Statute of Limitations => Lots of Lucky Folks

And the band played on, what is going on? I am probably more confused now as to the criminal justice system than when I started my career many years ago! Now I know that the system is good, and for the most part works. The prosecutors on this case are right on top of their game and seldom if ever miss a beat! But can anyone explain to me the issue of “immunity”? Some government witnesses have shown up charged and are cooperating and testifying against their former hero, both employees and former employers of Mr. Pellicano. Meanwhile, others who were deeply involved with Pellicano’s shenanigans — and clearly knowledgeable of what they were involved in — are getting away with it scot-free, neither charged themselves nor compelled to testify even with “immunity.” Could the answer be the “statute of limitations”…or in this case, the “savior of careers”?!

Last week, Mr. Freddy DeMann strolls into court and admits that he listened to wiretaps of his daughter’s cheating husband and even admitted to paying for it. He went further to say that he played his daughter a small piece of one of the tapes, and he strolls right back out the same door that he had sailed through maybe 15 minutes earlier! Now why are some prosecuted and some given immunity…and Mr. DeMann was pretty much clear sailing? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this guy wanted to break the law and again, we don’t know which Hollywood lawyer “hooked him up” with Pellicano…or better yet got him “plugged in,” but can we say “that’s all folks!?” How is this working? Freddy was witness #19 and #20 is his lovely daughter Pilar. What he did is what any father would do, and I have a total understanding of that and I guess as Mr. Chad Hummel, Esq. (and one of the more vocal lawyers in the room) attempted to get in upon his very short cross-examination was “this was a good thing.” Note: I don’t know where Mr. Hummel came from, but let me tell you he is good, he is very good! Watching him try to defend his client Arneson and his strategy each day, it is not easy for him, as the evidence against his client is powerful.

Mr. Pfieifer is another one. He was charged, pled guilty and is awaiting his sentencing, dependent upon his cooperation with the government. He too hired Pellicano, and he too listened to tapes and he was charged. Now he is no Freddy DeMann and I would not insult Mr. DeMann and compare the two, but I am going to anyway. How did one go sailing through and one hit a reef and get stuck? It is an old legal term called, “Statute of Limitations” and on wiretapping it is 5 years! So pretty much everyone gets a pass on items that occurred prior to 2001, yea! But some of these stories are too good to pass up, and the following is just one!

Another piece of work is witness #18, Daniel Godfrey Davis. Mr. Davis has been a member of the California Bar since December 20, 1973 and per the State Bar has a “clear record.” However, in a story in the Los Angeles Times dated March 17, 2006 , on the John Gordon Jones (aka “the limousine rapist) 1998 rape case, by one of the most highly regarded reporters in the country, Paul Lieberman (Paul and I go back to the Doris Duke days), writes “one of a string of defense lawyers in the case, Danny Davis, said he wrote the document based on recordings made by Pellicano. Davis said that when he heard there might be exculpatory recordings, he had to lobby to hear them even once in Pellicano’s office, ‘scribbling notes as as quickly as I could.’” (why rush…later it is stated that Mr. Davis is a fan of Mr. Pellicano’s!)

Many prominent Los Angeles lawyers who had used Mr. Pellicano were driving to the Poconos to distance themselves from Pellicano after he was busted by the feds, but not two in particular! Paul Lieberman writes, “These days, prominent Los Angeles divorce and entertainment lawyers who used Pellicano are denying that he ever shared such recordings with them. BUT NOT IN THE JONES CASE, DAVIS AND AN EARLIER LAWYER, RONALD RICHARDS, ACKNOWLEDGED HEARING THEM, AND DISAGREEING ON WHERE TO GO FROM THERE.” ( admitting this have they done anything wrong? I don’t know, what do you think?)

Now again to all my fans, I hope I am not thinking too fast here, BUT do you see what I am thinking? Paul goes on to write, “Davis, the chief defense lawyer at the time, wrote his own memo on the incident, which eventually surfaced in court as well.” He said Richards claimed that Pellicano was the one who suggested the tactic of confronting Jane Doe #3. As for telling the woman that they had recordings of her, however, “I specifically inquired whether he had first cleared that with Pellicano”, DAVIS wrote. “After a long pause, Richards indicated he had not.”
Note: to call Danny Davis “chief?” King of a sausage factory maybe, but never a chief!

What is interesting about this exchange is what we learned in the John Gordon Jones case when Deputy DA Ms. Kerlin was testifying as to the so-called investigation of herself and co-counsel Pat Dixon. Ms. Kerlin also makes note of a document generated by Danny Davis…and who was it that made that phone call to a personal friend of Ms. Kerlin in an attempt to get “personal information?”

Paul Lieberman writes, “Davis’ memo suggested it was risky to let that slip out, for the woman would probably tell prosecutors and set off an investigation into ‘a conspiracy to illegally tape conversations.’” NOTE: MS. KERLIN STATES, “IT DIDN’T OCCUR TO US TO STOP AND INVESTIGATE HIM.” Lucky, is it not, that the DA back then gave this no more thought, and had they…who knows what would have happened today!

The story continues, “In fact, the prosecution did bring a motion to require the defense to produce any recordings. Davis replied with an AMBIGUOUS letter stating that ‘to the extent that any…may have been made’ they were not ‘within my direct or indirect possession.’” How cool is that?!

Recalling the incident in March 2006, Davis said that as a criminal lawyer, “I often come into cases were there may have been crimes committed. You don’t have an obligation to broadcast that. You have an obligation to conceal that.” Here he worried about raising a “Disastrous side issue” – the eavesdropping – that could reflect negatively on their client, because HIS OWN INVESTIGATOR had done it. (Duh! and all that time in law school down the crapper!)

Reading this I was wondering why he was even talking to Paul Lieberman. However, he ain’t saying much now, he has one of the best defense lawyers in town doing any talking for him, and things are pretty silent when Harland Braun, Esquire is on the job! By the way, Harland has never and would never work with Anthony Pellicano. Just sit and speak with Harland and you will understand immediately!

To be fair to all in this little walk down memory lane, Lieberman also writes in this piece, “Jones’ early lawyers, Davis and Richards, said they received subpoenas to turn over documents but have never been told they are ‘subjects of interest’ in the federal investigation, one that DAVIS says has left the public with a distorted image of Pellicano.” Note: distorted? has Mr. Davis missed something here? I wonder what he would say today?

“’WITHOUT THE GRATUITOUS ILLEGALITIES, HE AS GOOD AS THE REST OF THEM,. DAVIS SAID of the imprisoned private eye. ‘THAT’S THE SHAME. HE DID A GOOD JOB FOR ME ON OTHER CASES.’” Well all I have to say is, it is a good thing that Mr. Pellicano never wiretapped before! After a statement like that I almost wanted to stand and make a toast! If and when Danny boy is called as a witness, I am wondering if he will say that same statement in 2008?

The first part of Lieberman’s story when Davis is described as “scribbling as fast as he could” gave me the feeling that he was like a “babe in the woods,” and now he is just rushing to get out of this terrible place! Oh you betcha, thank god for those “statute of limitations” — that is the answer that some have perhaps forgotten. Only murder has no statute of limitations, and so far no one has uncovered any bodies, just skeletons!