of 250, because we haven't gone through them one by
one.
Mr. Boyle: And, your honor, just for the record, this is not a new issue, the whole, like -- they're
saying we didn't meet and confer. I mean, they have been objecting to these as hearsay the whole time.
I knew they were going to do this. This is not, like, some new thing springing on them.
Ms. Chang: And as I stated on the record before, we spoke about the documents. We went out in the
hallway before we even did the day before, and I was just hoping I could soften their hearts a little and
give me a few, but it didn't work. So --
Ms. Cahan: Because we didn't meet and confer about it.
Ms. Chang: But I did in the hall --
Mr. Boyle: But the answer is, "no."
Ms. Chang: But the answer has stayed resolute, so -- and I tried to --
Judge: Well, do you need more time to do something?
Ms. Chang: No. I did get it --
Judge: Do you need to talk to Mr. Jackson so he understands how the examination is going to go?
Ms. Chang: I do think I should do that.
Judge: Probably, so he's not surprised what you're going to ask him.
Ms. Chang: Can I be excused?
Judge: Yes. I'm going to step out and go into chambers.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.
(A recess was taken)
Judge: Okay. Do we need to talk about anything or are we --
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Chang: We're all done.

Judge: Very good. You just need to have a seat. You don't need to be resworn. Let's call the jurors in.
(The jury enters the courtroom)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good morning, everybody.
The jury: Good morning.
Judge: Counsel, will you make your appearances?
Mr. Panish: Good after- -- morning. Sorry. Brian Panish for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Boyle: Good morning. Kevin Boyle for the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Chang: Good morning. Deborah Chang for the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Stebbins: Good morning. Jessica Bina Stebbins for the Defendants.
Ms. Cahan: Kathryn Cahan for the Defendants.
Mr. Putnam: And Marvin Putnam for the Defendants.
Judge: Okay. Before we get started, I want to apologize for keeping you waiting. I normally don't
keep you waiting that long, but we have issues we need to discuss, and it's not the attorneys' fault you
are waiting, but it's usually me, because I need to grapple with legal issues. And sometimes it takes
time to come to a decision and go back and forth and do research in books and come to decisions to
guide the attorneys. So it's not their fault, it's usually me. They give me their arguments, and I have to
come to a decision. So I just want you to know I'm sorry. I try to keep that to a minimum, but
sometimes I can't. So we have Taj Jackson on the witness stand. And so as you can see, we interrupted
his testimony, and we're bringing him back now so we can finish. He doesn't need to be resworn
because he understands he's still under oath. "Yes"?
The witness: Yes.
Judge: Ms. Chang, you can continue.
Ms. Chang: Thank you, your honor. Tariano "Taj" Jackson, recalled as a witness by the Plaintiffs.
Continued direct examination by Deborah Chang:
Q. Mr. Jackson, can you move the microphone closer to you, because you're a little soft spoken?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remind us, because it's been a couple of weeks since you've been here, the order of
brothers that you are in age? Are you the oldest?
A. I'm the oldest out of my brothers, yes.

Q. All right. I want to take you to a time before your uncle, Michael Jackson, had his own children.
How would you describe your relationship with him?
A. Uhm, he was definitely a father figure to us, and some people would argue that we were like his
children before he had his children.
Q. All right. And did he take the time to teach and guide you not only in life, but in your own career?
A. Well, I think I expressed earlier, he was definitely our mentor. And everything we did in life, we
kind of geared it towards what he was doing, whether it was music or even just how he was as a person.
Q. And over the years, have you received handwritten notes from your uncle?
A. Yes. Various handwritten notes from my uncle, keepsakes, yes.
Q. And I think we looked over one last time. I just want to show you one now. It's exhibit 50-124.
Ms. Chang: And we can show that with no objection. All right. Why don't we blow that up a little bit.
Q. And is this one of the notes that you received from your uncle? (indicating)
A. Yes.
Q. Can you read that for us?
A. "Taj, I love you all and am proud of you. P.S. Please rehearse."
Q. Before we get into what's written there, can you tell us, there's a little logo in the corner, looks like
a little boy bending over.
A. That's a Neverland stationery. That's one of the various stationeries from Neverland.
Q. Okay. And can you tell us, what did this note refer to?
A. This was probably -- he wrote various notes to me like this. And so I know what the "please
rehearse" refers to.
Q. That's the one I was --
A. That refers to -- because when we were younger, we would come home from school, and we would
always want to play, but we also wanted to be just like our uncle. And he would always remind us how
much hard work it took. So that's probably from the nudging of my mom telling him we weren't
rehearsing a lot that he put that in there.
Q. Did you each have musical instruments that each of you played?
A. Yes. At that time I was known as the piano player of the group, and he bought me my first -- well,

it's not really an organ, but a three-layered piano. So kind of like an organ. But our first instruments, he
bought them for us.
Q. And did he urge each of you to keep practicing?
A. Always, yes.
Q. All right. All of the kids in the extended Jackson family, who spent the most time with your uncle?
A. I would say myself partly because I'm the eldest grandson, but partly because I spent a lot of time
with him, yes.
Q. Were you present at your uncle's side for many of his big moments in his life?
A. Yes. I'd like to say a lot of the historical moments we were -- me and my brothers were by his side.
Q. All right. I'd like to show exhibit 986-2 (indicating). Okay. And first tell us, what is the -- are you
in this photo?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you point yourself out?
A. I am the -- it's -- that's TJ and I, basically.
Q. Okay.
A. In our Buckley uniforms.
Q. Oh, these are the Buckley uniforms?
A. Those were the Buckley uniforms. They were more conservative back then.
Q. Did you get the day off that day?
A. We took the day off that day because it was very important to us.
Q. Okay. And what is the event that's going on there?
A. That's when my uncle got his Walk Of Fame. Hollywood Walk Of Fame Star.
Q. And which handsome fella are you on that picture?
A. I'm the one all the way to your left.
Q. And were there any other children there other than you and your brothers?
A. Not that I remember. I think it was just me and my brothers that were there for our generation.

Q. All right. And just as a reminder, Mr. Jackson, who was the nephew who Michael Jackson turned to
to take care of his own children when his nanny was unavailable?
A. He asked me to, and I would, yeah.
Q. All right. And who was the nephew who he turned to to be in charge of all the safekeeping of his
personal belongings and keepsakes?
A. He asked me to. Entrusted me with that.
Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that he was your mentor, especially in music. Did he guide you in your
selection of songs to sing?
A. He would always guide us in his music, because we would be foolish not to ask his advice. And he
always let us know that we could ask him anything. Anything about music, whether
It was songwriting or song selection. And we pretty much did ask him everything. Like, he picked out
a lot of our songs. And some songs we didn't like at first, and he told us how important it was to do that
song, and we ended up recording it.
Q. And, ultimately, was he right?
A. Yes. He was always right.
Q. Did he keep up with the trends in music over the years?
A. He made -- yes. He was a perfectionist when it came to his craft, whatever it was, whether it was
film or music. And he would study, study, study. He always said "Study the greats," "Study what was
before," "Study the classics." And he would always have music that was out now current. Current
music. He would have the top 10 hits from around the world. He would listen to those to see what was
coming up down the pipeline, and how to incorporate that.
Q. And was that true for all the time that you knew him?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you indicated to us that when you and your brothers were very active in 3T, that sometimes
there were songs you did not want to sing. You recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And your uncle persuaded you to sing?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there an example of that?
A. Our biggest example would be a song called "I Need You."
Q. And that's one of the songs 3T is known for?

A. It's one of the three songs that we're best known for, yes.
Q. Did any of you like it when you first heard it?
A. Out of my brothers, no, none of us liked it.
Q. And why not?
A. The demo of it, it sounded a little old fashioned for our taste. And we loved the classics, but we
couldn't hear what he was hearing.
Q. And what did your uncle -- how did your uncle influence you?
A. Once he heard it, he said, "You need songs like that that touch the world." And that was enough for
us to revisit the song and record it.
Q. Now, as it turned out, did he also participate in that song?
A. Well, we were recording literally down the street from where he was recording. Of course, he had
the nicer studio. But we were recording, and he surprised us and popped by when we were recording
the song and said he wanted to be a part of the song and ended up lending his vocals to the very end of
the song.
Q. All right. So could we hear his voice?
A. Yes. He actually was -- he had just recorded a rock song, so his voice was shot. But he said that he
wanted to be a part of it, and in the recording you can actually hear his voice. It's raw, but it's still
probably one of my proudest moments of that album, just because once you hear it, it's like you can
hear the passion behind his voice.
Q. Was the part that he sang written for him or did he ad lib it?
A. It was an ad lib. And I think what was the most amazing about it was that it was all in one take.
There was no -- he didn't try it again or -- what you hear is one take. And that's when I realized that he
was just in another league than we were. Yeah.
Q. What effect did he have on all the musicians and producers that were in that room when he did it in
one take?
A. Well, there were two producers there, and Max Martin and Dennis Pop. And Max Martin has later
gone on to do Katy Perry. He's probably the biggest songwriter currently. And when he heard my uncle
sing, he literally started crying. He said this was a dream come true, and he never thought he would be
producing Michael Jackson.
Q. And how did "I Need You" end up doing?
A. Did very well for us, yes.

Q. All right. I'd like to just show a short video. And before I show it, he is not appearing in the video;
correct?
A. No. He wanted to be in the video, but the timing, he couldn't be.
Q. All right. Let me just show exhibit 762. And this is just a portion.
(a video clip of "I Need You" is played)
Q. Okay. I think it's kind of hard to hear, but that was your uncle in there?
A. Yes. Yeah.
Q. Oh, go ahead.
A. I was just saying, looking back at it, we were always trying to do what our uncle was doing. And I
heard the choir in there, and that was also his input. He also believed in worldly songs, and he also
talked to the producers and told them that there needed to be a choir at the end of that song.
Q. Okay. And that's how we see the choir there?
A. Yes. That's how.
Q. Okay. Did he also teach you about songwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did he teach you about that?
A. He told us the secrets about songwriting. He wanted us to follow in his footsteps. And he would
constantly tell us that we had to carry on the legacy, carry on the torch when he retired.
Q. And so did he tell you how he learned about songwriting?
A. He told us that he learned from studying the greats and studying the great songs, and basically
dissecting them and realizing what makes a great song. And he would -- I have great memories of my
uncle, but it's -- he -- there's a song, Fine Young Cannibals, "She Drives Me Crazy." and he brought this
Fisher Price cassette player at the time, and he said, "This is how a lot of people hear this music." And
he played it over and over for us, and he's like, "Every time you hear it, I want you to listen to a
different instrument and see what that instrument is doing." And he said, "That's what makes up the
song. One instrument is just as important as the other." And so that's -- we would do that throughout --
you know, with different songs. And so that's kind of like -- I don't want to give away too many secrets.
Q. We won't ask all the secrets.
A. Yeah.
Q. Whether it was songwriting, or you indicated your mutual love of film, did he encourage you to

study the topic?

A. It was -- for him it was about studying and mastering that topic before even venturing in, and he --
that's what we learned as well. I mean, we started when we were 12, but we didn't start 3T for -- until I
was pretty much 19. So those seven years were studying and trying to master our form and our art. So
that's how he was. He was always trying to perfect himself and make it better.
Q. When you were little, did you like to read?
A. Uhm, there's very few children that like to read when they're little. So, no, I didn't like to read.
Q. Who got you to read?
A. My uncle made reading fun, and he stressed how important it was to read and knowledge -- how
much knowledge was in books. And so he would read to us, and then we would have book sessions
where we would start reading on our own.
Q. Now, you talked about how your uncle inputted his wisdom or advice into your music.
A. Yes.
Q. Was the contrary true? Did your uncle share music that he was creating and recording for your
input?
A. He played us a lot of his music ahead of time and would ask us what we thought of it. Would ask
me what I thought of it, which I always thought was interesting because -- but he did. And I would give
my opinion, and he would listen. But it was -- I mean, he knew what he was doing already, so it wasn't
like I was giving advice. But there's a song "Hold My Hand," which akon -- that he did with Akon, and
I remember him playing that song for me ahead of time.
Q. For those of us who might be older than you, who is Akon?
A. Akon is a famous singer.
Q. Currently?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you know whether your uncle continued to create music in the last five years of his
life?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did your uncle continue to create music in the last five years of his life?
A. Yes. He was always creating music and writing songs. I know that he wanted an album to come out
as well, and he was working with producers.
Q. Okay. Have you heard of "Thriller 25"?

A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. That was the 25th anniversary of the "Thriller" album, and reimaging or remixing the album where
he had famous or current artists record with him of the big hits.
Q. When did that come out?
A. I'd have to do the math.
Q. Was that 2008?
A. Yeah.
Q. Shortly before your uncle died?
A. It was -- yeah, because I remember it was in Vegas.
Q. And who were some of the new and fresh artists that participated in singing with the "Thriller"
songs?
A. Fergie, Will.i.am. My mind is going blank right now.
Q. Hip-hop artists?
A. Yeah. Current artists that were doing hits right now.
Q. Okay. And it was actually a duet?
A. Yeah. They would sing a part of the song, he would sing a part of the song.
Q. And you said he was working on an album?
A. He was working on his own album, yes.
Q. Okay. In 2009?
A. Yes.
Q. And was he working with well-known producers? Music producers?
A. I know of a couple of well-known producers that he was working with. I know he was working
with Redone who is known in the industry for doing Lady Gaga's first album, and they were working
together. He was constantly working on an album and material.
Q. All right. Now, let's turn to you and your uncle's other mutual love, and that's music and film.

A. Okay.
Q. Did you two talk a lot about music and films through the course of your life growing up?
A. Yes. That was our bond, as I said before. So that was what we shared, was our mutual love for
movies and film.
Q. And how early on did you have this mutual love for movies and film?
A. Since I was a Kid with him. And we would watch classics and dissect them. As we'd watch them --
he had a certain method, you know. Like, he liked to turn off the sound, because the sound was a
distraction to see the visual, the angles and everything like that, first, and then watch it again with the
sound. But he would always -- for some reason, he would always bring up "Raiders of the Lost Ark,"
the scene where Indi is exchanging the statue with the sand. And he knew every shot of that backwards
and forwards, and to the timing. And it was kind of intimidating for me, because I didn't know that
much, like to the extent that he knew about film. And I was -- and I was, like, I have a long way to go if
that's what you have to know to get -- you know, to be a director.
Q. Did he ever take you along with him when he did movies himself?
A. For his music videos. And we were on the set for Captain EO. I was a lot younger back then, and
so in hindsight, I wish I would have paid attention more, because Francis Ford Coppola and George
Lucas was on the set, and I was running around, not paying attention. But then, also, for Moonwalker
we were on the set for that. We were on the set for those as well.
Q. Did you and your uncle discuss Moonwalker?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. It was at Hayvenhurst when he told us that -- he was in the kitchen when he told us that he got the
idea of the transforming robot in Moonwalker from us, because we were such big transformers fans
back in the day, and he was so excited to tell us that.
Q. And what is Moonwalker?
A. It's a feature film, but it's a collection of his music, of his songs, but short films of those, of each
song.
Q. Was that something your uncle was proud of?
A. Yes. Very proud of.
Q. How did it do at the box office?
A. I know it did well.
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for speculation.

Q. If you know?
A. It did very well.
Q. All right.
Judge: Well, it's not speculation.
The witness: Yeah. It did well. It's fact.
Q. Did you select two little sections of Moonwalker of your uncle's favorite film to see?
A. Yes.
Q. The transformers, you said you liked transformers?
A. We loved transformers.
Q. What is transformers?
A. Transformers were transforming robots. Hasbro, back in the day, we loved the cartoons, and we
would watch that with him all the time. And we --
Q. They turned people into robots?
A. No. They transformed from one form of a robot to a car or to a plane.
Q. Okay. So let's see 761-3.
(A video clip from Moonwalker is played)
Q. Who is that other actor?
A. That's Joe Pesci.
Q. Was he the villain in this one?
A. Yes.
(The video clip continues to be played)
The witness: That's Sean Lennon.
Q. Sean Lennon is the son of John Lennon?
A. John Lennon.
(The video clip continues to be played)

Q. And did your uncle enjoy making these types of movies?

A. Yes. This was -- he was in his element.
(The video clip continues to be played)
Q. And this was your favorite part?
A. I love this part, yes.
(The video clip continues to be played)
Q. Okay. I think we get the point there. And then the other part, what do we call the next part that you
liked?
A. It was claymation. Speed Demon. It's a music video for Speed Demon.
Ms. Chang:. Okay. Why don't we show 761-2.
(A video clip of Speed Demon from Moonwalker is played)
Q. Did he like special effects?
A. Yes.
(The video clip continues to be played)
Q. Okay. I think we -- that was one of your favorites there?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, when you and he discussed going into a partnership to work on films, do you know
what he did to prepare for that?
A. Uhm, well, I know that he -- he was constantly studying and reading. He would buy many film
books and -- about directing. And he knew them backwards and forwards, and he would test me on
them, because we -- we had this little vow that whoever found a good film book, buy two copies, one
for each of us. So sometimes I would get things, and then sometimes I would send him things. And then
we would test each other on this.
Q. Is this how he also told you to prepare for screenwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm sorry. Not screenwriting, song writing.
A. Screenwriting and song writing. Both.

Q. Both?
A. Yes.
Q. He loved both?
A. He loved both.
Q. And do you know if he ever hired a specific film professor or took a class?
A. I was in vegas when I -- I bumped into one of his professors at -- a U.S.C. Professor at Vegas. And
I know that he was -- they were teaching his kids as well in terms of the art of directing, and stuff like
that.
Q. What specific projects, if any, did you discuss as part of your plan and intention of making films?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
Ms. Chang: "Plan, intention."
Judge: Okay. Overruled.
A. There was "King Tut," there was this movie called "Chicago 7." there was this -- I know that we at
one point wanted to remake the invisible man. So he got me the book on it and wanted me to adapt it,
so --
Q. Did your uncle have an interest in King Tut?
A. He loved king tut. He loved Egypt and Egyptian culture. And it was known that if we went to the
bookstore and he saw anything, you know, about pharaohs or tombs or stuff like that with King Tut,
that he was going to buy every book on that subject.
Q. Do you know if he did anything specifically to prepare for "King Tut"?
A. I know what I saw at his house when I was there. I would see mockups of scenes, story boards. I
would see various notes on it.
Q. All right. And did he ever discuss his plans and intentions with you to create a 3D version of
"Thriller"?
A. Yes. He was very excited about "Thriller 3D."
Q. And what did the two of you do to prepare for "Thriller 3D"?
A. Well, he wanted me to study 3D. And this was before "Avatar" came out and kind of got everyone
excited about 3d again. Because Captain EO was in 3D, so he always loved 3D. And in vegas we went
with his kids to go see a 3D show. It was an ocean -- something about the ocean, or something like that.
But he just loved the technology, and he wanted to do something groundbreaking again.

Q. And did he ask you to study 3D?

A. To study and learn about it and become a master of it.
Q. All right. And can you tell us, before we go too far -- I forgot to ask you, because I knew it so well.
But what is Captain EO?
A. Captain EO is -- it's a movie -- well, it's a short movie that -- it played at Disneyland. It was
directed by Francis Ford Coppola, produced by George Lucas that starred my uncle and his music.
Q. Do you know if we went there right now, would we see it?
A. I don't know if it's still there or not. I'm not 100 percent sure.
Q. All right. Okay. Did he discuss with you when his plan or intention was to start making movies
with you?
A. He did discuss, yes. I know it was going to be directly after This Is It.
Q. All right. Now, I want to talk to you about your uncle's habit and custom of making notes or
documents.
A. Okay.
Q. First of all, can you tell us, how often would you stay with your uncle, either at Neverland or
elsewhere, while he was working or traveling? Would you estimate for us?
A. That's a hard question. Weeks at a time throughout our life, we would be staying with our uncle,
whether he was traveling or not. We would go visit him on tour.
Q. So when you were younger, would you be staying with him for weeks at a time?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And was that on tour and in hotels or while recording?
A. It was all of the above, yes.
Q. Okay. And what's the longest period of time you yourself lived at Neverland?
A. I lived at Neverland -- for me, myself, I lived there for about a year.
Q. All right. And was part of that time with your uncle?
A. Yes. The majority of the time was with my uncle.
Q. Okay. And when you stayed with him, did you have the opportunity to observe his custom and
habit regarding taking and the use of notes to organize his life and achieve any goals?

A. Yes. But also throughout my life I've witnessed that as well.

Q. Did he train you to adopt the same type of custom and habit?
A. He trained me, but I also wanted to -- I saw that it was working for him, so I wanted to adapt that
myself anyway. Yeah.
Q. Okay. So you learned it?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you currently use his methods and customs?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. In your own life?
A. Yes. Still today.
Q. And during the times that you either stayed or lived with your uncle, did you have the opportunity
to work with him on various projects?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you collaborate with him on projects?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to sit in and participate in meetings that your uncle participated in?
A. Uhm, yes.
Q. And were those meetings conducted in person or on the telephone?
A. They were mainly on -- he liked to conduct meetings usually over the phone. Like, that was -- so
for me, I would see him -- I would -- he would have it on speaker, and -- because he thought it was
important for me to know how business was conducted, and stuff like that. So it was usually over the
phone on speaker that I observed.
Q. Approximately how many phone meetings do you believe you participated in over your life with
your uncle?
A. Oh, over my life?
Q. Uh-huh. Estimate.
A. Over 100.
Q. Okay. And how about in-person meetings where he brought you to a meeting, and it was conducted

in person?
A. That was probably, I would say, over 20, but that would be -- I wouldn't be comfortable saying
anything much higher than that.
Q. And for those meetings, did you help your uncle prepare or brainstorm for the meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many occasions would you say that would be?
A. Uhm, if it involved, like, film and stuff like that, a lot of them. Majority of them.
Q. Okay. Based on what you observed, and what he taught you, can you tell us whether he had a
specific system that he developed regarding documents and notes?
A. Yes. He definitely had a -- he was very systematic when it came to those kinds of things.
Q. Okay. And he taught you this system?
A. He taught me, but I also absorbed -- observed, yes.
Q. Did you give us a visual aid to describe his categories and system for us so we can all be successful
in our lives?
A. Well, to help, I guess, yes.
Q. I'd like to show --
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we're objecting to this. We discussed this.
Ms. Chang: I'm not categorizing anything. I'm showing a system. Can we have a sidebar, perhaps? Do
you want me to show it to your honor? It is exhibit 763-1. And, your honor, this is not commenting on
anything. This is just the system that he used.
Judge: (reviewing document) okay. Your objection is?
Ms. Cahan: Foundation, your honor. It can be shown if the proper foundation is laid. At this point it
hasn't been.
Judge: As to who created this slide?
Ms. Cahan: No. As to the system, what it was, how the categories were created.
Ms. Chang: I think I laid the foundation.
Judge: I think -- well, the second one, I'm not sure you addressed that -- yeah. Sustained. I mean, the
third one you spent most of the time talking about, the third. But the first two, I don't think you quite
covered that.

Ms. Chang: All right.

Q. First let me ask you: In the systems that you observed with your uncle, did he believe or adhere to
-- that he taught you, did he believe or adhere to a certain law for inspiration?
A. He had a certain belief system in terms of -- of I guess the -- I don't want to give too much away,
but in terms of --
Q. We won't take your secrets.
A. No, it's not my secrets. But it's basically the philosophy of "The Secret" that everyone knows now,
the book "Secret." But it was the Law of Attraction, and what you can conceive and believe, you can
achieve.
Q. All right.
A. And that was the epitome of my uncle. He would constantly write down things, goals and things
that he wanted to achieve in life.
Q. Did he do that in your presence?
A. He did that in my presence, but I saw it firsthand with Thriller as a kid. He had that on his mirror,
"The biggest selling album of all time."
Q. Did that come to pass?
A. And it definitely came to pass. But it wasn't that it came to pass, it was just at that point, that was
unheard of for someone like him to do. And I learned my lesson to never underestimate my uncle in
that aspect. When he put his mind to something, it usually happened.
Q. You indicated that he wrote it on a mirror. Where would he write these types of notes that you
called the Law of Attraction?
A. He wrote them anywhere that there's paper, basically.
Q. Okay.
A. Because he felt like the more he saw it, the more it could come true.
Q. Did it matter what kind of paper?
A. I've seen -- throughout my life I've seen him write on anything that can write. I mean, anything that
will sustain writing.
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.

Q. And this exhibit is already in, exhibit 941.

Ms. Chang: I just want to blow up the little corner in the bathroom.
Q. And is this typical of the kinds of notes that you're talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you recognize your uncle's handwriting there?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
Ms. Chang: You can take it down.
Q. Now, in addition to that, being around your uncle and growing up with him, did he also have a
system of keeping things that were precious to him?
A. My uncle was very sentimental, so he would keep -- well, I know stories of, like, he would tell us
that he had janet's report card. But I know personally he kept -- I ran through a glass window at
Hayvenhurst when I was three years old, and he kept the blanket that I was wrapped in. He kept that as
a memento. And it was important enough for him that he actually -- he had told Prince that same story.
And Prince told me, like, "Yeah, I know my dad has that." So it's, like, he kept things like that because
it was important to him.
Q. In addition to objects, did he keep notes and letters?
A. Memories. Things that happened that he didn't want to forget on that day, he would write down.
And I do the same thing now, but I don't use paper. I use computers and ipads.
Q. How about notes from people he loved?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he keep that?
A. That was even more sentimental to him.
Q. All right. And you saw that throughout the time you spent with him?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And are those generally the three categories?
A. Those are -- yeah, those would.
Ms. Chang: And, your honor, can I show 763-1?

Judge: Yes, you may.

Ms. Chang: All right.
Q. So can you just take us through, again, remind us of the types -- the system that your uncle had in
his life that he passed on to you that you now use?
A. Well, there's the law of attraction, which, basically, he would write down his goals, or what he
wanted to accomplish. And he would write that anywhere he could, because the more he saw it, the
more it could come into fruition. He would also keep keepsakes of whether it was things written to him
that were valuable in terms of sentimental, or memories that he didn't want to forget in terms of, so-
and-so did this on this day. He would keep that as well. And then what I would also experience is that --
which is what I do as well, is the to-do, in terms of, you know, in terms of if he was going to have a
meeting, whether a phone meeting or an in-person meeting, the topics and the points that he wanted to
get across at that meeting.
Q. Now, did he normally have a system of, if he wanted to do the to-do list, if he wanted to do it
himself, how would he indicate the differentiation between himself doing it versus having others do it
for him?
A. If it was himself, he usually would do it, unless it was something that was inspirational that was a
law of attraction thing. But if it was something like "I need da, da, da now," then that was something as
a to-do list.
Q. For someone else?
A. For someone else.
Q. To do for him?
A. Yeah. Because if he could do it, he would do it.
Q. And I think you told us that you saw this -- your uncle do it throughout your childhood up to
adulthood; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. If you had to estimate for us how many times you've seen him write these types of documents or
notes, what would your estimate be?
A. Well, hundreds of times.
Q. All right.
A. Definitely, yeah.
Q. And while you were living at Neverland for a year, with or without your uncle, did you have
occasion to see these types of notes?

A. Yes.
Q. And while you were in charge of the storage of his belongings, did you also have occasion to see
these types of notes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now --
Ms. Chang: We can take that down.
Q. Mr. Jackson, after your uncle died, did you ever go to the house at Carolwood?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you go there?
A. Uhm, I went there to collect some of his belongings.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Because I wanted to keep them for my cousins, because when my mom passed, we lost a lot of our
belongings that were at her house at that point.
Q. How did you lose them?
A. We lost those at -- from a storage, and then a Vegas auction. They auctioned off all my mom's stuff,
and I didn't want that to happen to my cousins.
Q. Was that hard for you?
A. It was devastating to us.
Q. You did that mostly for your cousins?
A. Yes. I did it for my cousins, and I didn't want them to go through what we went through.
Q. As part of that process, did you retrieve a box of documents from the house from your uncle's
bedroom?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you produce those documents?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you produce those documents to both counsel at the time that your deposition was taken?
A. Yes.

Q. And as we established, are you familiar with your uncle's handwriting?

A. Yes.
Q. And during the course of the deposition, did you identify for counsel all the documents that you
recognized your uncle's handwriting?
A. Yes. That were presented to me, yes.
Q. Let me just show you --
Ms. Chang: I'm just going to read for the record, your honor, 50-1, 50-2, 50-3, 50-4, 50-7, 50-9, 50-
13, 50-65, 50-67, 50-69, 50-77, and 50-115. May I approach, your honor?
Judge: You may.
Q. If you could just take a quick look at those --
Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, we stipulate that Mr. Jackson authenticated those at his deposition as the
handwriting of Michael Jackson.
Ms. Chang: They just made your work so much easier.
Ms. Cahan: Trying to get us to the lunch break.
Ms. Chang: And, your honor, is this a good time to stop?
Judge: Yes, it is. Okay. I'll see you at 1:30. Thank you.
(The jury exits the courtroom)
Judge: 1:30.
The witness: Okay.
Judge: 1:30.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.
(Lunch break)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good afternoon, everybody. Let's continue.
Ms. Chang: All right. Your honor, just to save time, I'm going to add two documents to the list of
stipulated authenticated documents. That's 50, dash, 60, and 50, dash, 10. Mr. Jackson, I just have two

little things to ask you.

Continued direct examination by Deborah Chang:
Q. Are you familiar with your cousin Paris's handwriting?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Can you tell me how you're familiar with her handwriting?
A. Well, I've seen her grow up, and so I would say now I'm more familiar with it because of seeing her
do homework at school. Or just recently I visited her and she wrote down a movie list, of movies for
me to see that I haven't seen; and I wrote one for her for her to see.
Q. And over the years have you seen her grow up and do her schoolwork?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. I'd like to show exhibit 50, dash, 16. And can we blow that up a little bit so we can see
that? Is this -- was this one of the documents that you retrieved from the house on Carolwood?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you -- let's scroll down to the bottom so we can see who it's from. This is from Paris?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw how she signs her name?
A. Yes.
Q. And can we -- can you read it for us at the top?
A. Sure. "dear daddy, I love you so much and I'm so glad I got a goodnight hug. Sleep well, I love you
and goodnight. I'll see you tomorrow. Goodnight. Lots of love --"
Q. "xox"?
A. Yeah, "xox, Lots of love, Paris Jackson."
Ms. Chang: And I'd also like to show exhibit 50, dash, 23.
Judge: Is it 50, dash, 23?
Ms. Chang: Yes.
Judge: Okay.

Q. And is this one of the documents that you found at the house on Carolwood?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this your uncle's handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you read it for us?
A. Sure. "Words of Blanket, my son, six years old."
Judge: "Six years young"?
The witness: Yes, "Six years young." Sorry. "What's your favorite letters, Daddy? Mine is G for God
and D for Daddy. Age six, Blanket."
Ms. Chang: I have no further questions.
Judge: Thank you. Cross examination?
Cross examination by Kathryn Cahan:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. So you were last here on June 27th, right?
A. I guess, yeah. I don't remember, but yes, that -- if that's what it says.
Q. And you were unavailable for the couple of weeks since then to come testify?
A. Unavailable, and I think that they had to squeeze in other people like Karen and stuff, because of
scheduling.
Q. So I'm going to try not to go over too much what we did before, but I might have to sort of recover
some things a little bit to give context, just because it's been a while since we've heard from you.
A. Okay.
Q. So I believe you said today you spent more time with Michael Jackson than anybody else in your
extended family?
A. In my extended family, yes, besides -- when you say "extended," you mean like cousins and all that
stuff, or do you mean --
Q. Right, sort of your generation.

A. Yes, yes.
Q. His nieces and nephews.
A. Yes, for sure.
Q. And you actually visited your Uncle Michael on every tour he's done, right?
A. From my memory, yes.
Q. Okay. So that would be Triumph?
A. Yeah, the Triumph tour.
Q. Victory?
A. Yeah.
Q. Bad?
A. Yeah.
Q. Dangerous?
A. Whatever tour, yes.
Q. And History?
A. Yeah.
Q. And when you would visit him on tour, you wouldn't just go for one day or to one concert, you'd
stay with him for at least a few days, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And during those multi-day visits with your Uncle Michael, and just to give us context, what was --
what was your age during the span of those tours? What was your age range?
A. Gosh. Well, I don't even think it was called the Triumph tour, but that was '79, '81, or -- I think '81.
So I was born in '73, so I was seven years old at that point. The Bad tour --
Q. All the way to the end, History ended in '97, I think?
A. Yes.
Q. And how old were you then?
A. 24, right? Is that -- '73 to --

Q. Early 20's?
A. Early 20's, yes. But the History tour I didn't see him as much because we were doing 3t stuff at that
point, as well.
Q. But you did go visit him for some period of time on that tour?
A. Yeah, because it matched up, yeah.
Q. And would you stay in the same hotel as Michael when you would visit him?
A. Yes, most likely, yes.
Q. And were you ever in his hotel room or his suite at times?
A. Majority of the time, yes.
Q. Okay. So during those visits on -- on the tours, did you ever see any signs that Michael was using
drugs?
A. No.
Q. Never saw him take drugs?
A. No.
Q. Never saw drugs lying around?
A. No.
Q. Never saw him seem sort of out of it, or loopy?
A. From exhaustion?
Q. No, from -- from something that you interpreted as drugs.
A. No.
Q. So jumping forward now to 2008, Michael was living in -- is it okay if I call him Michael just for
purposes of the --
A. That's fine.
Q. Just so we don't get confused, because I know you have a lot of uncles.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So in 2008, Michael was living in Las Vegas, right?

A. Yes.
Q. And you saw him fairly regularly in that time period?
A. For that time period, pretty -- I saw him pretty often, yes.
Q. And he seemed totally happy and healthy to you in 2008, right?
A. Towards the later part, I didn't see him as often; but the earlier part in 2008, yes.
Q. In Las Vegas when you saw him in 2008, he seemed healthy and happy?
A. He was definitely happy to see me, yes. And he seemed healthy, yes.
Q. Okay. And he didn't show any signs of drug use, as far as you could tell at that time?
A. As far as I could tell, no.
Q. So your Uncle Michael moved from Las Vegas to the Bel Air Hotel in Los Angeles sometime in late
2008?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. "Yes"? Sorry. Just for the record, we need a verbal "yes."
A. Oh. Well, I don't know when he moved; but I know that I visited him at Bel Air at one point; but I
don't know what date he moved because I didn't help him move so I don't know.
Q. Okay. So at some point in 2008, you saw -- you would visit him in Las Vegas?
A. Yes.
Q. And then at some point later in 2008, you visited him at the Bel Air Hotel?
A. That's correct.
Q. But you didn't help them move so you don't know exactly when in 2008 --
A. I don't -- yeah, exactly.
Q. Okay. Do you know about how long Michael was living at the Bel Air Hotel?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Was 2008 the first time in a long time that Michael had lived in the L.A. area?
A. That he had stayed in the L.A. --

Q. Yeah.
A. Yeah, I would -- I would say so in terms of -- yeah, because after Neverland, then he went overseas
and then to Vegas, yeah.
Q. Okay. And you saw Michael several times a month during the time he was living in the Bel Air
Hotel?
A. The Bel Air, not -- not -- more Vegas than Bel Air. Bel Air, I saw him very sporadically, if that.
Q. Can you estimate how often?
A. I think twice.
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. So after he moved back to Los Angeles, you just saw him --
A. I saw him less, actually, than I did in Vegas, yes.
Q. Okay. So just twice during the time that he was at the Bel Air Hotel?
A. Just as a guest, yeah.
Q. And the couple times you saw him at the Bel Air Hotel, he seemed happy and healthy and fine,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. No signs of drug use then?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. In fact, you never saw any signs that Michael used drugs at any point in your entire life in all the
time you spent with him, the time you were living with him, the time you would visit him on tour. All
that time you spent with him, you never thought he was on drugs, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct. So going back to 2008, do you know approximately when in 2008 Michael moved into the
Carolwood house?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Late in the year?
A. I -- I don't know. I didn't -- I didn't even know he had moved to Carolwood.

Q. Okay.
A. I heard that from the news afterwards, on his passing.
Q. Okay. So at some point in 2008, he comes back to the Los Angeles area, and he's staying in the Bel
Air Hotel?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you see him maybe a couple of times?
A. Okay.
Q. And then was the only other time you saw him in person after that before he passed away in may of
2009 at your grandparents' 60th wedding anniversary party?
A. For the wedding and -- yes, for the party, yes.
Q. Okay. So you never went to Carolwood?
A. No, never went to Carolwood at that -- you mean during that time?
Q. Prior to your uncle passing away.
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And, in fact, I think you just said you didn't even know that he had moved from the Bel Air Hotel to
Carolwood?
A. Yeah, I didn't know -- yeah.
Q. Okay. And the reason that you didn't see him much during 2009 is because you were giving him
space to rehearse and prepare for This Is It, right?
A. Yeah. He -- he loved spending time with us, so we kind of gave him his space because he would
want to -- I shouldn't say the word "play" with us, but he wanted to -- like we were a distraction to him.
And so when we heard that he was going on -- on the road, it was kind of, me and my brothers, known
that we would kind of stay away because we were a distraction, I would say.
Q. And, in fact, you didn't talk to him in 2009 when he was preparing for This Is It, right?
A. Not about the tour. I did talk to him about an auction; but I didn't talk to him on tour or about the
tour or anything like that.
Q. You didn't talk to him during the period that he was rehearsing for the tour,
right?
A. I -- I still don't know when he was rehearsing. I -- so I don't know the period that -- when he was

rehearsing for This Is It.

Q. Okay. Talking about 2009, you saw him at your grandparents' 60th anniversary party in May?
A. Yeah.
Q. Right? Other than that, can you remember talking to your uncle at all in 2009?
A. I know that he was on the phone one time trying to stop an auction, and I -- I talked to him then
because it was a conference call.
Q. Okay.
A. But not -- not a call where I called him up and talked to him.
Q. Okay. So you remember one conversation in 2009?
A. Yes; and it wasn't to me, it was -- it was directed to someone else.
Q. And you saw him in person just the one time at the 60th anniversary party?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. How did you know he was recording a new album in 2009?
A. I think I heard it from the news or family. It was -- it was pretty -- because we -- we would hear
like, "Are you going? Are you going?" So it was either through family or the news.
Q. So you didn't talk to Michael about that?
A. No.
Q. And so you don't know whether Michael was taking time away from This Is It rehearsals to work on
that new album or not?
A. The new album started in 2008, so I don't know. So he was constantly working on a new album.
He's constantly recording and writing, so --
Q. Including, to your understanding, in 2009, during the spring and summer of 2009?
A. I don't think he would have stopped recording, yeah.
Q. Okay. But since you didn't really talk with him during that time, you don't know one way or the
other how he was dividing up his time between working on his music and getting ready for the tour?
A. Yeah, no, I don't know.
Q. Movies or other projects?

A. No, I don't know.

Q. In your experience with him, did he tend to have a lot of things going at once?
A. He juggled a lot of things, yes.
Q. Do you have any understanding of how much, if at all, Michael saw other members of his extended
family, so setting aside his children, during the period late 2008 and the first half of 2009 when he
moved back to the L.A. Area for the first time in a really long time?
A. I don't think that often. I know that the anniversary was kind of a reunion for a lot of people, so --
Q. So that -- that time in May was the first time a lot of people in your family had seen Michael since
he came back to L.A. in 2008?
A. Yeah, yeah.
Q. And you talked a little bit about the work you did for your Uncle Michael with his storage units.
A. Yes.
Q. And so you worked -- you helped him with at least three storage facilities, right? One in Buellton,
California, near Neverland, and at least two in Las Vegas, right?
A. The two in Vegas -- the one in -- I went to the one in Buellton, it was going to be transferred over to
my name, but it never happened, so I didn't really work on that. But yeah, the other two.
Q. Do you know whether he had more than three storage facilities where he kept things?
A. Yes, he did have more than three.
Q. Okay. So you were responsible for two, and you were going to get the third one near Neverland, but
that didn't happen?
A. It was -- sorry.
Q. That's okay.
A. Yeah, all of them were eventually going to be transferred into my name. They were -- he wanted all
of them transferred.
Q. Why did he want them all transferred into your name?
A. I --
Q. If you know.
A. If I know?

Q. Did he ever tell you?

A. I think the fact that I had gone through something previous and I -- I think that he -- there's very
few people my uncle trusted, and that he had been betrayed his whole life, and he knew he could trust
me, and he knew that I -- if something ever happened to him, I would do the right thing and -- and
know what to do with the storage.
Q. Did he own the actual buildings where the materials were stored, or was it like one of those places
where you can go and rent storage space?
A. It was one of those places you could rent storage space.
Q. Okay. So he would put whatever -- the rental contract or whatever into your name so that you
would have access to the -- the storage space?
A. Yes; but then he wanted -- he wanted me to actually open -- open up or transfer it so that it was
under my name completely, not just have access to it, that I would be the only one to have access to it
so that if something happened, the possessions would be mine.
Q. So your understanding was you would own all the contents of all the storage -- his intention was
that you would own all the contents of what was in those storage lockers?
A. If something happened to him, yes.
Q. And something happening to him, are you referring to he was worried if he passed away, he was
making plans?
A. Just -- yeah. Well, no, just in good -- just so that -- entrusting someone that he knew to -- in case
something happened, that it would be in good hands.
Q. Okay. And --
A. My mom did the same thing when -- right before she passed, she took all her belongings and put --
put them in a safety deposit box at b of a, and told me where it was, and everything like that; so it
wasn't anything uncommon for me to understand.
Q. And I'm sorry. I know this is a sensitive subject. I'm sorry to ask about it.
A. It's all right.
Q. But your mom's possessions that were auctioned off, was that what was in the safety deposit box or
was that from a storage locker?
A. No, that was from a storage locker.
Q. And what happened there? Were the bills not paid for the storage locker, or was it like somebody
brought in an auction company like a christie's kind of thing to do a big public auction?
A. From what I -- I'm going to be careful, because I don't want to say something wrong, but from what

I -- my understanding is that a company sued our family for not performing a certain event, and they
put a lien on the storage unit, and that storage unit got tied up. And unfortunately, we became the
victims of that.
Q. Okay. I think I understand that. And is that why your uncle wanted to put the storage property in the
storage lockers in your name; so that if something happened to him with like a lawsuit or financial
damages, that wouldn't be anything that people could seize and take away from your family?
A. No; I think it was because the stuff in the storage was more keepsakes, like his kids' stuff, like
sentimental stuff. So I think he knew that we had lost it, and that -- I don't think he wanted his kids to --
to have that same thing where they would lose --
Q. Right. So the storage facilities that you were working with, the ones in Las Vegas -- did you go into
the one in Buellton, as well?
A. I did once, yes.
Q. Okay. So how big were those storage facilities?
A. The ones in Vegas, there were -- they were -- I wouldn't say standard size, but they were -- one of
them could house a car. They were pretty big, but they weren't humongous -- they weren't airport
hangers.
Q. Compared to the size of this courtroom, were they smaller?
A. I would say half the size.
Q. So the two of them together might be the size of this room?
A. Exactly, for Vegas. The Buellton was humongous. It was probably four of these, if not more.
Judge: Just for the record, our courtroom is 30 feet by 37 feet.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: I happen to have it here.
Mr. Panish: You have a sheet that says that?
Ms. Cahan: I'm sure the Fire Marshall knows that, too.
Judge: Yes.
Q. So I'm assuming that there were some things other than family keepsakes, at least in the -- the space
in Buellton, just given the size, right? Or -- was it pretty full or pretty empty?
A. It was full. It was mainly Neverland stuff there.
Q. And what kind of Neverland stuff? Like furniture and art and stuff?

A. Some furniture, some art, some video games or arcade games, from my recollection. Because I was
only there once, but that's what I remember, that when I stepped in there, I was like, "Oh, this is where
all the stuff from Neverland is at."
Q. Did Michael pay you to take care of his storage facilities?
A. He -- at first he didn't want to pay me, and what ended up happening is that -- I shouldn't say guilt-
tripped me into paying -- but -- because I wanted to repay him for everything he had done for me. But
he said he would stop asking me to do it if I didn't accept it, so --
Q. I either misheard you or you might have misspoken. You didn't want him to pay you at first, right?
A. Yes.
Q. He wanted to pay you, but you didn't want to take money --
A. Exactly.
Q. Okay. Got it. I may have misheard you.
A. He said -- what kind of was the tipping point is he said, "Everyone else is making money off of me,
and I want to take care of my family, so --" and that was the -- that was the tipping point for me to say
--
Q. And you said one of the reasons that Michael had you do this is because you were one of the few
people that he could trust?
A. Yes.
Q. He also had you do other work and errands for him that were personal in nature, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So, for example, one time he had you fly from California to Las Vegas just to make sure his house
in Las Vegas was locked up?
A. Was locked up, yeah. I know it seems -- yeah.
Q. I take it he wasn't in Las Vegas at the time?
A. No, and --
Q. Did he tell you why you had to fly -- like why there wasn't somebody in Las Vegas who could
check it?
A. Because he -- he told me, "Because you're one of the few people I trust." And I understood it
because if he would have told someone else, they could have walked off with something and he would
have never known what it was.

Q. So you went out -- you went out there and locked up the house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
A. And I didn't get paid for that trip.
Q. Did he at least pay for your plane ticket?
A. Yeah, the plane -- it was Southwest, so it was -- we all know Southwest. So it was a cheaper ticket.
Q. Not a big expense?
A. Yeah, not a big expense.
Q. Getting back to the Neverland storage locker, is the furniture and property that was in there -- is that
stuff that used to be in Neverland and got moved out of Neverland?
A. I'm assuming. Because I was only there once, I don't really know. I know that he wanted that stuff
into my name, but I don't know where -- I know I had seen that stuff originally at Neverland, most of it,
so I'm assuming that's what --
Q. Yeah. I mean, maybe I can establish the time frame a little better. You talked on your first day of
testimony about visiting Neverland when you were growing up.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. When Michael was living there?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And he had developed it as, in part, a place where sick kids could come?
A. Yes.
Q. And -- but that at some point, he stopped living at Neverland?
A. Yes.
Q. Around 2005?
A. I think so, yeah.
Q. Okay. And at the time that he stopped living in Neverland, did he shut up the house? Did he ever
intend to go back there?
A. I don't know if he intended to go back there. I don't think he did. It -- it just wasn't the same. It was

-- it felt violated, in a way, like the purity of it. And I understood it. It didn't -- it didn't feel the same.
Q. Do you know whether he set up the storage facility in Buellton after he left Neverland or at the time
he was living -- leaving Neverland?
A. I don't know. Sorry.
Q. That's fine. But it's your understanding that Michael's intention was to transfer ownership of all the
property in that storage locker as well as the ones in Las Vegas to you? He, in fact, had transferred the
ownership of the Las Vegas ones to you?
A. The -- only one of them -- actually, the other one was in the process of going through when he
passed, and they put a halt to it, and so I wasn't able to -- to access that storage.
Q. So at some point after your uncle passed away in -- in June of 2009, you went to his Carolwood
house for the first time, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're not exactly sure when that was?
A. No. Sorry.
Q. Was it within a few days or a week or two after he had passed away? Or are you not able to
estimate?
A. I -- yeah, I don't -- I still don't know when it was.
Q. And that was the only time you went to the Carolwood house, right?
A. To the Carolwood, yes.
Q. That visit? And I think you said earlier today that you picked up a box of documents there.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I want to ask you a little bit about that visit and the documents that you --
A. Okay.
Q. When you arrived at the Carolwood property, who was there?
A. Going off my memory, my Aunt Rebbie was there, one of her daughters was there. I'm not sure
which one it was. My Aunt Janet was there. My grandma was there. I think Trent was there. I'm not
sure if he was or not, but -- one of my brothers was there. I -- I know I sound like I don't know, but I
don't. It's -- it's a time I would rather forget, so --
Q. Sure.

A. But one of them were there, as well.

Q. Was your Aunt La Toya there?
A. I'm not sure if she was there.
Q. She could have been?
A. She could have been, but I don't -- I don't remember her there.
Q. So when you first came into the house, you saw the foyer and the open rooms on the first floor,
right? Sort of an open floor plan?
A. Is that how you get into that? Yeah, when you first walk in, is that -- yeah, when you first walk in, if
that's the foyer, then yeah, yeah.
Q. There's some like living room spaces, the kitchen, the dining area on the first floor, right?
A. Okay. Yeah.
Q. And how did it look generally to you? Was it neat? Was it messy?
A. The first floor? I don't remember -- it seemed okay. I don't remember the first floor, how it looked,
but it didn't seem out of the ordinary.
Q. Do you remember being asked about how it looked at your deposition? Do you think it would help
you to look at your deposition testimony to refresh your recollection on that?
A. It could, yeah.
Q. Pam, could you put up on counsel and the witness's screen page 83. And I'll draw your attention to
lines 12 to 15. And that's of the deposition.
A. Okay. Uh-huh.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether the downstairs area looked normal, not messy?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you then go up to the second floor, the top floor?
A. Yes.
Q. And what rooms on the second floor did you go into?
A. I just went to the -- to his bedroom.
Q. To Michael's bedroom?

A. Yes. Sorry.
Q. That's okay. Pam, could you please pull up the diagram of the second floor of the house? And just
for the record, this is exhibit 462, dash, 10305. Just zoom in on the picture part. So you went into the --
the rooms on the left-hand side of that picture, right?
A. Exactly.
Q. Where it says master bedroom, master closet one, master closet two, and master bath?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. So you came up the stairs, you turned left?
A. Yes, exactly.
Q. Okay. And the parts of the second floor that you saw Michael's bedroom and his closet area, they
were very messy, right?
A. Yeah, but no messier than I had seen before from him or myself. But they were messy, yeah.
Q. Um --
A. I mean, someone else's standard, yeah, they probably were messy.
Q. Did he tend to be messy in his personal spaces?
A. I got some -- I under -- I'm defending him, but I understand it when you travel a lot, or whatever,
you're living like through luggages and stuff like that, things go all over the place, so --
Q. So there were clothes all over the place?
A. Yeah. It looks like my place now, basically.
Q. I'm sure your new wife is delighted about that.
A. She loves it. She's very happy about it.
Q. There's DVD's, clothes?
A. Yeah.
Q. Writing on the bathroom mirror?
A. Yes --
Q. A note, maybe notes, stuff on the bathroom mirror?
A. Yeah, notes, yeah.

Q. And were those some of those inspirational notes that you talked about earlier today? I think we
looked at a picture.
A. Yeah. I'm just not sure if the notes were there when I was there or not in terms of --
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah. But there was a note, yeah.
Q. So you were given a box of documents that day at Carolwood?
A. Yes.
Q. Somebody handed you a box?
A. Yes.
Q. How big?
A. It's about this big.
Q. So maybe -- oh, this is awful for me. 2 feet by --
A. And this wide. That wide.
Q. So maybe 2 feet by a foot by another foot?
A. Or by 2 feet, yeah.
Q. Okay. Let me see if I can show you -- like this kind of a box?
A. Close, yeah.
Q. Okay. So about the size of what we lawyers call a banker's box?
A. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
Q. Okay. That's good, because that means I don't have to estimate how big that is because that would
just be a disaster?
A. Yeah, that's close.
Q. Did it have a lid?
A. Yeah, it was a cardboard box.
Q. Who gave you the box?

A. That, I don't remember that aspect of it in terms of who did. I think in my depo I said the same
thing. I thought -- I thought it was trent, but then I didn't want to say that because I didn't want to be
wrong.
Q. And do you remember whether anyone was with you when you were handed the box?
A. In terms of family members? Is that what --
Q. Yeah, like -- I'm just trying to get the context of somebody gave you a box.
A. I'm sorry. There was family around, yeah.
Q. Okay. Do you remember anything that was said of, you know, what was in the box, or why you
were being given the box?
A. Well, I think the idea of us going there was to preserve his stuff, and make sure that, you know, it --
it was a different situation because unfortunately, if things ended up missing, it's something that
someone can sell on e-Bay for hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it's not a normal case of, you know,
leaving things just for other people to -- to go through.
Q. So was it your understanding that your family was there that day to help sort of gather up Michael's
personal things and take them for safekeeping?
A. Yes, that was my understanding.
Q. And so at some point during that visit, somebody handed you a box?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember anything that was said to you about why -- what was in the box, or --
A. Well, even though the box was a cardboard box, and it had a cover on it, you could kind of see that
it was a document and that it had his writing on it; so I knew that it was something, you know, of his.
Q. So you didn't go around his house collecting things he had written, gathering them up and then put
them in the box, somebody just gave you a box with the stuff already in it?
A. I think there was a couple of things that I might have thrown in the box afterwards, because not
everything was collected, but I would say a good 95 percent of the stuff was already in the box.
Q. Okay. And you don't know how whoever put stuff in the box decided what was going to go in the
box and what wasn't going to go into the box?
A. No.
Q. Did you take every piece of paper with your uncle's handwriting you found in the house that day
and put it in -- make sure it was in the box before you left?
A. Not only his handwriting, just any piece of -- it was, you know, whatever was -- I guess -- are you

asking what was in the box, or --

Q. I know there were documents in the box.
A. Okay. Okay.
Q. Right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And when you were given the box, there was some documents in it?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you said you found some additional documents and threw them in before you left for the
day?
A. By documents,
you mean papers, too, like just -- they could be inspirational notes or anything like that?
Q. Yes, pieces of paper.
A. Yes. Okay.
Q. With your uncle's writing on them?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go around the house and look for every single piece of paper that had your uncle's writing
on it and take it and put it in the box before you left for the day?
A. No. I only stayed in his master
Bedroom. I don't have the diagram anymore, but the closet and the bathroom.
Q. So you don't know whether there were other things Michael had written that were in the house that
didn't make their way into the box either through you or somebody else?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. And, in fact, you saw some other pieces of paper with Michael's handwriting on them at the house
that you didn't put into the box and take with you, right?
A. I saw everything -- the box was in the master bedroom, was given to me in the master bedroom, so I
assumed everything in the box was from that area.
Q. But you didn't do a check through the house to make sure you'd gotten --
A. No.

Q. -- all the documents?

A. No. I only went to the master bedroom in that section over there.
Q. And you don't remember anything anybody said to you about what the documents were? I mean,
you could look at them and see some were Michael's handwriting; but beyond that, you didn't have any
explanation of --
A. No. That was enough. It was traumatizing as it was to be in that room, so --
Q. Yes.
A. -- I wanted to get out of there quickly.
Q. I can understand that. Did the person who gave you this box of documents tell you what to do with
it?
A. I -- I think it was known that I was taking care of my uncle's stuff from the --
Q. I'm sorry. I didn't --
A. I think it was known that I was taking care of my uncle's storage throughout the family, so I think
that they just gave -- I didn't question it because I think they just thought, okay, he's taking care of the
stuff, so here's --
Q. Were there other things of Michael's that were taken out of the house that day that went to other
people, not to you?
A. I'm not sure. I only know what I took.
Q. And you just took a box of documents and a bathrobe, right?
A. Yeah, the ed hardy bathrobe, yes.
Q. Okay. And generally speaking, whether it was that visit or otherwise, did people give you other
things of Michael's for safekeeping after he passed away?
A. For safekeeping? I received a computer later on, but --
Q. Okay. We'll talk about that.
A. Okay.
Q. Anything else that -- he had -- he had a lot of stuff, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you inventory all of his stuff and catalog it and put it in a storage space somewhere, or did you
just get this box of documents?

A. It was mainly the box of documents. Yeah, I didn't -- because I know that I didn't know what was,
you know, police investigation or anything like that.
Q. Do you remember anybody telling you not to destroy any of the documents in the box or give them
to the -- anybody who might ask for them? Did they tell you to lock them up? Do you remember any
instructions that you got about what to do with the documents?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone -- do you remember anyone telling you that these documents and the rest of Michael's
things were the property of his estate and shouldn't be taken out of his house without permission?
A. No.
Q. And so you got the box; and then shortly after you got the box, you left the Carolwood property?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took the box to your house?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went -- did you go through some of the documents that were in the box when you got
home?
A. I skimmed some of the documents, yes.
Q. Did you look at all of the documents in the box at that point?
A. No, I --
Q. And this was in the summer of 2009, shortly after your uncle passed away?
A. Yeah, could have been.
Q. And at some point, you turned over the box of documents to your lawyer, Sandra Ribera, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And she's one of the lawyers who is also representing the Plaintiffs in this case, right?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you turn over the box of documents to Ms. Ribera?
A. When did this trial start?
Q. The trial?

A. Yeah.
Judge: April. I hate to remind everybody of that fact.
Ms. Cahan: I'm sure all the jurors know. Jury selection began in early april.
Q. Do you remember if it was before or after the trial started?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. But sometime this year?
A. Sometime this year, because I was in the middle of moving and also planning the wedding, so it
was kind of like a chaotic time for me.
Q. So do you know when this lawsuit was first filed by Plaintiffs? Do you remember when you first
heard about this lawsuit?
A. No.
Q. So I'll represent to you that the lawsuit was filed in 2010.
A. Okay.
Q. Did anybody ask you whether you had -- still had that box of documents between 2010 and the time
that you gave it to Ms. Ribera in 2013?
A. Not that I -- not that I remember.
Q. But there were family members around when you got the box of documents at the Carolwood
house, right?
A. From my memory, yes.
Q. But you don't remember anybody asking you about the box or mentioning the box between that
time and sometime this year, earlier this year?
A. No. I don't even know if they remembered that I had the box.
Q. Did you remember you had the box?
A. Yes. It's -- yeah, I protected that box with my life, yeah.
Q. Did you keep it in your house the whole time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you let anybody else have access to it?

A. Have access?
Q. Yeah. I mean, did you like --
A. Did I show anyone else?
Q. Yeah, or did anybody -- was it in like a secure part of your house?
A. Yes. It was in my upstairs -- well, my bedroom upstairs, up in the shelf of my closet, yes, hidden.
Q. And you didn't put anything new in the box or take anything out?
A. No.
Q. And when you gave the box to Ms. Ribera, you gave her the whole box with everything in it?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was everything that had been in the box as of the time you left the Carolwood house in
2009?
A. Yes.
Q. So let's talk about the computers.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, at some point in time, you were given some computers that were taken from the Carolwood
house after your uncle passed away?
A. Yes.
Q. Two computers?
A. It ended up being two computers, yes. I know my deposition, I said one originally, and then two.
Because one was music and one was not music.
Q. Okay. So let's -- I'm just trying to keep it clear.
A. Okay.
Q. So there was a computer that you called a music computer?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Right?
A. That had music on it, yes.

Q. And there was another one that was a computer that Michael's security staff -- that you believe
Michael's security staff used?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So I'm going to call that one the security computer and the other one the music computer.
A. Sure.
Q. You got those computers -- you didn't take them from the Carolwood house, right?
A. No.
Q. You got them from a man named Jeffre Phillips?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is Jeffre Phillips?
A. He is a business partner of my aunt La toya.
Q. So he somehow got two computers from the Carolwood house?
A. I assume so, yeah.
Q. Presumably?
A. Yeah, presumably. He had the computers on him, yeah.
Q. You don't know how?
A. No.
Q. Or why he had them --
A. No.
Q. -- who gave them to him, or if he took them, you just know at some point he had two computers
that were represented to you as coming from the Carolwood house?
A. Yes.
Q. A music computer and a security computer?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you when Mr. Phillips gave you those computers?

A. I was at Hayvenhurst.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. That I was at Hayvenhurst when I got the computers? That's what my best recollection --
Q. Okay. Were you living at Hayvenhurst at the time? I know you lived there at some point in your
life.
A. I don't remember. I don't remember if I was living there at the time. I know that when the -- when
everything happened, that we were always there with our cousins, so -- we were there pretty much
every day.
Q. So how did it come about that you took possession of these two computers from Mr. Phillips, Mr.
Jeffre Phillips?
A. He handed them to me. Is that what you mean?
Q. Okay. Are they laptop computers or desktop computer?
A. They're -- no, they're mac towers, so they're big computers.
Q. Are they the kind where the computer part -- this is going to be embarrassing -- the computer part is
separate from the monitor and the screen and the keyboard?
A. Yes. They're about that big, yeah.
Q. So did you get all the stuff that comes with it, the keyboard and the screen and everything, or just
the computer unit?
A. I -- I'm not sure if I got the screen or not; but I know I got the actual unit of the computer itself.
Q. So did he like take them out of his car and give them to you?
A. That's what I remember, yes.
Q. And he just said, "Here are two computers," or was there some additional discussion?
A. It was known that -- I didn't question it because it was known that I -- that the estate was looking
for music for Michael's album -- for Michael's new album. And I'm assuming Jeffre knew that I, you
know, was helping the Estate out in that aspect of it, so --
Q. So were you working with the Estate to help them keep track of music?
A. I still work -- I still work with the Estate, yes.
Q. Okay. So did he tell you like, "Here are some computers from Michael's house that might have
music on them"? Was there -- I'm just trying to understand how you got an understanding about what
these computers were, where they came from and why he was giving them to you.

A. I turned one of them on, and it had music files on it that I recognized as music files on the desktop,
and that's how I knew that was the music one. And I turned the other one on, and it had a log-in that
you -- and that was Mr. Michael Amir's name on it. And it had a password thing that you had to type in
the password, and I didn't know the password, and so I wasn't able to access that one.
Q. Did Jeffre tell you that the computers were Michael's, or that they'd come from Carolwood? Or he
just said, "here are some computers. Check them out"?
A. I don't know. I didn't -- I don't think I asked him, because the Estate was looking for hard drives.
They were looking for four hard drives. So when I was handed the computers, I assumed that's what
they meant by -- because then there was a discussion on pro tools cards and pro tools drives, is that
what they meant by -- I know it's geeky.
Q. You're going to lose me.
A. I know. I probably lost everyone. It's --
Q. Software?
A. Well, the things you can put into the computers itself are drives, as well; so I didn't know if that's
what they meant by the drives.
Q. So sometimes there are those -- they call them external hard drives sometimes that are like boxes
that have, usually, large storage capacity you can plug into a computer and you can access --
A. And sometimes they're internal, yes.
Q. But these were complete computer units, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Like push a button, turn it on?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And knowing that you turned one on and saw music files on it, does that help you remember
whether you got the screen and the mouse and the keyboard and everything, or do you, for example,
have Mac computers at home so you might have plugged it into your own monitor?
A. I'm known for being an Apple geek, so I definitely had that screen. I had the same computer at
home, so that's why I don't know for sure if I plugged it into my monitor or not.
Q. Okay. So you turned on the two computers. One, you saw music files on. What did you do with that
one?
A. That one, I handed over to the Estate, to the Executors.

Q. Okay. And time-periodwise, do you have any sense of when this happened?
A. It was soon after I got the computers. I'm not sure when it -- it was. I know that I signed something,
it was -- I gave it to howard weitzman and I signed a document. So that document would be able to tell
you what date it was exactly.
Q. But as you sit here today, you don't know 2009, 2010, 2011, you can't place it in time?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Phillips ever tell you that he was directed to give you the computers by your grandmother?
A. No.
Q. So if he had said that, it would surprise you?
A. Yeah.
Ms. Chang: Objection, your honor; lacks foundation. It's improper to comment --
Judge: Can we go to sidebar for a minute?
(Sidebar)
Judge: Okay. I guess I was trying to follow where you're trying to go with this. Are you setting it up
for something? I mean, I just -- it almost feels like you're conducting discovery here, like what
happened to the computers, what happened to the documents. Is there something --
Ms. Cahan: Well, he's been put forward as sort of the document/materials custodian for Plaintiffs, and
he testified at his deposition that he received two computers. And he's going to say -- I'm almost done
on this, but I just want to establish that security computer, he couldn't look at to determine what was on
it because there was a password. He put -- he brought it to Hayvenhurst and put it in Prince Jackson's
closet. And it's just chain of custody for what happened with the computers. And then I'll be moving on
to other issues.
Judge: Are you introducing the computer?
Mr. Boyle: No. I have no -- it sounds like just deposition to me. I don't know what's happening.
Judge: Okay. So they're not introducing the computer. Are they introducing documents from the
computer?
Ms. Chang: No.
Judge: Not introducing documents from the computer.
Mr. Putnam: And we can comment in closing there are no documents from any computer by Mr.
Jackson.

Mr. Boyle: Hold on. See, this is a discovery thing that I've been through with Ms. Cahan, and she
knows this, and we reached a stipulation on it. I don't know why they're doing this. There was one
computer we had. We searched it, produced all responsive documents from that computer in discovery.
I told her which documents those are, and that's -- I don't know why they're doing this right now. I
mean, maybe they're trying to set up and insinuate there's some magical computer that's missing, or
something; but I don't know why. We've been down this road in discovery.
Judge: Are you trying to introduce documents from that computer? In other words, they said they
turned over a few documents from the computer, and you're trying to show there's more?
Ms. Cahan: We may want to use some of the documents that they produced as coming from the
computer in the case, so I'm laying a foundation for them. On the security computer I want to establish
he wasn't able to get access to it, he put it in Prince's closet, and that's sort of the last he did with it. I'm
30 seconds from moving on to another area. I'm just trying to lay a foundation to the extent we get into
those documents later.
Judge: It sounds like they're not going to do that.
Mr. Panish: That's fine, if she has 30 seconds, that is no problem. But now this argument -- I'll just
raise it now. Mr. Putnam is now going to try to make some argument that there's some nefarious
purpose that documents were taken or gone, which I'm surprised that he would make that argument in
light of the dileo and the e-mail -- my understanding is there's an e-mail on that computer and it's a
whole issue on that whole computer that their client had. But okay.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, I don't want us to get sidetracked and have this turn into -- I think if you're
comfortable, I'm just going to establish security computer, he never got any documents off. I did chain
of custody for the other computer, there were some documents produced off of that, and then we're
moving on.
Ms. Chang: I think asking a witness who has no idea what Mr. Phillips said in a deposition, if he
would be surprised by that, is inappropriate, and --
Mr. Panish: It's also hearsay what Mr. Phillips said.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, we did that at length yesterday. Mr. Panish asked Mr. Ortega, "Would you
surprised if so and so said this and that?"
Mr. Panish: Those were employees of the Defendant that are non-hearsay statements or admissions
about a party. That's different than a third party that's not a --
Mr. Boyle: Jeffre Phillips.
Mr. Panish: -- not Gongaware or Randy Phillips.
Judge: I think the difference was those statements were already in the record. Saying, "Would you be
surprised," it's like asking, "Would you be surprised that this witness testified at trial that" Whatever. So
--

Ms. Cahan: He did testify, Jeffre Phillips did testify at deposition, he's on our witness list.
Judge: But it's not in evidence.
Ms. Cahan: We can call him and connect the dots, then.
Ms. Chang: It's a collateral issue.
Mr. Panish: That's like me trying to introduce statements and I was going to put the witness and they
objected. So they --
Ms. Stebbins: That's why she asked it hypothetically just like you did yesterday.
Mr. Panish: She didn't ask a hypothetical. She asked for a hearsay statement that she introduced which
-- and yesterday I asked of parties. Okay? Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware. They are parties to this
litigation. They have testified under oath. So this is different than what I had done yesterday. Now, we
didn't object to that specific statement; but, you know, we haven't objected yet to a single question.
Ms. Chang: This one, we did.
Mr. Putnam: Then why are we discussing it?
Mr. Panish: Because the court asked to have a sidebar.
Ms. Stebbins: -- don't call for hearsay, so I think we're all okay to move on.
Judge: Okay. Go ahead and finish. I guess I was just -- we spent a lot of time on it, I guess, and I was
trying to figure out what are you trying to establish with the computer and the documents and -- I mean,
if they were going to introduce it, was there something like --
Ms. Cahan: Chain of custody for the documents that came off of the music computer that were
produced, and then just to establish that nothing came off the security computer, and then we're moving
on.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Chang: Was my objection sustained or overruled or -- or are we just moving on?
Judge: I think we're just going to move on.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: You may continue.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Q. So we just talked about the music computer. The security computer, I think you said you turned it
on, there was a password, it referred to Michael Amir williams?

A. Yes.
Q. And he was Mr. Jackson's personal assistant in 2009?
A. Yes.
Q. And you -- were you able to obtain the password that gave you access to the security computer?
A. No. I -- I called him, and he gave me a password, and it didn't work, so --
Q. Did you tell the estate that you had received this additional computer?
A. That I had -- yes, that I couldn't get access to. I told someone that was looking for the music, yes.
Q. And they didn't want it because they didn't think it was a music computer, right?
A. Well, once Michael Amir said that there's no music on it, they didn't want it, yes.
Q. Okay. And at that point, you brought it to Hayvenhurst?
A. I don't know if I ever took that one to my house to get --
Q. I'm sorry.
To the Hayvenhurst house.
A. I got both computers at the Hayvenhurst house, but I'm not 100 percent sure I took that to my house
to give to the estate.
Q. Okay. So that computer stayed at the Hayvenhurst house?
A. Could have stayed -- yeah. I don't know if I took it home and then brought it back, or whatever; but
it could have stayed directly at Hayvenhurst.
Q. Got it. I think that was my confusion.
A. Okay.
Q. And that computer, the security computer, you put in the closet in Prince Jackson's bedroom?
A. I don't know if it was a closet. I left it in a room, though.
Q. In his room, in Prince's room?
A. He changed rooms, so that's why I don't know which room you're talking about. At one point he
was staying in La Toya's old room; and then at another point, he was staying at Michael's old room; so I
don't know which room you mean.
Q. So you left the computer, the security computer, at Hayvenhurst somewhere in the house?

A. Yes.
Q. And that was the last you had anything to do with that computer?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was around the same time as you turned over the music computer to the estate?
A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge, yes, and recollection.
Q. And those are the only two computers from Carolwood that you had any involvement with?
A. From Carolwood, yes.
Q. You talked a bit last time and today about your plans with Michael to make movies together.
A. Yes.
Q. He wanted to do that with you after This Is It was finished?
A. That's what he said, yes.
Q. The concerts?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have an understanding as to how many This Is It concerts he planned to do?
A. No, because I didn't talk to him about This Is It.
Q. But when This Is It ended, you were going to be film partners?
A. Yes. Well, we were always film partners; but, yeah, we were going to do films, yes.
Q. Okay. So when This Is It ended, his focus was going to be on films?
A. I think when This Is It ended, he would have shifted his primary -- yes, his primary focus to films,
yes, correct.
Q. And you would have worked together as a team to develop new films at that point?
A. Along with, probably, Prince and his kids, as well. I'm sure they probably would have been
involved.
Q. And you talked about a few of those film ideas earlier today, the Thriller 3D?
A. Yes.
Q. He asked you to study 3D technology to get ready for that one?

A. Just to study as much as possible 3D. I think he wanted to do all his new films in 3D, so he wanted
me to study that technology and know it inside and out.
Q. Did he talk to you about doing a Legs Diamond Smooth Criminal movie also?
A. I'm not sure because that sounds -- I don't know a lot about legs diamond, but the Smooth Criminal
kind of movie sounds a lot like the Chicago Seven that I -- but I don't know if it is.
Q. Okay.
A. Because I know that Chicago Seven was going to be gangster and in a Smooth Criminal vein, but I
don't know what -- because Chicago Seven never got anywhere past just the idea, concept.
Q. Okay. And you also mentioned earlier today the King Tut movie idea.
A. Yes.
Q. And the movie team was going to be you and Michael and maybe his kids were going to be
involved in that?
A. Yeah. I'm sure more powerful people would have been involved, too, besides us; but yeah.
Q. But the -- the plan was for you to co-direct films together, right? You and Michael?
A. Yes. I'm not sure if it would have been those films; but yes, king tut and stuff. Our plan was to co-
direct together.
Q. And he told you that after he finished the This Is It shows in London, you were going to do films
with him?
A. His last words to me were, "After this, we're doing film," so that's what I -- that was my
interpretation, yes.
Q. And that was when you saw him in May at your grandparents' 60th anniversary party?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And you and Michael had developed a master plan to become a one-two Jackson power combo in
film, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So one is Michael, and you're two there?
A. Yeah. A lower two, but yes.
Q. Did he ever tell you that he was going to partner with Kenny Ortega rather than you to make the
Thriller 3D and Chicago Seven films?

A. Oh, I'm sure I would have -- he would have partnered -- I know that at one point he was trying to
partner with peter Jackson for other stuff. I wasn't exclusive. I -- yeah. He was always about
collaboration and stuff like that. With Thriller 3D in Vegas he told me what he was doing, and that's
when he told me to study 3D. And I think I would have been brought on board for my 3D knowledge of
the project.
Q. And what was he doing in Vegas at that point with Thriller 3D?
A. He just showed -- he had a paper on it with -- I'm trying to remember if it had -- it was a mockup of
what it would look like nowadays in terms of the Thriller I brand. I didn't remember -- it didn't have
any -- it wasn't any moving pictures or anything like that.
Q. So he hadn't shot any film or anything like that?
A. Not to my knowledge, I don't --
Q. Let's talk a little bit about your experience, your personal experience, directing. I think the first time
you were here in June, you talked about co-directing a music video for 3T.
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the --
A. "Gotta Be You."
Q. Yes. And that was in 1996?
A. '95, '96, I think, yeah.
Q. Ballpark?
A. Somewhere in there.
Q. Okay. And that's the only music video you've directed that's been released, right?
A. That's been released out to TV, yes. I've done YouTube stuff, but yeah.
Q. And that reminds me. When was the last time that 3t put out an album?
A. 2003.
Q. Okay. Because I think you had said when you were here last time that Michael had initially asked
you in like the 2008 time frame to help him with his kids, but you were busy gearing up with 3T, right?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And was that for like a tour? Were you going to record some new material?

A. We were recording, at that point, new material.

Q. Okay. And that hasn't been released yet?
A. We dropped everything once Michael passed to be with his kids, so --
Q. And I did a little internet research --
A. All right.
Q. -- and found something about a series called Code Z, the zombie series.
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. What's that?
A. Code Z, it was -- because Thriller was kind of my inspiration in terms of why I wanted to be a
director. I remember seeing it when I was a kid in a movie theater, and that's when I kind of was like,
wow, this is -- you know, my uncle is larger than life. Because before that I'd seen him on TV, but this
was actually on a, you know, big screen TV -- big screen -- at a theater. And so I was like, wow, that's --
you know, that looks great. And that's kind of when -- that kind of sparked my interest for directing at
that point. And so "Code Z" was kind of our homage to my uncle, in a way. We did that soon after he
passed, we did the zombie kind of tribute to him.
Q. And that was -- you made what's called a concept teaser?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain for those of us who are not in the music -- the movie business what that is?
A. It's just a fake -- it's a fake trailer, like it's not -- it's not from a real project, it's just a fake trailer that
one day could be a real thing or not.
Q. Okay. And Code Z hasn't been made into a series or a movie since then?
A. Not yet.
Q. Did Michael tell you that he wanted to make movies with Mel Gibson?
A. Mel Gibson? No, I never heard that.
Q. Did he tell you about a movie he wanted to make called "Curious Bob"?
A. I had, in my dep- -- deposition, I saw paperwork on that, but I hadn't heard about "Curious Bob"
from anyone else.
Q. Okay. Did he talk to you about ideas for an aladdin 3D movie?
A. That, I had heard about from him, because -- but I also had heard about a sinbad thing, as well, so I

don't know which one was the one that I had heard of. But I had heard of something in that vein.
Q. And did he ever say anything to you about doing something -- a new project based on the
Moonwalker movie?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. And I think you talked about Moonwalker earlier today.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And you said it was successful at the box office?
A. Yes, that's what I -- from my knowledge, yes.
Q. Do you know whether it was actually ever released to movie theaters in the united states?
A. I think internationally it was.
Q. I'm talking about the United States.
A. Oh. I don't know. I don't think it was.
Q. And did your uncle ever talk to you about trying to get a movie deal with Sony that didn't go
through?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever talk to you about -- I think I may have asked you this already, so I apologize.
A. That's all right.
Q. Did he ever talk to you about the number of shows for This Is It?
A. No.
Q. Or what time -- like what month or year he thought he'd be done with This Is It?
A. No.
Q. You guys would start making movies?
A. No. I was planning on going out there, so --
Q. Going to London?
A. Yes.
Q. To see the shows?

A. Yes.
Q. We saw a couple of videos of 3T of songs that Michael had -- was either in the video and/or sung on
the song?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Was that during the time that you were on Michael's label?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have any understanding as to whether --
A. Sorry. I think you saw "Stuck On You," as well; and that wasn't on my uncle's label.
Q. Okay. Do you know when 3T went to Michael's label?
A. The year? I'm not sure. I know -- I know we got originally signed to epic; and then when my uncle
started his label, the head of label asked us to -- to go on M.J.J., and my uncle at first wasn't even for it
because he was worried if something happened to our career, we would blame him. So we had to
convince him that we wanted to be on his label.
Q. Was that because for his label he got a cut of profits of whatever the bands on his label made?
A. I'm not sure about what the deal was for his label.
Q. Okay. Did your working relationship change with him at all after you moved over onto his label?
A. I think it got -- I mean, we were in the ideal situation because our -- here was our mentor, and he
gave us kind of free rein to do our own music, and so I wouldn't say it changed.
Q. I think I'm getting close to done. I just want to ask you about a few other things.
A. Okay.
Q. And I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because I know it's a
Tough subject for you, but I wanted to talk a little bit about how Michael's kids did after he passed
away.
A. Okay.
Q. You spent a lot of time with his kids after Michael passed, right?
A. Yes, until this day, yes.
Q. And you've been there for them when they've needed you?
A. I would like to -- I would like to think so, yes.

Q. And so have their other relatives, the family's supported them?

A. We've been a unit, yes. I think they're closer to certain members than others.
Q. And you were asked a question last time you were here that you thought it was particularly hard for
Michael's children when he passed away because he was their only -- the only parent in their lives at
that time?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Has Debbie Rowe gotten back involved in the kids' lives recently?
A. From what I know, yes.
Q. Okay. And she's -- she's Prince and Paris's mother?
A. Biological mother, yes.
Q. Okay. And has she been providing support to the kids in developing a relationship with them?
A. I'm not 100 percent sure on their relationship. I know that she's started a relationship with Paris, and
that's -- that's as far as I know.
Q. And it's -- it's important to you to -- to support the kids in part because you had a close relationship
with your uncle?
A. Yes.
Q. You loved him?
A. Yes, and I --
Ms. Chang: Your honor, can we have a sidebar for a moment?
Judge: Okay.
(Sidebar)
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, we didn't want to make a big deal out of it, but there's a motion in limine on
the biology of the kids, who the mother is and all that, and they just directly violated that motion in
limine.
Ms. Stebbins: The motion in limine, your honor, was to the paternity of the kids and whether they
were Michael's children. All Ms. Cahan was asking is do they have a relationship with a parent figure
at this point. Debbie Rowe's relationship with the children is public knowledge. It's not in any way
intended to violate the motion in limine, which was were these kids biologically Mr. Jackson's, is how I
remember it. Certainly we have no intention of visiting that subject or challenging his -- his parenting
of them; and it was actually the witness who violated (sic) his biological -- who volunteered biological

mother. She was just asking is Ms. Rowe -- is Ms. Rowe their mother, and has she reconnected with
one of them.
Ms. Chang: Ms. Rowe is not their mother. It's only biological because it is biological. She had no
relationship, and she still has no relationship with Prince. Everyone knows that.
Mr. Panish: And so that question was sought to bring out that exact response that she asked. There's
no reason to bring up that question. It's not their mother. Whether she had a relationship with the
mother, now we're getting into the biological issues which the parentage isn't at issue, so why would
she ask a question that raises the biological status? That was improper, she should be admonished for
that, number 1. Number 2, now she's opened up why Ms. Rowe has gotten involved with Paris, and
where she's been with Paris.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, also, Ms. Rowe is legally not their mother. That's been adjudicated in a court
of law; and the question from Ms. Cahan was Ms. Rowe is their mother, right?
Ms. Cahan: Was I supposed to say biological mother?
Mr. Panish: You shouldn't ask the question, or you should come to sidebar before you do it and say it,
as the court has cautioned others.
Judge: Okay. So -- all right.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, may I defend myself? Because I've been accused of something improper.
Mr. Panish: You did it.
Ms. Chang: The relationship with Deborah Rowe and her daughter -- is this confidential, first of all?
Mr. Boyle: We don't need to talk about this.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, just to be clear, here, the motion in limine that was dealt with was about the
paternity of the children. I am not touching that with a 100 foot pole at any point in this trial. I don't
think it's relevant, I don't think the fact that whether she's a biological mother or is fulfilling a mother-
figure role in their lives is relevant, which is why I didn't ask about biological mother. But they opened
the door on direct by asking Mr. Taj Jackson a painful question about, "Was it worse when your mother
was murdered or is it worse for Michael's kids?" and he said, "I think it's worse for Michael's kids
because they only had one parent."
Ms. Chang: That's true.
Ms. Cahan: So that opens the door to the fact that the family -- and I've already moved on to a new
area. But the family has gathered together to support, there's extended family that's supporting, and Ms.
Rowe reconnected with at least Paris Jackson. I don't know about Prince Jackson.
Mr. Boyle: First of all, they're getting this from TMZ.
Ms. Cahan: I'm getting this from Ms. Rowe's statements to the media.

Mr. Boyle: TMZ.

Ms. Cahan: Can I finish a sentence?
Mr. Panish: If she says it opens a door, what you do is you come to -- opened the door of a motion,
you come to sidebar and say, "Your honor, I believe they've opened the door. I want to get into this
area." that's what you do in a trial when it has the potential to get into an issue that has already been
adjudicated.
Judge: I know. We've had this discussion before.
Mr. Panish: She's done it twice, and you've told everyone to do that, and she didn't do it.
Ms. Cahan: There's been no motion in limine about Debbie Rowe. If there was any motion in limine
about Debbie Rowe, I would adhere to it.
Judge: Why are we getting into this? She opened the door because she asked him if it was more
painful when -- that's pretty tangential to even get into that.
Mr. Panish: Right. It's ridiculous.
Judge: Mr. Panish, please.
Mr. Panish: It doesn't open it up. Please.
Ms. Chang: Calm down.
Ms. Cahan: On direct, your honor, he was asked about how the kids -- he said he spent a lot of time
with the kids after their father passed away, he was asked how were they doing, he was asked a lot of
questions about how they're doing. It was averted to Ms. Paris Jackson's recent problems. And I'm not
touching any of that out of respect to her. This is not a situation of me going outside the scope of direct.
He's been presented as a witness who has percipient knowledge of how the kids -- the relationship with
their father prior to his passing away, and since then, so I just wanted to ask a few questions. And I've
already moved on to a new subject about his relationship with Michael to establish the -- you know,
after Mr. Jackson passed away, the family was supportive, and people have stepped into --
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, they were just clearly trying to get into the parentage issue, which is the
subject of the M.I.L.
Ms. Cahan: No.
Mr. Boyle: Ms. Cahan specifically asked the mother, and then she pointed out as to Prince and Paris,
because she knows that there's a different parentage on Blanket -- so that's all she was doing, and this is
a tenuous thing. She should be admonished.
Ms. Stebbins: This is all public --
Mr. Panish: The mother issue, it's not the mother that they've known, so why would she ask that
question? There's no way it's connected but for the fact that they wanted to get improper stuff in front

of the jury. It should be admonished, it should be stricken, just like Ms. Seawright.
Ms. Chang: One minute. And, also, what am I supposed to do? Because the jury -- the jury now thinks
that everything is fine and dandy because they now have deborah Rowe. What's the problem? She's the
children's mother. She did say "children." And what am I supposed to do, say deborah Rowe really had
no relationship? It puts me in a very difficult position right now, and they should be instructed that that
should have no bearing on anything because her relationship is very complicated and legally, she is --
she gave up her parental rights.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, there's been testimony about Ms. Rowe. Ms. Rowe is on both parties'
witness list. Ms. Faye has testified about Ms. Rowe and Mr. Jackson being married and having Paris
and Prince as children.
Judge: Was there testimony about that?
Ms. Chang: No.
Ms. Stebbins: She testified about them being married at the time when Prince was born, and I -- your
honor, the motion in limine had nothing to do with Ms. Rowe.
Judge: I'm not finding you violated the motion in limine, but I do think the way it came out is pretty
tangential. I really don't see --
Mr. Panish: If she thinks something has been opened, she needs to come to the sidebar and bring it up.
Ms. Cahan: -- the entire cross with you?
Mr. Panish: You don't know what you're doing. That's what you did.
Judge: Mr. Panish. That is unnecessary. Unnecessary.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, you know and we all know when you're going to even get close --
Ms. Chang: Brian.
Mr. Panish: -- you come to the sidebar. You've said it twice now, and you've admonished me. And you
said, "Mr. Panish, if you ever think --" and all counsel, you said, if it's even potentially going to get
there, come to the sidebar.
Judge: I understand that. But I do not like the comments toward other counsel, so I'm admonishing
you now. Please.
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, it was; and you know. You've been in enough trials to know.
Ms. Chang: That's okay. All right.
Mr. Panish: Come on. That was totally improper.

Judge: This is what I'm going to say. Let's just drop that line of questioning. I'm not going to find you
violated a motion in limine, but I think you just should drop that line of questioning.
Mr. Putnam: We've already moved on.
Ms. Chang: Then I have to come back.
Mr. Panish: She got it out in front of the jury. That was the plan.
Ms. Chang: Give me a second. I have to come back somehow to counter this because now they think
the children have a biological mother.
Judge: How do you propose to do that?
Ms. Chang: I think they need an instruction.
Judge: Then you have to come up with something.
Ms. Chang: I have to do something. I can't just do it. They think all three children have a biological
mother right now. That's the dilemma I'm in.
Ms. Cahan: Everyone has a biological mother.
Mr. Boyle: That's hilarious.
Mr. Panish: That's funny, Ms. Cahan.
The clerk: Mr. Panish, I'm going to ask you to step outside.
Mr. Panish: That was an insensitive comment by counsel, your honor.
Judge: Now you're taking it personally. It has nothing to do with you.
Mr. Panish: But it shows counsel's attitude toward the matter of the biological issues, and for counsel
to make a statement that everyone has a biological mother in response to this issue is very insensitive
and improper in light of what this case is about, regarding the parentage and the prior motions that the
court has heard. And that is improper. For counsel to make a statement like that shows the lack of
concern and sensitivity of counsel to make that statement in response to this, which shows that they
were trying to get it out because it doesn't mean anything to them. It's no big deal, but it is a big deal
because there was a motion on that.
Judge: Mr. Panish, I would like to deal with how to fix this issue.
Mr. Panish: We didn't create this.
Judge: I'm not suggesting you did. Things happen. Let's see if we can deal with it. Taking snipes at the
other side doesn't help.
Mr. Panish: She just --

Ms. Chang: She's right.

Ms. Stebbins: I don't know that there's anything that needs to be fixed in the sense that the jury has
heard ample testimony that Mr. Jackson was for the most part a single father who raised the kids on his
own. The only thing I think Ms. Cahan was getting at is since the children's father's tragic passing, they
have had support and they have rebuilt some relationships, which does in some way affect their well
being now, which is part of the damages case. I think that's all she was doing there, and Ms. Rowe is
going to be a witness, so it may make sense to craft an instruction on her relationship to the children as
needed afterwards. But I certainly never understood the in limine in this case to preclude mention of
known public facts which are Ms. Rowe was married to Mr. Jackson at the time Prince and Paris were
born, she subsequently gave up custody of them and has only recently reestablished a relationship. That
doesn't have anything to do with the kids' biological parentage, whether Mr. Jackson was or was not
their real father, because everyone knows he was their real father in every way that matters. So we
never intended to open that door, we never intended to open that door, but I don't think that precludes
all mention of Ms. Rowe or the fact that she exists and was married to Mr. Jackson at the time before
his two children were born.
Judge: But that's not what came out.
Mr. Panish: It's not relevant to the issue of damages. Their whole argument for this is this is relevant
to the issue of damages. In a wrongful death case where you lose the parent, it's the loss of that parents
that is weighed. It has nothing to do whether you have another parent at all. That is not part of the
damages. It's fixed at the time of the death, and the loss of Mr. Jackson, not whether there's someone
else to come in. That's an improper argument, and that's not the measure of damages. It's the loss of that
specific parent. So that question and that line of questioning wasn't a proper area of inquiry to begin
with.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, the improper argument was made by Plaintiffs' counsel through their direct
examination where they said is there -- is it worse -- do you think it's worse that your mother was
murdered or that -- who suffered a worse loss, you when your mother was murdered or the Jackson
children when their father passed away, and he said it was worse because they only had one parent. And
so whether or not that's supposed to be the standard in a wrongful death action, they put in front of the
jury the idea that these kids were essentially orphaned and abandoned when their father passed away;
and to the extent that their extended family, including Ms. Rowe, have come in to be involved in their
lives and be supportive and a positive influence --
Judge: Just drop that line of questioning. The question I want to deal with now is what are we going to
do to --
Mr. Panish: I think you should instruct the jury that the questions about Ms. Rowe were improper and
it's not to be assessed.
Mr. Putnam: It's not improper.
Mr. Panish: Can I finish, please? Don't laugh at me. He's laughing at me. Okay? You think it's funny?
I'll wipe that --
Mr. Putnam: Are you threatening me?

Judge: Mr. Putnam, don't --

Mr. Panish: You threatened me, I'm not threatening you.
Mr. Boyle: The problem is Ms. Debbie Rowe is not the mother, so the instructions should be you
heard counsel say Debbie Rowe is the mother, Debbie Rowe is not the mother.
Judge: Well, the witness came out with that.
Mr. Panish: No. But she said their mother, Debbie Rowe.
Ms. Chang: The children's mother, Debbie Rowe.
Ms. Cahan: I said Prince and Paris.
Ms. Chang: But he has no relationship with her. He rejects her.
Mr. Boyle: She's not the legal mother. It's kind of a weird thing.
Ms. Stebbins: They do have some legal relationship in the sense of Ms. Rowe retains some rights in
terms of custody. But the point is if they want an instruction, I don't think it's necessary to give now.
Ms. Chang: I don't know what to do.
Ms. Stebbins: Perhaps it can be drafted down the line. Ms. Rowe is going to testify, I imagine, on the
fact of her parentage and the best thing to do is maybe bring up with her, "You gave up legal rights to
the children?"
Ms. Chang: I have to do something with this witness. Maybe if I just ask Ms. Rowe didn't have any
relationship with the children, to the best of his recollection, Ms. Rowe doesn't have a relationship with
the children now.
Mr. Panish: And you'll be instructed on the issue of damages by the court in this case that it isn't
relevant. And now they're going to say you gave up legal right. What are we getting into?
Ms. Stebbins: Ms. Chang's question seems fine.
Judge: I'm going with Ms. Chang right now.
Ms. Chang: We're even at a debate ourselves because is it so dangerous we don't want deborah Rowe
in the picture? I think the damage is how do you get the horse back in the barn? And I'm left with the
situation of, oh, they're fine. They've traveled so much. Blanket was seven. They had been traveling in
the middle east for at least three years, and he didn't know his aunts or uncles or cousins, and so it was
worse, and they had absolutely no relationship with their biological mother. So everything that he said
was true; and now we have this situation where the jury is given the false impression that these kids
have a biological mother, and that she's reconnected with them. Totally untrue. Prince has not seen and
will not see her.

Ms. Stebbins: The witness said that. He said the relationship as far as he knew was only as to Paris,
and he didn't understand its depth or quality. So I don't think there's damage done.
Mr. Putnam: By the way, if there's damage done, it was in response to a very specific question that
was given on direct, your honor.
Judge: I think you should do some redirect and somehow clean it up, although I don't know if it's
something -- it's probably something you should think about carefully.
Ms. Chang: Maybe I can draft an instruction that everyone could live with, or something, since we're
not in agreement in ours.
Mr. Panish: Why don't we take a break to talk about it.
Judge: All right. Take a break.
Mr. Boyle: Thank you, your honor.
Ms. Chang: Thank you, your honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Okay. We need to discuss some more things, and we are going to take a break for 15 minutes
while we discuss some things. You can step down.
(Recess)
(Sidebar)
Ms. Chang: Your honor, first of all, I think counsel have agreed to our request to keep the last sidebar
sealed.
Mr. Putnam: No, we didn't.
Ms. Chang: I thought you did. I'm sorry. We'd like to request it be sealed.
Mr. Panish: There's a reason why they did the whole thing.
Ms. Stebbins: No.
Mr. Putnam: No. But I think your actions on the record should be reflected.
Mr. Panish: Absolutely. You said that I threatened you --
Mr. Putnam: I think it should be public.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure there was anything legitimately confidential or sealable in that last sidebar.
I think everything

discussed has been published on the internet. I'm not sure what the grounds for sealing would be.
Judge: I'm going to deny the request to seal.
Mr. Panish: I don't threaten people, Mr. Putnam. That's not my style.
Ms. Chang: You know what? That's not helpful. Here's what I've come up with and raised with
counsel, to which they will not agree. But I believe it is an accurate rendition of the law. And it goes as
follows: "A question was raised regarding Prince and Paris's mother, and an answer was given to
that question. The status of deborah Rowe's relationship, if any, to the children is not an issue in
this wrongful death action involving the death of Michael Jackson, the children's father. You are not
to consider deborah Rowe or any relationship in assessing the damages of the children for the loss
of their father."
Judge: Which is something I was thinking about. Okay. And what is your --
Mr. Putnam: I don't think it's appropriate, your honor, that there be such a thing at the moment. I
think it makes it seem like something inappropriate was done. I think to agree would -- they opened
this, and there was a very direct question that was asked on direct, and we asked a question in response.
Judge: You're rearguing --
Mr. Putnam: So I'm not going to stipulate I think it's okay to give this.
Judge: What I want to know is what is your position on the last thing, "You are not to consider
deborah Rowe or any relationship in assessing the damages for the children for the loss of their
father."
Ms. Cahan: I think to the extent that there are jury instructions that come before deliberations begin at
the ordinary time, that will be -- the standard will be dealt with as appropriate. I do -- and I don't want
to reargue, but I do continue to believe that they created this idea that the loss is worse because he was
the only parent in their lives, and so that's my main concern with -- in addition to the fact that there is
no motion in limine that addresses Debbie Rowe's relationship with the children, and I don't think there
was anything improper about the question. The concern is that it leaves unrebutted this idea that their
loss was -- of their father was worse because they did not have a mother figure in their lives
Mr. Panish: Worse than what?
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, what you're asking is how do I feel about the last paragraph. Were I to agree
to this, I would agree to all but the last paragraph. If I were going to strike something, it would be the
last paragraph.
Judge: I'm looking for a reason. What is the reasoning -- what I'm trying to get at is Plaintiffs' counsel
says the loss is Michael Jackson's death. The loss is the death of their father, right? They lost their
father. What does the fact that they have this mother out there have to do with the loss they
experienced?
Ms. Stebbins: There's two issues, your honor. One is that giving a partial instruction on damages is

always a bit risky, particularly when they're going to be comprehensively instructed after, presumably
negotiation, potentially argument, to your honor at the end. But the issue -- the damages that any
Plaintiff in a wrongful death is entitled to is the loss of society, love, companionship, but also services
that would have been provided. To the extent that Plaintiffs have now opened the door to an argument
that the uniqueness of the relationship, because they had no other parent figure, was at issue, there may
be some relevance for Ms. Rowe's relationship to the children in that it rebuts the idea that their loss
was not only the loss of their father but the loss of their father and their mother and every person in
their lives.
Judge: Isn't the reality that she gave up her rights to the children and was paid for that?
Ms. Chang: Yes.
Judge: That's the reality, and so --
Ms. Stebbins: I think that that all could come in in the sense -- your honor, she did have some
relationship with them pre-death. There were occasional visits, I'm not sure what the extent was. I think
it was pretty limited, I agree with you there. Although they've put pictures up with her with the children
in court.
Ms. Chang: That was in a deposition, we didn't put it up in court.
Ms. Stebbins: Oh, I thought you had. I'm pretty sure, but I could be wrong. Your honor, I think the
issue is to the extent you feel the need to give the instruction, it's well enough covered by the first
paragraph, which just says what's at issue in this lawsuit is Mr. Jackson's relationship with his children.
I think adding instructions on damages at this point in the lawsuit is confusing, it could create
prejudice. I think if we're going to do that, we should also at a minimum point out that the original
question that Mr. Jackson -- that Mr. Jackson's death was worse than only having one parent murdered
is -- you know, is equally improper. They should be considering only Mr. Jackson's relationship with
the children, and the loss of his society, love, companionship and support. To the extent there's been an
attempt to argue that was far greater than otherwise because they have an additional psychic damage of
having only one parent, I think if we don't want to go down that road, we should make it clear that
nobody is going down that road.
Mr. Panish: We just went.
Mr. Putnam: We followed you.
Ms. Chang: I'm prejudiced in the sense that I find myself with my wrists just tied. I don't know how to
confront without making it worse, and I think the -- it was, as the court said, tangential at best, and just
bordering on the only response for that would be a breach of the motion in limine.
Judge: It was bordering on. It was just getting closer to that issue.
Ms. Stebbins: It was not intended to go to that issue.
Ms. Chang: I didn't say intended. I'm finishing up my argument.
Ms. Stebbins: Go ahead.

Ms. Chang: And so my argument is I find that this is the only fair way. I don't think that I misstated
the law in any aspect, and I think at this juncture, it remedies a situation where I really am at a loss at
what to do, and I think it's particularly unfair because without explaining the relationship, which is
prejudicial, without -- which is why we raised the motion in limine to begin with -- and what about
Blanket? You know, it's almost like -- it's just this overwhelming sense of -- it is a very difficult issue.
So I'm not casting stones, and I am just stating that I am the one that really is stymied, and I think an
instruction is appropriate. I don't think it misstates the law; and I think that given the tangential nature
of any rationale or reasoning for the question is -- this is the only fair remedy.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I would like to note for the record the actual question and answer are pretty
innocuous. The testimony is that in recent months, one member of the family has established new
contact with a birth parent. I don't think that's likely to cause any great, you know, distinction in how
the jury looks at the loss of Mr. Jackson. And I think that there's a little risk that in making a big deal of
it, we make more of a deal of it and make it more of a focus than it really probably is to the jury at this
point. And I'm worried that this sort of lengthy instruction includes stuff about what they're going to
consider on damages. I think that the initial instruction, if the court feels inclined to say don't consider
Ms. Rowe's relationship to the children, that's probably more than enough to correct what was the
actual question and answer given here, assuming the court believes a correction is needed, which, of
course, we dispute. But setting that aside for the moment, you know, I think a lengthy instruction on
what was actually a relatively innocuous question and answer which just says a 16-year-old girl has
some new ties with a parent that they didn't have ties with during her lifetime -- I don't think that's
necessary to have a full page including damages instructions.
Mr. Panish: You don't even know the full extent of it. You don't know the extent of it, and you brought
it up, so you don't even know what's occurred with Paris Jackson. That's a correct statement of 1450
caci and the death, and it says only to consider the death of the decedent and their damages on that.
Ms. Chang: I think it's a good sign that Mr. Putnam is studying it.
Mr. Panish: Just don't cross anything out.
Mr. Putnam: If I do, mine is in blue and yours is in black.
(Mr. Putnam, Ms. Stebbins and Ms. Cahan confer in undertone)
Judge: Are you adding more, Mr. Putnam?
Ms. Stebbins: An alternative last paragraph, assuming the court is inclined to give the instruction.
Judge: Okay. Let me see. It's an alternative third. Okay.
Mr. Putnam: For the last one, your honor.
Ms. Chang: I think that's fine, as long as --
Mr. Panish: Well, I would say it should say consider the loss of the relationship between Mr. Jackson
and his children.

Mr. Putnam: It's not just the loss, it's the relationship at all.
Mr. Panish: The relationship and the --
Ms. Chang: And any loss.
Mr. Panish: -- and any losses that occurred.
Mr. Putnam: I think it's sufficient as is because of that very idea.
Ms. Chang: I do think it's okay.
Mr. Panish: Okay. If you think so.
Judge: Okay. So -- in lieu of the -- let me type it up.
Mr. Putnam: It's this one instead of that one.
Judge: Let me type it up.
Mr. Putnam: For the sake of the record, again, if you're giving one, that's the idea; but I don't think
one should be given, I think it's prejudicial to do so.
Mr. Panish: And we object, so there you go.
(Four-minute recess taken)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jurors):
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Before we continue with the examination, I have a jury
instruction for you.
(reading) Ladies and gentlemen, a question was raised regarding Prince and Paris's mother, and an
answer was given to that question. The status of Debbie Rowe's relationship, if any, to the children,
is not an issue in this wrongful death action involving the death of Michael Jackson, the children's
father. You are only to consider the relationship between Mr. Jackson and his children when
assessing damages, if any.
Okay. You may continue.
Q. By Ms. Cahan: I realized during the break that I neglected to ask you when you were talking
about the time period from 2008 -- late 2008 through to the present, have you lived in the greater L.A.
area during that time?
A. L.A.?
Q. Yes, just in this area?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So when you were going to Vegas earlier in 2008, were you living in
Vegas, or were you still living in Los Angeles?
A. I was still living in Los Angeles.
Q. Okay. Just wanted to make sure I understood that.
A. Okay.
Q. You have a twitter account?
A. Yes.
Q. And what's your Twitter handle, I guess they call it?
A. tajjackson03 at -- no. That's my e-mail. Sorry. Don't want to give that. tajjackson3, right.
Q. That's what I have it as. And do you remember about when you first started using that Twitter
account?
A. I'm not sure. I know I was one of -- when Twitter first came out, I was one of the first people to start
using it.
Q. So for a few years?
A. Over -- yeah, over a few years, yeah. I don't know how long Twitter has been out, but I think --
yeah.
Q. Okay. And that's your account, and you type your tweets on there?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know who Grace Rwaramba is?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is she?
A. She was the children's nanny.
Q. What's your opinion of Ms. Rwaramba?
Ms. Chang: Objection; relevance, beyond the scope.
Judge: Sustained. You might want to be more specific.

Q. Do you have an opinion of Ms. Rwaramba's character?

Ms. Chang: Same objection.
Judge: Sustained.
The witness: Do I like Grace?
Ms. Cahan: Sorry. It was sustained, so --
The witness: Oh.
Judge: If you can be more specific, maybe. But just generically, no.
Q. Do you think she's a truthful person?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think she is dishonest at times?
Ms. Chang: Objection, your honor. It's beyond the scope, relevance, it's improper comment on the
credibility of other witnesses, and it's not relevant to any of the issues in this lawsuit.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer.
The witness: Can you repeat -- am I supposed to answer?
Judge: You may answer, yes.
Q. Do you think she is dishonest at times, is I think what my question was.
A. I haven't experienced her dishonesty, so I can't say.
Q. Okay. I'd like to show you a document to see if it refreshes your recollection, so we're not going to
put it up for the jury at this point.
Ms. Chang: Can I see it?
Ms. Cahan: Yes. It's -- Jessica, it doesn't have a number. Oh, it's taj3.
Ms. Stebbins: No?
Ms. Cahan: I have it. May I approach, your honor?
Judge: Yes, you may.
Ms. Chang: Can I see it first?
Ms. Cahan: You know what? This is not --

Mr. Panish: We can't see that now?

Ms. Cahan: I've got it. Hand one to the judge, please.
The witness: Sure.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you. I'd like to mark this for identification as exhibit 13463, your honor. Just for
identification at this point.
Q. Have you had a chance to review this?
Ms. Chang: Your honor, can we have a sidebar on this?
Ms. Cahan: I'm just trying to refresh his recollection at this point, your honor.
Mr. Panish: It's totally irrelevant, tangential, 352.
Ms. Chang: And I don't know who Twitlonger is.
Mr. Panish: It's getting into newspaper articles and tabloids.
Ms. Cahan: I'm not going to publish this to the jury, your honor, I'm just refreshing his recollection --
The witness: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: -- about a prior statement.
Ms. Chang: Okay. All right. Fine.
Judge: Okay. Read it to yourself. Does it help you remember whether Grace is dishonest at times?
The witness: That's not the same. That's Nancy Grace. That's not Grace --
Judge: Okay. So --
The witness: Martin Bashir and Nancy Grace.
Ms. Cahan: That refreshes your recollection you were talking about Nancy Grace?
Mr. Panish: I renew my objection, totally irrelevant.
Judge: It wasn't helpful.
Ms. Cahan: I don't have anything further at this time.
Judge: All right. Redirect?

Redirect examination by Deborah Chang:

Q. Mr. Jackson, you've been so patient. I just have very few questions. Sir, when you went on various
tours that your uncle was at ranging from ages 7 to 24, you certainly didn't stay for the entire tours,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And what did your uncle tell you about when you were going to start the film projects?
A. Do you mean what -- what did he say? He said -- he said --
Q. Did he say after the This Is It tour --
A. He said, "After this, we're doing films," yes.
Q. Okay. And he didn't limit it and say London, did he?
A. No.
Q. And did you ever hear the children talk about going to other places in London?
A. Later on, yes.
Q. All right. And my final important question is, when you got to Las Vegas, was the house locked?
A. Actually -- do I have to answer that?
Ms. Chang: No, you don't have to answer it. Thank you very much.
Judge: Rhetorical question.
Mr. Panish: I would like to know the answer.
Judge: Is that it, Ms. Chang?
Ms. Chang: That is it.
Judge: Okay. Recross?
Ms. Cahan: Very briefly, your honor.
Recross examination by Kathryn Cahan:
Q. So Ms. Chang just asked you about your discussion with your Uncle Michael about when you were
going to do films.
A. Yes.

Q. And that conversation was -- you had with him face to face?
A. Yes.
Q. In May 2009 at your grandparents' 60th anniversary party?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the one conversation you remember having with him in 2009 other than the one you
told us about about an auction?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you don't remember anything more about any conversations that you might have had
with Mr. Jackson in that time period when he was living in Los Angeles in 2009?
A. Besides the whole Bel Air -- I don't know when Bel Air was. If it was 2008, then yeah.
Q. And you said you saw him a couple of times in 2008 at the Bel Air Hotel.
A. Yeah. Okay.
Q. I just want to make sure that we're not missing any contact that you had with him in 2009.
A. Okay.
Ms. Cahan: Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. I would ask that the witness be excused -- I don't want
to call him back, but subject to recall in case there's anything else we need to do in terms of the
documents that he's in charge of.
Mr. Panish: There's no basis for that, to make him subject to recall.
Judge: Maybe. Do you have him on the witness list?
Ms. Cahan: Yes.
Mr. Panish: No.
Judge: Do you have his contact information?
Ms. Cahan: I assume we can contact him through his lawyer, Ms. Ribera.
Judge: Does somebody have his contact information?
Ms. Chang: Yes.
Judge: Okay. You may be recalled. I don't know. But we'll see. Thank you. You're excused for now.

Judge: Thank you. All right. We do have another witness, so let's get started.
Ms. Strong: We have some issues with respect to this witness, and I think probably -- it's going to be
more than ten minutes, your honor.
Judge: I've done an extensive workup on motions in limine on almost all of these expert witnesses. Is
there some reason why -- are there new issues? Because --
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Strong: Yes, there are, your honor; and you did not rule on one of the motions that's relevant to
this witness. You have deferred ruling.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, you made an extensive written ruling on all these arguments that Ms. Strong
spent hours on arguing to exclude.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, I think -- should we discuss --
Judge: I didn't make a ruling on this particular one?
Ms. Strong: There is one ruling that you deferred ruling on, your honor.
Mr. Panish: You've ruled on --
Judge: Hold on. One motion or one issue on that witness?
Mr. Putnam: One entire motion, motion in limine number 6, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I have the ruling.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, motion in limine number 6 was deferred until you heard the motions in limine
on Mr. Erk and Mr. Formuzis. In your orders for those two motions, you covered all the issues raised in
motion in limine number 6, so this has been totally decided.
Ms. Strong: It's not been decided, your honor. To preserve the record, we would like to raise it.
There's a few more things I would like to say about that, your honor, but -- there's significant issues that
are --
Judge: There's always significant issues to lawyers.
Mr. Panish: He's been sitting in the hall all day.
Judge: Is there some reason why we can't get started with it? If you have an objection, you can stand
up and object. But maybe some of this stuff is not going to be objectionable.
Ms. Strong: Okay. You anticipate going ten minutes, and then we can argue -- excuse the jury and
argue at that point?
Judge: Possibly until 4:15. Let's get started.

Ms. Strong: Okay.

Arthur L. Erk
(Entertainment Industry Certified Public Accountant)
Plaintiffs' Expert Witness.
Judge: Thank you. You may begin.
Direct examination by Brian Panish:
Q. Good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon, Mr. Panish.
Q. You have a little bit of an accent. Where are you from?
A. I don't consider that I have an accent. I'm -- I'm sorry. I'm from New York.
Q. All right. Don't talk fast.
A. Okay.
Q. What is your present occupation?
A. I'm a CPA
Q. And by whom are you employed?
A. Citrin Cooperman.
Q. And can you tell us a little bit about Citrin Cooperman?
A. Citrin Cooperman is a -- a regional accounting firm in the northeast. It's a $130 million firm. I'm a
partner in the firm, and we have about 100 partners, and we have approximately 400 staff.
Q. What does your firm do?
A. We're in a wide range of industries. I personally am in the entertainment industry. I do royalty
audits, business management, family planning. We have a very large department in that. We also have

partners that specialize in film, television and media, all part of this entertainment group. And I also
have a partner that's strictly business management and does a lot of touring, and we handle the finances
for entertainers. Now, the rest of the firm, they have a large real estate practice, they also handle a lot of
what you -- you would sometimes know affectionately here in the media as hedge fund trading. So we
do their companies, all their tax work and whatever planning we need to do for them. We have a large
practice in the restaurants industry. We also handle a lot in the franchising industry. Subway is --
internationally is a client of the firm. We have a -- we do healthcare, we do nonprofit, we do estate
planning. So we basically cover probably a broad range of any of the services that are out there. I'm
sure there's a few that we don't get into, but the firm tries to cover all the bases.
Q. How about music?
A. Music happens to be my particular specialty, and the firm actually started -- miles citrin and joel
cooperman were working for another accounting firm, and two of their clients were the who and yes.
And they had said to Citrin and Cooperman, "We only want you guys to work on our account." And
they said, "Well, we work for this company. They tell us who we do the work for." So they said, "well
why don't you start your own company?" So they're young guys at the time, it's 1979, and so the who
actually were the ones that said to them, "We'll lend you $50,000 to start your own firm," and that's
exactly how citrin cooperman started.
Q. How about sports?
A. We handle about -- several athletes, maybe about ten athletes. They run in the baseball and football
primarily, professional athletes.
Q. Can you tell us, sir, what is your educational background?
A. I went to hofstra university out in long island, and I graduated in 1974 with a Bachelor of Business
Administration.
Q. Did you have an emphasis?
A. My emphasis was in Accounting. I got the required number of credits to sit for the exam.
Q. And Long Island, is that New York?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. When you graduated, did you obtain any other certificates in your area of specialty?
A. I became a CPA. I took the exam in 1978, I passed and was certified.
Q. What does it mean to be a CPA? What's involved?
A. What it means is in those particular days before I got into the entertainment industry, I was
permitted to conduct audits of public companies, and I was allowed to express opinions. Usually when
you see a company issues their financial reports, a CPA is signing the report at the end. So when I
became licensed and certified in New York state, I had the ability to do that. Quite frankly, the
companies that I worked for appreciate that I became a CPA.

Q. And to be a CPA, you've got to take a test?

A. There are four grueling parts that you have to take, and it took me four years to pass the exam. But I
passed the exam and didn't have to take it anymore.
Q. Have you ever written any published articles?
A. Only one time, and it was -- it was last year. I wrote an article for the new jersey journal of
accountancy concerning the merits of why you should consider doing royalty audits or licensing audits.
Q. What's a royalty?
A. A royalty is an amount of money. If you take records -- for example, in the music industry, a
contract is usually signed before the artist's record gets released; and in that contract are various clauses
that stipulate how the artist is to be paid. And it's usually a function of a percentage that's agreed upon,
upon contracted price. In the old days, it was on the retail price, and they would deduct, let's say, 10
percent. In the vinyl disk days, they would deduct 10 percent packaging deduction, and you'd arrive at
this illustrious term called royalty base price. And they would apply the percentage to this base prices
and that would be the dollar amount or pennies that the artist would get per record.
Q. Can you give us an overview of kind of the work you've done in your career? And when I say that,
what type of services have you provided to clients?
A. My career started with a firm that was called haskins and sells. It's now called deloitte and touche. I
stayed there exactly two years to the day because that's the amount of experience you needed to be able
to sit for the exam. In those days, they called it the big eight; and I wasn't a big fan of the attitude of the
big eight.
Q. Meaning there are eight large --
A. The eight largest accounting firms in the country. It's now the big four. They're down to four of
them through mergers or whatever. So I went to work for haskins and sells, I stayed two years to the
day. I worked primarily -- merrill lynch was my largest client there. I was there six months of the year,
the rest was mainly retail operations. But I didn't want to work on merrill lynch for the rest of my life,
so I. Planned my demise and I went to a company called gulf and western which became paramount
communications. I was in the corporate internal audit department there, I was a senior auditor, and
everybody in the department -- a large department, had about 50 people. It was a huge conglomerate.
And I conducted internal audits of various companies. As a matter of fact, one of my first jobs was to
come out here and do an audit of sega, which at that time was a pinball company, and now became the
computer games, the video games. And that was my first exposure to any type of entertainment at that
time. I traveled about 70 percent of the time, all domestically; and after about, let's say, 16 months, my
first child was born. When I first went there, my wife gave me my marching orders either you cut the
travel or we're done. I'm now married 39 years this year.
Q. Did you cut the travel?
A. I cut the travel. So I went to a company called -- it was called at the time RCA Corp., which owned

RCA Records, doing the same type of work, traveling domestically to lovely places like scranton,
pennsylvania. But I did at one time move over to RCA Records for about nine months, and I got my
first exposure to the record industry, which I liked. So I stayed at RCA Records for about nine months,
but I decided I wasn't happy with the progress in that company and went back to RCA Corp. Then I got
a call in about -- I stayed there for about 18 months also. I got a call from a friend who happened to be
a headhunter, and called me up about a job with an entertainment business management firm called --
at that time it was called Gelfand, Briscow, Rennart and Feldman. It's now just called Gelfand. Called
me up, said there was an interesting opportunity in New York, "Would you like to go for the
interview?" I said sure. So I went on the interview in November of '78. I got hired right on the spot. I
got hired to create and build the east coast royalty audit division of Gelfand. I just -- it turned out I had
a natural affinity to do royalty audit.
Q. Where was Gelfand's main office?
A. Gelfand's main office was New York City, 489 fifth avenue. We had an L.A. -- office, or they have
an L.A. office, which is still here. It's at 1880 century park east, which is a larger office than New York.
New York was about 40 people. L.A. has about maybe 120 people. We are also in Palm Springs;
Nashville, Tennessee; San Francisco; and I was responsible also at one point in time after I made
partner to start building a London office. So while I was at Gelfand, I built an east coast royalty audit
operation, and my area of responsibility was east of the mississippi all the way over through europe and
I'd say south africa because I happen to have gone to south africa twice in my tenure there. The clients
that I did royalty audits for -- now, I was at Gelfand for ten years. I made partner in two years, so I was
a partner about seven and a half years. As I said, I had a natural affinity to do royalty audits. Pretty
much name it, I've done it at that time. I did Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Barbra Streisand. I did all
Michael Jackson's royalty audit work throughout the '80's because Michael Jackson was a client at
Gelfand starting around 1982, '83, through my tenure when I left in May of' 88. I've done many other
audits. I probably did probably 150 audits there, major people, Santana, Journey, Kansas. Like I said,
CBS, which became Sony, was my natural haunt. I was always there.
Q. Okay. Slow down.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. CBS, you're talking about the TV station or something else?
A. No. The record company.
Q. So there's a CBS Records that then became Sony records?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. When you say your haunt, and you would be there, why would you be at CBS Or Sony
records?
A. Because a large part of the artists, the major artists, that I did were CBS Recording artists.
Q. Bad question. Why would you want to be over there all the time? What were you doing?
A. Number one, I really enjoyed the work, so I spent a lot

of time at CBS Doing the royalty audits for Bob Dylan, Barbra Streisand, Neil Diamond.
Q. You were there to do royalty audits?
A. That's correct.
Q. What is a royalty audit?
A. Usually with respect to royalty recording artists, they receive reportings from the record company
every six months. Usually 90 days after -- they were calendared six months; so every June and every
december, those periods were closed. CBS Would have 90 days to render what we call a reimbursement
statement to the artist, which reported what they said the record sold, did the royalty calculations,
deducted expenses that they claimed were allowed under the contract, and arrived at a number that was
either payable to the artist or it would show a negative number because they claimed they spent more
money on promoting the artist and he didn't sell enough records to earn it out at that time.
Q. Why would you audit? Didn't you just accept what they gave you?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because -- now, understand, I've done what I consider the -- the cream of the crop of royalty audits.
So record company systems were designed to cover a broad range of calculations and parameters that
they put in the system. With special artists there were -- they had what we called idiosyncratic clauses,
special clauses that the system couldn't handle. It took the human body to program the system to put
these special provisions in. And by and large, it didn't happen. So when I started in the business, and I
started doing it, I said, "Boy, I'll do this for a couple of years, I'll clean it all up, they'll fix it, and they
won't need me anymore." I got news for you. The contracts back in those days were about 30 pages
long. By the time 1990 rolled around, they were up to 160 pages. And a lot of the things that I had done
at CBS -- they have these things I call boilerplate contracts; so for new artists signing, they would have
these -- what they would put as the least favorable contract, and then it would be up to the attorney to
negotiate the provisions. Some of the things that I came up with for audit claims over the years,
somehow or another, they worked their way into the contracts to -- to eliminate the other -- the
creativity, the creative items that I came up with because their calculations were all over the place. So
they tried to prevent future artists from getting the benefit of these certain calculations.
Q. Now, are there complex formulas in these contracts?
Judge: There's some noise. Does somebody have a cell phone on, or -- (discussion held off the record)
(the question was read)
The witness: For the superstars, yes.
Mr. Panish: Okay. And we're not going to get too much into that right now.
Q. But it can get pretty complex; fair statement?

A. It can, yes, it can.

Q. Okay. So you were telling us about your background, you are told us about the Gelfand company
that you were there for about eight years?
A. Ten years.
Q. Sorry.
A. Partner for eight years.
A. Seven and a half years at partner.
Q. What does that mean when you make partner? Is that a big deal?
A. I become an owner. I was an equity owner in Gelfand.
Q. Do you get paid more?
A. It worked out that way.
Q. But if you don't make money, you could lose more?
A. That's true, too.
Q. So you -- what year would that be that you stopped working at the Gelfand company?
A. 1988.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. I went in with a former partner of Gelfand. His name is Bruce Colburn. And that's where I met my
other two partners, Victor Wlodingver and Eric Chanzis. We ended up calling it W.E.C. Because too
many people had a problem with Wlodingver, w-l-o-d-I-n-g-v-e-r. They couldn't get the W to be a V, so
they misspelled his name, so we called ourselves W.E.C.
Q. How long were you with that operation?
A. 20 years.
Q. Where were you based?
A. We were based in New York down by Madison Square Garden, 26th street.
Q. By Madison Square Garden?
A. No, Park. Between 23rd and 26th street.

Q. Okay. So then 20 years. What happened?

A. I built a business management practice, but I also built a bigger royalty audit practice of my own.
Kiss was a Gelfand client, and I had done all their audits.
Q. Who?
A. Kiss. Remember Kiss?
Q. Yes. Gene --
A. Gene Simmons.
Q. I remember him. He had like the tongue, right?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Okay. So Kiss, that's a rock band?
A. Yes, it's a rock band.
Q. And what did you do for them?
A. I did royalty audits for them, I did them here in the states, and I had to go to the netherlands every
three years for them.
Q. Why would you go to the netherlands?
A. Because they had two different deals. They had a u.S.-based deal and an international deal. They
were very smart, two different deals completely.
Q. Okay. And then your first was 20 years. Did you -- then did something happen or change? What
happened changed?
A. What changed is that as we got older and the practice got bigger, Chanzis left the firm around 2009.
He got burned out. Sometimes it can be a frustrating business. And it was just Wlodingver and myself,
and we had 18 employees, and just -- we were chief cook and bottle washer. We had bought some space
on 21st street; and as you get older, you want your quality of life to get a little bit better, so we decided
that we needed more support services, infrastructure, meaning have our own -- a company with their
own HR Department to take care of employees and all that stuff. So it took that stress off of us. So we
had searched around for firms that we liked, and joel cooperman actually sought us out. And we liked
joel; and after we tortured him for six months, we finally gave in and signed a contract in november of
2010.
Q. So you moved your firm in with Mr. Cooperman?
A. We took all our employees except two people.
Q. And have you been there ever since?

A. Yes.
Q. And you've told us what that company does, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. How long have you been a CPA?
A. Since 1978, so 35 years.
Q. Now, I'm going to come back to some -- but in this case, were you retained to do some consulting?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And what were you retained to do?
A. I was retained to calculate Michael Jackson's lost future earning capacity due to his untimely death.
Q. Anything else? I'm not saying that there is, I'm just asking is that --
A. No. I need -- I was the guy that you hired to calculate the damages in this case.
Q. Okay. And just in broad brush strokes, what are the categories that you assessed?
A. The ones that I can be reasonably assured that he would have done, touring, a worldwide tour.
Along with touring, there's a product called merchandising, where you go to a show, people buy
products that the artist has created or has agreed to have created. Then the larger stars tend to get
sponsorships and endorsements, so we came up with what we thought the endorsement value would be.
We -- I also understood from reading all the documents that were provided to me, and deposition
testimony, and the notes -- handwritten notes of Michael Jackson, that he wanted to have a show
created in Vegas, a theme show, based on either never never land -- and which would show all of his
old archived footage, et cetera. So we calculated earnings had that show been done; and within the
show, for use of music in the show, there's another earning stream; and they would have been for
royalties. They would have had to pay 5 percent of the show box office for his publishing, the use of
his songs, and the use of the master recordings for the show.
Q. So the categories then would be touring, merchandising, endorsements, Las Vegas. Anything else?
A. And those royalties are -- that was in what I call the Tier 1 calculations.
Q. Anything else in the Tier 1 calculations that you assessed? Does that cover it?
A. That covers the Tier 1.
Q. And how do you go about doing that?
Ms. Strong: Objection; lacks foundation, and 801 through 803, lacks qualifications, your honor, not
qualified for these issues.

Judge: This is one of those --

Mr. Panish: We already went through this.
Judge: I think Tier 1 was okay. Tier 2 may have been an issue.
Mr. Panish: Tier 1 was fine.
Judge: Tier 1 was okay, from what I remember of the rulings.
Ms. Strong: We just heard some qualifications, your honor --
Judge: Well, it's 4:15. What we're going to do is I'm going to excuse the jury now anyway and we're
going to have a discussion. You're coming back monday; is that right?
The witness: Yes.
Judge: You and the jury. Okay. July 15th at 10:00 am is what my clerk advises. And then hold on. A
juror mentioned that she has a dental appointment July 29th in the morning. The problem with that is in
the afternoon -- are we off in the afternoon?
The clerk: We're off in the afternoon. We're here in the morning.
Judge: Is there any way you can get the appointment in the afternoon.
Juror number 7: I tried. It takes three months.
Mr. Putnam: Can we flip --
The clerk: There's another juror who requested the morning. One is requesting the morning, one is
requesting the afternoon.
Judge: Someone has an interview, I think.
Juror number 2: No. That's another doctor appointment. We have two jurors for July 29 doctor
appointment in the afternoon.
Judge: That's why we took the afternoon off. Now we've got a morning issue. Anybody else who has a
morning issue? No?
Mr. Panish: Can we talk to you on the side just for a second?
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: We don't have to work that out right now.
Judge: I've read your note. Let's talk about it.

Juror number 7: I actually called and asked them can we move it to the afternoon, and they told me
no. And I was going to talk to you again and call them again. I think when we first started this whole
process, I had an appointment, and I moved it, I had a -- you know, for may, and I moved it, and now
we're still dealing with this, and it takes some time to get these appointments.
Judge: Right. I know. Part of the problem is we give time estimates and there's probably going to be
more of you with those issues as the trial gets --
Mr. Panish: Maybe you can order the dentist.
Judge: I'll talk about it with the attorneys. I'll try to accommodate everybody. And, frankly, I have
appointments, too. I try to schedule them when you have things to do, too. So -- anyway. I got your
note, and we'll work something out. Okay?
Juror number 7: Okay.
Judge: But for now, I guess have a good friday, and I'll see you on monday at 10:00 am okay? Thank
you. Oh, yeah. Remember the admonitions.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, we could argue this tomorrow if you prefer.
Judge: No. I want to argue it now.
Ms. Strong: Obviously, we'd like to renew our motion in limine to
exclude Mr. Erk in full. We believe, under Sargon, a 2012 case from the California supreme court, that
anything beyond the 50 shows that Michael had agreed to prior to his death is the only thing that would
not be barred by speculation and barred by the principles of Sargon. Okay?
Judge: I'm overruling that; but I know that you wanted, for whatever reason, to renew them every time
they come up, and I understand that.
Ms. Strong: And there are a couple of other issues. We just want to preserve it for the record. But
there are some issues that I'd like to address specifically that overlap with motion in limine number 6,
which was as to speculative damages, your honor; and you did not issue a ruling on that, you reserved
your ruling on the speculative damage motion. And it overlaps with some of these issues with respect to
Mr. Erk. Focusing first on Tier 2, your honor, I want to be very clear here. This is an expert who is
about to speak to the jury about alleged potential earnings of over $1.5 billion, your honor.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Strong: And so what I'd like to focus on, your honor, is the California civil code 3283 requires
that damages be certain. And when you're dealing with future damages, your honor, that turns to
reasonable certainty. It doesn't have to be absolute, but it has to be reasonably certain. No matter the
case law that you look at, if you look at lost profits, if you look at earning capacity --

Judge: I agree.
Ms. Strong: So with respect to that, your honor, as to Tier 2, Mr. Erk's testimony at his deposition
made it very clear that he believes his opinions as to everything with respect to Tier 2 is not reasonably
certain. And as a result, your honor, to put that in front of the jury would be reversible error under
Sargon; and it could not be any clearer in the record than what we have with Mr. Erk's deposition. And
I can read some quotes from the deposition for you if you'd like.
Mr. Panish: She already did this.
Mr. Boyle: If I could read the first sentence of your motion in limine on erk ruling, it is granted only
as to the Tier 2 damages except for future tours and royalty bumps are permitted. Then you go on later,
"Defendants' criticisms of future clothing lines, endorsements and movies, due to decedent's failure to
some of these items in the past, are fodder for cross-examination but not a reason to exclude them
altogether as speculative. "The fact that the decedent engaged in these money making activities in the
past certainly tethers them to a potential loss of future earning capacity." this has been argued --
Ms. Strong: Except, your honor, the future tours that you tentatively allowed in pursuant to your
ruling, your honor, is included in Tier 2, and that is $397 million worth of damages, your honor, that
this expert has said --
Judge: The amount is not relevant. I realize it may be
A. Lot of money, but the amount is not really that relevant. It's the likelihood.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So with respect to Tier 2, I wanted to clarify then right now the witness has said,
the expert has said, that his -- all of his opinions as to Tier 2, including the four additional tours, are not
held to a reasonable degree of certainty, and so -- I will read the testimony. So here's a question. Page
652 of Mr. Erk's deposition. "So with respect to the items in Tier 2, which includes those additional
tours you're talking about, you're not saying those things would have happened to a reasonable
degree of certainty?" Answer, "Asked and answered. I just want to make sure the record is clear."
Going down to -- the answer from the witness, "The record is clear." Mr. Sanders interrupts and says
"Just answer this one more time. You're right, it has been asked and answered; but feel free to tell
her again." Answer, "I said not with reasonable certainty." There's another section of the deposition
where Mr. Sanders stipulates, your honor, and says "I think the only thing he's testified to with
reasonable certainty are his Tier 1 projections, and every single thing else we would stipulate to is
either -- is not going to occur with reasonable certainty in a way he could put a number on it or
could not have a number put on it with reasonable certainty." Question, "Are you willing to stipulate
to that, Mr. Erk, as to what Mr. Sanders said?" "Yes." So he's made it very clear, your honor, that
those four additional tours that in your ruling would be -- you would allow him to testify about are not
held to a reasonable degree of certainty.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, those passages are the exact ones that they read to you during the lengthy
motion in limine hearing. We've already argued this extensively, and you've ruled. And that -- one,
that's not the standard there; and two, I mean, it's taken completely out of context, as we went through
last time; and three, the jury is the one who assesses whether these damages would happen or not.
Judge: What I want to know is how can you say that when AEG is talking to Michael Jackson about

other tours in other cities as a potential?

Ms. Strong: There's some confusion here, your honor. We're not talking about the This Is It tour, and
whether or not This Is It would go on to other places. What Mr. Erk -- that's Tier 1. He's projected a
260-show tour, to be clear, that would all be called "This Is It." that's what he thinks. In addition to that,
your honor, he's projected four more tours that would go from age 50 to age 66. Never contemplated,
no -- he admitted -- there's more of his testimony, he says I have no evidence that that would have
happened and it was ever contemplated by anyone; and that's the $400 million that we're talking about
with respect to the Tier 2.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, that's exactly the business Mr. Jackson was in; and based on your motion in
limine ruling, he has a past history of that; and so that is not a speculative damage. The jury will assess
whether they think he could have done it more, but that's not some -- it's not like we're saying he was
going to go create a computer company. Right? That's the business that he was in.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, we argued this for hours. Ms. Strong read the same things in this case.
Everything is reargued and reargued and reargued. We had an extensive motions in limine, you took it
under submission and issued rulings. Now, we have the witness, they're renewing everything that she
argued before. When we get to the witness, lay the foundation, then she can try to object again, I guess,
and do -- but how many times are we going to reargue the same stuff? She -- she has them all marked --
she read all of these, hours and hours we spent on this. How many times are they going to get to
reargue it?
Mr. Sanders: Just one second, your honor. And I would note that having listened carefully to the trial
testimony today, yesterday with Mr. Ortega, and with virtually every other witness, movies are really
pretty much a certainty. I don't think that's even a guess anymore. And she would have done everything
in her power to keep out movies. This is really ridiculous. The jury should get to hear the evidence,
they can figure out if he would or wouldn't have done something. But at the time she made her
argument, she made it sound like movies -- you couldn't possibly say he was going to do movies; and
now I don't know how you could say he wasn't going to do them.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, movies are a separate issue which we can talk about, because there are issues
with respect to movies; but I want to focus on the four tours that had never been contemplated. This is
not about This Is It going on to 260. Part of our motion in full is that whether Michael Jackson would
have toured beyond 50 shows is speculative, and we argued that if it had progressed and gone up to
260, it should be excluded and not given to the jury. But that's not what I am focusing on right now,
your honor. I'm focusing on --
Judge: Why is it taking it out of context again?
Mr. Panish: Because it's not the standard to a reasonable degree of certainty. That is not the standard
for an expert witness to testify. That is not the standard.
Mr. Boyle: They can impeach him with his depo.
Mr. Panish: That's not the standard. In the Sargon case, as the court states in your motion in limine --
you wrote in your motion in limine -- in your order that was on --
Judge: That's why I hate revisiting these things.

Mr. Panish: April 29th. They revisit everything. April 29th, you issued a written order. Almost every
one of these that you deny, they've reargued them, just like this. Okay? And you talk about Sargon.
Specifically, the court says --
Ms. Strong: I can remind you of what Sargon says, your honor. It speaks to two questions. One is the
admissibility of expert testimony, and it says that expert testimony must not be speculative, and so we
know what speculative means, your honor. Sargon establishes that you have a gatekeeping role.
Judge: Right. I know that.
Ms. Strong: And with respect to reasonable certainty to argue that it's not the standard, the code
requires that damages be certain. Evidence that is not certain or reasonably certain is speculative and
cannot go to the jury. And even in an earning capacity case that they cited, your honor, and I didn't have
this pointed out in our prior argument -- one of their earning capacity cases is dealing with a jury
instruction related to earning capacity, and says damages that could be awarded to Plaintiff included the
present cash value of earning capacity reasonably certain to be lost in the future. Reasonable certainty
applies to all damages, your honor. You cannot have speculative testimony --
Judge: I think the distinction I made was between businesses versus individuals, if I recall. Hold on.
It's starting to come back to me that there was a distinction between individual earning capacity and
talking about lost profits from a business, and what was reasonably certain.
Mr. Boyle: I can read it if you'd like. "However, Defendants cited case law," slash, "authorities
addressing the projected," quote, "lost profits," end quote, "of business entities, and not the," quote,
"loss of earning capacity," end quote, "of decedents in wrongful death actions. Decedent was not a
business entity although he engaged in business transactions. However, those business transactions
were all based on decedent's persona, efforts and success as an entertainer. The lost profits cases
applying to business entities just do not apply as neatly as Defendants claim. It is the usual loss of
earning capacity cases that do, as, for example, with a superstar athlete. Mr. Erk used a combination
of decedent's own career experiences and business transactions and information about similar
superstars in the music industry to project the loss of earning capacity for decedent." And then you
went on to say -- the sentence I already read comes next. "Here AEG itself is not --"
Judge: I considered it in depth.
Ms. Strong: In fairness, the distinction between lost profits and earning capacity, we don't agree that
that actually is the right analysis here. What is being projected here are lost profits for business
endeavors, and we believe those cases do apply; but it doesn't matter, your honor, for the purposes of
this argument. It doesn't matter if you're in an earning capacity case or a lost profits case. The evidence
with respect to damages still must be reasonably certain, which is why I wanted to point out the
earnings capacity case, your honor, that has that language with respect to reasonable certainty. I'd also
like to cite a jury instruction. With respect to this case, Gargir, g-a-r-g-i-r, versus B, apostrophe, n-e-i --
Judge: Mr. Boyle, why don't you take that down?
Mr. Panish: It's in our opposition. We've already argued this case. There's no reconsideration.
Ms. Strong: We have not argued this case.

Mr. Panish: We did. It's in our papers and the court considered it in our papers, and there's no motion
for reconsideration. There's no new facts under 1008. They just want to reargue everything and hope
that something is different. Ms. Strong argued this as best she could before. I'm sure she would admit
she did her best job before. It didn't work on this part, now she wants another bite at the apple.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, to the extent there was any confusion that there was a distinction --
Judge: I'm not confused.
Ms. Strong: No, between lost profits, that this standard didn't apply in an earning capacity case, I
wanted to make clear that it does apply in earning capacity. Listen to caci 3903-c. "To recover damages
for past and future lost earnings, Plaintiff must prove," quote, "the amount of income, earnings, salary,
wages he/she will be reasonably certain to lose." There's no question reasonably certain is the standard
that applies to damages, and when an expert witness gets on the stand and says, "I can't hold my
opinions to any degree of reasonable certainty," it cannot be presented to the jury, your honor, without
causing reversible error. So with respect to Tier 2, your honor, given the testimony that we have from
this witness, I would ask your honor to reconsider that ruling with respect to the entirety. You did keep
other portions of Tier 2 out, to be clear.
Judge: I clearly went through it. I clearly parsed out the part that I thought was not certain and kept in
the part that I thought was. It sounds like, from listening to my ruling, I thought about it quite carefully
and parsed out portions that I thought were unsupported and kept the parts that were. So I don't like
revisiting these things.
Ms. Strong: I appreciate that, your honor. Just to the extent that there was any confusion between lost
profits and earning capacity, I want to make it abundantly clear that with respect to earning capacity,
reasonable certainty is also required; and this expert has said with respect to those four tours,
everything in Tier 2, not part of it. One thing I didn't tell you last time, your honor, is that Tier 2 did not
exist at day 1 of this experts' deposition. It was created between day 1 and day 2, which was pushed off
several day by Plaintiffs' counsel. Four days later, miraculously, Tier 2 was created. I would argue
there's lots of reasons as to why it was put in there. It was not something that they held to any degree of
certainty, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: For the record, Mr. Erk had back surgery.
Ms. Strong: Those were not the reasons that were given at the time, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Here we go again.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, with respect to movies, there is -- we need some clarification with respect to
the movies ruling. Mr. Erk has said he believes movies is in Tier 2, as well, your honor. You said that
you would exclude everything from Tier 2 except for the four future tours and associated royalty
bumps, so I wanted -- there was some language in your order that indicated that there could be
discussion of movies, and given that he had indicated it was in Tier 2, and you didn't except that out of
your Tier 2 ruling, I wanted clarification with respect to that, your honor.
Judge: Did he do a calculation on movies?

Mr. Sanders: Just that they're certainly likely to happen, which I think the jury already knows, and
he's relying on the witnesses --
Judge: If he doesn't have a calculation --
Mr. Sanders: Every expert has said it can be from zero to a huge number.
Judge: You've got to have a number.
Ms. Strong: His testimony is that it would be zero to millions; and he says, "I don't have enough
information to do any calculations, so I can only speculate to them." He shouldn't be testifying about it,
your honor.
Judge: How can it be quantified without a number?
Mr. Panish: There are cases that deal with this exact issue.
Mr. Boyle: They're doing what they've done a lot to us. One, this guy cannot give a number; and two,
they say he didn't give a number, now we can't talk about it at all. The case law is clear in California
you don't need expert testimony on loss of earnings capacity, you leave it to the jury to decide. That's
how it is. If he had given a number for movies, they would be fighting right now that that number is
inappropriate. We can't win. We can have him give a number if they want us to, but I don't --
Judge: Did he give a number as to the others? I can't remember.
Mr. Panish: Yes. And we argued this same issue, and you ruled the movies were allowed. She made
all these same arguments before.
Judge: I think I reserved on the movies.
Mr. Panish: No, right here, movies. It's in your order.
Ms. Strong: It's unclear, your honor, because you said everything in Tier 2 was out.
Mr. Panish: This is in your order. "Defendants' criticism on future clothing line endorsements and
movies due to decedent's failure at some of these endeavors in the past --" Remember the questions
that Ms. Cahan asked today to try to set that up? "-- are fodder for cross examination but not reason
to exclude them altogether as speculative. The fact that decedent engaged in money-making --" You
go on. I've read it already. But you talk about -- we argued -- I'm sorry I get -- we argued all of this for
hours. Ms. Strong, a very able lawyer, made all of these same arguments. I'm sure she was totally
prepared then, and she wants to reargue it.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, we didn't, obviously, go into details on this; but you're right, your honor, an
expert can't get up and say, "He could have made zero, he could have made millions, I can only
speculate. At that point, he's not offering anything useful to the jury, and it's something -- it's
speculation, he's acknowledging it's speculation.
Judge: If he doesn't have a number --

Mr. Sanders: He's not putting a number on movies.

Judge: That's the problem. The other things he has numbers on, I can see that; but if he doesn't have a
number, how is the jury going to come up with a number?
Mr. Panish: Can I show you what the cases are to look at?
Judge: Yes, please.
Mr. Panish: Do you want to do this on Monday?
Judge: Yes, why don't we come up with that --
Ms. Stebbins: Two brief things, your honor. Just
for clarification, the reason we're renewing all these expert motions is pretrial motions in limine aren't
necessarily dispositive. If your honor would rule that you want to rely on the pretrial motion in limine
rulings and not revisit them every time, we don't need to do that; but we're trying to preserve it for the
record. They initially declined to stipulate that the pretrial rulings are binding. There are times when we
raise issues because we want to raise them again; but in many instances, it's literally just to preserve our
appellate rights.
Mr. Panish: They made a motion in limine to exclude it; and just like when you make motions to
exclude some things of our experts, we haven't come in and said, "We need to preserve the record. We
want to reargue everything." And there's things of ours that have been excluded -- remember, it's all our
experts have been going. We have never once said we want to reargue this motion, make sure for the
record -- that's what happened. We've never once done that.
Ms. Stebbins: If you're stating a holding that you intend to rely on the motions in limine as ordered
unless there's reason to revisit them and we don't need to reargue them to preserve anything, we're
happy to do that, and then only reargue if there's new issues that need to be raised.
Judge: That's what I normally do. What I normally do is the rulings stand unless -- there are times
when a motion in limine is really in advance, it can be changed. But normally it's because something
occurs during the trial or some case comes down or something that changes, and then the court can
reconsider it.
Ms. Strong: There is something I would like to do for the record, your honor, with respect to
endorsements. I would just like to submit pages 173 through 191 of erk's deposition in full for the
record, your honor, because it will demonstrate that he does not have a reliable methodology for that.
We'll submit it later. I just want to let you know.
Judge: Is it attached to the original motion?
Ms. Strong: Not in full, your honor. We'll do it later.
Mr. Panish: They can submit whatever they want to the court.
Ms. Stebbins: One other brief thing, just because it affects something happening tomorrow, as your
honor will recall, Plaintiffs late added Grace Rwaramba to their witness list, and your honor ordered

that unless she be deposed, she not be permitted to testify. We have begun her deposition, are
completing it tomorrow. My understanding is that Plaintiffs intends to call her live maybe -- I think
she's not available next week, but shortly thereafter. The issue is that Ms. Rwaramba is refusing to
provide her current address or contact information at the deposition. I would like the -- the court to
order Plaintiffs to provide any contact information they have; and, also, I didn't know if court was dark
tomorrow, if I could call in. In the events that the witness continues to refuse to provide it, I might call
and ask for a ruling.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, Ms. Rwaramba has a lawyer. They have the lawyer's contact information. The
depo is going on tomorrow at her lawyer's office.
Ms. Stebbins: We have taken it up with her lawyer, your honor. It may come up tomorrow afternoon
at the deposition, I don't know if your honor will be here if we needed to call in and get a ruling or
something.
Judge: What is the concern about her address? What do you need her address for?
Ms. Stebbins: We may need to follow up with her.
Judge: For what?
Ms. Stebbins: For instance, if -- she's stating at the moment that she's not a California resident
anymore, so if we need to find her in another state -- she testified -- perhaps I should have begun with
this -- that she intentionally evaded service for two and a half years.
Judge: Why don't you ask her attorney if her attorney would accept service on her behalf.
Ms. Stebbins: He said he could not, so I need an address for her.
Judge: Then maybe you can discuss that with her and say if the attorney won't agree to accept service
on her behalf, then the alternative is she has to disclose her address.
Mr. Panish: Shouldn't her attorney be here to be representing her instead of these discussions? She's
being prejudiced with no representation here.
Ms. Stebbins: My question was will the court be in session --
Judge: You're her lawyer, I guess, since you're making an argument for her.
Mr. Panish: We have an unrepresented party and counsel is making arguments without notice to the
party. Is that proper?
Mr. Boyle: About home address.
Ms. Stebbins: What I'm asking is if the court will be here tomorrow, in the event an issue arises, then I
could call in with Ms. Rwaramba and her counsel on the phone.
Judge: I'll be here in the morning only.

Ms. Stebbins: The depo starts at 2:00 and goes until 5:00. If there's an issue, we'll figure it out. When
she's on the stand, perhaps we can get it resolved then.
Mr. Putnam: If she's on the stand, it doesn't matter.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm afraid we're going to lose her after tomorrow afternoon and she's going to go into
hiding again like she did, admittedly, for two and a half years. Perhaps it won't be an issue.
Mr. Panish: Can we go home?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm a little annoyed by the fact that she told me she intentionally evaded service and --
Judge: Give her a subpoena.
Mr. Boyle: And Mr. Anschutz evaded service. I was at his condominium at the reserve at palm desert,
I was trying to serve him, and he was evading, and had security people there. Do you want me to give
his address on the record, Mr. Anschutz?
Ms. Stebbins: I don't think this has anything to do with Mr. Anschutz.
Mr. Panish: Well, you're talking about evading service.
The clerk: Counsel, don't talk to each other, talk to the court.
Mr. Panish: Goodnight.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, have a good evening. The court is dark tomorrow afternoon, yes?
Judge: It is. I'm not available tomorrow afternoon. In the morning, I'm available.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you, your honor.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Thank you.
Mr. Panish: Thank you, your honor.
(Court adjourned to Monday, July 15, 2013)