Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #205

Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #205 It looks like Ray Chandler’s (Charmatz) mouth may have written a check that his proverbial ass can’t cash.   Appearing on Crier Live yesterday (Sept 29 2004), tabloid reporter Diane Dimond says that the 1993 accuser’s uncle, R Chandler, has been subpoenaed by the defense as a “custodian of documents”.  However, judging from previous reports she’s done, there could be probably much more to it than what she’s saying.

She insinuated that he is being “intimidated” by the defense.  Observers of the “case” say that Chandler has inserted himself into this “case” by doubtlessly trying to taint the jury pool and it has totally backfired on him.

The tabloid reporter claims that Chandler told her he’s being “intimidated” because, he says, that’s what happened in 1993.   This is preposterous.  In his zeal to trash Jackson, he has inserted himself into this situation.  He has allegedly credible, documented info—if the documents aren’t forgeries—directly regarding the 1993 investigation.

He has also made numerous statements, most of which couldn’t possibly be true, to the public about that investigation as well.  He claimed that police found commercial produced child pornography at Jackson’s ranch in 1993.  This is a complete lie because possession of child pornography is a FEDERAL offense.  And had this have been true, Jackson would have been charged with a crime in federal court 11 years ago.  There are other examples of ridiculous claims as well.

But now Chandler is whining and playing the victim because he has been called to the floor as a result of such statements.  Cue the violins! According to Findlaw.com, the “custodian of documents” may be subpoenaed because of those documents:

11450.10. (a) Subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum may be issued for attendance at a hearing and for production of documents at any reasonable time and place or at a hearing. (see Definition: Custodian of Documents)

It’s quite clear that ‘Uncle Ray’ could have only gotten certain information and documents related to the 1993 investigation from a very small number of places. Those documents are simply the unchallenged, un-cross-examined, unfounded allegation that initially started the ’93 investigation. This fits in with the current “case” because prosecutors have already used the 1993 investigation to significantly further this one. They used the ’93 investigation to get “dozens” of search warrants in this “case”, according to court documents. Prosecutors used the ’93 investigation and speculation about what would have happened at that time to convince grand jurors to hand down an indictment against Jackson. They even used old layouts of Neverland from the ’93 raid to ransack Jackson’s ranch in Nov 2003. All of this information came out through court documents and pre-trial hearings. So the ’93 case is in, whether prosecutors want to admit it or not. As reported earlier, prosecutors only seem to want to invoke the 1993 investigation when it’s convenient to them. They actually alleged in court during one of the pretrial hearings that they weren’t sure if they were going to use the ’93 investigation. And called it “irrelevant” when defense attorneys asked the judge to force prosecutors to hand-over discovery (information) from the ’93 investigation! We learned from court documents that the defense is hot on the prosecution’s tail in trying to get them to hand-over documents from the ’93 investigation every since Mark Geragos was Jackson’s attorney. Why are prosecutors stalling? One courtroom observer theorized that Sneddon may not want this trial to go forward in January 2005 so he can continue to obtain search warrants in an effort to dig up something, anything on Jackson. Observers say that prosecutors may try to do what they’ve done many times before: wait until a few days before the next hearing and dump a slew of documents and other discovery on the defense, which forces them to have to ask the judge for more time to go over the recently turned-over information. In the defense’s Motion to Compel Discovery, Jackson’s lawyers confirm what prosecutors did with the information; information which is likely to yield exculpatory (exonerating) evidence:

The prosecution relies on information from the prior investigation in these proceedings, including the affidavit to justify searches in this case. That material also contains, or is likely to lead to, exculpatory evidence. (see Motion to Compel Discovery, pg2 || pg3 of the .pdf file)

His attorneys say that the information from 1993 is “necessary to preserve Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair trial.” Now, remember, this is the defense talking. Thus, they either have information themselves or knowledge of the existence of material that something was discovered during the 1993 investigation that “will likely” be exculpatory to Jackson. What is also astonishing is the admission that law enforcement found information which indicates the 93 allegation was not true. From the defense’s motion:

Mr. Jackson’s right to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also requires production of materials from the prior investigation. Law enforcement unquestionably developed information rebutting allegations of misconduct from the many people who testified before the grand juries or submitted to informal interview. (see Motion to Compel Discovery, pg6)

This is why Chandler’s spreading of this information (or misinformation) is important to this current “case”. Thus, he deserved to be subpoenaed and should be made to testify. __No fair play allowed?__ What is also interesting is that now this prosecution mouthpiece—as she is often referred to by some observers—wants to play the intimidation card; a card she refused to play when Sneddon broke the gag order, and admitted to sending out letters to shut people up and keep them off TV. Vancouver Globe and Mail reporter Robert Matas was present during a discussion panel when Sneddon spoke about this “case”, breaking the gag order. In his report, dated July 21 2004, Matas says of Sneddon:

Mr. Sneddon also strongly advised them to obtain court orders prohibiting those involved in the case from speaking publicly. “We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV,” he frankly admitted. (see Jackson prosecutor lashes out at media (July 21 2004))

Where were the calls of “intimidation” and spin from Dimond then? His eyewitness is reporting Sneddon’s own words about shutting people up, but none of these prosecution sympathizers wanted to insinuate intimidation then. Someone who did speak out as a result of his subpoena from the DA was Russ Halpern, the attorney for the accuser’s father. Halpern himself has nothing whatsoever to do with this current “case” or the 1993 investigation. Yet he was subpoenaed by Sneddon. Halpern called this act “disingenuous”. The attorney appeared on Larry King Live February 13 2004 to talk about it. When King asked him how could he, Halpern, be called as a witness in the “case”, Halpern seemed perplexed as well. He told King:

HALPERN: That’s a very good question. I received a letter from Mr. Sneddon claiming that I was a potential witness. I called Mr. Sneddon, and asked him how he thought that, and he said, well, ‘maybe you could be an impeaching witness’, discrediting other witnesses. I said ‘well which witnesses would I discredit’? He named his own witnesses. I said ‘so are you telling me you’re going to call me as a witness to discredit your own witnesses’? Of course he didn’t have a real answer for that. I also called Mr. Geragos’ office so ask them if they thought I was a witness. They agreed with me, thank you, that there was not anything that I could say that would be legally admissible. I’m not a potential witness. I think it was an attempt by the prosecution not to defend my client any further in the press. (see Accuser’s father Talks to Larry King (Feb 13 04))

Halpern also commented to the Associated Press in a July 22 2004 article, “Report: Jackson prosecutor sent letters out to keep some quiet about case”. From the AP article, concerning Matas’s report:

Attorneys contacted by The Associated Press late Thursday said that if Sneddon was purposely limiting speech by those he knew wouldn’t be called as witnesses, he should be disciplined for abusing his power. “He’s saying I misused my power as district attorney in order to shut people up. …That is a big, big violation,” criminal attorney Russell Halpern said. “I think the state bar should investigate.” Halpern represents the father of Jackson’s accuser in cases separate from the Jackson molestation case. He said he received a letter from the Santa Barbara district attorney’s office in January saying he could be called as a witness, though he had no firsthand knowledge of the Jackson case. He has not been called. Halpern said he was considering a lawsuit against Sneddon for violating his First Amendment rights. “I have a lot of things I could say and I haven’t voiced them because I’ve actually been intimidated to some degree,” he said. “I felt all along that he was (disingenuous) when he sent me a letter saying I was a potential witness. His real interest was to stymie any comments made about his case.” (see Attorneys: Sneddon should be disciplined for abusing his power; Halpern may sue )

Matas also appeared on the Abrams Report to speak further about Sneddon’s “intimidation” tactics. Matas reports Sneddon as saying that defense lawyers were appearing on TV every night talking—more like criticizing—things that Sneddon claimed he had “an ethical responsibility” to protect. Ha! Matas told Abrams:

MATAS: …And he said he wanted the gag order to apply not just to the defense lawyers, but to the people that are involved on the defense team. The witnesses and anyone else who‘s going to comment with inside information, with the evidence, the contents that he wouldn‘t be able to respond to. (CROSSTALK) MATAS: And that‘s when he came out with this statement that he sent some letters out to some people. (see Robert Matas on The Abrams Report – TRANSCRIPT)

Looks like someone may want to put a label on the defense that rightly belongs on the prosecution. Unlike Halpern, Ray Chandler has specific knowledge and documents about the ’93 investigation which definitely should be challenged in court. His information, and that big mouth of his, makes him a REAL witness in this ‘case’ and not an ‘impeaching’ witness as prosecutors have disingenuously tried to claim with other people around this case. What has always been a problem with the 1993 gang is that neither one of them have ever actually come to court to testify to any of the things they have been saying—either directly or through ‘sources’—in a court of law where their shady stories can be challenged. Chandler has had it very easy from the media because everyone who has interviewed him, from the Today Show to Diane Dimond, have absolutely not asked him any hard questions about some of the outrageous claims he has made in his book or in previous interviews. On second thought, Geraldo Rivera (Fox) got to ask one zinger of a question about whether or not the 1993 accuser’s father “pimped” the accuser’s allegation for money. We didn’t get a straight answer from Chandler because he claimed his audio wasn’t working properly. Now the defense wants a chance to ask Chandler some highly important questions, and he’s trying to wrap himself up in this ‘victim’ nonsense. Either put up or shut up. It’s quite easy to make unchallenged claims via a media who normally eats up unfounded trash about Jackson. It is quite another to have to answer, with a degree of responsibility, to the things he’s been saying concerning the ’93 investigation. One of the issues which may be addressed concern the documents Chandler cites in his book and posted on his website. Questions may be raised about the origin of these documents and who gave them to Chandler. Did he get them from Evan Chandler, the ’93 accuser’s father? If so, can E. Chandler be sued for breaking the confidentiality agreement? Did he get the documents from leaks in the prosecution’s office or the sheriff’s department? If so, who? And what sanctions can be sought as a result? ETC. Another issue revolves around the authenticity of at least some of the memos cited by Chandler. In MJEOL Bullet #197, Geraldine Hughes’s response to Chandler’s book was discussed. Hughes was a sole legal secretary to Barry Rothman, the ’93 accuser’s first attorney. Hughes asserts that several of the documents appearing on Chandler’s website seem to have forged signatures at the bottom. The documents show her initials, gh, at the bottom as the typists but she says she never typed some of them. She also reveals that her then-boss’s signature doesn’t even match from document to document:

When I review the documents that he has on his website, I am convinced that several of the documents, even though they bear my initials as the typist, I did not type that particular document. Several of these documents have been manufactured and are not even bearing the correct signature of my attorney Barry Rothman. (Compare Rothman’s signatures on several of these documents) (see Hughes Responds to Ray Chandler – MJEOL Bullet #197)

As a matter of fact, one of the documents has no signature at the bottom at all. These types of documents, again, had to be given to Chandler for the specific purpose of either writing his book to cash-in on the latest news or to try to taint the jury pool because more than one source has said he probably wasn’t privy to any of this information during the ’93 investigation. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *