Judge Hell-Bent on Jan 31 Date, Pros. Breaking Court orders MJEOL Bullet #232 UPDATE Stinging new court docs released show prosecutors still up to their old tricks while the judge looks the other way While Court TV tries to publicly hang Michael Jackson with lies and speculation before he even steps foot inside a courtroom for a possible trialdoing a hatchet job with reporting the facts in the case today (Dec 22 2004)–its important to note that there have been some incredibly damning court documents (docs) and other evidence that has made its way to the public about the accusing family. The disgusting guilty until proven guilty attitude held by Court TV anchors cant change the fact that this case is full of incredulous allegations which make no sense given the prosecutions own set of so-called events; not to mention holes in their story the size of the Pacific Ocean. During the December 20 2004 hearing, the public learned that some 70 names on the prosecutions defective witness list are identical to names on the defenses witness list. This slashes the speculation from hack-reporters who want to claim that everyone subpoenaed by prosecutors are going to testify against Jackson. In a decision that some case observers are openly calling odd, surprising, and ridiculous, the current judge in the Michael Jackson case has refused to delay the trial date from January 31 2005. Melville recently signed search warrants on Nov 24 2004, which prosecutors didnt execute until Dec 3 2004; over a year after raiding Neverland on November 18 2003. Despite those last minute searchestantamount to invasion of privacy, say the defensethe judge has refused altogether to delay the trial in any way. Most legal analysts had previously said that the defenses request to delay the trial would be granted because of the prosecutions last minute scrambling. This can be viewed two ways: Either prosecutors got what they wanted or the judge has essentially called their bluff in face of their declarations of being ready to go forward. But the questions being raised now are whether or not this judge is hell-bent on taking this case to trial regardless of the current circumstances around it. Some observers have made the point that if prosecutors were really ready, then why are they continuing to search and execute search warrants? And why did they gather a swab of Jacksons DNA at the very last minute. As reported by Celebrity Justice Dec 6 2004, there may be a 2 faction split between those prosecution team members who want to move forward with a trial on Jan. 31 and those who want more time. Speaking of turmoil, it also already came out that Larry Feldman is mysteriously absent from current proceedings. The family has a new attorney. It is also important, once again, to understand what the accusing familys and prosecutions story is. Prosecutors are claiming that Jackson conspired to kidnap, then kidnapped a family of 4after already knowing them for yearsand holding them at the wide-open Neverland Ranch. Then, they claim Jackson molested the accuser. Then they claim he conspired some more. And this was supposedly all done right in the middle of at least 2 independent investigations into these very allegations. Not to mention the medias white-hot spotlight being focused on this kid and this family, the family being caught on tape numerous times talking about what a wonderful person Jackson is, and signing sworn affidavits in connection with these independent investigations sparked by so-called concerned citizens. __Obstruction?__ In recently released court docs, the defense continues to hammer away at the credibility of the accusing family and their tall tales of conspiracy, alcohol and molestation. Again prosecutors may have violated the courts order and might be attempting to skirt the law by trying to act as the accusing familys private attorneys. But, then again, some say the prosecution doesnt seem to have all that much respect for other Court orders (namely the gag order and Motions to Compel), so why should they care about this one? This isnt the first time prosecutors have done this. In a three part MJEOL Bullet #227, a previous declaration from Brian Oxman was discussed. And the prosecutions affinity for breaking the Courts order was discussed again. The prosecution is objecting to the defenses right to subpoena documents and materials relevant to the accusing familys credibility, and relevant to allegations that the mother has leveled against Jackson herself. Some of these records are medical records. The defense makes the point that there isnt a physician-patient privilege in a criminal case; especially when some of the records being sought have already become public knowledge from a previous case. From the Declaration of Brian Oxman in Opposition to Plaintiffs Objection to Subpoenas, the defense writes:
Plaintiffs objections are without foundation because:
(1) There is no physician-patient privilege in criminal proceedings, and the complaining mothers ________ records from ___________ are relevant because she has placed her mental and physical conditions in issue by claiming injuries as a result of Mr. Jacksons conduct.
(pg 6 of .pdf | p1 of Declaration)
Injuries to her as a result of Jacksons alleged actions? Yes, it seems that the accusers mother gotten into the act by claiming she was somehow injured surrounding these allegations. Therefore, her medical records are in bounds whether prosecutors like it or not. Despite recent nonsensical articles from the likes of local reporter Steve Corbett and tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, the media did not appear too concerned with covering yesterdays hearing. Some reports, however, recount the big, bad Tom Sneddon huffing and puffing about being ready for trial, despite the fact that hes still executing search warrants some 100+ ..looking for evidence that doesnt exist. __A trial within a trial__ What the prosecution wants to do, now, is bring in the 1993 allegation. Despite no matching description of Jacksons body, no evidence other than the allegation, no grand jury indictment, no charges filed, no arrest, and no cooperation from the 93 accuser, prosecutors want to use speculation from the likes of Ray Chandler and Larry Feldman to shore up their case. But is the 1993 accuser even standing by those allegations from 1993? For some reason, theres been a change in tone in tabloid reporter Diane Dimonds speculation about whether or not the 93 accuser will testify against Jackson. She used to be 99.9% sure he would testify. Now shes claiming he doesnt want to. What happened to that 99.9%? For the record, if subpoenaed by either side, he cant get out of testifying. At first, during the course of this case followed closely by some case observers who have shared their opinions with MJEOL, the prosecution backed away from using the 1993 investigation. One point, prosecutors stood up in court and called the 1993 investigation irrelevant after the defense filed a Motion to Compel to force prosecutors to hand-over documents from that investigation. We also came to find out that prosecutors had heavily relied on speculation from the 1993 investigation to further this current case; to get an indictment and to get dozens of search warrants in this case. Most observers have echoed a sentiment that was expressed by NY Daily News reporter Michelle Carusos comments. She said if prosecutors have their way, this is going to be a trial within a trial. However much they claim this as a benefit, some case observers familiar with the 1993 investigation say it may be devastating not for Jackson, but to the prosecutions current case. __Start with the loons in the mirror__ The prosecution will attempt, however unsuccessfully, to paint Jackson as a perverted and crazed loon even if they have to act like corrupt and crazed loons in the process. That includes breaking court orders and flouting the law by breaking attorney-client privilege, invading the defense camp (at least twice), breaking the gag order and trying to act like private attorneys for the accusing family. They also seem to want to go back in time and change history. The defense says certain information was subpoenaed by Jacksons defense on March 17 2004. The documents arrived in court and were taken by prosecutors who then voluntarily handed it over to the defense. Now, apparently, theyve changed their minds. Sorry no back-sies! Jeez. From the motion:
As discussed below, the records arrived in court and the prosecutor took custody of them. The plaintiff then voluntarily turned over the records to the defense. The prosecutors claim that it now has standing to complain about follow up subpoenas to get full and complete records such as billing records from hospitals is without merit. (pg 9 of .pdf | pg 4 of Declaration
Yeah, this isnt the only thing prosecutors have done that is without merit. But the prosecution has the gall to claim that the defense is invading the privacy of the accusing family. And the prosecutions argument for invasion of privacy is ridiculous because the records they claim to want to protect have already been publicly disclosed. These records because public in a previous attempt by the family to get money from department store J.C. Penneys. All of the complaining familys records were produced in connection with the case of _____________ v J.C. Penney Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. KC 027876, the defense writes. These particular records were reviewed by someone whose name was redacted. And the case law to back up the argument is cited in Klang v Shell Oil Co, Jasimine Networks Inc. v Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., and Roe v. Superior Court. Since the prosecution already has a copy of certain medical records, why are they trying to keep the defense from getting this information? As a matter of fact, the defense reveals that prosecutors are lying when they claim these medical records were confidential because prosecutors got their hands on them as a result of the J.C. Penneys case too:
13. All of the complaining witness family produced their _________ records in the J.C. Penney case. The prosecution knew this because it got a copy of those records. Plaintiffs claim that the records are confidential or that no waiver has been established is disingenuous. (pg 10 of .pdf | pg 5 of Declaration)
As far back as April and May 2004, these prosecutors already promised to make a copy of said records and provide Jacksons attorneys with a copy. Now apparently they have changed their minds. Wonder why? Did they make a mistake? Like they mistakenly invaded the defense camp by raiding Mark Geragoss private investigators office? Yeah right. Back in March 2004, Jacksons former attorneys subpoenaed certain records that neither of the prosecutors objected to. Now all of the sudden, they have a problem. Further, back then, prosecutors freely and voluntarily turned all of the records over to Mr. Sanger (pg 11 | pg 6 of Declaration). __A history of defrauding people and entities?__ It came to light in previous court docs that the accusers mother may have defrauded others as well, including Fritz Coleman, Chris Tucker, and George Lopez. From a Santa Barbara News-Press article dated Dec 2 2004 (Jackson lawyers prepare to attack accusers mom):
The attack is expected to include questioning whether the mother appropriately used money that celebritiesincluding comedians Chris Tucker, George Lopez, and Fritz Colementraided at the Laugh Factory in the fall of 2000 for her sons cancer treatments. (see Jackson lawyers prepare to attack accuser’s mom – Fritz Coleman (Dec 2 2004))
The Laugh Factory should sound very familiar. Jamie Masada is the owner. Yes, that Masada who claimed to have introduced the accuser to Jackson (false); the same Masada that made the rounds whining about the accuser needing blood and a kidney (false); the same Masada who claimed the mother and her children were sleeping on the floor with the accusers face swollen up (false, too). Could he too be part of any shady dealings with money raised by this family? Time will tell. But Masada, by the way, reportedly opened a New York venue of The Laugh Factory in June 2004. Hes just rolling in it, isnt he? But I digress. If the accusers mother didnt spend the money raised for the medical bills of the accuser, then she has many more problems than the world of trouble shes already in for making false accusations against Jackson. A very revealing report was written by Bill Heard, dated December 21 2001, entitled Chance Encounters with Cops Lead to Merry Christmas for LA Family. The report details this same family being the recipients of more charity: this time from the Los Angeles Police Department. Keeping in mind, this is Dec 2001. Also note the timeline with the J.C. Penney case and their subsequent $137,000 settlement given to the family. Wanting to do something special for the accusing family, after learning their story, police officers took up a collection of about $200 out of their own pockets to buy gifts and school supplies for the kids. From the article:
On Thursday, they dropped by the familys apartment to find a Christmas tree that had been donated by the LAPDs Hollenbeck Division officers, but no ornaments. And no gifts. The officers bought a stock of ornaments with their own money, then talked to their sergeant, Eric Windham, about further help for the family. So, at roll call this morning, Windham asked his troops to look into their hearts and their pockets for the Arvizos. They did, and out came some $200. It was enough to buy some gifts for the kids and a little left over for a holiday dinner. The MTA also contributed school supplies for the youngsters. (see 2001 Article about Accuser’s family LAPD – 2001 )
Now, apparently they met Jackson in late 2000. So you had Jackson, Fritz Coleman, and who knows who else donating to the family at, around, or closely after that time. And they were the recipients of charity from the LAPD as well. I guess they get around __Conspiracy to Falsely Accuse Jackson?__ During her testimony at a previous hearing September 17 2004, the accusing mother confirmed that she met Jackson in August 2000. Courtroom observers comments were highlighted in MJEOL Bullet #204: Accusers Mother Hired Numerous Lawyers before Meeting Jackson?. They said the conversation between Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau and the mother was heated. One even scribbled down an unofficial transcript of the convo:
TOM MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael? ACCUSERS MOTHER: August 2000. MESEREAU: According to this official statement, sworn declaration that you gave to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department and district attorney, you retained an attorney and investigator in January 2000 for the sole purpose of finding out information about Michael Jackson and settling with him. You discussed a settlement concerning Michael Jackson before you even knew him? ACCUSERS MOTHER: I I well PROSECUTORS: Objection! Irrelevant. JUDGE MELVILLE: Sustained.
It seems as if this woman hired both an attorney and private investigator BEFORE she even met Jackson in an attempt to seek a settlement for child abuseBEFORE Jackson had even met her kid. It is information like this that will come out during a possible trial. Besides being incredibly suspicious, it would open the door for Jacksons attorneys to show their own pattern: a pattern of people seeking contact with Jackson, hooking up with the same attorney and psychologist, leveling allegations and threatening a lawsuit. Why didnt they file a lawsuit against Jackson? Because they were stopped by current DA Tom Sneddon. The civil suit cover-up was talking about in a report months ago by the Santa Barbara News Press. They report that Sneddon struck a secret deal with the accusing familys then-attorney Larry Feldman. Reportedly, he had to solemnly swear not to file a civil suit until after criminal proceedings were resolved (see Civil Suit Cover-up?Bullet #109). For the record, California Penal Code Section 182-185 deals with conspiracy by two or more persons to falsely indict another person:
o California Penal Code + PENAL CODE SECTION 182-185 182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.
Did they conspire to falsely accuse/indict/arrest Jackson? What else is waiting in the wings to come out about the accusing family? Have any other celebrities and/or people come forwardbesides J.C. Penneys–to talk about other scams the family has run on them? Time will tell. Subsequent MJEOL Bullets will continue to break down some of the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct leveled against the district attorney; more about the Brian Oxman declarations; prosecutors flying as far away as Australia looking for mythical victims in 1999; certain media personalities who have strong doubts about this case (some of whom were at Neverland during the prosecutions timeline); whether or not the defense should be worried at all about the 1993 investigation, as well as a number of other topics around this incredulous case. Stay tuned. -MJEOL