Pt. 3: Explosive Revelations about Accusing Family – MJEOL Bullet #227
More about the breaking of the Court’s order and the accusing family in constant contact with someone while they were allegedly being “held” at Neverland

We pick up with Part Three of this special MJEOL Bullet detailing recently released court documents (docs) with revelations of the accusing family.

Part two discussed some new information revealed by the Santa Barbara News-Press (SBNP) concerning a previous lawsuit filed by the family against JC Penneys department store. During that case, the mother alleged specific allegations revolving around sex abuse allegations, threats, and gynecological records.

At one point she claimed she “saw a gynecologist due to irregularities in her menstruating and she was this way because her body was traumatized and ‘every hormone in her body was being released.’ “

The JC Penney report also says there was no evidence confirming this claim made by the accusing mother, according to the SBNP report. There was a question as to whether or not she is claiming similar allegations against Jackson in this “case” as well. And if so, could that be the reason why the defense says these records are relevant?

Jackson attorney Robert Sanger didn’t want to get into the reasoning in open court during a November 29 2004 hearing. Whatever the reason, judging by the declaration of Jackson attorney Brian Oxman in opposition to modify the Teal order, these records appear to be very relevant to this “case”.

Also discussed in part two was the fact that numerous people have already broken the court’s order by first alerting prosecutors that they were subpoenaed and then telling prosecutors the specifics of what the defense was requesting.

The fact of the matter is these prosecutors can complain all they want, but Jackson’s attorneys have already shown the court why the subpoenas are necessary, and the court has agreed with them. During the Nov 29 hearing, the judge refused to take away the defense’s powers as provided to them by Teal.

If Sneddon, Zonen, Franklin and Auchincloss, etc. (Sneddon & Co.) want to be angry or turn into cry-babies about these subpoenas, they need to be angry at the judge; not at Jackson’s attorneys.

Jackson’s attorneys do not have the right to seek and carry out smash-n-grab search warrants like prosecutors and police do (note: personal assistant raid, Miller raid, etc). At least a subpoena affords the subpoenaed person the opportunity to question the subpoena before Jackson’s attorneys actually see the records. There is no such benefit for Jackson.

 

__Jackson’s people must be the worst kidnappers in the business__
More bombshells were revealed in the Oxman declaration concerning someone whose name was redacted (possibly the mother’s current husband Jay Jackson) repeatedly being in contact with the accusing family while they now claim to have been “held” at Neverland and abducted/kidnapped/threatened/whatever. From the declaration:

47. In Mr. Jackson’s application to the court, he made a showing of why _____________ work records and personnel file are relevant to this proceeding. This __________ was present and repeatedly spoke to the complaining witnesses during the entire time period the vast conspiracy to falsely imprison, abduct, and threaten the complaining family took place. Yet, __________ saw nothing improper, nor did he raise any alarm, and [sic] he was completely helpless to stop the forces of Neverland from abducting his family. pg 14

How in the world can you be in constant contact with someone while you’re being held hostage? Now that the public is aware someone was in contact with this family during the time when they claim they were kidnapped, the story seems more incredulous, say some case observers.

This could also be verified by the fact that at least two checks from Los Angeles County were cashed, while they claim they were held hostage at Neverland. From the court documents:

25. Attached as Exhibit “C” and “D” are copies of two (2) checks from the County of Los Angeles made out to _____________. The first check (Exhibit “C”) is dated January 2 2003, in the amount of $769.00, and was cashed _________ on January 2 2003, the same day the check was issue[d]. [redacted info]

26. [mostly redacted] That American Express card is also the means by which the funds collected by Fritz Coleman and others are expended.

27. But the second check (Exhibit “D”) is _______ a check dated February 19 2003, in the amount of $769.00 from the County of Los Angeles ___________. It was ___________ cashed through _________ bank account on February 24 2003, right in the middle of the alleged child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. (see pg 8-9 of .pdf file)

What? They were only held hostage…unless they had to go to the bank?? Not likely. And why didn’t they tell anyone at the bank that they were being held hostage? Add to this the fact that other reports have surfaced saying that the mother appeared at a court hearing in front of a judge within the prosecution’s abduction/conspiracy timeline. Not to mention the reported shopping trips during that time as well.

Could it be because this story only developed to cover-up the fact that, before they were flung from the gravy train, they repeatedly exonerated Jackson in separate and independent investigations? Most likely there won’t be a forthcoming and plausible explanation for this either.

 

__I remember the name ‘Masada’__
At one point, Jamie Masada (remember him?) got into the act, reportedly proclaiming that the mother once called him from Neverland to help her escape…..stop laughing. Masada was the character who claimed to have “introduced” the accuser to Michael Jackson.

He made the rounds on various talk shows, from The Abrams Report to the Early Show, talking about the accuser being on death’s door. At one point, he claimed the accuser’s face was swollen; that he was sleeping on the floor while the mother cried and read the bible; that his remaining kidney was failing and he desperately needed a kidney.

An April 19 2004 New York Daily News article reported the following concerning Masada:

“He has only one kidney and it’s failing him, and part of his face is swollen up. … It just breaks your heart,” Masada told The News in late November, adding that he donated bunk beds so the boy and his younger brother wouldn’t have to sleep on the floor. “They’re poor people, simple people,” Masada said. In late December, he told The Associated Press, “The kid is not doing very good.” Weeks after Masada’s heartrending media blitz, an in-depth investigation found the boy in good shape, despite his cancer bout, and strong enough to run, jump, scale fences and even hoist a rifle. (see The secret life of [Jackson’s] accuser (April 19 2004) – NY Daily News)

In one of the most memorable TV moments around this “case”, Fox’s Geraldo Rivera actually outed Masada on live television. It turns out that not only did Masada NOT introduce the accuser to Jackson, but he’s never even met Jackson. Jackson became aware of the accuser, reportedly, though the Make–A–Wish Foundation.

Masada made his rounds looking for that darn “kidney” religiously. That is, until the tabloids got ahold of pictures of a very healthy look accuser in training in a Sea Cadet’s program, as detailed in that NY Daily News article above. The public hasn’t heard from Masada since.

Where is Masada now? Who knows. Was he, too, duped by the family or was he a part of this scam? Who knows. But the silence in comparison to his previous media blitz is deafening.

 

__Woops! You weren’t supposed to know that__
Another crippling blow to the “conspiracy” allegation was dealt by Jay Jackson’s own testimony in a previous hearing. He testified that he was present when defense private investigator Brad Miller recorded a conversation with the accusing family…AT Jay Jackson’s residence…right in the middle of their alleged abduction. Furthering the subject of Jay Jackson, if you’ll remember, prosecutors told the defense and the court that Jay Jackson was his “confidential reliable government informant”. Jay Jackson also testified that he was a confidential agent used by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department (SBSD).

From the Oxman declaration the public learns that Jay Jackson was cited in “at least six (6) search warrants in this case.” As such, the defense says, the government has vouched for Jay Jackson’s trustworthiness. Thus, his history/background is an issue in this case as well.

If there are reasons why this person can’t be trusted—and he was the confidential source cited in search warrants—then the defense certainly should have the opportunity to cross-examine him on his background. From the court docs:

(2) _________ testified before this Court about his 22 years of experience as a ___________. He told the police he was in contact with ___________ at all times during the period when the __________ family was being falsely imprisoned, yet ________________ he did nothing regarding such false imprisonment. His failure to take action [redacted lines] (pg 14-15)

Jay Jackson’s foray into surveillance came up during his court testimony as well. While Jay Jackson tried to claim he didn’t know Miller was working for Jackson’s attorney (Mark Geragos), as cited above, he was present when Miller told the mother, twice, that he worked for Geragos. From the Oxman declaration:

(3)_____ conducted surveillance of Bradley Miller prior to the search of his office on November 18 2003, with full knowledge that Mr. Miller was employed by Attorney Mark Geragos because Jay Jackson was present at a tape recorded interview where Bradley Miller…said he worked for Attorney Geragos. However, according to his sworn testimony before this Court, _________ never once disclosed that information to the government. This blatant omission, or more accurately concealment, renders his [redacted line] relevant to this proceeding. (pg 15)

Points 50, 51, and 52 are completely redacted. During Jay Jackson’s testimony at that hearing, he admitted the family tried to procure money from at least two different sources: 1. two reporters in exchange for an interview, and 2. Michael Jackson. A report from the Santa Barbara News Press dated August 20 2004 (“Stepfather of boy asked for money”) details some of what was said:

“I said, ‘What are you offering them?’ ” Mr. Doe said, testifying that the caller first offered to provide security for the family. Mr. Doe, who has been in the Army for 22 years, said he could take care of that himself. “Then he said he’d give them a college education and buy them a new house. I said that’s all fine and good, but this family has nothing. I know you’re going to make several million dollars from this. So what are you going to do for this family?” Mr. Doe did not identify the Neverland caller. (see Stepfather of boy asked for money (Aug 20 2004))

No money was forthcoming. An article dated August 19 2004 (“Accuser’s Stepfather Wanted Money from Jackson”) from the Associated Press discusses the events testified to by the father concerning two British journalists:

The witness testified that he also asked for compensation at some point from a British journalist who came to the family’s home to try to interview them after a documentary on Jackson aired on British television. “Two British journalists showed up and I talked to them,” the witness said. “They said they wanted to do an interview with (his wife) and the children. I said, ‘what are you offering?’ They said, ‘what do you want?’ And I said I didn’t know.” He said the journalists left and said they would return with an offer. (see Accuser’s Stepfather Wanted Money from Jackson)

‘What are you offering’? But didn’t they say they didn’t want money? So why were they trying to get it from Jackson and from reporters? In light of such facts, it’s totally ridiculous, some say, to claim that there was no money motive. NBC reporter Mike Taibbi actually tracked down one of those reporters who gave an interview about what happened. He says it was the family to bring up the subject of money and that they wanted $15,000. From the report:

…The stepfather of the accuser testified in a pre-trial hearing that after the broadcast of a British documentary showing Jackson with his accuser, he said to a Jackson associate seeking the family’s cooperation in a positive rebuttal video: “This family has nothing and you’re making millions off this. What are you going to do for this little family.’ ”
(see  MSNBC Live: Mike Taibbi – Stepfather Asks for Money August 20 2004)

And, according to the NBC report, they tried to get this money sometime after the Martin Bashir hatchet-job of a “documentary” aired in the UK, but before it aired in the U.S. From the report:

He also testified that before the documentary aired in America, two British journalists offered to pay for the family’s story. Alec Byrne told NBC news exclusively he was one of those journalists. And that it was the stepfather who broached the subject of money.

BYRNE: The starting figure was $500 from myself. And that’s supposedly when he consulted with the mother. TAIBBI: And it ended up at what? BYRNE: It ended up at $15,000.

(see MSNBC Live: Mike Taibbi – Stepfather Asks for Money August 20 2004)

Jay Jackson, like so many of the players in this “case”, is up to his eyeballs in this situation.

 

__What do prosecutors want…that is, besides total supremacy?__
Prosecutors sought to get some type of injunction (“injunctive orders”) which the defense successfully argued was totally lacking in foundation. In fact, on or before December 6 2004, the defense will be required to hand over the info they gathered as a result of those subpoenas anyway. It makes the prosecution’s cry-baby motion essentially meaningless.

So what was the point of the prosecution’s argumentative motion? Who knows. Some case observers say all they did was put it on record that certain people involved broke the Court’s order.

They also were chided by Judge Melville for acting like private attorneys for the accusing family. For the record, the Teal powers granted to the defense specifically stated that the person being subpoenaed cannot inform these prosecutors. So what do the subpoenas include? Well, from the docs the public learns that they are endorsed with the following words, as in this example:

“The Court having permitting Counsel to submit an Ex Parte Application, Counsel having done so and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the evidence of witnesses, the Custodian of Records for [redacted info] is material and relevant, and the subpoena Duces Tecum for work records of [redacted] is necessary and relevant to this proceeding, the Court hereby endorses the subpoena attached hereto dated October 14, 2004.” (Exhibit ‘E’). pg13-14

In the Oxman declaration, a subpoena to someone or entity whose name is redacted from the docs was approved on Oct 22 2004 by the Court. The defense says of that:

How attorney Zonen learned of these subpoenas in direct violation of the Court’s July 9 2004, Order has been concealed from the Court. Plaintiff appears willing to knowingly violate the Court’s July 9 2004 Order, while at the same time neglecting to tell the Court the Court previously approved _____________ on October 22 2004. (see Download Declaration of Brian Oxman in Opposition of Motion to Modify Teal Order pg 13 | or image files and excepts of the declaration) pg 3 of .pdf file

What’s worse is that prosecutors have the gall to accuse the defense of practicing ‘everything-but-the-kitchen-sink’ tactics. These same prosecutors have reportedly sought and received 100+ search warrants in this “case”, as previously discussed. But defense requests–just as the prosecution’s many search warrants–were also approved by the Court to be “material and relevant under the rules and regulations.”

They’ve already shown “probable cause and materiality” of the requested records. This is one huge mess that, if these prosecutors are truly smart, they would be trying to figure out how to get out of. As for the prosecution’s request to have the defense’s subpoena powers gutted, the defense replies:

55. The request is not only unworkable, but also designed to create a violation of a court order before the court order is issued. Plaintiff presents no justification nor factual support as the basis for this unduly burdensome request. With the plaintiff having engaged in more than 100 search warrants, gathered documents itself in secret through the use of subpoenas, plaintiff has no basis to make such a request. (pg 16-17)

As previously reported, the judge agreed with the defense on this issue and refused to stop them for gathering information pertinent to their defense of Jackson.

 

__Leaking Leakers and the Leaks They Leak__
Prosecutors also had the audacity to claim they were worried about the defense leaking info to the press. No really…ok….stop laughing….seriously that’s what they’re claiming. Some observers are astounded, commenting that prosecutors and police have been leaking info to the media since before the day of the raid at Neverland November 2003.

Remember tabloid reporter Diane Dimond and her “highly placed” and “law enforcement” sources? Remember Dimond being given advanced notice that Jackson’s ranch would be raided? So much notice that she had time to fly to California, and get two camera crews stationed to broadcast live from both Neverland and the local police station…reportedly before the police arrived?

Remember Art Harris and the police video interview of the mother that was broadcasted by the tv show The Insider…over the course of days and days?

Remember someone leaking to ABC News the fact that an indictment was handed down? Remember all of the TV interviews by Jim Thomas, the former sheriff of Santa Barbara, who has traded on his…so-called knowledge…to become a paid “analyst” for MSNBC? Remember the Dateline NBC smear campaigns? ETC. ETC. ETC.

On the subject of media leaks, Jackson’s attorneys state that the severe problem with prosecution leaks has been discussed with the court and that they could point to repeated instances of leakage of pro-prosecution info, some of which was under seal. From the court doc:

58. The problem of prosecution leaks has been so severe that Mr. Jackson can point to repeated news reports of [redacted info]. The prosecution has leaked all of them. If Mr. Jackson had ever been interested in leaking information concerning this case, he would have leaked information contained in this memorandum. [redacted info] Mr. Jackson did not do that because of his great respect of this Court. …There is not one single document which has been subpoenaed by the defense in this case that has wound up in the hands of any news organization. Unlike the prosecution that has repeatedly leaked the reports indicated above; the defense has never done that. (pg 17 of .pdf file)

As a matter of fact, Oxman states in his declaration that they’ve collected so much damning evidence that if any of it was leaked by Jackson, it would be so devastating that there would be no question as to where the info came from:

With the damning evidence Mr. Jackson has produced through his subpoenas, this Court will recognize Mr. Jackson has not ever leaked any of it to any outside source. (pg 17-18)

In this three part series, we’ve broken down some incredibly explosive details in the defense’s motion and the declaration of Brian Oxman in Opposition to Modify the Teal Order.

One thing is certain to many “case” observers (pro-Jackson, pro-prosecution, and neutral alike): the prosecution is in deep, deep trouble with this “case”. The media has been rather anemic in reporting the details of these publicly released docs. Why is that?

Maybe it’s because they will be faced with the reality that when it comes to this Jackson story, they (collectively) were wrong to start professing Jackson’s guilt; were fed false information and was used to further the agendas of certain people; were too eager to jump at the first sight of sensationalistic nonsense. Remember those rabid N.O.I. stories? Oy! Let’s not go there.

Stay tuned.

 

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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