SPONSORED BY:

Thug Life

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Pellicano hid his wiretaps from some clients and their lawyers, but he didn't spare them all, according to Susan Maguire, a client from 1996 to 1998 when she was divorcing her husband, a real-estate mogul. According to Maguire's testimony Thursday, Pellicano tapped her husband's phone then made her come to his office and listen to the illegal tapes to identify the speakers, thereby making her a party to the alleged crime. That lapse in judgment means she's testifying under a use immunity arrangement with the government that spares her from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. 

Pellicano seemed to enjoy his adversary's discomfort. In one excruciating episode, Maguire told jurors she sat with Pellicano as they listened to a recording of her husband's tearful conversation with his psychiatrist. "It was awful," Maguire testified, saying she found listening to her estranged husband's distress "really upsetting." Pellicano, by contrast, seemed to enjoy the man's anguish. "He was excited about it," she said.

Pellicano didn't shy away from intimidating his own clients, either. Maguire testified that Pellicano told her the taps were legal; he also warned her not to tell anyone about them, not even her lawyers. She complied. When Pellicano and her lawyers had a falling out, he made her write a letter of recommendation praising him. And he was relentless about asking her for more money. He had not made direct threats but "he was a threatening kind of person," she told prosecutors. "He would tell you about things that he had done [in the past], things that were threatening and violent." She got the message—although she also gave the impression she'd been largely happy with his work. In his brief cross-examination, Pellicano has not disputed her story thus far. But he asked her whether he "was loyal to you." "Yes," she answered. "He's still loyal to you," Pellicano said and sat down.

Even his billing methods seemed bizarre. Maguire testified that Pellicano came to her and asked for a $200,000 "loan" because he had what he called "a tax problem." She wrote him a check for the supposed loan. But he asked her write to record it as a "nonrefundable retainer"--and she said he never repaid it. Pellicano frequently asked her to pay him in $9,500 increments, she testified, as prosecutors showed jurors the canceled checks. Maguire added that Pellicano requested the odd sum because it would not "cause alarm," a sum which fell conveniently under the $10,000 federal bank-reporting requirements. He even asked her to sell her jewelry and give him cash. Instead, she gave him a pair of diamond-and-pearl earrings she believed were worth $100,000, but he only credited her account for $20,000 to $40,000. For less than three years' work, she told jurors, she paid Pellicano a sum she estimated at "up to a million dollars." (Pellicano has not disputed her account to date.)

She wasn't the only client who witnessed his aggressive methods of getting paid. A Tennessee physician named Charles Lull hired Pellicano in 2000 with a $25,000 retainer to harass California Web TV entrepreneur Laura Buddine, with whom he was feuding. He soon followed that with a $100,000 payment to Pellicano.

But it wasn't enough. In an April 2001 phone call that Pellicano taped and prosecutors played for the jury Thursday, Pellicano tried to convince the flustered Lull that he had actually agreed to pay a second $100,000—the first $100,000 was just "half" of the payment they'd agreed to, Pellicano insisted. When Lull balked, Pellicano backed off. But not far. He said he was "upset" over what he termed the "misunderstanding." Next Pellicano tried to make Lull feel guilty, claiming "I am going to have to eat" some of the expenses. Pellicano never got the added money—but then again, Lull never learned exactly what he'd gotten for his $125,000 except Pellicano's assurance that he was succeeding in making Buddine's life "absolutely f---ing miserable." With his reputation in tatters and his future freedom in doubt, Pellicano probably has a pretty good idea how she felt.

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: paul vincent zecchino @ 03/24/2008 10:38:56 AM

    Isn't it heartwarming to see at last find those who take delight in causing others great pain? Remember how the so-called mainstream media gushed all through the Rotten 90s over the 'White House investigators'?

    Remember those pesky, cutting edge jouralists some arrogantly term 'bloggers'? Remember how these 'bloggers' were early on to these alleged 'investigators'? Many of us knew at once that these people investigated nothing. They cheated. They threatened. They didn't question anyone to develop information, instead they made it up from whole cloth and credited others to lend an air of legitimacy to their lies.

    Wasn't it most clever of the defendant to compromise clients by playing illegal wiretap tapes for them? And this business of shoving people in line? My my my. About this same time, my wife, Dr. Marleen Loughran Zecchino, was set upon by one Gerald Matuson in the Englewood, Florida, Wal-Mart. Though this Matuson was a stranger, his timing was stupendous. We'd coincidentally experienced several invasions to and tamperings with our financial and credit data as the probate of the murdered Julia M. Zecchino was coming to its conclusion. Though we refrained from litigating, we expressed our concerns that at least ten million dollars was being unlawfully diverted to www.lifespan.org by Vincent Zecchino, M.D. This is seen as a 'trust obfuscation scheme' by those certified to speak to it, who as well expressed concerns that Vincent Zecchino, M.D., stated that my wife will be 'gruesomely murdered' within three years of his passing.
    Isn't it uncanny, be they professionals or street types, how thugs use the same tactics? Isn't that why they call them criminals? The Zecchino Estate Grifters' tactics are those of Pellicano and his ilk.

    And they thought we wouldn't notice? And they thought they'd evade legal consequences?

    Dr. Paul Vincent Zecchino
    Manasota Key, Florida
    24 March, 2008

  • Posted By: GustoMaybe @ 03/23/2008 2:21:33 PM

    In California, without a warrant signed by a judge, it is crime to record a conversation without the consent of all parties. On the phone or in person, doesn???t matter, it???s the same crime. Some will say it's okay if there is no expectation of privacy. This is false. Some will say you can record, but can???t use the tapes in court. This is false. Without consent of all parties. The statute: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

  • Posted By: gneubeck @ 03/23/2008 12:11:57 PM

    Pellicano and Hillary Clinton! When is Pellicano going to be asked about his assignments for Hillary Clinton? Greg Neubeck

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now