Anthony Pellicano on The Huffington Post

Evan Derkacz: Do Liberals "Get It" When it Comes to Fighting Fundamentalism?

2008-09-25T15:58:27Z

Has a secretive, informal network of fundamentalist Christians had undue influence over American policy? Over the summer vacation a newly unveiled Religion Dispatches convened its first round table, resulting in a lively discussion of Jeff Sharlet's new book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Harper, 2008).

Based on article for Harper's magazine entitled "Jesus Plus Nothing," Sharlet crafted his detailed and carefully researched exploration of an informal network of powerful Christians known as "The Family," or "The Fellowship." In Sharlet's words, it's: "a story of two great spheres of belief, religion and politics, and the ways in which they are bound together by the mythologies of America."

Joining RD, along with Jeff were: Randall Balmer, author, Episcopal priest, and professor of American religious history at Barnard College; Anthea Butler, Assistant Professor of Religion at the University of Rochester; and Diane Winston, the Knight Chair in Media and Religion at USC, who has worked as a reporter for several of the nation's leading newspapers.

Sharlet's book fills a significant gap in both scholarship and media. While plenty of time has been spent on mega-churches and the various factions of the religious right, very little work has been done on elite manifestations of religion-related power.

One of the burning questions, addressed at the very beginning of the round table, is: Do liberals "Get It"? That is, do the liberal values of dialogue and compromise actually have any effect when dealing with this powerful network? From the Roundtable:

Too many liberals put their faith in a mythical center, a set of values shared by all. Their commitment to this center is so great, in fact, that they're willing to travel any distance to get there. That's what Christian Right leader Chuck Colson understood when he wrote that he loved "dialogue" with liberals because he simply had to hold his ground and wait for them to come to him.

The discussion ranged over issues like this and was punctuated, unexpectedly, by a parenthetical gesture from one of our panelists. During the course of the round table, a critical review of the book appeared in the Washington Post by Randall Balmer.

Balmer had saved some of his most critical points for the readers of the Post, thus our discussion had a 'sidebar' of sorts. Given the last word, however, Sharlet used his closing argument to respond to Randy's offstage remarks and RD was graced with an exciting and surprise ending. Here's a sample:

Ah, sour grapes! Yes, I got 'em. Not so much because Randy radically misrepresented my arguments in the Post, where I can't respond, while offering far more nuanced arguments of his own only in this smaller and more scholarly roundtable, but because such a dichotomy represents exactly the scholarly/popular divide that allows The Family to slip between the cracks. Amongst scholars, he makes arguments that invite engagement. In the public square, he issues proclamations that do no more than police the borders of respectable knowledge, aka "conventional wisdom."

Enjoy the discussion and by all means join in with comments.

RDRoundtable: Welcome to "The Family"

John Sauer: Finding the Toilet in Stockholm

2008-08-27T14:56:21Z

Last week a mix of water and sanitation experts gathered for World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden to mull over the world's biggest public health crisis. The problem is that not enough people paid attention.

Each year over 2 million deaths could be prevented with improvements related to access to safe drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene. To put that in perspective, we have it within our grasp to prevent the equivalent deaths of 10 Asian tsunamis or 1,000 Hurricane Katrinas. Yet a major effort--like those that have been launched to address HIV/AIDS and malaria--to tackle the global drinking water and sanitation crisis remains elusive. The scope of this disconnect is baffling; water- and sanitation-related diseases (like relatively-easy-to-prevent diarrhea) kill more children each year than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and measles combined.

One reason why there hasn't been a Herculean effort to address this global scourge is that we in the water and sanitation sector are not doing enough to influence how this issue is understood by others. We have not been proactive or coordinated enough to frame the issue to the media and the wider development community in an action-oriented "this-can-be-done" tone.

All too often, water and sanitation has been framed as a "privatization" issue instead of an "access" issue. This is problematic. The "privatization" frame is confusing. It too often results in a blame game that takes attention away from the end result of the sector's work: getting water and sanitation to those who need it. Many of the most innovative, scalable solutions to the water and sanitation crisis are locally initiated approaches, such as the production of latrine slabs or ceramic water filters. They are put in place by a combination of actors: beneficiaries, communities, governments, local entrepreneurs, corporations and NGOs. The work of all of them is necessary to solve this problem.

There is a great need for the water and sanitation sector to reframe the issue so that those outside the sector understand what is at stake and become part of the solution. This effort will take leadership, resources, and working together (for more than one week in Stockholm). I propose "universal access" as the theme that guides this new direction. Developed countries have had universal access to water and sanitation for nearly 100 years. It makes no sense why the rest of the world can't get universal access as well.

Another explanation why the water and sanitation crisis remains in the shadows is that "sanitation" specifically has been ignored. Let's face it-- diseases associated with sanitation, like diarrhea, do not have "disease appeal" for governments and donors. The result is that very few people in the general public even know that 2.5 billion people do not have access to improved sanitation--nearly half of whom actually have to resort to open defecation. Those who do learn are outraged and take action.

More resources must be devoted to recruiting sanitation champions. HIV/AIDS has a built-in constituency because many people have a direct connection with someone who has suffered from or died of HIV/AIDS. Malaria has David Beckham trumpeting its cause. Sanitation needs a brave soul to be its spokesperson.

It has become a joke in the sector that no one in their right mind would become a "sanitation spokesperson." But this is no laughing matter. The lack of sanitation is one of the main reasons there isn't greater progress towards enabling the world's poor to meet their basic needs; malnutrition, poor education and disease burden are all exacerbated by inadequate sanitation. And the plight of the poor becomes more related to the survival of all as the world gets smaller each day.

In fact, some high-profile individuals have spoken out about the urgency of access to sanitation and they should be applauded. Matt Damon, Ashley Judd, Keira Knightley are a few. Would they be willing to form a Sanitation Celebrity Council to move this issue to its tipping point?

So the appeal I'd make to the 2,500 experts who went to Stockholm is to start a "universal access" campaign and to make sanitation--the most important medical advance since 1840--a major part of it. It's time to elevate water and sanitation to the status that it enjoyed during the UN's first Water Decade, which ended in 1990. This is, after all, the second Water Decade (2005-2015) in case we forgot. It's time to get this done.

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: My Final Thoughts On The Guilty Verdict

2008-05-17T17:20:00Z

So, the jury found them all guilty--the former private eye, Anthony Pellicano, the former cop, Mark Arneson, the former phone guy, Ray Turner, the former computer consultant, Kevin Kachikian and one former client, Abner Nicherie.

I apologize to everyone for not writing about the guilty verdicts sooner, but I was in New York on other business when the jury came back.

Unfortunately, I missed the final act of the Pellicano courtroom drama. After speaking with some of the defense attorneys and others present in the courtroom when the verdicts came back, I heard that both prosecutors, Daniel Saunders and Kevin Lally were quite pleased with the jury's verdicts. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Lally were confident that justice had been done in this case. But I didn't need to be in the courtroom to know that both prosecutors felt that this was an important case and that Mr. Saunders, in particular, believed that he'd done a great service to the community by convicting Mr. Pellicano and friends. One needed only to listen to his final argument to understand that Mr. Saunders believed that his approach to this problem--his successful prosecution of Mr. Pellicano and several of the conspirators on trial--would finally keep Mr. Pellicano's wealthy and influential clients from using all the detective's very effective illegal tactics to defeat and often destroy their adversaries.

It's clear that many potential plaintiffs and defendants who in the future find themselves involved in litigation will benefit from Mr. Saunders' and Mr. Lally's hard work. The fact that Mr. Pellicano is no longer on the scene, ready and willing to sell his illegal services to the highest and most influential bidder, is definitely a plus for someone who decides to sue a rich and powerful member of our community.

At the very least, one has to admit that the government's conviction of Mr. Pellicano and friends has definitely made wiretapping services less available to the attorneys who handle high end divorces and to all those litigators who tend to service many of Hollywood's most powerful players. And of course, it's going to be harder for all of Mr. Pellicano's well known clients--those who relied on him in case and after case to help them win. Those people will definitely have to re-adjust following these guilty verdicts. Those people are definitely going to have to find a new way of doing business. After all, Mr. Pellicano was around a long time and he had a lot of repeat business.

And worst of all, a lot of the people who used him, now find themselves facing a myriad of civil lawsuits and they're going to have to go it alone--without their favorite private eye on the job. Tough news for many of the town's most rich, famous and powerful citizens.

On the other hand, the clients and the lawyers who used Mr. Pellicano's wiretapping services shouldn't be too depressed about this verdict.

Rather, they might want to consider celebrating this verdict since these rich and powerful members of our community now know for a certainty what many of us already suspected, they are truly above the law. They got away with it--the wiretapping, the harassment, the threats--and the best part is that nobody really seems to care.

These former clients know that if they want to get another private detective to wiretap some annoying reporter's phone and threaten her with a dead fish, nothing will happen to them. They won't go to jail. And the rest of us now know that it's fine for some people--like Susan Maguire or Adam Sender or Andrew Stevens--to pay someone to illegal wiretap, to listen to those wiretaps and to even admit it all as long as those people are wealthy and can afford at least one (or in some cases two or three) great defense lawyers. We've also now understand that it is definitely not fine for other people---poor people like Abner Nicherie--to break the law, pay someone else to wiretap and then listen to those wiretaps. Lesson learned.

But don't think that all these rich and powerful people totally got away with what they did.

Naturally, there was a bit of a downside to breaking the law for some of these rich and famous clients.

They did, after all, have to be interviewed by the F.B.I. And, they did, in some cases, have to pay lawyers to negotiate limited use immunity agreements. And some had to actually endure the indignity of coming downtown and testifying. (It was a special sort of hell for a lot of those Westside clients to have to go east of the 405. Probably worse than going to prison for some.) For some, it was also all terribly embarrassing. There were tapes of them leaked on the Internet and even though they tried to put a stop to that, there wasn't much they could do. And for others, who'd been promised that their ties to Anthony Pellicano would forever remain a secret and that their statements to the F.B.I. would never see the light of day, there was the unbearable indignity of having portions of those interviews either published in the paper or even posted on the internet in a blog---all very low brow and very humiliating. Finally, for a few of Mr. Pellicano's clients, they were forced to endure not only the humiliation of having the public find out they'd hired Mr. Pellicano, but also they had to watch as their private conversations with Mr. Pellicano about their most hated of enemies ended up being posted on the internet. And this time around, there wasn't much they could do besides trying to get the government to make it all stop.

But, the actual bottom line is that even with a few embarrassing and inconvenient moments, the rich and powerful citizens of Los Angeles (and a few other places) didn't have to go to jail. And, now they can stop worrying--if they ever really did-- about what the government is going to do next. From everything that's we've seen in the days following the verdict, the government seems more than satisfied that they got all the bad guys--all those really, really bad people involved who were involved in this conspiracy.

The government is satisfied with convicting Mr. Pellicano and then with dragging a few other names through the mud by producing hundreds of documents that "suggest" that those names hired Mr. Pellicano to engage in illegal wiretapping or at the very least, hired Mr. Pellicano and then turned the other way while he did what he used to do better than anyone else in town.

But there are still some important unanswered questions about this case.

One can't help but wonder about why in a case against just Mr. Pellicano and a former phone guy, computer guy, cop and client, three quarters of the documents turned over to the defense during the discovery process (including lots and lots of audiotapes), related to star attorney Bert Fields, Paramount head Brad Grey and former super agent, Michael Ovitz, despite the fact that none of these men were charged. Mr. Fields repeatedly and publicly denied knowing about Mr. Pellicano's illegal conduct. And, both Mr. Grey and Mr. Ovitz testified under oath that they had no knowledge of any kind about Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping or other illegal activities. So, if everyone denied knowledge of any illegal activity and the government declined to prosecute any of the aforementioned men, why then did the government turn over the documents that it did in this particular case?

Why did the government turn over audio recordings of one of Mr. Fields' young associates telling Mr. Pellicano that he didn't care at all about how Mr. Pellicano got his information as long as the detective was successful? Why did the government turn over to the defense attorneys in this case all of the business records relating to the litigation involving Brad Grey and former client, Garry Shandling? Why did the government turn over to the defense all of Mr. Ovitz's calendar for 2001-2002, which included all of his appointments for the year--except for the ones he made with Mr. Pellicano? And, why, if the government had no intention of ever prosecuting Mr. Fields, did the government force Greenberg Glusker to turn over file after file of cases in which either Mr. Fields or his partners hired Mr. Pellicano? What was the point of all that? Why didn't the F.B.I. care when Mr. Grey made contradictory statements to the F.B.I., but then turned around and prosecuted Mr. Nicherie for doing the same thing? And why, even after Mr. Ovitz admitted that he'd hired Mr. Pellicano to investigate at least four known victims in this case and admitted that he'd paid him at least $75,000 in cash for doing that and was heard on an audiotape setting up a meeting with the investigator, that Mr. Ovitz was required to merely testify briefly in court?

The fact that three quarters of the documents turned over by the government related to Mr. Fields, his client Brad Grey and matters involving Mr. Pellicano can be interpreted in two ways: a.) the government collected all these documents and then decided that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Mr. Fields , or b.) the government preferred to merely suggest that Mr. Fields and Mr. Grey were guilty through hundreds of documents without having to endure the messy and often difficult process of having to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (The government would argue, of course, that the public was never supposed to see the bulk of these documents. But when documents are produced during a legal proceeding--including F.B.I. interviews with some of the most famous and wealthy people in the country--it's a pretty safe assumption that at least a few of those documents will become public.)

But whatever the reason for producing these documents, the fact remains that there are hundreds of documents--including audio tapes--that show that members of the law firm of Greenberg Glusker worked closely with Mr. Pellicano for years--particularly on behalf of client and Paramount studio chief, Brad Grey--and these documents show that at least some of the lawyers at Greenberg Glusker knew that Mr. Pellicano was wiretapping. There are also documented F.B.I. interviews with more than one of Mr. Fields' clients that suggest that Mr. Fields, as well as other Greenberg attorneys, knew that Mr. Pellicano was obtaining some of his information through illegal means. (There are also documents that weren't turned over to the defense that also suggest that Mr. Fields knew about Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping activities.) There was even testimony at the trial by one of Mr. Fields' clients that Mr. Fields told him through careful language that Mr. Pellicano used suspect investigative methods, but that those methods were effective. And, another one of Greenberg Glusker's clients testified at trial that when she found out that Mr. Pellicano was illegally recording her soon-to-be ex-husband, she tried to tell her lawyers at Greenberg, but they refused to listen. Naturally, the prosecutors didn't ask her why her lawyers refused to listen when she tried to tell them about the illegal recordings or what exactly they thought she was going to say. Did the lawyers put their fingers in their ears and sing when she started to talk about what Mr. Pellicano was up to in his office on Sunset or did they just push her out the door and pretend that she was never there? No one asked. The prosecution didn't need or want a witness on the stand talking about how her Greenberg Glusker lawyers either knew what she was about to say or that they went to great lengths to not listen to what she was about to say. They weren't interested in prosecuting Greenberg Glusker...at least not by the time the trial started.

I suppose, like any prosecutor with any political savvy at all, neither Mr. Saunders nor Mr. Lally relished the idea of going up against any of L.A.'s rich and powerful citizens who likely would have hired an army of incredible attorneys to defend them. The one thing that the prosecution would have known for sure is that none of these guys would have pulled a Pellicano and ended up defending themselves. The prosecution of a former cop, a former phone guy and a computer geek is one thing, but going after L.A.'s rich and powerful is quite another. It was probably the better decision to stick with a poor former client like Mr. Nicherie than to try and convict someone with the funds of an Adam Sender or even an Andrew Stevens, let alone a Michael Ovitz. And besides, Mr. Ovitz denied knowing about any of Mr. Pellicano's illegal activity. So, that always make it harder when someone won't just roll over and admit they did something illegal or when you don't have more than thirty audio recordings of them chatting about wiretapping like they do in the Terry Christensen case. So, absent at least thirty audio recordings of a client chatting about wiretapping, better to go after the little guys and get a big victory then actually have to prosecute someone who could make their lives a real living hell. If the government is expecting Mr. Christensen's trial to bear any resemblance to the one they just completed, they're in for a rude awakening. When Mr. Christensen allegedly agreed to wiretap Ms. Kerkorian and make her life a living hell, he was working for a client. So, if he'd go to that much trouble for Mr. Kerkorian, imagine how hard he'll be willing to fight in order to save his own career and to keep himself out of prison?

And so, as Mr. Saunders said in his closing arguments, prosecutors have effectively cut off Mr. Pellicano's supply of illegal services to many of his wealthy and powerful clients. But, although Mr. Pellicano is heading off to jail, no one should forget that his clients--all of those people who had no trouble paying big money for his services--are still around and more likely than ever to employ a strategy of total destruction against their adversaries. Even as the former victims emboldened by the verdict promise to bring these former clients to justice in civil court, they should proceed with extreme caution. Just in case these plaintiffs forgot, these former clients of Mr. Pellicano who they're preparing to take to court--these are the folks that now know for certain that they're above the law.

Read the complete coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom.

Anita Busch, Journalist Threatened By Anthony Pellicano, Calls For Investigation Of LA Times' Pellicano Reporter

2008-05-16T19:22:49Z

Anita Busch, a former L.A. Times reporter who was allegedly threatened by Anthony Pellicano -- has released the following statement regarding Pellicano's conviction:

I'd like to thank the judge and jury for their patience and wisdom on this case as well as the honest people in law enforcement who stopped others from being relentlessly attacked and terrorized. For that, I am eternally grateful.

The full story of Pellicano's reach has yet to be told. To Pellicano and his wealthy clients, 'winning' meant completely obliterating someone's life and livelihood. They saw the media as just another weapon in their arsenal and used and abused it to go after anyone in their crosshairs. For example, they used their PR connection to plant items in the New York Post's Page Six to slam victims like Bo Zenga and Garry Shandling. And when their targets became FBI agent Stan Ornellas and U.S. attorney Dan Saunders, they tried to smear and discredit these decent men in the pages of the L.A. Times. The Pellicano case coverage in the L.A. Times as reported by Chuck Philips (who told the NY Times that Pellicano was his longtime news source) should be examined. It's a case study of how Pellicano worked his media relationships to try to destroy his adversaries.

Hollywood Private Eye Convicted In Wiretap

2008-05-15T21:51:15Z

Anthony Pellicano, the ripped-from-a-pulp-novel private eye who made himself an indispensable fixer for Hollywood stars and moguls, was found guilty in federal court Thursday of racketeering, wiretapping and other charges.

The jury of eight men and four women deliberated nine days before finding Mr. Pellicano, 64, guilty of 76 of the 77 counts against him, mostly in connection with his extensive wiretapping operation, which he used to dig up dirt on business enemies and former spouses of his powerful clients.

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: Jury Deliberations Go On

2008-05-15T10:40:31Z

Just in case you're wondering, there is still no verdict in the Pellicano trial. That's right. They're still deliberating and in case you've forgotten, they started way back on May 1st. The jury had an extra long day yesterday--deliberating from 8:00AM until 3:00. (They take a lunch break at 11:00 each day.) For the second time since deliberations started, they asked to hear several audio recordings. Those recordings were played back in court with the defendants present. The jury then went back into deliberations before it broke for the day. They are scheduled to deliberate from 8:00 until 2:00 today--there are no jury deliberations on Friday due to a juror scheduling conflict. So, given the amount of time the judge will need to review instructions, the jury would have to come back with a verdict well before 12:00 in order for the judge to actually get a chance to review before the end of the day. (As it happens, the judge is also attempting preside over another trial while this jury continues to deliberate.) There is all kinds of guessing about why the jury is asking the questions that is, but given the range of questions, most of the counsel involved has been reluctant to speculate even off the record. I'll keep you posted....

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: Confusing Jury Deliberations

2008-05-06T13:45:58Z

The latest update from the Pellicano jury room is that the jury deliberations are proving to be as confusing as the actual case. The jury has come back with at least one question every day since they started deliberating. Some of the questions from the other day seemed to indicate that perhaps the government might be in trouble, but then the questions from yesterday and today, might be interpreted the opposite way. So, based on the jury's questions, it's still risky at this point to predict any type of verdict or whether they'll reach a verdict at all. It does seem that they're confused about the different elements of different counts--which could mean that they're considering those particular charges at this time. Or, they could be considering the various charges out of order. Basically, expert trial watchers as well as some of those involved in the case aren't even close to drawing any conclusions.

Specifically, the jury has asked for some clarification on jury instructions relating to Mark Arneson which touched off an argument between the defense and the prosecution as to how to respond. The jury sent out a note to the judge wondering if they could have additional clarification on what intent is required on charges of honest services wire fraud. After argument, the judge told the jury that they couldn't have any additional clarification. There was also a note on the identity theft charges and whether they each had to affect interstate commerce. The question from the jury was basically "does each alleged act for purposes of RICO have to affect interstate commerce?" The answer from the judge, "with respect to each alleged RICO act charging identify theft, the possession, transfer or use had to affect interstate commerce." There was an additional request this morning as to whether the jury could have an example of a RQH code run and the court said no.

I will post as soon as I know anything more...as in whether the jury might be close to reaching a verdict. STAY TUNED.

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom.

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: The Jury Has The Case

2008-05-01T16:38:36Z

As promised, Mr. Saunders (and his buddy Mr. Lally who wore matching suits for this final day of trial) got the last word. It was all Mr. Saunders in the last stretch of this trial, taking his final opportunity to argue against almost every single point brought up by the defense. He said that he wasn't going to do that--but, he couldn't quite resist. He's only human, after all. But honestly, the key thing that happened during Mr. Saunders' closing is that it finally became clear exactly what the government actually thinks that it's accomplishing by trying to convict Mr. Pellicano and his merry band of alleged co-conspirators. Mr. Saunders said it all at the end of his final rebuttal--"This isn't a case about Hollywood...Sylvester Stallone, Brad Grey or even Michael Ovitz," he explained to the courtroom. "This is a case about greed and the perversion of the justice system." See, now that's what I thought in the beginning as well, way back when the F.B.I. first raided Mr. Pellicano's offices. But then, things went differently than most of the people in this town expected. Because the general perception was that this case actually was about greed and the perversion of the justice system (that just happened to occur in Hollywood of all places), we expected that those who'd abused and perverted this system of justice would be prosecuted. But, Mr. Saunders had a different perspective on the issue which he finally shared with us in the closing moments of this trial and six year investigation. "This is about Bo Zenga having the same rights in a courtroom as Brad Grey," he said with conviction. "This is about Larry Nagler [Mr. Stallone's attorney] having the same right to have confidential conversations with his clients as Bert Fields." Okay, again, that's what I thought. And then, the big finish, "this is a case about people who believed that justice could be bought for a $25,000 non-refundable retained." Now, again, that's what we all thought, but then why didn't government prosecute all these people who thought that? Wait a minute...wait a minute, it's coming, ah yes, no one prosecuted those people because they're all too rich and too powerful to go after and put in prison. So, one is left to conclude that even though Mr. Pellicano and his alleged criminal enterprise might be out of commission, the people who thought they could buy just justice $25,000 retainer were absolutely right. Not only did they think they could do it, they actually did it and they got away with it.

And yes, Mr. Saunders did tell us that it wasn't the government's fault that some of these people were able to buy justice for $25,000 non-refundable retainers and not face any consequences. He did make the point that he'd decided not to go after the clients in this case and that was because of different reasons--statute of limitations problems, the fact that some of the incriminating conversations were found by the F.B.I. after they'd cut deals with clients (oh well) and then, because every case needs witnesses and sometimes, you have to use some of the people who were involved in criminal activity. (Some of the time?) But, his major argument and central stated reason for putting his focus on Mr. Pellicano and some of his sources of information: "the government attacked not the demand, but the supply." And by going after former Sgt. Arneson, who Mr. Saunders characterized as part of Mr. Pellicano's RICO machine, he was busy shutting down the suppliers of illegally obtained information. His goal was to get the jury to look at the bigger picture--the fact that the government went after the illegal machine and shut that machine down. He compared the government's choice to not go after the clients, but rather Mr. Pellicano and friends to the choice often made by law enforcement to not go after the johns in a prostitution ring, but rather the prostitutes. Therefore, we can all understand--and I hope this is of some comfort to Mr. Shandling and Mr. Zenga and Ms. Doucett and Mr. Stallone and Mr. Bernier and Mr. Casey and everyone else who knows better than anyone that justice can be bought in this town for $25,000--that the government made a conscious choice to prosecute Mr. Pellicano and his merry gang of alleged co-conspirators rather than to go after his clients or the lawyers like Mr. Fields and others who hired him again and again and again.

So, that government decision to go after Mr. Pellicano (and Mr. Turner and Mr. Arneson and Mr. Kachikian and for some still unexplained reason, Mr. Nicherie) has got to make someone feel better about the justice system here in town. The people who abused the system and paid millions to keep the Pellicano machine functioning--and that would be the people who basically make up the very top echelons of society on both coasts and particularly here in Los Angeles including many of the town's top attorneys--all of those guys and gals are never going to do anything illegal again because they now know that they'll end up punished. Oh wait, that's not true. They now know that they're free to go and find themselves another criminal enterprise and get back to business as usual since none of them got prosecuted. And the lesson is--and I hope that Mr. Christensen who is still practicing is listening--you need to make sure that the private eye who is doing wiretapping for you isn't all recording you. (Mr. Christensen has plead not guilty and has denied all knowledge of any illegal wiretapping activity by Mr. Pellicano on his or his client's behalf.) As for Mr. Pellicano's alleged victims--those people who spent most of their time on the stand authenticating DMV and criminal history runs done by Mr. Pellicano instead of actually getting to tell the jury the horrible things that happened to them because of those runs--those people whose privacy was invaded and who got lost in litigation because the other side knew all of their private and confidential legal information, well, those guys are going to have to be content with the fact that Pellicano is gone and that the rich people in this town are going to have to pay someone else to set up a new system. It's good to finally have some clarity on this issue.

It's clear that Mr. Saunders gets what happened here. He knows that these rich people were abusing the legal system and he knows that it was a disgusting abuse of the process and that a lot of people took advantage of what Mr. Pellicano and friends had to offer. It's just that he's obviously got a different perspective on how to fix the problem. He didn't think that the way to destroy the perversion of the legal system was to indict the lawyers and the clients who abused that system by paying Mr. Pellicano to do all sorts of illegal and often horrible things to their adversaries. Mr. Saunders thought that the better way to deal with this problem. Based on Mr. Saunders final comments about how he was trying to clean up the legal system by shutting down Mr. Pellicano, I can only guess that he thought if the government destroyed and dismantled this one corrupt private investigation organization with its sophisticated technology and well placed sources, then it would send a message to all these wealthy clients and lawyers who think they're above the law. And then, and I have to confess that I'm just guessing here, they'd be more cautious about hiring a similar private eye and his merry band of friends to replace Mr. Pellicano. It's a nice thought and a noble quest, even if it's not terribly realistic.

Frankly, all Mr. Saunders had to do to understand how little effect this trial has had on the people who hired Mr. Pellicano is to spend one evening at a westside party listening to them chat about how they're still hiring many of the attorneys who they know clearly used Mr. Pellicano for wiretapping. Some of these wealthy movers and shakers in Los Angeles think, if anything, that those attorneys that used Mr. Pellicano are the kind of advocates they want working for them--it's almost as if using Mr. Pellicano has been come a calling card for additional business for some of these litigators.

The thing that's really annoying about this case and seems to be lost on everyone is that the people who perverted this system along with Mr. Pellicano--those rich and famous upstanding citizens of this community--very few of them have publicly expressed any remorse for what they'd done to their enemies or in some cases, even admitted to doing anything wrong at all. Brad Grey, who has denied knowing that Mr. Pellicano did anything illegal on his behalf in either the Shandling case or the Zenga case, only admitted to paying Mr. Pellicano quite a bit more than his $25,00 retainer to work for him on both cases. He told the jury that he had no idea that Mr. Pellicano was wiretapping and that all dealings about the case with Mr. Pellicano were done by his attorney, Bert Fields. And then, Mr. Grey, walked off the stand and back to his job as the head of Paramount Studios without so much as an apology to either Mr. Shandling or Mr. Zenga. After all, what does he have to apologize for? He wasn't indicted or accused of any crime by the government. As for Mr. Fields, he never even made an appearance in court, but then why would he? As Mr. Saunders told the jury, this was about destroying the heart of Mr. Pellicano's enterprise and going after people who perverted the justice system. So, why would Mr. Fields, who merely told Mr. Grey, Adam Sender, Ken Starr and Andrew Stevens to hire Mr. Pellicano have to do with the prosecution's case? For that matter, what was Mr. Ovitz doing in court either? He just hired Mr. Pellicano to get dirt on people like Anita Busch, Bernard Weinraub, David Geffen, Ron Meyer and a list of others. Yes, Mr. Pellicano worked for him, but he didn't know what he was doing and that was enough for the government to not charge him with any crime.

As for Mr. Arneson, well, the government wasn't as kind. They said that he had to know what he was doing because he worked with Mr. Pellicano, doing runs, for years. And, Mr. Kachikian also worked with Mr. Pellicano for years on Telesleuth and then there was Ray Turner, who also worked with Mr. Pellicano for years. (I'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Nicherie got charged for listening to wiretaps when all those other guys who did the same thing got a pass. Maybe, just maybe, it's because he's not rich and he didn't have a lawyer when he talked to the F.B.I. Or as his attorney, Mr. Semenza so eloquently argued, it's because the real client had the cash and the pull to get herself a deal with the government.)

Clearly, certain people who worked with Mr. Pellicano for years were held accountable for knowing certain things about what he did and other people, who also worked with Mr. Pellicano for years were believed by the government when they said they knew nothing about what Mr. Pellicano was doing. What's wrong with this pictures? And why aren't more people outraged by what's happened here? Why don't more of the town's movers and shakers give a damn that the legal system was for sale? Are they so sure that they won't end up the wrong end of the next Pellicano? Maybe, they are. But the good thing is that even though we still have to worry about the rich and powerful abusing the system and setting up another allegedly criminal enterprise to deal with their enemies, we know that at least Mr. Pellicano, who by his own admission did most of the information gathering and "the winning" at any cost will end up in prison for the rest of his life as well as his merry band of alleged information gatherers who were busy trying to make some extra bucks like the poor telephone worker, the police officer, the computer technician and again for some reason, Abner Nicherie. Those guys--who sadly can be replaced in a minute by other poor guys looking to make a buck- it's likely that those guys won't be around to bother anyone. Oddly enough, that doesn't really make me feel like anyone who sues someone powerful in this town will have the same legal rights as the powerful people whose authority they dare to challenge.

And so, the jury has the case. The prosecutors and the defense attorneys have shaken hands and I'm sitting in the hallway wondering about how so many people who broke the law walked away from this mess without so much as a scratch.

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom.

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: Final Defense Closing Arguments

2008-05-01T14:04:45Z

Mona Soo Hoo just gave her closing argument on behalf of former SBC phone company worked Ray Turner and it was surprisingly good. She did a great job of pointing out that most of the damning testimony against Mr. Turner came from Teresa Wright, a phone company employee who was frightened and terrified after the government was able to prove that she'd looked up private telephone company information because her identification code was still in the system. But, Ms. Soo Hoo effectively pointed out that along with Ms. Wright, all of the witnesses against Mr. Turner were government collaborators who had great motive to say whatever the government told them to say. As she put it, there's no stronger motive than trying to save your own life.

She also noted that none--and this is actually true--none of the government evidence actually showed that Mr. Turner was wiretapping. The Pellicano employees identified him as the "phone guy" for Mr. Pellicano, but she wondered about where were the documents from Mr. Pellicano's office showing the reformatted phone numbers that all these employees supposedly typed in from records brought to the office by Mr. Turner. And while she was arguing all of this, the jury seemed to be taking some notes and actually beginning to think about what the evidence actually showed against Mr. Turner. But at the same time, Mr. Saunders was furiously scribbling away, after announcing before Ms. Soo Hoo's close, that he 'd probably take more than an hour to close. (He'd previously told the Judge that he'd take 30 minutes to an hour. She didn't believe him and neither did I. After all, he's not the sort to let a single argument go by unrebutted--even when perhaps, he might want to be a bit more choosy about what he attacks and a bit more mindful of whether the jury even cares about what he's saying. This is, after all, a group of people being forced to listen to hour upon hour of argument. It might be smart to say something interesting to them once in a while....)

STILL TO COME, MR. SEMENZA CLOSE FOR MR. NICHERIE WHO IS CHARGED WITH LISTENING AND PAYING FOR WIRETAPS LIKE MANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT. SHOULD BE INTERESTING...

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom here.

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Closing Arguments: Final Thoughts

2008-04-30T15:30:01Z

We finished up the day with final closing by Adam Braun, the attorney for computer genius Kevin Kachikian. All of the defense attorneys did a decent job today of discrediting aspects of the government's case, but there were a few things about Mr. Hummel and Mr. Braun's closing that were extraordinarily good. Mr. Hummel did a really smooth job of using Agent Ornellas' testimony to help out former Sgt. Arneson. Along with pointing out that Mr. Ornellas (along with Mr. Pellicano) asked Mr. Arneson to do a run for him, he read back the portion of Agent Ornellas' testimony where he admitted that he hadn't bothered to compare any of the runs done by Mr. Arneson to numerous arrest made by Mr. Arneson.

But frankly, the best part of Mr. Hummel's close came when he finally allowed himself to get emotional about the facts leading up to former Sgt. Arneson's arrest. He talked about his client, who'd admitted to the government that he'd illegally run names for Mr. Pellicano, was unable to tell the government that he also knew about Mr. Pellicano's wiretapping activities. Mr. Hummel's voice rose as he recounted the tale of how his client ended up being charged with RICO in this case--arguing that it happened because he refused, unlike other witnesses, to tell the government what it wanted to hear. Instead of quoting John Adams, Mr. Hummel opted to compare Mr. Arneson to John Proctor, the ultimately persecuted character in Arthur Miller's play The Crucible. Mr. Hummel told the jury about how the character of John Proctor in The Crucible had an adulterous relationship with a servant girl named Abigail Williams who after he ended the relationship, told authorities that Mr. Proctoer was a witch. While Mr. Procter repeatedly admitted to the sin of adultery, he refused to admit to being a witch even though it could save his life. Mr. Hummel argued that similarly, Mr. Arneson has spent the last five years willing to admit to doing runs for Mr. Pellicano, but refusing to admit what he didn't know--that Mr. Pellicano was involved in illegal wiretapping. "The beauty of our constitution," argued Mr. Hummel, "is that we don't convict people for not admitting what they didn't do." And, he added, there has been no evidence that Mr. Arneson knew of Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping. He pointed to testimony by Agent Ornellas' testimony is which he actually said that he'd found no evidence that Mr. Arneson knew about Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping. "What has the government proved besides that the audit?" Mr. Hummel said.

He also took time to talk about police officer Craig Stevens, who plead guilty and cooperated with the government. Referencing Mr. Stevens' phone call to Mr. Saunders' voice mail in which he volunteered to do anything to help the situation, Mr. Hummel suggested that Mr. Arneson could have taken similar action and avoided prosecution if he'd been willing to say that he knew things about Mr. Pellicano which he did not. Mr. Hummel quoted Mr. Stevens as telling Mr. Saunders on the voice mail that he was willing "to testify against someone" and that he was throwing himself at Mr. Saunders' mercy.

Then, Mr. Hummel took a moment to point out all the other witnesses who seemingly had thrown themselves at Mr. Saunders' mercy, testified that they knew about wiretapping and walked away uncharged. He said "Mr. Saunders told you yesterday that there was big money involved, let me put this in perspective for you. My client was not a high priced talent manager or a famous comedian or someone who got rich off of hedge funds," said Mr. Hummel. "He was someone busy protecting our streets. Where are the others who reaped the benefits of Mr. Pellicano's services," he asked with indignation.

He wondered where was Adam Sender, who admitted to listening to wiretaps. Where was Andrew Stevens? Where was Freddie DeMann or Susan Hughes? They were all uncharged despite their admissions of listening to wiretaps. So, Mr. Hummel's point seemed to be that the secret password to getting off in this case was to admit to wiretapping -- or if you didn't want to do that, you could just blame it on your lawyer. "And you didn't hear from Bert Fields?" Mr. Hummel pointed out. "Witnesses testified that he hired Pellicano repeatedly, but the government didn't call him." Mr. Hummel looked over at the jury who suddenly seemed to be listening. "Everyone else who said they used his services but had no knowledge of his wiretapping, none of those folks were prosecuted," Mr. Hummel stated. But when it came to Mark Arneson, the government just wouldn't take no for an answer. And so, according to Mr. Hummel, Mr. Arneson ended up charged with RICO -- despite the fact that Agent Ornellas admitted that he wasn't involved in threats against Pellicano clients, didn't know about the wiretapping and never listened to any transcripts.

Then, Adam Braun closed on behalf of Mr. Kachikian, deftly pointing out that the government had failed to introduce any evidence that showed his client knew that Mr. Pellicano was illegally using his Telesleuth program. Mr. Braun argued that Mr. Saunders wanted the jury to convict Mr. Kachikian on the theory of "how could he not have known." Mr. Braun argued that Mr. Kachikian wasn't as smooth or as sophisticated as the other people in Mr. Pellicano's circles, that he wasn't used to swimming with sharks like agents in the entertainment industry and heads of studios and that it was completely feasible that Mr. Kachikian, who rarely worked in the office, was completely unaware of Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping activities. "Even Tarita Virtue [a former Pellicano employee who testified for the government] said it took her six to seven months to figure out that she was listening to wiretapped phone calls," said Mr. Braun of Mr. Pellicano's ability to hide information from his employees when he chose to do so. He then went after Tarita Virtue, a former employee who spoke with the government at least thirteen times, and testified under a use immunity agreement. Telling the jury that the testimony of government cooperators should be viewed with suspicion, particularly one like Ms. Virtue who'd changed her story a multitude of times, Mr. Braun argued that government witnesses were put under such pressure in this case that they were willing and did say anything the government asked. Mr. Braun also noted that even when the stories of the government witnesses changes--like in Ms. Virtue's case--the government didn't pause to evaluate whether the witness should still take the stand.

Mr. Braun argued that Ms. Virtue had thirteen meetings with the government in which she was asked about wiretapping and Mr. Kachikian and never told a single thing about Mr. Kachikian. But in her fourteenth meeting with the government before trial, she said that Mr. Kachikian had known about Mr. Pellicano's wiretapping. "Anyone every heard of the expression fourteen times a charm?" Mr. Braun asked sarcastically before muttering, "no." Mr. Braun went on to summarize what he believed was the central question the jury should be asking about his client. "The real question is how someone [like Mr. Kachikian] can be a knowing participant in a conspiracy and there not be any evidence " of that conspiracy, said Mr. Braun. He then went on to argue that there wasn't any evidence of a single call in which Mr. Kachikian discussed wiretapping with Mr. Pellicano--despite the hundreds of recordings seized by the government. He noted there wasn't a conversation in any coded language testified to by any witness and there wasn't even an email. Finally, Mr. Braun brought home his argument by noting that "Mr. Pellicano duped Mr. Kachikian. Mr. Pellicano swam in sophisticated waters with Hollywood agents and his clients were enormously wealthy people who cheated on their spouses and then represented themselves to be pillars of the community," noted Mr. Braun. Basically, he was telling us that Mr. Pellicano moved in a real smooth, deceitful world of powerful people and that Mr. Kachikian was no match for this particular private detective who was used to dealing with these sophisticated sharks. "If he had been one of these people," said Mr. Braun, "an agent from CAA or a studio chief, perhaps he would have learned about the illegal wiretapping and if he would have learned, he would have left."

Meanwhile, Mr. Saunders spent the day objecting to some of Mr. Braun's improper questions about who the government should have called to testify in this case and the law governing reasonable doubt. Mr. Saunders seemed on edge today, taking furious notes and showing irritation during Mr. Braun's closing argument. Before Mr. Pellicano got up to testify, there was a strange moment in the trial, where Mr. Saunders walked over to Mr. Pellicano, seemingly to give him some instruction on his closing argument. But as he approached, Mr. Pellicano reached out and shook his hand. Mr. Saunders stood there awkwardly, seemingly unsure of how to disengage his own paw. Fortunately, the judge saved him by indicating that the jury was about to come back. Mr. Pellicano smiled broadly as he watched Mr. Saunders walk back to the government's table.

Tomorrow Mona Soo Hoo will close on behalf of Ray Turner, the former telephone employee and Lawrence Semenza will close on behalf of Abner Nicherie. During the trial, Mr. Semenza declined to present a defense for Mr. Nicherie, noting that the government had failed to meet its burden of proof. Nicherie is accused of paying Mr. Pellicano to wiretap Ami Shafrir and of listening to wiretaps in Mr. Pellicano's office. After the closing arguments, the case will go to the jury.

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Delivers Own (Hysterical) Closing Arguments

2008-04-30T13:48:49Z

Mr. Hummel, who represents Mark Arneson, spent an hour delivering a compact, compelling closing argument as to why Mr. Arneson should be found innocent. He started off admitting what he'd admitted in his opening--Mr. Arneson did in fact do hundreds of computer runs for Mr. Pellicano over the years. He acknowledged that Mr. Arneson "had crossed the line and was sorry for doing it." After that admission, he went on to use the testimony of government witness and lead investigative agent, Stan Ornellas, to prove that Mr. Arneson hadn't been part of any RICO conspiracy. Noting that it was Mr. Arneson who'd called Mr. Ornellas to the stand, Mr. Hummel pointed out that we "called him to tell you what they actually found in their investigation." He pointed out in a chart for the jury, showing Mr. Ornellas' testimony, that the agent never "found any evidence linking Mr. Arneson to wiretapping." Something that a lot of the other witnesses who are not charged in this case can't really say. And, then there was Agent Ornellas testimony regarding whether Mr. Arneson was involved in threatening any of Mr. Pellicano's clients. "No," again said Mr. Ornellas. And in a particularly interesting excerpt, Mr. Hummel pointed out that when asked whether Mr. Arneson had failed to arrest someone or pursue a lead because of his association with Mr. Pellicano--something that Mr. Saunders hammered on yesterday--Mr. Hummel pointed out that Mr. Ornellas had found no evidence that showed Sgt. Arneson had failed to do complete investigations or make arrests because of his work for Mr. Pellicano.

Mr. Pellicano gave his closing argument and it was definitely a
classic. Following on the heels of Mr. Hummel's precise account of
what exactly Mr. Arneson did for Mr. Pellicano--ran DMV and criminal
history--Mr. Pellicano argued that he was a lone ranger who kept things
to himself "and only allowed others to learn what HE wanted them to
learn." Jettisoning the whole John Adams "fact is a stubborn thing"
quote used by Mr. Saunders yesterday, Mr. Pellicano went with his own
founding father--Benjamin Franklin. "Benjamin Franklin said that the
only way to keep a secret when three people are involved is if two
people are dead." And so, he launched into a summary of exactly how he
ran his business. "There was no criminal enterprise," Mr. Pellicano
argued. There was just a private investigator who was also an audio
expert solving problems for his clients through the analysis of
information. And of course, there was an end goal. "Winning," said
Mr. Pellicano, "that's what it was all about." He proudly stated that
his business cards should have read "I deliver." Noting with a smile
to the jury that that's exactly what Mr. Pellicano did "not only
private celebrity clients but for law enforcement" for over thirty
years.

Mr. Pellicano then addressed the testimony during the trial from his
immunized employees and clients who all agreed on one thing--he was
secretive. "Mr. Pellicano never allowed clients to know what he was
doing and for good reason," said Mr. Pellicano about himself. A
statement that undoubtedly gave the government a chance to smile. And
then, he said what everyone at this trial already knows, but what the
government didn't manage to prove about Mr. Pellicano's
clients--"Everyone who hired him knew what they were getting."

Mr. Pellicano then took a moment to address the value of the
information provided by Mr. Arneson, agreeing with Mr. Hummel's
argument that he basically used those runs from Mr. Arneson to confirm
information that he already knew. He referenced how the information
from former Sgt. Arneson contained information from DMV runs and also
license plate numbers. "Boy, having that information, case closed," he
said sarcastically, breaking into a big smile. "Not really." He then
went on to specify the nature of his relationship with Mr. Arneson,
noting that "most of the time I had that information and just got it
verified."

And then there were complements for the government. Mr. Pellicano told
the jury that they'd done a good job of pointing out what was in those
runs, over and over again. It probably wasn't lost on the jury how
many weeks of testimony were devoted to Pellicano targets identifying
their personal phone numbers and license plate numbers on runs faxed
to Mr. Pellicano by Mr. Arneson. But Mr. Pellicano insisted that just
because he got information from a bunch of different sources, didn't
mean that he was running a criminal enterprise. "Because," Mr.
Pellicano noted, "if that means that I was running a criminal
enterprise that means that every private eye in the country is running
an enterprise and even some of the journalists here." He looked over
in my direction with a smile. Mr. Saunder vehemently objected and the
judge ordered the question stricken--but everyone was still smiling as
Mr. Pellicano continued his argument.

He also tried to point out to the jury that there was a lot of evidence
they hadn't heard. He noted that they never would have learned the
contents of his private calls with clients if the government had seized
them from his office--something that we all kind of all know by now,
but something that clearly is still bugging Mr. Pellicano. He then
took the opportunity to bait the government about how although they got
some calls from his records, there were lots of calls they couldn't
decrypt...something that the government admitted in closing. "You
didn't hear all of those recordings and they may have had more evidence
to assist you," Mr. Pellicano said before Mr. Saunders exploded with
another objection. Well, nobody wants the jury to hear about how the
government couldn't break the encryption codes set up by just a private
investigator and his nerdy side-kick, Kevin Kachikian. Pretty sad
stuff.... As for what we did hear, Mr. Pellicano apologized. "Those
were never intended to be heard by anyone but Mr. Pellicano," he said
of the phone recordings seized from his office.

And then, there were his final comments to the jury--probably the most
entertaining final close that I've ever heard. "Mr. Pellicano refuses
to insult your intelligence," he said of himself. "Mr. Pellicano told
you that the evidence will show what the evidence shows and it clearly
does." And, that's a fact Jack.

As for who was responsible for this entire operation, Mr. Pellicano
took the last few moments to tell the jury--man to ladies and
gentlemen--that "Mr. Pellicano alone is responsible for the gathering
and acquisition of the information. That's the simple truth. Mr.
Pellicano alone is responsible." A final gift to Mr. Arneson, Mr.
Kachikian, Mr. Turner and Mr. Nicherie for having to sit through all of
Mr. Pellicano's rather unhelpful cross-examination and for ending up
charged with RICO along with him.

Finally, he had one last thought for the jury. "Mr. Pellicano had
instructed me not to stand up here and try to sway you and you know
that people do what Mr. Pellicano says," he argued, prompting the judge
to cover her face with her hand to conceal her laughter. ""So, I'm
going to do what Mr. Pellicano says." And with that, he thanked the
jury for their service and walked over to his chair with a big smile on
his face.

MORE TO COME ON TODAY

There was one thing that I forgot to put in my earlier post and that really summed up Mr. Saunders' closing argument yesterday. Before the defendants began to close today, Mr. Saunders took a moment to thank the judge for giving him extra time to finish his argument yesterday. "It wasn't as extra as it seemed," the judge replied with a smile, intimating that Mr. Saunders' final forty-five minutes of argument seemed to go on longer than it actually did.

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: The Closing Arguments

2008-04-30T11:20:37Z

Prosecutor Daniel Saunders stepped up to the podium yesterday morning to finally give his closing argument in a case that started back in November, 2002. Mr. Saunders actually started off strong, going to the audio tape in order to give the jury a taste of Mr. Pellicano in action. The audio tape was a government favorite--the old Matt Williams tape where Mr. Pellicano tells Mr. Williams, a former baseball player, how he can help him get information on Mr. Williams' ex-wife. "I'm gonna listen to things that she's talking about," Mr. Pellicano says on the audio recording, prompting Mr. Williams to consider hiring a different investigator. (He never did, in fact, hire Mr. Pellicano.) And of course, Mr. Pellicano tells Mr. Williams that his methods have to stay just between Mr. Williams and Mr. Pellicano. I guess that's because besides most of entertainment industry and a couple of peripheral players, nobody knew that Mr. Pellicano had the ability to wiretap conversations.

But after playing the Williams' audio recording and going through a list of the government's greatest Pellicano witnesses during the eight week trial, Mr. Saunders began to run into trouble. His first mistake--using a quote from John Adams about how "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Clearly, someone has been watching too many episodes of the John Adams series on HBO. The whole "fact is a stubborn thing" kind of came off as stake, uninspired and just a little bit dull. Unfortunately, that wasn't the last time Mr. Saunders mentioned it wasn't exactly a crowd pleaser, Mr. Saunders went back to it every so often, reminding us that even incredibly intelligent people like John Adams can have an off day.

While the whole "fact is a stubborn thing" quote wasn't exactly Churchill, it wasn't as dull as what came next. Things truly began to go wrong for Mr. Saunders right around the time he promised the jury to go through every single charge in the 79 count indictment. You could almost feel their sense of dread--or maybe that was coming from the audience or perhaps, the judge. We all were aware of how long it was going to take to get through all those charges. All I could think was, thank God the government had cut down the original 110 count indictment or we'd all still be there in that courtroom right now, trying to find some comfortable position on those wooden benches that didn't leave us permanently paralyzed.

But some time between Mr. Saunders' walk down indictment memory lane and his criminal law for dummies class, the prosecutor did make some interesting points about the government's case. He laced into former Sgt. Arneson for helping Mr. Pellicano find information on some of the same criminals that were targeted by the former officer's employer, the LAPD. He argued that Mr. Arneson had let down the citizens of Los Angeles by abusing the powers of his position and that the former officer was nothing more than a dirty cop on Mr. Pellicano's payroll who put his co-workers at risk by providing the detective with privileged law enforcement information. And, he hit Mr. Pellicano and Mr. Turner very hard as he described how the two had worked together to wiretap the most private conversations of citizens who had no idea that anyone was listening. (I suppose that was because this all happened before the government got in the business of warrantless wiretaps.)

And then there were some interesting attempts to cut off defense arguments that are yet to come. Mr. Saunders admitted that because the F.B.I.'s first search warrant in November of 2002 was a limited search warrant that didn't allow the bureau to seize computers from Mr. Pellicano's war room, quite a bit of evidence was potentially missed and then subsequently destroyed by Mr. Pellicano. He also admitted that there were quite a few recordings of Mr. Pellicano's that the F.B.I. was unable to decrypt--which has to make you feel good about how they're dealing with the whole terrorist threat. And, there was his throw away line about how this was a conspiracy and how the government hadn't actually charged everyone who might have been involved (or basically financed) this whole wiretapping and illegal investigation business that Mr. Pellicano allegedly had going here in town for over thirty years.

"There's been a lot of questioning about who was or wasn't charged with what in this case," Mr. Saunders acknowledged in a booming voice. "It's your job to decide whether the government proved the charges. But, it's not your job to decide who should have been a defendant and not a witness." No, that was the government's job and frankly, I'm not so sure they did such a good job of it. They used an ex-employee named Tarita Virtue, who admitted to transcribing wiretapped calls and who could have been prosecuted by the government had she not struck a deal, to testify about over 300 calls that she listened to in the Bo Zenga matter. (There were also other significant problems with her credibility--including a whole lot of pictures of her in her underwear on the web after she was supposedly in hiding because of fears that Mr. Pellicano would harm her.) They had Ms. Virtue also testify to summaries she typed up of many of those calls--including private conversations between Mr. Zenga and his attorney, Mr. Dovel. But the government pointedly avoided asking Mr. Grey, who was the defendant in that lawsuit, about things he'd told the F.B.I., including the content of phone calls he'd had with Mr. Pellicano regarding the Bo Zenga matter. (He was also asked very few questions about the Gary Shandling lawsuit, despite his admission that he'd received advice not to settle the matter from Mr. Pellicano. Nor was he asked about Mr. Shandling's testimony that as far back as 1995, Mr. Grey suggested hiring Mr. Pellicano when Mr. Shandling was involved in litigation with his ex-girlfriend and employee, Linda Doucett.)

The government also decided not to call the most obvious witness of all, Mr. Grey's attorney, Bert Fields, who worked with Mr. Pellicano for years on a wide variety of cases and was named by a number of witnesses as the man who had suggested they hire Mr. Pellicano. Instead, the jury heard from the clients of Mr. Fields, some of whom actually testified to hearing wiretaps. There was Adam Sender who testified about listening to wiretaps but who wasn't indicted, and Susan Maguire, also not indicted, as well as Andrew Stevens, also not indicted. Oddly enough, the government also called Michael Ovitz, who although he took the stand and said he'd both hired Mr. Pellicano to dig up dirt on his opponents and paid him cash and checks for his efforts, is also not charged in this matter. (Of course, Mr. Ovitz denied being aware of any illegal activity by Mr. Pellicano.) In a strange contrast to how the government treated Mr. Ovitz during his direct testimony, Mr. Saunders actually pointed to Mr. Ovitz today in talking about Mr. Pellicano's misdeeds, telling the jury that "Michael Ovitz paid Defendant Pellicano to get information on Anita Busch to 'find out when the other shoe would drop.'"

Naturally, Mr. Saunders still didn't provide any explanation for the jury why Mr. Ovitz wasn't charged or any of the other clients who testified before the jury because, as he pointed out earlier in the day, it's not their job to question the charges in this case. And, Mr. Saunders is right about that. It was his job back when he first began to see the evidence in this case before all the statute of limitations had run against these potential defendants, to ask the difficult questions about who should be charges in this case and to made the very difficult choice about whether to go after some of the most powerful people in the Los Angeles community who retained Mr. Pellicano. Obviously, Mr. Saunders opted to go a different route. He chose to go after the private detective to the stars, rather than his clients, as well as this bottom rung of Mr. Pellicano's employees--this allegedly conspiracy consisting of a poorly paid, allegedly corrupt police officer (or two), a long time phone company worker (or three) and a freelance computer geek who barely left his home. Mr. Saunders is right. It isn't the job of the jury to be sitting around after the fact having to wonder about why they've seen a parade of Mr. Pellicano's incredibly wealthy clients--including entertainment executives and celebrities--walk in and out the courtroom even after admitting to having hired Mr. Pellicano or in some cases or even after admitting to listening to wiretaps. It's not their job to question why Andrew Stevens could go up on a roof, listen to one of Mr. Pellicano's wiretaps of entertainment attorney John LaViolette speaking to his client, laugh about it with the private detective and then just bounce on out of the courtroom a free man. It was Mr. Saunders job, if he chose to do so, to investigate fully and indict the incredibly wealthy people in this town who spent a fortune making Mr. Pellicano--and not his merry band of employees--an incredibly wealthy man and a warmly regarded member of their community.

Bottom line here is that only three people involved in the entertainment industry were charged in this case--despite the fact that almost all of Mr. Pellicano's clients were somehow related to the entertainment business. There were only really two industry insiders charged in this entire case and one entertainment attorney--director John McTiernan, because blatantly he lied to the F.B.I. and then refused to cooperate and music producer Bob Pfeiffer, because frankly, Mr. Pellicano recorded most of their conversations. And of course, Terry Christensen, the name partner at Christensen, Glaser, because again, the government actually got their hands on over thirty recordings by Mr. Pellicano of their conversations. (Given the potentially incriminating nature of those many recordings, you have to think that even Mr. Saunders couldn't help but indict Mr. Christensen.) But in general, it seems that if you were in the entertainment industry and you still were hot--always helpful in this particular town--it seems you got a pass in this case.

When he wasn't painfully explaining and re-explaining the elements of RICO or a conspiracy allegation or telling the jury what the government didn't have to prove, Mr. Saunders did manage to do some damage to former Sgt. Mark Arneson's defense. Noting that testimony by the former officer that Mr. Pellicano paid him and his company to provide security services to the detective's wealthy celebrity clients was really ludicrous in light of the fact that Mr. Arneson presented no evidence regarding these services. Mr. Saunders questioned why Mr. Arneson had introduced no business records regarding the alleged security work he did for Mr. Pellicano's clients or testimony from the off-duty cops Mr. Arneson allegedly paid to assist him with his off-duty business. "So where are all these cops who got paid?" Mr. Saunders asked. "I assume they're with his business records." Mr. Saunders' saracastic remarks regarding Mr. Arneson's lack of evidence of his innocence were followed by Mr. Saunders' well timed admission that "of course, Mr. Arneson doesn't have to prove anything and I'm not suggesting he does."

Mr. Saunders spent most of the day, however, slowly, ever so slowly, going through each and every count in the massive indictment and even at one point, reading from his notes to the jury the actual elements of a particular count. Unfortunately, Mr. Saunders fell into the trap getting lost in the computer runs, phone logs, and even the occasional dull recording instead of focusing on the human elements of the government's case. There was a lot of testimony during this trial about computer runs and phone numbers and all kinds of wiretapping, but with just a few exceptions, Mr. Pellicano's alleged victims kind of got lost in the shuffle.

Mr. Saunders' most effective effort to really bring out the stories of the alleged victims of this case was when he focused on the testimony by Bo Zenga's attorney, Mr. Dovel, who spoke about how "chilling" it was to see notes of your own private conversations. Mr. Saunders also reminded the jury about how Mr. Dovel had summed up the devastating effect of having a legal opponent know everything about your case. As Mr. Dovel said during his testimony, information is everything in litigation. Mr. Saunders effectively summed up the point, noting that thanks to Mr. Pellicano's wiretapping abilities, "his side knew everything that the other side did." But then again, that left open the question of why Mr. Pellicano's side," particularly as it pertained to the Bo Zenga litigation, wasn't sitting in court next to Mr. Pellicano.

Mr. Saunders big finish included, yep, a shout out to John Adams and his stubborn fact brigade as well as a reminder to the jury to not be fooled by the evil doings of the defense attorneys as they try to pick a part the government's case. Mr. Saunders told the jury that he expected the defense to try and argue about particular evidence --darn those stinkin' conspirators--and to basically disregard the totality of the evidence. Mr. Saunders closed by reminding the jury that what the attorneys say isn't evidence (particularly the defense attorneys) and that in considering what they hear today, they sould ask themselves whether what is said is consistent with the totality of the evidence. Yep, that's pretty much what he said and it was just as compelling of an admonition in person.

Mr. Hummel, Mr. Arneson's attorney, is up first for the defense tomorrow. Argument starts at 8:00 sharp. STAY TUNED FOR TODAY'S OTHER POSTS.....

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: Closing Arguments Begin

2008-04-29T14:10:36Z

Prosecutor Daniel Saunders has begun his closing argument, starting off strongly with his statement that the Pellicano Investigative Agency was "nothing more than a criminal organization operated by a well connected, well paid thug." He then went on to give the jury a recitation of the number of witnesses and documents that the government has presented showing what happened to people that found themselves on the wrong side of the Pellicano agency. Mr. Saunders has been direct, strong and quite structured in his argument, seemingly quite compelling during the opening stages. However, he seemed to be dragged down by the sheer number of counts and the complexity of what these defendants are charged with doing. MORE LATER...

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom.

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial Exclusive: Excerpts From FBI Investigation

2008-04-28T21:18:47Z

I have exclusively reviewed the evidence gathered this weekend by the F.B.I. relating to the government's intent to still try and prove, despite testimony from their own witness to the contrary, that former Sgt. Mr. Arneson had something to do with filing a fraudulent bankruptcy application and that he lied about it to the government. This investigation was done, ironically enough, quite a bit after the government had already cross-examined Mr. Arneson on this particular issue. So basically, the government had to argue today that they'd done a good faith investigation of Mr. Arneson's alleged fraudulent bankruptcy filing before cross-examining Mr. Arneson on the issue for over an hour even though they'd never interviewed David C. Miller, who along with his wife, owned the company Child Technology Institute that was listed as one of Arneson's creditors on his bankruptcy petition.

I have learned that the F.B.I. conducted a series of interviews this weekend with two witnesses relating to the government's original claim that Mr. Arneson filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition. Probably, these F.B.I. interviews should have been conducted before the government put Phyllis Miller on the stand to try and impeach Mr. Arneson's claim that he never signed or filed a bankruptcy application. You would imagine that after accusing Mr. Arneson of filing for bankruptcy over five years ago, that the government clearly would have already investigated this issue, but apparently you would have been wrong.

Basically, by calling Ms. Miller and having her verify Mr. Arneson's claim that it wasn't his handwriting on the bankruptcy petition, Mr. Saunders managed to provide verification that Mr. Arneson had been telling the truth about never signing or completing any bankruptcy petition. And, after a six year investigation, the F.B.I. spent the weekend trying to prevent a mistrial.

One of the F.B.I. interviews this weekend was with Ms. Sandra Olin, the next witness set to be called by the government to support the whole fraudulent bankruptcy filing allegation. Ms. Olin had been interviewed before, but the F.B.I. had failed the last time around to ask her about her association with the Millers and what they were doing on Mr. Arneson's bankruptcy application as one of his creditors. (Ms. Olin had told the F.B.I. that she allegedly opened an escrow and negotiated with another company on behalf of Mr. Arneson.)

According to an F.B.I. 302, exclusively reviewed by the me, Ms. Olin told the F.B.I. this weekend that she had no knowledge of someone else filing the bankruptcy petition for Mr. Arneson and that she had nothing to do with its filing. In the 302 prepared by Agent Corrie L. Lyle who along with Agent Jonathan Mosser, interviewed Ms. Olin on April 27th, she told them that "she had nothing to do with David and Phyllis MIller filling out the Arneson bankruptcy petition," according to the F.B.I. notes. Ms. Olin told the F.B.I., according to their notes, that she'd maintained the Arneson file for ten years because the officer still owed her money from assisting with the [escrow] transaction.

Olin also told the F.B.I. that "she was not aware of any criminal behavior on the part of Phyllis Miller. Olin stated that at one point, David Miller showed up at the gate of her gated community but Olin refused Miller entry," according to the F.B.I. 302. "Olin stated that she did not believe Phyllis was guilty of anything but if Phyllis had done anything wrong, it would be because of David Miller," according to the F.B.I. notes. And, while Ms. Olin apparently knew that David Miller was in prison, "she did not know why Miller was in prison." Apparently, Ms. Miller had only told Ms. Olin that Mr. Miller was not guilty. "Ms. Olin did not want to know anything else."

While Ms. Olin told the F.B.I., according to their notes, that she couldn't recall how she's met Phyllis Miller, she did recall that Mr. Miller was in prison. And she also recalled, according to F.B.I. notes, that after Mr. Miller's arrest, Ms. Miller had begged Ms. Olin to lend her money because Ms. Olin was without a home. Apparently, that approximately $50,000 debt had never been repaid.

Finally, Ms. Olin told the F.B.I., according to their notes, "that she was never paid for her services and did not even receive a thank you from Mr. Arneson." Ms. Olin pointed out correspondence to the F.B.I. in which Mr. Miller "indicated that he was going to speak to Mr. Arneson about the outstanding debts."

The F.B.I. also found time on Friday to head over to the California rehabilitation Center in Norco to interview David C. Miller. (Mr. Miller is serving an eleven year sentence for fraud and forgery.) The F.B.I. also noted by way of background, that this witness told them that his first conviction in 1992 was an arrest for possession and assault with a firearm. And according to the F.B.I. 302, "HE IS CURRENTLY SERVING HIS SENTENCE FOR THEFT OF REAL ESTATE BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" OF HIS COMPANY.

Mr. Miller, according to an F.B.I. 302 prepared by Agent Corrie Lyle on April 27, 2009, stated to the F.B.I. that "Arneson had given him the information on tthe bankruptcy petition," but that Mr. Miller "could not recall whose idea it was to file for bankruptcy." Mr. Miller also did not recall signing for Mr. Arneson, according to the F.B.I. five page 302, but said that "circumstances of the financial situation" may have required him to sign. Miller later "acknowledged his handwriting on the bankruptcy petition" and also "believed that the phone number listed on the application" was his. He also stated that Child Technology Institute was his company and that the MIllers likely forgave any consulting fees owed by Arneson on the transaction, according to the F.B.I. notes. And, Mr. Miller, told the F.B.I. that "he did not forge the documents because Miller would have had authorization from Arneson." Finally, Mr. Miller also informed the F.B.I. that he "has filed bankruptcy for other clients, but Miller cannot recall with specificity whether he had to refile and sign for any other clients. Miller stated that his wife would know that it was Miller's writing on the petition," and again insisted that he'd done it at Mr. Arneson's direction.

And so, one is left to wonder why after a six year investigation, which included accusing Mr. Arneson of filing a fraudulent bankruptcy petition over five years ago which he vehemently and repeatedly denied, did the government fail to investigate his claim that his signature had been forged. And why, after digging up Ms. Miller to testify against Mr. Arneson, did the government fail to have her properly interviewed and recognize that she was in a real estate business with her husband, a convicted felon who was found guilty of forgery and filing fraudulent documents to steal real estate? And how did they manage to miss that there are a number of suspect documents of a similar nature that purport to have Ms. Miller's name and signature on them, including suspect documents associated with the CTI bankruptcy. (During the CTI bankruptcy, a lawyer's name was used in connection with its filing who later told the court that she'd had nothing to do with the bankruptcy and that her named had been used without her permission.)

Given that the focus of much of the F.B.I.'s investigation of Mr. Pellicano's employees focused more on his office staff than on his clients--many of whom constitute the most prominent attorneys in Los Angeles--one had to wonder about whether the F.B.I. and the government had the correct focus throughout this entire investigation.

Also in more Pellicano news, the press is anxious to get their hands on recordings that have been exclusively featured on The Huffington Post. According to several sources, the press has filed papers trying to get access to the audio recordings entered as exhibits in the case, including a few that haven't yet been introduced into evidence since they pertain to the Pellicano/Terry Christensen trial. The Associated Press has filed a motion requesting that they be given access to recordings of conversations between Chris Rock and Mr. Pellicano, Lisa and Tom Gores, Mr. Pellicano and Mr. Dennis Wasser, the well-known divorce attorney who figures to play a prominent role in the Christensen case as he represented Mr. Kirk Kerkorian during his divorce.