No comments

The Extortion Investigation

REDEMPTION by Geraldine Hughes (Excerpt)

4.4 The Extortion Investigation – Extortion on the part of an attorney warrants disbarment. Barton v State Bar of California (1935) 40 P.2d 502, 2 C.2d 294.

Anthony Pellicano stated repeatedly to the news media that the entire child molestation allegation was an elaborate extortion scheme by Mr. Rothman [the 93 accuser’s first attorney] and Dr. Chandler [the 93 accuser’s father] to extort money from Michael Jackson.

Throughout the entire ordeal Mr. Pellicano never changed his opinion. In a declaration filed by Mr. Pellicano in opposition to a Motion for Trial Preference and in support of Michael Jackson’s Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial, he stated that Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman demanded twenty million dollars in the form of four—five million dollar payments for writing deals for Dr. Chandler’s services.

Mr. Pellicano further stated that Dr. Chandler said he would ruin Michael Jackson if he didn’t get what he wanted and that he believed Dr. Chandler, directly or indirectly, found a way to make his claims public in retaliation for Michael Jackson not meeting his demand.

No comments

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.