Pamela Fayed, left with her daughter, Desiree. Photo appeared on Desiree's MySpace page.
© Trials & Tribulations 2007-2011. All rights reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of Trials & Tribulations.
Continued from Part I...
UPDATED May 10, 2011, at the bottom of the entry.
The prosecution calls their first witness, Desiree Goudie.
1. Desiree Goudie
Alan Jackson presents the first witness.
AJ: Can you tell the jury who you are?
DG: I'm her daughter.
She tells us she's 21 years old. She recognizes people in the courtroom and identifies the defendant "Jim."
Jackson puts a photo up on the screen of her, her mother and her younger sister and Goudie starts to cry.
DG: That's me and my mom and little sister.
AJ: How would you describe (your mother's relationship with the defendant)?
Goudie talks about when her mother first met her stepfather. She was six years old at the time.
DG: Mom introduced me to him as a friend. I bonded with him. (snip) He was nice to me. He was really nice to me.
Goudie thinks her mother started dating Fayed around the time she was six-years-old. when she was seven or eight, they married. In the beginning things were good.
At some point did the family expand?
DG: Yes. (snip) We moved to another place, then moved to Ridge Crest.
AJ: Were you excited (about the new baby)?
DG: No, I was actually jealous.
A bit of laughter in the courtroom. Desiree soon fell in love with her younger sister. In 1999 to 2000 it was a new family. In November, 1999 her sister was born.
Everyone was living in the same house. Early in the marriage, everything was good, happy.
AJ: Tell us about the lifestyle.
DG: We were not well off. Happy but very simple.
Goudie explains the different places the family lived. First they lived in an apartment, then rented a house. After the house, they moved into a condominium.
AJ: Did your lifestyle, in time begin to flourish?
DG: (Yes.)
AJ: When Pamela met Fayed, was he wealthy?
DG: No.
AJ: The family became wealthy together?
DG: Yes.
Jackson enters into evidence thirteen more photos and Desiree describes the photos. There’s a photo of them together in May, 2008. The same photo at the top of this entry is entered into evidence. It was taken at her prom, two months before her mother died.
Another photo of Desiree and her mother at her graduation in June, 2008. another photo of her and her mother at Easter, 2008. They are both wearing funny noses. Another photo of her, her mother and Jeanette at 4 or 5-years-old. Another photo of Jeannette, and another of Pamela and Jeanette together. More photos of everyone together, including a photo of Jeanette with their dog, Osiris, a German Schnauzer. Last, photo number 14 is of the defendant.
DG: That’s Jim.
AJ: Do you mean James Fayed?
DG: Yes.
Jackson moves on to ask Desiree about the building of the family business.
AJ: When you were a little girl, they began the business?
eBullion was started by (clients) opening a Paypal® account. Customers would then open an eBullion account. The would then log onto the eBullion site, fund an account, like with cash and/or fund it with gold.
AJ: Internet gold trading.... ?
DG: Yes.
Desiree worked at the company, Goldfinger and knows a bit about it. It started really small, then grew. They first ran the company out of the condo.
AJ: Literally ran the company out of the condo?
DG: Yes.
AJ: Some computers and servers?
DG: Yes. (snip) Jim was president and mom helped out along the way.
AJ: She was put on the books on equal partnership?
DG: She was Vice President and he was President.
AJ: Who would you describe as the driving force of the company?
DG: I would say Jim. He was president and he was in control.
AJ: After the first year, where did the company move to?
DG: It moved into an office building a few miles from the house. (snip) It was a small office close to the house and there were three people working (for) them.
Eventually, they moved to a larger office and more employees.
DG: We were becoming wealthier as time (came?) on.
The family was able to buy ore material things and buy a house. Have a more “comfortable” lifestyle.
An arial photo of the home is put up on the overhead screen.
DG: That’s our home.
It was purchased in 2003, 2004 on Baja Vista Way.
AJ: This was much larger than the modest condo in Camarillo?
DG: Yes.
AJ: At some point, did the comfortable lifestyle able the family to buy a second home?
DG: It was a ranch on 200-260 acres. It was a second home. A weekend getaway.
AJ: You could ride around on 4-wheelers and have some fun?
DG: Yes.
In addition to the larger home, there was also a “ranch hand” house on the property. Another photo of the large, main house. The ranch was called “Happy Camp Ranch.” Another arial photo of the surrounding land and home.
AJ: Was Pamela involved in the decision to buy the second property?
DG: Yes.
AJ: At some point, did the ranch require help?
They needed a ranch hand worker. Jose Moya was already an employee who ran errands, so Moya was hired to live on the property in the second house and run the ranch.
Goudie identifies a photo of Jose Moya.
AJ: Was he Mr. Fayed’s assistant?
DG: Yes.
AJ: He did his bidding if he needed something transported?
DG: Yes.
AJ: Fayed had regular contact with Mr. Moya?
DG: Yes.
AJ: At first, only one person living there?
DG: Yes.
A photo of a flat, squat white house is put up on the overhead screen. It looks like a boring stucco structure surrounded by sagebrush.
AJ: When did you start working at Goldfinger?
End of 2005-2006 started working there. She worked there approximately two years.
AJ: Did things start to fall apart?
DG: What do you mean?
AJ: In a business perspective, did things start to fall apart?
DG: Yes.
AJ: Tell us about their relationship (between her mother Fayed).
DG: As soon as the divorce (was filed?) fall of 2007, October actually, things started to get complicating. (snip) She and, I was throw out (of the company). (snip) Mom ws banned from the premises and I was fired a week later.
Fayed and her mother had personal relationship problems.
DG: I didn’t hear them discuss (things) between themselves, but my mom told me they were getting a divorce.
She was terminated from the company in October, 2007.
AJ: Did you or your mother ever go back on the premises?
DG: No.
The office manager, Scott Lyten (sp?) gave her the notice she was fired.
At some point the relationship got to a breaking point. James fayed moved to the ranch in September or October 2007. Then her mother was banned from the company and she was fired.
AJ: Fayed and Moya were living on the ranch?
DG: Yes.
Desiree, her mother and sister were not living there.
AJ: By the fall of 2007, did you ever become away of an accusation of James Fayed about your mother?
MW: Objection!
JK: Sustained.
She became aware (of an accusation). Her mother showed her an E-mail. It was an accusation of the victim cheating on Jim with Desiree’s father.
There are questions about her close relationship with her mother and her constant interaction with her mother, what did she think/know about those accusations.
MW: Objection! No foundation.
JK: Sustained.
AJ: Did you ever seen your mother interact (?) with your father?
DG: No.
AJ: Do you know...
MW: Objection!
JK: Sustained.
AJ: In the first few months of 2008, basked on your knowledge, did your mother ever have any access to the Happy Camp Ranch?
DG: (No.)
AJ: Never had any contact with Jose Moya?
DG: No.
I believe Jackson asks her to describe the relationship she had with her mother.
DG: She was my mom. She was my best friend.
MW: Objection!
JK: Sustained.
Goudie describes the last time she was with her mother and the general conversation she had with her.
DG: She was stressed out. She asked me to watch her (day?). (I was) making fun of her penny loafers....
AJ: How did you hear about your mother’s death?
DG: I got a call at midnight, actually July 29th....
Goudie thinks a detective, Mike Pellington (sp?) called her.
Do you think about that last time (with your mother)?
I miss her answer. Direct is finished and Werksman gets up to cross.
MW: Did James raise you from the age of about six?
DG: Yes.
MW: Until (he) moved out?
DG: Yes.
MW: When did he move out?
DG: About the end of September.
MW: You have an Aunt Mary? (snip) Mary Mercedes is James’ sister? (snip) Did you have regular contact with her?
DG: About once a year. (snip) We were not close.
She learned Mary moved in there (Happy Camp Ranch) once the divorce started.
MW: Did she live in the main house?
AJ: Objection!
JK: Sustained!
MW: Did you have any contact with her?
DG: No.
MW: Would Jeanette visit her father at the ranch?
DG: About once a week.
MW: Did you and your mother have a get away with your father?
(Desiree scrunches up her face in puzzlement when she hears this question.)
DG: No. (snip) We visited him actually at his home, and then we went to a restaurant.
MW: How many times?
DG: About twice.
Desiree is asked what her biological father’s name is.
DG: William.
MW: Did you know him (Fayed) to have some health problems?
DG: Yes.
DG: What were those?
AJ: Objection!
JK: Sustained!
MW: Did you observe him in pain?
DG: Yes.
MW: Did you observe him to take medication?
DG: Many times. (snip) He acted “out of it” and appeared to be drunk.
She observed this for one to two years before the divorce.
DG: As far as I know he was sleeping most of the time.
MW: He became a hermit?
DG: He lived in the bedroom.
The noon recess is called.
1:27 pm I’m back in the courtroom. Jackson and Werksman discuss something in the well. The detective at the table give Jackson a mint. There is a woman from the DA’s office who is assisting Jackson and Harmon as their clerk. She retrieves documents from the office and gets the next witness called from the hallway.
The detective, Jackson and Harmon confer in the well. I can’t hear what they are discussing. The afternoon session is even more empty than the morning session. Judge Kennedy is standing near Athena’s desk chatting with her. Harmon asks their clerk to get a document for him and she quickly leaves the courtroom. I’m betting we are waiting on the defendant.
Pamela’s sister and brother are sitting with Desiree and a younger male friend. Deputy Shawn puts his weapon in the secure box and goes into the detention area. The defendant is brought into the courtroom. It’s 1:40 pm and Judge Kennedy takes the bench.
Althea calls the jurors waiting in the hallway to enter 109 over the intercom.
The defense insinuated Fayed had rheumatoid arthritis. He doesn’t look like he has difficulty moving. I wonder if he’s on medication.
Desiree retakes the stand and is still under cross by Werksman.
MW: During lunch, did you discuss your testimony with anyone?
DG: No.
MW: Many of those photos the prosecutor showed you were taken by James Fayed (weren’t they)?
DG: I honestly don’t remember.
Werksman confronts her with the question that Fayed was there at her (prom? graduation?).
DG: He wasn’t even there.
MW: Werksman asks her about a few specific photos, and if Fayed took them.
DG: Yes, he took that photo and a few others.
MW: Did all of you go on vacation together?
DG: Rarely, but yes.
Goudie testifies that she worked at the business. She went to school during the day. She worked four to five hours a day during the summer. When she worked there, Fayed was never there. Her boyfriend Ken worked at the company for about a year after she was hired. He was fired for reasons unrelated to her (firing).
That’s the end of cross and there is no redirect.
2. Delilah Urrea
AJ: Who was your prior employer?
DU: She worked for James Fayed.
Urrea identifies him in the courtroom. She testifies that James and Pamela lived in the same condominium complex. She was introduced to James by Pam. She identifies a photo of Pamela and Desiree and starts to cry on the stand.
When the Fayed family moved into the condominium complex, Jeanette was about six months old. Jeanette’s was born in January, 1999. (I’m not positive about this month.) Urrea describes the complex and where she lived in relation the the Fayed family. She states that the condominiums are very modest, small two bedroom homes.
AJ: Ever been in the Fayed home?
DU: Yes. It was a two bedroom condo.
Urrea states she has children. Her child Devin is 19, one year younger than Desiree. She and her daughter, baby-sat Jeanette from time to time. She states that she was a close personal friend of Pamela.
AJ: Were you aware that they were building a business together?
DU: Yes. (snip) I only knew it was a gold business (at first).
AJ: At some time, did you become engaged in the business?
DU: Yes.
Urrea explain. Pamela would talk about the business and many times offered, by Pamela, for her to come work at the company. She declined. Once her children were older, the time was better. Her children were in school so she took the job. She believes the company started in the Fayed home and then it moved into an office. In 2004, Pam offered her a job again and she took Pam up on the offer. She had an interview with James Fayed and he hired her. James was the one who hired her.
Her duties were as a customer service rep. She helped customers with their accounts. She also worked on the accounts receivable and payable. She soon learned it was an online company, and online currency service.
She testifies it was an online account which you could fund and hold gold, currency. “eBullion was the face of Goldfinger.” Goldfinger was the mother company of eBullion.
Urrea describes some of the company fees structure. Originally, a fee was charged when you funded the account. Two to three percent of what you were funding.
AJ: eBullion would slice off two percent?
DU: (Yes.)
In the beginning, the fee came when you funded. After a year, the fee came when you withdrew. The company changed the structure of how they charged people.
AJ: You saw the amount of money that was coming in and out of the company (on a month? daily?) basis? (snip) Three to five million was flowing in or out of Goldfinger?
DU: Correct.
AJ: Who was the president?
DU: James Fayed.
AJ: Any other officers? Who was the Vice President?
DU: I believe it was Pam.
AJ: Did Pam keep business hours at the company?
DU: Yes.
AJ: She did put in hours?
DU: Yes. (snip) Time willing, she was there two to three times a week.
AJ: She was interested in the company’s well being?
DU: Yes.
AJ: Who was the driving force (behind the company? (snip) Day to day, who ran Goldfinger?
DU: James Fayed.
A photo of Jose Moya was put up on the overhead screen.
AJ: While you worked there did you get to know Jose Moya?
Moya was considered the warehouse manager. He picked up and dropped off mail.
DU: We had safes....
AJ: Why did they need safes? Did that gold need to be warehoused?
DU: Yes.
AJ: James Fayed gave Jose Moya control of that warehouse?
DU: Yes.
AJ: Would you consider that position to be a position of considerable trust by James Fayed?
DU: Yes.
The witness testifies that Moya also started to work at the ranch in addition to his duties at the company. She states Pamela and Fayed owned the ranch (together).
From time to time, she had to get in contact with Jose Moya. She had his contact information (phone number). A document is put up on the screen. It’s a list of how long deposits and draft documents clear different institutions, the fees the company charged as well as a list of phone numbers. The witness verifies that the specific phone numbers on the list did belong to the names beside them: the office, James Fayed, Jose Moya and others.
AJ: At some point, did you witness some dissolution between the relationship?
DU: I don’t understand.
AJ: Did you become aware of the divorce?
DU: Yes. (snip) I believe in the fall of 2008. (A few questions later and she corrects the date to the fall of 2007.)
Urrea states that she remembers in the middle of the week, Pam pulled up. She had been served with divorce papers. Urrea was informed that, “Pam was no longer welcome at the company.”
AJ: Now we’re into 2008. Pamela is banned from the premises. Were you given any instructions?
DU: That Friday, met with James Fayed. He indicated to us Pamela Fayed could no longer come to the office and she was banned from any access to the company.
AJ: And that was all accounts, as well as the warehouse?
DU: Yes.
AJ: Who else?
DU: Desiree was also removed from the company.
AJ: At that point did you ever see Pamela back at the company?
DU: One time
AJ: And that was in the relation to an audit?
DU: Yes.
Arial photos of the warehouse are displayed and Urrea identifies the building of Goldfinger Coin & Bullion. Another photo of inside the warehouse containing a caged in secure area with safes. More photos are presented of inside the warehouse as well as photos of four safes. Two tall standing safes and two smaller safes that appear to be stacked ontop of each other. Then photos of the safes opened are presented so the contents can be seen.
There are what appear to be stuffed money bags inside the safe however Urrea state she never saw these bags moved through the company warehouse.
More close-up photos of the contents of the safe. The witness identifies what appear to be gold bars and other items inside the safes. She states that all the safes were kept in the caged in “safe area” of the warehouse.
Urrea states that on the day of the audit, James Fayed, Pamela Fayed and they lawyers were there.
AJ: Did you see someone who introduced himself as a forensic accountant?
DU: Accounting for what was in the safe.
AJ: They were physically counting and recounting the assets?
DU: Yes.
(My notes here are not clear.)
Fayed was physically handling...(assets?) while the forensic accountant was there. Divorce lawyers were there, counting and recording, in conjunction with the divorce proceedings.
To Urrea’s knowledge, Pamela Fayed was not on the premises after that.
AJ: Were you ever asked to rent a vehicle?
DU: Yes.
AJ: In the company’s name?
DU: Yes.
AJ: You rented a car for James Moya?
DU: Yes. The car ws rented for Robert, who was James Moya’s nephew, Robert. He arrived from Maryland with no vehicle.
The witness is shown a photo of a red SUV. She states it appears to be the vehicle she rented. She states that Robert eventually bought his own car.
AJ: Do you remember when Pamela Fayed was killed? (snip) How long before (that) did he stop using the vehicle?
DU: Two to three weeks.
AJ: The vehicle was not immediately returned?
DU: Not to my knowledge.
Prior to Pamela’s death, she observed Jose Moya driving the vehicle.
I note that the defendant is leaning back in his chair. He doesn’t appear to look over at the jury hardly at all.
AJ: When was the last time you saw Pamela Fayed?
DU: Three to four days prior. (snip) I believe she was picking up Jeanette. (snip) My daughter continued to baby-sit for Jeannette; she was 17 at the time. (snip) We did not see each other much after the divorce.
Direct is finished and cross begins.
MW: Who instructed you to rent (the vehicle)?
DU: Jose Moya came to her and told her to rend the vehicle for Rob.
MW: That was a typical interaction?
DU: Yes.
She’s asked when and how she knew Rob stopped using the car two to three weeks before.
DU: He pulled up in a new car. (snip) He pulled up and we ask him about the car and he said he had bought a car. (snip) A few days later, Jose Moya was driving up (in the car).
MW: Didn’t he drive a company truck?
DU: I’m not sure. (snip) I only saw Jose drive it (red SUV) once.
MW: Aside from that one time, you wouldn’t know who was driving it any other time?
DU: Correct.
The witness testifies she was in the area were the caged area was two to three times a day. She never went inside the caged area or inside a safe. Her impression of Moya’s duties where he ordered supplies. She saw him inside the caged safe area. She didn’t know if Jose Moya had combinations to the safes inside the caged area.
I believe Werksman puts a photo of the safe contents back up for the witness.
MW: You had no idea what was in those bags?
DU: No.
MW: Did you see bags like that any other time?
DU: No.
MW: For all we know, there could be marshmallows in that safe?
DU: It’s possible
MW: Softballs?
DU: Possible. Could be.
Werksman confronts her that she wouldn’t know what was in the safe’s or their value. Pointing to some large white buckets in the safe he asks, “For all you know, it could be restaurant buckets and pickles?”
DU: Correct.
Werksman challenges her to seeing Moya in the caged safe area, but she stands her ground that she did see him inside the caged area.
MW: You weren't expecting the divorce?
DU: Correct.
MW: Did he tell you why at the meeting?
DU: No.
MW: Did he tell you that i was because she had embezzled 400,000 dollars?
DU: No. He told her it was $250,000.
MW: He gave you the impression that one of the reasons she was barred from the company was because she had stolen?
DU: Yes.
MW: How often would he come to the warehouse?
DU: Two to three times a week. (snip) Once the divorce began, I didn’t see him very often. (snip) I was told he was working from home.
She testifies she didn’t speak to him when he worked from home. She left the company’s employ on July 28th, 2008. Her regular hours were from 9 am to 5 pm. She states there was only one occasion where she spoke to Fayed on the phone after the divorce. She didn’t know why he worked from home.
MW: At some point, did Mary Mercedes, James Fayed’s sister, when did she arrive?
DU: Approximately one month after the divorce.
Mary Mercedes came to the office a few times and did paperwork.
MW: She was reconciling bank statements?
DU: I think so.
At some point she was told that personnel concerns were to be handled by Mary Mercedes. She reported her concerns to her (Mary) on the job.
MW: James Fayed reported that Mary Mercedes or Scott, .... (he) put Mary Mercedes in charge of personnel matters, to go to Mary or Scott?
DU: Correct.
Werksman brings out the phone list sheet again and has the witness verify that Mary’s phone number was added to the list as of late 2007.
There is a question as to whether or not Fayed was cooperative during the financial audit but my note is not clear as to her answer.
Cross is finished and redirect begins.
AJ: You said, Mr. Werksman asked if yo knew what was inside those bags and suggested they were marshmallows. Did you ever work at eMarshmallows?
DU: No.
AJ: Was the company called eSmorgagebord?
DU: No.
Jackson has the overhead screen zoom in on one of the bags in the safe. The tag on the bag reads Goldfinger Coin and bullion.
AJ: Does that tag say anything about marshmallows?
DU: No.
AJ: Tomatoes?
DU: No.
AJ: Pickles?
DU: No.
Jackson puts up another photo of inside the safe and zooms in on what appear to be gold bars. He asks the witness to identify what she sees to the right of the canvas bags. “Gold bar.” Jackson points to another item in the safe. “Gold bar,” she replies. Each time she replies, “Gold bar.”
Jackson then zooms in on a logo on the canvas bag in the photo of the contents of one of the safes and asks her about it. You can see the words “of America”.
AJ: See that? (snip) Ever seen the logo for Bank of America?
DU: Yes.
AJ: Based on your knowledge of the business, what was your understanding of what was in that bag?
DU: Gold.
Urrea states she had access to bank account numbers. She is asked about her understanding of Goldfinger.
AJ: What was your reaction to the claim (that Pamela had stolen from the company)?
MW: Objection! Relevance!
JK: Sustained!
AJ: Was it your impression that Pamela didn’t have access to the bank accounts?
DU: She had access to company bank accounts.
AJ: But she didn’t have access to the eBullion accounts (of customers/clients) to skim money off the top?
DU: Correct.
AJ: Did James Fayed have a go to person for the business?
DU: Jose Moya.
Redirect is finished and recross begins.
MW: You testified that these items were gold bars.
DU: They appear to be gold bars.
Something about the wrapping is stated as an indicator of the bars being solid gold.
DU: They appear to be gold.
Werksman asks her regarding the canvas bags. “You don’t know if it’s silver or gold coins (in those bags)?”
DU: No.
On redirect, Jackson asks that a specific photo be published to the jury. Judge Kennedy states, “I don’t think that’s necessary at this time.” There is no recross and the witness is excused.
The afternoon break is called.
Werksman and Jackson appear to be having a friendly chat in the well. On the way out of the courtroom to stretch my legs, I introduce myself to the defense co-counsel and ask him for the correct spelling of his name, Steve Meister.
When I’m back inside the courtroom, I see Jackson, harmon and their clerk chat. The dateline producer and the Ventura Star reporter are in the very back row, working on their laptops. Pamela’s brother and sister appear to be talking to someone for the DA’s office, possibly a victim’s advocate. At 3:05, I see the bailiff put his weapon away and enter the holding cell area to retrieve the defendant.
#3 Gregory Wallace Herring
Eric Harmon presents the witness.
More testimony to be added for this day. I’m quite beat so I will be finishing up this days testimony tomorrow evening. Sprocket.
Update May 10th, 2011
Harmon presents the witness.
Herring is a family law attorney who represented Pamela Fayed in her divorce. He handles everything from child custody issues to complicated family businesses involved in a divorce. He’s been in practice as a litigator over 20 years and in his current specialty for the last 13-15 years. He handles a wide variety of family law cases but does specialize in big cases where there is a family business.
Herring met Pamela Fayed in November, 2007. She came to him inquiring if he could represent her. She was already represented by an attorney in the divorce but she was dissatisfied with that representation.
Pamela talked to him about the family business and what it did. It was involved in trading in interests in precious metals. People could trade online almost same as stocks from home.
Herring explains the business. The customer did not receive a gold bar. Someone who wanted to do business with Goldfinger would log on, open an account, set up account and push buttons to purchase commodities.
The company made money in a variety of ways. Every time a trade would occur the company would take a percentage. There would also be monthly service charges on the account. The gold would be valued/appreciated on a regular basis.
Harmon asks about how well the business did in 2001 to 2007.
MH: I’m not an expert, from sources (he consulted) and from Pamela, (he) could see that gold was rapidly rising.
The accounts were confidential, but the witness didn’t know “who” owned the accounts. It could not be determined “who” owned this or that asset.
MH: In family law cases, tow of the fundamental jobs are, what kind of income is generated by the business and also to determine support for spousal and child support and last to get a general value of the company.
The example of “The Dodger’s” is explained.
EH: How do you get inside and do your job?
MH: We’ll start working with an accountant, to try to understand data to get from the job. The next level is try to get data. Informal (expert?) to determine cash flow and how parties got their income.
Herring describes informal verses formal discovery process. Informal is to make a verbal request, a phone call to the opposing counsel or in face to face meetings. Formally is writing and serving court documents and giving the other side 30 days to respond.
Part of his job is to determine how big is the pot that’s going to be divided.
Herring was never able to determine how much James Fayed or Pamela Fayed would get.
MH: I was being stonewalled, absolutely. (snip) I got some information but not everything I was looking for.
EH: There were already things in effect that closed her out?
MH: Yes.
Harmon introduces two different divorce documents into evidence. One is the document that shows he filed for divorce.
On October 17th, 2007, there were declarations by both James Fayed and Pamela Fayed. Each one was filed on 10/17, each making accusations (toward each other) at the end of the hearing on that date there were stipulations that were agreed to by both sides. Whereby Mr. Fayed would operate the company and maintain control. there would be payments made to Pamela Fayed for a variety of other things.
It was initially an attempt to instill order and Fayed would “let her know” how things were going in the company.
Herring describes the terms “out spouse” and “in spouse”. The “in spouse” is in the company and in charge and has all the knowledge. The “out spouse” does not have control and has limited knowledge.
The Dodgers and Mr. McCord are mentioned again and Pamela is identified as the “out spouse” in their divorce case.
EH: Does a spouse have a duty to disclose (to the other party the financial status of the company)?
MH: Yes.
EH: Was that being done (by Mr. Fayed)?
MH: From my perspective, no.
EH: James Fayed made allegations that we just discussed and Pamela had answers to those accusations? She denied them?
MH: Yes.
James Fayed accused Pamela of taking $800,000 from the company. He allegedly said, “She grabbed it.”
These were two, $400,000 transactions.
(My following notes are not clear.) Supposedly, Pamela made these transactions on behalf of the company, something that Fayed wasn’t doing. Supposedly, the company needed money transfer licenses. Herring believes there were many licenses in many states that the companies needed to get.
EH: He thought that the licenses would cause his company to be under greater scrutiny?
MH: That’s what I was to understand.
Apparently, Fayed knew that there was a criminal investigation, possibly more than one and possibly a tax (fraud?) investigation. They both had criminal lawyers.
EH: Did you communicate with her criminal attorney?
MH: It wasn’t every day, ut it was every week or so.
The criminal case was more important. (His instructions?) were not to do anything without the criminal attorney’s knowledge.
MH: I got wind of a subpoena by the FBI.
EH: Pam was informed? By you?
MH: I don’t know/recall.
Herring describes the steps he took to try to get an accounting of the assets and adequately represent his client. First, he tried to get information from Fayed’s divorce attorneys informally, so he can later show the judge that he didn’t go “crazy” on the case.
MH: I heard all the right things but didn’t get any follow through.
He wrote letters to get the documents he needed. Shortly after that, Fayed fired his divorce attorney and acquired a new attorney in January, 2008. His new attorney stated, “You will get it on a silver platter.”
MH: I was provided “some” information. (snip) That was just info they wanted to give me, but not all the info that I was requiring.
EH: Did you have an idea in your head of a figure?
MH: No.
Apparently, both parties entered into a stipulation, a universe of documents in late March early April.
MH: I never got the information. I got some documents that were inked out, marked over. They were useless.
Herring filed a variety of motions after that. He filed a motion for significant sanctions against Mr. Fayed for not meeting the agreements to disclose documents. There were motions for child support, spousal support and other attorney fees.
He tried again to get documents. On June 23, 2008, he filed several more motions to get information to which he was entitled.
I’m writing so fast I get a hand cramp.
Herring hired Paul White (of a forensic accounting firm). Mr. White’s assessment of cash flow to James Fayed was $125,000 a month, that he showed going to Fayed in a variety of different ways. He was taking loans, and treating the company as a piggy bank.
EH: Pamela Fayed, how much was she making per month?
MH: The prior stipulation (that was entered into with her prior divorce attorney) provided she would receive $4,000 every two weeks from the company. (snip) Shortly thereafter, James Fayed cut it down significantly to $2,000 less per month.
Pamela was getting less than the original agreement.
EH: In addition, were there properties, a house, a ranch?
MH: Yes.
The company Pamela showed us, and (that we were?) trying to show the judge the scope of the case with a power point presentation ....it was huge. Hundreds of millions or billions. James was trying to get another entity to buy it, liquidate the company.
EH: What steps did you take to try to stop the liquidation of assets?
MH: (I asked myself) What am I going to do to secure these assets? (snip) There was a pile of gold in Australia. I couldn’t do much about that. (It was) a concern of mine to prevent the sale of the assets.
His first step was to try to move the court to assert a receiver to monitor (the company). He first wondered what he was getting into with this case.
EH: Did a receiver go out and put locks on the cages (where the safes were located)?
MH: Lindsay Nelson went out and did that.
EH: Did he go out and count it or just take possession of it? A receiver went in and looked at the facility and did some accounting?
MH: I know he went through and a list was made.
Harmon goes over the motion requesting $66,000 a month in spousal support and child support and also to pay fees. He was also asking for retroactive support. They were showing the large disparity in income. There was a motion to join the business (in the divorce). Once the total of all the motions for moneys was calculated out, it came to roughly a million dollars James Fayed would have to pay to Pamela.
Herring filed a motion to directly join the companies to the divorce case. Then he would deal with the attorneys assigned to the company, to try to get documents and information to determine (the totality of assets).
EH: When was that to be heard?
MH: All these motions together would be heard July 29th.
EH: June and July. Can you describe the litigation for us?
MH: It was crazy.
It’s mentioned that the parties had hired a private judge, to keep the issues of the company private so competitors didn’t get their company secrets.
There were many motions and documents.
MH: Then it got quiet. We were setting deadlines. (snip) Then a week before (the murder) the other side went silent. Then a deadline past. (This was a motion for fees.)
It was a major deadline of theirs.
On the morning of July 29th, he was driving to work to a hearing he heard about Pamela’s murder.
EH: After Pam’s death, was there any obligation to the other side to pay spousal support?
MH: No.
Direct ends and Werksman begins the cross.
Werksman reaffirms the conditions of the prior agreement between both parties made on October 17th, 2007. Werksman asks if Pamela had “buyer’s remorse” regarding her prior divorce attorney.
MH: I wouldn’t describe it as buyers remorse. But she was unsatisfied with what she was getting (because it was less).
I note Fayed’s left arm is on the chair and his hand is resting on his face. To me, the angle and lighting, he looks like Charles Durning.
Werksman asks Herring if he’s an advocate of Pam’s.
MH: Yes.
MW: The deadline was about five to seven days before Pam's death?
MH: I couldn’t get regular back and forth (from opposing counsel) during that time (1 week). (snip) Foley (sp? - Fayed’s divorce attorney) wouldn’t talk about anything. The communications changed about five to seven days before that (Pam’s murder).
MW: So the meeting on July 29th, if there had been hearing on July 29th, you can’t say with any certainty what the judge was going to grant? (snip) It could have been 30,000 not 66,000? (snip) It was a tossed ball?
MH: Well, that assumes a 50-50 (possibility).
He didn’t feel that. He felt Pam’s position to get these sanctions was pretty solid.
MW: You felt that you would get something?
MH: That’s fair to say.
The defense now introduces their first exhibit. Defense A. It’s a letter from John Foley (sp?) informing Herring that Mr. Fayed intended to liquidate (the company’s assets).
MW: Mr. Fayed had control of the business. He was giving you notice that he was going to liquidate?
Herring looks at the letter verifies the document is the letter he received.
MH: To me, this was more gamesmanship. (snip) I thought it was an end run to take his toys and go home. (snip) All that mattered to me was this was a dogged attempt to stonewall.
MW: Would you say that represents good litigation on the part of the client?
MH: I don’t know what he was thinking.
I believe Herring states Fayed’s divorce representation was competent. There’s something in my notes about quoting family case law, a section, of the in spouse notifying the out spouse of intent, and this being a good law.
EH: Objection! Characterization!
JK: Approach at sidebar.
Just like in Judge Pastor’s courtroom, the attorney’s don’t approach her bench, they go over to the clerk’s desk counter and confer there.
JK: Objection sustained.
MW: The letter would not require a hearing?
MH: I would have filed a motion to stop this so I could have gotten the transparency.
MW: Would that letter have scuttled the July 29th hearing?
MH: No. I would have added this to my arguments.
MW: But it’s possible the judge could have taken this and postponed the court hearing?
MH: In the universal scheme of things, anything is possible.
I have to stop taking notes. My hand is cramping too much. But I then pick up my pen again.
Ultimately, in that short time frame, Herring didn’t do anything. Before the 29th, he didn’t file any motions in relation to the notice of liquidating the company assets.
The jurors are ordered back at 9:15 am and there’s no redirect of this witness.
After the jurors left, Judge Kennedy admonishes Werksman for leaving court with a juror list document.
JK: You should never have walked off with that jury list.
As I gather my things and get ready to leave, I notice Judge Pastor, Dept. 107 sitting in the gallery in the row of plastic chairs beside the courtroom door. I’m guessing he’s waiting for Kennedy to get off the bench. I’ve heard from my friends in the MSM that Pastor and Kennedy are friends.
I really admire Judge Pastor. I thought he was a fantastic judge in the Cameron Brown retrial that I attended.
As I’m about to leave, defense counsel Steve Meister comes over to Judge Pastor with a big smile on his face and his hand out that he rests on Judge Pastor’s shoulder. Meister says, “You’re the young man interning at the court!” Judge Pastor smiles and shakes his hand.
Posts
