Testemunho de Kris Kallman
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. Jason wouldn’t have been able to sign before
3 he was 18. My guess is that’s probably when he
4 turned 18, and that’s what Mr. Weitzman and Modabber
5 wanted.
6 Q. And then just for the jury’s benefit, why
7 would the mother sign in ‘96?
8 A. She was an adult. She could sign.
9 Q. The point I’m making is that she had a
10 separate settlement from her son.
11 A. Exactly. I mean -- yes. She got money.
12 Q. Yes. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you
13 some questions about provisions in the settlement
14 agreement, okay? And one of the issues that was
15 carefully negotiated by the people representing Mr.
16 Jackson was that he deny any wrongdoing in that
17 agreement, right?
18 A. Again, the best evidence of that would be
19 what’s in the agreement. I don’t remember what’s in
20 there.
21 Q. Okay. Well, let me -- the prosecutor read
22 you a provision, asked you about it.
23 Let me ask you about this: There was
24 language in that agreement that said, “The parties
25 acknowledge that Jackson has elected to settle the
26 claims solely in view of the potential impact any
27 litigation could have in the future on his
28 reputation, earnings and potential income, and not 4968
1 because of any alleged wrongful conduct on his
2 part,” right?
3 A. If you’re asking me if that’s in the
4 document, I’ll have to take your word for it. You
5 don’t need to show it to me. It sounds pretty
6 standard to me.
7 Q. The agreement further said -- excuse me, let
8 me rephrase that.
9 Both agreements, the one involving Jason and
10 the one involving Blanca, his mother, both had
11 language which said, “This agreement shall not, in
12 any manner, be construed as an admission by Jackson
13 that he has acted wrongfully with respect to
14 Francia, Blanca, or any other person, or at all, or
15 that Francia or Blanca have any rights whatsoever
16 against Jackson or Jackson’s releasees.” Sound
17 familiar to you?
18 A. It sounds like standard language in
19 virtually every release that I deal with. But, yes,
20 it does sound familiar.
21 Q. Actually, there’s a whole separate paragraph
22 entitled, “Denial of Claims by Mr. Jackson,”
23 correct?
24 A. Don’t know.
25 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
26 you a copy?
27 A. It would.
28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 4969
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: It does refresh my
3 recollection.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And do you recall
5 that language being in both agreements?
6 A. I believe so, yes, sir.
7 Q. Okay. In addition to the language that I
8 have read, there’s further language which says,
9 “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to,
10 and denies any wrongful acts against, Francia,
11 Blanca or any other person and may continue to do so
12 publicly, to the extent reasonably necessary, to
13 respond to any inquiries in this regard.” Right?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. It said further, “The parties acknowledge
16 that Jackson is a public figure, and that his name,
17 image and likeness have commercial value and are an
18 important element of his earning capacity.” Right?
19 A. That’s true.
20 Q. And that language was in both settlement
21 agreements, the one involving Blanca Francia and the
22 one involving Jason Francia, correct?
23 A. I don’t remember that. I will take your
24 word for it. You don’t need to refresh my
25 recollection. It sounds like it should be or would
26 be.
27 Q. Now, Mr. Kallman, provisions in which a
28 settling party denies liability are fairly standard 4970
1 in settlement agreements, right?
2 A. True.
3 Q. But the language that I just read to the
4 jury is not standard language in a settlement
5 agreement, is it?
6 A. This is not a standard case, or was not.
7 And no, you’re right. These were carefully drafted
8 by a team of lawyers, and we agreed to the terms.
9 Q. And the reason those terms are different is
10 because Mr. Jackson is an unusual individual in
11 terms of his need to preserve his reputation and
12 public image so he can earn a living, right?
13 MR. SNEDDON: Calls for speculation
on this.
14 It wasn’t drafted by him. No foundation.
15 MR. MESEREAU: I think it was drafted
by
16 this witness.
17 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain a
18 foundation.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
20 Q. When you settled these matters - and I’m
21 talking about matters involving Michael Jackson,
22 Blanca Francia, and Jason Francia - you put in
23 language involving denial of claims by Mr. Jackson
24 that was not standard language in a typical
25 settlement agreement, right?
26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going
to
27 object to the question as lack of foundation; that
28 he put the language in there. 4971
1 THE COURT: Well, that was the foundation I
2 was looking for.
3 So I’ll allow you to answer the question as
4 long as you understand the limitations of your
5 answer.
6 THE WITNESS: Well --
7 THE COURT: If you put the language in.
8 THE WITNESS: I didn’t draft that agreement.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did lawyers from your
11 office draft the agreement?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Who drafted the agreement?
14 A. Somebody in Mr. Modabber’s office, the
15 Katten, Muchin, Zavis & Weitzman firm in Century
16 City.
17 Q. Did you have any input into the language in
18 the agreement?
19 A. Only to review it. And if there was
20 language we found objectionable, we could strike it,
21 I suppose.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. But they wanted that in there, and I didn’t
24 find it objectionable.
25 Q. Okay. Now, you made a statement, I believe,
26 in response to the prosecutor’s questions, that if
27 someone from law enforcement wanted to speak to your
28 client, you had to first notify representatives of 4972
1 Mr. Jackson, true?
2 A. True.
3 Q. That -- really, that language is not in that
4 agreement, is it?
5 A. I don’t know.
6 Q. Then why would you say it?
7 A. Because that’s part -- in one of the
8 agreements, I have to give notice to the defense
9 team. And I’ve given notice once to Mr. Sanger.
10 And then when I got subpoenaed on Friday, I gave
11 notice to Mr. Modabber down in Los Angeles.
12 Q. But the notice you’re supposed to give to
13 the defense team does not involve requests by law
14 enforcement to speak to your client, does it?
15 A. I assume that anybody from law enforcement
16 that wants to talk to my client, there was a
17 requirement to notify somebody from the defense
18 team.
19 Q. Nowhere in those settlement agreements is
20 there language to that effect, is there?
21 A. I have no idea.
22 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial;
23 irrelevant.
24 MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor brought
it up
25 on direct, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. And
27 the answer came in as, “I have no idea.”
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: It would be
against public 4973
1 policy for a civil litigator to put language in a
2 settlement agreement precluding anyone from
3 cooperating with law enforcement, wouldn’t it?
4 A. In my opinion, yes.
5 Q. Lawyers are not allowed to have language
6 like that in settlement agreements, right?
7 A. Wrong.
8 Q. Pardon me?
9 A. No. It’s a notice requirement. It’s not a
10 preclusion requirement.
11 Q. When did you last review the notice
12 provisions in these agreements?
13 A. Probably in 1996 or 1997.
14 Q. Well, let me ask you this question: Did you
15 talk with Mr. Sneddon about what questions he was
16 going to ask you before you testified today?
17 A. No. I mean, we talked, but it was very,
18 very general and I don’t think the conversation was
19 more than five or ten minutes long.
20 Q. Okay. The notice provisions that you
21 describe talk primarily about anyone who’s suing Mr.
22 Jackson or if he’s contacted by the media, correct?
23 A. I don’t -- not the notice provisions I’m
24 thinking about. I think there’s a specific
25 provision -- it may not be in that agreement. Maybe
26 it’s in another agreement, but there’s a provision
27 that I’m supposed to contact either Johnnie Cochran
28 or Zia Modabber or somebody on the defense team if 4974
1 there was a request to speak or interview my
2 clients.
3 Q. But never in the agreement did it refer to
4 law enforcement, right?
5 A. That I don’t remember. It’s been a long
6 time.
7 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, you answered some
8 questions about Terry Cannon.
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. When did -- excuse me, you’re currently
11 associated with Mr. Cannon, correct?
12 A. He is “of counsel” to my law firm.
13 Q. When did he become “of counsel” to your law
14 firm.
15 A. He’s been “of counsel” twice. Once about
16 ten years ago, during this period, and then again
17 just recently, within the last two months.
18 Q. So he wasn’t “of counsel” to your law firm
19 in October, November and December of last year,
20 right?
21 A. I don’t believe so, but I can’t be sure.
22 Q. During October, November and December of
23 last year, he was with the District Attorney’s
24 Office in San Diego, wasn’t he?
25 A. Well, I know he recently retired from the
26 San Diego D.A.’s Office. I don’t know precisely
27 when he retired, but you’re right, it’s been recent.
28 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions, 4975
1 Your Honor.
2 MR. SNEDDON: No questions, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
4 step down.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
0 comentários »
Sesini duyur!
Leia Antes de Comentar:
- Aproveite para deixar a sua opinião, sendo importante que não se fuja do assunto postado.
- Os Comentários deste blog são moderados.