MJEOL

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)

Prosecutors Break Atty-Client Privilege… Again – MJEOL Bullet #201 In what can only be called a deliberate seizure of material covered by the attorney-client privilege, police raided Michael Jackson’s personal assistant where they seized defense work product. This time it was blatant and obvious.

In the defense’s Emergency Application, Jackson attorney Robert Sanger is requesting that items recently seized from Jackson’s personal assistant on September 15 2004, be sealed precisely because they are protected by attorney-client privilege.

It is much more than a coincidence that this raid took place the day before a very important 2-day hearing in this case. This is outrageously disgusting behavior that won’t be appeased with a simple “I made a mistake”.

It is common knowledge to sheriff’s deputies and prosecutors who Jackson’s personal assistant is. The defense says that from the sheriff’s department Property Form, some items seized definitely pertain to Jackson’s attorneys and their representation of him in this current “case”. Those items include a fax from Jackson to his attorney Tom Mesereau and 3 (three) folders labeled “Mesereau”.

Major Bombshells, Evasive Answers, & Odd Behavior – MJEOL Bullet #200 Accusers mother seemed to have something to hide says certain courtroom observers The hearing held September 17 2004 provided a glimpse into the Michael Jackson “case” that many have not been privy to. Aside from learning that school officials send out deputies to pick up a large number of fans who skip school to see and support Michael Jackson, we learned a LOT of information during the hearing. Most importantly, for the first time, the public saw the accuser’s mother unsuccessfully try to talk her way out of very serious situations with far reaching implications. While some anti-Jackson media nuts were making jokes about Jackson, other people were watching the mother intently.

The accuser’s mother seemed to have terminal cases of selective memory, evasiveness and combativeness. She not only didn’t want to answer questions, but took every opportunity to try to distract from the issue. The theme, according to courtroom observers, was ‘I don’t know’; that is, when she wasn’t asking Mesereau to repeat the question for the 6th or 7th time.

Wrapping herself around being chosen by God, she responded to very tough questions by Tom Mesereu, Jackson’s defense attorney by telling what some observers call “obvious lies”.

At issue during the hearing was whether she knew private investigator Brad Miller worked for then-Jackson attorney Mark Geragos. If you’ll remember, previous reports from some prosecution-apologists claimed she had no idea who worked for whom and simply assumed Miller was part of Jackson’s security team. Well, we found out in court last week that this is not true.