[b]Asinine Order from Judge in Kelly Case MJEOL Bullet #75[/b] In what has already been described as a highly inappropriate and ridiculous ruling, the judge in the R. Kelly child porn case, Vincent Gaughan, says Kelly can travel to the Grammys in February, but he cant associate with Michael Jackson (see BS:Judge says R. Kelly must avoid Jackson . The asinine statement, joking or not, comes totally out of the blue because the prosecution in the Kelly case never requested such a condition be placed on Kelly. Further, it is not clear if Jackson would even be at the Grammys this year or why the judge would even bring up the subject of Jackson. Craig Mitnik appeared on MSNBCs the Abrams Report tonight (Jan 28) to discuss this ruling. Abrams, the host, called the ruling crazy, and Mitnick was appalled at the judges comments. He says:
I think its a bizarre order and it even goes past bizarre. I think its really inappropriate. If I was Mark Geragos or if I was Ben Brafman, the attorneys representing Michael Jackson, this would really tick me off. Its almost saying dont go near Michael Jackson because hes been charged. But he [the judge] has no right to do that. And its creating an impression in the court of public opinionwhich is so important right nowwhich is wrong.
It is unclear as of now how the Jackson team will respond to what is starting to be panned as a highly inappropriate order from this judge. The entire panel on the Abrams Report, which included Mitnik, along with Gary Casimir and prosecution sympathizer Janine Pirro (sp) agreed that the judges order was incredibly improper and unnecessary. Casimir, a criminal defense attorney, took the discussion a step further by questioning if judge Gaughan is trying to gain some media attention, since anything with the name Michael Jackson attached to it will be covered widely by the press. Casimir says: I think it is interesting. And I think maybe the judge is trying to make a name for himself; get a little attention Casimir says that although it is not strange for a judge to put restrictions on a defendant traveling to another state, this judges ruling regarding Jackson is very unusual. Its a very weird thing to say two people, who have only been charged and before a preliminary hearing has even been held in the Jackson case, shouldnt associate with each other. Kellys attorney, Ed Genson, made a snide remark concerning Jackson and the ruling: What’s the difference if someone makes an order not to see someone he didn’t want to see in the first place. Actually, I would bet money that Kelly is the furthest thing from Jacksons mind right now. Further, in response to the insult from Kellys attorney, it definitely would not serve Jackson’s interests to be associating with Kelly, who has been charged in federal court with 21 counts of possessing child pornography, and with an underground x-rated home video making the rounds on the internet. So, tell me again, who should stay away from whom here? This incident is yet another public example of what Jackson means when he has said people treat him differently simply because he is who he is. Sometimes people have to see ridiculous behavior for themselves before they get it. Many people had to witness how the press loves to unnecessarily rake Jackson over the coals (ie. Bashir documentary and its rebuttal footage), and over analyze everything he does (ie. the armband he was wearing at his arraignment) before theyve come to realize the presss role in shaping their misconceptions of who Jackson is. Jackson has been expressing anger at this for the last 15 years through his music. The judge in the Jackson case would never attempt to taint Kellys case by making a public order that Jackson should stay away from Kelly. If he did, there would be outraged people expressing their disgust at the judges order. Lets see how many people arent afraid to call a spade a spade with judge Gaughans asinine order. Has this judge opened a can of worms for which he will be sorry? Will Geragos and Brafman publicly respond to this obvious attempt, maliciously intentional or not, to taint the Jackson jury pool? We shall see. You can listen to the segment of the Abrams Report here: :nav [url=http://site.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?cid=5&lid=42]Abrams Report: Panel discusses ridiculous ruling Jan 28 2004[/url] In the words of Charlie Brown: Good grief. -MJEOL