tHe cUttInG eDgE

Hurrican Katrina Help

2005-08-30T18:14:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the devastation left by hurricane Katrina, we are posting this link for all those who wish to donate funds to the American Red Cross. Monies are absolutely necessary to help combat the dire straits so many persons have been left in as a result of this disaster.

https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.asp

Diane Dimond FIRED!

2005-08-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

Court TV Ditches Dimond, Head Investigative Reporter

August 29, 2005
By Anthony Crupi

Court TV reporter Diane Dimond was let go last week as the network continues to restructure its daytime programming.

In a note to members of an online Yahoo! Message board devoted to her, Dimond said that Court TV decided to cut her loose, even though her contract wasn't due to expire until December.

"Court TV told me on Wednesday that they planned to dismantle my Investigative Unit, and Friday was my last day there," Dimond wrote.
In a statement, Court TV on Monday confirmed that it had let Dimond go: "Court TV recently re-branded Court TV News and as part of that effort is restructuring its investigative unit formerly headed by Diane Dimond." The network added that Dimond had been a "tremendous asset ... and was key to the network's successful coverage of the Michael Jackson trial."

Dimond said she'd use her newfound free time to work on her chronicle of the Jackson case, Be Careful Who You Love, which hits bookstores Nov. 15. (The title comes from the King of Pop's musical disavowal of patrimony, the 1983 hit "Billie Jean.")

Her note also suggests that Dimond will continue to make the occasional cable news appearance. "My friend Nancy Grace says now that I have some free time she expects me to join her on her CNN show from time to time," Dimond wrote.

In July, Court TV split itself into two distinct units --a daytime slate dubbed "Court TV News" and a prime-time and weekends block tagged "Court TV Seriously Entertaining." The division was effected in order to underscore the network's transition toward presenting original unscripted fare and issue-related movies at night, while emphasizing its news and trial coverage in mornings and afternoons.
------------------------------------

There is a God. We are most grateful that Diane Dimond has been let go. Of course, we also know that she will now go full steam ahead with yet more hopes to cash in on the only meal ticket that has fed her career: Michael Jackson.

Mr. Jackson, wherever you are, we wish you a Happy Birthday and consider Ms. Dimond’s firing a very nice gift indeed.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

Cutting Edge Call for Journalists

2005-08-25T08:06:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

The cUttInG eDgE is very much interested in dialoguing with credentialed journalists about the state of journalism and reporting, especially after the Michael Jackson trial, through an E-View format (email interview).

The format will be very simple: the Cutting Edge will send participants seven questions via E-View. If you feel that you can provide insight and clarity to the issues relative to journalism and reporting, please do the following:

1.) You must email the Cutting Edge----->thecuttingedge2004@yahoo.com. We do this to preserve your privacy and freedom on the forum.

2.) You must email using your professional contact email address (i.e. PunkMoney@washingtonpost.com)

3.) You must include your name and a brief listing of your professional experience and achievements

Once all responding parties have been cleared for participation, a confirmation email will be sent and questions will be submitted within (2) weeks.

Thanks so much for your consideration!

More On Janet Arvizo

2005-08-23T13:43:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of the Smoking Gun

Jackson Accuser's Mom Hit With Fraud Rap
Prosecutors: Woman repeatedly lied to secure welfare handouts
AUGUST 23--The mother of the Los Angeles boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation was charged today with welfare fraud and perjury. The five-count felony indictment charges Janet Arvizo with a single fraud count and four instances of lying to secure nearly $19,000 in welfare payments to which she was not entitled, according to the below court filing. Arvizo, 37, who is scheduled for an September 7 Superior Court arraignment, is pictured at right in a mug shot from a 1998 arrest. During her testimony at the Jackson trial, Arvizo cited the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer questions about how she succeeded in obtaining welfare payments while having more than $30,000 in the bank. During the defense case, a Jackson lawyer walked a California Department of Social Services representative through Arvizo's welfare applications, pointing out how she repeatedly failed to disclose, as required by law, assets and financial assistance she was receiving. Among many devastating brickbats tossed at Arvizo during the Jackson trial, the welfare fraud allegations were particularly damaging since they appeared to be backed by government documents (not to mention that Arvizo refused to address them for fear of incriminating herself). (5 pages)

Janet Arvizo Charged

2005-08-23T13:36:00.000-07:00

Janet Arvizo Charged

Friends, this story is long overdue. Now let’s see if the “fair and balanced” media covers this trial and scrutinizes Janet Arvizo’s questionable past as much as they gobbled up ever baseless rumor about Michael Jackson.
-------------------------------

Mother of Jackson's Accuser Charged
Aug 23 3:57 PM US/Eastern

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
[url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/23/D8C5NV8G0.html]BREITBART---AP NEWS[/url]

LOS ANGELES

The woman whose son accused Michael Jackson of child molestation was charged with welfare fraud Tuesday for allegedly collecting nearly $19,000 in payments while making false claims.

At Jackson's trial, the woman invoked her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and refused to testify about the welfare matter.

But Jackson's lawyers presented evidence that she and her family had received a $150,000 settlement in a 2001 lawsuit against a department store at a time when she was claiming to be poor. They also showed the woman was receiving money from her boyfriend to pay the rent on her apartment.

The complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office alleged that the woman hid from authorities the fact that she had received the settlement and also failed to report the receipt of $637 for payment of her rent in January 2003.

The Associated Press is withholding the name of the woman to protect the identity of her son.

The woman was a key witness for the prosecution against Jackson, who was acquitted of all charges. Many jurors said her lack of credibility on the witness stand was a major factor in their verdict.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Politics of Gender and Media Coverage

2005-08-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

Media bias has never been more suspect and more obvious than it is today. With so many self-proclaimed journalists running from network to network, interjecting themselves into every high-profile case that can be found, one could hardly fail to notice the thirst for attention and profit that may drive this generation of pundits. One of the most insidious elements slithering through the halls of American network television is that of the radical feminist-turned-television commentator.

Let us say from the outset that we are not discussing or critiquing feminism as a whole. On the contrary, we celebrate the great gains that trailblazing women have made in the last one hundred years that have strengthened and enlivened our nation.

What we are critiquing, however, is a very specific and very prominent group of “commentators” who appear to take a particular liking to assuming that all high-profile men who are accused of crimes (especially if those crimes are against women or children) must be guilty.

Remember O.J. Simpson? The former football star, irrespective of what one believes of his guilt or innocence, was particularly savaged in the media after he was accused of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Some critics suggested that Simpson was automatically condemned for the crimes because Simpson had allegedly taken the life of a white woman, something that has historically gotten black men lynched—even with nothing more than a baseless accusation. Whether these critics were right in their assessment is a matter for the reader to decide.

Note that we are not arguing for or against Simpson’s innocence or guilt. Our concern is that the minute the jury exonerated Simpson of the murders, the floodgates were opened to radical feminist talking heads (mostly white), espousing how the jury “got it wrong” and how Simpson got away with murder, leading to the nasty habit among this same group of television commentators to automatically assume that any high-profile men accused of crimes (especially those against women and children) must be guilty, even before any evidence has been presented or the case has been prosecuted.

Kobe Bryant was branded a rapist without little or no investigation into the questionable deposition that his accuser gave to police. Had they paid attention to the conflicting statements as well as her behavior the night of the alleged rape, they would have shut their mouths and allow the prosecutor to do his job. Whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

We have certainly been asking this question for nearly the last two years as pop music legend Michael Jackson was raped over the coals of radical white feminist talking heads like Wendy Murphy who constantly called Jackson a “Teflon child molester” who gets away with abusing young boys. We are dumbfounded that so many supposedly well-educated, articulate, and “fair-minded” commentators could be so determined to believe Jackson was guilty that they would even intentionally misrepresent court testimony and evidence to the contrary to make themselves feel better.

When it came to Jackson trial coverage, the approach of this crew was simple: whenever someone says something I don’t like, criticize them and move on to someone who agrees with me. For example, CNN’s Nancy Grace, never at a loss for words when it comes to trumpeting Jackson’s obvious guilt before viewers, was careful to block any opinions concerning the Jackson case that violated her own presuppositions:

----------------------------------------------------------

GRACE: Very quickly, to Robi Ludwig. Right now, I believe public sentiment is still on Michael Jackson`s side.
ROBI LUDWIG, PSYCHOLOGIST: I agree with you.
GRACE: Nobody wants to believe he would do this. They would rather believe this family is on the take.
LUDWIG: And there’s a lot of information about this family that would suggest that. The mother is not entirely credible. This boy was a very sick boy. The family initiated contact with Michael Jackson.
GRACE: The kid had cancer.
LUDWIG: Yes, but he was the one the family initiated the contact with Michael Jackson. It wasn’t like Michael Jackson weaseled his way into this family and seduced them. So there’s a lot to be suspicious about.And I think every time that Michael Jackson comes off -- now, granted, we know that he’s bizarre and looks different. But he comes off as fairly well in terms of being appropriate.
GRACE: What?
LUDWIG: Yes, in terms of being...
GRACE: Wait, I’ve got to go to Jane Velez-Mitchell.[i]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, Ms. Grace did not take too kindly to the psychologist’s assessment of Jackson. She immediately segued to Jane Mitchell-Valez, someone more sympathetic to her position. How professional and balanced is that?

What happened to Jackson is that he got caught in the crossfire of gender politicking of radical feminism run amuck. Jackson is perhaps one of the most unique high-profile men in the world. He is a man with a certain tenderness that attracts children but frightens dirty-minded adults. He is not a brute, not a womanizer, and from accounts that we have heard from women who have known him, a gentleman. He was the traditional target but he was still a man. And that was apparently enough for some folks.

Instead of being judged on the preponderance of the evidence, these media quacks vilified Jackson, reporting every disgusting angle that disparaged his character and made him look guilty. Their behavior towards men is no better than the toxic misogyny that exists in our culture even today. They only mirror their ignorant male counterparts who degrade and devalue the opinion, intellect, and worth of a woman.

Their hypocrisy is just as destructive. The likes of Murphy, Grace and Allred claim to be advocates for oppressed women and children. We challenged Grace to be fair in reporting the evil deeds of both men and women. She failed to do this over a week ago when former fugitives and accused murderers George and Jennifer Hyatte were on the loose. On her August 9, 2005 show, she spent much of the program detailing the husband’s criminal record. It was psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall who reminded her that the woman was “homicidal too.”[ii]

Gloria Allred’s motives also come into question. She has no apology for representing former Scott Peterson mistress Amber Frey as the young lady did interview after interview for money, promoting her book about her experiences with Peterson. Nevermind that she and her lecherous lawyer abused the justice system by erroneously creating the idea that she was a material witness for the prosecution when in fact she was not. We wonder how promoting an admitted adulteress’s book and profiting from it could honor the memory of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, the real victims in this case.

Conclusion
Something must change. As stated earlier, we are not arguing against women’s rights or the feminist movement. However, we are pushing for a more fair-minded approach to reporting the news. We would like to express our summation with a few closing maxims we believe would be helpful to stem the tide of gender politicking:

We must operate from a basic assumption that both women and men are equally capable of good and bad behavior. Neither group has cornered the market on either sphere of human reality.
Representing the “oppressed” is never an excuse---legal or otherwise—to commit libel or slander against anyone else.
All accused persons are deemed by the Constitution innocent until proven guilty. That does not dissuade persons from holding their own opinions but their personal opinions should not be allowed to drown out those who voice different ideas.
There must be more ethnic/racial gains made when it comes to commentary news programs. While we are encouraged by the number of racial minorities (mainstream term, not ours) on television as correspondents and reporters, there are very few racial minorities who are given an entire program to lead and facilitate discussions on the issues of the day.
Men and women must make truth and social justice for all persons their highest aim.
Power, regardless of who has it, can either be a destructive intoxicant or a tool of liberation. Both genders need not abuse it.

------------------------------------------------
[i] Nancy Grace Transcript. February 27, 2005. Accessed from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/25/ng.01.html
[ii] Nancy Grace Transcript. CNN Headline News. August 9, 2005. Accessed from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/09/ng.01.html.

The Monster Is Alive: How the Media Help Feed Jury Misconduct in the Jackson Trial

2005-08-12T15:21:00.000-07:00

I find it very hypocritcal of some journalists to decry the selfishness and unprofessionalism that former Jackson jurors Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman have demonstrated since they themselves help to create this monster of profiting from civic duty. Isn't it interesting how the same talking heads who were stunned to stupidity when the jurors did the right thing, basing their 14 "NOT GUILTY" verdicts on the evidence and not on tabloid opinion, are now the first ones to cock their shotguns at Ma and Pa Kettle? After all, these are the very kinds of people some of you were hoping would get on the jury and nail Jackson. Unfortunately for you and the prosecution, the evidence against Jackson was as weak as my great-Uncle's bladder and the whole case was rightly put to sleep.

But let's be real here.

The bottom line is had the media been fair and balanced in their coverage of the Jackson investigation and trial, there would have been a greater degree of accountability slapped on the heads of these renegade jurors. Such accountability would prevent them from repeating the words of embittered and stuttering prosecutors (Tom Sneddon) and leaning on shady and sleazy Hollywood "insiders" like Larry Garrison (who never has seen a high-profile case he couldn't take advantage of).

Findlaw and FOX legal anaylis Jonna Spilbor voiced some major concerns during the Scott Peterson case about profiting from trials (source):

------------------------------------------
Should jurors and lay witnesses in criminal trials be permitted to turn a civic duty into cold hard cash?

In my opinion, the cons clearly outweigh the pros. The First Amendment issue is one for the courts to decide; but the policy issue, at least, clearly counsels against allowing profit from either testimony or jury service.

A criminal defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury of his peers. When the prospect of money enters in the jury box, it's not a stretch to surmise that some juror, somewhere, will be more interested in the prospect of cold hard cash than in the thankless job of jury duty. But jurors should be thinking about justice - not how they can profit. One thing is certain: justice should never be for sale.

What about witnesses? They, too, should keep their eye on the ball: They ought to be thinking of telling the truth, not of maximizing their profit. When money enters the picture, there is a very real potential that "star witnesses" with dollars signs in their eyes may color or create "evidence" to maximize their profitability.

After all, much like real celebrities, these courtroom "stars" are made, not born. They know more lurid testimony will make their stories more saleable. The temptation to exaggerate -- or outright lie -- may prove irresistible.

A spate of high profile criminal trials is now under way, or soon to be -- including Robert Blake's, Michael Jackson's, and Phil Spector's. Don't be surprised when attorneys begin asking witnesses to produce bank statements -- so that cross-examination may show secret book deals, or other payments, that suggest that the witnesses have something -- other than their oath to tell the truth -- on their minds.
-------------------------------------------

Spilbor is dead on and it's too bad that she and others like her don't get enough face time on worthless news networks like Court TV and FOX. Like a deadbeat dad who conveniently forgets his children, the media seems to have forgotten the bastard offspring that their intentionally careless and biased coverage.

Whether it's Ma and Pa Kettle Jurors or Amber "the Homewrecker" Frey, no case is too tragic to make a buck off. They all should be ashamed of themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will provide links to articles that speak to the issue of the juror misconduct in the coming days.

American Justice?

2005-08-05T20:18:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought the American just-us system could not get any more pathetic, word came down today that two jurors of the Michael Jackson trial are penning books in which they claim that they believe that Jackson is guilty (here).

Now let's get something straight: I am all for doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. I am all for being enterprising and entreprenurial. But when it comes to jurors who acquit a defendant and then turn around to write a book claiming that they felt he was guilty but that they were bullied, I have to put my foot down. Why?

Because it would mean that they intentionally let loose someone they believed to be a child predator. At best,Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook are no better than Janet Arvizo or a child molester for that matter. Why? Because all the aforementioned have a clear pattern for misusing and abusing children for their own pleasure and gain. The majority of the jurors in the case have decried the notion that they bullied anyone into exonerating Jackson and are planning to write their own book which will explain why they voted as they did.

As for the media, their reaction is nothing short of ridiculous, long on hyperbole and short on substance. So desperate for any Jackson related news that they will even entertain the likes of faux-Jackson family friend Stacy "the Clown" Brown , a man as morally bankrupt as Enron is financially. He literally betrayed his family friends (who were not, according to sources, Michael Jackson). What Brown is doing is prostituting himself to anyone with anything negative to say about the singer. Why? Because negativity sells, at least in theory. By the way, Brown's collaborative "effort" with former Jackson employee Bob Jones, fell faster than Joan Rivers' face. Nobody is buying his crap at all.

I can only hope that more even handed recountings of the trial will surface even as Sneddon obsessee Diane Dimond puts the finishing touches on her book.

But something tells the Cutting Edge that those who are intent on laughing all the way to the bank will get a rude awakening in the coming months. We can't wait!

Readers Respond

2005-06-28T14:39:00.000-07:00

We at the cutting edge believe in responding to our readers as much as possible. Here are a few comments:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SandWats9@****** wrote:

I DO NOT BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO HAS A LAW DEGREE AND IS ON NATIONAL TV IS CONSIDERED TRALIER TRASH. NANCY GRACE HAS HER OPINIONS JUST LIKE THE ONES POSTED ON THIS WEB SITE. JUSTICE DOES SEEM TO BE DISHED OUT BY HOW MUCH MONEY A PERSON HAS AND WHAT LAWYER A DEFENDENT CAN HIRE. AS TO WHETHER MJ IS GUILTY OR NOT, THE JURY HAS SPOKEN AND NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE BUT JACKSON AND OR HIS VICTIM.ONE THING FOR SURE HE WILL BE MORE CAREFULL NOW AND I BELIEVE HE WILL LEAVE THE COUNTRY. I KNOW OF A CASE SIMILIAR TO THIS EXCEPT IT WAS A MAN THAT MOLESTED A 7 YEAR OLD CHILD AND BECAUSE THIS CHILD AND ANOTHER CHILD THAT WAS A WITNESS TO THE ACT COULD NOT REMEMBER EXACT DATES THIS MAN RECEIVED 16 YEARS PROBATION. THAT IS NOT MY IDEA OF JUSTICE. THE SYSTEM SEEMS TO PROTECT THE MOLESTOR BY ASSUMING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND THE VICTIM REALLY HAS NO RIGHTS. I KNOW IT IS THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS BUT SEEMS A LITTLE OFF BALANCE TO ME. OUR WORLD IS CHANGING AND THE PEOPLE IN OUR WORLD HAVE LOST ALL SENSE OF DECENCY AND RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER. JUST MY OPINION!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sandwats9:

Our belief in Mr. Jackson's innocence is not based on mere opinion. Please feel free to consult the Santa Barbara County Superior Court website for links to the court transcripts. The proceedings make it clear that trouble remembering dates was not the ONLY thing that sunk the prosecution's case.

As for Ms. Grace, we can neither confirm nor deny that she is in fact trailor park trash.

Take care.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

====================================

" Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:39:21 -0400

Thank you The CutTing Edge. Bravo! Bravo! I've found a fair, supportive voice for Michael Jackson. I really like your site. Not only is it informative, but displays truth, open-mindness, fair articles and assessments. Wow! I agree wholeheartedly with what you have shown in defense of Michael Jackson and the response to his enemies.

You get an "A+" for common sense, clear thinking, outstanding commentary, research, fair assessments, a sense of humor, and acquired respect for being supportive of and helping Michael Jackson by exposing the "big picture."

Thank you. A fan for the "truth", fairness, and MJJ.

Watching and listening closely in Pittsburgh, PA
Roberta T

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Roberta:

Thank you for your kind words. From the very beginning, we were committed to telling the sides of the story few other mainstream news outlets were unwilling to delve into. We thank you for your support and the song lyrics for Michael Jackson were very touching!

Thanks again.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

Diane Dimond vs. Journalism Code of Ethics

2005-06-23T12:35:00.000-07:00

Diane Dimond has been known to take on the likes of fellow colloegues Geraldo Rivera and the highly respected Ed Bradley from CBS' "60 Minutes" for not asking the right questions when interviewing pop legend Michael Jackson. Of course, we find her criticisms interesting and downright hypocritical in light of her clear biases against Jackson and her obvious presumption of the singer's guilt.

Dimond has proven herself to be unfair, unbalanced, and downright right devious when it coomes to reporting anything on Jackson. The fact that she was often, according to anonymous sources inside the Santa Maria courtroom, slip out whenever the defense cross-examined witnesses, is a telltale sign of the tabloidish media bias that has corrupted so much of the "reporting" in the United States.

Dimond should be applauded for her tenacity and her ability to see a story until it is finished. However, when deception, meanness, unfairness, and unfounded innuendo are bandied about by her as if they are true, her reporting becomes as worthless and as malodorous as a Porto-Potty.

Making her behavior all the more scurrilous is the fact that Dimond is writing a book on Jackson and is prepared to profit from twelve years of reporting.

To offer some insights, we would like to compare her practices regarding the Jackson coverage with the a Journalism Code of Ethics. The Cutting Edge will not address every single code as some would require us to guess about Ms. Dimond's practices. That simply would not be fair to Ms. Dimond. We will, however, highlight those codes we feel apply best to her. These codes of ethics are in black print and our assessment of Dimond's adherence to the codes will be in red.

Diane Dimond and the Journalism Code of Ethics
Code of Ethics > SPJ Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.
When it comes to testing the accuracy of information, Dimond falls short, particularly when it comes to any source who dessiminates negative information about Michael Jackson. One of the worst examples was her erroneous story about alleged love letters Jackson wrote to accuser Gavin Arvizo. Dimond claimed she had seen the aforementioned letters and was quick to gloat on a segment of “Larry King Live.” When fellow guest Chris Pixley challenged the truthfulness of her story, Dimond stuck to her guns and refused to recant. Interestingly, there never were any such “love letters” from Jackson to Arvizo and even the Santa Barbara County prosecutors disavowed the story. Clearly, Dimond either did not check her sources or that she intentionally fabricated the story altogether.

Deliberate distortion is never permissable.
Dimond has violated this code so much that it would take forever to wade through the ruses she has attempted to pull of on a gullible viewing and reading audience. Throughout the case and ensuing trial, Dimond was quick to distort information, painting a picture of Jackson altogether different than what the evidence presented by the prosecution would evenutally bear out. For example, she has continued to state that child pornography was found at Jackson’s ranch, claiming that two books including one entitled “The Boy” fit the bill for such an assertion. But had Jackson had ANY child pornography in his home or on his computers, he would have been charged with a FEDERAL CRIME as possession of child pornography is a federal offense. Even more pathetic was Ms. Dimond’s claim that Jackson admitted to negligence involving a sexual abuse claim in 1993 that Jackson settled out of court. Ms. Dimond’s claim, however, are not supported by either of the documents that were given to her. She boldly lied without compunction and that is an absolute shame.

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises. We cannot and would never suggest that any reporter or journalist actually expose their sources; however, whenever a clear pattern of deception emerges from the reporting of one journalist, questions must be raised by the reporter to make sure that the public is not being duped and deceived by dubious information. We find no such proof that Dimond has ever questioned her sources. Had she done so, we would never have been subjected to such horrific stories about twenty year old underwear (that was never confirmed to belong to Jackson), love letters puportedly from Jackson to Gavin Arvizo, or erroneous reports of Jackson plying the accuser with sleeping pills (this never came up in the prosecution’s case)

Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. Ms. Dimond consistently violated this principle of sound journalism during the trial coverage. On numerous occasions, Ms. Dimond would offer a deliciously inviting sound bite that would lead one to believe that the prosecution was scoring major points in their push to convict Jackson and that the jury was "riveted" by the evidence against Jackson. Of course, only after consulting other reputable news outlets, persons who were actually in the courtroom, as well as the actual court transcripts would we learn the actual facts. And those facts almost always completely impeached every word that dropped from the lips of Ms. Dimond. If the jury was as riveted by the prosecution as Dimond had suggested, there is no way that same jury would have exonerated Jackson from ALL the charges against him. Her deception is a grave disservice to viewers, readers, and to the American journalism scene.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. E! True Hollywood special on Michael Jackson will recall the glee in which Dimond stated Jackson would go "splat" before our very eyes. What was equally troubling to us was not so much what she said but how she said it. There was a certain vindictiveness in her voice and a frightening glint in her eyes when she discussed the likelihood of Jackson's alleged impending doom. Dimond is not a journalist but a glorified pen holder with an ax to grind against a celebrity who sued her for defamation. While she has claimed in one breath to feel sorry for Jackson, she has called him names and branded him guilty in another breath. How compassionate is that? No one is asking Dimond to like Jackson or agree with everything he does. However, true compassion in reporting is being willing to at least see things from different perspectives. In addition, true compassion in reporting involves not labeling persons sex abuse victims or insinuating that they are when in fact they have continued to deny such claims. One can only imagine what Culkin, Barnes, Robeson, and any others that she has mentioned in connection to Jackson have had to deal with as a result of her skewed reporting.

Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. Ms. Dimond sniffed 20 year old underwear, intimating that they belonged to Jackson and would be used to obtain his DNA for the trial. The problem was the underwear were never confirmed to be his and Jackson’s DNA was never a real issue in the actual court trial. The most ridiculous thing about this lack of good taste is the image it brings up in the minds of those reading this article.

Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Ms. Dimond has spent the last 12 years trying to convince the world that SHE has the goods to prove Jackson is a serial pedophile. Do we need to comment any further on how she presented Jackson during the last 18 months? Be sure to read it in her upcoming book on Jackson. If Ms. Dimond believed in the constitutional rights of criminal suspects, she would have refrained from her one-sided reporting and her continual negative reporting of anything having to do with Mr. Jackson.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. One of the most interesting stories to emerge regarding Dimond’s reporting concerns her close ties to Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon. Rumors of an affair between the two emerged a couple of years ago, not from the lips of Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman but from her own network’s message board, a Court TV message board. In addition, the Cutting Edge was made aware of several independent sources who confirm the affair but the sources do not wish to be revealed for fear of reprisal. Even if such an affair never happened, Dimond is STILL clearly closely connected with the prosecution and has even been challenged on air by some of her collegues. While we certainly believe that who she sleeps with is none of our business, how she reports stories IS our business and her close ties to other Jackson haters like Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth and Sneddon mouthpiece Jim Thomas (they were spotted having drinks together one afternoon after proceedings has ended) concern us.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. If Ms. Dimond adhered to this ideal, then why did she never ask her good buddy Tom Sneddon:

he raided Neverland a second time in December 2004 to get DNA from Jackson when all he had to do was ask defense attorney Tom Mesereau for it
he leaked the confidential grand jury testimony, a clear violation of the gag order set forth by Judge Rodney Melville
he slid his card under the Arvizos door before the timeline of abuse he presented to jurors
it took 113 warrants to search Neverland, only to discover that Jackson enjoys looking at naked women
why he pressed forward with this case knowing that Jackson did not do it (yes, Sneddon is well aware of Jackson’s innocence)

We know why she would never question Sneddon. When she learns to question her sources (Sneddon included), then she is on the road to becoming as decent a reporter as one could expect out of someone with no advanced degrees in journalism or its theory.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

[] Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
[] Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

Dimond wishes to dialog only with those who agree with her. She slammed FOX's Geraldo Rivera, claiming that he was no longer objective in covering the Jackson case after he proclaimed that Jackson was the victim of a vindictive prosecutor with no real case. The hypocrisy is obvious, however. She attacks any journalist who offers an opinion that challenges her own. Just ask Ed Bradley, who found himself the target of Dimond's criticism after interviewing Jackson. Dimond insisted that the respected reporter failed to ask the "right" questions. Bradley's reputation (and Dimond's for that matter) precedes him and needs no defense from The Cutting Edge.

Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Dimond has shown herself incapable of doing such, instead being content to point out the “mistakes” of others in their reporting of Jackson when those “mistakes” do not align with her own opinions.

Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. If Ms. Dimond adhered to this principle, we would not be writing this article.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Diane Dimond makes no apology for her brand of "reporting," pointing out that respectable news outlets like '60 Minutes' do as much tabloid reporting as she does. "Mike Wallace would be the first one to say to you, 'Yeah, I do tabloid,'" she said. "'I package it real nice, and look at my promos: They're tabloid through and through. They're the best in the business.'" [1]

We believe that Dimond is correct in her assertion that tabloid journalism is the rule of the day. There are very few news outlet that resisted the temptation to sensationalize every story that comes there way. We have seen newspapers like The New York Times print questionable articles that appeared to be ghost-written by National Enquirer hacks, lacking foundation or propriety.

And in true tabloid form, Dimond will seek to profit from her years of obsessive focus on Jackson. Should we be shocked?

If nothing else, Dimond is a sad and pathetic figure who is clearly trying to compensate for a lack of educational training and theory in journalism. Her own insecurities surface everytime other highly trained and well-respected journalists with decades of investigative experience behind them challenge her and her reporting.

Will she mend her ways? With a book about the object of her obsession on the way, we highly doubt it.

How long will the viewing public, who shoulder some of the blame for even listening to her deceptive reporting, continue to tolerate Dimond and those like her? If the public continues to gorge itself with deceptive practices from members of the media and self-proclaimed journalists, then the state of American journalism will continue to descend at breakneck speed. So long as a gullible, lazy viewing audience insists on being spoonfed news instead of critically assessing what they read and hear, Dimond and others of her flock will continue to embroider every story they report with greed, vindicitiveness, and deception.

Perhaps the public’s toleration of Dimond and other tabloidish journalists is the biggest problem of all.
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Source: The New York Observer, Dec 1, 2003.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands ofwriters, editors and other news professionals. The present version ofthe code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after monthsof study and debate among the Society's members.Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from theAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chiwrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

June 21, 2005 Odds & Ends

2005-06-21T13:00:00.000-07:00

THANK YOU, TOM SNEDDON

You know, I do not want anybody to believe that I have it in for Tom Sneddon. I'm not a mean person. Since no one is perfect, I believe it my responsibility to extend an olive branch to the district attorney in my own special way. So, on behalf of the Cutting Edge, who in the past has called you every name imaginable, we would like to say thank you, Tom, for:

Proving that racism and bigotry are alive and well after you called Chris Tucker a "boy" in front of everybody and their mama in the courtroom. That was a watershed moment in the history of bigoted and twisted jurisprudence and you have truly made your forefathers of bigotry proud. By the way, we have spare white sheets for you and your white supremacist son should either of you run out of them.
Singlehandedly updating the legal American language with the flip of a pen (or cursor). Before this case, I had no idea that an "un-indicted co-conspirator" even existed. Heck, it sounds like something out of a "Matrix" movie trying to kill Neo! But you, through your tireless efforts to create a legal precedent for something so ridiculous and so illogical, stretched your own vocabulary beyond the limits, reached for the sky, and tried to pull off a great legal scam. We love you, Tom. Really. We promise.
Giving all those men with squeaky high voices and a dishonesty-induced stutter hope. You always made it easy for objective legal observers to know when you were lying when you tried to convince the world that they should believe a mother five fries short of a Happy Meal with a keen gift for grifting over a mountain of impeaching evidence that painted a coherent and convincing picture of Michael Jackson's innocence. W-w th-the p-people ain't b-buyin your story, Sn-Sn-Sneddon.
Opening yourself up to the media. I cannot recall a district attorney so benevolent towards reporters that they would even toss aside their wife and girlfriends for a quick roll in the hay and some dirt on a pop star. You even went so far as to pay the motel bills (allegedly). We applaud that kind of selflessness that takes no heed to the consquences of infidelity but rather forges ahead in his quest for truth and a good time. We applaud such piggish behavior, Tommy!

IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, WRITE A BOOK ABOUT 'EM

Diane Dimond is writing a book about the case. O the shock. Dimond has been waiting for years to make money off of Jackson, although she has parlayed her sick obsession with him into better televison contracts and the like. Dishonesty DOES pay in America, folks. Just look at her spin!

We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant...

2005-06-20T13:31:00.000-07:00

Saturday, June 18, 2005

We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant...
In wake of Jackson verdict, media yappers reactions prove embarrassing

When word of the verdict reached the awaiting crowd outside, the air roared with both joyous celebration and blistering outrage. Michael Jackson was acquitted of all 10 counts against him, plus four lesser misdemeanor charges of providing alcohol to a minor.

Jackson himself appeared shaken by the reality of his freedom as he exited the courtroom one final time. The former defendant was found not guilty of conspiracy, child molestation, and intoxicating his accuser for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and was thus free to go home. Santa Barbara prosecutors had not been able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rather than accept the jury's unanimous decision, the end to the molestation case was met with post-verdict irrational chatter offered primarily by hysterical blowhards with interminable PMS. The usual suspects hit the network and cable news circuits to express their disbelief over Jackson's acquittal, offer erroneous reasoning for their protest, and use the opportunity to (again) refer to Jackson as predator of children.

The rancor was appalling to say the least. If one didn't know any better, they'd think these people had a personal interest in seeing Jackson carted away to prison.

Nancy Grace, who has never met a defendant she didn't hate, attacked jury foreman Paul Rodriguez during his appearance on her CNN show. While on a self-righteous ramble, Grace offered, "I'm hung up with the jury on this. When you have so many little boys coming in and saying, 'This happened to me,' you got a $20 million settlement to make one kid go away, a $2 million settlement to make another kid go away, you got a grown man sleeping with little boys -- hello!"

Grace was catering to delusions when she stated that "so many little boys" had come in and testified that they had been molested. Aside from the accuser-in-chief, the only other person who spoke of his claims had been Jason Francia, the son of a former Jackson maid. Rodriguez explained that, like the Arvizo family, the jury didn't find Francia credible either, equating his convenient memory lapses to the behavior of Janet Arvizo, the current accuser's mother.

The former litigator reconciled to shrieking when Rodriguez refused to offer his personal opinion as to what he thought went on whenever Jackson was in a room with his young pals. The foreman repeatedly told Grace that jurors were to make their judgments based on the evidence presented, not on personal feelings or beliefs.

Following a break, Grace responded by saying, "I was very stunned to hear a juror refuse to state what he thought Jackson does in bed with all of his line of little boys, say he didn't want to stick his neck out by telling what he believed. I mean, isn't that the point of the justice system, to do what you believe in, what you think is right, for Pete's sake?"

Convicting a person based on beliefs and not presented evidence is what is "right"? Do what they THINK is right? Is that how our American justice system works?

It's no wonder why Grace is a FORMER prosecutor and is instead a pathetic, overly made-up shrill on cable television. Jackson has never been presumed innocent by neither she nor her regular guests, and despite a jury rendering a not guilty verdict, she is convinced that Jackson is a criminal.

Grace did not wallow in bitter misery alone. Pat Lalama of "Celebrity Justice" and former prosecutor Marcia Clark were equally up to making fools of themselves on internationally broadcast television. Appearing on Fox News' "Hannity and Combs," neither Lalama nor Clark gave plausible reasons as to why they believed Jackson was guilty, both of them foaming at the mouth over what they considered an "injustice."

Lalama looked about ready to pop an eyeball as she repeatedly pointed and hollered her purported outrage into cameras, while a not so pretty and BLOND Clark offered a trite position as to why Jackson was not convicted, but should have been. Like all the others sharing her stance, Clark believed the jurors were blinded by Jackson's celebrity and thus did not convict him partly because of this.

For someone who claims to have been in the courthouse throughout the trial, Clark sounded ignorant to case facts compared to those who read the actual trial transcripts. The same could be said of press conference addict and "victims rights advocate" attorney Gloria Allred, who also claims to have been in the courthouse several times.

Allred has filed a THIRD complaint with child protective services to have Jackson's children stripped from him, stating that it should matter not that Jackson was acquitted. To note, Allred was part of a team who called for Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon to investigate whether Jackson had molested Gavin Arvizo. She had also briefly represented Jordan Chandler, Jackson's first accuser, as well as Daniel Kapon, a Los Angeles kid who came forward during the trial with claims of "repressed memories." None of the cases proved successful against Jackson, and as per her pattern, Allred returns to what she's good at: filing complaints against Jackson.

If Gloria Allred was such an advocate for real victims, instead of an exploiter of high profile cases, shouldn't we be seeing a complaint for the removal of Janet Arvizo's youngest child, her son with new husband Major Jay Jackson, from their custody? It has been proven through this case that the woman is an unfit parent, and has had a highly detrimental effect on her older children. This young boy will likely become yet another victim of Arvizo, just as his older siblings, and end up fabricating for gain...allegedly. What would it take to get Allred pointing the finger in that direction and at that innocent child Arvizo gave birth to a year ago? Money?

Then there is the ever-lovable Wendy Murphy, whose smile is as warm as a polar ice cap. One article quoted her as having referred to Jackson as the "Teflon molester," indicating that in her personal opinion, Jackson had gotten away with a crime yet again. Could a liable suit be coming her way? Murphy misconstrued facts and sought to inflame emotions with her tiresome ramblings of the "evidence" she says prosecutors had against Jackson.

"You know, I really can't understand how they couldn't reach a verdict of guilty, at least on the molestation," Murphy said during an appearance on CBS. "And I say that, Hannah, because I've prosecuted so many of these cases, sometimes with nothing more than the word of a child, and that's enough to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is yet another so-called attorney who repeats that in a molestation case, all you need is the word of a child. Let's take that further and clarify that all you need is the word of a CREDIBLE child.

Murphy's statement is equivalent to saying that any child claiming molestation should be automatically believed. Their word is truth and thus without much else, the accused must be convicted. It's people like Murphy and Grace who allow false allegations to proceed through our courts, which result in wrongful convictions of many parents and caretakers based on inaccurate notions of child innocence and what children can or cannot lie about.

Murphy had no qualms insulting jurors either: "I really think it was the celebrity factor, not the evidence. And I don't think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is. ... And I don't think this was the jury doing a good job. I think, frankly, they weren't all that intelligent."

If they had convicted Jackson, Murphy and others would've been singing a different tune, most likely lauding the jurors for their great service and how the American justice system finally worked. Magazines would've hit the print machines with "guilty" branded across Jackson's mug shot. Networks would've aired specials about Jackson's rise and eventual fall.

With Jackson's acquittal, the press just packed up and moved on. No magazine covers about the verdict. No specials about the end of the case. No questions as to why the case made it as far as it did. All significant coverage of the trial ended on the second day post-verdict. No point in further discussing the acquittal of a man who had been labeled guilty from the onset. They were proven wrong and what the media does when they are incorrect is act as if nothing had happened and find a new story to milk.

Why were pundits, commentators, and the outright clueless surprised by the Jackson verdict? Their censorship and misconstruction of what was actually shaping up in the courtroom was a cloak they chose to weave and wear over their own eyes. Pertinent facts never made it into print or broadcast, so they and their audience remained blind to the truths of the matter.

Chatterboxes and rabblerousers chose to instead harp on about boys in the bed, adult material, alleged past acts, and previous settlements, all of which were discussed out of context. It was as if these people had received talking points from Santa Barbara prosecutors, detailing their case in full while offering mere snippets of Jackson's defense. All that spinning must have left them all dizzy, seeing as to how Nancy Grace twice proclaimed on her post-verdict show her need to see a shrink.

If the case against Michael Jackson has taught us anything, it is that the American media has become a freak of its former self. They have morphed into an entity that has sacrificed objectivity and ethics for sensationalism and increasing advertising dollars. Our news media helped create and sustain this monster that was the Jackson case, and in the end, it was proven that where there is smoke, there isn't always fire.

"Bridging the Gap" is a feature of MJJForum's eNews. Obiechena is a freelance writer and staff of MJJForum. She may be reached at speakout@elitemail.org.

The Not Guilty Verdicts in the Michael Jackson Case: Was Justice Served, or Thwarted?

2005-06-20T01:30:00.000-07:00

Note: Just so folks do not get the feeling that I hate lawyers, I am posting this article from Findlaw.com--- not because of her opinion but because of the logical assessment of the facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Not Guilty Verdicts in the Michael Jackson Case: Was Justice Served, or Thwarted?

The jury in the Michael Jackson child molestation case has spoken, acquitting the pop star on charges that the star molested a teenage cancer survivor who briefly resided with him between 2002 and 2003.

Jackson was cleared of ten charges in all. They included four counts alleging he molested, or attempted to molest, the then 13-year-old accuser; four counts alleging he'd plied the boy with alcohol; and one count alleging he'd conspired to hold the boy and his family hostage at Jackson's sprawling Neverland Ranch.
news230();

The case began with a confident forty-six-year old Jackson dancing for fans on the roof of an SUV. But it concluded with a sullen slip of a man shuffling slowly away from the courthouse; Jackson seemed not jubilant to have won his freedom, but exhausted and spent.

So what happened? Is Jackson a wealthy celebrity defendant who was able to buy freedom for a price? Or is he a product of a justice system that, on occasion, actually works?

In this column, I will discuss how the case against Michael Jackson may indeed go down in history -- not as a case that went wrong, but one that went right.

The verdict essentially vindicates the King of Pop, ending what has been described as a long-standing vendetta between Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, and Jackson himself. And it resolved this vendetta the right way: In Jackson's favor.

When It Comes to Evidence, Quantity Can't Make Up for Lack of Quality
The evidence against Jackson was copious in quantity, but very poor in quality, and that's what led to the jury's acquittal.

There was virtually no physical evidence. There was no chilling confession. So the prosecution based its case on testimony - calling eighty-five witnesses, and dragging in allegations of molestation that were nowhere to be found in its indictment.

The prosecution's case thus turned on the credibility of those who testified. And on credibility, the case was lost: When jurors addressed the awaiting cameras, in the hours after the verdict was returned, their message was consistent and clear: They didn't believe the key prosecution witnesses, particularly the two whose testimony was crucial: the accuser and his mother.

The defense successfully portrayed the Arviso family as a family of grifters who exploited the boy's illness to shake down celebrities for money. The accuser's mother, Janet Arviso had to admit on the stand that she'd lied under oath to bolster her damages in a previous civil case against retailer J.C. Penney - a case in which she'd collected more than $152,000.

In that case, Arviso had alleged that security guards had sexually abused her and her son during a shoplifting incident - causing her specific injuries. But defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. persuasively argued to the jury that these injuries were caused not by the guards, but rather by Arviso's abusive ex-husband.

And it wasn't just J.C. Penney that Arviso cheated, according to the defense; it was also the State of California - and thus, in a sense, the twelve taxpayers sitting in the jury box!

Mesereau showed that Arviso had failed to report her $152,000 settlement on a subsequent application for welfare benefits. When questioned about the matter, Arviso asserted her right to refuse to testify under the Fifth Amendment - which applies only when one fears criminal prosecution. No wonder Arviso took the Fifth: Failing to report income on a welfare application, signed under oath, is a felony in California.

On the whole, it would have been a naïve and gullible juror who swallowed Janet Arviso's testimony whole. And even if jurors were inclined to believe Arviso's testimony in part, the required jury instruction - used in all California criminal cases - as much as warned them to be cautious.

It said: "A witness, who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony, is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars."

This instruction may have hurt the credibility of the accuser too. During the defense case in chief, Mesereau presented evidence that the accuser's mother had coached her children to lie in the J.C. Penney case, going so far as to send her children to acting school to make them better storytellers under oath! With evidence like this, a jury would have been hard pressed to believe the accuser's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. And the instruction was clear: If you feel a witness is lying under oath about a given issue, think seriously about whether you can believe him on other issues.

As the jury instruction indicates, testimony is only as reliable as its source - and that's what killed the Jackson prosecution. Jurors properly evaluated the accuser's testimony and demeanor, as well as that of as his mother, and concluded that these key prosecution witnesses were not to be believed - or, at least, that their testimony was shaky enough to create reasonable doubt.

Why the "Prior Bad Acts" Evidence Hurt the Prosecution, Rather Than Helping It
The prosecution seemingly tried to make up for the shaky credibility of Janet Arviso, by throwing more evidence at the jury - "prior bad acts" evidence, to be specific. As I discussed in a prior column, this evidence is admissible in California if the judge so rules.

But this additional evidence didn't bolster the prosecution's case; it sunk it even further.
Prosecutors attempted to paint Jackson as a pedophile by proffering evidence that Jackson had allegedly molested five other boys over the past thirteen years. But to try to prove this, they relied, again, on testimony the jury was unlikely to find credible, to say the least.

This testimony was almost entirely provided by witnesses who, by all accounts, were former disgruntled employees of Neverland, with axes to grind. One was sued by Jackson and forced into bankruptcy in the face of a judgment that had exceeded one million dollars; it's hard to imagine a clearer example of the kind of bias that causes a jury to mistrust testimony.

Meanwhile, this biased testimony was countered by much less biased testimony. Prosecutors had asserted that former child star Macaulay Culkin was once a victim of molestation by Jackson more than a decade ago, when Culkin himself was a frequent visitor to Neverland. But Culkin took the stand and adamantly denied the allegations.

Might Culkin have been biased by his continuing friendship with Jackson? Sure.
Would this bias have caused him to voluntarily perjure himself on the stand - denying an incident that, if it had actually occurred, would have badly scarred him psychologically? That's doubtful.

Was Jackson's friend Culkin - with, apparently, no financial dealings with Jackson - much less biased than the witness whom Jackson had forced into bankruptcy? Absolutely!

In another molestation case, prior bad acts evidence might have convinced an uneasy jury to convict. Imagine a case, for instance, in which the accuser was a very young child whose testimony was convincing, but featured some troubling inconsistencies - inconsistencies that might be due to the accuser's young age, or might be a sign his claims were fabricated. In such a case, hearing strong evidence of prior acts of molestation on the part of the defendant might convince jurors that they would not make a mistake to convict.

The convincing prior bad acts evidence, in other words, could bolster the credibility of the testimony relating to the actual offense. (Indeed, this is exactly why prior bad acts evidence can be deeply unfair: The defendant is on trial for the offense charged, not the prior bad acts. If the jury is, in effect, convicting him of those acts, due process has been subverted: The defendant has a right to know what he is being charged with, and defend against that.)

But here, if anything, the poor quality of the prior bad acts evidence probably cemented jurors in their resolve not to convict.

Prosecutor Sneddon Was Aware of the Evidence's Poor Quality, Yet Indicted Anyway
Moreover, the parade of witnesses with poor credibility did more than undermine the prosecution's case. It also sent an ugly, inadvertent message: This prosecutor wanted to get Jackson even if he had to suborn perjury to do so.

Attorneys have an ethical duty not to knowingly put lying witnesses on the stand.
For defense attorneys, this duty can be in tension with the duty of zealous representation: If your client hasn't confessed, can you be sure he is lying?

But for prosecutors, complying with this duty ought to be easy: If you think your witness is a liar, don't put him up there on the stand to lie. Yet the prosecutors in the Jackson case put likely liars up there again and again.

Is it conceivable that the prosecution testimony in Jackson was all true? Of course not. Is it conceivable that prosecutors could have been ignorant about the lies that would be told? It seems highly unlikely.

After all, Mesereau's cross-examination - though admirably skilled, tenacious, and thorough - offered no Perry Mason moments. Santa Barbara's top dog District Attorney was hardly caught by surprise by what cross-examination brought out. On the contrary, virtually all the ammunition for Mesereau's cross-examination was known to both sides.

What are we to think of a prosecutor's office that may well have repeatedly suborned perjury - and was well aware of the risk that it would?

Especially egregious was the prosecution's decision to include conspiracy charges in the indictment, and to put on testimony to support these charges. The supposed conspiracy was to hold the boy and his family at Neverland against their will. Objective evidence suggested that these charges were ridiculous. The risk of suborning perjury was extremely high. Yet prosecutors went right ahead and tried to prove these charges.

This was not only wrong, but foolish. The conspiracy charges undermined the credibility not only of the witnesses who tried to support them, but of the prosecution that included them in the indictment.

In disproving them, the defense was devastating: It showed that during the weeks the boy and his family were supposedly being held against their will at Neverland, they were taken on all-expense paid shopping sprees and spa treatments courtesy of Michael Jackson. After the sprees and spas, they willfully returned to Neverland - three times or more. If this is imprisonment, many overworked Americans may be moved to cry out, "Imprison me too!"

Prosecutor Sneddon should have known better than to build a case around complaining witnesses who, by all appearances, wouldn't know the truth if it bit them. Even now, with a resounding ten "not guilty" verdicts ringing in the nation's ears, he won't apologize.

He insists he had to take his accuser as he found him. And it's true: he couldn't transform the Arvizos into angels. But he didn't have to believe them. And he didn't have to believe them when they were at their most incredible - with respect, for instance, to the conspiracy/kidnapping claims.

And he certainly didn't have to put other witnesses who were equally lacking in credibility on the stand to try to make up for the Arvizos' weaknesses. Sneddon might have had to take his accusers as he found them (after he decided to prosecute, that is) but he certainly didn't have to take his other witnesses as he found them! He could have declined to call them to the stand.
So observers shouldn't buy Sneddon's bid to evade responsibility. It's he who approved the indictment and the witness list, and signed off on the "prior bad acts" strategy. This case didn't come to him full-grown, begging to be made; instead, like Dr. Frankenstein, he created it.

The Defense's Forte: Careful Preparation
As I noted above, Thomas Mesereau's genius was not in Perry Mason moments, but simply in consistent excellence - in preparation, and in cross-examination.

As another basis for their not guilty verdicts, jurors cited the time line of the alleged acts of molestation. Mesereau used prosecutor's own version of the case to demolish them - in a sort of legal Kung Fu move.

Prosecutors said Jackson molested the accuser after the airing of the now infamous documentary by Martin Bashir entitled, "Living with Michael Jackson" - in which Jackson admitted sharing his bed with children.

Mesereau underlined for jurors how illogical this was: According to prosecutors, Jackson chose to strike at precisely the wrong time: while the eyes of the world were upon him.

Prosecutors also tried to convince jurors that, at the same time, despite his worldwide celebrity, and the intensification of interest in him caused by the documentary, Jackson plotted to secretly kidnap the family and perhaps spirit them away to Brazil! (Hot air balloon not included.)

Certainly, the National Enquirer would not have been able to spare a reporter to uncover that turn of events. Plainly, Jackson could have counted on being able to engineer this international crime, yet having no one be the wiser. Brilliant!

The Bottom Line: A Wrongful Prosecution Leads to a Righteous Result
This case never should have been brought in the first place. But it was - and thankfully, this smart, thoughtful jury did the right thing.

They didn't do it lightly, either; those who disagree with their verdict should consider that - as we now know from their own interviews -- they kept deliberating even though after their initial vote, in the minutes kicking off their deliberations, was a unanimous "not guilty."

Many juries would have reported their verdict back to the judge immediately. But these jurors were anxious to make sure they did the right thing. So they continued to mull the evidence for the better part of 30 hours; their further deliberations spanned seven days.

That's right: These twelve people sat in a courtroom for thirty hours - taking time away from their jobs, families and other commitments, despite their initial unanimity -- just to make sure justice was done.

It was: These jurors did not mistake quantity for quality when it came to evidence. Nor did they mistake shaky testimony for credible testimony - as the prosecutor's office repeatedly did, knowingly or not.

In his closing argument, Mesereau called the family a pack of scam artists trying to pull off the ''the biggest con of their careers.''

I might say the same about the office of the Santa Barbara's District Attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonna M. Spilbor an attorney and legal analyst on "Kendall's Court", airing Sundays on Fox News Channel's Weekend Live with Brian Wilson. She is also a frequent guest commentator on Court-TV and other television news networks, where she has covered many of the nation's high-profile criminal trials. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units. In 1998, she earned certification as a Court Appointed Special Advocate with the San Diego Juvenile Court. She is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she was a member of the Law Review.

The Man Who Wasn't There

2005-06-18T01:26:00.000-07:00

Imagine that you put a hit out on someone and decided to pay a visit to the funeral to make sure the person was dead. You and your co-conspirators, dressed in black and all decked out in white gloves, appoint yourselves the pall bearers to ensure that the body is carried to the grave so that there are no slip-ups on your part.

But then you realize something as you get closer to the casket: the man is simply not there.

That is exactly what happened as a number of media clowns filed out of the Santa Maria courtroom Monday after a jury acquitted Jackson of all ten ridiculous counts against him. My sister told me that she was watching the thing on television and that the whole thing looked like a funeral.

Oh the shock.

For years, the likes of Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond and other media fools have been trying to write Jackson into a grave with their pens, spreading lies, defaming others, and sleeping with their sources when necessary to get an inside track on false information damaging to Jackson.

For the last 17 months, the aforementioned fools tried to sham and flim-flam the public with garbage not fit to be served to animals, pulling stories and “evidence” of Jackson’s guilt out of their asses like David Copperfield pulling a rabbit out of some top hat. They wanted to fool the world but in the end, the fools got fooled in the end.

Justice is possible when people, regardless of their ideological perspectives, commit themselves to be fair and examine everything. While the likes of Nancy Grace and Wendy “Cruella” Murphy continue to call the jurors names for not carrying out their wishes have been anything but fair.

Instead of reporting facts and at least pretending to read from court transcripts, they made ish up, ignored blunders by the prosecution, and tried to convince me that the jurors were dumber and more mean-spirited than they were. If they were as “riveted” by the prosecution as much as that 50-something year old media mattress Dimond claimed, Jackson’s new outfit would be orange and his ass would be in prison.

Whatever, Diane.

LAW SCHOOLS WAKE UP!

Exacerbating the log jam of foolishness in the media concerning the trial was also the plethora of “former defense/prosecutor” knuckleheads taking up face time and offering legal opinions violently divorced from common sense and sound jurisprudence. It is clear to me after listening to the like of that bitter drama queen and self-proclaimed legal expert Dan Abrams, Wendy “The Manhater” Murphy, and Nancy “Former Persecutor” Disgrace, that there are a number of law schools across America that needs to get that damn acts together.

I would personally like to slap the **** out of whoever graduated these clowns because it is clear that the only bar exam they ever came near was one of the liquored sort.

After all, one would have to be drunk to state without cracking a smile (Wendy Murphy) that the Prosecution presented an airtight case. Airtight, Wendy? Please do not confuse your facial muscles with Sneddon’s “case.” His case against Jackson had more smoke around it than Snoop Dog’s hotel room.

Defense attorney and CNN guest analyst Robert Shapiro was quick to bury Jackson. See what happens when folks stay their stale asses in a tanning bed too long? Those rays clearly fried whatever legal brain cells Shapiro had left. The embarrassment on his face after the verdict was read brought me joy.

Then again, he is a personal friend of Evan Chandler (yeah, THAT Evan Chandler) and needs Jackson to be found guilty or else people start wondering if 1993 was not also a big fat scam as well. Too late, Robert. And please feel free to stay the hell out of the tanning booth; you look like leather now.

Too many of these fools who clearly wanted Jackson got are still trying to create the idea that Jackson got off. “Right charges, wrong family.” Whatever. The fact is you would have to create another language to convince me that Sneddon’s case wasn’t full of ****. CNN head legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, a Sneddon friend, could only hem and haw his way through some segments without bashing his buddy, even as more senseless and baseless nonsense from the prosecution streamed into the court case.

Of course, somebody has to give these fools face time and the blame in America lies at the feet of the one or two idiots who own every damn thing when it comes to media and news outlets.

But I digress.

Jackson is cleared and now a free man (at least in the legal sense) and the media are left wondering why the hell their planned hit on him did not go according to plan. Let the b*tches wonder.

I for one will bask the in the glow of the legal victory and prop Jackson for pulling off perhaps the most important trick of his life: escaping the tomb of destruction that pall bearers like Murphy, Abrams, Dimond, and Grace were only too eager to seal him in.

Be careful who you leave for dead in some casket: you just might find that they are not there and will come back to haunt your sorry asses in the end.

LATE.

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2005 All Rights Reserved

Vindication

2005-06-13T19:52:00.000-07:00

NOT GUILTY!!!

After 4 months of unnecessary drama that never should have seen the light of day, a jury of Michael Jackson's peers acquitted of not ONE but ALL TEN COUNTS that the no-good prosecuter Tom Sneddon had brought against the pop legend.

According to some folks inside, Sneddon looked like he'd dropped some logs in them drawers of his. I really don't give a flip. Michael Jackson, for all his foibles, never should have even been arrested for ish he didn't commit.

Now I need Jackson to take a nice vacation with the chilluns, eat something, and find some peace and quiet for himself. May God bless him and his family. They've been through hell!

As for Sneddon and his cronies:

Prosecution rhymes with prostitution (hint, hint)
Malicious prosecution civil suit on the rise?...ya think?....but maybe not until Jackson has had time to rest
The Arvizo family had better start picking out which shower curtain goes with that nice 8x12 prison cell they are going to be living in. Their asses are GOING TO JAIL!!!

I hope the jurors enjoy their time away from Santa B. The neocons up north are no doubt PISSED at this verdict but if nothing else, it proves that there are still some decent folks who know how to read and think. Sneddon's legacy will be this case. Aawww, what a fuggin shame!!

tHe cUttInG eDgE

Week One of Deliberations

2005-06-11T08:46:00.000-07:00

MEDIA DRAMA QUEENS
Well, the first full week of deliberations in the Michael Jackson trial went with very little being heard from the jury and a whole lot of unnecessary drama coming from the media. I do not want another special program being cut across because three black SUVs left Neverland to go to some car wash. When a verdict is reached, an announcement will be made. BOTTOM LINE!

And enough with video of Jackson's supposed prison cell too. How disgusting can these sleazy networks get when it comes to grinding Jackson's name to less than dirt?

JURY ISH
Some folks are wondering why it is taking so long for the jury to reach a verdict after reading all the grand jury transcripts and court transcripts. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt simply because there is so much information to pour through. In addition, the fact that they requested readbacks from the trial is a good sign in my opinion. Come on, the accuser Gavin Arvizo and his crazy behind mama perjured themselves so many times throughout the trial that it ain't funny.

Some people are worried that the massive collection of Playboy and Hustler magazines that Jackson had will warp the minds of the conservative folks on the jury. Please. They have very little room to talk when they re-elect publc officials who download pornography, cavort in massage parlors with women who are not their wives, blackmail lesbian judges into making favorable rulings for them, terrorize gay and lesbian police officers and suspects, molest 13 year old girls while claiming one was "asleep," or who sleep with 16 year old prostitutes. If you find THESE THINGS morally repugnant yet insist on re-electing these clowns without fail, then YOU are as morally repugnant as they are.

Pornography or adult material (whatever you wanna call it) is not a good thing in my opinion. Jackson doesn't get "man" points with me just because he had a serious stash of the stuff. But the stash doesn't make him a child molester either.

If Melville comes up with some half-assed stunt to stall a verdict, then we know Sneddon is in big trouble.

If the jury convicts Jackson on anything, its clear to me that crack was substituted for cream in somebody's coffee.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION SUIT!
Either way, I smell a malicious prosecution lawsuit coming even if there is a hung jury. If people lied to get on the jury and hang it, get their info and nail their no good behinds. The defense, which already sports Santa Maria attorney Gary Dunlap, a man who sued the city for the same thing, will have plenty of ammunition for that.

And toss Melville in that lawsuit as well. His bias is obvious except and the alcoholic does not want his precious name dragged through the mud. Too damn bad. I am disgusted that a judge could make so many damn reversible errors in one trial and not blink an eye. I'm pissed that a judge could use a CHILD MOLESTATION TRIAL as a platform to crack jokes with witnesses.

His ass should be tossed back to some "Happy Hour" get-together.

DUMB ASS FANS
Okay, fans are great but there are some Michael Jackson fans who are getting the hell on my nerves. Memo to some of you whose names I won't call (BJ Hickman): this trial ain't about YOU! Stop using Jackson's misery to get face time with the very folks you claim to disdain.

The Moment of Truth (Prayerfully)

2005-06-03T16:25:00.000-07:00

Well, after 12 years of baseless rumors and even more baseless accusations of child molestation, Michael Jackson is going to learn what a jury of his peers thinks. They have in their hands his future and that of his 3 kids. Make no mistake: the government in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria--for the most part---is as crooked as the Scarecrow's jaunt down the Yellow Brick Road. BUT that doesn't mean that at least 12 folks with live brain cells can't make the right decision here.

If the only thing that clown Ron Zonen could tell me is that Michael Jackson's "victims" are all clones (um, so why didn't Foamin Zonen include Macauley Culkin in the mix?) to prove he's a child molester, then the prosecution has a VERY big problem.

You would think after being silent on all them there priests in the area who molested little kids that these clowns would know a child molester profile a tad better. Forget it.

This case was a comedic tragedy from the get-go and Jackson unfortunately got caught in media res.

But right now, the 12 are deliberating and Jackson must certainly be on edge. That ain't a sign of weakness; that's a sign of being a honest-to-goodness human being, a man with one very important decision looming.

For the record, the Cutting Edge has believed that Michael Jackson was the victim of a vendetta by the bigot and prostitute loving district attorney Tom Sneddon. We stand by that now all the more.

Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY of the charges against him. Now, we only need a jury to declare the same and clear an innocent man's name.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

Jackson Lawyer Says Accusations Are a Con

2005-06-03T13:11:00.000-07:00

Jackson Lawyer Says Accusations Are a Con

By TIM MOLLOY,

Associated Press Writer4 minutes ago

The family accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation and other crimes is trying to pull "the biggest con of their careers," the pop star's attorney told jurors Friday."Ladies and gentlemen, it only takes one lie under oath to throw this case out of court," attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. told the panel in the second day of closing arguments. "You can't count all the lies under oath by (the accuser's family). How many does it take to let you know this case is a fraud?"The jury was expected to get the case later Friday, after the end of Mesereau's argument and a rebuttal by Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen.

Mesereau resumed his argument shortly after a gaunt-looking Jackson arrived at court with parents Joe and Katherine Jackson, sisters Janet and LaToya, and brothers Jermaine, Tito and Randy, among other family members. Jackson clutched his mother's arm as he walked in."Michael's innocent!" came shouts from some in a crowd of about 75 people standing outside. Fans, whose numbers dwindled to about 10 a day over the long weeks of trial, were back in larger numbers along with some prosecution supporters.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the boy in 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson."On Thursday, Zonen said Jackson brought the accuser, then a 13-year-old cancer survivor, "into the world of the forbidden." He said Jackson lowered the boy's inhibitions by giving him alcohol and showing him pornography before molesting him in the bedroom of the entertainer's Neverland ranch.

Mesereau countered by telling the jury that prosecutors portrayed Jackson as a hard-drinking, porn-collecting pedophile to "dirty up" the pop star because they couldn't prove their case that he molested a child.

Mesereau directly attacked the boy's honesty Friday, saying that a lawsuit in which the accuser's family got a $152,000 settlement from J.C. Penney began when the boy was caught shoplifting. He noted that the boy stated in a deposition for the J.C. Penney lawsuit that his parents never fought, but he and his brother, sister and mother would later say his father beat them for years.

"This kid's lying at the age of what, nine? Ten?" Mesereau said.

While prosecutors have tried to suggest that the boy's father was responsible for the family's cons, Mesereau said, the boy was like "a bull in the china shop," constantly asking for money. The mother was more sophisticated, Mesereau said, ingratiating herself with her targets."She gets to know you, she hugs you, she loves you," Mesereau said. "Then she tells you a tale of woe and she gets money."

Mesereau accused the boy of repeatedly lying under oath. He noted that the boy testified that both Jackson and his grandmother told him on different occasions that if men didn't masturbate they might rape women.

"What are the odds of his grandmother and Michael telling him word for word that exact same statement?" Mesereau said.

Mesereau said the family has a history of making abuse allegations. He said the boy once accused his mother of abusing him, the boy's sister accused her father of molesting her, and the mother accused store security guards of beating and groping her.

"These kids are being raised to make allegations," Mesereau said.

Jackson would face prison if convicted of all charges, although the term is uncertain because of many sentencing variables. Former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer, now a legal analyst, has said the term could be more than 20 years.

Jackson, who had looked glum Wednesday, said "I'm OK" as he left court Thursday. News reports surfaced late Thursday night that Jackson was briefly hospitalized for dehydration after leaving court. His spokeswoman denied the reports.

In the documentary at the center of the case, Jackson holds hands with the boy and says he allows children into his bed for innocent, non-sexual sleepovers. The prosecutor, Zonen, said Thursday that it was toward the end of a period in which the accuser and his family stayed at Neverland that "the behavior had turned to something terribly illegal."

He said Jackson began giving the boy alcohol and even though his mother at that time was unaware of any molestation, she insisted that her family leave Neverland.

"For all her shortcomings, after learning Michael Jackson was giving her son alcohol, in 36 hours she had her children out of there," Zonen said.

Zonen ridiculed the idea the boy's mother could have made up the entire molestation story and prompted her children to lie in order to make money with a future lawsuit against Jackson.

"It's unmitigated rubbish," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050603/ap_en_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Mesereau Mesmerizing

2005-06-03T12:21:00.000-07:00

Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, despite a laptop that wouldn't work initially, was magnificent as he slammed the prosecution's case. Mesereau called out Assistant Prosecutor Ron Zonen for spending too much time attacking Mesereau and not addressing the charges first. To paraphrase Mesereau's response to that, "It's a sure sign the prosecution's in trouble."

As he did yesterday, Mesereau took his time shattering the prosecution's lame behind "evidence" against Jackson by using court transcripts and police statements and tapes to show the specific lies accuser Gavin Arvizo and his wacked out family told during the trial.

"Ladies and gentlemen, it only takes one lie under oath to throw this case out of court," attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. told the panel in the second day of closing arguments. "You can't count all the lies under oath by (the accuser's family). How many does it take to let you know this case is a fraud?"[1]

The defense attorney had the jury's attention, from all the reports I've heard from folks in the court room. The same could not be said of Zonen.

What Mesereau did was to go full force against the logical fallacies of the case, the ridiculous timeline issues in which the singer was supposed to have committed the crimes, and of course the shattered credibility of the accuser and his family.

Some folks said Mesereau was shaky yesterday after his laptop failed to work for his Power Point presentation of the timeline issues. But the fact remains that truth doesnt need technology, just someone brave enough to proclaim it.

Some folks, including yours truly, have questioned whether or not Mesereau used everything he could at hand to clear his client. I think in light of the way the case has turned, he addressed every charged with rebutting and impeaching evidence and the credibility of Gavin Arvizo, future prisoner and thug, has more holes than a St. Valentine Day Massacre movie extra.

Mesereau was brilliant, on point, and not long winded. Oh and did I mention TRUTHFUL?

-------------------------------------
[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050603/ap_en_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Tidbits and Other Stuff

2005-06-02T15:00:00.000-07:00

Prosecution Closing Arguments
Media Spinning Bullcrap
My Own Version of the Prosecution's Closing Arguements

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, am I losing my mind or is Ron Zonen playing right into the hands of the defense with his weak arguments and overhead projector pics of Michael Jackson holding his youngest child over a balcony?

Instead of focusing in on Michael Jackson as a child molestor and trying to bolster the savaged credibility of the accuser Gavin Arvizo and his no good family (yeah, I call names here under these special circumstances), Zonen has spent a lot of time trying to insist that Jackson defense attorney Tom Mesereau has NOT delivered on what he promised in his opening statements. Is Mesereau on trial?

Among this a**hole's goofs:

Zonen apparently got off to a comedic start by claiming that Jackson "forced his way" into the lives of this family. Hello? I doubt he could make it past the army of cockroaches
Then Zonen plastered a picture of Michael Jackson holding his youngest child (a baby at the time circa Dec. 2002) over a balcony. As bonehead as that act was, Jackson himself apologized and promised never to do that again. He hasn't. Furthermore, the jury has already SEEN this clip so Zonen is foamin and dronin over nothing if he thinks he can shock the jury into being utterly stupid and blind to the facts of the case.
Zonen also claimed that Janet Arvizo's welfare fraud, bad as it was, is the only thing this little Bible thumping toad ever did wrong. Well, he must have forgotten that she scammed friends who held benefits for her son at fellow crook Jamie Masada's comedy club DESPITE THE FACT that Kaiser Permanente had covered all of Gavin's bills IN FULL. He must have forgotten that according to one paralegal related the JCPenny's case (another scam this skank ran a few years back), that the angelic Janet Arvizo threatened the life of a woman AND that woman's nine-year old son. He must have forgotten that she didnt want anybody's "f*cking blood" for her allegedly "dying" son but money.
Zonen continued to admonish the jury to use their common sense. Nice job, Zonen. If they do that, then Jackson is SURE to walk away scot free.
Zonen continues to insist that former defense attorney Mark Geragos was a part of the conspiracy to abduct this wacky family. And yet, Geragos is not on trial? Makes PERFECT SENSE, Zonen. And was there ever such a legal term as "unindicted co-conspirator" before this useless trial ever began?

As of this update, the fool has taken a lunch break. I cannot wait for the defense to present something coherent and logical

MEDIA SPIN DOCTRESS: AT WORK

Media continues to spin for the persecution. I told a close friend of mine this MORNING that Sneddon pin cushion Diane Dimond would call Zonen's performance or the jury's alleged reaction to his arguments "riveting". Just like clock work, that's exactly what she did. You are just about finished Ms. Demon. Your career is in a free fall. I can hear that career going "splat"!~LOL

CUTTING EDGE VERSION OF PROSECUTION'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Zonen:
"Men and women of the jury. I along with my untrustworthy D.A. Tom Sneddon and my pornography-addicted co-counsel Gordon Auchincloss have presented a flimsy case filled with more holes than the ones in the heads of anyone who believes us. We nearly buried you under an avalanche of boredom with Mr. Sneddon's opening statements as he droned on and on and on with nothing but his bitter hatred for Michael Jackson showing.

We then put on witness after witness who confirmed not OUR version of events but rather the defense's version of events. Even more damaging to our case was the performance and credibility of the victim Gavin, who proved to be a smart ass little liar with no conscience and even less intelligence. He was a belligerent little snot who was caught in lie after lie. His mother fared even worse, freaking out on the witness stand, evading questions that clearly challenged her credibility, and asking to take a break while she went to pee. She claimed that Jackson was conspiring to kidnap her and her family in a hot air balloon, an act that certainly would have drawn attention.

Speaking of the conspiracy, we want you to believe that Michael Jackson molested Gavin AFTER the Bashir special air and that in haste to protect his image, he plotted to KIDNAP this family and wisk them away to Brazil with round trip tickets. We want you to believe that this busy entertainment legend forced his way into the simple lives of the Arvizo family and the fact that Jackson did everything to avoid them---changing phone numbers, telling friends "something is wrong here", and having his associates keep them away from him---is CLEAR PROOF that our conspiracy accusations are full of ****.

As for the molestation, we want you to believe that Michael Jackson is cold, calculating, and cunning pedophile, a "decipedo", molesting every ten or so years. We want you to consider the credibility of those who testified for him, mainly three men we told you were victims of Jackson's sick behavior. Despite their clear, coherent, and unflinching portrayals of Jackson as a good man who was a father figure and benevolent big brother to them, we want you to believe that Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes, and Wade Robeson were molested but simply don't know it yet. They may have been asleep or something. If these men were testifying for us, we would demand you believe them. But because they are not, we are asking you to override every ounce of common decency and sense you have and disregard their powerful defenses of Michael Jackson's character.

In a word, Jackson is guilty. Because we say so.

We rest."

A Warning to Fans...

2005-06-02T09:16:00.000-07:00

I think this deserves a separate post. Look, Jackson fans. The Santa Barbara and Santa Maria bigots in blue & brown will be exaggerating stories about the need to have extra, EXTRA security for the reading of the verdict so that you don't hurt their precious little crooked bosses. This is the status quo after the Rodney King verdict went down and all hell broke loose.

They tried this ploy at the beginning of court proceedings last year and they will do it again this time around. For the fringe fanatical element that has no sense, keep your behinds HOME or in a motel room. Your presence is not needed.

To the fans who have shown nothing but mature support for Jackson, keep it up! The police is already trying to bait you by taking down your license plate number . Don't fall for the trap. These bigots would love to tap some colored behind with a baton or two so get wise.

I expect nothing but the best from Jackson fans. I wish I could say the same for the police departments of Santa Maria and Santa Barbara.

Closing Arguments Today

2005-06-02T08:25:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's Proceedings
Yesterday, I was supposed to talk about closing arguments here but the process was dragged out (stall tactic for the persecution) and now we get them today. I have said it from the beginning that I don't trust that whiskey guzzling clown in a robe judge Rodney Melville from the get-go. His bias was clear from the beginning and his weak behind jokes only make me sicker as I wait for this case to wind down.

In tradition Melville flip-floppian fashion, he has revised the two-and-a-half time limit for closing arguments and now expanded them to four hours. The jury will be lucky if they get this case by Friday, giving Jackson time to roast while twelve jurors decide his fate. My hope and prayer is that the jury sees through the crap and gives the judge and the persecution a nice "F*** You" sign by acquitting Jackson with relatively quickness. Just a wish.

Closing arguments start today at 8:30am (PST) and Ron Zonen, the hostile little foreskin that thinks its macho to make twelve year old boys cry on the witness stand (at least when they are a defense witness), will reportedly deliver the persecution's closing, lying, exaggerated, fabricated arguments. Thomas Mesereau will present his closing arguments afterward. He's on my prayer list.

Right now, I'm reading court transcripts. Ah so much fun. And reading the latest of the instructions hearing only reinforces how stupid Melville is and how crooked Sneddon and his merry band of thugs are.

I CANNOT WAIT...
...to see Diane Dimond attempt to spin Jackson's acquittal on ALL COUNTS. I forsee this skank extraordinaire saying something asinine like "Well, there are still those silent voices that did not come forward" or "My source tells me that the case is still open". Whatever. Jackson ain't going around this mountain ever again. The public is calling her no-good behind out for her obvious bias in reporting. Her days are numbered.

...to see Roger Friedman find another famous man to obsess over. He gets possessive of Jackson stories like a teen girl does her prom date and it's sickening to watch. I wonder if he will be able to write about someone or something else totally un-Jackson related. Probably not. The trial is one drama but in the world of Michael Jackson, the drama never seems to end.

...to see how Tom Sneddon will swallow defeat and save face. The guy's temper and ego are mammoth and I ain't so sure he could leave well enough alone. Fool! He's settin himself up for a huge behind fall, if you ask me

...to see how former Jackson associates (and some present ones) will continue to make money off of Jackson in their own little way. Books, interviews, the sky's the limit! I only wish the horizon was a great deal lower

...self-proclaimed Jackson supporters who were silent for the last 18 months while Jackson had his image savaged by Sneddon and tabloid hacks. You don't get do-overs when it comes to showing some freaking loyalty to your "friend." You do not get the chance to say "I knew he was innocent all the time but my advisors said not to say anything." Blah, blah, blah. Shut the hell up and go back under the rock from which you crawled. I aint hearin it and I doubt Jackson will be in the mood to hear such foolishness either.

Tomorrow, closing argument insights.

A Look Back

2005-05-31T02:34:00.000-07:00

I took a break from the Michael Jackson case long enough to ask myself whether I was truly deceived about my belief that the pop legend was being railroaded by a racist district attorney and aided by a snide, haughty judge who needs to take his skinny ass back to law school. I was convinced in November 2003 that this was the case and in May 2005, I feel as strongly.

As we wait for closing arguments and jury deliberations to begin, I decided to pull out a few memorable gems this "trial" has provided:

Tom Sneddon boring the hell out of jurors with his pedestrian and downright deadpan opening arguments. Some jurors were reportedly dozing off as the district attorney rambled on, confusing the hell out of folks.
Prosecution witnesses flippin faster that them sliders at your local White Castle (it's an East Coast/Midwest thang, y'all). Among the best "prosecution-turned-defense witnesses? Debbie Rowe may have been the single most damaging prosecution witness---FOR THE PROSECUTION! Rowe was supposed to be the state's star witness who would claim Jackson scripted her appearance on the rebuttal program to Martin Bashir scripted damaging "Living With Michael Jackson" special. Rowe was also supposed to help confirm the prosecution's obvious suspicions that Jackson was in fact, gay. Instead, Rowe cried like a little lovelorn school girl over the singer, denying every being scripted and admitting that she still loved him. She saved her harshest words for the "unindicted co-conspirators" Marc Shaffel and Deiter Weisner, former associates of Jackson. Lawd! I guess them gold pants possess a magic too strong even for the likes of Tom Sneddon, lol. Janet Arvizo turned in the best recreation of the "Baby Jane" character Bette Davis so flawlessly portrayed decades ago. Since when do mothers of sexually abused children ask to stop their testimony while they go pee? Since when do mothers spend more time talking about plots to kidnap them in hot air balloons rather than discuss how the son was victimized? Cynthia Bell single-handedly shot the alcohol nonsense in the ass. All that fawning over Jackson wasnt missed either. To make matters worse, the jury absolutely LOVED her!
Star Arvizo getting his little fat ass nailed by Mesereau concerning a porn mag that he SWORE was the exact same magazine Jackson had showed him. Of course, the mag was dated August 2003, months after Star and his family would have been gone from the ranch and out of Jackson's life. Can you say BUSTED?
The media surprised me: they are actually bigger asses than even I could have imagined. They showed them off quite horrendously, often providing up-to-the-minute stories about the court proceedings that completely contradicted what was actually taking place. It would take actually reading court transcripts before I could figure out that the Tom Mesereau was beating the ish outta the prosecution's case.
When the media wasn't intentionally misrepresenting the facts as well as jury reactions, they were busy having little catfights among themselves. Case in point: Roger Friedman accused Vanity Fair tabloid hack Maureen Orth of stealing one of his stories. These two swingin sisters reportedly traded barbs between each other. Note that Roger took time out of his busy scheduling of lusting and obsessing over Jackson long enough to call Orth out for being one of TWO reporters he knew who was still holding out for a GUILTY verdict (Diane Dimond being the other)---shock).
White radical feminist former prosecutors/defense attorney sounding off on Michael Jackson's obvious guilt was enough to make me sick. Please note that I am not disparaging every white woman. But I am sick and tired of the likes of Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy (who I swear is a double for Cruella Deville), and Susan Filan taking up space on television, ignoring OBVIOUS facts that spell "INNOCENT" for Jackson and try to spin ish for the prosecution's sake. Where IS that flying house from the Wizard of Oz when I need it? Let's face it: most if not all the major networks and news outlets are owned by white folks. Do the damn math.
Fans: the good. I give props to the Michael Jackson fans who took the time to educate themselves about the judicial process, this case, and the situation in Santa Barbara. They spent a lot of time and money to do so and were smarter than the media will ever give them credit for. Even more important, they proved to have far more class than the clowns in uniform who were supposedly posted on streets of Santa Maria to keep this crew in check. Turns out, the real enemies are the ones with the badges.
Fans: the bad. Un-props to the fans who treated this trial like an extended photo op. Pardoni moi but I really don't give a s*** about whatever vest Michael Jackson is wearing so long as he isn't drawing negative attention to himself. And do not get me started on the clowns who still clamor for the opportunity to get INTO Neverland. Man, y'all lucky that ain't my house cuz I'd write up a poster board that says "GET A LIFE" for those who do not know when to go home. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Fish stink in three days." Get it? Got it? Good.
Thomas Mesereau systematically dismanteling prosecution witness after prosecution witness. Maybe the guy didn't cover ever little point fans expected him to cover. But one thing I understand is that strategy is fluid and there is no need to turn over stones the prosecution isn't even sniffing at. The point is to deal with the charges at hand and Mesereau did that, in my lowly opinion. And he still looks like the same nice guy he was before the trial began
Tom Sneddon dropping the "boy" reference to the very black Chris Tucker. Look, folks. You do not every address a black man as "boy", especially if you are white. It has all kinds of racist connotations. And considering Sneddon's reputation as a bigot as well as the fact that his son is a skinhead, it should come as no surprise that there was bone-chilling silence when Sneddon put his foot in his mouth. I'm considering sending Sneddon some NAACP literature as a result of his goof. Thanks a bunch, idiot.
The media insinuating that Mesereau was lying about his sister being sick in order to stall the case. Of course, these folks looked like the major asses that they are when the poor woman actually DIED. Their treatment of Mr. Mesereau and his family regarding his loss was sickening and pathetic.
Diane Dimond and Court TV. If anyone deserves their own corner of hell, its this bunch. In the face of transcripts and eyewitness testimony from other court observers, Dimond and her network were still determined to make it look like Sneddon's performance was "riveting." Perhaps he taught her that word in some sleazy motel but the tricks don't play well for me regarding the Jackson case. It is little wonder that even folks in the Bible Belt would call in to shows on which this witch appeared and call her out for her obvious bias.
Nancy Grace getting hers on "Larry King Live". When a caller referred to Nancy as a "trailer park whore," my day was made. Enuff said here, lol!
Finally, Michael Jackson himself did not implode or shoot himself in the foot with strange behavior. On the contrary, unlike the clowns covering him, Jackson the was perfect client who never missed an appearance. Apart from the pajama drama and the back pain, Jackson was in court without incident. Props to him for keeping his cool in the face of a corrupt system that is trying to lynch him. I'm not sure I could be that stable under the circumstances.

Tomorrow evening, we'll talk about closing arguments from the prosecution and defense. Peace out!

What's Done In The Dark...

2005-04-08T23:03:00.000-07:00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE OF CLARIFICATION: In the following article, I will discuss two different sets of tapes: one set found in Pellicano’s office that was supposed to be evidence of his illegal wiretapping activities and yet another set of tapes in which Pellicano was unknowingly taped by a National Enquirer writer Jim Mitteager, who died in 1997.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When news broke the day before Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was raided that former private investigator Anthony Pellicano was sent to jail, I wondered if his imprisonment had even the slightest thing to do with Jackson’s troubles. I put the thought out of my mind and moved on.

Apparently, Pellicano had a history of selling information about his clients as well as taping them [1]. Others claimed that he was merely wiretapping on behalf of his clients. He was accused of threatening journalist Anita Busch, who had been investigating actor Steven Seagal’s ex-business partner Jules Nasso for allegedly attempting to extort the actor [2].

So what in the hell does this have to do with the current case against Jackson? Well, according to a number of sources, a number of tapes seized from Pellicano’s office concerning Jackson may have been turned over to Thomas Sneddon. [3] As Friedman, who wrote about the possible
Pellicano connection to the Neverland raid last year, claims:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been widely reported that Pellicano surreptitiously taped a lot of phone conversations with his famous clients, and many of those clients have since been investigated by the FBI and other authorities. My sources say Pellicano very likely may have set aside information about the Jackson case for a rainy day. It's possible — although no one involved will say for sure — that Pellicano gave material about Jackson from 1993 to the FBI. One source who's an expert on the subject of Pellicano tells me, "It's very likely he turned over that stuff to the FBI and they gave it to Sneddon. It's too much of a coincidence that Pellicano went to prison and the next day the police were at Neverland." [4]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. If indeed Pellicano tapes were turned over to the FBI, then that may possibly explain why the FBI was a part of the November 2003 Neverland raid. Of course, one would have to ask what in the world they expected to find on a property known more for Ferris wheels and bumper cars.

If Pellicano was eventually sent to prison for possession of illegal firearms, why in the world does Thomas Sneddon get his hands on Pellicano tapes that no doubt concerned the 1993 allegations? And how does this look in light of the fact that Sneddon raided Neverland the very next day? Was he simply waiting for Pellicano to be sent up the river before he decided to raid the place? We all know that Sneddon was investigating Jackson as early as February 2003 for issues surrounding Gavin Arvizo, the current accuser. We all know that Sneddon had decided to pursue the case, come hell or high water because of his intense hatred for Jackson.

We all know that Sneddon has been desperate for the last twelve years to “get” Jackson for the 1993 allegations. It would be reasonable for Sneddon to suspect that there would be something said that he could use to bolster his case.

If I’m a dirty and racist behind district attorney who is hell bent on getting my hands on Jackson’s knobs, prime property, and financial information, then the last thing I want floating out there is any hint that Jackson may have been set up from the beginning. After all, if Sneddon had in his mind to use 1993 as a means to show a pattern, if there was no abuse in 1993, then his current case would be in shambles. The importance of any valuable evidence against Jackson on the Pellicano tapes would be all the more valuable considering that Sneddon never actually interviewed Jordan Chandler, that credible victim of Jackson’s perverted passions.

For the record, Pellicano made it quite clear that he would not “flip” on any of his former clients and bear prison instead. "They did nothing wrong…The government should leave them alone. And me, I'm going to take this punishment like a man. I will not participate in any way, shape or form with this investigation."[5]

The Late, Not-So-Great Jim Mitteager
But Sneddon might have a very big tape problem that has little to do with Pellicano directly.
As if “Tape Gate” could not get any spicier, consider some information that has been frittering at the edges of the latest Jackson drama. It appears as if the Master Tapist got taped himself by a sleazy tabloid writer who slummed for the National Enquirer.

Apparently, Mitteager recorded conversations that he had with Pellicano without the controversial investigator’s knowledge. Perhaps even more important, are conversations Mitteager recorded of himself with families who were acquainted with Jackson before or during the ’93 scandal.

Apparently, Mitteager is can be heard practically begging boys and their families to accuse Jackson of misconduct. Consider the story of Robert Newt, a now 30 year old Los Angeles mortgage broker who, along with his late twin brother Ronald, met Jackson in 1985. He insists that Mitteager was bent on getting him and his brother to lie on Jackson. “He said, 'Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way. He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, 'We take these people down. That's what we do.'" [6] Can you say, “C-O-N SPIRACY”?

Even more disgusting is the fact that a National Enquirer executive David Perel signed a makeshift contract drawn up by Mitteager to draw the Newt family into their plan to destroy Jackson.[7] If Jackson were truly a pedophile, there would not have been any need for a hunt for victims. I remember the National Enquirer’s role in spreading practically every nasty rumor about Jackson one could think of during the ’93 nonsense. And we need not also forget their poisoning the well of public opinion with the leaking of depositions and affidavits surrounding the current case.

Here are some of the published tidbits from Mitteager’s conversations about the Jackson scandal of 1993 [8] :
----------------------------------------------------
Man: "The Jackson coverage has been phenomenal."
Jim: "This story has legs man. This is the biggest story since Elvis did himself in!
On them are the inner circles of celebrities. Sources from inside law offices.
Jim: "Tailey talked to **** ***** who is one of her people inside Feldman’s office. The good lead is nobody in Feldman’s camp, meaning the boy or his father or his mother has received a dime yet."
---------------------------------------------------

In addition, MJJForum.com broke a story a couple of weeks ago involving more prosecution witnesses whom Sneddon intends to use for the ’93 portion of his case against Jackson. The LaMarques worked for Jackson around the time of the initial scandal but were fired. The next thing you knew, the French couple was trying to sell their “stories” about Jackson’s alleged impropriety with young boys. Baressi was the one charged to broker a deal between them and the NE. It never happened and Baressi turned the tapes over the Los Angeles County Prosecutor Gil Garcetti, who then turned them over to Sneddon. [9]

Of course, one has to wonder why Sneddon felt comfortable enough to call Philip LaMarque if Baressi felt they were scamming for money.

Nevertheless, the importance of the Mitteager tapes is clear: if there was no abuse victims in 1993, then there simply IS NO PATTERN or “prior bad acts” for the prosecution to use against Jackson in the current case. One can only hope that the defense is aware of these tapes and that they have contacted the tapes current owner Paul Barresi, a former porn actor who inherited the tapes after Mitteager’s death in 1997.

The only “prior bad acts” I can see are those of a ferocious and vicious media intent on destroying a powerful black man. Personally, I cannot wait until Jackson owns the National Enquirer for what they have tried to do to him. One clearly understands their need to push the idea that Jackson is a sick pedophile: they helped create the story in the first place. And they have to know that their behinds are going to get the daylights sued out of them for intentionally pushing what they knew to be untrue. Man, justice is a bitch when it finally bites you in your no-good asses.

Too bad Mitteager did not live long enough to get his.

ENDNOTES
-------------------------------------
1. “Talk of Wiretaps Rattles Hollywood”, Lowell Bergman, Laura M. Holson and Bernard Weinraub and written by Mr. Weinraub.. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 11, 2003. pg. C.1.

2. Kim Masters, “For twenty years, Anthony Pellicano was Hollywood’s Fixer…,” Source: [URL=http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225]http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225[/URL].

3. Roger Friedman, “Jack[son]: Did Private Eye Tape Him?” FOX 411. February 27, 2004 Source: [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112707,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112707,00.html[/URL]

4. Ibid.

5. “Tinseltown PI Won't Help Feds.” November 17, 2003. Source: [URL=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/12/entertainment/main583172.shtml]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/12/...ain583172.shtml[/URL]

6. Friedman, “Former Protégé Vouches for MJ” FOX 411. April 7, 2005. Source: [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html[/URL]

7. Ibid.

8. “The Real Source, Part 3.” From Drew Griffin. CBS 2, KCBS. Special Investigation. Source: [URL=http://cbs2.com/specialassign/local_story_054190913.html]http://cbs2.com/specialassign/local_story_054190913.html[/URL].

9. Roger Friedman, “Was There An Unknown Jacko Accuser?” Source: [URL=http://www.celebrityinfosite.com/19473-Was-There-an-Unknown-Jacko-Accuser.html]http://www.celebrityinfosite.com/19473-Was...ko-Accuser.html[/URL].

More From Fritz, Folks

2005-03-17T14:39:00.000-08:00

Witness Praises Michael Jackson Accuser and Says the Family Never Asked Him for Anything

SANTA MARIA, Calif. Mar 17, 2005 — A TV weatherman who befriended the family of Michael Jackson's accuser testified Thursday in the singer's child molestation trial that he gave them gifts and helped raise money even though they never asked him for anything.

Fritz Coleman, the weather forecaster for KNBC in Los Angeles and a standup comedian, had been mentioned in opening statements by the defense, which suggested he was misled by the family into thinking they needed money for medical expenses when they actually had sufficient funds from the father's union insurance.

But Coleman was called to the stand by the prosecution, which has said the boy was introduced to Jackson through the owner of a Hollywood club who ran a comedy camp for underprivileged youth.

Coleman offered something of a testimonial to the family, saying he was very taken with the children and willingly offered to help them.

Coleman said of the accuser, his brother and sister: "I found them personable and polite and charismatic."

He said that he first encountered them in 1999 when he was teaching a class at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood, where word spread that the family was impoverished and needed help.

Coleman said he and a friend, comedian Louise Palanker, bought hundreds of dollars worth of gifts and took them to the family's home at Christmas.

"I got the feeling this might be the only Christmas they would have," he said, describing how he went to their one-room East Los Angeles apartment, where living spaces were separated by sheets.

Later, he said, he heard that the eldest son had cancer and went to visit him in the hospital.

"He appeared very drawn and pale. This was in the darkest days of his diagnosis when they were not sure he was going to make it. It was very hard to watch," Coleman said.

After that, he said, he participated in a fund-raiser and blood drive for the boy and made announcements on his TV broadcast urging people to come.

On cross-examination, Jackson lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked whether Coleman was aware that the family had collected more than $100,000 in a lawsuit against J.C. Penney.

Coleman said he didn't know that.

He said he also didn't know he had been mentioned by the mother in the J.C. Penney lawsuit.

Coleman also said he didn't know the mother had told Los Angeles police that he was going to help her in a domestic violence dispute with her husband.

He said he knew that Palanker had given money to the family, but he was not allowed to say how much.

Under defense questioning, Coleman said he heard at the Laugh Factory that the boy's father had approached comedian George Lopez and "was fairly persistent about it. He was becoming a problem."

Mesereau asked Coleman how he knew that the family was needy.

The witness said it was a requirement for families taking part in the Laugh Factory camp.

"So your assumption was they must be poor or they wouldn't be here," said Mesereau.

"Yes," said Coleman.

On his last visit to the ailing boy at the hospital, Coleman said, he saw a huge box of gifts from Jackson.

"I remember (the boy) beaming that this was a gift from Michael," Coleman said.

On Wednesday, prosecutors showed jurors a series of sexually explicit magazines, DVDs and videos seized from Jackson's home, but law enforcement witnesses acknowledged there was no evidence the singer had shown any of them to the boy he is accused of molesting.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the then-13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch in early 2003 and conspiring to hold the family captive to get them to make a video rebutting a Feb. 6, 2003, TV documentary in which Jackson appeared with the boy and said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, a practice he described as non-sexual and innocent.

AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this story.

---------------------------------------------------
OBSERVATIONS

Let's assume that Fritz got his dates wrong. Fair enough. But Fritz is flat out LYING when he says that he didnt know he was mentioned in the JC Penny's lawsuit. He told the reporter in the 12.2.04 article already posted on this blog something different:

Mr. Coleman mentioned the mother did try to take advantage of him by dropping his name during the dispute with J.C. Penney employees. "She said, 'If you're not careful, I'm going to get my friend Fritz Coleman to come down with his camera crew,' " Mr. Coleman said.

Um, hello? I smell a dead rat here, folks...more to come no doubt...

Fritz Coleman Perjuring Himself?

2005-03-17T13:59:00.000-08:00

Please check out today's article concerning his testimony in the Jackson trial:

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Fritz Coleman recalls visit with Jackson's accuser's family

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - A veteran Los Angeles TV weatherman testified today about his early encounters with the family of the boy accusing Michael Jackson of molestation.

KNBC'S Fritz Coleman, who's also a standup comedian, testified he met the boy and his family at a comedy camp hosted by Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada in 1999.

He recalled he helped the children develop comedy routines at the camp for underprivileged youth and found them to be "personal and polite and charismatic."

Prosecutors say the boy came into contact with Jackson through Masada when the boy was being treated for cancer.

Coleman said he and another comedian decided to buy the family Christmas gifts in 1999. He said they lived in a very small East Los Angeles home that appeared to be one-room partitioned with sheets. He said the family was "very thankful for the gifts." And, as Coleman put it, "It just seemed like the right thing to do and perhaps it saved Christmas for them."

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=3091477&nav=9ptCXcBq

Now Fritz's story would be all warm and fuzzy if not for the fact that he told another reporter something altogether different a few months back:

http://news.newspress.com/topsports/120204jackson.htm

December 2, 2004

Jackson lawyers prepare to attack accuser's momPopular L.A. weatherman says he may be called to testify

By DAWN HOBBSNEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER

Michael Jackson's lawyers are trying to stockpile ammunition to fire at the credibility of the young accuser's mother in their client's upcoming trial on child molestation and conspiracy charges.

The attack is expected to include questioning whether the mother appropriately used money that celebrities -- including comedians Chris Tucker, George Lopez and Fritz Coleman -- raised at the Laugh Factory in the fall of 2000 for her son's cancer treatments.

Mr. Coleman, a well-known Los Angeles TV weatherman, told the News-Press that a defense investigator recently made an early-morning visit to his Southern California home and advised him to be prepared to testify at Mr. Jackson's trial.

This week, a judge approved a defense request to subpoena the family's psychological, medical and financial documents, including records for an American Express card. "That American Express card is also the means by which the funds collected by Fritz Coleman and others are expended," according to the defense document.

However, Laugh Factory owner Jaimie Masada said, "Anything we raised we gave directly to the hospital, except for a couple of checks I wrote myself, which was for her apartment." A source close to the accuser's family criticized the defense strategy, referring to it as a smear campaign launched in a desperate attempt to turn public attention away from Mr. Jackson and onto the boy's family. The mother told the family friend Wednesday that she has never owned an American Express card and denies misusing any funds raised for her child's medical expenses.

It will be the job of Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville to determine what evidence will be allowed at trial, scheduled to begin with jury selection Jan. 31. The defense lawyers will likely argue that their material is relevant to the mother's character and shows that she orchestrated an attempted shakedown of their client. Prosecutors will likely counter that those allegations have nothing to do with whether Mr. Jackson gave the boy alcohol and then molested him.Mr. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

It is expected that both sides may try to show that a pattern of past behavior casts doubt on the motives and credibility of the key players. The defense is targeting the accuser's mother while the prosecution focuses on Mr. Jackson. Authorities have contacted the alleged victim and witnesses from a 1993 child molestation investigation against Mr. Jackson that crumbled when the boy's family accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement. Prosecutors may want these individuals to testify to try to show an alleged pattern to Mr. Jackson's behavior with boys.

Similarly, defense lawyers want to show the mother's alleged pattern of making up claims for financial gain. They'll likely use as an example the civil suit she filed against J.C. Penney Co. that claims a security guard beat and then molested her. In confidential psychological reports obtained by the News-Press and NBC, a psychiatrist hired by J.C. Penney states it appeared the children were rehearsed and that medical and police reports did not support the allegations. J.C. Penney settled the $3 million lawsuit by dropping shoplifting charges against the boy and paying the family $137,000.

The family friend insists the defense is on a fishing expedition to discredit the boy's mother. The boy and his brother are living a relatively normal life, doing well in school, playing football and moving forward with their lives -- all a credit to her character, the source said. Instead, the source said, what shows up in the media are scandalous reports fed to reporters by the defense: "Why put the family through this? It's all nonsense."

In an interview with the News-Press, Mr. Coleman said he met the family in 2000 through the Laugh Factory summer camp, which Mr. Masada offers to underprivileged children.

"They really lived a hand-to-mouth existence in a one-room flat in a barrio in East Los Angeles," said Mr. Coleman, a guest teacher at the camp. He noticed the boy, his brother and sister were all "vivacious performers."

"(The boy) would talk freely," Mr. Coleman said. "He had sparkle. He had a real bright essence about himself on the stage. With a little guidance, he could probably be a great performer.

" Mr. Coleman met the mother when she picked up the children at camp. "She seemed like a good Christian woman with a Bible in hand and blessing people." Mr. Coleman and camp colleagues later decided to provide Christmas gifts to one of their summer camp families. "We thought (this boy's) family would be a good one," he said. "They had to reach certain poverty requirements to get into the program, and the dad was unemployed.

So we went to Best Buy and bought them hundreds of dollars of video games and other toys. They were ecstatic -- so overwhelmed and thankful." In October 2000, the boy's Laugh Factory friends learned he was diagnosed with cancer and held three fund-raisers to help with medical costs. Mr. Masada declined to say how much money was raised.

Mr. Coleman didn't know. "None of us were in control of where the money ended up," he said.

Mr. Masada would offer no information except to emphasize that the money was given directly to the hospital. A spokeswoman for Kaiser-Permanente said she could not comment because of privacy rules. Mr. Coleman and other Laugh Factory performers visited the boy in the hospital.

In fact, the boy met Mr. Jackson through his Laugh Factory connections. Mr. Jackson held a blood drive for him at his Neverland Valley Ranch. And Mr. Coleman announced the fund-raisers at the club during his TV weather forecasts. "The family welcomed me with open arms," Mr. Coleman said. "I know their motives are being questioned here, but I don't really know too much about the parents. I got on board to help with what I thought was a worthy cause.

"It's entirely possible the money was used for something else. If that's the case, I'd be very mad -- especially after my station allowed me to promote it. It's a very sad and odd case. It's all very bad. Either way, I'm sad for the children."

Mr. Coleman mentioned the mother did try to take advantage of him by dropping his name during the dispute with J.C. Penney employees. "She said, 'If you're not careful, I'm going to get my friend Fritz Coleman to come down with his camera crew,' " Mr. Coleman said.

His name also appears in a Los Angeles police report from October 2001.

The mother, who called authorities to report her husband had abused her, told officers that: "Kobe Bryant, Fritz Coleman, Michael Jackson and other celebrities are helping her," the document states.

It is unclear exactly what the mother meant. But the defense will likely point to this as evidence that she allegedly gets close to celebrities and then tries to use them.

OBSERVATIONS

Okay, if this guy actually told reporters that he met the family in 2000, why are reports now saying that he testified to the court that he met them in 1999?
Is this another case of sloppy journalism or does Fritz have a very bad memory?
If Fritz's memory is bad, how come he's so pissed about potentially being ripped off in one article but then today virtually uncooperative in answering simple questions for the defense, the ones who CONTACTED HIM to testify for the trial in the first place?

Stay tuned for an update on this matter...

Andrew Cohen Assesses the Day's Activities

2005-03-14T21:48:00.000-08:00

Jackson Accuser's Poor PerformanceMarch 14, 2005(CBS)

If prosecutors were hoping that Michael Jackson's accuser would come to the witness stand Monday and cement into place their case, they surely are disappointed, and perhaps even mortified, by the young man's courtroom demeanor and testimony. The alleged molestation victim did not talk or act like one in court. And on Monday, during the heart of the prosecution's case, no part of his story was immune from serious and substantial questions about its accuracy or reliability.

At times sullen and combative, cheeky and evasive, acting more like a punk than a crime victim, and often mumbling so badly that the court reporter had to ask him to repeat his answers, the young man did little to persuade jurors that he is telling the truth and Jackson is lying about their alleged encounters together. And it wasn't because Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, went after the complaining witness like the pit bull attorney we all know he can be. Indeed, part of the reason why Monday was such a devastating day for prosecutors is because the accuser so often during the course of the cross-examination did himself in through word and deed. Calling the young man "Mister," Mesereau was subtle and soft because he didn't have to be blunt and firm. The witness was doing his dirty work for him.

By far the most important revelation from the day's testimony is that the young man apparently told a former middle school dean of his that Jackson had not molested him. "I told him that Michael didn't do anything to me," the young man told jurors after Mesereau asked him what he had told the dean. And what had the dean said to the young man to elicit that response? Mesereau said the school official asked the young man: "Look at me, look at me. I can't help you unless you tell me the truth." Powerful stuff for the defense, especially since it appears that prosecutors were unaware of the dean's purported testimony until this past weekend.

If the dean does testify, and if he says what Mesereau says he will, that testimony alone could easily create the reasonable doubt Jackson needs to be acquitted of the charges against him. What possible incentive would the dean have to lie? Why would he want to help Jackson? Why would he want to sink the prosecution's case? And even if the young man eventually says on re-direct examination that he didn't want to level with his dean because he was embarrassed, the fact is that then he's lied to a person of authority when asked him to tell the truth about molestation -- which is exactly what this trial is all about.

If this were the only problem prosecutors faced with their most important witness, it might be enough to sink the case. But it is not. On point after point, the alleged victim came across as incredible, at worst, and just plain confused at best. During the afternoon, he even seemed to suggest that he was unclear about when the molestation took place; whether it took place before or after the family made a "rebuttal" video designed to respond to the infamous network video of Jackson at Neverland; the one in which he admitted to the world that he enjoyed sleeping in the same bed with boys not related to him. This, too, is the essence of reasonable doubt.

The timing of the alleged molestation is so important to the case that the defense Monday afternoon trotted out for a third time the rebuttal videotape. If the alleged molestation took place before this rebuttal video was made, its floridly pro-Jackson tone makes even less sense than it did last week, when jurors were told that the alleged molestation took place after the rebuttal video. But no matter when jurors are told the molestation occurred, the rebuttal video is powerful evidence for Jackson and his lawyer made great use of it with the accuser in the courtroom. Over and over again, Mesereau stopped the videotape to ask the young man if he and his family were lying or telling the truth in it. Sometimes the answer was yes; sometimes it was no.

Long hours before the rebuttal video graced the courtroom again came the first question of the day. Before jurors even got settled in their seats, Mesereau was talking about the young man's comments about masturbation. Mesereau asked the accuser why he had ascribed the same words about masturbation to both Jackson and his grandmother. In other words, the alleged victim apparently told some people that Jackson had told him that masturbation was necessary because it prevented rape while telling others that his grandmother had said that. The young man tried to explain away the inconsistency but it wasn't persuasive. And from that icky start it went downhill quickly. It got so bad, in fact, that the young man's answers to questions about his cancer made it seem like he often used the disease as a sword, not a shield, and had unrealistic and sometimes even offensive expectations about what Jackson and the rest of the world owed him.

Then there were moments where the young man's testimony simply defied belief. For example, the young man told jurors that his mother was "scared the whole time" he spent at Neverland toward the end of his relationship with Jackson. Fair enough. But he also told the jury that he never told her that he was sleeping in Jackson's bed during that whole time. How can that be? How could a mother scared about her son's relationship with Jackson either not ask where they were sleeping or not do anything about it? Mesereau repeated that line of questions several times in order to ensure that the jury understood the lack of logic. It's not an issue that breaks the case wide open against Jackson but it surely doesn't help prosecutors, either.

Jackson's attorney also focused during the day on portraying the young man as a poor student with a long history of discipline problems; a mercenary punk who was renown for talking back to his teachers and defying authority. The alleged victim told jurors that he lost respect for one of his teachers because that teacher had brought himself "down to my level." One teacher wrote about the alleged victim's "good acting skills" and the young man himself told the jury that he "wasn't that good of a kid then." Now, as the parent of most young teenagers might tell you, some of this behavior is typical. But Mesereau listed at least nine teachers who all complained in one way or another about the young man. This jury has a few teachers on it and you can bet that this testimony in particular resonates with them.

But Mesereau wasn't trying to get jurors to "tut-tut" the witness for his bad school behavior. He was trying to get them to buy into the notion that the accuser in this case is capable of deceit, of defiance in the face of authority, of not suffering fools gladly even at a tender age. In a case where the young man ought to be appear wholly as a victim, Jackson's attorney Monday may him seek more like a punk, like a tough street kid who would be more likely to torment Jackson than vice versa. None of this means that the alleged molestation didn't take place, of course, but in a case about perceptions, about who was more likely to be victimizing who, it's a big deal. Simply put, it is harder tonight for me to believe that the young man would have allowed Jackson to molest him.

Anticipating a question that surely has gone through the minds of jurors, Mesereau also focused Monday upon the idea that the young man and his family had a motive to ruin Jackson's life. Why would a young man do this? Because, Mesereau suggested with his questions, the young man and his family were chronic complainers, career gold diggers, freeloaders and grifters who turned against Jackson when he and his entourage began to withdraw their significant perks and services from them. The accuser apparently complained when the vehicle Jackson gave his family took it back to repair it. And he apparently complained that the expensive watch that Jackson had given him wasn't worth what Jackson had told him it was worth. If that is gratitude, if that is appreciation, then this right now is a close case.

It also bodes ill for prosecutors that they twice seemed surprised by defense questions. First, they apparently were taken aback by the discovery that the dean would testify that the accuser had told him that no molestation occurred. Apparently, prosecutors only questioned this dean on Saturday, two days ago, and then had to meet with the alleged victim Sunday evening to discuss the development. In a case like this, that's unacceptable footwork on the part of law enforcement officials and the District Attorneys' Office, who long ago should have talked to every single faculty member at every single school the young man has attended.

Also, the alleged victim told jurors that he had not been asked by prosecutors about Jay Leno until after the trial started, implying that prosecutors did not know that Jay Leno would play a role in this case until the defense said he would during opening statements. Leno, it now appears, will be a defense witness, called to testify that he, too, was approached by the young man and his family as part of a solicitation effort. In these circumstances, it is inexcusable that Sneddon did not know about that before trial or, if he did, that he did not discuss it with his witness. Inexcusable, but not necessarily inconsistent with some of the other dubious decisions and developments so far in the case that left Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorney, shaking his head inside court late Monday morning.

Dressed in a royal blue dress shirt with a white t-shirt underneath, the young man is short-haired and good looking with a voice that is deeper than his age suggests. But when he testifies, he talks as though he is recalling a story that he has read and not as though he is retelling his own experiences. In that sense, he seems as over-coached and scripted as he seems under-coached in other areas of his testimony. Have jurors picked up on this? I don't know. Recognizing the core of the case when they see it, many of them were furiously scribbling notes Monday. And they were as attentive as you would hope they would be, focusing in upon the young man as he answered, or didn't, the questions posed to him.

Surely, in the end, they will cut the accuser some slack on some of what he says. Being the fulcrum of a case like this surely would not be easy for a mature adult, much less a young person just beginning to understand the real world. And surely there is a lot of detail for him to remember over a long period that marks the beginning and end of his relationship with the defendant. The problem for prosecutors, however, is that there is only so much of a break the jury is likely to cut the accuser, especially when Jackson is entitled to "breaks" of his own, constitutionally-mandated breaks like the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt standard.

If I were a member of the jury tonight, I would more likely be wondering why this case was brought in the first place than I would whether or not Jackson is guilty of the charges against him. And that is a horrible calculus for prosecutors now, smack dab in the middle of their case-in-chief. Why? Because with the most dramatic parts of his presentation nearly over, and with a deck stacked with defense witnesses, if Sneddon doesn't have the jury now he likely never will.

©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Liar, Liar

2005-03-14T18:21:00.000-08:00

Gavin Arvizo trying to figure out his next lie...

Someone is having a hard time keeping his lies straight. We won't even TRY to paragraph them or put them in prose. Just follow the bullets, folks. We know the media hates reading:

Gavin reportedly was "combattive" and "argumentative" on the stand, even pissing off Sneddon golfing buddy/Judge Melville. Yeah, he really fits the profile of the sexually abused child. Not.
Admitted to being a disciplinary problem in school; his former teachers corrobate this admission. Interestingly, this may be on the only thing this kid was truthful about.
Okay, now we are NOT making this up. Gavin admitted on the stand that he told the dean of his school that Jackson did not do anything to him at Neverland. What make this interesting is that this admission was allegedly made AFTER the timeline of the alleged abused has expired (Feb 20th-Mar 12th). Even Diane Dimond, who has been in bed with the prosecution for years, reported this was problematic for the prosecution. By the way, an unidentified school administrator may be a potential witness as a result of this revelation (see full details here). By the way, we hear Sneddon "groaned" as this little tidbit came to light. There is a God!
He denies ever speaking to resident idiot and chronically unfunny Jay Leno. The problem is that Leno, no ally of Jackson's, has already stated that he met with the kid and his family and was sure they were looking for a "mark," someone to scam. This is beyond funny. Looks like Chinny Chin Chin is going to be a very pivotal witness. This is just the kind of deliciously cruel irony we at the cutting edge love so much. Whether Leno likes Jackson or not, he will wind up impeaching the character of the accuser and not Jackson, the one he continues to villify during his monotonous monologues.
He claimed that he felt like a part of Jackson's family. This COMPLETELY impeaches his intial testimony to Sneddon on Friday in which he claimed that comedian Chris Tucker was closer to him than Michael. In addition, we cannot quite juxtapose Gavin's initial claims with all those "Oh Daddy! Oh Daddy!" comments Gavin and his siblings were tossing Michael's way. Wow.

By the way, we also hear that Gavin admitted that he was "sexually confused" after his relationship with Michael. The funny thing is this sounds suspiciously like the story Raymond Chandler told in his crappy offering All That Glitters (2004). It appears as if Gavin got a number of his ideas from reading Jordan Chandler's 1994 deposition (written by Evan Chandler, his father of course). Furthermore, we all the more convinced that the little "leak" about Gavin downloading the deposition sometime in May 2003 was not a bogus story but a tidbit that came STRAIGHT from someone close to the PROSECUTION'S side. Even some folks in his own office don't believe this kid.

Redux: Using His Sickness For Gain

2005-03-14T17:32:00.000-08:00

truth hurts
3.14.05
---------------

Look, we've been trying to tell you hard headed haters that this case was a scam from the get-go. Now that Gavin Arvizo is currently smarting off to defense attorneys who are poking holes in their coached and made-up story, we believe we need to go over some key facts from the past before we post what bombshells got dropped on the prosecution today. This offering deals with the questionable timing of certain "events" surrounding gavin's illness, treatment, and benefit comedy shows to handle all those costs:

Houston (Or Santa Barbara): We Have a Problem

(Rush Edition)
Let me preface this article by stating very clearly and unequivocally that there is
little doubt that the accuser in the current Michael Jackson case ever had a tumor of any sort. What is not clear, however, is when he was diagnosed and when he actually met Jackson---at least according to a number of media sources. Far be it from me to accuse the media of intentionally distorting or flat out lying about these issues in order to paint Jackson into a guilty corner. However, the more I read, the more interested I get in another time line: the accuser’s.

There are a number of dates being floated both by the media and by persons who
clearly have it in for Jackson. Some have suggested that the accuser was sick in 2001. Others even went so far as to toss 2002 into the ring but of course that jacks up Sneddon’s already jacked up time line for the alleged abuse. Then there is a December 21, 2001 report on an encounter that the LAPD had with the accuser and his brother, both of whom were cutting school at the time:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all began with a chance encounter, last October, when officers Diane Reyes and
Edward Moreno noticed two young boys hanging around the Union Station mezzanine on a school day. The younger of the two started crying when the officers questioned them, but Reyes and Moreno were able to learn that the boys – 11-year-old John* and 12-year-old Joe Doe* – were on their way with their 15-year-old sister, Davellin, to visit their mother. She was having surgery that day at Kaiser Hospital in Hollywood. The officers’ hearts immediately went out to the kids and, with their lieutenant’s permission, they piled the youngsters into a squad car and drove to the hospital.

En route, John revealed to the officers that he is in remission from cancer. The
previous March, doctors had removed a 16-pound tumor, his spleen and a
kidney – and he proudly showed them the scar to prove it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This account raises a number of issues. First, is the “previous March” referring to March
2000 or March 1999? Is the writer writing from the perspective of “last October” or
December 2001 when his article was actually written? See what poor usage can do to an
article? Why was the accuser so intent on showing them his scar to “prove” that he had a
surgery?

This much we know: the accuser and his family DID meet Jackson for the first time in the summer of 2000. Both the Bashir documentary Living with Michael Jackson and Take 2 confirm the general time frame. In addition, I personally know from a very reliable source familiar with the case that a witness actually saw the accuser at Neverland around August 2000. This would make sense if the accuser had his operation between March and June 2000. It is my position that the accuser was diagnosed and operated on in 2000.

Making this all the more interesting is the recent admission of Los Angeles weatherman Fritz Coleman, who said that he may be called to testify concerning his
involvement with the family in 2000. Among the interesting tidbits is the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview with the News-Press, Mr. Coleman said he met the family in 2000
through the Laugh Factory summer camp, which Mr. Masada offers to underprivileged children.

"They really lived a hand-to-mouth existence in a one-room flat in a barrio in East Los
Angeles," said Mr. Coleman, a guest teacher at the camp. He noticed the boy, his
brother and sister were all "vivacious performers."
"(The boy) would talk freely," Mr. Coleman said. "He had sparkle. He had a real bright essence about himself on the stage. With a little guidance, he could probably be a great performer."
-----------------------------------------------
In October 2000, the boy's Laugh Factory friends learned he was diagnosed with cancer and held three fund-raisers to help with medical costs. Mr. Masada declined to say how much money was raised. Mr. Coleman didn't know. "None of us were in control of where the money ended up," he said. Mr. Masada would offer no information except to emphasize that the money was given directly to the hospital. A spokeswoman for Kaiser-Permanente said she could not comment because of privacy rules. Mr. Coleman and other Laugh Factory performers visited the boy in the hospital. In fact, the boy met Mr. Jackson through his Laugh Factory connections. Mr. Jackson held a blood drive for him at his Neverland Valley Ranch. And Mr. Coleman announced the fund-raisers at the club during his TV weather forecasts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Coleman met the accuser and his family in the summer of 2000, why did he not notice that the boy was ill? I am not a medical expert but something smells here and I do not believe that Mr. Coleman is the problem here. From Mr. Coleman’s assertions, it is clear that he was unaware that the accuser was even sick in the summer of 2000. Uh oh. The accuser clearly had a scar from something to show the LAPD. But that raises another issue: if indeed the October referred to in that article is October 2000, then how in the world did Mr. Coleman and other performers only find out in October 2000 that the kid was ill? How was the accuser sick enough to get Jackson's attention but not Coleman's?

There is something wrong here, folks and I truly believe that the mother of the accuser may have used the boy’s illness to get what she wanted. All this confusion is
going to come back and bite the good District Attorney Sneddon in the behind and this
case will go bye-bye as well. Not only that but the accuser and his family might be
facing some serious fraud charges. This is outcome is all the more plausible since we
learned from the September 17th hearing that the mother had actually hired a private
investigator in January 2000 to get dirt on Jackson despite having not even met the
superstar at the time. Time will only tell what happens but there is little doubt that Jackson and his attorneys will be able to exploit the obvious holes in the family’s own little time line. Santa Barbara, you have a problem, a very big problem.

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2004 All Rights Reserved

A Question or Two For Jay Leno

2005-03-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

We have noticed that Jay Leno has gone out of his way to bash Michael Jackson. I mean, we know that Jackson is the pariah of the moment right now for comedians but Leno seems particularly bent on villifying Jackson, especially after Leno had Geraldo Rivera, one of the few media types who is vocal about the REAL nature of this case. So we want to know:

Who do you owe a big favor to Jay?
Who is putting the squeeze on you for your "air time"?
Who is whispering in that big ear of yours about Jackson?
Who is responsible for those lame behind jokes you keep torturing your audience with?

Inquiring minds like us want to know.

Synopsis of Past Week

2005-03-12T00:33:00.000-08:00

Bridging the Gap....

Obiechena

March 11, 2005

As Week 2 in the Michael Jackson child molestation case draws to a close, the entertainer's accuser and the boy's siblings have already taken to the witness stand. While some continue to suggest that the three teenagers have done well under the pressure of defense cross-examination, others argue that they've done nothing but botch their own credibility, as well as that of the District Attorney.

From the moment of the raid on Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch, it had been suggested that prosecutor Thomas Sneddon has a vendetta against the singer. This has repeatedly been dismissed as hosh-posh and "Jackson spin." However, it seems as though there may exist some level of truth within this proclamation.

Sneddon's opening statement has been publicly characterized as disorganized, overly detailed, and confusing. We at MJJForum would like to add that it was also in conflict with itself, his own case, as well as later testimony given by his key witnesses.

In his presentation, Sneddon promised jurors and observers that he intends to show that Jackson kidnapped, falsely imprisoned, and extorted the accusing family in an effort to rehabilitate his image and his finances. He also promised that he'd show that during these efforts, Jackson molested his now 15-year-old accuser.

As absurd as that may sound, Sneddon continued on, outlining what members of the boy's family would say happened. He said it was also his intention to call public relations persons to testify that the Martin Bashir documentary was so devastating to Jackson that he believed the only remedy was to kidnap and force a family into speaking kindly of him on several occasions. Not in those particular words, but that's what he and the family are alleging.

More than too much detail is given as to specifics in his case, including a timeline that would soon enough prove itself to be beyond faulty.

Sneddon told of times the boy's mother and/or the family "escaped" from Neverland more than once with the help of Jackson employees. The prosecutor also painted a sympathetic picture of the accuser as a cancer-survivor exploited by Jackson, presenting the teenager as a boy who went into Neverland innocent and unsuspecting, and came out corrupted and deviant. In his own words, "people who walk in [Neverland] with manners walk out and can be described by some of the staff as hellions, rude, obnoxious."

For all the bluster that existed in the opener, one important matter of curiosity is the timeline that has been presented by Sneddon. During testimony by the accuser and his siblings, all three of them had remained entirely vague as to specific dates during which they claim what they witnessed transpired. Not a single pinpointed day comes from any of them; not even from the boy who says he was molested. Their entire testimony is instead based relative to events, rather than solid dates.

It can be argued that it is "normal" for an abuse victim to "forget" dates, but how "normal" or common is it that they consistently mix up and alter the same details and circumstances? Real victims will tell you that forgetting anything regarding your abuse is damn near impossible. If you cannot recall the exact date, you surely would remember a lot more than what has been presented by this boy and his family.

Besides, what's the excuse for the accuser's siblings not recalling specific dates? Amnesia? Absolutely not! You see, what had happened was Jackson kept the entire family away from the numerous clocks in his house and those displayed all over his property, so as to confuse them as to what day it was. Or was it that Jackson didn't exactly keep them away from clocks, but the timekeepers were all intentionally set wrong to throw the family off from knowing actual dates and times?

If only we were making this up.

Direct examination of the witnesses by Sneddon had the three relate all allegations of misconduct by Jackson to several events: their trip to Miami; their return to Neverland after Miami; their return to their grandparents place by Jackson's then house manager Jesus Salas; the filming of the rebuttal and interview with Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services; their stay at a Calabasas hotel; and the period between their return to Neverland from Calabasas and their eventual departure.

Some would say that that's good enough to establish a timeline. However, in a case of this caliber, there's got to be more. There's no space for vagueness and uncertainty. It's necessary to know whether the alleged perpetrator was present on the scene during a specified period in order to determine possibilities of a crime's committal.

Regardless of the abundance of sketchy information, the prosecutor has continued forth with star witnesses practicing convenient amnesia and timeline acrobatics. Sneddon revealed in his presentation that he determined Jackson's presence or absence at his home from logs kept at Neverland. Those dates were given in the opener and they will be discussed in a minute.While being directly examined by Sneddon, the accuser's brother testified to several things that allegedly occurred between the family's arrival at Neverland from Miami and their departure from the ranch with Salas. He testified that Jackson was present during this time period; that he and his brother spent their nights in Jackson's bedroom; that they drank alcohol "a lot of times" with Jackson at various locations in the home; and that he saw Jackson intoxicated.

Logs from Neverland and future "testimony from individuals involved," according to Sneddon's opener, places Jackson and the family simultaneously at his ranch from March 2-5, 2003, and again from March 9-12, 2003. These are the dates for which the prosecution has determined that the pop star was at home at the same time that the accusing family was present.

The time period within which the family stayed at Neverland and then departed with Salas is February 7-12, 2003. With the prosecutor offering the dates that Jackson and his house guests were together present at his ranch to be early March 2003, how then could the accuser's brother's allegations of boozing every day have occurred in early February 2003?Brother confused about the dates? How could he be when he offers none? This is a problem that Sneddon and his team have created on their own. Jackson was liquoring it up with these children in February, yet, by the District Attorney's own admission, Jackson wasn't even present together with the family until March!

The mind boggles. Certainly this isn't enough to suggest that prosecutor Sneddon is out to get Jackson, but it sure is enough to have you scratching your head.

Much more to come from "Bridging the Gap."

a cutting edge tribute...

2005-03-01T19:07:00.000-08:00

a cUttInG eDgE tribute to Tom Sneddon

T is for time bomb, that annoying little sound the powers that be should be hearing by now after opening statements. We have always been curious as to why Sneddon would leak practically his entire case via his tabloid television co-conspirators. After reading excerpts of Sneddon’s opening statements yesterday in the Michael Jackson trial, we are now sure: he has no real case.

O is for overconfident. Whoever convinced Sneddon that he had a case or that Tellem would be serving on the jury made a tragic mistake. From what we heard of the goings on, Sneddon’s longwinded statement nearly hypnotized a few jurors right into Sleepy Time Land.

M is for Mad Dog. Who hid under the table when Sneddon supporters came out of the woodwork in November 2003 to warn all of his detractors that he was a determined a dedicated prosecutor who only cared about getting justice for victims? We didn’t because we knew that the madness of Sneddon concerning Jackson was long established before the trial would ever begin (click HERE for details). Someone should have told Sneddon that the dog catcher has been loosed. Beware.

S is for Shopping, or should we say “kidnapping”? In our haste to judge the Arvizos and even the prosecution for perpetuating a fraudulent case against Mr. Jackson, let us give honor where honor is due. After all, the Arvizos have single-handedly changed the definition of kidnapping. Where kidnapping once meant taking someone against their will, usually by force, kidnapping in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria circles now means “to house in swanky hotels; to spend other peoples money at expensive shops and restaurants.” Dear Michael Jackson: KIDNAP US!

N is for nonplussed. Considering the grammar level of the persons responsible for writing the prosecution motions, we do not expect them to even know the meaning of the word. Nonplussed only means puzzled or confused. Juxtapose this meaning with the transcript of Sneddon’s opening statements as he attempted to “lay out his case” and you will understand why we employ such a word here. Instead of laying out his case, he laid out a number of legal commentators who claimed that his argument was boring and difficult to follow. Of course, when you have to lie in order to convict your arch enemy, you have to work hard at confusing the hell out of people. Sneddon succeeded. Kudos to you, Mad Dog!

E is for evasion. This tactic of avoidance was employed throughout the grand theft jury proceedings by Janet Arvizo. Rather than admitting the inconsistencies of her claims of kidnapped furniture, “forced” trips to the Banana Republic and massage parlors, Janet Arvizo evades the issue altogether with the default rejoinder “I’m not smart.” We doubt, however, this confession will play well at the local women’s prison which hopefully will become her home once Jackson’s nightmare is turned into a dream ending for him and his family.

D is for Dysfunction. The accuser GAVIN ARVIZO and his family may become the next big television stars of their own reality show provided that prison terms don’t interrupt their ascension to fame and claim. J. Randy Tabloiderelli (our own little pet name for our favorite self-proclaimed Jackson biographer) once stated that the Jackson family “put the ‘func’ in dysfunctional. However, after surveying the family scrapbook familial abuse, scams and shams, we believe that the Arvizo family makes even the Osbornes look like the Huxtables. If we were not so busy spending our resources on reporting the latest news about the Jackson trial, we would pay for counseling. However, we see no reason to intervene as we are sure the state of California will provide those services for free via the Department of Corrections.

D is for “Dumb Sheldon,” the soon to-be-released remake of HIStory’s “Dom Sheldon.” The title has will have been updated for obvious reasons.

O is for Oscar. The Arvizos have been pulling off Academy Award worthy performances and the fruit of their labors have garnered them a much undeserved settlement from JC Penny’s in 2001 as well as a host of money-scamming opportunities off of Gavin’s illness. Out of respect for their considerable talents, we at the cutting edge have our own awards for them: "Best Supporting Actor" is Star Arvizo in his role "The Eyewitness Who Didn't See . " "Best Actor" nods go to Janet Arvizo over her son Gavin for role in the segment "The Mother Who Was Terminally Stupid But Could Still Find a Way to Launder Money Into Her Husband's Account". Gavin Arvizo is being considered for a lifetime achievement award to be named later. We have heard that he will be starting an acting troupe-----in prison, of course.

N is for “NOT GUILTY,” the verdict that will vindicate Jackson but serve as the last death nail in the vainglorious career of Thomas W. Sneddon. True to the old Greek tragic hero complex, Sneddon will be undone by the very trait his supporters champion so much: his dogged obsession with getting a conviction. Of course, when one seeks to convict where he knows there is no case, this is more than an Achilles heel. It is poison to the soul and reaps a whirlwind of trouble that cannot be undone.

Trial Begins

2005-03-01T18:46:00.000-08:00

Meseareau Opening Statement, Trial Kicks Off

Him Roids

-------------------
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/0228051jacksonopenings1.html#theLatest

More from Mesereau today:

8:35 AM PST: Resuming his opening statement, Mesereau came out blasting this morning, aiming his fire at the accuser and his siblings, saying that while the children were initially well behaved, they became "out of control" while in residence at Jackson's Neverland Ranch. Mesereau told jurors that they:

* Broke into the estate's wine cellar
* Broke into a refrigerator
* Stole alcohol that Jackson had ordered for guests (and were found drunk by ranch employees)
* At Neverland's amusement park, they were discovered at the top of a ferris wheel, where they threw objects at elephants and people

Addressing the stash of porno magazines discovered in his home during a November 2003 raid, Mesereau said, "Mr. Jackson will freely admit that he does read girly magazines from time to time." But, Mesereau added, Jackson kept titles like Playboy and Hustler in a briefcase. When the accuser and his brother removed magazines from the briefcase, Mesereau said, Jackson took them back from the boys (this would seem to serve as the defense explanation for why the fingerprints of Jackson and the boys were recovered from the magazines). He also noted that forensic investigators did not discover the accuser's DNA in Jackson's bedroom, where multiple acts of molestation allegedly occurred.

Continuing his attack on the accuser's mother, Mesereau said that the woman deposited illegally obtained welfare checks into the account of her boyfriend, an Army Reserves major who earned $8000-a-month. He also said that the woman had numerous chances to alert law enforcement authorities that her family was being held against its will at Jackson's estate...but she never said a thing. And as for prosecution claims that the family has never considered filing a lawsuit against Jackson, Mesereau pointed out that the mother, in conversations with law enforcement officials, mentioned that her children would have until they were 18 to file a civil claim against the performer (while the woman's daughter is 18, the accuser is 15 and his brother is 14).
Countering Sneddon's claim that the woman was not seeking money from Jackson, Mesereau said that he will prove that her lawyer, Larry Feldman, told CNN's Larry King (during a lunch) that "she wants money." He also told jurors that Jackson's doctor (apparently Alimorad Farshchian) would rebut prosecution witness claims that Jackson served alcohol to the teenage accuser on a February 2003 flight from Miami to Santa Barbara.

Mesereau may also have signaled plans to have his client testify by remarking to jurors that, "Michael Jackson will tell you" that he eventually became suspicious of the family. Mesereau noted that the performer was particularly put off once when the accuser's mother grabbed his hand and asked her children to kneel down and pray with "Daddy Michael."
Jackson, Mesereau said, was "sucked in" by the accuser and his family, and paid the price when he declined to underwrite them: "Look what happens when you don't take responsibility for this family for the rest of your life." Mesereau concluded by saying that jurors would hear a lot of testimony during a lengthy trial, but would come to the determination that Jackson is "absolutely not guilty of any of this."

9:43 AM: Meserau's opening concludes and the court takes a brief recess. When court resumes, journalist Martin Bashir will be called as the prosecution's first witness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Madness & The Magic, Part I: Opening Statements

2005-02-28T21:11:00.000-08:00

Him Roids
2.28.05
the cutting edge daily blogger
-----------------------------------------

(please note that the following information comes courtesy of The Smoking Gun, owned by Court TV, so consider the source)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/0228051jacksonopenings1.html#theLatest

the madness

after a year of trying desperately to taint the public with wicked images, of michael jackson as the most dangerous pedophile in united states history, sneddon offered this piece de resistance of inpenetrable stupidity and myopic deductive reasoning:

9:12 AM PST: "On February 3, 2003, the defendant, Michael Jackson's, world was rocked. Not in the musical sense but in the real world sense," District Attorney Tom Sneddon told Santa Barbara jurors this morning. On that date, Sneddon explained, Martin Bashir's documentary "Living with Michael Jackson aired in England, immediately creating a firestorm over the pop singer's admission that he shared his bed with boys to whom he was unrelated. Jackson's world was so rocked, Sneddon reported, that an associate, Marc Schaffel, described the fallout from the Bashir production as a "train wreck."

At this point, Sneddon noted that some might be surprised that the defendant was "heavily in debt." An objection from Jackson lawyer Thomas Mesereau was sustained by Judge Rodney Melville, despite Sneddon's contention that the motive for the alleged conspiracy revolved around Jackson's possible financial peril.

9:28 AM PST: The case against Jackson, Sneddon said, is "about the manipulation of a young boy," a 13-year-old cancer survivor whom Jackson exposed to pornography and exploited, in part, because the child was estranged from his father. Sneddon noted that Jackson was a man who "had a habit of sharing his bed and his bedroom" with young boys and had the teenage accuser refer to him as "Daddy."

In the wake of the Bashir broadcast, Sneddon told jurors, the accuser and his family were viewed as a "loose end" that needed to be contained and isolated by the Jackson camp, which was, in early-February 2003, planning a "rebuttal" video to "Living with Michael Jackson." In a bid to secure an interview with the family for the rebuttal program, Jackson and his aides used "logic, reason, and appeals to trust," but when those approaches failed, they "got their interview through extortion."

9:45 AM PST: After his opening remarks, Sneddon fell into a familiar recitation of the case against Jackson, which he said began in 2000 when the accuser, then 10, was living in a studio apartment in Los Angeles. It was then that the child was diagnosed with cancer and underwent operations to remove a 16-pound tumor, lesions from his lung, and a kidney. While doctors told his family to prepare for a funeral, Sneddon noted, the child is a "fighter" who survived cancer. Now 15, he is a high school freshman, who plays on his school's football team and participates in a Navy-sponsored youth program.

The youth's cancer diagnosis, Sneddon reported, led to his introduction to Jamie Masada, owner of L.A.'s Laugh Factory. As a "last wish," Masada arranged for the boy to speak with comedians Chris Tucker and Adam Sandler. And with Jackson, who invited the child and his family to his Neverland Ranch. The boy's first visit to the 2800-acre estate came while he was in recovery (Jackson dispatched a limousine to the family's home for the three-hour trip to Neverland).
During that first stay, Sneddon said, Jackson pulled the boy aside at one point and asked him to ask his parents if he could stay with the performer, then 43, in his bedroom. The parents agreed and the child and his younger brother bunked that night with Jackson, (the boys slept on Jackson's bed while the performer slept on the floor). It was during the brothers's first Neverland stay that Jackson and aide Frank Cascio showed the boys pornographic web sites on a laptop computer in Jackson's bedroom. As they looked at photos of topless women, Jackson remarked "Got Milk?" at one point, Sneddon said. The singer even directed a lurid comment at his three-year-old son, who was on the bed, apparently sleeping. "Paris," he said to the boy, "you're missing a lot of pussy."

From that point, Sneddon noted, the accuser "became one of those boys that shared Michael Jackson's bed." The prosecutor added that "the private world of Michael Jackson is quite different from what is seen on video." When the star entertained children at his home, the minors visited porn sites with Jackson and viewed sexually explicit magazines like "Barely Legal" and "others with far more offensive titles," said Sneddon.

9:55 AM PST: Segueing into a section of his opening dealing with alcohol, Sneddon painted a dark picture of what boys encountered at Jackson's home: "Instead of cookies and milk you can substitute wine, vodka, and bourbon." While the entertainer claims not to drink, Sneddon said, witnesses will dispute that contention. In fact, he added, Jackson encouraged children to imbibe, and personally served them alcohol at times.

To support these alcohol claims, Sneddon said prosecutors will present testimony from flight attendants who served Jackson alcohol concealed in Diet Coke cans. Jurors will also hear from ex-bodyguard Christopher Carter, who will testify that he once saw the accuser drunk at Neverland, and former house manager Jesus Salas, who told investigators that he once brought booze to Jackson and several young children. A peek into Jackson's world, Sneddon said, reveals that it is not a Peter Pan existence, but rather one filled with sexually explicit magazines and frequent talk with boys about about masturbation, which the singer emphasizes is natural.
10:02 AM PST: Moving into a description of Jackson's estate, Sneddon described it as a place that has been "used for beautiful causes." And, "some things very bad." Sneddon told jurors that they would get a good sense of Neverland through videos shot at the sprawling property. He described the estate as a children's wonderland, with its amusement park, zoo, and go-cart track. He also told of a secret wine cellar--the entrance to which is hidden behind a jukebox in the arcade building--where Jackson's "special friends" were poured alcohol by the entertainer himself.

Sneddon's tour of the property stopped into Jackson's office and bedroom, where, he said, investigators found pornographic magazines and DVDs during the execution of a November 18, 2003 search warrant. Fifteen sexually explicit magazines were found "laying by the tub" in Jackson's private bathroom. A briefcase also contained porno mags. And raiders, Sneddon noted, also found porn in a nightstand, which also contained cards and letters from the accuser and his family (some missives were addressed to "Daddy Michael").
10:22 AM PST: Testimony from two former Jackson employees--Salas and maid Blanca Francia--will show that Jackson, Sneddon told jurors, was "pathological" about not allowing anyone in his Neverland bedroom without his permission. Because, he said, "it is in this room that the defendant...opened his Samsonite briefcase and showed the boy sexually explicit material. It is in this room that the defendant simulated sexual intercourse with a mannequin. It is in this room that the defendant, while the boys watched a movie, walked in naked." And, Sneddon said, "It is in this room and on that bed that [the accuser] was molested. And it is in this room and on that bed that [the accuser's brother] saw his brother molested on two occasions."

Returning to the pornographic magazines seized by investigators Steve Robel and Paul Zelis, Sneddon told jurors that latent fingerprints from both boys were lifted from the titles, one of which also carried Jackson's fingerprints. Jackson used the magazines, Sneddon told jurors, to "stimulate" the accuser's "emerging sexuality."

10:40 AM PST: Turning to the alleged victim's brother, who is seen on the Bashir video as a chubby-faced 12-year-old, Sneddon said that jurors will hear testimony from a 250-pound 14-year-old who plays center on his school's football team. The child will testify that, on two occasions, he saw his brother being molested by Jackson while the child lay unconscious on the singer's bed. The child was "frozen by what he saw" from the staircase leading to Jackson's bedroom, and did not mention the incidents until months later when he was interviewed by psychologist Stanley Katz. The boy will testify that he saw empty wine bottles on Jackson's nightstand during the alleged molestations, said Sneddon.

Referring to the accuser's mother, Sneddon said that the woman hired a lawyer in the wake of the Bashir broadcast not because she was upset with Jackson, but because Bashir had not obtained releases to include her children in his documentary. Sneddon said that the woman has never considered filing a lawsuit against the performer. As for the accuser himself, Sneddon noted that the child will describe with "vivid particularity" how Jackson sexually assaulted him.
10:55 AM PST: Moving into a further description of Jackson's alleged coconspirators--Schaffel; Cascio; Ronald Konitzer; Dieter Wiesner; and Vincent Amen--Sneddon referred to the 28 separate overt acts that comprise the felony conspiracy charge leveled against Jackson (each of the coconspirators is mentioned in multiple overt acts). The "central focus" of the alleged plot, said Sneddon, was to isolate the family and get them to agree to appear in the Jackson camp's rebuttal video, which was to be broadcast on Fox.

Hired days after the February 6, 2003 U.S. broadcast of Martin Bashir's "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary, Ann Gabriel briefly handled crisis management and public relations chores for the entertainer. She was hired by David LeGrand, a Las Vegas attorney who began representing Jackson in January 2003.11:15 AM PST: One of the first witnesses jurors will hear from, Sneddon said, was Ann Gabriel, who was hired by a Jackson lawyer to handle crisis management chores in the wake of the Bashir broadcast. Gabriel will testify about the Jackson organization's strategy to contain fallout from the program and how the singer himself was intimately involved in decision making.

Jackson's agreement to do interviews with Bashir was based on his belief that the resulting documentary would help jumpstart his stalled career, Sneddon said. And that is what led the singer to contact the accuser after having had nothing to do with the boy for about a year. Jackson told the child to go before Bashir's camera and tell the journalist of the star's crucial role in helping him recover from cancer. But, Sneddon noted, that plan backfired when viewers saw the finished Bashir product, with its scenes of the child holding Jackson's hand and resting his head on the performer's shoulder.

Even before the Bashir program aired in England, Sneddon said, Jackson aides were panicked. Because, he told jurors, Schaffel--though his media contacts--had obtained a transcript of the program. They realized, Sneddon said, the documentary "was clearly a boomerang on a comeback attempt."

11:28 AM PST: Speaking to jurors from a podium, Sneddon said that when the documentary aired in England on February 3, 2003, 17 million viewers tuned in. The program, he said, held the possibility of being a "landslide that would destroy everything in its path, including Michael Jackson." And the performer will not be able to argue that Bashir somehow tricked him into making damaging statements, Sneddon said, since Jackson subsequently made similar statements about sharing his bed with boys to Ed Bradley on CBS's "60 Minutes."
Sneddon said that Gabriel, when asked to rate the trouble faced by Jackson on a scale of 1 to 10, placed it at 25. He quoted Jackson videographer Christian Robinson as describing the post-Bashir period as a "nightmare." For the accuser, Sneddon said, the feedback was particularly brutal, with classmates calling him a "faggot" and directing "rude, crude sexual remarks" at him. [The child testified in the grand jury that fellow students taunted him by saying he was "booty busted" by Jackson.]

11:41 AM PST: Placing Jackson at the center of the alleged conspiracy to falsely imprison the accuser and his family at Neverland, Sneddon said that, the day after the Bashir documentay aired in England, Jackson placed a 27-minute call to the accuser and his family, which "reasserts himself into" the family's life. Clearly referring to toll records, Sneddon said that Jackson reached the California family at 6:58 PM Pacific time. He also mentioned that a note seized from the home of Jackson's assistant, Evelyn Tavasci, showed that Jackson was seeking to contact the accuser's family at this time.

the magic

this is a partial summation of what opening statements mesereau was able to present today...he will finish his opening statements tomorrow morning...please note the L-O-G-I-C throughout mesereau's statement:

12:36 PM PST: After noting that it was an honor to represent Jackson, Thomas Mesereau told jurors, "I'm here to tell you these charges are fictitious and bogus." He than bellowed, "These charges are fake, silly, ridiculous." After Melville sustained an objection from Sneddon, Mesereau described what he said were attempts by the accuser's mother to weasel money from several celebrities while her son was ill. The woman, Mesereau said, tried to score cash from Jay Leno, comedian George Lopez, and an actress who appeared on "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air."
These gambits were scams, Mesereau said. In one instance, the mother received $20,000 from one comedian, claiming that the funds would be used for her son's care. Instead, Mesereau said, the money was used to buy TVs, CDs, and home entertainment equipment. The mother also approached celebrities like Mike Tyson, Jim Carrey, and Adam Sandler. But, he noted, "The best known celebrity became their mark, Michael Jackson."

After claiming that his client has been the subject of much inaccurate reporting, Mesereau launched into a brief biographical sketch of Jackson and his creation of Neverland Ranch, a place where Jackson can enjoy the childhood spoils he never had while a young man.

12:49 PM PST: Countering Sneddon's assertion that Jackson's estate was a den of iniquity, Mesereau told jurors, "We will prove that Neverland is not a haven for criminal acts, a lure for molestation, a magnet for crime." The singer's intentions toward the teenage accuser were honorable, Mesereau said, noting that Jackson took time from his career to help the child, unaware that "a trap was set" for him by the boy's family. In describing the kind of help Jackson provided when the child was ill, Mesereau said the performer counseled the boy to visualize that he was playing Pac-Man and that cancer cells were being gobbled up.
In a broadside on the accuser's mother, Mesereau described the woman as a shakedown artist who used her sick son as bait, a woman who coached her kids to lie in connection with an assault lawsuit the family once brought against J.C. Penney. Mesereau referred to a newly surfaced witness--who worked as a paralegal for the lawyer representing the family in the Penney case--who claims that the mother fabricated her allegations in that civil case. The paralegal contends that she hesitated to come forward because the mother once told her she had relatives in the Mexican Mafia.

Along with the alleged J.C. Penney scheme, the woman illegally obtained welfare benefits, Mesereau said, adding that she never bothered to mention her six-figure settlement from the department store when applying for those benefits. In other instances, Mesereau said, the woman "undertook a program to use her son to raise money." That bid, Mesereau told jurors, involved the family targeting Jay Leno, who spoke with the accuser on the telephone at one point. Mesereau said that Leno rebuffed the financial pitch and later told Santa Barbara police that the family was looking for a "mark."

1:08 PM PST: Another celebrity mentioned by Mesereau was comedian George Lopez, who the family apparently met via Jamie Masada, the Laugh Factory owner. Without providing any details, Mesereau told jurors that the accuser's family once claimed that Lopez swiped $300 out of one of their wallets.

Reeling off one financial scam after the other, Mesereau remarked, "It goes on and on."
Addressing the mother's claim that she and her children were held against her will at Neverland, Mesereau told jurors that the guest unit in which she was held allegedly captive was the suite that Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor requested when they individually stayed at Jackson's estate. He also mentioned that during this same period the Jackson camp paid more than $3300 for the woman's beauty treatments (cosmetics, aromatherapy, leg waxing) and other costs.
Mesereau told jurors that after the Bashir documentary aired, the mother was expecting a payday in return for her children's participation in the Jackson rebuttal video. However, when an opportunity to cash in never materialized, Mesereau said, the molestation accusations emerged. And the family "went to a lawyer, and then another lawyer," added Jackson's lawyer.
With Bashir expected to be called tomorrow as the first prosecution witness, Mesereau spent much time ripping the British journalist, whom the attorney claimed set Jackson up in a bid to "humiliate, degrade, and deceive" the entertainer.

2:26 PM PST: At this point, Mesereau stopped his opening argument, which he will resume tomorrow at 8:30 AM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alrighty, so i am, according to sneddummy, believe that:

Michael Jackson is a cunning sexual predator despite GAVIN ARVIZO'S claim that he knows more about sex than Michael.
Michael Jackson molested GAVIN ARVIZO after the Bashir messumentary aired and everybody was once again accusing him [Jackson] of being a child molester. That ain't cunning; that's downright stupid.

Janet Arvizo's failure to mention all the scams as well as all of the inconsistencies of her stories involving them and the current case are mere "mistakes." No, Tom. You going forward with this case was a "mistake."
(Ok, this is my personal favorite so far) Apparently, Michael Jackson's alleged heavy debts somehow explain his reasons for doing the Bashir documentary to revive his career and allegedly conspiring to 'kidnap' GAVIN ARVIZO and his family. Whaaaaaaaaaaaa?!

now aint this a piece of #&*@! ..........more on the opening statements and case tomorrow.....

10 Things to Look For During the Trial

2005-02-27T21:12:00.000-08:00

truth hurts

2.27.05

------------------------
Tomorrow, the moment of truth for maligned pop legend Michael Jackson arrives in a Santa Maria courtroom as a jury of 12 people will listen to opening statements in yet another hyped up version of "The Trial of the Century." So what can we look for?

Diane Dimond sniffing more poo-poo, this time from the "insider info" bin of her 'sources'. I had to go plural because apparently Diane has been buttering up a certain fat behind former sheriff for more bogus information).
Nancy Grace popping a crack in one of those expansive nostrils as Mesereau scores major points AGAINST the defense. I already here her default answer now: "We'll get back to that later." Witch.
Melville sucking up to the jury.
Melville telling the world over and over and over again that he is not "bought" for this trial. Me thinks the golfing buddy doth protest too much.
Steve Corbett crying everytime Michael Jackson stretches. Admit it Steve, you love Michael.
Tom Sneddon WILL, i repeat WILL pop a cork on his OWN WITNESSES! He is such a bully that it just can't help but come out. Where's my popcorn?
Janet Arvizo telling me over and over how dumb she is. Trust me, by the end of this trial, the world will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
1993 IS coming in without a doubt. And it will spell D-O-O-M for Sneddon, not Jackson.
The accuser's 'little' brother will be rail thin by trial's end after all the sweating his behind will be doing once Mesereau gets him on the stand.
Bad face time for Raymond Chandler. Where's my gun?
More and more and more horrifically written Jackson specials rivaled only by VH1's aweseomely bad bio-pic Man In The Mirror.
E! will face a class-action lawsuit from anyone who chose them to follow the trial. Of course, if they paid any attention to a B-movie look-alike like the one E! is using, they deserve whatever they get
Fans will behave. Yeah, that's right.
Only four journalists will be caught dead reporting facts.
Dan Abrams will get his teeth bronzed in order to attract Michael Jackson's attention. It won't work, Dan.
Finally, Michael Jackson, after 12 years of undeserved shame and innuendo, will be vindicated, hold a press conference, and cuss everybody out. He will also treat me to some KFC.

Smoking Gun Shoots Another Jury Tainting Bullet

2005-02-18T18:28:00.000-08:00

In an effort to take advantage of Michael Jackson's recuperation time as well as a still no-doubt grieved Thomas Mesereau over the sudden death of his sister, the Smoking Gun has decided to kill time by posting the ENTIRE grand jury testimony:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/021505mjgrandjury.html

It's sinful that this mess has gotten this far.

Why the Prosecution Should Be Sick

2005-02-15T20:48:00.000-08:00

truth hurts
2.15.05
----------------------
Michael Jackson was admitted to a local hospital today due to a case of the stomach flu. That stuff is vicious. I should know; I had it myself over two months ago and it took me nearly a month to get back to my old self. Of course, if you listen to some media pundits and dimwits, Jackson is clearly faking an illness to delay the trial. Whatever, truth be told, Jackson is ill because he is catching what a lot of folks in the U.S. have struggled with the last several months: a vicious strain of influenza. Doctors have confirmed his illness, conferred with Judge Melville, and Jackson was given a week to recuperate.

So it makes little sense for inflatable TV dummies like Diane Dimond to suggest that Jackson is faking to avoid going to trial. Truth be told, the prosecution is the one who really ought to callin' in sick to this trial. What should be making Tom Sneddon sick?

His defense lawyers have nearly 250 witnesses on their list while the prosecution has pilfered nearly 75 witnesses from the defense list. By the way, did I also mention that Sneddon is also on the defense witness list? God has a great sense of humor.
The alleged "victim" will have the pleasure of having two of his own family testify AGAINST him and FOR the defense.
The accuser and his family have a clear and established pattern of past scams that are documented and ready to launch once Jackson is tried.
The accuser will be confronted with celebrities his mentally unstable and admittedly "dumb" mother Janet Arvizo Jackson claimed were her family's "friends." That's right; the accuser will get to see Kobe Bryant and a host of famous comedians they scammed in the past several years. Something tells me that they will not be offering the family any autographs.
Jackson will be confronted by documented liars, grifters, and thieves who stole things from him, got busted, got fired, and then turned on him. Can you say "tainted testimony"?
Sneddon has enough skeletons in his closet to make his own version of Jackson's video "Ghosts." And believe this: ALL of them will rattle once Jackson is vindicated and the media, feeling duped by the prosecution, will turn on him and give Sneddon a rub down he won't EVER forget. Where's my popcorn?
If you thought Jackson's rebuttal of Martin Bashir's Living With Michael Jackson documentary was telling, fastened your seatbelts, grab a latte, and sit back for a video viewing we may not forget. The video presentation will star G**** A***** as the "accuser," Twinkle Fat A** S*** A***** as "Da Eyewitness", Janet Arvizo Jackson as "The Stark Raving Mad Mama," and Jay Jackson as "The Lug." Enough said.

So tell me, who the hell should be coming up with reasons why he can't come to "work," Sneddon or Jackson?

Jackson may be the one who is waylaid by the flu but it is Sneddon who should really feel sick right about now.

tHe cUttInG eDge

A Guest Article: From the Top To the Bottom

2005-02-07T18:46:00.000-08:00

***We warned viewers that, in light of Mr. Jackson's powerful interview with Geraldo Rivera, the hateraid would flow like cheap champagne from the likes of Diane Dimond and her cohorts. They did not fail us. Below is an article in response to the Grand Dame of Duplicity and her little imp Catherine Crier.*** (CE)

From the Top to the Bottom

“From the time I was a child I always dreamed of being a lawyer. There is no more noble profession, in my mind” said Catherine Crier. One probably wonders how Ms. Crier decided to leave the legal battles to others while becoming part of a TV entertainment program thinly veiled as covering the legal cases of the day.

Catherine Crier received her Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and international affairs from the University of Texas and a Jurist Doctor in two and a half years from Southern Methodist University School of Law. At age 23 she was an Assistant District Attorney and Felony Chief Prosecutor for the Dallas County District Attorney’s office, and from 1982 to 1984 she was a civil litigation attorney in Dallas. In 1984 she became the youngest elected state judge in Texas history, presiding over the 162nd District Court in Dallas County, TX as a State District Judge.

When asked in an interview for The American Enterprise why she gave up law she replied "I haven't given up the law--I've just shifted to a different forum. Sure, there are times I miss the substance that comes with practicing and being on the bench. In a trial, I could cross-examine a witness for three days. On television, I'm supposed to cover meaningful topics in three and a half minutes.

Some people enjoy programs that highlight the significant points of legal cases in the news. They feel as though it gives them a perception of not only the law, but a wrap-up of important facts as well. Sadly, the public has no idea that what they are getting is a biased presentation by someone who knows the law but uses it for entertainment value. How many viewers put their faith in the credentials of Ms. Crier and aren’t even aware that they are being cheated everyday?

Let's fast forward to the present. Catherine Crier has been at Court TV since 1999 and hosts the Court TV Catherine Crier Live TV program. A former attorney, State District Judge, news talk show host and substitute news anchor has become a TV personality who, in my opinion, devotes her intelligence and time interviewing many people who are nothing more than talking heads. Significant and serious legal cases are dissected five days week by her panel of attorneys who may or may not have any knowledge of the cases they are discussing. One wonders what exactly they are basing their facts on since the program doesn't allow enough time to truly explore and have an informed discussion.

Why would someone so rooted in law, a former judge, allow a forum for people who at best are on the fringe of serious legal cases? Why would she allow the possibility of a ground breaking program slip through her fingers by pandering to tabloidism? What do we mean by tabloidism?

Read on.

Where are the intelligent panel discussions in the case against Michael Jackson? Is there nothing to be said regarding the seriousness of a subpoena requiring the District Attorney to testify in court? How often does a DA testify in his own case? – almost never? What about the discussion of the defense team’s motion to recuse the entire Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office? Where are the questions about the history of the accuser’s family? It’s been reported that the accuser’s mother has allegedly accused others of sexual abuse… her daughter by her ex-husband and herself once by a security guard in her case against J. C. Penney/Tower Records. Is that not worth a discussion by a panel? It appears, folks, that these topics are not presented because they are very pro-defense. And in my opinion, the pro-prosecution side is the one that gets the attention.

Without one ounce of real evidence, those who control the content of Court TV/Catherine Crier have determined that Michael Jackson is guilty of the crime for which he is charged. Crier is hell bent on holding firm to that verdict and reflects that at every opportunity by allowing people like Diane Dimond to bring in bombshells that will never ever be admitted as evidence in court.

As a former judge, shame on what Ms. Crier is doing? She is providing an entertainment program to the masses. Court TV is just a name folks. It has nothing to do with court or the reality of the Michael Jackson criminal case. So if you wish to be entertained by pure lies, innuendos and spin by people like Dimond whose high school education serves her well, kick off your shoes, grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh.

However if you really want to know about the Michael Jackson scam, tune in to At Large with Geraldo Rivera on Fox Network on Saturday and Sunday. He hasn't abandoned his noble profession and will not entertain you with spin and bias. He uses his education to actually do what Court TV, Catherine Crier, Diane Dimond won't do ... investigate and search for the truth and facts. A particular judge could learn a lot from a particular attorney if she stopped long enough to realize that tabloid programs are a dime a dozen and are where the bottom feeders hang out.

What To Expect This Week...

2005-02-07T06:46:00.000-08:00

*Geraldo Rivera will find himself the subject of strange stories and innuendo from his fellow collegues. He will learn the high cost of telling the truth about anything related to Michael Jackson.

*Martin Bashir is already planning to film another documentary on Jackson and is currently interviewing witnesses. Bashir has clearly not learned his lesson. We will do our part here to see that he does.

*Look for more news on Sneddon's family ties to white supremacy groups. We are absolutely shocked the revelation that Sneddon's son may have such ties. Absolutely shocked!

*Diane Dimond will no doubt attempt to 'break down' the Jackson interview in her usual myopic manner. How boring.

Condolences

2005-02-07T06:31:00.000-08:00

The Cutting Edge extends its heartfelt condolences and prayers to Thomas Mesereau and his family after the loss of his sister. May God richly bless and care for him and his family in this time of grief.

A Simple Request

2005-02-04T20:00:00.000-08:00

DIANE DIMOND, PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP!

Diane Dimond is mentally ill. She has to be to make a comment like the following concerning her collegue Geraldo Rivera :

"Geraldo and Iused to do a program together. He always skirted the line between journalist and opinion maker or whatever you want to call it."

Dimond is apparently concerned about Rivera not being objective enough in his investigation of the Jackson case.

We suppose we can find it in our hearts to sympathize with Dimond. After all, why should Rivera get all this attention for pounding the pavement for the truth concerning the case while all Dimond did was work the sheets and run up charges on her credit card for false leads. The difference between Rivera the journalist and Dimond the journalist are clear. One works best on his feet; the other on her back. One is actually a lawyer while the other is not. One actually investigated both sides of the case while one did not. One was content to talk to his source; the other had to sleep with hers (allegedly).

From what we have seen from Dimond, she is the one who has "skirted the line between journalist and opinion maker." In fact, she has obliterated the lines between tabloid journalist and glorified dumpster diver. The stench of crooked graft and corruption wreak from every shred of "news" she reports concerning the case. And please remember: Rivera has yet to sniff dirty underwear on television with a straight face.

Not only does she lack the educational training for her "profession" but also lacks the class, skill, and integrity of the very persons she has criticized for "not being hard enough" on Jackson. Lest we forget, she tried to take Ed Bradley to task for alledgely asking softball questions during a December 2003 60 Minutes interview.

Succinctly put, Diane Dimond is nothing more to The Cutting Edge than a high profile media trick who is trying to protect her "corner" on this case. But beware, Diane. The approaching hoofbeats of truth are fast approaching and are going to run over not only the gossamer case against Jackson but also over your overblown, ego-driven, tabloid-based career.

Geraldo Rivera: The Anti-Journalist Extraordinaire

2005-02-04T15:32:00.000-08:00

All we at the Cutting Edge have ever asked of journalists to do concerning the Jackson case is to: (1) approach Jackson and the charges with an open mind; (2) read the motions; (3) investigate and research both sides of the case; (4) base and report according to what is found. Apparently, this is far to cumbersome for the majority but Rivera gets major props from the Cutting Edge for following the advice of a number of persons. No wonder he is perhaps the most prominent journalist (no, ONLY journalist) calling this case what is really is: a SHAM.

Of course, many will take Rivera to task, claiming that he is only proclaiming Jackson's innocence because he landed an exclusive interview with the legendary superstar. However, such weak arguments belie the fact that Rivera did what his critics haven't done: INVESTIGATE! He is the antidote to the softball nonsense we are tortured with from Dan Abrams, a talking head who constantly brags about his law degree yet every word that comes out of his mouth concerning the Jackson case is bereft of any knowledge of the legal system. Did Sally Struthers give this man his law degree or did he shine those pearly whites to get it? Clearly, he learned little in the classroom.

Rivera is indeed a lawyer and his knowledge of the case is clear. Now let's see where FOX will ship him off to once the inteview with Jackson has aired this weekend.

For more on Katie Couric's antics, see Airhead Journalism: NBC Strikes Again.

Beware of the "Exclusive" Report

2005-02-03T10:15:00.000-08:00

How many times does the public have to be duped by the media into believing that they are fair and balanced in their reporting? How many times do I have to be subjected to liars from years past who rehash and remix their lies in order to promote their books? How is that responsible journalism? Several networks have systematically made sure to ship off on bogus foreign assigments just about any correspondent who had even one shred of news to contradict the prosecution's case. How many times do we have to see Catherine Crier's stretched-to-max mug quivering with lies about past out-of-court settlements from Jackson without holding her feet to the fire and asking her to produce documentation?

We can chalk up such media irresponsibility to laziness but I prefer FRAUD. The New York Times and USA Today all got busted for pimping journalists and reporters who were flat out fabricating stories. There ARE no more sacred cows in journalism. They have all been sacrificed on the altar of greed and vindictive drive-by tabloidism. Think about that the next time one of these networks tells you about an "exclusive" report they have on the case.

The "New" Janet Jackson

2005-01-31T21:24:00.000-08:00

The Drudge Report has done the world a favor by introducing the world to another "Janet Jackson". Apparently, Janet Jackson suffered a Utensil Malfunction function in this picture. And we wonder what kind of mind could cook up false charges against someone.

Tidbits of the Day (1.31.05)

2005-01-31T20:42:00.000-08:00

Dan Abrams, resident metrosexual of MSNBC, mentioned the accusing family's dismay over Jackson being allowed to make a statement about the leaks that came from Tom Sneddon (yes, Tommy, you did it!). Unfortunately, Dan the Metrosexual Man failed to mention the illegality of the grand jury leaks themselves. Nice and spotty biased reporting from Dan. You always come through for us, Danny.
Tom Sneddon allegedly took the accuser and his brother on a shopping spree in Beverly Hills. If Mr. Jackson ordering maids to clean his house smacks of inpropriety to the myopic media, how is this tidbit of information less suspicious? No doubt, Judge Melville will say that it was "regrettable" that his golfing buddy didn't take the liars shopping someplace where they would not be seen.
Sneddon, the man who spent the last 12 years "not thinking about Jackson" but who laughed at the press conference after Jackson's Neverland was raided did not show up for court. Coward. More to come...
Mr. Jackson was not allowed to have even his parents in the courtroom as supporters and his entourage was treated poorly according to one report. Looks like those sheets did not stay on folks' beds in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. Melville explained last week that the courtroom was too small. Of course, the courtroom is big enough to hold media who are sympathetic to the prosecution. We smell a dead, two-legged rat here.
"ME CAN'T DO NO JURY DUTY": While some may expect such excuses as "But that interferes with my Klan meeting," a host of excuses were offered as to why he or she could not serve on the jury, including "my lawyer doesn't pay for jury duty time."
Diane Dimond was also spotted on several television shows NOT spinning stories for the prosecution. She must have been infected with a truth serum of some sort but we expect her to resume her duties of poisoning the airwaves with anti-jackson stories until Sneddon dumps her. She and her network have been in bed with Sneddon for far too long to last forever.
Pat O'Brien and his show "The Insider" are abominable. As a sports fan, I remember when O'Brien offered his lightweight fluff in the middle of my favorite college basketball game. How he became a tabloid pimp is beyond me. Oh well, he sucks at that too but he does have the gift of exaggeration when it comes to anything negative about Jackson.

In The Beginning....

2005-01-31T19:37:00.000-08:00

The Michael Jackson Farce, or should we say, trial opened today with jury selection proceedings beginning. We can only hope that the jury pool is filled with enough fair-minded persons who will judge Mr. Jackson based on the merits of the evidence and not based on the shenanigans of a vindictive prosecutor. Furthermore, The Cutting Edge is asking that all Sneddon supporters called to be examined for potential jury duty leave their white sheets at home. Thank you.

The Veritas Project

2005-01-31T09:42:00.000-08:00

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - In the wake of Michael Jackson's trial on child molestation allegations, the creators of The Michael Jackson Case and The Cutting Edge have joined forces to present the Veritas Project - an investigative report that examines the motives of those who have accused Jackson of misc onduct.

© 2005 The Veritas Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Call to Arms (Archived)

2005-01-01T16:30:00.000-08:00

Call To Arms

Is Rodney Melville serious? Considering that he has had problems
with the California Court of Appeals due to ridiculous rulings in the past,
Judge Melville seems determined to get himself thrown off the case. Why
do I suggest this? Perhaps he is realizing that there are some things you
cannot fix so neatly. He knows about all the wack and contradictory
testimony presented during the farcical grand jury proceeding.
Furthermore, he clearly understands that there is no logical or legal
justification (unless he cites some case from the days of Beowulf’s
setting) for any prosecutor breaking in to the office of a defense attorney’s
private investigator’s office with a sledge hammer.

Then there is the deceptive double-speak dripping from Melville’s
motion denying bail reduction. For example, why is this nincompoop
using the 1993 allegations and the fact that the lie was settled out of
court as justification for not reducing Mr. Jackson’s bail? The very tone
of Melville’s references to the issue are both prejudicial and lead me to
question whether or not he understand that ‘allegation’ and ‘previous
criminal record’ are not synonymous. Even more ridiculous concerning
the references to the 1993 are the obvious omissions. If Melville felt the
need to mention the allegation of abuse as part of his reason for denying
bail reduction, why did he not also mention the details of the settlement
that Diane Dimond unethically reported and leaked? Why did he not
mention the fact that in that settlement, Mr. Jackson admitted to no
sexual misconduct of any kind and that the Chandlers AGREED with
that?

Equally curious to me is Melville’s obsession with court citations
taken from the turn of the 20th century. Perhaps he is most comfortable
with such cases because he understands the cultural and racial climate
of the day. After all, around 1908, seeing the “strange fruit” of black men
swaying in the wind like wayward branches was as American as
Grandma’s apple pie and vanilla ice cream. It was also only a few years
before the release of the piece de resistance of racial hatred and
intolerance, The Birth of a Nation, was released.

I personally have seen and heard enough. Melville has gone to
great pains to scrub the internet clean of all those cases in which he
presided. God forbid that we see that his legal ignorance is not an
isolated incident. Even worse, Melville’s co-conspirators are going to
great lengths to protect him and make him appear judicious (Steve
Corbett, you should know better).

More troubling to me is the silence of certain organizations like
the NAACP. Many have been wondering why an organization that prides
itself on community and grassroots activism against racial oppression
and injustice have not said a word about this case, especially
considering the tremor (although barely reported) of corruption in Santa
Barbara. Could it be that some of the leadership has been watching that
vile, Vesuvius-like vixen of misinformation Diane Dimond, hanging on to
her every “word” about Mr. Jackson and are consequently afraid to jump
on to a sinking ship? Perhaps they are buying into the belief of some
group of ignorant Negroes who keep telling the world that Michael
nonsense, such as Jackson is not “black enough” and that he sun poisoning and even death
by somehow scrubbing his skin a pale white to sell more records.

I refuse to believe that all of the NAACP’s leadership has bought into this
So what is next? I believe that the time for griping is over. I
believe that the only way to draw attention to the problems that are
preventing Mr. Jackson from getting a fair trial is for those who are
actually able to do so to GO to Santa Barbara and Santa Maria on fact-
finding missions. Since the NAACP leadership of California no longer has
the spine or the stomach to confront injustice done to their own, it might
be up to the so-called “little people” who lack the budget or the big name
to garner media attention to do the leg work.

What Santa Barbara needs is fire. Like flawed pools of gold
dripping with dross, it is in desperate need of fire to remove the
impurities before it can attain its truest worth. What Santa Barbara
needs is for some courageous folks who have been silently smoldering
under the coals of corruption to rise up like phoenixes to reclaim their
sense of self and dignity and to tell the truth. What Santa Barbara needs
is a call to arms, arms locked in the united purpose of shaking every evil
thing in the government there that can be shaken, arms locked together
in covenant with one another to have each other’s back, to stand for
what is right even if that means taking the heat for it. Martin Luther
King Jr. did it. Malcolm X did it. Fannie Lou Hamer did it. Cesar
Chavez did it. So, what about you?

Are you sick and tired of being sick and tired? I am.

I hope you are too.

tHe cUttInG eDgE © 2004 All Rights Reserved

Code of Dishonor: Inside the Santa Barbara Law Enforcement

2004-11-12T17:00:00.000-08:00

Code of Dishonor:
Inside the Santa Barbara Police and Sheriff’s Departments

Many outside the purview of Santa Barbara politics have scratched their heads over how the privileged few could dominate practically every scene in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. The Cutting Edge has decided to shed some light on the situation. In our last issue, we gave readers an introductory inside peak at the political infrastructure of a city that will dominate the news until the Michael Jackson case is history. We thought it important to lay a foundation that would clarify the ideological and socio-political underpinnings of a city ripe with graft and corruption. With that done, let’s take a look at the men (and a few women) who make up the department.

Throughout the Michael Jackson investigation, allegations have flown that the
Santa Barbara County law enforcement community as well as the District Attorney’s
Office have engaged in abusive, coercive, and downright illegal tactics in putting together
their “evidence” against Mr. Jackson surrounding the child molestation allegations
against him. But from what we have found, Jackson is not the first (and sadly won’t be
the last) victim of such unethical practices.

Police Brutality
We firmly believe that a family of cops that brutalize others together stays
together. This troubling maxim is quite apropos when it comes to the Santa Barbara
County Police and Sheriff’s Department, departments that have turned police brutality
into an art form.

Take, for example the June 2002 incident in which two plain clothes sheriffs
allegedly attacked a restaurant owner, his wife, and another male after the two sheriffs
were prevented from inappropriately touching some unidentified females. Not only did
these bad apples blind the owner in one eye during the altercation but they also had the
nerve to file resisting arrest charges against the couple and the gentleman. Though one
may be tempted to commend these sheriffs for being professional enough to interrupt
their shady activities to execute the “law”, their quest for justice was gratefully and
rudely interrupted when Santa Barbara officials discovered that the restaurant’s video
surveillance cameras had caught the entire incident on tape. Not surprisingly, the charges
against the couple were dropped and the county of Santa Barbara settled out of court with
the three parties for nearly $1 million. [1]

While some in Northern Santa Barbara would be keen to dismiss the plaintiffs as
unintelligent hooligans looking for a quick buck, consider the run-in a UCSB professor
had with law enforcement. Here is a letter he wrote to the Daily Nexus concerning the
March 10, 2001 incident [2] :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Saturday, March 10 I walked westward along State Street for a mile or two, then sat down on a concrete block in the driveway of a convenience store to rest up a bit. This location was 4144 State St. and the time was in the 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. range.

Very soon thereafter I was approached by policemen (two to three I think) and forced to take an alcohol breath test and perform various circus tricks for them. I passed a few of them successfully, so they decided to make things more difficult. Before making me perform a particular trick, one of them said something extremely close to, "You're a professor. You're so smart. Do you know what 30 seconds is?"

The point was that for the next circus trick they weren't going to tell me when the time was up.
I'd come up zero on their alcohol test (to their visible disappointment), but one budding Sherlock Holmes accused me of somehow causing my breath to go out sideways from the tube in a dastardly attempt to fool them.

Soon another police car arrived and then there were, I'd say, five to six officers surrounding
me, badgering me to agree to a body search. I declined and one the officers intervened. He
testily warned me that if I didn't cooperate they'd have to take me in.

In response to their questions, I said that I was a UCSB professor of astronomy in the physics
department. I guess that didn't seem credible to them (even after I showed my UCSB Health Insurance card). One officer, who evidently models himself after the Barney Fife character on the old "Andy Griffith Show," decided to check out my story by testing my astronomical knowledge. He asked what the new discovery was regarding Venus. I could have told him a lot about the recent missions to Venus, but I didn't think that was what he had in mind, so I basically told them they'd stumped me. Then with a flourish of pride the questioner said, "They are thinking maybe it's not a planet after all!" The use of the word "they" was endearingly childlike. Soon I realized he'd seen a headline about Pluto, so I tried to explain that he was referring to a different planet, that there are several planets actually - each with its own name. "Venus" doesn't cover them all automatically.

Since that test was inconclusive, the next Einstein came up with this plan: They'd see if I could give them the room number of my class. I said Broida 1610, at which this questioner triumphantly declared that there is no such room!

I could see things weren't going well for me. One of the officers said that they were doing it for
my own good. I said I thought that at this point they were just doing it for fun. So one
particularly ugly one stuck his face in mine, asking "Am I smiling?" The only reason I put this
particular exchange in this letter is that it reminded me of a bit of a Jefferson Airplane song:
"Hide Witch Hide! The good folks come to burn thee- Their keen enjoyment hid behind a Gothic mask of duty."

Another officer mentioned that some of the others present were new, and the others were training them in the techniques of modern police work. I got a bit irate, which was a mistake. One of the officers told me I'd been acting like only someone who was drunk or on illegal drugs would act. It wasn't true - for the record I wasn't on anything - but I took this as the point: They could say anything they wanted at the station or in court, each affirming the honesty of the others' testimony. I think this method was used many times in the Ramparts case; I believe it is a staple, for the safety and efficacy of police work.

They badgered me for a half an hour or so, trying to taunt me into doing something really worthy of arrest. They eventually finished playing with me, or I wriggled off the hook. The reason I got off was that I was ultimately able to prove even to those idiots that I'm an "upstanding member of the community."

All I'd done was soberly sit on a curb. Even if someone in my position had had something to drink, we're not talking about mixing drinking and driving. It would have been a case of drinking and sitting, or at worst drinking and walking.

Here's what I got out of all this: I believe that anyone who couldn't have shown that he or she is an "upstanding member of the community," or who otherwise seemed powerless, would have fared a lot worse than I did.

In closing, I will say I do fear reprisals for this letter. They can say anything, and back each other up. Or they can track me down and put some marijuana in my pocket. I hope they don't send a death squad! If I do suddenly disappear one day, you know what to do. Call the police.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frightening. Unfortunately, the good professor’s fears have been echoed throughout the
Santa Barbara and Santa Maria communities from many others, some too afraid to even
complain.

Equal Opportunity Victims
But not to make anyone feel left out, the police and sheriffs of Santa Barbara and
Santa Maria, these goons also like to pick on their own. For example, being openly gay
and serving as a law enforcement official clearly does not mix in Santa Barbara. Perhaps
that is why former Santa Barbara Police officer Ruben Lino filed a lawsuit against them,
accusing them of harassment and discrimination.3 As readers will see in the next round
of articles, gay judges are not welcomed either, particularly those who refuse to do the
bidding of a crooked government officials.

When a number of police officers and sheriffs were not calling gay and lesbians
officers out of their name, they also found time to sexually assault, harass, and intimidate
female employees on the job (allegedly) in the summer of 2002 [4] :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (AP) -- The county agreed to pay two Sheriff's Department secretaries $325,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against a deputy. Angela Sanders and Julie Glass alleged in the June 2002 Superior Court suit that Deputy Clayton Turner sexually assaulted, battered and harassed them while on duty in the Lompoc substation and that the department retaliated against them after they filed the complaint. Turner could not be reached for comment. Sheriff Jim Anderson and Chief Assistant County Counsel Steve Underwood said Tuesday's settlement is not an admission of guilt, but rather a business decision. It would cost significantly less to settle than to go to trial, they said. "There is no question his behavior was inappropriate," Anderson said. Turner was disciplined, but the sheriff said he couldn't disclose any details about confidential personnel matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few comments must be made about this incident and settlement. First, why is
there no mention of Mr. Turner ever being prosecuted? It appears as if once again,
another law enforcement official has been free to molest and rape whomever he chooses
and count on the good Sheriff Anderson to cover his behind. In addition, one cannot

ignore the hypocrisy of both Anderson and Steve Underwood’s statements surrounding
the settlement. How can these two numb nuts cry that the settlement is not an admission
of guilt when Anderson and his bosses have tried to use the fact that Mr. Jackson settled a
lawsuit in 1993 against him in the current case? Are we to assume that Mr. Jackson’s
decision to give the lying Chandler family what they wanted was not also deemed a
business decision, particularly in light of Sony Records huge investment in Mr. Jackson
and their own insistence that he settle to protect their business interests? Any city that
“disciplines” an employee for what Turner is alleged to have done should not only be
investigated but dissolved. Is anyone safe in Santa Barbara when those who swore to
protect you RAPE you, MOLEST you, ASSAULT you, and RAILROAD you?

We think not.

Misuse of Authority
But do not blow the whistle on them or even think of challenging them. Bill
Wegener found out the hard way. Wegener, a renegade of sorts in the area, was arrested
in Santa Maria for running for violating his probation by running for office. Wegener has
long accused a number of officials of corruption (stay tuned for a more in depth
discussion of this angle). So when he decided to run for public office, he was arrested
and charged with violating his probation. Of course, since he did not win, the charges
were dropped but the message sent was clear: do not mess with the powers that be. [5]

Christopher A. Brown could tell you that. In 1997, he found himself embroiled
in a custody battle for his children, among other things, found himself locked in a battle
with the judges. After taking umbrage with what he perceived to be questionable rulings
against him, Brown accused a Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office of C-O-NSPIRACY!!
What a shock. Not. Even more ridiculous was what Brown alleged
happened to him after a court proceeding:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately following the hearing I left the court house and drove approximately 2 miles to
discover I had been followed by investigators of the District Attorneys Office who asked to see my drivers license as I exited my car. They called the Santa Barbara Police Department who cited me for driving without a valid license and my vehicle was towed. (see included citation). The presence of the investigators indicate that judge had pre-decided my request for review, informed the district attorneys office and coordinated with investigators to enable them to be in position to follow me. [6]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you say, “low down dirty rotten shame”?

Frankly, we got tired compiling all of the unethical and illegal activities of the
Santa Barbara Police and Sheriff’s departments. From illegal wiretappings at public
universities to menacing everyday citizens, one begins to understand why the voice of
protest and confrontation is muted. In addition, it is clear now that Jackson’s claims of
being mishandled by the police are far more plausible than alleged Sneddon mattress
Diane Dimond would like to believe they are. But there is far more to the corruption in
the Twin Terror Towns of Tyranny. Unfortunately.

Next Installment: The Madness of Boss Sneddon
------------------------------------------------------

[1] Drew Mackie, “County Avoids Court, Settles Brutality Case.” www.dailynexus.com. November 5, 2002.
Accessed from http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/3813.html.

[2] Robert Antonucci, “Tough-Guy Cops Demonstrate Ignorance of Law, Astronomy.”
www.dailynexus.com. 04/04/02. Accessed from http://www.dailynexus.com/opinion/2001/667.html.

[3] Scott Steepleton, “Gay Ex-Cop Sues Department.” Santa Barbara-Newspress. 04/09/15. Accessed from http://news.newspress.com/topsports/091504excop.htm.

[4] Accessed from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1045EST0043.DTL

[5] June Rich, “Centeno takes the 5th, Rose cruises in 2nd..” Santa Barbara News-Press. 03/06/02. Accessed from http://www.newspress.com/2002elections/centeno_rose0306.html.

[6] Accessed from http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:82OfY...&client=REAL-tb.

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2004-2005
All Rights Reserved

Santa Barbara: A View Of the City

2004-10-26T11:21:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, 26 October 2004

Someone asked how in the world could an obviously crooked and unethical district attorney like Thomas Sneddon could hold so much influence and power for so long (since 1983). Clearly, Sneddon wields a great deal of clout considering the spineless and cowardly “attempts” of local media to write a Jackson-related article with a smattering of truth and spin-free commentary. How is this possible? How is this allowed to continue? In order to understand why a situation or climate exists, one must first do all he or she can to understand the particular ideological and ethical issues upon which that particular climate is founded. Santa Barbara is no different. In order to understand how this little city became what it is now, there are several factors that contribute to their current ethos.

Neoconservative Ideology
This may be the most important factor that allows a four-eyed vulture like Sneddon to swoop down on the prey of his choice at will. While very few intellectuals can agree on a single definition of neoconservatism, it generally refers to a distinctly American brand of conservatism rooted in the Reagan era that claims to be uniquely of the “American grain,” very high on patriotism, cutting taxes with the interest of stimulating business interests, conservative in both policy and in cultural perspective. [1] Multiply these by about a thousand and you begin to understand the climate in northern Santa Barbara. Code words such as “family values,” patriotism, “protect America”---not evil in themselves, of course---are used to suppress those who differ in substance or in degree with what they believe. Perhaps that is why a Klan congregation was thriving at one point in the city.

It is this ideological framework that allows racists government and public officials to bemoan the fact of “that n*gger” Michael Jackson wielding so much economic clout to the point of owning over 2,700 acres of prime real estate in an area where big wig leaders like Harrell Fletcher (a Sneddon ally) are simply salivating over the prospect of developing new land. No wonder the neocons of Santa Barbara have been pushing for a split between north and south Santa Barbara. According to supporters like Citizens for County Organization (CFCO) of such a measure, the north is simply too different from the south to be considered one county. “"We just say we're different, and it's OK for us to be different," Jim Diani, chairman of the CFCO said. [2] Of course, the journalist has a clearer perspective:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different approaches to land use -- the north is seen as much more amenable to development than the south -- lie at or very near the heart of the movement. But development is by no means the only issue. The two areas are different in many ways. The south county in and around Santa Barbara is seen as cosmopolitan, touristy, artsy and politically liberal. The north county, which includes the cities of Santa Maria and Lompoc, the unincorporated community of Orcutt and Vandenburg Air Force, is agrarian, working-class and politically conservative. Essentially, Santa Barbara is the northernmost extension of L.A., while Santa Maria is the southern end of a long rural stretch that extends north through San Luis Obispo County and into the Salinas Valley. For decades, residents of northern Santa Barbara County have chafed at being on the short end of a Board of Supervisors that is geographically and politically split 3-2. As Santa Barbara News-Press reporter Michael Todd wrote last year, residents of the north "say they cannot till their fields, trim their trees or mine rocks off the hillsides because of Santa Barbara County's objections. Their votes are diluted by transient college kids, while do-gooders and bureaucrats want to set the wages they pay, their automobiles suffer on crumbling roads while environmentalists bay for bikes and buses, and at the end of the day they cannot even be proud of the local Boy Scouts anymore." [3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These “differences” may also account for why gay and lesbian men seem to run afoul of the establishment there. For example, openly gay police officers have been harassed and forced to resign in some cases because the ridicule and jokes they were subjected to was simple too much to bear. According to one Ruben Lino, a former police officer with the Santa Barbara Police Department, “fellow officers berated gays; called a civilian male on a ride-along a "f*g" for apparently cowering in fright during an emergency call that required the officer to use lights and siren; and engaged in threatening conduct toward him when Mr. Lino failed to laugh at other officers' mocking of homosexual men.” [4] So much for democracy and civil liberties.

The Almighty Dollar
The old adage is absolutely true: when in doubt about motivation, follow the money. It is the love of money that is indeed the root of all evil. Santa Barbara is most definitely concerned with the money, especially in light of its obsession with oil fields, vineyards, and property concerns. Do you honestly believe that it was a coincidence that shortly after Michael Jackson was arrested and charged with child molestation, the city of Santa Barbara suddenly claimed that Jackson may owe back taxes on his property? Let’s see, where I come from, if back taxes are owed to the city on property and those taxes are not paid, that city government can confiscate the property. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

Of course, Mr. Jackson is not the only resident whose land tickles the ivory of local government and business leaders. Slick Gardner, the notorious horse owner who recently pled no contest to charges of animal neglect, also accused the District Attorney’s office of trying to railroad him. That Gardner pleaded no contest may, in the eyes of some, taint any insight he has about the motives of the local government but it does not change the fact that Gardner, like Jackson, owns over 2,000 acres of prime property that certain Santa Barbara officials would love to get their hands on. They made sure to leave no stone unturned, stacking up charge after charge. "They're just adding on to my trial hoping something'll stick," Gardner said.” [5]

Government Structure
Another factor that allows people like Sneddon to control so much of what goes on in the city is one that is often overlooked: the city’s governing structure. Santa Barbara is considered a general law county, meaning that it must adhere to state law and can even be taken into custodial care by the state in extreme cases of failing to do so. [6] The county has its own Board of Supervisors who exercises broad powers, even quasi-judicial powers. Did I also mention that some of Tom Sneddon’s closest allies have served on this board over the last twenty years? It is little wonder that the Master of Malicious Prosecution has been able to work his witchcraft for so long in light of the fact that his buddies make sure to preserve an environment in which he can be kept abreast of hair shorn in the city.

Among the “gems” connected with such a power structure: “The supervision of elected officers by the Board of Supervisors is somewhat more limited. The district attorney, as public prosecutor, is a state or quasi-state officer and is under the direct supervision of the attorney general. Consequently, the Board of Supervisors does not have supervisory authority over the district attorney's prosecutorial duties. On the other hand, the Board has general supervisory authority over the district attorney to the extent that the district attorney functions as a county officer.” Wow. Imagine having all the power that comes with being District Attorney and not having to look over your shoulder. This is particularly advantageous if you are good buddies with the Attorney General, who happens to be a past victim of sexual abuse, and if that Attorney General has his political ambitions set on the Governor’s Mansion.

But it gets better. In Santa Barbara, grand juries have the responsibility of investigating alleged wrongdoing of its public/government officers. This works well for any crooked district attorney if he is allowed to handpick his friends and allies for them. Just exactly how thorough do you think this “grand jury,” which handed down an indictment against Jackson without so much as even THINKING about the asinine and illogical reasoning the prosecution offered? It is a well-known fact among those courageous enough to speak that Sneddon got his way because he built this grand jury up from the ground up. They would have indicted Pinky and the Brain with friends like that doing his dirty work for him.

But do not think for a minute that Jackson is the only one who has a problem with Sneddon. Consider Santa Barbara Judge Diane Hall, who has been on Sneddon ish list for some time. While he and his flunkies insist that they are merely prosecuting her for violating the campaign reform statutes concerning fund raising fraud, Hall and her attorney Mike Scott insist that Hall is being targeted because she is testifying in a federal lawsuit filed by a Santa Barbara attorney against Tom Sneddon. [7]

Lastly, “The Board of Supervisors also sits as a quasi-judicial body in the case of appeals of land use decisions and tax issues (i.e., may sit as assessment appeals board to decide questions regarding the value of property).” Remember when Jackson’s Neverland estate was valued at a meager $12 million? If I wanted somebody’s land and I was on this board, I would make up some half-baked excuse to open the door to the possibility of snatching the property from him. After all, what good is Neverland to a man rotting in prison for a crime they know he did not commit? But it sure would come in handy for greedy, land-thirsty businessmen who have a love affair with Indian gambling casinos, vineyards, and whatever else their insidious little minds can concoct. Hmmmm.

Of course, this kind of power is hard to overcome; even for the most courageous of crusading do-gooder will find himself or herself in harm’s way should they go up against this kind of well-oiled machine. Those who’ve tried have found themselves being arrested on ridiculous charges and tried on the most frivolous of “evidence” at the expense of taxpayers.

And that brings me back to Mr. Jackson’s plight. There is no way Sneddon will be investigated by for all his evil and felonious deeds anytime soon. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely Sneddon will be removed from the case. Why would his good buddy Rodney Melville, who himself is a clinking, clanking, clunking amalgam of ineptitude, incompetence, terminal stupidity, illogicality, and drunkenness, do anything to take from Sneddon the opportunity to sink his arch nemesis? Sneddon has little to worry about from the big wigs. No grand jury this side of a John Grisham novel would touch him. In addition, he has done too much to ingratiate himself with Attorney General Lockyear, whose attentions are focused more intently on becoming the next governor of California.

But even with a punk behind local media that insists on protecting him at all costs, that will not be enough in the end to save Sneddon. Perhaps those concerned about Sneddon getting what he deserves are looking in the wrong place. Do not look at what the big wigs are saying or doing on behalf of Jackson. Help will not come from them. But it will come from the “little people” whose voices resound with a proverbial hush compared to the bombastic gushes of approval that Sneddon has bought over the years. The anonymous people who have grown tired of having the good district attorney’s shoe prints on their backs will be the ones who do him in and the media will have no choice but to give them their time to speak. After all, to paraphrase Santa Maria Times commentator Steve Corbett, even little voices deserve to be heard.

And they will be heard.

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2004 All Rights Reserved
---------------------------------------------
1 Irving Kristol, The Neoconservative Persuasion. The Weekly Standard. From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is., 08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47. Accessed from
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?pg=1.
2 Paul Shigley, “Santa Barbara county division grows wider as petitions circulate.” (Local Watch), California Planning & Development Report, July 2003 v18 i7 p4(2), Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2003 California Planning & Development Report.
3 Ibid.
4 Scott Steepleton, “Gay Ex-Cop Sues Department.” Santa Barbara News-Press. Accessed from
http://news.newspress.com/topsports/091504excop.htm.
5 http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2004/7132.html
6 http://www.sanlorenzoexpress.com/counties.htm
7 Quintin Cushner, “Hall to Request Recusal.” Santa Maria Times. July 13, 2004. Accessed from
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/20...ocal/news02.txt.

Ripping the Hood Off Santa Barbara

2004-07-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

Ripping the Hood Off Santa Barbara

Monday, 19 July 2004

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Lord Acton)

Be afraid. Be very afraid. While mainstream television and media outlets do their best to prove that all the hoods live “in da hood” with names like Jamaal, Khalil, and Pooky, I submit to you that there are plenty of white hoods in Santa Barbara. These hoods, however, don’t throw gang signs, roll deep in Escalades, or have a mouth full of gold teeth. On the contrary, the hoods of Santa B wear suits and may not flash a mouth full of gold but a mouth full of crooked rotting yellow teeth like one certain district attorney. They wear suits and use code words like “family values” and “morality” to marginalize groups who are not like them.So when one of the alleged Hoods of Santa B Tom Sneddon and his willing co-conspirators tramped to Neverland and trashed it beyond recognition, part of me really was not all that surprised. Raiding the property of black men you might be jealous of is a long standing tradition in American history for some racists. Heck, just ask any survivors of Rosewood or the Black Tulsa Riots of the early 1920s.

A Short History Lesson
What was left of Black Tulsa after the 1921 riots.Tulsa, Oklahoma saw its worst outbreak of racially motivated violence in 1921 after a white female elevator operator accused a black man of grabbing her and forcing her to flee for safety. I doubt if the veracity of her claims were even checked out by the white police there. Of course, it did not matter; it gave them another reason to attack the black community and they did just that, destroying thirty-five blocks known as Black Tulsa and arresting and detaining over 6,000 blacks---even those who were not a part of mobs bent on protecting the black man from white lynch mobs. Though initial reports listed the death toll at 36, recent investigations by the Tulsa Race Riot Commission tally the number up to 300. The racist sympathizers from North County Santa Barbara would defend the actions of their white brethren in the name of “law and order.” Excuse me but real law and order does not entail burning up the homes and businesses of innocence folks simply because you are JEALOUS that you do not have what they have. Of course, considering that the 1920s was also the time in which the K.K.K. experienced a resurgence and rebirth in the United States, what happened in Tulsa was not an aberration. In fact, perhaps the worst raping of a black community came just two years later in Rosewood, Florida.

A white woman from a nearby town had falsely accused a black stranger of assaulting and beating her. Out of sheer racial hatred and jealousy, a mob of white men from the neighboring town of Sumner stormed the wealthy black town of Rosewood, slaughtering many of the residents there and driving away survivors. Do you think they gave a flip about the white woman feigning to be attacked by some "no-good n*ggers"? Please. All these white men wanted was the opportunity to destroy and rip away from black folks what they themselves did not have.

The Same Old Song
Sound familiar? Never mind that California is a hotbed for Klan activity. Just visit Orange County. They are not alone, however. The same ideology is espoused in parts of Santa Barbara, only it is dressed up with wide grins, hearty handshakes, and veiled threats. So when Sneddon and his disciples descended upon Neverland, I read more into it than just Sneddon going after Jackson in order to protect the innocent children of the community from a pariah. After all, if Sneddon really wanted to protect kids from sex abusers, then he would have prosecuted his own police detective, right? No, Jackson represents something else that the good racist folks of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria cannot tolerate: a rich, powerful, black man who does not have to bow his knee and cry “Yes, Massa Boss/No, Massa Boss” to survive.

A rich, independent black man is too much for a community whose Republican Party supported the likes of David Duke, the Fred Astaire of racial baiting, whose emotionally charged rhetoric glides across the poisoned minds of people looking for any reason to dispose of problematic and "not-so-quiet n*ggers" who don’t tow the line. Why else would black men have to sue in order to become a member of the local Elks Club? How else could, as one anonymous source alleges, local churches in Santa Barbara thrive as centers for white supremacist ideology? How else could Jackson have been barred from buying property in the “Hope Ranch” area of Santa Barbara simply because of the color of his skin? “Sad, huh?” a source comments. “They wouldn’t let the KING OF POP move in….” Others have alleged that racism is a sport for the police force. Shocking. Not.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it and what we are witnessing in Santa Barbara is a horrific repetition of a racist meta-narrative that has hummed in the background of American history since her inception. In order to understand what is happening to Jackson, we must understand the culture which produces the likes of Sneddon, Mag Nicola, Jim Thomas, North County neo-cons, and the like. Furthermore, we must do more than simply talk about what the problems are; we must be willing to expose the breaches so that healing and restoration can take place. As one author/minister has said, “You cannot conquer what you will not confront.” As long as the hoods stay on the heads of Santa Barbara, those who live there are as guilty as the bigots who lord over them. More Michael Jacksons and countless others will continue to be targeted by a vengeful, racist, political machine bent on devouring all of its foes. Remember, citizens of Santa Barbara: if you refuse to take out your own trash, someone else will do it for you. And it won’t be pretty.

Think on that.

The Voodoo That You Do (ARCHIVES)

2004-07-09T02:54:00.000-07:00

The Voodoo That You Do

Friday, 09 July 2004

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all parenthetical references come from Thomas Mesereau’s 995 Motion to dismiss indictment against Mr. Jackson.

The last time I read something that left me silent was after reading Toni Morrison’s classic novel Beloved. That was a “good” silence, a basking and joyful baptism into a pool of haunting literary genius. However, the silence that met me after I read Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau’s 995 motion to toss out the indictment is something altogether different. Mesereau accuses the prosecution of, among a host of misdeeds, introducing a mountain of irrelevant testimony and information, a bogus “presentation” of exculpatory evidence, bullying witnesses, and intentionally misstating the conspiracy statute in order to guarantee that Jackson was indicted on that charge. Nice.

If it were not for the old saying that “you can indict a ham sandwich” via a grand jury, I would almost be surprised at that this nonsensical persecution (not misspelled) made it this far. Then again, the corrupt bungholes from the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office are experts at such illegal and shady tactics. Ask Efren Cruz. They “convicted” on murder charges while holding evidence that would have set the man free. Nice. Not.
My problems with Sneddon’s grand jury farce are many but for now, I’ll give you a few of my personal “favorite” problems:

The Admissibility of Hearsay of the Alleged Victim (p.105). Remember when folks were confused over news reports of the victim being reported as a 12 year-old? We thought the media was being lazy when in fact I believe that they were misled by Sneddon when he, in my opinion, submitted a bogus timeline to get a warrant to arrest Jackson and raid Neverland. If you do not believe me, consider the words of Anderson Cooper 360 legal analyst Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom December 18, 2003, a month after Jackson’s arrest:
================================================================
"Well, it is interesting, because our earlier information was that they were going to allege, the prosecution that is, that these acts of abuse occurred sometime between June and December of 2002. And that's some information that was within the earlier search warrant so they could go into his home.Now we see, that they are alleging February 10 through the end or beginning of March, rather. So this is a little bit of a different time frame. But the tape I heard was from February 16. Couple that with the fact that the Department of Child Services Investigation concluded at the end of February. The prosecution is going to have some difficulty combating inconsistent statements. It's not insurmountable, but this definitely isn't going to be a slam dunk case." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/18/acd.00.html
================================================================

Sneddon banked on using the original timeline to make sure he could use hearsay testimony unchecked. Silly rabbit, tricks are for pimps. Now consider Sneddon’s own curious comments in a question to a witness and notice the dates he gives:

===============================================================
"Between the time of December 2001 and November of 2003, before the Michael Jackson investigation…" (p.112)
===============================================================

Hello? Didn’t this three-eyed fool say at his infamous press conference in November 2003 that there had been a nine to ten month investigation that led to Jackson’s arrest and the raid on Neverland?

The Remaking of a Family Image. Looks like Tellem’s influence is rubbing off on Sneddpuss. Sneddon and his henchmen tried to make David Arvizo admit to beating his ex-wife to paint him as an abuser (p.109). Hold on. I thought the grand jury was about indicting Jackson on child molestation and conspiracy charges!

What the prosecution tried to pull during the grand jury farce was nothing more than a sad reality show-like makeover of a grifting family to fool the world into thinking that they are not after money. Well, all those shopping sprees, demands for a new house, money for pictures, and a new vehicle convince me that it indeed is about the money, honey. The only makeover I aim to see this family get is a wardrobe change: from jeans to prison clothes. Your asses are going to JAIL!!!!

Guilt By Association (p.94). Sneddon also tried to prove that Jackson is guilty of conspiracy and wasted a good deal of my time using the fact that unnamed “co-conspirators” were part of the plan simply because they were associated with Jackson in some manner. So because they know him, that proves that they conspired to abduct this lying behind family?
If we follow Sneddon’s illogical and ludicrous line of thought, I could suggest that Sneddon has a predilection for young girls since one of his former sheriffs admitted to fondling a teenage girl. By the way, Sneddon refused to prosecute that case. Of course, we know that would be an erroneous conclusion but no more ridiculous than the voodoo prosecutorial argumentation that this fool conjured up during the grand jury hearing.

But just when I thought Mesereau had captured perfectly the apex of Sneddon’s prosecutorial idiocy, I find out that the good district attorney is now attacking MJJF, claiming that it released Jackson’s statement in which he responded to the leaking of the confidential 1993 settlement. The last time I checked, MJJF was not the only site that carried the statement. In fact, AP, Reuters, CNN, FOX, and a host of other news networks ran it as well.

I’ll tell you what the problem is: Sneddon is jealous because fans are smarter than him. They refuse to be duped or bullied into believing a lie born in the heart of a vindictive, dirty, rotten punk behind attorney. Memo to Sneddon and all the plants he sends to MJJF to glean information for his case: get a damn life. MJJF or any other site will not be bullied by you and your tactics only show how much of an air ball your case really is. We are not afraid of you.
By the way, Sneddpuss, do you hear a crashing sound afar off? Honey, that is not the sky falling; that is your “case” against Jackson falling apart.

You’re dismissed and hopefully, so is this travesty of an “indictment” against Jackson.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

Who's Zoomin' Who?

2004-07-04T09:15:00.000-07:00

Can someone please offer up a serving of whine and cheese to the media attorney Ted Boutrous and his bosses for their constant bitching and moaning about the notorious “secrecy” surrounding the sealed motion-filing madness of the Jackson case? Steve Corbett of the Santa Maria Times has been particularly vocal lately, crying like a little school girl over the violation of his rights as a journalist. Well Steve, since your fellow motor mouth cohort Boutrous has hogged all of the whine for himself, you can chug-a-lug a nice cup of SHUT THE HELL UP for all I care.

What a great article Corbett dished out June 27th, crying about the manners and decorum of the defense attorneys toward members of the media during the June 25th hearing as if to suggest that Mesereau and company were somehow sucking up to the media to gain their favor. Of course, he did not mention the obviously cozy (and I do mean cozy) relationship between the prosecution and certain so-called reporters and journalists whose names I will not mention (Diane Dimond, Dan Abrams, Catherine Crier, Nancy Grace, the entire FOX Network).

Frankly, I am not exactly sorry that they do not have the access they want simply because they have already shown themselves to be a bunch of classless asses in their biased coverage of the Jackson case. After seeing folks discuss twenty year old jockey shorts like it was a Homeland Security issue or entertain even the most baseless and ridiculous rumors about Jackson and the alleged evidence against him, why the hell should I trust the media to tell me anything about this case even remotely resembling the truth?

As troubled as Corbett and Boutrous may be about the secrecy surrounding sealed motions, I am just as troubled by the infiltration of obvious Sneddon plants at hearings who somehow find their way in the news----local or national---and take every opportunity to besmirch Jackson’s reputation without knowing what the hell they are talking about in the way of evidence. For example, can someone explain the media’s fascination with self-proclaimed victims’ rights advocate Sofia Hollum?

I do not have a problem with victims’ rights advocates, particular those who stand up for the rights of children. But there is something curious about the comments she has made that has set my mind working. Consider this little letter Hollum wrote to the Santa Maria Times in the wake of Jackson’s response to the leaking of the confidential settlement agreement he reached with Evan Chandler in 1993:

===========================================================

Is Jackson ignoring order

I am writing with regard to an article that quotes Michael Jackson's press release, including claims to his innocence in both 1993 and today. I am disgusted by what I perceive as Mr. Jackson's blatant skirting of the gag order.

While he will likely maintain that he is discussing the 1993 allegations, I believe he has worded his statement cleverly in order to proclaim his innocence in the current case.
We do not know if, as required, Jackson submitted this statement to Judge Melville before releasing it. If he didn't, it would appear to be another case of Michael Jackson thumbing his nose at our courts.

I find it despicable and loathsome that Jackson would discuss the alleged victim from the 1993 accusation, knowing that the boy, now a young man, and his family cannot make any statements because doing so would violate the settlement they signed. He also knows that the child in the current case cannot come out and speak to any evidence that would contradict Jackson's statement regarding whether he "did not, and would not, ever, harm a child," or discuss what types of things a jury will hear from him about the alleged lewd and lascivious acts. Neither can the District Attorney's office, due to the gag order.

One thing I know about the people of Santa Maria is that they are very capable of recognizing when their intellect is being underestimated. If Jackson is innocent, the proof will be seen in court.

Sofia Hollum
Santa Maria
http://santamariatimes.com/articles/2004/06/27/sections/opinion/062704letters.txt
===========================================================

Maybe it’s just me but her statement sounds like they were written by someone in the good prosecutor’s office now. Instead of worrying about the welfare and safety of the boys she clearly considers to be Jackson’s victims, she is wrangling over the legalities of a gag order. Of course, one has to consider if Ms. Hollum was as concerned with the gag order being broken when her beloved Sneddon was busy leaking damaging lies to the media (local and national) to taint public opinion of Jackson. She is not the least bit concerned with children; she is concerned with making Mr. Jackson look like he has been breaking the gag order left and right. Her “efforts” haven’t gone unnoticed by the national media. Look at her comments on the Dan Abrams program in response to the latest lying little punk monkey’s family filing a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services:

===========================================================
But Sofia Hollum of Santa Maria, California objects. “I object to the insinuations of ulterior motives in the alleged victim‘s claim filed against L.A. DCFS. I can assure you that if this had been my child I would be just as outraged by the leaking of this memo and would take the same action.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5085588/
===========================================================

I wonder if this had been her child would she have taken that card Sneddon slipped underneath her door in mid-February before any lying allegations of abuse dripped from the lips of her lying son. I wonder if Hollum would prostitute her child for a buck and cheap headline (not to mention a brand new vehicle and condo) by falsely accusing someone of child abuse. This is one ‘plant’ that needs to be uprooted and in a hurry. Did I also mention that the word “sofia” means wisdom?

Of course, the media will tolerate this kind of viewer/reader because she supports their own biased assault against Mr. Jackson. So who’s zoomin who in this cry of “injustice” over the media being squeezed out of pertinent legal information surrounding the Jackson case? Memo to Corbett: stop bashing the judge like you have clean hands. Don’t suddenly act as if you have not been tugging on those purse strings yourself over the years.

Let’s be real: this secrecy around the case is as much benefit for the prosecution as it is for the defense so stop acting like Michael Jackson’s money is keeping potentially damaging information from being leaked. The veil of secrecy that Melville has created keeps Sneddon’s dirty tricks (not to mention a weak behind case) from being exposed. For too long, Sneddon has been a big fish in a little pond for several years in Santa Barbara, doing whatever the hell he pleased to whomever the hell he pleased----all under the protective cover of a dumb behind media blackmailed into silence. He revels in this kind of secrecy. But it won’t last forever. Faster than you can say, “Charge that motel room to my Discover Card,” the truth of Jackson’s innocence of the charges will be unfurled and unsealed for all to see and hear. Now go and bitch and moan over that, Steve and Ted.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

A Conspiracy of Shame (ARCHIVES)

2004-07-02T09:00:00.000-07:00

A Conspiracy of Shame

What Is Going On In Santa Barbara?

There is an old saying that what goes around comes around. May it still be so. More than a handful of people with common sense already recognized the nonsensicality of child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson. But last week, the case took yet another ridiculous turn when Jackson was indicted not only on charges of molestation but also on conspiracy to abduct a child as well as extortion. Just when you thought the injustice system in Santa Barbara could not get any more ridiculous, they continue to surprise and exceed me.

Not. The charges against Mr. Jackson are the fruits of a scheme born in the womb of a racist, sexist, political machine devoid of conscience, morality, or integrity. In effect, this machine has the entire city----whether they choose to acknowledge it or not---firmly caught between its teeth, particularly those who intentionally strike out against the powers that be (from hereafter referred to as the PTB). Hence, it should be no surprise that Mr. Jackson has found himself on the wrong side of the fence since he is a black man who happens to be the richest person in the are, a black man who married TWO white women, and finally a registered DEMOCRAT. In essence, Mr. Jackson sticks out like a sore thumb to the PTB.

Not surprisingly, this entire case is the ultimate sham of shams, a tedious exercise in prosecutorial smoke and mirrors set up to fool people into believing that Mr. Jackson was guilty of any of the charges. Further, the "case" is nothing more than an elaborate house of trick cards constructed and situated to exact revenge on the Gloved One for daring to be his own man and not bow to the self-proclaimed potentates of Satanic Barbara (not a misspelling). Yet, this drama has unfolded at almost breakneck speed compared to other cases of alleged misdeeds involving children like R&B superstar R. Kelly, who has yet to be tried on child pornography charges stemming from an arrest over two years ago.

So who are the architects who are keeping this "project" going?

TOM SNEDDON: The Grand Wizard of Deceit, he is not only driven but consumed by rage, determined to pummel Mr. Jackson into the ground. How else does one explain circulating photos of a naked Jackson to certain people, as FOX NEWS talking head Geraldo Rivera charged earlier this year, and making light of them? How else does one explain tearing up Neverland under the guise of looking for "evidence" to arrest when he had already obtained both a search warrant for Neverland as well as an arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson? How else does one explain the press conference in which a giddy Sneddon cracked jokes about a case supposedly involving the sexual abuse of a minor?

Make no mistake, for years the powerful Santa Barbara DA has networked with a number of business and political elites, allegedly forging a labrynth of connections used for no other purpose than to strong arm or blackmail anyone into doing his dirty work. The system has worked so far and Sneddon has been instrumental in implementing what one unnamed source called his Three 'Rs' Agenda successfully: REDNECK, RACISM, and REVENGE. However, some are already predicting that Sneddon has gone too far in the case and may be driving off the edge of a cliff. If so, Sneddon will find himself bound and gagged by a tape that is not easily erased or explained away. What consumes him will in fact destroy him.

JIM THOMAS: Every Grand Wizard needs a flunky and Sneddon certainly has a good one in the former Satanic Barbaric sheriff. Thomas is essentially the good DA's prostitute, hopelessly tethered to the man who allegedly has enough dirt on Thomas to force him to be Sneddon's mouthpiece to a bankrupt and sound-bite hungry media. How else could one explain Thomas attempting to explain away the suspicious activities of a prosecutor who meets with the mother of his star witness accusor in an abandoned parking lot? Or what about Sneddon sliding his card underneath the mother's door BEFORE any allegations were even made by the family. Even more ridiculous, let's not forget Thomas' most famous mantra: "There are other victims." Gratefully, Thomas will follow the way of his prideful pimp, falling from grace into a morass of muck and mess crafted by their own hands. Follow at your own peril, Jim.

BIG BUSINESS: There are way too many varied commercial interests to name specific groups but know this: Santa Barbara is land poor. Jackson, on the other hand, owns over 2,700 acres of land in Santa Ynez. Toss in political and racial concerns as well as kickbacks from business owners clamoring for land, influence, and prestige and you have a hot mess for Jackson. But what is done in the done will come to light. BELIEVE THAT!

Voices of Protest?

With Mr. Jackson being the perhaps the most recognized person on the face of the earth,and with such an obvious hatchet job of a case becoming more insidious by the day, one question has been burning in my mind: WHERE THE HELL IS THE NAACP?

Historically known as a progressive, proactive civil rights group that coupled keen investigation with intential strategy and activity, the NAACP has gone missing so far as the Jackson case is concerned. This same group, of course, had no problems accusing Mr. Jackson of not hiring enough African-Americans during the 1980s. Of course, Michaelmania was in full swing and any attention-----positive or negative----involving him was bound to garner attention for all involved. Perhaps instead of clamoring for photo ops with white Fortune 500 magnates, the NAACP should rediscover its rich history of protesting injustice and fighting for the rights of the oppressed regardless of the color of their skin.

The NAACP is dropping the ball, missing an opportunity to rip the sheets off of a corrupt and racist local government that longs to destroy any whose decent intentions oppose their own agendas. Furthermore, the NAACP should be ashamed of its lack of voice on this matter. It is high time they stop using the legacy of its storied past as means for personal gain. One word to the NAACP: show up or shut up.

Another voice of protest missing from this is that of veteran black writers and political/cultural commentators. I should say a RATIONAL voice here because a number of those who have commented have obviously spent more time questioning Mr. Jackson's blackness thant questioning the merits of the case against him. Others mimic the voices of their racist white counterparts in attacking Jackson. Larry Elder, who strains to sound like a fair-minded Negro his white friends can tolerate, accused Mr. Jackson of playing the race card in alleging that Sneddon's arrest and ransacking of Neverland had an element of racism involved.

Deliver siddity Black folk from blind ignorance. Had Felder taken his Black behind (yes, Larry, you're STILL Black) to Santa Barbara and actually begin to talk with people in the know there, he would have learned that Jackson's claims were not an abberation but rather a common occurence for people of color there. Memo to Felder and like-minded Negroes like him: stop sitting on your behind and using the media's latest "exclusive" stories to judge the case. Instead of reflecting on how much you think Mr. Jackson's appearance has changed over the years, discuss how LITTLE has changed in this country regarding racism. For Elder to defend Sneddon is almost tantamount to selling another brother into slavery.

How I long for the day when Black media outlets (BET) will wake the hell up and start discussing issues like Mr. Jackson's case. For too long, we have allowed ourselves to be co-opted into a mistrelsy, shaking our behinds to anything that had a "tight beat." Well, I have no issue with tight beats but while some of you are "up in da club gettin tipsy" the King of Pop is being prepared for a public lynching. And don't think for a minute that this has nothing to do with you. If Michael Jackson, who has more money than you and more lawyers than you, can be railroaded by a racist, vindictive prosecutor, tell me what in the hell makes you believe that you are safe? Remember, Mr. Jackson was on top of the world exactly twenty years ago. Now load that on your MP3 and play it!

It is time for people who care about civil rights to say something. This is no longer an isolated incidentIt is time to rage against a machine that creates the harrowing and sickening scenarios like the one fomenting in Santa Barbara. Particularly, it is time for Santa Barbara residents who have languished silently for years under the hand of chicanerous leaders to come forward and tell the truth. Remember Jasper, Texas? That was the city where a Black man was dragged to his death in the streets by white men trying to fulfill some sick fantasy of killing a Black man. That city could have exploded in racial unrest and yet, the citizens---Black, White, Latino---refused to allow a few numbskulls to control their city's destiny. They banded together and called for justice and GOT IT! Let that be a lesson and an encouragement to you, Santa Barbara. Indeed, there are brave souls, lovers of humanity, of God, and of peace who long for a city they can be proud of. In addition, these same persons are no doubt in absolute fear for their safety and even lives should they come forward and expose the real Santa Barbara to the world. But know this: if Santa Barbara remains silent and partakes of this conspiracy of shame, both its reputation and its city will go down in flames. Let him who has an ear hear.

tHe cUttInG eDgE

C-O-N-SPIRACY (ARCHIVES)

2004-06-25T08:46:00.000-07:00

C-O-N-SPIRACY

While Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon continues to make his case in the media against Michael Jackson, tossing in the ridiculous charges of conspiracy to abduct a lying little accuser and his family, there is another conspiracy taking place that Mad Dog doesn’t want to address: violation of the gag order on the case.

The last time I checked, there was a gag order on all persons involved with the case, prohibiting the parties from speaking about the case. However, you would never know that based on the mountain of “evidence” planted in the media by Sneddon’s cronies. In the spirit of the legal maneuvering I’ve seen so far in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, I am making up my own penal codes---I’m sorry---penile codes with which to exact punishment on my enemies. Therefore, I am publicly charging Tom Sneddon with: (a) conspiracy to abduct Justice by poisoning the jury pool and public opinion against Mr. Jackson through scurrilous and scandalous tabloid trash; (b) and felony abduction of Lady Justice. Even worse, the Saggy D.A. currently has it his disposal the help of several co-conspirators who this commentary intends to name. We will not leave you hanging:

=====================================================
Co-Conspirator #1: Diane Dimond (Penile Code 2.69 w/special MTL6 Clause)
All corrosive collusion between media and law/judicial officers is prohibited to discourage the unlawful leaking of pertinent information (PC 2.69).
MTL6 Clause: 3 Days, 2 Nights for $50
=====================================================

Just when you thought Diane Dimond could not stoop any lower than a roll-away bed, she surprises you. Last week, she outdid herself when she shamelessly broke the seal on details of the confidential (which means you need to imbibe a nice cup of Shut the Hell Up before even thinking about discussing the details) civil lawsuit settlement between Mr. Jackson and bad dad Evan Chandler surrounding a bogus child molestation allegation. During a Court TV chat, Dimond was dumbfounded as to why Mr. Jackson was accused of having “offensive contacts with plaintiff [Jordan Chandler] which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise” while in the settlement he only agreed to negligence.[1] What Diane left out, of course, was that her description of Mr. Jackson’s alleged acts against Jordan Chandler was taken from the initial lawsuit filed by Evan Chandler. She tried to meld the two comments to make it appear as if Mr. Jackson had admitted to sexual abuse. Making matters even more ridiculous, Dimond accused Mr. Jackson’s tone-deaf ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley of being the catalyst of the aforementioned details being publicized. Liar.

This is the same person who told us that the latest accuser had given the police “love letters” Mr. Jackson had written to him. Despite her “I know for a fact” crap on the airwaves, her “source” in the District Attorney’s office flat out denied any such letters existed. Then there was the suitcase of pornography she claims she and police officers found exactly where the accuser told them it would be. Once again, the story was a bogus lie. Her biggest lie, however, may be that she is objective and is not biased against Mr. Jackson. Remember, I’m not talking about one’s choice of motels to do business in. I’m talking about Michael Jackson, whom she has stalked for over ten years. Dimond has single-handedly turned lying with a straight face into an Olympic event and has rightfully earned a spot on my list as a media concubine and willing co-conspirator of her “close source.” (Verdict: GUILTY)

=====================================================
Co-Conspirator #2: Judge Rodney Melville (Penile Code 1.666)
No judge shall heretofore make a common sense
Ruling at one proceeding only to overturn it with
Nonsensical observation and outdated court
Opinions.
=====================================================

Take a good look at Judge Rodney Melville’s explanation for not reducing Mr. Jackson’s bail: “Melville, in a two-page written ruling, agreed that Jackson's bail exceeded the guidelines for Santa Barbara County. But, said Melville: "No evidence has been presented and no argument made to suggest that the bail amount represents a financial hardship for defendant." The judge noted that Jackson had twice posted the $3 million bail "without objection or apparent difficulty" -- once after his arrest last November and again after he was indicted.”[2]

If Mr. Jackson’s bail exceeded the guidelines, then his personal wealth should not be an issue, right? Furthermore, if Jackson’s wealth is the primary justification for a ridiculous 3 million dollar bail, why would there need to be a financial incentive for him to return to court for all proceedings? Last time I checked, Mr. Jackson has not skipped any proceedings and has not fled the country. He’s Michael Jackson, not Roman Polanski. Of course, anyone familiar with Melville’s helter-skelter rulings is not surprised. Remember the infamous audio tape controversy in which Melville initially ruled that Mr. Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos did not have to turn over a particular audio tape? Later, Melville overruled himself, giving good buddy Tom Sneddon access to the tape. Even more ridiculous is Melville apparently feeling free to allow information to be publicized when Mr. Jackson’s legal team files a motion even though he had previously agreed to allow them to file motions under a seal. Did I also mention that he is going on a three week vacation next month? Is Melville guilty of having a bad memory? Of course not! He is, however, guilty of using the bench to aid and abet the abduction of Lady Justice. (Verdict: GUILTY)

====================================================
Co-Conspirator #3: Tellem Worldwide (Penile Code 2.122)
Public relations representation for law/judicial officers since it: is nothing more than a punk behind, thinly-veiled cover for violating potential gag orders; encourages anonymous “leaking” of information.
====================================================

From the moment Sneddon got on television like a giddy little B-movie prom queen to announce details surrounding the raid on Neverland and charges against Mr. Jackson, Tellem launched an on-air attack not seen since the Iraqi conflict got going last year. Of course, Tellem’s Operation: Shock and Shame pales in comparison to the loss of life and overall significance concerning world events but their attack is nonetheless disgusting.

Contrary to assisting the District Attorney’s Office in handling media attention, Tellem has systematically encouraged the spread of nonsensical trash regarding Mr. Jackson. Even worse, they even plan to conduct a teleseminar in July that will “focus on the Michael Jackson case and will feature interactive discussions and provide insight into the role public relations has in shaping one of the country’s hottest headline-grabbing stories” (PRSA Press Release)[3]. This is not a joke.

Now, can someone tell me how in D. Hell this is NOT a violation of the gag order? Sneddon gripped and tripped about how MJJF was Mr. Jackson’s “official site” and consequently how it violated the gag order because of unflattering comments that his plants gleaned from it. What of this, Sneddon? Your PR representatives actually are on record as being your office’s representatives and they are referencing the case. Am I splitting hairs? If I am, then I am only following the lead of a desperate district attorney whose name should be Houdini because he seems to pull either “evidence” or recycled smut out of his fat behind to justify arresting and charging Mr. Jackson.

Tellem has indeed shaped the Jackson story with tabloid fodder and their connections to persons and companies who would certainly have a gripe with Mr. Jackson should not go unnoticed (Dimond/Hard Copy; David Schwartz, stepfather of Jordan Chandler). Whether it is Dimond sniffing twenty years old underwear not even confirmed to be Mr. Jackson’s or Wacko Maureen Ortho using known Jackson haters for sources in her tasteless, tactless tabloid fodder, the Tellem machine continues to do their best to grind Mr. Jackson’s image to mulch before a trial even occurs.

They can parade their reputation as friends of the community before the world all they want. In my opinion, they have shown themselves to be a bunch of bald-faced liars, contracted by Head Conspirator Tom Sneddon as image assassins, unleashing their barrage of tabloid attacks on Mr. Jackson’s reputation. Tellem needs to change their slogans from “Working together…finding solutions…building your business” to “Tellem lies…Tellem Fibs…Tellem---Anything But the Truth.” You’re going down with Sneddon too. (Verdict: GUILTY)

I rest my case.

-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] Diane Dimond Court TV Chat, Transcript. Accessed at http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/0616jackson-dimond.html
[2] Dan Whitcomb, “Judge Rejects Michael Jackson's Bid for Lower Bail,” http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5419227
[3] Public Relations Society of America, Press Release.http://www.prsa.org/_News/press/pr061504.asp

2004-05-25T17:07:00.000-07:00

If we…do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that
we are, to end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country, and
change the history of the world. If we do not now dare everything,
the fulfillment of that prophecy, re-created from the Bible in song
by a slave, is upon us: God gave Noah the rainbow sign, No more
water, the fire next time!

James Baldwin[1]

I’m going to keep this short and sweet. One thing I learned from the prophets in my family: when you hear a word from God, you heed a word from God without delay. The same thing applies to everyday life. When the signs are screaming at you, you might need to stop, reverse your course, and consider your ways before proceeding any further. This is heresy, however, in the city of Santa Barbara, where lying government and law enforcement officials lick the wounds of its hurting citizens with the express intent to bully. God deliver my heart from bitterness so that I can speak what needs to be said!

Let me tell you, o crooked officials, something about you and your city. You are being put on notice that the world will be watching you. All the shady dirt you have done and have allowed to go down behind the veils of secrecy are about to be unceremoniously ripped away. Do you think that you, Sneddon and Franklin (the Heckel and Jeckel of the local judicial system) can buck the authority of the Most High? You will pay with your careers when it is all said and done. So consumed with irrational hatred for one man are you, Sneddon, that you honestly believe that God will honor your moral and spiritual hypocrisy by allowing you to railroad an innocent man. You are blind. You are deceived, sir. Unless you reverse your wicked and perverse course, the very hand of God will destroy your works of iniquity. He is poised to expose You! He is near to the broken hearted and the humble, not the corrupt.

We live in a country that thought it could mime enough scriptures to appease a righteous God into cosigning on enslaving my people. He gave America time to repent and they did NOT. Guess what happened: the Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of lives----many of them white----were lost. The Civil War could have been avoided if heartless,ways. They refused and paid a price so heavy that the loss of life in their war has not been matched since. My hero David Walker, a free Black man who was murdered for telling the truth God showed him about our nation’s hypocrisy regarding slavery said it best[2]:

But the Americans, having introduced slavery among them,
their hearts seared, as with an hot iron, and God has nearly
given them up to believe a lie in preference to the truth!!! And
I am awfully afraid that pride, prejudice, avarice and blood, will,
before long prove the final ruin of this happy republic, or land
of liberty!!!! [3]

That ruin can easily be applied to your city and man-made kingdom, both of which are founded on injustice, oppression, racism, bigotry, and a neo-conservative rhetoric hooded in white sheets of shame. To bloody hell with lot of it!

Only bullies----not ethical prosecutors sold out to truth, integrity, and honor----would harass harmless folks to support a collapsing case. Only bullies would use issue press releases and statements bankrupt of legal merit and logic in order to convince the world that they have a case. Only bullies would harass innocent citizens into doing their dirty work for them whenever they need to railroad someone whose land they wish to steal. Only spineless, sniveling, conniving bullies would falsely arrest the very people they have molested and abused, all in an effort to suppress truth and to get their political, social, and economic way.

The Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office and much of the law enforcement have, over the last several weeks, been intent on disseminating nothing but outlandish and defamatory filings and blurbs to an equally bankrupt media (disgusting!) all too eager to devour anything negative about Michael Jackson. They have violated the gag order by using an alleged adulterous relationship to poison the airwaves.
They do all of this under the guise of justice. Do you want justice, Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Franklin? Santa Barbara? I promise you, justice not only has her shoes on but she’s grabbing her coat because she is about to pay an extended visit to your city and to your crooked, godless, heartless, greedy, bigoted, narrow-minded, and corrupt leadership.

And when Justice comes calling on your government, you will not be able to falsely arrest her, maliciously prosecute her, or blackmail her with planted evidence. You will no longer be able to twist the arm of the legal system for your own political gain. Nor will you be able to pick on online fan clubs or citizens groups who have more brains than you do. Instead, the hand of God is going to lift your city off its haughty foundation and shake it until every ungodly thing that can be loosed IS loosed.

You will go to your houses of worship, you whitewashed tombs of hypocrisy and pray to your “god.” But that god, which is really an amalgam of money, sex, and power, will neither hear you nor deliver you from the judgment to come. The very gallows you built destroy Michael Jackson and the countless other lesser known victims of your misguided wrath will destroy YOU, o crooked ones!

Trust me on this one: you have been weighed and found wanting. You who swore an oath to uphold the rights of your constituents; to protect your citizens and community from harm; YOU will learn what justice is all about in yet a little while. The funny thing is that you who have plotted for years to destroy Jackson are blinded to your own impending doom. And do not accuse the author of this “love tap” of threatening you. Please! God will have His way in Santa Barbara. He is about to shake EVERYTHING that can be shaken. He is going to expose EACH of you, one by one. WILL YOU SEE IT? Before the storm hits, the clouds form. WILL YOU RECOGNIZE THE COMING STORM?

To the citizens of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria: how much longer will you tolerate such aimless and corrupt leadership? To say nothing about evil is to endorse it. Just because you are safe does not mean you will always be safe. It would behoove you consider your own role in allowing the madness that emanates from the District Attorney’s Office and from the law enforcement to corrode your sense of integrity and fairness. Have you sacrificed integrity for profits? You too will pay. Your fields will shrivel, your crops will rot, and the oil you long to drill for will dry up. Justice will weigh you too and see what is in you and should Justice find in you what it finds in your leaders, you will suffer the same fate as those you follow.

O crooked and corrupt ones, you are intent on trying Mr. Jackson but it will be YOU who are tried and judged. Consider yourselves warned.
---------------------------------------------
1. James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time. (New York: Vintage International, 1993), 106.
2. This quote is not meant to exclude my brothers and sisters of other ethnic groups; it must be considered in its historical context. The author of this paper stands strongly with all those who love justice and righteousness irrespective of culture, ethnicity, etc.
3. David Walker, Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World (1830). (Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1993), 63.

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2004 All Rights Reserved

Who's Bad

2004-05-24T17:26:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson, the King of Pop who has dominated pop music for the last three decades, is a pedophile; a raging, conniving, predator who devours the innocence of children like a ravenous wolf devours his prey. At least, this is what the media would have you believe---minus the parallel grammatical structure of such a comment. I have always thought that if one wanted to know where a culture is headed, one only need look at the way that culture both perceives and treats its children. One hour of television or one minute on Google tells me that American culture is having trouble prizing the innocence and promise of its youth.
Yet, it is Michael Jackson and not the culture itself that will likely go on trial within the next year. In the minds of some, this is exactly what should happen since, “experts” tell us, there are clear signs of Mr. Jackson’s pedophilic tendencies right before our very eyes. So what is the proof that the King of Pop is really the King of Pedophiles?

First, the experts point to the sleepovers. Now, I personally do not think this would be much of an issue if Michael Jackson were a 45 year-old single woman. The sexism and gender stereotypes are obvious. Despite Mr. Jackson’s own claims that he only gives kids his bed while he sleeps on the floor, Mr. Jackson is often portrayed as a man wooing children into his bed to fulfill his sexual desires. While I would suggest having visiting children sleep in the guest room to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I know kids. When they love someone, they want to attach themselves to that person, even share that person’s bed. I know I did when I was a kid. Whenever I spent the weekend with my grandparents, I would fight to sleep with my aunt Lisa because she was my favorite aunt and we would talk all night about silly stuff little girls talk about. Even when I would babysit one of my late aunt’s kids, I always slept with her because they could only afford one bed. I never sensed anything sexual about it. Besides, my aunt cracked some of her best jokes while we were all piled in that bed.

A second sign that Mr. Jackson may be a pedophile is his amusement park. When news of Martin Bashir’s controversial documentary “Living With Michael Jackson” exploded in February 2003, I was angry with Mr. Jackson for what I had heard was potential inappropriate and “disturbing” behavior involving children. God, please deliver me from the sin of presumption. Then I actually watched the special. Afterward, I asked the Lord to forgive me for judging Mr. Jackson because the only “disturbing” thing I sensed deep in my heart about the special was Bashir’s attempt to demonize bumper cars, mannequins, and cotton candy. I sensed about as much sexual tension on that special as I do from a rotted tree stump.

Frankly, my biggest regret was that I could not live at Neverland and ride the bumper cars. Mr. Jackson’s love for the Three Stooges, roller coasters, and water balloon fights clearly underscore pedophilic tendencies. He is a clear and present danger to society and youth.

The Real Problem

What is the real problem here? Could it be that American culture, currently drowning in a cesspool of narcissism and pornography, has conditioned itself to see sex in absolutely everything---including children? I do not have a problem with Michael Jackson from this perspective. I will tell you what I have a problem with.

I have issues with a culture where priests and pastors use the name and word of the Living God to lure innocent and trusting children into their web of demonic and misguided lust while archbishops protect them and not the victims. And please do not accuse me of being some God-hating post-Christian deconstructionist. I am a born-again Christian whose stomach churns with disgust as the name of Jesus is vilified and scandalized among the hurting because of the sins of some in leadership. You will be judged accordingly if you don’t repent, folks.

I have problems with a culture where parents willingly pimp their little ones one to highest and sickest bidders. What kind of society are we swimming in if kids cannot even be safe in their own households? I was disgusted and dumbfounded a couple of years ago when a child sex ring was broken up by the FBI and I learned that the masterminds behind this international trading of children and child pornography was not some stranger on the street, but the victims’ own parents! Where the hell are the Gloria Allreds and the Carole Liebermans (who inject their faces with Botox just in time for a cheap photo opportunity) whenever Michael Jackson moves his furniture around? Why are they not as concerned about these kids than they are about the kids of celebrities they do not like?

I have a problem with self-proclaimed journalists like Diane Sneddon---excuse me---Dimond, who insists that Mr. Jackson “fits” the profile of a pedophile. I suppose it makes no difference to them that a number of specialists in the field of child sex crimes has stated on numerous occasions that there is no particular “profile” of a pedophile. For a group who prizes itself on research, these journalists come off as lazy, mean-spirited hypocrites who turn a blind eye to the sexual peccadilloes of their peers while they spew deceptive information about others they disdain. How else can I explain their obsession with Mr. Jackson’s amusement park, toys, and supposed twenty year-old stinky drawers while little children are being objectified all around them every day?

I do not have a problem with Michael Jackson. I do have a problem with perhaps the most blatant and most acceptable forum for the objectification of children: pageants. That is correct, ladies and gentlemen. There is nothing more disturbing to me than watching little girls no more than three or four years old being dressed and made up to look like voluptuous grown women. Equally disturbing is the seductive and sensuous choreography these girls are taught----often by misguided and greedy parents----in order to get the judges’ attention.

Somebody help me understand how this industry is not called out for what it is promoting, but Mr. Jackson cannot have a room dedicated to collector’s dolls? Please. I do not care how many scholarships such pageants offer to these kids. Kid pageants like the ones that produced Jon Benet Ramsey, not Neverland, are a pedophile’s candy store. Now, report THAT!!

Michael Jackson may be eccentric, but I do not believe for one minute that he is a pedophile. Please do not tell me about his “pattern of abuse.” Brothers and sisters, you do not establish a pattern of abuse with two bogus allegations born in the hearts and minds of allegedly greedy and deceitful parents (Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo). Neither is any such pattern forged every ten years. There is, however, another pattern that the media refuses to consider: the thousands of kids, many of whom are now adults, who defend Mr. Jackson as a gentle soul who genuinely loves and protects children. Investigate that pattern, media types!

Indeed, I am more afraid of corporate farmers and agricultural business conglomerates that break the spirits and backs of toddlers by having them pick produce in conditions not fit for animals. Think about that the next time you eat an orange or drink a glass of grape juice.

I am more afraid of politicians, pastors, and other so-called “safe” people who, in order to feed their insatiable and insidious desire for sexual gratification, download pictures of children in various stages of undress. Some even molest children because the images are no longer enough to feed their ravenous passions.

I am more afraid of law enforcement officials and government leaders who arrest and prosecute suspected pedophiles in the name of justice and common decency while they themselves molest, rape, and sexualize the very youth they claim to protect. That is not justice; that is HYPOCRISY, and it will be checked for sure. Let him or her who has ears to hear what I am saying hear it.

In sum, I am not shocked that American culture sees something sexual in Mr. Jackson’s love for children. If all you did was sit in front of a television or computer and masturbate while viewing images of children, you would see something sexual in the wind blowing. Dirty minds, not a dirty Jackson, are the problem here. Free Michael Jackson from these false charges! While you are at it, free an oversexed American culture too.

tHe cUttInG eDgE
©2004 The Cutting Edge All Rights Reserved

When Dungeons Shake

2004-04-10T19:50:00.000-07:00

25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody's chains came loose. 27The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul shouted, "Don't harm yourself! We are all here!" 29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:25-30)

Michael Jackson is a threat. To everybody. Except children, of course. Otherwise, he would not be going the way traveled before him by James Baldwin, Paul Robeson, and even Josephine Baker---African Americans who found a resting place for their heads overseas in Europe. I wonder now if Mr. Jackson, once he is cleared of these trumped up charges of child molestation, will not, for the sake of his own dignity and sanity, follow suit and leave America behind.

I couldn’t blame him.

If my estate was pillaged and ransacked by a bitter white, hate-filled man who, without apology, without probable cause, and without common sense, I’d consider another address. Sneddon’s rampage evoke the image of the senseless rage of some white overseer who is bent on exacting some measure of sick joy out of torturing the psyche of his boss’s slave. Sneddon stepped onto---------no I take that back: he and his mob stormed the gates of Neverland like U.S. commando forces thundered through the city of Tikrit to capture Saddam Hussein. Helicopters swarmed over Jackson’s abode like vultures suddenly whipped into a sickening frenzy over the stench of dead carcasses.

The latest scandal Jackson is faced with is like nothing he has faced before. In addition to staring down a twenty years prison sentence, Jackson is facing another prison of sorts: an avalanche of scurrilous press saturated with lies and innuendo. Is the onslaught payback for years of Jackson refusing to toady to the whims of a media clamoring for every morsel of information about every detail of his life? Is Jackson that big of a threat to them, to their “right-to-know” mentality? For all practical purposes, the media has cast off all restraint, stripping themselves of ethics, integrity and common decency, writhing in a defiled bed of slander, libel, and outright character assassination. Money indeed makes liars and whores out of many.

Michael Jackson is also a threat to white society[1]. He is the one who simply would not stay in his “place”. For centuries, it has always been acceptable for blacks to entertain but never to own and control their own services. Even black minstrels who found work after the Civil War were controlled by white managers who profited more than they did. Sound familiar? But Jackson has never played the part of anybody’s minstrel. He made it clear that there was more to him than simply performing. His business acumen helped earn him co-ownership of the Beatles catalog as well as songs of Elvis Presley. Do not think for a minute that this move set well with some white folks in the music industry. Unlike some of the young black artists who wear their bling bling around their necks or in their mouths, Jackson actually OWNS something substantive and formidable. And folks have been trying to wrench it from him ever since. For some whites, Michael Jackson will never be anything more than a nigger, albeit a rich one, but still a nigger. Du Bois’ words, though spoken a century before, still ring true today concerning the problems of the color line in America.[2]

White folks aren’t the only ones who are threatened by Jackson. Some in the black community are just as intimidated by Jackson. Yeah, I said it! Some of my people confuse and befuddle me. On one hand, these sold-out “proud-to-be-black-y’all-and-that’s-a-fact- y’all” people love to brag about how important it is for us to be different, to be edgy, and to defy the box (or coffin) mainstream society tries to place us in. This mentality is trumpeted about in the hip hop community and marks the language, the apparel, and the music.

On the other hand, however, the moment a black artist breaks outside “the box”, he or she is branded a sellout. Some of us forgot the fact that the black community is as guilty of boxing its people in as white society is. “Look at him! He ain’t black enough. He bleached his skin!” Is blackness based merely on appearance? And what is it to be black, o critical ones? If nothing else, Jackson is guilty of attempting to move beyond the boundaries set by society PERIOD. However, it at least appears, at least according to a number of polls, that a number of blacks are attempting to look at both Jackson and this case against him with some measure of objectivity and even support if they so feel moved. This is not a call to blind followership rooted solely in racial solidarity but rather to move toward the common sense and dignity of not judging a thing or a person by its cover. We all, irrespective of our social location, want that much.

But even the racial element in the Jackson drama is trumped by the cultural issues surrounding masculinity and sexuality. While Jackson is maligned for being a man who openly admits and demonstrates his affection for and sensitivity to children, “respected” members of parishes, churches, law enforcement, etc continue to victimize children sexually themselves. While the media continues to speculate about Jackson’s sexuality because of his appearance, his voice, and his unwillingness to be anything but a gentleman when it comes to discussing his personal relationships with women, football players and politicians, traditional pictures of assumed masculinity, continue to come out of the closet. Interesting. For the record, Jackson has, without denigrating the gay community, denied that he himself is gay. The media, however, continues to be selectively deaf to his voice.

Even more troubling to me is the underlying assumption that it is somehow abnormal for a “real” man to show affection for children. I’m sorry but I honestly believe this lie is one of the biggest hindrances to authentic masculinity in society today. How many adults are now griping that their fathers were never there for them emotionally, never showed them any kind of affection? Rest assured, Jackson is anything but weak. How many tough guys could survive the ish he’s been through? Some would have committed suicide. Other would no doubt drink themselves into oblivion. Yet Jackson is poised to fight Sneddon, to fight the media, and most importantly, to fight the charges that he is a child molester. Michael Jackson is as much a man as I’ve ever seen, PERIOD!!!

In closing, there is little doubt in my mind or heart that Jackson will be cleared. How long this sham of a process will take, however, is anyone’s guess. But when it is finished, Jackson will be a man freed from the constraints of other people’s ideological fetters and liberated from the ghost of a shocking allegation. Some of course, will always believe that Jackson is guilty simply because they are either too lazy to think or too biased against Jackson to even consider that the case against him a shady. But rest assured, someday and that right soon, Jackson’s very soul will resound with the words of one poet, “My dungeon shook, and my chains fell off.”[3]

[1] Please note that I am not referring to all white people and merely some. The same also applies to any discussion of the black community.
[2] W.E.B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk. (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1994), 9.
[3] James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time. (New York: Vintage International, 1993), 10.

SNEAK PEAK: Sneddon's Opening Statements

2004-03-26T07:37:00.000-08:00

SNEAK PEAK: Sneddon's Opening Statements !!

cutting edge Wire

Friday, 26 March 2004

In an exclusive, the cutting edge has obtained what is alleged to be the first draft of Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon's opening statements in the child molestation case against the King of Pop Michael Jackson. The document is dated February 28, 2003 and "To MJ, with love" is written in the corner of the alleged opening statement. In keeping with its collegues' ethical standards for fair and balanced media and reporting, the cutting edge did not attempt in any way to get Mr. Sneddon's side of the story.

==============================================================

THE OPENING STATEMENT: White men and women of the jury. Today, I, your brother, stand before you today with the hopes of convincing you of the opportunity you have to mete out justice ten years in the making, ten years delayed. Sexual victimization of a child, of a minor, something neither you or I would ever think of committing, is the worst thing a human being could be accused of. Even worse, allowing a predator to continue to victimize innocent children is inexcusable and as worse as the original offense itself.That is why, white men and women of the jury, the cities of Santa Maria and Santa Barbara are calling upon you to convict Michael Jackson. I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant molested a young cancer patient. I will show through my SHEETS of information irrefutable proof of how he plotted to molest this cancer patient, who lacks one kidney, the day AFTER the Martin Bashir special aired, even though the onus of suspicion concerning his affections for the young boy were questioned. I will also show how the defendant MUST be guilty even though THREE SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS, including one by me personally, cleared him and found absolutely NO PROOF that abuse had ever taken place. I will bombard you with pointless witnesses who, though their motives amy appear to be questionable and though they may have received monetary compensation for lying on the defendant in the past, are to be believed in this case. I will make mountains out of molehills, exaggerate, conflagrate, and inflate even the tiniest fleck of a hint of wrongdoing on the defendant's part, I will also call upon you to ignore the cancer patient's reputation for being dishonest, lecherous, and his family's history of lying in court, forging legal documents, providing false testiomy under oath, and scamming retailers out of money and believe them on this one, PRETTY PLEASE!!!!I am asking you to do the right thing. Thank you.

A Call to Arms (ARCHIVES)

2004-01-29T11:45:00.000-08:00

A Call To Arms

Is Rodney Melville serious? Considering that he has had problems
with the California Court of Appeals due to ridiculous rulings in the past,
Judge Melville seems determined to get himself thrown off the case. Why
do I suggest this? Perhaps he is realizing that there are some things you
cannot fix so neatly. He knows about all the wack and contradictory
testimony presented during the farcical grand jury proceeding.
Furthermore, he clearly understands that there is no logical or legal
justification (unless he cites some case from the days of Beowulf’s
setting) for any prosecutor breaking in to the office of a defense attorney’s
private investigator’s office with a sledge hammer.

Then there is the deceptive double-speak dripping from Melville’s
motion denying bail reduction. For example, why is this nincompoop
using the 1993 allegations and the fact that the lie was settled out of
court as justification for not reducing Mr. Jackson’s bail? The very tone
of Melville’s references to the issue are both prejudicial and lead me to
question whether or not he understand that ‘allegation’ and ‘previous
criminal record’ are not synonymous. Even more ridiculous concerning
the references to the 1993 are the obvious omissions. If Melville felt the
need to mention the allegation of abuse as part of his reason for denying
bail reduction, why did he not also mention the details of the settlement
that Diane Dimond unethically reported and leaked? Why did he not
mention the fact that in that settlement, Mr. Jackson admitted to no
sexual misconduct of any kind and that the Chandlers AGREED with
that?

Equally curious to me is Melville’s obsession with court citations
taken from the turn of the 20th century. Perhaps he is most comfortable
with such cases because he understands the cultural and racial climate
of the day. After all, around 1908, seeing the “strange fruit” of black men
swaying in the wind like wayward branches was as American as
Grandma’s apple pie and vanilla ice cream. It was also only a few years
before the release of the piece de resistance of racial hatred and
intolerance, The Birth of a Nation, was released.

I personally have seen and heard enough. Melville has gone to
great pains to scrub the internet clean of all those cases in which he
presided. God forbid that we see that his legal ignorance is not an
isolated incident. Even worse, Melville’s co-conspirators are going to
great lengths to protect him and make him appear judicious (Steve
Corbett, you should know better).

More troubling to me is the silence of certain organizations like
the NAACP. Many have been wondering why an organization that prides
itself on community and grassroots activism against racial oppression
and injustice have not said a word about this case, especially
considering the tremor (although barely reported) of corruption in Santa
Barbara. Could it be that some of the leadership has been watching that
vile, Vesuvius-like vixen of misinformation Diane Dimond, hanging on to
her every “word” about Mr. Jackson and are consequently afraid to jump
on to a sinking ship? Perhaps they are buying into the belief of some
group of ignorant Negroes who keep telling the world that Michael
Jackson is not “black enough” and that he sun poisoning and even death
by somehow scrubbing his skin a pale white to sell more records. I
refuse to believe that all of the NAACP’s leadership has bought into this
nonsense.

So what is next? I believe that the time for griping is over. I
believe that the only way to draw attention to the problems that are
preventing Mr. Jackson from getting a fair trial is for those who are
actually able to do so to GO to Santa Barbara and Santa Maria on factfinding
missions. Since the NAACP leadership of California no longer has
the spine or the stomach to confront injustice done to their own, it might
be up to the so-called “little people” who lack the budget or the big name
to garner media attention to do the leg work.

What Santa Barbara needs is fire. Like flawed pools of gold dripping with dross, it is in desperate need of fire to remove the impurities before it can attain its truest worth. What Santa Barbara needs is for some courageous folks who have been silently smoldering under the coals of corruption to rise up like phoenixes to reclaim their sense of self and dignity and to tell the truth. What Santa Barbara needs is a call to arms, arms locked in the united purpose of shaking every evil thing in the government there that can be shaken, arms locked together in covenant with one another to have each other’s back, to stand for what is right even if that means taking the heat for it. Martin Luther King Jr. did it. Malcolm X did it. Fannie Lou Hamer did it. Cesar
Chavez did it. So, what about you? Are you sick and tired of being sick and tired? I am. I hope you are too

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2004 All Rights Reserved

The Heart of Darkness (Archived)

2004-01-01T16:44:00.000-08:00

The Heart of Darkness

We have an emoticon on MJJF that states “I Despair of Human Condition
Sometimes.” This thought has popped up in my mind more than once since November
2003, particularly in relation to the media coverage and absolute unfair and unabashed media bias against Michael Jackson. What may have been the best kept secret among fans is now an open showcase. The tabloid-obsessed segments of the media have done everything but report the proceedings of this week’s pre-trial hearings in the Michael Jackson, except for the ever-flowing fountain of lies that stream like hot lava from the lying lips of the prosecution’s favorite Girl Friday Diane Dimond. Dimond, frankly, sickens me. I have never seen anyone get off on telling lies and half-truths the way she does. In fact, sometimes I wonder if Dimond does not get some sexual gratification out of distorting everything she can about Mr. Jackson. The darkness that resides in the heart of this woman is an inescapable hue of harrowing evil, a mist of fiendish subterfuge that hovers like a dark cloud over her wherever she goes.

Then there is Rodney Melville, the bumbling and fumbling judge in the Michael
Jackson case. I have no problem saying that I believe he is as crooked Tom Sneddon’s
teeth. How else does one explain how Melville could give only a verbal warning to his
golfing buddy Melville after that bunghole hollered and scream like the BIYOTCH at
Mesereau but then fines defense attorney Brian Oxman for pressing the not-so-good Dr.
Stan Katz on a confidentiality issue?

Anyone reading this who honestly believes that Melville has been fair during this
pre-trial hearing needs to stop sharing the crack pipe with Dimond. When the lid is
blown off this case and some more courageous and respectable journalists/media hounds
grow the gonads to dig into his history, they will find a judge who loves closed-door
justice as opposed to airing the dirty laundry of his political/economic allies publicly, no matter how heinous a crime those persons may be accused of. Of course, I understand. Melville cannot rock the boat since he is in line to succeed fellow “judge” Clifford Anderson as Presiding Judge. May God help the decent folks of Santa Maria.

Next is the good district attorney Tom Sneddon. I will try my best to give him as
little space as possible since I now know that neither he nor his staff can spell very well. With all the talk of videotape coming up, thee is much speculation about what Sneddon is looking for or even what he might be afraid of.

Well Tom, this much I do know: your behind is just about to be roasted coffee
grinds. You will have some serious explaining to do as your career and that legacy you spent decades buying goes down in flames. Furthermmore, please do not bother asking ‘How did this happen to me?’

It will happen because you allowed your own bigotry and hatred toward one man
to cloud any common sense and propriety that you may have had left over from
childhood. It will also happen because what goes around comes around. Surely you did
not believe that you could bully, blackmail, harass, maliciously prosecute, torment,
wrongfully arrest, and railroad folks without making a few enemies along the way.
Surely you did not think that some day, a few brave souls no one even knows about yet
will come back to haunt you.

But I digress.

By the way, Tom, your day is coming. Soon.

Finally, if ever a heart was full of darkness in all this nonsense, it might be the
mother of the accuser Janet Arvizo (Out of respect for the real Janet Jackson, the mother of the accuser will be referred to by her former name. Consider it a keyboard
malfunction.). When I think of motherhood, I think of my own late mom and the
sacrifices she made for me and my siblings, like the time she walked through a half a foot of snow (with a bum knee that wouldn’t bend) just to get enough money to buy for her three small children.

I do not, however, have the same warm and fuzzy feelings about Mama Arvizo.
The love of a mother does not involve coaching your children to lie in order to scam
money out of businesses and individuals. In addition, a mother’s love does not allow for using your child’s life threatening illness to heap up gifts, favors, and money for yourself
Then there are the plethora of stories floating concerning exactly when Gavin was
ill and had his surgery. I wonder how that happened? Do not think for a minute, mam,
that there is not some forgotten paper trail out there that will nail you and your schemes up against a wall. In my minds eye, I suddenly see all those charity groups lining up to sue the Arvizo family’s behinds for fraud. Bring it on!

Being the mild-mannered sista that I am, I refuse to leave this piece on a sour
note. Instead, I would like to dedicate an excerpt from Lauryn Hill’s prophetic Mystery of Iniquity to all of the aforementioned persons in this article as well as all the other unnamed players duped into believing that they will not be exposed as well. Enjoy the lyrics.

The Mystery of Iniquity (Lauryn Hill)

Yo!
Ya'll can't handle the truth in a courtroom of lies
Perjures the jurors
Witness despised
Crooked lawyers
False Indictments publicized
Its entertainment...the arraignments
The subpoenas
High profile gladiators in bloodthirsty arenas
Enter the Dragon
Black-robe crooked-balance
Souls bought and sold and paroled for thirty talents
Court reporter catch the surface on the paper
File it in the system not acknowledged by the Maker
Swearing by the bible blatantly blasphemous
Publicly perpetrating that "In God We Trust"
Cross-examined by a master manipulator
The faster intimidator
Receiving the judge's favor
Deceiving sabers doing injury to they neighbors
For status, gratis, apparatus and legal waivers
See the bailiff
Representing security
Holding the word of God soliciting perjury
The prosecution
Political prostitution
The more money you pay.. the further away solution
Legal actors
Babylon's benefactors
Masquerading as the agency for the clients
Hypocritical giants
Morally non-compliant
Orally armed to do bodily harm
Polluted, recruited and suited judicial charm
And the defense isn't making any sense
Faking the confidence of escaping the consequence
That a defendant is depending on the system
Totally void of judgment purposely made to twist em'
Emotional victim blackmailed by the henchmen
Framed by intentions
Inventions whereby they lynch men
Enter the false witness slandering the accused
Planting the seed openly showing he's being used
To discredit, edit, headed for the alleged
Smearing the individual fearing the unsuspected
Expert witness (the paid authority)
Made a priority to deceive the majority
Of disinterested peers
Dodging duty for years
Hating the process
waiting to be returning to their careers
Do we expect the system made for the elect
To possibly judge correct?
Properly serve and protect?
Materially corrupt
Spiritually amuck
Oblivious to the cause
Prosperously bankrupt
Blind leading the blind
Guilty never defined
Filthy as swine
A generation purin it's own mind
Legal extortion
Blown out of proportion
In vein deceit
The truth is obsolete
Only two positions:
Victimizer or Victim
Both end up in destruction trusting this crooked system
Mafia with diplomas keeping us in a coma trying to own a piece
of the "American Corona"
The Revolving Door
Insanity every floor
Skyscraping, paper chasing
What are we working for?
Empty traditions
Reaching social positions
Teaching ambition to support the family superstition?
When the Son of Podition is Commander in Chief
The standard is Thief
Brethren can we candidly speak?
Woe to the men
Trusted in the chariots dem'
Leaning on horses
They run their intellectual sources
Counterfeit wisdom creating the illusion of freedom
Confusion consumes them
Every word they speak it turns them out really white
Internally they absent of light
trapped in the night and bonded to the Cain of the night
Under the curse
Evil men waxing more worse
Faxing the first
Angelic being cast to the earth
It's time for rebirth
Burnin up the branch and the root
The empty pursuits of every tree bearing the wrong fruit
Turning me ill
Let him who stole, no longer steal
Oh it's real
Surrender for Jehovah is real
How long will you sleep
Troubled by the thoughts that YOU keep
The idols YOU heap
Causing the destruction you reap
Judgment has come
Find it and return to the One
Abandon the flesh
Self-interest: Broadway to death
Pride and the Greed
Hide and subdividing the seed
The knowledge of Good and Evil is what caused us to lie
Caused us to die
Let your emotions be crucified
Renounce all your thoughts
Repent and let your mind be re-taught
You'll find what you sought...was based on the deception you bought
A perception of naught
Where the majority remains caught
Loving a lie
Not realizing in Adam, all die
Loving a lie
Not realizing in Adam, all die
Loving a lie
Not realizing in Adam, all die
Loving a lie
Not realizing in Adam, all die
[sing songy Chorus Outro]
It's the mystery of Inequity
Say it's the history of Inequity
Say it's the misery of Inequity
When it all...
All falls down
I'm telling you all...
It all falls down

tHe cUttInG eDgE
© 2004 All Rights Reserved