KATHERINE JACKSON V AEG LIVE August 13

th
2013 Please note we have run out of funds NO MORE
transcripts will be posted after this week unless we receive funds, donation can be sent via paypal to
manager@teammichaeljackson.com. Thank you
William Ackerman Trial Exhibits Katherine Jackson V AEG Live: http://youtu.be/609UAJFwEAo
Michael Jackson trial Lawyers focus on star's financial state, debt: http://youtu.be/ytzRdOHISdE
William Ackerman(Forensic Accountant)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury:)
Judge. Got a brief from the defendants regarding an issue?
Mr. Panish. Your honor, before we get to that, there is another issue I think will be quicker. There is a lawyer
here representing Mr. Ackerman. I don't know where he went. He was talking to Mr. Putnam. He brought some
exhibits that I subpoenaed. I tried to talk to him, and he said he needed to talk to Mr. Putnam, so I was unable to
secure the exhibits. So he could come in here, and he could say whatever he has to say. He has what I've
subpoenaed, I believe.
Mr. Putnam. Would you like me to get him, your honor?
Judge. Sure.
Mr. Panish. Or ask your assistant.
Mr. Putnam. She's not an assistant.

Mr. Panish. What is she?

Mr. Putnam. She's one of my colleagues.
Judge. There are some documents. I'm sorry, sir. Are you Mr. Ackerman's lawyer?
Mr. Osenbaugh: Kurt Osenbaugh, Alston and Bird, representing William Ackerman and Freeman and Mills.
Judge. You have a return on subpoena.
Mr. Osenbaugh: Mr. Ackerman was served a subpoena, I believe in court yesterday, requesting three
categories of documents. The first were billing records related to this case. We have those. The second was
billing records related to the Cusler case which is six or seven years ago. We looked for those. None of those
existed anymore. Third category was all documents related to AIG (sic) and related entities representations prior
to that case. The only one was Cusler. There is no --
Mr. Panish. I think you mean AEG
Mr. Osenbaugh: AEG I'm sorry. Wrong client.
Judge. You can turn over the documents.
Mr. Osenbaugh: yes.
Mr. Panish. Did you bring retainer also? You didn't mention that.
Mr. Osenbaugh: The request was billing records.
Mr. Panish. Well, it looks like this is the retainer, is that right?
Mr. Osenbaugh: Retention letter.
Mr. Panish. That's fine. That's good. Thank you.
Judge. Thank you.
Ms. Strong. Your honor, relatedly she represented she'll produce her documents after lunch that were requested
several weeks ago. You issued an order on that more than a week ago. She said she would produce them after
lunch. I want to make sure that's clear for the record.
Judge. Thank you. I got the brief on Ackerman from the defendants. I don't know, plaintiffs, if you've had an
opportunity to read the brief, if you wanted to respond to it.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, we just submitted that because there was some request for clarification at the end of the
day yesterday. Unless your honor is inclined to change the order allowing Mr. Ackerman's testimony, I don't
know that we necessarily need to be heard on that. we just want to put in some clarification because there were
a number of things that were said that were not correct, partly as it related to jury instructions and the law in
California.
Mr. Boyle. We might be filing something, just for the record, on this as well. I mean, as a general rule, I mean,
we think there has been some misleading argument to the court on a lot of things. I just wanted to make a very
brief example on that a regular wrongful death case where we represented a plumber who made $60,000 a year.

The plumber dies. Maybe he was between jobs, right? The plumber dies. He's got 150,000 in school debt. He's
got 300,000 in home mortgage. He's got 50,000 in credit card debt, right? Never in a wrongful death case in
California has all of that been admissible as against the plumber's wife as to what his lost earning capacity was
and what she could recover in the case. They are acting like this debt is just a normal thing that happens in a
wrongful death case. It's simply not. It's just not admissible. It's kind of like the opposite of a collateral source
argument. It's like the inverse of collateral source. It's simply not at all relevant. Now what they did yesterday
under the guise of personal consumption, they proceeded to smear -- their whole effort was to smear Michael
Jackson as being debt ridden and irresponsible. Also, they are trying to say any recovery is cut off by the
amount of debt. That is not the law. It was an improper attempt to smear him. What personal consumption is is
what's personally spent for the maintenance of life. This idea that debt financing is personal consumption is
ridiculous. That's why Mr. Ackerman was so slippery about what he was defining as personal consumption.
You know, and the fact -- if someone buys art, for example, that's not personal consumption. That's an
investment. If someone buys a home --
Judge. Or antiques something like that.
Mr. Boyle. Right. That's all investment a home is investment also. Family lives in it, too. It's not just personal
consumption. The entire way they are going about this is contrary to California law, an attempt to mislead the
court and the jury and they should be admonished about it.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, may I say something? I read the transcript yesterday. I mean, every time I talked, it's
-- I mean, it's really ridiculous. If you look at the transcript, when I try to talk, just continually being interrupted
and not allowed to say anything with three lawyers on the other side talking. First of all, the slide that was given
in his testimony about Mr. Erk, number one was misleading completely. That's number one. Number two, his
whole, this whole debt issue is totally irrelevant because his opinion has nothing to do with it. His support
numbers that he gave have no bearing whatsoever on the debt. He said this is what it is. I don't know if you have
money or not. But it has nothing to do -- he didn't rely on that or base any opinion on that at all. He gave figures
based on past support. So this whole thing was a ruse to allow all this evidence in which is, number one,
obviously intended to smear Michael Jackson, and it's not relevant to any opinion that he's given in this case. It's
not relevant to any opinion that anyone is giving in this case at all. It has no relevance whatsoever. He didn't
rely on it. It didn't affect his numbers at all.
Judge. You're talking about the numbers in terms of what support --
Mr. Panish. Right, what could reasonably be expected? He didn't adjust it at all. He didn't even consider it. So
what is the relevance of the debt? He gave an opinion, had no basis that he was relying on the debt. It's just an
attempt to get inadmissible evidence in to prejudice the jury against Mr. Jackson and had no bearing on his
opinion whatsoever. It's all hearsay based on hearsay documents that some expert came in and testified. It has
no basis for his opinion. None.
Ms. Bina. All right. Your honor, I'd like to respond to all of that. There is a couple different pieces there. First
of all, I'd like -- its nice Mr. Boyle thinks this has never been done in the history of California law. There are
cases that say otherwise, your honor. In fact, there are cases that say the decedent's gambling habits are relevant
because that could affect what he spends, and therefore what's available for his children. Whether he drinks is
relevant because he could spend money on alcohol. These outgoing things he is going to pay or chooses to pay.
That's what overly says. When you have to consider personal maintenance but what else the decedent spent his
money on. As a threshold matter, this is relevant and admissible. It's been relevant and admissible in California.
This idea that there is somehow only personal consumption is all you consider, that's not true, and that's why we
filed the brief. It says the standard is what he would have given the family. And in considering that, the jury is
supposed to consider --

Judge. I guess what's missing is the link between all the debt and the support that was given to Mrs. Jackson. In
other words, your witness didn't say, again, all this debt, and therefor he wouldn't have given this support to
Mrs. Jackson and the children going forward. So you have these sorts of two concepts that he's testifying about.
There is no link between them which is why it looks like --
Ms. Bina. Your honor, that's not the case. He did testify they were linked, and I think because we were trying to
go so quickly, that might not have got through as clear as it would have otherwise. This is the consumption that
-- not the consumption. Historically, they have been declining in recent years as the debt has come up. Because
of this extreme financial picture, it's hard to say whether these gifts would continue with reasonable certainty. In
other words, he gave the jury two pieces of information. What they had been historically but also the fact it was
not necessarily going to be the case based on Mr. Jackson's present financial picture. He did connect up those
ideas, your honor. I think that's fair and something the jury could reasonably consider. They could look at
numbers Mr. Ackerman presented, for instance, the gifts to Mrs. Jackson. Back in the early 2000's, those were
$80,000. By 2008, they were down to under $10,000 a year. It's a dramatic decline. That's something that the
jury can consider in determining the likelihood of future gifts to Mrs. Jackson, if any. Again, what Mr.
Ackerman tried to do is quantify, okay, this is the most they have ever been. This is what they have been
historically but also say there is reason to believe that might go forward because Mr. Jackson is more financially
committed to other things than he's ever been. That's not character evidence. literally, you can only give money
that you have. When he has more going out the door than coming in, then you don't have leftovers to give, you
know, your mother and an RV. That's the point of Mr. Ackerman's testimony. Those two things, I believe, were
connected up, and certainly the jury is entitled to consider both in determining the --
Judge. It's an inference.
Mr. Panish. Total speculation. There is absolutely no causal connection, and he gave none in his testimony. So,
when you look at the probative value, it's so miniscule, and the potential prejudice effect is substantial. That's
why they keep doing it. He did not change at all his opinion, and he didn't rely on it, your honor. There is no
causal connection.
Mr. Boyle. And, your honor, I mean to address Ms. Bina's first point, she mentioned the case about gambling,
personal spending, and alcohol. When you buy alcohol, it's personal spending. I challenge them to show one
case where debt has ever been relevant in a California wrongful death case. I mean, I can't find one. If they can
find one, I'd like to see it. They haven't put it in their papers, that's for sure. It would be totally unduly
prejudicial and irrelevant. When you look at lost earning capacity, it's what a person had capacity to earn going
forward. You don't deduct from that any debt. That's why -- otherwise, every wrongful death case would be
having a mini trial on what the mortgage was and what their credit card debt was. There is a reason that doesn't
happen. It's completely irrelevant. They are trying to back door it all in and say its somehow relevant to Michael
Jackson's earning capacity, and it's not.
Mr. Putnam. The case law is clear. You can't give what you don't have. That's the case delineated there. You
can't give what you don't have. It's precisely what he mentioned. He says here is where he's been going in terms
of his debt and spending. It shows over a ten-year span.
Judge. The issue is what he's going to get going forward.
Mr. Panish. What case is that? I'd like to know the case Mr. Putnam says.
Mr. Putnam. I thought we were trying not to interrupt each other.
Mr. Panish. What's the case? What's the case?
Judge. Mr. Panish, it's not your turn yet.

Mr. Putnam. Thank you, your honor. Your honor, it is very unlikely, he said this, with any reasonable certainty
he could have continued to give anything to his family in this regard because he kept saying tapped out. He had
been tapped out for three years. He couldn't get additional monies. That's exactly what he said.
Judge. Well, he said he couldn't borrow any money.
Mr. Panish. That's all he said. He never said he couldn't give any money.
Ms. Bina. Actually, your honor, I've got his testimony when he's talking about considering what support and
gifts and contributions he would provide plaintiffs on a Go-forward basis, page, starting at line 2.
Mr. Panish. Hold on.
Ms. Bina. "I came to the conclusion it would be important to share with the jury that there is at least, in my
mind, some doubt as to his ability to be able to continue to provide the type of support I'm going to tell you I've
measured." in other words, he did connect up these two ideas there was doubt this could go forward, and he
then repeated that. Turning back to the case that Mr. Putnam is referring to -- there is a couple of them. One is
Benwell vs. Dean, which describes what wrongful death damage are. Wrongful death damages are measured by
the financial benefits the heirs were receiving at the time of death. That's part two of Mr. Ackerman's analysis.
Those reasonably to be expected in the future. That's part one of the analysis, your honor, because what he's
saying is here's what they were receiving at the time of death, but this whole cloud of financial mishigas
(phonetic), makes it unlikely they would continue at the same level, and you can actually watch them decline.
Now to go to their point that this has nothing to do with earning capacity, the case there is Overly vs. Ingalls
shipbuilding, Inc., with states the decedent's earning capacity is not the measure of damages for lost support. It
then goes on to say the plaintiffs can prove their damages backwards by saying here is what the earning
capacity was. Here is what he spent on personal maintenance and what he spent on other things. This is what
would have been left over for us. Overly expressly states, your honor, it's not lost earning capacity. The only
reason lost earning capacity is relevant is it's the basis from which you then subtract personal maintenance and
also what he would have spent on other things. So, your honor, this is well-established California law. It's not
something new. It's not something crazy. It may not come into play in most wrongful death cases because most
wrongful death plaintiffs -- most decedents aren't spending twice as much being $400 million in debt than they
make per month. What they do spend on their own household and consumption is taken into account. The
evidence each plaintiff and each defendant chooses to introduce in each case, the one thing -- I read about six of
these cases -- that emerges is every case is different. What you're trying to figure out is from all of the evidence,
literally all of the evidence, what would be a reasonable expectation going forward for the plaintiffs to receive?
And really anything that bears on that is relevant.
Judge. You're saying consider all the circumstances.
Ms. Bina. Yes, your honor. There are cases I found that said, look, did they buy them tickets to the movies? Did
the man take his kids to the park on the weekends? Did he, you know -- there are cases that itemize -- I don't
have it with me right now but listed 16 different at categories of things that evidence that was presented on as to
what the defendant spent. Each one is unique. Frankly, by the time they get to the court of appeals, there is often
not a lot of detail as to what was presented below. I didn't review trial orders because they are not admissible.
Certainly, the court of appeal cases cited, there is a broad consideration. It's different than survivorship actions
where there are different kinds of measures of damages.
Mr. Panish. He still hasn't linked up that there is any difference in his opinion whether he had a billion dollars
in debt or any debt. That is the point that I keep trying to hammer home.
Judge. Well, she just read something from the transcript.

Mr. Panish. No, she didn't. Let's read the whole thing. She didn't read the whole answer. This had nothing to do
with support. This had to do with his financial condition. So they met a whole opinion on his financial
condition. He went on for slides and slides about how much he owed. He says, well as I started to get into the
books and records, he was in a precarious financial position. I knew I was being asked to measure what kind of
support, gifts and contributions he could provide on a go-forward basis. I came to the conclusion it would be
important to share with the jury, that's him that it would be important to share with the jury, at least in my mind,
some doubt as to his ability to be able to continue to provide the type of support that I'm going to be telling you
I've measured. So it doesn't matter whether he's a billion dollars in debt or $5.00 in debt because his opinion is
the same. It has no bearing on his opinion. He gave two opinions, financial condition, which he shouldn't have
been allowed to, and what reasonably could be expected for support. That's his opinion. And it doesn't change
on the amount of the debt. That's the point that it's not relevant. It has very tangential relevance if any, any.
There is not a single case that they can cite where everyone has debt that dies. There is not a single case that
they could show us where a court has ever allowed that into evidence. The Overly doesn't stand for that
proposition where they cite Dr. Formuzis in the case.
Mr. Boyle. I brought Overly, without seeing their brief, because this case supports our position. Overly is not a
wrongful death case. It's a mesothelioma personal injury case. In that, they actually note that the --
Judge. That's wrongful death.
Mr. Panish. Hasn't died yet.
Mr. Boyle. It will be.
Judge. Some of them are --
Mr. Boyle. They are kind of comparing personal injury and wrongful death damages. Anything in there about
wrongful death is indicative, first of all. But it notes that defendants can cite no authority that personal
consumption is even removed -- can even be considered in a wrongful death case, first of all, in California.
There is none. It has become a practice, however, that personal consumption is considered in California, fine.
Judge. Which is what Overly is.
Mr. Boyle. That's why we had Erk do that because it's kind of the common practice even though arguably there
is no authority that should be removed. But it is personal consumption. It says in Overly, among personal
maintenance and the amount he would have spent on other things. They are saying -- they are grasping on other
things like that means anything. If you read the treatise cited --
Judge. It has to mean something.
Mr. Boyle. Well, no.
Judge. What does it mean?
Mr. Boyle. Other things that are personal to the decedent, like alcohol. Buying alcohol is not personal
maintenance, right? But it's other things that they spent on a personal nature. It is not financing a debt or his
home mortgage or anything like that. That's why that stuff never comes in. It's totally prejudicial. I mean, like
Ms. Bina says, no one dies in debt. I don't know the stats on that. I think most people die in debt. We have a lot
of wrongful death clients, and a lot of them die in debt. It never ever comes into play here.

Mr. Panish. We've spent all this time, and that's really the main crux of this witness's opinion, about his debt,
and he spent, you know -- review all these documents that talk about debt. He never has a causal connection to
his opinion. There is none. Well, I thought maybe they should know. He doesn't say because he's in this much
debt, it's less. He never says that. Yet they have been able to continue to put all this evidence on with tangential,
at the most, relevance and probative value at all.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, again, to respond to that, first of all, there are other instances in the transcript -- I'm
looking for them now. It's a lengthy transcript -- where he connects up and says this amount would have only
been available if Mr. Jackson had a way to manage the debt problem --
Mr. Panish. That's --
Ms. Bina. Mr. Panish, please, if I could speak without being interrupted.
Mr. Panish. If you'd do the same for me.
Judge. Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish. I was being nice.
Judge. You're distracting.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, the issue here is not necessarily the total outstanding, yet all those come into play, but
it's the amount available on a monthly basis that Mr. Jackson has in his pockets and gives his family. The
argument Mr. Boyle is making is not based on case law. The legal standard here, your honor, is what would
have been given to the plaintiffs, not what did Mr. Jackson make, not what did he spend.
Judge. Your witness said that he would be -- Mrs. Jackson would be given the 1.6 million --
Ms. Bina. No, your honor.
Judge. Oh, he didn't.
Ms. Bina: What he said was that's what she had been given historically but that she might be given something
less going forward. This case I just read said you have to consider what they were receiving at the time of death
and also what they are likely to receive in the future. What he said, your honor, this is what she was receiving at
the time of death. This is the ceiling as it was. And then going forward, it could be less given the financial
issues. Of course the jury could determine it would be more. They can make any determination they want based
on the evidence. What this witness's opinion is, there are significant -- the reason -- he gave this explanation at
the beginning. The reason the financial picture is relevant is it reduces the amount available to the plaintiffs.
Specifically, your honor, as to the total outstanding debt, there is an issue with the Sony/ATV catalog, and the
witness testified, coming due in full at the end of 2010. If Mr. Jackson suddenly has a $3 million balloon
payment that could substantially reduce the amount available.
Judge. You know what's kind of interesting about that, wasn't that a secured debt?
Ms. Bina. It was.
Judge. It was put in a bankruptcy trust, and it was secured. So that's a zero some gain, isn't it?
Ms. Bina. Except, your honor --
Ms. Strong. If he wants to keep the assets, he has to pay the $300 million.

Judge. Maybe. But at the end of the day, if he loses it, it's still a zero.
Mr. Boyle. Or he could go bankrupt on everything, and all the debt is gone. That's why you don't consider debt.
Ms. Bina. Let me continue, your honor. If he loses the asset, ultimately he loses the income. The reason it's
pertinent in this case, your honor, is because Mr. Jackson's future work income from Mr. Briggs is extremely
speculative. I know Mr. Erk has a different opinion. So, otherwise, Mr. Jackson has his passive income which is
based on these assets.
Judge. True.
Ms. Bina. If he loses the assets, he is loses the income.
Judge. Six million or --
Ms. Bina. 11 million a year, your honor.
Mr. Panish. There is no basis for that, your honor. This witness has never seen any of the Sony/ATV
documents. He doesn't know that, and you sustained that objection on the Sony/ATV catalog. What happens to
it? He doesn't even know that. He's never seen it.
Ms. Strong. That's actually not true. If Mr. Panish would like to cross-examine him about it, he should.
Mr. Panish. You're telling me he's seen the agreement between Mr. Jackson and Sony?
Ms. Strong. Ask the witness when he's on the stand.
Mr. Panish. I'm asking counsel that.
Ms. Strong. The answer is yes, your honor.
Mr. Panish. We'll see.
Mr. Putnam. What this comes back to is what our expert on our side, he put forward exactly what we indicated
he would put forward. The case law demands, what California law looks to, what is the financial condition of
this person at the time of death? What would they be able to pay on a going-forward basis? To the able to do
that, as case law dictates, you look at what they would be given at the time, ten-year analysis. Then he said
what the caps were. If you recall he didn't --
Judge. What the caps were?
Mr. Putnam. What the caps were, where the top was he was getting in each of those ten years.
Ms. Bina. He was generous in those estimates --
Judge. I thought he said average.
Mr. Putnam. Whatever seemed most reasonable at the time to get a figure that was most apt for that category.
Then would he be able to actually pay that on a going-forward basis. That's why it's relevant to look at all the
things he was spending as the case law dictates and as we put forth so they can look at everything, your honor.

Mr. Panish. What case is that that says the financial condition of the decedent is relevant? What case is that?
What he said was -- here is his opinion. Support, gifts, benefits would have been reasonably expected to be
received. That was his opinion. It had nothing to do with the debt, and that his opinion is no different, no matter
what the debt is. That's his opinion in this case. What is the case that says the financial condition of the decedent
is relevant for future support? What is the case?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, as indicated, and we read the testimony, he said he was not reasonably expected that
this could be going forward. Not reasonably expected to be going forward because of this amount. You can't
give what you don't have.
Mr. Panish. He never said that.
Mr. Putnam. That's exactly what he said. That's exactly what the case law provides.
Mr. Panish. What is the case?
Ms. Bina. I'm thinking of the case of the moment that I don't have with me that I was reading last night which
says totality of the circumstances as to the whole picture. I think the standard for damages makes that clear. The
standard is what were they receiving at the time of death, and what could they reasonably expect to be receiving
in the future. The reason the cases really considers all kinds of different things is because in different cases,
there can be different things that bear on that analysis. For instance, if the decedent has cancer and has five
years to live. That bears on what the plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to receive in the future. In other
cases, the health might be irrelevant because there is no reason to expect it could affect earning capacity.
Judge. Well, that's --
Mr. Panish. Where is the case?
Ms. Bina. There are cases that say his spending habits. Here is one --
Mr. Panish. Where is the case that says -- they keep saying "financial condition." there is no case that says that.
That's not the law.
Mr. Boyle. I know there is definitely cases that say --
Judge. I need to see something from the plaintiffs.
Mr. Panish. They keep telling you there is a case. There is no case that says that. What is the case? I keep
asking. They keep saying the case law is clear, financial condition of the plaintiff is relevant.
Ms. Bina. Mcdonald vs. Price where the jury is entitled to consider habits of sobriety and economy because
they are reflected in his earning capacity and the monetary value to his family. There is also Carr, your honor. If
the decedent had been --
Judge. Okay. There is the case. If you have some other case you want to present to me, present it. I'll deal with
it at that time. This is what I have in front of me. They have presented case law. We're going to go forward.
Mr. Panish. What about the Erk slide? We never got to that.
Judge. What about the Erk slide?

Ms. Bina. Your honor, the slide -- that's one where I went back and looked at the transcript. Plaintiffs grossly
misrepresented what happened there. What we said at the beginning of the day was that -- and -- what Mr.
Ackerman would testify to is what Mr. Jackson historically spent and what he historically gave his family
which is the basis for their damages, and that he'd specifically compare the consumption figure reached by Mr.
Erk to what had been spent historically in the 200,000 pages of documents. He then presented a chart that did
exactly that. It took Mr. Erk's consumption figure and what was historically spent. If you recall, Mr. Erk gave
the exact same definition for consumption as Mr. Ackerman, what he spent. But then he kept narrowing it and --
Judge. Talking about Erk?
Ms. Bina. Yes. Erk initially said -- and I have it here -- consumption is what Mr. Jackson would have spent
collectively over the next 15 years because he had reduced it to a 15-year period. What Mr. Ackerman said is
it's what you spend. That's the same definition. Then Mr. Erk, after saying that about 15 times, changed it to --
actually it's what he uses for living expenses to maintain his life. He then testified that spending money on a
watch wasn't consumption and, you know, paying money on his debts wasn't consumption. So what Mr.
Ackerman said is, look, I look at what he spent over time, and I consider Mr. Erk's number to be too low. I think
that's a fair analysis. It's exactly what Mr. Ackerman said he was going to do. It's what we represented he was
going to do. By the way, I did check because Mr. Sanders had said -- we said it was apples to apples. I searched
the whole transcript. It doesn't come in. The slide was admitted without objection, your honor. There was a
discussion ahead of time about testimony of Mr. Erk relating to how much he'd spent that was objected to, but
the actual slide in question came in without objection. It was testified to freely at the time, was exactly what we
had represented it was going to be, and I don't see why we're talking about it. I don't think it was some kind of
unfair comparison. It's very clear to the jury that Mr. Ackerman considered things including fun money and debt
that Mr. Erk didn't.
Mr. Putnam. And what shows, your honor, I'm sorry I had to say it because it happens every day fingers are
constantly pointed saying we somehow misrepresented things which is why we go leave the courtroom, look to
see what we exactly said, and what has exactly occurred. We are not misrepresenting what happened. Mr.
Sanders: actually, your honor, page it wasn't apples to apples, it was consumption to consumption. They
indicated that Mr. Erk's consumption numbers was this little small graph was supposed to be the same as these.
We knew for a fact Mr. Erk's didn't contain any payments of interests or debt. That's what was misleading when
you call for consumption to consumption.
Ms. Bina. That was the point. Mr. Erk left out important things in his consumption analysis that Mr. Ackerman
considered.
Judge. I'm overruling the objection. Let's go forward.
Mr. Panish. One point. You allowed this witness over objection to testify from the Caci on Mrs. Jackson's life
expectancy.
Judge. You mean the table?
Mr. Panish. Yeah. I tried to ask for Mr. Jackson's life expectancy on the same table, and you sustained an
objection. I don't understand.
Judge. I don't understand why that was relevant to inquiry. We're not trying to determine support for Mr.
Jackson. We're trying to determine support for Mrs. Jackson and the children. I don't see the relevance.
Mr. Panish. Here is the relevance. The children -- it's the lesser of the two between the children and Mr.
Jackson for support. And clearly, the jury is going to be instructed on Mr. Jackson's life expectancy per Caci.

You allowed him to give an opinion on direct on what the Caci says for Mrs. Jackson. The same instruction has
to be given for Mr. Jackson. I was trying to get that out. They objected, and you sustained the objection.
Ms. Bina. First of all, this witness is not an expert in life expectancy.
Judge. He was just looking at the table.
Ms. Bina. He was asked why did you shorten the amount for Mrs. Jackson. That was -- he said that was based
on the table. Obviously, in this case there is a strong dispute as to Mr. Jackson's life expectancy and numerous
experts on it. What Mr. Ackerman picked was the same number used by Mr. Erk, 15 years. There is no basis to
now argue with someone who is not a life expectancy expert, well, it should have been longer. All Mr. Panish is
talking about is going to come in. I'm sure that when our life expectancy experts are testifying they are saying
it's what the table says. They brought in dr. Early's testimony --
Judge. What do you want to ask him?
Mr. Panish. The same thing they did. And they -- he said, where did you get the life expectancy? I reviewed
Caci table and said it. They brought that in on direct, and he volunteered. I go, and he has it in his book, and I
said what does it say for Mrs. Jackson? They objected -- I mean, for Mr. Jackson. It's clearly relevant. Why
should they be allowed to do it, and I'm not.
Judge. That's what I thought. If there is somehow a connection to the lesser of Mr. Jackson's life versus the kids
and that's fine. You can ask that question.
Ms. Bina. I'd ask it be limited then to what the table says since this is the subject of expert testimony, and there
is lots of reasons to believe the table is not the appropriate measure in regard to Mr. Jackson in the way it might
be for his mother.
Ms. Strong. I don't believe there is expert testimony as to Katherine Jackson's life expectancy. I don't think
there is dispute on that. Other experts in this case are addressing Michael Jackson's life expectancy. He is not.
Mr. Boyle. It's relevant because Michael Jackson could support his family for the rest of his life even when the
kids get to --
Judge. You can ask him.
Ms. Bina. Just as to what the table says.
Judge. Just as to what the table says.
Ms. Bina. Thank you, your honor.
Judge. Let's call our jury in.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury:)
Judge. I think we are on cross-examination.
Mr. Panish. Yes, your honor. Thank you.
William Ackerman, called by the defense as a witness, was previously sworn and testified further as
follows:

Cross-examination (resumed) By Mr. Panish:

Q.. Good morning, Mr. Ackerman.
A.. Good morning.
Q.. Did Ms. Strong just come up and whisper something in your ear?
A.. Yes, she did.
Q.. What did she tell you?
A.. She said that you were looking for the standard life table in Caci instructions I had in my miscellaneous
binder. They were never there, by the way.
Q.. You know what that table is, do you not, sir?
A.. I'm familiar with it.
Q.. You used this table to give an opinion about Mrs. Jackson's life expectancy, is that right, sir?
A.. I believe I did.
Q.. What was Mr. Jackson's age at the time of his death, sir?
A.. I believe it was 50.
Q.. And what would the Caci life tables give him for a future life expectancy? I believe it is 50. Do you want to
use these?
A.. Well, that's no good.
Q.. Those might be strong.
A.. Well, these are dirty. I'm sorry. The question?
Q.. I'm not getting paid $900,000, so I can't get mine cleaned. The question was, you know the question, Mr.
Jackson's life expectancy pursuant to the table you used for Mrs. Jackson.
A.. According to this table -- this is a male. I would have looked at the female table for Mrs. Jackson.
Q.. It has a female table too, doesn't it?
A.. It does. According to this, a male of 50 years old would be 29.6 years.
Q.. Give me those dirty glasses.
A.. Before I break them.
Q.. Now Mr. Ackerman --

A.. Do you want this?

Q.. Thank you. Sir, yesterday did you go back and meet with counsel after court?
A.. Yes, sir.
Q.. How long did you spend?
A.. An hour and a half, I think.
Q.. Did your assistant or your partner go with you?
A.. Yes, she did.
Q.. And she's billing the whole time she's here, too, right?
A.. I don't know. I don't know if she's billed that time or not.
Q.. She's going to?
A.. She probably should.
Q.. Right. It's not a freebee for AEG, is it?
A.. I don't think it is.
Q.. You're not in the pro bono business, are you?
A.. I've done some pro bono cases, but they are the exceptions, not the more.
Q.. You and your assistant went back. How much time did you spend last night with the lawyers?
A.. I think I told you an hour and a half.
Q.. How much did you spend today?
A.. No time this morning. Some brief discussions.
Q.. Now, sir, in all the opinions that you gave yesterday, you gave one opinion about support, contributions,
gifts, and benefits that would have reasonably been expected to be received from Michael Jackson. Do you
remember that?
A.. I do.
Q.. That's the 20 million sum you put up?
A.. Yes, sir.
Q.. Whether Michael Jackson was 400 million in debt or 2 billion in debt, that didn't change the opinion you
gave here, did it?
A.. In terms of the measurement of the support and contributions that he had been historically providing, no.

Q.. It had no bearing on what opinion you gave as to category number two under your scope of work in this
case, did it, sir?
A.. Well, it did have bearing in the sense of would he have the ability to actually provide what I measured.
Q.. But you don't know that?
A.. Well, I can't speculate to what he would have provided.
Q.. Exactly. You don't know what Mr. Jackson would have provided because you don't -- that would be
speculation on your part, wouldn't it, sir?
A.. Well, I do know that he was in a very precarious financial position at the starting point of what I've
measured. He could have been bankrupt within six months or a year as far as I know.
Q.. If he's bankrupt, then he'd have no debt, would he?
A.. That's one way to look at it. I think the horizon trust would have secured against that.
Q.. If Mr. Jackson filed bankruptcy, he would have no debt, right, sir?
A.. And wouldn't have the ability to provide the support to his mother and three children.
Q.. He had a contract with AEG, didn't he, sir?
A.. I believe he did have a contract.
Q.. For three years, didn't he, sir?
A.. I think it was a three-year contract.
Q.. He would have gotten money from AEG, wouldn't he, sir?
A.. I'm not sure what you're alluding to.
Q.. AEG -- how much money did they pay him in 2009, sir?
A.. I believe he was advanced $6.2 million.
Q.. He earned $26 million in the first six months of 2009, didn't he?
A.. His adjusted gross income per his personal tax return was about $23 million.
Q.. 23 million in six months, right?
A.. That's correct.
Q.. Now back to the question. You can't tell us to a reasonable degree of economic probability how much Mr.
Jackson would have supported his children and mother, correct?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, asked and answered.

Judge. Overruled.
A. No, I don't think that's the case. That's precisely what I measured year in and year out for a 15-year period of
time. The issue in my mind that makes it uncertain to me is whether he would have been able to actually
provide that.
Q.. That's the question, sir. You can't say what he actually would have provided, correct?
A.. I think that's for this jury to decide.
Q.. And you can't tell us what affect, if any, to a reasonable degree of probability that the debt would have had
on his earnings in the future, could you, sir?
A.. I think they are kind of a disconnect in some ways. I mean the real issue in order to be able to provide that
support is not so much about the magnitude of debt but really the solvency of Mr. Jackson and ability to pay it
on a go-forward basis.
Q.. Well, sir, isn't it how much you'd earn in the future? Isn't that relevant?
A.. That could be a factor, yes, sir.
Q.. You didn't consider that, correct?
A.. I did not consider that.
Q.. Now, sir, if Mr. Jackson made a billion dollars in three years, how much would he have been expected to
reasonably contribute to his children and his mother?
A.. I believe precisely what I measured. I'm not quite sure how he was going to earn a billion dollars because he
never did in the 20 years I looked at his financial records.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, may I ask him to please answer the question. He's volunteering.
Judge. Listen to the question.
Q.. You can't tell us how much he would have given -- by the way, did you know Mr. Jackson gave his mother
a $500,000 motor home?
A.. Yeah, that was in my analysis. Remember the RV?
Q.. You put your average gifts were 40,000 a year, right?
A.. That wasn't a gift.
Q.. What was it?
A.. I think Mr. Kane testified it was unclear. I think one his entities retained title to the RV. The gift component
of it was that she was given the use of the RV.
Q.. Do you know who had title to the RV?

A.. It wasn't clear in Mr. Kane's mind, and he was his business manager.
Q.. I'm asking you. You're the one testifying about gifts, aren't you, sir?
A.. I did not see the title on the RV.
Q.. Mr. Jackson -- did he give his mother other cars in the past, sir?
A.. He's given her a top-of-the-line Mercedes. I included that in my analysis.
Q.. Sir, did Mr. Jackson -- how much money did he give to charity on his tours?
A.. I didn't ever see a precise figure. I believe that on the dangerous tour, he was going to donate whatever
profits were made to charity.
Q.. Do you know that he donated over 60 million from that tour to charity?
A.. I did not see that, your honor.
Mr. Putnam. Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge. Overruled.
Q.. Sir, do you know how much -- strike that. Are you aware of anyone in the world that donated more to
charity than Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, relevance, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Bill gates.
Q.. As of the date of Mr. Jackson's death?
Mr. Putnam. Same objection, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Bill gates.
Q.. Anyone in the entertainment field?
A.. I can't think of anybody. That's personal information. Why would I have access to that information?
Q.. Wasn't it in the Guinness book of world records, sir?
A.. I've heard people alluding to that. I haven't gone back to the book to see if it's actually in there.
Q.. Would you agree he was a very generous person giving money to many people?
A.. I'd absolutely agree with that.

Q.. You'd expect he'd be generous to his children as they got older, wouldn't you, sir?
A.. I think he would.
Q.. He would have been buying them whatever he felt was necessary for them, right? Whatever they wanted?
A.. He would have provided, I think, all the things that I mentioned.
Q.. Would he have provided houses for them?
A.. I couldn't speculate to that. I recall that Prince Jackson testified that his father wanted them to be humble. He
wanted them to have a humble upbringing.
Q.. What about when they got older? Did you figure him giving them a house?
A.. That's too speculative. There wasn't any history of him giving them houses. I'm not sure how I'd speculate to
that.
Q.. How old was his son blanket when he died, sir?
A.. Was he nine? I'm guessing.
Q.. So you wouldn't expect someone to be giving a nine year old a house, would you, sir?
A.. No, I wouldn't.
Q.. There wouldn't be any history. None of the kids were over -- what was the oldest kid when he died, sir?
A.. Prince was, I think, 14 or 15.
Q.. You think prince drives a convertible BMW like you put up there?
A.. Well, no. I know he doesn't.
Q.. So history -- you wouldn't expect there to be a history of giving children homes if they weren't even 15
years old and 12 years old, would you, sir?
A.. I think that's an unreasonable assumption.
Mr. Putnam. Objection, asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled. When there is an objection, don't answer. I'll rule on it, and then we'll let you know.
A. I've got to be louder.
Mr. Putnam. I've got to be louder for you?
Mr. Panish. Just stop on every question. Just pause for a second. Give him a chance.
Mr. Putnam. No objection.
Mr. Panish. Did counsel say something?

Judge. He's not addressing you, Mr. Panish.

Q.. Now, sir, you had a lawyer come here today with you, right?
A.. Yes, sir, I did.
Q.. To bring the documents that were subpoenaed?
A.. Yes, sir.
Q.. And the last bill that you produced was June 28th, is that right?
A.. I don't know. I haven't seen the records.
Q.. Well, sir, did you tell us yesterday that you billed as of July?
A.. I think I stated that.
Mr. Panish. Can I approach and show him what his lawyer brought?
Judge. Yes.
Q.. This is what your lawyer, the gentleman that came here today -- I forgot his name. I apologize.
A.. Mr. Osenbaugh.
Q.. Does he work with your firm?
A.. He's outside counsel.
Q.. And he brought for me a list of bills, and it looks to me like the last bill is dated June 28th?
A.. That's the last time entry.
Q.. Why don't you tell me what the last bill is then, sir.
A.. The last bill is dated July 9th.
Q.. So since July 9th, how much money has your firm spent, sir?
A.. I think we talked about this yesterday. I estimated that I think between $50- and $70,000.
Q.. Can we just agree it's at least 900,000?
A.. I don't -- I'm not absolutely certain if that's the case, but it's pretty close.
Q.. Let's just use that for now. So then, do you know Mr. Briggs?
A.. Could I ask that you shift that so I can see that, too?
Q.. Yes. I'll write it up and then show it to to you. Can you see it? I don't have the best handwriting. I'm sorry.

A.. I don't know if the jury can see it now.

Judge. You can't see that --
Mr. Panish. Color? That's a loud green. The clerk: I have red.
Mr. Panish. I need a better green one. The clerk: I have red.
Q.. Do you see that, Mr. Ackerman?
A.. I do.
Q.. So, your honor, I want to put a number on this. What's my next number?
Judge. 1066.
Q.. So can you add those up for me since you're a CPA?
A.. Yes, sir. The sum of 700,000 plus 900,000 is 1,600,000.
Q.. And just -- you briefly spoke to Mr. Briggs in this case, right?
A.. That's correct.
Q.. Your understanding is he's also in a damage capacity like you, correct?
A.. That's my general understanding.
Q.. So between the two of you, do you know if there is any other damages witness that AEG has retained in this
case?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. None to your knowledge?
A.. I can't think of one.
Q.. You were retained in march of 2012, is that right, sir?
A.. That's when I sent out our engagement letter, yes, sir.
Q.. When did you start working?
A.. Do we have an extra set of that?
Q.. I'm going to represent to you it looks like November. I'm going to come up and share that with you. Here is
the date, march 12th.
A.. Thank you.
Q.. Then it looks like, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you start working in November.

A.. We went -- I think I spent a little bit of time in March and April of 2012.
Q.. How many hours did you spend, sir?
A.. Four and a half.
Q.. How much was the bill for all the work you did before November?
A.. $1,912.
Q.. So since -- November 12th is the next entry, is that right?
A.. The next entry -- time entry is dated October 11th.
Q.. Since October 11th, you've billed approximately over $900,000, is that right?
A.. I think that's a fair description.
Q.. Now, sir, are you familiar with the Patton-Nelson journal of forensic economics?
A.. Repeat that.
Q.. Are you familiar with the Patton-Nelson -- strike that. Are you familiar with the journal of forensic
economics?
A.. I've seen that on occasion.
Q.. Have you reviewed it, read it ever?
A.. Well, it comes out two, three, four times a year. I haven't referred to it recently.
Q.. Have you read it before?
A.. Well, it's one -- the quick answer is no. It's about as dry as anything can get.
Q.. Was it considered authoritative in the field of economics?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. You certainly haven't reviewed it as it relates to consumption in wrongful death cases, have you, sir?
A.. I may have years ago.
Q.. Well, did you read what they said about how you measure consumption in a wrongful death case?
A.. I don't specifically recall that.
Q.. Well, let's talk about wrongful death cases. You told us you've had a handful of wrongful death cases?
A.. Yes, sir.

Q.. You've never come to court and testified in a wrongful death case, have you, sir?
A.. I think that's a fair statement.
Q.. You've never come to court and qualified as an expert in quantifying damages in a wrongful death case,
have you, sir?
A.. That is probably a true statement.
Q.. And of all the thousand plus cases, you said "a handful." so that five?
A.. Yes.
Q.. Tell me the names of the cases that you worked on, sir.
A.. I can't remember -- well, two that come to mind. One involved a worker at a bowling alley that got crushed
by the pin and ball retrieval machine. I remember that.
Q.. Who hired you in that case?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. Was it a product liability case, sir?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. How many years ago was that?
A.. I don't know. Sorry.
Q.. Was it more than ten?
A.. I really don't know. Sorry.
Q.. And you don't know who retained you, and you don't know anything about the case other than a guy got
crushed by a ball return machine, is that right?
A.. That's what sticks in my mind. It was actually, I think, the pin machine that picks up the pins.
Q.. And you were calculating that for the defendant in that case, weren't you, sir?
A.. I think so, but I'm not positive.
Q.. The next case you had, that involved McDonnell Douglas, sir?
A.. For a wrongful death?
Q.. Yeah. You don't remember being retained by McDonnell Douglas, a defendant in a wrongful death case?
A.. Not ringing bells for me unless it was asbestos related.

Q.. You'd been hired, for example, in that handful, most of those cases were asbestos where someone died from
exposure to asbestos or mesothelioma, and you were hired by the defendant to assess damages, correct?
A.. That does sound familiar, yes, sir.
Q.. Were you hired by a large company like Owens Corning or Foster Wheeler, manufacturers of products that
can't contain asbestos, correct?
A.. I think any work I did would have been more McDonnell Douglas.
Q.. When they had put in some materials that had asbestos, correct?
A.. I don't remember the specifics of it.
Q.. So do you remember any other wrongful death case you worked on?
A.. Yes. I did a -- we talked about pro bono earlier. I did a pro bono case on behalf of a husband who lost his
wife in 9/11.
Q.. Who hired you in that case?
A.. I've forgotten his name. It was an attorney out in New York.
Q.. Kreindler?
A.. No.
Q.. So of all the cases you could remember in your handful, you can remember three cases, is that right?
A.. Those are the three that come to mind as I sit here.
Q.. You've never been to court to qualify on behalf of a plaintiff in a wrongful death case as an expert witness,
correct?
A.. Not that I recall.
Q.. The majority of your work, sir, are matters unrelated to wrongful death, correct?
A.. I've done a lot of lost earnings type stuff and personal injury in that area. Wrongful death, no. It's a very
small component of my practice.
Q.. Of the thousand cases -- you've told us over a thousand matters you've been on, right?
A.. That's correct.
Q.. You know three wrongful death cases, is that right?
A.. Those are the three that come to mind as I sit here.
Q.. As a handful. Let's take five. As an economist, what percent of your work would that be?
A.. Very small percentage.

Q.. What's five of a thousand come out to?

A.. Maybe less than half a percent.
Q.. And, sir, your company, almost all the work you do is for people that are involved in lawsuits, right?
A.. The majority of my work is dispute related, yes, sir.
Q.. 95 plus percent, isn't it, sir?
A.. 90, 95 is probably a fair statement.
Q.. So you're in the business of being hired by people in lawsuits, correct?
A.. Again, it's -- it's disputes. a lot of times we're retained and maybe a lawsuit hasn't been filed yet especially
since the great recession started. I get a lot of calls now to just assess the economics of a matter before anybody
files a suit.
Q.. Not a lot of people can afford to pay you $900,000, right?
A.. My clients always tend to pay me.
Q.. How many matters have you had this year where you got 900,000?
A.. This is the only one that I can think of.
Q.. Now, sir, you reviewed a lot of trial testimony, you told us, is that right?
A.. I've reviewed some trial testimony. A. Lot more deposition testimony.
Q.. Why don't you tell us which trial testimony you've reviewed, sir. By the way -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to
interrupt you. Just withdraw that question for right now. I want to mark the next in order would be the bills
which would be exhibit number 1067. I'm sorry for that, sir. I just wanted to do that before I forgot.
Ms. Strong. You're marking this as an exhibit? Can I give the witness a copy.
Mr. Panish. Sure. I'm not going to ask about it, but I'd be happy to give it to him.
Q.. Now you were going to tell me about all the trial testimony you reviewed, right? Do you remember off the
top of your head, without looking, whose testimony you reviewed?
A.. I do not.
Q.. Can you tell me anyone you reviewed?
A.. Sure. Prince Jackson, Katherine Jackson.
Q.. Trial testimony we're talking about?
A.. Trial testimony. Here we go. Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips, Prince Jackson, John Meglen, Arthur Erk,
Peter Formuzis, Katherine Jackson, Eric Briggs.

Q.. Thank you. That's it?

A.. That is it.
Q.. First of all, Mr. Gongaware, you relied on him for some of the statements you made here, correct?
A.. You'd have to tell me which statement you thought I relied upon.
Q.. About how much the tours made?
A.. Oh, that's correct.
Q.. That was the sole basis?
A.. No, sir.
Q.. So the first tour -- you understand Mr. Gongaware was on two tours with Mr. Jackson, right?
A.. The dangerous tour and the history tour.
Q.. And, sir, Mr. Gongaware, have you ever met him?
A.. No, I have not.
Q.. Did you rely on his testimony in this case?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. To the extent he testified about the dangerous tour, yes, I had to rely on it because I couldn't find anything in
the books and records. With regards to the history tour, no, I did not rely upon it.
Q.. I just asked you did you rely on his testimony. I think you're saying relating to the history tour you did,
right?
A.. Relating to the dangerous tour I did.
Q.. Fair enough. Let's talk a little bit about the interest, your discount rate. Okay. Let's put up here, first, exhibit
number. Do you have a copy of that?
A.. I do not.
Q.. I thought they gave you one yesterday. Maybe they took it back. While we're locating that -- there is one.
The last slide you prepared, sir.
A.. I have that in front of me.
Q.. You said that this was -- that was what you said in your slide number two in your scope of work, support,
contributions, gifts, and benefits plaintiffs would reasonably be expected to receive from Michael Jackson had
he lived, correct?

A.. Yes, sir.

Q.. Let's go then to the last exhibit which is. We can show that, and that's your kind of spreadsheet for lack of a
better word, is that right, sir?
A.. It's a summary of my conclusions regarding the possible support that Mr. Jackson could have provided to
the plaintiffs had he lived.
Q.. You call it projected support, don't you?
A.. It is projected. It's going into the future.
Q.. You don't call it possible. You call it projected, correct?
A.. It's a projection.
Q.. Okay. So, sir, these are all present value figures, is that right?
A.. Yes, sir.
Q.. So to get to a present value, you reduce these figures by a discount rate, correct?
A.. That's correct.
Q.. And your discount rate you used was 18 percent, correct?
A.. That is correct.
Q.. And dr. Formuzis used various discount rates, correct?
A.. He had a range of different rates.
Q.. So, first of all, let's start on the right-hand side. If you don't mind, I'd like you to write out for us, and I'll
give you another exhibit -- actually I need a clean one. If you could write out for us as we go through the
number before you reduced it with your 18 percent discount rate.
Judge. Are you going to want to mark that?
Mr. Panish. I will. 1068.
Q.. Are you with me, sir?
A.. I'm not.
Q.. The right-hand column, you said that's a present value identifying, correct?
A.. That's the columns under Katherine and children.
Q.. Now I want you to write the number that you reduced it from.
A.. I don't have that.

Q.. You don't have it?

A.. It's not in this demonstrative. I don't know --
Q.. Where is it? Do you have it with you?
A.. It would be in my support binder.
Q.. Can you pull it out for me. By the way, who wrote the trial exhibit numbers on there for you?
A.. One of my staff.
Q.. How did they get the trial exhibit numbers?
A.. I would assume they probably conferred with somebody at OMelveny & Myers.
Q.. You know what, let's do it on this chart here. Let's do it this way, sir. So you have with you the figures that
you reduced it from, right, sir?
A.. Well, let me see if I do.
Q.. What was that number? I'm sorry. 1069.
Judge. 1068.
Q.. First, you have the period, right, sir, and you have the end. I'm going to make it easier -- katherine Jackson,
kids, total. Are you better at handwriting than me, sir?
A.. Probably about the same.
Q.. I'll bet you're better. Okay. So I'll give you this. I'll hold this for you while you stand here.
A.. I can just take the sheet.
Q.. I want you to write it up here.
A.. I know. Just give me the sheet.
Q.. All right.
Judge. If you want him to write on that, you might have him use a different color, don't you think?
Mr. Panish. Say what, your honor?
Judge. Should he use a different color? Wouldn't it be better to have the witness use a different color?
Q.. You can be blue, Mr. Ackerman. To expedite this -- just zip through there. You know what, Mr. Boyle
wants me to speed up. Let's just do the last 16. Year 16 or period 16. Are you with me? Right under period 16
end would be 12/31/24, right?
A.. We're talking about Katherine though. That's 2019.

Q.. Okay. Put down what it is. 6.11 -- no, I'm sorry.
A.. You want the un-discounted number?
Q.. Yes, sir. What does that say?
A.. $708,000.
Q.. I'm talking about number 16, the total.
A.. I'm showing you the last amount for the last period.
Q.. Un-discounted?
A.. Un-discounted.
Q.. I think we're not on the same page. I want it all together.
A.. I haven't done the math.
Q.. Can you do that? I knew we weren't communicating. I want to know what the total is. It was my mistake. It
must have been a bad question. Dirty glasses, I guess.
A.. It's going to take a while. Do you prefer to do this at a break?
Q.. Takes you a long time to do present value calculation?
A.. I've got to add up all 16 numbers and add up ten numbers.
Q.. 21498 is the figure that you've taken it down to, right?
A.. That is the present value if you were to award the full amount of support for Katherine and the children for
the full period of time.
Q.. I want to know the amount that you reduced it from?
A.. You want the gross un-discounted amount?
Q.. Yes.
A.. Okay.
Q.. I'm going to ask you to do some other calculations. Is that hard for you to do that?
A.. As I said, I haven't totaled that. I have to do a lot of addition here.
Q.. Let's do this. You can't do that fast?
A.. I'm more than glad to do that. I hate wasting the jury's time with this. Why don't I do it at a break.
Q.. At the break I'd like you then to use the 7 percent, 10 percent and 12 percent discount rate. Okay?

A.. That's not going to happen. I can't do that. I've got to go back to my office and use my computer to do that.
Q.. When you read dr. Formuzis's testimony, did you see how he was able to calculate present values right on
the witness stand?
A.. He had a table. I don't have a calculator that would do that.
Q.. You didn't bring that to do that for us?
A.. I don't use my calculator. I use the excel software package in my office.
Q.. You're not able to do these calculations then?
A.. Not sitting here, no. Not here in the courthouse.
Q.. All right, sir. Let's look at what dr. Formuzis stated. 1032. Have you reviewed this, right, sir?
A.. I don't know. You'd have to show it to me.
Q.. Put it up for you. You've got it on your screen right in front of you, sir.
A.. It looks familiar.
Q.. Have you seen that? Counsel share that with you, sir?
A.. I believe I've seen this.
Q.. So this is where dr. Formuzis did the discount rates, and then I think counsel asked him to do calculations
when he was here. Do you remember that, sir?
A.. I wasn't here. I read about it.
Ms. Strong. Objection, lacks foundation, misstates testimony.
Judge. What was your question?
Mr. Panish. Did counsel ask him to do calculations when he was here. And he said, yes, he did. He read it.
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish. Yes, she did actually.
Q.. Do you remember Ms. Strong was questioning dr. Formuzis? Do you remember that, sir?
Ms. Strong. Lacks foundation. If he's suggesting I asked the question about calculated a discount rate. I asked
Mr. Formuzis about four questions. He's misstating the record. I want to be clear about that.
Q.. My question was do you remember Ms. Strong questioning dr. Formuzis?
Judge. Do you remember that?

A. I remember she asked him about five questions.

Q.. She didn't challenge any of his calculations, did she?
A.. I'd have to go back and see what those five questions were.
Q.. You don't remember any of them?
A.. I don't.
Q.. So, sir, would you -- how much did dr. Formuzis take out for Michael Jackson's personal consumption and
business fees for his first calculation at 7 percent?
A.. Under which one of these multiple scenarios?
Q.. 7 percent.
A.. No. There is one, two, three, four, five different scenarios that I see here.
Q.. I'm talking about the top one, sir, 7 percent tier one analysis.
A.. Tier one analysis. Your question was how much did he take out for --
Q.. Personal consumption and fees and business expenses?
A.. Item 6 and 7 appears he took out about $215,290,000.
Q.. Can we say 215 million? Can we live with that number?
A.. I can live with 215 million.
Q.. So you haven't done the calculations like dr. Formuzis for these various discount rates, correct?
A.. No. I mean, I looked at the actual spending that was historically incurred.
Q.. Sir, did you do the calculations at 7 percent at anything in this case?
A.. No, it's an improper rate. Why would I have done that?
Mr. Panish. Your honor.
Judge. Is that -- that's a no.
A. That's a definitive no.
Judge. Then state "no."
Q.. What was the highest amount on any loan that Mr. Jackson had at the time of his death?
A.. My recollection was as much the $320 million on the Sony/ATV date.
Q.. The interest rate?

A.. Highest rate I think was 16.85 percent.

Q.. Do you have a book on that?
A.. Do I have a data point, you mean?
Q.. Yeah.
A.. I do.
Q.. So tell me the highest -- tell me the range of the rates that were in existence at that time. And if you'd tell me
what you're referring to, I'll just approach.
A.. It's somewhere in here.
Q.. Do you know the range without having to go to your books?
A.. My recollection is the range of Mr. Jackson's -- the rates of Mr. Jackson's debt was as low as 6.75 percent
and as high as I believe 16.85 percent.
Q.. Did you review Mr. Kane's deposition, sir?
A.. I did read Mr. Kane's deposition.
Q.. Sir, have interest rates been going up or down since 2008?
A.. Since 2008, they have been coming down.
Q.. And there was no rate that had an 18 percent, correct?
A.. On the debt?
Q.. Yes.
A.. I don't recall seeing an 18 percent rate.
Q.. What percent of debt was the 16.7 percent?
A.. Well, it depends. Different points in time. It's constantly changing. It's not set at any point in time.
Q.. At the time of the debt.
A.. I think it was probably closer to 7 percent. That would be the Sony/ATV debt.
Q.. The majority of the debt was at 7 percent, right?
A.. That's a fair statement.
Q.. Now the Sony/ATV catalog, you're aware, based on reading Mr. Briggs's testimony, that an independent
appraiser for the IRS placed a value of 1- to 300 million in excess of all debt, correct?

A.. I recall there being some exchange about that.

Q.. Did you read that, sir?
A.. I did read it.
Q.. Now so then, if we go to your exhibit -- actually I made another exhibit. I'll come back to this. It will be
1070 -- 1069. I'm going to show you this, sir. This is your slide. I've just modified it myself a little, number
nine. Now, sir, if we were to add on 300 million, this would change your analysis, correct?
A.. It would not change my conclusions, no, sir.
Q.. Right, because your conclusions are still the same on the amount of money that Mr. Jackson -- that could
reasonably have been expected is not going to change, right?
A.. That's right.
Q.. No matter what the debt or value of the assets, right?
A.. It doesn't matter.
Q.. So here, if we just adjust for the ATV catalog 300 million, that puts his assets at 700 million, correct?
A.. I think there is some strong testimony that conflicts with the $700 million you're putting up here.
Q.. Can you answer the question, sir? You didn't appraise the ATV catalog, did you?
A.. I did not. I wanted to be clear. You're asking me to assume, based on some phantom appraisal the irs did,
that he had $700 million of assets?
Q.. I want you to assume Mr. Briggs was ordered to answer that question, and he testified that an independent
appraiser made this analysis on behalf of the IRS. Would you assume that for me, sir?
A.. I will try to.
Q.. Are you not able to do that?
A.. I'm really having a hard time stomaching that.
Q.. Well, sir, you haven't analyzed the value of the ATV calendar, have you?
A.. Calendar?
Q.. Catalog.
A.. No, I never did that.
Q.. Because you're not qualified to do that, are you, sir?
A.. That's not something I'd do.
Q.. You're not qualified to do that, are you, sir?

A.. I could try it, but I don't think I'd be the best person to do it.
Q.. You're not qualified to do that, are you, sir?
A.. It's not something anybody would ask me to do in a reasonable world.
Judge. Can you just answer the question yes or no.
A. No.
Q.. Now, sir, that's just for ATV. Now I want you to assume -- what was the MiJac catalog worth?
A.. As of what point in time?
Q.. Date of death.
A.. I believe it was less than whatever debt existed on that asset.
Q.. What was it, 80 million?
A.. I think the debt on that asset around the date of death was approximately $75 million.
Q.. What information, what document did you have set value on the catalog?
A.. It's not a specific document. It's the testimony of Mr. Kane where he indicated that there was no equity in
the assets of Mr. Jackson in June of 2009.
Q.. What document do you have that sets a value on the MiJac catalog, if any?
A.. I can't recall a document as of the date of death.
Q.. Let's just assume it's 70 million. Okay. That would be added to Mr. Jackson's assets, right? The debt still
exists, and you've got to add that, right?
A.. You've got a lot of debt. And you'll evidently have the assets valued less than the aggregation of that debt.
Q.. Sir, could you please answer the question.
A.. I think I am.
Q.. If you're trying to assess the assets and the debt, you've already told us what the debt is, right?
A.. I've told you what the long-term debt is, but there was an additional hundred million dollars of debt.
Q.. Sir, does your exhibit here show 398 million in debt?
A.. This does. But, again, that's only the long term debt that was obtained from lending institutions. The state
accountings talk about an additional hundred million dollars of debt.
Mr. Panish. First of all, move to strike.

Judge. Granted.
Q.. Ask that you please try to answer the question. Do you think you could do that, sir?
A.. I'm trying to answer it accurately.
Q.. No, sir. Please answer the question.
Judge. Answer the questions that's asked.
Q.. sir, when you're assessing what Mr. Jackson's debt and liabilities are for the assets, you have to put a value
on the assets, right?
A.. One typically work, yes, sir.
Q.. And you haven't done that in this case, right?
A.. That is correct. I have not.
Q.. So if we just assume 300 million based on the irs independent appraisal, there would also be a value for the
MiJac catalog, correct?
A.. It has value.
Q.. The Neverland ranch -- does that have value?
A.. It would have some value.
Q.. Did you see an appraisal of the Neverland ranch?
A.. I did not.
Q.. So you didn't assess that in this case, right?
A.. No. But I know in the aggregate in this case that the liabilities exceeded whatever assets you want to value.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, could he answer the question.
Mr. Putnam. That's answering the question.
Mr. Panish. That's not.
Judge. Motion granted. The answer is stricken. Just answer the question.
A. I'm sorry. I thought I did.
Q.. So in this chart, your chart 400 million debt, right?
A.. My chart has 400 million on it, but it's not complete.
Judge. He's just asking if the chart shows --

A. I said, yes, it does, but I want a caveat it's not complete.

Q.. So this is an incomplete chart you made, right?
A.. Not with regards to -- it has encapsulated all of Mr. Jackson's long-term debt.
Q.. Does it say that on the chart, sir?
A.. Growing and significant debt. It doesn't say long-term debt.
Q.. Is this an inaccurate chart or inaccurate?
A.. Oh, it's accurate.
Q.. So when you put the 300 million on that asset, that would equal 700 million value, correct?
A.. I don't understand that proposition.
Q.. 400 million plus 300 million is 700 million. Is that right, sir?
A.. And you're getting the 400 million where?
Q.. The amount of the debt?
A.. If you took $400 million of debt and added $300 million of something to it, you would get 700 million.
Q.. Of value. And then on top of that, you'd add the value of the MiJac catalog, correct?
A.. There is some value to the MiJac catalog.
Q.. You'd add the value of the Neverland ranch, correct?
A.. There is some value to the Neverland ranch.
Q.. And you said, sir, that Mr. Jackson was tapped out, right?
A.. Yes, sir.
Q.. AEG knew about Mr. Jackson's financial condition before they entered into a contract with him, didn't they,
sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, calls for speculation. State of mind and lacks foundation.
Judge. If he knows. Overruled.
A. I don't know.
Q.. Did you read -- you told us you read Mr. Phillips testimony, didn't you, sir?
A.. I did.
Q.. You read Mr. Phillips deposition, didn't you, sir?

A.. I did.
Q.. Mr. Phillips deposition, he talked about that they were well aware of Michael Jackson's debt and that, if he
didn't work, it would be a financial disaster for him, didn't he, sir?
A.. You'd have to show me that testimony. I don't recall it.
Q.. You don't remember that. You don't have that on one of your books, sir, what Mr. Phillips said about the
financial condition?
A.. I didn't bring the depositions with me.
Q.. Do you have some -- all the depositions that you've told us your read, sir?
A.. No.
Q.. You have no summary and no recollection of anything Mr. Phillips testified to at his deposition, is that right,
sir?
Mr. Putnam. Lacks foundation.
Judge. Overruled.
A. It's been a very long time since I read his deposition and a while since I read his trial transcript. You'd have
to show me something. I'm not here for a memory test.
Q.. Could you answer the question, I'll ask it again.
A.. I told you I don't remember.
Q.. You don't remember. That's what I thought. Okay. Let me ask it this way. Did you bring Mr. Phillips's
testimony with you, sir?
A.. No.
Mr. Putnam. Objection, asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled. Did you bring the testimony?
A. No.
Judge. No.
Q.. Well, sir, you are telling us, as you sit here today, you have no idea what Mr. Phillips testified as to the
knowledge of AEG regarding Michael Jackson's financial condition when they entered into the contract with
him, is that right?
A.. That's --
Mr. Putnam. Objection, asked and answered.

Judge. Sustained. He's answered it.

Q.. And were you aware that Mr. Barrack was working with Mr. Jackson?
A.. I remember reading Mr. Barrack's deposition.
Q.. How many meetings did Mr. Barrack have with Mr. Jackson to try to straighten out his finances?
A.. I don't remember.
Q.. Do you remember he had more than eight meetings with Mr. Jackson?
A.. I don't remember.
Q.. Do you remember if he had one meeting? Any idea?
A.. I know he had probably at least one meeting.
Q.. When was that?
A.. I have no idea.
Q.. What was discussed at the meeting?
A.. I have no idea. I don't recall.
Q.. You don't remember anything that Mr. Barrack testified that you reviewed, correct?
A.. As I sit here, no. I wish I had a photographic memory, but I don't.
Q.. Well, sir, how much did you charge an hour to read Mr. Barrack's deposition?
Mr. Putnam. Asked and answered, your honor.
Judge. Overruled. Not that question how much they charge. Overruled.
A. My normal hourly rate $475 an hour.
Q.. Do you remember Mr. Barrack testifying that he believed that Mr. Jackson was a multibillion dollar
enterprise?
A.. I don't recall that.
Q.. Do you remember Mr. Barrack testifying that, if Mr. Jackson wanted to work, in his opinion, he could earn
500 million a year?
A.. I know he didn't --
Mr. Putnam. Object to this line of questioning. He indicated from the very beginning he does not recall what
was said in that deposition, therefore, lacks foundation.

Judge. That's true. Sustained unless you want to show him. He doesn't remember. If you want to refresh him,
go ahead.
Mr. Panish. Sure. Let's start out with that. We'll do that.
Q.. Sir, is it common for you, when you testify and review materials, that you don't remember what was said in
them?
A.. For something of --
Mr. Putnam. Argumentative.
Judge. Sustained.
Q.. Who is tom barrack, sir?
A.. I believe he is the CEO of a company called colony capital.
Q.. What do they do, sir?
A.. They are primarily a real estate lender.
Q.. Where did you get that information from?
A.. I've heard of colony capital. Their name has come across my desk in different matters I've worked on.
Q.. Well, sir, your company billed a thousand dollars plus to research colony capital, didn't you?
A.. We very well may have. I don't know. I'd have to see the time record.
Q.. Well, let's look at it there, sir. This is your bills, and there are two entries here. Who is Robert Martin?
Mr. Putnam. May we have a reference or page number.
Mr. Panish. 27. I was only given this copy. I don't have another one.
Mr. Putnam. I just asked for the reference.
Q.. Robert martin, who is he?
A.. Robert martin is one of our senior consultants, UCLA graduate. Very bright young man.
Q.. He billed $1032 to research colony capital, is that right?
A.. That appears to be correct.
Q.. Robert martin again billed $1,475 to research colony capital, correct?
A.. The record says research colony capital and Jackson deal, so I don't know how much time was spent on one
versus the other.
Q.. That itemizes exactly what he was doing, right?

A.. I don't know exactly.

Q.. Well, he, again, has another entry research colony capital, $1116, right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, misstates the record, your honor.
Judge. Overruled. He can see what the record is if it's in front of him.
A. It states research colony capital and Jackson deal.
Q.. tell us, sir, with all of that research, do you know what he found out about colony capital?
A.. As best I recall, he might have found some articles regarding what it is they do. I think that's how I got the
general understanding that they are primarily a real estate lender.
Q.. What deals did Mr. Jackson do with Colony Capital, sir?
A.. Colony capital came in when Neverland was close to foreclosure and lent Mr. Jackson about $23 million at
very high interest rates, by the way. But the benefit of that loan was that, while the interest was accruing, they
weren't requiring him to have to pay it.
Q.. Didn't you testify yesterday there was no interest on that loan, sir?
A.. There was no interest to have to be paid on that loan.
Q.. And, sir, Mr. Barrack is a specialist in distressed properties, is he not? Distressed assets?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. You don't know anything about Mr. Barrack do you, sir?
A.. I don't know the man. I just know he's the CEO of colony capital.
Q.. Did you know he was good friends with Mr. Anschutz?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't recall that.
Q.. Do you recall that he called Mr. Anschutz about Mr. Jackson in making a deal with AEG?
A.. I don't recall it.
Q.. Well, sir, let's start off with Mr. Barrack's deposition and see if we can refresh your recollection. Do you
recall whether Mr. Barrack sat down with Mr. Jackson, analyzed his financial condition and made suggestions
to him? Do you know that?
A.. Show me the testimony. I don't remember that.

Q.. Page 30, line 7 to page 31, line 21.

Judge. Just to be clear, who's depo?
Mr. Panish. Mr. Barrack. The one that he reviewed and considered in this case.
A. Page 30, line 7 to where?
Mr. Panish. Just read it until you tell me it refreshes your recollection.
Mr. Putnam. To where, your honor?
Mr. Panish. Until he refreshes his recollection.
Q.. Keep reading.
Mr. Putnam. What testimony does he expect to refresh his recollection?
Judge. Give him a range.
Mr. Panish. 31.
A. To 31. Thank you.
Q.. Read the whole page.
A.. I've read pages 30 and 31.
Q.. Now does that refresh your recollection that Mr. Jackson sat down with Mr. Barrack to get advice on his
finances?
A.. It appears the two did have a pow wow.
Q.. Just one or you don't remember?
A.. This alludes to just one.
Q.. But you don't remember what's said in the rest of the deposition, right?
A.. I don't.
Q.. And then, during that conversation, did they discuss the Sony/ATV contract and determine what they could
do in that complicated matrix?
A.. Yes. He refers to some consultant looking at the complicated details of that transaction.
Q.. Is that a yes?
A.. I think it's a yes.
Q.. Does that refresh your recollection, sir, as to what he testified to?

A.. Regarding the Sony/ATV contract? Partially, I guess.

Q.. Did he also sit down with Mr. Jackson and say he would do the same for the MiJac catalog?
A.. Said they would do the same with the MiJac catalog.
Q.. Then did he tell Mr. Jackson -- they discussed what Mr. Jackson should do going forward?
A.. I mean, he talks about -- "I think he was somewhat startled by the drama of his own economic situation put
into pieces. And that when he realized that there was not enough income" --
Judge. Mr. Ackerman, you're not supposed to read from it. You read to yourself. Then, if it helps you
remember an answer, you can answer.
A. I think I would just pair /of what Mr. Barrack was saying.
Q.. You've got to listen to the question. If you don't understand, let me know. The question is, did that refresh
your recollection that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Barrack sat down, went over Mr. Jackson's financial condition, and
they discussed that Mr. Jackson had to decide what he wanted to do on a go-forward basis? Yes or no?
A.. It appears to support that contention.
Q.. It's not a contention, sir. The question is is that what he testified to under oath? Yes or no? Does that refresh
your recollection?
A.. Well, this isn't using the same words you're using, but it appears they were trying to move forward.
Q.. And did Mr. Barrack say to Mr. Jackson one of his options was to liquidate all his assets?
A.. I'm sorry. You'd have to point me to that.
Q.. Why don't you start on line 1 through -- line 24 and then go to line 1 on the next page. Do you want me to
go up there to show you?
A.. I think I see it. He did suggest one option would be to liquidate assets.
Q.. Or the other option was he could start using his brand, the Michael Jackson brand?
A.. He mentioned that.
Q.. You're not a branding expert, and you're not an entertainment expert, correct?
A.. I am not a branding expert and I am -- I do have expertise in entertainment as it relates to forensic
accounting.
Q.. But you've never been a business manager for an artist, correct?
A.. That's true.
Q.. You've never been an accountant for an artist on tour, correct?
A.. That's correct.

Q.. That's not the area of your expertise, is that correct?

A.. That is not an area I practice.
Q.. Then two options. One, Mr. Jackson could liquidate all his assets and get the money, right?
A.. That was one option.
Q.. The other option was he could start using his brand and going to work, correct?
A.. That was another option.
Q.. Mr. Barrack -- did he tell Mr. Jackson to go home and think about what he wanted to do?
A.. That's correct.
Q.. And then shortly thereafter, Mr. Barrack received a call from Mr. Jackson who told him he didn't want to
liquidate his assets. He wanted to go back to work, correct? Do you not remember that, sir?
A.. Again, I see the quote here. "he said, 'okay. Let me think about it.' and two days later, he came back and
said, 'I want to do it.'" I'm not certain AEG what "it" is.
Q.. He never liquidated his assets, did he, sir?
A.. That is my understanding.
Q.. Did he get into an agreement with aig live?
A.. Yes.
Q.. Did Mr. Barrack call Mr. Anschutz to put together --
A.. The Michael Jackson company entered into --
Q.. Did Michael Jackson sign a contract with AEG live, sir?
A.. I think he was -- I'm not certain if he was one of the signatories on that.
Q.. You don't know who signed the contract between AEG live and Michael Jackson?
A.. I'd have to see it again.
Q.. Did dr. Tohme sign it?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. So you don't know then -- of all this work that you'd done, you don't know who signed the contract between
Mr. Jackson and AEG live, correct?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, asked and answered. Move to strike as argumentative.

Judge. Motion denied.

A. My recollection is AEG live and the Michael Jackson company.
Q.. Who is that person, the Michael Jackson company?
A.. The Michael Jackson company, LLC.
Q.. Who is that?
A.. That would have been Michael Jackson would have been the officer of that entity.
Q.. Mr. Tohme, he's not an officer, is he?
A.. I don't know.
Q.. And who signed the contract?
A.. I think I --
Mr. Putnam. Asked and answered your honor.
Judge. Sustained.
Q.. So you don't know. Is that fair?
Mr. Putnam. Objection asked and answered.
Mr. Panish. I haven't got an answer yet.
Judge. Sustained. He said the Michael Jackson Company.
Q.. Who signed on behalf of the Michael Jackson company, sir?
A.. I believe it was Michael Jackson.
Q.. Your memory is refreshed now that's who you think it was?
A.. That's my recollection as I sit here.
Q.. Now let's go back to Mr. Barrack. So Mr. Barrack, did you read where Mr. Barrack contacted Philip
Anschutz, and they discussed Mr. Jackson entering into a contract with AEG live?
A.. You're going to have to direct me again.
Q.. You don't remember that?
A.. I really tried to focus on numbers, not process.
Q.. Well you reviewed the touring agreement, didn't you, sir?
A.. The touring agreement -- which document are you referring to?

Q.. Do you know what the touring agreement is?

A.. Is this the contract between AEG and the Michael Jackson company?
Q.. Do you know what the touring agreement is, sir?
A.. I think of that as the contract between AEG and the Michael Jackson company, but there could be some
other agreement.
Q.. Did you review that document that you just referred to?
A.. The agreement that I'm thinking of in my mind, yes, I did.
Q.. Sir, you didn't review depositions that had no bearing on your work in this case, did you?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, calls for speculation. How can you possibly say whether you reviewed something that
had no --
Judge. You can review something, and it would have no bearing on your opinion. You might have reviewed it,
but it didn't affect your opinion. Overruled.
A. There were certain depositions that I reviewed. Keep in mind, when I reviewed anything in this case, I was
really looking at the focus on finances and money and something germane to what I was ultimately tasked to do
here. A. Lot of what I did look at really talked about other things I didn't care about. I didn't focus too heavily
on it.
Q.. who gave you the depositions to review?
A.. I was provided the depositions from the attorneys at OMelveny.
Q.. And they provided you Mr. Barrack's deposition to review, correct?
A.. They did.
Q.. And Mr. Barrack was dealing with Mr. Jackson's finances, wasn't he, sir?
A.. At one point in time, he was.
Q.. What point in time was that, sir? What year?
A.. I'm going to estimate 2008.
Q.. Right before he entered into the contract with AEG live?
A.. I think that contract was entered into in January of '09.
Q.. Now Mr. Barrack -- did Mr. Barrack discuss with Mr. Jackson doing a show in Las Vegas at his hotel that
he owned, Mr. Barrack?
A.. I have a vague recollection of some discussion -- referring to the flamingo hotel.

Q.. Do you know what hotel Mr. Barrack owned? Did you see that in the deposition, sir?
A.. I have a vague recollection it was the flamingo hotel.
Q.. Try the Las Vegas Hilton. Does that refresh your recollection?
A.. You'd better show me some testimony.
Q.. Did you receive anything from these people that were doing all this research on colony capital, anything in
writing?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, vague and ambiguous as to all these people doing all this research.
Judge. Sustained.
Q.. For the over $4,000 of work that you billed AEG live for research into Colony Capital, did you receive any
documentation?
A.. That's a misrepresentation, Mr. Panish. You looked at those time records. A. Lot of it had to do with Mr.
Jackson's deals. Some it had to do with Colony Capital.
Q.. Sir, you said you don't know what deals Mr. Jackson was doing, didn't you?
A.. We were researching that.
Q.. How were you researching that, Colony Capital? How were you researching that, sir?
A.. There is this really interesting tool that's been developed called the internet. There is a lot of useful
information on it.
Q.. Where is the information on colony capital?
A.. I don't have it here because I didn't rely on it.
Q.. Well, let's go through this. First one says research Colony Capital and Jackson deals. Five hours, right?
A.. Yeah. As far as I know, he may have spent a quarter of an hour researching colony capital and 4.25
researching the Jackson deal. I don't know.
Q.. Exactly. You don't know what they were doing, do you, sir?
A.. Mr. Panish, it's unreasonable for me to stand over the shoulder of every person that worked on this project
over a period of time.
Q.. Sir, you're the one testifying, aren't you, sir?
A.. I am.
Q.. Can you tell me what information was given to you by people in your firm regarding colony capital?
A.. At some point in time, I'm sure I probably looked at some kind of research that was pulled together.

Q.. Sir, can you tell me what was given to you? Yes or no?
A.. I can't tell you specifically. I don't recall it.
Q.. And that tool you mentioned, the internet, did somebody print out something and give it to you?
A.. They may have.
Q.. Do you know?
A.. I don't recall specifically.
Q.. Now Mr. Barrack then -- if you want to get your memory refreshed, go to page 42 of the deposition, and
you'll see what the hotel was that they discussed for Mr. Jackson's show, okay, since you don't recall.
A.. Do you have a line?
Q.. Why don't you try line 19, sir.
Ms. Strong. Page 42?
Mr. Panish. 41, line 19.
Q.. Go through 42, line 7. I think on line 19 at page 41, it says the Hilton, doesn't it, sir?
Mr. Putnam. On that page, are we looking at the place where it says they own the Hilton hotel?
Q.. Do I have to go up and show you?
Judge. Yes.
A. That would be helpful.
Mr. Putnam. May I ask --
Judge. You should come up and look at it.
Ms. Strong. Just identify the page. We have it.
A. Page 41, line 17 through 21.
Mr. Putnam. It doesn't --
Judge. Well, if it refreshes his recollection, it doesn't matter what it is. If it refreshes his recollection, it
refreshes his recollection.
A. It mentioned the Hilton hotel.
Q.. References the Cirque de Soleil show for Michael Jackson at the Hilton hotel as proposed by Mr. Barrack?
A.. How would Michael Jackson have been involved in a cirque de Soleil show at the Hilton. That's what it
specifically says.

Q.. It goes on to talk about Celine Dions performances in Las Vegas, correct, sir?
A.. Celine Dion at Cesars palace, yes, sir.
Q.. Does that refresh your recollection that Mr. Barrack, prior to Mr. Jackson entering into a contract with AEG
live, discussed with him putting on a show in Las Vegas?
A.. That appears to be the case.
Q.. And you still -- that doesn't refresh your recollection as to what hotel Mr. Barrack owned in Las Vegas,
correct?
A.. They talked about the Hilton, but it doesn't say, "hey, I own the Hilton."
Q.. But you didn't look that up on the internet?
A.. We may have. I just don't remember. I remember something about the flamingo hotel, so there is obviously
some confusion in my mind.
Q.. Okay. Fair enough. Now, sir, did you -- when you reviewed Mr. Phillips testimony -- strike that. Did you
have an understanding based on everything you reviewed that, after Mr. Jackson met with Mr. Barrack, he
decided that he was going to start working?
A.. I have a vague recollection of that.
Q.. Did he enter into a contract to work?
A.. Are we alluding to the AEG Michael Jackson agreement?
Q.. Which agreement are you aware of, sir?
A.. That's the one that comes to my mind.
Q.. Did he enter into such an agreement?
A.. I believe he did.
Q.. And then, sir --
Judge. I apologize. There is a lot of noise in the courtroom now. I don't know what's going on. The clerk: sorry.
Mr. Panish. It's okay. Fine. I lost my train of thought here.
Q.. Now, sir, let's go back to exhibit 1032 where we were. Now we were on Dr. Formuzis's calculations. Strike
that question. You didn't do any discount rates at 7, 10 or 15 percent, correct?
A.. No, I think they are all incorrect.
Judge. I was waiting for "yes" or "no" but something else came out.

Q.. Did you not understand that question, sir? I'll ask it again to you. Did you do any discount rates at 7, 10 or
15 percent?
A.. No, I did not. I did it at 18 percent.
Q.. Now consumption. Let's just take Mr. Formuzis's personal fees, attorney fees, all of that. That's what you
call consumption, right, sir?
A.. Spending.
Q.. So he has taken out for spending, we said, 215 million, right?
A.. Under his 7 percent discount rate analysis and in the first section that he's analyzing something.
Q.. Is that correct?
A.. That is correct.
Q.. So after he took out the $215 million, that leaves 919 million, is that right?
A.. It appears to.
Q.. 919 million, is that right?
A.. That's the number I see.
Q.. That's after taking out the consumption of $215 million, right?
A.. That's correct.
Q.. The next one under the 10 percent, he took out consumption of approximately 204,000. Do you agree with
me on that?
A.. I would.
Q.. That leaves 856 million, right, 10 percent discount?
A.. That's what the number says.
Q.. And then in the next one at 15 percent, he took out 188,000 -- a million, I'm sorry. Is that right?
A.. 188 million. Yes, sir.
Q.. Leaving after consumption 768 million, right?
A.. That's the math.
Q.. Then, if you take out, go to 18 percent which you used, he took out 180 -- can we agree with that -- million?
A.. I'd go with 180.6, or I'd round it up to 181 million.
Q.. That leaves 723 million, right?

A.. Thereabouts, yes, sir.

Q.. Did you calculate out an annual amount of personal consumption for Mr. Jackson?
A.. I presented all of the individual spending amounts per year. I could do that calculation if you'd like me to.
Q.. Sir, before you came here today, have you prepared an individual yearly personal consumption for Mr.
Jackson?
A.. I actually calculated something this morning.
Q.. When you gave your testimony here for Ms. Strong, had you calculated out a personal consumption for Mr.
Jackson per year?
A.. Yes. I'd laid out all those numbers of all of his spending. That's his consumption.
Q.. Do you have any document that you prepared before this morning where you had the yearly personal
consumption for Mr. Jackson? Is that a yes, you do?
A.. Do you remember that graph?
Q.. Sir, can you answer my question. It's real simple.
A.. I'm trying to answer your question. Each one of these red bars is his spending and consumption.
Q.. Have you put a specific figure for his annual spending, annual personal consumption number?
A.. One number?
Q.. Yes.
A.. It's about $35 million.
Q.. Have you done that -- have you calculated his specific personal consumption figure in any document before
this morning?
A.. No.
Q.. Do you have the document that you wrote out this morning when you came to court?
A.. I'm sorry. Ask that again.
Q.. Do you have the document that you wrote out this morning?
A.. I didn't writing anything out. I just did the math in my head.
Q.. This was after your meeting with the lawyers yesterday after court, correct?
A.. Today is typically after yesterday.
Mr. Panish. You know, your honor. I don't mean to argue with the guy. He wants to argue with me.

Judge. Let's not argue with the attorney.

Q.. Is that funny? Did you think that was funny, Mr. Ackerman?
Judge. Counsel, don't argue with him. Just don't argue with each other.
Mr. Panish. I asked him a simple question.
Judge. I've admonished him.
Q.. Mr. Ackerman, did you see -- strike that. You told us yesterday about accrual basis accounting. Do you
remember that?
A.. Uh-huh, yes, I'm sorry.
Q.. What is accrual basis accounting?
A.. Accrual basis accounting is when you account for things not necessarily when they are paid but when they
are incurred.
Q.. What does that mean? Can you explain it to us.
A.. For example, I might do a bunch of work in a Month, and I will bill for all that work at the end of the month.
Q.. So in other words --
A.. Can I answer the question, please.
Q.. Sure.
A.. And so on an accrual basis, I would have revenue for that month for all of that time because I bill it. And
under accounting rules and accrual accounting, I have in theory earned or billed that revenue versus a cash
basis. I haven't been paid for that work yet. On the cash basis, you wouldn't recognize that revenue until it's
actually collected.
Q.. So would it be fair to say, like, somebody does a bunch of work and they are owed money for the work and
it's put down on a ledger. That means it's accrued. Is that a fair statement?
A.. That's a very --
Q.. I didn't go to Georgetown, I'm sorry.
A.. You went to Fresno State.
Q.. That's right. I played football. I'm not an economist.
A.. My wife went to Fresno State.
Q.. Okay. So, sir, when something is incurred, that means somebody has done the work and it's put down in an
accounting document, that means it's been accrued, correct?

A.. I think that's a fair description. I think that's consistent with what I just said.
Q.. And you reviewed and considered Mr. Kane's deposition in this case, didn't you, sir? You just told us that?
A.. I did.
Q.. And just so I can refresh your recollection, I'm going to give to you, and I'm going to ask you some
questions about, your review of Mr. Kane's testimony. Okay, sir? Are you ready?
A.. Just point me where you want to go.
Q.. First of all, sir, you reviewed Mr. Kane's deposition regarding the expenses submitted by AEG to the estate
after the death of Mr. Jackson, correct?
A.. I know that occurred. I don't recall Mr. Kane discussing it.
Q.. Sir, why don't you look at page 372, lines 6 through 11.
Mr. Putnam. Is the question whether this refreshes his recollection?
Mr. Panish. I haven't got there.
Judge. I think he's trying to direct him to a place that will.
Mr. Panish. Is there an objection?
A. I'm at page 372.
Q.. Is it true, sir, that Mr. Kane -- strike that. Does that refresh your recollection of whether or not Mr. Kane
testified that AEG had submitted to the estate $300,000 in expenses that had been accrued and incurred for dr.
Murray's services for the estate to pay?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, completely inappropriate.
Judge. Improper.
Mr. Putnam. Move to strike.
Judge. Refresh your recollection. Ask your question. If he doesn't remember, then you can refer him.
Q.. Did Mr. Kane testify --
Judge. No. Ask a question.
Q.. Do you know whether or not the estate submitted an accounting ledger by AEG live that had, as an
incurred and accrued cost, 300,000 for dr. Murray's services before Michael Jackson died?
A.. I have a vague recollection of seeing something that included that number. I just don't know with the
specificity you just asked the question.
Q.. Please review that deposition to refresh your recollection on something that you reviewed in this case.

Mr. Putnam. Object, your honor. What he's been asked to review does not reflect the question that was just
posited.
Judge. You can use anything to refresh recollection potentially.
Mr. Putnam. If it does.
Q.. Lines 6 through 11 start with, sir.
Judge. Read it to yourself.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q.. When you're ready, let me know.
A.. Okay. I read that.
Q.. Okay. Now does that refresh your recollection that AEG personnel directly submitted to the estate a
$300,000 bill for dr. Murray?
A.. This just talks about --
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, the question is whether --
Judge. Yeah --
A. No.
Q.. That doesn't refresh your recollection?
A.. That's not what this is saying.
Q.. Let's go to page 403, sir, lines 22 and read to line 2 of the next page to start with. Let me know when you're
ready.
A.. Okay.
Q.. Does that refresh your recollection that the first report submitted by AEG to the estate claimed 300,000 for
dr. Murray?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, vague and ambiguous as to first report.
Judge. Overruled.
A. It talks about a first report, but I don't know what that is. It says there is a $300,000 amount in here.
Q.. And did Mr. -- let's go then to page 405. I'd like you to read -- let me ask you this question first. Do you
recall whether AEG had submitted again on an accrual basis report $300,000 for expenses for work of dr.
Murray that they wanted the estate to reimburse them for? Do you understand the question?
A.. I think I do.

Q.. Your answer would be?

A.. Still no.
Q.. Then why don't you read page 405, lines 9 to 21, sir.
A.. Which lines?
Q.. 9 to 21.
A.. Okay. I've read that.
Q.. Does that refresh your recollection?
A.. It refers to a report, accrual basis -- I mean, I see some discussion about it.
Q.. Well, sir, doesn't that refresh your recollection that AEG live submitted to the estate a bill for 300,000
which they sought reimbursement for expenses that dr. Murray had incurred and they expected the estate to pay
that based on Mr. Kane's testimony that you reviewed in this case?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, your honor. Misstates the testimony of Mr. Kane's deposition.
Judge. Overruled.
Q.. You can answer.
A.. I mean, is there a -- I'd like to see what these reports are. I'm just seeing a narrative without any context.
Q.. I'm going to represent to you that that's a report that you reviewed that Mr. Tohme signed on June 28, 2009.
Okay?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, your honor --
A. Do you want to show me that?
Q.. Sure. You had it at your deposition. Do you remember?
A.. I don't recall that.
Judge. Well, it's 12:00. We'll take a break, and we'll try to -- we can clear this up when we come back at 1:30.
Come back at 1:30. (the following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury:)
Judge. Hold on, Mr. Ackerman. I just want to remind you not to argue with the attorneys because all it does is
create argument between the two of you, and it doesn't help.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Judge. I admonish counsel when he does the same thing.
A. I'm by nature argumentative.

Judge. Counsel knows. I've tried to keep him under wraps as well, but it doesn't help if you're going to argue
with him. The other thing, too, is that, when I admonish you to answer a question "yes" or "no," you need to
respond "yes" or "no." I know that maybe you're not used to the courtroom situation, but you understand.
A. I do, your honor.
Judge. Thank you.
Ms. Bina. Briefly, your honor. I'll wait for the witness to leave. The first report referred to, your honor, is not
the document that dr. Tohme signed. It's the report sent to the estate that, if you recall, had that footnote three
that Mr. Panish at first showed when he was questioning him. That doctor had a figure for dr. Murray but also a
footnote saying, by the way, the agreement was never executed and that was the condition precedent, so it
shouldn't be paid. So the reason there has been some objection is because Mr. Kane's deposition, they were
shown the same report. It didn't show footnote three. It's not complete to try to say what AEG live did or didn't
do by only looking at Mr. Kane's testimony. So that's the basis for the objection. It's misleading in the same way
it was misleading to the jury to suggest this had been submitted. It's the same report that includes that footnote
expressly saying the money is not supposed to be paid. That's why the objections.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, the witness again testified that the debt and all that had no bearing on his opinion, and
I think I got it clearly out again that it had no bearing whatsoever in any causal relationship to what he said
about the support. It couldn't have been any clearer. Contrary to what the lawyers keep arguing about that, it had
no bearing on this witness's testimony.
Mr. Putnam. I think he said repeatedly on the stand I don't think that's an issue.
Ms. Strong. It did affect the numbers of what could reasonably be expected, certainly affected what money
would be available to be able to provide those numbers. He made that extremely clear on the stand this
morning. Counsel keeps trying to misrepresent what the witness has said. The jury has heard it, and they'll make
their own interpretation.
Judge. Thank you.
LUNCH..
(the following proceedings were heard in open court, outside the presence of the jury:)
Judge. Didn't you abandon that exhibit?
Mr. Panish. No. I wanted him to add up the gross. He said he'd do it over lunch.
Mr. Putnam. We understood it was abandoned.
Mr. Panish. If he forgot, he didn't do it.

Judge. I don't know if he forgot.

Mr. Panish. I asked for the gross, not present value. That wasn't what my question was. And he said it would
take too long, he would do it over the lunch break, so I assumed he would. Why are you shaking your head,
your honor?
Judge. Because I understood it to be abandoned. Counsel is shaking their head yes. Did you do it over the
lunch break?
A. No.
Judge. You were the only one under the impression that it was going to be done over the lunch break.
Mr. Panish. So that means I'm wrong, then?
Judge. That's what it sounds like.
Mr. Panish. You think since they're shaking their head -- if you want me to go back --
Judge. Look for it, if you want --
Mr. Panish. I asked the question, your honor, if he could add up the present value -- excuse me -- the total
numbers, which he had. And he said just add them up. He didn't have to do any calculations. Okay? That's all I
asked him to do. And he said it would take time over the lunch hour. That's -- so if I could come back to it. So I
said fine. So how does that mean that the court now has assessed that I have abandoned --
Judge. That's what I thought. We'll look at it.
Mr. Panish. You've already made an assessment on what I was doing.
Judge. I did.
Mr. Panish. And say that I'm wrong.
Ms. Strong. As I recall, your honor, I think he did say that, and I think he went on -- because then we were
going to have you do some calculations, and Mr. Ackerman explained, "I can't do that here, I do it in the office,"
and that's why I thought it mooted it.
Judge. "I have a program in the office."
Mr. Panish. That's for present value.
Ms. Strong. I thought that's where it was going to. I thought it was abandoned, too.
Mr. Putnam. He didn't do it because he understood and we understood, like the court had understood, that
that had been abandoned. It's not something that has been abandoned, he hasn't done it, he could do it at the next
break.
Mr. Panish. I mean --

Judge. Ask him to do it at the break if you want him to do it. I don't even know if he can. He says he needs
his computer at work.
Mr. Panish. No, he doesn't. It's just to add up -- he has a list of the numbers for the gross value. That's what I
was asking for. Okay? And if you look at the transcript, that's what I asked for.
Judge. I think Ms. Bina is looking it up. Let's see what it says.
Mr. Panish. Go ahead. Gross numbers. He can add it up. I can ask him right now. He can add it up, he just
needed time. He couldn't reduce it to present value. That was the point. So he said he would do it over the noon
hour. He didn't want to waste the jury's time, was his statement. So then -- I don't know how the court then
makes an assessment against me, the questioner, that I've abandoned something. I mean --
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I don't think this is an assessment against anyone. It may have been just a mistake of
understanding. Here's the transcript. They went back and forth. And he said, "do you want the gross
undiscounted number?" he says, "I'm more than glad to do this, but I hate wasting the jury's time. Why don't I
do it at the break." and Mr. Panish says, "at the break, I'd like you to use the 7 percent, 10 percent and 12
percent discount rate." the witness said, "that's not going to happen. I have to go back to my office, get the
calculator." "did you see Dr. Formuzis could do it?" "he had a table, I don't have a calculator that can do
that." "why didn't you do that? You're unable to do these calculations, then?" "not sitting here, not in this
chair." and then he moved on to another exhibit. So I think we had understood the gross discounted number --
the only reason he asked for it was so he could do these calculations. Apparently Mr. Panish had something
different in mind and still wants the number, and it seems like the witness is able to do that at the next break.
But we're just on different pages, and I think given the transcript, it's easy to see why.
Judge. We're on different pages. You can ask him if he was able to do it at the break, he can tell you yes or
no. But he had a different impression of what you were doing. The transcript doesn't lie.
Mr. Panish. It didn't say I abandoned anything. I asked the question about adding up, and you said, "oh, he
can't do it. He needs a spreadsheet." that's for present value. What I was first going to do was write up the gross
value, and he said he needed time to do that, and I said fine. Okay? And I didn't say don't do it or anything like
that. I don't know why the court is then going to start shaking your head at me for, you know -- on an exhibit. I
don't understand why you're prejudging that like that, your honor. It doesn't seem fair to my client for that to
happen.
Judge. How much longer do you have?
Mr. Panish. Not very much.
Judge. Do we need another witness, or --
Mr. Panish. They have two videos.
Mr. Putnam. He wouldn't tell us how much longer so we didn't know if we needed to bring somebody.
Ms. Strong. That's fine.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think if we finish early, we have some videos ready to go, so we'll be able to do that,
and I imagine Ms. Strong will have some redirect.
Mr. Panish. Can you do that while you're sitting there? Can you just add it up while you're sitting there?

A. You want me to add up what?

Mr. Panish. Just the gross number for those -- the last slide that you had.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Judge. Good afternoon. Let's continue with the cross-examination.
Mr. Panish. Yes.
Continued cross-examination by Mr. Panish.
Q. Mr. Ackerman, I guess there's some confusion about your adding up numbers over lunch. You didn't think
that I wanted you to do that, right?
A. I thought you had abandoned that because you wanted to do a net present value calculation on it, and I told
you that I had to go back to the office, and so I thought we were --
Q. I want to know the gross figure. So rather than spend the time here, you have an exhibit that has them all in
it, right?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Could you pull that out for us? Okay. What are you referring to?
A. This is a schedule in my analysis of plaintiffs' damages, trial exhibit 12960.
Q. Okay. So can you just tell us the pages that we would have to add up to get to that -- to those figures?
A. This would be page 8.
Q. Can we take it out for a second? Is that okay?
A. And go back?
Q. We're going to mark it.
A. Okay.
Mr. Panish. And I'm sure they have another copy that they can use.
Mr. Putnam. We don't, actually, so if I could see it, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Panish. Was this at your deposition, sir?
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Panish. You have all these deposition exhibits.

Ms. Strong. What exhibit is it?
Mr. Panish. 12960, the ones that you have in the box.
Mr. Putnam. I'm sorry that I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Panish. Just tell us which ones would be required. Just wait for Mr. Putnam. He doesn't have a copy, he
says, so let's see. Do you have a copy now?
Mr. Putnam. I do. Thank you so much.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. Now, can you tell us which ones we would have to use to figure it out, sir?
A. It would be exhibit 12960, page 8, or dash, 8. You would need --
Mr. Panish. Can we take that out so we know -- we'll give it back to you when we substitute. So here. I'll put
a little sheet --
Judge. I have post-its, little ones.
Q. This, what you just handed me, would be for Katherine Jackson, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. So what we would do is add up the cumulative number, is that right?
A. Well, what do you want to do again?
Q. The gross figure.
A. The gross figure before discounting?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. You would want to add up the column entitled "damage."
Q. Okay. Shall I circle that?
A. Yes, you can circle it.
Q. Okay. Okay. So I've circled page 8 of 12960. Okay. You look like you're taking out page -- at least it has a
number of 153 on it.
A. 153, exhibit 12960, page 153, and this is the summary for Prince Jackson.
Q. Okay. Can I circle "damage" again?
A. Yes, you may.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

A. This is schedule exhibit 12960-157, and that is the schedule for Paris Jackson.
Q. Okay. Can I circle it?
A. Yes, you may.
Q. Thank you.
A. And the last schedule is exhibit 12960, page 159 -- I'm sorry, excuse me -- 160, and that is the schedule for
Blanket Jackson.
Q. Okay. Can I circle it?
A. Yes, you may.
Q. So if I understand correctly, then, for each person, if we add up the category under "damage," then that
would give us the gross figure?
A. That would be the gross pre-discounted figure, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Thank you. So then we don't have to add it up now. Now, sir, the exhibit I showed you from Dr.
Formuzis, I think that was 1032. Do you remember that?
A. This?
Q. Yeah.
A. I have that.
Q. Okay. Now, as far as -- you disagree with the discount rates that he used, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And you believe that --
A. Except for the 18.
Q. Except for 18. Fair statement?
A. Fair statement.
Q. As far as the rest of the calculations, you didn't get involved in anything like that, correct?
A. I'm -- I don't understand that question.
Mr. Putnam. Objection, vague.
Mr. Panish. You didn't do projections of tours or merchandise or anything like that, that's not your area that
you're addressing in the scope of your work in this case, correct?

A. That's correct, I didn't try to determine lost earning capacity.

Q. Okay. Your area was, you've told us, the financial condition and reasonably likely to receive support, right?
A. Correct, but I was also asked to address the consumption component of Mr. Formuzis's work.
Q. You didn't address loss of earning capacity, is that fair?
A. That is fair.
Q. Okay. And then the consumption, you didn't have an opinion on direct exam, you didn't give a specific
opinion about consumption per year, correct?
Ms. Strong. Objection, misstates --
Mr. Putnam. Misstates the evidence.
Mr. Panish. Can we get one of them?
Ms. Strong. That was my mistake.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't think that's the case. I think I -- again, you and I seem to be ships passing in the night on this issue. I
talked about all that spending. That is the basis for it, I just didn't provide a single number. I can do that for you
if you'd like me to.
Mr. Panish. What I was asking, sir, is when you were questioned by Ms. Strong, you didn't give a specific
number for a yearly consumption, is that correct?
A. I gave -- I didn't give one number, I gave many years of different numbers.
Q. You didn't give an average, correct?
A. On direct, I don't think I gave an average.
Q. And then you showed us that exhibit for Mr. Erk. Do you remember that exhibit? Strike that. Bad question.
You showed us an exhibit where you showed your consumption -- strike that question. Let's just look at the
exhibit so there's no misunderstanding. It would be -- make sure I have it right for you, sir.
Judge. Do you have this packet?
A. I do.
Mr. Panish. Do you remember what slide number that is, sir? Oh, I have got it. It's 13489. We'll put that up.
Judge. Slide 6.
Mr. Boyle. Slide 6, if that helps.
Mr. Panish. This is what you referred to, right?

A. I -- I believe that is what you were referring to, but I was on that page.
Q. That's your exhibit, right? I didn't prepare that?
A. That's correct, that was mine.
Q. Okay. And, sir, you know when you made this slide that Mr. Erk did not take into consideration interest on
any loans, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Okay. And if you were to put interest on the loans, then it would be back up higher, correct?
A. It would be up closer to where the red bars are.
Q. Because almost all of the -- strike that -- the vast majority of all the expense was interest on loans, correct?
A. A good portion.
Q. What percent?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you do that like if -- if -- first of all, you said -- strike that. So you didn't determine what percent was
interest, is that a fair statement?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. You -- and if we did determine -- strike that. Now, sir, in all the work -- let's see if I am correct. This
chart where I guess now it's not going to be -- we're not going to get into it, so for all the work -- Mr. Briggs, did
you review his trial testimony, sir?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. And was it your understanding that Mr. Briggs' opinion is that Michael Jackson didn't lose one dime
in the future from work --
Mr. Putnam. Objection.
Judge. Lose a dime?
Mr. Panish. I haven't finished a question, I got two objections already.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. I haven't finished the question.
Judge. Just based on what I heard, sustained.
Mr. Panish. Did you --

Judge. You can rephrase.

Mr. Panish. -- read where Mr. Briggs said in his opinion that Mr. Jackson did not lose one dime in working
income based on his opinion in this case?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, vague, your honor.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. On what ground? Vague?
Mr. Putnam. I didn't understand it, your honor.
Judge. Vague.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. What was Mr. Briggs' -- strike that. Did Mr. Briggs give an opinion about an amount of money Mr. Jackson
would lose in the future in working income?
A. My recollection is Mr. Briggs said that the projections he had seen were speculative.
Q. No. That wasn't my question, sir. My question was, did Mr. Briggs give an opinion as to the amount of
money in his opinion Mr. Jackson would lose in the future from working income?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Would it be fair to say that based on reading his testimony and his opinion, the number would be zero?
A. I just don't recall a number.
Q. So you don't remember what Mr. -- when you read Mr. Briggs' testimony, you don't remember whether he
said the number would be a dollar or a billion? You don't remember anything about that, is that right?
A. My -- my fundamental understanding of his testimony is that he thought Mr. Erk's projections were
speculative.
Q. Okay. My question is, so then as far as you know, Mr. Briggs gave no figure for loss of earnings in the
future for Mr. Jackson, is that correct?
A. I think I've told you -- I don't recall a number.
Q. Well, would you agree with me, then, if there's no number, it would be zero?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well, what number in your -- in your review of all the work of Mr. Briggs, did he put?
A. Again --
Mr. Putnam. Asked and answered now, your honor.

Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't recall a number.
Mr. Panish. So then he put no numbers, no loss in his opinion, correct?
A. I mean, you keep coming back to zero, but the other reality is Mr. Jackson could have just continued to lose
money going into the future so it could be a negative number.
Q. So it's either zero or negative, that's what Mr. Briggs said, right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, your honor, misstates both Briggs' testimony as well as his memory of Mr. Briggs'
testimony. He's indicated what he recalls the testimony was. Now they're asking do you recall a negative, do
you recall something that wasn't there.
Mr. Panish. He just volunteered that information. I didn't ask that question. That's his volunteering the
answer.
Judge. Overruled. You can explore.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. So what you reviewed of Mr. Briggs' testimony, did he say it was negative, sir?
A. I -- I'm going to go back to I don't recall him providing the number.
Q. Okay. So that's my point. Mr. Briggs gave no figure for loss of income for Mr. Jackson for the rest of his
life, is that true?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. And in your opinion, the children have lost 21 point something million in future support. Is that your
opinion?
A. The -- the children collectively and Mrs. Jackson, the four of them combined -- the four plaintiffs in this
case, my number was 21 and a half million dollars if you were to believe they would get 15 years of additional
support.
Q. So it could be zero, in your opinion, too?
A. There could be a possibility of no future support.
Q. Could be negative, the kids could owe him money?
A. I don't -- I don't think that's the case, but --
Q. Okay. So one of your opinions is that it could be zero support for Mrs. Jackson and for Mr. Jackson's three
kids for the rest of his -- their life, correct?
A. He was in a pretty bad financial situation, so I guess under that circumstance, yeah, it could be zero.

Q. So between you and Mr. Briggs for $1.6 million in fees, you would agree that both -- one of the opinions
that both of you hold is that the loss to Mrs. Jackson and to Mr. Jackson's three kids for financial support could
be zero, correct?
A. That is a possibility.
Mr. Panish. And, sir -- I don't have anything further. Thank you, sir.
Judge. Thank you. Redirect?
Redirect examination by Ms. Strong
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ackerman.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Quick question. Those pages that he was pulling out of that binder, Mr. Panish was, just a few moments
ago, those are pages that you actually produced at your deposition, right?
A. Back in April, yes, ma'am.
Q. Right. So plaintiffs' counsel have had access to those documents for quite some time now?
A. Yes, and I'm kind of hoping I'm going to get those back.
Ms. Strong. In fact, I'll go ahead -- do you need those?
Mr. Panish. As long as you give me a substitute, that's fine.
Ms. Strong. Give a substitute, you said?
Mr. Panish. If you just substitute in a copy into the record for the exhibit --
Ms. Strong. These were his.
Judge. Just make copies.
Mr. Panish. That's fine, no problem.
Ms. Strong. There was a question Mr. Panish asked you about whether you made an opinion about Mr.
Jackson's consumption. This was yesterday. And you answered, "well, I've looked at his spending."
Q. Do you recall that?
A. I do. I spoke extensively about his spending.
Q. And in your mind, is there a difference between consumption and spending?

A. No. They're one in the same.

Q. And, in fact, you -- how did you define consumption? I asked, "you what is consumption?" what's your
answer, what is consumption?
A. How much one has to spend.
Q. All right. So consumption and spending are the same thing. And did you provide opinions about Michael
Jackson's spending?
A. I believe I had shared multiple data points regarding how much Mr. Jackson spent in different years for the
last about eight years of his life.
Q. All right. And we're going to go ahead and pull up one of your graphs that you had. Let's go ahead and look
at exhibit number 13489. All right. And can you tell us what is this graph? Does that relate to spending? Does
this relate to consumption?
A. Of course it does.
Q. Why?
A. The red bars -- the seven years where I provided red bars were the actual spending that Mr. Jackson
incurred in those years. The little black bar over on the far right is what Mr. Erk was, I believe, projecting
forward as to what kind of -- he called it consumption Mr. Jackson would have going forward.
Q. So that -- that black bar, that's the consumption figure that Mr. Erk testified to?
A. That's my understanding, yes, ma'am.
Q. Mr. Erk didn't provide any historical information about how much Michael Jackson had historically spent
over the years prior, correct?
A. I don't recall ever seeing him having done such an analysis like me.
Q. Right. He didn't review the records from which you determined these numbers, that's what he testified to,
right?
A. That was my recollection.
Mr. Panish. Every question is leading and suggestive of the answer.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. Counsel wants to testify.
Ms. Strong. In terms of what's included in the red bars, does that include both personal and business
expenses?
A. It's all of his spending, interest, business, personal. It all came out of his pocketbook, he was responsible for
it.
Q. I was going to say why? What happens if you leave out one of those numbers?

A. It could be all kinds of different consequences, depending on what we're talking about.
Q. Does that reflect his total consumption if you leave out some of those numbers?
A. If you leave them out, it would not reflect his total consumption.
Q. And, in fact, you note here a couple of places where you actually did have to leave out some numbers,
right?
A. That's correct. There's those three years where I had no personal expense data for 2002, 2003 and 2004, so
some of these bars are understated.
Q. Right. So 2002, 2003, 2004, when you say they're understated -- meaning if you had had those additional
numbers, those bars would be higher?
Mr. Panish. It's speculation, no foundation.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. Do you have reason to believe that these -- the figure in 2002 is not the totality of Mr. Jackson's
spending for 2002?
A. That's reflective of everything he spent, yes, ma'am.
Q. In -- I'm sorry. In 2002, do you have reason to believe that this number is not reflective of the totality of
what Mr. Jackson spent that year?
A. I'm sorry. The footnote does actually relate to 2002. Not everything is in there, it is excluding his personal
spending.
Q. And why is it that you have a basis to believe that not everything is in there?
A. Because we weren't provided the sufficient books and records regarding his personal expenses. We do have
the interest expenses, we did have the business expenses and costs, but we just didn't have his personal data.
Q. And I believe you gave an example yesterday of some of the things that you actually knew were not
included in those figures. Hayvenhurst, for example, you identified, correct?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, again, leading and suggestive, every question.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. What did you identify in your testimony yesterday in terms of what was not included in those
numbers?
A. I'm going to go with Hayvenhurst.
Judge. Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Panish. That's why --

Judge. I know. That's why I sustained your objection.
Mr. Panish. She's not supposed to do that.
Ms. Strong. Mr. Ackerman, do you recall that testimony?
A. I do recall that testimony. A lot of the support and other personal expenses of his, it's a myriad of items, but
in that period of time, actually, it would have been more specific to Neverland, because that's where he was
living, and that was --
Q. Did I say Hayvenhurst? I misspoke, then, because yesterday you identified Neverland. So that is -- I was
misleading you as to your testimony.
Judge. That's why you don't lead.
Ms. Strong. I was misleading.
Mr. Panish. That's why -- he accepted that. That's why.
Judge. I know. That's why you don't do it.
Mr. Panish. He testified that he accepted Hayvenhurst.
Ms. Strong. And I apologize. You did identify --
Judge. Start over. Go back.
Mr. Panish. So he just said whatever she says.
Ms. Strong. Let's go back.
Q. You know that certain personal expenses were missing for 2002, correct?
A. I do, and for '3 and for '4.
Q. Okay. And just to have a clear record on this, would you please tell me why is it that you believe that
certain personal expenses were missing?
A. Well, we knew we didn't have detailed records for, really, the operations of Neverland ranch during that
time period, and it's millions and millions of dollars per year. That was something that was a glaring omission.
We knew it wasn't there, and we knew it would be significant.
Q. And, again, you said your range for the Neverland expenses was how much, approximately?
A. My recollection is it could be anywhere from 4 to 5 million on the low end, 7 or 8 million on the high.
Q. Okay. So if you were to add that on to the numbers for 2002, 2003 and 2004, can you tell me how that
would impact those numbers?
A. Those bars would each go up somewhere between 4 and $8 million.

Q. And so in terms of a takeaway of this, over the period that you measured from the records, can you give me
a range of how much Michael Jackson spent based on the historical records you were able to observe?
A. If you're just considering the data that supports this chart, and if you took the average of the red bars, it's
$35 million, a little over $35 million.
Q. That's an average, but I asked for a range. What was the range of spending over this period of time?
A. On the low end, it was 23 million, about, and on the high end, it was almost 45 million.
Q. And you testified about the nature of the things that you saw him spend his money on -- right? -- in terms of
the records? What were those kinds of things that Michael Jackson spent his money on?
Mr. Panish. It's beyond the scope. We've already been through this.
Judge. Overruled. You may answer.
A. He spent his money on servicing debt, so interest expense. He spent a lot of money on Neverland. He spent
a lot of -- providing support to his family. He spent a lot of money on gifts and charitable giving. He spent -- he
just spent a lot of money.
Ms. Strong. And all of that -- would you describe all of that as consumption?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Erk, he had $6.8 million for consumption, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And just based on what you've reviewed, is that an accurate reflection of Michael Jackson's consumption
for any of the years leading up to his death?
A. Referring to the 6.8 million?
Q. Correct.
A. That's not even close.
Q. Now, Mr. Panish has asked you several times about did you project out Mr. Jackson's spending, did you try
and come up with a number to figure out how much Michael Jackson would spend in the future, right? He asked
you those questions?
A. He did ask those.
Q. And what did you respond? What's your general response?
A. I didn't try to project it out.
Q. And why not?

A. Because that's not what I was, one, trying to measure in terms of the future projection. I was trying to look
at the support, and that's what I did measurement of. And if I was to project it out, it would have to be
incorporated in some fashion, possibly, in Mr. Erk's model, as the total consumption in his model is grossly
understated.
Q. But do you -- can you determine how much Michael Jackson would spend? What did you see based on the
records you reviewed?
A. I can't project it -- you know, I have a sense based on his history. The problem is by the time you get to
around June of 2009, he was -- you know, I've said it. He was tapped out. I don't know if he was going to be
able to spend 35, $40 million a year going forward because I don't know if he had the resources to do so.
Q. Based on what you reviewed, did it seem like he had the resources to keep spending that way?
A. No.
Q. And the materials in this case, what did you see in terms of whether or not Michael Jackson had the ability
to keep spending the way he had been spending?
A. One, I independently came to my determination based on my review of all the books and records that this
guy dug himself a very deep hole, he was tapped out. It was corroborated -- the two things I saw and recall is
his two main advisors, John Branca, the executor of his estate -- I recall reading in an article in the newspaper --
Mr. Panish. Well, I'm going to object. That's hearsay.
Judge. Sustained on the article.
Mr. Panish. It's also beyond the question, it's -- nonresponsive is the objection, and hearsay.
Judge. Sustained on hearsay.
A. Okay. Then excluding Mr. Branca, Mr. Kane, in his deposition, testified there was no equity in the assets,
he couldn't find any money. There was some very strong language in Mr. Kane's deposition regarding this guy
was tapped out.
Ms. Strong. And, in fact, let's go to page 31 of Mr. Barrack's depo that Mr. Panish just showed you. I'm going
to show him the page you showed him. May I approach with page 31 of Mr. Barrack's depo?
Mr. Panish. Are you trying to refresh his recollection first? Don't you have to ask the question first?
Ms. Strong. I want to bring him back to where you were.
Judge. Are you asking him the same question?
Ms. Strong. I wanted to bring him back to show him what it was that Mr. Panish was showing him when he
didn't let him fully explain his answer, your honor.
Mr. Panish. I object to counsel's comments and characterizations. The witness did not want to answer the
question, and he didn't remember -- I withdraw that. I went up there to refresh his recollection. I wasn't allowed
to read the answer. I was allowed to ask him whether something refreshed his recollection.
Judge. Well, that's the appropriate way to do it.

Mr. Panish. That's what I was doing. Now this is something beyond that.
Judge. Let's see. What do you want to do?
Ms. Strong. I want to ask about page -- Mr. Panish showed you page 31 of Mr. Barrack's deposition, correct?
Judge. So read it to yourself.
Mr. Panish. Does he need my dirty glasses?
A. I do recall reading that before.
Ms. Strong. Right.
Q. And based on -- on what Mr. Panish showed you, do you have an understanding about whether Mr. Barrack
believed Michael Jackson could continue to support his lifestyle with the assets that he had?
A. I don't believe he could.
Q. And that was what Mr. Barrack's understanding was?
A. I believe --
Mr. Panish. Wait a minute. It's leading and suggestive.
Ms. Strong. Let me restate that.
A. Mr. Barrack appeared to not believe --
Mr. Panish. Can I make an objection?
Judge. You know what? Each of you need to stop talking so I can make a ruling. You're all running over each
other, the court reporter can't take anything, I don't have time to rule.
Mr. Panish. I can't even get it out.
Judge. Well, you, too. All of you. The witness, you, everybody else. So --
Mr. Panish. I couldn't even get it out, your honor.
Judge. What was the objection?
Mr. Putnam. I didn't say a word. Not one word out of me.
Mr. Panish. They're not objecting to their own questions today, so --
Mr. Boyle. "leading" was the objection.
Mr. Panish. Leading, improper refreshing of his recollection. I tried to make the objection.
Judge. Okay. Overruled. You may answer.

A. I -- may I just share what it says?

Judge. No. Answer the question based on what -- what you just read. Don't read what you just read. If it just
helps you answer the question, then you can answer the question.
A. Well, Mr. Barrack essentially was of the frame of mind that there was not enough income coming out of
the assets to support his lifestyle.
Mr. Panish. He's just reading the answer.
Mr. Putnam. No.
Mr. Panish. He just read the answer.
Judge. I don't know if he just read it.
A. I paraphrased.
Judge. This is what we're going to do.
Mr. Panish. That's not refreshing anyone's recollection.
Judge. Here Give me the depo. After you read it, I'm going to take it, and then you can give your answer.
Okay? That's what they used to do in the old days. Just read it and turn it around and then you answer. I guess
we're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way.
Ms. Strong. All right. Mr. Panish also asked you yesterday about $5 million in a bank account, and he was
asking you about that in connection with Dr. Tohme.
Q. Do you recall those questions?
A. I do.
Q. And he asked you whether that $5 million would have been sufficient to cover the expenses of Hayvenhurst
at the time. Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. Now, had Mr. Jackson lived, and had he had access to that money, do you know what he would have
actually spent it on?
A. He could have spent it on --
Mr. Panish. Objection, speculation, no foundation.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. Were there other things based on your review of the records where Michael Jackson had a
reasonable basis -- you have a reasonable basis to believe that he would have spent money elsewhere?
Mr. Panish. That's speculation.

Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. There's no foundation.
Ms. Strong. Were there other outstanding debts that Mr. Jackson owed at the time?
A. Huge.
Q. Okay. And can you give me some of your understanding of the nature of what was owed at the time?
Mr. Panish. Objection, asked and answered about --
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish. -- six times.
Judge. At the time that he had the 5 million -- or the 5 million was in the possession of Tohme, at that time.
A. He had all of the debt that I talked about.
Ms. Strong. And what is that? Let's be clear. What's all the debt you're talking about?
A. The Sony ATV debt, the Neverland debt, the Mijac debt, the Hayvenhurst debt, the condo debt, not to
mention he owed creditors and other parties -- I think it was $100 million.
Q. What do you mean by "creditors"? He owed creditors $100 million, what does that mean?
A. That means just other vendors. I talked about long-term debt, and that's what I graphed, but there were other
people he owed a lot of money to, and that was quantified at $100 million.
Q. And did any of the business advisors talk about any of that?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Mr. -- Mr. Kane, did he talk about unpaid debts?
Mr. Panish. Leading and suggestive of the answer after he already answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Well, I mean, it was discussed in some of the reports I've seen. Mr. Kane did talk about there being no
money and a lot of people wanting money. There was just no shortage of people to have to pay.
Ms. Strong. And so given all of the various outstanding debts at the time, do you believe anyone could say
with reasonable certainty how Michael Jackson would have spent that $5 million?
Mr. Panish. It's speculation. That's the point.
Judge. Overruled. That is the point.
A. No. They'd have to speculate.

Mr. Panish. Exactly.

Ms. Strong. And I want to pull up another graph that we discussed yesterday. This one is going to be exhibit
1- --
Mr. Panish. Mr. Ackerman, I'll take that back from you.
Ms. Strong. 13488.
Q. Now, again, can you remind us what this graphic shows, Mr. Ackerman?
A. That's where we had laid out the comparison of all of Mr. Jackson's income and all of Mr. Jackson's
spending between 2001 and 2008, with the exception of 2007, we did not have meaningful data.
Q. And, again, the red bars are the spending, the blue bars are the -- the money coming in, income?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, you also testified that Mr. Jackson had growing debt. We saw a separate chart that showed the
growing debt over time, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And do you know if there's any relationship between the growing debt and the spending?
A. There is. I mean, as the debt continues to grow, the interest expense continues to go up, and you have to
spend more to service all of that interest. So that adds fuel to the red bars as you move down over time.
Q. Okay. And why is all of this analysis relevant to your opinion in this case?
A. It is important in my mind that there is a significant issue of doubt as to whether he would be able to
continue to provide the support that I measured and we talked about yesterday.
Q. Okay. And these are the -- this is the basis for that doubt, this spending, the debt that you've identified?
A. Absolutely.
Q. You also mentioned that he was tapped out. Did you see any evidence that Michael Jackson actually tried
to get increased access to credit in 2009?
A. I -- a prime example that I recall was he couldn't even get an increase on his $50,000 credit card limit.
That's how bad it was.
Q. With respect to Mr. Jackson's debt, you testified that each of his bank loans was secured by one of his
assets. Do you recall that testimony?
A. I do.
Q. And I just want to be clear what it means to have an asset secure debt. Can you explain that?

A. Yes. If you have an asset and you want to borrow against it, the lender that is going to lend you money for
whatever other purpose you might want to use it is going to want some security. They're going to want to be
able to have some asset that will collateralize their loan so that on the -- on the chance that you aren't able to
repay that debt, they can then go and take that asset.
Q. Okay. So if a debt isn't repaid on a loan that's secured by the asset, what usually happens to the asset?
A. It's taken away from you.
Q. And, again, you testified previously that Mr. Jackson's main sources of revenues in the last decade of his
life were income from the Sony ATV and Mijac catalogs, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. If he didn't repay the loans on those assets, he would have lost those assets, is that your understanding?
Mr. Panish. Objection, your honor. We went through this yesterday. Speculation, no foundation for this
witness's testimony in that regard. It's also beyond the scope of what I asked. I didn't ask anything about passive
income.
Judge. Overruled.
A. If you lose the asset, you lose the income.
Ms. Strong. And if you don't repay the loans on an asset like that --
A. I'll back it up a step. If you don't repay the loans, they're going to take the asset, and if you don't have the
asset anymore, you don't have the income from the asset.
Q. Mr. Panish showed you a chart he made comparing your calculations of Mr. Jackson's debt and comparing
it to what he says is the IRS Valuation of the Sony ATV catalog. Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. And you mentioned that there was evidence that you reviewed that's inconsistent with the valuation,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that evidence?
A. First off, there was Mr. Briggs' testimony, because he clearly wasn't of the opinion the asset was that
valuable. And two, when I was reading the testimony of Mr. Briggs, a light went on, and I realized wait a
second, the Is auditing this estate because it never paid --
Mr. Panish. Your honor, he's going to try to now get in things that, number 1, are excluded, number 2, would
be hearsay, and I think it's inappropriate. I know what he's going to try to say now.
Mr. Putnam. I don't.
Mr. Panish. Well, I do.

Ms. Strong. I don't believe so. Mr. Briggs testified as to why he was valuing the asset. I don't -- I'm actually
not sure what that answer is that he's going to give. We've not talked --
Judge. Well, if you don't know -- you should know what your witnesses are going to say before you ask
questions.
Ms. Strong. He's not said anything to me --
Judge. I'm going to sustain the objection.
Ms. Strong. What did Mr. Briggs testify as to why he was valuing the asset?
Judge. Why Briggs was --
Ms. Strong. Why Mr. Briggs would value the asset at the time of death.
Q. For whom did Mr. Briggs value the asset?
Mr. Panish. It's irrelevant. He didn't even have this information before. That was the whole point.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, this was just put into play by Mr. Panish on cross-examination. He said didn't the
value it at some other amount.
Judge. Right.
Mr. Panish. I just responded to their assumption for him to assume the value that Mr. Briggs said was the
same as the debt, and I said is there another value, and I said what it was. That's all. I didn't get into anything
else beyond that. And he said he's not qualified to make any analysis of that, so to rehash and read Mr. Briggs'
testimony would be irrelevant, no foundation for this witness.
Judge. You're asking -- what's your question again?
Ms. Strong. I'll try and narrow this.
Q. Do you know why Mr. Briggs was valuing the asset? He testified to this --
Mr. Panish. It's irrelevant.
Judge. Overruled.
A. It was for the preparation of an estate tax return.
Ms. Strong. So it was for the estate of Michael Jackson?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And when you file tax returns, are they filed under the penalty of perjury?
Mr. Panish. I object to that. It's -- there's nothing to do with this case, the tax returns and the estate and this
whole issue, we had a billing -- it's improper.

Ms. Strong. There's a question about two valuations, your honor, that plaintiffs have inserted into this case, so
we're asking some questions about the two valuations that have been raised in connection with this case, your
honor. That's all.
Mr. Panish. He doesn't know anything about that. He only looked at Mr. Briggs' testimony.
Ms. Strong. You certainly asked him about it, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish. I asked him a hypothetical question. Now he wants to get into a lot more than that, and they were
allowed to ask a hypothetical question, that's all.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor --
Mr. Panish. Excuse me.
Mr. Putnam. Are you finished? I apologize.
Mr. Panish. We had a big discussion about all of these issues, your honor.
Mr. Putnam. And, your honor, he'd indicated, when he was being asked these questions directly by Mr.
Panish, that he thought that this figure that Mr. Panish had just thrown out, the Figure, was less reliable than the
other figure. Remember he specifically said, "well, I don't think that's a reliable figure." and I think what we're
trying to do here is to say, "why did you believe that one of these was more reliable than the other?"
Mr. Panish. And he testified --
Mr. Putnam. I'm sorry, Mr. Panish, I wasn't quite done. And, therefore, what he was trying to do, your honor,
is indicate through the questioning why he believed that looking at one, that seemed a much better thing to rely
on than this other thing.
Judge. Than the --
Mr. Putnam. Right.
Mr. Panish. And he said, your honor, that he's not qualified to make any type of assessment in that regard, so
it would be no foundation, speculation, improper of this witness to get into this whole area. It's based on --
Ms. Strong. And my question --
Mr. Panish. Excuse me. -- based on one hypothetical question, that's all.
Judge. The only question you asked was is a tax return filed under penalty of perjury?
Ms. Strong. That's what I was going to say, your honor.
Judge. If that's where you're going, I'm going to sustain the objection because I don't think he has the
qualification to evaluate whose assessment is more credible or not between the and --
Ms. Strong. Just establishing that when an estate files a tax return, it's filed under penalty of perjury, your
honor, and that's something he's quite familiar with in terms of how you file tax returns, are they filed under the
penalty of perjury or not.

Mr. Panish. It's all collateral now. There's no foundation.

Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. There is validation for that, your honor. Okay. We can establish that foundation.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, move to strike counsel's -- your honor --
Ms. Strong. I'm moving on.
Judge. You need to move on.
Ms. Strong. I'm moving on, your honor. And in terms of -- I'd like to ask one other valuation question, your
honor, which is did Mr. Briggs testify about reasons as to why he believed the valuation was too high.
Mr. Panish. It's irrelevant for this witness. Mr. Briggs has already testified about it.
Ms. Strong. Mr. Panish raised the issue on cross-examination.
Judge. It's yes or no.
A. Yes, I'm aware of the reasons.
Ms. Strong. Okay.
Q. And why did he explain that the valuation -- he believed the valuation of the Was too high?
Mr. Panish. Objection, no foundation for this witness, no relevance.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. But you believe that, in fact, Mr. Briggs explained why the valuation was too high?
Mr. Panish. He already answered that.
Judge. Sustained, asked and answered.
Ms. Strong. All right. In terms of discount rates, Mr. Panish asked you some questions about Michael
Jackson's interest rates. Do you recall that you testified that his interest rates range from 6.75 to 16.85 percent, I
believe?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you also testified that the vast majority of his debt was at a 7 percent interest rate, I believe?
A. The Sony ATV Debt, I think was in the high 6 to 7 percent range.
Q. Is the interest rate on Mr. Jackson's long-term loans a proper basis for determining what discount rate to use
when calculating present value?
A. No. It's completely irrelevant.

Q. Okay. Why not?

A. Because what you're looking towards in terms of future projections is ventures that really have nothing to
do with debt, and everything that Mr. Erk projected were not going to be financed by debt, they were going to
be -- they were much riskier than that. They weren't collateralized-type ventures. And so when you are looking
at is there going to be income available or resources available to provide at least the support I've measured, you
have to use a very high discount rate because it's quite unlikely that that income would even be there to provide
that support.
Q. And when you have a loan like the Sony ATV Loan with a 7 percent interest rate, what kind of security is
there underlying that loan?
A. The Sony ATV Loan was very unique in many ways. First off, it was collateralized by the catalog, so if
Barclay's bank, who was the lender, doesn't get repaid, they could go after the catalog. It was in a bankruptcy
remote trust, which is also unique because it secures it away from other creditors. There were interest reserves
established such that any money that the catalog was generating would go into reserve accounts to be able to
service that debt so that Mr. Jackson couldn't get his hands on that money. And lastly, and very importantly,
Sony Corporation, a multi-billion-dollar corporation, had guaranteed to Barclay's, "if you don't get repaid and if
you can't get the money out of the asset and if you can't get it out of Mr. Jackson, we, Sony, will pay you $300
million to cover that." it was one of the most secure pieces of debt I've ever seen.
Q. And when a debt is more secure, how does that impact the interest rate, usually, on a loan for debt?
A. It causes the rate to go way down. It's less risky.
Q. Mr. Panish also asked you some questions about Mr. Kane's testimony, and in connection with that, he
asked you about a report that AEG Live had submitted to the estate on certain costs related to the tour. Do you
remember those questions he just asked you this morning?
A. I do.
Q. And he asked you if AEG Live submitted $300,000 for the costs of Dr. Murray, right?
A. He did.
Q. Mr. Panish didn't show you the report that was being addressed in Mr. Kane's testimony, did he?
A. He did not.
Ms. Strong. So why don't we take a look at that.
Mr. Panish. They objected to that, your honor, if you recall.
Judge. Overruled.
Ms. Strong. I'm going to show this to you. It's exhibit 12757 in this case. May I approach, your honor?
Judge. Yes, you may.
Mr. Panish. This isn't the one. Your honor, this is not the one I was referring to.

Ms. Strong. This is exhibit 12 to Mr. Kane's deposition. I believe you were asking about Mr. Kane's
deposition testimony.
Mr. Panish. I was talking about the one that Dr. Tohme signed. That's what I said, not this Webking one. I
said specifically the one that Dr. Tohme had signed. That's what I was talking about.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, that's -- maybe that is what Mr. Panish meant. The testimony he referred to referenced
the first report. Mr. Ackerman actually said, "well, what is the first report? I haven't seen the first report."
Judge. First report, I remember.
Ms. Bina. And the first report is the document that -- that Ms. Strong has just handed to the witness. There is
another document that Dr. Tohme signed, as you recall, that was called a consent form. It was not called a first
report.
Judge. Well, Ms. Jorrie called it a consent form.
Ms. Bina. But the word "report" isn't on it, your honor.
Mr. Panish. I was referring to the document specifically that was signed by Dr. Tohme.
Judge. Okay. Then you can ask him on your recross. If you're referring to a different document, pull it up and
you ask him about that.
Ms. Strong. To be clear, Mr. Panish referred to page 403 of Mr. Kane's deposition where there's a question,
so the first report, which was exhibit 12 -- I'm just pointing out that it was exhibit 12 that's on the page that he
referenced, so this was the document that was being testified about in Mr. Kane's testimony, your honor, that
was shown to the witness.
Mr. Panish. I didn't show him any exhibit on this. That's improper.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, to be clear, this is the exact testimony he referred to and said, "do you recall this -"
Judge. Okay. I haven't heard a question yet. I've heard a preamble. You're all talking to me but there's no
ruling for me to make at this point. There's been no question asked.
Ms. Strong. I'll represent to you that this is exhibit 12 that was referenced in Mr. Kane's testimony that Mr.
Panish showed you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Panish. I didn't show him an exhibit.
Ms. Strong. You showed him Mr. Kane's testimony, Mr. Panish. And on the second page of this exhibit, turn
to -- the second page, it's page 12757.02. There's a cover letter July 17, with a letter indicating that it's the first
part -- first report of artist advances.
Q. Do you see that in the first sentence?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And if you go to the next page of the document, it indicates it's a report of costs made on behalf of
the Michael Jackson company. Do you see that?

A. I do.
Q. Okay. And let's go ahead -- and he asked you about a $300,000 figure. Let's go ahead and look at the next
page, and it's really, really small writing.
A. I'm ready.
Q. So let's go and find it. "management medical" at 430, halfway down the page.
A. I see it, it has a note 3 behind it.
Q. Note 3, yes, if you can -- and on that line, there's a $300,000 figure, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you have a magnifying glass there?
A. I do.
Q. Awesome. Okay. Do you know -- if you go to note 3, can you read for us what note 3 says?
A. "contract not signed by Michael Jackson, and such signature was a condition precedent to any payment
obligation."
Ms. Strong. And this is in evidence, your honor. Can I put it up so the jury can see what we're reading?
Judge. Yes.
Ms. Strong. Okay. They've seen this before. So there's the "management medical," this is the document we
were talking about, note 3, I believe -- go over, Pam, to the $300,000 figure, highlight that. All right. And then
we can go down -- this is the document that Mr. Kane was referring to, exhibit 12 of his deposition. If you go
down to note 3 and highlight that --
Q. Is that what you were just reading for us, Mr. Ackerman?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Can you highlight the whole line there for us, Pam? It says "contract not signed by Michael Jackson, and
such signature was a condition precedent to any payment obligation." so does that indicate to you whether AEG
had made any of that payment at that time given that note?
Mr. Panish. I'm going to -- no foundation for this witness.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. This is not what I showed --
Ms. Strong. We'll leave it at that to the extent --
Mr. Panish. I'm going to object again to counsel --
Judge. Leading.

Mr. Panish. -- leading, pre-ambling, whatever you want to call it, and laughing.
Judge. That's not --
Ms. Strong. I'm not allowed to laugh, now. Okay.
Mr. Panish. Well, no. It was in a sarcastic tone.
Judge. Let's try to get through this. Leading is sustained.
Ms. Strong. Mr. Panish asked you some other questions about Mr. -- whether Mr. Jackson was providing
Mrs. Jackson with her necessities of life. Do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. And you had some trouble answering those questions because you didn't know what he meant by
"necessities of life," right?
A. That is --
Mr. Panish. Leading and suggestive.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That is correct, I didn't know what the definition of that was.
Ms. Strong. So let's go ahead and put up one of your slides. I'm going to get the exhibit number here for us.
It's going to be exhibit number 13496.
Q. And this is the support that you measured with respect to Katherine Jackson, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Now, the first item you have on here, it's $378,000 for a mortgage payment, correct?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. And approximately how much is that a month?
A. If I recall, it's about $35,000 a month.
Q. Okay. Do you believe that a mortgage payment of $35,000 a month is necessary to live?
A. No.
Q. And you also projected 111,000 for repairs and maintenance on there, correct?
A. I did.
Q. Do you believe that $111,000 a year for repairs and maintenance is necessary to live?

Mr. Panish. I'm going to object as to what's necessary to live for this -- for this witness. He didn't know when
I asked all these questions.
Judge. Wait a minute, counsel. He was asked the definition of what "necessity" was. He didn't know what it
was, and now --
Ms. Strong. Your honor, he asked was it necessities of life.
Judge. It all lacks foundation now, so --
Ms. Strong. Your honor, just in response to that, I understand the question was framed to him yesterday as
necessities of life. I'm asking a different --
Judge. He didn't know what those were.
Ms. Strong. I'm asking a different question, your honor. I'm not using that phrasing in my questions. I'm
asking do you think it's necessary to live.
Mr. Panish. Same objection in light of his response yesterday.
Judge. No foundation. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. You walked us through yesterday a few of your calculations, and there was a couple times where
you said that -- well, let's look at one of them.
Q. One of them, you projected that the children might buy a BMW, correct?
A. That a BMW would be bought for them.
Q. Right. And I think this morning there was a question asked of you does Prince actually drive a BMW.
A. He does not.
Q. Do you know what he drives?
A. I've been informed he drives a ford truck.
Q. Okay. So how does that impact your calculations, the fact that he drives a ford truck, but you actually
projected him having a BMW?
A. It means I overstated my number in terms of support.
Q. Okay. And I think you identified another situation yesterday -- I think we were talking about the escalades,
and you forgot to reduce it, so you said that that resulted in an overstating of your number, as well, correct?
A. Correct, that resulted in another overstatement.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, this is beyond what I -- I didn't ask anything about escalades or overstating his
numbers. This is what she asked on direct. I didn't ask anything about that.
Judge. Overruled.

Ms. Strong. And just to be clear, what does that mean, who does that benefit when you overstate your
projections of support?
A. That would be to the benefit of the plaintiffs.
Q. And that's because if, in fact, any money were awarded, that means that they would get more based on the
numbers that you've articulated?
Mr. Panish. Leading and suggestive.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. What would that mean in terms of how to interpret your numbers?
A. They would end up getting more than they might otherwise have actually gotten.
Q. Based on what -- for example, buying a ford truck instead of a BMW?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's go to the last slide, which is 13525. And this is your slide where you summarized your projections out
to 15 years for what the plaintiffs reasonably would have expected to have received had Mr. Jackson lived these
years, correct?
A. My second opinion, correct.
Q. Okay. Now, are you saying that Michael Jackson would have actually been able to provide the support that
you've indicated in this chart?
A. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there's significant doubt in my mind as to whether he would be able to
provide that.
Q. Can you explain it to me? Why aren't you saying that this is the support that they would reasonably -- they
would receive?
A. This projection assumes that there would somehow be the resources available in some fashion to be able to
buy this. But based on the financial profile that I developed and built, I think he would have had significant
difficulties trying to provide this going forward. But I'm leaving it to the jury to decide one way or the other
based on the evidence that they've heard in this case to make that determination.
Q. So in addition to having sufficient funds, and -- when you determined that there's sufficient funds, you've
got to take into account the spending, right?
Mr. Panish. Leading and suggestive, every question.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. I'm trying to get through it, your honor.
Q. What do you have to take into account when you have to determine whether there's going to be sufficient
funds available?

A. I mean, those funds not only have to potentially provide this kind of support, but it's still got to service all
that debt, it's got to run corporations, make payroll, take care of all these other creditor claims. I'm not trying to
say that this would be at the top of the list in terms of being paid first. It could very well have been at the bottom
of the list and it would not have been paid. Again, I -- there was just so much to be paid, there's no guarantee
that this would be actually expended for the benefit of the plaintiffs.
Q. Okay. And so when -- if Michael Jackson were to spend money repaying his loans, for example, would that
money then be available to give to the plaintiffs?
A. No.
Q. If Michael Jackson were to choose to spend money on jewelry, would that money be available to spend on
the plaintiffs?
A. Unless it was jewelry for the plaintiffs, but --
Q. And if Michael Jackson wanted to go out and buy antiques and art, would that money be, then, available to
provide the support for the plaintiffs?
A. No.
Q. And, also, just to be clear, this chart -- there's something else that's critical in terms of the timing of this
chart. Why --
Judge. Antiques and art are different, aren't they? They're investments?
Ms. Strong. I'm trying not to lead him.
Mr. Panish. She's testifying.
Ms. Strong. What else is important for the jury to find before they can award an amount in terms of what
period to look at?
A. Well, how long Mr. Jackson would live.
Q. And based on your review of Mr. Jackson's financial condition, what's your opinion about Mr. Jackson's
ability to continue to provide the support that you've measured?
Mr. Panish. Asked and answered.
Judge. Many times.
Ms. Strong. Just a final question, your honor.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. All right. With that, I think we're fine. We're good.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PANISH

Q. So, sir, you were aware that Mr. Barrack -- strike that. You're aware -- strike that question. Did Mr. Barrack
testify that with Colony Capitol helping Mr. Jackson, and all their experience with distress situations and
distressed celebrities, that Mr. Jackson could overcome his debt and be a success?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, lacks foundation, your honor. He didn't speak to stressed celebrities.
Mr. Panish. Well, that's the question, did he testify to that.
Judge. Overruled.
A. You're going to have to show me the testimony.
Q. So you don't remember, is that right, sir?
A. Well, I don't remember him saying that, and what he actually did, it would be counter to that.
Q. Okay. Well, sir, the question was, do you recall him saying that, yes or no, when you reviewed his
deposition and billed the defendant for it?
A. I don't. You need to show it to me.
Q. Okay. Page 51, lines 21 to 25, sir. Read that to yourself, please.
A. I've read that.
Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection -- I can't have it back?
A. Well, it depends on what you're about to ask me.
Mr. Panish. You are bigger than me, I know that.
Judge. If you're done looking at it -- did it refresh your recollection?
A. He does vaguely talk about that, yes.
Judge. Then take it away.
Mr. Panish. Now, sir, isn't it true that Mr. Barrack testified that given Colony Capital's interest in helping Mr.
Jackson in distress situations and distressed celebrities, Colony felt that the debt situation could be overcome
and that Michael could become a success?
A. That's what that says.
Q. That's what Mr. Barrack testified to, correct, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't help people in distress situations unless they're in lawsuits, right?

A. I've helped many people in distressed situations.

Q. Have you helped any celebrities like Mr. Jackson refinance their debt and get onto a world tour, sir?
A. I don't have nearly enough money to have done that.
Q. Now, sir, did you see in the -- in the e-mails the documents that AEG thought this Mr. Jackson tour was
going to be very successful?
A. I think they all thought and were hoping that it would be very successful.
Q. Is that a yes, sir?
A. I guess it's a yes.
Q. And, sir, if Mr. Jackson was successful and made a lot of money, he could pay off these debts, couldn't he?
A. Depends on how much money.
Q. It would be -- take a lot of money that would have to be out there to pay off these debts so that the children
could get some money, right?
A. That's correct, he had a lot of debt.
Q. Okay. So was it your experience -- did you -- did counsel give you all the testimony about Mr. Jackson's
relationship with his mother and children?
A. Are we referring to Mrs. Jackson's testimony?
Q. Any testimony, sir. What testimony did you review regarding Mr. Jackson's love and relationship with his
children, if any?
A. I recall Mrs. Jackson talking about it, and I read her testimony.
Q. Anybody else?
A. I would imagine Prince talked about it.
Q. Do you remember?
A. Again, I tried to focus on financial issues.
Q. Back to my question. Do you remember reading any testimony that discussed Mr. Jackson's love and
relationship with his children or his mother?
A. My recollection, it was very loving.
Q. And did you see any testimony where Mr. Jackson denied his mother or his children anything they needed?
A. I don't recall that.

Q. Now let's talk a little bit -- I want to finish here quickly. You're not here trying to help the plaintiffs out, are
you, sir?
A. If there's a finding of liability, and some amount should be awarded, I think I've created a very generous
measure of the support that the jury can consider in terms of potentially awarding.
Q. So you're here to help the plaintiffs? Is that what you're saying?
A. I'm here to try to be fair.
Q. Okay. Well, in fairness, sir, did you -- tell us, what is the amount of interest per year that Mr. Jackson had
to pay?
A. Towards the end of his life, it was close to $30 million a year.
Q. And his expenses were 40 million, is that right?
A. His total overall expenses -- well, it fluctuated from year to year, but he was getting in the 35, $40 million
range.
Q. And how much was the interest?
A. At the end of his life, close to 30 million.
Q. Now, sir, you were asked about AEG submitting documents to the estate. Do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. And you were at your deposition, and one of the exhibits you had was an exhibit dated June 28th, 2009,
before the exhibit that counsel just showed you, correct?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, do you have your deposition there, sir?
A. I do have my deposition, but I do not have --
Q. The exhibits?
A. I take it back. I do have the exhibits.
Q. It's exhibit 20, sir, to your deposition. And that's trial exhibit 12969.
A. I'm --
Q. You're not finding it?
A. Well, exhibit 20 in this binder, which I thought was the exhibits to my deposition, is not that document.
Q. Exhibit 12. Oh, yeah, here it is. Exhibit 12. Sorry. 20 to Mr. Phillips' deposition, which you also read. It's
12 to your deposition.

A. I'm there.
Q. You with me?
A. I'm with you.
Q. Okay. And that's trial exhibit 12969. Let's put that up. Okay. Where did you get the magnifying glass?
A. I keep it with me because I have a propensity for breaking glasses.
Q. At least they're not dirty, though. Okay. Sir, now, this was within three days of Michael Jackson's death,
correct?
A. That appears to be the case.
Q. He hadn't even had his funeral, right?
A. I don't recall when his funeral was.
Q. Okay. Well, let's go down -- and this is what -- I want you to just assume Ms. Jorrie and Mr. Gongaware
were in a meeting with Mr. Tohme, and they hand him a document which he signed after the meeting. Okay?
A. All right.
Q. All right. And you see if we go to the bottom, it says Michael Jackson company llc., Dr. Tohme Tohme. Do
you see that?
A. Are you asking me to assume that's his signature? Because I don't know what it looks like.
Q. Yeah.
A. Okay.
Q. Just assume it's his signature.
A. All right.
Q. Okay. Now, in all the documents -- and is that Randy Phillips' signature? Assume that Randy Phillips
signed that, CEO Of the company. Okay?
A. I will assume that.
Q. All right. Now, have you ever seen any documents in all your work in this case that ever said Dr. Tohme
was an officer of the Michael Jackson company?
A. I don't recall seeing such a document.
Q. Okay. So now let's -- this is how long before the document that counsel just showed you that's up by your
desk there? I think you might have to look at the next page for the date. I forgot the exhibit. I apologize.
A. The document you were just referring to is dated June 28, the document that I was previously handed is
dated July 17.

Q. July 17th. Okay. And do you know whether the police had interviewed anyone from AEG as of June 28?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay. So let's now look at page number -- since you've got your magnifying glass there, I'm going to come
up there. By the way, there's no footnotes on this exhibit, are there, sir? Why don't you just accept it, and if there
is, Ms. Strong, I'm sure, will show you one. Okay. There's no footnotes about that contract, whether it's signed
or unsigned, is there, sir? You don't want to believe me. Okay. That's all right. Find any footnotes yet?
A. It's so small, I can't tell if it's a footnote or what it is.
Q. We're going to blow it up for you right here, sir, page 37. If you want to look on the screen, maybe this will
help you. Okay. And you see here it says "total management medical." do you see that, sir? Right there? Take a
look, you can see it.
A. Where in this document is that?
Q. It's the last page, page 37.
A. Oh.
Q. See it on your screen, sir?
A. I know. Just looking to see if this is the same document.
Q. Okay.
A. "management medical," I -- I see that.
Q. Okay. And is there any footnotes there about the contract anywhere in that exhibit on June 28th that was
submitted to AEG, sir?
A. It was some kind of little note at the bottom of this, but I can't read it. I don't know --
Q. Are you claiming that's a footnote like you just read from the other one, sir?
A. I don't know what it is. I can't read it.
Q. Okay. So as of June 28th, how many months had passed from May 1st, 2009?
A. I'm sorry. Could you ask me that question again?
Q. Sure. As of June 28, how many months had there been since May 1st?
A. Approximately two.
Q. May, June, July. Did I give you the wrong date?
A. You said June 28, I believe.
Q. Okay. And it says how much -- does it say 150 there, sir?

A. 150,000.
Q. Okay. Do you know what that was for, sir?
A. I can't read the description. It says four something.
Q. So you don't know. Now, on exhibit -- do you want to take your time? If you want to come up with
something, go ahead.
A. No, I -- I just can't read it.
Q. I think it says, under 431 -- does it say "per" something, sir?
A. I can't read that.
Q. Okay. Now, sir, the last exhibit that you saw that you were shown about -- strike that question. Did anyone
ever take any of Mr. Jackson's catalog, sir?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. And what was -- did you say the average interest per month was, sir? I mean per year. I'm sorry.
A. The average -- I didn't calculate the average interest, but by the end of his life, he was incurring almost $30
million of interest a year.
Q. So my question was you -- did you know what the average per month -- per year was? And I guess your
answer is you didn't, is that right?
A. Average per year over what period of time, and I guess I could try to calculate it.
Q. No. My question was did you calculate for all these slides that you did the average interest per year for Mr.
Jackson for the years that you analyzed?
A. No.
Q. And have you put anywhere in your calculations -- strike that question. Would you agree that the loss of a
father and son would be a loss greater than any financial support?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, your honor, beyond the scope, lacks foundation with this witness. This is a question
he can ask in the hall --
Mr. Panish. Is that a legal --
Judge. Sustained. I think it's argumentative.
Mr. Panish. Sir, you didn't calculate the loss non-economically for the loss --
A. I'm not allowed -- not allowed to in California.
Q. Well, actually, you are, sir. But we're not going to get into a debate on the law. But let me ask my question,
if I could finish it, please.

A. I apologize for interrupting.

Q. My question was, sir, did you do a calculation as to the loss to Mr. Jackson's three children for just the loss
of their father for the love, care, comfort, society, affection that they suffered?
A. I don't believe I could qualify to do so.
Q. So you've never done any calculations in the field of hedonic damages, is that right, sir?
A. Not in the state of California.
Q. Actually, you understand that they are allowed in the state of California, sir?
A. That is not my understanding.
Q. Okay. And did you do any calculation for the loss of Mrs. Jackson for the loss of the care, comfort, society,
affection, love --
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, I'll just --
Mr. Panish. -- for the loss of her son? Did you do any calculations for that?
Mr. Putnam. All of those are argumentative, your honor. They're beyond the scope and lack foundation.
Judge. That's sustained.
Mr. Panish. Sir, when somebody buys antiques and paintings -- we talked about those, right?
A. I recall that.
Q. And do those often increase over time in value?
A. Depends on what it is you've bought.
Q. Depends on the person buying, whether they know anything about the area that they're purchasing in?
A. That would probably help.
Mr. Panish. All right, sir. I think that's all that I have for you right at this time, sir.
Ms. Strong. No further questions.
Judge. Thank you. Sir, you may step down.
Ms. Strong. There's one thing I would like to do outside the presence of the jury before the witness leaves.
Judge. All right. Why don't we have the jury take a 15-minute break so I can talk to you. Thank you.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)

Judge. Do you want the witness to step out?

Ms. Strong. It's just a proffer, your honor, for the record.
Judge. Before we start that, do we want him to start doing the calculation that Mr. Panish had asked you to
do, just so you don't misunderstand what he needs to do?
Mr. Panish. Well, I appreciate that, your honor, and what I did is I have the exhibit, so I could do it myself
because he marked it for me. I appreciate that you tried to let me do that, I appreciate that and recognize that.
But I'll help the witness pack up his stuff if he wants.
A. You're too busy.
Mr. Boyle. One thing I wanted to do, make clear for the record, that exhibit 1067 we marked, that those were
the documents that were brought by the witness here today.
Mr. Panish. Not by him, by his lawyer.
Mr. Boyle. Brought by his lawyer here today.
Judge. The billing records.
Mr. Boyle. Yes, his retainer and the billing records. So I didn't know if we had been clear about that, I just
wanted to make that clear. Thank you.
Mr. Panish. What was the name of the gentleman, sir?
A. Kurt Osenbaugh, O-s-e-n-b-a-u-g-h, from Alston & Bird.
Ms. Strong. This is just a proffer that we're going to submit into the record, just for the record. The court had
already ruled on the parties' motions in limine related to collateral source and the motion to exclude certain
portions of Mr. Ackerman's testimony. And so in that regard, we are going to submit a proffer that he was
prepared to testify that plaintiffs have suffered no economic loss as a result of the death of Michael Jackson
based on his review of materials, including Michael Jackson's financial records produced in this case, including
the first and second accounts current and other filings by the estate of Michael Jackson. And the documents are
submitted here with the offer of proof demonstrating the numbers that Mr. Ackerman was prepared to testify to
indicating that there actually would be no economic loss suffered by the plaintiffs at all. And I'll submit this for
the record, your honor, and that's all I needed to do for the record.
Judge. All right. I don't remember what plaintiffs -- did they have a reply to that?
Mr. Sanders: May I make a reply to that, your honor, please?
Ms. Strong. We're going to file and serve it right now.
Mr. Panish. In other words, the proffer that they just made, they haven't given us a copy yet.
Ms. Strong. I'm bringing it forward right now.

Ms. Bina. Your honor, what this is your honor excluded a portion of Mr. Ackerman's testimony, and the case
law is unclear whether in addition to the motion in limine, we also have to make an affirmative proffer. Rather
than take up a bunch of time on the record questioning him on it, we're putting it into the file. We don't expect
to reargue it, we understand the court's ruling which was in favor of plaintiffs on this position.
Mr. Putnam. It's what I understood we were supposed to do by looking at the case law. That's all we're
doing.
Mr. Panish. I don't necessarily agree to that, but having not seen this 2-inch document, it was just handed to
us after the proffer was made, we -- if we need the opportunity to respond, we would just ask the court to
provide that.
Mr. Sanders: We'll give a written response if we need it, but the most important point, I think, of this is if this
is money from the estate, whatever Michael Jackson -- by prematurely dying, whatever money did not
ultimately go to the estate as a result of him earning less money as a result of premature death would have then
added all that additional money to the estate. So that's, obviously, the reason it's offset, and if turns out it's
appropriate, we'll make such a proffer ourselves in that regard.
Ms. Strong. Thanks, your honor.
Judge. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Bina. And then, your honor, we have some --
Judge. So the witness can be excused?
Ms. Strong. Yes, thank you, your honor.
Ms. Bina. And then we have some video testimony to fill out the afternoon.
Judge. Okay. So is the witness gone now?
Ms. Strong. He just walked out right now.
Mr. Putnam. I'll go make sure.
Mr. Panish. He can leave, he's excused.
Judge. All right. Thank you.