Part1: Outrageous Response from Prosecutors as they try to Retain ‘Case’- MB#214

Part 1: Outrageous Response from Prosecutors as they try to Retain ‘Case’ – MB #214 UPDATE Just when you thought prosecutors in the Michael Jackson “case” may be starting to get some sense about the massive inconsistencies in their story, they file a motion like their reply to the defense’s motion to have them tossed from prosecuting Jackson. If anything, the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Recuse the District Attorney is more proof of why they should be yanked. Tom Sneddon, the current DA of Santa Barbara, has already become a witness in this “case”. He will probably be made to testify at a possible trial as well; as he has already been made to testify at a pre-trial hearing. That alone, and the behavior which created the situation, should be reason enough to have him and his office tossed. Even in the face of this devastating fact, prosecutors had the gall to claim that the defense “can’t point to a factual circumstance extrinsic to the prosecutor” which concerns a conflict of interest. Better be careful what they wish for because Sneddon’s past may come back to haunt this “case”. Some say they believe that there may be “extrinsic” attitudes and behavior that would cast a shadow on this prosecution. But let me say it again: the freakin’ DA is a witness in the ‘case’. It shouldn’t get past that fact.

Prosecutors Wanted Defense to Help Convict Jackson? – MJEOL Bullet #213

Prosecutors Wanted Defense to Help Convict Jackson? – MJEOL Bullet #213 Did you know that prosecutors in the Michael Jackson “case” actually asked the defense to give them any incriminating evidence they thought the defense had against Jackson? No, that’s not a typo or a misunderstanding. It’s called a Sanchez motion and it was filed almost a year after police ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. The motion was denied, of course, but it brought up another issue about whether prosecutors are desperate enough to even claim the defense has an obligation to give them “inculpatory evidence.” For the record, inculpatory evidence (incriminating) is the opposite of exculpatory evidence (showing innocence). But the real problem is that there looks to be no incriminating evidence and prosecutors can’t find any. Not even after their over 100 search warrants. Yeah, there have been over 100 search warrants issued in this “case”. So they actually asked Judge Melville to make the defense give them some imagined incriminating evidence. Prosecutor Gerald Franklin—who is currently being sued, along with Sneddon and others, in federal court for $10M by attorney Gary Dunlap—writes that he is “certain the defense has possession of relevant and potentially inculpatory evidence which they have not tendered to the court.” Yes, he’s actually serious.

Judge Accepts Lousy Excuses from Prosecutors, Witnesses – MJEOL Bullet #212

Judge Accepts Lousy Excuses from Prosecutors, Witnesses – MJEOL Bullet #212 Regarding the Miller raid, prosecutors inexplicably get their way…for now Is the judge in the Michael Jackson “case” trying to clean-up the mess created by prosecutors and police? It certainly appears that way to some “case” observers who have read Judge Melville’s decision not to toss out the information taken illegally from Bradley Miller’s office. Miller, for the record, was working for Jackson’s then-attorney Mark Geragos—something he made known to the accuser’s family as far back as February 2003. Despite prosecutors and police invading the defense camp, and after it was shown in court that they at the very least should have known, this judge has sided with Tom Sneddon. Besides having the affect of inciting a number of attorneys to outrage, the decision sent up huge red flags as to whether the judge is following the law and erring on the side of caution. The judge says that the search warrant for Brad Miller’s office was issued by Judge Thomas Adams, the same judge prosecutors have obtained dozens of search warrants through at the beginning of this “case”. It seems that Miller was cited as being one of the people who was present when the family exonerated Jackson, which was taped. The tape was seized by police from Miller’s office on Nov 18 2003, the same day police ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. The judge, as if writing for a news organization, stated that the “Doe family was reportedly encouraged to stay at Neverland and not to return to its apartment home in East Los Angeles.” “Reportedly” is a word reserved for observers of this case, like us. A judge is not supposed to be dealing with reports in the media, but rather dealing in factual information. Ok. That can be overlooked. But this is by far not the most eyebrow-raising statements in his decision.

Judge Rejects Solid Defense Arguments, 995 Motion – MJEOL Bullet #211

Judge Rejects Solid Defense Arguments, 995 Motion – MJEOL Bullet #211 995 Motion denied even given the admissions of “regrettable” behavior by prosecutors Why is the judge in the Michael Jackson “case” making excuses for prosecutors’ actions? While some may not go that far, other observers found the rulings on the defense’s motions concerning the illegal Miller raid and the 995 Motion to be more than a little “strange.” More about the Miller raid in an upcoming MJEOL Bullet. Judge Rodney Melville, determined to start this trial in January 2005, was probably not going to throw out the prosecution’s indictment even if Tom Sneddon himself dropped his pants and did cartwheels in the middle of the room in front of grand jurors. In his decision, the judge writes, “Some instances remain where it appears that evidentiary objects might well have been sustained in a courtroom.” In other words, there were things done by prosecutors that a judge wouldn’t have allowed to continue if the defense was there and made an objection to it. But hey, that’s ok…according to Melville. However, he then claims that these instances—taken by themselves—weren’t “sufficient to have prejudiced the entire proceeding.” The only problem with that logic is that instance after instance after instance equals a larger situation that taints the proceeding. Maybe the judge didn’t get that point.

MTV Supports Revolting and Patronizing Video against Jackson – MB #210

MTV Supports Revolting and Patronizing Video against Jackson – MJEOL Bullet #210 MTV “losing it” by standing with Eminem’s disgustingly offensive video and song MTV is a “music” station built on the back of Michael Jackson, say observers of the latest controversy dealing with the asinine song and video by pop squeaky-wheel Eminem. For now, the soft-core porn channel–as some smart-alecks like to refer to it—will continue to play the hideous and disgustingly disrespectful Eminem video. Despite BET yanking the garbage from their airwaves, MTV has thus far replied with an insult of their own; claiming Jackson is “losing it” for wanting the video pulled. Jackson has released a statement about this recent situation, saying:

“I am very angry at Eminem’s depiction of me in his video. I feel that it is outrageous and disrespectful. It is one thing to spoof, but it is another to be demeaning and insensitive. “I’ve admired Eminem as a artist, and was shocked by this. The video was inappropriate and disrespectful to me, my children, my family, and the community at large. It is my hope that the other networks will take BET’s lead and pull it.” (see Statements from Jackson and BET Re: Eminem publicity stunt)

This is not shocking coming from MTV, who has been viciously deceitful and disrespectful towards Jackson in the past. What is outright ungrateful is the fact that MTV would not be “MTV” had it not been for Jackson putting the channel on the map with his vast audience base while it was still a fledgling network.

Prosecutors Hiding Alleged Informants from the Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #209

Prosecutors Hiding Alleged Informants from the Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #209 Are prosecutors hiding people who they claim are “informants” from the defense team? Jackson’s lawyers filed a motion, dated October 4 2004, in which they say prosecutors have not been forthcoming in turning over the names of people who prosecutors claim gave them info about Jackson. As far as the defense knows, these people may not exist, they may have exculpatory evidence or they may not have even been around Jackson during the time prosecutors alleged a crime occurred. This is what the defense is trying to find out. The defense team states that they have received a “search warrant hodgepodge” of information with missing pages and missing supporting affidavits. Some search warrants they haven’t even seen at all yet. It is insanely preposterous that prosecutors still have yet to even produce all search warrants, supporting affidavits and their returns to the defense. More over, they have been trying to get the identities of these so-called “informants” since at least July 22 2004, as referenced in a letter written from Tom Mesereau to Sneddon. And, apparently, Sneddon lied to the defense about who this person(s) was.

Personal Vendetta Will Get Sneddon Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson? – MB #208

Personal Vendetta Will Get Sneddon Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson? – MJEOL Bullet #208 In the defense’s Motion for Recusal of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office, Michael Jackson’s lawyers say that the DA’s office has a conflict of interest which will make it “unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial.” Many observers of the “case” do agree that district attorney Tom Sneddon is too personally involved in this case; so much so that he may be blinded by a personal vendetta to fully understand the difference between ‘justice’ and what is his own vindictiveness. Jackson’s lawyers say that the current DA is so “blinded by his zeal” to prosecute Jackson that he has been involved in some of the most ridiculous behavior ever executed by a district attorney. They say that faced with retirement and a complete failure to prosecute Jackson in ’93, Sneddon “renewed his campaign against Mr. Jackson” after the Bashir documentary. The law on recusing a DA is as follows:

(1) a conflict of interest must exist and (2) the conflict must be “so grave as to render it unlikely that [the] defendant will receive fair treatment during all portions of the criminal proceedings” People v Griffin 33 Cal. App. 4th 536, 569 (2003) (citation omitted). (see Defense Motion to Recuse Santa Barbara District Atty pg 25 | pg 29 of .pdf file)

Astonishingly, the defense reveals that the original officer assigned to the case determined that there wasn’t any misconduct on Jackson’s part in their first, two-month investigation into this very allegation in 2003. If you remember, the sheriff’s notes, along with the accuser’s accusations, were leaked to NBC’s Mike Taibbi earlier this year.

Defense wants SBDA Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson – MJEOL Bullet #207

Defense wants SBDA Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson – MJEOL Bullet #207 Reuters and the AP are reporting information about the defense’s motion to have the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office tossed from prosecuting Michael Jackson.  These reports are complete with comments from people like Laurie Levinson, Stan Goldman, and Steve Cron.

Fox News analyst Stan Goldman is quoted in the Reuter’s article as saying of the defense’s motion: “Forcibly recusing a District Attorney is a rarely granted motion.  There may be some animosity in this case but the defense is going to have to go pretty far to show enough to actually remove him”.

Cron is quoted as saying in the AP article: “The odds of being successful are very slim.  It would be highly unusual for a judge to take the whole district attorney’s office off a case”.

What these legal analysts fail to realize is that this isn’t a normal “case” that they’ve tried and/or taught about in a classroom.  What they also neglected to see is that this same district attorney’s office has already been very recently removed from prosecuting at least one other case: the Judge Diana Hall case.

As reported by the Santa Maria Times in a report dated September 30 2004, we lean that Sneddon and his office have been tossed from prosecuting Hall because of a huge conflict of interest not to mention what some say is vindictiveness and selective prosecution.  The State of California’s Attorney General’s office will prosecute the case instead.

Defense Rebukes Unlawful Raid on Personal Asst – MJEOL Bullet #206

Defense Rebukes Unlawful Raid on Personal Asst – MJEOL Bullet #206 In newly released court documents stamped September 29 2004, Michael Jackson’s attorneys state that the search of Jackson’s personal assistant was overbroad, an invasion of the defense camp and blatant trampling on Jackson’s rights.  They say that the information seized—including three folders labeled “Mesereau” and a fax to Tom Mesereau—is protected by attorney-client privilege.  Not to mention many items that were taken which fall outside the scope of the search warrant.

This motion came just days before Jackson’s attorneys filed a motion yesterday (Oct 4 2004) to have the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office thrown off this “case”.  That motion was filed under seal by attorney Robert Sanger.  More on that in upcoming news.

The defense’s Motion to Suppress Materials Seized Pursuant to Search Warrant Number 5135 show that prosecutors and police just can’t seem to keep their grubby little hands (and eyes) off of the defense’s work product.

The raid on Jackson’s personal assistant, whose name is redacted from the motion, occurred at her home where she “administers the business and personal affairs for Mr.  Jackson out of the office at her residence”.

She has been Jackson’s personal assistant for nearly 14 years.  The office is a part of her home but everything related to MJJ Productions is maintained in the office area.

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!