Saddened, but not at all surprised, two of the cases in the historic abuse scandal have been dropped by William Bailhache, stating he had not found sufficient grounds to prosecute either case.
Nine victims gave evidence about the Haut de la Garenne case but Bailhache questioned the credibility of some of it.
He also said the complaints did not support each other enough.
Charges against the Jane and Alan McGuire, who were house parents at a St. Clements home were dropped by the island's Attorney General in 1998 and Bailhache said he had not found sufficient evidence for overturning his predecessor's decision.
This is just wrong on so many levels.
The press had Bailhache’s statement during the afternoon, but it was embargoed until midnight.
Senator Syvret was informed of the cases being dropped and began calling the victims to see how they were and offering his support.
The survivors didn’t know.
They – the most important people involved in this situation - hadn’t been told of the decision.
Jersey oligarchy media had been informed of the story, and are waiting for this afternoon’s embargoed press release – before the survivors were informed that the two maniacs and thugs who abused them will not face justice.
This is abuse – all over again.
The survivors – having been informed by me, contacted the police – who reluctantly admitted that, yes, the McGuires would not face justice, and that their plan had been to call the survivors and inform them this evening.
Yet the cops – under the “New Management” of David Warcup & co – were far more interested in how the survivors found out about the spin-doctoring of the decision.
I am so thoroughly disgusted with the government of Jersey and being a Christian, cannot write what I am thinking their punishment should be.
My heart and prayers go out to the victims, Senator Syvret, Lenny Harper and all the others who tried for justice and closure in this horrific, disgraceful story.
Statement by the Attorney General (Probably not a good idea to read if you have high blood pressure.)
BBC
Senator Stuart Syvret Blog
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
PHIL SPECTOR CIVIL CASE MOTIONS
I finally took a drive to Pasadena and obtained copies of the motions granted and denied on May 26th, in the civil case.
There are about 10 pages to the Clarkson motion that was granted and 18 or so pages to the Spector stay motion that was denied. Since I'm helping Mr. Sprocket with the big work truck today, ~yesterday, he had to rebuild the fuse box from scratch and today the strut and a wood floor will be installed~ I'm only typing out the most interesting parts of the motions.
Plaintiff Motion:
PAGE 1
John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
10900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
Los Angeles, California 90024
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)
Roderick J. Lindblom, State Bar No. 153768
LAW OFFICES OF RODERICK J. LINDBLOM
9935 S. Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90212
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DONNA CLARKSON, individually, and as Successor in Interest to LANA CLARKSON
Plaintiffs,
vs
PHIL SPECTOR, aka PHILLIP SPECTOR, aka HARVEY PHILLIP SPECTOR, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. GC034858
[Assigned to the Honorable Jan A. Puim, Dept. P]
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PERMIT PRETRIAL DISCOVERY OF FINANCIAL ASSETS
Date: May 19, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: P
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 19, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard in Department P of the above entitled court, located at 300. Walnut Street, Pasadena, California, plaintiff will seek leave to allow discovery of defendant Phil Spector's assets and financial condition pursuant to Civil Code sections 3294(d) and 3295(c).
PAGE 2
The motion is made and based upon the grounds this material is relevant to the subject matter of the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail on her punitive damage claim, and that a prima facia case for an award of punitive damages has been established because the evidence shows that decedent Lana Clarkson died as a result of a homicide for which defendant SPECTOR was convicted of a felony.
PLAINTIFF ALSO REQUESTS JUDICIAL NOTICE pursuant to Evidence Code section 452 of the minute order of April 13, 2009, entered in the criminal case entitiled People v. Phillip Spector, LASC no. BA255233 which establishes that defendant SPECTOR has been convicted of a felony for the death of Lana Clarkson.
The motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be introduced at the time of the hearing of this motion.
Dated: April 23, 2009
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
By:
(signature)
John C. Taylor
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PAGE 3
INTRODUCTION
This is a wrongful death case arising out of the murder of Lana Clarkson on February 3, 2003. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on February 3, 2003, decedent Lana Clarkson left her job at the House of Blues on Sunset Blvd, in Los Angeles and accompanied defendant SPECTOR to his Alhambra home. Approximately two and one half hours later defendant SPECTOR placed a gun in the mouth of Ms. Clarkson and shot and killed her. At the time SPECTOR killed Ms. Clarkson, she was seated in a chair in a foyer of defendant's home, fully clothed, with her purse over her shoulder.
Defendant confessed to his crime within minutes, telling his chauffeur, who was waiting outside the residence to drive Ms. Clarkson back to her car, "I think I killed somebody."
On April 13, 2009, after a five month jury trial, defendant SPECTOR was convicted of second degree murder (PC 187(A)) with a further finding that SPECTOR committed the murder with a firearm (PC 12022.5(A)(1)). See Minute Order attached as Exhibit A. SPECTOR was remanded to jail where he awaits sentencing on May 29, 2009. SPECTOR is facing an 18 year to life sentence for this crime.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT'S ASSETS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Defendant SPECTOR is potentially liable for punitive damages because he has been convicted of a felony. Civil Code section 3294(d) [punitive damages may be recovered ... based upon a death which resulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony..."]
"Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdividion if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294." Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105.
PAGE 4
Given the facts of the case and the felony conviction, there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail in her claim for punitive damages.
Discovery into SPECTOR's asssets should not be delayed.
In light of the ruling in Adams, supra, it has been recognized that "it will be necessary to conduct extensive discovery of the defendant's finances, assets and holdings." Douglas v. Ostemier (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 729, 747. The Adams court expressly encouraged the use of pretrial discovery, "The plaintiff may also obtain pretrial discovery of [financial] information. 'Like the Colt revolver made all men in the west the same size, discovery procedures reduce the advantage the giant corporations [or any defendant] otherwise have over the individual plaintiff in litigation, and if the goal is a large verdict, such discovery procedures should not be used sparingly.' (Citation.) We see no reason why it is even slightly unfair to require a plaintiff to use the procedures available." 54 Cal.3d at 122.
Discovery into defendant SPECTOR'S assets may require such extensive efforts and should not be delayed until after the commencement of trial. George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 52, 119 [noting that a recess of several months would be necessary to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the trial]. Indeed, in light of the mandate of C.C. 3295(d) that "[e]vidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff" discovery must be allowed now to avoid any potential recess so that plaintiff will be ready to present evidence during the punitive damage phase of trial.
The motion should be granted because:
(1) financial information material is relevant to the subject matter of the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;
(2) there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail on perpunitive damage claim; and
PAGE 5
(3) a prima facie case for an award of punitive damages has been established because of defendant's felony conviction.
Dated: April 23, 2009
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
By:
(signature)
John C. Taylor
Attorneys for Plaintiff
__________________
Defendant Motion:
CALENDO, PUCKETT, SHEEDY, & DICORRADO
701 North Brand Boulevard - Suite 300
Glendale, California 92103
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)
C.M. Sheedy, Equ. - Bar No. 113611
Attorneys for Defendant
PHIL SPECTOR
0214-0072CMS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DONNA CLARKSON, individually, and as Successor in Interest to LANA CLARKSON
Plaintiffs,
vs
PHIL SPECTOR, aka PHILLIP SPECTOR, aka HARVEY PHILLIP SPECTOR, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. GC034858, Assigned to Dept. P, Judge Jan Pluim
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY INCLUDING INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND THE TAKING OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO EXTEND THE TIME OT RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND TO PREVENT THE TAKING OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 120 DAYS; DECLARATIONS OF C.M. SHEEDY AND DORON WEINBERG; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Complaint Filed: 2/2/05
Trial Date: None Set
TO ALL PARTIES AND/OR THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ______________, 2009, at _______ a.m., in Department "P" of this Court, located at 300 East Walnut
PAGE 2
Street, Pasadena, California, Defendant Phil Spector (Hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Spector") will move this Court for an order staying discovery specifically, any Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions propounded by any party and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition in this action until all issues related to the criminal proceedings arising out of this incident have been resolved. Alternatively, Mr. Spector moves for a protective order extending the time to respond to requests for written discovery and to prevent the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition for a period of at least 120 days.
This motion is made on the grounds that Mr. Spector's sentencing hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2009. It is anticipated Mr. Spector will be rquesting a new trial at the time of his sentencing hearing or perfecting an appellate right. This will likely necessitate the continuance of the sentencing hearing. In light of the gravity of the criminal proceedings, it would be prejudicial to proceed with discovery in the civil matter until all related criminal issues have been resolved.
THIS MOTION WILL BE BASED upon this Notice, upon the Declarations of C.M. SHEEDY and DORON WEINBERG, attached hereto and filed and served herewith; upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and upon such matter of which this Court may take judicial notice, as may be set forth hereinafter.
PAGE 3
DATED: May 4, 2009
CALENDO, PUCKETT, SHEEDY & DiCORRADO By:
(signature)
C.M. Sheedy
Attorneys for Defendant
PHIL SPECTOR
PAGE 4, line 1; lines 15 - 27
DECLARATION OF C.M. SHEEDY
4. On or about April 13, 2009, a jury returned a verdict of "guilty" for second degree murder. Mr. Spector was taken into custody. He is scheduled to return to court on May 29th, 2009 for sentencing. Defense counsel is not privy to the confidential criminal proceedings, or strategies by Mr. Spector's crimnal attorneys, but it is anticipated Mr. Spector will likely be requesting a new trial at the time of his sentencing hearing or perfecting an appellate right. This will likely necessitate the continuance of the sentencing hearing. Mr. Spector will have 60 days from the sentencing hearing to file a Notice of Appeal, but the actual dates set by the criminal court vary, especially in high profile and lengthy matters such as the one concerning Mr. Spector.
PAGE 5, lines 4-28
6. On or about April 27, 2009, in a good faith effort to meet and confer on the issues and prevent the necessity of a motion, I wrote to Plaintiff's attorneys and requested they stipulate to stay discovery, namely the service of Form Interrogatories, Inspection Demands, Request for Admissions and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition for 120 days. Plaintiff's counsel advised he would not agree to a further stay of the discovery process.
7. Mr. Spector intends to invoke his privileges not to testify against himself until all issues regarding the criminal action has been resolved. He cannot engage in discovery in this present action without being compelled to waive his privileges against self-incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
8. Mr. Spector will be severely and irreparably prejudiced if required to proceed with discovery in this civil action where his deposition testimony and/or responses to written discovery can potentially be used against him in the criminal action.
9. On behalf of Mr. Spector, I respectfully request that the Court grant an order staying discovery specifically, any Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions propounded by any party and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition in this action until the completion of all issues related to the criminal proceedings have been resolved.
PAGE 7 (Exhibit)
DECLARATION OF DORON WEINBERG
I, DORON WEINBERG, declare:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am representing PHIL SPECTOR with regard to the criminal case which arises from the February 3, 2003 incident.
2. Due to the gravity of the charges pending gainst Mr. Spector, he will not be permitted to testify at deposition or respond to any form of written discovery which related to the February 3, 2003 incident. This is due to the potential impact it could have on Mr. Spector's pending crimnal case. If Plaintiff's counsel attempts to inquire at deposition or propound any written discovery in that regard, Mr. Spector will be asserting his right against self-incrimination, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. This right will be asserted until the appeal process in the criminal case has been completed.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this declaration on May 3, 2009 at San Francisco, California.
(signature)
DORON WIENBERG
Declarant
-----end of transcription of motions
It will be interesting to finally see what Spector's financial position really is at this point. It's my understanding that Taylor & Ring have an excellent reputation in ferreting out hidden assets.
There are about 10 pages to the Clarkson motion that was granted and 18 or so pages to the Spector stay motion that was denied. Since I'm helping Mr. Sprocket with the big work truck today, ~yesterday, he had to rebuild the fuse box from scratch and today the strut and a wood floor will be installed~ I'm only typing out the most interesting parts of the motions.
Plaintiff Motion:
PAGE 1
John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
10900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
Los Angeles, California 90024
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)
Roderick J. Lindblom, State Bar No. 153768
LAW OFFICES OF RODERICK J. LINDBLOM
9935 S. Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90212
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DONNA CLARKSON, individually, and as Successor in Interest to LANA CLARKSON
Plaintiffs,
vs
PHIL SPECTOR, aka PHILLIP SPECTOR, aka HARVEY PHILLIP SPECTOR, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. GC034858
[Assigned to the Honorable Jan A. Puim, Dept. P]
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PERMIT PRETRIAL DISCOVERY OF FINANCIAL ASSETS
Date: May 19, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: P
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 19, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard in Department P of the above entitled court, located at 300. Walnut Street, Pasadena, California, plaintiff will seek leave to allow discovery of defendant Phil Spector's assets and financial condition pursuant to Civil Code sections 3294(d) and 3295(c).
PAGE 2
The motion is made and based upon the grounds this material is relevant to the subject matter of the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail on her punitive damage claim, and that a prima facia case for an award of punitive damages has been established because the evidence shows that decedent Lana Clarkson died as a result of a homicide for which defendant SPECTOR was convicted of a felony.
PLAINTIFF ALSO REQUESTS JUDICIAL NOTICE pursuant to Evidence Code section 452 of the minute order of April 13, 2009, entered in the criminal case entitiled People v. Phillip Spector, LASC no. BA255233 which establishes that defendant SPECTOR has been convicted of a felony for the death of Lana Clarkson.
The motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be introduced at the time of the hearing of this motion.
Dated: April 23, 2009
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
By:
(signature)
John C. Taylor
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PAGE 3
INTRODUCTION
This is a wrongful death case arising out of the murder of Lana Clarkson on February 3, 2003. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on February 3, 2003, decedent Lana Clarkson left her job at the House of Blues on Sunset Blvd, in Los Angeles and accompanied defendant SPECTOR to his Alhambra home. Approximately two and one half hours later defendant SPECTOR placed a gun in the mouth of Ms. Clarkson and shot and killed her. At the time SPECTOR killed Ms. Clarkson, she was seated in a chair in a foyer of defendant's home, fully clothed, with her purse over her shoulder.
Defendant confessed to his crime within minutes, telling his chauffeur, who was waiting outside the residence to drive Ms. Clarkson back to her car, "I think I killed somebody."
On April 13, 2009, after a five month jury trial, defendant SPECTOR was convicted of second degree murder (PC 187(A)) with a further finding that SPECTOR committed the murder with a firearm (PC 12022.5(A)(1)). See Minute Order attached as Exhibit A. SPECTOR was remanded to jail where he awaits sentencing on May 29, 2009. SPECTOR is facing an 18 year to life sentence for this crime.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT'S ASSETS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Defendant SPECTOR is potentially liable for punitive damages because he has been convicted of a felony. Civil Code section 3294(d) [punitive damages may be recovered ... based upon a death which resulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony..."]
"Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdividion if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294." Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105.
PAGE 4
Given the facts of the case and the felony conviction, there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail in her claim for punitive damages.
Discovery into SPECTOR's asssets should not be delayed.
In light of the ruling in Adams, supra, it has been recognized that "it will be necessary to conduct extensive discovery of the defendant's finances, assets and holdings." Douglas v. Ostemier (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 729, 747. The Adams court expressly encouraged the use of pretrial discovery, "The plaintiff may also obtain pretrial discovery of [financial] information. 'Like the Colt revolver made all men in the west the same size, discovery procedures reduce the advantage the giant corporations [or any defendant] otherwise have over the individual plaintiff in litigation, and if the goal is a large verdict, such discovery procedures should not be used sparingly.' (Citation.) We see no reason why it is even slightly unfair to require a plaintiff to use the procedures available." 54 Cal.3d at 122.
Discovery into defendant SPECTOR'S assets may require such extensive efforts and should not be delayed until after the commencement of trial. George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 52, 119 [noting that a recess of several months would be necessary to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the trial]. Indeed, in light of the mandate of C.C. 3295(d) that "[e]vidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff" discovery must be allowed now to avoid any potential recess so that plaintiff will be ready to present evidence during the punitive damage phase of trial.
The motion should be granted because:
(1) financial information material is relevant to the subject matter of the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;
(2) there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will prevail on perpunitive damage claim; and
PAGE 5
(3) a prima facie case for an award of punitive damages has been established because of defendant's felony conviction.
Dated: April 23, 2009
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
By:
(signature)
John C. Taylor
Attorneys for Plaintiff
__________________
Defendant Motion:
CALENDO, PUCKETT, SHEEDY, & DICORRADO
701 North Brand Boulevard - Suite 300
Glendale, California 92103
(telephone #'s & fax # excised)
C.M. Sheedy, Equ. - Bar No. 113611
Attorneys for Defendant
PHIL SPECTOR
0214-0072CMS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DONNA CLARKSON, individually, and as Successor in Interest to LANA CLARKSON
Plaintiffs,
vs
PHIL SPECTOR, aka PHILLIP SPECTOR, aka HARVEY PHILLIP SPECTOR, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. GC034858, Assigned to Dept. P, Judge Jan Pluim
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY INCLUDING INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND THE TAKING OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO EXTEND THE TIME OT RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND TO PREVENT THE TAKING OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 120 DAYS; DECLARATIONS OF C.M. SHEEDY AND DORON WEINBERG; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Complaint Filed: 2/2/05
Trial Date: None Set
TO ALL PARTIES AND/OR THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ______________, 2009, at _______ a.m., in Department "P" of this Court, located at 300 East Walnut
PAGE 2
Street, Pasadena, California, Defendant Phil Spector (Hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Spector") will move this Court for an order staying discovery specifically, any Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions propounded by any party and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition in this action until all issues related to the criminal proceedings arising out of this incident have been resolved. Alternatively, Mr. Spector moves for a protective order extending the time to respond to requests for written discovery and to prevent the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition for a period of at least 120 days.
This motion is made on the grounds that Mr. Spector's sentencing hearing is scheduled for May 29, 2009. It is anticipated Mr. Spector will be rquesting a new trial at the time of his sentencing hearing or perfecting an appellate right. This will likely necessitate the continuance of the sentencing hearing. In light of the gravity of the criminal proceedings, it would be prejudicial to proceed with discovery in the civil matter until all related criminal issues have been resolved.
THIS MOTION WILL BE BASED upon this Notice, upon the Declarations of C.M. SHEEDY and DORON WEINBERG, attached hereto and filed and served herewith; upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and upon such matter of which this Court may take judicial notice, as may be set forth hereinafter.
PAGE 3
DATED: May 4, 2009
CALENDO, PUCKETT, SHEEDY & DiCORRADO By:
(signature)
C.M. Sheedy
Attorneys for Defendant
PHIL SPECTOR
PAGE 4, line 1; lines 15 - 27
DECLARATION OF C.M. SHEEDY
4. On or about April 13, 2009, a jury returned a verdict of "guilty" for second degree murder. Mr. Spector was taken into custody. He is scheduled to return to court on May 29th, 2009 for sentencing. Defense counsel is not privy to the confidential criminal proceedings, or strategies by Mr. Spector's crimnal attorneys, but it is anticipated Mr. Spector will likely be requesting a new trial at the time of his sentencing hearing or perfecting an appellate right. This will likely necessitate the continuance of the sentencing hearing. Mr. Spector will have 60 days from the sentencing hearing to file a Notice of Appeal, but the actual dates set by the criminal court vary, especially in high profile and lengthy matters such as the one concerning Mr. Spector.
PAGE 5, lines 4-28
6. On or about April 27, 2009, in a good faith effort to meet and confer on the issues and prevent the necessity of a motion, I wrote to Plaintiff's attorneys and requested they stipulate to stay discovery, namely the service of Form Interrogatories, Inspection Demands, Request for Admissions and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition for 120 days. Plaintiff's counsel advised he would not agree to a further stay of the discovery process.
7. Mr. Spector intends to invoke his privileges not to testify against himself until all issues regarding the criminal action has been resolved. He cannot engage in discovery in this present action without being compelled to waive his privileges against self-incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
8. Mr. Spector will be severely and irreparably prejudiced if required to proceed with discovery in this civil action where his deposition testimony and/or responses to written discovery can potentially be used against him in the criminal action.
9. On behalf of Mr. Spector, I respectfully request that the Court grant an order staying discovery specifically, any Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions propounded by any party and the taking of Mr. Spector's deposition in this action until the completion of all issues related to the criminal proceedings have been resolved.
PAGE 7 (Exhibit)
DECLARATION OF DORON WEINBERG
I, DORON WEINBERG, declare:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am representing PHIL SPECTOR with regard to the criminal case which arises from the February 3, 2003 incident.
2. Due to the gravity of the charges pending gainst Mr. Spector, he will not be permitted to testify at deposition or respond to any form of written discovery which related to the February 3, 2003 incident. This is due to the potential impact it could have on Mr. Spector's pending crimnal case. If Plaintiff's counsel attempts to inquire at deposition or propound any written discovery in that regard, Mr. Spector will be asserting his right against self-incrimination, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. This right will be asserted until the appeal process in the criminal case has been completed.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this declaration on May 3, 2009 at San Francisco, California.
(signature)
DORON WIENBERG
Declarant
-----end of transcription of motions
It will be interesting to finally see what Spector's financial position really is at this point. It's my understanding that Taylor & Ring have an excellent reputation in ferreting out hidden assets.
Monday, June 1, 2009
UK Sunday Express Online Says Phil Spector "Twittering" from Jail
Spector Twittering?
The UK Sunday Express posted an article yesterday claiming Phil Spector had an iPod and a laptop computer while incarcerated and was leaving comments on a "Twitter" account.
At 12:30 pm today, I spoke to the Watch Commander at the Twin Towers facility and asked him to verify the claim that Spector had an iPod and computer in his possession. His response was, "Absolutely not."
While the Twitter comments "may be" statements Phil Spector has shared with someone who has visited him or spoke to him on the phone at the jail, they are not being posted by him directly.
It's my understanding that Spector will be transferred into State custody at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within the next two weeks.
Clarkson vs. Spector, Civil Case
On May 26th, the court granted a motion by Donna Clarkson's civil attorneys, John Taylor and Rod Lindblom to conduct a financial discovery of Spector's assets. The same day, a motion to stay the civil case was denied. I hope to have copies of those motions up later on the blog. It is my understanding that Doron Weinberg has filed a memorandum that Spector will plead the 5th in the civil matter pending an appeal in his criminal case.
The UK Sunday Express posted an article yesterday claiming Phil Spector had an iPod and a laptop computer while incarcerated and was leaving comments on a "Twitter" account.
At 12:30 pm today, I spoke to the Watch Commander at the Twin Towers facility and asked him to verify the claim that Spector had an iPod and computer in his possession. His response was, "Absolutely not."
While the Twitter comments "may be" statements Phil Spector has shared with someone who has visited him or spoke to him on the phone at the jail, they are not being posted by him directly.
It's my understanding that Spector will be transferred into State custody at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within the next two weeks.
Clarkson vs. Spector, Civil Case
On May 26th, the court granted a motion by Donna Clarkson's civil attorneys, John Taylor and Rod Lindblom to conduct a financial discovery of Spector's assets. The same day, a motion to stay the civil case was denied. I hope to have copies of those motions up later on the blog. It is my understanding that Doron Weinberg has filed a memorandum that Spector will plead the 5th in the civil matter pending an appeal in his criminal case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
