Year: 2004

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!

Accuser’s Mother Hired Numerous Lawyers before Meeting Jackson? –MJEOL Bullet #204 Went “Attorney shopping” according to previous reports In a September 17 2004 report from the AFP entitled “Michael Jackson’s lawyers confront his accuser’s mother,” it was reported that defense attorneys brought out in court the fact that the accuser’s mother hired “numerous” attorneys.  They also report she had once accused the accuser’s father of molesting and falsely imprisoning him in Los Angeles as well.

What we also learned from courtroom observers who listened to her testimony was the fact that she had hired/retained no less than 6 (six) attorneys before she had even met Jackson in an attempt to seek a financial settlement from him.  No, that’s not a typo.

These are not speculative theories being thrown around by unnamed sources.  The six attorneys were brought up in court by Jackson’s attorney Tom Mesereau.  This is definitely not the first piece of incredibly damaging information to come out about this family.

We learned in court that the defense had taped evidence of the private investigator Brad Miller telling the mother, twice, that he was the attorney hired by Michael Jackson’s then-lawyer, Mark Geragos.  She, of course, claimed not to have paid attention to this blaring fact.   And prosecutors and police testified that they didn’t know Miller worked for Geragos either.  Yeah, right.

Judge Based Bail Reduction Denial on False Info? – MJEOL Bullet #203 Court documents dated September 10 2004 reveal that the judge in the Michael Jackson case may have based his denial for reduction of the unconstitutional $3M bail on faulty information.  The defense asked for a reduction in the bail amount on May 30 2004, sources say because it is a violation of Jackson’s rights, pure and simple.  With prosecutors and police trampling on this rights with regards to search warrants and personal property taken, its no wonder the defense doesn’t want to give an inch in the way of letting prosecutors get away with violating his rights.

Jackson’s attorneys have asked the judge to reconsider his denial of the reduction request.  The Appeals Court had previously remanded his original decision back to his court for further review.

In the defense’s Motion to Reconsider Defendant’s Motion for Bail Reduction (C. C . P 1008), they say that Judge Melville based his denial ruling on everything from what Jackson paid his previous attorney to the civil settlement over a decade ago.  They also state that the judge cited information that wasn’t even in the grand jury testimony for his decision.  From the motion:

The purported facts referenced by this Court’s order are not supported by the grand jury transcripts.  For instance, the Court referenced purported testimony that Mr. Jackson said he would join the Doe family in Brazil.  However, there is nothing in the grand jury transcripts that supports the statement that “[d]efendant said he would join them in Brazil ” (Order Denying Bail Reduction, page 2).  (see Motion to Reconsider Defendant’s Motion for Bail Reduction | pg 2)

Prosecutors Admit to Illegally Seizing Certain Items? – MJEOL Bullet #202 In court papers stamped September 13 2004, the defense team for Michael Jackson continues to question the seizure of property taken from Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.  Through the court filings, we find out the prosecutors have conceded at least 20 items taken were done so illegally because they did not fall under the “plain view exception” nor were they listed on the search warrant.

Since warrantless searches are a violation of the 4th Amendment, anything obtained as a result—even the most innocent info like a financial magazine—is a violation of Jackson’s rights and subject to what attorneys call a “suppression” of what prosecutors have labeled as “evidence”.

The defense’s Reply to the DA’s Supplemental Response in Opposition to Defense Motion to Suppress says that prosecutors try to substantiate the confiscation of property from Jackson’s home by claiming it “may be a lead to other evidence or is indicia of association among certain individuals”.  They write:

The probable cause affidavit does not request and the warrant does not authorize seizure of items that may reflect association among people. (see Defendant’s Reply to the District Attorney’s Supplemental Response in Opposition to Defense Motion to Suppress | pg2)