Del MJNI:
'The Abrams Report' for Jan. 8
Read the complete transcript to Thursday's showBy By
Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET Jan. 09, 2004Guests: Michael Garigan, Paul Pfingst, Jayne Weintraub, Karen Russell, William Fallon, Russell Halpern, Stacey Honowitz
ABRAMS: Hi, everybody. Welcome back.
For weeks, questions have been swirling about the family of the boy accusing Michael Jackson of sexual abuse. Remember the boy‘s mother sued J.C. Penney back in 1998, alleging that her two sons were beaten and that she was sexually assaulted while leaving a mall? The incident reportedly happened when security guards confronted them about stolen clothing. The family settled.
Remember, a February investigation of allegation of child abuse called unfounded by the Department of Children and Family Services. Then this week, new claims from attorney Larry Feldman who had represented the accuser. He says that Child Services ignored a psychologist who said there was evidence of abuse. Now new information this time from a different attorney. Russell Halpern who used to represent the boy‘s father in criminal matters, documents which allegedly show that the boy may have changed his story when asked whether his own father abused family members. What does this mean for the case? Why is it relevant?
With us tonight, Russell Halpern, the former attorney for the father of Michael Jackson‘s accuser. Mr. Halpern, thank you very much for coming on the program. We appreciate it.
RUSSELL HALPERN, ATTORNEY FOR JACKSON ACCUSER‘S FATHER: Thank you for having me.
ABRAMS: So, what is the significance of these documents?
HALPERN: Well, I believe what they show is a pattern of the mother of controlling her children. If you review the documents, the Child Services were called to the home following a family disturbance and they spoke to the children without the mother being present. During that interview, they told Child Services that the father had never struck them, never struck their mother.
And then following that, the mother after receiving a card in the door called the Child Services very upset about them speaking with her children without her being there. And they came back, and when they came back, and the mother was present, they changed their story. These things were presented to another prosecutor in the case that I was handling and that caused them to have some doubt as to her credibility and the credibility of the children.
ABRAMS: So you think that the mother‘s influence can lead this boy to change his story, depending on what she suggests?
HALPERN: Well, it certainly was the case when I was representing the boy‘s father. In fact, she not only influenced the boys in her family, but also the daughter at a later time also accused her—the father of making death threats to the mother and there was a hearing in chambers with the judge, in which the daughter admitted that that didn‘t happen.
Once again, there was this pattern of making accusations, very serious accusations, then withdrawing them and then making them again. And each time that accusations were made incriminating my client, the mother was present. So, there was a clear indication that the mother was controlling the children and getting them to make these spurious accusations.
ABRAMS: I‘ve got to ask you. If you‘re no longer representing the father, why release these documents?
HALPERN: Well, I had represented the father in these criminal matters a few years ago and I represented them recently. And there‘s been a lot of attack on the father. So much so, that he‘s gone into seclusion and this caused problems in him seeking to obtain his own children. And I think that someone should stand up and let the public know that the father, even though he entered a plea, it was a negotiated plea, and the reason why it was negotiated down to no time in jail, when the prosecution originally wanted to put him in jail for a year, was because there was very—a lot of reasons to doubt the credibility of the witnesses against him. And I‘m doing this to protect my client‘s reputation.
ABRAMS: And what does the—what does your client, your former client think about all of these accusations? I mean, are you saying that he believes that they‘re false?
HALPERN: No, I‘m not saying that at all. When he was first informed of these accusations, his feeling was one of surprise and disbelief. Because he had been friends with Michael Jackson, and he did not believe that he was a pedophile. At the same time, he would want to believe his son. So he was conflicted. And last time I spoke with him, I don‘t believe he had any opinion one way or the other.
ABRAMS: But this is a bitter divorce, right? I mean, you know, let‘s be fair here. This is one of those cases where this couple is separating on none too good terms.
HALPERN: Well that is true, but it doesn‘t take away from—my part of it was involving the criminal charges. And I think what was of interest, or what I‘m trying to put forward is my client entered a plea in order to avoid a jail sentence. The prosecution was very strong on putting him in jail when the case first started. They believed the children. And after reviewing these documents and other information we had, they seemed to change their mind.
ABRAMS: All right, let me ask you to stick around for a minute. I want to bring in my legal panel on this.
HALPERN: Sure.
ABRAMS: Paul Pfingst, any impact on the case?
PFINGST: Yes. These types of things are troubling. One of the most important considerations for a prosecutor and for a jury when you have a child sexual molestation issue is what are the circumstances under which the child came forward with the information. Because children have the ability to respond to outside pressures and also to suggestibility. And if it‘s been shown that in the past the mother has had an enormous amount of influence over the children making accusations and there‘s and there‘s a bitter divorce going on and there‘s a motive now for the mother perhaps to look for a financial reward from the Jackson family, this could play prominently in a trial. This is a big deal.
ABRAMS: Jayne Weintraub, every time I hear a new piece of evidence come out, I just think that this case is going to get uglier and uglier and uglier. The fact, like, even her divorce issues are coming into play in terms of evaluating her credibility. You know, it just seems to me this case is going to get brutal.
WEINTRAUB: Well, I don‘t think it‘s going to get brutal. I think it‘s getting worse and worse for the prosecution if it was ever good to begin with. I don‘t know. I mean I think from the very beginning this whole issue of her credibility with the children supporting perjury has been raised before. Her litigious behavior has been raised before. I think what‘s really critical here in looking at her is what has she done?
What—I mean, I think this is further evidence that the woman is shaking him down, shaking Jackson down for more money. And I think that‘s at the heart of this whole matter. And I really wonder, Dan, how much Sneddon has investigated this woman and the behavior that she exercises over...
PFINGST: And Dan, that‘s a good point.
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: You might ask your guests whether or not the D.A. knew about this until he disclosed it to the press.
ABRAMS: Mr. Halpern.
HALPERN: Well, I had conversations with various deputies in Santa Barbara, the D.A.—and the D.A. that I think is going to be actually trying the case or (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And when I first spoke with him, they indicated they really weren‘t concerned about the mother, her past, and weren‘t looking into it. And then later they indicated, well, we‘re well aware of the mother‘s past. But I would think that—the thing that‘s interesting to me is that they were first told of this allegation in June and they waited until November to get a search warrant. That indicates to me that the district attorney had some problems with the credibility of this young man back in June. Otherwise, I can‘t see a prosecutor not acting upon it. After all, he‘s heard that this person is a active child molester...
ABRAMS: Yes, but it takes a while...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Bill Fallon...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Bill Fallon, investigations like this take time, right?
FALLON: They absolutely take time. And if ever they had done the old rush to judgment (UNINTELLIGIBLE) O.J., if you heard something in June, if anything, I think they were better, they should have even gone longer here. I have a question. What did this guy—what did the father plead guilty to? Did he plead guilty to abusing either the mother or the child? Because I think that that does go to really the very basic cornerstone of, is this information going to come in? The father I know...
ABRAMS: All right, let‘s let Mr. Halpern respond.
FALLON: OK.
ABRAMS: Go ahead.
HALPERN: Well, there was two—actually two charges. The first was, he was charged originally with spousal abuse and three or four counts of child abuse. He ended up pleading no contest to spousal abuse. The child abuse charges were dismissed. Before he was sentenced on that case, the daughter came in—came to the police and said that my client had threatened to kill the mother and then they filed what‘s called a terrorist threat against my client. They tried to put him in jail immediately at that time. And then the child was brought into the judge‘s chambers at my insistence, spoken to without the mother being present, and she admitted that the father never had made such a threat.
FALLON: So, was he convicted...
HALPERN: And so they amended the charge...
FALLON: ... is he convicted of physical domestic violence against his wife? Because I think that that seems to be what you‘re saying. One moment the kids are saying something happened and then the mother comes in. He says I beat up my wife. Did he—he is a convict of that crime?
PFINGST: It was a felony child abuse...
HALPERN: You‘re asking...
PFINGST: ... felony—was it a felony...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: ... spousal abuse or misdemeanor?
HALPERN: It was misdemeanor spousal abuse...
PFINGST: OK...
HALPERN: ... and when a person enters...
(CROSSTALK)
HALPERN: ... a negotiated plea, that‘s not an admission of guilt.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
ABRAMS: Let me move on here...
HALPERN: It‘s definitely not an admission of guilt...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dan...
FALLON: What was the finding...
ABRAMS: Very - who wants to get in very quickly?
RUSSELL: Dan, the other thing...
ABRAMS: Go ahead...
RUSSELL: ... here in the documents is that this woman is also obsessed with celebrity. In fact, it was—the investigators were like are you, you know, crazy because you‘re so obsessed with the celebrity. So, that makes me also believe it‘s more of a shakedown.
ABRAMS: All right...
FALLON: But we don‘t know about a shakedown. I wish people would stop saying that. Until they sue or we hear they‘re going to sue, I mean, let‘s go back to the...
WEINTRAUB: Bill, you‘re not going to hear until after.
RUSSELL: Yes.
FALLON: Well, you might not hear it at all. And I‘m not—I don‘t want to be a Pollyanna here, but everybody is talking like they have in their back pocket the lawsuit that‘s been filed. And they don‘t and I think we have to go back to what the child has to say.
ABRAMS: Let‘s talk about issue two that came up today. California law restricts what an attorney can say in public about an ongoing case. The prosecution, now not taking any chances. They‘re asking the judge for a complete and total gag order.
Saying -- quote—“Defense counsel obviously believes it furthers his client‘s interest to share with a wide television audience from which some, if not many, of the jurors in this case will likely be selected. His own opinion of the merits of the prosecution‘s evidence. His view that the victim‘s family was pursuing a scam to shake down Mr. Jackson. The motives both of the complaining parties and the prosecutor who filed this case including his belief that the prosecution is playing the race card in this case and his own assurance that his client is unequivocally not guilty and factually innocent.”
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) what a sentence. The gag order would prohibit Jackson‘s attorney, Geragos, and virtually every person connected to the case from talking to the media. That includes potential witnesses, law firm staffers, court employees. Jayne Weintraub, what do you think about this? The prosecutors want everyone to shut up. I‘m sure Mark Geragos is going to fight it.
WEINTRAUB: Well I think theoretically...
(CROSSTALK)
WEINTRAUB: ... it sounds great. And of course, it‘s not just California law. It‘s—you know all lawyers are governed by the rules of responsibility. But the real problem here, Dan, is in the leaks. We‘ve watched with Scott Peterson how these leaks come up. We‘ve watched that the prosecution can‘t talk and the defense can‘t talk and yet we have Amber‘s lawyer on TV every night who‘s a cheerleader for the prosecutor. So that‘s my concern here. Are the witnesses‘ lawyers...
ABRAMS: Yes.
WEINTRAUB: ... we‘re looking at this woman and the influence over her children. We‘re looking at the fact that she has done this before and her lawyer is going to be allowed to get on TV every single night, just like Amber‘s lawyers was, while the main participants, the defense lawyer and the prosecutor won‘t. And that‘s my problem with the gag order.
ABRAMS: Paul Pfingst.
WEINTRAUB: I think it‘s not fair.
ABRAMS: Paul.
PFINGST: I think I was concerned that Mark Geragos may have gone over the top when he started talking about shakedowns because under the California rules of professional conduct, neither attorney on either side of the case is supposed to make any statements that might adversely influence a jury, except in response possibly to the statements of another. So I think this has gone way out of bounds so far. Now, there‘s absolutely no question about the fact that this case will be in the news and there will be leaks. But the two parties to the case should not be doing press conference battles in the media.
ABRAMS: Bill Fallon...
FALLON: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... what do you make of the argument that the prosecutors get to file the charges? The defense is presumed innocent and yet if they‘re not allowed to talk and defend their client, you just have sort of out there in the media and the public and all these cases, the charges. The charges with no one being able to respond.
FALLON: Dan, as you know, you file a good motion, you file a good responsorial motion here, you file your own motions for discovery, you put all that stuff in there. I said a long time ago, if this were in Massachusetts, Geragos would have been up in front of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) already. I am shocked at the things that are said.
It‘s one thing to be able to respond to something said,, you know, I hate Sneddon. I didn‘t like what he did. I certainly don‘t like what Geragos did. And I think that somebody should take control of this. And if you don‘t take control now it‘s going to be an outrage by the time...
ABRAMS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
FALLON: ... we get to trial.
ABRAMS: I think all judges these days seem to err on the side of granting gag orders. So my guess is that this, like every other case, the judge will just say oh yes, sure, let‘s just gag everybody.
All right, Russell Halpern, Bill Fallon, Paul Pfingst, Karen Russell, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
'The Abrams Report' for Jan. 8
Read the complete transcript to Thursday's showBy By
Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET Jan. 09, 2004Guests: Michael Garigan, Paul Pfingst, Jayne Weintraub, Karen Russell, William Fallon, Russell Halpern, Stacey Honowitz
ABRAMS: Hi, everybody. Welcome back.
For weeks, questions have been swirling about the family of the boy accusing Michael Jackson of sexual abuse. Remember the boy‘s mother sued J.C. Penney back in 1998, alleging that her two sons were beaten and that she was sexually assaulted while leaving a mall? The incident reportedly happened when security guards confronted them about stolen clothing. The family settled.
Remember, a February investigation of allegation of child abuse called unfounded by the Department of Children and Family Services. Then this week, new claims from attorney Larry Feldman who had represented the accuser. He says that Child Services ignored a psychologist who said there was evidence of abuse. Now new information this time from a different attorney. Russell Halpern who used to represent the boy‘s father in criminal matters, documents which allegedly show that the boy may have changed his story when asked whether his own father abused family members. What does this mean for the case? Why is it relevant?
With us tonight, Russell Halpern, the former attorney for the father of Michael Jackson‘s accuser. Mr. Halpern, thank you very much for coming on the program. We appreciate it.
RUSSELL HALPERN, ATTORNEY FOR JACKSON ACCUSER‘S FATHER: Thank you for having me.
ABRAMS: So, what is the significance of these documents?
HALPERN: Well, I believe what they show is a pattern of the mother of controlling her children. If you review the documents, the Child Services were called to the home following a family disturbance and they spoke to the children without the mother being present. During that interview, they told Child Services that the father had never struck them, never struck their mother.
And then following that, the mother after receiving a card in the door called the Child Services very upset about them speaking with her children without her being there. And they came back, and when they came back, and the mother was present, they changed their story. These things were presented to another prosecutor in the case that I was handling and that caused them to have some doubt as to her credibility and the credibility of the children.
ABRAMS: So you think that the mother‘s influence can lead this boy to change his story, depending on what she suggests?
HALPERN: Well, it certainly was the case when I was representing the boy‘s father. In fact, she not only influenced the boys in her family, but also the daughter at a later time also accused her—the father of making death threats to the mother and there was a hearing in chambers with the judge, in which the daughter admitted that that didn‘t happen.
Once again, there was this pattern of making accusations, very serious accusations, then withdrawing them and then making them again. And each time that accusations were made incriminating my client, the mother was present. So, there was a clear indication that the mother was controlling the children and getting them to make these spurious accusations.
ABRAMS: I‘ve got to ask you. If you‘re no longer representing the father, why release these documents?
HALPERN: Well, I had represented the father in these criminal matters a few years ago and I represented them recently. And there‘s been a lot of attack on the father. So much so, that he‘s gone into seclusion and this caused problems in him seeking to obtain his own children. And I think that someone should stand up and let the public know that the father, even though he entered a plea, it was a negotiated plea, and the reason why it was negotiated down to no time in jail, when the prosecution originally wanted to put him in jail for a year, was because there was very—a lot of reasons to doubt the credibility of the witnesses against him. And I‘m doing this to protect my client‘s reputation.
ABRAMS: And what does the—what does your client, your former client think about all of these accusations? I mean, are you saying that he believes that they‘re false?
HALPERN: No, I‘m not saying that at all. When he was first informed of these accusations, his feeling was one of surprise and disbelief. Because he had been friends with Michael Jackson, and he did not believe that he was a pedophile. At the same time, he would want to believe his son. So he was conflicted. And last time I spoke with him, I don‘t believe he had any opinion one way or the other.
ABRAMS: But this is a bitter divorce, right? I mean, you know, let‘s be fair here. This is one of those cases where this couple is separating on none too good terms.
HALPERN: Well that is true, but it doesn‘t take away from—my part of it was involving the criminal charges. And I think what was of interest, or what I‘m trying to put forward is my client entered a plea in order to avoid a jail sentence. The prosecution was very strong on putting him in jail when the case first started. They believed the children. And after reviewing these documents and other information we had, they seemed to change their mind.
ABRAMS: All right, let me ask you to stick around for a minute. I want to bring in my legal panel on this.
HALPERN: Sure.
ABRAMS: Paul Pfingst, any impact on the case?
PFINGST: Yes. These types of things are troubling. One of the most important considerations for a prosecutor and for a jury when you have a child sexual molestation issue is what are the circumstances under which the child came forward with the information. Because children have the ability to respond to outside pressures and also to suggestibility. And if it‘s been shown that in the past the mother has had an enormous amount of influence over the children making accusations and there‘s and there‘s a bitter divorce going on and there‘s a motive now for the mother perhaps to look for a financial reward from the Jackson family, this could play prominently in a trial. This is a big deal.
ABRAMS: Jayne Weintraub, every time I hear a new piece of evidence come out, I just think that this case is going to get uglier and uglier and uglier. The fact, like, even her divorce issues are coming into play in terms of evaluating her credibility. You know, it just seems to me this case is going to get brutal.
WEINTRAUB: Well, I don‘t think it‘s going to get brutal. I think it‘s getting worse and worse for the prosecution if it was ever good to begin with. I don‘t know. I mean I think from the very beginning this whole issue of her credibility with the children supporting perjury has been raised before. Her litigious behavior has been raised before. I think what‘s really critical here in looking at her is what has she done?
What—I mean, I think this is further evidence that the woman is shaking him down, shaking Jackson down for more money. And I think that‘s at the heart of this whole matter. And I really wonder, Dan, how much Sneddon has investigated this woman and the behavior that she exercises over...
PFINGST: And Dan, that‘s a good point.
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: You might ask your guests whether or not the D.A. knew about this until he disclosed it to the press.
ABRAMS: Mr. Halpern.
HALPERN: Well, I had conversations with various deputies in Santa Barbara, the D.A.—and the D.A. that I think is going to be actually trying the case or (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And when I first spoke with him, they indicated they really weren‘t concerned about the mother, her past, and weren‘t looking into it. And then later they indicated, well, we‘re well aware of the mother‘s past. But I would think that—the thing that‘s interesting to me is that they were first told of this allegation in June and they waited until November to get a search warrant. That indicates to me that the district attorney had some problems with the credibility of this young man back in June. Otherwise, I can‘t see a prosecutor not acting upon it. After all, he‘s heard that this person is a active child molester...
ABRAMS: Yes, but it takes a while...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Bill Fallon...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Bill Fallon, investigations like this take time, right?
FALLON: They absolutely take time. And if ever they had done the old rush to judgment (UNINTELLIGIBLE) O.J., if you heard something in June, if anything, I think they were better, they should have even gone longer here. I have a question. What did this guy—what did the father plead guilty to? Did he plead guilty to abusing either the mother or the child? Because I think that that does go to really the very basic cornerstone of, is this information going to come in? The father I know...
ABRAMS: All right, let‘s let Mr. Halpern respond.
FALLON: OK.
ABRAMS: Go ahead.
HALPERN: Well, there was two—actually two charges. The first was, he was charged originally with spousal abuse and three or four counts of child abuse. He ended up pleading no contest to spousal abuse. The child abuse charges were dismissed. Before he was sentenced on that case, the daughter came in—came to the police and said that my client had threatened to kill the mother and then they filed what‘s called a terrorist threat against my client. They tried to put him in jail immediately at that time. And then the child was brought into the judge‘s chambers at my insistence, spoken to without the mother being present, and she admitted that the father never had made such a threat.
FALLON: So, was he convicted...
HALPERN: And so they amended the charge...
FALLON: ... is he convicted of physical domestic violence against his wife? Because I think that that seems to be what you‘re saying. One moment the kids are saying something happened and then the mother comes in. He says I beat up my wife. Did he—he is a convict of that crime?
PFINGST: It was a felony child abuse...
HALPERN: You‘re asking...
PFINGST: ... felony—was it a felony...
(CROSSTALK)
PFINGST: ... spousal abuse or misdemeanor?
HALPERN: It was misdemeanor spousal abuse...
PFINGST: OK...
HALPERN: ... and when a person enters...
(CROSSTALK)
HALPERN: ... a negotiated plea, that‘s not an admission of guilt.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
ABRAMS: Let me move on here...
HALPERN: It‘s definitely not an admission of guilt...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dan...
FALLON: What was the finding...
ABRAMS: Very - who wants to get in very quickly?
RUSSELL: Dan, the other thing...
ABRAMS: Go ahead...
RUSSELL: ... here in the documents is that this woman is also obsessed with celebrity. In fact, it was—the investigators were like are you, you know, crazy because you‘re so obsessed with the celebrity. So, that makes me also believe it‘s more of a shakedown.
ABRAMS: All right...
FALLON: But we don‘t know about a shakedown. I wish people would stop saying that. Until they sue or we hear they‘re going to sue, I mean, let‘s go back to the...
WEINTRAUB: Bill, you‘re not going to hear until after.
RUSSELL: Yes.
FALLON: Well, you might not hear it at all. And I‘m not—I don‘t want to be a Pollyanna here, but everybody is talking like they have in their back pocket the lawsuit that‘s been filed. And they don‘t and I think we have to go back to what the child has to say.
ABRAMS: Let‘s talk about issue two that came up today. California law restricts what an attorney can say in public about an ongoing case. The prosecution, now not taking any chances. They‘re asking the judge for a complete and total gag order.
Saying -- quote—“Defense counsel obviously believes it furthers his client‘s interest to share with a wide television audience from which some, if not many, of the jurors in this case will likely be selected. His own opinion of the merits of the prosecution‘s evidence. His view that the victim‘s family was pursuing a scam to shake down Mr. Jackson. The motives both of the complaining parties and the prosecutor who filed this case including his belief that the prosecution is playing the race card in this case and his own assurance that his client is unequivocally not guilty and factually innocent.”
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) what a sentence. The gag order would prohibit Jackson‘s attorney, Geragos, and virtually every person connected to the case from talking to the media. That includes potential witnesses, law firm staffers, court employees. Jayne Weintraub, what do you think about this? The prosecutors want everyone to shut up. I‘m sure Mark Geragos is going to fight it.
WEINTRAUB: Well I think theoretically...
(CROSSTALK)
WEINTRAUB: ... it sounds great. And of course, it‘s not just California law. It‘s—you know all lawyers are governed by the rules of responsibility. But the real problem here, Dan, is in the leaks. We‘ve watched with Scott Peterson how these leaks come up. We‘ve watched that the prosecution can‘t talk and the defense can‘t talk and yet we have Amber‘s lawyer on TV every night who‘s a cheerleader for the prosecutor. So that‘s my concern here. Are the witnesses‘ lawyers...
ABRAMS: Yes.
WEINTRAUB: ... we‘re looking at this woman and the influence over her children. We‘re looking at the fact that she has done this before and her lawyer is going to be allowed to get on TV every single night, just like Amber‘s lawyers was, while the main participants, the defense lawyer and the prosecutor won‘t. And that‘s my problem with the gag order.
ABRAMS: Paul Pfingst.
WEINTRAUB: I think it‘s not fair.
ABRAMS: Paul.
PFINGST: I think I was concerned that Mark Geragos may have gone over the top when he started talking about shakedowns because under the California rules of professional conduct, neither attorney on either side of the case is supposed to make any statements that might adversely influence a jury, except in response possibly to the statements of another. So I think this has gone way out of bounds so far. Now, there‘s absolutely no question about the fact that this case will be in the news and there will be leaks. But the two parties to the case should not be doing press conference battles in the media.
ABRAMS: Bill Fallon...
FALLON: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... what do you make of the argument that the prosecutors get to file the charges? The defense is presumed innocent and yet if they‘re not allowed to talk and defend their client, you just have sort of out there in the media and the public and all these cases, the charges. The charges with no one being able to respond.
FALLON: Dan, as you know, you file a good motion, you file a good responsorial motion here, you file your own motions for discovery, you put all that stuff in there. I said a long time ago, if this were in Massachusetts, Geragos would have been up in front of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) already. I am shocked at the things that are said.
It‘s one thing to be able to respond to something said,, you know, I hate Sneddon. I didn‘t like what he did. I certainly don‘t like what Geragos did. And I think that somebody should take control of this. And if you don‘t take control now it‘s going to be an outrage by the time...
ABRAMS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
FALLON: ... we get to trial.
ABRAMS: I think all judges these days seem to err on the side of granting gag orders. So my guess is that this, like every other case, the judge will just say oh yes, sure, let‘s just gag everybody.
All right, Russell Halpern, Bill Fallon, Paul Pfingst, Karen Russell, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
