Civil Lawyer Refusing to Testify in Court? – MJEOL Bullet #171

Posted by

Civil Lawyer Refusing to Testify in Court? – MJEOL Bullet #171 In the July 27 2004 Minute Order, which simply tells what was discussed during the July 27 hearing, there is interesting information concerning one of the civil (“money”) lawyers the accuser’s family ran to in 2003. That lawyer, Bill Dickerman, was one of several civil attorneys, sources say, the family used to try to extract money out of Jackson.

Dickerman has thus far not agreed to testify even though he’s been subpoenaed to do so. As a result, the judge has issued a stayed warrant for him by which he will be arrested for contempt of court if he refuses to testify. His bail is already set at $5,000 if he doesn’t show up in court or notify the court. The issue of his refusal, if he is still refusing, will be discussed at an August 6 2004 hearing at 9:30AM PST. According to the minute order, other witnesses subpoenaed to testify have already agreed to appear concerning certain pre-trial issues, but as of July 27, Dickerman hasn’t:

Attorney Franklin addressed the Court and advised the Court that Mr. Dickerman has not agreed to appear… At the request of Counsel for the Defendant, the Court further orders that a warrant of attachment for failure to appear shall issue for William Dickerman; that bail shall be set at $5,000; that the warrant of attachment shall be stayed until August 6 2004; that a phone conference shall be held on August 6 2004 at 9:30AM to determine Mr. Dickerman’s availability to determine whether the warrant of attachment shall issue and for an update on Mrs. Doe’s medical condition. (see minute order – pg 3)

‘Mrs. Doe’ refers to the accuser’s mother. The question is why hasn’t Dickerman agreed to come in and testify? Dickerman sent letters to Mark Geragos, Jackson’s attorney at the time, concerning the family. According to reports, Dickerman began writing letters claiming harassment on the family’s behalf as early as March 2003. In at least some of those letters, Geragos’s private investigator, Brad Miller, is referenced. As discussed in MJEOL Bullet #70 Update #4, Dickerman appeared on Dateline NBC to talk about this “case” and his involvement. The interview was given before he fell under the judge’s massive gag order. Sources say Dickerman claimed, during that Dateline interview, that the accusing family came to him because the mother was concerned about some of her property being taken and put in storage by Jackson’s employees without her permission. Although, other sources have since come out and said that absolutely nothing was done without the accuser’s mother’s permission. And they have evidence to back it up, says one source, as reported by Roger Friedman (of all people). But the story Dickerman told later changed to say that the family came to him because they were being “terrorized” by Jackson and his employees. Yeah, right…ok….sure. He also made claims during the interview that the mother said Jackson was having the family followed and having people take pictures of the children at their school. As pointed out in MJEOL Bullet #77, even this claim makes no since because how can Jackson’s people be taking pictures of the children at their school if the family way allegedly being held hostage at Neverland? What? They were held hostage and then set free each day to go to school? I don’t think so. ABC News says they gained access to these letters written to Geragos from Dickerman. A report dated January 29 2004 talks about what the letters contain. ABC News claimed that there were a total of 10 letters written by Dickerman to Jackson’s defense lawyer, Mark Geragos. In them, Dickerman alleged “despicable behavior” on the part of Jackson and his associates. At least one of Dickerman’s letters was dated March 26 2003. By this time, the family had been thrown from the Jackson gravy train, according to early sources. The letters’ dates are cited in the minute order:

1 Sheriff Item 200 – Corresponded to Other Documents Provided by Jane Doe to Sgt. Steve Robel and Det. Paul Zelis on 5-6-03 2 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 3-26-03 3 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 4-08-03 4 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 4-03-03 5 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 4-09-03 6 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 4-11-03 7 Letter from Geragos to Dickerman Dated 4-15-03 8 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 4-22-03 9 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 5-12-03 10 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 5-15-03 11 Letter from Geragos to Dickerman Dated 5-15-03 12 Letter from Geragos to Dickerman Dated 5-17-03 13 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 5-20-03 14 Letter from Dickerman to Geragos Dated 5-29-03 15 Letter from Geragos to Dickerman Dated 6-2-03 16 Letter from Miller to Dickerman Dated 6-12-03 … pg 4 of minute order

Take special note of #16: a letter written from Geragos’s private investigator to Dickerman dated June 12 2003. This is months before Miller’s office was ransacked. Dickerman knew of Miller’s existence and was even corresponding with him. These letters show that Miller was working for Geragos, according to the defense. The prosecutors were in possession of these letters. This means that when police burst down the doors of Miller’s office on Nov 18 2003 with sledgehammers, they knew that he was a part of the defense team and that they were essentially breaking attorney-client privilege. On top of this is more information brought out by the defense in court July 27 2004. They say that WHILE the police were raiding Miller’s office, Miller’s attorney showed up and informed them that Miller worked for Geragos. Yet, police continued the raid! Legal analysts say that at this point, everything should have shut down and either stopped or a “special master” should have been obtained by the prosecution to oversee the gathering of this information so as not to break attorney-client privilege. None of that happened. Also note the letters from Geragos to Dickerman. Initially, Dickerman told the public in one of those ABC interviews that Geragos ignored his letters and never responded. Well, now we know that was a lie because Geragos sent Dickerman 4 letters. Dickerman just couldn’t keep his mouth shut during the early stages of these allegations, so why is he claming-up now? He even did an interview with ABC’s Primetime Live in January 2004. In an article dated January 30 2004, ABC News reported that Dickerman told Primetime that:

…at the time the documentary was shot, according to the boy, both Jackson and the boy were telling the truth: There had never been anything sexual in their relationship. (see article)

According to ABC, Dickerman says that the accuser was specifically brought to Neverland to do the interview and that they hadn’t been at Neverland for months before that time. But that makes no sense. Why would the later-accuser be specifically brought to Neverland to do that Bashir interview when the accuser’s mother has said that she never signed any documents saying he could appear in the alleged “documentary”? Surely, if the sole purpose of him being there was to be in that documentary, she would have had to give permission. But there’s another hitch to the tale Dickerman was spinning. The prosecution’s theory is that when information about Jackson sleeping on the floor while a kid would sleep in his bed got out, Jackson’s career was allegedly in peril. (Cue the violins) He was “panicked,” and various other adjectives used to describe a situation prosecutor’s apparently know nothing about. Ok. So why would the kid be specifically brought to Neverland to be in that “documentary” if prosecutor’s are now alleging that THAT “documentary” was so damaging as to drive Jackson to commit a crime?? It just doesn’t make sense. And it gets worse for the story-spinning civil attorney. Dickerman’s story about why the family sought his legal services changed. He says the mother felt the producers of the Bashir “documentary” had treated her son unfairly. Nothing about being “terrorized” or “molestation”. From the ABC News report:

When the program aired last February, the boy’s mother contacted him, Dickerman said—not because she had any suspicions about child molestation, but because she felt the documentary’s producers hadn’t treated her son fairly. “He had been on camera, there had been no consent given,” said Dickerman. “And when she found out about it, she was absolutely livid and she would never have given her consent.” (see article)

Nothing about being “terrorized”. This tale of harassment, abduction and kidnapping is helped further with Dickerman’s involvement and probably manufactured at a later time. Either they were lying to him or he was helping manufacture the story and/or spin it in the press. Could this be why he has yet to agree to testify in court as he has been subpoenaed to do so? Does he now have reservations about the entire story the family is telling? Is he trying to get out of this? Stay tuned. -MJEOL :nav [url=]Your comments?[/url]

Leave a Reply